1 00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:04,920 Speaker 1: Promised the American people that all the information that is 2 00:00:05,000 --> 00:00:08,320 Speaker 1: needed in order to create the indictment, to get a 3 00:00:08,360 --> 00:00:11,440 Speaker 1: prosecution and a conviction is in the hands of the 4 00:00:11,480 --> 00:00:15,960 Speaker 1: district attorney. Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen testified for two 5 00:00:16,040 --> 00:00:19,560 Speaker 1: days before the Manhattan grand jury that's deciding whether to 6 00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:24,360 Speaker 1: bring criminal charges against Donald Trump. If indictments are ultimately 7 00:00:24,400 --> 00:00:27,320 Speaker 1: delivered in a case against Trump over a hush money 8 00:00:27,360 --> 00:00:30,720 Speaker 1: payment to poor an actress Stormy Daniels, Cohen will get 9 00:00:30,720 --> 00:00:34,680 Speaker 1: the role he's been auditioning for since twenty eighteen, star 10 00:00:34,800 --> 00:00:38,919 Speaker 1: witness for the prosecution against his old boss, a witness 11 00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:42,760 Speaker 1: with a lot of baggage, including a felony conviction. I'm 12 00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:45,320 Speaker 1: not worried about it. The facts of the facts. The 13 00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:48,600 Speaker 1: truth is the truth, and the truth will always rise, 14 00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:51,320 Speaker 1: and so I'm not worried about anything that they want 15 00:00:51,320 --> 00:00:54,360 Speaker 1: to come in me with. But Trump's legal team sent 16 00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:59,120 Speaker 1: attorney Bob Costello, a former legal advisor to Cohen, into 17 00:00:59,160 --> 00:01:02,600 Speaker 1: the grand jury to testify that Cohen was not telling 18 00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:05,960 Speaker 1: the truth. The heart of it is that Michael Kohane 19 00:01:06,040 --> 00:01:09,920 Speaker 1: told us that he was approached by Stormy Daniels lawyer 20 00:01:10,640 --> 00:01:14,200 Speaker 1: and Stormy Daniels had negative information that she wanted to 21 00:01:14,240 --> 00:01:17,880 Speaker 1: put in a lawsuit against Trump. So Michael Khane decided 22 00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:21,400 Speaker 1: on his own, That's what he told us on his own, 23 00:01:21,760 --> 00:01:23,959 Speaker 1: to see if he could take care of this. Joining 24 00:01:23,959 --> 00:01:27,080 Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Greg Farrell, who has been 25 00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:32,120 Speaker 1: covering the case and Michael Cohen. Has Michael Cohen been consistent? 26 00:01:32,240 --> 00:01:34,920 Speaker 1: Has he been saying the same thing for years or 27 00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:37,720 Speaker 1: is there anything new in what he's saying. He has 28 00:01:37,720 --> 00:01:40,000 Speaker 1: been saying the same thing for years. He's written two books, 29 00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:42,000 Speaker 1: and a lot of this was in his first book. 30 00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:46,160 Speaker 1: He has stayed on message. To me. A big moment 31 00:01:46,440 --> 00:01:51,800 Speaker 1: for Cohen was his appearance before the House Committee in 32 00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:55,360 Speaker 1: February of twenty nineteen, at which time he had pled 33 00:01:55,360 --> 00:01:58,200 Speaker 1: guilty and flipped if you will, or decided he was 34 00:01:58,240 --> 00:02:01,960 Speaker 1: going to tell every thing knew about Trump world, about Trump, etc. 35 00:02:02,640 --> 00:02:05,960 Speaker 1: And he understood that by going before that committee he 36 00:02:06,040 --> 00:02:08,480 Speaker 1: was going to get a barrage, a real like the 37 00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:11,080 Speaker 1: Republicans would hit him with everything they've got. So I 38 00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:14,000 Speaker 1: remember watching that hearing beforehand saying like, Okay, how is 39 00:02:14,040 --> 00:02:16,959 Speaker 1: this guy going to handle it? Like the entire Republican 40 00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:19,280 Speaker 1: world is going to come after him and in selt 41 00:02:19,360 --> 00:02:23,399 Speaker 1: him and just try to like really really really crush him. 42 00:02:23,639 --> 00:02:27,880 Speaker 1: And he handled himself quite well. He was credible. And 43 00:02:27,960 --> 00:02:30,920 Speaker 1: the thing was about his credibility was that he was 44 00:02:30,960 --> 00:02:33,520 Speaker 1: credible on the issues he was involved with. He was 45 00:02:33,520 --> 00:02:36,280 Speaker 1: credible on issues that benefited Trump. He was asked about 46 00:02:36,320 --> 00:02:39,960 Speaker 1: a meeting in Czechoslovakia and Russian collusion. He said, now, 47 00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:42,880 Speaker 1: you know, the right answer for Democrats would have been yes, 48 00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:45,880 Speaker 1: him confirming everything that was in the Steel Report and 49 00:02:45,919 --> 00:02:47,680 Speaker 1: that sort of thing. But he said no, and I 50 00:02:47,720 --> 00:02:49,840 Speaker 1: was never in Prague. And you know this and that 51 00:02:49,919 --> 00:02:52,800 Speaker 1: and the matter of factness with it, the accuracy of it. 52 00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:56,040 Speaker 1: What also captured my attention was the last comment he 53 00:02:56,120 --> 00:02:58,920 Speaker 1: made after putting up with the barrage of insults and 54 00:02:59,320 --> 00:03:01,799 Speaker 1: insinuation about his wife and all that sort of thing, 55 00:03:02,360 --> 00:03:05,760 Speaker 1: was at the end of the day, Elijah Cummings asked him, 56 00:03:05,800 --> 00:03:08,320 Speaker 1: you know, for a final thought, and he said that 57 00:03:08,560 --> 00:03:11,160 Speaker 1: his greatest concern was that, and this is in twenty 58 00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:13,720 Speaker 1: eighteen February, I think of twenty eighteen. He said, his 59 00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:16,680 Speaker 1: great concern is that, from what he knew about Trump, 60 00:03:16,720 --> 00:03:19,040 Speaker 1: and he knew him well, if Trump lost the twenty 61 00:03:19,080 --> 00:03:22,240 Speaker 1: twenty election, there would not be a peaceful transfer of power. 62 00:03:22,760 --> 00:03:25,480 Speaker 1: And I remember on January sixth calling him up from 63 00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:28,320 Speaker 1: this office saying, you were right, you know, and people 64 00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:30,280 Speaker 1: had not listened to him or taken that, but in 65 00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:33,680 Speaker 1: fact it was true. So Cohen, yes, you can call 66 00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:36,240 Speaker 1: him a liar and a perjury because he did. He 67 00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:38,200 Speaker 1: lied to Congress, and he probably told a lot of 68 00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:40,360 Speaker 1: lies in the service of Donald Trump and in his 69 00:03:40,440 --> 00:03:43,560 Speaker 1: own service throughout much of his career. But you know, 70 00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:46,000 Speaker 1: since then, since that time, and I've talked to him 71 00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:48,120 Speaker 1: a lot over the years since this happened, and since 72 00:03:48,320 --> 00:03:53,320 Speaker 1: you know, January twenty twenty, he has been remarkably consistent. 73 00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:56,000 Speaker 1: You know, he's got a very healthy ego. He's got 74 00:03:56,000 --> 00:03:58,120 Speaker 1: a chip on his shoulder, not just towards Trump, but 75 00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:01,200 Speaker 1: because how he felt he was treated by SDNY. But 76 00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:06,120 Speaker 1: he's a consistent character. So is it true that, from 77 00:04:06,120 --> 00:04:09,840 Speaker 1: what we know of the Manhattan DA's case, that it 78 00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:13,280 Speaker 1: could not go forward without Michael Cohen as a witness. 79 00:04:14,160 --> 00:04:16,520 Speaker 1: It seems pretty obvious at this point, Yes, he has 80 00:04:16,520 --> 00:04:20,120 Speaker 1: to be involved otherwise, because we know from previous reporting 81 00:04:20,120 --> 00:04:23,799 Speaker 1: and Mark Palmeranz's book that one of Bragg's concerns twelve 82 00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:26,240 Speaker 1: thirteen months ago about the case that he inherited from 83 00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:30,120 Speaker 1: Sivance was its heavy dependence in Michael Cohen, and Bragg, 84 00:04:30,160 --> 00:04:34,080 Speaker 1: newly elected and under fire for his bail reform programs, 85 00:04:34,120 --> 00:04:36,120 Speaker 1: the last thing he wanted to do is just stake 86 00:04:36,200 --> 00:04:39,440 Speaker 1: his reputation in Bragg's hole for his term is going 87 00:04:39,440 --> 00:04:41,520 Speaker 1: to come down to this issue in front of him. 88 00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:44,719 Speaker 1: And he knew that Michael Cohen's credibility and he was 89 00:04:44,720 --> 00:04:47,240 Speaker 1: just not you know, he wasn't there, I'll put it 90 00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:50,440 Speaker 1: that way. Yeah. Mark Parmeranz, a former prosecutor with the 91 00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:53,839 Speaker 1: Manhattan Day's Office who quit last year, said in his 92 00:04:53,960 --> 00:04:57,520 Speaker 1: book that Bragg told subordinates he could not see a 93 00:04:57,560 --> 00:04:59,800 Speaker 1: world in which he would rely on Cohen as the 94 00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:03,200 Speaker 1: foundational witness in a case against Trump. So what do 95 00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:06,400 Speaker 1: you think happened to change that? Well, you should read 96 00:05:06,520 --> 00:05:09,200 Speaker 1: other parts of Palmerts his book. Palmertes his book in 97 00:05:09,200 --> 00:05:12,360 Speaker 1: some ways is helpful in terms of he's an outsider 98 00:05:12,360 --> 00:05:14,240 Speaker 1: even though we worked, you know, on loan to the 99 00:05:14,320 --> 00:05:18,080 Speaker 1: DA's office for the Trump investigation. But he talks in 100 00:05:18,120 --> 00:05:21,320 Speaker 1: his book about how he needed to get comfortable with 101 00:05:21,400 --> 00:05:23,640 Speaker 1: Cohen and how he would bring Cohen in over and 102 00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:25,880 Speaker 1: over and over the course of time. The consistency of 103 00:05:25,920 --> 00:05:28,200 Speaker 1: the story, et cetera convinced him that, you know, Michael 104 00:05:28,200 --> 00:05:30,800 Speaker 1: Cohen would out wilt understand would be good and with 105 00:05:30,880 --> 00:05:33,360 Speaker 1: a caveat that, and we reported this in our Cohen 106 00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:36,280 Speaker 1: story this week. You know, it's certain that prosecutors will 107 00:05:36,320 --> 00:05:39,400 Speaker 1: corroborate everything. Michael Cohen says that no one's going to 108 00:05:39,440 --> 00:05:42,040 Speaker 1: take his word. He understands that, you know, just his 109 00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:45,080 Speaker 1: word versus Donald Trump's word, but the corroboration that can 110 00:05:45,120 --> 00:05:48,080 Speaker 1: be brought with him as a guide walking the jury 111 00:05:48,120 --> 00:05:50,479 Speaker 1: through whatever it is that the DA wants to prove. 112 00:05:50,760 --> 00:05:54,000 Speaker 1: So Pomeranz had this own journey. I'm sure Pomerantz first 113 00:05:54,040 --> 00:05:56,320 Speaker 1: thing didn't think, oh, Michael Cohen, what a great witness. 114 00:05:56,440 --> 00:05:59,120 Speaker 1: He needed to be brought along, and Palmeran spent a 115 00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:00,559 Speaker 1: lot of time with him and got to that point. 116 00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:03,560 Speaker 1: And I think it's clear from Cohen being invited in 117 00:06:03,600 --> 00:06:06,120 Speaker 1: to speak to the DA's office in I think mid 118 00:06:06,160 --> 00:06:10,240 Speaker 1: January and then coming back several more times Bragg's own 119 00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:12,560 Speaker 1: team also wanted to get to that comfort level, and 120 00:06:12,760 --> 00:06:15,120 Speaker 1: it appears as though they have so yes, then we 121 00:06:15,120 --> 00:06:17,440 Speaker 1: have this wrinkle with Bob Costello. But still we have 122 00:06:17,560 --> 00:06:20,000 Speaker 1: like Bragg's people certainly got to the point where they 123 00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:21,839 Speaker 1: brought him to the grand jury, not just in to 124 00:06:21,880 --> 00:06:24,000 Speaker 1: speak with them, but you know, on the record before 125 00:06:24,000 --> 00:06:26,200 Speaker 1: the grand jury. So while we're here, let's talk about 126 00:06:26,240 --> 00:06:30,280 Speaker 1: the problem with Robert Costello. Who can we call him 127 00:06:30,279 --> 00:06:32,880 Speaker 1: a former legal advisor to Michael Cohen. I don't even know. 128 00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:34,760 Speaker 1: I guess you can call him a legal advisor. That's 129 00:06:34,800 --> 00:06:37,680 Speaker 1: the safest thing, because Cohen says, yes, he advised me, 130 00:06:37,920 --> 00:06:40,520 Speaker 1: but he denies that he was actually serving as his lawyer. 131 00:06:41,080 --> 00:06:44,599 Speaker 1: So he's called to the grand jury, apparently at the 132 00:06:44,640 --> 00:06:48,960 Speaker 1: request of Trump's lawyers, and he said afterwards, I told 133 00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:51,440 Speaker 1: the grand jury that this guy couldn't tell the truth 134 00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:53,719 Speaker 1: if you put a gun to his head. That seems 135 00:06:53,720 --> 00:06:56,240 Speaker 1: a bit extreme because Cohen has like a history of 136 00:06:56,279 --> 00:06:59,960 Speaker 1: telling truth, but he's also a voluable New York character, 137 00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:02,880 Speaker 1: so he's easy to caricature as a liar. He has 138 00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:05,080 Speaker 1: a long history that Cohen, you know, went through in 139 00:07:05,120 --> 00:07:08,120 Speaker 1: his book Maya Copa about how he used to abuse 140 00:07:08,440 --> 00:07:11,000 Speaker 1: and mistreat Trump's enemies all the way up to you 141 00:07:11,040 --> 00:07:15,600 Speaker 1: know that twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen. What was Costello's point 142 00:07:15,680 --> 00:07:18,360 Speaker 1: there at the grand jury? Well, if his grand point, 143 00:07:18,480 --> 00:07:20,600 Speaker 1: he's calling Michael Cohen a liar in the big picture. 144 00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:24,280 Speaker 1: But I think the only evidence Costello himself has is 145 00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:27,040 Speaker 1: what he told, what he was aware of in Michael Cohen, 146 00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:31,679 Speaker 1: and what he told to prosecutors SDN Y. Because Costello's story, 147 00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:33,840 Speaker 1: and he's been consistent with this for a few years, 148 00:07:34,040 --> 00:07:36,640 Speaker 1: is that you know, yes, he did advise Michael Cohen. Actually, 149 00:07:36,640 --> 00:07:38,920 Speaker 1: I think Costello thinks he was his lawyer for of record, 150 00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:42,160 Speaker 1: and at a certain point, Michael Cohen, apparently in an 151 00:07:42,160 --> 00:07:46,120 Speaker 1: attempt to curry favor or whatever, waved his attorney client privilege, 152 00:07:46,280 --> 00:07:48,960 Speaker 1: which of course gave Costello the opportunity to go in 153 00:07:49,000 --> 00:07:53,200 Speaker 1: and tell Stmy prosecutors what he really thought. At that point, 154 00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:55,760 Speaker 1: Cohen had left the fold. If you were a call, 155 00:07:55,920 --> 00:07:58,800 Speaker 1: Cohen reported that early on in his first phone call, 156 00:07:59,080 --> 00:08:01,880 Speaker 1: Costello had told him don't worry, You've got friends and 157 00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:03,760 Speaker 1: high places. You're going to be okay, or words to 158 00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:07,600 Speaker 1: that effect. And so Devil Costello. I consider him a 159 00:08:07,680 --> 00:08:11,360 Speaker 1: very legitimate, straightforward, honest guy. But now we're getting into 160 00:08:11,360 --> 00:08:15,480 Speaker 1: perceptions and maybe what Costello said to Cohen could be 161 00:08:15,560 --> 00:08:18,080 Speaker 1: interpreted by Cohen as friends and high places that means 162 00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:20,120 Speaker 1: I'm gonna get a pardon or something like that, And 163 00:08:20,160 --> 00:08:23,040 Speaker 1: maybe Costell didn't mean it that way, just that, you know, 164 00:08:23,320 --> 00:08:26,160 Speaker 1: don't worry, stay on the team. Whatever. So I think, 165 00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:28,920 Speaker 1: you know, we're in the weeds of a dispute between 166 00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:34,640 Speaker 1: two strong willed lawyers, and the grand jury was expected 167 00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:39,760 Speaker 1: to meet today but it was called off. So obviously 168 00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:41,760 Speaker 1: we've got everybody reading tea leaves. What does this mean? 169 00:08:42,120 --> 00:08:44,680 Speaker 1: You know, it's just changed strategies because of Costello. It 170 00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:47,360 Speaker 1: could be because you know, somebody had a dentist appointment. 171 00:08:47,520 --> 00:08:49,880 Speaker 1: We don't know, you know, maybe it'll come out yet. 172 00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:53,080 Speaker 1: There's something, you know, some drama there, but I doubt it. 173 00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:56,840 Speaker 1: It's probably some mundane reason. Ever since Trump on Saturday 174 00:08:56,880 --> 00:08:59,319 Speaker 1: morning posted this thing on truth social about how we're 175 00:08:59,320 --> 00:09:01,920 Speaker 1: expected to be on Tuesday, it's gotten all of us 176 00:09:01,920 --> 00:09:04,120 Speaker 1: in the media sort of tent oaks, like, oh, it's 177 00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:06,400 Speaker 1: about to happen. It's about to happen. If this one 178 00:09:06,440 --> 00:09:08,760 Speaker 1: thing we learned about Alvin Bragg a year ago is 179 00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:11,520 Speaker 1: that he's not necessarily going to rush something having said 180 00:09:11,520 --> 00:09:13,240 Speaker 1: that he's moved quickly in the last two months to 181 00:09:13,240 --> 00:09:16,720 Speaker 1: build whatever case he's planning to bring. We know it's 182 00:09:16,760 --> 00:09:19,360 Speaker 1: near the end because prosecutors did invite Trump to come 183 00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:22,199 Speaker 1: in and make a presentation before the grand jury. That's 184 00:09:22,200 --> 00:09:24,200 Speaker 1: a sort of chess game that most lawyers in New 185 00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:29,520 Speaker 1: York white collar criminal investigations targets play. Trump's lawyers indicate 186 00:09:29,640 --> 00:09:32,880 Speaker 1: two months ago something to the effect to Bragg's office, 187 00:09:32,960 --> 00:09:35,760 Speaker 1: we understand you're looking at our client before you make 188 00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:39,040 Speaker 1: any charging decisions. We reserve the right to make our 189 00:09:39,080 --> 00:09:42,959 Speaker 1: presentation before the grand jury. So once that's in, Bragg's 190 00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:46,199 Speaker 1: office has to afford Trump the opportunity to speak to 191 00:09:46,240 --> 00:09:48,720 Speaker 1: the grand jury. Fast forward, like I guess two weeks 192 00:09:48,760 --> 00:09:50,680 Speaker 1: ago when this came out that Trump had in fact 193 00:09:50,720 --> 00:09:53,120 Speaker 1: received that invite, and of course the lawyers has said no, 194 00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:55,320 Speaker 1: they don't want Trump to appear before the grand jury. 195 00:09:55,520 --> 00:09:58,920 Speaker 1: But that's signal to Trump's team that, Okay, the end 196 00:09:59,000 --> 00:10:01,559 Speaker 1: is nigh, you know, or near the goal line, or 197 00:10:01,600 --> 00:10:05,120 Speaker 1: whatever decision Bragg is going to make. And then after that, Cohen, 198 00:10:05,200 --> 00:10:07,880 Speaker 1: for the first time, having spoken to the dda's office 199 00:10:08,120 --> 00:10:11,640 Speaker 1: and to prosecutors several times, Cohen last week finally went 200 00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:14,280 Speaker 1: before the grand jury. A lot of us interpreted that 201 00:10:14,480 --> 00:10:18,080 Speaker 1: as they were holding Cohen back from the grand jury 202 00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:20,280 Speaker 1: in case Trump did show up and make the case 203 00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:22,319 Speaker 1: of why this is like he had no idea about 204 00:10:22,320 --> 00:10:25,400 Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels and Trump's a good salesman, and if he 205 00:10:25,400 --> 00:10:27,800 Speaker 1: were on his game before the grand jury, I bet 206 00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:30,320 Speaker 1: you could do an excellent convincing job telling them this 207 00:10:30,440 --> 00:10:32,920 Speaker 1: is much ado about nothing. So I think, and this 208 00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:35,080 Speaker 1: is just my presumption. We don't know this, but it 209 00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:38,079 Speaker 1: fits the pattern that Michael Cohen was held out of 210 00:10:38,120 --> 00:10:41,960 Speaker 1: the grand jury proceedings until it was clear Trump wasn't 211 00:10:41,960 --> 00:10:44,080 Speaker 1: going to testify, because if he did, then they would 212 00:10:44,120 --> 00:10:47,000 Speaker 1: bring Cohen into refute the points that Trump would have 213 00:10:47,080 --> 00:10:50,200 Speaker 1: made head he showed up before the grand jury. So 214 00:10:50,559 --> 00:10:54,000 Speaker 1: last year, late last year, Alvin Bragg's office won a 215 00:10:54,040 --> 00:10:57,240 Speaker 1: conviction of Trump's family real estate company on tax for 216 00:10:57,320 --> 00:11:00,840 Speaker 1: our charges. Trump was not a defended in that case. 217 00:11:01,440 --> 00:11:03,559 Speaker 1: That seems like it would have been a much easier 218 00:11:03,600 --> 00:11:07,880 Speaker 1: case to make any inkling as to why he wasn't 219 00:11:07,880 --> 00:11:10,920 Speaker 1: a defendant in that case. His CFO was yes, and 220 00:11:11,160 --> 00:11:13,120 Speaker 1: a good question the reason he was not and the 221 00:11:13,160 --> 00:11:16,360 Speaker 1: case was just a review for your listeners. The DA's 222 00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:19,760 Speaker 1: office brought a case against two units of the Trump organization, 223 00:11:19,920 --> 00:11:23,760 Speaker 1: Trump Payroll Corp. And the Trump Corporation. The Trump Corporation 224 00:11:23,800 --> 00:11:26,400 Speaker 1: is sort of the corporate entity with all the brass works, 225 00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:29,640 Speaker 1: and Alan Weisberg was the CFO and Jeff McConney was 226 00:11:29,679 --> 00:11:32,280 Speaker 1: the controller, and a bunch of other people beneath Trump. 227 00:11:32,520 --> 00:11:35,600 Speaker 1: This grew out of the original charge from June July 228 00:11:36,120 --> 00:11:40,520 Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, when under Bragg's predecessor, Syvance, these two 229 00:11:40,559 --> 00:11:44,800 Speaker 1: Trump organizations and Weislberg himself were criminally charged with tax 230 00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:48,199 Speaker 1: abuse and one case of grand larceny in the second 231 00:11:48,200 --> 00:11:52,280 Speaker 1: degree against Weislberg for getting a refund from the IRS 232 00:11:52,360 --> 00:11:54,280 Speaker 1: when he didn't deserve one because of all the perks 233 00:11:54,280 --> 00:11:57,240 Speaker 1: and benefits he received. Anyway, I think the original goal 234 00:11:57,280 --> 00:11:59,760 Speaker 1: of Vance's office was to use that get Weislberg to 235 00:12:00,040 --> 00:12:02,400 Speaker 1: up and then build the bigger case against Trump. The 236 00:12:02,400 --> 00:12:05,599 Speaker 1: problem was Weislberg decided not to do that. Eventually, Weisenberg 237 00:12:05,640 --> 00:12:08,120 Speaker 1: did agreeably guilty when all of his attempts to get 238 00:12:08,120 --> 00:12:11,520 Speaker 1: the case thrown out were rejected by you know, an 239 00:12:11,520 --> 00:12:14,720 Speaker 1: appeals court. When that failed, he finally cried uncle last 240 00:12:14,760 --> 00:12:17,199 Speaker 1: August and pled guilty to his crimes. But he's very 241 00:12:17,200 --> 00:12:19,960 Speaker 1: clear he pled guilty to his crimes, and only his crimes. 242 00:12:20,080 --> 00:12:22,160 Speaker 1: He would be willing to testify about what he did 243 00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:25,959 Speaker 1: to violate the law at any trial that were coming, 244 00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:28,319 Speaker 1: but it was clear that he was not going to 245 00:12:28,320 --> 00:12:30,880 Speaker 1: talk about Trump or implicate Trump in any way. So 246 00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:33,959 Speaker 1: that's the backdrop to the trial, and the trial as 247 00:12:33,960 --> 00:12:37,400 Speaker 1: a trial of two corporate entities and there's no human 248 00:12:37,440 --> 00:12:40,360 Speaker 1: being on trial. But Weislberg was the star witness, and 249 00:12:40,640 --> 00:12:43,360 Speaker 1: it was pretty convincing. Trump's lawyers, and I think this 250 00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:46,319 Speaker 1: is just part of being in Trump world, were adamant 251 00:12:46,360 --> 00:12:49,000 Speaker 1: from the start, and the prosecution was too. They told 252 00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:50,920 Speaker 1: the jurors right up front, this is not about you know, 253 00:12:51,000 --> 00:12:53,280 Speaker 1: Donald Trump, you know, and that's the elephant the room here. 254 00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:55,240 Speaker 1: It's about these two units of his company and some 255 00:12:55,400 --> 00:12:58,079 Speaker 1: subordinates did this following and that's what the case is 256 00:12:58,120 --> 00:13:00,920 Speaker 1: going to be about. Trump's lawyers went to great pains 257 00:13:00,960 --> 00:13:04,199 Speaker 1: to make sure that the jury understood in the general public, 258 00:13:04,240 --> 00:13:07,280 Speaker 1: did that Trump himself nor his children were involved in 259 00:13:07,320 --> 00:13:09,520 Speaker 1: anything like this. They said it over and over, even 260 00:13:09,559 --> 00:13:11,360 Speaker 1: though he wasn't on trial. They made that a point 261 00:13:11,360 --> 00:13:15,080 Speaker 1: over and over. I think for public, you know, perception's sake, 262 00:13:15,160 --> 00:13:17,800 Speaker 1: not for legal points. But they did it so much 263 00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:20,480 Speaker 1: that by the end, I think the prosecution was feeling confident. 264 00:13:20,559 --> 00:13:22,840 Speaker 1: They said, no, we think Trump was aware of it. 265 00:13:22,920 --> 00:13:25,640 Speaker 1: He's not charged, but you know, it's clear his signatures 266 00:13:25,640 --> 00:13:28,080 Speaker 1: are on the checks. He signed every check over twenty 267 00:13:28,080 --> 00:13:29,560 Speaker 1: five hundred bucks and a lot of ones that were 268 00:13:29,600 --> 00:13:33,040 Speaker 1: smaller until he was president. So they put Trump into this, 269 00:13:33,360 --> 00:13:36,559 Speaker 1: and obviously he wasn't charged. But you know, the jury 270 00:13:36,559 --> 00:13:39,680 Speaker 1: clearly understood that this stuff had the blessing of Donald Trump. 271 00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:42,120 Speaker 1: But he was not a trial so maybe the jury 272 00:13:42,120 --> 00:13:44,160 Speaker 1: would have had a different result. It would have been 273 00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:46,840 Speaker 1: a tougher conviction. It turned out to be an easy conviction. 274 00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:49,000 Speaker 1: It would have been a tougher conviction if Trump himself 275 00:13:49,000 --> 00:13:52,679 Speaker 1: had been part of that trial. So Alvin Bragg, he's 276 00:13:52,720 --> 00:13:57,480 Speaker 1: already facing so much criticism from Republicans and on investigation, 277 00:13:57,720 --> 00:14:01,600 Speaker 1: right from three prominent Republicans who had important committees, basically 278 00:14:01,600 --> 00:14:04,200 Speaker 1: fired a shot across the bow warning him that they're 279 00:14:04,200 --> 00:14:05,920 Speaker 1: going to like drag him in for hearings and they 280 00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:09,520 Speaker 1: want all communications between you know, the two former prosecutors 281 00:14:09,559 --> 00:14:11,720 Speaker 1: who left and Trump and you know, blah blah blah 282 00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:14,320 Speaker 1: and anything that mentions Trump. So they really are going 283 00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:16,720 Speaker 1: to go to war in support of Trump and to 284 00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:20,880 Speaker 1: try to degrade, you know, Brag's ability to prosecute this case. 285 00:14:21,440 --> 00:14:23,200 Speaker 1: I assume there's going to be a fight about whether 286 00:14:23,240 --> 00:14:26,240 Speaker 1: he has to comply with any of that. I don't know. 287 00:14:26,320 --> 00:14:27,840 Speaker 1: I think he's planning to go ahead and do the 288 00:14:27,840 --> 00:14:29,560 Speaker 1: case that he's planning to do. I don't think he's 289 00:14:29,560 --> 00:14:32,080 Speaker 1: going to be intimidated by it, and I'm not sure 290 00:14:32,440 --> 00:14:34,840 Speaker 1: that Congress will be able to interfere. I think it 291 00:14:34,880 --> 00:14:37,600 Speaker 1: makes for good press and it plays well to the constituents. 292 00:14:37,760 --> 00:14:40,800 Speaker 1: There's an interesting federal question here. Yes, there is congressional 293 00:14:40,800 --> 00:14:44,080 Speaker 1: oversight of matters concerning like law and order in the US, 294 00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:47,320 Speaker 1: but at a certain point, I'm not sure that they 295 00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,240 Speaker 1: can actually impede or blow up, you know, a local 296 00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:53,760 Speaker 1: DA's prosecution. The Supreme Court passed on this. They allowed 297 00:14:54,200 --> 00:14:56,960 Speaker 1: Vance's office to get the tax returns and conduct an 298 00:14:56,960 --> 00:15:00,480 Speaker 1: investigation into a sitting president. So all by that time 299 00:15:00,520 --> 00:15:04,120 Speaker 1: Trump has gone. Do you think that Alvin Bragg, so 300 00:15:04,160 --> 00:15:06,720 Speaker 1: he's going to be at the center of all this criticism, 301 00:15:06,760 --> 00:15:09,960 Speaker 1: the legal political storm that follows. Do you think he 302 00:15:10,080 --> 00:15:15,520 Speaker 1: has the experience and personality to be able to withstand 303 00:15:15,600 --> 00:15:18,200 Speaker 1: everything that's going to come his way. I think so. 304 00:15:18,720 --> 00:15:22,000 Speaker 1: I think first of all, if you go back to 305 00:15:22,160 --> 00:15:25,640 Speaker 1: when he started and you know, everything coming down on 306 00:15:25,720 --> 00:15:28,480 Speaker 1: him in the first month, when he had that you know, 307 00:15:28,560 --> 00:15:33,240 Speaker 1: clearly poorly thought out and poorly executed Day one memo, 308 00:15:33,560 --> 00:15:36,600 Speaker 1: which essentially was a message that you know, don't prosecute, 309 00:15:36,880 --> 00:15:39,520 Speaker 1: you know, people for certain types of robberies, assaults or 310 00:15:39,600 --> 00:15:42,800 Speaker 1: gun possession or resisting arrest, etc. That blew up in 311 00:15:42,800 --> 00:15:44,240 Speaker 1: his face. And then the murder of two New York 312 00:15:44,280 --> 00:15:46,720 Speaker 1: City policemen in the month of January of last year 313 00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:49,560 Speaker 1: that was not directly attributable, but it sort of went 314 00:15:49,640 --> 00:15:51,840 Speaker 1: with the same esteem of like, this guy's not going 315 00:15:51,880 --> 00:15:53,920 Speaker 1: to prosecute a littleivill crooks, and this is what's happening 316 00:15:53,920 --> 00:15:56,000 Speaker 1: to our police. We've got to protect them. So he 317 00:15:56,040 --> 00:15:58,120 Speaker 1: had a terrible month there, and then he's got these 318 00:15:58,120 --> 00:16:02,600 Speaker 1: two guys. They hold overs from the Vance investigation, highly 319 00:16:02,640 --> 00:16:07,000 Speaker 1: respected prosecutors, in the case of Mark Pomerantz, a highly 320 00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:09,720 Speaker 1: respected prosecutor in the nineteen nineties who went on having 321 00:16:09,760 --> 00:16:13,080 Speaker 1: a very successful career as a corporate defense lawyer for 322 00:16:13,200 --> 00:16:16,440 Speaker 1: Paul Weiss, and then Carry Dunn, who was Sivance's general 323 00:16:16,480 --> 00:16:19,000 Speaker 1: counsel and served as the lead of the prosecution team, 324 00:16:19,040 --> 00:16:21,360 Speaker 1: but he was not really a career prosecutor either, But 325 00:16:21,640 --> 00:16:25,200 Speaker 1: they were in charge of the Trump investigation and there 326 00:16:25,240 --> 00:16:27,480 Speaker 1: was a bit of sleight of hand is too strong 327 00:16:27,520 --> 00:16:29,880 Speaker 1: a word, but if this case was ready to go, 328 00:16:31,080 --> 00:16:33,800 Speaker 1: all this drama over Mark Palmerantz and him refusing to 329 00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:36,880 Speaker 1: get his way with Bragg, Cyvanser too brought the case instead. 330 00:16:37,120 --> 00:16:39,240 Speaker 1: Brag gets this thing that's going to be totally on 331 00:16:39,320 --> 00:16:42,040 Speaker 1: him now he owns it. But the two guys that 332 00:16:42,320 --> 00:16:44,480 Speaker 1: are leading it are insisting they've got to go to 333 00:16:44,480 --> 00:16:48,200 Speaker 1: the grand jury and get the indictment done by essentially 334 00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:50,400 Speaker 1: the end of March of last year. It's our last 335 00:16:50,440 --> 00:16:53,240 Speaker 1: chance to get Donald Trump. And the further he gets 336 00:16:53,240 --> 00:16:56,200 Speaker 1: into it, Brag just thinks, like, you know, guys were 337 00:16:56,240 --> 00:17:00,480 Speaker 1: not there. This needs more work and Pomerantz to describe 338 00:17:00,480 --> 00:17:02,080 Speaker 1: what he did, because he wrote a whole book about it, 339 00:17:02,120 --> 00:17:04,440 Speaker 1: but he has actually picked up his marbles and left 340 00:17:04,520 --> 00:17:09,400 Speaker 1: and wrote a very damaging, inflammatory memo criticizing Bragg, which 341 00:17:09,480 --> 00:17:12,359 Speaker 1: was coincidentally leaked to the New York Times. So that 342 00:17:12,560 --> 00:17:15,240 Speaker 1: was another really bad moment for Bragg. But he didn't 343 00:17:15,240 --> 00:17:17,800 Speaker 1: melt under the pressure of what happened in January. He 344 00:17:17,800 --> 00:17:20,320 Speaker 1: didn't melt under that pressure. I'm not sure. He kept 345 00:17:20,359 --> 00:17:22,399 Speaker 1: saying that the investigation is ongoing. I guess we have 346 00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:24,600 Speaker 1: to take him at his word. There were no obvious 347 00:17:24,600 --> 00:17:27,800 Speaker 1: signs that the investigation was continuing. But I think the 348 00:17:27,840 --> 00:17:31,680 Speaker 1: trial of the two Trump organization units and the resounding 349 00:17:31,760 --> 00:17:36,359 Speaker 1: victory he got certainly helped build confidence in his own team. 350 00:17:36,359 --> 00:17:39,680 Speaker 1: Not a team that consisted of Pomerans and Kerry Done, 351 00:17:39,920 --> 00:17:41,680 Speaker 1: who I think We're going to leave after the indictment. 352 00:17:41,680 --> 00:17:43,200 Speaker 1: They would be able to go out in a blaze 353 00:17:43,200 --> 00:17:45,959 Speaker 1: of glory saying they got an indictment Trump and then leave. 354 00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:48,440 Speaker 1: It's a weak case. Leave it for Alvin Bragg. That's 355 00:17:48,440 --> 00:17:50,840 Speaker 1: a bad thing. As you know as a lawyer, when 356 00:17:50,880 --> 00:17:53,240 Speaker 1: a prosecutor feels strong about the case, brings a case 357 00:17:53,400 --> 00:17:55,199 Speaker 1: and then leaves and somebody else has to pick it up. 358 00:17:55,200 --> 00:17:57,639 Speaker 1: It's like, you know, you want to stay there through it. 359 00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:00,239 Speaker 1: You know what he means. So anyway, Bragg handle let 360 00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:02,320 Speaker 1: very well. This is going to be to a much 361 00:18:02,400 --> 00:18:05,439 Speaker 1: higher degree. But he's a very youthful looking guy, but 362 00:18:05,520 --> 00:18:07,639 Speaker 1: he has a number of years of experience. He had 363 00:18:07,720 --> 00:18:11,400 Speaker 1: more prosecutorial experience in Sivance had certainly than carry Dunn had, 364 00:18:11,440 --> 00:18:14,000 Speaker 1: both at the state level and at the federal level, 365 00:18:14,400 --> 00:18:17,760 Speaker 1: and he may end up having experience holding a press 366 00:18:17,800 --> 00:18:21,960 Speaker 1: conference about the first criminal charges against a former president. 367 00:18:22,320 --> 00:18:25,880 Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Greg, That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Greg Farrell. 368 00:18:26,200 --> 00:18:30,000 Speaker 1: Up next, federal judges are leaving the bench for lucrative 369 00:18:30,080 --> 00:18:35,280 Speaker 1: law jobs. Resigning from a coveted lifetime appointment as a 370 00:18:35,320 --> 00:18:39,119 Speaker 1: federal judge is seen as a rare step, but since 371 00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:43,720 Speaker 1: August four Obama appointees have left the bench for lucrative 372 00:18:43,840 --> 00:18:47,639 Speaker 1: jobs at law firms. Joining me is Carl Tobias, a 373 00:18:47,720 --> 00:18:51,360 Speaker 1: professor at the University of Richmond Law School. When did 374 00:18:51,400 --> 00:18:57,800 Speaker 1: the shift toward appointing younger judges start in what administration? Well, 375 00:18:58,160 --> 00:19:01,240 Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's grown in the modern era 376 00:19:01,480 --> 00:19:06,040 Speaker 1: as early as Carter, but I think was accelerated after 377 00:19:06,119 --> 00:19:10,320 Speaker 1: two thousand. You see more in the say Bush administration, 378 00:19:10,760 --> 00:19:15,800 Speaker 1: and then coming forward and especially accelerated during the administration 379 00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:20,040 Speaker 1: of President Trump. You can look at the figures, especially 380 00:19:20,119 --> 00:19:24,680 Speaker 1: on the appeals courts. I think much younger judges were 381 00:19:24,720 --> 00:19:29,159 Speaker 1: appointed by him than say Clinton or even Obama. And 382 00:19:29,359 --> 00:19:32,440 Speaker 1: I think Biden has continued that to a considerable extent, 383 00:19:32,880 --> 00:19:36,840 Speaker 1: especially on the appeals courts. So Maryland District Court Judge 384 00:19:36,880 --> 00:19:41,320 Speaker 1: George Hazel and Texas Appellate Judge Greg Costant, they're forty 385 00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:45,840 Speaker 1: seven and fifty respectively. They're among five Obama appointees who 386 00:19:45,880 --> 00:19:49,800 Speaker 1: since August have resigned or announced their intention to leave 387 00:19:49,840 --> 00:19:54,800 Speaker 1: the bench. Is the motivating factor making more money? I 388 00:19:54,880 --> 00:19:57,679 Speaker 1: think that's part of it, and I think Judge Hazel 389 00:19:57,800 --> 00:20:01,040 Speaker 1: spoke to that in a piece one of your writers 390 00:20:01,200 --> 00:20:04,879 Speaker 1: did for Bloomberg. But there are many factors. And I 391 00:20:04,920 --> 00:20:08,879 Speaker 1: think Judge Costa has been quoted as saying that judiciary 392 00:20:08,880 --> 00:20:12,919 Speaker 1: has become much more politicized since he was appointed to 393 00:20:12,960 --> 00:20:17,359 Speaker 1: the district bench in the early Obama years. And so 394 00:20:17,600 --> 00:20:20,560 Speaker 1: and you have I think Paul Watford on the Ninth 395 00:20:20,600 --> 00:20:25,000 Speaker 1: Circuit perhaps looking at some of the same considerations. But 396 00:20:25,240 --> 00:20:30,440 Speaker 1: especially people who live in urban areas where it may 397 00:20:30,480 --> 00:20:34,399 Speaker 1: be very expensive to live and have children who are 398 00:20:34,400 --> 00:20:37,600 Speaker 1: going to college. It can be tough even though the 399 00:20:37,600 --> 00:20:41,760 Speaker 1: salary looks very good to many people. It's not that 400 00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:46,120 Speaker 1: high in terms of comparison with where the judges are 401 00:20:46,200 --> 00:20:50,520 Speaker 1: going to these major law firms. Yeah, so federal district 402 00:20:50,600 --> 00:20:54,320 Speaker 1: judges make just under two hundred thirty three thousand this year. 403 00:20:54,520 --> 00:20:57,480 Speaker 1: Appeals court judges will make more than two hundred and 404 00:20:57,520 --> 00:21:01,760 Speaker 1: forty six thousand. Hazel is going to Gibson Donne, which 405 00:21:01,800 --> 00:21:04,800 Speaker 1: reported more than four point four million in profits per 406 00:21:04,800 --> 00:21:10,840 Speaker 1: equity partner last year. So no comparison. Well, that's right. 407 00:21:11,119 --> 00:21:13,520 Speaker 1: You live in New York and you know, but I mean, 408 00:21:13,640 --> 00:21:18,119 Speaker 1: Hazel is in the DC metropolitan area and housing and 409 00:21:18,359 --> 00:21:23,440 Speaker 1: college costs are expensive, and so you do have that phenomenon. 410 00:21:24,200 --> 00:21:28,480 Speaker 1: It's worrisome. I don't think Congress is inclined to raise 411 00:21:28,560 --> 00:21:31,680 Speaker 1: the pay very quickly for federal judges. It's always been 412 00:21:31,760 --> 00:21:34,240 Speaker 1: very close to what numbers of Congress are paid. So 413 00:21:34,400 --> 00:21:39,000 Speaker 1: you have that issue and some questions about whether serving 414 00:21:39,040 --> 00:21:41,520 Speaker 1: on the federal bench is a capstone to a person's 415 00:21:41,560 --> 00:21:46,560 Speaker 1: career or something else. And different judges view it differently 416 00:21:46,560 --> 00:21:49,360 Speaker 1: and have different circumstances, and it may be a dilemma 417 00:21:49,440 --> 00:21:53,040 Speaker 1: that presidents seemed to think about when appointing people law 418 00:21:53,040 --> 00:21:57,520 Speaker 1: firms like to have former judges on their roster. I 419 00:21:57,560 --> 00:22:00,680 Speaker 1: assume yes, and Judge Hazel spoke to that. I think 420 00:22:00,720 --> 00:22:05,840 Speaker 1: that's absolutely the case. Judge Feinerman also Northern Illinois went 421 00:22:05,880 --> 00:22:10,040 Speaker 1: with another big firm because they know their way around 422 00:22:10,040 --> 00:22:13,360 Speaker 1: a courtroom. They know all the federal judges in the courthouse, 423 00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:18,680 Speaker 1: probably downtown, and so they can be very effective, and 424 00:22:18,880 --> 00:22:23,240 Speaker 1: clients like to have federal judges handling their cases. All 425 00:22:23,320 --> 00:22:26,440 Speaker 1: that works together, but it may deprive the bench of 426 00:22:26,560 --> 00:22:31,639 Speaker 1: some very fine judges. Is the workload in private practice 427 00:22:32,480 --> 00:22:35,439 Speaker 1: heavier than the workload on the bench? I think it 428 00:22:35,480 --> 00:22:39,400 Speaker 1: depends on the district and the firm and how the 429 00:22:39,440 --> 00:22:42,600 Speaker 1: profits are distributed in those kind of considerations, But yes, 430 00:22:42,960 --> 00:22:46,960 Speaker 1: it can be. But federal judges are used to working 431 00:22:47,080 --> 00:22:50,760 Speaker 1: with a fleet of clerks who are quite similar to 432 00:22:50,800 --> 00:22:53,600 Speaker 1: the types of younger lawyers they might be working within 433 00:22:53,640 --> 00:22:57,240 Speaker 1: the firm, So I think they know how to work 434 00:22:57,280 --> 00:22:59,520 Speaker 1: with a team in chambers and the same in the firm. 435 00:23:00,080 --> 00:23:03,679 Speaker 1: We've talked about this before, and it's noticeable with the 436 00:23:03,720 --> 00:23:08,200 Speaker 1: Supreme Court that a Supreme Court justice will wait until 437 00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:14,960 Speaker 1: there's a president in office that matches the political affiliation 438 00:23:15,040 --> 00:23:18,680 Speaker 1: of the president who appointed him. So Republican appointees wait 439 00:23:18,800 --> 00:23:23,359 Speaker 1: for Republican presidents. Democratic appointees wait for Democratic presidents. Is 440 00:23:23,400 --> 00:23:29,159 Speaker 1: it similar with judges on the appellate and district court levels. 441 00:23:29,680 --> 00:23:33,080 Speaker 1: I think less. So even at the Supreme Court. It's 442 00:23:33,080 --> 00:23:36,560 Speaker 1: a customer tradition that isn't always followed. But as you 443 00:23:36,640 --> 00:23:41,520 Speaker 1: move down the hierarchy, I think you see less attention 444 00:23:41,600 --> 00:23:44,800 Speaker 1: paid to that, especially at the district court level, but 445 00:23:44,920 --> 00:23:48,600 Speaker 1: even the appellate level, although we did see that it 446 00:23:48,800 --> 00:23:54,200 Speaker 1: seemed a number of appointees of Democratic presidents were waiting 447 00:23:54,400 --> 00:23:57,639 Speaker 1: to see if Trump would be reelected in twenty twenty 448 00:23:58,080 --> 00:24:02,840 Speaker 1: and then assume senior staff. But it's surprising how few 449 00:24:03,040 --> 00:24:05,639 Speaker 1: were probably going to appointees have assumed senior status in 450 00:24:05,640 --> 00:24:09,080 Speaker 1: the first two years of the by presidency, and so 451 00:24:09,480 --> 00:24:12,720 Speaker 1: we may be seeing that, which is unfortunate. You would 452 00:24:12,800 --> 00:24:16,800 Speaker 1: like to depoliticize, if you could, that process. But there 453 00:24:16,800 --> 00:24:19,280 Speaker 1: are all kinds of reasons why judges decide to assume 454 00:24:19,359 --> 00:24:24,040 Speaker 1: senior status or when they decide to do that. So 455 00:24:24,080 --> 00:24:27,760 Speaker 1: there is a time to reconsider appointing judges who are 456 00:24:27,760 --> 00:24:31,280 Speaker 1: in their forties well, and maybe or presidents may want 457 00:24:31,280 --> 00:24:34,880 Speaker 1: to think about that, But people make all kinds of choices, 458 00:24:34,960 --> 00:24:39,120 Speaker 1: and it shouldn't be that the federal judges have to 459 00:24:39,160 --> 00:24:41,919 Speaker 1: worry about that too much. I don't know what the 460 00:24:41,920 --> 00:24:44,160 Speaker 1: answer to that is. It doesn't have an easy solution, 461 00:24:44,520 --> 00:24:47,440 Speaker 1: But of course the president wants to have younger people 462 00:24:47,560 --> 00:24:51,480 Speaker 1: because of course they then serve longer periods if they 463 00:24:51,520 --> 00:24:55,600 Speaker 1: stay on the bench. And judges also retire and then 464 00:24:55,680 --> 00:24:59,080 Speaker 1: go to big law firms afterwards, that's right. Some do 465 00:25:00,040 --> 00:25:03,560 Speaker 1: are quite successful, and we know of many who do that, 466 00:25:04,240 --> 00:25:09,119 Speaker 1: and number do stay on as senior judges for years afterwards. 467 00:25:09,200 --> 00:25:13,480 Speaker 1: And it's really a valuable kind of situation because you 468 00:25:13,600 --> 00:25:19,840 Speaker 1: get a new, younger, fresh blood type of appointee, and 469 00:25:19,960 --> 00:25:23,720 Speaker 1: you get to capitalize on the experience of the federal 470 00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:27,040 Speaker 1: judges to assume senior status, who often will have a 471 00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:30,600 Speaker 1: lighter load, sometimes a half load. That's very valuable to 472 00:25:30,640 --> 00:25:33,040 Speaker 1: the federal bench to have those senior judges, and they've 473 00:25:33,040 --> 00:25:35,680 Speaker 1: bailed out the nine Circuit and a number of other 474 00:25:36,000 --> 00:25:40,520 Speaker 1: appeals courts and district courts where they're substantial dockets. They 475 00:25:40,600 --> 00:25:43,320 Speaker 1: just wouldn't be afloat if they didn't have those valuable 476 00:25:43,359 --> 00:25:48,080 Speaker 1: senior judges. Speaking of needing judges. Let's talk about some 477 00:25:48,160 --> 00:25:52,399 Speaker 1: of the new nominees. The President announced four nominees for 478 00:25:52,760 --> 00:25:57,320 Speaker 1: district courts on Monday, including a selection for a state 479 00:25:57,440 --> 00:26:02,359 Speaker 1: with two Republican senators. So tell us about Louisiana. Yes, 480 00:26:02,760 --> 00:26:05,320 Speaker 1: one big problem that you're alluding to is in the 481 00:26:05,320 --> 00:26:10,720 Speaker 1: Red states, there are many vacancies that are unfilled and 482 00:26:11,680 --> 00:26:17,280 Speaker 1: their questions about whether the Republican senators in those states 483 00:26:17,280 --> 00:26:21,320 Speaker 1: are cooperating. And the classic examples are in Florida and Texas, 484 00:26:21,400 --> 00:26:26,159 Speaker 1: where I think both have four emergency vacancies right now, 485 00:26:26,680 --> 00:26:29,920 Speaker 1: and a number of other red states where the two 486 00:26:30,119 --> 00:26:34,600 Speaker 1: Republican senators have no nominees more than two years into 487 00:26:34,600 --> 00:26:37,560 Speaker 1: the administration. But there've been in roads, and for example, 488 00:26:37,600 --> 00:26:40,480 Speaker 1: the Indiana senators have been very helpful in working with 489 00:26:40,520 --> 00:26:43,080 Speaker 1: the White House at the instigation. I think of both 490 00:26:43,119 --> 00:26:46,480 Speaker 1: Senator Graham, the ranking member on the committee, and Dick Durban, 491 00:26:46,760 --> 00:26:49,119 Speaker 1: the chair of the committee who's from Illinois in the 492 00:26:49,160 --> 00:26:52,960 Speaker 1: seventh Circuit, and they work very well together on picking 493 00:26:53,000 --> 00:26:56,439 Speaker 1: a new nominee named Brookman, a magistrate judge there, and 494 00:26:56,480 --> 00:27:01,240 Speaker 1: everybody seems very happy with that person. So in Louisiana 495 00:27:01,320 --> 00:27:05,320 Speaker 1: there is someone named Papillon, who's a plaintiff side personal 496 00:27:05,359 --> 00:27:10,200 Speaker 1: injury towards product liability lawyer who enjoys a very fine 497 00:27:10,240 --> 00:27:14,800 Speaker 1: reputation there and certainly is experienced in federal court litigation. 498 00:27:15,880 --> 00:27:20,480 Speaker 1: And he's been nominated and one of the senators at 499 00:27:20,560 --> 00:27:25,000 Speaker 1: least was on board. I don't know about Senator Kennedy, 500 00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:29,560 Speaker 1: but Senator Cassidy some very positive comments to make. So 501 00:27:29,640 --> 00:27:33,919 Speaker 1: that's a promising sign. And earlier, both in Indiana and 502 00:27:34,560 --> 00:27:41,879 Speaker 1: in Louisiana, these senators were supportive of two appellate nominees 503 00:27:42,160 --> 00:27:47,000 Speaker 1: now Judge Pryor in Indiana and Judge Douglas in Louisiana. 504 00:27:47,280 --> 00:27:50,679 Speaker 1: So it's possible that we'll see less agencies in the 505 00:27:50,720 --> 00:27:53,280 Speaker 1: red states, and that's the hope of the White House 506 00:27:53,480 --> 00:27:58,800 Speaker 1: and of Senators Graham and Durban. So then you don't 507 00:27:58,840 --> 00:28:03,680 Speaker 1: agree that some progressives are pushing for Democrats to eliminate 508 00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:07,800 Speaker 1: the blue slip practice, Well, it may not be necessary 509 00:28:08,200 --> 00:28:11,080 Speaker 1: if the White House can continue to work with the 510 00:28:11,080 --> 00:28:15,320 Speaker 1: home state senators in red states. And Lindsey Graham makes 511 00:28:15,320 --> 00:28:19,280 Speaker 1: a good point that you're talking about someone who's going 512 00:28:19,320 --> 00:28:22,920 Speaker 1: to enjoy life tenure in the state that a senator represents, 513 00:28:23,240 --> 00:28:25,919 Speaker 1: and you want the senators to have some say so 514 00:28:26,160 --> 00:28:29,280 Speaker 1: over that, because they'll be blamed if the nominee turns 515 00:28:29,320 --> 00:28:34,760 Speaker 1: out to be incompetent or isn't working as effectively as 516 00:28:34,800 --> 00:28:38,240 Speaker 1: the judge might. So there is a need to have 517 00:28:38,440 --> 00:28:45,360 Speaker 1: some responsibility for that choice. And I'm cautiously optimistic that Republicans, 518 00:28:45,880 --> 00:28:50,680 Speaker 1: as we've seen in Louisiana, in Indiana and other states. 519 00:28:50,880 --> 00:28:54,680 Speaker 1: Idaho is another working with White House. But the White 520 00:28:54,680 --> 00:28:58,280 Speaker 1: House also, as Durban says, and I think the White 521 00:28:58,280 --> 00:29:02,520 Speaker 1: House Council knows has to cooperate with the homestay senators, 522 00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:05,920 Speaker 1: and so I think they're all moving in the same direction, 523 00:29:06,160 --> 00:29:10,680 Speaker 1: with some exceptions. Let's turn now to more seats, more 524 00:29:10,840 --> 00:29:14,720 Speaker 1: judiciary seats. The Federal Judiciary is again asking for more 525 00:29:14,720 --> 00:29:18,520 Speaker 1: new judge ships from Congress, and it sliced its previous 526 00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:22,440 Speaker 1: requests from twenty twenty one by several positions. Why has 527 00:29:22,560 --> 00:29:28,720 Speaker 1: Congress despite yearly repeated requests, Why has Congress not addressed this? 528 00:29:30,040 --> 00:29:35,320 Speaker 1: In a word, partisanship, The party that does not occupy 529 00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:41,840 Speaker 1: the White House is extremely reluctant to agree to new 530 00:29:41,920 --> 00:29:46,960 Speaker 1: judge ships that would be appointed. For example, Republicans certainly 531 00:29:46,960 --> 00:29:50,360 Speaker 1: Democrats would not have wanted President Trump to have any 532 00:29:50,440 --> 00:29:54,920 Speaker 1: more nominees and appointees than he had, And a similar 533 00:29:55,000 --> 00:30:01,520 Speaker 1: dynamic is now taken hold with Republicans looking at judgeship spills. 534 00:30:01,640 --> 00:30:05,520 Speaker 1: So we haven't had a comprehensive Judge Shipped Act since 535 00:30:05,680 --> 00:30:09,440 Speaker 1: nineteen ninety and of course the country and the dockets 536 00:30:09,480 --> 00:30:12,080 Speaker 1: have grown since that point in time, not to mention 537 00:30:12,440 --> 00:30:16,920 Speaker 1: the backlog created by COVID nineteen and so in certain 538 00:30:16,960 --> 00:30:20,520 Speaker 1: districts they are really pressing needs. And so it seems 539 00:30:20,520 --> 00:30:24,520 Speaker 1: to me maybe not a comprehensive nationwide bill, but maybe 540 00:30:24,560 --> 00:30:28,160 Speaker 1: a targeted one would be feasible. For example, look at 541 00:30:28,160 --> 00:30:32,880 Speaker 1: California or the border states, look at Arizona, Texas. The 542 00:30:33,040 --> 00:30:37,720 Speaker 1: judges are drowning in those dockets and they need more resources, 543 00:30:38,200 --> 00:30:41,600 Speaker 1: and so it might be better to do it state 544 00:30:41,640 --> 00:30:45,240 Speaker 1: by state, and that might be more palatable, I think. 545 00:30:45,280 --> 00:30:49,080 Speaker 1: So maybe that's the better approach, even though it's very 546 00:30:49,080 --> 00:30:50,800 Speaker 1: hard on the judges. And there you come back to 547 00:30:50,840 --> 00:30:53,719 Speaker 1: the senior judges who have kept you know, the California 548 00:30:53,800 --> 00:30:58,200 Speaker 1: districts for example, all of which vacancies are emergencies that 549 00:30:58,320 --> 00:31:01,760 Speaker 1: were seventeen when Trump starts there were seventeen when he finished. 550 00:31:02,040 --> 00:31:04,960 Speaker 1: There were seventeen win Obama started, but they have whittled 551 00:31:04,960 --> 00:31:09,120 Speaker 1: that down to fewer than ten, and so that's progress. 552 00:31:09,120 --> 00:31:12,320 Speaker 1: Thanks Carl. That's Professor Carl Tobias of the University of 553 00:31:12,400 --> 00:31:15,000 Speaker 1: Richmond Law School, and that's it for this edition of 554 00:31:15,000 --> 00:31:17,680 Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the 555 00:31:17,760 --> 00:31:21,200 Speaker 1: latest legal news honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find 556 00:31:21,240 --> 00:31:25,800 Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg 557 00:31:25,880 --> 00:31:29,640 Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to tune 558 00:31:29,640 --> 00:31:32,480 Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten 559 00:31:32,560 --> 00:31:36,320 Speaker 1: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening 560 00:31:36,400 --> 00:31:37,080 Speaker 1: to Bloomberg