1 00:00:02,840 --> 00:00:07,080 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:13,760 Speaker 2: There's been an unprecedented deluge of hundreds of lawsuits challenging 3 00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:19,480 Speaker 2: the Trump administration's boundary pushing uses of executive power, increasing 4 00:00:19,520 --> 00:00:23,439 Speaker 2: the amount of taxpayer money at stake. The US government 5 00:00:23,520 --> 00:00:26,319 Speaker 2: is on the hook for potentially millions of dollars in 6 00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:30,920 Speaker 2: legal bills demanded by successful challengers to some of the 7 00:00:30,960 --> 00:00:36,400 Speaker 2: administration's most controversial executive actions and policies. According to a 8 00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:40,600 Speaker 2: Bloomberg News analysis of court records, attorneys have sought fees 9 00:00:40,680 --> 00:00:44,760 Speaker 2: exceeding one hundred thousand dollars in at least ten cases 10 00:00:44,800 --> 00:00:48,160 Speaker 2: over the past year, totaling more than two point five 11 00:00:48,240 --> 00:00:52,360 Speaker 2: million dollars. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Zoe Tillman, 12 00:00:52,440 --> 00:00:56,000 Speaker 2: who's crunched the numbers. So, Zoey, how much could the 13 00:00:56,040 --> 00:01:00,760 Speaker 2: government be on the hook for legal bills for opposing 14 00:01:00,800 --> 00:01:02,760 Speaker 2: attorneys who won their cases? 15 00:01:03,280 --> 00:01:05,039 Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it's hard to say. You know, we 16 00:01:05,160 --> 00:01:08,200 Speaker 3: started with the place where we're at now, which is 17 00:01:08,280 --> 00:01:12,000 Speaker 3: potentially millions, because we've flagged at least a number of 18 00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:16,640 Speaker 3: cases where there are outstanding pending requests that total more 19 00:01:16,680 --> 00:01:19,520 Speaker 3: than two million dollars so far, but that's only in 20 00:01:19,600 --> 00:01:22,520 Speaker 3: ten cases, and we know that there are a number 21 00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:25,600 Speaker 3: of cases where the Trump administration has lost in the 22 00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:29,120 Speaker 3: district court is appealing those losses, and where attorneys have 23 00:01:29,200 --> 00:01:32,080 Speaker 3: made clear, you know, should we prevail on appeal, an 24 00:01:32,120 --> 00:01:35,720 Speaker 3: attorney feemotion is coming. And there's always this delay with 25 00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:38,920 Speaker 3: these types of requests where you can't get paid until 26 00:01:39,040 --> 00:01:42,920 Speaker 3: litigation is completely over. So we may not see the 27 00:01:42,959 --> 00:01:47,119 Speaker 3: final dollar amounts tally up until you know, two three 28 00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:52,360 Speaker 3: years after this early deluge of litigation against the administration. 29 00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:55,200 Speaker 3: But you know, we're certainly dealing in the realm already 30 00:01:55,640 --> 00:01:56,840 Speaker 3: of millions of dollars. 31 00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:00,840 Speaker 2: So tell us about the Equal Access to Justice Act 32 00:02:00,920 --> 00:02:04,080 Speaker 2: of nineteen eighty and what it requires. 33 00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:09,320 Speaker 3: So the thinking was at the time that you know, individuals, 34 00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:15,760 Speaker 3: ordinary Americans, small businesses, nonprofits, entities that you know are 35 00:02:15,800 --> 00:02:18,880 Speaker 3: not deep pocketed, may not be able to hire big 36 00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:21,640 Speaker 3: law firms and lawyers to vindicate their rights, that they 37 00:02:21,639 --> 00:02:24,640 Speaker 3: should not be priced out of pursuing would otherwise be 38 00:02:25,000 --> 00:02:28,760 Speaker 3: legitimate claims and grievances against the government. And thinking by 39 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:30,920 Speaker 3: Congress was, you know, if they set limits on who 40 00:02:30,960 --> 00:02:34,120 Speaker 3: would be eligible to recover their fees, so it's you know, 41 00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:38,960 Speaker 3: their net worth caps for small businesses. There are employee 42 00:02:38,960 --> 00:02:42,320 Speaker 3: caps for nonprofits employee caps. So the idea is to 43 00:02:42,400 --> 00:02:44,880 Speaker 3: keep it to people who entities that you know, are 44 00:02:44,880 --> 00:02:47,960 Speaker 3: not big corporations that obviously you know, may not need 45 00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:51,120 Speaker 3: the government to pay back their legal fees. And the 46 00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:54,520 Speaker 3: thinking is, if you're a prevailing party and the government's 47 00:02:54,560 --> 00:02:57,960 Speaker 3: position in litigation was not quote substantially justified, which has 48 00:02:58,000 --> 00:03:01,040 Speaker 3: been interpreted pretty broadly by courts. You know, even if 49 00:03:01,080 --> 00:03:04,359 Speaker 3: DOJ says we made a good faith argument here, if 50 00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:08,200 Speaker 3: they were found to have certainly done something obviously unlawful 51 00:03:08,200 --> 00:03:10,880 Speaker 3: and constitutional, courts have been pretty willing to say, you know, 52 00:03:10,919 --> 00:03:13,760 Speaker 3: that was not a substantially justified position that you took 53 00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:17,520 Speaker 3: in this litigation. And the courts can award fees. The 54 00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:20,920 Speaker 3: amounts tend not to be very high in doing the 55 00:03:21,040 --> 00:03:25,679 Speaker 3: historical analysis in most cases, setting aside social security and 56 00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:28,360 Speaker 3: veterans benefits cases of which there are thousands, and that's 57 00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:30,960 Speaker 3: sort of a different animal from what we're talking about here. 58 00:03:31,240 --> 00:03:33,640 Speaker 3: Most of the time these fear awards fall below one 59 00:03:33,720 --> 00:03:36,920 Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars, so it's you know, not a lot 60 00:03:36,920 --> 00:03:41,800 Speaker 3: of money, but for an ordinary everyday person, tens of 61 00:03:41,800 --> 00:03:43,800 Speaker 3: thousands of dollars if they had to lay out that 62 00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:46,640 Speaker 3: money to vindicate the rights, is certainly a significant amount 63 00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:47,040 Speaker 3: of money. 64 00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:48,760 Speaker 2: So, Zoe, and looking at the list that you have 65 00:03:48,880 --> 00:03:53,280 Speaker 2: in your story about the requests for fees, the top 66 00:03:53,320 --> 00:03:57,360 Speaker 2: requests have to do with cases involving research funding cuts, 67 00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:02,440 Speaker 2: and the nonprofit Association of American Universities is looking for 68 00:04:02,480 --> 00:04:05,880 Speaker 2: more than one point five million dollars for its attorneys. 69 00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:09,760 Speaker 2: Of course, one of their attorneys is Paul Clement, the 70 00:04:09,800 --> 00:04:13,720 Speaker 2: former Solicitor General who's argued more cases before the Supreme 71 00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:15,400 Speaker 2: Court than anyone else. 72 00:04:15,960 --> 00:04:18,719 Speaker 3: Right, that's the four cases that deal with the rate 73 00:04:19,120 --> 00:04:24,040 Speaker 3: that agencies reimburse research institutions for the indirect costs of 74 00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:27,400 Speaker 3: doing government research. So you know the costs of running 75 00:04:27,400 --> 00:04:31,039 Speaker 3: these labs of you know, the sort of overhead, not 76 00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:33,400 Speaker 3: the core funding. 77 00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:33,800 Speaker 1: For the project. 78 00:04:33,880 --> 00:04:36,799 Speaker 3: So the agencies have tried to cut that rate down, 79 00:04:37,440 --> 00:04:40,520 Speaker 3: and research institutions have said, this is the lifeblood. Our 80 00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:44,320 Speaker 3: ability to function depends on getting reimbursed not just for 81 00:04:44,440 --> 00:04:46,719 Speaker 3: you know, the hours that we do the experiment or 82 00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:50,560 Speaker 3: the research, but for the cost of doing business of research. 83 00:04:50,800 --> 00:04:53,800 Speaker 3: So yeah, those are the four cases by the Association 84 00:04:53,839 --> 00:04:57,440 Speaker 3: of American Universities where Paul Clement, who is you know, 85 00:04:57,560 --> 00:05:01,760 Speaker 3: boldface name in legal circles for many years, is among 86 00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:05,040 Speaker 3: the lawyers, which include other very accomplished lawyers, other big 87 00:05:05,120 --> 00:05:07,479 Speaker 3: law firms in Washington. But this is some of the 88 00:05:07,520 --> 00:05:11,240 Speaker 3: highest dollar requests because it has involved these very experienced, 89 00:05:11,839 --> 00:05:13,440 Speaker 3: veteran Washington lawyers. 90 00:05:13,680 --> 00:05:15,440 Speaker 2: Well, I was going to say, are they looking for 91 00:05:15,480 --> 00:05:18,320 Speaker 2: five hundred dollars an hour for Paul Clement, because that's 92 00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:20,800 Speaker 2: sort of a drop in the bucket for him, isn't it. 93 00:05:20,800 --> 00:05:23,080 Speaker 2: It's not really what he would normally charge. I mean, 94 00:05:23,080 --> 00:05:26,080 Speaker 2: they charged thousands of dollars, now, that's right. 95 00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:29,719 Speaker 3: So the Equal Access to Justice Act does set a 96 00:05:29,760 --> 00:05:33,320 Speaker 3: baseline for fees. Normally, I think the baseline rate is 97 00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:35,480 Speaker 3: it's like one hundred and twenty five dollars an hour, 98 00:05:36,080 --> 00:05:39,320 Speaker 3: with wiggle room for cost of living. So I think 99 00:05:39,360 --> 00:05:42,160 Speaker 3: the actual baseline year to year tends to be closer 100 00:05:42,240 --> 00:05:44,480 Speaker 3: to two hundred and two hundred and fifty dollars an hour. 101 00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:48,880 Speaker 3: But the law allows for some discretion if lawyers can say, 102 00:05:48,960 --> 00:05:51,960 Speaker 3: you know, there was special expertise that they brought. It 103 00:05:52,080 --> 00:05:56,640 Speaker 3: was extraordinary litigation involving novel questions of law. You know, 104 00:05:56,720 --> 00:06:00,000 Speaker 3: if it was a heavier lift than your ordinary loss 105 00:06:00,200 --> 00:06:02,960 Speaker 3: against an agency, there is this ability to ask for 106 00:06:03,040 --> 00:06:07,280 Speaker 3: higher rates. Now the government will come back sometimes and 107 00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:10,880 Speaker 3: say those rates are too high. You've put in for 108 00:06:10,960 --> 00:06:13,680 Speaker 3: working too many hours on this. We don't think that's reasonable. 109 00:06:13,960 --> 00:06:17,039 Speaker 3: In those cases, they're also arguing that this association is 110 00:06:17,080 --> 00:06:21,320 Speaker 3: not eligible to get fees, that they were really suing 111 00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:24,280 Speaker 3: on behalf of their members. The association has said that's 112 00:06:24,320 --> 00:06:27,320 Speaker 3: not what the standard is. There's litigation about this. So 113 00:06:27,440 --> 00:06:29,960 Speaker 3: you know, we're seeing some cases where the government is 114 00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:32,440 Speaker 3: is reaching settlements and acknowledging that there is this law 115 00:06:32,440 --> 00:06:35,680 Speaker 3: that compels them when they lose in many cases to 116 00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:39,600 Speaker 3: pay up, but also in some cases exercising their ability 117 00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:42,520 Speaker 3: back and to say, you know, even if we do 118 00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:45,359 Speaker 3: have to pay fees, it should not be that much. 119 00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:48,640 Speaker 2: And so if they can't reach a settlement, a judge 120 00:06:48,680 --> 00:06:50,800 Speaker 2: will decide on the amount. 121 00:06:51,120 --> 00:06:53,359 Speaker 3: That's right that I'll decide. You know, were they a 122 00:06:53,400 --> 00:06:58,599 Speaker 3: prevailing party, was the government's position substantially justified? Are the 123 00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:03,159 Speaker 3: requested fees reasonable? And then you know, ultimately a judgeable 124 00:07:03,279 --> 00:07:05,440 Speaker 3: enter and order saying I find the government has to 125 00:07:05,480 --> 00:07:07,599 Speaker 3: pay you know, yes you have to pay Paul Clement, 126 00:07:07,640 --> 00:07:10,160 Speaker 3: but only three hundred and fifty dollars an hour, not 127 00:07:10,200 --> 00:07:12,440 Speaker 3: five hundred dollars an hour. They get into that kind 128 00:07:12,480 --> 00:07:14,240 Speaker 3: of granular level of this. 129 00:07:14,840 --> 00:07:18,320 Speaker 2: Now immigration case is the Supreme Court is going to 130 00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:23,360 Speaker 2: hear a case involving the Equal Access to Justice Act 131 00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:24,200 Speaker 2: and immigration. 132 00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:26,840 Speaker 3: That's right. So you know, we've a couple of different 133 00:07:26,840 --> 00:07:30,000 Speaker 3: buckets here, and that's part of where our estimate of 134 00:07:30,040 --> 00:07:34,200 Speaker 3: this potentially being millions of dollars at stake also includes 135 00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:37,480 Speaker 3: these other cases where if you have your standard, you know, 136 00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:40,520 Speaker 3: I student an agency because they did X with grants 137 00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:43,200 Speaker 3: and we won and now we get money. Second category 138 00:07:43,320 --> 00:07:47,920 Speaker 3: is habeas cases where the Trump administration has enacted a 139 00:07:48,040 --> 00:07:52,360 Speaker 3: very aggressive push to ramp up immigration arrests and deportations, 140 00:07:52,640 --> 00:07:57,040 Speaker 3: and that has resulted in a concurrent increase explosion really 141 00:07:57,080 --> 00:08:00,680 Speaker 3: of litigation to try and free people from immigration while 142 00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:03,960 Speaker 3: they are fighting whether they can be deported, and in 143 00:08:04,040 --> 00:08:07,360 Speaker 3: cases where the government has lost, where judges have said, 144 00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:10,280 Speaker 3: you know, you have to release this person, not necessarily 145 00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:13,240 Speaker 3: that they can't be deported, but you know, the campient custody. 146 00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:17,280 Speaker 3: Circuits have split about whether that counts as a you know, 147 00:08:17,360 --> 00:08:21,800 Speaker 3: prevailing party substantially justified or not under the Equal Access 148 00:08:21,800 --> 00:08:25,920 Speaker 3: to Justice Act. And some courts have awarded fees and 149 00:08:26,040 --> 00:08:28,760 Speaker 3: the amounts tend to be smaller than the six figure 150 00:08:29,240 --> 00:08:31,800 Speaker 3: requests that we're seeing in these really high profile cases. 151 00:08:32,120 --> 00:08:35,320 Speaker 3: But there are a lot of these cases, so you know, 152 00:08:35,400 --> 00:08:38,480 Speaker 3: the stakes are also high for what the Supreme Court 153 00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:42,160 Speaker 3: does with this next term. You know, if it's five 154 00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:47,079 Speaker 3: hundred cases with a couple thousand dollars in each awarded, 155 00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:51,520 Speaker 3: you can see how the financial stakes there balloons if 156 00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:55,079 Speaker 3: the court says that they can recover these attorney fees. 157 00:08:55,160 --> 00:08:58,280 Speaker 3: Now we should say, you know, this court has but 158 00:08:58,400 --> 00:09:01,720 Speaker 3: a conservative majority has large sided with the government on 159 00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:05,400 Speaker 3: issues related to immigration. So it does seem like there's 160 00:09:05,440 --> 00:09:08,360 Speaker 3: an uphill battle for advocates here who are arguing that 161 00:09:08,440 --> 00:09:12,560 Speaker 3: this law should cover people who successfully sue the government 162 00:09:12,600 --> 00:09:15,320 Speaker 3: to get out of custody. But it's a big ticket 163 00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:18,400 Speaker 3: issue on many levels, both in terms of the rights 164 00:09:18,440 --> 00:09:20,920 Speaker 3: of people in these cases and also the amount of 165 00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:23,079 Speaker 3: money that is at stake if the government loses. 166 00:09:23,720 --> 00:09:27,040 Speaker 2: Explain what the judgment fund is and how it's different 167 00:09:27,240 --> 00:09:28,240 Speaker 2: from EGA. 168 00:09:28,559 --> 00:09:32,480 Speaker 3: They're mostly separate. EG fees are typically paid by the 169 00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:36,079 Speaker 3: agency that was sued and that lost, so there are 170 00:09:36,160 --> 00:09:38,800 Speaker 3: each year, you know, it's analysis of how much each 171 00:09:38,840 --> 00:09:41,880 Speaker 3: agency has had to pay in EG fees and how 172 00:09:41,880 --> 00:09:45,400 Speaker 3: many claims they've had to pay out. The judgment fund 173 00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:49,520 Speaker 3: is sort of separate. When you see the government because 174 00:09:50,320 --> 00:09:53,280 Speaker 3: you tripped and fell on the national mall and you 175 00:09:53,320 --> 00:09:56,680 Speaker 3: get hurt because a government employee in a car hit 176 00:09:56,760 --> 00:09:59,640 Speaker 3: your car, you know you were in an accident, or 177 00:09:59,679 --> 00:10:03,160 Speaker 3: as we've increasingly seen, you know, cases against the government 178 00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:08,880 Speaker 3: for damages for certain types of constitutional violations, other types 179 00:10:08,920 --> 00:10:14,439 Speaker 3: of damage as harms, tourt actions. Those are not EJA cases. 180 00:10:14,840 --> 00:10:18,120 Speaker 3: And when you get attorney fees for winning against the 181 00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:20,199 Speaker 3: government in those types of cases or if you reach 182 00:10:20,240 --> 00:10:23,800 Speaker 3: a settlement, that money typically comes out of the judgment Fund, 183 00:10:23,920 --> 00:10:27,240 Speaker 3: which is a central pool of money. It's an indefinite, 184 00:10:27,280 --> 00:10:32,120 Speaker 3: permanent appropriation from Congress that makes money available to the 185 00:10:32,160 --> 00:10:36,400 Speaker 3: government to pay court judgments, which can include attorney fees. 186 00:10:36,960 --> 00:10:39,880 Speaker 3: Sometimes there is some overlap depending on how cases are 187 00:10:39,920 --> 00:10:42,880 Speaker 3: styled against the government, But when we're talking about sort 188 00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:48,720 Speaker 3: of bread and butter suing agencies for carrying out policies 189 00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:52,040 Speaker 3: that this administration's opponents can tend or unlawful, or in 190 00:10:52,080 --> 00:10:55,640 Speaker 3: any administration, when they win attorney fees, it tends to 191 00:10:55,679 --> 00:10:58,599 Speaker 3: come out of this EJA bucket as opposed to the 192 00:10:58,679 --> 00:11:01,760 Speaker 3: judgment fund bucket, with the understanding that there is some 193 00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:04,200 Speaker 3: fuzzying of those lines. Sometimes. 194 00:11:04,600 --> 00:11:06,880 Speaker 2: I was surprised in your story you also talk about 195 00:11:07,000 --> 00:11:09,959 Speaker 2: there's a jazz musician who's looking for two hundred and 196 00:11:09,960 --> 00:11:14,000 Speaker 2: fifty thousand dollars in legal fees. Tell us about that case. 197 00:11:14,320 --> 00:11:17,560 Speaker 3: Yeah, So this is a case involving the Kennedy Center 198 00:11:17,920 --> 00:11:21,720 Speaker 3: in Washington, which is you know, it's not a federal agency. 199 00:11:22,040 --> 00:11:25,199 Speaker 3: We called it a quasi public institution. It was created 200 00:11:25,200 --> 00:11:28,400 Speaker 3: as a loving memorial to the late President John F. Kennedy. 201 00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:32,959 Speaker 3: The board is largely appointed by the President. It receives 202 00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:37,319 Speaker 3: some federal dollars. There is some degree of federal oversight 203 00:11:37,400 --> 00:11:41,400 Speaker 3: even though it isn't an agency within the executive branch 204 00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:43,679 Speaker 3: in the traditional sense. So this case was sort of 205 00:11:43,679 --> 00:11:47,480 Speaker 3: interesting as a Trump adjacent legal fight that has also 206 00:11:47,559 --> 00:11:52,439 Speaker 3: now resulted in a fee issue where after the board 207 00:11:52,679 --> 00:11:55,760 Speaker 3: voted to put Donald Trump's name on the Kennedy Center 208 00:11:56,200 --> 00:11:59,079 Speaker 3: and to add him to the official name. A number 209 00:11:59,120 --> 00:12:03,760 Speaker 3: of shows and artists pulled out of performing at the Center, 210 00:12:04,240 --> 00:12:07,360 Speaker 3: and this musician, who had performed I think a Christmas 211 00:12:07,400 --> 00:12:10,960 Speaker 3: Eve concert for many years, was one of those artists 212 00:12:11,080 --> 00:12:15,000 Speaker 3: who withdrew and canceled his performance. So the Kennedy Center 213 00:12:15,040 --> 00:12:16,800 Speaker 3: suit and he had said at the time there were 214 00:12:16,880 --> 00:12:19,120 Speaker 3: public statements, you know, in news reports that it was 215 00:12:19,160 --> 00:12:22,920 Speaker 3: because of this renaming move he used defeated the lawsuit 216 00:12:23,040 --> 00:12:27,480 Speaker 3: in DC Superior Court, the local court here. Judge found 217 00:12:27,520 --> 00:12:30,320 Speaker 3: that the Kennedy Center was unlikely to win its breach 218 00:12:30,320 --> 00:12:33,559 Speaker 3: of contract claim and also that this was what's often 219 00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:36,840 Speaker 3: referred to as a slap action, and there was an 220 00:12:36,960 --> 00:12:40,360 Speaker 3: anti slap law where, you know, the court found that 221 00:12:40,559 --> 00:12:44,040 Speaker 3: they sued this guy specifically because he was exercising his 222 00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:47,559 Speaker 3: right to advocate on public issues of concerns. Judge tosses 223 00:12:47,600 --> 00:12:50,880 Speaker 3: the case and he's now arguing his lawyers or arguing 224 00:12:50,880 --> 00:12:53,679 Speaker 3: that the Kennedy Center is on the hook to pay 225 00:12:54,080 --> 00:12:56,480 Speaker 3: their legal fees to the tune of more than two 226 00:12:56,559 --> 00:12:59,600 Speaker 3: hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Kennedy Center is not represented 227 00:12:59,600 --> 00:13:01,720 Speaker 3: by the Just Just Department in this instance. It's sort 228 00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:03,680 Speaker 3: of a it's not quite the same as the other 229 00:13:03,760 --> 00:13:06,240 Speaker 3: cases that we talk about in the story, but it 230 00:13:06,280 --> 00:13:09,160 Speaker 3: did seem like this extended universe of when we talk 231 00:13:09,240 --> 00:13:13,880 Speaker 3: about really the cost of the way this administration has 232 00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:18,040 Speaker 3: done business and how much of the actions have wound 233 00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:20,880 Speaker 3: up in court? Can you put a dollar amount on that? 234 00:13:20,960 --> 00:13:23,000 Speaker 3: And it's a question that I get a lot, and 235 00:13:23,160 --> 00:13:26,080 Speaker 3: I'm always interested in ways of answering, which is, you know, 236 00:13:26,120 --> 00:13:29,760 Speaker 3: what is the cost of the way that any given 237 00:13:29,800 --> 00:13:34,600 Speaker 3: administration and president conducts themselves. And you know, the Kennedy 238 00:13:34,720 --> 00:13:38,120 Speaker 3: Center was this example of Trump sort of expanding his 239 00:13:38,880 --> 00:13:44,680 Speaker 3: reach into different goddists around Washington and that getting smacked down, 240 00:13:45,040 --> 00:13:47,640 Speaker 3: and now the Kennedy Center is potentially on the hook 241 00:13:48,000 --> 00:13:49,800 Speaker 3: to pay these legal fees. 242 00:13:50,160 --> 00:13:54,400 Speaker 2: Great research, Zoe, great story, Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg 243 00:13:54,480 --> 00:14:01,360 Speaker 2: Legal Reporters, Zoe Tilman. Tom Goldstein was a star of 244 00:14:01,400 --> 00:14:05,240 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court bar appearing forty four times before the 245 00:14:05,320 --> 00:14:08,760 Speaker 2: High Court, but he was living a double life as 246 00:14:08,800 --> 00:14:12,520 Speaker 2: a high stakes poker player. And now Goldstein is in 247 00:14:12,600 --> 00:14:16,360 Speaker 2: prison serving a six year sentence for tax evasion and 248 00:14:16,480 --> 00:14:21,720 Speaker 2: mortgage fraud. The fifteen day trial included testimony about multimillion 249 00:14:21,800 --> 00:14:26,360 Speaker 2: dollar poker pots, Goldstein's lavish lifestyle, and there was even 250 00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:31,200 Speaker 2: testimony from Hollywood star Toby McGuire, an avid poker player 251 00:14:31,440 --> 00:14:35,680 Speaker 2: who enlisted Goldstein's help in recovering a gambling debt from 252 00:14:35,720 --> 00:14:40,040 Speaker 2: a billionaire. Goldstein says he'll appeal the verdict. Joining me 253 00:14:40,120 --> 00:14:43,840 Speaker 2: is Bloomberg Last senior reporter Holly Barker Holly tell Us 254 00:14:43,880 --> 00:14:48,720 Speaker 2: about Goldstein, the Supreme Court litigator before the scandal. 255 00:14:49,400 --> 00:14:54,200 Speaker 4: So Tom Goldstein is a prodigious Supreme Court lawyer. He's 256 00:14:54,400 --> 00:14:58,320 Speaker 4: argued more than forty cases before the High Court. He 257 00:14:58,560 --> 00:15:03,520 Speaker 4: also founded a website called Scotus Blog, which was really 258 00:15:03,680 --> 00:15:08,280 Speaker 4: a groundbicking website for access to the Supreme Court. It 259 00:15:08,320 --> 00:15:12,440 Speaker 4: was launched at a time where the Supreme Court itself wasn't. 260 00:15:12,600 --> 00:15:13,720 Speaker 1: Very easy to navigate. 261 00:15:14,320 --> 00:15:16,880 Speaker 4: He built a reputation for himself in sort of an 262 00:15:16,960 --> 00:15:20,200 Speaker 4: unusual way. He didn't go to the usual sort of 263 00:15:20,200 --> 00:15:23,720 Speaker 4: Ivy League schools, he didn't clerk for a Supreme Court justice. 264 00:15:24,080 --> 00:15:28,000 Speaker 4: But yet he built this really grand career in really 265 00:15:28,040 --> 00:15:31,360 Speaker 4: great reputation in sort of a scrappy way. So for 266 00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:33,840 Speaker 4: legal nerds far and wide, he was sort of a 267 00:15:33,880 --> 00:15:38,520 Speaker 4: household name, long before he was indicted on tax fraud charges. 268 00:15:38,800 --> 00:15:43,200 Speaker 2: Yeah, so explain the reaction when he was indicted on 269 00:15:43,360 --> 00:15:44,520 Speaker 2: tax fraud charges. 270 00:15:45,120 --> 00:15:46,280 Speaker 1: People were really shocked. 271 00:15:46,320 --> 00:15:49,720 Speaker 4: So in January twenty twenty five, at the tail end 272 00:15:49,720 --> 00:15:52,960 Speaker 4: of the Biden administration, an indictment drop and it was 273 00:15:53,000 --> 00:15:56,000 Speaker 4: originally twenty two counts. It was went out down on 274 00:15:56,040 --> 00:15:59,880 Speaker 4: the government's own motion to dismiss some accounts down to sixteen. 275 00:16:00,520 --> 00:16:05,960 Speaker 4: The allegations for the tax offenses really revolved around gold 276 00:16:06,000 --> 00:16:10,080 Speaker 4: Scene's ultra high stakes poker habit, which you know, there 277 00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:13,080 Speaker 4: had been some reporting on. You know, people knew he 278 00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:16,360 Speaker 4: played poker, but I don't think that there was any 279 00:16:16,400 --> 00:16:20,120 Speaker 4: appreciation for sort of the real scale of what he 280 00:16:20,240 --> 00:16:20,680 Speaker 4: was doing. 281 00:16:21,160 --> 00:16:23,520 Speaker 1: So that aspect of it, I think alone was shocking. 282 00:16:23,600 --> 00:16:26,880 Speaker 4: But then also this idea that this really well respected 283 00:16:26,920 --> 00:16:30,520 Speaker 4: lawyer may have been engaged in dodging his taxes was 284 00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:32,440 Speaker 4: you know, obviously shocking in its own way. 285 00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:37,280 Speaker 2: So a six week trial tell us about the highlights 286 00:16:37,320 --> 00:16:38,560 Speaker 2: of the government's case. 287 00:16:39,280 --> 00:16:43,880 Speaker 4: The government presented lots of evidence that gold Scene had 288 00:16:43,960 --> 00:16:47,800 Speaker 4: won tens of millions of dollars, sometimes in a single hand, 289 00:16:48,440 --> 00:16:53,360 Speaker 4: playing poker, and they showed that his office managers, his 290 00:16:53,440 --> 00:16:57,080 Speaker 4: accountants were in the dark. He wasn't proactively sort of 291 00:16:57,120 --> 00:17:00,040 Speaker 4: telling them what they needed to know in order to 292 00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:04,440 Speaker 4: classify as taxes properly. And it's sentencing. What they basically 293 00:17:04,480 --> 00:17:08,400 Speaker 4: said was that this was a decade long intentional effort. 294 00:17:08,680 --> 00:17:13,200 Speaker 4: Any omission was by design. He was intentionally opening foreign 295 00:17:13,240 --> 00:17:16,800 Speaker 4: bank accounts. He had no reason to think that sort 296 00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:20,200 Speaker 4: of the people he delegated responsibility to for his taxes 297 00:17:20,280 --> 00:17:23,000 Speaker 4: would be privy to the information that they needed in 298 00:17:23,080 --> 00:17:25,040 Speaker 4: order to get it right. And you know, he should 299 00:17:25,040 --> 00:17:27,920 Speaker 4: have known better. And they also pointed to he had 300 00:17:28,160 --> 00:17:31,560 Speaker 4: irs tax audits and people had sort of flagged for him, 301 00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:35,160 Speaker 4: professionals had flagged for him more than ten years ago 302 00:17:35,720 --> 00:17:38,879 Speaker 4: that he needed to be sort of cognizant of these 303 00:17:39,000 --> 00:17:42,800 Speaker 4: special reporting requirements for gambling and really needed to be careful. 304 00:17:43,480 --> 00:17:46,119 Speaker 4: And the government says that instead of sort of responding 305 00:17:46,160 --> 00:17:49,760 Speaker 4: to that advice and being compliant, he shifted to a 306 00:17:49,800 --> 00:17:52,960 Speaker 4: new accounting firm and sort of started all over and 307 00:17:53,040 --> 00:17:55,439 Speaker 4: hit it all from them too. That was sort of 308 00:17:55,480 --> 00:17:57,639 Speaker 4: the thrust of it was to the extent that it 309 00:17:57,680 --> 00:18:02,600 Speaker 4: looked like mistakes or mission or just in competence or 310 00:18:02,640 --> 00:18:05,400 Speaker 4: that this guy just wasn't paying attention to his taxes. 311 00:18:05,440 --> 00:18:08,880 Speaker 4: That was really all by design, and gold stated argued that, 312 00:18:09,720 --> 00:18:11,920 Speaker 4: you know, look, you're right. I did when a ton 313 00:18:11,960 --> 00:18:15,320 Speaker 4: of money, and I didn't always understand exactly how I 314 00:18:15,359 --> 00:18:18,600 Speaker 4: was supposed to report it. But my loss is offset 315 00:18:18,600 --> 00:18:20,840 Speaker 4: most of my winnings, and I was doing what I 316 00:18:20,840 --> 00:18:21,920 Speaker 4: thought I needed to be doing. 317 00:18:22,400 --> 00:18:26,880 Speaker 2: Yeah, And so he gambled and took the stand. And 318 00:18:27,080 --> 00:18:29,560 Speaker 2: you know, as we've discussed, when you take the stand, 319 00:18:30,040 --> 00:18:33,800 Speaker 2: sometimes the jury just focuses on your testimony and everything 320 00:18:33,840 --> 00:18:36,600 Speaker 2: else goes out the window. So what was he like 321 00:18:36,680 --> 00:18:37,320 Speaker 2: on the stand? 322 00:18:37,560 --> 00:18:41,000 Speaker 4: I thought he presented it well. He seemed very well prepared. 323 00:18:41,320 --> 00:18:43,199 Speaker 4: It is a gamble, of course, to put somebody in 324 00:18:43,240 --> 00:18:46,800 Speaker 4: the stand, but I do think that they sort of 325 00:18:46,880 --> 00:18:49,600 Speaker 4: needed to do it because nobody else was going to 326 00:18:49,600 --> 00:18:52,320 Speaker 4: be able to explain, you know, what losses he may 327 00:18:52,359 --> 00:18:55,040 Speaker 4: have had, for example, that would have offset There's no 328 00:18:55,040 --> 00:18:59,000 Speaker 4: other evidence other than his testimony to really cut against 329 00:18:59,160 --> 00:19:01,760 Speaker 4: what the government was presenting. So he had to get 330 00:19:01,840 --> 00:19:04,280 Speaker 4: up there, and I think he did well, but I 331 00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:05,600 Speaker 4: don't think it was enough. 332 00:19:05,800 --> 00:19:08,600 Speaker 1: And you know, I do think oftentimes one. 333 00:19:08,440 --> 00:19:12,400 Speaker 4: Of the big risks with testifying in your own defense 334 00:19:13,119 --> 00:19:15,359 Speaker 4: is that you might get if the court doesn't believe 335 00:19:15,400 --> 00:19:17,520 Speaker 4: you and the jury doesn't believe you, there's a risk 336 00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:20,240 Speaker 4: that on the back end, it's sentencing, you're going to 337 00:19:20,280 --> 00:19:23,720 Speaker 4: get hit with like an obstruction finding, which can increase 338 00:19:23,760 --> 00:19:27,200 Speaker 4: your points for purposes of what your sentencing guidelines range 339 00:19:27,240 --> 00:19:29,560 Speaker 4: is going to look like. And he did get deemed 340 00:19:29,680 --> 00:19:32,600 Speaker 4: for obstruction here, but incidentally it had nothing to do 341 00:19:32,800 --> 00:19:37,000 Speaker 4: with this testimony. Instead, it had to do with representations 342 00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:40,480 Speaker 4: that he'd made to government agents like IRS agents, after 343 00:19:40,560 --> 00:19:44,200 Speaker 4: he knew he was under investigation. But she actually didn't 344 00:19:44,200 --> 00:19:47,560 Speaker 4: make a finding of obstruction with respect to his testimony. 345 00:19:47,640 --> 00:19:50,800 Speaker 4: So it looks like there wasn't sort of a penalty 346 00:19:50,840 --> 00:19:53,560 Speaker 4: on the back end for having taken the stand, at 347 00:19:53,640 --> 00:19:56,040 Speaker 4: least beyond how it may have negatively. 348 00:19:55,640 --> 00:19:58,320 Speaker 1: Impacted the outcome from his perspective. 349 00:19:59,040 --> 00:20:04,560 Speaker 2: Now, at the sentencing, the prosecutors wanted eight years and 350 00:20:04,960 --> 00:20:10,040 Speaker 2: they said that his motivation was singular, pure, unrelenting greed. 351 00:20:10,480 --> 00:20:13,879 Speaker 2: I thought he had a gambling addiction. Did Judge Lydia K. 352 00:20:14,119 --> 00:20:18,960 Speaker 2: Griggsby take into account his gambling addiction when sentencing him? 353 00:20:19,240 --> 00:20:22,000 Speaker 4: Well, so he has an expert apparently the details of 354 00:20:22,040 --> 00:20:24,960 Speaker 4: all this, the public isn't privy too, but he has 355 00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:29,320 Speaker 4: some sort of authority that has prepared a document saying 356 00:20:29,359 --> 00:20:32,280 Speaker 4: that he's been struggling with addiction. And it seems like 357 00:20:32,320 --> 00:20:34,399 Speaker 4: there might be other mental health issues that were discussed 358 00:20:34,480 --> 00:20:39,159 Speaker 4: under seal, But the government has suggested at sentencing that 359 00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:41,920 Speaker 4: it sort of isn't buying it. They actually mentioned that 360 00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:45,159 Speaker 4: they had tried to subpoena this expert, and the expert 361 00:20:45,200 --> 00:20:48,040 Speaker 4: had acknowledged receipt of the subpoena but then just didn't show. 362 00:20:48,119 --> 00:20:51,399 Speaker 4: So the government actually wanted to call this expert to testify, 363 00:20:51,880 --> 00:20:53,800 Speaker 4: but he just wasn't available. I think that would have 364 00:20:53,840 --> 00:20:57,840 Speaker 4: happened during the sealed portion of the hearing. But I mean, 365 00:20:58,080 --> 00:21:00,520 Speaker 4: you know, to the accent your question, is this get 366 00:21:00,640 --> 00:21:05,399 Speaker 4: factored into his sentence, Griggsby did say, you know that 367 00:21:05,480 --> 00:21:09,200 Speaker 4: she was considering what she generally specified as mental health 368 00:21:09,200 --> 00:21:12,200 Speaker 4: issues that were discuss during the sealed part of the hearing. 369 00:21:12,520 --> 00:21:16,760 Speaker 4: In deviating downward from that sentence in guidelines range and 370 00:21:16,800 --> 00:21:19,360 Speaker 4: I should say that you know, the max was higher 371 00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:21,520 Speaker 4: than the eight years that the government asked for, but 372 00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:26,320 Speaker 4: the government was asking for the maximum of the guidelines 373 00:21:26,440 --> 00:21:30,120 Speaker 4: range as it had calculated it, and Goldstein's camp contested 374 00:21:30,119 --> 00:21:32,240 Speaker 4: the way that it was calculated and said it was inflated, 375 00:21:32,800 --> 00:21:35,760 Speaker 4: but by the government's assessment, it should the sence should 376 00:21:35,760 --> 00:21:38,879 Speaker 4: have fallen within at least a recommended range was seventy 377 00:21:38,880 --> 00:21:41,040 Speaker 4: eight to ninety seven months, and we wound up with 378 00:21:41,080 --> 00:21:41,600 Speaker 4: seventy two. 379 00:21:41,720 --> 00:21:43,800 Speaker 1: So Griggs, we debated downwards for that. 380 00:21:44,240 --> 00:21:47,199 Speaker 2: I mean, I was surprised that they asked for that 381 00:21:47,359 --> 00:21:50,920 Speaker 2: much and that the judge sentenced him to that long 382 00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:55,119 Speaker 2: because it's a first defense. What about his career and 383 00:21:55,160 --> 00:21:57,240 Speaker 2: all the good he's done in his career, and I 384 00:21:57,240 --> 00:22:00,960 Speaker 2: think he also mentored people. I mean, it almost seemed 385 00:22:01,000 --> 00:22:05,240 Speaker 2: as if he was being punished for having achieved so 386 00:22:05,440 --> 00:22:08,520 Speaker 2: much in the law instead of getting a break for that. 387 00:22:09,200 --> 00:22:11,760 Speaker 4: I think, you know, some of that cuts both ways. 388 00:22:11,960 --> 00:22:14,920 Speaker 4: And when she imposed a below guideline sentence, she did 389 00:22:14,960 --> 00:22:17,479 Speaker 4: say she was taking into account as lack of criminal 390 00:22:17,520 --> 00:22:20,520 Speaker 4: history and that already gets factored into her actual guideline 391 00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:23,040 Speaker 4: score for that range, but she said she was thinking 392 00:22:23,040 --> 00:22:26,080 Speaker 4: about it again in terms of where she resultimately get 393 00:22:26,119 --> 00:22:29,320 Speaker 4: a sentence in and she also said, yes, he's done 394 00:22:29,320 --> 00:22:33,000 Speaker 4: a lot of charitable work. He was a great mentor 395 00:22:33,000 --> 00:22:36,199 Speaker 4: to a lot of people, which came out during trial 396 00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:38,800 Speaker 4: and in the letters of support that she received for 397 00:22:38,880 --> 00:22:43,440 Speaker 4: purposes of sentencing, and she describes Cota's blog as groundbreaking, 398 00:22:43,600 --> 00:22:46,320 Speaker 4: So she was giving him some credit for that, you know, 399 00:22:46,400 --> 00:22:49,280 Speaker 4: earlier which she was justifying sort of the need for 400 00:22:49,400 --> 00:22:53,240 Speaker 4: a custodial sentence and a significant sentence. You know, she said, 401 00:22:53,400 --> 00:22:57,879 Speaker 4: it's an extra disappointing when a really accomplished officer of 402 00:22:57,920 --> 00:23:02,359 Speaker 4: the court engages in conduct like this. So, you know, 403 00:23:02,440 --> 00:23:05,640 Speaker 4: while his sort of being a zero point offender, being 404 00:23:05,680 --> 00:23:08,879 Speaker 4: this really accomplished lawyer, that can help in some ways, 405 00:23:08,920 --> 00:23:10,960 Speaker 4: you know, maybe because of the charitable work that he 406 00:23:11,000 --> 00:23:15,200 Speaker 4: did his mentorship, but it also sort of makes you wonder, well, 407 00:23:15,240 --> 00:23:15,960 Speaker 4: you knew better? 408 00:23:16,400 --> 00:23:19,440 Speaker 1: Right, So I think it cuts both ways in that respect. 409 00:23:19,960 --> 00:23:21,359 Speaker 2: And he spoke at the sentencing. 410 00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:24,479 Speaker 4: He did so when he stood up, he explained that 411 00:23:24,520 --> 00:23:28,120 Speaker 4: because he was tending to appeal, there's only so much 412 00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:30,840 Speaker 4: he can say, like he doesn't want to say anything 413 00:23:30,880 --> 00:23:35,040 Speaker 4: on record that might upset his appeal or even come into. 414 00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:37,080 Speaker 1: Play should he win a new trial. 415 00:23:37,720 --> 00:23:40,640 Speaker 4: So it was more circumspect, I suppose than it may 416 00:23:40,640 --> 00:23:43,160 Speaker 4: have otherwise been. He focused on two things he said 417 00:23:43,200 --> 00:23:46,119 Speaker 4: he thought he could do, which was express regret and 418 00:23:46,560 --> 00:23:49,280 Speaker 4: try to reassure the court that it could trust him 419 00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:52,720 Speaker 4: to respect the process and trust him to remain on release. 420 00:23:53,119 --> 00:23:55,920 Speaker 4: And he wasn't ultimately successful on that front. At the 421 00:23:56,040 --> 00:23:58,520 Speaker 4: end of the day, Griggsby revoked his bond and he 422 00:23:58,560 --> 00:24:02,480 Speaker 4: was remanded into custody. So unlike many, if not most, 423 00:24:02,480 --> 00:24:06,560 Speaker 4: white collar defendants, he wasn't allowed to voluntarily surrender. One 424 00:24:06,560 --> 00:24:08,320 Speaker 4: of the things he said, sort of in trying to 425 00:24:08,320 --> 00:24:12,399 Speaker 4: take responsibility without admitting to any crimes, you know, he 426 00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:15,280 Speaker 4: said there was no question that he deeply disappointed people, 427 00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:18,040 Speaker 4: and he admitted that he hasn't held himself to the 428 00:24:18,080 --> 00:24:21,199 Speaker 4: standards that he should have as a prominent lawyer. And 429 00:24:21,240 --> 00:24:22,800 Speaker 4: I think this was sort of the best way he 430 00:24:22,800 --> 00:24:25,399 Speaker 4: could own everything that had happened. He said, you know, 431 00:24:25,680 --> 00:24:29,120 Speaker 4: I put myself in the position he could make very 432 00:24:29,160 --> 00:24:32,680 Speaker 4: negative judgments about my character and where the jury could find. 433 00:24:32,520 --> 00:24:33,560 Speaker 1: Me guilty of a crime. 434 00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:36,080 Speaker 4: And if anyone wants to know who did that, who 435 00:24:36,119 --> 00:24:38,440 Speaker 4: created the circumstances or that could occur. 436 00:24:38,720 --> 00:24:40,639 Speaker 1: That's me, and I'm going to be punished for that. 437 00:24:40,800 --> 00:24:45,440 Speaker 4: So he tried to take responsibility without jeopardizing his appeal. 438 00:24:45,720 --> 00:24:49,639 Speaker 4: He also, in addition to speaking on his own behalf 439 00:24:50,160 --> 00:24:53,080 Speaker 4: the court, received more than twenty letters or support, including 440 00:24:53,119 --> 00:24:56,359 Speaker 4: from multiple people who served as government witnesses at trial. 441 00:24:57,000 --> 00:25:02,159 Speaker 4: So like Bob Safi, this real estate who had trouble 442 00:25:02,200 --> 00:25:05,520 Speaker 4: collecting six million that he won from gold Scene in 443 00:25:05,560 --> 00:25:09,160 Speaker 4: a two day poker match in twenty seventeen, testified because 444 00:25:09,160 --> 00:25:13,639 Speaker 4: he testified about misdirected payments essentially for the most part, 445 00:25:14,080 --> 00:25:17,320 Speaker 4: And there were also letters of support from names you 446 00:25:17,400 --> 00:25:21,639 Speaker 4: might recognize like Nina Totenberg, the Supreme Court reporter at 447 00:25:21,760 --> 00:25:27,560 Speaker 4: NPR and legal scholar Lawrence Tribe and retired reporter Pete Williams. 448 00:25:27,760 --> 00:25:30,639 Speaker 4: So he had a substantial amount of support from outsiders, 449 00:25:30,680 --> 00:25:33,920 Speaker 4: also family and his friends, and I think notably even 450 00:25:33,960 --> 00:25:37,919 Speaker 4: some government witnesses. And you might remember that when he 451 00:25:38,000 --> 00:25:40,480 Speaker 4: was on release he had a friend of his serving 452 00:25:41,160 --> 00:25:43,879 Speaker 4: as his non residential custodian for a period of time 453 00:25:43,960 --> 00:25:47,040 Speaker 4: after his former spouse, I'm not sure where their divorce 454 00:25:47,080 --> 00:25:50,080 Speaker 4: proceedings are right now, said I can't do this anymore. 455 00:25:50,680 --> 00:25:55,119 Speaker 4: He spoke to and described Goldstein as he said he 456 00:25:55,200 --> 00:25:58,159 Speaker 4: hadn't encountered a kinder more generous, more empathetic colleague and 457 00:25:58,200 --> 00:26:01,440 Speaker 4: the legal profession. Gold Scene had people in his corner 458 00:26:01,760 --> 00:26:03,280 Speaker 4: to help mitigate the sentence. 459 00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:06,400 Speaker 2: He said, he's going to appeal. Can you spot any 460 00:26:06,440 --> 00:26:07,880 Speaker 2: issues for appeal to. 461 00:26:07,800 --> 00:26:11,439 Speaker 4: The extent that there is a colorable appellate issue. I 462 00:26:11,480 --> 00:26:14,800 Speaker 4: guarantee he's identified it. There are two, so there are numerous, 463 00:26:15,480 --> 00:26:19,080 Speaker 4: but there are two that he raised in his motion 464 00:26:19,359 --> 00:26:23,040 Speaker 4: for release pending appeal, which he lost. In arguing that 465 00:26:23,160 --> 00:26:26,320 Speaker 4: he raised two appellate issues that he said were sort 466 00:26:26,359 --> 00:26:29,560 Speaker 4: of seemed to think were the strongest, and one was 467 00:26:29,600 --> 00:26:34,200 Speaker 4: a challenge to the court's instructions on accessory liability, and 468 00:26:34,240 --> 00:26:38,720 Speaker 4: the other was the exclusion of text messages that Goldstein 469 00:26:38,800 --> 00:26:42,520 Speaker 4: had wanted to get admitted that basically constituted a sort 470 00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:45,760 Speaker 4: of ledger of his gambling activities. He was allowed to 471 00:26:45,800 --> 00:26:48,960 Speaker 4: rely on them when he testified, but they never went 472 00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:52,760 Speaker 4: back to the jury. With respect to the accessory liability issue, 473 00:26:53,440 --> 00:26:56,320 Speaker 4: it's sort of complicated, but to sum it up, he 474 00:26:56,520 --> 00:26:59,800 Speaker 4: argues that jurors could have read the instructions to allow 475 00:26:59,800 --> 00:27:03,880 Speaker 4: them to convict him based on accessory liability even though 476 00:27:03,880 --> 00:27:07,200 Speaker 4: they weren't instructed on the elements of accessory liability, and 477 00:27:07,560 --> 00:27:11,800 Speaker 4: the court ultimately decided not to include the detailed elements 478 00:27:12,240 --> 00:27:15,440 Speaker 4: because well, it's not necessary because there's not enough evidence 479 00:27:15,480 --> 00:27:17,159 Speaker 4: to support that theory of liability. 480 00:27:17,200 --> 00:27:17,640 Speaker 1: Anyway. 481 00:27:18,119 --> 00:27:20,520 Speaker 4: Another thing that she did in the context of those 482 00:27:20,560 --> 00:27:24,600 Speaker 4: instructions was she altered the instructions after the parties had 483 00:27:24,640 --> 00:27:28,560 Speaker 4: given their closing arguments, which is a violation of procedural rules. 484 00:27:29,119 --> 00:27:32,679 Speaker 4: But she said, Okay, sure, it's the violation of procedural rules, 485 00:27:32,720 --> 00:27:35,440 Speaker 4: but it wasn't prejudicial in any event, because she just 486 00:27:35,480 --> 00:27:37,879 Speaker 4: doesn't see a world in which the jury would have 487 00:27:37,880 --> 00:27:41,639 Speaker 4: read the instructions to allow it to convict on accessory liability. 488 00:27:41,680 --> 00:27:43,560 Speaker 4: So those are the two issues that he seems to 489 00:27:43,600 --> 00:27:45,359 Speaker 4: be most confident about. 490 00:27:45,880 --> 00:27:50,040 Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Holly. That's Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter Holly Barker, 491 00:27:50,680 --> 00:27:53,000 Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. 492 00:27:53,359 --> 00:27:55,719 Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 493 00:27:55,760 --> 00:27:59,920 Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 494 00:28:00,240 --> 00:28:05,240 Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, 495 00:28:05,640 --> 00:28:08,240 Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 496 00:28:08,280 --> 00:28:12,200 Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso 497 00:28:12,320 --> 00:28:13,920 Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg