WEBVTT - Weekend Law: Trump Mistrial, SBF Lawsuits & SCOTUS Ethics 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:12.360 Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. Donald 0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:16.000 Trump wants a mistrial in his civil fraud case. The 0:00:16.040 --> 0:00:19.960 Supreme Court's new ethics code is much ado about nothing. 0:00:20.480 --> 0:00:25.080 A First Amendment challenge to charges over false election robocalls 0:00:25.360 --> 0:00:30.000 and crypto investors sue SBF and celebrity promoters. 0:00:33.640 --> 0:00:37.199 I have a rogue judge who rules that properties are 0:00:37.240 --> 0:00:41.440 worth a tiny fraction one one hundred, a tiny fraction 0:00:41.520 --> 0:00:42.800 of what they actually are. 0:00:43.240 --> 0:00:46.920 It was almost like Donald Trump was forecasting his motion 0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:50.760 for a mistrial even before his civil fraud trial began 0:00:50.920 --> 0:00:54.200 last month. He's arguing that the judge has tainted the 0:00:54.240 --> 0:00:58.680 proceedings with tangible and overwhelming bias. The New York Attorney 0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:01.360 General took six weeks to present her case that the 0:01:01.400 --> 0:01:05.600 former president deliberately inflated his net worth to fool banks 0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:08.920 and insurers into giving him better terms on hundreds of 0:01:08.920 --> 0:01:11.880 millions of dollars in loans, and as the Trump team 0:01:12.080 --> 0:01:15.640 kicked off its case on Monday, the first witness, Donald 0:01:15.640 --> 0:01:18.800 Trump Junior, gave a snapshot of the defense that his 0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:22.640 father has been harping on basically, no harm, no foul. 0:01:22.959 --> 0:01:24.800 You guysn't got to think about the precedent that this 0:01:24.920 --> 0:01:28.160 case sets if an attorney general ken years later after 0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:32.200 all parties of transactions are paid back in full with interest, 0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:34.399 making hundreds of millions of dollars where they have no 0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:37.200 complaint where they said they wouldn't have done anything Differently. 0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:41.440 Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers and adjunct 0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:45.119 professor at NYU Law School. So Jennifer tell us about 0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:48.920 this mistrial motion that everyone knows is going nowhere. 0:01:49.320 --> 0:01:52.720 Well, it's really the same complaint that they've been making 0:01:52.760 --> 0:01:57.520 in court about the judge and specifically his law clerk. 0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:01.840 The defense has been really up in arms about the 0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:06.240 law clerk and accusing her of making facial expressions she 0:02:06.280 --> 0:02:09.920 shouldn't make, and passing notes and taking a greater role 0:02:09.960 --> 0:02:12.640 than they think she should be taking in the trial. 0:02:13.240 --> 0:02:16.160 And they've been making those objections in court, and that 0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:19.480 really is the focus of the mistrial motion, that the 0:02:19.560 --> 0:02:22.880 clerk is taking an outsized role, and the judge himself 0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:26.639 is also biased against the defendants, and so putting those 0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:30.600 things together, they allege that a mistrial should be granted, 0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:32.000 I have to say, it. 0:02:31.960 --> 0:02:34.920 Does seem like the judge is a little unorthodox with 0:02:35.000 --> 0:02:38.480 what's happening in the courtroom. But is there anything wrong 0:02:38.600 --> 0:02:42.760 with having the law clerk pass him notes and asking 0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:44.639 her questions and things like that. 0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:47.720 Not the way that you put it, there's certainly nothing 0:02:47.760 --> 0:02:50.800 wrong with relying on your law clerk to help you 0:02:50.880 --> 0:02:53.800 try the matter, do research and give you the results, 0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:57.000 even give her opinion about what's happening. You know, there 0:02:57.000 --> 0:03:00.240 are no rules around really how you're supposed to use 0:03:00.280 --> 0:03:02.960 your law clerks in that way. The only issue would 0:03:02.960 --> 0:03:05.399 be if there were demonstrated bias. I mean, I do 0:03:05.480 --> 0:03:09.560 think that if they could show an actual bias on 0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:12.480 the part of the judge or the clerk, and then 0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:14.839 they would try to show that, you know, the law 0:03:14.840 --> 0:03:18.120 clerk's bias is infecting the judge, then you know, you 0:03:18.160 --> 0:03:21.120 could see a court saying, and it's certainly not going 0:03:21.160 --> 0:03:23.640 to be this court right, because this judge doesn't believe 0:03:23.680 --> 0:03:25.800 anything wrong is happening, and he's not going to grant 0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:27.840 this motion. But then of course it goes up on appeal. 0:03:27.919 --> 0:03:31.160 So you could see in theory and appellate court saying, wow, 0:03:31.280 --> 0:03:34.000 you know, the law clerk told the judge all these 0:03:34.080 --> 0:03:37.840 untrue and really prejudical things about one of the parties, 0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:40.640 and the judge said that he took that into account 0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:42.880 and that's why he's ruling against them. I mean, that's 0:03:42.920 --> 0:03:45.160 the sort of hypothetical that you could see an appellate 0:03:45.200 --> 0:03:47.800 court saying, well, wait a minute, that seems like bias 0:03:47.880 --> 0:03:50.480 to us, and you know, maybe we'll consider this, But 0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:53.800 we don't have anything like that here. You know, we 0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:57.720 have some allegations that aren't even true, you know, the 0:03:57.760 --> 0:04:01.360 nonsense about the law clerk dating Chuck Schumer, and then 0:04:01.400 --> 0:04:03.680 there's a couple of like the law clerk had made 0:04:03.760 --> 0:04:07.360 a donation to a Democrat, and those sorts of things 0:04:07.400 --> 0:04:10.960 are never going to rise to the level of demonstrating bias. 0:04:11.040 --> 0:04:14.200 If you give to someone of a political party that's 0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:17.640 the opposite of the political party of one of the litigants, 0:04:17.720 --> 0:04:19.920 that's just never going to rise to the level of 0:04:20.160 --> 0:04:21.880 any sort of demonstrated bias. 0:04:22.000 --> 0:04:24.760 Let's turn to Trump's defense, and I'm going to sort 0:04:24.760 --> 0:04:28.240 of go through what I see as the defense. So 0:04:28.720 --> 0:04:32.919 one is the valuation of properties like the ones listed 0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:36.840 on Donald Trump's financial statements is not an exact science. 0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:40.360 It's more like an art than a science. And not 0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:44.120 only did Trump testify to this, but they've had accounting 0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:49.599 experts testified. One said the process of determining the estimated 0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:52.839 value of a property could result in a range of values, 0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:55.880 no one of which is the right or wrong answer. 0:04:56.000 --> 0:04:57.159 It's a judgment call. 0:04:57.720 --> 0:05:01.360 Yeah, I mean, listen, this is the defense that they 0:05:01.480 --> 0:05:06.400 have to make. The judge has effectively already rejected this 0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:10.320 by finding that there was fraud here because the judge found, 0:05:10.600 --> 0:05:13.160 you know, it's not so much that the statement said 0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:16.760 ten thousand and a more reasonable amount would be five thousand. 0:05:16.839 --> 0:05:20.080 I mean, the judge found that there were magnitudes of 0:05:20.160 --> 0:05:24.800 difference between what's an accurate assessment and the assessments that 0:05:24.839 --> 0:05:28.039 were given by the defendants on the financial statement. So 0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:31.279 it's not even a close call. So even if you say, listen, 0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:34.080 we put in proof that it's not an exact science, 0:05:34.160 --> 0:05:36.880 it's like, okay, fair enough, but is it not an 0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:41.039 exact science enough to talk about you know, hundreds of percentages, 0:05:41.200 --> 0:05:43.600 you know, one of the properties that was like twenty 0:05:43.640 --> 0:05:47.279 three hundred times or something between what the judge found 0:05:47.320 --> 0:05:49.960 was a reasonable assessment and the assessment on the papers. 0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:52.600 So at some point you can say all that, but 0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:54.680 it doesn't really get you as far as you need 0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:57.560 to go. And the heart of this has already been 0:05:57.560 --> 0:05:59.560 decided by the judge, So I don't think he's going 0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:03.000 to be by testimony that says, hey, it's not an 0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:05.359 exact science, you know, let's treat it more as an 0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:06.559 art and cut on some slack. 0:06:06.640 --> 0:06:10.120 For that reason, another defense seems to be, instead of 0:06:10.160 --> 0:06:13.360 blaming the lawyers, as Trump may do in other cases, 0:06:13.680 --> 0:06:17.440 blame the accountants. So Eric Trump testified that he relied 0:06:17.480 --> 0:06:21.480 on the accounting firms to assure the financial statements were accurate. 0:06:21.600 --> 0:06:25.720 Donald Trump Junior testified he signed off on the statements 0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:29.239 but left the work to outside accountants. And Trump himself 0:06:29.240 --> 0:06:31.600 has said, you know, I paid the accounts all this money. 0:06:31.720 --> 0:06:32.680 Where does that get them? 0:06:32.920 --> 0:06:34.720 Yeah, I don't think this was going to work either, 0:06:34.960 --> 0:06:38.360 for largely the same reason. So judge has already considered 0:06:38.400 --> 0:06:41.160 that as part of his finding that the defendants did 0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:44.600 commit fraud. Here, I mean that the statements themselves talk 0:06:44.680 --> 0:06:47.039 about what it was that the accountants were doing and 0:06:47.080 --> 0:06:49.840 described it as more of a compilation, right, that they're 0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:52.880 relying on the documents and the actuity of the documents 0:06:52.880 --> 0:06:57.200 provided by the organization, and they're not attesting to that themselves, 0:06:57.200 --> 0:07:00.599 the accountants. So I don't think that the just going 0:07:00.640 --> 0:07:04.760 to buy that particular argument that you know, I'm not responsible. 0:07:05.040 --> 0:07:07.640 Someone said, it's kind of like I can't be convicted 0:07:07.680 --> 0:07:10.600 of tax fraud. You have to go after my accountant, 0:07:10.640 --> 0:07:13.120 even though you know I lied to him about what 0:07:13.160 --> 0:07:15.760 I was paying in taxes or what this particular property 0:07:15.800 --> 0:07:17.560 was worth or so on. You can't get away with 0:07:17.640 --> 0:07:19.880 it by just kind of saying, hey, you know, I 0:07:19.920 --> 0:07:22.160 have an accountant, so therefore I'm free and clear of 0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:22.960 all liability. 0:07:23.320 --> 0:07:27.440 Another thing is Trump testified and Ivanka testified about the 0:07:27.480 --> 0:07:31.160 relationship with Deutsche Bank, and Trump said that Deutsche Bank 0:07:31.320 --> 0:07:35.400 was extremely happy and thrilled with him. Does it matter 0:07:35.640 --> 0:07:40.520 if the person or entity being defrauded doesn't realize it 0:07:40.720 --> 0:07:41.640 or doesn't care. 0:07:42.120 --> 0:07:46.280 So this is actually the most interesting to me because 0:07:46.560 --> 0:07:48.800 in a way, it doesn't right. This suit is not 0:07:48.840 --> 0:07:51.240 being brought by the bank saying we've been harmed, we 0:07:51.320 --> 0:07:53.840 want you know, our money back, or whatever, being brought 0:07:53.880 --> 0:07:56.320 by the Attorney General, who's really standing in the place 0:07:56.480 --> 0:08:00.760 of New Yorkers and saying New Yorkers, the state, and 0:08:00.800 --> 0:08:03.200 as a people in the state have an interest in 0:08:03.400 --> 0:08:07.880 these financial institutions not being duped, right, not being lied 0:08:07.960 --> 0:08:10.840 to by companies. We don't want companies to behave that way, 0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:13.520 and if you do, we're going to sue you. So 0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:16.880 it's not that the banks have to be harmed. But 0:08:17.120 --> 0:08:20.680 all of that said, it is really interesting, not so 0:08:20.760 --> 0:08:23.000 much that the banks weren't harmed and he paid back 0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:26.120 the loans, and that's an excuse that goes absolutely nowhere, 0:08:26.200 --> 0:08:29.200 because then the comeback was well. But if the banks 0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:31.640 knew that these loans were as risky as they were 0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:34.559 because the valuations were so off, perhaps you wouldn't have 0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:36.520 gotten such a low interest rate, right, We would have 0:08:36.679 --> 0:08:38.920 taken that risk and charged you more for it, so 0:08:38.960 --> 0:08:40.880 that we made more money and we lost out on 0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:44.160 that additional money. What's puzzling to me is that the 0:08:44.200 --> 0:08:47.880 Attorney General really didn't get any witness to say that 0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:50.920 they had relied on them, and that they would have, 0:08:51.120 --> 0:08:54.240 for example, charged a higher interest rate if they knew 0:08:54.280 --> 0:08:57.280 the worth of the properties were being exaggerated. And I 0:08:57.280 --> 0:09:00.000 can only think that they didn't ask those direct questions 0:09:00.240 --> 0:09:02.800 and get that evidence because they wouldn't have, right, the 0:09:02.840 --> 0:09:05.280 witnesses weren't going to say that. So that is kind 0:09:05.320 --> 0:09:07.960 of interesting because I do think it goes to the 0:09:08.080 --> 0:09:12.880 amount ultimately that the judge will find should be paid. Right, 0:09:12.960 --> 0:09:17.480 the fine, the disgorgement amount. Really it is impacted by 0:09:17.600 --> 0:09:20.000 how much the banks would have made compared to what 0:09:20.040 --> 0:09:23.120 they did make. And if they're saying we don't care, 0:09:23.440 --> 0:09:26.440 we really didn't set the interest rate with the values 0:09:26.440 --> 0:09:29.480 of the property in mind, the accurate values of the property, 0:09:29.720 --> 0:09:33.000 then I think that probably does impact the damages amount here. 0:09:33.080 --> 0:09:35.720 So I do think that's an interesting argument that has 0:09:35.760 --> 0:09:38.920 some legs here because of the way the trial played out, 0:09:39.360 --> 0:09:41.079 and because of the fact that they didn't get this 0:09:41.160 --> 0:09:44.000 testimony that I frankly expected they would get that, someone 0:09:44.040 --> 0:09:46.040 would say, sure, it matters to me because I've got 0:09:46.080 --> 0:09:48.200 to set an interest amount and it's going to be 0:09:48.640 --> 0:09:51.760 impacted by the value of the assets that's behind it. 0:09:52.000 --> 0:09:54.680 And why do you think the defense team keeps bringing 0:09:54.720 --> 0:09:58.920 up the disclaimer on the financial statements, saying it absolves 0:09:59.000 --> 0:10:02.480 him from any LA even though the judge has rejected 0:10:02.480 --> 0:10:04.480 that argument several times. 0:10:04.920 --> 0:10:07.559 Large part, they're kind of laying their appeal record right. 0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:10.520 They have to make these arguments and they want them 0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:12.840 to be fleshed out with their witnesses and so on 0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:15.520 so that the appellate Court can consider them. Listen, they're 0:10:15.559 --> 0:10:16.319 taking their shot. 0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:18.880 Trump did have a win in the case. On Thursday, 0:10:19.160 --> 0:10:23.240 a New York Cappella judge temporarily lifted judging Goren's gag 0:10:23.360 --> 0:10:27.079 order that had barred Trump from commenting about court personnel. 0:10:27.360 --> 0:10:31.200 Thanks so much, Jennifer. That's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers 0:10:31.559 --> 0:10:34.640 coming up the Supreme Court's new Ethics Code. I'm June 0:10:34.640 --> 0:10:37.640 Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. You have to take 0:10:37.679 --> 0:10:40.000 me to shaulf according to the Code of the Order 0:10:40.040 --> 0:10:40.760 of the person. 0:10:41.640 --> 0:10:43.839 Your return to show was not part of our negotiations 0:10:43.880 --> 0:10:46.720 nor our agreement, so I must do nothing. And secondly, 0:10:46.840 --> 0:10:48.599 you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code. You 0:10:48.679 --> 0:10:52.040 reply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more 0:10:52.080 --> 0:10:56.480 what you're called guideline it stelectual rules. Welcome aboard the 0:10:56.559 --> 0:10:57.400 Black Code. 0:10:57.640 --> 0:11:01.120 The Supreme Court's new Ethics Code aims a lot like 0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:05.760 the Pirate's Code, more like guidelines than actual rules for 0:11:05.800 --> 0:11:09.439 the first time the Justices have adopted a code of conduct, 0:11:09.840 --> 0:11:14.040 responding to pressure from a stream of ethics controversies. But 0:11:14.120 --> 0:11:17.320 the code won't necessarily mean any changes in the way 0:11:17.360 --> 0:11:21.840 the nine justices conduct themselves. In fact, the Justices basically 0:11:21.880 --> 0:11:25.240 admit that in the introduction, saying, for the most part, 0:11:25.400 --> 0:11:28.800 these rules and principles are not new. Joining me, is 0:11:28.880 --> 0:11:33.440 constitutional law expert David Souper, a professor at Georgetown Law, 0:11:33.559 --> 0:11:37.800 is anything different for the justices because they've adopted this code. 0:11:38.040 --> 0:11:40.440 This is an astute pr move, That's all it is. 0:11:40.600 --> 0:11:46.200 They've done a number of disclosures of extremely questionable activities 0:11:46.559 --> 0:11:51.760 by several justices, most prominently Justices Thomas and Alito, receiving 0:11:52.200 --> 0:11:59.040 valuable trips other financial favors from rich, ideologically committed donors, 0:11:59.280 --> 0:12:01.680 many of whom have business in front of the Court. 0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:05.440 So the Court, i think, felt that it needed to 0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:09.679 do something. There were justices calling for an ethics code, 0:12:10.040 --> 0:12:15.800 and my assumption is that the compromise they reached between 0:12:15.880 --> 0:12:19.080 no ethics code and an ethics code was something that 0:12:19.240 --> 0:12:21.600 is in name in ethics code, but that has few 0:12:21.679 --> 0:12:23.960 with any of the functions of an ethics code. 0:12:24.160 --> 0:12:27.400 In the statement of the court that precedes the code. 0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:30.840 There's a little bit of griping about this misunderstanding that 0:12:31.120 --> 0:12:36.000 justices regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. Go figure, 0:12:36.320 --> 0:12:38.880 and it says the Court has long had the equivalent 0:12:38.920 --> 0:12:42.400 of common law ethics rules. Does that statement mean that 0:12:42.440 --> 0:12:47.120 these are the same rules that Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, 0:12:47.320 --> 0:12:52.080 followed in accepting all those luxury trips the underwriting of 0:12:52.120 --> 0:12:53.280 the rv et cetera. 0:12:53.840 --> 0:12:56.520 The fact that he did that and that there has 0:12:56.640 --> 0:13:00.960 been no action about that on the Court suggest that 0:13:01.240 --> 0:13:06.719 this so called common law ethics rules are largely useless. 0:13:07.040 --> 0:13:11.120 If any judge on a lower court had done this, 0:13:11.840 --> 0:13:14.400 they would be facing serious problems. 0:13:14.280 --> 0:13:17.320 Unlike the rules for a lower court judges. There's no 0:13:17.520 --> 0:13:20.280 enforcement mechanism at all in this code. 0:13:20.559 --> 0:13:24.160 That's correct. The failure of this code is twofold. One, 0:13:24.280 --> 0:13:29.640 its content is extraordinarily weak, and second, there is no 0:13:30.000 --> 0:13:34.560 procedure for enforcing it. It is certainly true that the 0:13:34.600 --> 0:13:38.520 Supreme Court is not and should not be subject to 0:13:38.840 --> 0:13:43.640 the executive branch or the legislative branch, but it could 0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:47.760 set up its own enforcement mechanism. It could, for example, 0:13:48.120 --> 0:13:51.480 as a process for people to file complaints, have an 0:13:51.600 --> 0:13:56.640 office that investigates those complaints and makes recommendations to the court, 0:13:56.840 --> 0:13:59.560 and a procedure for the Court itself to act on 0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:03.920 these matters. It could also have a procedure where a 0:14:04.240 --> 0:14:09.599 justice's behavior is particularly problematic of referring that information to Congress, 0:14:09.679 --> 0:14:12.679 which does have the power to begin impeachment proceedings. 0:14:12.960 --> 0:14:16.199 Of course, Congress hasn't impeached a justice since the early 0:14:16.240 --> 0:14:19.840 eighteen hundreds. But moving on, there have been a lot 0:14:19.840 --> 0:14:24.960 of complaints about the justices not recusing themselves in cases 0:14:25.040 --> 0:14:27.880 where it seems like they should. So when it comes 0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:31.280 to recusals, the justices include a line that's not in 0:14:31.320 --> 0:14:34.440 the Code of Conduct for United States judges. It says, 0:14:34.640 --> 0:14:39.280 quote the rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. 0:14:39.800 --> 0:14:41.200 Tell us what they mean by that. 0:14:41.720 --> 0:14:44.560 What they are basically saying is that even if they 0:14:44.600 --> 0:14:48.720 have a conflict of interest or some other compelling reason 0:14:48.760 --> 0:14:52.520 why they shouldn't sit on a case, that the desirability 0:14:52.560 --> 0:14:57.080 of having nine justices sit on a case may justify 0:14:57.200 --> 0:15:02.480 disregarding that conflict of interest. Nationale is that while we 0:15:02.560 --> 0:15:06.320 have many lower courts and many lower court judges, and 0:15:06.440 --> 0:15:10.080 most lower courts don't sit as a complete body. Ever, 0:15:10.520 --> 0:15:13.680 the Supreme Court is unique, and if you have a 0:15:13.720 --> 0:15:17.880 decision rendered by less than all of the justices, it 0:15:17.960 --> 0:15:21.600 may not get five votes for any result, and that 0:15:21.680 --> 0:15:24.560 leaves the state of the law uncertain. That's a problem 0:15:24.600 --> 0:15:28.120 the Supreme Court has dealt with many times over the 0:15:28.240 --> 0:15:32.560 years when justices have properly refused themselves for any number 0:15:32.560 --> 0:15:37.160 of reasons, and occasionally it does create pickups in the 0:15:37.240 --> 0:15:41.240 law or uncertainties. But the same thing can happen when 0:15:41.280 --> 0:15:44.600 all nine justices sit and they can't agree on any 0:15:44.760 --> 0:15:47.840 one resolution to a case. So this is not a 0:15:47.960 --> 0:15:51.000 huge problem, but it does signal a lack of seriousness 0:15:51.040 --> 0:15:51.640 of bet ethic. 0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:53.880 Better to have a hiccup in a case than to 0:15:53.880 --> 0:15:57.440 have a justice sitting who should be recused. Also, while 0:15:57.480 --> 0:16:01.440 lower court judges are told they quote shall disqualify when 0:16:01.480 --> 0:16:05.240 their impartiality might be questioned, the justice has changed the 0:16:05.280 --> 0:16:10.120 word shall to should disqualify. So are their rules for 0:16:10.200 --> 0:16:14.040 accusal less stringent than the rules that they set out 0:16:14.080 --> 0:16:15.280 for lower court judges. 0:16:16.080 --> 0:16:19.320 Yes, they are. Indeed, the word shall does not appear 0:16:19.440 --> 0:16:22.680 anywhere in their code. It appears several places in the 0:16:22.800 --> 0:16:26.960 code for lower court judges, but nowhere in this new 0:16:27.000 --> 0:16:30.520 code for the Supreme Court. So they've chosen not to 0:16:30.560 --> 0:16:33.320 live by the standards they impose on lower court judges. 0:16:33.360 --> 0:16:35.760 The standards they impose on lower court judges are appropriate. 0:16:35.800 --> 0:16:38.600 I wouldn't want to see them loosened, but it's telling 0:16:38.680 --> 0:16:41.720 that they're unwilling to live by the same standards themselves. 0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:44.800 Let's take the major tax code case that's coming up, 0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:50.480 where Justice Alito was interviewed a friendly interview for the 0:16:50.520 --> 0:16:55.440 Wall Street Journal by one of the lawyers. Under this code, 0:16:55.640 --> 0:16:58.760 should Justice Alito recuse himself from that case? 0:16:59.320 --> 0:17:02.040 The code is rather vague. I think as a matter 0:17:02.120 --> 0:17:06.399 of common sense, Justice Leto absolutely should. He was under 0:17:06.560 --> 0:17:11.280 public criticism and this attorney gave him help in defending 0:17:11.359 --> 0:17:15.000 himself against that public criticism, which is a very valuable thing. 0:17:15.080 --> 0:17:18.080 If I was being criticized the way Justice Ledo did, 0:17:18.119 --> 0:17:22.600 I would prefer that friendly interview to one hundred thousand dollars. 0:17:22.920 --> 0:17:27.360 So it is giving a justice something of great value. 0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:30.920 As a case that's involving you is going in front 0:17:30.960 --> 0:17:33.880 of the court, it seems obvious he should refuse himself. 0:17:34.080 --> 0:17:38.160 But the code is so vague that it certainly does 0:17:38.200 --> 0:17:41.320 not compel him to do so and provides no means 0:17:41.359 --> 0:17:43.639 for the public to complain if he doesn't do so. 0:17:44.080 --> 0:17:48.440 Would this code have prevented the Conservative justices from attending 0:17:48.800 --> 0:17:52.800 the Federalist Society gala last week that was headlined by 0:17:53.000 --> 0:17:54.320 Justice Amy Cony Barrett. 0:17:54.600 --> 0:17:57.920 No, it doesn't prevent much of anything, and it certainly 0:17:57.960 --> 0:18:03.679 wouldn't prevent that, like that is raising money for an 0:18:03.800 --> 0:18:08.359 organization that is pursuing a litigation agenda before the Court 0:18:08.400 --> 0:18:11.120 that is directed at the court. So you are helping 0:18:11.240 --> 0:18:16.000 fund one side of many cases that you will be hearing. 0:18:16.280 --> 0:18:20.479 That would seem to be entirely inappropriate. We wouldn't want 0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:25.000 a judge to be making contributions to the lawyers on 0:18:25.240 --> 0:18:28.879 either side, and being a headliner at a gala and 0:18:28.960 --> 0:18:31.600 boost ticket sales has the same effect. 0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:35.760 The Court has always been shrouded in secrecy. The public 0:18:35.800 --> 0:18:39.720 doesn't know how it goes about its work, really, and 0:18:40.000 --> 0:18:42.800 there's no transparency in this either. There's no way to 0:18:42.880 --> 0:18:46.719 tell even whether a justice has violated the code, at 0:18:46.800 --> 0:18:49.800 least until a pro public a story or something comes 0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:50.480 out about it. 0:18:51.000 --> 0:18:54.119 So no, this is not at all transparent, and this 0:18:54.440 --> 0:18:58.000 is going to lead to further erosion of public confidence 0:18:58.040 --> 0:19:02.040 in the court. Things of this kind that came out 0:19:02.600 --> 0:19:07.280 in earlier generations ended justice's careers. Justice Abe Fortis was 0:19:07.320 --> 0:19:13.040 forced off the court or involvements with potential litigants that 0:19:13.119 --> 0:19:15.960 were far thinner than the ones we're seeing right now, 0:19:16.400 --> 0:19:22.199 and members of both parties and justices across the ideological 0:19:22.440 --> 0:19:25.520 spectrum insisted that he stepped down, and he ultimately did. 0:19:25.720 --> 0:19:30.959 We've completely changed our practices and our ethics standards are 0:19:31.440 --> 0:19:32.280 not keeping. 0:19:32.080 --> 0:19:34.040 Up, and it doesn't appear this code is going to 0:19:34.080 --> 0:19:37.359 help much. Thanks so much, David. That's Professor David Super 0:19:37.400 --> 0:19:43.760 of Georgetown Law coming up. FTX, investors, sue SBF and celebrities. 0:19:44.040 --> 0:19:53.400 I'm June Gross. When you're listening to Bloomberg, I. 0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:54.840 Call it the wheel. 0:19:57.880 --> 0:19:58.480 I don't think so. 0:19:58.920 --> 0:20:01.320 What does it do the rules? Yeah? 0:20:01.440 --> 0:20:02.199 So does a bagel? 0:20:02.280 --> 0:20:05.240 Okay, a Bengel here can he one of the worst 0:20:05.280 --> 0:20:06.440 ideas I've ever heard. 0:20:06.680 --> 0:20:08.960 Like I was saying, it's FTX, it's a safe and 0:20:08.960 --> 0:20:09.960 easy way to get into the crypto. 0:20:12.119 --> 0:20:15.159 I don't think so, and I'm never wrong about this stuff. 0:20:15.680 --> 0:20:19.800 Never remember that Larry David commercial for FTX that had 0:20:19.800 --> 0:20:22.560 them laughing at the Super Bowl in twenty twenty two. 0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:26.960 Tom Brady, Giselle Bunchen, Steph Curry, and Shaquille O'Neill were 0:20:26.960 --> 0:20:31.760 among the celebrities who also chatted the cryptocurrency exchange in commercials. 0:20:32.040 --> 0:20:32.240 Well. 0:20:32.359 --> 0:20:35.439 Investors who claimed they lost billions in the collapse of 0:20:35.600 --> 0:20:38.960 FTX are trying to pin the blame not just on 0:20:39.080 --> 0:20:42.080 Sam Bankman Freed in his inner circle, but also on 0:20:42.119 --> 0:20:44.880 the celebrities who were paid to endorse it, as well 0:20:44.920 --> 0:20:49.200 as its accountants, lawyers, and bankers. Joining me is Braden Perry, 0:20:49.320 --> 0:20:52.840 a former federal regulatory enforcement attorney and a partner at 0:20:52.920 --> 0:20:56.480 Kenny Hurtz Perry. So, Braiden tell us about this sweeping 0:20:56.560 --> 0:21:00.439 class action lawsuit that was filed in Miami federal court. 0:21:00.880 --> 0:21:03.120 Yeah, so this is a loss that is brought by 0:21:03.440 --> 0:21:06.720 a number of individuals who, whether investors or had some 0:21:06.760 --> 0:21:09.760 sort of financial interest in FTX, and they brought it 0:21:09.760 --> 0:21:14.439 against a number of entities, including celebrity endorsers, accountants, the 0:21:14.480 --> 0:21:17.919 actual members of FTX itself, as well as others. So 0:21:18.280 --> 0:21:23.240 it's a wide ranging case that essentially boils down to 0:21:23.800 --> 0:21:28.600 FTX was falsely providing information to the public and the 0:21:28.600 --> 0:21:31.880 public somehow either invested or had some sort of financial 0:21:31.920 --> 0:21:33.960 interest in FTX and therefore were harmed. 0:21:34.480 --> 0:21:38.240 So let's start with the celebrities, because that's where everyone starts. 0:21:38.440 --> 0:21:38.800 Correct. 0:21:39.119 --> 0:21:42.840 So what does the law require of celebrity endorsers? 0:21:43.240 --> 0:21:46.359 So generally the law requires not much. And what it 0:21:46.400 --> 0:21:49.760 requires is that the celebrity endorser knows what the product 0:21:49.840 --> 0:21:52.600 is and how it works. And to that, generally there's 0:21:52.600 --> 0:21:54.840 some sort of disclaimer, ordinarily at the bottom of the 0:21:54.840 --> 0:21:58.320 advertisement or elsewhere it indicates celebrity endorser is a paid 0:21:58.359 --> 0:22:01.480 endorser for that product, as well as the truthfulness and 0:22:01.520 --> 0:22:05.280 so the endorser cannot provide information that's false or misleading 0:22:05.400 --> 0:22:05.959 to the public. 0:22:06.280 --> 0:22:09.640 Does that mean that Jennifer Garner actually has to use 0:22:09.680 --> 0:22:12.280 the drugstore creams she claims she uses. 0:22:12.680 --> 0:22:16.200 Generally that's the case, and so you'll see these advertisements 0:22:16.200 --> 0:22:19.200 with certain restaurants where celebrities are at, or certain products 0:22:19.200 --> 0:22:22.119 that they're using, and it's not an exclusive use, and 0:22:22.200 --> 0:22:24.000 so it can be a very high level. So if 0:22:24.040 --> 0:22:27.720 Jenner Garner has used a product that's been provided to her, 0:22:28.000 --> 0:22:30.520 she can certainly endorse that product, and so it's not 0:22:30.760 --> 0:22:35.199 a lifelong or a over the top type of use requirement. 0:22:35.320 --> 0:22:38.000 But generally, yeah, if the celebrity endorser is going to 0:22:38.080 --> 0:22:41.240 endorse a product, that celebrity endorsers should be using that product. 0:22:41.440 --> 0:22:44.080 So does that mean that Tom Brady and Larry David 0:22:44.119 --> 0:22:47.080 and all the others should have been invested in FTX. 0:22:47.400 --> 0:22:48.840 Yeah, I don't know if they should have been invested 0:22:48.840 --> 0:22:52.000