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

2
00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:15,000
Speaker 1: It's a totally false accusation. I have absolutely no idea,

3
00:00:15,080 --> 00:00:18,079
Speaker 1: which is there's some picture where we're shaking hands. It

4
00:00:18,200 --> 00:00:21,520
Speaker 1: looks like at some kind of it. That was former

5
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:26,480
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump in June of denying advice columnist E

6
00:00:26,680 --> 00:00:29,560
Speaker 1: Jean Carol's claims that he raped her in a dressing

7
00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:32,599
Speaker 1: room in a New York department store in the nineteen nineties.

8
00:00:33,159 --> 00:00:36,320
Speaker 1: Carol has sued Trump for defamation, and that suit is

9
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:40,120
Speaker 1: scheduled for trial in April. In the meantime, Trump sworn

10
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:44,159
Speaker 1: testimony was taken on October nineteenth that Mara Lago and

11
00:00:44,320 --> 00:00:47,360
Speaker 1: parts of that deposition have been unsealed, joining me as

12
00:00:47,400 --> 00:00:51,440
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. So, Eric, why did the

13
00:00:51,520 --> 00:00:55,200
Speaker 1: judge unseal the deposition? Well, this was just an excerpt

14
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:57,400
Speaker 1: of the deposition that was actually on steel and there

15
00:00:57,440 --> 00:01:00,840
Speaker 1: was it was unstealed by the judge because it was included.

16
00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:03,960
Speaker 1: This portion of it was included in one of A.

17
00:01:04,080 --> 00:01:07,720
Speaker 1: Gene Carroll's filings and the defamation and battery case that

18
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:10,080
Speaker 1: she filed against him. She was trying to argue that

19
00:01:10,440 --> 00:01:12,640
Speaker 1: you know, they didn't really need more discovery in this

20
00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:16,120
Speaker 1: case because Trump had already been questioned extensively about the

21
00:01:16,120 --> 00:01:20,240
Speaker 1: alleged rapes that occurred and the defamation. So they're arguing

22
00:01:20,319 --> 00:01:22,640
Speaker 1: that they need to wrap up discovery move on. And

23
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:25,039
Speaker 1: their their evidence for this was to say, hey, look

24
00:01:25,080 --> 00:01:27,920
Speaker 1: at all this, all these questions that Trump already answered,

25
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:30,880
Speaker 1: and they argued that that needed to be made public

26
00:01:31,240 --> 00:01:35,960
Speaker 1: under New York's rules. What struck me most about the

27
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:39,440
Speaker 1: excerpt is that Trump didn't hold back at all in

28
00:01:39,480 --> 00:01:42,280
Speaker 1: the deposition. It seemed like he did everything that a

29
00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:45,039
Speaker 1: lawyer would tell a client not to do. Yeah, it

30
00:01:45,080 --> 00:01:47,560
Speaker 1: was definitely classic, you know Trump. It was kind of

31
00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:50,520
Speaker 1: what you might expect him to sound like under oath

32
00:01:50,560 --> 00:01:53,240
Speaker 1: in a case like this. You know, she didn't hold

33
00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:55,920
Speaker 1: back and saying, for example, that he was not attracted

34
00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:58,120
Speaker 1: to ee Gene Carol and and sort of trying to

35
00:01:58,160 --> 00:02:01,600
Speaker 1: defend his statement as a usedly defamatory statement by the way,

36
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:03,920
Speaker 1: that she was not his type. And that's an argument

37
00:02:03,960 --> 00:02:05,960
Speaker 1: that he made early on in two thousand nineteen, when

38
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:08,800
Speaker 1: he was trying to explain that he did not rape

39
00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:11,200
Speaker 1: her um and claimed that he had never even met her,

40
00:02:11,200 --> 00:02:14,440
Speaker 1: in no contact with her whatsoever, um, And he thought

41
00:02:14,480 --> 00:02:16,360
Speaker 1: that it would be a good idea to say that

42
00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:19,880
Speaker 1: she wasn't his type, to sort of bolster that argument. Um.

43
00:02:19,919 --> 00:02:22,520
Speaker 1: And that has been one of several statements that Trump

44
00:02:22,520 --> 00:02:24,120
Speaker 1: made that has been in the sort of the center

45
00:02:24,200 --> 00:02:27,200
Speaker 1: of this defamation case. And he was asked about that

46
00:02:27,280 --> 00:02:30,079
Speaker 1: sort of extensively in this deposition and explained in every

47
00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:32,040
Speaker 1: which way he could that he was not in any

48
00:02:32,040 --> 00:02:35,720
Speaker 1: way possibly attracted her and never could be. He called

49
00:02:35,880 --> 00:02:39,600
Speaker 1: the suit itself a big fat hoax. And that's a

50
00:02:39,639 --> 00:02:42,640
Speaker 1: word we've been hearing from him for many, many years.

51
00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:46,920
Speaker 1: And Carol's lawyer called him on that. Yes, you know,

52
00:02:47,040 --> 00:02:50,040
Speaker 1: she wanted to, I think make the points that Mr

53
00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:52,560
Speaker 1: Trump sort of calls a lot of things hoaxes that

54
00:02:52,680 --> 00:02:57,240
Speaker 1: in fact are real. So, for example, she asked him

55
00:02:57,320 --> 00:03:00,240
Speaker 1: to explain, you know, why why he used the word

56
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:02,160
Speaker 1: hopes so often, and he sort of went into a

57
00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:06,160
Speaker 1: long answer saying Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, saying

58
00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:09,400
Speaker 1: it was all a hope, um, the impeachment hoax, you know,

59
00:03:09,560 --> 00:03:13,440
Speaker 1: Obama spying on his campaign hopes, all these hoaxes and

60
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:16,519
Speaker 1: eating Carroll's lawyer said, you know what about climate change,

61
00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:18,720
Speaker 1: You said, that's a hoax, And he said, yes, that

62
00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: is a hoax for the most part, and went on

63
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:24,400
Speaker 1: to say how the environmental movement was a hoax, and

64
00:03:24,520 --> 00:03:26,200
Speaker 1: so you know, made made a lot a lot of

65
00:03:26,200 --> 00:03:28,880
Speaker 1: comments like that that she sort of wanted to illustrate. Well,

66
00:03:28,919 --> 00:03:31,960
Speaker 1: maybe when you say hoax, maybe it's not actually a hope.

67
00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 1: But you know, his transcripts or speaks for itself. There

68
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:40,440
Speaker 1: was his lawyer there to caution him or give him advice.

69
00:03:41,280 --> 00:03:44,600
Speaker 1: His lawyer was there. Lenahaba was there. She objected, you

70
00:03:44,640 --> 00:03:47,800
Speaker 1: know here there too, some of the questions that were

71
00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:50,119
Speaker 1: asked with a way they were asked, But there wasn't

72
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:53,440
Speaker 1: any indication on the transcript that she was interrupting her

73
00:03:53,440 --> 00:03:57,240
Speaker 1: client to get him to say or not saying anything.

74
00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:01,240
Speaker 1: So um, he was definitely very very un filtered. You know,

75
00:04:01,320 --> 00:04:04,720
Speaker 1: that's whether or not a jury would make anything of this.

76
00:04:04,960 --> 00:04:07,600
Speaker 1: You know, who knows. I mean, just because Trump has

77
00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:11,119
Speaker 1: called a lot of things hoaxes doesn't automatically mean that

78
00:04:11,600 --> 00:04:14,360
Speaker 1: eg and kills cases. It's true, and it's just something

79
00:04:14,360 --> 00:04:17,279
Speaker 1: that the jury will take into accounts when they're weighing

80
00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:20,520
Speaker 1: these allegations in the defense, so as far as the

81
00:04:20,560 --> 00:04:24,080
Speaker 1: alleged attack, which he denies. He was also asked, have

82
00:04:24,200 --> 00:04:28,680
Speaker 1: you ever kissed a woman without her consent? And he

83
00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:33,080
Speaker 1: got aggravated with the attorney at that point. Yeah. It's

84
00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:36,440
Speaker 1: hard to tell exactly what his tone was, but he did.

85
00:04:36,760 --> 00:04:38,960
Speaker 1: He said that he, uh, you know, he kind of

86
00:04:39,120 --> 00:04:40,840
Speaker 1: thought about it for a Minute's like, I don't think

87
00:04:40,839 --> 00:04:43,880
Speaker 1: I've had any complaints about that, except maybe from your

88
00:04:43,920 --> 00:04:46,440
Speaker 1: client who is a liar or something to that effect.

89
00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 1: You know. Then Kills lawyer asked him as well, you know,

90
00:04:50,600 --> 00:04:53,640
Speaker 1: do you know what sexual harassment means? Um, And his

91
00:04:53,720 --> 00:04:57,000
Speaker 1: response was yeah, pretty much. That's actually where that particular

92
00:04:57,160 --> 00:05:00,159
Speaker 1: excerpt of the transcript cut off. But yeah, he he

93
00:05:00,279 --> 00:05:04,080
Speaker 1: was asked a lot of details about his behavior with women. Um.

94
00:05:04,160 --> 00:05:07,360
Speaker 1: He denied it, except to say that anyone who claims

95
00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:10,920
Speaker 1: otherwise is lying. And it's worth noting that in this case,

96
00:05:11,279 --> 00:05:15,560
Speaker 1: Kills lawyers have already deposed two women who previously accused

97
00:05:15,839 --> 00:05:20,799
Speaker 1: Trump of sexual assault to sort of bolster their argument

98
00:05:20,839 --> 00:05:24,719
Speaker 1: that Mr Trump has this pattern of behavior. So we

99
00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:28,520
Speaker 1: haven't seen those depositions yet, but I'm sure that they

100
00:05:28,560 --> 00:05:32,400
Speaker 1: will be used if the case goes to trial. Even

101
00:05:32,440 --> 00:05:37,279
Speaker 1: when he seems to get caught in apparent inconsistency, he

102
00:05:37,400 --> 00:05:41,760
Speaker 1: tries to go around it, which is something we've seen before.

103
00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:47,040
Speaker 1: He ended up calling Carol's publisher radical left leaning. Yeah,

104
00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:50,960
Speaker 1: he did. You know, Kill's lawyer as him about some

105
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:53,520
Speaker 1: of his remarks that he had made publicly that were

106
00:05:53,560 --> 00:05:56,840
Speaker 1: in the case, you know, accusing Carroll of making these

107
00:05:56,880 --> 00:05:59,200
Speaker 1: false allegations to try to sell a book that she

108
00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:01,919
Speaker 1: had written into that of the nineteen and he had

109
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:05,520
Speaker 1: made some comments about her publisher being radical and left leaning.

110
00:06:05,920 --> 00:06:08,280
Speaker 1: He was asked about that, and it was pointed out

111
00:06:08,279 --> 00:06:12,080
Speaker 1: to him that the publisher, HarperCollins Um, actually published his

112
00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:15,640
Speaker 1: son in law, Jared Kushner's book Um, and Trump's response was, well,

113
00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:17,840
Speaker 1: it could be that they published from very bad ones too,

114
00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:21,120
Speaker 1: So he was sort of called out on an inconsistency

115
00:06:21,240 --> 00:06:24,040
Speaker 1: there and just sort of brushed it off. I know

116
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:27,400
Speaker 1: that Eegene, Carol said she saved the dress from the

117
00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:31,280
Speaker 1: alleged encounter, and they want to do a DNA test

118
00:06:31,360 --> 00:06:35,080
Speaker 1: on it. Has that test been done well? Actually, I

119
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:37,600
Speaker 1: think that they were doing a DNA test and had

120
00:06:37,640 --> 00:06:41,000
Speaker 1: found some some samples of human DNA, whether it's hair

121
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:43,880
Speaker 1: or things like that, and just wanted to try to

122
00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:47,160
Speaker 1: get actually a swab of Trump's you know, cheek or

123
00:06:47,200 --> 00:06:50,120
Speaker 1: something like that inside of his cheek to get a

124
00:06:50,240 --> 00:06:53,080
Speaker 1: DNA test to compare it to. My understanding is that

125
00:06:53,279 --> 00:06:56,160
Speaker 1: has not happened, and that it may not happen. I

126
00:06:56,279 --> 00:06:58,800
Speaker 1: believe at one point Ms Carroll's lawyer had said that

127
00:06:58,920 --> 00:07:01,640
Speaker 1: she was sort of willing to drop that just to

128
00:07:02,000 --> 00:07:05,400
Speaker 1: get things moving along. And frankly, I do think that

129
00:07:05,520 --> 00:07:07,520
Speaker 1: she has said she she believes she has such a

130
00:07:07,560 --> 00:07:10,840
Speaker 1: strong case without it that she does not, um, you know,

131
00:07:11,000 --> 00:07:13,480
Speaker 1: need it. But I do not believe that that test

132
00:07:13,520 --> 00:07:16,080
Speaker 1: has ever been done. Wow, that that is a surprise.

133
00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:18,760
Speaker 1: There's a question of whether this suit can even go

134
00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:22,120
Speaker 1: forward because he claims he made the remarks in the

135
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:25,440
Speaker 1: course of his duty as president. So tell us about

136
00:07:25,600 --> 00:07:29,200
Speaker 1: DC's highest court hearing that, right, Yeah, So we're waiting

137
00:07:29,240 --> 00:07:32,000
Speaker 1: for a decision from the highest local court in DC,

138
00:07:32,200 --> 00:07:35,239
Speaker 1: the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is basically

139
00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:39,320
Speaker 1: looking at this a narrow sort of employment law question, um,

140
00:07:39,600 --> 00:07:42,440
Speaker 1: before this case can move forward in federal court in

141
00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:45,440
Speaker 1: New York. So there's a federal law called the west

142
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:49,080
Speaker 1: Ball Act that protects all government employees from civil suits

143
00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:52,520
Speaker 1: related to their jobs. So Trump is arguing, and in fact,

144
00:07:52,560 --> 00:07:55,320
Speaker 1: the d o J backs his argument here that his

145
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:59,240
Speaker 1: denial of miss Kell's claims in two thousand nineteen qualified

146
00:07:59,320 --> 00:08:01,600
Speaker 1: as a president Joel duty that he was actually just

147
00:08:02,200 --> 00:08:05,840
Speaker 1: responding to reporter's questions about her allegations, and that was

148
00:08:05,920 --> 00:08:09,120
Speaker 1: it that he needed to maintain Americans faith in the

149
00:08:09,160 --> 00:08:11,720
Speaker 1: White House, and that denying these allegations was just part

150
00:08:11,800 --> 00:08:15,160
Speaker 1: of doing that. Ms Carroll argued that Mr Trump was

151
00:08:15,240 --> 00:08:17,600
Speaker 1: just looking out for himself, that the things that he

152
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:21,120
Speaker 1: accused her of fabricating the attack, trying to sell a book,

153
00:08:21,480 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 1: sort of conspiring with Democrats to politically hurt him, and

154
00:08:25,560 --> 00:08:28,000
Speaker 1: claiming falsely that she had accused the other men of

155
00:08:28,080 --> 00:08:30,680
Speaker 1: similar things. All these claims, she said, that goes too far.

156
00:08:30,840 --> 00:08:33,320
Speaker 1: You were defaming me. That's not part of your job.

157
00:08:33,679 --> 00:08:36,720
Speaker 1: But the DC Local Court, the DC Court of Appeals,

158
00:08:36,760 --> 00:08:40,360
Speaker 1: will decide on this narrow issue of whether those statements

159
00:08:40,400 --> 00:08:43,240
Speaker 1: that Trump made qualified as part of his job under

160
00:08:43,320 --> 00:08:46,840
Speaker 1: local employment law, and if they rule against him, then

161
00:08:46,920 --> 00:08:49,280
Speaker 1: the case will be allowed to move forward to trial

162
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:52,520
Speaker 1: in April and federal court in Manhattan. If they rule

163
00:08:52,559 --> 00:08:54,959
Speaker 1: in favor of Trump, then the case essentially ends here

164
00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:59,600
Speaker 1: because of that federal law. But surprise, surprise, Trump has

165
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:06,040
Speaker 1: heated his claims on truth social after he left the presidency. Yes,

166
00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:09,800
Speaker 1: now that's definitely a bit more problematic here for the

167
00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:11,959
Speaker 1: president because Miss Carroll is, I think a lot of

168
00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:15,240
Speaker 1: people have heard, just a few months ago, filed a

169
00:09:15,400 --> 00:09:20,280
Speaker 1: new lawsuit against Mr Trump accusing him of battery essentially

170
00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:23,319
Speaker 1: the rape allegation under a new New York law that

171
00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:26,880
Speaker 1: has temporarily lifted the statutes of limitations on these historical

172
00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:30,120
Speaker 1: assault claims for one year. So she's one of many

173
00:09:30,240 --> 00:09:33,280
Speaker 1: women who are filing battery or rape or sexual assault

174
00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:36,040
Speaker 1: lawsuits against people. Trump was one of the first people

175
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:38,480
Speaker 1: sued under that law. So we still have that civil

176
00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:42,640
Speaker 1: lawsuit accusing him a battery, and that lawsuit includes a

177
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:45,959
Speaker 1: new claim of defamation over that truth social statement. So

178
00:09:46,160 --> 00:09:49,880
Speaker 1: even if he's able to avoid this earlier lawsuit because

179
00:09:49,920 --> 00:09:52,000
Speaker 1: he was president at the time, he'll still have this

180
00:09:52,120 --> 00:09:55,360
Speaker 1: other lawsuit moving forward. And if in fact both cases

181
00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:57,679
Speaker 1: moved forward, Miss Carroll is trying to combine them for

182
00:09:57,760 --> 00:10:00,440
Speaker 1: a joint trial, so that will all be her together.

183
00:10:01,920 --> 00:10:05,600
Speaker 1: Trump tried to have that suit under the New York

184
00:10:05,800 --> 00:10:09,480
Speaker 1: Sexual Assault Law dismissed. What were his claims? What was

185
00:10:09,559 --> 00:10:14,840
Speaker 1: his reasoning? So? Mr Trump argued that the battery lawsuit

186
00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:18,719
Speaker 1: filed under the New York Adult Survivor's Act violated his

187
00:10:18,920 --> 00:10:22,520
Speaker 1: constitutional rights under the New York State Constitution by depriving

188
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:26,559
Speaker 1: him of his due process right, essentially making it. You know,

189
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:29,240
Speaker 1: he's being accused of claims that are too difficult to

190
00:10:29,400 --> 00:10:32,319
Speaker 1: refute because of their old claims, the witnesses, the evidence,

191
00:10:32,360 --> 00:10:36,520
Speaker 1: everything is so outdated, Um, according to him, And you know,

192
00:10:36,640 --> 00:10:38,600
Speaker 1: this is an argument we can probably expect to see

193
00:10:38,640 --> 00:10:40,439
Speaker 1: a lot in a lot of these cases that have

194
00:10:40,600 --> 00:10:43,360
Speaker 1: been filed under the Adult Survivor's Act. Just so happens

195
00:10:43,400 --> 00:10:45,960
Speaker 1: that his is one of the first. But in this case,

196
00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:49,840
Speaker 1: the judge denied the motion to dismiss um and has

197
00:10:49,880 --> 00:10:52,199
Speaker 1: allowed the case to move forward. The judge said that

198
00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:54,839
Speaker 1: he Mr Trump could not question, um, you know what

199
00:10:54,960 --> 00:10:58,880
Speaker 1: the legislature's and tensions were when they passed this law.

200
00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:03,400
Speaker 1: Umpuld argued that they hadn't pointed to a specific injustice

201
00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:07,800
Speaker 1: to justify lifting the statute of limitations and the and

202
00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:10,599
Speaker 1: the judge disagreed that that was not true, and he

203
00:11:10,760 --> 00:11:14,200
Speaker 1: used pretty harsh words actually, um to get an indication

204
00:11:14,240 --> 00:11:16,679
Speaker 1: of what the justice system or the judicial system might

205
00:11:16,760 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 1: think of of lawsuits challenging or claims challenging this law.

206
00:11:21,559 --> 00:11:24,959
Speaker 1: This particular judge said that it was lawfully passed and

207
00:11:25,280 --> 00:11:28,320
Speaker 1: that the arguments against it were pretty weak. I'm wondering

208
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:31,480
Speaker 1: if Trump is going to argue that this it will

209
00:11:31,559 --> 00:11:36,640
Speaker 1: interfere with his campaign and should be done after the election.

210
00:11:37,480 --> 00:11:40,600
Speaker 1: I don't think that that is probably going to work out,

211
00:11:41,360 --> 00:11:43,640
Speaker 1: just based on what some of these these judges have

212
00:11:44,000 --> 00:11:47,640
Speaker 1: been saying. The first defamation case on nineteen that is

213
00:11:47,720 --> 00:11:49,840
Speaker 1: already set to go to trial in April, I think

214
00:11:49,920 --> 00:11:52,880
Speaker 1: April eleventh, and that has already been set and is

215
00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:56,160
Speaker 1: sort of written in stone. Whether or not there later

216
00:11:56,320 --> 00:11:58,679
Speaker 1: the battery cases combined with it, that might mean that

217
00:11:58,760 --> 00:12:01,080
Speaker 1: it needs to be delay eight or maybe it'll happen

218
00:12:01,120 --> 00:12:04,559
Speaker 1: in April. But you know, he's already Trump and his

219
00:12:04,840 --> 00:12:07,280
Speaker 1: grievous adult children and his company are also going to

220
00:12:07,400 --> 00:12:11,360
Speaker 1: trial in October, and the New York Attorney General's fraud

221
00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:15,200
Speaker 1: case against the company, and then in early there's another

222
00:12:15,320 --> 00:12:18,760
Speaker 1: trial some investors who sued Trump and his his kids

223
00:12:18,800 --> 00:12:22,080
Speaker 1: and his company for fraud over a multilevel marketing company

224
00:12:22,160 --> 00:12:25,440
Speaker 1: that they've promoted on The Celebrity Apprentice. That's another sort

225
00:12:25,480 --> 00:12:28,760
Speaker 1: of big trial that's going to happen in early So

226
00:12:29,360 --> 00:12:32,160
Speaker 1: these judges are setting these these trials knowing that Trump

227
00:12:32,320 --> 00:12:35,439
Speaker 1: is running for president again and with the idea that

228
00:12:35,520 --> 00:12:38,880
Speaker 1: they can be wrapped up before he really has the campaign.

229
00:12:39,040 --> 00:12:41,040
Speaker 1: But of course that's just sort of a tip of

230
00:12:41,080 --> 00:12:44,880
Speaker 1: the iceberg for some of his legal troubles as that happens. Yeah,

231
00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:47,480
Speaker 1: I'm so curious. I'd love to know how many lawyers

232
00:12:47,600 --> 00:12:51,800
Speaker 1: he's employing at once to fight all these civil lawsuits

233
00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:56,679
Speaker 1: and the possible criminal cases. It must be quite a few. Okay,

234
00:12:56,679 --> 00:12:59,920
Speaker 1: I want to change topics now to another case. You've

235
00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:05,720
Speaker 1: and writing about Huncle con Win and come Real Farms,

236
00:13:05,720 --> 00:13:09,000
Speaker 1: but don't know where on Hennon. That's former tech entrepreneur

237
00:13:09,160 --> 00:13:13,280
Speaker 1: Heather Morgan, a rapper who dubbed herself on social media

238
00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:16,760
Speaker 1: and in music videos as the Crocodile of Wall Street.

239
00:13:17,120 --> 00:13:21,280
Speaker 1: She's also an accused cryptocurrency thief facing trial with her husband.

240
00:13:21,640 --> 00:13:24,800
Speaker 1: They're accused of trying to launder four point five billion

241
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:28,880
Speaker 1: dollars of bitcoin stolen from the bitf Next currency exchange,

242
00:13:29,400 --> 00:13:32,800
Speaker 1: and despite being under house arrest, she's got a new

243
00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:36,559
Speaker 1: job at a tech company and a dispensation from the

244
00:13:36,720 --> 00:13:40,000
Speaker 1: judge and the government to commute to it. Eric tell

245
00:13:40,080 --> 00:13:42,840
Speaker 1: us a little about Morgan. Heather Morgan and her husband

246
00:13:43,800 --> 00:13:49,200
Speaker 1: Sein were arrested last February and charged with money laundering

247
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:53,400
Speaker 1: scheme involving four and a half billion dollars of bitcoin

248
00:13:53,480 --> 00:13:55,240
Speaker 1: at least that was the value of it then stolen

249
00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:59,640
Speaker 1: from the bits and Next currency exchange. So they've denied wrongdoing.

250
00:14:00,040 --> 00:14:03,000
Speaker 1: You've been under house arrest and miss Morgan, you know,

251
00:14:03,160 --> 00:14:06,360
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, she filed herself as a rapper. She's

252
00:14:06,400 --> 00:14:09,760
Speaker 1: a former tech entrepreneur, but she used the rapper name Razzlecan,

253
00:14:10,360 --> 00:14:12,640
Speaker 1: and you know, went a little bit viral on social media,

254
00:14:12,679 --> 00:14:15,000
Speaker 1: that's sort of thing, and with some of the videos

255
00:14:15,080 --> 00:14:17,160
Speaker 1: that she would make and what she called herself the

256
00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:21,440
Speaker 1: crocodile of Wall streets. So she has been under twenty

257
00:14:21,480 --> 00:14:24,960
Speaker 1: fur home confinement for quite a while now, and some

258
00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:29,200
Speaker 1: of their hearings are frequently delayed because they seem to

259
00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:31,520
Speaker 1: be in some sort of potential plea deals. The government

260
00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:33,840
Speaker 1: has said they're trying to resolve the case without a trial.

261
00:14:34,240 --> 00:14:37,240
Speaker 1: She and her husband are facing something like twenty years

262
00:14:37,280 --> 00:14:40,720
Speaker 1: in prison. So what happened? Her lawyer filed a letter

263
00:14:40,840 --> 00:14:44,720
Speaker 1: with the magistrate judge in Federal Court in Washington asking

264
00:14:45,360 --> 00:14:48,640
Speaker 1: to have the terms of her confinement modified so that

265
00:14:48,800 --> 00:14:51,760
Speaker 1: she can leave on Monday's, Wednesdays and Fridays to go

266
00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:54,480
Speaker 1: to New York City and work at the offices of

267
00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:57,880
Speaker 1: her new employer, which was not named in the document,

268
00:14:58,040 --> 00:15:00,360
Speaker 1: but she said that she would be a working in

269
00:15:00,440 --> 00:15:04,080
Speaker 1: a role as a growth marketing and business development specialists,

270
00:15:04,280 --> 00:15:06,440
Speaker 1: and they asked to keep the name of the employer's

271
00:15:06,440 --> 00:15:09,520
Speaker 1: secret because of harassment that she had received on social

272
00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:12,720
Speaker 1: media as a result of intense media coverage of the case.

273
00:15:13,200 --> 00:15:15,720
Speaker 1: So we don't know what company this is. We really

274
00:15:15,760 --> 00:15:19,480
Speaker 1: don't know anything other than that. But the government notably

275
00:15:19,560 --> 00:15:22,240
Speaker 1: did not object to this, and the judge granted the

276
00:15:22,360 --> 00:15:26,120
Speaker 1: requests the same day, and really surprised the government didn't

277
00:15:26,160 --> 00:15:29,800
Speaker 1: object to this because they previously said that the couple

278
00:15:29,880 --> 00:15:34,240
Speaker 1: had highly troubling overseas ties and fraudulent identities, as well

279
00:15:34,320 --> 00:15:37,600
Speaker 1: as access to hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency.

280
00:15:38,120 --> 00:15:41,360
Speaker 1: And when they were arrested, the government initially asked the

281
00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:44,480
Speaker 1: judge not to allow them to be released on bail

282
00:15:44,680 --> 00:15:47,520
Speaker 1: because they were a flight risk. Correct. And also the

283
00:15:47,600 --> 00:15:51,200
Speaker 1: government has said as recently as November, I believe that

284
00:15:51,840 --> 00:15:54,760
Speaker 1: the case, as they continue to prepare for trial, regardless

285
00:15:54,760 --> 00:15:57,160
Speaker 1: of whatever PLA talks may be happening, that the case

286
00:15:57,280 --> 00:16:01,080
Speaker 1: is going to involve potentially very sent It is national

287
00:16:01,200 --> 00:16:04,680
Speaker 1: security evidence, so they had to get a special order

288
00:16:04,840 --> 00:16:08,200
Speaker 1: to only show the defense, you know, a summary of

289
00:16:08,280 --> 00:16:10,560
Speaker 1: some of their evidence because it was too sensitive and

290
00:16:10,880 --> 00:16:14,440
Speaker 1: classified to show to someone who didn't have that clearance.

291
00:16:14,640 --> 00:16:17,240
Speaker 1: So there's a national security angle to this case too,

292
00:16:17,320 --> 00:16:20,240
Speaker 1: which makes it even more interesting. But I feel like

293
00:16:20,520 --> 00:16:22,680
Speaker 1: one way or another, we're eventually going to get some

294
00:16:22,760 --> 00:16:26,000
Speaker 1: more information that maybe makes some of this makes sense.

295
00:16:26,160 --> 00:16:29,240
Speaker 1: But yeah, the government does not seem to have a

296
00:16:29,320 --> 00:16:32,440
Speaker 1: problem with this particular defendant charged in a serious crime

297
00:16:33,160 --> 00:16:35,840
Speaker 1: going to work for a technology company and going into

298
00:16:35,920 --> 00:16:38,120
Speaker 1: the city to be there in person. Maybe we'll learn

299
00:16:38,200 --> 00:16:41,680
Speaker 1: more at the status conference set for next Friday, unless

300
00:16:41,920 --> 00:16:45,040
Speaker 1: they delay that as well. Thanks so much, Eric, that's

301
00:16:45,040 --> 00:16:49,800
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. It's a case with a

302
00:16:49,920 --> 00:16:53,960
Speaker 1: legal economic and political ramifications, and it will be up

303
00:16:54,000 --> 00:16:57,160
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court to decide whether the United States

304
00:16:57,280 --> 00:17:01,520
Speaker 1: can bring criminal charges against Turk state owned halk Bank

305
00:17:01,960 --> 00:17:05,959
Speaker 1: over allegations that helped Ran to evade economic sanctions by

306
00:17:06,119 --> 00:17:09,920
Speaker 1: laundering billions in oil and gas revenues. I think it's

307
00:17:09,960 --> 00:17:13,080
Speaker 1: pretty bizarre for this court to tell the President of

308
00:17:13,080 --> 00:17:17,600
Speaker 1: the United States, as a matter of his national security exercise,

309
00:17:18,320 --> 00:17:21,479
Speaker 1: that even though the Constitution doesn't prohibit what you're doing,

310
00:17:21,840 --> 00:17:24,840
Speaker 1: even though a statute doesn't prohibit what you're doing, this

311
00:17:25,080 --> 00:17:29,080
Speaker 1: Court is going to prohibit your exercise of national security authority.

312
00:17:29,560 --> 00:17:33,680
Speaker 1: That talk about big steps, it is that's huge. Other

313
00:17:33,840 --> 00:17:37,920
Speaker 1: justices were concerned about whether allowing the federal prosecution to

314
00:17:38,040 --> 00:17:41,840
Speaker 1: proceed might open the door to US states targeting foreign

315
00:17:41,960 --> 00:17:45,960
Speaker 1: nations as well. Here are Justices Neil Gorsch and Sonya

316
00:17:46,040 --> 00:17:51,000
Speaker 1: So to mayor, then states would be free to try

317
00:17:51,440 --> 00:17:55,119
Speaker 1: to bring lawsuits against Mexico for this or that, or

318
00:17:55,560 --> 00:17:59,080
Speaker 1: perhaps China because of COVID or Who knows what a

319
00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:04,280
Speaker 1: creative state prosecutor might come up with. I don't know

320
00:18:04,480 --> 00:18:10,080
Speaker 1: how um I would want to leave to the vagrancies

321
00:18:11,119 --> 00:18:16,440
Speaker 1: of individual prosecutors. Whether it's federal or state the right

322
00:18:16,520 --> 00:18:23,359
Speaker 1: to insult another nation by giving them this unbridled power

323
00:18:24,240 --> 00:18:28,919
Speaker 1: to initiate suits joining me is constitutional law expert Harold Crant,

324
00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:32,480
Speaker 1: a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law. I'll

325
00:18:32,520 --> 00:18:35,800
Speaker 1: explain the main issue here these two is whether they're

326
00:18:36,119 --> 00:18:38,280
Speaker 1: either state or federal courts. In this case, of federal

327
00:18:38,320 --> 00:18:43,040
Speaker 1: court can try a instrumentality of a foreign government for

328
00:18:43,240 --> 00:18:46,760
Speaker 1: criminal offense. And on the First Crimes Act that we

329
00:18:47,080 --> 00:18:50,880
Speaker 1: enacted after our nation was instituted, we had the courtet

330
00:18:50,960 --> 00:18:54,000
Speaker 1: cognizance of all offenses against the United States, and so

331
00:18:54,119 --> 00:18:58,120
Speaker 1: that would seem to suggest that foreign powers foreign corporations

332
00:18:58,160 --> 00:19:02,960
Speaker 1: were included within that jurisdiction prevision. But at international common law,

333
00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:07,480
Speaker 1: federal instrumentalities and federal states were rarely included in those

334
00:19:07,600 --> 00:19:10,200
Speaker 1: kinds of criminal cases. So the question is whether that

335
00:19:10,320 --> 00:19:13,920
Speaker 1: original granted jurisdiction or subsequently under the Foreign severn the

336
00:19:13,920 --> 00:19:17,960
Speaker 1: Immunity Act, has Congress decided either yes or no to

337
00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:22,880
Speaker 1: allow criminal prosecutions against foreign entities or foreign states. All

338
00:19:22,960 --> 00:19:26,000
Speaker 1: Banks attorneys said, the world has been around for like

339
00:19:26,240 --> 00:19:30,440
Speaker 1: seven thousand years and no country has ever tried another country.

340
00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:34,680
Speaker 1: But hasn't the US sued foreign owned corporations. They have,

341
00:19:34,920 --> 00:19:37,800
Speaker 1: There have been several proceedings, but there haven't been many

342
00:19:38,000 --> 00:19:40,040
Speaker 1: and or all argument. It was clear that there was

343
00:19:40,080 --> 00:19:43,080
Speaker 1: only a handful that could be counted really two or

344
00:19:43,160 --> 00:19:46,040
Speaker 1: forty years of our nation's history. There was a discussion

345
00:19:46,160 --> 00:19:50,320
Speaker 1: of several examples where the US had brought criminal prosecution

346
00:19:50,400 --> 00:19:54,840
Speaker 1: against foreignown entities, principally of Chinese and state owned enterprises.

347
00:19:55,080 --> 00:19:58,840
Speaker 1: There are many places in the world where such prosecutions

348
00:19:59,000 --> 00:20:00,920
Speaker 1: are not from the IT and there is sort of

349
00:20:00,960 --> 00:20:05,720
Speaker 1: a common law notion that foreign entities and closely held

350
00:20:05,920 --> 00:20:09,359
Speaker 1: foreign corporations should not be subject to criminal suits. Now,

351
00:20:09,480 --> 00:20:13,080
Speaker 1: foreign officers of those corporations can be subject to criminal suits,

352
00:20:13,240 --> 00:20:17,000
Speaker 1: but not the corporations themselves. Back the common law the rule.

353
00:20:17,160 --> 00:20:20,439
Speaker 1: In this case, both President Trump and President Biden decided

354
00:20:20,480 --> 00:20:23,480
Speaker 1: not to go against individual officers of Health Bank the

355
00:20:23,560 --> 00:20:26,720
Speaker 1: Turkish Bank, instead to go after the bank itself, because

356
00:20:26,920 --> 00:20:30,080
Speaker 1: it was important to set a standard and to prosecute

357
00:20:30,280 --> 00:20:34,480
Speaker 1: the Turkish Bank itself for its efforts to help circumvent

358
00:20:34,720 --> 00:20:38,600
Speaker 1: the stations against Iran. One of the concerns, probably an

359
00:20:38,640 --> 00:20:42,560
Speaker 1: obvious concern of the justices was usurping the power of

360
00:20:42,640 --> 00:20:46,359
Speaker 1: the president to make national security decisions. It there was

361
00:20:46,400 --> 00:20:49,119
Speaker 1: an anomaly that was discussed at or larguments. On the

362
00:20:49,200 --> 00:20:53,800
Speaker 1: one hand, shouldn't be administrations of Trump and Biden, no best,

363
00:20:53,880 --> 00:20:56,359
Speaker 1: what's in the foreign diplomatic interests of the United States?

364
00:20:56,640 --> 00:20:58,680
Speaker 1: And why should it be to the course to decide

365
00:20:58,720 --> 00:21:02,960
Speaker 1: that such prosecutions are not contemplated by Congress. On the

366
00:21:03,040 --> 00:21:06,840
Speaker 1: other hand, if the position of the its government is

367
00:21:06,920 --> 00:21:10,320
Speaker 1: to be followed, that would allow prosecutions of foreign owned

368
00:21:10,440 --> 00:21:13,200
Speaker 1: entities in state court, and that would be a cummersome

369
00:21:13,240 --> 00:21:17,280
Speaker 1: embarrassment that state prosecutors could initiate charges and that the

370
00:21:17,359 --> 00:21:21,560
Speaker 1: federal government could not easily intervene to stop those prosecutions

371
00:21:21,680 --> 00:21:25,880
Speaker 1: and wouldn't get disrupt diplomatic relations. Justice Elena Kagan asked

372
00:21:25,920 --> 00:21:29,400
Speaker 1: about news reports that came out about the Trump administration

373
00:21:30,040 --> 00:21:33,840
Speaker 1: at one point allegedly pressuring the Southern District to drop

374
00:21:33,920 --> 00:21:36,760
Speaker 1: the case. Is there a question here about the power

375
00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:40,520
Speaker 1: of the executive branch to quash cases that affect international

376
00:21:40,600 --> 00:21:43,239
Speaker 1: relations or was that just one point she made? There

377
00:21:43,359 --> 00:21:46,000
Speaker 1: was a lot of discussions or oral argument about what

378
00:21:46,320 --> 00:21:49,760
Speaker 1: steps president could take if a U S Attorney in

379
00:21:50,000 --> 00:21:54,320
Speaker 1: some district went ahead with a prosecution that would embarrass

380
00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:57,800
Speaker 1: the diplomatic efforts of the government and the Representative Social

381
00:21:57,840 --> 00:22:00,640
Speaker 1: General's office with a little kg in history answer those

382
00:22:00,760 --> 00:22:04,800
Speaker 1: questions saying that there was informal mechanisms, there's discussion, there's

383
00:22:04,840 --> 00:22:08,080
Speaker 1: always good faith, but he could point to no concrete

384
00:22:08,160 --> 00:22:12,800
Speaker 1: way that the President could stop a U. S. Attorney

385
00:22:12,880 --> 00:22:16,399
Speaker 1: from bringing such a suit other than possibly a public

386
00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:19,480
Speaker 1: threat to fire the U. S. Attorney for taking steps

387
00:22:19,520 --> 00:22:22,320
Speaker 1: against the interests of the United States. And which way

388
00:22:22,400 --> 00:22:27,359
Speaker 1: do you think the statutory interpretation leads. There's a very

389
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:32,040
Speaker 1: complicated satutory interpretations questions, because at the first point, the

390
00:22:32,080 --> 00:22:35,680
Speaker 1: seventeen Statutes seems to have no limitation all in terms

391
00:22:35,720 --> 00:22:39,440
Speaker 1: of prosecutions of foreign loan entities, and the Foreign stron

392
00:22:39,520 --> 00:22:43,040
Speaker 1: Communities Act seems to talk only about civil actions and

393
00:22:43,160 --> 00:22:45,960
Speaker 1: not really about criminal actions at all. So much of

394
00:22:46,000 --> 00:22:48,200
Speaker 1: the time the oral argument was just trying to figure

395
00:22:48,200 --> 00:22:51,280
Speaker 1: out what to do about these open ended satutory terms

396
00:22:51,480 --> 00:22:54,120
Speaker 1: that didn't seem quite to fit together. But in terms

397
00:22:54,160 --> 00:22:57,080
Speaker 1: of the policy concerns, the twin acts I think of

398
00:22:57,200 --> 00:23:00,320
Speaker 1: concern were one is why should the courts be stepping

399
00:23:00,359 --> 00:23:02,639
Speaker 1: in and saying this is a bad idea to allow

400
00:23:02,800 --> 00:23:06,240
Speaker 1: prosecutions of foreign own entities when it's really in the

401
00:23:06,320 --> 00:23:10,840
Speaker 1: control of the executive branch, which is the expert in diplomacy.

402
00:23:11,000 --> 00:23:14,119
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, because of the absence of

403
00:23:14,240 --> 00:23:18,760
Speaker 1: a congressional admonition to states not to bring prosecutions against

404
00:23:18,800 --> 00:23:20,960
Speaker 1: foreign own entities or whether it's suit to be done

405
00:23:20,960 --> 00:23:22,920
Speaker 1: about that, and I think at the end of the day,

406
00:23:23,240 --> 00:23:26,680
Speaker 1: there's no good answer to those problems. Congress hasn't done

407
00:23:26,680 --> 00:23:29,560
Speaker 1: a great job here. Cons clearly did not focus on

408
00:23:29,680 --> 00:23:31,879
Speaker 1: the issue, and so the court is going to come

409
00:23:31,960 --> 00:23:35,119
Speaker 1: up with some kind of coalition. I think that might

410
00:23:35,359 --> 00:23:37,960
Speaker 1: send this case back to the Second Circuit to try

411
00:23:38,440 --> 00:23:40,760
Speaker 1: one more time to figure out what to do with

412
00:23:40,880 --> 00:23:43,320
Speaker 1: this bank, or at least to make a more clear

413
00:23:43,400 --> 00:23:47,399
Speaker 1: definition of what kind of state owned enterprises could be

414
00:23:47,640 --> 00:23:50,920
Speaker 1: prosecuted and what kind cannot, and what nexus of their

415
00:23:50,960 --> 00:23:54,600
Speaker 1: activities to the jurisdiction United States is required before the

416
00:23:54,680 --> 00:23:58,359
Speaker 1: prosecution can perceive. One possibility for a reman would be

417
00:23:58,640 --> 00:24:02,200
Speaker 1: for the Second circu It to determine whether any kind

418
00:24:02,280 --> 00:24:07,280
Speaker 1: of international common law norm against criminal prosecutions of foreign

419
00:24:07,440 --> 00:24:11,159
Speaker 1: entities can be led into the seventeen statute. Isn't that

420
00:24:11,320 --> 00:24:13,920
Speaker 1: just kicking the can down the road, because after the

421
00:24:14,000 --> 00:24:17,840
Speaker 1: second circuit makes another determination, it's going to come right

422
00:24:17,880 --> 00:24:20,560
Speaker 1: back to the Supreme Court. It might this case might

423
00:24:20,600 --> 00:24:23,800
Speaker 1: not be done. But the difficulty concertain which way. Various

424
00:24:23,840 --> 00:24:25,840
Speaker 1: members of the courts were leading stuff that they were

425
00:24:25,920 --> 00:24:29,280
Speaker 1: all troubled and they were not particularly satisfied with responses

426
00:24:29,359 --> 00:24:32,120
Speaker 1: from either of the advocates today, and it's a difficult

427
00:24:32,160 --> 00:24:34,920
Speaker 1: issue because Congress has not been clear, so I'm not

428
00:24:35,119 --> 00:24:37,280
Speaker 1: sure that there's going to be an easy resolution. The

429
00:24:37,320 --> 00:24:39,920
Speaker 1: easiest revolution would be for the Court to say either

430
00:24:40,080 --> 00:24:44,719
Speaker 1: falt prosecutions are permitted under the SEV Statute, or they

431
00:24:44,800 --> 00:24:47,520
Speaker 1: might say that the Foreign Sovereignties Immunity Act in the

432
00:24:48,119 --> 00:24:52,680
Speaker 1: seventies has more clearly limited those kinds of cases and

433
00:24:53,280 --> 00:24:57,680
Speaker 1: only will allow civil cases to be brought against for enterprises,

434
00:24:57,720 --> 00:25:01,520
Speaker 1: which would leave the administration with the only possible response

435
00:25:01,760 --> 00:25:04,880
Speaker 1: would be to go after members of the bank individually

436
00:25:05,200 --> 00:25:09,200
Speaker 1: and press criminal charges against them. Answering this requires a

437
00:25:09,359 --> 00:25:13,320
Speaker 1: complex analysis tell us about it. So the first step

438
00:25:13,480 --> 00:25:19,040
Speaker 1: is whether the statute applies to foreign states as well

439
00:25:19,200 --> 00:25:21,960
Speaker 1: as to foreign owned entities, or whether it's sort of

440
00:25:22,000 --> 00:25:25,399
Speaker 1: a common law immunity principles should be read into it.

441
00:25:25,720 --> 00:25:28,600
Speaker 1: That's the first step, and the second step is, no

442
00:25:28,760 --> 00:25:30,679
Speaker 1: matter how you come out on the first step, did

443
00:25:30,760 --> 00:25:34,160
Speaker 1: the Foreign Sovereigners Immunity Act change that at all? Because

444
00:25:34,200 --> 00:25:38,680
Speaker 1: did it address the criminal context? And again the parties disagree.

445
00:25:39,000 --> 00:25:41,040
Speaker 1: Then the third step is, even if you think that

446
00:25:41,160 --> 00:25:44,840
Speaker 1: the Foreign sobealn Immunity Act applies, then did it still

447
00:25:44,920 --> 00:25:47,960
Speaker 1: allow for this criminal exception with respect to with the

448
00:25:48,040 --> 00:25:52,080
Speaker 1: commercial activities? And therefore you can continue with the criminal

449
00:25:52,359 --> 00:25:55,440
Speaker 1: prosecution as long as you can show that the foreign

450
00:25:55,520 --> 00:25:58,680
Speaker 1: actor was engaged in commercial activities that had a sufficient

451
00:25:58,720 --> 00:26:01,280
Speaker 1: nexus to United States. The corporate court manufacture on those

452
00:26:01,320 --> 00:26:05,680
Speaker 1: issues because some may think that the SEV Statute controls US,

453
00:26:05,920 --> 00:26:09,639
Speaker 1: Others may think that the Foreign sovereignt Immuniact change what

454
00:26:09,880 --> 00:26:13,320
Speaker 1: the import of the statute was, and others may think

455
00:26:13,359 --> 00:26:16,679
Speaker 1: that even if the SEV Statute has been changed by

456
00:26:16,720 --> 00:26:21,240
Speaker 1: the Foreign Sovereignty the Act, that the commercial exception in

457
00:26:21,640 --> 00:26:25,040
Speaker 1: the Foreign Sovereignties Comuni Act may control as a second

458
00:26:25,080 --> 00:26:27,879
Speaker 1: circuit in fact held, which would then lead to the

459
00:26:28,000 --> 00:26:31,679
Speaker 1: possibility of the prostitution going forward. As the Roberts courts

460
00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:36,680
Speaker 1: been careful about intervening in cases involving foreign affairs. The

461
00:26:36,760 --> 00:26:39,560
Speaker 1: probign Courts has decided a number of cases with respect

462
00:26:39,640 --> 00:26:43,480
Speaker 1: to foreign affairs that really shy about that kind of involvement.

463
00:26:43,800 --> 00:26:46,760
Speaker 1: This case is a little different because the court comes

464
00:26:46,800 --> 00:26:49,240
Speaker 1: at it only after the question has been decided by

465
00:26:49,600 --> 00:26:53,920
Speaker 1: two administrations. And everybody says, look, this Congress itself to

466
00:26:54,040 --> 00:26:57,080
Speaker 1: set the parameters for what prisons should do it and

467
00:26:57,160 --> 00:27:00,680
Speaker 1: what kind of discretions they should exercise, and risks was

468
00:27:00,800 --> 00:27:04,560
Speaker 1: open ended in the nine Statute under the Foreign sovereigns

469
00:27:04,680 --> 00:27:08,400
Speaker 1: Muni Act. You can interpret it either way that Congress

470
00:27:08,480 --> 00:27:10,840
Speaker 1: only wanted to allow civil actions to go forward and

471
00:27:10,960 --> 00:27:14,720
Speaker 1: only then under particular exceptions, or whether Congress simply just

472
00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:18,960
Speaker 1: didn't think about criminal prosecutions at all, because there's nothing

473
00:27:19,080 --> 00:27:23,359
Speaker 1: specific about criminal prosecutions under the Floorn seven Meaniac. So

474
00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:26,960
Speaker 1: both sides I think would be happy if Congress would

475
00:27:26,960 --> 00:27:30,240
Speaker 1: get involved and set the stage. Thanks so much. How

476
00:27:30,760 --> 00:27:34,040
Speaker 1: that's Professor Harold Crent of the Chicago Kent College of Law.

477
00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:36,720
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

478
00:27:37,119 --> 00:27:39,440
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

479
00:27:39,480 --> 00:27:43,760
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

480
00:27:44,000 --> 00:27:48,960
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast, slash Law,

481
00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:52,000
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

482
00:27:52,080 --> 00:27:55,520
Speaker 1: week night at ten BM Wall Street Time. I'm June

483
00:27:55,560 --> 00:27:57,720
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg