The attorney's general of New York and Massachusetts are investigating whether ex On Mobile hid knowledge of the human impact on climate change for decades, but Republicans in the House of Representatives want to stop them. Last year, the House Committee on Science Based and Technology subpoenaed both New York Attorney General Eric Sniderman in Massachusetts Attorney General Moura Healey seeking detailed information about their investigations, and both Schneiderman and
Hilly ignored the subpoenas. But now the committee has reissued the subpoenas, claiming that the ages are acting in bad faith in these investigations, and Schneiderman and Hilly show no signs of giving in. Here to talk to us about this federal state legal fight is Jeff Kramer, a former federal and local prosecutor who is now a managing director at the Berkeley Research Group. Jeff, the federal government. Congress has subpoena power. They can investigate a whole host of things.
They can uh look at stuff all over the country. This is a science issue. It's the Committee on Science. Why are the attorney generals refusing to comply with subpoenas that Congress has issued? You're right at that first blush. Does seem like Congresses within their purview the the the interesting thing here in the issue here is just scratching
a little bit below the surface. UM. I don't know if this is unprecedented, but certainly unusual for Congress to be looking not so much at the target of an investigation here it would be Exxon, but rather the prosecutors, the state prosecutors, and they're looking for everything. They're basically looking for the entire case file. They're looking for internal emails, other sorts of documentation. UM. So that's very unusual. That was my question, Jeff, because it seems to me as
if the attorneys general haven't even completed their investigation. The bad faith that Republicans were talking about was that they had they had reached their conclusions before the investigation started after meeting with environmentalists, but there's no proof of that at all. They just did meet with environmentalists. So it seems as if it's there's a little tin cheer of self interest on the Republican side. But absolutely, UM, you know, you can you can argue, I think pretty forcefully that
everyone has an ulterior motive here. UM. And whether or not. This is not an uncommon argument for the defense to make a high profile case that uh, prosecution or an investigation is politically motivated and conclusions were reached before they dotted all their eyes and crossed the teas. You hear that in court, it usually fails because the evidence is what it is, and it's presented to a grand jury, and if it gets that far, it's presented to a to a jury at trial. UM. So these arguments usually
don't work. So I think you can say, even if Congress, you know, maybe onto something, let's say the Attorney's General did reach a conclusion quickly or had a preconceived notion that's going to play out in state court, I don't think it's within the purview necessarily of of a congressional hearing and an investigation, because if they if the attorneys general do comply with a subpoena, and obviously, as indicated they did not before, it's basically giving discovery to to
the defense and the subjects and potential targets that aren't even known. Uh. That can certainly stop an investigation in its tracks. Jeff. So the attorneys general clearly don't think that Congress has jurisdiction over their investigations, and so they think this is improper. Um, what happens if they again refuse to comply as appears likely, and they're saying they're going to do? What options does Congress have in terms
of trying to enforce these subpoenas well? They've got pretty broad options and some pretty severe ones, which is why this is unusual. It's never been tested before. If if you're subpoena or anyone who is subpoenaed to go before Congress and present themselves or documents and they just refuse, which is basically what's happened here, that's UH, that's contempt of Congress, and you can have contempt proceedings. Congress can can file a suit. Um. The remedies for Congress are
pretty pretty broad and pretty severe. However, that's going to come to a head quickly. Um if the a G
s H deny it, I think. But what will bring to the forefront there is both the Attorney's General New York and Massachusetts, UH and Congress are kind of using a specious argument to get what they wanted specifically, And I see the Attorney's General arguing that the reason they're even doing this is because it implicated investors and acts on Mobile and perhaps others weren't giving h information that
should have been given for investors. And that's a proper purview of the attorneys general other prosecutors as well, but certainly attorneys general Congress and the corollary and this subcommittee is using. I think it's an odd argument that it's a First Amendment argument, that basically these investigations are chilling the First Amendment rights of scientists who questioned climate change.
That's that's a tougher argument. So I'm not sure Congresses is situated well in their jurisdiction, but a courtmand up looking at that some point. Our thanks to Jeff Kramer, Managing director at the Berkeley Research Group, we're talking to us about what is obviously very unusual fight between a Congressional committee and state attorneys general over a subpoena issued by Congress coming up on Bloomberg law. Do parents have an obligation to pay their children's college tuition? Well, a
lot of us would think they do. Maybe some of us would think they don't. But a lot of bankruptcy courts are looking at to the issue because credit debtors are looking to get clawback payments from colleges where people declare bankruptcy after having paid their child's college tuition. What's happening in those cases? Coming up straight ahead on Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg