WEBVTT - The Defense Arguments in Impeachment Trial

0:00:00.680 --> 0:00:05.320
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grozzo from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:09.559
<v Speaker 1>President Trump's legal team finished presenting its defense today on

0:00:09.600 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 1>their third day of arguments in the Senate impeachment trial.

0:00:13.000 --> 0:00:17.439
<v Speaker 1>Here's Trump's attorney, Jay Sekulo, to have have a removal

0:00:17.520 --> 0:00:20.200
<v Speaker 1>of a duly elected president based on a policy disagreement

0:00:22.480 --> 0:00:24.599
<v Speaker 1>that is not what the framers intended. And if you

0:00:24.640 --> 0:00:31.600
<v Speaker 1>lower the bar that way, danger, danger, Danger. My guest

0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:34.640
<v Speaker 1>is Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College

0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:41.160
<v Speaker 1>of Law. Last night, Alan Dershowitz cited you you left.

0:00:41.400 --> 0:00:44.320
<v Speaker 1>Tell us what he said and whether he was correct

0:00:44.400 --> 0:00:47.240
<v Speaker 1>in the way he interpreted what you have written. Well,

0:00:47.400 --> 0:00:49.839
<v Speaker 1>first off, I wasn't actually listening to it live. I

0:00:49.880 --> 0:00:52.480
<v Speaker 1>was giving a lecture at the University of Oregon Law School.

0:00:52.840 --> 0:00:55.400
<v Speaker 1>In the middle of my lecture, my phone started exploding

0:00:55.560 --> 0:00:57.800
<v Speaker 1>and I got all these emails and text people were

0:00:57.800 --> 0:01:01.160
<v Speaker 1>sending that Dershwood's name tropped me. So after my talk,

0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:03.560
<v Speaker 1>I had to go back and you know, watched the video.

0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:06.360
<v Speaker 1>Last week, I had published an op ed in the

0:01:06.400 --> 0:01:09.920
<v Speaker 1>New York Times, and the op ed explained that what

0:01:10.000 --> 0:01:13.480
<v Speaker 1>President Trump was doing was politics. It was not an

0:01:13.480 --> 0:01:18.160
<v Speaker 1>abusive power. And I offered one example to put Trump's

0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:22.160
<v Speaker 1>actions into context. During the Civil War, there was an

0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:25.880
<v Speaker 1>election being held in Indiana and the Republican government Indiana

0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:29.039
<v Speaker 1>was in jeopardy being thrown out and present Lincoln worry

0:01:29.040 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>that if Indiana fell at of Republican power, they would

0:01:32.160 --> 0:01:34.759
<v Speaker 1>no longer support the war effort. As a result, Lincoln

0:01:34.760 --> 0:01:38.640
<v Speaker 1>wrote a letter to General Sherman, and Lincoln told Sherman,

0:01:38.680 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 1>can you please let the Indiana soldiers go home and

0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:45.000
<v Speaker 1>vote for the Republican party that has take them off

0:01:45.040 --> 0:01:48.760
<v Speaker 1>the front line and let them go vote. Lincoln recognized

0:01:48.800 --> 0:01:51.480
<v Speaker 1>that this action would put the troops in in peril,

0:01:51.960 --> 0:01:53.960
<v Speaker 1>but he was the commander in chief and he could

0:01:53.960 --> 0:01:56.040
<v Speaker 1>give this order. And he was also the lead of

0:01:56.040 --> 0:01:58.000
<v Speaker 1>the Republican Party, and he didn't want his party out

0:01:58.000 --> 0:02:00.920
<v Speaker 1>of power because out have injured the nation. UM. I

0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:03.800
<v Speaker 1>didn't offer this example to compare link in to Trump.

0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:06.880
<v Speaker 1>I think that's a gross that's a gross analogy at

0:02:06.880 --> 0:02:10.000
<v Speaker 1>many levels. My point is that presents routinely used their

0:02:10.000 --> 0:02:15.520
<v Speaker 1>official power as a means to advance directly and directly

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:19.919
<v Speaker 1>political futures. And what happens with Lincoln and Trump while

0:02:19.960 --> 0:02:22.720
<v Speaker 1>people agree with disagree in the value, but these are

0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:25.880
<v Speaker 1>not unconsulutional abuses of power. Okay, well, I wrote the

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:28.760
<v Speaker 1>opped it got a lot of feedback, allow blowback. And

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:31.680
<v Speaker 1>then last night or on eight thirty PM in prime time,

0:02:31.919 --> 0:02:34.480
<v Speaker 1>Alan Dershwitz said, and let me read an article from

0:02:34.480 --> 0:02:36.200
<v Speaker 1>Professor Blackman, and he spent about a minute and a

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:38.480
<v Speaker 1>half reading my article and saying he agreed with me.

0:02:38.720 --> 0:02:40.480
<v Speaker 1>What can I say? I agree with dersh I think

0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:43.399
<v Speaker 1>he made the right argument, but it was very surprising

0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:46.680
<v Speaker 1>to hear. And uh, I'm flattered, honored, and shocked all

0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:51.360
<v Speaker 1>at once. You agree with Dershowitz saying the Founders meant

0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:55.079
<v Speaker 1>impeachment to be used for explicitly criminal acts such as

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:59.880
<v Speaker 1>treason or bribery. No, I don't. I don't agree with Derschwitz,

0:02:59.880 --> 0:03:05.639
<v Speaker 1>and entirely. Dershowitz argued that the only offenses that can

0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:09.079
<v Speaker 1>be impeachable are actual criminal offenses. I don't think he's

0:03:09.160 --> 0:03:12.680
<v Speaker 1>right about that. But where Derschwitz and I agree is

0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:16.040
<v Speaker 1>on what is not impeachable. And I think merely using

0:03:16.200 --> 0:03:20.079
<v Speaker 1>official acts to help yourself politically is not an abuse

0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:22.960
<v Speaker 1>of power. It might be bad politics, would be something

0:03:22.960 --> 0:03:25.320
<v Speaker 1>the voters can consider, but I don't think it wants

0:03:25.320 --> 0:03:29.200
<v Speaker 1>removal from office. Do you think the Democrats have presented

0:03:29.240 --> 0:03:33.760
<v Speaker 1>a case for impeachment, Well, there are two articles. One

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:35.760
<v Speaker 1>is based on the abuse of power. The second is

0:03:35.800 --> 0:03:38.360
<v Speaker 1>based on what's called obstruction of Congress. I don't I

0:03:38.400 --> 0:03:41.160
<v Speaker 1>don't have a strong opinion the second one. We'll focus

0:03:41.160 --> 0:03:44.400
<v Speaker 1>on the first one. Um, the first one, even if

0:03:44.400 --> 0:03:49.080
<v Speaker 1>we assume the facts are true that President Trump withheld

0:03:49.080 --> 0:03:53.920
<v Speaker 1>the money UH in order to get the Ukrainians investigated Biden,

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:58.600
<v Speaker 1>his political opponent, even if the facts are as pleaded, Um,

0:03:58.760 --> 0:04:00.600
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that would be in the power. I

0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 1>think it was terrible judgment and I think it was

0:04:03.880 --> 0:04:06.680
<v Speaker 1>a huge mistake. And I've said so many times, but

0:04:06.840 --> 0:04:10.640
<v Speaker 1>I don't think the benefit Trump received the political uh

0:04:10.760 --> 0:04:17.240
<v Speaker 1>impact of investigation that doesn't trigger the the the impeachment

0:04:17.240 --> 0:04:20.760
<v Speaker 1>requirement for our constitution. So you are in the minority

0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:24.000
<v Speaker 1>of constitutional stars, which minority, which is probably why Durst

0:04:24.040 --> 0:04:25.719
<v Speaker 1>had to quote me. There was anyone else to quote.

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:28.320
<v Speaker 1>But hey, look, I know I know my I know

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:32.680
<v Speaker 1>my audience. Right. No, I think I think I'm in

0:04:32.680 --> 0:04:35.360
<v Speaker 1>the minority positions. But I will tell you that I've

0:04:35.360 --> 0:04:38.520
<v Speaker 1>been getting a quite large number of attorneys who agree

0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:41.719
<v Speaker 1>with me, but who perhaps keep your mouth shut because

0:04:41.760 --> 0:04:44.839
<v Speaker 1>it's not a very popular thing to do. Defending President

0:04:44.839 --> 0:04:48.520
<v Speaker 1>Trump is never popular thing in most quarters. Um, I

0:04:48.520 --> 0:04:51.599
<v Speaker 1>don't even defend President Trump. I think his actions were uh,

0:04:52.080 --> 0:04:55.160
<v Speaker 1>quite inappropriate. He shouldn't have done it. But that's a

0:04:55.200 --> 0:04:59.240
<v Speaker 1>decision for the ballot box, not one for the impeachment trial. Now,

0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:02.039
<v Speaker 1>one of the questions, which has always been the question,

0:05:02.120 --> 0:05:06.919
<v Speaker 1>is witnesses, and we have the manuscript of former National

0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:11.440
<v Speaker 1>Security advisor John Bolton's upcoming book. Today, Trump attorney Jay

0:05:11.480 --> 0:05:17.320
<v Speaker 1>Sekulo urged the Senate to ignore the leaks about Bolton's book, saying, quote,

0:05:17.400 --> 0:05:22.200
<v Speaker 1>you cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation. Well,

0:05:22.360 --> 0:05:25.640
<v Speaker 1>doesn't that lead then to the answer, why not call

0:05:25.720 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>him as a witness then? Right? The timing of this

0:05:29.800 --> 0:05:34.200
<v Speaker 1>Bolton bolt of lightning in my card is very convenient.

0:05:34.600 --> 0:05:37.800
<v Speaker 1>The manuscript was released right at the start of the

0:05:37.839 --> 0:05:41.640
<v Speaker 1>President's case, a couple of days before votes will be

0:05:41.680 --> 0:05:44.480
<v Speaker 1>held on whether witnesses should be called. You know, June,

0:05:44.560 --> 0:05:47.760
<v Speaker 1>I can't tell you if we'll have witnesses called or not.

0:05:48.360 --> 0:05:50.640
<v Speaker 1>What I probably will tell you is nothing will change.

0:05:51.120 --> 0:05:53.560
<v Speaker 1>I think Bolton will more or less tell you what

0:05:53.640 --> 0:05:56.520
<v Speaker 1>the House managers have been accusing the President of I'm

0:05:56.520 --> 0:05:59.560
<v Speaker 1>not sure that changes any votes for my position. I've

0:05:59.640 --> 0:06:01.680
<v Speaker 1>assued him the House managers are right on the facts,

0:06:01.680 --> 0:06:04.640
<v Speaker 1>and I've assumed the President maybe order to withhold the

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:08.159
<v Speaker 1>money in exchange for the investigation the Biden's I just

0:06:08.200 --> 0:06:11.320
<v Speaker 1>assumed those are the facts. Even what Bolton saying it's

0:06:11.320 --> 0:06:14.440
<v Speaker 1>true wouldn't really affect how the situation. So now the

0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:19.479
<v Speaker 1>next phase is sixteen total hours of senators questions from

0:06:19.520 --> 0:06:24.000
<v Speaker 1>both sides. What kind of questions do you expect to

0:06:24.080 --> 0:06:31.120
<v Speaker 1>hear or what the questions would be beneficial? Well, you know,

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:36.320
<v Speaker 1>I think I think we'll have I don't think the

0:06:36.400 --> 0:06:39.560
<v Speaker 1>questions we are useful. I think that this case isn't

0:06:39.600 --> 0:06:41.560
<v Speaker 1>litigated to death. I don't know that there are any

0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:44.120
<v Speaker 1>there's anything left to discuss unless they're new witnesses that

0:06:44.160 --> 0:06:47.400
<v Speaker 1>can give new information. Um In terms of what the

0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:50.400
<v Speaker 1>senators will ask, I think the Republicans last questions about

0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>Hunter Biden, the last question about Joe Biden. They'll ask

0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:56.680
<v Speaker 1>Adam Schiff about why he talked to the whistleblower, whether

0:06:56.680 --> 0:06:59.880
<v Speaker 1>he talked to the whistleblower. UM. I think there'll be

0:07:00.040 --> 0:07:05.240
<v Speaker 1>you Republicans trying to make political points. Um, what are

0:07:05.320 --> 0:07:09.200
<v Speaker 1>the Democratic senators going to ask? They'll probably ask stuff

0:07:10.040 --> 0:07:12.680
<v Speaker 1>Joe Biden. I'm sorry about John Bolton, They'll ask about

0:07:13.200 --> 0:07:16.880
<v Speaker 1>mc mulvaney. I don't think the questions were particularly useful,

0:07:16.960 --> 0:07:19.400
<v Speaker 1>but you know that that's they're prerogative to ask these questions.

0:07:19.760 --> 0:07:22.840
<v Speaker 1>Do you think there should be witnesses? I'm mixed, and

0:07:22.920 --> 0:07:26.440
<v Speaker 1>let me let me speak out loud for a minute. UM.

0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:29.440
<v Speaker 1>I think that the House would have been a good

0:07:29.440 --> 0:07:32.560
<v Speaker 1>place of witnesses. UM. I think the House would have

0:07:32.560 --> 0:07:35.680
<v Speaker 1>been the appropriate form to develop a record which they

0:07:35.760 --> 0:07:38.560
<v Speaker 1>can be considered in the Senate. But of course the

0:07:38.560 --> 0:07:40.920
<v Speaker 1>witnesses refused to pacify for the House that they couldn't

0:07:40.960 --> 0:07:43.880
<v Speaker 1>do it. They did not issue subpoenas and tried to

0:07:43.960 --> 0:07:46.080
<v Speaker 1>enforce them in court. They could have, but they chose

0:07:46.160 --> 0:07:50.560
<v Speaker 1>not to. UM. But there's nothing preventing witnesses from being

0:07:50.560 --> 0:07:53.440
<v Speaker 1>called in the Senate. I don't know that the information

0:07:53.440 --> 0:07:55.920
<v Speaker 1>will help resolve anything, So I'm I'm kind of mixed

0:07:56.040 --> 0:08:02.800
<v Speaker 1>on the on the question of um. Uh witnesses. I

0:08:03.240 --> 0:08:07.600
<v Speaker 1>go back and forth, so former Obama administration, Supreme Court

0:08:07.640 --> 0:08:12.080
<v Speaker 1>advocate Neil Katia, Georgetown University law professor Joshua Geltzer, and

0:08:12.200 --> 0:08:17.400
<v Speaker 1>Mickey Edwards, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma, wrote an

0:08:17.440 --> 0:08:21.720
<v Speaker 1>op ed in The New York Times saying that the

0:08:21.800 --> 0:08:25.760
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice can do more than just have a ceremonial role.

0:08:26.600 --> 0:08:30.600
<v Speaker 1>That he can issue subpoenas on his own authority, and

0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:34.440
<v Speaker 1>he could break the fifty fifty tie among senators. First

0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:38.440
<v Speaker 1>of all, can he do that? Probably? Um, we do

0:08:38.480 --> 0:08:41.480
<v Speaker 1>have one president. We've only had two presidential impeachments which

0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:46.320
<v Speaker 1>the Chief Justice presides. But in eighteen eight uh Andrew Johnson,

0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:51.640
<v Speaker 1>the president was impeached and we had a peachment trial.

0:08:51.960 --> 0:08:54.440
<v Speaker 1>Does presides over by Sam and Chase, the Chief Justice

0:08:54.440 --> 0:08:59.120
<v Speaker 1>at the time. On a couple occasions, I think two occasions,

0:08:59.240 --> 0:09:03.079
<v Speaker 1>chief Justice broke ties, and the Senate seemed to accept

0:09:03.120 --> 0:09:07.120
<v Speaker 1>that because generally the presiding officer can break any ties

0:09:07.160 --> 0:09:11.520
<v Speaker 1>in the body. I don't know that Roberts would. If

0:09:11.520 --> 0:09:13.839
<v Speaker 1>there's a fifties tie, he could, or he could simply

0:09:13.880 --> 0:09:16.560
<v Speaker 1>say I declined to vote, in which case the motion

0:09:16.640 --> 0:09:19.960
<v Speaker 1>is defeated. So I I let me take a step

0:09:19.960 --> 0:09:22.440
<v Speaker 1>back and respond to the op ed you mentioned. I

0:09:22.480 --> 0:09:26.720
<v Speaker 1>think it's almost a fantasy to people think John Roberts

0:09:26.760 --> 0:09:30.840
<v Speaker 1>will save this trial. UM. He does not want to

0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:35.160
<v Speaker 1>do anything. He wants to just move things along. Roberts's

0:09:35.240 --> 0:09:37.800
<v Speaker 1>boss was named Chief Justice Rank List as we clerk

0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:40.400
<v Speaker 1>for back in the day. Rank was presided at the

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:43.920
<v Speaker 1>Clinton impeachment trial, and Rank was said of his job,

0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:46.280
<v Speaker 1>I did nothing at all. I did it particularly well.

0:09:46.840 --> 0:09:49.360
<v Speaker 1>I think Roberts us is off the same fashion. Just

0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:52.720
<v Speaker 1>move things along and don't get involved in controversial decisions.

0:09:52.840 --> 0:09:54.720
<v Speaker 1>I think that's that's where Roberts will come down in

0:09:54.760 --> 0:09:58.120
<v Speaker 1>this what's your general take on what you've seen so

0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:01.600
<v Speaker 1>far of the impeachment. I think the House I think

0:10:01.600 --> 0:10:03.960
<v Speaker 1>the house managers have done a very good job. I

0:10:04.000 --> 0:10:06.160
<v Speaker 1>don't say that lightly because I don't agree with their charge.

0:10:06.240 --> 0:10:08.080
<v Speaker 1>I think Adam Schiff has been, for the most part,

0:10:08.080 --> 0:10:11.600
<v Speaker 1>an excellent attorney. I think he's really made a compelling

0:10:11.720 --> 0:10:14.640
<v Speaker 1>case why people should vote against Donald Trump. I don't

0:10:14.640 --> 0:10:16.959
<v Speaker 1>think he's made the case of why should removed them office,

0:10:17.000 --> 0:10:18.640
<v Speaker 1>but this is a great statement of why you should

0:10:18.720 --> 0:10:21.640
<v Speaker 1>vote for another candidate. UM. I think there, the presidents

0:10:21.679 --> 0:10:24.840
<v Speaker 1>lawyers have had a different function. Um. Their role has

0:10:24.880 --> 0:10:28.560
<v Speaker 1>not been too necessarily make legal arguments. Their role has

0:10:28.600 --> 0:10:31.280
<v Speaker 1>been to tarnish and taint this proceeding as is sort

0:10:31.320 --> 0:10:34.160
<v Speaker 1>of political hoaxes, witch hunt. I think they've done that

0:10:34.200 --> 0:10:37.319
<v Speaker 1>effectively as well. On both sides are playing to their basis.

0:10:37.400 --> 0:10:40.840
<v Speaker 1>I mean, even if they're the timing June, the president

0:10:40.960 --> 0:10:43.439
<v Speaker 1>had all day Saturday to make arguments, as Laurier made

0:10:43.440 --> 0:10:46.600
<v Speaker 1>two hours of arguments why ratings are dead on Saturday

0:10:46.800 --> 0:10:49.800
<v Speaker 1>and said they waited for Monday, And in fact Derschwitz

0:10:49.920 --> 0:10:53.880
<v Speaker 1>came up prime time a PM due to make his argument.

0:10:53.960 --> 0:10:58.199
<v Speaker 1>That's when he announced my uh uh um that that

0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:00.560
<v Speaker 1>that's when he announced my art. Also, I mean there

0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:02.640
<v Speaker 1>are probably tens of millions of people watching him talking

0:11:02.640 --> 0:11:05.320
<v Speaker 1>about myself, which is sort of surreal. But I think

0:11:05.360 --> 0:11:10.240
<v Speaker 1>they've been uh leading this process in a political fashion,

0:11:10.320 --> 0:11:12.880
<v Speaker 1>and that's probably the best way to accomplish it. I

0:11:12.920 --> 0:11:14.720
<v Speaker 1>think that's what they're best thing, that's what they're trying

0:11:14.720 --> 0:11:16.439
<v Speaker 1>to do, and they accomplished it. Let me ask you

0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:21.680
<v Speaker 1>something about Dershowitz. In particular, he taught criminal law and

0:11:21.960 --> 0:11:25.320
<v Speaker 1>he was a famous criminal defense attorney. Now he's presenting

0:11:25.360 --> 0:11:28.840
<v Speaker 1>himself as a constitutional law scholar. I mean, the weight

0:11:28.880 --> 0:11:32.320
<v Speaker 1>of authority is against him. Well as for Dershwitz being

0:11:32.320 --> 0:11:38.840
<v Speaker 1>a criminal professor teaches criminal procedure, which is very constitutionalist oriented. UM.

0:11:38.920 --> 0:11:41.679
<v Speaker 1>But I think I think more importantly, scholars are allowed

0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:45.000
<v Speaker 1>to change their minds. UM. They can revisit questions, and

0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:48.080
<v Speaker 1>I think people can reasonly disagree. Most people think I'm wrong,

0:11:48.640 --> 0:11:51.600
<v Speaker 1>most people think I'm dead wrong. I've gotten awful emails

0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:53.480
<v Speaker 1>and awful tweets from lots of law professors, and I

0:11:53.920 --> 0:11:57.440
<v Speaker 1>respect their opinions, but I hold a different one UM

0:11:57.480 --> 0:12:00.080
<v Speaker 1>in terms of the specifics. Dershowitz In the nineteen and

0:12:00.120 --> 0:12:02.760
<v Speaker 1>he's made a statement that wasn't really relevant. Clinton was

0:12:02.840 --> 0:12:05.080
<v Speaker 1>charged with perjury and an obstruction of justice those who

0:12:05.160 --> 0:12:08.480
<v Speaker 1>established crimes at the time, it was irrelevant whether or

0:12:08.480 --> 0:12:10.040
<v Speaker 1>not you need to charge a crime because it was

0:12:10.080 --> 0:12:12.480
<v Speaker 1>a crime. Only now with Trump, for the first time,

0:12:12.480 --> 0:12:15.880
<v Speaker 1>we have a situation where the presidents being charged with

0:12:15.960 --> 0:12:18.920
<v Speaker 1>this sort of nebulous abuse of power claim, and that

0:12:19.000 --> 0:12:21.640
<v Speaker 1>led to shorts to investigate. UM. He's a bit of

0:12:21.640 --> 0:12:24.120
<v Speaker 1>a heterodox. He takes different positions and different elements. I

0:12:24.120 --> 0:12:26.800
<v Speaker 1>think at bottom he's a civil libertarian, so I I

0:12:26.840 --> 0:12:28.880
<v Speaker 1>don't begrudge him, I don't fault him. I think he

0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:31.079
<v Speaker 1>made a decision. I don't agree with him on this

0:12:31.160 --> 0:12:34.320
<v Speaker 1>specific but I don't think he's unqualified and he made

0:12:34.320 --> 0:12:37.319
<v Speaker 1>his case well. I think he represents the president of

0:12:37.360 --> 0:12:41.400
<v Speaker 1>the plumb Thanks Josh. That's Josh Blackman, professor with the

0:12:41.400 --> 0:12:43.040
<v Speaker 1>South Texas College of Law.