1
00:00:01,480 --> 00:00:04,200
Speaker 1: Why from our nation's capital, this budget thing is going

2
00:00:04,240 --> 00:00:06,680
Speaker 1: to do nothing Space Force. I still think it's interesting

3
00:00:06,720 --> 00:00:10,040
Speaker 1: President Trump not playing his cards yet. Headlines Policy of

4
00:00:10,200 --> 00:00:16,120
Speaker 1: Politics Colliding, Bloomberg Sound On, the insiders, the influencers, the insides.

5
00:00:16,239 --> 00:00:18,479
Speaker 1: I would rather see a congressional solution. It's part of

6
00:00:18,520 --> 00:00:21,680
Speaker 1: my DNA. The Senate map in looks a lot different

7
00:00:21,680 --> 00:00:24,040
Speaker 1: than it looked in. President Trump was sent here to

8
00:00:24,079 --> 00:00:27,560
Speaker 1: smash conventional norms in a sense. Bernie Sanders has already

9
00:00:27,600 --> 00:00:31,960
Speaker 1: w This is Bloomberg Sound On with Kevin Surrel on

10
00:00:32,159 --> 00:00:36,440
Speaker 1: Bloomberg one oh five point seven m h D two.

11
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:40,720
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso, sitting in for Kevin CURRELLI it's the

12
00:00:40,760 --> 00:00:45,040
Speaker 1: second day of opening arguments in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.

13
00:00:45,120 --> 00:00:48,280
Speaker 1: Will take you through the constitutional grounds for impeachment that

14
00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:51,600
Speaker 1: House managers are laying out, and we'll speak to Harvard

15
00:00:51,680 --> 00:00:56,520
Speaker 1: Law Professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz will argue the constitutional defense

16
00:00:56,600 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 1: for the president. Well. Joining me now is Anna Rican,

17
00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:03,760
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics Editor. So and I understand that in this

18
00:01:04,040 --> 00:01:07,440
Speaker 1: long day in the Senate chambers that there's a lot

19
00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:11,000
Speaker 1: of yawning and moving around and quick breaks and even

20
00:01:11,120 --> 00:01:14,479
Speaker 1: fidget spinners, tell us what's happening there. Yeah, it has

21
00:01:14,520 --> 00:01:18,759
Speaker 1: been a long day of evidence presented by the House Managers.

22
00:01:18,760 --> 00:01:21,440
Speaker 1: This is their second day of presenting their case against

23
00:01:21,480 --> 00:01:24,959
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump. They began their case yesterday outlining some

24
00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:27,160
Speaker 1: of the evidence that have been uncovered in the House inquiry.

25
00:01:27,400 --> 00:01:29,679
Speaker 1: Today they're really focusing in on that abuse of power

26
00:01:30,560 --> 00:01:33,520
Speaker 1: article that the House passed, the Simmer eighteen. Now, it

27
00:01:33,640 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 1: is a long day. I mean, it's a long day

28
00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:37,280
Speaker 1: for anyone to sit there and listen to, you know,

29
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:40,280
Speaker 1: quotes quotes from the testimony. They've got some video clips,

30
00:01:40,760 --> 00:01:43,520
Speaker 1: uh sprinkled in, but you know, people are trying to

31
00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:45,720
Speaker 1: stay awake. They're going to stand at the back of

32
00:01:45,760 --> 00:01:48,360
Speaker 1: the chamber and they're just generally trying to stay engage

33
00:01:48,400 --> 00:01:52,360
Speaker 1: with the material being presented. Now. In the breaks, when

34
00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:55,480
Speaker 1: they the very rare breaks that they do take during

35
00:01:55,520 --> 00:01:58,440
Speaker 1: the day, sometimes the senators come out and talk about

36
00:01:58,440 --> 00:02:02,800
Speaker 1: what's been happening. And Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson said that

37
00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:06,680
Speaker 1: they're making their case over and over again. It's very repetitive.

38
00:02:07,160 --> 00:02:09,440
Speaker 1: Do a lot of the other senators feel that way.

39
00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:11,840
Speaker 1: It depends, you know, we've got kind of a mixed reaction,

40
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:14,840
Speaker 1: most interestingly from Republicans. You know, we have had a

41
00:02:14,840 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 1: few like Ron Johnson, who you mentioned, Jonie Erst of

42
00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:20,040
Speaker 1: Iowa who's up for re election this year. Both of

43
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 1: them said that the evidence presented by the House managers

44
00:02:23,480 --> 00:02:26,400
Speaker 1: has been very repetitive. It's kind of, you know, droning

45
00:02:26,400 --> 00:02:29,320
Speaker 1: on and on, as they described it. But we did

46
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:32,920
Speaker 1: have Lindsay Graham, a close ally of President Trump's, a

47
00:02:33,000 --> 00:02:37,080
Speaker 1: Republican from South Carolina, who said that he thought Adam Shift,

48
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:39,360
Speaker 1: the lead House manager, was actually doing a good job

49
00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:42,880
Speaker 1: of laying out the evidence. And Chuck Schumer them the

50
00:02:42,919 --> 00:02:46,200
Speaker 1: Senate minority leaders, said that this could be the first

51
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:48,240
Speaker 1: time that a lot of these senators are engaging with

52
00:02:48,320 --> 00:02:51,680
Speaker 1: this information really in a kind of systematic way, since

53
00:02:52,040 --> 00:02:55,079
Speaker 1: you know, there was other Senate business going on during

54
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:57,760
Speaker 1: the House trial. You know, there's excuse me, during the

55
00:02:57,800 --> 00:03:00,440
Speaker 1: House investigation, and so this could be the first time

56
00:03:00,440 --> 00:03:05,200
Speaker 1: that they're actually seeing, you know, Donald Trump's conduct regarding Ukraine.

57
00:03:05,280 --> 00:03:08,240
Speaker 1: Laid out the extent to which the White House didn't

58
00:03:08,240 --> 00:03:13,040
Speaker 1: comply with duly authorized subpoenas from the House of Representatives.

59
00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:15,960
Speaker 1: So you know, it's not that it's necessarily going to

60
00:03:16,080 --> 00:03:19,040
Speaker 1: change any minds, But there is kind of a an

61
00:03:19,080 --> 00:03:21,800
Speaker 1: engagement with the material that um, I think the House

62
00:03:21,800 --> 00:03:25,080
Speaker 1: managers would be gratified to hear. That is really surprising

63
00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:28,520
Speaker 1: coming from Senator Graham, who has been such a fierce

64
00:03:28,960 --> 00:03:33,400
Speaker 1: ally of the President, particularly in this impeachment trial. Is

65
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:36,600
Speaker 1: there any movement I suppose that what this what the

66
00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:38,560
Speaker 1: House is trying to do here. One of the things

67
00:03:38,560 --> 00:03:40,600
Speaker 1: that they're trying to do is trying to show the

68
00:03:40,640 --> 00:03:46,240
Speaker 1: need for witnesses and evidence. Are there any cracks there? Well?

69
00:03:46,280 --> 00:03:48,760
Speaker 1: And you can see how they've kind of sprinkled in

70
00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:53,080
Speaker 1: that request throughout their presentation yesterday. Adam Schiff, you know,

71
00:03:53,560 --> 00:03:56,800
Speaker 1: continuously would say, you know, this is what happened, this

72
00:03:56,880 --> 00:04:00,720
Speaker 1: is what this witness said about this conversation. Wouldn't you

73
00:04:00,760 --> 00:04:04,000
Speaker 1: like to see the memo taken during that conversation. It's

74
00:04:04,080 --> 00:04:06,360
Speaker 1: up to you. All you have to do with subpoena, So,

75
00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:09,960
Speaker 1: you know, kind of continuously making that request for witnesses,

76
00:04:10,000 --> 00:04:12,240
Speaker 1: and that really is the next question that we're looking at,

77
00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:16,279
Speaker 1: probably not until after the White House has already made

78
00:04:16,360 --> 00:04:20,640
Speaker 1: its case. Trump's defense team will present their opening statement,

79
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:25,080
Speaker 1: probably on Saturday, but we will see after that and

80
00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:28,080
Speaker 1: after senators have a chance to ask questions whether or

81
00:04:28,080 --> 00:04:32,000
Speaker 1: not we'll actually get a vote to call additional witnesses

82
00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 1: to the trial. And is it still dependent on those

83
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:39,120
Speaker 1: three or four senators that are mentioned that are in

84
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:43,520
Speaker 1: swing states, plus Mitt Romney and perhaps Lamar Alexander. Yeah,

85
00:04:43,560 --> 00:04:48,160
Speaker 1: we needed at least four senators for Republican senators to

86
00:04:48,240 --> 00:04:51,000
Speaker 1: join with Democrats on this request for new witnesses, because

87
00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:53,720
Speaker 1: you need a simple majority of Republicans to support a

88
00:04:53,839 --> 00:04:57,920
Speaker 1: motion to call more evidence. So we've you know, identified

89
00:04:58,240 --> 00:05:01,920
Speaker 1: Susan Collins of Maine, Les Marc Ski of Alaska. Mitt

90
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:04,320
Speaker 1: Romney of Utah is one of the three that's often

91
00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:07,640
Speaker 1: cited as being open to this. And then it gets

92
00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:09,560
Speaker 1: a little bit trickier to see where that fourth one

93
00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:11,920
Speaker 1: is going to come from. You could be Lamar Alexander

94
00:05:12,040 --> 00:05:16,040
Speaker 1: who's retiring, could be some institutionalist like Rob Portman, who

95
00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:18,120
Speaker 1: you know, wants to show that the Seneta is taking

96
00:05:18,440 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 1: its jobs seriously. But you know, it could be the

97
00:05:21,279 --> 00:05:24,360
Speaker 1: case that once we get to four, we could have

98
00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:26,840
Speaker 1: seven or eight. It's just a question of who's going

99
00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:28,719
Speaker 1: to be that fourth because that's going to be a

100
00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:31,160
Speaker 1: person getting a lot of pressure. No one wants to

101
00:05:31,200 --> 00:05:33,040
Speaker 1: be the fourth No one wants to be that, but

102
00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:38,720
Speaker 1: there might be more fort together. Yeah, exactly. So. One

103
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:40,479
Speaker 1: thing I'm curious about, and I don't know if you

104
00:05:40,520 --> 00:05:42,440
Speaker 1: know the answer to this, but it seems that some

105
00:05:42,560 --> 00:05:46,880
Speaker 1: of the house managers, when presenting their arguments are just

106
00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:50,640
Speaker 1: reading from from a prepared script and they stop in

107
00:05:50,720 --> 00:05:53,800
Speaker 1: time to see them to play a clip here and there.

108
00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:57,800
Speaker 1: But some of them, like Kim Jeffreys yesterday, seemed to

109
00:05:57,839 --> 00:06:01,160
Speaker 1: be arguing on their own and from some sense of passion.

110
00:06:02,080 --> 00:06:04,599
Speaker 1: Are is it all written down? Is it all planned out?

111
00:06:05,040 --> 00:06:07,159
Speaker 1: You can tell that there is a whole lot of

112
00:06:07,200 --> 00:06:10,040
Speaker 1: preparation that's gone into the house case. I'm sure the

113
00:06:10,080 --> 00:06:13,159
Speaker 1: committee staffers have been very busy over the past few

114
00:06:13,160 --> 00:06:15,719
Speaker 1: weeks preparing all of this material. You know, it's pretty

115
00:06:15,760 --> 00:06:18,360
Speaker 1: buttoned up the way that they do have their prepared

116
00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:22,320
Speaker 1: statements and then you know, have those slides to to

117
00:06:22,839 --> 00:06:25,520
Speaker 1: back up their points and have video clips from the

118
00:06:25,560 --> 00:06:29,839
Speaker 1: house testimony witness testimony that we saw last late last year.

119
00:06:30,200 --> 00:06:32,240
Speaker 1: But there have been a few moments of kind of

120
00:06:32,480 --> 00:06:37,440
Speaker 1: more genuine presenting the case, presenting a more passionate plea

121
00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:40,640
Speaker 1: for senators to do their constitutional duty. And that's really

122
00:06:41,120 --> 00:06:45,000
Speaker 1: where the argument is almost the strongest. You know, it's

123
00:06:45,040 --> 00:06:47,359
Speaker 1: good to have the evidence to back it up, but

124
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:50,800
Speaker 1: it's really when you can see these house managers speaking

125
00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:55,200
Speaker 1: from their conviction about the institution of Congress, you know,

126
00:06:55,360 --> 00:06:58,240
Speaker 1: the balance of powers and just kind of the genius

127
00:06:58,320 --> 00:07:01,400
Speaker 1: way in which the Constitution is laid out, that it's

128
00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:03,840
Speaker 1: really the most compelling argument and you can kind of

129
00:07:04,080 --> 00:07:08,200
Speaker 1: see senators like set up and pay attention. Now. President

130
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:11,520
Speaker 1: Trump before has said that he would have to um

131
00:07:12,080 --> 00:07:17,240
Speaker 1: give an object on basis of um executive privilege if

132
00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:22,120
Speaker 1: John Bolton was going to testify. Yesterday, he said even more.

133
00:07:22,320 --> 00:07:26,239
Speaker 1: He said that he was opposed to Bolton testifying because

134
00:07:26,400 --> 00:07:29,280
Speaker 1: he knows some of my thoughts. He knows what I

135
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:32,360
Speaker 1: think about leaders and what happens if he reveals that

136
00:07:32,640 --> 00:07:36,680
Speaker 1: which is not is not really an argument based on

137
00:07:37,320 --> 00:07:40,760
Speaker 1: executive privilege. It's a different kind of argument. What else

138
00:07:40,800 --> 00:07:44,360
Speaker 1: has he said about Bolton lately? Well. J Seclo, one

139
00:07:44,400 --> 00:07:48,560
Speaker 1: of his attorneys on his defense team, said that executive

140
00:07:48,600 --> 00:07:50,920
Speaker 1: privilege is a real thing, and there's a reason why

141
00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:54,840
Speaker 1: it's protected is that you want Chief executive to be

142
00:07:54,920 --> 00:08:00,280
Speaker 1: able to speak freely and active freely without wondering you

143
00:08:00,280 --> 00:08:02,480
Speaker 1: know what's going to be revealed in public later, because

144
00:08:02,520 --> 00:08:05,920
Speaker 1: you do want the president to have some uh some

145
00:08:06,040 --> 00:08:08,800
Speaker 1: ability to you know, carry out their policy and carry

146
00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:13,000
Speaker 1: out their priorities when they occupy the office. But Democrats

147
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:15,960
Speaker 1: have made the point that executive privilege is not supposed

148
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:20,680
Speaker 1: to cover up wrongdoing. So there's no excuse for um

149
00:08:21,360 --> 00:08:24,960
Speaker 1: invoking executive privilege. It's just part of a cover up. Now,

150
00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:27,920
Speaker 1: that can be a very delicate line to walk, especially

151
00:08:27,920 --> 00:08:30,360
Speaker 1: when it comes to foreign leaders. You know, if you

152
00:08:30,400 --> 00:08:33,640
Speaker 1: have President Trump speaking freely about a foreign leader in

153
00:08:33,720 --> 00:08:36,800
Speaker 1: the confines of his own, you know, small group of advisors.

154
00:08:37,840 --> 00:08:41,360
Speaker 1: But if that's evidence of wrongdoing, you know, what, where's

155
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:44,800
Speaker 1: the balance between what's protected and what should be brought

156
00:08:44,920 --> 00:08:47,960
Speaker 1: to light in this trial. So that's something that you know,

157
00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:50,000
Speaker 1: if they do call new witnesses, they're going to have

158
00:08:50,040 --> 00:08:52,320
Speaker 1: to deal with and something that could be even up

159
00:08:52,360 --> 00:08:54,320
Speaker 1: to the courts to decide. You know, this could end

160
00:08:54,400 --> 00:08:58,920
Speaker 1: up you know, if they subpoena other witnesses who declined

161
00:08:58,960 --> 00:09:02,160
Speaker 1: to participate in the House proceeding could end up going

162
00:09:02,200 --> 00:09:04,520
Speaker 1: to court and what have you. The third branch of

163
00:09:04,559 --> 00:09:06,920
Speaker 1: government weighing in on how they should play out. That

164
00:09:06,960 --> 00:09:10,120
Speaker 1: would be interesting. Also interesting whether or not the Chief

165
00:09:10,200 --> 00:09:13,240
Speaker 1: Justice could actually make a ruling on at from the

166
00:09:13,240 --> 00:09:16,040
Speaker 1: bench there since he would have the authority if if

167
00:09:16,080 --> 00:09:20,120
Speaker 1: the Senators couldn't make the decision. Thanks so much, Anna

168
00:09:20,520 --> 00:09:25,160
Speaker 1: sticking out there. Anna Edgerton, Bloomberg Politics editor. Coming up

169
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:27,760
Speaker 1: on sound On, We're gonna be talking with a legal

170
00:09:27,880 --> 00:09:31,200
Speaker 1: expert about just how well the Democrats are doing in

171
00:09:31,360 --> 00:09:35,800
Speaker 1: presenting their case against President Trump. I'm June Grasso. This

172
00:09:35,840 --> 00:09:46,199
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg's Sound On with Kevin Surley

173
00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:50,600
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg and one or five point seven m HD two.

174
00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:54,959
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso, sitting in for Kevin. You're listening to

175
00:09:55,000 --> 00:09:58,280
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sound On. Well, it's the second day of the

176
00:09:58,280 --> 00:10:03,080
Speaker 1: Senate impeachment trial against Resident Trump. Democrats are detailing how

177
00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:06,160
Speaker 1: President Trump pressured Ukraine in a scheme to cheat in

178
00:10:06,200 --> 00:10:11,280
Speaker 1: the election and block Congress from investigating. Now. The Democratic

179
00:10:11,320 --> 00:10:13,520
Speaker 1: team has been calling on the Senate to demand key

180
00:10:13,559 --> 00:10:17,600
Speaker 1: witnesses and evidence to ensure a fair trial. Here's Senate

181
00:10:17,600 --> 00:10:21,080
Speaker 1: Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Today the American people believe this

182
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:25,160
Speaker 1: is not a fair trial, which right now they seem

183
00:10:25,240 --> 00:10:28,960
Speaker 1: to believe because there are no witnesses and documents, acquittal

184
00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:32,000
Speaker 1: will have zero value to the President or to the Republicans.

185
00:10:33,240 --> 00:10:38,240
Speaker 1: Joining me is John Bonifast, President of Free Speech for People. John,

186
00:10:38,320 --> 00:10:42,400
Speaker 1: how far are the Democrats going to show that they

187
00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:48,120
Speaker 1: need witnesses here? Well, I think they've gone pretty far already.

188
00:10:48,160 --> 00:10:51,160
Speaker 1: I mean, they're laying out this case for what has

189
00:10:51,200 --> 00:10:56,360
Speaker 1: already been uncovered from the House impeachment inquiry. But what's

190
00:10:56,400 --> 00:10:59,120
Speaker 1: also clear is that there's a massive cover up that's

191
00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:04,079
Speaker 1: the Trump white Houses engineering to prevent further evidence, further

192
00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:08,680
Speaker 1: direct evidence showing Donald Trump was involved in directing this

193
00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:12,960
Speaker 1: scheme and abusing the power of his office. And of course,

194
00:11:13,040 --> 00:11:17,640
Speaker 1: the witnesses that they've already outlined, including John Bolton, the

195
00:11:17,679 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 1: former National Security Advisor and mc mulvaney, the current Chief

196
00:11:21,120 --> 00:11:24,960
Speaker 1: of Staff, are critical to making this case. There is

197
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:29,400
Speaker 1: no such thing as a trial without witnesses or without documents.

198
00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:33,360
Speaker 1: That's a kangaroo court, that's a sham trial. And I

199
00:11:33,400 --> 00:11:36,080
Speaker 1: do think that if the United States Senate does not

200
00:11:36,200 --> 00:11:40,960
Speaker 1: allow for witnesses or documents to be presented at this trial,

201
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:45,439
Speaker 1: then history will record this as a sham trial, and

202
00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:49,040
Speaker 1: those who voted to stop those witnesses and to stop

203
00:11:49,080 --> 00:11:53,840
Speaker 1: those documents will go down as complicit with this cover

204
00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:56,320
Speaker 1: up and with the criminal enterprise operating out of the

205
00:11:56,320 --> 00:12:00,760
Speaker 1: Oval office. Well, let me ask you this. Just respond

206
00:12:00,920 --> 00:12:05,560
Speaker 1: to Senators who say, or Republicans who say the you know,

207
00:12:05,640 --> 00:12:08,760
Speaker 1: it's a foregone conclusion that he's not going to be

208
00:12:09,800 --> 00:12:12,440
Speaker 1: removed from office. They're not going to get the votes

209
00:12:12,559 --> 00:12:16,640
Speaker 1: that they need anyway, So why go through all the

210
00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:19,760
Speaker 1: rest of it. Why have witnesses? Why have documents? The

211
00:12:19,840 --> 00:12:24,640
Speaker 1: conclusion is pretty evident. So we have two responses on that.

212
00:12:24,800 --> 00:12:28,320
Speaker 1: The first response is that because the Constitution requires that

213
00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:32,160
Speaker 1: they hold a trial, the Senators are required when the

214
00:12:32,200 --> 00:12:35,400
Speaker 1: impeachment charges are sent from the House, that they try

215
00:12:35,440 --> 00:12:38,600
Speaker 1: the case, and that means that they, like any other trial,

216
00:12:39,120 --> 00:12:42,520
Speaker 1: allow for witnesses, allow for documents to be presented. But

217
00:12:42,600 --> 00:12:46,320
Speaker 1: the second responses, they have no way of knowing what

218
00:12:46,440 --> 00:12:51,359
Speaker 1: will happen once these witnesses and these documents are presented

219
00:12:51,720 --> 00:12:54,160
Speaker 1: and in front of the millions of people who are

220
00:12:54,200 --> 00:12:59,200
Speaker 1: watching the American public already calling se calling for these

221
00:12:59,200 --> 00:13:01,480
Speaker 1: witnesses and call for these documents to come forward. There

222
00:13:02,000 --> 00:13:05,400
Speaker 1: no way of knowing. And that's precisely why they are

223
00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:09,480
Speaker 1: working day and night to stop this from being a

224
00:13:09,559 --> 00:13:12,200
Speaker 1: real trial, because they know it could unravel for them.

225
00:13:12,480 --> 00:13:15,480
Speaker 1: They know this cover up could be exposed, and they

226
00:13:15,520 --> 00:13:18,440
Speaker 1: don't want that to happen. They have a very scared

227
00:13:18,640 --> 00:13:22,920
Speaker 1: president sitting in the Oval Office who doesn't want this

228
00:13:23,120 --> 00:13:26,359
Speaker 1: kind of trial to happen because he noticed the consequences

229
00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:30,880
Speaker 1: when the truth comes out. What's been surprising to me

230
00:13:31,240 --> 00:13:36,880
Speaker 1: is that some of President Trump's most vocal supporters, Republican

231
00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:41,800
Speaker 1: supporters like Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressman Matt Gates, have

232
00:13:42,440 --> 00:13:46,280
Speaker 1: in different ways praised the House Democrats for their presentation.

233
00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:50,559
Speaker 1: In fact, Gates told Politico that the Democrats made their

234
00:13:50,600 --> 00:13:53,520
Speaker 1: case as if it were cable news, while the defense

235
00:13:53,559 --> 00:13:56,640
Speaker 1: team's case looked like quote, an eighth grade book report.

236
00:13:57,800 --> 00:14:00,680
Speaker 1: So does it is the pressure now on the defense

237
00:14:00,720 --> 00:14:04,520
Speaker 1: team and what can they do to make their presentation

238
00:14:06,040 --> 00:14:09,680
Speaker 1: equal to the Democrats. I don't think they can do

239
00:14:09,720 --> 00:14:11,480
Speaker 1: anything to make it equal. I mean, the factor is

240
00:14:11,520 --> 00:14:15,720
Speaker 1: that they don't have anything that is exculpatory. There's nothing

241
00:14:15,760 --> 00:14:18,520
Speaker 1: that they've been able to present no evidence has come

242
00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:24,200
Speaker 1: forward that demonstrates the innocence from these charges by the president.

243
00:14:24,200 --> 00:14:29,000
Speaker 1: These charges against the president have been well documented. Uh,

244
00:14:29,080 --> 00:14:33,840
Speaker 1: there's already overwhelming evidence demonstrating that he was engaged in

245
00:14:33,880 --> 00:14:36,000
Speaker 1: this abuse to power, and so they don't have anything

246
00:14:36,640 --> 00:14:41,320
Speaker 1: to defend the president with except to try to change

247
00:14:41,360 --> 00:14:46,040
Speaker 1: the conversation. Claim this is a partisan which hunt talk

248
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:53,200
Speaker 1: about misleading or even directly intentionally false way that Republicans

249
00:14:53,200 --> 00:14:55,440
Speaker 1: were not allowed in on the depositions when we know

250
00:14:55,560 --> 00:14:59,120
Speaker 1: that's not true, or the president wasn't allowed the opportunity

251
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:02,840
Speaker 1: in a house to have his lawyer's president when we

252
00:15:02,880 --> 00:15:06,000
Speaker 1: know that's not true. I mean, there's just so many

253
00:15:06,280 --> 00:15:11,520
Speaker 1: ways in which the defense side on this uh looks

254
00:15:12,080 --> 00:15:18,680
Speaker 1: frankly completely unprepared for addressing the mountain of evidence its

255
00:15:18,720 --> 00:15:21,200
Speaker 1: being presented. But we'll see what they come up with.

256
00:15:21,240 --> 00:15:24,360
Speaker 1: My guess is they're going to distract and they're going

257
00:15:24,400 --> 00:15:27,120
Speaker 1: to make these false claims, as we've already heard true.

258
00:15:27,480 --> 00:15:30,600
Speaker 1: One of their defense counsel, Alan Dershowitz, that you somehow

259
00:15:30,640 --> 00:15:35,440
Speaker 1: need to prove an actual crime of the violation of

260
00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:39,840
Speaker 1: a federal criminal statute in order to hold president accountable

261
00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:42,920
Speaker 1: through the impeachment process. That is not true. There's no

262
00:15:43,040 --> 00:15:47,400
Speaker 1: basis whatsoever on that argument. These are crimes against the state,

263
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:50,280
Speaker 1: abuse of power, abuse to the public trust. That's why

264
00:15:50,320 --> 00:15:54,600
Speaker 1: we have the impeachment clause in the Constitution. Sometimes it

265
00:15:54,680 --> 00:15:58,240
Speaker 1: overlaps with actual crimes from the Federal Criminal COVID. There's

266
00:15:58,280 --> 00:16:03,920
Speaker 1: absolutely no requirement whatsoever that impeachment include an actual proof

267
00:16:04,320 --> 00:16:07,560
Speaker 1: of a crime under the Federal Criminal Code. So when

268
00:16:07,560 --> 00:16:10,680
Speaker 1: Alan Derschwitz makes that argument, which he will, we already

269
00:16:10,720 --> 00:16:13,400
Speaker 1: know that because he's been saying he will. We all

270
00:16:13,440 --> 00:16:17,280
Speaker 1: have to listen carefully and then look at the real

271
00:16:17,840 --> 00:16:20,880
Speaker 1: facts around this and what the framers intended, and read

272
00:16:20,960 --> 00:16:24,720
Speaker 1: what the scholars, the real constitutional scholars are saying about

273
00:16:24,760 --> 00:16:29,520
Speaker 1: what the impeachment clause requires, because that argument is completely specious. Well,

274
00:16:29,520 --> 00:16:31,960
Speaker 1: we are going to be talking to him next and

275
00:16:32,280 --> 00:16:34,520
Speaker 1: we'll talk to him about that, about his argument and

276
00:16:34,560 --> 00:16:38,960
Speaker 1: how it goes against the weight of the constitutional arguments

277
00:16:39,040 --> 00:16:41,800
Speaker 1: of from the scholars that we know. Thank you so

278
00:16:41,880 --> 00:16:45,120
Speaker 1: much for joining me. That's John Boniface. He's President of

279
00:16:45,600 --> 00:16:48,480
Speaker 1: Free Speech for People. As I mentioned, we're going to

280
00:16:48,560 --> 00:16:51,800
Speaker 1: be talking to Harvard Law professor Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz. He's

281
00:16:51,800 --> 00:16:55,920
Speaker 1: going to be arguing the constitutional defense for the president

282
00:16:56,040 --> 00:17:00,520
Speaker 1: here and as um John Boniface just meant and his

283
00:17:01,560 --> 00:17:05,679
Speaker 1: he has just put forth his argument and it is

284
00:17:05,840 --> 00:17:10,040
Speaker 1: contrary to what he said prior in the Clinton impeachment,

285
00:17:10,240 --> 00:17:13,600
Speaker 1: but he said that since he has been studying this

286
00:17:14,320 --> 00:17:17,640
Speaker 1: and going back into the history books, that he has

287
00:17:18,160 --> 00:17:21,880
Speaker 1: believes that his position now is the correct position. We'll

288
00:17:21,880 --> 00:17:25,240
Speaker 1: talk to him about that coming up. I'm June Grosso.

289
00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:41,400
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg one. Coming up, Alan Dershowitz, listening

290
00:17:41,480 --> 00:17:46,080
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Sound on with Kevin Surley on Bloomberg and

291
00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:48,320
Speaker 1: one oh five point seven f m h D two.

292
00:17:49,680 --> 00:17:52,520
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso sitting in for Kevin Well. The House

293
00:17:52,560 --> 00:17:55,520
Speaker 1: managers are continuing to lay out their case against President

294
00:17:55,520 --> 00:17:59,600
Speaker 1: Trump and his Senate impeachment trial. My guest is Alan Dershowitz,

295
00:17:59,640 --> 00:18:03,639
Speaker 1: Harvard Law professor emeritus, will be presenting the constitutional argument

296
00:18:03,760 --> 00:18:08,240
Speaker 1: in President Trump's defense. Thanks for joining us, professor, my pleasure.

297
00:18:08,240 --> 00:18:11,320
Speaker 1: Thank you so so far. Do you see any cracks

298
00:18:11,440 --> 00:18:14,840
Speaker 1: in the House is case against the president? I don't

299
00:18:14,840 --> 00:18:17,439
Speaker 1: see any case against the president for there to be

300
00:18:17,560 --> 00:18:22,399
Speaker 1: cracks the most important thing is whether it charges impeachable

301
00:18:22,400 --> 00:18:26,280
Speaker 1: offenses and obstruction of Congress and abuse of power simply

302
00:18:26,359 --> 00:18:32,600
Speaker 1: or not constitutionally permissible offenses to allow impeachment. Virtually every

303
00:18:32,640 --> 00:18:36,159
Speaker 1: president is Washington has been accused of abusing his power,

304
00:18:36,480 --> 00:18:40,480
Speaker 1: and presidents obstruct Congress all the time when they invoke

305
00:18:40,600 --> 00:18:46,440
Speaker 1: executive privilege. So these are not valid allegations for impeachment.

306
00:18:46,560 --> 00:18:50,200
Speaker 1: So anything else that's going on is just a kind

307
00:18:50,200 --> 00:18:56,840
Speaker 1: of political show, Professor, The overwhelming majority of constitutional law scholars,

308
00:18:57,440 --> 00:19:01,480
Speaker 1: including your own colleagues, Harvard Law professors Lawrence Tribe and

309
00:19:01,560 --> 00:19:05,000
Speaker 1: Noah Felman, say your position is just plain wrong and

310
00:19:05,040 --> 00:19:08,240
Speaker 1: that you don't need a crime. Well, they think it

311
00:19:08,320 --> 00:19:10,960
Speaker 1: was right if Hillary Clinton, who were being impeached. In fact,

312
00:19:11,240 --> 00:19:16,119
Speaker 1: Larry Tribe, when Bill Clinton was president, said categorically that

313
00:19:16,200 --> 00:19:19,800
Speaker 1: a sitting president cannot be um indicted or charge with

314
00:19:19,880 --> 00:19:23,600
Speaker 1: a crime, and then magically, when Donald Trump got elected,

315
00:19:23,680 --> 00:19:26,639
Speaker 1: he changed his mind and said that he could be

316
00:19:26,680 --> 00:19:31,040
Speaker 1: indicted for a crime. Virtually all of the professors who

317
00:19:31,119 --> 00:19:34,600
Speaker 1: signed that letter would have signed the opposite letter had

318
00:19:34,600 --> 00:19:38,160
Speaker 1: the shoemen on the other foot. These are mostly partisan

319
00:19:38,240 --> 00:19:41,560
Speaker 1: people who will always come down on the side of

320
00:19:41,600 --> 00:19:46,080
Speaker 1: candidates they support, and they'll make the constitution fit into

321
00:19:46,200 --> 00:19:49,159
Speaker 1: the candidates that they support, and they just don't pass

322
00:19:49,200 --> 00:19:50,880
Speaker 1: what I call the shoe on the other foot test.

323
00:19:51,960 --> 00:19:54,879
Speaker 1: Some people are saying that about you. In fact, today

324
00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:58,080
Speaker 1: the House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler played a clip of

325
00:19:58,160 --> 00:20:01,879
Speaker 1: you from which is said quote, if you have somebody

326
00:20:01,920 --> 00:20:04,640
Speaker 1: who completely corrupts the office of the president and who

327
00:20:04,680 --> 00:20:07,840
Speaker 1: abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,

328
00:20:08,240 --> 00:20:11,640
Speaker 1: you don't need a technical crime. Yeah. Well that's true,

329
00:20:11,640 --> 00:20:14,359
Speaker 1: you don't need a technical crime. But I've changed my

330
00:20:14,440 --> 00:20:17,879
Speaker 1: mind on whether or not abusive conduct can be a

331
00:20:17,920 --> 00:20:21,720
Speaker 1: criteria for impeachment. What happens during the Clinton days, I

332
00:20:21,800 --> 00:20:24,720
Speaker 1: was on Clinton side. Uh, there was no issue about

333
00:20:24,720 --> 00:20:27,399
Speaker 1: whether you needed a crime because they charged him with perjury.

334
00:20:27,440 --> 00:20:29,000
Speaker 1: They charged him with a crime. The only issue is

335
00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:31,199
Speaker 1: whether it was high crime. So I hadn't done the

336
00:20:31,240 --> 00:20:33,960
Speaker 1: research on that issue because it wasn't pressing. It wasn't

337
00:20:33,960 --> 00:20:39,200
Speaker 1: an issue that was being debated. But since this election,

338
00:20:39,240 --> 00:20:41,880
Speaker 1: when they've been pushing for the impeachment of Trump, who

339
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:45,360
Speaker 1: I voted against, I get all the research. I've read,

340
00:20:45,400 --> 00:20:48,680
Speaker 1: all the congressional debates, I've read the federalist papers. I've

341
00:20:48,680 --> 00:20:52,280
Speaker 1: read Blackstone, and I've come to a very different conclusion

342
00:20:52,280 --> 00:20:56,359
Speaker 1: in that obstruction of justice, obstructions of Congress, and abuse

343
00:20:56,400 --> 00:21:00,000
Speaker 1: of power precisely the kind of vague, open ended, stay

344
00:21:00,080 --> 00:21:04,879
Speaker 1: ended list criteria on non criteria that the Framers would

345
00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:07,480
Speaker 1: have rejected. So I've changed my mind the way Larry

346
00:21:07,480 --> 00:21:11,720
Speaker 1: Tribe changes my Looie Natala changes my Nataler famously said,

347
00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:15,080
Speaker 1: jing the Clinton impeachment, you should never impeach anybody unless

348
00:21:15,119 --> 00:21:19,359
Speaker 1: there's a widespread bipartisan support. Now he's impeaching Trump on

349
00:21:19,440 --> 00:21:25,080
Speaker 1: a totally partisan basis. Scholars, academics changed their views based

350
00:21:25,080 --> 00:21:27,320
Speaker 1: on research. I did not make a partisan change. I

351
00:21:27,359 --> 00:21:31,560
Speaker 1: made an academic change. Larry Tribe and Nadler made partisan changes.

352
00:21:31,680 --> 00:21:34,280
Speaker 1: So I don't think they have the right to call

353
00:21:34,320 --> 00:21:37,680
Speaker 1: me out on that without acknowledging. Also, Larry Tribe called

354
00:21:37,720 --> 00:21:40,479
Speaker 1: to the impeachment of Ronald Reagan on abuse of power.

355
00:21:40,880 --> 00:21:43,240
Speaker 1: I mean, my god, if Ronald Reagan can be uh

356
00:21:43,359 --> 00:21:46,719
Speaker 1: impeached on abusive power? Is there any president who couldn't

357
00:21:46,720 --> 00:21:50,280
Speaker 1: be impeached? To see House of Representatives had a majority

358
00:21:50,800 --> 00:21:53,560
Speaker 1: of the other party than the president. I think it's

359
00:21:53,560 --> 00:21:57,240
Speaker 1: a very dangerous president to set to allow a president

360
00:21:57,280 --> 00:22:00,520
Speaker 1: to be impeached on abusive power. I'm to present a

361
00:22:00,560 --> 00:22:03,520
Speaker 1: list of presidents who have been accused of abusing their

362
00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:07,399
Speaker 1: power when I speak on Monday. So, but Professor Tribe,

363
00:22:07,440 --> 00:22:09,840
Speaker 1: who I have to say I had in constitutional law

364
00:22:09,880 --> 00:22:14,680
Speaker 1: at Harvard, has said that abuse of power does merit impeachment.

365
00:22:15,040 --> 00:22:17,520
Speaker 1: You just said he's just dead wrong. He's just dead wrong.

366
00:22:17,680 --> 00:22:21,679
Speaker 1: Abusive power does not marry impeachment. And I will demonstrate that.

367
00:22:21,720 --> 00:22:24,040
Speaker 1: And I'd like Tribe to answer me on the merits

368
00:22:24,240 --> 00:22:27,000
Speaker 1: rather than calling me names, which he's proceeded to do.

369
00:22:27,119 --> 00:22:31,640
Speaker 1: Now that's all he's done is curled epithets bonkers. I mean, basically,

370
00:22:31,680 --> 00:22:36,680
Speaker 1: what he's doing is calling uh former Justice Um Benjamin Curtis,

371
00:22:36,680 --> 00:22:40,400
Speaker 1: the man who bravely dissented on dread Scott and then

372
00:22:40,600 --> 00:22:43,720
Speaker 1: resigned from the Supreme Court in protest. He's calling him

373
00:22:43,760 --> 00:22:47,120
Speaker 1: bonkers because he made the argument, an argument that had

374
00:22:47,359 --> 00:22:51,520
Speaker 1: positive impact on the trial of Andrew Johnson and made

375
00:22:51,520 --> 00:22:55,640
Speaker 1: the same argument essentially that I'm making. So let Tribe

376
00:22:55,880 --> 00:22:59,520
Speaker 1: call Curtis bonkers instead of throwing the epithet at me,

377
00:23:00,200 --> 00:23:03,640
Speaker 1: we will. We will ask Professor Tribe to respond to you.

378
00:23:03,880 --> 00:23:06,200
Speaker 1: So let me ask you this. We'll ask him. Make

379
00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:08,280
Speaker 1: sure you ask him why he changed his mind on

380
00:23:08,960 --> 00:23:11,440
Speaker 1: UM whether a president can be charged, and I'm sure

381
00:23:11,440 --> 00:23:13,080
Speaker 1: he'll tell you we did the research and came to

382
00:23:13,119 --> 00:23:15,880
Speaker 1: a different conclusion. But then he'll condemn me for doing

383
00:23:15,880 --> 00:23:19,919
Speaker 1: the same thing in a non partisan way. You have

384
00:23:19,960 --> 00:23:24,760
Speaker 1: to admit, though, that almost every constitutional scholar of today,

385
00:23:25,080 --> 00:23:31,199
Speaker 1: even the constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley that the Republicans called

386
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:35,880
Speaker 1: in the House, said that if this isn't an abusive office,

387
00:23:36,280 --> 00:23:42,320
Speaker 1: then what is They said that you said that said.

388
00:23:42,520 --> 00:23:46,760
Speaker 1: What Turley said was abuse of power can be a constitution.

389
00:23:46,760 --> 00:23:48,239
Speaker 1: He had to say it because he had said at

390
00:23:48,280 --> 00:23:51,080
Speaker 1: McClinton case, so he was locked in, so he said that.

391
00:23:51,160 --> 00:23:53,680
Speaker 1: But he did say that this did not constitute abuse

392
00:23:53,720 --> 00:23:56,480
Speaker 1: of power. Uh. You want to know what constitutes and

393
00:23:56,520 --> 00:23:59,760
Speaker 1: abuse of power what Richard Nixon did. And Richard Nixon

394
00:23:59,800 --> 00:24:04,680
Speaker 1: was impeached. Ultimately he resigned, but he committed crimes. He

395
00:24:04,720 --> 00:24:09,520
Speaker 1: committed actual crimes and obstructed justice. Those are impeachable offenses.

396
00:24:10,040 --> 00:24:15,080
Speaker 1: But my point is that the vast majority of UM

397
00:24:15,200 --> 00:24:19,240
Speaker 1: constitutional scholars UH not only voted for Hillary Clinton. I

398
00:24:19,280 --> 00:24:21,919
Speaker 1: did too, and supported her in campaigned for her and

399
00:24:22,520 --> 00:24:27,200
Speaker 1: sent money to her, but they are influenced by partisan

400
00:24:27,280 --> 00:24:31,560
Speaker 1: politics in their constitutional analysis. I firmly believe that if

401
00:24:31,600 --> 00:24:34,800
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton had been elected and were impeached on abuse

402
00:24:34,920 --> 00:24:38,560
Speaker 1: of power because of I don't know what Benghazi or

403
00:24:38,600 --> 00:24:41,000
Speaker 1: any of the things she did or something she did

404
00:24:41,040 --> 00:24:43,960
Speaker 1: when she was in office, that of the five people

405
00:24:44,040 --> 00:24:46,440
Speaker 1: who signed that letter, I bet you four hundred of

406
00:24:46,480 --> 00:24:48,879
Speaker 1: them would not have signed the letter. Well, and we

407
00:24:48,920 --> 00:24:51,560
Speaker 1: won't get to test out that theory, but let me

408
00:24:51,600 --> 00:24:54,120
Speaker 1: ask you, at some point in the future, you might

409
00:24:54,480 --> 00:24:57,479
Speaker 1: if a Democrat gets elected and the Republicans impeach them

410
00:24:57,520 --> 00:25:00,960
Speaker 1: as they surely will um and there publicans impeach them

411
00:25:01,000 --> 00:25:04,040
Speaker 1: as they surely will if abuse of power is permitted,

412
00:25:04,080 --> 00:25:06,119
Speaker 1: then we'll see how many of the professors signed the left.

413
00:25:06,440 --> 00:25:09,040
Speaker 1: That's a good that would be a good test. Let

414
00:25:09,080 --> 00:25:11,560
Speaker 1: me ask you this. You didn't sign. I understand the

415
00:25:11,600 --> 00:25:15,200
Speaker 1: six page legal memo filed by the President's team this weekend,

416
00:25:15,240 --> 00:25:19,199
Speaker 1: and you've distinguished yourself in other ways from the defense team.

417
00:25:19,400 --> 00:25:23,000
Speaker 1: Why did you agree to defend President Trump? Because the

418
00:25:23,040 --> 00:25:26,280
Speaker 1: constitutional issues is so compelling and because the terrible president

419
00:25:26,320 --> 00:25:29,560
Speaker 1: that would be established if a president could be impeached

420
00:25:29,640 --> 00:25:32,720
Speaker 1: on the grounds of abusive power, particularly abusive power, but

421
00:25:32,840 --> 00:25:35,800
Speaker 1: also obstruction of Congress. I would not be in this

422
00:25:35,880 --> 00:25:38,400
Speaker 1: case if not for the constitutional issues. That's why I'm

423
00:25:38,400 --> 00:25:40,359
Speaker 1: playing a limited role, much as I did in the O. J.

424
00:25:40,440 --> 00:25:43,040
Speaker 1: Simpson case. I was not a regular part of the

425
00:25:43,119 --> 00:25:45,520
Speaker 1: legal team. I didn't go to court. I just argued

426
00:25:45,560 --> 00:25:47,879
Speaker 1: the constitutional and legal issues, the same as I do

427
00:25:47,960 --> 00:25:50,879
Speaker 1: in many other cases. I come into special counsel on

428
00:25:50,960 --> 00:25:54,960
Speaker 1: the Constitution. I've taught constitutional criminal procedure for almost half

429
00:25:54,960 --> 00:25:58,640
Speaker 1: a century. I've written half a dozen books on the subject.

430
00:25:58,760 --> 00:26:02,520
Speaker 1: I've litigated a k says on the Constitution. So I'm

431
00:26:02,560 --> 00:26:05,399
Speaker 1: an expert on the Constitution, particularly as it relates to

432
00:26:06,000 --> 00:26:09,960
Speaker 1: matters like impeachment. So I'm coming in to make that argument.

433
00:26:10,000 --> 00:26:13,119
Speaker 1: But I'm not involved in the day to day strategic

434
00:26:13,320 --> 00:26:16,399
Speaker 1: tactical decisions or the decisions which witnesses to call a

435
00:26:16,480 --> 00:26:19,040
Speaker 1: witnesses a call. That's a role I've played in the

436
00:26:19,160 --> 00:26:21,080
Speaker 1: number of cases, and that's the role I chose to

437
00:26:21,080 --> 00:26:23,680
Speaker 1: play in this case. Only about a minute here, professor,

438
00:26:23,760 --> 00:26:28,160
Speaker 1: But are you getting a lot of negative feedback or blowback?

439
00:26:28,240 --> 00:26:31,719
Speaker 1: I'm getting only negative feedback. Name calling, threats to my

440
00:26:31,800 --> 00:26:36,439
Speaker 1: family the most abusive. You know, I'm too old. Um,

441
00:26:36,960 --> 00:26:40,119
Speaker 1: I'm to this and to that. Uh, everything has been

442
00:26:40,119 --> 00:26:42,920
Speaker 1: an ad hominem. I'm beginning none of these things. If

443
00:26:42,960 --> 00:26:46,080
Speaker 1: I had decided to make the argument in favor of impeachment,

444
00:26:46,119 --> 00:26:48,200
Speaker 1: obviously I couldn't make that argument because I don't believe

445
00:26:48,200 --> 00:26:50,119
Speaker 1: in it. But if I had made that argument, all

446
00:26:50,160 --> 00:26:52,840
Speaker 1: the same people who are attacking me, condemning me, attacking

447
00:26:52,840 --> 00:26:56,680
Speaker 1: my credentials, would be praising me. I wish Hillary Clinton

448
00:26:56,720 --> 00:26:59,480
Speaker 1: had gotten elected. If she'd gotten elected, ay, I prefer

449
00:26:59,560 --> 00:27:01,600
Speaker 1: that because I voted for her, But being my life

450
00:27:01,600 --> 00:27:03,720
Speaker 1: would be so much easier because I would be defending

451
00:27:03,720 --> 00:27:05,800
Speaker 1: her against the beachman. And they would have built a

452
00:27:05,800 --> 00:27:08,679
Speaker 1: statue to me on Martha's vineyard instead of refusing to

453
00:27:08,760 --> 00:27:12,639
Speaker 1: even interact with me. So it's all a matter of

454
00:27:12,760 --> 00:27:17,199
Speaker 1: partisan hypocrisy, and I stand by principles. I stand by

455
00:27:17,240 --> 00:27:20,280
Speaker 1: the same principles I stoodvice since I defended the rights

456
00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:23,200
Speaker 1: of Richard Nixon not to be named as an unindicted

457
00:27:23,240 --> 00:27:30,600
Speaker 1: co there. We certainly respect your president and your constitutional background.

458
00:27:30,640 --> 00:27:34,159
Speaker 1: Thanks so much. That's Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor, emeritus

459
00:27:34,280 --> 00:27:37,719
Speaker 1: who will be presenting the constitutional defense of President Trump.

460
00:27:43,359 --> 00:27:47,919
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg's sound on with Kevin Surrele on Bloomberg

461
00:27:49,040 --> 00:27:51,440
Speaker 1: and one All five point seven f m h D two.

462
00:27:53,280 --> 00:27:56,520
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso. I'm sitting in for Kevin SURRELLI well,

463
00:27:56,560 --> 00:28:00,320
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice right now is sitting at pres fighting

464
00:28:00,440 --> 00:28:04,000
Speaker 1: over the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, but the

465
00:28:04,040 --> 00:28:07,520
Speaker 1: work of the Supreme Court goes on. Joining me now

466
00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:11,280
Speaker 1: is Greg store Bloomberg, new Supreme Court reporter. So Greg,

467
00:28:12,119 --> 00:28:14,639
Speaker 1: before we start on the on the meat of the

468
00:28:14,720 --> 00:28:18,160
Speaker 1: issue here, So, how has the Chief Justice been handling

469
00:28:18,240 --> 00:28:22,159
Speaker 1: this shuttling back and forth. It's been quite a juggle. June.

470
00:28:22,200 --> 00:28:26,400
Speaker 1: The first night he was the trial, he was there

471
00:28:26,480 --> 00:28:28,359
Speaker 1: until about two o'clock in the morning, then he had

472
00:28:28,400 --> 00:28:30,920
Speaker 1: to turn around and here arguments at the Supreme Court

473
00:28:30,920 --> 00:28:33,879
Speaker 1: at ten o'clock the next morning, and then two hours

474
00:28:33,920 --> 00:28:36,840
Speaker 1: after that ended he was back on the at the Senate.

475
00:28:36,920 --> 00:28:41,680
Speaker 1: So it's been a lot. Now, um, I just want

476
00:28:41,720 --> 00:28:45,120
Speaker 1: your comments about what he said the other night where

477
00:28:45,160 --> 00:28:52,080
Speaker 1: he chided both sides for not behaving properly. Yeah, it

478
00:28:52,200 --> 00:28:55,440
Speaker 1: was you know, it came after this back and forth

479
00:28:55,480 --> 00:29:01,600
Speaker 1: involving uh Congressman n Adler, Uh and uh, the Trump lawyers,

480
00:29:02,120 --> 00:29:05,560
Speaker 1: and you know, the Chief Justice, you know, is somebody

481
00:29:05,560 --> 00:29:08,000
Speaker 1: who values decorum an awful lot. He's not in his

482
00:29:08,040 --> 00:29:10,440
Speaker 1: own home there at the Senate, so I'm sure he

483
00:29:10,480 --> 00:29:14,560
Speaker 1: thought long and hard before jumping in there. But uh,

484
00:29:14,600 --> 00:29:16,400
Speaker 1: you know, the one thing perhaps he hopes he can

485
00:29:16,440 --> 00:29:19,040
Speaker 1: do is to add some measure of of order and

486
00:29:19,120 --> 00:29:21,960
Speaker 1: decorum to the proceedings. And and perhaps he brought a

487
00:29:21,960 --> 00:29:25,320
Speaker 1: little bit of that to it. Yes, I think he did. So.

488
00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:27,880
Speaker 1: Now let's talk about some of the cases what's happening

489
00:29:27,880 --> 00:29:31,520
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court while he's also on the bench,

490
00:29:31,600 --> 00:29:35,520
Speaker 1: so to speak. At the Senate impeachment trial, the Supreme

491
00:29:35,560 --> 00:29:40,920
Speaker 1: Court took yet another political case, one that could affect

492
00:29:40,960 --> 00:29:43,360
Speaker 1: the outcome of a tight election, and of course the

493
00:29:43,360 --> 00:29:45,680
Speaker 1: presidential election coming up, many people think it's going to

494
00:29:45,720 --> 00:29:48,440
Speaker 1: be tight. Tell us about that case. Yeah, this is

495
00:29:48,440 --> 00:29:52,040
Speaker 1: a case involving faithless electors, those electors who we think

496
00:29:52,040 --> 00:29:54,520
Speaker 1: are going to vote for, say Hillary Clinton, because she

497
00:29:54,600 --> 00:29:57,160
Speaker 1: won that state, and instead they get there and they

498
00:29:57,240 --> 00:30:01,520
Speaker 1: vote for somebody else like Um, like John Kasik. They

499
00:30:01,680 --> 00:30:05,000
Speaker 1: are Colin Powell. Um. The question for the Supreme Court

500
00:30:05,120 --> 00:30:07,960
Speaker 1: is whether states can do anything to make sure those

501
00:30:08,000 --> 00:30:11,800
Speaker 1: electors when they cast their vote for president and vote

502
00:30:11,800 --> 00:30:15,360
Speaker 1: for the person they're supposed to vote for. Colorado and

503
00:30:15,520 --> 00:30:19,800
Speaker 1: Washington both try to penalize electors if they don't they

504
00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:24,480
Speaker 1: don't follow the will of the state's voters. Colorado UH

505
00:30:24,880 --> 00:30:27,200
Speaker 1: had a procedure where it still has a procedure where

506
00:30:27,760 --> 00:30:30,520
Speaker 1: removes the voter and and cancels their vote if they

507
00:30:30,560 --> 00:30:34,040
Speaker 1: try to vote for somebody else. Washington find the electors

508
00:30:34,480 --> 00:30:39,520
Speaker 1: for UH for casting a faithless vote, and both sides

509
00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:42,560
Speaker 1: urged the Supreme Court to take up this issue now

510
00:30:43,280 --> 00:30:45,520
Speaker 1: rather than UH do it in the middle of a

511
00:30:45,560 --> 00:30:49,560
Speaker 1: heated presidential campaign. Right now, we don't know who this case.

512
00:30:49,720 --> 00:30:52,520
Speaker 1: This case might help because we don't know which way

513
00:30:52,520 --> 00:30:55,160
Speaker 1: a faithless elector might go in a tight election. So

514
00:30:55,240 --> 00:30:57,200
Speaker 1: the idea is that the Court will decide it now

515
00:30:57,280 --> 00:30:58,840
Speaker 1: and then we'll know what the rules of the road

516
00:30:58,880 --> 00:31:03,200
Speaker 1: are if we get to November and it actually matters

517
00:31:03,800 --> 00:31:08,760
Speaker 1: what has the Supreme Court said previously, if anything, about electors,

518
00:31:08,800 --> 00:31:15,720
Speaker 1: so that they have UH said that UM that states

519
00:31:15,840 --> 00:31:19,080
Speaker 1: can bind them, they can make them pledge that they

520
00:31:19,080 --> 00:31:23,120
Speaker 1: will vote for somebody. The question is whether states can

521
00:31:23,200 --> 00:31:29,080
Speaker 1: do anything to enforce that pledge. The UH. The argument

522
00:31:29,240 --> 00:31:32,880
Speaker 1: is that once uh, this gets into the point where

523
00:31:32,920 --> 00:31:36,760
Speaker 1: we've had the election, the electors are appointed, and they

524
00:31:36,800 --> 00:31:39,240
Speaker 1: are originally selected by the party, but then once they're

525
00:31:39,240 --> 00:31:43,280
Speaker 1: appointed after the election, then the argument goes, the states

526
00:31:43,320 --> 00:31:45,160
Speaker 1: have to stay out of it. They can't do anything

527
00:31:45,160 --> 00:31:47,480
Speaker 1: about it. So that the electors decide, hey, I want

528
00:31:47,480 --> 00:31:52,040
Speaker 1: to vote for somebody else, the state can't penalize them.

529
00:31:52,440 --> 00:31:56,160
Speaker 1: And UH, it is now an open question. There's you know,

530
00:31:56,240 --> 00:31:58,920
Speaker 1: part of the argument is what did the framers intend?

531
00:31:58,960 --> 00:32:03,600
Speaker 1: Originally the idea was that electors might use some actual

532
00:32:03,680 --> 00:32:07,040
Speaker 1: judgment rather than just voting for who they're told to

533
00:32:07,120 --> 00:32:09,720
Speaker 1: vote for. But of course times have changed, and we

534
00:32:09,800 --> 00:32:14,280
Speaker 1: now have this broad expectation that if the Democratic candidate

535
00:32:14,400 --> 00:32:17,760
Speaker 1: or the Republican candidate wins the popular vote in a state,

536
00:32:17,920 --> 00:32:20,160
Speaker 1: that the slate of electors will all vote for that

537
00:32:20,240 --> 00:32:23,280
Speaker 1: person in the electoral college. And how have the lower

538
00:32:23,320 --> 00:32:26,280
Speaker 1: courts ruled? Are they split? Are they in agreement? What

539
00:32:26,680 --> 00:32:28,680
Speaker 1: they are split? And that's part of the reason for

540
00:32:28,720 --> 00:32:31,880
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court uh taking it up in these these

541
00:32:31,920 --> 00:32:36,720
Speaker 1: two cases. UH. The courts taking two cases one involves Colorado.

542
00:32:36,760 --> 00:32:40,320
Speaker 1: As I mentioned, Colorado lost at the Tenth Circuit. Tent

543
00:32:40,440 --> 00:32:44,400
Speaker 1: Circuit said no, you can't UH cancel the vote and

544
00:32:44,440 --> 00:32:50,520
Speaker 1: appoint a new elector Washington state one at a state court.

545
00:32:50,680 --> 00:32:55,320
Speaker 1: The the Court said, yes, you can penalize them by

546
00:32:55,360 --> 00:33:00,800
Speaker 1: by finding the electors. Uh. And and that disagreement is UH,

547
00:33:00,960 --> 00:33:02,880
Speaker 1: no doubt part of the reason the Court agreed to

548
00:33:02,920 --> 00:33:06,040
Speaker 1: take it up and decided this term. Now, at the

549
00:33:06,080 --> 00:33:10,200
Speaker 1: same time, they have Obamacare, the issue of Obamacare, and

550
00:33:10,240 --> 00:33:13,880
Speaker 1: we know that the Fifth Circuit made a ruling and

551
00:33:14,120 --> 00:33:16,960
Speaker 1: the states, the Democratic States, have tried to get the

552
00:33:17,000 --> 00:33:21,680
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to expedite the appeals defending Obamacare. What is

553
00:33:21,720 --> 00:33:24,200
Speaker 1: the Court decided, Well, the Court has decided it's not

554
00:33:24,240 --> 00:33:27,200
Speaker 1: going to expedite it, which means almost certainly they won't

555
00:33:27,200 --> 00:33:30,800
Speaker 1: hear the appeal this term. It was always a long

556
00:33:30,880 --> 00:33:34,440
Speaker 1: shot for a couple of reasons. One just the nature

557
00:33:34,440 --> 00:33:37,160
Speaker 1: of the calendar. All this was happening really late in

558
00:33:37,200 --> 00:33:41,440
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's calendar. Usually, UH, they like to have

559
00:33:41,680 --> 00:33:45,560
Speaker 1: an appeal filed by November or so, UH, and then

560
00:33:45,560 --> 00:33:47,760
Speaker 1: they can decide in January whether they're going to hear it.

561
00:33:47,840 --> 00:33:51,959
Speaker 1: In the current term which ends in June. UH. In

562
00:33:52,000 --> 00:33:55,200
Speaker 1: this case, the appeals court ruling didn't even come until December.

563
00:33:55,560 --> 00:33:57,320
Speaker 1: And then you have a second issue, which is that

564
00:33:57,400 --> 00:34:00,080
Speaker 1: the appeals court ruling kicked the whole case back on

565
00:34:00,160 --> 00:34:04,440
Speaker 1: to the lower court. UH. The issues um are are

566
00:34:04,480 --> 00:34:08,040
Speaker 1: both whether the so called individual mandate, which really doesn't

567
00:34:08,080 --> 00:34:11,920
Speaker 1: have any effect anymore, is unconstitutional and then whether the

568
00:34:11,960 --> 00:34:14,960
Speaker 1: rest of the statute, all of Obamacare has to be

569
00:34:15,000 --> 00:34:18,880
Speaker 1: struck down if indeed, the individual mandate is now unconstitutional.

570
00:34:19,360 --> 00:34:21,799
Speaker 1: And that second half of the issue, whether the rest

571
00:34:21,800 --> 00:34:25,200
Speaker 1: of the statute uh should be struck down, is something

572
00:34:25,239 --> 00:34:27,160
Speaker 1: that the Fifth Circuit didn't make a decision on. It

573
00:34:27,239 --> 00:34:29,200
Speaker 1: kicked it back to the lower court. So that's the

574
00:34:29,280 --> 00:34:31,640
Speaker 1: kind of thing that makes it really unlikely the Supreme

575
00:34:31,640 --> 00:34:34,120
Speaker 1: Court is gonna want to jump in and decide an issue,

576
00:34:34,440 --> 00:34:37,600
Speaker 1: especially when that big before the lower courts they've even

577
00:34:37,719 --> 00:34:42,520
Speaker 1: uh decided uh that issue in that particular case. So

578
00:34:42,719 --> 00:34:46,080
Speaker 1: it wasn't that John Robert didn't want to decide Obamacare

579
00:34:46,120 --> 00:34:48,960
Speaker 1: for a third time in the middle of this contentious

580
00:34:49,040 --> 00:34:51,759
Speaker 1: well that that may also have something to do with it.

581
00:34:51,760 --> 00:34:53,279
Speaker 1: The Court's got a pretty big term, They've got a

582
00:34:53,320 --> 00:34:55,640
Speaker 1: lot of stuff on their plate and taking up Obamacare

583
00:34:55,640 --> 00:34:58,040
Speaker 1: adding that to the mix in this term on a

584
00:34:58,120 --> 00:35:02,879
Speaker 1: tight time frame, in this very volatile, hard fought political time,

585
00:35:03,560 --> 00:35:05,480
Speaker 1: you could understand that they might not want to do

586
00:35:05,520 --> 00:35:09,399
Speaker 1: that definitely. So, now are they going to take any

587
00:35:09,400 --> 00:35:12,160
Speaker 1: more cases? Because, as you said, as you keep talking

588
00:35:12,200 --> 00:35:16,000
Speaker 1: about the I mean they have a really chock full docket,

589
00:35:16,000 --> 00:35:19,439
Speaker 1: and I mean chuck full of really contentious cases. Yeah,

590
00:35:19,440 --> 00:35:23,160
Speaker 1: they they probably are not taking any more cases this term.

591
00:35:23,440 --> 00:35:25,319
Speaker 1: We're kind of at the point where where if they

592
00:35:25,360 --> 00:35:27,600
Speaker 1: haven't decided to take it up for this term, now

593
00:35:27,680 --> 00:35:31,759
Speaker 1: they're they're going to kick it over until next term. Um.

594
00:35:31,800 --> 00:35:33,359
Speaker 1: You know, as you said, there are a lot of

595
00:35:33,400 --> 00:35:35,200
Speaker 1: a lot of big issues that they've got. You know,

596
00:35:35,239 --> 00:35:37,600
Speaker 1: probably the biggest one, the ones that's going to get

597
00:35:37,600 --> 00:35:41,120
Speaker 1: most attention, are going to involve subpoenas for the president's

598
00:35:41,120 --> 00:35:46,040
Speaker 1: financial information from his accountants and from his banks uh

599
00:35:46,600 --> 00:35:51,000
Speaker 1: being sought by both House of Representatives UH, House lawmakers,

600
00:35:51,120 --> 00:35:54,839
Speaker 1: and by a prosecutor in New York. We've got an

601
00:35:54,840 --> 00:35:58,240
Speaker 1: abortion case, we've got a gun case, we've got weather. Uh.

602
00:35:58,480 --> 00:36:01,600
Speaker 1: Gay people and transgender people are protected under the federal

603
00:36:01,680 --> 00:36:05,279
Speaker 1: job discrimination laws. We just had a big religious rights

604
00:36:05,560 --> 00:36:09,319
Speaker 1: case argued this week. It's really I don't know. I

605
00:36:09,320 --> 00:36:11,120
Speaker 1: don't know as well as you do, of course, but

606
00:36:11,200 --> 00:36:14,040
Speaker 1: I don't remember a term that had this many hot

607
00:36:14,080 --> 00:36:18,160
Speaker 1: button issues. Only about seconds here, Greg, Yeah, it's been

608
00:36:18,239 --> 00:36:20,279
Speaker 1: quite a while. Of course, we've had some really big

609
00:36:20,360 --> 00:36:22,680
Speaker 1: terms where they have you know, legalized gay marriage and

610
00:36:22,840 --> 00:36:26,640
Speaker 1: upheld Obamacare and things like that, but having this many

611
00:36:26,800 --> 00:36:29,440
Speaker 1: very important issues in an election year, it's been a

612
00:36:29,440 --> 00:36:32,120
Speaker 1: while since we had had a term quite like this,

613
00:36:32,280 --> 00:36:35,080
Speaker 1: and of course they're they're all going to be highly contentious.

614
00:36:35,640 --> 00:36:40,160
Speaker 1: Absolutely well, during the downtime, you have enjoyed a little

615
00:36:40,200 --> 00:36:42,760
Speaker 1: bit of downtime while the while the Court is in recess.

616
00:36:42,840 --> 00:36:46,080
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter

617
00:36:46,200 --> 00:36:49,160
Speaker 1: Greg's store. I'm June Grass. I've been sitting in for

618
00:36:49,320 --> 00:36:53,640
Speaker 1: Kevin sireally and just a reminder that you can listen

619
00:36:53,719 --> 00:36:59,279
Speaker 1: to download the Bloomberg Sound on podcasts on iTunes, at

620
00:36:59,280 --> 00:37:02,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com or by downloading the Bloomberg Business app.

621
00:37:02,920 --> 00:37:05,239
Speaker 1: Can also fund us on Radio dot com, I Heart

622
00:37:05,360 --> 00:37:10,320
Speaker 1: Radio and Spotify. H