1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,439
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The stakes are high,

6
00:00:22,520 --> 00:00:24,960
Speaker 1: and so is the drama at the San Francisco trial,

7
00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:28,040
Speaker 1: where Uber is fighting claims by rival Weimo that it

8
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:32,479
Speaker 1: stole critical technology for driverless cars. The most highly anticipated

9
00:00:32,520 --> 00:00:34,600
Speaker 1: witness took the stand yesterday and had a lot of

10
00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:39,120
Speaker 1: explaining to do. Billionaire Travis Kalenik, Uber's ousted co founder,

11
00:00:39,240 --> 00:00:42,440
Speaker 1: is accused of conspiring with one of Weimo's lead engineers

12
00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:46,320
Speaker 1: to take thousands of proprietary files before he June joined Uber.

13
00:00:46,920 --> 00:00:50,440
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg News Legal editor Peter Bloomberg. Peter

14
00:00:50,640 --> 00:00:55,600
Speaker 1: tell us the basic questions the jury will have to decide, well,

15
00:00:55,600 --> 00:00:58,800
Speaker 1: the jury is going to have to decide whether Uber

16
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:06,520
Speaker 1: uh improperly took proprietary information that belonged to Alphabet's self

17
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:12,039
Speaker 1: driving unit weymo, and specifically Uh. The question is whether

18
00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:19,600
Speaker 1: Uber used trade secrets intellectual property that belonged to weymo,

19
00:01:20,319 --> 00:01:23,600
Speaker 1: So Kalinic took the stand yesterday. What was his demeanor

20
00:01:23,800 --> 00:01:29,760
Speaker 1: as he was being questioned by Weymo's lawyers. Well, yesterday Uh,

21
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:35,520
Speaker 1: klink was was was cooperative and uh and held himself

22
00:01:35,600 --> 00:01:41,200
Speaker 1: up well, but he tended towards short, sometimes clipped answers.

23
00:01:42,080 --> 00:01:48,800
Speaker 1: And Uh. Today when he was questioned by Uber's attorney, Uh,

24
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:55,840
Speaker 1: he gave more expansive, lengthier answers. Obviously it's more friendly questions.

25
00:01:55,920 --> 00:01:59,880
Speaker 1: So he feels more comfortable letting loose a bit. Yeah,

26
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:03,840
Speaker 1: might be a tactic to to keep your answers short. Um.

27
00:02:03,880 --> 00:02:05,760
Speaker 1: In the notes of an in house meeting with the

28
00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:10,240
Speaker 1: head of Uber's driverless car program in December of Klinik

29
00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:13,600
Speaker 1: outlined a list of things he wanted quote source all

30
00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:17,840
Speaker 1: of their data, tagging roadmap, pound of flesh i P.

31
00:02:18,680 --> 00:02:22,560
Speaker 1: How did he explain that, especially all of their data?

32
00:02:22,880 --> 00:02:28,600
Speaker 1: Well yesterday Uh. Again when he was being questioned by

33
00:02:28,720 --> 00:02:33,080
Speaker 1: his adversary's attorneys. Uh, he was on the defensive, and

34
00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:37,800
Speaker 1: he had to explain that sometimes pound of flesh is

35
00:02:38,360 --> 00:02:40,919
Speaker 1: a term he uses. And then when he was asked

36
00:02:40,960 --> 00:02:45,640
Speaker 1: specifically about i P, which is stands for intellectual property. Uh,

37
00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:48,880
Speaker 1: he said that he did not remember using that specific word,

38
00:02:49,600 --> 00:02:52,880
Speaker 1: but he didn't deny it. Then today, when he was

39
00:02:52,919 --> 00:02:57,440
Speaker 1: being questioned by Uber's attorney, he made clear that when

40
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:01,720
Speaker 1: he said he wanted intellectual property, he wanted the intellectual

41
00:03:01,720 --> 00:03:08,119
Speaker 1: property belonging to Anthony Lewandowski's own startup called Auto. So

42
00:03:08,440 --> 00:03:13,480
Speaker 1: he wasn't, in other words, he wasn't lusting for Weymo's

43
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:19,639
Speaker 1: intellectual property. Tell us about Anthon Lewandowski, Well, Lewandowski is

44
00:03:19,880 --> 00:03:23,560
Speaker 1: the engineer who's at the center of this dispute. He

45
00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:29,560
Speaker 1: was the rock Star robot car project leader for the

46
00:03:29,600 --> 00:03:34,200
Speaker 1: Weymo unit until January two thousand and sixteen, when he

47
00:03:34,360 --> 00:03:39,120
Speaker 1: left Weymo, and at that very moment, he was already

48
00:03:39,200 --> 00:03:44,560
Speaker 1: forming his own self driving startup called Auto, which was

49
00:03:44,600 --> 00:03:47,840
Speaker 1: then acquired by Uber in August of two thousand and

50
00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:52,120
Speaker 1: sixteen in a six eighty million dollar stock deal. So

51
00:03:52,160 --> 00:03:59,040
Speaker 1: it's the overlap where Lewandowski is transitioning out of Weymo

52
00:03:59,360 --> 00:04:03,640
Speaker 1: and into forming his own company that's ultimately acquired by Uber,

53
00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:06,920
Speaker 1: that is the source of tension that's at the center

54
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:11,080
Speaker 1: of this case. Stand by one moment, there's some breaking news.

55
00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:14,440
Speaker 1: Senator Lindsey Graham has said that a budget deal has

56
00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:17,520
Speaker 1: been reached and he's all in. We are going to

57
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:21,080
Speaker 1: have more on that story coming up. So is uh

58
00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:25,120
Speaker 1: Lewandowski going to be testifying at this trial? Well, Lewandowski

59
00:04:25,360 --> 00:04:29,880
Speaker 1: is required to uh go to the witness stand when

60
00:04:29,960 --> 00:04:34,320
Speaker 1: he has called as a witness by Weymo. But um

61
00:04:34,440 --> 00:04:40,599
Speaker 1: he has consistently uh stayed uh quiet, uh silent even

62
00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:47,920
Speaker 1: throughout the year of litigation, asserting his constitutional right against

63
00:04:48,040 --> 00:04:53,120
Speaker 1: self incrimination. Uh and so um he is expected not

64
00:04:53,320 --> 00:04:56,680
Speaker 1: to uh say much on the witness stand, but he

65
00:04:56,720 --> 00:05:00,120
Speaker 1: will be required to tell the jury that he's asserting

66
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:05,120
Speaker 1: his Fifth Amendment right. So Peter on the whole, how

67
00:05:05,160 --> 00:05:10,440
Speaker 1: has Klinik's testimony been, Well, it's been mixed. Uh certainly

68
00:05:10,440 --> 00:05:16,040
Speaker 1: Weymo has um has scored uh some zingers with uh

69
00:05:16,080 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 1: the hill even mountain of circumstantial evidence it has that

70
00:05:21,360 --> 00:05:26,240
Speaker 1: he was conspiring with Levin Daoisi, with Lewandowski even before

71
00:05:26,400 --> 00:05:32,040
Speaker 1: Lewandowski left Weimo. But on the other hand, uh Kalinnik

72
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:34,600
Speaker 1: has had it has had an opportunity to put uh

73
00:05:34,880 --> 00:05:37,000
Speaker 1: put some of these things into context and put his

74
00:05:37,040 --> 00:05:42,640
Speaker 1: own um less sinister spin on these events. And just

75
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:46,240
Speaker 1: at about forty five seconds here Uh. The judge is

76
00:05:46,440 --> 00:05:49,080
Speaker 1: well known for being strict. It tell us a little

77
00:05:49,080 --> 00:05:54,040
Speaker 1: bit about what's been happening in the courtroom. Well, the

78
00:05:54,160 --> 00:06:00,120
Speaker 1: judge has has already had to deal with some showdown

79
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:04,960
Speaker 1: between the attorneys over what evidence will be allowed UH

80
00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:10,159
Speaker 1: into the trial. And these um these conferences usually take

81
00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:14,680
Speaker 1: place out out of the jury's earshot, and the judge

82
00:06:14,680 --> 00:06:19,120
Speaker 1: has to referee uh disputes over what evidence will be

83
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:24,560
Speaker 1: allowed in. And he has, for instance, ruled that UBER

84
00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:31,120
Speaker 1: cannot block its former ex board member Bill Gurley from

85
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:37,039
Speaker 1: being questioned about his own criticism of how Travis Kalanak

86
00:06:37,040 --> 00:06:43,840
Speaker 1: handled the acquisition of Lewandowski's auto. And we will have

87
00:06:43,880 --> 00:06:46,920
Speaker 1: to pick this discussion up again because there's a lot

88
00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:49,800
Speaker 1: more of this trial to come. Thanks for your insights, Peter.

89
00:06:49,880 --> 00:06:56,000
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg News Legal editor, Peter Bloomberg. Will he or

90
00:06:56,080 --> 00:06:58,920
Speaker 1: won't he? Will the President sit down for an interview

91
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:01,840
Speaker 1: with Special Counsel Robert Muller, as he said he's eager

92
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:04,839
Speaker 1: to do, or won't he? The range of people saying

93
00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:07,320
Speaker 1: he should not agree to an interview is wide, from

94
00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:10,480
Speaker 1: former Vice President Joe Biden to some of the president's

95
00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:13,640
Speaker 1: own lawyers. That's according to The New York Times, if

96
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:16,040
Speaker 1: the President refuses, it could set the stage for a

97
00:07:16,080 --> 00:07:20,400
Speaker 1: constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court. Joining me is Jennifer Daskell,

98
00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:24,360
Speaker 1: professor at American University Washington College of Law and founding

99
00:07:24,480 --> 00:07:28,080
Speaker 1: editor of the Just Security blog. Jennifer First, Let's deal

100
00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:31,160
Speaker 1: with the concerns the president's allies and even his own

101
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:34,520
Speaker 1: lawyer have raised that the Special Council could be setting

102
00:07:34,560 --> 00:07:38,600
Speaker 1: what they call a perjury trap. Explain what that is

103
00:07:38,720 --> 00:07:42,080
Speaker 1: and how likely it is that Muller's team would abuse

104
00:07:42,120 --> 00:07:46,640
Speaker 1: the legal process in that way. So perjury is is

105
00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:51,160
Speaker 1: simply a charge based on lying under oath um. And

106
00:07:51,240 --> 00:07:53,200
Speaker 1: so the you know, as to whether or not there

107
00:07:53,280 --> 00:07:55,480
Speaker 1: is a Trump I mean, it's it's an it's an

108
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:58,960
Speaker 1: obligation not to lie under oath um, and so, um,

109
00:07:59,000 --> 00:08:01,800
Speaker 1: you know it certainly that can be a charge if

110
00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:04,960
Speaker 1: in fact that happens. But um, you know, I expect

111
00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:08,800
Speaker 1: and hope that the Muler investigation is proceeding um with

112
00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:11,240
Speaker 1: good faith, as it should. Now I want to go

113
00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:14,440
Speaker 1: down the line and deal with all the possibilities if

114
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:18,840
Speaker 1: Trump declines the interview. The New York Times has reported

115
00:08:18,840 --> 00:08:21,960
Speaker 1: that some members of Trump's legal team believe that Mueller

116
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:25,400
Speaker 1: would be reluctant to subpoena him. Mueller has a team

117
00:08:25,440 --> 00:08:29,040
Speaker 1: of aggressive prosecutors and he seems to be conducting a

118
00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:33,720
Speaker 1: rigorous investigation. Do you think it likely that he will

119
00:08:34,120 --> 00:08:38,280
Speaker 1: subpoena Trump? So unclear, It's hard to I mean again,

120
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:40,800
Speaker 1: it's it's hard to predict, especially in the midst of

121
00:08:40,840 --> 00:08:43,720
Speaker 1: a fast moving investigation like this. And it's obviously huge

122
00:08:43,840 --> 00:08:47,400
Speaker 1: risks to having a showdown with the President at this point.

123
00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:51,200
Speaker 1: So if the President refuses UM and he issues a subpoena,

124
00:08:51,400 --> 00:08:54,360
Speaker 1: then UM, as as um you stated in the lead

125
00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:56,839
Speaker 1: up to this, that could that could be something that

126
00:08:56,880 --> 00:08:58,360
Speaker 1: goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, just

127
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:03,839
Speaker 1: as the subpoena o uhum tapes and and Watergate. Good. So,

128
00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:09,080
Speaker 1: you know, I, my guests, you know, if is that, um,

129
00:09:09,280 --> 00:09:12,280
Speaker 1: Mieler will do everything possible to avoid that because it's

130
00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:16,559
Speaker 1: obviously controversial, it causes delay, UM, it politicizes even more

131
00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:21,160
Speaker 1: the investigation beyond what's been politicized already. UM. But then again,

132
00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:26,880
Speaker 1: if the investigators decide that the testimony that getting getting

133
00:09:26,960 --> 00:09:29,480
Speaker 1: Trump's statements is essential to the case, then we may

134
00:09:29,520 --> 00:09:34,000
Speaker 1: see a subpoena be issued. Hard to say there's precedent

135
00:09:34,160 --> 00:09:39,240
Speaker 1: for a president being subpoena to testify um in a

136
00:09:39,280 --> 00:09:42,920
Speaker 1: criminal investigation with Bill Clinton. But so if there is

137
00:09:42,920 --> 00:09:45,800
Speaker 1: a show down at the Supreme Court, UM are their

138
00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:50,559
Speaker 1: grounds to distinguish this from the Clinton and Nixon cases

139
00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:56,640
Speaker 1: and the dictum that the court issued there. So in

140
00:09:56,679 --> 00:09:59,440
Speaker 1: the in the Nixon case, the the Nixon was was

141
00:09:59,559 --> 00:10:03,160
Speaker 1: ordered to run over the tapes and he ultimately did UM.

142
00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:05,400
Speaker 1: You know, I you know it's again these are fact

143
00:10:05,559 --> 00:10:10,160
Speaker 1: specific inquiries. But you know, if there's a basis for subpoena, UM,

144
00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:13,679
Speaker 1: you know, we'd have to wait and see what happens. UM.

145
00:10:13,720 --> 00:10:18,800
Speaker 1: But I expect that hopefully the president would comply rather

146
00:10:18,840 --> 00:10:21,400
Speaker 1: than um drag this all the way up to the

147
00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:26,400
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So now if the Supreme Court, let's say

148
00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:28,680
Speaker 1: it is taken to the Supreme Court, If the Supreme

149
00:10:28,760 --> 00:10:32,000
Speaker 1: Court rules that Trump has to appear before the grand jury,

150
00:10:32,320 --> 00:10:35,440
Speaker 1: he could take the Fifth Amendment. How would that affect

151
00:10:35,800 --> 00:10:40,240
Speaker 1: the legal case against him? If at all? So if

152
00:10:40,240 --> 00:10:43,360
Speaker 1: he claimed the Fifth Amendment, UM, he would basically UM.

153
00:10:43,800 --> 00:10:46,720
Speaker 1: Then there would be a choice um the if if

154
00:10:46,760 --> 00:10:49,520
Speaker 1: in fact, the Miler investigation. If the Miller team decided

155
00:10:49,559 --> 00:10:53,559
Speaker 1: to UM insist on his testimony, they could not prosecute

156
00:10:53,640 --> 00:10:57,880
Speaker 1: him based on the statements that he made. UM. So again,

157
00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:02,080
Speaker 1: it depends UM who is the target of the investigation.

158
00:11:02,600 --> 00:11:05,640
Speaker 1: There is an ongoing and active legal debate about whether

159
00:11:06,040 --> 00:11:10,079
Speaker 1: UM it's even possible to criminally charge a sitting president UM.

160
00:11:10,559 --> 00:11:14,000
Speaker 1: A lot of scholars say it's not so. UM. President

161
00:11:14,200 --> 00:11:21,079
Speaker 1: Trump is arguably potentially protected from criminal prosecution UM already UM,

162
00:11:21,240 --> 00:11:23,640
Speaker 1: but aspis study in the fifth UM that would be

163
00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:28,240
Speaker 1: an additional protection. So as far as obstruction of justice charges,

164
00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:33,160
Speaker 1: Mueller would have to establish that Trump acted with corrupt intent?

165
00:11:34,040 --> 00:11:38,520
Speaker 1: Can you do that without interviewing the president? UM? You

166
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:41,240
Speaker 1: know it's it can be difficult, but it's also possible.

167
00:11:41,320 --> 00:11:43,360
Speaker 1: You know, you don't have to get the statements of

168
00:11:43,360 --> 00:11:46,319
Speaker 1: the individual in order to prove that. So UM there

169
00:11:46,360 --> 00:11:49,160
Speaker 1: could be a whole host of circumstantial evidence of it.

170
00:11:49,400 --> 00:11:53,040
Speaker 1: Not more than circumstantial evidence, but direct evidence, including documents,

171
00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:57,720
Speaker 1: including statements of others. UM. So it's it's possible to

172
00:11:57,840 --> 00:12:03,960
Speaker 1: prove that without UM, without actually getting UM the statements

173
00:12:03,960 --> 00:12:08,480
Speaker 1: from from President Trump himself. Again, as I said, there's

174
00:12:08,520 --> 00:12:10,360
Speaker 1: you know, an ongoing and active debate about whether it's

175
00:12:10,360 --> 00:12:13,720
Speaker 1: sitting president can be criminally charged, so obstruction of justice

176
00:12:13,800 --> 00:12:15,959
Speaker 1: charges to the extent that they are brought or more

177
00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:18,319
Speaker 1: likely to be brought in the course of an impiquement

178
00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:22,000
Speaker 1: proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution. Um. But we we

179
00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:24,640
Speaker 1: you know, there's still there's a whole host of hurdles

180
00:12:24,679 --> 00:12:29,400
Speaker 1: before that, whatever happen as well. Let's turn to the

181
00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:33,800
Speaker 1: memo and the Intelligence Committee, which voted unanimously to release

182
00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:38,800
Speaker 1: the memo. It's now in the president's hands. What is

183
00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:45,160
Speaker 1: he likely to do so unclear. Some statements today suggested that, um,

184
00:12:45,360 --> 00:12:47,800
Speaker 1: they are not likely to release the memo, or if

185
00:12:47,800 --> 00:12:51,479
Speaker 1: they are, they would release it with significant reductions. UM.

186
00:12:51,480 --> 00:12:56,319
Speaker 1: You know this, you know, real concerns here that UM,

187
00:12:56,400 --> 00:13:02,360
Speaker 1: the classification process, that the intelligence um, the access to

188
00:13:02,360 --> 00:13:05,520
Speaker 1: information intelligence information has been used in a politicized way

189
00:13:05,559 --> 00:13:09,880
Speaker 1: in ways that are extremely concerning and plate damaging. The

190
00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:13,079
Speaker 1: New York Times is asking the the FISA Court to

191
00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:16,600
Speaker 1: unsealed the secret documents related to the wired tapping of

192
00:13:16,720 --> 00:13:19,720
Speaker 1: Carter Page. I don't believe that's ever been done before.

193
00:13:19,800 --> 00:13:25,840
Speaker 1: We have about thirty seconds. Is that a possibility anything

194
00:13:25,880 --> 00:13:28,000
Speaker 1: is a possibility. Um, you know, a lot of things

195
00:13:28,000 --> 00:13:30,199
Speaker 1: have happened that I would never have predicted in the past,

196
00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:32,679
Speaker 1: but I think it's highly unlikely. All right. Thank you.

197
00:13:32,800 --> 00:13:37,320
Speaker 1: That's Jennifer Daskell, professor at American University Washington College of

198
00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:40,400
Speaker 1: Law and founding editor of the Just Security Block. Thanks

199
00:13:40,400 --> 00:13:43,720
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

200
00:13:43,720 --> 00:13:47,000
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and

201
00:13:47,040 --> 00:13:51,520
Speaker 1: on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This

202
00:13:51,880 --> 00:13:52,560
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg