1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,560
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. You can't count

6
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:26,280
Speaker 1: on the questioning at oral arguments to determine the decision

7
00:00:26,280 --> 00:00:29,040
Speaker 1: in a case, but they are a good indicator, and

8
00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:32,159
Speaker 1: that does not bode well for the Democratic attorneys general

9
00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:35,839
Speaker 1: who claimed that President Trump is violating the emoluments clause

10
00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:39,600
Speaker 1: of the Constitution when he profits from foreign and domestic

11
00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:43,239
Speaker 1: government visitors at his luxury hotel in Washington, d C.

12
00:00:43,880 --> 00:00:47,559
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg News reporter Legal reporter Andrew Harris,

13
00:00:47,560 --> 00:00:52,360
Speaker 1: who was at the sometimes contentious Appellate court hearing in Richmond, Virginia.

14
00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:56,040
Speaker 1: So andy for those whose eyes glaze over when they

15
00:00:56,080 --> 00:01:00,240
Speaker 1: hear the word emoluments describe what the lawsuit is about out,

16
00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:04,280
Speaker 1: I'm so glad you're as don't over to say that

17
00:01:04,720 --> 00:01:07,800
Speaker 1: no now e monuments clauses. There are two of them

18
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:12,160
Speaker 1: in the Constitution basically prohibit a president, any president, from

19
00:01:12,200 --> 00:01:16,400
Speaker 1: being enriched by foreign or other domestic governments while he

20
00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:21,440
Speaker 1: or she is in office. And last year, actually two

21
00:01:21,520 --> 00:01:24,400
Speaker 1: years ago now, the Democratic attorneys general from the District

22
00:01:24,440 --> 00:01:29,080
Speaker 1: of Columbia and neighboring Maryland sued President Trump alleging principally

23
00:01:29,640 --> 00:01:33,120
Speaker 1: that he is making money from his DC Luxuri hotel

24
00:01:33,240 --> 00:01:36,039
Speaker 1: just blocks from the White House from foreign and domestic

25
00:01:36,080 --> 00:01:39,679
Speaker 1: governments in violation of the Constitution. They want him to

26
00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:44,240
Speaker 1: either divest himself of his hotel and his other properties, or,

27
00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 1: failing that, take other action implied perhaps resigned, uh to

28
00:01:49,040 --> 00:01:52,840
Speaker 1: stop receiving emoluments. So in your story you write that

29
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:57,800
Speaker 1: the panel of judges was openly skeptical of the two

30
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:04,680
Speaker 1: Democratic ages. How so, this is a procedurally very complicated case,

31
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:08,359
Speaker 1: June Uh. It comes up on the trial judge, who

32
00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:12,000
Speaker 1: was a Clinton appointee, refusing to grant permission to take

33
00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:15,000
Speaker 1: an appeal of his denials of the Trump motions to

34
00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:22,480
Speaker 1: dismiss and in another way, of um not ruling on

35
00:02:22,760 --> 00:02:27,480
Speaker 1: individual citizen Trump's motion to dismiss the lawsuit because he's

36
00:02:27,520 --> 00:02:31,119
Speaker 1: been sued in both capacities. The judges had a lot

37
00:02:31,160 --> 00:02:34,240
Speaker 1: of questions for the lawyers for the ages about under

38
00:02:34,320 --> 00:02:38,120
Speaker 1: what auspices they were continuing to pursue individual Trump. They

39
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:41,840
Speaker 1: wanted to drop the suit against him, and Trump's lawyers

40
00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:44,200
Speaker 1: said no because they wanted to get an appellate ruling

41
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:47,960
Speaker 1: that uh, he couldn't be sued, but also as to

42
00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:51,800
Speaker 1: whether or not they could pursue him as president while

43
00:02:51,840 --> 00:02:55,320
Speaker 1: he's in office, or if anybody can sue him for

44
00:02:55,400 --> 00:02:59,679
Speaker 1: a violation of the constitution. So one Justice Department lawyer said,

45
00:02:59,720 --> 00:03:02,800
Speaker 1: ex saily, there's no authority to sue directly the president

46
00:03:02,800 --> 00:03:05,640
Speaker 1: of the United States and his official capacity. If you

47
00:03:05,680 --> 00:03:08,080
Speaker 1: can sue him directly, and they don't want him to

48
00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:11,600
Speaker 1: sue to sue him indirectly as a businessman, is he

49
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:14,920
Speaker 1: Are they saying he's above the law? Uh? You know.

50
00:03:15,200 --> 00:03:19,239
Speaker 1: The irony of yesterday's hearing is one other spectator pointed

51
00:03:19,240 --> 00:03:23,160
Speaker 1: out to be as nobody said. The obvious solution is

52
00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:26,840
Speaker 1: that the emoluments clause is believed to be enforceable predominantly

53
00:03:27,040 --> 00:03:31,320
Speaker 1: by Congress. They're the ones that can approve or disapprove

54
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:35,160
Speaker 1: of his acceptance of emoluments from foreign governments. They're also

55
00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:37,680
Speaker 1: the ones that can enforce it through the eye word

56
00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:41,560
Speaker 1: impeachment or perhaps some other centre that word was uttered

57
00:03:41,600 --> 00:03:44,480
Speaker 1: at one point by Judge Dennis chet at the hearing yesterday,

58
00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:47,600
Speaker 1: catching more than a few of us by surprised actually

59
00:03:47,600 --> 00:03:51,520
Speaker 1: here at open court. So, Andy, isn't there a lawsuit

60
00:03:51,720 --> 00:03:57,480
Speaker 1: by Congress or some congress some representatives about the emoluments

61
00:03:57,480 --> 00:03:59,840
Speaker 1: clause as well? Yes, and we're still waiting for an

62
00:03:59,840 --> 00:04:03,720
Speaker 1: all ruling on that. That was a lawsuit filed by

63
00:04:03,840 --> 00:04:08,480
Speaker 1: nearly two congressional Democrats, led by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal,

64
00:04:08,840 --> 00:04:11,320
Speaker 1: claiming that Trump's failure to go to Congress and ask

65
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:14,400
Speaker 1: for permission to accept the monuments, we're depriving them of

66
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 1: the ability to say yea or nay. Now, of course,

67
00:04:17,000 --> 00:04:20,160
Speaker 1: Bloomenthal and his cohorts filed that lawsuit while the Democrats

68
00:04:20,320 --> 00:04:22,320
Speaker 1: were still a minority in the House and didn't have

69
00:04:22,320 --> 00:04:25,880
Speaker 1: the ability to force a vote themselves. They now have that,

70
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:29,920
Speaker 1: but the President has not come to them for permission,

71
00:04:30,200 --> 00:04:32,080
Speaker 1: and they were asking the court to issue an order

72
00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:36,920
Speaker 1: compelling him to do so. Interesting, very political parts of

73
00:04:36,960 --> 00:04:41,920
Speaker 1: this of this court case. Now, um, the panel was

74
00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:46,400
Speaker 1: three Republican appointed judges. Was there any move at all

75
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:50,040
Speaker 1: or any mention of the fact to have the judge

76
00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:54,479
Speaker 1: appointed by Trump recused or that he should have recused himself. Oh,

77
00:04:54,640 --> 00:04:58,839
Speaker 1: beware what you wish for. I there was no movement

78
00:04:58,960 --> 00:05:02,200
Speaker 1: to answer your question plainly. Uh. The new judge was

79
00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:05,160
Speaker 1: a Marvin Quadelbelm, who is a Trump appointee who joined

80
00:05:05,160 --> 00:05:10,200
Speaker 1: the bench in September. The other two were Bush appointees. Uh.

81
00:05:10,320 --> 00:05:13,640
Speaker 1: Every judge is appointed by a president from one or

82
00:05:13,680 --> 00:05:17,479
Speaker 1: the other political party. When you start picking off judges,

83
00:05:17,560 --> 00:05:21,560
Speaker 1: I think the conventional wisdom is you could be subject

84
00:05:21,760 --> 00:05:23,960
Speaker 1: to that when you get the judge that you like

85
00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:27,240
Speaker 1: from the other side. So I think other than an

86
00:05:27,240 --> 00:05:32,279
Speaker 1: obvious uh and blatant conflict, I think parties are generally

87
00:05:32,360 --> 00:05:35,200
Speaker 1: loath to move to pick off the other side's judges

88
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:38,960
Speaker 1: for fear of that happening to them. Now, the Supreme

89
00:05:38,960 --> 00:05:42,880
Speaker 1: Court has never taken up a case specifically on emoluments.

90
00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:47,479
Speaker 1: Is there any legal precedent here? Not? Really, No, this

91
00:05:47,680 --> 00:05:50,560
Speaker 1: is new, new new. The biggest legal president is obviously,

92
00:05:50,880 --> 00:05:53,960
Speaker 1: can you sue is sitting president to enforce the Constitution

93
00:05:54,320 --> 00:05:57,920
Speaker 1: against him? And that's something that we have not seen before.

94
00:05:58,279 --> 00:06:01,240
Speaker 1: So there's nothing directly on point that would control these

95
00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:04,320
Speaker 1: cases going forward. And it's almost certain to wind up

96
00:06:04,320 --> 00:06:07,520
Speaker 1: in the lap of the Supreme Court. Now, the lawyers

97
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:11,919
Speaker 1: defending President Trump were Justice Department lawyers. Did he have

98
00:06:12,040 --> 00:06:16,760
Speaker 1: any personal or private attorneys there? Yes, he did, Actually

99
00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:20,039
Speaker 1: he had one of each. He had Hasha Mupon, who's

100
00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:22,520
Speaker 1: a deputy Assistant Attorney General who handles a lot of

101
00:06:22,520 --> 00:06:26,720
Speaker 1: their high profile appeals, arguing on behalf of President Donald Trump,

102
00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:29,960
Speaker 1: and a private attorney, William Conservoy, arguing on behalf of

103
00:06:30,040 --> 00:06:33,360
Speaker 1: citizen businessman Donald Trump. So we heard argument from both

104
00:06:33,400 --> 00:06:36,520
Speaker 1: of them yesterday. This is really an interesting case in

105
00:06:36,560 --> 00:06:41,640
Speaker 1: the guise of a monuments. Thanks so much, and that's

106
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:47,040
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News legal reporter Andrew Harris. Thanks for listening to

107
00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:50,359
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

108
00:06:50,400 --> 00:06:54,160
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

109
00:06:54,160 --> 00:07:00,200
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg The

110
00:07:00,400 --> 00:07:02,680
Speaker 1: Duck the End and Duck the