WEBVTT - Manhattan DA's Bold Lawsuit

0:00:03.000 --> 0:00:08.200
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.880 --> 0:00:12.640
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump was arraigned on a New York Supreme Court

0:00:12.680 --> 0:00:17.079
<v Speaker 1>indictment for turn by a Manhattan grand jury on thirty

0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:21.720
<v Speaker 1>four felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:24.920
<v Speaker 2>With a typical indictment, the next moves would be by

0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:28.440
<v Speaker 2>the district attorney and the defendant. But this was anything

0:00:28.520 --> 0:00:32.640
<v Speaker 2>but typical, and so Republican Representative Jim Jordan and the

0:00:32.680 --> 0:00:37.879
<v Speaker 2>House Judiciary Committee started their own investigation into the investigation

0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:41.839
<v Speaker 2>and subpoenaed Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan

0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:46.160
<v Speaker 2>DA's office. In a bold move, DA Alvin Bragg sued

0:00:46.240 --> 0:00:49.560
<v Speaker 2>Jordan and his committee for interfering in his criminal case

0:00:49.600 --> 0:00:53.120
<v Speaker 2>against former President Donald Trump, calling it a brazen and

0:00:53.320 --> 0:00:58.200
<v Speaker 2>unconstitutional attack on a local prosecution. But Jordan told Fox

0:00:58.280 --> 0:01:01.360
<v Speaker 2>News that it was Bragg who interfering.

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 3>And now we have Alvin Bragg interfering and obstructing our

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:09.319
<v Speaker 3>investigation into election interference. Election interference, and the most important

0:01:09.360 --> 0:01:11.600
<v Speaker 3>election we have, which is the election of who's going

0:01:11.640 --> 0:01:13.120
<v Speaker 3>to be President of the United States.

0:01:13.280 --> 0:01:16.400
<v Speaker 2>Joining me is Victoria Norris a professor at Georgetown Law

0:01:16.400 --> 0:01:19.760
<v Speaker 2>School and an expert on Congress and separation of powers.

0:01:20.080 --> 0:01:24.080
<v Speaker 2>Bragg says that Jordan lacks the authority under the Constitution

0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:26.679
<v Speaker 2>to oversee state criminal matters.

0:01:26.959 --> 0:01:30.759
<v Speaker 4>During the conduct of a criminal investigation, no one really

0:01:31.160 --> 0:01:34.160
<v Speaker 4>has the power to intervene in that unless you appeal

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:37.600
<v Speaker 4>through that system. So Trump can appeal the validity of

0:01:37.640 --> 0:01:39.480
<v Speaker 4>the indictment. He has to take it up to the

0:01:39.520 --> 0:01:42.360
<v Speaker 4>New York courts, right, he can't go to Congress, which

0:01:42.400 --> 0:01:46.039
<v Speaker 4>is a political branch, because Congress can't try cases. They

0:01:46.040 --> 0:01:49.080
<v Speaker 4>can investigate for the purpose of legislating, and they have

0:01:49.280 --> 0:01:52.440
<v Speaker 4>very broad power. But Trump's own case, there's just been

0:01:52.560 --> 0:01:55.800
<v Speaker 4>a case on this, Mazars versus Trump. The Supreme Court

0:01:55.960 --> 0:02:00.000
<v Speaker 4>said that Congress cannot investigate for the purposes of proscution,

0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:03.040
<v Speaker 4>shooting or embarrassing someone or something like that, because they

0:02:03.080 --> 0:02:05.560
<v Speaker 4>don't have that power. And this came up during McCarthy.

0:02:05.600 --> 0:02:08.360
<v Speaker 4>The first case is on this when Senator McCarthy was

0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:12.040
<v Speaker 4>using the congressional process to essentially be saying people as

0:02:12.040 --> 0:02:14.679
<v Speaker 4>being members of the Communist Party, and the court set

0:02:14.680 --> 0:02:16.959
<v Speaker 4>some limits at that point. But basically there are a

0:02:17.000 --> 0:02:19.720
<v Speaker 4>couple of reasons if you read the fifty page complaint,

0:02:19.880 --> 0:02:22.400
<v Speaker 4>by the way, it's full of threats against South and

0:02:22.480 --> 0:02:25.359
<v Speaker 4>Bragg on social media and elsewhere, and it's really kind

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:27.920
<v Speaker 4>of disturbing. And you know that's not how our justice

0:02:27.919 --> 0:02:30.959
<v Speaker 4>system is supposed to work, right. We don't use violent

0:02:31.160 --> 0:02:34.360
<v Speaker 4>we use the rules well. And the lawsuit is just

0:02:34.400 --> 0:02:37.080
<v Speaker 4>to try to stop the subpoena of mister Pomerant. Mister

0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:40.359
<v Speaker 4>Pomarants have worked for him, Mister palmerinence is known. This

0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:43.880
<v Speaker 4>is just an aside as a tremendously skilled prosecutor in

0:02:43.960 --> 0:02:45.880
<v Speaker 4>New York. He was known that even when I, you know,

0:02:45.919 --> 0:02:48.320
<v Speaker 4>twenty five years ago, was a clerk in the Southern

0:02:48.320 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 4>District of New York. And so the food is really

0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:53.760
<v Speaker 4>just to stop the subpoena. Now Trump did the same thing.

0:02:53.919 --> 0:02:56.480
<v Speaker 4>So he didn't want to be subpoenaed by Congress, and

0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:59.560
<v Speaker 4>so he sued. And what happened was that was litigated

0:02:59.560 --> 0:03:01.640
<v Speaker 4>in decent run up to the DC Circuit, run up

0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:03.560
<v Speaker 4>to the Supreme Court, and they decided it in Mazar

0:03:03.919 --> 0:03:06.120
<v Speaker 4>and they said that the court had not applied the

0:03:06.120 --> 0:03:09.440
<v Speaker 4>proper standard because when it's a president, he gets more leeway,

0:03:09.560 --> 0:03:11.480
<v Speaker 4>all right. They've never held that before because no one

0:03:11.520 --> 0:03:14.920
<v Speaker 4>had ever done that before. Now Bragg is using that

0:03:14.960 --> 0:03:18.280
<v Speaker 4>same case to say, look, Congress, you're viling those rules.

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:21.799
<v Speaker 4>You don't have a proper legislative purpose. And Jordan is

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:24.520
<v Speaker 4>saying he does have a proper legislative purpose. But this

0:03:24.639 --> 0:03:28.080
<v Speaker 4>suit will now be about whether the subpoena goes forward

0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:31.600
<v Speaker 4>and is enforced. All that Bragg is asking is for

0:03:31.639 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 4>the subpoena to be stayed during the pendency of his

0:03:35.800 --> 0:03:39.920
<v Speaker 4>criminal prosecution of Trump. So have you ever.

0:03:39.720 --> 0:03:43.360
<v Speaker 2>Heard of an instance before where a congressman tried to

0:03:43.440 --> 0:03:47.320
<v Speaker 2>interfere in a local criminal case.

0:03:48.240 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 4>I don't know of any. I think they'd raised their argument.

0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:52.760
<v Speaker 4>So let's let me give a recent example of this.

0:03:52.920 --> 0:03:55.680
<v Speaker 4>So they're all lawyers, right, I mean, these members are lawyers.

0:03:55.720 --> 0:03:57.160
<v Speaker 4>And one of the things you first know is that

0:03:57.200 --> 0:03:59.720
<v Speaker 4>a defendant gets the most right but any person in

0:03:59.760 --> 0:04:01.800
<v Speaker 4>court because they're about to be sent to jail. And

0:04:01.840 --> 0:04:04.400
<v Speaker 4>the first thing you can't have it be politicized. If

0:04:04.400 --> 0:04:07.280
<v Speaker 4>you politicize the criminal trial, you end up having a

0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:09.160
<v Speaker 4>banana republic. So this is one of these things that

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:12.320
<v Speaker 4>is just drummed into you when you learn the criminal law.

0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:16.040
<v Speaker 4>In criminal procedure, which is the constitutional part of criminal law. Recently,

0:04:16.080 --> 0:04:19.520
<v Speaker 4>there was talk of the Senator from South Carolina having

0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:22.719
<v Speaker 4>made a phone call regarding the election to an election

0:04:22.760 --> 0:04:26.039
<v Speaker 4>official in Georgia. And there is a case proceeding about

0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:30.599
<v Speaker 4>claims supposedly asking officials in Georgia to change the vote

0:04:30.600 --> 0:04:34.680
<v Speaker 4>counts for the presidential election, and the Senator didn't, you know,

0:04:35.640 --> 0:04:38.520
<v Speaker 4>there was no investigation. Even when he was chair of

0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:42.360
<v Speaker 4>the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham didn't hold an investigation.

0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:45.240
<v Speaker 4>He knows he can't do that. He did try to

0:04:45.240 --> 0:04:48.440
<v Speaker 4>stop his own testimony by arguing it was privileged. He

0:04:48.520 --> 0:04:51.200
<v Speaker 4>made the arguments in the case. You see that this

0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:53.560
<v Speaker 4>is like collateral to the case. It's from a whole

0:04:53.600 --> 0:04:55.440
<v Speaker 4>other body that's not supposed to intervene.

0:04:56.200 --> 0:04:59.640
<v Speaker 2>Does it make any difference that Pomerant is no longer

0:04:59.680 --> 0:05:02.840
<v Speaker 2>in Bragg's office and had nothing to do as far

0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:05.159
<v Speaker 2>as we know with this with the current indictment.

0:05:06.080 --> 0:05:09.000
<v Speaker 4>No, for a couple reasons. He's written a book about

0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:11.359
<v Speaker 4>his participation. I have not read the book. We know

0:05:11.440 --> 0:05:14.080
<v Speaker 4>he participated in the thought processes for things that were

0:05:14.080 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 4>presented to the grand jury and grand juries. Your secret

0:05:16.880 --> 0:05:19.680
<v Speaker 4>they cannot ask him anything about that on the record, one,

0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:23.159
<v Speaker 4>because that's just the rule. Two, this comes down to

0:05:23.200 --> 0:05:26.800
<v Speaker 4>actually Donald Trump's due process right Oddly, this is why

0:05:26.800 --> 0:05:29.000
<v Speaker 4>you don't want to open up the criminal prosecution to

0:05:29.080 --> 0:05:32.240
<v Speaker 4>some third party asking about what's going on inside it.

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:34.880
<v Speaker 4>That you can appeal within that case. But you don't

0:05:34.920 --> 0:05:39.000
<v Speaker 4>want like the Attorney General of Kansas or the legislature

0:05:39.040 --> 0:05:42.560
<v Speaker 4>of Alabama to intervene in any pending case during the

0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:45.560
<v Speaker 4>pendency of the case, because it will interfere with the

0:05:45.640 --> 0:05:49.279
<v Speaker 4>defendant's due process rights, because it will try the case

0:05:49.320 --> 0:05:51.960
<v Speaker 4>in another court, or in the press, or in a

0:05:52.000 --> 0:05:54.800
<v Speaker 4>political body like the Congress. And so it's one of

0:05:54.839 --> 0:05:57.159
<v Speaker 4>these things that's so basic to a lawyer. It's like,

0:05:57.320 --> 0:05:59.320
<v Speaker 4>you've got to be kidding me. You know, this is

0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:02.880
<v Speaker 4>because of political party wants to use the indictment for

0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:06.920
<v Speaker 4>its own political advantage, including raising money, and they've already

0:06:06.920 --> 0:06:10.440
<v Speaker 4>done that. But it's also because I think Bragg wants

0:06:10.480 --> 0:06:13.320
<v Speaker 4>people to know it's a fifty page You know, you

0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:16.280
<v Speaker 4>could write a paragraph complaint saying I want to enjoin

0:06:16.480 --> 0:06:19.640
<v Speaker 4>the subpoena because Congress doesn't have a proper purpose end

0:06:19.640 --> 0:06:24.080
<v Speaker 4>of case. But he added incredible detail in the complaint,

0:06:24.279 --> 0:06:27.120
<v Speaker 4>and there are pictures on social media that appear to

0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:31.279
<v Speaker 4>threaten mister Bragg with a baseball bat by the former president.

0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:35.680
<v Speaker 4>There are things like slurs, racial slurs that have been used,

0:06:36.040 --> 0:06:39.120
<v Speaker 4>and a lot of violent threats against the DA's office

0:06:39.160 --> 0:06:41.839
<v Speaker 4>in New York. So I think he was wise to

0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:43.640
<v Speaker 4>do this for a number of reasons, which is, this

0:06:43.680 --> 0:06:46.040
<v Speaker 4>is a threat to the justice system and the orderly

0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:50.120
<v Speaker 4>progress of justice. Ultimately, because it's the defendant's due process right,

0:06:50.360 --> 0:06:53.080
<v Speaker 4>I think that no court's going to say you can

0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:57.159
<v Speaker 4>have this testimony now during the pendency of the case.

0:06:57.160 --> 0:07:00.200
<v Speaker 4>Because there's an easy remedy for Jim Jordan. He can

0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:03.960
<v Speaker 4>get this Promeranci's testimony after the case is done.

0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:08.120
<v Speaker 2>Jordan tweeted, first they indict a president for no crime,

0:07:08.600 --> 0:07:11.680
<v Speaker 2>then they sue a block congressional oversight. When we ask

0:07:11.840 --> 0:07:14.920
<v Speaker 2>questions about the federal funds, they say they use to

0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:18.560
<v Speaker 2>do it, and apparently the District Attorney's office did respond

0:07:18.600 --> 0:07:22.520
<v Speaker 2>to them about where they used the five thousand dollars

0:07:22.520 --> 0:07:26.440
<v Speaker 2>in federal funds in the court battle with Trump over

0:07:26.520 --> 0:07:30.080
<v Speaker 2>access to his tax returns. So is that as far

0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:34.920
<v Speaker 2>as Jordan can go to talk about federal funds being used.

0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:37.520
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, I mean, as far as I know, I don't

0:07:37.560 --> 0:07:40.480
<v Speaker 4>know any more facts than what you just repeeded. Every

0:07:40.600 --> 0:07:44.000
<v Speaker 4>state gets money from the federal government for police and

0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:46.560
<v Speaker 4>prosecutors to aid in that effort, because of course criminals

0:07:46.600 --> 0:07:49.000
<v Speaker 4>cross state line, all right, So there are backstop The

0:07:49.000 --> 0:07:51.119
<v Speaker 4>state spends most of the money, you know, the vast

0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:53.080
<v Speaker 4>majority of the money is the taxes you pay for

0:07:53.160 --> 0:07:55.840
<v Speaker 4>your state. That's the first place they get criminal justice.

0:07:55.920 --> 0:08:00.040
<v Speaker 4>But there is backstop money from the federal government, and

0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:03.720
<v Speaker 4>that is the claimed the legislative purpose of the investigation.

0:08:03.800 --> 0:08:07.200
<v Speaker 4>You have to have a valid legislative purpose after this

0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:11.000
<v Speaker 4>Trump versus Massar's case. And if the purpose is simply

0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:15.480
<v Speaker 4>to humiliate or to intimidate, it can't go forward. If

0:08:15.520 --> 0:08:18.080
<v Speaker 4>the purpose is to prosecute, it can't go forward. No

0:08:18.080 --> 0:08:20.880
<v Speaker 4>one thinks Congress can prosecute people. No one. The way

0:08:20.920 --> 0:08:23.080
<v Speaker 4>the Constitution says this is it says you can't have

0:08:23.120 --> 0:08:24.680
<v Speaker 4>a bill of a changer. No one knows what that

0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:28.920
<v Speaker 4>means ancient language, but in Mary Old England, the parliament

0:08:29.000 --> 0:08:31.680
<v Speaker 4>used to send people to the tower because King Henry

0:08:31.720 --> 0:08:34.679
<v Speaker 4>the fifth would say, go to the tower and We

0:08:34.800 --> 0:08:37.840
<v Speaker 4>learned when we had our revolutions that we didn't really

0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:43.920
<v Speaker 4>want parliaments or legislatures to criminalize people because there you

0:08:43.960 --> 0:08:46.960
<v Speaker 4>would always democracy couldn't survive. This is a much bigger

0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:50.760
<v Speaker 4>principle because if the legislature can put people in jail,

0:08:51.400 --> 0:08:54.600
<v Speaker 4>then they put their political enemies in jail. This is

0:08:54.640 --> 0:08:58.800
<v Speaker 4>what happens in Banana Republic. Okay. Now the Trump people

0:08:58.800 --> 0:09:01.240
<v Speaker 4>are saying, well, that's what happening in this case, but

0:09:01.280 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 4>there's no evidence that that's true. I mean, we don't know.

0:09:04.960 --> 0:09:08.400
<v Speaker 4>Maybe they'll they'll find evidence, but let's see what happens

0:09:08.400 --> 0:09:12.240
<v Speaker 4>when he appeals inside the New York court. That's his

0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:16.880
<v Speaker 4>proper avenue of Redress. Congress shouldn't be involved in this,

0:09:17.000 --> 0:09:19.280
<v Speaker 4>in my view, and I don't think judges will think

0:09:19.320 --> 0:09:20.520
<v Speaker 4>that they should be involved either.

0:09:21.000 --> 0:09:24.960
<v Speaker 2>So they went before a judge who's a Trump appoint d,

0:09:25.520 --> 0:09:29.200
<v Speaker 2>and she denied Bragg's request for a temporary restraining order

0:09:29.320 --> 0:09:32.960
<v Speaker 2>prohibiting enforcement of a subpoena to palmerants instead of hearing

0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:36.600
<v Speaker 2>for April nineteen. Do you think her refusal of the

0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:40.199
<v Speaker 2>temporary restraining order forecast what she's going to do?

0:09:40.840 --> 0:09:43.240
<v Speaker 4>No, no judge would want to rule on something like

0:09:43.280 --> 0:09:45.880
<v Speaker 4>that very quickly. Just involves a former occupant of the

0:09:45.880 --> 0:09:48.439
<v Speaker 4>White House. No judge, whether they're federal court or a

0:09:48.440 --> 0:09:52.120
<v Speaker 4>state court or whatever, wants to be hurried and determining

0:09:52.360 --> 0:09:55.000
<v Speaker 4>the precise rules here because they also know that the

0:09:55.040 --> 0:09:58.280
<v Speaker 4>Congress will push back, there'll be appeals, et cetera. Judges

0:09:58.280 --> 0:10:00.560
<v Speaker 4>don't like to be embarrassed they get the law wrong.

0:10:00.679 --> 0:10:02.920
<v Speaker 4>Remember that with a woman in Florida who got everything

0:10:02.920 --> 0:10:06.240
<v Speaker 4>all wrong with aspective documents in tomor A Lago. Judges

0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:08.959
<v Speaker 4>really don't like them because they get embarrassed and pressed

0:10:09.000 --> 0:10:11.000
<v Speaker 4>from then they're embarrassed and from their colleagues and its

0:10:11.080 --> 0:10:13.240
<v Speaker 4>elite opinion that they care about. So I don't think

0:10:13.280 --> 0:10:15.600
<v Speaker 4>it says much of anything. You wouldn't decide this case

0:10:15.640 --> 0:10:19.960
<v Speaker 4>instantaneously because it's unusual people don't do this. As I said,

0:10:20.280 --> 0:10:23.600
<v Speaker 4>the Alabama legislature is not going to intervene in Alabama

0:10:23.679 --> 0:10:26.920
<v Speaker 4>prosecutions and not going to intervene in another jurisdiction. You know,

0:10:27.080 --> 0:10:29.559
<v Speaker 4>miss is the beast prosecutions. I mean, this is a

0:10:29.640 --> 0:10:32.560
<v Speaker 4>core power of a state, and most of criminal law

0:10:32.679 --> 0:10:35.280
<v Speaker 4>resides in the state. The number of people prosecuted by

0:10:35.360 --> 0:10:37.439
<v Speaker 4>it says it's very minor compared to the number of

0:10:37.480 --> 0:10:40.040
<v Speaker 4>people prosecuted by the States, and so this is one

0:10:40.080 --> 0:10:42.880
<v Speaker 4>of the core principles. And this court, which is a

0:10:42.920 --> 0:10:46.079
<v Speaker 4>conservative court, believes this. They don't think you should be

0:10:46.080 --> 0:10:49.840
<v Speaker 4>able to interfere in state criminal law at a general level.

0:10:50.280 --> 0:10:52.960
<v Speaker 4>And most judges would say, of course, you can't interfere

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:57.120
<v Speaker 4>in this particular prosecution if you are not the defendant.

0:10:57.280 --> 0:10:59.200
<v Speaker 4>If Trump has arguments to make, you can make them

0:10:59.200 --> 0:11:01.600
<v Speaker 4>all in the case. Right, He doesn't need Jim Jordan,

0:11:01.800 --> 0:11:04.720
<v Speaker 4>a politician, to do it for him. Due process requires

0:11:04.760 --> 0:11:07.280
<v Speaker 4>Trump to make those arguments in his case, and it

0:11:07.360 --> 0:11:09.320
<v Speaker 4>might be thrown off for all we know. We don't

0:11:09.360 --> 0:11:11.959
<v Speaker 4>know quite what the argument is on behalf of Bragg

0:11:12.000 --> 0:11:15.079
<v Speaker 4>because there's a missing piece. So that will be litigated

0:11:15.320 --> 0:11:17.680
<v Speaker 4>in the New York courts as to whether this indictment

0:11:17.760 --> 0:11:20.200
<v Speaker 4>is good on the law. So if you get a

0:11:20.240 --> 0:11:23.440
<v Speaker 4>political person to start making these judgments, it will bias

0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:25.520
<v Speaker 4>that decision one way or another.

0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:29.720
<v Speaker 2>The Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are holding a

0:11:29.760 --> 0:11:33.600
<v Speaker 2>field hearing in Manhattan to examine how Bragg's quote pro

0:11:33.720 --> 0:11:36.920
<v Speaker 2>crime anti victim policies have led to an increase in

0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:40.520
<v Speaker 2>violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents.

0:11:40.840 --> 0:11:42.120
<v Speaker 2>Is that within their purview.

0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:45.400
<v Speaker 4>The House Judiciary Committee can have a field hearing anywhere,

0:11:45.640 --> 0:11:47.719
<v Speaker 4>so can the Senate Judiciary Committee. They want to have

0:11:47.760 --> 0:11:51.120
<v Speaker 4>a field hearing, and they can ask about local crime

0:11:51.240 --> 0:11:53.680
<v Speaker 4>that they want. Now, it so happens that their data

0:11:53.760 --> 0:11:56.079
<v Speaker 4>is wrong. According to Alvin Bragg, I know I has

0:11:56.080 --> 0:11:59.360
<v Speaker 4>gone down. Bragg put that in his document as well,

0:12:00.280 --> 0:12:02.160
<v Speaker 4>is that they should probably go to Miami if they're

0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:03.280
<v Speaker 4>looking for high crime rates.

0:12:03.440 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 2>For Columbus. A Brag spokesman said that murder rates in

0:12:07.559 --> 0:12:10.840
<v Speaker 2>New York City are three times lower than the murder

0:12:10.920 --> 0:12:15.280
<v Speaker 2>rate in Columbus, Ohio. Jordan of course, being from Ohio.

0:12:15.760 --> 0:12:19.000
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, so you know, they can have a hearing, and

0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:22.719
<v Speaker 4>hearings are often about legislation, and sometimes the legislation is controversial,

0:12:22.760 --> 0:12:25.240
<v Speaker 4>and crime is always an issue that he gets people

0:12:25.360 --> 0:12:28.880
<v Speaker 4>very worked up. Now. I have worked on various crime issues,

0:12:29.120 --> 0:12:32.480
<v Speaker 4>and I am here to tell you that people manipulate

0:12:32.520 --> 0:12:35.880
<v Speaker 4>the data. And you know, people have to judge whether

0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:39.000
<v Speaker 4>that hearing's really about New York or is it about

0:12:39.040 --> 0:12:42.600
<v Speaker 4>Alvin Bragg. And they have the power to go to

0:12:42.640 --> 0:12:45.559
<v Speaker 4>any city. Say, you know, San Francisco apportantly has a

0:12:45.559 --> 0:12:48.920
<v Speaker 4>homeless problem. Okay, San Francisco, let's invest in it. They

0:12:48.960 --> 0:12:52.280
<v Speaker 4>can do that because legitimately they could legislate on homelessness.

0:12:52.400 --> 0:12:55.280
<v Speaker 4>They legislate on crime all the time, in the sense

0:12:55.320 --> 0:12:59.120
<v Speaker 4>of new federal crimes or filling in gaps or the

0:12:59.120 --> 0:13:02.480
<v Speaker 4>way we count crimes is very difficult to complex. You

0:13:02.520 --> 0:13:05.840
<v Speaker 4>know that is actually a proper hearing. I would defend

0:13:05.880 --> 0:13:07.600
<v Speaker 4>them from that, even though I would think, you know,

0:13:07.679 --> 0:13:09.840
<v Speaker 4>in my mind, I bet the pretext here is to

0:13:09.840 --> 0:13:11.400
<v Speaker 4>say something bad about Alvin Brigg.

0:13:11.480 --> 0:13:13.440
<v Speaker 2>I don't think they're making too much of a pretext

0:13:13.440 --> 0:13:16.240
<v Speaker 2>of it. They say it in their announcement of the hearing,

0:13:16.760 --> 0:13:19.439
<v Speaker 2>and Jordan did go to law school. They know.

0:13:19.679 --> 0:13:22.360
<v Speaker 4>See. That's what makes it worse for me, because they

0:13:22.360 --> 0:13:25.240
<v Speaker 4>do know. Because this is not rocket science.

0:13:25.360 --> 0:13:29.439
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much, Victoria. That's Professor Victoria Nors of Georgetown

0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:34.800
<v Speaker 2>Law School. Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination hearings were among

0:13:34.840 --> 0:13:39.840
<v Speaker 2>the most controversial, as he denied accusations of sexually harassing

0:13:39.880 --> 0:13:40.679
<v Speaker 2>Anita Hill.

0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:45.280
<v Speaker 1>I have been racking my brains and eating my insides

0:13:45.320 --> 0:13:49.199
<v Speaker 1>out trying to think of what I could have said

0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:52.760
<v Speaker 1>or done to Anita Hill to lead her to allege

0:13:53.640 --> 0:13:56.240
<v Speaker 1>that I was interested in her in more than a

0:13:56.280 --> 0:13:57.120
<v Speaker 1>professional way.

0:13:57.760 --> 0:14:00.760
<v Speaker 2>More than thirty years later, his ethics came to question

0:14:00.880 --> 0:14:04.000
<v Speaker 2>again when he declined to recuse himself from a case

0:14:04.320 --> 0:14:08.559
<v Speaker 2>involving the release of White House records concerning January sixth,

0:14:09.000 --> 0:14:11.760
<v Speaker 2>even after it was learned that his wife, right wing

0:14:11.840 --> 0:14:16.040
<v Speaker 2>activist Ginny Thomas, lobbied former President Donald Trump's chief of

0:14:16.120 --> 0:14:19.040
<v Speaker 2>staff to work to overturn the results of the twenty

0:14:19.120 --> 0:14:22.400
<v Speaker 2>twenty election. And now Thomas is again in the spotlight

0:14:22.800 --> 0:14:26.360
<v Speaker 2>after a pro public A report which detailed the Thomas's

0:14:26.520 --> 0:14:30.720
<v Speaker 2>lavish trips around the world, including private yachts and jets

0:14:30.720 --> 0:14:35.400
<v Speaker 2>and luxury accommodations for more than two decades, trips funded

0:14:35.440 --> 0:14:40.320
<v Speaker 2>by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crowe, including a twenty nineteen

0:14:40.560 --> 0:14:44.440
<v Speaker 2>island hopping vacation with costs that could have exceeded half

0:14:44.480 --> 0:14:48.840
<v Speaker 2>a million dollars, along with travel to California's Bohemian Grove

0:14:48.920 --> 0:14:53.120
<v Speaker 2>Retreat for Men and Crow's East Texas ranch. Thomas never

0:14:53.200 --> 0:14:58.040
<v Speaker 2>reported the gifts. Thomas defended himself against allegations that he

0:14:58.120 --> 0:15:01.680
<v Speaker 2>may have violated the law by noth reporting those vacations,

0:15:02.360 --> 0:15:05.440
<v Speaker 2>saying he'd been told he didn't have to. In a

0:15:05.480 --> 0:15:10.040
<v Speaker 2>one paragraph statement, Thomas said he'd sought guidance from colleagues

0:15:10.120 --> 0:15:13.360
<v Speaker 2>and others in the judiciary early in his tenure as

0:15:13.360 --> 0:15:16.920
<v Speaker 2>a Supreme Court justice and was quote advised that this

0:15:17.000 --> 0:15:21.480
<v Speaker 2>sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends who did

0:15:21.480 --> 0:15:25.600
<v Speaker 2>not have business before the court was not reportable. Joining

0:15:25.600 --> 0:15:29.720
<v Speaker 2>me is Stephen Lubett, a judicial ethics expert at Northwestern

0:15:29.800 --> 0:15:34.840
<v Speaker 2>University's Pritzker School of Law. So the justices file annual

0:15:34.920 --> 0:15:40.160
<v Speaker 2>financial disclosures, and Thomas did disclose a twenty fifteen gift

0:15:40.200 --> 0:15:45.000
<v Speaker 2>from Crow, a bronze bust of abolitionist Frederick Douglass, valued

0:15:45.040 --> 0:15:48.400
<v Speaker 2>at six four hundred and eighty four dollars, And in

0:15:48.440 --> 0:15:51.840
<v Speaker 2>twenty nineteen he disclosed five trips that were paid for

0:15:52.000 --> 0:15:55.760
<v Speaker 2>by someone else, a series of teaching and speaking engagements

0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:59.240
<v Speaker 2>at US law schools and colleges, but not that nine

0:15:59.360 --> 0:16:03.760
<v Speaker 2>day vacation to Indonesia. Does this failure to report the

0:16:03.880 --> 0:16:06.240
<v Speaker 2>travel violate federal law?

0:16:08.480 --> 0:16:11.720
<v Speaker 5>Yeah. The failure to report certain gifts is contrary to

0:16:11.760 --> 0:16:14.840
<v Speaker 5>the Ethics and Government Act, and its contrary to the

0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:19.040
<v Speaker 5>regulations adopted by the Judicial Conference following the Ethics and

0:16:19.120 --> 0:16:22.360
<v Speaker 5>Government Act. It's not a crime, there's no particular penalty

0:16:22.440 --> 0:16:24.640
<v Speaker 5>for it, but it is contrary to the law.

0:16:25.440 --> 0:16:25.600
<v Speaker 4>I know.

0:16:25.720 --> 0:16:28.400
<v Speaker 2>The Supreme Court justices aren't subject to the same ethics

0:16:28.400 --> 0:16:33.440
<v Speaker 2>codes that federal judges are. Are Supreme Court justices subject

0:16:33.480 --> 0:16:34.080
<v Speaker 2>to that law?

0:16:34.920 --> 0:16:38.640
<v Speaker 5>Well? Gift reporting is covered by the Ethics and Government Act,

0:16:38.680 --> 0:16:41.840
<v Speaker 5>which is a statute passed by Congress, signed by the President,

0:16:42.360 --> 0:16:47.880
<v Speaker 5>and specifically applicable to the US Supreme Court. Two Chief Justices,

0:16:48.480 --> 0:16:54.200
<v Speaker 5>Justice John Roberts and before him, Chief Justice Renquists both

0:16:54.240 --> 0:16:57.720
<v Speaker 5>said that they would not concede that Congress had the

0:16:57.800 --> 0:17:01.680
<v Speaker 5>right to impose these vironments on the Supreme Court, but

0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:03.280
<v Speaker 5>they would follow them anyhow.

0:17:04.040 --> 0:17:07.440
<v Speaker 2>Justice Thomas said he'd sought guidance from colleagues and others

0:17:07.520 --> 0:17:10.399
<v Speaker 2>in the judiciary early in his tenure, and he was

0:17:10.440 --> 0:17:15.120
<v Speaker 2>advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal

0:17:15.240 --> 0:17:18.480
<v Speaker 2>friends who did not have business before the Court was

0:17:18.560 --> 0:17:22.400
<v Speaker 2>not reportable. Is that in fact true? Is it not reportable?

0:17:22.560 --> 0:17:23.840
<v Speaker 2>What's the exception here?

0:17:24.640 --> 0:17:27.600
<v Speaker 5>Well, Justice Thomas is putting an awful lot of weight

0:17:27.840 --> 0:17:33.119
<v Speaker 5>on the words this sort of hospitality. When he joined

0:17:33.119 --> 0:17:37.040
<v Speaker 5>the Court in nineteen ninety one. I don't think anybody

0:17:37.080 --> 0:17:41.199
<v Speaker 5>imagined that a Justice of the Supreme Court would be

0:17:41.640 --> 0:17:44.800
<v Speaker 5>shuttled all around the country on a private jet by

0:17:44.840 --> 0:17:50.040
<v Speaker 5>a wealthy political donor. So I have to question whether,

0:17:50.119 --> 0:17:54.080
<v Speaker 5>whatever it is, anybody told him it's actlutely applicable to

0:17:54.200 --> 0:17:56.879
<v Speaker 5>the gifts that he has ultimately accepted.

0:17:57.600 --> 0:18:00.399
<v Speaker 2>All the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have called

0:18:00.400 --> 0:18:05.280
<v Speaker 2>on Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate these trips. Do

0:18:05.280 --> 0:18:07.800
<v Speaker 2>you think that the Chief Justice would actually do that?

0:18:08.600 --> 0:18:12.600
<v Speaker 5>I will say that the Court has been, I think

0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:19.000
<v Speaker 5>unfortunately protective of the prerogatives of the individual members. For example,

0:18:19.000 --> 0:18:24.040
<v Speaker 5>they follow a procedure for disqualification for recusal in which

0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:28.520
<v Speaker 5>each justice decides it individually for themselves, with no review

0:18:28.560 --> 0:18:32.000
<v Speaker 5>by the whole Court. I think that's unfortunate. I think

0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:35.640
<v Speaker 5>the Court should act as a court on ethics issues

0:18:35.960 --> 0:18:40.560
<v Speaker 5>and not leave things up to individuals. The Constitution establishes

0:18:41.080 --> 0:18:45.639
<v Speaker 5>one Supreme Court, not nine Supreme Justices.

0:18:46.240 --> 0:18:48.439
<v Speaker 2>Can you tell us about some of the legislation that

0:18:48.520 --> 0:18:53.359
<v Speaker 2>has been pending in Congress to impose an ethics code

0:18:53.359 --> 0:18:54.320
<v Speaker 2>on the Supreme Court.

0:18:55.840 --> 0:19:01.280
<v Speaker 5>The legislation pending in Congress would not impose any particular

0:19:01.320 --> 0:19:04.720
<v Speaker 5>ethics code on the Supreme Court. It would require the

0:19:04.760 --> 0:19:08.840
<v Speaker 5>Supreme Court to adoptor code of their own devising. I

0:19:08.880 --> 0:19:13.040
<v Speaker 5>think that's a very minimal request and quite an appropriate one.

0:19:13.320 --> 0:19:16.719
<v Speaker 5>If the Justices think there are special provisions that need

0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:19.640
<v Speaker 5>to be included or omitted from the code, they could

0:19:19.720 --> 0:19:20.760
<v Speaker 5>just go ahead and do that.

0:19:21.400 --> 0:19:25.760
<v Speaker 2>Chief Justice Roberts said in his twenty eleven year end report.

0:19:26.119 --> 0:19:29.440
<v Speaker 2>The Court has never addressed whether Congress may impose those

0:19:29.520 --> 0:19:34.439
<v Speaker 2>requirements on the Supreme Court ethics requirements. That is, is

0:19:34.480 --> 0:19:36.760
<v Speaker 2>there a chance that the Justices might say, no, we're

0:19:36.760 --> 0:19:38.440
<v Speaker 2>not doing that. I mean, can they say.

0:19:38.240 --> 0:19:42.320
<v Speaker 5>That, Well, well, they're the Supreme Court. They can say

0:19:42.359 --> 0:19:44.600
<v Speaker 5>whatever they want to say. The question is whether they

0:19:44.600 --> 0:19:48.240
<v Speaker 5>will have sufficient respect for the public to adopt the

0:19:48.359 --> 0:19:51.920
<v Speaker 5>code when there is overwhelming a public opinion in favor

0:19:51.960 --> 0:19:53.640
<v Speaker 5>of so.

0:19:53.800 --> 0:19:58.080
<v Speaker 2>Explain the reason why it's a good idea for these

0:19:58.119 --> 0:20:00.000
<v Speaker 2>gifts and trips to be disclosed.

0:20:00.000 --> 0:20:07.440
<v Speaker 5>Host it's an issue of transparency. Congress, in a bipartisan statute,

0:20:07.960 --> 0:20:11.920
<v Speaker 5>determined that it is important for public respect and understanding

0:20:12.359 --> 0:20:15.159
<v Speaker 5>to know what sort of gifts are being given, not

0:20:15.240 --> 0:20:18.160
<v Speaker 5>only to the justices of the Supreme Court, but also

0:20:18.440 --> 0:20:24.479
<v Speaker 5>to senior officials in the executive branch. Everybody complies with it,

0:20:25.560 --> 0:20:30.080
<v Speaker 5>but the Supreme Court, for reasons of its own has

0:20:30.119 --> 0:20:35.920
<v Speaker 5>withheld acceptance of it as a requirement. They do, they do,

0:20:36.440 --> 0:20:39.679
<v Speaker 5>I should say, the Justices of the Supreme Court do

0:20:39.920 --> 0:20:44.399
<v Speaker 5>file report in accordance with the ethics and government. Chief

0:20:44.520 --> 0:20:48.400
<v Speaker 5>Justice Roberts just said that it is discretionary. They don't

0:20:48.440 --> 0:20:50.120
<v Speaker 5>have to do it, but they all do it.

0:20:50.480 --> 0:20:53.960
<v Speaker 2>Thanks for being on the show. That's Stephen Lubett, a

0:20:54.040 --> 0:20:58.520
<v Speaker 2>professor at Northwestern University's Printzker School of Law. And that's

0:20:58.560 --> 0:21:01.159
<v Speaker 2>it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

0:21:01.200 --> 0:21:03.280
<v Speaker 2>you can always get the latest legal news on our

0:21:03.320 --> 0:21:07.480
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:21:07.640 --> 0:21:12.680
<v Speaker 2>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

0:21:13.080 --> 0:21:15.679
<v Speaker 2>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:21:15.720 --> 0:21:19.640
<v Speaker 2>weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

0:21:19.760 --> 0:21:21.359
<v Speaker 2>and you're listening to Bloomberg