Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows, listen, I did this for seven years. As
Speaker 1: you guys know, you do not give.
Speaker 2: Immunity complete immunity.
Speaker 1: It's a former White House chief of staff unless he's got.
Speaker 3: Information that is devastating and that you couldn't get any
Speaker 3: other way.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a huge trouble. Chris Christy, the former
Speaker 1: US Attorney for New Jersey and a current presidential candidate,
Speaker 1: was blunt about the news that Mark Meadows, the final
Speaker 1: chief of staff to Donald Trump, was given immunity from
Speaker 1: prosecution by the Special Council in the election interference case
Speaker 1: against the former president. According to Bloomberg sources, Meadows testified
Speaker 1: before the DC Grand Jury that he repeatedly told Trump
Speaker 1: in the weeks following the conclusion of the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: election that claims of election fraud were baseless. Trump denies
Speaker 1: that because I've spoken to Mark Medos many many times
Speaker 1: over the years, and he strongly believed the election was rigged.
Speaker 2: Now, of course, you know, deranged Jack Smith and the
Speaker 2: prosecutors and go after somebody for years and they say, look,
Speaker 2: here's the story. We'll give you nothing will erect a
Speaker 2: statute to you, or you're going to go to jail
Speaker 2: for ten years but having done nothing wrong. So you know,
Speaker 2: a lot of people have to make that decision. Some
Speaker 2: people would never make that decision, other people would.
Speaker 1: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mentz, a partner
Speaker 1: McCarter and English Bob. There are different kinds of immunity.
Speaker 1: What kind does Meadows reportedly have?
Speaker 4: Based upon report? Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump's final
Speaker 4: chief of staff, has spoken with Special Counsel Jack Smith's
Speaker 4: team at least three times and reportedly has testified before
Speaker 4: the federal grand jury. That only came after Meadows was
Speaker 4: granted immunity to testify under oath. In this case, there's
Speaker 4: two types of immunity. There's use community and transactional immunity. Reportedly,
Speaker 4: mister Meadows was given use community, which protects him from
Speaker 4: any statements he makes to the grand jury or information
Speaker 4: derived from those statements. So what that means effectively is
Speaker 4: that prosecutors can't use those statements and can't use information
Speaker 4: derived from those statements in a prosecution against them in
Speaker 4: the future. As a practical matter, it is very difficult
Speaker 4: for prosecutors to pursue a criminal case against somebody, even
Speaker 4: if they've only been given this use community, because they
Speaker 4: would have to show that they brought these charges based
Speaker 4: not upon the statements and not derived from those statements
Speaker 4: in order to make a successful case. So they would
Speaker 4: have to show that there's some kind of independent source
Speaker 4: for the evidence that they use to charge somebody. As
Speaker 4: a practical matter, what that means is, once somebody's given
Speaker 4: use community, it effectively means that prosecutors have decided not
Speaker 4: to charge them with a criminal offense related to that testimony.
Speaker 1: Former New Jersey US Attorney Christie has said that as
Speaker 1: a prosecutor, you don't give immunity to someone like Mark Meadows,
Speaker 1: the former chief of staff, unless he has some devastating
Speaker 1: evidence against Trump. Do you agree with that in this case.
Speaker 4: Well, there's a couple of reasons you'd want to give
Speaker 4: somebody immunity. One of them is because that you do
Speaker 4: believe they have valuable evidence and you're willing to essentially
Speaker 4: immunize them from prosecution in exchange for the testimony they're
Speaker 4: about to give. But there are also some other reasons why
Speaker 4: you would give immunity, And one of them is to
Speaker 4: lock in that testimony of that witness. So what would
Speaker 4: have happened if they had not given immunity to Mark
Speaker 4: Meadows is he would have gone before the grand jury
Speaker 4: and he would have asserted his Fifth Amendment right against
Speaker 4: self incrimination and refuse to answer questions that would leave
Speaker 4: prosecutors not knowing what he might stay at a trial
Speaker 4: down the road. By giving him immunity, they essentially forced
Speaker 4: him to testify because he could no longer rely on
Speaker 4: that Fifth Amendment right, and it forced him to go
Speaker 4: on the record under oath with his statements about everything
Speaker 4: the prosecutor asked him about related to January sixth, the
Speaker 4: events around the January sixth and efforts to overturn the
Speaker 4: twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: I mean, it does seem like Meadows has a lot
Speaker 1: to talk about. He was in this really unique position
Speaker 1: by Trump's side, seemingly a central player in efforts to
Speaker 1: overturn the election. So all those meetings we heard about
Speaker 1: inside the White House in the run up to January sixth,
Speaker 1: he was privy to.
