WEBVTT - Repercussions of the Trump Acquittal 0:00:00.680 --> 0:00:05.320 You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grozzo from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:05.640 --> 0:00:08.719 Four months after Democrats in the House of Representatives launched 0:00:08.720 --> 0:00:12.000 a formal impeachment in Korean to President Donald Trump's dealings 0:00:12.039 --> 0:00:15.720 with Ukraine, the Senate acquitted him on charges of abusive 0:00:15.720 --> 0:00:19.200 power and obstruction of Congress today, an outcome that was 0:00:19.239 --> 0:00:22.040 never in doubt. My guest is Harold Crant, professor at 0:00:22.040 --> 0:00:25.720 the Chicago Kent College of Law. Looking back at this 0:00:25.920 --> 0:00:30.800 process of four months and we're back to the inevitable. 0:00:31.200 --> 0:00:34.560 What's your take on the whole impeachment process. I think 0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:37.760 people looking back at this impeachment will ask themselves whether 0:00:38.040 --> 0:00:41.199 impeachment can work in an era of great partisanship. And 0:00:41.240 --> 0:00:44.400 we've seen in this impeachment proceeding much more than in 0:00:44.479 --> 0:00:48.440 Clinton and much more than in the Nixon debacle, that 0:00:48.760 --> 0:00:53.639 impeachment is pretty weak vehicle give us. There's deep divisions 0:00:53.680 --> 0:00:56.400 between the two leading political parties. It's just not a 0:00:56.480 --> 0:01:00.639 successful constitutional weapon to overcome partnership. I think that's one 0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:04.039 lesson to be learned here, and another lesson is that 0:01:04.360 --> 0:01:07.160 Congress continues to give way more and more power to 0:01:07.360 --> 0:01:10.720 the executive. One of the two articles of impeachment was 0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:13.960 contempt of Congress, meaning contempt not only of Democrats, but 0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:17.560 contempt of Republicans. But the Republicans didn't care. And we 0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:20.600 will see this continuing shift of power over time to 0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:24.039 the chief executive and President Trump has made much of 0:01:24.080 --> 0:01:27.399 that and will so in the future. What should Americans 0:01:27.959 --> 0:01:31.679 take away from the process. What I'm afraid is that 0:01:31.720 --> 0:01:34.360 there will be a faction of people in the United 0:01:34.400 --> 0:01:37.200 States who will become demoralized from politics even more will 0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:40.240 shut down the process, believe that there's nothing to be 0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:44.240 gained from being active, from being engaged, and they will 0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:47.600 just be alienated. And whether they're alienated in a way 0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:51.080 that is destructive of the common good, who knows. I mean, 0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:53.920 some may be energized, some may become more engaged, but 0:01:53.920 --> 0:01:56.559 I'm afraid that other people will look at this and say, 0:01:56.600 --> 0:01:59.240 how can we trust the government processes? No one can 0:01:59.280 --> 0:02:01.280 get very report thing, no one can get a fair deal, 0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:03.960 no one can get a fair trial, and they will 0:02:04.000 --> 0:02:06.480 become sort of marginalized in society more. And I don't 0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:09.520 think that will benefit the American public very much. Where 0:02:09.560 --> 0:02:14.480 the Framers wrong, just wrong to require a two thirds 0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:16.959 vote I mean, even in the case of Andrew Johnson, 0:02:17.400 --> 0:02:19.919 the Senate couldn't get a two thirds vote to convict him. 0:02:20.200 --> 0:02:22.760 One slightly positive thing, I think the narrative of the 0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:25.480 Republicans have changed over time. I think think that's to 0:02:25.560 --> 0:02:29.320 the good. The narrative at first was that Trump didn't 0:02:29.320 --> 0:02:32.560 do anything. The narrative was this isn't a high crim 0:02:32.639 --> 0:02:35.239 or misdemeanor. And I think the narrative now has turned 0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:39.120 to one where impeachment is very serious and this was wrong, 0:02:39.160 --> 0:02:41.640 but we don't think this is serious enough to be impeachable, 0:02:41.680 --> 0:02:44.080 and that's their right to do so under history, and 0:02:44.120 --> 0:02:48.040 I think that line does less damage to impeachment as 0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:50.959 a tool. And I do think that the two thirds 0:02:51.040 --> 0:02:53.760 majority was put in because this is a very rare 0:02:54.120 --> 0:02:58.639 and momentous constitutional action, and so the fact that it's 0:02:59.000 --> 0:03:02.320 taken seriously think is good. Obviously there was partisanship involved 0:03:02.320 --> 0:03:04.520 in this case, but I do think the fact that 0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:07.760 there is a two thirds majority supermajority will mean, though 0:03:07.760 --> 0:03:11.440 the impeachment won't be used, probably less and less over 0:03:11.520 --> 0:03:15.480 time because the hurdle is so high. There was some 0:03:15.560 --> 0:03:20.280 talk on the Senate floor from Senator Joe Mansion of 0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:24.560 having a cent your vote against the president, and the 0:03:24.600 --> 0:03:27.200 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said no, you know, if we've 0:03:27.240 --> 0:03:30.480 impeached him, would center have been a good idea? Center 0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:33.400 may have been a good idea and indeed may have 0:03:33.520 --> 0:03:37.400 generated a majority of both the House and the Senate. 0:03:37.480 --> 0:03:41.240 Center was discussed the great length during President Clinton's impeachment 0:03:41.480 --> 0:03:44.520 as well. The Center, of course, has no impact. It's 0:03:44.600 --> 0:03:48.600 merely a sense of the Congress that the president has 0:03:48.920 --> 0:03:52.280 overceptence spalance. But it does have some public residence, and 0:03:52.360 --> 0:03:55.480 the public will know that at least the Congress has 0:03:56.280 --> 0:04:00.080 taken a stand and taking a stand that interference to 0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:04.480 what the upcoming election should not be countenanced. So in 0:04:04.760 --> 0:04:08.280 retrospect that might have been more effective result. But I 0:04:08.320 --> 0:04:11.800 think that the Congress was hoping that there will be 0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:17.440 witnesses who would change the tide of public feeling and 0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:21.560 sentiment and pushed towards removal from office. And of course, 0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:25.080 the Center would have left the president securely within the 0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:28.520 confines of the oval office. What does this say? The 0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:33.040 Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. Is 0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:36.160 that title up for grabs now? I don't think so. 0:04:36.279 --> 0:04:39.480 I think that there was a great debate. I don't 0:04:39.640 --> 0:04:43.360 think the witnesses would have changed that much in terms 0:04:43.440 --> 0:04:46.680 of leafs. Obviously, the House didn't have many witnesses. The 0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:49.800 House committees did, but the House itself did not um 0:04:49.920 --> 0:04:53.880 and so there weren't I don't think that the reputation 0:04:53.920 --> 0:04:56.679 of the Senate will be tarnished in new way, except 0:04:56.720 --> 0:04:59.640 for the fact that the Senate hasn't stood up for 0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:02.720 its own powers and is letting the President ride rough 0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:07.440 shot over its goals, whether in foreign affairs or um 0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:11.359 in particular, but also in trade wars and other issues 0:05:11.440 --> 0:05:14.839 during that we've seen during the Trump administration. So you've 0:05:14.880 --> 0:05:19.480 written about this, What does the Senate do or what 0:05:19.560 --> 0:05:24.040 does Congress do to get powers back that it's been 0:05:24.160 --> 0:05:27.559 giving away to the president or letting the president take 0:05:27.760 --> 0:05:31.800 for decades. There are some lovers in Congress's hands. The 0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:34.640 most important is Congress can say no to money. So 0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:38.599 if President wants money for the wall but Mexico, the 0:05:38.640 --> 0:05:42.000 Congress can say no. If President wants money for a 0:05:42.160 --> 0:05:47.960 particular policy in Iraq, the Congress can just say no. 0:05:48.160 --> 0:05:51.200 So that's the very critical lever. And another one, of 0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:55.039 course is on appointments. The Senate can say no to 0:05:55.680 --> 0:05:59.839 individuals for judges whom the president selects, or the Senate 0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:03.080 say no to treaties that the president wants to make. 0:06:03.120 --> 0:06:07.080 So these are some constitutionally based ways that the Senate 0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:09.560 and of course the House as well can stand on 0:06:09.640 --> 0:06:12.360 its rights against a president. Of course, they can always 0:06:12.400 --> 0:06:16.719 pass legislation and force the president to veto it. So, Harold, 0:06:16.760 --> 0:06:19.800 you said that one of the constitutional levels that Congress 0:06:19.839 --> 0:06:22.919 has against a president is to say no to money 0:06:22.960 --> 0:06:28.480 he wants. When the Congress refused to give President Trump 0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:32.440 the money to build the wall, he went around and said, 0:06:32.520 --> 0:06:36.120 I'm taking money from the military and the Department of Defense, 0:06:36.640 --> 0:06:39.479 and the Supreme Court just said go ahead with that 0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:44.080 while the case percolates through the lower courts. And I 0:06:44.080 --> 0:06:46.120 think it's a great example because the lower courts so 0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:49.760 far have said that the President has exceeded his constitutional 0:06:49.760 --> 0:06:53.239 powers in taking those moneys and the sort of define 0:06:53.360 --> 0:06:56.200 Congress as well with respect to funding the border wall. 0:06:57.520 --> 0:07:04.240 The Supreme Court allowed the action to continue, um, pending 0:07:04.520 --> 0:07:08.360 the case winding its way to the Supreme Court. Um. 0:07:08.400 --> 0:07:11.480 I think that the President is gonna lose ultimately, and 0:07:11.520 --> 0:07:14.360 I think that the Supreme Court is just try to 0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:16.560 step in to make sure that a lot of lower 0:07:16.600 --> 0:07:22.720 court judges weren't running to halt presidential administration policies before 0:07:22.800 --> 0:07:26.320 they were ventilated in the courts and found their way 0:07:26.360 --> 0:07:28.920 up to the Supreme Court. Um. But I do think 0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:32.760 that's a great example of where Congress said no, the 0:07:32.840 --> 0:07:37.280 president bypassed Congress, and the Congress could fight and say 0:07:37.520 --> 0:07:39.720 no more, We're not going to agree to any more 0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:43.520 appointments until you we send your policies. Um. Other Congresses 0:07:43.560 --> 0:07:46.600 have done that, And I think again, and if we 0:07:46.640 --> 0:07:50.040 see a shift to a Democratic Senate, you'll see those 0:07:50.120 --> 0:07:53.360 leverages being used much more effectively than they have. And 0:07:53.360 --> 0:07:55.200 I think enough for the for the country, it's a 0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:57.320 good thing to have more of a more of a 0:07:57.400 --> 0:08:01.160 check and balance between Congress and the president. Speaking about 0:08:01.160 --> 0:08:05.040 the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts, who of 0:08:05.080 --> 0:08:09.160 course presided over the impeachment trial, did he manage to 0:08:09.240 --> 0:08:13.480 keep himself above the partisan fray? Well, I think the 0:08:13.520 --> 0:08:17.680 real issue with Chief Justice Chief Justice Roberts is whether 0:08:18.480 --> 0:08:21.880 his experience with this partisanship will that affect his judging. 0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:25.960 He has been a critical fifth vote, swing vote in 0:08:26.240 --> 0:08:31.160 a number of important Supreme Court cases despite his conservative leanings, 0:08:31.800 --> 0:08:34.319 because he does care about the integrity of the Supreme Court, 0:08:34.800 --> 0:08:38.960 and this may sort of further his beliefs that you 0:08:39.040 --> 0:08:43.280 need to have a separate Supreme Court, untarnished by political 0:08:43.360 --> 0:08:46.400 leanings in order for the country to run, the government 0:08:46.440 --> 0:08:49.000 to run smoothly. So perhaps, if you want to look 0:08:49.040 --> 0:08:53.080 at a silver lining, maybe this experience will push Chief 0:08:53.120 --> 0:08:57.080 Justice to ensure that the Court is seen as independent 0:08:57.360 --> 0:09:01.400 in the upcoming UM months when they start delivering their decisions. 0:09:02.280 --> 0:09:07.240 So after four months, it seems as if impeachment has 0:09:07.240 --> 0:09:11.400 helped Trump. His poll numbers have never been higher. What 0:09:11.440 --> 0:09:14.880 does that say about the process itself and whether the 0:09:14.880 --> 0:09:19.240 Democrats should have just let it go and not impeach him. 0:09:20.000 --> 0:09:25.480 Nancy Pelosi consciously delayed impeachment and rejected others calls for 0:09:25.520 --> 0:09:30.400 impeachment after the Russian investigation UM for just that reason. 0:09:30.559 --> 0:09:32.920 She was concerned that a sort of what you might 0:09:32.960 --> 0:09:40.000 consider a premature UM impeachment would boomerang against democratic interests. Um. 0:09:40.280 --> 0:09:44.640 She waited, and when the Ukraine scandal emerged, she said, 0:09:45.040 --> 0:09:47.400 the time is right. We have to move now or 0:09:47.720 --> 0:09:51.560 or never. Um. Was she wrong? I don't know. I 0:09:51.600 --> 0:09:54.760 think that at that point she really had no choice 0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:58.560 but to continue on with impeachment. She knew was a risk, 0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:01.880 but I think she Alt and others around her, did 0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:08.000 such a serious sort of compromise of national security, serious 0:10:08.040 --> 0:10:11.559 compromise of any kind of ethics um that you had 0:10:11.600 --> 0:10:14.400 to go forward and take the chance, knowing that the 0:10:14.400 --> 0:10:16.560 world would be tough, and it turned out to be 0:10:16.600 --> 0:10:22.000 perhaps even tougher than you feared. Now after the impeachment 0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:26.440 may be over, but there are still House investigations of 0:10:26.520 --> 0:10:30.839 President Trump and how Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler says they'll 0:10:30.880 --> 0:10:36.840 likely subpoena John Bolton. Are there are there legal problems 0:10:36.880 --> 0:10:40.760 there can the president of sort executive privilege. Bolton had 0:10:40.840 --> 0:10:43.520 said that he'll comply with the subpoena from the Senate, 0:10:43.720 --> 0:10:47.800 But this is a subpoena from the House. So I 0:10:47.880 --> 0:10:53.080 think that what John Boldness said is that he would 0:10:53.200 --> 0:10:56.880 comply with the subpoena if a court would instruct him to. 0:10:57.679 --> 0:11:01.160 So what he believes is that should be a orderly 0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:06.600 process to his testimony. So my guess is that if 0:11:06.600 --> 0:11:12.480 the House subpoena him, subpoenas him, he will invite the 0:11:12.520 --> 0:11:15.760 President to respond and wait for the court to make 0:11:15.760 --> 0:11:18.760 a decision whether he should honor the subpoena. My guess 0:11:18.800 --> 0:11:23.600 is that the subpoena will be honored, and that Bolden 0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:27.440 can testify, though a couple of things he might say 0:11:27.679 --> 0:11:30.160 would be subject to executive privilege, and at that time 0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:34.600 the president's lawyer can claim privilege um with respect at 0:11:34.640 --> 0:11:38.960 least parts of his testimony. So that would be my guest. 0:11:39.000 --> 0:11:41.440 I think, if you want to speculate in the future, 0:11:42.000 --> 0:11:46.400 something that may arise but not likely to rise, is 0:11:46.480 --> 0:11:51.880 what if the next Congress becomes more firmly democratic, would 0:11:51.880 --> 0:11:56.160 it try to impeach President Trump again based upon the 0:11:56.280 --> 0:12:00.000 same largely the same evidence that led to the impeachment 0:12:00.080 --> 0:12:04.240 this time. We don't know. Impeachment doesn't seem to have 0:12:04.440 --> 0:12:07.920 a start dat or end date, and it is possible 0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:11.839 that a strongly democratic Congress in the future could go 0:12:11.920 --> 0:12:17.640 back with Bolton's testimony new information and decide to reimpeach him. 0:12:17.720 --> 0:12:20.760 It's never happened in our history, but academics don't know 0:12:21.240 --> 0:12:25.720 whether or not the idea of impeachment as time part. Well, 0:12:27.080 --> 0:12:30.959 suppose let's just say that President Trump becomes even more 0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:36.400 emboldened by the fact that he was acquitted and does 0:12:36.480 --> 0:12:40.920 something that the Democrats feel is again an abuse of power. 0:12:42.000 --> 0:12:44.920 Is there anything stopping them from impeaching him on a 0:12:44.920 --> 0:12:47.520 whole new set of facts. Oh, there's no question that 0:12:47.520 --> 0:12:52.240 the Democrats can impeach President Trump again on based on 0:12:52.320 --> 0:12:56.160 new facts. But we don't know is whether the impeachment 0:12:56.200 --> 0:13:00.520 can cover ground for which the Senate has already acquitted. 0:13:01.080 --> 0:13:04.160 Because the rules i impeachment are not like that those 0:13:04.200 --> 0:13:07.959 in criminal trials, we don't have any kind of double 0:13:08.040 --> 0:13:13.320 jeopardy sense or notions. Um So, Congress, the House would 0:13:13.360 --> 0:13:16.599 be free to impeach President Trump for new reasons, but 0:13:16.800 --> 0:13:21.040 might also be able to include reasons that that to 0:13:21.160 --> 0:13:24.960 be equittal in this case. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law, Harold. 0:13:25.160 --> 0:13:27.920 That's Harold Granted, profess with the Chicago Kent College of 0:13:28.000 --> 0:13:30.520 Law and author of the book Presidential Powers.