Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Tom Barrett, the founder of investment firm Colony Capital, was
Speaker 1: a friend and confidante of former President Trump, advising him
Speaker 1: on everything from cabinet appointments to foreign policy, something he
Speaker 1: discussed in an exclusive interview with Bloomberg a little over
Speaker 1: a week ago. From my simple beginnings of where I
Speaker 1: came to have the gift and the opportunity to be
Speaker 1: next to a president of the United States, to have
Speaker 1: the honor of running an inauguration, to be up close
Speaker 1: and personal on some issues that affect world order. Now,
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors alleged that Barrack was too up close and
Speaker 1: personal on issues affecting world order, specifically affecting the United
Speaker 1: Arab Emirates. Barrick was arrested this week on charges of
Speaker 1: illegal lobbying for a foreign government, and allegation prosecutors have
Speaker 1: successfully brought against several other Trump associates, in addition to
Speaker 1: charges of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.
Speaker 1: Joining me as former federal prosecutor. Jimmy Grula a professor
Speaker 1: at Notre Dame Law School. So, Jimmy, are these charges serious.
Speaker 1: They are serious charges. I mean Tom Barrick is charged
Speaker 1: with seven counts including failing to file as a foreign agent,
Speaker 1: conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent, obstruction of justice
Speaker 1: specifically involving obstructing a federal grand jury investigation, and then
Speaker 1: four counts of making material false statements to a federal agent,
Speaker 1: specifically FBI agents. They are serious charge. I mean the
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice charge alone carries some maximum twenty year
Speaker 1: sentence of imprisonment. This is what's called a speaking indictment
Speaker 1: because it provides so much detail. Did some of the
Speaker 1: incidents charge stand out to you as particularly egregious, Well,
Speaker 1: the ones I think that the most troublesome is where
Speaker 1: Barrick is actually attempting to influence presidential appointments. You know,
Speaker 1: for example, the U S Ambassador to the U A
Speaker 1: and where he's been asked by members of the U
Speaker 1: A government to get information inside information on who the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is considering for key high level government posts
Speaker 1: such as the Secretary of State, the director of the CIA,
Speaker 1: and some other high level officials. And so what that
Speaker 1: demonstrates is that Barrick is actually acting again on behalf
Speaker 1: of the foreign government. But is not being transparent. And
Speaker 1: so he has this very close relationship with former President Trump,
Speaker 1: a relationship that he's maintained over I think approximately thirty years.
Speaker 1: He served as an informal advisor to then presidential candidate Trump,
Speaker 1: president elect Trump, and then even as president. And so
Speaker 1: the conflict here is is he giving the former president
Speaker 1: advice that's in the best interests of the US government,
Speaker 1: or again, is he giving advice for the benefit of
Speaker 1: the U A. Barrack isn't the first of Trump's allies
Speaker 1: to be charged with violations of the Foreign Agents Registration
Speaker 1: Act or FARAH, But I don't remember many high profile
Speaker 1: indictments under FARAH before this was this not enforced much? Well,
Speaker 1: it's infrequently used, I mean, so it's not the federal
Speaker 1: charge that we see brought on a regular basis. I mean,
Speaker 1: it carries a five year sentence of incarceration. So it
Speaker 1: is a felony, there's no question about it. But often
Speaker 1: this type of matter might be handled behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: There might be efforts made. You know there's a problem here,
Speaker 1: Oh you know I'm being investigated, Ye, let me go register.
Speaker 1: But here what ends up happening is not only does
Speaker 1: Barrick not register as a foreign agent even though he's
Speaker 1: acting on behalf of the UAE. But then he lies,
Speaker 1: at least the indictment alleges that he lies to the
Speaker 1: FBI about the relationship that he has with the UAE,
Speaker 1: and the effort says he's undertaken on behalf of the UAE,
Speaker 1: and he does so as a legend the dagon multiple times.
Speaker 1: And being a former federal prosecutor, you know that when
Speaker 1: the FBI is asking those questions, usually there at the
Speaker 1: point where they have the answers and they just want
Speaker 1: to know if you're telling them the truth. That's what's really,
Speaker 1: I think, kind of mind boggling here, because clearly he
Speaker 1: had to know or there was just this this inflated
Speaker 1: sense of arrogance and that I'm smarter than the FBI,
Speaker 1: you know, for him, first of all to agree to
Speaker 1: sit down and talk to the FBI and then to
Speaker 1: respond to these specific questions that he was being asked
Speaker 1: by the FBI and to deny his involvement of these activities.
Speaker 1: And you're right, he should have known that the FBI
Speaker 1: had the answers to these questions. Probably the more prudent
Speaker 1: course for him to have taken would have been to
Speaker 1: refuse the invitation to be interviewed by the FBI, but
Speaker 1: he didn't. In an interview taped last week with Bloomberg TV,
Speaker 1: Barrett gave no indication that he was aware of the
Speaker 1: impending charges. Would this have been something that that the
Speaker 1: FBI might have or prosecutors might have told him about
Speaker 1: that an indictment was coming, Well, certainly he would have
Speaker 1: been put on notice, I think based upon the the
Speaker 1: interviews that he had with the FBI, because they clearly,
Speaker 1: again as alleged in counts fourth through seven of the indictment,
Speaker 1: they asked him specific questions. He was asked specific questions
Speaker 1: by FBI agents regarding his relationship with UAE officials and
Speaker 1: more specifically, activity specific activities undertaken on behalf of away
Speaker 1: government officials. For example, he was asked whether a Emarati
Speaker 1: official had asked him to download a messaging application to
Speaker 1: communicate directly with these foreign government officials and to acquire
Speaker 1: a dedicated telephone to communicate directly with you a government officials.
Speaker 1: I mean, so here he's being asked specific questions involving
Speaker 1: the nature of his relationship and activities with you a
Speaker 1: government officials that clearly should have raised some red flags
Speaker 1: for Barrack that would cause him to again to know
Speaker 1: that he's under investigation. Now, whether or not he knew
Speaker 1: that the investigation was so far along that an indictment
Speaker 1: was eminent or an indictment would be shortly forthcoming, you know,
Speaker 1: that's a different question. But he certainly knew that he
Speaker 1: was being investigated by the FBI. Does it seem like
Speaker 1: prosecutors have built a strong case against Barrick. It's incumbents
Speaker 1: that the FBI the d o J have a very strong,
Speaker 1: compelling in case, strong credible evidence to convict. And what
Speaker 1: I find interesting about this indictment is it doesn't depend
Speaker 1: on percipient witnesses. It doesn't depend on oh, we've got
Speaker 1: somebody over here and we're going to get this guy
Speaker 1: to flip and we're going to make promises that will
Speaker 1: dismiss charges if he cooperates and testifies. That's not this case.
Speaker 1: And of course those types of witnesses or credibility is
Speaker 1: always highly suspect. This is largely a document based case,
Speaker 1: based upon text messages and other types of communications that
Speaker 1: they've been able to download. And here the prosecutors detail
Speaker 1: multiple communications between Barrick and U, a government official. It's extensive,
Speaker 1: and they have quotes exact language that he used. It
Speaker 1: clearly establishes and proves that he was acting on behalf
Speaker 1: of this foreign government with respect to promoting their interests,
Speaker 1: promoting the foreign government interests with the Trump and ministertion.
Speaker 1: So it'll be difficult to see what legal defense they
Speaker 1: raise in an effort to overcome what appears to be
Speaker 1: a very compelling case, at least on paper. Is there
Speaker 1: a chance of Barrack flipping The Eastern District of New York,
Speaker 1: which brought these charges, is also investigating fraud in the
Speaker 1: Trump inaugural campaign, and Barrick was chairman of the inaugural committee.
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's certainly possible. I think the equation here,
Speaker 1: the calculation I should say that Barry is going to
Speaker 1: undertake is what's the likelihood of conviction? A second, if
Speaker 1: I'm convicted, what kind of sentence am I realistically looking
Speaker 1: to receive? And if ultimately he concludes that yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: if I'm convicted and I have no prior conviction, I
Speaker 1: haven't been involved in any criminal activity and therefore based
Speaker 1: upon the sentencing guidelines. The sentence is going to be,
Speaker 1: you know, five years, three years, two years, whatever, am
Speaker 1: I be? Relatively a short sentence that may not be
Speaker 1: enough russure, that may not be enough leverage exerted by
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice to cause him to cooperate and
Speaker 1: share information that could implicate former President Trump and maybe
Speaker 1: other allies of former President Trump. Thanks for being on
Speaker 1: the show, Jimmy. That's Professor Jimmy Garule of Notre Dame
Speaker 1: Law School. The June heat wave in the Northwest shattered
Speaker 1: temperature records and caused the deaths of hundreds of people.
