Skip to main content

tv   Trump v. Mazars Oral Argument  CSPAN  October 11, 2019 1:54pm-3:02pm EDT

1:54 pm
create a short documentary on the issue you would like the presidential candidates to address ring the 2020 campaign. c-span will award $100,000 in total cash prizes plus a $5,000 grand prize. >> go get a camera and microphone and go start filming and produce the best video you can possibly produce. >> visit for more information today. >> campaign 2020. watch our live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. c-span's campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. today, a and his accounting firm us comply with the congressional subpoena for the president's financial records. reform issuedt
1:55 pm
the subpoena last april. we will show you the oral argument from july. it is a little more than an hour. ,> may it please the court indulge me for a moment. are counsels. get i wanted to start out by saying i don't get to say this very is one of and this
1:56 pm
those instances when the district court's opinion is extremely strong, especially when combined with the supreme court, and it answers a lot of the arguments. the district court's statement that there is deference to congress here is wrong. those come from cases where the president is not a party. here we have a dispute between two equal coordinates. keep anyould we different? why wouldn't we look objectively as a court to determine if congress is pursuing a legitimate -- i don't think it would change
1:57 pm
the standard and it does not change because of the behavior. cases thathe articulate the deferential tondard our cases which go two branches of government. why.t don't understand don't understand why we would adopt the standard peer you quoted the district court. when youn't see why have the president on one side and congress on the other you would defer one over the other. whateverg under , the reason here is
1:58 pm
more power in congress and the supreme court has an made is restricted and there is a very practical reason for that in part which is, the power to question the congress is limited by the constitution itself. >> i don't mean to interrupt you, but i guess i do. [laughter] in the cases where you don't have congress versus the president. they are aired i don't know of a case where that percival has been articulated. i would like you to respond to my question, which is why would we seek a level of deference to congress when what you have here is separations of power case with the president on one side and the congress on the other? that is all i am asking. on the otherwho is
1:59 pm
, members of congress cannot question their functions as legislators. >> so you're saying no review here at all? quite we are saying he is limited and it doesn't matter whether the president is on the others. in addition, your honor -- >> you keep saying that keep saying that the cases have articulated the deferential standard has involved the president versus congress. >> i think that is correct. what i find difficult about
2:00 pm
case that fit into that are not complaint is for donald j. trump and is here as president or the same way bill clinton was in clinton versus jones because the subpoena is mazto him, it is to [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] a lot of it covered years when he wasn't the. on the other hand -- i'm not even quite sure which thought it goes in or whether it goes in and out of it. so what capacity is he here as a plaintiff?
2:01 pm
>> this is not some sort of dispute between the president and the congress. congress here is looking at all sorts of legislative possibilities, some of which might have not involved the president at all and that's -- that point cannot be emphasized enough. she wants to make it seem like all we're talking about here is congress is going to pass legislation that is going to with directed at the president. that is totally wrong. and therefore, we don't think that this is some major conflict between the branches. -may be statutes that congress would pass that might involve separation of powers and then those would be -- those would have to be looked at. but at this stage of the case, that's not what's involved here at all. you're k this is what
2:02 pm
getting at. are you suggesting that somehow the standards are different because the subpoena is directed to mazars and not directed to the president? does that make a difference in how we think of this case? >> i don't think so, your honor. >> right. >> but what i'm saying is the difference is as you saw, so much about the arguments of what congress might do with this information and he's saying that they might -- actually, he's saying they're going to pass on constitutional legislation so much you need to stop that. what i'm saying is there are all sorts of possibilities of legislation that congress might come up with that do not in any way involve separation of powers. it does seem to me that the president is the. and what we are looking at here is some of the things that we're
2:03 pm
looking at here, some of his conduct before he was the president, no doubt. but the significant amount of this -- what congress is looking into is for the financial disclosure form as. now it's also -- >> and also as candidate. >> correct. so that's why -- >> happens with presumptions and things then. >> correct. it involves before -- part of it involves while he has been president and part of what congress is looking into is will nvolve the presidency. you have to look at these as these are the directors of the. and you could also say, i suppose, that since many of the records being sought are records before he was the president and so i think that also does have
2:04 pm
take into account that this isn't just -- >> that's what i'm trying to figure out. do we turn it on and off or do we just -- least common denominator is there's a president in the somewhere? >> you can't ignore that this is the president. i don't think it's a good argument he's trying to make. if congress is doing things to interfere with the president's ability to carry out his job, maybe that would have some sort of special concern. >> is he right about that? >> if in fact he's right, this would limit the president's ability to perform this article 2 responsibility? we would have to take that into account, would we? >> yes, you would. >> so the only question is whether anything congress is considering here falls enter that candidate. >> does it take the interview of
2:05 pm
the president in the same way when it is directed to a third party? >> no. > and it's not -- there's no account in defining privilege. there is no recognizing law privilege being asserted here. and so -- and the notion that i guess concerns here on the or hand, presidents -- a president could hand over here's my diary from the last 20 years, i'm giving it to you as a friend and then someone subpoenas that and goes wait a minute. that's information about me that i gave to you and i'm the president, things are very different. i'm worried about this ignoring the fact that it's at a third party. it doesn't mean i'm ignoring the other presidential interests in it but a just because the president gives unprotected -- we can't touch it because it came from the president especially before he was.
2:06 pm
>> i think -- >> you have to treat it like -- >> you answered it didn't. but it does make a difference if this is against mazars. >> i thought i was agreeing. >> you said make no difference. > i thought for him -- ok. does this matter that this is a subpoena to a third party? >> yes. >> so it matters that the party -- and therefore, even in clinton versus jones where it did involve the president directly, the supreme court, and
2:07 pm
we lost. but even there, the court -- but here, this would have very lethal impact as how the president carries out his functions. so yes. so all i'm saying is maybe i'm mishearing or misunderstanding your questions. you can't ignore the fact that what is being asked for here do involve records of the president even though they are written primarily records from before he was the. >> it's not just records of the president gave to a third party. >> exactly. >> in which he has no privilege. >> i 100% agree with you there. so one question -- >> it could be very different if he was a doctor or an attorney client. >> the supreme court has said this is not -- this is like banking records, i suppose,
2:08 pm
which we know is not -- [indiscernible] >> and it is not even here. these records are not banking records. so we got the new york, at least there, they have an argument that there is the -- [indiscernible] we don't even have that here. >> what about the nixon versus g.f.a. case? in his financial papers? >> yes. there's definitely some privacy interest as we know. he says that the presidential records is constitutional and i'm very pleased to hear that because before that, presidents completely owned -- and it made presidents very savvy destroyed the records. and congress said we're not doing that anymore. so that's an instance where congress has very significantly regulated the president in carrying out the function.
2:09 pm
>> potential record doesn't cover his accounting papers >> but it could depending on how much it ties in with the function. right. if he where is a letter to his daughter saying i hope you do well in college, that's not covered. but as we know, any number of things that he does that tie in with if he is saying to his aide, i'm going to lie on my financial disclosure forms and won't y'all help me do it. that clearly is covered by the presidential records. so i just want to get that out there. >> i'm sorry. so, where does this leave us on whether there's presumptions or not? because if we said it's different but we can't ignore? i'm just not sure what that legal test is when we go to write an opinion to say it's
2:10 pm
different but we can't ignore it. what does this mean practically to how we analyze the subpoena? >> i can practically -- [indiscernible] that we have shown here is obviously, a legitimate legislative purpose. there could be other case where is it would matter that it wasn't the. in this case can, it does not matter at all. and what do you do with mr. constable's argument that there are serious constitutional doubts, questions about the type of legislation congress is considering? >> there aren't. >> there aren't. we have to decide that. so how do we do that? he took the -- unconstitutional. so we have to declare constitutional to be able to -- [indiscernible] >> no, you don't, your honor. >> what do we do? >> it's serious constitutional questions are to be avoided.
2:11 pm
i don't believe in the serious constitutional questions requiring disclosure is unconstitutional. >> what about the conflict of interest requirements if congress wants to strengthen? i get your point about the disclosure part but what about the conflict of interest requirements? >> in part -- >> is that one serious? >> no. and let me use that -- [indiscernible] and i want to tie this down. for example, the lead hoar that is being looked into for the post -- the lease says it lessor -- prohibits the or lessee, it prohibits a government official from doing business with g.s.a.
2:12 pm
>> why does the company need documents from mazars? can't they just get it all from g.s.a.? >> g.s.a. wouldn't necessarily have the financial statements. >> wait. i'm sorry. what would mazars have in its bees -- shouldn't everything in g.s.a.'s file? >> a couple of things. one, and remember, i want to make sure that i'm going to come back to this too and talk about -- [indiscernible] and we'll talk about. >> i have a question about that too. >> good. or example, we need to know in applying for the lease with information that was provided accurate. there's no g.s.a. probably doesn't have any information to go over that. we know there's evidence that
2:13 pm
ave been provided by a convicted liar. there's evidence that everybody has to be concerned about that mr. trump claims with financial statements depending upon what he's doing. he's been doing that. so we need to know from mazars we hope we can get a better window on what is the actual situation. two is what's happening -- >> wait. before you go into actual situation, what can you finish to as to what? >> what the financial situation is what he is saying when he applies for -- >> to the post office. >> correct. and second, we need to know what mr. trump's relationship with the business entities that he's psych the lease. if g.s.a. might not have that information -- >> so if it doesn't, congress
2:14 pm
should pass a law requiring that in the future. >> yes. >> before we even get to that question, don't we have to under the supreme court's precedent have have some indication from the house that they authorize the committee here to take this action? i mean, you walk in, the court says pretty clearly it is important not to separate the responsibilities of the powers. so what evidence that the house is in fact, given the committee the affordability to investigate a president? >> the answer to that, i need to state one thing first. mr. constable and i spoke before and -- [indiscernible] this has nothing to do with statutory. i think he meant -- yes. that's has nothing to do with the statutory power. once we all understand that. so what we know is from the
2:15 pm
rules which we discussed from here the oversight committee is a special committee. by its rules, congress has given the oversight committee the entire power of the house. the house has given the entire committee the power into oversight matters. that is there in the rules. he answered very early on that congress could investigate the president.
2:16 pm
>> remember, yes, i can give you an example. for example, my understanding up during the civil war who they were investigate the conduct of the war and not surprisingly, one of the things that we investigate was how president lincoln -- >> if there was no subpoena listed for the president -- and wasn't that done by both house? >> no. it is the committee of the house. and remember, the house has changed considerably. the house now largely operates by committee. and that is the congress -- the house has set that up it is committee do investigations and it is committee -- >> even in the case such as the subpoena the committee has been specifically authorized by the house. can you provide an example where the committee has issued a subpoena for the president's
2:17 pm
papers or records where they have not be specifically authorized to do so as a whole? >> i don't know of any right now. >> so would you say that this is unprecedented then? >> well remember, we didn't issue the subpoena to the. we issued the subpoena to mazars. >> or the president's subpoena. > correct. >> are they the president's paper begin. to the accountant? >> yes. it was given to the accountant. the main thing we're looking for are private citizens from given papers to his account didn't under no privileges. and -- >> investigate wrongdoing of the president as the president, right?
2:18 pm
>> and as presidenting you can't violate those things if you are a private citizen. >> and we're also looking into whatever was done -- [indiscernible] >> and financial disclosure during candidacy. >> correct. and again going back to -- i don't think i've ever encountered before on arguments do-over ess cannot anything is important. like cabinet members. >> you can't provide a single example for this process against the president historically.
2:19 pm
this has been throes at a minimum where it is a serious constitutional question where that is permissible. >> he says i am not disclosing this that has not been done before. he pushed himself in this position and we can't forget hat. your question, you started how, you said it right. the time we'rell
2:20 pm
looking at this, we have to say could the house have done that -- [indiscernible] >> what the house can do is it an accept its own rules. is no ly here, there
2:21 pm
question whatsoever and no court could review the fact that the house has decided many decades ago to switch to a system where it wouldn't operate the house as a whole. it would operate by committee. and indeed -- >> in an investigative role, you mean? > correct. the rules are broad enough -- his argument is that in this ase, we have to apply -- principle to it either because it's the president or because it's constitutional -- why don't ou address that?
2:22 pm
is there a clear statement requirement? >> nothing in the rules authorizes a subpoena. that is his argument. in the clear statement rules ean and i assume that --
2:23 pm
congress must say that into rules. to say no, we end zone have that here. but no such thing is required. tell us why. when a bill is passed, it is going to be -- the constitutional powers by the way, what they did. the president has to have a warrant. the rule serves an extremely
2:24 pm
important purpose of allowing the president to say whoa, wait minute. there is no clear statement rule in the impeachment clause, right? an impeachment inquiry. >> that is taken care by the constitution. >> my point is -- >> we're not way irof any clear statement rules that would apply to the house carrying out its oversight. >> this is not an impeachment inquiry.
2:25 pm
it makes a lot of sense for the legislation and it does not lie for situations like this where a house pursuant to its rulemaking authority granted by the constitution that the supreme court has said it is extremely broad and it is broad as the house's powers of legislature. let's not forget that. >> it is the court's opinion -- provided that clear statement ule for that house rule? >> first of all, it is a criminal contempt. congress has said its purpose was to look into amending the nterstate compact.
2:26 pm
so that's a constitutional question and we're going to avoid it. we don't have anything close to that. remember the kinds of things that the congress said. congress could, for example, things should cs have a lot more money to investigate. >> i was only talking about your last point. >> removal of power. and congress could pass legislation involving g.s.a. >> what's your response to the judge as to why this case is not ontrolled?
2:27 pm
-- by tobin? >> tobin is distinguished easily distinguishable. >> why is that? >> for the reason i just said. >> say it again. >> ok. >> because i missed it. >> tobin, congress said the investigating committee said we want these materials because we want to decide whether to amend a interstate compact that has been improved this court said that's a difficult question. here, you don't have any statement of purpose from the oversight committee saying we are thinking about is making, adding another condition on the residency.
2:28 pm
and that is why it is clearly at this stage is clearly inappropriate because there are all sorts of things. so tobin has a different standard from legislation that might be had. well that comes from the supreme court statement. so we don't really care what tobin says about that. >> i just have a procedural question here because we've been struggling with this clear statement and how it applys and this sort of hybrid -- this was not an argument that was raised in the district court. it's not -- it was not in there other than a passing preference. there was none of this citations and developments of the clear statement argument in their opening brief.
2:29 pm
i have never mentioned you say orfeiture. >> we didn't have -- >> so, what is your opinion? maybe -- because you said -- i'm just trying to figure out. i didn't see it in the trial court. and family had the most -- argument about this. and their opening brief. i was trying to figure out why you didn't have a heading. did you not understand the argument -- [indiscernible] >> yes. obviously, we didn't get a reply. primarily, it is developed for their reply before this court. >> they do offer a stare climate rule. >> yes. one possibility would have been o say that [indiscernible]
2:30 pm
i want to consult my co-counsel for one moment. >> go ahead. -- clear statement ule applies to the statutes. as significantly alter the president and that's it. i'm not sure. >> again -- i thought if you all
2:31 pm
that, you would have addressed that. >> your honor, we addressed what we think of the serious arguments. i believe this first statement rule was not clearly stated and i believe it is quite obviously wrong. again, the cases that mr. uconn relies on have nothing to do ith this statement here. can you address the statement about that the committee forfeited the g.s.a. in its clause? > your honor, i'm actually gad glad that you raised that because it is -- i'm sorry to say this. it is absolutely and completely factually wrong. i don't know why they said this. >> if you could address their arguments.
2:32 pm
we could set out the exact pages where we made arguments in the district court on this. otherwise, if you want, i can do t now. >> briefly. >> ok. >> i'll take a letter too. >> thank you. so we said our explanation of the committees investigation we said that our opposition brief in the district court so that's document number 20, pages three and four to describe the committee's investigation as and i won't read the whole quote but it talks about the committee was looking into conflict of interest, constitutional violations continuing interest, financial interests, etc. and on to our management of that lease. at page 14 there, we said it involves serious constitutional questions and legitimate concerns of our government ethics.
2:33 pm
the constitutional questions -- 369, the district court obviously totally understood where you're making these points. district court says "the academy also says that the records will assist in monitoring the president's compliance with the foreign clause." so obviously the district court understood it. i could go on. i refuse so in the letter. again, i have no idea of why they thought that this was rated. in addition, it obviously is not waived because as you well know, they can support a judgment as long as you are supporting a judgment on any grounds that is not asking to expand the record. there's no need to expand the record here at all. we are making legal arguments etc. so even if we had not address this -- which we did, mr. consovoy should know that we could raise it anyway.
2:34 pm
>> i want to ask you the same question i asked mr. consovoy about this. setting aside the volume question and the g.s.a. lease and all that, do you think this subpoena can be sustained just so the basis of congressmen coming forth reason that is looking into the recording of asset of the office of government ethics? >> yes, your honor. >> if we thought that was adequate -- what? >> did you say adequate? >> yes. if we thought the subpoena was justified, do we need to look at the other three at all? >> you don't need to. as far as where concerned, they fully support and they give further support. for example, the clause -- >> well, i was asking you whether we have to get into that clause. >> you might have to.
2:35 pm
it's so heavily supports our argument. >> what about mr. consovoy's argument that the scope of the subpoena exceeds even this requirement? like for example, you mentioned the engagement letters. how are those possible? >> the engagement letters are very important, your honor. because we need to know if we're going to get the material that majors has, it comes down to garbage in, garbage out. we need to know when majors was engaged, what powers or responsibilities etc. does majors have? are they supposed to adjust whatever mr. trump gives them? they are to take as a given and deal with or are they supposed to question back? and when they should -- if mr. trump is going to lie on what mazars says, does it have somewhere does it have to be
2:36 pm
aid expressly? otherwise, you don't know what the product that mazars was going out whether that's legitimacy or not. if i may, on the clause, a couple of things. this is something where congress an regulate the. congress has legitimated on what
2:37 pm
are appropriate and what aren't. and indeed, there are legislative proposals about that very thing. so clearly, this is something that constitutionally based congress can think about and this gets me to -- >> the release examples historically of them, i don't know what you call it. a conditional extent or whether they would direct received two locations in the government. give that to the state department, give that to the department of interior. it's a theory there that that's a condition consent? >> it could be, your honor. the way they could set up egislation saying for example, -- for example, congress could define it.
2:38 pm
you pay difference to whatever passes. and you -- >> whether it's constitutional? >> of course you do. >> you do that all the time. you say there's a presumption of constitutionality and you are very interested. members of congress take an oath and you take into account what congress has done. now you ultimately have the final say. >> right. >> but you give deferential and you're interested. >> oh. > yeah, i agree with that. >> so if congress wants to pass legislation.
2:39 pm
>> so even, you know, assuming that congress has the powers to regulate in the areas that you suggested, what is the line between specific financial records of a single president who us just one person covered by the emoluments clause although that is such undisputed in the academic literature, what's the connection? where is congress need to know all the specific facts? >> right. and especially with regard to the hotel. so what is mr. trump's actual relationship to the hotel? and what is going on with the hotel and what does mr. trump think that those are assets of his? does-think they're not assets of his? >> what is the those? the hotel or the income or?
2:40 pm
>> i'm sorry. if there are things -- the hotel assets. they're assets of mr. trump and if the saudis come in, just hypothetical, they come in and say they we want to rent the entire hotel for the year and just name a price. whatever you name is fine with us. is that an emoluments? we need to know. and he might say one of my assets is the old post office hotel and that is mine. >> but how would a statute address that problem? i mean, if congress determined that the president was in violation on the emoluments clause? >> several. one is congress can say we think that is not a foreign emolument.
2:41 pm
two, congress could decide is it ok for the president to do business with the government? because remember, domestic emoluments clause provides pay for the president and not more. so if the president is doing business with defense department and let's say he owns a company that manufactures a key part for airports -- airplanes and the defense department is purchasing those and the president is saying i'm keeping my full ownership and knowledge about this company, that might be a violation of the investing emoluments clause. so we need to know what are mr. trump's relationship with these companies and what emoluments should be coming in. what is he claiming? >> so all of the examples you gave are what might be termed like a violation of the
2:42 pm
emoluments clause? so why would that not be something that's, you know, a proper inquiry and impeachment hearing or some other type of investigation if what is the legislative purpose for congress to determine that there's been a ast wrong doing? >> two things. congress might try to define what is an emolument. some of it is difficult. >> isn't there a statute that does that? i thought that congress, with the gift and a statute that requires the disclosure of gifts. >> should it be amended? should it be increased? should it be lowered? president trump obviously presents much more difficult issues as i mentioned before. i don't know any modern president has done what he has done. so the emoluments clause is much more important. and second as i said, congress could decide we really think mr.
2:43 pm
trump is doing a great job. we don't want him to worry about this emoluments stuff and we hereby consent to all of the following things. absolutely clear and that says right in the constitution that the congress could do that. so clearly, these are things that you would want to look into. >> ok. >> go ahead. >> i need a little bit of help raising the time of this subpoena is covering. on the one hand, it raise the issue we talked about earlier about prepresidential status. but you say you talk about the emoluments clause. i don't think this applies to candidates. the conflicts of interest rules. that applies only when you take office, right? >> right. >> as to those, those only kick in, what legitimate interest in
2:44 pm
reference do you have prior to january 2017? bid was the g.s.a. turned in march 2011 and the contract was granted june 2014 -- 2013. and as candidacy required a disclosure back to january of january, 2014. so you got a gap between june 2013 and january of 2014 where i don't understand where there's any interest, legislative interest in getting these materials. and if you correct me, how do you explain the financial disclosure interest over this whole time period? pre. i'm all pre-presidential time here. he has things like
2:45 pm
losses in some years and then get carried over to other years. maybe get written off in other years. or do they suddenly disappear for no reason? things like that. >> if he has losses that suddenly disappear in august of 2013, he's already got the g.s.a. and he's not a presidential -- he's not covered by the presidential reporting period. what does it matter? what on earth is your legislative interest in his asset going up, down, disappearing or whatever he does? >> he has losses showing in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. >> and so what happens if it shows up a couple. years and then it drops out and shows up again?
2:46 pm
what mr. cohen said is mr. trump -- >> how much spinning out do you get to do here? you have to show us a time and get to look at his finances. there's a gap there that going well, maybe something would have popped in and out that wouldn't be covered by 2011 to mid 2013 and 2014 to 2019 but there's going to be something mysterious that happens in that six-month period that won't show up anywhere else. really? >> or things may show up for a while. >> you got a while you got 2014 to 2019. >> no. i'm sorry. you want to know when did they start showing up? especially if we're dealing with collects things and real estate assets, etc. when do they start showing up? when did they -- >> well, how far back -- i gunshot you did 2011. that was the lease. but i don't know why under that theory they can't go back to when he was 18 or birth for goodness' sakes? >> it probably wouldn't be
2:47 pm
pertinent go back that far but for somebody who has so much -- that's so complicated and losses going forward. and mr. trump has said he's been under audit for years. so he himself recognizes that these are the kinds of things at can carry over from year-to-year. and it may show up because we need to know are there conflicts of interest? is he maybe under the influence of a foreign government or a oreign company, etc. sometimes they run into blind alleys and we need to be able to see it if as an alley that
2:48 pm
doesn't go anywhere. ok. we look but it didn't go anywhere. so that's why the investigative authority is so broad and why we don't have to show -- >> how far back could you go in this theory? >> how far can we or did we? >> i want to know how far you could. >> i don't have answer an answer for that. >> that's the problem. >> could you go back to when he start his first business? >> very unlikely, your honor. but suppose -- >> what's the rule? i'm just trying to struggle a rule here. because you've connected him to speck things and that doesn't cover this whole time period against most of it. >> your honor, we think pertinence is a very easy hurdle here for the house to overcome. but pertinence -- so for instance, does this cover
2:49 pm
anything? if we are trying to get some of this diary when he was 7 years old and he's now in his 70's, probably not. >> and you're obviously saying probably? >> well, you and i could come up with hypothetical that says today, so and so stole from me and i'm never going to forget this and then 10 years later, that person gets killed, ok. you might say that's relevant. but i don't want to say never. >> it's your job not to say. to never say never. >> ok. never seek the diary again. >> i thought you said never to have any limits on this. >> we will never seek the diary of a president for when -- >> that's not helping me a whole lot here. so -- >> you can bank on that. >> so i have a question. the legislative purposes that you've articulated right hand various forms of regulations and
2:50 pm
the subpoena seeks the financial records of a. so i guess i'm wondering from the perspective of the committee, how does the committee account for the fact that this does involve, you know, both the regulation investigation of a whole department of the government and there are any ways in which the committee should treat the president different from john q. public in relation to a subpoena? >> the first question you're asking if it's investigation of another branch, frankly if anything, the power is more, is greater when the oversight committee is investigateing what the executive branch is doing ecause the oversight committee -- he is pot the oversight committee. he is he president of the united states. >> i mean the legislation is regulation of the. >> ok. >> maybe including other
2:51 pm
government presidents but it's about the financial papers of the sitting president, right? >> absolutely, yes. i think judge tatel's question was brought out to me earlier. we do not deny that in some universe it might be that coge is using its power to prevent the president from being able do anything, to carry out his or her job. that would raise concerns that were separations of powers levels. we're nowhere near that. >> is that the only limitation? a subpoena that would directly infringe on his ability to exercise the powers? >> and then the president can raise executive privilege or presidential communication privilege. as you know, the supreme court has said it is non-absolute.
2:52 pm
so for instance, it was required to turn it over various records that were very tied in. >> pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. >> right. but there were also congressional investigations going on and it was impeachment. >> and the circuit denied release, you know, of the tapes a senate. >> so what i'm saying is there may be certain circumstances in which the president -- [indiscernible] governed but overwhelmingly, in our view, subpoenas to the president are -- as long as there's a legitimate legislative purpose would govern. so, yes, it's something that you would and should take into account in appropriate circumstances. once more, we're nowhere near that. >> but is the president treated by a congressional committee any differently from a cabinet secretary or any government
2:53 pm
official within the executive branch? is the president the same as any government official? >> no. the president is officially -- what the supreme court has said the president is unique. >> how is the committee's treatment for that unique circumstances of subpoenaing the president? >> the problem here is as i said, this president has said basically on the american people, i am going to make this hard for you because i'm not going to do what other presidents have done. i am going to mix up my personal capacity and my business capacity and i'm going to keep doing that even though while i'm president. >> but how does that impact what the authority of congress is? >> well, because as i said, at a certain point, you obviously need to do some sort of balancing. so clearly at some point, you need to balance because he is the president. but again, i keep -- this case is nowhere near what that process --
2:54 pm
>> hasn't that balance been struck in both the supreme court precedence by assuring that the full house of congress has authorized the investigation with the president? >> no. because you haven't come up with an example yet where the full house or senate has not authorized a subpoena or an investigation of a president. >> well, the full house -- >> specifically, directly. >> they never get involved in subpoenas. congress works differently now. >> no, but they often do still create a committee for a specific purpose to investigate a specific issue and then that committee will issue a subpoena but it is pursuant a specific authorization. >> but again, that's not how the house works anymore. and remember, only the house gets to decide that. that's the nixon case. walter nixon. the house gets to decide its own rules. as the house wants to delegate certain powers to a committee or to a chair, the house gets ozzy
2:55 pm
who that that's not a subject for this court to get into. and in addition, i think we can throw the opposite. there's no case schlabaching hat -- >> i think that they will find themselves in a position where for them to ficult counter. the specific authorization from the full senate. it wasn't under some generalized authority. , the the senate said judiciary committee can do this under its current authority.
2:56 pm
that would have been just as valid but let me make that clear. again, this court, the supreme court said that is not subject for you to examine. that is outside. i have to address one thing. the law enforcement point -- look. at any number of things that congress investigates involves -- the congress had a massive investigation of 9/11. they did it at the exact same time that the criminal investigation was going on. nobody would possibly have said oh, gosh, this involved hijacking and mass murder and therefore, congress cannot investigate. it is ludicrous. it is not a supreme court decision. congress can investigate even if it means it's investigating what is -- but that's not a law enforcement function.
2:57 pm
a law enforcement function, you do investigations and then you bring a prosecution. >> i just have two technical questions. umber one is you -- that the oversight committee has jurisdiction over the ethics in government and office. does that come from the rule or -- where did that come from? >> i believe that is -- is that the generic ruling? is that 10 clause 1-n? >> yes, it's in there rule 10 jurisdiction. if you look the addendum to our brief. >> so it's just generic? or just something else? >> give me one second. >> sure.
2:58 pm
>> that goes through the oversight committee pursuant to the parliament parliament their through the house that the oversight committee has jurisdiction over the ethics and government act. >> is a record? >> no. >> would you submit it when you can, please? >> what we can submit to you that in the past, the the oversight committee has over of
2:59 pm
the ethics and the government. >> ok, last question. what is the current status of the subpoena in the district court? you agreed not to enforce it. right? is will anything else? that's where things stand? >> correct. >> is there a district court order on that? pursuant to the agreement between you and mr. consovoy? >> that's right. he denied it. >> ok. thank you. >> here's look our prime time schedule on the c-span networks. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, live coverage of pumpkin -- president trump holding a rally. and book tv with authority who is have appeared on our in-depth series and on c-span3, it's
3:00 pm
american history tv with programs looking at the history of the u.s. automobile industry. and tomorrow, more from president trump as the speaks at the 14th annual summit here in washington. see that live saturday at 6:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this columbus day weekend, america" thereel film the whole world was watching about the 1971 at her vietnam war demonstration which resulted in the largest mass arrest in u.s. history. >> a thousand swarmed onto washington circle. over a thousand more hit georgetown. >> sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, artist army pressures his vision for the upcoming native american
3:01 pm
memorial in the national mall. >> in the middle is a 12-foot stainless steel circle, and at the base of that is a fire, so you can use that to light your sweet grass and sage and things that you use and you can touch the water and use the fire. we call that the drum. >> monday, columbus day, at noon, supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor discussed the judicial impact of the first woman on the u.s. supreme court, sandra day o'connor. what she's saying is if you want to improve the status of women in the nursing profession, the best way to do it is to get men to want to do the job because the pay imminently will go up.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on