WEBVTT - Manafort Trial Enters Second Day Amid Trump Tweets

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.079
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com Slash podcasts. The bank and

0:00:22.160 --> 0:00:25.360
<v Speaker 1>tax fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort

0:00:25.440 --> 0:00:28.200
<v Speaker 1>is in its second day as prosecutors start bringing in

0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:31.560
<v Speaker 1>a steady stream of witnesses. President Trump tried to distance

0:00:31.640 --> 0:00:34.800
<v Speaker 1>himself from Manafort in tweets today, as he has for months.

0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:37.159
<v Speaker 1>Here he is speaking at the White House in June

0:00:38.159 --> 0:00:41.199
<v Speaker 1>like Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. But

0:00:41.360 --> 0:00:42.880
<v Speaker 1>I feel so. I tell you, I feel a little

0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:45.120
<v Speaker 1>badly better. They went back twelve years to get things

0:00:45.120 --> 0:00:47.519
<v Speaker 1>that he did twelve years ago. Joining me in our

0:00:47.560 --> 0:00:51.159
<v Speaker 1>New York studios is former federal prosecutor Eli Hoenicki's special

0:00:51.200 --> 0:00:54.360
<v Speaker 1>counsel at Loewenstein Sandler and executive director of the Rutgers

0:00:54.400 --> 0:00:58.800
<v Speaker 1>Institute on Secure Communities. Before we get to the trial itself,

0:00:59.240 --> 0:01:02.760
<v Speaker 1>what's going on with the Manafort tweet storm references to

0:01:02.840 --> 0:01:07.559
<v Speaker 1>al capone. It's hard to follow. The President has been

0:01:07.600 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>all over the map in his relationship with Paul Manafort.

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:13.880
<v Speaker 1>Of course, when Manafort was the campaign manager, they were

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:16.240
<v Speaker 1>close in The President vouched for him and supported him.

0:01:16.360 --> 0:01:19.399
<v Speaker 1>When Manafort got remanded a month or so ago on

0:01:19.440 --> 0:01:21.559
<v Speaker 1>witness tampering, the President said he got a raw deal.

0:01:22.080 --> 0:01:24.080
<v Speaker 1>The last week or so, you saw the President doing

0:01:24.080 --> 0:01:26.280
<v Speaker 1>what a lot of people do when someone's closing in

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:28.120
<v Speaker 1>on them, when someone's in trouble, and say, I don't

0:01:28.120 --> 0:01:29.920
<v Speaker 1>I barely know this guy. He only worked for me

0:01:30.000 --> 0:01:32.399
<v Speaker 1>for some short time. Who is he? But then today

0:01:32.400 --> 0:01:34.240
<v Speaker 1>he seems to the President seems to have bounced back

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:37.119
<v Speaker 1>to the original position of Oh, this poor guy's getting

0:01:37.120 --> 0:01:39.840
<v Speaker 1>getting such a raw deal. So, uh, he's all over

0:01:39.880 --> 0:01:43.319
<v Speaker 1>the map. That that is true about about these tweets

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:46.320
<v Speaker 1>and other tweets today too. So now let's talk about

0:01:46.319 --> 0:01:49.120
<v Speaker 1>the Manafort trout. Now we know the defense. It's blame

0:01:49.200 --> 0:01:52.720
<v Speaker 1>it on the witness who's cooperating with the government. Manafort

0:01:52.760 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>claims his right hand man, Rick Gates, did the crime.

0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:58.520
<v Speaker 1>It's not a very original defense, but might it work.

0:01:58.640 --> 0:02:01.640
<v Speaker 1>It's quite standard. Uh, you know, blame the cooperator. It's

0:02:01.640 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 1>really the everyone did it but me defense, which is

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:07.360
<v Speaker 1>hard to swallow when the butt me is the boss,

0:02:07.440 --> 0:02:09.560
<v Speaker 1>the top guy. And so I think I think they're

0:02:09.560 --> 0:02:11.840
<v Speaker 1>gonna have an evidence problem and they're gonna have a

0:02:11.880 --> 0:02:14.880
<v Speaker 1>common sense problem with the jury. Um, who's the guy

0:02:14.960 --> 0:02:18.200
<v Speaker 1>who built the company it was manap Who's the guy

0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:21.640
<v Speaker 1>who opened thirty bank accounts all around the world. You know,

0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:25.600
<v Speaker 1>who's the guy who had the relationships with oligarchs. Who's

0:02:25.600 --> 0:02:28.040
<v Speaker 1>the guy, most importantly who made the most money. Who's

0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:32.359
<v Speaker 1>wearing you know, the now infamous Ostrich jacket. The emphasis

0:02:32.400 --> 0:02:35.040
<v Speaker 1>on that Ostrich jacket is amazing. I think a lot

0:02:35.040 --> 0:02:37.680
<v Speaker 1>of people google the term Ostrich jacket yesterday for the

0:02:37.680 --> 0:02:41.639
<v Speaker 1>first time. But it's a hard sell. Um. And and

0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:44.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, to to say my number two did it

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:46.560
<v Speaker 1>all is gonna be tough, and the evidence looks like

0:02:46.600 --> 0:02:49.200
<v Speaker 1>it's just not going to support it. And obviously Gates

0:02:49.240 --> 0:02:52.160
<v Speaker 1>will implicate Manipor, but it sounds like others will to

0:02:52.280 --> 0:02:54.400
<v Speaker 1>take take the first witness from yesterday, who seems like

0:02:54.400 --> 0:02:57.880
<v Speaker 1>a pretty down the middle witness. UM. He said, he said.

0:02:57.919 --> 0:02:59.679
<v Speaker 1>The one quote that I took out of his testimony

0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:02.720
<v Speaker 1>was he said Paul was in charge. Paul meaning Manafort

0:03:02.800 --> 0:03:05.840
<v Speaker 1>was in charge. UM, and beyond that, you have financial

0:03:05.840 --> 0:03:09.520
<v Speaker 1>documents showing the money going to Manafort, you have emails.

0:03:09.560 --> 0:03:11.880
<v Speaker 1>You know. One of the key allegations here is that

0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:14.760
<v Speaker 1>Manafort knew he had these foreign bank accounts and light

0:03:14.840 --> 0:03:18.160
<v Speaker 1>it light on it and his tax returns. Um, there's

0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:21.920
<v Speaker 1>information the indictment saying we have communications from his accountant

0:03:21.919 --> 0:03:24.680
<v Speaker 1>asking Paul do you have foreign bank accounts? And Manafort

0:03:24.680 --> 0:03:28.280
<v Speaker 1>said no. So I don't know how they get around that. Now.

0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:33.799
<v Speaker 1>The judge is moving this very quickly. He today Apparently

0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:39.120
<v Speaker 1>the prosecution had trouble getting the some uh photographs in

0:03:39.320 --> 0:03:41.560
<v Speaker 1>or having the jury look at them that he they

0:03:41.640 --> 0:03:44.880
<v Speaker 1>he said that he wants he doesn't want to term oligarchus.

0:03:45.040 --> 0:03:47.840
<v Speaker 1>So their witness ended up saying a very wealthy person

0:03:47.960 --> 0:03:50.680
<v Speaker 1>or a person of wealth. They seem to be taken

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:53.040
<v Speaker 1>aback a little bit. The prosecutors by the speed at

0:03:53.080 --> 0:03:55.840
<v Speaker 1>which the judge is moving it. Yeah, so so two things.

0:03:56.680 --> 0:03:59.800
<v Speaker 1>Speed generally is the prosecutor's friend at a trial, you do,

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:02.120
<v Speaker 1>I don't want a jury there through trial that's getting

0:04:02.200 --> 0:04:06.080
<v Speaker 1>dragged out over weeks months, you start to lose them.

0:04:06.120 --> 0:04:08.840
<v Speaker 1>You know, memory is just inherently not that long. So

0:04:09.360 --> 0:04:11.480
<v Speaker 1>when I was prosecuting cases. I wanted the case to move.

0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:13.880
<v Speaker 1>Now this case is moving at lightning speed, and I

0:04:13.920 --> 0:04:15.560
<v Speaker 1>think what we see the judge trying to do. By

0:04:15.600 --> 0:04:18.799
<v Speaker 1>by all accounts, Judge Ellis is a very strong, hands

0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:21.360
<v Speaker 1>on judge, and I think that by barring certain terms

0:04:21.360 --> 0:04:24.599
<v Speaker 1>that maybe would be inflammatory, oligarch that kind of thing. Um,

0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:26.520
<v Speaker 1>it's frustrating as a prosecutor, But I think what the

0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:28.560
<v Speaker 1>judge is trying to do is keep the focus as

0:04:28.680 --> 0:04:31.680
<v Speaker 1>narrowly as possible on the bank fraud, on the tax fraud.

0:04:31.720 --> 0:04:34.240
<v Speaker 1>He doesn't want any He wants as little as possible

0:04:34.279 --> 0:04:38.120
<v Speaker 1>of the Russian peace, you know, elections Trump. He wants

0:04:38.160 --> 0:04:40.359
<v Speaker 1>to keep all of that stuff out so we have

0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:43.720
<v Speaker 1>a clean right down to mental trial. He also, of course,

0:04:43.760 --> 0:04:47.320
<v Speaker 1>the prosecutors want to paint this lifestyle that Paul Manaford had,

0:04:47.360 --> 0:04:50.159
<v Speaker 1>which was really over the top. They spent about a

0:04:50.160 --> 0:04:54.600
<v Speaker 1>million and a half dollars on clothes and our antiques

0:04:54.720 --> 0:04:58.840
<v Speaker 1>and the houses. But he he also said something about, um,

0:04:59.360 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 1>you know, move this forward, he said, or when are

0:05:01.320 --> 0:05:03.839
<v Speaker 1>you going to start telling us about you know, I

0:05:03.839 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 1>wonder how you're going to time manifort to these moneys

0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:08.839
<v Speaker 1>after they talked about all the money, money, money, But

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:11.800
<v Speaker 1>what's their point in talking about the money's more than

0:05:11.880 --> 0:05:13.880
<v Speaker 1>just tying him to the money's what's the kind of

0:05:13.920 --> 0:05:16.280
<v Speaker 1>picture they want to paint of him for the jury. Yeah,

0:05:16.279 --> 0:05:18.160
<v Speaker 1>so there's two things. When you come across a piece

0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:20.039
<v Speaker 1>of evidence like that as a prosecutor that you know,

0:05:20.160 --> 0:05:23.320
<v Speaker 1>of course the ostrich check at the watch your first reactions.

0:05:23.360 --> 0:05:24.800
<v Speaker 1>You smile and you circle it and you make a

0:05:24.800 --> 0:05:27.400
<v Speaker 1>little happy face because he goes, Wow, the jury's gonna

0:05:27.440 --> 0:05:30.599
<v Speaker 1>hate this guy. It's obnoxious. It's offensive. They're all you know,

0:05:30.640 --> 0:05:33.840
<v Speaker 1>you assume your jurory or sort of working people. Um,

0:05:33.880 --> 0:05:37.440
<v Speaker 1>but you can't overdo it because at a certain point

0:05:37.560 --> 0:05:39.760
<v Speaker 1>it seems like you're just trying to slander the guy.

0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:42.000
<v Speaker 1>There's no there's no crime to being rich. But I

0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:44.960
<v Speaker 1>think there's a little more here to that argument. I

0:05:44.960 --> 0:05:47.680
<v Speaker 1>think what what the prosecution is trying to establish is

0:05:48.040 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 1>this is a guy who cared a lot about his money, right,

0:05:51.440 --> 0:05:53.479
<v Speaker 1>A guy who spends like that cares about his money.

0:05:53.520 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 1>There's some people who are sloppy with money or don't

0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:57.640
<v Speaker 1>really care, aren't focused on money. This guy was laser

0:05:57.680 --> 0:05:59.880
<v Speaker 1>focused on money, and I think it makes it that

0:06:00.080 --> 0:06:02.760
<v Speaker 1>much less likely that he had no idea what was

0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:04.840
<v Speaker 1>going on and his number two, Rick Gates, was sort

0:06:04.880 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 1>of stealing at all and he didn't follow the books

0:06:06.640 --> 0:06:10.000
<v Speaker 1>that closely. How much so with all the other evidence

0:06:10.040 --> 0:06:13.920
<v Speaker 1>of prosecutors have five pieces of evidence were listed, exhibits

0:06:13.920 --> 0:06:16.599
<v Speaker 1>were listed. How much is going to depend on the

0:06:16.640 --> 0:06:18.839
<v Speaker 1>credibility of Rick Gates? I mean if the if the

0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:22.440
<v Speaker 1>defense does a really good job on cross examination, how

0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:24.600
<v Speaker 1>much will that hurt the case? Yeah, Rick Gates is

0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:26.280
<v Speaker 1>going to be the most important witness in this case.

0:06:26.279 --> 0:06:29.640
<v Speaker 1>There's no question. There are some cases where you will

0:06:29.960 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 1>rise or fall on your cooperator. If the co operator

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:35.120
<v Speaker 1>is credited, you'll win, get a conviction. I'm talking from

0:06:35.120 --> 0:06:37.720
<v Speaker 1>a prosecutor's perspective, and if the jury discredits him, you'll

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:40.200
<v Speaker 1>have an acquittal. I actually don't think this is one

0:06:40.240 --> 0:06:44.040
<v Speaker 1>of those cases. I think there's enough other evidence, enough

0:06:44.120 --> 0:06:47.279
<v Speaker 1>documentary evidence, enough circumstantial evidence that even if the jury

0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:49.960
<v Speaker 1>is a little if he on Gates um, they can

0:06:50.000 --> 0:06:52.719
<v Speaker 1>still convict. Now, you want to make that argument in

0:06:52.880 --> 0:06:55.040
<v Speaker 1>closing as a prosecutor, but it's tricky because you don't

0:06:55.040 --> 0:06:58.400
<v Speaker 1>even want to raise the possibility they wouldn't fully credit Gates,

0:06:58.400 --> 0:07:00.320
<v Speaker 1>But but I do think even if the jury doesn't

0:07:00.360 --> 0:07:04.960
<v Speaker 1>completely by Rick gates testimony, there's still room for conviction here. Now,

0:07:05.000 --> 0:07:07.200
<v Speaker 1>the prosecution, as we know, has to get twelve out

0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:10.000
<v Speaker 1>of twelve. The defense only has to get one to

0:07:10.080 --> 0:07:14.560
<v Speaker 1>get a hung jury. What might the repercussions of a

0:07:14.640 --> 0:07:18.240
<v Speaker 1>hung jury b for the Muller investigation as a whole. Yeah,

0:07:18.360 --> 0:07:21.000
<v Speaker 1>hung jury would be devastating, It really would. Um, I've

0:07:21.000 --> 0:07:24.000
<v Speaker 1>had hung. Jerry's right. Technically, hung jury's a tie and

0:07:24.640 --> 0:07:27.320
<v Speaker 1>almost always you redo it, you retry the person. But

0:07:27.760 --> 0:07:30.560
<v Speaker 1>it would hurt here. Um, you know, you can see

0:07:30.560 --> 0:07:32.880
<v Speaker 1>what would happen if it's eleven to one. Eleven want

0:07:32.920 --> 0:07:36.240
<v Speaker 1>to convict and one doesn't. You know, the president and

0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:38.720
<v Speaker 1>everyone else who believes this is a rigged witch hunt

0:07:38.760 --> 0:07:41.320
<v Speaker 1>are going to declare victory and say shows what a

0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:44.480
<v Speaker 1>sham the Muller team is. And they couldn't even convict

0:07:44.480 --> 0:07:48.520
<v Speaker 1>and the jury rejected their theory. So uh, hung jury

0:07:48.760 --> 0:07:51.400
<v Speaker 1>is not going to be a tie. It's going to

0:07:51.400 --> 0:07:54.160
<v Speaker 1>be a win for Manaph and Trump and a loss

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:57.280
<v Speaker 1>for Muller. Just to have about fifty seconds here, do

0:07:57.320 --> 0:07:59.800
<v Speaker 1>you know the prosecutor I know some of the prosecutors,

0:07:59.840 --> 0:08:02.000
<v Speaker 1>like some of them in action, But I don't know

0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:05.560
<v Speaker 1>these these pros I don't I know Greg Andres, who

0:08:05.600 --> 0:08:07.200
<v Speaker 1>I think is the lead in the case. Um, he

0:08:07.640 --> 0:08:09.600
<v Speaker 1>was doing organized crime cases in Brooklyn when I was

0:08:09.640 --> 0:08:12.360
<v Speaker 1>doing them in Manhattan. Look, he's the best there is. Um.

0:08:12.400 --> 0:08:15.520
<v Speaker 1>He's tenacious, he's extremely talented. He's on the short list

0:08:15.520 --> 0:08:17.600
<v Speaker 1>of guys i'd ever want prosecute me if I did

0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:19.840
<v Speaker 1>something wrong. It's great to have you here. It's always

0:08:19.840 --> 0:08:22.080
<v Speaker 1>great to have you on. That's Ellie Hoenig of Lowenstein

0:08:22.200 --> 0:08:25.280
<v Speaker 1>Sandler and executive director of the Rutgers Institute on Site

0:08:25.360 --> 0:08:33.640
<v Speaker 1>a community. Andrew Wheeler has only been leading the e

0:08:33.760 --> 0:08:35.880
<v Speaker 1>p A for three weeks, but in that time he's

0:08:35.920 --> 0:08:38.000
<v Speaker 1>made it clear that he'll be adopting much of his

0:08:38.080 --> 0:08:42.400
<v Speaker 1>predecessors Scott Pruitt's agenda, but not his headline grabbing habits.

0:08:42.760 --> 0:08:46.520
<v Speaker 1>During his first congressional testimony today, Wheeler said President Trump

0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:50.040
<v Speaker 1>gave him three tasks when he was appointed Acting Administrator.

0:08:50.600 --> 0:08:53.360
<v Speaker 1>Clean up the air, clean up the water, and provide

0:08:53.360 --> 0:08:56.199
<v Speaker 1>regulatory relief to help the economy thrive and create more

0:08:56.280 --> 0:08:59.679
<v Speaker 1>jobs for American workers. I believe we're accomplished all three

0:08:59.679 --> 0:09:02.800
<v Speaker 1>at the time. In fact, we have already made progress

0:09:02.840 --> 0:09:05.400
<v Speaker 1>on all three fronts in just the past few weeks.

0:09:06.120 --> 0:09:09.640
<v Speaker 1>Joining us is Jennifer de Loie, Bloomberg News Environment and

0:09:09.760 --> 0:09:13.800
<v Speaker 1>Energy Regulation reporter. Jennifer, you were at the hearings today

0:09:14.000 --> 0:09:16.719
<v Speaker 1>and did he explain how he's going to deregulate at

0:09:16.720 --> 0:09:20.280
<v Speaker 1>the same time as cleaning up the air and water. Well,

0:09:20.280 --> 0:09:23.880
<v Speaker 1>he talked a lot about regulatory certainty, the idea that

0:09:24.000 --> 0:09:28.840
<v Speaker 1>you can process permits more quickly um and and gives

0:09:28.960 --> 0:09:32.440
<v Speaker 1>answers to the you know, businesses that are and the

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:37.120
<v Speaker 1>developers that are seeking permits involving water or land. So

0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:39.560
<v Speaker 1>that's really where I think the rubber meets the road,

0:09:39.600 --> 0:09:42.240
<v Speaker 1>where you have this flash, and where he is hoping

0:09:42.280 --> 0:09:46.839
<v Speaker 1>to bridge the divide. Any big headlines from him on

0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:51.440
<v Speaker 1>any important issues that you're following, absolutely, So what was

0:09:51.559 --> 0:09:54.240
<v Speaker 1>really interesting today is is, of course how heavily the

0:09:54.320 --> 0:09:57.720
<v Speaker 1>hearing focused on policy, A little bit of a change

0:09:58.320 --> 0:10:01.640
<v Speaker 1>from hearings we saw with his predecessor, Scott Krewett that

0:10:01.679 --> 0:10:05.640
<v Speaker 1>were dominated by concerns about ethics and spending. Today, uh

0:10:05.720 --> 0:10:09.400
<v Speaker 1>Andrew Wheeler indicated that he wants to reach some kind

0:10:09.440 --> 0:10:13.920
<v Speaker 1>of compromise with California, Fornia over vehicle emission standards. UH.

0:10:13.960 --> 0:10:17.840
<v Speaker 1>The Administrations is on the verge of releasing its proposal

0:10:18.400 --> 0:10:23.560
<v Speaker 1>UH to ease Obama era standards that aim to increase

0:10:23.840 --> 0:10:28.760
<v Speaker 1>fuel economy requirements and UM and greenhop gas emission requirements

0:10:28.760 --> 0:10:31.520
<v Speaker 1>for cars over the coming years, and they're going to

0:10:31.640 --> 0:10:35.400
<v Speaker 1>freeze those in the proposal. UH. The proposal also is

0:10:35.400 --> 0:10:38.600
<v Speaker 1>going to take aim at California's unique ability to regulate

0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:41.920
<v Speaker 1>emission in its own turf and UH. And what Wheeler

0:10:41.960 --> 0:10:45.520
<v Speaker 1>said today is he'd like to see a fifty states solution, UM,

0:10:45.640 --> 0:10:48.800
<v Speaker 1>some kind of compromise that that California can be on

0:10:48.840 --> 0:10:52.160
<v Speaker 1>board with and that wouldn't require him to go after

0:10:52.240 --> 0:10:57.120
<v Speaker 1>California's authority. So but jen In in the statement or

0:10:57.160 --> 0:11:01.080
<v Speaker 1>the report that's going to be unveiled, is it going

0:11:01.120 --> 0:11:05.480
<v Speaker 1>to still talk about trying to take back California's the

0:11:05.480 --> 0:11:10.280
<v Speaker 1>special power it has over emissions. Right. Our reporting indicates

0:11:10.320 --> 0:11:14.000
<v Speaker 1>that indeed, this proposal tomorrow won't UH, We'll still have

0:11:14.120 --> 0:11:17.040
<v Speaker 1>that very strong language and in it UM that it

0:11:17.080 --> 0:11:22.000
<v Speaker 1>will asserts that California's own emission rules are preempted. UM

0:11:22.000 --> 0:11:24.600
<v Speaker 1>that California shouldn't have a wave or allowing them to

0:11:25.320 --> 0:11:28.800
<v Speaker 1>regulate emissions uh in this special way, and that it

0:11:28.840 --> 0:11:31.760
<v Speaker 1>will of course take this harder approach to freezing the

0:11:32.000 --> 0:11:35.640
<v Speaker 1>Obama air standards that said wheel Are made UH pains

0:11:35.679 --> 0:11:37.960
<v Speaker 1>today to say this is just a proposal, and of

0:11:38.000 --> 0:11:40.640
<v Speaker 1>course it's the proposal that involves not just his agency,

0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:42.480
<v Speaker 1>the e p A, but is also being written with

0:11:42.520 --> 0:11:46.720
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Transportation, where you have some uh political

0:11:46.760 --> 0:11:49.840
<v Speaker 1>appointees that are pushing this harder stance, so that that

0:11:49.880 --> 0:11:51.760
<v Speaker 1>we're going to see these tensions I think play out

0:11:51.800 --> 0:11:54.520
<v Speaker 1>overcoming months. But he took pains today to stress that

0:11:54.600 --> 0:11:56.640
<v Speaker 1>this is just an opening bid and his goal as

0:11:56.640 --> 0:11:59.840
<v Speaker 1>a compromise. Is it fair to say that will Are

0:12:00.160 --> 0:12:02.840
<v Speaker 1>is auditioning for the job full time? Is it his

0:12:02.960 --> 0:12:07.120
<v Speaker 1>to lose? Oh? Absolutely, This is an audition and on

0:12:07.160 --> 0:12:11.320
<v Speaker 1>the job and on the job audition as it were. Uh.

0:12:11.520 --> 0:12:15.080
<v Speaker 1>Senator Barosso the chairman of the Environment and Public Works

0:12:15.120 --> 0:12:17.600
<v Speaker 1>Committee today so that he'd like to see Wheeler get

0:12:17.600 --> 0:12:21.079
<v Speaker 1>the job full time. Uh, it doesn't. We don't have

0:12:21.120 --> 0:12:25.800
<v Speaker 1>any indications that the President is prepared to nominate him

0:12:25.840 --> 0:12:29.560
<v Speaker 1>any time before the November elections, and this issue will

0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:32.559
<v Speaker 1>probably Linker for a while, but no question, everyone is

0:12:32.559 --> 0:12:34.960
<v Speaker 1>watching his performance from the White House to the Senate.

0:12:35.600 --> 0:12:37.839
<v Speaker 1>Jen You've written about how you know, some people might

0:12:37.920 --> 0:12:41.080
<v Speaker 1>read some of his actions as being backing off of

0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:45.800
<v Speaker 1>prue It's agenda, but they would be wrong. Explain what

0:12:46.160 --> 0:12:50.160
<v Speaker 1>his aim seems to be right. What we see with

0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:53.400
<v Speaker 1>Wheeler is really a continuation of Prue's agenda. He still

0:12:53.480 --> 0:12:56.400
<v Speaker 1>aims to ease many of the same regulations that Pruitt

0:12:56.440 --> 0:13:00.679
<v Speaker 1>targeted for revision or appeal. Uh. That includes Obama air

0:13:00.800 --> 0:13:05.480
<v Speaker 1>regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions from oil wells and from

0:13:05.480 --> 0:13:08.040
<v Speaker 1>power plants, and of course the car proposal we just

0:13:08.120 --> 0:13:11.920
<v Speaker 1>talked about. Uh. What what is different is that even

0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:14.680
<v Speaker 1>though the agenda is going to be continuing, and it

0:13:14.760 --> 0:13:19.520
<v Speaker 1>is clearly continuing in similar fashion, Wheeler is taking a

0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:22.320
<v Speaker 1>slower approach. He's a little bit more cautious. He might

0:13:22.360 --> 0:13:24.800
<v Speaker 1>be a little less aggressive in leaning into some of

0:13:24.800 --> 0:13:29.319
<v Speaker 1>these um policy changes. Uh. Some folks think that will

0:13:29.880 --> 0:13:32.360
<v Speaker 1>that he's more interested in doing a lot of the

0:13:33.360 --> 0:13:36.480
<v Speaker 1>dotting of eyes and crossing of cheese that's necessary to

0:13:36.679 --> 0:13:41.880
<v Speaker 1>ensure these rollbacks are supported and can withstand legal scrutiny. Uh.

0:13:42.280 --> 0:13:45.320
<v Speaker 1>That's a question we'll see answered later on how well

0:13:45.360 --> 0:13:48.240
<v Speaker 1>he does at that UM. But certainly he's taking a

0:13:48.400 --> 0:13:51.360
<v Speaker 1>slower and more cautious approach in enacting some of the

0:13:51.400 --> 0:13:54.800
<v Speaker 1>same reforms. Now, Willer is a former lobbyist, and he

0:13:54.840 --> 0:13:59.520
<v Speaker 1>did get a question about his ethics. What was that?

0:14:00.440 --> 0:14:02.240
<v Speaker 1>Right at the very top of the hearing, he was

0:14:02.280 --> 0:14:06.800
<v Speaker 1>asked about his willingness to recuse himself from past clients.

0:14:06.840 --> 0:14:10.120
<v Speaker 1>He's he's indicated that he will not um interact with

0:14:10.240 --> 0:14:13.960
<v Speaker 1>or be involved in decisions that directly involved past clients,

0:14:13.960 --> 0:14:19.240
<v Speaker 1>including notably um uh the coal miner Bob Murray, the

0:14:19.240 --> 0:14:23.040
<v Speaker 1>head of Murray Energy Corporation. Uh. But that really was

0:14:23.280 --> 0:14:27.200
<v Speaker 1>remarkably the only ethics question in this uh this hearing

0:14:27.720 --> 0:14:31.200
<v Speaker 1>where Franklin Previous hearings involving Prue it were dominated by

0:14:31.760 --> 0:14:35.920
<v Speaker 1>inquiries about ethics. So in general, Jen about thirty seconds

0:14:35.920 --> 0:14:38.920
<v Speaker 1>here did it see less? Did it seem less confrontational

0:14:39.080 --> 0:14:44.400
<v Speaker 1>than the hearings with Pruitt Night and Day? Absolutely less confrontational.

0:14:44.480 --> 0:14:47.640
<v Speaker 1>He was given a warm welcome, relatively speaking, by both

0:14:47.840 --> 0:14:52.120
<v Speaker 1>Democrats and Republicans, including some of Prue expiercist critics. All right,

0:14:52.160 --> 0:14:55.080
<v Speaker 1>thanks so much for that report. That's Jennifer de Loowe,

0:14:55.080 --> 0:14:59.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg News Environment and Energy regulation reporter. Will have more

0:14:59.520 --> 0:15:03.200
<v Speaker 1>on those Is Wheeler hearings throughout the day. Thanks for

0:15:03.280 --> 0:15:06.520
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

0:15:06.600 --> 0:15:09.840
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

0:15:09.920 --> 0:15:14.640
<v Speaker 1>bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is

0:15:14.680 --> 0:15:15.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg