1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:14,000
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows, listen, I did this for seven years. As

3
00:00:14,040 --> 00:00:15,960
Speaker 1: you guys know, you do not give.

4
00:00:15,800 --> 00:00:18,120
Speaker 2: Immunity complete immunity.

5
00:00:18,160 --> 00:00:21,119
Speaker 1: It's a former White House chief of staff unless he's got.

6
00:00:20,920 --> 00:00:23,919
Speaker 3: Information that is devastating and that you couldn't get any

7
00:00:23,920 --> 00:00:24,400
Speaker 3: other way.

8
00:00:24,920 --> 00:00:28,480
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a huge trouble. Chris Christy, the former

9
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:32,280
Speaker 1: US Attorney for New Jersey and a current presidential candidate,

10
00:00:32,560 --> 00:00:35,640
Speaker 1: was blunt about the news that Mark Meadows, the final

11
00:00:35,720 --> 00:00:39,320
Speaker 1: chief of staff to Donald Trump, was given immunity from

12
00:00:39,360 --> 00:00:43,360
Speaker 1: prosecution by the Special Council in the election interference case

13
00:00:43,440 --> 00:00:48,479
Speaker 1: against the former president. According to Bloomberg sources, Meadows testified

14
00:00:48,479 --> 00:00:52,360
Speaker 1: before the DC Grand Jury that he repeatedly told Trump

15
00:00:52,479 --> 00:00:55,200
Speaker 1: in the weeks following the conclusion of the twenty twenty

16
00:00:55,240 --> 00:01:01,120
Speaker 1: election that claims of election fraud were baseless. Trump denies

17
00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:05,039
Speaker 1: that because I've spoken to Mark Medos many many times

18
00:01:05,080 --> 00:01:09,600
Speaker 1: over the years, and he strongly believed the election was rigged.

19
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:12,280
Speaker 2: Now, of course, you know, deranged Jack Smith and the

20
00:01:12,319 --> 00:01:15,800
Speaker 2: prosecutors and go after somebody for years and they say, look,

21
00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:19,200
Speaker 2: here's the story. We'll give you nothing will erect a

22
00:01:19,200 --> 00:01:21,319
Speaker 2: statute to you, or you're going to go to jail

23
00:01:21,360 --> 00:01:25,319
Speaker 2: for ten years but having done nothing wrong. So you know,

24
00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:27,520
Speaker 2: a lot of people have to make that decision. Some

25
00:01:27,520 --> 00:01:30,040
Speaker 2: people would never make that decision, other people would.

26
00:01:30,440 --> 00:01:33,639
Speaker 1: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mentz, a partner

27
00:01:33,720 --> 00:01:37,120
Speaker 1: McCarter and English Bob. There are different kinds of immunity.

28
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:40,039
Speaker 1: What kind does Meadows reportedly have?

29
00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:45,199
Speaker 4: Based upon report? Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump's final

30
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:48,600
Speaker 4: chief of staff, has spoken with Special Counsel Jack Smith's

31
00:01:48,600 --> 00:01:52,840
Speaker 4: team at least three times and reportedly has testified before

32
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:57,240
Speaker 4: the federal grand jury. That only came after Meadows was

33
00:01:57,320 --> 00:02:00,920
Speaker 4: granted immunity to testify under oath. In this case, there's

34
00:02:00,960 --> 00:02:05,760
Speaker 4: two types of immunity. There's use community and transactional immunity. Reportedly,

35
00:02:05,800 --> 00:02:09,360
Speaker 4: mister Meadows was given use community, which protects him from

36
00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:13,640
Speaker 4: any statements he makes to the grand jury or information

37
00:02:13,960 --> 00:02:17,200
Speaker 4: derived from those statements. So what that means effectively is

38
00:02:17,200 --> 00:02:21,200
Speaker 4: that prosecutors can't use those statements and can't use information

39
00:02:21,440 --> 00:02:24,840
Speaker 4: derived from those statements in a prosecution against them in

40
00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:28,200
Speaker 4: the future. As a practical matter, it is very difficult

41
00:02:28,240 --> 00:02:32,119
Speaker 4: for prosecutors to pursue a criminal case against somebody, even

42
00:02:32,200 --> 00:02:34,920
Speaker 4: if they've only been given this use community, because they

43
00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:37,960
Speaker 4: would have to show that they brought these charges based

44
00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:41,600
Speaker 4: not upon the statements and not derived from those statements

45
00:02:41,720 --> 00:02:44,320
Speaker 4: in order to make a successful case. So they would

46
00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:46,960
Speaker 4: have to show that there's some kind of independent source

47
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:50,240
Speaker 4: for the evidence that they use to charge somebody. As

48
00:02:50,280 --> 00:02:52,840
Speaker 4: a practical matter, what that means is, once somebody's given

49
00:02:52,919 --> 00:02:57,160
Speaker 4: use community, it effectively means that prosecutors have decided not

50
00:02:57,280 --> 00:03:00,799
Speaker 4: to charge them with a criminal offense related to that testimony.

51
00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:04,800
Speaker 1: Former New Jersey US Attorney Christie has said that as

52
00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:10,040
Speaker 1: a prosecutor, you don't give immunity to someone like Mark Meadows,

53
00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:14,040
Speaker 1: the former chief of staff, unless he has some devastating

54
00:03:14,080 --> 00:03:17,560
Speaker 1: evidence against Trump. Do you agree with that in this case.

55
00:03:17,840 --> 00:03:19,760
Speaker 4: Well, there's a couple of reasons you'd want to give

56
00:03:19,800 --> 00:03:22,840
Speaker 4: somebody immunity. One of them is because that you do

57
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:26,080
Speaker 4: believe they have valuable evidence and you're willing to essentially

58
00:03:26,160 --> 00:03:30,119
Speaker 4: immunize them from prosecution in exchange for the testimony they're

59
00:03:30,120 --> 00:03:33,200
Speaker 4: about to give. But there are also some other reasons why

60
00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:35,520
Speaker 4: you would give immunity, And one of them is to

61
00:03:35,600 --> 00:03:39,400
Speaker 4: lock in that testimony of that witness. So what would

62
00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:41,600
Speaker 4: have happened if they had not given immunity to Mark

63
00:03:41,680 --> 00:03:44,160
Speaker 4: Meadows is he would have gone before the grand jury

64
00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:46,960
Speaker 4: and he would have asserted his Fifth Amendment right against

65
00:03:46,960 --> 00:03:50,920
Speaker 4: self incrimination and refuse to answer questions that would leave

66
00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:54,360
Speaker 4: prosecutors not knowing what he might stay at a trial

67
00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:58,200
Speaker 4: down the road. By giving him immunity, they essentially forced

68
00:03:58,280 --> 00:04:01,440
Speaker 4: him to testify because he could no longer rely on

69
00:04:01,600 --> 00:04:04,200
Speaker 4: that Fifth Amendment right, and it forced him to go

70
00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:08,360
Speaker 4: on the record under oath with his statements about everything

71
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:11,920
Speaker 4: the prosecutor asked him about related to January sixth, the

72
00:04:11,960 --> 00:04:15,120
Speaker 4: events around the January sixth and efforts to overturn the

73
00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:16,000
Speaker 4: twenty twenty election.

74
00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:19,840
Speaker 1: I mean, it does seem like Meadows has a lot

75
00:04:19,920 --> 00:04:23,160
Speaker 1: to talk about. He was in this really unique position

76
00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:27,520
Speaker 1: by Trump's side, seemingly a central player in efforts to

77
00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:31,480
Speaker 1: overturn the election. So all those meetings we heard about

78
00:04:31,520 --> 00:04:34,600
Speaker 1: inside the White House in the run up to January sixth,

79
00:04:35,320 --> 00:04:36,120
Speaker 1: he was privy to.

80
00:04:37,160 --> 00:04:39,760
Speaker 4: He certainly was a central figure. As you say, The

81
00:04:39,839 --> 00:04:42,880
Speaker 4: January sixth Committee report placed him in the thick of

82
00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:45,720
Speaker 4: a series of key meetings and actions inside the White

83
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,520
Speaker 4: House during the run up to the US capital attack.

84
00:04:48,800 --> 00:04:51,880
Speaker 4: He was also on that infamous call with the Georgia

85
00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:55,600
Speaker 4: Secretary of State where Trump said, find me eleven thou

86
00:04:55,880 --> 00:04:58,480
Speaker 4: seven hundred and eighty votes. So he is on the

87
00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:03,039
Speaker 4: inside of many of the most controversial and critical aspects

88
00:05:03,080 --> 00:05:06,200
Speaker 4: of the case that prosecutors are pursuing in federal court

89
00:05:06,240 --> 00:05:06,920
Speaker 4: in Washington.

90
00:05:07,560 --> 00:05:11,040
Speaker 1: Now, one thing may cut against the importance of his testimony.

91
00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:17,560
Speaker 1: ABC News reported that investigators specifically asked Meadows if Trump

92
00:05:17,680 --> 00:05:20,800
Speaker 1: ever acknowledged to him that he lost the election, and

93
00:05:21,040 --> 00:05:25,200
Speaker 1: Medows told investigators that he never heard Trump say that.

94
00:05:25,839 --> 00:05:30,080
Speaker 1: Does that missing element make his testimony a little less

95
00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:31,800
Speaker 1: valuable to prosecutors?

96
00:05:32,200 --> 00:05:32,640
Speaker 3: Well, that's a.

97
00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:35,680
Speaker 4: Great question, is and we really don't know how valuable

98
00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:39,280
Speaker 4: Mark Metow's testimony might be. It's hard to stay because

99
00:05:39,320 --> 00:05:42,159
Speaker 4: we don't know exactly what he said. But we can

100
00:05:42,279 --> 00:05:45,480
Speaker 4: surmise from his prior statements and from the information that

101
00:05:45,520 --> 00:05:49,920
Speaker 4: we are getting from news sources, that he is contradicting

102
00:05:50,200 --> 00:05:53,880
Speaker 4: President Trump's statements immediately after the election, and he is

103
00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:57,680
Speaker 4: interestingly contradicting his own statements in a book that he

104
00:05:57,720 --> 00:06:00,599
Speaker 4: wrote shortly after the election, in which he's supported the

105
00:06:00,680 --> 00:06:04,599
Speaker 4: allegation that there were improprieties and irregularities connected to the

106
00:06:04,600 --> 00:06:08,440
Speaker 4: twenty twenty election. According to reports, now he has backtracked

107
00:06:08,640 --> 00:06:11,480
Speaker 4: and reversed his position on that and acknowledged that there

108
00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:14,560
Speaker 4: was no credible evidence that there was any tampering or

109
00:06:14,600 --> 00:06:17,560
Speaker 4: illegality associated with the twenty twenty election that would have

110
00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:20,520
Speaker 4: overturned the election results, and that he said as much

111
00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:23,440
Speaker 4: to former President Trump. That goes to the heart of

112
00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:26,479
Speaker 4: the Trump defense, which is the president's state of mind

113
00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:29,719
Speaker 4: when he decided to pursue these attacks on the twenty

114
00:06:29,760 --> 00:06:31,080
Speaker 4: twenty election results.

115
00:06:31,480 --> 00:06:34,920
Speaker 1: Meadows took public stances that the election was stolen. As

116
00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:37,039
Speaker 1: you said in his book, he said the election was

117
00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:40,719
Speaker 1: stolen and rigged. So how much credibility will he have

118
00:06:40,839 --> 00:06:44,040
Speaker 1: before a jury when now he's saying, no, I lied,

119
00:06:44,600 --> 00:06:45,760
Speaker 1: or words to that effect.

120
00:06:46,160 --> 00:06:49,560
Speaker 4: Well, that's the problem the prosecutors frequently faced with people

121
00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:53,120
Speaker 4: who cooperate with him. It's not unusual for a witness

122
00:06:53,160 --> 00:06:56,880
Speaker 4: who have testified and who have made statements saying one thing,

123
00:06:56,960 --> 00:06:59,360
Speaker 4: and then when it comes to trial, they now reverse

124
00:06:59,440 --> 00:07:02,560
Speaker 4: their position, and ultimately the credibility of the witness depends

125
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:05,800
Speaker 4: upon how they can explain the change in their position.

126
00:07:06,120 --> 00:07:07,880
Speaker 4: In this case, the statements that were made in the

127
00:07:07,880 --> 00:07:10,720
Speaker 4: book were obviously not under oath. When he was finally

128
00:07:10,760 --> 00:07:13,760
Speaker 4: placed under oath, or perhaps forced to be placed under

129
00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:16,480
Speaker 4: oaths because of the immunity deal, he told the truth.

130
00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:18,320
Speaker 4: That's what prosecutors are going to argue.

131
00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:24,440
Speaker 1: It seems a little different, though, because he memorialized these

132
00:07:24,520 --> 00:07:28,040
Speaker 1: lies in a published book, and I'm sure the defense

133
00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:31,440
Speaker 1: is going to read from pertinent parts of that book

134
00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:32,760
Speaker 1: if he takes the stand.

135
00:07:33,240 --> 00:07:35,520
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, that makes him a flawed witness for sure.

136
00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:38,720
Speaker 4: And he has gone on records having said that he

137
00:07:38,840 --> 00:07:41,840
Speaker 4: believes much of what Trump has said regarding the election.

138
00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:45,480
Speaker 4: Now he's changing course here and saying he didn't believe

139
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:48,040
Speaker 4: it at all. That's something the prosecutors will have to

140
00:07:48,120 --> 00:07:50,800
Speaker 4: address if they decide to use him as a key

141
00:07:50,840 --> 00:07:52,160
Speaker 4: witness in the federal trial.

142
00:07:52,800 --> 00:07:57,000
Speaker 1: And Bob, will you explain the importance to the prosecution

143
00:07:57,840 --> 00:08:01,880
Speaker 1: of the reporting that Meadows said he repeatedly told Trump

144
00:08:02,320 --> 00:08:06,400
Speaker 1: in the weeks following the twenty twenty election that claims

145
00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:08,600
Speaker 1: of election fraud were baseless.

146
00:08:09,080 --> 00:08:13,200
Speaker 4: If that's true, that could bolster the prostitution's case that

147
00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:16,800
Speaker 4: Trump pushed to reverse his defeat knowing that that was

148
00:08:16,880 --> 00:08:19,280
Speaker 4: not true. At the end of the day, the case

149
00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:22,520
Speaker 4: turns on what's called the men's rea, or the corrupt

150
00:08:22,640 --> 00:08:26,920
Speaker 4: intent of former President Trump. Prosecutors have to prove that

151
00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:31,480
Speaker 4: he knew when he pushed these fake electors and these

152
00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:34,760
Speaker 4: allegations of tampering with the election, that he knew that

153
00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:37,280
Speaker 4: it was not true at the time. And if it's

154
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:40,560
Speaker 4: true that Mark Meadows repeatedly told him that it was

155
00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:43,920
Speaker 4: not true, that helps get to this question of state

156
00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:47,440
Speaker 4: of mind. The real question is is it reasonable? Is

157
00:08:47,480 --> 00:08:51,560
Speaker 4: it believable that former President Trump did not believe that

158
00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:54,760
Speaker 4: he lost that election. That requires the jury to get

159
00:08:54,760 --> 00:08:57,240
Speaker 4: into the mind of the defendant to try to understand

160
00:08:57,280 --> 00:08:59,520
Speaker 4: what he was thinking. And the only way to do

161
00:08:59,600 --> 00:09:03,560
Speaker 4: that is to show circumstantially by witness testimony what he

162
00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:05,440
Speaker 4: was told at the time and what he may have

163
00:09:05,520 --> 00:09:08,760
Speaker 4: said in response to others telling him that the election

164
00:09:08,920 --> 00:09:09,360
Speaker 4: was lost.

165
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:14,400
Speaker 1: Meadows was not among the six unindicted co conspirators described

166
00:09:14,559 --> 00:09:19,440
Speaker 1: in the August indictment returned against Trump. Does that indicate

167
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:22,760
Speaker 1: that prosecutors at that point knew that he was going

168
00:09:22,800 --> 00:09:25,880
Speaker 1: to cooperate or targeted him as a cooperator.

169
00:09:26,640 --> 00:09:30,079
Speaker 4: There's long been speculation about whether Mark Meadows was actually

170
00:09:30,080 --> 00:09:33,679
Speaker 4: cooperating with federal prosecutors, because, if you remember, the Department

171
00:09:33,720 --> 00:09:37,400
Speaker 4: of Justice declined to prosecute him for refusing to comply

172
00:09:37,520 --> 00:09:41,080
Speaker 4: with his subpoenas to turnover documents to the Congressional committee

173
00:09:41,080 --> 00:09:44,439
Speaker 4: investigating the January sixth, twenty twenty one attack on the

174
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:48,160
Speaker 4: US Capitol. Others were prosecuted for their failure to cooperate,

175
00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:51,480
Speaker 4: he was not, and so there has long been questions

176
00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:55,640
Speaker 4: about whether mister Meadows was cooperating with federal prosecutors. And

177
00:09:55,679 --> 00:09:58,559
Speaker 4: now that he has struck this immunity deal allegedly, that

178
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:01,160
Speaker 4: only adds further fear fuel to that speculation.

179
00:10:01,520 --> 00:10:03,880
Speaker 1: Coming up next, we'll take a look at the barrage

180
00:10:03,880 --> 00:10:06,599
Speaker 1: of arguments Trump is making to try to get the

181
00:10:06,679 --> 00:10:10,480
Speaker 1: DC judge to dismiss the election interference case against him.

182
00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:17,160
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. This is

183
00:10:17,280 --> 00:10:23,520
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Stunny News

184
00:10:23,520 --> 00:10:26,640
Speaker 1: this week that Mark Meadows, the final chief of staff

185
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:30,240
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump, has been given immunity from prosecution in

186
00:10:30,280 --> 00:10:33,920
Speaker 1: the election interference case against the former president, and has

187
00:10:34,040 --> 00:10:37,920
Speaker 1: testified before a DC grand jury hearing evidence in the case.

188
00:10:38,280 --> 00:10:42,280
Speaker 1: According to Bloomberg's sources, in his testimony before the grand jury,

189
00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:46,640
Speaker 1: Meadows said he repeatedly told Trump that claims of election

190
00:10:46,840 --> 00:10:51,320
Speaker 1: fraud in the twenty twenty presidential election were baseless. Trump

191
00:10:51,320 --> 00:10:55,360
Speaker 1: has denied that on truth Social saying, quote, Mark Meadows

192
00:10:55,440 --> 00:10:59,400
Speaker 1: never told me that allegations of significant fraud about the

193
00:10:59,440 --> 00:11:04,080
Speaker 1: rigged election we're baseless. The former president also addressed that

194
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:07,240
Speaker 1: during a break in the Manhattan trial where his business

195
00:11:07,240 --> 00:11:08,400
Speaker 1: empire is at stake.

196
00:11:08,960 --> 00:11:11,920
Speaker 2: But Mark Medo has always felt it was radio. His

197
00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:15,000
Speaker 2: whole thing was rigged, and it was still element.

198
00:11:15,200 --> 00:11:18,280
Speaker 1: I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz of

199
00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 1: McCarter and English. So, as you say, as part of

200
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:25,560
Speaker 1: the immunity deal, the evidence Meadows gives can't be used

201
00:11:25,559 --> 00:11:28,320
Speaker 1: against him in a federal prosecution, But what about in

202
00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:31,240
Speaker 1: the Georgia prosecution where he's a co defendant.

203
00:11:32,080 --> 00:11:35,000
Speaker 4: That's an excellent point, because the immunity deal that he

204
00:11:35,080 --> 00:11:38,880
Speaker 4: has from the federal prosecutors only protects him from federal

205
00:11:38,920 --> 00:11:42,960
Speaker 4: prosecutors using those statement in a federal prosecution does not

206
00:11:43,080 --> 00:11:47,280
Speaker 4: protect them from the state prosecution that is ongoing in Georgia,

207
00:11:47,320 --> 00:11:49,520
Speaker 4: where he has charged as the defendant in a rico

208
00:11:49,640 --> 00:11:53,480
Speaker 4: conspiracy to overturn the election. So it suggests to me

209
00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:56,120
Speaker 4: that at some point he may also strike a deal

210
00:11:56,240 --> 00:11:58,960
Speaker 4: to plead guilty in the case in Georgia, although that

211
00:11:59,040 --> 00:12:00,000
Speaker 4: has not yet happened.

212
00:12:00,480 --> 00:12:03,320
Speaker 1: If you were his lawyer, would you allow him to

213
00:12:03,840 --> 00:12:06,760
Speaker 1: give evidence in a federal case, you know, when he

214
00:12:06,840 --> 00:12:08,840
Speaker 1: has jeopardy in a state case.

215
00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:12,600
Speaker 4: Meadows was not indicted in the federal case in Washington

216
00:12:12,679 --> 00:12:14,400
Speaker 4: that's set to go to trial in March, but he

217
00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:18,439
Speaker 4: was charged alongside former President Trump and other top allies

218
00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:21,920
Speaker 4: in the Fulton County District Attorney case being Georgia. There

219
00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:24,920
Speaker 4: he was charged on rico conspiracy charges for trying to

220
00:12:24,960 --> 00:12:29,040
Speaker 4: overturn the twenty twenty election results. And the interesting development

221
00:12:29,080 --> 00:12:32,560
Speaker 4: here is by striking this immunity deal and being forced

222
00:12:32,600 --> 00:12:35,760
Speaker 4: to give testimony in the federal case, will those statements

223
00:12:35,840 --> 00:12:39,120
Speaker 4: ultimately used against them in the case in Georgia. Under

224
00:12:39,120 --> 00:12:42,880
Speaker 4: the law, there's nothing that ties the DA's handing Georgia

225
00:12:43,080 --> 00:12:47,080
Speaker 4: to not use that information. Federal prosecutors can be willing

226
00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:50,199
Speaker 4: to give up prosecution of mister Meadows in a federal

227
00:12:50,200 --> 00:12:52,480
Speaker 4: case and agree not to use his statements in any

228
00:12:52,559 --> 00:12:56,680
Speaker 4: federal prosecution, but they cannot bar the DA in Georgia

229
00:12:56,720 --> 00:12:57,960
Speaker 4: from using those statements.

230
00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:00,800
Speaker 1: Are you surprised that so many people are flipping on

231
00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:05,920
Speaker 1: Donald Trump? We have Mark Meadows, we have four people

232
00:13:06,200 --> 00:13:10,880
Speaker 1: in Georgia, including three attorneys, and CNN is reporting that

233
00:13:10,960 --> 00:13:14,199
Speaker 1: the Georgia DA is talking to six other defendants.

234
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:17,559
Speaker 4: Well, again, just to be clear, we don't know whether

235
00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:21,240
Speaker 4: Mark Meadows has actually become a cooperator with federal prosecutors.

236
00:13:21,440 --> 00:13:25,160
Speaker 4: Maybe that he did, but we can't necessarily make that

237
00:13:25,280 --> 00:13:28,280
Speaker 4: conclusion based upon the information we have. We just know

238
00:13:28,360 --> 00:13:31,120
Speaker 4: that he's been given immunity and he's given testimony. We'll

239
00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 4: have to see where that case goes. But we do

240
00:13:33,360 --> 00:13:36,600
Speaker 4: know that other individuals in the Georgia case have pled

241
00:13:36,640 --> 00:13:39,160
Speaker 4: guilty and have agreed to cooperate, and that's always a

242
00:13:39,160 --> 00:13:41,880
Speaker 4: bad sign for the defense. You always want a united

243
00:13:41,960 --> 00:13:44,800
Speaker 4: front as a defendant. In this case, it was particularly

244
00:13:44,920 --> 00:13:47,960
Speaker 4: useful for the Trump team to have a case go

245
00:13:48,080 --> 00:13:51,680
Speaker 4: to trial before former President Trump went to trial in Georgia.

246
00:13:51,880 --> 00:13:54,720
Speaker 4: That would have given him a preview of the state's case.

247
00:13:54,960 --> 00:13:57,400
Speaker 4: It would have allowed them to hear the testimony from

248
00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:00,719
Speaker 4: the state's witnesses, had to use that testimony later on

249
00:14:00,840 --> 00:14:03,720
Speaker 4: in a case against former President Trump when all these

250
00:14:03,720 --> 00:14:06,400
Speaker 4: defendants decide to plead guilty rather than go to trial.

251
00:14:06,480 --> 00:14:09,320
Speaker 4: It's the prive defense of that advantage.

252
00:14:09,720 --> 00:14:14,320
Speaker 1: Turning away from Mark Meadows, on Monday, Trump rolled out

253
00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:18,760
Speaker 1: a new multi pronged attack in the federal election obstruction case,

254
00:14:19,440 --> 00:14:25,160
Speaker 1: making arguments based on claims of presidential immunity, selective prosecution,

255
00:14:25,680 --> 00:14:30,360
Speaker 1: the First Amendment, do process, and more. Judge Tanya Chutkin

256
00:14:30,520 --> 00:14:33,160
Speaker 1: to throw out the case against him, which is schedule

257
00:14:33,280 --> 00:14:36,040
Speaker 1: to begin on March fourth. Do any of the arguments

258
00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 1: seem like winners to you.

259
00:14:38,080 --> 00:14:42,480
Speaker 4: We've seen former President Trump lawyers unleasha barrage of defenses

260
00:14:42,840 --> 00:14:44,960
Speaker 4: in the federal case that's set to go to trial

261
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:48,520
Speaker 4: in March. They have argued a number of defenses. I

262
00:14:48,560 --> 00:14:51,320
Speaker 4: don't think any of them are likely to succeed before

263
00:14:51,360 --> 00:14:54,800
Speaker 4: this judge. One of them is presidential immunity. We've seen

264
00:14:54,800 --> 00:14:58,080
Speaker 4: that argument made time and again. Essentially, what the Trump

265
00:14:58,120 --> 00:15:01,440
Speaker 4: team is claiming is that former President Trump has immunity

266
00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:05,480
Speaker 4: against charges for conduct that falls within what's called the

267
00:15:05,520 --> 00:15:09,360
Speaker 4: outer perimeter of his presidential duties. The US Supreme Court

268
00:15:09,400 --> 00:15:12,400
Speaker 4: adopted that standard a long time ago to protect current

269
00:15:12,520 --> 00:15:16,440
Speaker 4: and former presidents against civil lawsuits, but it's an open

270
00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:20,480
Speaker 4: question about how that is affected by criminal prosecutions. The

271
00:15:20,480 --> 00:15:24,640
Speaker 4: Trump lawyers argue that a strong shield is necessary to

272
00:15:24,720 --> 00:15:28,160
Speaker 4: empower presidents to make decisions in office without worrying about

273
00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:32,760
Speaker 4: threats of future charges from political rivals. Prosecutors argue there's

274
00:15:32,760 --> 00:15:35,640
Speaker 4: no support of position in the Constitution or in any

275
00:15:35,680 --> 00:15:38,640
Speaker 4: Supreme Court president, and they say it should be harder,

276
00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:42,280
Speaker 4: not easier, for current and former office holders to claim

277
00:15:42,360 --> 00:15:45,960
Speaker 4: criminal immunity because those prosecutions are meant to protect the

278
00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:49,200
Speaker 4: interests of the public, not private parties. So we're in

279
00:15:49,280 --> 00:15:53,120
Speaker 4: uncharted ordered once again with this argument, because we've never

280
00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:56,000
Speaker 4: had a circumstance where a president was attempting to claim

281
00:15:56,080 --> 00:15:58,280
Speaker 4: immunity from a criminal prosecution.

282
00:15:58,720 --> 00:16:02,160
Speaker 1: You know, Selective prosecution is another one of the arguments

283
00:16:02,200 --> 00:16:06,080
Speaker 1: they're making, and he's used that before, for example in

284
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:09,440
Speaker 1: the New York Attorney General civil case against him. And

285
00:16:09,480 --> 00:16:12,360
Speaker 1: listen to what he said outside the courtroom. This is a.

286
00:16:12,360 --> 00:16:15,720
Speaker 5: Railroad, and it's all coming out of the Department of Justice.

287
00:16:15,800 --> 00:16:18,680
Speaker 5: It's all set up by Biden and his thubs that

288
00:16:18,760 --> 00:16:22,080
Speaker 5: he's surrounded with to try and stick out an election

289
00:16:22,280 --> 00:16:25,000
Speaker 5: victory that he's not entitled to win because he's been

290
00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:28,400
Speaker 5: the worst president in the history of our country.

291
00:16:28,680 --> 00:16:31,800
Speaker 4: Well, I think we're seeing the selective prosecution argument coming

292
00:16:31,840 --> 00:16:34,920
Speaker 4: out again and again because it serves two purposes. One,

293
00:16:35,040 --> 00:16:37,280
Speaker 4: it is a legal argument that they can make, albeit

294
00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:40,000
Speaker 4: one that's very difficult to prove. But I also think

295
00:16:40,040 --> 00:16:43,600
Speaker 4: it plays to the larger attempt by the Trump defense

296
00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:47,400
Speaker 4: team to sell this case and to sell the defense

297
00:16:47,720 --> 00:16:51,120
Speaker 4: to the public at lawrence. The selective prosecution argument is

298
00:16:51,200 --> 00:16:55,600
Speaker 4: essentially the argument that former President Trump is being treated unfairly,

299
00:16:55,600 --> 00:16:58,920
Speaker 4: that he's being singled out by an allegedly corrupt Department

300
00:16:58,960 --> 00:17:02,600
Speaker 4: of Justice, and that President Biden is behind all of

301
00:17:02,640 --> 00:17:06,040
Speaker 4: these prosecutions in order to try to eliminate his chief

302
00:17:06,160 --> 00:17:09,399
Speaker 4: rival in the upcoming election. But the reality is that

303
00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:13,320
Speaker 4: these selective prosecutions from a legal standpoint, are exceedingly difficult

304
00:17:13,600 --> 00:17:16,920
Speaker 4: to win. People make these arguments all the time. For example,

305
00:17:17,119 --> 00:17:20,080
Speaker 4: if you're driving down the highway and you're in a

306
00:17:20,119 --> 00:17:22,280
Speaker 4: group of ten cars that are all speeding. You get

307
00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:25,000
Speaker 4: pulled over, you could turn around and say, why am

308
00:17:25,040 --> 00:17:27,080
Speaker 4: I being pulled over when the nine other people were

309
00:17:27,080 --> 00:17:29,480
Speaker 4: doing exactly what I was doing and none of them

310
00:17:29,600 --> 00:17:33,239
Speaker 4: are being prosecuted for speeding. The reality is that in

311
00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:36,359
Speaker 4: order for that defense have any merits, you have to

312
00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:39,159
Speaker 4: show not only that you're singled out, but that you

313
00:17:39,200 --> 00:17:43,520
Speaker 4: were singled out for some discriminatory or unconstitutional reason. Here

314
00:17:43,560 --> 00:17:46,199
Speaker 4: that's going to be very difficult to prove. Essentially, the

315
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:49,800
Speaker 4: defense would have to prove that there's a political motive

316
00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:53,760
Speaker 4: for all of these prosecutions, and that President Biden is

317
00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:57,120
Speaker 4: somehow behind these prosecutions. That's an argument we've heard over

318
00:17:57,160 --> 00:17:59,639
Speaker 4: and over again, but not one that is likely to

319
00:17:59,680 --> 00:18:01,639
Speaker 4: be well received by this judge.

320
00:18:01,880 --> 00:18:06,359
Speaker 1: Well, Special Counsel Jacksmith's office already filed its opposition to

321
00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:10,320
Speaker 1: Trump's presidential immunity claim, and they're going to have two

322
00:18:10,359 --> 00:18:14,760
Speaker 1: weeks to respond to this latest round of challenges. Thanks

323
00:18:14,760 --> 00:18:18,359
Speaker 1: so much, Bob. That's former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a

324
00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:22,480
Speaker 1: partner Maccarter and English Sam Bankman. Freed came to court

325
00:18:22,520 --> 00:18:25,920
Speaker 1: today prepared to take the stand and defend his actions

326
00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:28,040
Speaker 1: in the lead up to the collapse of his digital

327
00:18:28,040 --> 00:18:31,359
Speaker 1: asset Empire. To the jury, it's always risky for a

328
00:18:31,400 --> 00:18:33,720
Speaker 1: defend and to take the stand, but it may have

329
00:18:33,800 --> 00:18:37,560
Speaker 1: been Bankman Freed's only play after taking a beating from

330
00:18:37,680 --> 00:18:41,080
Speaker 1: former colleagues who described him as the mastermind of a

331
00:18:41,200 --> 00:18:45,720
Speaker 1: year's long scheme to defraud FTX customers and investors. But

332
00:18:45,880 --> 00:18:49,879
Speaker 1: instead of testifying to the jury, Bankman Freed spent three

333
00:18:49,920 --> 00:18:54,480
Speaker 1: hours testifying to Judge Lewis Kaplan, trying to convince the

334
00:18:54,600 --> 00:18:57,960
Speaker 1: judge to allow him to testify to the jury about

335
00:18:57,960 --> 00:19:01,159
Speaker 1: the role FTX lawyer's play in the lead up to

336
00:19:01,200 --> 00:19:04,920
Speaker 1: the collapse of the crypto exchange and the alleged mismanagement

337
00:19:05,040 --> 00:19:08,520
Speaker 1: of customer funds. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Bob

338
00:19:08,640 --> 00:19:12,200
Speaker 1: van Vores, who was in the courtroom today to see

339
00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:17,520
Speaker 1: this testimony before the testimony. So, Bob, did Bankmin Freed

340
00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:20,359
Speaker 1: give any testimony before the jury today?

341
00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:22,919
Speaker 3: Not in front of the jury. That's the thing. He

342
00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:26,080
Speaker 3: spent the entire afternoon on the stand, but he was

343
00:19:26,160 --> 00:19:30,320
Speaker 3: previewing testimony that he wants to give relating to advice

344
00:19:30,400 --> 00:19:34,080
Speaker 3: that he got from lawyers. So Judge Kaplan is listened

345
00:19:34,119 --> 00:19:36,040
Speaker 3: to the testimony, he's going to rule in the morning.

346
00:19:36,600 --> 00:19:38,840
Speaker 3: What the jury gets to hear they got sent home

347
00:19:38,880 --> 00:19:39,560
Speaker 3: after lunch.

348
00:19:40,160 --> 00:19:43,840
Speaker 1: This is something advice of counsel that the judge nixt

349
00:19:44,160 --> 00:19:47,879
Speaker 1: stopped the defense from using at the beginning of the

350
00:19:47,920 --> 00:19:49,719
Speaker 1: trial in the opening statements.

351
00:19:50,160 --> 00:19:52,680
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, that's the thing. The judge said that they

352
00:19:52,680 --> 00:19:54,800
Speaker 3: couldn't bring it up in the opening statement, but that

353
00:19:55,000 --> 00:19:56,639
Speaker 3: you know, when it came to the trial, when it

354
00:19:56,680 --> 00:19:59,200
Speaker 3: came to actual questions, he'd rule on a case by

355
00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:03,199
Speaker 3: case basis. So he told the parties that, you know,

356
00:20:03,440 --> 00:20:07,439
Speaker 3: rather than rule on objections after objections when they come up,

357
00:20:07,760 --> 00:20:11,400
Speaker 3: he would listen to banquin free testimony and let them

358
00:20:11,440 --> 00:20:14,159
Speaker 3: know what was okay and what was not okay, not

359
00:20:14,320 --> 00:20:18,680
Speaker 3: basically what was addressed rehearsal for his testimony, So tell

360
00:20:18,760 --> 00:20:19,080
Speaker 3: us what.

361
00:20:19,080 --> 00:20:21,720
Speaker 1: He testified to some of the areas he testified to.

362
00:20:22,119 --> 00:20:25,800
Speaker 3: So he got up and was asked on direct basically

363
00:20:26,160 --> 00:20:29,840
Speaker 3: about particular transactions that were problematic that were part of

364
00:20:29,880 --> 00:20:33,680
Speaker 3: the charges of the case. And you know, did lawyers

365
00:20:33,760 --> 00:20:37,639
Speaker 3: advise him on that these included There was testimony early

366
00:20:37,680 --> 00:20:41,400
Speaker 3: in the trial about how he told people to put

367
00:20:41,440 --> 00:20:46,679
Speaker 3: their communications on auditorily so that communications would delete after

368
00:20:46,720 --> 00:20:48,639
Speaker 3: a week. His side was trying to show that that

369
00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:51,320
Speaker 3: wasn't sinister at all, but that it was part of

370
00:20:51,359 --> 00:20:54,760
Speaker 3: a document retention policy and that he was advised by

371
00:20:54,840 --> 00:20:57,840
Speaker 3: lawyers and that lawyers were aware of them. Basically, the

372
00:20:57,920 --> 00:21:01,000
Speaker 3: point that defense is trying to get across is that

373
00:21:01,440 --> 00:21:04,600
Speaker 3: he did things in the plain sight of lawyers, and

374
00:21:04,760 --> 00:21:08,080
Speaker 3: so therefore he didn't have any intent to defraud people.

375
00:21:08,640 --> 00:21:11,879
Speaker 1: So it's not really an advice of counsel defense so

376
00:21:12,040 --> 00:21:13,760
Speaker 1: much as it's a sort.

377
00:21:13,600 --> 00:21:17,320
Speaker 3: Of a take on that, Yeah, that's exactly right. They're

378
00:21:17,359 --> 00:21:21,240
Speaker 3: not putting a formal advice of counsel defense where he

379
00:21:21,280 --> 00:21:24,119
Speaker 3: would say, look, I ran this by my lawyer. My

380
00:21:24,200 --> 00:21:28,200
Speaker 3: lawyer told me to do this. Did it. Therefore, even

381
00:21:28,240 --> 00:21:31,480
Speaker 3: if it, you know, was against the law, you can't

382
00:21:31,920 --> 00:21:34,760
Speaker 3: prosecute you for that. It's less formal than that. It's

383
00:21:34,800 --> 00:21:37,920
Speaker 3: just that, you know, he's saying that I didn't have

384
00:21:38,200 --> 00:21:41,760
Speaker 3: criminal intent here because you know, obviously I was doing

385
00:21:41,760 --> 00:21:43,760
Speaker 3: this in fronal lawyers. I thought it was okay, and

386
00:21:43,800 --> 00:21:45,639
Speaker 3: that shows that I thought it was okay.

387
00:21:46,200 --> 00:21:50,520
Speaker 1: So Judge Caplan has it seems like with every major

388
00:21:50,880 --> 00:21:55,000
Speaker 1: motion question that's come up, Judge Caplan has ruled against

389
00:21:55,280 --> 00:21:58,720
Speaker 1: bank and freed. Today. He asked his lawyer about a

390
00:21:58,760 --> 00:22:02,520
Speaker 1: hypothetical situation where someone comes across a large sum of money,

391
00:22:03,119 --> 00:22:05,880
Speaker 1: uses a lawyer to buy an apartment on billionaire's row,

392
00:22:06,000 --> 00:22:09,199
Speaker 1: and is later charged with money laundering. How is that

393
00:22:09,240 --> 00:22:12,600
Speaker 1: different from what you're trying to do in principle? It

394
00:22:12,720 --> 00:22:14,960
Speaker 1: sounds like he doubts this as well.

395
00:22:15,880 --> 00:22:17,840
Speaker 3: It does sound like he's skeptical, and we're going to

396
00:22:17,880 --> 00:22:21,280
Speaker 3: find out tomorrow morning. You know, how much of if

397
00:22:21,320 --> 00:22:24,440
Speaker 3: any of this he's going to allow in. The prosecution

398
00:22:25,240 --> 00:22:28,200
Speaker 3: is trying to argue that, you know, this is basically

399
00:22:28,960 --> 00:22:31,640
Speaker 3: evidence that's going to confuse the jury, and that's not

400
00:22:31,760 --> 00:22:35,159
Speaker 3: going to basically elucidate the points that the defense is

401
00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:38,720
Speaker 3: trying to make, or at least legitimate point, and they

402
00:22:38,760 --> 00:22:40,440
Speaker 3: want the judge to keep it out.

403
00:22:41,240 --> 00:22:43,200
Speaker 1: The judge also said at the beginning that this was

404
00:22:43,240 --> 00:22:45,960
Speaker 1: going to confuse the jury. They think the jury can

405
00:22:46,000 --> 00:22:49,959
Speaker 1: handle all these different financial transactions, but they can handle

406
00:22:50,000 --> 00:22:54,720
Speaker 1: adviceive counsel. It seems to me the confusion argument is

407
00:22:54,880 --> 00:22:55,800
Speaker 1: just so thin.

408
00:22:57,040 --> 00:22:58,880
Speaker 3: That's a really good point, you know, I think you're

409
00:22:58,960 --> 00:23:01,959
Speaker 3: right about that. Has been a lot of testimony about

410
00:23:02,400 --> 00:23:08,159
Speaker 3: crypto wallets and money moving around virtually and accounting and

411
00:23:08,720 --> 00:23:11,280
Speaker 3: all that sort of stuff. Yeah, I think you're right

412
00:23:11,359 --> 00:23:14,119
Speaker 3: that they can make sense of that kind of testimony.

413
00:23:14,119 --> 00:23:16,080
Speaker 3: But we'll see, we'll see what the judge has to

414
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:16,680
Speaker 3: say about that.

415
00:23:17,000 --> 00:23:19,080
Speaker 1: What was his demeanor like on the stand?

416
00:23:20,200 --> 00:23:24,800
Speaker 3: He was very even on direct he was very concise,

417
00:23:25,000 --> 00:23:29,680
Speaker 3: to the point in giving his testimony under question from

418
00:23:29,720 --> 00:23:35,200
Speaker 3: his own lawyer. On cross examination by Danielle Festinini, his

419
00:23:35,320 --> 00:23:40,439
Speaker 3: distiguous attorney, he was very might even call him a vasis.

420
00:23:40,480 --> 00:23:44,200
Speaker 3: He was polite, but quibbling with the questions, did a

421
00:23:44,240 --> 00:23:49,040
Speaker 3: lot of digressions, sort of dodging occasionally, even apologized in

422
00:23:49,119 --> 00:23:51,919
Speaker 3: advance if he was not going to be answering the

423
00:23:52,000 --> 00:23:55,879
Speaker 3: question she asked. It was not a very good performance

424
00:23:55,920 --> 00:23:59,600
Speaker 3: on cross and if his cross examination in front of

425
00:23:59,600 --> 00:24:02,480
Speaker 3: the jury is the thing he's going to have some difficulty.

426
00:24:03,040 --> 00:24:04,800
Speaker 1: This is sort of like a trial run for him,

427
00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:06,600
Speaker 1: then they can try to correct.

428
00:24:07,320 --> 00:24:09,800
Speaker 3: That's why in the press room we're calling it the

429
00:24:09,840 --> 00:24:13,440
Speaker 3: dress rehearsal testimony, because the jury, you know, they're all

430
00:24:13,520 --> 00:24:16,639
Speaker 3: homes and in front of the judge. But you know,

431
00:24:16,720 --> 00:24:20,280
Speaker 3: sometimes if the dress rehearsal doesn't go well. The premiere

432
00:24:20,400 --> 00:24:23,840
Speaker 3: is a smash ht so we'll we'll have to see.

433
00:24:23,880 --> 00:24:26,680
Speaker 3: But if it's a repeat performance tomorrow, I don't think

434
00:24:26,680 --> 00:24:28,640
Speaker 3: it's doing very good for Sampaker Freed.

435
00:24:29,119 --> 00:24:32,200
Speaker 1: What other witnesses is the defense intending to call?

436
00:24:32,800 --> 00:24:35,600
Speaker 3: The defense is done with everybody except for sampakm and Free.

437
00:24:35,600 --> 00:24:38,679
Speaker 3: They had a couple of brief witnesses this morning. They

438
00:24:38,760 --> 00:24:43,359
Speaker 3: had an expert witness to talk about sort of forensic

439
00:24:43,400 --> 00:24:48,680
Speaker 3: witness to talk about the transfers between Alameda and FTX.

440
00:24:49,440 --> 00:24:52,479
Speaker 3: Very brief defense case other than to put on dam

441
00:24:52,560 --> 00:24:56,520
Speaker 3: Beck and Freed. Who's likely to go all day tomorrow,

442
00:24:56,800 --> 00:24:57,920
Speaker 3: maybe into Monday.

443
00:24:58,480 --> 00:25:02,640
Speaker 1: Let's go back and look at the reason why he

444
00:25:03,680 --> 00:25:09,000
Speaker 1: may be testifying is because the evidence that the prosecution

445
00:25:09,840 --> 00:25:14,080
Speaker 1: presented against him in these weeks has been pretty compelling.

446
00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:17,920
Speaker 1: Describe some of the main witnesses testimony.

447
00:25:18,400 --> 00:25:21,719
Speaker 3: Well, Houston faced with testimony from a number of people

448
00:25:21,800 --> 00:25:25,840
Speaker 3: that he was once close to, that he formerly worked with,

449
00:25:26,320 --> 00:25:31,399
Speaker 3: including three insiders, three people very close to them in

450
00:25:31,440 --> 00:25:36,160
Speaker 3: the Inner circle who have pled guilty and are testifying

451
00:25:37,000 --> 00:25:41,240
Speaker 3: cooperating with the government. These include Caroline Ellison, his former

452
00:25:41,280 --> 00:25:45,320
Speaker 3: girlfriend who he installed as the CEO about me to Research,

453
00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:51,200
Speaker 3: which is the affiliated hedge fund with the SDX crypto extreme.

454
00:25:51,720 --> 00:25:57,680
Speaker 3: She gave very effective testimony. Also Gary Wong, his FTX

455
00:25:57,720 --> 00:26:00,639
Speaker 3: co founder, and Nishad Singh, who is the head of

456
00:26:00,680 --> 00:26:05,440
Speaker 3: engineering for FTX. All three of them gave very clear testimony.

457
00:26:06,160 --> 00:26:10,719
Speaker 3: In addition, put on Ken's son, the former general counsel,

458
00:26:10,800 --> 00:26:14,560
Speaker 3: the top in house lawyer at FTC, who testified that

459
00:26:14,920 --> 00:26:19,000
Speaker 3: Backmin Freed did not let him know about the huge

460
00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:23,879
Speaker 3: amount of borrowing from al Amida that al Amita took

461
00:26:23,920 --> 00:26:26,080
Speaker 3: from customer funds at FTX.

462
00:26:27,080 --> 00:26:32,000
Speaker 1: Did Bankmin Freed come off as unlikable through the testimony

463
00:26:32,040 --> 00:26:36,520
Speaker 1: about his lifestyle and how he wanted to project this

464
00:26:36,840 --> 00:26:39,879
Speaker 1: image and hanging around with celebrities.

465
00:26:40,440 --> 00:26:43,679
Speaker 3: There was certainly a decent amount of that sort of

466
00:26:43,800 --> 00:26:48,400
Speaker 3: testimony about him, you know, sort of dominating other people,

467
00:26:48,800 --> 00:26:51,800
Speaker 3: presenting an image to the public that he wasn't actually

468
00:26:52,280 --> 00:26:56,119
Speaker 3: you know, manifesting in his personal life that you know,

469
00:26:56,160 --> 00:26:59,960
Speaker 3: he was calculating. There was that sort of testimony during

470
00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:03,240
Speaker 3: the trial, and you would think that's part of the

471
00:27:03,240 --> 00:27:05,560
Speaker 3: reason that he wants to testify his counter some of that,

472
00:27:05,760 --> 00:27:07,520
Speaker 3: so you know, we'll have to see how effective he

473
00:27:07,640 --> 00:27:08,000
Speaker 3: is at that.

474
00:27:08,560 --> 00:27:11,480
Speaker 1: Yeah, his whole defense is writing on him. And they

475
00:27:11,560 --> 00:27:15,120
Speaker 1: say that when a defendant takes the stand, it becomes

476
00:27:15,160 --> 00:27:19,160
Speaker 1: all about his credibility for the jury. So we'll see

477
00:27:19,160 --> 00:27:22,639
Speaker 1: what happens tomorrow. I understand this was like a hot

478
00:27:22,640 --> 00:27:25,600
Speaker 1: ticket today. There were people waiting in line to get

479
00:27:25,600 --> 00:27:26,360
Speaker 1: into the courtroom.

480
00:27:26,880 --> 00:27:30,280
Speaker 3: That's right. There were dozens of people. When I came

481
00:27:30,320 --> 00:27:33,399
Speaker 3: in this morning a little bit before nine, dozens of

482
00:27:33,400 --> 00:27:37,520
Speaker 3: people lined up for just twenty one press steachs in

483
00:27:37,560 --> 00:27:40,840
Speaker 3: the courtroom today. I talked to one of the reporters

484
00:27:40,840 --> 00:27:43,280
Speaker 3: who was number two in line. He had showed up

485
00:27:43,320 --> 00:27:45,760
Speaker 3: at two forty in the morning to line up for

486
00:27:45,880 --> 00:27:47,639
Speaker 3: that seat.

487
00:27:47,000 --> 00:27:50,200
Speaker 1: And there were three overflow rooms for those who couldn't

488
00:27:50,200 --> 00:27:52,439
Speaker 1: get into the courtroom. Have there been a lot of

489
00:27:52,520 --> 00:27:54,480
Speaker 1: crypto enthusiasts at the trial?

490
00:27:55,200 --> 00:27:57,879
Speaker 3: There absolutely has been a lot of crypto press, a

491
00:27:57,880 --> 00:28:01,720
Speaker 3: lot of just people who follow currency. This is a

492
00:28:01,840 --> 00:28:04,960
Speaker 3: very very interesting trial for people in that world. It's

493
00:28:05,000 --> 00:28:09,040
Speaker 3: obviously an event that was a huge watershed in the

494
00:28:09,080 --> 00:28:12,360
Speaker 3: crypto world, and people want to see these personalities who

495
00:28:12,400 --> 00:28:14,480
Speaker 3: they came to know. They want to see them in

496
00:28:14,520 --> 00:28:16,160
Speaker 3: person telling their stories.

497
00:28:16,080 --> 00:28:19,439
Speaker 1: And has the jury been attentive through these weeks of testimony.

498
00:28:19,840 --> 00:28:23,119
Speaker 3: The jury has been in tentive. There's certainly with SBF

499
00:28:23,160 --> 00:28:26,080
Speaker 3: on the stand, you can expect them to be glued

500
00:28:26,119 --> 00:28:30,200
Speaker 3: to every word. They were very attentive for Carolyne Ellison's

501
00:28:30,200 --> 00:28:34,120
Speaker 3: testimony and things and lungs as well. A little less

502
00:28:34,160 --> 00:28:38,360
Speaker 3: so with some of the more technical testimony. But yeah,

503
00:28:38,400 --> 00:28:41,160
Speaker 3: they're going to be riveted tomorrow if.

504
00:28:41,320 --> 00:28:45,960
Speaker 1: The judge doesn't allow this advice of council defense or

505
00:28:46,080 --> 00:28:48,760
Speaker 1: you know, this version of an advisive council defense. What

506
00:28:48,840 --> 00:28:51,480
Speaker 1: does that leave the defense to argue?

507
00:28:52,200 --> 00:28:54,280
Speaker 3: We'll have to see what they're going to question him on,

508
00:28:54,440 --> 00:28:57,680
Speaker 3: because whatever they question him on, he can get hostile

509
00:28:57,760 --> 00:29:01,120
Speaker 3: questioning on across examination. So you know, the last thing

510
00:29:01,120 --> 00:29:04,120
Speaker 3: the defense wants to do is prove the government's case

511
00:29:04,200 --> 00:29:06,680
Speaker 3: for that. So they're going to have to think very

512
00:29:06,720 --> 00:29:11,120
Speaker 3: strategically about what they want Sambaquins Creed to testify on.

513
00:29:11,360 --> 00:29:14,840
Speaker 3: And you know, where he's vulnerable and where he's vulnerable.

514
00:29:15,040 --> 00:29:18,560
Speaker 1: We'll find out tomorrow morning what he's allowed to testify to.

515
00:29:18,760 --> 00:29:20,880
Speaker 1: It will be an exciting day tomorrow in the court,

516
00:29:20,880 --> 00:29:24,240
Speaker 1: I think, Bob, thanks so much that's Bloomberg Legal reporter

517
00:29:24,360 --> 00:29:26,920
Speaker 1: Bob van Vories, and that's it for this edition of

518
00:29:26,920 --> 00:29:29,560
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

519
00:29:29,640 --> 00:29:32,840
Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

520
00:29:32,880 --> 00:29:37,120
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot

521
00:29:37,120 --> 00:29:41,320
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to

522
00:29:41,360 --> 00:29:44,400
Speaker 1: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten

523
00:29:44,480 --> 00:29:48,240
Speaker 1: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

524
00:29:48,320 --> 00:29:49,000
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg