Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com Slash podcasts. New York Attorney
Speaker 1: General Eric Schneiderman is resigning as the state's highest law
Speaker 1: enforcement official. Schneiderman announced his resignation just hours after a
Speaker 1: magazine article in which four women accused him of physical violence.
Speaker 1: Schneiderman said in a statement, while these allegations are unrelated
Speaker 1: to my professional conduct or the operations of the office,
Speaker 1: they will effectively prevent me from leading the office is
Speaker 1: work at this critical time. Joining me is Bloomberg News
Speaker 1: Legal investigative reporter Greg Farrell. Greg tell us about the
Speaker 1: allegations from these four women broadly, um basically, each of
Speaker 1: them tells the variants of the same story that they
Speaker 1: had an intimate relation ship with Sniderman, and that at
Speaker 1: certain points he struck them, slapped them very hard across
Speaker 1: the face, uh, in more than one case, choked you know,
Speaker 1: one or several of the women to the point where
Speaker 1: you know they felt that they had trouble breathing, UM
Speaker 1: left marks on their faces to the to the effect
Speaker 1: that these women would go and share details with friends
Speaker 1: to um to corroborate them. UM. And also just a
Speaker 1: like a power relationship, treating them in demeaning fashion. UM.
Speaker 1: Forcing them to drink more than they would drink alcohol
Speaker 1: is at the center of a lot of these uh,
Speaker 1: you know a lot of these scenes. Yeah. Now, this
Speaker 1: came as a shock too many people, especially after Schniderman's
Speaker 1: legislative and legal advocacy for women's rights, his support of
Speaker 1: the Me Too movement. Were there any hints about this
Speaker 1: before the story was published in The New Yorker. No.
Speaker 1: And it's clear from the New Yorker article, which did
Speaker 1: an amazing level of reporting on this, that this didn't
Speaker 1: just come out yesterday. I think the office there has
Speaker 1: had at least a week I'm guessing, you know, the
Speaker 1: back and forth on this. UM. It is amazing that
Speaker 1: nothing like this had come out before, and ironically it
Speaker 1: was the Me too movement. I think a number of
Speaker 1: these women who thought they were individual and this only
Speaker 1: happened to them and maybe questioned or had self doubt
Speaker 1: about what their role might have been in this um
Speaker 1: once a couple of them got together and realized it
Speaker 1: was more than one women, and then hearing the former
Speaker 1: attorney general will speak on at some length about women's
Speaker 1: rights and me too and the importance of treating women
Speaker 1: with respect that they know. It's spilled over to the
Speaker 1: point where two of the four women referenced in the story,
Speaker 1: we're willing to go on the record with their names. Now. First,
Speaker 1: Schneiderman was investigating Manhattan d A. Sivance Jr. Now Sivans Jr.
Speaker 1: Is investigating Eric Schneiderman. I want to say only in
Speaker 1: New York, but I think this would happen anywhere right now,
Speaker 1: like only in New York. It's almost comical. It's not comical,
Speaker 1: but it's almost common goal the and to some extent,
Speaker 1: this is not the not Vance's investigation of Schneiderman's conduct
Speaker 1: that falls well, we'll get to that in a second.
Speaker 1: First of all, the fact that Governor Cuomo recommended and
Speaker 1: referred the Vances, you know, lack of prosecution or lack
Speaker 1: of action against Harvey Weinstein a few years ago, is strange.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if there's any legal basis for one
Speaker 1: constitutional officer, the governor, ordering another constitutional officer, the a
Speaker 1: G to investigate a third constitutional office, the Manhattan District Attorney. Um,
Speaker 1: you might disagree with cy Vance's judgments on things like
Speaker 1: the Weinstein case, but but that's his prerogative. He said
Speaker 1: there wasn't enough, and maybe he's wrong, but that's sort
Speaker 1: of what you know, prosecutors you run get elected for
Speaker 1: and if you're unhappy with him, you don't vote from
Speaker 1: next time. But to go in sick, you know, the
Speaker 1: Attorney general on that without some real reason, it just
Speaker 1: seems strange. So anyway, yes, Um, now the conduct here, Uh,
Speaker 1: this is for Sivance. This seems like a a loser.
Speaker 1: I mean, if his office finds like some you know
Speaker 1: grounds to you know, misdemeanor or felony, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: charges against Sneiderman, it'll look like political payback. So that's
Speaker 1: bad too. If they don't find anything, it will look
Speaker 1: bad like he's weak and he's not doing anything, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, like like what happened with Dominique straus Khan
Speaker 1: and like what happened with Weinstein a few years ago.
Speaker 1: So this is I'm sure something that Sivance is not
Speaker 1: like looking forward to yeah, exactly now. Snoderman has gotten
Speaker 1: national recognition for the role he's played in resisting Trump
Speaker 1: administration policies from environment to immigration, but he was also
Speaker 1: seen as someone who would might step in if the
Speaker 1: president pardoned people close to him like Paul Manaford, and
Speaker 1: last month they even asked lawmakers to change the States
Speaker 1: double jeopardy law to exempt presidential pardons. Is there concerned
Speaker 1: that those efforts in that role will be abandoned, I'm not. No,
Speaker 1: I don't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion
Speaker 1: immediately for a couple of reasons. One, this is still
Speaker 1: very much a blue state, and whoever replaces Schneiderman is
Speaker 1: going to be some from the same political background, uh
Speaker 1: as Schneiderman. It does sort of disrupt I mean, Schneiderman
Speaker 1: did establish himself as a he was gladly played the
Speaker 1: role of foil to President Trump and antagonist to President Trump.
Speaker 1: So whether or not his successor, you know, relishes the
Speaker 1: same sort of role, that remains to be seen. However,
Speaker 1: Schneierman is not the only actor in this case. Again,
Speaker 1: going back to Sivance, I Vance's office is also looking
Speaker 1: into conduct related to you know, people around Trump as
Speaker 1: sort of a and none of them are stepping on
Speaker 1: Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. But I think it's clear
Speaker 1: that they're ready and waiting so that if something happens
Speaker 1: to Mallor or pardons, you know, blanket pardons are issued
Speaker 1: in these cases that you know, state regulative state, you know,
Speaker 1: actors in New York can go ahead and take action.
Speaker 1: So now we're going to have a real election for
Speaker 1: New York Attorne general because he was the overwhelming favorite before.
Speaker 1: What names are being mentioned for the Democratic nominee? There
Speaker 1: A few of the names we've heard include Kathleen Rice
Speaker 1: Um and uh, I think Letitia James Um. So clearly
Speaker 1: several women's names have been put forward and given what
Speaker 1: happened to Governor Spitzer a decade ago, and now this
Speaker 1: clearly makes sense that you know, having a woman that
Speaker 1: position would be a very good move politically. So those
Speaker 1: are some of the names. However, Um, there's a there's
Speaker 1: a this is an interesting political dilemma, or at least
Speaker 1: a political situation in Albany. They have a chance now
Speaker 1: in Albany to designate someone to you know, serve as
Speaker 1: Attorney General until the election in November. Um. I think
Speaker 1: the hope is they'll find someone who can then be
Speaker 1: the woman favorite and keep the job. In other words,
Speaker 1: basically sliding someone in and politically, uh, they don't want
Speaker 1: someone who would be too tough or go after corruption
Speaker 1: in Albany. That that's that's for another show. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, breg as a eas that's Bloomberg News Legal
Speaker 1: investigative reporter Greg Farrell. Gina Haspell spent three decades working
Speaker 1: in secret, but now the lifelong spy will be making
Speaker 1: a very public appearance. She'll be grilled about her secretive
Speaker 1: work by the Senate Intelligence Committee and her confirmation hearing
Speaker 1: to become CIA director. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the
Speaker 1: White House is backing Haspell acting Director. Haspell is a
Speaker 1: highly qualified, uniquely positioned individual to lead the CIA, and
Speaker 1: we're very confident in her ability to answer the questions
Speaker 1: that we know we're going to come. The focus of
Speaker 1: the hearings is expected to be on Hospell's involvement in
Speaker 1: alleged torture programs and her role in destroying videotapes of
Speaker 1: interrogations of detainees. Joining me is Stephen Vladick, professor at
Speaker 1: the University of Texas School of Law and co editor
Speaker 1: in chief of Just Security. Steve you wrote a piece
Speaker 1: in Just Security entitled the hospital nomination as a reference
Speaker 1: end them on unaccountability. Would you explain why there have
Speaker 1: been no legal remedies in cases of the torture of
Speaker 1: US detainees. Sure, and I think you know planetts who
Speaker 1: have tried to do the US government directly, US governed officers,
Speaker 1: even US government contractors, based on claims that they were
Speaker 1: tortured well in US custody have generally had those cases
Speaker 1: thrown out for a wide range of procedural reasons, to
Speaker 1: none of us have to do with the merits in
Speaker 1: none of these cases, to the government, that the court
Speaker 1: rule that these planets weren't tortured. In all these cases,
Speaker 1: the court said there were some obstacle, whether the absence
Speaker 1: of a cause of accent or whether the possibility that
Speaker 1: the government defendant might have qualified immunity that would prevent
Speaker 1: the court from that. You've decided on the question of
Speaker 1: whether torture happened and whether these plaintiffs were abused, and
Speaker 1: so collectively we've gotten to, you know, sixteen years after
Speaker 1: this program started, with not a single judicial rule in
Speaker 1: only in one way or the other that abuses that
Speaker 1: were perpetrated against futilities in the US custody f n
Speaker 1: I eleven were or were not torture. So why do
Speaker 1: you see Haspell's confirmation hearing as a referendum on government
Speaker 1: accountability rather than a referendum on hospitalstability. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: think those are mutually exclusive, and the actually it gets both.
Speaker 1: But you know, June, many of these opinions by courts
Speaker 1: that have said it's not necessarily our place to jump
Speaker 1: over the political branches have pointed to the far better
Speaker 1: position that Congress is in when it comes to these
Speaker 1: kinds of highly classified national security programs to find out
Speaker 1: what happened, to make its own judgments, UM, and to
Speaker 1: decide whether and how to punish those responsible and if
Speaker 1: it's worth stressed. And one of the ways historically that
Speaker 1: Congress has exercised its leverage and basically you know, effected
Speaker 1: accountability is by refusing to confirm nominee who were involved
Speaker 1: in prior abusive government programs. So you know, I think
Speaker 1: that's why this here um tomorrow is no interesting because
Speaker 1: it's not just about Hospital herself, who I said quite
Speaker 1: clearly played a very central role in at least some
Speaker 1: aspects of the CIA printation, detention interrogation program. It's also
Speaker 1: about whether the political branches are going to use this process,
Speaker 1: the confirmation process, to make up for I think many
Speaker 1: of the deficits and shortcoming and how we have tried
Speaker 1: to create a record of the abuses carried out as
Speaker 1: part of the detention programs is not eleven. So you
Speaker 1: have you looked at the way the sides are lining
Speaker 1: up and whether Hasspel is likely to be confirmed. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I think it's going to be very close. Um.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I think is really interesting
Speaker 1: is there's a bit of a schism even on the
Speaker 1: sort of pro hospital side. You know, there are some
Speaker 1: folks who are saying, don't hold it against her that
Speaker 1: she was part of these abuses at a much different
Speaker 1: time in our history where I think a lot of
Speaker 1: you know, things may have gone wrong. But then you
Speaker 1: have folks like President Trump, uh, you know, Press Secretary
Speaker 1: Sanders saying that you know, hass fule record and hasful
Speaker 1: and involved in these abuses. Um, it's not it's actually
Speaker 1: a reason to confirm her. That is not that that
Speaker 1: seeds to be confirmed because of her role in we
Speaker 1: have not despite them, thankly to you. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's doing her any favors. And I actually think that,
Speaker 1: you know, as the press reporters last week, they are
Speaker 1: real concerned about whether they're enough votes and whether she
Speaker 1: might withdraw, rather than risk of potential negative vote. So
Speaker 1: it's going to be a very interesting to hearing to
Speaker 1: keep an eye on. Let's turn to another subject you've
Speaker 1: written about. You're very prolific. As we noticed, it seems
Speaker 1: like just about the only thing that has remained consistent
Speaker 1: in the Trump defense recently is the contention that the
Speaker 1: president doesn't have to comply with a grand jury subpoena
Speaker 1: to testify. So, to borrow the title of your column,
Speaker 1: can the presidency trump a special counsel subpoena? Um? They
Speaker 1: had a title, a little wordy. I like their en.
Speaker 1: I think probably not. I mean, so, there's no Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case squarely on point with regard to whether a
Speaker 1: president can get compelled to testify before a grand jury.
Speaker 1: But you know, the Supreme courts come pretty close. So
Speaker 1: in the Watergate tapes case in four you know, an
Speaker 1: eight to nothing court held that President Nixon could be
Speaker 1: forced to comply with the subpoena ducas take them for
Speaker 1: you know, specific evidence in that case, the Watergate tapes. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, in the Clinton versus Jones case, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court expressly rejected the argument that Article two of the
Speaker 1: Constitution generally pretends the president from having to bear the
Speaker 1: burden of litigation, including in that case, you know, showing
Speaker 1: up for a deposition. So you know, there's no square
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision in June. But I do think that
Speaker 1: if we actually got to a point where the Special
Speaker 1: Council had a subpoena for a grand drate testiment from
Speaker 1: the president, Um, you know, I think the president would
Speaker 1: lose if you tried to challenge that in court, at
Speaker 1: least facially. Now that's without regard you know. The president,
Speaker 1: of course is free to get on the stand and
Speaker 1: invoke whatever privileges or immunities he might think he has,
Speaker 1: among them, perhaps most importantly his siphanomic rights, you know,
Speaker 1: against self incrimination. That's a separate matter from whether he
Speaker 1: can refuse to comply with the subpoena in the first place.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this, because I've been cute curious
Speaker 1: about this. It seems obvious from everything that Giuliania said
Speaker 1: and Trump has said and tweeted that there is not
Speaker 1: going to be an interview. So in about a minute,
Speaker 1: tell us why Mueller doesn't just serve him with a
Speaker 1: grand jury subpoena. Now, so, I think, I mean certain
Speaker 1: serv of the president with the subpoena is is really
Speaker 1: fourth of the issue in a way that the Special
Speaker 1: Council may not want to or New Tea tude. I
Speaker 1: think you know, what the President says and what Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani and other sir gets thing on television is one thing.
Speaker 1: But until then last Muller is completely convinced that there's
Speaker 1: no accommodation to be reached short of a grand jury subpoena.
Speaker 1: I think it's in his interest, in everyone's interests to
Speaker 1: presume that accommodation. No matter what the sound bites all
Speaker 1: on television, we'll know that those of the comminations have failed.
Speaker 1: If and when we get to a moment where Mala
Speaker 1: really does actually if he's at a subpoena, well it's
Speaker 1: going to be very interesting, particularly with Rudy Giuliani in
Speaker 1: this because sometimes whether whether it's a he's pursuing a
Speaker 1: legal strategy or a public relations strategy. More to come. Thanks,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Steve. That's Steven Vladick, professor at the University
Speaker 1: of Texas School of Law and co editor in chief
Speaker 1: of Just Security. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Ye