1 00:00:00,680 --> 00:00:05,320 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grozzo from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:05,559 --> 00:00:09,080 Speaker 1: Senators and President Donald Trump's impeachment trial posed dozens of 3 00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:14,000 Speaker 1: questions to House Democrats prosecuting the case and Trump's defense team. 4 00:00:14,040 --> 00:00:17,119 Speaker 1: The questions ran the gamut from quid pro quos and 5 00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:21,639 Speaker 1: whistleblowers to the Constitution and an unpublished book. Joining me 6 00:00:21,680 --> 00:00:25,320 Speaker 1: is former federal prosecutor Jessica rob a professor at Cardozo 7 00:00:25,400 --> 00:00:29,600 Speaker 1: Law School. So, as far as the question phase, are 8 00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:33,760 Speaker 1: we learning anything new or is it repetition? So far 9 00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:35,760 Speaker 1: from day one and what we've seen of day two 10 00:00:35,800 --> 00:00:38,720 Speaker 1: of the questioning, um, what we've seen really are what 11 00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:41,519 Speaker 1: I would characterize as friendly questions in the sense that 12 00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:46,280 Speaker 1: the Republican senators are posing questions to the president's legal team, 13 00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:50,040 Speaker 1: the Democratic senators are posing questions to the House managers 14 00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:52,680 Speaker 1: I'm all of whom are Democrats. And the point of 15 00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:55,600 Speaker 1: the question seems to be provide an opportunity for rebuttal 16 00:00:55,680 --> 00:00:58,760 Speaker 1: for each side, that is, to reiterate their main points 17 00:00:58,800 --> 00:01:01,320 Speaker 1: and address points that were made by the opposite side. 18 00:01:01,680 --> 00:01:03,960 Speaker 1: And in that respect, they actually remind me more of 19 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:06,039 Speaker 1: the kinds of questions you might see it an appellate 20 00:01:06,120 --> 00:01:09,039 Speaker 1: argument caused by judges who want to actually make a 21 00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:11,080 Speaker 1: point to their fellow judges on the panel to win 22 00:01:11,120 --> 00:01:13,720 Speaker 1: them over, as opposed to the questions you might see 23 00:01:13,720 --> 00:01:17,040 Speaker 1: at a jury trial from jurors, where the questions usually 24 00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:20,360 Speaker 1: reflect questions that are actually on the jurors mind that 25 00:01:20,440 --> 00:01:23,640 Speaker 1: they need answers to before they can get comfortable reaching 26 00:01:23,680 --> 00:01:28,200 Speaker 1: a verdict. This seems much more rehearsed and coordinated and 27 00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:31,319 Speaker 1: with an aim to allowing the lawyers to make particular 28 00:01:31,400 --> 00:01:33,960 Speaker 1: points that the lawyers want to make, as opposed to 29 00:01:33,959 --> 00:01:36,240 Speaker 1: addressing what's really on the mind of the people asking 30 00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:40,600 Speaker 1: the questions. Why it doesn't the Democratic Senator ask a 31 00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:44,800 Speaker 1: tough question of the defense team, why don't they get 32 00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:47,319 Speaker 1: some of those questions that we hear them talking about 33 00:01:47,680 --> 00:01:51,040 Speaker 1: when they come out of the chamber. So that's a 34 00:01:51,080 --> 00:01:53,760 Speaker 1: really interesting question. I've been thinking about it as well, 35 00:01:53,800 --> 00:01:55,640 Speaker 1: and I think the best answer I can come up 36 00:01:55,680 --> 00:01:58,040 Speaker 1: with is that they don't want to provide the opportunity 37 00:01:58,720 --> 00:02:02,720 Speaker 1: for the opposing side to answer the question in a 38 00:02:02,800 --> 00:02:05,840 Speaker 1: way that is beneficial to the side answering the question. 39 00:02:05,880 --> 00:02:08,680 Speaker 1: It's similar to when you're a lawyer at a trial 40 00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:10,480 Speaker 1: and you you don't ask a question you don't know 41 00:02:10,520 --> 00:02:13,440 Speaker 1: the answer to, and you don't ask an open ended 42 00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:16,720 Speaker 1: question to a hostile witness that allows the witness to 43 00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:20,959 Speaker 1: give an explanation that really destroys the point you want 44 00:02:20,960 --> 00:02:23,120 Speaker 1: to make. So I think that's what's going on. It's 45 00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:26,239 Speaker 1: a very strategic calculation. And I said again, I think 46 00:02:26,240 --> 00:02:30,600 Speaker 1: it reflects the political nature of this process and how 47 00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:33,800 Speaker 1: different it is from a regular trial. There was one 48 00:02:33,919 --> 00:02:39,120 Speaker 1: question from Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky that Chief Justice 49 00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:43,200 Speaker 1: John Roberts refused to read. He said, the presiding officer 50 00:02:43,320 --> 00:02:47,280 Speaker 1: declines to read the question as submitted, and this was 51 00:02:47,320 --> 00:02:51,720 Speaker 1: a question about the whistleblower. That was something that Roberts 52 00:02:51,720 --> 00:02:55,120 Speaker 1: has not done before. Yes, as I understand it, the 53 00:02:55,160 --> 00:02:57,880 Speaker 1: reason not to read the question allowed was because it 54 00:02:58,000 --> 00:03:01,840 Speaker 1: may have named the whistleblower. So that's obviously a controversial, 55 00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:05,760 Speaker 1: perhaps unlawful thing to do, to name the whistleblower who's 56 00:03:05,880 --> 00:03:09,680 Speaker 1: entitled to anonymity. And so I think it's understandable that 57 00:03:09,800 --> 00:03:13,400 Speaker 1: Justice Roberts would have paused, certainly, and then decided not 58 00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:16,320 Speaker 1: to read the question. And I would imagine that there 59 00:03:16,360 --> 00:03:20,360 Speaker 1: are conversations going on behind closed doors about the appropriate 60 00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:23,960 Speaker 1: way perhaps to honor the spirit of the question without 61 00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:28,080 Speaker 1: in public naming this person. Well, it's always seemed odd 62 00:03:28,120 --> 00:03:31,480 Speaker 1: to me that many Republicans have pushed to have the 63 00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:35,560 Speaker 1: name of the whistleblower, even at this late stage where 64 00:03:35,560 --> 00:03:38,720 Speaker 1: it doesn't seem to make any difference who the whistleblower was. 65 00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:42,160 Speaker 1: It is striking that there would be any discussion at 66 00:03:42,200 --> 00:03:45,320 Speaker 1: this point about the whistleblower. But I think it's in 67 00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:46,960 Speaker 1: line with some of the arguments and the lawyers and 68 00:03:46,960 --> 00:03:50,080 Speaker 1: the questions both yesterday and today today. Already there's been 69 00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:53,840 Speaker 1: a couple questions about the process and the rules surrounding 70 00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:57,720 Speaker 1: the issuance of subpoenas in the House, suggesting that those 71 00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:01,320 Speaker 1: subpoenas by the House as part of the first oversight 72 00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:05,560 Speaker 1: and then the impeachment inquiries were illegitimate um and perhaps 73 00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:07,800 Speaker 1: then to set up the argument that all the evidence 74 00:04:07,840 --> 00:04:10,960 Speaker 1: and testimony that then flowed from the issuance of those 75 00:04:10,960 --> 00:04:15,000 Speaker 1: subpoenas should somehow be disregarded. Um. So I find it 76 00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:18,520 Speaker 1: puzzling some of the subjects that the suspended is spending 77 00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:21,200 Speaker 1: time on. So I would put in that category some 78 00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:23,280 Speaker 1: of these sort of attacks on the process and the 79 00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:26,520 Speaker 1: issuance of subpoenas in the House, and also the whistleblower complained. 80 00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:32,280 Speaker 1: Does it seem as if Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz has 81 00:04:32,360 --> 00:04:38,400 Speaker 1: gone beyond what he argued that these charges against President Trump, 82 00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:41,520 Speaker 1: even if true, don't rise to the level of impeachment. 83 00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:45,480 Speaker 1: He told senators that presidents could not be impeached for 84 00:04:45,640 --> 00:04:49,880 Speaker 1: legal actions they believe we're in the public interest. Where 85 00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:52,960 Speaker 1: does that come from? I'm not sure where Professor Dershowitz 86 00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:56,479 Speaker 1: came up with the precise language and contours of the 87 00:04:56,600 --> 00:05:00,240 Speaker 1: argument that he made. It certainly isn't something that's born 88 00:05:00,320 --> 00:05:03,039 Speaker 1: out of the Constitution or any laws. I think he 89 00:05:03,160 --> 00:05:05,640 Speaker 1: was really trying to make a logical argument, but he 90 00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:10,159 Speaker 1: didn't do it well, frankly, because it's so extreme that 91 00:05:10,440 --> 00:05:15,360 Speaker 1: it can be rebutted quite handily. I think the better argument, 92 00:05:15,440 --> 00:05:18,640 Speaker 1: and perhaps the one that he meant to make but 93 00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:21,800 Speaker 1: went too far sort of in the moment. I think 94 00:05:21,839 --> 00:05:25,560 Speaker 1: the better argument is that on the facts presented, even 95 00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:28,000 Speaker 1: if senators come to the conclusion that what the president 96 00:05:28,040 --> 00:05:31,400 Speaker 1: did was wrong or reprehensible, that it doesn't rise to 97 00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:34,880 Speaker 1: the level of an impeachable offense. And that's an argument 98 00:05:35,120 --> 00:05:39,839 Speaker 1: that is one I expected, frankly, the lawyers representing the 99 00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:43,279 Speaker 1: president to spend more time on because it doesn't require 100 00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:45,480 Speaker 1: them to get bogged down in the facts. It doesn't 101 00:05:45,520 --> 00:05:48,880 Speaker 1: require calling more witnesses, because if you accept as true 102 00:05:48,880 --> 00:05:51,839 Speaker 1: for purposes of argument, that the allegations in the articles 103 00:05:51,839 --> 00:05:54,839 Speaker 1: of impeachment are true, you can still argue, but it 104 00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:58,000 Speaker 1: doesn't rise to the level of what requires impeachment. And you, 105 00:05:58,520 --> 00:06:01,279 Speaker 1: ladies and gentlemen of the Senate it are the ultimate 106 00:06:01,360 --> 00:06:04,640 Speaker 1: arbiters of what rises to that level. Your decision can't 107 00:06:04,680 --> 00:06:08,080 Speaker 1: be overturned by a court. It's your decision, and you're 108 00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:10,640 Speaker 1: accountable at the ballot box. But you're not going to 109 00:06:10,720 --> 00:06:13,839 Speaker 1: be overturned on this legal question of what's an impeachable 110 00:06:13,839 --> 00:06:16,080 Speaker 1: offense by any other court of law. I've been talking 111 00:06:16,080 --> 00:06:19,920 Speaker 1: to Jessica rob professor at Cardozo Law School, about the 112 00:06:19,960 --> 00:06:24,719 Speaker 1: impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. So, Jessica, the question 113 00:06:24,839 --> 00:06:28,320 Speaker 1: of witnesses has dogged this trial, and at the beginning 114 00:06:28,360 --> 00:06:30,159 Speaker 1: of the week it seemed as if there might be 115 00:06:30,279 --> 00:06:33,479 Speaker 1: enough Senators to vote for witnesses, but that seems to 116 00:06:33,520 --> 00:06:37,040 Speaker 1: have changed. Have you seen anything during the last few 117 00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:42,159 Speaker 1: days of questions that would indicate why the senators might 118 00:06:42,240 --> 00:06:46,200 Speaker 1: not want to hear from witnesses. I don't know what's 119 00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:51,360 Speaker 1: happening UM in private conversations behind the senators closed doors, UM, 120 00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:56,559 Speaker 1: and among the senators along these lines. I imagine that 121 00:06:56,760 --> 00:07:01,320 Speaker 1: this argument we were just discussing about, UM, even if 122 00:07:01,360 --> 00:07:04,479 Speaker 1: you accept the facts as alleged as true, still it 123 00:07:04,480 --> 00:07:06,919 Speaker 1: doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense, or 124 00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:11,200 Speaker 1: you shouldn't vote to convict him here. UM. That that 125 00:07:11,240 --> 00:07:14,520 Speaker 1: would be the argument that might cause senators to vote 126 00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:18,080 Speaker 1: not to call additional witnesses. And so perhaps that is 127 00:07:18,600 --> 00:07:21,800 Speaker 1: UM what senators are thinking about. But of course they're 128 00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:25,400 Speaker 1: all kinds of political considerations that may be dominant here 129 00:07:25,840 --> 00:07:27,680 Speaker 1: as opposed to what I just laid out, which is 130 00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:30,760 Speaker 1: more of a legal analysis. It may be a political 131 00:07:30,800 --> 00:07:34,120 Speaker 1: calculus that they need to move on and carry out 132 00:07:34,160 --> 00:07:37,360 Speaker 1: other business in the Senate and that their constituents are 133 00:07:37,400 --> 00:07:40,640 Speaker 1: tired of hearing them debating impeachments. It may be a 134 00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:43,239 Speaker 1: political calculus having to do with support from the President. 135 00:07:43,280 --> 00:07:46,320 Speaker 1: I don't know. Let's say, during the vote for witnesses, 136 00:07:46,600 --> 00:07:52,400 Speaker 1: it comes down to can Chief Justice John Roberts break 137 00:07:52,480 --> 00:07:56,560 Speaker 1: that tie. Yes, he is the presiding officer of the 138 00:07:56,600 --> 00:07:59,720 Speaker 1: Senate in the context of the impeachment trial of the 139 00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:02,960 Speaker 1: press event of the United States, and so in that 140 00:08:03,120 --> 00:08:06,560 Speaker 1: role he has the authority to break a tie if 141 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:09,120 Speaker 1: there's a fifty fifty tie, much as the Vice President 142 00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:12,000 Speaker 1: of the United States would during normal proceedings of the 143 00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:15,480 Speaker 1: Senate when there is a fifty fifty tie. So it 144 00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:19,920 Speaker 1: is an intriguing thought experiment to imagine that there is 145 00:08:19,960 --> 00:08:23,760 Speaker 1: a vote, perhaps on Friday, about even calling any additional 146 00:08:23,800 --> 00:08:28,480 Speaker 1: witnesses or calling for any additional documents as a general matter, 147 00:08:28,960 --> 00:08:32,080 Speaker 1: And what if the Senate is split fifty fifty would 148 00:08:32,160 --> 00:08:36,120 Speaker 1: Chief Justice Robert be casting the deciding vote on that 149 00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:40,600 Speaker 1: general vote about any additional witnesses or documents, which then 150 00:08:40,880 --> 00:08:43,720 Speaker 1: if that were carried by fifty one votes and were 151 00:08:43,760 --> 00:08:47,880 Speaker 1: followed by specific votes on calling specific witnesses or calling 152 00:08:47,920 --> 00:08:51,040 Speaker 1: for specific documents. So, for example, a motion to call 153 00:08:51,240 --> 00:08:54,720 Speaker 1: John Bolton as a witness, how would Chief Justice Roberts 154 00:08:54,840 --> 00:08:57,360 Speaker 1: vote if required to break a fifty fifty tie on 155 00:08:57,520 --> 00:09:01,520 Speaker 1: that specific motion. So, again, he does have the authority, 156 00:09:01,559 --> 00:09:04,600 Speaker 1: as I understand it, Whether will actually get to that 157 00:09:04,679 --> 00:09:07,840 Speaker 1: point or not is another is another question. Speaking of 158 00:09:07,920 --> 00:09:12,920 Speaker 1: John Bolton, since the revelations about his manuscript have come out. 159 00:09:13,520 --> 00:09:17,600 Speaker 1: Now you've seen that the National Security Agency sent him 160 00:09:18,000 --> 00:09:22,840 Speaker 1: a letter saying that his book contains classified material. What 161 00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:29,000 Speaker 1: happens next. So there's one process for getting pre publication 162 00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:34,280 Speaker 1: approval um from the national security agencies for this kind 163 00:09:34,320 --> 00:09:37,240 Speaker 1: of book, and that has a route that would require, 164 00:09:37,280 --> 00:09:39,400 Speaker 1: I think as the next step for he and his 165 00:09:39,559 --> 00:09:43,160 Speaker 1: lawyers UM and publishers to attempt to negotiate with the 166 00:09:43,240 --> 00:09:46,800 Speaker 1: national security agencies over what's in the book, what they 167 00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:49,400 Speaker 1: deem to be classified, what perhaps could be taken out 168 00:09:49,480 --> 00:09:52,320 Speaker 1: to satisfy them, And that would be sort of a 169 00:09:52,360 --> 00:09:56,440 Speaker 1: process um that they would undertake, uh, sort of on 170 00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:59,200 Speaker 1: the sidelines, if you will. If that breaks down, there 171 00:09:59,240 --> 00:10:02,480 Speaker 1: is the possibility that he could go to court, I suppose, um, 172 00:10:02,559 --> 00:10:05,080 Speaker 1: but I would imagine that he would try to avoid that. 173 00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:07,640 Speaker 1: But that's there as a fallback. But then we have 174 00:10:07,720 --> 00:10:10,880 Speaker 1: the separate tracts of interest for the ongoing trial of 175 00:10:10,920 --> 00:10:15,000 Speaker 1: executive privilege, which is really separate from this pre publication 176 00:10:15,080 --> 00:10:19,160 Speaker 1: review of the book that is going on right now. 177 00:10:19,920 --> 00:10:24,880 Speaker 1: If people have already testified about some of the things 178 00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:27,320 Speaker 1: that are in the book, that kind of material that's 179 00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:31,920 Speaker 1: already out in the public domain, can it still be 180 00:10:32,000 --> 00:10:36,120 Speaker 1: claimed that that's classified or that that's subject to executive privilege. 181 00:10:36,720 --> 00:10:38,480 Speaker 1: So I'm not going to speak to whether it can 182 00:10:38,520 --> 00:10:42,160 Speaker 1: be deemed classified, because that's a separate analysis. But on 183 00:10:42,200 --> 00:10:45,600 Speaker 1: the executive privilege, the fact that much of this information 184 00:10:45,679 --> 00:10:49,720 Speaker 1: is already out in the public domain really weakens the 185 00:10:49,760 --> 00:10:53,640 Speaker 1: claim that it is still covered by executive privilege because 186 00:10:53,679 --> 00:10:56,160 Speaker 1: one of the factors that is taken into account and 187 00:10:56,200 --> 00:11:00,200 Speaker 1: determining um whether something is protected by executive privileg which 188 00:11:00,480 --> 00:11:03,760 Speaker 1: is the ongoing need that the executive has to keep 189 00:11:03,800 --> 00:11:06,560 Speaker 1: it secret. And once something is out there in the 190 00:11:06,559 --> 00:11:09,560 Speaker 1: public domain, it's hard to make a good argument that 191 00:11:09,600 --> 00:11:12,720 Speaker 1: there's an ongoing need for secrecy because it's not secret anymore. 192 00:11:13,160 --> 00:11:16,559 Speaker 1: The executive privilege is a qualified privilege as opposed to 193 00:11:16,600 --> 00:11:20,320 Speaker 1: an absolute privilege, and so it can yield and does 194 00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:24,600 Speaker 1: yield when the need for things to remain secret that 195 00:11:24,760 --> 00:11:28,439 Speaker 1: over which executive privilege has been asserted has dissipated um 196 00:11:28,559 --> 00:11:32,400 Speaker 1: and when there is a very strong need for the 197 00:11:32,480 --> 00:11:35,959 Speaker 1: disclosure of the information. And so in the context of 198 00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:39,199 Speaker 1: the Senate impeachment trial that's going on, right now, there 199 00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:42,080 Speaker 1: is a very very strong case to be made that 200 00:11:42,160 --> 00:11:45,000 Speaker 1: the Senate has a need to hear from John Bolton 201 00:11:45,160 --> 00:11:49,079 Speaker 1: about his communications with the President, the substance of which 202 00:11:49,160 --> 00:11:53,400 Speaker 1: essentially are already out in the public domain. And the 203 00:11:53,440 --> 00:11:57,360 Speaker 1: need is great precisely because of some of the arguments 204 00:11:57,360 --> 00:11:59,720 Speaker 1: that the president lawyers have made about the lack of 205 00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:04,599 Speaker 1: wrecked evidence of the President's intent and of his actions. 206 00:12:04,720 --> 00:12:09,040 Speaker 1: Even and John Bolton's testimony, it would seem could go 207 00:12:09,200 --> 00:12:13,680 Speaker 1: precisely to those areas as to which both parties are 208 00:12:13,760 --> 00:12:17,720 Speaker 1: essentially agreeing there is a vacuum of other direct evidence. 209 00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:21,640 Speaker 1: The President has said many times that he might have 210 00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:27,000 Speaker 1: to exert executive privilege over matters, but he's never actually 211 00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:31,440 Speaker 1: done that, and we've seen, as I mentioned, testimony, so 212 00:12:31,640 --> 00:12:35,520 Speaker 1: as he waived the privilege, so arguably he has um 213 00:12:35,559 --> 00:12:38,000 Speaker 1: That's another reason why I think a claim for executive 214 00:12:38,040 --> 00:12:41,760 Speaker 1: privilege to prevent John Bolton from answering questions in a 215 00:12:41,880 --> 00:12:45,360 Speaker 1: Senate trial about his conversations with the President about Ukraine 216 00:12:45,640 --> 00:12:48,640 Speaker 1: would be a weak claim of executive privilege because, as 217 00:12:48,679 --> 00:12:51,800 Speaker 1: I said, one of the things courts taken too account 218 00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:55,880 Speaker 1: in evaluating claims of executive privilege is the ongoing need 219 00:12:55,960 --> 00:12:59,960 Speaker 1: to keep the information secret. And so we could characterize 220 00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:03,679 Speaker 1: what the president has done, UM by himself tweeting and 221 00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:07,160 Speaker 1: talking about conversations with Bolton and about these matters, we 222 00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:11,720 Speaker 1: could say he's waived the privilege. Um, we could say, uh, 223 00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:14,520 Speaker 1: that he has right talking about it also just made 224 00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:16,720 Speaker 1: it weaker, and he claimed that he has it, that 225 00:13:16,840 --> 00:13:19,720 Speaker 1: the privilege needs to be kept secret. UM. These are 226 00:13:19,720 --> 00:13:21,840 Speaker 1: different ways of sort of talking about the same concept, 227 00:13:21,880 --> 00:13:26,720 Speaker 1: which is that, um, it's no longer a credible claim 228 00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:29,360 Speaker 1: that he needs to keep those conversations with John Boltan 229 00:13:29,440 --> 00:13:33,080 Speaker 1: secrets as a matter of national security or protecting the 230 00:13:33,160 --> 00:13:37,280 Speaker 1: internal deliberations of the president. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Lage. Jessica. 231 00:13:37,640 --> 00:13:40,760 Speaker 1: That's Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardoza Law School.