1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,680
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,920 --> 00:00:10,600
Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has revealed that his office

3
00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:14,200
Speaker 1: is two year investigation into President Trump may be far

4
00:00:14,320 --> 00:00:18,360
Speaker 1: broader than initially thought. In court papers, New York prosecutors

5
00:00:18,400 --> 00:00:22,280
Speaker 1: suggested they may be investigating potential bank and insurance fraud

6
00:00:22,280 --> 00:00:25,720
Speaker 1: by Trump and his company, citing news reports that Trump

7
00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:28,479
Speaker 1: illegally inflated his net worth and the value of his

8
00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:32,440
Speaker 1: properties to lenders and insurers. That's well beyond the focus

9
00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:36,280
Speaker 1: on hush money payments that Vance's office had previously acknowledged.

10
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:41,760
Speaker 1: Prosecutors cited public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal

11
00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:45,440
Speaker 1: conduct at the Trump organization to justify the subpoena for

12
00:00:45,479 --> 00:00:49,400
Speaker 1: Trump's financial records, asking the judge to throw out Trump's

13
00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:52,680
Speaker 1: latest effort to block the subpoena. Joining me as former

14
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:56,520
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardoza Law School.

15
00:00:57,320 --> 00:01:00,280
Speaker 1: Jessica what was revealed about the extent of and his

16
00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:04,959
Speaker 1: investigation in the papers filed this week? So District Attorney's

17
00:01:04,959 --> 00:01:08,400
Speaker 1: Avance confirmed in his latest filing that he is pursuing

18
00:01:08,440 --> 00:01:13,039
Speaker 1: a broad investigation into President Trump, his associates, and his

19
00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:16,960
Speaker 1: corporate entities. That's not consigned to the so called hush

20
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:20,800
Speaker 1: money payments made by Michael Cohen, and that that investigation

21
00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:24,679
Speaker 1: may include possible thank fraud and insurance fraud and other

22
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:28,119
Speaker 1: kinds of criminal conduct. That was not do however, I mean,

23
00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:31,959
Speaker 1: the district attorney has said in previous filings, including in

24
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:34,520
Speaker 1: his brief in the U. S. Supreme Court, that his

25
00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:40,240
Speaker 1: investigation involved business transactions involving multiple individuals and corporate entities,

26
00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:44,000
Speaker 1: and was based on information derived from various sources, and

27
00:01:44,080 --> 00:01:48,200
Speaker 1: that one of the aspects of the investigation related to

28
00:01:48,240 --> 00:01:51,160
Speaker 1: the so called hush money payment. But he has certainly

29
00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:54,960
Speaker 1: suggested in previous filing that the investigation went beyond the

30
00:01:55,040 --> 00:01:59,440
Speaker 1: hush money payment. The most recent filing confirms that is

31
00:01:59,680 --> 00:02:04,880
Speaker 1: the necessarily investigating those topics. Or could it's just have

32
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:08,880
Speaker 1: been a broad suggestion about what's out there. We don't

33
00:02:08,960 --> 00:02:12,440
Speaker 1: know for sure what he's investigating. What he has confirmed

34
00:02:12,800 --> 00:02:15,000
Speaker 1: only is the hush money payments by saying that that

35
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:18,320
Speaker 1: is one of the areas of his investigation. But you're

36
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:22,080
Speaker 1: right that he has not committed himself publicly to the

37
00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:26,280
Speaker 1: precise scope of the investigation for the matters within it,

38
00:02:26,320 --> 00:02:30,919
Speaker 1: and he has relied on publicly available sources of sort

39
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:36,440
Speaker 1: of leaves and reasons to justify an investigation into those areas,

40
00:02:36,440 --> 00:02:41,160
Speaker 1: but been very careful not to confirm any particular area

41
00:02:41,280 --> 00:02:45,640
Speaker 1: as being a subject of his investigation. There is a

42
00:02:45,760 --> 00:02:48,760
Speaker 1: declaration that one of his prosecutors had filed with the

43
00:02:48,880 --> 00:02:52,440
Speaker 1: District Court that is filed at least partly under seal.

44
00:02:53,040 --> 00:02:55,440
Speaker 1: That based on what's been said in the briefs and

45
00:02:55,520 --> 00:02:58,440
Speaker 1: in the District Court opinion, we know there are parts

46
00:02:58,520 --> 00:03:01,799
Speaker 1: of that declaration again that are under sealed that do

47
00:03:01,919 --> 00:03:05,720
Speaker 1: go in detail into the scope of the investigation. When

48
00:03:05,720 --> 00:03:08,920
Speaker 1: you're making your case before the Supreme Court, why not

49
00:03:09,080 --> 00:03:14,520
Speaker 1: reveal the entire extent of the investigation in order to

50
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:17,720
Speaker 1: sort of cover the extent of the subpoenas which is

51
00:03:17,760 --> 00:03:20,440
Speaker 1: pretty broad. Well, one reason has to do with grand

52
00:03:20,520 --> 00:03:24,359
Speaker 1: jury secrecy rules. So the district Attorney is bound by

53
00:03:24,800 --> 00:03:28,640
Speaker 1: New York law to keep secret matters occurring before the

54
00:03:28,720 --> 00:03:31,679
Speaker 1: grand jury, and so he has to be mindful of

55
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:35,880
Speaker 1: those laws and be very careful about revealing exactly what

56
00:03:35,960 --> 00:03:38,960
Speaker 1: he is putting before the grand jury. The hush money

57
00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:43,360
Speaker 1: payments and talking about the publicly available information about other

58
00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:46,320
Speaker 1: kinds of misconduct that's been alleged at the Trump organization.

59
00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:50,760
Speaker 1: Looking to those publicly available accounts sort of enables him

60
00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:54,640
Speaker 1: to talk about those subject areas without going into precisely

61
00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:57,800
Speaker 1: what's before the grand jury. So I think that's important,

62
00:03:58,040 --> 00:04:01,160
Speaker 1: and it also doesn't consign him by having committed in

63
00:04:01,200 --> 00:04:03,800
Speaker 1: any public way or in a representation to a court

64
00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:08,800
Speaker 1: to a precise scope of the investigation. Many people might think,

65
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:13,960
Speaker 1: after hearing the Supreme Court ruled on this in Civance's favor,

66
00:04:14,120 --> 00:04:17,240
Speaker 1: might think this will settle the matter. So tell us

67
00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court ruled on and why this is

68
00:04:19,920 --> 00:04:24,479
Speaker 1: still going on. So the Supreme Court ruled on some

69
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:28,600
Speaker 1: very important legal arguments, including whether the president of the

70
00:04:28,680 --> 00:04:34,640
Speaker 1: United States is absolutely immune from any investigation by a

71
00:04:34,760 --> 00:04:39,240
Speaker 1: state grand jury into conduct that involves him as a

72
00:04:39,279 --> 00:04:42,719
Speaker 1: private citizen from before he became president of the United States.

73
00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:46,479
Speaker 1: That was a very important and novel legal question. But

74
00:04:46,600 --> 00:04:48,920
Speaker 1: the court did not go further than that, so it

75
00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:52,680
Speaker 1: sent it back to the district court to consider specific

76
00:04:52,760 --> 00:04:57,839
Speaker 1: claim about why this particular subpoena was the kind of

77
00:04:57,839 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 1: subpoena that should not be in work the kinds of

78
00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:03,960
Speaker 1: arguments that any person who was subject to a subpoena

79
00:05:04,080 --> 00:05:06,760
Speaker 1: could make, even if they weren't president of the United States,

80
00:05:06,880 --> 00:05:10,719
Speaker 1: for example, that it is unduly burdensome to comply with

81
00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:14,120
Speaker 1: that it was based on that face on the part

82
00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:18,120
Speaker 1: of the prosecutor, that it is completely unrelated to any

83
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:21,560
Speaker 1: matter legitimately within the scope of the grand juries investigation.

84
00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:25,400
Speaker 1: So they're obviously a very hard burden to meet. And

85
00:05:25,520 --> 00:05:27,560
Speaker 1: in the case of the President of the United States,

86
00:05:27,680 --> 00:05:31,080
Speaker 1: Supreme Court also said, in considering whether or not the

87
00:05:31,120 --> 00:05:35,120
Speaker 1: subpoena was unduly burdensome, the district court could consider the

88
00:05:35,200 --> 00:05:39,599
Speaker 1: particular burdens on a sitting president, so if the compliance

89
00:05:39,640 --> 00:05:43,120
Speaker 1: with the subpoena would unduly interfere with his ability to

90
00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:46,280
Speaker 1: perform his duties as president of the United States. So

91
00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:50,360
Speaker 1: it's these kinds of particularized, specific claim that the Supreme

92
00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:53,720
Speaker 1: Court sent the case back to the district court to consider.

93
00:05:54,040 --> 00:05:57,440
Speaker 1: What are Trump's legal arguments in its latest effort to

94
00:05:57,440 --> 00:06:01,159
Speaker 1: block the subpoena. This time, he had has not made

95
00:06:01,160 --> 00:06:05,280
Speaker 1: those broad legal claims of immunity. He has focused on

96
00:06:05,320 --> 00:06:07,960
Speaker 1: the matters that the Supreme Court said he essentially should

97
00:06:08,000 --> 00:06:11,120
Speaker 1: focus on the District Court. But he has not put

98
00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:15,400
Speaker 1: forward much that's new that he had not previously included

99
00:06:15,480 --> 00:06:18,880
Speaker 1: in his papers. Beginning to question the subpoena, he's saying

100
00:06:18,920 --> 00:06:22,240
Speaker 1: again that it is the spinna is overbroad, that it

101
00:06:22,360 --> 00:06:25,120
Speaker 1: is issued in bad faith. And those were claims that

102
00:06:25,200 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 1: he made before. They just weren't considered by the Supreme Court,

103
00:06:28,440 --> 00:06:30,600
Speaker 1: but they were considered by the District Court the first

104
00:06:30,600 --> 00:06:33,520
Speaker 1: time around, in addition to the legal claim of immunity,

105
00:06:33,880 --> 00:06:35,839
Speaker 1: and that's the first time around. The district Court was

106
00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:39,680
Speaker 1: not very sympathetic to those arguments. The District Court found

107
00:06:39,720 --> 00:06:41,880
Speaker 1: no evidence of bad faith on the part of the

108
00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:46,640
Speaker 1: district attorney, did not find subpoenas were unduly burdensome. And

109
00:06:46,720 --> 00:06:49,120
Speaker 1: so the question, isn't there anything new that Trump is

110
00:06:49,120 --> 00:06:52,640
Speaker 1: saying this time around on any of those counts. I

111
00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:55,840
Speaker 1: don't see anything new in the amended complaints and the

112
00:06:55,920 --> 00:06:58,920
Speaker 1: new filing that suggests that Trump is going to fare

113
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:01,520
Speaker 1: better this time. And the District Court, well, that's what

114
00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:05,120
Speaker 1: struck me because the judge wrote a seventy five page

115
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:11,600
Speaker 1: opinion last October rejecting the president's claims, and it seems

116
00:07:11,640 --> 00:07:14,560
Speaker 1: as if there's nothing really new there that would lead

117
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:19,320
Speaker 1: him to rule differently. I did not see anything new either.

118
00:07:19,520 --> 00:07:22,400
Speaker 1: I think if if we're really looking for something arguably

119
00:07:22,520 --> 00:07:26,160
Speaker 1: new in the Trump filing this time around, I believe

120
00:07:26,240 --> 00:07:29,200
Speaker 1: it's new that he talked about the subpoena calling for

121
00:07:29,280 --> 00:07:32,360
Speaker 1: some information about entities outside of New York. I think

122
00:07:32,360 --> 00:07:34,720
Speaker 1: he may have said for the first time some conduct

123
00:07:34,800 --> 00:07:37,680
Speaker 1: within the scope of the subpoena or are arguably covered

124
00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:41,240
Speaker 1: by the materials requested in the subpoena. Maybe that's beyond

125
00:07:41,280 --> 00:07:44,360
Speaker 1: the Statute of Limitations. And the District Attorney responded to

126
00:07:44,400 --> 00:07:48,080
Speaker 1: those claims by saying that Trump is misunderstanding the scope

127
00:07:48,080 --> 00:07:51,440
Speaker 1: of New York jurisdiction and also misunderstanding the application of

128
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,160
Speaker 1: the Statute of Limitations in the case of an ongoing

129
00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:56,920
Speaker 1: course of conduct. So I think those may have been

130
00:07:56,960 --> 00:08:01,040
Speaker 1: some specific things that were new in the commended complaints,

131
00:08:01,200 --> 00:08:03,760
Speaker 1: but there really wasn't much that was new. One of

132
00:08:03,760 --> 00:08:07,680
Speaker 1: the arguments the District attorney is making is that if

133
00:08:07,680 --> 00:08:11,560
Speaker 1: this keeps playing out longer and longer, that the Statute

134
00:08:11,560 --> 00:08:15,040
Speaker 1: of Limitations could expire. But has he pointed to any

135
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:19,920
Speaker 1: specific statute that he's looking at that would expire. No,

136
00:08:20,280 --> 00:08:22,680
Speaker 1: I have not seen him do so. But that goes

137
00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:25,400
Speaker 1: back I think to part of our earlier conversation about

138
00:08:25,400 --> 00:08:28,200
Speaker 1: how he's been very careful not to commit to any

139
00:08:28,240 --> 00:08:34,079
Speaker 1: particular statutes or crimes that are the subject of his investigation. UM.

140
00:08:34,120 --> 00:08:36,880
Speaker 1: In general, in New York for felonies, it's a five

141
00:08:36,960 --> 00:08:40,680
Speaker 1: year statute of limitation, so he clearly would be concerned

142
00:08:40,760 --> 00:08:44,319
Speaker 1: I think about getting close to that next year. But again,

143
00:08:44,400 --> 00:08:47,760
Speaker 1: if the conduct were ongoing, that would extend the statute

144
00:08:47,760 --> 00:08:51,280
Speaker 1: of limitations, so they wouldn't start running until the last

145
00:08:51,320 --> 00:08:55,360
Speaker 1: acts that were part of that course of conduct had occurred. UM.

146
00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:59,080
Speaker 1: But I think he's raising that concern without pinning himself

147
00:08:59,120 --> 00:09:04,800
Speaker 1: down to any particular act committed by any particular individual

148
00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:08,680
Speaker 1: or entity, for any statute that is the focus of

149
00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:13,520
Speaker 1: his investigation. It seems that President Trump is just litigating, litigating,

150
00:09:13,559 --> 00:09:17,520
Speaker 1: litigating to run out the clock until the November election.

151
00:09:18,080 --> 00:09:20,199
Speaker 1: Is there any way that he will be able to

152
00:09:20,280 --> 00:09:23,839
Speaker 1: run out the clock in this case? Well, as you know,

153
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:29,840
Speaker 1: litigation is slow going and so UM. Even once this

154
00:09:29,920 --> 00:09:33,040
Speaker 1: case is decided again by the district Court, there is

155
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:35,920
Speaker 1: the prospect of an appeal to the second Circuit and

156
00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:39,319
Speaker 1: even potentially a petition to the U. S. Supreme Court.

157
00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:44,360
Speaker 1: Now advanced his signal that he is not inclined to

158
00:09:44,559 --> 00:09:48,600
Speaker 1: wait much longer in terms of seeking to enforce the subpoena,

159
00:09:48,679 --> 00:09:52,760
Speaker 1: and so if he prevails in the district court again,

160
00:09:53,280 --> 00:09:55,680
Speaker 1: I think the question going forward will be would any

161
00:09:55,720 --> 00:09:59,840
Speaker 1: court grant a stay of enforcement of the subpoena such

162
00:09:59,840 --> 00:10:03,320
Speaker 1: a he won't get the records within some reasonable period

163
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:06,280
Speaker 1: of time. To get a stay, you need to show

164
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:09,680
Speaker 1: usually some reasonable likelihood of success on the merit. This

165
00:10:09,800 --> 00:10:11,880
Speaker 1: does not I don't want to get too far ahead

166
00:10:11,880 --> 00:10:15,360
Speaker 1: of ourselves. If the district court rules advances favor for

167
00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:17,200
Speaker 1: many of the reasons we've been talking about how there

168
00:10:17,200 --> 00:10:19,840
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to be much new here, it seems like

169
00:10:20,040 --> 00:10:22,520
Speaker 1: Trump would be carrying a very high It would be

170
00:10:22,520 --> 00:10:25,280
Speaker 1: a hard burden for them to meet to show to

171
00:10:25,320 --> 00:10:27,840
Speaker 1: meet the standard necessary for a stay. So Vance may

172
00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:30,920
Speaker 1: will get the records within some reasonable period of times,

173
00:10:30,920 --> 00:10:33,640
Speaker 1: but again those will be subject to grand jury secrecy rules.

174
00:10:33,679 --> 00:10:37,240
Speaker 1: So he may be able to continue his investigation getting

175
00:10:37,240 --> 00:10:40,600
Speaker 1: those documents in some reasonable period of times, but those

176
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:44,280
Speaker 1: will not be available to the public for many, many months.

177
00:10:44,320 --> 00:10:48,000
Speaker 1: And that would only be if the district attorneys files

178
00:10:48,120 --> 00:10:53,400
Speaker 1: charges and then these documents become exhibits in a trial.

179
00:10:53,920 --> 00:10:57,640
Speaker 1: So we're many steps away from the prospect of the

180
00:10:57,800 --> 00:11:00,400
Speaker 1: documents and questions that have been the subject if all

181
00:11:00,440 --> 00:11:04,200
Speaker 1: of this litigation being available to the public. You mentioned

182
00:11:04,240 --> 00:11:07,760
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Would the Supreme Court ever take this

183
00:11:07,920 --> 00:11:12,280
Speaker 1: case again it after it ruled in the case. It

184
00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:15,960
Speaker 1: seems extremely unlikely to me that they would. We are

185
00:11:16,000 --> 00:11:19,240
Speaker 1: going to be talking about some very uh fact based,

186
00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:24,080
Speaker 1: specific rulings by the district Court that don't involve broad

187
00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:27,640
Speaker 1: legal principles like the first round of litigation here did.

188
00:11:28,000 --> 00:11:29,920
Speaker 1: So it seems to me that it be very very

189
00:11:30,000 --> 00:11:32,920
Speaker 1: unlikely that they would take it again after the district

190
00:11:33,080 --> 00:11:37,040
Speaker 1: judge makes his ruling. Does the Second Circuit have to

191
00:11:37,080 --> 00:11:40,480
Speaker 1: take the case again if it's a field, Yeah, so

192
00:11:40,559 --> 00:11:43,200
Speaker 1: appeal is of right to the Second Circuit, But that

193
00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:47,040
Speaker 1: doesn't mean the Second Circuit has to prolong it. They

194
00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:50,319
Speaker 1: can expedite the briefing. They can issue what's called a

195
00:11:50,360 --> 00:11:52,680
Speaker 1: summary order if they wish, as opposed to a full

196
00:11:52,760 --> 00:11:56,760
Speaker 1: lengthy opinion. So it's within their discretion to dispose of

197
00:11:56,840 --> 00:12:00,600
Speaker 1: the case in a summary way. On an expedited to schedule,

198
00:12:01,280 --> 00:12:03,720
Speaker 1: tell us about the papers that have to be filed

199
00:12:03,760 --> 00:12:07,000
Speaker 1: before the judge makes his ruling in this case. So

200
00:12:07,040 --> 00:12:10,360
Speaker 1: what remains to be done on remand um is Trump

201
00:12:10,400 --> 00:12:14,720
Speaker 1: will file a brief in opposition to District Attorney's Dance's

202
00:12:14,760 --> 00:12:18,920
Speaker 1: motion to dismiss the Trump complaint, and that deadline is

203
00:12:18,960 --> 00:12:22,280
Speaker 1: August ten. And then after that brief is filed by

204
00:12:22,280 --> 00:12:25,640
Speaker 1: President Trump, District Attorney's Dance has a few more days

205
00:12:25,720 --> 00:12:29,560
Speaker 1: until August fourteen to file a reply brief, and then

206
00:12:29,600 --> 00:12:32,280
Speaker 1: the case will be fully submitted before the District Court,

207
00:12:32,640 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 1: and the District Court would will rule when imagines he

208
00:12:35,440 --> 00:12:40,240
Speaker 1: will rule fairly expeditiously here um again because he has

209
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:44,440
Speaker 1: considered these issues before and ruled on them. So we

210
00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:48,400
Speaker 1: don't know an exact timeline. There's no statutory or other

211
00:12:48,480 --> 00:12:51,839
Speaker 1: requirement that he decided within any particular period of time,

212
00:12:52,280 --> 00:12:55,200
Speaker 1: but um, I imagine we would get a ruling fairly soon.

213
00:12:55,679 --> 00:12:58,000
Speaker 1: Thank you for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. A Jessica,

214
00:12:58,320 --> 00:13:02,520
Speaker 1: that's former federal prosecutor Jessica rob a professor at Cardozo

215
00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:07,800
Speaker 1: Law School. Judge Esther Salis is calling for more security

216
00:13:07,840 --> 00:13:11,080
Speaker 1: for federal judges after a shooter killed her son and

217
00:13:11,200 --> 00:13:14,440
Speaker 1: wounded her husband at their New Jersey home. The judge

218
00:13:14,480 --> 00:13:18,240
Speaker 1: posted an emotional video on YouTube on Monday, calling for

219
00:13:18,280 --> 00:13:21,920
Speaker 1: a national dialogue to find a solution to keeping federal

220
00:13:22,000 --> 00:13:27,480
Speaker 1: judges personal information like addresses off the internet. My family

221
00:13:27,520 --> 00:13:32,120
Speaker 1: has experienced a pain that no one should ever have

222
00:13:32,240 --> 00:13:37,160
Speaker 1: to endure, and I am here asking everyone to help

223
00:13:37,200 --> 00:13:40,600
Speaker 1: me ensure that no one ever has to experience this

224
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:44,520
Speaker 1: kind of pain. We may not be able to stop

225
00:13:44,880 --> 00:13:48,640
Speaker 1: something like this from happening again, but we can make

226
00:13:48,640 --> 00:13:52,720
Speaker 1: it hard for those who target us to track us down.

227
00:13:53,160 --> 00:13:57,040
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Madison Alder. Madison tell

228
00:13:57,120 --> 00:14:00,040
Speaker 1: us a little more about the judges video. So this

229
00:14:00,200 --> 00:14:03,320
Speaker 1: is really the first time Judge ester Sellis has come

230
00:14:03,360 --> 00:14:05,920
Speaker 1: out and spoken about the attack on her family and

231
00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:11,120
Speaker 1: the murder of her son. And it was a really emotional, um,

232
00:14:11,160 --> 00:14:15,760
Speaker 1: you know, nine minute long video where she is discussing

233
00:14:15,960 --> 00:14:19,280
Speaker 1: how the attack went down. Um, you know those moments,

234
00:14:19,280 --> 00:14:23,760
Speaker 1: those last few moments with her son. Uh, and um

235
00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:27,160
Speaker 1: she ends up having a call for action uh during

236
00:14:27,160 --> 00:14:31,240
Speaker 1: the video where she is really urging people in power

237
00:14:32,120 --> 00:14:36,560
Speaker 1: to make more an effort for more security for for

238
00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:39,240
Speaker 1: federal judges, and the form that she would like that

239
00:14:39,360 --> 00:14:43,920
Speaker 1: to take is more security for personal information that is

240
00:14:43,960 --> 00:14:49,160
Speaker 1: accessible online, like your address, like other information about you.

241
00:14:49,600 --> 00:14:52,600
Speaker 1: She says that you know, the shooter had a a

242
00:14:52,720 --> 00:14:56,920
Speaker 1: dossier on her and her family, UM that that they

243
00:14:57,040 --> 00:15:01,280
Speaker 1: used to track them down. Does she suggest any solution

244
00:15:01,360 --> 00:15:04,120
Speaker 1: because it seems like it would be really difficult in

245
00:15:04,160 --> 00:15:08,680
Speaker 1: this day and age to protect basic information about a person,

246
00:15:08,880 --> 00:15:12,600
Speaker 1: you know, whether a judge or layman. She since she

247
00:15:12,640 --> 00:15:14,840
Speaker 1: notes that, you know, she says that she's not really

248
00:15:14,880 --> 00:15:18,600
Speaker 1: sure how this could actually happen. UM, you know, she's

249
00:15:18,680 --> 00:15:21,600
Speaker 1: if this is a suggestion, but that that's something else

250
00:15:21,760 --> 00:15:25,560
Speaker 1: that was also mentioned to me by the former administrator

251
00:15:25,640 --> 00:15:28,800
Speaker 1: and chief Inspector of the U. S. Marshals Service that

252
00:15:28,920 --> 00:15:32,160
Speaker 1: the area that that deals specifically with judicial security. His

253
00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:35,480
Speaker 1: name is John Muffler, and he also said, um, in

254
00:15:35,600 --> 00:15:38,760
Speaker 1: you know, our conversation after the attack, that cyber the

255
00:15:38,800 --> 00:15:42,120
Speaker 1: cybral realm is the next area that um needs to

256
00:15:42,200 --> 00:15:44,960
Speaker 1: be protected for judges. And he too admitted that he's

257
00:15:45,000 --> 00:15:47,800
Speaker 1: not quite sure you know, where that would go from

258
00:15:47,880 --> 00:15:50,640
Speaker 1: here and what the roadblocks might be. UM, but it's

259
00:15:50,680 --> 00:15:52,880
Speaker 1: something that seems to be a consensus in the legal

260
00:15:52,920 --> 00:15:56,000
Speaker 1: community that this needs to be an area to look into.

261
00:15:57,360 --> 00:16:01,280
Speaker 1: The last time it seems that there was a move

262
00:16:01,560 --> 00:16:06,680
Speaker 1: to protect judges was two thousand five. Tell us what

263
00:16:06,840 --> 00:16:12,560
Speaker 1: happened then. So in two thousands five, UM Judge Joan

264
00:16:12,680 --> 00:16:17,920
Speaker 1: Humphrey left Coo. UH. She had her family was attacked, targeted,

265
00:16:17,960 --> 00:16:24,000
Speaker 1: and and murdered and UH. Congress responded to that event

266
00:16:24,320 --> 00:16:29,000
Speaker 1: by proving a twelve million dollars to fund the installation

267
00:16:29,240 --> 00:16:34,680
Speaker 1: and upkeep of home security systems for federal judges. UH.

268
00:16:34,800 --> 00:16:38,480
Speaker 1: And that that it kind of created a foundation for

269
00:16:38,520 --> 00:16:43,560
Speaker 1: that kind of security system. So it's not completely unprecedented

270
00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:48,800
Speaker 1: that Congress has taken action before and and further protected

271
00:16:48,840 --> 00:16:54,600
Speaker 1: federal judges after an attack like this. Turning to another topic,

272
00:16:55,280 --> 00:16:59,800
Speaker 1: so all thirteen federal appeals courts are live streaming oral

273
00:17:00,080 --> 00:17:03,720
Speaker 1: arguments compared to four prior to the pandemic. How has

274
00:17:03,760 --> 00:17:06,879
Speaker 1: that been going and is it live stream video or

275
00:17:06,920 --> 00:17:10,680
Speaker 1: just live stream audio? So it's been going, well, it's

276
00:17:10,720 --> 00:17:13,280
Speaker 1: just live stream audio for now, very similar to the

277
00:17:13,280 --> 00:17:16,640
Speaker 1: way that the Supreme Court did it very famously during

278
00:17:16,680 --> 00:17:20,439
Speaker 1: this term allowed public access via live stream for the

279
00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:23,320
Speaker 1: first time. Other courts are are doing that same thing.

280
00:17:23,640 --> 00:17:26,919
Speaker 1: And before the pandemic there were only two doing it

281
00:17:26,960 --> 00:17:30,520
Speaker 1: regularly and then to others that did it occasionally. Um.

282
00:17:30,520 --> 00:17:32,399
Speaker 1: The two that did a regularly are the d C

283
00:17:32,560 --> 00:17:35,160
Speaker 1: Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit provides video

284
00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:37,960
Speaker 1: on a regular basis. UM. But most of the ones

285
00:17:38,000 --> 00:17:40,560
Speaker 1: that have added it during the pandemic are you know,

286
00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:43,520
Speaker 1: they've got a call in line. They have a live

287
00:17:43,600 --> 00:17:47,200
Speaker 1: stream on YouTube that's available during the argument only, UM,

288
00:17:47,320 --> 00:17:50,119
Speaker 1: and then it's you know, removed later and stored for

289
00:17:50,760 --> 00:17:54,080
Speaker 1: access on the website at a later date. But these

290
00:17:54,119 --> 00:17:58,560
Speaker 1: live streams are allowing public access to these proceedings in

291
00:17:58,960 --> 00:18:01,200
Speaker 1: a more widespread way I think that we've ever seen,

292
00:18:01,800 --> 00:18:05,000
Speaker 1: and advocates told us this is something that they would

293
00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:10,240
Speaker 1: like to see going forward. Uh. You know, even Elizabeth Perette,

294
00:18:10,240 --> 00:18:13,440
Speaker 1: who is the Circuit executive for the DC Circuit. Uh,

295
00:18:13,720 --> 00:18:16,960
Speaker 1: she told me that, uh, there's an expectation now that

296
00:18:16,960 --> 00:18:19,680
Speaker 1: if you can do it, why not do it? Uh.

297
00:18:19,760 --> 00:18:22,560
Speaker 1: So that's the question that I think that these appeals

298
00:18:22,600 --> 00:18:24,879
Speaker 1: courts are going to have to answer when when the

299
00:18:24,880 --> 00:18:29,080
Speaker 1: pandemic comes to a close whenever that maybe, uh, if

300
00:18:29,119 --> 00:18:31,560
Speaker 1: you can do this in the first place, Why why

301
00:18:31,600 --> 00:18:35,320
Speaker 1: would you eliminate it any idea of the numbers for

302
00:18:35,480 --> 00:18:38,800
Speaker 1: some of the bigger arguments. So we actually have seen

303
00:18:39,320 --> 00:18:42,400
Speaker 1: a few numbers from different courts during this time period,

304
00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:46,439
Speaker 1: and the d C Circuit in June had two pretty

305
00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:49,640
Speaker 1: major arguments, one involving Hillary Clinton's emails and the other

306
00:18:49,640 --> 00:18:53,520
Speaker 1: one involving drump national security advisor Michael Flynn, and those

307
00:18:53,560 --> 00:18:58,000
Speaker 1: attracted eighty nine thousand and nine two thousand listeners respectively.

308
00:18:58,400 --> 00:19:00,840
Speaker 1: That's compared to about two thou in the three thousand

309
00:19:00,840 --> 00:19:04,399
Speaker 1: listeners that would listen to big cases before the pandemic. Remember,

310
00:19:04,560 --> 00:19:06,359
Speaker 1: the DC Circuit was one of the courts that have

311
00:19:06,600 --> 00:19:11,240
Speaker 1: this access before the pandemic, So that engagement is something

312
00:19:11,560 --> 00:19:15,600
Speaker 1: that the d C Circuit is is saying might actually

313
00:19:15,880 --> 00:19:18,840
Speaker 1: uh carry over to after the pandemic, that people might

314
00:19:18,880 --> 00:19:22,160
Speaker 1: be interested in these kinds of proceedings now that they

315
00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:26,360
Speaker 1: know that this access is available and that courts can

316
00:19:26,440 --> 00:19:31,199
Speaker 1: do this. Have any of the circuit courts actually committed

317
00:19:31,320 --> 00:19:34,840
Speaker 1: to continuing this after the pandemic besides the ones that

318
00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:38,000
Speaker 1: are already doing it. No court is really committed to

319
00:19:38,040 --> 00:19:41,719
Speaker 1: continuing it after the pandemic. So far, but they're not

320
00:19:41,760 --> 00:19:44,520
Speaker 1: saying no, they are they are thinking about this. Um.

321
00:19:44,560 --> 00:19:47,280
Speaker 1: You know, we talked to eight of the thirteen appeals

322
00:19:47,320 --> 00:19:51,800
Speaker 1: courts and we got various responses, you know, saying that

323
00:19:51,840 --> 00:19:54,320
Speaker 1: they'll look into this after the pandemic, that it's something

324
00:19:54,320 --> 00:19:56,880
Speaker 1: that they're thinking about, that it is something that all

325
00:19:57,000 --> 00:19:59,720
Speaker 1: the judges will have to have a discussion on. They'll

326
00:19:59,720 --> 00:20:02,480
Speaker 1: be the one is ultimately making the decision here, but

327
00:20:02,720 --> 00:20:05,440
Speaker 1: it's not off the table. It's something that while there

328
00:20:05,560 --> 00:20:08,679
Speaker 1: might not be a court saying yes, for sure, we

329
00:20:08,760 --> 00:20:11,399
Speaker 1: will do this out of the pandemic, it's certainly something

330
00:20:11,440 --> 00:20:13,920
Speaker 1: that's on our minds. We all know about the Supreme

331
00:20:13,920 --> 00:20:16,560
Speaker 1: Court oral arguments and how that went, which really most

332
00:20:16,600 --> 00:20:18,879
Speaker 1: people say it was good, except for the one the

333
00:20:18,960 --> 00:20:23,159
Speaker 1: toilet flush that was heard around the country. So is

334
00:20:23,160 --> 00:20:28,560
Speaker 1: its Supreme Court likely to continue with the oral arguments

335
00:20:28,680 --> 00:20:34,200
Speaker 1: live streaming audio or perhaps even video again, I think

336
00:20:34,200 --> 00:20:36,600
Speaker 1: it's like the the appeal of courts, that is hard

337
00:20:36,720 --> 00:20:39,679
Speaker 1: to to know for sure right now. It's something that

338
00:20:39,760 --> 00:20:43,359
Speaker 1: has a lot of support from both advocates of court access.

339
00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:46,560
Speaker 1: People in the legal community really want to see this

340
00:20:46,720 --> 00:20:50,240
Speaker 1: access going forward, But it's a decision that ultimately the

341
00:20:50,240 --> 00:20:52,760
Speaker 1: courts are going to have to make. And the courts

342
00:20:52,760 --> 00:20:57,680
Speaker 1: are really an institution that is slightly adverse to modernization.

343
00:20:57,840 --> 00:21:01,359
Speaker 1: And this pandemic has really forced not just the Supreme Court,

344
00:21:01,400 --> 00:21:05,479
Speaker 1: but even all of the lower courts to confront uh

345
00:21:05,520 --> 00:21:09,920
Speaker 1: that uh, that tendency to to not want to modernize.

346
00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:14,960
Speaker 1: And uh, they've they've adopted these procedures both in the

347
00:21:15,119 --> 00:21:21,159
Speaker 1: use of virtual teleconference saying and live streaming audio and

348
00:21:21,280 --> 00:21:25,600
Speaker 1: working remotely that uh, they they might not have beforehand.

349
00:21:25,640 --> 00:21:28,520
Speaker 1: And it's really forced the courts into a new era.

350
00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:32,280
Speaker 1: Uh And and maybe we'll see some of that going forward.

351
00:21:32,720 --> 00:21:36,439
Speaker 1: Of course, the Supreme Court justices seem almost uniformly to

352
00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:41,240
Speaker 1: be against cameras in the Supreme Court, and even some

353
00:21:41,359 --> 00:21:45,640
Speaker 1: of them, for example, Justice Elena Kagan, during the confirmation hearings,

354
00:21:45,640 --> 00:21:48,560
Speaker 1: they say, oh, yes, I'm open to cameras, but then

355
00:21:48,600 --> 00:21:51,000
Speaker 1: as soon as they get on the bench, they're not

356
00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:53,960
Speaker 1: open to cameras anymore. So it seems like cameras might

357
00:21:54,080 --> 00:21:57,880
Speaker 1: might take a while at least at the Supreme Court. Right.

358
00:21:57,960 --> 00:22:01,360
Speaker 1: I think I think the cameras, uh, you know, are

359
00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:05,160
Speaker 1: a sensitive subject to just because for for judges they

360
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:08,800
Speaker 1: don't want uh these they don't want the hearings. They

361
00:22:08,800 --> 00:22:12,439
Speaker 1: don't want the legal process to become too much of

362
00:22:13,000 --> 00:22:17,280
Speaker 1: uh you know, reality television. Um. And and I think

363
00:22:17,320 --> 00:22:20,760
Speaker 1: that is the fear among judges and and maybe among

364
00:22:20,760 --> 00:22:25,439
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court justices that that that uh, that that

365
00:22:25,440 --> 00:22:29,800
Speaker 1: would happen if if cameras were adopted in the courtroom. Uh,

366
00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:33,440
Speaker 1: you know. But but advocates, you know, conversely, say that

367
00:22:33,440 --> 00:22:37,360
Speaker 1: that kind of an access is you know, it beneficial

368
00:22:37,440 --> 00:22:40,800
Speaker 1: to people who wouldn't be able to come to the

369
00:22:40,800 --> 00:22:43,640
Speaker 1: court in the first place. You know, the Supreme Court. Uh,

370
00:22:43,840 --> 00:22:46,840
Speaker 1: people line up overnight to to just go in and

371
00:22:46,880 --> 00:22:49,119
Speaker 1: be able to see the justices in action. There's a

372
00:22:49,160 --> 00:22:52,159
Speaker 1: limited number of seats in there. I've sat in there before.

373
00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:55,920
Speaker 1: It is fairly crowded. So I think advocates are are

374
00:22:55,960 --> 00:22:58,679
Speaker 1: just looking for more people to be able to experience

375
00:22:58,720 --> 00:23:02,000
Speaker 1: that part of the legal system. I have any trial courts,

376
00:23:02,359 --> 00:23:05,960
Speaker 1: federal trial courts, let's say, done streaming or is it

377
00:23:06,040 --> 00:23:10,240
Speaker 1: just the appellate courts? So trial courts are doing some

378
00:23:10,680 --> 00:23:14,000
Speaker 1: uh some live streaming, yes, with some kinds of arguments,

379
00:23:14,000 --> 00:23:17,280
Speaker 1: and state courts are as well. Um, A couple of

380
00:23:17,280 --> 00:23:20,240
Speaker 1: state courts have actually reported an uptick in their engagement.

381
00:23:20,280 --> 00:23:24,760
Speaker 1: To Hawaii Supreme Court did its first level ever remote

382
00:23:24,840 --> 00:23:29,000
Speaker 1: oral arguments over a water rights case. Uh and and

383
00:23:29,080 --> 00:23:32,480
Speaker 1: that was something that people were able to tune into

384
00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:35,520
Speaker 1: and uh you know, be a part of that process

385
00:23:35,600 --> 00:23:38,520
Speaker 1: during the pandemic. And then the Michigan Court of Claims

386
00:23:39,040 --> 00:23:43,439
Speaker 1: had a hearing uh in relation to the governor's emergency

387
00:23:43,480 --> 00:23:47,240
Speaker 1: powers and and that had almost fifty thousand views according

388
00:23:47,280 --> 00:23:50,840
Speaker 1: to that court. Um. So we're seeing this engagement spread

389
00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:54,960
Speaker 1: across the country in these areas where cases have adopted

390
00:23:54,960 --> 00:23:58,720
Speaker 1: live streaming. Turning to another get another topic. I want

391
00:23:58,720 --> 00:24:02,879
Speaker 1: to talk about the reading commissions to vet judicial picks

392
00:24:02,960 --> 00:24:06,480
Speaker 1: because first of all, tell us what what these screening

393
00:24:06,520 --> 00:24:11,880
Speaker 1: commissions are, what they do. So, screening commissions are something

394
00:24:12,080 --> 00:24:16,159
Speaker 1: that a senator can establish to help them vet nominees

395
00:24:16,960 --> 00:24:18,760
Speaker 1: that they might be able to forward to the White

396
00:24:18,760 --> 00:24:23,680
Speaker 1: House and the President will then nominate for a judge ship. Um.

397
00:24:23,800 --> 00:24:27,240
Speaker 1: They have long been used in this process as a

398
00:24:27,240 --> 00:24:30,359
Speaker 1: way for senators to find a pick that they and

399
00:24:30,440 --> 00:24:33,159
Speaker 1: the White House might be able to agree on and

400
00:24:33,320 --> 00:24:36,639
Speaker 1: is someone that is a good candidate who has the

401
00:24:36,680 --> 00:24:40,360
Speaker 1: respect of the legal community. Oftentimes these committees are made

402
00:24:40,440 --> 00:24:43,960
Speaker 1: up of lawyers and and others in the legal community

403
00:24:44,000 --> 00:24:49,040
Speaker 1: who might be able to identify and and that these candidates. Um,

404
00:24:49,200 --> 00:24:53,480
Speaker 1: these these committees can take different forms. Um, they can,

405
00:24:53,760 --> 00:24:56,879
Speaker 1: they can be varying sizes. Uh, it's really up to

406
00:24:56,920 --> 00:25:01,920
Speaker 1: the senator's discretion. But race cly Uh. There have been

407
00:25:01,960 --> 00:25:04,440
Speaker 1: a few groups that have taken a look at these

408
00:25:04,480 --> 00:25:07,440
Speaker 1: committees and and said, you know, we don't want these

409
00:25:07,440 --> 00:25:11,840
Speaker 1: in the process anymore, uh, because they don't produce the

410
00:25:11,880 --> 00:25:14,080
Speaker 1: type of nominee that we would like to see and

411
00:25:14,160 --> 00:25:17,600
Speaker 1: in terms of diversity, uh, and you know, in in

412
00:25:17,680 --> 00:25:23,639
Speaker 1: terms of of of ideology. So um, these groups including

413
00:25:23,680 --> 00:25:28,920
Speaker 1: Demand Justice, Alliance for Justice, liberal think tank People's Policy

414
00:25:28,960 --> 00:25:34,280
Speaker 1: Project are are taking a look at these committees and uh,

415
00:25:34,320 --> 00:25:37,880
Speaker 1: you know, it's something that could potentially be the next

416
00:25:37,920 --> 00:25:43,400
Speaker 1: casualty we're seeing in the increasingly partisan uh judicial wars.

417
00:25:43,840 --> 00:25:47,920
Speaker 1: How do they want the judicial vetting to go? What

418
00:25:47,960 --> 00:25:50,760
Speaker 1: do they want to happen? So I think what they're

419
00:25:50,800 --> 00:25:56,160
Speaker 1: wanting is there's there's kind of two areas that I've seen. Uh.

420
00:25:56,320 --> 00:25:59,879
Speaker 1: There the Demand Justices of the World and People's Policy

421
00:26:00,000 --> 00:26:03,399
Speaker 1: Project wants Uh these committees to go away. People's Policy

422
00:26:03,440 --> 00:26:06,440
Speaker 1: Project into recent study of Democrats use to these committees

423
00:26:06,600 --> 00:26:12,160
Speaker 1: where the committees are more popular. UM, they they said

424
00:26:12,200 --> 00:26:15,320
Speaker 1: that they're not salvageable, that they don't believe that they'll

425
00:26:15,320 --> 00:26:18,720
Speaker 1: be able to be used going forward. UM. Alliance for

426
00:26:18,800 --> 00:26:22,120
Speaker 1: Justice is also looking for more change in these committees,

427
00:26:22,160 --> 00:26:26,119
Speaker 1: potentially paying more attention to membership, UM, getting more people

428
00:26:26,160 --> 00:26:29,440
Speaker 1: from a diverse cross section of the legal community. Uh

429
00:26:29,480 --> 00:26:34,439
Speaker 1: in the selection committees. Uh excuse me, screening committees, and uh,

430
00:26:34,640 --> 00:26:36,800
Speaker 1: they're not really looking for them to go away. UM

431
00:26:36,880 --> 00:26:40,720
Speaker 1: their reality of the process and you know they're not

432
00:26:40,760 --> 00:26:44,919
Speaker 1: really going to go anywhere in in their in their opinion. UH.

433
00:26:45,119 --> 00:26:48,560
Speaker 1: So you know, it's it's kind of uh, it's it's

434
00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:51,639
Speaker 1: really going to depend on on what the senators ultimately

435
00:26:51,640 --> 00:26:54,399
Speaker 1: think though. UM. You know, this is something that that

436
00:26:54,640 --> 00:26:57,359
Speaker 1: is up to them, and they can be useful in

437
00:26:57,520 --> 00:27:00,600
Speaker 1: states where senators have quite a few noun nations that

438
00:27:00,640 --> 00:27:03,400
Speaker 1: they need to be thinking about nominees for they need

439
00:27:03,400 --> 00:27:07,400
Speaker 1: to be letting people for UM. So you know, it'll

440
00:27:07,480 --> 00:27:10,280
Speaker 1: ultimately ultimately be up to them if they decide to

441
00:27:10,320 --> 00:27:13,280
Speaker 1: either change the memberships of the committee or if they

442
00:27:13,720 --> 00:27:16,800
Speaker 1: distand them entirely. It seems like an answer would be

443
00:27:16,960 --> 00:27:20,440
Speaker 1: to change the membership, to make the membership more diverse

444
00:27:20,880 --> 00:27:25,920
Speaker 1: racially and ethnically, but also diverse as far as opinions

445
00:27:26,000 --> 00:27:31,080
Speaker 1: and you know, the degree of a liberal commitment. Right. Yes,

446
00:27:31,359 --> 00:27:34,359
Speaker 1: that is really a suggestion that, uh, you know, the

447
00:27:34,760 --> 00:27:39,119
Speaker 1: committee has become more diverse and reflects the legal community. UM.

448
00:27:39,160 --> 00:27:42,240
Speaker 1: I did speak to one professor though, d y U,

449
00:27:42,480 --> 00:27:46,399
Speaker 1: Richard Davis, who says that, you know, this is something

450
00:27:46,480 --> 00:27:50,600
Speaker 1: that if the committees are completely disbanded, the solution is

451
00:27:50,800 --> 00:27:54,080
Speaker 1: potentially relying on outside groups or or even other politicians

452
00:27:54,160 --> 00:27:57,320
Speaker 1: to help with judicial nominations, which you said could also

453
00:27:57,560 --> 00:28:01,440
Speaker 1: be problematic. It's an era in which I think senators

454
00:28:01,440 --> 00:28:05,159
Speaker 1: are confronted with a few different choices, and there's a

455
00:28:05,160 --> 00:28:07,960
Speaker 1: lot tips for them to take into account, uh, in

456
00:28:08,520 --> 00:28:11,840
Speaker 1: terms of what these groups are are asking for and

457
00:28:12,160 --> 00:28:15,119
Speaker 1: what their own what their own preference might be. In

458
00:28:15,160 --> 00:28:19,680
Speaker 1: your article, wasn't Senator Dick Durban Democratic Senator Dick Durbin

459
00:28:20,040 --> 00:28:24,520
Speaker 1: praising his committee recently in the process, So yes, The

460
00:28:24,600 --> 00:28:29,359
Speaker 1: Senator Richard Durban of Illinois and Senator Shared Brown of

461
00:28:29,440 --> 00:28:33,520
Speaker 1: Ohio are two Democrats who have recently praised their committees

462
00:28:33,680 --> 00:28:36,760
Speaker 1: before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When there are nominees to

463
00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:39,960
Speaker 1: their states that they support, they say these committees really

464
00:28:40,000 --> 00:28:43,240
Speaker 1: helped them out. Senator Durban he's had a process in

465
00:28:43,280 --> 00:28:46,040
Speaker 1: place like this in all of his years in the Senate,

466
00:28:46,480 --> 00:28:51,240
Speaker 1: and that spans multiple presidential administrations, and so he is

467
00:28:51,240 --> 00:28:54,160
Speaker 1: saying that this has been a good system for him

468
00:28:54,200 --> 00:28:57,680
Speaker 1: because in his state there is a process by which

469
00:28:58,240 --> 00:29:02,880
Speaker 1: the president's party picks three of four nominees and the

470
00:29:02,920 --> 00:29:06,440
Speaker 1: minority party picks the other one. So it's this negotiated

471
00:29:06,520 --> 00:29:11,040
Speaker 1: deal between the senators to be able to advance nominees.

472
00:29:11,360 --> 00:29:15,760
Speaker 1: And likewise, Brown also is saying that he's selecting a

473
00:29:15,760 --> 00:29:18,880
Speaker 1: diverse committee. He and an Portman, who is the other

474
00:29:18,920 --> 00:29:21,840
Speaker 1: senator in Ohio and as a Republican, who are working

475
00:29:21,880 --> 00:29:26,120
Speaker 1: together to advance these nominees. So some Democratic senators are

476
00:29:26,160 --> 00:29:30,040
Speaker 1: saying it's working for them. Thanks Madison. That's Bloomberg Law.

477
00:29:30,040 --> 00:29:32,520
Speaker 1: Reporter of Madison Alder and that's it for the sedition

478
00:29:32,520 --> 00:29:35,959
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg