1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,160
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The public hearings

6
00:00:20,160 --> 00:00:23,400
Speaker 1: in the impeachment inquiry ended this week, with Gordon Sonlin,

7
00:00:23,480 --> 00:00:27,840
Speaker 1: the US Ambassador to the EU, delivering the most explosive testimony.

8
00:00:27,920 --> 00:00:32,120
Speaker 1: On Wednesday. Sonland said President Trump effectively directed him to

9
00:00:32,159 --> 00:00:35,240
Speaker 1: brok her a quid pro quo with Ukraine to investigate

10
00:00:35,240 --> 00:00:42,440
Speaker 1: a political rival. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Vulker, and I worked

11
00:00:42,479 --> 00:00:47,160
Speaker 1: with Mr Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express

12
00:00:47,240 --> 00:00:50,760
Speaker 1: direction of the President of the United States, joining me

13
00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:55,240
Speaker 1: as former federal Prosecutor Elie Hohenig of Lowenstein Sandler. How

14
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:59,640
Speaker 1: important was Ambassador soun lands testimony. I think the Ambassador

15
00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:03,080
Speaker 1: Sam scored some important points for the Democrats. I do

16
00:01:03,120 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 1: not think, however, that he ended up giving what a

17
00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:07,720
Speaker 1: lot of people were calling a John Dean moment. When

18
00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:10,600
Speaker 1: all is said and done, I think he incrementally moved

19
00:01:10,600 --> 00:01:13,280
Speaker 1: the ball on a couple of key respects number one.

20
00:01:13,640 --> 00:01:15,960
Speaker 1: I think the most important single line of his testimony

21
00:01:16,120 --> 00:01:18,920
Speaker 1: was everyone was in the loop. I think there's been

22
00:01:18,959 --> 00:01:21,200
Speaker 1: a lot of circumstantial evidence of that. I think common

23
00:01:21,240 --> 00:01:24,039
Speaker 1: sense tells you that, but he laid it out. Pompeo

24
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:26,560
Speaker 1: knew what was going on, Mulvaney knew what was going on,

25
00:01:26,840 --> 00:01:29,240
Speaker 1: Bolton knew what was going on, And to some extent

26
00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:31,000
Speaker 1: you can infer from what he said, even the Vice

27
00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:33,440
Speaker 1: president knew what was going on. And he's backed up

28
00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 1: by a lot of that with emails and documents that

29
00:01:35,600 --> 00:01:37,440
Speaker 1: he had. So I thought that was such an important point.

30
00:01:37,880 --> 00:01:40,319
Speaker 1: And the other important thing is he puts the word

31
00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:43,959
Speaker 1: investigations in the President's mouth. He says the President talked

32
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:47,240
Speaker 1: about investigations on at least one occasion. So that's direct

33
00:01:47,280 --> 00:01:50,920
Speaker 1: evidence of what, again is fairly apparent from the remainder

34
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:53,720
Speaker 1: of the evidence, but that the President had this interest

35
00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:58,400
Speaker 1: in the investigation of Barisma and the election Mary. He

36
00:01:58,600 --> 00:02:02,760
Speaker 1: admitted that he never personally discussed with Trump the idea

37
00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:06,320
Speaker 1: that either military aid or a White House meeting was

38
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:11,600
Speaker 1: conditioned on Ukraine conducting investigations. Does that hurt the Democrats case?

39
00:02:12,200 --> 00:02:14,280
Speaker 1: It does to an extent. I think it's a fair

40
00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:16,840
Speaker 1: line of cross examination. I thought the Republicans did a

41
00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:20,000
Speaker 1: good job of pointing out that sort of missing link.

42
00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:23,280
Speaker 1: That said, I think the Republicans have oversold it. The

43
00:02:23,320 --> 00:02:26,800
Speaker 1: fact that the President never said, hey, Gordon, I want

44
00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:30,000
Speaker 1: to explicitly link AID, you know, with a White House

45
00:02:30,040 --> 00:02:33,480
Speaker 1: meeting with investigations does not mean there's no case there.

46
00:02:33,800 --> 00:02:35,520
Speaker 1: And I think this is a bit of a logical

47
00:02:35,520 --> 00:02:38,560
Speaker 1: and legal fallacy that Republicans have been pursuing, this idea

48
00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:42,720
Speaker 1: of magic words that unless the President said the magic words,

49
00:02:42,800 --> 00:02:45,080
Speaker 1: unless he said out loud, this is a quid pro quoe,

50
00:02:45,160 --> 00:02:47,360
Speaker 1: this is bribery, this is a crime, this is an

51
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:49,800
Speaker 1: abusive power. There's nothing impeachable. I mean, that's not the

52
00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:53,040
Speaker 1: way the real world works. From doing trials, that's not

53
00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:55,120
Speaker 1: the way you build a case, a criminal case. You

54
00:02:55,160 --> 00:02:57,399
Speaker 1: build it piece by piece, block by block, You put

55
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,280
Speaker 1: all the evidence together, and you argue to the read.

56
00:03:00,280 --> 00:03:03,639
Speaker 1: That's the common sense. Reasonable inference is whatever you want

57
00:03:03,680 --> 00:03:06,040
Speaker 1: your conclusion to be. So the Republicans, I think, are

58
00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:09,240
Speaker 1: doing some strategic goal post shifting and trying to make

59
00:03:09,280 --> 00:03:13,240
Speaker 1: it almost an impossible standard for Democrats to reach. Speaking

60
00:03:13,280 --> 00:03:18,400
Speaker 1: about keywords. During the Muller investigation, President Trump kept saying

61
00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:22,320
Speaker 1: no collusion over and over, and in the impeachment inquiry,

62
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:25,400
Speaker 1: he's saying no quid pro quo. And he seemed to

63
00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:29,280
Speaker 1: have started that way back in a conversation that Sunlin

64
00:03:29,680 --> 00:03:34,280
Speaker 1: texted Ambassador Taylor about are the Democrats falling into a

65
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:38,840
Speaker 1: trap by continually bringing out that there was a quid

66
00:03:38,840 --> 00:03:42,560
Speaker 1: pro quo. It's definitely strategic by Donald Trump, and I

67
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:45,800
Speaker 1: think the Democrats are doing a better job of avoiding

68
00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:47,720
Speaker 1: that trap. So I think the trap is exactly what

69
00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:51,400
Speaker 1: you said, Jude, which is this vague term that sounds

70
00:03:51,520 --> 00:03:55,800
Speaker 1: legalistic but really is not collusion in the Mueller case.

71
00:03:55,920 --> 00:03:57,640
Speaker 1: And now quid pro qoil. I mean, those are both

72
00:03:57,640 --> 00:03:59,840
Speaker 1: words you might use in law school, but they're not

73
00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:02,800
Speaker 1: technical terms of art that lawyers would use that are

74
00:04:02,840 --> 00:04:05,720
Speaker 1: in the statute books. And I think the beauty of

75
00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:08,120
Speaker 1: that approach for Donald Trump and for the Republicans is

76
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:12,240
Speaker 1: the definition is a morphous enough that you can always

77
00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:13,880
Speaker 1: shift it a little bit and said, well that that's

78
00:04:13,880 --> 00:04:16,240
Speaker 1: not collusion. That's not what we meant by collusion, that's

79
00:04:16,240 --> 00:04:19,159
Speaker 1: not what a quid pro quo is. I think Adam

80
00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:21,880
Speaker 1: Schiff has been very careful and very conscious of that

81
00:04:22,200 --> 00:04:26,120
Speaker 1: and has tried to choose more direct, more relatable words

82
00:04:26,120 --> 00:04:29,200
Speaker 1: like he has used bribery, he has used extortion, he

83
00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:31,680
Speaker 1: has used quite simply abuse of power, which I think

84
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:35,039
Speaker 1: are easier to understand and better serve the democratic purposes.

85
00:04:35,080 --> 00:04:37,440
Speaker 1: But you have the the verbiage and terminology is really

86
00:04:37,480 --> 00:04:40,640
Speaker 1: important here. Now that the hearings are over, the Democrats

87
00:04:40,680 --> 00:04:43,880
Speaker 1: will be drafting articles of impeachment. Do you think we'll

88
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:48,320
Speaker 1: see words like bribery and extortion. It's an interesting strategic

89
00:04:48,360 --> 00:04:50,719
Speaker 1: decision that Democrats have to make. I do think we

90
00:04:50,760 --> 00:04:54,719
Speaker 1: will see a broadly phrased article of impeachment for abuse

91
00:04:54,720 --> 00:04:58,400
Speaker 1: of power or conspiracy or the like, because you want

92
00:04:58,400 --> 00:05:00,159
Speaker 1: to when you're drafting up whether it's an invite in

93
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:02,440
Speaker 1: a criminal case or articles of impeachment, you want to

94
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:05,479
Speaker 1: paint broadly enough to capture all the relevant conduct. I

95
00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:07,520
Speaker 1: think that the interesting call they have to make is

96
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:12,480
Speaker 1: do they list out specific criminal or criminal style offenses.

97
00:05:12,520 --> 00:05:14,839
Speaker 1: If they do that, I think that the two lead

98
00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:17,320
Speaker 1: ones would be bribery and extortion, which are sort of

99
00:05:17,360 --> 00:05:20,200
Speaker 1: the flip sides of the same coin. Think of bribery

100
00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:23,080
Speaker 1: as I will give you this illicit benefit if you

101
00:05:23,160 --> 00:05:26,080
Speaker 1: give me that illicit benefit, and extortion is I will

102
00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:28,000
Speaker 1: harm you in this way if you do not give

103
00:05:28,040 --> 00:05:30,880
Speaker 1: me that illicit benefit. So there's not a whole lot

104
00:05:30,920 --> 00:05:34,200
Speaker 1: of difference between them. There's also a separate federal crime

105
00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:38,640
Speaker 1: of soliciting foreign election aid. The beauty of that for Democrats,

106
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:40,560
Speaker 1: it's not even a two way street. It's a crime

107
00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:43,640
Speaker 1: simply to ask, So you can say it doesn't matter

108
00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:45,240
Speaker 1: if it's a quid pro quot, it doesn't matter if

109
00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:48,240
Speaker 1: there's an exchange. So long as the president tried to

110
00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:51,600
Speaker 1: get help in his election campaign from a foreign national,

111
00:05:51,920 --> 00:05:55,200
Speaker 1: that would satisfy that statute as well. So I think

112
00:05:55,240 --> 00:05:58,039
Speaker 1: you're gonna see that type of articles impeachment, and I

113
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:00,800
Speaker 1: think we've seen during the hearings this week Democrats are

114
00:06:00,839 --> 00:06:03,200
Speaker 1: likely going to seek an article of impeachment for obstruction

115
00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:07,280
Speaker 1: of Congress, for blocking the witnesses, for blocking documents. They

116
00:06:07,279 --> 00:06:09,200
Speaker 1: made a big deal about that and during the solent

117
00:06:09,240 --> 00:06:11,880
Speaker 1: testimony how important the documents were that are being withheld

118
00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:15,440
Speaker 1: from Congress. Do you think the Democrats were right or

119
00:06:15,520 --> 00:06:21,800
Speaker 1: wrong in deciding that when witnesses like Ambassador Bolton refused

120
00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:24,479
Speaker 1: to testify. They weren't going to court to try to

121
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:28,039
Speaker 1: force them to testify because that would hold up the proceedings.

122
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:31,200
Speaker 1: It's a great question. I think that Democrats did the

123
00:06:31,279 --> 00:06:34,000
Speaker 1: right thing by proceeding with hearings because they looked at

124
00:06:34,040 --> 00:06:35,960
Speaker 1: what happened to Jerry Nadler, and I think they learned

125
00:06:35,960 --> 00:06:38,480
Speaker 1: their lesson. Adam Schiff learned his lesson because look, Nadler

126
00:06:38,640 --> 00:06:41,800
Speaker 1: chased down these blockades in courts and they're still in

127
00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:44,720
Speaker 1: the courts. That Don McGann's hearing is still going on.

128
00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:47,599
Speaker 1: So I think they avoided getting slow played to death

129
00:06:47,680 --> 00:06:50,559
Speaker 1: like Jerry Nadler did. Now, I guess the separate question

130
00:06:50,640 --> 00:06:53,320
Speaker 1: is could they have done both? Could they have done

131
00:06:53,360 --> 00:06:55,800
Speaker 1: these very expedited hearings, which they did, I give them

132
00:06:55,800 --> 00:06:57,799
Speaker 1: a lot of credit, but also been in the courts

133
00:06:57,800 --> 00:07:00,680
Speaker 1: and also seeking expedited rulings in the court. I think

134
00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:03,120
Speaker 1: part of that maybe just simply an issue of personnel.

135
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:05,280
Speaker 1: Do they have enough bodies to do this? I mean,

136
00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:08,640
Speaker 1: these hearings, I'm sure are all consuming for the lawyers

137
00:07:08,680 --> 00:07:10,360
Speaker 1: who are doing them, and to be in court at

138
00:07:10,360 --> 00:07:12,840
Speaker 1: the same time might just be more personnel than they

139
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:15,160
Speaker 1: have on hand. So yeah, I think you could fairly

140
00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:17,600
Speaker 1: second guess them, for well, why not do your hearings

141
00:07:17,600 --> 00:07:20,440
Speaker 1: and go to court and fight for Bolton, Mulvaney Pompeo.

142
00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:22,560
Speaker 1: But they made a strategic decision to keep it simple,

143
00:07:22,600 --> 00:07:24,200
Speaker 1: and I think they've made a calculation that they have

144
00:07:24,360 --> 00:07:27,960
Speaker 1: enough between Taylor and Salmon and Ken and Fiona Hill

145
00:07:28,000 --> 00:07:30,440
Speaker 1: and Maria Vanovitch and the other witnesses we've seen this week,

146
00:07:30,600 --> 00:07:33,920
Speaker 1: coupled with remember the transcript, I mean, the transcript is

147
00:07:33,960 --> 00:07:38,520
Speaker 1: and should always remain Exhibit A. Finally, is this going

148
00:07:38,600 --> 00:07:41,840
Speaker 1: to make a difference? Is it going to change people's

149
00:07:41,920 --> 00:07:45,520
Speaker 1: opinions about whether to impeach the president or not? Is

150
00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:49,400
Speaker 1: it going to change any Republican minds? So I break

151
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:52,360
Speaker 1: down into two parts. I do not see any indication

152
00:07:52,520 --> 00:07:55,800
Speaker 1: right now that any Republican members of Congress are ready

153
00:07:55,840 --> 00:07:57,880
Speaker 1: to jump ship and vote either to impeach in the

154
00:07:57,880 --> 00:08:00,400
Speaker 1: House or to convict in the Senate. That said, I

155
00:08:00,440 --> 00:08:03,680
Speaker 1: think the stronger case the Democrats build, and I think

156
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:06,880
Speaker 1: they've done a really commendable job of building the case

157
00:08:07,640 --> 00:08:10,920
Speaker 1: in the House, the harder it gets for Republicans to defend,

158
00:08:11,160 --> 00:08:13,920
Speaker 1: the more the American public understands. This is real. This,

159
00:08:14,080 --> 00:08:18,360
Speaker 1: this conduct was problematic and harmful, and that could exact

160
00:08:18,360 --> 00:08:21,360
Speaker 1: the political poll on Republicans and ultimately to an extent,

161
00:08:21,400 --> 00:08:23,080
Speaker 1: I think you're if you're Democrats, you're talking to the

162
00:08:23,160 --> 00:08:25,640
Speaker 1: history books. I think you want history to record this

163
00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:28,320
Speaker 1: as a fair and just proceeding and something that was

164
00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:33,160
Speaker 1: worthwhile and that merited the severe remedy of impeachment. Thanks Ellie,

165
00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:38,280
Speaker 1: that's Ellie Honig of Lowenstein Sandler. Thanks for listening to

166
00:08:38,280 --> 00:08:41,600
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

167
00:08:41,640 --> 00:08:45,400
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot

168
00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:49,880
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg