Transcripts For CSPAN Donald Trump Donald Trump Jr. V. Committee On Financial Services Oral... 20240714

This is an hour and 40 minutes. We will hear argument in donald j. Trump versus committee on Financial Services. Court, thereshe no doubt the dispute comes to the court involving the house of representatives on one side and the president and his family members on the other. I do want to note the number of statements three rely upon and the Background Information makes it clear that these subpoenas are being targeted to the president because he is president. When you say because, are you raising motive . I am not raising motive but looking to at the real object of the subpoena is. That is another way of saying why they are doing it. The motive precludes motive and rises above concerns that the house or the congress has taken one action and we think they are not. They are not taking the action you can delineate from their statements from authorizing resolutions themselves. There is Something Else completely going on. Many of the cases make it very clear you can inquire into what the real object is and what the legislative purpose is. Is that the real object distinguished from no other object . In other words, they put something up as just a sham. I think the court in watkins is clear about this. The court is obligated to look carefully especially in a case that at least rises separation of powers. What the president is conceded against in his official capacity, right . We cannot ignore this when subpoenas are targeting the president because he is president. How can the separation of powers be separated with his being in the individual . I think your point is that really doesnt matter and it is still the president s papers. That is correct. When you look in some of the comments that the chairs of the committee have made, we specifically are talking about the need to investigate and expose whether or not the president has ties to russia and whether there is for leverage over the president. Chairman waters has specifically said she is going to find out what the president where the president s money is coming from. I dont think you can look at the basis of these and conclude that this is an investigation into anybody who has significant Real Estate Investment and Money Laundering practices. It is for the plaintiffs. There is a legitimate object in mind. That presumption is not conclusive and we are to inquire into purpose. You say in your papers you suggested various reasons we should move beyond any one portion you talk about the fact that the District Court erred by declining to examine articulated purposes by Committee Members. Could you help me by marshaling what you were referring to. We cited some of the comments in House Resolution 206, is one of the documents relied upon by the Financial Services department. If you look at the resolution it talks about the need to bring transparency and to enforce laws and prevent people from passing laws with ink that is an articulation of the Law Enforcement objective when you look at the face of the subpoena and look inquiry by inquiry to see what is the subpoenas request. Why is that not a legitimate legislative purpose since congress itself has to legislate against Money Laundering and a variety of transaction that the United States government or we the people of the United States have an interest in . Certainly at the highest possible level, no one doubts that they have a legislative interest in showing that banking laws are proper and updated as they need to be. It does not follow from that proposition that at the highest generality they have an interest in passing those laws or considering passage of those laws that the requests are pertinent to that purpose. Is it fair to say let me start with this do you think the committees have identified valid legislative purposes . I think the committees have identified legislative purposes that could be valid for some subpoenas but i do not think they are legislative purposes that support this. Would you agree there are some categories sought that are relevant or i will take your word pertinent to those identified purposes . I would suggest one could imagine a subpoena nearer that targets looking beyond one particular person. Do you agree some of the categories are relevant or pertinent to identified purposes . Is possible the subpoena could be narrowed or lessened. In court, did you identify any categories of information sought that was not relevant to a valid purpose . I think we have identified a number of categories we dont think are pertinent. Judge newman as i counted them, there were 56 categories among the eight largely numbered paragraphs. I did not see in the District Court where you said, judge, number three is not relevant, number seven is not relevant. I didnt see that. Is it there . Mr. Strawbridge in the District Court we identified specific examples as to why we thought those were clearly not pertinent to the request and why i think the law support this. It calls into doubt with the budget of the subpoenas are. Judge newman you identified them by number . Mr. Strawbridge i can give you an example. The Financial Services House Resolution and justification for the Financial Services subpoena has alleged it is particularly concerned about the lack of disclosure in the Real Estate Investments and Real Estate Market and the threat of foreign purchasers and Money Laundering. The request on their face are not in any way, shape, or form limited to transactions with foreign transactions in the Real Estate Market. They are seeking with respect to every single named plaintiff as well as agents or employees or anybody connected to these entities every single account record and every debit card swipe, every check that was written, every account report and communication. Judge newman if you are looking for Money Laundering, why wouldnt you want to know everything about the financial transaction . Mr. Strawbridge because they do not have an interest in investigating them for Money Laundering. Judge newman plenty of language from the Supreme Court that the fact that an investigation right develop evidence of a crime is not a reason to reject it if the investigation would yield such things as whether the agencies are adequately enforcing the criminal law. Mr. Strawbridge the Supreme Court has said that the fact that some wrongdoing may come to light in the pursuit of a legislative purpose, those that are pertinent and that is the basis for questioning and of itself. The problem is that the real object of the subpoena and the department of justice agrees with us that the real object does appear to be Law Enforcements. When you say the real object, deeming what is in the mind of the Committee Members who have issued the subpoena . Mr. Strawbridge i am saying that the face and the scope of the subpoenas themselves. That it shows why they are doing it that they are up to no good . It is hard to imagine someone interested in reconstructing the financial history wanting anything more than what is required by these requests. If you were drawing out the document and launching a Law Enforcement i cant imagine single documents that are covered by these subpoenas. If you were trying to justify Law Enforcement, you are saying you would issue a subpoena. If you are trying to find out Money Laundering, and corruption of the Financial System by foreign affairs, would new issue the subpoena . I dont think this type of subpoena supports those topics. Why not . Both the breadth and specific target of the subpoena this is not a request for deutsche give me the following information about people whose transactions reach this level, highlevel and specific information that would be systemwide. The only reason why they would focus on these particular is because they want to investigate these particular plaintiffs. AnMoney Laundering is interesting compliance. Correct. Its an institutional interest. I dont understand why the debit cards of the president posture children and grandchildren have anything to do with it with an investigation the supports legislation or reform. We may not agree with that ultimately but lets assume for the moment we agree with you the investigation, a case study to an individuals finances and Family Finances is unusual in the context of the legislation information with regards to the subject. Usually the legislation need for information is not so specific. Im not sure that would have a similar argument with would work with regards to Intelligence Committee subpoenas. Those are subpoenas taking information, seeking information specifically about interference in elections and legislation that might prevent these. The subpoena on its face is far broader than that. Is the best evidence as to why that is not the reason you know that is because i think a good contrast to this in terms of substance of the inquiry as well as the actual procedure followed. That was the same committee. If you look at the resolution it talks about the need to bring transparency and to enforce laws and prevent people from passing laws with ink that is an articulation of the Law Enforcement objective when you look at the face of the subpoena and look inquiry by inquiry to see what is the subpoenas request. Show less text 00 04 16 why is that not a legitimate legislative purpose since congress itself has to legislate against Money Laundering and a variety of transaction that the United States government or we the people of the United States have an interest in . Certainly basically invested in the same subject matter. There is a subpoena for plaintiffs for customers documents into different District Courts. We will give comparable time. In being two different District Court to receive this recognize the problems, recognize the difficulties, encourage they try to negotiate what they actually need. Ultimately when the subpoena came up to court for enforcement , when it came up he was focused on two years that have to actually be around the election. Not two years that the Deutsche Bank it was focused on a specific number of transactions involving specific delineated properties, not every transaction you had for the last 10 years. Not every transaction regardless. Thats the kind of pertinent inquiry that lets the court in that case say now that we are here, this satisfied legitimate legislative purpose and i wont do any further line by line analysis as to the transactions weve nailed this down to. We are not close to that kind of focused inquiry they had in that case. Thats a good contrast to whats happening. The court is not required to express a certain thing that everybody can see before their face. The committees response to the point you made about focusing on the president and his family, the committees have issued other subpoenas to other people. What do you say about that . If they have issued other people to other other subpoenas to other people, we have not seen them. I think the statements we identified where the specifically say the chairman says we are here to determine whether or not that needs to be exposed and what we can do to hold him accountable and chairman water saying we want to find it with the president said. Youve never seen the other subpoenas . We have only seen the two subpoenas in this case. I think we asked we certainly asked for the subpoenas issued. We made a request ready subpoenas. The ones in this case. We were initially were rebuffed. They least endeavor to meet your point about focusing on the president that they have issued subpoenas to other people. Right, but you have to ask are those other people at all i think the department of justice which makes a good point which is the seems to be an attempt to determine in the real estate sector where the plaintiffs are only one of many parties who engage in these transactions, so it seems i think the department of justice wisely suggests in these types of cases the president and his family should probably be the last place the house goes to for that general concern about Law Enforcement and disclosure. As a discretionary decision that may be, is that our call or the committees call . I think this court certainly can follow the model dcc followed, that others have followed. Sending them for negotiation. Sending them for negotiation. Those were executive branch documents of the high sensitivity, were they not . National security wiretaps. In some of those cases. In the one you mentioned. There are other examples. Cases from new york where was a private party and it was still a determination made in that case that some of these requests are pertinent, some were not. The District Court refused to even consider doing that analysis. What happened in being still ordered the parties to negotiate on two different rounds. As to what sort of documents. Financial transactions. Official or unofficial . With respect to the executive branch. They were all private records. It was the fusion gps so it involve private Party Financial transactions. Indistinct was both from this case except for a course how narrow and pertinent they were there and how broad and overreaching. Coming back to your claim about some documents in your view are not related to the valid purpose, you suggest some are, is that fair . I think a narrower subpoena have you identify those categories and documents you are willing to turn over . I didnt ask you to negotiate. Dont misunderstand. Im not asking to negotiate. I want to know have you identified to the District Court any categories you would be willing to turn over . We were not given that chance. You are not . We ask the court to impose the same kind of negotiation. But before i understand, you prefer him to send you all to a room to negotiate. Just to clarify, we offered to negotiate before the pi hearing with the committee. In making that offer in the District Court did you say to the District Court the reason we need to do this is because there are at least this many categories we are willing to turn over . We did not identify with specificity which categories. The District Court in any discovery dispute declines to coerce or suggest negotiation, what is our standard of review in reviewing a decision by district judge not to order negotiation . I would assume it would be discretion in discovery dispute. In order to prevent this before we have a chance to negotiate. The District Court determined it didnt really have the authority to address any questions. I guess even more remarkably the District Court determined the subpoena was wildly overbroad but it nonetheless lacked any authority to ask the party to negotiate. [inaudible] ultimately what we are talking about here is the court doing its best to avoid unnecessary decisions of constitutional dimension which is true whether or not this involve the executive or not. In the triedandtrue method of doing that is to push the parties to try and narrow the dispute. Thats what the court did in tobin, its essentially would happened in berkman. It has have another cases. It has constitutional dimensions even though they are private papers and the president is not being pursued and not suing in his official capacity . You are being asked to weigh in on the Constitutional Authority and the limits of enforceability for congressional subpoena and the point here of course is according to my friends on the other side there are no limits. Anybody can be declared a case study and as long as we have some topic under which article one gives us authority to act, the courts are powerless to do anything to protect the recipient. Are we bound in our analysis limited in our analysis to consider only statements that have been promulgated i the committee and Committee Members . Or can we are we permitted essentially to apply what i would analogize to rational basis, and imagine what congresss powers are and say it might not fit within this or this, but it might fit within Something Else . You have to assess the certain purpose as the house has articulated. So i think you are bound, the houses subject to forfeiture and waiver like any other party, you have to stick to the basis upon which the house has acted and of course you are bound by things like the Committee Jurisdiction which of course limits their ability. Did he just say we are limited to the statement of purpose as to the date of the subpoena . Generally the law says you have to determine the legitimacy of the request at the time made. Examine what the Committee Chairman said to the witness right at the moment he was asked the question . In oral examination thats when the questions are posed in a subpoena they are posted an earlier point in time. The congress voted the resolution, wasnt it . Let me say this. The court can determine what the real object of the subpoena is by the congressional red ash records. Records. And some can be long after the first resolution. The question no, i dont think the subpoena basis can be argued on a retroactive basis. You dont think that happened . I dont think that was the basis for the spread this. They did rely on the chairmans statement to the witness. Long after the subpoena was offered. The subpoena for testimony but we are trying to determine whether Holding Someone in contempt what questions they were asked. The oral examination will require a different time of rain. You are not distinction between testimony and documents are you . The question is what is the basis for the request at the time promulgated . So any subsequently enacted resolution, subsequent transcripts, congressional hearings would not be relevant to that question . I think you have to take the subpoena and the request for testimony of the time it was made. We are dealing here with a record that has been to the desperate court and several rounds of breathing in the court of appeals and the legislator purposes of the one they have given. We are hearing the pastor of appeal for culinary injunction, these remarks seem to me to say in this case there is no distinction between the preliminary injunction and the ultimate merits inquiry that the record must be pretty complete at this point. I was already thinking that with regards to the argument you make thinking the legal determination, we might get it right or wrong, but if we have everything need to make that determination now. Im assuming there might be some further Record Development with regard to legitimate purpose, am i wrong about that . Is essentially proffered at this point . I would reiterate we are on the question standard, we think the serious question standard is the right thing that applies. There was an opportunity given to supplement the record upon which we took and may be somewhat limited in terms of the categories of information we can supplement with what its not nonexistent. I think with respect to the rfpa, there is further room for development. I think specifically for the room to question how to interpret various provisions of the subpoena as to whether the reaching parties are protected in the rfpa. This is from the Justice Department briefing, their argument that in a case like this that implicates a separation of powers concern, the house itself should clearly identify the legitimate legislative purpose. I think we generally agree with the department of justice that not only to the to clearly identify legitimate legislative purpose, the court needs to be careful to make sure legislative purpose has been announced in the fact or at least the request pertinent to that legislative purpose and truly necessary when talking about an attempt to basically target and no doubt distract the legislator they can after the fact announce a purpose but also encompasses with the request are aimed at . A legislative purpose, no. Certainly we havent briefed or argued or the chance to present evidence for the purposes other than the one they have stated in the record. The Supreme Court is not a stranger to this type of dispute about whether a court should stop a Congress Committee from enforcing a subpoena. They have had little litigation over this. Yes. There is a fair amount of litigation largely related to the house unamerican activities committee. It goes a long way back. Even further. Has the Supreme Court ever said that a court should say as to and identify legislative purpose by a committee is not the real purpose . It specifically imposes upon the court the necessity have they ever said it is not the real purpose . I dont know if theyve use the words real purpose. Disregarding announce purpose. Its whether or not the request are perceived to be legitimate legislator purpose and whether they are sufficiently pertinent. I think watkins does the best job. Watkins said the resolution was too broad and they narrowed, is that true . Yes. They didnt say it was a lack of legislative purpose. Right. That is all im asking. As the serene court ever said that a court should say to the congress yes you have identified a legislative purpose but we dont think it is the real one and so we are budget stop you . Thats precisely what happened in kilborn. They argued it was for the purpose of inquiring and its legislative role as to what had happened with bankruptcy and the court rejected that and said you are conducting judicial proceeding. You are doing Law Enforcement. Correct. And here are you saying this is all about Law Enforcement and only about Law Enforcement . I think the comments of the Committee Members as well as the face of the subpoena request leave the unmistakable impression. If we disagreed with you on that and thought this was not exclusively Law Enforcement, is there any Supreme Court case that gives us the authority to disregard a nonLaw Enforcement purpose . Im not sure what you mean by disregard. Having asserted a legitimate legislative purpose, cases are all clear on this, you still to demonstrate pertinent to the request the Supreme Court has made that clear and in watkins they talk about the need to demonstrate on a request by request basis the pertinence to the assertive legitimate legislative purpose. So is the courts job did not end when they identify one conceivable legislative purpose that some request. Within this long list of extremely demanding request for every account record of the president s grandchildren. The courts work is not over. You saying house relook desta House Resolution 507 is irrelevant. I dont think that resolution addresses anything. I dont think i think it would be a retroactive rationalization. I dont think the committee has argued why. Im not asking is it valid or do the job. I do not think it is relevant. Since it came after the day of the subpoena. It came well after and there is nothing in that resolution that goes into the inquiry. The Justice Department cites it as evidence of separation of powers concerns raised by this and other subpoenas i suppose. They talk about the breadth of that resolution which seeks to authorize past and future subpoenas for all committees. So long as they involve the president and his family. As a legislative act i dont suggest the court has to pretend that that didnt occur, at how it is relevant argued in this case. [inaudible] the rfpa was enacted to report to act the financial records of customers of financial institutions. The subpoena no doubts seeks precisely the records it was intended to protect. We explained in detail why the language of the act and the other provisions and history, particularly the timing of the decisions leads to the inescapable conclusion it is not limited to the executive branch which is what congress is argued. What do you say about the argument that the bill sent up by the treasury and Justice Department explicitly applied the statute to the congress and the enacted bill did not . When i was running down that argument, the difficulty of wading through all 750 pages of allegedly of markup to find where that one line is and i remembered there is a provision of law cited in our brief that says courts should not glean much information. Courts say that when there is a proposal by the xyz trade group and says we ought we think you want to legislate on this subject and the congress doesnt and the Supreme Court has regularly said that is a pretty thin read. This is a bill sent up by a department that sends up most of the governments proposed bills. And it says we cover the congress and that provision does not make it to the bill, you dont think that is persuasive . I dont think its any more persuasive than the assumption congress was already covered and there is no need to put a redundancy in the statute. At the time of this enactment, the precise language used here had been upheld for nearly three decades as covering congress, that was what the background law against which the congress legislating at the time was. Moreover, it contains a number of explicit exemptions, one of them is for the gao, i dont understand why you would have any and have a gao exemption if the coverage was limited to the executive branch, the gao would be indisputably deaf legislator. The provision was inactive. The question here is the time of the legislative agency. Could you address section 34 08. Its difficult for me to see how the statute would apply to Congress Given provisions like that one. You have to submit a request, get authorization from the head of the agency or department before seeking private financial records. . I dont think it is that hard to Say Committee chairs can serve as a functional heads of particular committees. But if it were to apply to congress, would you use that language . We dont usually call maybe sometimes, but it is not the usual nomenclature to call the chairman of the committee that. As a point of fact that is precisely what has happened in this case. The chairs of the committee has basically authorized on behalf of their committees. I dont think it is as much of a as you might suggest. There are other provisions as ive said the reasons we think makes it clear that congress and Congressional Committees were intended to be concluded included. There is a provision that exempts financial records it committee request from a supervisory agency. If it applied to any Congressional Committee request, why would you need a special exemption for these types of record requests only from these types of government authorities . That doesnt make any sense, i would argue that make less sense than referring to the chairman of the committee is the head. I would appreciate a couple minutes for a bottle, but thats ok. Thank you mr. Strawbridge. Put up 35 minutes please. Thank you your honors and good morning. On the general counsel of the u. S. House of representatives. With me today is ms. Jennifer reed from the Financial Services committee and mr. Daniel noble from the house Intelligence Committee. I want to address any questions this court has, i took copious notes and i have answers to every single thing he said. The main thing i want to urge you though is two points. Judge ramos looked at these arguments and rejected them in a very fine opinion. Even more so, i commend to you the Supreme Courts decision where the Court Unanimously rejected a very large percentage of the arguments that mr. Strawbridge is making today and in fact it did so overruling a lower court that excepted many of those arguments. So please understand, the Supreme Court long ago unanimously rejected almost everything that mr. Strawbridge is saying today. So really what this means is mr. Strawbridge is asking you, a court of appeals, to go against a massive amount of Supreme Court precedent. The separation of powers concerns the Justice Department raises, do you agree with it that the subpoenas is tied directly to a third party seeking the president s personal information implicates separation of powers concerns . Your honor, the subpoenas issued here do not raise separation of powers concerns, much of the Justice Department brief you will note is hypothetical. Because the Justice Department says what if there were a whole batch of subpoenas, what if the president i forget if they use the word raft, but basically were burying the president with subpoenas and a key thing that Justice Marvin talks about is Justice Department talks about is what if congress was delaying the president from carrying out his functions. . Is the other side correct in saying this is the First Congress issue a thirdparty subpoena for a president s records . Im not aware of others that are like this and there is a good reason for that. I would like to finish answering your first question judge livingston. There is certainly a possibility of a separation of powers problem if congress were the Supreme Court says this in the cheney case, if congress were acting in such a way the president was so overwhelmed with subpoenas et cetera, this is nowhere close to that. This should have, and i think judge ramos said this, this should have almost no effect whatsoever on mr. Trumps time and i use the mr. Deliberately because what you asked about, this is assumed a suit in his individual capacity. It entered into think of it is no separation of powers problem when mr. Trump himself, represented by his own private lawyers, is the plaintiff here. It is not President Trump, we are not suing the president. The derogative justice took no position in this case or the other case until the court said lets hear your view. So there is a potential for separation of powers problem but it is definitely not raised by this case. Was that potential raised, the language in cases like bromley the court should tread warily and think about alternatives to making broad pronouncements about the scope of Congressional Authority or the scope of president ial authority . No, your honor, this so clearly does not trench on President Trump. The records being sought, first of all some of them are bank records of the banks, that is one of the key things that i i think mr. Strawbridge passes over but judge ramos did not. We are asking some of the key documents are analyses by the banks. You have a situation where mr. Trump is going to Deutsche Bank asking for very large loans when no other bank apparently will touch him and this has been widely reported in responsible press. So for obvious reasons, both committees want to know, why is it that Deutsche Bank would be willing to lend a large amount of money to someone that no other bank would touch, way before he is president of the United States . Does this serve legislative purpose . [indiscernible] its key because it questions what was involved, why were these banks willing to lend under the circumstance . And should there be more legislation, Better Regulation so this does not happen. This fits in with another question asked, and mr. Strawbridge ducked it because he said he did not know. The Financial Committee has issued 10 subpoenas. We subpoenaed a whole batch of banks that have absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to do with mr. Trump or his family. For my edification, when were those issued in relation to when the subpoena or subpoenas that issues were . Mr. Letter most were issued simultaneously, but one was issued later. But even the subpoena here, lists other banks. And it was for russian oligarchs. The Financial Services committee, and i will get to intel in a moment because we dont want to forget that, the Financial Services committee is doing a large industrywide investigation, because as House Resolutions provide, we think there may be a very strong need for more regulation. Because russian oligarchs, and others have money pouring into the United States being used in real estate deals and other types of transactions to launder this money. I want to clear a couple of details. Where the three subpoenas all issued on the same date . Mr. Letter if my memory one of them is undated, it seems that they were its not a question about the content of the Deutsche Bank subpoena, there are eight large paragraphs in many subcategories, you are familiar with that structure. Mr. Letter yes. Judge newman paragraph one with all of its subdivisions identifies a number of people and entities, correct . Mr. Letter im moving to follow you. Yes. Judge newman my question is, do paragraphs two through six ask for any documents of the people or entities identified in paragraph one . Mr. Letter i will take a moment and look closely. It appears it doesnt, but i wanted to know that to see if we even have to worry about paragraphs two through six. The subparts of one referred to the persons and entities identified. Mr. Letter i apologize, i have to look at this. It would simplify the case of the answer was yes. And if it is accurate. Mr. Letter to be honest, i would probably have to take some moments to look closely at the wording. I have asked my colleagues to do that. May i get back to you at the end of the argument . Judge newman i can wait till then. Mr. Letter thank you. Judge newman i have questions on content. To the bank to produce checks . Mr. Letter records of checks, i believe so your honor. Judge newman i dont know if this is the case or not, but i want to ask you about this possibility. Lets say a company, theres a company in here, and the company has an employee who they think needs to receive medical attention. And they say we will pay for it for you, we will write a check to pay for it. And they do. The check is cleared and is in the possession of Deutsche Bank. Is the congress entitled to see that check . Mr. Letter it entitles to issue a subpoena that covers it. If Deutsche Bank said to the committee we have some checks that involve a gardener in mr. Trumps employ, and they dont seem to have anything to do with anything except his personal health problems, can we exclude that . Thats executive kind of thing the Financial Services Committee Talks to people about when there are these kinds of investigations. Judge newman that you are asking to be affirmed does not have any safety valve for that check. Mr. Letter the practice is that we are certainly willing, and we do i have met with the staffers, its the kind of thing they do. So mr. Trump wants to say, you are right, this subpoena is valid, i have some minor parts of it that really dont have anything to do with whether or not im laundering money for russian oligarchs, can we exclude those . We would be happy to talk to Deutsche Bank. Judge newman but as a case comes to us, theres a judgment for compliance, this court did not stay it. If we affirm, which is what youre asking us to do, we would be relying on the fact that the committees are willing to make some accommodation. Mr. Letter absolutely, except, let me say this. If your concern is what i have said, the subpoenas are obviously valid, but we are concerned that there are some tiny percentage that have nothing to do with mr. Trump and his family and these other businesses, have nothing to do with their real financial activities, we will direct Deutsche Bank not to produce those. We would have absolutely no problem with that. Its not necessary. But if that is the courts concern we can take care of that in an instant, we dont have any trouble with that. Judge newman and the fact is you would also have no trouble if you insisted on that. Mr. Letter if the court ruled that these subpoenas are enforceable and drew this exception, we would have no problem with that. Judge newman and one other question about the committees, if compliance is ordered, do you intend to make the documents public . Mr. Letter thats up to the two committees, and the committees have different rules. On the Intel Committee, they receive information under its rules it varies with different procedures applying as to whether they will or will not be made public. The Financial Services committee does not have those same rules, but in general we are happy to listen to arguments about why things should not be public. But this is the congress of the United States. Judge newman you can preclude that. Mr. Letter exactly your honor. Judge newman one paragraph calls for tax returns, i left the banks if they have them, do you know if the banks have them . Mr. Letter i dont think we know that the bank has tax returns. Judge newman are you saying you dont know one way or the other . Mr. Letter we dont know one way or the other. For these types of massive loans, Deutsche Bank was ultimately lending mr. Trump and his various enterprises about 2 billion, my understanding is that in that situation, it would be common for tax returns to be provided. Judge newman if they have them and i hope you find out for the morning is over, if they have them in your subpoena requests tax returns, have the committees complied with the statute that specifically applies to tax returns . Mr. Letter yes, we are in full compliance in making a request. Judge newman can you tell me how you have complied . Mr. Letter that statute allows requests by committees under certain circumstances for tax return information. Whether they would be made public or not, i dont know. I would have to look very closely. Judge newman doesnt it say, and you have to certify that the information cannot be obtained from other sources . Mr. Letter my memory i would have to check. We can get back to you on that to find out if that certification judge newman theres nothing in the papers that show that. Mr. Letter i would be happy to check and get back to the Court Whether or how we have complied. But mr. Trump has not raised any issue along these lines in this case, but i would be happy judge newman do you think you would with compliance with the statute . Mr. Letter what mr. Trump is saying, is no, im not turning over anything and not complying with any subpoena we have a lot of appeals that says one side wants it all and the other side says youre not getting any of it and we are not limited to those choices. Mr. Letter all im saying is that there has not been any specific objections. I will be happy to check into that specific question and give you a full answer, im really giving an excuse for myself. Since they have not raised that, im not paired on the question. Judge livingston this morning i heard your calling on the others on the otherside, could you address the argument that in the context like this, that these are very broad subpoenas come out of the court did not think it had any Legal Authority to address overdressed, do you agree . Mr. Letter yes but i would like to explain. The Supreme Court has made clear it not your function to be going line by line and congressional subpoenas. Your function is to say is this subpoena valid . That is your function. On that, as judge ramos held, theres no serious question. If this is overbroad, it mr. Trump wants to engage in some sort of serious and actual negotiation, he has given no indication of willingness to do this. When mr. Strawbridge raised to this in the District Court, i said i do not believe this is sincere. There has been no indication for mr. Trump that says actually yes, obviously Deutsche Bank can turn over its own analysis of my billiondollar loan request. And obviously this and not, i will not fight about any of that. If this court thinks there should be negotiation, i would like to say the same thing i said to District Court. Please make it fast, because we think mr. Trumps statements make clear that this is insincere, and asked mr. Strawbridge again, what kinds of things are we talking about, given that his client has said no, nothing. Lets not waste time with this. I really think this is a red herring, but fine, give us a day, i think 20 minutes would reveal that this is not a sincere offer. Mr. Trump and the various other people have given no indication whatsoever that they actually would be willing to negotiate in any way that is serious. I think the suggestion from the court to negotiate came after the parties had undertaken protracted negotiation, isnt that so . In the court said we would like you to continue . Mr. Letter you are exactly right, that was involving questions on national security. Judge hall the document were different, and the progress of the parties was substantial. Mr. Letter exactly. And judge livingston, if i may, remember the Justice Department is saying they should be done because it involves separation of powers. It does not involve separation of powers. Theres no reasonable argument that if Deutsche Bank turns over materials, remember, Deutsche Bank has burdens on it, but they have never said to us that we cannot comply because theres a lot of materials. Thats not what Deutsche Bank is saying. Mr. Trump is being called upon to do virtually nothing for private records that are nonprivileged, that he turned over to a private business organization. The Supreme Court in miller said these are not privileged. And its quite interesting, at one point, mr. Trump suggested that there was something wrong done because the house saw the documents from the bank. So apparently mr. Trump is saying the proper way to do this is to subpoena me, so that it will disrupt my presidency. Thats a very strange suggestion and i think shows the insincerity of all of this. This makes me think i should seriously consider the Justice Departments argument because i realize thirdparty subpoenas to a bank seeking private information and not official records, i realize it will not take the president s time to go through Deutsche Banks work in compiling the documents. But this is the first incident of a subpoena like this. In that context the Justice Department said you should consider that you have an obligation to make sure theres a legitimate legislative purpose articulated with a sufficient degree of particularity that judicial review as possible. And that there is enough connective reasoning to connect that purpose to the breath of the subpoenas. These are very broad subpoenas, and its a little unusual to do a case study i know i am mischaracterizing partly the argument, a case study into whether banks are complying with antiMoney Laundering statute. There are other legislative subpoenas that might have sought information thats relevant. Mr. Letter several answers, first, we are doing those. We are to be lots of case studies. Any notion that its only mr. Trump is absolutely false. Its a lie. Second, there is already substantial information out there because of mr. Trumps notoriety. Plenty of this started before, about that there are all sorts of suspicious things going on. No other bank will touch mr. Trump, yet Deutsche Bank lends him a large amount of money. In addition, lets not forget the Intelligence Committee, the subpoena there is to show and determine if there is foreign influence over this administration. Theres talk about what about the family members come about remember, mr. Trump has not separated himself from his businesses. His sons are doing business with and attempting to do business with saudis, russians, et cetera. Of course we are asking about family members. It would be absurd if we werent doing that. The key point, is again, the Justice Department brief is hypothetical. It is saying are there other ways you could obtain this information . And i said yes, and we are. But since this isnt a separation of powers problem, its not interfering with President Trump doing his job, and there clearly are legitimate purposes here. Then you are in the territory where the Supreme Court has said for you to interfere with congress in doing its carrying out of its article one responsibilities. In addition, there is one thing the Justice Department does not deal with, because its inconvenient, the Justice Department has had their brief is hypothetical, the Justice Department does not deal with the history of this country. We pointed out some illustrative examples, george washington, abraham lincoln, harry truman, they had situations where congress was being very intrusive. They wanted to know, president lincoln, how are you carrying out the civil war . You are the commanderinchief and you seem to be doing a bad job so we want to investigate how the war is being conducted. The historical record makes clear that president lincoln grumbled about this but cooperated, he talked to congress. You might say thats different and it shows voluntariness, but its not, but that was president lincoln as president lincoln, not as a private individual. Then we have president nixon as a private individual, Congress Asked for tax returns and he voluntarily surrendered some, Congress Asked for more, and indeed asked for tax returns of his family members and those were turned over. [indiscernible] it would have been ways and means. And it was discussed in our supplemental briefs, we can give lots of citations of whitewater. President clinton and his wife had personal records about the whitewater investments. That was the whitewater committee, in that case . Mr. Letter i believe so. The Justice Department seems to think it matters, im not sure why that matters. Judge livingston its a clear statement argument, if theres a special committee to seek such record. Mr. Letter so it is not a separation of powers problem, so long as congress creates a special committee . First, the walter nixon case said the Supreme Court said the court cannot review congress and the way congress operates and sets up procedures. And we wanted to remove this argument on the table, after it was raised, congress ratified the subpoenas the house ratified the Deutsche Bank subpoenas. Judge livingston and that is the resolution, on the face of it it does not satisfy the Justice Department says it does not satisfy their concerns because its a resolution that supports all subpoenas it so along as they involves the president and his family. It does not provide the connective tissue of what the subpoena is for, and how does the breath satisfy that purpose, given that its authorizing subpoenas into the future. Mr. Letter im so glad you brought this out, because as we have pointed out, it ratified these at subpoenas and identified them specifically. They are right there in the whereas clause. The Justice Department does not deny that. But others have been ratified in advanced, if that happens we can litigate that. That has nothing to do with whether these subpoenas judge livingston could you address the standard of review, because you argue likelihood of success should be the standard of the marriage, but i dont know if you made that argument strenuously and is that really the argument youre pressing . Mr. Letter we thought what should happen is the same as masers, which is that it should combine and be the marriage, these are legal questions. Mr. Strawbridge says we might conduct discovery, he cant conduct discovery, this speech or debate clause says when the president sues he cannot start collecting discovery on members of congress. That is absolutely forbidden by the United States constitution. There is no discovery of congress that will happen. And it would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court precedent. We have legal issues here, the Appellate Courts can take an injunction and turn it into a final one. The Supreme Court, it was in the top of my mind because i was one of the lawyers for the Justice Department for moonov, the Supreme Court said there is no good argument here and it made a final decision. Thats what we would urge you to do. As far as for the actual standard of review, im not criticizing that this court has not necessarily been consistent always. Sometimes you said in these circumstances reasonable likelihood of success, sometimes you have said serious question. I frankly have not read the case and im not positive which one applies. We think most likely its a serious likelihood of success and we are comfortable with that. Judge ramos dealt with whatever standard there was. But there does not seem to be any reason to take this final. On the clear statement point, which has been discussed, that was specifically asserted by the appellant in the mazer case. Yes, in the reply brief. But thats not our issue, that maybe a d. C. Circuit judge, but it was raised. I take it from your papers you believed it was not raised here. Mr. Letter thats correct. If mr. Strawbridge can point to it, obviously it was a deliberate choice. Judge newman you are going a contrast between what they said they are and what they did not say here. Mr. Letter exactly. Thats why the department of justice brief is hypothetical. The department of justice is what about the clear statement rule . If President Trump had decided to comply with the subpoenas, he can do that. The Justice Department can say you know, if you had chosen not to do it, there are some arguments you could have made. Clearly the Justice Department could say that. But if President Trump said i dont care, im going to comply, leave me alone, he could do that. Mr. Trump chose to raise certain arguments. He quite deliberately to chose not to raise clear statement to this case. Judge newman do you attach significance to the fact that the United States did not intervene and file an amicus brief . Mr. Letter im trying to figure out whether the department of justice could have intervened. I worked for years at the years at the Justice Department and i have some idea of these things, judge newman one small question, within the Deutsche Bank subpoena but not capital one there are some reductions, who made them . Which side . Mr. Letter the committees made the redactions because these are subpoenas that go to people and entities other than mr. Trump and we dont want that public. We shared with mr. Trumps lawyers whether it was all of the names are most of the names, mr. Strawbridge can correct me. And there was no disagreement that these could be redacted because they did not involve there wasnt any reason for their names to appear in the subpoenas. For instance they involve some other banks, some russian oligarchs, et cetera there there was no reason to make their names public. Judge newman paragraph one, as i see it, there are only two lines that are redacted and they referred to essentially the same person. Is that something that should remain redacted . Mr. Letter yes, but if this court would like the unredacted version under seal, we are happy to provide judge newman we have it under seal. Mr. Letter and yes, those reactions should remain and i dont believe mr. Trump has any concerns about the redactions we have made. As our colleagues indicated we did show mr. Strawbridge the unredacted version. To quickly review my notes, Law Enforcement purpose, this is the main argument that mr. Trump has made. First, mcgrane was an investigation of attorney general darty, not because he wasnt doing a great job but because he engaged in criminal behavior. He went to jail. The fact that the senate was doing the investigation of him does not make the Senate Investigation invalid. And the Supreme Court is clear on that. One of the things the Supreme Court relied on in ruling in these investigations are totally proper was pointing out that it was a Major Investigation of john browns raid on harpers ferry. Why it happened, how it happened, thats clearly criminal conduct and the Supreme Court gives that as an example as to why its perfectly appropriate for there to be congressional investigations. Investigations of whitewater, 9 11, congress did a massive 9 11 investigation. Judge livingston there are some references in the records about the committees working in parallel, is there anything you could say to illuminate us about that . Mr. Letter as i understand has procedures, individual committees dont issue joint subpoenas individual committees can agree to cooperate with each other and share information, and plenty of times they do. This is an instance where the Committee Chairs recognize there was significant overlap. And they entered an agreement about sharing information. The Intel Committee received certain information that cannot be shared, classified et cetera. So what the Committee Chairs decided to do was that each committee would issue a subpoena in order to be consistent with house practices, but they would be identical, and the committees would, the extent they are allowed, share the information. Its an oddity of has procedures, nothing suspicious or strange about this. And mr. Strawbridge has said that we have range so far afield and are doing broad subpoenas, i can only speculate that mr. Strawbridge has not done a major financial fraud or Money Laundering investigation. I know judge newman, you were probably involved in some of these, and if im not mistaken the other judges are also former prosecutors. We are investigating massive amounts of russian money. The press has reported 20 billion of russian money being laundered. Were talking about two banks that have paid very large fines because they have engaged, in the past, in what we think is illegal activity tied in with Money Laundering, hiding assets, et cetera. We doing extremely broad investigation. In addition, the way mr. Trump and his family operate, remember we are not dealing with ford motor company, a broad corporation with lots of shareholders, its a small group. The family, with lots of interaction and intersecting ties. Of course we have to do this kind of investigation. In the amounts of money we are talking about, we have to. It would not make any sense at all to say we are trying to figure out if mr. Trump is under the influence of the saudis or the russians. So lets just look at the last two years of financial dealings. That would make no sense. Obviously we need to find out when did this start, what are these deals, how was it flowing, who is it flowing to . Hidden insert names . In District Court mr. Strawbridge challenge how come they want domestic Financial Transactions . If you are laundering russian money, moving into the United States, you need to see how its being invested domestically. This is a Major Investigation of a whole industry by the Financial Services committee is doing, and the Major Investigation by the Intelligence Committee about possible, highly dangerous, for influence over the highest levels of the United States government. It would probably be criminal if these committees said we are just going to look at tiny little things. And i wanted to say, my colleagues tell me, judge newman all judges, paragraphs two and six do not involve individuals and entities in paragraph one. That is correct. Seven and eight reference entities in paragraph one. Lets see. And remember, we are dealing with somebody who has claimed vast wealth, so it is not like we are dealing with someone who would be involved with one transaction. Your honors, may i consult with my colleague for five seconds. Yes, you may. Mr. Letter my colleagues were reminding me to Say Something which i have just said. Im honest. Thats good, we hope you are and expect you to be. [laughter] mr. Letter i appreciate that. Remember also that this came up several times, mr. Strawbridge was saying we can only look at what is justification at the moment the subpoena is issued. So with the court looked at was beyond that in watkins. But the Supreme Court has instructed you, the subpoena is valid if its legislation that could be enacted. One thing the Justice Department, for some strange reason, has disregarded that and said because you are asking for mr. Trumps unprivileged records in the hands of a third party, they have forgotten that congress does not have to identify in advance the legislation or what it expects to find. Which makes sense. Half the Time Congress doesnt know mr. Strawbridge, was arguing, i think, and he speaks well for himself, he says the purpose has to be declared or made clear at the time that the subpoena is issued. Mr. Letter and i dont believe thats consistent with Supreme Court practices. Congress has to come up with a rationale. Mr. Letter pages three through 10 of our brief give all sorts of excellent nations, quotes from chairwoman waters and chairman schiff about what they are doing and why he would mr. Strawbridge is talking about is the resolution that ratified. Of course that came after, because they were ratifying it to show the clear statement argument is silly to begin with, but fine we will play your game and we fit it. There is reliance in your papers on the Intelligence Committees report to the oversight committee. Which identifies several purposes of the Intelligence Committee, when they reported to the oversight committee. There is a statement. That statement is dated the day after the subpoena, but it refers to discussions with the committee in prior days. Is it a fair inference that the preparation of that statement and those purposes was before the subpoena . Mr. Letter absolutely, yes. I have a couple more points, im sorry to try your patience. As youve indicated, mr. Strawbridge is articulate and i agree. He relies heavily on kilborn, and the Supreme Court itself has indicated that it needs to be read narrowly. Mr. Strawbridge complaining about grandchildren, i dont think these grandchildren talk about immediate family, i dont think it ever says anything about grandchildren. If it did, that would be valid. Money laundering and hiding assets is done, people who do it use family members, unwittingly plenty of times, to hide things. If i might briefly, the right to financial privacy act, its very interesting because mr. Trump has argued these subpoenas are invalid because they are carrying out Law Enforcement, thats invalid, congress cant do Law Enforcement. I agree, congress cannot do Law Enforcement. Then why, a couple of years after the Supreme Court said that congress has the power to get financial records, two to three years later, why would Congress Pass a statute that says you can get records if part of a Law Enforcement investigation . Thereby saying, if mr. Strawbridge is right, congress, without ever saying anything along these lines, probably took itself out of the ability to get any of these because of records. Because we all agree that congress does not do Law Enforcement investigations. If mr. Strawbridge is right, shortly after being told by the Supreme Court that it can gather Law Enforcement financial records, congress said, in a statute without any comment of any kind we are hereby giving away that power. Hubbard, the Supreme Court decision there sets out what the statutory language means. And the question about3408 is why it would be a very strange reading of a statute, to say that congress meant to exclude itself. In addition, congress would have been providing for punitive damages against itself, because the statute allows for that. This subpoena, apparently, if mr. Strawbridge is right, congress would have said you could have gotten punitive damage against the congress of the United States for issuing a subpoena like this. If it does not comply with the provisions. Mr. Letter it cant. We dont do Law Enforcement. Judge newman thank you. Mr. Strawbridge, 10 minutes, to start. You only asked for three. Mr. Strawbridge the definition of Law Enforcement is a statute to show i want to address more fundamental complaints. Let me start with the suggestion that we are being insincere, or not negotiating in good faith. I did go down to the house of representatives, i was shown an unredacted copy of that subpoena at the same time i was inquiring about the unredacted copy i made an offer to discuss limiting the subpoenas to engage in discussion and i never heard anything back. I made the offer on the record twice in front of the District Court, which is a statement that i take seriously and i consider myself bound by. We have made numerous times so i dont think theres any basis to determine that we are being insincere. And we are welcome to send this back down on whatever timeline the court thinks it is appropriate. That is something we are willing to participate in, in good faith. With respect to the assertion that mcgrane overruled all of our arguments, i can only read to this court the specific lines that refute that assertion. Mcgrane specifically says, the only legitimate object in ordering the investigation was to aid it in the legislating legitimate legislative purpose. Its pacifically says when determining whether there is a legend legislative purpose, you can look at the face of the request and the statements of the authorizing committee. It specifically notes that if an unlawful object were definitely avowed, there may be grounds to question whether the subpoena is legitimate. A witness may rightly refuse to answer where the bounds of power are exceeded or the questions are not pertinent to the matter under inquiry. That is very much under the aspects that we have asserted here. This has not overruled any argument we have made. Watkins, which comes more recently is more specific. It raises the point that a court cannot simply assume that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that overrides private rights. It specifically identifies three aspects of the congressional in query that should give the court pause. The first of which is that it radiates broadly from eight highly general legislative purpose to anything that could possibly touch upon that purpose. The second is the threat of the end. To the specific target, of the specific inquiry to the third target, and alleging that anything in the past is relevant to the present. This has all three of those guardrails identified by walkin. I think its important to understand that we are not the ones who called this a case study. The house of representatives is referring to this as a case study. If they have identified any other case studies on the domestic side of any of these transactions, i have missed that, the capital one subpoena is only targeted at plaintiffs. So i dont think this court should simply accept the notion that case study is somehow a lie or fictitious. Wheres the evidence that there are other people who have comparable involvement in the Real Estate Industry or moneylaundering field whose records have been targeted with this specificity that the subpoenas have . They have the subpoenas and we dont, they have not provided them to us. I do want to thank mr. Letter for making the point more clearly than i ever could have. Hes absolutely right, i have never been an assistant u. S. Attorney and i did not work at the department of justice for 40 years and i would not have the first idea on how to go about investigating a Money Laundering operation. But thats not anything his client can do, that is what his client is specifically for bidden from doing and you only have to look at this subpoena to understand what they are trying to do the problem is not only that there is a request for a check for an employee, it said the subpoenas look for every debit card, diet coke that a teenager purchased using a credit card from capital one. Every payment of any medical expense, or childcare expense. Is there any reason why the committee has to explain that theres no grandchildren because its immediate family members and because it necessarily brings in their children as well as their spouses . [indiscernible] the Deutsche Bank subpoena lists individuals like the president s children, and the records of the individuals that are immediate family members, which is defined to include spouses and children, so when you ask for records of the president s childrens children, youre asking for grandchildren. They did not have to support the subpoena so broadly, they did they could have limited it to something more defensible, they could have gone into illegitimate inquiry and made a compelling case that they were not targeting the trump family in trying to reconstruct their financial history. They have made this decisions and they drafted the subpoena to cover what it does and they are stating that we would not have any objection to it if we understood how moneylaundering investigations work, that you have to track down family and trace every branch. I cant imagine a clear example of improper purpose. I command to the court the end to the court the question i was asked, we think the serious question standard is right, thats important, issuing a preliminary injunction and remaining the case down to narrow some of the requests, and keeps the court from having to weigh in at the houses request to rubberstamp the broadest subpoena ever served. Can i say, is a look at the face of the subpoena and its clear that it has to be about Law Enforcement. Their answer, as you know, is no, we want to track all this down because we think this will be an excellent case study to help us draft legislation to prevent what we think and fear we might find in the future. Can we really infer, simply from the breadth and scope that there are serious questions as to whether Law Enforcement mr. Strawbridge that is the test of the Supreme Court. Judge livingston so what your best case . Mr. Strawbridge if you read watkins carefully, around 205 and 206, watkins walked through the nature of the inquiry, acknowledges that it is delicate but still imposes on courts the obligation to do it. And i do think theres an opportunity here to narrow the requests and a statutory argument would accomplish some of that, but also to follow the path laid for an demanding the asserted purpose and the substance of the request, as well as ensuring the parties have done everything they can to prevent the court from having to wade into an area fraught with constitutional and novel difficulty. Are you expecting us to lay out guidelines for how thats parsed out . Mr. Strawbridge the d. C. Circuit judge did so but i dont think that is necessary. There are adults who can handle that. You mean the at t case . Thats what i had in mind, but the court could ask the parties to do with themselves and i think we need a third party to mediate that. But that is the case that you have in mind . They sent back down twice, once with general parameters and another time with far more specific parameters. Thank you. We have counsel from the banks that have been subpoenaed. Would one of you from each of the banks approach, we have a few questions. Judge newman does. And if you signed in i believe you have. So you are identified for the record. Could you identify yourself to us . Rafael kroeber on behalf of Deutsche Bank. James murphy, on behalf of capital one. Does the bank have tax returns of any of the named people or entities . Given contractual obligations and other legal obligations, thats not a question we are able to address. What privilege are you asserting . Contractual obligations with clients related to confident you can contract the opportunity to answer a courts question without the privilege of the fifth amendment, you could say we told our client we wont do it . There are also statutes implicated what privilege are you invoking . It provides certain confidentiality. Im not asking for the content, im asking if you have them . I think answering that question could run afoul of that. You think it could. We are not in a position to answer that question based on the relevant statute. Should we go to court and seek an order . Im serious. We need to know. Theres a separate statute on disclosure and returns. If you dont have them we dont have to worry about it. If you do we have to worry about it so its a fairly important question. Given the relevant statutes im not in a position to address it in an open courtroom. We would be happy to continue that conversation. What does that mean . Continue it . I dont know what that means . When are we going to continue it . Im simply not able to answer that question. Are you able to answer tomorrow . In an open courtroom i would not be, based on the relevant contractual obligations. Would you like 48 hours in which to give us under seal in answer to the questions whether you have the returns . That is something we would be happy to explore. Explore or explore and do . My colleague tells me we are exploring it now. We dont have a reporter to read back, would you, within 48 hours, provide us a letter indicating whether you do or do not have, or your client does or do not have, and this is to both of you as you are asserting the same position, does or does not have tax returns that would be produced in response to the subpoena if it were enforced as it is now articulated . We will provide the court with a letter, and the specific statutory provisions we believe are applicable. Does not apply to capital one as well . We would be happy to provide that letter in 48 hours. Would you like to answer the question, youre not Deutsche Bank and you can take a different position. I would prefer not to. One other question, the subpoenas served on april 11, this was made some weeks thereafter, during that interval, did that bank in the process of collecting documents . Collection has been ongoing, and the relevant shares of both committees have been working cooperatively with the committees and the subpoena was impacted by it. Could you give me a rough estimate of the percent of the task you believe has been completed . Its hard standing here giving a percent. But it would be significant . More than half . I cannot put a percentage on it. Can you give me a rough estimate . That would depend on the ruling to uphold the subpoena. Also we have not gone through the ordinary backandforth process. And in working through compliance, its difficult to say. But certainly after the ruling, the bank would be moving expeditiously as possible. Days . Weeks . Its difficult to put an estimate on it. But a significant amount has been done . A significant amount has been done. Is that also true of capital one . Significant work has been done. Thank you both. Thank you, this is a helpful argument, i will ask the clerk to please adjourn court. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] china announced plans to impose tariffs on 75 billion of americanmade goods. In reaction to the news President Trump responded with a series of tweets saying in part sadly past administrations have allowed china to get so far ahead of fair and balanced trade that it has become a great burden to the american taxpayer. As president , i can no longer allow this to happen. In the spirit of fair trade we fair trade. This the tariffs on china will now be taxed at 30 , additionally the 300 billion worth of goods that was being taxed from september 1 at 10 will now be taxed at 15 . The president could have more to say on the issue this weekend when he meets with World Leaders at the g7 summit in france. Today on book tv at 7 00 p. M. Eastern, in her latest book our she lookse ground, at female journalists on the ground and the issues they are facing. They were able to write openly and honestly about their deepest struggles. , it is such aher raw and honest account of grief and loss. This isnt an uplifting book. Sunday, a Princeton University professor on race, gender, and class in america. Her most recent book is breathed, a letter to my sons. I have to arm them not simply skills andof intellectual tools that allow them to flourish but also a way to make sense of the hostility that they encounter every day. Whose jobnter people it is to address them as community members. Media Research Center founder on his book unmasked. Modicum of decency has been cast aside. From donald trump to his opponents but from his opponents to him. Attempting to do far worse. Right, none. Cspan two. K tv on campaign 20, watch our live coverage of the president ial candidates and make up your own mind. Cspans campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. On friday, massachusetts representative seth moulton became the latest democratic president to drop out of the 2020 race. At the the announcement Democratic National Committee Meeting in san francisco. Hello dnc. Thank you so much for having meet today and all you do. I have only been in this race since april. I was one of the last candidates to get in. More proud of what our team ac