Speaker 1: Now it's time for our daily Bloomberg lawbrary of exploring
Speaker 1: legal issues in the news, brought to you by American
Speaker 1: Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business Dispute Resolve Faster with
Speaker 1: the International Center for Dispute Resolution, the leader in alternative
Speaker 1: dispute resolution around the world, i c d R dot org. Today,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg lawhostud In Grasso discusses the legal implications of President
Speaker 1: Trump's alleged requests that former FBI Director James Commy cease
Speaker 1: his investigation into National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. She speaks
Speaker 1: to Bradley Moss, a partner at Marks a PC, and
Speaker 1: Richard Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law
Speaker 1: School and former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. Let's
Speaker 1: start with the criminal offense. Do his actions make out
Speaker 1: a case for obstruction under federal criminal statutes? Yes, I
Speaker 1: think that there is substantial evidence of criminal obstruction of Jospice.
Speaker 1: I believe that they the investigate it by an independent
Speaker 1: special oscutor, as well as by the House and the
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary compete um. But the memo documented conversation that
Speaker 1: in and of itself probably would not arise to criminal
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. But we put that in the context
Speaker 1: of the President asking the FBI director to affirm his
Speaker 1: loyalty to the president, the fact that the FBI director
Speaker 1: was fired, and that the President has acknowledged that his
Speaker 1: firing of the FBI director was connected to the Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: and then the fact that General Flynn was going to
Speaker 1: turn state evidence. Put all these facts together, and I
Speaker 1: think there is what I would characterize a strong evidence
Speaker 1: as the president in criminal um obstruction of justice. But
Speaker 1: it's certainly not an open and shot trase at all.
Speaker 1: It needs to investigate for. And Bradley, do you agree
Speaker 1: with that? Yeah, by and large, I mean I think
Speaker 1: that the evidence we've gotten right now is very strong,
Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence for at least the impeachment charge of a
Speaker 1: structural justice UH to to supplement what Richard was saying
Speaker 1: in terms of the criminal side, the one thing that
Speaker 1: might save the president, which is a legal nuance a
Speaker 1: highly doubt he actually is aware of, is that as
Speaker 1: far as the criminal courts have typically been concerned, and
Speaker 1: a pending FBI investigation in and of itself would not
Speaker 1: qualify as the type of proceeding that would implicate any
Speaker 1: of the obstruction of justice criminal provisions under the US Code.
Speaker 1: So it's a slight legal loophole which just by happenstance,
Speaker 1: would possibly save the president from a criminal charge if
Speaker 1: that was ever feasible, But in an impeachment context, he
Speaker 1: wouldn't be quite as limited. I think we do have
Speaker 1: some good circumstantial evidence. I don't believe all the pieces
Speaker 1: have quite moved into place yet though. That's Bradley Moss,
Speaker 1: a partner at marchd BC, and Richard Painter, a professor
Speaker 1: there at the University of Minnesota Law School and former
Speaker 1: ethics lawyer for George W. Bush, speaking to Bloomberg Law
Speaker 1: hostju In Grassoe. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays
Speaker 1: at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio