Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: There are new concerns about the accuracy of the Census.
Speaker 1: The US Census Bureau was cutting its schedule for data
Speaker 1: collection for the Census a month short, stopping all its
Speaker 1: counting efforts at the end of September instead of the
Speaker 1: end of October. Researchers, academic, civil rights activists, and politicians
Speaker 1: are among those expressing concern that speeding up the count
Speaker 1: will produce an undercount. Inaccurate data will have lasting effects
Speaker 1: throughout the next decade. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a
Speaker 1: partner at Holland and Knight. I got a Census questionnaire
Speaker 1: in the mail, I filled it in, sent it in.
Speaker 1: What else does the Census have to do besides send
Speaker 1: out those questionnaires? We the censors have to do two
Speaker 1: key things. They have one, like you said, a mail
Speaker 1: out of the questionnaire, but also under federal statute, there's
Speaker 1: also a second period that's called the in person verification,
Speaker 1: which is then where they have to canvas the addresses
Speaker 1: that they don't have answered for and try to get
Speaker 1: answers that are accountable for those addresses. As of Monday,
Speaker 1: of US households had not responded to the Census questionnaire.
Speaker 1: Yet the U S Census Bureau says it's cutting its
Speaker 1: schedule for data collection. Do we know why? Well, the
Speaker 1: reason that was given is that they don't think they'd
Speaker 1: be able to finish the calculations that are required by
Speaker 1: the satuatory deadline of December thirty one, which is when
Speaker 1: they're supposed to have the full count by. But that
Speaker 1: seems a bit strange given that they knew that that
Speaker 1: satuatory deadline existed when they first made this announcement about
Speaker 1: moving it to October one. And the other odd point
Speaker 1: is that it's not as if COVID has gotten better.
Speaker 1: COVID has gotten worse, and so whatever justification that was
Speaker 1: COVID related to get to October thirty one seems odd
Speaker 1: to now with raw back to September. Some people are saying, well,
Speaker 1: this means that there will be an under count of
Speaker 1: minorities as well as rural populations. That's a huge danger
Speaker 1: that now, especially because of COVID and limitations and getting
Speaker 1: access to people, and people who don't want to necessarily
Speaker 1: talk to anyone at the moment because they're being very
Speaker 1: very careful that all of the time that was now
Speaker 1: needed that extra month, you certainly would have yielded a
Speaker 1: much larger response rate over the course of an additional
Speaker 1: month that you won't have now. Now it will be rush,
Speaker 1: and the strategy of rushing it is almost certainly to
Speaker 1: lead to hum their count. Many people are saying that
Speaker 1: this move to speed up the deadlines is another attempt
Speaker 1: by the Trump administration to politicize the census. Yeah, there
Speaker 1: is a belief that, whether it's true or not, that
Speaker 1: time frames work out, which is that if potentially you
Speaker 1: had delayed the census, it would have gone in to
Speaker 1: the presidency of a subsequent president, maybe Joe Biden if
Speaker 1: he wins, And so by feeding it up a month,
Speaker 1: the idea is that somehow the president can prevail in
Speaker 1: his other litigation about not counting people without status here
Speaker 1: that then he can make the final count and the
Speaker 1: final abortion meant before the end of the first term
Speaker 1: of the presidency. And analysis shows that ten states are
Speaker 1: trailing their response rates. Most of those are red states. Also,
Speaker 1: it's the poorest states that depend most on federal funding
Speaker 1: and have lower census response rates. So won't the administration
Speaker 1: be losing in that respect. I mean, that is certainly
Speaker 1: the practical implications of the policy, but the policies are
Speaker 1: almost always driven by the fact that the people who
Speaker 1: are most pushing the pious accurate number counts is always
Speaker 1: the blue state, the blue state New York, California. They're
Speaker 1: always the one pushing the necessity and the urgency of
Speaker 1: getting an account accurately because they're the states who are
Speaker 1: always not getting their share of the pie, and so
Speaker 1: from their perspective, they feel like they have to do
Speaker 1: more than usual, always in every sense of theories, to
Speaker 1: get counted. And so that perception seems to have lingered,
Speaker 1: even though the reality on the ground is what you report,
Speaker 1: which is that the red states are actually the one
Speaker 1: trailing in the undercount. At the moment, New York is
Speaker 1: one of those states that is trailing in the response rate.
Speaker 1: You know, we concentrate on the federal funding that comes
Speaker 1: to states based on the census count, and also of
Speaker 1: course the congressional seats that are allocated, but there are
Speaker 1: lots of other reasons to get to really representative count,
Speaker 1: and that shows in that COVID databases are also using
Speaker 1: population data from the census, so there are other reasons. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely critical for all kinds of economic and demographic reasons,
Speaker 1: and to be able to assess the policy implications of
Speaker 1: many different formulaic grant programs and to determine, like you said,
Speaker 1: whether certain counties are handling pandemics better than other counties.
Speaker 1: All of that required usage of the census data. And
Speaker 1: if you don't have that census data, you can't make
Speaker 1: proper assessments. There's even immigration issues, which is the area
Speaker 1: I work on in the in the context of what's
Speaker 1: known as the e v BY program, which talks about
Speaker 1: investing money in order to get a green card. That
Speaker 1: is a hundred percent dependent on the census track and
Speaker 1: what that census track is saying about. Who is unemployed
Speaker 1: in that census track, and who is the what is
Speaker 1: the average rate of income in that census track. And
Speaker 1: so from that perspective, it is if we sat here
Speaker 1: and did a two hour interview, I would not be
Speaker 1: able to cover all of the things that the senses
Speaker 1: data is used for. I won't subject you to a
Speaker 1: two hour interview. So now there was a request to
Speaker 1: Congress to extend the deadline, which passed the House and
Speaker 1: is going nowhere in the Senate, is there anything else
Speaker 1: that can be done to extend the deadline? So I
Speaker 1: am hearing about lawsuits that people want to file to
Speaker 1: try to get that deadline extended back to October. Those
Speaker 1: of lawsuit has been filed, but they are imminent, and
Speaker 1: so those lawsuits will try to get the deadline extended
Speaker 1: under the theory that they violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
Speaker 1: And in addition to those lawsuits, you have the idea
Speaker 1: that maybe even if you don't put it in as
Speaker 1: a sandalue bill, it's something that is not so outrageous
Speaker 1: that it can be put into a COVID relief packet.
Speaker 1: And that's the other options that's out there out of
Speaker 1: the table. Last week, President Trump issued an executive memorandum
Speaker 1: to exclude people in the country illegally. And they are
Speaker 1: multiple lawsuits. Where does that stand? So the furthest lawsuit
Speaker 1: along is the one that was filed in New York,
Speaker 1: that was filed by the New York Attorney General. There
Speaker 1: was two others, one filed by Tomas Cause and one
Speaker 1: file in the Northern Districts of California by the State
Speaker 1: of California. But the one in New York. They had
Speaker 1: a hearing Tuesday, and as that hearing the judge, judge
Speaker 1: ferments that he wanted to have briefing resolved by the
Speaker 1: ends of August because of the fact that the census
Speaker 1: have been moved up to the ends of September. And
Speaker 1: the biggest question that he has to decide right now
Speaker 1: is because the census statutes say that anything related to
Speaker 1: apportion men, any challenge related to abortionment has a three
Speaker 1: judge panel as opposed to a one judge panel. Is
Speaker 1: this a challenge related to apportionment, which is not exactly
Speaker 1: because we're not saying New York should have had two
Speaker 1: million versus California should have had three million. We're not
Speaker 1: saying that, But is it close enough to apportion then
Speaker 1: that that should require a three judge panel, And he
Speaker 1: says it does that its Department of Justice agrees, so
Speaker 1: that they don't appeal that. Then what that would mean
Speaker 1: is that that three judge panel in New York would
Speaker 1: decide the merits of the case and then it could
Speaker 1: go directly to the Supreme Court for an appeal. In
Speaker 1: testimony before Congress, the director of the Census said that
Speaker 1: the Census Bureau is trying to come up with methodologies
Speaker 1: to implement President Trump's executive memo. What kind of methodologies
Speaker 1: could they come up with? Well, so there's two or
Speaker 1: three methodologies that the Department of Homeland Security has at
Speaker 1: its disposal. The first is they that can come up
Speaker 1: with estimates with entry exit data that they've been operating
Speaker 1: with recently, because we now know how many people exit
Speaker 1: the United States from Canada who enter, and we now
Speaker 1: know how many people ex at the airports of the
Speaker 1: United States, and so what we don't exactly know how
Speaker 1: many people would exist from the land border of Mexico.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna have a bit of an overcount, but
Speaker 1: we'll be able to know for the last few years
Speaker 1: how many visa overstays there have been on average. And
Speaker 1: then the question is, well, how many people are here
Speaker 1: who unlawfully crossed through the border, And they're they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to come up with some estimates and take from
Speaker 1: that estimate how many years are we talking about for
Speaker 1: a year, and what are we subtracting in terms of
Speaker 1: people who have been either removed or who have voluntarily left.
Speaker 1: And so that the problem with that debate is that
Speaker 1: debate always comes down in the line of foot far
Speaker 1: between ten and twenty millions, and depending on what number
Speaker 1: you choose, you're making as gramatic difference in the census.
Speaker 1: And so that's the problem. And I mean, we know
Speaker 1: what we know, but we also know what we don't know,
Speaker 1: and what we don't know is literally a ten million
Speaker 1: person spread, and that just makes too much of a
Speaker 1: difference to leave it of guesswork. So Lynn, let's say
Speaker 1: that the lawsuits fail and the Census Bureau completes its
Speaker 1: data collection and you get this census result that is
Speaker 1: questionable that scientists or sociologist question. Can anything be done
Speaker 1: once the census data is collected to change it? Well,
Speaker 1: so here's the complication. If you're challenging it based on
Speaker 1: the status issue, well, that would have been resolved in
Speaker 1: this lawsuit, so you couldn't do it on that. So
Speaker 1: you have to challenge it on how many human beings
Speaker 1: answered the census that you could verify have legal status
Speaker 1: and say that number is more than what the government
Speaker 1: gave us credit for. And so yes, you could challenge that,
Speaker 1: and it would have that same three judge panels. But
Speaker 1: the question is then you the challenger would have the
Speaker 1: burden approved to show that the government's calculation was wrong,
Speaker 1: and so that would require I think a set of
Speaker 1: chords that was interested in finding that decision. Thanks Leon,
Speaker 1: that's Leon Fresco, a partner at Hondon Knight. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloombird Law with June Grassol. Some infighting among conservatives
Speaker 1: could reshape the judicial selection process on the right, starting
Speaker 1: with that new list of potential Supreme Court nominees that
Speaker 1: President Trump has promised to release next month. A network
Speaker 1: at conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the
Speaker 1: Federalist Society have helped President Trump on his mission to
Speaker 1: make the judiciary more conservative. Recently, that movement has come
Speaker 1: under fire from social conservatives, who say it's mainly delivered
Speaker 1: business friendly judges, while conservative voters care more about restricting abortion, immigration,
Speaker 1: and lgbt Q rights. Joining me is an authority on
Speaker 1: the courts. Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of
Speaker 1: Richmond Law School, Carl, let's start with Trump's mission to
Speaker 1: have a more conservative federal judiciary. Have the Republicans been
Speaker 1: ramping back up with judicial nominations. No, Actually, the nominations
Speaker 1: and confirmations are moving rather slowly, I think in part
Speaker 1: because of the bad optics if they're confirming judges when
Speaker 1: they haven't done very much by way of a new
Speaker 1: stimulus package, and so Leada McConnell seems to be holding back.
Speaker 1: Though today there will be a closure vote and a
Speaker 1: confirmation vote on Southern District nominee for New York named Cronin.
Speaker 1: He has leap frogged ahead of a number of others,
Speaker 1: for example Eastern District nominee Jujarati, who has been waiting
Speaker 1: thirteen months for a confirmation vote. So there's some cherry
Speaker 1: picking going on, um, but pretty limited in this three
Speaker 1: week period which will end today when the Senate's returned. Uh,
Speaker 1: they've only confirmed three district judges and so there are
Speaker 1: many waiting. Let's turn now to the Supreme Court. Explain
Speaker 1: why the president has promised to release a new list
Speaker 1: of potential Supreme Court nominees. Well, I think President Trump
Speaker 1: has decided to do that because he believes in part
Speaker 1: that his election the first time hinged on his Supreme
Speaker 1: Court list, which wasn't about twenty possibilities that he promised
Speaker 1: he would pick from in filling vacancies and then justice
Speaker 1: courses and Justice Kavanaugh were on the lists or that
Speaker 1: list that he compiled, and so he's promising a new
Speaker 1: list in September, which may include some of the people
Speaker 1: on the earlier list, but a number of his appellates
Speaker 1: appointees are likely to appear on that list as well.
Speaker 1: Some social conservatives have criticized the network led by the
Speaker 1: Federalist Society and the Heritage Its Foundation that has been
Speaker 1: helping Trump choose judges and helping him with these lists,
Speaker 1: and they say that they mainly delivered business friendly judges
Speaker 1: failing right wing voters who care about restricting abortion, immigration,
Speaker 1: and lgbt Q rights. Do you see that as having
Speaker 1: happened well to some extent, I think there's substantial disappointment expressed,
Speaker 1: I think most clearly by Senator Holly from Missouri about
Speaker 1: those issues you were talking about, especially religious freedom, immigration
Speaker 1: in other areas where the Supreme Court did not rule
Speaker 1: in a way that Trump or many of his supporters
Speaker 1: like Holly and others wanted uh, And so they're trying
Speaker 1: to find a full proof way to guarantee that, but
Speaker 1: that seems to elude them. It's very difficult. Um. Even
Speaker 1: the I think there was a fair amount of vetting
Speaker 1: for the two doest justices uh, and many reassurances. The
Speaker 1: idea of going on the Supreme Court is that you
Speaker 1: will be impartial, that you can't pre judge any particular issues.
Speaker 1: So it's elusive, I think, and some people recognize that.
Speaker 1: But you're right, those criticisms are there, and so there
Speaker 1: is a lot of dispute about should they even compile this,
Speaker 1: and if they do, how do they vet the people
Speaker 1: to guarantee, as Paully says, that they'll deliver the results
Speaker 1: that their proponents want. Holly has said that he would
Speaker 1: vote to confirm Supreme Court justices only if they agree
Speaker 1: that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, So he would
Speaker 1: put the nominees in a position of having to say
Speaker 1: that a case that is now president was wrongly decided.
Speaker 1: Won't that put the nominees in a terror situation? Well could,
Speaker 1: and of course they won't agree to anything of that sort. Uh,
Speaker 1: And so it does seem like mission impossible, and even
Speaker 1: some of all these friends have criticized that. So we'll
Speaker 1: see how that all plays up. But apparently there's a
Speaker 1: lot of controversy about how to compilable list and out
Speaker 1: of that people to guarantee the results that you want,
Speaker 1: and judges in nominees, to their credit, are not going
Speaker 1: to commit beforehand, and so that's what we expect from
Speaker 1: federal judges. The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation have been
Speaker 1: at this for a long time and they have a network.
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering how President Trump intends to put a
Speaker 1: new list together. Well, I think he's going back to
Speaker 1: those people UM at the Federal Society and Heritage and
Speaker 1: they're helping Leonard Leo, I think, who's a little advisor
Speaker 1: on judges to the president, probably will have substantial input.
Speaker 1: UH and their number of conservative groups like Judicial Confirmation
Speaker 1: Network and others who are having I expect input, and
Speaker 1: I would also expect people like Holly and the members
Speaker 1: of the Judiciary Committee, especially on the Republican side, are
Speaker 1: likely to want to have input and may well have input.
Speaker 1: And so I don't think there'll be any lack of
Speaker 1: people willing to help or names to be floated. But
Speaker 1: I think also they'll go back to the core list
Speaker 1: from UH and look at Trump's appointees of fifty three
Speaker 1: of them, perhaps to the appellate bench, does seem like
Speaker 1: the most likely choices. There are a couple of names
Speaker 1: that keep on resurfacing, and one is Naomi Rao, who
Speaker 1: was a very controversial appointee to the d C Circuit
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, and she has been a really reliable
Speaker 1: vote for Trump, whether it's subpoenas for his financial records
Speaker 1: or the prosecution of Michael Flynn. Is she trying out
Speaker 1: for the Supreme Court? Well, as we know, and it
Speaker 1: said before the DC Circuits the second most important court
Speaker 1: in the country. Here it's been a springboard for many
Speaker 1: to join the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: just Ginsberg, Relate Justice Celia all served on that court,
Speaker 1: and so it shouldn't be surprising. And it gets exactly
Speaker 1: those kinds of controversial, high profile cases that Judge Row
Speaker 1: has been involved in. The cases are assigned randomly, but
Speaker 1: you know, it's a small court. They're leving judges, and
Speaker 1: so she seemed to draw an inordinate number of those
Speaker 1: high profile cases that involved the president. And she has
Speaker 1: generally come down on the side of the president in
Speaker 1: writing opinions or defense, so people are looking at her closely.
Speaker 1: She has very much defended executive power in trump de
Speaker 1: regulatory initiatives. What issues do conservatives have with Raw Well,
Speaker 1: I think that the DC Circuit docket hasn't served up
Speaker 1: very many of the cases that social conservatives are concerned
Speaker 1: about involving for example, abortion, immigration, UH, and those types
Speaker 1: of issues religious freedom. Those rarely come to the DC
Speaker 1: Circuit because it primarily looks at the majority of its
Speaker 1: cases are appeals of administrative agency decisions regulatory decisions typically UH.
Speaker 1: And she has much expertise in those areas, and so
Speaker 1: I think that it's less clear how she might decide
Speaker 1: the issues that trouble Auli and others the social conservatives.
Speaker 1: How will she decide on religious freedom at the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court or abortion or immigration? And she doesn't have much
Speaker 1: at track records there, there's not much of a paper trail.
Speaker 1: What about Judge any Coney Barrett, who is a Federal
Speaker 1: Appeals Court judge in Chicago. Well, she's on the Seventh Circuit,
Speaker 1: and I think the feeling among conservatives is she would
Speaker 1: be a sure bet on those kinds of issues UM.
Speaker 1: And they can look at her writings when she was
Speaker 1: a law professor and looked at her opinions on the
Speaker 1: Seventh Circuit. So she hasn't signed off on very many,
Speaker 1: but I think they feel she's a much safer vote
Speaker 1: for their views in terms of abortion, religious freedom, perhaps immigration,
Speaker 1: UH and maybe some other social conservative kinds of issues
Speaker 1: and so H. There is a paper trail there, and
Speaker 1: I think they have a higher comfort level with her.
Speaker 1: I understand that Conservatives were very upset by the rulings
Speaker 1: of a Supreme Court this term on a portion immigration
Speaker 1: and lgbt Q rights, But if you look at it,
Speaker 1: their last nominee, Rhett Kavanaugh, consistently voted with the Conservatives
Speaker 1: on the Court on those issues. So it seems as
Speaker 1: if they did do their job, their so called job,
Speaker 1: in picking him. I think that's right, more so than
Speaker 1: Justice Corsage, who seems to be somewhat more independent, And
Speaker 1: of course he did joined the majority in most the
Speaker 1: opinion the lgbt Q k UH, and so there is
Speaker 1: some difference that seems like between the two of them,
Speaker 1: at least this term. And then Chief Justice Robert has
Speaker 1: tended to be more concerned about institutional issues UH and
Speaker 1: the Court's reputation and credibility in a number of those
Speaker 1: cases as well, and he has often joined with the
Speaker 1: Democratic pointees Ellen, many of the issues that are troubling
Speaker 1: to some social conservatives, but not an abortion. An abortion.
Speaker 1: He remained with the conservatives. Why I question all this,
Speaker 1: you know, looking and and vetting, because it seems to
Speaker 1: me that the most reliable conservative votes are Justices Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas and Samuel Alito, who were picked well before this process. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, um, but maybe that just points out it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to predict exactly how people will resolve cases.
Speaker 1: So I think, um, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and
Speaker 1: then it were concerned that both of those justices um
Speaker 1: mant to be quite conservative, and they have prooves to be,
Speaker 1: and so it's not always easy to do to predict
Speaker 1: where I would justice aside, especially one who's open minded
Speaker 1: and side be cased on the law and the fact
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is getting the highest approval ratings in
Speaker 1: a decade, with widespread support for how the justices are
Speaker 1: doing their job across the ideological spectrum, according to a
Speaker 1: new Gallop pole released Wednesday. What do you make of that? Well,
Speaker 1: I guess the American people like courts that besides the
Speaker 1: law and the cases on the law, and the fact
Speaker 1: that doesn't seem so partisan or ideologically divided, though we'll
Speaker 1: see um so this term. I think people who favor
Speaker 1: more moderate decisions and less partisanship were relieved by some
Speaker 1: of the decisions. But it really depends on what happens
Speaker 1: in the longer term, So we'll have to just see
Speaker 1: how that all plays out in subsequent terms and whether
Speaker 1: their new justices and who wins the election in November.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the Supreme Court is going to
Speaker 1: be a real issue in the upcoming election, Well, I
Speaker 1: think it's likely because President Trump, I think, has promised
Speaker 1: that he would make it an issue. Even it's one
Speaker 1: of his great success stories, and maybe the most important
Speaker 1: one is is appoint each to the Spreme Court and
Speaker 1: certainly to the Federal Appeals Court, who will be serving
Speaker 1: for decades after he left the Thanks Carl. That's Professor
Speaker 1: Carl Tobias at the University of Richmond Law School. A
Speaker 1: bail hearing by Zoom for the seventeen year old accused
Speaker 1: of hacking some of the world's highest profile Twitter accounts
Speaker 1: offered some surprises about the teenagers past brushes with the law,
Speaker 1: and then the hearing about the hacker was hacked itself
Speaker 1: and raunchy images were shown, bringing the hearing to an
Speaker 1: abrupt close, joining me as Bloomberg Legal reporter Christopher domesh So, Chris,
Speaker 1: this was a bail hearing for the seventeen year old
Speaker 1: grandm Ivan Clark, who was charged with hacking into the
Speaker 1: accounts of notable businesspeople, celebrities, and politicians, including former President
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos, and Tesla CEO.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk tell us what happened at his bail hearing.
Speaker 1: So it was your pretty typical zoom court hearing. It
Speaker 1: took a little while to get going. There were a
Speaker 1: lot of different people on the line, obviously given the
Speaker 1: high profile nature of the case. And eventually they got started.
Speaker 1: And the argument that the lawyer was making is at
Speaker 1: his bail, which is seven twenty five thousand dollars, it's
Speaker 1: way disproportionate to the alleged loss in the case, which
Speaker 1: is about hundred seventeen thousand. He had made his arguments.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor had argued against that, saying that they had
Speaker 1: only begun to examine the you know, the depth of
Speaker 1: this conduct. And it was hearing the end of the
Speaker 1: hearing um and it seemed like the judge was about
Speaker 1: to make a ruling when some pretty graphic images came
Speaker 1: on the screen. I mean, we've had, you know, obviously
Speaker 1: as the pandemic's gone on, we've had a lot of
Speaker 1: interruptions on zoone calls and teleconferences between dogs barking and
Speaker 1: babies and things like that, But this is definitely a
Speaker 1: first for me in terms of graphic content. Just remind
Speaker 1: us what the charges are against him and what he's
Speaker 1: accused of doing. So the charges are and he's got
Speaker 1: about thirty charges against him, including computer fraud, UH, communications fraud,
Speaker 1: major organized fraud, and he's accused of kind of organizing
Speaker 1: this this hack on you know, more than thirty different accounts,
Speaker 1: Elon Musk, Barack Obama among them, and you know, basically
Speaker 1: sending out messages on those accounts that after bitcoin donations,
Speaker 1: and that's the hundred and seventeen thousand dollars that they're
Speaker 1: alleged is the loss in the cases that people responded
Speaker 1: to those tweets by sending bitcoin to him. UM, we
Speaker 1: don't know a whole lot about um the evidence right now, UM,
Speaker 1: and what's going on very early in the case, UM,
Speaker 1: and mostly UH the arguments so far been about bail
Speaker 1: and that sort of thing, so we're still waiting to
Speaker 1: hear a lot of details about what prosecutors are alleging.
Speaker 1: During the bail hearing, it was revealed that his residence
Speaker 1: was searched a year before the hat Yeah, so last
Speaker 1: August um there was a search warrant served at his residence.
Speaker 1: They seized about fifteen thousand dollars in cash, his phones,
Speaker 1: some computer hardware, and they froze a bit max account
Speaker 1: that contained not sure exactly how many bitcoin were in there,
Speaker 1: but probably about on the bar of four hundreds something
Speaker 1: like that. We're not entirely clear what the investigation was
Speaker 1: the results of His lawyers called it a joint investigation
Speaker 1: between the Santa Clara, California District Attorney's office and the
Speaker 1: Hillsborough County UM State's attorney in Florida, but the Florida
Speaker 1: Aureadis said they were only there to help serve the
Speaker 1: search warrant regard lists. The investigation resulted in agreement between
Speaker 1: Clark and the Florida and California authorities in which he
Speaker 1: would surrender a hundred bitcoin to them and they would
Speaker 1: return the rest of his property, and he admitted no
Speaker 1: wrongdoing and he wasn't prosecuted. We don't know really what
Speaker 1: the investigation is, but they have said in core papers
Speaker 1: that it was into a sim swap scheme where you know,
Speaker 1: hackers kind of take over a mobile phone in order
Speaker 1: to access personal information, and the authorities in Florida said
Speaker 1: that it involved depths from California residence of about a
Speaker 1: million dollars. The New York Times has linked Clark to
Speaker 1: a similar scheme where Seattle tech entrepreneur was the subject
Speaker 1: of a sim swap the hack. During the hearing, his
Speaker 1: lawyers said that the hundred bitcoins Clark agreed to forfeit
Speaker 1: represented about of the cryptocurrency in Clark's account. So when
Speaker 1: you do the map, does that mean he has about
Speaker 1: three point six million dollars in his account? And how
Speaker 1: did this seventeen year old get that money? So he
Speaker 1: said before that this was all These were all bitcoins
Speaker 1: that he made trading, and his lawyer did say during
Speaker 1: the bail hearing that he started with ten bitcoin and
Speaker 1: he was just a cryptocurrency trader and he made all
Speaker 1: the money through trading. So as far as we know,
Speaker 1: if you do the math, he probably has about four
Speaker 1: hundred bitcoins. You know, it's a pretty inherent security flaw
Speaker 1: you know for any tech company is that you know,
Speaker 1: you have vast armies of people, you know, young people
Speaker 1: team to have grown up with technology, who have you
Speaker 1: spent years and years honing their skills, maybe operating in bedrooms,
Speaker 1: you know, um what have you and they are just
Speaker 1: as able to you know, conduct a sophisticated hack on
Speaker 1: a big company like Twitter as you know, maybe a
Speaker 1: professionally trained team of hackers who are paid and recruited.
Speaker 1: It's definitely something they need to worry about. So the
Speaker 1: judge left the bail at seven five thousand dollars correct,
Speaker 1: but eliminated the requirements that he proved proved where the
Speaker 1: bail money came from. His lawyer successfully argued that because
Speaker 1: they starts in California and Florida had returned those proceeds
Speaker 1: to him, they and he wasn't prosecuted and admitted no wrongdoing,
Speaker 1: that they couldn't argue that they were illegally appaid. Thanks Chris,
Speaker 1: that's Bloomberg Legal reporter Christopher dol Mesh. I'm June Grasso.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and remember to Tune in
Speaker 1: to The Bloomberg Law Show every week night, atten pm
Speaker 1: Eastern on Bloomberg Radio