1
00:00:02,840 --> 00:00:06,320
Speaker 1: You are listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from

2
00:00:06,360 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio.

3
00:00:10,920 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump has sued JP Morgan, Chase and its

4
00:00:14,800 --> 00:00:18,959
Speaker 2: chief executive officer, Jamie Diamond for at least five billion

5
00:00:19,079 --> 00:00:22,720
Speaker 2: dollars over allegations that the lender stopped offering him and

6
00:00:22,760 --> 00:00:27,720
Speaker 2: his business's banking services for political reasons. The bank closed

7
00:00:27,760 --> 00:00:31,360
Speaker 2: accounts for Trump and his businesses about seven weeks after

8
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:34,760
Speaker 2: the January sixth, twenty twenty one, assault on the US

9
00:00:34,920 --> 00:00:38,040
Speaker 2: Capitol by his supporters. J P. Morgan said in a

10
00:00:38,120 --> 00:00:40,839
Speaker 2: statement that the suit has no merit and that they

11
00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:45,000
Speaker 2: close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for

12
00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:48,160
Speaker 2: the company. Joining me is an expert on the intersection

13
00:00:48,320 --> 00:00:52,199
Speaker 2: of business and politics. Riley Steele, a professor at Columbia

14
00:00:52,280 --> 00:00:55,800
Speaker 2: Law School. Riley, this is a lawsuit over a practice

15
00:00:55,840 --> 00:00:59,560
Speaker 2: known as debanking. What's your first reaction to the suit?

16
00:01:00,120 --> 00:01:02,520
Speaker 1: I want to, first of all say that this lawsuit

17
00:01:02,600 --> 00:01:06,600
Speaker 1: is frivolous on multiple levels, and I think the real

18
00:01:06,680 --> 00:01:09,840
Speaker 1: reason for filing the lawsuit. There are a few potential reasons,

19
00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:12,760
Speaker 1: but one big one that stands out to me is

20
00:01:12,800 --> 00:01:15,880
Speaker 1: they're trying to shift media coverage away from Trump's assault

21
00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 1: on the rule of law like we're seeing in Minnesota

22
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:21,360
Speaker 1: right now, and back towards the narrative that he's the

23
00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:24,759
Speaker 1: target of some grand persecution. Now, why do I think

24
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:28,440
Speaker 1: this lawsuit is frivolous? Well, two big categories of reasons.

25
00:01:28,600 --> 00:01:31,840
Speaker 1: The first, there's this big threshold barrier before you even

26
00:01:31,920 --> 00:01:34,680
Speaker 1: get to the merits of the lawsuit, due to the

27
00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:38,840
Speaker 1: length of time that Trump and the other plaintiffs took

28
00:01:39,520 --> 00:01:44,520
Speaker 1: to file this lawsuit. The so called d banking occurred

29
00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:49,080
Speaker 1: in April twenty twenty one. They filed this lawsuit on

30
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:53,280
Speaker 1: January twenty second, twenty twenty six. That's a very long time,

31
00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:58,360
Speaker 1: nearly five years. And there is in the positive agreement

32
00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:01,559
Speaker 1: that is attached to complaint a two year limitation period,

33
00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:04,240
Speaker 1: so this is way longer than judios. So there's that

34
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:07,480
Speaker 1: initial kind of threshold barrier that they're unlikely to get around.

35
00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:09,600
Speaker 1: And then it's also a dubious case on the marriage.

36
00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:12,440
Speaker 2: Is it dubious because of the facts or because of

37
00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:12,880
Speaker 2: the law.

38
00:02:13,240 --> 00:02:17,000
Speaker 1: Basically, there's sort of two core factual allegations in the complaint.

39
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:21,119
Speaker 1: The first is that JP Morgan wrongfully terminated the bank

40
00:02:21,160 --> 00:02:24,560
Speaker 1: accounts of Trump and these affiliated or organizations it's called

41
00:02:24,600 --> 00:02:27,800
Speaker 1: them Trump and Co. For political reasons. The second is

42
00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:30,040
Speaker 1: that they put them on this so called blacklist that

43
00:02:30,160 --> 00:02:33,000
Speaker 1: turnash his reputation. What is the nature of that alleged

44
00:02:33,040 --> 00:02:36,160
Speaker 1: political discrimination not entirely clear from the complaint. It's pretty

45
00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:39,440
Speaker 1: breast of specifics in terms of those factual allegations, but

46
00:02:39,520 --> 00:02:42,280
Speaker 1: that's the crux of it. What is this so called blacklist?

47
00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:45,760
Speaker 1: Also kind of uncleared from the factual allegation of the complaint,

48
00:02:45,760 --> 00:02:48,040
Speaker 1: which again are pretty thin. But what I think it

49
00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:52,000
Speaker 1: is is some sort of compliance related list that JP

50
00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:57,320
Speaker 1: Morgan submitted to federal regulators that other federal regulated banks

51
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 1: going to have access to. The theory and the complaint

52
00:03:00,320 --> 00:03:04,200
Speaker 1: is that by putting him on this blacklist that tarnished

53
00:03:04,240 --> 00:03:07,120
Speaker 1: their reputation and made it so that it was tougher

54
00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:10,120
Speaker 1: for them to get bank accounts at other banks with

55
00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:14,000
Speaker 1: equivalent services offered, which caused them damages. So that's the

56
00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:17,280
Speaker 1: basic sort of factual story that's being told here, and

57
00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:20,520
Speaker 1: then they bring a few different counts based on those

58
00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:24,200
Speaker 1: factual allegations. One count is sort of trade libel, and

59
00:03:24,240 --> 00:03:28,040
Speaker 1: the basic idea here is that by putting them on

60
00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:31,720
Speaker 1: this so called blacklist that constituted some sort of false

61
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:36,600
Speaker 1: statement which tarnished their reputations caused them reputational harm. The

62
00:03:36,640 --> 00:03:41,480
Speaker 1: second count is a unfair and acceptive trade Practices Act,

63
00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:44,640
Speaker 1: and that's against Jamie Diamond. There's a kind of musher

64
00:03:44,640 --> 00:03:47,200
Speaker 1: type of claim and it's not entirely clear from the

65
00:03:47,200 --> 00:03:49,920
Speaker 1: complaint what exactly the theory is, but it could be

66
00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:52,880
Speaker 1: a sort of deception type theory that kind of amounts

67
00:03:52,880 --> 00:03:54,880
Speaker 1: to the same thing as that trade level claim, the

68
00:03:54,960 --> 00:03:57,120
Speaker 1: idea of being that Jamie Diamond directed them to put

69
00:03:57,120 --> 00:03:58,680
Speaker 1: them Ounce's trade list and that was a kind of

70
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:01,880
Speaker 1: acceptive trade actor practice, this kind of strange legal theory.

71
00:04:02,240 --> 00:04:05,120
Speaker 1: And then the other sort of main substance account is

72
00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:07,880
Speaker 1: under the implied covenant of the good faith and fair dealing.

73
00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:11,720
Speaker 1: This is basically the contractual claim. The idea here, and

74
00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:14,840
Speaker 1: this is based on the so called debanking. The theory

75
00:04:14,880 --> 00:04:18,080
Speaker 1: here is that JP Morgan acted in bad faith when

76
00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:22,040
Speaker 1: they were terminating the bank account, which deprived Trump of

77
00:04:22,080 --> 00:04:25,440
Speaker 1: the benefit of the bargain because they account terminated for

78
00:04:25,440 --> 00:04:28,480
Speaker 1: political reasons. Each of these claims has some serious obstacles.

79
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:31,440
Speaker 2: Is it also unusual to sue the CEO of the

80
00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:32,640
Speaker 2: bank in a case like.

81
00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:36,400
Speaker 1: This, Yeah, I think it's pretty unusual. It's pretty unusual,

82
00:04:36,440 --> 00:04:39,640
Speaker 1: and there are any factual allegations to suggest any meaningful

83
00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:42,240
Speaker 1: involvement of Jamie Diamond and all of this other than

84
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:44,880
Speaker 1: the sort of authorized at a high level. That's a

85
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:46,279
Speaker 1: pretty conclusiory allegation.

86
00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:51,120
Speaker 2: As far as the reputational harm. Trump became president after this,

87
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:53,200
Speaker 2: Does that play in anywhere here?

88
00:04:53,440 --> 00:04:56,080
Speaker 1: So I guess the theory would be okay, because I'm

89
00:04:56,080 --> 00:04:58,960
Speaker 1: on this so called blacklist, no other bank wants a

90
00:04:59,000 --> 00:05:02,039
Speaker 1: new business with me, well, not no other bank. I

91
00:05:02,080 --> 00:05:04,440
Speaker 1: assume that they found some bank that was willing to

92
00:05:04,480 --> 00:05:06,520
Speaker 1: accept their money, and they didn't just fit all onto

93
00:05:06,560 --> 00:05:09,680
Speaker 1: the mattress. But whatever bank they did find would not

94
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:12,680
Speaker 1: offer them equivalent services. What does that mean in practice?

95
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:13,400
Speaker 3: I don't know.

96
00:05:13,520 --> 00:05:15,479
Speaker 1: The interest rate on their seeing the account is lower,

97
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:17,279
Speaker 1: that's a factual question. I don't know that's true. They

98
00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:19,320
Speaker 1: don't allege that in the complaint. I mean they have

99
00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:23,240
Speaker 1: access to loans at worse terms. I don't know if

100
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:26,359
Speaker 1: the complaint doesn't allege that. So it's pretty vague about

101
00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:29,080
Speaker 1: what exactly the nature of this damage is. That they've

102
00:05:29,120 --> 00:05:31,400
Speaker 1: incurred that could be a big obstacle for them, in

103
00:05:31,400 --> 00:05:35,200
Speaker 1: addition to sort of whether there's any liability, like no harm,

104
00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:37,200
Speaker 1: no foul, there's no damages, they don't have much of

105
00:05:37,240 --> 00:05:37,720
Speaker 1: the case there.

106
00:05:37,800 --> 00:05:41,080
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was wondering about damages because Donald Trump Junior

107
00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:45,920
Speaker 2: has said that because they couldn't get banking that they

108
00:05:45,960 --> 00:05:49,200
Speaker 2: went into crypto, and they've made a ton of money

109
00:05:49,200 --> 00:05:53,040
Speaker 2: in crypto. So I'm wondering where the damages are.

110
00:05:53,560 --> 00:05:55,960
Speaker 1: Yeah. If the so called debanking prompts them to go

111
00:05:56,040 --> 00:05:58,360
Speaker 1: to crypto and they've made tons and tons of money

112
00:05:58,480 --> 00:05:59,800
Speaker 1: much more than they would have made have they just

113
00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:04,839
Speaker 1: to their traditional banking arrangement in place, then it seems

114
00:06:04,839 --> 00:06:06,960
Speaker 1: like this is a blessing in disguise and there's no

115
00:06:07,080 --> 00:06:08,080
Speaker 1: damages to be had.

116
00:06:08,240 --> 00:06:12,280
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Intelligence, one of our analyst, Elliott Stein, gives a

117
00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:17,400
Speaker 2: seventy percent chance of the case being dismissed before trial.

118
00:06:18,040 --> 00:06:20,240
Speaker 1: It's not higher. Well, first of all, you know, there's

119
00:06:20,240 --> 00:06:23,040
Speaker 1: an arbitration clause in this agreement, So I assume that

120
00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:25,600
Speaker 1: JP Morgan would seek to compel arbitration, I would say

121
00:06:25,600 --> 00:06:28,159
Speaker 1: there's a higher than seventy percent chance of the case

122
00:06:28,200 --> 00:06:31,000
Speaker 1: being dismissed before trial. But maybe there's something I'm missing there.

123
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:33,480
Speaker 1: I'm not sure on the exact percentage, but it seems

124
00:06:33,520 --> 00:06:35,200
Speaker 1: like a very weak case to me, I will say

125
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:35,760
Speaker 1: that much.

126
00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:38,240
Speaker 2: So what do you see as the main hurdles for

127
00:06:38,360 --> 00:06:40,080
Speaker 2: Trump in this lawsuit?

128
00:06:40,839 --> 00:06:43,720
Speaker 1: I opened up by saying this limitations period is going

129
00:06:43,760 --> 00:06:45,520
Speaker 1: to be a major hurdle for them. I don't really

130
00:06:45,520 --> 00:06:48,240
Speaker 1: see a way around that unless there's something I'm missing there.

131
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:52,240
Speaker 1: The second thing being just generally the thinness of the

132
00:06:52,240 --> 00:06:55,159
Speaker 1: factual allegation is in complaints are a big problem. The

133
00:06:55,320 --> 00:06:59,479
Speaker 1: idea that somehow or another, this list constitutes a false

134
00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:02,680
Speaker 1: statement because trade lebel requires them sort of false statement

135
00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:05,360
Speaker 1: of fact, and this seems more like a judgment call

136
00:07:05,400 --> 00:07:07,440
Speaker 1: to me, JPM. We're going to be made a judgment

137
00:07:07,480 --> 00:07:12,720
Speaker 1: call based on perhaps regulatory obligations, based on perhaps some

138
00:07:12,760 --> 00:07:16,720
Speaker 1: sort of business decision about whether to a terminate account

139
00:07:16,760 --> 00:07:18,800
Speaker 1: and be put them on this list, and that I

140
00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:21,440
Speaker 1: don't see the false statement in any of that. So

141
00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:24,600
Speaker 1: that's just going to be a big legal barrier. Based

142
00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:27,440
Speaker 1: on the factual allegations that they currently appear in the complaint,

143
00:07:27,680 --> 00:07:29,640
Speaker 1: I assume if there was more there, they would have

144
00:07:29,680 --> 00:07:31,720
Speaker 1: put it in the complaint, so you know, of course

145
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:34,280
Speaker 1: that they would potentially have a you know, chance to

146
00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:37,280
Speaker 1: if it was dismissed, you know, amend their complaints and

147
00:07:37,320 --> 00:07:40,080
Speaker 1: that additional detail. But if the lawyers are any good,

148
00:07:40,120 --> 00:07:41,960
Speaker 1: they would have put that in there in first place,

149
00:07:42,200 --> 00:07:43,880
Speaker 1: especially because I think a lot of this case is

150
00:07:43,920 --> 00:07:46,320
Speaker 1: a messaging thing, you know, directed to the public rather

151
00:07:46,360 --> 00:07:50,440
Speaker 1: than actually directed at obtaining legal relief for Trump. So

152
00:07:50,880 --> 00:07:53,080
Speaker 1: from a sort of pr perspective, why wouldn't you just

153
00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:55,040
Speaker 1: add more that detail to the complaint and help you

154
00:07:55,080 --> 00:07:56,520
Speaker 1: tell your story.

155
00:07:56,680 --> 00:07:59,520
Speaker 2: I thought that about some of the lawsuits against you know,

156
00:07:59,600 --> 00:08:03,760
Speaker 2: A B and Paramount and everything, but they settled those

157
00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:06,320
Speaker 2: suits for significant amounts of money.

158
00:08:06,880 --> 00:08:09,200
Speaker 1: Yeah, that I thought it across my mind as well.

159
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:13,040
Speaker 1: So I think about the CBS lawsuit which CBS's parent

160
00:08:13,080 --> 00:08:16,920
Speaker 1: company settled, where I believed sixteen million dollars, and you

161
00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:20,320
Speaker 1: could view that as a kind of protection money scheme,

162
00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:23,120
Speaker 1: you know, settle this lawsuit and I will approve your merger,

163
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:28,120
Speaker 1: as they did the Paramount merger. So that could be

164
00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:30,400
Speaker 1: what's going on here, JP Morgan. There are all sorts

165
00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:33,440
Speaker 1: of pressure points the government can desert on. JP Morgan,

166
00:08:33,760 --> 00:08:37,280
Speaker 1: a JP Morgan's highly regulated entity, so perhaps they're trying

167
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:39,720
Speaker 1: to extract some protection money here. The weakness of the

168
00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:42,200
Speaker 1: of the complaint, I mean, people said the same thing

169
00:08:42,240 --> 00:08:44,200
Speaker 1: about the CBS case that I was also weak. But

170
00:08:44,200 --> 00:08:47,160
Speaker 1: this is especially week, especially due the limitations issue, which

171
00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:49,640
Speaker 1: is just a procedural issue. It could be easily disposed

172
00:08:49,679 --> 00:08:51,439
Speaker 1: of on emotion to this mess.

173
00:08:51,760 --> 00:08:56,840
Speaker 2: So apparently the Justice Department has been investigating JP Morgan.

174
00:08:57,400 --> 00:08:59,880
Speaker 2: How odd is it instead of having the Justice to

175
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:04,079
Speaker 2: Department filed charges, to have the President of the United

176
00:09:04,080 --> 00:09:06,080
Speaker 2: States file a private lawsuit.

177
00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:09,800
Speaker 1: Totally totally unusual. I can't think of any anyone else

178
00:09:09,840 --> 00:09:12,199
Speaker 1: in president in my lifetime has done this, so it's

179
00:09:12,240 --> 00:09:15,880
Speaker 1: totally bizarre. Another weird thing about the complaints is he

180
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:20,040
Speaker 1: calls himself President Trump in the complaint. Even though this

181
00:09:20,200 --> 00:09:23,440
Speaker 1: is a lawsuit he's bringing in his individual capacity as

182
00:09:23,520 --> 00:09:27,560
Speaker 1: citizen Trump, he calls himself President Trump, which I think

183
00:09:27,760 --> 00:09:30,920
Speaker 1: says something about the kind of erosion of the barriers

184
00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:34,880
Speaker 1: between the president as the president as an officer of

185
00:09:34,920 --> 00:09:39,640
Speaker 1: the United States and the sort of President Trump as individual,

186
00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:42,320
Speaker 1: sort of personalist brand and politics he's practicing.

187
00:09:43,240 --> 00:09:45,720
Speaker 2: So you think that part of the motivation of this

188
00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:47,120
Speaker 2: lawsuit is messaging.

189
00:09:47,480 --> 00:09:49,640
Speaker 1: This is kind of just setting a message don't defy me,

190
00:09:50,040 --> 00:09:52,400
Speaker 1: or you're going to have trouble, which kind of could

191
00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:54,680
Speaker 1: be a message not to just a JP mortgamant, to

192
00:09:55,080 --> 00:09:59,839
Speaker 1: all sorts of actors, executives, directors, corporate America not to

193
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:01,880
Speaker 1: step out of line or you're going to have trouble.

194
00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:04,760
Speaker 1: So I think this lawsuit is potentially accomplishing motives there.

195
00:10:04,880 --> 00:10:07,520
Speaker 1: I don't really think that the money is the main one,

196
00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:10,400
Speaker 1: because he now has so much of it, especially after

197
00:10:10,600 --> 00:10:12,800
Speaker 1: all his you know, the money they've been making in

198
00:10:13,120 --> 00:10:15,599
Speaker 1: crypto recently. Let that money make a great part of

199
00:10:15,640 --> 00:10:15,920
Speaker 1: it too.

200
00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:19,160
Speaker 2: We'll see if there's a motion to dismiss first or

201
00:10:19,920 --> 00:10:24,120
Speaker 2: emotion for arbitration. Thanks so much, Riley. That's Professor Riley

202
00:10:24,160 --> 00:10:30,040
Speaker 2: Steele of Columbia Law School. Last year, President Trump used

203
00:10:30,120 --> 00:10:34,760
Speaker 2: executive orders in presidential memos to penalize law firms for

204
00:10:34,880 --> 00:10:39,240
Speaker 2: representing clients or taking actions he opposed. Some of those

205
00:10:39,320 --> 00:10:43,720
Speaker 2: law firms targeted by executive orders sued the administration, calling

206
00:10:43,760 --> 00:10:48,120
Speaker 2: the orders unconstitutional, but the firm of Paul Weiss settled.

207
00:10:48,720 --> 00:10:52,959
Speaker 2: In addition, eight other firms made preemptive deals to avoid

208
00:10:53,080 --> 00:10:56,920
Speaker 2: being targeted by executive orders. As part of the settlements,

209
00:10:56,960 --> 00:10:59,400
Speaker 2: the nine law firms agreed to provide a total of

210
00:10:59,520 --> 00:11:02,920
Speaker 2: nine hundre undred and forty million dollars in pro bono

211
00:11:03,080 --> 00:11:06,400
Speaker 2: work to efforts supported by the President and the firm.

212
00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:11,079
Speaker 2: It wasn't a particularly good look for the legal profession. Now,

213
00:11:11,080 --> 00:11:14,360
Speaker 2: with rising threats to the rule of law, two retired

214
00:11:14,480 --> 00:11:18,800
Speaker 2: judges have suggested a new initiative to publicly defend the

215
00:11:19,000 --> 00:11:24,199
Speaker 2: independence and ethical obligations of lawyers. It's entitled A Simple

216
00:11:24,240 --> 00:11:28,560
Speaker 2: Proposal for the Legal Profession to Regain its Dignity. It

217
00:11:28,640 --> 00:11:31,640
Speaker 2: was written by Shira Shinlan, a former judge of the U. S.

218
00:11:31,800 --> 00:11:34,880
Speaker 2: District Court for the Southern District of New York, and

219
00:11:35,000 --> 00:11:38,360
Speaker 2: John Jones the Third, the former Chief Judge of the U. S.

220
00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:42,400
Speaker 2: District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Jones

221
00:11:42,520 --> 00:11:46,120
Speaker 2: joins me, Now, Judge Jones, how would you characterize the

222
00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:50,720
Speaker 2: way the legal profession reacted last year to being targeted

223
00:11:50,760 --> 00:11:51,959
Speaker 2: by President Trump?

224
00:11:52,280 --> 00:11:55,360
Speaker 4: I think it was a mixed bag. The firms that

225
00:11:55,720 --> 00:12:02,160
Speaker 4: dug in and fought won because I think the executive

226
00:12:02,280 --> 00:12:08,040
Speaker 4: orders were clearly beyond the purview of the president, and

227
00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:12,520
Speaker 4: in any event they violated the firm's First Amendment rights.

228
00:12:12,760 --> 00:12:17,160
Speaker 4: But there were other firms that felt, for a variety

229
00:12:17,240 --> 00:12:22,079
Speaker 4: of reasons, compelled to bend and capitulate and make arrangements,

230
00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:27,160
Speaker 4: typically citing the loss of clients, the determination that they

231
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:30,480
Speaker 4: didn't want to get at odds with the administration, and

232
00:12:30,520 --> 00:12:34,600
Speaker 4: so forth. So it was truly mixed and divergent in

233
00:12:34,679 --> 00:12:35,880
Speaker 4: terms of the reactions.

234
00:12:36,240 --> 00:12:38,840
Speaker 2: Why have you and Judge Shyland written this off ed?

235
00:12:39,360 --> 00:12:42,920
Speaker 4: It was something that Judge Shyland I give her abundant credit.

236
00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:48,080
Speaker 4: She thought of this and started the ball rolling. In

237
00:12:48,160 --> 00:12:52,120
Speaker 4: terms of forming the principles, I was very happy to

238
00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:55,760
Speaker 4: sign on. We felt that it was within the clear

239
00:12:56,280 --> 00:13:01,160
Speaker 4: mission of the Article three coalition. Both of us are

240
00:13:01,200 --> 00:13:05,559
Speaker 4: a part of which, of course is now over sixty

241
00:13:05,800 --> 00:13:11,400
Speaker 4: former federal judges banding together dating back to Reagan appointees,

242
00:13:11,720 --> 00:13:15,280
Speaker 4: and as we said in the op ed, as jurists

243
00:13:15,440 --> 00:13:22,439
Speaker 4: who had a combined service of probably near five decades

244
00:13:22,960 --> 00:13:26,520
Speaker 4: on the bench, we felt that it was important for

245
00:13:26,600 --> 00:13:30,880
Speaker 4: us to speak up for the legal profession in a

246
00:13:30,920 --> 00:13:35,320
Speaker 4: way that perhaps it would be difficult for individual firms

247
00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:38,800
Speaker 4: to be the rallying points. It has to start somewhere,

248
00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:41,640
Speaker 4: and we thought this was the proper way to do it.

249
00:13:42,200 --> 00:13:45,000
Speaker 2: Tell us a little about the Sullivan principles and what

250
00:13:45,040 --> 00:13:46,600
Speaker 2: you're aiming for here.

251
00:13:46,960 --> 00:13:50,800
Speaker 4: Well, as Sullivan principles of course date back to the

252
00:13:50,840 --> 00:13:55,000
Speaker 4: Reverend Leon Sullivan in Philadelphia and South Africa and corporations

253
00:13:55,040 --> 00:13:59,240
Speaker 4: and so forth. But what we wanted to do was

254
00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:05,520
Speaker 4: to state clearly that law firms should feel empowered to

255
00:14:05,640 --> 00:14:10,480
Speaker 4: resist this type of overreach from the administration. Lawyers govern

256
00:14:10,600 --> 00:14:15,920
Speaker 4: themselves and do so quite well through bar associations, through

257
00:14:16,520 --> 00:14:21,600
Speaker 4: the disciplinary apparatus that exists in every state. But to

258
00:14:21,640 --> 00:14:27,760
Speaker 4: find themselves in the penalty box because a particular president

259
00:14:28,200 --> 00:14:32,280
Speaker 4: doesn't like who they've hired, or doesn't like the clients

260
00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:35,760
Speaker 4: that they've represented, or the viewpoints that they've espoused, or

261
00:14:35,800 --> 00:14:38,480
Speaker 4: the pro bono work that they're doing, flies in the

262
00:14:38,520 --> 00:14:42,440
Speaker 4: face of the tradition of the legal profession, which is

263
00:14:42,600 --> 00:14:47,240
Speaker 4: to provide legal services even in the face of potentially

264
00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:53,680
Speaker 4: unpopular causes, and in particular serving those who can't afford

265
00:14:53,920 --> 00:14:59,880
Speaker 4: legal services, free of being mandated to support certain causes

266
00:15:00,120 --> 00:15:04,960
Speaker 4: but to abandon others, again by an executive order. So

267
00:15:05,120 --> 00:15:11,280
Speaker 4: the principles are kind of a reaffirmation of what we

268
00:15:11,480 --> 00:15:14,200
Speaker 4: believe has always been in the best tradition of the

269
00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:20,840
Speaker 4: legal profession, which is to provide representation free of coercion

270
00:15:21,760 --> 00:15:27,320
Speaker 4: or being sanctioned by some third party because of a

271
00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:29,480
Speaker 4: particular cause or a viewpoint.

272
00:15:30,040 --> 00:15:31,720
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was going to say, it didn't seem like

273
00:15:31,760 --> 00:15:35,320
Speaker 2: there was anything new in what you were suggesting. Are

274
00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:40,480
Speaker 2: you just trying to give other lawyers courage to stick

275
00:15:40,560 --> 00:15:41,960
Speaker 2: to the principles.

276
00:15:42,760 --> 00:15:45,480
Speaker 4: I think that's precisely it. I think it's really in

277
00:15:45,520 --> 00:15:49,480
Speaker 4: a sense of reaffirmation. There isn't anything new. It's not

278
00:15:49,600 --> 00:15:53,720
Speaker 4: for us to add something to I think a system

279
00:15:53,800 --> 00:15:58,280
Speaker 4: that historically has worked very well. We all know the

280
00:15:58,320 --> 00:16:03,080
Speaker 4: story of John Adam representing the British soldiers in history,

281
00:16:03,480 --> 00:16:08,200
Speaker 4: something that was hardly popular in Boston at that time.

282
00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:12,240
Speaker 4: All of us who practiced law, and I did for

283
00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:15,040
Speaker 4: a lot of years before I took the bench, had

284
00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:21,400
Speaker 4: occasion to represent clients who perhaps had causes that people

285
00:16:21,440 --> 00:16:25,440
Speaker 4: would disagree with. But that's the nature of giving people

286
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:29,160
Speaker 4: access to the courts. It's essential to the rule of law,

287
00:16:29,920 --> 00:16:33,480
Speaker 4: and it strikes at the heart of that when you

288
00:16:33,520 --> 00:16:38,400
Speaker 4: have an administration that labels. For example, a law firm

289
00:16:38,520 --> 00:16:43,200
Speaker 4: that is completely reputable as a rogue law firm, that

290
00:16:43,360 --> 00:16:47,800
Speaker 4: locks lawyers out of federal courthouses, that strips security clearances

291
00:16:48,200 --> 00:16:50,440
Speaker 4: for lawyers, just in a sort of fit of peak

292
00:16:50,760 --> 00:16:53,240
Speaker 4: because they don't like what those lawyers are doing. That's

293
00:16:53,360 --> 00:16:57,040
Speaker 4: the type of behavior that an authoritarian regime exposes.

294
00:16:57,280 --> 00:16:59,680
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Judge Jones, It's always great to have

295
00:16:59,720 --> 00:17:02,320
Speaker 2: you on the show. That's John Jones the Third, the

296
00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:05,399
Speaker 2: former chief Judge of the United States District Court for

297
00:17:05,480 --> 00:17:08,879
Speaker 2: the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He's now the president of

298
00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:17,800
Speaker 2: Dickinson College. Retired federal judges Shira Shineland and Johnny Jones

299
00:17:17,800 --> 00:17:21,879
Speaker 2: the Third have suggested a new initiative to reaffirm the

300
00:17:21,960 --> 00:17:26,720
Speaker 2: foundational role of lawyers in our constitutional system. It's entitled

301
00:17:26,800 --> 00:17:30,840
Speaker 2: a Simple Proposal for the Legal Profession to Regain its dignity.

302
00:17:31,320 --> 00:17:33,840
Speaker 2: Joining me now to talk about their initiative is former

303
00:17:33,960 --> 00:17:37,000
Speaker 2: Judge Sirah Shineland. Judge Shiland, why do you think so

304
00:17:37,160 --> 00:17:42,600
Speaker 2: many successful top tier law firms ended up caving to

305
00:17:42,880 --> 00:17:46,720
Speaker 2: President Trump's demands and settling last year.

306
00:17:47,119 --> 00:17:50,080
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, I haven't used the word cave ever,

307
00:17:50,240 --> 00:17:52,520
Speaker 3: but I know they are those who do. I think

308
00:17:52,560 --> 00:17:57,440
Speaker 3: they really felt that their sort of existence was threatened,

309
00:17:57,520 --> 00:18:01,080
Speaker 3: even though you say they're very successful firms, very large firms.

310
00:18:01,359 --> 00:18:05,840
Speaker 3: But if somebody threatens them and says you will not

311
00:18:05,880 --> 00:18:08,919
Speaker 3: be able to enter a federal courthouse, we will eliminate

312
00:18:09,000 --> 00:18:14,960
Speaker 3: your security clearances, we will not give government contracts to

313
00:18:15,040 --> 00:18:19,679
Speaker 3: your clients. I mean the clients will plead they'll find

314
00:18:19,760 --> 00:18:22,320
Speaker 3: other firms to do the work. And so I think

315
00:18:22,400 --> 00:18:26,960
Speaker 3: these firms were seriously concerned as to the impact of

316
00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:32,359
Speaker 3: this executive order on their bottom line, their financial existence,

317
00:18:32,920 --> 00:18:37,840
Speaker 3: and they weren't willing to go to court oppose the

318
00:18:37,880 --> 00:18:41,760
Speaker 3: executive order as other firms did, which results in four

319
00:18:41,920 --> 00:18:45,600
Speaker 3: very positive decisions. Say that the eos are called eos

320
00:18:45,640 --> 00:18:49,800
Speaker 3: executive orders were unconstitutional, But I think the first firms

321
00:18:49,920 --> 00:18:53,560
Speaker 3: to get these notices just said it's be easier to

322
00:18:53,640 --> 00:18:56,199
Speaker 3: work it out than to fight. And I know that

323
00:18:56,280 --> 00:18:59,520
Speaker 3: the very first firm, Paul White, mister Carr went to

324
00:18:59,560 --> 00:19:04,119
Speaker 3: the White and negotiated a resolution that he thought would

325
00:19:04,119 --> 00:19:06,480
Speaker 3: be something that he could live with. When I think

326
00:19:06,520 --> 00:19:09,840
Speaker 3: he was surprised by is how the reaction to his

327
00:19:10,240 --> 00:19:14,520
Speaker 3: decision was so negative that the legal profession was critical

328
00:19:14,520 --> 00:19:17,560
Speaker 3: of his decisions. But then you know a few more

329
00:19:17,560 --> 00:19:19,600
Speaker 3: of the very big firms did the same thing, and

330
00:19:19,640 --> 00:19:22,320
Speaker 3: I think it came to nine in the end. So

331
00:19:22,480 --> 00:19:25,480
Speaker 3: even though there was an outcry after the first firm

332
00:19:25,680 --> 00:19:28,200
Speaker 3: made a deal, several mores did the same things.

333
00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:33,120
Speaker 2: So it seems as if the Trump administration, at least

334
00:19:33,119 --> 00:19:36,480
Speaker 2: for now, has backed off on the threats to law firms.

335
00:19:36,720 --> 00:19:40,320
Speaker 3: Just to know. They're not sending out any new executive

336
00:19:40,440 --> 00:19:44,439
Speaker 3: orders that I know of, but they are appealing the

337
00:19:44,480 --> 00:19:48,600
Speaker 3: decisions of the four district courts which have all held

338
00:19:49,040 --> 00:19:52,879
Speaker 3: that those original executive boards were unconstitutional. They really wanted

339
00:19:52,920 --> 00:19:55,720
Speaker 3: to back off, they wouldn't bother with the appeal, but

340
00:19:55,800 --> 00:19:59,280
Speaker 3: they're continuing to fight and say we had every right

341
00:19:59,359 --> 00:20:02,840
Speaker 3: to those executive orders and threaten those law firms and

342
00:20:02,920 --> 00:20:05,960
Speaker 3: tell them what they could or couldn't do in their practice.

343
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:09,000
Speaker 3: So they are taking appeals, so I wouldn't entirely say

344
00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:11,800
Speaker 3: they've backed off. Maybe they're just holding off to see

345
00:20:11,840 --> 00:20:13,000
Speaker 3: how the appeals work out.

346
00:20:13,640 --> 00:20:16,520
Speaker 2: So I mean, what are you hoping to accomplish with

347
00:20:16,920 --> 00:20:18,560
Speaker 2: your peace in the times?

348
00:20:18,800 --> 00:20:21,399
Speaker 3: The peace in the times is really just a way

349
00:20:21,720 --> 00:20:25,600
Speaker 3: so to seek to publicize the principles for the Independence

350
00:20:25,600 --> 00:20:29,840
Speaker 3: of the legal profession that a number of former federal

351
00:20:29,920 --> 00:20:34,680
Speaker 3: judges associated would keep. Our republic has worked one very

352
00:20:34,720 --> 00:20:39,040
Speaker 3: hard to make them straightforward, simple and clear. We want

353
00:20:39,160 --> 00:20:45,199
Speaker 3: to have them widely adopted by law firms, as law schools,

354
00:20:45,240 --> 00:20:51,720
Speaker 3: and individual lawyers, and general counsels of corporations and nonprofits,

355
00:20:52,359 --> 00:20:56,760
Speaker 3: and eventually even government lawyers. So we're hoping that if

356
00:20:57,320 --> 00:21:02,240
Speaker 3: hundreds and hopefully thousands of people adopt these principles, and

357
00:21:02,560 --> 00:21:06,480
Speaker 3: hundreds of law firms do and hundreds of law schools,

358
00:21:06,800 --> 00:21:10,280
Speaker 3: that they're going to say to the legal profession, silence

359
00:21:10,400 --> 00:21:13,600
Speaker 3: is not an option. You must buy these type of

360
00:21:14,320 --> 00:21:20,520
Speaker 3: executive orders because they impinge on your independence. And how

361
00:21:20,560 --> 00:21:24,440
Speaker 3: does that relate to courts? Because courts can't rule on

362
00:21:24,560 --> 00:21:28,000
Speaker 3: cases they don't have right. They can only respond to

363
00:21:28,040 --> 00:21:32,400
Speaker 3: cases brought to them by lawyers. So if lawyers are independent,

364
00:21:32,840 --> 00:21:36,760
Speaker 3: then the courts are so as a group of former judges,

365
00:21:36,840 --> 00:21:39,920
Speaker 3: we know that it's lawyers that bring cases to court.

366
00:21:40,280 --> 00:21:42,919
Speaker 3: It's lawyers who to the government when they think the

367
00:21:42,960 --> 00:21:46,760
Speaker 3: government is acting inappropriately. So we feel that there is

368
00:21:46,840 --> 00:21:50,600
Speaker 3: a connection there that we as former judges who care

369
00:21:50,800 --> 00:21:54,440
Speaker 3: very much about the independence of lawyers, because lawyers bring

370
00:21:54,520 --> 00:21:57,159
Speaker 3: cases to the court and then the court's rule and

371
00:21:57,200 --> 00:22:00,840
Speaker 3: then law is made in our country, And judge.

372
00:22:00,600 --> 00:22:04,159
Speaker 2: What can you do about the public's seeming loss of

373
00:22:04,359 --> 00:22:06,240
Speaker 2: confidence in the courts.

374
00:22:07,040 --> 00:22:11,560
Speaker 3: I do think they have lost some confidence in the

375
00:22:11,640 --> 00:22:17,439
Speaker 3: court because primarily of the United States Supreme Court, meaning

376
00:22:17,920 --> 00:22:21,440
Speaker 3: that the district courts have ruled against the government when

377
00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:25,120
Speaker 3: they think it's appropriate. The appellate court has affirmed those

378
00:22:25,160 --> 00:22:28,000
Speaker 3: opinions when they think it's appropriate. But then it goes

379
00:22:28,040 --> 00:22:31,240
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court on an emergency docket appeal, which

380
00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:34,399
Speaker 3: we call the shadow docket, and then a stay is entrant,

381
00:22:34,600 --> 00:22:37,680
Speaker 3: and all of a sudden, the bad conduct can continue,

382
00:22:38,040 --> 00:22:40,160
Speaker 3: maybe for a year, maybe for two years, so they

383
00:22:40,200 --> 00:22:43,000
Speaker 3: actually hear the merit. So I think there's been a

384
00:22:43,119 --> 00:22:46,840
Speaker 3: real loss of confidence at the top of the judiciary

385
00:22:47,240 --> 00:22:52,240
Speaker 3: because of the extremely deferential attitude the Supreme Court is

386
00:22:52,280 --> 00:22:55,320
Speaker 3: taken to the executive branch. You may have seen those

387
00:22:55,320 --> 00:22:58,360
Speaker 3: statistics that if there's been I don't know thirty five

388
00:22:58,400 --> 00:23:01,760
Speaker 3: appeals to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration has one

389
00:23:01,960 --> 00:23:06,159
Speaker 3: eight ninety percent of those emergency docket appeals not a

390
00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:09,080
Speaker 3: full hearing, So I think that's what's caused the laws

391
00:23:09,080 --> 00:23:13,399
Speaker 3: of confidence in the judicial branch. As far as the

392
00:23:13,480 --> 00:23:16,919
Speaker 3: attacks on judges, that's so wrong and so bad that

393
00:23:16,960 --> 00:23:20,080
Speaker 3: I think the public doesn't like to hear about that,

394
00:23:20,119 --> 00:23:24,600
Speaker 3: about judges being threatened physically of their family, or judges

395
00:23:24,640 --> 00:23:27,399
Speaker 3: being impeached for doing their job. So I think the

396
00:23:27,440 --> 00:23:31,199
Speaker 3: public is supportive of the lower courts for sure, and

397
00:23:31,359 --> 00:23:33,840
Speaker 3: it doesn't like to see them threatened like that.

398
00:23:34,520 --> 00:23:36,880
Speaker 2: And what kind of response have you gotten to your

399
00:23:37,080 --> 00:23:38,000
Speaker 2: outreach here?

400
00:23:38,600 --> 00:23:41,280
Speaker 3: Oh so, so far we're having a wonderful response. And

401
00:23:41,320 --> 00:23:42,840
Speaker 3: I think that was the point of the op ed

402
00:23:43,600 --> 00:23:46,159
Speaker 3: I saw. After we finished drafting the principles, which is

403
00:23:46,240 --> 00:23:49,280
Speaker 3: way back in September, it took several months of them

404
00:23:49,359 --> 00:23:54,520
Speaker 3: to be adopted by to Keep Our Republic Article three Coalition,

405
00:23:54,640 --> 00:23:57,199
Speaker 3: which is a subset of Keep Our Republic. By the

406
00:23:57,280 --> 00:24:00,000
Speaker 3: time that was adopted by the majority of the judges

407
00:24:00,440 --> 00:24:03,080
Speaker 3: in the Article three Coalition, it was almost January. But

408
00:24:03,200 --> 00:24:05,760
Speaker 3: I said, we need to write a quick op at

409
00:24:05,880 --> 00:24:09,719
Speaker 3: and get it hopefully widely disseminated, which means the New

410
00:24:09,800 --> 00:24:12,800
Speaker 3: York Times because it's sort of the premier paper records.

411
00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:15,399
Speaker 3: Let's see if we can get it published there because

412
00:24:15,400 --> 00:24:18,320
Speaker 3: I think then it's widely seen, and that's what happened.

413
00:24:18,520 --> 00:24:21,159
Speaker 3: It was, of course posted online last Monday, and it

414
00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:23,960
Speaker 3: was a prince on Friday. We've had a wonderful response.

415
00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:27,200
Speaker 3: We now have over six hundred lawyers who have signed

416
00:24:27,200 --> 00:24:29,840
Speaker 3: on to the principles, and I think by the time

417
00:24:29,880 --> 00:24:32,120
Speaker 3: we're done, it's going to be well over one thousand.

418
00:24:32,480 --> 00:24:38,159
Speaker 3: And we're also doing outreach to organizations, not just lawyers individually,

419
00:24:38,240 --> 00:24:43,400
Speaker 3: but to law firms, law schools, corporations, nonprofits. We are

420
00:24:43,560 --> 00:24:47,200
Speaker 3: reaching out to all those sectors of the legal profession.

421
00:24:47,240 --> 00:24:50,560
Speaker 3: Oh I forgot a very important bar association, and if

422
00:24:50,600 --> 00:24:53,359
Speaker 3: they begin to sign on, it's going to become a

423
00:24:53,480 --> 00:24:57,760
Speaker 3: really powerful tool to say we've adopted these principles. Therefore,

424
00:24:57,800 --> 00:25:00,359
Speaker 3: we have to resist if anybody were to try to

425
00:25:00,400 --> 00:25:02,760
Speaker 3: tell us who we can represent or not, what we

426
00:25:02,840 --> 00:25:04,919
Speaker 3: can write or not, and who we can give money

427
00:25:04,920 --> 00:25:07,200
Speaker 3: to or not, and who we could give pro bono

428
00:25:07,320 --> 00:25:10,479
Speaker 3: hours two or not. If anybody tries to tell us,

429
00:25:10,480 --> 00:25:12,879
Speaker 3: we can hold these up and say I'm sorry, we

430
00:25:12,920 --> 00:25:16,159
Speaker 3: can't not do these things because that would be unethical.

431
00:25:16,280 --> 00:25:19,280
Speaker 3: These are the principles that govern the legal profession and

432
00:25:19,320 --> 00:25:20,920
Speaker 3: its independence, you know.

433
00:25:20,920 --> 00:25:25,919
Speaker 2: Talking about the public's confidence in the legal system, and

434
00:25:26,000 --> 00:25:29,560
Speaker 2: you mentioned the Supreme Court. I'm wondering if another component

435
00:25:29,600 --> 00:25:33,040
Speaker 2: of that is the way the Department of Justice is

436
00:25:33,080 --> 00:25:37,200
Speaker 2: acting recently. A good example is what's happening in Minneapolis

437
00:25:37,280 --> 00:25:37,800
Speaker 2: right now.

438
00:25:38,080 --> 00:25:41,359
Speaker 3: Of course, So the answer to that is the Justice

439
00:25:41,400 --> 00:25:45,199
Speaker 3: Department used to be independent of the executive of the

440
00:25:45,200 --> 00:25:49,520
Speaker 3: White House. Ever since the Nixon administration and Watergate scandal,

441
00:25:49,880 --> 00:25:53,000
Speaker 3: it was very important that the White House did never

442
00:25:53,480 --> 00:25:56,560
Speaker 3: even talk to the Attorney General, try to always have

443
00:25:56,760 --> 00:26:01,119
Speaker 3: them be distant and independent of each other. But under

444
00:26:01,280 --> 00:26:05,960
Speaker 3: this administration, it does appear that the President tells the

445
00:26:06,000 --> 00:26:11,679
Speaker 3: Attorney General what he wants. Go out and indict James Tomy,

446
00:26:11,800 --> 00:26:16,560
Speaker 3: go out and indict Letitia James. And it doesn't stop

447
00:26:16,600 --> 00:26:19,720
Speaker 3: with those two. Go out and indict for the head

448
00:26:19,760 --> 00:26:22,760
Speaker 3: of the Federal Reserve, Gerald Pouse, go out and indict

449
00:26:22,880 --> 00:26:25,680
Speaker 3: John Bolton. I mean, go out and invite Lisa Cook

450
00:26:25,760 --> 00:26:29,359
Speaker 3: and think oh, go out and inde Jacksmith. Now sure,

451
00:26:29,560 --> 00:26:33,280
Speaker 3: so the White House seems to be telling the d

452
00:26:33,440 --> 00:26:36,560
Speaker 3: o J what to do, and so the Department of

453
00:26:36,800 --> 00:26:41,000
Speaker 3: Justice seems to be not a non partisan place. It

454
00:26:41,040 --> 00:26:44,639
Speaker 3: seems to be very, very political and if the views

455
00:26:44,680 --> 00:26:49,000
Speaker 3: of what happened in Minnesota have been terribly upsetting, I

456
00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:53,960
Speaker 3: think to the people of Minnesota who are enraged as

457
00:26:54,000 --> 00:26:57,840
Speaker 3: to how I has behaved there, and they're very troubled

458
00:26:58,200 --> 00:27:01,919
Speaker 3: that the so called investtigation into the shooting of Renee

459
00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:04,840
Speaker 3: Goods was shut down in two three days. It was

460
00:27:04,880 --> 00:27:08,560
Speaker 3: not a real investigation. Anybody who watched the videos, I

461
00:27:08,600 --> 00:27:12,439
Speaker 3: think knows exactly what happened. But this is kind of

462
00:27:12,480 --> 00:27:15,199
Speaker 3: a cover up. And now we have Alex pretty and

463
00:27:15,320 --> 00:27:18,840
Speaker 3: again they're saying state and local law enforces stay out

464
00:27:18,880 --> 00:27:21,680
Speaker 3: of this. We will investigate, but I'm not sure that

465
00:27:21,800 --> 00:27:26,159
Speaker 3: people trust them to investigate in a neutral and fair way. Again,

466
00:27:26,240 --> 00:27:30,159
Speaker 3: the videos of that shooting are compelling, and they don't

467
00:27:30,480 --> 00:27:34,679
Speaker 3: match the narrative that we're hearing from the administration not

468
00:27:34,800 --> 00:27:38,119
Speaker 3: at all. So sure that causes people to lose trust

469
00:27:38,600 --> 00:27:41,040
Speaker 3: in the Department of Justice. Now, you know another thing

470
00:27:41,080 --> 00:27:46,199
Speaker 3: we should highlight is the government attorneys have resigned or

471
00:27:46,280 --> 00:27:51,760
Speaker 3: been fired at an enormous rate. Thousands of vacancies have

472
00:27:51,880 --> 00:27:55,399
Speaker 3: occurred in the main justice that is Washington and in

473
00:27:55,560 --> 00:27:58,760
Speaker 3: all of the US attorney's offices around the country. Because

474
00:27:58,800 --> 00:28:03,359
Speaker 3: so many governments, profecutors have been fired or have resigned

475
00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:07,320
Speaker 3: because they don't want to follow the orders coming out

476
00:28:07,359 --> 00:28:11,600
Speaker 3: of main Justice. Now that happened in Minnesota career prosecutors.

477
00:28:11,640 --> 00:28:14,840
Speaker 3: The second person in charge there, who had done work

478
00:28:14,880 --> 00:28:19,240
Speaker 3: on the big fraud case, just resigned because he was

479
00:28:19,359 --> 00:28:21,880
Speaker 3: so upset with what he was told to do, which

480
00:28:22,000 --> 00:28:25,080
Speaker 3: was to investigate Renee Good's widow to see if she's

481
00:28:25,119 --> 00:28:27,280
Speaker 3: a terrorist. I mean, it just was silly. Instead of

482
00:28:27,320 --> 00:28:30,840
Speaker 3: investigating the shooter, they just switched gears and said you

483
00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:33,840
Speaker 3: got to go after the widow. And that's when six

484
00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:37,200
Speaker 3: I think it was six assistant US attorneys there resigned

485
00:28:37,960 --> 00:28:41,760
Speaker 3: and for resigned in Washington over the other issue. I

486
00:28:41,800 --> 00:28:45,320
Speaker 3: think the federal reserved. They didn't want to pursue the

487
00:28:45,400 --> 00:28:48,520
Speaker 3: penis and whatnot on with your own power situation. So

488
00:28:48,720 --> 00:28:52,000
Speaker 3: there are just tons of vacancy because people have lost

489
00:28:52,120 --> 00:28:55,640
Speaker 3: faith that this is really a neutral and fair agency

490
00:28:55,840 --> 00:28:59,000
Speaker 3: and that it does what it thinks is right. That

491
00:28:59,040 --> 00:29:02,360
Speaker 3: there was investigator first and charge later, and now we

492
00:29:02,400 --> 00:29:05,280
Speaker 3: seem to have charge first and investigate maybe later. So

493
00:29:05,400 --> 00:29:07,640
Speaker 3: if you could make a case, we'll.

494
00:29:07,480 --> 00:29:09,960
Speaker 2: See if there are any changes. As the borders are.

495
00:29:10,120 --> 00:29:13,840
Speaker 2: Tom Homan meets with local officials. Thank you so much,

496
00:29:13,920 --> 00:29:17,120
Speaker 2: Judge Shinland. That's Sheri A. Shinlan, a former judge of

497
00:29:17,160 --> 00:29:20,120
Speaker 2: the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

498
00:29:20,320 --> 00:29:23,640
Speaker 2: She's now a full time arbitrator and mediator. And that's

499
00:29:23,680 --> 00:29:26,320
Speaker 2: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

500
00:29:26,320 --> 00:29:28,440
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our

501
00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:32,600
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

502
00:29:32,800 --> 00:29:37,840
Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law,

503
00:29:38,240 --> 00:29:40,800
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

504
00:29:40,880 --> 00:29:44,760
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

505
00:29:44,920 --> 00:29:46,520
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg