1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,240
Speaker 1: The attorney's general of New York and Massachusetts are investigating

2
00:00:03,279 --> 00:00:06,320
Speaker 1: whether ex On Mobile hid knowledge of the human impact

3
00:00:06,360 --> 00:00:09,639
Speaker 1: on climate change for decades, but Republicans in the House

4
00:00:09,640 --> 00:00:12,400
Speaker 1: of Representatives want to stop them. Last year, the House

5
00:00:12,400 --> 00:00:15,159
Speaker 1: Committee on Science Based and Technology subpoenaed both New York

6
00:00:15,200 --> 00:00:18,680
Speaker 1: Attorney General Eric Sniderman in Massachusetts Attorney General Moura Healey

7
00:00:19,160 --> 00:00:22,880
Speaker 1: seeking detailed information about their investigations, and both Schneiderman and

8
00:00:22,920 --> 00:00:26,440
Speaker 1: Hilly ignored the subpoenas. But now the committee has reissued

9
00:00:26,480 --> 00:00:28,920
Speaker 1: the subpoenas, claiming that the ages are acting in bad

10
00:00:28,960 --> 00:00:32,199
Speaker 1: faith in these investigations, and Schneiderman and Hilly show no

11
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:34,560
Speaker 1: signs of giving in. Here to talk to us about

12
00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:37,680
Speaker 1: this federal state legal fight is Jeff Kramer, a former

13
00:00:37,720 --> 00:00:40,600
Speaker 1: federal and local prosecutor who is now a managing director

14
00:00:40,680 --> 00:00:45,400
Speaker 1: at the Berkeley Research Group. Jeff, the federal government. Congress

15
00:00:45,400 --> 00:00:48,200
Speaker 1: has subpoena power. They can investigate a whole host of things.

16
00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:51,440
Speaker 1: They can uh look at stuff all over the country.

17
00:00:51,760 --> 00:00:54,800
Speaker 1: This is a science issue. It's the Committee on Science.

18
00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:58,880
Speaker 1: Why are the attorney generals refusing to comply with subpoenas

19
00:00:58,920 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 1: that Congress has issued? You're right at that first blush.

20
00:01:02,920 --> 00:01:06,880
Speaker 1: Does seem like Congresses within their purview the the the

21
00:01:06,959 --> 00:01:09,200
Speaker 1: interesting thing here in the issue here is just scratching

22
00:01:09,240 --> 00:01:11,600
Speaker 1: a little bit below the surface. UM. I don't know

23
00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:15,400
Speaker 1: if this is unprecedented, but certainly unusual for Congress to

24
00:01:15,520 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 1: be looking not so much at the target of an

25
00:01:18,160 --> 00:01:22,800
Speaker 1: investigation here it would be Exxon, but rather the prosecutors,

26
00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:26,559
Speaker 1: the state prosecutors, and they're looking for everything. They're basically

27
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:29,840
Speaker 1: looking for the entire case file. They're looking for internal emails,

28
00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:35,039
Speaker 1: other sorts of documentation. UM. So that's very unusual. That

29
00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:37,800
Speaker 1: was my question, Jeff, because it seems to me as

30
00:01:37,840 --> 00:01:42,720
Speaker 1: if the attorneys general haven't even completed their investigation. The

31
00:01:42,800 --> 00:01:46,280
Speaker 1: bad faith that Republicans were talking about was that they

32
00:01:46,319 --> 00:01:51,080
Speaker 1: had they had reached their conclusions before the investigation started

33
00:01:51,160 --> 00:01:54,160
Speaker 1: after meeting with environmentalists, but there's no proof of that

34
00:01:54,240 --> 00:01:56,800
Speaker 1: at all. They just did meet with environmentalists. So it

35
00:01:56,880 --> 00:02:00,680
Speaker 1: seems as if it's there's a little tin cheer of

36
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:05,640
Speaker 1: self interest on the Republican side. But absolutely, UM, you know,

37
00:02:05,800 --> 00:02:08,400
Speaker 1: you can you can argue, I think pretty forcefully that

38
00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:12,160
Speaker 1: everyone has an ulterior motive here. UM. And whether or not.

39
00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:15,520
Speaker 1: This is not an uncommon argument for the defense to

40
00:02:15,560 --> 00:02:18,720
Speaker 1: make a high profile case that uh, prosecution or an

41
00:02:18,720 --> 00:02:23,720
Speaker 1: investigation is politically motivated and conclusions were reached before they

42
00:02:23,880 --> 00:02:26,040
Speaker 1: dotted all their eyes and crossed the teas. You hear

43
00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:28,800
Speaker 1: that in court, it usually fails because the evidence is

44
00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:31,120
Speaker 1: what it is, and it's presented to a grand jury,

45
00:02:31,160 --> 00:02:33,080
Speaker 1: and if it gets that far, it's presented to a

46
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:36,640
Speaker 1: to a jury at trial. UM. So these arguments usually

47
00:02:36,720 --> 00:02:40,360
Speaker 1: don't work. So I think you can say, even if Congress,

48
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:43,280
Speaker 1: you know, maybe onto something, let's say the Attorney's General

49
00:02:43,880 --> 00:02:47,320
Speaker 1: did reach a conclusion quickly or had a preconceived notion

50
00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:49,840
Speaker 1: that's going to play out in state court, I don't

51
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:53,720
Speaker 1: think it's within the purview necessarily of of a congressional

52
00:02:54,080 --> 00:02:57,280
Speaker 1: hearing and an investigation, because if they if the attorneys

53
00:02:57,320 --> 00:03:00,440
Speaker 1: general do comply with a subpoena, and obviously, as indicated

54
00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:05,000
Speaker 1: they did not before, it's basically giving discovery to to

55
00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:08,720
Speaker 1: the defense and the subjects and potential targets that aren't

56
00:03:08,760 --> 00:03:12,320
Speaker 1: even known. Uh. That can certainly stop an investigation in

57
00:03:12,360 --> 00:03:16,720
Speaker 1: its tracks. Jeff. So the attorneys general clearly don't think

58
00:03:16,760 --> 00:03:20,480
Speaker 1: that Congress has jurisdiction over their investigations, and so they

59
00:03:20,600 --> 00:03:24,919
Speaker 1: think this is improper. Um, what happens if they again

60
00:03:24,960 --> 00:03:28,639
Speaker 1: refuse to comply as appears likely, and they're saying they're

61
00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:32,120
Speaker 1: going to do? What options does Congress have in terms

62
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:36,080
Speaker 1: of trying to enforce these subpoenas well? They've got pretty

63
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:38,800
Speaker 1: broad options and some pretty severe ones, which is why

64
00:03:38,840 --> 00:03:41,280
Speaker 1: this is unusual. It's never been tested before. If if

65
00:03:41,320 --> 00:03:43,800
Speaker 1: you're subpoena or anyone who is subpoenaed to go before

66
00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:47,760
Speaker 1: Congress and present themselves or documents and they just refuse,

67
00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:51,320
Speaker 1: which is basically what's happened here, that's UH, that's contempt

68
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:54,240
Speaker 1: of Congress, and you can have contempt proceedings. Congress can

69
00:03:54,360 --> 00:04:00,000
Speaker 1: can file a suit. Um. The remedies for Congress are

70
00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:03,360
Speaker 1: pretty pretty broad and pretty severe. However, that's going to

71
00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:06,640
Speaker 1: come to a head quickly. Um if the a G

72
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:10,320
Speaker 1: s H deny it, I think. But what will bring

73
00:04:10,320 --> 00:04:13,160
Speaker 1: to the forefront there is both the Attorney's General New

74
00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:16,400
Speaker 1: York and Massachusetts, UH and Congress are kind of using

75
00:04:17,240 --> 00:04:21,040
Speaker 1: a specious argument to get what they wanted specifically, And

76
00:04:21,240 --> 00:04:24,159
Speaker 1: I see the Attorney's General arguing that the reason they're

77
00:04:24,160 --> 00:04:29,000
Speaker 1: even doing this is because it implicated investors and acts

78
00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:32,560
Speaker 1: on Mobile and perhaps others weren't giving h information that

79
00:04:32,600 --> 00:04:35,159
Speaker 1: should have been given for investors. And that's a proper

80
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:38,360
Speaker 1: purview of the attorneys general other prosecutors as well, but

81
00:04:38,400 --> 00:04:43,120
Speaker 1: certainly attorneys general Congress and the corollary and this subcommittee

82
00:04:43,160 --> 00:04:46,160
Speaker 1: is using. I think it's an odd argument that it's

83
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:49,920
Speaker 1: a First Amendment argument, that basically these investigations are chilling

84
00:04:49,960 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 1: the First Amendment rights of scientists who questioned climate change.

85
00:04:54,360 --> 00:04:57,279
Speaker 1: That's that's a tougher argument. So I'm not sure Congresses

86
00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:01,080
Speaker 1: is situated well in their jurisdiction, but a courtmand up

87
00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:04,280
Speaker 1: looking at that some point. Our thanks to Jeff Kramer,

88
00:05:04,320 --> 00:05:07,159
Speaker 1: Managing director at the Berkeley Research Group, we're talking to

89
00:05:07,200 --> 00:05:10,960
Speaker 1: us about what is obviously very unusual fight between a

90
00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:14,240
Speaker 1: Congressional committee and state attorneys general over a subpoena issued

91
00:05:14,279 --> 00:05:17,960
Speaker 1: by Congress coming up on Bloomberg law. Do parents have

92
00:05:18,000 --> 00:05:21,640
Speaker 1: an obligation to pay their children's college tuition? Well, a

93
00:05:21,680 --> 00:05:23,600
Speaker 1: lot of us would think they do. Maybe some of

94
00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:26,280
Speaker 1: us would think they don't. But a lot of bankruptcy

95
00:05:26,320 --> 00:05:29,239
Speaker 1: courts are looking at to the issue because credit debtors

96
00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:32,640
Speaker 1: are looking to get clawback payments from colleges where people

97
00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:36,120
Speaker 1: declare bankruptcy after having paid their child's college tuition. What's

98
00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:39,400
Speaker 1: happening in those cases? Coming up straight ahead on Bloomberg Law.

99
00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:40,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg