1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:03,200
Speaker 1: The votes in Georgia for the presidential election have been

2
00:00:03,240 --> 00:00:07,640
Speaker 1: counted three times, confirming that President elect Joe Biden beat

3
00:00:07,680 --> 00:00:11,520
Speaker 1: President Trump by eleven thousand, seven hundred seventy nine votes

4
00:00:11,880 --> 00:00:15,640
Speaker 1: in the traditionally Republican state. But in a sixty two

5
00:00:15,680 --> 00:00:19,680
Speaker 1: minute call on Saturday, just days before Congress is scheduled

6
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:23,919
Speaker 1: to certify the election results, President Trump pressured Georgia election

7
00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:28,320
Speaker 1: officials to find thousands of votes and recalculate the election

8
00:00:28,400 --> 00:00:31,680
Speaker 1: result to flip the state to him, just enough for

9
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 1: him to pass Biden by one vote. All I wanna

10
00:00:36,080 --> 00:00:41,120
Speaker 1: do is this. I just want to find uh eleven thousand,

11
00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:46,400
Speaker 1: seven d eight votes, which is one more that we have.

12
00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:50,479
Speaker 1: Georgia officials responded by saying they have no evidence of

13
00:00:50,520 --> 00:00:54,720
Speaker 1: widespread fraud and they'll stand by the election results. Joining me,

14
00:00:54,800 --> 00:00:58,080
Speaker 1: the elections law expert Richard Brofald, a professor at Columbia

15
00:00:58,160 --> 00:01:01,800
Speaker 1: Law School, the first, well, what is your reaction to

16
00:01:02,280 --> 00:01:07,959
Speaker 1: President Trump calling Georgia's secretary of state and asking him

17
00:01:08,000 --> 00:01:12,760
Speaker 1: to find eleven thousand, seven eight votes. It looks a

18
00:01:12,880 --> 00:01:15,800
Speaker 1: lot like he is asking the secretary of state to

19
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:18,040
Speaker 1: commit a crime, and in so doing, it looks like

20
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:21,360
Speaker 1: he is committing a crime. I mean, it is illegal

21
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:24,280
Speaker 1: to attempt to the private residence of the state of

22
00:01:24,360 --> 00:01:27,720
Speaker 1: affair and impartial election. I'm quoted from the relevant federal law.

23
00:01:28,240 --> 00:01:33,240
Speaker 1: It's illegal to procure or cause retabulation of ballots better

24
00:01:33,319 --> 00:01:35,840
Speaker 1: known to be false or fraudulent. And that's again a

25
00:01:35,959 --> 00:01:39,000
Speaker 1: pretty close paraphrase of the federal law. And there's a

26
00:01:39,040 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 1: similar Georgia law that basically makes it a crime to

27
00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:45,840
Speaker 1: solicit somebody to commit election fraud. Given all of the

28
00:01:45,880 --> 00:01:49,480
Speaker 1: audits and re audits and recount that Georgia has been through,

29
00:01:49,520 --> 00:01:52,480
Speaker 1: as well as all the litigation it's been resolved and

30
00:01:52,520 --> 00:01:55,200
Speaker 1: resolved and resolved against, so to say, can't you find

31
00:01:55,200 --> 00:01:58,360
Speaker 1: a seven thousand votes for me? Sounds an awful law,

32
00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:02,240
Speaker 1: like asking somebody to commit fraud, and that itself to

33
00:02:02,320 --> 00:02:05,360
Speaker 1: the crime. Now, the only thing that sort of draws

34
00:02:05,400 --> 00:02:08,400
Speaker 1: you back from this is criminal laws usually require that

35
00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:11,840
Speaker 1: the action be knowing and willful about that the person

36
00:02:12,280 --> 00:02:16,119
Speaker 1: committing the act knows that it's a crime. And one

37
00:02:16,120 --> 00:02:18,480
Speaker 1: thing that's a little hard to tell from all this

38
00:02:18,919 --> 00:02:22,200
Speaker 1: is whether the president really believes that there are all

39
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:25,040
Speaker 1: these fraudulent votes out there and all these uncounted votes

40
00:02:25,480 --> 00:02:29,120
Speaker 1: or whether it's just, you know, a gimmick, and whether

41
00:02:29,320 --> 00:02:32,240
Speaker 1: maybe he should believe it given all of the court

42
00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:34,680
Speaker 1: decisions and all of the recounts that have occurred. So

43
00:02:35,080 --> 00:02:38,720
Speaker 1: to try and push somebody to coerce by threatening with prosecution,

44
00:02:38,840 --> 00:02:42,360
Speaker 1: or to to now induce somebody to commit election fraud

45
00:02:42,480 --> 00:02:45,919
Speaker 1: is itself a crime, both federally and in Georgia. And

46
00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:49,000
Speaker 1: the only hold up is this issue of state of mind.

47
00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:51,800
Speaker 1: You have to be able to prove that this was

48
00:02:51,880 --> 00:02:54,799
Speaker 1: done knowing that since would be committing fraud. There's also

49
00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:59,000
Speaker 1: the rambling nature of the call, with President Trump jumping

50
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:04,800
Speaker 1: back and forth between issues, and there's no explicit threat. Now.

51
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:06,520
Speaker 1: I mean, in some ways it's a little bit like

52
00:03:06,680 --> 00:03:08,800
Speaker 1: from what we know about the Ukraine call, except this

53
00:03:08,840 --> 00:03:12,120
Speaker 1: one's on tape. When he doesn't outright demand something, it's

54
00:03:12,200 --> 00:03:14,639
Speaker 1: kind of what he's asking and then he's giving evidence.

55
00:03:14,680 --> 00:03:17,840
Speaker 1: But you know, I haven't listened to very many types

56
00:03:17,880 --> 00:03:20,080
Speaker 1: of mob bosses, but people tell me that that's what

57
00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:23,320
Speaker 1: it sounds like. They very rarely say outright, you must

58
00:03:23,360 --> 00:03:25,000
Speaker 1: do this. They kind of set it up in a

59
00:03:25,040 --> 00:03:27,679
Speaker 1: certain way that puts pressure. I mean, I think it

60
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:31,560
Speaker 1: sure looks and feels a lot like asking somebody to

61
00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:36,320
Speaker 1: commit collection fraud. Whether it actually crosses that line, given

62
00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:38,880
Speaker 1: state of mind, and given if you parse it word

63
00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:42,920
Speaker 1: by word, be a closer question that certainly, whatever it is,

64
00:03:43,040 --> 00:03:46,760
Speaker 1: it's totally improper, whether it is an outright crime, and

65
00:03:46,760 --> 00:03:49,360
Speaker 1: there's certainly a case for calling it an outright crime.

66
00:03:49,760 --> 00:03:53,680
Speaker 1: It's the big question also is who would prosecute this crime? Well,

67
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:57,480
Speaker 1: of course right now general government camp was probably not

68
00:03:57,480 --> 00:04:00,840
Speaker 1: going to prosecuting as the president, but presuming he doesn't

69
00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:04,040
Speaker 1: attempt to pardon himself um, and there is a huge

70
00:04:04,080 --> 00:04:07,320
Speaker 1: debate about whether a president can self pardon. Starting on

71
00:04:07,400 --> 00:04:11,640
Speaker 1: January one, the U S Attorney UH, I guess, starting

72
00:04:11,640 --> 00:04:14,760
Speaker 1: on the afternoon of January he was attorney to bring

73
00:04:14,840 --> 00:04:17,520
Speaker 1: the case. And of course they violates or at least

74
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:20,440
Speaker 1: there is a good argument that it violates Georgia law.

75
00:04:20,480 --> 00:04:24,920
Speaker 1: And presumably the a local district attorney UM, the attorney

76
00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:27,799
Speaker 1: I guess of the county where the state officials were sitting.

77
00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:31,200
Speaker 1: I think that's Fulton County. UH could also open an investigation.

78
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:34,920
Speaker 1: And the president cannot pardon himself for a crimes committed

79
00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:37,720
Speaker 1: under state law. But Joe Biden has said that he's

80
00:04:37,720 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 1: going to let the Justice Department do what if the

81
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:44,400
Speaker 1: Justice Department is supposed to do without any influence from him.

82
00:04:44,520 --> 00:04:48,640
Speaker 1: There's also a political question of whether the Biden administration

83
00:04:48,680 --> 00:04:53,760
Speaker 1: wants to start by prosecuting the former president, right. I mean,

84
00:04:53,800 --> 00:04:56,160
Speaker 1: there are prudential questions as to whether this is a

85
00:04:56,839 --> 00:04:59,840
Speaker 1: wise move. I mean, the case for opening in the

86
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:05,120
Speaker 1: instigation is that this is, Yeah, it's one thing to

87
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:07,559
Speaker 1: sort of try and have somebody to try and commit

88
00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 1: election for something else from President United States is himself

89
00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:15,520
Speaker 1: involved in a possible election fraud, and so given mistakes,

90
00:05:15,560 --> 00:05:17,400
Speaker 1: there's a lot to be said for saying, you know

91
00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:19,719
Speaker 1: that nobody is above the law. On the other hand,

92
00:05:19,760 --> 00:05:22,680
Speaker 1: I could certainly understand the desire to put it all behind,

93
00:05:23,320 --> 00:05:26,760
Speaker 1: especially since it probably it's ever got into court. It

94
00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:30,080
Speaker 1: probably is not completely open and shut, but there's certainly

95
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:33,520
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot there that could support an

96
00:05:33,520 --> 00:05:37,680
Speaker 1: investigation and possibly an indictment. So far, we have a

97
00:05:37,760 --> 00:05:44,400
Speaker 1: federal court dismissing the lawsuit that Congressman Louis Gohmert brought

98
00:05:44,760 --> 00:05:49,440
Speaker 1: against Vice President Pans. What did you get from that dismissal? Well,

99
00:05:49,480 --> 00:05:52,080
Speaker 1: they were utterly impatient with it. I mean, I think

100
00:05:52,120 --> 00:05:54,880
Speaker 1: even more than the dismissial by the distrecorded dississial by

101
00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:57,800
Speaker 1: the Court of Appeals, which shouldn't even wait till it

102
00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:02,160
Speaker 1: was briefed, I mean over appealed immediately. Uh. And the

103
00:06:02,200 --> 00:06:05,280
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals knocked it out before even for all

104
00:06:05,279 --> 00:06:09,320
Speaker 1: the papers were filed. Um, it's a pretty preposterous lawsuit.

105
00:06:09,640 --> 00:06:12,000
Speaker 1: I mean, it was not decided on the merits. That

106
00:06:12,160 --> 00:06:16,479
Speaker 1: was decided on standing and other technical issues, but on

107
00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:20,280
Speaker 1: the merits. Um. The idea that the vice president has

108
00:06:20,320 --> 00:06:23,360
Speaker 1: a substantive role to play it just makes no sense

109
00:06:24,080 --> 00:06:27,160
Speaker 1: given that you know, in many elections, including this one,

110
00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:30,240
Speaker 1: the vice president himself will be affected by the outcome.

111
00:06:30,320 --> 00:06:31,839
Speaker 1: So the idea that you would give him a role

112
00:06:32,279 --> 00:06:35,280
Speaker 1: in deciding whether or not he wins his own election. Uh,

113
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:40,159
Speaker 1: and given a substantive role, just makes no sense. On Wednesday,

114
00:06:40,520 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 1: nearly a dozen Senators are going to be joining with

115
00:06:44,680 --> 00:06:48,480
Speaker 1: dozens of their colleagues in the House and objecting two

116
00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:53,000
Speaker 1: votes from several closely fought states where Trump has claimed

117
00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:57,000
Speaker 1: baselessly that fraud cost him the election. There is a

118
00:06:57,080 --> 00:07:01,400
Speaker 1: legal basis for that, isn't there? Yeah? Um, so under

119
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:04,760
Speaker 1: the combination of the Constitution and the Electoral Account Act,

120
00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:08,839
Speaker 1: which is the law that Congress adopted to govern the

121
00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:14,120
Speaker 1: this exact process. Um. The the electoral votes are on

122
00:07:14,240 --> 00:07:19,160
Speaker 1: January six, and this is my statute. Congress comes into session. Um.

123
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:22,640
Speaker 1: The envelopes that contain the submissions from the fifty states

124
00:07:22,640 --> 00:07:26,880
Speaker 1: in district Columbia are opened um by the Vice President,

125
00:07:26,880 --> 00:07:30,200
Speaker 1: who the President of the Senate, the Congress together the House,

126
00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:32,520
Speaker 1: the Senate in one chamber of the House chamber, and

127
00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:35,320
Speaker 1: then they're handed over to the clerks, and the clerks

128
00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:39,120
Speaker 1: then read them in the states in alphabetical order. UM.

129
00:07:39,320 --> 00:07:42,040
Speaker 1: My guess Alabama's first, I forget the number of actoral

130
00:07:42,120 --> 00:07:44,200
Speaker 1: votes Alabama less. I think it's nine in a month.

131
00:07:44,880 --> 00:07:48,800
Speaker 1: The confident of that, and that's accepted unless somebody objects.

132
00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:51,840
Speaker 1: Under the law, you need to have one member of

133
00:07:51,880 --> 00:07:54,960
Speaker 1: the House and one member of the Senate both objects.

134
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:57,600
Speaker 1: If only somebody from one chamber of objects, nothing happens,

135
00:07:57,840 --> 00:07:59,640
Speaker 1: you need to have one number from each chamber to object.

136
00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:03,640
Speaker 1: If that occurs, then they are supposed to resets. Each

137
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:06,720
Speaker 1: chamber is supposed to meet separately and debate for up

138
00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:09,400
Speaker 1: to two hours as to whether or not they should

139
00:08:09,400 --> 00:08:13,600
Speaker 1: accept or reject the vote from the the challenge state.

140
00:08:14,520 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: But under the law, both chambers have to say no

141
00:08:18,800 --> 00:08:21,240
Speaker 1: when presented with a set up with the electoral votes

142
00:08:21,240 --> 00:08:23,520
Speaker 1: of the state if they want to reject it. So

143
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:25,480
Speaker 1: you would need both the House and the Senate to

144
00:08:25,520 --> 00:08:28,240
Speaker 1: say no. It seems very unlikely that Alice is going

145
00:08:28,320 --> 00:08:31,280
Speaker 1: to say no since House has a narrow Democratic majority,

146
00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:34,360
Speaker 1: and given the number of Republican senators in the Senate

147
00:08:34,600 --> 00:08:36,640
Speaker 1: who said they're not going to say no, it seems

148
00:08:36,679 --> 00:08:39,480
Speaker 1: unlucky the sentup will say no either. But the process

149
00:08:39,520 --> 00:08:42,440
Speaker 1: will take time because not only is there two hours

150
00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:45,840
Speaker 1: of debate, but they actually would need to vote, and

151
00:08:46,040 --> 00:08:50,040
Speaker 1: under COVID circumstances, with the chambers not being full, the

152
00:08:50,120 --> 00:08:52,880
Speaker 1: vote could take some time, particularly in the House, which

153
00:08:52,920 --> 00:08:55,360
Speaker 1: is a very big body. So it's conceivable of the

154
00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:59,000
Speaker 1: vote itself will take an hour or more, and there

155
00:08:59,000 --> 00:09:02,520
Speaker 1: would be a separate vote on each challenge state. And

156
00:09:02,640 --> 00:09:06,200
Speaker 1: we don't know how many states the Republicans intend to challenge.

157
00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:09,080
Speaker 1: I guess we've been hurting here. He read a maximum

158
00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:12,680
Speaker 1: of six six states that were somewhat close and the

159
00:09:12,679 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 1: final count. But that could mean that this could take

160
00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:19,199
Speaker 1: at least twelve hours and probably at least eighteen and

161
00:09:19,240 --> 00:09:21,680
Speaker 1: accounting the time it takes to vote, so they could

162
00:09:21,679 --> 00:09:24,000
Speaker 1: be very well debating during the night, and this could

163
00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:27,080
Speaker 1: very well take until the morning or maybe even midday

164
00:09:27,360 --> 00:09:29,480
Speaker 1: on the seventh, until it's results if they really want

165
00:09:29,480 --> 00:09:32,560
Speaker 1: to go ahead and have a debate on each of them,

166
00:09:32,600 --> 00:09:35,040
Speaker 1: and I'm guessing at six states that they might want

167
00:09:35,040 --> 00:09:37,880
Speaker 1: to challenge. So Rich, I have a question about that

168
00:09:38,280 --> 00:09:44,880
Speaker 1: eighties law. Doesn't it contemplate that there's two competing groups

169
00:09:44,880 --> 00:09:48,960
Speaker 1: of electors that are being presented by the state. There

170
00:09:49,000 --> 00:09:53,000
Speaker 1: are two different scenarios. One is if there is one

171
00:09:53,040 --> 00:09:56,480
Speaker 1: set of electors, and what I was describing with a

172
00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:59,840
Speaker 1: scenario for challenging that that's all there is. There's no

173
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:04,200
Speaker 1: there are no other official submitted electors for many of

174
00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:07,080
Speaker 1: the states. All the states have submitted just one set

175
00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:11,000
Speaker 1: of electors. Other scenario, and this does deal with something

176
00:10:11,040 --> 00:10:15,440
Speaker 1: which occurred in the election which led to the seven law,

177
00:10:15,920 --> 00:10:18,280
Speaker 1: is that there were disagreements in the states, and in

178
00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:20,160
Speaker 1: a couple of the states in the eighteen seventy six

179
00:10:20,400 --> 00:10:22,880
Speaker 1: the governor sent in one set of electors and the

180
00:10:22,960 --> 00:10:26,760
Speaker 1: legislature sent in something else. If it's two dueling sets

181
00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:30,800
Speaker 1: of electors, um, the two chambers have to agree. But

182
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:33,840
Speaker 1: if if they can't agree, it's supposed to be the

183
00:10:33,880 --> 00:10:36,960
Speaker 1: set that the governor signed, so there is a safety

184
00:10:37,040 --> 00:10:39,959
Speaker 1: valve if they disagree. Or as if it's just one

185
00:10:39,960 --> 00:10:44,200
Speaker 1: set of electors, if they disagree, that those electors count

186
00:10:44,240 --> 00:10:48,160
Speaker 1: because you need both chambers to vote them down. So

187
00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:53,920
Speaker 1: the prevailing wisdom is that there is no possible way

188
00:10:54,040 --> 00:10:57,520
Speaker 1: that the votes won't be counted and Joe Biden won't

189
00:10:57,559 --> 00:11:01,520
Speaker 1: be deemed the winner. Do you agree with no possible way?

190
00:11:01,720 --> 00:11:04,520
Speaker 1: I'm going to say that, given how insane this entire

191
00:11:04,640 --> 00:11:07,680
Speaker 1: year has been, I don't want to say that, UM,

192
00:11:07,679 --> 00:11:11,199
Speaker 1: but I will say that there is no kind of

193
00:11:11,640 --> 00:11:15,560
Speaker 1: legal or constitutional way that all of the law, the

194
00:11:15,600 --> 00:11:19,000
Speaker 1: constitutional and legal provisions, and the votes that we know

195
00:11:19,080 --> 00:11:22,840
Speaker 1: of in Congress all point in the direction that this

196
00:11:22,920 --> 00:11:27,160
Speaker 1: may take longer than normal, longer than ever before, but

197
00:11:27,360 --> 00:11:30,040
Speaker 1: that they will all be, that they will all be

198
00:11:30,080 --> 00:11:33,040
Speaker 1: resolved and Biden will get is what I think. It's

199
00:11:33,040 --> 00:11:36,000
Speaker 1: three hundred and six electoral votes. It might take twenty

200
00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:39,280
Speaker 1: four hours, but that should be the way it works. Out.

201
00:11:40,160 --> 00:11:44,800
Speaker 1: There is reporting that Vice President Pence's aids are developing

202
00:11:44,880 --> 00:11:48,760
Speaker 1: a plan for him to acknowledge the reality of the

203
00:11:48,800 --> 00:11:53,280
Speaker 1: November election, but at the same time making a statement

204
00:11:53,600 --> 00:11:59,360
Speaker 1: about President Trump's claims about election fraud that have been disproven.

205
00:11:59,880 --> 00:12:01,600
Speaker 1: Is their room for him to do that? To make

206
00:12:01,600 --> 00:12:04,800
Speaker 1: a statement? My impressionist that's never happened. But I don't

207
00:12:05,040 --> 00:12:06,600
Speaker 1: know that anything that would stop that. He is the

208
00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:10,400
Speaker 1: presiding officer. He's got the castle, so it would be

209
00:12:10,520 --> 00:12:14,079
Speaker 1: hard to see how he could be stopped. I suppose

210
00:12:14,760 --> 00:12:18,560
Speaker 1: members of Congress could object, but um, since I don't

211
00:12:18,559 --> 00:12:21,920
Speaker 1: think anything like that has happened before, we don't know

212
00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:25,440
Speaker 1: how that scenario would play out. He does that, McCall,

213
00:12:25,480 --> 00:12:28,800
Speaker 1: he is standing up on the rostrum, and it's possible.

214
00:12:29,679 --> 00:12:32,520
Speaker 1: Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show. Rich that's Professor

215
00:12:32,600 --> 00:12:37,680
Speaker 1: Richard Rofault of Columbia Law School. A DC federal appellate

216
00:12:37,679 --> 00:12:41,280
Speaker 1: court has ruled that requests for information by Congressional Oversight

217
00:12:41,360 --> 00:12:45,280
Speaker 1: panels don't require the approval of the majority members. The

218
00:12:45,320 --> 00:12:48,240
Speaker 1: two to one decision overturned a district court opinion for

219
00:12:48,280 --> 00:12:52,439
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. The appellate Court's decision affirms the right

220
00:12:52,480 --> 00:12:56,080
Speaker 1: of minorities on the oversight committees at least seven members

221
00:12:56,080 --> 00:12:58,520
Speaker 1: on the House Committee and five in the Senate to

222
00:12:58,640 --> 00:13:02,360
Speaker 1: request information from federal agencies and to get the courts

223
00:13:02,400 --> 00:13:05,080
Speaker 1: to step in if the agencies refused to comply with

224
00:13:05,080 --> 00:13:08,480
Speaker 1: a request for information. That's distinct from the subpoena power

225
00:13:08,480 --> 00:13:12,000
Speaker 1: of congressional committees, which requires a majority of the committee

226
00:13:12,520 --> 00:13:16,280
Speaker 1: joining me. Is David Sklansky, a professor at Stanford Law School,

227
00:13:16,800 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 1: start by explaining what the lawsuit was all about. But

228
00:13:21,040 --> 00:13:26,000
Speaker 1: that's the lawsuit filed by Democratic members of the House

229
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:31,240
Speaker 1: Committee on Oversight and Reform. They sued the General Services

230
00:13:31,280 --> 00:13:36,719
Speaker 1: Administration for failing to give them information that they had

231
00:13:36,760 --> 00:13:42,280
Speaker 1: requested about the lease of the post office building in

232
00:13:42,320 --> 00:13:47,360
Speaker 1: the District of Columbia to Donald Trump and company. So

233
00:13:47,440 --> 00:13:50,880
Speaker 1: now this is under the seven member rule, not about

234
00:13:50,880 --> 00:13:57,120
Speaker 1: a subpoena. That's correct. Um, There's a federal statute that

235
00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:02,240
Speaker 1: says that certain number of members of either the Senate

236
00:14:02,760 --> 00:14:05,840
Speaker 1: oversyche Committee or the House oversych Committee, it's five members

237
00:14:05,880 --> 00:14:08,560
Speaker 1: of the Senate Committee or seven members of the House

238
00:14:08,559 --> 00:14:14,400
Speaker 1: Committee can request information on any matter within the purview

239
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:18,800
Speaker 1: of the committee from the executive branch and the Executive

240
00:14:18,800 --> 00:14:23,200
Speaker 1: branch has to supply it. That's without a subpoena. The

241
00:14:23,320 --> 00:14:28,160
Speaker 1: lawsuit was brought by seven the Democratic members of the

242
00:14:28,200 --> 00:14:33,800
Speaker 1: House Committee on Oversight and Reform, and they requested information

243
00:14:33,920 --> 00:14:37,800
Speaker 1: pursuance of the federal statute, and the administration refused to

244
00:14:37,840 --> 00:14:41,120
Speaker 1: provide it. So they went to court. So tell us

245
00:14:41,160 --> 00:14:44,720
Speaker 1: what happened at the trial court level. The trial courts,

246
00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:47,320
Speaker 1: the Settle dist the court um in the District of

247
00:14:47,360 --> 00:14:52,800
Speaker 1: Columbia ruled against the plaintiffs because the trial courts said

248
00:14:52,840 --> 00:14:57,720
Speaker 1: that they lacked standing, and standing as a technical legal

249
00:14:58,440 --> 00:15:05,040
Speaker 1: doctrine that says that uh, federal courts can't decide questions

250
00:15:05,080 --> 00:15:08,720
Speaker 1: the abstract. They can only decide questions. They can only

251
00:15:09,200 --> 00:15:13,640
Speaker 1: take on a case when there's something concrete at stake,

252
00:15:14,320 --> 00:15:17,120
Speaker 1: and it has to be at stake between the people

253
00:15:17,440 --> 00:15:20,320
Speaker 1: who are bringing the case and the people who are

254
00:15:20,360 --> 00:15:26,000
Speaker 1: being sued. So I can't see, for example, because I

255
00:15:26,040 --> 00:15:32,200
Speaker 1: think that my son was unfairly taken advantage of or

256
00:15:33,160 --> 00:15:36,480
Speaker 1: he did out of something. And you also can't see

257
00:15:36,600 --> 00:15:40,480
Speaker 1: even if some organization that you're a part of has

258
00:15:40,520 --> 00:15:43,760
Speaker 1: been wrong. So I'm a professor at Stanford, but I

259
00:15:43,840 --> 00:15:48,760
Speaker 1: can't sue because I think Stanford University has a right

260
00:15:48,880 --> 00:15:53,280
Speaker 1: that was infringed on somehow, or Stanford University was unfairly damaged.

261
00:15:53,600 --> 00:15:56,760
Speaker 1: And that's true for members of Congress too. Members of

262
00:15:56,840 --> 00:16:02,400
Speaker 1: Congress generally are not allowed to se because they think

263
00:16:02,520 --> 00:16:05,480
Speaker 1: that Congress is not being treated well, but they can

264
00:16:05,520 --> 00:16:09,120
Speaker 1: sue if they individually have been injured in some way

265
00:16:09,200 --> 00:16:12,560
Speaker 1: that the court has the power to address. So the

266
00:16:12,600 --> 00:16:18,040
Speaker 1: district court said that these members of Congress lack standing

267
00:16:18,600 --> 00:16:23,720
Speaker 1: to complain about a violation of this statute because the

268
00:16:23,840 --> 00:16:28,960
Speaker 1: statute didn't really protect them to protected Congress. So the

269
00:16:29,000 --> 00:16:33,680
Speaker 1: House of Representatives could sue, but these individual members couldn't sue.

270
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:37,480
Speaker 1: That's what the trial court said. Okay, so tell us

271
00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:41,240
Speaker 1: now what the appellate court said. The Power Court said,

272
00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:45,960
Speaker 1: it's not true that these individual members of Congress weren't

273
00:16:45,960 --> 00:16:50,720
Speaker 1: her they were hurt. This is a statute that gives

274
00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:57,880
Speaker 1: a right two groups of congressional representatives to request information

275
00:16:58,280 --> 00:17:01,960
Speaker 1: from the executive branch, even when they're in the minority.

276
00:17:02,440 --> 00:17:06,400
Speaker 1: So it's an unusual statute in that way. And there

277
00:17:06,480 --> 00:17:08,480
Speaker 1: is something we all have to stay to you. The

278
00:17:08,560 --> 00:17:13,480
Speaker 1: Court of Appeal said, between these individual members and the administration,

279
00:17:13,600 --> 00:17:16,320
Speaker 1: these individual members say we have a right to this

280
00:17:16,440 --> 00:17:21,280
Speaker 1: information under the statutes, and the executive brand said, we're

281
00:17:21,320 --> 00:17:24,040
Speaker 1: not giving it to you. So the Court of Appeal said,

282
00:17:24,359 --> 00:17:29,479
Speaker 1: these members do have standings to pursue this lawsuit. Now,

283
00:17:29,680 --> 00:17:32,960
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that they're gonna win. It doesn't mean

284
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:36,320
Speaker 1: that they have a right to the information. It doesn't

285
00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:41,200
Speaker 1: even mean that the court ultimately should decide whether they

286
00:17:41,240 --> 00:17:44,720
Speaker 1: have a right to the information. Because the Court of

287
00:17:44,720 --> 00:17:50,280
Speaker 1: Appeal said that the trial courts can consider uh an

288
00:17:50,359 --> 00:17:54,800
Speaker 1: argument that the Trump administration raised, that it would be

289
00:17:54,840 --> 00:17:58,560
Speaker 1: inappropriate for courts to get involved in this question altogether.

290
00:17:59,240 --> 00:18:02,120
Speaker 1: The trial court also consider an argument that the Trump

291
00:18:02,160 --> 00:18:07,639
Speaker 1: administration raised that this statute doesn't give right to members

292
00:18:07,640 --> 00:18:12,280
Speaker 1: of Congress that they can pursue in court, and the

293
00:18:12,359 --> 00:18:15,240
Speaker 1: trial courts can consider an argument that the Trump administration

294
00:18:15,320 --> 00:18:19,760
Speaker 1: raised um that the kind of information that these members

295
00:18:19,760 --> 00:18:23,200
Speaker 1: were requesting is not the kind of information that the

296
00:18:23,280 --> 00:18:28,200
Speaker 1: statute authorizes them to request. So the Trump administration could

297
00:18:28,200 --> 00:18:32,159
Speaker 1: still win in court when it goes back to the

298
00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:38,920
Speaker 1: trial court, assuming that the administration continues to contest the lawsuits.

299
00:18:38,960 --> 00:18:42,359
Speaker 1: So that the Court of Appeals didn't say that the

300
00:18:42,400 --> 00:18:45,919
Speaker 1: point does automatically win. It just said they don't lose

301
00:18:45,960 --> 00:18:50,240
Speaker 1: on standing grounds. Now, as a practical matter, Um, the

302
00:18:50,280 --> 00:18:53,240
Speaker 1: administration is about the change hands. So there's gonna be

303
00:18:53,280 --> 00:18:56,840
Speaker 1: a new director of the generalman Services Administration and the

304
00:18:56,920 --> 00:19:01,400
Speaker 1: new president, and it's highly unlikely that the new administration

305
00:19:01,520 --> 00:19:07,000
Speaker 1: is going to continue to resist giving this information to Congress,

306
00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:11,720
Speaker 1: so the student is likely to become UH moved once

307
00:19:12,160 --> 00:19:16,320
Speaker 1: the new ministration takes over. Um. What what will stay

308
00:19:16,320 --> 00:19:20,000
Speaker 1: on the books, though, is the decision by the Court

309
00:19:20,000 --> 00:19:26,200
Speaker 1: of Appeals that a minority UH a group of minority

310
00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:30,720
Speaker 1: members of either of the Congressional oversight committees, the Senate

311
00:19:30,800 --> 00:19:35,719
Speaker 1: Oversight Committee or the House Oversight Committee can sue in

312
00:19:35,840 --> 00:19:41,879
Speaker 1: court two force the administration to comply with the requests

313
00:19:41,880 --> 00:19:47,000
Speaker 1: that are made pursue into the Sederal Statute Section type

314
00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:51,200
Speaker 1: of five. Does this ruling fit in with the way

315
00:19:51,200 --> 00:19:57,840
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has ruled in cases recently involving Congress suing. Well,

316
00:19:57,840 --> 00:20:00,520
Speaker 1: that's what the Court of Appeals disagreed about. So that's

317
00:20:00,680 --> 00:20:03,879
Speaker 1: the as is normal on a federal Court of Appeals.

318
00:20:03,920 --> 00:20:06,720
Speaker 1: Beside the case, the case is decided by a three

319
00:20:06,840 --> 00:20:10,000
Speaker 1: judge Channel three of the judges on the United States

320
00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:14,359
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals for the discuss Columbius Circuit, and those

321
00:20:14,480 --> 00:20:19,800
Speaker 1: judges slipped to one. Two of the judges thought that

322
00:20:19,920 --> 00:20:24,000
Speaker 1: he requests that these members of Congress we're making and

323
00:20:24,080 --> 00:20:28,840
Speaker 1: the lawsuit that they filed falls within the decisions of

324
00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:32,119
Speaker 1: the United States Screme Court. Is made about when Congress

325
00:20:32,200 --> 00:20:35,840
Speaker 1: is allowed to s and when Congressional committees are allowed

326
00:20:35,920 --> 00:20:38,320
Speaker 1: to because the United States treame Court has made it

327
00:20:38,359 --> 00:20:44,440
Speaker 1: clear that the House of Representatives can sue to get

328
00:20:44,480 --> 00:20:49,399
Speaker 1: traditional enforcement UH, it's right under the law, and Congressional

329
00:20:49,440 --> 00:20:55,280
Speaker 1: committees consue to enforce their subtoenas. On the other hand,

330
00:20:55,720 --> 00:21:00,720
Speaker 1: individual members of Congress can't to complaint, meaning that the

331
00:21:00,840 --> 00:21:04,720
Speaker 1: committee or UH or the House of Representatives as a

332
00:21:04,760 --> 00:21:08,480
Speaker 1: whole or the Senate as a whole was unfairly treated

333
00:21:08,840 --> 00:21:12,840
Speaker 1: and didn't get what they're entitled to under the law.

334
00:21:13,400 --> 00:21:16,320
Speaker 1: So the question in the cases is a group of

335
00:21:16,920 --> 00:21:20,919
Speaker 1: five members of the Senate committee or seven members of

336
00:21:20,920 --> 00:21:25,720
Speaker 1: the House committee, is that UM like UH when those

337
00:21:25,760 --> 00:21:29,639
Speaker 1: people sue. Is that like an individual member of Congress

338
00:21:29,680 --> 00:21:33,480
Speaker 1: doing saying I think Congress has has been injured or

339
00:21:33,600 --> 00:21:38,080
Speaker 1: is it like um individual members of Congress doing when

340
00:21:38,119 --> 00:21:41,760
Speaker 1: they impact themselves have been injured. So there was a

341
00:21:41,840 --> 00:21:46,000
Speaker 1: disagreement among the three judges, and two of them said

342
00:21:46,520 --> 00:21:51,040
Speaker 1: that the Screen courts earlier decisions suggests that these members

343
00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:54,440
Speaker 1: of Congress have standing, and one member of the court

344
00:21:54,840 --> 00:21:58,840
Speaker 1: thought otherwise. He said that the decisions of the United

345
00:21:58,840 --> 00:22:02,560
Speaker 1: Satescreen Corps proper the interpreted suggest that these members don't

346
00:22:02,600 --> 00:22:07,080
Speaker 1: catch standing. Congressional subpoenas seem to be not worth the

347
00:22:07,119 --> 00:22:10,000
Speaker 1: paper they're written on recently, at least in the last

348
00:22:10,000 --> 00:22:13,399
Speaker 1: four years, because it doesn't seem like there's any enforcement power.

349
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:14,919
Speaker 1: They have to go into the courts and then it

350
00:22:14,960 --> 00:22:18,200
Speaker 1: takes forever. And as we've seen in many cases, the

351
00:22:18,240 --> 00:22:20,760
Speaker 1: Trump administration is coming to an end before some of

352
00:22:20,800 --> 00:22:23,680
Speaker 1: these cases are coming to an end. So is this

353
00:22:23,840 --> 00:22:27,439
Speaker 1: a better way, like for this one oversight committee to

354
00:22:27,480 --> 00:22:31,640
Speaker 1: get information, an easier way than through subpoena? Well, it's

355
00:22:31,680 --> 00:22:35,040
Speaker 1: easier in the sense that the party that is in

356
00:22:35,119 --> 00:22:41,680
Speaker 1: the minority and request of information without getting the committee

357
00:22:41,680 --> 00:22:45,960
Speaker 1: as a whole to approve it. But once the request

358
00:22:46,080 --> 00:22:49,760
Speaker 1: is made, if the administration fails to comply, you have

359
00:22:49,800 --> 00:22:53,840
Speaker 1: the same problem that you have with subpoena. That enforcing

360
00:22:54,240 --> 00:22:57,080
Speaker 1: a right information in federal court can take a long

361
00:22:57,160 --> 00:23:01,320
Speaker 1: time um and the administer ration can run down the clock.

362
00:23:02,000 --> 00:23:05,480
Speaker 1: That's exactly what happened here in this decision is coming

363
00:23:05,720 --> 00:23:08,840
Speaker 1: at the very end of the Trump administration. Now, I

364
00:23:08,840 --> 00:23:13,000
Speaker 1: wouldn't say that that means that it's useless. It happens

365
00:23:13,080 --> 00:23:15,960
Speaker 1: that Trump lost the election and he's on his way out.

366
00:23:16,560 --> 00:23:19,080
Speaker 1: But if he had won the election, he would have

367
00:23:19,119 --> 00:23:21,400
Speaker 1: been in office for another four years, and it would

368
00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:24,120
Speaker 1: have been meaningful that the court had said that there

369
00:23:24,160 --> 00:23:28,120
Speaker 1: was a right to this information. Still, it's unclear how

370
00:23:28,200 --> 00:23:31,920
Speaker 1: quickly they would have gotten the information even with this ruling, because,

371
00:23:31,920 --> 00:23:35,480
Speaker 1: as I mentioned, the ruling just says that that the

372
00:23:35,600 --> 00:23:39,880
Speaker 1: standing doctrine doesn't block this too, the administration still had

373
00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:43,520
Speaker 1: other arguments for why the lawsuits shouldn't be allowed and

374
00:23:43,560 --> 00:23:46,440
Speaker 1: why they shouldn't be required to turn over the information,

375
00:23:46,760 --> 00:23:50,280
Speaker 1: and it could well be that litigating those additional issues

376
00:23:50,440 --> 00:23:52,879
Speaker 1: would have taken another four years. Thanks so much for

377
00:23:52,920 --> 00:23:56,800
Speaker 1: being on the show. That's David Skolanski, professor at Stanford

378
00:23:56,880 --> 00:23:59,280
Speaker 1: Law School. And that's it for the addition of the

379
00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:03,120
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law podcast. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so much. For listening,

380
00:24:03,520 --> 00:24:05,840
Speaker 1: and remember you can always get the latest legal news

381
00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:08,679
Speaker 1: on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on

382
00:24:08,760 --> 00:24:13,160
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your favorite podcasts.

383
00:24:13,480 --> 00:24:16,400
Speaker 1: And please listen to The Bloomberg Lawn Show every weeknight

384
00:24:16,400 --> 00:24:18,879
Speaker 1: at ten pm Eastern on Bloomberg Radio