1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,400
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. There are moments

6
00:00:22,440 --> 00:00:26,160
Speaker 1: of high dramat the first House Judiciary Committee hearing explicitly

7
00:00:26,239 --> 00:00:30,080
Speaker 1: tied to the potential impeachment of President Trump. Korey Lewandowski,

8
00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:35,760
Speaker 1: Trump's campaign manager, defiantly refused to answer many questions, stalled

9
00:00:35,800 --> 00:00:39,240
Speaker 1: by repeatedly asking to see the Muller Report, and demean

10
00:00:39,360 --> 00:00:43,080
Speaker 1: the process and the Democratic committee members. Here's an exchange

11
00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:47,360
Speaker 1: between Democrats Chila Jackson, Lee and Lewandowski. Again, kars when

12
00:00:47,360 --> 00:00:49,479
Speaker 1: I recognize that the privilege is not mine, but I've

13
00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:51,559
Speaker 1: been asked by the White House to honest want I'd

14
00:00:51,560 --> 00:00:53,199
Speaker 1: be happy to answer your question, or you can just

15
00:00:53,240 --> 00:00:55,000
Speaker 1: have a conversation by yourself, But if you'd like to

16
00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:56,800
Speaker 1: ask me a question, I'll be happy to answer me

17
00:00:56,920 --> 00:00:58,959
Speaker 1: to continue, the reason is you don't ask me a question,

18
00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:00,360
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear my answer to time. This

19
00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:03,520
Speaker 1: is a House diuditiary, not a House Party joining me

20
00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:06,360
Speaker 1: is Brad Moss, a partner at Mark Zade Brad. It

21
00:01:06,520 --> 00:01:10,240
Speaker 1: was not pretty, but the Democrats did confirm much of

22
00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:14,120
Speaker 1: what Lewandowski said the Muller report. What's your take on

23
00:01:14,160 --> 00:01:18,000
Speaker 1: the hearing? Yeah, I mean, look, Korey Lewandowski is a

24
00:01:18,120 --> 00:01:22,600
Speaker 1: very epitome of Trump style politics. This no holds barred,

25
00:01:22,720 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 1: you know, political counterpunching. UH is very much in line

26
00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:29,200
Speaker 1: with how the President handles it. You saw that throughout

27
00:01:29,240 --> 00:01:32,720
Speaker 1: the hearing, what I think ultimately was relevant was important,

28
00:01:32,720 --> 00:01:35,840
Speaker 1: and you mentioned this a bit. Was what was confirmed,

29
00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:39,840
Speaker 1: namely the involvement of Mr Lewandowski as outline of the

30
00:01:39,920 --> 00:01:42,920
Speaker 1: Vollar Report with respect to one of the acts of

31
00:01:42,959 --> 00:01:46,080
Speaker 1: obstruction in terms of the order from President Trump to

32
00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:50,320
Speaker 1: Mr Lewandowski to go to then Attorney General Jeff Sessions

33
00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:53,200
Speaker 1: order him to limit and narrow the scope of the

34
00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:56,640
Speaker 1: Mueller investigation and basically dankle his job at him. And

35
00:01:56,720 --> 00:02:00,160
Speaker 1: Mr Lewandowski confirmed that those facts. Racker. He disputed some

36
00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 1: of the details of, you know, certain nuances, but by

37
00:02:03,640 --> 00:02:06,040
Speaker 1: and large what was in the Mula report on that front.

38
00:02:06,160 --> 00:02:09,520
Speaker 1: Mr Lewandowski confirmed yesterday in that hearing, the White House

39
00:02:09,560 --> 00:02:14,520
Speaker 1: Counsel's office notified the committee late Monday that Lewandowski was

40
00:02:14,600 --> 00:02:19,280
Speaker 1: forbidden from discussing confidential conversations he had with Trump aside

41
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:21,919
Speaker 1: from what was already public in the Mueller Report. They

42
00:02:21,960 --> 00:02:26,959
Speaker 1: called it executive branch confidentiality interests. What kind of privilege

43
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:31,480
Speaker 1: were they asserting here? Yes, so they're trying to try

44
00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:35,079
Speaker 1: this theory out that's always been pushed by past White Houses,

45
00:02:35,080 --> 00:02:36,960
Speaker 1: but it's never been actually challenged in court, which is

46
00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:41,760
Speaker 1: the idea that a president's communications with non government officials

47
00:02:41,760 --> 00:02:45,640
Speaker 1: can still be covered under executive privilege, that the White

48
00:02:45,639 --> 00:02:49,600
Speaker 1: House has an interest in shielding those communications from being

49
00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:53,400
Speaker 1: compelled to be disclosed to either Congress or to the public.

50
00:02:53,840 --> 00:02:56,160
Speaker 1: Now there's you know, long standing president with respect to

51
00:02:56,840 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 1: executive branch officials, if they're that communications with the president

52
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,200
Speaker 1: been that dates back the Nixon era, but there's never

53
00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:05,320
Speaker 1: been a case to litigate that question. We come to

54
00:03:05,360 --> 00:03:08,800
Speaker 1: someone like Mr. Lewandowski, who was a private citizen and

55
00:03:08,880 --> 00:03:12,120
Speaker 1: never worked in the US government, and so they have

56
00:03:12,200 --> 00:03:15,280
Speaker 1: pushed forward this view. Mr Lewandowski, of course, was happy

57
00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:17,880
Speaker 1: to follow the White House's guidance because it meant different things.

58
00:03:17,880 --> 00:03:21,079
Speaker 1: He didn't have to disclose um. It remains an unresolved

59
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:23,839
Speaker 1: question though, is a legal matter how court would view

60
00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:27,000
Speaker 1: this in terms of that the legitimacy of that assertion

61
00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:31,400
Speaker 1: of privilege. The committee also subpoenaed two other former Trump

62
00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:33,920
Speaker 1: aids who did work in the White House, former Deputy

63
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:37,880
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn and former Staff Secretary Rob Porter,

64
00:03:38,760 --> 00:03:42,800
Speaker 1: but they didn't attend after the White House Council notified

65
00:03:42,800 --> 00:03:46,280
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee that they have constitutional immunity from compelled

66
00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:49,160
Speaker 1: congressional testimony in order to protect the prerogatives of the

67
00:03:49,200 --> 00:03:53,280
Speaker 1: office of president, going beyond the claim of privilege there,

68
00:03:53,880 --> 00:03:57,280
Speaker 1: how can Democrats proceed with this, you know, sort of

69
00:03:57,560 --> 00:04:03,040
Speaker 1: variation on impeachment hearings if they can't get witnesses to testify. Yeah,

70
00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:04,760
Speaker 1: so this is a bit of the problem the Democrats

71
00:04:04,760 --> 00:04:07,240
Speaker 1: have been facing for months now, ever since the Muller

72
00:04:07,280 --> 00:04:10,080
Speaker 1: report came out, and never since Mr Muller testified, and

73
00:04:10,080 --> 00:04:14,000
Speaker 1: they want to move forward on this quasi impeachment route.

74
00:04:14,240 --> 00:04:17,719
Speaker 1: They were struggling to get people who had uh testified

75
00:04:17,760 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 1: the Mr Muller and provided information that was outline of

76
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:22,200
Speaker 1: the report to get to them to come before Congress.

77
00:04:22,240 --> 00:04:25,359
Speaker 1: And you're seeing some litigation on it. With respect to

78
00:04:25,400 --> 00:04:27,599
Speaker 1: Don McGann, the former White House counsel, you know, there's

79
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:31,760
Speaker 1: pending litigation to compel him to come before to Congress

80
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:34,200
Speaker 1: and testify. What you're waiting to see the results of

81
00:04:34,279 --> 00:04:38,000
Speaker 1: that litigation. I think that will provide a roadmap but guidance.

82
00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:40,360
Speaker 1: But as far as the White House is concerned, they're

83
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:42,599
Speaker 1: just kind of dragging this out right now. They're happy

84
00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:44,640
Speaker 1: to let this be, you know, dragged out in the

85
00:04:44,640 --> 00:04:46,919
Speaker 1: courts and take months, if not years, because by the

86
00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:49,560
Speaker 1: time it gets to a resolution, it won't matter one

87
00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:53,479
Speaker 1: way or the other. And so even if this were

88
00:04:53,800 --> 00:04:57,200
Speaker 1: a traditional impeachment inquiry, if they had drawn up articles

89
00:04:57,200 --> 00:05:01,400
Speaker 1: of impeachment, these witnesses still wouldn't be allowed to testify.

90
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:06,000
Speaker 1: So again, I mean, what happens then, so yeah, So

91
00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:08,800
Speaker 1: if so, if the courts ultimately ruled in the government's favor,

92
00:05:08,800 --> 00:05:11,039
Speaker 1: which I don't think in the end, especially the context

93
00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:13,479
Speaker 1: of appeachment, I don't think they would. But even if

94
00:05:13,920 --> 00:05:18,040
Speaker 1: they did, Congress can certainly still utilize the ridden text

95
00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:20,240
Speaker 1: of the Mole report itself, and they always could do

96
00:05:20,320 --> 00:05:24,120
Speaker 1: that in the context of impeachment, recommending articles of impeachment.

97
00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:27,120
Speaker 1: What they wanted, for purposes of grassroots support from American

98
00:05:27,200 --> 00:05:30,360
Speaker 1: public was to have those live moments, to have Don

99
00:05:30,440 --> 00:05:33,279
Speaker 1: McGann talk about what Trump did, to have any Donalds

100
00:05:33,320 --> 00:05:36,159
Speaker 1: Retiefer staffed Domigan talk about what she took notes on.

101
00:05:36,440 --> 00:05:39,680
Speaker 1: It was meant to build public momentum, not necessarily for

102
00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:44,520
Speaker 1: purposes of evidence. So the committee's chair, Jerry Nadler, said

103
00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:49,360
Speaker 1: that Lewandowski's conduct was completely unacceptable and he's considering holding

104
00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:52,039
Speaker 1: him in contempt of Congress. Has several of the Democratic

105
00:05:52,200 --> 00:05:56,560
Speaker 1: Committee members said he should. So even if he's held

106
00:05:56,560 --> 00:06:00,800
Speaker 1: in contempt of Congress, if you have h Justusice department

107
00:06:00,839 --> 00:06:03,680
Speaker 1: that will not go any further on this, what would

108
00:06:03,680 --> 00:06:07,400
Speaker 1: that really mean to him? Ultimately nothing at all, um,

109
00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:10,560
Speaker 1: And there is an inherent criminal contempt authority that Congress

110
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:13,240
Speaker 1: has technically to start to get arms, can you know,

111
00:06:13,720 --> 00:06:16,560
Speaker 1: execute an arrest, But that's not going to happen. So

112
00:06:16,839 --> 00:06:19,680
Speaker 1: and Korey Lewandowski knows this. In the White House knows,

113
00:06:19,880 --> 00:06:22,840
Speaker 1: they know that. Ultimately for Natler, this is a lot

114
00:06:22,920 --> 00:06:25,160
Speaker 1: of huffing and puffing, but nothing's going to come of

115
00:06:25,279 --> 00:06:28,520
Speaker 1: those contempt citations, which is why now they're debating to

116
00:06:28,520 --> 00:06:30,480
Speaker 1: what extent he's even going to waste his time with

117
00:06:30,520 --> 00:06:33,159
Speaker 1: it because nothing is going to transpire that the Just

118
00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:36,440
Speaker 1: Justice Department isn't going to pursue the case. And this

119
00:06:36,520 --> 00:06:40,960
Speaker 1: is the unfortunate reality of how the institutions and sort

120
00:06:40,960 --> 00:06:42,719
Speaker 1: of the customs and norms of how we used to

121
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:45,080
Speaker 1: handle these types of matters have really been broken down

122
00:06:45,080 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 1: over the last few years. Political analysts were criticizing the

123
00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:52,120
Speaker 1: Democrats for going forward this way, but I wonder what

124
00:06:52,200 --> 00:06:56,360
Speaker 1: other way can they go forward? About a minute here, yeah,

125
00:06:56,400 --> 00:06:58,080
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the only route they had. They

126
00:06:58,080 --> 00:07:00,560
Speaker 1: had to try to build some additional momentum to put

127
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:03,640
Speaker 1: a face and video to the text of that for

128
00:07:03,800 --> 00:07:06,880
Speaker 1: the page report. They've gotten some progress. I don't know

129
00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:08,200
Speaker 1: if they're going to be able to pull this off

130
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:09,800
Speaker 1: in the end, but you can still expect this will

131
00:07:09,880 --> 00:07:11,920
Speaker 1: drag on till the end of this year, and we

132
00:07:11,960 --> 00:07:13,960
Speaker 1: will talk with you more as it does. Thank you

133
00:07:14,040 --> 00:07:16,520
Speaker 1: so much, Brad. That's Brad Massey is a partner in

134
00:07:16,640 --> 00:07:21,360
Speaker 1: mark Z. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

135
00:07:21,720 --> 00:07:25,760
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

136
00:07:25,840 --> 00:07:29,760
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Slash Podcast. I'm June Brosso.

137
00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:34,040
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Ye