WEBVTT - Menendez Charges & Baseball Exemption

0:00:03.240 --> 0:00:09.920
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:22.599
<v Speaker 1>The sounds of baseball not only the national pastime and

0:00:22.680 --> 0:00:26.360
<v Speaker 1>a more than ten billion dollar industry, but also the

0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:29.920
<v Speaker 1>only sport in the country that's exempt from the anti

0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:33.519
<v Speaker 1>trust laws. And now some minor league teams are asking

0:00:33.560 --> 0:00:38.560
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court to eliminate baseball's anti trust exemption. Why,

0:00:38.800 --> 0:00:42.080
<v Speaker 1>as they put it in one brief enough. Already joining

0:00:42.080 --> 0:00:45.120
<v Speaker 1>me is anti trust expert Harry First, a professor at

0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 1>NYU Law School. Harry tell us how baseball got this

0:00:49.560 --> 0:00:50.720
<v Speaker 1>anti trust exemption.

0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:55.880
<v Speaker 2>Well, this is one of the most reviled exemptions from

0:00:56.080 --> 0:01:00.560
<v Speaker 2>the point of view of antitrust lawyers unless they represent

0:01:00.840 --> 0:01:04.840
<v Speaker 2>baseball companies or teams or leagues, and even the courts

0:01:04.840 --> 0:01:10.160
<v Speaker 2>don't like it. So it came about originally because of

0:01:10.200 --> 0:01:14.640
<v Speaker 2>a decision in nineteen twenty two by the Supreme Court

0:01:14.800 --> 0:01:19.200
<v Speaker 2>called Federal Baseball. And this is an opinion written by

0:01:19.680 --> 0:01:25.399
<v Speaker 2>Justice Holmes Uliver Wendell Holmes distinguished jurists, and it was

0:01:25.520 --> 0:01:30.240
<v Speaker 2>an effort to actually push out some competing leagues. And

0:01:30.880 --> 0:01:33.959
<v Speaker 2>Holmes said that, well, the any trust laws don't cover this.

0:01:34.319 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 2>Baseball is neither commerce nor interstate commerce. It's just sport

0:01:41.200 --> 0:01:46.080
<v Speaker 2>and it just takes place locally. So even though players

0:01:46.280 --> 0:01:50.400
<v Speaker 2>even then traveled from state to state and there was

0:01:50.440 --> 0:01:55.600
<v Speaker 2>a lot of money involved, perhaps Justice Holmes as the

0:01:55.680 --> 0:01:59.640
<v Speaker 2>Boston Brahmin disdain baseball. It was sort of like us

0:01:59.680 --> 0:02:03.760
<v Speaker 2>now raised with a certain kind of entertainment reviewing video games.

0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:07.760
<v Speaker 2>What is that? And is there so much money involved?

0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:10.919
<v Speaker 2>Are you serious? So maybe that was a poem's reaction.

0:02:11.080 --> 0:02:13.200
<v Speaker 2>I don't know, But in any event, that was a

0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:17.359
<v Speaker 2>decision any trust laws didn't apply. So that's nineteen twenty two.

0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:23.080
<v Speaker 2>The Supreme Court reaffirmed that decision in a case called

0:02:23.080 --> 0:02:27.560
<v Speaker 2>Toolson in nineteen fifty three involving New York Yankees. My

0:02:27.840 --> 0:02:31.720
<v Speaker 2>memory is correct, and the court said, even though the

0:02:31.840 --> 0:02:35.600
<v Speaker 2>decision was sort of dubious when made, it's now precedent,

0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:40.800
<v Speaker 2>and all aspects of that decision had been undermined. Even

0:02:40.840 --> 0:02:44.080
<v Speaker 2>in the intervening period, the courts had a rather a

0:02:44.160 --> 0:02:48.160
<v Speaker 2>narrow conception of what constituted interstate commerce, perhaps in nineteen

0:02:48.200 --> 0:02:50.720
<v Speaker 2>twenty two, but it had expanded clearly in the New

0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:54.720
<v Speaker 2>Deal era, and any trust cases had gone along. And

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:57.880
<v Speaker 2>there's no doubt that baseball should have been considered an

0:02:57.840 --> 0:03:02.520
<v Speaker 2>interstate commerce all along point a business, but the Court

0:03:02.560 --> 0:03:06.519
<v Speaker 2>said in business of baseball is exempt from any trust

0:03:06.560 --> 0:03:10.120
<v Speaker 2>laws from the Shermanac. And then the third case in

0:03:10.160 --> 0:03:13.760
<v Speaker 2>this is a case called Flood against Kune. This involved

0:03:13.840 --> 0:03:17.280
<v Speaker 2>Kurt Flood, who didn't want to be bound by what

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:22.280
<v Speaker 2>was called the reserve clause, which prevented players once they

0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:25.640
<v Speaker 2>were under contract from going to some other team even

0:03:26.000 --> 0:03:29.520
<v Speaker 2>after the contract was over. And this was an opinion

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:32.800
<v Speaker 2>written by Justice Blackman. This goes beyond it put of

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:36.600
<v Speaker 2>any trust law. If you teach a course in law

0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:41.840
<v Speaker 2>school about precedent and the need to follow precedent, you

0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:45.160
<v Speaker 2>know you would want to teach this opinion because it's

0:03:45.200 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 2>a payon to baseball and the greats of baseball and

0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:54.800
<v Speaker 2>how they flourished under this system. I mean, it was

0:03:55.080 --> 0:03:59.440
<v Speaker 2>very clear that Harry Blackman was a great baseball fan

0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:03.400
<v Speaker 2>and loved all these players. And now you come along,

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.760
<v Speaker 2>Kurt Flood, You're going to challenge the system. Give me

0:04:06.840 --> 0:04:11.080
<v Speaker 2>a break. You know, everyone prospered. So on the basis

0:04:11.120 --> 0:04:14.600
<v Speaker 2>of the doctrine of starry decisives, let the decision stand.

0:04:15.480 --> 0:04:20.640
<v Speaker 2>The Supreme Court refused to overrule Tulsen and Federal Baseball

0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:25.000
<v Speaker 2>behind it, saying no, we've had this exemption, this decision

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:27.239
<v Speaker 2>too long, no matter what we think of it, legally

0:04:27.800 --> 0:04:31.000
<v Speaker 2>were bound. Now there's no one who will stand up

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:35.920
<v Speaker 2>for this, as I said, except people who represent baseball teams. Now,

0:04:36.040 --> 0:04:39.400
<v Speaker 2>there is one final little bit of a change, which

0:04:39.440 --> 0:04:42.880
<v Speaker 2>is Congress passed the law in nineteen ninety eight called

0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:46.520
<v Speaker 2>the Kirk Flood Act, which took out of the exemption,

0:04:46.640 --> 0:04:51.440
<v Speaker 2>put back into anti trust any contracts involving the employment

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:55.440
<v Speaker 2>of major league baseball players at the major league level,

0:04:55.800 --> 0:04:59.479
<v Speaker 2>So just for major league baseball players like Kurt Flood,

0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 2>that would now be subject to sort of the normal

0:05:02.720 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 2>rules of anti trust and labor law for that matter.

0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:09.560
<v Speaker 2>But these clauses aren't used anymore anyway, so it's sort

0:05:09.600 --> 0:05:14.120
<v Speaker 2>of in some sense factually irrelevant, but maybe a little

0:05:14.240 --> 0:05:18.679
<v Speaker 2>legal issue. Congress left everything else that this law doesn't

0:05:18.680 --> 0:05:23.000
<v Speaker 2>apply to anything else involving baseball. So in effect, the exemption,

0:05:23.520 --> 0:05:28.560
<v Speaker 2>which Congress never approved, very different from all other exemptions

0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:32.239
<v Speaker 2>that we have. Virtually all other exemptions Congress never approved

0:05:32.240 --> 0:05:35.280
<v Speaker 2>this one. The exemption continues.

0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:39.880
<v Speaker 1>Does baseball operate like a monopoly? And is that unlike

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:42.440
<v Speaker 1>football or basketball or hockey.

0:05:43.240 --> 0:05:47.520
<v Speaker 2>So we could argue whether football and hockey and all

0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:52.040
<v Speaker 2>of those operate like monopolies, separate argument. At least they

0:05:52.080 --> 0:05:56.839
<v Speaker 2>are all subject to the anti trust laws. So all

0:05:57.160 --> 0:06:03.040
<v Speaker 2>sports professional the NCAA, you know, college sports, all sports

0:06:03.360 --> 0:06:06.359
<v Speaker 2>have been subject to the anti trustlaws. In the court,

0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:13.680
<v Speaker 2>sport after sport will say, you know, baseball is its

0:06:13.720 --> 0:06:19.160
<v Speaker 2>own thing. You're covered. So they are not free to

0:06:19.240 --> 0:06:22.760
<v Speaker 2>violated any trust laws. Now, whether what they do is

0:06:22.880 --> 0:06:26.160
<v Speaker 2>legal under d any trust laws is another story. And

0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:30.640
<v Speaker 2>your quest is a really good one because in the

0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:35.480
<v Speaker 2>most recent Supreme Court case involving organized sports, which involved

0:06:35.560 --> 0:06:41.359
<v Speaker 2>the NCAA with NCAA against Allston and the effort of

0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:45.720
<v Speaker 2>the NCAA to suppress the amounts of compensation to quote

0:06:45.760 --> 0:06:49.720
<v Speaker 2>what they like to call student athletes, and basically they

0:06:49.720 --> 0:06:51.840
<v Speaker 2>wanted to argue in the Supreme Court that you should

0:06:51.880 --> 0:06:54.680
<v Speaker 2>really treat us differently, and the Supreme Court wrote, no,

0:06:54.800 --> 0:06:57.320
<v Speaker 2>we're not treating you differently. You don't have any reason to.

0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:02.080
<v Speaker 2>And Justice Dorsach for a majority sort of dropped a

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:05.360
<v Speaker 2>little hint about this and mentioned that the Supreme Court

0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:08.720
<v Speaker 2>in the past had balied this is his word with

0:07:08.760 --> 0:07:12.480
<v Speaker 2>what looks like an exemption for professional baseball. But we're

0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:15.360
<v Speaker 2>not going to give it to you, folks. So you

0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:19.800
<v Speaker 2>andCA are fully subject to the any trust laws, and

0:07:20.560 --> 0:07:24.280
<v Speaker 2>your conduct is subject to any trust laws. So the

0:07:24.400 --> 0:07:27.600
<v Speaker 2>court seems to have recognized, as this decided in twenty

0:07:27.640 --> 0:07:32.840
<v Speaker 2>twenty one again, that baseball is a bit of an aberration.

0:07:33.320 --> 0:07:36.600
<v Speaker 1>In this case, you have minor league teams who are

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:41.800
<v Speaker 1>eliminated alleging a violation of the Sherman Act caused by

0:07:41.800 --> 0:07:46.200
<v Speaker 1>a horizontal agreement between competitors that has artificially reduced and

0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:50.160
<v Speaker 1>capped output in the market for MLB teams affiliated with

0:07:50.320 --> 0:07:53.960
<v Speaker 1>MLB clubs, and a federal judge dismissed it because of

0:07:54.560 --> 0:07:59.200
<v Speaker 1>the baseball exemption right, Federal Judge Andrew Carter said, plaintiffs

0:07:59.200 --> 0:08:01.920
<v Speaker 1>believe that the Supreme Court is poised to knock out

0:08:01.960 --> 0:08:05.200
<v Speaker 1>the exemption, like a boxer waiting to launch a left

0:08:05.200 --> 0:08:09.720
<v Speaker 1>hook after her opponent tosses out a torbid jab. It's possible.

0:08:10.080 --> 0:08:14.720
<v Speaker 1>So this would squarely present the baseball exemption to the

0:08:14.760 --> 0:08:15.760
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court.

0:08:15.960 --> 0:08:18.760
<v Speaker 2>So that's correct, that's what's seeing up the interest at

0:08:18.760 --> 0:08:21.200
<v Speaker 2>the moment. The case went to the Court of Appeals

0:08:21.240 --> 0:08:25.360
<v Speaker 2>which just sort of summarily agreed with the trial court.

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:29.440
<v Speaker 2>Great quote that you read there. And now the minor

0:08:29.520 --> 0:08:34.160
<v Speaker 2>league teams who alleged a violation by being excluded from

0:08:34.480 --> 0:08:37.920
<v Speaker 2>an agreement that the majors have made which limit the

0:08:38.000 --> 0:08:41.160
<v Speaker 2>number of minor league teams they can affiliate with, are

0:08:41.200 --> 0:08:44.960
<v Speaker 2>now asking the Supreme Court to take the case. So

0:08:45.800 --> 0:08:50.280
<v Speaker 2>it's not clear whether the Court will actually take the case.

0:08:50.480 --> 0:08:52.760
<v Speaker 2>The Court has discretion as to whether they take it

0:08:52.880 --> 0:08:55.640
<v Speaker 2>or not, So the first question is will they take it,

0:08:56.040 --> 0:08:59.680
<v Speaker 2>And presumably if the Court takes it, it means that

0:08:59.720 --> 0:09:05.000
<v Speaker 2>they're interested in overruling the three cases that I mentioned.

0:09:05.280 --> 0:09:10.920
<v Speaker 2>And the Supreme Court, you know, doesn't lightly overrule cases.

0:09:11.320 --> 0:09:17.120
<v Speaker 1>Well maybe I should say recently, yeah, And the.

0:09:17.000 --> 0:09:23.280
<v Speaker 2>Court has overruled on occasion longstanding any trust precedent that

0:09:23.400 --> 0:09:28.200
<v Speaker 2>parties had followed for many years. The case is called Legion,

0:09:28.559 --> 0:09:32.040
<v Speaker 2>which involved the legality of setting resale prices. The Supreme

0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:36.120
<v Speaker 2>Court overruled an older case which had stood for ninety years,

0:09:36.160 --> 0:09:40.960
<v Speaker 2>even longer than Federal baseball. So it's possible that the

0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:45.840
<v Speaker 2>Court would would take this case, but I would wait

0:09:45.920 --> 0:09:51.200
<v Speaker 2>to see if the Justice Department expresses desire to have

0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:55.560
<v Speaker 2>the court take the case and overrule these other three cases.

0:09:55.760 --> 0:10:00.360
<v Speaker 2>So I'm not certain whether the Justice Department will away

0:10:00.360 --> 0:10:03.199
<v Speaker 2>in on this case. They did already in this particular

0:10:03.240 --> 0:10:05.800
<v Speaker 2>case in the district court and in the Court of Appeals,

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:09.760
<v Speaker 2>but they did not ask the courts which couldn't actually

0:10:10.160 --> 0:10:12.200
<v Speaker 2>to you know, ignore the exemption.

0:10:13.160 --> 0:10:16.040
<v Speaker 1>Do you think this exemption is lasted because baseball is

0:10:16.080 --> 0:10:18.360
<v Speaker 1>seen as you know, the national sport.

0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:23.680
<v Speaker 2>The exemption is a sport in itself. You know, that's

0:10:23.679 --> 0:10:26.720
<v Speaker 2>a very good question. So there's been a fair amount

0:10:26.760 --> 0:10:33.360
<v Speaker 2>of litigation around this issue, with Litigan's trying to narrow it,

0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:37.079
<v Speaker 2>you know, to keep it very closely read as an

0:10:37.120 --> 0:10:40.720
<v Speaker 2>exemption as they you know, bring cases in lower courts

0:10:40.760 --> 0:10:44.760
<v Speaker 2>that you know, are forced to follow the three cases

0:10:44.800 --> 0:10:49.520
<v Speaker 2>that I mentioned. So there has been an effort by

0:10:49.600 --> 0:10:52.480
<v Speaker 2>parties to do something about it, not an effort by

0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:54.760
<v Speaker 2>the government to do something about it. As I think

0:10:54.800 --> 0:10:57.800
<v Speaker 2>about it, you know, not to tuch this positive. So

0:10:58.080 --> 0:11:00.840
<v Speaker 2>why has it lasted? Well, you know, part of it

0:11:00.920 --> 0:11:06.520
<v Speaker 2>is a very basic theory of story decisives of following precedent.

0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:09.120
<v Speaker 2>Courts are forced to do that, and the Supreme Court

0:11:09.520 --> 0:11:12.840
<v Speaker 2>hasn't paid attention to this area that much, and for

0:11:12.880 --> 0:11:15.800
<v Speaker 2>a while wasn't paying much attention to anti trust. Now

0:11:15.840 --> 0:11:19.400
<v Speaker 2>that's sort of changed recently, so maybe now the court

0:11:19.440 --> 0:11:23.440
<v Speaker 2>will have an appetite to look at it. They've messed

0:11:23.480 --> 0:11:26.600
<v Speaker 2>around with other sports, why not baseball.

0:11:26.640 --> 0:11:30.560
<v Speaker 1>In twenty twenty two, the MLB Commissioner wrote to the

0:11:30.559 --> 0:11:34.160
<v Speaker 1>Senate Judiciary Committee, who is hearing this issue, that players

0:11:34.200 --> 0:11:38.240
<v Speaker 1>could lose job opportunities and communities could lose minor league

0:11:38.240 --> 0:11:41.760
<v Speaker 1>teams if baseball is stripped of its anti trust exemption.

0:11:42.280 --> 0:11:44.320
<v Speaker 1>But let's say this does go to Supreme Court, what

0:11:44.440 --> 0:11:46.280
<v Speaker 1>kind of an argument could they make that they should

0:11:46.320 --> 0:11:48.000
<v Speaker 1>still have an anti trust exemption?

0:11:48.440 --> 0:11:51.160
<v Speaker 2>Yes, in a case in which communities are losing their

0:11:51.760 --> 0:11:55.320
<v Speaker 2>minor league teams exactly because without this asciliation they don't

0:11:55.320 --> 0:11:58.400
<v Speaker 2>have the financial support to continue. Well, they're not going

0:11:58.440 --> 0:12:01.839
<v Speaker 2>to make that argument, I guess this case. Presumably they would.

0:12:01.960 --> 0:12:05.240
<v Speaker 2>They would pitch a lot of it on stability and

0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:11.440
<v Speaker 2>expectations that parties have based their relationships over the years

0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:18.160
<v Speaker 2>on operating collectively. Leagues need to operate collectively, and this would,

0:12:18.280 --> 0:12:22.560
<v Speaker 2>you know, subject this sport to needless litigation, which might

0:12:22.679 --> 0:12:27.600
<v Speaker 2>in the end result in massive costs and not produce

0:12:27.679 --> 0:12:30.920
<v Speaker 2>better baseball. It's a hard argument to make when every

0:12:30.920 --> 0:12:35.080
<v Speaker 2>other sport is subject to any trust laws. So I

0:12:35.120 --> 0:12:37.800
<v Speaker 2>think when it gets the Supreme Court, they'll have to

0:12:37.880 --> 0:12:41.280
<v Speaker 2>look for things which explains for some reason why this

0:12:41.440 --> 0:12:46.400
<v Speaker 2>sport should be sort of outside normal rules of competition law.

0:12:46.440 --> 0:12:50.640
<v Speaker 2>And the Court, once presented with that sort of actual argument,

0:12:50.760 --> 0:12:56.240
<v Speaker 2>will often say, you know, hey, not our call, pardon joke,

0:12:56.640 --> 0:13:00.560
<v Speaker 2>not our coal. Congress generally says, you know that we

0:13:00.679 --> 0:13:04.079
<v Speaker 2>like competition, and if you think that competition is not

0:13:04.240 --> 0:13:07.360
<v Speaker 2>the way to go here, go to Congress. You've never

0:13:07.440 --> 0:13:11.640
<v Speaker 2>done that. You've never gotten congressional approval to this. You know,

0:13:11.800 --> 0:13:15.280
<v Speaker 2>lots of other industries have. So if you want to

0:13:15.280 --> 0:13:18.440
<v Speaker 2>make your case, make it there, don't make it here.

0:13:18.520 --> 0:13:23.400
<v Speaker 2>The normal rule is competition, and we don't really like exemptions.

0:13:23.880 --> 0:13:26.320
<v Speaker 2>So I think maybe in the end the question is

0:13:26.320 --> 0:13:28.960
<v Speaker 2>going to be whether the Supreme Court thinks this is

0:13:29.040 --> 0:13:32.480
<v Speaker 2>important enough to take or you know, let's just sort

0:13:32.520 --> 0:13:36.480
<v Speaker 2>of rock along this spike. Certainly, baseball is a big

0:13:36.600 --> 0:13:41.680
<v Speaker 2>enough industry, and you know, normally we like commercial relationships,

0:13:41.720 --> 0:13:45.959
<v Speaker 2>particularly when lots of money's involved and lots of consumer interests,

0:13:46.080 --> 0:13:50.960
<v Speaker 2>lots of labor interests, frankly community interests. You know, normally

0:13:51.000 --> 0:13:53.920
<v Speaker 2>we like that to be decided by marketplace.

0:13:54.200 --> 0:13:57.320
<v Speaker 1>The best argument I thought was the minor league teams,

0:13:57.640 --> 0:14:00.440
<v Speaker 1>in a brief to the Second Circuit, said, but the

0:14:00.440 --> 0:14:03.280
<v Speaker 1>court should, if it sees fit, dispatch this case to

0:14:03.320 --> 0:14:06.480
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court, where the message attached enough already.

0:14:06.880 --> 0:14:11.240
<v Speaker 2>Well, you know there's precedent for courts of appeals to

0:14:11.360 --> 0:14:14.040
<v Speaker 2>do just that, to sort of say, look, our hands

0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:16.640
<v Speaker 2>are tied. This is a terrible result, but our hands

0:14:16.640 --> 0:14:19.840
<v Speaker 2>are tied, and sort of say, please take this now.

0:14:20.000 --> 0:14:23.520
<v Speaker 2>The Second Circuit didn't quite do that, actually, I mean,

0:14:23.560 --> 0:14:27.360
<v Speaker 2>they could have gone through the reasons. And there are

0:14:27.400 --> 0:14:30.600
<v Speaker 2>opinions like this in other areas of any trust, going

0:14:30.680 --> 0:14:33.760
<v Speaker 2>through the reasons for why this is so out of step.

0:14:34.400 --> 0:14:36.840
<v Speaker 2>Commentators have written about this, there are books on this,

0:14:37.440 --> 0:14:42.280
<v Speaker 2>uniformly condemned it, and you know why. They say it

0:14:42.320 --> 0:14:46.880
<v Speaker 2>would only help fans and everybody except maybe the owners

0:14:46.880 --> 0:14:50.840
<v Speaker 2>of these franchises. But owners of sports franchises seem to

0:14:50.840 --> 0:14:53.360
<v Speaker 2>be doing pretty darn well even when the anti trust

0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:57.320
<v Speaker 2>wall was applying, So they could have done more. But

0:14:57.560 --> 0:15:00.000
<v Speaker 2>I'm actually waiting to see what the Justice departm.

0:15:01.000 --> 0:15:03.600
<v Speaker 1>I do think they need a sports case this term.

0:15:03.840 --> 0:15:06.800
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much, Harry, it's always a delight. That's Professor

0:15:06.840 --> 0:15:10.880
<v Speaker 1>Harry First of NYU Law School. Coming up next, we'll

0:15:10.880 --> 0:15:14.440
<v Speaker 1>look at the charges against New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez.

0:15:14.800 --> 0:15:16.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:21.240
<v Speaker 3>Everything I've accomplished, I've worked for despite the naysayers and

0:15:21.280 --> 0:15:25.960
<v Speaker 3>everyone who has underestimated me. I recognize this will be

0:15:25.960 --> 0:15:29.520
<v Speaker 3>the biggest fight yet, but as I have stated throughout

0:15:29.560 --> 0:15:32.840
<v Speaker 3>this whole process, I firmly believe that when all the

0:15:32.880 --> 0:15:36.960
<v Speaker 3>facts are presented, not only will I be exonerated, but

0:15:37.040 --> 0:15:39.520
<v Speaker 3>I still will be the New Jersey's senior senator.

0:15:39.760 --> 0:15:43.040
<v Speaker 1>New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez told the public he was

0:15:43.120 --> 0:15:47.120
<v Speaker 1>not guilty of bribery and corruption charges and entered a

0:15:47.200 --> 0:15:51.480
<v Speaker 1>not guilty plea in court today. The Democratic senator has

0:15:51.520 --> 0:15:55.760
<v Speaker 1>faced corruption charges before, his last trial, ending with a

0:15:55.840 --> 0:16:00.440
<v Speaker 1>deadlock jury in twenty seventeen, but this time it appears different,

0:16:00.640 --> 0:16:04.440
<v Speaker 1>and his fellow Democratic senators are calling on him to resign,

0:16:05.000 --> 0:16:08.720
<v Speaker 1>including New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who said the indictment

0:16:08.760 --> 0:16:14.440
<v Speaker 1>showed shocking allegations of corruption and specific disturbing details of wrongdoing.

0:16:15.160 --> 0:16:18.800
<v Speaker 1>The office of the Manhattan US Attorney, Damian Williams brought

0:16:18.840 --> 0:16:19.520
<v Speaker 1>the charges.

0:16:19.960 --> 0:16:23.600
<v Speaker 4>The indictment alleges that through that relationship, the senator and

0:16:23.680 --> 0:16:27.080
<v Speaker 4>his wife accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes

0:16:27.560 --> 0:16:30.840
<v Speaker 4>in exchange for Senator Menendez using his power and influence

0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:35.720
<v Speaker 4>to protect and to enrich those businessmen and to benefit

0:16:35.760 --> 0:16:36.960
<v Speaker 4>the government of Egypt.

0:16:37.320 --> 0:16:40.080
<v Speaker 1>And there were pictures of some of the evidence seized

0:16:40.080 --> 0:16:43.240
<v Speaker 1>from Menendez his home, the gold bars worth more than

0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:47.160
<v Speaker 1>one hundred thousand dollars, nearly five hundred thousand dollars in

0:16:47.320 --> 0:16:51.360
<v Speaker 1>cash stoffed in envelopes and hidden in clothes and closets,

0:16:51.600 --> 0:16:55.640
<v Speaker 1>and the Mercedes convertible. Joining me is former federal prosecutor

0:16:55.720 --> 0:16:59.800
<v Speaker 1>Jennifer Rogers, a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School.

0:17:00.400 --> 0:17:06.000
<v Speaker 1>The allegations against Menendez were stunning to many people, So

0:17:06.080 --> 0:17:07.080
<v Speaker 1>tell us about them.

0:17:07.720 --> 0:17:11.440
<v Speaker 5>Well, he's charged in three counts of bribery. They basically

0:17:11.880 --> 0:17:15.480
<v Speaker 5>used the same facts to charge it, using three different statues,

0:17:15.560 --> 0:17:18.840
<v Speaker 5>kind of a belt and suspenders approach. But it's effectively

0:17:19.040 --> 0:17:23.399
<v Speaker 5>that he did favors official acts in his role as

0:17:24.000 --> 0:17:27.400
<v Speaker 5>senator and as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee for

0:17:27.800 --> 0:17:31.560
<v Speaker 5>these three businessmen who then paid him for those favors

0:17:31.560 --> 0:17:36.240
<v Speaker 5>and cash and gold bars and a Mercedes convertible and

0:17:36.440 --> 0:17:37.119
<v Speaker 5>some other stuff.

0:17:37.320 --> 0:17:40.560
<v Speaker 1>The one hundred thousand dollars in gold bars sort of stands

0:17:40.600 --> 0:17:44.159
<v Speaker 1>out because who has gold bars? And add to that

0:17:44.320 --> 0:17:47.320
<v Speaker 1>his Google search for how much is one kilo of

0:17:47.359 --> 0:17:52.399
<v Speaker 1>gold worth? Do you think the prosecutors framed this in

0:17:52.440 --> 0:17:55.320
<v Speaker 1>a way to bring out the dramatic in it.

0:17:56.200 --> 0:17:58.600
<v Speaker 5>Well, you know, there's always a little bit of flair

0:17:58.680 --> 0:18:01.720
<v Speaker 5>for the drama, I think. You know, jackets stuffed with

0:18:01.920 --> 0:18:05.000
<v Speaker 5>cash too has a sort of flare that looks good

0:18:05.040 --> 0:18:08.040
<v Speaker 5>in the photos too. But you know, really, prosecutors have

0:18:08.119 --> 0:18:11.399
<v Speaker 5>to prove three things. They have to prove that something

0:18:11.440 --> 0:18:14.160
<v Speaker 5>of value was given, and that's the point of saying

0:18:14.600 --> 0:18:18.440
<v Speaker 5>this cash was found, the gold bars, the car. They

0:18:18.480 --> 0:18:22.040
<v Speaker 5>have to prove that official acts by the public official

0:18:22.119 --> 0:18:24.640
<v Speaker 5>were promised or given. And then they have to prove

0:18:24.720 --> 0:18:27.919
<v Speaker 5>the quid propo the connection between the two things. So

0:18:28.280 --> 0:18:31.280
<v Speaker 5>you know, prosecutors have to prove all three of those things.

0:18:31.280 --> 0:18:33.560
<v Speaker 5>So they're going to be careful to make sure to

0:18:33.640 --> 0:18:35.880
<v Speaker 5>do that. But I think, you know, they just took

0:18:35.920 --> 0:18:38.960
<v Speaker 5>advantage of the fact that this is really a textbook

0:18:39.320 --> 0:18:43.399
<v Speaker 5>bribery case. You so clearly have all three of those things,

0:18:43.760 --> 0:18:46.119
<v Speaker 5>and it's just so obvious. I mean, who keeps that

0:18:46.240 --> 0:18:48.480
<v Speaker 5>kind of cash around? Who keeps it in that way?

0:18:48.520 --> 0:18:51.439
<v Speaker 5>You know, not in a safe, stuffed in jackets and things.

0:18:51.840 --> 0:18:55.119
<v Speaker 5>So I just think it was so photogenic. I guess,

0:18:55.160 --> 0:18:58.000
<v Speaker 5>if you will, just such a kind of textbook, quintessential

0:18:58.040 --> 0:19:00.760
<v Speaker 5>bribery case that it makes it easy to be a

0:19:00.760 --> 0:19:01.919
<v Speaker 5>little bit dramatic with it.

0:19:03.000 --> 0:19:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Tell me what you think of Menandez's explanation for the

0:19:07.000 --> 0:19:09.879
<v Speaker 1>nearly five hundred thousand dollars in cash he had in

0:19:09.920 --> 0:19:12.000
<v Speaker 1>the house for thirty years.

0:19:12.520 --> 0:19:16.080
<v Speaker 3>I have withdrawn thousands of dollars in cash from my

0:19:16.200 --> 0:19:20.800
<v Speaker 3>personal savings account, which I have kept for emergencies and

0:19:20.880 --> 0:19:24.760
<v Speaker 3>because of the history of my family facing confiscation in Cuba.

0:19:25.400 --> 0:19:28.959
<v Speaker 3>Now this may seem old fashioned, but these were moneys

0:19:29.040 --> 0:19:32.880
<v Speaker 3>drawn from my personal savings account based on the income

0:19:32.920 --> 0:19:36.800
<v Speaker 3>that I have lawfully derived over those thirty years.

0:19:37.440 --> 0:19:40.320
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, that's just silly. I mean, he's really just begging

0:19:40.359 --> 0:19:44.840
<v Speaker 5>them to do what would be called an unexplained wealth analysis, right, like, oh, really,

0:19:44.920 --> 0:19:48.119
<v Speaker 5>that's all his legitimate money from his paychecks. All right, Well,

0:19:48.200 --> 0:19:50.480
<v Speaker 5>let's look at what his paychecks are and what other

0:19:50.600 --> 0:19:53.600
<v Speaker 5>means he has. I mean, is he independently wealthy? Does

0:19:53.640 --> 0:19:57.040
<v Speaker 5>he have major investments that he converted to cash? You know,

0:19:57.119 --> 0:19:59.760
<v Speaker 5>what is the explanation for having that kind of cash

0:19:59.760 --> 0:20:01.720
<v Speaker 5>in the first place when you look at his bank

0:20:01.720 --> 0:20:03.960
<v Speaker 5>accounts and how much money he makes being a senator.

0:20:04.359 --> 0:20:06.359
<v Speaker 5>And I don't think it's going to stack up. So

0:20:06.720 --> 0:20:09.879
<v Speaker 5>I doubt that that defense, well he kind of offered

0:20:09.880 --> 0:20:12.040
<v Speaker 5>it in the first instance, is going to make its

0:20:12.119 --> 0:20:14.800
<v Speaker 5>way into the trial. I think that they'll have to

0:20:14.840 --> 0:20:17.439
<v Speaker 5>focus on other things if they end up actually taking

0:20:17.480 --> 0:20:18.040
<v Speaker 5>this to trial.

0:20:18.359 --> 0:20:20.920
<v Speaker 1>So what struck me? And you know, maybe this happens

0:20:20.920 --> 0:20:24.600
<v Speaker 1>more often than I know, But how often do the

0:20:24.640 --> 0:20:28.959
<v Speaker 1>FEDS test money for fingerprints and DNA especially?

0:20:30.440 --> 0:20:30.680
<v Speaker 3>Yeah?

0:20:30.760 --> 0:20:33.679
<v Speaker 5>Not very often. Yeah, I understand that there was some

0:20:33.880 --> 0:20:36.720
<v Speaker 5>DNA sound on I think on an envelope that some

0:20:36.840 --> 0:20:39.040
<v Speaker 5>of the money was in. You know, it's not a

0:20:39.080 --> 0:20:43.359
<v Speaker 5>great conductor of fingerprints. You know, metal and other surfaces

0:20:43.400 --> 0:20:46.240
<v Speaker 5>are much better. But you really do want to try

0:20:46.280 --> 0:20:49.960
<v Speaker 5>if you can to establish the connection between the bribes

0:20:50.040 --> 0:20:52.359
<v Speaker 5>and the people who were giving the bribes. So in

0:20:52.400 --> 0:20:54.640
<v Speaker 5>this case, it makes sense to test if you think

0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:58.040
<v Speaker 5>you can get something like fingerprints, and it worked. They

0:20:58.040 --> 0:21:01.560
<v Speaker 5>were able to establish a link between that particular bunch

0:21:01.600 --> 0:21:04.280
<v Speaker 5>of money and one of the business men who was

0:21:04.320 --> 0:21:06.959
<v Speaker 5>one of the bribe wars and co defendants, so it

0:21:07.000 --> 0:21:07.560
<v Speaker 5>worked for them.

0:21:07.960 --> 0:21:10.640
<v Speaker 1>Is the toughest part of this case for the prosecution

0:21:10.840 --> 0:21:12.640
<v Speaker 1>to prove the quid pro quo.

0:21:13.280 --> 0:21:16.000
<v Speaker 5>I think actually in this case. I mean that often

0:21:16.160 --> 0:21:18.560
<v Speaker 5>is the toughest I think in this case because they

0:21:18.600 --> 0:21:21.800
<v Speaker 5>have such a wealth of evidence with the text that

0:21:22.200 --> 0:21:25.359
<v Speaker 5>they recovered that they I think did a wire tap

0:21:25.440 --> 0:21:27.880
<v Speaker 5>on that really sets out the scheme in the back

0:21:27.880 --> 0:21:30.520
<v Speaker 5>and forth. So I think the most challenging thing in

0:21:30.560 --> 0:21:34.119
<v Speaker 5>this case is actually proving the official acts that the

0:21:34.160 --> 0:21:37.919
<v Speaker 5>things that Menendez did and promised to do for the

0:21:37.960 --> 0:21:41.720
<v Speaker 5>bribe Wars his co defendants were actually technically official acts.

0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:44.879
<v Speaker 5>Because over the years, the last ten or so years,

0:21:44.880 --> 0:21:47.879
<v Speaker 5>the Supreme Court really has narrowed what that means to

0:21:47.960 --> 0:21:51.119
<v Speaker 5>be an official act, and we don't yet exactly know

0:21:51.200 --> 0:21:54.440
<v Speaker 5>the outside contours of that because you know, every time

0:21:54.480 --> 0:21:57.480
<v Speaker 5>you litigate one of these cases and the Supreme Court

0:21:57.520 --> 0:21:59.760
<v Speaker 5>speaks on it, then you kind of know on that

0:21:59.800 --> 0:22:02.600
<v Speaker 5>particular set of facts. So you know whether or not

0:22:02.760 --> 0:22:05.199
<v Speaker 5>every single thing that Menendez did and agreed to do

0:22:05.359 --> 0:22:08.920
<v Speaker 5>will be ultimately deemed an official act under the Supreme

0:22:09.000 --> 0:22:13.040
<v Speaker 5>Court's version of that is undetermined. I still think they

0:22:13.040 --> 0:22:15.040
<v Speaker 5>have a strong case. I think many of the actions

0:22:15.080 --> 0:22:17.439
<v Speaker 5>are clearly official acts. But that's where it gets a

0:22:17.680 --> 0:22:20.880
<v Speaker 5>little bit muddy on the edges about what they can

0:22:20.880 --> 0:22:21.920
<v Speaker 5>try to challenge.

0:22:22.200 --> 0:22:26.720
<v Speaker 1>So he's also accused of giving Egyptian officials highly sensitive information.

0:22:27.520 --> 0:22:31.080
<v Speaker 1>Is that part of the charges or is that just background?

0:22:32.119 --> 0:22:35.440
<v Speaker 5>So that's a really interesting piece of this. They did

0:22:35.520 --> 0:22:39.480
<v Speaker 5>not charge him with being a foreign agent or anything

0:22:39.960 --> 0:22:42.879
<v Speaker 5>that would require them to prove that he basically was

0:22:42.960 --> 0:22:46.919
<v Speaker 5>acting and he just interests against the US's interests. It

0:22:47.000 --> 0:22:48.920
<v Speaker 5>is a piece of evidence in the bribery case because

0:22:48.920 --> 0:22:51.280
<v Speaker 5>it's one of the things that he did for them, right,

0:22:51.320 --> 0:22:54.840
<v Speaker 5>one of the things that he gave them was this information,

0:22:55.080 --> 0:22:57.879
<v Speaker 5>and they bribed him for it. They gave him money

0:22:57.960 --> 0:23:00.000
<v Speaker 5>or you know, whatever the case may be. In that particule,

0:23:00.000 --> 0:23:02.600
<v Speaker 5>regular instance, they give him a bribe for that information.

0:23:02.760 --> 0:23:05.160
<v Speaker 5>So it does come in. It's part of the bribery case,

0:23:05.200 --> 0:23:09.159
<v Speaker 5>but it's not charged separately in terms of like a

0:23:09.200 --> 0:23:12.000
<v Speaker 5>foreign agent charge or anything like that. And I think

0:23:12.040 --> 0:23:16.399
<v Speaker 5>prosecutors were very smart about that, because charging that kind

0:23:16.560 --> 0:23:21.960
<v Speaker 5>of case leads to all sorts of complications with classified information,

0:23:22.560 --> 0:23:26.040
<v Speaker 5>makes discovery more complicated, makes the trial more complicated. They

0:23:26.160 --> 0:23:31.200
<v Speaker 5>charged it just lean and mean, just the bribery, very strong, unclassified,

0:23:31.359 --> 0:23:33.760
<v Speaker 5>easy to do discovery, easy to do the trial if

0:23:33.800 --> 0:23:35.480
<v Speaker 5>it comes to that. So I think that was a

0:23:35.480 --> 0:23:36.880
<v Speaker 5>wise strategic decision.

0:23:37.280 --> 0:23:40.680
<v Speaker 1>Do you think the Justice Department learned from the last

0:23:40.720 --> 0:23:44.000
<v Speaker 1>trial and didn't want the same thing to happen twice.

0:23:45.080 --> 0:23:48.480
<v Speaker 5>Well, it's a different group of prosecutors. This prosecution is

0:23:48.480 --> 0:23:51.600
<v Speaker 5>out of the Manhattan US Attorney's Office. The other one

0:23:51.640 --> 0:23:54.399
<v Speaker 5>was out of Main Justice, So it's not the same people.

0:23:54.440 --> 0:23:57.800
<v Speaker 5>But sure every time you see a case falter, you

0:23:58.240 --> 0:24:01.760
<v Speaker 5>learn from that experience and you know the thing is

0:24:01.840 --> 0:24:05.000
<v Speaker 5>here is really just a completely separate set of facts.

0:24:05.040 --> 0:24:09.360
<v Speaker 5>You know, last time the charges involved someone allegedly bribing Menendez,

0:24:09.359 --> 0:24:12.080
<v Speaker 5>who was a close personal friend, and ultimately I think

0:24:12.160 --> 0:24:15.720
<v Speaker 5>the jurors couldn't figure out whether the official accidne were

0:24:15.800 --> 0:24:18.240
<v Speaker 5>because of the bribes or because of the friendship here,

0:24:18.520 --> 0:24:21.920
<v Speaker 5>there's no relationship like that. This was purely transactional. It's

0:24:21.920 --> 0:24:23.760
<v Speaker 5>all laid out there in the text, so they don't

0:24:23.800 --> 0:24:26.800
<v Speaker 5>have the same challenges. But yeah, I mean, anytime you

0:24:27.320 --> 0:24:29.719
<v Speaker 5>have a loss, hopefully you learn something from it.

0:24:29.960 --> 0:24:33.360
<v Speaker 1>Why is a Manhattan US attorney bringing this And how

0:24:33.400 --> 0:24:36.480
<v Speaker 1>much of a disadvantage is that for Menandez not having

0:24:36.520 --> 0:24:39.280
<v Speaker 1>a sort of a home court advantage.

0:24:39.560 --> 0:24:42.520
<v Speaker 5>Well, I don't exactly know. I mean, it would depend

0:24:42.520 --> 0:24:46.600
<v Speaker 5>in part on which FBI office started the investigation. You know,

0:24:46.680 --> 0:24:49.880
<v Speaker 5>what they learned first that kind of triggered the case

0:24:49.920 --> 0:24:53.760
<v Speaker 5>for them to trigger the investigation. You know, sometimes there

0:24:53.760 --> 0:24:56.840
<v Speaker 5>are multiple offices involved, and then the Department of Justice

0:24:56.960 --> 0:24:59.240
<v Speaker 5>main Justice will decide who gets it. So it's hard

0:24:59.280 --> 0:25:01.800
<v Speaker 5>to know. You know, they obviously will have to have

0:25:01.920 --> 0:25:05.000
<v Speaker 5>some ties to Manhattan or else they wouldn't have venue.

0:25:05.320 --> 0:25:08.280
<v Speaker 5>But it's not exactly clear. And I mean, I think

0:25:08.280 --> 0:25:11.480
<v Speaker 5>he probably would prefer to be in New Jersey because

0:25:11.760 --> 0:25:14.880
<v Speaker 5>you know, those are his constituents. But you know, at

0:25:14.880 --> 0:25:18.560
<v Speaker 5>the end of the day, everybody knows Bob Menendez. I

0:25:18.600 --> 0:25:21.320
<v Speaker 5>don't know that he would get a better jury in

0:25:21.359 --> 0:25:24.720
<v Speaker 5>New Jersey than he'll get in Manhattan. It's still if

0:25:24.760 --> 0:25:27.199
<v Speaker 5>you want to think about it politically, it's still a

0:25:27.320 --> 0:25:30.719
<v Speaker 5>very blue area. I guess if he's a Democratic senator,

0:25:30.720 --> 0:25:32.640
<v Speaker 5>and you may think that that helps them. Now, I'm

0:25:32.640 --> 0:25:35.600
<v Speaker 5>not exactly sure why I ended up there, but listen,

0:25:35.640 --> 0:25:37.679
<v Speaker 5>that's my old shop, and so I'm biased, but I

0:25:37.680 --> 0:25:40.520
<v Speaker 5>think they're the best prosecutors anywhere, So I think it's

0:25:40.760 --> 0:25:41.760
<v Speaker 5>a good thing that it did.

0:25:42.200 --> 0:25:45.960
<v Speaker 1>Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Jennifer Rogers

0:25:46.359 --> 0:25:49.400
<v Speaker 1>and we'll talk about what possible defenses Menendez may have.

0:25:49.960 --> 0:25:52.639
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Gross. When you're listening to Bloomberg, I've been

0:25:52.680 --> 0:25:56.520
<v Speaker 1>talking to former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers about the federal

0:25:56.640 --> 0:26:00.920
<v Speaker 1>charges against New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. For just explain

0:26:01.240 --> 0:26:05.119
<v Speaker 1>in a little more depth what happened during that twenty

0:26:05.160 --> 0:26:06.199
<v Speaker 1>seventeen trial.

0:26:06.800 --> 0:26:08.680
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, so there were a few things that happened.

0:26:09.000 --> 0:26:09.239
<v Speaker 1>You know.

0:26:09.320 --> 0:26:11.640
<v Speaker 5>First of all, as I said, there's been this kind

0:26:11.680 --> 0:26:14.400
<v Speaker 5>of ten year period where the Supreme Court has been

0:26:14.880 --> 0:26:17.960
<v Speaker 5>changing the law effectively in these public corruption cases, and

0:26:18.000 --> 0:26:21.160
<v Speaker 5>so prosecutors really have been at a disadvantage in terms

0:26:21.200 --> 0:26:24.200
<v Speaker 5>of figuring out what to charge, how to charge how

0:26:24.240 --> 0:26:27.120
<v Speaker 5>to ask for jury instructions and then crossing their fingers

0:26:27.119 --> 0:26:30.000
<v Speaker 5>that it would get all undone by the next public

0:26:30.000 --> 0:26:32.000
<v Speaker 5>corruption case that went up to the Supreme Court. So

0:26:32.359 --> 0:26:34.800
<v Speaker 5>some of that is kind of the uncertainty. But they

0:26:34.920 --> 0:26:38.320
<v Speaker 5>charged two kinds of bribes in that case. And this

0:26:38.440 --> 0:26:42.199
<v Speaker 5>basically is the relationship between the Senator Menendez and his

0:26:42.280 --> 0:26:46.919
<v Speaker 5>close personal friend and ophthalmologists from Florida, doctor Melgan. And

0:26:47.359 --> 0:26:50.399
<v Speaker 5>you know, they charged two kinds of bribes. They charged

0:26:50.440 --> 0:26:54.159
<v Speaker 5>campaign donations. And the challenge with campaign donations, if you

0:26:54.280 --> 0:26:56.840
<v Speaker 5>charge them and they are reported properly and so on,

0:26:56.960 --> 0:27:00.479
<v Speaker 5>is you have to prove an explicit quid problem that like,

0:27:00.760 --> 0:27:03.639
<v Speaker 5>I'm giving you these campaign donations in exchange for the

0:27:03.680 --> 0:27:07.400
<v Speaker 5>following official acts, right, which is virtually impossible to actually get.

0:27:08.160 --> 0:27:10.080
<v Speaker 5>So they had trouble with that one. They didn't have

0:27:10.160 --> 0:27:12.920
<v Speaker 5>that proof of trial. And then they charged a set

0:27:12.960 --> 0:27:15.960
<v Speaker 5>of bribes that were in the form of trips, basically

0:27:16.119 --> 0:27:20.199
<v Speaker 5>trips where doctor Melgan and Senator Menendez went together on

0:27:20.800 --> 0:27:24.600
<v Speaker 5>the private jet to the fancy home sometimes overseas, etc.

0:27:25.040 --> 0:27:28.800
<v Speaker 5>And those are deemed gifts to Menendez, right, he didn't

0:27:28.840 --> 0:27:32.199
<v Speaker 5>pay his friend doctor Melgan back for the expenses associated

0:27:32.240 --> 0:27:35.240
<v Speaker 5>with those trips. But the problem with that theory is

0:27:35.280 --> 0:27:37.120
<v Speaker 5>that I think a lot of the jurors thought, well,

0:27:37.600 --> 0:27:40.240
<v Speaker 5>how do we know that that's not because of the friendship.

0:27:40.240 --> 0:27:42.280
<v Speaker 5>I mean, if you had a really wealthy friend, maybe

0:27:42.280 --> 0:27:44.360
<v Speaker 5>that friend would spring for you to go on vacation

0:27:44.640 --> 0:27:47.680
<v Speaker 5>with him or her. Right, So they had trouble saying

0:27:48.080 --> 0:27:51.000
<v Speaker 5>that the things that Senator Menendez did for doctor Melgan,

0:27:51.119 --> 0:27:54.440
<v Speaker 5>and there were things, I mean, he did definitely try

0:27:54.480 --> 0:27:57.880
<v Speaker 5>to influence certain official actions on behalf of doctor Melgan.

0:27:58.000 --> 0:28:00.439
<v Speaker 5>Like that side of the case was okay, But the

0:28:00.520 --> 0:28:05.040
<v Speaker 5>question is we're the bribes actually in exchange for those benefits,

0:28:05.080 --> 0:28:06.679
<v Speaker 5>and that's where that case had trouble.

0:28:07.640 --> 0:28:10.200
<v Speaker 1>Can you see a defense that Menandez could raise.

0:28:11.160 --> 0:28:13.240
<v Speaker 5>The case is very strong, I think on all fronts.

0:28:13.560 --> 0:28:16.080
<v Speaker 5>The most likely place where they have a little bit

0:28:16.119 --> 0:28:19.400
<v Speaker 5>of wiggle room some arguments to make is the official

0:28:19.480 --> 0:28:23.640
<v Speaker 5>act piece of it, because it's not entirely clear the

0:28:23.720 --> 0:28:27.239
<v Speaker 5>outside limits of what an official act can be. We

0:28:27.359 --> 0:28:30.520
<v Speaker 5>know from the Supreme Court case the McDonald case about

0:28:30.520 --> 0:28:34.440
<v Speaker 5>the former Virginia governor that it has to be something governmental, right,

0:28:34.560 --> 0:28:37.960
<v Speaker 5>not just that you do because you're a senator, for example.

0:28:38.040 --> 0:28:41.240
<v Speaker 5>But it really goes to kind of a typical government function,

0:28:41.400 --> 0:28:44.680
<v Speaker 5>so passing a piece of legislation, holding up a piece

0:28:44.680 --> 0:28:48.640
<v Speaker 5>of legislation, doing an investigation in Congress like those are

0:28:48.640 --> 0:28:51.240
<v Speaker 5>the sorts of things that would definitely be seemed to

0:28:51.280 --> 0:28:54.680
<v Speaker 5>be an official act, but it's not one hundred percent

0:28:54.800 --> 0:28:58.320
<v Speaker 5>clear that other things to just using your influence would

0:28:58.400 --> 0:29:02.760
<v Speaker 5>necessarily clear that bar So they've charged him with or

0:29:02.800 --> 0:29:06.000
<v Speaker 5>they've mentioned in the indictment that he tried to influence

0:29:06.040 --> 0:29:09.760
<v Speaker 5>prosecutors in New Jersey about cases that his co defendants

0:29:09.760 --> 0:29:12.560
<v Speaker 5>were interested in. They said he tried to influence an

0:29:12.560 --> 0:29:15.480
<v Speaker 5>official at the US Department of Agriculture to help these

0:29:15.520 --> 0:29:19.240
<v Speaker 5>co defendants in a business that they wanted. Those sorts

0:29:19.240 --> 0:29:22.040
<v Speaker 5>of things are a little bit on the line, so,

0:29:22.600 --> 0:29:24.480
<v Speaker 5>you know, I think they could be deemed to be

0:29:24.520 --> 0:29:27.479
<v Speaker 5>official acts, but it's not one hundred percent clear. So

0:29:27.520 --> 0:29:31.120
<v Speaker 5>if I'm menndez a lawyers, That's where I'm probably going

0:29:31.200 --> 0:29:34.000
<v Speaker 5>to be looking and seeing if there are arguments to

0:29:34.040 --> 0:29:37.520
<v Speaker 5>make there for you know, those things maybe distasteful, but

0:29:37.640 --> 0:29:40.760
<v Speaker 5>are they technically official acts as far as the statute goes.

0:29:40.760 --> 0:29:41.920
<v Speaker 5>That's what I'd be looking for.

0:29:42.320 --> 0:29:44.640
<v Speaker 1>Do you think prosecutors are going to try to flip

0:29:45.000 --> 0:29:48.080
<v Speaker 1>some of the other defendants, not his wife, but the others.

0:29:49.240 --> 0:29:52.080
<v Speaker 5>They might, I assume would at least be open to

0:29:52.200 --> 0:29:55.840
<v Speaker 5>talking to those lawyers and those defendants about that issue.

0:29:55.880 --> 0:30:00.200
<v Speaker 5>I mean, you know, they have so many communications, they

0:30:00.240 --> 0:30:02.760
<v Speaker 5>have all these text messages, and so I don't know

0:30:02.800 --> 0:30:05.480
<v Speaker 5>that they need a cooperator in the way that you

0:30:05.640 --> 0:30:08.680
<v Speaker 5>often really want one in a case like this. That said,

0:30:08.720 --> 0:30:11.680
<v Speaker 5>prosecutors in my experience are always willing to listen to

0:30:11.760 --> 0:30:14.920
<v Speaker 5>a defendant who wants to come forward and say, here's

0:30:14.960 --> 0:30:18.120
<v Speaker 5>why I deserve a cooperation agreement. So I think they'll

0:30:18.120 --> 0:30:21.240
<v Speaker 5>probably listen to them and listen. If they can provide

0:30:21.600 --> 0:30:24.600
<v Speaker 5>evidence that they don't already have that will help them

0:30:24.640 --> 0:30:27.640
<v Speaker 5>with their case, they probably would sign one of them

0:30:27.680 --> 0:30:29.760
<v Speaker 5>up or two of them up, depending on you know

0:30:29.800 --> 0:30:30.640
<v Speaker 5>what the facts are.

0:30:31.120 --> 0:30:33.880
<v Speaker 1>Would all the defendants be tried together or do you

0:30:33.920 --> 0:30:37.720
<v Speaker 1>think Menandez might be able to get his trial severed.

0:30:38.160 --> 0:30:41.920
<v Speaker 5>I think they'll all be tried together. I mean, usually

0:30:42.080 --> 0:30:46.520
<v Speaker 5>to conserve resources, they try to keep cases like this together.

0:30:46.600 --> 0:30:49.200
<v Speaker 5>The only real reason he would have to try to

0:30:49.240 --> 0:30:52.760
<v Speaker 5>sever it is if there are defenses that conflict with

0:30:52.880 --> 0:30:55.600
<v Speaker 5>each other. You know, if there's no fair way to

0:30:55.640 --> 0:30:58.360
<v Speaker 5>try them together because they're pointing the finger at each

0:30:58.360 --> 0:31:01.920
<v Speaker 5>other in an antagonistic way, you know, that's where you

0:31:01.960 --> 0:31:05.520
<v Speaker 5>would see a problem with something like that. But you know,

0:31:05.720 --> 0:31:07.800
<v Speaker 5>I we'll have to see how it developed. I think

0:31:07.880 --> 0:31:11.040
<v Speaker 5>there's a you know, there's a presumption for keeping cases

0:31:11.080 --> 0:31:14.640
<v Speaker 5>like this together because obviously to try it twice, you know,

0:31:15.200 --> 0:31:17.840
<v Speaker 5>not to mention five times with five defendants, would be

0:31:18.000 --> 0:31:19.720
<v Speaker 5>just too much of a burden on the system.

0:31:20.360 --> 0:31:22.600
<v Speaker 1>So this is a bit of an opinion question. But

0:31:23.040 --> 0:31:27.240
<v Speaker 1>it seems like Senate Democrats have already tried and convicted

0:31:27.360 --> 0:31:30.560
<v Speaker 1>him just based on the allegations and the complaint. I'm

0:31:30.600 --> 0:31:33.560
<v Speaker 1>wondering if you think that's because the allegations are so

0:31:33.880 --> 0:31:37.600
<v Speaker 1>striking or just because it's politics.

0:31:38.280 --> 0:31:40.800
<v Speaker 5>You know, it's hard to know what they're all thinking.

0:31:40.840 --> 0:31:43.680
<v Speaker 5>As far as the political side. I will say there

0:31:43.760 --> 0:31:46.480
<v Speaker 5>might be a bit of fatigue with Senator Menendez because

0:31:46.480 --> 0:31:49.960
<v Speaker 5>we have been through this before, and even though he

0:31:50.160 --> 0:31:52.760
<v Speaker 5>ended up with a hung jury and not being convicted,

0:31:53.120 --> 0:31:57.240
<v Speaker 5>you know, there were clear ethical violations there the Senate

0:31:57.320 --> 0:32:00.480
<v Speaker 5>down So you know, here we go again, right on

0:32:00.520 --> 0:32:04.280
<v Speaker 5>the heels of the determination that he wouldn't be retried

0:32:04.440 --> 0:32:07.000
<v Speaker 5>on that case. He's you know, meeting up with these

0:32:07.000 --> 0:32:10.080
<v Speaker 5>people and starting a similar scheme all over again. I

0:32:10.120 --> 0:32:12.920
<v Speaker 5>also think that the nature of the evidence has explained

0:32:12.960 --> 0:32:15.760
<v Speaker 5>in the indictment is pretty black and white. It's not

0:32:15.840 --> 0:32:18.120
<v Speaker 5>as if they say, you know, in the indictment, we

0:32:18.200 --> 0:32:21.280
<v Speaker 5>have a cooperating witness c W one and the witness

0:32:21.280 --> 0:32:23.200
<v Speaker 5>says X, Y and Z, and you can think, well,

0:32:23.240 --> 0:32:26.720
<v Speaker 5>maybe the witness is lying, maybe his credibility problems. You know,

0:32:26.800 --> 0:32:30.640
<v Speaker 5>they have these communications, they are what they are, black

0:32:30.680 --> 0:32:33.440
<v Speaker 5>and white. There will be transcripts, so you know, I

0:32:33.440 --> 0:32:38.160
<v Speaker 5>think those things together probably suggest to these politicians that

0:32:38.400 --> 0:32:41.880
<v Speaker 5>there's not a lot of opportunity to wiggle out of this.

0:32:42.360 --> 0:32:46.000
<v Speaker 5>And you know, we'll see when the discovery gets turned over,

0:32:46.240 --> 0:32:49.880
<v Speaker 5>which should be pretty soon, whether Menendez comes off of

0:32:49.920 --> 0:32:52.680
<v Speaker 5>his claim that he won't resign and you know, is

0:32:52.720 --> 0:32:56.560
<v Speaker 5>going to surge forward. I think once he actually confirms

0:32:56.640 --> 0:32:59.360
<v Speaker 5>that what is in the indictment is accurate, he's probably

0:32:59.400 --> 0:33:01.680
<v Speaker 5>going to be talking to his lawyers about how to

0:33:01.720 --> 0:33:04.160
<v Speaker 5>try to mitigate this and look for some sort of

0:33:04.520 --> 0:33:06.880
<v Speaker 5>plea deal to a lesser offense or something like that.

0:33:07.560 --> 0:33:11.479
<v Speaker 1>You think that's possible that the prosecutors would agree to

0:33:11.520 --> 0:33:12.480
<v Speaker 1>a lesser offense.

0:33:13.480 --> 0:33:15.680
<v Speaker 5>Sure, sure, I mean the trick in a case like

0:33:15.720 --> 0:33:20.000
<v Speaker 5>this is finding one, honestly, because all three of these

0:33:20.160 --> 0:33:22.880
<v Speaker 5>offenses that they've charged are really just different ways to

0:33:22.960 --> 0:33:25.840
<v Speaker 5>charge bribery, and the sentencing guidelines are going to be

0:33:25.840 --> 0:33:27.960
<v Speaker 5>the same for all of them. So the trick would

0:33:28.000 --> 0:33:32.760
<v Speaker 5>be trying to find something with a lesser guidelines range.

0:33:32.840 --> 0:33:35.800
<v Speaker 5>But yeah, prosecutors are always looking to save resources by

0:33:35.840 --> 0:33:38.400
<v Speaker 5>pleading things out. And you know, when you have a case,

0:33:38.400 --> 0:33:41.640
<v Speaker 5>a public corruption case with a corrupt politician who is

0:33:41.720 --> 0:33:45.200
<v Speaker 5>still in office, prosecutors have an interest in getting that

0:33:45.240 --> 0:33:48.280
<v Speaker 5>person out of office. So if he comes in and says,

0:33:48.320 --> 0:33:51.320
<v Speaker 5>you know, listen, I'd like to take a plea, they're like, great, that,

0:33:51.520 --> 0:33:53.320
<v Speaker 5>you know, wraps up our case. We don't have to

0:33:53.680 --> 0:33:56.160
<v Speaker 5>do a long period of pre trial and then go

0:33:56.240 --> 0:33:58.880
<v Speaker 5>to trial. And if it includes a deal that he'll

0:33:58.920 --> 0:34:01.720
<v Speaker 5>resign all about, you know, he's he's out sooner than

0:34:01.760 --> 0:34:04.400
<v Speaker 5>he would otherwise be. So I'm sure prosecutors would be

0:34:04.440 --> 0:34:06.800
<v Speaker 5>willing to think about that. The question is, you know,

0:34:06.840 --> 0:34:09.319
<v Speaker 5>what can they find it would be agreeable to both

0:34:09.360 --> 0:34:10.600
<v Speaker 5>sides For him to plead.

0:34:10.400 --> 0:34:13.160
<v Speaker 1>To Do you think that any deal would have to

0:34:13.160 --> 0:34:14.120
<v Speaker 1>include jail time.

0:34:14.760 --> 0:34:17.319
<v Speaker 5>I don't know. Yeah, I don't know where prosecutors would

0:34:17.360 --> 0:34:19.480
<v Speaker 5>come out on that. You know, on the one hand,

0:34:20.000 --> 0:34:22.600
<v Speaker 5>he's on the older side, you know, is he I

0:34:22.640 --> 0:34:24.800
<v Speaker 5>was going to say, is a recidivus? I guess actually

0:34:24.840 --> 0:34:27.200
<v Speaker 5>if he is a recidivist, because we had the other

0:34:27.239 --> 0:34:28.640
<v Speaker 5>case and then this one on the heels of it.

0:34:28.680 --> 0:34:31.080
<v Speaker 5>But if he's removed from office, you know, the opportunity

0:34:31.120 --> 0:34:34.400
<v Speaker 5>for this sort of thing will be obviously significantly lessened.

0:34:35.120 --> 0:34:37.320
<v Speaker 5>So I'm not sure whether they would insist on something

0:34:37.800 --> 0:34:40.640
<v Speaker 5>with jail time. I mean, prosecutors never get to decide

0:34:40.640 --> 0:34:42.840
<v Speaker 5>the sentence anyway. Even if you agree on a range,

0:34:42.880 --> 0:34:45.239
<v Speaker 5>is ultimately up to the judge. So you know, I

0:34:45.280 --> 0:34:48.319
<v Speaker 5>certainly could see them picking a range that is low

0:34:48.400 --> 0:34:51.400
<v Speaker 5>enough that a judge might decide, you know, ultimately to

0:34:51.520 --> 0:34:54.000
<v Speaker 5>just give probation. But you know, they know the case

0:34:54.080 --> 0:34:57.680
<v Speaker 5>much better obviously than we all do from the outside,

0:34:57.760 --> 0:34:59.840
<v Speaker 5>So yeah, I'm not sure how they would view the

0:35:00.480 --> 0:35:03.600
<v Speaker 5>and decide, you know, what they think is the appropriate Then.

0:35:03.920 --> 0:35:08.000
<v Speaker 1>What's interesting is several people told Politico that after Friday's

0:35:08.040 --> 0:35:13.120
<v Speaker 1>indictment Menandez seemed emboldened almost. And I saw he was

0:35:13.200 --> 0:35:16.160
<v Speaker 1>being questioned by reporters yesterday as he was running through

0:35:16.200 --> 0:35:19.360
<v Speaker 1>the Senate halls, and he said, because I'm innocent, what's

0:35:19.400 --> 0:35:22.800
<v Speaker 1>wrong with you guys? But maybe when he sees the evidence.

0:35:23.840 --> 0:35:27.080
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, I mean he may just his knee jerk reaction

0:35:27.239 --> 0:35:29.680
<v Speaker 5>may have been, you know, I beat you before I

0:35:29.680 --> 0:35:33.080
<v Speaker 5>can beat you again, forget about it. But you know,

0:35:33.200 --> 0:35:35.840
<v Speaker 5>in the cold, sober light of day, when they have

0:35:36.000 --> 0:35:38.920
<v Speaker 5>the evidence, when he's sitting down with his lawyers, and

0:35:38.960 --> 0:35:41.839
<v Speaker 5>when they explain to him the differences between this case

0:35:41.880 --> 0:35:45.000
<v Speaker 5>and the prior case, you know, I suspect he won't

0:35:45.040 --> 0:35:47.960
<v Speaker 5>have so much bravado, at least in private. You know,

0:35:48.000 --> 0:35:51.600
<v Speaker 5>who knows what he'll continue to maintain in public. He's

0:35:51.680 --> 0:35:53.719
<v Speaker 5>kind of on the ropes politically, right with all of

0:35:53.719 --> 0:35:56.640
<v Speaker 5>these colleagues of him, of his calling for his resignation.

0:35:56.920 --> 0:35:59.560
<v Speaker 5>So maybe he feels like that's the face he has

0:35:59.640 --> 0:36:02.520
<v Speaker 5>to put on to fight that battle in this moment.

0:36:02.600 --> 0:36:05.719
<v Speaker 5>But you know, behind the scenes, I'm sure he'll be

0:36:05.840 --> 0:36:07.320
<v Speaker 5>more thoughtful about this case.

0:36:07.760 --> 0:36:09.440
<v Speaker 1>So always great to have you on, Jennifer and to

0:36:09.480 --> 0:36:13.799
<v Speaker 1>get your insights that's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers a

0:36:13.880 --> 0:36:17.160
<v Speaker 1>lecture in law at Columbia Law School. And that's it

0:36:17.200 --> 0:36:19.759
<v Speaker 1>for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

0:36:19.800 --> 0:36:22.280
<v Speaker 1>can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

0:36:22.360 --> 0:36:25.960
<v Speaker 1>Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:36:26.160 --> 0:36:31.200
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,

0:36:31.600 --> 0:36:34.200
<v Speaker 1>And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:36:34.239 --> 0:36:38.160
<v Speaker 1>weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

0:36:38.280 --> 0:36:39.880
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg