Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. President Donald Trump
Speaker 1: litten to former FBI Director James Comey in tweets today,
Speaker 1: saying he drafted his exoneration of Hillary Clinton based on
Speaker 1: political polls that showed her winning the election. It's the
Speaker 1: latest swap of Twitter allegations between the two following Comey's
Speaker 1: first television interview to promote his book last night on
Speaker 1: ABC Comy seemed to hold nothing back in the interview.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's medically unfit to be president. I
Speaker 1: think he's morally unfit to be president. Joining me is
Speaker 1: Bill Gavin, former assistant director of the FBI. Bill, what
Speaker 1: part of the interview surprised you most or concerned you most? June.
Speaker 1: I think that anybody that makes those kinds of statements
Speaker 1: on the moral fitness of an individual, that kind of
Speaker 1: concerns me a bit more than anything I think, and
Speaker 1: the moral sitness of a sitting president does his public
Speaker 1: assault sometimes crosses into the salacious. Does that undermine the
Speaker 1: status of the FBI. I think that what both individuals
Speaker 1: are doing on both sides of the fence, throwing rocks
Speaker 1: at each other and and and making statements that to
Speaker 1: me a kind of unprofessional. The bottom line is it
Speaker 1: tends to when when the comments made against the director
Speaker 1: of the FBI and they made from the President, they
Speaker 1: tend to be believed by the American public and in
Speaker 1: the cast an aspersion upon all FBI employees. And I
Speaker 1: can guarantee June that that of the bureau people, men
Speaker 1: and women go to work every single day and do
Speaker 1: an outstanding job and give their lives and limbs for
Speaker 1: for the organization of the country. This uh is uh,
Speaker 1: It's not. It's more than just static in the background.
Speaker 1: It is a diversion from what the FBI is all about.
Speaker 1: And I really believe that maybe this auto stop, and
Speaker 1: we saw the stop, both sides auto start acting as
Speaker 1: adults rather than the kids in a school yard. Does
Speaker 1: this book Weekend call me his credibility as a potential
Speaker 1: witness against the president in the Muller investigation or elsewhere.
Speaker 1: I haven't read the book, and um, Um, no doubt will,
Speaker 1: But I don't know whether or not it will. It'll
Speaker 1: uh diminish his ability to be a witness any place.
Speaker 1: It all depends upon what he has to say in
Speaker 1: how the facts support what he has to say, and
Speaker 1: whether or not the facts that he talks about are
Speaker 1: classified or not. And I think that's being looked at
Speaker 1: in great depth right now looking at his interview and
Speaker 1: at the excerpts from his book, since we haven't had
Speaker 1: a chance to read it yet. Um, do you see
Speaker 1: a concern, a growing concern or uh sort of underpinning
Speaker 1: of a concern that the president might be open to
Speaker 1: different kinds of risks because of his connections that were
Speaker 1: described in the book. Then all remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: I know that with Bob Mueller's investigation, we have to
Speaker 1: wait to see how that how that unfolds. I know
Speaker 1: that everybody wants it to end immediately. The President wanted
Speaker 1: to end months ago. Uh. It's something that's going to
Speaker 1: go on until Bob Mueller arrives at a conclusion and
Speaker 1: addresses all effects that are presented to him. The other
Speaker 1: important thing, Joan, is going to be the report of
Speaker 1: the Inspector General and I think that will be a
Speaker 1: real um in the event that will be on the
Speaker 1: forefront for quite a while and present some difficulties for
Speaker 1: both the for both the Bureau and in the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. Bill. How does the timing of this book
Speaker 1: tour and the publication of the book play here with
Speaker 1: Muller's investigation and with that Inspector General report you just mentioned.
Speaker 1: It seems to be coming at at a really sort
Speaker 1: of critical time. Sometimes we release a book like that
Speaker 1: in our own interest rather than the overall interest, and
Speaker 1: I think that's probably what's happened in this particular case
Speaker 1: to June Um. It's it's it's a very difficult set
Speaker 1: of circumstances right now. And I think the other two
Speaker 1: things the i S report in the Bob Mullin's report
Speaker 1: will be important reports. Comy stood by his handling of
Speaker 1: the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server, and you
Speaker 1: know the way he he brought it out on several occasions,
Speaker 1: one right before the election. Did you agree with his
Speaker 1: explanation for his rather unusual actions for an FBI director.
Speaker 1: One thing that I totally disagreed with Bob when when
Speaker 1: the director came out with the conclusion that he reached. UM.
Speaker 1: Jim Comey said that, Uh, he really painted a picture
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton, UM, getting ready to be indicted and
Speaker 1: then said, you know, there's no way he could do that.
Speaker 1: My biggest concern and and the biggest fault that I find,
Speaker 1: is the Jim Comey rendered a prosecutive opinion when he
Speaker 1: was the head of the arguably the best investigative organization
Speaker 1: in the world, and being the head of the investigation
Speaker 1: investigative organization does not permit you to render a prosecutive opinion.
Speaker 1: I think that's where he crossed the line, and he
Speaker 1: does not to this day. He doesn't think that he
Speaker 1: crossed the line at that point. I happened to think
Speaker 1: that he did. Should have put that whole thing right
Speaker 1: back into the Department of Justice and let the Attorney
Speaker 1: General handle whatever it is that ensued from that. If
Speaker 1: she didn't want to handle it, Uh, it's on her,
Speaker 1: It's not on the Bureau. And this is what really
Speaker 1: started this whole catastrophe that's going on right now. Bill,
Speaker 1: we have about forty five seconds here. Could you just
Speaker 1: explain what impact all this has had in your opinion
Speaker 1: on the standing and credibility of the FBI. I well, June,
Speaker 1: I think it all depends when how you how you
Speaker 1: look at it. My own personal opinion is that there
Speaker 1: are a number of people six seven people who betrayed
Speaker 1: the trust that was given to them in the FBI.
Speaker 1: That's my own opinion, and I just based it on
Speaker 1: what I know, as the rest of the public knows
Speaker 1: of the men and women in the FBI do an
Speaker 1: outstanding job every single day, go to work. Their badges
Speaker 1: are not tarnished by this event. The only badges that
Speaker 1: are tarnished are the individuals who betrayed their trust in
Speaker 1: in what they were supposed to do. Thank you, Bill,
Speaker 1: We have to leave it there. Everyone certainly agrees with that.
Speaker 1: Thanks Bill Gavin. That's he's a former assistant director of
Speaker 1: the FBI. The Supreme Court is back in session today.
Speaker 1: The Justice has rejected an appeal from former Illinois Governor
Speaker 1: Rod Bloyevitch, who went to prison in twelve joining us
Speaker 1: as Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. Greg tell
Speaker 1: us about the latest Blogoyevitch appeal and the Justice is
Speaker 1: refusal to take it. Hi June, Yes, Former Illinois Governor
Speaker 1: Rob Bligoyevitch for the second time, tried to get his conviction,
Speaker 1: his corruption conviction overturned by the Supreme Court. Uh. Both
Speaker 1: times the court rejected Bolgoievitch. His argument was essentially that
Speaker 1: so he was convicted of of things like um promising
Speaker 1: a Senate seat in exchange for campaign contributions, and he
Speaker 1: argued that the jury in his case wasn't required to
Speaker 1: find that he explicitly promised the Senate seat in exchange
Speaker 1: for those campaign contributions. The Justice Department told the court
Speaker 1: not to hear the case and and they said, look,
Speaker 1: there's nothing magical about the word explicit. Here. The jury
Speaker 1: found there really was a quid pro quo one thing,
Speaker 1: the contributions in exchange for the Senate seat. And that's enough.
Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court decided it didn't need to interview
Speaker 1: in the case and did need to reconsider his conviction. Alright,
Speaker 1: So let's turn to something that a lot of people
Speaker 1: are watching, and that's arguments tomorrow. What's at stake billions
Speaker 1: of dollars in the Supreme Court case with a battle
Speaker 1: over online sales tax. Tell us more about that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this this is something that's familiar to almost anybody who
Speaker 1: shops online. Which is that if you buy something online,
Speaker 1: depending on where you are and who you're buying it from,
Speaker 1: you might have to pay sales taxes and you might
Speaker 1: not have to pay pay sales taxes. And the reason
Speaker 1: is that back in the Supreme Court, dealing with a
Speaker 1: case involving catalog Sales said, Sales said that, Uh, if
Speaker 1: the retailer does not have a physical presence in the state,
Speaker 1: so in other words, doesn't have a store, doesn't have
Speaker 1: a warehouse, doesn't have an office, they can't be forced
Speaker 1: to collect sales taxes. So a retailer like Overstock, for example,
Speaker 1: doesn't have any physical presence in the state of Maryland, Uh,
Speaker 1: they're for Overstock doesn't have to And if I'm in
Speaker 1: Maryland buying something to be for shipment to Maryland, Overstock
Speaker 1: doesn't Overstock doesn't have to charge me the six percent
Speaker 1: sales tax that would otherwise we do. So, Greg, this
Speaker 1: is a really unusual case because the state of South
Speaker 1: Dakota enacted the law that's that issue here so that
Speaker 1: it would be challenged at the Supreme Court. Explain a
Speaker 1: little bit more about that. Yeah, in fact, the state
Speaker 1: of South Dakota knew that its law, which which imposes
Speaker 1: taxes on any retailer that are requires and neglect sales
Speaker 1: taxes if they meet a certain threshold of sales. H
Speaker 1: South Dakota knew that that law would be struck down
Speaker 1: under that Supreme Court decision, which is called quill, So
Speaker 1: they actually um passed the law and and said to
Speaker 1: the lower courts, look, we know you're gonna have to
Speaker 1: strike down our law. Go ahead and do it because
Speaker 1: we want to get up to the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: we want to ask them to overturn that decisions so
Speaker 1: we can tax all these out of state retailers. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly where we're are right now. So the states
Speaker 1: are trying to overturn a twenty six year old Supreme
Speaker 1: Court ruling. What is the response of the retailers? So
Speaker 1: the um depends on which retailers you're talking because it's
Speaker 1: you know, the online it's it's a totally different world
Speaker 1: than it was six years ago as far as online. Yes, so,
Speaker 1: so traditional retailers, UM, the ones that are have brick
Speaker 1: and mortar stores are saying, look, it is time to
Speaker 1: overturn that could decision because it's an unfair advantage to
Speaker 1: the wayfarers and the overstocks of the world that they
Speaker 1: don't have to charge taxes, but the department store down
Speaker 1: the street has to. And for that matter, although this
Speaker 1: is kind of complicated, a company like Amazon sometimes has
Speaker 1: to collect taxes and generally generally does um. And they
Speaker 1: say that distinction in this day and age where economic
Speaker 1: presence in the state is really what matters, not whether
Speaker 1: they have you know, a physical building there. Uh, And
Speaker 1: that's why they say that in this modern age it
Speaker 1: should be overturned. And what about the online retailers, that's
Speaker 1: I should have I should have narrowed the focus there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the online retailers say, look, we have set up this world.
Speaker 1: Everybody has come to rely on this notion that if
Speaker 1: you don't have a physical presence, you don't have to
Speaker 1: collect the sales taxes. And they say that the burden
Speaker 1: on them, and particular very small retailers could be immense.
Speaker 1: They talk about their being more than twelve thousand taxing
Speaker 1: jurisdictions out there, and you have to figure out the
Speaker 1: taxes for each of those, and sometimes it's hard to
Speaker 1: figure out what your product actually is with a particular
Speaker 1: jurisdictions tax code. So you know, is uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a piece of clothing you create, is it is it
Speaker 1: a coat or is it a shirt? Maybe it's not clear,
Speaker 1: and maybe those are tax differently in a particular particular state.
Speaker 1: So they are basically saying to the court, Um, you
Speaker 1: don't you should be the ones to put this burden
Speaker 1: on us. If anymoy is going to do it, Congress
Speaker 1: ought to be the one to do it. So Greg,
Speaker 1: just to conclude, we have less than a minute here,
Speaker 1: But there are three justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and
Speaker 1: Neil Gorc a sort of surprising trio who have already
Speaker 1: expressed doubts about the president. Yeah, and they did it
Speaker 1: in different contexts. So so, Uh, Justice Kennedy basically convited
Speaker 1: South the South Dakota to do what it did here
Speaker 1: in a couple of years ago. In the case he
Speaker 1: really called into question whether the Quill ruling makes any
Speaker 1: sense in this modern age. Uh. Justice course has said
Speaker 1: something similar when he was an Appeals Court judge, and
Speaker 1: Justice Thomas essentially thanks this entire constitutional doctrine, which is
Speaker 1: known as they don't fall asleep here the dormant commerce clause.
Speaker 1: He thinks that's an entirely illegitimate doctrine, and the Court
Speaker 1: shouldn't be in the business of striking down state laws
Speaker 1: on those grounds. Well, I'm sure a lot of law
Speaker 1: students would be happy to see the dormant clad commerce
Speaker 1: clause go away. Thanks so much, Greg, and of course
Speaker 1: you'll be reporting on this tomorrow from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. Thanks for
Speaker 1: Lizz listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg