1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,200 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 2: This act of terrorism and the violence that stems from

3
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:19,360
Speaker 2: it is something that would not be tolerated in the city.

4
00:00:19,960 --> 00:00:24,280
Speaker 2: We wanted to personally be here to show the symbolism

5
00:00:24,440 --> 00:00:25,800
Speaker 2: of leading from the front.

6
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:29,200
Speaker 3: It's never happened before the Mayor of New York City

7
00:00:29,480 --> 00:00:33,440
Speaker 3: meeting the aircraft transporting a murder suspect, and it was

8
00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:37,600
Speaker 3: quite a spectacle at a Lower Manhattan heliport on Thursday afternoon,

9
00:00:37,720 --> 00:00:42,479
Speaker 3: as Luigi Mangioni, dressed in a bright orange jumpsuit and handcuffed,

10
00:00:42,560 --> 00:00:46,199
Speaker 3: made the long walk from a helicopter to a waiting suv,

11
00:00:46,720 --> 00:00:51,720
Speaker 3: surrounded by heavily armed law enforcement officers wearing bulletproof vests

12
00:00:51,720 --> 00:00:56,040
Speaker 3: and carrying long guns, and following behind Mayor Eric Adams

13
00:00:56,080 --> 00:00:59,120
Speaker 3: and the New York City Police Commissioner. The so called

14
00:00:59,160 --> 00:01:02,680
Speaker 3: purp walk as a complete departure from the way federal

15
00:01:02,720 --> 00:01:07,000
Speaker 3: authorities normally handle the transfer of suspects, but the handling

16
00:01:07,040 --> 00:01:10,520
Speaker 3: of the Mangioni case by both state and federal authorities

17
00:01:10,720 --> 00:01:13,680
Speaker 3: seems to be a departure from other criminal cases in

18
00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:17,760
Speaker 3: many respects. The twenty six year old mangione is accused

19
00:01:17,800 --> 00:01:21,839
Speaker 3: of the brazen murder of United Health Group CEO Brian Thompson,

20
00:01:22,080 --> 00:01:25,640
Speaker 3: allegedly shooting him from behind with a nine millimeter ghost

21
00:01:25,720 --> 00:01:30,120
Speaker 3: gun on December fourth. On Tuesday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin

22
00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:34,800
Speaker 3: Bragg announced the indictment of Mangioni on eleven counts, including

23
00:01:34,880 --> 00:01:39,039
Speaker 3: first degree murder, saying the shooting was a carefully choreographed

24
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:40,880
Speaker 3: act of terrorism.

25
00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:44,480
Speaker 4: As we allege the defendant in that case brazenly shot

26
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:49,840
Speaker 4: mister Thompson twice in Midtel, Manhattan. It was targeted, premeditated

27
00:01:49,960 --> 00:01:51,040
Speaker 4: admitt to so terror.

28
00:01:51,400 --> 00:01:55,400
Speaker 3: And then before Mangioni was even arraigned on the state charges,

29
00:01:55,680 --> 00:01:59,840
Speaker 3: the federal government unexpectedly charged him with murder and stocking,

30
00:02:00,320 --> 00:02:03,480
Speaker 3: with one of the charges carrying a possible death sentence.

31
00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:07,880
Speaker 3: Joining me is Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Arenberg. Dave,

32
00:02:08,080 --> 00:02:11,520
Speaker 3: I've never seen a purp walk quite like this, and

33
00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:14,560
Speaker 3: the Feds don't usually do purp walks or photo ops.

34
00:02:14,880 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 3: Why here, Wow?

35
00:02:16,680 --> 00:02:20,040
Speaker 1: You know, this is an internationally watched case and he's

36
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:24,360
Speaker 1: being treated differently. The reward money was larger and faster

37
00:02:24,480 --> 00:02:28,840
Speaker 1: and coming. The attention given to it is much greater

38
00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:30,920
Speaker 1: than any other case. He's a folk here among some

39
00:02:31,120 --> 00:02:33,720
Speaker 1: and I think this is a statement meant that you're

40
00:02:33,720 --> 00:02:35,640
Speaker 1: going to treat him like the criminal that he is,

41
00:02:35,680 --> 00:02:38,960
Speaker 1: as opposed to a big time celebrity. But in so doing,

42
00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:41,600
Speaker 1: it looks like they're treating with a celebrity. And so

43
00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:43,680
Speaker 1: nothing about this case seems.

44
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:43,960
Speaker 5: To be normal.

45
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:49,240
Speaker 3: So murder is generally not a federal charge. There were

46
00:02:49,240 --> 00:02:52,680
Speaker 3: almost four hundred homicides in New York City last year,

47
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:55,720
Speaker 3: and you didn't see the federal government getting involved. So

48
00:02:55,760 --> 00:03:00,280
Speaker 3: why are federal prosecutors filing charges against Mangioni in the

49
00:03:00,320 --> 00:03:02,760
Speaker 3: case of a murder that happened in New York City.

50
00:03:03,040 --> 00:03:05,000
Speaker 1: Well, if this was the Trump administration, I'd say it's

51
00:03:05,040 --> 00:03:08,200
Speaker 1: because they don't trust the Manhattan DA, But this is

52
00:03:08,200 --> 00:03:11,600
Speaker 1: still the Biden administration, and I think just because of

53
00:03:11,639 --> 00:03:14,360
Speaker 1: the international interest in this case, that they're coming in

54
00:03:14,400 --> 00:03:16,880
Speaker 1: to make sure that nothing goes wrong at the state level.

55
00:03:16,919 --> 00:03:20,320
Speaker 1: It's like a backup. But it is unusual because usually

56
00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:22,840
Speaker 1: it's one or the other, not both. But there's nothing

57
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:24,840
Speaker 1: usual about this case. And I think one of the

58
00:03:24,840 --> 00:03:27,720
Speaker 1: reasons why the federal government is getting involved here, it's

59
00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:29,880
Speaker 1: important to them and to a lot of people that

60
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:33,440
Speaker 1: there's not a precedent set that glorifies murder, and right

61
00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:36,800
Speaker 1: now we're seeing too many people glorify this murder and

62
00:03:37,160 --> 00:03:40,200
Speaker 1: treat him like a hero. When he killed a father

63
00:03:40,280 --> 00:03:42,840
Speaker 1: of two, and he did so by lying in wait,

64
00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:45,120
Speaker 1: wearing a mask, waiting for him to walk by, and

65
00:03:45,120 --> 00:03:47,240
Speaker 1: then shooting him in the back and then running away,

66
00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:49,080
Speaker 1: not quite an act of heroism.

67
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:53,040
Speaker 3: Federal prosecutors could seek the death penalty for the count

68
00:03:53,080 --> 00:03:56,160
Speaker 3: of using a firearm to commit murder. Whether to seek

69
00:03:56,200 --> 00:04:00,560
Speaker 3: the death penalty involves a process within the Justice to apartment.

70
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:02,880
Speaker 3: Do you think they're likely to go that far?

71
00:04:03,480 --> 00:04:06,800
Speaker 1: I do think that, based on Donald Trump's statements about

72
00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:09,600
Speaker 1: this case, that in the next administration, they could seek

73
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:12,080
Speaker 1: the death penalty, even if they don't seek initially, because

74
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:14,320
Speaker 1: right now there's a moretorium on the death penalty at

75
00:04:14,320 --> 00:04:16,839
Speaker 1: the federal level. But that's going to change, and so yes,

76
00:04:16,960 --> 00:04:19,200
Speaker 1: I do think maybe that's one difference between the state

77
00:04:19,240 --> 00:04:21,760
Speaker 1: and the federal systems here is that the death penalty

78
00:04:21,839 --> 00:04:25,000
Speaker 1: is outlawed in New York, but a federal case can

79
00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:27,520
Speaker 1: impose a federal death penalty. I think There'll be a

80
00:04:27,520 --> 00:04:29,880
Speaker 1: lot of outcry, though, because this guy's got a bunch

81
00:04:29,880 --> 00:04:34,080
Speaker 1: of supporters, and I think that ultimately a jury will

82
00:04:34,120 --> 00:04:36,320
Speaker 1: not give him the death penalty in this case, but

83
00:04:36,960 --> 00:04:38,360
Speaker 1: the Fed may try.

84
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:43,200
Speaker 3: His attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, said in a statement that

85
00:04:43,240 --> 00:04:48,720
Speaker 3: the dueling state and federal charges raise double jeopardy concerns.

86
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:53,080
Speaker 3: Of course, double jeopardy prevents a person from being tried

87
00:04:53,200 --> 00:04:56,440
Speaker 3: more than once for the same crime. Do you think

88
00:04:56,480 --> 00:04:59,720
Speaker 3: these dueling prosecutions violate double jeopardy?

89
00:05:00,120 --> 00:05:03,640
Speaker 1: Not really, because there's something called the separate sovereign doctrine.

90
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:06,039
Speaker 1: These are two different sovereign state and federal and they

91
00:05:06,080 --> 00:05:09,440
Speaker 1: can both file their own charges based on their own laws,

92
00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:11,520
Speaker 1: and so you could have that. Now in some states,

93
00:05:11,520 --> 00:05:15,320
Speaker 1: like New York, there are additional restrictions on states that

94
00:05:15,440 --> 00:05:18,560
Speaker 1: then pile on. You saw that with Paul Manifort. In fact,

95
00:05:18,600 --> 00:05:21,200
Speaker 1: the Paul Maniford indictment that came at the state level

96
00:05:21,480 --> 00:05:25,760
Speaker 1: was thrown out by the courts because of double jeopardy concerns. Now,

97
00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:28,960
Speaker 1: the Feds, though, don't have the same type of restrictions,

98
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:33,160
Speaker 1: and federal law generally will permit a piggyback type of

99
00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:35,279
Speaker 1: case like this, as long as it's not the exact

100
00:05:35,320 --> 00:05:38,200
Speaker 1: same statute, which is not. These are two separate statutes

101
00:05:38,279 --> 00:05:40,760
Speaker 1: and two different types of penalties. In the federal system,

102
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:43,320
Speaker 1: you can get the death penalty. The state system you don't.

103
00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:45,440
Speaker 1: So I do think they'll move forward, and I do

104
00:05:45,520 --> 00:05:48,800
Speaker 1: respect Karen. She's a great lawyer, and I think she

105
00:05:49,279 --> 00:05:52,160
Speaker 1: has an argument that the state does seem to be

106
00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:56,400
Speaker 1: overreaching here with the first three murder charge. But I

107
00:05:56,400 --> 00:05:59,920
Speaker 1: would disagree with her on her statement that the Fed

108
00:06:00,400 --> 00:06:03,720
Speaker 1: are engaging in double jeopardy in adding their own charges.

109
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:05,880
Speaker 1: There's a lot of case all that says they can

110
00:06:05,920 --> 00:06:06,200
Speaker 1: do it.

111
00:06:07,120 --> 00:06:10,640
Speaker 3: I think the federal charges came as a surprise even

112
00:06:10,800 --> 00:06:15,640
Speaker 3: to the Manhattan District Attorney's office. Mangioni's attorney was apparently

113
00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:19,040
Speaker 3: ready for his appearance in state court when it was

114
00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:24,080
Speaker 3: suddenly changed to federal court, and she told the magistrate frankly,

115
00:06:24,120 --> 00:06:28,240
Speaker 3: I've never seen anything like what's happening here in more

116
00:06:28,279 --> 00:06:32,479
Speaker 3: than three decades of practicing law. Because the FED swooped in,

117
00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:36,520
Speaker 3: Mangioni still hasn't appeared in state court for his arraignment

118
00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:40,200
Speaker 3: on the state charges. It seems like the federal prosecutors

119
00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:43,680
Speaker 3: and the state prosecutors are at this point not coordinating.

120
00:06:43,720 --> 00:06:45,839
Speaker 1: Well, well, I wouldn't be the first time. We saw this,

121
00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:49,640
Speaker 1: most recently in the second assassination attempt against Donald Trump,

122
00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:53,600
Speaker 1: where you have the FEDS getting indictment against the attempted

123
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:56,839
Speaker 1: fascinator and then you have the State of Florida doing

124
00:06:57,040 --> 00:07:00,880
Speaker 1: a competing, conflicting investigation that has le the state charges.

125
00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:03,359
Speaker 1: So we're seeing these turb wars more and more. I

126
00:07:03,360 --> 00:07:05,760
Speaker 1: don't think that's a sign of progress. I think that's

127
00:07:05,760 --> 00:07:06,720
Speaker 1: a sign of the times.

128
00:07:06,839 --> 00:07:09,800
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, let's turn to the first degree murder charge in

129
00:07:09,840 --> 00:07:13,600
Speaker 3: New York with the terrorism enhancement, and the DA said

130
00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:18,360
Speaker 3: that Mangione intended to intimidate and evoke terror with the killing.

131
00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 3: Is that an overcharge? Is he reaching there?

132
00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:25,160
Speaker 1: I respectfully do believe that they're reaching a bit. I

133
00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:27,840
Speaker 1: think it's an easier case to prove second agree murder,

134
00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:31,000
Speaker 1: and I realized that they include a second agree murder,

135
00:07:31,000 --> 00:07:34,320
Speaker 1: and they may want to push a compromised verdict which

136
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:37,040
Speaker 1: would be second agree murder where he could face up

137
00:07:37,080 --> 00:07:39,200
Speaker 1: to life in prison. But I do think when you

138
00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:42,080
Speaker 1: add the first degree murder charge, it feels like an overreach,

139
00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:44,800
Speaker 1: and that could cost you some credibility in the eyes

140
00:07:44,840 --> 00:07:48,000
Speaker 1: of jurors. You look at the prosecution of Daniel Penny,

141
00:07:48,400 --> 00:07:52,120
Speaker 1: that's the ex marine who killed mister Neelie on the subway. Well,

142
00:07:52,200 --> 00:07:54,160
Speaker 1: they charged him with manslaughter and a lot of us

143
00:07:54,200 --> 00:07:57,480
Speaker 1: thought that was an overcharge, and apparently it was because

144
00:07:57,520 --> 00:07:59,560
Speaker 1: the jury couldn't reach an agreement, and then finally the

145
00:07:59,640 --> 00:08:01,920
Speaker 1: judge it out and then when it came down to

146
00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:05,000
Speaker 1: the lesser charge, the easier charge, the jurors had enough

147
00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:08,280
Speaker 1: and just said now acquittal. And that's the kind of

148
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:11,040
Speaker 1: thing that you worry about when you overcharge, that you

149
00:08:11,080 --> 00:08:14,600
Speaker 1: have juram fatigue, you have jeram mistrusted prosecutors. So you

150
00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:17,120
Speaker 1: get me really careful here. And I just don't think

151
00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 1: based on what we know now that you can confidently

152
00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:21,480
Speaker 1: say that this was an act of terrorism. But maybe

153
00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:23,840
Speaker 1: you know, they have access information that the rest of

154
00:08:23,920 --> 00:08:26,480
Speaker 1: us do not have. So we'll see. But as of

155
00:08:26,560 --> 00:08:28,000
Speaker 1: right now, I do think it's a bit of a reach.

156
00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:31,120
Speaker 3: When it was just the state charges, it seems like

157
00:08:31,160 --> 00:08:33,440
Speaker 3: they could have been trying to push him into a

158
00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:37,079
Speaker 3: guilty plea to avoid life without parole. Now things are

159
00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:41,280
Speaker 3: more complicated with the added federal charges. Would the defense

160
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:44,720
Speaker 3: only agreed to a plea or please if they could

161
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:47,040
Speaker 3: get deals with both the state and the feds.

162
00:08:47,520 --> 00:08:50,400
Speaker 1: Oh, he complicates things for the defense because you could

163
00:08:50,400 --> 00:08:53,600
Speaker 1: plead guilty the state charges and then still face federal charges.

164
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:56,920
Speaker 1: So you want to deal that will cover everything. And

165
00:08:57,400 --> 00:08:59,440
Speaker 1: with the Feds and the state seemingly in conflict with

166
00:08:59,480 --> 00:09:01,959
Speaker 1: each other, that makes it harder for defense lawyers to say,

167
00:09:01,960 --> 00:09:03,800
Speaker 1: all right, everyone, I'll come to the table. Here's one

168
00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:07,240
Speaker 1: universal settlement. The defense may seek the death penalty. The

169
00:09:07,400 --> 00:09:10,400
Speaker 1: state is looking for first three murderer, but there is

170
00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:12,880
Speaker 1: no death penalty there. So there's a lot of moving

171
00:09:12,920 --> 00:09:15,640
Speaker 1: parts here. And with two different cases, maybe they want

172
00:09:15,679 --> 00:09:18,120
Speaker 1: to ramp up with more attorneys. They can afford it.

173
00:09:18,120 --> 00:09:20,720
Speaker 1: The defense has lots of money because this is getting

174
00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:21,800
Speaker 1: a lot more complicated.

175
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:27,760
Speaker 3: Before she was hired to represent Mangioni, his attorney Karen Friedman,

176
00:09:27,880 --> 00:09:32,439
Speaker 3: Agnifilo suggested on CNN that there might be an insanity

177
00:09:32,480 --> 00:09:37,000
Speaker 3: defense here. By all accounts, the evidence against him is overwhelming.

178
00:09:37,720 --> 00:09:41,000
Speaker 3: Is not guilty by reason of insanity the way to

179
00:09:41,080 --> 00:09:41,600
Speaker 3: go here.

180
00:09:42,040 --> 00:09:44,360
Speaker 1: I don't think the insanity defense is a good defense. Here.

181
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:46,920
Speaker 1: I don't think that will play. And the reason is

182
00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:48,920
Speaker 1: that to have an insanity defense, you have to have

183
00:09:48,960 --> 00:09:52,120
Speaker 1: an established medical condition and you cannot know the difference

184
00:09:52,160 --> 00:09:55,800
Speaker 1: between right and wrong. Well, when you wear a mask

185
00:09:55,840 --> 00:09:58,679
Speaker 1: and have fake IDs and meticulously plan for a murder,

186
00:09:58,960 --> 00:10:02,679
Speaker 1: you're definitely able to distinguish between right and wrong. You

187
00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:04,240
Speaker 1: know what you did was illegal. You know how, we

188
00:10:04,280 --> 00:10:06,640
Speaker 1: know because you planned for it to not be caught.

189
00:10:06,880 --> 00:10:09,960
Speaker 1: And then after you ran away and hid and tried

190
00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:12,400
Speaker 1: to conceal your identity, Well, that shows you knew the

191
00:10:12,400 --> 00:10:14,319
Speaker 1: difference between right and wrong. You knew what you did

192
00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:16,880
Speaker 1: was illegal, you knew the consequences of your actions. So

193
00:10:16,920 --> 00:10:18,680
Speaker 1: I don't think they have much of a chance at

194
00:10:18,720 --> 00:10:21,679
Speaker 1: an Exvandy defense. Now, they could have a different defense

195
00:10:21,840 --> 00:10:25,400
Speaker 1: to claim that he was under extreme emotional disturbance, which

196
00:10:25,679 --> 00:10:28,080
Speaker 1: would make it more of a manslaughter case than a

197
00:10:28,160 --> 00:10:30,600
Speaker 1: murder case. That could get you between five and twenty

198
00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:33,200
Speaker 1: five years in prison, as opposed to up to life

199
00:10:33,240 --> 00:10:35,440
Speaker 1: in prison for murder. That may be a better defense,

200
00:10:35,520 --> 00:10:38,599
Speaker 1: not a complete acquittal, but something less than murder. And

201
00:10:38,640 --> 00:10:42,240
Speaker 1: then there's always the specter of jury nullification. It's a

202
00:10:42,280 --> 00:10:46,160
Speaker 1: prosecutor's worst nightmare where the jury just feels sympathy for

203
00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:49,480
Speaker 1: the guy and ignores the evidence and ignores the law

204
00:10:49,800 --> 00:10:53,240
Speaker 1: and then just set them free. That's always a possibility

205
00:10:53,240 --> 00:10:55,960
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with this kind of unusual case of

206
00:10:56,000 --> 00:10:58,520
Speaker 1: a defendant who will probably take the stand and probably

207
00:10:58,520 --> 00:11:02,800
Speaker 1: gain some sympathy from the public, if not members of

208
00:11:02,840 --> 00:11:03,280
Speaker 1: the jury.

209
00:11:03,480 --> 00:11:07,000
Speaker 3: So jury selection, which is always important, will be critical

210
00:11:07,240 --> 00:11:10,559
Speaker 3: in this case. Thanks so much, Dave. That's Dave Ehrenberg,

211
00:11:10,640 --> 00:11:15,160
Speaker 3: Palm Beach County State Attorney. Manhattan prosecutors say MANCHIONI will

212
00:11:15,200 --> 00:11:18,240
Speaker 3: be back in court on Monday in state court, this

213
00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:20,920
Speaker 3: time to enter a plea on the state murder and

214
00:11:21,040 --> 00:11:24,200
Speaker 3: weapons charges. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show,

215
00:11:24,400 --> 00:11:28,680
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court fast tracks TikTok's free speech challenge to

216
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:32,920
Speaker 3: the law banning the popular app on January nineteenth. If

217
00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:36,280
Speaker 3: it's not so by its Chinese parent. Remember, you can

218
00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:38,640
Speaker 3: always get the latest legal news by listening to our

219
00:11:38,679 --> 00:11:42,520
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I'm

220
00:11:42,600 --> 00:11:44,959
Speaker 3: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

221
00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:48,280
Speaker 6: I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok

222
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 6: because I won youth by thirty four points, and there

223
00:11:52,960 --> 00:11:55,880
Speaker 6: are those that say that TikTok has something to do

224
00:11:55,960 --> 00:11:56,320
Speaker 6: with it.

225
00:11:56,600 --> 00:11:59,800
Speaker 3: President elect Donald Trump may have a warm spot in

226
00:11:59,840 --> 00:12:03,319
Speaker 3: New Hard for TikTok, but the ban on the wildly

227
00:12:03,480 --> 00:12:07,280
Speaker 3: popular app will go into effect on January nineteenth, the

228
00:12:07,400 --> 00:12:10,199
Speaker 3: day before he takes office, so it will be up

229
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:13,480
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court to decide on the app's survival.

230
00:12:13,800 --> 00:12:17,319
Speaker 3: This week, the Justice has agreed to fast track TikTok's

231
00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:20,280
Speaker 3: free speech challenge to the law that will ban the

232
00:12:20,320 --> 00:12:24,880
Speaker 3: platform nationwide if it isn't sold by its Chinese parent company.

233
00:12:25,160 --> 00:12:29,960
Speaker 3: They'll hear arguments on January tenth, TikTok's final legal chance

234
00:12:30,040 --> 00:12:32,959
Speaker 3: to halt the ban, and it appears to be an

235
00:12:33,040 --> 00:12:37,880
Speaker 3: uphill battle, after the DC's Circuit Court unanimously upheld the

236
00:12:37,960 --> 00:12:40,920
Speaker 3: law this month, finding it was a legitimate means of

237
00:12:40,960 --> 00:12:45,880
Speaker 3: protecting national security and user privacy. Joining me is Eric Goldman,

238
00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:49,480
Speaker 3: a professor at Santa Clara University Law School and co

239
00:12:49,559 --> 00:12:52,720
Speaker 3: director of the High Tech Law Institute. Eric the Court

240
00:12:52,760 --> 00:12:56,320
Speaker 3: has scheduled a special argument day to consider the ban

241
00:12:56,559 --> 00:12:59,640
Speaker 3: in less than three weeks. It's allotted two hours for

242
00:12:59,679 --> 00:13:03,199
Speaker 3: the arts arguments. That's double the normal time. How unusual

243
00:13:03,280 --> 00:13:05,000
Speaker 3: is this and what does it signify?

244
00:13:05,440 --> 00:13:07,920
Speaker 5: Every Supreme Court case is unusual. It's one of the

245
00:13:08,040 --> 00:13:12,160
Speaker 5: rarest events in litigation, But this case is unusual for

246
00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:16,720
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court procedure. They've set up an expedited process

247
00:13:16,760 --> 00:13:19,160
Speaker 5: that they don't normally follow, and it means that they're

248
00:13:19,160 --> 00:13:21,560
Speaker 5: going to be moving fast. But they're probably also not

249
00:13:21,600 --> 00:13:24,720
Speaker 5: going to be able to issue this kind of quality

250
00:13:24,720 --> 00:13:26,920
Speaker 5: of opinions that we're used to, so they're probably going

251
00:13:27,000 --> 00:13:29,000
Speaker 5: to have to cut some corners along the way as well.

252
00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:30,840
Speaker 5: So this is an unusual case for them.

253
00:13:31,360 --> 00:13:31,880
Speaker 1: In the Bush v.

254
00:13:32,080 --> 00:13:35,640
Speaker 3: Gore case, the Court ruled the day after they heard

255
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:39,640
Speaker 3: oral arguments and just three days after they agreed to

256
00:13:39,679 --> 00:13:43,679
Speaker 3: take the case. Do you think that with this expedited schedule,

257
00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:48,360
Speaker 3: they're planning to issue a decision before January nineteenth, when

258
00:13:48,400 --> 00:13:49,720
Speaker 3: the band goes into effect.

259
00:13:49,960 --> 00:13:51,680
Speaker 5: I don't think they would have built a schedule like

260
00:13:51,720 --> 00:13:55,640
Speaker 5: this unless they plan to give some ruling before January nineteenth.

261
00:13:55,920 --> 00:13:58,720
Speaker 5: But you mentioned bushby Gore, and that's actually a good

262
00:13:58,760 --> 00:14:01,760
Speaker 5: example of the problem that are awaiting the Supreme Court.

263
00:14:02,240 --> 00:14:05,440
Speaker 5: Not only was that opinion fragmented in the sense that

264
00:14:05,640 --> 00:14:08,840
Speaker 5: every judge rope for themselves, but also that opinion has

265
00:14:08,840 --> 00:14:12,600
Speaker 5: been roundly criticized as being not the same kind of

266
00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:16,480
Speaker 5: standard quality of judging that we expect from the Supreme Court.

267
00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:20,400
Speaker 5: So this bush Ris's Gore example is actually a cautionary

268
00:14:20,400 --> 00:14:22,840
Speaker 5: tale for the Supreme Court. Odds are that they're going

269
00:14:22,880 --> 00:14:26,320
Speaker 5: to issue multiple opinions and that it might not be

270
00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:28,080
Speaker 5: to the level of quality that we want.

271
00:14:28,680 --> 00:14:33,280
Speaker 3: The justices could have temporarily blocked the law while considering

272
00:14:33,320 --> 00:14:37,400
Speaker 3: the case. That would have taken five votes while hearing

273
00:14:37,480 --> 00:14:40,600
Speaker 3: the case just takes four votes. But wouldn't that have

274
00:14:40,640 --> 00:14:42,040
Speaker 3: been a better way to handle this?

275
00:14:42,720 --> 00:14:45,600
Speaker 5: As an outsider, it looks like what the Supreme Court

276
00:14:45,640 --> 00:14:48,480
Speaker 5: should have done was put the law on hold until

277
00:14:48,520 --> 00:14:52,840
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court could do a standard process for its review,

278
00:14:53,040 --> 00:14:57,280
Speaker 5: not do this expedited corner cutting approach. And I don't

279
00:14:57,320 --> 00:14:59,760
Speaker 5: know why they didn't do that, but that's the choice

280
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:03,000
Speaker 5: they made. And so they've clearly decided that they're going

281
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:04,280
Speaker 5: to have to move faster.

282
00:15:04,840 --> 00:15:10,240
Speaker 3: Are they balancing the First Amendment against national security concerns

283
00:15:10,280 --> 00:15:14,400
Speaker 3: and the Court's deference to Congress and the executive branch

284
00:15:14,560 --> 00:15:17,080
Speaker 3: in making national security decisions?

285
00:15:17,520 --> 00:15:18,920
Speaker 5: That's a good summary, But if you in mind, I'm

286
00:15:18,920 --> 00:15:20,080
Speaker 5: going to be stated a little bit.

287
00:15:20,240 --> 00:15:20,760
Speaker 1: Absolutely.

288
00:15:21,080 --> 00:15:25,400
Speaker 5: The EC Circuit, which hurt the TikTok case and had

289
00:15:25,480 --> 00:15:28,000
Speaker 5: sent the case up to the Supreme Court, said that

290
00:15:28,120 --> 00:15:32,200
Speaker 5: the law was censorship, that the laws censored TikTok and

291
00:15:32,280 --> 00:15:37,040
Speaker 5: its users, but nevertheless that censorship was justified on national

292
00:15:37,120 --> 00:15:40,760
Speaker 5: security concerns. That creates really two tracks for the Supreme

293
00:15:40,800 --> 00:15:44,520
Speaker 5: Court to pursue. One track they could pursue is to say,

294
00:15:44,640 --> 00:15:48,600
Speaker 5: the law of censorship and yet it survives, like the

295
00:15:48,680 --> 00:15:53,400
Speaker 5: DC Circuit said, because the nationalist security concerns overweighed the

296
00:15:53,760 --> 00:15:56,680
Speaker 5: laws of free speech. Another track is that they could say,

297
00:15:56,880 --> 00:16:00,560
Speaker 5: we agree that the law is censorship and that's the

298
00:16:00,600 --> 00:16:02,960
Speaker 5: reason why it should be struck down. And so the

299
00:16:03,080 --> 00:16:07,720
Speaker 5: DC Circuit opinion that prestages the Supreme Court's review really

300
00:16:07,800 --> 00:16:10,760
Speaker 5: set up the Supreme Court to answer that fundamental question,

301
00:16:10,840 --> 00:16:16,040
Speaker 5: under what circumstances does national security override what is on

302
00:16:16,200 --> 00:16:19,480
Speaker 5: its space? And everyone seems to agree it's just censorship.

303
00:16:19,840 --> 00:16:22,720
Speaker 3: Some TikTok users seem to be waking up to the

304
00:16:22,800 --> 00:16:25,640
Speaker 3: fact that it may be gone. Do you think the

305
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:28,760
Speaker 3: Court will address the concerns of the one hundred and

306
00:16:28,840 --> 00:16:31,040
Speaker 3: seventy million US users.

307
00:16:31,520 --> 00:16:34,800
Speaker 5: I'm hoping that the Court will be sensitive to the

308
00:16:34,840 --> 00:16:38,200
Speaker 5: fact that not only does TikTok have free speech trites,

309
00:16:38,240 --> 00:16:41,160
Speaker 5: but so do all the millions of users, millions of

310
00:16:41,160 --> 00:16:44,720
Speaker 5: Americans who are talking to each other on TikTok. And

311
00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:49,080
Speaker 5: even if we disregard TikTok's interests, we still ought to

312
00:16:49,120 --> 00:16:52,200
Speaker 5: care about the conversations that are taking place by and

313
00:16:52,280 --> 00:16:55,800
Speaker 5: among Americans on TikTok that are all in jeopardy due

314
00:16:55,800 --> 00:16:59,200
Speaker 5: to this ban. The DC Circuit really didn't care about

315
00:16:59,200 --> 00:17:02,520
Speaker 5: that issue. The just lumped it together under the broadheading

316
00:17:02,560 --> 00:17:06,439
Speaker 5: of TikTok's concerns. They didn't otherwise pay attention to TikTok's

317
00:17:06,640 --> 00:17:09,959
Speaker 5: user's interests. I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will be more

318
00:17:10,080 --> 00:17:12,600
Speaker 5: sensitive to that, but we'll have to see.

319
00:17:12,840 --> 00:17:17,080
Speaker 3: The Roberts Court has been very protective of First Amendment

320
00:17:17,480 --> 00:17:22,040
Speaker 3: speech rights as well as national security interests. Do you

321
00:17:22,200 --> 00:17:25,200
Speaker 3: have any idea of how they might rule here.

322
00:17:25,880 --> 00:17:27,760
Speaker 5: It's hard to predict what the Supreme Court is going

323
00:17:27,800 --> 00:17:31,040
Speaker 5: to do because there really are two different dynamics pushing

324
00:17:31,080 --> 00:17:34,520
Speaker 5: them in opposite directions. Back in July, the Supreme Court

325
00:17:34,560 --> 00:17:38,480
Speaker 5: issued a very strong endorsement of the First Amendment protections

326
00:17:38,520 --> 00:17:40,679
Speaker 5: for social media. And so if we look at what

327
00:17:40,720 --> 00:17:43,560
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court has said just a few months ago,

328
00:17:43,600 --> 00:17:46,639
Speaker 5: they said, if it's censoring social media, that sounds like

329
00:17:46,680 --> 00:17:49,480
Speaker 5: a First Amendment problem. On the other hand, you had

330
00:17:49,480 --> 00:17:53,520
Speaker 5: this DC Circuit opinion that was a unanimous opinion saying

331
00:17:53,840 --> 00:17:57,560
Speaker 5: that the national security concerns here overrode free speech concerns.

332
00:17:57,920 --> 00:18:01,600
Speaker 5: And the Supreme Court listens to the DC Circuit. It's

333
00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:04,560
Speaker 5: a well respected court. They put together an opinion that

334
00:18:04,680 --> 00:18:07,560
Speaker 5: was designed to be persuasive for the Supreme Court. So

335
00:18:08,200 --> 00:18:10,119
Speaker 5: if we look at what the Supreme Court said in July,

336
00:18:10,480 --> 00:18:13,000
Speaker 5: it looks like the TikTok band should not succeed. If

337
00:18:13,000 --> 00:18:15,879
Speaker 5: we look at what the DC Circuit advised the Supreme Court,

338
00:18:15,960 --> 00:18:18,800
Speaker 5: it looks like the ban should be upheld. And so

339
00:18:18,880 --> 00:18:21,400
Speaker 5: I don't know which strand is going to override the other.

340
00:18:21,640 --> 00:18:23,679
Speaker 5: I wouldn't put money on either side of the equation

341
00:18:23,920 --> 00:18:26,760
Speaker 5: TikTok winning or losing the Supreme Court. I just view

342
00:18:26,840 --> 00:18:29,959
Speaker 5: the risks as being too hazy to really make an

343
00:18:30,080 --> 00:18:34,120
Speaker 5: educated gamble. But I also think that the Supreme Court

344
00:18:34,359 --> 00:18:38,280
Speaker 5: is open to an alternative outcome given what they said

345
00:18:38,320 --> 00:18:38,720
Speaker 5: in July.

346
00:18:39,160 --> 00:18:43,040
Speaker 3: So what are the other possible outcomes besides an outright

347
00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:44,200
Speaker 3: win or loss.

348
00:18:44,880 --> 00:18:47,800
Speaker 5: One possibility is the Supreme Court says that it can't

349
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:50,879
Speaker 5: reach a final decision and that additional work needs to

350
00:18:50,880 --> 00:18:53,760
Speaker 5: be done by lower courts, so we get a non

351
00:18:53,800 --> 00:18:57,119
Speaker 5: answer for the Supreme Court. Another possible outcome is that

352
00:18:57,280 --> 00:19:00,879
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court upholds parts of the band and strikes

353
00:19:00,920 --> 00:19:03,560
Speaker 5: down other parts. I don't really know what that looks like.

354
00:19:03,600 --> 00:19:06,080
Speaker 5: We'd have to see, but the point is that it's

355
00:19:06,080 --> 00:19:08,000
Speaker 5: not as easy as just does the Supreme Court uphold

356
00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:10,760
Speaker 5: the ban outright or not, because there's a whole bunch

357
00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:12,720
Speaker 5: of other tools in the Supreme Court's toolkit.

358
00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:17,040
Speaker 3: Trump takes office the day after the TikTok ban is

359
00:19:17,080 --> 00:19:19,960
Speaker 3: supposed to go into effect. He's been all over the

360
00:19:20,040 --> 00:19:24,480
Speaker 3: map about TikTok over the years. He met with executives

361
00:19:24,520 --> 00:19:27,600
Speaker 3: of TikTok at mar A Lago this week. Let's say

362
00:19:27,640 --> 00:19:30,760
Speaker 3: he does want to do something to save TikTok. What

363
00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:31,400
Speaker 3: could he do?

364
00:19:31,800 --> 00:19:35,080
Speaker 5: By the time Trump takes office, either the TikTok ban

365
00:19:35,240 --> 00:19:39,040
Speaker 5: will be enjoying permanently or temporarily, or it will be

366
00:19:39,119 --> 00:19:42,080
Speaker 5: an effect. So the law has a mechanism that gives

367
00:19:42,080 --> 00:19:44,800
Speaker 5: to present some discrestion with respect to TikTok, but only

368
00:19:44,840 --> 00:19:48,080
Speaker 5: Biden will be able to exercise that, so that particular

369
00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:51,719
Speaker 5: option in the statute to delay the effectiveness of law

370
00:19:51,800 --> 00:19:53,680
Speaker 5: won't be available to him. So at that point, Trump

371
00:19:53,760 --> 00:19:57,520
Speaker 5: really has two choices if you really want to protect TikTok. First,

372
00:19:57,520 --> 00:19:59,920
Speaker 5: as he could go back to Congress and ask cong

373
00:20:00,080 --> 00:20:02,399
Speaker 5: Risk to rethink its banned. I don't think that's going

374
00:20:02,440 --> 00:20:06,280
Speaker 5: to go anywhere. Even Trump's most loyal fans have been

375
00:20:06,720 --> 00:20:10,160
Speaker 5: very solidly against anything that looks like it would benefit China,

376
00:20:10,320 --> 00:20:12,800
Speaker 5: and so I just don't think that even if Trump asks,

377
00:20:12,880 --> 00:20:15,440
Speaker 5: he's going to get a majority of Congress to change

378
00:20:15,480 --> 00:20:17,600
Speaker 5: their mind. The other thing that Trump can do is

379
00:20:17,640 --> 00:20:20,560
Speaker 5: that he could ask the Department of Justice not to

380
00:20:20,680 --> 00:20:23,280
Speaker 5: enforce the laws, that the Department Justice could take a

381
00:20:23,480 --> 00:20:26,639
Speaker 5: voluntary stance that those laws in effect, they're not going

382
00:20:26,680 --> 00:20:30,000
Speaker 5: to devote any prosecutorial resources to it. Trump doesn't have

383
00:20:30,119 --> 00:20:32,280
Speaker 5: the power to tell the DOJ what to do. He

384
00:20:32,359 --> 00:20:35,280
Speaker 5: hass to ask. In practice, if he asked the DOJ

385
00:20:35,480 --> 00:20:38,680
Speaker 5: to do something or not, they would likely do it. However,

386
00:20:39,320 --> 00:20:43,680
Speaker 5: that only works if everyone around the Department Justice. Believes

387
00:20:43,720 --> 00:20:47,320
Speaker 5: that the Department Justice won't actually change its mind, and

388
00:20:47,359 --> 00:20:50,520
Speaker 5: that depends on believing that Trump won't change his mind.

389
00:20:50,680 --> 00:20:54,080
Speaker 5: And given how mercurial Trump is, how often he has

390
00:20:54,160 --> 00:20:57,199
Speaker 5: changed his tune, I don't think anyone would believe the

391
00:20:57,200 --> 00:20:59,360
Speaker 5: Department of Justice if it said that it wasn't going

392
00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:02,000
Speaker 5: to enforce the law. I just think that everyone would

393
00:21:02,119 --> 00:21:06,280
Speaker 5: view that as a short term statement, subject to change,

394
00:21:06,560 --> 00:21:10,000
Speaker 5: and not make any decisions and reliance on it. So

395
00:21:10,160 --> 00:21:13,640
Speaker 5: I really don't think Trump has any valid options to

396
00:21:13,880 --> 00:21:16,240
Speaker 5: walk back the ban. You do, they have to go

397
00:21:16,280 --> 00:21:18,960
Speaker 5: to Congress, or you have to ask the dude do something,

398
00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:21,920
Speaker 5: which I don't think would really make a difference. So

399
00:21:22,600 --> 00:21:25,439
Speaker 5: this ban is real, and it's unfortunate that so many

400
00:21:25,440 --> 00:21:28,240
Speaker 5: Americans don't realize that this band is coming for them.

401
00:21:28,800 --> 00:21:31,080
Speaker 3: So people say, well, I have TikTok on my phone,

402
00:21:31,160 --> 00:21:34,200
Speaker 3: I'm still going to use it. Explain what happens if

403
00:21:34,320 --> 00:21:36,160
Speaker 3: this ban goes into effect.

404
00:21:36,760 --> 00:21:39,639
Speaker 5: I'm still a little unclear about exactly what would happen

405
00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:44,400
Speaker 5: post ban. We know that new downloads will become extremely difficult,

406
00:21:44,520 --> 00:21:48,240
Speaker 5: if not impossible, So the ban affects the app stores.

407
00:21:48,280 --> 00:21:50,280
Speaker 5: The app stores are going to do whatever the government

408
00:21:50,320 --> 00:21:53,000
Speaker 5: tells them to do, and so the government tells them

409
00:21:53,040 --> 00:21:54,880
Speaker 5: to take the apps out of their app stores, they'll

410
00:21:54,880 --> 00:21:58,960
Speaker 5: do it. So. In addition, other service providers in the

411
00:21:59,040 --> 00:22:02,919
Speaker 5: US are supposed to not provide support to TikTok, and

412
00:22:02,960 --> 00:22:05,720
Speaker 5: I don't exactly know what implications that would have for

413
00:22:05,800 --> 00:22:09,080
Speaker 5: the experience of the users who already have installed the app.

414
00:22:09,520 --> 00:22:12,199
Speaker 5: I think what's likely to happen is that the app

415
00:22:12,359 --> 00:22:15,440
Speaker 5: is going to start a death spiral. It won't happen overnight,

416
00:22:15,800 --> 00:22:19,160
Speaker 5: but over time, people will invest less of their time

417
00:22:19,600 --> 00:22:23,479
Speaker 5: or content producers will invest less in producing TikTok content,

418
00:22:23,840 --> 00:22:26,439
Speaker 5: and so over time it becomes a ghost town. That

419
00:22:26,560 --> 00:22:29,960
Speaker 5: might take months or years. But by stopping the inflow

420
00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:33,760
Speaker 5: of new users and by making it harder for existing

421
00:22:33,840 --> 00:22:36,280
Speaker 5: users to take advantage of it, I just think people

422
00:22:36,320 --> 00:22:37,720
Speaker 5: will start to migrate elsewhere.

423
00:22:37,960 --> 00:22:38,160
Speaker 1: Yeah.

424
00:22:38,200 --> 00:22:41,560
Speaker 3: In its papers, TikTok said that being shuttered for even

425
00:22:41,720 --> 00:22:44,520
Speaker 3: one month would cause it to lose a third of

426
00:22:44,520 --> 00:22:47,560
Speaker 3: its US users, losing.

427
00:22:47,240 --> 00:22:50,439
Speaker 5: The users outright. It's also that users are just going

428
00:22:50,480 --> 00:22:52,920
Speaker 5: to invest less of their time, or content producers will

429
00:22:52,960 --> 00:22:55,919
Speaker 5: invest less in producing good content. People are just going

430
00:22:56,000 --> 00:22:58,600
Speaker 5: to take their marbles and play it in some other playgrounds.

431
00:22:58,640 --> 00:23:01,400
Speaker 5: But the problem with TikTok ban, and the reason why

432
00:23:01,480 --> 00:23:05,760
Speaker 5: that's so legally significant, is that some conversations won't migrate

433
00:23:05,800 --> 00:23:09,159
Speaker 5: anywhere else. They'll simply be lost. There's certain ways that

434
00:23:09,440 --> 00:23:12,520
Speaker 5: TikTok conversations work that don't work on other environments, and

435
00:23:12,520 --> 00:23:16,480
Speaker 5: there's certain communities that develops on TikTok that won't replicate elsewhere.

436
00:23:16,800 --> 00:23:19,679
Speaker 5: So though TikTok will become a ghost town and some

437
00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:22,639
Speaker 5: people will migrate to other services, there's going to be

438
00:23:22,640 --> 00:23:24,920
Speaker 5: some conversations to get lost in the equation, and that's

439
00:23:24,920 --> 00:23:26,040
Speaker 5: the real speech arm.

440
00:23:26,240 --> 00:23:30,000
Speaker 3: TikTok's Chinese parent, Byte Dance, has made it pretty clear

441
00:23:30,080 --> 00:23:33,840
Speaker 3: that it doesn't intend to sell the app, yet we

442
00:23:33,880 --> 00:23:38,199
Speaker 3: still hear reports of various people putting together deals to

443
00:23:38,280 --> 00:23:42,080
Speaker 3: buy it, the latest being billionaire Frank McCourt, the former

444
00:23:42,119 --> 00:23:43,920
Speaker 3: owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

445
00:23:44,400 --> 00:23:47,000
Speaker 5: Yeah, we don't know what's going on in backroom negotiations.

446
00:23:47,240 --> 00:23:49,360
Speaker 5: We don't know to what it's done, they're not able

447
00:23:49,400 --> 00:23:52,000
Speaker 5: to work at a price, or that the Chinese government

448
00:23:52,040 --> 00:23:55,000
Speaker 5: is blocking the sale behind the scenes. It's really hard

449
00:23:55,040 --> 00:23:59,679
Speaker 5: to reverse engineer. Why a sale isn't happening. But TikTok

450
00:23:59,720 --> 00:24:01,720
Speaker 5: has been clear all along that that was not it's

451
00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:03,760
Speaker 5: game plan, that it was going to accept the ban

452
00:24:04,080 --> 00:24:07,520
Speaker 5: over a sale. And from my perspective, the idea of

453
00:24:07,680 --> 00:24:11,080
Speaker 5: sell or ban is really a ban, and yet the

454
00:24:11,200 --> 00:24:14,040
Speaker 5: DC circuit was open idea. All to Doug had to

455
00:24:14,040 --> 00:24:16,880
Speaker 5: do was just sell, And from my perspective, I felt

456
00:24:16,880 --> 00:24:19,119
Speaker 5: offended by that. I felt like that was really toned up.

457
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:22,399
Speaker 3: So I guess we'll be talking again on January tenth.

458
00:24:22,480 --> 00:24:25,200
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Eric Best, Professor Eric Goleman of Santa

459
00:24:25,200 --> 00:24:29,240
Speaker 3: Clara University Law School. Coming up next, will Biden issue

460
00:24:29,240 --> 00:24:32,760
Speaker 3: preemptive pardons? I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

461
00:24:33,840 --> 00:24:37,760
Speaker 6: President Biden announced that he is granting clemency to approximately

462
00:24:37,800 --> 00:24:41,439
Speaker 6: one thy five hundred Americans, the largest act in a

463
00:24:41,560 --> 00:24:42,240
Speaker 6: single day.

464
00:24:42,760 --> 00:24:46,960
Speaker 3: When White House Press Secretary Kareeine Jean Pierre announced President

465
00:24:47,000 --> 00:24:52,960
Speaker 3: Biden's historic clemency package for fifteen hundred convicted criminals, she

466
00:24:53,160 --> 00:24:58,639
Speaker 3: emphasized that they'd been convicted of nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, fraud,

467
00:24:58,720 --> 00:25:02,040
Speaker 3: or theft, had turned their lives around and deserved a

468
00:25:02,119 --> 00:25:06,119
Speaker 3: second chance. However, she failed to mention that clemency was

469
00:25:06,240 --> 00:25:12,040
Speaker 3: also granted to some defendants, like former Pennsylvania judge Michael Conahan,

470
00:25:12,359 --> 00:25:15,600
Speaker 3: who orchestrated the Kids for Cash scheme to send some

471
00:25:15,760 --> 00:25:20,200
Speaker 3: twenty three hundred children to for profit prisons on false

472
00:25:20,320 --> 00:25:24,760
Speaker 3: charges in exchange for nearly three million dollars in kickbacks.

473
00:25:25,000 --> 00:25:30,600
Speaker 3: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, condemned that grant of clemency.

474
00:25:31,119 --> 00:25:34,080
Speaker 7: But I do feel strongly that President Biden got it

475
00:25:34,320 --> 00:25:39,639
Speaker 7: absolutely wrong and created a lot of pain here in

476
00:25:39,760 --> 00:25:41,680
Speaker 7: northeastern Pennsylvania.

477
00:25:41,840 --> 00:25:45,560
Speaker 3: Joining me is constitutional law expert Harold Krant, a professor

478
00:25:45,600 --> 00:25:49,240
Speaker 3: at the Chicago Kent College of Law. How people sometimes

479
00:25:49,280 --> 00:25:53,439
Speaker 3: confuse pardons and clemency, explain what clemency is.

480
00:25:53,920 --> 00:25:59,240
Speaker 8: Clemency retains the fact of conviction, any kind of problems

481
00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:02,040
Speaker 8: with conviction that follow once for life, right to vote

482
00:26:02,119 --> 00:26:05,040
Speaker 8: in some states, write to hold office, et cetera. But

483
00:26:05,119 --> 00:26:08,720
Speaker 8: it allows them to be free of any kind of

484
00:26:08,920 --> 00:26:12,520
Speaker 8: you know, either jail time or other kind of oversights

485
00:26:12,560 --> 00:26:15,600
Speaker 8: such as probation, drug testing, et cetera. And he granted

486
00:26:15,640 --> 00:26:19,919
Speaker 8: fifteen hundred people this blessing of clemency for those who

487
00:26:20,000 --> 00:26:23,919
Speaker 8: had previously been released during COVID because of fear of

488
00:26:23,920 --> 00:26:26,240
Speaker 8: overcrowding in prisons and the fact that they were non

489
00:26:26,320 --> 00:26:30,080
Speaker 8: violent offenders. So it was an easy objective way to

490
00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:33,680
Speaker 8: reach out and show some people mercy who again had

491
00:26:33,680 --> 00:26:37,880
Speaker 8: been determined previously were non violent and could be released

492
00:26:37,880 --> 00:26:41,040
Speaker 8: without any kind of problems. So it was a handy way.

493
00:26:41,440 --> 00:26:43,960
Speaker 8: It wiped the slate clean for the most part for

494
00:26:44,080 --> 00:26:47,800
Speaker 8: these individuals. But of course it was somewhat controversial because

495
00:26:47,840 --> 00:26:50,480
Speaker 8: even though these were non violent offenders, he didn't pick

496
00:26:50,520 --> 00:26:55,359
Speaker 8: and choose amongst them, and so there were some pretty behafters.

497
00:26:55,400 --> 00:26:58,119
Speaker 8: Let us say, who we see the gift of clemency

498
00:26:58,400 --> 00:26:59,960
Speaker 8: in that fifteen hundred total.

499
00:27:00,280 --> 00:27:04,000
Speaker 3: Yeah, one of the grants of clemency went to Judge

500
00:27:04,119 --> 00:27:07,359
Speaker 3: Michael Conahan, who got seventeen and a half years for

501
00:27:07,600 --> 00:27:12,080
Speaker 3: orchestrating the infamous Kids for Cash scandal. Pennsylvania Governor Josh

502
00:27:12,119 --> 00:27:15,120
Speaker 3: Shapiro described the devastating effects of that.

503
00:27:15,440 --> 00:27:18,280
Speaker 7: This was not only a black eye on the community

504
00:27:18,320 --> 00:27:23,560
Speaker 7: the Kids for Cash scandal, but it also infected families

505
00:27:24,160 --> 00:27:28,880
Speaker 7: in really deep and profound in sad ways, some children

506
00:27:28,920 --> 00:27:32,800
Speaker 7: took their lives because of this. Families were torn apart.

507
00:27:33,320 --> 00:27:36,199
Speaker 3: Another grant of clemency went to a woman who was

508
00:27:36,280 --> 00:27:39,560
Speaker 3: convicted of embezzling more than fifty three million dollars in

509
00:27:39,680 --> 00:27:43,200
Speaker 3: taxpayer money, one of the largest thefts of public funds

510
00:27:43,240 --> 00:27:47,840
Speaker 3: in Illinois state history. Shouldn't the Biden administration have excluded

511
00:27:48,000 --> 00:27:51,040
Speaker 3: some of these people with egregious crimes?

512
00:27:51,320 --> 00:27:53,840
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, the question that should be raised is

513
00:27:54,000 --> 00:27:57,280
Speaker 8: why didn't this happen all during the administration? Should have

514
00:27:57,400 --> 00:28:00,760
Speaker 8: been more ordered, more carefully sought out to Crondwell, who

515
00:28:00,800 --> 00:28:03,399
Speaker 8: you just mentioned was the controller in Dixon, Illinois, and

516
00:28:03,640 --> 00:28:06,560
Speaker 8: she took fifty million dollars from kids, you know, in

517
00:28:06,680 --> 00:28:10,000
Speaker 8: terms of the ability to educate them. She returned some

518
00:28:10,040 --> 00:28:11,840
Speaker 8: of it, but still Owes I think at least ten

519
00:28:11,840 --> 00:28:14,359
Speaker 8: million dollars at least is missing right now. Still, and

520
00:28:14,400 --> 00:28:17,560
Speaker 8: of course the Pennsylvania Kids for Cash scandal is terrible,

521
00:28:17,640 --> 00:28:21,040
Speaker 8: and if he had done a case by case analysis

522
00:28:21,320 --> 00:28:24,720
Speaker 8: of who deserved clemency, they presumably would not have received it.

523
00:28:24,760 --> 00:28:26,679
Speaker 8: I mean, clearly, they are already out of jail, and they

524
00:28:26,720 --> 00:28:29,960
Speaker 8: have demonstrated to some authorities that they aren't likely to

525
00:28:30,000 --> 00:28:32,880
Speaker 8: commit offense again in the future. But do they really

526
00:28:32,920 --> 00:28:36,320
Speaker 8: merit clemency, wiping off any kind of oversight they have

527
00:28:36,440 --> 00:28:38,880
Speaker 8: from probation, that's the question. But he couldn't do that

528
00:28:39,040 --> 00:28:42,160
Speaker 8: because he waited a long time. It wasn't his priority,

529
00:28:42,520 --> 00:28:44,280
Speaker 8: and he wanted to do something towards the end of

530
00:28:44,320 --> 00:28:46,880
Speaker 8: the administration. I don't think he's done. So he just

531
00:28:47,080 --> 00:28:51,200
Speaker 8: used bright line rules of whoever has been previously released

532
00:28:51,240 --> 00:28:53,720
Speaker 8: as not a danger. He'll let them wipe off any

533
00:28:53,760 --> 00:28:55,920
Speaker 8: more oversight from their books.

534
00:28:56,240 --> 00:29:00,520
Speaker 3: President Obama granted three hundred and thirty commutations to violent

535
00:29:00,600 --> 00:29:02,800
Speaker 3: drug offenders, and that was the most granted in one

536
00:29:02,880 --> 00:29:05,600
Speaker 3: day in US history until now. I mean, is Biden

537
00:29:05,760 --> 00:29:08,600
Speaker 3: just trying to achieve a record for the history books.

538
00:29:09,000 --> 00:29:12,240
Speaker 8: No, I think it's a recognition that better do something late,

539
00:29:12,560 --> 00:29:14,840
Speaker 8: not perfect, and do nothing at all. And you know,

540
00:29:14,880 --> 00:29:16,680
Speaker 8: I agree with that. It's just too bad that this

541
00:29:16,840 --> 00:29:19,840
Speaker 8: was not a priority at all, you know, during his administration,

542
00:29:20,240 --> 00:29:22,840
Speaker 8: and so he had to address this in more of

543
00:29:22,880 --> 00:29:25,800
Speaker 8: a kind of a hamhanded way because he didn't have

544
00:29:25,840 --> 00:29:28,720
Speaker 8: the time to decide which of these fifteen hundred to

545
00:29:28,760 --> 00:29:29,440
Speaker 8: grant which not.

546
00:29:29,920 --> 00:29:33,280
Speaker 3: The White House said he's still considering more pardons and

547
00:29:33,320 --> 00:29:37,560
Speaker 3: commutations and opponents of capital punishment have called on him

548
00:29:37,560 --> 00:29:42,600
Speaker 3: to empty federal death row by commuting the inmates sentences

549
00:29:42,640 --> 00:29:46,480
Speaker 3: to life in prison, knowing that Donald Trump is going

550
00:29:46,560 --> 00:29:51,400
Speaker 3: to once he gets into office, start federal executions again,

551
00:29:51,480 --> 00:29:53,080
Speaker 3: as he did in his first term.

552
00:29:53,280 --> 00:29:57,040
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, person finding campaigned on a pledge that

553
00:29:57,080 --> 00:30:00,480
Speaker 8: he was against the death penalty. So the question has arisen,

554
00:30:00,640 --> 00:30:03,560
Speaker 8: why has he taken so long to decide whether to

555
00:30:03,600 --> 00:30:07,960
Speaker 8: commute the sentences of those forty individuals who are languishing

556
00:30:08,080 --> 00:30:11,880
Speaker 8: on death row in federal prisons. Now, there's definitely some

557
00:30:12,000 --> 00:30:15,280
Speaker 8: bad actors involved in those forty individuals, there's no doubt

558
00:30:15,320 --> 00:30:19,920
Speaker 8: about it, including the Boston Marathon massacre mastermind. But the

559
00:30:20,360 --> 00:30:23,440
Speaker 8: question is, if you don't believe in the death penalty

560
00:30:23,480 --> 00:30:26,640
Speaker 8: as a moral basis, shouldn't you be commuting those sentences?

561
00:30:26,960 --> 00:30:30,280
Speaker 8: And my guess is he will. But again, why take

562
00:30:30,360 --> 00:30:30,520
Speaker 8: so lo?

563
00:30:31,040 --> 00:30:34,480
Speaker 3: The focus has been for the last few months, I mean,

564
00:30:34,560 --> 00:30:37,720
Speaker 3: since he lost the election whether or not he is

565
00:30:37,840 --> 00:30:41,880
Speaker 3: going to do preemptive pardons of people who might be

566
00:30:42,040 --> 00:30:47,200
Speaker 3: targeted by the Justice Department under Trump. Some are saying

567
00:30:47,240 --> 00:30:51,000
Speaker 3: that would set a bad precedent, but preemptive pardons have

568
00:30:51,080 --> 00:30:52,560
Speaker 3: been granted before.

569
00:30:52,560 --> 00:30:55,680
Speaker 8: So Preemptive pardons are part of the president's playbook. Most

570
00:30:55,760 --> 00:30:59,360
Speaker 8: famous is Gerald Forge preemptive pardon for President Nixon after

571
00:30:59,640 --> 00:31:03,320
Speaker 8: President mix and resigned through the Watergate scandal. And the

572
00:31:03,320 --> 00:31:08,360
Speaker 8: way President Ford wrote that was for a preemptively pardon

573
00:31:08,440 --> 00:31:11,800
Speaker 8: for any kind of illegal activities that he undertook as

574
00:31:12,080 --> 00:31:15,480
Speaker 8: president of the United States. So that is a precedent

575
00:31:15,560 --> 00:31:18,680
Speaker 8: which is quite broad. And of course there was a

576
00:31:18,720 --> 00:31:20,960
Speaker 8: bit of a prempted pardon for a son Hunter Biden

577
00:31:21,080 --> 00:31:24,720
Speaker 8: as well, the combined pardon for what was identified in

578
00:31:24,720 --> 00:31:27,160
Speaker 8: the past, but also preemptively for any ten year period

579
00:31:27,240 --> 00:31:29,800
Speaker 8: or so of what he might be charged for. So

580
00:31:30,360 --> 00:31:33,760
Speaker 8: it's accepted that president's power includes the prempted power, and

581
00:31:33,800 --> 00:31:37,040
Speaker 8: that really is a terrible conflict for those who might

582
00:31:37,080 --> 00:31:39,640
Speaker 8: be extended it, because if you think you've done no wrong,

583
00:31:39,760 --> 00:31:42,160
Speaker 8: Let's say you're a Jack Smith, do you know that

584
00:31:42,200 --> 00:31:44,560
Speaker 8: if you take this get out of jail free card

585
00:31:44,840 --> 00:31:46,760
Speaker 8: it helps your family you don't have to go through

586
00:31:46,800 --> 00:31:49,440
Speaker 8: public disgrace of a trial and the costs and the

587
00:31:49,520 --> 00:31:51,240
Speaker 8: pressures of it. But on the other hand, do you

588
00:31:51,280 --> 00:31:54,160
Speaker 8: look a little guilty? And so there's been a lot

589
00:31:54,160 --> 00:31:56,680
Speaker 8: of discussions, I'm sure in the inner circles of the

590
00:31:56,680 --> 00:31:59,760
Speaker 8: White House and amongst these individuals who've been targeted by

591
00:31:59,760 --> 00:32:02,960
Speaker 8: present than Trump about what should happen. So it's not

592
00:32:03,040 --> 00:32:05,320
Speaker 8: an easy trade off, and I think it's given a choice,

593
00:32:05,440 --> 00:32:09,360
Speaker 8: some of those on President Trump's list would say yes,

594
00:32:09,400 --> 00:32:11,600
Speaker 8: I'll take the pardon just in case it's just important

595
00:32:11,600 --> 00:32:15,120
Speaker 8: for my family, and others would say never, because I'm

596
00:32:15,160 --> 00:32:17,680
Speaker 8: never going to look as if I did anything wrong.

597
00:32:17,880 --> 00:32:21,920
Speaker 8: And it maybe that one option is for President Biden

598
00:32:22,040 --> 00:32:24,560
Speaker 8: just to extend the pardon to those who earlier had

599
00:32:24,600 --> 00:32:26,800
Speaker 8: said they'll take it and they don't want to run

600
00:32:26,840 --> 00:32:29,480
Speaker 8: the risk of all the money, all the bad publicity.

601
00:32:29,920 --> 00:32:34,600
Speaker 3: Newly sworn in Senator Adam Schiff of California, a Democrat

602
00:32:35,040 --> 00:32:38,680
Speaker 3: that Trump has promised to go after, has said that

603
00:32:39,080 --> 00:32:42,880
Speaker 3: he doesn't think preemptive blanket pardons on the way out

604
00:32:42,880 --> 00:32:46,400
Speaker 3: of an administration are a good idea, but he also

605
00:32:46,640 --> 00:32:52,000
Speaker 3: said many people, including staff and the Biden administration, might

606
00:32:52,040 --> 00:32:56,040
Speaker 3: have something to worry about if former federal prosecutor Cash

607
00:32:56,080 --> 00:32:59,000
Speaker 3: Patel is confirmed to lead the FBI.

608
00:32:59,600 --> 00:33:00,480
Speaker 8: I think if.

609
00:33:00,360 --> 00:33:03,480
Speaker 5: Patel is may director of the FBI, then all bets

610
00:33:03,480 --> 00:33:03,800
Speaker 5: are off.

611
00:33:03,840 --> 00:33:06,400
Speaker 7: I mean, this is someone who will do whatever dirty

612
00:33:06,400 --> 00:33:07,720
Speaker 7: work the president wants him to do.

613
00:33:08,240 --> 00:33:12,440
Speaker 3: But people like Schiff and former Congresswoman Liz Cheney would

614
00:33:12,480 --> 00:33:15,680
Speaker 3: be protected by the speech and Debate clause though, and

615
00:33:15,840 --> 00:33:20,120
Speaker 3: prosecutors like Special Counsel Jack Smith and New York DA

616
00:33:20,400 --> 00:33:24,040
Speaker 3: Alvin Bragg would be protected because they're acting under the

617
00:33:24,120 --> 00:33:24,960
Speaker 3: color of law.

618
00:33:25,480 --> 00:33:28,920
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, most of these so called Trump prosecutions

619
00:33:28,960 --> 00:33:31,920
Speaker 8: of his opponents are fanciful because you know, it wouldn't

620
00:33:31,920 --> 00:33:34,560
Speaker 8: be able to indict them even for grand jury. And

621
00:33:34,920 --> 00:33:39,240
Speaker 8: as you mentioned, there's a variety of immunities. Nancy Pelosi

622
00:33:39,280 --> 00:33:43,160
Speaker 8: and attom Shift obviously have the community from being members

623
00:33:43,200 --> 00:33:47,760
Speaker 8: of Congress in their investigations, and the executive officials that

624
00:33:47,840 --> 00:33:51,800
Speaker 8: prosecutors have absolute immunity for the prosecutorial actions, such as

625
00:33:51,880 --> 00:33:54,680
Speaker 8: Jack Smith to some except Merrick Ireland as well. So

626
00:33:54,840 --> 00:33:58,000
Speaker 8: it's really unlikely that President Trump would have any kind

627
00:33:58,040 --> 00:34:01,840
Speaker 8: of success in prosecuting most of those he's already identified

628
00:34:01,840 --> 00:34:04,600
Speaker 8: as targets. But you know, you never know, maybe there's

629
00:34:04,680 --> 00:34:07,880
Speaker 8: going to be a state prosecutor who's willing to do

630
00:34:08,320 --> 00:34:11,759
Speaker 8: the President's bidding who isn't found by the same kind

631
00:34:11,760 --> 00:34:15,040
Speaker 8: of immunity doctrines or maybe it's just a matter of

632
00:34:15,239 --> 00:34:18,359
Speaker 8: public humiliation that he's trying to wreck, but I think

633
00:34:18,440 --> 00:34:21,560
Speaker 8: the chances of success on this political basis are few

634
00:34:21,600 --> 00:34:22,280
Speaker 8: and far between.

635
00:34:22,960 --> 00:34:26,000
Speaker 3: You mentioned the pardon of Hunter Biden, and even when

636
00:34:26,040 --> 00:34:30,640
Speaker 3: the White House Press Secretary was announcing this historic clemency package,

637
00:34:30,840 --> 00:34:34,680
Speaker 3: there were questions still about the president's decision to pardon

638
00:34:34,719 --> 00:34:37,080
Speaker 3: his son Hunter. And it seems like you know, in

639
00:34:37,120 --> 00:34:40,440
Speaker 3: the history books when they talk about the Biden administration

640
00:34:40,719 --> 00:34:43,560
Speaker 3: and pardons, the first thing that we'll be mentioned is

641
00:34:43,600 --> 00:34:46,400
Speaker 3: that he pardoned his son when he promised.

642
00:34:46,000 --> 00:34:48,719
Speaker 8: He wouldn't exactly, And there's two things about it. I mean,

643
00:34:48,840 --> 00:34:51,040
Speaker 8: first of all, he said he wouldn't pardon his son

644
00:34:51,120 --> 00:34:53,520
Speaker 8: and then did it, which again looks bad in terms

645
00:34:53,520 --> 00:34:56,239
Speaker 8: of history. But the second thing is he seems to

646
00:34:56,280 --> 00:35:01,879
Speaker 8: be blaming his own Justice Department for politicized prosecution of Hunter.

647
00:35:02,080 --> 00:35:04,279
Speaker 8: That doesn't go down well with me at all in

648
00:35:04,320 --> 00:35:07,200
Speaker 8: the sense that he's sort of abandoning those that he,

649
00:35:07,239 --> 00:35:10,040
Speaker 8: in fact has empowered to make those decisions. So I

650
00:35:10,040 --> 00:35:13,080
Speaker 8: think for that reason as well, pardon of Hunter Biden

651
00:35:13,400 --> 00:35:16,320
Speaker 8: is going to sit uneasily with many people. Again, the

652
00:35:16,440 --> 00:35:18,759
Speaker 8: change of mind and the fact that he blamed his

653
00:35:18,760 --> 00:35:21,160
Speaker 8: own Justice Department for politicized prosecution.

654
00:35:21,760 --> 00:35:23,760
Speaker 3: So now let's turn to Trump for a minute, because

655
00:35:23,800 --> 00:35:27,360
Speaker 3: he said in an interview published with Time magazine, he

656
00:35:27,520 --> 00:35:30,320
Speaker 3: said that within minutes or hours of taking office, he

657
00:35:30,360 --> 00:35:35,000
Speaker 3: would pardon people convicted of crimes related to the January

658
00:35:35,160 --> 00:35:38,680
Speaker 3: sixth attack. And Trump has been saying versions of that

659
00:35:38,960 --> 00:35:41,960
Speaker 3: for years. What kind of a message would that send?

660
00:35:42,239 --> 00:35:44,959
Speaker 8: Well, he has said that consistently, but he's been inconsistent

661
00:35:45,239 --> 00:35:49,960
Speaker 8: with respect to whether to offer pardon to all January

662
00:35:50,120 --> 00:35:54,359
Speaker 8: sixth insurgents, if you will, protesters, or just those who

663
00:35:54,360 --> 00:35:58,040
Speaker 8: are nonviolent. You know, I can understand the pardon for

664
00:35:58,160 --> 00:36:01,040
Speaker 8: the non violent trespassers, but I think with those who

665
00:36:01,120 --> 00:36:04,239
Speaker 8: actually attacked officers, you know, I think that it's been

666
00:36:04,280 --> 00:36:08,080
Speaker 8: a terrible signal that you can attack a police officer

667
00:36:08,160 --> 00:36:11,120
Speaker 8: and the President's going to get out of jail card free.

668
00:36:11,360 --> 00:36:14,560
Speaker 3: The early December that Biden administration received nearly twelve thousand

669
00:36:14,600 --> 00:36:18,400
Speaker 3: petitions for clemency and more than fourteen hundred petitions for pardons.

670
00:36:18,560 --> 00:36:20,640
Speaker 3: So do you think that Biden will hand out more

671
00:36:20,719 --> 00:36:24,640
Speaker 3: pardons or grants of clemency before he leaves office.

672
00:36:24,800 --> 00:36:26,680
Speaker 8: I'm convinced we will, but it's not going to be

673
00:36:26,680 --> 00:36:30,680
Speaker 8: this wholesale nature as the most recent list of clemency petitions.

674
00:36:30,719 --> 00:36:34,399
Speaker 8: In particular, I think there'll be more targeted individuals, case

675
00:36:34,480 --> 00:36:38,040
Speaker 8: by a case basis, those whose pardon applications may have

676
00:36:38,080 --> 00:36:41,760
Speaker 8: been pending for several years now, so we'll see more.

677
00:36:42,239 --> 00:36:47,160
Speaker 8: And I'm still guessing that we'll see commutations for those

678
00:36:47,280 --> 00:36:48,319
Speaker 8: on death row.

679
00:36:48,520 --> 00:36:50,960
Speaker 3: But time will tell the time of less than a month.

680
00:36:51,239 --> 00:36:54,000
Speaker 3: Thanks so much. How that's Professor Harold Krent of a

681
00:36:54,120 --> 00:36:56,920
Speaker 3: Chicago Kent College of Law. And that's it for this

682
00:36:57,040 --> 00:37:00,000
Speaker 3: edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you've ben own.

683
00:37:00,000 --> 00:37:02,840
Speaker 3: Always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening

684
00:37:02,880 --> 00:37:06,560
Speaker 3: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg

685
00:37:06,600 --> 00:37:10,640
Speaker 3: dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso, and

686
00:37:10,800 --> 00:37:12,040
Speaker 3: this is Bloomberg