Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: President Trump has more at stake in this election than
Speaker 1: whether he remains in the White House. Being president has
Speaker 1: given Trump what is effectively immunity from federal criminal prosecutions
Speaker 1: and has allowed him to stall civil law suits against
Speaker 1: him and his business. When he leaves office, that equation changes.
Speaker 1: So could there be a United States v. Trump? Although
Speaker 1: any federal prosecution of Trump would be political dynamite, but
Speaker 1: New York v. Trump is a distinct possibility since there
Speaker 1: is an active investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney that
Speaker 1: could result in state criminal charges, and of course, there
Speaker 1: are several civil lawsuits that would likely move forward at
Speaker 1: a faster pace. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mints,
Speaker 1: a partner m Carter In English, Bob explain how the
Speaker 1: presidency has effectively given Trump a temporary shield against prosecutions
Speaker 1: and lawsuits. As president, President Trump has been able to
Speaker 1: block and delay many investigations and civil lawsuits that have
Speaker 1: been filed against them, essentially arguing that as president of
Speaker 1: the United States, he is too busy to deal with
Speaker 1: heavial cases, sit for depositions for example, produced documents, and
Speaker 1: that under the laws, he is immune from prosecution for
Speaker 1: federal criminal cases while he is the sitting president of
Speaker 1: the United States. Let's turn now to possible federal criminal
Speaker 1: charges after he leaves office. Smaller report detailed several episodes
Speaker 1: in which Trump may have obstructed justice, but didn't recommend
Speaker 1: criminal charges, citing the official Justice Department position that a
Speaker 1: sitting president CAMPI indited. Is it possible that after he
Speaker 1: leaves office, Trump could face obstruction of justice charges? Yes,
Speaker 1: in every regard. The fact that the president leaves office
Speaker 1: makes it easier for prosecutors and frankly plaintiffs and civil
Speaker 1: cases as well to pursue their cases against him. As
Speaker 1: far as the obstruction of justice case that was laid
Speaker 1: out by the Mueller report, you're absolutely correct that Mr
Speaker 1: Mueller ultimately stopped short of making you finding as to
Speaker 1: whether or not there was obstruction of justice, citing the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice is internal memorandum which says that the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice cannot indict a sitting president. So what
Speaker 1: Mr Mueller did was, rather than render an opinion as
Speaker 1: to whether or not there was a violation here, he
Speaker 1: simply laid out the facts and left them hanging out
Speaker 1: there for others to decide whether there was an obstruction case.
Speaker 1: Assuming the president is no longer in office, then those
Speaker 1: cases could theoretically go forward. A Biden Department of Justice
Speaker 1: would not be barred from pursuing the roadmap that Mr
Speaker 1: Mueller laid out in his port as to potential obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice charges if they chose to pursue them. So
Speaker 1: that would be a political question really about whether Biden
Speaker 1: Justice Department would want to bring criminal charges against a
Speaker 1: former president. I think that if the case were to
Speaker 1: be revived by the Department of Justice under a President Biden,
Speaker 1: they would have to be further investigation. In other words,
Speaker 1: they would not simply rely on the work that was
Speaker 1: done solely by Muller and his investigators. There would be
Speaker 1: a new investigation. There would be a new grand jury
Speaker 1: that was impaneled in order to gather more evidence. But
Speaker 1: that would be an absolute political bombshell. The idea of
Speaker 1: the Justice Department pursuing a criminal case against a former
Speaker 1: president is obviously something that has never been contemplated before
Speaker 1: in the history of this country and would be something
Speaker 1: that would be extremely divisive. I think that the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice would consider very carefully before they decided to
Speaker 1: go down that road. Trump's longtime personal lawyer and fixer,
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen, was sentenced to more than three years in
Speaker 1: prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations. Cohen said Trump,
Speaker 1: who was identified in case filings as Individual Number one,
Speaker 1: directed the hush money payment just before the election. Federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors obviously never charged Trump, could or would the Justice
Speaker 1: Department bring that case now? He answered, that question is
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice could take another look at that case.
Speaker 1: They did charge Michael Cohen with campaign finance violations in
Speaker 1: connection with hush money payments that led up to the
Speaker 1: seen election. There was a reference in those case filings
Speaker 1: as individual number one, which was later purportedly a reference
Speaker 1: to the President. There was also a non prosecution agreement
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice entered into with the National Enquirer,
Speaker 1: and where in the National enquire Are admitted working with
Speaker 1: Michael Cone and the Trump campaign to kill certain damaging
Speaker 1: stories about candidate Trump. Whether Department of Justice would then
Speaker 1: take that case up is very much an open question.
Speaker 1: Part of the problem there is that one of the
Speaker 1: key witnesses in that case would obviously be Michael Cone,
Speaker 1: and there's a question there whether Michael Cone would be
Speaker 1: a sufficiently credible witness to build a case around. They
Speaker 1: would really have to be additional evidence for them to
Speaker 1: take a look at that. And then that still goes
Speaker 1: back to the question about whether the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: would want to pick up a case to prosecute a
Speaker 1: former president, something that would again be considered highly controversial
Speaker 1: and a real political bombshell where they could go down
Speaker 1: that road. The New York Times didn't investigative report on
Speaker 1: Trump's taxes that reveal many questionable deductions as well as
Speaker 1: other problems. Are criminal charges for tax fraud possible by
Speaker 1: the I R s. There's a lot of information, then
Speaker 1: a lot of news that's been out there regarding the
Speaker 1: president tax returns, which of course i've never been made public.
Speaker 1: The New York Times did reveal, according to their sources,
Speaker 1: that the president paid only seven dred and fifty dollars
Speaker 1: in income taxes in sixteen, for example. But there's a
Speaker 1: real question here about whether these tax returns would ultimately
Speaker 1: be the subject of a federal criminal tax investigation. These
Speaker 1: are difficult cases to make. Prosecutors have to show that
Speaker 1: an individual deliberately set out to defraud the government, there
Speaker 1: has to be some concrete proof in files or emails,
Speaker 1: for example, or statements made by witnesses that there is
Speaker 1: a conscious effort to defraud the I R s. And
Speaker 1: in this case, as in many cases involving high level
Speaker 1: executives or high network individuals, there are always lawyers and
Speaker 1: accountants who are involved in many layers of these transactions
Speaker 1: and in the preparation of these tax returns, which tend
Speaker 1: to insulate an individual from criminal tax liability. So at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, these would be difficult charges
Speaker 1: to make in a criminal context. That's not to say
Speaker 1: that the I R S might not review these tax
Speaker 1: returns and ultimately have some kind of a civil claim
Speaker 1: against the president for taxes that the I R S
Speaker 1: may claim our owed having to do with certain deductions
Speaker 1: that were taken in previous years. But it's unlikely that
Speaker 1: there would be a federal criminal prosecution that ultimately emerges
Speaker 1: based upon the president's tax returns. The Manhattan d A
Speaker 1: has been investigating Trump, and Trump fought the subpoenas for
Speaker 1: financial records all the way to the Supreme Court. Let's
Speaker 1: take the question of Trump pardoning himself. A president pardoning himself,
Speaker 1: so Trump could pardon himself in federal cases, but not
Speaker 1: in a state case. So the president has broad power
Speaker 1: to pardon individuals from seaederal crime. And that came up
Speaker 1: very much in the context of the prosecution of Paul Manafort,
Speaker 1: for example, the president its former campaign manager, and others
Speaker 1: who were prosecuted for crimes in connection with the President's
Speaker 1: campaign or in many cases in unrelated issues, and there
Speaker 1: was always this question about whether the President might pardon
Speaker 1: Paul Mattafford, Michael Flynn, and others. Uh, that does not
Speaker 1: apply to potential state prosecutions. Under the law, states are
Speaker 1: a separate, separate sovereign, which means that they are not
Speaker 1: able to be pardoned by the president. So that has
Speaker 1: given the Manhattan Deer, the New York Attorney General, and
Speaker 1: other state ages the ability to continue to pursue investigations,
Speaker 1: and ultimately the president is not in a position to
Speaker 1: pardon individuals in connection with those investigations and not able
Speaker 1: to pardon himself in connection with any potential state crimes.
Speaker 1: Now you mentioned the New York Attorney General, she is
Speaker 1: investigate whether the Trump family's real estate company falsely reported
Speaker 1: property values to secure loans or tax benefits. That's a
Speaker 1: civil case. Could that become a criminal case? Well, right now,
Speaker 1: the Attorney's General's investigation is a civil matter. It could
Speaker 1: possibly become a criminal case. But my guess is that
Speaker 1: that will stay a civil investigation and we'll have to
Speaker 1: wait and see whether anything developed out of that and
Speaker 1: the emolument suits. There are congressional Democrats to Democratic attorneys
Speaker 1: general in a watchdog group brought three lawsuits accusing Trump
Speaker 1: of violating the U s. Constitutions and Monuments Clause, and
Speaker 1: it's something that no court has ever ruled on before.
Speaker 1: Are those suits likely to be dropped? Yeah. The allegations
Speaker 1: involving the emolument cases really have to do with the
Speaker 1: charge that President Trump has used his office of the
Speaker 1: President for personal profit, and they focused on specifically that
Speaker 1: the president received allegedly gifts or things of value from
Speaker 1: foreign governments by accepting money that representatives from Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: or other countries have spent at the Trump Hotel in Washington.
Speaker 1: In particular, those cases will essentially go away if the
Speaker 1: president is no longer in office. At this point, the
Speaker 1: president has been able to deflect those cases and in
Speaker 1: one case had one of them dismissed. One of them
Speaker 1: cases brought by congressional Democrats. But the goal of the
Speaker 1: Monument's cases was always to force the president to fully
Speaker 1: divest themselves from his business while in office. The idea
Speaker 1: behind that is that you don't want a situation where
Speaker 1: a president may be making decisions for personal gain rather
Speaker 1: than in the interests of the country. That will no
Speaker 1: longer be a relevant concern if the president is no
Speaker 1: longer in office, and violations of the Monuments clauses do
Speaker 1: not carry any financial penalty, so the remedy would really
Speaker 1: be already resolved there. If the president is no longer
Speaker 1: in office, then he's no longer allegedly being a position
Speaker 1: to benefit himself personally on those cases will simply go away.
Speaker 1: If the president is no longer president of the United States,
Speaker 1: so would the same applied to Democrats trying to get
Speaker 1: ahold of Trump's financial records. Once he's out of office.
Speaker 1: That would be a done deal. As too many of
Speaker 1: these investigations and many of these civil cases, the president
Speaker 1: has relied on the fact that he is the president
Speaker 1: United States and that can respond to these cases would
Speaker 1: interfere with his duties as president. That argument obviously goes
Speaker 1: away when he's still longer president United States, and he
Speaker 1: would then be treated more or less as any average
Speaker 1: citizen of this country would be in terms of being
Speaker 1: potentially forced to sit for deposition, to have to respond
Speaker 1: to document requests and provide other information. In connection with
Speaker 1: civil cases, President Trump has several civil lawsuits penning against him.
Speaker 1: There's a multi level marketing fraud suit where Trump and
Speaker 1: three of his children were sued for fraud in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen over their endorsement on Celebrity Apprentice of a c
Speaker 1: N Opportunity LLC, a troubled multi level marketing company that
Speaker 1: later went bust. There's also Mary Trump's frauds suit against
Speaker 1: the President. The President's needs last months suited him for
Speaker 1: conspiring with his brother and sister to defraud her of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars from her grandfather's estate using false documents
Speaker 1: and bogus loans. There are two defamation cases. Summer Zervo's,
Speaker 1: a former contestant on The Apprentice, issued a statement a
Speaker 1: few weeks before the sixteen elections saying Trump groped and
Speaker 1: kissed her a hotel room in two thousand seven, he
Speaker 1: denied the assault and called Zervo's a liar, leading her
Speaker 1: to sue him for defamation. In a really interesting case
Speaker 1: because of the tact that the Justice Department has taken
Speaker 1: is Ee Gene Carol's defamation suit against Trump. Last month,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department tried to step in tell us what
Speaker 1: happened there. That case had to do with an allegation
Speaker 1: from a New York advice columnists who claimed that President
Speaker 1: Trump had raped her in the Department Address Department Store
Speaker 1: address room two decades ago. In response to that allegation,
Speaker 1: the President called her, among other things, a liar and
Speaker 1: said that she had not been telling the truth when
Speaker 1: she made those allegations against him that he had raped
Speaker 1: her two decades ago. What was interesting about that case
Speaker 1: is that the Department of Justice actually stepped in to
Speaker 1: try to take over the defense of the president in
Speaker 1: that case. The first thing they did was to remove
Speaker 1: the case from state court to federal court, and then
Speaker 1: they tried to take over the president's defense, saying essentially
Speaker 1: that the president was acting in his official capacity when
Speaker 1: he was denying those rape allegations. The Department Justice invoked
Speaker 1: something called the Federal Toward Claims Act, which is a
Speaker 1: statute that says that when a government official is acting
Speaker 1: officially in their pacity um and in whatever role they
Speaker 1: have as a government official, that the Department Justice can
Speaker 1: defend them. And most importantly in a defamation case. Uh,
Speaker 1: if there is a charge that a government official to
Speaker 1: fame somebody, and if it was done in their official capacity,
Speaker 1: then that case essentially gets dismissed because the United States
Speaker 1: can't be held responsible for intentional toward claims under the
Speaker 1: Federal Toward Claims Act. So we're the judge to grant
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice's motion and agree that when the
Speaker 1: President denied those allegations that was done in his official capacity,
Speaker 1: then the case would essentially have been dismissed instead of
Speaker 1: what happened is that Judge Kaplan, who handled the case,
Speaker 1: denied the Department of Justice requests and held that the
Speaker 1: Federal Toward Claims Act cannot be read as expensively as
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice was asking the court to do.
Speaker 1: Here and essanctually said that the President is not a
Speaker 1: quote unquote employee of the federal government for purposes of
Speaker 1: the federal for its claim tact when he denied those allegations.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, Bob. That's
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner mcarter in English.
Speaker 1: Gallaine Maxwell is being held in a Brooklyn, New York
Speaker 1: jail while she awaits trial next year on charges she
Speaker 1: traffic girls as young as fourteen for her former boyfriend
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell's testimony a civil lawsuit by one of
Speaker 1: her accusers was made public last week, joining me as
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado tell us about the deposition,
Speaker 1: pat Well, this comes from a lawsuit that started after
Speaker 1: Maxwell declared Virginia Drew Frey a liar. Virginia had given
Speaker 1: um interviews and come out and declared that she had
Speaker 1: been sex trafficed as a sex slave for Epstein and
Speaker 1: that Maxwell had been her recruiter. So um, Maxwell hires
Speaker 1: a PR agency and declares her outright, you know, as
Speaker 1: a liar, and then Drew I filed a lawsuit in
Speaker 1: as a result of that, those statements issued the defamation
Speaker 1: lawsuit that was filed in New York, and as a
Speaker 1: result of that, that's how we get a deposition that
Speaker 1: in April sixteen, the Lane Maxwell sat for a deposition
Speaker 1: at the Boy Schiller offices and she was questioned for
Speaker 1: several hours about what her role was with Epstein. You know,
Speaker 1: how did she know him? What were her duties? Did
Speaker 1: she ever have any sexual encounters with underage girls or
Speaker 1: witnessed anything like that? She didn't. Said that she worked
Speaker 1: for him. She was basically an aide de camp of
Speaker 1: arranging his household, hiring staffers. But she she says that
Speaker 1: she not engaged in any illegal activity if it was consensual.
Speaker 1: There was consensual adult activity, but nothing nothing illegal. She
Speaker 1: was Epstein's girlfriend, wasn't she at some point? Yes, she
Speaker 1: was at Epstein's girlfriend from from a period of time,
Speaker 1: and she they remained to be friends, so uh. And
Speaker 1: she was employed by him, so she said. And he
Speaker 1: helped her buy a townhouse, so um. They remained close associates.
Speaker 1: And she doesn't admit to anything illegal. And in fact,
Speaker 1: she is pretty imperious in her answers. Um, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of refusals, and at one point she got so
Speaker 1: angry she slammed her hand on the table. At one point.
Speaker 1: According to a letter that grew phrase, lawyers put in
Speaker 1: and said that she had knocked the slamming of the table,
Speaker 1: had knocked the court reporters computer off the table. There's
Speaker 1: been a lot of speculation about President Clinton. What did
Speaker 1: she say about President Clinton. There's lots of rejections, but
Speaker 1: one name that does show up is President Bill Clinton.
Speaker 1: She was asked about if she'd ever phone on a
Speaker 1: plane with him, and uh, she said she didn't. Eyed
Speaker 1: an account by grew Frey that she Clinton never visited
Speaker 1: Epstein to private Aisland and the Caribbeans. So she takes
Speaker 1: every opportunity to slam grew Frey, saying Virginia is absolutely
Speaker 1: totally lying and basically the cries and denies every allegation
Speaker 1: that grew free mates and gew Fray did tell a
Speaker 1: story several stories their accounts that were given. Um. She
Speaker 1: says that Maxwell piloted uh private helicopter and flew Clinton
Speaker 1: at one point, Maxwell says she does have a private
Speaker 1: pilot's license, but she never flew Clinton. So it's a
Speaker 1: kind of thing where there's these details that are pretty
Speaker 1: extravagant if you think about the high flying life literally
Speaker 1: of Jeffrey Epstein. Um, but a lot of these things
Speaker 1: are very seeny and gritty, details about was gew Frey
Speaker 1: victimized by Epstein and Maxwell? Let me ask you this one,
Speaker 1: was has it in Clinton's name not redacted? When Prince
Speaker 1: Andrew's name was redacted, wasn't it? Yeah? There's so there's
Speaker 1: an account that Giuffrey tells, and I think by now
Speaker 1: many people have seen. She wrote a first person story
Speaker 1: about her life and gave interviews and that Shannon encounter
Speaker 1: with Prince Andrew, who is a friend of Galenn Maxwell
Speaker 1: when she was seventeen, And there's even a photo now
Speaker 1: that's famous where Prince Andrew has her his arm around
Speaker 1: her waist and they're in Maxwell's townhouse. So in the
Speaker 1: transcripts you actually see references to Blank and London town
Speaker 1: house and did you know how long have you known Blank?
Speaker 1: And so those redactions appear to line up with the
Speaker 1: story we know allegedly about her encounters with Prince Andrew,
Speaker 1: including a second encounter in New Mexico. Why Clinton's name
Speaker 1: is not redacted, it's unclear whether that was just clumsiness
Speaker 1: or you know, it's there's nothing untoward about it. So
Speaker 1: when did you see him? No, I didn't see him.
Speaker 1: Did you ever see him on a plane yet? Is
Speaker 1: she denied everything. Why did her attorneys fight so hard
Speaker 1: to keep this deposition from being, you know, revealed to
Speaker 1: the press. That's a great question. It's unclear why she
Speaker 1: would have fought so hard. I guess they're concerned that
Speaker 1: Mr and Mrs Westchester County couples, who people who show
Speaker 1: up on put for jury duty on the day her
Speaker 1: trial is supposed to start, and start hearing that this
Speaker 1: is a woman who's already accused of something pretty unseemly, right,
Speaker 1: sex trafficking girls as young as fourteen decades ago and
Speaker 1: providing them, you know, and snaring them for Epstein. That's
Speaker 1: already unseemly. You know whether or not this testimony couldn't
Speaker 1: be used. But I guess the worry for her was
Speaker 1: anyone who might read this might feel it's such a
Speaker 1: toxic subject. It would paint her in people's eyes as
Speaker 1: being completely innocent of any wrongdoing. So she's accused by
Speaker 1: the prosecutors of lying, and it's in relation to this deposition.
Speaker 1: Do you know which parts of the deposition they're accusing
Speaker 1: her of lying in? Yes, it's when she's asked if
Speaker 1: she ever witnessed Epstein in the company or in with
Speaker 1: a underage minor girl and engaged any sexual activity, and
Speaker 1: she said absolutely not. She also denies being present for
Speaker 1: any of it. She said she never saw him with
Speaker 1: underage girl. She answers the question when at one point
Speaker 1: when she's asked, do you ever see any underage girls
Speaker 1: at Epstein's island, which now we've heard from more than
Speaker 1: two dozen accusers that you know, it was a haven
Speaker 1: for Epstein to just run him up allegedly, but this
Speaker 1: is according to multiple victims. Um She says she never
Speaker 1: saw anything at all, and she's had many of my
Speaker 1: friends have children, and it's sort of like an odd
Speaker 1: answer that, you know, the apropos of nothing. So she
Speaker 1: adamantly denies. She comes out kind of imperious and haughty
Speaker 1: in her tone. Even the reading of the transcript so
Speaker 1: the government used This was highly contested by Maxwell's lawyers.
Speaker 1: They claimed the government got their hands improperly got their
Speaker 1: hands on the sealed transcripts as and use them as
Speaker 1: a basis to bring perjury charges. So the government says
Speaker 1: Maxo lied on nine separate occasions, and it's a basis
Speaker 1: for two perjury counts against her, saying she lied under
Speaker 1: oath I don't know anything about this while i'mdoing I
Speaker 1: never saw Epstein in the company of underage girls. I
Speaker 1: never witnessed any abuse of these underage girls. And um,
Speaker 1: they fought very hard to keep this from getting them sealed,
Speaker 1: and they even went to the federal appeals court to
Speaker 1: try to keep it under steal. And they also argued
Speaker 1: that they had evidence the government had improperly accessed this information.
Speaker 1: But the government does have access to federal grand jury subpoenas,
Speaker 1: so there is a possibility they could have moved to
Speaker 1: get the documents unsealed. And then they saw the testimony
Speaker 1: and realized that, according to their witnesses, she's lying, so
Speaker 1: that they hit her with two perjury counts for that.
Speaker 1: There's another deposition transcript that hasn't been opened. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: it's unclear how long this one is. Um, this one
Speaker 1: was allegedly four pages, when when it finally got to us,
Speaker 1: it was about four hundred sixty pages, and it's from April.
Speaker 1: And there's a later deposition that Maxwell's lawyer that grew phrase.
Speaker 1: Lawyers argued, look judged she never answered the questions properly.
Speaker 1: Here's what she told us. Here's why we think we
Speaker 1: need to question her again, and they put like a
Speaker 1: dossier together of why they what they will looking for,
Speaker 1: and what their theory was and what was really interesting
Speaker 1: in these documents. It almost looks like a roadmap the
Speaker 1: government followed to build their case against Maxwell. You know,
Speaker 1: their theory of the case was that she was part
Speaker 1: of it. She recruited these girls, she brought them in,
Speaker 1: and it was based on this lawsuit that sort of
Speaker 1: triggered this renewed look at Maxwell after Epstein, you know,
Speaker 1: play guilty in Florida to state charges and got to
Speaker 1: do as time part time in jail in Florida. You know,
Speaker 1: she had access to millions and millions of dollars. Can
Speaker 1: you tell from this where she got her money? Now
Speaker 1: it's totally unclear. I mean, her father allegedly was you know,
Speaker 1: a newspaper baron, but died in under unusual circumstances and
Speaker 1: a drowning, and it's unclear whether the family still had money.
Speaker 1: She potentially has money from her parents, her family and
Speaker 1: her father and the trust. But she bought a fifteen
Speaker 1: million dollar townhouse in Manhattan on the Upper East Side,
Speaker 1: very lovely, and you know where she got the money.
Speaker 1: She says that Epstein helped her buy it. Where Epstein
Speaker 1: got his money is also a question. So these are
Speaker 1: all these very murky trans financial transactions that are unexplained.
Speaker 1: Do we know what her defense is at trial? She's
Speaker 1: um arguing that she's possibly a victim as well of Epstein,
Speaker 1: that she came under his thrall right, now, what we
Speaker 1: have seen is her lawyers fighting everything on civil fronts.
Speaker 1: They're still fighting all the accusers, they're still going after them.
Speaker 1: Most recently on Friday, they argued that the prosecutors had
Speaker 1: built their case against her by basically relying on old
Speaker 1: information against Epstein, and that they weren't being forthcoming and
Speaker 1: providing her with the information she deserves to fight the case. Now.
Speaker 1: Her trial is supposed to start next July, and the
Speaker 1: government has been handing over tranches of evidence to her,
Speaker 1: but they complained that they're not getting enough, and they
Speaker 1: were going to the federal judge who's presiding over the
Speaker 1: case to try to tweet the government into giving them more.
Speaker 1: Thanks pat that's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, And that's
Speaker 1: it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grosso. And this is Bloomberg