WEBVTT - NYC Mayor Off the Hook & Musk Loses 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:08.840 --> 0:00:14.160 As I said all along, this case should have never 0:00:14.200 --> 0:00:21.600 been brought and I did nothing wrong. I'm not happy 0:00:21.640 --> 0:00:24.400 that our city can finally close the book on this 0:00:24.560 --> 0:00:28.440 and focus solely on the future of our great city. 0:00:29.120 --> 0:00:32.640 New York City Mayor Eric Adams is free and clear. 0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:36.720 A federal judge has dismissed the corruption case against him, 0:00:36.800 --> 0:00:40.080 putting a permanent end to the case and the extraordinary 0:00:40.200 --> 0:00:43.959 series of events that caused discord within the Justice Department. 0:00:44.240 --> 0:00:47.640 Judge Dale Hoose said he wasn't commenting on the merits 0:00:47.680 --> 0:00:51.120 of the case against Adams, but that courts can't force 0:00:51.240 --> 0:00:54.480 prosecutors to move forward on a case. It was a 0:00:54.520 --> 0:00:58.320 mixed decision for the Justice Department. It got the dismissal 0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:02.280 of the charges it requested, but the judge dismissed them 0:01:02.440 --> 0:01:06.080 with prejudice, meaning they can't be brought again. And the 0:01:06.200 --> 0:01:09.839 judge slam the Justice Department many times in his opinion 0:01:10.360 --> 0:01:14.120 quote everything here smacks of a bargain dismissal of the 0:01:14.200 --> 0:01:19.360 indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions. My guest is 0:01:19.360 --> 0:01:23.840 former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Maccarter and English. 0:01:24.240 --> 0:01:27.960 So the judge had basically no choice but to drop 0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:30.440 this case, but he didn't do it in the way 0:01:30.640 --> 0:01:32.880 the Justice Department had wanted him to. 0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:37.440 Heeding the advice of the Court appointed Council Paul Clement, 0:01:37.520 --> 0:01:41.800 the former Solicitor General, the judge decided to dismiss the 0:01:41.880 --> 0:01:46.119 case with prejudice, as opposed to without prejudice, as had 0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:49.760 been originally requested by the Department of Justice, because the 0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:54.240 judge found that dismissing the case without prejudice would essentially 0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:58.240 leave Mayor Adams under the specter of reindictment at essentially 0:01:58.280 --> 0:02:01.440 any time and for any reason, and by doing that, 0:02:01.760 --> 0:02:05.520 it would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor's freedom 0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:08.320 depended on his ability to carry out the immigration and 0:02:08.400 --> 0:02:11.720 forcing priorities of the administration, and that he might be 0:02:11.840 --> 0:02:15.400 more beholding to the demands of the federal government than 0:02:15.440 --> 0:02:17.320 to the wishes of his own constituents. 0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:21.600 The judge slammed the reasons the government gave for dropping 0:02:21.639 --> 0:02:25.520 the charges, calling it unprecedented and breathtaking in its sweep. 0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:26.480 So this was a. 0:02:26.520 --> 0:02:30.680 Quite extraordinary seventy eight page opinion that the judge issued 0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:35.079 here on what was a relatively straightforward motion to dismiss 0:02:35.120 --> 0:02:38.360 the criminal case. But this case was really not like 0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:41.560 any other that any judge had dealt with before. Given 0:02:41.639 --> 0:02:44.800 the reasons that the Department of Justice had given for 0:02:44.960 --> 0:02:47.760 the dismissal, what the judge did here was to go 0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:51.960 through them one by one and basically refute the reasons 0:02:52.000 --> 0:02:55.520 that the government gave for the dismissal. The government, for example, 0:02:55.680 --> 0:02:59.919 first argued that the prosecution had been painted by appearance 0:03:00.200 --> 0:03:03.680 of impropriety. The judge found that that was unsupported by 0:03:03.720 --> 0:03:07.120 any objective evidence, and really stood up for this Southern 0:03:07.160 --> 0:03:10.600 District US Attorney's office here by making a finding in 0:03:10.600 --> 0:03:13.520 this opinion that the prosecutors who worked on the case 0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:18.080 followed all appropriate Justice Department guidelines. He even went so 0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:22.120 far as to say there is no evidence zero that 0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:25.560 they had any improper motives, and so in that respect 0:03:25.639 --> 0:03:28.519 he did not agree with that basis for the dismissal. 0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:32.760 He also took issue with the dog's assertion that the case, 0:03:32.760 --> 0:03:35.640 which had been brought nine months before the twenty twenty 0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:40.160 five New York City mayoral primary election, was somehow amounting 0:03:40.200 --> 0:03:43.400 to election interference He said that that lacked any support 0:03:43.760 --> 0:03:47.480 in Justice Department guidelines or past practice, and that the 0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.760 timing of the case, he said, was entirely consistent with 0:03:50.920 --> 0:03:55.080 prior public corruption prosecution. And then finally, he turned into 0:03:55.120 --> 0:03:59.240 what was clearly the most controversial basis for the dismissal 0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:03.040 of this criminal and day, which was that the indictment 0:04:03.120 --> 0:04:07.320 itself was interfering with the mayor's ability to assist with 0:04:07.440 --> 0:04:11.080 immigration enforcement. In other words, the Department of Justice was 0:04:11.200 --> 0:04:14.480 arguing that, by virtue of the mayor's position as the 0:04:14.520 --> 0:04:18.640 mayor of New York, someone who the administration was looking 0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:22.680 to gain assistance and carrying out their immigration enforcement priorities, 0:04:22.920 --> 0:04:26.560 that this criminal case was interfering with that ability. The 0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:30.160 judge said that that was simply not true. He noted 0:04:30.200 --> 0:04:33.400 that after the DOJ had made the decision to seek 0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:35.880 dismissal of the case, the mayor announced that he would 0:04:35.920 --> 0:04:40.159 permit immigration and Customs enforcement to operate on Rikers Island, 0:04:40.480 --> 0:04:43.440 a decision that he said appears to be contrary to 0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:46.239 New York law. And so essentially what the court found 0:04:46.279 --> 0:04:49.560 here was the record did not show that this case 0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:53.599 impaired the mayor's ability in his immigration enforcement efforts. Quite 0:04:53.640 --> 0:04:56.640 the contrary, The judge said, it showed that after the 0:04:56.680 --> 0:05:00.280 DOJ decided to seek dismissal of the case, took at 0:05:00.360 --> 0:05:04.760 least one new immigration related action consistent with the preferences 0:05:04.920 --> 0:05:07.800 of the new administration. And then the judge wrote something 0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:10.240 that I think was the most scathing comment in this 0:05:10.520 --> 0:05:14.200 entire opinion. The judge wrote, everything here smacks of a 0:05:14.240 --> 0:05:19.160 bargain dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions. 0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:23.239 I mean, basically, he admitted that he had no choice 0:05:23.400 --> 0:05:26.400 but to drop the case. I guess unless he would 0:05:26.480 --> 0:05:30.640 want to appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute it going forward. 0:05:30.720 --> 0:05:31.880 That seems unwieldy. 0:05:32.240 --> 0:05:35.160 So, you know, having made all these findings, where the 0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:39.160 judge really challenged the basis for the DOJ's request to 0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:43.760 dismiss this case, he characterized the Department of Justice's positions 0:05:43.839 --> 0:05:48.039 as both unprecedented and breasttaking. He said, the DOJ site 0:05:48.240 --> 0:05:51.320 no examples, and the court is unable to find any 0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:54.679 where the government had dismissed charges against an elected official 0:05:54.960 --> 0:05:58.680 because doing so would enable that elected official to facilitate 0:05:58.760 --> 0:06:02.520 federal policy goals. He said that the dog's position that 0:06:02.680 --> 0:06:06.560 was argued by the acting Deputy Attorney General Ema beauvet 0:06:06.920 --> 0:06:10.279 in seeking the dismissal of this case would essentially amount 0:06:10.320 --> 0:06:15.480 to a quote virtually unreviewable, close quote license to dismiss 0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:18.640 charges on this basis. He said that it would basically 0:06:18.720 --> 0:06:22.880 imply that public officials may receive special dispensation if they 0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:26.680 are compliant with the incumbent administration's policy priorities. And he 0:06:26.760 --> 0:06:29.880 found that very troubling, very troubling. 0:06:29.880 --> 0:06:33.760 But that's what happened. I mean, Eric Adams is getting 0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:37.359 off scott free from these charges, never has to face 0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:40.520 them again because he's the mayor of New York who 0:06:40.760 --> 0:06:43.880 agreed to cooperate with the Trump administration. That's what this 0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:44.760 case is about. 0:06:44.839 --> 0:06:46.360 And I think what we see here is that the 0:06:46.520 --> 0:06:49.719 judge agreed with many of the submissions to the court 0:06:49.760 --> 0:06:52.520 Friend of the Court briefs as they're called, where a 0:06:52.600 --> 0:06:56.279 different outside party had urged the judge to deny this 0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:59.760 motion altogether, to not grant the government's motion to dismiss 0:06:59.800 --> 0:07:02.880 the law case on the basis that the reasons offered 0:07:02.880 --> 0:07:07.880 by the government were improper and unprecedented. But ultimately the 0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:11.680 judge decided that his hands were essentially tie here, and 0:07:11.760 --> 0:07:15.360 while he did sympathize with those who suggested that the 0:07:15.400 --> 0:07:19.040 case should go forward, he ultimately decided that the court 0:07:19.160 --> 0:07:22.240 has no ability to move a case forward where prosecutors 0:07:22.400 --> 0:07:26.440 simply refuse to continue to bring the case. He noted 0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:30.400 that there are examples where an individual prosecutor who might 0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:33.400 be seeking to dismiss the case for improper reasons could 0:07:33.480 --> 0:07:36.160 be replaced and somebody else then steps in to prosecute 0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:38.440 the case, but he noted that in this case, where 0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:41.800 it was the Department of Justice itself that was seeking 0:07:41.880 --> 0:07:45.320 the dismissal, he really had no choice. He noted that 0:07:45.360 --> 0:07:48.800 the court cannot force the Department's Justice to prosecute a defendant, 0:07:49.120 --> 0:07:51.680 and that the court's role in a criminal case is 0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:55.160 to preside over the matter, not to decide whether the 0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:58.760 defendant should be prosecuted. The court also addressed an issue 0:07:58.760 --> 0:08:01.360 that had been braced by some of the outside parties 0:08:01.520 --> 0:08:03.760 who urged that he not dismissed the case, to say 0:08:03.800 --> 0:08:07.320 that a special prosecutor, an independent prosecutor outside of the 0:08:07.320 --> 0:08:10.360 Department of Justice, could be appointed to prosecute this case, 0:08:10.640 --> 0:08:13.360 but he found no basis to do that. Outside of 0:08:13.360 --> 0:08:17.400 the limited context of criminal contempt. So essentially, although the 0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:20.840 judge did not agree with the bases that the Department's 0:08:20.960 --> 0:08:24.200 Justice was arguing in dismissal his case, he found that 0:08:24.280 --> 0:08:27.680 he had no choice but to dismiss the case, but 0:08:27.800 --> 0:08:30.640 he wanted to do it with prejudice so that it 0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:34.320 would at least avoid the appearance that the government was 0:08:34.400 --> 0:08:37.280 hanging this case over Mayor Adam's head in order to 0:08:37.360 --> 0:08:41.640 enforce his continued cooperation with their immigration policy, and. 0:08:41.640 --> 0:08:45.880 Perhaps because Mayor Adams and his defense attorney often interpret 0:08:46.200 --> 0:08:49.679 the different decisions in this case as proving his innocence. 0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:53.319 The judge said he wasn't making any decision about whether 0:08:53.400 --> 0:08:55.400 Adams is innocent or guilty. 0:08:55.920 --> 0:08:58.280 That's absolutely right, and the Court went to great lengths 0:08:58.280 --> 0:09:01.000 to make very clear that this was not a decision 0:09:01.160 --> 0:09:03.719 on the merit. The court said it was not deciding 0:09:03.760 --> 0:09:07.520 whether the Mayor was innocent or guilty. Obviously, Mayor Adams, 0:09:07.559 --> 0:09:11.680 like any other criminal defendant, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. 0:09:11.880 --> 0:09:14.800 But the Court wanted to make clear that the Department 0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:18.240 of Justice's decision to abandon this case will mean that 0:09:18.240 --> 0:09:21.560 that question is never answered, and that the Court is 0:09:21.600 --> 0:09:24.199 in no way pining on the strength of the criminal 0:09:24.240 --> 0:09:27.520 case or the wisdom of bringing it or dismissing it. 0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:31.880 I've been reading that this recognizes the president's power to 0:09:31.920 --> 0:09:35.480 determine the fate of prosecutions. But is there anything really 0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:38.680 new here in that regard except there was a fight 0:09:38.760 --> 0:09:41.760 not to drop the charges. But the executive branch has 0:09:41.800 --> 0:09:44.240 always had the ability to drop charges, right. 0:09:44.520 --> 0:09:47.120 I mean, that's really an excellent point here, because to 0:09:47.200 --> 0:09:50.560 many people this looks as if this is some new 0:09:50.720 --> 0:09:53.920 power that the executive is wielding here that they've never 0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:57.600 had before, that the Department of Justice can now dismiss 0:09:57.640 --> 0:10:00.640 the criminal case for virtually any reason at all. But 0:10:00.679 --> 0:10:03.280 the reality is that has always been the case. We've 0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:06.400 just never seen the Department of Justice go on the 0:10:06.520 --> 0:10:09.560 records and state that the basis for dismissing a case 0:10:09.640 --> 0:10:12.600 is to allow an elected official to carry out a 0:10:12.720 --> 0:10:16.960 policy priority for the administration. But the reality is that 0:10:17.240 --> 0:10:22.079 courts cannot force prosecutors to continue to prostitute cases. The role, 0:10:22.160 --> 0:10:24.720 as the judge said here, of the court is simply 0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:28.240 to hear those cases and to rule over the trial, 0:10:28.600 --> 0:10:31.280 but not to make decisions about which cases to bring 0:10:31.520 --> 0:10:32.520 and which cases to. 0:10:32.480 --> 0:10:36.320 Dismiss and Judge Hoe's ruling was basically in line with 0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:41.120 the recommendations of the court appointed legal expert Paul Clement. 0:10:41.760 --> 0:10:44.680 Yes, so what happened in this case is to cause 0:10:44.760 --> 0:10:48.480 both the defense and the government were aligned in their 0:10:48.559 --> 0:10:52.240 position that the case should be dismissed. The judge wanted 0:10:52.600 --> 0:10:56.080 somebody to put on the record the arguments either for 0:10:56.480 --> 0:10:59.559 or against the dismissal, and so he sought out the 0:10:59.600 --> 0:11:01.960 court of pointed assistance of Paul Clement, who had been 0:11:02.000 --> 0:11:04.800 the US Solicitor General and who was a well regarded 0:11:04.880 --> 0:11:07.760 conservative lawyer, to take a look at this issue and 0:11:07.840 --> 0:11:10.280 to advise the Court on what to do here. And 0:11:10.400 --> 0:11:14.400 ultimately Paul Clement recommended to the Court that the case 0:11:14.480 --> 0:11:18.920 be dismissed with prejudice to avoid that appearance that the 0:11:18.960 --> 0:11:22.440 government continued to hold the sword of Damocles, so to 0:11:22.480 --> 0:11:24.920 speak over the mayor if he did not carry out 0:11:25.120 --> 0:11:29.160 the administration's policy objectives. But at the same time, Paul 0:11:29.200 --> 0:11:33.680 Clement noted that all roads here lead to dismissal with prejudice, 0:11:33.840 --> 0:11:36.320 and that was really the only option for the court 0:11:36.400 --> 0:11:37.640 under these circumstances. 0:11:37.960 --> 0:11:41.439 So for once we can really say case closed. Thanks 0:11:41.440 --> 0:11:45.240 so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints of maccarter and English 0:11:45.559 --> 0:11:48.680 coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. The most 0:11:48.679 --> 0:11:53.000 expensive judicial race in history and what it tells us 0:11:53.200 --> 0:11:55.359 I'm June Gross when you're listening to Bloomberg. 0:11:55.640 --> 0:12:00.839 All right, Wisconsin, we did it. 0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:04.679 It's the most expensive judicial race in our history. And 0:12:04.800 --> 0:12:10.079 in Wisconsin, Democratic backed judge Susan Crawford defeated a challenger 0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:14.440 endorsed by President Trump and billionaire Elon Musk in the 0:12:14.480 --> 0:12:18.880 state Supreme Court election. The win cements a liberal majority 0:12:18.920 --> 0:12:22.360 on the state's top court for at least three more years, 0:12:22.679 --> 0:12:27.280 and Crawford touted her victory as a win against powerful interests. 0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:33.199 Wisconsin's stood up and said loudly that justice does not 0:12:33.320 --> 0:12:38.199 have a price. Our courts are not for sale. 0:12:39.679 --> 0:12:42.520 Musk and groups he backed had spent more than twenty 0:12:42.559 --> 0:12:46.439 one million dollars in an effort to defeat Crawford. He 0:12:46.559 --> 0:12:50.320 even traveled to Wisconsin two days before the election to 0:12:50.480 --> 0:12:54.520 personally hand over one million dollar checks to two voters. 0:12:55.120 --> 0:12:59.120 Crawford defeated Republican backed Brad Schimmel in a race that 0:12:59.280 --> 0:13:03.280 broke record. It's for spending was the highest turnout Wisconsin 0:13:03.400 --> 0:13:07.160 Supreme Court election ever and became a proxy fight for 0:13:07.240 --> 0:13:11.760 the nation's political battles and voters feelings about the new administration. 0:13:12.320 --> 0:13:15.560 Joining me is elections law expert Richard Brefaldt, a professor 0:13:15.600 --> 0:13:19.320 at Columbia Law School. This Wisconsin Supreme Court race is 0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:23.680 officially non part is in, but it seemed nothing but 0:13:23.840 --> 0:13:25.200 part is in from early on. 0:13:26.040 --> 0:13:28.560 Well, even a non partisan simply means that there's no 0:13:28.679 --> 0:13:32.320 partisan line on the ballot. Obviously, parties are free to 0:13:32.360 --> 0:13:36.120 make endorsements of candidates and even to designate that this 0:13:36.240 --> 0:13:39.480 is the party's preferred candidates. In effect, nominate candidates just 0:13:39.520 --> 0:13:42.400 that the party line doesn't appear on the ballot. This 0:13:42.480 --> 0:13:46.520 is pretty common in many non partisan elections. What nonpartisans 0:13:46.679 --> 0:13:49.520 means is simply there's no partisan affiliation on the ballot. 0:13:49.640 --> 0:13:52.959 There's nothing that could stop parties from nominating candidates from 0:13:52.960 --> 0:13:55.560 making endorsements. Indeed, they have that constitutional right. 0:13:56.000 --> 0:14:01.200 This is officially the most money spent for judicial election, 0:14:01.520 --> 0:14:04.760 right over one hundred million dollars. Why is this race 0:14:04.880 --> 0:14:07.960 so important to both Democrats and Republicans. 0:14:08.880 --> 0:14:10.719 Well, I think it was important in two ways. One 0:14:10.840 --> 0:14:14.600 is the more the narrow Wisconsin on significance, which is 0:14:14.640 --> 0:14:17.880 not to be too light about it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, 0:14:17.920 --> 0:14:20.520 which is a right now a narrow four to three 0:14:21.040 --> 0:14:25.160 majority of liberals versus conservatives, which was established two years 0:14:25.160 --> 0:14:28.880 ago when a liberal judge won and thereby flipping the 0:14:28.880 --> 0:14:31.560 control of the court from four to three conservatives. They 0:14:31.560 --> 0:14:33.360 have a number of important issues in front of One 0:14:33.400 --> 0:14:35.680 of them is abortion. With the Dabbs decision, tw one 0:14:35.760 --> 0:14:38.920 hundred and seventy year old Wisconsin law banning abortions could 0:14:38.960 --> 0:14:41.360 potentially come back on the books, so the status of 0:14:41.400 --> 0:14:43.840 abortion in Wisconsin is up for grabs. There are some 0:14:43.960 --> 0:14:47.360 issues dealing with the recognition of public employ unions, and 0:14:47.400 --> 0:14:51.960 there's potentially a lawsuit challenging the districting of Wisconsin's congressional 0:14:51.960 --> 0:14:56.760 delegation as a gerrymanderin violation of the state constitution. Wisconsin 0:14:56.840 --> 0:14:59.640 is a pre evenly divided state, but the congressional delegation 0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:03.160 is six Republicans the two Democrats. So all these things 0:15:03.240 --> 0:15:06.080 meant that the stakes were pretty high in Wisconsin. And 0:15:06.080 --> 0:15:07.680 then of course you throw in the fact that this 0:15:07.920 --> 0:15:10.600 was really the first you could call it the first 0:15:10.640 --> 0:15:15.560 by election, the first significant statewide by election since Trump's election, 0:15:16.080 --> 0:15:18.480 and it became very quickly on a kind of a 0:15:18.560 --> 0:15:22.560 little early referendum on Trump and especially on Musk. Since 0:15:22.640 --> 0:15:26.440 Musk threw himself into this election very personally, very dramatically, 0:15:27.160 --> 0:15:30.920 himself committing tens of millions of dollars and personally campaigning 0:15:31.280 --> 0:15:35.040 for the Republican candidate. It became very much a referendum 0:15:35.080 --> 0:15:38.440 on trumpet especially on Musk's role I think in the 0:15:38.480 --> 0:15:41.800 Trump administration. And so it really became a focus of 0:15:42.360 --> 0:15:45.440 nationwide spending. Money coming from all over the country, I 0:15:45.440 --> 0:15:48.000 should say, rather, and supporters coming from all over the country. 0:15:48.040 --> 0:15:51.280 And Trump also made an endorsement, and some prominent Democrats 0:15:51.280 --> 0:15:53.560 came and campaigned for the Democratic judge. 0:15:53.840 --> 0:15:56.120 Yeah, I mean, I think more people know about this 0:15:56.320 --> 0:16:00.240 race because of Musk's involvement than anything else. He's the 0:16:00.240 --> 0:16:03.720 same playbook that he used in twenty twenty four, you know, 0:16:03.760 --> 0:16:08.800 the pouring of millions of dollars bought paid canvassers, broadcast ads, 0:16:09.160 --> 0:16:12.000 and he gave away a handful of checks in the 0:16:12.000 --> 0:16:14.800 amount of one million dollars to voters who signed a 0:16:14.800 --> 0:16:20.000 petition circulated by his super Political Action Committee. They tried 0:16:20.040 --> 0:16:22.960 to fight that the Democrats, but the state Supreme Court 0:16:22.960 --> 0:16:23.880 didn't take the case. 0:16:24.200 --> 0:16:26.800 Is that legal, Well, what he has figured it out 0:16:26.960 --> 0:16:30.600 is you can sidestep the state laws that prohibit paying 0:16:30.640 --> 0:16:33.560 people for voting, which most states have laws something like that. 0:16:33.600 --> 0:16:36.160 It would be illegal to pay somebody to vote or 0:16:36.160 --> 0:16:38.920 pay somebody because they voted. So what he did both 0:16:38.960 --> 0:16:42.800 in the presidential election last year in Pennsylvania and here 0:16:42.920 --> 0:16:44.480 is to sidestep that and say I'm paying you to 0:16:44.520 --> 0:16:46.440 sign a petition. I think in both cases, or at 0:16:46.480 --> 0:16:49.400 least in this one, was a petition opposing activist judges. 0:16:49.800 --> 0:16:51.840 I think it was originally offering small amounts for that, 0:16:52.320 --> 0:16:54.560 and they're offering very big amounts for people who would become, 0:16:54.600 --> 0:16:58.440 in his words, spokesman for his campaign against activist judges. 0:16:58.480 --> 0:17:01.000 So I think the two people received a million dollar 0:17:01.080 --> 0:17:05.359 checks were selected as spokesman. And although initially he said 0:17:05.640 --> 0:17:08.320 you're not eligible for this, you're not eligible for some 0:17:08.400 --> 0:17:10.960 other things he was giving away unless you could show 0:17:10.960 --> 0:17:13.840 that you voted, was a way of given an incentive 0:17:13.840 --> 0:17:15.960 to people to vote early. When it was pointed out 0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:20.000 that that was probably illegal, immediately dropped the voting requirement 0:17:20.000 --> 0:17:22.840 and says it's open to everybody, or raping opatol registered voters. 0:17:23.000 --> 0:17:25.280 All you've got to do is sign a petition. And 0:17:25.320 --> 0:17:29.119 by moving away from voting to signing a petition, he 0:17:29.240 --> 0:17:33.320 was able to sidestep the prohibition on vote buying now 0:17:33.440 --> 0:17:35.720 established as a technique. And I think here or arthurs 0:17:35.760 --> 0:17:36.520 will get away with that. 0:17:36.960 --> 0:17:41.240 I mean, voter turnout was over fifty two percent, and 0:17:41.400 --> 0:17:45.160 the record in twenty twenty three was forty percent. So 0:17:45.800 --> 0:17:49.440 I don't know if it was driven by Musk or 0:17:49.720 --> 0:17:52.240 driven by the fact that the tilt of the state 0:17:52.280 --> 0:17:54.600 Supreme Court was dependent on this election. 0:17:55.000 --> 0:17:57.560 Or the two together. I mean, I think must clearly. 0:17:57.720 --> 0:18:00.119 I mean, I think Musk went into sort of I 0:18:00.160 --> 0:18:02.679 love the Republican vote, and at the same time and 0:18:02.720 --> 0:18:04.920 so doing, he also drove up the Democratic vote. I 0:18:04.960 --> 0:18:07.399 think it just shows what, you know, what a polarizing 0:18:07.400 --> 0:18:10.720 figure he is. He probably increased the vote on both 0:18:10.720 --> 0:18:12.840 sides if we look. 0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:16.240 At this as an indicator of how Trump is doing 0:18:16.359 --> 0:18:22.160 or the reaction to Musk. Yet, in Florida, Republicans safely 0:18:22.200 --> 0:18:25.879 held onto their seats, winning about fifty seven percent of 0:18:25.920 --> 0:18:30.000 the votes in both districts, although it's down from the 0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:34.200 two thirds that the Republican candidates won in the last elections. 0:18:34.840 --> 0:18:37.800 Does that show that these elections really aren't sort of 0:18:37.840 --> 0:18:40.800 a referendum on the Trump administration so far? 0:18:41.320 --> 0:18:43.240 It's hard to say. I mean, I think, right, it's 0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:46.159 glasses half empty, glasses half full. Republicans won both of 0:18:46.160 --> 0:18:48.959 those seats, but those were heavily Republican seats, and I 0:18:49.000 --> 0:18:51.840 think not only did Trump win those districts by like 0:18:51.880 --> 0:18:55.880 over seventy percent, but the Republicans they replaced Matt Gates 0:18:55.960 --> 0:18:58.000 and the current National Security devisor also I think won 0:18:58.440 --> 0:19:00.640 like seventy percent of the vote. And so I mean 0:19:00.680 --> 0:19:03.080 it's true, going from you know, fifty six to fifty 0:19:03.119 --> 0:19:06.480 seven percent, which I think is what the two Republicans got, 0:19:06.520 --> 0:19:08.520 that's a pretty big victory. It's like it is a 0:19:08.560 --> 0:19:11.800 fourteen to fifteen point margin, but it was thirty points 0:19:11.800 --> 0:19:14.960 in prior. So these are districts that would be almost 0:19:14.960 --> 0:19:18.800 impossible for Democrats to take. They did better. So I think, 0:19:18.920 --> 0:19:21.400 you know, in the latest round of there are a couple 0:19:21.400 --> 0:19:24.639 of special elections for state legislature in Pennsylvania and Iowa, 0:19:24.800 --> 0:19:27.280 and Democrats have done better than they were doing before. 0:19:27.359 --> 0:19:27.520 Is it? 0:19:27.560 --> 0:19:29.240 And off with as it tell us. It's hard to say. 0:19:29.600 --> 0:19:32.679 I think in some ways the biggest takeaway, the biggest 0:19:32.680 --> 0:19:35.600 Democratic victory was the one in Wisconsin, and that was 0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:38.040 about Musk. And it may be telling us that whereas 0:19:38.359 --> 0:19:41.720 Trump still I think is numbers are still just above water. 0:19:42.119 --> 0:19:45.000 The DOGE part may not be that popular. Trump was, 0:19:45.040 --> 0:19:47.480 you know, elected on a bunch of issues involving immigration 0:19:47.560 --> 0:19:51.240 and inflation, and you know those may be popular, but 0:19:51.880 --> 0:19:56.639 you know, the widespread kind of unreasoned, extensive cuts, you know, 0:19:56.760 --> 0:20:00.920 firing large numbers of federal employees, slashing agents, that may 0:20:00.960 --> 0:20:03.280 not be that popular. And you know, this may be 0:20:03.320 --> 0:20:05.240 a way in some ways of giving a split verdict 0:20:05.320 --> 0:20:08.159 and saying, you know, we still want Republicans in charge 0:20:08.200 --> 0:20:10.280 the people of voters, and floyerd to say, but we 0:20:10.320 --> 0:20:12.639 don't want Musk in charge. And that's what the voters 0:20:12.640 --> 0:20:13.520 in Wisconsin said. 0:20:14.119 --> 0:20:17.640 Political has reported that Trump told his inner circle that 0:20:18.080 --> 0:20:19.359 Musk will leave soon. 0:20:20.160 --> 0:20:23.280 He's gone back and forth on that. I mean in theory, 0:20:24.160 --> 0:20:27.080 and in theory, Musk is what called a special government 0:20:27.119 --> 0:20:30.800 employee in SGE, which basically is a term use for 0:20:30.840 --> 0:20:33.600 people who are from the private sector who come into 0:20:33.640 --> 0:20:35.840 government and work for no more than one hundred and 0:20:35.840 --> 0:20:38.520 thirty days as a result of which they are subject 0:20:38.600 --> 0:20:42.159 to some restrictions that apply to government employees but not 0:20:42.200 --> 0:20:45.439 to all of them, so they can maintain their outside jobs, 0:20:45.440 --> 0:20:48.200 among other things. And the assumption that Musk is working 0:20:48.440 --> 0:20:51.320 full time around the clock, as he says, one hundred 0:20:51.320 --> 0:20:54.760 and thirty days, will you know, expire some time in May. Now, 0:20:54.800 --> 0:20:58.040 there's not much enforcement that would happen if he kept 0:20:58.440 --> 0:21:02.040 remaining in his current position, but that does suggest that 0:21:02.040 --> 0:21:05.800 that might provide a hook for reducing his role. There's 0:21:05.800 --> 0:21:08.239 also nothing to prevent them from reappointing him as an 0:21:08.280 --> 0:21:11.760 SG Again, I mean, it would require somebody to enforce this, 0:21:11.840 --> 0:21:13.879 and it's not clear that anybody in the government is 0:21:13.880 --> 0:21:16.760 interested in enforcing that rule. But that is the rule. 0:21:17.359 --> 0:21:19.600 A lot of rules are not being followed, so we 0:21:19.680 --> 0:21:22.679 will see what happens. Thanks so much, rich that's Professor 0:21:22.760 --> 0:21:26.359 Richard Rafault of Columbia Law School. I'm June Grosso. When 0:21:26.359 --> 0:21:31.040 you're listening to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court appeared divided today 0:21:31.400 --> 0:21:34.679 in oral arguments over whether state should be able to 0:21:34.760 --> 0:21:39.160 cut off medicaid funding to plan parenthood. The arguments come 0:21:39.200 --> 0:21:42.800 amid a wider push from abortion opponents to defund the 0:21:42.920 --> 0:21:47.240 nation's largest abortion provider. The court is considering a legal 0:21:47.359 --> 0:21:51.520 question that could have wider effects, whether Medicaid patients can 0:21:51.640 --> 0:21:54.800 continue to sue over the right to choose their own 0:21:55.000 --> 0:21:59.560 qualified provider. Joining me is an expert in reproductive rights, 0:21:59.800 --> 0:22:04.399 Marry Ziegler, a professor at UC Davis Law School. The 0:22:04.480 --> 0:22:09.439 case is not technically about abortion, but it involves Planned Parenthood, 0:22:09.960 --> 0:22:13.120 the nation's biggest abortion provider, and it's drawing a lot 0:22:13.160 --> 0:22:17.640 of attention, even demonstrations outside the courthouse. I mean, what's 0:22:17.680 --> 0:22:19.159 the issue that's strong people? 0:22:19.760 --> 0:22:24.920 Well, I think that people understand that this case could 0:22:24.960 --> 0:22:29.480 have a major impact on Planned Parenthood and on certainly 0:22:29.600 --> 0:22:35.000 access to abortion and access to other reproductive health services. So, 0:22:35.119 --> 0:22:37.359 even though this is not a case about abortion, it 0:22:37.400 --> 0:22:41.479 will have impacts on abortion and on reproductive healthcare. And 0:22:41.520 --> 0:22:46.399 that's because South Carolina is trying to basically keep Planned 0:22:46.440 --> 0:22:50.639 Parenthood out of its Medicaid program, and that would have 0:22:50.720 --> 0:22:53.640 downstream consequences for Planned Parenthood and for patients. 0:22:54.160 --> 0:22:58.639 The South Carolina governor cut off Medicaid funding for Planned 0:22:58.680 --> 0:23:01.840 Parenthood because it provides abortion services, saying it was like 0:23:02.040 --> 0:23:06.440 taxpayer funding for abortion. The issue, though, is a technical 0:23:06.560 --> 0:23:09.600 question about statutory interpretation. 0:23:09.560 --> 0:23:12.080