Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: In its first abortion decision since overturning Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court unanimously preserved full access to MIFA pristone,
Speaker 1: the pill used in nearly two thirds of all abortions
Speaker 1: in the country last year. But the justices took a
Speaker 1: sort of off ramp, deciding the case based on a
Speaker 1: procedural issue called standing ruling that the anti abortion doctors
Speaker 1: suing couldn't show they were injured by the FDA's expanding
Speaker 1: access to MIFA pristone. It was the same concern we
Speaker 1: heard voiced by justices across the ideological spectrum during the
Speaker 1: oral arguments, from liberal Katanji Brown Jackson to conservative Brett Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: who wrote the majority opinion.
Speaker 2: I mean, it makes perfect sense for the individual doctors
Speaker 2: to seek an exemption. I understand it. They already had that,
Speaker 2: and so what they're asking for here is that in
Speaker 2: order to prevent them from possibly ever having to do
Speaker 2: these kinds of procedures, everyone else should be prevented from
Speaker 2: getting access to this medication.
Speaker 3: Just to confirm on the standing issue under federal law,
Speaker 3: no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform
Speaker 3: or assist in an abortion.
Speaker 1: Correct The court didn't address the merits of the case,
Speaker 1: the FDA's loosening of the restrictions on mifipristone, leaving it
Speaker 1: open to similar attacks expected by opponents of abortion. Joining
Speaker 1: me is an expert and reproductive rights Mary Ziegler, a
Speaker 1: professor at UC Davis Law School. Mary, did this decision,
Speaker 1: this unanimous decision come as any surprise after the oral arguments.
Speaker 4: I mean, it was a little bit of a surprise
Speaker 4: that it was unanimous, But I think after oral argument
Speaker 4: was pretty clear that the plaineiffs were in trouble here
Speaker 4: on standing grounds, and their standing arguments were really weak,
Speaker 4: you know, from the outset. So in that sense, it
Speaker 4: wasn't a surprise.
Speaker 1: And tell us how the court came to its decision
Speaker 1: on standing, well.
Speaker 4: The court had three different grounds for deciding the planiffs
Speaker 4: didn't have standing. The planeiffs argued that they had standing
Speaker 4: because they could face conscience based injuries if patients had
Speaker 4: complications from the pristone and ended up in the emergency
Speaker 4: room where they were practicing. They argued that they would
Speaker 4: suffer economic harms potentially if forced to treat patients. And finally,
Speaker 4: they argued that their group their association, suffered harms because
Speaker 4: it was forced to divert resources that could have been
Speaker 4: used for other pro life or anti worsion work to
Speaker 4: oppose MiFi pristone, and the Supreme Court rejected all three
Speaker 4: of those claims. On the conscience point, the justices said, essentially,
Speaker 4: there are lots of federal laws to protect conscience, so
Speaker 4: there's no real threat of injury here. On the claims
Speaker 4: about economic harm, the course of this is just way,
Speaker 4: way too broad, almost to the point of ridiculousness. They said.
Speaker 4: If this was true as a theory of standing, firefighters
Speaker 4: could sue to object to relax building codes, and teachers
Speaker 4: and border states could sue to challenge immigration policies, this
Speaker 4: would be a Pandora's box. And finally, on associational standing right,
Speaker 4: the Court emphasized that this would be essentially allowing organizations
Speaker 4: to manufacture standing by spending money to gather information and
Speaker 4: advocate against an action. So all three of those standing
Speaker 4: claims failed, but they were specific to these parties, so
Speaker 4: it doesn't mean that these claims will necessarily go away forever,
Speaker 4: just that these plaintiffs were unable to bring them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In fact, on the last page of the opinion,
Speaker 1: just as Kavanaugh wrote, quote, it is not clear that
Speaker 1: no one else would have standing to challenge the FDA's
Speaker 1: relaxed regulation of mifipristone, and the Texas judge below has
Speaker 1: allowed the states of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to join
Speaker 1: the case at the district court level to help press
Speaker 1: the same claims against the FDA. So that's still pending.
Speaker 4: Yes, So there are these other plaintiffs in the district
Speaker 4: court who had initially tried to intervene in the Supreme
Speaker 4: Court proceedings and were turned away, but who are proceeding
Speaker 4: through the lower courts arguing that they understanding that these
Speaker 4: plaintiffs lacked. And it's worth emphasizing too, because that isn't
Speaker 4: necessarily the end of it either. There are some local
Speaker 4: counties and cities and what's called the Sanctuary City for
Speaker 4: the Unborn movement that have been mulling bringing suits on
Speaker 4: the same basis and asserting they have standing. So I
Speaker 4: think we're seeing already some plaintiffs in the lower court
Speaker 4: trying to say they can bring these claims and they
Speaker 4: might not be the only.
Speaker 1: Ones, and the Supreme Court can almost get pushed to
Speaker 1: hear these cases. For example, in this case, you have
Speaker 1: the most conservative circuit in the country, the Fifth Circuit,
Speaker 1: pushing the legal envelope and finding that these plaintiffs have
Speaker 1: standing to sue, and then the Supreme Court has to
Speaker 1: respond and pushed back.
Speaker 4: Exactly right. And it doesn't necessarily mean that those plaintiffs
Speaker 4: will succeed either, right, I mean, they might not have
Speaker 4: standing either. But I think all we know today is
Speaker 4: that the Supreme Court is kicking the can down the road.
Speaker 4: They haven't resolved many of these claims permanently, and the.
Speaker 1: Court stop short way short of affirming the FDA's decisions
Speaker 1: to expand access to mifipristone. I mean, they didn't consider
Speaker 1: the merits at all in the opinion.
Speaker 4: Right, I mean, if anything, the Court seems sympathetic to
Speaker 4: the idea that people have conscience based objections to abortion.
Speaker 4: The Court seem to be sympathetic to those and the
Speaker 4: Court didn't at all affirm the logic of the FDA's
Speaker 4: decision making, didn't say anything one way or another about
Speaker 4: the plaintiff's theory that the Comstock Act operated as if
Speaker 4: the facto ban on abortion. So we got really no insight,
Speaker 4: especially no insights that would be reassuring to the Biden
Speaker 4: administration about what the Court thinks about those things.
Speaker 1: Just as Kavanaugh wrote, the plaintiffs have sincere legal, moral, ideological,
Speaker 1: and policy objections to elect of abortion and to the
Speaker 1: FDA's relaxed regulation of mifipristone. That language is a little troubling,
Speaker 1: isn't it.
Speaker 4: I agree, I mean, and I think it signals that
Speaker 4: we haven't seen the end of this by a long.
Speaker 1: Shut And there's some irony in the fact that Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: wrote a concurring opinion in the Dobbs case which overturned
Speaker 1: the constitutional right to abortion, and he said, basically, the
Speaker 1: abortion issue is now up to the states. We're done
Speaker 1: with it.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't think anybody paying attention really believed that.
Speaker 4: But it's ironic, of course, that the Court has two
Speaker 4: abortion decisions in one term. I mean, this isn't even
Speaker 4: the last we've heard from this particular term on abortion,
Speaker 4: which is extraordinary. So this is not, you know, not
Speaker 4: even the end of what we're hearing from the justices
Speaker 4: right now, much less, you know, for the longer term.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the second abortion case that's yet to be
Speaker 1: decided over Idaho's strict abortion ban. Tell us about that that.
Speaker 4: Case involves emergency access to abortion. The Biden administration has
Speaker 4: argued that at a federal law called the Emergency Medical
Speaker 4: Treatment in Labor Act, Trump's state bands when those bands
Speaker 4: wouldn't allow access to abortion for certain medical emergencies, that
Speaker 4: the federal law would require. Idaho, the state of Biden
Speaker 4: administration took to court, has responded that the MTALA does
Speaker 4: nothing of the sort, and that the question is either
Speaker 4: left to the states or even that AMTALA offers some
Speaker 4: protection for the unborn child, as Idaho puts it, pointing
Speaker 4: to language in the statue, so that ruling remains to
Speaker 4: be seen and could have pretty important effects.
Speaker 1: After the oral arguments in them. If a priss Stone case,
Speaker 1: it seemed pretty clear what the decision would be. Can
Speaker 1: you glean anything from the oral arguments in the Idaho case.
Speaker 4: I mean, it seemed as if the court was likely
Speaker 4: to side with Idaho, although the oral argument was a
Speaker 4: little bit all over the place, So it's not entirely
Speaker 4: clear that that's going to be true. And if it
Speaker 4: is true, it's not entirely clear on what basis they're
Speaker 4: going to side with Idaho. So I think we're expecting
Speaker 4: a whin for Idaho, But on what basis or how
Speaker 4: sweeping a win, I think remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: Speaking about sweeping, about half the states have total bands
Speaker 1: on abortion or laws limiting how MiFi prestone can be prescribed.
Speaker 1: Does this decision change that at all? Or is it
Speaker 1: still illegal in those states?
Speaker 4: It's still illegal. This ruling doesn't change the status quo.
Speaker 4: So if the state has prohibited mifra pristone, it's still
Speaker 4: prohibited in the state. If a state provides access to
Speaker 4: mira pristone, the drug is still available. So it isn't
Speaker 4: underlining any state law one way or another.
Speaker 1: And tell us a little about the lawyers for the
Speaker 1: anti abortion doctors and medical groups here. They're from the
Speaker 1: conservative Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom that's been
Speaker 1: behind a lot of Supreme Court decisions.
Speaker 4: The plaintiffs here are probably less important than the attorneys
Speaker 4: representing them, who are the Alliance Defending Freedom group that
Speaker 4: has really been dominating in some ways the landscape of
Speaker 4: Supreme Court abortion litigation since the Supreme Court overturned re
Speaker 4: viewad So this is part of a much longer game
Speaker 4: for them. They have lots of other cases and strategies
Speaker 4: in the pipeline, including challenges involving abortion pills. So we're
Speaker 4: going to see much more where this came from from them.
Speaker 1: Anti abortion activists have been using different strategies, and we
Speaker 1: see laws passed in some states that target abortion in
Speaker 1: inventive ways. For example, Louisiana has designated abortion bills as
Speaker 1: dangerous control substances that you need a prescription for. Do
Speaker 1: you see one strategy as more effective than another.
Speaker 4: That's absolutely right. So there's very much a kind of
Speaker 4: like throw it at the wall and see what sticks.
Speaker 4: That's going on here. Many of the strategies you mentioned
Speaker 4: June involve abortion pills, so some of them involve making
Speaker 4: it easier to survey and track who's using abortion pills,
Speaker 4: in part because states where abortion is legal have been
Speaker 4: passing shield laws, some of which allow physicians to mail
Speaker 4: pills into banned states. So some states are looking for
Speaker 4: tools to track and ultimately prosecute that usage. We're seeing
Speaker 4: efforts again to limit travel often called abortion trafficking ordinances
Speaker 4: that criminalize assisting people traveling for abortion. We've seen efforts
Speaker 4: to even do strange things like label mythipristone a threat
Speaker 4: to the environment and to the groundwater that're targeting the
Speaker 4: Environmental Protection Agency. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 4: Probably the most salient rely on the strategy that Donald
Speaker 4: Trump will, you know, win the twenty twenty four election,
Speaker 4: and that his Justice Department will be able to enforce
Speaker 4: the Comstock Act as a ban on abortion, and that
Speaker 4: that would of course override not just state laws but
Speaker 4: even ballot initiatives that voters are deciding for themselves when
Speaker 4: it comes to protecting abortion right. So there are a
Speaker 4: lot of play here, and this case is just a
Speaker 4: small piece of a much bigger.
Speaker 1: Puzzle, a puzzle where the pieces don't always seem to
Speaker 1: fit together. Thanks so much, Mary. That's Professor Mary Ziegler
Speaker 1: of UC Davis Law School. In other Supreme Court news,
Speaker 1: this week, a divided court threw out the federal ban
Speaker 1: on bump stocks, saying regulator has exceeded their power by
Speaker 1: outlining the rapid fire devices after they were used in
Speaker 1: the deadliest mass shooting in the country's history. That vote
Speaker 1: was six to three down. Ideological lines with the Liberals
Speaker 1: dissenting coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. His
Speaker 1: gun trial may be behind him, but hunter Biden faces
Speaker 1: another trial on tax charges in September, as well as
Speaker 1: sentencing most likely in October. I'm June Grosso and you're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg. Hunter Biden is now the first child
Speaker 1: of a sitting president to be convicted of crimes. On Monday,
Speaker 1: after less than three hours of deliberations, a jury found
Speaker 1: him guilty of all three felony charges for lying on
Speaker 1: a mandatory gun purchase form by saying he was not
Speaker 1: illegally using or addicted to drugs. The prosecution had presented
Speaker 1: evidence that hunter Biden was addicted to crack when he
Speaker 1: bought a Revolver in twenty eighteen, with deeply personal testimony
Speaker 1: from his ex wife and former romantic partners, with embarrassing
Speaker 1: evidence such as text messages and photos of him with
Speaker 1: drug paraphernalia or partially clothed, and with his own words
Speaker 1: from the audiobook of his memoir.
Speaker 5: I had no plan beyond the moment to moment demands
Speaker 5: of the crack pipe. I used my superpower finding crack
Speaker 5: anytime anywhere less than a day after landing at LAX
Speaker 5: in the spring of twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Special Counsel David Weiss, who brought the case against the
Speaker 1: president's son, defended the prosecution, saying it was about the
Speaker 1: rule of law.
Speaker 6: This case was about the illegal choice's defendant made while
Speaker 6: in the throes of addiction, his choice to lie on
Speaker 6: a government form when he brought a gun, and the
Speaker 6: choice to then possess that gun.
Speaker 1: But several jurors who said they felt they had no
Speaker 1: choice but to find Biden guilty also said they thought
Speaker 1: the case should never have been brought. Joining me is
Speaker 1: former Manhattan prosecutor Duncan Levin of Leven and Associates. Duncan
Speaker 1: the Special Council, said this prosecution was all about the
Speaker 1: rule of law, but not many people in similar situations
Speaker 1: are prosecuted under this law.
Speaker 7: The case that shouldn't have gone to trial in the
Speaker 7: first place. This was supposed to be resolved on upleaded
Speaker 7: two misdemeanor tax charges. He's facing unrelated tax charges that
Speaker 7: are coming up for trial in September in California, basically
Speaker 7: related to a million four in foreign business income, and
Speaker 7: he's facing three felony counts there and six other misdemeanor counts,
Speaker 7: and they're you know, pretty serious charges, their evasion of
Speaker 7: an assessment and filing false returns, not paying his taxes,
Speaker 7: and so this was all supposed to be wrapped up
Speaker 7: with a plea deal that was going to resolve in
Speaker 7: absolutely no jail time. Not plea deal fell apart that
Speaker 7: all being said, I think that if you're going to
Speaker 7: put in a case like this, the witnesses that they
Speaker 7: called were necessary witnesses. They were at the core of
Speaker 7: it trying to prove that he was a user where
Speaker 7: addicted to controlled substance at the time that he filled
Speaker 7: out this form to buy the gun, and they had
Speaker 7: to call witnesses who were going to testify to that.
Speaker 7: But the politics of this case are unmistakable because it
Speaker 7: charges themselves are ones that are rarely, if ever brought.
Speaker 7: Lying to a gun dealer is brought, probably fewer than
Speaker 7: three hundred times a year, and that's out of twenty
Speaker 7: five to thirty million background checks that are conducted around
Speaker 7: the nation every single year. The false claims on a
Speaker 7: federal firearms application is a form called the ETF four
Speaker 7: four seven three. I have never heard of a case
Speaker 7: being brought as a standalone case relying on a federal
Speaker 7: firearms application. Never standalone. It's usually brought in connection with
Speaker 7: another more serious crime, maybe somebody illegally using a gun
Speaker 7: or a felon in possession. This is a gun that
Speaker 7: was never used, it was never loaded, and Hunter Biden
Speaker 7: possessed it for eleven days. Just to put it in perspective.
Speaker 1: The three jurors who spoke and said that they had
Speaker 1: no choice but to find him guilty, but they question
Speaker 1: whether the criminal case should ever have been brought. One
Speaker 1: said the case seem like a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1: Aren't those the jurors that the defense was targeting to
Speaker 1: nullify you to say this case isn't worth it. We're
Speaker 1: not going to find him guilty.
Speaker 7: The jury obviously took the case very seriously, and it
Speaker 7: sounds like politics really did not play a role in it,
Speaker 7: and they didn't nullify, and the defense is clearly not
Speaker 7: allowed to argue jury nullification. To them. Remembered, this is
Speaker 7: a defendant who is well known to everybody in Delaware,
Speaker 7: particularly they jurors walked through the lobby of the courthouse
Speaker 7: every day to get to the trial, and the defendant's
Speaker 7: father's photograph is hanging in the lobby. The First Lady
Speaker 7: of the United States is sitting in attendance at the trial.
Speaker 7: And they took their job seriously. They didn't nullify. They
Speaker 7: looked at the evidence and they convicted. The case itself
Speaker 7: was strong, and the defense really just said, at the
Speaker 7: time he filled out this ATS form at the gun dealership,
Speaker 7: he was not at the moment he filled the form
Speaker 7: out addicted to drugs. But there was evidence that you know,
Speaker 7: right before and right after he was, you know, texting
Speaker 7: with a drug dealer, and that he was clearly addicted
Speaker 7: to drugs. You know, this is a case that was
Speaker 7: a waste of taxpayer dollars. On the other hand, the
Speaker 7: you know, government was kind of forced into going a
Speaker 7: trial on it when the plea deal fell apart. So
Speaker 7: everybody's right here, it's the case that was strong. The
Speaker 7: jury did a very thorough job and obviously took the
Speaker 7: evidence very seriously. They didn't nullify because the case it
Speaker 7: self was worthy of a conviction. It's a case where
Speaker 7: interturers looking at it without a political lens and without
Speaker 7: looking through the lens of nullification, would convict because it
Speaker 7: was a strong case. There are a lot of cases
Speaker 7: that you could question the motives behind prosecutors bringing them
Speaker 7: in the first place. This case, I questioned the motives
Speaker 7: of the special prosecutor bringing the charges frankly, because these
Speaker 7: charges are never brought at a standalone case without something
Speaker 7: more serious. So I do question whether the case was
Speaker 7: brought because it was Hunter Biden. But at the end
Speaker 7: of the day, it's unlikely to result in any jail time,
Speaker 7: and I think the more serious charges that he's facing
Speaker 7: are in September. With these tax crimes, he actually has
Speaker 7: some significant exposure to an incarceratory sentence in September if
Speaker 7: he's convicted on those charges.
Speaker 1: Is there anything else the defense could have done to
Speaker 1: change the verdict?
Speaker 7: Judtieka really, I thought went out of her way to
Speaker 7: hobble the defense, and I would ascribe part of it
Speaker 7: to politics, and given the posture of the case, the
Speaker 7: fact that she scuttled the plea deal. There were two
Speaker 7: instances where the defense tried to get very key evidence
Speaker 7: into the trial, one of which is that this ATF
Speaker 7: four four seven three form was altered. It was altered
Speaker 7: by the gun dealer at some point after the fact,
Speaker 7: and that is the cause it is a requirement when
Speaker 7: the gun dealer has this form filled out that they
Speaker 7: get identifications that has the purchaser's address on it. At
Speaker 7: the time that they got the form in the first place,
Speaker 7: they got hunter Biden's passport, which did not have his
Speaker 7: address on it, and later at a point they filled
Speaker 7: out the form again to say that they'd gotten his
Speaker 7: driver's life. The judge barred the defense from introducing evidence
Speaker 7: of the altered form and said that it was a
Speaker 7: quote unquote conspiracy theory and unsupported rhetoric. I find that
Speaker 7: hard to believe and just a ruling that really has
Speaker 7: no merit because this is a case all about who
Speaker 7: filled out the form and when they filled out the form.
Speaker 7: The fact that the form was altered after the fact
Speaker 7: is very key evidence, and frankly, I think is some
Speaker 7: grounds for appeal that that was not allowed to be
Speaker 7: introduced at trial. The other thing is that the defense
Speaker 7: tried to call a Columbia psychiatrist named doctor l Eiun
Speaker 7: to testify at trial about hunter Biden's state of mind
Speaker 7: at the time that he filled out the form. There
Speaker 7: is a knowledge requirement here, and the defense was trying
Speaker 7: to show to the jury that at the time he
Speaker 7: filled out the form, he did not believe himself to
Speaker 7: be an addict, and I think there's some support to
Speaker 7: that in the evidence because Hunter Biden had just finished
Speaker 7: an eleven day rehab program and also was living with
Speaker 7: a sober companion, and so somebody who is sober for
Speaker 7: even one day or two days or eleven days may
Speaker 7: not consider themselves to be an addict. And it's something
Speaker 7: that I think the defense should have been allowed to
Speaker 7: argue and was precluded from arguing, and that really gutted
Speaker 7: the defense case in many ways. So they were really
Speaker 7: left with this very narrow argument that at the time
Speaker 7: of filling out the form he was not addicted to drugs,
Speaker 7: because there's no evidence he was doing drugs that day.
Speaker 7: So I think the judgment really out of her way
Speaker 7: to recap the defense. So they do have some appeals
Speaker 7: here that they can pursue.
Speaker 1: Another appellate issue they may use is one that they
Speaker 1: used to try to get the charges dismissed before trial.
Speaker 1: They argued the gun law was unconstitutional following a ruling
Speaker 1: by the US Supreme Court in twenty twenty two, the
Speaker 1: New York Case that expanded gun rights and the Fifth
Speaker 1: Circuit has struck down the law barring users of illegal
Speaker 1: drugs from possessing firearms, ruling it was unconstitutional. So could
Speaker 1: that be a good appellate argument?
Speaker 7: I think this is a great suppellent argument and we
Speaker 7: can all expect to see it, and frankly, it may
Speaker 7: at some point win. At the point that it wins, however,
Speaker 7: he will have already been branded a felon and done
Speaker 7: time if he does time or served out a sentence,
Speaker 7: because this is unlikely to wind its way through the
Speaker 7: courts anytime soon. But if you look at the statute itself,
Speaker 7: which is nine twenty two G. Three, it basically makes
Speaker 7: it unlawful to possess a gun if you are a
Speaker 7: user or addicted to any controlled substance. And the terms
Speaker 7: are ill defined. And you know, anyone who's gone through
Speaker 7: addiction and is understanding of the challenges facing addicts knows
Speaker 7: that the term addict is one that is very loaded,
Speaker 7: and the term user is one that's very loaded. And
Speaker 7: it's unclear whether it means that you have to be
Speaker 7: a user at the time you're filling out the form,
Speaker 7: or what that even means. If somebody does crack or
Speaker 7: some controlled substance and two days later goes to fill
Speaker 7: out this application. Are they a user? Are they an addict?
Speaker 7: The terms are ill defined, They're very vague, and I
Speaker 7: think as a result of it, the statute is really
Speaker 7: subject to being struck down as unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Let's turn to what happens next. There's the probation into you,
Speaker 1: the sentencing memos, and biden friends and families sending in
Speaker 1: letter after letters to the judge. Which part of that
Speaker 1: is most important?
Speaker 7: The probation interview is meant to give the judge a
Speaker 7: sense of who he is as a person that may
Speaker 7: not emerge from the trial, and the same thing for
Speaker 7: the sentencing memo. In large measure, it's meant to educate
Speaker 7: the judge on who a defendant is, who their friends are,
Speaker 7: the character references, and explain any mitigating circumstances. Here. The
Speaker 7: judge is very familiar with this defendant, and so it
Speaker 7: may be of less weight to have a probation officer
Speaker 7: interviewing him and giving any information to the court. A
Speaker 7: parallel to be drawn to Donald Trump and his criminal
Speaker 7: hush money trial in New York, where there was a
Speaker 7: probation interview recently. These are probation interviews that are of
Speaker 7: highly vetted people, and so it may not sway the
Speaker 7: judge who's likely very familiar, but this judge may see
Speaker 7: Hunter Biden as an addict. And I think that both
Speaker 7: the sentencing memo process and the probation interview are meant
Speaker 7: to give a much more holistic view of some of
Speaker 7: the good things he's done, the work he's done his family,
Speaker 7: and educates her on all of the other parts of
Speaker 7: his personality and being that have not come through so
Speaker 7: far in any of the brief thing and the trial.
Speaker 1: So he technically faces twenty five years. Do you think
Speaker 1: he'll even be sent to prison.
Speaker 7: I think he will not be sent to prison on
Speaker 7: this case because the case merits no prison It's a
Speaker 7: case involving nothing violent. Even though there was a gun.
Speaker 7: This was a gun that he possessed for eleven days.
Speaker 7: It was never loaded. The charges are never really brought
Speaker 7: a standalone cases. He had no other offenses. This is
Speaker 7: his first criminal offense. The cases are brought fewer than,
Speaker 7: as I say, three hundred times a year out of
Speaker 7: twenty five million background checks. It's a very minor case
Speaker 7: in terms of the federal sentencing guideline and Jay is
Speaker 7: really already on record with a plea deal, with their
Speaker 7: recommendation to the judge that he should not go to
Speaker 7: jail over this. Frankly, over the tax case either, there
Speaker 7: was no jail requirements involved, and so the OJ and
Speaker 7: the parties have already all but agreed that he should
Speaker 7: not see jail time on the case. I will find
Speaker 7: it shocking if they now turned around and asked for
Speaker 7: any kind of jail time on that, and the.
Speaker 1: Special Council sort of hinted there might not be jail
Speaker 1: time when he made that statement after the verdict. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much, Duncan. That's former Manhattan Prosecutor Duncan Levin coming
Speaker 1: up next. A place in Manhattan where you can see
Speaker 1: famous politicians, billionaire businessmen, and top lawyers crossing paths. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. If you're fighting
Speaker 1: the law in Manhattan, chances are good that it will
Speaker 1: bring you downtown to Foley Square, where there are no
Speaker 1: less than eight courthouses within a few blocks of each other.
Speaker 1: And yes, the courthouse scene in Law and Order is
Speaker 1: one of them. Many historic trials have taken place in
Speaker 1: these courthouses over the years, but rarely do so many
Speaker 1: of them converge at the same time. For weeks, like
Speaker 1: a planetary alignment of the justice system, famous politicians, billionaire businessmen,
Speaker 1: and prominent lawyers have been crossing paths as their trials
Speaker 1: play out simultaneously. The hush money trial of former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, the bribery trial of Senator Bob Menendez, the
Speaker 1: market manipulation trial of Chinese billionaire Bill Huang, and the
Speaker 1: fraud trial of exiled Chinese tycoon Guo Wan Wuei. Now
Speaker 1: some of the defendants, one in particular, have been stealing
Speaker 1: the spotlight, allowing the others to slip past almost unnoticed.
Speaker 1: But carefully watching it all has been Bloomberg Legal reporter
Speaker 1: AVA Benny Morrison. Ava tell us about this area where
Speaker 1: you have all these courthouses, federal, state, civil, criminal.
Speaker 8: It's quite a condensed little area down there. You have
Speaker 8: the federal courthouse, which is on Pearl Street, and then
Speaker 8: across the road from that you have the New York
Speaker 8: State Supreme Courthouse, and then there are a couple of
Speaker 8: other federal courthouses state courthouses in the streets around that.
Speaker 8: So it's all very walkables, and they're all very close
Speaker 8: to each other.
Speaker 1: So until last week, there were four high profile trials
Speaker 1: going on at the same time, in what you called
Speaker 1: a planetary alignment of the justice system.
Speaker 8: Yes, it certainly has been very busy down there. In
Speaker 8: the state courthouse, we had former President Donald Trumps on
Speaker 8: trial in the hush money case, that was until he
Speaker 8: was convicted last week. And then in the federal courthouse
Speaker 8: we have free trials going on at the same time,
Speaker 8: just a few flaws apart. Firstly, we've got Bil Kwong,
Speaker 8: who was the founder of the immensely successful family office
Speaker 8: Archaeos Capital Wants Management. KGOS collapsed in twenty twenty one
Speaker 8: and that reverberated around Wall Street, led to massive losses
Speaker 8: for a number of big banks and almost wiped out
Speaker 8: Bil Kwong's thirty six billion dollar personal fortune.
Speaker 7: He's accused of.
Speaker 8: Fraud, market mutilation, and racket heearing. We've also got the
Speaker 8: trial of Senator Bob Menendez Nears accused of accepting bribes
Speaker 8: while he was in office, and that trial has been
Speaker 8: going on for a couple of weeks now, and we've
Speaker 8: had some interesting witnesses. Cooperating witnesses who are testifying against Menendez.
Speaker 8: And then lastly we have Chinese tycoon Miles Glow. Milesbow
Speaker 8: has been living in New York for a few years.
Speaker 8: He's been close associated Steve Bannon. He's also close with
Speaker 8: hedge fund manager Kyle bat He's accused of fraud and
Speaker 8: swindling up to a billion dollars out of investors. So
Speaker 8: it's all happening there at once.
Speaker 1: Will the hush money trial was going on, were most
Speaker 1: of the crowds and attention focused on that courthouse.
Speaker 8: Yes, they certainly were, But because of how close the
Speaker 8: courthouses were, some of those crowds were spread out. For example,
Speaker 8: every afternoon before about four pm, there was a small
Speaker 8: group of Trump supporters that would gather outside the Federal Courthouse,
Speaker 8: which is across the road from where Trump was obviously
Speaker 8: on trial, and they would turn out with Trump flags,
Speaker 8: make America great Again, hats, horns, whistles, and they'd wait
Speaker 8: for him to drive past his convoy when he would
Speaker 8: leave court each day, and he would slowly roll past.
Speaker 8: He wouldn't wind down the window, but he would put
Speaker 8: them away through the very dark windows, and they get
Speaker 8: very excited about that. But they'd pack up and return
Speaker 8: the next day.
Speaker 1: Wall Street is really watching the Wong trial, and a
Speaker 1: lot of attention is on Menandez too, But Wong seemed
Speaker 1: to have benefited from the concentration on Trump.
Speaker 8: Yes, exactly, especially in finance world and on Wall Street.
Speaker 8: Everyone knows who Bill Kong is and there is a
Speaker 8: lot of interests, as he said in his trial. Yet
Speaker 8: because of all the other high profile trials going on
Speaker 8: with Menendez Trump, every time Bill Huang walks out of
Speaker 8: the courthouse, he goes largely unnoticed by the people that
Speaker 8: are standing outside and the Trump supporters. In contrast, Menendez
Speaker 8: when he walks out of the courthouse by himself, he's
Speaker 8: often heckled by some of those supporters who yell things
Speaker 8: at him, and the US marshals have to clear a
Speaker 8: path for him so he can get into a waiting car.
Speaker 8: So it's been interesting that someone like Bill Wong, who
Speaker 8: has such a massive impact on the finance world only
Speaker 8: a couple of years ago, can sort of go in
Speaker 8: and out of the courthouse largely unnoticed. So I think
Speaker 8: he's definitely benefited from having his trial underway in the
Speaker 8: same building as someone a bit more high prof like
Speaker 8: Bob Menendez.
Speaker 1: Do these famous defendants ever run into each other.
Speaker 8: So even though these men have been on trial in
Speaker 8: separate trials, separate court rooms, there's often some moments where
Speaker 8: they cross paths. Especially in the morning. Everyone who doesn't
Speaker 8: have a path to get into the federal courthouse has
Speaker 8: to line up in security, and that can be a
Speaker 8: wildly different mix of people. You've got witnesses who are testifying,
Speaker 8: You've got people lining up for naturalization ceremonies, You've got
Speaker 8: descendants out of town lawyers. One morning, we saw Bill
Speaker 8: Huang waiting in the marble lobby foryer and looking at
Speaker 8: some of the court sketch artists pieces that were hanging
Speaker 8: on the wall that had captured moments in other high
Speaker 8: profile trials that have happened inside that courthouse. Behind him,
Speaker 8: through the glass, you could see Senator Menendez waiting in
Speaker 8: the security line, and just a few people ahead of
Speaker 8: him was Scott Becker. Scott Becker used to work for
Speaker 8: Bill Huang at Archaegos, and he was preparing to testify
Speaker 8: against Swang later that day. So the courthouse has certainly
Speaker 8: been a melting pot of very interesting characters in cases.
Speaker 1: Now, does Wang or Menendez have an entourage.
Speaker 8: Kwang certainly has an entourage. He has had at least
Speaker 8: a dozen people turn up at his court case every
Speaker 8: single day. They take up two or three of the
Speaker 8: benches in the public gallery, and they will often join
Speaker 8: him for lunch inside the courtroom cafeteria. So he's definitely
Speaker 8: got his fair share of loyal supporters around him every day.
Speaker 8: Menendez has been more of a loan figure. I've only
Speaker 8: ever seen him with his lawyers waiting for the elevator
Speaker 8: or outside the courtroom. When he has walked out of
Speaker 8: the courthouse, He's often been by himself. Sometimes he stops
Speaker 8: and gives interviews to some of the Spanish speaking media
Speaker 8: who have been gathered outside, but largely he's coming and
Speaker 8: going from the courthouse on his own.
Speaker 1: The courthouse is there are near Chinatown and Little Italy.
Speaker 1: Do they head off there for lunch?
Speaker 8: Not that I've seen. In the past. There have been
Speaker 8: who have been on trial who have chosen to leave
Speaker 8: the courthouse during the lunch break and go and find
Speaker 8: some dumplings in Chinatown around the corner. But in this case,
Speaker 8: I've seen Wong in the court cafeteria almost every day,
Speaker 8: sitting down with his wife and some of his employees
Speaker 8: from his nonprofit, the Grace and Mercy Foundation. He's co
Speaker 8: defended Patrick Halligan. I've think him a couple of times
Speaker 8: eating lunch outside in the patio, which I've got to
Speaker 8: say has quite beautiful views of the Brooklyn Bridge, so
Speaker 8: it's a nice place to see, especially as the weather
Speaker 8: gets where Marked menendezo I hasn't been seen around the cafeteria,
Speaker 8: so I don't know where he's bunkering down to have
Speaker 8: lunch each day.
Speaker 1: Court cafeterias often have, you know, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges,
Speaker 1: defendants all in this concentrated area with their cafeteria trees.
Speaker 1: It's really unusual, you know, it can seem sort of
Speaker 1: surreal sometimes.
Speaker 8: Absolutely and jurors aren't allowed to go to that cafeteria
Speaker 8: because there are defendants, witnesses, prosecutors, defense Floyd is coming
Speaker 8: and going constantly, but it certainly has been a buzzer
Speaker 8: of activity. There are people lining up the sandwiches, and
Speaker 8: one day you can be standing next to a federal
Speaker 8: court judge. The next day you're standing next to the
Speaker 8: federal prosecutor who's presenting the government's case in the massive
Speaker 8: racketeering trial upstairs, and then you see a defendant sitting
Speaker 8: down with his wife next to the court security officer
Speaker 8: who's in charge of during everyone's behaving himself in his
Speaker 8: court room. So you know, they're human beings. They need
Speaker 8: to eat at some point, so it's interesting just to
Speaker 8: see the mix of people that end up sitting next
Speaker 8: to each other snacking on chicken salad or slice a
Speaker 8: pizza avalunch.
Speaker 1: And these federal trials have been going on for some time,
Speaker 1: so Menandez and Huang trials about a month, and the
Speaker 1: Quote trial a little less than that. How much longer
Speaker 1: are they expected to last?
Speaker 8: They have been going on for a while, and they
Speaker 8: still have a bit to go. I check in on
Speaker 8: the Borad trials, and I think that the prosecution is
Speaker 8: only about halfway through its case. In the Wang trial,
Speaker 8: the judge estimated that it may well fill into July
Speaker 8: at this point, and then the Menendez case, and the
Speaker 8: prosecution is still presenting its evidence, so we've still got
Speaker 8: a few weeks to go in each of these trials.
Speaker 8: It's been a real juggle, I think for the reporters
Speaker 8: covering it, trying to run between each court rooms.
Speaker 1: And as you know, Trump complained about the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse,
Speaker 1: and I have to say the Federal Courthouse is just
Speaker 1: much nicer.
Speaker 8: Yes it is. The Federal Courthouse is quite grand. Got
Speaker 8: a big, open marble lobby. The courtrooms have great acoustics,
Speaker 8: which is very important when you're trying to hear whatever
Speaker 8: I'm saying. Beautiful views over the city and over the
Speaker 8: Hudson River. There's a great, big test room there that
Speaker 8: we all work out of, so it is a lot
Speaker 8: easier to work out of there than it is, I
Speaker 8: think in State Court, which is a lot older. A
Speaker 8: lot of the reporters who are covering the Trump trial
Speaker 8: has to line up for hours each day to get
Speaker 8: a spot in an overflow room. So, you know, different
Speaker 8: experiences covering trial's and HFO cool hazard.
Speaker 1: Ava, thanks so much for giving us this behind the
Speaker 1: scenes look at what's happening at these major trials. That's
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava. Benny Morrison in other legal news.
Speaker 6: On this vote, the yays are two hundred and sixteen,
Speaker 6: the nays are two hundred and seven.
Speaker 8: The resolution is adopted.
Speaker 1: And with that party line vote, Merrick Garland became the
Speaker 1: third ever Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress.
Speaker 1: Garland has refused to hand over audio recordings of President
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's interview with the Special Council during the investigation
Speaker 1: into his handling of classified documents. The transcripts of that
Speaker 1: interview have already been made public by the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: and Biden has asserted executive privilege over the audio. Despite that,
Speaker 1: Republicans like James Comer of Kentucky say they have a
Speaker 1: right to the tapes.
Speaker 8: It is insufficient to simply take the Justice Department at
Speaker 8: its word that the transcripts have not been altered.
Speaker 1: Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin says the move is all about politics.
Speaker 9: They literally don't even know what they're looking for anymore,
Speaker 9: so why do they want it. Well, they're hoping that
Speaker 9: in the five hours of President Biden's testimony they can
Speaker 9: find a mispronounced word or phrase, or a brief stammer
Speaker 9: which they can then turn into an embarrassing political TV
Speaker 9: attack ad.
Speaker 1: On Friday, the Justice Department said it won't prosecute the
Speaker 1: Attorney General because the refusal to turn over the tapes
Speaker 1: was not a crime. In a letter to House Speaker
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson, a Justice Department official cited the department's longstanding
Speaker 1: policy not to prosecute officials who don't comply with subpoenas
Speaker 1: because of a president's claim of executive privilege. The last
Speaker 1: Attorney General held in contempt of Congress was Bill Barr
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen for refusing to turn over documents related
Speaker 1: to the Special Counsels and investigation into Trump, and in
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt
Speaker 1: for failing to turn over documents related to Operation Fast
Speaker 1: and Furious. The Justice Department took no action against either
Speaker 1: attorney general. And that's it for this edition of The
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to tune
Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg