WEBVTT - SCOTUS Ethics Code Is Just PR 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:11.080 --> 0:00:13.360 You have to take me to show according to the 0:00:13.360 --> 0:00:14.720 code of the Order of the person. 0:00:15.640 --> 0:00:17.840 Your return to show was not part of our negotiations 0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:19.079 nor our agreement. 0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:19.720 So I must do nothing. 0:00:20.040 --> 0:00:22.360 And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's 0:00:22.360 --> 0:00:25.680 code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the code 0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:30.000 is more what you're called guidelines sell actual rules. Welcome 0:00:30.000 --> 0:00:32.559 aboard the black perde mis Turner. 0:00:34.200 --> 0:00:37.320 The Supreme Court's new ethics code is sort of like 0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:42.280 the Pirate's code, more guidelines than actual rules. For the 0:00:42.320 --> 0:00:45.560 first time in its history, the Supreme Court has adopted 0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:49.239 a code of conduct, responding to pressure from a stream 0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:53.519 of ethics controversies that have undercut its public standing and 0:00:53.640 --> 0:00:57.360 shown a light on the justices friendships and financial dealings. 0:00:57.760 --> 0:01:01.400 But the code won't necessarily mean any changes in the 0:01:01.400 --> 0:01:05.720 way the nine Justices conduct themselves. In fact, the Justices 0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:09.680 basically admit that in the introduction, saying, for the most part, 0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:13.320 these rules and principles are not new. Joining me is 0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:18.280 constitutional law scholar David Souper, a professor at Georgetown Law, 0:01:18.400 --> 0:01:23.120 is anything different for the Justices today than last week 0:01:23.280 --> 0:01:24.920 because of this ethics code. 0:01:25.240 --> 0:01:28.120 This is in astute pr move, that's all it is. Well, 0:01:28.200 --> 0:01:34.120 they've done a number of disclosures of extremely questionable activities 0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:39.919 by several justices, most prominently Justices Thomas and Alito, receiving 0:01:40.360 --> 0:01:47.160 valuable trips other financial favors from rich, ideologically committed donors, 0:01:47.440 --> 0:01:49.800 many of whom had business in front of the Court. 0:01:50.440 --> 0:01:53.600 So the Court, I think, felt that it needed to 0:01:53.640 --> 0:01:58.000 do something. There were justices calling for an ethics code, 0:01:58.640 --> 0:02:04.760 and my assumption is that the compromise they reached between 0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:08.040 no ethics code and an ethics code was something that 0:02:08.160 --> 0:02:10.720 is in name an ethics code, but that has few 0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:13.000 with any of the functions of an ethics code. 0:02:13.240 --> 0:02:16.560 In the statement of the Court that precedes the code, 0:02:16.919 --> 0:02:20.000 there's a little bit of griping about this misunderstanding that 0:02:20.240 --> 0:02:25.280 justices regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. Go figure, 0:02:25.720 --> 0:02:28.360 and it says the Court has long had the equivalent 0:02:28.400 --> 0:02:32.600 of common law ethics rules derived from a variety of sources, 0:02:32.960 --> 0:02:37.760 including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other federal judges, 0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:43.440 ethics advisory opinions, and historic practice. Does that statement mean 0:02:43.480 --> 0:02:47.639 that these are the same rules that Justice Clarence Thomas, 0:02:47.639 --> 0:02:52.200 for example, followed in accepting all those luxury trips, the 0:02:52.560 --> 0:02:54.200 underwriting of the RV, etc. 0:02:55.040 --> 0:02:57.720 The fact that he did that and that there has 0:02:57.840 --> 0:03:02.160 been no action about that on the Court suggests that 0:03:02.760 --> 0:03:09.000 this so called common law ethics rules are largely useless. 0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:13.880 If any judge on a lower court had done this, 0:03:14.919 --> 0:03:17.040 they would be facing serious problems. 0:03:17.240 --> 0:03:22.280 There's no enforcement mechanism at all in these rules, so 0:03:22.600 --> 0:03:25.800 the public can file a complaint or a review of 0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:27.359 alleged ethics breaches. 0:03:27.919 --> 0:03:31.839 That's correct. The failure of this code is twofold. One, 0:03:31.919 --> 0:03:37.480 its content is extraordinarily weak, and second, there is no 0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:43.480 procedure for enforcing it. It is certainly true that the 0:03:43.520 --> 0:03:47.800 Supreme Court is not and should not be, subject to 0:03:48.160 --> 0:03:53.080 the executive branch or the legislative branch, but it could 0:03:53.120 --> 0:03:57.200 set up its own enforcement mechanism. It could, for example, 0:03:57.880 --> 0:04:01.640 as a process for people to file com plint, have 0:04:01.840 --> 0:04:07.120 an office that investigates those complaints and makes recommendations to 0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:10.200 the court, and a procedure for the Court itself to 0:04:10.360 --> 0:04:14.560 act on these matters. It could also have a procedure 0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:20.159 where a justice's behavior is particularly problematic of referring that 0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:23.760 information to Congress, which does have the power to begin 0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:25.000 impeachment proceedings. 0:04:25.520 --> 0:04:28.799 What happens if a lower court judge or an appellate 0:04:28.920 --> 0:04:32.760 judge violates the Code of Ethics. Someone complains that they 0:04:32.920 --> 0:04:35.680 violate the Code of ethics. What happens? Then? 0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:38.360 There are a number of things that can happen. They 0:04:38.360 --> 0:04:41.920 can be removed from the case that causes the problem 0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:45.239 against their will by the chief judge of their court 0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:48.719 or by other judges on the court if they're themselves 0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:54.839 the chief judge. They can be investigated and potentially sanctioned 0:04:55.400 --> 0:04:59.800 or unethical conduct, and the matter can be referred to 0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:05.080 Congress for impeachment proceedings. In Congress does impeach lower court judges. 0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:08.719 There have been a lot of complaints about the justices 0:05:09.680 --> 0:05:13.760 not recusing themselves in cases where it seems like they should. 0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:17.560 So when it comes to recusals, the Justices include a 0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:20.880 line that's not in the Code of Conduct for United 0:05:20.880 --> 0:05:24.320 States judges. It says, quote, the rule of necessity may 0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:28.680 override the rule of disqualification. Tell us what they mean 0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:29.120 by that. 0:05:29.960 --> 0:05:32.800 What they are basically saying is that even if they 0:05:32.839 --> 0:05:37.160 have a conflict of interest, or some other compelling reason 0:05:37.200 --> 0:05:40.960 why they shouldn't sit on a case, that the desirability 0:05:41.000 --> 0:05:45.520 of having nine justices sit on a case may justify 0:05:45.640 --> 0:05:50.840 disregarding that conflict of interest. The rationale is that while 0:05:50.839 --> 0:05:54.159 we have many lower courts and many lower court judges, 0:05:54.680 --> 0:05:58.520 and most lower courts don't sit as a complete body, Ever, 0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:02.080 the Supreme Court or it is unique, and if you 0:06:02.160 --> 0:06:06.240 have a decision rendered by less than all of the justices, 0:06:06.680 --> 0:06:10.320 it may not get five votes for any result, and 0:06:10.400 --> 0:06:13.279 that leaves the state of the law uncertain. That's a 0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:17.400 problem the Supreme Court has dealt with many times over 0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:21.640 the years when justices have properly recused themselves for any 0:06:21.720 --> 0:06:26.800 number of reasons, and occasionally it does create pickups in 0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:30.880 the law or uncertainties. But the same thing can happen 0:06:31.160 --> 0:06:34.440 when all nine justices sit and they can't agree on 0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:37.920 any one resolution to a case. So this is not 0:06:38.480 --> 0:06:41.080 a huge problem, but it does signal a lack of 0:06:41.160 --> 0:06:42.360 seriousness of that ethic. 0:06:42.839 --> 0:06:44.800 Well. Also, better to have a hiccup in a case 0:06:44.839 --> 0:06:48.559 than to have a justice sitting who should be recused. Also, 0:06:48.600 --> 0:06:52.440 while lower court judges are told they quote shall disqualify 0:06:52.680 --> 0:06:56.560 when their impartiality might be questioned. The Justice has changed 0:06:56.560 --> 0:07:01.719 the word shall to should disqualify. So are their rules 0:07:01.760 --> 0:07:05.880 for accusal less stringent than the rules that they set 0:07:05.880 --> 0:07:07.279 out for lower court judges. 0:07:08.080 --> 0:07:11.360 Yes, they are. Indeed, the word shall does not appear 0:07:11.440 --> 0:07:15.080 anywhere in their code. It appears several places in the 0:07:15.120 --> 0:07:19.280 code for lower court judges, but nowhere in this new 0:07:19.320 --> 0:07:22.840 code for the Supreme Court. So they've chosen not to 0:07:22.880 --> 0:07:25.640 live by the standards they impose on lower court judges. 0:07:25.680 --> 0:07:28.120 The standards they impose on lower court judges are appropriate. 0:07:28.120 --> 0:07:31.560 I wouldn't want to see them loosened. But it's telling 0:07:31.640 --> 0:07:34.520 that they're unwilling to live by the same standards themselves. 0:07:34.960 --> 0:07:37.960 So let's take the major tax code case that's coming 0:07:38.040 --> 0:07:43.840 up where Justice Alito was interviewed a friendly interview for 0:07:43.960 --> 0:07:48.200 the Wall Street Journal by one of the lawyers. Under 0:07:48.240 --> 0:07:52.320 this code, should Justice Alito recuse himself from that case? 0:07:53.160 --> 0:07:56.160 The code is rather vague. I think as a matter 0:07:56.200 --> 0:08:00.720 of common sense, Justice Alito absolutely should. He was under 0:08:00.840 --> 0:08:06.160 public criticism and this attorney gave him help in defending 0:08:06.240 --> 0:08:09.880 himself against that public criticism, which is a very valuable thing. 0:08:09.960 --> 0:08:13.160 If I was being criticized the way Justice Leader did, 0:08:13.240 --> 0:08:17.679 I would prefer that friendly interview to one hundred thousand dollars. 0:08:18.240 --> 0:08:22.960 So it is giving a justice something of great value 0:08:23.520 --> 0:08:26.520 as a case that's involving you as going in front 0:08:26.560 --> 0:08:29.520 of the court. It seems obvious he should refuse himself, 0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:34.240 but the code is so vague that it certainly does 0:08:34.320 --> 0:08:37.440 not compel him to do so and provides no means 0:08:37.480 --> 0:08:39.760 for the public to complain if he doesn't do so. 0:08:40.480 --> 0:08:44.480 Individual justices decide whether or not they should recuse themselves. 0:08:44.800 --> 0:08:47.400 Couldn't they have put a mechanism in where at least 0:08:47.640 --> 0:08:50.439 it has to be discussed with the rest of the court. 0:08:51.120 --> 0:08:54.600 They certainly could, and there's a precedent for this in 0:08:55.000 --> 0:08:58.640 Justice William O. Douglas's last years on the court. The 0:08:58.760 --> 0:09:03.440 other justice conclude that his mental capacities had decayed too 0:09:03.520 --> 0:09:06.720 much for him to cast the deciding vote on cases, 0:09:06.800 --> 0:09:10.040 so they all agreed they would not decide a case 0:09:10.040 --> 0:09:13.360 where his vote was crucial. They proceed normally where his 0:09:13.480 --> 0:09:15.920 vote didn't matter, but he would never be allowed to 0:09:15.960 --> 0:09:18.800 be the fifth vote on a case, and that was 0:09:18.840 --> 0:09:21.959 agreed to by the Liberal justices Brennan and Marshall, as 0:09:22.000 --> 0:09:25.320 well as the conservative ones. That same approach could be 0:09:25.360 --> 0:09:29.760 handled here. You could say that if a justice insists 0:09:29.760 --> 0:09:33.839 on sitting on a case where that justice is compromised, 0:09:33.960 --> 0:09:38.120 the other justices can act to reject the case, to 0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:40.440 cancel the court's granted review in the case. 0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:44.199 What does the code say about the acceptance of gifts. 0:09:44.760 --> 0:09:50.560 The code is very vague about that as well. It 0:09:50.720 --> 0:09:57.800 says that the justices shouldn't accept gifts or they should 0:09:57.800 --> 0:10:03.079 not participate in matters where their impartiality would be compromised, 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:08.200 But it leads them to decide whether their impartiality is compromised. 0:10:08.440 --> 0:10:11.400 I could ask you about the merits of Bloomberg and 0:10:11.520 --> 0:10:14.040 you could say, well, I think I'm not a completely 0:10:14.640 --> 0:10:17.439 unbiased opinion. You could ask me about the merits of 0:10:17.480 --> 0:10:20.800 georgetowne because they will I have a completely unbiased opinion. 0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:25.240 But allowing people to decide that for themselves is contrary 0:10:25.360 --> 0:10:26.960 to the whole purpose of ethics tools. 0:10:27.280 --> 0:10:29.680 Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue 0:10:29.679 --> 0:10:34.080 this conversation with Georgetown law professor David Super. Does this 0:10:34.160 --> 0:10:39.000 Code of conduct provide any more transparency into an institution 0:10:39.200 --> 0:10:43.080 that's been shrouded in secrecy? I've been talking to Professor 0:10:43.160 --> 0:10:47.360 David super of Georgetown Law School about how this new 0:10:47.440 --> 0:10:51.240 code of conduct will affect the actions of the justices, 0:10:51.679 --> 0:10:58.600 if at all, would this code have prevented the Conservative 0:10:58.800 --> 0:11:03.240 justices from a ten t that Federalist Society gali last 0:11:03.320 --> 0:11:06.880 week that was headlined by Justice Amy Cony Barrett. 0:11:07.760 --> 0:11:11.120 No, it doesn't prevent much of anything, and it certainly 0:11:11.120 --> 0:11:16.400 wouldn't prevent that. And a galla like that is raising 0:11:16.480 --> 0:11:21.160 money for an organization that is pursuing a litigation agenda 0:11:21.200 --> 0:11:24.160 before the Court that is directed at the Court, So 0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:29.240 you are helping fund one side of many cases that 0:11:29.280 --> 0:11:34.040 you will be hearing. That would seem to be entirely inappropriate. 0:11:34.080 --> 0:11:38.520 We wouldn't want a judge to be making contributions to 0:11:39.280 --> 0:11:43.679 the lawyers on either side, and being a headliner at 0:11:43.679 --> 0:11:48.839 a gala and boost ticket sales has the same effect transparency. 0:11:49.480 --> 0:11:53.720 So the Court has always been shrouded in secrecy. The 0:11:53.760 --> 0:11:57.560 public doesn't know how it goes about its work really 0:11:57.600 --> 0:12:00.679 behind the scenes, and that's been a critique of the 0:12:00.720 --> 0:12:06.080 Court and this there's no transparency in this either. There's 0:12:06.120 --> 0:12:09.840 no way to tell even whether a justice has violated 0:12:09.880 --> 0:12:12.880 the code. At least until a Pro public A story 0:12:12.960 --> 0:12:15.640 or something comes out about it. So there's just no 0:12:15.760 --> 0:12:19.720 way of knowing still whether they're following this or not 0:12:19.800 --> 0:12:23.880 unless we see, oh they went to the Federalist Society Gala. 0:12:24.440 --> 0:12:28.520 Yeah, And this research by Pro Publica and others is 0:12:28.600 --> 0:12:32.640 extraordinarily exhaustive. They're often are going to be gaps in 0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:37.000 the information that they can't possibly fill, and there's no 0:12:37.440 --> 0:12:42.560 official that has any capacity to investigate anything that could 0:12:42.640 --> 0:12:46.480 fill those gaps. So no, this is not at all transparent, 0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:50.120 and this is going to lead to further erosion of 0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:54.640 public confidence in the court. Things of this kind that 0:12:55.160 --> 0:13:00.560 came out in earlier generations and the justice's careers. Justice 0:13:00.600 --> 0:13:05.560 ab Fortis was forced off the court or involvements with 0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:09.360 potential litigants that were far thinner than the ones we're 0:13:09.400 --> 0:13:15.600 seeing right now, and members of both parties and justices 0:13:15.640 --> 0:13:19.440 across the ideological spectrum insisted that he stepped down, and 0:13:19.480 --> 0:13:24.880 he ultimately did. We've completely changed our practices and our 0:13:24.960 --> 0:13:27.959 ethics standards are not keeping up. 0:13:28.520 --> 0:13:30.760 So at the end, it seemed to me like they 0:13:30.920 --> 0:13:33.400 sort of took everything back. We take it back, because 0:13:33.400 --> 0:13:36.520 they had a line from Justice Tom Clark in nineteen 0:13:36.559 --> 0:13:40.600 sixty nine that judges must bear the primary responsibility for 0:13:40.720 --> 0:13:44.720 acquiring appropriate judicial behavior, and then the Court added the 0:13:44.760 --> 0:13:48.120 same is true for justices. So it's up to us. 0:13:48.800 --> 0:13:50.880 So all that we've just said means nothing. 0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:56.880 Yes, and it's certainly true that the Supreme Court is 0:13:57.360 --> 0:14:02.160 and must be the primary guardian of its ethics, but 0:14:02.240 --> 0:14:05.280 it does not have to be on an individual judge basis. 0:14:05.840 --> 0:14:08.600 If I'm trying a court case in federal district court 0:14:09.080 --> 0:14:13.079 and the judge assigned to my case does something unethical, 0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:19.000 something indicating an improper bias for the other side, I 0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:22.520 can ask that judge to refuse, and if the judge refuses, 0:14:22.600 --> 0:14:24.640 I can go straight to the chief Judge and ask 0:14:24.720 --> 0:14:27.880 them to order that judge to refuse. The way this 0:14:28.040 --> 0:14:31.240 is set up, it's entirely up to the individual justice, 0:14:31.680 --> 0:14:36.040 and there's no procedure for investigation, no procedure for presenting 0:14:36.120 --> 0:14:39.680 the facts to the other justices, no real opportunity for 0:14:39.720 --> 0:14:44.880 the other justices to act collectively to uphold the Court's ethics. 0:14:45.200 --> 0:14:48.520 This is pluding the Supreme Court's ethics at the lowest 0:14:48.560 --> 0:14:49.600 common denominator. 0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:52.600 So this has been years in the making. We've heard 0:14:52.640 --> 0:14:54.960 about they're working on the code. They're working on the code. 0:14:55.160 --> 0:15:00.120 Senate Democrats had open debate in a committee Judiciary committee 0:15:00.200 --> 0:15:04.440 about subpoenas for two allies of the Court's conservative justices 0:15:04.480 --> 0:15:08.520 who funded or arranged for luxury travel for Justices Thomas 0:15:08.560 --> 0:15:12.480 and Alito. Does it seem pretty convenient that this is 0:15:12.560 --> 0:15:16.760 coming out now? Are they hoping to stop with this 0:15:16.920 --> 0:15:20.720 code of ethics any congressional action and should they be 0:15:20.720 --> 0:15:22.240 allowed to well? 0:15:22.280 --> 0:15:28.880 The Court's announcement of this essentially presented as a pr move. 0:15:29.200 --> 0:15:34.040 They say that they've always been bound by ethical standards 0:15:34.080 --> 0:15:37.800 and this isn't changing anything, and that the only thing 0:15:37.840 --> 0:15:41.080 they're concerned with is public views, which they characterize as 0:15:41.160 --> 0:15:47.200 misunderstandings that they are behaving unethically. So I don't think 0:15:47.240 --> 0:15:49.600 we should think of this as changing. This is certainly 0:15:49.600 --> 0:15:55.000 a response to their public relations problems and attempt to 0:15:55.000 --> 0:15:58.920 have off congressional action. I don't see congressional action as 0:15:59.000 --> 0:16:02.360 terribly likely in the short term, because for now most 0:16:02.400 --> 0:16:06.680 Republicans have been rallying around the justices rather than holding 0:16:06.720 --> 0:16:10.120 them to the same standards that they held Justice Douglas 0:16:10.120 --> 0:16:13.440 and Justice Bordis. But this is certainly an effort to 0:16:13.480 --> 0:16:16.840 dislate the momentum of a push for ethics standards. 0:16:17.360 --> 0:16:21.920 I'm wondering if this code is worse than no code, 0:16:22.400 --> 0:16:25.600 because it gives the Justices sort of cover the opportunity 0:16:25.680 --> 0:16:28.520 to say, well, we put out an ethics code, so 0:16:29.000 --> 0:16:33.040 Congress stay away and public rest assured that we are 0:16:33.240 --> 0:16:34.960 following ethics rules. 0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:38.480 I think it could go either way. People could be 0:16:38.600 --> 0:16:41.640 confused and thinking that this is a real ethics code. 0:16:42.120 --> 0:16:44.800 On the other hand, it puts their beliefs out there 0:16:45.000 --> 0:16:48.400 in public. It makes very clear that they do not 0:16:48.600 --> 0:16:52.760 hold themselves the same standards as lower judges, and if 0:16:53.120 --> 0:16:57.080 that's their position, then we're entitled to debate that and 0:16:57.160 --> 0:16:59.080 decide whether we think that's acceptable. 0:17:00.000 --> 0:17:03.760 Credit Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been a vocal critic 0:17:04.520 --> 0:17:08.000 of the justices, said this is a long overdue step 0:17:08.080 --> 0:17:10.800 by the Justices, but a code of ethics is not 0:17:10.960 --> 0:17:15.280 binding unless there's a mechanism to investigate possible violations and 0:17:15.440 --> 0:17:18.480 enforce the rules. The honor system has not worked for 0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:21.320 members of the Roberts Court. You mentioned how if some 0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:24.320 of these scandals had happened in the past, there would 0:17:24.320 --> 0:17:28.920 have been so much pressure on the justices to correct things. Now. 0:17:28.960 --> 0:17:32.480 Pressure has just gotten us this toothless code of conduct. 0:17:32.960 --> 0:17:35.960 And I wonder if it's because there's no pressure from 0:17:36.080 --> 0:17:40.480 Republican lawmakers because they're so happy to have a court 0:17:40.640 --> 0:17:45.520 finally with a super majority of conservatives, and Democratic lawmakers 0:17:45.640 --> 0:17:49.320 might feel the same if the Court had a supermajority 0:17:49.600 --> 0:17:50.920 of liberal justices. 0:17:51.480 --> 0:17:57.119 Liberal justices and justices across the ideological spectrum were all 0:17:57.240 --> 0:18:00.439 in favorite getting read of Justice for us, even though 0:18:00.520 --> 0:18:03.800 he was very liberal and was replaced with a conservative 0:18:03.840 --> 0:18:09.640 by Richard Nixon, and the liberal justices Brennan and Marshall 0:18:10.080 --> 0:18:13.640 pushed Justice Douglas off the court because they thought he 0:18:13.960 --> 0:18:19.040 didn't have his faculties at a proper level. Republican justice 0:18:19.119 --> 0:18:22.639 didn't push Chief Justice Ranquist off the court when he 0:18:22.760 --> 0:18:25.399 was at least as impaired as Justice Douglas was at 0:18:25.440 --> 0:18:28.560 an end, So it's not completely symmetrical. There are good 0:18:28.600 --> 0:18:32.199 government values that have more saliens at the moment with 0:18:32.400 --> 0:18:37.480 Democrats than with republics. There are plenty of ideological Democrats 0:18:38.000 --> 0:18:40.720 that would put anyone up there and not care about 0:18:40.760 --> 0:18:42.359 the ethics at all. But there's a part of the 0:18:42.440 --> 0:18:46.159 Democratic coalition that's willing to be assertive about ethics, and 0:18:46.200 --> 0:18:49.439 I'm not seeing that very much among Republicans today. 0:18:49.760 --> 0:18:53.600 I always appreciate getting your viewpoint on these kinds of issues. 0:18:53.640 --> 0:18:57.520 Thanks so much, David. That's Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. 0:18:58.040 --> 0:19:01.080 I'm Juan Gross and you're listening to Bloomberg. I just 0:19:01.080 --> 0:19:05.440 heard loudness almost like thunder tek twitches still on fire. 0:19:05.480 --> 0:19:08.160 We're being thrown in our directly a promise Aster group 0:19:08.200 --> 0:19:08.880 with their shields. 0:19:08.880 --> 0:19:11.120 You heard the sound of metal having Bobby. 0:19:15.440 --> 0:19:18.000 Robbie caught me out of the blue and said, you 0:19:18.000 --> 0:19:19.159 want to see the Nazis with me. 0:19:20.480 --> 0:19:20.960 I've been a. 0:19:20.920 --> 0:19:23.199 Litigator of New York City for more than two decades. 0:19:23.680 --> 0:19:25.359 Charlottesville actually shocked me. 0:19:26.080 --> 0:19:29.240 I wanted the toughest possible people to help expose that 0:19:29.800 --> 0:19:32.040 this was really a conspiracy. 0:19:32.080 --> 0:19:34.800 It wasn't some sort of freak accidents where this car 0:19:34.920 --> 0:19:38.359 ran into people. There was overt planning how to prepare 0:19:38.440 --> 0:19:41.480 for violence and make this appear as if its self defense. 0:19:41.960 --> 0:19:47.440 The HBO documentary No Accident chronicles the civil case filed 0:19:47.480 --> 0:19:50.359 after the deadly Unite the Right rally in August of 0:19:50.400 --> 0:19:54.639 twenty seventeen in Charlottesville. Virginia, who was filed against white 0:19:54.760 --> 0:19:59.000 nationalist leaders and organizations on behalf of plaintiffs who suffered 0:19:59.040 --> 0:20:03.160 injuries while counter protesting. Joining me is the lawyer who 0:20:03.200 --> 0:20:06.639 was co chair of the civil lawsuit that successfully held 0:20:06.640 --> 0:20:11.800 accountable the white supremacists responsible for the violence in Charlottesville. 0:20:11.920 --> 0:20:15.120 Karen Dunn a partnered Paul Weiss. She's written in op 0:20:15.280 --> 0:20:18.679 ed because in observing the protests happening around the US 0:20:18.720 --> 0:20:21.560 today related to the crisis in the Middle East, she 0:20:21.760 --> 0:20:25.240 noticed a disturbing theme. Karen, before we get to your 0:20:25.280 --> 0:20:29.480 op ed and today, to put it into context, tell 0:20:29.560 --> 0:20:32.720 us about the lawsuit over Charlottesville. 0:20:33.240 --> 0:20:36.840 Well, shortly after the events of August eleventh and twelfth, 0:20:36.880 --> 0:20:40.800 twenty seventeen in Charlottesville, Virginia, which was the violence at 0:20:40.800 --> 0:20:44.600 the night Raat rally, we sued twenty four groups and 0:20:44.640 --> 0:20:51.400 individuals who we contended were responsible for planning and executing 0:20:51.400 --> 0:20:56.359 the violence that weekend, and the suit, you know, proceeded 0:20:57.560 --> 0:21:01.320 slowly at times, partially due to the difficulty in collecting 0:21:01.359 --> 0:21:06.440 evidence from defendants who did not always respect the rule 0:21:06.480 --> 0:21:11.679 of law, and partially because of COVID, but ultimately we 0:21:11.680 --> 0:21:14.240 were able to bring the case to trial. We tried 0:21:14.240 --> 0:21:17.840 the case in late twenty twenty one, and it resulted 0:21:17.880 --> 0:21:19.919 in a verdict against each and every one of the 0:21:19.920 --> 0:21:23.600 defendants of liability, and specifically, the verdict was they had 0:21:23.600 --> 0:21:27.040 engaged in a conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence. 0:21:28.320 --> 0:21:33.080 The jury couldn't reach a verdict on two federal conspiracy 0:21:33.200 --> 0:21:37.919 charges over whether the organizers conspired to commit racially motivated 0:21:38.119 --> 0:21:40.480 violence or whether they had knowledge of it and failed 0:21:40.520 --> 0:21:43.600 to prevent it. Do you have any feel, I assume 0:21:43.640 --> 0:21:46.240 you talk to the jurors after the trial why they 0:21:46.320 --> 0:21:48.359 weren't able to reach a verdict on those counts. 0:21:48.960 --> 0:21:51.240 We actually were not able to talk to the jurors 0:21:51.320 --> 0:21:54.000 after the trials, So we're never going to know the answer. 0:21:54.480 --> 0:21:56.760 You know, our working theory is it was some sort 0:21:56.760 --> 0:22:00.280 of compromised verdict to get out by Thanksgiving, because because 0:22:00.280 --> 0:22:03.080 there was not a heck of a lot of difference 0:22:03.119 --> 0:22:07.480 between the state claims where the jury did find liability 0:22:07.480 --> 0:22:09.960 in the federal claims where they didn't, And so with 0:22:10.040 --> 0:22:13.399 the state claims, they found uh that there had been 0:22:13.400 --> 0:22:16.240 a conspiracy with every one of the defendants to commit 0:22:16.480 --> 0:22:21.640 racially motivated violence, and they awarded compensatory and punitive damages, 0:22:21.680 --> 0:22:24.760 which is very significant. And then they hung on the 0:22:24.920 --> 0:22:28.920 federal counts brought under the KKK Act, and so there's 0:22:28.920 --> 0:22:32.359 not really uh, you know, legally it doesn't that doesn't 0:22:32.400 --> 0:22:35.240 really make sense, but that's that's what they did, so 0:22:35.280 --> 0:22:36.719 there must have been some reasons for it. 0:22:36.920 --> 0:22:41.560 Juries don't always make sense. So, right, what happened as 0:22:41.600 --> 0:22:44.680 far as collecting damages? Did you collect any damages? 0:22:45.720 --> 0:22:45.920 Yeah? 0:22:45.960 --> 0:22:49.359 So the damages are still being litigated because under the 0:22:49.440 --> 0:22:55.200 Virginia State Statute there's a cap as to uh as 0:22:55.240 --> 0:22:58.000 to damages. So we're still litigating that and that will 0:22:58.040 --> 0:22:59.520 probably take some time to play out. 0:22:59.800 --> 0:23:02.080 One is serving a life sentence for murder. Is there 0:23:02.119 --> 0:23:03.080 money to be had? 0:23:03.560 --> 0:23:07.439 So we don't know, is the short answer to your question. 0:23:08.320 --> 0:23:12.159 You know, the individuals probably do not have very much money. 0:23:13.160 --> 0:23:16.520 The groups is a better question. We sued a number 0:23:16.600 --> 0:23:22.840 of white supremacists and neo Nazi organizations and they, like, 0:23:22.920 --> 0:23:25.840 we do have some money that the individuals wouldn't have. 0:23:25.920 --> 0:23:28.959 I mean, one of the goals behind the suit was, 0:23:29.520 --> 0:23:33.040 you know, not just to go after Field, who of course, 0:23:33.160 --> 0:23:36.040 was the individual who drove the car into a group 0:23:36.080 --> 0:23:39.480 of peaceful counter protesters. And killed Heather Higher and injured 0:23:39.720 --> 0:23:42.960 so many other people. It was also to go after 0:23:43.680 --> 0:23:46.680 the leadership of the movement, and so that was the 0:23:46.800 --> 0:23:51.200 very interconnected web of individuals and groups who we. 0:23:51.200 --> 0:23:55.320 Sued forgetting about the money. What impact do you think 0:23:55.480 --> 0:24:00.200 the trial has had. Has it helped to quell white 0:24:00.280 --> 0:24:01.800 supremacy in any way? 0:24:02.600 --> 0:24:05.040 Yeah, So I'll just take this in a couple of parts. 0:24:05.040 --> 0:24:07.320 One is, I think we know that there was a 0:24:07.400 --> 0:24:12.800 deterrent effect of the case. So Charlottesville that everyone's aware 0:24:12.840 --> 0:24:15.760 of was actually called Charlottesville two point zero, and that's 0:24:15.800 --> 0:24:18.520 because there had been a prior event called Charlotte'sville one 0:24:18.560 --> 0:24:21.280 point zero, and the idea was to keep coming back. 0:24:22.040 --> 0:24:24.879 There also had been prior to Charlottesville a different event 0:24:25.520 --> 0:24:27.920 in Berkeley called the Battle of Berkeley, and the white 0:24:27.920 --> 0:24:30.919 supremacist called Charlottesville the Battle of Charlottesville. So the idea 0:24:31.040 --> 0:24:34.639 was to have these battles as one catalyst to an 0:24:34.680 --> 0:24:37.879 eventual race war. That is one of the goals of 0:24:38.080 --> 0:24:40.919 some of these neo Nazi and white supremacist groups. So 0:24:41.080 --> 0:24:44.639 we know that the lawsuit had a deterrent effect because 0:24:44.640 --> 0:24:47.239 there would have been more of these events than they 0:24:47.359 --> 0:24:51.200 just did. Not happen. We also had a deterrent effect 0:24:51.240 --> 0:24:54.840 on the defendants in the case, who were you know, 0:24:55.080 --> 0:24:58.520 really leaders in the movement. That said, I think it's 0:24:58.560 --> 0:25:03.200 pretty clear that these were organizations, many of them still exist, 0:25:04.160 --> 0:25:07.199 and that the movement is you know, continues to exist. 0:25:07.240 --> 0:25:09.800 We didn't you know, wipe it out with this lawsuit, obviously. 0:25:10.240 --> 0:25:14.360 And I think that the movie is called No Accident. 0:25:14.600 --> 0:25:19.439 It was released on HBO on October tenth, so just 0:25:20.119 --> 0:25:24.359 very recently. The movie is a very good tool for 0:25:24.480 --> 0:25:27.920 people to see what are the motivations of these groups 0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:30.439 and also what are the tactics of these groups? And 0:25:30.520 --> 0:25:33.800 I think eventually, you know, the effect of the case 0:25:33.840 --> 0:25:36.159