1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,600 --> 00:00:13,039 Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. 3 00:00:13,280 --> 00:00:13,560 Speaker 2: Ahead. 4 00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:16,600 Speaker 1: In this hour, Donald Trump lashes out at a New 5 00:00:16,680 --> 00:00:20,279 Speaker 1: York judge a d C. Appellate Court appeared skeptical of 6 00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:24,520 Speaker 1: his presidential immunity claims. The Supreme Court takes on the 7 00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:28,800 Speaker 1: No Fly List, and a Russian billionaire sue Sotheby's over 8 00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:30,080 Speaker 1: four masterpieces. 9 00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:35,320 Speaker 3: Could a president order Seal Team six to assassinate a 10 00:00:35,360 --> 00:00:38,840 Speaker 3: political rival? That's an official act? In order to Seal 11 00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:41,000 Speaker 3: Team six, he would have to be, and. 12 00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:45,240 Speaker 4: Would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before. 13 00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:47,440 Speaker 3: The criminal warrant. But if you weren't, there would be 14 00:00:47,479 --> 00:00:50,280 Speaker 3: no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that. 15 00:00:50,800 --> 00:00:52,440 Speaker 4: What the founders were concerned about was not. 16 00:00:52,600 --> 00:00:56,080 Speaker 3: I asked you a yes, yes or no question. Could 17 00:00:56,120 --> 00:00:59,240 Speaker 3: a president who ordered Seal Team six to assassinate a 18 00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:03,360 Speaker 3: political right who was not impeached? Would he be subject 19 00:01:03,400 --> 00:01:04,840 Speaker 3: to criminal prosecution. 20 00:01:05,360 --> 00:01:06,840 Speaker 4: If he were impeached and convicted. 21 00:01:06,920 --> 00:01:09,640 Speaker 3: First and clear answer is is. 22 00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:14,080 Speaker 1: And it seemed to go downhill for Donald Trump after 23 00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:18,160 Speaker 1: that question was pressed repeatedly to his attorney by Judge 24 00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:22,720 Speaker 1: Florence Penn. At tuesday's DC Appellate Court arguments, all three 25 00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:26,480 Speaker 1: judges on the panel seemed highly skeptical of Trump's claim 26 00:01:26,760 --> 00:01:30,720 Speaker 1: that he's immune from criminal prosecution for trying to overturn 27 00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:33,959 Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election because he was president at the time. 28 00:01:34,640 --> 00:01:37,960 Speaker 1: As Trump looked on from the audience, his attorney John 29 00:01:38,040 --> 00:01:41,800 Speaker 1: Sower tried to convince the judges of the Pandora's box 30 00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:46,520 Speaker 1: of horribles if presidents don't have absolute presidential immunity, but 31 00:01:46,560 --> 00:01:50,760 Speaker 1: Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce pushed back against that claim. 32 00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:53,720 Speaker 4: The notion that criminal community for a president doesn't exist 33 00:01:53,800 --> 00:01:56,600 Speaker 4: as a shocking holding. It would authorize, for example, the 34 00:01:56,600 --> 00:01:59,160 Speaker 4: indictment of President Biden in the Western District of Texas 35 00:01:59,160 --> 00:02:02,320 Speaker 4: after he leaves off for mismanaging the border allegedly. 36 00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:06,520 Speaker 5: Never before has there been allegations that a sitting president 37 00:02:06,800 --> 00:02:10,200 Speaker 5: has with private individuals and using the levers of power, 38 00:02:10,480 --> 00:02:15,200 Speaker 5: sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system. 39 00:02:15,760 --> 00:02:18,400 Speaker 5: And frankly, if that kind of fact pattern arises again, 40 00:02:18,760 --> 00:02:20,760 Speaker 5: I think it would be awfully scary if there weren't 41 00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:22,920 Speaker 5: some sort of mechanism by which to reach that. 42 00:02:24,440 --> 00:02:25,000 Speaker 6: Criminally. 43 00:02:25,360 --> 00:02:29,640 Speaker 1: The judges also seem to completely discredit Trump's argument that 44 00:02:29,720 --> 00:02:34,240 Speaker 1: a president can only be criminally prosecuted after Congress has 45 00:02:34,320 --> 00:02:38,280 Speaker 1: voted to both impeach and convict him on similar charges. 46 00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:40,440 Speaker 1: Here's Judge Michelle Chiles. 47 00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:43,160 Speaker 7: But not everybody goes through that process, and of course 48 00:02:43,160 --> 00:02:45,440 Speaker 7: it's limited to the certain actors in that regard, but 49 00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:49,000 Speaker 7: not everybody has to go through that process. Prosecutors later 50 00:02:49,080 --> 00:02:53,000 Speaker 7: on can come into information and evidence after they've investigated 51 00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:55,800 Speaker 7: to make their determinations about what they'd like to criminally 52 00:02:55,840 --> 00:02:58,959 Speaker 7: prosecute it. So you're not always confined to whatever would 53 00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:00,000 Speaker 7: be in the impeachment judgment. 54 00:03:00,840 --> 00:03:03,720 Speaker 1: My guest is Michael Gerhard, a professor at the University 55 00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:07,320 Speaker 1: of North Carolina Law School. His new book is entitled 56 00:03:07,440 --> 00:03:12,200 Speaker 1: The Law of Presidential Impeachment. It seemed like the focus 57 00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:16,400 Speaker 1: of the argument for Trump's lawyer was that under the 58 00:03:16,440 --> 00:03:21,560 Speaker 1: Constitution's impeachment clause, a president can't be prosecuted unless he's 59 00:03:21,600 --> 00:03:26,880 Speaker 1: first impeached and convicted over the same charges. Tell me 60 00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:29,680 Speaker 1: about that argument and what you think of it. 61 00:03:29,680 --> 00:03:32,400 Speaker 8: It's really dumb, as it's not a good argument. There 62 00:03:32,400 --> 00:03:35,000 Speaker 8: are three judges in the late nineteen eighties that all 63 00:03:35,040 --> 00:03:39,960 Speaker 8: faced impeachment, and all three were actually tried criminally before 64 00:03:40,000 --> 00:03:43,200 Speaker 8: they were impeached, And they raised that argument back in 65 00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:45,760 Speaker 8: the late nineteen eighties, and courts re checked, there's no 66 00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:51,280 Speaker 8: constitutional requirement that impeachment proceed a criminal investigation. Was it 67 00:03:51,280 --> 00:03:54,840 Speaker 8: a criminal investigation proceed an impeachment? Their separate proceedings just 68 00:03:54,880 --> 00:03:55,360 Speaker 8: as simple. 69 00:03:55,560 --> 00:03:57,880 Speaker 1: So then where did they get that argument? Did they 70 00:03:57,920 --> 00:03:59,280 Speaker 1: make it up out of whole claw? 71 00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:02,600 Speaker 8: I think they largely made it up. I think it's 72 00:04:02,680 --> 00:04:07,640 Speaker 8: designed in part to delay things. That's first. Secondly, and 73 00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:10,680 Speaker 8: this might be the best characterization of it, It might 74 00:04:11,000 --> 00:04:14,840 Speaker 8: be loosely based on some constitional language that seems to 75 00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:20,560 Speaker 8: leave an inference after an impeachment that officials could still 76 00:04:20,600 --> 00:04:25,239 Speaker 8: remain liable at law, But that's not a command. That's 77 00:04:25,360 --> 00:04:29,720 Speaker 8: just basically suggesting that after impeachment there could be separate 78 00:04:29,800 --> 00:04:33,560 Speaker 8: legal proceedings. I would also maybe suggest third, but I 79 00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:38,680 Speaker 8: think it's just another variation of Trump's arguments, which date 80 00:04:38,760 --> 00:04:41,719 Speaker 8: back to his presidency, that he currently no other presidents, 81 00:04:41,880 --> 00:04:43,640 Speaker 8: but he at least is above the law. 82 00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:48,840 Speaker 1: That led to some really startling hypotheticals Judge Florence Pan 83 00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:53,160 Speaker 1: asked if a president ordered Seal Team six to assassinate 84 00:04:53,200 --> 00:04:57,400 Speaker 1: a political rival, could he be criminally prosecuted? Over and 85 00:04:57,440 --> 00:04:59,560 Speaker 1: over again. She tried to press him yes or no, 86 00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:02,440 Speaker 1: Yes or no, but he didn't even make a concession there. 87 00:05:02,520 --> 00:05:06,520 Speaker 1: So we're left with the outrageous suggestion that a president 88 00:05:06,520 --> 00:05:10,159 Speaker 1: can assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution. 89 00:05:10,680 --> 00:05:12,800 Speaker 8: Well, I think that he was, in a sense arguing 90 00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:15,680 Speaker 8: from a corner, so he's already backed in, and I 91 00:05:15,720 --> 00:05:18,640 Speaker 8: think he thought maybe his best option was just to 92 00:05:18,800 --> 00:05:22,159 Speaker 8: take a hard line. But I think that question, among others, 93 00:05:22,640 --> 00:05:25,280 Speaker 8: sort of underscores the absurdity of Trump's argument. 94 00:05:25,720 --> 00:05:28,479 Speaker 1: Did you see any inkling that any of the judges 95 00:05:28,520 --> 00:05:30,479 Speaker 1: were buying that particular argument. 96 00:05:30,920 --> 00:05:32,840 Speaker 8: I did not, but that may not mean very much. 97 00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:37,280 Speaker 8: There's not always a complete overlap between what happens in 98 00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:39,320 Speaker 8: a oral argument and what comes out of an opinion. 99 00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:41,880 Speaker 8: So lawyers tend to take with a grain of salt 100 00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:44,719 Speaker 8: all the questioning in oral argument, because booris understand it 101 00:05:44,760 --> 00:05:47,920 Speaker 8: may not necessarily or predict exactly what the opinion might 102 00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:51,560 Speaker 8: look like. But I think before there was any argument buying, 103 00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:55,040 Speaker 8: other scholars who sort of study this area. Thought Trump's 104 00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:59,400 Speaker 8: arguments were probably at best, week is not absurd, and 105 00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:03,159 Speaker 8: I think that the judges least appear to have so 106 00:06:03,320 --> 00:06:05,200 Speaker 8: far taken the stimulancy of approach. 107 00:06:05,920 --> 00:06:08,200 Speaker 1: There was one thing that one or two of the 108 00:06:08,240 --> 00:06:11,400 Speaker 1: judges picked up on. Judge Karen Henderson express concern that 109 00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:15,200 Speaker 1: a ruling saying the president doesn't have immunity would lead 110 00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:18,520 Speaker 1: to politically driven prosecutions of future presidents. 111 00:06:18,839 --> 00:06:22,920 Speaker 9: How do we write an opinion that would stop the 112 00:06:22,960 --> 00:06:29,800 Speaker 9: flood dates? Your predecessors, in their ollc opinions, recognized that 113 00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:33,800 Speaker 9: criminal liability would be unavoidably political. 114 00:06:34,400 --> 00:06:36,080 Speaker 1: What side had the better of that argument? 115 00:06:36,839 --> 00:06:40,320 Speaker 8: Well, I think that question really has been answered already 116 00:06:40,360 --> 00:06:42,360 Speaker 8: by the United States Supreme Court. They answered it in 117 00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:45,359 Speaker 8: case called Trump versus Vans. And in that Supreme Court case, 118 00:06:45,800 --> 00:06:49,680 Speaker 8: the Supreme Court ruled that a president, in Trump's case, 119 00:06:49,760 --> 00:06:54,279 Speaker 8: then a sitting president may be subject to state criminal prosecution. 120 00:06:54,320 --> 00:06:57,120 Speaker 8: Trump tried to argue in that case, Oh, the president 121 00:06:57,160 --> 00:06:59,880 Speaker 8: could then be subject to all sorts of partisan crusts 122 00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:03,520 Speaker 8: and spreame. Court rejected that because the Court said they 123 00:07:03,560 --> 00:07:06,719 Speaker 8: are all sorts of safeguards against that. So it's not 124 00:07:06,839 --> 00:07:10,000 Speaker 8: really going to be a real or practical concern, because 125 00:07:10,320 --> 00:07:12,920 Speaker 8: if that's the motivation I have, we've seen federal court 126 00:07:13,040 --> 00:07:15,360 Speaker 8: fetal judges could obviously try to twist behind it, but 127 00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:19,080 Speaker 8: so could state judges, And ultimately, a state prosecution of somebody, 128 00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:22,280 Speaker 8: let's say, who used to be president, is still possibly 129 00:07:22,280 --> 00:07:24,360 Speaker 8: appealable to the United States Supreme Court, which is a 130 00:07:24,360 --> 00:07:27,480 Speaker 8: whole other safeguard that could exist. So there's no reason 131 00:07:27,800 --> 00:07:31,680 Speaker 8: to think that the possibility of a partisan prostitution means 132 00:07:31,840 --> 00:07:33,880 Speaker 8: this may never be across the teacher. 133 00:07:34,400 --> 00:07:37,800 Speaker 1: So what's your best guess of how the panel will rule? 134 00:07:37,960 --> 00:07:40,480 Speaker 1: And by the way, I want to mention that this 135 00:07:40,720 --> 00:07:44,800 Speaker 1: was an all female panel of judges, a refreshing change, 136 00:07:45,440 --> 00:07:50,080 Speaker 1: consisting of two Biden appointees and one George W. Bush appointee. 137 00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:53,920 Speaker 8: I think that the court has to be thinking, among 138 00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:56,600 Speaker 8: other things, about what kind of precedent are we going 139 00:07:56,680 --> 00:08:00,360 Speaker 8: to establish here? And if I had to guess, would 140 00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:02,720 Speaker 8: be that the Court's going to not want to establish 141 00:08:02,760 --> 00:08:05,680 Speaker 8: a precedent that makes it easier for presidents to be 142 00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:08,640 Speaker 8: above the law. The bottom line is Trump's going to 143 00:08:08,680 --> 00:08:10,960 Speaker 8: face criminal trial and you can't avoid that. 144 00:08:11,440 --> 00:08:14,200 Speaker 1: And so Trump's lawyer asks for a stay of the 145 00:08:14,240 --> 00:08:17,280 Speaker 1: opinion so that they can appeal. So if they appeal 146 00:08:17,400 --> 00:08:20,120 Speaker 1: to the full DC Circuit As for an on bank hearing, 147 00:08:20,280 --> 00:08:22,280 Speaker 1: do you think the DC Circuit would. 148 00:08:22,160 --> 00:08:24,920 Speaker 8: Take that on bank Well, I don't know the answer. 149 00:08:25,120 --> 00:08:27,920 Speaker 8: I'm not sure why the full DC Circuit needs to 150 00:08:27,960 --> 00:08:30,720 Speaker 8: hear this. I think that's another move by Trump's lawyers 151 00:08:30,720 --> 00:08:33,160 Speaker 8: to delay everything, sort of to throw a lot of 152 00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:36,559 Speaker 8: legal process and the proceedings against him as a way 153 00:08:36,559 --> 00:08:38,920 Speaker 8: to kind of delay them in the hopes I suppose 154 00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:41,880 Speaker 8: that Trump will win the presidency and pardon themselves, or 155 00:08:41,920 --> 00:08:44,000 Speaker 8: that one of his accolltes wi win the presidency and 156 00:08:44,040 --> 00:08:46,480 Speaker 8: pardon him. But the courts, I think, are aware of 157 00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:49,400 Speaker 8: the possibility that they're being used here, and generally speaking, 158 00:08:49,400 --> 00:08:51,520 Speaker 8: courts don't like to be used in that manner. 159 00:08:51,960 --> 00:08:54,600 Speaker 1: Everyone assumes that this is going to be appealed to 160 00:08:54,640 --> 00:08:57,520 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court no matter what happens, and a lot 161 00:08:57,559 --> 00:09:00,520 Speaker 1: of legal experts are predicting that the Court will take 162 00:09:00,559 --> 00:09:03,760 Speaker 1: the case. But is that necessarily true. 163 00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:08,120 Speaker 8: No. Let's say, for example, this current panel concludes that 164 00:09:08,480 --> 00:09:11,560 Speaker 8: none of Trump's arguments are credible, and the court rejects 165 00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:14,719 Speaker 8: all of them. The spin Court could simply reject and 166 00:09:14,800 --> 00:09:18,920 Speaker 8: the appeal based in part on the justices considering there's 167 00:09:18,920 --> 00:09:21,880 Speaker 8: no real issue here and we have to decide because 168 00:09:22,240 --> 00:09:26,280 Speaker 8: what the panel would have concluded is consistent with whatever 169 00:09:26,320 --> 00:09:30,120 Speaker 8: courts have said before. So there's no compelling reason why 170 00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:32,840 Speaker 8: the US needs to intervenient at this point. The other 171 00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:35,720 Speaker 8: thing I might just raise at this point is to 172 00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:38,400 Speaker 8: just make note of the fact that Trump is still 173 00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:42,160 Speaker 8: trying to argue that as a former president he has 174 00:09:42,200 --> 00:09:45,480 Speaker 8: some kind of special community. The sitting president may not 175 00:09:45,600 --> 00:09:48,400 Speaker 8: be immune. It's a criminal process that was decided by 176 00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:50,480 Speaker 8: the US spin Court. When Trump is president, it's Trump 177 00:09:50,559 --> 00:09:55,120 Speaker 8: versus Advanced. So these are quite long reaches. Donald Trump 178 00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:59,480 Speaker 8: is making claiming for a former president immunity that, by 179 00:09:59,520 --> 00:10:02,240 Speaker 8: the way, no sitting president has ever had, and that 180 00:10:02,360 --> 00:10:05,240 Speaker 8: just increases the odds. I think that course will reject his. 181 00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:08,560 Speaker 1: Claim, and the decision from this panel could come at 182 00:10:08,600 --> 00:10:12,160 Speaker 1: any time. Thanks so much for your insights, Michael. That's 183 00:10:12,160 --> 00:10:16,120 Speaker 1: Professor Michael Gerhard of the University of North Carolina Law School. 184 00:10:16,480 --> 00:10:19,480 Speaker 1: Coming up next. Trump also made an appearance this week 185 00:10:19,520 --> 00:10:22,480 Speaker 1: at his New York civil fraud trial, where he lashed 186 00:10:22,480 --> 00:10:25,559 Speaker 1: out at the judge. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg. 187 00:10:26,640 --> 00:10:29,240 Speaker 10: Well, see my legal issues, every one of them. Everyone 188 00:10:29,360 --> 00:10:32,440 Speaker 10: civil and the criminal ones are all set up by 189 00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:34,400 Speaker 10: Joe Biden, Trooker, Joe Biden. 190 00:10:34,760 --> 00:10:38,200 Speaker 1: Donald Trump even blames the civil cases against him on 191 00:10:38,360 --> 00:10:41,760 Speaker 1: President Joe Biden. And at the finale of New York's 192 00:10:41,760 --> 00:10:45,600 Speaker 1: three hundred and seventy million dollar civil fraud trial against Trump, 193 00:10:46,040 --> 00:10:48,800 Speaker 1: a trial in which his business empire is at stake, 194 00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:53,040 Speaker 1: the former president repeated his list of grievances and lashed 195 00:10:53,040 --> 00:10:56,000 Speaker 1: out at the judge. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter 196 00:10:56,040 --> 00:10:59,040 Speaker 1: Patricia Hurtado, who was in the courtroom. Pat Trump was 197 00:10:59,080 --> 00:11:02,080 Speaker 1: not supposed to speak the closing arguments on Thursday. What 198 00:11:02,200 --> 00:11:03,120 Speaker 1: happened to change that? 199 00:11:03,559 --> 00:11:08,400 Speaker 11: Email exchanges began last week between the court, the AG, 200 00:11:09,040 --> 00:11:13,280 Speaker 11: and Trump's lawyers suggesting that Trump wanted to speak, and 201 00:11:14,040 --> 00:11:16,600 Speaker 11: number one, the age's office is flipping out that there's 202 00:11:16,640 --> 00:11:19,719 Speaker 11: no precedent for a descendant to help deliver their own 203 00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:23,080 Speaker 11: closing argument and that's not proper. And then the judge 204 00:11:23,120 --> 00:11:26,040 Speaker 11: was saying, is your client willing to follow the rules 205 00:11:26,280 --> 00:11:30,080 Speaker 11: which are no political speeches? Basically sick to the fact 206 00:11:30,200 --> 00:11:33,559 Speaker 11: and the evidence that you're arguing, and the judge gave 207 00:11:33,640 --> 00:11:37,000 Speaker 11: a multiple deadline, and at one point the judge is saying, 208 00:11:37,240 --> 00:11:39,760 Speaker 11: you've got to drop dead deadline. You have to tell 209 00:11:39,760 --> 00:11:42,160 Speaker 11: me if he's going to speak on Thursday. And then 210 00:11:42,520 --> 00:11:45,840 Speaker 11: shrub lawyer says that Mwania's mother passed away, so he'd 211 00:11:45,880 --> 00:11:49,280 Speaker 11: like to postpone everything till the twenty ninth of January, 212 00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:52,000 Speaker 11: and the judge is like, no, you can't, and then 213 00:11:52,280 --> 00:11:56,080 Speaker 11: shrub lawyer says, basically, very unfair your honor to do this, 214 00:11:56,320 --> 00:12:00,520 Speaker 11: not allowing President Trump, who's been wrongfully demean and by 215 00:12:00,559 --> 00:12:04,160 Speaker 11: an out of control, politically motivated Attorney general, to speak 216 00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:07,000 Speaker 11: of the things that must be spouting about. The judge said, 217 00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:08,960 Speaker 11: I want to base it again, take it or leave 218 00:12:09,000 --> 00:12:11,880 Speaker 11: it now. I never you have until news seven minutes 219 00:12:11,920 --> 00:12:15,599 Speaker 11: from now. I will not grant any further extensions. And 220 00:12:15,760 --> 00:12:18,320 Speaker 11: that last sentence, I will not grant any further atensions 221 00:12:18,440 --> 00:12:21,160 Speaker 11: is all in caps. And then the judge messages that, hey, 222 00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:23,920 Speaker 11: it's twelve twelve. Now I've never heard from you. So 223 00:12:24,400 --> 00:12:26,920 Speaker 11: I assume that your client will not agree to the 224 00:12:27,040 --> 00:12:28,959 Speaker 11: reasonable lawful limits that. 225 00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:32,840 Speaker 12: I have imposed as a precondition to giving the closing statement. 226 00:12:32,960 --> 00:12:35,319 Speaker 12: Because you know, we all know the rules parties not 227 00:12:35,440 --> 00:12:38,800 Speaker 12: to us to be speaking in court. So from lawyers, 228 00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:43,320 Speaker 12: three of them gave closing statements and they finished, and 229 00:12:43,360 --> 00:12:46,440 Speaker 12: then one of his main lawyers, Chris Ki, turned to 230 00:12:47,160 --> 00:12:49,720 Speaker 12: the judge and says, I know you said that my 231 00:12:49,880 --> 00:12:52,880 Speaker 12: client couldn't speak, but now could he speek? 232 00:12:53,000 --> 00:12:55,719 Speaker 11: He'd like to speak. And the judge was like, well, 233 00:12:55,800 --> 00:12:59,240 Speaker 11: will he abide by the rules? I will he promise 234 00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:02,000 Speaker 11: to do that? Mister Trump, do you promise to do that? 235 00:13:02,520 --> 00:13:06,240 Speaker 11: And then Trump didn't even answer him, just launches into 236 00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:09,400 Speaker 11: yao and buy by the ground rules, and he just 237 00:13:09,520 --> 00:13:13,000 Speaker 11: starts speechifying, and it's going on and on and on, 238 00:13:13,120 --> 00:13:15,679 Speaker 11: and he spoke for about six minutes in a diatribe 239 00:13:15,720 --> 00:13:19,120 Speaker 11: against the age, against everyone that was infare to him, 240 00:13:19,160 --> 00:13:20,160 Speaker 11: about the judge. 241 00:13:20,559 --> 00:13:23,560 Speaker 1: And we should point out that the judge is the 242 00:13:23,600 --> 00:13:26,320 Speaker 1: one that's going to be deciding this case. There is 243 00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:29,000 Speaker 1: no jury. Yet he's been attacking the judge. 244 00:13:29,320 --> 00:13:32,680 Speaker 11: He accused the judge of not paying any attention. He said, 245 00:13:32,679 --> 00:13:35,239 Speaker 11: the judge never listens for more than a minute anyway, 246 00:13:35,800 --> 00:13:38,920 Speaker 11: And so he said things like seve days and lens 247 00:13:38,920 --> 00:13:42,120 Speaker 11: and years and millions of pages. They found nothing and 248 00:13:42,280 --> 00:13:45,400 Speaker 11: for what I borrowed money from the bank, much smaller 249 00:13:45,440 --> 00:13:47,839 Speaker 11: than's three hundred and seventy million. And then that's when 250 00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:50,880 Speaker 11: the judge interrupted and he goes just one more minute, 251 00:13:51,200 --> 00:13:53,719 Speaker 11: and then he goes, you can't listen for more than 252 00:13:53,760 --> 00:13:56,880 Speaker 11: one minute. They should pay me for what I've gone through. 253 00:13:57,040 --> 00:13:59,719 Speaker 11: And then the judge says, okay, thank you very much. 254 00:14:00,559 --> 00:14:02,199 Speaker 12: Can you please control your clients. 255 00:14:02,600 --> 00:14:06,160 Speaker 1: The New York Age claims that Trump inflated his assets 256 00:14:06,200 --> 00:14:08,760 Speaker 1: for more than a decade to get better terms on 257 00:14:08,880 --> 00:14:12,080 Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars in loans. How did Trump's 258 00:14:12,080 --> 00:14:14,679 Speaker 1: attorneys defend against that in the closing arguments? 259 00:14:15,000 --> 00:14:17,640 Speaker 11: It's a whole witch hunt, is this. It's the thing improper. 260 00:14:18,320 --> 00:14:21,920 Speaker 11: If anyone made any mistakes, it's all masars fall. It 261 00:14:22,040 --> 00:14:26,280 Speaker 11: was always mistakes were made, but they're not important and material. 262 00:14:27,040 --> 00:14:27,600 Speaker 12: No one was. 263 00:14:27,720 --> 00:14:31,080 Speaker 11: Harmed, the banks weren't harmed, stuff like that. You know, 264 00:14:31,240 --> 00:14:34,680 Speaker 11: it's been the same exact thing this whole time. 265 00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:37,800 Speaker 1: And the judge says he'll aim to deliver a verdict 266 00:14:37,880 --> 00:14:42,480 Speaker 1: before January thirty first, Thanks so much, Patty. That's Patricia 267 00:14:42,560 --> 00:14:45,920 Speaker 1: her Toado, Bloomberg legal reporter. Trump used his two court 268 00:14:45,920 --> 00:14:49,680 Speaker 1: appearances this week to rail against the six cases against him, 269 00:14:49,920 --> 00:14:53,640 Speaker 1: to civil cases and for criminal cases, and he wasted 270 00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:57,200 Speaker 1: no time on Tuesday spreading the word that Fulton County 271 00:14:57,240 --> 00:15:00,760 Speaker 1: Prosecutor Fanny Willis has been accused of miss conduct in 272 00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:03,000 Speaker 1: the Georgia election interference case. 273 00:15:03,280 --> 00:15:06,280 Speaker 10: They say she's in far more criminal liability than any 274 00:15:06,320 --> 00:15:09,080 Speaker 10: of the people she's looking at. So I think that 275 00:15:09,320 --> 00:15:12,080 Speaker 10: when you look at what happened where they pay a 276 00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:15,400 Speaker 10: lawyer with absolutely no experience seven hundred thousand dollars who 277 00:15:15,480 --> 00:15:19,000 Speaker 10: happens to be her lover or her boyfriend, and then 278 00:15:19,040 --> 00:15:22,800 Speaker 10: they go on trips and vacations together, for expensive vacations together. 279 00:15:23,680 --> 00:15:25,800 Speaker 10: And the reason they paid him so much because he 280 00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:26,480 Speaker 10: was after me. 281 00:15:27,480 --> 00:15:31,280 Speaker 1: Trump, of course embellished and distorted the allegations, which come 282 00:15:31,320 --> 00:15:33,720 Speaker 1: from a court filing in the case. One of his 283 00:15:33,840 --> 00:15:37,880 Speaker 1: co defendants, Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, claims 284 00:15:37,880 --> 00:15:41,640 Speaker 1: that Willis improperly hired her romantic partner to lead the 285 00:15:41,760 --> 00:15:46,160 Speaker 1: Rico case and benefited financially from his appointment. The filing 286 00:15:46,200 --> 00:15:49,760 Speaker 1: does not offer any direct evidence to back up those claims, 287 00:15:50,040 --> 00:15:53,480 Speaker 1: and Willis has not yet responded to the allegations. Joining 288 00:15:53,560 --> 00:15:56,320 Speaker 1: me Is Michael Moore of Moore Hall, the former US 289 00:15:56,400 --> 00:15:59,720 Speaker 1: Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. Michael, how damaging 290 00:15:59,760 --> 00:16:04,000 Speaker 1: are the these allegations that Willis hired her romantic partner 291 00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:07,520 Speaker 1: Nathan Wade to be the special prosecutor in the case 292 00:16:08,000 --> 00:16:11,320 Speaker 1: and benefited when he took her on several trips to California, 293 00:16:11,440 --> 00:16:12,680 Speaker 1: Florida and the Caribbean. 294 00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:16,320 Speaker 13: Well, without question, I think it's tragic for the case. 295 00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:18,840 Speaker 13: And I don't mean that it means that legally that 296 00:16:18,920 --> 00:16:21,560 Speaker 13: I think that the allegation raised in mister Oman's motion 297 00:16:21,640 --> 00:16:24,600 Speaker 13: are sufficient to have the case dismissed, but it's just 298 00:16:24,640 --> 00:16:27,840 Speaker 13: an unforced error on the DA's part if they're true. 299 00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:30,120 Speaker 13: I don't know if they're true or not, but it 300 00:16:30,120 --> 00:16:32,840 Speaker 13: would be hard to imagine a lawyer filing that kind 301 00:16:32,880 --> 00:16:36,480 Speaker 13: of nuclear motion without having some proof in their back pocket. 302 00:16:36,720 --> 00:16:40,040 Speaker 13: While I don't think again that it gives a legal defense, 303 00:16:40,240 --> 00:16:44,440 Speaker 13: it just makes the optics terrible and it gives the 304 00:16:44,960 --> 00:16:49,880 Speaker 13: already plentiful critics of the prosecution in the case, it 305 00:16:50,040 --> 00:16:52,520 Speaker 13: just gives them something else to grab hold to, and 306 00:16:52,560 --> 00:16:54,320 Speaker 13: as a prosecute don't want to do that. 307 00:16:54,840 --> 00:17:00,479 Speaker 1: Is there anything wrong with Willis having a romantic relationshiphip 308 00:17:00,600 --> 00:17:03,200 Speaker 1: with the special prosecutor working. 309 00:17:02,880 --> 00:17:05,160 Speaker 13: For her, Well, it can be. I mean, I think 310 00:17:05,200 --> 00:17:07,840 Speaker 13: there are always concerns, you know, when you have that, 311 00:17:07,960 --> 00:17:12,400 Speaker 13: because of potential problems with sexual harassment and workplace problems. 312 00:17:12,440 --> 00:17:15,520 Speaker 13: And I imagine it is violative of probably some ethical 313 00:17:15,520 --> 00:17:18,320 Speaker 13: divisions for the office. Is it illegal in his face? None, 314 00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:20,600 Speaker 13: you know, in their private life is their private life. 315 00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:23,480 Speaker 13: So I don't know that that really is the basis 316 00:17:23,520 --> 00:17:26,159 Speaker 13: of the attack. It's more of a you know, was 317 00:17:26,240 --> 00:17:30,560 Speaker 13: this appointment made and is this prosecution itself now being 318 00:17:30,760 --> 00:17:34,440 Speaker 13: used as a way to generate funds that somehow flow 319 00:17:34,520 --> 00:17:37,119 Speaker 13: back to the benefit of the District Attorney herself. And 320 00:17:37,160 --> 00:17:38,680 Speaker 13: I think that's the basis of their motion. 321 00:17:39,280 --> 00:17:41,600 Speaker 1: And this isn't the first time that Willis has faced 322 00:17:41,760 --> 00:17:46,520 Speaker 1: public scrutiny, including an Atlanta judge criticizing her in July 323 00:17:46,680 --> 00:17:50,000 Speaker 1: of twenty twenty two for hosting a fundraiser for a 324 00:17:50,040 --> 00:17:54,480 Speaker 1: Democratic candidate running against one of the potential targets of 325 00:17:54,520 --> 00:17:55,320 Speaker 1: the investigation. 326 00:17:56,160 --> 00:17:57,960 Speaker 13: You know, we've talked about this at some length, that 327 00:17:58,040 --> 00:18:00,560 Speaker 13: the question of whether or not an elected thee should 328 00:18:00,600 --> 00:18:03,479 Speaker 13: even be prosecuting a case like this, and so just 329 00:18:03,520 --> 00:18:05,960 Speaker 13: if you compare the difference what we've seen in Jack 330 00:18:05,960 --> 00:18:08,480 Speaker 13: Smith a special counsel, versus what we're seeing in the 331 00:18:08,600 --> 00:18:10,280 Speaker 13: fulls and DA's job, and that is you've got an 332 00:18:10,320 --> 00:18:13,800 Speaker 13: elected officials. She's moving around making media appearances, walking on 333 00:18:13,880 --> 00:18:16,679 Speaker 13: red carpets and openings and glamour things and all this, 334 00:18:16,840 --> 00:18:18,879 Speaker 13: and you've got Jack Smith bus that who's in a 335 00:18:18,920 --> 00:18:22,439 Speaker 13: cave somewhere with his minions doing his work, you know, 336 00:18:22,480 --> 00:18:24,440 Speaker 13: and he's not coming out and making public statements and 337 00:18:24,480 --> 00:18:27,639 Speaker 13: put himself out for public scrutiny. And so while the 338 00:18:27,720 --> 00:18:29,480 Speaker 13: DA may argue, well, some of this I need to 339 00:18:29,520 --> 00:18:31,960 Speaker 13: do as part of my job because I have to 340 00:18:32,000 --> 00:18:35,280 Speaker 13: be re elected, that seems to weigh against the value 341 00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:38,080 Speaker 13: of having elected DA involved in a case like this, 342 00:18:38,240 --> 00:18:41,280 Speaker 13: and it causes the case to be somewhat tainted from 343 00:18:41,359 --> 00:18:43,360 Speaker 13: an optics point of view. And I think the same 344 00:18:43,440 --> 00:18:46,320 Speaker 13: is true even in the appointment of staff, as we've seen. 345 00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:49,040 Speaker 13: If the allegations in this motion that had been raised 346 00:18:49,080 --> 00:18:52,760 Speaker 13: are accurate, and mister Wade has never prosecuted a felony case, 347 00:18:52,920 --> 00:18:55,440 Speaker 13: and so you have to be asking yourself why would 348 00:18:55,480 --> 00:18:58,680 Speaker 13: this be happening as opposed to having a career prosecutor 349 00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:02,679 Speaker 13: who's well versed and well experienced and felony prosecution. Then 350 00:19:02,760 --> 00:19:05,760 Speaker 13: the concerns about how much he's being paid, why is 351 00:19:05,760 --> 00:19:08,439 Speaker 13: he being paid that, how was he selected? You know, 352 00:19:08,520 --> 00:19:11,399 Speaker 13: all these things start to then come together, and so 353 00:19:11,720 --> 00:19:15,920 Speaker 13: while it doesn't make the case unprosecutable, it makes her 354 00:19:16,040 --> 00:19:19,320 Speaker 13: job much much harder as a prosecutor to do something 355 00:19:19,359 --> 00:19:22,840 Speaker 13: and make decisions that the public can continue to have confidency. 356 00:19:23,040 --> 00:19:25,600 Speaker 1: We'll wait to see what she says in her answering papers. 357 00:19:25,680 --> 00:19:28,720 Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Michael. That's Michael Moore of Moore Hall 358 00:19:29,119 --> 00:19:32,320 Speaker 1: coming up, Getting off the No fly List. I'm June 359 00:19:32,320 --> 00:19:36,000 Speaker 1: Grass and you're listening to Bloomberg. This week, the Supreme 360 00:19:36,040 --> 00:19:39,800 Speaker 1: Court justice has faced a quandary over the government's secretive 361 00:19:40,040 --> 00:19:44,080 Speaker 1: no fly list. The justices sought to balance security and 362 00:19:44,119 --> 00:19:47,359 Speaker 1: fairness in the case of a US citizen who sued 363 00:19:47,400 --> 00:19:51,160 Speaker 1: the government for violating his constitutional rights when it put 364 00:19:51,200 --> 00:19:53,720 Speaker 1: him on the no fly list, but the government took 365 00:19:53,800 --> 00:19:56,239 Speaker 1: him off the list eight years ago, and says the 366 00:19:56,280 --> 00:20:00,560 Speaker 1: case is moot or no longer a live controversy. Jonas 367 00:20:00,600 --> 00:20:03,080 Speaker 1: Figre says he doesn't know why he was put on 368 00:20:03,119 --> 00:20:05,719 Speaker 1: the list. In the first place, and what kinds of 369 00:20:05,760 --> 00:20:09,720 Speaker 1: activities risk getting him put on the list again. Both 370 00:20:09,800 --> 00:20:14,800 Speaker 1: liberal and conservative justices press the Assistant US Solicitor General 371 00:20:15,080 --> 00:20:18,440 Speaker 1: so Panjoshi on the black box that the no fly 372 00:20:18,600 --> 00:20:23,440 Speaker 1: list is. Here are Justices Sonya Sotmayor and Clarence Thomas. 373 00:20:23,520 --> 00:20:27,320 Speaker 14: Well Ken, Sir, and tell you that they're not going 374 00:20:27,359 --> 00:20:31,120 Speaker 14: to engage in a terrorist activity if they don't know 375 00:20:31,640 --> 00:20:35,040 Speaker 14: what terrorist activity it is that you claim they. 376 00:20:34,920 --> 00:20:39,280 Speaker 6: Did, but we know nothing. How would he know a 377 00:20:39,400 --> 00:20:42,240 Speaker 6: year from now if he is on the list with 378 00:20:42,359 --> 00:20:46,120 Speaker 6: the same procedures or different procedures or different facts, when 379 00:20:46,160 --> 00:20:48,439 Speaker 6: he doesn't know why he was on the list in 380 00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:49,480 Speaker 6: the first instance. 381 00:20:49,800 --> 00:20:52,800 Speaker 15: Yeah, so that's the key. He does know why he's 382 00:20:52,840 --> 00:20:55,000 Speaker 15: on the list. He was told that he was put 383 00:20:55,040 --> 00:20:58,160 Speaker 15: on the list because he posed a threat of engaging 384 00:20:58,200 --> 00:21:01,240 Speaker 15: in or conducting a violent active terror and was operationally 385 00:21:01,240 --> 00:21:02,320 Speaker 15: capable of doing so. 386 00:21:02,800 --> 00:21:06,200 Speaker 1: Justice Neil Gorsich was one of the justices who appeared 387 00:21:06,280 --> 00:21:09,679 Speaker 1: most sympathetic to do process concerns in the case. 388 00:21:10,440 --> 00:21:12,760 Speaker 16: Now, the government may very well have had good reasons. 389 00:21:13,080 --> 00:21:17,200 Speaker 16: I don't for a second mean disgust otherwise, but an American 390 00:21:17,119 --> 00:21:20,040 Speaker 16: citizen normally has a right to what's been called every 391 00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:25,879 Speaker 16: man's evidence against him. That's due process, that's a pillar 392 00:21:26,720 --> 00:21:32,320 Speaker 16: of our democracy. And here the government says, no, you 393 00:21:32,359 --> 00:21:33,360 Speaker 16: don't get that evidence. 394 00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:37,359 Speaker 1: Joining me is Hinna Shamsi, director of the acl USED 395 00:21:37,440 --> 00:21:41,240 Speaker 1: National Security Project. The ACLU filed an amikas brief in 396 00:21:41,280 --> 00:21:46,000 Speaker 1: the case. So start out by telling us what happened 397 00:21:46,240 --> 00:21:49,000 Speaker 1: to Jonas kra Well UIs. 398 00:21:48,920 --> 00:21:52,720 Speaker 2: Icra is a US citizen who discovered that he was 399 00:21:52,920 --> 00:21:55,800 Speaker 2: on the no fly list in twenty ten, and he 400 00:21:55,920 --> 00:22:00,240 Speaker 2: then filed a lawsuit saying that the government wrongly based 401 00:22:00,320 --> 00:22:04,880 Speaker 2: him on the list in violation of his constitutionally protected 402 00:22:04,960 --> 00:22:08,640 Speaker 2: right to travel, and that the procedures that the government 403 00:22:08,760 --> 00:22:12,399 Speaker 2: used to place him on the list violated fundamental due process. 404 00:22:12,680 --> 00:22:17,440 Speaker 2: So the case moved forward, and the government then removed 405 00:22:17,520 --> 00:22:21,120 Speaker 2: him from the list in twenty sixteen, and since then 406 00:22:21,280 --> 00:22:24,800 Speaker 2: it is argued that his lawsuit could not go forward 407 00:22:24,960 --> 00:22:28,280 Speaker 2: because it was moot there was no live case or 408 00:22:28,359 --> 00:22:32,679 Speaker 2: controversy to be adjudicated. Mister Fra then appealed from a 409 00:22:32,720 --> 00:22:36,359 Speaker 2: district court judgment in the government's favor, and the Ninth 410 00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:41,440 Speaker 2: Circuit Court of Appeals twice issued decisions in mister Fickra's 411 00:22:41,600 --> 00:22:45,680 Speaker 2: favor rejecting the government's attempts to end the case, and 412 00:22:45,720 --> 00:22:48,679 Speaker 2: that's when the government appealed to the Supreme Court, and 413 00:22:48,720 --> 00:22:50,320 Speaker 2: that's the argument that the court heard. 414 00:22:51,040 --> 00:22:55,000 Speaker 1: Does the government, the FBI in this case, frequently refuse 415 00:22:55,080 --> 00:22:58,280 Speaker 1: to tell people exactly why they've been put on the 416 00:22:58,320 --> 00:23:01,119 Speaker 1: no fly list or why they've been taken off the 417 00:23:01,160 --> 00:23:01,919 Speaker 1: no flylist? 418 00:23:02,280 --> 00:23:07,080 Speaker 2: Absolutely, you know, and this is one of our fundamental 419 00:23:07,160 --> 00:23:10,760 Speaker 2: problems with the no flylist and why we've been working 420 00:23:10,800 --> 00:23:14,359 Speaker 2: on litigating these issues for about twenty years, which is 421 00:23:14,359 --> 00:23:17,840 Speaker 2: that the no fly list program essentially operates in a 422 00:23:17,960 --> 00:23:23,359 Speaker 2: black box of executive branch discretion and secrecy. The government 423 00:23:23,720 --> 00:23:29,520 Speaker 2: refuses usually to tell people the full reasons and most 424 00:23:29,600 --> 00:23:34,080 Speaker 2: often any reason for placing people on the no fly list. 425 00:23:34,520 --> 00:23:38,720 Speaker 2: And so for decades, we and other rights groups have 426 00:23:38,920 --> 00:23:44,920 Speaker 2: documented the secrecy unfairness of this program and it's devastating 427 00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:49,359 Speaker 2: consequences for people's lives, Yet it remains a black box. 428 00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:52,840 Speaker 2: Let me be more specific, Americans who are on the 429 00:23:52,880 --> 00:23:55,280 Speaker 2: no fly list and most often left in the dark 430 00:23:55,359 --> 00:23:58,320 Speaker 2: about why they've been placed on the list. They're not 431 00:23:58,359 --> 00:24:03,240 Speaker 2: given any meaningful explanation when they are removed if they 432 00:24:03,240 --> 00:24:08,280 Speaker 2: are removed, or any guarantee against being wrongfully placed on 433 00:24:08,359 --> 00:24:12,040 Speaker 2: the list in the future. And the issue before the 434 00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:17,919 Speaker 2: court was whether mister Sikra's case could go forward after 435 00:24:17,960 --> 00:24:19,360 Speaker 2: he had been removed. 436 00:24:20,080 --> 00:24:23,159 Speaker 1: Does Pikre know why he was put on the list? 437 00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:26,159 Speaker 2: He does not have the reasons, all the reasons that 438 00:24:26,200 --> 00:24:27,359 Speaker 2: he was put on the list. 439 00:24:27,600 --> 00:24:27,800 Speaker 15: You know. 440 00:24:27,960 --> 00:24:31,520 Speaker 2: In the argument that took place on Monday, the government 441 00:24:31,600 --> 00:24:35,040 Speaker 2: repeatedly said, well, we've provided a reason, you know, we've 442 00:24:35,160 --> 00:24:39,800 Speaker 2: explained the criteria for placement on the no fly list 443 00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:43,040 Speaker 2: that was applied to him. But here's the problem. What 444 00:24:43,119 --> 00:24:47,919 Speaker 2: that means is that the government has disclosed what standard 445 00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:50,240 Speaker 2: it uses to place people on the no fly list, 446 00:24:50,240 --> 00:24:52,920 Speaker 2: and we can talk about why that standard is vague 447 00:24:52,960 --> 00:24:57,560 Speaker 2: and broad and deeply problematic, but it hasn't disclosed the 448 00:24:57,640 --> 00:25:03,199 Speaker 2: reasons that it thinks mister Sikra satisfied that standard. So 449 00:25:03,720 --> 00:25:07,760 Speaker 2: mister Figray doesn't know what he's alleged to have done 450 00:25:07,840 --> 00:25:11,480 Speaker 2: wrong in the first place, and how he can, as 451 00:25:11,480 --> 00:25:14,119 Speaker 2: he argued to the court, you know, know what to 452 00:25:14,200 --> 00:25:15,960 Speaker 2: do in order not to be placed on the no 453 00:25:16,080 --> 00:25:17,760 Speaker 2: fly list again in the future. 454 00:25:18,119 --> 00:25:22,440 Speaker 1: It seemed as if several of the justices cross ideological lines, 455 00:25:22,840 --> 00:25:28,000 Speaker 1: were sympathetic. Tokra, Justice Sonya Sotomayor said, how can someone 456 00:25:28,080 --> 00:25:30,119 Speaker 1: tell you that they're not going to engage in a 457 00:25:30,240 --> 00:25:33,760 Speaker 1: terrorist activity if they don't know what terrorist activity you 458 00:25:33,840 --> 00:25:36,000 Speaker 1: claim they did? So catch twenty two? 459 00:25:36,680 --> 00:25:39,760 Speaker 2: It is a real catch twenty two And it was 460 00:25:40,200 --> 00:25:43,679 Speaker 2: a concern. You know, the discretion as well as the secrecy, 461 00:25:44,200 --> 00:25:47,480 Speaker 2: is something that the justices, and I think a lot 462 00:25:47,480 --> 00:25:51,439 Speaker 2: of the justices across the spectrum were troubled by or 463 00:25:51,480 --> 00:25:56,760 Speaker 2: expressed concern about, because, as often happens, courts as well 464 00:25:56,800 --> 00:25:59,640 Speaker 2: as the people who are impacted by the placement, are 465 00:26:00,359 --> 00:26:02,840 Speaker 2: in the dark in this black box of a program. 466 00:26:03,400 --> 00:26:07,080 Speaker 1: Just As Elena Kagan suggested that the government should be 467 00:26:07,160 --> 00:26:11,400 Speaker 1: required to go before a judge in private to explain 468 00:26:11,600 --> 00:26:14,320 Speaker 1: why someone had been placed on the no fly list, 469 00:26:14,720 --> 00:26:17,199 Speaker 1: why they've been removed from the list, and why they 470 00:26:17,200 --> 00:26:19,960 Speaker 1: would not be returned to the list, and Justice course 471 00:26:20,000 --> 00:26:23,119 Speaker 1: it seemed to agree with that. Is that a possible 472 00:26:23,160 --> 00:26:23,960 Speaker 1: solution here? 473 00:26:24,359 --> 00:26:26,639 Speaker 2: Well, you know, I want to start with what Justice 474 00:26:26,640 --> 00:26:31,800 Speaker 2: Gorsicic said, which is that normally, in our legal system, 475 00:26:32,119 --> 00:26:34,880 Speaker 2: we have a right to know what evidence the government 476 00:26:35,000 --> 00:26:38,879 Speaker 2: has against us, and that's due process. So one of 477 00:26:38,920 --> 00:26:43,600 Speaker 2: the alternatives proposed during the argument in court was that 478 00:26:43,680 --> 00:26:49,600 Speaker 2: the government could provide its reasons to a judge in camera, 479 00:26:49,800 --> 00:26:53,119 Speaker 2: meaning you know, in continued secrecy, for the judge to 480 00:26:53,160 --> 00:26:56,960 Speaker 2: make a determination. And that would certainly be better than 481 00:26:57,000 --> 00:27:01,399 Speaker 2: what exists now or what mister was facing, which is 482 00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:06,600 Speaker 2: not being able to have any kind of meaningful guarantee 483 00:27:07,200 --> 00:27:10,800 Speaker 2: that the government would not place him on the list 484 00:27:10,960 --> 00:27:14,560 Speaker 2: wrongly again in the future. I think we should still 485 00:27:14,680 --> 00:27:17,920 Speaker 2: pause and think about what that might mean though, that 486 00:27:17,960 --> 00:27:22,399 Speaker 2: the government tells a judge. But if your person who 487 00:27:22,480 --> 00:27:25,960 Speaker 2: has been left in the dark about why you've been 488 00:27:26,000 --> 00:27:28,160 Speaker 2: placed on the list in the first place, why you've 489 00:27:28,200 --> 00:27:31,400 Speaker 2: been denied as some of my clients have the right 490 00:27:31,600 --> 00:27:35,320 Speaker 2: to travel to be with their loved ones on their 491 00:27:35,400 --> 00:27:39,800 Speaker 2: sick beds, to attend funerals or weddings or graduations, you know, 492 00:27:40,119 --> 00:27:45,159 Speaker 2: surely more is required to the person impacted themselves. But 493 00:27:45,240 --> 00:27:47,760 Speaker 2: let's see how the court rules, and what. 494 00:27:47,760 --> 00:27:52,200 Speaker 1: About the government's position that there's not an open controversy here. 495 00:27:52,840 --> 00:27:58,359 Speaker 2: The FBI's position was that they have told mister Fikra 496 00:27:58,720 --> 00:28:02,320 Speaker 2: that he would not be placed on the list again 497 00:28:02,720 --> 00:28:06,879 Speaker 2: quote based on currently available information, and that that is 498 00:28:07,080 --> 00:28:09,919 Speaker 2: enough to end his case. And what mister Fickra was 499 00:28:10,040 --> 00:28:14,400 Speaker 2: arguing was that that isn't enough. That when the government 500 00:28:14,560 --> 00:28:18,480 Speaker 2: acts as it did here, which is that it voluntarily 501 00:28:18,680 --> 00:28:23,040 Speaker 2: takes someone off the list, the case is not moved 502 00:28:23,160 --> 00:28:26,879 Speaker 2: because the standard the government has to meet is to 503 00:28:26,920 --> 00:28:31,800 Speaker 2: make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior won't 504 00:28:31,840 --> 00:28:36,160 Speaker 2: happen again. And mister Fickra argued that the government hasn't 505 00:28:36,320 --> 00:28:39,160 Speaker 2: repudiated its decision to put him on the list, and 506 00:28:39,360 --> 00:28:42,040 Speaker 2: it remained free to return him to the list for 507 00:28:42,120 --> 00:28:45,360 Speaker 2: the same reasons and using the same procedures that mister 508 00:28:45,440 --> 00:28:50,280 Speaker 2: Fickray alleged were unlawful. So, in essence, mister Fickray was 509 00:28:50,320 --> 00:28:53,040 Speaker 2: asking for his case to go forward so he could 510 00:28:53,120 --> 00:28:54,760 Speaker 2: have his day in court. 511 00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:57,360 Speaker 1: And what do you think the justices might do here? 512 00:28:57,960 --> 00:29:00,760 Speaker 2: Well, I think what leaves me cautiously of mystic about 513 00:29:00,800 --> 00:29:05,800 Speaker 2: the argument is that most of the justices understood that 514 00:29:06,320 --> 00:29:10,160 Speaker 2: a system in which a person does not know the 515 00:29:10,160 --> 00:29:13,000 Speaker 2: government's reasons for placing them on their list or taking 516 00:29:13,040 --> 00:29:16,480 Speaker 2: them off, it that there's not really a guarantee here 517 00:29:16,800 --> 00:29:20,880 Speaker 2: against the kind of bromfo conduct that is being challenged occurring. 518 00:29:21,080 --> 00:29:23,720 Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the show. That's Hinnashamsi of the 519 00:29:23,760 --> 00:29:27,920 Speaker 1: ACLU coming up. A Russian billionaire take Southeby's to court 520 00:29:27,960 --> 00:29:31,920 Speaker 1: over four masterpieces. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. 521 00:29:33,400 --> 00:29:36,440 Speaker 15: So, ladies and gentlemen, we moved to the Leonardo da Vinci, 522 00:29:36,480 --> 00:29:37,880 Speaker 15: the Sabato Mundy. 523 00:29:37,800 --> 00:29:40,800 Speaker 1: The masterpiece by Leonardo of Cristis Savior previous in the 524 00:29:40,800 --> 00:29:43,880 Speaker 1: collections of three Kings of England, and in that auction, 525 00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:50,480 Speaker 1: billionaire Russian oligarch Dmitri Rybalovlev resold Salvador Mundy for more 526 00:29:50,520 --> 00:29:53,479 Speaker 1: than triple the amount he paid for it. Now that 527 00:29:53,600 --> 00:29:58,120 Speaker 1: painting and masterpieces by Modigliani, Klimt, and mcgreet are the 528 00:29:58,200 --> 00:30:02,240 Speaker 1: subject of Rybalovlev's suit against Southeby's. He claims the auction 529 00:30:02,400 --> 00:30:05,280 Speaker 1: house helped a Swiss art dealer dupe him out of 530 00:30:05,320 --> 00:30:08,080 Speaker 1: more than two hundred and thirty million dollars when the 531 00:30:08,120 --> 00:30:11,720 Speaker 1: dealer bought artworks through Southeby's and then turned around and 532 00:30:11,800 --> 00:30:15,200 Speaker 1: sold them to dry Ballovlev at markups worth tens of 533 00:30:15,240 --> 00:30:19,560 Speaker 1: millions of dollars. Sotheby's denies any wrongdoing. Joining me is 534 00:30:19,560 --> 00:30:23,800 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Chrys do Mesh, who's covering the trial. Chris, 535 00:30:23,800 --> 00:30:28,080 Speaker 1: this case offers a glimpse into the opaque art world. 536 00:30:28,360 --> 00:30:31,240 Speaker 17: It's interesting. This is the art world and it's kind 537 00:30:31,240 --> 00:30:35,160 Speaker 17: of inherently secret just in the way it operates. Maybe 538 00:30:35,200 --> 00:30:38,200 Speaker 17: some of our listeners might see the parallels to say, 539 00:30:38,240 --> 00:30:41,320 Speaker 17: bond trading and things like that, where there's no extential 540 00:30:41,360 --> 00:30:43,479 Speaker 17: exchange that you can look up the prices of a 541 00:30:43,520 --> 00:30:46,760 Speaker 17: Picasso or a da Vinci. You know, it undergoes evaluation 542 00:30:46,920 --> 00:30:50,680 Speaker 17: process by auction houses like Southeby's and by private actors, 543 00:30:50,800 --> 00:30:53,640 Speaker 17: and often some of the participants don't really want to 544 00:30:53,720 --> 00:30:57,120 Speaker 17: have their identities out there at any point in the process. 545 00:30:57,160 --> 00:30:59,400 Speaker 17: They just want to sell the work. So therefore it 546 00:30:59,400 --> 00:31:01,600 Speaker 17: can lead to the kind of opaque market where you 547 00:31:01,640 --> 00:31:04,360 Speaker 17: don't really know what the true value of a work 548 00:31:04,480 --> 00:31:07,560 Speaker 17: is until you know, somebody buys it. I mean, that's 549 00:31:07,600 --> 00:31:09,840 Speaker 17: really the true value of it, and somebody is willing 550 00:31:09,880 --> 00:31:12,040 Speaker 17: to pay a certain amount of money for the work, 551 00:31:12,240 --> 00:31:14,400 Speaker 17: and that has led, you know, through the years. I mean, 552 00:31:14,440 --> 00:31:17,920 Speaker 17: there's certainly other cases where collectors have felt that they 553 00:31:18,000 --> 00:31:21,720 Speaker 17: were misled by dealers as to you know, how much 554 00:31:21,760 --> 00:31:24,200 Speaker 17: they paid for something like that. But this case is 555 00:31:24,280 --> 00:31:27,200 Speaker 17: really at the high end of the art market. And 556 00:31:27,240 --> 00:31:29,200 Speaker 17: I mean we're talking about a Da Vinci that was 557 00:31:29,240 --> 00:31:33,160 Speaker 17: the most expensive artwork ever sold. And needless to say, 558 00:31:33,440 --> 00:31:37,600 Speaker 17: you don't often see Russian billionaires on the stand in 559 00:31:37,680 --> 00:31:40,520 Speaker 17: federal court in New York. So that alone makes it 560 00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:43,600 Speaker 17: a fascinating case. And to kind of have just the 561 00:31:43,760 --> 00:31:47,400 Speaker 17: art world laid bare for an audience in federal court. 562 00:31:47,840 --> 00:31:51,920 Speaker 1: So tell us what Rybalavlev's claim is. 563 00:31:52,360 --> 00:31:54,600 Speaker 17: So he claims, and he's claimed all along, that this 564 00:31:54,760 --> 00:31:58,520 Speaker 17: was a massive fraud poisted on him by Bouvier, who 565 00:31:58,560 --> 00:32:00,760 Speaker 17: is his art dealer for many many year Wan who 566 00:32:00,840 --> 00:32:04,160 Speaker 17: was arrested in twenty fifteen as he was going to 567 00:32:04,320 --> 00:32:07,560 Speaker 17: the billionaire's apartment in Monaco, thinking he was completing a 568 00:32:07,600 --> 00:32:10,360 Speaker 17: deal for a Mark Rothko and instead he was arrested. 569 00:32:10,400 --> 00:32:14,080 Speaker 17: And it's been almost a decade of various legal maneuvers. 570 00:32:14,160 --> 00:32:18,320 Speaker 17: The dealer and Rybalavled have settled late last year so 571 00:32:18,360 --> 00:32:21,000 Speaker 17: that he's no longer involved in the case. But essentially 572 00:32:21,040 --> 00:32:23,760 Speaker 17: he alleges that the auction house helped the dealer kind 573 00:32:23,800 --> 00:32:26,880 Speaker 17: of mislead him into these deals by providing documents supported 574 00:32:26,920 --> 00:32:30,200 Speaker 17: the valuations that he claims were excessive and allowed the 575 00:32:30,240 --> 00:32:33,080 Speaker 17: dealer to pocket, you know, more than a billion dollars 576 00:32:33,120 --> 00:32:36,200 Speaker 17: in improper payment that he wasn't aware of being paid. Essentially, 577 00:32:36,240 --> 00:32:37,880 Speaker 17: he says, you know that he would just buy these 578 00:32:37,920 --> 00:32:40,960 Speaker 17: things in private, pretend he was negotiating with the sellers, 579 00:32:41,000 --> 00:32:43,120 Speaker 17: and then just sell it to him while making up 580 00:32:43,160 --> 00:32:45,760 Speaker 17: a whole line of talks about acquiring the painting. 581 00:32:45,920 --> 00:32:49,560 Speaker 1: It seems like it's odd for the jury to see 582 00:32:49,680 --> 00:32:53,200 Speaker 1: him suing Southeby's when the man who is at the 583 00:32:53,200 --> 00:32:54,560 Speaker 1: heart of this is. 584 00:32:54,520 --> 00:32:57,440 Speaker 17: Not in the courtroom for sure. And that's what Southeby's 585 00:32:57,520 --> 00:32:59,800 Speaker 17: is hanging its hat on here. They say, you know this, 586 00:33:00,000 --> 00:33:02,920 Speaker 17: here's a billionaire, and this is a guy who does 587 00:33:03,040 --> 00:33:07,240 Speaker 17: regularly large transactions bys a lot of art, owns the 588 00:33:07,440 --> 00:33:10,560 Speaker 17: Monaco soccer team, and should have done his own due 589 00:33:10,600 --> 00:33:13,440 Speaker 17: diligence rather than relying on the statements of an art 590 00:33:13,480 --> 00:33:17,120 Speaker 17: dealer who one could easily suspect might have a different interest. 591 00:33:18,040 --> 00:33:22,880 Speaker 1: And Bouvier's lawyer's point to the fact that Rybalavlev did 592 00:33:22,920 --> 00:33:26,920 Speaker 1: not win the legal actions he brought against Boovia in 593 00:33:27,200 --> 00:33:31,360 Speaker 1: jurisdictions around the world, and also federal prosecutors were looking 594 00:33:31,360 --> 00:33:33,120 Speaker 1: into Boovia and dropped the case. 595 00:33:33,560 --> 00:33:36,360 Speaker 17: Yes, the prosecutors here in the Southern District of New York. 596 00:33:36,400 --> 00:33:38,320 Speaker 17: It spent more than a year building a case against 597 00:33:38,320 --> 00:33:42,360 Speaker 17: the dealer. But then after Rybalavlev sold the Da Vinci 598 00:33:42,400 --> 00:33:45,080 Speaker 17: work for the record amount four hundred and fifty million, 599 00:33:45,200 --> 00:33:47,720 Speaker 17: more than triple what he pays if they dropped the probe, 600 00:33:47,800 --> 00:33:50,280 Speaker 17: saying that there was no real way that they could 601 00:33:50,280 --> 00:33:51,160 Speaker 17: prove criminality. 602 00:33:51,800 --> 00:33:55,320 Speaker 1: It sounds like it'll be a fascinating case. Thanks so much, Chris. 603 00:33:55,560 --> 00:33:58,880 Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Chrys do Mesh, and that's it 604 00:33:58,920 --> 00:34:01,880 Speaker 1: for this edition of the Bloomberg Glaw podcast. Remember you 605 00:34:01,920 --> 00:34:04,640 Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news by subscribing and 606 00:34:04,720 --> 00:34:08,239 Speaker 1: listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at 607 00:34:08,239 --> 00:34:12,600 Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso 608 00:34:12,800 --> 00:34:14,279 Speaker 1: and this is Bloomberg