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

2
00:00:08,560 --> 00:00:12,280
Speaker 2: President Trump's one point eight billion dollar fund for alleged

3
00:00:12,360 --> 00:00:17,920
Speaker 2: victims of political weaponization faced rare pushback from Republicans as

4
00:00:17,960 --> 00:00:21,400
Speaker 2: well as from Democrats, who slammed the proposal as a

5
00:00:21,440 --> 00:00:25,800
Speaker 2: slush fund for the president's allies and supporters. Acting Attorney

6
00:00:25,840 --> 00:00:29,600
Speaker 2: General Todd Blanche testified on Capitol Hill two weeks ago

7
00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:32,800
Speaker 2: that the fund would not go forward, while at the

8
00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:35,120
Speaker 2: same time describing its importance.

9
00:00:35,920 --> 00:00:38,360
Speaker 3: The reasons for the fund is something that President Trump

10
00:00:38,360 --> 00:00:41,040
Speaker 3: talked about for a long time, which is the fact

11
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:42,720
Speaker 3: that there were a lot of people in this country

12
00:00:42,760 --> 00:00:46,239
Speaker 3: who had their government weaponized against them. The reasons for

13
00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:50,440
Speaker 3: the fund, I think it remained as important as they

14
00:00:50,479 --> 00:00:54,120
Speaker 3: were before. But we are not moving forward with the fund.

15
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:58,680
Speaker 2: And President Trump has continued to express support for the fund.

16
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:01,920
Speaker 1: Excuse President to clarify on what you were asked earlier.

17
00:01:02,320 --> 00:01:05,119
Speaker 2: Is the one point eight billion dollar DUJ fund dead?

18
00:01:05,280 --> 00:01:06,119
Speaker 3: Or is it on hold?

19
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:09,440
Speaker 4: It's I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know.

20
00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:12,400
Speaker 4: I know one thing, the weaponization. Are you taking.

21
00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:15,320
Speaker 3: The weaponization fund?

22
00:01:16,600 --> 00:01:20,280
Speaker 4: As far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing well.

23
00:01:20,319 --> 00:01:24,319
Speaker 2: A federal judge in Virginia used Trump's own words against

24
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:28,000
Speaker 2: the government in ruling that a lawsuit challenging the fund

25
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:33,120
Speaker 2: can go forward. Judge Leoni Brinckhema rejected the government's arguments

26
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:36,840
Speaker 2: that Blanche's public statements that the plan was dropped were

27
00:01:36,959 --> 00:01:41,200
Speaker 2: enough confirmation. She gave the government one week to submit

28
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:45,640
Speaker 2: a written sworn statement signed by Blanche and Treasury Secretary

29
00:01:45,720 --> 00:01:49,960
Speaker 2: Scott Bessant, declaring that the fund will not be pursued.

30
00:01:50,480 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 2: My guest is Amy Powell, litigation director at Lawyers for

31
00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:57,320
Speaker 2: Good Government and a former senior Trial council at the

32
00:01:57,480 --> 00:02:01,720
Speaker 2: Justice Department. Amy explain why juds bring them all issued

33
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:06,560
Speaker 2: a preliminary injunction and didn't accept the government's arguments that

34
00:02:06,600 --> 00:02:07,560
Speaker 2: the case was moot.

35
00:02:07,680 --> 00:02:11,760
Speaker 1: Now she needed evidence. She needed the government to develop

36
00:02:11,800 --> 00:02:15,160
Speaker 1: a record as to the fact the fund isn't going forward.

37
00:02:15,200 --> 00:02:18,440
Speaker 1: If it's really not going forward in any way, shape

38
00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:23,680
Speaker 1: or form, it's frankly bizarre that the government filed insisting

39
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:27,079
Speaker 1: that the case was moved based on the Acting Attorney

40
00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:30,320
Speaker 1: General's unsworn and equivocal statements on the subject.

41
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:33,600
Speaker 2: There are five lawsuits challenging the fund. I believe who

42
00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:36,200
Speaker 2: is bringing this particular lawsuit.

43
00:02:36,639 --> 00:02:39,799
Speaker 1: One of them is a former federal prosecutor. Some are

44
00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:42,640
Speaker 1: nonprofits who feel like they might be targeted as a

45
00:02:42,720 --> 00:02:45,760
Speaker 1: result of the operation of the Weaponization Fund if it

46
00:02:45,760 --> 00:02:49,000
Speaker 1: were likely to go forward, and they're represented, I believe,

47
00:02:49,080 --> 00:02:52,560
Speaker 1: by Democracy Forward in that case. They are people who

48
00:02:52,639 --> 00:02:55,000
Speaker 1: feel like they would be harmed by the operation of

49
00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:58,080
Speaker 1: the fund. Now, it's going to be an uphill battle

50
00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:00,760
Speaker 1: for any of these plaintifts to prove that they individually

51
00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:03,359
Speaker 1: would be injured by the operation of the fund if

52
00:03:03,360 --> 00:03:06,240
Speaker 1: it went forward, But they made it compelling the case

53
00:03:06,280 --> 00:03:08,880
Speaker 1: as possible when the government came in and insisted it's

54
00:03:08,919 --> 00:03:12,800
Speaker 1: all moot that the Weaponization Fund isn't going forward, despite

55
00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:17,880
Speaker 1: the existence of an unrescinded apparently Attorney General order creating

56
00:03:17,919 --> 00:03:20,480
Speaker 1: the fund and a settlement agreement that, as far as

57
00:03:20,520 --> 00:03:22,600
Speaker 1: I know, the government still insists is ballot.

58
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:26,240
Speaker 2: I mean, the standards for getting a preliminary injunction are

59
00:03:26,320 --> 00:03:30,200
Speaker 2: pretty high. Did the judge find that the plaintiffs or

60
00:03:30,240 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 2: some of the plaintiff's head standing.

61
00:03:32,880 --> 00:03:35,320
Speaker 1: No, as far as I know, the court has not

62
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:38,600
Speaker 1: ruled on that. Decided to turn first to this question

63
00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:42,720
Speaker 1: of mootna. She hasn't rules on the merits of the

64
00:03:42,800 --> 00:03:46,520
Speaker 1: underlying claim, but she has strongly suggested that if the

65
00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:50,520
Speaker 1: government could produce this declaration that says more or less

66
00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:52,920
Speaker 1: what she suggested it needs to say, that the case

67
00:03:52,960 --> 00:03:55,840
Speaker 1: would be Candidly. I think that is a bit of

68
00:03:55,880 --> 00:03:58,800
Speaker 1: a stretched And if the government does produce the declaration

69
00:03:58,920 --> 00:04:01,160
Speaker 1: that says the weapon is a fund does not going

70
00:04:01,200 --> 00:04:04,080
Speaker 1: forward in any way, shape or form unless the government

71
00:04:04,120 --> 00:04:06,920
Speaker 1: gives a reason as to why. The reason for that

72
00:04:07,080 --> 00:04:10,520
Speaker 1: is that if these plaintiffs have standing, which she seemed

73
00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:14,080
Speaker 1: to assume, and her order proving mootness is an uphill

74
00:04:14,120 --> 00:04:17,240
Speaker 1: battle for the government, they have to do more than

75
00:04:17,360 --> 00:04:20,680
Speaker 1: just change their conduct. It's a settled matter of law.

76
00:04:20,760 --> 00:04:23,680
Speaker 1: That's what we call the voluntary cessation doctrine that when

77
00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:27,320
Speaker 1: one party voluntarily changes its conduct, that's not enough to

78
00:04:27,320 --> 00:04:30,080
Speaker 1: get rid of a lawsuit as moot because they could

79
00:04:30,080 --> 00:04:33,720
Speaker 1: typically change their conduct back. So a declaration that says

80
00:04:33,720 --> 00:04:36,279
Speaker 1: we changed our conduct might not be good enough unless

81
00:04:36,279 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 1: it explains why, it offers some sort.

82
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:43,200
Speaker 2: Of commitment and just explain why this weaponization fund is

83
00:04:43,279 --> 00:04:46,000
Speaker 2: considered illegal by most experts.

84
00:04:46,279 --> 00:04:49,880
Speaker 1: Well, there's a lot going on fund in the weaponization fund. Right,

85
00:04:50,200 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 1: So the lawsuit that it purported to settle was a

86
00:04:53,960 --> 00:04:57,480
Speaker 1: lawsuit brought by Donald Trump, some of his family members

87
00:04:57,480 --> 00:05:01,320
Speaker 1: and associates against the IRS for leaking his tax returns.

88
00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:04,680
Speaker 1: And it also purported to settle to other matters which

89
00:05:04,680 --> 00:05:08,599
Speaker 1: were pending as administrative claim So someone had gone to

90
00:05:08,600 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 1: the agency and said, you wronged me. Those claims were

91
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:14,799
Speaker 1: brought by Donald Trump personally, I think, against the Justice Department,

92
00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:19,360
Speaker 1: but against the US government for alleged misconducts related to

93
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:24,279
Speaker 1: the classified document's kids and related to the Russia investigation. Now,

94
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:27,839
Speaker 1: those underlying administrative claims, first of all, are plainly meritless

95
00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:30,159
Speaker 1: near frivolous. I know less about the leak of the

96
00:05:30,240 --> 00:05:33,400
Speaker 1: tax returns. It's possible there is some someting there. But

97
00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:36,360
Speaker 1: what you don't do is settle a case, even if

98
00:05:36,480 --> 00:05:40,280
Speaker 1: it were of some marginal validity, you don't settle it

99
00:05:40,640 --> 00:05:44,839
Speaker 1: by signing over that huge amount of money to third parties.

100
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:49,080
Speaker 1: The weaponization sign seemed like a fairly transparent attempt to

101
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:54,080
Speaker 1: reward the president's supporters, even if, in fact, because of

102
00:05:54,120 --> 00:05:57,880
Speaker 1: their engagement in misconduct to the illegal activity.

103
00:05:57,920 --> 00:06:01,599
Speaker 2: And what he testified to Congress, Bland said that the

104
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:06,680
Speaker 2: part of the agreement banning the government from ever prosecuting

105
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:11,400
Speaker 2: any IRS claims against Trump, his family, or his businesses,

106
00:06:12,040 --> 00:06:13,599
Speaker 2: that part is still in place.

107
00:06:14,440 --> 00:06:17,640
Speaker 1: He did say that, And I find that particular document

108
00:06:17,760 --> 00:06:21,760
Speaker 1: to be a puzzle. It's not shocking. First, as an

109
00:06:21,760 --> 00:06:24,120
Speaker 1: initial matter, it's not entirely clear to me that it

110
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 1: is part of the settlement agreement. When DOJ announced the settlement,

111
00:06:28,240 --> 00:06:33,520
Speaker 1: agreement included the agreement itself and the Attorney General order

112
00:06:33,839 --> 00:06:37,760
Speaker 1: that creates the Weaponization Fund. Nothing in the agreement itself

113
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:41,520
Speaker 1: mentions a waiver for Trump and his family of tax

114
00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:44,560
Speaker 1: returns or anything else. In fact, it only purports to

115
00:06:44,720 --> 00:06:48,200
Speaker 1: resolve the pending Trump lasses. But don't actually think that

116
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:51,680
Speaker 1: waiver document is legitimately considered part of the settlement because

117
00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:55,160
Speaker 1: it's not actually mentioned in the settlement itself, was published

118
00:06:55,160 --> 00:06:59,279
Speaker 1: as a separate document a day later, signed by someone else,

119
00:06:59,480 --> 00:07:03,360
Speaker 1: not signed by the Treasury Department. It is wildly inconsistent

120
00:07:03,839 --> 00:07:07,640
Speaker 1: with certainly normal DOJ policy or practice in this area.

121
00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:11,240
Speaker 2: And is that waiver before judge you bring them on

122
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:12,440
Speaker 2: in this case?

123
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:16,240
Speaker 1: I don't think it does, because it was focused on

124
00:07:16,320 --> 00:07:19,880
Speaker 1: the Weaponization Fund and the creation of that fund, how

125
00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:23,120
Speaker 1: it harms this particular group of plaintiffs. I don't think

126
00:07:23,160 --> 00:07:27,360
Speaker 1: they asserted any claims related to the waiver language itself.

127
00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:30,480
Speaker 2: Yeah, it just seems like that's being ignored.

128
00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:34,240
Speaker 1: And it's egregiously overbroad. Right, it's not just tax on

129
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:37,840
Speaker 1: It says any matter currently pending or that could be

130
00:07:38,200 --> 00:07:42,720
Speaker 1: brought by any federal agency, like it's some Trump grandchild

131
00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 1: has a pending parking ticket from a national park ranger,

132
00:07:46,600 --> 00:07:51,560
Speaker 1: like that is wiped out by this. I cannot imagine

133
00:07:51,880 --> 00:07:55,240
Speaker 1: that they followed any proper procedures or got consent from

134
00:07:55,280 --> 00:07:58,040
Speaker 1: the relevant agencies, or that such a settlement could ever

135
00:07:58,080 --> 00:07:58,880
Speaker 1: be justified.

136
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:00,200
Speaker 4: You know.

137
00:08:00,480 --> 00:08:05,800
Speaker 2: Another judge, a DC federal judge Richard Leon last week,

138
00:08:05,960 --> 00:08:09,920
Speaker 2: denied a request for an order blocking the fund, saying

139
00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:14,000
Speaker 2: he wasn't persuaded that there was a live controversy based

140
00:08:14,040 --> 00:08:17,960
Speaker 2: on the government's representations. But he also issued a warning

141
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:22,320
Speaker 2: to the Justice Department during the proceedings quote, don't play

142
00:08:22,400 --> 00:08:23,720
Speaker 2: possum with this court.

143
00:08:24,600 --> 00:08:27,000
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily agree with Judge Leanne's decision, but I

144
00:08:27,000 --> 00:08:30,400
Speaker 1: imagine the skepticism you just quoted, you know, based on

145
00:08:30,520 --> 00:08:34,280
Speaker 1: experience with the federal government recently in court cases, and

146
00:08:34,360 --> 00:08:38,079
Speaker 1: also just based on the somewhat bizarre posture here where

147
00:08:38,120 --> 00:08:40,680
Speaker 1: the government is insisting its moot but has refused to

148
00:08:40,679 --> 00:08:42,959
Speaker 1: put in any competent evidence to show it.

149
00:08:43,280 --> 00:08:47,360
Speaker 2: And also Miami judges responding to I don't know whether

150
00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:49,400
Speaker 2: it was a letter or what from a group of

151
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:52,600
Speaker 2: federal judges saying that this was a fraud on the court.

152
00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:58,280
Speaker 1: Yes, that's fascinating. That is the original pace right that

153
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:02,640
Speaker 1: was brought by the Trumps against the government. The Trump's

154
00:09:02,720 --> 00:09:07,080
Speaker 1: dismissed it with prejudice. Upon reaching the settlement agreement with

155
00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:11,959
Speaker 1: the federal government, the court dismissed it. Well, the court,

156
00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:13,760
Speaker 1: I don't even know that she had an option at

157
00:09:13,760 --> 00:09:17,600
Speaker 1: that point, but assumed the dismissal was valid. She was

158
00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:20,520
Speaker 1: not asked to evaluate any settlement. But a group of

159
00:09:20,559 --> 00:09:23,120
Speaker 1: federal judges filed I think they felt it as an

160
00:09:23,160 --> 00:09:27,280
Speaker 1: amicust motion to reopen the chaise because the dismissal was

161
00:09:27,400 --> 00:09:29,680
Speaker 1: part of a fraud and that the court was being

162
00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:33,559
Speaker 1: used in perpetrating a fraud, which we are in uncharted

163
00:09:33,640 --> 00:09:38,640
Speaker 1: territory here, reluctant to opine on the merits of the

164
00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:40,640
Speaker 1: motion or what the court should do in the situation.

165
00:09:41,240 --> 00:09:43,600
Speaker 1: But I think what the court has done in reopening

166
00:09:43,600 --> 00:09:46,400
Speaker 1: the case and asking for briefing is indicative. But she's

167
00:09:46,520 --> 00:09:47,200
Speaker 1: very troubled.

168
00:09:47,640 --> 00:09:52,040
Speaker 2: There are indications that people in the Trump administration are

169
00:09:52,280 --> 00:09:57,200
Speaker 2: looking for other ways to compensate these people they claim

170
00:09:57,320 --> 00:10:01,880
Speaker 2: were victimized, these people they claimed were victimized by the

171
00:10:01,920 --> 00:10:07,240
Speaker 2: Biden administration. Lindsay Graham, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, in a

172
00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:10,640
Speaker 2: social media post, backed the idea of pursuing payouts through

173
00:10:10,679 --> 00:10:15,280
Speaker 2: the Federal Tort Claims Act, and then Stanley Woodward, the

174
00:10:15,360 --> 00:10:19,720
Speaker 2: third top official at the Justice Department, responded with quote,

175
00:10:19,920 --> 00:10:23,720
Speaker 2: we're working on it. That post was deleted, but that's

176
00:10:23,720 --> 00:10:26,040
Speaker 2: another way for them to compensate these people.

177
00:10:26,160 --> 00:10:27,600
Speaker 5: Right, yes, that it.

178
00:10:27,520 --> 00:10:30,240
Speaker 1: Clearly appears to be their strategy, and they've done it before.

179
00:10:30,440 --> 00:10:30,640
Speaker 3: Right.

180
00:10:30,720 --> 00:10:34,400
Speaker 1: They made giant payouts under Federal Turte Claim Act and

181
00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:39,160
Speaker 1: similarly styled cases Mike Flynn and Carter Page or Assumilar

182
00:10:39,160 --> 00:10:41,720
Speaker 1: to others as well. Those were just the headline one,

183
00:10:41,840 --> 00:10:45,199
Speaker 1: but people who clearly weren't entitled to any payout from

184
00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:48,280
Speaker 1: the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act received

185
00:10:48,679 --> 00:10:52,400
Speaker 1: enormous payouts, and I assimilar imagining they can do something

186
00:10:52,440 --> 00:10:57,040
Speaker 1: based on individualized administrative claim by others as well. It's

187
00:10:57,080 --> 00:11:01,160
Speaker 1: possible that the Weaponization Fund was an attempt to bypass

188
00:11:01,600 --> 00:11:05,640
Speaker 1: the normal Department of Justice machinery that would have attorneys

189
00:11:05,640 --> 00:11:08,600
Speaker 1: look at and opine on such claims. It didn't stop

190
00:11:08,640 --> 00:11:11,280
Speaker 1: the payouts to Mike Flynn as far as I know,

191
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:14,559
Speaker 1: so it is possible it will be a viable avenue

192
00:11:14,720 --> 00:11:16,520
Speaker 1: for them for other claim ups as well.

193
00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 2: So you mentioned Michael Flynn and Carter Paige, the Justice

194
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:25,439
Speaker 2: Department made separate one point twenty five million dollars settlements

195
00:11:25,480 --> 00:11:30,520
Speaker 2: in two lawsuits they filed. Other agreements included four million

196
00:11:30,600 --> 00:11:35,760
Speaker 2: to FBI employees who claimed political retaliation under Biden. The

197
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:39,400
Speaker 2: DOJ agreed to pay half a million dollars to cover

198
00:11:39,480 --> 00:11:43,040
Speaker 2: the attorney fees of individuals who were part of a

199
00:11:43,120 --> 00:11:49,880
Speaker 2: litigation accusing the Biden administration of unconstitutionally coercing social media

200
00:11:49,920 --> 00:11:54,240
Speaker 2: platforms into taking down posts about the COVID pandemic and

201
00:11:54,280 --> 00:11:58,480
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty election and amy. The Justice Department decides

202
00:11:58,520 --> 00:12:03,520
Speaker 2: itself whether to these off. There's no second opinion. There's

203
00:12:03,600 --> 00:12:05,439
Speaker 2: no approval from a judge.

204
00:12:05,840 --> 00:12:08,920
Speaker 1: That's correct. That's how they work. And you know, the

205
00:12:09,000 --> 00:12:12,440
Speaker 1: Justice Department has had in the past a pretty robust

206
00:12:12,679 --> 00:12:16,680
Speaker 1: process for evaluating those The agency looks at some Department

207
00:12:16,720 --> 00:12:19,120
Speaker 1: of Justice looks at them as all enshrined in regulation.

208
00:12:19,960 --> 00:12:23,160
Speaker 1: If anything, they historically have been very protective of the

209
00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:27,160
Speaker 1: taxpayer fisk. So even when somebody has a valid claim,

210
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:32,000
Speaker 1: frequently the Justice Department will push back against overpayments and

211
00:12:32,040 --> 00:12:35,160
Speaker 1: evaluate the litigation risk. It's a pretty serious process, or

212
00:12:35,200 --> 00:12:38,440
Speaker 1: has been historically. I don't know whether it's being bypassed

213
00:12:38,559 --> 00:12:41,400
Speaker 1: or ignored or is just controlled by political official business

214
00:12:41,400 --> 00:12:42,439
Speaker 1: points idea.

215
00:12:42,559 --> 00:12:45,720
Speaker 2: It certainly seems like from the claims that have been granted,

216
00:12:45,720 --> 00:12:49,400
Speaker 2: there's a lot of politics involved in this. Thanks so

217
00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:50,600
Speaker 2: much for joining me on the show.

218
00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:51,040
Speaker 4: Amy.

219
00:12:51,200 --> 00:12:54,960
Speaker 2: That's Amy Powell Litigation Direct You're at Lawyers for Good Government.

220
00:12:58,200 --> 00:13:02,120
Speaker 2: President Trump's approval or Nvidia to sell chips to some

221
00:13:02,320 --> 00:13:08,239
Speaker 2: customers in China has potentially derailed a major AI smuggling prosecution.

222
00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:12,360
Speaker 2: Nearing trial. Lawyers for one of the two businessmen indicted

223
00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:16,880
Speaker 2: for evading export control laws by transporting one hundred sixty

224
00:13:16,960 --> 00:13:22,200
Speaker 2: million dollars in Vidia's powerful generative AI accelerating H one

225
00:13:22,280 --> 00:13:26,079
Speaker 2: hundred and h two hundred. Processors have argued that further

226
00:13:26,160 --> 00:13:30,800
Speaker 2: information on Trump's deliberations with Nvidia and China may prove

227
00:13:30,880 --> 00:13:35,480
Speaker 2: their client's innocence. In an unusual decision, a Houston federal

228
00:13:35,600 --> 00:13:40,160
Speaker 2: judge directed federal prosecutors to provide the defense with non

229
00:13:40,280 --> 00:13:46,280
Speaker 2: public presidential materials reflecting Trump policies that relaxed restrictions on

230
00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:50,680
Speaker 2: Invidia's shipments to China. Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter

231
00:13:50,880 --> 00:13:55,800
Speaker 2: Ben Penn. Ben start by telling us about this smuggling case.

232
00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:01,600
Speaker 4: Sure, there were two businessmen, one as a Canadian citizen

233
00:14:01,640 --> 00:14:04,240
Speaker 4: and other Chinese citist, and both operate companies on the

234
00:14:04,240 --> 00:14:09,920
Speaker 4: East Coast who were indicted last December for violating export

235
00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:13,520
Speaker 4: control and smuggling laws for transporting about one hundred and

236
00:14:13,520 --> 00:14:18,800
Speaker 4: sixty million dollars worth of Navidia produced AI chips to China,

237
00:14:19,400 --> 00:14:23,120
Speaker 4: and a case that senior officials in the Justice Department

238
00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:27,560
Speaker 4: had promoted last December as a primary example of this

239
00:14:27,600 --> 00:14:34,280
Speaker 4: administration's commitment to protecting US technological innovation from foreign adversaries.

240
00:14:34,440 --> 00:14:37,400
Speaker 4: And then, within a few hours after that case was

241
00:14:37,440 --> 00:14:41,280
Speaker 4: first announced last on December eighth, Trump took to truth

242
00:14:41,360 --> 00:14:44,600
Speaker 4: social and announced that he had reached a deal with

243
00:14:44,920 --> 00:14:48,920
Speaker 4: China to permit the distribution of some of those same

244
00:14:49,640 --> 00:14:55,560
Speaker 4: advanced chips, the H two hundred processors into China. So

245
00:14:56,040 --> 00:14:59,560
Speaker 4: that caused some instant problems for the case. And then

246
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:02,240
Speaker 4: were recent developments have further complicated.

247
00:15:02,480 --> 00:15:07,120
Speaker 2: Trump's announcement come after the alleged smuggling. So how is

248
00:15:07,160 --> 00:15:08,560
Speaker 2: this a problem for the case?

249
00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:11,280
Speaker 4: Well, that's the point that the government has tried to

250
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:17,480
Speaker 4: point out in arguing that the president's policy pronouncements don't

251
00:15:17,520 --> 00:15:20,520
Speaker 4: have bearing on the evidence that they have assembled and

252
00:15:21,120 --> 00:15:24,800
Speaker 4: they issue there. According to the defense lawyers is that

253
00:15:25,200 --> 00:15:30,800
Speaker 4: there's basically been an ongoing dialogue between the US, Nvidia, China,

254
00:15:31,360 --> 00:15:36,160
Speaker 4: other various cabinet officials, departments involved, including the Commresce Department,

255
00:15:36,600 --> 00:15:39,360
Speaker 4: and a lot of this has all been behind closed doors.

256
00:15:39,560 --> 00:15:44,280
Speaker 4: These conversations began throughout twenty twenty five and overlapping with

257
00:15:44,320 --> 00:15:48,880
Speaker 4: the time period in which the businessmen are which their

258
00:15:49,040 --> 00:15:52,520
Speaker 4: alleged scheme took place, So it could be argued in

259
00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:54,880
Speaker 4: the defense lawyers have tried to argue that they need

260
00:15:54,880 --> 00:15:59,320
Speaker 4: more disclosure as part of the prosecutors discovery obligations. They

261
00:15:59,400 --> 00:16:05,120
Speaker 4: need disclosure of these internal deliberations that took place inside

262
00:16:05,120 --> 00:16:10,320
Speaker 4: the White House China and Chinese officials in Nvidia in

263
00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:14,800
Speaker 4: order to learn whether it's possible that the businessmen the

264
00:16:14,920 --> 00:16:20,000
Speaker 4: dependants were not in fact flouting export control laws and

265
00:16:20,240 --> 00:16:23,920
Speaker 4: were actually in compliance with what the President was contemplating.

266
00:16:23,960 --> 00:16:26,840
Speaker 4: We'll see. I talk to lawyers who say that they

267
00:16:26,840 --> 00:16:29,400
Speaker 4: think this argument is a stretch, but you know, it's

268
00:16:29,440 --> 00:16:32,040
Speaker 4: pretty fascinating that in this case we have a judge

269
00:16:32,040 --> 00:16:35,760
Speaker 4: who has agreed and ordered the government to produce discovery

270
00:16:36,240 --> 00:16:39,640
Speaker 4: on these unpublished White House communications, which is really rare.

271
00:16:40,120 --> 00:16:44,040
Speaker 4: The government is not going to easily hand over that information,

272
00:16:44,160 --> 00:16:47,080
Speaker 4: and they've already fund up the motion to reconsider. And

273
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:50,520
Speaker 4: if the judge doesn't whether it's course, then we can

274
00:16:50,600 --> 00:16:54,120
Speaker 4: expect that to be appealed. But what might come into

275
00:16:54,120 --> 00:16:57,480
Speaker 4: play here is if the judges order for the government

276
00:16:57,520 --> 00:17:02,040
Speaker 4: to produce discovery of those White House deliberations is upheld,

277
00:17:02,120 --> 00:17:04,960
Speaker 4: then the Justice Department they have to make a decision

278
00:17:05,040 --> 00:17:09,320
Speaker 4: of do we dismiss this case rather than produce what

279
00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:12,120
Speaker 4: they would argue our privileged communications.

280
00:17:12,440 --> 00:17:15,960
Speaker 2: How unusual is it for a judge to order, you know,

281
00:17:16,080 --> 00:17:19,639
Speaker 2: internal White House communications to be turned over to a

282
00:17:19,680 --> 00:17:21,960
Speaker 2: defense team very unusual.

283
00:17:22,040 --> 00:17:25,080
Speaker 4: And what's interesting here is that the judge didn't actually

284
00:17:25,200 --> 00:17:28,680
Speaker 4: use as his reasoning what the defense had argued, which

285
00:17:28,760 --> 00:17:34,000
Speaker 4: was that this Justice Department is so tightly under the

286
00:17:34,040 --> 00:17:38,639
Speaker 4: control of this President Trump, who has been opened his

287
00:17:38,680 --> 00:17:42,680
Speaker 4: administration has been open about their view of the White House,

288
00:17:42,760 --> 00:17:45,800
Speaker 4: you know, controlling the ins and outs of Justice Department

289
00:17:45,880 --> 00:17:53,240
Speaker 4: charging decisions, therefore making the White House communications subject to discovery.

290
00:17:53,680 --> 00:17:55,600
Speaker 4: This is an argument that it would not surprise me

291
00:17:55,960 --> 00:17:59,200
Speaker 4: if more defense letters try to bring that argument as

292
00:17:59,240 --> 00:18:02,800
Speaker 4: we continue to the Justice Department moving at the direction

293
00:18:02,960 --> 00:18:06,600
Speaker 4: of the President in some of their investigations of the

294
00:18:06,640 --> 00:18:10,440
Speaker 4: president's perceived enemies. But in this case, the judge didn't

295
00:18:10,480 --> 00:18:16,240
Speaker 4: even mention anything specific to Trump's behavior as his reasoning

296
00:18:16,320 --> 00:18:19,760
Speaker 4: for granting the order. He said that this could apply

297
00:18:19,880 --> 00:18:22,960
Speaker 4: to any president in any Justice Department, which he said,

298
00:18:22,960 --> 00:18:27,960
Speaker 4: irrespective of the relationship between President Trump and DJA, that

299
00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:32,159
Speaker 4: the president is in any administration is effectively an extension

300
00:18:32,600 --> 00:18:36,960
Speaker 4: of the prosecution team. And that's something that is certainly

301
00:18:36,960 --> 00:18:39,720
Speaker 4: going to be a challenge if the judge doesn't agree

302
00:18:39,800 --> 00:18:43,280
Speaker 4: to the motion for reconsideration. We'll see that appeal to

303
00:18:43,760 --> 00:18:47,360
Speaker 4: the Fifth Circuit. I have no doubt. But what's interesting

304
00:18:47,440 --> 00:18:49,399
Speaker 4: here to me is that, you know, if this is

305
00:18:49,440 --> 00:18:53,040
Speaker 4: a type of argument that the defense lawyers have success

306
00:18:53,040 --> 00:18:56,159
Speaker 4: in here, even though the judge wasn't quite agreeing to

307
00:18:56,200 --> 00:18:59,239
Speaker 4: their reasoning. We'll see defendants in other cases try to

308
00:18:59,600 --> 00:19:03,080
Speaker 4: argue the specific relationship between this DOJ and White House

309
00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:08,640
Speaker 4: makes internal White House communications more subject to discovery.

310
00:19:08,920 --> 00:19:11,080
Speaker 2: Is the trial still on at this point.

311
00:19:11,520 --> 00:19:13,920
Speaker 4: No, it was supposed to start this morning in Houston,

312
00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:17,400
Speaker 4: and there hasn't been adocuted order yet, but the trial

313
00:19:17,440 --> 00:19:19,920
Speaker 4: didn't begin today. An employee of the court and the

314
00:19:20,000 --> 00:19:22,840
Speaker 4: judges chambers told me that there would be a motion

315
00:19:23,480 --> 00:19:26,080
Speaker 4: that will be filed maybe by the end of today

316
00:19:26,119 --> 00:19:29,520
Speaker 4: that will reschedule the trial. That the government had asked

317
00:19:29,560 --> 00:19:32,000
Speaker 4: for our continuance and it's been granted.

318
00:19:32,359 --> 00:19:34,920
Speaker 2: Would this have been known if Trump hadn't sent out

319
00:19:34,960 --> 00:19:36,719
Speaker 2: that truth social post.

320
00:19:37,400 --> 00:19:39,359
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a good question. I think. I'm not a

321
00:19:39,359 --> 00:19:42,119
Speaker 4: tech reporter, but I do believe that there had been

322
00:19:42,480 --> 00:19:49,600
Speaker 4: public reporting about various Trump Navidia China talks Throughout the

323
00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:54,560
Speaker 4: past year. There have been public disclosures in various forms

324
00:19:54,600 --> 00:19:59,000
Speaker 4: of this policy change, but it's kind of ambiguous as

325
00:19:59,040 --> 00:20:01,640
Speaker 4: to exactly how that's being carried out.

326
00:20:01,720 --> 00:20:06,040
Speaker 2: When or if the case goes to trial. What complications

327
00:20:06,119 --> 00:20:08,240
Speaker 2: could dispose for prosecutors.

328
00:20:08,840 --> 00:20:11,679
Speaker 4: If this case ever does go to trial, the prosecutors

329
00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:14,320
Speaker 4: are going to have to contend with the sort of

330
00:20:14,400 --> 00:20:20,000
Speaker 4: mixed messaging that Trump's policy change to permit sales of

331
00:20:20,040 --> 00:20:23,840
Speaker 4: the Naividia chips into China will create for their prosecution,

332
00:20:23,880 --> 00:20:26,280
Speaker 4: because now they're going to have to you know, even

333
00:20:26,320 --> 00:20:30,480
Speaker 4: if technically the conduct was illegal at the time, was

334
00:20:30,480 --> 00:20:33,480
Speaker 4: committed before Trump had come up with the new announced

335
00:20:33,480 --> 00:20:36,560
Speaker 4: the new policy, it's still the issue of, well, why

336
00:20:36,560 --> 00:20:41,639
Speaker 4: are we devoting government resources to conduct that under current

337
00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:44,720
Speaker 4: policy appears to be legal, And that's something that the

338
00:20:44,760 --> 00:20:49,119
Speaker 4: prosecutors may take measures to address, and then maybe something

339
00:20:49,200 --> 00:20:51,840
Speaker 4: that skeptical jurors could be weighing on them as they

340
00:20:51,880 --> 00:20:54,639
Speaker 4: are considering whether to agree with the government's position.

341
00:20:55,160 --> 00:20:57,680
Speaker 2: So the next thing is we'll see if the judge

342
00:20:58,080 --> 00:21:02,720
Speaker 2: grants the motion for reconsideringation or the government likely appeals

343
00:21:02,720 --> 00:21:06,040
Speaker 2: to the Fifth Circuit. Thanks so much, Ben, that's Bloomberg

344
00:21:06,119 --> 00:21:10,280
Speaker 2: Law reporter Ben Penn Turning now to other legal news

345
00:21:10,359 --> 00:21:13,919
Speaker 2: and a case we haven't heard about for quite some time.

346
00:21:15,040 --> 00:21:19,040
Speaker 2: FTX co founder Sam Bank bin Fried lost his bid

347
00:21:19,080 --> 00:21:22,520
Speaker 2: to overturn his fraud conviction and his twenty five year

348
00:21:22,560 --> 00:21:26,639
Speaker 2: prison sentence. A federal appeals court rejected his claims of

349
00:21:26,720 --> 00:21:30,840
Speaker 2: not receiving a fair trial and declined to throw out

350
00:21:30,960 --> 00:21:34,359
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty three guilty verdict. That the one time

351
00:21:34,480 --> 00:21:40,159
Speaker 2: cryptocurrency mobil argued was tainted by improper evidentiary rulings and

352
00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:44,520
Speaker 2: a biased judge. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava

353
00:21:44,520 --> 00:21:48,399
Speaker 2: Benny Morrison, who covered the trial, Ava remind us what

354
00:21:48,560 --> 00:21:50,159
Speaker 2: SBF was convicted of.

355
00:21:50,480 --> 00:21:54,960
Speaker 5: Sam Bankminfrid was convicted of fraud and sentenced to twenty

356
00:21:54,960 --> 00:21:59,040
Speaker 5: five years in prison for flying to investors, companies, and

357
00:21:59,119 --> 00:22:03,760
Speaker 5: lenders and essentially defrauding them out of billions of dollars

358
00:22:04,040 --> 00:22:07,240
Speaker 5: at his cryptocurrency company FTX.

359
00:22:07,920 --> 00:22:10,600
Speaker 2: Let's talk about some of the points on his appeal.

360
00:22:11,480 --> 00:22:17,000
Speaker 2: One that the judge prevented SBF from introducing evidence that

361
00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:21,399
Speaker 2: FTX had enough money to cover customer withdrawals.

362
00:22:21,680 --> 00:22:24,120
Speaker 5: Yes, that was one of the main points in Sam

363
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:28,920
Speaker 5: Bateman's Reed's appeal. He wanted to introduce evidence that STX

364
00:22:29,080 --> 00:22:32,359
Speaker 5: was actually solvent and if given the time that he

365
00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:36,280
Speaker 5: would have been able to pay back customers every single dollar.

366
00:22:36,880 --> 00:22:40,960
Speaker 5: He wanted to talk about the bankruptcy process and really

367
00:22:41,080 --> 00:22:43,520
Speaker 5: zero in on that fact. He said that the judge

368
00:22:43,520 --> 00:22:47,760
Speaker 5: wouldn't allow him, and it essentially led to some being

369
00:22:47,760 --> 00:22:50,720
Speaker 5: put on the scale and he couldn't mount a proper defense.

370
00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:52,680
Speaker 2: And what did the appeals courts say to that?

371
00:22:52,840 --> 00:22:55,960
Speaker 5: The appeals court threw that out and said that he

372
00:22:56,119 --> 00:22:59,879
Speaker 5: had ample opportunity to talk about some of the liquidity

373
00:23:00,080 --> 00:23:02,639
Speaker 5: hughes with STX and Alameda.

374
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:05,600
Speaker 2: I remember during the trial talking to you about the

375
00:23:05,640 --> 00:23:10,400
Speaker 2: fact that Judge Caplan had Sam Bankman freed testify outside

376
00:23:10,400 --> 00:23:13,720
Speaker 2: the jury's presence before he testified before the jury, which

377
00:23:13,760 --> 00:23:14,639
Speaker 2: is really odd.

378
00:23:15,080 --> 00:23:17,840
Speaker 5: Yeah, that was one of the other key points in

379
00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:21,960
Speaker 5: Sam's appeal that he had to go through this kind

380
00:23:22,040 --> 00:23:25,800
Speaker 5: of deposition outside the presence of the jury, but in

381
00:23:25,840 --> 00:23:28,840
Speaker 5: front of the prosecution. So he said that he was

382
00:23:28,920 --> 00:23:33,600
Speaker 5: essentially previewing his defense to the other side. He also

383
00:23:33,680 --> 00:23:37,400
Speaker 5: said that Judge Caplan wouldn't let him out a advice

384
00:23:37,440 --> 00:23:40,040
Speaker 5: of council defense. He wanted to talk about how he

385
00:23:40,520 --> 00:23:45,040
Speaker 5: relied on an army of lawyers and other professionals before

386
00:23:45,080 --> 00:23:49,440
Speaker 5: he made decisions about moving money around and loans to

387
00:23:49,640 --> 00:23:52,760
Speaker 5: other executives, but the judge ror that he couldn't do that,

388
00:23:53,040 --> 00:23:57,400
Speaker 5: and this was all part of why the trial was

389
00:23:57,480 --> 00:23:58,440
Speaker 5: unfair to him.

390
00:23:58,760 --> 00:24:04,120
Speaker 2: And SBF lawyers said the judge continually ridiculed their client

391
00:24:04,280 --> 00:24:07,520
Speaker 2: and pressured jurors into a quick verdict on the first

392
00:24:07,600 --> 00:24:08,760
Speaker 2: day of deliberations.

393
00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:11,960
Speaker 5: Yeah, so this just a little bit of an unusual point.

394
00:24:12,359 --> 00:24:15,000
Speaker 5: Sam tried to point to the fact that the judge

395
00:24:15,400 --> 00:24:19,040
Speaker 5: offering to provide pizza and din into the jury and

396
00:24:19,160 --> 00:24:22,880
Speaker 5: have them stay longer than nine to five was all

397
00:24:22,960 --> 00:24:26,680
Speaker 5: part of a pressure tactic to get them to reach

398
00:24:26,680 --> 00:24:29,879
Speaker 5: a verdict as soon as possible. But that's not entirely

399
00:24:29,960 --> 00:24:35,399
Speaker 5: unusual to see juries kind of sequestered or stay past

400
00:24:35,480 --> 00:24:39,200
Speaker 5: their five pm deadline to try and reach a verdict.

401
00:24:39,760 --> 00:24:44,359
Speaker 2: And how did the appellate court respond to these other allegations.

402
00:24:44,720 --> 00:24:48,720
Speaker 5: They said that even though he had to go through

403
00:24:48,920 --> 00:24:53,520
Speaker 5: this kind of deposition before the jury came in and

404
00:24:53,680 --> 00:24:56,600
Speaker 5: that there were these rulings against him and what he

405
00:24:56,840 --> 00:24:59,800
Speaker 5: was permitted to talk about, the appeals Court found that

406
00:24:59,840 --> 00:25:02,159
Speaker 5: he was able to present his version of events to

407
00:25:02,200 --> 00:25:05,879
Speaker 5: the jury when he testified regarding his good faith beliefs,

408
00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:09,280
Speaker 5: the Alamed's assets were greater than of liabilities. So the

409
00:25:09,320 --> 00:25:12,639
Speaker 5: court found that he was still able to present a

410
00:25:12,840 --> 00:25:13,639
Speaker 5: sufficient case.

411
00:25:14,359 --> 00:25:16,359
Speaker 2: And we haven't talked yet about the money that he

412
00:25:16,560 --> 00:25:19,159
Speaker 2: was ordered to pay. Is that still in place?

413
00:25:20,200 --> 00:25:23,600
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's right. So he was ordered to repay eleven

414
00:25:23,640 --> 00:25:27,760
Speaker 5: billion dollars, which is an extraordinary number, and he had

415
00:25:27,880 --> 00:25:31,879
Speaker 5: argued in his appeal, but it meant that statements Fred's

416
00:25:31,960 --> 00:25:35,840
Speaker 5: ability to earn a livelihood ever again was very slim,

417
00:25:36,119 --> 00:25:39,840
Speaker 5: and I give that it was unconstitutional, but the court

418
00:25:39,880 --> 00:25:43,040
Speaker 5: found that even if he will never be able to

419
00:25:43,560 --> 00:25:46,639
Speaker 5: unfold to satisfy on the eleven billion just golo judgment, it

420
00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:51,320
Speaker 5: did not render the forfeiture unconstitutional or grossly disproportionate.

421
00:25:51,720 --> 00:25:55,320
Speaker 2: With the bankruptcy and stuff, are the customers going to

422
00:25:55,359 --> 00:25:57,159
Speaker 2: be refunded most of the money.

423
00:25:57,880 --> 00:26:00,880
Speaker 5: I think the bankruptcy process has been large, really successful

424
00:26:01,520 --> 00:26:04,680
Speaker 5: for most of the STX customers, A lot of them,

425
00:26:04,920 --> 00:26:07,720
Speaker 5: if not all of them, have got their money back,

426
00:26:08,400 --> 00:26:11,280
Speaker 5: if not all of their investment, then very close to

427
00:26:11,560 --> 00:26:13,920
Speaker 5: But the argument that they make is that they could

428
00:26:13,920 --> 00:26:16,680
Speaker 5: have held on to some of these investments and could

429
00:26:16,680 --> 00:26:19,120
Speaker 5: have got some of the high returns that we've seen

430
00:26:19,240 --> 00:26:22,080
Speaker 5: over the past a year or so that the other

431
00:26:22,119 --> 00:26:24,440
Speaker 5: investors have had in the crypto market.

432
00:26:24,480 --> 00:26:29,040
Speaker 2: Specifically, the Appellate Court said the government's evidence against him

433
00:26:29,200 --> 00:26:34,520
Speaker 2: was conservatively stated robust, so remind us about the main

434
00:26:34,600 --> 00:26:36,680
Speaker 2: prosecution witnesses against him.

435
00:26:37,080 --> 00:26:40,919
Speaker 5: The prosecution's case was bolstered by the testimony from a

436
00:26:41,000 --> 00:26:45,560
Speaker 5: few key witnesses, including the co founder of FTX, Gary Wong,

437
00:26:46,000 --> 00:26:50,600
Speaker 5: and the former CEO of Elementar Research, Caroline Ellison. They

438
00:26:50,640 --> 00:26:53,760
Speaker 5: were the star witnesses for the government and they explained

439
00:26:53,840 --> 00:26:58,080
Speaker 5: how Sam would move money around and how he knew

440
00:26:58,080 --> 00:27:01,400
Speaker 5: that he was using customer funds or other investments than

441
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:04,960
Speaker 5: to purchase real estate and he knew that was wrong,

442
00:27:05,080 --> 00:27:08,680
Speaker 5: and that evidence really helped convict Stam. In the end,

443
00:27:09,119 --> 00:27:09,400
Speaker 5: have they.

444
00:27:09,320 --> 00:27:11,080
Speaker 2: Said what they're going to do. They could appeal to

445
00:27:11,119 --> 00:27:14,040
Speaker 2: the full Circuit, or they could try a Supreme Court appeal.

446
00:27:14,359 --> 00:27:17,879
Speaker 5: Exactly, he could try a Supreme Court appeal. We haven't

447
00:27:17,880 --> 00:27:21,200
Speaker 5: heard yet from his legal pain about what he's going

448
00:27:21,280 --> 00:27:25,320
Speaker 5: to do next, though he has submitted an application for

449
00:27:25,400 --> 00:27:28,480
Speaker 5: a pardon. He has been mounting a bit of a

450
00:27:28,520 --> 00:27:32,080
Speaker 5: social media campaign even though he's in prison, appealing to

451
00:27:32,640 --> 00:27:36,919
Speaker 5: President Trump and appearing on conservative news platforms, trying to

452
00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:40,240
Speaker 5: really dig up his Republican bona fide. And we reported

453
00:27:40,320 --> 00:27:43,520
Speaker 5: last week that he had submitted a formal application to

454
00:27:43,560 --> 00:27:45,600
Speaker 5: the Justice Department for a pardon.

455
00:27:45,880 --> 00:27:48,360
Speaker 2: It's great to talk to you again, Eva, Welcome back

456
00:27:48,359 --> 00:27:52,440
Speaker 2: from maternity leave. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava Benny Morrison,

457
00:27:53,160 --> 00:27:55,480
Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

458
00:27:55,800 --> 00:27:58,159
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

459
00:27:58,240 --> 00:28:02,520
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

460
00:28:02,680 --> 00:28:07,720
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

461
00:28:08,119 --> 00:28:10,720
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

462
00:28:10,760 --> 00:28:14,680
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

463
00:28:14,800 --> 00:28:16,399
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg