WEBVTT - Musk Keeps Tesla Public, But Doesn’t End Drama

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.680
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Earlier this month,

0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:26.279
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk sent shockwaves through Wall Street, the automotive industry,

0:00:26.280 --> 0:00:28.479
<v Speaker 1>in the tech world when he announced on Twitter that

0:00:28.520 --> 0:00:31.920
<v Speaker 1>he was considering taking Tesla private on Friday night, he

0:00:31.960 --> 0:00:33.800
<v Speaker 1>put an end to the world when that ensued in

0:00:33.840 --> 0:00:36.839
<v Speaker 1>a blog post where he said he would keep Tesla public.

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:40.120
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Peter Henning, former federal prosecutor and professor

0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:43.559
<v Speaker 1>at Wayne State University Law School. Peter, what do you

0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:46.879
<v Speaker 1>make of the unraveling of the go private plan in

0:00:46.920 --> 0:00:50.960
<v Speaker 1>about eighteen days? Well, I don't think there was that

0:00:51.120 --> 0:00:54.320
<v Speaker 1>much of a chance that he would take Tesla private,

0:00:54.800 --> 0:00:58.240
<v Speaker 1>given the kinds of companies that we've seen who are

0:00:58.280 --> 0:01:03.840
<v Speaker 1>taken private have posit of cash flow and a growing business. Now,

0:01:03.880 --> 0:01:07.600
<v Speaker 1>Tesla's business is growing, but it has been burning through

0:01:07.680 --> 0:01:10.640
<v Speaker 1>cash over the last couple of years, and they can't

0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:14.959
<v Speaker 1>even seem to hit some of their targets for production, So,

0:01:16.040 --> 0:01:20.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, was this a likely possibility even though Musk

0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:23.119
<v Speaker 1>said that he could have gotten the funding for it.

0:01:23.480 --> 0:01:26.640
<v Speaker 1>I really think it was doubtful that the going private

0:01:26.720 --> 0:01:30.119
<v Speaker 1>was ever really going to happen. The SEC is investigating

0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:35.200
<v Speaker 1>Tesla and Musk going private tweet plus other things. Will

0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:38.000
<v Speaker 1>this decision not to go private have any effect on

0:01:38.040 --> 0:01:43.520
<v Speaker 1>the SEC investigation? Well, it may have some small effect

0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:48.240
<v Speaker 1>in that the urgency of the investigation likely is going

0:01:48.280 --> 0:01:50.480
<v Speaker 1>to be dialed back. Tesla is not going to be

0:01:50.840 --> 0:01:53.240
<v Speaker 1>taken private, and so there would be a number of

0:01:53.280 --> 0:01:56.760
<v Speaker 1>fundraising issues related to that. But it certainly doesn't end

0:01:56.760 --> 0:02:02.080
<v Speaker 1>it because the impact of his tweet back on August

0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:05.760
<v Speaker 1>seven drove the stock price up a little over ten percent,

0:02:06.120 --> 0:02:09.280
<v Speaker 1>and you had a number of investors that day who

0:02:09.280 --> 0:02:12.959
<v Speaker 1>were trading on the basis of that statement, specifically the

0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:17.640
<v Speaker 1>funding secured um statement that he had there, which indicates

0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:21.160
<v Speaker 1>that the going private was pretty much of a done deal.

0:02:21.320 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>So I don't think the SEC is going to say, well,

0:02:25.440 --> 0:02:29.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, never mind um to quote Emily Littella from

0:02:29.280 --> 0:02:32.359
<v Speaker 1>long ago, that you don't get a do over on

0:02:32.400 --> 0:02:34.960
<v Speaker 1>this when you put that kind of information out and

0:02:35.000 --> 0:02:37.639
<v Speaker 1>it has that kind of an effect on the market,

0:02:37.680 --> 0:02:40.720
<v Speaker 1>and certainly driving the stock price up ten percent is

0:02:40.760 --> 0:02:45.320
<v Speaker 1>a significant effect. You worked on market manipulation cases while

0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:47.920
<v Speaker 1>you were an attorney at the SEC, So is this

0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:52.000
<v Speaker 1>likely to end in a fine or something more? Well,

0:02:52.040 --> 0:02:54.560
<v Speaker 1>it's a good question. I mean, the SEC could pass

0:02:54.680 --> 0:02:57.799
<v Speaker 1>on it or um. There are ways for the SEC

0:02:57.919 --> 0:03:00.440
<v Speaker 1>to send a signal. For example, they could issue a

0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:05.760
<v Speaker 1>report of investigation criticizing the company if the SEC were

0:03:05.840 --> 0:03:10.840
<v Speaker 1>to pursue an enforcement action. Proving market manipulation is difficult

0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:15.520
<v Speaker 1>because you have to prove that the defendant's purpose was

0:03:15.639 --> 0:03:19.639
<v Speaker 1>to affect the market price, and I suspect Musk and

0:03:19.760 --> 0:03:23.160
<v Speaker 1>his lawyers could offer any number of reasons he made

0:03:23.160 --> 0:03:26.760
<v Speaker 1>the statement, one of which he talked about, which was transparency.

0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:29.720
<v Speaker 1>I just want to let shareholders know and I didn't

0:03:29.760 --> 0:03:32.560
<v Speaker 1>mean to manipulate the price, whether he did or not.

0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:34.880
<v Speaker 1>So I'm not sure if it would be a market

0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:38.880
<v Speaker 1>manipulation case. It could be a more standard ten five

0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:43.240
<v Speaker 1>case will tend B five, which prohibits misstatements or emissions

0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:46.560
<v Speaker 1>of material fact, and that might be the basis for

0:03:46.680 --> 0:03:49.400
<v Speaker 1>a case, although even there that's not really an easy

0:03:49.480 --> 0:03:52.240
<v Speaker 1>case to make because you have to show the defendant's

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:56.560
<v Speaker 1>intent or at least recklessness. So this still leaves the

0:03:56.640 --> 0:03:59.920
<v Speaker 1>questions that were being asked before the going private tweet,

0:04:00.040 --> 0:04:03.560
<v Speaker 1>some of which have been now amplified by Musk's behavior

0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:07.360
<v Speaker 1>in his tearful interview with The New York Times. What's

0:04:07.400 --> 0:04:10.640
<v Speaker 1>one of the top concerns there? Is it getting a

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:15.720
<v Speaker 1>CFO and involved? Well, I do think there's an important

0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:19.600
<v Speaker 1>corporate governance issue at Tesla that if you're going to

0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:23.120
<v Speaker 1>talk about taking a company private, and especially if it's

0:04:23.160 --> 0:04:27.599
<v Speaker 1>a large shareholder like Elon Musk, then there's certain things

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:31.160
<v Speaker 1>you have to go through. Tesla is a Delaware corporation,

0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:34.880
<v Speaker 1>and so you would have to get independent directors and

0:04:35.440 --> 0:04:38.880
<v Speaker 1>conduct some type of negotiations and make it at least

0:04:38.880 --> 0:04:43.760
<v Speaker 1>look like um more typical arms length negotiations. The company

0:04:43.760 --> 0:04:46.680
<v Speaker 1>did none of that, and so I think from a

0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 1>corporate governance point of view, they really need to rethink

0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:56.040
<v Speaker 1>how they are operating. That you can't have important information

0:04:56.160 --> 0:04:59.320
<v Speaker 1>tweeted out and there needs to be a bit more

0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:03.360
<v Speaker 1>of a deliberate the process, which probably means Mr Musk

0:05:03.520 --> 0:05:05.720
<v Speaker 1>is going to have to give up some of his

0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:09.280
<v Speaker 1>control over the company and actually listen to the board

0:05:09.279 --> 0:05:13.320
<v Speaker 1>of directors. So from what we know about him, how

0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:19.839
<v Speaker 1>likely is that, well that Tesla is Musk and Musk

0:05:20.000 --> 0:05:24.200
<v Speaker 1>is Tesla. Oh absolutely, Although you know, when you're talking

0:05:24.240 --> 0:05:28.159
<v Speaker 1>about a business that is trying to mature UM, you

0:05:28.200 --> 0:05:30.720
<v Speaker 1>know there are any number of businesses that are tied

0:05:30.800 --> 0:05:33.440
<v Speaker 1>to the founder, but then you need to move beyond

0:05:33.480 --> 0:05:36.560
<v Speaker 1>the founder. Apple is a good example of that with

0:05:36.640 --> 0:05:39.520
<v Speaker 1>Steve Jobs that there was all the concern that when

0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:42.960
<v Speaker 1>Steve Jobs died the company wouldn't do anything. It's now

0:05:43.040 --> 0:05:48.359
<v Speaker 1>a trillion dollar company. And so if Tesla really wants

0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:52.680
<v Speaker 1>to move forward, they can't be subject to the whims,

0:05:52.800 --> 0:05:56.520
<v Speaker 1>shall we say, of Elon Musk or or his statements.

0:05:56.920 --> 0:06:00.640
<v Speaker 1>They need to put in a little bit better UM

0:06:00.680 --> 0:06:04.880
<v Speaker 1>management team, and that may mean getting in a stronger CFO,

0:06:05.400 --> 0:06:08.840
<v Speaker 1>a stronger chief operating officer, someone who's going to let

0:06:08.880 --> 0:06:11.400
<v Speaker 1>him be the visionary for the company but not the

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:14.320
<v Speaker 1>day to day manager of the company. Peter, what about

0:06:14.400 --> 0:06:18.840
<v Speaker 1>the company's cash position which you mentioned before, and also

0:06:18.960 --> 0:06:23.159
<v Speaker 1>its ability to meet mass market produced goals which it

0:06:23.200 --> 0:06:27.160
<v Speaker 1>hasn't been able to. No, and it's the old phrase

0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:30.560
<v Speaker 1>on Wall Street, I think has been under promise and

0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:35.440
<v Speaker 1>overperform UM and in a lot of ways, uh Tesla

0:06:35.520 --> 0:06:38.480
<v Speaker 1>has been doing almost the opposite, where you know, they say, well,

0:06:38.480 --> 0:06:41.560
<v Speaker 1>we're going to produce this many vehicles, this many vehicles,

0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:45.120
<v Speaker 1>and then they don't do it. UM. So they're going

0:06:45.160 --> 0:06:50.000
<v Speaker 1>to need to UM get their public statements in line

0:06:50.520 --> 0:06:54.600
<v Speaker 1>with their actual operations. And that's what Wall Street is

0:06:54.600 --> 0:06:59.039
<v Speaker 1>gonna want to see. Certainly, investors um and there are

0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:01.000
<v Speaker 1>a number who are devote it to the company, but

0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:05.359
<v Speaker 1>some investors I think may have lost or questioned his

0:07:05.480 --> 0:07:08.799
<v Speaker 1>credibility going forward. All right, thanks so much, as always,

0:07:08.839 --> 0:07:12.120
<v Speaker 1>Peter for your insights. That's Peter Henning, professor at Wayne

0:07:12.120 --> 0:07:19.960
<v Speaker 1>State University Law School. As he paid his legal threats

0:07:20.000 --> 0:07:23.080
<v Speaker 1>on several fronts. President Trump continues to lash out at

0:07:23.080 --> 0:07:26.680
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General Jeff Sessions, scaling up attacks on Twitter over

0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:30.360
<v Speaker 1>the weekend. Speaking with Fox News last Thursday, the President

0:07:30.440 --> 0:07:35.000
<v Speaker 1>once again complained about Sessions recusing himself from the Russia investigation.

0:07:36.280 --> 0:07:40.800
<v Speaker 1>Even my enemies say that Jeff Sessions should have told

0:07:40.840 --> 0:07:42.880
<v Speaker 1>you that he was going to recuse himself, and then

0:07:42.880 --> 0:07:45.560
<v Speaker 1>you wouldn't have put him in. He took the job,

0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:49.600
<v Speaker 1>and then he said I'm going to recuse myself. I said,

0:07:49.640 --> 0:07:52.600
<v Speaker 1>what kind of a man is this? Joining me is

0:07:52.640 --> 0:07:56.080
<v Speaker 1>Ellie Honike, a former federal prosecutor and special counsel at

0:07:56.160 --> 0:08:01.160
<v Speaker 1>Lowenstein Sandler. Ellie Trump has been seeming trying to bait

0:08:01.560 --> 0:08:04.720
<v Speaker 1>Jeff Sessions and tweets and interviews for more than a year.

0:08:04.720 --> 0:08:07.160
<v Speaker 1>It hasn't worked. But when they have a meeting in

0:08:07.200 --> 0:08:11.480
<v Speaker 1>the Oval Office after that inflammatory interview on Thursday, nothing

0:08:11.600 --> 0:08:13.680
<v Speaker 1>is said when they're face to face. What do you

0:08:13.720 --> 0:08:19.320
<v Speaker 1>make of this? So one of the President's primary misunderstanding

0:08:19.360 --> 0:08:21.840
<v Speaker 1>seems to be this notion that the Department of Justice

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:25.000
<v Speaker 1>the Attorney General work for him personally Donald J. Trump,

0:08:25.200 --> 0:08:27.720
<v Speaker 1>But in fact, the Department of Justice represents the American people,

0:08:27.760 --> 0:08:30.520
<v Speaker 1>and the Attorney General's job is not protect the president's

0:08:30.520 --> 0:08:33.080
<v Speaker 1>best interest, and the President's been struggling with that ever

0:08:33.160 --> 0:08:36.000
<v Speaker 1>since he took office. Um, and this battle of words

0:08:36.120 --> 0:08:40.040
<v Speaker 1>is really unprecedented. Its stunning. Is somebody who worked for

0:08:40.120 --> 0:08:42.600
<v Speaker 1>Department of Justice for eight years, and as you noted,

0:08:42.640 --> 0:08:45.480
<v Speaker 1>it's sort of I think what often happens with bullies

0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:49.000
<v Speaker 1>is they say there they talk one way, uh, you know,

0:08:49.160 --> 0:08:51.000
<v Speaker 1>behind someone's back, but then when they're face to face,

0:08:51.000 --> 0:08:52.880
<v Speaker 1>they they backed down. So I don't know what the

0:08:52.920 --> 0:08:55.440
<v Speaker 1>president's ultimate end goal is, but that could be what's

0:08:55.440 --> 0:08:59.200
<v Speaker 1>going on. Well, now, it also seems that there are

0:08:59.240 --> 0:09:02.199
<v Speaker 1>a few centers who are falling in line, and Trump

0:09:02.320 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 1>quoted from one of them, Lindsey Graham and his tweet

0:09:05.000 --> 0:09:08.000
<v Speaker 1>on Saturday. Every president deserves an attorney general they have

0:09:08.080 --> 0:09:12.800
<v Speaker 1>confidence in. So is it likely in your mind that

0:09:12.960 --> 0:09:17.000
<v Speaker 1>after the mid terms we might see Trump fired Jeff

0:09:17.080 --> 0:09:20.880
<v Speaker 1>Sessions and then what happens is that a constitutional crisis

0:09:20.960 --> 0:09:25.080
<v Speaker 1>or not at that point? Unfortunately, I think it is likely.

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:27.360
<v Speaker 1>I think all the signals are there, and the president

0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 1>cannot have possibly had six with this anymore. Clearly, look

0:09:30.080 --> 0:09:33.520
<v Speaker 1>at his whole string of tweets attacking the good sense

0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:37.480
<v Speaker 1>and even the sort of manhood I guess of Jeff Sessions.

0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:40.760
<v Speaker 1>So I think that's pretty clearly evidence that he intends

0:09:40.800 --> 0:09:43.080
<v Speaker 1>to get rid of Sessions, and if he does, I'm

0:09:43.120 --> 0:09:45.240
<v Speaker 1>going to have a constitutional crisis. No, I don't think so.

0:09:45.480 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 1>I think we're gonna I think it's gonna be problematic. Um,

0:09:48.440 --> 0:09:50.400
<v Speaker 1>what would happen then is the president would get to

0:09:50.440 --> 0:09:52.960
<v Speaker 1>a point an acting attorney general who would still in

0:09:52.960 --> 0:09:56.520
<v Speaker 1>the role pending senatorial approval, and I think the first

0:09:56.640 --> 0:09:58.520
<v Speaker 1>order of business of that person will be to do

0:09:58.600 --> 0:10:02.200
<v Speaker 1>the president's fitting too, at least oversee and I would

0:10:02.200 --> 0:10:05.920
<v Speaker 1>hope not any more than that the Rosenstein and Mueller investigation.

0:10:06.040 --> 0:10:07.679
<v Speaker 1>So I think that is the game plan, and I

0:10:07.720 --> 0:10:09.760
<v Speaker 1>think we're seeing signals of that, not only from the

0:10:09.800 --> 0:10:12.120
<v Speaker 1>President's own words, but also, as you said, for members

0:10:12.120 --> 0:10:15.720
<v Speaker 1>of Progress, Senator Jeff Flake said yesterday, the concern is

0:10:15.760 --> 0:10:19.000
<v Speaker 1>that sessions termination would be the first domino to fall

0:10:19.080 --> 0:10:23.360
<v Speaker 1>and the Justice Department's investigation into Russian interference. Do you

0:10:23.400 --> 0:10:27.560
<v Speaker 1>agree with that? I do think so. I think it would.

0:10:27.640 --> 0:10:30.280
<v Speaker 1>I think it would set in motion the president reasserting,

0:10:30.400 --> 0:10:36.359
<v Speaker 1>through his chosen Attorney general, reasserting control over Lawler's investigation.

0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:37.679
<v Speaker 1>And I think the more he does that, the more

0:10:37.720 --> 0:10:39.720
<v Speaker 1>problematic it is. I think there remains to be seen.

0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:42.240
<v Speaker 1>His options would range from have the new person shut

0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:45.760
<v Speaker 1>it down, perhaps even as a precondition to the appointment,

0:10:45.920 --> 0:10:47.960
<v Speaker 1>to anywhere to you know, keep a close eye on it,

0:10:48.080 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>monitor it, and let's make sure it will go a

0:10:50.400 --> 0:10:53.160
<v Speaker 1>direction that concerns me. I think either of those is problematic,

0:10:53.240 --> 0:10:57.320
<v Speaker 1>but the different degree. So we've seen this assault on

0:10:57.600 --> 0:11:00.640
<v Speaker 1>Jeff Sessions in tweets, etcetera for more than a year.

0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:05.160
<v Speaker 1>But it seems that a real trouble for Trump right

0:11:05.240 --> 0:11:09.400
<v Speaker 1>now is the Michael Cullen play and investigations in the

0:11:09.440 --> 0:11:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Southern District of New York, where the U. S. Attorney,

0:11:12.480 --> 0:11:17.160
<v Speaker 1>also appointed by Trump, also refused himself. But Trump doesn't

0:11:17.160 --> 0:11:19.560
<v Speaker 1>seem to be seeing that as as much of a

0:11:19.600 --> 0:11:24.560
<v Speaker 1>betrayal as the Sessions. I suppose he doesn't see it

0:11:24.800 --> 0:11:27.520
<v Speaker 1>perhaps has played as much of a threat. Um. Right

0:11:27.559 --> 0:11:29.439
<v Speaker 1>that the US attorney for the stuff that district did

0:11:29.440 --> 0:11:32.000
<v Speaker 1>recuse himself, and as with the Department of Justice, the

0:11:32.080 --> 0:11:35.360
<v Speaker 1>number two guy, the deputy U S. Attorney, has taken over. Ultimately,

0:11:35.480 --> 0:11:37.679
<v Speaker 1>I guess I'm given some face by the fact that

0:11:37.720 --> 0:11:40.079
<v Speaker 1>you can't fire the entire Department of Justice, can't fire

0:11:40.120 --> 0:11:42.640
<v Speaker 1>the entire Southern District of New York. Um. I think

0:11:42.679 --> 0:11:46.320
<v Speaker 1>that independent will ultimately prevail. And UM I'd also add

0:11:46.320 --> 0:11:49.600
<v Speaker 1>think there's now evidence that reporting that the New York

0:11:49.640 --> 0:11:52.520
<v Speaker 1>State Attorney General and the District Attorney of New York

0:11:52.520 --> 0:11:56.599
<v Speaker 1>in Manhattan are looking at presidential potential issues for the

0:11:56.640 --> 0:11:58.520
<v Speaker 1>president as well. And there's there's something the person I

0:11:58.559 --> 0:12:02.400
<v Speaker 1>can do to derail roads. Ellie, how much does the

0:12:02.520 --> 0:12:05.160
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General. Let's let's just take it away from this

0:12:05.240 --> 0:12:08.679
<v Speaker 1>and just say another attorney general, another investigation. How much,

0:12:09.120 --> 0:12:13.000
<v Speaker 1>say so, do they have in the Southern District's investigations.

0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:18.679
<v Speaker 1>It's interesting, technically the Southern District is more than technically

0:12:18.679 --> 0:12:21.800
<v Speaker 1>the Southern District is part of the United States Department

0:12:21.840 --> 0:12:24.240
<v Speaker 1>of Justice. I laughed because I worked there and people

0:12:24.280 --> 0:12:26.640
<v Speaker 1>used to call us the Sovereign District of New York.

0:12:26.840 --> 0:12:28.480
<v Speaker 1>And that's a reflection of the fact that the Southern

0:12:28.559 --> 0:12:33.360
<v Speaker 1>District is historically fiercely independent, and I think that will prevail. Um,

0:12:33.440 --> 0:12:36.000
<v Speaker 1>Like I said, you can't fire the entire Southern District

0:12:36.080 --> 0:12:38.240
<v Speaker 1>of New York. Um. I think the Southern District is

0:12:38.240 --> 0:12:40.360
<v Speaker 1>going to do what it's gonna do. So in some

0:12:40.400 --> 0:12:42.959
<v Speaker 1>ways they're they're that independence, I think is a good thing,

0:12:42.960 --> 0:12:44.920
<v Speaker 1>and they make the Southern District even more of a

0:12:45.000 --> 0:12:49.680
<v Speaker 1>threat than, uh than Main Justice itself. Let's talk about

0:12:49.720 --> 0:12:53.320
<v Speaker 1>some of the immunity deals that were reached that we

0:12:53.480 --> 0:12:55.640
<v Speaker 1>found about about. Well, first of all, we know that

0:12:55.679 --> 0:12:58.800
<v Speaker 1>Michael Cohen made a deal and said the you know,

0:12:58.840 --> 0:13:03.719
<v Speaker 1>in court rather inflammatory things, but we also had um

0:13:03.840 --> 0:13:09.120
<v Speaker 1>American Media Chairman David Pecker, um making getting immunity, and

0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:14.040
<v Speaker 1>Alan Weiselberg, the CFO of the Trump organization. Now, where

0:13:14.120 --> 0:13:19.640
<v Speaker 1>do you see those fitting in to the Mueller probe?

0:13:20.280 --> 0:13:23.000
<v Speaker 1>Uh So, immunity, first of all, is sort of a

0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:26.600
<v Speaker 1>version of cooperation. It's where the prosecutors want to speak

0:13:26.640 --> 0:13:28.800
<v Speaker 1>with an individual witness who may have some level of

0:13:28.800 --> 0:13:31.880
<v Speaker 1>criminal exposure, but not quite enough exposure or not enough

0:13:31.880 --> 0:13:34.520
<v Speaker 1>proof to have that person fleaked guilty to a charge.

0:13:34.840 --> 0:13:38.360
<v Speaker 1>So immunity is a bit more limited, but enabled prosecutors

0:13:38.400 --> 0:13:41.880
<v Speaker 1>to get the testimony from those individuals. Um, it's clear

0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:44.320
<v Speaker 1>that what to me, what the Southern District is doing

0:13:44.320 --> 0:13:47.160
<v Speaker 1>is circling around these allocations of campaign finance reform that

0:13:47.200 --> 0:13:50.360
<v Speaker 1>Cohen pled guilty to count seven and eight of his plea.

0:13:50.920 --> 0:13:54.560
<v Speaker 1>Weislbrook obviously is evolved in those payments, and so is Pecker.

0:13:54.920 --> 0:13:56.959
<v Speaker 1>So I think that's where the Southern districts focus. Where

0:13:57.000 --> 0:14:00.319
<v Speaker 1>does it overlap with Mueller? Remember the southerns sure a

0:14:00.440 --> 0:14:03.560
<v Speaker 1>part of d O J. And you know, based on

0:14:03.600 --> 0:14:06.400
<v Speaker 1>my time there and based on history, there's pretty free

0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:10.360
<v Speaker 1>sharing of information. So if the Southern District develops information

0:14:10.440 --> 0:14:12.400
<v Speaker 1>or a cooperator it's relevant to Moller. I would have

0:14:12.400 --> 0:14:15.199
<v Speaker 1>every reason to think that would be shared across the line.

0:14:15.640 --> 0:14:18.920
<v Speaker 1>Let's turn to Paul Manafort for a moment, because the

0:14:18.960 --> 0:14:23.000
<v Speaker 1>talk of Trump granting him a pardon keeps coming up

0:14:23.040 --> 0:14:25.800
<v Speaker 1>over and over again, especially in light of some of

0:14:25.840 --> 0:14:31.880
<v Speaker 1>the comments that Trump made after the Manifort guilty verdicts.

0:14:33.080 --> 0:14:35.960
<v Speaker 1>What what do you see as the result if if

0:14:36.000 --> 0:14:39.680
<v Speaker 1>there were a plea agreement, if there were a pardon

0:14:40.240 --> 0:14:43.400
<v Speaker 1>given to Manafort, where would that lead? We have about

0:14:43.400 --> 0:14:46.600
<v Speaker 1>a minute here. I think, first of all, I think

0:14:46.600 --> 0:14:49.080
<v Speaker 1>he's quite likely to grant that pardon. He's been signaling

0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:51.280
<v Speaker 1>not just during the trial, but before the trial. He

0:14:51.280 --> 0:14:53.720
<v Speaker 1>said tweets saying, oh, it's metaphorts a good man and

0:14:53.760 --> 0:14:57.600
<v Speaker 1>it's a sad day. Unfortunately or I guess fortunately, depending

0:14:57.640 --> 0:14:59.920
<v Speaker 1>on your perspective. The part of her is very broad

0:15:00.200 --> 0:15:02.680
<v Speaker 1>and has almost never been challenged. I do think that

0:15:02.720 --> 0:15:05.200
<v Speaker 1>if there was proof that that the President's part in

0:15:05.280 --> 0:15:07.880
<v Speaker 1>Manafort to prevent h from cooperating, you could have an

0:15:07.880 --> 0:15:10.200
<v Speaker 1>obstruction case there. But he's already laid the foundation to

0:15:10.240 --> 0:15:12.160
<v Speaker 1>say no, it's not because I was trying to keep

0:15:12.160 --> 0:15:14.120
<v Speaker 1>them quiet because I felt bad. Firm and I felt

0:15:14.160 --> 0:15:16.680
<v Speaker 1>it was unjust. Maybe somebody disagrees, but I'm the president

0:15:16.680 --> 0:15:18.280
<v Speaker 1>and I had a very broad part of power, So

0:15:18.560 --> 0:15:19.880
<v Speaker 1>I do think it could go that way, and I

0:15:19.880 --> 0:15:21.280
<v Speaker 1>don't think there's a heck of a lot that could

0:15:21.320 --> 0:15:24.520
<v Speaker 1>be done to counteract it. Well, we shall see. That's

0:15:24.560 --> 0:15:27.080
<v Speaker 1>always on our list here things have talked about. Thanks

0:15:27.120 --> 0:15:29.800
<v Speaker 1>so much, Ellie. That's Ellie Hohnig. He's a special counts

0:15:29.880 --> 0:15:32.840
<v Speaker 1>up lowlan Stein Sandler. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

0:15:32.920 --> 0:15:35.960
<v Speaker 1>Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

0:15:36.040 --> 0:15:40.720
<v Speaker 1>on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.

0:15:41.120 --> 0:15:43.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Brolso this is Bloomberg