WEBVTT - What’s Next in the Impeachment Inquiry?

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.160
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The public hearings

0:00:20.160 --> 0:00:23.400
<v Speaker 1>in the impeachment inquiry ended this week, with Gordon Sonlin,

0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:27.840
<v Speaker 1>the US Ambassador to the EU, delivering the most explosive testimony.

0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:32.120
<v Speaker 1>On Wednesday. Sonland said President Trump effectively directed him to

0:00:32.159 --> 0:00:35.240
<v Speaker 1>brok her a quid pro quo with Ukraine to investigate

0:00:35.240 --> 0:00:42.440
<v Speaker 1>a political rival. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Vulker, and I worked

0:00:42.479 --> 0:00:47.160
<v Speaker 1>with Mr Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express

0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:50.760
<v Speaker 1>direction of the President of the United States, joining me

0:00:50.760 --> 0:00:55.240
<v Speaker 1>as former federal Prosecutor Elie Hohenig of Lowenstein Sandler. How

0:00:55.280 --> 0:00:59.640
<v Speaker 1>important was Ambassador soun lands testimony. I think the Ambassador

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:03.080
<v Speaker 1>Sam scored some important points for the Democrats. I do

0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:05.600
<v Speaker 1>not think, however, that he ended up giving what a

0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:07.720
<v Speaker 1>lot of people were calling a John Dean moment. When

0:01:07.720 --> 0:01:10.600
<v Speaker 1>all is said and done, I think he incrementally moved

0:01:10.600 --> 0:01:13.280
<v Speaker 1>the ball on a couple of key respects number one.

0:01:13.640 --> 0:01:15.960
<v Speaker 1>I think the most important single line of his testimony

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:18.920
<v Speaker 1>was everyone was in the loop. I think there's been

0:01:18.959 --> 0:01:21.200
<v Speaker 1>a lot of circumstantial evidence of that. I think common

0:01:21.240 --> 0:01:24.039
<v Speaker 1>sense tells you that, but he laid it out. Pompeo

0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:26.560
<v Speaker 1>knew what was going on, Mulvaney knew what was going on,

0:01:26.840 --> 0:01:29.240
<v Speaker 1>Bolton knew what was going on, And to some extent

0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:31.000
<v Speaker 1>you can infer from what he said, even the Vice

0:01:31.040 --> 0:01:33.440
<v Speaker 1>president knew what was going on. And he's backed up

0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:35.560
<v Speaker 1>by a lot of that with emails and documents that

0:01:35.600 --> 0:01:37.440
<v Speaker 1>he had. So I thought that was such an important point.

0:01:37.880 --> 0:01:40.319
<v Speaker 1>And the other important thing is he puts the word

0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:43.959
<v Speaker 1>investigations in the President's mouth. He says the President talked

0:01:44.000 --> 0:01:47.240
<v Speaker 1>about investigations on at least one occasion. So that's direct

0:01:47.280 --> 0:01:50.920
<v Speaker 1>evidence of what, again is fairly apparent from the remainder

0:01:50.960 --> 0:01:53.720
<v Speaker 1>of the evidence, but that the President had this interest

0:01:53.840 --> 0:01:58.400
<v Speaker 1>in the investigation of Barisma and the election Mary. He

0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:02.760
<v Speaker 1>admitted that he never personally discussed with Trump the idea

0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:06.320
<v Speaker 1>that either military aid or a White House meeting was

0:02:06.400 --> 0:02:11.600
<v Speaker 1>conditioned on Ukraine conducting investigations. Does that hurt the Democrats case?

0:02:12.200 --> 0:02:14.280
<v Speaker 1>It does to an extent. I think it's a fair

0:02:14.400 --> 0:02:16.840
<v Speaker 1>line of cross examination. I thought the Republicans did a

0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:20.000
<v Speaker 1>good job of pointing out that sort of missing link.

0:02:20.120 --> 0:02:23.280
<v Speaker 1>That said, I think the Republicans have oversold it. The

0:02:23.320 --> 0:02:26.800
<v Speaker 1>fact that the President never said, hey, Gordon, I want

0:02:26.840 --> 0:02:30.000
<v Speaker 1>to explicitly link AID, you know, with a White House

0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:33.480
<v Speaker 1>meeting with investigations does not mean there's no case there.

0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:35.520
<v Speaker 1>And I think this is a bit of a logical

0:02:35.520 --> 0:02:38.560
<v Speaker 1>and legal fallacy that Republicans have been pursuing, this idea

0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:42.720
<v Speaker 1>of magic words that unless the President said the magic words,

0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:45.080
<v Speaker 1>unless he said out loud, this is a quid pro quoe,

0:02:45.160 --> 0:02:47.360
<v Speaker 1>this is bribery, this is a crime, this is an

0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:49.800
<v Speaker 1>abusive power. There's nothing impeachable. I mean, that's not the

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:53.040
<v Speaker 1>way the real world works. From doing trials, that's not

0:02:53.080 --> 0:02:55.120
<v Speaker 1>the way you build a case, a criminal case. You

0:02:55.160 --> 0:02:57.399
<v Speaker 1>build it piece by piece, block by block, You put

0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:00.280
<v Speaker 1>all the evidence together, and you argue to the read.

0:03:00.280 --> 0:03:03.639
<v Speaker 1>That's the common sense. Reasonable inference is whatever you want

0:03:03.680 --> 0:03:06.040
<v Speaker 1>your conclusion to be. So the Republicans, I think, are

0:03:06.080 --> 0:03:09.240
<v Speaker 1>doing some strategic goal post shifting and trying to make

0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:13.240
<v Speaker 1>it almost an impossible standard for Democrats to reach. Speaking

0:03:13.280 --> 0:03:18.400
<v Speaker 1>about keywords. During the Muller investigation, President Trump kept saying

0:03:18.440 --> 0:03:22.320
<v Speaker 1>no collusion over and over, and in the impeachment inquiry,

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:25.400
<v Speaker 1>he's saying no quid pro quo. And he seemed to

0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 1>have started that way back in a conversation that Sunlin

0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:34.280
<v Speaker 1>texted Ambassador Taylor about are the Democrats falling into a

0:03:34.400 --> 0:03:38.840
<v Speaker 1>trap by continually bringing out that there was a quid

0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:42.560
<v Speaker 1>pro quo. It's definitely strategic by Donald Trump, and I

0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:45.800
<v Speaker 1>think the Democrats are doing a better job of avoiding

0:03:45.840 --> 0:03:47.720
<v Speaker 1>that trap. So I think the trap is exactly what

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:51.400
<v Speaker 1>you said, Jude, which is this vague term that sounds

0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:55.800
<v Speaker 1>legalistic but really is not collusion in the Mueller case.

0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 1>And now quid pro qoil. I mean, those are both

0:03:57.640 --> 0:03:59.840
<v Speaker 1>words you might use in law school, but they're not

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:02.800
<v Speaker 1>technical terms of art that lawyers would use that are

0:04:02.840 --> 0:04:05.720
<v Speaker 1>in the statute books. And I think the beauty of

0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:08.120
<v Speaker 1>that approach for Donald Trump and for the Republicans is

0:04:08.560 --> 0:04:12.240
<v Speaker 1>the definition is a morphous enough that you can always

0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:13.880
<v Speaker 1>shift it a little bit and said, well that that's

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:16.240
<v Speaker 1>not collusion. That's not what we meant by collusion, that's

0:04:16.240 --> 0:04:19.159
<v Speaker 1>not what a quid pro quo is. I think Adam

0:04:19.200 --> 0:04:21.880
<v Speaker 1>Schiff has been very careful and very conscious of that

0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:26.120
<v Speaker 1>and has tried to choose more direct, more relatable words

0:04:26.120 --> 0:04:29.200
<v Speaker 1>like he has used bribery, he has used extortion, he

0:04:29.240 --> 0:04:31.680
<v Speaker 1>has used quite simply abuse of power, which I think

0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:35.039
<v Speaker 1>are easier to understand and better serve the democratic purposes.

0:04:35.080 --> 0:04:37.440
<v Speaker 1>But you have the the verbiage and terminology is really

0:04:37.480 --> 0:04:40.640
<v Speaker 1>important here. Now that the hearings are over, the Democrats

0:04:40.680 --> 0:04:43.880
<v Speaker 1>will be drafting articles of impeachment. Do you think we'll

0:04:43.880 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 1>see words like bribery and extortion. It's an interesting strategic

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 1>decision that Democrats have to make. I do think we

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:54.719
<v Speaker 1>will see a broadly phrased article of impeachment for abuse

0:04:54.720 --> 0:04:58.400
<v Speaker 1>of power or conspiracy or the like, because you want

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:00.159
<v Speaker 1>to when you're drafting up whether it's an invite in

0:05:00.160 --> 0:05:02.440
<v Speaker 1>a criminal case or articles of impeachment, you want to

0:05:02.480 --> 0:05:05.479
<v Speaker 1>paint broadly enough to capture all the relevant conduct. I

0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:07.520
<v Speaker 1>think that the interesting call they have to make is

0:05:07.760 --> 0:05:12.480
<v Speaker 1>do they list out specific criminal or criminal style offenses.

0:05:12.520 --> 0:05:14.839
<v Speaker 1>If they do that, I think that the two lead

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:17.320
<v Speaker 1>ones would be bribery and extortion, which are sort of

0:05:17.360 --> 0:05:20.200
<v Speaker 1>the flip sides of the same coin. Think of bribery

0:05:20.279 --> 0:05:23.080
<v Speaker 1>as I will give you this illicit benefit if you

0:05:23.160 --> 0:05:26.080
<v Speaker 1>give me that illicit benefit, and extortion is I will

0:05:26.120 --> 0:05:28.000
<v Speaker 1>harm you in this way if you do not give

0:05:28.040 --> 0:05:30.880
<v Speaker 1>me that illicit benefit. So there's not a whole lot

0:05:30.920 --> 0:05:34.200
<v Speaker 1>of difference between them. There's also a separate federal crime

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:38.640
<v Speaker 1>of soliciting foreign election aid. The beauty of that for Democrats,

0:05:38.760 --> 0:05:40.560
<v Speaker 1>it's not even a two way street. It's a crime

0:05:40.600 --> 0:05:43.640
<v Speaker 1>simply to ask, So you can say it doesn't matter

0:05:43.720 --> 0:05:45.240
<v Speaker 1>if it's a quid pro quot, it doesn't matter if

0:05:45.279 --> 0:05:48.240
<v Speaker 1>there's an exchange. So long as the president tried to

0:05:48.279 --> 0:05:51.600
<v Speaker 1>get help in his election campaign from a foreign national,

0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:55.200
<v Speaker 1>that would satisfy that statute as well. So I think

0:05:55.240 --> 0:05:58.039
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna see that type of articles impeachment, and I

0:05:58.080 --> 0:06:00.800
<v Speaker 1>think we've seen during the hearings this week Democrats are

0:06:00.839 --> 0:06:03.200
<v Speaker 1>likely going to seek an article of impeachment for obstruction

0:06:03.240 --> 0:06:07.280
<v Speaker 1>of Congress, for blocking the witnesses, for blocking documents. They

0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:09.200
<v Speaker 1>made a big deal about that and during the solent

0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:11.880
<v Speaker 1>testimony how important the documents were that are being withheld

0:06:11.880 --> 0:06:15.440
<v Speaker 1>from Congress. Do you think the Democrats were right or

0:06:15.520 --> 0:06:21.800
<v Speaker 1>wrong in deciding that when witnesses like Ambassador Bolton refused

0:06:21.800 --> 0:06:24.479
<v Speaker 1>to testify. They weren't going to court to try to

0:06:24.520 --> 0:06:28.039
<v Speaker 1>force them to testify because that would hold up the proceedings.

0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:31.200
<v Speaker 1>It's a great question. I think that Democrats did the

0:06:31.279 --> 0:06:34.000
<v Speaker 1>right thing by proceeding with hearings because they looked at

0:06:34.040 --> 0:06:35.960
<v Speaker 1>what happened to Jerry Nadler, and I think they learned

0:06:35.960 --> 0:06:38.480
<v Speaker 1>their lesson. Adam Schiff learned his lesson because look, Nadler

0:06:38.640 --> 0:06:41.800
<v Speaker 1>chased down these blockades in courts and they're still in

0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:44.720
<v Speaker 1>the courts. That Don McGann's hearing is still going on.

0:06:45.120 --> 0:06:47.599
<v Speaker 1>So I think they avoided getting slow played to death

0:06:47.680 --> 0:06:50.559
<v Speaker 1>like Jerry Nadler did. Now, I guess the separate question

0:06:50.640 --> 0:06:53.320
<v Speaker 1>is could they have done both? Could they have done

0:06:53.360 --> 0:06:55.800
<v Speaker 1>these very expedited hearings, which they did, I give them

0:06:55.800 --> 0:06:57.799
<v Speaker 1>a lot of credit, but also been in the courts

0:06:57.800 --> 0:07:00.680
<v Speaker 1>and also seeking expedited rulings in the court. I think

0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:03.120
<v Speaker 1>part of that maybe just simply an issue of personnel.

0:07:03.320 --> 0:07:05.280
<v Speaker 1>Do they have enough bodies to do this? I mean,

0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:08.640
<v Speaker 1>these hearings, I'm sure are all consuming for the lawyers

0:07:08.680 --> 0:07:10.360
<v Speaker 1>who are doing them, and to be in court at

0:07:10.360 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 1>the same time might just be more personnel than they

0:07:12.880 --> 0:07:15.160
<v Speaker 1>have on hand. So yeah, I think you could fairly

0:07:15.320 --> 0:07:17.600
<v Speaker 1>second guess them, for well, why not do your hearings

0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:20.440
<v Speaker 1>and go to court and fight for Bolton, Mulvaney Pompeo.

0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:22.560
<v Speaker 1>But they made a strategic decision to keep it simple,

0:07:22.600 --> 0:07:24.200
<v Speaker 1>and I think they've made a calculation that they have

0:07:24.360 --> 0:07:27.960
<v Speaker 1>enough between Taylor and Salmon and Ken and Fiona Hill

0:07:28.000 --> 0:07:30.440
<v Speaker 1>and Maria Vanovitch and the other witnesses we've seen this week,

0:07:30.600 --> 0:07:33.920
<v Speaker 1>coupled with remember the transcript, I mean, the transcript is

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:38.520
<v Speaker 1>and should always remain Exhibit A. Finally, is this going

0:07:38.600 --> 0:07:41.840
<v Speaker 1>to make a difference? Is it going to change people's

0:07:41.920 --> 0:07:45.520
<v Speaker 1>opinions about whether to impeach the president or not? Is

0:07:45.560 --> 0:07:49.400
<v Speaker 1>it going to change any Republican minds? So I break

0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:52.360
<v Speaker 1>down into two parts. I do not see any indication

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:55.800
<v Speaker 1>right now that any Republican members of Congress are ready

0:07:55.840 --> 0:07:57.880
<v Speaker 1>to jump ship and vote either to impeach in the

0:07:57.880 --> 0:08:00.400
<v Speaker 1>House or to convict in the Senate. That said, I

0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:03.680
<v Speaker 1>think the stronger case the Democrats build, and I think

0:08:03.680 --> 0:08:06.880
<v Speaker 1>they've done a really commendable job of building the case

0:08:07.640 --> 0:08:10.920
<v Speaker 1>in the House, the harder it gets for Republicans to defend,

0:08:11.160 --> 0:08:13.920
<v Speaker 1>the more the American public understands. This is real. This,

0:08:14.080 --> 0:08:18.360
<v Speaker 1>this conduct was problematic and harmful, and that could exact

0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:21.360
<v Speaker 1>the political poll on Republicans and ultimately to an extent,

0:08:21.400 --> 0:08:23.080
<v Speaker 1>I think you're if you're Democrats, you're talking to the

0:08:23.160 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>history books. I think you want history to record this

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:28.320
<v Speaker 1>as a fair and just proceeding and something that was

0:08:28.360 --> 0:08:33.160
<v Speaker 1>worthwhile and that merited the severe remedy of impeachment. Thanks Ellie,

0:08:33.360 --> 0:08:38.280
<v Speaker 1>that's Ellie Honig of Lowenstein Sandler. Thanks for listening to

0:08:38.280 --> 0:08:41.600
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

0:08:41.640 --> 0:08:45.400
<v Speaker 1>the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot

0:08:45.400 --> 0:08:49.880
<v Speaker 1>com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg