relates to the rules requiring laws requiring financial disclosure there's no there's no significant altering of the relation between the president and the congress there's no subject in it just like a deposition of the president would be deafened that different than a deposition of the rd party who would know be telling them what the president said just because you're not interfering with the day to day activities of the pres it's just another clear statement or to that constitutional points argument that you make on so as i understand it here you're not asserting any kind of executive privilege or immunity so maybe you can say a little bit more about what specifically is  whether the president united states has accurately reported his finances to the go office or go just back so if i think if i think that that  if they were generally looking at companies this is come from the senate select committee if there was a general forward looking look problem with the industry with the market i think i would have a hard time saying that this is a law enforcement on the hyper focus on one individual silly legislation in fact there were several most pending and it's not like it's not like the statements you point or the old ones there's the same letter that i was going and goes on to say that they need this him public welfare will get salary x any president that does not comply with those requirements that we are now around in the ones we've already enacted will get a salary but it will be points are clear statement isn't limited to the subpoena power it's whether there's any power even to have oversight at all is that right whether this grants any oversight authority with respect this the in the scene question to that is is congress considering we all agree that congress is investigating or is as broad as its legislative board so the question is i thought you were arguing that the legislation that congress question of whether it legislation could be tried and various no dispute by you there's been a constitutional implications with requiring presidential candidates to file financial disclosure forms and for congress to  me i really am trying to understand your position is i have time your starting position was we recognize that congress has oversight deciding this is oversight authority over the entire executive so explicitly but they do have that how it might be packaged wrong in a particular case but they have that power as long as it is tied to legitimate legislative and it's like what should the salary of the president be going forward right and so that's what i thought your argument was but it's not if your argument is the very predicate of whether assuming they had a one hundred list of perfectly constitutional they were ready to enact they still just do not structurally have any oversight power as to this one little problem this is what an isolated spot in the executive branch but i'm also telling you i've got a laundry list of perfectly constitutional legislation that reacts to presidential corruption that alleged not i'm not saying your hypothetical president's alleged corruption it doesn't make them that have to do anything it just regulates appropriations salaries and agency activities elsewhere in the executive branch does the house have over one the to discover but if you just look at the straight record over and over again they're talking about legislation they passed legislation they didn't mention the often government how do we disregard all that what i mean if you were writing this part of  they say we want to investigate corruption in the office of the united states you keep talking like it's like to pick some individual off the street somewhere to target that they're investigating how an office of the united states government is working that sounds that sounds  are you telling me that congress could not have a hearing about it it's only when this is a slope and its only question is whether facebook is compliant with the trust was i think is that what you're saying i'm not saying it for government officials for whose salary you know whose salaries they're passing this the salaries are paid by the people the united states so i don't think it's fair to equate the office of the president with mr on this is walking down the to expose corruption to make wise judgments about the appropriation of funds and i think i heard you say that when it comes of the president unlike individuals unlike anybody else in the government i did want to just start out by saying i don't get to say this very often but in this is one of those instances where in the district court's opinion is an extremely strong brief difference is as you saw so much mr cox was arguing as about what congress might do with this information and he say they might actually i think he's saying they're going to pass unconstitutional legislation and so you need to stop that at this stage what i'm saying is that there are all sorts of possibilities of legislation that congress might come up with that do not in any way fall separation of powers just  so i'm i'm not going to resist that that i think you do have to look at this in terms of these are the records of the president and that kind of thing and he you could also say i suppose that since may the records are being resumption of your questions if you can't ignore the fact that what he's being asked for here do in fall of records of the president even though they are primarily records from that the presidential records act is is constitutional i'm very pleased to hear that because we know before that person is completely on the darkness and in fact many presidents are sadly destroyed their records congress came in  but as we know any number of things he does that tie in with for instance if he is saying to his aides i'm going to lie or my financial disclosure forms and i want you all back me up on this in fact help on whether there's presumption here or not because we said it's different but we can't ignore it i'm just not sure what that legal task is when we go to write an opinion to say it's different but we can't ignore it what does that mean practically to how we oversight committee is a special committee by joules congress has given the oversight committee the entire power of the house and they have said congress and other got it the house has given the oversight senate well remember yes i can you give you example for example my understanding of dream work there was a committee to investigate the conduct of the work and not surprisingly one of the things it was investigating even even in the case where committee issues such a subpoena the committee has been specifically authorized the house or senate can you can you provide any example where a committee has issued a subpoena for the president's papers or records where they have no joo oversight investigation of what the executive branch which often many times is going to mean things that the president is directing these we know that anything was important a cabinet member is going to be consulted with the white house that but you can't provide a single example where a committee has exercised this type of compulsory process against the president historically so doesn't that at least seven minimum raise a serious remember this president just done something that has not been done before because he has said i'm not disclosing things i'm doing and i'm not setting aside my business operations he's done that in very limited amount that has not been done before were he put himself in this position and we can't forget that if he has that action though in power congress or a committee of congress to then issue compulsory process against the power to that one member that might be unconstitutional but that would be something this quirky look at i don't know how you see here the real question whatsoever and no court could review the fact that the house has that if we were just looking at the rules that the rules are broad enough to authorize a subpoena suppressing his argument is that in this case we have to apply  to get records both that preceded their presidency and covers a presidency you must culberson what the house must say that assumes no we don't have it here but no such thing is required ok tell us why because you're clear house as me investigating presidents for ages and there is nothing that requires a clear statement war for the house to now say we're going to investigate the president of the fish for example there's no clear statement will in a clear statement was applies to quite correctly and makes a lot of sense for legislation it does not apply for situations like this where the house pursuant to it said we want these materials because we want to decide whether to a man they can initiate contact that has been approved this court said that's a difficult constitutional question here you don't have any statement a purpose from from the oversight committee saying we were thinking of our own is making adding another condition to the presidency you have no such thing and that's why number twenty eight pages thirty four we described the committee's investigation as and i won't read the whole quote but it talks about i'm the committee was looking into conflicts of interest constitutional violations continuing interest financial interest etc on release and under management of that beast and page fourteen there we said in boss here is constitutional questions and legitimate concerns of our government ethics thought that this was was waiting in addition it's obvious he's not waved because it's human well know an apple he can support a judgement as long as you're supporting the judgement on any ground of legislation that arnold has not and some of it is stopping passed but we don't we have no idea what it would be if there is actually legislation as you know you pay deference to whatever congress congress obviously could want and would want to find out what's going on what the monuments are possible moment your happening on the streets can you maybe draw a more precise line between between those legislative purposes and the president personal financial papers right so so even you know assuming that congress has the powers to regulate in the areas you just suggested right what is the what is the line between us the sceptic financial records of the single president who's just one person covered by provides pay for the president and not more so if the president is doing business with you know our the defense department and he's let's say the only company that manufactures  park for our airplanes and the defense department is purchasing those and the president says well i'm not going to do a mr drugs i'm keeping my full ownership and knowledge about this company so much more difficult issues as i mentioned before i don't believe any modern president has done what he has done so the moms clause is much more important and secondly as i said congress could decide in the constitution that the congress to do the job clearly these are things you want to look into and here's a key thing we need to tell them why they disappear and that may show up in financial statements because we need to know are there conflicts of interest is he may be under the influence of a foreign committee right how does the committee account for the fact that this doesn't fall you know both the regulation investigation of the whole the whole department of the government and are there any ways in which the committee should treat the president different universe it might be that congress is using his powers and his religion that the president from being able to do anything to carry out his or her job it might very well be that that would raise concerns that would reach nowhere near that is the president treated by a congressional committee any differently from a cabinet secretary or some cabinet secretary or any government official in the executive branch as is the president the same as any government  in addition the i think we can prove the opposite there is no case was saying that when a house committee is is exercising its powers they are we're not sure about that we're going to i the senate has to sit as a jury for me like a regular jury for impeachment purposes so every one of them has to be in the jury box at all times and awaken center and the supreme court said no murder and therefore congress cannot investigate it's ludicrous as we know from the supreme court decisions congress can investigate even if it means it's investigating what is rokeby but that's not a