1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:03,160
Speaker 1: Now it's time for our daily Bloomberg lawbrary of exploring

2
00:00:03,320 --> 00:00:05,519
Speaker 1: legal issues in the news, brought to you by American

3
00:00:05,640 --> 00:00:10,399
Speaker 1: Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business Dispute Resolve Faster with

4
00:00:10,440 --> 00:00:13,800
Speaker 1: the International Center for Dispute Resolution, the leader in alternative

5
00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:18,360
Speaker 1: dispute resolution around the world, i c d R dot org. Today,

6
00:00:18,400 --> 00:00:22,160
Speaker 1: Bloomberg lawhostud In Grasso discusses the legal implications of President

7
00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:26,200
Speaker 1: Trump's alleged requests that former FBI Director James Commy cease

8
00:00:26,320 --> 00:00:30,640
Speaker 1: his investigation into National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. She speaks

9
00:00:30,680 --> 00:00:33,879
Speaker 1: to Bradley Moss, a partner at Marks a PC, and

10
00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:37,080
Speaker 1: Richard Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law

11
00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:40,760
Speaker 1: School and former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. Let's

12
00:00:40,800 --> 00:00:43,840
Speaker 1: start with the criminal offense. Do his actions make out

13
00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:48,760
Speaker 1: a case for obstruction under federal criminal statutes? Yes, I

14
00:00:48,800 --> 00:00:54,800
Speaker 1: think that there is substantial evidence of criminal obstruction of Jospice.

15
00:00:55,840 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 1: I believe that they the investigate it by an independent

16
00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:01,880
Speaker 1: special oscutor, as well as by the House and the

17
00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:09,840
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary compete um. But the memo documented conversation that

18
00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:13,840
Speaker 1: in and of itself probably would not arise to criminal

19
00:01:14,400 --> 00:01:17,200
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. But we put that in the context

20
00:01:17,280 --> 00:01:22,640
Speaker 1: of the President asking the FBI director to affirm his

21
00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:27,640
Speaker 1: loyalty to the president, the fact that the FBI director

22
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:31,760
Speaker 1: was fired, and that the President has acknowledged that his

23
00:01:31,920 --> 00:01:37,080
Speaker 1: firing of the FBI director was connected to the Russia investigation,

24
00:01:38,080 --> 00:01:41,560
Speaker 1: and then the fact that General Flynn was going to

25
00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:44,959
Speaker 1: turn state evidence. Put all these facts together, and I

26
00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:49,760
Speaker 1: think there is what I would characterize a strong evidence

27
00:01:50,200 --> 00:01:55,240
Speaker 1: as the president in criminal um obstruction of justice. But

28
00:01:55,360 --> 00:01:57,960
Speaker 1: it's certainly not an open and shot trase at all.

29
00:01:58,200 --> 00:02:02,320
Speaker 1: It needs to investigate for. And Bradley, do you agree

30
00:02:02,360 --> 00:02:05,559
Speaker 1: with that? Yeah, by and large, I mean I think

31
00:02:05,640 --> 00:02:08,280
Speaker 1: that the evidence we've gotten right now is very strong,

32
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:11,519
Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence for at least the impeachment charge of a

33
00:02:11,600 --> 00:02:15,359
Speaker 1: structural justice UH to to supplement what Richard was saying

34
00:02:15,360 --> 00:02:17,720
Speaker 1: in terms of the criminal side, the one thing that

35
00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:20,239
Speaker 1: might save the president, which is a legal nuance a

36
00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:23,120
Speaker 1: highly doubt he actually is aware of, is that as

37
00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:25,919
Speaker 1: far as the criminal courts have typically been concerned, and

38
00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:30,200
Speaker 1: a pending FBI investigation in and of itself would not

39
00:02:30,360 --> 00:02:34,919
Speaker 1: qualify as the type of proceeding that would implicate any

40
00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:38,880
Speaker 1: of the obstruction of justice criminal provisions under the US Code.

41
00:02:38,960 --> 00:02:42,800
Speaker 1: So it's a slight legal loophole which just by happenstance,

42
00:02:42,840 --> 00:02:45,240
Speaker 1: would possibly save the president from a criminal charge if

43
00:02:45,280 --> 00:02:48,440
Speaker 1: that was ever feasible, But in an impeachment context, he

44
00:02:48,480 --> 00:02:50,600
Speaker 1: wouldn't be quite as limited. I think we do have

45
00:02:50,680 --> 00:02:54,200
Speaker 1: some good circumstantial evidence. I don't believe all the pieces

46
00:02:54,200 --> 00:02:56,840
Speaker 1: have quite moved into place yet though. That's Bradley Moss,

47
00:02:56,919 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 1: a partner at marchd BC, and Richard Painter, a professor

48
00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:02,160
Speaker 1: there at the University of Minnesota Law School and former

49
00:03:02,200 --> 00:03:05,160
Speaker 1: ethics lawyer for George W. Bush, speaking to Bloomberg Law

50
00:03:05,160 --> 00:03:07,760
Speaker 1: hostju In Grassoe. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays

51
00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:10,280
Speaker 1: at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio