Gov. Paul LePage made waves last week when he called a federal judge an "imbecile." The judge cited LePage's decision to stay at a Trump hotel as cause to pursue two lawsuits against President Trump for violating the Constitution's Emolument's Clause, which bars mixing of business interests and government work.
The judge noted that LePage's stay coincided with Trump ordering a review of national monuments, one of which LePage wanted repealed. Maine Public Radio's Morning Edition host Irwin Gratz talked earlier with former Assistant U.S. Attorney for Maine, Thima Mina about the implications of LePage's involvement.
GRATZ: What does it mean to this case, and to perhaps what we can learn about the governor's actions, that he was actually cited in this case?
MINA: Well, he was cited in this case in the body of the plaintiff's complaint. They made a statement of fact that one chief executive of one state that they knew of had patronized Mr. Trump’s D.C. hotel, or the Trump Organization's D.C. hotel. That fact was pertinent to their cause of action regarding the emoluments clauses of the Constitution. So, he found his way into the lawsuit simply by virtue of the fact that somebody in the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia had information that he had stayed there, while this federal judge, Judge [Peter] Messitte, spent a good deal time analyzing the potential repercussions of anyone's patronage of the Trump organization if they're in government. And, in fairness, he spent a considerable amount of his opinion carving out allegations the plaintiffs made and ultimately concluded that certain of them withstood the test for a motion to dismiss, which, at this stage, is the most favorable and beneficial for the plaintiffs.
GRATZ: How do you expect Gov. LePage's involvement in this to play out?
MINA: Like it would for any other American citizen. I can say from experience in the federal courts that this case will run its course over the course of months, and perhaps years. Very unlikely that Gov. LePage would be called as a witness within the time he's serving in office. On the other hand, he could be deposed, like any citizen. He could be subpoenaed for trial as a witness, like any citizen. But bear in mind he hasn't denied - according to newspaper accounts - that he stayed at the Trump Hotel in Washington. He's made it very clear that he did, and he didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. So that could end up being a stipulated fact.
GRATZ: and there won't be any need to really talk to him - it's just there, sitting there as part of the record?
MINA: Correct.
GRATZ: As you know, the governor kind of dismissed the judge's concern in this case, or the implication that there is any kind of quid pro quo involved here. We don't usually hear federal judges called “imbeciles” by anyone, and I wonder whether you think there might be any consequence to the governor using such strong language?
MINA: The only official consequences - I can tell you I read the decision and I speak from experience; I've been on the wrong end of enough federal opinions to know that I can disagree with them - but this jurist gave 47 pages of analysis, and, as I said, he carved out a good portion of the allegations. He limited their claims to the one and only facility in the District of Columbia. And he did not entertain or allow the claims to go forward regarding Trump Organization interests outside the District of Columbia. He was very thoughtful and careful in his decision.
GRATZ: So, as you mentioned, with many of their arguments carved out, what's the potential downside to the president if this case goes forward?
MINA: It creates bit of a constitutional crisis when judges and presidents collide. It's happened infrequently in our history, but it's not unheard of. We know from Watergate it's not a pleasant place for a president to be in.
GRATZ: Finally, just as someone who is familiar with this, is this an interesting case to you?
MINA: It's very interesting. I mean, any time the core provisions of the Constitution are tested I think it's important, and I think it refreshes our democracy.
GRATZ: Thank you, sir, for the time. We really appreciate it.
MINA: My pleasure.
This story was originally published April 2, 2018 at 8:19 a.m. ET.
