>>> THIS IS A SPECIAL REPORT.
>>> THIS IS A SPECIAL REPORT.
>> WE HAVE NEWS FROM THE SUPREME
COURT TO IMPACT THE PRESIDENT
AND POSSIBLY THE PRESIDENTIAL
RACE.
THE JUSTICES RULED AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS, AGAIN,
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS
TO SHIELD FINANCIAL RECORDS AND
TAX DOCUMENTS FROM NEW YORK
PROSECUTORS.
NBC JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PETE
WILLIAMS IS WITH US TO EXPLAIN.
PETE, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF
CASES HAVING TO DO WITH THE
PRESIDENT’S FINANCIAL RECORDS.
ONE WAS IN NEW YORK CITY, ONE
WITH CONGRESS.
WHAT DO WE KNOW?
>> THE PRESIDENT MUST TURN OVER
HIS TAXES TO THE GRAND JURY IN
NEW YORK UNLESS HE CAN COME UP
WITH THE SAME KIND OF ARGUMENTS
THAT ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD BE
ABLE TO RAISE AS AN OBJECTION IN
COURT.
SO THE SUPREME COURT SENT THE
GRAND JURY CASE TO THE LOWER
COURTS, BUT IT TOOK AWAY ALL OF
THE ARGUMENTS THE PRESIDENT MADE
ABOUT WHY HE IS DIFFERENT AND
SPECIAL, THAT HE IS IMMUNE FROM
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS AND
ALLOWING LOCAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS TO SEEK THINGS FROM
THE PRESIDENT WOULD SUBJECT A
PRESIDENT TO HARASSMENT.
SO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS
IS OKAY NOW GO BACK TO COURT,
MAKE THE SAME KIND OF ARGUMENTS
ANYBODY ELSE WOULD MAKE ABOUT
WHY YOU THINK THESE SUBPOENAS
ARE INTRUSIVE.
IT PUTS HIM ON THE SAME STANDARD
BASICALLY AS ANYBODY ELSE TRYING
TO BLOCK A SUBPOENA, MAKES IT
MUCH, MUCH, MUCH HARDER FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO KEEP THIS MATERIAL
OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE GRAND
JURY IN NEW YORK.
ON THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA,
THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO SENT
THE CASE BACK.
IT HAS SAID THE PRESIDENT
ABSOLUTELY CAN’T SAY NO, BUT IT
SAID IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA IS SO
BROAD, THERE’S A TEST THE LOWER
COURTS HAVE TO APPLY.
THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THIS IS
TETHERED TO SOME LEGITIMATE
LEGISLATIVE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, THAT IT
WON’T HARASS THE PRESIDENT.
IT SET OUT A SERIES OF STEPS THE
LOWER COURTS HAVE TO LOOK AT.
BOTTOM LINE, CHUCK, NOTHING GETS
RESOLVED IN THESE CASES UNTIL
AFTER THE ELECTION, THEY GO BACK
TO THE LOWER COURTS.
WHOEVER LOSES THERE HAS THE
CHANCE TO APPEAL.
IT COULD GO BACK TO THE SUPREME
COURT.
THAT’S THE FIRST THING.
SECOND THING, EVEN IF THE NEW
YORK GRAND JURY HAD GOTTEN AN
ABSOLUTE WIN, THAT WOULDN’T MEAN
WE WOULD SEE THE RECORDS BECAUSE
OF RULES OF GRAND JURY SECRECY.
EVEN IF HE GETS THE PRESIDENT’S
TAXES AND CAN’T COME UP WITH
GOOD OBJECTION WHY HE SHOULDN’T
TURN THEM OVER, THEY DON’T
BECOME PUBLIC.
THE ONLY WAY WE WOULD SEE THEM
IS IF THERE’S SOMEONE INDICTED
AND GOES TO TRIAL AND THE TAXES
ARE INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE.
SO THOSE ARE THE TWO BOTTOM
LINES.
NOTHING WILL RESOLVE BEFORE THE
ELECTION.
WE’RE NOT SEEING -- IF THE
PRESIDENT TURNED OVER BUSINESS
RECORDS TO CONGRESS, THEY MIGHT
BECOME PUBLIC, BUT IT WILL BE
MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS,
POSSIBLY A YEAR, MAYBE TWO,
BEFORE THIS IS RESOLVED IN
COURT.
IT IS A MIXED DAY FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
HE DOESN’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING
RIGHT NOW, BUT THE IDEA THAT HE
CAN PUT A BARRICADE AROUND THE
WHITE HOUSE AND SAY NO, I DON’T
HAVE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF YOU,
THAT’S A DEAD LETTER NOW.
>> ALL RIGHT. COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, PETE.
COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, PETE.
FIRST ONE, ESSENTIALLY THE
SUPREME COURT SOUNDS LIKE PUT
DOWN A CHECKLIST ON WHAT ACCESS
CONGRESS COULD HAVE, I ASSUME IT
SETS NEW PRECEDENT FOR
PRESIDENTS GOING FORWARD.
IS THAT WHAT THIS DECISION WILL
END UP BEING WHEN IT COMES TO
THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL TIES OF
PRESIDENTS GOING FORWARD?
>> ABSOLUTELY BOTH DECISIONS ARE
PRECEDENT SETTING.
WE’VE NEVER HAD BEFORE, THE
SUPREME COURT HAS DEALT BEFORE
WITH ISSUES OF WHETHER
PRESIDENTS ARE IMMUNE FROM
SUBPOENAS, THEY ANSWERED THAT IN
THE NIXON CASE.
ARE PRESIDENTS IMMUNE FROM THE
LEGAL PROCESS WHILE IN OFFICE,
THEY ANSWERED THAT IN THE
CLINTON CASE.
WE NEVER HAD A CASE BEFORE OF A
STATE PROSECUTOR SEEKING
MATERIAL FROM THE PRESIDENT.
AND THAT RAISED ALL SORTS OF
SUPREMACY CLAUSE QUESTIONS AND
EVERYTHING ELSE.
NUMBER ONE, THE SUPREME COURT
HAS SAID THEY SHOT DOWN THE
PRESIDENT’S TWO ARGUMENTS WHICH
WAS PRESIDENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY,
BECAUSE THEY CAN’T BE INDICTED
WHILE THEY’RE IN OFFICE, THEY’RE
IMMUNE FROM ANY PART OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS,
INCLUDING SUBPOENAS.
WE NOW KNOW THAT’S NOT TRUE.
SECONDLY, THE COURT LAID OUT A
NUMBER OF TESTS THAT HAVE TO BE
APPLIED WHEN CONGRESS AND THE
PRESIDENT ARE AT ABSOLUTE LOGGER
HEADS.
ARE THE SUBPOENAS NARROWLY
FOCUSED?
I THINK THE DEMOCRATS WERE THEIR
OWN WORST ENEMIES.
THESE ARE SUCH BROAD REQUESTS
FOR DOCUMENTS, FROM THE
PRESIDENT, HIS RELATIVES, OVER
MANY YEARS.
ARE THEY SHARPLY FOCUSED,
REQUESTS FROM CONGRESS.
ARE THEY TIED TO LEGITIMATE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.
REMEMBER, CHUCK, THERE’S NOTHING
IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS
CONGRESS HAS SUBPOENA POWER.
THE COURTS OVER THE YEARS SAID
YEAH, CONGRESS NEEDS TO FIND
THINGS OUT WHEN IT WANTS TO
LEGISLATE.
WHAT TRUMP’S ARGUMENT HERE WAS
IS THIS IS A FISHING EXPEDITION,
YOU WANT ALL OF THIS TO POKE
THROUGH IT, SEE IF YOU CAN FIND
SOMETHING, GO A-HA.
THE SUPREME COURT MET HIM
HALFWAY ON THAT ONE TO SAY THIS
HAS TO BE TIED TO SOME
LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.
>> AND PETE, QUICKLY, WHAT ARE
THE MAKEUPS OF THE RULINGS?
