Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. There are moments
Speaker 1: of high dramat the first House Judiciary Committee hearing explicitly
Speaker 1: tied to the potential impeachment of President Trump. Korey Lewandowski,
Speaker 1: Trump's campaign manager, defiantly refused to answer many questions, stalled
Speaker 1: by repeatedly asking to see the Muller Report, and demean
Speaker 1: the process and the Democratic committee members. Here's an exchange
Speaker 1: between Democrats Chila Jackson, Lee and Lewandowski. Again, kars when
Speaker 1: I recognize that the privilege is not mine, but I've
Speaker 1: been asked by the White House to honest want I'd
Speaker 1: be happy to answer your question, or you can just
Speaker 1: have a conversation by yourself, But if you'd like to
Speaker 1: ask me a question, I'll be happy to answer me
Speaker 1: to continue, the reason is you don't ask me a question,
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear my answer to time. This
Speaker 1: is a House diuditiary, not a House Party joining me
Speaker 1: is Brad Moss, a partner at Mark Zade Brad. It
Speaker 1: was not pretty, but the Democrats did confirm much of
Speaker 1: what Lewandowski said the Muller report. What's your take on
Speaker 1: the hearing? Yeah, I mean, look, Korey Lewandowski is a
Speaker 1: very epitome of Trump style politics. This no holds barred,
Speaker 1: you know, political counterpunching. UH is very much in line
Speaker 1: with how the President handles it. You saw that throughout
Speaker 1: the hearing, what I think ultimately was relevant was important,
Speaker 1: and you mentioned this a bit. Was what was confirmed,
Speaker 1: namely the involvement of Mr Lewandowski as outline of the
Speaker 1: Vollar Report with respect to one of the acts of
Speaker 1: obstruction in terms of the order from President Trump to
Speaker 1: Mr Lewandowski to go to then Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: order him to limit and narrow the scope of the
Speaker 1: Mueller investigation and basically dankle his job at him. And
Speaker 1: Mr Lewandowski confirmed that those facts. Racker. He disputed some
Speaker 1: of the details of, you know, certain nuances, but by
Speaker 1: and large what was in the Mula report on that front.
Speaker 1: Mr Lewandowski confirmed yesterday in that hearing, the White House
Speaker 1: Counsel's office notified the committee late Monday that Lewandowski was
Speaker 1: forbidden from discussing confidential conversations he had with Trump aside
Speaker 1: from what was already public in the Mueller Report. They
Speaker 1: called it executive branch confidentiality interests. What kind of privilege
Speaker 1: were they asserting here? Yes, so they're trying to try
Speaker 1: this theory out that's always been pushed by past White Houses,
Speaker 1: but it's never been actually challenged in court, which is
Speaker 1: the idea that a president's communications with non government officials
Speaker 1: can still be covered under executive privilege, that the White
Speaker 1: House has an interest in shielding those communications from being
Speaker 1: compelled to be disclosed to either Congress or to the public.
Speaker 1: Now there's you know, long standing president with respect to
Speaker 1: executive branch officials, if they're that communications with the president
Speaker 1: been that dates back the Nixon era, but there's never
Speaker 1: been a case to litigate that question. We come to
Speaker 1: someone like Mr. Lewandowski, who was a private citizen and
Speaker 1: never worked in the US government, and so they have
Speaker 1: pushed forward this view. Mr Lewandowski, of course, was happy
Speaker 1: to follow the White House's guidance because it meant different things.
Speaker 1: He didn't have to disclose um. It remains an unresolved
Speaker 1: question though, is a legal matter how court would view
Speaker 1: this in terms of that the legitimacy of that assertion
Speaker 1: of privilege. The committee also subpoenaed two other former Trump
Speaker 1: aids who did work in the White House, former Deputy
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn and former Staff Secretary Rob Porter,
Speaker 1: but they didn't attend after the White House Council notified
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee that they have constitutional immunity from compelled
Speaker 1: congressional testimony in order to protect the prerogatives of the
Speaker 1: office of president, going beyond the claim of privilege there,
Speaker 1: how can Democrats proceed with this, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: variation on impeachment hearings if they can't get witnesses to testify. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so this is a bit of the problem the Democrats
Speaker 1: have been facing for months now, ever since the Muller
Speaker 1: report came out, and never since Mr Muller testified, and
Speaker 1: they want to move forward on this quasi impeachment route.
Speaker 1: They were struggling to get people who had uh testified
Speaker 1: the Mr Muller and provided information that was outline of
Speaker 1: the report to get to them to come before Congress.
Speaker 1: And you're seeing some litigation on it. With respect to
Speaker 1: Don McGann, the former White House counsel, you know, there's
Speaker 1: pending litigation to compel him to come before to Congress
Speaker 1: and testify. What you're waiting to see the results of
Speaker 1: that litigation. I think that will provide a roadmap but guidance.
Speaker 1: But as far as the White House is concerned, they're
Speaker 1: just kind of dragging this out right now. They're happy
Speaker 1: to let this be, you know, dragged out in the
Speaker 1: courts and take months, if not years, because by the
Speaker 1: time it gets to a resolution, it won't matter one
Speaker 1: way or the other. And so even if this were
Speaker 1: a traditional impeachment inquiry, if they had drawn up articles
Speaker 1: of impeachment, these witnesses still wouldn't be allowed to testify.
Speaker 1: So again, I mean, what happens then, so yeah, So
Speaker 1: if so, if the courts ultimately ruled in the government's favor,
Speaker 1: which I don't think in the end, especially the context
Speaker 1: of appeachment, I don't think they would. But even if
Speaker 1: they did, Congress can certainly still utilize the ridden text
Speaker 1: of the Mole report itself, and they always could do
Speaker 1: that in the context of impeachment, recommending articles of impeachment.
Speaker 1: What they wanted, for purposes of grassroots support from American
Speaker 1: public was to have those live moments, to have Don
Speaker 1: McGann talk about what Trump did, to have any Donalds
Speaker 1: Retiefer staffed Domigan talk about what she took notes on.
Speaker 1: It was meant to build public momentum, not necessarily for
Speaker 1: purposes of evidence. So the committee's chair, Jerry Nadler, said
Speaker 1: that Lewandowski's conduct was completely unacceptable and he's considering holding
Speaker 1: him in contempt of Congress. Has several of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Committee members said he should. So even if he's held
Speaker 1: in contempt of Congress, if you have h Justusice department
Speaker 1: that will not go any further on this, what would
Speaker 1: that really mean to him? Ultimately nothing at all, um,
Speaker 1: And there is an inherent criminal contempt authority that Congress
Speaker 1: has technically to start to get arms, can you know,
Speaker 1: execute an arrest, But that's not going to happen. So
Speaker 1: and Korey Lewandowski knows this. In the White House knows,
Speaker 1: they know that. Ultimately for Natler, this is a lot
Speaker 1: of huffing and puffing, but nothing's going to come of
Speaker 1: those contempt citations, which is why now they're debating to
Speaker 1: what extent he's even going to waste his time with
Speaker 1: it because nothing is going to transpire that the Just
Speaker 1: Justice Department isn't going to pursue the case. And this
Speaker 1: is the unfortunate reality of how the institutions and sort
Speaker 1: of the customs and norms of how we used to
Speaker 1: handle these types of matters have really been broken down
Speaker 1: over the last few years. Political analysts were criticizing the
Speaker 1: Democrats for going forward this way, but I wonder what
Speaker 1: other way can they go forward? About a minute here, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the only route they had. They
Speaker 1: had to try to build some additional momentum to put
Speaker 1: a face and video to the text of that for
Speaker 1: the page report. They've gotten some progress. I don't know
Speaker 1: if they're going to be able to pull this off
Speaker 1: in the end, but you can still expect this will
Speaker 1: drag on till the end of this year, and we
Speaker 1: will talk with you more as it does. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Brad. That's Brad Massey is a partner in
Speaker 1: mark Z. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Slash Podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Ye