WEBVTT - White House Moves to Block McGahn from Testifying

0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:03.160
<v Speaker 1>In the first judicial test of President Trump's ability to

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.240
<v Speaker 1>stonewall Democrats demands for his financial information, a federal judge

0:00:07.280 --> 0:00:10.720
<v Speaker 1>has rejected Trump's claims and ruled that lawmakers have the

0:00:10.760 --> 0:00:14.560
<v Speaker 1>power to demand records from his accounting firm. Trump's response

0:00:14.680 --> 0:00:18.280
<v Speaker 1>was in line with his previous reactions to rulings against him,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:21.599
<v Speaker 1>calling the judge bias. Joining me is Stephen Vladdock, professor

0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:24.919
<v Speaker 1>at the University of Texas School of Law. Steve the

0:00:25.000 --> 0:00:30.000
<v Speaker 1>judge found Trump's arguments totally unconvincing, writing that quote, it

0:00:30.080 --> 0:00:33.720
<v Speaker 1>is simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants Congress

0:00:33.760 --> 0:00:37.120
<v Speaker 1>the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior,

0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:41.400
<v Speaker 1>would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct.

0:00:41.840 --> 0:00:45.800
<v Speaker 1>How important is this first ruling in what's expected to

0:00:45.840 --> 0:00:48.880
<v Speaker 1>be a long legal battle. Well, you know, June, I

0:00:48.920 --> 0:00:52.599
<v Speaker 1>think it's important. I think both because it's actually quite persuasive.

0:00:52.640 --> 0:00:55.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I hope folks, whatever their views, will actually

0:00:55.040 --> 0:00:59.720
<v Speaker 1>read judge opinion. It's actually a pretty presy read. But also, Junior,

0:00:59.760 --> 0:01:01.360
<v Speaker 1>know it's as the tone, I mean, I think it's,

0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:03.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, to my mind, a pretty compelling read. I'm

0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:05.679
<v Speaker 1>sure there are folks will disagree, but you know, to

0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:08.240
<v Speaker 1>have the first judge out of the gate right a

0:01:08.560 --> 0:01:12.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, pretty thorough forty plus page opinion explaining why

0:01:12.200 --> 0:01:14.720
<v Speaker 1>this argument is not just lacking in merit, but it's

0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:17.959
<v Speaker 1>actually pretty you know, alarming in its scope. Um. I

0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:20.399
<v Speaker 1>think it's a pretty important precedent. Obviously it's not the

0:01:20.480 --> 0:01:23.360
<v Speaker 1>last word, but there's value here even to being first,

0:01:23.440 --> 0:01:25.920
<v Speaker 1>And I should say to have them done so so

0:01:26.040 --> 0:01:28.240
<v Speaker 1>quickly so that this could be you know, appealed pretty

0:01:28.319 --> 0:01:32.000
<v Speaker 1>quickly as well. And Trump's lawyers have notified the judge

0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:35.560
<v Speaker 1>that they've appealed all aspects of his ruling. Now, the

0:01:35.680 --> 0:01:38.640
<v Speaker 1>judge ordered the accounting firm to turn over those records

0:01:38.640 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 1>within seven days, and turned down a request from the

0:01:41.840 --> 0:01:45.600
<v Speaker 1>president's attorneys to put the ruling on hold while they

0:01:45.640 --> 0:01:48.280
<v Speaker 1>seek and appeal. That puts it on a fast track.

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:51.320
<v Speaker 1>Is it unusual for a judge to refuse a request

0:01:51.400 --> 0:01:53.960
<v Speaker 1>for a stay in a case like this that's obviously

0:01:54.000 --> 0:01:57.320
<v Speaker 1>going to be appealed, Um, June, I think it's not necessarily.

0:01:57.360 --> 0:01:59.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean that is to say, the you know, the

0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:02.120
<v Speaker 1>sestion of for whether a judge should stay his opinion

0:02:02.600 --> 0:02:04.760
<v Speaker 1>is not whether it's going to be appealed. Rather, it's

0:02:04.840 --> 0:02:07.320
<v Speaker 1>this multi factor balance of test where one of the

0:02:07.320 --> 0:02:09.680
<v Speaker 1>factors is the likelihood of success on the merits. And

0:02:09.720 --> 0:02:12.120
<v Speaker 1>I think part of what we see in judgements his

0:02:12.200 --> 0:02:15.680
<v Speaker 1>opinion is, you know, he views the likelihood of success

0:02:15.680 --> 0:02:18.280
<v Speaker 1>on the merits is pretty low here. So even if

0:02:18.320 --> 0:02:21.080
<v Speaker 1>the equities might weigh in favor of a stay, you know,

0:02:21.240 --> 0:02:23.480
<v Speaker 1>that's only one of the factors to be considered. The

0:02:23.520 --> 0:02:25.440
<v Speaker 1>fact this is going up is not of itself a

0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:27.919
<v Speaker 1>reason to put everything on hold. Let's turn to another

0:02:28.000 --> 0:02:31.400
<v Speaker 1>front in this battle for information. Former White House Council

0:02:31.480 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Don McGan defied a congressional subpoena today declined to testify

0:02:35.600 --> 0:02:38.440
<v Speaker 1>before the House Judiciary Committee at the direction of the

0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:43.400
<v Speaker 1>White House. Now, this was after there was ahead of

0:02:43.440 --> 0:02:47.360
<v Speaker 1>the Office of Legal Counsel memo basically asserting that the

0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:53.560
<v Speaker 1>president's senior advisors are absolutely immune from congressional subpoenas. Tell

0:02:53.639 --> 0:02:56.880
<v Speaker 1>us how convincing the arguments that the Office of Legal

0:02:56.919 --> 0:02:59.440
<v Speaker 1>Counsel made are well. I mean, Jude, I think the

0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:01.720
<v Speaker 1>first thing is to focus is to point out what

0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:03.880
<v Speaker 1>the OLC opinion did not say. I mean, I think

0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:06.400
<v Speaker 1>we've seen a lot of claims in the press from

0:03:06.440 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 1>the President, etcetera, that he can stop McGann from testifying,

0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:12.680
<v Speaker 1>And to me, one of the most important things about

0:03:12.760 --> 0:03:15.480
<v Speaker 1>the OLC opinion that was released yesterday is it doesn't

0:03:15.480 --> 0:03:18.519
<v Speaker 1>back that up at all. There's no legal authority cited

0:03:18.560 --> 0:03:22.160
<v Speaker 1>for the proposition that the president can somehow prevent a

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:27.399
<v Speaker 1>private citizen from voluntarily appearing before Congress Um. I think

0:03:27.440 --> 0:03:31.320
<v Speaker 1>the real question is, if, as seems likely, McGann doesn't

0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 1>want to voluntarily appear before Congress, um, can the Congress

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:37.960
<v Speaker 1>punish him? That is to say, is he immune from

0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:41.800
<v Speaker 1>some kind of sanction for failing to appear? And June

0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:43.920
<v Speaker 1>that's right. Think the ol C memo is, for lack

0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:47.440
<v Speaker 1>of a better word, short on legal precedent. I mean,

0:03:47.480 --> 0:03:50.480
<v Speaker 1>the the the examples, the old opinion sites are all

0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:55.200
<v Speaker 1>prior OLC opinions UM, and the one significant judicial ruling

0:03:55.360 --> 0:03:58.640
<v Speaker 1>in a confrontation like this by DC Digital Judge John

0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:02.200
<v Speaker 1>Bates um into out in the Harriet Myer's case runs

0:04:02.200 --> 0:04:04.440
<v Speaker 1>in the other direction. So you know, I think that

0:04:04.560 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 1>all the opinion probably won't stand up in court, but

0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:11.040
<v Speaker 1>you know, at least for now it provides enough cover

0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:13.400
<v Speaker 1>where That's where I think this battle is going to

0:04:13.480 --> 0:04:18.440
<v Speaker 1>have to be joined. Is are the president's assertions of

0:04:18.760 --> 0:04:23.719
<v Speaker 1>you know, executive privilege more persuasive than the assertions that

0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:28.720
<v Speaker 1>were made before the district judge about Congress not being

0:04:28.760 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>able to oversee this area oversight not being proper. Oh? Absolutely,

0:04:34.000 --> 0:04:35.359
<v Speaker 1>And I think it would be very helpful if we

0:04:35.440 --> 0:04:37.600
<v Speaker 1>broke out the two sets of legal questions that are

0:04:37.640 --> 0:04:40.800
<v Speaker 1>arising in all of these cases. Um. The first question

0:04:40.880 --> 0:04:42.919
<v Speaker 1>is does Congress have the power to issue the subpoena

0:04:42.960 --> 0:04:45.160
<v Speaker 1>and at all? Um? And that was the issue that

0:04:45.200 --> 0:04:48.240
<v Speaker 1>the district court resolves in Congress this favorite yesterday June.

0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:50.640
<v Speaker 1>That's the argument, I think because on the weakest foot

0:04:50.680 --> 0:04:55.239
<v Speaker 1>in from the president's perspective going forward, whether it's applied

0:04:55.279 --> 0:04:58.480
<v Speaker 1>to his private business records or to Don McCann testify him.

0:04:59.040 --> 0:05:00.839
<v Speaker 1>But it was always is going to be true that

0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:04.919
<v Speaker 1>the stronger arguments against these subpoenas we're gonna be specific

0:05:04.960 --> 0:05:09.920
<v Speaker 1>objections to request for particular documents that might be protected

0:05:09.920 --> 0:05:13.400
<v Speaker 1>by either executive privilege or attorney client privilege UM, and

0:05:13.880 --> 0:05:17.560
<v Speaker 1>questions under oath um the answers to which might violate

0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:20.880
<v Speaker 1>one of those privileges. The problem June is that those

0:05:20.920 --> 0:05:24.640
<v Speaker 1>are so much more retail UM that those aren't reasons

0:05:24.640 --> 0:05:26.520
<v Speaker 1>to not show up and testify at all. Right, that

0:05:26.600 --> 0:05:29.960
<v Speaker 1>is to say, you know, if that's the real objection, um,

0:05:30.080 --> 0:05:32.880
<v Speaker 1>mcgam can still testify about plenty of stuff that no

0:05:32.920 --> 0:05:37.320
<v Speaker 1>one would argue as privileged, UM, including conversations that happened

0:05:37.360 --> 0:05:40.320
<v Speaker 1>after he was no longer White House counsel Um, including

0:05:40.640 --> 0:05:43.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, conversations where there was no possible privilege because

0:05:43.200 --> 0:05:45.720
<v Speaker 1>the third parties were present. So I think the problem

0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:49.520
<v Speaker 1>here is that the first argument, the weaker one, um,

0:05:49.640 --> 0:05:52.080
<v Speaker 1>is the only one that actually can look can validly

0:05:52.120 --> 0:05:54.919
<v Speaker 1>prevent any of this from happening. What really ought to

0:05:54.920 --> 0:05:57.159
<v Speaker 1>happen going forward is that we fight on the second ground,

0:05:57.160 --> 0:06:00.840
<v Speaker 1>Where are there specific subpoenas or specific question jens um

0:06:00.880 --> 0:06:03.680
<v Speaker 1>that are out of bounds when we get there? The

0:06:03.760 --> 0:06:07.799
<v Speaker 1>real question to me is what happens if, for example,

0:06:07.839 --> 0:06:11.760
<v Speaker 1>the accounting firm does not turn over those records despite

0:06:11.880 --> 0:06:15.880
<v Speaker 1>a judge's order. What happens if McGann, If the House

0:06:15.960 --> 0:06:18.280
<v Speaker 1>goes to a judge and gets an order for it

0:06:18.440 --> 0:06:20.920
<v Speaker 1>McGann and he doesn't show up. I mean, what is

0:06:20.960 --> 0:06:23.880
<v Speaker 1>the way to enforce these Yeah. I mean, I think

0:06:23.920 --> 0:06:25.599
<v Speaker 1>you know, this is the this is the real dilemma

0:06:25.680 --> 0:06:28.080
<v Speaker 1>that Congress is is, you know, finally coming face to

0:06:28.120 --> 0:06:30.479
<v Speaker 1>face with which is that, to a large degree, it's

0:06:30.600 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 1>enforcement power depends at least to some degree, on a

0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:36.719
<v Speaker 1>modicum of cooperation from the executive branch. Um. I think,

0:06:36.800 --> 0:06:39.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, June, I'm at least willing to withhold judgment

0:06:39.920 --> 0:06:42.400
<v Speaker 1>on whether the administration is going to continue to defy

0:06:42.560 --> 0:06:45.480
<v Speaker 1>these subpoenas until these legal challenges are concluded. I mean,

0:06:45.480 --> 0:06:47.719
<v Speaker 1>I think there's no doubt that at least one of

0:06:47.720 --> 0:06:50.560
<v Speaker 1>these cases is probably heading to the Supreme Court. Um.

0:06:50.720 --> 0:06:53.279
<v Speaker 1>And I think, you know, until the Supreme Court rules

0:06:53.320 --> 0:06:56.880
<v Speaker 1>against President Trump and the administration still doesn't comply, I

0:06:56.920 --> 0:07:00.520
<v Speaker 1>think the process might still be working. Um. The tricky

0:07:00.560 --> 0:07:02.800
<v Speaker 1>part is that it's going to take some time for

0:07:02.880 --> 0:07:05.039
<v Speaker 1>all of this to unfold. That's why I think it's

0:07:05.080 --> 0:07:09.040
<v Speaker 1>heartening that whatever one thinks of Judge Mata's opinion yesterday

0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:12.080
<v Speaker 1>in the Mazars case, he issued it pretty quickly. Um.

0:07:12.120 --> 0:07:14.080
<v Speaker 1>And this, you know, opens the door for a pretty

0:07:14.160 --> 0:07:16.720
<v Speaker 1>quick appeal now to the d C Circuit, so that

0:07:16.800 --> 0:07:19.520
<v Speaker 1>whoever is ultimately going to win on the law. We're

0:07:19.560 --> 0:07:21.520
<v Speaker 1>at least going to find out sooner rather than leader.

0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:24.080
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much, Steve. I have so many more

0:07:24.160 --> 0:07:26.760
<v Speaker 1>questions here. This seems to be one one ruling and

0:07:26.800 --> 0:07:29.200
<v Speaker 1>about ten more questions with it. Thank you so much.

0:07:29.440 --> 0:07:32.000
<v Speaker 1>That's Steve Vladik. He is a professor at the University

0:07:32.040 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 1>of Texas School of Law