Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Just Saturday, former President Trump and ounce he's had gotten
Speaker 1: his booster shot. Maybe one of the few things he
Speaker 1: and I agree on. Though President Joe Biden and former
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump may agree on the need for vaccines,
Speaker 1: it will be the Supreme Court that decides whether to
Speaker 1: allow two federal vaccine mandates to take effect nationwide in
Speaker 1: the first argued cases of a year that will be
Speaker 1: consequential at the Court, with cases involving a range of
Speaker 1: controversial social issues, from abortion and climate change to gun
Speaker 1: rights in religion. Joining me is Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court
Speaker 1: reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson Kimberly. David Cole, the National Legal
Speaker 1: director of the American Civil Liberties Union, told you that
Speaker 1: this is going to be the most important term in decade.
Speaker 1: Explain why, Well, even with the cases that the justices
Speaker 1: have already heard in this is going to be a
Speaker 1: blockbuster term. So I'm thinking about cases on abortion, gun rights,
Speaker 1: and religious freedom. These are all cases that have already
Speaker 1: been argued, many of which are waiting an opinion in
Speaker 1: two and would really set the term apart. From really
Speaker 1: what's been a series of blockbuster terms. But the justices
Speaker 1: do have a small window to add new cases to
Speaker 1: that explosive docket. We've already recently seen them as the
Speaker 1: vaccine mandates, which is the first thing they're going to
Speaker 1: tackle when they return to the courtroom in January. But
Speaker 1: there are a lot of other cases are on schedule
Speaker 1: to meet this mid January cut off to add new
Speaker 1: cases to the term, and many of those really show
Speaker 1: how the courts cases are increasingly intersecting with some of
Speaker 1: the biggest social debates and a really stealing questions about
Speaker 1: the Court's legitimacy. The Court is fast tracking, I do
Speaker 1: mean fast two cases on Biden's vaccine mandates. The two
Speaker 1: cases are going to be the first thing the justices
Speaker 1: tackle on January seven, and as you said, they are
Speaker 1: really two separate mandates. One involved the Occupational Safety and
Speaker 1: Health Administrations Mandate more frequently known as OSHA, and the
Speaker 1: question there is whether OSHA has the authority to adopt
Speaker 1: the so called shot or tests mandate for certain large employers,
Speaker 1: or whether it really overstepped is congressional mandate to develop
Speaker 1: standards that you know typically are tended to ensure safe
Speaker 1: and healthy workplaces, you know, think of things like falls,
Speaker 1: or hazardous materials or dangerous machines. Now OSHA has been
Speaker 1: asked by the Biden administration to expand that to the
Speaker 1: vaccine mandates. And then the second challenge is one involving
Speaker 1: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS. We
Speaker 1: always have to have a bunch of alphabet soup in
Speaker 1: these cases, and these applied to health care facilities that
Speaker 1: accepted these federal funds. And it's really the same issue
Speaker 1: there whether or not CMS went too far in adopting
Speaker 1: these sweeping rules, and whether or not Congress have to
Speaker 1: say more before they can and act such a mandate
Speaker 1: like this. So I looked at the calendar. You know,
Speaker 1: usually the court has arguments on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Speaker 1: I saw that this was on a Friday. That's so unusual,
Speaker 1: isn't it. It is really unusual, And I think to
Speaker 1: understand why it's scheduled on a Friday, we have to
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about what's called the shadow docket
Speaker 1: or the courts emergency docket. This procedure is really a
Speaker 1: kind of special way for the justices to consider things
Speaker 1: that come up outside of the normal course of its
Speaker 1: regular decision making process. But think of things like a
Speaker 1: month law breaking arguments and then a really considered opinion
Speaker 1: that could go for dozens of pages. Instead, in these
Speaker 1: shadow doctor cases, we tend to get a one sentence ruling,
Speaker 1: you know, very expedited, and you know that's at particular
Speaker 1: process caught a lot of criticism after the Court required
Speaker 1: the Biden administration to keep a Trump era immigration policy
Speaker 1: in place, and then that's six weeks Abortion Man out
Speaker 1: of Texas as the Court allowed to go forward. And
Speaker 1: so even though we've seen some pushback from the justices
Speaker 1: about that criticism, they have taken the extraordinary step of taking,
Speaker 1: you know, these vaccine cases, that Texas case, off of
Speaker 1: the shadow docket, setting them in an argument more in
Speaker 1: line with how they traditionally do things. And that's why
Speaker 1: we see such a rapid schedule for these vaccine cases.
Speaker 1: So the environment comes into focus on February twenty in
Speaker 1: three cases. They're all from the DC Circuit Court, that's right,
Speaker 1: And these cases concerning the environment are really similar to
Speaker 1: these vaccine mandate cases, and that they go to the
Speaker 1: ability of administrative agencies past sweeping rules that could potentially
Speaker 1: cost US us as billions of dollars. And it really
Speaker 1: shows the overt court's interest in administrative laws. And before
Speaker 1: listeners start to tune out, you know, it can be
Speaker 1: a very technical area of the law, but they have
Speaker 1: enormous impact. And so here the Justice will consider whether
Speaker 1: the e p A has the authority to regulate greenhouse
Speaker 1: gas emissions from coal plants and an attempts to really
Speaker 1: rein in climate change. And you know the fact that
Speaker 1: the Justices took this case is concerning for those who
Speaker 1: want really broad and sweeping reactions to climate change because
Speaker 1: they didn't have to take it. This is one of
Speaker 1: those cases where this particular program that cleaned power plant
Speaker 1: is not in effect, and so the Biden administrations but
Speaker 1: just hold on, let us figure out what we're going
Speaker 1: to do with it. But of course that didn't happen,
Speaker 1: suggesting that you know, there may be support on the
Speaker 1: Court for saying the administration has just gone too far.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is really an area where Congress
Speaker 1: has at another case the Court didn't have to take
Speaker 1: also involves a Trump administration rule on the public charge doctrine.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration and the challengers agree to dismiss the case.
Speaker 1: So it's a little confusing as to why the court
Speaker 1: decided to take the case. It is confusing, and you know, again,
Speaker 1: this is one of those cases where it seems like
Speaker 1: the justices are reaching out to decide this case when
Speaker 1: they really don't have to. The rule it issue here
Speaker 1: requires the government to consider whether a non citizen is
Speaker 1: going to pull on public benefits when considering whether to
Speaker 1: grant them release, like admission into the country. And you know,
Speaker 1: like the Clean Power Plan is not a rule that's
Speaker 1: an effect right now. But the question here is for
Speaker 1: the justices a procedural one. Again. You know, we see
Speaker 1: them tackling so many of these really big issue cases
Speaker 1: on procedural grounds rather than on the merits. And it's
Speaker 1: whether or not these gop led states can really pick
Speaker 1: up where the Biden administration left off and go ahead
Speaker 1: and defend the legality of this rule, as the Biden
Speaker 1: administration says it no longer wants to do at federal court.
Speaker 1: Several of these cases seemed to be sort of caught
Speaker 1: between two administrations. The Biden administration is also asking the
Speaker 1: court to consider whether it has to continue the Trump
Speaker 1: remained in Mexico policy. Yeah, we have really seen over
Speaker 1: the last five years, given that there's such a break
Speaker 1: between the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, this issue of
Speaker 1: changing administrations really cropping up in the Supreme Court. So
Speaker 1: in the past, there will be maybe a handful of
Speaker 1: cases where this would happen, where a new administration would
Speaker 1: come in and just say we're going to take a
Speaker 1: whole new approach to this particular law. But by and large,
Speaker 1: administrations have continued to have kind of the same general
Speaker 1: interests and that's just not the case today. And it
Speaker 1: will be really interesting to see when the next administration
Speaker 1: takes over. Is this a trend that's going to continue
Speaker 1: or is it something unique to Trump and to Biden.
Speaker 1: Coming up, I'll continue this conversation with Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson
Speaker 1: and we'll talk about some controversial cases that could make
Speaker 1: the docket. The House committee investigating the January sixth attack
Speaker 1: on the Capitol is considering the involvement of former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and wants documents from the Trump White House
Speaker 1: being held by the National Archives. Here are the committee
Speaker 1: chairman Benny Thompson and Vice chair Liz Cheney, the White
Speaker 1: House knew exactly what was happening here at the Capitol.
Speaker 1: We are getting a clearer picture of what happened, who
Speaker 1: was involved, and who paid for it, and where the
Speaker 1: money went. And now Trump is using an interview Thompson
Speaker 1: gave to the Washington Post to try to get the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to block the National Archives from turning over
Speaker 1: his documents. I've been talking to Bloomberg Law Supreme Court
Speaker 1: reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. So, Kimberly, this is one of
Speaker 1: the cases the Court could put on its argument calendar for.
Speaker 1: So this was a recent it that came to the
Speaker 1: Court just in the past week. And it's really the
Speaker 1: first time that the Court has been asked to consider
Speaker 1: the legal ramifications of that January six attack on the Capitol,
Speaker 1: and it deals with the House Select committees attempt to
Speaker 1: get documents from the White House involving then President Trump's
Speaker 1: actions on that day. Now, it's important to note that
Speaker 1: there was a similar battle listeners may remember over documents
Speaker 1: that recently reached the Court, the battle over President trump
Speaker 1: tax returns, and they're the Streme quote said that, you know,
Speaker 1: Chris should really stay out of these disputes, that the
Speaker 1: political branches, Congress and the President have been able to
Speaker 1: work these disputes out in the past, and you know
Speaker 1: it should be hands off for the judiciary. Of course,
Speaker 1: the twist here is that this involves the Biden administration
Speaker 1: agreeing with Congress to turn over certain documents by waiving
Speaker 1: executive privilege for documents that came up under a different administration.
Speaker 1: And so we're gonna see if that make a difference
Speaker 1: for the Court and whether or not they say that
Speaker 1: Congress and the American people really have a great interest
Speaker 1: in these cases that they should go ahead and be
Speaker 1: turned over. But importantly, as you mentioned, the Justices have
Speaker 1: not agreed yet to take up this case. The House
Speaker 1: has asked the Justices to expedite this case so that
Speaker 1: they can hear at this term. And I think what's
Speaker 1: really behind that is that you know, the House is
Speaker 1: working on this informal deadline of the midterm elections, because
Speaker 1: of course, a GOP takeover of the House could undo
Speaker 1: the whole commission. And on Wednesday, Trump's lawyers filed a
Speaker 1: supplemental brief asking the Justices to look at Thompson's statements
Speaker 1: that the committee was considering making a criminal referral against Trump,
Speaker 1: arguing that it's outside the committee's purpose. Another case the
Speaker 1: court is being asked to take, and this is unusual
Speaker 1: in there was a landmark ruling about the sovereignty of
Speaker 1: Indian tribes and now Oklahoma is asking the justices to
Speaker 1: reverse that ruling they just handed down. That's exactly right, dude,
Speaker 1: And I think that's why this is one of those
Speaker 1: cases that court watchers are really keeping an eye off.
Speaker 1: As you mentioned, this case was a very recent case
Speaker 1: that came down five to four in favor of the tribe,
Speaker 1: and Oklahoma is now citing what it does is chaos
Speaker 1: following the ruling, and the state has asked the court
Speaker 1: outright just the over rule that brand new case. And
Speaker 1: it's a pretty significant ask given that, you know, the
Speaker 1: state really made the same arguments in the first case,
Speaker 1: but they didn't win the day. And I think the
Speaker 1: ruling flipping the decision the other way. It's really cannot
Speaker 1: be seen by many as an example of how the
Speaker 1: court is really just another political actor and they're not
Speaker 1: deciding these cases based on the law, but instead, you know,
Speaker 1: based on their personal preferences, and that really anything is
Speaker 1: up for grabs based on the makeup of the Court
Speaker 1: at that time. So I will be watching how the
Speaker 1: Justice is response to that. You know, we know if
Speaker 1: this for the first time they were hearing the case,
Speaker 1: it's likely that it would come down five to four
Speaker 1: the other way. But are they going to consider the
Speaker 1: potential questions about their legitimacy when deciding that the only
Speaker 1: thing that's really changed is Justice Sammy Coney Barrett being
Speaker 1: on the court, that's right. And so that's why I
Speaker 1: think this is, like many indicates on the court stocket,
Speaker 1: one of those cases that it's going to have implications
Speaker 1: beyond just the merits, but really implications for the way
Speaker 1: that the Court of operates and it's legitimacy going forward.
Speaker 1: There are a pair of challenges involving affirmative action programs
Speaker 1: at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina. The
Speaker 1: schools wanted trial. Will the Court want to add more
Speaker 1: controversy to its donket by taking these cases? If we're
Speaker 1: just looking at what the justices have said in the past,
Speaker 1: this does seem like a case that a majority of
Speaker 1: the Court would like to take on and would like
Speaker 1: to say something about affirmative action and maybe pull it
Speaker 1: back a little bit again. You know, as we've been
Speaker 1: talking about this whole time, this is just such a
Speaker 1: blockbuster case that the Justices might want to wait on
Speaker 1: that case until they can kind of get the lay
Speaker 1: of the landscape after these bombshell rulings come down on
Speaker 1: the flip side. You know, if they're already doing all
Speaker 1: these other things and it seems like they're going to
Speaker 1: have implications for the midterm elections, why not just go
Speaker 1: ahead and all and lets the American electorate, you know,
Speaker 1: go from there. But I don't really have a sense
Speaker 1: of which way that's playing on the justices. But for
Speaker 1: sure affirmative action is going to be a strategic grant
Speaker 1: for the justices. But which way strategically it goes, I
Speaker 1: don't now. One thing that is sure is you're going
Speaker 1: to be very busy this year. Thanks so much, Kimberly.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. Former
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump's too eldest children have been subpoenaed by
Speaker 1: the New York Attorney General, who is investigating whether Trump's
Speaker 1: real estate business manipulated the value of key assets for
Speaker 1: tax and insurance purposes. Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
Speaker 1: Filed a joint motion in New York State Court to
Speaker 1: block the subpoenas, accusing New York Attorney General Letitia James
Speaker 1: of making an unconstitutional attempt to get testimony from the
Speaker 1: family members while they still face a separate criminal investigation.
Speaker 1: Joining me as former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden, Michael tell
Speaker 1: us a little bit about the age's investigation. So, beginning
Speaker 1: in two thousand and nineteen, the Attorney General of the
Speaker 1: State of New York has had a civil inquiry focused
Speaker 1: on whether the Trump organization fraudulently inflated the value of
Speaker 1: its assets to secure bank loans while at the same
Speaker 1: time understating them when he had to pay taxes on
Speaker 1: the same property. So her office now has this investigation
Speaker 1: about whether this dual valuation is part of a civil
Speaker 1: fraudulent scheme to deny New York. It's a tax revenue.
Speaker 1: Why has it taken so long? It seems like something
Speaker 1: like that. You know, you need the papers involved, and
Speaker 1: then you could do the calculations. Well, if you have
Speaker 1: the papers and if you have the testimony of witnesses
Speaker 1: to explain to you what those papers represent, then this
Speaker 1: case could have moved quicker. But the Trump organization has
Speaker 1: not cooperated. They've fought every subpoena and every effort to
Speaker 1: obtain the information to make the evaluation. And therefore we
Speaker 1: now are in year two of this case. So do
Speaker 1: you know why she's subpoenaing Don Junior and Ivanka Trump. Well,
Speaker 1: Don Junior and Ivanka Trump have been executives in the
Speaker 1: Trump organised nation. When Donald Trump became president in the
Speaker 1: United States, he turned over the business to his two children,
Speaker 1: his three children, actually Eric as well, and each of
Speaker 1: them therefore has knowledge of the company's operations and how
Speaker 1: they valued things, and therefore their testimony is relevant to
Speaker 1: the Attorney general's determination of whether or not this was
Speaker 1: a fraud or this was appropriate business conduct. So now
Speaker 1: they already deposed Eric Trump in October. There are reason
Speaker 1: why he was deposed first or subpoenaed first. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Eric has had a large role in the operation of
Speaker 1: these companies, and uh, it may just simply be that
Speaker 1: he was the first one that they wanted to speak to.
Speaker 1: But I don't know why they chose the do they chose?
Speaker 1: I know, though, that they believe that all three of
Speaker 1: them have relevant testimony to answer the question of whether
Speaker 1: this was a fraud or whether this was not a fraud.
Speaker 1: The Trump's Don Junior Ivanka are asking a New York
Speaker 1: State judge to block the subpoenas. What are their grounds
Speaker 1: for doing that? What they say is that Miss James,
Speaker 1: who is conducting a civil investigation, is improperly trying to
Speaker 1: sidestep the grand jury process that would apply in a
Speaker 1: criminal case. Meaning in a criminal case, if you brought
Speaker 1: either Trump into the grand jury to take their testimony
Speaker 1: under New York law, they would be immunized from prosecution
Speaker 1: for their testimony, not so in a civil case. And
Speaker 1: so what they're arguing is that really what she's trying
Speaker 1: to do is making an in run around the limits
Speaker 1: that the criminal investigators have because she's working with the
Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney's Office, who has a parallel criminal test agation.
Speaker 1: So what they're saying is essentially she's trying to with
Speaker 1: bad motive bypass the restrictions of criminal investigations in order
Speaker 1: to get the information through the civil process, which he
Speaker 1: then will turn over to the Manhattan District Attorney's office
Speaker 1: and they will use it with the criminal prosecution. So
Speaker 1: do they have a point? If there's a criminal investigation
Speaker 1: going on, wouldn't they be foolish to testify in a
Speaker 1: civil deposition? Well, yes, possibly, depending on what they have
Speaker 1: to say. But in orders them to prevail in this case,
Speaker 1: what they'll have to do is prove that she is
Speaker 1: in fact abusing the civil process to gather evidence for
Speaker 1: a criminal case. They'll have to have a basis to
Speaker 1: prove the truth of that proposition, not just the bold
Speaker 1: statement of their belief that this is the case. Because
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, in a case called US versus Cordell,
Speaker 1: has held that evidence obtained through civil discovery can be
Speaker 1: used in a parallel criminal prosecution. There is there's notion
Speaker 1: of parallel proceedings in the law where things which used
Speaker 1: to be only civil or administrative are now both civil
Speaker 1: and administrative and also criminal. And so the screaming Court
Speaker 1: was asked to figure out whether or not this is appropriate,
Speaker 1: and the Court held in Cordell and followed up with
Speaker 1: other cases where they basically said, parallel proceedings are okay.
Speaker 1: You just have to make sure that things are done properly,
Speaker 1: and you have to measure the full sort of civil
Speaker 1: discovery rights and civil discovery, the rule is full disclosure.
Speaker 1: Everyone gets to know what everyone else is doing, no surprises.
Speaker 1: In criminal it's much more restrictive. And so the course
Speaker 1: that as long as you're not, you know, making this
Speaker 1: improper end around, it's perfectly normal, uh for this to occur.
Speaker 1: So they have to prove that it's it's an end around,
Speaker 1: and then they have to figure out what they want
Speaker 1: to do if they have these subpoenas, and they can
Speaker 1: simply say, you know what, we're a ticket the Amendment
Speaker 1: because this may jeopardize us in the criminal case, and
Speaker 1: that's they're they're right, but they can't necessarily bring it
Speaker 1: to a complete close. Do you know if Eric Trump
Speaker 1: for his subpoena as well, do you know if he
Speaker 1: used the same grounds. I don't know that he specifically
Speaker 1: argued the end around theory that we've been discussing, but
Speaker 1: he too fought the subpoena. Usually they fight these things
Speaker 1: on them being overbroad and unnecessary. But in the end
Speaker 1: he lost his case. And I think that in the end,
Speaker 1: Ivanka and Donald Jr. Should lose their case. Not because
Speaker 1: I have a political mode for saying should, but they
Speaker 1: should on the basis of the law that governs parallel
Speaker 1: proceedings and due process. Courts have generally ruled in parallel
Speaker 1: suits that there isn't a due process violation and they
Speaker 1: don't apply double jeopard um, but they do sometimes allow
Speaker 1: for various remedies, such as a stay in the civil
Speaker 1: proceeding or protective order in the civil proceeding until the
Speaker 1: completion of the criminal case. So the Trumps may say
Speaker 1: to the court, look, court, please stay the civil action
Speaker 1: until the completion of the criminal action, and that might
Speaker 1: be in a winning argument for them, or the court
Speaker 1: might say, no, these things can run in parallel to
Speaker 1: one another. We'll just make sure that the evidence is
Speaker 1: used properly as it is supposed to be used in
Speaker 1: the civil versus a criminal case. And if they were
Speaker 1: witnesses before the grand jury, they would get transactional immunity. Correct.
Speaker 1: That's their big argument. They're saying, Look, if you want
Speaker 1: to hear from us about this, bring us into the
Speaker 1: grand jury, give us immunity and we'll talk. But you
Speaker 1: can't force us to talk in the civil case and
Speaker 1: then use that evidence against us in a criminal case.
Speaker 1: The Spreme court has said you can, um, but with
Speaker 1: you know, qualifications to make sure that there isn't a
Speaker 1: improper process that's in place, um, some subch refuge that
Speaker 1: the government is using to obtain evidence that they couldn't
Speaker 1: otherwise properly obtain. So they attached to their papers tweets
Speaker 1: that the New York A g Letitia James has made
Speaker 1: in public statements to support their claim that she's operating
Speaker 1: in a dual role. Here is that convincing at all? No,
Speaker 1: because she is permitted to engage in a dual participate
Speaker 1: in the dual process. What they're arguing, in some sense
Speaker 1: is her motives are impure, that this case is a
Speaker 1: political witch hunt, and therefore it should be brought to
Speaker 1: a those So I think that they're really impugning her,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of integrity, her intentions in this case
Speaker 1: more than they are saying that you can't do these
Speaker 1: things side by side. But they're saying she's They call
Speaker 1: her all sorts of names, corrupt, attorney general and the
Speaker 1: like because they say that this is all a witch hunt,
Speaker 1: phrases that we've heard them use in other contexts. And
Speaker 1: former President Trump had sued her last month along the
Speaker 1: same lines exactly. Trump is trying to bring it in
Speaker 1: to these this litigation by saying, essentially, this is a
Speaker 1: political witch hunt, and um, it should be called to
Speaker 1: an end, and courts, I think are going to be
Speaker 1: very reluctant to do that. To impune the the integrity
Speaker 1: of the government in such a way as to cause
Speaker 1: the case to be brought to a end is I
Speaker 1: think a very unlikely outcome. Yeah, So that's the question
Speaker 1: I have because you know, as you talk about former
Speaker 1: President Trump trying to delay other cases, for example, to
Speaker 1: delay the January six Committee from getting his records. The
Speaker 1: aim there is to delay it until the mid terms,
Speaker 1: when likely the House will be turned over the Republicans
Speaker 1: and the investigation will be terminated. But here there's there's
Speaker 1: nothing like that. Any Attorney General New York is going
Speaker 1: to continue this investigation. So how do the delay tactics
Speaker 1: really help him in the end. They don't, and they shouldn't.
Speaker 1: But that's still his method of operation. When anyone accuses
Speaker 1: him in a in a legal case, what he does
Speaker 1: is delay and fight back by attacking the integrity of
Speaker 1: the lawyers who are for the government agency that's bringing
Speaker 1: the case. This is just his standard method of operation.
Speaker 1: So he doesn't you're exactly right that in New York,
Speaker 1: because we saw this already in the Manhattan District Attorney's office.
Speaker 1: Cyrus Vans, who started this investigation, has left office. He
Speaker 1: has there's a successor ahead of the Manhattan District Attorney's office, right,
Speaker 1: and uh, that person is proceeding with the case without
Speaker 1: missing a beat. If Miss James, who was going to
Speaker 1: run for governor but now no longer is if she
Speaker 1: had one for governor, then her successor would pick up
Speaker 1: this case and they would just move it right along.
Speaker 1: So this is not like you're exactly right. This is
Speaker 1: not like the Hill where he is trying to delay
Speaker 1: that in the hopes that the Republicans take over the
Speaker 1: House and kill the investigation. That's a very different endgame here.
Speaker 1: There is no endgame that this will be able to
Speaker 1: run out the clock. It's just this is what he does.
Speaker 1: And it remind us he already to look the subpoena
Speaker 1: for records from his accountants to the Supreme Court. Remind
Speaker 1: us what happened there. He lost. He loses, essentially, he
Speaker 1: loses all of these cases, all of these arguments that
Speaker 1: he makes it the government is not entiled to this
Speaker 1: or this is this is a case born of political
Speaker 1: bad faith. But this is a witch hunt. All of
Speaker 1: those cases for his tax records and the like, he
Speaker 1: loses because they're not based in solid legal reasoning. They're
Speaker 1: based in, you know, sort of wishful political outcome based thinking.
Speaker 1: And so that's why I say, in this case, the
Speaker 1: law favors Miss James being able to proceed, but the
Speaker 1: court could entertain various protective styled orders to ensure that
Speaker 1: the Trump's are not penalized for sitting for the old
Speaker 1: deposition in their criminal case. Thanks for being on the show, Michael.
Speaker 1: That's former federal prosecutor Michael Selden and that's if in
Speaker 1: the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news by listening to our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law.
Speaker 1: I'm Judie Bronso when you're listening to Bloomberg