1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law, with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:13,160
Speaker 2: After more than six weeks of sometimes graphic and emotional testimony,

3
00:00:13,720 --> 00:00:18,560
Speaker 2: the jury deliberated about thirteen hours before acquitting Sean Diddy

4
00:00:18,680 --> 00:00:23,680
Speaker 2: Comb's of the most serious charges against him, racketeering, conspiracy,

5
00:00:23,760 --> 00:00:27,920
Speaker 2: and sex trafficking charges relating to allegations that he used

6
00:00:27,960 --> 00:00:32,280
Speaker 2: his money, power and physical force to manipulate his girlfriends

7
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:36,640
Speaker 2: into hundreds of drug fueled sex marathons. The jury only

8
00:00:36,720 --> 00:00:41,000
Speaker 2: convicted Combs of the lesser charge of transportation to engage

9
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:45,600
Speaker 2: in prostitution, so instead of facing a life sentence, Combs

10
00:00:45,680 --> 00:00:49,320
Speaker 2: is facing a maximum prison sentence of ten years and

11
00:00:49,680 --> 00:00:53,800
Speaker 2: likely much less than that. After the verdict was read,

12
00:00:54,040 --> 00:00:57,560
Speaker 2: Combs put his hands together and mouthed thank you to

13
00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:01,240
Speaker 2: the jurors. He got down on his knee, his head bowed,

14
00:01:01,280 --> 00:01:05,160
Speaker 2: apparently in prayer. As the jurors left the courtroom, his

15
00:01:05,280 --> 00:01:08,959
Speaker 2: relatives in the audience applauded him and his lawyers, some

16
00:01:09,040 --> 00:01:11,160
Speaker 2: of whom had tears in their eyes as he was

17
00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:14,760
Speaker 2: led out of court. My guest is former federal prosecutor

18
00:01:14,840 --> 00:01:19,560
Speaker 2: Robert Mintz, a partner maccarter in English. Bob apparently, Combs,

19
00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:23,040
Speaker 2: his relatives, and his lawyers all thought that this was

20
00:01:23,080 --> 00:01:25,959
Speaker 2: a win, despite the fact that he is facing some

21
00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:26,920
Speaker 2: prison time.

22
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:31,720
Speaker 3: Given the charges he was potentially facing, which included up

23
00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:35,600
Speaker 3: to life in prison for the racketeering conspiracy and a

24
00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:39,319
Speaker 3: minimum sentence of fifteen years to life for sex trafficking,

25
00:01:39,760 --> 00:01:42,640
Speaker 3: the fact that he was only convicted of two counts

26
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:47,120
Speaker 3: of transportation to engaging prostitution can't be viewed as anything

27
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:49,960
Speaker 3: other than a win by the defense and a bitter

28
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:51,520
Speaker 3: loss for prosecutors.

29
00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:57,760
Speaker 2: Let's go through the charges. So the top count racketeering conspiracy,

30
00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:01,280
Speaker 2: and the charge has historical life been used to take

31
00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:06,320
Speaker 2: down mob bosses like John Gotti. Did the prosecutors overcharge

32
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:07,880
Speaker 2: him with this count?

33
00:02:08,400 --> 00:02:10,440
Speaker 3: Well, I think that's going to be the question that

34
00:02:10,560 --> 00:02:13,440
Speaker 3: prosecutors will have to ask themselves when they look back

35
00:02:13,480 --> 00:02:16,440
Speaker 3: on this case, whether or not it was overcharged with

36
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:20,160
Speaker 3: the Rico conspiracy. Now, the Rico conspiracy, as you say,

37
00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:24,760
Speaker 3: has been used traditionally in order to prosecute organized crime figures,

38
00:02:24,760 --> 00:02:28,120
Speaker 3: but it has been used more broadly in recent years

39
00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:31,160
Speaker 3: and was used in a high profile case just a

40
00:02:31,200 --> 00:02:34,640
Speaker 3: couple of years ago in the r. Kelly case where

41
00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 3: that hip hop artist was also charged with rico and

42
00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:40,720
Speaker 3: sex trafficking in twenty twenty one, and in that instance

43
00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:45,040
Speaker 3: prosecutors did get a conviction. But here jurors ultimately concluded

44
00:02:45,400 --> 00:02:50,600
Speaker 3: that the rico conspiracy was overcharged, that the prosecution did

45
00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:54,120
Speaker 3: not meet the burden of showing that Sean Combs had

46
00:02:54,240 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 3: used his business empire as a vehicle in order to

47
00:02:58,880 --> 00:03:02,240
Speaker 3: commit further out at and in order to force his

48
00:03:02,480 --> 00:03:07,800
Speaker 3: former girlfriends into performing sexual acts against their will.

49
00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:13,040
Speaker 2: Bob, when a prosecutor overcharges, does that give the defense

50
00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:15,799
Speaker 2: an opening to, you know, to get the jury to

51
00:03:15,919 --> 00:03:19,200
Speaker 2: doubt the whole case, that it's all exaggerated.

52
00:03:19,919 --> 00:03:22,919
Speaker 3: Well, that's ultimately where this case turned. It was really

53
00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:26,639
Speaker 3: an argument by the defense that although mister Combe had

54
00:03:26,680 --> 00:03:30,839
Speaker 3: committed some abhorrent acts, they had the video of him

55
00:03:30,960 --> 00:03:34,320
Speaker 3: picking Passi Ventura by the elevator bank out in Beverly

56
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:38,640
Speaker 3: Hills that was undeniably bad behavior and painted mister Combs

57
00:03:38,680 --> 00:03:41,320
Speaker 3: in a very negative light. But when that was held

58
00:03:41,440 --> 00:03:45,800
Speaker 3: up against the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy, which

59
00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:51,720
Speaker 3: included certain criminal acts such as forced labor, bribery, obstruction

60
00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:54,800
Speaker 3: of justice, all of that was thrown in and basically

61
00:03:54,880 --> 00:03:58,720
Speaker 3: prosecutors were staying that he uses vast empire that he

62
00:03:58,840 --> 00:04:02,480
Speaker 3: built up over many years simply as a means of

63
00:04:02,600 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 3: forcing these ex girlfriends to continue to perform these sexual

64
00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:09,119
Speaker 3: acts against their will, and all the while they were

65
00:04:09,160 --> 00:04:12,760
Speaker 3: coerced into doing this. The defense was able to effectively

66
00:04:12,840 --> 00:04:17,280
Speaker 3: pick that apart by showing text messages from both of

67
00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 3: the victims which at various times suggested that they had

68
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:25,359
Speaker 3: participated in these acts willfully, that they were not coerced,

69
00:04:25,600 --> 00:04:28,280
Speaker 3: that they could have left but chose not to, And

70
00:04:28,400 --> 00:04:32,320
Speaker 3: ultimately I think that was the downfall for the prostitution's case.

71
00:04:32,600 --> 00:04:36,200
Speaker 3: It really ultimately turned on whether they believed that the

72
00:04:36,320 --> 00:04:40,040
Speaker 3: victims were actually trapped in this relationship and had no

73
00:04:40,160 --> 00:04:43,320
Speaker 3: way out and were literally forced to commit these acts,

74
00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:46,479
Speaker 3: or whether this is more complex than that, and the

75
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:50,160
Speaker 3: defense was able to show that these relationships, while toxic,

76
00:04:50,440 --> 00:04:54,000
Speaker 3: while not healthy, and while it involved bad behavior by

77
00:04:54,000 --> 00:04:57,920
Speaker 3: mister Holmes, didn't rise to the level of racketeering conspiracy.

78
00:04:59,080 --> 00:05:02,960
Speaker 2: The jury said yesterday afternoon that it was unable to

79
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:07,159
Speaker 2: reach a verdict, a unanimous verdict on the racketeering conspiracy

80
00:05:07,279 --> 00:05:12,320
Speaker 2: charge because there were jurors with unpersuadable views on both sides.

81
00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:17,159
Speaker 2: But today, after an hour of deliberations, they came to

82
00:05:17,200 --> 00:05:21,680
Speaker 2: a unanimous verdict on that charge. Do you think that

83
00:05:22,200 --> 00:05:25,680
Speaker 2: with the long weekend ahead, the jurors who wanted to

84
00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:28,800
Speaker 2: convict on that charge sort of caved.

85
00:05:29,360 --> 00:05:32,040
Speaker 3: Well, it's impossible to know really what goes on in

86
00:05:32,080 --> 00:05:35,600
Speaker 3: the jury room. You don't know the dialogue between and

87
00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:39,279
Speaker 3: among the jurors, the conversations that are going on. But

88
00:05:39,400 --> 00:05:42,280
Speaker 3: it did seem like the fact that they were stuck

89
00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:46,000
Speaker 3: on this most serious charge suggested to at least some

90
00:05:46,080 --> 00:05:49,880
Speaker 3: observers that they found a guilty verdict on some of

91
00:05:49,920 --> 00:05:53,800
Speaker 3: the lesser charges, including perhaps the sex trafficking. But it

92
00:05:53,880 --> 00:05:57,000
Speaker 3: turned out that they only convicted on the most minor charges,

93
00:05:57,279 --> 00:06:00,920
Speaker 3: and they did reach a decision before the long holiday weekend.

94
00:06:01,160 --> 00:06:05,120
Speaker 3: That's not unusual. Juries like to go home for weekends.

95
00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:07,359
Speaker 3: They like to put this case behind them. But on

96
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:10,120
Speaker 3: the other hand, when you were the prosecution, you're sitting

97
00:06:10,120 --> 00:06:13,200
Speaker 3: there thinking that was a seven week trial. We produced

98
00:06:13,240 --> 00:06:16,400
Speaker 3: over thirty witnesses, and the fact that juris came back

99
00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:20,600
Speaker 3: in only two days with a verdict suggested that they

100
00:06:20,640 --> 00:06:24,360
Speaker 3: moved very quickly through this process looking at the evidence

101
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:27,360
Speaker 3: and reaching a verdict in a way that prosecutors are

102
00:06:27,400 --> 00:06:28,440
Speaker 3: certainly disappointed with.

103
00:06:29,200 --> 00:06:34,120
Speaker 2: So the two sex trafficking acquittals which stem from allegations

104
00:06:34,160 --> 00:06:38,320
Speaker 2: that Combs coerced to women his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventur

105
00:06:38,400 --> 00:06:41,640
Speaker 2: and a Jane Doe into these so called freak offs,

106
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:47,279
Speaker 2: and Ventura testified over four days some very emotional testimony.

107
00:06:47,720 --> 00:06:49,560
Speaker 2: I mean, you refer to this, but did the jurors

108
00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:50,800
Speaker 2: just not believe her?

109
00:06:51,279 --> 00:06:53,880
Speaker 3: It's hard to say exactly what they were thinking. That

110
00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:58,839
Speaker 3: testimony was compelling, That testimony had to be very emotional

111
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:02,000
Speaker 3: for juris to it through, and yet at the end

112
00:07:02,000 --> 00:07:04,760
Speaker 3: of the day they did not believe that she was

113
00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:10,560
Speaker 3: necessarily compelled to participate in commercial sex acts through force, fraud,

114
00:07:10,640 --> 00:07:13,560
Speaker 3: and coercion. The key here is there has to be

115
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:17,600
Speaker 3: a link between the force, the fraud, and the coercion

116
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:20,240
Speaker 3: and the acts of sex, and I think at the

117
00:07:20,320 --> 00:07:23,200
Speaker 3: end of the day the evidence was just not clear

118
00:07:23,320 --> 00:07:26,720
Speaker 3: enough for them to meet that burden. Remember, prosecutors have

119
00:07:26,800 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 3: to prove in their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything

120
00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:32,680
Speaker 3: less than that will result in an acquittal, as we

121
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:33,480
Speaker 3: saw here.

122
00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:37,960
Speaker 2: And sex trafficking did the charges even fit the facts here?

123
00:07:38,160 --> 00:07:43,400
Speaker 2: Aren't people usually charged with sex trafficking when it's unrelated people,

124
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:48,280
Speaker 2: not people in long term relationships like these women in Combs.

125
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:52,000
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was I think one of the problems too,

126
00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:56,480
Speaker 3: because the victims here were involved in these long term relationships,

127
00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:00,360
Speaker 3: and they had written many messages, emails, text messages, other

128
00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:04,120
Speaker 3: writings evidencing their love for mister Combs at various times.

129
00:08:04,200 --> 00:08:07,360
Speaker 3: The fact that they willingly participated in some of these acts,

130
00:08:07,360 --> 00:08:09,880
Speaker 3: the fact that they did things in order to please him,

131
00:08:10,160 --> 00:08:12,920
Speaker 3: and the fact fact that after some of these sessions

132
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:15,480
Speaker 3: they texted him saying that they enjoyed them. And I

133
00:08:15,480 --> 00:08:19,400
Speaker 3: think it was very difficult for jurors to necessarily conclude

134
00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:22,240
Speaker 3: that all of this was done against their will, that

135
00:08:22,360 --> 00:08:25,280
Speaker 3: none of it was consensual. And as you say, June,

136
00:08:25,320 --> 00:08:29,160
Speaker 3: it's a situation where the sex trafficking charge is typically

137
00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:33,200
Speaker 3: brought in an instance where the perpetrator does not have

138
00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:36,600
Speaker 3: a relationship with the victim. Here there was a long

139
00:08:36,679 --> 00:08:40,960
Speaker 3: term relationship, one that was very complicated, and also one

140
00:08:41,000 --> 00:08:45,320
Speaker 3: in which the victims had benefited financially from their relationship

141
00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:49,079
Speaker 3: with mister Combs. So it became I think very difficult

142
00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:53,160
Speaker 3: for jurors to sort out the true nature of those relationships.

143
00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:56,480
Speaker 3: I don't think they necessarily disbelieved the victims, but I

144
00:08:56,480 --> 00:08:59,840
Speaker 3: think they ultimately concluded that the fact as presented to

145
00:08:59,840 --> 00:09:03,120
Speaker 3: them in court did not meet the elements of the

146
00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:04,480
Speaker 3: sex trafficking charges.

147
00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:09,400
Speaker 2: So you mentioned the financial settlements. Ventura got thirty million

148
00:09:09,520 --> 00:09:14,040
Speaker 2: dollars from Comb's and hotel, and that was used by

149
00:09:14,080 --> 00:09:18,040
Speaker 2: the defense attorney in his closing statements. He called her

150
00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:21,320
Speaker 2: a winner. And I'm wondering how much a huge settlement

151
00:09:21,520 --> 00:09:26,560
Speaker 2: like that might affect a jury's view of a witness.

152
00:09:27,480 --> 00:09:29,680
Speaker 3: I think it had to affect them, and I don't

153
00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:32,960
Speaker 3: think it necessarily meant that jurors didn't believe what she

154
00:09:33,160 --> 00:09:35,840
Speaker 3: was saying, But I think it fed into the defense's

155
00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:41,320
Speaker 3: narrative that this was a complicated relationship, that the relationship

156
00:09:41,640 --> 00:09:44,560
Speaker 3: was toxic. But at the end of the day, there

157
00:09:44,679 --> 00:09:50,040
Speaker 3: was responsibility by both parties that created this toxic relationship,

158
00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:53,640
Speaker 3: and they ultimately could not conclude that mister Combs should

159
00:09:53,679 --> 00:09:56,760
Speaker 3: be convicted of this very serious charge based on a

160
00:09:56,880 --> 00:09:59,160
Speaker 3: record that was unclear at best.

161
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:03,520
Speaker 2: He was convicted. He was He was convicted of two

162
00:10:03,679 --> 00:10:09,120
Speaker 2: counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. That stems from

163
00:10:09,160 --> 00:10:12,719
Speaker 2: allegations that he paid sex workers to come to his

164
00:10:13,120 --> 00:10:16,680
Speaker 2: freak off parties. Tell us about that. That's a felony

165
00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:18,880
Speaker 2: violation of the Federal Man Act.

166
00:10:19,880 --> 00:10:23,160
Speaker 3: These were the charges that were really easiest for prosecutors

167
00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:25,640
Speaker 3: to prove, because all they have to show is that

168
00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:29,520
Speaker 3: individual's cross state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution.

169
00:10:29,920 --> 00:10:32,120
Speaker 3: And there was plenty of evidence presented at the trial

170
00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:36,319
Speaker 3: that mister Colms had made arrangements for these male prostitutes

171
00:10:36,600 --> 00:10:39,920
Speaker 3: to meet with his girlfriends. He'd bought plane tickets, there

172
00:10:39,920 --> 00:10:43,480
Speaker 3: were credit card statements, there were hotel records. These were

173
00:10:43,520 --> 00:10:48,000
Speaker 3: the charges that prosecutors were able to prove fairly readily,

174
00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:50,720
Speaker 3: and there wasn't really much of a defense to them.

175
00:10:50,920 --> 00:10:53,400
Speaker 3: I think the defense strategy was to focus on the

176
00:10:53,400 --> 00:10:58,040
Speaker 3: more serious charges, which they ultimately succeeded in convincing jurors

177
00:10:58,080 --> 00:11:00,280
Speaker 3: to quit their client on Bob.

178
00:11:00,320 --> 00:11:04,120
Speaker 2: I'm wondering because the jurors found him guilty of the

179
00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:08,280
Speaker 2: lowest count, whether some jurors thought this case is overcharge,

180
00:11:08,400 --> 00:11:11,360
Speaker 2: let's go for the lowest count, or whether they took

181
00:11:11,400 --> 00:11:14,800
Speaker 2: each charge and considered each one on its own merits.

182
00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:20,120
Speaker 3: One thing that you do see sometimes behind the curtains

183
00:11:20,160 --> 00:11:23,760
Speaker 3: in jury deliberations is what it's called a compromised verdict. Now,

184
00:11:23,760 --> 00:11:26,320
Speaker 3: there's no way to know whether that happened here or not,

185
00:11:26,640 --> 00:11:29,720
Speaker 3: but you do sometimes have jurors on one side who

186
00:11:29,760 --> 00:11:32,000
Speaker 3: want to convict on all counts, jurors on the other

187
00:11:32,080 --> 00:11:35,200
Speaker 3: side who may want to acquit, and ultimately they may

188
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:38,960
Speaker 3: compromise by convicting on some but not all counts. We

189
00:11:39,000 --> 00:11:41,480
Speaker 3: don't really know whether that happened here, and I'm not

190
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:44,800
Speaker 3: suggesting that it necessarily did, but that is a phenomenon

191
00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:48,480
Speaker 3: that happened sometimes. We don't know whether that was going

192
00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:51,880
Speaker 3: on here or whether jurors simply went through these counts

193
00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:55,880
Speaker 3: count by count And we're convinced that the sex trafficking

194
00:11:56,200 --> 00:11:59,400
Speaker 3: and the rico conspiracy charges were just as you said, June,

195
00:11:59,480 --> 00:12:02,200
Speaker 3: over charge and did not apply the fact of the case.

196
00:12:02,320 --> 00:12:04,520
Speaker 2: Stay with me, Bob. Coming up next on the Bloomberg

197
00:12:04,600 --> 00:12:08,840
Speaker 2: Laws Show, I'll continue this conversation with former federal prosecutor

198
00:12:08,960 --> 00:12:12,960
Speaker 2: Robert Mintz. We'll talk about the defense strategy and how

199
00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:17,600
Speaker 2: it won the jurors over despite not presenting any witnesses.

200
00:12:18,160 --> 00:12:23,920
Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Sean did

201
00:12:23,960 --> 00:12:26,600
Speaker 2: he Combs dropped to his knees and prayed in the

202
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:30,720
Speaker 2: courtroom after he was acquitted today of sex trafficking and

203
00:12:30,840 --> 00:12:35,000
Speaker 2: racketeering charges that could have put him behind bars for life.

204
00:12:35,360 --> 00:12:39,880
Speaker 2: The hip hop mogul was convicted of lesser prostitution related offenses.

205
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:44,480
Speaker 2: He still faces prison time, but likely much much less

206
00:12:44,640 --> 00:12:47,520
Speaker 2: than the ten year maximum. I've been talking to former

207
00:12:47,559 --> 00:12:52,680
Speaker 2: federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter in english Combe's defense.

208
00:12:52,840 --> 00:12:55,960
Speaker 2: Did it take a huge risk by deciding not to

209
00:12:56,040 --> 00:12:59,800
Speaker 2: put on any witnesses at all and to rely on

210
00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:05,360
Speaker 2: the cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses, which sometimes went

211
00:13:05,400 --> 00:13:08,320
Speaker 2: on longer than the direct examinations.

212
00:13:08,440 --> 00:13:08,520
Speaker 4: No.

213
00:13:08,720 --> 00:13:11,920
Speaker 3: I think from the very start the defense strategy was

214
00:13:12,160 --> 00:13:15,760
Speaker 3: always to win their case through cross examination. I think

215
00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:18,880
Speaker 3: they correctly sized the case up and knew that it

216
00:13:18,960 --> 00:13:21,160
Speaker 3: was going to turn on the testimony of the two

217
00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:24,760
Speaker 3: victims and how compelling they were, and that by adding

218
00:13:24,800 --> 00:13:28,160
Speaker 3: witnesses for the defense it was only going to complicate

219
00:13:28,200 --> 00:13:31,640
Speaker 3: the case and create a more complex narrative for them

220
00:13:31,720 --> 00:13:34,440
Speaker 3: to have to convince cures ask exactly what was going

221
00:13:34,480 --> 00:13:37,880
Speaker 3: on here. They wanted the case ultimately to be about

222
00:13:37,880 --> 00:13:40,760
Speaker 3: these two victims and to show that the relationship that

223
00:13:40,760 --> 00:13:43,760
Speaker 3: they were in with mister Colmbs over many years was

224
00:13:43,800 --> 00:13:46,840
Speaker 3: one in which they gained financially, one in which they

225
00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:50,400
Speaker 3: willingly participated. In no doubt, they were ups and downs

226
00:13:50,400 --> 00:13:53,320
Speaker 3: in those relationships, and there were some domestic violence that

227
00:13:53,400 --> 00:13:56,040
Speaker 3: went on, and the defense readily admitted that. But the

228
00:13:56,120 --> 00:13:58,200
Speaker 3: question is did it really rise to the level of

229
00:13:58,240 --> 00:14:02,520
Speaker 3: racketeering conspiracy. Defense placed a large set that the jurors

230
00:14:02,559 --> 00:14:06,080
Speaker 3: would ultimately answer that question in the negative, and ultimately

231
00:14:06,160 --> 00:14:06,760
Speaker 3: they prevailed.

232
00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:11,000
Speaker 2: The defense also took the tact of saying, you're not

233
00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:14,120
Speaker 2: going to like him. He is a drug user, he's

234
00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:17,880
Speaker 2: guilty of domestic violence, but he's not a sex trafficker.

235
00:14:18,280 --> 00:14:20,720
Speaker 2: And the women were willing participants.

236
00:14:21,360 --> 00:14:24,960
Speaker 3: Make no mistake, the defense had a tall order here

237
00:14:25,080 --> 00:14:28,760
Speaker 3: because they were presenting a defendant to the jury who

238
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:32,200
Speaker 3: was not necessarily all that likable, a defendant who engaged

239
00:14:32,200 --> 00:14:36,160
Speaker 3: in some reprehensible conduct, who was on video beating up

240
00:14:36,160 --> 00:14:41,560
Speaker 3: his girlfriend, who at times had used controlling and threatening language,

241
00:14:41,640 --> 00:14:44,840
Speaker 3: so he wasn't particularly likable. In the way he was

242
00:14:44,880 --> 00:14:47,280
Speaker 3: presented to the jury, which is why I think they

243
00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,120
Speaker 3: decided ultimately to not have him take the stand. But

244
00:14:50,280 --> 00:14:53,040
Speaker 3: the focus of the case from the defense standpoint was

245
00:14:53,080 --> 00:14:56,120
Speaker 3: going to be more on the victims and really trying

246
00:14:56,160 --> 00:15:00,400
Speaker 3: to show jurors that the government had overcharged this case.

247
00:15:00,600 --> 00:15:04,960
Speaker 3: They presented this as a case of lifestyle versus criminality,

248
00:15:05,360 --> 00:15:09,120
Speaker 3: and ultimately all those of the lifestyle that I doubt

249
00:15:09,200 --> 00:15:12,880
Speaker 3: many jurors could really relate to. It was something that

250
00:15:12,920 --> 00:15:15,720
Speaker 3: they were willing to accept in the sense that they

251
00:15:15,720 --> 00:15:18,240
Speaker 3: did not believe that much of the conduct that the

252
00:15:18,280 --> 00:15:20,560
Speaker 3: government had put on during the course of the trial

253
00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:22,160
Speaker 3: amounted to criminal conduct.

254
00:15:22,520 --> 00:15:25,040
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, so the government pulled out all the stops,

255
00:15:25,080 --> 00:15:27,880
Speaker 2: they had all kinds of witnesses. Do you think they

256
00:15:27,920 --> 00:15:31,640
Speaker 2: did something wrong or they missed something, or was just

257
00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:33,480
Speaker 2: a question of overcharging.

258
00:15:34,040 --> 00:15:36,800
Speaker 3: I think from the very beginning this was going to

259
00:15:36,840 --> 00:15:41,240
Speaker 3: be a difficult case for prosecutors, and prosecutors really bet

260
00:15:41,280 --> 00:15:44,520
Speaker 3: the entire case on the testimony of their victims. They

261
00:15:44,520 --> 00:15:47,360
Speaker 3: were hoping that these victims would come across as credible.

262
00:15:47,600 --> 00:15:50,600
Speaker 3: I think they were hoping that in this day and age,

263
00:15:51,040 --> 00:15:54,560
Speaker 3: jurors would be sensitive to the fact that there can't

264
00:15:54,600 --> 00:15:59,760
Speaker 3: be abusive relationships where women are assaulted but don't necessarily

265
00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:03,040
Speaker 3: leave their partners, and that doesn't mean that the acts

266
00:16:03,040 --> 00:16:06,200
Speaker 3: were consensual. There was a lot of complexity here that

267
00:16:06,240 --> 00:16:10,160
Speaker 3: I think the prosecution was hoping that curs could sort out,

268
00:16:10,560 --> 00:16:14,000
Speaker 3: and it simply turned out that yours were not buying

269
00:16:14,280 --> 00:16:17,040
Speaker 3: everything the government was trying to argue in terms of

270
00:16:17,160 --> 00:16:21,080
Speaker 3: who mister Combs was and what kind of criminality he

271
00:16:21,200 --> 00:16:22,200
Speaker 3: ultimately engaged in.

272
00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:26,080
Speaker 2: So technically he faces ten years on each of the

273
00:16:26,320 --> 00:16:30,680
Speaker 2: transporting counts, but realistically, how much time do you think

274
00:16:30,720 --> 00:16:31,760
Speaker 2: the judge will give him.

275
00:16:32,160 --> 00:16:34,440
Speaker 3: Well, the judge is certainly going to take into account

276
00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:36,640
Speaker 3: the fact that mister Combs has already been in jail

277
00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:38,800
Speaker 3: for about a year, and he'll get credit for that

278
00:16:39,000 --> 00:16:43,320
Speaker 3: time serves. In terms of the two counts conviction, it's

279
00:16:43,400 --> 00:16:47,280
Speaker 3: highly likely that those will run concurrently, which means they

280
00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:49,480
Speaker 3: will run at the same time, so he won't be

281
00:16:49,520 --> 00:16:53,560
Speaker 3: facing twenty years. Really, the maximum sentence here will be ten,

282
00:16:53,880 --> 00:16:56,000
Speaker 3: but I don't think he'll even get that. The Federal

283
00:16:56,080 --> 00:16:59,800
Speaker 3: sentence in guidelines, which give judges guidance as to what

284
00:17:00,000 --> 00:17:02,240
Speaker 3: type of sentence they should hand down are going to

285
00:17:02,280 --> 00:17:04,959
Speaker 3: come out much lower than the ten years. And at

286
00:17:04,960 --> 00:17:06,439
Speaker 3: the end of the day here this is really up

287
00:17:06,520 --> 00:17:09,399
Speaker 3: to the judge. The judge has complete discretion, has to

288
00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:12,680
Speaker 3: decide what the appropriate sentence is here, and I think

289
00:17:12,880 --> 00:17:16,080
Speaker 3: that he will sentence mister Colmbs to some time in prison,

290
00:17:16,240 --> 00:17:18,400
Speaker 3: but it's not going to be anything close to ten years.

291
00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:21,160
Speaker 2: Do you think there's some added pressure on the judge

292
00:17:21,200 --> 00:17:24,840
Speaker 2: because of all the publicity this case has gotten, you know,

293
00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:28,400
Speaker 2: pressure not to let Combs off too lightly.

294
00:17:28,960 --> 00:17:31,800
Speaker 3: Well, the judge is not supposed to consider outside pressure

295
00:17:31,840 --> 00:17:33,800
Speaker 3: as you do. The judge is supposed to look at

296
00:17:33,800 --> 00:17:36,679
Speaker 3: the facts and all the circumstances. He sat through the trial,

297
00:17:36,800 --> 00:17:39,720
Speaker 3: he heard all the testimony, he heard from all the victims,

298
00:17:40,119 --> 00:17:42,639
Speaker 3: and he heard the defense arguments, and he has to

299
00:17:42,680 --> 00:17:45,800
Speaker 3: fashion a sentence that he believes is ultimately fair. But

300
00:17:45,840 --> 00:17:48,439
Speaker 3: I think as a practical matter, the judge can't ignore

301
00:17:48,440 --> 00:17:52,040
Speaker 3: the more serious charges that the defendant faced here and

302
00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:55,600
Speaker 3: the high publicity factor that was associated with this case.

303
00:17:55,880 --> 00:17:57,320
Speaker 3: So I think the judge is going to have to

304
00:17:57,359 --> 00:17:59,800
Speaker 3: balance all these factors, and I do think the judge

305
00:17:59,840 --> 00:18:02,800
Speaker 3: will sentenced mister Colmbs to some time in jail, but

306
00:18:02,920 --> 00:18:05,560
Speaker 3: they think it will be far less than the maximum

307
00:18:05,680 --> 00:18:08,000
Speaker 3: ten years that he's facing on each of the accounts.

308
00:18:08,240 --> 00:18:11,639
Speaker 2: Combs's lawyers said he'd likely face twenty one to twenty

309
00:18:11,680 --> 00:18:16,320
Speaker 2: seven months, but prosecutors said he'd likely face fifty one

310
00:18:16,400 --> 00:18:20,160
Speaker 2: to sixty three months, and he's already served nine months

311
00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:24,639
Speaker 2: because he's been jailed since his arrest. So we shall see.

312
00:18:24,760 --> 00:18:27,440
Speaker 2: But as you say, the final decision is the judges,

313
00:18:27,920 --> 00:18:31,280
Speaker 2: and the judge denied him bond and made the decision

314
00:18:31,359 --> 00:18:34,640
Speaker 2: to keep him in jail while he awaits sentencing.

315
00:18:35,480 --> 00:18:38,960
Speaker 3: The fact that the judge refused bail here and decided

316
00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:42,120
Speaker 3: to keep mister Combs in jail pending sentencing, I think

317
00:18:42,280 --> 00:18:46,320
Speaker 3: reflects the very serious nature of these charges. Even though

318
00:18:46,359 --> 00:18:49,720
Speaker 3: he was ultimately not convicted of the most serious charges,

319
00:18:49,880 --> 00:18:52,760
Speaker 3: He's alreays spent a year in jail. He'll get time

320
00:18:52,880 --> 00:18:56,560
Speaker 3: served for this additional time between the time of conviction

321
00:18:56,960 --> 00:19:01,640
Speaker 3: and his sentencing, so ultimately it doesn't really work against him.

322
00:19:01,920 --> 00:19:04,600
Speaker 3: But I think the judge here is trying to convey

323
00:19:04,760 --> 00:19:07,959
Speaker 3: the fact that although he was ultimately convicted only of

324
00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:12,080
Speaker 3: the two less serious charges, the judge still considers this

325
00:19:12,359 --> 00:19:15,879
Speaker 3: a very serious case and still considers the conduct for

326
00:19:16,640 --> 00:19:21,320
Speaker 3: which mister Colmes was convicted as serious conduct that creates

327
00:19:21,359 --> 00:19:22,600
Speaker 3: a danger to the community.

328
00:19:23,040 --> 00:19:26,280
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints of maccarter and

329
00:19:26,320 --> 00:19:29,879
Speaker 2: English and in other legal news today. In a courtroom

330
00:19:29,920 --> 00:19:34,360
Speaker 2: in Boise, Idaho, Ryan Colberger pleaded guilty to the brutal

331
00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:38,679
Speaker 2: stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students in twenty

332
00:19:38,720 --> 00:19:42,320
Speaker 2: twenty two in order to avoid the death penalty. The

333
00:19:42,440 --> 00:19:47,200
Speaker 2: killings initially baffled law enforcement and unnerved the rural college

334
00:19:47,240 --> 00:19:51,240
Speaker 2: town of Moscow. Colberger was arrested in Pennsylvania, where his

335
00:19:51,359 --> 00:19:55,000
Speaker 2: parents lived, after investigators recovered a Q tip from the

336
00:19:55,040 --> 00:19:58,840
Speaker 2: garbage at his parents' house to match Colberger's DNA to

337
00:19:58,920 --> 00:20:03,159
Speaker 2: genetic material from a knife sheath found at the crime scene.

338
00:20:03,240 --> 00:20:06,440
Speaker 2: At the time, Colberger had just completed his first semester

339
00:20:06,840 --> 00:20:10,919
Speaker 2: as a graduate student in criminal justice at Washington State.

340
00:20:11,520 --> 00:20:15,440
Speaker 2: In the two years since his arrest, his attorneys unsuccessfully

341
00:20:15,440 --> 00:20:19,639
Speaker 2: attempted to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty and

342
00:20:19,800 --> 00:20:23,800
Speaker 2: challenged DNA evidence, but a plea deal was their final

343
00:20:23,880 --> 00:20:27,280
Speaker 2: alternative to spare his life. Before the start of a

344
00:20:27,320 --> 00:20:31,800
Speaker 2: trial in August Colberger remained impassive as Judge Stephen Hipler

345
00:20:31,920 --> 00:20:35,360
Speaker 2: questioned him, and he admitted to breaking into a rental

346
00:20:35,400 --> 00:20:38,920
Speaker 2: home through a kitchen sliding door and killing the four

347
00:20:39,000 --> 00:20:42,359
Speaker 2: friends who appeared to have no connection with him.

348
00:20:42,880 --> 00:20:48,040
Speaker 4: On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, in Leyta County, State

349
00:20:48,040 --> 00:20:53,680
Speaker 4: of Idaho, kill and murder Madison Mogan a human being?

350
00:20:54,359 --> 00:20:54,679
Speaker 2: Yes?

351
00:20:55,200 --> 00:20:58,000
Speaker 4: And did you do that willfully and lawfully, deliberately and

352
00:20:58,040 --> 00:21:00,760
Speaker 4: with premeditation and melissauthorpe of poor thought?

353
00:21:01,000 --> 00:21:01,280
Speaker 2: Yes?

354
00:21:03,080 --> 00:21:06,800
Speaker 4: Did you Honor about that same date in Moscow, Idaho,

355
00:21:07,840 --> 00:21:10,720
Speaker 4: kill and murder Kayleie Gonzalez a human being?

356
00:21:11,359 --> 00:21:11,679
Speaker 1: Yes?

357
00:21:12,160 --> 00:21:15,520
Speaker 4: And did you do that wilfully, unlawfully, deliberately and with

358
00:21:15,760 --> 00:21:17,720
Speaker 4: premeditation and malicapport thought?

359
00:21:18,240 --> 00:21:18,560
Speaker 1: Yes?

360
00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:22,600
Speaker 4: And did you on that same date in Moscow, Idaho

361
00:21:23,040 --> 00:21:26,480
Speaker 4: kill and murder Xana Kernodle pardon me a human being?

362
00:21:27,240 --> 00:21:27,560
Speaker 2: Yes?

363
00:21:27,960 --> 00:21:30,639
Speaker 4: And did you do that wilfully and lawfully deliberately, with

364
00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:32,520
Speaker 4: premeditation and malicipport thought.

365
00:21:33,040 --> 00:21:33,359
Speaker 2: Yes?

366
00:21:34,880 --> 00:21:38,720
Speaker 4: And then on or about November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,

367
00:21:39,200 --> 00:21:43,320
Speaker 4: again in Leytoc County, Idaho, did you kill and murder

368
00:21:43,359 --> 00:21:44,879
Speaker 4: Ethan Chapin a human being?

369
00:21:45,280 --> 00:21:45,560
Speaker 2: Yes?

370
00:21:46,040 --> 00:21:49,560
Speaker 4: Did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, with premeditation and

371
00:21:49,600 --> 00:21:51,359
Speaker 4: malicapor thought yes.

372
00:21:51,920 --> 00:21:55,800
Speaker 2: Colberger will serve consecutive life sentences. At least one of

373
00:21:55,840 --> 00:21:59,159
Speaker 2: the families opposed the Plea deal, but others supported it,

374
00:21:59,440 --> 00:22:02,679
Speaker 2: saying they were ready to begin healing. The motive for

375
00:22:02,720 --> 00:22:06,720
Speaker 2: the murder remains unclear, and the murder weapon still has

376
00:22:06,760 --> 00:22:10,440
Speaker 2: not been found. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.

377
00:22:12,119 --> 00:22:16,400
Speaker 2: This week, the Trump administration said an investigation found that

378
00:22:16,640 --> 00:22:21,080
Speaker 2: Harvard University violated civil rights laws in its treatment of

379
00:22:21,160 --> 00:22:26,160
Speaker 2: Jewish and Israeli students, further endangering federal funding for the school.

380
00:22:26,960 --> 00:22:30,880
Speaker 2: This ramps up pressure on the country's oldest university, less

381
00:22:30,920 --> 00:22:33,879
Speaker 2: than two weeks after President Donald Trump said he was

382
00:22:33,960 --> 00:22:37,280
Speaker 2: nearing a deal with the school following months of attacking it.

383
00:22:37,640 --> 00:22:41,800
Speaker 2: Harvard said it strongly disagrees with the government's findings and

384
00:22:41,920 --> 00:22:45,879
Speaker 2: said it has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate

385
00:22:45,920 --> 00:22:49,600
Speaker 2: and bias and remains committed to ensuring that Jewish and

386
00:22:49,720 --> 00:22:54,119
Speaker 2: Israeli students can thrive on campus. My guest is Ken Marcus,

387
00:22:54,400 --> 00:22:58,040
Speaker 2: the founder, chairman and CEO of the Brandeis Center. He

388
00:22:58,200 --> 00:23:01,960
Speaker 2: was the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights during

389
00:23:02,000 --> 00:23:05,919
Speaker 2: the first Trump administration, tell us about the allegations of

390
00:23:06,000 --> 00:23:07,600
Speaker 2: the Trump administration here.

391
00:23:08,400 --> 00:23:12,679
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is alleging that Harvard violated Title six

392
00:23:12,760 --> 00:23:16,120
Speaker 1: of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four by

393
00:23:16,440 --> 00:23:21,000
Speaker 1: tolerating a hostile environment for Jewish students. Title six is

394
00:23:21,080 --> 00:23:26,639
Speaker 1: the key federal civil rights statute that provides protection for

395
00:23:26,960 --> 00:23:32,520
Speaker 1: students at federally assisted programs and activities against discrimination on

396
00:23:32,560 --> 00:23:35,280
Speaker 1: the basis of race, color, or national origin.

397
00:23:35,960 --> 00:23:39,960
Speaker 2: So Harvard disputes the government's accounts, and it has said

398
00:23:40,119 --> 00:23:44,600
Speaker 2: several times in different settings that it has worked to

399
00:23:44,960 --> 00:23:46,600
Speaker 2: combat anti semitism.

400
00:23:47,320 --> 00:23:50,280
Speaker 1: Harvard has promised to take a number of steps to

401
00:23:50,359 --> 00:23:54,439
Speaker 1: address anti semitism, including in particular in their settlement with

402
00:23:54,760 --> 00:23:59,560
Speaker 1: my organization, the Louis Dei Brandeis Center. Those steps included,

403
00:23:59,640 --> 00:24:06,000
Speaker 1: for example, adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition

404
00:24:06,040 --> 00:24:09,040
Speaker 1: of anti Semitism. That's a major step, and it suggests

405
00:24:09,040 --> 00:24:12,959
Speaker 1: that Harvard is willing to use the standard that is

406
00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:17,120
Speaker 1: considered to be the gold standard for assessing anti semitism.

407
00:24:17,600 --> 00:24:20,119
Speaker 1: But Harvard certainly hasn't done all of the things that

408
00:24:20,600 --> 00:24:24,560
Speaker 1: advocates are urging, and there is room for improvement, to

409
00:24:24,640 --> 00:24:25,440
Speaker 1: be sure.

410
00:24:25,720 --> 00:24:28,480
Speaker 2: Tell us about that. What more you'd like to see.

411
00:24:28,560 --> 00:24:31,440
Speaker 1: There are certainly things that Harvard can do to improve

412
00:24:31,480 --> 00:24:34,840
Speaker 1: its disciplinary process. There are things that it can do

413
00:24:35,119 --> 00:24:40,440
Speaker 1: to address the use of masks and protests. Harvard could

414
00:24:40,440 --> 00:24:43,320
Speaker 1: do more to address the kind of shunning of Jewish

415
00:24:43,320 --> 00:24:49,040
Speaker 1: and Israeli students that the task force has identified. There

416
00:24:49,040 --> 00:24:52,359
Speaker 1: are certainly lots of things that Harvard can do that

417
00:24:52,440 --> 00:24:55,840
Speaker 1: it hasn't yet committed to doing, and we'll see what

418
00:24:55,920 --> 00:24:58,800
Speaker 1: it does or doesn't do. But it certainly doesn't hurt

419
00:24:58,840 --> 00:25:02,600
Speaker 1: to have some pressure coming from outside sources like the

420
00:25:02,600 --> 00:25:03,400
Speaker 1: federal government.

421
00:25:03,720 --> 00:25:06,399
Speaker 2: Harvard has said that the government in this case failed

422
00:25:06,480 --> 00:25:11,639
Speaker 2: to follow procedures for terminating funding over alleged violations of

423
00:25:11,760 --> 00:25:16,080
Speaker 2: Title six. Could that lead to dismissal of these allegations

424
00:25:16,160 --> 00:25:17,200
Speaker 2: by the administration.

425
00:25:17,760 --> 00:25:21,240
Speaker 1: It really makes sense that Harvard will argue that the

426
00:25:21,280 --> 00:25:25,160
Speaker 1: federal government didn't follow the steps that are usually required.

427
00:25:25,520 --> 00:25:30,040
Speaker 1: I think that the federal government's recent findings of violation

428
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:34,200
Speaker 1: from the Department of Health and Human Services was intended

429
00:25:34,240 --> 00:25:37,840
Speaker 1: in part to cure any potential deficiencies to dot the

430
00:25:37,880 --> 00:25:41,720
Speaker 1: eyes and cross the t's Whether the court would find

431
00:25:41,840 --> 00:25:48,200
Speaker 1: that the procedural irregularities rose to a level that provides

432
00:25:48,240 --> 00:25:50,520
Speaker 1: a defense for Harvard is something that we will just

433
00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:52,400
Speaker 1: have to see and what would.

434
00:25:52,160 --> 00:25:56,240
Speaker 2: Be the penalty for these alleged violations of Title six

435
00:25:56,320 --> 00:25:56,960
Speaker 2: if proven.

436
00:25:57,520 --> 00:26:03,080
Speaker 1: One could certainly see additional loss of federal funds from

437
00:26:03,280 --> 00:26:10,520
Speaker 1: Harvard University. We could also see additional lawsuits from students, faculty, alumni,

438
00:26:10,720 --> 00:26:14,760
Speaker 1: and others. There are lots of different remedies that could

439
00:26:14,800 --> 00:26:18,639
Speaker 1: come into play, and it would be a significant stain

440
00:26:18,760 --> 00:26:22,280
Speaker 1: on the reputation of what has been, over the years,

441
00:26:22,400 --> 00:26:24,760
Speaker 1: one of our most prestigious institutions.

442
00:26:25,600 --> 00:26:31,000
Speaker 2: The Trump administration initially accused Harvard of fostering anti Semitism,

443
00:26:31,080 --> 00:26:36,440
Speaker 2: but the attack has expanded to include accusations of political

444
00:26:36,520 --> 00:26:42,840
Speaker 2: bias and promoting diversity initiatives and hiring and admissions, and

445
00:26:42,880 --> 00:26:46,280
Speaker 2: the Trump administration's demand seem to be going far beyond

446
00:26:46,760 --> 00:26:48,080
Speaker 2: fighting anti semitism.

447
00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:53,640
Speaker 1: There's no question that the Trump administration is urging Harvard

448
00:26:53,720 --> 00:26:57,520
Speaker 1: to do things that are not directly related to anti semitism,

449
00:26:57,560 --> 00:27:02,720
Speaker 1: but which the federal government argueses indirectly related. Critics of

450
00:27:02,720 --> 00:27:07,240
Speaker 1: the Trump administration suggest that It might be pretextual for

451
00:27:07,760 --> 00:27:11,679
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to go after Harvard for anti semitism

452
00:27:11,720 --> 00:27:14,920
Speaker 1: when they're concerned about things like DEI, But from the

453
00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:19,199
Speaker 1: administration's perspective, the fact is that DEI is related to

454
00:27:19,440 --> 00:27:25,200
Speaker 1: anti Semitism and some fairly complex and tight ways. For example,

455
00:27:25,440 --> 00:27:29,800
Speaker 1: not only do DEI programs often omit anti Semitism and

456
00:27:29,880 --> 00:27:36,320
Speaker 1: Jewish identity, but they will sometimes create stereotypes of Jews,

457
00:27:36,320 --> 00:27:41,679
Speaker 1: sometimes viewing Jews as being oppressors and participating in structures

458
00:27:41,680 --> 00:27:45,440
Speaker 1: of persecution, and therefore should be considered not as victims

459
00:27:45,440 --> 00:27:50,359
Speaker 1: but as perpetrators. When the Trump administration urges Arvored to

460
00:27:50,480 --> 00:27:54,119
Speaker 1: do things that aren't directly related to anti Semitism, the

461
00:27:54,240 --> 00:27:57,520
Speaker 1: argument is that they are nevertheless indirectly related.

462
00:27:58,359 --> 00:28:03,320
Speaker 2: The Trump administration has real targeted Harvard. I mean, it's

463
00:28:03,359 --> 00:28:06,520
Speaker 2: scrap more than two point six billion dollars in federal

464
00:28:06,560 --> 00:28:11,240
Speaker 2: research funding for Harvard, threaten the school's tax exempt status,

465
00:28:11,280 --> 00:28:15,880
Speaker 2: and try to prevent it from enrolling foreign students. Why

466
00:28:15,920 --> 00:28:18,240
Speaker 2: is it so laser focused on Harvard?

467
00:28:18,680 --> 00:28:21,800
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is actually focused on a lot of

468
00:28:21,840 --> 00:28:25,800
Speaker 1: institutions right now. Harvard and Columbia are the two that

469
00:28:25,840 --> 00:28:29,800
Speaker 1: we see the greatest amount of energy directed at But

470
00:28:29,880 --> 00:28:33,480
Speaker 1: there are actually quite a number over sixty institutions that

471
00:28:33,560 --> 00:28:37,520
Speaker 1: have been named by the Education Department the hindful that

472
00:28:37,560 --> 00:28:42,520
Speaker 1: are subject to present proactive reviews, and that I would

473
00:28:42,560 --> 00:28:47,040
Speaker 1: say others are also in the scopes. Those institutions that

474
00:28:47,320 --> 00:28:49,840
Speaker 1: think that they are in the clear because the Trump

475
00:28:49,920 --> 00:28:55,480
Speaker 1: administration is only focused on Harvard, I think are mistaken

476
00:28:55,640 --> 00:28:58,720
Speaker 1: the aims of the Trump administration. They are looking much

477
00:28:58,760 --> 00:28:59,400
Speaker 1: more broadly.

478
00:29:00,000 --> 00:29:02,200
Speaker 2: Do you agree with the way the administration is going

479
00:29:02,240 --> 00:29:06,080
Speaker 2: about this? I mean cutting off the funding, trying to

480
00:29:06,120 --> 00:29:10,280
Speaker 2: prevent foreign students from enrolling. That hurts a lot of

481
00:29:10,360 --> 00:29:13,880
Speaker 2: third parties. Why not let the courts decide this?

482
00:29:14,960 --> 00:29:20,040
Speaker 1: The Trump administration properly recognizes a few things that had

483
00:29:20,200 --> 00:29:24,760
Speaker 1: eluded the prior administration. The first is that the post

484
00:29:24,760 --> 00:29:30,760
Speaker 1: October seventh environment on college campuses is extraordinary and unprecedented,

485
00:29:30,800 --> 00:29:35,200
Speaker 1: and therefore requires a response that is unprecedented and extraordinary.

486
00:29:35,720 --> 00:29:39,160
Speaker 1: The second is that the situation that we're seeing at

487
00:29:39,200 --> 00:29:44,400
Speaker 1: institutions like Harvard is pervasive of the institution, and therefore

488
00:29:44,440 --> 00:29:48,280
Speaker 1: the response should be a whole of the government response,

489
00:29:48,440 --> 00:29:52,280
Speaker 1: one that involves not only the Education Department, but also

490
00:29:52,520 --> 00:29:59,480
Speaker 1: agencies like Justice, the General Services, Administration, Health and Human Services,

491
00:29:59,720 --> 00:30:03,240
Speaker 1: and the agencies as well. What we're seeing is an

492
00:30:03,280 --> 00:30:09,479
Speaker 1: action that is fast, that is powerful, and that is

493
00:30:09,760 --> 00:30:14,160
Speaker 1: very broad. That is, I would say, exactly what is

494
00:30:14,600 --> 00:30:16,240
Speaker 1: needed in the present moment.

495
00:30:17,240 --> 00:30:20,720
Speaker 2: Harvard has been in talks with the White House. Apparently

496
00:30:20,800 --> 00:30:22,080
Speaker 2: they've stalled.

497
00:30:22,840 --> 00:30:26,480
Speaker 1: We've seen that President Trump is always looking to make

498
00:30:26,560 --> 00:30:30,560
Speaker 1: a favorable deal that will benefit the American people. So

499
00:30:30,680 --> 00:30:34,080
Speaker 1: I would say that President Garber would be wise to

500
00:30:34,160 --> 00:30:37,920
Speaker 1: do what he can to enter into a settlement that

501
00:30:38,160 --> 00:30:41,920
Speaker 1: enables Harvard to do the research and teaching that it

502
00:30:42,000 --> 00:30:45,400
Speaker 1: wants to do, while enabling the government to be able

503
00:30:45,440 --> 00:30:50,040
Speaker 1: to say, truly and honestly that it is ensuring compliance

504
00:30:50,080 --> 00:30:54,360
Speaker 1: of federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish and all students.

505
00:30:54,680 --> 00:30:57,920
Speaker 2: And tell me a little bit about your lawsuit against Harvard.

506
00:30:58,280 --> 00:31:02,240
Speaker 1: We at the Louis de Brandai sent sued Harvard University

507
00:31:02,600 --> 00:31:07,560
Speaker 1: over the hostile environment at that campus since October seven

508
00:31:07,680 --> 00:31:12,000
Speaker 1: and also prior to October seven, as well as assaults

509
00:31:12,040 --> 00:31:17,400
Speaker 1: on Jewish students and discrimination against Israeli students who were

510
00:31:17,440 --> 00:31:24,600
Speaker 1: prevented from providing the speech and presentations that were available

511
00:31:24,640 --> 00:31:29,440
Speaker 1: to other students. We obtained earlier this year a favorable settlement.

512
00:31:29,760 --> 00:31:32,840
Speaker 1: Not all of the terms are public, but they include

513
00:31:32,880 --> 00:31:36,400
Speaker 1: some things that I believe can make some difference for

514
00:31:36,520 --> 00:31:40,760
Speaker 1: Harvard University. One of the big advances from our settlement

515
00:31:40,840 --> 00:31:45,680
Speaker 1: with Harvard University is that the university agreed to adopt

516
00:31:46,000 --> 00:31:51,120
Speaker 1: in its conduct code and elsewhere the definition of anti Semitism,

517
00:31:51,120 --> 00:31:54,719
Speaker 1: which is considered to be the gold standard for assessing

518
00:31:55,520 --> 00:31:58,960
Speaker 1: allegations of discrimination against Jewish students. That's the so called

519
00:31:59,080 --> 00:32:05,320
Speaker 1: IRA or International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working definition of Antisemitism.

520
00:32:05,400 --> 00:32:09,560
Speaker 1: Harvard also agreed to provide a new official who would

521
00:32:09,600 --> 00:32:13,640
Speaker 1: be an expert on this issue and who would monitor

522
00:32:14,200 --> 00:32:16,640
Speaker 1: incidents at Harvard and make sure that they were no

523
00:32:16,720 --> 00:32:21,320
Speaker 1: longer double standards used to assess allegations of anti Semitism?

524
00:32:21,840 --> 00:32:24,040
Speaker 2: And do you think the Trump administration is going to

525
00:32:24,080 --> 00:32:26,840
Speaker 2: continue this attack on Harvard?

526
00:32:27,840 --> 00:32:32,680
Speaker 1: While the Trump administration has already been taking a large

527
00:32:32,840 --> 00:32:38,040
Speaker 1: number of very forceful actions against Harvard, it's not clear

528
00:32:38,080 --> 00:32:41,720
Speaker 1: that they're done. There are agencies like the Securities and

529
00:32:41,840 --> 00:32:45,960
Speaker 1: Exchange Commission that could also be engaged with potential additional

530
00:32:46,480 --> 00:32:50,160
Speaker 1: remedies that go even beyond what we've seen so far.

531
00:32:50,960 --> 00:32:53,959
Speaker 1: At the same time, we know that the administration is

532
00:32:53,960 --> 00:32:58,040
Speaker 1: not focused only on Harvard and that there is more

533
00:32:58,080 --> 00:33:01,720
Speaker 1: to come for other Universe cities around the country and

534
00:33:01,840 --> 00:33:03,800
Speaker 1: perhaps other institutions as well.

535
00:33:03,920 --> 00:33:06,960
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining me today. That's Ken Marcus of the

536
00:33:06,960 --> 00:33:10,040
Speaker 2: Brandeis Center, and that's it for this edition of The

537
00:33:10,080 --> 00:33:13,000
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

538
00:33:13,080 --> 00:33:16,200
Speaker 2: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

539
00:33:16,200 --> 00:33:20,800
Speaker 2: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg

540
00:33:20,840 --> 00:33:24,640
Speaker 2: dot com slash podcast slash Law, And remember to tune

541
00:33:24,640 --> 00:33:27,880
Speaker 2: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

542
00:33:27,960 --> 00:33:31,520
Speaker 2: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to

543
00:33:31,560 --> 00:33:32,080
Speaker 2: Bloomberg