WEBVTT - SBF Faces Tough Cross-Examination 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.960 Sam bankman Fried has taken a big gamble, taking a 0:00:14.080 --> 0:00:17.320 stand in his own defense to try to convince stures 0:00:17.360 --> 0:00:19.960 that he didn't orchestrate one of the biggest frauds of 0:00:20.040 --> 0:00:24.079 all time. During direct examination, the thirty one year old 0:00:24.079 --> 0:00:28.280 painted himself as a disengaged CEO who didn't code, didn't 0:00:28.360 --> 0:00:32.080 oversee Alameda research, or do little more than skim the 0:00:32.120 --> 0:00:35.879 firm's terms of service. Prosecutors say that he directed the 0:00:35.960 --> 0:00:41.640 transfer of FTX customer money into Alameda for investments, political donations, 0:00:41.680 --> 0:00:45.880 and expensive real estate before both companies filed for bankruptcy, 0:00:46.400 --> 0:00:50.280 and on cross examination, the prosecutor confronted him with many 0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:53.959 of his public and private statements that contrasted with his 0:00:54.000 --> 0:00:57.400 story about his role in the collapse of FTX. Joining 0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:00.520 me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava Benny Morrison, who covering 0:01:00.560 --> 0:01:03.800 the trial. How did he seem today? During the direct 0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:05.840 part of his testimony. 0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:10.199 He seems to relaxed. He was using very simple explanations 0:01:10.240 --> 0:01:14.040 to go through the final days at FTX, the relationship 0:01:14.080 --> 0:01:17.319 between FTX and Alameda. He'd got a warning from the 0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:21.000 judge earlier that he shouldn't use sort of vague generalities 0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:25.400 to explain his version of events. It wouldn't go well 0:01:25.440 --> 0:01:27.280 with the jury. So it seems like he took that 0:01:27.360 --> 0:01:30.480 on board. So he seemed to pre relax when he 0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:33.240 was giving answers. He was talking directly to the jury, 0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:36.600 and he seemed pretty comfortable that demeanors seemed to change 0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:38.479 a little bit under cross examination. 0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:41.720 Did the prosecutor come at him right out of the gate? 0:01:42.240 --> 0:01:45.679 She did, And she went through dozens of comments he 0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:50.320 had made before and just after FTX collapsed, comments on Twitter, 0:01:50.720 --> 0:01:54.920 comments during press interviews before Congress, even in internal flack 0:01:55.000 --> 0:02:00.120 messages with other FTX executives, and she asked him, did 0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:02.440 you say this? Did you say words to this effect? 0:02:02.960 --> 0:02:05.920 And at some point contrasted it with other comments he 0:02:05.960 --> 0:02:08.800 had made, so trying to show the Jewy that there 0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:12.640 may beholds in the versions of events that he has 0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:16.280 provided so far. He seemed to be a little bit 0:02:16.720 --> 0:02:19.960 combative and a little bit vague. He repeated again and again, 0:02:20.360 --> 0:02:23.600 I'm not sure. I can't recall or he would quibble 0:02:23.680 --> 0:02:27.000 with the exact wording or the nuance of a comment 0:02:27.200 --> 0:02:30.519 in a Financial Times article, or a New York Times 0:02:30.639 --> 0:02:34.040 article or even a Bloomberg article. So it was painstaking 0:02:34.080 --> 0:02:36.800 at times because she would ask him if he said something, 0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:38.680 then he would dispute it, and then she would pull 0:02:38.720 --> 0:02:40.880 up the article and then put it to him again, 0:02:40.960 --> 0:02:42.840 and then he would say, oh, I don't recall I 0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:44.760 don't necessarily agree with that context. 0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:48.520 So what was the main thrust of her questions? What 0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:52.680 areas was she trying to get into or disprove From. 0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:56.200 The get go, she definitely used his words against him, 0:02:56.280 --> 0:03:00.560 really seizing on public statements he had made about what 0:03:00.639 --> 0:03:03.800 the problems were at FTX and his reaction to it. 0:03:04.160 --> 0:03:07.720 She also tried to shape him as a good storyteller 0:03:07.919 --> 0:03:12.640 who was tailoring his testimony after months of reviewing the 0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:16.720 government's evidence against him, also suggesting that he was tailoring 0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:20.120 his earlier media interviews to serve human to serve his 0:03:20.240 --> 0:03:23.600 case under directed domination. He was asked why did you 0:03:24.160 --> 0:03:28.560 go on this so called apology press tour after FTX collapsed, 0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:30.720 and he said he felt like it was the right 0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:33.040 thing to do, and he felt like he had to 0:03:33.120 --> 0:03:35.080 explain himself to the world. 0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:38.920 You call the shots as CEO, the prosecutor asked, I 0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:41.600 call some of them. He said, you think of yourself 0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:45.280 as a smart guy in many ways, not always. He said, 0:03:45.640 --> 0:03:48.360 you thought highly of yourself, and he said I did. 0:03:48.720 --> 0:03:50.360 You can see what it's like reading it. What was 0:03:50.400 --> 0:03:53.800 that like in the courtroom? Did it seem very antagonistic? 0:03:54.880 --> 0:03:58.440 Not really? Well, most of her coffee nomination was focused 0:03:58.440 --> 0:04:02.120 on his public statements and pointing out any holes in 0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:06.520 everything that he has said since FTX collapsed. She seemed 0:04:06.560 --> 0:04:11.160 to thread through some characterizations of him, you know, asking 0:04:11.200 --> 0:04:13.960 if he thought he was a good storyteller, if he 0:04:14.200 --> 0:04:16.920 was a CEO who called all the shops, and if 0:04:16.960 --> 0:04:19.880 he thought he was smart. He didn't seem to be 0:04:19.960 --> 0:04:23.400 personally affronted by that or offended at all. He was 0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:26.880 very dead tam when he was replying. In many ways, 0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:29.120 yes he thought he was smart. In other ways he didn't. Yes, 0:04:29.160 --> 0:04:31.880 he did think he was a good CEO. So it 0:04:32.000 --> 0:04:36.560 was interesting to get those little characterizations into his testimony. 0:04:37.080 --> 0:04:39.800 Where was she able to, you know, crack some holes 0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:40.880 in his testimony? 0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:45.799 So she scored a couple of concessions, namely that bankman 0:04:45.960 --> 0:04:49.080 Freed made the decision on a number of very costly 0:04:49.160 --> 0:04:53.000 venture investments, at Alameda. She was really trying to hone 0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:58.320 in on how involved he was with Alameda day to 0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:02.280 day previously, to distance himself from it publicly and in 0:05:02.279 --> 0:05:06.000 this trial as well. He definitely did that during direct examination, 0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:11.320 trying to put himself at armslan from other corporating witnesses, 0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:15.240 including Mishad Sing and Gary Wong, who will remember changed 0:05:15.480 --> 0:05:19.160 fdx's code to give Alameda special privileges on the exchange. 0:05:19.360 --> 0:05:23.480 He also sought to downplay Alameda's ten million liability to FTX, 0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:27.680 saying at the time, yes, it warranted further analysis, but 0:05:28.120 --> 0:05:30.160 if it was more, he would have been in christis no, 0:05:30.320 --> 0:05:33.920 but he wasn't at the time. So during cross examination, 0:05:34.800 --> 0:05:39.800 Sasson really tried to challenge that arm's length characterization that 0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:42.200 he had provided, and she did get a couple of 0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:42.640 wins there. 0:05:43.400 --> 0:05:47.760 How much did he blame Caroline Allison or one of 0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:50.480 the other two main witnesses for what. 0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:54.680 Happened, It was very subtle, to be honest. Today, he 0:05:54.839 --> 0:05:58.320 mentioned a meeting that he had with Caroline in twenty 0:05:58.360 --> 0:06:01.560 twenty two and he had discussed the need for Alim 0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:06.359 to hedge to protect against market volatility. At the time. 0:06:06.839 --> 0:06:08.760 He said that when he brought this up to her, 0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:10.880 she didn't do it initially, and then he brought it 0:06:10.960 --> 0:06:14.080 up again during this meeting and she started crying and 0:06:14.120 --> 0:06:18.000 then offer to resign. So he didn't explicitly say this 0:06:18.200 --> 0:06:21.320 was her fold and she's the one to blame, but 0:06:21.560 --> 0:06:24.440 that was the tone of what he was saying as well. 0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:29.200 With Mischad and Gary, he mentioned during his dress examination 0:06:29.680 --> 0:06:33.000 that yes, he directed them to change the code, but 0:06:33.080 --> 0:06:36.960 he was not a software developer or a coder, and 0:06:37.000 --> 0:06:41.000 he wasn't fully all over exactly what they were doing, 0:06:41.040 --> 0:06:42.520 and he trusted them to do the work. 0:06:43.279 --> 0:06:47.320 There seemed to be a lot about backdating of documents. 0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:48.880 Did he do a lot of backdating? 0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:55.240 Allegedly they asked him about a document that he had 0:06:55.279 --> 0:06:59.160 signed apparently a year after it came into effects, and 0:06:59.200 --> 0:07:01.640 so Food asked him was this something that he did regularly, 0:07:01.760 --> 0:07:04.960 which he denied. We've heard earlier in the trial that 0:07:05.360 --> 0:07:10.160 these documents were backdated and quite frequently. This sort of 0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:15.400 ties into bateman free defense that he was relying on 0:07:15.760 --> 0:07:18.640 the presence and the advice and the guidance of lawyers 0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:22.119 within FTX and outside of FTX as well on matters 0:07:22.200 --> 0:07:22.480 like this. 0:07:22.840 --> 0:07:25.760 I mean, would you say he held up well. 0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:29.239 During cross bankman Fred didn't seem to lose his call 0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:34.960 during cross examination, but the sheer volume of his public 0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:40.520 statements was quite compelling just to hear Sassoon lay them 0:07:40.560 --> 0:07:44.400 out one by one, asking him firstly, did you say this? 0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:46.480 And then he would approval with it, or say he 0:07:46.520 --> 0:07:49.000 didn't remember, or sort of give some vague answer, and 0:07:49.000 --> 0:07:51.080 then she would pull it up. But the jury could 0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:54.600 see it there clear as day in writing. I think 0:07:54.640 --> 0:07:56.040 that was quite compelling. 0:07:56.560 --> 0:07:59.119 So he's back on the stand tomorrow. Is the trial 0:07:59.160 --> 0:07:59.560 coming to. 0:07:59.520 --> 0:08:02.400 An endswer certainly getting to the pointy end of the trial. 0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:07.080 We're expecting across the conomination to last for a couple 0:08:07.120 --> 0:08:11.120 more hours on Tuesday, and then there will probably be 0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:16.080 some redirect from Bateman Freed's attorneys, and then we may 0:08:16.160 --> 0:08:20.160 hear from some rebuttal witnesses. So we're thinking that the 0:08:20.200 --> 0:08:24.800 evidence might be all done dusted by Tuesday afternoon or 0:08:24.800 --> 0:08:25.520 Wednesday morning. 0:08:25.800 --> 0:08:28.480 And who were there rebuttal witnesses that the prosecution is 0:08:28.520 --> 0:08:29.160 going to call. 0:08:29.600 --> 0:08:34.000 We could hear from potentially two rebuttal witnesses. One is 0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:39.240 a FBI agent and another was a investor in FDx 0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:40.719 and what was. 0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:43.080 The courtroom like today? Mean? Was it packed again? 0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:47.360 The courtroom was absolutely packed. Reporters have been lining up 0:08:47.400 --> 0:08:51.280 outside the courthouse since last night to try and get 0:08:51.600 --> 0:08:55.200 one of twenty twenty three on press seats inside the courtroom. 0:08:55.200 --> 0:08:57.400 If they couldn't get a seat there, they had to 0:08:57.440 --> 0:09:00.880 go to a number of overflow rooms in other areas 0:09:00.880 --> 0:09:04.040 at the courthouse, So there was a lot of competition 0:09:04.240 --> 0:09:07.160 to get inside to get a front row seat to 0:09:07.240 --> 0:09:10.080 his testimony. Obviously, this is a major point in the trial, 0:09:10.120 --> 0:09:11.400 and the. 0:09:11.440 --> 0:09:13.480 US Attorney was there for the Southern District. 0:09:14.520 --> 0:09:18.240 Yes, the US Attorney Damian Williams was seated in the 0:09:18.240 --> 0:09:22.880 front row with a few other senior officials from his office. 0:09:23.000 --> 0:09:27.359 He watched mainly the cross examination of Bateman free this afternoon. 0:09:27.720 --> 0:09:31.560 He's also popped in for other important parts in the trial, 0:09:32.160 --> 0:09:36.120 the evidence of Caroline Ellison and also the opening statement. 0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:39.080 So coming down to the wire, we'll check in with 0:09:39.120 --> 0:09:41.600 you again tomorrow, Eva to hear about the conclusion of 0:09:41.640 --> 0:09:45.800 Sam bagman Fried's testimony. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eva. Benny 0:09:45.920 --> 0:09:48.760 Morrison coming up next on the Bloomberg Last Show, We'll 0:09:48.800 --> 0:09:52.920 talk to former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein about the tactics 0:09:52.960 --> 0:09:57.520 and strategy at play during SBF's testimony. I'm June Grasso, 0:09:57.600 --> 0:10:00.280 and you're listening to Bloomberg. It would seem and like 0:10:00.320 --> 0:10:02.640 this is the time for a judge to give some 0:10:02.880 --> 0:10:06.120 leeway to the defense when the defendants on the stand yes. 0:10:06.400 --> 0:10:09.120 And I'm sure the judge did that, And I'm sure 0:10:09.160 --> 0:10:12.199 the judge gave him great latitude because the judge does 0:10:12.240 --> 0:10:14.960 not want to be seen as tipping the scales one 0:10:15.000 --> 0:10:17.760 way or the other, or have it become an appeal 0:10:17.800 --> 0:10:20.319 issue if he's too heavy handed in what he does 0:10:20.760 --> 0:10:23.520 and the way he handles the witnesses and the evidence. 0:10:23.559 --> 0:10:27.920 So I'm sure you know us seeing the judge react 0:10:28.080 --> 0:10:30.360 in that way, which was just answer yes or no, 0:10:31.200 --> 0:10:33.040 was not out of the blue. There was a build 0:10:33.120 --> 0:10:35.760 up to that. There was questions that were asked. There 0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:39.000 was probably a lot of language that the defendant used 0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:41.760 which was not really clear and concise in order to 0:10:41.840 --> 0:10:44.880 answer specifically the question. And so it got to the 0:10:44.880 --> 0:10:46.720 point that the judge felt is he had to rain 0:10:46.800 --> 0:10:48.880 him in a little bit and tell him, please answer 0:10:48.960 --> 0:10:51.280 yes or no. Obviously the judge has to also be 0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:54.360 mindful that, you know, Juri's look at the judge in 0:10:54.520 --> 0:10:57.760 somewhat of a high light. And so if a judge 0:10:57.800 --> 0:11:00.440 is being heavy handed with an attorney or heavy handed 0:11:00.440 --> 0:11:03.880 with the defendant, or calls out a defendant and acts 0:11:03.920 --> 0:11:06.800 as though he doesn't even believe him, that may influence 0:11:06.880 --> 0:11:09.640 directly or indirectly the jury. So the judge has to 0:11:09.679 --> 0:11:11.839 be mindful of that and be careful what he says, 0:11:12.160 --> 0:11:15.320 how he says it, so that he always is impartial. 0:11:15.800 --> 0:11:18.960 So what's the defense's goal to make him likable to 0:11:19.040 --> 0:11:22.080 the jury or you know, to try to contradict some 0:11:22.200 --> 0:11:26.280 of the testimony of the three main witnesses against him. 0:11:26.320 --> 0:11:28.000 I mean, if you were the defense attorney, what would 0:11:28.040 --> 0:11:29.640 you be going there to accomplish? 0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:33.240 To try to provide a justification for the collapse of 0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:35.560 the business and that it did not come back to 0:11:36.000 --> 0:11:38.720 the defendant and that there are other people that he 0:11:38.960 --> 0:11:43.400 entrusted to make decisions right or wrong which did not 0:11:43.800 --> 0:11:47.439 end up positively for investors. I mean, look, the bottom 0:11:47.480 --> 0:11:50.559 line here is that the defendant is trying to make 0:11:50.600 --> 0:11:54.160 the evidence out as as possible for him. It's like 0:11:54.200 --> 0:11:56.240 putting lips to k on a pig. He can only 0:11:56.280 --> 0:11:59.199 make it look that good, but in the end it's 0:11:59.200 --> 0:11:59.760 still bacon. 0:12:00.720 --> 0:12:04.920 The defense also spent time asking him about the massive 0:12:05.000 --> 0:12:09.120 spending of FTX on the marketing, the way he dressed 0:12:09.200 --> 0:12:12.480 and his hair, which Ellison said was to create an 0:12:12.520 --> 0:12:16.960 image for himself. How important are those little things what 0:12:16.960 --> 0:12:18.760 I would call little things to the jury. 0:12:19.360 --> 0:12:21.679 So I think in the long run, it's not going 0:12:21.760 --> 0:12:24.959 to be material to the jury, but it adds little 0:12:25.040 --> 0:12:28.640 elements to the government's case in that he was doing 0:12:28.679 --> 0:12:32.280 it not for genuine purposes, that that was his personality, 0:12:32.320 --> 0:12:35.280 but he was doing it to create an aura of himself, 0:12:35.880 --> 0:12:40.199 and they're tried to show that he had some ulterior 0:12:40.400 --> 0:12:42.920 motivation when he did these types of things, dressed in 0:12:42.960 --> 0:12:45.560 a certain way, kept his hair in a certain way, 0:12:45.960 --> 0:12:48.840 and it wasn't just you know, that was him, because look, 0:12:48.880 --> 0:12:52.320 there are business people who are very eccentric and do 0:12:52.520 --> 0:12:55.960 very well and that's just them, and they're genuine in 0:12:55.960 --> 0:12:58.720 that regard. But I think that can come back to 0:12:58.800 --> 0:13:01.680 hurt people, and hurt defend it when they look like 0:13:01.720 --> 0:13:03.760 they're being a little bit conniving and they're being a 0:13:03.800 --> 0:13:07.000 little calculating in the way they act, the way they speak, 0:13:07.240 --> 0:13:09.520 the way they dress, And I think that's what the 0:13:09.559 --> 0:13:12.320 government's trying to get across, is that he had some 0:13:12.400 --> 0:13:15.520 type of ulterior motive to act that way and dress 0:13:15.559 --> 0:13:18.800 that way, which reflects, you know, him being a little 0:13:18.840 --> 0:13:21.319 shady or a little sinister in the way he ran 0:13:21.400 --> 0:13:24.800 the business. So I don't think it's material insofar as 0:13:24.840 --> 0:13:28.760 the charges, but I think it reflects the government's push 0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:33.280 to have him seen as not just eccentric, but you know, 0:13:33.440 --> 0:13:36.720 trying to push a narrative about himself in a certain 0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:39.560 way as a mastermind of this crypto space. 0:13:39.760 --> 0:13:44.200 And the defense also spent some time on his relationship 0:13:44.280 --> 0:13:47.800 with Caroline Ellison. He said he wasn't able to give 0:13:47.920 --> 0:13:52.280 her the time and attention she wanted in their personal relationship. 0:13:52.600 --> 0:13:55.840 Why do you think there's time being spent on why 0:13:55.880 --> 0:13:56.560 they broke up. 0:13:57.200 --> 0:14:02.800 Every juror every person is thinking, is she testifying because 0:14:02.800 --> 0:14:05.480 she was a jilted lover although they may not express it. 0:14:06.080 --> 0:14:09.240 So when someone testifies against someone who they had a 0:14:09.280 --> 0:14:13.679 relationship with, and they're giving testimony which is harmful, which 0:14:13.720 --> 0:14:17.199 you know, really goes at the heart of and criticizing them. 0:14:17.559 --> 0:14:20.600 If you're a human being and you're watching this you're going, Wow, 0:14:20.640 --> 0:14:23.080 they must have had a really bad breakup. I wonder 0:14:23.120 --> 0:14:26.120 if he wronged her and as a result of that, 0:14:26.520 --> 0:14:30.040 whether she's now getting back at him by testifying, and 0:14:30.120 --> 0:14:31.880 so that's why it came up. 0:14:32.280 --> 0:14:35.760 I mean, how can the defense possibly attack all the 0:14:35.800 --> 0:14:36.960 evidence against him. 0:14:37.400 --> 0:14:39.160 I think what the defense is trying to do is 0:14:39.680 --> 0:14:42.960 give the jury pause and have the jury get back 0:14:42.960 --> 0:14:46.440 into the jury room and not immediately say he's dead 0:14:46.440 --> 0:14:48.760 in the water. He's guilty. You know, the evidence was 0:14:48.800 --> 0:14:51.320 so overwhelming. I think what the defense wants the jury 0:14:51.320 --> 0:14:53.320 to do is get back in that jury room and 0:14:53.440 --> 0:14:56.080 be thoughtful in their deliberations, which I'm sure they'll try 0:14:56.120 --> 0:14:58.520 to be, but also maybe give him the benefit of 0:14:58.520 --> 0:15:02.240 the doubt and and not just convict him, because you know, 0:15:02.280 --> 0:15:05.240 you had fifteen people testify against him, and you had, 0:15:05.280 --> 0:15:07.560 you know, ten thousand pages of materials about what he 0:15:07.600 --> 0:15:10.800 did wrong. Maybe the defense is trying to have the 0:15:10.920 --> 0:15:13.880 jury give him the benefit of the doubt so that 0:15:13.920 --> 0:15:18.360 they pause in their deliberations and look at him as 0:15:18.360 --> 0:15:21.760 a human being and not just as this sinister, you know, 0:15:21.880 --> 0:15:25.320 crypto mogul who was trying to one up people and 0:15:25.680 --> 0:15:28.120 just take money and abuse money, so on. 0:15:28.160 --> 0:15:31.000 Cross, the defendant has given the prosecution a lot to 0:15:31.080 --> 0:15:34.680 work with, not only his direct testimony, but the commentary 0:15:34.720 --> 0:15:39.360 that he offered as FTX rose and crashed. So she 0:15:39.400 --> 0:15:40.440 had a lot to work with. 0:15:42.360 --> 0:15:45.480 Yes, a tremendous amount. And that's from his own mouth. 0:15:45.960 --> 0:15:53.880 And that's both internal messages, external messages, text messages, interviews posts, 0:15:54.000 --> 0:15:57.320 congressional testimony. I mean, I think it's actually hard for 0:15:57.400 --> 0:16:00.400 the prosecutor to decide what to use because there is 0:16:00.440 --> 0:16:03.200 so much. And I think that's the problem he's going 0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:06.720 to run into, is that everything he testified to on 0:16:06.800 --> 0:16:11.880 direct can be contrasted with things he said previously which 0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:15.920 are different from that. And I think that's when the 0:16:16.040 --> 0:16:19.479 jury is really going to look at him and say, Okay, 0:16:19.720 --> 0:16:22.400 maybe he was okay on direct, but when he wasn't 0:16:22.520 --> 0:16:25.400 under the hot lights and he was just free flowing 0:16:25.440 --> 0:16:28.520 in his opinion about his business and about the money flow, 0:16:28.960 --> 0:16:31.920 you know, during congressional testimony or during text messages of 0:16:32.000 --> 0:16:35.120 during interviews six eight ten months ago, look what he said. 0:16:35.400 --> 0:16:38.360 And so I think the jury's really gonna have a 0:16:38.400 --> 0:16:42.160 problem with the testimony on direct and things he said 0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:45.120 six a ten months ago, which is what the government 0:16:45.160 --> 0:16:46.800 is alleging is where the truth lies. 0:16:47.440 --> 0:16:50.360 I mean, it seems like though he almost had no 0:16:50.520 --> 0:16:53.440 choice because there was so much evidence against him. 0:16:54.000 --> 0:16:56.600 Yes, it appeared I agree with you. I think his 0:16:57.760 --> 0:17:02.520 only chance at this point, after three insiders testified against him, 0:17:03.000 --> 0:17:06.159 after all the testimony and direct evidence came in about 0:17:06.160 --> 0:17:11.480 his actions, I think, was him to try and convince 0:17:11.520 --> 0:17:14.160 the jury out of his own mouth that what they're 0:17:14.200 --> 0:17:17.800 suggesting he did was not illegal or criminal. He made 0:17:17.800 --> 0:17:21.159 bad decisions, but it wasn't unlawful. So I agree with you. 0:17:21.200 --> 0:17:23.200 I think that you know, this is one of those 0:17:23.240 --> 0:17:27.359 situations where if he didn't testify, it's almost a slam 0:17:27.440 --> 0:17:30.119 dunk that he would have been convicted. But by putting 0:17:30.200 --> 0:17:33.760 him up to testify, maybe there's a shot that you'll 0:17:33.760 --> 0:17:36.320 get a juror too who believe his story. 0:17:36.800 --> 0:17:39.480 How harmful is it to his case that the judge, 0:17:39.560 --> 0:17:44.080 after listening to him testify for hours outside the presence 0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:47.879 of the jury on Thursday, decided that he could not 0:17:48.240 --> 0:17:50.760 use an advice of council defense. 0:17:51.840 --> 0:17:54.840 I think that was a real problem that could potentially 0:17:54.840 --> 0:17:57.439 be another nail in the coffin for him, because that 0:17:57.600 --> 0:18:01.600 was one very significant thing that they were trying to 0:18:02.240 --> 0:18:06.120 suggest and use, you know, on his behalf, and the judge, 0:18:06.160 --> 0:18:08.800 you know, made a ruling, which is what the judges 0:18:08.840 --> 0:18:11.520 have to do. But the consequence of that is that, 0:18:11.680 --> 0:18:13.960 you know, the defense is fighting with one hand tied 0:18:14.000 --> 0:18:17.399 behind their back because they can't point to lawyers who 0:18:17.440 --> 0:18:19.800 are advising the company as being the ones that made 0:18:19.840 --> 0:18:20.320 the mistake. 0:18:20.680 --> 0:18:23.880 Do you think that's a reversible error on appeal. 0:18:24.240 --> 0:18:26.439 It's certainly going to be something that goes up on appeal, 0:18:26.840 --> 0:18:29.480 But the judge, you know, had a solid grounding to 0:18:29.520 --> 0:18:33.119 make that decision. There was even obviously testimony as to 0:18:33.200 --> 0:18:36.040 that outside the presence of the jury, So the judge 0:18:36.080 --> 0:18:38.879 took every step possible to avoid this being in a 0:18:38.960 --> 0:18:41.119 pellet issue. Although of course if there's a conviction, it 0:18:41.160 --> 0:18:43.640 will probably go up on appeal, but I think that's 0:18:43.800 --> 0:18:45.920 likely not to be a material issue. 0:18:46.480 --> 0:18:49.800 It's a real uphill battle for bankman Freed. 0:18:50.200 --> 0:18:51.719 I don't think it's going to be enough. June. I 0:18:51.760 --> 0:18:54.440 think that, you know, the defense did the best they could, 0:18:54.760 --> 0:18:58.480 but the evidence it was so overwhelming, and you had 0:18:58.560 --> 0:19:01.480 really firsthand test money from the people in the room, 0:19:02.119 --> 0:19:04.560 and even though he might have come off on direct 0:19:05.040 --> 0:19:08.679 as best as possible. The cross is going to undermine 0:19:08.680 --> 0:19:11.760 that and mitigate that, and the Cross is going to 0:19:11.800 --> 0:19:14.600 be able to show how, you know, he was doing 0:19:14.640 --> 0:19:17.760 all of this with full knowledge and had directed people 0:19:17.800 --> 0:19:21.560 to do this and was in control, and you know, 0:19:21.600 --> 0:19:23.479 there's no way for him to get around that. And 0:19:24.080 --> 0:19:29.119 he's laid out so much, so many statements previously that 0:19:29.160 --> 0:19:32.399 there's really nothing now he can say which can't be 0:19:32.520 --> 0:19:35.919 contrasted with things that he's previously said. And that's a 0:19:36.000 --> 0:19:37.400 real problem for the defense. 0:19:37.960 --> 0:19:41.119 And he's the last defense witness. So the case we'll 0:19:41.160 --> 0:19:44.879 probably go to the jury this week. Thanks for your insights, Michael. 0:19:45.320 --> 0:19:50.120 That's former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein of Cole's Shots. Coming 0:19:50.240 --> 0:19:54.280 up next, Supreme Court arguments over the phrase trump too Small. 0:19:54.520 --> 0:19:57.600 This is Bloomberg. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear 0:19:57.720 --> 0:20:01.040 arguments in a free speech showdown over a man trying 0:20:01.040 --> 0:20:05.760 to get federal trademark protection for the phrase trump too Small. 0:20:06.280 --> 0:20:09.119 Attorney Stephen Elstra says he wants to use the phrase 0:20:09.160 --> 0:20:12.320 on T shirts, but he was refused a trademark by 0:20:12.359 --> 0:20:15.920 the US Patent in Trademark Office because of a provision 0:20:15.920 --> 0:20:20.040 in federal law barring registration of marks that identify a 0:20:20.080 --> 0:20:24.640 living person without that person's consent. However, the US Court 0:20:24.640 --> 0:20:28.639 of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that provision violates 0:20:28.680 --> 0:20:32.280 the First Amendment when the trademark includes criticism of a 0:20:32.320 --> 0:20:36.560 government official or public figure. Now the justices will decide. 0:20:37.119 --> 0:20:39.639 Joining me is far As sunder G, a partner at 0:20:39.640 --> 0:20:43.399 Dorsey and Whitney. In twenty eighteen, the Patent and Trademark 0:20:43.560 --> 0:20:49.359 Office rejected the application for Trump too small. Tell us why? 0:20:50.160 --> 0:20:50.200 So? 0:20:50.600 --> 0:20:55.520 The rejection was issued on two grounds. Actually, the first 0:20:55.680 --> 0:20:58.439 is the one that the Supreme Court is going to 0:20:58.480 --> 0:21:03.560 take up. So initially the Trademark Office rejected the trademark 0:21:03.560 --> 0:21:07.919 application based on the consent of a living individual, and 0:21:08.000 --> 0:21:12.640 that living individual is obviously Trump. There's actually another rejection 0:21:12.800 --> 0:21:16.240 that is not being considered on the appeal, which will 0:21:16.240 --> 0:21:20.199 still stand if the case gets remanded, which is false association. 0:21:20.720 --> 0:21:23.800 So explain what that means. So when you. 0:21:23.840 --> 0:21:29.840 Piper trademark and you include a person's name in it, 0:21:30.200 --> 0:21:33.840 the Trademark Office will say, hey, we need you to 0:21:34.240 --> 0:21:37.440 get the consent of that person, so we're not violating 0:21:37.840 --> 0:21:41.119 their rights of privacy and their rights of publicity. And 0:21:41.200 --> 0:21:44.280 so when you're applying for it in the name of 0:21:44.680 --> 0:21:49.520 let's say, in the case of Bloomberg, Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg News, 0:21:49.840 --> 0:21:53.199 you'd go and get the consent of mister Bloomberg, and 0:21:53.240 --> 0:21:57.640 you get that consent because Bloomberg is associated with the company, 0:21:57.680 --> 0:22:00.119 and of course he knows that it's being done. 0:22:00.440 --> 0:22:03.480 Is this based on a trademark law or is it 0:22:03.560 --> 0:22:05.000 based on a court interpretation. 0:22:05.640 --> 0:22:08.080 It's based on a statute. It is based on a 0:22:08.119 --> 0:22:12.400 section of the Lanham Act. So it's a congressionally enacted statute. 0:22:13.200 --> 0:22:17.120 Okay. So now the Federal Circuit, which handles these appellate 0:22:17.200 --> 0:22:21.480 cases of trademarks, reversed. Why did the Federal Circuit reverse? 0:22:22.200 --> 0:22:26.640 So the Federal Circuit reversed on First Amendment grounds. They 0:22:26.840 --> 0:22:32.119 actually approached the case from the following angle. They asked. 0:22:32.160 --> 0:22:35.680 They said, the question here is whether the government has 0:22:35.680 --> 0:22:40.480 an interest in limiting speech on privacy or publicity grounds 0:22:40.560 --> 0:22:45.679 if that speech involves criticism of government officials, speech that 0:22:45.800 --> 0:22:50.359 is otherwise at the heart of the First Amendments. And interestingly, 0:22:50.440 --> 0:22:54.280 there's actually an intermediate step that we didn't discuss initially. 0:22:54.320 --> 0:22:59.359