The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: May 15th, 2020

Episode Date: May 15, 2020

In this week's roundup: Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, had his cell phone seized by the FBI as they investigate his stock trades in the weeks before the coronavirus pandemic gathered steam in the U.S. And, what will the Supreme Court say about the limits on a president's ability to forestall investigations into his conduct?This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, Justice Department correspondent Ryan Lucas, congressional correspondent Kelsey Snell, and chief legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.Connect:Subscribe to the NPR Politics Podcast here.Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio stationLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Привет, это Шон. Hey there, it's Sean, and I am stuck in quarantine since March in Dnepr-Trovozhsk, eastern Ukraine. I came here to visit my girlfriend, who was also stuck, but in the Luhansk region next to Russia. This podcast was recorded at 1.41 p.m. on Friday, the 15th of May. Things may have changed by the time you hear this. Okay, here's the show. Wait, so they are stuck, both of them, in Ukraine, but not together? That's sure what it sounds like. Fears to be the case.

That sounds inconvenient. All right, well, hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Ryan Lucas. I cover the Justice Department. And I'm Kelsey Snell. I cover Congress. We're going to start with Senator Richard Burr. He is a Republican from North Carolina, and he announced this week that he is stepping aside as chairman of the Intelligence Committee while the Justice Department conducts an investigation of his stock trades. Kelsey, this all connects back to some stock trades that he made before the public really had a sense of how severe this coronavirus pandemic was going to be.

Right. At issue are some stock trades that happened around February 12th. Now, if people want to go back in their memories, I know we've all been at home for a while. February 12th is about a full month before we started seeing these stay-at-home orders coming down, before we really started to have an understanding of how much the coronavirus was going to have an impact on public health in the U.S. and on the economy in the United States. This was first reported by ProPublica. These trades were first reported by them. And, you know, this is a potentially really big problem for Byrd. And it is a fairly extraordinary thing for the Justice Department to be going ahead with these warrants, to be taking his cell phone from

his private home. This indicates, as from the people I've talked to, that this is pretty advanced. Is that right, Ryan? This is a really big deal. And it's a big deal because this means that the FBI could go to a judge and show probable cause to believe that, one, a federal crime had indeed been committed, and that, two, there is an expectation of evidence of that crime on that specific cell phone. So this is a this is a big step and indicates, of course, that investigators are moving quickly in this investigation. So the theory here or what is being investigated here, the question is whether Senator Burr, who we know made these stock trades in mid-February when most people weren't aware of this,

whether he made those stock trades because he knew something that we didn't know because he was in intelligence briefings as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Yes, Tam, you're right. This is about whether he was using this non-public information to inform these trades. And I believe that his brother-in-law actually made similar trades at the same time or around the same time as Burr, which of course, deepens questions around what exactly was going on. Now, we do have to say that at this point in time, Burr has said that he didn't do anything wrong. He has asked the Senate Ethics Committee to take a look at his financial dealings. And he said this week when he was announcing that he was stepping down that he is cooperating with

investigators in this. So he said, you know, we just have to wait and let this all play out. And this isn't just Burr, right, Kelsey? There are other senators who are also answering questions about trades made by themselves or their spouses. Yeah, Senator Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, who's a brand new senator, has turned over documents following questions. And Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat from California, her husband has been questioned about his trades, though she says that she was not involved in those and did not have any information that they voluntarily complied with those requests. And it's important to say that there is a big difference between receiving a request for information from the FBI and what we've seen in the case of Burr, which is the FBI actually getting the point of executing a search warrant for the senator's phone. And it's important to remember that this is a sitting senator that we're talking about.

The feds do not go willy nilly executing search warrants on sitting senators. This is something that had to be approved at the very highest levels of the Justice Department because of just how sensitive it is. It's probably interesting to remember, though, that Burr is not running for reelection. And so the impact on his political career could be limited by that. Yeah. Well, Ryan, while we have you here, I want to talk about another case that involves the Justice Department. We talked last Friday on the pod about how the Justice Department was dropping its case against Michael Flynn, though he was the president's first national security advisor who pled guilty to lying to the FBI over his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition and the Trump campaign. A lot has happened in that case this week. Like the story did not end.

The story did not end and it didn't end because it appears as though the judge in the case, a man by the name of Emmett Sullivan, may have reservations about what it is the Justice Department is trying to do in dropping this case. So what Judge Sullivan did this week is he issued two orders, the first one of which was giving more time for outside parties to submit what are known as a friend of the court brief to present their positions. And what Sullivan said was that he expects that there will be a fair amount of opposition to the Justice Department's decision. And so he's going to provide the opportunity for outside parties to weigh in. And then the second thing that he did was he appointed a former federal judge from New York to essentially present opposing arguments to the government's motion to dismiss this case

and to explore the question of whether Michael Flynn should potentially face contempt for perjury because he stood up and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians and now is claiming his innocence. So under oath, he said he's guilty. And now he's saying he's not. So this case is not done yet, despite the fact that the Justice Department has indeed moved to to drop it. Ryan, we are going to let you take a breather for a few minutes and then we will bring you back for Can't Let It Go. So goodbye for now. See you in a bit. And in the meantime, we are going to talk about the week in the Supreme Court. But first, we're going to take a quick break. This message comes from NPR

sponsor StoryPoint Wines, maker of StoryPoint, a bold new wine brand with a rich layered taste profile. Enjoy StoryPoint wine while you connect with those you love, either at home or at a virtual happy hour. Raise a glass and share a story. StoryPoint believes that the stories we share can bring joy even in trying times. Visit storypointvineyards.com slash politics to purchase. Shipping is included in your online order, so consider shipping a bottle to a friend, too. Face masks have become the new normal as we continue to grapple with the ongoing pandemic. But when did we start wearing masks for our health and safety? This week on ThruLine,

the origins of the N95 mask and how it became the life-saving tool it is today. Throughline from NPR, the podcast where we go back in time to understand the present. And we are back and we're joined by Nina Totenberg. Hey, Nina. Hey there, Tam. And you are here because there was more action in the Supreme Court this week. It continued this week with its remote live streamed oral arguments. Any toilet flushes this week we should know about? No, no toilet flushes. All right, well, then we can move straight to the substance. There are two cases that we are going to walk through on the pod today that have major political implications. And I want to start with one that relates to President Trump's financial records.

Nina, can you describe that case for us? Okay, so there are two sets of subpoenas. One is from Congress seeking financial records from banks that gave Trump big loans and his accounting firm. And the other is from a New York grand jury. And remember, these are not to Trump directly. These are subpoenas for his financial records that go to these third parties. The other is from a New York grand jury. And remember, these are not to Trump directly. These are subpoenas for his financial records that go to these third parties. From before when he was a businessman, not when he was president of the United States.

These are his pre-presidential records by and large. And remember that normally if subpoenas like this were issued for our accounting firms or banks, we would have no ability to intervene. He's trying to block compliance with these subpoenas, subpoenas that the banks and the accounting firm do not object to themselves. So that's the state of play. He's claiming basically immunity for not for just for himself, but for all of his records, wherever they are, sort of as if there's a giant bubble around him. And Nina, from my perspective in Congress, this has huge implications for their ability to do the oversight that they're attempting to do, right? Well, that's what they claim. And that's what the lower courts found. Trump has lost all of these cases in the lower courts. So the lower courts

said Congress has to be able to oversee what the executive branch does, what the president does. But what is the argument that Trump's legal team is making? Is the idea here, he's president of the United States, and he can't be distracted by these sorts of investigations while he's president? His point is, I am the President of the United States. I am not an ordinary citizen. I'm different from everybody else. And I shouldn't have to comply, or have my, the places that I've done business have to comply with this court of kind of a subpoena. And therefore, hold on a second, you can't come here sorry my darling husband has brought me roses from our garden but he didn't understand that i was actually broadcasting i think that he should

be rewarded for bringing you roses come on man you should be rewarded he'll get his reward later okay where was i his point the president's point is, I'm not an ordinary citizen. I'm the president of the United States, and I can't have all this stuff bothering me and going on around me, and you should be protecting me, Supreme Court. And his lawyer, Jay Sekulow, had a particularly difficult time selling that argument when it came to the grand jury subpoena, because the argument the president makes is, you can investigate me, but you can't make anybody comply with these subpoenas involving my conduct. And here's the chief justice asking about that. Well, in other words, it's okay for the grand jury to investigate, except it can't use the traditional and most effective device that grand juries have typically used, which is the subpoena.

And then what was Sekulow's response? OK, let's let's just take a listen. It can't use a subpoena targeting the president. And under his Article 2 responsibilities and the Clause, that is our view would be inappropriate and unconstitutional. And then we moved over to the congressional subpoenas, which were dicier, I think, for the court, because they, the justices, at least some of the justices, and perhaps a majority of the justices, the conservative members of the court, really don't love Congress very much. They think Congress is sort of a bunch of harassers.

I think that's their view. And they didn't want to give Congress carte blanche. At the same time, Congress is a co-equal branch of government. And here's Justice Elena Kagan, one of the more liberal members of the court, asking what it would mean if Congress's subpoenas couldn't be enforced. What it seems to me you're asking us to do is to put a kind of 10-ton weight on the scales between the president and Congress, and essentially to make it impossible for Congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the president is concerned.

And you're quite right in what you said before, that this isn't going to be the last such case. And I wonder whether that fact isn't a good reason to reject your proposed rule. I should say that when she's saying that this isn't going to be the last such case, there are a number of subpoenas out there that are related to oversight that they are still trying to get the Trump administration to respond to. Plus, Congress just opened this new committee whose job is essentially to investigate the entire process of the coronavirus response. And that committee will have subpoena power. So you can expect that there will potentially be more subpoenas of the president to come. So this could potentially have long lasting effects on even the work that they're trying to do right now.

Yes. And just as Breyer pointed out, the same thing, we're making a rule forever, basically. And we don't want to give Congress so much power that Congress could be like the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy was harassing people in the executive branch for for years on end with no basis to do that. So I think that the court was looking for potentially some limits on Congress's power, but not too much. And that's going to be the trick. How do you thread that needle? All right, let's move on to the other case that you were watching closely this week. It was about presidential delegates and the Electoral College. Tell us about that one. This case is a real lulu because... A lulu Lulu? A Lulu. What does that mean? You don't know what a Lulu is? No.

I don't either. A Lulu is a... Can you believe it? Okay. I'm using that now. This case is a real Lulu. The Electoral College was originally conceived of as a place where learned people would go and they would decide who of the presidential candidates might be the best and they would be free to vote their

consciences and exercise their independent judgment. That lasted literally just a few years. Once there were political parties, the Electoral College votes were tethered to pledges. I'm going to vote for this guy. And the Electoral College became almost like a vestigial organ, except that it did carry out who would be president by allocation of how many Electoral College votes there were in each state. Well, now, some of the electoral college delegates are saying, no, we should be able to exercise our judgment. And some of a handful of them did that in 2016. And some of them were fined, and some of them were removed. And now here we are months away from the presidential election. And as here's what Justice Samuel Alito quite accurately said,

I think, about the case now. Those who disagree with your argument say that it would lead to chaos, that where the popular vote is close and changing just a few votes would alter the outcome or throw it into the House of Representatives. There would be the rational response of the losing political party would be to launch a massive campaign to try to influence electors. And there would be a long period of uncertainty about who the next president was going to be. And I think the court was very much torn between what the founders may have wanted or intended at the time they wrote the Constitution, but in practice for over two centuries has not been the way the Electoral College behaves. Yeah. So, Nina, one thing,

this isn't a toilet flush, but one thing that seems to have developed over the course of the telephone Supreme Court hearings is that we've been hearing a lot more from Justice Clarence Thomas, who had for years been a silent presence. And now all of a sudden he's pretty talkative. And pretty interesting. And I think the advocates love it. I think he's the one person who loves this format. The other justices, not so much because they can't jump in to follow up on some thought that they have about an answer that counsel has. But clearly, Clarence Thomas loves this. Maybe he's also just more comfortable at home. He's got some slippers on and he's cozy and maybe he just feels more up for asking questions.

And he's funny. All right. Well, Nina, we are going to let you go. Thank you so much for joining us again. I love joining you. Bye. Bye, Nina. Bye.

And we're going to take a quick break. And when we get back, it is time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back. And we have Ryan Lucas back with us. Hey, Ryan. Hey there. Hey there. And you are back because it is time for this thing where we talk about what we cannot stop

thinking about, politics or otherwise. And I hear that you can't let go of something that is particularly relatable right now. That is right. I can't let go. I can't escape. It is always with me, always around me. I can't let go of dog fur right now. It is everywhere in my life. I have a shepherd mix that is shedding by the bucket full right now. And it's just like, it's like tumbleweed in my life, I have a shepherd mix that is shedding by the bucket full right now. And it's just like, it's like tumbleweed in my house. It is everywhere. Like she's on the, like she basically owns the couch.

Okay. Like we can try to move her off the couch, but she considers the couch her territory. And if she gets off it and you clean her fur off the couch, the minute she steps down, it's covered in fur again. Ryan, I'm so, so, so sympathetic. I actually told my husband that I thought it would be a good idea to vacuum the cat. And there's no end to it. It's like Twitter. It never ends.

It never ends. But your dog is so lovely, Ryan. She is. She's a real sweetheart. We also have been asking our listeners what they can't let go of, and they delivered. There were a ton of submissions, so please keep sending them to us next week at nprpolitics at npr.org. This week's comes from Megan. And once you see it, you can't unsee it. Here you go. My name is Megan from Omaha, Nebraska.

With my extra free time lately, I've been catching up on a lot of movies and TV shows. The thing I can't let go of is watching a character go to bed and put their phone on the nightstand, but not plug it in to charge. When do they charge their phones? And now that I've noticed it, I can't not notice it. It's like when you figure out that they're all drinking from empty coffee cups. Thanks. Oh, I know somebody who vehemently believes that you shouldn't charge your phone overnight because if you leave it plugged in, it does something bad to the battery. I have

never seen any proof that this is true, but there is a school of thought out there, at least amongst one person that I know. I am familiar with that school of thought. Are you? I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but I am familiar with it. And I have recently not been charging my phone, but by accident. I feel like that school of thought are you i don't necessarily subscribe to it but i am familiar with it and i have recently not been charging my phone but by accident i feel like that school of thought just leads to your phone running out of batteries like in the late morning exactly anyway all right well i am going to go next um what i cannot let go of is a new show on uh the food network uh it is called am Schumer Learns to Cook. So Amy Schumer, awesome comedian. And she has a new baby and she has a husband and her husband, it turns out, is a chef. Hi. Hi. I'm Amy Schumer.

I'm Chris Fisher. This is my husband and I am his wife. And we are here with you tonight. And you're a comedian. I'm a comedian and Chris is a chef. And also, you're an actress. Thank you. And a mother.

And a model. Like all of us, they are sheltering in place. But unlike the rest of us, they have decided to start doing a cooking show. And so on every episode, Amy Schumer does not know how to cook, but she does know how to make a cocktail. So she makes the cocktail. I'm sorry. I have a question here. What is wrong with the current setup for her where someone else does all the cooking and she makes a cocktail? I would be completely fine with that. Yeah, no, it's all

good. She's happy. But if she's learning to cook, I would just say, you know, I've learned my skill. It's the cocktail. It is addictive. It is a good quality program that makes me feel like I too could have a quarantine cooking program. Well, I've got the food and the cocktails. Oh, well, someday we're coming over to your house eventually. No time soon. I don't know why it makes me feel like I could do it, but there you go. Now I want my own quarantine cooking show. Kelsey, what can't you let go of?

The thing I cannot let go of today is forever trapped inside of the great green room. Now, parents out there will know that I am talking about Goodnight Moon. I understand that you guys have copies of Goodnight Moon with you. Indeed. We were told to bring copies to this podcast taping. I felt that you guys would be a fairly receptive audience for this Can't Let It Go because you also probably have read this book 100,000 times in your lives. This week. So the other day, I was reading through Goodnight Moon for the millionth time and looking for interesting things to kind of keep me entertained.

And I'd like you to flip to where we're saying Goodnight Room. There's a telephone, a red balloon, and a picture of, all right, we've got the cow jumping over the moon, right? Yes. Can you see what is on the wall in the painting of the three bears sitting on chairs? Is it three bears sitting on chairs? No, no. It is a painting of the cow jumping over the moon. Really? Now, if you go to a page where you can see the

third painting in the room, above the bookshelf, it is a bunny going fishing. But the bunny is fishing for a bunny. That is... Oh, there it is. Oh, but wait! That bunny fishing for a bunny is from a different book. Exactly. It's from a different book.

Margaret Wise Brown. And you know what else? That book, Runaway Bunny, is from a different book. Exactly. It's from a different book. A different book that is- Margaret Wise Brown. And you know what else? That book, Runaway Bunny, is on the bookshelf. Whoa. It's product placement. Right? And on the bedside stand, the bunny inside of Goodnight- Sorry, the bunny inside of Goodnight Moon is reading Goodnight Moon. Guys, this book is full of Easter eggs.

Wow. I tweeted about this, and for the entire evening, people were sending me other things I hadn't noticed. Like, if you look at the clocks, it takes Bunny like an hour to go to bed. So I'm sorry, but the quiet old lady whispering hush is far more patient than I am. This is what happens when you read Goodnight Moon several several times a day every single day you come into my deep deep deep parenting thoughts so welcome friends uh yeah okay listeners uh we're just gonna leave that here for now so i think it's happy hour now uh that's a wrap our executive producer is shirley henry our editors are Mathani Maturi and Eric McDaniel.

Our producers are Barton Girdwood and Chloe Weiner. Thanks to Lexi Schipittel, Dana Farrington, Brandon Carter, and Elena Moore. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Kelsey Snell. I cover Congress. I'm Ryan Lucas. I cover the Justice Department.

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.