Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdict podcast, hosted
Speaker 1: by the Litigation and Policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the
Speaker 1: investment research platform of Bloomberg LP. This podcast series examines
Speaker 1: the intersection of business policy and law. I'm Elliott Stein,
Speaker 1: an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence covering financials litigation, and.
Speaker 2: My name is Nissan Dean, and I'm an analyst with
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Intelligence covering financials policy.
Speaker 1: So our topic for today is the indictment of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney's officers. And we're delighted
Speaker 1: to be joined by Dan Horwitz, partner and chair of
Speaker 1: the Litigation Department and the white collar defense and investigation
Speaker 1: practice at the law firm of McLaughlin and Stern here
Speaker 1: in New York. Dan is one of the pre eminent
Speaker 1: white collar criminal defense lawyers in New York City, if
Speaker 1: not the and he represents clients in all forms of
Speaker 1: white collar and regulatory enforcement matters. Prior to working as
Speaker 1: a defense attorney, Dan was an Assistant District Attorney in
Speaker 1: the Manhattan DIA's office, where he served in the fraud Bureau,
Speaker 1: investigating and prosecuting complex white collar crimes, including securities and
Speaker 1: tax fraud. Dan, it's an accomplished trial lawyer, having tied
Speaker 1: many complex cases in both federal and state courts. And
Speaker 1: on a personal note, and in the interest of full disclosure,
Speaker 1: Dan and I were colleagues in a former life, working
Speaker 1: together not just at the same law firm, but in
Speaker 1: the same factist group and often on the same matters.
Speaker 1: So with all that, Dan Horwitz, welcome to the Votes
Speaker 1: in Verdicts podcast.
Speaker 3: Thanks Shelliott, thanks for having me. Great to see you,
Speaker 3: Thanks Nathan, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's great to have you here. So Dan, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm really excited to have you on today's show because
Speaker 1: you know, I really can't think of anyone better to
Speaker 1: give us legal analysis of the Trump indictment. You worked
Speaker 1: in the Manhattan DA's office as a prosecutor for about
Speaker 1: ten years, and then, as many prosecutors do, you moved
Speaker 1: to the defense side in private practice, and you also
Speaker 1: served on the transition team for the DA album Brag.
Speaker 1: So you're obviously extremely qualified to analyze the indictment from
Speaker 1: both the prosecutor's perspectives but also the defense perspective. But
Speaker 1: before we jump into that analysis of the indictment, we
Speaker 1: usually like to start by asking our guests a little
Speaker 1: bit about their background. So maybe tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about your legal career, about your time in the
Speaker 1: DA's office. It was about your current practice, and maybe
Speaker 1: as part of all that, tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: about the importance of the Manhattan DA's office and where
Speaker 1: it fits in the prosecutors universe.
Speaker 3: Sure, so let me work backwards and start with your
Speaker 3: last question about the significance of the Manhattan DA's office.
Speaker 3: And it does sort of play into why I.
Speaker 2: Went there and.
Speaker 3: How my legal career ended up being shaped. But the
Speaker 3: Manhattan Die's Office, for really close to one hundred years,
Speaker 3: you know, has been the pre eminent local prosecutor's office
Speaker 3: in the country. And in part that's because it's in Manhattan,
Speaker 3: and it's also because basically you've had three or four
Speaker 3: very significant people who have held that office over the
Speaker 3: last hundred years who began really the practice of what
Speaker 3: we recognize today to be a modern white collar focus
Speaker 3: on criminal law, beginning with Thomas Dewey and then Frank
Speaker 3: Cogan and then Robert Morgentha who I worked for for
Speaker 3: ten years. And the office is unique not just because
Speaker 3: in Manhattan there are you know, the full panoply of
Speaker 3: street crime cases often you know, grabbing headlines, but you
Speaker 3: have Manhattan being the financial center of the world. And
Speaker 3: while that has over the last fifty or sixty years,
Speaker 3: you know, been in the public's mind the focus of
Speaker 3: federal prosecutors, the Manhattan DIA's Office was prosecuting white collar
Speaker 3: crime long before the US Attorney's Office, did you know,
Speaker 3: going back to the racquetbusters that Tom Dewey set up
Speaker 3: and Frank Cokin continued. So it's an important office in
Speaker 3: terms of framing white collar cases and developing theories and
Speaker 3: techniques to investigate and prosecute white collar crime. So my
Speaker 3: own background in terms of how I got there, I
Speaker 3: was very interested in white collar crime and had spent
Speaker 3: eight or nine years after I graduated from college working
Speaker 3: on Capitol Hill and going to law school at night.
Speaker 3: And during the course of my time on Capitol Hill,
Speaker 3: there were a number of legislative and oversight matters that
Speaker 3: I worked on involving the oil industry and a variety
Speaker 3: of tax related crimes. And that's how my interest in
Speaker 3: white color crime is really peaked, and I really wanted
Speaker 3: to work as a white collar prosecutor, and was fortunate
Speaker 3: enough to get an offer from Manhattan Die's Office, and
Speaker 3: actually chose to go there as opposed to the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice, because I wanted an opportunity to work for
Speaker 3: Bob Morgenthaw, who again is you know, you know, was
Speaker 3: probably the most preeminent local prosecutor in the country, if
Speaker 3: not in history, and was fortunate enough to work, as
Speaker 3: Eliot you said, on a variety of white color cases,
Speaker 3: mainly in the area of securities fraud and also procurement
Speaker 3: related fraud, and then as a defense lawyer. As you said,
Speaker 3: you know, I, as Elliott knows, my wife and I
Speaker 3: had a child and we were living in Manhattan and
Speaker 3: the reality of continuing in a career of public service
Speaker 3: was really not going to happen. So I went into
Speaker 3: the private sector and have spent the better part of
Speaker 3: my career working on white collar related cases for individuals
Speaker 3: and companies and have many cases and have had many
Speaker 3: cases with the Manhattan Day's Office, along with cases with
Speaker 3: the federal prosecutors and other prosecutors and regulators in the
Speaker 3: metropolitan area. But you're right, I think I have a
Speaker 3: pretty good insight into what drives and motivates the Manhattan
Speaker 3: DA's office, not just under this current administration, but generally.
Speaker 3: So that's that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.
Speaker 1: It's a good one, and it's a good segue to
Speaker 1: where I want to go next. You know, I want
Speaker 1: to let's let's talk about the indictment. And what I
Speaker 1: really want to do is have you first put on
Speaker 1: your hat as a prosecutor or in your case, as
Speaker 1: a former prosecutor, and tell us why you think this
Speaker 1: indictment is strong. You know, I think most of the
Speaker 1: public knows the indictment charge Sump with thirty four counts
Speaker 1: of falsifying business records in the first degree, which is
Speaker 1: considered a selony in New York. And the charge is
Speaker 1: essentially accused some of disguising reimbursements to Michael Cohen, who
Speaker 1: was his lawyer and fixer, I guess, and you know,
Speaker 1: disguising those payments as legal fees to high pust money
Speaker 1: payments to Stormy Daniels. But you know, give us the
Speaker 1: inside baseball prosecutors take here. What makes the indictment strong
Speaker 1: in your view? And what will the DA have to
Speaker 1: do to establish guilt and how easy or hard will that.
Speaker 3: Be, Yeah, Elliott, And it's a good question. The what
Speaker 3: makes this case strong is that it's got layers of
Speaker 3: multifaceted evidence that support the allegations. And by that, I
Speaker 3: mean you've got a series of witnesses and a series
Speaker 3: of documents that support the allegations.
Speaker 2: And we're not just.
Speaker 3: Talking about Michael Cohen, who will obviously figure centrally in
Speaker 3: the prosecution's case, but the case doesn't rest exclusively on
Speaker 3: Michael Cohen. You've got David Pecker, the the publisher of
Speaker 3: of the you know, the publisher was involved in the
Speaker 3: cotection kill scheme. You've got meetings, You've got witnesses that
Speaker 3: will corroborate things that Michael Cohen said. I mean you
Speaker 3: saw in the media this this line of witnesses that
Speaker 3: were called into the grand jury, Met Kelly and Conaway,
Speaker 3: Hope Picks and others. And of course you have documents.
Speaker 3: You have you have a tape apparently, You've got documents.
Speaker 3: You've got Donald Trump's signature on checks. So you've got again,
Speaker 3: sort of a multifaceted array of evidence to support the
Speaker 3: allegations here. You know, the theory. I know, there's been
Speaker 3: a lot of talk in the media about is this
Speaker 3: a viable theory? This theory that by making false entries
Speaker 3: in the Trump organization's books and records to cover up
Speaker 3: the hush money payments that were made to ultimately the
Speaker 3: Stormy Daniels and to Karen McDougall. You know with this
Speaker 3: second element that this crime of falsifying business requires proof
Speaker 3: of which is an intent to commit another crime name
Speaker 3: So the issue is which he is Is that a
Speaker 3: strong theory because well, some people say that you know
Speaker 3: that the second crime was election fraud, and others say that,
Speaker 3: and the DA has said also that the second crime
Speaker 3: relates to to New York state tax crimes. Is that
Speaker 3: is that a problem because no case has ever really
Speaker 3: been brought like that. And my answer to that is,
Speaker 3: you know, I'll circle back to what I said at
Speaker 3: the beginning. You know, federal prosecutors Morgan thought, the Manhattan
Speaker 3: Die's Office, the Southern District of New York. These are
Speaker 3: prosecutors that have that are known for thinking creatively and
Speaker 3: pushing the envelope on the boundaries of what constitutes white
Speaker 3: collar crime. I mean, and I like to point people
Speaker 3: to an example that Elliott you'll appreciate. Given our shared
Speaker 3: work for Ike Sorkin, you know, as Ike like to say,
Speaker 3: for thirty years, the Securities and Exchange Commission handled insider
Speaker 3: trading under the civil components of the federal securities law,
Speaker 3: and then suddenly the Southern District decided one day that nope,
Speaker 3: insider trading can be prosecuted as a crime. So the
Speaker 3: fact that there is a case that arguably doesn't fit
Speaker 3: neatly into a prior set of facts, that doesn't tell
Speaker 3: me that the theory is problematic. And so I think
Speaker 3: that the notion that you make an entry in a
Speaker 3: company's books to pay somebody off, you make that entry
Speaker 3: and you cover it up, you're obviously thinking about in
Speaker 3: a variety of things, including are you going to take
Speaker 3: a tax deduction for this expense? And given a special
Speaker 3: what I think David Bakar brings to this case, namely
Speaker 3: that there was an organized effort to protect the candidate
Speaker 3: Donald Trump from bad stories getting out as he was
Speaker 3: running for president in twenty sixteen. You clearly introduced the
Speaker 3: element of New York campaign finance laws, of which there
Speaker 3: are several that fit within this particular indictment. And again,
Speaker 3: I mean, I'll just finish by saying, you know, there
Speaker 3: doesn't have to be proof of the second crime. There
Speaker 3: just has to be proof that the defendants were intending
Speaker 3: to commit that crime. Doesn't it's not a coeight crime,
Speaker 3: it doesn't require proof. So this concept that ge the
Speaker 3: federal election laws preempt New York States laws, so you
Speaker 3: could never bring this case, I don't think that's really
Speaker 3: going to I'm sure that that's going to be an
Speaker 3: emotion to dismiss, but I don't think that that's going
Speaker 3: to I don't think that's going to give rise to
Speaker 3: a dismissal.
Speaker 1: And I guess the fact that the second crime you
Speaker 1: don't have to actually prove, you just have to prove
Speaker 1: that there was an intent to commit it. I guess
Speaker 1: that maybe obviates any due process issues regarding that second crime.
Speaker 1: I don't it seems a little odd that you don't
Speaker 1: have you know, you can charge it as you know,
Speaker 1: relate that there's an intent to commit it, but you
Speaker 1: don't have to share that it was committed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I mean, I think a lot of
Speaker 3: people have focused on the campaign aspect of this in
Speaker 3: federal preemption. I mean, if you want to break it
Speaker 3: down and we can talk like lawyers that we are.
Speaker 3: The federal preemption statue exists in federal law, the New
Speaker 3: York state laws exist in New York's election laws, and
Speaker 3: there's zero in New York election law that says, oh,
Speaker 3: by the way, this statue doesn't apply because there's federal preemption. So,
Speaker 3: and because you're also in talking about intent, you know,
Speaker 3: is the defense going to profer evidence that, wow, when
Speaker 3: we made these false entries to cover up the fact
Speaker 3: that we were paying off a porn star and a
Speaker 3: former playboy model, were we actually thinking, gee, guess what
Speaker 3: we can do it? Because no, there's no state client
Speaker 3: that could be committed here because right, there's federal preemption.
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I mean, I don't think that.
Speaker 3: When David Picard testifies at trial and talks about, you know,
Speaker 3: the conspiratorial conversations that he had with Cohen and others
Speaker 3: including the President, about you know, we're going to do
Speaker 3: this catch and kill program to protect you, I guarantee
Speaker 3: the word federal preemption never came up.
Speaker 1: And what about Michael Cohen, I mean, you know, he's
Speaker 1: obviously pleaded guilty to committing perjury and he's going to
Speaker 1: be you know, a principal witness, imagine for the for
Speaker 1: the DA's office. But you know, this is an issue
Speaker 1: that comes up right in every single case. So you
Speaker 1: have someone who's left, So how you know, how problematic
Speaker 1: do you think it is? And how do you think
Speaker 1: the D's office deals with him?
Speaker 3: I mean, I think the DA's office is going to
Speaker 3: deal with it the way that any prosecutor does. And
Speaker 3: it goes to what I was saying before, corroboration, corroboration, corroboration.
Speaker 3: They're gonna they're gonna tell the jury in essence, yep,
Speaker 3: Michael Cohen is a liar and a cree and you
Speaker 3: wouldn't want him as your friend, and you wouldn't want
Speaker 3: him as your lawyer. But here are the reasons why
Speaker 3: you can believe what he's telling you. And then they're
Speaker 3: going to point to David Pacar and Hope Hicks and
Speaker 3: Kelly and Conway and all the documents and they're going
Speaker 3: to say, you see, all this other evidence lines off
Speaker 3: with what Cohen's telling you. Now, there's no question that
Speaker 3: Cohen's got a lot of baggage. And Cohen is a cheat,
Speaker 3: and he didn't just lie to Congress, and he didn't
Speaker 3: just get you know, you didn't just plead guilty to purge.
Speaker 3: He committed tax crimes himself. He committed financial crimes, and
Speaker 3: for a long time, you know, he was he was,
Speaker 3: you know, in Trump's inner circle, which also can ultimately
Speaker 3: work for the prosecution, because the prosecution will say to
Speaker 3: the jury in their summation, if you don't like Michael Cohen,
Speaker 3: don't blame us for that, because we didn't pick him
Speaker 3: to be our lawyer. The defendant, Donald Trump did. He
Speaker 3: picked this guy. He used this guy, and he relied
Speaker 3: in this guy, and it was when it was convenient
Speaker 3: for him to throw him under the bus and say, yeah,
Speaker 3: I used him for ten years. But guess what, I'm shocked.
Speaker 3: He's a liar and a cheat. Don't blame us for that,
Speaker 3: because it's the defendant who chose the people to surround
Speaker 3: himself with.
Speaker 2: So I have a question about you know, President Trump.
Speaker 2: You know, he's always indicated, at least he's insinuated that
Speaker 2: the Trump team is going to ask for a change
Speaker 2: of venues since he doesn't think he can get a
Speaker 2: fair trial in Manhattan. Does he any chances of moving
Speaker 2: this case beyond Manhattan?
Speaker 3: I don't think so I think that's a debt on arrival.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think, I mean, it goes without saying
Speaker 3: that he's a widely known public figure and is a
Speaker 3: polarizing figure. And you know, this this concept that Gee
Speaker 3: will just pick Staten Island, which is a you know,
Speaker 3: a borough that Lean's Republican, will just pick Staten Island
Speaker 3: as a venue. That's not the way it works. I mean,
Speaker 3: and I think that you know, I think New Yorkers
Speaker 3: can be fair and impartial. I mean, I think, you know,
Speaker 3: having seen jurors, and I think this is the way
Speaker 3: the Court is going to look at this. If jurors
Speaker 3: can honestly say, can they be fair and impartial? Yes,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump is a polarizing figure. But if you pick
Speaker 3: a large enough jerry pool, and you solicit enough potential
Speaker 3: jurors and conduct a thorough vetting on those jurors, I'm
Speaker 3: pretty sure that you'll be able to find, you know,
Speaker 3: twelve people who can be fair and partial. And I
Speaker 3: think the Court's going to look at it.
Speaker 2: So, you know, one of the questions I wanted to
Speaker 2: ask was more of a Washington question, because you know,
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to think of how this case plays out.
Speaker 2: So you know, in particular, the twenty twenty four presidential
Speaker 2: campaign has already started. But you know, we have in
Speaker 2: January of twenty twenty four primaries in Iowa and New
Speaker 2: Hampshire on the Republican side. At what stage do you
Speaker 2: think this case is going to be at that point?
Speaker 2: So you know, are we going to see something where
Speaker 2: Trump is competing on a primary on Tuesday and then
Speaker 2: appearing in court on Thursday, or you know, could this
Speaker 2: is it not so much an issue?
Speaker 3: I think that's probably what he'd like to do. But
Speaker 3: I think that when primary season starts, you'll have had
Speaker 3: all of the motion practice about, for example, a change
Speaker 3: of venue or motions to dismiss the indictment. Those all
Speaker 3: all have been resolved, and you'll be scheduling a trial.
Speaker 3: And that's what Judge Mershon has signaled with the current schedule. So, Nathan,
Speaker 3: it's entirely possible that this trial schedule will impinge on
Speaker 3: whatever it is that candidate Trump needs to do in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: And how long do you think a trial like this
Speaker 2: would last?
Speaker 3: Probably a month. I mean you're going to pick a jury,
Speaker 3: so in a case like this, that could take two
Speaker 3: weeks in and of itself, you know, assuming they have
Speaker 3: you know, ten to twenty witnesses, that's probably another two weeks.
Speaker 3: So it could be a four to six week trial.
Speaker 3: I mean, actually, let me just refocus that sort of
Speaker 3: re refine that you're probably it's probably going to take
Speaker 3: as long as the Allan the Trump organization trial, so
Speaker 3: that I think took about six weeks. So I think
Speaker 3: that's about what you'd see here.
Speaker 1: So many different trials to keep back of so so
Speaker 1: so the judge in the in the criminal case is
Speaker 1: Justice Mershon, and I think it's interesting that he came
Speaker 1: out of the Manhattan DA's office as well. And I
Speaker 1: think Jack Smith, who was a special prosecutor looking at
Speaker 1: the January sixth issues and the classified document issues, I
Speaker 1: think ausor came out of the Manhattan DA's office, and
Speaker 1: you know, all that speaks, as you did, to the
Speaker 1: importance of that office. I'm wondering if you anticipate one
Speaker 1: of the motions to dismiss being a you know, motion
Speaker 1: to accused Justice Mersan because he came out of that office.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's I think you're you're right, Elliott,
Speaker 3: that they're gonna attack, but not in a a Donald
Speaker 3: Trumpian way, but more in a legal way. The selection
Speaker 3: enough Judge Marshon as the as the judge, but I
Speaker 3: don't think it's going to focus on the fact that
Speaker 3: he was in alum of the office. I think it's
Speaker 3: going to focus on the fact that how is it
Speaker 3: that of all the judges in New York County sitting
Speaker 3: in the criminal court, how is it that Juan Marshan
Speaker 3: ended up with this case? And there's going to be
Speaker 3: a challenge to the selection process, which which will fail.
Speaker 3: And it will fail because having had having had a
Speaker 3: case where I actually litigated this where there was a
Speaker 3: challenge to a grand jury judge when I was a
Speaker 3: prosecutor the appellate court in the New York Region, the
Speaker 3: First Apartment ruled that the judges that run the court
Speaker 3: system have wide latitude in selecting judges, and so I
Speaker 3: think that's going to fail. But you're right. They they
Speaker 3: will attack Juan Marcheon and they're going to My prediction
Speaker 3: is that they're going to do everything they can to
Speaker 3: try to bait them and pick fights with him and
Speaker 3: to draw him out in a way that will assist
Speaker 3: them in challenging his selection and maybe going to you know,
Speaker 3: your question about the change of venue. Not only can
Speaker 3: he not get a fair shape with the Jerry Pool,
Speaker 3: but he can't get a fair judge.
Speaker 1: And we're Marassan and Jack Smith and the DA's office
Speaker 1: at the same time as you did. You overlap with him.
Speaker 3: I overlap with both of them, and I don't I
Speaker 3: think they were there. I think they were there at
Speaker 3: the same time. I know them in passing. I mean
Speaker 3: I knew them in passing. I was, I think, pretty
Speaker 3: senior to them when they were in the office. But
Speaker 3: I think you know, look, the press reports on them
Speaker 3: are pretty accurate. They're people who are They're disciplined, they
Speaker 3: call balls and strikes. They're serious people. They're serious lawyers.
Speaker 3: They really embody the kind of spirit and training that
Speaker 3: the Manhattan DA's Office, especially under Bob MORGANFA represents.
Speaker 1: The mean.
Speaker 3: They're people who will all the facts and the law
Speaker 3: without fear or favor.
Speaker 2: So, you know, talking about the other potential indictments out there,
Speaker 2: we saw press reports from Georgia stating that the decision
Speaker 2: there would be made sometime this summer. My question is,
Speaker 2: you know, how would that play out if President Trump
Speaker 2: is facing two or even three different indictments, which takes priority.
Speaker 2: How to the advance at the same time? How can
Speaker 2: we you know, how will it play.
Speaker 3: Out, assuming that there are other indictments. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: that all the judges are going to get on the
Speaker 3: phone and say, hey, let's work out a schedule. But
Speaker 3: the but, Nathan, the idea that a defendant is facing
Speaker 3: charges in more than one jurisdiction is not unique. Look
Speaker 3: at Harvey Weinstein. He was prosecuted, he was indicted first
Speaker 3: in New York, and then he was indicted in Los Angeles,
Speaker 3: and the prosecution proceeded in New York first because it
Speaker 3: was started first and it was further along. So I'm
Speaker 3: going to assume that that schedule, that sort of scheduling
Speaker 3: structure will dictate which case goes first. You know, who
Speaker 3: knows if he gets indicted in federal court in Washington, DC.
Speaker 3: You know, is it likely that there be a trial
Speaker 3: of that those charges, whatever they might be, before the
Speaker 3: Manhattan DA's case goes to trial. I don't see that
Speaker 3: because you're in May now and you're on a schedule
Speaker 3: that would probably lead to a trial in the In
Speaker 3: the New York County case, in some time in the
Speaker 3: probably the first half of the first quarter of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four. And I think that, you know, it would
Speaker 3: be unrealistic for either of the other jurisdictions that are
Speaker 3: potentially in play to have trials be conducted before that.
Speaker 2: It's good to know. And then one other question that
Speaker 2: I had, and I know a lot of folks probably
Speaker 2: are asking the same question when the you see the
Speaker 2: news reports that you know, if President Trump is convicted,
Speaker 2: can he be president?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: Or is you know, is there anything in our constitution
Speaker 2: that bars him from running or being elected?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: Or and in just in theory, could he be in
Speaker 2: president or sorry, in prison but also be president.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know about the last question. I don't
Speaker 3: know how the Secret Service would work app that that
Speaker 3: the details for security there, But no, I mean, my
Speaker 3: understanding the law is that there is nothing to prevent
Speaker 3: someone from running or holding office having been convicted of
Speaker 3: a crime or a felony or a misdemeaning for that.
Speaker 2: So along those lines, if he becomes president, can he
Speaker 2: pardon himself if he's convicted?
Speaker 3: I don't know. That's the good question. But you know,
Speaker 3: being an observer, like everybody, else, of Donald Trump, I'm
Speaker 3: quite confident that he would feel that the authority is
Speaker 3: to do it, and how does that get challenged? So
Speaker 3: I guess stay tuned for an answer to that question,
Speaker 3: is the best I can tell you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be fascinating, and I got to think it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it probably would be much tougher to pardon
Speaker 1: him self for a state conviction than a federal one.
Speaker 1: But I mean, obviously these are all issues. The first impressive, exactly,
Speaker 1: all right. So with that, we're going to move on
Speaker 1: to our grab bag questions, which we like to do
Speaker 1: with all of our guests just to get a little
Speaker 1: more sense of who they are. So the first one
Speaker 1: for you, Dan is what is the most interesting or
Speaker 1: rewarding case you've ever worked on.
Speaker 3: The most interesting and rewarding case I worked on was
Speaker 3: the case Elliott You and I were colleagues. I represented
Speaker 3: ultimately two people in New York who had been wrongly
Speaker 3: convicted at a murder at a murder at a very
Speaker 3: famous New York night club called the Palladium case. And
Speaker 3: they David Limis and Omado Adago, convicted by the Manhattan
Speaker 3: you know, BIDA, Manhattan DIA's office and ended up serving
Speaker 3: thirteen or fourteen years in prison, and I worked with
Speaker 3: a group of lawyers to first overturn their convictions, and
Speaker 3: then the prosecutors decided not to reprosecute Omado, but they
Speaker 3: did want to reprosecute David Limis, and so I represented
Speaker 3: David at trial, and we actually called the actual murderers
Speaker 3: at trial who confessed on the stand, and the jury
Speaker 3: acquitted David. And that was a very meaningful, interesting but
Speaker 3: also meaningful case because you know, you had two people
Speaker 3: who not only were wrongly convicted, but served many, many
Speaker 3: years in prison for crimes they didn't commit. So that
Speaker 3: was that I can't imagine that they'll ever be a
Speaker 3: more meaningful case.
Speaker 1: That I'll work on in that. You know, when I
Speaker 1: was thinking about that question, I was wondering if that
Speaker 1: was the case that you were going to talk about it,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad you did. I happened to work on
Speaker 1: that with you a little bit. And one of you know,
Speaker 1: one of the most memorable moments from my time practicing
Speaker 1: law was when Leaness was released from prison for the
Speaker 1: first time after serving I think you said, you know,
Speaker 1: about fifteen years. Yeah, And I was there with you
Speaker 1: and I. One thing that stands out to me was
Speaker 1: someone gave him a cell phone to call, you know,
Speaker 1: family members, and you know, I don't think he had
Speaker 1: seen a cell phone before. It was really just an
Speaker 1: incredible moment.
Speaker 3: Right, That's right, I mean, that's you just don't I
Speaker 3: can represent all the white collar defendants and companies in
Speaker 3: the world' as I said, as you're basically saying, I mean,
Speaker 3: how do you surpass what you just described to can't?
Speaker 1: All right? So the next question with which is you
Speaker 1: know a little lighter if you were But we asked
Speaker 1: this of all guests, if you were stranded on a
Speaker 1: desert island, what are three pieces of music you would take?
Speaker 1: And you know, when I worked together, we traveled internationally
Speaker 1: on cases. But I don't know what kind of music
Speaker 1: you like. So I'm curious to hear this answer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is this is especially for me, an impossible
Speaker 3: question to answer because I have a really diverse and
Speaker 3: wide ranging interest in music. But I would boil it
Speaker 3: down to three albums, and I can't really boil it
Speaker 3: down to three albums. But if I had to choose,
Speaker 3: I would choose A Love Supreme by John Coltrane Exile
Speaker 3: on Main Street by the Rolling Stones and the soundtrack
Speaker 3: to the movie The Last Waltz by the Band that
Speaker 3: had you know, I don't know, twenty five or thirty
Speaker 3: guests play. So that's that's a tough That is a tough,
Speaker 3: tough question. There's just a tremendous amount of music that
Speaker 3: I'm leaving out.
Speaker 1: Those are good ones. Those are good ones. And I
Speaker 1: play The Last Waltz on TV the documentary movie every Thanksgiving.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I mean the reason I was thinking
Speaker 3: about this was it just encompasses It's not just that
Speaker 3: it's the band, but it also encompasses the guests. So
Speaker 3: you've got Muddy Waters, You've got you've got Dylan Clapton,
Speaker 3: You've got a lot of people that I would have,
Speaker 3: and a lot of genres of music, which is what
Speaker 3: Robbie robertson the band we're trying to do with that album.
Speaker 3: I think they they incorporated a lot of different genres
Speaker 3: of music in that concert. And that's why if I
Speaker 3: was stuck on an island, the Last Waltz offers me
Speaker 3: not just the band, but Ringo Star played on Ronnie Wood.
Speaker 3: You've got a whole set with Dylan and You've also got,
Speaker 3: you know, two songs with Muddy Waters and Paul Butterfield.
Speaker 3: So you bring in some, you know, seriously legitimate blues musicians.
Speaker 1: That's great stuff. That's that's a good logical approach to
Speaker 1: answering that question. I like it all right, Dan. I
Speaker 1: think with that we're gonna have to wrap up this
Speaker 1: episode of Some Verdicts. But we're extremely grateful to Dan
Speaker 1: Horwitz for appearing on this episode. I think it was
Speaker 1: really informative, a great discussion about what I think is
Speaker 1: really a unique moment in American legal and political history.
Speaker 1: And we thank you the listener for taking the time
Speaker 1: to join us as well. Just as a quick reminder,
Speaker 1: you can read all of our Bloomberg intelligence research on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg terminal at Big Thank you again, and have
Speaker 1: a great dang