In the first judicial test of President Trump's ability to stonewall Democrats demands for his financial information, a federal judge has rejected Trump's claims and ruled that lawmakers have the power to demand records from his accounting firm. Trump's response was in line with his previous reactions to rulings against him, calling the judge bias. Joining me is Stephen Vladdock, professor
at the University of Texas School of Law. Steve the judge found Trump's arguments totally unconvincing, writing that quote, it is simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior, would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct. How important is this first ruling in what's expected to be a long legal battle. Well, you know, June, I
think it's important. I think both because it's actually quite persuasive. I mean, I hope folks, whatever their views, will actually read judge opinion. It's actually a pretty presy read. But also, Junior, know it's as the tone, I mean, I think it's,
you know, to my mind, a pretty compelling read. I'm sure there are folks will disagree, but you know, to have the first judge out of the gate right a you know, pretty thorough forty plus page opinion explaining why this argument is not just lacking in merit, but it's actually pretty you know, alarming in its scope. Um. I
think it's a pretty important precedent. Obviously it's not the last word, but there's value here even to being first, And I should say to have them done so so quickly so that this could be you know, appealed pretty quickly as well. And Trump's lawyers have notified the judge
that they've appealed all aspects of his ruling. Now, the judge ordered the accounting firm to turn over those records within seven days, and turned down a request from the president's attorneys to put the ruling on hold while they seek and appeal. That puts it on a fast track. Is it unusual for a judge to refuse a request for a stay in a case like this that's obviously going to be appealed, Um, June, I think it's not necessarily.
I mean that is to say, the you know, the sestion of for whether a judge should stay his opinion is not whether it's going to be appealed. Rather, it's this multi factor balance of test where one of the factors is the likelihood of success on the merits. And I think part of what we see in judgements his opinion is, you know, he views the likelihood of success on the merits is pretty low here. So even if the equities might weigh in favor of a stay, you know,
that's only one of the factors to be considered. The fact this is going up is not of itself a reason to put everything on hold. Let's turn to another front in this battle for information. Former White House Council Don McGan defied a congressional subpoena today declined to testify before the House Judiciary Committee at the direction of the White House. Now, this was after there was ahead of the Office of Legal Counsel memo basically asserting that the
president's senior advisors are absolutely immune from congressional subpoenas. Tell us how convincing the arguments that the Office of Legal Counsel made are well. I mean, Jude, I think the first thing is to focus is to point out what the OLC opinion did not say. I mean, I think we've seen a lot of claims in the press from the President, etcetera, that he can stop McGann from testifying, And to me, one of the most important things about the OLC opinion that was released yesterday is it doesn't
back that up at all. There's no legal authority cited for the proposition that the president can somehow prevent a private citizen from voluntarily appearing before Congress Um. I think the real question is, if, as seems likely, McGann doesn't want to voluntarily appear before Congress, um, can the Congress punish him? That is to say, is he immune from some kind of sanction for failing to appear? And June that's right. Think the ol C memo is, for lack
of a better word, short on legal precedent. I mean, the the the examples, the old opinion sites are all prior OLC opinions UM, and the one significant judicial ruling in a confrontation like this by DC Digital Judge John Bates um into out in the Harriet Myer's case runs in the other direction. So you know, I think that all the opinion probably won't stand up in court, but you know, at least for now it provides enough cover where That's where I think this battle is going to
have to be joined. Is are the president's assertions of you know, executive privilege more persuasive than the assertions that were made before the district judge about Congress not being able to oversee this area oversight not being proper. Oh? Absolutely, And I think it would be very helpful if we broke out the two sets of legal questions that are arising in all of these cases. Um. The first question is does Congress have the power to issue the subpoena
and at all? Um? And that was the issue that the district court resolves in Congress this favorite yesterday June. That's the argument, I think because on the weakest foot in from the president's perspective going forward, whether it's applied to his private business records or to Don McCann testify him.
But it was always is going to be true that the stronger arguments against these subpoenas we're gonna be specific objections to request for particular documents that might be protected by either executive privilege or attorney client privilege UM, and questions under oath um the answers to which might violate one of those privileges. The problem June is that those are so much more retail UM that those aren't reasons
to not show up and testify at all. Right, that is to say, you know, if that's the real objection, um, mcgam can still testify about plenty of stuff that no one would argue as privileged, UM, including conversations that happened after he was no longer White House counsel Um, including you know, conversations where there was no possible privilege because
the third parties were present. So I think the problem here is that the first argument, the weaker one, um, is the only one that actually can look can validly prevent any of this from happening. What really ought to happen going forward is that we fight on the second ground, Where are there specific subpoenas or specific question jens um that are out of bounds when we get there? The real question to me is what happens if, for example, the accounting firm does not turn over those records despite
a judge's order. What happens if McGann, If the House goes to a judge and gets an order for it McGann and he doesn't show up. I mean, what is the way to enforce these Yeah. I mean, I think you know, this is the this is the real dilemma that Congress is is, you know, finally coming face to face with which is that, to a large degree, it's enforcement power depends at least to some degree, on a
modicum of cooperation from the executive branch. Um. I think, you know, June, I'm at least willing to withhold judgment on whether the administration is going to continue to defy these subpoenas until these legal challenges are concluded. I mean, I think there's no doubt that at least one of these cases is probably heading to the Supreme Court. Um. And I think, you know, until the Supreme Court rules against President Trump and the administration still doesn't comply, I
think the process might still be working. Um. The tricky part is that it's going to take some time for all of this to unfold. That's why I think it's heartening that whatever one thinks of Judge Mata's opinion yesterday in the Mazars case, he issued it pretty quickly. Um. And this, you know, opens the door for a pretty quick appeal now to the d C Circuit, so that whoever is ultimately going to win on the law. We're at least going to find out sooner rather than leader.
Thank you so much, Steve. I have so many more questions here. This seems to be one one ruling and about ten more questions with it. Thank you so much. That's Steve Vladik. He is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law