Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. You can't count
Speaker 1: on the questioning at oral arguments to determine the decision
Speaker 1: in a case, but they are a good indicator, and
Speaker 1: that does not bode well for the Democratic attorneys general
Speaker 1: who claimed that President Trump is violating the emoluments clause
Speaker 1: of the Constitution when he profits from foreign and domestic
Speaker 1: government visitors at his luxury hotel in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg News reporter Legal reporter Andrew Harris,
Speaker 1: who was at the sometimes contentious Appellate court hearing in Richmond, Virginia.
Speaker 1: So andy for those whose eyes glaze over when they
Speaker 1: hear the word emoluments describe what the lawsuit is about out,
Speaker 1: I'm so glad you're as don't over to say that
Speaker 1: no now e monuments clauses. There are two of them
Speaker 1: in the Constitution basically prohibit a president, any president, from
Speaker 1: being enriched by foreign or other domestic governments while he
Speaker 1: or she is in office. And last year, actually two
Speaker 1: years ago now, the Democratic attorneys general from the District
Speaker 1: of Columbia and neighboring Maryland sued President Trump alleging principally
Speaker 1: that he is making money from his DC Luxuri hotel
Speaker 1: just blocks from the White House from foreign and domestic
Speaker 1: governments in violation of the Constitution. They want him to
Speaker 1: either divest himself of his hotel and his other properties, or,
Speaker 1: failing that, take other action implied perhaps resigned, uh to
Speaker 1: stop receiving emoluments. So in your story you write that
Speaker 1: the panel of judges was openly skeptical of the two
Speaker 1: Democratic ages. How so, this is a procedurally very complicated case,
Speaker 1: June Uh. It comes up on the trial judge, who
Speaker 1: was a Clinton appointee, refusing to grant permission to take
Speaker 1: an appeal of his denials of the Trump motions to
Speaker 1: dismiss and in another way, of um not ruling on
Speaker 1: individual citizen Trump's motion to dismiss the lawsuit because he's
Speaker 1: been sued in both capacities. The judges had a lot
Speaker 1: of questions for the lawyers for the ages about under
Speaker 1: what auspices they were continuing to pursue individual Trump. They
Speaker 1: wanted to drop the suit against him, and Trump's lawyers
Speaker 1: said no because they wanted to get an appellate ruling
Speaker 1: that uh, he couldn't be sued, but also as to
Speaker 1: whether or not they could pursue him as president while
Speaker 1: he's in office, or if anybody can sue him for
Speaker 1: a violation of the constitution. So one Justice Department lawyer said,
Speaker 1: ex saily, there's no authority to sue directly the president
Speaker 1: of the United States and his official capacity. If you
Speaker 1: can sue him directly, and they don't want him to
Speaker 1: sue to sue him indirectly as a businessman, is he
Speaker 1: Are they saying he's above the law? Uh? You know.
Speaker 1: The irony of yesterday's hearing is one other spectator pointed
Speaker 1: out to be as nobody said. The obvious solution is
Speaker 1: that the emoluments clause is believed to be enforceable predominantly
Speaker 1: by Congress. They're the ones that can approve or disapprove
Speaker 1: of his acceptance of emoluments from foreign governments. They're also
Speaker 1: the ones that can enforce it through the eye word
Speaker 1: impeachment or perhaps some other centre that word was uttered
Speaker 1: at one point by Judge Dennis chet at the hearing yesterday,
Speaker 1: catching more than a few of us by surprised actually
Speaker 1: here at open court. So, Andy, isn't there a lawsuit
Speaker 1: by Congress or some congress some representatives about the emoluments
Speaker 1: clause as well? Yes, and we're still waiting for an
Speaker 1: all ruling on that. That was a lawsuit filed by
Speaker 1: nearly two congressional Democrats, led by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal,
Speaker 1: claiming that Trump's failure to go to Congress and ask
Speaker 1: for permission to accept the monuments, we're depriving them of
Speaker 1: the ability to say yea or nay. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: Bloomenthal and his cohorts filed that lawsuit while the Democrats
Speaker 1: were still a minority in the House and didn't have
Speaker 1: the ability to force a vote themselves. They now have that,
Speaker 1: but the President has not come to them for permission,
Speaker 1: and they were asking the court to issue an order
Speaker 1: compelling him to do so. Interesting, very political parts of
Speaker 1: this of this court case. Now, um, the panel was
Speaker 1: three Republican appointed judges. Was there any move at all
Speaker 1: or any mention of the fact to have the judge
Speaker 1: appointed by Trump recused or that he should have recused himself. Oh,
Speaker 1: beware what you wish for. I there was no movement
Speaker 1: to answer your question plainly. Uh. The new judge was
Speaker 1: a Marvin Quadelbelm, who is a Trump appointee who joined
Speaker 1: the bench in September. The other two were Bush appointees. Uh.
Speaker 1: Every judge is appointed by a president from one or
Speaker 1: the other political party. When you start picking off judges,
Speaker 1: I think the conventional wisdom is you could be subject
Speaker 1: to that when you get the judge that you like
Speaker 1: from the other side. So I think other than an
Speaker 1: obvious uh and blatant conflict, I think parties are generally
Speaker 1: loath to move to pick off the other side's judges
Speaker 1: for fear of that happening to them. Now, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has never taken up a case specifically on emoluments.
Speaker 1: Is there any legal precedent here? Not? Really, No, this
Speaker 1: is new, new new. The biggest legal president is obviously,
Speaker 1: can you sue is sitting president to enforce the Constitution
Speaker 1: against him? And that's something that we have not seen before.
Speaker 1: So there's nothing directly on point that would control these
Speaker 1: cases going forward. And it's almost certain to wind up
Speaker 1: in the lap of the Supreme Court. Now, the lawyers
Speaker 1: defending President Trump were Justice Department lawyers. Did he have
Speaker 1: any personal or private attorneys there? Yes, he did, Actually
Speaker 1: he had one of each. He had Hasha Mupon, who's
Speaker 1: a deputy Assistant Attorney General who handles a lot of
Speaker 1: their high profile appeals, arguing on behalf of President Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and a private attorney, William Conservoy, arguing on behalf of
Speaker 1: citizen businessman Donald Trump. So we heard argument from both
Speaker 1: of them yesterday. This is really an interesting case in
Speaker 1: the guise of a monuments. Thanks so much, and that's
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News legal reporter Andrew Harris. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg The
Speaker 1: Duck the End and Duck the