1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:11,080 --> 00:00:13,360
Speaker 2: You have to take me to show according to the

3
00:00:13,360 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 2: code of the Order of the person.

4
00:00:15,640 --> 00:00:17,840
Speaker 1: Your return to show was not part of our negotiations

5
00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:19,079
Speaker 1: nor our agreement.

6
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:19,720
Speaker 2: So I must do nothing.

7
00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:22,360
Speaker 1: And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's

8
00:00:22,360 --> 00:00:25,680
Speaker 1: code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the code

9
00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:30,000
Speaker 1: is more what you're called guidelines sell actual rules. Welcome

10
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:32,559
Speaker 1: aboard the black perde mis Turner.

11
00:00:34,200 --> 00:00:37,320
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court's new ethics code is sort of like

12
00:00:37,400 --> 00:00:42,280
Speaker 2: the Pirate's code, more guidelines than actual rules. For the

13
00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:45,560
Speaker 2: first time in its history, the Supreme Court has adopted

14
00:00:45,600 --> 00:00:49,239
Speaker 2: a code of conduct, responding to pressure from a stream

15
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:53,519
Speaker 2: of ethics controversies that have undercut its public standing and

16
00:00:53,640 --> 00:00:57,360
Speaker 2: shown a light on the justices friendships and financial dealings.

17
00:00:57,760 --> 00:01:01,400
Speaker 2: But the code won't necessarily mean any changes in the

18
00:01:01,400 --> 00:01:05,720
Speaker 2: way the nine Justices conduct themselves. In fact, the Justices

19
00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:09,680
Speaker 2: basically admit that in the introduction, saying, for the most part,

20
00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:13,320
Speaker 2: these rules and principles are not new. Joining me is

21
00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:18,280
Speaker 2: constitutional law scholar David Souper, a professor at Georgetown Law,

22
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:23,120
Speaker 2: is anything different for the Justices today than last week

23
00:01:23,280 --> 00:01:24,920
Speaker 2: because of this ethics code.

24
00:01:25,240 --> 00:01:28,120
Speaker 1: This is in astute pr move, that's all it is. Well,

25
00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:34,120
Speaker 1: they've done a number of disclosures of extremely questionable activities

26
00:01:34,440 --> 00:01:39,919
Speaker 1: by several justices, most prominently Justices Thomas and Alito, receiving

27
00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:47,160
Speaker 1: valuable trips other financial favors from rich, ideologically committed donors,

28
00:01:47,440 --> 00:01:49,800
Speaker 1: many of whom had business in front of the Court.

29
00:01:50,440 --> 00:01:53,600
Speaker 1: So the Court, I think, felt that it needed to

30
00:01:53,640 --> 00:01:58,000
Speaker 1: do something. There were justices calling for an ethics code,

31
00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:04,760
Speaker 1: and my assumption is that the compromise they reached between

32
00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:08,040
Speaker 1: no ethics code and an ethics code was something that

33
00:02:08,160 --> 00:02:10,720
Speaker 1: is in name an ethics code, but that has few

34
00:02:10,760 --> 00:02:13,000
Speaker 1: with any of the functions of an ethics code.

35
00:02:13,240 --> 00:02:16,560
Speaker 2: In the statement of the Court that precedes the code,

36
00:02:16,919 --> 00:02:20,000
Speaker 2: there's a little bit of griping about this misunderstanding that

37
00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:25,280
Speaker 2: justices regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. Go figure,

38
00:02:25,720 --> 00:02:28,360
Speaker 2: and it says the Court has long had the equivalent

39
00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:32,600
Speaker 2: of common law ethics rules derived from a variety of sources,

40
00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:37,760
Speaker 2: including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other federal judges,

41
00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:43,440
Speaker 2: ethics advisory opinions, and historic practice. Does that statement mean

42
00:02:43,480 --> 00:02:47,639
Speaker 2: that these are the same rules that Justice Clarence Thomas,

43
00:02:47,639 --> 00:02:52,200
Speaker 2: for example, followed in accepting all those luxury trips, the

44
00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:54,200
Speaker 2: underwriting of the RV, etc.

45
00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:57,720
Speaker 1: The fact that he did that and that there has

46
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:02,160
Speaker 1: been no action about that on the Court suggests that

47
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:09,000
Speaker 1: this so called common law ethics rules are largely useless.

48
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:13,880
Speaker 1: If any judge on a lower court had done this,

49
00:03:14,919 --> 00:03:17,040
Speaker 1: they would be facing serious problems.

50
00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:22,280
Speaker 2: There's no enforcement mechanism at all in these rules, so

51
00:03:22,600 --> 00:03:25,800
Speaker 2: the public can file a complaint or a review of

52
00:03:25,840 --> 00:03:27,359
Speaker 2: alleged ethics breaches.

53
00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:31,839
Speaker 1: That's correct. The failure of this code is twofold. One,

54
00:03:31,919 --> 00:03:37,480
Speaker 1: its content is extraordinarily weak, and second, there is no

55
00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:43,480
Speaker 1: procedure for enforcing it. It is certainly true that the

56
00:03:43,520 --> 00:03:47,800
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is not and should not be, subject to

57
00:03:48,160 --> 00:03:53,080
Speaker 1: the executive branch or the legislative branch, but it could

58
00:03:53,120 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 1: set up its own enforcement mechanism. It could, for example,

59
00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:01,640
Speaker 1: as a process for people to file com plint, have

60
00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:07,120
Speaker 1: an office that investigates those complaints and makes recommendations to

61
00:04:07,200 --> 00:04:10,200
Speaker 1: the court, and a procedure for the Court itself to

62
00:04:10,360 --> 00:04:14,560
Speaker 1: act on these matters. It could also have a procedure

63
00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:20,159
Speaker 1: where a justice's behavior is particularly problematic of referring that

64
00:04:20,320 --> 00:04:23,760
Speaker 1: information to Congress, which does have the power to begin

65
00:04:23,800 --> 00:04:25,000
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings.

66
00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:28,799
Speaker 2: What happens if a lower court judge or an appellate

67
00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:32,760
Speaker 2: judge violates the Code of Ethics. Someone complains that they

68
00:04:32,920 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 2: violate the Code of ethics. What happens? Then?

69
00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:38,360
Speaker 1: There are a number of things that can happen. They

70
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:41,920
Speaker 1: can be removed from the case that causes the problem

71
00:04:42,080 --> 00:04:45,239
Speaker 1: against their will by the chief judge of their court

72
00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:48,719
Speaker 1: or by other judges on the court if they're themselves

73
00:04:48,720 --> 00:04:54,839
Speaker 1: the chief judge. They can be investigated and potentially sanctioned

74
00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:59,800
Speaker 1: or unethical conduct, and the matter can be referred to

75
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:05,080
Speaker 1: Congress for impeachment proceedings. In Congress does impeach lower court judges.

76
00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:08,719
Speaker 2: There have been a lot of complaints about the justices

77
00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:13,760
Speaker 2: not recusing themselves in cases where it seems like they should.

78
00:05:14,480 --> 00:05:17,560
Speaker 2: So when it comes to recusals, the Justices include a

79
00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:20,880
Speaker 2: line that's not in the Code of Conduct for United

80
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:24,320
Speaker 2: States judges. It says, quote, the rule of necessity may

81
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:28,680
Speaker 2: override the rule of disqualification. Tell us what they mean

82
00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:29,120
Speaker 2: by that.

83
00:05:29,960 --> 00:05:32,800
Speaker 1: What they are basically saying is that even if they

84
00:05:32,839 --> 00:05:37,160
Speaker 1: have a conflict of interest, or some other compelling reason

85
00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:40,960
Speaker 1: why they shouldn't sit on a case, that the desirability

86
00:05:41,000 --> 00:05:45,520
Speaker 1: of having nine justices sit on a case may justify

87
00:05:45,640 --> 00:05:50,840
Speaker 1: disregarding that conflict of interest. The rationale is that while

88
00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:54,159
Speaker 1: we have many lower courts and many lower court judges,

89
00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:58,520
Speaker 1: and most lower courts don't sit as a complete body, Ever,

90
00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:02,080
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court or it is unique, and if you

91
00:06:02,160 --> 00:06:06,240
Speaker 1: have a decision rendered by less than all of the justices,

92
00:06:06,680 --> 00:06:10,320
Speaker 1: it may not get five votes for any result, and

93
00:06:10,400 --> 00:06:13,279
Speaker 1: that leaves the state of the law uncertain. That's a

94
00:06:13,320 --> 00:06:17,400
Speaker 1: problem the Supreme Court has dealt with many times over

95
00:06:17,440 --> 00:06:21,640
Speaker 1: the years when justices have properly recused themselves for any

96
00:06:21,720 --> 00:06:26,800
Speaker 1: number of reasons, and occasionally it does create pickups in

97
00:06:26,880 --> 00:06:30,880
Speaker 1: the law or uncertainties. But the same thing can happen

98
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:34,440
Speaker 1: when all nine justices sit and they can't agree on

99
00:06:34,520 --> 00:06:37,920
Speaker 1: any one resolution to a case. So this is not

100
00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:41,080
Speaker 1: a huge problem, but it does signal a lack of

101
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:42,360
Speaker 1: seriousness of that ethic.

102
00:06:42,839 --> 00:06:44,800
Speaker 2: Well. Also, better to have a hiccup in a case

103
00:06:44,839 --> 00:06:48,559
Speaker 2: than to have a justice sitting who should be recused. Also,

104
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:52,440
Speaker 2: while lower court judges are told they quote shall disqualify

105
00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:56,560
Speaker 2: when their impartiality might be questioned. The Justice has changed

106
00:06:56,560 --> 00:07:01,719
Speaker 2: the word shall to should disqualify. So are their rules

107
00:07:01,760 --> 00:07:05,880
Speaker 2: for accusal less stringent than the rules that they set

108
00:07:05,880 --> 00:07:07,279
Speaker 2: out for lower court judges.

109
00:07:08,080 --> 00:07:11,360
Speaker 1: Yes, they are. Indeed, the word shall does not appear

110
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:15,080
Speaker 1: anywhere in their code. It appears several places in the

111
00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:19,280
Speaker 1: code for lower court judges, but nowhere in this new

112
00:07:19,320 --> 00:07:22,840
Speaker 1: code for the Supreme Court. So they've chosen not to

113
00:07:22,880 --> 00:07:25,640
Speaker 1: live by the standards they impose on lower court judges.

114
00:07:25,680 --> 00:07:28,120
Speaker 1: The standards they impose on lower court judges are appropriate.

115
00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:31,560
Speaker 1: I wouldn't want to see them loosened. But it's telling

116
00:07:31,640 --> 00:07:34,520
Speaker 1: that they're unwilling to live by the same standards themselves.

117
00:07:34,960 --> 00:07:37,960
Speaker 2: So let's take the major tax code case that's coming

118
00:07:38,040 --> 00:07:43,840
Speaker 2: up where Justice Alito was interviewed a friendly interview for

119
00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:48,200
Speaker 2: the Wall Street Journal by one of the lawyers. Under

120
00:07:48,240 --> 00:07:52,320
Speaker 2: this code, should Justice Alito recuse himself from that case?

121
00:07:53,160 --> 00:07:56,160
Speaker 1: The code is rather vague. I think as a matter

122
00:07:56,200 --> 00:08:00,720
Speaker 1: of common sense, Justice Alito absolutely should. He was under

123
00:08:00,840 --> 00:08:06,160
Speaker 1: public criticism and this attorney gave him help in defending

124
00:08:06,240 --> 00:08:09,880
Speaker 1: himself against that public criticism, which is a very valuable thing.

125
00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:13,160
Speaker 1: If I was being criticized the way Justice Leader did,

126
00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:17,679
Speaker 1: I would prefer that friendly interview to one hundred thousand dollars.

127
00:08:18,240 --> 00:08:22,960
Speaker 1: So it is giving a justice something of great value

128
00:08:23,520 --> 00:08:26,520
Speaker 1: as a case that's involving you as going in front

129
00:08:26,560 --> 00:08:29,520
Speaker 1: of the court. It seems obvious he should refuse himself,

130
00:08:29,960 --> 00:08:34,240
Speaker 1: but the code is so vague that it certainly does

131
00:08:34,320 --> 00:08:37,440
Speaker 1: not compel him to do so and provides no means

132
00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:39,760
Speaker 1: for the public to complain if he doesn't do so.

133
00:08:40,480 --> 00:08:44,480
Speaker 2: Individual justices decide whether or not they should recuse themselves.

134
00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:47,400
Speaker 2: Couldn't they have put a mechanism in where at least

135
00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:50,439
Speaker 2: it has to be discussed with the rest of the court.

136
00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:54,600
Speaker 1: They certainly could, and there's a precedent for this in

137
00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:58,640
Speaker 1: Justice William O. Douglas's last years on the court. The

138
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:03,440
Speaker 1: other justice conclude that his mental capacities had decayed too

139
00:09:03,520 --> 00:09:06,720
Speaker 1: much for him to cast the deciding vote on cases,

140
00:09:06,800 --> 00:09:10,040
Speaker 1: so they all agreed they would not decide a case

141
00:09:10,040 --> 00:09:13,360
Speaker 1: where his vote was crucial. They proceed normally where his

142
00:09:13,480 --> 00:09:15,920
Speaker 1: vote didn't matter, but he would never be allowed to

143
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:18,800
Speaker 1: be the fifth vote on a case, and that was

144
00:09:18,840 --> 00:09:21,959
Speaker 1: agreed to by the Liberal justices Brennan and Marshall, as

145
00:09:22,000 --> 00:09:25,320
Speaker 1: well as the conservative ones. That same approach could be

146
00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:29,760
Speaker 1: handled here. You could say that if a justice insists

147
00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:33,839
Speaker 1: on sitting on a case where that justice is compromised,

148
00:09:33,960 --> 00:09:38,120
Speaker 1: the other justices can act to reject the case, to

149
00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:40,440
Speaker 1: cancel the court's granted review in the case.

150
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:44,199
Speaker 2: What does the code say about the acceptance of gifts.

151
00:09:44,760 --> 00:09:50,560
Speaker 1: The code is very vague about that as well. It

152
00:09:50,720 --> 00:09:57,800
Speaker 1: says that the justices shouldn't accept gifts or they should

153
00:09:57,800 --> 00:10:03,079
Speaker 1: not participate in matters where their impartiality would be compromised,

154
00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:08,200
Speaker 1: But it leads them to decide whether their impartiality is compromised.

155
00:10:08,440 --> 00:10:11,400
Speaker 1: I could ask you about the merits of Bloomberg and

156
00:10:11,520 --> 00:10:14,040
Speaker 1: you could say, well, I think I'm not a completely

157
00:10:14,640 --> 00:10:17,439
Speaker 1: unbiased opinion. You could ask me about the merits of

158
00:10:17,480 --> 00:10:20,800
Speaker 1: georgetowne because they will I have a completely unbiased opinion.

159
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:25,240
Speaker 1: But allowing people to decide that for themselves is contrary

160
00:10:25,360 --> 00:10:26,960
Speaker 1: to the whole purpose of ethics tools.

161
00:10:27,280 --> 00:10:29,680
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue

162
00:10:29,679 --> 00:10:34,080
Speaker 2: this conversation with Georgetown law professor David Super. Does this

163
00:10:34,160 --> 00:10:39,000
Speaker 2: Code of conduct provide any more transparency into an institution

164
00:10:39,200 --> 00:10:43,080
Speaker 2: that's been shrouded in secrecy? I've been talking to Professor

165
00:10:43,160 --> 00:10:47,360
Speaker 2: David super of Georgetown Law School about how this new

166
00:10:47,440 --> 00:10:51,240
Speaker 2: code of conduct will affect the actions of the justices,

167
00:10:51,679 --> 00:10:58,600
Speaker 2: if at all, would this code have prevented the Conservative

168
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:03,240
Speaker 2: justices from a ten t that Federalist Society gali last

169
00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:06,880
Speaker 2: week that was headlined by Justice Amy Cony Barrett.

170
00:11:07,760 --> 00:11:11,120
Speaker 1: No, it doesn't prevent much of anything, and it certainly

171
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:16,400
Speaker 1: wouldn't prevent that. And a galla like that is raising

172
00:11:16,480 --> 00:11:21,160
Speaker 1: money for an organization that is pursuing a litigation agenda

173
00:11:21,200 --> 00:11:24,160
Speaker 1: before the Court that is directed at the Court, So

174
00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:29,240
Speaker 1: you are helping fund one side of many cases that

175
00:11:29,280 --> 00:11:34,040
Speaker 1: you will be hearing. That would seem to be entirely inappropriate.

176
00:11:34,080 --> 00:11:38,520
Speaker 1: We wouldn't want a judge to be making contributions to

177
00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:43,679
Speaker 1: the lawyers on either side, and being a headliner at

178
00:11:43,679 --> 00:11:48,839
Speaker 1: a gala and boost ticket sales has the same effect transparency.

179
00:11:49,480 --> 00:11:53,720
Speaker 2: So the Court has always been shrouded in secrecy. The

180
00:11:53,760 --> 00:11:57,560
Speaker 2: public doesn't know how it goes about its work really

181
00:11:57,600 --> 00:12:00,679
Speaker 2: behind the scenes, and that's been a critique of the

182
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:06,080
Speaker 2: Court and this there's no transparency in this either. There's

183
00:12:06,120 --> 00:12:09,840
Speaker 2: no way to tell even whether a justice has violated

184
00:12:09,880 --> 00:12:12,880
Speaker 2: the code. At least until a Pro public A story

185
00:12:12,960 --> 00:12:15,640
Speaker 2: or something comes out about it. So there's just no

186
00:12:15,760 --> 00:12:19,720
Speaker 2: way of knowing still whether they're following this or not

187
00:12:19,800 --> 00:12:23,880
Speaker 2: unless we see, oh they went to the Federalist Society Gala.

188
00:12:24,440 --> 00:12:28,520
Speaker 1: Yeah, And this research by Pro Publica and others is

189
00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:32,640
Speaker 1: extraordinarily exhaustive. They're often are going to be gaps in

190
00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:37,000
Speaker 1: the information that they can't possibly fill, and there's no

191
00:12:37,440 --> 00:12:42,560
Speaker 1: official that has any capacity to investigate anything that could

192
00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:46,480
Speaker 1: fill those gaps. So no, this is not at all transparent,

193
00:12:46,960 --> 00:12:50,120
Speaker 1: and this is going to lead to further erosion of

194
00:12:50,160 --> 00:12:54,640
Speaker 1: public confidence in the court. Things of this kind that

195
00:12:55,160 --> 00:13:00,560
Speaker 1: came out in earlier generations and the justice's careers. Justice

196
00:13:00,600 --> 00:13:05,560
Speaker 1: ab Fortis was forced off the court or involvements with

197
00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:09,360
Speaker 1: potential litigants that were far thinner than the ones we're

198
00:13:09,400 --> 00:13:15,600
Speaker 1: seeing right now, and members of both parties and justices

199
00:13:15,640 --> 00:13:19,440
Speaker 1: across the ideological spectrum insisted that he stepped down, and

200
00:13:19,480 --> 00:13:24,880
Speaker 1: he ultimately did. We've completely changed our practices and our

201
00:13:24,960 --> 00:13:27,959
Speaker 1: ethics standards are not keeping up.

202
00:13:28,520 --> 00:13:30,760
Speaker 2: So at the end, it seemed to me like they

203
00:13:30,920 --> 00:13:33,400
Speaker 2: sort of took everything back. We take it back, because

204
00:13:33,400 --> 00:13:36,520
Speaker 2: they had a line from Justice Tom Clark in nineteen

205
00:13:36,559 --> 00:13:40,600
Speaker 2: sixty nine that judges must bear the primary responsibility for

206
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:44,720
Speaker 2: acquiring appropriate judicial behavior, and then the Court added the

207
00:13:44,760 --> 00:13:48,120
Speaker 2: same is true for justices. So it's up to us.

208
00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:50,880
Speaker 2: So all that we've just said means nothing.

209
00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:56,880
Speaker 1: Yes, and it's certainly true that the Supreme Court is

210
00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:02,160
Speaker 1: and must be the primary guardian of its ethics, but

211
00:14:02,240 --> 00:14:05,280
Speaker 1: it does not have to be on an individual judge basis.

212
00:14:05,840 --> 00:14:08,600
Speaker 1: If I'm trying a court case in federal district court

213
00:14:09,080 --> 00:14:13,079
Speaker 1: and the judge assigned to my case does something unethical,

214
00:14:14,040 --> 00:14:19,000
Speaker 1: something indicating an improper bias for the other side, I

215
00:14:19,040 --> 00:14:22,520
Speaker 1: can ask that judge to refuse, and if the judge refuses,

216
00:14:22,600 --> 00:14:24,640
Speaker 1: I can go straight to the chief Judge and ask

217
00:14:24,720 --> 00:14:27,880
Speaker 1: them to order that judge to refuse. The way this

218
00:14:28,040 --> 00:14:31,240
Speaker 1: is set up, it's entirely up to the individual justice,

219
00:14:31,680 --> 00:14:36,040
Speaker 1: and there's no procedure for investigation, no procedure for presenting

220
00:14:36,120 --> 00:14:39,680
Speaker 1: the facts to the other justices, no real opportunity for

221
00:14:39,720 --> 00:14:44,880
Speaker 1: the other justices to act collectively to uphold the Court's ethics.

222
00:14:45,200 --> 00:14:48,520
Speaker 1: This is pluding the Supreme Court's ethics at the lowest

223
00:14:48,560 --> 00:14:49,600
Speaker 1: common denominator.

224
00:14:50,440 --> 00:14:52,600
Speaker 2: So this has been years in the making. We've heard

225
00:14:52,640 --> 00:14:54,960
Speaker 2: about they're working on the code. They're working on the code.

226
00:14:55,160 --> 00:15:00,120
Speaker 2: Senate Democrats had open debate in a committee Judiciary committee

227
00:15:00,200 --> 00:15:04,440
Speaker 2: about subpoenas for two allies of the Court's conservative justices

228
00:15:04,480 --> 00:15:08,520
Speaker 2: who funded or arranged for luxury travel for Justices Thomas

229
00:15:08,560 --> 00:15:12,480
Speaker 2: and Alito. Does it seem pretty convenient that this is

230
00:15:12,560 --> 00:15:16,760
Speaker 2: coming out now? Are they hoping to stop with this

231
00:15:16,920 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 2: code of ethics any congressional action and should they be

232
00:15:20,720 --> 00:15:22,240
Speaker 2: allowed to well?

233
00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:28,880
Speaker 1: The Court's announcement of this essentially presented as a pr move.

234
00:15:29,200 --> 00:15:34,040
Speaker 1: They say that they've always been bound by ethical standards

235
00:15:34,080 --> 00:15:37,800
Speaker 1: and this isn't changing anything, and that the only thing

236
00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:41,080
Speaker 1: they're concerned with is public views, which they characterize as

237
00:15:41,160 --> 00:15:47,200
Speaker 1: misunderstandings that they are behaving unethically. So I don't think

238
00:15:47,240 --> 00:15:49,600
Speaker 1: we should think of this as changing. This is certainly

239
00:15:49,600 --> 00:15:55,000
Speaker 1: a response to their public relations problems and attempt to

240
00:15:55,000 --> 00:15:58,920
Speaker 1: have off congressional action. I don't see congressional action as

241
00:15:59,000 --> 00:16:02,360
Speaker 1: terribly likely in the short term, because for now most

242
00:16:02,400 --> 00:16:06,680
Speaker 1: Republicans have been rallying around the justices rather than holding

243
00:16:06,720 --> 00:16:10,120
Speaker 1: them to the same standards that they held Justice Douglas

244
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:13,440
Speaker 1: and Justice Bordis. But this is certainly an effort to

245
00:16:13,480 --> 00:16:16,840
Speaker 1: dislate the momentum of a push for ethics standards.

246
00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:21,920
Speaker 2: I'm wondering if this code is worse than no code,

247
00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:25,600
Speaker 2: because it gives the Justices sort of cover the opportunity

248
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:28,520
Speaker 2: to say, well, we put out an ethics code, so

249
00:16:29,000 --> 00:16:33,040
Speaker 2: Congress stay away and public rest assured that we are

250
00:16:33,240 --> 00:16:34,960
Speaker 2: following ethics rules.

251
00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:38,480
Speaker 1: I think it could go either way. People could be

252
00:16:38,600 --> 00:16:41,640
Speaker 1: confused and thinking that this is a real ethics code.

253
00:16:42,120 --> 00:16:44,800
Speaker 1: On the other hand, it puts their beliefs out there

254
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:48,400
Speaker 1: in public. It makes very clear that they do not

255
00:16:48,600 --> 00:16:52,760
Speaker 1: hold themselves the same standards as lower judges, and if

256
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:57,080
Speaker 1: that's their position, then we're entitled to debate that and

257
00:16:57,160 --> 00:16:59,080
Speaker 1: decide whether we think that's acceptable.

258
00:17:00,000 --> 00:17:03,760
Speaker 2: Credit Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been a vocal critic

259
00:17:04,520 --> 00:17:08,000
Speaker 2: of the justices, said this is a long overdue step

260
00:17:08,080 --> 00:17:10,800
Speaker 2: by the Justices, but a code of ethics is not

261
00:17:10,960 --> 00:17:15,280
Speaker 2: binding unless there's a mechanism to investigate possible violations and

262
00:17:15,440 --> 00:17:18,480
Speaker 2: enforce the rules. The honor system has not worked for

263
00:17:18,640 --> 00:17:21,320
Speaker 2: members of the Roberts Court. You mentioned how if some

264
00:17:21,400 --> 00:17:24,320
Speaker 2: of these scandals had happened in the past, there would

265
00:17:24,320 --> 00:17:28,920
Speaker 2: have been so much pressure on the justices to correct things. Now.

266
00:17:28,960 --> 00:17:32,480
Speaker 2: Pressure has just gotten us this toothless code of conduct.

267
00:17:32,960 --> 00:17:35,960
Speaker 2: And I wonder if it's because there's no pressure from

268
00:17:36,080 --> 00:17:40,480
Speaker 2: Republican lawmakers because they're so happy to have a court

269
00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:45,520
Speaker 2: finally with a super majority of conservatives, and Democratic lawmakers

270
00:17:45,640 --> 00:17:49,320
Speaker 2: might feel the same if the Court had a supermajority

271
00:17:49,600 --> 00:17:50,920
Speaker 2: of liberal justices.

272
00:17:51,480 --> 00:17:57,119
Speaker 1: Liberal justices and justices across the ideological spectrum were all

273
00:17:57,240 --> 00:18:00,439
Speaker 1: in favorite getting read of Justice for us, even though

274
00:18:00,520 --> 00:18:03,800
Speaker 1: he was very liberal and was replaced with a conservative

275
00:18:03,840 --> 00:18:09,640
Speaker 1: by Richard Nixon, and the liberal justices Brennan and Marshall

276
00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:13,640
Speaker 1: pushed Justice Douglas off the court because they thought he

277
00:18:13,960 --> 00:18:19,040
Speaker 1: didn't have his faculties at a proper level. Republican justice

278
00:18:19,119 --> 00:18:22,639
Speaker 1: didn't push Chief Justice Ranquist off the court when he

279
00:18:22,760 --> 00:18:25,399
Speaker 1: was at least as impaired as Justice Douglas was at

280
00:18:25,440 --> 00:18:28,560
Speaker 1: an end, So it's not completely symmetrical. There are good

281
00:18:28,600 --> 00:18:32,199
Speaker 1: government values that have more saliens at the moment with

282
00:18:32,400 --> 00:18:37,480
Speaker 1: Democrats than with republics. There are plenty of ideological Democrats

283
00:18:38,000 --> 00:18:40,720
Speaker 1: that would put anyone up there and not care about

284
00:18:40,760 --> 00:18:42,359
Speaker 1: the ethics at all. But there's a part of the

285
00:18:42,440 --> 00:18:46,159
Speaker 1: Democratic coalition that's willing to be assertive about ethics, and

286
00:18:46,200 --> 00:18:49,439
Speaker 1: I'm not seeing that very much among Republicans today.

287
00:18:49,760 --> 00:18:53,600
Speaker 2: I always appreciate getting your viewpoint on these kinds of issues.

288
00:18:53,640 --> 00:18:57,520
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, David. That's Professor David Super of Georgetown Law.

289
00:18:58,040 --> 00:19:01,080
Speaker 2: I'm Juan Gross and you're listening to Bloomberg. I just

290
00:19:01,080 --> 00:19:05,440
Speaker 2: heard loudness almost like thunder tek twitches still on fire.

291
00:19:05,480 --> 00:19:08,160
Speaker 1: We're being thrown in our directly a promise Aster group

292
00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:08,880
Speaker 1: with their shields.

293
00:19:08,880 --> 00:19:11,120
Speaker 2: You heard the sound of metal having Bobby.

294
00:19:15,440 --> 00:19:18,000
Speaker 3: Robbie caught me out of the blue and said, you

295
00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:19,159
Speaker 3: want to see the Nazis with me.

296
00:19:20,480 --> 00:19:20,960
Speaker 1: I've been a.

297
00:19:20,920 --> 00:19:23,199
Speaker 3: Litigator of New York City for more than two decades.

298
00:19:23,680 --> 00:19:25,359
Speaker 1: Charlottesville actually shocked me.

299
00:19:26,080 --> 00:19:29,240
Speaker 2: I wanted the toughest possible people to help expose that

300
00:19:29,800 --> 00:19:32,040
Speaker 2: this was really a conspiracy.

301
00:19:32,080 --> 00:19:34,800
Speaker 3: It wasn't some sort of freak accidents where this car

302
00:19:34,920 --> 00:19:38,359
Speaker 3: ran into people. There was overt planning how to prepare

303
00:19:38,440 --> 00:19:41,480
Speaker 3: for violence and make this appear as if its self defense.

304
00:19:41,960 --> 00:19:47,440
Speaker 2: The HBO documentary No Accident chronicles the civil case filed

305
00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:50,359
Speaker 2: after the deadly Unite the Right rally in August of

306
00:19:50,400 --> 00:19:54,639
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen in Charlottesville. Virginia, who was filed against white

307
00:19:54,760 --> 00:19:59,000
Speaker 2: nationalist leaders and organizations on behalf of plaintiffs who suffered

308
00:19:59,040 --> 00:20:03,160
Speaker 2: injuries while counter protesting. Joining me is the lawyer who

309
00:20:03,200 --> 00:20:06,639
Speaker 2: was co chair of the civil lawsuit that successfully held

310
00:20:06,640 --> 00:20:11,800
Speaker 2: accountable the white supremacists responsible for the violence in Charlottesville.

311
00:20:11,920 --> 00:20:15,120
Speaker 2: Karen Dunn a partnered Paul Weiss. She's written in op

312
00:20:15,280 --> 00:20:18,679
Speaker 2: ed because in observing the protests happening around the US

313
00:20:18,720 --> 00:20:21,560
Speaker 2: today related to the crisis in the Middle East, she

314
00:20:21,760 --> 00:20:25,240
Speaker 2: noticed a disturbing theme. Karen, before we get to your

315
00:20:25,280 --> 00:20:29,480
Speaker 2: op ed and today, to put it into context, tell

316
00:20:29,560 --> 00:20:32,720
Speaker 2: us about the lawsuit over Charlottesville.

317
00:20:33,240 --> 00:20:36,840
Speaker 3: Well, shortly after the events of August eleventh and twelfth,

318
00:20:36,880 --> 00:20:40,800
Speaker 3: twenty seventeen in Charlottesville, Virginia, which was the violence at

319
00:20:40,800 --> 00:20:44,600
Speaker 3: the night Raat rally, we sued twenty four groups and

320
00:20:44,640 --> 00:20:51,400
Speaker 3: individuals who we contended were responsible for planning and executing

321
00:20:51,400 --> 00:20:56,359
Speaker 3: the violence that weekend, and the suit, you know, proceeded

322
00:20:57,560 --> 00:21:01,320
Speaker 3: slowly at times, partially due to the difficulty in collecting

323
00:21:01,359 --> 00:21:06,440
Speaker 3: evidence from defendants who did not always respect the rule

324
00:21:06,480 --> 00:21:11,679
Speaker 3: of law, and partially because of COVID, but ultimately we

325
00:21:11,680 --> 00:21:14,240
Speaker 3: were able to bring the case to trial. We tried

326
00:21:14,240 --> 00:21:17,840
Speaker 3: the case in late twenty twenty one, and it resulted

327
00:21:17,880 --> 00:21:19,919
Speaker 3: in a verdict against each and every one of the

328
00:21:19,920 --> 00:21:23,600
Speaker 3: defendants of liability, and specifically, the verdict was they had

329
00:21:23,600 --> 00:21:27,040
Speaker 3: engaged in a conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence.

330
00:21:28,320 --> 00:21:33,080
Speaker 2: The jury couldn't reach a verdict on two federal conspiracy

331
00:21:33,200 --> 00:21:37,919
Speaker 2: charges over whether the organizers conspired to commit racially motivated

332
00:21:38,119 --> 00:21:40,480
Speaker 2: violence or whether they had knowledge of it and failed

333
00:21:40,520 --> 00:21:43,600
Speaker 2: to prevent it. Do you have any feel, I assume

334
00:21:43,640 --> 00:21:46,240
Speaker 2: you talk to the jurors after the trial why they

335
00:21:46,320 --> 00:21:48,359
Speaker 2: weren't able to reach a verdict on those counts.

336
00:21:48,960 --> 00:21:51,240
Speaker 3: We actually were not able to talk to the jurors

337
00:21:51,320 --> 00:21:54,000
Speaker 3: after the trials, So we're never going to know the answer.

338
00:21:54,480 --> 00:21:56,760
Speaker 3: You know, our working theory is it was some sort

339
00:21:56,760 --> 00:22:00,280
Speaker 3: of compromised verdict to get out by Thanksgiving, because because

340
00:22:00,280 --> 00:22:03,080
Speaker 3: there was not a heck of a lot of difference

341
00:22:03,119 --> 00:22:07,480
Speaker 3: between the state claims where the jury did find liability

342
00:22:07,480 --> 00:22:09,960
Speaker 3: in the federal claims where they didn't, And so with

343
00:22:10,040 --> 00:22:13,399
Speaker 3: the state claims, they found uh that there had been

344
00:22:13,400 --> 00:22:16,240
Speaker 3: a conspiracy with every one of the defendants to commit

345
00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:21,640
Speaker 3: racially motivated violence, and they awarded compensatory and punitive damages,

346
00:22:21,680 --> 00:22:24,760
Speaker 3: which is very significant. And then they hung on the

347
00:22:24,920 --> 00:22:28,920
Speaker 3: federal counts brought under the KKK Act, and so there's

348
00:22:28,920 --> 00:22:32,359
Speaker 3: not really uh, you know, legally it doesn't that doesn't

349
00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:35,240
Speaker 3: really make sense, but that's that's what they did, so

350
00:22:35,280 --> 00:22:36,719
Speaker 3: there must have been some reasons for it.

351
00:22:36,920 --> 00:22:41,560
Speaker 2: Juries don't always make sense. So, right, what happened as

352
00:22:41,600 --> 00:22:44,680
Speaker 2: far as collecting damages? Did you collect any damages?

353
00:22:45,720 --> 00:22:45,920
Speaker 1: Yeah?

354
00:22:45,960 --> 00:22:49,359
Speaker 3: So the damages are still being litigated because under the

355
00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:55,200
Speaker 3: Virginia State Statute there's a cap as to uh as

356
00:22:55,240 --> 00:22:58,000
Speaker 3: to damages. So we're still litigating that and that will

357
00:22:58,040 --> 00:22:59,520
Speaker 3: probably take some time to play out.

358
00:22:59,800 --> 00:23:02,080
Speaker 2: One is serving a life sentence for murder. Is there

359
00:23:02,119 --> 00:23:03,080
Speaker 2: money to be had?

360
00:23:03,560 --> 00:23:07,439
Speaker 3: So we don't know, is the short answer to your question.

361
00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:12,159
Speaker 3: You know, the individuals probably do not have very much money.

362
00:23:13,160 --> 00:23:16,520
Speaker 3: The groups is a better question. We sued a number

363
00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:22,840
Speaker 3: of white supremacists and neo Nazi organizations and they, like,

364
00:23:22,920 --> 00:23:25,840
Speaker 3: we do have some money that the individuals wouldn't have.

365
00:23:25,920 --> 00:23:28,959
Speaker 3: I mean, one of the goals behind the suit was,

366
00:23:29,520 --> 00:23:33,040
Speaker 3: you know, not just to go after Field, who of course,

367
00:23:33,160 --> 00:23:36,040
Speaker 3: was the individual who drove the car into a group

368
00:23:36,080 --> 00:23:39,480
Speaker 3: of peaceful counter protesters. And killed Heather Higher and injured

369
00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:42,960
Speaker 3: so many other people. It was also to go after

370
00:23:43,680 --> 00:23:46,680
Speaker 3: the leadership of the movement, and so that was the

371
00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:51,200
Speaker 3: very interconnected web of individuals and groups who we.

372
00:23:51,200 --> 00:23:55,320
Speaker 2: Sued forgetting about the money. What impact do you think

373
00:23:55,480 --> 00:24:00,200
Speaker 2: the trial has had. Has it helped to quell white

374
00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:01,800
Speaker 2: supremacy in any way?

375
00:24:02,600 --> 00:24:05,040
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I'll just take this in a couple of parts.

376
00:24:05,040 --> 00:24:07,320
Speaker 3: One is, I think we know that there was a

377
00:24:07,400 --> 00:24:12,800
Speaker 3: deterrent effect of the case. So Charlottesville that everyone's aware

378
00:24:12,840 --> 00:24:15,760
Speaker 3: of was actually called Charlottesville two point zero, and that's

379
00:24:15,800 --> 00:24:18,520
Speaker 3: because there had been a prior event called Charlotte'sville one

380
00:24:18,560 --> 00:24:21,280
Speaker 3: point zero, and the idea was to keep coming back.

381
00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:24,879
Speaker 3: There also had been prior to Charlottesville a different event

382
00:24:25,520 --> 00:24:27,920
Speaker 3: in Berkeley called the Battle of Berkeley, and the white

383
00:24:27,920 --> 00:24:30,919
Speaker 3: supremacist called Charlottesville the Battle of Charlottesville. So the idea

384
00:24:31,040 --> 00:24:34,639
Speaker 3: was to have these battles as one catalyst to an

385
00:24:34,680 --> 00:24:37,879
Speaker 3: eventual race war. That is one of the goals of

386
00:24:38,080 --> 00:24:40,919
Speaker 3: some of these neo Nazi and white supremacist groups. So

387
00:24:41,080 --> 00:24:44,639
Speaker 3: we know that the lawsuit had a deterrent effect because

388
00:24:44,640 --> 00:24:47,239
Speaker 3: there would have been more of these events than they

389
00:24:47,359 --> 00:24:51,200
Speaker 3: just did. Not happen. We also had a deterrent effect

390
00:24:51,240 --> 00:24:54,840
Speaker 3: on the defendants in the case, who were you know,

391
00:24:55,080 --> 00:24:58,520
Speaker 3: really leaders in the movement. That said, I think it's

392
00:24:58,560 --> 00:25:03,200
Speaker 3: pretty clear that these were organizations, many of them still exist,

393
00:25:04,160 --> 00:25:07,199
Speaker 3: and that the movement is you know, continues to exist.

394
00:25:07,240 --> 00:25:09,800
Speaker 3: We didn't you know, wipe it out with this lawsuit, obviously.

395
00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:14,360
Speaker 3: And I think that the movie is called No Accident.

396
00:25:14,600 --> 00:25:19,439
Speaker 3: It was released on HBO on October tenth, so just

397
00:25:20,119 --> 00:25:24,359
Speaker 3: very recently. The movie is a very good tool for

398
00:25:24,480 --> 00:25:27,920
Speaker 3: people to see what are the motivations of these groups

399
00:25:27,960 --> 00:25:30,439
Speaker 3: and also what are the tactics of these groups? And

400
00:25:30,520 --> 00:25:33,800
Speaker 3: I think eventually, you know, the effect of the case

401
00:25:33,840 --> 00:25:36,159
Speaker 3: and the movie will be to raise awareness so that

402
00:25:36,200 --> 00:25:40,679
Speaker 3: people understand that these groups are coordinated, that they are connected,

403
00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:44,359
Speaker 3: and that they're very tactical, and so you know, the

404
00:25:44,400 --> 00:25:47,919
Speaker 3: awareness of that I think will help to reduce the

405
00:25:48,000 --> 00:25:50,240
Speaker 3: amount of extremist violence that we see.

406
00:25:50,440 --> 00:25:54,200
Speaker 2: So, Karen, you recently wrote an opinion piece. You wrote

407
00:25:54,240 --> 00:25:58,440
Speaker 2: that white supremacists and neo Nazi groups are showing up

408
00:25:58,560 --> 00:26:03,520
Speaker 2: at pro Palaced Indian rallies in this country. First of all, how.

409
00:26:03,400 --> 00:26:04,320
Speaker 1: Did you discover that?

410
00:26:05,560 --> 00:26:10,000
Speaker 3: Well, I looked on the Internet, for one, and you know,

411
00:26:10,040 --> 00:26:15,239
Speaker 3: there are white supremacist groups that are really exploiting the

412
00:26:15,280 --> 00:26:18,840
Speaker 3: divisions that have come to the surface following October seventh,

413
00:26:18,880 --> 00:26:22,960
Speaker 3: and so they are showing up at events, and they

414
00:26:22,960 --> 00:26:27,159
Speaker 3: are also you know, sort of celebrating what happened on

415
00:26:27,200 --> 00:26:30,679
Speaker 3: October seventh. And I looked back at what some of

416
00:26:30,680 --> 00:26:34,720
Speaker 3: the defendants in our lawsuits had to say, and you know,

417
00:26:34,800 --> 00:26:38,160
Speaker 3: almost immediately after October seventh, many of them chimed in

418
00:26:38,640 --> 00:26:44,160
Speaker 3: to commend what had happened, and the attacks were portrayed

419
00:26:44,240 --> 00:26:46,600
Speaker 3: by hamas. And so one of the things that we

420
00:26:46,760 --> 00:26:51,800
Speaker 3: learned as we went through the mountain of evidence that

421
00:26:51,840 --> 00:26:56,240
Speaker 3: we unearthed leading to the violence in Charlottesville is how

422
00:26:56,359 --> 00:27:01,520
Speaker 3: motivating to the white supremacist movement anti Smitism. And so

423
00:27:01,640 --> 00:27:05,600
Speaker 3: the recent you know, dramatic uptick and anti semitism, anti

424
00:27:05,600 --> 00:27:08,120
Speaker 3: Semitic incidents are up something like you know, almost four

425
00:27:08,200 --> 00:27:12,600
Speaker 3: hundred percent presents a real opportunity for mobilization of the

426
00:27:12,600 --> 00:27:16,359
Speaker 3: white supremacists and neo Nazi movements in America. One of

427
00:27:16,359 --> 00:27:19,240
Speaker 3: the things that we learned in litigating the case in

428
00:27:19,320 --> 00:27:26,280
Speaker 3: Charlottesville is that anti Semitism is used by white supremacist

429
00:27:26,280 --> 00:27:31,320
Speaker 3: groups and neo Nazi groups tactically, which is to say

430
00:27:31,720 --> 00:27:36,960
Speaker 3: that these groups hate all non white groups and their supporters,

431
00:27:37,240 --> 00:27:41,040
Speaker 3: but they hate to Jews the most. And so there's

432
00:27:41,280 --> 00:27:49,800
Speaker 3: actual guidance put out to white supremacist groups that they

433
00:27:49,840 --> 00:27:56,560
Speaker 3: should use anti semitism to rally the troops to the cause.

434
00:27:57,680 --> 00:27:59,800
Speaker 2: What can be done, what should be done?

435
00:28:00,200 --> 00:28:03,800
Speaker 3: I think the reason to talk about these issues and

436
00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:08,679
Speaker 3: to write about them is to really raise awareness. You know,

437
00:28:08,760 --> 00:28:14,320
Speaker 3: we've obviously seen a historic uptick in anti semitism in

438
00:28:14,320 --> 00:28:19,320
Speaker 3: the United States that resembles something more, you know, out

439
00:28:19,359 --> 00:28:24,280
Speaker 3: of Europe of a different time, and there may be

440
00:28:24,440 --> 00:28:28,320
Speaker 3: a temptation on the part of them to think about

441
00:28:28,520 --> 00:28:32,360
Speaker 3: anti Semitism as a problem for Jewish people and only

442
00:28:32,480 --> 00:28:39,000
Speaker 3: Jewish people. But what we saw in Charlottesville was anti

443
00:28:39,000 --> 00:28:46,080
Speaker 3: Semitism Jewishers, you know, the chance Jews will not replace us,

444
00:28:46,480 --> 00:28:54,440
Speaker 3: the chance of blood and soil to really mobilize a

445
00:28:54,560 --> 00:28:59,680
Speaker 3: movement that is stilled of racial hatred for all non

446
00:28:59,720 --> 00:29:08,480
Speaker 3: white groups, and that resulted in planned violence, extremist violence

447
00:29:08,560 --> 00:29:11,959
Speaker 3: that you did not discriminate between one group or another.

448
00:29:12,560 --> 00:29:15,320
Speaker 3: It was really aimed at all of us, and certainly

449
00:29:15,960 --> 00:29:19,640
Speaker 3: you know, destroyed a lot of lives, injured a lot

450
00:29:19,640 --> 00:29:26,120
Speaker 3: of people, terrorized a college town, and affected our whole country.

451
00:29:26,840 --> 00:29:29,760
Speaker 3: And so the lesson that I think people ought to

452
00:29:29,800 --> 00:29:32,640
Speaker 3: take from this is that this isn't a problem just

453
00:29:33,360 --> 00:29:36,440
Speaker 3: for Jewish people or just for one group. This is

454
00:29:36,480 --> 00:29:40,320
Speaker 3: a problem for everybody, and we have to be aware

455
00:29:40,320 --> 00:29:45,120
Speaker 3: of that because if we're not, and these sentiments are

456
00:29:45,160 --> 00:29:51,560
Speaker 3: allowed to fester and grow and spread, data is going

457
00:29:51,680 --> 00:29:56,760
Speaker 3: to create opportunities for violence that will affect everybody. And

458
00:29:58,160 --> 00:30:01,800
Speaker 3: the key thing that I'm trying to explain is that

459
00:30:01,840 --> 00:30:07,920
Speaker 3: there is a coordinated, connected, and tactical movement of who

460
00:30:07,920 --> 00:30:10,080
Speaker 3: wants to take advantage of those opportunities.

461
00:30:10,680 --> 00:30:13,520
Speaker 2: Thanks for being on the show, Karen. That's Karen Dunn,

462
00:30:13,800 --> 00:30:16,600
Speaker 2: a partner Paul Weiss, and that's it for this edition

463
00:30:16,640 --> 00:30:19,280
Speaker 2: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

464
00:30:19,320 --> 00:30:22,440
Speaker 2: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

465
00:30:22,480 --> 00:30:26,560
Speaker 2: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

466
00:30:26,720 --> 00:30:31,000
Speaker 2: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember

467
00:30:31,040 --> 00:30:34,000
Speaker 2: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

468
00:30:34,000 --> 00:30:37,480
Speaker 2: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

469
00:30:37,560 --> 00:30:38,760
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg,