Speaker 1: In the first judicial test of President Trump's ability to
Speaker 1: stonewall Democrats demands for his financial information, a federal judge
Speaker 1: has rejected Trump's claims and ruled that lawmakers have the
Speaker 1: power to demand records from his accounting firm. Trump's response
Speaker 1: was in line with his previous reactions to rulings against him,
Speaker 1: calling the judge bias. Joining me is Stephen Vladdock, professor
Speaker 1: at the University of Texas School of Law. Steve the
Speaker 1: judge found Trump's arguments totally unconvincing, writing that quote, it
Speaker 1: is simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants Congress
Speaker 1: the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior,
Speaker 1: would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct.
Speaker 1: How important is this first ruling in what's expected to
Speaker 1: be a long legal battle. Well, you know, June, I
Speaker 1: think it's important. I think both because it's actually quite persuasive.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope folks, whatever their views, will actually
Speaker 1: read judge opinion. It's actually a pretty presy read. But also, Junior,
Speaker 1: know it's as the tone, I mean, I think it's,
Speaker 1: you know, to my mind, a pretty compelling read. I'm
Speaker 1: sure there are folks will disagree, but you know, to
Speaker 1: have the first judge out of the gate right a
Speaker 1: you know, pretty thorough forty plus page opinion explaining why
Speaker 1: this argument is not just lacking in merit, but it's
Speaker 1: actually pretty you know, alarming in its scope. Um. I
Speaker 1: think it's a pretty important precedent. Obviously it's not the
Speaker 1: last word, but there's value here even to being first,
Speaker 1: And I should say to have them done so so
Speaker 1: quickly so that this could be you know, appealed pretty
Speaker 1: quickly as well. And Trump's lawyers have notified the judge
Speaker 1: that they've appealed all aspects of his ruling. Now, the
Speaker 1: judge ordered the accounting firm to turn over those records
Speaker 1: within seven days, and turned down a request from the
Speaker 1: president's attorneys to put the ruling on hold while they
Speaker 1: seek and appeal. That puts it on a fast track.
Speaker 1: Is it unusual for a judge to refuse a request
Speaker 1: for a stay in a case like this that's obviously
Speaker 1: going to be appealed, Um, June, I think it's not necessarily.
Speaker 1: I mean that is to say, the you know, the
Speaker 1: sestion of for whether a judge should stay his opinion
Speaker 1: is not whether it's going to be appealed. Rather, it's
Speaker 1: this multi factor balance of test where one of the
Speaker 1: factors is the likelihood of success on the merits. And
Speaker 1: I think part of what we see in judgements his
Speaker 1: opinion is, you know, he views the likelihood of success
Speaker 1: on the merits is pretty low here. So even if
Speaker 1: the equities might weigh in favor of a stay, you know,
Speaker 1: that's only one of the factors to be considered. The
Speaker 1: fact this is going up is not of itself a
Speaker 1: reason to put everything on hold. Let's turn to another
Speaker 1: front in this battle for information. Former White House Council
Speaker 1: Don McGan defied a congressional subpoena today declined to testify
Speaker 1: before the House Judiciary Committee at the direction of the
Speaker 1: White House. Now, this was after there was ahead of
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel memo basically asserting that the
Speaker 1: president's senior advisors are absolutely immune from congressional subpoenas. Tell
Speaker 1: us how convincing the arguments that the Office of Legal
Speaker 1: Counsel made are well. I mean, Jude, I think the
Speaker 1: first thing is to focus is to point out what
Speaker 1: the OLC opinion did not say. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: we've seen a lot of claims in the press from
Speaker 1: the President, etcetera, that he can stop McGann from testifying,
Speaker 1: And to me, one of the most important things about
Speaker 1: the OLC opinion that was released yesterday is it doesn't
Speaker 1: back that up at all. There's no legal authority cited
Speaker 1: for the proposition that the president can somehow prevent a
Speaker 1: private citizen from voluntarily appearing before Congress Um. I think
Speaker 1: the real question is, if, as seems likely, McGann doesn't
Speaker 1: want to voluntarily appear before Congress, um, can the Congress
Speaker 1: punish him? That is to say, is he immune from
Speaker 1: some kind of sanction for failing to appear? And June
Speaker 1: that's right. Think the ol C memo is, for lack
Speaker 1: of a better word, short on legal precedent. I mean,
Speaker 1: the the the examples, the old opinion sites are all
Speaker 1: prior OLC opinions UM, and the one significant judicial ruling
Speaker 1: in a confrontation like this by DC Digital Judge John
Speaker 1: Bates um into out in the Harriet Myer's case runs
Speaker 1: in the other direction. So you know, I think that
Speaker 1: all the opinion probably won't stand up in court, but
Speaker 1: you know, at least for now it provides enough cover
Speaker 1: where That's where I think this battle is going to
Speaker 1: have to be joined. Is are the president's assertions of
Speaker 1: you know, executive privilege more persuasive than the assertions that
Speaker 1: were made before the district judge about Congress not being
Speaker 1: able to oversee this area oversight not being proper. Oh? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I think it would be very helpful if we
Speaker 1: broke out the two sets of legal questions that are
Speaker 1: arising in all of these cases. Um. The first question
Speaker 1: is does Congress have the power to issue the subpoena
Speaker 1: and at all? Um? And that was the issue that
Speaker 1: the district court resolves in Congress this favorite yesterday June.
Speaker 1: That's the argument, I think because on the weakest foot
Speaker 1: in from the president's perspective going forward, whether it's applied
Speaker 1: to his private business records or to Don McCann testify him.
Speaker 1: But it was always is going to be true that
Speaker 1: the stronger arguments against these subpoenas we're gonna be specific
Speaker 1: objections to request for particular documents that might be protected
Speaker 1: by either executive privilege or attorney client privilege UM, and
Speaker 1: questions under oath um the answers to which might violate
Speaker 1: one of those privileges. The problem June is that those
Speaker 1: are so much more retail UM that those aren't reasons
Speaker 1: to not show up and testify at all. Right, that
Speaker 1: is to say, you know, if that's the real objection, um,
Speaker 1: mcgam can still testify about plenty of stuff that no
Speaker 1: one would argue as privileged, UM, including conversations that happened
Speaker 1: after he was no longer White House counsel Um, including
Speaker 1: you know, conversations where there was no possible privilege because
Speaker 1: the third parties were present. So I think the problem
Speaker 1: here is that the first argument, the weaker one, um,
Speaker 1: is the only one that actually can look can validly
Speaker 1: prevent any of this from happening. What really ought to
Speaker 1: happen going forward is that we fight on the second ground,
Speaker 1: Where are there specific subpoenas or specific question jens um
Speaker 1: that are out of bounds when we get there? The
Speaker 1: real question to me is what happens if, for example,
Speaker 1: the accounting firm does not turn over those records despite
Speaker 1: a judge's order. What happens if McGann, If the House
Speaker 1: goes to a judge and gets an order for it
Speaker 1: McGann and he doesn't show up. I mean, what is
Speaker 1: the way to enforce these Yeah. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you know, this is the this is the real dilemma
Speaker 1: that Congress is is, you know, finally coming face to
Speaker 1: face with which is that, to a large degree, it's
Speaker 1: enforcement power depends at least to some degree, on a
Speaker 1: modicum of cooperation from the executive branch. Um. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, June, I'm at least willing to withhold judgment
Speaker 1: on whether the administration is going to continue to defy
Speaker 1: these subpoenas until these legal challenges are concluded. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think there's no doubt that at least one of
Speaker 1: these cases is probably heading to the Supreme Court. Um.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, until the Supreme Court rules
Speaker 1: against President Trump and the administration still doesn't comply, I
Speaker 1: think the process might still be working. Um. The tricky
Speaker 1: part is that it's going to take some time for
Speaker 1: all of this to unfold. That's why I think it's
Speaker 1: heartening that whatever one thinks of Judge Mata's opinion yesterday
Speaker 1: in the Mazars case, he issued it pretty quickly. Um.
Speaker 1: And this, you know, opens the door for a pretty
Speaker 1: quick appeal now to the d C Circuit, so that
Speaker 1: whoever is ultimately going to win on the law. We're
Speaker 1: at least going to find out sooner rather than leader.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Steve. I have so many more
Speaker 1: questions here. This seems to be one one ruling and
Speaker 1: about ten more questions with it. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: That's Steve Vladik. He is a professor at the University
Speaker 1: of Texas School of Law