1
00:00:01,200 --> 00:00:04,600
Speaker 1: Welcome to Bloomberg Lawn. I'm June Grosso. Ahead in this hour,

2
00:00:04,880 --> 00:00:09,400
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court appears ready to restore South Carolina's Republican

3
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:12,840
Speaker 1: John Mapp, the star witness and former girlfriend, takes the

4
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: stand in the Sam Bankman Freed trial. Trump is looking

5
00:00:16,200 --> 00:00:19,360
Speaker 1: for a get out of jail free card, claiming absolute

6
00:00:19,480 --> 00:00:27,120
Speaker 1: presidential immunity and what is a legal hot tub. Prosecutors

7
00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:30,600
Speaker 1: have built their criminal fraud case against Sam Bankman Freed

8
00:00:30,880 --> 00:00:34,880
Speaker 1: by tapping into his inner circle and reaching cooperation deals

9
00:00:34,880 --> 00:00:38,160
Speaker 1: with three of his closest confidants, and one of them

10
00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:43,200
Speaker 1: is undoubtedly the government's star witness, Caroline Ellison, the former

11
00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:48,240
Speaker 1: CEO of Alameda Research and Sam Bankman Freed's former girlfriend.

12
00:00:48,479 --> 00:00:51,800
Speaker 1: She took the stand this week and testified that Bankman

13
00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:55,560
Speaker 1: Freed was the mastermind behind the scheme to use FTX

14
00:00:55,640 --> 00:01:00,880
Speaker 1: customer funds for speculative illegal trading at Alameda. Prosecutor has

15
00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 1: played clips of the all hands meeting days before Alameda

16
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 1: file for bankruptcy.

17
00:01:05,959 --> 00:01:09,040
Speaker 2: Then, with Crypto being down, the crash the like credit

18
00:01:09,160 --> 00:01:13,360
Speaker 2: crunch this year, most of Alia's loans got called. In

19
00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:16,880
Speaker 2: order to meet those loan recalls, we ended up like

20
00:01:17,160 --> 00:01:19,480
Speaker 2: borrowing a bunch of funds on NTX, which led to

21
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:22,360
Speaker 2: FTX having a shortfall in user funds.

22
00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:26,080
Speaker 1: In the tape ubchained by Business Insider, Ellison admitted that

23
00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:29,839
Speaker 1: she and bankman Freed knew Alameda was taking funds from

24
00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:32,720
Speaker 1: customers on FTX without their permission.

25
00:01:33,480 --> 00:01:36,479
Speaker 3: Did Alameda have the ability to touch user funds without

26
00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:39,639
Speaker 3: getting approval from FTX each time?

27
00:01:40,520 --> 00:01:41,959
Speaker 1: Uh?

28
00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:44,320
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think basically the structure was that,

29
00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:49,080
Speaker 2: like Alameda could like kind of go negatives in coins

30
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:51,160
Speaker 2: without needing to actually borrow.

31
00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:51,919
Speaker 4: Them on the stock market.

32
00:01:52,840 --> 00:01:55,960
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg legal reporter Chrys Dolmesh, who's been

33
00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:59,200
Speaker 1: covering the trial. Chris tell us about Ellison's demeanor on

34
00:01:59,240 --> 00:01:59,760
Speaker 1: the stand.

35
00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:02,880
Speaker 5: So she was pretty calm. She didn't raise her voice

36
00:02:02,920 --> 00:02:06,440
Speaker 5: really at all. She did get emotional near the end

37
00:02:06,480 --> 00:02:09,680
Speaker 5: of her direct testimony when she started talking about the

38
00:02:09,760 --> 00:02:13,120
Speaker 5: collapse of FPX and Alomatia in November twenty twenty two,

39
00:02:13,480 --> 00:02:16,160
Speaker 5: kind of recounting how she had been extremely stressed out

40
00:02:16,440 --> 00:02:19,040
Speaker 5: and worrying before that and was just kind of relieved

41
00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:21,440
Speaker 5: to be able to tell the truth about the whole situation.

42
00:02:21,800 --> 00:02:24,400
Speaker 5: And they played some audio clips of the all hands

43
00:02:24,440 --> 00:02:27,000
Speaker 5: meeting that she held on November ninth, after kind of

44
00:02:27,040 --> 00:02:29,440
Speaker 5: it had been revealed that Alameta's balance sheet was kind

45
00:02:29,440 --> 00:02:33,040
Speaker 5: of not accurate, and in that she's nervously laughing, but

46
00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:36,240
Speaker 5: she testified she really felt just reliefed at being able

47
00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:38,280
Speaker 5: to tell the truth. She seems just as calm on

48
00:02:38,320 --> 00:02:42,120
Speaker 5: that it's very straightforward. She really never raised her voice

49
00:02:42,240 --> 00:02:44,840
Speaker 5: or got upset except when she started to cry.

50
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:50,400
Speaker 1: Were there texts or notes or documents that they used

51
00:02:50,400 --> 00:02:52,520
Speaker 1: to support her testimony.

52
00:02:52,040 --> 00:02:54,400
Speaker 5: Yeah, so there were quite a few. She and FBF

53
00:02:54,720 --> 00:02:58,040
Speaker 5: kind of communicated through the obvious ways that people communicate

54
00:02:58,120 --> 00:03:01,360
Speaker 5: nowadays in business, like slat, signaled, those sort of things.

55
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:04,240
Speaker 5: You know, they had auto delete on their signal messages,

56
00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:06,799
Speaker 5: which she turned off in November and as things started

57
00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:09,679
Speaker 5: to get bad, but there were plenty of other documents.

58
00:03:09,760 --> 00:03:12,160
Speaker 5: They kind of talked about their relationship through a Google

59
00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:15,600
Speaker 5: docs and discussed, you know, how she was uncomfortable with

60
00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:17,960
Speaker 5: the relationship and she said that that made her feel

61
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:20,160
Speaker 5: like an unequal partner. So, you know, a lot of

62
00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:23,360
Speaker 5: these communications between them, even though they were in the

63
00:03:23,400 --> 00:03:27,239
Speaker 5: same penthouse in the Bahamas, were going through electronic means

64
00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:31,000
Speaker 5: through chaps and Signal and Google docs, and they presented

65
00:03:31,040 --> 00:03:33,440
Speaker 5: quite a few, you know, of her documents. She had

66
00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:36,400
Speaker 5: one document she kept it called things that Sam is

67
00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:39,360
Speaker 5: freaking out about, and there was time spent on that.

68
00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:41,400
Speaker 5: It's one of the things he felt that it would

69
00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:43,440
Speaker 5: be a good thing that if there was an enforcement

70
00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:46,560
Speaker 5: regulatory action against Finance, because that would help FPX get

71
00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:47,440
Speaker 5: more customers.

72
00:03:47,600 --> 00:03:50,760
Speaker 1: The prosecutors seemed to spend some time on, you know,

73
00:03:50,880 --> 00:03:56,160
Speaker 1: Sam Bankman Freed personally and his desire to shape his image.

74
00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:59,160
Speaker 5: Sure, yeah, she said his image was pretty important to him.

75
00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:00,920
Speaker 5: At one point she said that if he felt his

76
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:03,120
Speaker 5: hair was very important and that it was kind of

77
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:06,520
Speaker 5: a calling card and that it helped him get visibility.

78
00:04:06,720 --> 00:04:09,480
Speaker 5: So at times when he wanted to use publicity to

79
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:12,800
Speaker 5: kind of improve their image or to improve the amount

80
00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:15,040
Speaker 5: of publicity they got or get more customers, he did.

81
00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:17,599
Speaker 5: And at times when he kind of wanted to downplay

82
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:20,719
Speaker 5: everything he did. That also like switching from a luxury

83
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:21,960
Speaker 5: car to Toyota Corolla.

84
00:04:22,480 --> 00:04:26,000
Speaker 1: From the prosecution's point of view, what was the most

85
00:04:26,040 --> 00:04:28,560
Speaker 1: important part of her testimony, I think it.

86
00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:31,880
Speaker 5: Was then getting her to say that while she was

87
00:04:31,960 --> 00:04:34,560
Speaker 5: co CEO and CEO. At one point she was still

88
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:38,200
Speaker 5: kind of taking orders from Sam, and she took orders

89
00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:41,080
Speaker 5: from Sam throughout. She consulted him on nearly every decision

90
00:04:41,480 --> 00:04:44,839
Speaker 5: that she made, and that you know, while he was

91
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:48,800
Speaker 5: not always day to day involved in Alameda, he was

92
00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:51,919
Speaker 5: the owner. He had control, and he would dip in

93
00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:54,440
Speaker 5: from time to time, especially in May of twenty two

94
00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:57,400
Speaker 5: when things started to get intent and kind of direct

95
00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:00,479
Speaker 5: trading strategies. There was testimony from another witness that he

96
00:05:00,680 --> 00:05:02,240
Speaker 5: just kind of came in and said, well, we're an

97
00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:05,520
Speaker 5: avidents all Japanese bonds and by currency as a hedge.

98
00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:08,120
Speaker 5: So he was clearly involved in the day to day

99
00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:10,840
Speaker 5: I would say the defense scored some points just kind

100
00:05:10,839 --> 00:05:14,479
Speaker 5: of getting her to admit that he wasn't there every day,

101
00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:17,440
Speaker 5: that he wasn't always hands on, that she was running

102
00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:19,320
Speaker 5: the show at least for part of the time.

103
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:24,440
Speaker 1: So she admitted that she altered documents. You know, she

104
00:05:24,880 --> 00:05:27,559
Speaker 1: knew what she was doing was wrong, but kept saying

105
00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:29,440
Speaker 1: that Sam Bankman Free directed it.

106
00:05:30,000 --> 00:05:32,680
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's pretty much the narrative that she gave. She

107
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:35,280
Speaker 5: made it clear that you know, sometimes she made decisions,

108
00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:38,360
Speaker 5: you know, after consulting him, and that those decisions were hers,

109
00:05:38,360 --> 00:05:41,640
Speaker 5: but ultimately she said that Sam made most decisions. And

110
00:05:41,839 --> 00:05:44,640
Speaker 5: one powerful part of her testimony I would say was

111
00:05:44,760 --> 00:05:48,400
Speaker 5: when things started to go bad in the summer, there

112
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:51,120
Speaker 5: was one meeting that they had in the penthouse in

113
00:05:51,160 --> 00:05:54,120
Speaker 5: the study or he basically blamed her and said that

114
00:05:54,160 --> 00:05:56,040
Speaker 5: the reason that they were in the situation that they

115
00:05:56,080 --> 00:05:59,440
Speaker 5: were in was because she hadn't hedged enough. And she said, yeah,

116
00:05:59,560 --> 00:06:01,400
Speaker 5: I could have done more. There's definitely I could have

117
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:03,320
Speaker 5: done more. She admitted she could have been a better leader,

118
00:06:03,360 --> 00:06:05,719
Speaker 5: and she could have pushed people to do more innovative things.

119
00:06:05,800 --> 00:06:08,200
Speaker 5: But in the end, she said this was Sam making

120
00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:08,680
Speaker 5: the decision.

121
00:06:09,000 --> 00:06:13,240
Speaker 1: And so on cross examination, how much headway did the

122
00:06:13,279 --> 00:06:16,360
Speaker 1: defense make? Were they able to poke holes in her testimony?

123
00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:19,000
Speaker 5: A little bit? They had a tough time, mostly because

124
00:06:19,040 --> 00:06:21,359
Speaker 5: there were a lot of objections from the prosecution. I

125
00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:23,719
Speaker 5: mean you could even characterize it as almost every time

126
00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:26,360
Speaker 5: they started to ask a question that the prosecution would

127
00:06:26,360 --> 00:06:29,479
Speaker 5: object due to form or some other problem. So in

128
00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:31,839
Speaker 5: the end, you know, during a full day on the stand,

129
00:06:31,920 --> 00:06:34,559
Speaker 5: she started around nine thirty and ended around three thirty

130
00:06:34,640 --> 00:06:38,200
Speaker 5: or four, she only really spent three full hours on

131
00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:41,680
Speaker 5: the stands there were a few sidebars. There were debates about,

132
00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:44,560
Speaker 5: you know, admissibility of some of these audio clips of

133
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:48,160
Speaker 5: the November ninth meeting. So while they made a little headway,

134
00:06:48,240 --> 00:06:50,560
Speaker 5: like I said, and kind of driving a wedge between

135
00:06:51,040 --> 00:06:54,320
Speaker 5: management of Alameda and Sam Bankman Freed, it was definitely

136
00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:57,080
Speaker 5: a slog for them, and how much progress they made

137
00:06:57,120 --> 00:06:59,200
Speaker 5: the can only really be measured at the end of

138
00:06:59,200 --> 00:06:59,599
Speaker 5: the trial.

139
00:07:00,040 --> 00:07:02,599
Speaker 1: She's been billed as the star witness. Do you think

140
00:07:02,640 --> 00:07:04,320
Speaker 1: her testimony lived up to that?

141
00:07:04,800 --> 00:07:08,080
Speaker 5: I would say so. Gary Wong spent a similar amount

142
00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:10,760
Speaker 5: of time on the span. She's a key witness. She

143
00:07:10,880 --> 00:07:12,640
Speaker 5: was there for a lot of it. She was obviously

144
00:07:12,720 --> 00:07:15,000
Speaker 5: his partner for a good amount of time. There's a

145
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:18,960
Speaker 5: lot of testimony as to their personal relationship, so she

146
00:07:19,080 --> 00:07:20,040
Speaker 5: was certainly crucial.

147
00:07:20,360 --> 00:07:24,840
Speaker 1: Thanks Chris. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Chrystal Mesh. Joining me

148
00:07:24,880 --> 00:07:28,680
Speaker 1: now to analyze the prosecution's case is former federal prosecutor

149
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:32,840
Speaker 1: Jordan Estez, a partner Kramer Levin. It seems like the

150
00:07:32,880 --> 00:07:37,440
Speaker 1: government here has an overwhelming amount of evidence against Bankman Freed.

151
00:07:37,960 --> 00:07:41,200
Speaker 1: Witnesses who were in on the alleged fraud code that

152
00:07:41,320 --> 00:07:46,360
Speaker 1: was altered balance sheets, texts, internal documents. As a defense attorney,

153
00:07:46,400 --> 00:07:49,200
Speaker 1: how do you defend against that kind of a case.

154
00:07:50,000 --> 00:07:54,560
Speaker 6: It's certainly very challenging in these circumstances. The one thing

155
00:07:54,640 --> 00:07:57,760
Speaker 6: I think the defense is trying to do is create

156
00:07:57,760 --> 00:08:01,760
Speaker 6: a record that this was actually legitimate business. Nobody thought

157
00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:04,320
Speaker 6: they were doing anything wrong. So they're going to try

158
00:08:04,360 --> 00:08:07,160
Speaker 6: to do that through the cross examination of the witnesses

159
00:08:07,160 --> 00:08:09,640
Speaker 6: of the company. I do think it's a real challenge

160
00:08:09,680 --> 00:08:13,560
Speaker 6: in a case where witnesses like Caroline Ellison seem to

161
00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:18,360
Speaker 6: have fully embraced that the conduct was wrongful. So if

162
00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:20,560
Speaker 6: you have a witness like that, they're really going to

163
00:08:20,600 --> 00:08:24,640
Speaker 6: have to attack her credibility. But I do think from

164
00:08:24,640 --> 00:08:28,120
Speaker 6: my read of her testimony it was very overwhelming. It

165
00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:31,040
Speaker 6: seemed very dramatic and compelling. So they're going to have

166
00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:33,440
Speaker 6: to do a lot of work and discrediting her, which

167
00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:34,240
Speaker 6: will be hard.

168
00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:37,319
Speaker 1: I mean, she is the state star witness. How much

169
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:39,080
Speaker 1: depends on the jury believing her.

170
00:08:39,679 --> 00:08:42,880
Speaker 6: So I think in a cooperator case, the government really

171
00:08:42,920 --> 00:08:46,680
Speaker 6: does need the jury to believe the cooperators. They need

172
00:08:46,720 --> 00:08:51,040
Speaker 6: them to believe not necessarily every cooperator, but at least

173
00:08:51,200 --> 00:08:54,040
Speaker 6: one of the principal wanes like Caroline Ellison, They're certainly

174
00:08:54,040 --> 00:08:56,400
Speaker 6: going to have to believe her, but you can imagine

175
00:08:56,440 --> 00:09:00,760
Speaker 6: the government has documents that support her testimony. Often, as

176
00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:05,080
Speaker 6: the cooperator testifies, you then introduce exhibits that confirm what

177
00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:09,679
Speaker 6: the cooperating witness is saying, or perhaps another witness from

178
00:09:10,080 --> 00:09:14,400
Speaker 6: FTX who testifies later may say something that's consistent with

179
00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:17,400
Speaker 6: Caroline Ellison's testimony. So there are a number of ways

180
00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:20,040
Speaker 6: to try to get the jury to believe the witness,

181
00:09:20,080 --> 00:09:22,800
Speaker 6: but that is ultimately it's very critical to the case.

182
00:09:23,280 --> 00:09:27,080
Speaker 1: The first four witnesses, one is his former girlfriend, another

183
00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:31,160
Speaker 1: is one of his oldest friends, another an mit friend.

184
00:09:31,559 --> 00:09:34,839
Speaker 1: Does that help or hurt their credibility that they were

185
00:09:34,920 --> 00:09:38,120
Speaker 1: friends who turned on him when things fell apart?

186
00:09:38,480 --> 00:09:42,359
Speaker 6: The government's view is typically that that helps their credibility.

187
00:09:42,480 --> 00:09:45,439
Speaker 6: These were the people who were closest to the defendant.

188
00:09:45,920 --> 00:09:49,320
Speaker 6: They were inside the conspiracy, and they're the ones who

189
00:09:49,320 --> 00:09:52,720
Speaker 6: can tell you every detail of what happened. If you

190
00:09:52,800 --> 00:09:56,120
Speaker 6: have an outsider, it's easier to distance them from the

191
00:09:56,200 --> 00:09:58,880
Speaker 6: defendant and suggest how would they actually know what he

192
00:09:58,960 --> 00:10:01,640
Speaker 6: intended or what was really going on. But because they

193
00:10:01,679 --> 00:10:04,840
Speaker 6: have people that were right on the inside that worked

194
00:10:04,880 --> 00:10:07,760
Speaker 6: side by side with him, that have admitted their guilt.

195
00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:09,720
Speaker 6: That's really tough for the defense.

196
00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:16,360
Speaker 1: Was there anything about Caroline Allison's testimony that struck you? So?

197
00:10:16,440 --> 00:10:19,600
Speaker 6: I thought a lot of the anecdotes he provided are

198
00:10:19,600 --> 00:10:22,720
Speaker 6: the kinds of things that really dick out to a juror.

199
00:10:22,760 --> 00:10:25,040
Speaker 6: They may not be direct evidence of fraud, but their

200
00:10:25,120 --> 00:10:28,240
Speaker 6: dramatic moments, like when she said that he said there

201
00:10:28,280 --> 00:10:30,800
Speaker 6: was a five percent chance that he would be president.

202
00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:34,080
Speaker 6: I'm sure that's something that stands out and just I

203
00:10:34,120 --> 00:10:37,800
Speaker 6: think raises questions about his judgment. But she seemed to

204
00:10:37,800 --> 00:10:40,640
Speaker 6: have a lot of dramatic moments in her testimony. I think,

205
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:44,600
Speaker 6: in particular, given their relationships, there's this added drama on

206
00:10:44,679 --> 00:10:47,400
Speaker 6: top of what you have in a fraud case. So

207
00:10:47,880 --> 00:10:50,040
Speaker 6: it's very good for the government and that when there

208
00:10:50,120 --> 00:10:53,520
Speaker 6: is drama when you have a complicated case, jurors can

209
00:10:53,520 --> 00:10:56,240
Speaker 6: go to sleep if you're talking about code and cryptocurrency

210
00:10:56,280 --> 00:10:58,120
Speaker 6: and things like that. But when you have a witness

211
00:10:58,160 --> 00:11:01,320
Speaker 6: who was in a romantic, really relationship, when there was

212
00:11:01,360 --> 00:11:05,120
Speaker 6: this power dynamic, that's something that certainly captures the jury's

213
00:11:05,120 --> 00:11:09,520
Speaker 6: attention and I think creates this extra element there that

214
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:14,480
Speaker 6: her boss and her former boyfriend is also asking her

215
00:11:14,840 --> 00:11:18,040
Speaker 6: to commit fraud, committing fraud with her. It's an interesting

216
00:11:18,080 --> 00:11:20,880
Speaker 6: power dynamic that I think will stand out to a jury.

217
00:11:20,760 --> 00:11:24,080
Speaker 1: A lot more trial ahead. Thanks so much, Jordan. That's

218
00:11:24,160 --> 00:11:27,760
Speaker 1: Jordan Esdez of Kramer Levin. Coming up next. A lower

219
00:11:27,800 --> 00:11:31,640
Speaker 1: court throughout South Carolina's congressional map, But will the Supreme

220
00:11:31,679 --> 00:11:35,160
Speaker 1: Court restore it. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

221
00:11:38,679 --> 00:11:43,800
Speaker 4: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

222
00:11:44,800 --> 00:11:48,040
Speaker 7: We have said that the burden that you're assuming of

223
00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:53,560
Speaker 7: disentangling race and politics in a situation like this is very,

224
00:11:53,679 --> 00:11:54,360
Speaker 7: very difficult.

225
00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:57,840
Speaker 1: The Chief Justice described the key problem in the case

226
00:11:57,880 --> 00:12:01,480
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court how to determine whether South Carolina's

227
00:12:01,520 --> 00:12:06,400
Speaker 1: congressional map was the result of racial gerrymandering, which is unconstitutional,

228
00:12:06,720 --> 00:12:09,559
Speaker 1: or part is in jerrymandering, which has been okayed by

229
00:12:09,559 --> 00:12:14,360
Speaker 1: the court. The court's conservative justices expressed skepticism about a

230
00:12:14,440 --> 00:12:18,680
Speaker 1: lower court's decision finding that Republican lawmakers had engaged in

231
00:12:18,920 --> 00:12:24,840
Speaker 1: unconstitutional racial jerrymandering in drawing South Carolina's first congressional district.

232
00:12:25,280 --> 00:12:28,880
Speaker 1: Here are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

233
00:12:29,320 --> 00:12:32,160
Speaker 7: But we've never had a case where there's been no

234
00:12:32,320 --> 00:12:38,920
Speaker 7: direct evidence, no map, no strangely configured districts, a very

235
00:12:39,040 --> 00:12:40,800
Speaker 7: large amount of political evidence.

236
00:12:42,240 --> 00:12:44,960
Speaker 8: Well, the clear error standard, if that's the standard that

237
00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:48,760
Speaker 8: we are required to reply, is a very demanding standard.

238
00:12:49,280 --> 00:12:52,480
Speaker 8: But it is not an impossible standard. And it doesn't

239
00:12:52,520 --> 00:12:58,640
Speaker 8: mean that we simply rubber stamp findings by a district court.

240
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:02,199
Speaker 1: But the liberal justice has suggested the lower court had

241
00:13:02,280 --> 00:13:07,079
Speaker 1: enough evidence to conclude that South Carolina lawmakers improperly relied

242
00:13:07,120 --> 00:13:10,080
Speaker 1: on race to get to their target of seventeen percent

243
00:13:10,200 --> 00:13:13,800
Speaker 1: black voters in the first district by moving thirty thousand

244
00:13:13,840 --> 00:13:17,040
Speaker 1: black voters out of the district. Here Justice is Elena

245
00:13:17,120 --> 00:13:19,160
Speaker 1: Kagan and Sonya so to Mayor.

246
00:13:19,360 --> 00:13:23,000
Speaker 9: Is this gerrymander based on politics or is it a

247
00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:26,480
Speaker 9: way to get to an ultimate goal? An ultimate political goal?

248
00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:29,280
Speaker 9: But the gerrymandarin is based on race. And what the

249
00:13:29,280 --> 00:13:31,880
Speaker 9: two of them do is that they show that black

250
00:13:31,920 --> 00:13:36,640
Speaker 9: Democrats are excluded from District one at a far greater

251
00:13:36,800 --> 00:13:42,839
Speaker 9: percentage than white Democrats are. I think Cooper was petulutely

252
00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:47,040
Speaker 9: clear that you don't need a smoking gun, and if

253
00:13:47,040 --> 00:13:48,800
Speaker 9: you don't need a smoking gun, you don't need to

254
00:13:48,840 --> 00:13:49,600
Speaker 9: wreck evidence.

255
00:13:49,840 --> 00:13:52,920
Speaker 1: Joining me is elections law expert Richard Brofald, a professor

256
00:13:52,960 --> 00:13:56,160
Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School. Rich tell us about the issues

257
00:13:56,160 --> 00:14:00,200
Speaker 1: in this case where the NAACP is challenging the South

258
00:14:00,280 --> 00:14:00,880
Speaker 1: Carolina that.

259
00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:04,800
Speaker 10: So this case is about a challenge to the redistricting

260
00:14:04,840 --> 00:14:09,000
Speaker 10: of South Carolina's congressional plan in twenty twenty two following

261
00:14:09,000 --> 00:14:12,880
Speaker 10: the twenty twenty census. The major development affected District one,

262
00:14:12,920 --> 00:14:16,280
Speaker 10: which is basically around Charleston, and it made the district

263
00:14:16,320 --> 00:14:18,880
Speaker 10: more Republican by moving out of a significant number of

264
00:14:18,920 --> 00:14:22,520
Speaker 10: black voters into an adjacent black majority district. District one

265
00:14:22,560 --> 00:14:25,160
Speaker 10: had been a Republican district, but in recent years had

266
00:14:25,160 --> 00:14:28,600
Speaker 10: been more closely contested, and in twenty eighteen the Democrats

267
00:14:28,600 --> 00:14:31,320
Speaker 10: actually won it for one term. Twenty twenty, the Republicans

268
00:14:31,320 --> 00:14:33,800
Speaker 10: wanted that, but very narrowly. So one of the things

269
00:14:33,800 --> 00:14:36,720
Speaker 10: the legislature did in twenty twenty two was changed the

270
00:14:36,720 --> 00:14:39,800
Speaker 10: composition to make it more Republican, and in so doing

271
00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:43,840
Speaker 10: it basically moved about thirty thousand black voters from Charleston

272
00:14:44,080 --> 00:14:46,680
Speaker 10: out of the district into an adjacent district. By the way,

273
00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:49,480
Speaker 10: District one is the district that elects Nancy Mace, who

274
00:14:49,520 --> 00:14:52,520
Speaker 10: had been previously considered a moderate that since our district

275
00:14:52,600 --> 00:14:55,000
Speaker 10: was change, seems to become more conservative. So the question

276
00:14:55,040 --> 00:14:58,000
Speaker 10: before the core, it's a tough question, is whether the

277
00:14:58,120 --> 00:15:02,200
Speaker 10: legislature was motivated by race or by party. You might

278
00:15:02,280 --> 00:15:04,440
Speaker 10: say that in a state where race and party are

279
00:15:04,480 --> 00:15:07,600
Speaker 10: so intertwined, that's an impossible question answers. It's the same thing,

280
00:15:07,840 --> 00:15:10,280
Speaker 10: but it's crucial because the Supreme Court has said that

281
00:15:10,400 --> 00:15:14,200
Speaker 10: racial gerrymandering, that is to say, the intentional movement of

282
00:15:14,280 --> 00:15:17,120
Speaker 10: voters because of their race from one district to another,

283
00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:21,000
Speaker 10: is unconstitutional. But partisan jerrymandering, as we all know since

284
00:15:21,000 --> 00:15:24,320
Speaker 10: the Ruco decision in twenty nineteen, is not on constitutional,

285
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:27,360
Speaker 10: it's notn justiciable. So it's okay for the state to

286
00:15:27,440 --> 00:15:30,520
Speaker 10: engage in partisan gerrymandering, it's not okay for the state

287
00:15:30,560 --> 00:15:33,960
Speaker 10: to engage in racial gerrymandering. South Carolina says it was

288
00:15:34,000 --> 00:15:37,160
Speaker 10: both the following traditional district lines but also had a

289
00:15:37,160 --> 00:15:40,640
Speaker 10: partisan political purpose. What the lower court found was that

290
00:15:40,760 --> 00:15:45,200
Speaker 10: actually the movements of voters did exhibit racial predominance. That

291
00:15:45,440 --> 00:15:48,680
Speaker 10: given away the voters, which voters were targeted, and relying

292
00:15:48,720 --> 00:15:51,520
Speaker 10: on the testimony of experts, they basically said that a

293
00:15:51,560 --> 00:15:55,440
Speaker 10: disproportionate number of Black Democrats relative to white Democrats for

294
00:15:55,560 --> 00:15:57,880
Speaker 10: the ones who were moved, and therefore the District Court

295
00:15:58,280 --> 00:16:01,720
Speaker 10: was able to conclude that this was a racial gerry manager.

296
00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:04,360
Speaker 10: That's what's being tested in the Supreme Court right now.

297
00:16:04,760 --> 00:16:08,240
Speaker 1: The three judge federal panel referred to the revised map

298
00:16:08,320 --> 00:16:11,640
Speaker 1: as effective bleaching of African American voters out of the

299
00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:14,920
Speaker 1: Charleston County portion of the district. And they came to

300
00:16:14,960 --> 00:16:18,880
Speaker 1: that conclusion after an extensive eight day trial featuring forty

301
00:16:18,880 --> 00:16:22,800
Speaker 1: two witnesses and six hundred and fifty two exhibits. So

302
00:16:23,120 --> 00:16:26,920
Speaker 1: doesn't the court usually defer to the factual findings of

303
00:16:27,040 --> 00:16:28,120
Speaker 1: lower court judges.

304
00:16:28,520 --> 00:16:30,880
Speaker 10: Yes, I mean, indeed, that is the standard. They're supposed

305
00:16:30,880 --> 00:16:33,840
Speaker 10: to apply, what's called the clearly erroneous standard. Not just

306
00:16:33,960 --> 00:16:36,680
Speaker 10: but the district court right on balance. But as long

307
00:16:36,720 --> 00:16:39,280
Speaker 10: as the district court did was plausible, long as they

308
00:16:39,280 --> 00:16:42,280
Speaker 10: didn't something which was clearly wrong as opposed to debatably wrong,

309
00:16:42,480 --> 00:16:45,360
Speaker 10: they're supposed to defer. And you definitely heard the liberal

310
00:16:45,440 --> 00:16:48,920
Speaker 10: justices emphasizing the importance of adhering to the clearly erroneous

311
00:16:48,920 --> 00:16:51,480
Speaker 10: standard that there was evidence to support with the district

312
00:16:51,520 --> 00:16:53,880
Speaker 10: court found and indeed, the United States had not been

313
00:16:53,880 --> 00:16:56,240
Speaker 10: a party to the case originally, but this listener General's

314
00:16:56,280 --> 00:16:59,320
Speaker 10: office came if the United States had actually emphasized importance

315
00:16:59,360 --> 00:17:01,160
Speaker 10: of following the court of the erroneous standard.

316
00:17:02,000 --> 00:17:05,800
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts said that the challengers of the

317
00:17:05,840 --> 00:17:09,919
Speaker 1: map had no direct evidence that race had predominated in

318
00:17:09,960 --> 00:17:13,960
Speaker 1: the decision making process, just circumstantial evidence. This would be

319
00:17:14,000 --> 00:17:18,520
Speaker 1: breaking new ground in our voting rights jurisprudence. Is that true?

320
00:17:18,720 --> 00:17:21,160
Speaker 1: I mean, isn't circumstantial evidence enough?

321
00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:22,120
Speaker 5: Right?

322
00:17:22,320 --> 00:17:25,960
Speaker 10: They've often relied on circumstantial evidence, But Hill said it

323
00:17:26,000 --> 00:17:28,280
Speaker 10: was not an oddly shaped district. In the number of

324
00:17:28,359 --> 00:17:30,760
Speaker 10: the early other cases in which the Court has found

325
00:17:31,040 --> 00:17:35,159
Speaker 10: racial gerrymandering, the district was oddly shaped. On this one,

326
00:17:35,280 --> 00:17:37,520
Speaker 10: there was a big change the district. People were moved

327
00:17:37,520 --> 00:17:40,720
Speaker 10: around a lot, but the district itself didn't flunk any

328
00:17:40,920 --> 00:17:43,560
Speaker 10: kind of test of odd shape, which is somethings the

329
00:17:43,560 --> 00:17:46,680
Speaker 10: Court has sometimes used. And the other issue that came

330
00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:50,560
Speaker 10: up was the fact that the plaintiffs had not presented

331
00:17:50,680 --> 00:17:54,479
Speaker 10: an alternative map. Basically, the question was could the state

332
00:17:54,600 --> 00:17:58,280
Speaker 10: have gotten its partisan goals without moving as many black

333
00:17:58,359 --> 00:18:01,560
Speaker 10: voters around? And the question came up, should the plaintiffs

334
00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:04,879
Speaker 10: have been required to present an alternative map showing that

335
00:18:04,920 --> 00:18:07,679
Speaker 10: the state could have made the district just as Republican

336
00:18:08,080 --> 00:18:10,480
Speaker 10: without moving as many black voters. And there was a

337
00:18:10,480 --> 00:18:12,880
Speaker 10: debate in the court as to whether the plaintiffs had

338
00:18:12,880 --> 00:18:15,399
Speaker 10: to do that, and the President is that they don't

339
00:18:15,440 --> 00:18:18,080
Speaker 10: have to. Indeed, Justice Kagan was quite strong on that,

340
00:18:18,119 --> 00:18:20,320
Speaker 10: because she'd actually written the case that said that, a

341
00:18:20,359 --> 00:18:23,600
Speaker 10: case called Cooper about five years ago. But nonetheless, the

342
00:18:23,680 --> 00:18:26,240
Speaker 10: other justices sort of came back and said, well, maybe

343
00:18:26,280 --> 00:18:29,440
Speaker 10: you didn't have to, but why didn't you Why wouldn't

344
00:18:29,480 --> 00:18:31,879
Speaker 10: that have helped your case if you could have shown

345
00:18:31,880 --> 00:18:34,960
Speaker 10: that they could obtain their partisan goals without using race

346
00:18:35,040 --> 00:18:36,960
Speaker 10: quite as much. I mean, it really went into this

347
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:39,920
Speaker 10: difficulty of separating out race and party. In effect, the

348
00:18:40,000 --> 00:18:43,840
Speaker 10: conservative justices were sort of creating even though the prior

349
00:18:43,920 --> 00:18:46,840
Speaker 10: case Cooper had said there's no such requirement, you saw

350
00:18:46,880 --> 00:18:50,040
Speaker 10: some of them basically suggesting either that there is, or

351
00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:52,240
Speaker 10: that there should be, or that it's a problem when

352
00:18:52,280 --> 00:18:52,840
Speaker 10: there isn't.

353
00:18:53,320 --> 00:18:57,119
Speaker 1: So after the oral arguments, most legal experts concluded that

354
00:18:57,200 --> 00:19:01,200
Speaker 1: the conservative majority is going to uphold Republican drawn mapp.

355
00:19:01,560 --> 00:19:02,600
Speaker 1: What's your take on it?

356
00:19:03,040 --> 00:19:05,560
Speaker 10: There were certainly a lot of negative questioning, even from

357
00:19:05,560 --> 00:19:09,280
Speaker 10: some of the so called more moderate conservative justices. Remember

358
00:19:09,400 --> 00:19:12,520
Speaker 10: the most recent case involving race and voting, Allen versus

359
00:19:12,520 --> 00:19:15,840
Speaker 10: Milligan went off five to four, with two of the conservatives,

360
00:19:16,080 --> 00:19:20,040
Speaker 10: Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals. Roberts was clearly pretty

361
00:19:20,080 --> 00:19:23,280
Speaker 10: skeptical about the lower courts finding in this case. He

362
00:19:23,359 --> 00:19:26,360
Speaker 10: seemed less likely. Kavanaugh's questions were a little bit harder

363
00:19:26,359 --> 00:19:28,399
Speaker 10: to read. I mean, some of it was again about

364
00:19:28,400 --> 00:19:30,800
Speaker 10: the evidence, but some of it also seemed to indicate

365
00:19:30,840 --> 00:19:33,200
Speaker 10: that he was thinking about what's the burden on the

366
00:19:33,240 --> 00:19:35,879
Speaker 10: defendants in this case? Showed that the district court was

367
00:19:35,920 --> 00:19:38,399
Speaker 10: clearly wrong. It was certainly a tough argument for the

368
00:19:38,520 --> 00:19:41,399
Speaker 10: NAACP defending the lower courts finding. I think if they

369
00:19:41,440 --> 00:19:43,600
Speaker 10: have any chance, it's going to be the extent that

370
00:19:43,640 --> 00:19:47,080
Speaker 10: the court decides to rally around the idea that unless

371
00:19:47,080 --> 00:19:50,040
Speaker 10: it's clearly erroneous, there should be difference in lower courts finding.

372
00:19:50,160 --> 00:19:52,840
Speaker 10: On the other hand, this is the court's first sort

373
00:19:52,880 --> 00:19:57,040
Speaker 10: of race party intertwine case since Rucho four years ago,

374
00:19:57,080 --> 00:20:00,920
Speaker 10: when the Court said that partisan jerrymandering is not on constitutional,

375
00:20:00,960 --> 00:20:03,720
Speaker 10: it's not justiciable. So it's the first time that they

376
00:20:03,760 --> 00:20:06,680
Speaker 10: will speak to the how do you separate out race

377
00:20:06,800 --> 00:20:10,080
Speaker 10: and party? And one could imagine they may want to

378
00:20:10,119 --> 00:20:13,080
Speaker 10: shut down the idea that you could get around Rucho

379
00:20:13,440 --> 00:20:16,159
Speaker 10: by reframing things around race. Now, the Court in the

380
00:20:16,160 --> 00:20:19,239
Speaker 10: past has said, even if there's a partisan factor, that

381
00:20:19,320 --> 00:20:21,200
Speaker 10: the state can't use the race as a proxy for

382
00:20:21,359 --> 00:20:23,720
Speaker 10: party when I trys lines to favor a party. But

383
00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:26,040
Speaker 10: one could imagine this is a case where the Court

384
00:20:26,320 --> 00:20:29,439
Speaker 10: might want to address how do you disentangle race and

385
00:20:29,520 --> 00:20:32,600
Speaker 10: party in a world in which racial jerry mannering is

386
00:20:32,680 --> 00:20:35,439
Speaker 10: unconstitutional but partisan jerry mannering is not.

387
00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:39,000
Speaker 1: It just doesn't seem like the NAACP has the numbers

388
00:20:39,000 --> 00:20:41,800
Speaker 1: here to win, But you never know. Thanks so much,

389
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:45,680
Speaker 1: rich that's Professor Richard Brofault of Columbia Law School. Coming

390
00:20:45,760 --> 00:20:49,439
Speaker 1: up next. Donald Trump says he's immune from prosecution in

391
00:20:49,520 --> 00:20:52,919
Speaker 1: the federal trial over January sixth. I'm June Grosso and

392
00:20:52,960 --> 00:20:54,280
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg.

393
00:20:57,560 --> 00:21:02,680
Speaker 4: This is Bloomberg Law with you from Bloomberg Radio.

394
00:21:03,720 --> 00:21:07,600
Speaker 11: And did you see today that deranged Jack Smith. He's

395
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:11,040
Speaker 11: the prosecutor, He's a deranged person, wants to take away

396
00:21:11,080 --> 00:21:14,080
Speaker 11: my rights under the First Amendment, wants to take away

397
00:21:14,160 --> 00:21:17,400
Speaker 11: my right of speaking freely and openly.

398
00:21:18,000 --> 00:21:21,879
Speaker 1: Donald Trump never seems to miss an opportunity to ridicule

399
00:21:22,000 --> 00:21:25,800
Speaker 1: Jack Smith, the special counsel who's bringing charges against him

400
00:21:25,880 --> 00:21:28,600
Speaker 1: in d C and Florida. The trial date in d

401
00:21:28,840 --> 00:21:31,800
Speaker 1: C on charges of trying to overturn the twenty twenty

402
00:21:31,840 --> 00:21:35,760
Speaker 1: election is less than five months away, but Trump is

403
00:21:35,840 --> 00:21:39,280
Speaker 1: looking for a complete pass by arguing that he has

404
00:21:39,440 --> 00:21:44,560
Speaker 1: absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, and he's asking federal

405
00:21:44,640 --> 00:21:48,720
Speaker 1: Judge Tanya Chutkin to toss out the indictment. Here to

406
00:21:48,760 --> 00:21:52,040
Speaker 1: discuss the issue which courts have never settled, is former

407
00:21:52,080 --> 00:21:56,159
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School.

408
00:21:56,880 --> 00:22:01,000
Speaker 1: Jessica tell us about Trump's claim of president immunity.

409
00:22:01,600 --> 00:22:07,440
Speaker 12: So their argument is that Trump enjoys absolute presidential immunity

410
00:22:07,880 --> 00:22:12,320
Speaker 12: from prosecution because he claims that the indictment brought by

411
00:22:12,359 --> 00:22:15,840
Speaker 12: the Social Council related to January sixth is based on

412
00:22:16,160 --> 00:22:19,720
Speaker 12: what they contend are his official acts while president. I

413
00:22:19,760 --> 00:22:22,480
Speaker 12: would submit this is the most significant motion that Trump

414
00:22:22,520 --> 00:22:24,520
Speaker 12: has filed to date in all of the cases that

415
00:22:24,560 --> 00:22:27,919
Speaker 12: are pending against him, and that the court's decisions on

416
00:22:28,000 --> 00:22:31,480
Speaker 12: this motion could establish new law regarding whether a president

417
00:22:31,560 --> 00:22:33,960
Speaker 12: is beyond the reach of the criminal law for acts

418
00:22:33,960 --> 00:22:37,160
Speaker 12: taken while president, even after he leaves the office.

419
00:22:37,320 --> 00:22:39,720
Speaker 1: What do you make of his attorney's arguments? They make

420
00:22:39,800 --> 00:22:43,080
Speaker 1: several levels of arguments. Are they convincing?

421
00:22:43,560 --> 00:22:46,239
Speaker 12: Unlike some arguments we've seen from Trump's counsel and some

422
00:22:46,280 --> 00:22:48,840
Speaker 12: of the cases brought against him. This motion is well

423
00:22:48,840 --> 00:22:52,960
Speaker 12: written and it does present a very important issue of law,

424
00:22:53,240 --> 00:22:54,800
Speaker 12: one that the courts will have.

425
00:22:54,800 --> 00:22:55,640
Speaker 3: To take seriously.

426
00:22:55,960 --> 00:22:58,760
Speaker 12: No court has ever squarely decided the question of whether

427
00:22:58,880 --> 00:23:04,280
Speaker 12: a president enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution at all, because

428
00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:07,120
Speaker 12: there's never been a precedent for criminal charges being filed

429
00:23:07,240 --> 00:23:10,560
Speaker 12: against a former president. But there are two issues that

430
00:23:10,600 --> 00:23:13,359
Speaker 12: the courts will have to address in ruling on the motion.

431
00:23:13,520 --> 00:23:17,440
Speaker 12: The first is whether, in fact, presidents do enjoy absolute

432
00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:21,760
Speaker 12: immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken during the presidency,

433
00:23:22,200 --> 00:23:25,120
Speaker 12: and if they find that there is such a thing

434
00:23:25,200 --> 00:23:29,080
Speaker 12: as absolute immunity for president from criminal prosecution, then they

435
00:23:29,080 --> 00:23:32,399
Speaker 12: would have to apply that doctrine of immunity to the

436
00:23:32,440 --> 00:23:35,679
Speaker 12: facts presented in this case. If the court told that

437
00:23:35,720 --> 00:23:39,719
Speaker 12: there is no absolute immunity for a president from prosecution

438
00:23:39,880 --> 00:23:43,080
Speaker 12: even after they leave office, then they don't necessarily have

439
00:23:43,160 --> 00:23:46,560
Speaker 12: to address this second question of whether or not Trump's

440
00:23:46,600 --> 00:23:49,440
Speaker 12: actions fall within the scope of such immunity.

441
00:23:49,880 --> 00:23:53,760
Speaker 1: This motion was just filed last Thursday, so prosecutors haven't

442
00:23:53,760 --> 00:23:56,680
Speaker 1: had time to respond. But what do you envision their

443
00:23:56,920 --> 00:24:00,480
Speaker 1: argument will be against the claims of presidentiality.

444
00:24:00,960 --> 00:24:03,679
Speaker 12: I imagine what they're going to argue is first that

445
00:24:03,720 --> 00:24:06,480
Speaker 12: the courts should not extend the doctrine. It's a judge

446
00:24:06,560 --> 00:24:10,440
Speaker 12: made doctrine of immunity for presidents to the criminal context,

447
00:24:10,480 --> 00:24:13,520
Speaker 12: and I think they have very good arguments. But secondarily,

448
00:24:13,600 --> 00:24:15,800
Speaker 12: they will argue that even if the court were to

449
00:24:15,840 --> 00:24:19,440
Speaker 12: find that in some cases a president could enjoy immunity

450
00:24:19,440 --> 00:24:23,000
Speaker 12: from criminal prosecution for actions taken while president, that it

451
00:24:23,040 --> 00:24:25,919
Speaker 12: would not apply to the conduct that is alleged in

452
00:24:26,000 --> 00:24:29,719
Speaker 12: this case, because if the courts were to follow the

453
00:24:29,760 --> 00:24:33,000
Speaker 12: doctrine they have applied in the context of civil suits

454
00:24:33,000 --> 00:24:36,920
Speaker 12: for damages, brought against a former president, which asks whether

455
00:24:37,000 --> 00:24:39,520
Speaker 12: or not the conduct in question falls within the outer

456
00:24:39,680 --> 00:24:44,080
Speaker 12: perimeter of the president's official responsibility. The Special Council would

457
00:24:44,200 --> 00:24:47,880
Speaker 12: argue that these actions do not fall within that outer perimeter.

458
00:24:48,320 --> 00:24:52,080
Speaker 1: This is uncharted territory. What has the Supreme Court ruled

459
00:24:52,119 --> 00:24:55,399
Speaker 1: in the past in the area of presidential immunity.

460
00:24:55,920 --> 00:24:59,560
Speaker 12: So, the Supreme Court has ruled on presidential immunity in

461
00:24:59,600 --> 00:25:03,040
Speaker 12: the content textive damages, actions and civil suits. In the

462
00:25:03,080 --> 00:25:06,800
Speaker 12: most important cases a case called Nixon versus Fitzgerald, in

463
00:25:06,800 --> 00:25:09,639
Speaker 12: which the Court said, there is a doctrine of absolute

464
00:25:09,680 --> 00:25:14,200
Speaker 12: presidential immunity that shields the president even after he leaves

465
00:25:14,280 --> 00:25:19,280
Speaker 12: office from damages actions brought by individuals for actions taken

466
00:25:19,320 --> 00:25:23,960
Speaker 12: within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities. The

467
00:25:24,040 --> 00:25:27,760
Speaker 12: Court in that case drew on precedents those cases that

468
00:25:27,960 --> 00:25:32,080
Speaker 12: recognized absolute immunity for prosecutors and judges said, essentially, if

469
00:25:32,119 --> 00:25:36,080
Speaker 12: we don't adopt this doctrine, these individuals who perform these

470
00:25:36,160 --> 00:25:40,200
Speaker 12: very public and important duties will be distracted and concerned

471
00:25:40,240 --> 00:25:43,320
Speaker 12: as they perform their duties about the potential of being

472
00:25:43,359 --> 00:25:48,160
Speaker 12: subject to innumerable suits. And so in Nixon versus Fitzgerald,

473
00:25:48,200 --> 00:25:50,920
Speaker 12: the Court said, essentially, we're going to adopt that reasoning

474
00:25:50,960 --> 00:25:54,560
Speaker 12: which applies with great force to the president of the

475
00:25:54,640 --> 00:25:57,040
Speaker 12: United States, who, in addition, as to whom there's real

476
00:25:57,080 --> 00:26:01,000
Speaker 12: separation of powers concerns if the courts were intrude upon

477
00:26:01,359 --> 00:26:05,560
Speaker 12: the executive's ability to perform his functions as president. But

478
00:26:05,640 --> 00:26:08,840
Speaker 12: the Court, again in Nixon versus Fitzgerald, talked about how

479
00:26:09,119 --> 00:26:14,360
Speaker 12: those cases did not opine on the availability of criminal prosecution,

480
00:26:14,960 --> 00:26:17,399
Speaker 12: And in fact, in Nixon versus Fitzgerald, the Court was

481
00:26:17,560 --> 00:26:20,440
Speaker 12: very clear to say, and it has said in subsequent

482
00:26:20,480 --> 00:26:23,520
Speaker 12: cases on the question of absolute presidential immunity, that those

483
00:26:23,560 --> 00:26:27,359
Speaker 12: cases are limited to the question of civil damages in

484
00:26:27,440 --> 00:26:30,640
Speaker 12: civil suits brought by private parties. So I think there's

485
00:26:30,640 --> 00:26:33,600
Speaker 12: a very strong argument to be made that the Court

486
00:26:33,680 --> 00:26:37,879
Speaker 12: would not extend that doctrine of immunity to criminal prosecution.

487
00:26:38,640 --> 00:26:42,040
Speaker 1: What about the case of Trump the Vance, where the

488
00:26:42,040 --> 00:26:46,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruled on the Manhattan DA's grand jury subpoena

489
00:26:46,480 --> 00:26:49,600
Speaker 1: to Mazar's Trump's accounting firm.

490
00:26:50,240 --> 00:26:52,879
Speaker 12: I think that's instructive as well, and that builds on

491
00:26:52,960 --> 00:26:56,440
Speaker 12: this idea that the Court sees a distinction between criminal cases,

492
00:26:56,760 --> 00:27:01,760
Speaker 12: including investigations and prosecutions and civil lawsuits. In the Trump

493
00:27:01,840 --> 00:27:04,159
Speaker 12: Vizance case, I mean that involved a subpoena from a

494
00:27:04,200 --> 00:27:08,440
Speaker 12: state grand jury seeking documents from Trump while he was president,

495
00:27:08,880 --> 00:27:11,679
Speaker 12: and he asserted absolute immunity and that he shouldn't have

496
00:27:11,720 --> 00:27:15,399
Speaker 12: to respond to that state grand jury subpoena, and the

497
00:27:15,440 --> 00:27:21,640
Speaker 12: Court said the public interest in criminal investigations is really paramount.

498
00:27:21,960 --> 00:27:24,679
Speaker 12: It's a similar interest that the Court talked about in

499
00:27:24,720 --> 00:27:28,440
Speaker 12: the United States versus Nixon when President Nixon as president

500
00:27:28,520 --> 00:27:30,800
Speaker 12: was ordered to comply with a subpoena from the grand

501
00:27:30,880 --> 00:27:35,800
Speaker 12: jury working with the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, seeking evidence

502
00:27:35,840 --> 00:27:39,600
Speaker 12: in the grand jury's investigation related to Watergate. So in

503
00:27:39,640 --> 00:27:43,080
Speaker 12: both cases, the Court has talked about essentially the paramount

504
00:27:43,240 --> 00:27:47,440
Speaker 12: public interest in criminal prosecutions and investigations and how that

505
00:27:47,560 --> 00:27:51,199
Speaker 12: is really quite distinct from the private interests involved in

506
00:27:51,359 --> 00:27:53,720
Speaker 12: civil lawsuits against former president.

507
00:27:54,240 --> 00:27:58,120
Speaker 1: So Trump is all about delay with these cases, and

508
00:27:58,280 --> 00:28:00,880
Speaker 1: his lawyer said they'll try to take to the Supreme

509
00:28:00,960 --> 00:28:05,000
Speaker 1: Court if they lose at the DC's Circuit rulings, denying

510
00:28:05,320 --> 00:28:09,920
Speaker 1: motions to dismiss an indictment normally wouldn't be appealable until

511
00:28:09,920 --> 00:28:12,400
Speaker 1: after a verdict, right, But is this different?

512
00:28:13,040 --> 00:28:15,160
Speaker 12: This is different, And that's one of the reasons why

513
00:28:15,200 --> 00:28:17,679
Speaker 12: I think this motion is so significant, not just on

514
00:28:17,800 --> 00:28:20,560
Speaker 12: the merits and for the new law that it could establish,

515
00:28:20,800 --> 00:28:22,960
Speaker 12: but for the fact that the motion, because of its

516
00:28:23,040 --> 00:28:24,840
Speaker 12: nature and the fact that I think it is going

517
00:28:24,920 --> 00:28:29,360
Speaker 12: to be deemed immediately appealable, could derail the trial simply

518
00:28:29,400 --> 00:28:32,159
Speaker 12: by going through the appellate process and the time it

519
00:28:32,200 --> 00:28:35,160
Speaker 12: will take for the matter to be decided, and how

520
00:28:35,160 --> 00:28:38,120
Speaker 12: that may well go beyond the March twenty twenty four

521
00:28:38,240 --> 00:28:39,880
Speaker 12: trial date that's been established.

522
00:28:40,320 --> 00:28:43,440
Speaker 1: We don't have the prosecutions brief yet, but does this

523
00:28:43,520 --> 00:28:45,680
Speaker 1: seem like an upheal battle for Trump?

524
00:28:46,240 --> 00:28:49,280
Speaker 12: I expect that the trial court and the DC Circuit

525
00:28:49,280 --> 00:28:52,160
Speaker 12: will rule against Trump, But when it gets to the

526
00:28:52,280 --> 00:28:55,200
Speaker 12: US Supreme Court, and I do anticipate the Supreme Court

527
00:28:55,240 --> 00:28:59,120
Speaker 12: would take this case, then it's a much harder outcome

528
00:28:59,160 --> 00:29:02,200
Speaker 12: to predict. I think on the merits that the Supreme

529
00:29:02,240 --> 00:29:05,800
Speaker 12: Court should rule against him, but it's hard to predict

530
00:29:05,840 --> 00:29:08,720
Speaker 12: how this Supreme Court will rule and if they get

531
00:29:08,760 --> 00:29:11,120
Speaker 12: to the second question, which is whether or not these

532
00:29:11,160 --> 00:29:15,560
Speaker 12: acts fall within the outer perimeter of the presidential functions

533
00:29:15,600 --> 00:29:18,520
Speaker 12: and duties. Then again, it's going to turn on how

534
00:29:18,560 --> 00:29:22,760
Speaker 12: the court chooses to characterize the acts, what level of generality,

535
00:29:23,080 --> 00:29:25,920
Speaker 12: and whether they look at them collectively and in context

536
00:29:26,160 --> 00:29:30,480
Speaker 12: or essentially separate them out individually the ways the former

537
00:29:30,520 --> 00:29:34,600
Speaker 12: president has invited them to. I also think that there's

538
00:29:34,600 --> 00:29:38,800
Speaker 12: a sort of a larger context here decisions about recognizing

539
00:29:38,840 --> 00:29:42,400
Speaker 12: immunity and to what extent do require courts to consider

540
00:29:42,440 --> 00:29:46,040
Speaker 12: the consequences of ruling one way or the other. Here

541
00:29:46,120 --> 00:29:49,400
Speaker 12: we have the former president who says that he should

542
00:29:49,440 --> 00:29:53,480
Speaker 12: not be subject to prosecution in part because of the

543
00:29:53,600 --> 00:29:57,200
Speaker 12: impact on future presidents and thinking about their ability to

544
00:29:57,240 --> 00:30:00,320
Speaker 12: carry out their duties without being distracted by worries they

545
00:30:00,400 --> 00:30:04,120
Speaker 12: themselves would be hauled into court subsequently and charge. And

546
00:30:04,360 --> 00:30:07,280
Speaker 12: he is saying on the campaign trail that if re elected,

547
00:30:07,320 --> 00:30:11,360
Speaker 12: he would direct his attorney general to prosecute his political enemies,

548
00:30:11,680 --> 00:30:15,680
Speaker 12: including now President Behiden. And so I do think that

549
00:30:15,800 --> 00:30:18,760
Speaker 12: part of the mix and the court evaluating the consequences

550
00:30:18,760 --> 00:30:21,120
Speaker 12: of its ruling would be if they do rule that

551
00:30:21,200 --> 00:30:24,240
Speaker 12: a former president can be subject to criminal prosecution will

552
00:30:24,280 --> 00:30:28,320
Speaker 12: acts while president will that mean that we would subsequently

553
00:30:28,440 --> 00:30:32,440
Speaker 12: see future prosecutions of former presidents sort of ramp up

554
00:30:32,480 --> 00:30:34,720
Speaker 12: in the way that we are seeing essentially an escalation

555
00:30:34,960 --> 00:30:37,720
Speaker 12: in the threat of impeachment for presidents while in office.

556
00:30:37,880 --> 00:30:42,880
Speaker 1: This presidential immunity claim presents so many issues. Thanks so much, Jessica.

557
00:30:43,160 --> 00:30:47,160
Speaker 1: That's Professor Jessica Roth of Cardozo Law School coming up next.

558
00:30:47,440 --> 00:30:50,040
Speaker 1: It's a hot tub, but it's a legal hot tub.

559
00:30:50,400 --> 00:30:53,080
Speaker 1: Just what does that mean? I'm June Grosso. When you're

560
00:30:53,120 --> 00:30:54,240
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg.

561
00:30:57,560 --> 00:31:05,400
Speaker 4: This is Bloomberg Law with Russo from Bloomberg Radio.

562
00:31:08,120 --> 00:31:09,040
Speaker 5: I don't want to say how.

563
00:31:11,320 --> 00:31:15,440
Speaker 4: Must be some kind of hot tub turchine.

564
00:31:15,880 --> 00:31:18,680
Speaker 1: We all know what hot tubs are, and we even

565
00:31:18,760 --> 00:31:21,880
Speaker 1: know what hot tub time machines are from the movies.

566
00:31:22,240 --> 00:31:25,960
Speaker 1: But what exactly is a legal hot tub. Well, it's

567
00:31:26,000 --> 00:31:28,800
Speaker 1: not as exciting as it may sound, and it really

568
00:31:28,880 --> 00:31:32,560
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with hot tubs. It's formally called

569
00:31:32,800 --> 00:31:38,400
Speaker 1: concurrent expert testimony or a concurrent expert evidence proceeding, and

570
00:31:38,440 --> 00:31:42,080
Speaker 1: it's like a discussion among experts. But it's not very

571
00:31:42,120 --> 00:31:45,560
Speaker 1: popular in US courts, at least so far. Here to

572
00:31:45,560 --> 00:31:47,800
Speaker 1: tell us about it and how it got that name

573
00:31:48,120 --> 00:31:52,600
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Law reporter Dan papskin So tell us exactly

574
00:31:52,640 --> 00:31:54,320
Speaker 1: what this legal hot tub is.

575
00:31:54,400 --> 00:31:54,600
Speaker 7: Dan.

576
00:31:55,000 --> 00:31:56,479
Speaker 3: You can kind of think of it as a debate

577
00:31:56,640 --> 00:32:01,120
Speaker 3: between experts, often economic experts, but not necessary boroughly, where

578
00:32:01,240 --> 00:32:04,040
Speaker 3: instead of one sitting on the stands in a trial

579
00:32:04,280 --> 00:32:06,960
Speaker 3: or in the pre trial hearing and getting examined and

580
00:32:07,000 --> 00:32:09,520
Speaker 3: then cross examined by one size attorneys and then the other,

581
00:32:09,760 --> 00:32:13,160
Speaker 3: both or all of the witnesses sit together before the

582
00:32:13,240 --> 00:32:15,840
Speaker 3: judge and are basically prompted to debate each other on

583
00:32:15,920 --> 00:32:18,719
Speaker 3: a series of predetermined topics or questions.

584
00:32:18,760 --> 00:32:20,880
Speaker 1: And where did they get the name hot tub for this?

585
00:32:21,480 --> 00:32:25,160
Speaker 3: Australia. These originated pretty much right around the beginning of

586
00:32:25,160 --> 00:32:28,840
Speaker 3: the decade and it was deployed originally by the Australian

587
00:32:28,880 --> 00:32:32,840
Speaker 3: Competition Tribunal. They're kind of anti trust dedicated port system

588
00:32:33,280 --> 00:32:36,160
Speaker 3: basically to get a clear understanding of what experts we're

589
00:32:36,200 --> 00:32:38,840
Speaker 3: talking about and make them really drill down on their

590
00:32:38,840 --> 00:32:41,960
Speaker 3: agreements and their disagreements. It was pretty successful there and

591
00:32:42,000 --> 00:32:44,640
Speaker 3: it's taken off in a bunch of other countries in Europe,

592
00:32:44,800 --> 00:32:48,720
Speaker 3: in South Africa, Canada has used it, mostly been unpopular

593
00:32:48,760 --> 00:32:50,920
Speaker 3: in the US. We've only found a little less than

594
00:32:50,920 --> 00:32:54,160
Speaker 3: two dozen instances of federal judges using on it hasn't

595
00:32:54,200 --> 00:32:55,040
Speaker 3: it hasn't taken off.

596
00:32:55,200 --> 00:32:57,560
Speaker 1: Maybe the name has something to do with that. I

597
00:32:57,600 --> 00:33:00,200
Speaker 1: know you witness one of these legal hot tubs when

598
00:33:00,240 --> 00:33:04,040
Speaker 1: federal Judge James Denado held one in San Francisco. So

599
00:33:04,080 --> 00:33:04,840
Speaker 1: tell us about that.

600
00:33:05,080 --> 00:33:08,440
Speaker 3: So Donato held the second hot tub he's held in

601
00:33:08,480 --> 00:33:12,320
Speaker 3: this case. This is a lawsuit alleging Google basically has

602
00:33:12,360 --> 00:33:16,720
Speaker 3: anti competitive control over the payment systems in his playstore,

603
00:33:17,000 --> 00:33:20,360
Speaker 3: and so the second hot tub was to basically determine

604
00:33:20,400 --> 00:33:25,320
Speaker 3: whether the plaintiffs experts have reached kind of valid models

605
00:33:25,360 --> 00:33:29,160
Speaker 3: for figuring out how much consumers were harmed by these

606
00:33:29,200 --> 00:33:32,440
Speaker 3: playstore policies and what the impact was on the market.

607
00:33:32,800 --> 00:33:35,600
Speaker 1: Is the judge the only one asking questions or are

608
00:33:35,640 --> 00:33:40,239
Speaker 1: the lawyers asking questions? Is their cross talk between the experts.

609
00:33:40,040 --> 00:33:43,280
Speaker 3: There's a lot of crosstalk. It's almost exclusively Tonato asking

610
00:33:43,320 --> 00:33:46,040
Speaker 3: the questions. He allows a couple of attorneys to sit

611
00:33:46,120 --> 00:33:49,240
Speaker 3: with the experts in the hot tub, but they're really

612
00:33:49,240 --> 00:33:51,120
Speaker 3: only allowed to ask questions right at the end if

613
00:33:51,200 --> 00:33:54,520
Speaker 3: they have kind of clarifying questions for either expert. Otherwise

614
00:33:54,560 --> 00:33:58,880
Speaker 3: Donato prompts one side or the other. We'll say like, yeah,

615
00:33:58,880 --> 00:34:01,560
Speaker 3: I read your report, this question about this, you know,

616
00:34:02,120 --> 00:34:04,880
Speaker 3: one part of the model, and then we'll prompt the

617
00:34:04,920 --> 00:34:07,240
Speaker 3: other expert to be like, do you disagree with that?

618
00:34:07,680 --> 00:34:10,960
Speaker 3: So why it got pretty heated several times if there was,

619
00:34:11,160 --> 00:34:12,680
Speaker 3: I don't know if you would call it yelling, but

620
00:34:12,680 --> 00:34:16,520
Speaker 3: definitely raised voices. The court reporter had to interrupt I

621
00:34:16,520 --> 00:34:20,360
Speaker 3: think three separate times because two experts and the judge

622
00:34:20,360 --> 00:34:23,319
Speaker 3: were talking over each other and she couldn't transcribe that

623
00:34:23,400 --> 00:34:25,520
Speaker 3: in real time. So it definitely is a little more

624
00:34:25,600 --> 00:34:27,880
Speaker 3: chaotic than your average court oral testimony.

625
00:34:28,560 --> 00:34:32,880
Speaker 1: Is this because the expert testimony is so complex for

626
00:34:32,960 --> 00:34:37,920
Speaker 1: the judge to understand? Or is it because this is quicker?

627
00:34:38,000 --> 00:34:39,840
Speaker 1: I mean, what's the real reason behind this?

628
00:34:40,239 --> 00:34:42,799
Speaker 3: The reason do not outheld the hants up was to

629
00:34:42,840 --> 00:34:46,000
Speaker 3: answer this Google motion over whether the experts should be

630
00:34:46,040 --> 00:34:49,160
Speaker 3: allowed to testify or not. And Nato told me in

631
00:34:49,160 --> 00:34:53,480
Speaker 3: an interview afterwards that it's very useful for him understanding

632
00:34:53,680 --> 00:34:56,239
Speaker 3: their testimony and their models. It is really complicated and

633
00:34:56,320 --> 00:35:00,000
Speaker 3: that's a big reason why judges are deploying hot tubs.

634
00:35:00,280 --> 00:35:02,880
Speaker 3: Haven't deployed too many of them. But it's not just

635
00:35:02,920 --> 00:35:06,440
Speaker 3: as a complexity it's also faster to another side. It's

636
00:35:06,440 --> 00:35:10,439
Speaker 3: a lot cleaner compared normal expert testimony, non hot tub

637
00:35:10,480 --> 00:35:12,880
Speaker 3: testimony to a game of telephone. Right, You've got the

638
00:35:12,920 --> 00:35:15,120
Speaker 3: expert on the stand, you've got their attorney questioning them,

639
00:35:15,200 --> 00:35:17,400
Speaker 3: and then you've got the judge hearing their answers. So

640
00:35:17,400 --> 00:35:20,200
Speaker 3: it's kind of filtered through what questions the attorney wants

641
00:35:20,200 --> 00:35:23,080
Speaker 3: to ask, and then how the economist in this case

642
00:35:23,239 --> 00:35:26,480
Speaker 3: answers those questions. The judge might not necessarily be getting

643
00:35:26,760 --> 00:35:28,759
Speaker 3: the exact answers they're looking for.

644
00:35:29,000 --> 00:35:31,080
Speaker 1: Well, we'll see if the use of these legal hot

645
00:35:31,080 --> 00:35:33,520
Speaker 1: tubs picks up, but I think a name change is

646
00:35:33,520 --> 00:35:37,080
Speaker 1: in order. Thanks so much, Dan. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter

647
00:35:37,239 --> 00:35:39,719
Speaker 1: Dan Paskin, and that's it for this edition of The

648
00:35:39,719 --> 00:35:42,680
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

649
00:35:42,760 --> 00:35:45,879
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

650
00:35:45,880 --> 00:35:50,480
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg

651
00:35:50,520 --> 00:35:54,319
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember to tune

652
00:35:54,320 --> 00:35:57,600
Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

653
00:35:57,600 --> 00:36:01,759
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grass and you're listening to Bloomberg.

654
00:36:02,840 --> 00:36:07,000
Speaker 1: M mm hmm,