Speaker 4: He certainly was a central figure. As you say, The
Speaker 4: January sixth Committee report placed him in the thick of
Speaker 4: a series of key meetings and actions inside the White
Speaker 4: House during the run up to the US capital attack.
Speaker 4: He was also on that infamous call with the Georgia
Speaker 4: Secretary of State where Trump said, find me eleven thou
Speaker 4: seven hundred and eighty votes. So he is on the
Speaker 4: inside of many of the most controversial and critical aspects
Speaker 4: of the case that prosecutors are pursuing in federal court
Speaker 4: in Washington.
Speaker 1: Now, one thing may cut against the importance of his testimony.
Speaker 1: ABC News reported that investigators specifically asked Meadows if Trump
Speaker 1: ever acknowledged to him that he lost the election, and
Speaker 1: Medows told investigators that he never heard Trump say that.
Speaker 1: Does that missing element make his testimony a little less
Speaker 1: valuable to prosecutors?
Speaker 3: Well, that's a.
Speaker 4: Great question, is and we really don't know how valuable
Speaker 4: Mark Metow's testimony might be. It's hard to stay because
Speaker 4: we don't know exactly what he said. But we can
Speaker 4: surmise from his prior statements and from the information that
Speaker 4: we are getting from news sources, that he is contradicting
Speaker 4: President Trump's statements immediately after the election, and he is
Speaker 4: interestingly contradicting his own statements in a book that he
Speaker 4: wrote shortly after the election, in which he's supported the
Speaker 4: allegation that there were improprieties and irregularities connected to the
Speaker 4: twenty twenty election. According to reports, now he has backtracked
Speaker 4: and reversed his position on that and acknowledged that there
Speaker 4: was no credible evidence that there was any tampering or
Speaker 4: illegality associated with the twenty twenty election that would have
Speaker 4: overturned the election results, and that he said as much
Speaker 4: to former President Trump. That goes to the heart of
Speaker 4: the Trump defense, which is the president's state of mind
Speaker 4: when he decided to pursue these attacks on the twenty
Speaker 4: twenty election results.
Speaker 1: Meadows took public stances that the election was stolen. As
Speaker 1: you said in his book, he said the election was
Speaker 1: stolen and rigged. So how much credibility will he have
Speaker 1: before a jury when now he's saying, no, I lied,
Speaker 1: or words to that effect.
Speaker 4: Well, that's the problem the prosecutors frequently faced with people
Speaker 4: who cooperate with him. It's not unusual for a witness
Speaker 4: who have testified and who have made statements saying one thing,
Speaker 4: and then when it comes to trial, they now reverse
Speaker 4: their position, and ultimately the credibility of the witness depends
Speaker 4: upon how they can explain the change in their position.
Speaker 4: In this case, the statements that were made in the
Speaker 4: book were obviously not under oath. When he was finally
Speaker 4: placed under oath, or perhaps forced to be placed under
Speaker 4: oaths because of the immunity deal, he told the truth.
Speaker 4: That's what prosecutors are going to argue.
Speaker 1: It seems a little different, though, because he memorialized these
Speaker 1: lies in a published book, and I'm sure the defense
Speaker 1: is going to read from pertinent parts of that book
Speaker 1: if he takes the stand.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, that makes him a flawed witness for sure.
Speaker 4: And he has gone on records having said that he
Speaker 4: believes much of what Trump has said regarding the election.
Speaker 4: Now he's changing course here and saying he didn't believe
Speaker 4: it at all. That's something the prosecutors will have to
Speaker 4: address if they decide to use him as a key
Speaker 4: witness in the federal trial.
Speaker 1: And Bob, will you explain the importance to the prosecution
Speaker 1: of the reporting that Meadows said he repeatedly told Trump
Speaker 1: in the weeks following the twenty twenty election that claims
Speaker 1: of election fraud were baseless.
Speaker 4: If that's true, that could bolster the prostitution's case that
Speaker 4: Trump pushed to reverse his defeat knowing that that was
Speaker 4: not true. At the end of the day, the case
Speaker 4: turns on what's called the men's rea, or the corrupt
Speaker 4: intent of former President Trump. Prosecutors have to prove that
Speaker 4: he knew when he pushed these fake electors and these
Speaker 4: allegations of tampering with the election, that he knew that
Speaker 4: it was not true at the time. And if it's
Speaker 4: true that Mark Meadows repeatedly told him that it was
Speaker 4: not true, that helps get to this question of state
Speaker 4: of mind. The real question is is it reasonable? Is
Speaker 4: it believable that former President Trump did not believe that
Speaker 4: he lost that election. That requires the jury to get
Speaker 4: into the mind of the defendant to try to understand
Speaker 4: what he was thinking. And the only way to do
Speaker 4: that is to show circumstantially by witness testimony what he
Speaker 4: was told at the time and what he may have
Speaker 4: said in response to others telling him that the election
Speaker 4: was lost.
Speaker 1: Meadows was not among the six unindicted co conspirators described
Speaker 1: in the August indictment returned against Trump. Does that indicate
Speaker 1: that prosecutors at that point knew that he was going
Speaker 1: to cooperate or targeted him as a cooperator.
Speaker 4: There's long been speculation about whether Mark Meadows was actually
Speaker 4: cooperating with federal prosecutors, because, if you remember, the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice declined to prosecute him for refusing to comply
Speaker 4: with his subpoenas to turnover documents to the Congressional committee
Speaker 4: investigating the January sixth, twenty twenty one attack on the
Speaker 4: US Capitol. Others were prosecuted for their failure to cooperate,
Speaker 4: he was not, and so there has long been questions
Speaker 4: about whether mister Meadows was cooperating with federal prosecutors. And
Speaker 4: now that he has struck this immunity deal allegedly, that
Speaker 4: only adds further fear fuel to that speculation.
Speaker 1: Coming up next, we'll take a look at the barrage
Speaker 1: of arguments Trump is making to try to get the
Speaker 1: DC judge to dismiss the election interference case against him.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Stunny News
Speaker 1: this week that Mark Meadows, the final chief of staff
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump, has been given immunity from prosecution in
Speaker 1: the election interference case against the former president, and has
Speaker 1: testified before a DC grand jury hearing evidence in the case.
Speaker 1: According to Bloomberg's sources, in his testimony before the grand jury,
Speaker 1: Meadows said he repeatedly told Trump that claims of election
Speaker 1: fraud in the twenty twenty presidential election were baseless. Trump
Speaker 1: has denied that on truth Social saying, quote, Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: never told me that allegations of significant fraud about the
Speaker 1: rigged election we're baseless. The former president also addressed that
Speaker 1: during a break in the Manhattan trial where his business
Speaker 1: empire is at stake.
Speaker 2: But Mark Medo has always felt it was radio. His
Speaker 2: whole thing was rigged, and it was still element.
Speaker 1: I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz of
Speaker 1: McCarter and English. So, as you say, as part of
Speaker 1: the immunity deal, the evidence Meadows gives can't be used
Speaker 1: against him in a federal prosecution, But what about in
Speaker 1: the Georgia prosecution where he's a co defendant.
Speaker 4: That's an excellent point, because the immunity deal that he
Speaker 4: has from the federal prosecutors only protects him from federal
Speaker 4: prosecutors using those statement in a federal prosecution does not
Speaker 4: protect them from the state prosecution that is ongoing in Georgia,
Speaker 4: where he has charged as the defendant in a rico
Speaker 4: conspiracy to overturn the election. So it suggests to me
Speaker 4: that at some point he may also strike a deal
Speaker 4: to plead guilty in the case in Georgia, although that
Speaker 4: has not yet happened.
Speaker 1: If you were his lawyer, would you allow him to
Speaker 1: give evidence in a federal case, you know, when he
Speaker 1: has jeopardy in a state case.
Speaker 4: Meadows was not indicted in the federal case in Washington
Speaker 4: that's set to go to trial in March, but he
Speaker 4: was charged alongside former President Trump and other top allies
Speaker 4: in the Fulton County District Attorney case being Georgia. There
Speaker 4: he was charged on rico conspiracy charges for trying to
Speaker 4: overturn the twenty twenty election results. And the interesting development
Speaker 4: here is by striking this immunity deal and being forced
Speaker 4: to give testimony in the federal case, will those statements
Speaker 4: ultimately used against them in the case in Georgia. Under
Speaker 4: the law, there's nothing that ties the DA's handing Georgia
Speaker 4: to not use that information. Federal prosecutors can be willing
Speaker 4: to give up prosecution of mister Meadows in a federal
Speaker 4: case and agree not to use his statements in any
Speaker 4: federal prosecution, but they cannot bar the DA in Georgia
Speaker 4: from using those statements.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised that so many people are flipping on
Speaker 1: Donald Trump? We have Mark Meadows, we have four people
Speaker 1: in Georgia, including three attorneys, and CNN is reporting that
Speaker 1: the Georgia DA is talking to six other defendants.
Speaker 4: Well, again, just to be clear, we don't know whether
Speaker 4: Mark Meadows has actually become a cooperator with federal prosecutors.
Speaker 4: Maybe that he did, but we can't necessarily make that
Speaker 4: conclusion based upon the information we have. We just know
Speaker 4: that he's been given immunity and he's given testimony. We'll
Speaker 4: have to see where that case goes. But we do
Speaker 4: know that other individuals in the Georgia case have pled
Speaker 4: guilty and have agreed to cooperate, and that's always a
Speaker 4: bad sign for the defense. You always want a united
Speaker 4: front as a defendant. In this case, it was particularly
Speaker 4: useful for the Trump team to have a case go
Speaker 4: to trial before former President Trump went to trial in Georgia.
Speaker 4: That would have given him a preview of the state's case.
Speaker 4: It would have allowed them to hear the testimony from
Speaker 4: the state's witnesses, had to use that testimony later on
Speaker 4: in a case against former President Trump when all these
Speaker 4: defendants decide to plead guilty rather than go to trial.
Speaker 4: It's the prive defense of that advantage.
Speaker 1: Turning away from Mark Meadows, on Monday, Trump rolled out
Speaker 1: a new multi pronged attack in the federal election obstruction case,
Speaker 1: making arguments based on claims of presidential immunity, selective prosecution,
Speaker 1: the First Amendment, do process, and more. Judge Tanya Chutkin
Speaker 1: to throw out the case against him, which is schedule
Speaker 1: to begin on March fourth. Do any of the arguments
Speaker 1: seem like winners to you.
Speaker 4: We've seen former President Trump lawyers unleasha barrage of defenses
Speaker 4: in the federal case that's set to go to trial
Speaker 4: in March. They have argued a number of defenses. I
Speaker 4: don't think any of them are likely to succeed before
Speaker 4: this judge. One of them is presidential immunity. We've seen
Speaker 4: that argument made time and again. Essentially, what the Trump
Speaker 4: team is claiming is that former President Trump has immunity
Speaker 4: against charges for conduct that falls within what's called the
Speaker 4: outer perimeter of his presidential duties. The US Supreme Court
Speaker 4: adopted that standard a long time ago to protect current
Speaker 4: and former presidents against civil lawsuits, but it's an open
Speaker 4: question about how that is affected by criminal prosecutions. The
Speaker 4: Trump lawyers argue that a strong shield is necessary to
Speaker 4: empower presidents to make decisions in office without worrying about
Speaker 4: threats of future charges from political rivals. Prosecutors argue there's
Speaker 4: no support of position in the Constitution or in any
Speaker 4: Supreme Court president, and they say it should be harder,
Speaker 4: not easier, for current and former office holders to claim
Speaker 4: criminal immunity because those prosecutions are meant to protect the
Speaker 4: interests of the public, not private parties. So we're in
Speaker 4: uncharted ordered once again with this argument, because we've never
Speaker 4: had a circumstance where a president was attempting to claim
Speaker 4: immunity from a criminal prosecution.
Speaker 1: You know, Selective prosecution is another one of the arguments
Speaker 1: they're making, and he's used that before, for example in
Speaker 1: the New York Attorney General civil case against him. And
Speaker 1: listen to what he said outside the courtroom. This is a.
Speaker 5: Railroad, and it's all coming out of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 5: It's all set up by Biden and his thubs that
Speaker 5: he's surrounded with to try and stick out an election
Speaker 5: victory that he's not entitled to win because he's been
Speaker 5: the worst president in the history of our country.
Speaker 4: Well, I think we're seeing the selective prosecution argument coming
Speaker 4: out again and again because it serves two purposes. One,
Speaker 4: it is a legal argument that they can make, albeit
Speaker 4: one that's very difficult to prove. But I also think
Speaker 4: it plays to the larger attempt by the Trump defense
Speaker 4: team to sell this case and to sell the defense
Speaker 4: to the public at lawrence. The selective prosecution argument is
Speaker 4: essentially the argument that former President Trump is being treated unfairly,
Speaker 4: that he's being singled out by an allegedly corrupt Department
Speaker 4: of Justice, and that President Biden is behind all of
Speaker 4: these prosecutions in order to try to eliminate his chief
Speaker 4: rival in the upcoming election. But the reality is that
Speaker 4: these selective prosecutions from a legal standpoint, are exceedingly difficult
Speaker 4: to win. People make these arguments all the time. For example,
Speaker 4: if you're driving down the highway and you're in a
Speaker 4: group of ten cars that are all speeding. You get
Speaker 4: pulled over, you could turn around and say, why am
Speaker 4: I being pulled over when the nine other people were
Speaker 4: doing exactly what I was doing and none of them
Speaker 4: are being prosecuted for speeding. The reality is that in
Speaker 4: order for that defense have any merits, you have to
Speaker 4: show not only that you're singled out, but that you
Speaker 4: were singled out for some discriminatory or unconstitutional reason. Here
Speaker 4: that's going to be very difficult to prove. Essentially, the
Speaker 4: defense would have to prove that there's a political motive
Speaker 4: for all of these prosecutions, and that President Biden is
Speaker 4: somehow behind these prosecutions. That's an argument we've heard over
Speaker 4: and over again, but not one that is likely to
Speaker 4: be well received by this judge.
Speaker 1: Well, Special Counsel Jacksmith's office already filed its opposition to
Speaker 1: Trump's presidential immunity claim, and they're going to have two
Speaker 1: weeks to respond to this latest round of challenges. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much, Bob. That's former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a
Speaker 1: partner Maccarter and English Sam Bankman. Freed came to court
Speaker 1: today prepared to take the stand and defend his actions
Speaker 1: in the lead up to the collapse of his digital
Speaker 1: asset Empire. To the jury, it's always risky for a
Speaker 1: defend and to take the stand, but it may have
Speaker 1: been Bankman Freed's only play after taking a beating from
Speaker 1: former colleagues who described him as the mastermind of a
Speaker 1: year's long scheme to defraud FTX customers and investors. But
Speaker 1: instead of testifying to the jury, Bankman Freed spent three
Speaker 1: hours testifying to Judge Lewis Kaplan, trying to convince the
Speaker 1: judge to allow him to testify to the jury about
Speaker 1: the role FTX lawyer's play in the lead up to
Speaker 1: the collapse of the crypto exchange and the alleged mismanagement
Speaker 1: of customer funds. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Bob
Speaker 1: van Vores, who was in the courtroom today to see
Speaker 1: this testimony before the testimony. So, Bob, did Bankmin Freed
Speaker 1: give any testimony before the jury today?
Speaker 3: Not in front of the jury. That's the thing. He
Speaker 3: spent the entire afternoon on the stand, but he was
Speaker 3: previewing testimony that he wants to give relating to advice
Speaker 3: that he got from lawyers. So Judge Kaplan is listened
Speaker 3: to the testimony, he's going to rule in the morning.
Speaker 3: What the jury gets to hear they got sent home
Speaker 3: after lunch.
Speaker 1: This is something advice of counsel that the judge nixt
Speaker 1: stopped the defense from using at the beginning of the
Speaker 1: trial in the opening statements.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, that's the thing. The judge said that they
Speaker 3: couldn't bring it up in the opening statement, but that
Speaker 3: you know, when it came to the trial, when it
Speaker 3: came to actual questions, he'd rule on a case by
Speaker 3: case basis. So he told the parties that, you know,
Speaker 3: rather than rule on objections after objections when they come up,
Speaker 3: he would listen to banquin free testimony and let them
Speaker 3: know what was okay and what was not okay, not
Speaker 3: basically what was addressed rehearsal for his testimony, So tell
Speaker 3: us what.
Speaker 1: He testified to some of the areas he testified to.
Speaker 3: So he got up and was asked on direct basically
Speaker 3: about particular transactions that were problematic that were part of
Speaker 3: the charges of the case. And you know, did lawyers
Speaker 3: advise him on that these included There was testimony early
Speaker 3: in the trial about how he told people to put
Speaker 3: their communications on auditorily so that communications would delete after
Speaker 3: a week. His side was trying to show that that
Speaker 3: wasn't sinister at all, but that it was part of
Speaker 3: a document retention policy and that he was advised by
Speaker 3: lawyers and that lawyers were aware of them. Basically, the
Speaker 3: point that defense is trying to get across is that
Speaker 3: he did things in the plain sight of lawyers, and
Speaker 3: so therefore he didn't have any intent to defraud people.
Speaker 1: So it's not really an advice of counsel defense so
Speaker 1: much as it's a sort.
Speaker 3: Of a take on that, Yeah, that's exactly right. They're
Speaker 3: not putting a formal advice of counsel defense where he
Speaker 3: would say, look, I ran this by my lawyer. My
Speaker 3: lawyer told me to do this. Did it. Therefore, even
Speaker 3: if it, you know, was against the law, you can't
Speaker 3: prosecute you for that. It's less formal than that. It's
Speaker 3: just that, you know, he's saying that I didn't have
Speaker 3: criminal intent here because you know, obviously I was doing
Speaker 3: this in fronal lawyers. I thought it was okay, and
Speaker 3: that shows that I thought it was okay.
Speaker 1: So Judge Caplan has it seems like with every major
Speaker 1: motion question that's come up, Judge Caplan has ruled against
Speaker 1: bank and freed. Today. He asked his lawyer about a
Speaker 1: hypothetical situation where someone comes across a large sum of money,
Speaker 1: uses a lawyer to buy an apartment on billionaire's row,
Speaker 1: and is later charged with money laundering. How is that
Speaker 1: different from what you're trying to do in principle? It
Speaker 1: sounds like he doubts this as well.
Speaker 3: It does sound like he's skeptical, and we're going to
Speaker 3: find out tomorrow morning. You know, how much of if
Speaker 3: any of this he's going to allow in. The prosecution
Speaker 3: is trying to argue that, you know, this is basically
Speaker 3: evidence that's going to confuse the jury, and that's not
Speaker 3: going to basically elucidate the points that the defense is
Speaker 3: trying to make, or at least legitimate point, and they
Speaker 3: want the judge to keep it out.
Speaker 1: The judge also said at the beginning that this was
Speaker 1: going to confuse the jury. They think the jury can
Speaker 1: handle all these different financial transactions, but they can handle
Speaker 1: adviceive counsel. It seems to me the confusion argument is
Speaker 1: just so thin.
Speaker 3: That's a really good point, you know, I think you're
Speaker 3: right about that. Has been a lot of testimony about
Speaker 3: crypto wallets and money moving around virtually and accounting and
Speaker 3: all that sort of stuff. Yeah, I think you're right
Speaker 3: that they can make sense of that kind of testimony.
Speaker 3: But we'll see, we'll see what the judge has to
Speaker 3: say about that.
Speaker 1: What was his demeanor like on the stand?
Speaker 3: He was very even on direct he was very concise,
Speaker 3: to the point in giving his testimony under question from
Speaker 3: his own lawyer. On cross examination by Danielle Festinini, his
Speaker 3: distiguous attorney, he was very might even call him a vasis.
Speaker 3: He was polite, but quibbling with the questions, did a
Speaker 3: lot of digressions, sort of dodging occasionally, even apologized in
Speaker 3: advance if he was not going to be answering the
Speaker 3: question she asked. It was not a very good performance
Speaker 3: on cross and if his cross examination in front of
Speaker 3: the jury is the thing he's going to have some difficulty.
Speaker 1: This is sort of like a trial run for him,
Speaker 1: then they can try to correct.
Speaker 3: That's why in the press room we're calling it the
Speaker 3: dress rehearsal testimony, because the jury, you know, they're all
Speaker 3: homes and in front of the judge. But you know,
Speaker 3: sometimes if the dress rehearsal doesn't go well. The premiere
Speaker 3: is a smash ht so we'll we'll have to see.
Speaker 3: But if it's a repeat performance tomorrow, I don't think
Speaker 3: it's doing very good for Sampaker Freed.
Speaker 1: What other witnesses is the defense intending to call?
Speaker 3: The defense is done with everybody except for sampakm and Free.
Speaker 3: They had a couple of brief witnesses this morning. They
Speaker 3: had an expert witness to talk about sort of forensic
Speaker 3: witness to talk about the transfers between Alameda and FTX.
Speaker 3: Very brief defense case other than to put on dam
Speaker 3: Beck and Freed. Who's likely to go all day tomorrow,
Speaker 3: maybe into Monday.
Speaker 1: Let's go back and look at the reason why he
Speaker 1: may be testifying is because the evidence that the prosecution
Speaker 1: presented against him in these weeks has been pretty compelling.
Speaker 1: Describe some of the main witnesses testimony.
Speaker 3: Well, Houston faced with testimony from a number of people
Speaker 3: that he was once close to, that he formerly worked with,
Speaker 3: including three insiders, three people very close to them in
Speaker 3: the Inner circle who have pled guilty and are testifying
Speaker 3: cooperating with the government. These include Caroline Ellison, his former
Speaker 3: girlfriend who he installed as the CEO about me to Research,
Speaker 3: which is the affiliated hedge fund with the SDX crypto extreme.
Speaker 3: She gave very effective testimony. Also Gary Wong, his FTX
Speaker 3: co founder, and Nishad Singh, who is the head of
Speaker 3: engineering for FTX. All three of them gave very clear testimony.
Speaker 3: In addition, put on Ken's son, the former general counsel,
Speaker 3: the top in house lawyer at FTC, who testified that
Speaker 3: Backmin Freed did not let him know about the huge
Speaker 3: amount of borrowing from al Amida that al Amita took
Speaker 3: from customer funds at FTX.
Speaker 1: Did Bankmin Freed come off as unlikable through the testimony
Speaker 1: about his lifestyle and how he wanted to project this
Speaker 1: image and hanging around with celebrities.
Speaker 3: There was certainly a decent amount of that sort of
Speaker 3: testimony about him, you know, sort of dominating other people,
Speaker 3: presenting an image to the public that he wasn't actually
Speaker 3: you know, manifesting in his personal life that you know,
Speaker 3: he was calculating. There was that sort of testimony during
Speaker 3: the trial, and you would think that's part of the
Speaker 3: reason that he wants to testify his counter some of that,
Speaker 3: so you know, we'll have to see how effective he
Speaker 3: is at that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, his whole defense is writing on him. And they
Speaker 1: say that when a defendant takes the stand, it becomes
Speaker 1: all about his credibility for the jury. So we'll see
Speaker 1: what happens tomorrow. I understand this was like a hot
Speaker 1: ticket today. There were people waiting in line to get
Speaker 1: into the courtroom.
Speaker 3: That's right. There were dozens of people. When I came
Speaker 3: in this morning a little bit before nine, dozens of
Speaker 3: people lined up for just twenty one press steachs in
Speaker 3: the courtroom today. I talked to one of the reporters
Speaker 3: who was number two in line. He had showed up
Speaker 3: at two forty in the morning to line up for
Speaker 3: that seat.
Speaker 1: And there were three overflow rooms for those who couldn't
Speaker 1: get into the courtroom. Have there been a lot of
Speaker 1: crypto enthusiasts at the trial?
Speaker 3: There absolutely has been a lot of crypto press, a
Speaker 3: lot of just people who follow currency. This is a
Speaker 3: very very interesting trial for people in that world. It's
Speaker 3: obviously an event that was a huge watershed in the
Speaker 3: crypto world, and people want to see these personalities who
Speaker 3: they came to know. They want to see them in
Speaker 3: person telling their stories.
Speaker 1: And has the jury been attentive through these weeks of testimony.
Speaker 3: The jury has been in tentive. There's certainly with SBF
Speaker 3: on the stand, you can expect them to be glued
Speaker 3: to every word. They were very attentive for Carolyne Ellison's
Speaker 3: testimony and things and lungs as well. A little less
Speaker 3: so with some of the more technical testimony. But yeah,
Speaker 3: they're going to be riveted tomorrow if.
Speaker 1: The judge doesn't allow this advice of council defense or
Speaker 1: you know, this version of an advisive council defense. What
Speaker 1: does that leave the defense to argue?
Speaker 3: We'll have to see what they're going to question him on,
Speaker 3: because whatever they question him on, he can get hostile
Speaker 3: questioning on across examination. So you know, the last thing
Speaker 3: the defense wants to do is prove the government's case
Speaker 3: for that. So they're going to have to think very
Speaker 3: strategically about what they want Sambaquins Creed to testify on.
Speaker 3: And you know, where he's vulnerable and where he's vulnerable.
Speaker 1: We'll find out tomorrow morning what he's allowed to testify to.
Speaker 1: It will be an exciting day tomorrow in the court,
Speaker 1: I think, Bob, thanks so much that's Bloomberg Legal reporter
Speaker 1: Bob van Vories, and that's it for this edition of
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to
Speaker 1: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
Speaker 1: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg