WEBVTT - Trump's Aggressive Election Strategy

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:07.060 --> 0:00:12.010
<v Speaker 2>They say the third time's a charm. Well, maybe this

0:00:12.150 --> 0:00:15.730
<v Speaker 2>latest appeal to the Supreme Court will be the final

0:00:15.830 --> 0:00:19.189
<v Speaker 2>word on the maps Missouri will use in the midterm.

0:00:19.390 --> 0:00:22.530
<v Speaker 2>The dispute over a new map drawn to help Republicans

0:00:22.590 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 2>gain a seat in the pivotal midterms has triggered confusion

0:00:26.440 --> 0:00:30.160
<v Speaker 2>and uncertainty for more than a million potential voters who

0:00:30.260 --> 0:00:35.280
<v Speaker 2>could be shuffled among districts. It comes amid crucial administrative deadlines.

0:00:35.720 --> 0:00:39.480
<v Speaker 2>Election officials in Missouri have already started mailing ballots to

0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:43.769
<v Speaker 2>military personnel and other voters outside the country. In two

0:00:43.850 --> 0:00:47.370
<v Speaker 2>separate rulings this month, the Supreme Court has told Missouri

0:00:47.490 --> 0:00:51.210
<v Speaker 2>it must use its old map, not the new gerrymandered

0:00:51.270 --> 0:00:55.240
<v Speaker 2>map drawn up by Republicans. But on Monday, a three-judge

0:00:55.300 --> 0:00:58.540
<v Speaker 2>panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said the

0:00:58.600 --> 0:01:02.660
<v Speaker 2>Constitution requires that the state use the same voting map

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:07.030
<v Speaker 2>in November that it used during the primary elections. And

0:01:07.080 --> 0:01:10.730
<v Speaker 2>now the case is back at the Supreme Court. Joining

0:01:10.750 --> 0:01:14.209
<v Speaker 2>me is Danielle Lang, Vice President for Voting Rights and

0:01:14.230 --> 0:01:18.009
<v Speaker 2>the Rule of Law at the Campaign Legal Center. Danielle,

0:01:18.190 --> 0:01:22.530
<v Speaker 2>Missouri's redistricting battle has been among the longest and most

0:01:22.730 --> 0:01:27.089
<v Speaker 2>complex in the roughly dozen states that have sought to

0:01:27.170 --> 0:01:31.429
<v Speaker 2>change their House districts over the past year. Explain why

0:01:31.470 --> 0:01:33.569
<v Speaker 2>it's back at the Supreme Court once again.

0:01:33.590 --> 0:01:37.090
<v Speaker 3>That's a great question. I think it's because some of

0:01:37.130 --> 0:01:40.259
<v Speaker 3>the plaintiffs in the Missouri case can't quite get the

0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:43.080
<v Speaker 3>hint from the Supreme Court. And that seems to be

0:01:43.120 --> 0:01:45.929
<v Speaker 3>the case, I think, for the Eighth Circuit as well.

0:01:46.310 --> 0:01:49.070
<v Speaker 3>So twice this has been before the Supreme Court already.

0:01:49.090 --> 0:01:51.830
<v Speaker 3>And the Supreme Court has said, no, we have to

0:01:51.930 --> 0:01:55.870
<v Speaker 3>follow what the Missouri Supreme Court has said about the

0:01:55.910 --> 0:01:59.840
<v Speaker 3>redistricting and what map needs to be used. But notwithstanding

0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:04.160
<v Speaker 3>those two prior orders from the Supreme Court, the Eighth

0:02:04.200 --> 0:02:08.340
<v Speaker 3>Circuit nonetheless ruled in favor of plaintiffs that are trying

0:02:08.400 --> 0:02:10.500
<v Speaker 3>to seek the use of a map that the Missouri

0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:14.830
<v Speaker 3>Supreme Court has said cannot be used. And under those circumstances,

0:02:14.870 --> 0:02:16.430
<v Speaker 3>we have to go back to the Supreme Court to

0:02:16.470 --> 0:02:17.430
<v Speaker 3>correct that error.

0:02:18.290 --> 0:02:22.269
<v Speaker 2>So the Supreme Court ordered Missouri to use its old

0:02:22.370 --> 0:02:27.510
<v Speaker 2>map in the upcoming midterm elections. However, during the primaries,

0:02:28.010 --> 0:02:31.240
<v Speaker 2>Missouri used the new map, which was drawn up to

0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:35.360
<v Speaker 2>give Republicans an advantage. So they're using a map with

0:02:35.900 --> 0:02:40.010
<v Speaker 2>different lines from that used when voters went to the

0:02:40.070 --> 0:02:43.090
<v Speaker 2>polls for the primaries, that does seem like it might

0:02:43.169 --> 0:02:47.510
<v Speaker 2>cause some problems. And the Eighth Circuit said it's unconstitutional.

0:02:48.440 --> 0:02:51.180
<v Speaker 3>Right. But I would just say in this context, I

0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 3>think the Supreme Court has already been clear. You know,

0:02:53.740 --> 0:02:56.399
<v Speaker 3>these are not new facts. The issue was already brought

0:02:56.440 --> 0:03:00.160
<v Speaker 3>to the Supreme Court of whether or not the Missouri

0:03:00.200 --> 0:03:03.340
<v Speaker 3>Supreme Court's order could be evaded. And the answer was no.

0:03:04.010 --> 0:03:06.950
<v Speaker 3>And so under those circumstances, I wouldn't expect there to

0:03:07.010 --> 0:03:09.270
<v Speaker 3>be a change in the Supreme Court's position.

0:03:09.790 --> 0:03:12.470
<v Speaker 2>And also the ballots have been mailed already, right, to

0:03:12.610 --> 0:03:14.410
<v Speaker 2>overseas and military voters?

0:03:15.169 --> 0:03:15.649
<v Speaker 1>Exactly.

0:03:15.669 --> 0:03:18.030
<v Speaker 3>You know, it is far too late to change things.

0:03:18.190 --> 0:03:21.929
<v Speaker 3>The election is underway and the Supreme Court has already

0:03:21.970 --> 0:03:22.630
<v Speaker 3>spoken twice.

0:03:23.750 --> 0:03:26.620
<v Speaker 2>Let's turn now to some of the problems that seem

0:03:26.680 --> 0:03:31.950
<v Speaker 2>to be arising ahead of the election. as President Trump

0:03:32.030 --> 0:03:36.410
<v Speaker 2>is trying to assert greater federal control over the elections,

0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:40.680
<v Speaker 2>and the Justice Department is employing an aggressive strategy that

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:46.600
<v Speaker 2>includes suing states for voter records, investigating election officials, and

0:03:46.660 --> 0:03:50.300
<v Speaker 2>even seizing ballots in some states. And this is setting

0:03:50.420 --> 0:03:54.620
<v Speaker 2>off alarm bells as to what might happen on Election Day.

0:03:55.170 --> 0:03:59.510
<v Speaker 2>And the NAACP is suing over what it says is

0:03:59.550 --> 0:04:04.370
<v Speaker 2>a Trump administration plan to station armed federal agents near

0:04:04.410 --> 0:04:08.850
<v Speaker 2>voting locations. The federal government has sent monitors to election

0:04:08.930 --> 0:04:11.250
<v Speaker 2>sites before. Tell us what normally happens.

0:04:12.130 --> 0:04:17.369
<v Speaker 3>Yes, there's been a longstanding federal observer policy and program

0:04:17.470 --> 0:04:20.870
<v Speaker 3>from the Department of Justice as well as congressional observers.

0:04:21.310 --> 0:04:25.650
<v Speaker 3>But that's all they are. They are observers. They cannot interfere.

0:04:25.670 --> 0:04:30.570
<v Speaker 3>They cannot even enter polling places unless they're invited. They

0:04:30.610 --> 0:04:33.900
<v Speaker 3>have to stand outside. And so it is not the

0:04:33.940 --> 0:04:38.520
<v Speaker 3>case that observers can interfere with our elections in any way.

0:04:38.540 --> 0:04:41.960
<v Speaker 3>So that's a longstanding practice. And of course, I would

0:04:42.000 --> 0:04:44.839
<v Speaker 3>expect there to be observers at the polls this year,

0:04:45.540 --> 0:04:48.090
<v Speaker 3>the same way that they have always been. Of course,

0:04:48.150 --> 0:04:52.850
<v Speaker 3>there have been concerning and fear-mongering statements from members of

0:04:52.910 --> 0:04:57.529
<v Speaker 3>the administration saying, suggesting perhaps more nefarious motives at the

0:04:57.589 --> 0:05:01.510
<v Speaker 3>polls by federal officials. But their federal law is actually

0:05:01.550 --> 0:05:05.390
<v Speaker 3>very clear. There's a statute that says that you cannot

0:05:05.610 --> 0:05:11.309
<v Speaker 3>send federal armed officials to the polls. Point blank. That

0:05:11.450 --> 0:05:14.030
<v Speaker 3>is the law. There are no ifs, ands, or buts

0:05:14.600 --> 0:05:19.220
<v Speaker 3>to that law. And so there is no reason for

0:05:19.260 --> 0:05:22.640
<v Speaker 3>there to be federal armed officials at the polls.

0:05:23.040 --> 0:05:26.860
<v Speaker 2>Have the Justice Department or FBI officials hinted that they

0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:27.760
<v Speaker 2>might be armed?

0:05:28.339 --> 0:05:30.460
<v Speaker 3>Well, I mean, I think that that is the image

0:05:30.500 --> 0:05:34.390
<v Speaker 3>that is evoked by FBI officers, ICE and the like,

0:05:34.450 --> 0:05:38.110
<v Speaker 3>is that those are typically law enforcement that are armed officials.

0:05:38.510 --> 0:05:40.190
<v Speaker 3>But the point is that there is no kind of

0:05:40.270 --> 0:05:44.430
<v Speaker 3>military or law enforcement, federal law enforcement permitted at the polls.

0:05:44.529 --> 0:05:48.530
<v Speaker 3>In fact, many states don't even allow state law enforcement

0:05:48.690 --> 0:05:52.979
<v Speaker 3>to be at the polls, except for under very limited circumstances. Because,

0:05:53.060 --> 0:05:56.580
<v Speaker 3>of course, voters should feel at ease at the polls.

0:05:56.720 --> 0:05:59.219
<v Speaker 3>And there are some communities that feel very ill at

0:05:59.380 --> 0:06:01.760
<v Speaker 3>ease when law enforcement is present.

0:06:02.080 --> 0:06:05.260
<v Speaker 2>So the NAACP is one of the groups that's suing

0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:09.049
<v Speaker 2>over this plan to place armed federal agents at the polls. So,

0:06:09.080 --> 0:06:11.850
<v Speaker 2>I mean, what can they hope to get before an

0:06:11.910 --> 0:06:15.229
<v Speaker 2>election that would stop that from happening?

0:06:15.680 --> 0:06:18.240
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I think that groups like the NAACP are putting

0:06:18.260 --> 0:06:21.320
<v Speaker 3>down a marker to make it very clear in the

0:06:21.339 --> 0:06:25.750
<v Speaker 3>litigation that the law stands, that the law is clear,

0:06:26.310 --> 0:06:30.010
<v Speaker 3>and that federal law enforcement will not be tolerated at

0:06:30.029 --> 0:06:34.539
<v Speaker 3>the polls, and that the civic engagement community, the civil

0:06:34.580 --> 0:06:39.130
<v Speaker 3>rights community has voters back. And so... We'll see how

0:06:39.170 --> 0:06:42.090
<v Speaker 3>that litigation plays out and whether or not there will

0:06:42.110 --> 0:06:45.170
<v Speaker 3>be any kind of preliminary relief sought there. But one

0:06:45.210 --> 0:06:47.670
<v Speaker 3>way or another, it lays down a very clear marker.

0:06:47.890 --> 0:06:50.310
<v Speaker 3>This is the law and we will not tolerate it

0:06:50.330 --> 0:06:51.450
<v Speaker 3>to be violated.

0:06:52.339 --> 0:06:56.719
<v Speaker 2>I'm also wondering, so if despite this, armed agents end

0:06:56.760 --> 0:06:59.840
<v Speaker 2>up at the polls, what happens at the polls? Because

0:06:59.900 --> 0:07:02.820
<v Speaker 2>at that point you have disruption. I'm sure you have

0:07:02.880 --> 0:07:06.310
<v Speaker 2>some voters who are intimidated already. What happens if the

0:07:06.470 --> 0:07:09.290
<v Speaker 2>state runs to court or the county runs to court

0:07:09.330 --> 0:07:11.290
<v Speaker 2>and tries to get an order? Yeah.

0:07:11.970 --> 0:07:14.430
<v Speaker 3>First, I just want to assure listeners that we don't

0:07:14.630 --> 0:07:17.030
<v Speaker 3>have any reason to believe that there's going to be

0:07:17.130 --> 0:07:20.630
<v Speaker 3>kind of swarms of law enforcement at the polls. I

0:07:20.810 --> 0:07:25.500
<v Speaker 3>expect 2026 elections to go the way that voters normally

0:07:25.580 --> 0:07:28.880
<v Speaker 3>experience their elections, that they go to the polls, they

0:07:28.940 --> 0:07:32.420
<v Speaker 3>meet their friendly election officials, they get their sticker and

0:07:32.890 --> 0:07:36.880
<v Speaker 3>And they go along their merry way. But, you know,

0:07:37.280 --> 0:07:41.880
<v Speaker 3>as this lawsuit kind of demonstrates, civic engagement communities are

0:07:41.960 --> 0:07:45.620
<v Speaker 3>prepared for every eventuality and to protect voters. So what

0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:49.810
<v Speaker 3>does that look like? Okay, so if law enforcement appears

0:07:50.070 --> 0:07:54.490
<v Speaker 3>improperly at the polls, voters are going to have community

0:07:54.530 --> 0:07:57.980
<v Speaker 3>members there with them. They can just go ahead and vote. right?

0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:00.860
<v Speaker 3>They're going to move forward with their day. They're going

0:08:00.980 --> 0:08:04.630
<v Speaker 3>to lawfully cast their ballot and move on. And in

0:08:04.670 --> 0:08:08.110
<v Speaker 3>the meanwhile, there will be very prompt legal action. And

0:08:08.210 --> 0:08:12.380
<v Speaker 3>I would imagine that any such attempts at deployments would

0:08:12.420 --> 0:08:13.800
<v Speaker 3>be very quickly cut off.

0:08:14.780 --> 0:08:18.020
<v Speaker 2>I mentioned the head of the Civil Rights Division before,

0:08:18.120 --> 0:08:24.530
<v Speaker 2>Harmeet Dhillon. Historically, the Justice Department has has focused on

0:08:24.690 --> 0:08:30.270
<v Speaker 2>addressing racial discrimination, language and disability access at polls, and

0:08:30.390 --> 0:08:35.500
<v Speaker 2>other barriers to voting. Under President Trump, that's changed. And

0:08:35.540 --> 0:08:38.720
<v Speaker 2>now you have the department suing more than two dozen

0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:44.210
<v Speaker 2>states for their voter rolls. Explain why they want those rolls.

0:08:44.630 --> 0:08:47.730
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, the Department of Justice has been on a mission

0:08:48.070 --> 0:08:52.340
<v Speaker 3>to try to hoover up all of Americans' voter data

0:08:52.460 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 3>across the entire country, including social security numbers, driver's license numbers,

0:08:58.100 --> 0:09:01.339
<v Speaker 3>voter history. There's just no reason for the Department of

0:09:01.380 --> 0:09:04.360
<v Speaker 3>Justice to do that. There is no lawful basis for

0:09:04.380 --> 0:09:06.520
<v Speaker 3>the Department of Justice to do that. And it raises

0:09:06.700 --> 0:09:09.939
<v Speaker 3>both concerns about their motives as well as the privacy

0:09:09.960 --> 0:09:13.100
<v Speaker 3>of that data for American voters. And the good news

0:09:13.260 --> 0:09:16.260
<v Speaker 3>is that they have been unsuccessful. Red and blue states

0:09:16.340 --> 0:09:20.380
<v Speaker 3>alike have pushed back and they have been unanimous in

0:09:20.420 --> 0:09:23.609
<v Speaker 3>their victories thus far in the courts and kind of

0:09:23.650 --> 0:09:26.809
<v Speaker 3>pushing back on those attempts to hoover up American voter data.

0:09:27.510 --> 0:09:31.969
<v Speaker 2>Does this search for state voter rolls have anything to

0:09:32.010 --> 0:09:34.430
<v Speaker 2>do with the case before the Supreme Court where we're

0:09:34.490 --> 0:09:37.650
<v Speaker 2>waiting for the court to make a decision about the

0:09:37.670 --> 0:09:41.150
<v Speaker 2>Trump administration's use of the SAVE database?

0:09:42.230 --> 0:09:45.559
<v Speaker 3>Yes and no, I would say. Technically, no. And the

0:09:45.580 --> 0:09:49.660
<v Speaker 3>Department of Justice has at times suggested that they are unrelated.

0:09:50.420 --> 0:09:53.640
<v Speaker 3>But at the same time, we actually do know from

0:09:54.350 --> 0:09:58.590
<v Speaker 3>reporting that the Department of Justice did appear to be

0:09:58.710 --> 0:10:02.140
<v Speaker 3>sharing that data with... with Department of Homeland Security and

0:10:02.350 --> 0:10:07.290
<v Speaker 3>using this so-called SAVE database to try to match voters

0:10:07.390 --> 0:10:11.960
<v Speaker 3>to other federal data. And what the district court and

0:10:12.100 --> 0:10:15.540
<v Speaker 3>the D.C. Circuit found in that case is that that

0:10:15.620 --> 0:10:20.100
<v Speaker 3>entire process was unlawful. It violated the Privacy Act, and

0:10:20.160 --> 0:10:23.960
<v Speaker 3>it had all sorts of both security and accuracy concerns.

0:10:24.179 --> 0:10:27.020
<v Speaker 2>Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll talk

0:10:27.059 --> 0:10:31.390
<v Speaker 2>about how state election officials and county officials are trying

0:10:31.490 --> 0:10:35.910
<v Speaker 2>to game out what might happen, the worst-case scenarios during

0:10:35.929 --> 0:10:40.030
<v Speaker 2>the midterm elections. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

0:10:42.070 --> 0:10:46.210
<v Speaker 2>While the Constitution largely puts states in charge of elections,

0:10:46.710 --> 0:10:50.740
<v Speaker 2>President Trump has sought to reach into virtually every corner

0:10:50.770 --> 0:10:54.960
<v Speaker 2>of the voting process as he boosts baseless accusations of

0:10:55.100 --> 0:11:00.060
<v Speaker 2>widespread fraud. And he's empowered agencies like the Justice Department

0:11:00.460 --> 0:11:05.079
<v Speaker 2>to pursue extraordinary legal tactics to assert greater federal control

0:11:05.260 --> 0:11:09.230
<v Speaker 2>over U.S. elections. I've been talking to Danielle Lange. Vice

0:11:09.270 --> 0:11:11.890
<v Speaker 2>President for Voting Rights and the Rule of Law at

0:11:11.929 --> 0:11:15.209
<v Speaker 2>the Campaign Legal Center. Harmeet Dhillon, who's the head of

0:11:15.230 --> 0:11:19.360
<v Speaker 2>the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, warned of

0:11:19.550 --> 0:11:24.559
<v Speaker 2>criminal investigations of state and local election officials for failing

0:11:24.700 --> 0:11:28.680
<v Speaker 2>to clean up voter rolls. Sending letters to top election

0:11:28.740 --> 0:11:32.630
<v Speaker 2>officials nationwide. I mean, is there a reason for her warning?

0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:38.130
<v Speaker 3>This is intimidation and nothing more. If you'll remember back

0:11:38.309 --> 0:11:40.910
<v Speaker 3>at the beginning of the year when there was that

0:11:40.990 --> 0:11:45.670
<v Speaker 3>huge ice surge in Minneapolis, the Department of Justice was

0:11:45.790 --> 0:11:49.390
<v Speaker 3>trying to kind of trade on, oh, perhaps we will

0:11:49.470 --> 0:11:51.750
<v Speaker 3>pull back on our ice surge if you will give

0:11:51.809 --> 0:11:55.190
<v Speaker 3>us this data or information that we want about voters,

0:11:55.350 --> 0:11:58.630
<v Speaker 3>which just shows the kind of length of intimidation that

0:11:59.340 --> 0:12:02.420
<v Speaker 3>and kind of thuggery that the Department of Justice has

0:12:02.440 --> 0:12:05.160
<v Speaker 3>been willing to engage in when it comes to their

0:12:05.280 --> 0:12:09.210
<v Speaker 3>mission to undermine our elections. So I see those letters

0:12:09.370 --> 0:12:12.890
<v Speaker 3>of kind of trying to threaten election officials into doing

0:12:12.929 --> 0:12:17.040
<v Speaker 3>their bidding as just another element in that scheme. Election

0:12:17.080 --> 0:12:21.200
<v Speaker 3>officials have regular list maintenance processes that they go through

0:12:21.220 --> 0:12:26.140
<v Speaker 3>year round. They are constantly cleaning their rolls to make

0:12:26.230 --> 0:12:29.309
<v Speaker 3>sure that people who've passed away or moved are removed

0:12:29.350 --> 0:12:33.030
<v Speaker 3>and that everybody who's newly registered gets registered. That's their

0:12:33.050 --> 0:12:35.810
<v Speaker 3>job and they know how to do it well. I

0:12:35.830 --> 0:12:38.090
<v Speaker 3>will say the one time that they're not doing it,

0:12:38.570 --> 0:12:41.930
<v Speaker 3>they're not doing kind of removal list maintenance is right now.

0:12:42.490 --> 0:12:45.130
<v Speaker 3>In the 90 days before a federal election, it's actually

0:12:45.230 --> 0:12:49.699
<v Speaker 3>illegal to engage in systematic list maintenance. So election officials

0:12:49.720 --> 0:12:52.860
<v Speaker 3>have already gone through all those processes in a timely

0:12:52.900 --> 0:12:55.600
<v Speaker 3>manner so that they could pause them in the run-up

0:12:55.620 --> 0:12:59.280
<v Speaker 3>to the election so that nobody gets improperly removed without

0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:01.800
<v Speaker 3>the ability to kind of fix it before the election.

0:13:02.440 --> 0:13:07.710
<v Speaker 2>Every investigation, et cetera, has shown that the incidence of

0:13:07.730 --> 0:13:12.329
<v Speaker 2>non-citizens voting is very, very low. But we had that

0:13:12.410 --> 0:13:16.390
<v Speaker 2>disclosure in New Jersey of the state software error that

0:13:16.510 --> 0:13:22.830
<v Speaker 2>registered several thousand non-citizens in 2023 and 2024, including several

0:13:23.230 --> 0:13:26.630
<v Speaker 2>hundred who ended up voting. And I wonder how much

0:13:27.000 --> 0:13:34.140
<v Speaker 2>that is giving credence to Trump's continuing claims of fraud

0:13:34.220 --> 0:13:35.819
<v Speaker 2>and non-citizens voting.

0:13:36.550 --> 0:13:41.860
<v Speaker 3>Listen, the administration has been on a consistent message, unsupported

0:13:41.890 --> 0:13:44.420
<v Speaker 3>by the facts or the evidence for a long time,

0:13:44.440 --> 0:13:49.240
<v Speaker 3>while predating this particular data point about New Jersey, telling

0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:53.920
<v Speaker 3>Americans lies about the integrity of our elections. And so

0:13:54.030 --> 0:13:57.830
<v Speaker 3>I think that you would tell those lies under any circumstances.

0:13:57.950 --> 0:14:02.290
<v Speaker 3>It is a mission of the administration to undermine our elections.

0:14:03.040 --> 0:14:06.180
<v Speaker 3>What happened in New Jersey was actually an example of

0:14:06.380 --> 0:14:09.770
<v Speaker 3>where there are errors, how the system should work. They

0:14:09.809 --> 0:14:13.770
<v Speaker 3>found the errors. They fixed them. They resolved it. And

0:14:13.970 --> 0:14:17.090
<v Speaker 3>it's important to note here that that was a data issue.

0:14:17.410 --> 0:14:21.080
<v Speaker 3>It was not a question of voters trying to engage

0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:25.340
<v Speaker 3>in subterfuge. These were individuals who had actually disclosed their

0:14:25.380 --> 0:14:29.660
<v Speaker 3>citizenship status when they got their driver's license. And the

0:14:29.800 --> 0:14:33.830
<v Speaker 3>agency made an error a data error. So nothing in

0:14:33.850 --> 0:14:37.410
<v Speaker 3>a kind of new restrictions on voting or the like

0:14:37.690 --> 0:14:42.090
<v Speaker 3>would have prevented that. It was a human data error.

0:14:42.650 --> 0:14:45.090
<v Speaker 3>And we caught it and we fixed it. And that's

0:14:45.130 --> 0:14:46.250
<v Speaker 3>exactly what should happen.

0:14:46.970 --> 0:14:52.540
<v Speaker 2>California's AG Rob Bonta told Bloomberg recently that Democratic state

0:14:52.580 --> 0:14:57.940
<v Speaker 2>officials are gaming out worst case scenarios for November, including

0:14:57.960 --> 0:15:02.960
<v Speaker 2>if federal agents show up to seize ballots. What happens

0:15:03.160 --> 0:15:06.280
<v Speaker 2>if federal agents come to try to seize ballots?

0:15:07.600 --> 0:15:08.280
<v Speaker 1>Here's what I'll say.

0:15:09.020 --> 0:15:10.900
<v Speaker 3>I think our elections are going to run really well

0:15:10.960 --> 0:15:15.040
<v Speaker 3>in 2026. The federal government doesn't have power over running

0:15:15.120 --> 0:15:19.960
<v Speaker 3>our elections. Their elections are run by thousands of individual

0:15:20.000 --> 0:15:24.270
<v Speaker 3>jurisdictions with their own power over the elections and election materials.

0:15:25.060 --> 0:15:28.350
<v Speaker 3>I also think it's right for state officials to be

0:15:28.390 --> 0:15:33.090
<v Speaker 3>gaming out worst case scenarios because, of course, this administration

0:15:33.250 --> 0:15:36.530
<v Speaker 3>has engaged in a lot of really dangerous threats. It

0:15:36.570 --> 0:15:40.700
<v Speaker 3>has engaged in unprecedented activities like going to seize the

0:15:40.790 --> 0:15:44.690
<v Speaker 3>ballot materials in Fulton County, Georgia. And what I would

0:15:44.730 --> 0:15:48.530
<v Speaker 3>expect is that state officials will be very well prepared

0:15:48.630 --> 0:15:52.110
<v Speaker 3>to push back on those, to immediately seek return of

0:15:52.190 --> 0:15:55.350
<v Speaker 3>those materials, to make sure that we have backup data

0:15:55.430 --> 0:15:59.960
<v Speaker 3>where possible to verify our election results. And so I

0:16:00.010 --> 0:16:04.980
<v Speaker 3>am gratified, although I very much hope it's unnecessary, that

0:16:05.060 --> 0:16:09.120
<v Speaker 3>state officials will have plans for every scenario.

0:16:10.140 --> 0:16:12.100
<v Speaker 2>And so now as far as there have been all the,

0:16:12.220 --> 0:16:15.640
<v Speaker 2>you know, the legal battles over mail-in ballots and the

0:16:15.760 --> 0:16:20.840
<v Speaker 2>post office trying to impose rules on the states submitting ballots,

0:16:21.380 --> 0:16:24.020
<v Speaker 2>has that all been settled? Is that all over? Yes.

0:16:26.050 --> 0:16:31.370
<v Speaker 3>The USPS rule is not going to be in place

0:16:31.470 --> 0:16:35.500
<v Speaker 3>in any way, shape, or form for the 2026 election.

0:16:36.280 --> 0:16:40.580
<v Speaker 3>It has been enjoined by Congress. two separate district courts,

0:16:40.720 --> 0:16:43.450
<v Speaker 3>the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, has said we

0:16:43.510 --> 0:16:46.130
<v Speaker 3>are not going to disrupt that injunction.

0:16:46.750 --> 0:16:49.010
<v Speaker 2>As far as going back to the Missouri map and

0:16:49.050 --> 0:16:53.890
<v Speaker 2>the congressional map situations, all this confusion over the maps

0:16:53.960 --> 0:16:58.640
<v Speaker 2>and this last-minute jockeying is because President Trump made that request,

0:16:58.920 --> 0:17:04.160
<v Speaker 2>starting with Texas, to redistrict. Besides Missouri, are there any

0:17:04.260 --> 0:17:07.070
<v Speaker 2>other states' maps that are still in question?

0:17:08.010 --> 0:17:11.180
<v Speaker 3>No, there should not be. Elections are underway. You know,

0:17:11.240 --> 0:17:12.960
<v Speaker 3>I mean, for the reasons we talked about at the

0:17:12.980 --> 0:17:16.030
<v Speaker 3>top of our discussion, Missouri also shouldn't be a question

0:17:16.090 --> 0:17:19.250
<v Speaker 3>except for the kind of unreasonable behavior, I think, of

0:17:19.369 --> 0:17:22.950
<v Speaker 3>the plaintiffs in that case. And I very much hope

0:17:22.970 --> 0:17:26.090
<v Speaker 3>that that's going to be put to an end, hopefully today,

0:17:27.490 --> 0:17:31.840
<v Speaker 3>if not later this week by the Supreme Court. And

0:17:31.910 --> 0:17:34.520
<v Speaker 3>so voters have really been put through the ringer this

0:17:34.580 --> 0:17:38.760
<v Speaker 3>year with this redistricting war. It's something that voters should

0:17:38.800 --> 0:17:44.050
<v Speaker 3>not have had to face. It is absurd for there

0:17:44.070 --> 0:17:46.090
<v Speaker 3>to be this race to the bottom when it comes

0:17:46.170 --> 0:17:49.770
<v Speaker 3>to redistricting when there doesn't need to be any redistricting

0:17:50.150 --> 0:17:55.109
<v Speaker 3>being done mid-cycle. Normally, we only redistrict every 10 years

0:17:55.170 --> 0:17:59.950
<v Speaker 3>with new census results. This is unprecedented. But I think

0:17:59.990 --> 0:18:02.250
<v Speaker 3>that we are at the end and it's time for

0:18:02.290 --> 0:18:04.290
<v Speaker 3>voters to actually have their voices heard.

0:18:04.880 --> 0:18:07.450
<v Speaker 2>Is the whole point of a lot of this just

0:18:07.710 --> 0:18:11.090
<v Speaker 2>intimidation and to try to stop people from coming to

0:18:11.109 --> 0:18:11.670
<v Speaker 2>the polls?

0:18:12.470 --> 0:18:14.109
<v Speaker 3>I think that is part of the purpose, but I

0:18:14.150 --> 0:18:16.930
<v Speaker 3>don't think it will work. I think there is this

0:18:16.990 --> 0:18:21.210
<v Speaker 3>idea that we can kind of demoralize voters. We can

0:18:21.230 --> 0:18:26.189
<v Speaker 3>scare voters. We can confuse voters. And so that will

0:18:26.290 --> 0:18:29.030
<v Speaker 3>change the outcomes of an election. But I actually think

0:18:29.070 --> 0:18:32.170
<v Speaker 3>American voters are a lot more resilient than that. They

0:18:32.230 --> 0:18:36.020
<v Speaker 3>can kind of see through things. all of this morass

0:18:36.119 --> 0:18:38.330
<v Speaker 3>and see that what's really happening is that there's a

0:18:38.369 --> 0:18:40.910
<v Speaker 3>lot of attention being paid to the rules of voting

0:18:41.270 --> 0:18:44.190
<v Speaker 3>trying to undermine their vote because their vote is powerful.

0:18:44.910 --> 0:18:48.830
<v Speaker 3>I am pretty confident that voters are going to be

0:18:48.970 --> 0:18:51.330
<v Speaker 3>steadfast in making sure that their voices are heard.

0:18:51.630 --> 0:18:54.460
<v Speaker 2>There's always, I don't know, is it always or often

0:18:54.700 --> 0:18:58.800
<v Speaker 2>litigation after the elections over results?

0:18:59.320 --> 0:19:01.780
<v Speaker 3>I suppose I would say often, but it's close to

0:19:01.900 --> 0:19:04.300
<v Speaker 3>always if you think about a national election, there's always

0:19:04.320 --> 0:19:06.500
<v Speaker 3>going to be some elections that are very close and

0:19:06.540 --> 0:19:09.320
<v Speaker 3>therefore lead to some post-election litigation.

0:19:09.580 --> 0:19:14.030
<v Speaker 2>Are you guys anticipating that there'll be even more this midterm?

0:19:14.050 --> 0:19:17.570
<v Speaker 3>I think it's really hard to say. You know, a

0:19:17.690 --> 0:19:19.949
<v Speaker 3>lot of this will often depend on how close the

0:19:19.990 --> 0:19:24.010
<v Speaker 3>races are. When elections aren't that close, it doesn't really

0:19:24.090 --> 0:19:27.110
<v Speaker 3>leave a lot of options for candidates to try to

0:19:27.250 --> 0:19:34.030
<v Speaker 3>undermine the results. where they are closer or where candidates

0:19:34.050 --> 0:19:39.640
<v Speaker 3>are unwilling to concede to the voice of the American people.

0:19:39.680 --> 0:19:41.899
<v Speaker 3>They will sometimes try to use the courts as a

0:19:41.940 --> 0:19:44.970
<v Speaker 3>way to change the results. But I've been through a

0:19:45.010 --> 0:19:47.870
<v Speaker 3>few cycles of that now, and it doesn't succeed.

0:19:48.450 --> 0:19:54.619
<v Speaker 2>The Justice Department is still re-litigating or investigating the 2020 election.

0:19:54.680 --> 0:19:58.180
<v Speaker 2>I mean, they actually seized ballots in Georgia, right?

0:19:58.740 --> 0:20:01.460
<v Speaker 3>They did seize ballot materials in Georgia related to the

0:20:01.460 --> 0:20:02.340
<v Speaker 3>2020 election. That's correct.

0:20:03.930 --> 0:20:06.260
<v Speaker 2>I mean, it's been litigated so many times, I can't imagine.

0:20:06.300 --> 0:20:09.240
<v Speaker 3>So many times over. I can tell you that you

0:20:09.340 --> 0:20:13.300
<v Speaker 3>and most Americans would prefer to not hear anything more

0:20:13.380 --> 0:20:17.280
<v Speaker 3>about another investigation into an election that occurred six years ago.

0:20:17.560 --> 0:20:22.359
<v Speaker 2>Oh, I'm wondering, I've been reading about concerns for the

0:20:22.480 --> 0:20:28.260
<v Speaker 2>safety of election officials and election workers because in recent years,

0:20:28.320 --> 0:20:32.850
<v Speaker 2>they've been subjected to more threats of harassment and violence

0:20:32.869 --> 0:20:38.479
<v Speaker 2>than And that some election offices have done security upgrades

0:20:39.020 --> 0:20:40.300
<v Speaker 2>because of these threats.

0:20:41.160 --> 0:20:43.200
<v Speaker 3>I mean, let me start by saying that I think

0:20:43.240 --> 0:20:45.340
<v Speaker 3>that listeners, if there's one thing they can do to

0:20:45.380 --> 0:20:48.880
<v Speaker 3>help support our elections, be kind to your election officials.

0:20:49.050 --> 0:20:52.649
<v Speaker 3>Say thank you. They are doing hard work and it

0:20:52.690 --> 0:20:55.330
<v Speaker 3>is a real civic duty and it's a labor of

0:20:55.390 --> 0:20:59.280
<v Speaker 3>love for election officers. officials. They serve our democracy at

0:20:59.340 --> 0:21:02.800
<v Speaker 3>the front lines. And they have been subject to really

0:21:02.820 --> 0:21:07.760
<v Speaker 3>outrageous harassment and intimidation because of the lies that have

0:21:07.800 --> 0:21:09.639
<v Speaker 3>been told to the American people.

0:21:09.420 --> 0:21:10.300
<v Speaker 2>About our elections.

0:21:10.380 --> 0:21:14.359
<v Speaker 3>And I find that really heartbreaking. That being said, I

0:21:14.460 --> 0:21:18.880
<v Speaker 3>do think that state-level officials have worked hard to make

0:21:18.920 --> 0:21:21.710
<v Speaker 3>sure that election officials have the support that they need.

0:21:21.730 --> 0:21:25.710
<v Speaker 3>And we're continuing to try to provide election officials with

0:21:25.730 --> 0:21:29.510
<v Speaker 3>the support that they need. Some states have specific laws

0:21:29.590 --> 0:21:32.990
<v Speaker 3>protecting against intimidation. And that's a place where we need

0:21:33.020 --> 0:21:36.600
<v Speaker 3>to continue to pump resources. If we care about our democracy,

0:21:36.619 --> 0:21:40.859
<v Speaker 3>we need to continue to pump resources into its clean administration,

0:21:40.940 --> 0:21:43.700
<v Speaker 3>make sure that officials have everything they need to do

0:21:43.740 --> 0:21:44.740
<v Speaker 3>their job safely.

0:21:44.760 --> 0:21:47.740
<v Speaker 2>And do you have any advice for voters in general?

0:21:48.240 --> 0:21:50.119
<v Speaker 3>It's a busy time, and I think it can be

0:21:50.180 --> 0:21:52.550
<v Speaker 3>really dizzying. I think the one thing I would say

0:21:52.609 --> 0:21:55.250
<v Speaker 3>is that listeners are going to see a lot in

0:21:55.270 --> 0:21:59.450
<v Speaker 3>the news about voting rules and challenges in the news,

0:21:59.510 --> 0:22:01.889
<v Speaker 3>and it will be hard to follow it all. But

0:22:01.930 --> 0:22:03.580
<v Speaker 3>I think you can have faith that at the end

0:22:03.640 --> 0:22:06.460
<v Speaker 3>of the day, what's going to happen this November is

0:22:06.480 --> 0:22:08.780
<v Speaker 3>we're going to have an election day. We're going to

0:22:08.800 --> 0:22:11.400
<v Speaker 3>cast our ballot. Those ballots are going to get counted.

0:22:11.760 --> 0:22:13.840
<v Speaker 3>And then we're going to have results. And those results

0:22:13.980 --> 0:22:18.390
<v Speaker 3>are going to lead to new elected officials throughout the country.

0:22:18.950 --> 0:22:21.250
<v Speaker 3>And so there's going to be a lot of dizzying

0:22:21.410 --> 0:22:24.770
<v Speaker 3>fights in the short term. But voters just have to

0:22:24.830 --> 0:22:27.360
<v Speaker 3>have the eye on their prize, which is to just

0:22:27.390 --> 0:22:29.560
<v Speaker 3>make sure that they know what they need to do

0:22:30.060 --> 0:22:31.180
<v Speaker 3>to make a plan to vote.

0:22:31.460 --> 0:22:35.000
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much for joining me today, Danielle. That's Danielle Lange.

0:22:35.280 --> 0:22:37.780
<v Speaker 2>Vice President for Voting Rights and the Rule of Law

0:22:37.920 --> 0:22:40.859
<v Speaker 2>at the Campaign Legal Center. Coming up next on the

0:22:40.900 --> 0:22:46.540
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Law Show. San Francisco is suing Trump's social media platform,

0:22:46.660 --> 0:22:51.790
<v Speaker 2>Truth Social, for offering customers who pay $ 100, 000 a month

0:22:52.230 --> 0:22:57.010
<v Speaker 2>priority access to the president's and other high-level officials' posts

0:22:57.430 --> 0:23:00.889
<v Speaker 2>before they're available to the public. I'm June Grosso, and

0:23:00.930 --> 0:23:08.290
<v Speaker 2>you're listening to Bloomberg. San Francisco's city attorney is urging

0:23:08.330 --> 0:23:13.170
<v Speaker 2>a state court to block Trump's social media platform, Truth Social,

0:23:13.619 --> 0:23:19.360
<v Speaker 2>from offering customers who pay $ 100, 000 a month priority access

0:23:19.400 --> 0:23:23.560
<v Speaker 2>to the president's and other high-level officials' posts before they're

0:23:23.580 --> 0:23:27.330
<v Speaker 2>available to other users. In the lawsuit filed in San

0:23:27.369 --> 0:23:31.800
<v Speaker 2>Francisco's Superior Court, The city attorney says that Trump Media

0:23:31.880 --> 0:23:36.159
<v Speaker 2>and Technology Group is aiding and abetting Trump's violations of

0:23:36.260 --> 0:23:41.199
<v Speaker 2>federal ethics and anti-corruption law and violating other federal laws

0:23:41.260 --> 0:23:45.090
<v Speaker 2>that protect against insider trading. Quote, it's a pay to

0:23:45.150 --> 0:23:49.189
<v Speaker 2>play scheme for early access to the president's market moving

0:23:49.290 --> 0:23:53.670
<v Speaker 2>government decisions. This public scheme has turned public trust into

0:23:53.750 --> 0:23:59.020
<v Speaker 2>private profit. This is corruption, plain and simple. Trump media

0:23:59.100 --> 0:24:03.439
<v Speaker 2>said the lawsuit fails to grasp the basic distinction between

0:24:03.540 --> 0:24:08.580
<v Speaker 2>public and non-public information. Joining me is Bloomberg Law's senior correspondent,

0:24:08.800 --> 0:24:11.980
<v Speaker 2>Alex Ebert. Alex, tell us more about this, shall we

0:24:12.000 --> 0:24:12.780
<v Speaker 2>call it a service?

0:24:12.800 --> 0:24:17.680
<v Speaker 1>So Trump media and through their company, Truth Social, they've

0:24:17.720 --> 0:24:23.300
<v Speaker 1>created a paid subscription program that allows early access to

0:24:23.440 --> 0:24:27.600
<v Speaker 1>Trump and other senior officials' posts on Truth Social. It's

0:24:27.640 --> 0:24:31.820
<v Speaker 1>called Truth API. And for $ 100, 000 a month, you get

0:24:31.859 --> 0:24:35.379
<v Speaker 1>some early access to some pretty critical information if you

0:24:35.420 --> 0:24:39.940
<v Speaker 1>were a trader. Think about announcements about tariffs, or maybe

0:24:40.330 --> 0:24:43.090
<v Speaker 1>if there's a merger happening that the government is allowing,

0:24:43.290 --> 0:24:46.470
<v Speaker 1>or perhaps if the government leaked the Bureau of Labor

0:24:46.510 --> 0:24:49.510
<v Speaker 1>Statistics a little bit early. These kind of things might

0:24:49.590 --> 0:24:52.369
<v Speaker 1>pop up on Truth Social, and these people would have

0:24:52.570 --> 0:24:53.909
<v Speaker 1>first dibs at getting to see them.

0:24:54.440 --> 0:24:57.350
<v Speaker 2>Is this already ongoing? Have people subscribed?

0:24:57.619 --> 0:25:01.110
<v Speaker 1>This is ongoing. People have subscribed. There's been an investor

0:25:01.130 --> 0:25:05.189
<v Speaker 1>call about it. And the early sort of pronouncements on

0:25:05.250 --> 0:25:08.540
<v Speaker 1>it are that we've seen investors interested in it. We've

0:25:08.580 --> 0:25:11.600
<v Speaker 1>seen crypto firms interested in it. And these are folks

0:25:11.680 --> 0:25:16.939
<v Speaker 1>that really can take advantage of lightning quick actions on

0:25:16.980 --> 0:25:19.280
<v Speaker 1>information to make bets in.

0:25:19.270 --> 0:25:19.700
<v Speaker 3>The stock market.

0:25:19.700 --> 0:25:22.840
<v Speaker 2>$ 100, 000 a month. I mean, to me, that's high, but

0:25:22.900 --> 0:25:24.980
<v Speaker 2>is that high for a service like this?

0:25:25.600 --> 0:25:27.619
<v Speaker 1>Well, I'm not aware of what the market price is

0:25:27.640 --> 0:25:30.380
<v Speaker 1>for a service like this, but let's consider we work

0:25:30.400 --> 0:25:33.240
<v Speaker 1>for Bloomberg, right? It is definitely more than you'd pay

0:25:33.280 --> 0:25:38.010
<v Speaker 1>for a terminal subscription. And the difference there between buying

0:25:38.050 --> 0:25:42.150
<v Speaker 1>a terminal subscription or purchasing a true social API framework

0:25:42.190 --> 0:25:45.640
<v Speaker 1>is that This is public information from public officials that

0:25:45.980 --> 0:25:49.080
<v Speaker 1>they got from their public offices. And so you see

0:25:49.119 --> 0:25:53.540
<v Speaker 1>lawsuits challenging this idea of potential trading on the information

0:25:53.580 --> 0:25:55.500
<v Speaker 1>that you get from being in office.

0:25:55.980 --> 0:25:59.040
<v Speaker 2>The San Francisco city attorney is suing. Why are they

0:25:59.119 --> 0:26:00.080
<v Speaker 2>suing in particular?

0:26:00.100 --> 0:26:03.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, they're suing because they're saying this is about the

0:26:03.520 --> 0:26:05.700
<v Speaker 1>haves and have nots. You're going to have a lot

0:26:05.720 --> 0:26:08.450
<v Speaker 1>of investors in the world that can't afford $ 100, 000 a

0:26:08.450 --> 0:26:12.720
<v Speaker 1>month to get at this information. And they're saying some

0:26:12.760 --> 0:26:15.919
<v Speaker 1>pension funds can't get at it. People with their 401ks,

0:26:16.510 --> 0:26:18.770
<v Speaker 1>they're not going to have the same access to this

0:26:19.030 --> 0:26:22.770
<v Speaker 1>quick information from Trump and other members of his cabinet

0:26:23.230 --> 0:26:25.970
<v Speaker 1>that would allow them to trade as quickly and efficiently

0:26:26.270 --> 0:26:29.650
<v Speaker 1>as the people that are paying into Truth API. They're

0:26:29.670 --> 0:26:36.129
<v Speaker 1>saying that this creates violations of California's unfair competition law.

0:26:36.890 --> 0:26:40.340
<v Speaker 2>It certainly seems unethical. But Trump has made billions of

0:26:40.420 --> 0:26:45.350
<v Speaker 2>dollars during his presidency doing things that other presidents would

0:26:45.410 --> 0:26:48.510
<v Speaker 2>never have done. I mean, most other presidents don't do

0:26:48.570 --> 0:26:50.730
<v Speaker 2>any business dealings during their presidency.

0:26:51.170 --> 0:26:54.200
<v Speaker 1>Well, I'm not here to comment on the ethics of it,

0:26:54.200 --> 0:26:55.540
<v Speaker 1>but it's definitely unprecedented.

0:26:55.760 --> 0:26:56.020
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:26:56.200 --> 0:27:00.459
<v Speaker 1>And in the lawsuit, you see San Francisco trying to

0:27:00.500 --> 0:27:04.040
<v Speaker 1>do an interesting bank shot here. They're trying to say

0:27:04.100 --> 0:27:10.330
<v Speaker 1>that this program violates federal laws, right? Securities violations or

0:27:10.410 --> 0:27:14.920
<v Speaker 1>insider trading violations. And because of that, you can sue

0:27:15.040 --> 0:27:18.700
<v Speaker 1>claiming that this is an unfair business practice in California.

0:27:19.359 --> 0:27:23.159
<v Speaker 1>That is different from the litigation that we're seeing out

0:27:23.240 --> 0:27:26.619
<v Speaker 1>of the D.C. District Court. There you have a couple

0:27:26.640 --> 0:27:30.899
<v Speaker 1>of nonprofits suing, saying these are constitutional violations. We're talking

0:27:30.940 --> 0:27:34.900
<v Speaker 1>about people trading on their office and it's violating First Amendment,

0:27:34.980 --> 0:27:39.490
<v Speaker 1>Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act rights of U.S. citizens.

0:27:40.170 --> 0:27:42.730
<v Speaker 2>So what are the plaintiffs looking for in these lawsuits?

0:27:43.310 --> 0:27:45.530
<v Speaker 1>Well, the two different lawsuits, I believe, are looking for

0:27:45.570 --> 0:27:48.090
<v Speaker 1>the exact same thing, which is to shut this down.

0:27:48.970 --> 0:27:51.379
<v Speaker 1>The question is going to be, you know, in California,

0:27:51.430 --> 0:27:53.720
<v Speaker 1>can you get some sort of injunction there that covers

0:27:53.760 --> 0:27:56.699
<v Speaker 1>the state and does that matter? You know, can you

0:27:56.740 --> 0:27:58.600
<v Speaker 1>get it to cover the entire country? And the same

0:27:58.619 --> 0:28:02.680
<v Speaker 1>in D.C. For the folks in D.C., their claim is, listen,

0:28:02.760 --> 0:28:04.780
<v Speaker 1>we have a First Amendment right to listen. This is

0:28:04.820 --> 0:28:07.889
<v Speaker 1>public information. You can't trade on it for ethics reasons.

0:28:08.010 --> 0:28:13.310
<v Speaker 1>But for constitutional reasons, you cannot do this because when

0:28:13.430 --> 0:28:17.410
<v Speaker 1>that information becomes public, it is in the public sphere.

0:28:18.080 --> 0:28:20.359
<v Speaker 1>This is a public forum. You need to give this

0:28:20.460 --> 0:28:22.699
<v Speaker 1>up to the public. So we need to stop the

0:28:22.740 --> 0:28:24.880
<v Speaker 1>president's company from doing so.

0:28:24.960 --> 0:28:27.830
<v Speaker 2>Trump media said in a statement that the lawsuit fails

0:28:27.910 --> 0:28:33.170
<v Speaker 2>to grasp the basic distinction between public and non-public information

0:28:33.230 --> 0:28:37.430
<v Speaker 2>and also accused the city's attorneys of being left wing activists.

0:28:37.590 --> 0:28:40.110
<v Speaker 2>What is the Trump administration's position?

0:28:40.950 --> 0:28:43.370
<v Speaker 1>The Trump administration's position is that they can do that.

0:28:43.990 --> 0:28:46.940
<v Speaker 1>I think it'll be really interesting to watch this litigation

0:28:46.960 --> 0:28:49.320
<v Speaker 1>moving forward for a couple of reasons, if we can

0:28:49.340 --> 0:28:52.940
<v Speaker 1>just roll the clock. I think the first will be standing, right?

0:28:53.060 --> 0:28:56.830
<v Speaker 1>Especially in the city's case, it'll be interesting to see

0:28:56.890 --> 0:28:59.190
<v Speaker 1>if the court there finds issues with that. I think

0:28:59.210 --> 0:29:03.030
<v Speaker 1>it'll be fascinating to watch if the underlying claims here

0:29:03.610 --> 0:29:06.200
<v Speaker 1>get a really hard look too, because... You know, we

0:29:06.260 --> 0:29:08.910
<v Speaker 1>are talking about something that's a little bit more amorphous

0:29:08.930 --> 0:29:10.970
<v Speaker 1>there and kind of a bank shot relying on federal laws.

0:29:11.370 --> 0:29:15.650
<v Speaker 1>You've seen under this unfair competition law, insider trading type

0:29:15.730 --> 0:29:22.140
<v Speaker 1>suits brought against some defendants, including big investment firms. But

0:29:22.180 --> 0:29:26.150
<v Speaker 1>they're rare, right? And do those cases brought against folks

0:29:26.210 --> 0:29:29.770
<v Speaker 1>like Morgan Stanley and Coinbase sort of play in the

0:29:29.830 --> 0:29:33.490
<v Speaker 1>same sandbox as something against a social media company where

0:29:33.510 --> 0:29:37.030
<v Speaker 1>the whole idea behind it is to share information? So

0:29:37.050 --> 0:29:39.900
<v Speaker 1>these are sort of open questions there. And then in

0:29:39.980 --> 0:29:43.040
<v Speaker 1>the District of Columbia case, I'm going to be really

0:29:43.060 --> 0:29:46.220
<v Speaker 1>interested to see how standing works there as well. Because

0:29:46.500 --> 0:29:49.610
<v Speaker 1>if I were the Trump administration or its defenders, I

0:29:49.650 --> 0:29:52.290
<v Speaker 1>would be saying that, you know, there is a delay

0:29:52.470 --> 0:29:55.709
<v Speaker 1>on public dissemination of information between groups of people all

0:29:55.750 --> 0:29:58.930
<v Speaker 1>the time. And depending on the amount of delay here,

0:29:58.950 --> 0:30:02.130
<v Speaker 1>you know, this might be fine under the Constitution.

0:30:02.510 --> 0:30:05.530
<v Speaker 2>As you write on Monday, a group of former prosecutors

0:30:05.590 --> 0:30:08.880
<v Speaker 2>and federal agents filed an amicus brief in yet another

0:30:08.940 --> 0:30:12.220
<v Speaker 2>case against this service in the Southern District of New York.

0:30:12.740 --> 0:30:16.800
<v Speaker 1>So you have this group of amicus, 53 prosecutors and

0:30:16.850 --> 0:30:21.110
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement agents that worked on public integrity, public corruption matters.

0:30:21.770 --> 0:30:24.790
<v Speaker 1>And they're pointing to all of these concerns over the

0:30:24.910 --> 0:30:27.610
<v Speaker 1>ethics that you were bringing up before. They're just trading

0:30:27.670 --> 0:30:31.729
<v Speaker 1>on public information. This is profiting from the.

0:30:33.230 --> 0:30:33.580
<v Speaker 2>Office.

0:30:33.860 --> 0:30:37.320
<v Speaker 1>And it's not just Trump. We're talking about posts from

0:30:37.600 --> 0:30:41.930
<v Speaker 1>other federal officials. You've got Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.

0:30:42.050 --> 0:30:46.100
<v Speaker 1>You've got HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. You've got

0:30:46.120 --> 0:30:51.220
<v Speaker 1>Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FBI Director Kash Patel. And

0:30:51.380 --> 0:30:54.590
<v Speaker 1>at least in the D.C. litigation, you have Natalie Hart,

0:30:54.750 --> 0:30:57.710
<v Speaker 1>Trump's executive assistant, as a defendant because she's the fast

0:30:57.770 --> 0:31:02.410
<v Speaker 1>fingers behind Trump's true social posts. So it's even broader

0:31:02.470 --> 0:31:05.650
<v Speaker 1>than Trump when it comes to this idea of taking

0:31:05.730 --> 0:31:08.800
<v Speaker 1>public information, putting it behind a paywall, at least for

0:31:08.820 --> 0:31:11.420
<v Speaker 1>a limited amount of time, and extracting profits from it.

0:31:11.960 --> 0:31:15.300
<v Speaker 2>I mean, this is unique, right? This has never happened before.

0:31:15.880 --> 0:31:16.700
<v Speaker 2>Anything like this.

0:31:17.320 --> 0:31:20.280
<v Speaker 1>This is unique. There is no precedent for it. You

0:31:20.320 --> 0:31:24.300
<v Speaker 1>don't see anything in these lawsuits referencing back to anything from,

0:31:24.780 --> 0:31:28.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, the times of earlier American scandals. You know,

0:31:28.620 --> 0:31:32.820
<v Speaker 1>we're inside the eye of a hurricane here, you know,

0:31:32.980 --> 0:31:37.600
<v Speaker 1>looking out at the combination between an aggressive social media

0:31:37.640 --> 0:31:42.510
<v Speaker 1>company that's looking to monetize and compete using, you know,

0:31:42.610 --> 0:31:47.170
<v Speaker 1>an owner president's post. And you're looking at liberal groups

0:31:47.290 --> 0:31:49.950
<v Speaker 1>reaching out to try to stop it, you know, because

0:31:50.110 --> 0:31:53.880
<v Speaker 1>they see it either as disadvantaging their people limiting access

0:31:53.910 --> 0:31:57.790
<v Speaker 1>to public information or as a grift. So, yes, this

0:31:57.910 --> 0:31:59.360
<v Speaker 1>is completely unheard of.

0:31:59.650 --> 0:32:03.490
<v Speaker 2>I mean, if this were not President Trump, it's something

0:32:03.530 --> 0:32:06.470
<v Speaker 2>that you would expect an agency like the SEC to

0:32:06.510 --> 0:32:07.450
<v Speaker 2>be investigating.

0:32:07.470 --> 0:32:10.320
<v Speaker 1>You'd expect that. I think that we would run into

0:32:10.980 --> 0:32:15.460
<v Speaker 1>similar issues that we saw with investigations regarding Jack Smith

0:32:15.980 --> 0:32:21.620
<v Speaker 1>and the fact that you cannot investigate a sitting president. But,

0:32:21.810 --> 0:32:26.490
<v Speaker 1>you know, we also have some interesting nesting issues there, right?

0:32:26.650 --> 0:32:30.570
<v Speaker 1>Because Trump's trust, the blind trust, holds his ownership in this.

0:32:30.850 --> 0:32:33.190
<v Speaker 1>And so I'm sure there's someone out there who can

0:32:33.230 --> 0:32:36.020
<v Speaker 1>make an argument that there should be an investigation into this,

0:32:36.120 --> 0:32:39.960
<v Speaker 1>but you don't have that yet. You see in California, too,

0:32:40.100 --> 0:32:44.680
<v Speaker 1>that the underlying allegations here sort of, you know, beg

0:32:44.740 --> 0:32:47.970
<v Speaker 1>for that, right? They're saying that there are violations here

0:32:48.780 --> 0:32:53.240
<v Speaker 1>of securities laws, but you don't have an investigation to

0:32:53.280 --> 0:32:56.600
<v Speaker 1>back that up. So the question then becomes, if you

0:32:56.620 --> 0:33:01.300
<v Speaker 1>don't have some sort of written in stone violation there,

0:33:01.440 --> 0:33:04.959
<v Speaker 1>can you support the allegations that San Francisco is bringing?

0:33:05.370 --> 0:33:08.130
<v Speaker 2>Do you know how Truth Social is doing as a company?

0:33:08.870 --> 0:33:13.890
<v Speaker 1>Not well, according to Bloomberg's own reporting. During a recent call,

0:33:13.950 --> 0:33:16.530
<v Speaker 1>it sounds like there are several hundred million dollars in debt.

0:33:16.730 --> 0:33:19.470
<v Speaker 1>The gist is that, you know, they're sort of floundering

0:33:19.530 --> 0:33:22.670
<v Speaker 1>and this could be a way for them to make

0:33:22.730 --> 0:33:25.510
<v Speaker 1>up the gap that they have between other social media companies.

0:33:25.910 --> 0:33:29.130
<v Speaker 1>And $ 100, 000, you know, per user that's looking for this

0:33:29.170 --> 0:33:31.930
<v Speaker 1>quick information is not a drop in the bucket. That

0:33:31.970 --> 0:33:33.130
<v Speaker 1>can be serious cash.

0:33:33.700 --> 0:33:35.760
<v Speaker 2>And do you have any idea how much they've made

0:33:36.080 --> 0:33:36.580
<v Speaker 2>so far?

0:33:37.140 --> 0:33:39.800
<v Speaker 1>I've seen reporting that indicates that they've made about a

0:33:40.020 --> 0:33:41.240
<v Speaker 1>million dollars in one month.

0:33:41.680 --> 0:33:45.670
<v Speaker 2>I'm surprised there hasn't been more publicity about this, at

0:33:45.710 --> 0:33:49.330
<v Speaker 2>least so far. Perhaps the lawsuits will bring the publicity.

0:33:50.230 --> 0:33:55.560
<v Speaker 1>You see these lawsuits trying to attack and challenge this

0:33:55.800 --> 0:33:59.880
<v Speaker 1>unprecedented business relationship with the sitting president that raises all

0:33:59.900 --> 0:34:02.750
<v Speaker 1>of these issues and concerns. There's going to be fights

0:34:02.810 --> 0:34:05.900
<v Speaker 1>over standing. There's going to be fights over applications of

0:34:05.920 --> 0:34:09.140
<v Speaker 1>these law and whether these litigants can prove of these claims.

0:34:09.340 --> 0:34:14.060
<v Speaker 1>But the underlying accusation that a public official is seeking

0:34:14.140 --> 0:34:18.890
<v Speaker 1>to profit from early announcements, that's not in dispute. It's

0:34:18.950 --> 0:34:19.930
<v Speaker 1>actually the business model.

0:34:20.110 --> 0:34:22.930
<v Speaker 2>Well, thanks so much for the conversation, Alex. That's Bloomberg

0:34:22.969 --> 0:34:26.810
<v Speaker 2>Law Senior Correspondent Alex Ebert. And that's it for this

0:34:26.870 --> 0:34:29.649
<v Speaker 2>edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always

0:34:29.670 --> 0:34:32.649
<v Speaker 2>get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:34:32.890 --> 0:34:35.810
<v Speaker 2>You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

0:34:36.290 --> 0:34:41.969
<v Speaker 2>www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into

0:34:41.989 --> 0:34:45.390
<v Speaker 2>the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall

0:34:45.410 --> 0:34:49.200
<v Speaker 2>Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.