馃攳
Judge Upholds House Democrats Subpoena For Pres. Trump's Financial Records | The Last Word | MSNBC - YouTube
Channel: MSNBC
[0]
well today saw a huge victory I mean
[2]
huge and historic and important a huge
[5]
victory for the House of Representatives
[7]
and a crushing defeat and I mean
[9]
historic crushing defeat for President
[12]
Trump in a ruling by a federal judge in
[15]
Washington a judge who wrote this Court
[18]
is not prepared to roll back the tide of
[21]
history the case is Donald J Trump vs.
[25]
Committee on Oversight and reform of the
[27]
House of Representatives the president
[28]
is suing to block chairman Elijah
[30]
Cummings subpoena of Trump financial
[32]
documents from an accounting firm that
[34]
has done several years of work for
[36]
Donald Trump and Trump businesses the
[38]
judge ruled that the subpoena must be
[40]
obeyed and the judge refused to grant a
[43]
delay in the execution of his order
[45]
because the judge said that Donald
[47]
Trump's lawsuit does not present quote
[50]
serious legal questions about the
[53]
subpoena the judge said this is not a
[55]
serious case the president doesn't have
[57]
a chance of prevailing the president's
[59]
private attorney arguing the case told
[61]
the court last week that Congress did
[64]
not have a legitimate investigative
[66]
reason for obtaining the Trump financial
[68]
documents the drop the judge traced the
[70]
committee's interest in those documents
[72]
in detail beginning with who else stormy
[76]
Daniels the judge noted that the
[78]
committee was seeking quote documents
[81]
related to president Trump's reporting
[83]
of debts and payments to his personal
[85]
attorney Michael Cohen to silence women
[86]
alleging extramarital affairs with the
[89]
president before the election the judge
[91]
went on to with several other financial
[93]
matters of legitimate interest to the
[95]
committee and stressed quote Congress's
[98]
power to investigate is broad judge Amit
[101]
Mehta wrote it is not the courts role to
[104]
decipher whether Congress's true purpose
[107]
in pursuing an investigation is to aid
[109]
legislation or something more sinister
[111]
such as exacting political retribution
[115]
Congress's motives are off limits the
[119]
president's lawyer argued to the judge
[120]
last week that Congress is not allowed
[122]
to conduct criminal investigations it is
[124]
only authorized to conduct
[126]
investigations for legislative purposes
[127]
- that the judge said today it is simply
[130]
not fabula below that a constitution
[132]
that grant
[133]
Congress the power to remove a president
[135]
for reasons including criminal behavior
[137]
would deny Congress the power to
[139]
investigate him for unlawful conduct
[142]
past or present even without formally
[144]
opening an impeachment inquiry judge
[146]
Maeda
[146]
reminded us of the most historic
[149]
investigations of presidents that began
[151]
before impeachment proceedings quote
[155]
twice in the last 50 years Congress has
[157]
investigated a sitting president for
[158]
alleged law violations before initiating
[161]
impeachment proceedings it did so in
[163]
1973 by establishing the Senate Select
[165]
Committee on presidential campaign
[167]
activities better known as the Watergate
[169]
committee and then did so again in 1995
[172]
by establishing the special committee to
[174]
investigate whitewater Development
[176]
Corporation and related matters the
[177]
former investigation included within its
[179]
scope potential corruption by President
[181]
Nixon while in office while the latter
[184]
concerned alleged illegal misconduct by
[187]
President Clinton before his time in
[189]
office Congress plainly views itself as
[192]
having sweeping authority to investigate
[193]
illegal conduct of a president before
[196]
and after taking office this Court is
[198]
not prepared to roll back the tide of
[202]
history leading off our discussion now
[204]
is congressman Jim Hines a Democrat from
[207]
Connecticut and a member of the House
[208]
Intelligence Committee and the House
[210]
Financial Services Committee Glenn
[212]
Kirchner is with us she's a former
[213]
assistant US attorney who has worked
[215]
with Special Counsel Robert Muller Glenn
[217]
Christian was in the courtroom last week
[219]
when that case was argued and Jill wine
[221]
banks is with us a former assistant
[222]
Watergate special prosecutor and an
[224]
MSNBC Eagle analyst who was surprised by
[227]
none of these developments because she's
[229]
seen it all before
[230]
Christman hives I want to start with you
[232]
and what this ruling means on enforcing
[236]
this subpoena against a White House that
[240]
is trying to block every subpoena yeah
[243]
well it's not surprising and I mean you
[245]
read judge Maeda's opinion well look two
[251]
things are coming out tonight and and
[253]
this is not the end of the story of
[254]
course because the Trump administration
[255]
Trump will will appeal the judge's
[258]
decision but two things are coming out
[259]
tonight number one Congress is the
[262]
article one authority in this country
[264]
with the
[266]
our to investigate whatever it chooses
[268]
and and and you know that stems from
[271]
something as basic as the notion that
[273]
Congress is the one part of our
[276]
government of the three parts of our
[278]
government that is actually elected by
[280]
the people and that's why it's Article
[282]
one and that's why no matter who you are
[284]
whether you're don McGann or Mayes ours
[287]
or the Justice Department you don't get
[290]
to say no to Congress except under Fifth
[294]
Amendment privileges in the Constitution
[296]
and you know that is the underlying
[299]
theory under which under which made us
[302]
decision came down and the other thing
[303]
by the way you know manoosh in producing
[305]
tax returns the law could not be more
[307]
clear that those tax returns must be
[310]
produced so the administration is saying
[312]
well the motives of Congress are not to
[315]
our liking you can imagine where the
[317]
country goes if the question before a
[319]
court is what the presumably
[321]
undiscoverable motives of the congress
[323]
might or may not might not be but of
[325]
course judge made a dispense with that
[326]
today in his decision well car sometimes
[328]
that's so important because on the Ways
[331]
and Means Committee case in which
[332]
Chairman Richard Neal is demanding to
[334]
see the Trump tax returns which the
[336]
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
[337]
is legally empowered to do very specific
[340]
law written that gives him that power
[342]
and that law in writing does not require
[347]
him to ever announce what his actual
[350]
motivation is and there's the Trump
[352]
administration saying we don't like your
[354]
motivation well that's I mean that's
[356]
exactly right and and you know you don't
[358]
need to be a lawyer to go and read that
[359]
law and the law says that the IRS shell
[363]
with no conditions no ways out she'll
[366]
provide this now by the way we can have
[368]
a debate over whether it's a smart law
[370]
or not and that's of course what a
[371]
democracy does but today the law says
[374]
she'll and so it's just another example
[378]
of the administration using process
[380]
using the courts which are designed to
[383]
protect the innocent and to make sure
[385]
our liberties aren't stamped on to in
[387]
this case protect a president whose
[390]
behavior has been corrupt and you know
[393]
we will win in the end but make no
[395]
mistake the strategy of the White House
[396]
here is to draw this out
[398]
for as long as possible to keep as much
[401]
adverse information as possible from
[403]
emerging before the 2020 election chill
[405]
wine banks the judge cited your work in
[407]
the Watergate investigation today and
[409]
other investigations and it this if this
[413]
ruling holds the Trump delay by blocking
[418]
every subpoena strategy collapses it
[421]
does and it's about time because I think
[424]
he's really gone way too far now with
[427]
the total stonewalling it's one thing to
[430]
Stonewall on the Muller investigation
[432]
but now he's stonewalling on everything
[435]
he would totally defeat the purpose of
[437]
congressional oversight if the witnesses
[440]
for example about the security clearance
[443]
process can't testify witnesses about
[446]
the immigration and children and cages
[448]
can't testify if Dan McGann can't
[450]
testify these are all things that cannot
[452]
happen the judge wrote a very thorough
[455]
and very well-thought-out opinion and I
[458]
think if anything is clear from
[460]
Watergate it's that you cannot just
[463]
thumb your nose at Congress and you
[465]
can't thumb your nose at a Justice
[466]
Department subpoena and that's what the
[469]
president is setting himself up to do is
[470]
to be above the law and to just say I'll
[473]
do what I want to do and our whole
[475]
Constitution is based on the fact that
[477]
people will follow the law Glenn
[479]
Kirchner you were in the courtroom when
[481]
this case was argued and here you have
[484]
an opinion by the judge in your hands
[486]
today saying he actually didn't hear any
[489]
serious issues raised by president
[492]
Trump's lawyer yeah
[494]
Lawrence I want to borrow a phrase from
[496]
the Muller report judge Mehta's ruling
[500]
was a sweeping and systematic rebuke of
[502]
the president's claims that he one is
[506]
above the law and two is not susceptible
[509]
to congressional oversight when I sat in
[512]
that courtroom I was shaking my head
[514]
because I heard the president's lawyer
[516]
William con Savoy say things like
[519]
Congress can't investigate a president
[521]
who violates criminal statutes and
[524]
Congress can't investigate a president
[526]
who violates the Constitution for
[528]
example the emoluments clause and
[531]
can't investigate a president who may
[533]
have a financial interest a conflict of
[536]
interest in legislation he supports or
[539]
executive orders he authors and judge
[542]
Mehta was shaking his head he was being
[545]
polite but you could see he was buying
[548]
into none of it so when I see him use a
[551]
word like your arguments were
[553]
unfathomable I was fully expecting this
[556]
kind of an opinion to be handed down
[558]
what I wasn't expecting necessarily
[560]
Lawrence is that it would be handed down
[562]
so quickly let me tell you after 30
[565]
years in courts including decades in the
[568]
courts of Washington DC rarely do things
[571]
happen quickly but the fact that Judge
[573]
made to hand it down this decision in
[575]
six days is pretty remarkable and now
[578]
just two days from now on Wednesday
[581]
we're going to see judge Ramos in New
[583]
York get to handle the exact same issue
[587]
with respect to congressional subpoenas
[589]
for the president's Deutsche Bank
[591]
records and his capital 1 records and
[594]
you know judge matey's ruling is not
[596]
binding Authority or precedent for what
[599]
judge Ramos will do but it is extremely
[602]
persuasive and I fully expect judge
[605]
Ramos to rule the same way and hopefully
[607]
just as promptly I do think the the sort
[611]
of dam is breaking at this point and
[613]
this is a great day for transparency and
[615]
for accountability but a really bad day
[618]
for the president seemingly endless
[620]
attempts to cover up his own misconduct
[622]
occur sometimes to the two points that
[625]
Glenn made one an opinion issued with
[628]
remarkable speed especially when you
[631]
read it and you see the depths of the
[633]
scholarship the legal scholarship going
[635]
back to 1860 this is a this is the kind
[638]
of opinion that even though it's written
[640]
by a district court judge you can tell
[642]
this judge is hoping that other judges
[645]
are going to read this opinion before
[648]
they have to rule on what will be other
[651]
Trump subpoena blocking attempts yeah no
[656]
and that's right and and and and look I
[657]
guess the speed can probably be
[659]
attributed to at least two things number
[661]
one a consciousness of the fact that
[664]
process
[665]
is being used here to block the
[667]
constitutional prerogatives and
[669]
authorities of the Congress and I would
[671]
like to believe that most members of the
[673]
judiciary would be opposed to that but
[675]
look you know if you're not a lawyer at
[677]
some level you can understand the
[678]
absurdity of the arguments that were
[681]
made before this judge remember I mean
[683]
all of four or five weeks ago when the
[685]
Muller report came out the Muller report
[687]
said it showed deference to the office
[689]
of legal counsels opinion that the
[692]
sitting president cannot be indicted now
[695]
again we can have a long legal debate
[697]
over that but let's just assume that
[700]
they're right I'm not sure they are but
[702]
let's assume that they're right if they
[703]
if that is true if the Justice
[706]
Department Office of Legal Counsel is
[707]
true then the one other body on the
[710]
planet that can hold the president
[713]
accountable and there's no question that
[715]
our founding fathers in the Constitution
[717]
wants to have a mechanism to hold the
[719]
president accountable at some level
[720]
that's kind of what our country is about
[722]
it is Congress that will do that and
[724]
then to so then to turn around and say
[726]
that Congress does not have the right to
[728]
execute the very authorities that create
[731]
the OLC opinion that the president
[732]
cannot be indicted is I mean again to a
[735]
non-lawyer it's absurd on the face of it
[737]
Glenn to go back to your point about the
[740]
the next subpoena case being in New York
[742]
City it's inconceivable to me that any
[746]
judge sitting on any of the other Trump
[748]
subpoena cases that come along including
[750]
this next one would not read this
[752]
opinion because they're gonna have to if
[755]
they're if they've got to rule in
[756]
another way they're gonna have to take
[758]
on this opinion yeah it's inconceivable
[761]
to me as well Lawrence I'm confident
[762]
that other judges will read it and it's
[764]
also inconceivable to me that they will
[767]
depart from the reasoning in judge
[769]
Mathis opinion listen I was in the court
[771]
for judge Sullivan when he took General
[774]
Flint to task for basically selling out
[777]
his country and then being in court
[779]
watching Judge may to take the the
[781]
president's lawyers to task for making
[784]
unfathomable unsupportable arguments it
[787]
leads me to conclude as I have believed
[789]
for thirty plus years now the state of
[791]
our judiciary is strong and I think now
[795]
that these matters are moving into the
[797]
courts
[797]
the courts will not endure or endorse
[800]
the games that the president and his
[802]
administration and his underlings and
[804]
his enablers like bar have been playing
[808]
for so long trying to keep these matters
[811]
under wraps I think we're going to begin
[814]
to see what it is the president has been
[816]
so deathly afraid of the public seeing
[819]
Joe quickly is this an indicator with
[823]
your experience in Watergate and and
[825]
delay tactics by a president and
[827]
eventually getting where you had to go
[828]
is this an indicator for Democrats in
[830]
the house that they should actually move
[832]
to court
[833]
quicker yes I think it probably is I
[837]
want to point out to follow on something
[840]
Glenn said that speed of decision
[843]
frequently happens when there is a huge
[846]
public interest and public need in
[848]
Watergate we tried this rule six
[852]
exception to give the information to
[854]
Congress and we did that on March 1st
[857]
and by March 26th Congress had all of
[860]
the evidence all of the grand jury
[862]
information the tape recording and the
[865]
transcripts it only took that short a
[868]
time and even when we went to the
[871]
Supreme Court on the tapes themselves it
[874]
only took three months so it can happen
[877]
in a very speedy way when there is a
[879]
need and there is definitely a need here
[882]
and I don't think you need to declare
[884]
impeachment it certainly strengthens the
[886]
case but as as you were pointing out for
[889]
example on the tax returns there is
[891]
doesn't even have to be a legislative
[893]
purpose that law was created so that the
[895]
Congress could look at conflicts of
[897]
interest without any legislative purpose
[899]
other than seeing whether there was such
[902]
a conflict and we need to really get
[905]
acting on this and I think
[907]
representative Nadler has taken a very
[909]
strong stance against them again a
[911]
subpoena denial and I think it's time
[915]
for Congress to really do it yes thanks
[918]
for checking out our youtube channel
[920]
subscribe by clicking on the button
[922]
below for more from the last word and
[925]
the rest of MSNBC
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage