1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,320 --> 00:00:08,880
Speaker 1: President Trump has more at stake in this election than

3
00:00:08,920 --> 00:00:11,920
Speaker 1: whether he remains in the White House. Being president has

4
00:00:11,960 --> 00:00:16,320
Speaker 1: given Trump what is effectively immunity from federal criminal prosecutions

5
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:19,240
Speaker 1: and has allowed him to stall civil law suits against

6
00:00:19,320 --> 00:00:23,280
Speaker 1: him and his business. When he leaves office, that equation changes.

7
00:00:23,800 --> 00:00:26,640
Speaker 1: So could there be a United States v. Trump? Although

8
00:00:26,720 --> 00:00:31,000
Speaker 1: any federal prosecution of Trump would be political dynamite, but

9
00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:34,599
Speaker 1: New York v. Trump is a distinct possibility since there

10
00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:37,760
Speaker 1: is an active investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney that

11
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:41,440
Speaker 1: could result in state criminal charges, and of course, there

12
00:00:41,479 --> 00:00:44,559
Speaker 1: are several civil lawsuits that would likely move forward at

13
00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:49,120
Speaker 1: a faster pace. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mints,

14
00:00:49,159 --> 00:00:52,800
Speaker 1: a partner m Carter In English, Bob explain how the

15
00:00:52,920 --> 00:01:00,000
Speaker 1: presidency has effectively given Trump a temporary shield against prosecutions

16
00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:05,000
Speaker 1: and lawsuits. As president, President Trump has been able to

17
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:09,880
Speaker 1: block and delay many investigations and civil lawsuits that have

18
00:01:09,959 --> 00:01:13,560
Speaker 1: been filed against them, essentially arguing that as president of

19
00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:17,119
Speaker 1: the United States, he is too busy to deal with

20
00:01:17,240 --> 00:01:22,000
Speaker 1: heavial cases, sit for depositions for example, produced documents, and

21
00:01:22,240 --> 00:01:26,160
Speaker 1: that under the laws, he is immune from prosecution for

22
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 1: federal criminal cases while he is the sitting president of

23
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:34,760
Speaker 1: the United States. Let's turn now to possible federal criminal

24
00:01:34,880 --> 00:01:40,959
Speaker 1: charges after he leaves office. Smaller report detailed several episodes

25
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:44,600
Speaker 1: in which Trump may have obstructed justice, but didn't recommend

26
00:01:44,600 --> 00:01:48,920
Speaker 1: criminal charges, citing the official Justice Department position that a

27
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:52,360
Speaker 1: sitting president CAMPI indited. Is it possible that after he

28
00:01:52,440 --> 00:01:58,040
Speaker 1: leaves office, Trump could face obstruction of justice charges? Yes,

29
00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:02,000
Speaker 1: in every regard. The fact that the president leaves office

30
00:02:02,160 --> 00:02:05,680
Speaker 1: makes it easier for prosecutors and frankly plaintiffs and civil

31
00:02:05,720 --> 00:02:09,440
Speaker 1: cases as well to pursue their cases against him. As

32
00:02:09,440 --> 00:02:12,400
Speaker 1: far as the obstruction of justice case that was laid

33
00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:15,919
Speaker 1: out by the Mueller report, you're absolutely correct that Mr

34
00:02:16,040 --> 00:02:20,320
Speaker 1: Mueller ultimately stopped short of making you finding as to

35
00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 1: whether or not there was obstruction of justice, citing the

36
00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:27,840
Speaker 1: Department of Justice is internal memorandum which says that the

37
00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:31,680
Speaker 1: Department of Justice cannot indict a sitting president. So what

38
00:02:31,919 --> 00:02:35,560
Speaker 1: Mr Mueller did was, rather than render an opinion as

39
00:02:35,600 --> 00:02:38,200
Speaker 1: to whether or not there was a violation here, he

40
00:02:38,320 --> 00:02:42,080
Speaker 1: simply laid out the facts and left them hanging out

41
00:02:42,080 --> 00:02:45,200
Speaker 1: there for others to decide whether there was an obstruction case.

42
00:02:45,919 --> 00:02:49,560
Speaker 1: Assuming the president is no longer in office, then those

43
00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:54,240
Speaker 1: cases could theoretically go forward. A Biden Department of Justice

44
00:02:54,280 --> 00:02:58,760
Speaker 1: would not be barred from pursuing the roadmap that Mr

45
00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:02,120
Speaker 1: Mueller laid out in his port as to potential obstruction

46
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:05,600
Speaker 1: of justice charges if they chose to pursue them. So

47
00:03:05,639 --> 00:03:09,960
Speaker 1: that would be a political question really about whether Biden

48
00:03:10,120 --> 00:03:13,360
Speaker 1: Justice Department would want to bring criminal charges against a

49
00:03:13,360 --> 00:03:16,960
Speaker 1: former president. I think that if the case were to

50
00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:21,520
Speaker 1: be revived by the Department of Justice under a President Biden,

51
00:03:21,600 --> 00:03:24,640
Speaker 1: they would have to be further investigation. In other words,

52
00:03:24,680 --> 00:03:27,520
Speaker 1: they would not simply rely on the work that was

53
00:03:27,560 --> 00:03:31,840
Speaker 1: done solely by Muller and his investigators. There would be

54
00:03:31,880 --> 00:03:35,240
Speaker 1: a new investigation. There would be a new grand jury

55
00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:39,240
Speaker 1: that was impaneled in order to gather more evidence. But

56
00:03:39,400 --> 00:03:43,240
Speaker 1: that would be an absolute political bombshell. The idea of

57
00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:47,280
Speaker 1: the Justice Department pursuing a criminal case against a former

58
00:03:47,320 --> 00:03:50,880
Speaker 1: president is obviously something that has never been contemplated before

59
00:03:51,240 --> 00:03:54,320
Speaker 1: in the history of this country and would be something

60
00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:57,760
Speaker 1: that would be extremely divisive. I think that the Department

61
00:03:57,800 --> 00:04:01,600
Speaker 1: of Justice would consider very carefully before they decided to

62
00:04:01,600 --> 00:04:05,880
Speaker 1: go down that road. Trump's longtime personal lawyer and fixer,

63
00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:08,520
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen, was sentenced to more than three years in

64
00:04:08,600 --> 00:04:13,280
Speaker 1: prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations. Cohen said Trump,

65
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:17,160
Speaker 1: who was identified in case filings as Individual Number one,

66
00:04:17,720 --> 00:04:22,440
Speaker 1: directed the hush money payment just before the election. Federal

67
00:04:22,480 --> 00:04:26,719
Speaker 1: prosecutors obviously never charged Trump, could or would the Justice

68
00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:29,800
Speaker 1: Department bring that case now? He answered, that question is

69
00:04:29,839 --> 00:04:32,719
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice could take another look at that case.

70
00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:37,359
Speaker 1: They did charge Michael Cohen with campaign finance violations in

71
00:04:37,440 --> 00:04:40,240
Speaker 1: connection with hush money payments that led up to the

72
00:04:40,640 --> 00:04:44,800
Speaker 1: seen election. There was a reference in those case filings

73
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:49,320
Speaker 1: as individual number one, which was later purportedly a reference

74
00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:54,160
Speaker 1: to the President. There was also a non prosecution agreement

75
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:58,279
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice entered into with the National Enquirer,

76
00:04:58,720 --> 00:05:01,560
Speaker 1: and where in the National enquire Are admitted working with

77
00:05:01,960 --> 00:05:05,880
Speaker 1: Michael Cone and the Trump campaign to kill certain damaging

78
00:05:05,960 --> 00:05:10,200
Speaker 1: stories about candidate Trump. Whether Department of Justice would then

79
00:05:10,240 --> 00:05:12,919
Speaker 1: take that case up is very much an open question.

80
00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:15,839
Speaker 1: Part of the problem there is that one of the

81
00:05:15,920 --> 00:05:19,320
Speaker 1: key witnesses in that case would obviously be Michael Cone,

82
00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:22,039
Speaker 1: and there's a question there whether Michael Cone would be

83
00:05:22,040 --> 00:05:25,440
Speaker 1: a sufficiently credible witness to build a case around. They

84
00:05:25,440 --> 00:05:27,640
Speaker 1: would really have to be additional evidence for them to

85
00:05:27,640 --> 00:05:29,599
Speaker 1: take a look at that. And then that still goes

86
00:05:29,640 --> 00:05:32,560
Speaker 1: back to the question about whether the Department of Justice

87
00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:35,320
Speaker 1: would want to pick up a case to prosecute a

88
00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:40,000
Speaker 1: former president, something that would again be considered highly controversial

89
00:05:40,040 --> 00:05:42,400
Speaker 1: and a real political bombshell where they could go down

90
00:05:42,440 --> 00:05:46,400
Speaker 1: that road. The New York Times didn't investigative report on

91
00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:51,400
Speaker 1: Trump's taxes that reveal many questionable deductions as well as

92
00:05:51,480 --> 00:05:56,240
Speaker 1: other problems. Are criminal charges for tax fraud possible by

93
00:05:56,480 --> 00:06:00,160
Speaker 1: the I R s. There's a lot of information, then

94
00:06:00,160 --> 00:06:02,400
Speaker 1: a lot of news that's been out there regarding the

95
00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:05,479
Speaker 1: president tax returns, which of course i've never been made public.

96
00:06:05,800 --> 00:06:09,839
Speaker 1: The New York Times did reveal, according to their sources,

97
00:06:09,880 --> 00:06:12,720
Speaker 1: that the president paid only seven dred and fifty dollars

98
00:06:12,760 --> 00:06:16,200
Speaker 1: in income taxes in sixteen, for example. But there's a

99
00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:20,040
Speaker 1: real question here about whether these tax returns would ultimately

100
00:06:20,320 --> 00:06:24,320
Speaker 1: be the subject of a federal criminal tax investigation. These

101
00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:27,919
Speaker 1: are difficult cases to make. Prosecutors have to show that

102
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:31,800
Speaker 1: an individual deliberately set out to defraud the government, there

103
00:06:31,839 --> 00:06:35,480
Speaker 1: has to be some concrete proof in files or emails,

104
00:06:35,480 --> 00:06:38,839
Speaker 1: for example, or statements made by witnesses that there is

105
00:06:38,880 --> 00:06:42,320
Speaker 1: a conscious effort to defraud the I R s. And

106
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 1: in this case, as in many cases involving high level

107
00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:50,440
Speaker 1: executives or high network individuals, there are always lawyers and

108
00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:55,200
Speaker 1: accountants who are involved in many layers of these transactions

109
00:06:55,279 --> 00:06:57,760
Speaker 1: and in the preparation of these tax returns, which tend

110
00:06:57,800 --> 00:07:02,320
Speaker 1: to insulate an individual from criminal tax liability. So at

111
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:04,679
Speaker 1: the end of the day, these would be difficult charges

112
00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:07,600
Speaker 1: to make in a criminal context. That's not to say

113
00:07:07,600 --> 00:07:10,480
Speaker 1: that the I R S might not review these tax

114
00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:13,600
Speaker 1: returns and ultimately have some kind of a civil claim

115
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:16,520
Speaker 1: against the president for taxes that the I R S

116
00:07:16,640 --> 00:07:20,040
Speaker 1: may claim our owed having to do with certain deductions

117
00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:22,520
Speaker 1: that were taken in previous years. But it's unlikely that

118
00:07:22,560 --> 00:07:26,920
Speaker 1: there would be a federal criminal prosecution that ultimately emerges

119
00:07:27,280 --> 00:07:31,040
Speaker 1: based upon the president's tax returns. The Manhattan d A

120
00:07:31,160 --> 00:07:34,680
Speaker 1: has been investigating Trump, and Trump fought the subpoenas for

121
00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 1: financial records all the way to the Supreme Court. Let's

122
00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:42,480
Speaker 1: take the question of Trump pardoning himself. A president pardoning himself,

123
00:07:43,080 --> 00:07:46,360
Speaker 1: so Trump could pardon himself in federal cases, but not

124
00:07:46,480 --> 00:07:50,920
Speaker 1: in a state case. So the president has broad power

125
00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:54,840
Speaker 1: to pardon individuals from seaederal crime. And that came up

126
00:07:54,920 --> 00:07:58,520
Speaker 1: very much in the context of the prosecution of Paul Manafort,

127
00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:02,520
Speaker 1: for example, the president its former campaign manager, and others

128
00:08:02,520 --> 00:08:07,520
Speaker 1: who were prosecuted for crimes in connection with the President's

129
00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:10,720
Speaker 1: campaign or in many cases in unrelated issues, and there

130
00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:13,679
Speaker 1: was always this question about whether the President might pardon

131
00:08:14,360 --> 00:08:18,560
Speaker 1: Paul Mattafford, Michael Flynn, and others. Uh, that does not

132
00:08:18,720 --> 00:08:23,560
Speaker 1: apply to potential state prosecutions. Under the law, states are

133
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:27,880
Speaker 1: a separate, separate sovereign, which means that they are not

134
00:08:28,080 --> 00:08:30,880
Speaker 1: able to be pardoned by the president. So that has

135
00:08:30,920 --> 00:08:35,000
Speaker 1: given the Manhattan Deer, the New York Attorney General, and

136
00:08:35,080 --> 00:08:40,040
Speaker 1: other state ages the ability to continue to pursue investigations,

137
00:08:40,080 --> 00:08:43,000
Speaker 1: and ultimately the president is not in a position to

138
00:08:43,120 --> 00:08:47,800
Speaker 1: pardon individuals in connection with those investigations and not able

139
00:08:47,840 --> 00:08:51,560
Speaker 1: to pardon himself in connection with any potential state crimes.

140
00:08:52,400 --> 00:08:56,080
Speaker 1: Now you mentioned the New York Attorney General, she is

141
00:08:56,200 --> 00:09:00,520
Speaker 1: investigate whether the Trump family's real estate company falsely reported

142
00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:04,680
Speaker 1: property values to secure loans or tax benefits. That's a

143
00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:09,480
Speaker 1: civil case. Could that become a criminal case? Well, right now,

144
00:09:09,480 --> 00:09:13,679
Speaker 1: the Attorney's General's investigation is a civil matter. It could

145
00:09:13,760 --> 00:09:18,000
Speaker 1: possibly become a criminal case. But my guess is that

146
00:09:18,000 --> 00:09:21,600
Speaker 1: that will stay a civil investigation and we'll have to

147
00:09:21,600 --> 00:09:24,520
Speaker 1: wait and see whether anything developed out of that and

148
00:09:24,679 --> 00:09:29,079
Speaker 1: the emolument suits. There are congressional Democrats to Democratic attorneys

149
00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:33,560
Speaker 1: general in a watchdog group brought three lawsuits accusing Trump

150
00:09:33,600 --> 00:09:37,880
Speaker 1: of violating the U s. Constitutions and Monuments Clause, and

151
00:09:37,920 --> 00:09:40,640
Speaker 1: it's something that no court has ever ruled on before.

152
00:09:40,679 --> 00:09:44,400
Speaker 1: Are those suits likely to be dropped? Yeah. The allegations

153
00:09:44,440 --> 00:09:48,760
Speaker 1: involving the emolument cases really have to do with the

154
00:09:48,920 --> 00:09:52,360
Speaker 1: charge that President Trump has used his office of the

155
00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:57,320
Speaker 1: President for personal profit, and they focused on specifically that

156
00:09:57,440 --> 00:10:02,079
Speaker 1: the president received allegedly gifts or things of value from

157
00:10:02,160 --> 00:10:07,000
Speaker 1: foreign governments by accepting money that representatives from Saudi Arabia

158
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:10,800
Speaker 1: or other countries have spent at the Trump Hotel in Washington.

159
00:10:11,120 --> 00:10:16,320
Speaker 1: In particular, those cases will essentially go away if the

160
00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:19,400
Speaker 1: president is no longer in office. At this point, the

161
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:21,719
Speaker 1: president has been able to deflect those cases and in

162
00:10:21,720 --> 00:10:24,240
Speaker 1: one case had one of them dismissed. One of them

163
00:10:24,240 --> 00:10:27,920
Speaker 1: cases brought by congressional Democrats. But the goal of the

164
00:10:28,040 --> 00:10:31,360
Speaker 1: Monument's cases was always to force the president to fully

165
00:10:31,440 --> 00:10:35,040
Speaker 1: divest themselves from his business while in office. The idea

166
00:10:35,120 --> 00:10:37,559
Speaker 1: behind that is that you don't want a situation where

167
00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:41,120
Speaker 1: a president may be making decisions for personal gain rather

168
00:10:41,200 --> 00:10:43,640
Speaker 1: than in the interests of the country. That will no

169
00:10:43,720 --> 00:10:46,840
Speaker 1: longer be a relevant concern if the president is no

170
00:10:46,920 --> 00:10:50,600
Speaker 1: longer in office, and violations of the Monuments clauses do

171
00:10:50,720 --> 00:10:55,600
Speaker 1: not carry any financial penalty, so the remedy would really

172
00:10:55,840 --> 00:10:59,079
Speaker 1: be already resolved there. If the president is no longer

173
00:10:59,080 --> 00:11:02,240
Speaker 1: in office, then he's no longer allegedly being a position

174
00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:06,000
Speaker 1: to benefit himself personally on those cases will simply go away.

175
00:11:06,360 --> 00:11:09,640
Speaker 1: If the president is no longer president of the United States,

176
00:11:09,679 --> 00:11:13,199
Speaker 1: so would the same applied to Democrats trying to get

177
00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:17,000
Speaker 1: ahold of Trump's financial records. Once he's out of office.

178
00:11:17,600 --> 00:11:20,120
Speaker 1: That would be a done deal. As too many of

179
00:11:20,160 --> 00:11:23,600
Speaker 1: these investigations and many of these civil cases, the president

180
00:11:23,640 --> 00:11:25,960
Speaker 1: has relied on the fact that he is the president

181
00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:29,560
Speaker 1: United States and that can respond to these cases would

182
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:33,760
Speaker 1: interfere with his duties as president. That argument obviously goes

183
00:11:33,800 --> 00:11:36,680
Speaker 1: away when he's still longer president United States, and he

184
00:11:36,720 --> 00:11:39,840
Speaker 1: would then be treated more or less as any average

185
00:11:39,840 --> 00:11:42,600
Speaker 1: citizen of this country would be in terms of being

186
00:11:42,640 --> 00:11:45,960
Speaker 1: potentially forced to sit for deposition, to have to respond

187
00:11:46,040 --> 00:11:50,240
Speaker 1: to document requests and provide other information. In connection with

188
00:11:50,240 --> 00:11:54,960
Speaker 1: civil cases, President Trump has several civil lawsuits penning against him.

189
00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:58,320
Speaker 1: There's a multi level marketing fraud suit where Trump and

190
00:11:58,400 --> 00:12:01,000
Speaker 1: three of his children were sued for fraud in twenty

191
00:12:01,120 --> 00:12:04,959
Speaker 1: eighteen over their endorsement on Celebrity Apprentice of a c

192
00:12:05,160 --> 00:12:09,920
Speaker 1: N Opportunity LLC, a troubled multi level marketing company that

193
00:12:10,040 --> 00:12:14,040
Speaker 1: later went bust. There's also Mary Trump's frauds suit against

194
00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:17,280
Speaker 1: the President. The President's needs last months suited him for

195
00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:20,400
Speaker 1: conspiring with his brother and sister to defraud her of

196
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:24,599
Speaker 1: millions of dollars from her grandfather's estate using false documents

197
00:12:24,640 --> 00:12:29,679
Speaker 1: and bogus loans. There are two defamation cases. Summer Zervo's,

198
00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:33,120
Speaker 1: a former contestant on The Apprentice, issued a statement a

199
00:12:33,120 --> 00:12:36,760
Speaker 1: few weeks before the sixteen elections saying Trump groped and

200
00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:39,680
Speaker 1: kissed her a hotel room in two thousand seven, he

201
00:12:39,760 --> 00:12:43,000
Speaker 1: denied the assault and called Zervo's a liar, leading her

202
00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:47,520
Speaker 1: to sue him for defamation. In a really interesting case

203
00:12:47,679 --> 00:12:50,680
Speaker 1: because of the tact that the Justice Department has taken

204
00:12:51,200 --> 00:12:55,400
Speaker 1: is Ee Gene Carol's defamation suit against Trump. Last month,

205
00:12:55,600 --> 00:12:58,960
Speaker 1: the Justice Department tried to step in tell us what

206
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:03,880
Speaker 1: happened there. That case had to do with an allegation

207
00:13:04,200 --> 00:13:07,240
Speaker 1: from a New York advice columnists who claimed that President

208
00:13:07,280 --> 00:13:10,160
Speaker 1: Trump had raped her in the Department Address Department Store

209
00:13:10,160 --> 00:13:14,520
Speaker 1: address room two decades ago. In response to that allegation,

210
00:13:14,960 --> 00:13:18,120
Speaker 1: the President called her, among other things, a liar and

211
00:13:18,200 --> 00:13:21,080
Speaker 1: said that she had not been telling the truth when

212
00:13:21,120 --> 00:13:24,360
Speaker 1: she made those allegations against him that he had raped

213
00:13:24,400 --> 00:13:28,079
Speaker 1: her two decades ago. What was interesting about that case

214
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:31,360
Speaker 1: is that the Department of Justice actually stepped in to

215
00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:33,920
Speaker 1: try to take over the defense of the president in

216
00:13:33,920 --> 00:13:36,320
Speaker 1: that case. The first thing they did was to remove

217
00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:39,320
Speaker 1: the case from state court to federal court, and then

218
00:13:39,360 --> 00:13:43,400
Speaker 1: they tried to take over the president's defense, saying essentially

219
00:13:43,640 --> 00:13:47,319
Speaker 1: that the president was acting in his official capacity when

220
00:13:47,360 --> 00:13:51,320
Speaker 1: he was denying those rape allegations. The Department Justice invoked

221
00:13:51,320 --> 00:13:54,559
Speaker 1: something called the Federal Toward Claims Act, which is a

222
00:13:54,800 --> 00:13:58,760
Speaker 1: statute that says that when a government official is acting

223
00:13:58,920 --> 00:14:02,320
Speaker 1: officially in their pacity um and in whatever role they

224
00:14:02,360 --> 00:14:06,360
Speaker 1: have as a government official, that the Department Justice can

225
00:14:06,520 --> 00:14:11,280
Speaker 1: defend them. And most importantly in a defamation case. Uh,

226
00:14:11,320 --> 00:14:14,960
Speaker 1: if there is a charge that a government official to

227
00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:17,720
Speaker 1: fame somebody, and if it was done in their official capacity,

228
00:14:17,960 --> 00:14:20,720
Speaker 1: then that case essentially gets dismissed because the United States

229
00:14:20,760 --> 00:14:24,200
Speaker 1: can't be held responsible for intentional toward claims under the

230
00:14:24,240 --> 00:14:27,560
Speaker 1: Federal Toward Claims Act. So we're the judge to grant

231
00:14:27,600 --> 00:14:31,440
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice's motion and agree that when the

232
00:14:31,480 --> 00:14:35,520
Speaker 1: President denied those allegations that was done in his official capacity,

233
00:14:35,880 --> 00:14:38,800
Speaker 1: then the case would essentially have been dismissed instead of

234
00:14:38,800 --> 00:14:41,880
Speaker 1: what happened is that Judge Kaplan, who handled the case,

235
00:14:42,160 --> 00:14:46,200
Speaker 1: denied the Department of Justice requests and held that the

236
00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:49,920
Speaker 1: Federal Toward Claims Act cannot be read as expensively as

237
00:14:49,920 --> 00:14:52,400
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice was asking the court to do.

238
00:14:52,560 --> 00:14:55,760
Speaker 1: Here and essanctually said that the President is not a

239
00:14:55,840 --> 00:14:59,520
Speaker 1: quote unquote employee of the federal government for purposes of

240
00:14:59,560 --> 00:15:02,960
Speaker 1: the federal for its claim tact when he denied those allegations.

241
00:15:02,960 --> 00:15:05,360
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, Bob. That's

242
00:15:05,400 --> 00:15:10,400
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner mcarter in English.

243
00:15:10,800 --> 00:15:13,360
Speaker 1: Gallaine Maxwell is being held in a Brooklyn, New York

244
00:15:13,480 --> 00:15:16,600
Speaker 1: jail while she awaits trial next year on charges she

245
00:15:16,760 --> 00:15:20,600
Speaker 1: traffic girls as young as fourteen for her former boyfriend

246
00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:24,280
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell's testimony a civil lawsuit by one of

247
00:15:24,280 --> 00:15:27,360
Speaker 1: her accusers was made public last week, joining me as

248
00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:31,480
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado tell us about the deposition,

249
00:15:31,520 --> 00:15:36,720
Speaker 1: pat Well, this comes from a lawsuit that started after

250
00:15:37,200 --> 00:15:42,680
Speaker 1: Maxwell declared Virginia Drew Frey a liar. Virginia had given

251
00:15:42,880 --> 00:15:46,880
Speaker 1: um interviews and come out and declared that she had

252
00:15:46,920 --> 00:15:50,560
Speaker 1: been sex trafficed as a sex slave for Epstein and

253
00:15:50,600 --> 00:15:55,200
Speaker 1: that Maxwell had been her recruiter. So um, Maxwell hires

254
00:15:55,200 --> 00:15:58,240
Speaker 1: a PR agency and declares her outright, you know, as

255
00:15:58,240 --> 00:16:01,400
Speaker 1: a liar, and then Drew I filed a lawsuit in

256
00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:06,240
Speaker 1: as a result of that, those statements issued the defamation

257
00:16:06,320 --> 00:16:09,240
Speaker 1: lawsuit that was filed in New York, and as a

258
00:16:09,280 --> 00:16:11,960
Speaker 1: result of that, that's how we get a deposition that

259
00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:16,880
Speaker 1: in April sixteen, the Lane Maxwell sat for a deposition

260
00:16:17,280 --> 00:16:21,280
Speaker 1: at the Boy Schiller offices and she was questioned for

261
00:16:21,320 --> 00:16:27,880
Speaker 1: several hours about what her role was with Epstein. You know,

262
00:16:28,080 --> 00:16:31,200
Speaker 1: how did she know him? What were her duties? Did

263
00:16:31,240 --> 00:16:34,400
Speaker 1: she ever have any sexual encounters with underage girls or

264
00:16:34,400 --> 00:16:37,640
Speaker 1: witnessed anything like that? She didn't. Said that she worked

265
00:16:37,680 --> 00:16:40,800
Speaker 1: for him. She was basically an aide de camp of

266
00:16:41,000 --> 00:16:45,920
Speaker 1: arranging his household, hiring staffers. But she she says that

267
00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:51,440
Speaker 1: she not engaged in any illegal activity if it was consensual.

268
00:16:51,480 --> 00:16:56,080
Speaker 1: There was consensual adult activity, but nothing nothing illegal. She

269
00:16:56,240 --> 00:17:00,200
Speaker 1: was Epstein's girlfriend, wasn't she at some point? Yes, she

270
00:17:00,320 --> 00:17:03,280
Speaker 1: was at Epstein's girlfriend from from a period of time,

271
00:17:03,480 --> 00:17:07,119
Speaker 1: and she they remained to be friends, so uh. And

272
00:17:07,760 --> 00:17:10,679
Speaker 1: she was employed by him, so she said. And he

273
00:17:10,680 --> 00:17:15,679
Speaker 1: helped her buy a townhouse, so um. They remained close associates.

274
00:17:16,000 --> 00:17:19,520
Speaker 1: And she doesn't admit to anything illegal. And in fact,

275
00:17:19,720 --> 00:17:22,960
Speaker 1: she is pretty imperious in her answers. Um, there's a

276
00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:26,120
Speaker 1: lot of refusals, and at one point she got so

277
00:17:26,160 --> 00:17:29,920
Speaker 1: angry she slammed her hand on the table. At one point.

278
00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:33,600
Speaker 1: According to a letter that grew phrase, lawyers put in

279
00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:37,200
Speaker 1: and said that she had knocked the slamming of the table,

280
00:17:37,280 --> 00:17:41,680
Speaker 1: had knocked the court reporters computer off the table. There's

281
00:17:41,720 --> 00:17:46,360
Speaker 1: been a lot of speculation about President Clinton. What did

282
00:17:46,480 --> 00:17:50,119
Speaker 1: she say about President Clinton. There's lots of rejections, but

283
00:17:50,240 --> 00:17:52,879
Speaker 1: one name that does show up is President Bill Clinton.

284
00:17:53,280 --> 00:17:55,439
Speaker 1: She was asked about if she'd ever phone on a

285
00:17:55,480 --> 00:18:00,280
Speaker 1: plane with him, and uh, she said she didn't. Eyed

286
00:18:00,359 --> 00:18:03,600
Speaker 1: an account by grew Frey that she Clinton never visited

287
00:18:03,640 --> 00:18:07,320
Speaker 1: Epstein to private Aisland and the Caribbeans. So she takes

288
00:18:07,359 --> 00:18:13,200
Speaker 1: every opportunity to slam grew Frey, saying Virginia is absolutely

289
00:18:13,240 --> 00:18:19,080
Speaker 1: totally lying and basically the cries and denies every allegation

290
00:18:19,160 --> 00:18:21,720
Speaker 1: that grew free mates and gew Fray did tell a

291
00:18:21,840 --> 00:18:26,199
Speaker 1: story several stories their accounts that were given. Um. She

292
00:18:26,320 --> 00:18:33,440
Speaker 1: says that Maxwell piloted uh private helicopter and flew Clinton

293
00:18:33,760 --> 00:18:36,919
Speaker 1: at one point, Maxwell says she does have a private

294
00:18:36,960 --> 00:18:40,639
Speaker 1: pilot's license, but she never flew Clinton. So it's a

295
00:18:40,720 --> 00:18:43,600
Speaker 1: kind of thing where there's these details that are pretty

296
00:18:43,600 --> 00:18:46,720
Speaker 1: extravagant if you think about the high flying life literally

297
00:18:46,880 --> 00:18:51,080
Speaker 1: of Jeffrey Epstein. Um, but a lot of these things

298
00:18:51,160 --> 00:18:55,760
Speaker 1: are very seeny and gritty, details about was gew Frey

299
00:18:56,000 --> 00:18:59,520
Speaker 1: victimized by Epstein and Maxwell? Let me ask you this one,

300
00:18:59,640 --> 00:19:03,439
Speaker 1: was has it in Clinton's name not redacted? When Prince

301
00:19:03,480 --> 00:19:07,520
Speaker 1: Andrew's name was redacted, wasn't it? Yeah? There's so there's

302
00:19:07,520 --> 00:19:10,520
Speaker 1: an account that Giuffrey tells, and I think by now

303
00:19:10,520 --> 00:19:14,240
Speaker 1: many people have seen. She wrote a first person story

304
00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:18,080
Speaker 1: about her life and gave interviews and that Shannon encounter

305
00:19:18,200 --> 00:19:21,320
Speaker 1: with Prince Andrew, who is a friend of Galenn Maxwell

306
00:19:21,720 --> 00:19:24,400
Speaker 1: when she was seventeen, And there's even a photo now

307
00:19:24,440 --> 00:19:27,680
Speaker 1: that's famous where Prince Andrew has her his arm around

308
00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:31,159
Speaker 1: her waist and they're in Maxwell's townhouse. So in the

309
00:19:31,240 --> 00:19:36,800
Speaker 1: transcripts you actually see references to Blank and London town

310
00:19:36,840 --> 00:19:40,080
Speaker 1: house and did you know how long have you known Blank?

311
00:19:40,280 --> 00:19:42,920
Speaker 1: And so those redactions appear to line up with the

312
00:19:43,000 --> 00:19:48,320
Speaker 1: story we know allegedly about her encounters with Prince Andrew,

313
00:19:48,680 --> 00:19:53,600
Speaker 1: including a second encounter in New Mexico. Why Clinton's name

314
00:19:53,840 --> 00:19:57,560
Speaker 1: is not redacted, it's unclear whether that was just clumsiness

315
00:19:58,040 --> 00:20:02,280
Speaker 1: or you know, it's there's nothing untoward about it. So

316
00:20:02,560 --> 00:20:04,840
Speaker 1: when did you see him? No, I didn't see him.

317
00:20:04,880 --> 00:20:06,879
Speaker 1: Did you ever see him on a plane yet? Is

318
00:20:06,960 --> 00:20:10,439
Speaker 1: she denied everything. Why did her attorneys fight so hard

319
00:20:10,720 --> 00:20:14,600
Speaker 1: to keep this deposition from being, you know, revealed to

320
00:20:14,640 --> 00:20:19,760
Speaker 1: the press. That's a great question. It's unclear why she

321
00:20:19,760 --> 00:20:24,320
Speaker 1: would have fought so hard. I guess they're concerned that

322
00:20:25,400 --> 00:20:30,640
Speaker 1: Mr and Mrs Westchester County couples, who people who show

323
00:20:30,720 --> 00:20:32,959
Speaker 1: up on put for jury duty on the day her

324
00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:36,359
Speaker 1: trial is supposed to start, and start hearing that this

325
00:20:36,560 --> 00:20:40,240
Speaker 1: is a woman who's already accused of something pretty unseemly, right,

326
00:20:40,359 --> 00:20:44,960
Speaker 1: sex trafficking girls as young as fourteen decades ago and

327
00:20:45,080 --> 00:20:49,320
Speaker 1: providing them, you know, and snaring them for Epstein. That's

328
00:20:49,400 --> 00:20:53,920
Speaker 1: already unseemly. You know whether or not this testimony couldn't

329
00:20:53,960 --> 00:20:56,560
Speaker 1: be used. But I guess the worry for her was

330
00:20:56,800 --> 00:21:01,560
Speaker 1: anyone who might read this might feel it's such a

331
00:21:01,760 --> 00:21:05,240
Speaker 1: toxic subject. It would paint her in people's eyes as

332
00:21:05,280 --> 00:21:10,480
Speaker 1: being completely innocent of any wrongdoing. So she's accused by

333
00:21:10,480 --> 00:21:14,520
Speaker 1: the prosecutors of lying, and it's in relation to this deposition.

334
00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:18,200
Speaker 1: Do you know which parts of the deposition they're accusing

335
00:21:18,200 --> 00:21:21,840
Speaker 1: her of lying in? Yes, it's when she's asked if

336
00:21:21,880 --> 00:21:25,640
Speaker 1: she ever witnessed Epstein in the company or in with

337
00:21:25,920 --> 00:21:30,960
Speaker 1: a underage minor girl and engaged any sexual activity, and

338
00:21:31,000 --> 00:21:34,959
Speaker 1: she said absolutely not. She also denies being present for

339
00:21:35,040 --> 00:21:37,359
Speaker 1: any of it. She said she never saw him with

340
00:21:37,480 --> 00:21:41,399
Speaker 1: underage girl. She answers the question when at one point

341
00:21:41,440 --> 00:21:44,760
Speaker 1: when she's asked, do you ever see any underage girls

342
00:21:44,840 --> 00:21:48,040
Speaker 1: at Epstein's island, which now we've heard from more than

343
00:21:48,080 --> 00:21:51,360
Speaker 1: two dozen accusers that you know, it was a haven

344
00:21:51,480 --> 00:21:54,800
Speaker 1: for Epstein to just run him up allegedly, but this

345
00:21:54,880 --> 00:21:58,440
Speaker 1: is according to multiple victims. Um She says she never

346
00:21:58,440 --> 00:22:00,919
Speaker 1: saw anything at all, and she's had many of my

347
00:22:01,920 --> 00:22:05,119
Speaker 1: friends have children, and it's sort of like an odd

348
00:22:05,160 --> 00:22:09,440
Speaker 1: answer that, you know, the apropos of nothing. So she

349
00:22:09,680 --> 00:22:13,600
Speaker 1: adamantly denies. She comes out kind of imperious and haughty

350
00:22:13,880 --> 00:22:17,119
Speaker 1: in her tone. Even the reading of the transcript so

351
00:22:17,200 --> 00:22:21,879
Speaker 1: the government used This was highly contested by Maxwell's lawyers.

352
00:22:21,960 --> 00:22:25,320
Speaker 1: They claimed the government got their hands improperly got their

353
00:22:25,359 --> 00:22:30,199
Speaker 1: hands on the sealed transcripts as and use them as

354
00:22:30,240 --> 00:22:34,000
Speaker 1: a basis to bring perjury charges. So the government says

355
00:22:34,119 --> 00:22:37,560
Speaker 1: Maxo lied on nine separate occasions, and it's a basis

356
00:22:37,600 --> 00:22:40,360
Speaker 1: for two perjury counts against her, saying she lied under

357
00:22:40,440 --> 00:22:44,000
Speaker 1: oath I don't know anything about this while i'mdoing I

358
00:22:44,080 --> 00:22:47,320
Speaker 1: never saw Epstein in the company of underage girls. I

359
00:22:47,440 --> 00:22:52,000
Speaker 1: never witnessed any abuse of these underage girls. And um,

360
00:22:52,040 --> 00:22:55,080
Speaker 1: they fought very hard to keep this from getting them sealed,

361
00:22:55,200 --> 00:22:58,320
Speaker 1: and they even went to the federal appeals court to

362
00:22:58,400 --> 00:23:01,960
Speaker 1: try to keep it under steal. And they also argued

363
00:23:02,160 --> 00:23:06,720
Speaker 1: that they had evidence the government had improperly accessed this information.

364
00:23:07,359 --> 00:23:10,760
Speaker 1: But the government does have access to federal grand jury subpoenas,

365
00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:13,239
Speaker 1: so there is a possibility they could have moved to

366
00:23:13,240 --> 00:23:18,040
Speaker 1: get the documents unsealed. And then they saw the testimony

367
00:23:18,320 --> 00:23:22,520
Speaker 1: and realized that, according to their witnesses, she's lying, so

368
00:23:22,600 --> 00:23:24,720
Speaker 1: that they hit her with two perjury counts for that.

369
00:23:25,000 --> 00:23:31,719
Speaker 1: There's another deposition transcript that hasn't been opened. Yeah, and

370
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:35,800
Speaker 1: it's unclear how long this one is. Um, this one

371
00:23:35,960 --> 00:23:39,439
Speaker 1: was allegedly four pages, when when it finally got to us,

372
00:23:39,480 --> 00:23:42,560
Speaker 1: it was about four hundred sixty pages, and it's from April.

373
00:23:42,960 --> 00:23:46,800
Speaker 1: And there's a later deposition that Maxwell's lawyer that grew phrase.

374
00:23:46,880 --> 00:23:51,040
Speaker 1: Lawyers argued, look judged she never answered the questions properly.

375
00:23:51,359 --> 00:23:54,359
Speaker 1: Here's what she told us. Here's why we think we

376
00:23:54,440 --> 00:23:56,879
Speaker 1: need to question her again, and they put like a

377
00:23:57,000 --> 00:24:00,280
Speaker 1: dossier together of why they what they will looking for,

378
00:24:00,520 --> 00:24:03,520
Speaker 1: and what their theory was and what was really interesting

379
00:24:03,600 --> 00:24:07,080
Speaker 1: in these documents. It almost looks like a roadmap the

380
00:24:07,240 --> 00:24:11,159
Speaker 1: government followed to build their case against Maxwell. You know,

381
00:24:11,320 --> 00:24:13,720
Speaker 1: their theory of the case was that she was part

382
00:24:13,760 --> 00:24:17,040
Speaker 1: of it. She recruited these girls, she brought them in,

383
00:24:17,760 --> 00:24:20,280
Speaker 1: and it was based on this lawsuit that sort of

384
00:24:20,320 --> 00:24:25,119
Speaker 1: triggered this renewed look at Maxwell after Epstein, you know,

385
00:24:25,160 --> 00:24:29,320
Speaker 1: play guilty in Florida to state charges and got to

386
00:24:29,359 --> 00:24:33,040
Speaker 1: do as time part time in jail in Florida. You know,

387
00:24:33,119 --> 00:24:37,080
Speaker 1: she had access to millions and millions of dollars. Can

388
00:24:37,160 --> 00:24:40,600
Speaker 1: you tell from this where she got her money? Now

389
00:24:40,800 --> 00:24:44,840
Speaker 1: it's totally unclear. I mean, her father allegedly was you know,

390
00:24:44,960 --> 00:24:51,159
Speaker 1: a newspaper baron, but died in under unusual circumstances and

391
00:24:51,240 --> 00:24:55,760
Speaker 1: a drowning, and it's unclear whether the family still had money.

392
00:24:55,920 --> 00:24:59,199
Speaker 1: She potentially has money from her parents, her family and

393
00:24:59,240 --> 00:25:02,560
Speaker 1: her father and the trust. But she bought a fifteen

394
00:25:02,600 --> 00:25:06,720
Speaker 1: million dollar townhouse in Manhattan on the Upper East Side,

395
00:25:07,080 --> 00:25:09,760
Speaker 1: very lovely, and you know where she got the money.

396
00:25:10,160 --> 00:25:13,640
Speaker 1: She says that Epstein helped her buy it. Where Epstein

397
00:25:13,680 --> 00:25:15,960
Speaker 1: got his money is also a question. So these are

398
00:25:15,960 --> 00:25:22,800
Speaker 1: all these very murky trans financial transactions that are unexplained.

399
00:25:23,000 --> 00:25:26,199
Speaker 1: Do we know what her defense is at trial? She's

400
00:25:26,440 --> 00:25:31,320
Speaker 1: um arguing that she's possibly a victim as well of Epstein,

401
00:25:32,040 --> 00:25:34,960
Speaker 1: that she came under his thrall right, now, what we

402
00:25:35,080 --> 00:25:41,119
Speaker 1: have seen is her lawyers fighting everything on civil fronts.

403
00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:45,520
Speaker 1: They're still fighting all the accusers, they're still going after them.

404
00:25:45,880 --> 00:25:49,920
Speaker 1: Most recently on Friday, they argued that the prosecutors had

405
00:25:49,960 --> 00:25:54,119
Speaker 1: built their case against her by basically relying on old

406
00:25:54,119 --> 00:25:57,919
Speaker 1: information against Epstein, and that they weren't being forthcoming and

407
00:25:57,960 --> 00:26:02,080
Speaker 1: providing her with the information she deserves to fight the case. Now.

408
00:26:02,119 --> 00:26:04,919
Speaker 1: Her trial is supposed to start next July, and the

409
00:26:05,000 --> 00:26:08,360
Speaker 1: government has been handing over tranches of evidence to her,

410
00:26:08,720 --> 00:26:11,840
Speaker 1: but they complained that they're not getting enough, and they

411
00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:14,639
Speaker 1: were going to the federal judge who's presiding over the

412
00:26:14,640 --> 00:26:18,280
Speaker 1: case to try to tweet the government into giving them more.

413
00:26:18,920 --> 00:26:22,760
Speaker 1: Thanks pat that's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, And that's

414
00:26:22,760 --> 00:26:25,080
Speaker 1: it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm

415
00:26:25,160 --> 00:26:27,480
Speaker 1: June Grosso. And this is Bloomberg