Speaker 1: More people lie of extreme heat in the US each
Speaker 1: year than from other natural disasters, but FEMA devotes very
Speaker 1: little of its resources to deal with extreme heat. Columbia
Speaker 1: Law School professor Michael Gerard, Faculty director of the Saban
Speaker 1: Center for Climate Change Law, says FEMA has the authority
Speaker 1: under law to do more in advance to lower heat
Speaker 1: related deaths. He's written a piece for Bloomberg Law and
Speaker 1: he joins me now so to get an idea of
Speaker 1: just how hot it's been. Tell us about July nine
Speaker 1: in Death Valley, California. We're seeing world records being set
Speaker 1: about heat. It was a hundred and thirty degrees fahrenheit
Speaker 1: on July ninth, which seems to be the world record
Speaker 1: for heat. And we're seeing temperatures in the one twenties
Speaker 1: and various parts of the world which had previously been
Speaker 1: almost unheard of. I think a lot of people when
Speaker 1: they think of heat waves, they don't think of heat
Speaker 1: waves as causing a lot of deaths compared to tornadoes
Speaker 1: and hurricanes and floods. But that's just not right, is it.
Speaker 1: That's right? The National Weather Service counts off the number
Speaker 1: of people who die every year from natural disasters, and
Speaker 1: heat is by far the leading cause of death. Heat waves,
Speaker 1: far ahead of floods or tornadoes or hurricane. A lot
Speaker 1: of people die, and these numbers are probably underreported because
Speaker 1: many people who have heart attacks and so forth that
Speaker 1: aren't directly attributed to heat. How much does FEMA do?
Speaker 1: How much time and resources does it devote to heat waves?
Speaker 1: Right now, FEMA does almost thing on heat waves. They
Speaker 1: basically have concentrated on declared emergencies and disasters, and there
Speaker 1: haven't been any about heat waves. Part of the issue
Speaker 1: is that the conventional kinds of disasters like hurricanes and
Speaker 1: tornadoes and floods cause a lot of physical damage. Heat
Speaker 1: waves don't cause so much physical damage, so after they're over,
Speaker 1: they don't require a lot of that recovery. But they
Speaker 1: kill a lot of people, and so far FEMA has
Speaker 1: not really paid much attention to them. Is that because
Speaker 1: the real way to battle heat waves would be environmental changes. Well,
Speaker 1: in the long term, we need to drastically reduce great
Speaker 1: house gas emissions in order to reduce the heat waste,
Speaker 1: but that's going to take a very long time, and
Speaker 1: that's not femus job. But there are lots of things
Speaker 1: that FEMA could help with in the short term that
Speaker 1: would help people cope with heat waves and would greatly
Speaker 1: reduce the depth toll. One of the things you suggest
Speaker 1: in your article is cooling centers. That's right. Some cities
Speaker 1: have set up the centers in convention halls or school
Speaker 1: auditoriums or lots of other buildings that are air conditioned
Speaker 1: and people can just go and hang out when it's
Speaker 1: very hot. Who are seeing temperatures that basically are almost
Speaker 1: impossible to endure if you don't have air conditioning. Lots
Speaker 1: of people don't have air conditioning, it breaks down, So
Speaker 1: these are centers where people can just go and be
Speaker 1: cool and drink water and so forth. So we have
Speaker 1: some of those around the country that is kind of sporadic.
Speaker 1: They're often not well publicized. People have difficulty in getting
Speaker 1: there very often. And so that's something that is similar
Speaker 1: to the emergency shoulders we see after flooding. In that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. It's something where FEMA could could help
Speaker 1: out a great deal. So would FEMA be constructing new centers. No,
Speaker 1: you don't have to build anything. These are all existing buildings.
Speaker 1: It's mostly a matter of organization and publicizing it and
Speaker 1: arranging transportation and maybe some supplies like cots and so forth.
Speaker 1: That no new instruction group be involved. So it seems
Speaker 1: pretty easy. So why wouldn't FEMA be doing this already? Well,
Speaker 1: FEMA didn't used to have the authority to do a
Speaker 1: lot of work in advance of disasters. Their focus has
Speaker 1: been urgency response and then then the aftermath. But in
Speaker 1: two thousand eighteen, Congress amended the law and provided for
Speaker 1: a new program for preparing for emergencies. And I'm arguing
Speaker 1: that FEMA ought to devote a chunk of the money
Speaker 1: under that new program to preparing for heatwave. Do you
Speaker 1: have backing behind you? Are there any other groups that
Speaker 1: are calling for this. We haven't heard a lot of
Speaker 1: calls yet, but we're trying to get the word out
Speaker 1: and I've been in communication with FEMA about this, and
Speaker 1: i know they're looking at it. You suggest some other
Speaker 1: simple things that FEMA can do to lower heat related
Speaker 1: death tolls, like just painting roofs white. That's right. One
Speaker 1: of the big issues we have is called the urban
Speaker 1: heat island effect. It tends to be much hot are
Speaker 1: in cities than in the countryside, and that's largely because
Speaker 1: so much of the surface is covered with buildings and
Speaker 1: pavement and sidewalks and so forth. If you paint the
Speaker 1: roofs of buildings white, that makes it cooler overall, particularly
Speaker 1: inside the buildings. If you grow a lot more trees,
Speaker 1: if you have a lot more vegetation, that can make
Speaker 1: a very substantial difference. We also see racial disparities here.
Speaker 1: It's been shown that the communities that are low income
Speaker 1: or high proportion of people of color tend to be
Speaker 1: hotter in the summer because they have more asphalts of
Speaker 1: tower trees. That's something that can be fixed, and in
Speaker 1: the scheme of things, it's not that expensive. Why aren't
Speaker 1: local communities doing this themselves. Well, some local communities are.
Speaker 1: New York City has something called a Million Trees campaign
Speaker 1: UH to plant a million trees and they have now
Speaker 1: exceeded that. A number of other cities have done it,
Speaker 1: but not nearly as many have done it. And there's
Speaker 1: no organized national effort to try to reduce the urban
Speaker 1: heat island effect. And I think FEMA could really take
Speaker 1: the lead and trying to make sure this happens. Maybe
Speaker 1: wouldn't have to pay for all of it, but they
Speaker 1: could help organize it and provide financial assistance to those
Speaker 1: communities that really don't have the money to do it themselves.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about some of the other legal tools that
Speaker 1: you discussed. So, California and Oregon have set safety standards.
Speaker 1: That's right. At the national level, OSHA has not set
Speaker 1: safety standards for the occupational setting for extreme heat. They've
Speaker 1: been petitioned to do what. They have studies saying they
Speaker 1: had to do it, but they haven't done it yet.
Speaker 1: They're now looking at it. California and Oregon have set
Speaker 1: up heat standards, especially for outdoor workers, you know, farm workers,
Speaker 1: outdoor utility workers, all kinds of other people who have
Speaker 1: to work outside are exposed to heat and it can
Speaker 1: be really dangerous for them. So Oregon and California set
Speaker 1: up standards requiring breaks and shade and water and other
Speaker 1: ways to help reduce the negative health effects of working
Speaker 1: outside in the heat. So you think that that's something
Speaker 1: that OSHA should do. Yes, OSHA should do that. They've
Speaker 1: been petitioned by some some groups to do it, and
Speaker 1: it's something clearly within their authority and it's something that
Speaker 1: they absolutely should undertake. And you mentioned that Arizona has
Speaker 1: put some requirements on landlords. Yeah, almost everywhere landlords are
Speaker 1: required to provide heat in the winter. It's part of
Speaker 1: what's called the warranty of habitability. Arizona has put that
Speaker 1: in the in the summer that then it went when
Speaker 1: it's very hot, landlords have to provide cooling. That's something
Speaker 1: that I think also should be expanded nationwide. We've seen
Speaker 1: in the last few months that places like Washington State
Speaker 1: and Oregon that are usually not very hot and therefore
Speaker 1: a lot of people don't have air conditioning, they can
Speaker 1: oppressively hot. We need to protect the tenants in buildings,
Speaker 1: and imposing this requirement on landlords is one way to
Speaker 1: do that. There's another simple solution. Low income people could
Speaker 1: be given money to buy air conditioners. That's right. There
Speaker 1: are programs that have been around a long time to
Speaker 1: help low income people pay for heating oil so that
Speaker 1: they don't freeze in the winner. A few states provide
Speaker 1: money to buy air conditioners, but a problem is that
Speaker 1: a lot of poor people can't afford the power to
Speaker 1: run the air conditioners. So in addition to helping them
Speaker 1: buy the air conditioners, they also need subsidies for the
Speaker 1: power bills to run the art conditioners. What do you
Speaker 1: do to try to get states and the federal government
Speaker 1: to work on these I think that FEMA is the
Speaker 1: natural agency to organize a nationwide effort to do this.
Speaker 1: We've seen in the last few months these killer heat
Speaker 1: waves that have been hitting parts of the country that
Speaker 1: are not accustomed to it. I think that's increasing overall
Speaker 1: consciousness of the need to deal with heat waves, since
Speaker 1: they are, as I said, the most lethal impact of
Speaker 1: climate change in the United States. A lot more people
Speaker 1: die from heat waves than floods of hurricanes or tourin
Speaker 1: does and it serves national attention like those other kinds
Speaker 1: of weather disasters. Ever see for a long time, how
Speaker 1: has the Biden administration been doing on the environment. I
Speaker 1: think that Biden has put in place a remarkably strong
Speaker 1: team in the White House, at E p A, and
Speaker 1: the Interior Department and and everywhere else. Of the message
Speaker 1: has clearly gone out that the administration is working very
Speaker 1: hard on climate change. Everything that they could do by
Speaker 1: the stroke of a pen, they've pretty much done. In
Speaker 1: terms of rescinding the executive orders from Trump that weakened
Speaker 1: environmental regulations. They're really working very hard that We'll see
Speaker 1: what happens in Congress. The negotiations that are going on
Speaker 1: right now about the Infrastructure Bill. There's a lot that
Speaker 1: Biden can do, and he's doing with his existing legal authority.
Speaker 1: There's a lot more that he could do if Congress
Speaker 1: were to add to that authority and provide the money.
Speaker 1: And we'll see in the days and weeks to come
Speaker 1: if that actually happens. Tell me what there is in
Speaker 1: the Infrastructure Bill that addresses climate change or the environment.
Speaker 1: One of the most important proposals is the Clean Energy
Speaker 1: Standard CIER, a law that a certain percentage, and ultimately
Speaker 1: one of the electricity has to come from zero emission sources,
Speaker 1: which would be renewables and a little bit of remaining nuclear.
Speaker 1: That's one very important issue. There's also money in various
Speaker 1: versions of that for beating up the electric transmission system,
Speaker 1: which is needed to take power generated by wind and
Speaker 1: solar to to where it's needed. There's some money from
Speaker 1: mass transit. There's money for improving water systems. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot of money that it would help the climate
Speaker 1: situation at various versions of the bills, we don't know
Speaker 1: what ultimately emerge. I've read that some environmental advocates are
Speaker 1: disappointed in Biden because they don't think the administration is
Speaker 1: moving fast enough on environment Yeah, the Sunrise Movement and
Speaker 1: a number of other progressive organizations are complaining that Biden
Speaker 1: hasn't gone far enough. I think it's uh, you know
Speaker 1: that he's getting a lot of pushback from the right
Speaker 1: that he's he's also getting pushed back from the left. UM,
Speaker 1: and Biden is making his judgments about how much he
Speaker 1: can push through in Congress. We'll see how it how
Speaker 1: it plays out in Congress. Is this a partisan issue? Oh? Yes, UM,
Speaker 1: Climate change is one of the most partisan issues we've
Speaker 1: ever seen. The statistics show that the current Republican Party
Speaker 1: has adopted as a matter of doctrine that they don't
Speaker 1: believe that human cause climate change is happening, or if
Speaker 1: it is, that, I don't think the government should do
Speaker 1: anything about that. The Democrats are on exactly the opposite side.
Speaker 1: So that's one of the major problems we have, and
Speaker 1: with the Senate split fifty fifty, it's very hard to
Speaker 1: get anything done. It almost seems absurd with the different
Speaker 1: problems we've been having with heat and cold, and that
Speaker 1: people don't believe in climate change. Well, of course it's
Speaker 1: not the only issue where it's absurd that people can't
Speaker 1: think of, as vaccination being number one. But I think
Speaker 1: that the increased terrible climate change problems we've seen, the
Speaker 1: floods and the hurricanes in the US, the catastrophic flooding
Speaker 1: we're now seeing in Europe and China and parts of Africa,
Speaker 1: parts of other parts of Asia, they're all adding up.
Speaker 1: There was a magazine cover the other day saying no
Speaker 1: one is safe. It used to be thought that there
Speaker 1: were parts of the world that were completely immune from
Speaker 1: climate change, but we know that is no longer the case.
Speaker 1: The combination of heat, heat, and wildfires and flooding and
Speaker 1: everything else mean that there are climate related dangers globally,
Speaker 1: and hopefully more people will wake up to that and
Speaker 1: take the decisive action that is needed to drastically reduce
Speaker 1: screenest gas emissions that are causing most of the climate change,
Speaker 1: and take actions to prepare for the climate change that
Speaker 1: is coming regardless of our best efforts. Thanks for being
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Laws Show. That's Professor Michael Gerard of
Speaker 1: Columbia Law School, and that's it for the edition of
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg