Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law, with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: After more than six weeks of sometimes graphic and emotional testimony,
Speaker 2: the jury deliberated about thirteen hours before acquitting Sean Diddy
Speaker 2: Comb's of the most serious charges against him, racketeering, conspiracy,
Speaker 2: and sex trafficking charges relating to allegations that he used
Speaker 2: his money, power and physical force to manipulate his girlfriends
Speaker 2: into hundreds of drug fueled sex marathons. The jury only
Speaker 2: convicted Combs of the lesser charge of transportation to engage
Speaker 2: in prostitution, so instead of facing a life sentence, Combs
Speaker 2: is facing a maximum prison sentence of ten years and
Speaker 2: likely much less than that. After the verdict was read,
Speaker 2: Combs put his hands together and mouthed thank you to
Speaker 2: the jurors. He got down on his knee, his head bowed,
Speaker 2: apparently in prayer. As the jurors left the courtroom, his
Speaker 2: relatives in the audience applauded him and his lawyers, some
Speaker 2: of whom had tears in their eyes as he was
Speaker 2: led out of court. My guest is former federal prosecutor
Speaker 2: Robert Mintz, a partner maccarter in English. Bob apparently, Combs,
Speaker 2: his relatives, and his lawyers all thought that this was
Speaker 2: a win, despite the fact that he is facing some
Speaker 2: prison time.
Speaker 3: Given the charges he was potentially facing, which included up
Speaker 3: to life in prison for the racketeering conspiracy and a
Speaker 3: minimum sentence of fifteen years to life for sex trafficking,
Speaker 3: the fact that he was only convicted of two counts
Speaker 3: of transportation to engaging prostitution can't be viewed as anything
Speaker 3: other than a win by the defense and a bitter
Speaker 3: loss for prosecutors.
Speaker 2: Let's go through the charges. So the top count racketeering conspiracy,
Speaker 2: and the charge has historical life been used to take
Speaker 2: down mob bosses like John Gotti. Did the prosecutors overcharge
Speaker 2: him with this count?
Speaker 3: Well, I think that's going to be the question that
Speaker 3: prosecutors will have to ask themselves when they look back
Speaker 3: on this case, whether or not it was overcharged with
Speaker 3: the Rico conspiracy. Now, the Rico conspiracy, as you say,
Speaker 3: has been used traditionally in order to prosecute organized crime figures,
Speaker 3: but it has been used more broadly in recent years
Speaker 3: and was used in a high profile case just a
Speaker 3: couple of years ago in the r. Kelly case where
Speaker 3: that hip hop artist was also charged with rico and
Speaker 3: sex trafficking in twenty twenty one, and in that instance
Speaker 3: prosecutors did get a conviction. But here jurors ultimately concluded
Speaker 3: that the rico conspiracy was overcharged, that the prosecution did
Speaker 3: not meet the burden of showing that Sean Combs had
Speaker 3: used his business empire as a vehicle in order to
Speaker 3: commit further out at and in order to force his
Speaker 3: former girlfriends into performing sexual acts against their will.
Speaker 2: Bob, when a prosecutor overcharges, does that give the defense
Speaker 2: an opening to, you know, to get the jury to
Speaker 2: doubt the whole case, that it's all exaggerated.
Speaker 3: Well, that's ultimately where this case turned. It was really
Speaker 3: an argument by the defense that although mister Combe had
Speaker 3: committed some abhorrent acts, they had the video of him
Speaker 3: picking Passi Ventura by the elevator bank out in Beverly
Speaker 3: Hills that was undeniably bad behavior and painted mister Combs
Speaker 3: in a very negative light. But when that was held
Speaker 3: up against the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy, which
Speaker 3: included certain criminal acts such as forced labor, bribery, obstruction
Speaker 3: of justice, all of that was thrown in and basically
Speaker 3: prosecutors were staying that he uses vast empire that he
Speaker 3: built up over many years simply as a means of
Speaker 3: forcing these ex girlfriends to continue to perform these sexual
Speaker 3: acts against their will, and all the while they were
Speaker 3: coerced into doing this. The defense was able to effectively
Speaker 3: pick that apart by showing text messages from both of
Speaker 3: the victims which at various times suggested that they had
Speaker 3: participated in these acts willfully, that they were not coerced,
Speaker 3: that they could have left but chose not to, And
Speaker 3: ultimately I think that was the downfall for the prostitution's case.
Speaker 3: It really ultimately turned on whether they believed that the
Speaker 3: victims were actually trapped in this relationship and had no
Speaker 3: way out and were literally forced to commit these acts,
Speaker 3: or whether this is more complex than that, and the
Speaker 3: defense was able to show that these relationships, while toxic,
Speaker 3: while not healthy, and while it involved bad behavior by
Speaker 3: mister Holmes, didn't rise to the level of racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 2: The jury said yesterday afternoon that it was unable to
Speaker 2: reach a verdict, a unanimous verdict on the racketeering conspiracy
Speaker 2: charge because there were jurors with unpersuadable views on both sides.
Speaker 2: But today, after an hour of deliberations, they came to
Speaker 2: a unanimous verdict on that charge. Do you think that
Speaker 2: with the long weekend ahead, the jurors who wanted to
Speaker 2: convict on that charge sort of caved.
Speaker 3: Well, it's impossible to know really what goes on in
Speaker 3: the jury room. You don't know the dialogue between and
Speaker 3: among the jurors, the conversations that are going on. But
Speaker 3: it did seem like the fact that they were stuck
Speaker 3: on this most serious charge suggested to at least some
Speaker 3: observers that they found a guilty verdict on some of
Speaker 3: the lesser charges, including perhaps the sex trafficking. But it
Speaker 3: turned out that they only convicted on the most minor charges,
Speaker 3: and they did reach a decision before the long holiday weekend.
Speaker 3: That's not unusual. Juries like to go home for weekends.
Speaker 3: They like to put this case behind them. But on
Speaker 3: the other hand, when you were the prosecution, you're sitting
Speaker 3: there thinking that was a seven week trial. We produced
Speaker 3: over thirty witnesses, and the fact that juris came back
Speaker 3: in only two days with a verdict suggested that they
Speaker 3: moved very quickly through this process looking at the evidence
Speaker 3: and reaching a verdict in a way that prosecutors are
Speaker 3: certainly disappointed with.
Speaker 2: So the two sex trafficking acquittals which stem from allegations
Speaker 2: that Combs coerced to women his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventur
Speaker 2: and a Jane Doe into these so called freak offs,
Speaker 2: and Ventura testified over four days some very emotional testimony.
Speaker 2: I mean, you refer to this, but did the jurors
Speaker 2: just not believe her?
Speaker 3: It's hard to say exactly what they were thinking. That
Speaker 3: testimony was compelling, That testimony had to be very emotional
Speaker 3: for juris to it through, and yet at the end
Speaker 3: of the day they did not believe that she was
Speaker 3: necessarily compelled to participate in commercial sex acts through force, fraud,
Speaker 3: and coercion. The key here is there has to be
Speaker 3: a link between the force, the fraud, and the coercion
Speaker 3: and the acts of sex, and I think at the
Speaker 3: end of the day the evidence was just not clear
Speaker 3: enough for them to meet that burden. Remember, prosecutors have
Speaker 3: to prove in their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything
Speaker 3: less than that will result in an acquittal, as we
Speaker 3: saw here.
Speaker 2: And sex trafficking did the charges even fit the facts here?
Speaker 2: Aren't people usually charged with sex trafficking when it's unrelated people,
Speaker 2: not people in long term relationships like these women in Combs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was I think one of the problems too,
Speaker 3: because the victims here were involved in these long term relationships,
Speaker 3: and they had written many messages, emails, text messages, other
Speaker 3: writings evidencing their love for mister Combs at various times.
Speaker 3: The fact that they willingly participated in some of these acts,
Speaker 3: the fact that they did things in order to please him,
Speaker 3: and the fact fact that after some of these sessions
Speaker 3: they texted him saying that they enjoyed them. And I
Speaker 3: think it was very difficult for jurors to necessarily conclude
Speaker 3: that all of this was done against their will, that
Speaker 3: none of it was consensual. And as you say, June,
Speaker 3: it's a situation where the sex trafficking charge is typically
Speaker 3: brought in an instance where the perpetrator does not have
Speaker 3: a relationship with the victim. Here there was a long
Speaker 3: term relationship, one that was very complicated, and also one
Speaker 3: in which the victims had benefited financially from their relationship
Speaker 3: with mister Combs. So it became I think very difficult
Speaker 3: for jurors to sort out the true nature of those relationships.
Speaker 3: I don't think they necessarily disbelieved the victims, but I
Speaker 3: think they ultimately concluded that the fact as presented to
Speaker 3: them in court did not meet the elements of the
Speaker 3: sex trafficking charges.
Speaker 2: So you mentioned the financial settlements. Ventura got thirty million
Speaker 2: dollars from Comb's and hotel, and that was used by
Speaker 2: the defense attorney in his closing statements. He called her
Speaker 2: a winner. And I'm wondering how much a huge settlement
Speaker 2: like that might affect a jury's view of a witness.
Speaker 3: I think it had to affect them, and I don't
Speaker 3: think it necessarily meant that jurors didn't believe what she
Speaker 3: was saying, But I think it fed into the defense's
Speaker 3: narrative that this was a complicated relationship, that the relationship
Speaker 3: was toxic. But at the end of the day, there
Speaker 3: was responsibility by both parties that created this toxic relationship,
Speaker 3: and they ultimately could not conclude that mister Combs should
Speaker 3: be convicted of this very serious charge based on a
Speaker 3: record that was unclear at best.
Speaker 2: He was convicted. He was He was convicted of two
Speaker 2: counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. That stems from
Speaker 2: allegations that he paid sex workers to come to his
Speaker 2: freak off parties. Tell us about that. That's a felony
Speaker 2: violation of the Federal Man Act.
Speaker 3: These were the charges that were really easiest for prosecutors
Speaker 3: to prove, because all they have to show is that
Speaker 3: individual's cross state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution.
Speaker 3: And there was plenty of evidence presented at the trial
Speaker 3: that mister Colms had made arrangements for these male prostitutes
Speaker 3: to meet with his girlfriends. He'd bought plane tickets, there
Speaker 3: were credit card statements, there were hotel records. These were
Speaker 3: the charges that prosecutors were able to prove fairly readily,
Speaker 3: and there wasn't really much of a defense to them.
Speaker 3: I think the defense strategy was to focus on the
Speaker 3: more serious charges, which they ultimately succeeded in convincing jurors
Speaker 3: to quit their client on Bob.
Speaker 2: I'm wondering because the jurors found him guilty of the
Speaker 2: lowest count, whether some jurors thought this case is overcharge,
Speaker 2: let's go for the lowest count, or whether they took
Speaker 2: each charge and considered each one on its own merits.
Speaker 3: One thing that you do see sometimes behind the curtains
Speaker 3: in jury deliberations is what it's called a compromised verdict. Now,
Speaker 3: there's no way to know whether that happened here or not,
Speaker 3: but you do sometimes have jurors on one side who
Speaker 3: want to convict on all counts, jurors on the other
Speaker 3: side who may want to acquit, and ultimately they may
Speaker 3: compromise by convicting on some but not all counts. We
Speaker 3: don't really know whether that happened here, and I'm not
Speaker 3: suggesting that it necessarily did, but that is a phenomenon
Speaker 3: that happened sometimes. We don't know whether that was going
Speaker 3: on here or whether jurors simply went through these counts
Speaker 3: count by count And we're convinced that the sex trafficking
Speaker 3: and the rico conspiracy charges were just as you said, June,
Speaker 3: over charge and did not apply the fact of the case.
Speaker 2: Stay with me, Bob. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Laws Show, I'll continue this conversation with former federal prosecutor
Speaker 2: Robert Mintz. We'll talk about the defense strategy and how
Speaker 2: it won the jurors over despite not presenting any witnesses.
Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Sean did
Speaker 2: he Combs dropped to his knees and prayed in the
Speaker 2: courtroom after he was acquitted today of sex trafficking and
Speaker 2: racketeering charges that could have put him behind bars for life.
Speaker 2: The hip hop mogul was convicted of lesser prostitution related offenses.
Speaker 2: He still faces prison time, but likely much much less
Speaker 2: than the ten year maximum. I've been talking to former
Speaker 2: federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter in english Combe's defense.
Speaker 2: Did it take a huge risk by deciding not to
Speaker 2: put on any witnesses at all and to rely on
Speaker 2: the cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses, which sometimes went
Speaker 2: on longer than the direct examinations.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: I think from the very start the defense strategy was
Speaker 3: always to win their case through cross examination. I think
Speaker 3: they correctly sized the case up and knew that it
Speaker 3: was going to turn on the testimony of the two
Speaker 3: victims and how compelling they were, and that by adding
Speaker 3: witnesses for the defense it was only going to complicate
Speaker 3: the case and create a more complex narrative for them
Speaker 3: to have to convince cures ask exactly what was going
Speaker 3: on here. They wanted the case ultimately to be about
Speaker 3: these two victims and to show that the relationship that
Speaker 3: they were in with mister Colmbs over many years was
Speaker 3: one in which they gained financially, one in which they
Speaker 3: willingly participated. In no doubt, they were ups and downs
Speaker 3: in those relationships, and there were some domestic violence that
Speaker 3: went on, and the defense readily admitted that. But the
Speaker 3: question is did it really rise to the level of
Speaker 3: racketeering conspiracy. Defense placed a large set that the jurors
Speaker 3: would ultimately answer that question in the negative, and ultimately
Speaker 3: they prevailed.
Speaker 2: The defense also took the tact of saying, you're not
Speaker 2: going to like him. He is a drug user, he's
Speaker 2: guilty of domestic violence, but he's not a sex trafficker.
Speaker 2: And the women were willing participants.
Speaker 3: Make no mistake, the defense had a tall order here
Speaker 3: because they were presenting a defendant to the jury who
Speaker 3: was not necessarily all that likable, a defendant who engaged
Speaker 3: in some reprehensible conduct, who was on video beating up
Speaker 3: his girlfriend, who at times had used controlling and threatening language,
Speaker 3: so he wasn't particularly likable. In the way he was
Speaker 3: presented to the jury, which is why I think they
Speaker 3: decided ultimately to not have him take the stand. But
Speaker 3: the focus of the case from the defense standpoint was
Speaker 3: going to be more on the victims and really trying
Speaker 3: to show jurors that the government had overcharged this case.
Speaker 3: They presented this as a case of lifestyle versus criminality,
Speaker 3: and ultimately all those of the lifestyle that I doubt
Speaker 3: many jurors could really relate to. It was something that
Speaker 3: they were willing to accept in the sense that they
Speaker 3: did not believe that much of the conduct that the
Speaker 3: government had put on during the course of the trial
Speaker 3: amounted to criminal conduct.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, so the government pulled out all the stops,
Speaker 2: they had all kinds of witnesses. Do you think they
Speaker 2: did something wrong or they missed something, or was just
Speaker 2: a question of overcharging.
Speaker 3: I think from the very beginning this was going to
Speaker 3: be a difficult case for prosecutors, and prosecutors really bet
Speaker 3: the entire case on the testimony of their victims. They
Speaker 3: were hoping that these victims would come across as credible.
Speaker 3: I think they were hoping that in this day and age,
Speaker 3: jurors would be sensitive to the fact that there can't
Speaker 3: be abusive relationships where women are assaulted but don't necessarily
Speaker 3: leave their partners, and that doesn't mean that the acts
Speaker 3: were consensual. There was a lot of complexity here that
Speaker 3: I think the prosecution was hoping that curs could sort out,
Speaker 3: and it simply turned out that yours were not buying
Speaker 3: everything the government was trying to argue in terms of
Speaker 3: who mister Combs was and what kind of criminality he
Speaker 3: ultimately engaged in.
Speaker 2: So technically he faces ten years on each of the
Speaker 2: transporting counts, but realistically, how much time do you think
Speaker 2: the judge will give him.
Speaker 3: Well, the judge is certainly going to take into account
Speaker 3: the fact that mister Combs has already been in jail
Speaker 3: for about a year, and he'll get credit for that
Speaker 3: time serves. In terms of the two counts conviction, it's
Speaker 3: highly likely that those will run concurrently, which means they
Speaker 3: will run at the same time, so he won't be
Speaker 3: facing twenty years. Really, the maximum sentence here will be ten,
Speaker 3: but I don't think he'll even get that. The Federal
Speaker 3: sentence in guidelines, which give judges guidance as to what
Speaker 3: type of sentence they should hand down are going to
Speaker 3: come out much lower than the ten years. And at
Speaker 3: the end of the day here this is really up
Speaker 3: to the judge. The judge has complete discretion, has to
Speaker 3: decide what the appropriate sentence is here, and I think
Speaker 3: that he will sentence mister Colmbs to some time in prison,
Speaker 3: but it's not going to be anything close to ten years.
Speaker 2: Do you think there's some added pressure on the judge
Speaker 2: because of all the publicity this case has gotten, you know,
Speaker 2: pressure not to let Combs off too lightly.
Speaker 3: Well, the judge is not supposed to consider outside pressure
Speaker 3: as you do. The judge is supposed to look at
Speaker 3: the facts and all the circumstances. He sat through the trial,
Speaker 3: he heard all the testimony, he heard from all the victims,
Speaker 3: and he heard the defense arguments, and he has to
Speaker 3: fashion a sentence that he believes is ultimately fair. But
Speaker 3: I think as a practical matter, the judge can't ignore
Speaker 3: the more serious charges that the defendant faced here and
Speaker 3: the high publicity factor that was associated with this case.
Speaker 3: So I think the judge is going to have to
Speaker 3: balance all these factors, and I do think the judge
Speaker 3: will sentenced mister Colmbs to some time in jail, but
Speaker 3: they think it will be far less than the maximum
Speaker 3: ten years that he's facing on each of the accounts.
Speaker 2: Combs's lawyers said he'd likely face twenty one to twenty
Speaker 2: seven months, but prosecutors said he'd likely face fifty one
Speaker 2: to sixty three months, and he's already served nine months
Speaker 2: because he's been jailed since his arrest. So we shall see.
Speaker 2: But as you say, the final decision is the judges,
Speaker 2: and the judge denied him bond and made the decision
Speaker 2: to keep him in jail while he awaits sentencing.
Speaker 3: The fact that the judge refused bail here and decided
Speaker 3: to keep mister Combs in jail pending sentencing, I think
Speaker 3: reflects the very serious nature of these charges. Even though
Speaker 3: he was ultimately not convicted of the most serious charges,
Speaker 3: He's alreays spent a year in jail. He'll get time
Speaker 3: served for this additional time between the time of conviction
Speaker 3: and his sentencing, so ultimately it doesn't really work against him.
Speaker 3: But I think the judge here is trying to convey
Speaker 3: the fact that although he was ultimately convicted only of
Speaker 3: the two less serious charges, the judge still considers this
Speaker 3: a very serious case and still considers the conduct for
Speaker 3: which mister Colmes was convicted as serious conduct that creates
Speaker 3: a danger to the community.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints of maccarter and
Speaker 2: English and in other legal news today. In a courtroom
Speaker 2: in Boise, Idaho, Ryan Colberger pleaded guilty to the brutal
Speaker 2: stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two in order to avoid the death penalty. The
Speaker 2: killings initially baffled law enforcement and unnerved the rural college
Speaker 2: town of Moscow. Colberger was arrested in Pennsylvania, where his
Speaker 2: parents lived, after investigators recovered a Q tip from the
Speaker 2: garbage at his parents' house to match Colberger's DNA to
Speaker 2: genetic material from a knife sheath found at the crime scene.
Speaker 2: At the time, Colberger had just completed his first semester
Speaker 2: as a graduate student in criminal justice at Washington State.
Speaker 2: In the two years since his arrest, his attorneys unsuccessfully
Speaker 2: attempted to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty and
Speaker 2: challenged DNA evidence, but a plea deal was their final
Speaker 2: alternative to spare his life. Before the start of a
Speaker 2: trial in August Colberger remained impassive as Judge Stephen Hipler
Speaker 2: questioned him, and he admitted to breaking into a rental
Speaker 2: home through a kitchen sliding door and killing the four
Speaker 2: friends who appeared to have no connection with him.
Speaker 4: On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, in Leyta County, State
Speaker 4: of Idaho, kill and murder Madison Mogan a human being?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: And did you do that willfully and lawfully, deliberately and
Speaker 4: with premeditation and melissauthorpe of poor thought?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: Did you Honor about that same date in Moscow, Idaho,
Speaker 4: kill and murder Kayleie Gonzalez a human being?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: And did you do that wilfully, unlawfully, deliberately and with
Speaker 4: premeditation and malicapport thought?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: And did you on that same date in Moscow, Idaho
Speaker 4: kill and murder Xana Kernodle pardon me a human being?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: And did you do that wilfully and lawfully deliberately, with
Speaker 4: premeditation and malicipport thought.
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: And then on or about November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 4: again in Leytoc County, Idaho, did you kill and murder
Speaker 4: Ethan Chapin a human being?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: Did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, with premeditation and
Speaker 4: malicapor thought yes.
Speaker 2: Colberger will serve consecutive life sentences. At least one of
Speaker 2: the families opposed the Plea deal, but others supported it,
Speaker 2: saying they were ready to begin healing. The motive for
Speaker 2: the murder remains unclear, and the murder weapon still has
Speaker 2: not been found. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: This week, the Trump administration said an investigation found that
Speaker 2: Harvard University violated civil rights laws in its treatment of
Speaker 2: Jewish and Israeli students, further endangering federal funding for the school.
Speaker 2: This ramps up pressure on the country's oldest university, less
Speaker 2: than two weeks after President Donald Trump said he was
Speaker 2: nearing a deal with the school following months of attacking it.
Speaker 2: Harvard said it strongly disagrees with the government's findings and
Speaker 2: said it has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate
Speaker 2: and bias and remains committed to ensuring that Jewish and
Speaker 2: Israeli students can thrive on campus. My guest is Ken Marcus,
Speaker 2: the founder, chairman and CEO of the Brandeis Center. He
Speaker 2: was the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights during
Speaker 2: the first Trump administration, tell us about the allegations of
Speaker 2: the Trump administration here.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is alleging that Harvard violated Title six
Speaker 1: of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four by
Speaker 1: tolerating a hostile environment for Jewish students. Title six is
Speaker 1: the key federal civil rights statute that provides protection for
Speaker 1: students at federally assisted programs and activities against discrimination on
Speaker 1: the basis of race, color, or national origin.
Speaker 2: So Harvard disputes the government's accounts, and it has said
Speaker 2: several times in different settings that it has worked to
Speaker 2: combat anti semitism.
Speaker 1: Harvard has promised to take a number of steps to
Speaker 1: address anti semitism, including in particular in their settlement with
Speaker 1: my organization, the Louis Dei Brandeis Center. Those steps included,
Speaker 1: for example, adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition
Speaker 1: of anti Semitism. That's a major step, and it suggests
Speaker 1: that Harvard is willing to use the standard that is
Speaker 1: considered to be the gold standard for assessing anti semitism.
Speaker 1: But Harvard certainly hasn't done all of the things that
Speaker 1: advocates are urging, and there is room for improvement, to
Speaker 1: be sure.
Speaker 2: Tell us about that. What more you'd like to see.
Speaker 1: There are certainly things that Harvard can do to improve
Speaker 1: its disciplinary process. There are things that it can do
Speaker 1: to address the use of masks and protests. Harvard could
Speaker 1: do more to address the kind of shunning of Jewish
Speaker 1: and Israeli students that the task force has identified. There
Speaker 1: are certainly lots of things that Harvard can do that
Speaker 1: it hasn't yet committed to doing, and we'll see what
Speaker 1: it does or doesn't do. But it certainly doesn't hurt
Speaker 1: to have some pressure coming from outside sources like the
Speaker 1: federal government.
Speaker 2: Harvard has said that the government in this case failed
Speaker 2: to follow procedures for terminating funding over alleged violations of
Speaker 2: Title six. Could that lead to dismissal of these allegations
Speaker 2: by the administration.
Speaker 1: It really makes sense that Harvard will argue that the
Speaker 1: federal government didn't follow the steps that are usually required.
Speaker 1: I think that the federal government's recent findings of violation
Speaker 1: from the Department of Health and Human Services was intended
Speaker 1: in part to cure any potential deficiencies to dot the
Speaker 1: eyes and cross the t's Whether the court would find
Speaker 1: that the procedural irregularities rose to a level that provides
Speaker 1: a defense for Harvard is something that we will just
Speaker 1: have to see and what would.
Speaker 2: Be the penalty for these alleged violations of Title six
Speaker 2: if proven.
Speaker 1: One could certainly see additional loss of federal funds from
Speaker 1: Harvard University. We could also see additional lawsuits from students, faculty, alumni,
Speaker 1: and others. There are lots of different remedies that could
Speaker 1: come into play, and it would be a significant stain
Speaker 1: on the reputation of what has been, over the years,
Speaker 1: one of our most prestigious institutions.
Speaker 2: The Trump administration initially accused Harvard of fostering anti Semitism,
Speaker 2: but the attack has expanded to include accusations of political
Speaker 2: bias and promoting diversity initiatives and hiring and admissions, and
Speaker 2: the Trump administration's demand seem to be going far beyond
Speaker 2: fighting anti semitism.
Speaker 1: There's no question that the Trump administration is urging Harvard
Speaker 1: to do things that are not directly related to anti semitism,
Speaker 1: but which the federal government argueses indirectly related. Critics of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration suggest that It might be pretextual for
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to go after Harvard for anti semitism
Speaker 1: when they're concerned about things like DEI, But from the
Speaker 1: administration's perspective, the fact is that DEI is related to
Speaker 1: anti Semitism and some fairly complex and tight ways. For example,
Speaker 1: not only do DEI programs often omit anti Semitism and
Speaker 1: Jewish identity, but they will sometimes create stereotypes of Jews,
Speaker 1: sometimes viewing Jews as being oppressors and participating in structures
Speaker 1: of persecution, and therefore should be considered not as victims
Speaker 1: but as perpetrators. When the Trump administration urges Arvored to
Speaker 1: do things that aren't directly related to anti Semitism, the
Speaker 1: argument is that they are nevertheless indirectly related.
Speaker 2: The Trump administration has real targeted Harvard. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: scrap more than two point six billion dollars in federal
Speaker 2: research funding for Harvard, threaten the school's tax exempt status,
Speaker 2: and try to prevent it from enrolling foreign students. Why
Speaker 2: is it so laser focused on Harvard?
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is actually focused on a lot of
Speaker 1: institutions right now. Harvard and Columbia are the two that
Speaker 1: we see the greatest amount of energy directed at But
Speaker 1: there are actually quite a number over sixty institutions that
Speaker 1: have been named by the Education Department the hindful that
Speaker 1: are subject to present proactive reviews, and that I would
Speaker 1: say others are also in the scopes. Those institutions that
Speaker 1: think that they are in the clear because the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is only focused on Harvard, I think are mistaken
Speaker 1: the aims of the Trump administration. They are looking much
Speaker 1: more broadly.
Speaker 2: Do you agree with the way the administration is going
Speaker 2: about this? I mean cutting off the funding, trying to
Speaker 2: prevent foreign students from enrolling. That hurts a lot of
Speaker 2: third parties. Why not let the courts decide this?
Speaker 1: The Trump administration properly recognizes a few things that had
Speaker 1: eluded the prior administration. The first is that the post
Speaker 1: October seventh environment on college campuses is extraordinary and unprecedented,
Speaker 1: and therefore requires a response that is unprecedented and extraordinary.
Speaker 1: The second is that the situation that we're seeing at
Speaker 1: institutions like Harvard is pervasive of the institution, and therefore
Speaker 1: the response should be a whole of the government response,
Speaker 1: one that involves not only the Education Department, but also
Speaker 1: agencies like Justice, the General Services, Administration, Health and Human Services,
Speaker 1: and the agencies as well. What we're seeing is an
Speaker 1: action that is fast, that is powerful, and that is
Speaker 1: very broad. That is, I would say, exactly what is
Speaker 1: needed in the present moment.
Speaker 2: Harvard has been in talks with the White House. Apparently
Speaker 2: they've stalled.
Speaker 1: We've seen that President Trump is always looking to make
Speaker 1: a favorable deal that will benefit the American people. So
Speaker 1: I would say that President Garber would be wise to
Speaker 1: do what he can to enter into a settlement that
Speaker 1: enables Harvard to do the research and teaching that it
Speaker 1: wants to do, while enabling the government to be able
Speaker 1: to say, truly and honestly that it is ensuring compliance
Speaker 1: of federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish and all students.
Speaker 2: And tell me a little bit about your lawsuit against Harvard.
Speaker 1: We at the Louis de Brandai sent sued Harvard University
Speaker 1: over the hostile environment at that campus since October seven
Speaker 1: and also prior to October seven, as well as assaults
Speaker 1: on Jewish students and discrimination against Israeli students who were
Speaker 1: prevented from providing the speech and presentations that were available
Speaker 1: to other students. We obtained earlier this year a favorable settlement.
Speaker 1: Not all of the terms are public, but they include
Speaker 1: some things that I believe can make some difference for
Speaker 1: Harvard University. One of the big advances from our settlement
Speaker 1: with Harvard University is that the university agreed to adopt
Speaker 1: in its conduct code and elsewhere the definition of anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: which is considered to be the gold standard for assessing
Speaker 1: allegations of discrimination against Jewish students. That's the so called
Speaker 1: IRA or International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working definition of Antisemitism.
Speaker 1: Harvard also agreed to provide a new official who would
Speaker 1: be an expert on this issue and who would monitor
Speaker 1: incidents at Harvard and make sure that they were no
Speaker 1: longer double standards used to assess allegations of anti Semitism?
Speaker 2: And do you think the Trump administration is going to
Speaker 2: continue this attack on Harvard?
Speaker 1: While the Trump administration has already been taking a large
Speaker 1: number of very forceful actions against Harvard, it's not clear
Speaker 1: that they're done. There are agencies like the Securities and
Speaker 1: Exchange Commission that could also be engaged with potential additional
Speaker 1: remedies that go even beyond what we've seen so far.
Speaker 1: At the same time, we know that the administration is
Speaker 1: not focused only on Harvard and that there is more
Speaker 1: to come for other Universe cities around the country and
Speaker 1: perhaps other institutions as well.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining me today. That's Ken Marcus of the
Speaker 2: Brandeis Center, and that's it for this edition of The
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
Speaker 2: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find
Speaker 2: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg
Speaker 2: dot com slash podcast slash Law, And remember to tune
Speaker 2: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm
Speaker 2: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to
Speaker 2: Bloomberg