WEBVTT - Judges Skeptical of Trump Emoluments Lawsuit

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.440 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.560
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. You can't count

0:00:22.600 --> 0:00:26.280
<v Speaker 1>on the questioning at oral arguments to determine the decision

0:00:26.280 --> 0:00:29.040
<v Speaker 1>in a case, but they are a good indicator, and

0:00:29.120 --> 0:00:32.159
<v Speaker 1>that does not bode well for the Democratic attorneys general

0:00:32.200 --> 0:00:35.839
<v Speaker 1>who claimed that President Trump is violating the emoluments clause

0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:39.600
<v Speaker 1>of the Constitution when he profits from foreign and domestic

0:00:40.000 --> 0:00:43.239
<v Speaker 1>government visitors at his luxury hotel in Washington, d C.

0:00:43.880 --> 0:00:47.559
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Bloomberg News reporter Legal reporter Andrew Harris,

0:00:47.560 --> 0:00:52.360
<v Speaker 1>who was at the sometimes contentious Appellate court hearing in Richmond, Virginia.

0:00:52.920 --> 0:00:56.040
<v Speaker 1>So andy for those whose eyes glaze over when they

0:00:56.080 --> 0:01:00.240
<v Speaker 1>hear the word emoluments describe what the lawsuit is about out,

0:01:00.520 --> 0:01:04.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm so glad you're as don't over to say that

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:07.800
<v Speaker 1>no now e monuments clauses. There are two of them

0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:12.160
<v Speaker 1>in the Constitution basically prohibit a president, any president, from

0:01:12.200 --> 0:01:16.400
<v Speaker 1>being enriched by foreign or other domestic governments while he

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:21.440
<v Speaker 1>or she is in office. And last year, actually two

0:01:21.520 --> 0:01:24.400
<v Speaker 1>years ago now, the Democratic attorneys general from the District

0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:29.080
<v Speaker 1>of Columbia and neighboring Maryland sued President Trump alleging principally

0:01:29.640 --> 0:01:33.120
<v Speaker 1>that he is making money from his DC Luxuri hotel

0:01:33.240 --> 0:01:36.039
<v Speaker 1>just blocks from the White House from foreign and domestic

0:01:36.080 --> 0:01:39.679
<v Speaker 1>governments in violation of the Constitution. They want him to

0:01:39.800 --> 0:01:44.240
<v Speaker 1>either divest himself of his hotel and his other properties, or,

0:01:44.640 --> 0:01:48.960
<v Speaker 1>failing that, take other action implied perhaps resigned, uh to

0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:52.840
<v Speaker 1>stop receiving emoluments. So in your story you write that

0:01:52.880 --> 0:01:57.800
<v Speaker 1>the panel of judges was openly skeptical of the two

0:01:57.840 --> 0:02:04.680
<v Speaker 1>Democratic ages. How so, this is a procedurally very complicated case,

0:02:04.960 --> 0:02:08.359
<v Speaker 1>June Uh. It comes up on the trial judge, who

0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:12.000
<v Speaker 1>was a Clinton appointee, refusing to grant permission to take

0:02:12.440 --> 0:02:15.000
<v Speaker 1>an appeal of his denials of the Trump motions to

0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:22.480
<v Speaker 1>dismiss and in another way, of um not ruling on

0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 1>individual citizen Trump's motion to dismiss the lawsuit because he's

0:02:27.520 --> 0:02:31.119
<v Speaker 1>been sued in both capacities. The judges had a lot

0:02:31.160 --> 0:02:34.240
<v Speaker 1>of questions for the lawyers for the ages about under

0:02:34.320 --> 0:02:38.120
<v Speaker 1>what auspices they were continuing to pursue individual Trump. They

0:02:38.120 --> 0:02:41.840
<v Speaker 1>wanted to drop the suit against him, and Trump's lawyers

0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:44.200
<v Speaker 1>said no because they wanted to get an appellate ruling

0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:47.960
<v Speaker 1>that uh, he couldn't be sued, but also as to

0:02:48.200 --> 0:02:51.800
<v Speaker 1>whether or not they could pursue him as president while

0:02:51.840 --> 0:02:55.320
<v Speaker 1>he's in office, or if anybody can sue him for

0:02:55.400 --> 0:02:59.679
<v Speaker 1>a violation of the constitution. So one Justice Department lawyer said,

0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:02.800
<v Speaker 1>ex saily, there's no authority to sue directly the president

0:03:02.800 --> 0:03:05.640
<v Speaker 1>of the United States and his official capacity. If you

0:03:05.680 --> 0:03:08.080
<v Speaker 1>can sue him directly, and they don't want him to

0:03:08.080 --> 0:03:11.600
<v Speaker 1>sue to sue him indirectly as a businessman, is he

0:03:11.680 --> 0:03:14.920
<v Speaker 1>Are they saying he's above the law? Uh? You know.

0:03:15.200 --> 0:03:19.239
<v Speaker 1>The irony of yesterday's hearing is one other spectator pointed

0:03:19.240 --> 0:03:23.160
<v Speaker 1>out to be as nobody said. The obvious solution is

0:03:23.240 --> 0:03:26.840
<v Speaker 1>that the emoluments clause is believed to be enforceable predominantly

0:03:27.040 --> 0:03:31.320
<v Speaker 1>by Congress. They're the ones that can approve or disapprove

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:35.160
<v Speaker 1>of his acceptance of emoluments from foreign governments. They're also

0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:37.680
<v Speaker 1>the ones that can enforce it through the eye word

0:03:38.000 --> 0:03:41.560
<v Speaker 1>impeachment or perhaps some other centre that word was uttered

0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:44.480
<v Speaker 1>at one point by Judge Dennis chet at the hearing yesterday,

0:03:44.800 --> 0:03:47.600
<v Speaker 1>catching more than a few of us by surprised actually

0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:51.520
<v Speaker 1>here at open court. So, Andy, isn't there a lawsuit

0:03:51.720 --> 0:03:57.480
<v Speaker 1>by Congress or some congress some representatives about the emoluments

0:03:57.480 --> 0:03:59.840
<v Speaker 1>clause as well? Yes, and we're still waiting for an

0:03:59.840 --> 0:04:03.720
<v Speaker 1>all ruling on that. That was a lawsuit filed by

0:04:03.840 --> 0:04:08.480
<v Speaker 1>nearly two congressional Democrats, led by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal,

0:04:08.840 --> 0:04:11.320
<v Speaker 1>claiming that Trump's failure to go to Congress and ask

0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:14.400
<v Speaker 1>for permission to accept the monuments, we're depriving them of

0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:17.000
<v Speaker 1>the ability to say yea or nay. Now, of course,

0:04:17.000 --> 0:04:20.160
<v Speaker 1>Bloomenthal and his cohorts filed that lawsuit while the Democrats

0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:22.320
<v Speaker 1>were still a minority in the House and didn't have

0:04:22.320 --> 0:04:25.880
<v Speaker 1>the ability to force a vote themselves. They now have that,

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:29.920
<v Speaker 1>but the President has not come to them for permission,

0:04:30.200 --> 0:04:32.080
<v Speaker 1>and they were asking the court to issue an order

0:04:32.080 --> 0:04:36.920
<v Speaker 1>compelling him to do so. Interesting, very political parts of

0:04:36.960 --> 0:04:41.920
<v Speaker 1>this of this court case. Now, um, the panel was

0:04:42.160 --> 0:04:46.400
<v Speaker 1>three Republican appointed judges. Was there any move at all

0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:50.040
<v Speaker 1>or any mention of the fact to have the judge

0:04:50.080 --> 0:04:54.479
<v Speaker 1>appointed by Trump recused or that he should have recused himself. Oh,

0:04:54.640 --> 0:04:58.839
<v Speaker 1>beware what you wish for. I there was no movement

0:04:58.960 --> 0:05:02.200
<v Speaker 1>to answer your question plainly. Uh. The new judge was

0:05:02.279 --> 0:05:05.160
<v Speaker 1>a Marvin Quadelbelm, who is a Trump appointee who joined

0:05:05.160 --> 0:05:10.200
<v Speaker 1>the bench in September. The other two were Bush appointees. Uh.

0:05:10.320 --> 0:05:13.640
<v Speaker 1>Every judge is appointed by a president from one or

0:05:13.680 --> 0:05:17.479
<v Speaker 1>the other political party. When you start picking off judges,

0:05:17.560 --> 0:05:21.560
<v Speaker 1>I think the conventional wisdom is you could be subject

0:05:21.760 --> 0:05:23.960
<v Speaker 1>to that when you get the judge that you like

0:05:24.400 --> 0:05:27.240
<v Speaker 1>from the other side. So I think other than an

0:05:27.240 --> 0:05:32.279
<v Speaker 1>obvious uh and blatant conflict, I think parties are generally

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:35.200
<v Speaker 1>loath to move to pick off the other side's judges

0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:38.960
<v Speaker 1>for fear of that happening to them. Now, the Supreme

0:05:38.960 --> 0:05:42.880
<v Speaker 1>Court has never taken up a case specifically on emoluments.

0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:47.479
<v Speaker 1>Is there any legal precedent here? Not? Really, No, this

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:50.560
<v Speaker 1>is new, new new. The biggest legal president is obviously,

0:05:50.880 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 1>can you sue is sitting president to enforce the Constitution

0:05:54.320 --> 0:05:57.920
<v Speaker 1>against him? And that's something that we have not seen before.

0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:01.240
<v Speaker 1>So there's nothing directly on point that would control these

0:06:01.320 --> 0:06:04.320
<v Speaker 1>cases going forward. And it's almost certain to wind up

0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:07.520
<v Speaker 1>in the lap of the Supreme Court. Now, the lawyers

0:06:07.600 --> 0:06:11.919
<v Speaker 1>defending President Trump were Justice Department lawyers. Did he have

0:06:12.040 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 1>any personal or private attorneys there? Yes, he did, Actually

0:06:16.760 --> 0:06:20.039
<v Speaker 1>he had one of each. He had Hasha Mupon, who's

0:06:20.040 --> 0:06:22.520
<v Speaker 1>a deputy Assistant Attorney General who handles a lot of

0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:26.720
<v Speaker 1>their high profile appeals, arguing on behalf of President Donald Trump,

0:06:26.960 --> 0:06:29.960
<v Speaker 1>and a private attorney, William Conservoy, arguing on behalf of

0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:33.360
<v Speaker 1>citizen businessman Donald Trump. So we heard argument from both

0:06:33.400 --> 0:06:36.520
<v Speaker 1>of them yesterday. This is really an interesting case in

0:06:36.560 --> 0:06:41.640
<v Speaker 1>the guise of a monuments. Thanks so much, and that's

0:06:41.680 --> 0:06:47.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg News legal reporter Andrew Harris. Thanks for listening to

0:06:47.040 --> 0:06:50.359
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

0:06:50.400 --> 0:06:54.160
<v Speaker 1>the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

0:06:54.160 --> 0:07:00.200
<v Speaker 1>com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg The

0:07:00.400 --> 0:07:02.680
<v Speaker 1>Duck the End and Duck the