1 00:00:00,680 --> 00:00:05,320 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grozzo from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:05,640 --> 00:00:08,719 Speaker 1: Four months after Democrats in the House of Representatives launched 3 00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:12,000 Speaker 1: a formal impeachment in Korean to President Donald Trump's dealings 4 00:00:12,039 --> 00:00:15,720 Speaker 1: with Ukraine, the Senate acquitted him on charges of abusive 5 00:00:15,720 --> 00:00:19,200 Speaker 1: power and obstruction of Congress today, an outcome that was 6 00:00:19,239 --> 00:00:22,040 Speaker 1: never in doubt. My guest is Harold Crant, professor at 7 00:00:22,040 --> 00:00:25,720 Speaker 1: the Chicago Kent College of Law. Looking back at this 8 00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:30,800 Speaker 1: process of four months and we're back to the inevitable. 9 00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:34,560 Speaker 1: What's your take on the whole impeachment process. I think 10 00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:37,760 Speaker 1: people looking back at this impeachment will ask themselves whether 11 00:00:38,040 --> 00:00:41,199 Speaker 1: impeachment can work in an era of great partisanship. And 12 00:00:41,240 --> 00:00:44,400 Speaker 1: we've seen in this impeachment proceeding much more than in 13 00:00:44,479 --> 00:00:48,440 Speaker 1: Clinton and much more than in the Nixon debacle, that 14 00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:53,639 Speaker 1: impeachment is pretty weak vehicle give us. There's deep divisions 15 00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:56,400 Speaker 1: between the two leading political parties. It's just not a 16 00:00:56,480 --> 00:01:00,639 Speaker 1: successful constitutional weapon to overcome partnership. I think that's one 17 00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:04,039 Speaker 1: lesson to be learned here, and another lesson is that 18 00:01:04,360 --> 00:01:07,160 Speaker 1: Congress continues to give way more and more power to 19 00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:10,720 Speaker 1: the executive. One of the two articles of impeachment was 20 00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:13,960 Speaker 1: contempt of Congress, meaning contempt not only of Democrats, but 21 00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:17,560 Speaker 1: contempt of Republicans. But the Republicans didn't care. And we 22 00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:20,600 Speaker 1: will see this continuing shift of power over time to 23 00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:24,039 Speaker 1: the chief executive and President Trump has made much of 24 00:01:24,080 --> 00:01:27,399 Speaker 1: that and will so in the future. What should Americans 25 00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:31,679 Speaker 1: take away from the process. What I'm afraid is that 26 00:01:31,720 --> 00:01:34,360 Speaker 1: there will be a faction of people in the United 27 00:01:34,400 --> 00:01:37,200 Speaker 1: States who will become demoralized from politics even more will 28 00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:40,240 Speaker 1: shut down the process, believe that there's nothing to be 29 00:01:40,319 --> 00:01:44,240 Speaker 1: gained from being active, from being engaged, and they will 30 00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:47,600 Speaker 1: just be alienated. And whether they're alienated in a way 31 00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:51,080 Speaker 1: that is destructive of the common good, who knows. I mean, 32 00:01:51,160 --> 00:01:53,920 Speaker 1: some may be energized, some may become more engaged, but 33 00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:56,559 Speaker 1: I'm afraid that other people will look at this and say, 34 00:01:56,600 --> 00:01:59,240 Speaker 1: how can we trust the government processes? No one can 35 00:01:59,280 --> 00:02:01,280 Speaker 1: get very report thing, no one can get a fair deal, 36 00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:03,960 Speaker 1: no one can get a fair trial, and they will 37 00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:06,480 Speaker 1: become sort of marginalized in society more. And I don't 38 00:02:06,480 --> 00:02:09,520 Speaker 1: think that will benefit the American public very much. Where 39 00:02:09,560 --> 00:02:14,480 Speaker 1: the Framers wrong, just wrong to require a two thirds 40 00:02:14,560 --> 00:02:16,959 Speaker 1: vote I mean, even in the case of Andrew Johnson, 41 00:02:17,400 --> 00:02:19,919 Speaker 1: the Senate couldn't get a two thirds vote to convict him. 42 00:02:20,200 --> 00:02:22,760 Speaker 1: One slightly positive thing, I think the narrative of the 43 00:02:22,760 --> 00:02:25,480 Speaker 1: Republicans have changed over time. I think think that's to 44 00:02:25,560 --> 00:02:29,320 Speaker 1: the good. The narrative at first was that Trump didn't 45 00:02:29,320 --> 00:02:32,560 Speaker 1: do anything. The narrative was this isn't a high crim 46 00:02:32,639 --> 00:02:35,239 Speaker 1: or misdemeanor. And I think the narrative now has turned 47 00:02:35,240 --> 00:02:39,120 Speaker 1: to one where impeachment is very serious and this was wrong, 48 00:02:39,160 --> 00:02:41,640 Speaker 1: but we don't think this is serious enough to be impeachable, 49 00:02:41,680 --> 00:02:44,080 Speaker 1: and that's their right to do so under history, and 50 00:02:44,120 --> 00:02:48,040 Speaker 1: I think that line does less damage to impeachment as 51 00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:50,959 Speaker 1: a tool. And I do think that the two thirds 52 00:02:51,040 --> 00:02:53,760 Speaker 1: majority was put in because this is a very rare 53 00:02:54,120 --> 00:02:58,639 Speaker 1: and momentous constitutional action, and so the fact that it's 54 00:02:59,000 --> 00:03:02,320 Speaker 1: taken seriously think is good. Obviously there was partisanship involved 55 00:03:02,320 --> 00:03:04,520 Speaker 1: in this case, but I do think the fact that 56 00:03:04,560 --> 00:03:07,760 Speaker 1: there is a two thirds majority supermajority will mean, though 57 00:03:07,760 --> 00:03:11,440 Speaker 1: the impeachment won't be used, probably less and less over 58 00:03:11,520 --> 00:03:15,480 Speaker 1: time because the hurdle is so high. There was some 59 00:03:15,560 --> 00:03:20,280 Speaker 1: talk on the Senate floor from Senator Joe Mansion of 60 00:03:20,880 --> 00:03:24,560 Speaker 1: having a cent your vote against the president, and the 61 00:03:24,600 --> 00:03:27,200 Speaker 1: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said no, you know, if we've 62 00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:30,480 Speaker 1: impeached him, would center have been a good idea? Center 63 00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:33,400 Speaker 1: may have been a good idea and indeed may have 64 00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:37,400 Speaker 1: generated a majority of both the House and the Senate. 65 00:03:37,480 --> 00:03:41,240 Speaker 1: Center was discussed the great length during President Clinton's impeachment 66 00:03:41,480 --> 00:03:44,520 Speaker 1: as well. The Center, of course, has no impact. It's 67 00:03:44,600 --> 00:03:48,600 Speaker 1: merely a sense of the Congress that the president has 68 00:03:48,920 --> 00:03:52,280 Speaker 1: overceptence spalance. But it does have some public residence, and 69 00:03:52,360 --> 00:03:55,480 Speaker 1: the public will know that at least the Congress has 70 00:03:56,280 --> 00:04:00,080 Speaker 1: taken a stand and taking a stand that interference to 71 00:04:00,160 --> 00:04:04,480 Speaker 1: what the upcoming election should not be countenanced. So in 72 00:04:04,760 --> 00:04:08,280 Speaker 1: retrospect that might have been more effective result. But I 73 00:04:08,320 --> 00:04:11,800 Speaker 1: think that the Congress was hoping that there will be 74 00:04:11,880 --> 00:04:17,440 Speaker 1: witnesses who would change the tide of public feeling and 75 00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:21,560 Speaker 1: sentiment and pushed towards removal from office. And of course, 76 00:04:21,560 --> 00:04:25,080 Speaker 1: the Center would have left the president securely within the 77 00:04:25,080 --> 00:04:28,520 Speaker 1: confines of the oval office. What does this say? The 78 00:04:28,600 --> 00:04:33,040 Speaker 1: Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. Is 79 00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:36,160 Speaker 1: that title up for grabs now? I don't think so. 80 00:04:36,279 --> 00:04:39,480 Speaker 1: I think that there was a great debate. I don't 81 00:04:39,640 --> 00:04:43,360 Speaker 1: think the witnesses would have changed that much in terms 82 00:04:43,440 --> 00:04:46,680 Speaker 1: of leafs. Obviously, the House didn't have many witnesses. The 83 00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:49,800 Speaker 1: House committees did, but the House itself did not um 84 00:04:49,920 --> 00:04:53,880 Speaker 1: and so there weren't I don't think that the reputation 85 00:04:53,920 --> 00:04:56,679 Speaker 1: of the Senate will be tarnished in new way, except 86 00:04:56,720 --> 00:04:59,640 Speaker 1: for the fact that the Senate hasn't stood up for 87 00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:02,720 Speaker 1: its own powers and is letting the President ride rough 88 00:05:02,760 --> 00:05:07,440 Speaker 1: shot over its goals, whether in foreign affairs or um 89 00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:11,359 Speaker 1: in particular, but also in trade wars and other issues 90 00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:14,839 Speaker 1: during that we've seen during the Trump administration. So you've 91 00:05:14,880 --> 00:05:19,480 Speaker 1: written about this, What does the Senate do or what 92 00:05:19,560 --> 00:05:24,040 Speaker 1: does Congress do to get powers back that it's been 93 00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:27,559 Speaker 1: giving away to the president or letting the president take 94 00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:31,800 Speaker 1: for decades. There are some lovers in Congress's hands. The 95 00:05:31,800 --> 00:05:34,640 Speaker 1: most important is Congress can say no to money. So 96 00:05:34,760 --> 00:05:38,599 Speaker 1: if President wants money for the wall but Mexico, the 97 00:05:38,640 --> 00:05:42,000 Speaker 1: Congress can say no. If President wants money for a 98 00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:47,960 Speaker 1: particular policy in Iraq, the Congress can just say no. 99 00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:51,200 Speaker 1: So that's the very critical lever. And another one, of 100 00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:55,039 Speaker 1: course is on appointments. The Senate can say no to 101 00:05:55,680 --> 00:05:59,839 Speaker 1: individuals for judges whom the president selects, or the Senate 102 00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:03,080 Speaker 1: say no to treaties that the president wants to make. 103 00:06:03,120 --> 00:06:07,080 Speaker 1: So these are some constitutionally based ways that the Senate 104 00:06:07,120 --> 00:06:09,560 Speaker 1: and of course the House as well can stand on 105 00:06:09,640 --> 00:06:12,360 Speaker 1: its rights against a president. Of course, they can always 106 00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:16,719 Speaker 1: pass legislation and force the president to veto it. So, Harold, 107 00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:19,800 Speaker 1: you said that one of the constitutional levels that Congress 108 00:06:19,839 --> 00:06:22,919 Speaker 1: has against a president is to say no to money 109 00:06:22,960 --> 00:06:28,480 Speaker 1: he wants. When the Congress refused to give President Trump 110 00:06:28,520 --> 00:06:32,440 Speaker 1: the money to build the wall, he went around and said, 111 00:06:32,520 --> 00:06:36,120 Speaker 1: I'm taking money from the military and the Department of Defense, 112 00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:39,479 Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court just said go ahead with that 113 00:06:39,839 --> 00:06:44,080 Speaker 1: while the case percolates through the lower courts. And I 114 00:06:44,080 --> 00:06:46,120 Speaker 1: think it's a great example because the lower courts so 115 00:06:46,160 --> 00:06:49,760 Speaker 1: far have said that the President has exceeded his constitutional 116 00:06:49,760 --> 00:06:53,239 Speaker 1: powers in taking those moneys and the sort of define 117 00:06:53,360 --> 00:06:56,200 Speaker 1: Congress as well with respect to funding the border wall. 118 00:06:57,520 --> 00:07:04,240 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court allowed the action to continue, um, pending 119 00:07:04,520 --> 00:07:08,360 Speaker 1: the case winding its way to the Supreme Court. Um. 120 00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:11,480 Speaker 1: I think that the President is gonna lose ultimately, and 121 00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:14,360 Speaker 1: I think that the Supreme Court is just try to 122 00:07:14,680 --> 00:07:16,560 Speaker 1: step in to make sure that a lot of lower 123 00:07:16,600 --> 00:07:22,720 Speaker 1: court judges weren't running to halt presidential administration policies before 124 00:07:22,800 --> 00:07:26,320 Speaker 1: they were ventilated in the courts and found their way 125 00:07:26,360 --> 00:07:28,920 Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court. Um. But I do think 126 00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:32,760 Speaker 1: that's a great example of where Congress said no, the 127 00:07:32,840 --> 00:07:37,280 Speaker 1: president bypassed Congress, and the Congress could fight and say 128 00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:39,720 Speaker 1: no more, We're not going to agree to any more 129 00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:43,520 Speaker 1: appointments until you we send your policies. Um. Other Congresses 130 00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:46,600 Speaker 1: have done that, And I think again, and if we 131 00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:50,040 Speaker 1: see a shift to a Democratic Senate, you'll see those 132 00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:53,360 Speaker 1: leverages being used much more effectively than they have. And 133 00:07:53,360 --> 00:07:55,200 Speaker 1: I think enough for the for the country, it's a 134 00:07:55,200 --> 00:07:57,320 Speaker 1: good thing to have more of a more of a 135 00:07:57,400 --> 00:08:01,160 Speaker 1: check and balance between Congress and the president. Speaking about 136 00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:05,040 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts, who of 137 00:08:05,080 --> 00:08:09,160 Speaker 1: course presided over the impeachment trial, did he manage to 138 00:08:09,240 --> 00:08:13,480 Speaker 1: keep himself above the partisan fray? Well, I think the 139 00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:17,680 Speaker 1: real issue with Chief Justice Chief Justice Roberts is whether 140 00:08:18,480 --> 00:08:21,880 Speaker 1: his experience with this partisanship will that affect his judging. 141 00:08:22,840 --> 00:08:25,960 Speaker 1: He has been a critical fifth vote, swing vote in 142 00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:31,160 Speaker 1: a number of important Supreme Court cases despite his conservative leanings, 143 00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:34,319 Speaker 1: because he does care about the integrity of the Supreme Court, 144 00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:38,960 Speaker 1: and this may sort of further his beliefs that you 145 00:08:39,040 --> 00:08:43,280 Speaker 1: need to have a separate Supreme Court, untarnished by political 146 00:08:43,360 --> 00:08:46,400 Speaker 1: leanings in order for the country to run, the government 147 00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:49,000 Speaker 1: to run smoothly. So perhaps, if you want to look 148 00:08:49,040 --> 00:08:53,080 Speaker 1: at a silver lining, maybe this experience will push Chief 149 00:08:53,120 --> 00:08:57,080 Speaker 1: Justice to ensure that the Court is seen as independent 150 00:08:57,360 --> 00:09:01,400 Speaker 1: in the upcoming UM months when they start delivering their decisions. 151 00:09:02,280 --> 00:09:07,240 Speaker 1: So after four months, it seems as if impeachment has 152 00:09:07,240 --> 00:09:11,400 Speaker 1: helped Trump. His poll numbers have never been higher. What 153 00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:14,880 Speaker 1: does that say about the process itself and whether the 154 00:09:14,880 --> 00:09:19,240 Speaker 1: Democrats should have just let it go and not impeach him. 155 00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:25,480 Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi consciously delayed impeachment and rejected others calls for 156 00:09:25,520 --> 00:09:30,400 Speaker 1: impeachment after the Russian investigation UM for just that reason. 157 00:09:30,559 --> 00:09:32,920 Speaker 1: She was concerned that a sort of what you might 158 00:09:32,960 --> 00:09:40,000 Speaker 1: consider a premature UM impeachment would boomerang against democratic interests. Um. 159 00:09:40,280 --> 00:09:44,640 Speaker 1: She waited, and when the Ukraine scandal emerged, she said, 160 00:09:45,040 --> 00:09:47,400 Speaker 1: the time is right. We have to move now or 161 00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:51,560 Speaker 1: or never. Um. Was she wrong? I don't know. I 162 00:09:51,600 --> 00:09:54,760 Speaker 1: think that at that point she really had no choice 163 00:09:54,800 --> 00:09:58,560 Speaker 1: but to continue on with impeachment. She knew was a risk, 164 00:09:59,160 --> 00:10:01,880 Speaker 1: but I think she Alt and others around her, did 165 00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:08,000 Speaker 1: such a serious sort of compromise of national security, serious 166 00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:11,559 Speaker 1: compromise of any kind of ethics um that you had 167 00:10:11,600 --> 00:10:14,400 Speaker 1: to go forward and take the chance, knowing that the 168 00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:16,560 Speaker 1: world would be tough, and it turned out to be 169 00:10:16,600 --> 00:10:22,000 Speaker 1: perhaps even tougher than you feared. Now after the impeachment 170 00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:26,440 Speaker 1: may be over, but there are still House investigations of 171 00:10:26,520 --> 00:10:30,839 Speaker 1: President Trump and how Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler says they'll 172 00:10:30,880 --> 00:10:36,840 Speaker 1: likely subpoena John Bolton. Are there are there legal problems 173 00:10:36,880 --> 00:10:40,760 Speaker 1: there can the president of sort executive privilege. Bolton had 174 00:10:40,840 --> 00:10:43,520 Speaker 1: said that he'll comply with the subpoena from the Senate, 175 00:10:43,720 --> 00:10:47,800 Speaker 1: But this is a subpoena from the House. So I 176 00:10:47,880 --> 00:10:53,080 Speaker 1: think that what John Boldness said is that he would 177 00:10:53,200 --> 00:10:56,880 Speaker 1: comply with the subpoena if a court would instruct him to. 178 00:10:57,679 --> 00:11:01,160 Speaker 1: So what he believes is that should be a orderly 179 00:11:01,200 --> 00:11:06,600 Speaker 1: process to his testimony. So my guess is that if 180 00:11:06,600 --> 00:11:12,480 Speaker 1: the House subpoena him, subpoenas him, he will invite the 181 00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:15,760 Speaker 1: President to respond and wait for the court to make 182 00:11:15,760 --> 00:11:18,760 Speaker 1: a decision whether he should honor the subpoena. My guess 183 00:11:18,800 --> 00:11:23,600 Speaker 1: is that the subpoena will be honored, and that Bolden 184 00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:27,440 Speaker 1: can testify, though a couple of things he might say 185 00:11:27,679 --> 00:11:30,160 Speaker 1: would be subject to executive privilege, and at that time 186 00:11:30,440 --> 00:11:34,600 Speaker 1: the president's lawyer can claim privilege um with respect at 187 00:11:34,640 --> 00:11:38,960 Speaker 1: least parts of his testimony. So that would be my guest. 188 00:11:39,000 --> 00:11:41,440 Speaker 1: I think, if you want to speculate in the future, 189 00:11:42,000 --> 00:11:46,400 Speaker 1: something that may arise but not likely to rise, is 190 00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:51,880 Speaker 1: what if the next Congress becomes more firmly democratic, would 191 00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:56,160 Speaker 1: it try to impeach President Trump again based upon the 192 00:11:56,280 --> 00:12:00,000 Speaker 1: same largely the same evidence that led to the impeachment 193 00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:04,240 Speaker 1: this time. We don't know. Impeachment doesn't seem to have 194 00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:07,920 Speaker 1: a start dat or end date, and it is possible 195 00:12:07,960 --> 00:12:11,839 Speaker 1: that a strongly democratic Congress in the future could go 196 00:12:11,920 --> 00:12:17,640 Speaker 1: back with Bolton's testimony new information and decide to reimpeach him. 197 00:12:17,720 --> 00:12:20,760 Speaker 1: It's never happened in our history, but academics don't know 198 00:12:21,240 --> 00:12:25,720 Speaker 1: whether or not the idea of impeachment as time part. Well, 199 00:12:27,080 --> 00:12:30,959 Speaker 1: suppose let's just say that President Trump becomes even more 200 00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:36,400 Speaker 1: emboldened by the fact that he was acquitted and does 201 00:12:36,480 --> 00:12:40,920 Speaker 1: something that the Democrats feel is again an abuse of power. 202 00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:44,920 Speaker 1: Is there anything stopping them from impeaching him on a 203 00:12:44,920 --> 00:12:47,520 Speaker 1: whole new set of facts. Oh, there's no question that 204 00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:52,240 Speaker 1: the Democrats can impeach President Trump again on based on 205 00:12:52,320 --> 00:12:56,160 Speaker 1: new facts. But we don't know is whether the impeachment 206 00:12:56,200 --> 00:13:00,520 Speaker 1: can cover ground for which the Senate has already acquitted. 207 00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:04,160 Speaker 1: Because the rules i impeachment are not like that those 208 00:13:04,200 --> 00:13:07,959 Speaker 1: in criminal trials, we don't have any kind of double 209 00:13:08,040 --> 00:13:13,320 Speaker 1: jeopardy sense or notions. Um So, Congress, the House would 210 00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:16,599 Speaker 1: be free to impeach President Trump for new reasons, but 211 00:13:16,800 --> 00:13:21,040 Speaker 1: might also be able to include reasons that that to 212 00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:24,960 Speaker 1: be equittal in this case. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law, Harold. 213 00:13:25,160 --> 00:13:27,920 Speaker 1: That's Harold Granted, profess with the Chicago Kent College of 214 00:13:28,000 --> 00:13:30,520 Speaker 1: Law and author of the book Presidential Powers.