[inaudible] reform of the United States house of representatives. Good morning. May it please the court [inaudible] private financial records, foremost, in many cases, have rules to name president. [inaudible] do you dispute that the House Authority . But it has the power to issue a subpoena, the house itself . Not the constitutional power. The house itself. Your argument sounded to me all about the delegations of the committee not being explicit. The house itself did not have you just said the house had to be explicit that it was giving to the committee. Right. Im sorry [inaudible] could have subpoena power. [inaudible] yeah. Im sorry. On your first nonconstitutional argument, but set aside, im taking, given your issues about within the legislative, but just to understand im trying to understand your statement and that is, yes, the house itself could issue the subpoena and would be over so the house has it and whether it gave it to the committee . Correct. [inaudible] whether the Committee Issues the subpoena as i understand it correct. [inaudible] so can we talk about that correct. Okay. So on your statement you say you rely on you rely on [inaudible] right . Yeah. The question is whether the president is in office [inaudible] thats what it means, right . And in armstrong, we said we said that we are not going to imply against the president of the United States, right, correct . Congress and the president. They are very different. This is subpoena that relates to requiring laws requiring Financial Disclosure. Theres no significant altering the relation between the president and the congress, theres no subjective precedence , this is just disclosure which president s for years have been doing. [inaudible] im talking about the actual house rules. You are challenging subpoena, documents related to the president s final disclosures. [inaudible] no one disputed so what do you think about my suggestions . Sir, i would disagree but why . Because [inaudible] right. [inaudible] challenge the house rules, you can only challenge i would respectfully disagree. Statutory jurisdiction. [inaudible] the i agree with that. It is authorized by the rules, isnt that the question . Correct. The subpoena directed at the president and house of rules [inaudible] its not directed at the president. That maybe a very different question, its directed we are having to have documents given by the president. That would be different. Something that operates on third party, something the president gave. I would disagree. [inaudible] protect his rights. Still not the same thing. Just a deposition and would be different of a deposition of a third party who would be telling them what the president said because youre not interfering with daytoday activities. [inaudible] sure. Are you asserting a privilege by state law or common law . [inaudible] we rely on that. [inaudible] we do have to apply them. [inaudible] thats how so, so in your view, what is missing is efficacy, house rules [inaudible] i would resist thats why. [inaudible] give them the power the subpoena. The house of representatives the only question before us the question before the court right now i get what youre saying. Prevents the house [inaudible] would you be making the same argument . If the subpoena [inaudible] the hues rules specifically says the president will not be okay. Thats my point. Other question is to issue the subpoenas, nothing to do with [inaudible] but the legal question at issue here apply so your view then is that is that action against the president of the United States is out regard to impact on the president . Thats your position. Correct. So what are you doing with the language i cited i think raised concerns [inaudible] yeah. Would require executive official to report wrongdoing to the attorney general and the court agree attorney general through dmownl counsel that would name. Doesnt matter. 1958 cited in 1995 applied by this court. In every case, every time, you have [inaudible] as i understand it here youre not asserting privilege or immunity, maybe you can say a little bit more about constitutional interest of the president in this case. [inaudible] a constitutional question. [inaudible] whether valid registration on conflicts of interest, and those questions are hard, they are serious. What are those separation of powers, interests . Unique to the office of president ; is that correct . They are, yes. The president is different in constitutional offices. The majority view about this issue set forth in nixon two. The statute disrupts the proper balance between the court and it prevents new executive branch from accomplishing its constitutional approach. Its not just prevents. Thats the majority of the Supreme Court. I mostly recognize that could prevent. How could the requirement prevent the government quote a a President Trump fulfilling his constitutional 100,000 pages of Financial Disclosures once a month to discuss them. That is interesting that those are not the statutes congress is considering. The only one here has to do any work is with mazars. One at a time there. Congress has a legislative purpose. Back to the question as to how mazars is turning over documents already in its production. Two different questions. Question one is how does subpoena as saying, the president s special he responded with a hypothetical about this subpoena would prevent the president from executing, exercising his powers. How would it impede upon his time and energies. This is not the beginning of the end. There are also to my questions that arise. This is the subpoena against the president. The court dealt with that issue. I think it straddles the line to be honest, judge tattle. Congress is asserting a right. Thats a good point. Your point made in the case is exactly my point, which is that is a dissent. It was a dissent. It applies universally, which is what comes to the president , the person in office are one insane. So thats the burden. Very exciting, many of the arguments raised on behalf of President Trump relate to the unique constitutional status of the presidency and the infringement on his authority. Why is the department of justice not here participating to protect the office of the president . Because thats the primary basis of your argument. When they subpoenaed the president personal accounts, the president this happens in these times of [inaudible] in that case the department of justice also participated in addition to the private attorneys. If the arguments you are really of the office of the presidency, why is the department of justice not participating . They showed up and clinton v. Jones as well as to represent the presidency. I can only speak for my participation. Your companion argument here is not just that this interferes with this issue, a constitutional requirement to the presidency, right . Your argument also is the Legislation Congress is considering on the ethics constitutionality at to the qualifications to be president . Correct. Did you want to Say Something . In two ways, an easy one is the power of interest rules. The idea that congress can hold money and a certain way or [inaudible] anything like that would be illegal, unconstitutional law. But what about Financial Disclosure . I think for the reason articulated in the letter to congress, theres a good i thk strong argument that there is a hardline drawn around the presidency just circled round the president just like the Supreme Court justices. I understand the general language, but before and after the ethics of government, anybody who is constitutionally eligible to run for president , over 35, naturally born citizen, hasnt already served two terms, anyone who meets those government for president will before and after. Its not like term limits with the states try to limit the terms of congress. I dont see why these limit anybodys going to run for president. Does it . Note carefully then conflict of interest. But the concept of interest laws as sullivan said in his letter, under those, those could prevent the president from actually, from either running because he has a conflict of interest or will as he also said, exercising the power of the presidency. Im just asking about the disclosure. You talk a lot about conflict of interest in other aspects but suppose we just look at the fourth justification. Which is whether the president of the United States has accurately report his finances to the office of governor. Just think of that. Do we have to deal with all four aspects in the letter or is focusing on what enough . Let me give you two answers. There is an argument to make the just one is enough. We disputed that one is legitimate and need to trust that but there is a question of what the real object, which is. Language. We have to pick one out and say is that actually the reason theyre doing it based on public records. I completely agree with that. Explain to me if im looking at just this one, that is at its suite of the Financial Disclosures why that is not congress pursuing a legitimate legislative agenda . Why is a Law Enforcement . The committee isnt searching for illegalities. Isnt that what congress would always do if it seeks to amend a piece of legislation . If congress thinks theres a problem with the federal communications act, with some aspect of that, is it going to testimony on companies are complying with it and whether they actually to amend the statute . If they were generally looking at companies. It was general forwardlooking in the industry in the market i would have a harder time saying that this is a Law Enforcement. When youre hyperfocus on one individual and say over and over and over again what we are after is proving illegal conduct and the speaker thou said i want to see the president in prison. But he also says, the cummings letter says theyre pursuing legislation. There are several bills pending. Its not like the statements you point are the only ones. The same letter im quoting from goes on dissecting did this information because, to consider legislation. If i could answer and preserve the balance of my time. Sure. One, you cant say we will investigate legal and then say we might have legislation. That can be done anytime and anyplace. Second, i think the statement to the committee here, Supreme Court versus sanchez it was determined the court does not have to be naive. The court does not have to accept the source of welcome here some legislation of counter arguments and deny what is during the court speedy right. First of all, theres legislation, bills that have gone to the house and draft bills pending. Were supposed to say that all up the one spinning mostly deal with issues speedy but that once it do with with ethics, Financial Disclosure, contracting. There are draft ones and one set of impasse, correct . Correct . And. Correct. Okay. So youre naive theory we would have to say that was all a ruse. It wasnt what i didnt say it is whether theres a genuine how would you say its not genuine . I like to reserve the balance of my time. Will give you plenty of time. I would say lets look at what the members say. Is that your task . Dont we had to look at everything . If you look at just what they say, congress will and cummings in this letter and other communications in this case says they need this information to evaluate, to pursue legislation. He says it many times. And, in fact, okay, so h. R. One which has passed the house i think would amend the ethics in Government Act to include closely held corporations, assets and liabilities. H. R. 706 would require president and candidates to submit their tax returns. These bills have passed the house and they are directly related to the subject of the subpoena. Do we just ignore those . So what, again, we think that legislation [inaudible] i think nevertheless, the court has an obligation to look at how this all started. Whether it was issuing a subpoena and own memorandums as the very percentage theyre looking for president engage in illegal conduct. The court said look at the real options. Im asking how we do that. Because you realize this is a delicate area and we have all these presumptions. You have pointed to statements that politicians have made. Lets look at the ones before the subpoena issued, not after, to support your cause. But then there are statements by the chair, mr. Cummings, and theres actual bills. And so do you have other then the word naivete, can you tell me what your legal test or rule is insane that those statements you cite have control over all the other evidence, or how i should wait or evaluate it . I think its over 300 pages this year. We have the memorandum, which we relied on which quite frankly was also the starting point. This as legislation by the way, the memorandum. Legal contact. Right. And i think all the comments that were made, you stack the ones that may look like they want to see whether the president is filing the law, and the other is a this really is a general concern about legislation but the other bucket has to include draft bills and bills that are passed the house. Happy to include them because i think my pile is way higher. You said delicate. Thats why the statute of the court is so important because these are hard questions. Before the Court Pronounces broad rules about subpoena of the president we should [inaudible] one question i have is you say still looking for the real purpose of what this is genuine. How is that different from a search for motive which i think both parties agrees permissible . Where do we draw the line between looking at the motive which i think we agree across the table versus the real purpose and use in your brief . What the distinction . This is a difference between what and why. There is a what question, is this a Law Enforcement question or investigative legislation. [inaudible] are they mad at the president . Are the motivated . Were not relying on political motives to prove our case. Even though what question, the sweet bring court as set on an obligation to there can be some incidental Law Enforcement type purpose on the way to investigating something for legitimate legislation. So if you both, why is it not illegitimate ledges that purpose . It is a primary purpose for the reasons ive articulated. Which case is that . I think [inaudible] i think the real object here is a look at what they want, they want to see if something elite was done and it helps legislatively, maybe that would be okay, too, but that is not what this is about. I just want to make, let me explain to you how i think but this argument as to whether legislation could be had in the Supreme Court, legitimate legislation could be had in the Supreme Court test. A very generous test for the legislature. It sounds to me like you almost have to show that no law good, out of, could be related to this. This. Information could not inform any proper legislation. You identify legislation that you argue and certainly raise a substantial question whether its constitutional or not when it applies directly to the president. Am i right a wrong to think your task under this test is to show that no legitimate legislation could ensue . I disagree. [inaudible] the court was really struggling with whether congress could enact legislation. The court goes through always it might be constitutional, that it can redraw state lines, probably not. The court was on its own articulating some possible legislation even now. Was it enough to include herbal . If they cleared the herbal thef the no constitutional question. But here you have a bill passed by the house that simply adds to the disclosure requirement. Thats it. Thats not unconstitutional, is it . It is. I believe the president has complied with these laws just like the Supreme Court has complied with these laws. I dont think its an easy constitutional question. The basic application of existing Financial Disclosure laws. It is not a serious question do not understand what the lead essay. But those are laws directly operating on officials, but wt if Congress Gets to set the president s salary . You can do mentioned during his. Its in the constitution. They couldnt pass one now that would change President Trumps software this term but they could certainly say passed a law that would say starting january january 2021 there are two max out options. The president complies with compex of interest in Financial Disclosure laws, we think that puts you in a step up on essentially supervising the Public Welfare and will get salary ask. Any president who does not comply with those requirements that were not enacting the ones that are inactive would get a a salad but it will be half that amount. Any question they can do that . Off the top of my head, unconstitutional conditions with it is not. You get to pick your salad. Anyone can run and they can pick their salary based on how they behave. If you take the Supreme Court case you could submit to random breathalyzer. People have constitutional rights. As a president ial candidate have constitutional right to a certain salary . I dont think so. They get to set the summer. Theres no dispute about that. Theres plenty of legislation that could pass that they could say no Government Agency shall use appropriate funds to execute policies or programs that affected by conflict of interest with the president. That would be perfectly fine. I think it would be deeply controversial and automatic. So your view is when it comes to the president , confit of interest, Nothing Congress can do . Thats what you say Nothing Congress could do regulating governmental agencies, governmental employees, or allocating salaries appropriated funds to protect the people of the United States, the public treasury from the president s to