WEBVTT - Lawyer's Deeply Personal Fight for Transgender Rights 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:12.440 Last month, South Dakota Governor Christie Nome signed a bill 0:00:12.520 --> 0:00:15.920 that bands transgender women and girls in the States schools 0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:20.200 and universities from participating in school sports leagues that match 0:00:20.280 --> 0:00:23.159 their gender identity. Now, we will ensure that we have 0:00:23.239 --> 0:00:27.000 fairness in a level playing field for female athletes here 0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:28.680 in the state of South Dakota at the K twelve 0:00:28.760 --> 0:00:32.440 level and at the university level. Texas Governor Greg Abbott 0:00:32.520 --> 0:00:36.360 ordered the state's Department of Family Service to investigate gender 0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:40.120 affirming care for minors as child abuse, and order that's 0:00:40.120 --> 0:00:44.040 been put on hold by a judge. Conservative lawmakers across 0:00:44.080 --> 0:00:47.240 the country have introduced measures that target trans and non 0:00:47.280 --> 0:00:50.280 binary youth, from their right to play sports to their 0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:54.400 right to get gender affirming care or even use the bathroom. 0:00:54.440 --> 0:00:58.680 Here's transgender activists Eden Rose torres. The people that have 0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:02.200 never had to think about gender identity, that is such 0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:05.720 a privilege because those of us that have had to 0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:08.959 think about it. The reason is is because we don't 0:01:09.000 --> 0:01:13.440 fit into the two boxes that society has given us, 0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:18.000 male or female. The American Civil Liberties Union is taking 0:01:18.000 --> 0:01:22.560 the lead in many of these cases fighting for transgender rights, 0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:25.640 and one lawyer is leading the a c l USE fight. 0:01:26.040 --> 0:01:30.520 J Stangio. Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson did a profile 0:01:30.640 --> 0:01:35.480 on stan Gio. Eric to foodstan Gio's work in context, 0:01:36.360 --> 0:01:40.759 it seems like we're hearing a lot more about cases 0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:47.880 where transgender rights are increasingly under attack. That's true. There 0:01:47.920 --> 0:01:52.320 are dozens of bills that have been proposed in state 0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:55.120 houses around the country just this year, at least a 0:01:55.120 --> 0:01:59.280 couple of dozen that seek to restrict essentially activities for 0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:04.120 trans use, whether it's related to playing in sports or 0:02:04.240 --> 0:02:09.440 various healthcare measures a gender affirming healthcare measures happening kind 0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:12.240 of all across the country. You know, clearly it's an 0:02:12.280 --> 0:02:16.040 issue that the Conservatives and Republicans have jumped on right now. 0:02:16.160 --> 0:02:19.000 So it's similar to the way we've seen a lot 0:02:19.040 --> 0:02:22.400 of other similar bills back in the day against same 0:02:22.440 --> 0:02:25.480 sex marriage and things like that. So it just seems 0:02:25.520 --> 0:02:28.239 to be what they're focusing on right now. So tell 0:02:28.320 --> 0:02:33.800 us about Chase Strange, GEO and a c l U lawyer. Yeah, 0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:36.280 So I noticed that in a lot of these cases 0:02:36.280 --> 0:02:39.320 that the a c l U had been filing challenging 0:02:39.320 --> 0:02:43.080 some of these laws that Chase Strangeeo's name was coming up. Um. 0:02:43.160 --> 0:02:45.600 He has been at the a c l U for 0:02:45.720 --> 0:02:49.600 several years. He oversees the a c l USED legal 0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:52.880 response to trans issues. That doesn't mean he's working on 0:02:52.960 --> 0:02:55.240 every single case or arguing in court in all of them, 0:02:55.280 --> 0:02:58.440 but he's overseeing broadly what is going on, and he 0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:02.200 is also personally working on several of those cases as 0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:07.520 well in court. And protecting trends rights is personal for him. Yeah. 0:03:07.600 --> 0:03:11.120 He he came out as trends in law school. He 0:03:11.360 --> 0:03:14.720 told me about, um, you know, the long process that 0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:17.279 he went through before, you know, coming to this realization 0:03:17.400 --> 0:03:20.919 and decided that trends rights were something that he needed 0:03:20.960 --> 0:03:25.679 to focus on for his career. So he went to 0:03:25.760 --> 0:03:28.680 law school, eventually came out it, worked at a few 0:03:29.440 --> 0:03:32.840 organizations that focused on lgbt Q rights, and then found 0:03:32.880 --> 0:03:35.800 himself at the a c l U. And he lives 0:03:35.840 --> 0:03:39.240 in New York in Queens. He's thirty nine. He is 0:03:39.360 --> 0:03:43.160 co parenting a nine year old and has been working 0:03:43.160 --> 0:03:46.320 from home during the pandemic and fighting this legal battle 0:03:46.360 --> 0:03:48.640 at the same time. Yeah, so he's been leading the 0:03:48.720 --> 0:03:52.400 charge against an order from the governor of Texas, which 0:03:52.560 --> 0:03:58.880 directed the state agency to investigate parents or doctors who 0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:02.800 provide gender affirming care for miners. And this has become 0:04:02.840 --> 0:04:05.520 a huge issue. And did he argue it there? How 0:04:05.640 --> 0:04:07.880 much has he worked on that? He didn't do the 0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:09.680 arguments because they had the a c l U of 0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:12.640 Texas had a lawyer there in court and we were 0:04:12.640 --> 0:04:16.320 able to watch that that hearing over zoom on Friday 0:04:16.320 --> 0:04:20.160 when the decision was handed down granting the injunction against 0:04:20.160 --> 0:04:23.480 that rule that you just mentioned, blocking the state from 0:04:23.600 --> 0:04:27.960 enforcing that rule while this litigation proceeds. So while he 0:04:28.080 --> 0:04:31.280 was not there in court, he is broadly overseeing the 0:04:31.440 --> 0:04:33.840 a c l use legal response to it. And as 0:04:33.839 --> 0:04:36.400 you said, this is a huge, sort of huge deal. 0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:39.800 There's been a lot of these anti trans bills that 0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:43.800 are being challenged. You know, Chase is working on one 0:04:43.880 --> 0:04:48.359 case in Idaho challenging that states law banning girls and 0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:53.039 women from school sports at their trans and another case 0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:58.880 in Arkansas that bands gender firming care from miners, so 0:04:58.960 --> 0:05:01.000 he's working on that case. Well, but I think what 0:05:01.120 --> 0:05:04.360 really made this Texas rule it's not even a law, 0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:07.479 by the way, it's just um the governor Greg Abbott 0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:13.360 issued a directive ordering the state agencies to interpret existing 0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:16.080 law in such a way that the gender firm and 0:05:16.120 --> 0:05:18.880 care is child abuse. So it wasn't even a new law. 0:05:19.200 --> 0:05:21.360 It's just there was the directive, but it got a 0:05:21.360 --> 0:05:24.760 lot of attention across the country because it had a 0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:29.040 new element where it's basically telling the state to investigate 0:05:29.120 --> 0:05:32.839 families for child abuse. So it's not just trying to 0:05:32.880 --> 0:05:36.680 ban gender firming care, it's saying investigate families for child 0:05:36.720 --> 0:05:38.880 abuse if they if they look into it or try it. 0:05:39.400 --> 0:05:42.000 He told you that besides the record number of bills 0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:46.719 being introduced in passing the breath of the cruelty keeps increasing. 0:05:48.200 --> 0:05:51.080 I think that what he was getting at there is 0:05:51.120 --> 0:05:53.680 that when they started to target the children is when 0:05:53.760 --> 0:05:57.920 he really thought that it was getting so cruel because 0:05:58.480 --> 0:06:00.640 you know, obviously, the folks on the other side of 0:06:00.680 --> 0:06:03.520 the argument here are saying that they're the ones protecting children, 0:06:03.600 --> 0:06:06.440 that they're doing is to help children. But that's just 0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:09.360 not how the a c l U sees it. They 0:06:09.400 --> 0:06:11.640 see that this gender firming care is something that a 0:06:11.640 --> 0:06:14.240 lot of people don't know about, and so it's easy 0:06:14.320 --> 0:06:18.440 to spread misinformation about it and make its sound scary, 0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:22.280 I think is the way that Chase describes the effort 0:06:22.320 --> 0:06:25.440 to undermine it. But this point is that there are 0:06:25.520 --> 0:06:28.920 just some some kids who have gender dysphoria. It's a 0:06:29.360 --> 0:06:33.040 you know, it's serious psychological issue that they can have. 0:06:33.160 --> 0:06:37.160 They really strongly identify with a different gender than what 0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:40.080 they physically appear to be. So it's not like a 0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:43.040 decision that's made lightly whether or not to have this 0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:47.440 gender firming care like puberty blockers they're taking um testosterone 0:06:47.560 --> 0:06:50.920 or hormones. It's something that you know, is very carefully 0:06:51.040 --> 0:06:54.479 mapped out with psychologists and doctors and parents, and that 0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:58.440 it's not something that every transmnor does anyway. It's just 0:06:59.120 --> 0:07:02.520 in some cases it's a very rare occurrence and that 0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:07.320 these kids really need this help Strangers says, and for 0:07:07.360 --> 0:07:09.400 the state to try to stop it and demonize their 0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:11.640 parents were trying to help their kids. I think that's 0:07:11.640 --> 0:07:13.280 what he was getting at and saying it was just 0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:18.239 so cruel. And there seemed to be a lot of 0:07:18.880 --> 0:07:25.320 bills lately or laws that try to ban transgender girls 0:07:25.440 --> 0:07:29.800 or women from playing on female sports teams. Have any 0:07:29.840 --> 0:07:35.160 of those cases gotten past the initial stages? Yeah, the 0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:38.400 state of Idaho was the first to pass the law 0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:43.280 like this, and Chase went to port there on behalf 0:07:43.360 --> 0:07:47.120 of a few trans email plaintiffs and the A C 0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:50.680 L You did win at a preliminary junction blocking that 0:07:50.800 --> 0:07:54.440 law from taking effects during the case right now, that um, 0:07:55.000 --> 0:07:56.640 you know, COVID has kind of slowed down a lot 0:07:56.680 --> 0:07:59.840 of these lawsuits, but it's now on appeal of the 0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:03.160 because the state is arguing that the plaintiff no longer 0:08:03.200 --> 0:08:06.520 has standing in the case because she took a year 0:08:06.600 --> 0:08:09.880 off from Boise State University after she failed to make 0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:13.960 the cross country team, so she's back at the university, 0:08:13.960 --> 0:08:16.840 but the state is trying to scrap the case on 0:08:16.840 --> 0:08:20.280 on those grounds. So that's kind of import on appeal. 0:08:21.000 --> 0:08:26.040 And there's another case in Connecticut where to non trans 0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:30.560 female athletes assist gender athletes sued to challenge the state's 0:08:30.600 --> 0:08:34.280 inclusive policy for transit girls and women, saying that they 0:08:34.480 --> 0:08:39.839 have an unfair advantage over non trans athletes. So that 0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:43.360 case was thrown out and they appealed and for the 0:08:43.400 --> 0:08:47.920 Second Circuit will eventually hold arguments on that. This struck 0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:50.760 me in your story. You spoke to Mason Donne, a 0:08:50.840 --> 0:08:55.160 non binary trans right activists in Massachusetts, and he said 0:08:55.320 --> 0:09:00.000 about Strangio, he marveled at his elegant ability to maintain 0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:03.920 decorum in the courtroom even when his opponent is actively 0:09:04.080 --> 0:09:08.000 dehumanizing him to his face with their arguments, and that 0:09:08.160 --> 0:09:12.240 struck me as quite the lawyer, I guess, yeah, yeah, 0:09:12.280 --> 0:09:15.319 you know, that's uh, it's certainly something that I'm sure 0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:18.040 a lot of lawyers have been in similar positions in 0:09:18.080 --> 0:09:20.280 different ways, whether or not. You know, it's a female 0:09:20.360 --> 0:09:24.079 lawyer arguing a case about, you know, something like abortion 0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:26.840 rights or equal pay or things like that, or a 0:09:26.880 --> 0:09:31.560 black lawyer arguing a case related to racial discrimination. So certainly, 0:09:31.679 --> 0:09:34.040 I'm sure a lot of lawyers have been in similar positions. 0:09:34.040 --> 0:09:36.800 But I think because you know, trans community doesn't have 0:09:36.920 --> 0:09:40.040 quite as much visibility to be a trans lawyer up 0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:45.000 in court fighting over and discussing very personal aspects of 0:09:45.040 --> 0:09:48.080 their existence when there's a you know, a well paid 0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:51.240 taxpayer finance lawyer perhaps on the other side, saying that 0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:54.199 you're a threat to children. The fact that Chase Stranger 0:09:54.840 --> 0:09:58.000 is able to sort of let that roll off back 0:09:58.040 --> 0:10:01.520 and just keep arguing, as people have noticed his ability 0:10:01.559 --> 0:10:03.800 to do that, because I spoke a few plaintiffs in 0:10:03.840 --> 0:10:05.839 some of these cases we've been on that are who 0:10:05.880 --> 0:10:08.200 are trans and sort of felt the same way, but 0:10:08.559 --> 0:10:10.960 sort of marveled at his ability to keep his cool 0:10:11.400 --> 0:10:15.800 in court during argument. And he was involved in what 0:10:15.880 --> 0:10:20.480 was probably the greatest victory for trans rights so far, 0:10:20.760 --> 0:10:23.760 and that is the landmark Supreme Court ruling that made 0:10:23.840 --> 0:10:28.680 it illegal to discriminate against trans employees. That's right, that 0:10:28.760 --> 0:10:34.360 was a big ruling. You know, it interpreted existing federal 0:10:34.440 --> 0:10:39.400 law against sex discrimination to apply to transgender employees and 0:10:39.480 --> 0:10:44.280 making a discrimination against trans employees the illegal nationwide. That 0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:47.640 was a huge victory. There are lots of plaintifts involved, 0:10:47.679 --> 0:10:49.800 lots of lawyers involved in that case. He was one 0:10:49.840 --> 0:10:51.920 of them. And he told me he was in the 0:10:51.960 --> 0:10:54.720 Supreme Court building that data and there's those arguments and 0:10:54.800 --> 0:10:56.679 basically said, you know that that was one of the 0:10:56.960 --> 0:10:58.960 greatest days of his life. He said that there were 0:10:58.960 --> 0:11:01.720 a lot of trans well in the Supreme Court building 0:11:01.720 --> 0:11:06.640 that day, people watching. So yeah, clearly a big landmark 0:11:06.720 --> 0:11:09.600 victory for trans rights. But also, he pointed out in 0:11:09.679 --> 0:11:12.440 my interview, a lot of the backlash started after that 0:11:12.520 --> 0:11:18.080 as well, such sad ramifications for a great legal victory. 0:11:18.360 --> 0:11:22.040 Mark Zuckerberg will not have to testify in Washington d 0:11:22.120 --> 0:11:26.600 c's data privacy lawsuit against Facebook. In fact, the judge 0:11:26.679 --> 0:11:30.120 overseeing the case called the attempt to get Zuckerberg to 0:11:30.200 --> 0:11:35.640 testify frankly annoying. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, 0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:39.960 who covered this interesting hearing. Tell us what this data 0:11:40.040 --> 0:11:45.880 privacy lawsuit against Facebook is about. So, the Attorney General 0:11:45.960 --> 0:11:50.200 of the District of Columbia suit Facebook in two thousand eighteen. 0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:53.920 It's a consumer protection lawsuit over what they describe as 0:11:53.920 --> 0:11:57.640 a data breach involving Facebook's data that was used by 0:11:57.720 --> 0:12:00.760 Cambridge Analytica. You may remember that was that firm in 0:12:00.760 --> 0:12:04.319 the UK that was used by Homer President Donald Trump 0:12:04.400 --> 0:12:07.400 two thousand sixteen campaigns. They were able to sort of 0:12:07.400 --> 0:12:09.920 flice and dice a lot of user data for millions 0:12:09.920 --> 0:12:13.800 of Facebook users and use it to try to improve 0:12:13.880 --> 0:12:17.800 Trump's campaign outreach, could say it. And because of the 0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:20.400 way that that data was used, it was friends of 0:12:20.559 --> 0:12:23.560 friends data basically, and so no one had really agreed 0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:26.559 to this use of their data, and the d c 0:12:26.880 --> 0:12:29.840 a g says this was a violation of the district's 0:12:29.840 --> 0:12:33.559 consumer protection laws and file the lawsuit in two thousand eighteen. 0:12:34.200 --> 0:12:37.680 Why didn't they sue Zuckerberg as well? Well, I can't 0:12:37.679 --> 0:12:40.480 tell you exactly why they didn't at first, although they 0:12:40.520 --> 0:12:43.600 had tried to add him to the suits. I think 0:12:43.720 --> 0:12:46.160 that as far as the defendant goes, it was the 0:12:46.240 --> 0:12:50.199 company itself that had engaged in this alleged behavior. So 0:12:50.679 --> 0:12:53.640 I don't think it's uncommon to file a suit against 0:12:53.679 --> 0:12:57.400 the company like that without naming individual executives. That being 0:12:57.440 --> 0:13:01.200 said that they did try to add Zuckerberg to the 0:13:01.240 --> 0:13:04.840 suits just recently. They said that they wanted to get 0:13:04.960 --> 0:13:08.319 his deposition. They said that he had a decision making 0:13:08.400 --> 0:13:11.920 role at the time period when the decisions were made 0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:15.360 to allow third party app to start collecting the data 0:13:15.440 --> 0:13:17.600 in this way, so they wanted to hear from him 0:13:17.600 --> 0:13:23.040 directly on that. What did the judge decide about deposing Zuckerberg, Well, 0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:25.760 he wasn't going to have it. He shot down the 0:13:25.800 --> 0:13:29.040 Attorney General's proposal pretty harshly. I would say, I listened 0:13:29.040 --> 0:13:31.640 in on the on this hearing and Superior Court in DC. 0:13:32.520 --> 0:13:36.280 The judge denied the Attorney General's motion to add Zuckerberg 0:13:36.360 --> 0:13:40.840 is a defendant and granted Facebook's motion for a protective 0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:45.400 order to block the Attorney General from trying to depose Zuckerberg. 0:13:45.880 --> 0:13:49.840 So the judge said, look, this is a consumer protection lawsuits. 0:13:49.840 --> 0:13:54.839 This is about financial damages basically for consumers. The judge said, 0:13:54.920 --> 0:13:58.040 based on what he had heard, the Attorney General already 0:13:58.040 --> 0:14:00.680 had plenty of information to go ahead with his case 0:14:00.720 --> 0:14:03.440 and bring the current claims that he had to trial. 0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:05.559 He was pretty critical at some point, I would say 0:14:05.559 --> 0:14:08.960 he was shouting at the district lawyer is saying that 0:14:09.040 --> 0:14:11.760 they basically were trying to turn this case into a 0:14:11.800 --> 0:14:15.080 case about Mark Zuckerberg int of a case about Facebook, 0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:18.480 and it was really critical of their attempt to add 0:14:18.800 --> 0:14:22.520 saying that they did not need to depose Mark Zuckerberg 0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:26.560 in order to potentially get damages from this data breach 0:14:26.720 --> 0:14:32.280 for the district consumer. But it seems like Zuckerberg is 0:14:32.280 --> 0:14:36.360 a hands on CEO and it would perhaps prove something 0:14:36.520 --> 0:14:40.400 or ramp up money damages. The d C Attorney General 0:14:40.400 --> 0:14:44.480 tweeted that allowing third party apps like Cambridge Analytica to 0:14:44.960 --> 0:14:49.240 access user data was Mark Zuckerberg's brain child. So to me, 0:14:49.320 --> 0:14:52.080 it seems odd that the judge wouldn't allow them to 0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:55.200 depose him. Well, I mean, I think then you would 0:14:55.200 --> 0:14:57.280 have to get into the details of the District of 0:14:57.320 --> 0:15:01.000 Columbia's consumer protection laws and how just might interpret them. 0:15:01.120 --> 0:15:03.320 You know, as you said, a lot of this decision 0:15:03.360 --> 0:15:07.160 making has been exposed, and we're aware now of a 0:15:07.240 --> 0:15:10.400 lot of the failures that happened at Facebook through Cambridge 0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:12.800 Analytica and the decision making behind that, and also of 0:15:12.880 --> 0:15:15.960 course recently whistle blower activity and testimony in Congress. So 0:15:16.440 --> 0:15:19.040 there's clearly a lot of problems that have been exposed 0:15:19.320 --> 0:15:22.040 over there as Facebook. But I think the judges point 0:15:22.080 --> 0:15:24.480 that he was trying to make is just that to 0:15:24.720 --> 0:15:27.960 prove a data breach and to prove that it occurred, 0:15:28.080 --> 0:15:31.040 and to prove that residents of the district had their 0:15:31.120 --> 0:15:34.520 data misused. The judges implying or arguing because that the 0:15:34.560 --> 0:15:37.520 district can already prove that at trial and that they 0:15:37.560 --> 0:15:39.600 need to go ahead to trial with the claims that 0:15:39.640 --> 0:15:43.120 they already have. So at one point the judge did say, look, 0:15:43.440 --> 0:15:46.080 if you find that Mark Zuckerberg did something wrong with 0:15:46.120 --> 0:15:49.080 the evidence, you have final a criminal complaining against them. 0:15:49.240 --> 0:15:51.080 She was being a little flippant, but he's the point. 0:15:51.120 --> 0:15:54.160 He was making is if Mark Zuckerberg did something wrong, 0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:57.040 maybe that's a different case. Maybe that's something that you 0:15:57.040 --> 0:16:00.160 can handle all at different time or another authority. But 0:16:00.240 --> 0:16:02.760 for the purposes of this lawsuit, he wanted to narrow 0:16:02.800 --> 0:16:04.520 it and he wanted to speed it up. That the 0:16:04.560 --> 0:16:07.160 case had been going on too long, and that as 0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:09.160 far as he could tell, the claims that had already 0:16:09.200 --> 0:16:12.000 been spelled out in the complaints, they seem to already 0:16:12.000 --> 0:16:15.120 have enough evidence to take it to trial based on that. 0:16:15.240 --> 0:16:17.800 Whether or not Mark Zuckerberg personally said do this or 0:16:17.840 --> 0:16:20.120 don't do this, I think the judge is saying it's 0:16:20.240 --> 0:16:22.960 irrelevant to the claims in the complaint, and we can't 0:16:23.000 --> 0:16:26.440 leave out that. The judge quoted from the movie Jerry 0:16:26.520 --> 0:16:29.640 McGuire in his opinion, like I said, he had said 0:16:29.960 --> 0:16:32.520 that for the purposes of a consumer protection complaint, it's 0:16:32.560 --> 0:16:35.120 about getting money back to our consumers at the end 0:16:35.120 --> 0:16:38.000 of the day, not proving, you know, some sweeping wrong 0:16:38.080 --> 0:16:40.520 doing by Mark Zuckerberg. So he's saying, if this is 0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:43.880 about money damages, which consumer protection is he said, you know, 0:16:43.960 --> 0:16:46.840 it's like Jerry mcguires, he's like Huber getting Junior, show 0:16:46.880 --> 0:16:50.280 me the money Uh so, he did mention that he 0:16:50.320 --> 0:16:53.960 likes to reference pop culture and and his hearing its 0:16:53.960 --> 0:16:57.880 on occasion, and I love those pop culture references. Thanks 0:16:57.920 --> 0:17:03.520 so much, Eric, that's Bloomberg Little reporter Eric Larson. Steve Bannon, 0:17:03.640 --> 0:17:07.639 once former President Donald Trump's chief White House strategist, is 0:17:07.680 --> 0:17:11.119 facing a rare criminal charge of contempt of Congress for 0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:15.040 refusing to testify before the House Committee investigating the January 0:17:15.119 --> 0:17:19.160 six riots. In a two hour hearing, Bannon won access 0:17:19.200 --> 0:17:23.320 to Department of Justice documents reflecting its official position on 0:17:23.480 --> 0:17:28.280 prosecuting current or former US officials claiming immunity from congressional 0:17:28.280 --> 0:17:32.520 subpoenas on the grounds of executive privilege. But Bannon may 0:17:32.560 --> 0:17:35.960 not be able to raise an advice of council defense 0:17:36.040 --> 0:17:39.560 at his trial. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, 0:17:39.640 --> 0:17:42.359 a partner at McCarter and English, Bob, what is the 0:17:42.400 --> 0:17:46.720 House Committee looking for from Steve Bannon? The House Committee 0:17:46.760 --> 0:17:50.560 start information from Bannon related to his activities as an 0:17:50.560 --> 0:17:56.760 outside Trump advisor after presidential election, and they're particularly interested 0:17:57.040 --> 0:18:01.520 in conversation that Bannon allegedly had at the Willard Hotel 0:18:01.880 --> 0:18:05.520 the day before the attack, when hundreds of Trump supporters 0:18:05.680 --> 0:18:09.720 protested the elections outcome and ultimately stormed the Capitol building. 0:18:10.000 --> 0:18:12.800 And so what the House Committee is looking for is 0:18:12.880 --> 0:18:14.960 they want to know what was said that day, and 0:18:15.000 --> 0:18:19.800 they were particularly noting the fact that Ban instead that 0:18:19.960 --> 0:18:22.639 hell is going to break loose the following day. So 0:18:22.720 --> 0:18:24.840 they want to know what did he know, what did 0:18:24.840 --> 0:18:27.280 he say, who did he talk to and the day 0:18:27.359 --> 0:18:31.840 before the insurrection occurred. He made an argument based on 0:18:32.160 --> 0:18:36.240 Office of Legal Council opinions. Bannon had suggested that that 0:18:36.320 --> 0:18:40.040 he was relying on the Justice Department's own past advice 0:18:40.080 --> 0:18:43.400 to White House aids as he fights these criminal charges, 0:18:43.560 --> 0:18:46.560 and he was particularly citing these Office of Legal Council 0:18:46.600 --> 0:18:50.520 opinions which are out there. Prosecutors argued that the Justice 0:18:50.560 --> 0:18:53.960 Department's legal guidance reflected in opinions issued by the Office 0:18:54.000 --> 0:18:57.400 of Real Council, we're not relevant to whether Banton actually 0:18:57.440 --> 0:19:01.159 committed the contempt of Congress crimes. But the judge was 0:19:01.240 --> 0:19:04.879 not persuaded and ordered the Department of Justice to turn 0:19:05.000 --> 0:19:09.560 over any writings reflecting its official positions on prosecuting current 0:19:09.640 --> 0:19:13.600 or former U S officials claiming immunity from Congressional subpoena 0:19:13.840 --> 0:19:16.879 on grounds of executive privilege. At one point, the judge 0:19:17.000 --> 0:19:20.920 even asked federal prosecutors, isn't there something anomalous. Isn't there 0:19:20.960 --> 0:19:24.480 something unusual for the Department of Justice to stay, on 0:19:24.560 --> 0:19:27.720 the one hand, as someone that's absolute immunity and that 0:19:27.840 --> 0:19:30.840 the Justice Department will not prosecute them, and then to 0:19:30.880 --> 0:19:34.200 say that those statements, those official statements of d o 0:19:34.359 --> 0:19:37.280 J policy are not relevant to this case. So he 0:19:37.480 --> 0:19:41.720 ordered prosecutors to turn over those official statements to Bannon's 0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:44.320 defense team, and we'll see how the judge handles this 0:19:44.440 --> 0:19:48.040 issue after Bannon's lawyers get a chance to review these 0:19:48.080 --> 0:19:52.080 offers of Legal Council opinions. What I don't understand, Bob, 0:19:52.280 --> 0:19:56.720 is that Bannon had been fired as a presidential advisor 0:19:57.440 --> 0:20:01.720 years before January six, So what do those Office of 0:20:01.800 --> 0:20:06.040 Legal Council opinions have to do with him now as 0:20:06.040 --> 0:20:09.280 a non presidential advisor but an ally of the former 0:20:09.320 --> 0:20:12.720 president on January six? I mean, it just seems like 0:20:13.080 --> 0:20:17.320 even if those opinions say senior presidential advisors are absolutely 0:20:17.359 --> 0:20:24.400 immune from compelled congressional testimony, it wouldn't apply to him anyway, 0:20:24.400 --> 0:20:27.159 you know, that's exactly right. And Bannon is among a 0:20:27.240 --> 0:20:30.560 number of Trump allies to excited executive or attorney client 0:20:30.640 --> 0:20:34.159 privilege when refusing to cooperate with the House Committee. But 0:20:34.320 --> 0:20:38.119 the other individuals were actually employed by the executive Branch 0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:41.159 at the time of these communications. Banning is in a 0:20:41.160 --> 0:20:46.439 different situation raising legitimate executive privilege claims because he was 0:20:46.480 --> 0:20:49.360 forced to resign from the Trump Whitehouse in two seventeen, 0:20:49.440 --> 0:20:53.320 more than three years before the insurrection. So his argument 0:20:53.560 --> 0:20:56.719 that this executive privilege would apply to him when the 0:20:56.760 --> 0:21:00.520 conversations that he's trying to shield from the House Committee, 0:21:00.800 --> 0:21:03.639 we're not done while he was employed by the executive branch. 0:21:03.720 --> 0:21:06.240 It's not a strong an argument and ultimately I think 0:21:06.440 --> 0:21:11.440 will likely fail. But the judge nevertheless or the Justice 0:21:11.520 --> 0:21:15.440 Department to turn over statements or writings, whether public or not, 0:21:16.040 --> 0:21:21.399 reflecting official do o J policy on prosecuting current or 0:21:21.480 --> 0:21:26.959 former government officials who claim immunity from congressional subpoenas on 0:21:27.040 --> 0:21:30.720 the grounds of executive privilege. Yeah, no, that's exactly right. 0:21:30.760 --> 0:21:33.679 The judge did say though, that the ratings have to 0:21:33.720 --> 0:21:37.320 reflect the d o j's official position, So I think 0:21:37.320 --> 0:21:40.120 there's some documents that would not be turned over here. 0:21:40.400 --> 0:21:44.600 But prosecutors did fight vigorously to oppose turning over this 0:21:44.720 --> 0:21:48.560 information on the ground that it will allow demanding defense 0:21:48.640 --> 0:21:53.199 team to probe its investigative and prosecutorial decision making. In 0:21:53.240 --> 0:21:56.080 the eyes of prosecutors, this is something that was simply 0:21:56.119 --> 0:21:59.720 not relevant. This case boils down to simply the fact 0:21:59.760 --> 0:22:02.919 that and refused to appear, and that's the issue that 0:22:02.960 --> 0:22:05.600 they posed to the judge. But the judge did give 0:22:05.720 --> 0:22:09.080 some leeway to the banned defense team and did order 0:22:09.359 --> 0:22:13.120 these internal documents, as you say, whether public or not, 0:22:13.400 --> 0:22:15.720 to be turned over as long as they reflect the 0:22:15.840 --> 0:22:19.159 official position of the Department of Justice on this issue. 0:22:19.520 --> 0:22:23.760 And Trump has repeatedly tried to shield from this House 0:22:23.800 --> 0:22:27.080 Committee information from his time in the White House, and 0:22:27.240 --> 0:22:31.359 he has been unsuccessful each time in court, right, And 0:22:31.400 --> 0:22:34.440 the basis for that is that the courts have ruled 0:22:34.480 --> 0:22:37.919 that the decision over whether executive a privilege would apply 0:22:38.520 --> 0:22:41.880 is won me by the current president, not the former president. 0:22:41.960 --> 0:22:45.280 So ultimately it was President Biden's decision as to whether 0:22:45.359 --> 0:22:48.439 or not to exert executive privilege over these communications, and 0:22:48.520 --> 0:22:50.760 he decided not to do it, stated that it was 0:22:50.800 --> 0:22:54.119 in the public at this provided to the House Committee 0:22:54.240 --> 0:22:57.240 and declined to extend executive privilege, and the courts have 0:22:57.359 --> 0:23:00.879 upheld that and have denied former presidents from claim to 0:23:01.040 --> 0:23:04.400 executive privilege when he is no longer a sitting president. 0:23:04.680 --> 0:23:09.159 The Justice Department is trying to stop Banning from arguing 0:23:09.359 --> 0:23:12.679 at his trial that he was following the advice of 0:23:12.760 --> 0:23:16.120 his attorney when he didn't comply with the subpoena. First 0:23:16.160 --> 0:23:21.440 of all, explain the import of an attorney's advice. Well. 0:23:21.480 --> 0:23:25.280 The attorney client privilege is one of the bedrocks of 0:23:25.320 --> 0:23:28.840 the legal system in that it is important for clients 0:23:28.840 --> 0:23:32.240 to be able to communicate freely and openly with their lawyers, 0:23:32.280 --> 0:23:36.080 to provide them candid information so that the lawyer can 0:23:36.119 --> 0:23:38.879 give sound advice to the clients. So that is an 0:23:38.920 --> 0:23:42.679 area that courts have historically been very careful not to 0:23:42.720 --> 0:23:47.200 tread upon to invade those conversations, and that is conversations 0:23:47.240 --> 0:23:50.240 between a client who's providing information to the attorney and 0:23:50.280 --> 0:23:53.359 then the attorney providing legal advice back to the client. So, 0:23:53.440 --> 0:23:57.679 of course have historically been very reluctant to pierce the 0:23:57.760 --> 0:24:03.000 privilege in areas that considered attorney client communications. Is it 0:24:03.040 --> 0:24:06.520 a defense that he was following his attorney's advice when 0:24:06.520 --> 0:24:08.600 his attorney told him he didn't have to comply with 0:24:08.640 --> 0:24:13.159