WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: New Memo Strikes Impeachment Talk (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.160
<v Speaker 1>Now it's time for our daily Bloomberg lawbrary of exploring

0:00:03.320 --> 0:00:05.519
<v Speaker 1>legal issues in the news, brought to you by American

0:00:05.640 --> 0:00:10.399
<v Speaker 1>Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business Dispute Resolve Faster with

0:00:10.440 --> 0:00:13.800
<v Speaker 1>the International Center for Dispute Resolution, the leader in alternative

0:00:13.800 --> 0:00:18.360
<v Speaker 1>dispute resolution around the world, i c d R dot org. Today,

0:00:18.400 --> 0:00:22.160
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg lawhostud In Grasso discusses the legal implications of President

0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:26.200
<v Speaker 1>Trump's alleged requests that former FBI Director James Commy cease

0:00:26.320 --> 0:00:30.640
<v Speaker 1>his investigation into National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. She speaks

0:00:30.680 --> 0:00:33.879
<v Speaker 1>to Bradley Moss, a partner at Marks a PC, and

0:00:34.000 --> 0:00:37.080
<v Speaker 1>Richard Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:40.760
<v Speaker 1>School and former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. Let's

0:00:40.800 --> 0:00:43.840
<v Speaker 1>start with the criminal offense. Do his actions make out

0:00:43.840 --> 0:00:48.760
<v Speaker 1>a case for obstruction under federal criminal statutes? Yes, I

0:00:48.800 --> 0:00:54.800
<v Speaker 1>think that there is substantial evidence of criminal obstruction of Jospice.

0:00:55.840 --> 0:00:59.400
<v Speaker 1>I believe that they the investigate it by an independent

0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:01.880
<v Speaker 1>special oscutor, as well as by the House and the

0:01:01.920 --> 0:01:09.840
<v Speaker 1>Senate Judiciary compete um. But the memo documented conversation that

0:01:10.000 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 1>in and of itself probably would not arise to criminal

0:01:14.400 --> 0:01:17.200
<v Speaker 1>obstruction of justice. But we put that in the context

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:22.640
<v Speaker 1>of the President asking the FBI director to affirm his

0:01:22.760 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>loyalty to the president, the fact that the FBI director

0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:31.760
<v Speaker 1>was fired, and that the President has acknowledged that his

0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:37.080
<v Speaker 1>firing of the FBI director was connected to the Russia investigation,

0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:41.560
<v Speaker 1>and then the fact that General Flynn was going to

0:01:41.640 --> 0:01:44.959
<v Speaker 1>turn state evidence. Put all these facts together, and I

0:01:45.000 --> 0:01:49.760
<v Speaker 1>think there is what I would characterize a strong evidence

0:01:50.200 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>as the president in criminal um obstruction of justice. But

0:01:55.360 --> 0:01:57.960
<v Speaker 1>it's certainly not an open and shot trase at all.

0:01:58.200 --> 0:02:02.320
<v Speaker 1>It needs to investigate for. And Bradley, do you agree

0:02:02.360 --> 0:02:05.559
<v Speaker 1>with that? Yeah, by and large, I mean I think

0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:08.280
<v Speaker 1>that the evidence we've gotten right now is very strong,

0:02:08.360 --> 0:02:11.519
<v Speaker 1>circumstantial evidence for at least the impeachment charge of a

0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:15.359
<v Speaker 1>structural justice UH to to supplement what Richard was saying

0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:17.720
<v Speaker 1>in terms of the criminal side, the one thing that

0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:20.239
<v Speaker 1>might save the president, which is a legal nuance a

0:02:20.320 --> 0:02:23.120
<v Speaker 1>highly doubt he actually is aware of, is that as

0:02:23.120 --> 0:02:25.919
<v Speaker 1>far as the criminal courts have typically been concerned, and

0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:30.200
<v Speaker 1>a pending FBI investigation in and of itself would not

0:02:30.360 --> 0:02:34.919
<v Speaker 1>qualify as the type of proceeding that would implicate any

0:02:34.960 --> 0:02:38.880
<v Speaker 1>of the obstruction of justice criminal provisions under the US Code.

0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:42.800
<v Speaker 1>So it's a slight legal loophole which just by happenstance,

0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:45.240
<v Speaker 1>would possibly save the president from a criminal charge if

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:48.440
<v Speaker 1>that was ever feasible, But in an impeachment context, he

0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:50.600
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't be quite as limited. I think we do have

0:02:50.680 --> 0:02:54.200
<v Speaker 1>some good circumstantial evidence. I don't believe all the pieces

0:02:54.200 --> 0:02:56.840
<v Speaker 1>have quite moved into place yet though. That's Bradley Moss,

0:02:56.919 --> 0:03:00.000
<v Speaker 1>a partner at marchd BC, and Richard Painter, a professor

0:03:00.000 --> 0:03:02.160
<v Speaker 1>there at the University of Minnesota Law School and former

0:03:02.200 --> 0:03:05.160
<v Speaker 1>ethics lawyer for George W. Bush, speaking to Bloomberg Law

0:03:05.160 --> 0:03:07.760
<v Speaker 1>hostju In Grassoe. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays

0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:10.280
<v Speaker 1>at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio