Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The stakes are high,
Speaker 1: and so is the drama at the San Francisco trial,
Speaker 1: where Uber is fighting claims by rival Weimo that it
Speaker 1: stole critical technology for driverless cars. The most highly anticipated
Speaker 1: witness took the stand yesterday and had a lot of
Speaker 1: explaining to do. Billionaire Travis Kalenik, Uber's ousted co founder,
Speaker 1: is accused of conspiring with one of Weimo's lead engineers
Speaker 1: to take thousands of proprietary files before he June joined Uber.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg News Legal editor Peter Bloomberg. Peter
Speaker 1: tell us the basic questions the jury will have to decide, well,
Speaker 1: the jury is going to have to decide whether Uber
Speaker 1: uh improperly took proprietary information that belonged to Alphabet's self
Speaker 1: driving unit weymo, and specifically Uh. The question is whether
Speaker 1: Uber used trade secrets intellectual property that belonged to weymo,
Speaker 1: So Kalinic took the stand yesterday. What was his demeanor
Speaker 1: as he was being questioned by Weymo's lawyers. Well, yesterday Uh,
Speaker 1: klink was was was cooperative and uh and held himself
Speaker 1: up well, but he tended towards short, sometimes clipped answers.
Speaker 1: And Uh. Today when he was questioned by Uber's attorney, Uh,
Speaker 1: he gave more expansive, lengthier answers. Obviously it's more friendly questions.
Speaker 1: So he feels more comfortable letting loose a bit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: might be a tactic to to keep your answers short. Um.
Speaker 1: In the notes of an in house meeting with the
Speaker 1: head of Uber's driverless car program in December of Klinik
Speaker 1: outlined a list of things he wanted quote source all
Speaker 1: of their data, tagging roadmap, pound of flesh i P.
Speaker 1: How did he explain that, especially all of their data?
Speaker 1: Well yesterday Uh. Again when he was being questioned by
Speaker 1: his adversary's attorneys. Uh, he was on the defensive, and
Speaker 1: he had to explain that sometimes pound of flesh is
Speaker 1: a term he uses. And then when he was asked
Speaker 1: specifically about i P, which is stands for intellectual property. Uh,
Speaker 1: he said that he did not remember using that specific word,
Speaker 1: but he didn't deny it. Then today, when he was
Speaker 1: being questioned by Uber's attorney, he made clear that when
Speaker 1: he said he wanted intellectual property, he wanted the intellectual
Speaker 1: property belonging to Anthony Lewandowski's own startup called Auto. So
Speaker 1: he wasn't, in other words, he wasn't lusting for Weymo's
Speaker 1: intellectual property. Tell us about Anthon Lewandowski, Well, Lewandowski is
Speaker 1: the engineer who's at the center of this dispute. He
Speaker 1: was the rock Star robot car project leader for the
Speaker 1: Weymo unit until January two thousand and sixteen, when he
Speaker 1: left Weymo, and at that very moment, he was already
Speaker 1: forming his own self driving startup called Auto, which was
Speaker 1: then acquired by Uber in August of two thousand and
Speaker 1: sixteen in a six eighty million dollar stock deal. So
Speaker 1: it's the overlap where Lewandowski is transitioning out of Weymo
Speaker 1: and into forming his own company that's ultimately acquired by Uber,
Speaker 1: that is the source of tension that's at the center
Speaker 1: of this case. Stand by one moment, there's some breaking news.
Speaker 1: Senator Lindsey Graham has said that a budget deal has
Speaker 1: been reached and he's all in. We are going to
Speaker 1: have more on that story coming up. So is uh
Speaker 1: Lewandowski going to be testifying at this trial? Well, Lewandowski
Speaker 1: is required to uh go to the witness stand when
Speaker 1: he has called as a witness by Weymo. But um
Speaker 1: he has consistently uh stayed uh quiet, uh silent even
Speaker 1: throughout the year of litigation, asserting his constitutional right against
Speaker 1: self incrimination. Uh and so um he is expected not
Speaker 1: to uh say much on the witness stand, but he
Speaker 1: will be required to tell the jury that he's asserting
Speaker 1: his Fifth Amendment right. So Peter on the whole, how
Speaker 1: has Klinik's testimony been, Well, it's been mixed. Uh certainly
Speaker 1: Weymo has um has scored uh some zingers with uh
Speaker 1: the hill even mountain of circumstantial evidence it has that
Speaker 1: he was conspiring with Levin Daoisi, with Lewandowski even before
Speaker 1: Lewandowski left Weimo. But on the other hand, uh Kalinnik
Speaker 1: has had it has had an opportunity to put uh
Speaker 1: put some of these things into context and put his
Speaker 1: own um less sinister spin on these events. And just
Speaker 1: at about forty five seconds here Uh. The judge is
Speaker 1: well known for being strict. It tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about what's been happening in the courtroom. Well, the
Speaker 1: judge has has already had to deal with some showdown
Speaker 1: between the attorneys over what evidence will be allowed UH
Speaker 1: into the trial. And these um these conferences usually take
Speaker 1: place out out of the jury's earshot, and the judge
Speaker 1: has to referee uh disputes over what evidence will be
Speaker 1: allowed in. And he has, for instance, ruled that UBER
Speaker 1: cannot block its former ex board member Bill Gurley from
Speaker 1: being questioned about his own criticism of how Travis Kalanak
Speaker 1: handled the acquisition of Lewandowski's auto. And we will have
Speaker 1: to pick this discussion up again because there's a lot
Speaker 1: more of this trial to come. Thanks for your insights, Peter.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg News Legal editor, Peter Bloomberg. Will he or
Speaker 1: won't he? Will the President sit down for an interview
Speaker 1: with Special Counsel Robert Muller, as he said he's eager
Speaker 1: to do, or won't he? The range of people saying
Speaker 1: he should not agree to an interview is wide, from
Speaker 1: former Vice President Joe Biden to some of the president's
Speaker 1: own lawyers. That's according to The New York Times, if
Speaker 1: the President refuses, it could set the stage for a
Speaker 1: constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court. Joining me is Jennifer Daskell,
Speaker 1: professor at American University Washington College of Law and founding
Speaker 1: editor of the Just Security blog. Jennifer First, Let's deal
Speaker 1: with the concerns the president's allies and even his own
Speaker 1: lawyer have raised that the Special Council could be setting
Speaker 1: what they call a perjury trap. Explain what that is
Speaker 1: and how likely it is that Muller's team would abuse
Speaker 1: the legal process in that way. So perjury is is
Speaker 1: simply a charge based on lying under oath um. And
Speaker 1: so the you know, as to whether or not there
Speaker 1: is a Trump I mean, it's it's an it's an
Speaker 1: obligation not to lie under oath um, and so, um,
Speaker 1: you know it certainly that can be a charge if
Speaker 1: in fact that happens. But um, you know, I expect
Speaker 1: and hope that the Muler investigation is proceeding um with
Speaker 1: good faith, as it should. Now I want to go
Speaker 1: down the line and deal with all the possibilities if
Speaker 1: Trump declines the interview. The New York Times has reported
Speaker 1: that some members of Trump's legal team believe that Mueller
Speaker 1: would be reluctant to subpoena him. Mueller has a team
Speaker 1: of aggressive prosecutors and he seems to be conducting a
Speaker 1: rigorous investigation. Do you think it likely that he will
Speaker 1: subpoena Trump? So unclear, It's hard to I mean again,
Speaker 1: it's it's hard to predict, especially in the midst of
Speaker 1: a fast moving investigation like this. And it's obviously huge
Speaker 1: risks to having a showdown with the President at this point.
Speaker 1: So if the President refuses UM and he issues a subpoena,
Speaker 1: then UM, as as um you stated in the lead
Speaker 1: up to this, that could that could be something that
Speaker 1: goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, just
Speaker 1: as the subpoena o uhum tapes and and Watergate. Good. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I, my guests, you know, if is that, um,
Speaker 1: Mieler will do everything possible to avoid that because it's
Speaker 1: obviously controversial, it causes delay, UM, it politicizes even more
Speaker 1: the investigation beyond what's been politicized already. UM. But then again,
Speaker 1: if the investigators decide that the testimony that getting getting
Speaker 1: Trump's statements is essential to the case, then we may
Speaker 1: see a subpoena be issued. Hard to say there's precedent
Speaker 1: for a president being subpoena to testify um in a
Speaker 1: criminal investigation with Bill Clinton. But so if there is
Speaker 1: a show down at the Supreme Court, UM are their
Speaker 1: grounds to distinguish this from the Clinton and Nixon cases
Speaker 1: and the dictum that the court issued there. So in
Speaker 1: the in the Nixon case, the the Nixon was was
Speaker 1: ordered to run over the tapes and he ultimately did UM.
Speaker 1: You know, I you know it's again these are fact
Speaker 1: specific inquiries. But you know, if there's a basis for subpoena, UM,
Speaker 1: you know, we'd have to wait and see what happens. UM.
Speaker 1: But I expect that hopefully the president would comply rather
Speaker 1: than um drag this all the way up to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So now if the Supreme Court, let's say
Speaker 1: it is taken to the Supreme Court, If the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court rules that Trump has to appear before the grand jury,
Speaker 1: he could take the Fifth Amendment. How would that affect
Speaker 1: the legal case against him? If at all? So if
Speaker 1: he claimed the Fifth Amendment, UM, he would basically UM.
Speaker 1: Then there would be a choice um the if if
Speaker 1: in fact, the Miler investigation. If the Miller team decided
Speaker 1: to UM insist on his testimony, they could not prosecute
Speaker 1: him based on the statements that he made. UM. So again,
Speaker 1: it depends UM who is the target of the investigation.
Speaker 1: There is an ongoing and active legal debate about whether
Speaker 1: UM it's even possible to criminally charge a sitting president UM.
Speaker 1: A lot of scholars say it's not so. UM. President
Speaker 1: Trump is arguably potentially protected from criminal prosecution UM already UM,
Speaker 1: but aspis study in the fifth UM that would be
Speaker 1: an additional protection. So as far as obstruction of justice charges,
Speaker 1: Mueller would have to establish that Trump acted with corrupt intent?
Speaker 1: Can you do that without interviewing the president? UM? You
Speaker 1: know it's it can be difficult, but it's also possible.
Speaker 1: You know, you don't have to get the statements of
Speaker 1: the individual in order to prove that. So UM there
Speaker 1: could be a whole host of circumstantial evidence of it.
Speaker 1: Not more than circumstantial evidence, but direct evidence, including documents,
Speaker 1: including statements of others. UM. So it's it's possible to
Speaker 1: prove that without UM, without actually getting UM the statements
Speaker 1: from from President Trump himself. Again, as I said, there's
Speaker 1: you know, an ongoing and active debate about whether it's
Speaker 1: sitting president can be criminally charged, so obstruction of justice
Speaker 1: charges to the extent that they are brought or more
Speaker 1: likely to be brought in the course of an impiquement
Speaker 1: proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution. Um. But we we
Speaker 1: you know, there's still there's a whole host of hurdles
Speaker 1: before that, whatever happen as well. Let's turn to the
Speaker 1: memo and the Intelligence Committee, which voted unanimously to release
Speaker 1: the memo. It's now in the president's hands. What is
Speaker 1: he likely to do so unclear. Some statements today suggested that, um,
Speaker 1: they are not likely to release the memo, or if
Speaker 1: they are, they would release it with significant reductions. UM.
Speaker 1: You know this, you know, real concerns here that UM,
Speaker 1: the classification process, that the intelligence um, the access to
Speaker 1: information intelligence information has been used in a politicized way
Speaker 1: in ways that are extremely concerning and plate damaging. The
Speaker 1: New York Times is asking the the FISA Court to
Speaker 1: unsealed the secret documents related to the wired tapping of
Speaker 1: Carter Page. I don't believe that's ever been done before.
Speaker 1: We have about thirty seconds. Is that a possibility anything
Speaker 1: is a possibility. Um, you know, a lot of things
Speaker 1: have happened that I would never have predicted in the past,
Speaker 1: but I think it's highly unlikely. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That's Jennifer Daskell, professor at American University Washington College of
Speaker 1: Law and founding editor of the Just Security Block. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and
Speaker 1: on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg