WEBVTT - House Attempts to Stop State Probes into Exxon (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:03.240
<v Speaker 1>The attorney's general of New York and Massachusetts are investigating

0:00:03.279 --> 0:00:06.320
<v Speaker 1>whether ex On Mobile hid knowledge of the human impact

0:00:06.360 --> 0:00:09.639
<v Speaker 1>on climate change for decades, but Republicans in the House

0:00:09.640 --> 0:00:12.400
<v Speaker 1>of Representatives want to stop them. Last year, the House

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.159
<v Speaker 1>Committee on Science Based and Technology subpoenaed both New York

0:00:15.200 --> 0:00:18.680
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General Eric Sniderman in Massachusetts Attorney General Moura Healey

0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:22.880
<v Speaker 1>seeking detailed information about their investigations, and both Schneiderman and

0:00:22.920 --> 0:00:26.440
<v Speaker 1>Hilly ignored the subpoenas. But now the committee has reissued

0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:28.920
<v Speaker 1>the subpoenas, claiming that the ages are acting in bad

0:00:28.960 --> 0:00:32.199
<v Speaker 1>faith in these investigations, and Schneiderman and Hilly show no

0:00:32.320 --> 0:00:34.560
<v Speaker 1>signs of giving in. Here to talk to us about

0:00:34.560 --> 0:00:37.680
<v Speaker 1>this federal state legal fight is Jeff Kramer, a former

0:00:37.720 --> 0:00:40.600
<v Speaker 1>federal and local prosecutor who is now a managing director

0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:45.400
<v Speaker 1>at the Berkeley Research Group. Jeff, the federal government. Congress

0:00:45.400 --> 0:00:48.200
<v Speaker 1>has subpoena power. They can investigate a whole host of things.

0:00:48.280 --> 0:00:51.440
<v Speaker 1>They can uh look at stuff all over the country.

0:00:51.760 --> 0:00:54.800
<v Speaker 1>This is a science issue. It's the Committee on Science.

0:00:55.800 --> 0:00:58.880
<v Speaker 1>Why are the attorney generals refusing to comply with subpoenas

0:00:58.920 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 1>that Congress has issued? You're right at that first blush.

0:01:02.920 --> 0:01:06.880
<v Speaker 1>Does seem like Congresses within their purview the the the

0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:09.200
<v Speaker 1>interesting thing here in the issue here is just scratching

0:01:09.240 --> 0:01:11.600
<v Speaker 1>a little bit below the surface. UM. I don't know

0:01:11.640 --> 0:01:15.400
<v Speaker 1>if this is unprecedented, but certainly unusual for Congress to

0:01:15.520 --> 0:01:18.160
<v Speaker 1>be looking not so much at the target of an

0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:22.800
<v Speaker 1>investigation here it would be Exxon, but rather the prosecutors,

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:26.559
<v Speaker 1>the state prosecutors, and they're looking for everything. They're basically

0:01:26.560 --> 0:01:29.840
<v Speaker 1>looking for the entire case file. They're looking for internal emails,

0:01:30.160 --> 0:01:35.039
<v Speaker 1>other sorts of documentation. UM. So that's very unusual. That

0:01:35.160 --> 0:01:37.800
<v Speaker 1>was my question, Jeff, because it seems to me as

0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:42.720
<v Speaker 1>if the attorneys general haven't even completed their investigation. The

0:01:42.800 --> 0:01:46.280
<v Speaker 1>bad faith that Republicans were talking about was that they

0:01:46.319 --> 0:01:51.080
<v Speaker 1>had they had reached their conclusions before the investigation started

0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:54.160
<v Speaker 1>after meeting with environmentalists, but there's no proof of that

0:01:54.240 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 1>at all. They just did meet with environmentalists. So it

0:01:56.880 --> 0:02:00.680
<v Speaker 1>seems as if it's there's a little tin cheer of

0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:05.640
<v Speaker 1>self interest on the Republican side. But absolutely, UM, you know,

0:02:05.800 --> 0:02:08.400
<v Speaker 1>you can you can argue, I think pretty forcefully that

0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:12.160
<v Speaker 1>everyone has an ulterior motive here. UM. And whether or not.

0:02:12.240 --> 0:02:15.520
<v Speaker 1>This is not an uncommon argument for the defense to

0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:18.720
<v Speaker 1>make a high profile case that uh, prosecution or an

0:02:18.720 --> 0:02:23.720
<v Speaker 1>investigation is politically motivated and conclusions were reached before they

0:02:23.880 --> 0:02:26.040
<v Speaker 1>dotted all their eyes and crossed the teas. You hear

0:02:26.080 --> 0:02:28.800
<v Speaker 1>that in court, it usually fails because the evidence is

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:31.120
<v Speaker 1>what it is, and it's presented to a grand jury,

0:02:31.160 --> 0:02:33.080
<v Speaker 1>and if it gets that far, it's presented to a

0:02:33.240 --> 0:02:36.640
<v Speaker 1>to a jury at trial. UM. So these arguments usually

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:40.360
<v Speaker 1>don't work. So I think you can say, even if Congress,

0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:43.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, maybe onto something, let's say the Attorney's General

0:02:43.880 --> 0:02:47.320
<v Speaker 1>did reach a conclusion quickly or had a preconceived notion

0:02:47.800 --> 0:02:49.840
<v Speaker 1>that's going to play out in state court, I don't

0:02:49.880 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 1>think it's within the purview necessarily of of a congressional

0:02:54.080 --> 0:02:57.280
<v Speaker 1>hearing and an investigation, because if they if the attorneys

0:02:57.320 --> 0:03:00.440
<v Speaker 1>general do comply with a subpoena, and obviously, as indicated

0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:05.000
<v Speaker 1>they did not before, it's basically giving discovery to to

0:03:05.120 --> 0:03:08.720
<v Speaker 1>the defense and the subjects and potential targets that aren't

0:03:08.760 --> 0:03:12.320
<v Speaker 1>even known. Uh. That can certainly stop an investigation in

0:03:12.360 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>its tracks. Jeff. So the attorneys general clearly don't think

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:20.480
<v Speaker 1>that Congress has jurisdiction over their investigations, and so they

0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:24.919
<v Speaker 1>think this is improper. Um, what happens if they again

0:03:24.960 --> 0:03:28.639
<v Speaker 1>refuse to comply as appears likely, and they're saying they're

0:03:28.680 --> 0:03:32.120
<v Speaker 1>going to do? What options does Congress have in terms

0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:36.080
<v Speaker 1>of trying to enforce these subpoenas well? They've got pretty

0:03:36.080 --> 0:03:38.800
<v Speaker 1>broad options and some pretty severe ones, which is why

0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:41.280
<v Speaker 1>this is unusual. It's never been tested before. If if

0:03:41.320 --> 0:03:43.800
<v Speaker 1>you're subpoena or anyone who is subpoenaed to go before

0:03:43.840 --> 0:03:47.760
<v Speaker 1>Congress and present themselves or documents and they just refuse,

0:03:47.920 --> 0:03:51.320
<v Speaker 1>which is basically what's happened here, that's UH, that's contempt

0:03:51.320 --> 0:03:54.240
<v Speaker 1>of Congress, and you can have contempt proceedings. Congress can

0:03:54.360 --> 0:04:00.000
<v Speaker 1>can file a suit. Um. The remedies for Congress are

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 1>pretty pretty broad and pretty severe. However, that's going to

0:04:03.520 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 1>come to a head quickly. Um if the a G

0:04:06.880 --> 0:04:10.320
<v Speaker 1>s H deny it, I think. But what will bring

0:04:10.320 --> 0:04:13.160
<v Speaker 1>to the forefront there is both the Attorney's General New

0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:16.400
<v Speaker 1>York and Massachusetts, UH and Congress are kind of using

0:04:17.240 --> 0:04:21.040
<v Speaker 1>a specious argument to get what they wanted specifically, And

0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:24.159
<v Speaker 1>I see the Attorney's General arguing that the reason they're

0:04:24.160 --> 0:04:29.000
<v Speaker 1>even doing this is because it implicated investors and acts

0:04:29.000 --> 0:04:32.560
<v Speaker 1>on Mobile and perhaps others weren't giving h information that

0:04:32.600 --> 0:04:35.159
<v Speaker 1>should have been given for investors. And that's a proper

0:04:35.200 --> 0:04:38.360
<v Speaker 1>purview of the attorneys general other prosecutors as well, but

0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:43.120
<v Speaker 1>certainly attorneys general Congress and the corollary and this subcommittee

0:04:43.160 --> 0:04:46.160
<v Speaker 1>is using. I think it's an odd argument that it's

0:04:46.160 --> 0:04:49.920
<v Speaker 1>a First Amendment argument, that basically these investigations are chilling

0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:53.880
<v Speaker 1>the First Amendment rights of scientists who questioned climate change.

0:04:54.360 --> 0:04:57.279
<v Speaker 1>That's that's a tougher argument. So I'm not sure Congresses

0:04:58.080 --> 0:05:01.080
<v Speaker 1>is situated well in their jurisdiction, but a courtmand up

0:05:01.120 --> 0:05:04.280
<v Speaker 1>looking at that some point. Our thanks to Jeff Kramer,

0:05:04.320 --> 0:05:07.159
<v Speaker 1>Managing director at the Berkeley Research Group, we're talking to

0:05:07.200 --> 0:05:10.960
<v Speaker 1>us about what is obviously very unusual fight between a

0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:14.240
<v Speaker 1>Congressional committee and state attorneys general over a subpoena issued

0:05:14.279 --> 0:05:17.960
<v Speaker 1>by Congress coming up on Bloomberg law. Do parents have

0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:21.640
<v Speaker 1>an obligation to pay their children's college tuition? Well, a

0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:23.600
<v Speaker 1>lot of us would think they do. Maybe some of

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.280
<v Speaker 1>us would think they don't. But a lot of bankruptcy

0:05:26.320 --> 0:05:29.239
<v Speaker 1>courts are looking at to the issue because credit debtors

0:05:29.279 --> 0:05:32.640
<v Speaker 1>are looking to get clawback payments from colleges where people

0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:36.120
<v Speaker 1>declare bankruptcy after having paid their child's college tuition. What's

0:05:36.160 --> 0:05:39.400
<v Speaker 1>happening in those cases? Coming up straight ahead on Bloomberg Law.

0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:40.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg