1 00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:01,840 Speaker 1: Do. I take the gun and I start to cock 2 00:00:01,920 --> 00:00:04,080 Speaker 1: the gun. I'm not going to pull the trigger. I said, 3 00:00:04,080 --> 00:00:05,640 Speaker 1: do you see that? She will just cheat it down 4 00:00:05,640 --> 00:00:07,120 Speaker 1: and tilt it down a little bit like that. And 5 00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,040 Speaker 1: I cocked the gun. Can you see that? Can you 6 00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:11,119 Speaker 1: see that? Can you see that? And she says and 7 00:00:11,119 --> 00:00:12,480 Speaker 1: then I let go of the hammer of the gun 8 00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:15,240 Speaker 1: and the gun goes off. Actor Alec Baldwin was pointing 9 00:00:15,240 --> 00:00:18,919 Speaker 1: a gun at cinematographer Helena Hutchins as they rehearsed a 10 00:00:19,000 --> 00:00:22,000 Speaker 1: scene on the set of The Western Rust in New Mexico. 11 00:00:22,520 --> 00:00:26,159 Speaker 1: Hutchins was fatally shot, but Baldwin has maintained that he 12 00:00:26,200 --> 00:00:29,120 Speaker 1: did not pull the trigger and that gun safety on 13 00:00:29,160 --> 00:00:34,080 Speaker 1: the set was not his responsibility. Someone is responsible for 14 00:00:34,200 --> 00:00:36,479 Speaker 1: what happened, and I can't say who that is, but 15 00:00:36,600 --> 00:00:40,360 Speaker 1: the Santa Fe District Attorney is saying who is responsible. 16 00:00:40,680 --> 00:00:44,519 Speaker 1: Baldwin in the Film's Armorer had a Gutierrez read a 17 00:00:44,640 --> 00:00:50,080 Speaker 1: person died because of this negligence, because of this this recklessness, 18 00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:53,680 Speaker 1: and d A. Mary Carmack all tweets is charging both 19 00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:57,560 Speaker 1: of them with involuntary manslaughter, joining me as former federal 20 00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:01,680 Speaker 1: prosecutor Robert Mintz, A partner mc harder in English, Bob, 21 00:01:01,840 --> 00:01:05,360 Speaker 1: Most people see this as a tragic accident. Is it 22 00:01:05,520 --> 00:01:08,840 Speaker 1: surprising that the d A is bringing charges. What this 23 00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:12,920 Speaker 1: does represent a dramatic culmination of more than a year 24 00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:17,400 Speaker 1: of speculation over who, if anyone, would be held accountable 25 00:01:17,840 --> 00:01:22,399 Speaker 1: for the tragic death of cinematographer Elina Hutchen. In this case, 26 00:01:22,480 --> 00:01:26,120 Speaker 1: there is no evidence that anybody did anything intentionally wrong. 27 00:01:26,600 --> 00:01:30,160 Speaker 1: What it really turns on is whether they acted recklessly, 28 00:01:30,480 --> 00:01:33,039 Speaker 1: In other words, whether they should have been more careful 29 00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:36,280 Speaker 1: in making sure that the weapon that was being handled 30 00:01:36,319 --> 00:01:40,520 Speaker 1: by Alec Baldwin did not contain a loaded bullet and 31 00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:44,920 Speaker 1: ultimately it killed the cinematographer. Based upon a series of 32 00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:48,400 Speaker 1: people who handled that weapon before it was placed into 33 00:01:48,400 --> 00:01:50,600 Speaker 1: the hands of Alec Baldwin, the d A is going 34 00:01:50,640 --> 00:01:55,600 Speaker 1: to file too involuntary manslaughter charges against Baldwin and Guccieras 35 00:01:55,680 --> 00:01:59,880 Speaker 1: read two levels sort of that required different standards of proof. 36 00:02:00,320 --> 00:02:05,240 Speaker 1: Under New Mexico law, there's voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. 37 00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:09,920 Speaker 1: Voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing for which there 38 00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:14,240 Speaker 1: was a mitigating circumstance that reduces the crime from murder. 39 00:02:14,639 --> 00:02:18,920 Speaker 1: Involuntary manslaughter, which is what has been charged here, consists 40 00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:22,400 Speaker 1: of a killing that was unintentional, but it results from 41 00:02:22,480 --> 00:02:26,960 Speaker 1: either recklessness or criminal negligence. Here, Alec Baldwin was charged 42 00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:31,120 Speaker 1: with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, one of which carries 43 00:02:31,160 --> 00:02:33,360 Speaker 1: a penalty is up to eighteen months, and the other 44 00:02:33,840 --> 00:02:37,280 Speaker 1: is more serious. It carries a penalty of a mandatory 45 00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:41,280 Speaker 1: jailson of five years in jail because although it was 46 00:02:41,320 --> 00:02:44,480 Speaker 1: involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act, he 47 00:02:44,680 --> 00:02:47,600 Speaker 1: was done with the use of a firearm, so Balwin 48 00:02:47,720 --> 00:02:51,799 Speaker 1: has said. Balwin has said all along that gun safety 49 00:02:51,880 --> 00:02:55,440 Speaker 1: is not the actor's responsibility, and that he relied on 50 00:02:55,520 --> 00:02:58,760 Speaker 1: the professionals on the set. Does that strike you as 51 00:02:58,760 --> 00:03:01,160 Speaker 1: a good defense? That really is the heart of the 52 00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:05,120 Speaker 1: defense here. Mr Baldwin's defense is simply that he had 53 00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:08,280 Speaker 1: no reason to believe that there was a live bullet 54 00:03:08,320 --> 00:03:10,960 Speaker 1: in the gun or frankly, anywhere on the movie set. 55 00:03:11,320 --> 00:03:13,840 Speaker 1: And this is most important. That he relied on the 56 00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:17,640 Speaker 1: professionals with who he worked, who assured him that gun 57 00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:20,280 Speaker 1: did not have live rounds in it. And the question 58 00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:22,840 Speaker 1: is for this jury, if it ever gets to a jury, 59 00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:27,520 Speaker 1: is whether that is enough, whether he can simply turn 60 00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:31,200 Speaker 1: over the responsibility for gun stacy to the professionals who 61 00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:34,200 Speaker 1: worked around them and rely on what they tell him, 62 00:03:34,600 --> 00:03:37,640 Speaker 1: or whether he has an added responsibility since he is 63 00:03:37,640 --> 00:03:40,920 Speaker 1: the person who is holding the gun. Is he hand 64 00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:45,000 Speaker 1: added burden to do something beyond simply conferring with the 65 00:03:45,040 --> 00:03:48,320 Speaker 1: professionals and relying on what they tell him. The d 66 00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:51,640 Speaker 1: A said that all the actors they spoke to said 67 00:03:51,680 --> 00:03:54,440 Speaker 1: that either the actor should have checked the gun or 68 00:03:54,640 --> 00:03:56,880 Speaker 1: should have had it checked in front of him, and 69 00:03:56,920 --> 00:03:59,960 Speaker 1: that there was a pattern of criminal disregard for, say, 70 00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:02,520 Speaker 1: safety on the set. So at trial, are we likely 71 00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:06,520 Speaker 1: to hear from both sides experts about safety protocols in 72 00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:09,080 Speaker 1: the industry. I think we are. I think in a 73 00:04:09,080 --> 00:04:12,640 Speaker 1: lot of ways, what the DA has done here by 74 00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:15,960 Speaker 1: saying things like, on my watch, no one is above 75 00:04:16,000 --> 00:04:19,919 Speaker 1: the law. Everybody deserves justice, what she's really doing is 76 00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:23,080 Speaker 1: putting not only Alex Baldwin on trial, but in a sense, 77 00:04:23,320 --> 00:04:27,480 Speaker 1: Hollywood on trial, celebrity on trial. Really the question of 78 00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:30,520 Speaker 1: whether Alec Baldwin should get any kind of special treatment 79 00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:32,799 Speaker 1: here or whether he has to play by the same 80 00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:35,960 Speaker 1: rules as everybody else. But the question is what are 81 00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:39,080 Speaker 1: those rule and whether it was reasonable for him to 82 00:04:39,279 --> 00:04:41,440 Speaker 1: rely on what others told him, or whether he had 83 00:04:41,480 --> 00:04:45,599 Speaker 1: an added burden of checking that gun himself or taking 84 00:04:45,600 --> 00:04:48,840 Speaker 1: additional steps to ensure that what he was told was 85 00:04:48,880 --> 00:04:52,680 Speaker 1: accurate because he had in his hand a weapon that 86 00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:56,400 Speaker 1: was a working pistol that if it did have light ammunition, 87 00:04:56,440 --> 00:04:59,400 Speaker 1: could result in the fatality, which is exactly what happens here. 88 00:04:59,760 --> 00:05:03,520 Speaker 1: How problematic is it going to be for Baldwin that 89 00:05:03,720 --> 00:05:07,159 Speaker 1: he and the d A completely disagree about whether he 90 00:05:07,200 --> 00:05:09,600 Speaker 1: pulled the trigger. Well, the trigger wasn't pull I didn't 91 00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:13,040 Speaker 1: pull the trigger. The trigger had to have been pulled, 92 00:05:13,560 --> 00:05:16,600 Speaker 1: so Alec is wrong. That gun was sent off to 93 00:05:16,680 --> 00:05:20,160 Speaker 1: the FBI analyst in Virginia who took this gun to 94 00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:23,600 Speaker 1: the replica of a vintage called forty five, and they 95 00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:27,680 Speaker 1: determined that the weapons tested normally. In other words, they 96 00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:31,240 Speaker 1: concluded that in order for the revolvers as fire, the 97 00:05:31,240 --> 00:05:33,479 Speaker 1: trigger would have to be pulled. So what you have 98 00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:37,800 Speaker 1: there is an inconsistency between what Alex Bold was saying 99 00:05:37,839 --> 00:05:40,040 Speaker 1: about how he handled that weapon and what the FBI 100 00:05:40,160 --> 00:05:43,559 Speaker 1: report says. Doesn't really go to the heart of the case. 101 00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:46,360 Speaker 1: But when you're a defense lawyer, you never really want 102 00:05:46,400 --> 00:05:50,360 Speaker 1: to have that kind of inconsistency because the prosecution may 103 00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:53,440 Speaker 1: be able to argue to objuror that he is not 104 00:05:53,600 --> 00:05:56,440 Speaker 1: telling the truth about whether he pulled the trigger, and 105 00:05:56,480 --> 00:06:00,400 Speaker 1: therefore he made not being totally candid with the jury 106 00:06:00,640 --> 00:06:02,760 Speaker 1: about what he was saying and what he was thinking 107 00:06:02,760 --> 00:06:05,080 Speaker 1: and what he did when he handled that weapon. So 108 00:06:05,160 --> 00:06:08,240 Speaker 1: the inconsistency does not necessarily something that goes to the 109 00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:12,280 Speaker 1: hard the case, but inconsistencies in your witnesses testimony or 110 00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:15,040 Speaker 1: never something that you want as a lawyer. There were 111 00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:19,279 Speaker 1: three people who handled the gun. First gauccierres Read, the 112 00:06:19,279 --> 00:06:24,840 Speaker 1: weapon specialist, Then Assistant Director David Halls, who handed Ballwin 113 00:06:24,920 --> 00:06:28,000 Speaker 1: the gun saying cold gun meaning there was no live 114 00:06:28,080 --> 00:06:31,760 Speaker 1: ammo in it. He's pleading guilty to negligent use of 115 00:06:31,760 --> 00:06:36,080 Speaker 1: a deadly weapon. And then Baldwin any impact from the 116 00:06:36,120 --> 00:06:39,840 Speaker 1: second person in the chain pleading guilty. Now, what happened 117 00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:43,559 Speaker 1: here really is that the district attorney approached this case 118 00:06:44,240 --> 00:06:47,600 Speaker 1: by scrutinizing the actions of everyone who handled the weapon 119 00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:51,120 Speaker 1: and everyone who handled the live ammunition. And what they 120 00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:53,760 Speaker 1: did was they looked at that chain of custody, and 121 00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:58,080 Speaker 1: ultimately the prosecutor concluded that everybody in that chain of 122 00:06:58,120 --> 00:07:03,600 Speaker 1: custody there's some respectability for this fatality. When bringing criminal charges, 123 00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:07,120 Speaker 1: the prosecutor is going to argue, if you are holding 124 00:07:07,120 --> 00:07:10,640 Speaker 1: a gun in your hands, you implicitly have a responsibility 125 00:07:10,680 --> 00:07:14,559 Speaker 1: to make safety your business that you can't simply rely 126 00:07:14,880 --> 00:07:17,760 Speaker 1: on others. And that's the heart of Alex Baldwin's defense 127 00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:20,440 Speaker 1: that in the many years he's been on sets, he's 128 00:07:20,480 --> 00:07:24,520 Speaker 1: handled guns many times. In other movies, he's always relied 129 00:07:24,520 --> 00:07:27,600 Speaker 1: on professionals. He did the same thing here. I think 130 00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:30,680 Speaker 1: we can expect the defense to bring on experts to 131 00:07:30,880 --> 00:07:35,760 Speaker 1: talk about how the entertainment industry handles weapons on movie sets, 132 00:07:35,800 --> 00:07:40,080 Speaker 1: what protocols Hollywood sets typically used, and they're gonna argue 133 00:07:40,360 --> 00:07:43,480 Speaker 1: that what Alex Baldwin did was consistent with the way 134 00:07:43,720 --> 00:07:47,600 Speaker 1: the entertainment industry handles weapons on movie sets. But the 135 00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:51,440 Speaker 1: prostitution is likely to argue, however, is that that doesn't 136 00:07:51,480 --> 00:07:54,640 Speaker 1: matter that the keys this case is not what Alex 137 00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:57,600 Speaker 1: Baldwin did, but whether or not what he did was 138 00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:01,160 Speaker 1: reasonable given the fact that he holding in his hand 139 00:08:01,520 --> 00:08:04,440 Speaker 1: a working pistol. And they're going to try to argue 140 00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:08,720 Speaker 1: that it doesn't matter what the protocols were set by Hollywood, 141 00:08:08,960 --> 00:08:11,080 Speaker 1: that the law is the law, and you don't have 142 00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:13,680 Speaker 1: two legal systems, one for those people who are powerful 143 00:08:14,000 --> 00:08:17,320 Speaker 1: and one for everybody else. The question here is whether 144 00:08:17,360 --> 00:08:20,840 Speaker 1: he acted recklessly and whether he did it willfully, and 145 00:08:20,920 --> 00:08:24,080 Speaker 1: that's really going to be a tough issue for jurors 146 00:08:24,080 --> 00:08:26,160 Speaker 1: to grapple with, which is why this is going to 147 00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:29,480 Speaker 1: be a difficult case, not only for the prosecutions but 148 00:08:29,600 --> 00:08:32,679 Speaker 1: also for the defense. Yeah, and of course, as you know, 149 00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:37,000 Speaker 1: the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 150 00:08:37,200 --> 00:08:39,880 Speaker 1: Baldwin just has to raise a reasonable doubt in the 151 00:08:39,960 --> 00:08:45,079 Speaker 1: juror's minds. Ironically, manslaughter can be more difficult to prove 152 00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:49,400 Speaker 1: than first degree murder. Manslaughter has all of these nuances 153 00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:53,319 Speaker 1: in it, Whereas if you're proving a case of premeditated murder, 154 00:08:53,360 --> 00:08:56,800 Speaker 1: for example, you mostly have great evidence. You's got a confession, 155 00:08:57,240 --> 00:09:00,120 Speaker 1: you have someone who had a motive, you may have 156 00:09:00,240 --> 00:09:04,840 Speaker 1: good DNA evidence, you have behaviors both before and after 157 00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:07,800 Speaker 1: the Criminal Act that helped put this case together. In 158 00:09:07,840 --> 00:09:10,920 Speaker 1: a manslaughter case, there's really not so much of a 159 00:09:11,000 --> 00:09:14,640 Speaker 1: dispute about what happened, but about whether the person acted 160 00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:18,679 Speaker 1: reasonably under the circumstances. And it's a very fact specific 161 00:09:19,120 --> 00:09:22,440 Speaker 1: and it really depends a lot on how the jurors 162 00:09:22,559 --> 00:09:25,920 Speaker 1: viewed the individual's charge and again whether or not they 163 00:09:26,040 --> 00:09:30,200 Speaker 1: viewed their conduct as reasonable. And in these cases where 164 00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:32,839 Speaker 1: there has been a fatality on a movie set, the 165 00:09:33,000 --> 00:09:35,680 Speaker 1: results have varied. This is not the first time that 166 00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:38,920 Speaker 1: an actor has been charged with manslaughter in connection with 167 00:09:38,960 --> 00:09:41,599 Speaker 1: a death during shooting of a movie. For example, in 168 00:09:41,679 --> 00:09:45,840 Speaker 1: nineteen seven and Los Angeles jury acquitted director John Landis 169 00:09:45,920 --> 00:09:50,400 Speaker 1: on four associates of involuntary manslaughter on charges stemming from 170 00:09:50,400 --> 00:09:54,000 Speaker 1: the guests of actor Vic Marland two children in a 171 00:09:54,080 --> 00:09:56,800 Speaker 1: helicopter crash on the set of the Twilight Zone movie. 172 00:09:57,240 --> 00:10:00,000 Speaker 1: That case actually went to trial, and after ten months 173 00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:04,720 Speaker 1: the jury foremant hole reporters that it was an unforeseeable accident, 174 00:10:04,840 --> 00:10:08,760 Speaker 1: then that the case did not warrant prosecution. Other casesn't. 175 00:10:08,800 --> 00:10:12,280 Speaker 1: Even more recently, people have end up leading guilty. There 176 00:10:12,360 --> 00:10:14,840 Speaker 1: was a case during the filming of the movie Midnight Rider, 177 00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:18,920 Speaker 1: a biopic about rock star Gregg Allman, where the director 178 00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:22,120 Speaker 1: pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and served over a year 179 00:10:22,160 --> 00:10:25,200 Speaker 1: in prison in connection with a train crash that's killed 180 00:10:25,240 --> 00:10:28,439 Speaker 1: in the system camera operator. So the results of them vary, 181 00:10:28,559 --> 00:10:31,760 Speaker 1: and it's a very fact specific and it really depends 182 00:10:31,800 --> 00:10:35,880 Speaker 1: a lot on how the jurors viewed the individual's charge 183 00:10:36,160 --> 00:10:39,719 Speaker 1: and again whether or not they viewed their conduct as reasonable. 184 00:10:40,160 --> 00:10:43,160 Speaker 1: This is a case where the stakes are enormously high. 185 00:10:43,360 --> 00:10:46,480 Speaker 1: There's a lot of pressure on the prosecution for bringing 186 00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:50,600 Speaker 1: this case. This case was something that has generated tremendous publicity, 187 00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:53,560 Speaker 1: not only in New Mexico, but throughout the country and 188 00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:57,280 Speaker 1: internationally because of the notoriety and the celebrity a Alex 189 00:10:57,320 --> 00:10:59,440 Speaker 1: for all it went, and so there was enormous pressure 190 00:10:59,440 --> 00:11:02,240 Speaker 1: on the d to look at this case and to 191 00:11:02,320 --> 00:11:04,880 Speaker 1: try to send a message that nobody was above the 192 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:08,079 Speaker 1: law and that Alex Baudin was not getting any special treatment. 193 00:11:08,280 --> 00:11:11,040 Speaker 1: And the fact that Alex Baldwan actually fired the weapon 194 00:11:11,600 --> 00:11:16,000 Speaker 1: that killed Elana Hucon made it difficult for her to 195 00:11:16,080 --> 00:11:19,480 Speaker 1: ultimately conclude that he bore no responsibility. But at the 196 00:11:19,520 --> 00:11:21,960 Speaker 1: same time, here she's going to be faced with a 197 00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:26,480 Speaker 1: very spirited defense. Alec Baldwin has hired a very good 198 00:11:26,480 --> 00:11:29,520 Speaker 1: criminal defense lawyer and they are going to argue that 199 00:11:29,600 --> 00:11:33,199 Speaker 1: Alex Baldro was told immediately before he was handed the 200 00:11:33,240 --> 00:11:36,199 Speaker 1: gun that the gun was quote unquote cold, which means 201 00:11:36,200 --> 00:11:39,280 Speaker 1: the professional who was handling the gun, who is whose 202 00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:41,679 Speaker 1: custody the gun was in before it was handed to 203 00:11:41,720 --> 00:11:44,520 Speaker 1: Alec Baudin, told him that the gun was safe to 204 00:11:44,640 --> 00:11:47,280 Speaker 1: use as a prop. So it really comes down to 205 00:11:47,360 --> 00:11:50,160 Speaker 1: a question of who do you believe, and whether or 206 00:11:50,200 --> 00:11:54,440 Speaker 1: not you believe that Alex Baldwin was entitled to simply 207 00:11:54,480 --> 00:11:58,560 Speaker 1: rely on the information he was getting from those professionals, 208 00:11:58,679 --> 00:12:02,520 Speaker 1: or whether the industry practice or simply common sense and 209 00:12:02,720 --> 00:12:06,880 Speaker 1: reasonableness dictated that he take additional steps, which is opening 210 00:12:06,880 --> 00:12:10,640 Speaker 1: the chamber, double checking with others, taking additional steps to 211 00:12:10,760 --> 00:12:14,280 Speaker 1: make sure that that weapon was safe to aim at 212 00:12:14,320 --> 00:12:18,040 Speaker 1: somebody on the set, and that it was unreasonable and 213 00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:21,240 Speaker 1: dangerous for him to have simply relied on what others 214 00:12:21,280 --> 00:12:24,160 Speaker 1: told them, no matter that they were professionals and that 215 00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:26,880 Speaker 1: it was their job to maintain the safety of the 216 00:12:26,920 --> 00:12:29,760 Speaker 1: guns on the set. There's a lot of finger pointing 217 00:12:29,880 --> 00:12:34,679 Speaker 1: going on. Alex Bowan has blamed Gautierra's read and Halls, 218 00:12:34,720 --> 00:12:38,440 Speaker 1: and Gautierra's read says she wasn't called inside the church 219 00:12:38,520 --> 00:12:42,040 Speaker 1: to inspect the weapons, and that Baldwin refused her offer 220 00:12:42,120 --> 00:12:45,600 Speaker 1: to train him on this cross draw, which is apparently 221 00:12:45,600 --> 00:12:48,720 Speaker 1: a dangerous method of carrying a hand on that started 222 00:12:48,800 --> 00:12:52,160 Speaker 1: the west at trial. Is it okay if they continue 223 00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:56,400 Speaker 1: pointing fingers at each other or should their defenses aligne Well, 224 00:12:56,440 --> 00:12:59,240 Speaker 1: I think part of Alcoholwin's defense has to be that 225 00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:03,280 Speaker 1: he relied and what other people did otherwise the responsibility 226 00:13:03,320 --> 00:13:06,079 Speaker 1: fall solely to him. So his defense is going to 227 00:13:06,160 --> 00:13:09,600 Speaker 1: be that that these other professionals, who were well trained 228 00:13:09,600 --> 00:13:12,480 Speaker 1: and whose job it was to make sure that the 229 00:13:12,559 --> 00:13:14,720 Speaker 1: gun was not loaded, to make sure that the gun 230 00:13:14,760 --> 00:13:18,080 Speaker 1: was not posing a threat to others, he relied on them, 231 00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:20,720 Speaker 1: and that as the actor, he does that all the 232 00:13:20,760 --> 00:13:23,920 Speaker 1: time and it's not his responsibility to double check what 233 00:13:24,040 --> 00:13:27,840 Speaker 1: they're doing. But in this case, there is the possibility 234 00:13:27,880 --> 00:13:31,280 Speaker 1: that that defense could backfire on them in the sense 235 00:13:31,360 --> 00:13:34,680 Speaker 1: that you are looking at somebody who's wealthy, who's powerful, 236 00:13:34,679 --> 00:13:37,640 Speaker 1: who has a lot of celebrity and notoriety, who seemed 237 00:13:37,679 --> 00:13:42,559 Speaker 1: to be pointing the finger at people who are lesser celebrities, 238 00:13:42,559 --> 00:13:45,599 Speaker 1: people who work in the film industry, but whose names 239 00:13:45,640 --> 00:13:48,280 Speaker 1: the average person has never heard of before, and so 240 00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:51,760 Speaker 1: that's the danger were there that Alec Baldwin is trying 241 00:13:51,800 --> 00:13:56,000 Speaker 1: to pass off his responsibility onto people who were working 242 00:13:56,040 --> 00:13:58,400 Speaker 1: on the set, who are just doing their jobs, who 243 00:13:58,520 --> 00:14:01,640 Speaker 1: may have been overworked, and who will also faced with 244 00:14:01,679 --> 00:14:04,679 Speaker 1: the same charges she is. And the question is should 245 00:14:04,760 --> 00:14:08,120 Speaker 1: everybody in the chain of custody here be responsible or that, 246 00:14:08,440 --> 00:14:10,840 Speaker 1: or should one person in that chain of custody be 247 00:14:10,880 --> 00:14:13,520 Speaker 1: able to rely on the other and try to avoid 248 00:14:13,559 --> 00:14:16,400 Speaker 1: responsibility here. That's going to be the question that jurors 249 00:14:16,440 --> 00:14:19,880 Speaker 1: will have to grapple with. Thanks Bob, that's Robert Mints 250 00:14:19,920 --> 00:14:24,560 Speaker 1: of McCarter and English. There's a turf war between the 251 00:14:24,640 --> 00:14:28,800 Speaker 1: Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 252 00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:33,320 Speaker 1: over which should regulate the crypto industry. This is digital 253 00:14:33,360 --> 00:14:36,640 Speaker 1: assets lost more than two trillion dollars in value and 254 00:14:36,680 --> 00:14:41,760 Speaker 1: a string of prominent ventures blew up. In sec Chairman 255 00:14:41,800 --> 00:14:45,280 Speaker 1: Gary Ginstler has been working to position his agency as 256 00:14:45,280 --> 00:14:48,200 Speaker 1: the one to reign in crypto. Right now, there's not 257 00:14:48,360 --> 00:14:53,720 Speaker 1: a market regulator around these crypto exchanges, and thus there's 258 00:14:53,760 --> 00:14:59,200 Speaker 1: really not protection against frauder manipulation. If the regulator wins 259 00:14:59,240 --> 00:15:02,800 Speaker 1: its high pro while lawsuit accusing Ripple Labs of selling 260 00:15:02,960 --> 00:15:07,840 Speaker 1: unregistered digital tokens without adequate disclosure, it will strengthen the 261 00:15:08,000 --> 00:15:11,920 Speaker 1: SEC's position to take the lead on crypto oversight. My 262 00:15:12,040 --> 00:15:15,240 Speaker 1: guest is securities attorney Robert him a partner at Tarter, 263 00:15:15,360 --> 00:15:19,120 Speaker 1: Krinsky and Drogn. He was formerly an assistant Regional director 264 00:15:19,160 --> 00:15:22,080 Speaker 1: of the SEC. Bob tell us the views of the 265 00:15:22,240 --> 00:15:27,320 Speaker 1: SEC and the CFTC over why it should regulate crypto well. 266 00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:30,880 Speaker 1: The CFTC argues that crypto is more of a commodity 267 00:15:30,920 --> 00:15:33,600 Speaker 1: in the sense that it's like a medium of exchange, 268 00:15:33,720 --> 00:15:36,920 Speaker 1: where people are using it as a substitute for currency, 269 00:15:37,120 --> 00:15:40,280 Speaker 1: and they're using it and they're purchasing things with it, 270 00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:44,960 Speaker 1: and they're not really buying crypto primarily as an investment product, 271 00:15:45,160 --> 00:15:47,080 Speaker 1: you know, the way you would with the stock or 272 00:15:47,200 --> 00:15:50,800 Speaker 1: some sort of security. The SEC takes the opposite view. 273 00:15:50,880 --> 00:15:54,359 Speaker 1: They say a lot of these cryptocurrencies and token offerings, 274 00:15:54,800 --> 00:15:57,640 Speaker 1: although there is an element in them of a value 275 00:15:57,640 --> 00:16:01,360 Speaker 1: of exchange or medium off the times, the primary way 276 00:16:01,440 --> 00:16:06,640 Speaker 1: that these new tokens are marketed as being a profit potential, 277 00:16:06,680 --> 00:16:10,240 Speaker 1: a very significant way for investors to make money by 278 00:16:10,320 --> 00:16:13,280 Speaker 1: this investment, and that's the basis under which the SEC 279 00:16:13,520 --> 00:16:17,040 Speaker 1: argues that it should have jurisdiction over cryptocurrencies and not 280 00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:22,840 Speaker 1: the CFTC. I noticed that a lot of the cryptocurrency 281 00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:29,160 Speaker 1: platforms and even Sam Bankman freed they're advocating for being 282 00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:34,320 Speaker 1: overseen by the CFTC. Is that because SEC oversight would 283 00:16:34,360 --> 00:16:38,680 Speaker 1: be more rigorous. The CFTC S approach is more of 284 00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:42,440 Speaker 1: a lighter approach than the SEC had, And that's why 285 00:16:42,440 --> 00:16:45,920 Speaker 1: a lot of the crypto sponsors and people behind tokens 286 00:16:45,960 --> 00:16:51,200 Speaker 1: prefer the CFTC approach because with the security based regulatory system, 287 00:16:51,480 --> 00:16:55,080 Speaker 1: there's all sorts of requirements for them to draft prospectuses 288 00:16:55,480 --> 00:16:59,680 Speaker 1: and to register the tokens, and then there's also ongoing 289 00:17:00,000 --> 00:17:04,000 Speaker 1: regulation of the exchanges on which those securities trade, and 290 00:17:04,040 --> 00:17:06,760 Speaker 1: if crypto was to be deemed a security, all of 291 00:17:06,800 --> 00:17:10,399 Speaker 1: those burdensome regulations would apply to it. With the c SEC, 292 00:17:10,600 --> 00:17:13,520 Speaker 1: there there's somewhat of a similar regulatory structure in place 293 00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:17,919 Speaker 1: that does have provisions for protection for market participants, but 294 00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:20,679 Speaker 1: it's not really as onerous as the security system in 295 00:17:20,680 --> 00:17:23,480 Speaker 1: a sense, so you don't have to draft prospectuses and 296 00:17:23,480 --> 00:17:25,560 Speaker 1: and give as much in the way of disclosure as 297 00:17:25,600 --> 00:17:27,680 Speaker 1: what we needed is if it was an investment as 298 00:17:27,680 --> 00:17:32,800 Speaker 1: a security, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler seems to be positioning 299 00:17:33,040 --> 00:17:38,800 Speaker 1: his agency to take on the job of overside of crypto. 300 00:17:39,000 --> 00:17:44,000 Speaker 1: He has slapped multimillion dollar fines on crypto companies and 301 00:17:44,080 --> 00:17:48,560 Speaker 1: those who promote digital assets. Yes, Chairman Gensler is certainly 302 00:17:48,680 --> 00:17:52,639 Speaker 1: trying to position the SEC as the primary agency to 303 00:17:52,840 --> 00:17:56,359 Speaker 1: regulate cryptocurrencies in the United States. In a way, this 304 00:17:56,520 --> 00:18:00,280 Speaker 1: is a classic turf battle between two federal agency, the 305 00:18:00,320 --> 00:18:04,560 Speaker 1: CFTC and the SEC, over who's going to have jurisdiction 306 00:18:04,920 --> 00:18:08,879 Speaker 1: over cryptocurrencies. And I think it's indicative of the bigger 307 00:18:09,200 --> 00:18:13,480 Speaker 1: failing in the sense that many other countries are engaging 308 00:18:13,520 --> 00:18:17,720 Speaker 1: in a legislative process where people have votes and there's 309 00:18:17,720 --> 00:18:21,640 Speaker 1: a rulemaking and there's a concerted, well thought out roadmap 310 00:18:21,720 --> 00:18:25,400 Speaker 1: to how cryptocurrencies are going to be regulated. In contrast, 311 00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:29,360 Speaker 1: the United States, we really don't have that system happening. 312 00:18:29,400 --> 00:18:31,280 Speaker 1: There's been a number of different bills that have been 313 00:18:31,320 --> 00:18:34,960 Speaker 1: introduced in Congress that haven't really got anywhere, and much 314 00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:37,680 Speaker 1: of the regulation over the crypto markets in the United 315 00:18:37,720 --> 00:18:41,760 Speaker 1: States is done through enforcement actions, whether those enforcement actions 316 00:18:41,760 --> 00:18:45,040 Speaker 1: are brought by the SEC or the CFTC. And it 317 00:18:45,080 --> 00:18:48,600 Speaker 1: really leaves market participants in the lurch because they really 318 00:18:48,600 --> 00:18:51,200 Speaker 1: don't have the same level of guidance that other countries 319 00:18:51,240 --> 00:18:54,240 Speaker 1: provide in terms of what rules are to be followed 320 00:18:54,320 --> 00:18:57,040 Speaker 1: and what sort of compliance steps have to be taken. 321 00:18:57,720 --> 00:19:01,320 Speaker 1: The Ripple case SEC soon Ripple is the most high 322 00:19:01,400 --> 00:19:05,480 Speaker 1: profile fintech lawsuit. Tell us about it. The Ripple case 323 00:19:05,680 --> 00:19:09,120 Speaker 1: is really the most significant enforcement case in the crypto 324 00:19:09,200 --> 00:19:12,320 Speaker 1: space that the SEC has ever brought. It started the 325 00:19:12,320 --> 00:19:16,720 Speaker 1: case back in December when it filed its complaint which 326 00:19:16,760 --> 00:19:21,000 Speaker 1: alleged that Ripple and two executives with Ripple violated the 327 00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:24,960 Speaker 1: registration provisions of the securities laws and raised over a 328 00:19:25,000 --> 00:19:28,800 Speaker 1: billion dollars in violation of the securities laws in the 329 00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:32,280 Speaker 1: United States. And this came as a great shock to 330 00:19:32,359 --> 00:19:35,400 Speaker 1: the market. Ripple and It's and it's token x RP. 331 00:19:36,200 --> 00:19:39,480 Speaker 1: We're among the most popular crypto tokens in the United 332 00:19:39,480 --> 00:19:43,080 Speaker 1: States at that particular time, and the company had been 333 00:19:43,119 --> 00:19:47,200 Speaker 1: in operations since so at that time eight years had 334 00:19:47,240 --> 00:19:50,359 Speaker 1: gone by without the SEC, you know, ever saying anything 335 00:19:50,400 --> 00:19:52,119 Speaker 1: that this was going to be a problem. Was they 336 00:19:52,200 --> 00:19:55,480 Speaker 1: viewed Ripple or x RP as being an inviolation of 337 00:19:55,480 --> 00:19:58,960 Speaker 1: the securities laws. And then out of nowhere, this enforcement 338 00:19:59,000 --> 00:20:03,760 Speaker 1: lawsuit was filed back in and it really completely shook 339 00:20:03,800 --> 00:20:06,680 Speaker 1: up the market for x RP. It led to its 340 00:20:06,720 --> 00:20:10,280 Speaker 1: delisting in the United States from various exchanges, and the 341 00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:13,520 Speaker 1: people who were holding that crypto token really suffered a 342 00:20:13,520 --> 00:20:16,840 Speaker 1: lot of losses once the SEC brought that enforcement taste. 343 00:20:16,960 --> 00:20:19,359 Speaker 1: And for over two years, Ripple has been fighting the 344 00:20:19,480 --> 00:20:22,920 Speaker 1: SEC in court and trying to win a determination from 345 00:20:22,920 --> 00:20:26,040 Speaker 1: the judge that the SEC simply does not have jurisdiction 346 00:20:26,119 --> 00:20:29,160 Speaker 1: over Ripple or x r P. Yeah, and it's got 347 00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:32,600 Speaker 1: some heavyweights to defend it, including Mary Joe White, who 348 00:20:32,720 --> 00:20:37,000 Speaker 1: led the SEC for almost four years under President Obama. 349 00:20:37,320 --> 00:20:41,080 Speaker 1: So what's taking so long for the judge to make 350 00:20:41,160 --> 00:20:45,040 Speaker 1: this decision. Well, like any complicated case, there's a very 351 00:20:45,119 --> 00:20:49,080 Speaker 1: lengthy discovery period that happened in this case also, where 352 00:20:49,119 --> 00:20:53,440 Speaker 1: depositions were taken, A large amount of documents were exchanged 353 00:20:53,520 --> 00:20:57,760 Speaker 1: between the parties. Each side had numerous experts that they 354 00:20:57,800 --> 00:21:01,320 Speaker 1: retained to try to present evidence and all. This is 355 00:21:01,359 --> 00:21:04,120 Speaker 1: somewhat unique because in the past, when the SEC has 356 00:21:04,200 --> 00:21:09,199 Speaker 1: gone after various cryptocurrency sponsors and tokens. Many of them 357 00:21:09,240 --> 00:21:11,800 Speaker 1: didn't really have the resources to fight the SEC, and 358 00:21:12,080 --> 00:21:14,679 Speaker 1: there was a lot of settlements here. Ripple does have 359 00:21:14,760 --> 00:21:18,639 Speaker 1: the resources, and they've hired very prominent defense attorneys and 360 00:21:18,760 --> 00:21:22,720 Speaker 1: very talented defense attorneys to defend themselves. And right now 361 00:21:22,920 --> 00:21:25,440 Speaker 1: that phase of the case has come to an end, 362 00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:28,400 Speaker 1: and some rey judgment motions have been filed by both 363 00:21:28,400 --> 00:21:32,200 Speaker 1: the SEC and by Ripple asking the judge to rule 364 00:21:32,359 --> 00:21:34,800 Speaker 1: in their favor and saying that a trial is not 365 00:21:34,920 --> 00:21:38,119 Speaker 1: necessary and that each side is requesting that the judge 366 00:21:38,359 --> 00:21:41,080 Speaker 1: rule in their favor. So it's been a very lengthy, 367 00:21:41,240 --> 00:21:44,880 Speaker 1: hard fought battle on both sides. Bob, Is the judge 368 00:21:45,080 --> 00:21:49,000 Speaker 1: just going to make the decision about whether it's coin 369 00:21:49,680 --> 00:21:52,320 Speaker 1: is a security or not? Is that the decision that 370 00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:54,639 Speaker 1: is going to turn the case. Yes, that's really the 371 00:21:54,720 --> 00:21:57,360 Speaker 1: key decision that the judge has to make right now 372 00:21:57,440 --> 00:22:01,600 Speaker 1: on summary judgment, and much can do a few things. Um, 373 00:22:01,680 --> 00:22:05,840 Speaker 1: the judge can rule for either the SEC on one hand, 374 00:22:05,960 --> 00:22:09,000 Speaker 1: or the judge can rule or Ripple on the other 375 00:22:09,520 --> 00:22:12,399 Speaker 1: And what the judge is trying to find out is 376 00:22:12,440 --> 00:22:16,159 Speaker 1: if there's really a material dispute in the underlying facts. 377 00:22:16,200 --> 00:22:18,320 Speaker 1: And if she finds that there is a dispute in 378 00:22:18,320 --> 00:22:20,440 Speaker 1: the facts, didn't going to go to a jury trial. 379 00:22:20,760 --> 00:22:23,280 Speaker 1: If the judge feels that there's no dispute in the 380 00:22:23,320 --> 00:22:25,919 Speaker 1: facts and it's really just a question of law, then 381 00:22:25,960 --> 00:22:29,159 Speaker 1: she'll feel comfortable making that decision. So the judge can 382 00:22:29,200 --> 00:22:31,720 Speaker 1: either rule for one side or the other, or the 383 00:22:31,800 --> 00:22:34,240 Speaker 1: judge can say there's too much in the way of 384 00:22:34,280 --> 00:22:37,080 Speaker 1: factual disputes here and a jury has to rule. So 385 00:22:37,160 --> 00:22:40,520 Speaker 1: there's three different possibilities that the judge can come down on. 386 00:22:41,119 --> 00:22:44,840 Speaker 1: So a federal judge in New Hampshire in November and 387 00:22:44,880 --> 00:22:47,840 Speaker 1: to find a digital asset as a security. Are there 388 00:22:47,880 --> 00:22:52,280 Speaker 1: any cases where judges went the opposite way? Well, it's 389 00:22:52,359 --> 00:22:55,240 Speaker 1: not so much a case, but Bitcoin is probably the 390 00:22:55,280 --> 00:22:59,879 Speaker 1: primary example of a crypto token or cryptocurrency that is 391 00:23:00,000 --> 00:23:03,159 Speaker 1: and deemed not to be a security, where even the 392 00:23:03,280 --> 00:23:07,560 Speaker 1: SEC recognizes that as such. The issue is that almost 393 00:23:07,600 --> 00:23:11,640 Speaker 1: every cryptocurrency is created in a different way, and it's 394 00:23:11,760 --> 00:23:15,199 Speaker 1: marketed in a unique way, and it's very hard to 395 00:23:15,280 --> 00:23:18,840 Speaker 1: generalize from one case to another because in certain cases, 396 00:23:19,040 --> 00:23:21,760 Speaker 1: and the case in New Hampshire which you're referring to 397 00:23:21,800 --> 00:23:24,960 Speaker 1: which involves the library token. The judge had to look 398 00:23:25,040 --> 00:23:28,080 Speaker 1: at the marketing material as to how the token was 399 00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:31,159 Speaker 1: promoted and what statements were made by the company, and 400 00:23:31,200 --> 00:23:33,840 Speaker 1: that's going to vary from company to company. In the 401 00:23:33,920 --> 00:23:36,359 Speaker 1: Ripple case, the judge has to do the same thing. 402 00:23:36,720 --> 00:23:40,760 Speaker 1: Both the SEC and Ripple are pointing to the marketing materials. 403 00:23:40,800 --> 00:23:44,119 Speaker 1: The SEC argues that those marketing materials show that it 404 00:23:44,200 --> 00:23:48,199 Speaker 1: was being promoted to investors who were speculating on it 405 00:23:48,240 --> 00:23:50,119 Speaker 1: and hoping that the price would go up. And then 406 00:23:50,200 --> 00:23:53,480 Speaker 1: Ripple is pointing to other marketing materials that they say 407 00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:57,080 Speaker 1: show that this more or less mechanism of payment and 408 00:23:57,119 --> 00:24:00,480 Speaker 1: that people were buying x RP to is it in 409 00:24:00,600 --> 00:24:04,320 Speaker 1: business transactions and to send money and to make charitable donations. 410 00:24:04,480 --> 00:24:07,720 Speaker 1: So oftentimes it's a very fact specific inquiry and it's 411 00:24:07,760 --> 00:24:10,879 Speaker 1: hard to generalize from one case to another. Do you 412 00:24:10,920 --> 00:24:14,760 Speaker 1: have an opinion about whether x RP is a security 413 00:24:14,880 --> 00:24:18,080 Speaker 1: or not? Yes, I've been following a case very closely 414 00:24:18,160 --> 00:24:21,760 Speaker 1: since its inception, and I've reviewed the party's briefs for 415 00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:25,880 Speaker 1: summary judgment, and both the SEC and Ripple focused on 416 00:24:25,920 --> 00:24:29,720 Speaker 1: what's called the investment contract provision of the security laws, 417 00:24:29,800 --> 00:24:33,199 Speaker 1: and the investment contract provision is what the SEC is 418 00:24:33,200 --> 00:24:37,280 Speaker 1: saying that this crypto token is an investment contract and 419 00:24:37,400 --> 00:24:41,119 Speaker 1: as such is a security, and an investment contract is 420 00:24:41,160 --> 00:24:44,080 Speaker 1: one of the enumerated categories, and the statute as to 421 00:24:44,119 --> 00:24:47,000 Speaker 1: what that is. Case law has defined what an investment 422 00:24:47,040 --> 00:24:49,680 Speaker 1: contract is. But I think Ripple has some very strong 423 00:24:49,960 --> 00:24:53,680 Speaker 1: arguments that many of the provisions of an investment contract 424 00:24:53,720 --> 00:24:57,560 Speaker 1: are not applicable here. Specifically, much of their marketing material 425 00:24:57,680 --> 00:25:01,080 Speaker 1: really does focus on Ripple b promoted as more or 426 00:25:01,160 --> 00:25:05,240 Speaker 1: less a mechanism of payment and not speculative investment, and 427 00:25:05,359 --> 00:25:08,240 Speaker 1: a lot of people have Polomkus briefs and organizations and 428 00:25:08,440 --> 00:25:11,280 Speaker 1: supportive Ripple on that point. In addition, I think Ripple 429 00:25:11,320 --> 00:25:13,359 Speaker 1: has done a good job trying to argue that there's 430 00:25:13,359 --> 00:25:17,320 Speaker 1: no commonality of interest, which is another factor that courts 431 00:25:17,320 --> 00:25:20,040 Speaker 1: look at determine whether it's something is a security or not. 432 00:25:20,240 --> 00:25:22,680 Speaker 1: So I think Ripple has some very strong arguments that 433 00:25:22,760 --> 00:25:26,160 Speaker 1: the judge is going to give serious consideration too. How 434 00:25:26,200 --> 00:25:31,919 Speaker 1: important is this decision by one federal judge in New York? 435 00:25:31,960 --> 00:25:35,879 Speaker 1: I mean, is it going to be very influential? Yes, 436 00:25:35,960 --> 00:25:38,800 Speaker 1: No matter which way this decision goes. This is going 437 00:25:38,840 --> 00:25:42,520 Speaker 1: to be a very influential decision. If the SEC wins 438 00:25:42,840 --> 00:25:47,639 Speaker 1: this case, it's just a litigated case where the defendants 439 00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:50,000 Speaker 1: have had a full opportunity to present all of their 440 00:25:50,080 --> 00:25:53,800 Speaker 1: arguments by the most talented lawyers. And if the SEC 441 00:25:53,960 --> 00:25:56,960 Speaker 1: wins this case in New York Court, it's really going 442 00:25:57,000 --> 00:26:00,040 Speaker 1: to cement its role as the primary regulator over the 443 00:26:00,040 --> 00:26:03,240 Speaker 1: crypto markets, and it's going to give the SEC a 444 00:26:03,320 --> 00:26:05,840 Speaker 1: leg up in terms of wanting to be the lead 445 00:26:05,880 --> 00:26:10,280 Speaker 1: regulator and arguing that almost all crypto is securities. And 446 00:26:10,320 --> 00:26:12,479 Speaker 1: it's going to, I think, have a c change in 447 00:26:12,600 --> 00:26:17,040 Speaker 1: terms of cryptocurrencies having to register and exchanges where they 448 00:26:17,040 --> 00:26:20,680 Speaker 1: are traded, having two registers exchanges with the SEC by 449 00:26:20,720 --> 00:26:23,239 Speaker 1: the same token. If Ripple winds, it's going to be 450 00:26:23,280 --> 00:26:26,640 Speaker 1: a devastating blow to the SEC in terms of its 451 00:26:26,680 --> 00:26:30,560 Speaker 1: efforts to argue that cryptocurrencies are securities. And I think 452 00:26:30,600 --> 00:26:33,920 Speaker 1: it's going to really allow people to feel more comfortable 453 00:26:34,080 --> 00:26:39,280 Speaker 1: creating and disseminating and distributing cryptocurrencies with the more limited 454 00:26:39,280 --> 00:26:43,720 Speaker 1: touch of perhaps c FCC or commodities style regulation over 455 00:26:43,720 --> 00:26:49,520 Speaker 1: a full blown securities regulatory approach. Are judges influenced by 456 00:26:49,720 --> 00:26:55,399 Speaker 1: the thought of protecting unsophisticated investors and that the SEC 457 00:26:55,680 --> 00:26:59,920 Speaker 1: might be better at that. Well, yes, judges are going 458 00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:04,240 Speaker 1: to definitely be very concerned with investor protection, and in fact, 459 00:27:04,280 --> 00:27:07,680 Speaker 1: investor protection is at the root of the securities laws 460 00:27:07,760 --> 00:27:11,080 Speaker 1: that the SEC is trying to enforce. And on top 461 00:27:11,160 --> 00:27:14,840 Speaker 1: of that, we recently have the FTX implosion, which caused 462 00:27:14,840 --> 00:27:19,080 Speaker 1: billions of dollars of losses to innocent investors, and and 463 00:27:19,119 --> 00:27:21,560 Speaker 1: that's also going to be weighing on the judge's mind 464 00:27:21,640 --> 00:27:24,160 Speaker 1: in terms of how important this is going to be. 465 00:27:24,440 --> 00:27:25,960 Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, a lot of 466 00:27:26,000 --> 00:27:28,479 Speaker 1: the judge's decision is going to be looking at the 467 00:27:28,480 --> 00:27:32,000 Speaker 1: text of the Securities Act, and that's the case law 468 00:27:32,080 --> 00:27:35,199 Speaker 1: that's developed under it. And what the defendants have argued 469 00:27:35,359 --> 00:27:37,520 Speaker 1: is that, you know, what the SEC is saying is 470 00:27:37,520 --> 00:27:40,640 Speaker 1: that they feel that that crypto really would benefit from 471 00:27:40,680 --> 00:27:44,240 Speaker 1: more disclosure and more regulation. But the defendants are saying 472 00:27:44,280 --> 00:27:47,119 Speaker 1: that that's fine and good, but it's really Congress's job 473 00:27:47,240 --> 00:27:50,919 Speaker 1: to make those laws and to set the priorities and 474 00:27:50,960 --> 00:27:54,160 Speaker 1: to set the rules, and the SEC just can't come 475 00:27:54,200 --> 00:27:56,400 Speaker 1: into a new area that it doesn't have any sort 476 00:27:56,400 --> 00:28:00,840 Speaker 1: of statutory jurisdiction over and trying to enforce the rules 477 00:28:00,880 --> 00:28:04,359 Speaker 1: which were created in the nineteen thirties for the most part, 478 00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:07,760 Speaker 1: and trying to impose this on a new convention like 479 00:28:07,840 --> 00:28:11,840 Speaker 1: digital asset without any sort of statutory authority from Congress. 480 00:28:11,840 --> 00:28:15,040 Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert him of Tartar, Krinsky 481 00:28:15,080 --> 00:28:17,080 Speaker 1: and Dragon. And that's it for this edition of The 482 00:28:17,080 --> 00:28:20,040 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest 483 00:28:20,119 --> 00:28:23,240 Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find 484 00:28:23,240 --> 00:28:27,840 Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg 485 00:28:27,880 --> 00:28:31,680 Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune 486 00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:34,480 Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten 487 00:28:34,600 --> 00:28:38,360 Speaker 1: BM Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening 488 00:28:38,440 --> 00:28:39,120 Speaker 1: to Bloomberg