1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:13,760
Speaker 1: It's one of the most watched, most discussed, and perhaps

3
00:00:13,960 --> 00:00:17,640
Speaker 1: most feared cases of the Supreme Court term, with serious

4
00:00:17,680 --> 00:00:22,159
Speaker 1: implications for elections and democracy. The Court is considering a

5
00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:26,200
Speaker 1: novel and far reaching argument that would give state legislatures

6
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:31,240
Speaker 1: virtually unchecked power in making rules for congressional and presidential elections,

7
00:00:31,520 --> 00:00:35,280
Speaker 1: essentially without any oversight from state courts. The Supreme Court

8
00:00:35,320 --> 00:00:38,480
Speaker 1: has never adopted what is known as the independent state

9
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:43,400
Speaker 1: legislature theory, and the liberal justices like Elena Kagan warned

10
00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:47,320
Speaker 1: about the consequences, saying it would eliminate the normal checks

11
00:00:47,320 --> 00:00:51,720
Speaker 1: and balances. It would say that legislatures could enact or

12
00:00:51,960 --> 00:00:55,840
Speaker 1: manner of restrictions on voting, get rid of all kinds

13
00:00:55,880 --> 00:01:00,920
Speaker 1: of voter protections that the state constitution in fact prohibits.

14
00:01:01,680 --> 00:01:05,759
Speaker 1: It might allow the legislatures to insert themselves, to give

15
00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:10,160
Speaker 1: themselves a role in the certification of elections. The three

16
00:01:10,200 --> 00:01:14,480
Speaker 1: most conservative justices voice support for their theory, as they

17
00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:18,520
Speaker 1: had in a prior case. Here's Justice Samuel Alito. So

18
00:01:18,600 --> 00:01:20,960
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of talk about the impact of

19
00:01:21,000 --> 00:01:24,160
Speaker 1: this decision on democracy. Do you think that it further

20
00:01:24,240 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 1: is democracy to transfer the political controversy about districting from

21
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:35,760
Speaker 1: the legislature to elected Supreme courts, But three conservative justices

22
00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:39,000
Speaker 1: who may control the outcome in the case, Chief Justice

23
00:01:39,080 --> 00:01:43,120
Speaker 1: John Roberts and Justice is Brett Kavanaugh. Amy Coney Barrett

24
00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:47,480
Speaker 1: expressed skepticism. Here are the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh

25
00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:51,360
Speaker 1: investing the power to veto the actions of the legislature.

26
00:01:51,440 --> 00:01:55,440
Speaker 1: Significantly undermines the argument that he can do whatever it wants.

27
00:01:56,800 --> 00:01:59,720
Speaker 1: Your position seems to go further than Chief Justice rank

28
00:01:59,800 --> 00:02:03,240
Speaker 1: with position in Bush Figore, where he seemed to acknowledge

29
00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:07,480
Speaker 1: that state courts would have a role interpreting state law.

30
00:02:08,000 --> 00:02:11,240
Speaker 1: Joining me is constitutional law professor Stephen Vladdock of the

31
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:15,040
Speaker 1: University of Texas Law School, Steve, this case is about

32
00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:19,320
Speaker 1: redistricting in North Carolina, but the real discussion in the

33
00:02:19,480 --> 00:02:23,639
Speaker 1: three hours of oral arguments was about this independent state

34
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:30,160
Speaker 1: legislature theory. Explain what it is. It's a very textual theory,

35
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:34,079
Speaker 1: textual and not contextual theory about two different provisions of

36
00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:37,840
Speaker 1: the Constitution. About Article one, Section four, which gives to

37
00:02:37,919 --> 00:02:41,760
Speaker 1: the quote legislature unquote of the state the power to

38
00:02:41,960 --> 00:02:45,720
Speaker 1: fix the time, place, and manner for federal election. And

39
00:02:45,720 --> 00:02:49,160
Speaker 1: then there's similar language in Article two, Section one that

40
00:02:49,240 --> 00:02:52,640
Speaker 1: leads it to the legislature unquote of the state to

41
00:02:52,720 --> 00:02:56,280
Speaker 1: fix the manner for choosing presidential electors. And the basic

42
00:02:56,440 --> 00:02:59,760
Speaker 1: gist of the theory is that in both of these places,

43
00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:04,079
Speaker 1: where the U. S. Constitution uses the word legislature, it

44
00:03:04,120 --> 00:03:09,720
Speaker 1: means the legislature and only the legislature, so that, for example,

45
00:03:10,080 --> 00:03:14,040
Speaker 1: a state Supreme court is powerless to strike down an

46
00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:17,239
Speaker 1: action by the state legislature on the ground that maybe

47
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:20,240
Speaker 1: it violates the state constitution. In other words, that the

48
00:03:20,360 --> 00:03:23,120
Speaker 1: reference to the legislature of the state in both of

49
00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:27,400
Speaker 1: those provisions is to the exclusion of anyone else in

50
00:03:27,440 --> 00:03:30,880
Speaker 1: the state, to the exclusion of state constitutional law, so

51
00:03:30,919 --> 00:03:33,280
Speaker 1: that whatever the legislature goes when it comes to federal

52
00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,680
Speaker 1: election is the rule. This idea was in the concurring

53
00:03:36,760 --> 00:03:40,760
Speaker 1: opinion of three conservative justices in the two thousand Bush

54
00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:43,040
Speaker 1: Fee Gore case. Is that the first time this was

55
00:03:43,120 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 1: seriously suggested, Did this come out of whole cloth? I mean,

56
00:03:47,080 --> 00:03:49,840
Speaker 1: there are allusions to the idea in an older Supreme

57
00:03:49,880 --> 00:03:51,920
Speaker 1: Court kid called Nick Pherson, But yeah, I mean, it

58
00:03:51,960 --> 00:03:55,240
Speaker 1: really is Bush versus Gore when it's becomes invoked, and

59
00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:58,520
Speaker 1: you know, June Bush versus Gore is instructive because from

60
00:03:58,520 --> 00:04:03,480
Speaker 1: the perspective of the conservative justices, the real sin in

61
00:04:03,560 --> 00:04:06,440
Speaker 1: Bush versus Gore was that the Florida Supreme Court, the

62
00:04:06,560 --> 00:04:12,160
Speaker 1: Democratic control Florida Supreme Court, kept invalidating things that the

63
00:04:12,240 --> 00:04:15,640
Speaker 1: legislature had provided for on the ground that it violated

64
00:04:15,640 --> 00:04:18,240
Speaker 1: the Florida Constitution. Now, this is where it starts getting

65
00:04:18,520 --> 00:04:22,520
Speaker 1: kind of complicated and controversial, because Jenn, we usually think

66
00:04:22,800 --> 00:04:25,320
Speaker 1: that when it comes to the meaning of the state Constitution,

67
00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:28,400
Speaker 1: the state Supreme Court, that's the last word, right, It's

68
00:04:28,480 --> 00:04:31,720
Speaker 1: kind of odd to think that the federal Constitution actually

69
00:04:32,040 --> 00:04:35,640
Speaker 1: is relevant and telling us what the state constitution means.

70
00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:38,159
Speaker 1: Tell us about the case before the court over the

71
00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:41,760
Speaker 1: redistricting in North Carolina. So you know, this is actually

72
00:04:42,200 --> 00:04:45,600
Speaker 1: a offshoot of a twenty nine case by the Supreme

73
00:04:45,640 --> 00:04:49,200
Speaker 1: Court called Ruco, and the Supreme Court said that federal

74
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:54,360
Speaker 1: courts generally lack the ability to consider challenges to congressional

75
00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:57,880
Speaker 1: district maps on the ground that they are partisan gerrymanders.

76
00:04:58,000 --> 00:05:00,920
Speaker 1: And so what that did is it pushed part jerrymandering

77
00:05:01,040 --> 00:05:04,080
Speaker 1: litigation in the state court. So in Morton Harper, the

78
00:05:04,080 --> 00:05:06,480
Speaker 1: case of Supreme Court is here in the North Carolina

79
00:05:06,600 --> 00:05:10,320
Speaker 1: legislature drew congressional district maps in a way that the

80
00:05:10,360 --> 00:05:15,000
Speaker 1: North Carolina Supreme Court said violated the state Constitution. Basically,

81
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:18,600
Speaker 1: the North Carolina Supreme Court read into the North Carolina

82
00:05:18,680 --> 00:05:22,440
Speaker 1: Constitution a ban on partisan gerrymandering of the likes the

83
00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:26,359
Speaker 1: North Carolina legislature engaged. And what the challengers are asking

84
00:05:26,400 --> 00:05:29,760
Speaker 1: the U. S. Supreme Court is to say that once

85
00:05:29,880 --> 00:05:32,760
Speaker 1: the North Carolina Legislature drew the map, that was it.

86
00:05:32,839 --> 00:05:36,159
Speaker 1: There was nothing more that the North Carolina Supreme Court

87
00:05:36,200 --> 00:05:39,200
Speaker 1: could do. Even if the North Carolina Supreme Court was

88
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:42,360
Speaker 1: of the view that the maps violated the state Constitution,

89
00:05:43,120 --> 00:05:45,400
Speaker 1: did it seem to you at the oral arguments there

90
00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:49,440
Speaker 1: were three camps of justices. The three liberals who were

91
00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:53,920
Speaker 1: firmly against this theory, the three conservatives who are farthest

92
00:05:53,960 --> 00:05:56,159
Speaker 1: to the right, who were in favor of it, and

93
00:05:56,200 --> 00:05:59,360
Speaker 1: then the three justices in the middle, who seemed to

94
00:05:59,400 --> 00:06:02,360
Speaker 1: be in the middle. I think that's right, gee, I mean,

95
00:06:02,360 --> 00:06:05,160
Speaker 1: I think there have been concurrent opinions in the last

96
00:06:05,200 --> 00:06:08,160
Speaker 1: couple of years where at least four justices have expressed

97
00:06:08,160 --> 00:06:11,000
Speaker 1: some modicum of support for the independent legislature theory. But

98
00:06:11,040 --> 00:06:13,000
Speaker 1: I think what we saw at the argument is that

99
00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:15,280
Speaker 1: there really are only three who are all the way

100
00:06:15,320 --> 00:06:18,120
Speaker 1: in on what really would be a radical rewriteing of

101
00:06:18,200 --> 00:06:21,600
Speaker 1: federalism of how we understand the Constitution to structure the

102
00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:23,880
Speaker 1: relationship between the federal government and the state. So I

103
00:06:23,920 --> 00:06:26,320
Speaker 1: don't think we're gonna end up with five votes for

104
00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:29,960
Speaker 1: either of the extreme possibilities. That is to say, either

105
00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:33,520
Speaker 1: five votes to endorse the extreme version of the independent

106
00:06:33,640 --> 00:06:37,400
Speaker 1: legislature theory or five votes to categorically reject it. What's

107
00:06:37,480 --> 00:06:39,240
Speaker 1: much less clear to me is whether there are going

108
00:06:39,279 --> 00:06:41,599
Speaker 1: to be five votes for any version of the theory.

109
00:06:41,880 --> 00:06:43,960
Speaker 1: And of course then the question is, you know, what's

110
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:46,320
Speaker 1: the states in the middle. You know, is it that

111
00:06:46,440 --> 00:06:49,920
Speaker 1: there are five or more votes for some coherent middle ground,

112
00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:52,480
Speaker 1: or is it that the court fractures and you know

113
00:06:52,640 --> 00:06:55,599
Speaker 1: there are three votes to get rid of the doctrine altogether,

114
00:06:56,040 --> 00:06:58,719
Speaker 1: And then you have this plurality opinion from the Chief

115
00:06:58,839 --> 00:07:02,680
Speaker 1: and kavan on Derress that has some awkward, blurry line

116
00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:06,320
Speaker 1: for the future because once you cross the line, once

117
00:07:06,400 --> 00:07:09,640
Speaker 1: you say that there are circumstances in which just the

118
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:13,480
Speaker 1: literal reference to the legislature in the federal Constitution dis

119
00:07:13,560 --> 00:07:16,880
Speaker 1: empower state supreme courts in any circumstances. You know, I

120
00:07:16,880 --> 00:07:19,160
Speaker 1: think that's a pretty dangerous road to go down. So

121
00:07:19,280 --> 00:07:21,880
Speaker 1: what did you hear from the justices in the middle,

122
00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:25,320
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice and Justices Kavanaugh and there. What did

123
00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:27,560
Speaker 1: you hear in their questions? So, I mean, I think

124
00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:30,960
Speaker 1: I heard, you know, a combination of both abstract support

125
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:33,280
Speaker 1: for the idea that there ought to be some limits

126
00:07:33,600 --> 00:07:36,160
Speaker 1: on state Supreme court when it comes to the rules

127
00:07:36,200 --> 00:07:40,000
Speaker 1: for federal elections, but also June hesitation right about what

128
00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:41,880
Speaker 1: it would mean if they went all the way to

129
00:07:41,960 --> 00:07:43,960
Speaker 1: where the challengers want them to go to where I

130
00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:45,920
Speaker 1: think Thomas a leader of course, that you're willing to go.

131
00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:48,840
Speaker 1: And so I think the question is is there some

132
00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:52,440
Speaker 1: tenable middle ground that actually would allow them to find

133
00:07:52,440 --> 00:07:56,640
Speaker 1: a way to impose what, from their perspective are adequate

134
00:07:56,720 --> 00:07:59,960
Speaker 1: limits on state Supreme Court that wouldn't open the doors

135
00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:03,760
Speaker 1: basically the radical rewriting of federalism that the challenges are

136
00:08:03,760 --> 00:08:06,600
Speaker 1: pushing for. And in one possibility, and this was mentioned

137
00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:09,440
Speaker 1: by former Sister General don really during the arguments. One

138
00:08:09,520 --> 00:08:12,920
Speaker 1: possibility is just to say that it's not the word

139
00:08:13,400 --> 00:08:17,800
Speaker 1: legislature that constrains State Supreme Court when it comes to

140
00:08:17,840 --> 00:08:20,640
Speaker 1: federal elections. It's other parts of the constitutions to due

141
00:08:20,640 --> 00:08:23,920
Speaker 1: process clause, right, it's it's if protection clause that if

142
00:08:23,960 --> 00:08:27,600
Speaker 1: we're really worried about state Supreme Court acting in ways

143
00:08:27,640 --> 00:08:31,840
Speaker 1: that are arbitrary or capricious when it comes to federal elections,

144
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:34,160
Speaker 1: the way to fix that is to recognize that as

145
00:08:34,200 --> 00:08:38,040
Speaker 1: a due process violation, not to disempower the state Supreme

146
00:08:38,080 --> 00:08:40,240
Speaker 1: courts from acting in the first place. And I think

147
00:08:40,400 --> 00:08:42,800
Speaker 1: the million dollar questions need coming out of the oral

148
00:08:42,920 --> 00:08:45,520
Speaker 1: argument and whether there are five votes for that idea.

149
00:08:45,840 --> 00:08:49,480
Speaker 1: Justice Kegan said that in three recent rulings, the Supreme

150
00:08:49,520 --> 00:08:54,880
Speaker 1: Court accepted that state courts weigh in on state election laws.

151
00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:59,080
Speaker 1: So where would following precedents take the court here? I

152
00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:02,840
Speaker 1: think the Presidents are generally on the side of letting

153
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:06,000
Speaker 1: the state Supreme Court apply the state constitution as it

154
00:09:06,160 --> 00:09:09,000
Speaker 1: chooses to do. So, you know, the problem in June

155
00:09:09,040 --> 00:09:11,480
Speaker 1: is the problem that we have with the court that is,

156
00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:15,320
Speaker 1: I think less bound by precedents, and it's predecesses. I

157
00:09:15,320 --> 00:09:17,320
Speaker 1: think we're at a point with the Supreme Court where

158
00:09:17,360 --> 00:09:20,480
Speaker 1: there are a majority of justices who see precedents, you know,

159
00:09:20,520 --> 00:09:23,360
Speaker 1: the way that a drunk sees a lamppost right as support,

160
00:09:23,440 --> 00:09:26,720
Speaker 1: not as illumination. And so I don't think starry decisive

161
00:09:26,840 --> 00:09:29,440
Speaker 1: is going to decide this case. I don't think text

162
00:09:29,559 --> 00:09:31,600
Speaker 1: is going to decide this case. So I think the

163
00:09:31,640 --> 00:09:35,560
Speaker 1: real question is, are the justices in the so called middle,

164
00:09:35,960 --> 00:09:39,880
Speaker 1: you know, the Chief and Kavanaugh and Barrett sufficiently terrified

165
00:09:40,440 --> 00:09:43,280
Speaker 1: of the positions that the challengers are advocating. Are they

166
00:09:43,320 --> 00:09:47,440
Speaker 1: sufficiently mollified by the notion that other constitutional provisions can

167
00:09:47,480 --> 00:09:50,679
Speaker 1: be used to constrain state courts from behaving truly badly?

168
00:09:50,960 --> 00:09:53,600
Speaker 1: And you know, June, there are these remarkable amucus Freese

169
00:09:53,640 --> 00:09:55,200
Speaker 1: in this case. I mean, there's an amucus Friese in

170
00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:57,880
Speaker 1: this case that was signed by the chief justices of

171
00:09:57,960 --> 00:10:01,000
Speaker 1: all fifty states. When did we see that before? So

172
00:10:01,320 --> 00:10:03,880
Speaker 1: I think the attention that's been paid to this case,

173
00:10:03,960 --> 00:10:06,360
Speaker 1: the work that's been done on it, probably gets us

174
00:10:06,360 --> 00:10:08,520
Speaker 1: to a point where there are not five votes to

175
00:10:08,640 --> 00:10:11,720
Speaker 1: embrace a broad version of the state legislature theory. But

176
00:10:11,800 --> 00:10:13,760
Speaker 1: even if there are five votes to embrace a narrow

177
00:10:13,840 --> 00:10:16,520
Speaker 1: version of it, that would be a remarkable departure from

178
00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:20,120
Speaker 1: how we've understood the US Constitution and its relationship to

179
00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:23,880
Speaker 1: state constitution, I mean, thankfully since the founding. So as

180
00:10:23,880 --> 00:10:26,439
Speaker 1: a professor, if you just look at the text of

181
00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:32,680
Speaker 1: the Constitution, what's your analysis of the text and this theory. Well,

182
00:10:32,720 --> 00:10:34,360
Speaker 1: I think we've got to be careful about this text.

183
00:10:34,400 --> 00:10:37,079
Speaker 1: I mean, yes, the text as legislature, but the question

184
00:10:37,160 --> 00:10:39,559
Speaker 1: is what does that means? So, you know, June, for example,

185
00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:43,080
Speaker 1: Article one, sex and eight of the Constitution rapidly refers

186
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,160
Speaker 1: to Congress. No one has ever argued that when the

187
00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:51,640
Speaker 1: Constitution refers to Congress, it means Congress with no judicial review. Um, right,

188
00:10:51,679 --> 00:10:55,400
Speaker 1: it means Congress to the exclusion of all other actors.

189
00:10:55,400 --> 00:10:58,080
Speaker 1: So the text I think doesn't do a very good

190
00:10:58,160 --> 00:11:01,280
Speaker 1: job tell on us whether the reference to the legislature

191
00:11:01,480 --> 00:11:04,160
Speaker 1: in Article one sections for article section one were meant

192
00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:06,160
Speaker 1: to be exclusive the other piece of this and I

193
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:09,520
Speaker 1: think this is where the history really cut again. The

194
00:11:09,600 --> 00:11:13,000
Speaker 1: challengers and really I think sort of support the narrowest

195
00:11:13,240 --> 00:11:15,959
Speaker 1: possible compass for the doctrine. You know, June, as you know,

196
00:11:16,520 --> 00:11:20,400
Speaker 1: when the Constitution was being debated in the fall and

197
00:11:20,400 --> 00:11:25,319
Speaker 1: winter of eight you know, the anti federalists biggest opposition

198
00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:28,319
Speaker 1: to the Constitution was that it gave the federal government

199
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:32,000
Speaker 1: way too much power to restructure state governance or to

200
00:11:32,120 --> 00:11:35,200
Speaker 1: override right the traditional parometives of the state. It would

201
00:11:35,240 --> 00:11:38,920
Speaker 1: be pretty shocking if the Federal Constitution as it was

202
00:11:38,960 --> 00:11:43,160
Speaker 1: originally written restructured the separation of powers of every single

203
00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:47,360
Speaker 1: state by giving the legislature dominance over the state Supreme

204
00:11:47,400 --> 00:11:50,360
Speaker 1: court June and no one noticed. And you know, one

205
00:11:50,360 --> 00:11:53,040
Speaker 1: of the most remarkable pieces of all the researchers case.

206
00:11:53,120 --> 00:11:55,959
Speaker 1: You know, there's this line of briefing by the challengers

207
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:59,000
Speaker 1: that relies on a document called the Pink News Plan,

208
00:11:59,640 --> 00:12:02,959
Speaker 1: which reports to show some acknowledgment of this idea that

209
00:12:03,040 --> 00:12:05,760
Speaker 1: to found in. It turns out that document is they think,

210
00:12:06,320 --> 00:12:09,240
Speaker 1: you know, that the document on which they're reliance doesn't exist,

211
00:12:09,760 --> 00:12:12,400
Speaker 1: or it exists, but it wasn't authentic, and that even

212
00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:16,040
Speaker 1: if contemporaries knew it was authentic. So I think the

213
00:12:16,200 --> 00:12:19,079
Speaker 1: length one has to go to to think that this

214
00:12:19,200 --> 00:12:21,920
Speaker 1: was what the founders intended or to think. So it's

215
00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:25,280
Speaker 1: the natural reason of the text are just further reasons

216
00:12:25,320 --> 00:12:29,400
Speaker 1: why you know, I'm much more partial to the State

217
00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:31,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Court position in this case and why I think

218
00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:35,960
Speaker 1: the more liberal justices probably have this right. Is this

219
00:12:36,120 --> 00:12:40,040
Speaker 1: basically the theory that Rudy Giuliani and other Trump lawyers

220
00:12:40,120 --> 00:12:42,880
Speaker 1: like John Eastman, who I believe wrote a brief in

221
00:12:42,920 --> 00:12:46,440
Speaker 1: this case supporting the independent state legislature theory? Is this

222
00:12:46,559 --> 00:12:52,080
Speaker 1: the theory they espoused to try to invalidate the presidential election.

223
00:12:52,800 --> 00:12:56,439
Speaker 1: So yes and no, I mean the Trump team by

224
00:12:56,559 --> 00:13:00,400
Speaker 1: you know, November, in December of June, we're offering any

225
00:13:00,400 --> 00:13:04,040
Speaker 1: and every theory you can think of. And in most states,

226
00:13:04,200 --> 00:13:06,839
Speaker 1: the sort of the lynch pin of the arguments had

227
00:13:06,920 --> 00:13:10,480
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the relationship between the state legislature

228
00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:12,440
Speaker 1: and the state Supreme Court. The place where we saw

229
00:13:12,520 --> 00:13:18,679
Speaker 1: this argument most overtly in was in Pennsylvania, where the

230
00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:23,640
Speaker 1: state Supreme Court, interpreting the state constitution, ruled that the

231
00:13:23,679 --> 00:13:29,360
Speaker 1: state should count timely sent but late received mail in ballots.

232
00:13:29,360 --> 00:13:32,000
Speaker 1: Basically that if you mailed your mail in ballot by

233
00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:34,360
Speaker 1: election day and it was received by Friday, the state

234
00:13:34,360 --> 00:13:37,079
Speaker 1: Supreme Court rule that there should be counted. The legislature

235
00:13:37,080 --> 00:13:39,800
Speaker 1: has provided otherwise legislature had provided there was a received

236
00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:43,760
Speaker 1: depline of election day. And so that's a good example

237
00:13:44,320 --> 00:13:47,280
Speaker 1: of where the independent state legislature doctrine would make it different.

238
00:13:47,720 --> 00:13:50,679
Speaker 1: What's really important to those who are wondering about how

239
00:13:50,760 --> 00:13:56,120
Speaker 1: this affect is Pennsylvania. Republicans have long since conceded that

240
00:13:56,360 --> 00:14:00,000
Speaker 1: even if the state Supreme Court had been overruled, even

241
00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:03,000
Speaker 1: and if the late arriving mail in ballots had not

242
00:14:03,080 --> 00:14:07,560
Speaker 1: been counted in, President Biden still would have won Pennsylvania. So,

243
00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:11,520
Speaker 1: you know, this is one of the kitchen sink arguments

244
00:14:11,520 --> 00:14:15,000
Speaker 1: that Trump and his supporters used in Even if somehow

245
00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:18,199
Speaker 1: we get a majority that endorses that argument, there's nothing

246
00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:20,800
Speaker 1: about that that would call into question the bottom line

247
00:14:20,800 --> 00:14:23,880
Speaker 1: results in The best that could be said is maybe

248
00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:26,440
Speaker 1: it would have affected the margin in a couple of states.

249
00:14:27,000 --> 00:14:31,320
Speaker 1: Is there any universe in which you see five justices

250
00:14:31,520 --> 00:14:34,640
Speaker 1: just rejecting this theory outright done with it. I mean,

251
00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:37,440
Speaker 1: that would be amazing. I'd love for that to be

252
00:14:37,560 --> 00:14:39,720
Speaker 1: where this goes. It's hard to look at this court

253
00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:43,080
Speaker 1: and imagine that there are five votes for the proposition

254
00:14:43,640 --> 00:14:47,160
Speaker 1: that there are no circumstances where a state Supreme Court

255
00:14:47,600 --> 00:14:51,240
Speaker 1: could act in a way regarding a federal election that

256
00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:54,360
Speaker 1: would be immune from Supreme Court review. And so I think,

257
00:14:54,480 --> 00:14:57,680
Speaker 1: you know, the reality is that the only way that happens,

258
00:14:57,720 --> 00:15:00,360
Speaker 1: the only way we get a majority to reject the

259
00:15:00,400 --> 00:15:04,440
Speaker 1: so called independence legislature theory, is because they've been persuaded

260
00:15:04,440 --> 00:15:07,800
Speaker 1: that there are other federal constitutional constraints that would come

261
00:15:07,800 --> 00:15:10,160
Speaker 1: into play in a circumstance in which I stated Supreme

262
00:15:10,200 --> 00:15:13,640
Speaker 1: Court was truly behavior badly. I think what's more likely

263
00:15:14,120 --> 00:15:16,680
Speaker 1: June is that they either leave open that question for

264
00:15:16,720 --> 00:15:19,240
Speaker 1: another day, or they find a way to say, you know,

265
00:15:19,240 --> 00:15:21,040
Speaker 1: if I've been implicated here, you know, there are a

266
00:15:21,080 --> 00:15:23,680
Speaker 1: way to say that this case doesn't properly present the

267
00:15:23,760 --> 00:15:25,840
Speaker 1: question if they want to duck. But you know, I

268
00:15:25,840 --> 00:15:30,640
Speaker 1: think the sort of the two polar possibilities, either embracing

269
00:15:30,720 --> 00:15:33,120
Speaker 1: the broad version of the doctrine or rejecting it outright,

270
00:15:33,200 --> 00:15:36,600
Speaker 1: are actually probably the least likely two scenarios coming out

271
00:15:36,640 --> 00:15:39,760
Speaker 1: of the argument. Just to clarify, because I know Neil Katchal,

272
00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:42,840
Speaker 1: who was arguing for the voters who challenged the North

273
00:15:42,880 --> 00:15:47,200
Speaker 1: Carolina map, said the blast radius from their theory with

274
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:52,440
Speaker 1: so election chaos, so this theory could apply to anything

275
00:15:52,440 --> 00:15:56,440
Speaker 1: the legislature decides to do, rules on mail and ballots,

276
00:15:56,640 --> 00:16:00,880
Speaker 1: absentee voting, anything. I mean, that's it depends on how

277
00:16:00,920 --> 00:16:04,200
Speaker 1: far you go. But at its broadest, you know, taken literally,

278
00:16:04,600 --> 00:16:09,800
Speaker 1: the independent legislature theory would basically say that state constitutions

279
00:16:09,920 --> 00:16:13,440
Speaker 1: are just about irrelevance when it comes to the rules

280
00:16:13,480 --> 00:16:16,520
Speaker 1: that state legislatures set for federal elections, and that you know,

281
00:16:16,640 --> 00:16:19,640
Speaker 1: a state legislature considered rule student that might violate the

282
00:16:19,680 --> 00:16:24,280
Speaker 1: federal constitution, but that there's no room for state supreme

283
00:16:24,320 --> 00:16:29,080
Speaker 1: courts to strike down whether it's congressional districts or voting

284
00:16:29,240 --> 00:16:32,160
Speaker 1: rules or anything of the like, on the ground of

285
00:16:32,200 --> 00:16:37,720
Speaker 1: violates the state constitution, and that would have obviously dramatic consequences.

286
00:16:37,840 --> 00:16:40,160
Speaker 1: There's a kernel out there about whether that would even

287
00:16:40,200 --> 00:16:43,240
Speaker 1: allow a state legislature to throw out the results of

288
00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:46,120
Speaker 1: a presidential election. I think there are ways to embrace

289
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:49,120
Speaker 1: the broad version of the theory without going quite that far.

290
00:16:49,360 --> 00:16:52,320
Speaker 1: But you know, the Overton window has already moved so

291
00:16:52,400 --> 00:16:55,560
Speaker 1: much on this theory that I think it's not irrational

292
00:16:55,840 --> 00:16:58,880
Speaker 1: for folks to be worried about that prospect. I thought

293
00:16:59,280 --> 00:17:02,680
Speaker 1: naisily made be that after the backlash of the jobs

294
00:17:02,720 --> 00:17:06,399
Speaker 1: decision taking away the constitutional right to abortion, and the

295
00:17:06,440 --> 00:17:10,879
Speaker 1: repercussions of that decision, that the Conservatives might step back

296
00:17:10,920 --> 00:17:13,840
Speaker 1: a little. But do the oral arguments so far this

297
00:17:14,080 --> 00:17:19,160
Speaker 1: term indicate that the Conservatives don't feel that constraint. Yeah,

298
00:17:19,200 --> 00:17:21,439
Speaker 1: I don't think the Conservatives are in any way chasing

299
00:17:21,720 --> 00:17:25,040
Speaker 1: by the public backlash to the decisions. I don't think

300
00:17:25,080 --> 00:17:28,119
Speaker 1: they're chasened by the election results, in which, you know,

301
00:17:28,240 --> 00:17:31,679
Speaker 1: opposition to Dabbs might have actually allowed the Democrats to

302
00:17:31,720 --> 00:17:34,560
Speaker 1: hold onto the Senate. At least so far June. There's

303
00:17:34,640 --> 00:17:39,119
Speaker 1: no evidence that the Conservative justices have done anything to

304
00:17:39,240 --> 00:17:43,040
Speaker 1: adopt or adapt their behavior in reaction to the shift

305
00:17:43,119 --> 00:17:45,480
Speaker 1: and political winds. And I will just say, I mean,

306
00:17:45,480 --> 00:17:48,000
Speaker 1: I think wholly unrelated to the substance of what the

307
00:17:48,040 --> 00:17:52,800
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is doing institutionally. I think that's alarming because

308
00:17:53,040 --> 00:17:56,480
Speaker 1: over its history, the Court has gotten into the most

309
00:17:56,680 --> 00:18:00,119
Speaker 1: trouble in those periods when it has deemed it of

310
00:18:00,440 --> 00:18:05,160
Speaker 1: least in conversation with the public, with the political branches,

311
00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:07,399
Speaker 1: with the sort of shifting political ties. Right, the court

312
00:18:07,480 --> 00:18:09,640
Speaker 1: is not democratic. The Court is not meant to be

313
00:18:09,720 --> 00:18:13,159
Speaker 1: democratically accountable. But that's not the same thingnessy, and the

314
00:18:13,240 --> 00:18:18,520
Speaker 1: court is therefore categoricallymute from you know, shifting political ties.

315
00:18:18,720 --> 00:18:20,760
Speaker 1: And so I don't since there's any evidence that the

316
00:18:20,840 --> 00:18:24,600
Speaker 1: justices are in any way shrinking from sort of the

317
00:18:24,880 --> 00:18:28,320
Speaker 1: aggressiveness that we saw last term. And thankfully, I think

318
00:18:28,400 --> 00:18:31,119
Speaker 1: that's unfortunate, unrelated to the merits of these cases, just

319
00:18:31,240 --> 00:18:33,440
Speaker 1: for the continuing health of the courts and institution, for

320
00:18:33,520 --> 00:18:36,919
Speaker 1: public perception of the court as something other than just

321
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:40,560
Speaker 1: another font of partisan political power. Thanks so much, Steve,

322
00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:44,600
Speaker 1: I always appreciate your insights. That's Professor Stephen Vladdock of

323
00:18:44,640 --> 00:18:50,240
Speaker 1: the University of Texas Law School. Harvard's former offensing coach

324
00:18:50,320 --> 00:18:54,440
Speaker 1: and a telecom ceo are facing a jury over charges

325
00:18:54,520 --> 00:18:58,400
Speaker 1: they corrupted the admissions process in a case with echoes

326
00:18:58,440 --> 00:19:02,000
Speaker 1: of the Varsity Blues bribe re scandal. Joining me is

327
00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:07,280
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Leal reporter Laurel Calkins. So, the prosecutors alleged that

328
00:19:07,480 --> 00:19:09,840
Speaker 1: there was a huge amount of money paid here, and

329
00:19:09,880 --> 00:19:13,640
Speaker 1: it was paid in bits and pieces and in odd ways. Yes,

330
00:19:13,760 --> 00:19:16,800
Speaker 1: it was paid in dribs and drabs by the Maryland

331
00:19:16,880 --> 00:19:21,120
Speaker 1: Chinese American businessman whose name is Jack Zow, and he

332
00:19:21,240 --> 00:19:25,480
Speaker 1: allegedly paid the Harvard Finch and coach Peter Brand about

333
00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:29,040
Speaker 1: at least a million and a half in dribs and drabs,

334
00:19:29,080 --> 00:19:32,280
Speaker 1: And it came in odd ways. Uh. It first was

335
00:19:32,440 --> 00:19:36,000
Speaker 1: a payment to pay off the coach's mortgage for about

336
00:19:36,440 --> 00:19:39,679
Speaker 1: hundred twenty thousand, and then it was bought the house.

337
00:19:40,080 --> 00:19:43,600
Speaker 1: He overpaid by almost twice to get that. And then

338
00:19:43,640 --> 00:19:46,040
Speaker 1: he bought the coach at Camaro, and then he helped

339
00:19:46,119 --> 00:19:48,879
Speaker 1: him buy another house, and then he paid a contractor

340
00:19:49,160 --> 00:19:51,159
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty thousand to remodel that. So he

341
00:19:51,200 --> 00:19:54,240
Speaker 1: started adding all the little pieces up and it comes

342
00:19:54,280 --> 00:19:58,080
Speaker 1: in fairly large. But what's really interesting is it started

343
00:19:58,119 --> 00:20:01,280
Speaker 1: out in a whole different way. These were direct payments

344
00:20:01,320 --> 00:20:05,960
Speaker 1: for the coach's benefit. Initially, according to the prosecutors, the

345
00:20:06,000 --> 00:20:09,400
Speaker 1: scheme was that Zao would make a million dollar contribution

346
00:20:09,960 --> 00:20:14,560
Speaker 1: to a middleman's fencing foundation and the middleman would pass

347
00:20:14,600 --> 00:20:17,520
Speaker 1: the million dollars on to a family foundation the coaches

348
00:20:17,560 --> 00:20:20,520
Speaker 1: set up. Well, the middleman ended up keeping nine of

349
00:20:20,520 --> 00:20:24,399
Speaker 1: the money for himself, so they changed the scheme mid stream.

350
00:20:24,560 --> 00:20:29,440
Speaker 1: Was the allegation, and what's the defense the explanation for

351
00:20:29,560 --> 00:20:33,840
Speaker 1: all that money generosity, The defense says, you know, it's

352
00:20:33,840 --> 00:20:37,600
Speaker 1: a cultural thing. The Zals are wealthy, they're they're from

353
00:20:37,600 --> 00:20:40,560
Speaker 1: the Chinese tradition of being generous with their friends. And

354
00:20:40,640 --> 00:20:42,760
Speaker 1: by the way, they say now, and they did not

355
00:20:42,840 --> 00:20:44,879
Speaker 1: say this in any of the pre trial violence, but

356
00:20:45,280 --> 00:20:48,280
Speaker 1: they told the jury on opening day this was all alone,

357
00:20:48,680 --> 00:20:51,440
Speaker 1: that Peter Brand paid back with interest. And of course

358
00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:53,560
Speaker 1: the prosecutors are going nuts, what do you mean, there's

359
00:20:53,600 --> 00:20:56,960
Speaker 1: no evidence that it was ever repaid, and the jury

360
00:20:57,160 --> 00:20:59,800
Speaker 1: was told or promised that they will be told that

361
00:21:00,240 --> 00:21:04,159
Speaker 1: the coach got an inheritance from his mom recently and

362
00:21:04,320 --> 00:21:07,359
Speaker 1: paid everything off with interest. Of course that also happened

363
00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:11,840
Speaker 1: after he was indicted, So key point there. It's going

364
00:21:11,880 --> 00:21:14,280
Speaker 1: to be interesting. The prosecution is actually trying to get

365
00:21:14,320 --> 00:21:16,760
Speaker 1: the judge to say they have to take all that back,

366
00:21:16,760 --> 00:21:18,240
Speaker 1: and they can't tell any of that to the jury

367
00:21:18,240 --> 00:21:20,960
Speaker 1: because it doesn't matter what happened after the indictments. So

368
00:21:21,000 --> 00:21:23,399
Speaker 1: what's gonna be interesting to see what happened now. The

369
00:21:23,480 --> 00:21:28,720
Speaker 1: defense says, Joos sons were nationally ranked fencers, outstanding athletes,

370
00:21:29,040 --> 00:21:32,080
Speaker 1: and good students who were admitted on their own merit,

371
00:21:32,840 --> 00:21:37,000
Speaker 1: but you never know with college admissions, and the prosecution

372
00:21:37,119 --> 00:21:40,439
Speaker 1: says that Jaw didn't want to take any chances that

373
00:21:40,480 --> 00:21:43,840
Speaker 1: his son would be rejected exactly. And you also have

374
00:21:43,920 --> 00:21:46,760
Speaker 1: to recognize that the two sons are not exactly equal.

375
00:21:47,200 --> 00:21:51,600
Speaker 1: They both were outstanding academics. They both had outstanding academics

376
00:21:51,600 --> 00:21:55,280
Speaker 1: which qualified under Harvard's admissions, and then they both were

377
00:21:55,840 --> 00:22:00,119
Speaker 1: competitive fencers. Shall we say The elder son actually went

378
00:22:00,160 --> 00:22:03,360
Speaker 1: on to become co captain of Harvard's fencing team and

379
00:22:03,520 --> 00:22:06,000
Speaker 1: was second strain all Ivy, so he clearly was talented.

380
00:22:06,320 --> 00:22:09,520
Speaker 1: The younger son also competed for Harvard. He racked up,

381
00:22:09,640 --> 00:22:12,040
Speaker 1: you know, some honors, but not as much as his brother.

382
00:22:12,320 --> 00:22:15,119
Speaker 1: But um, the other thing is with Harvard, unlike some

383
00:22:15,200 --> 00:22:17,720
Speaker 1: of the other colleges, the coach can't just say this

384
00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:20,440
Speaker 1: is my recruit and they automatically get in. Harvard has

385
00:22:20,480 --> 00:22:24,000
Speaker 1: a kind of a whole student evaluation process, and there's

386
00:22:24,000 --> 00:22:27,760
Speaker 1: an interview and a committee process, so it will very

387
00:22:27,840 --> 00:22:30,280
Speaker 1: much tips the scale in your favor, but it's not

388
00:22:30,640 --> 00:22:33,800
Speaker 1: a dead lock. So I think Zoo was trying to

389
00:22:33,800 --> 00:22:35,840
Speaker 1: to tilt that scale as much in his son's favor

390
00:22:35,880 --> 00:22:39,000
Speaker 1: as possible. But a big point in the trial is

391
00:22:39,000 --> 00:22:43,280
Speaker 1: going to be was Harvard harmed because the zo's technically

392
00:22:43,400 --> 00:22:46,720
Speaker 1: qualified for admissions on their own merit. Uh. They fenced

393
00:22:46,720 --> 00:22:49,720
Speaker 1: competitively for Harvard all four years that each boy was there,

394
00:22:50,359 --> 00:22:53,320
Speaker 1: and they both paid full tuition. They didn't get any scholarships,

395
00:22:53,320 --> 00:22:56,320
Speaker 1: believe it or not. So it's a question did Harvard

396
00:22:56,320 --> 00:22:59,680
Speaker 1: get Harvard? Who's the victim here? This is a bribery case.

397
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:02,600
Speaker 1: Why isn't enough to prove bribery. Why do they have

398
00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:06,600
Speaker 1: to prove what's called honest services fraud? You know, it's

399
00:23:06,680 --> 00:23:09,879
Speaker 1: kind of a murky area to me. Um, there's so

400
00:23:09,880 --> 00:23:13,480
Speaker 1: many different varieties of honest services fraud and I haven't

401
00:23:13,560 --> 00:23:17,720
Speaker 1: quite passed through exactly the courts passing through it now

402
00:23:17,840 --> 00:23:20,080
Speaker 1: so well, I I know. And the thing is, it's

403
00:23:20,119 --> 00:23:22,720
Speaker 1: like there's like twenty different flavors of that, and I

404
00:23:22,760 --> 00:23:24,600
Speaker 1: know that some of them. If if you're going to

405
00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:27,040
Speaker 1: date myself, you're dating back to the in run days.

406
00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:31,320
Speaker 1: Some of the prosecutions of the investment bankers in the

407
00:23:31,359 --> 00:23:35,119
Speaker 1: in run prosecutions were overturned on honest services fraud because

408
00:23:35,119 --> 00:23:37,320
Speaker 1: it's still murky, and I think you have to have

409
00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:40,040
Speaker 1: a victim. And that's why it's become a point in

410
00:23:40,080 --> 00:23:42,360
Speaker 1: the trial, is was Harvard actually a victim of what?

411
00:23:42,400 --> 00:23:44,800
Speaker 1: Was Harvard defrauded? So it's kind of interesting to see

412
00:23:44,800 --> 00:23:47,720
Speaker 1: how it involved. Did the prosecutions say in the opening

413
00:23:47,760 --> 00:23:54,200
Speaker 1: statements how Harvard was harmed? Not specifically, they just kind of,

414
00:23:54,320 --> 00:23:55,639
Speaker 1: you know, there was kind of the theory that these

415
00:23:55,720 --> 00:23:57,720
Speaker 1: kids would not have been admitted on their own. As

416
00:23:57,760 --> 00:23:59,480
Speaker 1: you know, in opening statements, you get kind of a

417
00:23:59,520 --> 00:24:01,480
Speaker 1: dirty foul and put overview, and then you wait for

418
00:24:01,560 --> 00:24:05,280
Speaker 1: the case to unfold. The very first witness was the

419
00:24:05,320 --> 00:24:08,280
Speaker 1: middleman who testified yesterday if he was the guy who

420
00:24:08,400 --> 00:24:12,800
Speaker 1: kept the first bribe for himself, so he received a

421
00:24:12,840 --> 00:24:16,680
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement to in order to turn stays evidence

422
00:24:16,680 --> 00:24:20,680
Speaker 1: against the coach and the businessman, the dad, and so

423
00:24:21,960 --> 00:24:24,000
Speaker 1: you know, as somebody described it to me, he has

424
00:24:24,040 --> 00:24:27,960
Speaker 1: more baggage in the greyhound bus. And the jury could

425
00:24:27,960 --> 00:24:30,560
Speaker 1: of have have to make their determination as to whether they

426
00:24:30,600 --> 00:24:33,680
Speaker 1: believe this guy or if they believe the defense, which is, hey,

427
00:24:33,720 --> 00:24:37,040
Speaker 1: he's the criminal. He's the only evidence that there's any

428
00:24:37,240 --> 00:24:40,159
Speaker 1: kind of a plot between these two friends, who, by

429
00:24:40,160 --> 00:24:43,280
Speaker 1: the way, have a net zero on the balance sheet.

430
00:24:43,320 --> 00:24:48,840
Speaker 1: Between them. So classic, classic flipped witness. And do you

431
00:24:48,960 --> 00:24:52,560
Speaker 1: know what happened to that? I mean, he was never prosecuted,

432
00:24:52,640 --> 00:24:58,160
Speaker 1: nothing happened for him. Admittedly taking of that, yeah, that's

433
00:24:58,160 --> 00:25:01,040
Speaker 1: a that's a key point with an n prosecution deal.

434
00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:04,040
Speaker 1: You have to complete your part before you then go

435
00:25:04,160 --> 00:25:07,440
Speaker 1: before the judge. And the prosecution says he fulfilled his part,

436
00:25:07,520 --> 00:25:10,080
Speaker 1: you can sentence him to nothing. You know, they're kind

437
00:25:10,080 --> 00:25:12,400
Speaker 1: of has to be a fulfillment of the contract by

438
00:25:12,400 --> 00:25:16,520
Speaker 1: the witness. So if he doesn't succeed in convincing the jury,

439
00:25:16,680 --> 00:25:18,840
Speaker 1: I still think he doesn't get prosecuted. But it doesn't

440
00:25:18,840 --> 00:25:22,040
Speaker 1: mean that the prosecutors won't get creative with something else.

441
00:25:22,560 --> 00:25:25,280
Speaker 1: But um, I think the thing that overhangs this entire

442
00:25:25,359 --> 00:25:29,760
Speaker 1: trial is this same Boston U S. Attorney's office is

443
00:25:29,800 --> 00:25:33,440
Speaker 1: the one that brought us the operation Varsity Blues, which

444
00:25:33,520 --> 00:25:37,880
Speaker 1: was the nationwide uh IN college admission scandal run by

445
00:25:38,040 --> 00:25:41,720
Speaker 1: a consultant named Rick Singer. And that was where people

446
00:25:42,320 --> 00:25:47,440
Speaker 1: were wealthy and celebrity parents paid very easy to track

447
00:25:47,520 --> 00:25:51,000
Speaker 1: bribes where they either had people cheat to get their

448
00:25:51,119 --> 00:25:55,760
Speaker 1: children their children's admission scores changed on tests, or they

449
00:25:55,840 --> 00:25:58,800
Speaker 1: got uh they paid to have their children recruited as

450
00:25:58,840 --> 00:26:03,040
Speaker 1: athletes for sports they sometimes never even played. So the

451
00:26:03,080 --> 00:26:06,760
Speaker 1: Boston area is very well steeped in this whole idea

452
00:26:06,960 --> 00:26:10,200
Speaker 1: of rich parents were buying their kids way into college.

453
00:26:10,960 --> 00:26:13,879
Speaker 1: And they can't unhear that, you know, they can't not

454
00:26:14,080 --> 00:26:16,680
Speaker 1: know that. And I think they're supposed to just put

455
00:26:16,720 --> 00:26:20,239
Speaker 1: it aside and say because the prosecution has been very

456
00:26:20,280 --> 00:26:23,760
Speaker 1: careful not to mention Varsity Blues in this case because

457
00:26:23,760 --> 00:26:26,080
Speaker 1: I think they don't want any tank to come in

458
00:26:26,160 --> 00:26:29,120
Speaker 1: on that. But it's the guerrilla in the room all

459
00:26:29,160 --> 00:26:31,720
Speaker 1: the same. Even though these parents and this coach have

460
00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:35,159
Speaker 1: no connection whatsoever to the to the players in the

461
00:26:35,240 --> 00:26:39,520
Speaker 1: Varsity Blues, uh scandal, it's still in the room. I

462
00:26:39,520 --> 00:26:42,199
Speaker 1: don't think Harvard was one of those schools involved in

463
00:26:42,240 --> 00:26:46,399
Speaker 1: the parsibu, No, Yale was, and uh most of the

464
00:26:46,520 --> 00:26:50,600
Speaker 1: USC was the big center of it over in California,

465
00:26:50,840 --> 00:26:52,960
Speaker 1: but it went all over the place. I mean, I

466
00:26:52,960 --> 00:26:55,240
Speaker 1: think there was a U T University of Texas and

467
00:26:55,280 --> 00:26:59,320
Speaker 1: there were more than fifty wealthy parents and celebrity parents

468
00:26:59,359 --> 00:27:01,359
Speaker 1: that were in narrowed in that one. So it's just

469
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:03,800
Speaker 1: kind of hard not to have that in the back

470
00:27:03,840 --> 00:27:08,000
Speaker 1: of the mind for the jury. Besides this main witness,

471
00:27:08,080 --> 00:27:15,800
Speaker 1: the star witness, they do have emails from Brand to Jao. Well. Actually,

472
00:27:16,280 --> 00:27:19,600
Speaker 1: the emails that are the most damning for the coach

473
00:27:20,080 --> 00:27:23,720
Speaker 1: are the ones between the middleman and the coach, where

474
00:27:23,800 --> 00:27:27,320
Speaker 1: the coach is telling the middleman, whose name is Alexander Rajak,

475
00:27:27,600 --> 00:27:30,080
Speaker 1: the ow boys don't have to be great sensors, I

476
00:27:30,160 --> 00:27:32,719
Speaker 1: just need an incentive to recruit them, he says. In

477
00:27:32,760 --> 00:27:35,480
Speaker 1: one and then another one he says that student will

478
00:27:35,520 --> 00:27:38,960
Speaker 1: be my number one recruit if my future is secured.

479
00:27:39,359 --> 00:27:43,040
Speaker 1: That doesn't look very good. The optics there are very bad. Laurel,

480
00:27:43,119 --> 00:27:47,159
Speaker 1: the prosecutor gave something of a motive during opening statements.

481
00:27:47,520 --> 00:27:50,200
Speaker 1: The prosecution told the jury and opening statements they will

482
00:27:50,200 --> 00:27:55,000
Speaker 1: be producing evidence that Coach Brand's family was financially struggling

483
00:27:55,359 --> 00:27:59,080
Speaker 1: before they met the Zoo, And so, you know, did

484
00:27:59,119 --> 00:28:02,480
Speaker 1: the zaus just generously help out this guy? Who knows

485
00:28:02,560 --> 00:28:06,159
Speaker 1: for sure, but the coach's financial situation for his family

486
00:28:06,200 --> 00:28:09,760
Speaker 1: did turn around. The amounts of money talked about here

487
00:28:09,840 --> 00:28:13,160
Speaker 1: are sort of astonishing to me. I mean that came

488
00:28:13,200 --> 00:28:16,159
Speaker 1: out in testimony yesterday. There was some email traffic that

489
00:28:16,240 --> 00:28:22,000
Speaker 1: alluded to an unrelated party, a different Chinese businessman having

490
00:28:22,040 --> 00:28:26,479
Speaker 1: paid seven seven and a half million dollars to ensure

491
00:28:26,600 --> 00:28:31,719
Speaker 1: his child's admission to an elite university, and so Brand

492
00:28:32,000 --> 00:28:34,840
Speaker 1: allegedly took that as his benchmark. Well, if that worked

493
00:28:34,880 --> 00:28:37,600
Speaker 1: for one family, it's going to work for me. Now

494
00:28:37,680 --> 00:28:40,080
Speaker 1: they're going to have to prove that. But they rolled

495
00:28:40,120 --> 00:28:43,760
Speaker 1: that out through the middleman. Witness yesterday, one wonders why

496
00:28:43,800 --> 00:28:47,920
Speaker 1: they don't just give donations to the school in order

497
00:28:48,000 --> 00:28:51,880
Speaker 1: to get their kids in, because the reason there is

498
00:28:51,920 --> 00:28:54,240
Speaker 1: that none of that would float. As a coach, if

499
00:28:54,280 --> 00:28:57,440
Speaker 1: they just donated to the Harvard fencing team, they would

500
00:28:57,480 --> 00:28:59,560
Speaker 1: look great to the Harvard fencing team, but it wouldn't

501
00:28:59,600 --> 00:29:02,520
Speaker 1: necessary only boost their son's chances of admission. And the

502
00:29:02,600 --> 00:29:04,880
Speaker 1: coach said, I can put my finger on the scale,

503
00:29:05,400 --> 00:29:07,200
Speaker 1: but you got to make it worth my while. The

504
00:29:07,280 --> 00:29:09,760
Speaker 1: thing that's a that's really fascinated me about the whole

505
00:29:10,000 --> 00:29:13,160
Speaker 1: Varsity Blues thing. And again there is no connection between

506
00:29:13,200 --> 00:29:16,760
Speaker 1: these defendants and the actual Varsity Blue scandal. But what

507
00:29:16,840 --> 00:29:20,120
Speaker 1: always fascinated me about Varsity Blues as a scandal was,

508
00:29:21,000 --> 00:29:23,760
Speaker 1: you know, we all know that college admissions are rigged

509
00:29:23,760 --> 00:29:26,600
Speaker 1: to some extent, I mean, it's been an open secret

510
00:29:26,680 --> 00:29:30,400
Speaker 1: for generations that alumni kids get better treatment. At the

511
00:29:30,560 --> 00:29:35,320
Speaker 1: families of donors kids get better treatment. It's just it

512
00:29:35,400 --> 00:29:37,920
Speaker 1: was just kind of brought down to the masses through

513
00:29:37,920 --> 00:29:40,240
Speaker 1: that steam, and this is just kind of an ancillary

514
00:29:40,320 --> 00:29:42,840
Speaker 1: add on. And we're seeing now some of the varsity

515
00:29:43,200 --> 00:29:45,720
Speaker 1: I guess we had most of the varsity Blues parents

516
00:29:45,760 --> 00:29:49,120
Speaker 1: plead guilty to something and received very light sentences in

517
00:29:49,160 --> 00:29:52,600
Speaker 1: the scheme of things, either just fines and probations, or

518
00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:54,640
Speaker 1: they had to spend a few weeks to a few

519
00:29:54,640 --> 00:29:57,560
Speaker 1: months in jail. There's a couple now, the first two

520
00:29:57,560 --> 00:30:00,600
Speaker 1: that were convicted of two different parents, wealthy parents who

521
00:30:00,600 --> 00:30:04,280
Speaker 1: are actually appealing their convictions, and they said the jury

522
00:30:04,280 --> 00:30:08,520
Speaker 1: form confused the jurors, and so our conviction should be overturned,

523
00:30:08,520 --> 00:30:11,080
Speaker 1: we should be retried. And then there's another the USC

524
00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:14,400
Speaker 1: water polo coach is actually gonna get a new trial

525
00:30:14,520 --> 00:30:17,640
Speaker 1: after he was convicted on similar concerns. So these are

526
00:30:17,640 --> 00:30:19,800
Speaker 1: a little bit hard to proved, and harder to prove

527
00:30:19,840 --> 00:30:21,640
Speaker 1: than people think. But it may be more of a

528
00:30:21,680 --> 00:30:24,560
Speaker 1: legal problem than an actual evidence problem. Wait, we'd wait

529
00:30:24,600 --> 00:30:27,640
Speaker 1: to see. And the ringleader has yet to be sentenced

530
00:30:27,680 --> 00:30:30,000
Speaker 1: in that case. It's been going on forever and he's

531
00:30:30,040 --> 00:30:33,120
Speaker 1: not been sentenced. No, he was supposed to be sentenced.

532
00:30:33,160 --> 00:30:35,240
Speaker 1: I think this month was his most recent date, and

533
00:30:35,240 --> 00:30:37,200
Speaker 1: now he's been pushed to right after the first of

534
00:30:37,200 --> 00:30:39,160
Speaker 1: the year. I think he's in the first week of

535
00:30:39,200 --> 00:30:41,680
Speaker 1: the new year, unless they postpone it again. I don't know.

536
00:30:42,000 --> 00:30:44,440
Speaker 1: Maybe now that these other cases, this one case is

537
00:30:44,440 --> 00:30:46,880
Speaker 1: going to be retried against the USC water polo coach,

538
00:30:47,080 --> 00:30:50,600
Speaker 1: they may want to give him further incentive a kindudical operates,

539
00:30:50,640 --> 00:30:53,000
Speaker 1: so we may see that delayed again. So how long

540
00:30:53,200 --> 00:30:56,880
Speaker 1: is this current trial expected to last. It was originally

541
00:30:56,920 --> 00:30:59,880
Speaker 1: expected to last right up to the weekend before Chris.

542
00:31:00,000 --> 00:31:03,520
Speaker 1: This s which prosecutors usually bend over backwards to keep

543
00:31:03,520 --> 00:31:07,200
Speaker 1: from seating a jury in December because they're afraid that

544
00:31:07,240 --> 00:31:10,080
Speaker 1: the jurors will feel sympathy for the for the perpetrators

545
00:31:10,080 --> 00:31:12,000
Speaker 1: and saying now when that bad, and will let them

546
00:31:12,000 --> 00:31:13,600
Speaker 1: off and I want to get home to trim my

547
00:31:13,680 --> 00:31:17,840
Speaker 1: Christmas tree exactly. So you generally don't see big jury

548
00:31:17,920 --> 00:31:20,120
Speaker 1: Charles in December, so it's kind of unusual that this

549
00:31:20,120 --> 00:31:22,640
Speaker 1: one is happening then. And the judge had originally set

550
00:31:22,640 --> 00:31:24,320
Speaker 1: a schedule that the jury was only going to be

551
00:31:24,320 --> 00:31:27,400
Speaker 1: there half days, and they already decided that's not wise,

552
00:31:27,600 --> 00:31:29,400
Speaker 1: so they're speeding it up. And I think they're going

553
00:31:29,440 --> 00:31:31,960
Speaker 1: to try and complete within two weeks instead of three,

554
00:31:32,120 --> 00:31:35,040
Speaker 1: so they're aiming to be done with a verdict before

555
00:31:35,080 --> 00:31:37,080
Speaker 1: the weekend of Christmas. And I guarantee you they're going

556
00:31:37,120 --> 00:31:39,400
Speaker 1: to flog it to get there because they do not

557
00:31:39,480 --> 00:31:42,560
Speaker 1: want this jury's Christmas wrecked. So we'll see what happens.

558
00:31:42,840 --> 00:31:46,600
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Laurel. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Laurel Culkins,

559
00:31:47,000 --> 00:31:49,280
Speaker 1: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

560
00:31:49,640 --> 00:31:51,920
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

561
00:31:52,000 --> 00:31:56,480
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

562
00:31:56,480 --> 00:32:01,520
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

563
00:32:01,960 --> 00:32:04,560
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

564
00:32:04,600 --> 00:32:08,040
Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June

565
00:32:08,040 --> 00:32:10,240
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg