I did just want to start out by saying, i dont get to say this very often, and this is one of those instances where the District Courts opinion is extreme a strong, especially when combined with the Supreme Courts position, where they recognize answers a lot of the arguments they have made. [inaudible] hold that thought then. The District Courts statement we dont sell efforts to congress is wrong because those come from cases where the president is not a party. Here, we have a dispute between two equal branches. We why wouldnt we look objectively, as a court, to determine whether congress is, in fact, pursuing legitimate legislative objective . Because your honor, i dont think you would change your standard this up in court has set in a number of cases does not change just because the subpoena is directed all of thecases, cases that articulate the that formed cases branches of government. Understand why wed adopt that. Why we wouldstand adopt the standard. That jumped out at me as i read it. Why . When you have the president on one side and congress on the other. Work underor, we tever standard that [inaudible] but if the reason is, more power in congress has been the Supreme Court has made clear its restricted and theres a practical reason for that in court, which is, remember, more power to question the congress is limited by the constitution itself. Well, i guess i do. [inaudible] right . They are. Thatt know of a case articulates the situation. We grant that same level of deference to congress when what you have here is a separation of powers case, president on one side and congress on the other . Thats all im asking. Im trying to answer, your honor. This means no matter who is on , members of congress cannot [inaudible] [inaudible] no. We are saying is, however, it is quite limiting and it doesnt matter whether the president is on the others. You keep saying that but you disagree with my statement that every case, in none of the cases that have articulated the standard, hasnt involved [inaudible] i think that is correct, your honor. Im not aware of any cases, but may i followup on sorry. What i find difficult is this case that fit into that scenario complaint ist the of donald j. Trump. They hear the same way bill clinton was in bill clinton versus jones . Because the subpoena is not analogous to mazars. And part of the subpoena, most of the subpoena covers years in the presidency, january 2017 onward. A lot of this covers years where he wasnt the president. On the other hand, he is the president now. Im not quite sure which box it goes under, whether it goes outofthebox. [inaudible] please. Thank you. Also remember, as some of the revealed,estions have one of the key points that were making here is this is not just some sort of dispute between the president and congress. Allress here is looking at sorts of legislative possibilities, some of which might have not involved the president at all. And that cannot be emphasized enough. They want to make it seem like all were talking about here is congress is now going to pass legislation directed at the president. That is totally wrong and therefore, we dont think that this is some major conflict between the branches. Of congress statues that might involve separation of powers and then those would have to be looked at. But at this stage in the case, thats not whats involved here at all. [inaudible] maybe thats what youre getting at. Are you suggesting that somehow, the standards apply here is different because its directed at and not directed at the president . Does that make a difference . I dont think so, your honor. We didnt think youre saying that. But im saying the difference is, as you saw, so much of the argument was about what Congress Might do with this information, andhes saying they might say they are going to pass on constitutional legislation. All im saying is there are sorts of possibilities and legislation that do not, in any way involve separation of powers. , the president is the president , and what we are looking at, some of the things some ofoking at here, it was conducted before he was president , no doubt. But a significant amount of what congress is looking into is from his financial structure reform as president. Also as candidate. Correct. [inaudible] it involves while he has been president , and part of what congress is looking into will involve the presidency. So im not going to resist that i think you do have to look at this in terms of these are the records of the president. Suppose, also say, i that since many of the records repg socked are sort our cash socked sought are records from before he was president , it does have to be taken into account [inaudible] turn it on and off, or do we just lease, denominator . Least common denominator . You cant ignore that this is the president. And so one of the arguments he tried to make, i dont think its a good one, he tried to say well, 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. [inaudible] fact hes right, this would limit the president s ability to perform his article to response ability, we would have to take that into account. Yes, you would. Ok, so the only question is whether congress is considering fault in that category. Would you predicate on that . Sure. [inaudible] no. The council does not. And there is no attorneyclient privilege. There is no recognized law privilege, nothing asserted here, and so and the notion, i guess the concerns here on the other hand, the president could hand over, heres my diary from the last 20 years. Im giving it to you as a friend. Wait a minute. Thats information about me that i gave to you and im the president. Its very different. Im worried about ignoring the fact that its a thirdparty. It doesnt mean im ignoring the other president ial interest, but just because the president gets protection to a third party that we cant touch it because it came from the president. [inaudible] we have to treat it like its all president ial. [inaudible] difference. A [inaudible] im sorry. I thought i was agreeing. You said it would make no difference. For him, you were [talking over each other] [laughter] [inaudible] [laughter] im sorry. I think i misunderstood the question. If i may continue. Thats ok. Does it matter its a subpoena through a third party . Yes. It matters its through a thirdparty, not to the president , and therefore, even in clinton versus jones, where it did involve the president the presidency, and we lost. But even there, [inaudible] but here, this would have very noble impacts on how the president carries out his functions. So yes, however, i think all im saying is maybe im mishearing the assumption of your question, you cant ignore the fact that what is being asked for here do involve records of the president even though they are primarily records from before he was the president. Records that the president gave to a third party. Exactly. And she has no privilege. I 100 agree with you there. If it was dr. Or attorneyclient, it would be different. Your exactly right. This is something the Supreme Court said, this is not like banking records. [inaudible] no attorneyclient privilege. [inaudible] there, theres an argument that [inaudible] we dont have that here. What about the nixon versus gsa case, which recognizes [inaudible] in his financial papers . Yes, theres definitely some [inaudible] the records act is constitutional. Im pleased to hear that. Before that, president completely owned it in the president destroyed records. Notress came in, were doing that anymore. Thats just an instance where congress has significantly potential record doesnt cover his Financial Accounting papers. But includes how much it ties in with his official functions. Yes, youre right. He writes a letter to his daughter saying i hope you do well in college, thats not covered. But any number of things that he does that ties into the president , he is saying to his aide, im going to lie on my financial reforms. And i want you to back me up on this and in fact help me do this. That is covered. I just want to get that out there. Im sorry. So, where does this leave us on whether there should be presumptions or not . He said its different but we cant ignore. Im just not sure what that is when we vote where you say is different, but we cant ignore. What does that mean practically with how we analyze the subpoena . [inaudible] it matters not at all. What we have shown here is obviously a legitimate legislative purpose. There could be other cases where it would matter that it wasnt the president. In this case, it does not matter at all. And [inaudible] what is the argument about constitutional avoidance . There are serious doubts, questions about the type of legislation. There arent. There arent . How do we do that . [inaudible] ithave to declare constitutional . No, you dont, your honor. What do we do . Serious constitutional questions are to be avoided. I dont believe [inaudible] what about the conflict of interest requirements . I get your point about the disclosure part, but what about the conflict of interest . Is that one series . No. [inaudible] your honors asking questions about this and i want to tie this down. One of the things looked into is the lease in the gsa [inaudible] it prohibits the Government Official from doing business with the gsa. [inaudible] committee does the need documents to answer that question . Cant it just get it all from gsa . Necessarily have the financials wait, im sorry. What would [inaudible] have in their files that gsa wouldnt . [inaudible] that,ave a question about too. [inaudible] sorry, i want to talk about that. Know ple, we need to [inaudible] the gsa probably doesnt have any information. We know theres evidence that has been provided by a convicted liar, evidence that Everyone Needs to be concerned about that mr. Trump plays with Financial Statements [inaudible] before you go to two, actual situations. Can you finish up . What hes saying when he applies to the post office . Correct. Second, we need to know what is mr. Trumps relationship with the business entity that is signing the lease . [inaudible] doesnt, congress would pass a law requiring it in the future. [inaudible] before we even get to that question, dont we have to, hundred Supreme Court precedent, have to have some indication from the house that they authorize the committee here to take action . The courts are pretty clearly to respects [inaudible] herehat evidence is there that the house is in fact giving the community the Authority Committee the authority to investigate the president . I need to say one thing first. [inaudible] i dont understand. This has nothing to do with statutory. I think he meant that has nothing to do with statutory power. Once we all understand that. So, what we know is, from the Committee Oversight is a special committee. Congress has given the Oversight Committee the entire power of the house. The house has given the Oversight Committee the entire powers of the house into oversight matters. That is there in the rules. So, [inaudible] answered very early on that congress could investigate the president. Can you point to any historical examples where congress has investigated the president or subpoenaed the president without a sole vote of either the house or the senate . Or resolution . I dont have, off the top of my head a single example where a house of congress has investigated the president without a full vote of the house and senate . Well, remember, yes, i can give you an example. For example, my understanding was during the civil war, there was a committee to investigate the congress of the war. And not surprisingly, one of the things investigated was how president lincoln there is no subpoena issued to the president. [inaudible] house . T done by both a meeting of the house. Remember, the house has changed considerably. The house now largely operates by committees, and that is the house set that up so we have committees even in a case where the Committee Issues a subpoena [inaudible] can you provide an example where a committee issued a subpoena for the president s papers or records where they have not been specifically authorized to do so from the senate as a whole . I dont know any right now. So would you say that this is unprecedented . Remember, we didnt issue the subpoena to the president. We issued the subpoena to mazars. For the president s papers. Correct. But [inaudible] by subpoeni aings accountant . [inaudible] [inaudible] the main thing we are looking for his private citizen trump giving papers to his accountant under no privileges. And then to investigate wrongdoing of the president has the president . Right . What is alleged in the brief is a violation of the [inaudible] as president. You can violate those things if youre a private citizen. And were also looking into whatever was done in order to get the [inaudible] [inaudible] correct. Again, coming back to i dont think weve ever encountered before an argument that congress cannot do oversight investigation of what the executive branch, which often many times [inaudible] we know anything is important. A cabinet member is going to be consulted with. You can provide a single example where a committee has [inaudible] it was a serious constitutional question of whether thats permissible. [inaudible] this president has done something that has not been done before because he has said im not disclosing it. Setting aside business opportunities. That has not been done before. He put himself in this position and we cant forget that. How does that action, though, and power congress, or a committee of congress, to then issue compulsory process against the president . Your question, you started out, you said it right. Remember here, this committee operates with the full power of the house. We have to say is there any limitation on that . Is there any limitation on the house to delegate its power to a single committee . Absolutely not, your honor. [inaudible] delegate the full authority of the house to a committee . What the house can do [inaudible] we cant examine the house and the senate, what they do with their own rules. I dont know if it was something where the house said were delegating all our power to that one member. That might be unconstitutional. Would that be something for the court to look at . I dont know. Theres no question whatsoever and no court could review the fact that the house has decided, many decades ago, to switch to a system where it wouldnt operate itself as a house as a whole. It would operate by committee. Indeed, investigative role, you mean . Correct. [inaudible] ok . [inaudible] we all agree that if were just looking at rules, the rules are broad enough to authorize a subpoena against the president. His argument is that in this case, we have to apply a much more stringent principal, either because its the president or because of constitutional law. How would you address that . Let me ask you this. Thatu think that we think there is [inaudible] yes. All right. Because you have to understand the clear constitutional power of the house to investigate from day one is absolutely clear, and obviously working [inaudible] thats his argument. Yes. You say he can read these rules. [inaudible] [inaudible] yeah, thats my next question, exactly. A clear statement would mean, before the house can issue a subpoena to a private entity [inaudible] this is the president of the united states. Im getting there. Lets make it this case. When the house issues a subpoena to a private entity to get records [inaudible] thecovers the presidency, house must say that. We dont have that here. No such thing as required. Tell us why. Because [inaudible] houseont involve the during investigations. One of the main reasons, my understanding why the courts have this has set up a clear statement rule, when legislation, a bill is passed and its going to regulate the president , the president s constitutional powers, by the way, the president has to have a warning. The president gets to decide do i want to be here [inaudible] it serves actually important purpose of allowing the president to say whoa, your [inaudible] you can to do a sneak attack on the president you cant do the sneak attack on the president. We know the house has been investigating the president for ages, and theres nothing that requires a clear statement rule for the house to now say were going to investigate the president. Theres no clear statement rule clause, thechment impeachment inquiry. [inaudible] correct, but my point is re not clear of any [inaudible] this is not an impeachment inquiry. [inaudible] i was making just a limited point, your honor, that a clear statement rule applies to, quite correctly, makes a lot of sense for legislation. It does not imply apply to situations like this, where the house, pursuant to its Rulemaking Authority granted by the constitutional authority, that the Supreme Court has said it is extremely broad. Indeed, it is as broad as the legislature. Doesnt the courts opinion provide that statement rule for the house rules . [inaudible] first of all, it was criminal contempt. Second, it was where the court said congress had said each purpose was to look into amending the interstate compact. Said thatse court a tough question. Were going to avoid it. We dont have anything close to that because if i forget to remember, the kinds of things the congress can do here, congress can decide the ethics the office of government ethics needs more money. It needs removal connection removal protection. Some would say thats a very tricky constitutional question. Its not a tricky concert additional question as to whether ethics should have a lot more money. I was only talking about your last [inaudible] removal power. Maybe that would be some sort of issue. Congress could pass legislation involving gsa. [inaudible] [inaudible] thats true of all cases. Perfect. [inaudible] easily distinguishable. [inaudible] why is that . The reasons i just said. Say it again. Congress said the investigating Committee Said we want these materials because we want to decide whether to amend an interstate compact that has been approved. Thats a difficult constitutional question. [no audio] it is clearly inappropriate. The judge asked about this. [inaudible] that comes from the brain. Thats a Supreme Court statement. I just have a procedural question here. Weve been struggling with this statement and how it applies to the hybrid, maybe not a hybrid area. For thenot an argument court. It was not in there. You on a briefing from this issue but i havent heard you mention forfeiture. Understanding m