WEBVTT - Weekend Law: Trump Sues, Ticketmaster Defense & Plea Bargaining

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:15.280 --> 0:00:18.319
<v Speaker 2>So it is because of missus Wilson and so many

0:00:18.400 --> 0:00:21.799
<v Speaker 2>teachers like her, that I stand before you as Vice

0:00:21.840 --> 0:00:28.159
<v Speaker 2>President of the United States of America and that I

0:00:28.200 --> 0:00:31.880
<v Speaker 2>am running to become president of the United States of America.

0:00:32.640 --> 0:00:36.520
<v Speaker 3>It all happened rather quickly. After President Joe Biden ended

0:00:36.520 --> 0:00:40.760
<v Speaker 3>his reelection bid on Sunday. Vice President Kamala Harris sealed

0:00:40.800 --> 0:00:45.560
<v Speaker 3>her status as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. By Monday night,

0:00:45.880 --> 0:00:49.560
<v Speaker 3>after getting more than enough pledged delegates to cinch the nomination.

0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:54.080
<v Speaker 3>The Vice president took over Biden's campaign, which was renamed

0:00:54.200 --> 0:00:57.800
<v Speaker 3>Harris for President, and his campaign war chest of about

0:00:57.880 --> 0:01:02.200
<v Speaker 3>ninety six million dollars. Just as quickly, Republicans started a

0:01:02.280 --> 0:01:06.680
<v Speaker 3>multi pronged effort to steymy Harris. On Tuesday, Donald Trump's

0:01:06.680 --> 0:01:10.679
<v Speaker 3>presidential campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission,

0:01:10.880 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 3>claiming that the transfer of Biden's money to Harris violates

0:01:14.560 --> 0:01:18.320
<v Speaker 3>the law, and some Republicans, like House Speaker Mike Johnson,

0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:23.039
<v Speaker 3>began raising the specter of lawsuits challenging Harris's place on

0:01:23.120 --> 0:01:24.080
<v Speaker 3>the top of the ticket.

0:01:24.280 --> 0:01:27.600
<v Speaker 4>We have fifty different systems in each of the states

0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:30.520
<v Speaker 4>when it comes to presidential elections and choosing electors and

0:01:30.560 --> 0:01:32.399
<v Speaker 4>all the rest. And in some of the states there

0:01:32.400 --> 0:01:35.560
<v Speaker 4>are impediments to just switching someone out like that. Remember

0:01:35.640 --> 0:01:38.839
<v Speaker 4>that this claims to be the Party of Democracy, small

0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:42.360
<v Speaker 4>D democracy right. Fourteen million people went through the process

0:01:42.400 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 4>and chose this nominee, Joe Biden. Now a handful of

0:01:45.720 --> 0:01:48.120
<v Speaker 4>people have gotten together and decided he's no longer suitable.

0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:49.840
<v Speaker 4>That's not how this system works.

0:01:50.040 --> 0:01:52.600
<v Speaker 3>Or is it just that Johnson doesn't understand how the

0:01:52.640 --> 0:01:56.440
<v Speaker 3>system works? Joining me is elections law expert Richard Brefald,

0:01:56.560 --> 0:02:00.760
<v Speaker 3>a professor at Columbia Law School. Rich start where it

0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:03.840
<v Speaker 3>always starts, the money. Does Harris have the right to

0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:07.720
<v Speaker 3>take over the money raised by Biden's reelection campaign?

0:02:08.160 --> 0:02:10.200
<v Speaker 5>So the money is sort of in three parts, And

0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:13.000
<v Speaker 5>the only real issue was the money technically that went

0:02:13.040 --> 0:02:16.120
<v Speaker 5>to the Biden Harris campaign. So the money that goes

0:02:16.120 --> 0:02:18.480
<v Speaker 5>to the Democratic Party, of course she can use. And

0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:21.720
<v Speaker 5>I think they also had a pack going, a superpack going,

0:02:21.760 --> 0:02:23.560
<v Speaker 5>and of that, of course they can use. The issue

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:27.240
<v Speaker 5>was the money that went to Biden Harris specifically, and

0:02:27.280 --> 0:02:30.200
<v Speaker 5>there I think it's a smaller amount, maybe like ninety million,

0:02:30.240 --> 0:02:32.680
<v Speaker 5>but I'm not sure about that. The assumption of all

0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:35.400
<v Speaker 5>the campaigns finance people I've spoken to is yes, as

0:02:35.440 --> 0:02:38.399
<v Speaker 5>long as Harris continues to be on the ticket, it's

0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:40.520
<v Speaker 5>money that she can use. The issue would have been

0:02:40.560 --> 0:02:43.800
<v Speaker 5>more if the Democrats nominated someone else, then I think

0:02:44.000 --> 0:02:46.920
<v Speaker 5>the Biden Harris committee would have had to transfer the

0:02:46.919 --> 0:02:50.160
<v Speaker 5>money to the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party would

0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:52.679
<v Speaker 5>have the money. But as long as she's the nominee,

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:55.000
<v Speaker 5>she is part of Biden Harris, which I think now

0:02:55.000 --> 0:02:57.760
<v Speaker 5>has already been renamed Harris. So the assumption of just

0:02:57.800 --> 0:03:00.839
<v Speaker 5>about every campaign finance lawyer I know is that, yes,

0:03:01.240 --> 0:03:04.480
<v Speaker 5>she can use it. I think the overwhelming assumption is

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:07.280
<v Speaker 5>that the money went to her also it was going

0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 5>to Biden and Harris. Harris is still running, so I

0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:13.720
<v Speaker 5>think that the vast majority of Camping c and An's

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:16.440
<v Speaker 5>lawyers and scholars believe that it's money she can use.

0:03:17.080 --> 0:03:21.960
<v Speaker 3>Trump's presidential campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.

0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:25.640
<v Speaker 3>It seems like a long shot, though for a couple

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:30.200
<v Speaker 3>of reasons. Harris has sixty days to respond, and the

0:03:30.240 --> 0:03:34.920
<v Speaker 3>Federal Election Commission is known for moving at a glacial pace,

0:03:35.320 --> 0:03:37.400
<v Speaker 3>so at the worst it would just be a question

0:03:37.440 --> 0:03:38.800
<v Speaker 3>of paying fines later.

0:03:39.440 --> 0:03:41.680
<v Speaker 5>Not only it takes a long to move, but you

0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:44.080
<v Speaker 5>would need to get four votes, and there are three

0:03:44.120 --> 0:03:46.680
<v Speaker 5>Democrats who sit on the Commission. There's a six member

0:03:46.720 --> 0:03:51.120
<v Speaker 5>commission of three Democrats and the Republicans, and on most

0:03:51.200 --> 0:03:53.960
<v Speaker 5>major things they tend to vote on party mind, So

0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:55.960
<v Speaker 5>it just seems right. There's both the time that would

0:03:55.960 --> 0:03:59.600
<v Speaker 5>take and likely vote, and I think given the rules

0:03:59.600 --> 0:04:01.520
<v Speaker 5>of the election law, I think it will be very

0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:04.160
<v Speaker 5>hard for Republicans to side step the Commission and go

0:04:04.200 --> 0:04:07.880
<v Speaker 5>directly to court. Now somebody might try that, but I

0:04:07.920 --> 0:04:10.960
<v Speaker 5>do think it's kind of a lost cause. Given the

0:04:10.960 --> 0:04:13.040
<v Speaker 5>court system today. You never know one hundred percent, But

0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:15.240
<v Speaker 5>I think, as I said, the overwhelming belief is that

0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:17.720
<v Speaker 5>the money she could use and would be very unlikely

0:04:18.040 --> 0:04:21.279
<v Speaker 5>the Federal Election Commission would certainly during the course of

0:04:21.279 --> 0:04:23.560
<v Speaker 5>the campaign, but at any time come and say it

0:04:23.560 --> 0:04:24.480
<v Speaker 5>wasn't improper use.

0:04:24.920 --> 0:04:29.000
<v Speaker 3>Speaker Mike Johnson says he expects they'll be litigation, saying

0:04:29.040 --> 0:04:32.160
<v Speaker 3>there are fifty different systems and that in some states

0:04:32.200 --> 0:04:36.200
<v Speaker 3>there are impediments to swapping candidates. Could there be losses

0:04:36.279 --> 0:04:37.480
<v Speaker 3>on the basis of the switch.

0:04:38.000 --> 0:04:41.000
<v Speaker 5>It seems like a totally ridiculous argument. The party doesn't

0:04:41.040 --> 0:04:43.480
<v Speaker 5>have a candidate. The party doesn't have a candidate until

0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:46.760
<v Speaker 5>they make a nomination. Biden was never nominated. If Democratic

0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:49.800
<v Speaker 5>convention has not met, even the so called virtual role

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:53.280
<v Speaker 5>call we're talking about hasn't happened, the Democratic Party gets

0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:56.880
<v Speaker 5>to decide who the Democratic Party's nominee is, and they

0:04:56.920 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 5>haven't made a choice yet. I don't think there'd be

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:02.200
<v Speaker 5>an issue even that's what was answered the nomination, because

0:05:02.240 --> 0:05:04.240
<v Speaker 5>they still get to write their own rules. Just to

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:07.800
<v Speaker 5>make it clear, Biden was never the nominee. He was

0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:11.880
<v Speaker 5>the presumptive nominee. He was never the nominee, and so

0:05:12.480 --> 0:05:16.280
<v Speaker 5>there's no challenge to make. There's no substitution, No ballots

0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:20.800
<v Speaker 5>have been printed, and so it's it's totally blowing smoke.

0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:24.239
<v Speaker 3>So then what about the June twenty first memo from

0:05:24.360 --> 0:05:28.480
<v Speaker 3>the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, where it says

0:05:28.480 --> 0:05:32.240
<v Speaker 3>it views swing states Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin as likely

0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 3>arenas for pre election legal challenges because they have specific

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:40.640
<v Speaker 3>procedures for withdrawal of a presidential nominee.

0:05:40.800 --> 0:05:42.719
<v Speaker 5>The only way there would be anything is that Biden

0:05:42.760 --> 0:05:46.400
<v Speaker 5>had actually been nominated. But Biden wasn't nominated. It doesn't

0:05:46.400 --> 0:05:49.720
<v Speaker 5>matter that Biden won primary there because many times a

0:05:49.800 --> 0:05:53.400
<v Speaker 5>candidate who's won primary insup states who's is the nomination.

0:05:53.720 --> 0:05:55.960
<v Speaker 5>So the fact that Harris didn't win the primary in

0:05:55.960 --> 0:05:58.599
<v Speaker 5>the NY of the states is irrelevant. Many candidate who

0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:02.279
<v Speaker 5>are an ultimate nominees lost some primaries, they still got

0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:04.000
<v Speaker 5>to be on the ballots of the states where they

0:06:04.040 --> 0:06:06.920
<v Speaker 5>lost the primary. So I think they might have some

0:06:07.080 --> 0:06:09.839
<v Speaker 5>argument that he'd actually been nominated and she was being

0:06:09.839 --> 0:06:12.880
<v Speaker 5>put in to replace him, but he was never nominated.

0:06:13.120 --> 0:06:17.120
<v Speaker 3>Which do you see any other legal complications of her candidacy.

0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:20.560
<v Speaker 5>No, I don't. I don't. I mean, I think again,

0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:23.919
<v Speaker 5>there's a potential potential challenge on the money when it

0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:27.320
<v Speaker 5>goes from Biden Harris to Harris somebody else. But I

0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:30.640
<v Speaker 5>do think there it's still Harris. I think that challenge

0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:34.680
<v Speaker 5>is pretty weak. There's absolutely no challenge on her being

0:06:34.720 --> 0:06:37.760
<v Speaker 5>on the ballot because you say, one more time, Biden

0:06:37.920 --> 0:06:41.760
<v Speaker 5>was never the nominee, so there's no issue about changing nominees.

0:06:42.120 --> 0:06:45.640
<v Speaker 5>He hadn't been nominated yet and you know, it was

0:06:45.839 --> 0:06:48.080
<v Speaker 5>not likely that he would have been defeated at the convention.

0:06:48.240 --> 0:06:50.919
<v Speaker 5>But there had been contested conventions. I mean, maybe the

0:06:50.960 --> 0:06:54.440
<v Speaker 5>less truly congested one was in nineteen seventy six when

0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:58.560
<v Speaker 5>Ronald Reagan was trying to unseat Gerald Ford. He came close,

0:06:58.680 --> 0:07:00.560
<v Speaker 5>and if he had done that, he would have been

0:07:00.600 --> 0:07:03.080
<v Speaker 5>the nominee. And the fact that forward with the incumbent

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:05.159
<v Speaker 5>president and had one a bunch of states and primaries

0:07:05.320 --> 0:07:06.320
<v Speaker 5>would have been irrelevant.

0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:08.760
<v Speaker 3>So do you have any idea what Mike Johnson is

0:07:08.800 --> 0:07:09.720
<v Speaker 3>talking about? Then?

0:07:10.000 --> 0:07:11.560
<v Speaker 5>I have no idea what he's talking about. I mean,

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:13.120
<v Speaker 5>I mean, some of the noise he's making is that

0:07:13.160 --> 0:07:16.800
<v Speaker 5>it's undemocratic, small d democratic. But the parties get to

0:07:16.800 --> 0:07:19.800
<v Speaker 5>write their own rules about who the nominees are. Supreme

0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:22.560
<v Speaker 5>Court has said that, going back to contested conventions in

0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:26.120
<v Speaker 5>the nineteen seventies, This is the parties are private organizations.

0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:28.200
<v Speaker 5>They get to write their own rules and to choose

0:07:28.240 --> 0:07:30.520
<v Speaker 5>their own nominees. And it looks like they're going to

0:07:30.600 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 5>choose to nominate Harris. If they do nominate Harris, she's

0:07:34.120 --> 0:07:36.480
<v Speaker 5>the nominee. She's the one who gets on the ballot.

0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:39.200
<v Speaker 5>And if for some reason, they choose to nominate somebody

0:07:39.200 --> 0:07:41.640
<v Speaker 5>else because something else happened in the next three weeks,

0:07:41.720 --> 0:07:43.240
<v Speaker 5>that person would be the nominee.

0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:45.520
<v Speaker 3>And what do you think about Johnson's argument that this

0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:50.280
<v Speaker 3>violates democratic principles that voters chose Biden in the primaries

0:07:50.560 --> 0:07:51.679
<v Speaker 3>and now they're getting Harris.

0:07:52.120 --> 0:07:54.880
<v Speaker 4>There's a reason it's unprecedented. You don't just, you know,

0:07:54.960 --> 0:07:58.080
<v Speaker 4>steamroll the rules in the process because you decide that

0:07:58.120 --> 0:07:59.640
<v Speaker 4>your candidate is no longer suitable.

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:02.360
<v Speaker 5>I mean, I think, for one thing, Biden was always

0:08:02.440 --> 0:08:05.920
<v Speaker 5>running with Harris as his teammate, so to some extent,

0:08:05.960 --> 0:08:08.560
<v Speaker 5>they're still getting one of their choices. But I think

0:08:08.600 --> 0:08:11.120
<v Speaker 5>in the end, remember, the winner of the primary in

0:08:11.160 --> 0:08:14.160
<v Speaker 5>any one state is not guaranteed or in many states.

0:08:14.200 --> 0:08:17.280
<v Speaker 5>I mean, going back to nineteen sixty eight, Hubert Humphrey

0:08:17.320 --> 0:08:20.239
<v Speaker 5>didn't run any primaries and he was the nominee. Eugene

0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:23.920
<v Speaker 5>McCarthy won more primaries than Hubert Humphrey, but Hubert Humphrey

0:08:23.960 --> 0:08:24.640
<v Speaker 5>was the nominee.

0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:29.040
<v Speaker 3>Everyone agrees on one thing, this is unprecedented. But is

0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:33.000
<v Speaker 3>there anything in presidential history that would be analogous.

0:08:33.280 --> 0:08:35.200
<v Speaker 5>It's hard to make an analogy where there was somebody

0:08:35.240 --> 0:08:40.160
<v Speaker 5>who was so clearly the presumptive nominee and then who

0:08:40.280 --> 0:08:42.559
<v Speaker 5>pulls out at the last minute. There have been a

0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:46.120
<v Speaker 5>couple of elections where a candidate dies that the person's

0:08:46.120 --> 0:08:48.760
<v Speaker 5>already been nominated, and then there's a scrambled to place

0:08:48.800 --> 0:08:52.079
<v Speaker 5>that candidate. That has happened, But I can't recall anything

0:08:52.280 --> 0:08:55.679
<v Speaker 5>like this where there was somebody who had won all

0:08:55.679 --> 0:08:58.439
<v Speaker 5>the primaries, was the presumptive nominee and then decides no,

0:08:58.600 --> 0:09:02.760
<v Speaker 5>I'm not going to run, and the party quickly rallies

0:09:02.800 --> 0:09:05.920
<v Speaker 5>around another person. But again, this is the person who

0:09:06.000 --> 0:09:08.760
<v Speaker 5>was his number two. It's not a challenger who is

0:09:08.800 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 5>going to be chosen. So it is unprecedented, but it's utterly,

0:09:13.960 --> 0:09:17.079
<v Speaker 5>entirely consistent with the rules. Maybe just leave it at that.

0:09:17.640 --> 0:09:20.120
<v Speaker 5>Is that again, just to make it clear, he was

0:09:20.160 --> 0:09:23.320
<v Speaker 5>never the nominee, So they're not replacing a nominee. They're

0:09:23.360 --> 0:09:26.680
<v Speaker 5>just picking a nominee. And when people were donating money,

0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:30.000
<v Speaker 5>they were donating money to Biden Harris. It looks like they're.

0:09:29.880 --> 0:09:33.080
<v Speaker 3>Still going to get Harris, which delegates are planning a

0:09:33.200 --> 0:09:36.520
<v Speaker 3>virtual roll call vote within the next two weeks to

0:09:36.640 --> 0:09:40.360
<v Speaker 3>confirm Harris as their nominee. For president. Just suppose that

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:41.880
<v Speaker 3>doesn't happen for some reason.

0:09:42.640 --> 0:09:45.480
<v Speaker 5>The way delegates work in the Democratic Party, even if

0:09:45.520 --> 0:09:48.199
<v Speaker 5>Biden were running, the nature of the pledge is it's

0:09:48.240 --> 0:09:50.640
<v Speaker 5>like an honor pledge or a good faith pledge. So

0:09:50.760 --> 0:09:54.120
<v Speaker 5>even the pledge, delegates actually could have voted for someone else.

0:09:54.280 --> 0:09:56.600
<v Speaker 5>So the fact that they've kind of announced a commitment

0:09:56.640 --> 0:10:00.280
<v Speaker 5>to her, they're not legally pledged to her, so people

0:10:00.320 --> 0:10:02.319
<v Speaker 5>could change their minds. I mean, I'm not saying that's

0:10:02.320 --> 0:10:04.760
<v Speaker 5>going to happen, but I think the real issue is

0:10:05.040 --> 0:10:07.520
<v Speaker 5>I think I saw Mary and Williamson I might have declared.

0:10:08.040 --> 0:10:10.680
<v Speaker 5>I think under the rules of the Democratic Party, anyone

0:10:10.720 --> 0:10:13.360
<v Speaker 5>who wants to be nominated would need to support of

0:10:13.440 --> 0:10:16.040
<v Speaker 5>three hundred delegates, with no more than fifty from one state.

0:10:16.480 --> 0:10:18.640
<v Speaker 5>And at this point it doesn't seem like there'll be

0:10:18.679 --> 0:10:21.160
<v Speaker 5>any other candidate, so I think in that sense, she

0:10:21.280 --> 0:10:23.800
<v Speaker 5>has it wrapped up. None of the other prominent figures

0:10:23.800 --> 0:10:26.720
<v Speaker 5>in Democratic parties have indicated any interest in running. I

0:10:26.720 --> 0:10:28.839
<v Speaker 5>think at this point they've all endorsed her, so in

0:10:28.960 --> 0:10:33.240
<v Speaker 5>some sense it's technically open. But she's going to be nominated, presumably,

0:10:33.320 --> 0:10:37.719
<v Speaker 5>if not by acclamation then by some overwhelming quote, and.

0:10:37.679 --> 0:10:40.640
<v Speaker 3>I guess the only mystery left is who she'll choose

0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:43.640
<v Speaker 3>as vice president. Thanks so much, rich for clearing up

0:10:43.679 --> 0:10:47.960
<v Speaker 3>the confusion and ending the speculation. That's Professor Richard Rfault

0:10:48.080 --> 0:10:50.840
<v Speaker 3>of Columbia Law School coming up next on the Bloomberg

0:10:51.000 --> 0:10:53.680
<v Speaker 3>Law Show. You may remember in late May when the

0:10:53.920 --> 0:10:58.079
<v Speaker 3>Justice Department filed a major antitrust lawsuit to break up

0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:02.079
<v Speaker 3>Live Nation and Ticketmaster. Well, we've just seen Live Nation's

0:11:02.160 --> 0:11:06.040
<v Speaker 3>first response, and it's pretty underwhelming. I'm June Grosso and

0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:07.280
<v Speaker 3>you're listening to Bloomberg.

0:11:09.920 --> 0:11:15.560
<v Speaker 6>Ticketmaster can impose a seemingly endless list of fees on fans.

0:11:16.280 --> 0:11:22.679
<v Speaker 6>Those include ticketing fees, service fees, convenience fees, platinum fees,

0:11:23.120 --> 0:11:28.480
<v Speaker 6>price master fees, per order fees, handling fees, and payment

0:11:28.600 --> 0:11:29.600
<v Speaker 6>processing fees.

0:11:30.240 --> 0:11:34.520
<v Speaker 3>Anyone who's bought concert tickets on Ticketmaster can probably relate

0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:38.520
<v Speaker 3>to Attorney General Merrick Garland's description of the seemingly non

0:11:38.679 --> 0:11:43.360
<v Speaker 3>ending fees to purchase. Ticketmaster, the country's largest ticketing company,

0:11:43.600 --> 0:11:48.040
<v Speaker 3>and its parent company, Live Nation, the country's largest concert promoter,

0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:52.480
<v Speaker 3>have a long history of clashes with major artists, including

0:11:52.480 --> 0:11:56.040
<v Speaker 3>the fiasco in twenty twenty two. When the website crashed

0:11:56.120 --> 0:12:00.400
<v Speaker 3>during a pre sale for Taylor Swift Stadium tour, led

0:12:00.400 --> 0:12:03.920
<v Speaker 3>to congressional hearings. Garland said it was time for fans

0:12:03.960 --> 0:12:07.079
<v Speaker 3>and artists to stop paying the price for the monopoly,

0:12:07.480 --> 0:12:10.240
<v Speaker 3>and so the Justice Department and more than two dozen

0:12:10.320 --> 0:12:14.120
<v Speaker 3>states filed a sweeping anti trusts lawsuit in May to

0:12:14.240 --> 0:12:16.920
<v Speaker 3>force the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 6>Live Nation suffocates its competition using a variety of tactics,

0:12:22.320 --> 0:12:27.520
<v Speaker 6>from acquisitions of smaller regional promoters and venues to threats

0:12:27.559 --> 0:12:32.360
<v Speaker 6>and retaliation to agreements with rivals designed to neutralize them.

0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:37.839
<v Speaker 6>This has included acquiring or co opting key independent promoters.

0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:42.160
<v Speaker 3>Live Nation denies its a monopoly, and its CFO, Joe Burke,

0:12:42.240 --> 0:12:45.800
<v Speaker 3>told told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that it

0:12:45.920 --> 0:12:48.320
<v Speaker 3>was not responsible for high ticket prices.

0:12:48.559 --> 0:12:52.120
<v Speaker 7>Pricing and distribution strategies are determined by the artists and

0:12:52.160 --> 0:12:55.680
<v Speaker 7>their teams. Service fees, even if they're called ticketing fees,

0:12:56.080 --> 0:12:59.440
<v Speaker 7>are retained mainly by the venues in their portion of

0:12:59.440 --> 0:13:03.240
<v Speaker 7>the service fee. The Ticketmaster retains has been falling steadily

0:13:03.280 --> 0:13:04.160
<v Speaker 7>over time.

0:13:04.240 --> 0:13:07.920
<v Speaker 3>But Live Nation's first official response to the lawsuit, in

0:13:07.960 --> 0:13:11.920
<v Speaker 3>a letter to the trial judge is really underwhelming according

0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:15.720
<v Speaker 3>to anti trust experts, and one of those experts joins me. Now,

0:13:16.000 --> 0:13:19.400
<v Speaker 3>Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School. Harry start

0:13:19.440 --> 0:13:22.520
<v Speaker 3>by telling us about the Justice Department's anti trust case.

0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:26.120
<v Speaker 8>Okay, so this is in some ways basically a suit

0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:29.400
<v Speaker 8>to correct a bad mistake the Justice Department made in

0:13:29.480 --> 0:13:33.280
<v Speaker 8>twenty ten. So it's taken them a while, but eventually

0:13:33.640 --> 0:13:36.320
<v Speaker 8>anti trust enforcers are trying to get it right. So

0:13:36.480 --> 0:13:40.400
<v Speaker 8>what happened was in two thousand and nine, Ticketmaster and

0:13:40.559 --> 0:13:45.080
<v Speaker 8>Live Nation decided to merge, and the Justice Department looked

0:13:45.080 --> 0:13:49.600
<v Speaker 8>at it. Ticketmaster, of course, sells ticketing services to major

0:13:49.679 --> 0:13:53.680
<v Speaker 8>venues around the country what's now called primary ticketing services.

0:13:53.760 --> 0:13:57.840
<v Speaker 8>The secondary markets weren't so developed then reselling and Live

0:13:57.920 --> 0:14:01.079
<v Speaker 8>Nation was the biggest promoter at the time and it

0:14:01.240 --> 0:14:04.640
<v Speaker 8>sort of entered the ticketing market. But basically this was

0:14:05.040 --> 0:14:08.760
<v Speaker 8>what's referred to as a vertical merger, not really competitors

0:14:08.880 --> 0:14:13.040
<v Speaker 8>or not much competitors yet. But at the time the

0:14:13.120 --> 0:14:17.520
<v Speaker 8>Justice Department understood what was going on. So Live Nation,

0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:22.520
<v Speaker 8>which was a big promoter and booker of venues, wanted

0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:28.520
<v Speaker 8>to put its shows into venues that would use Ticketmaster ticketing.

0:14:28.720 --> 0:14:31.960
<v Speaker 8>So the venues knew that if they wanted to get

0:14:32.080 --> 0:14:35.240
<v Speaker 8>you a really good show, the best way to do

0:14:35.360 --> 0:14:39.640
<v Speaker 8>it was to use Ticketmaster because they really needed Live

0:14:39.760 --> 0:14:45.160
<v Speaker 8>Nations talents. So Live Nation, as a promoter of major tours,

0:14:45.200 --> 0:14:48.920
<v Speaker 8>thought that this tie up would sort of help both businesses,

0:14:49.000 --> 0:14:53.120
<v Speaker 8>as did Ticketmaster. It would give Ticketmaster and edge over

0:14:53.200 --> 0:14:56.440
<v Speaker 8>competitors in the ticketing business, and it would increase Live

0:14:56.560 --> 0:15:00.280
<v Speaker 8>Nations revenues because now they owned a ticket in company.

0:15:00.440 --> 0:15:05.520
<v Speaker 8>So control the talent, control entry or choice of the venues,

0:15:05.760 --> 0:15:09.680
<v Speaker 8>and you control ticketing. So at the time, the Justice

0:15:09.720 --> 0:15:13.600
<v Speaker 8>Department knew this, there was testimony about this, and also

0:15:14.000 --> 0:15:17.960
<v Speaker 8>Ticketmaster had, you know, in major venues, a major share

0:15:18.040 --> 0:15:21.320
<v Speaker 8>of the market, maybe seventy or so percent, so they

0:15:21.360 --> 0:15:24.160
<v Speaker 8>had a dominant or monopoly position at the time. But

0:15:24.560 --> 0:15:29.200
<v Speaker 8>instead of saying you can't merge, they said, hey, go

0:15:29.240 --> 0:15:32.000
<v Speaker 8>ahead and merge. We've got some conditions for you. First,

0:15:32.200 --> 0:15:34.400
<v Speaker 8>help a company is trying to get into the ticketing

0:15:34.440 --> 0:15:37.240
<v Speaker 8>business get into it through some software. Okay, that was

0:15:37.280 --> 0:15:40.360
<v Speaker 8>one idea. The second thing is we'll tell Live Nations

0:15:40.520 --> 0:15:45.080
<v Speaker 8>that they can't condition their talents, you know, with venues

0:15:45.280 --> 0:15:48.920
<v Speaker 8>on using Ticketmaster. They can't make that a condition and

0:15:48.960 --> 0:15:53.359
<v Speaker 8>they can't retaliate against the venue if that venue subsequently

0:15:53.400 --> 0:15:58.720
<v Speaker 8>decides to use a ticketing company. So no conditioning, no retaliation. Fine.

0:15:58.840 --> 0:16:02.080
<v Speaker 8>We think this is wonderful. Parties merge the new entrant.

0:16:02.120 --> 0:16:05.480
<v Speaker 8>Turns out never does well, and almost from the beginning

0:16:05.640 --> 0:16:09.080
<v Speaker 8>they violate the decree, And in fact, they don't have

0:16:09.160 --> 0:16:13.880
<v Speaker 8>to actually violate it because every promoter, every venue owner

0:16:14.240 --> 0:16:17.120
<v Speaker 8>knows what the deal is. You know, give Live Nation

0:16:17.600 --> 0:16:20.560
<v Speaker 8>the ticketing revenue, more likely you're going to get the

0:16:20.680 --> 0:16:23.240
<v Speaker 8>good tours into your venue, and there's a lot of

0:16:23.240 --> 0:16:27.840
<v Speaker 8>competition for that. So this decree never worked. It didn't

0:16:27.880 --> 0:16:32.240
<v Speaker 8>work because the parties violated. There were later proceedings because

0:16:32.240 --> 0:16:34.680
<v Speaker 8>it looked like they were violating it, and then kame

0:16:34.720 --> 0:16:37.400
<v Speaker 8>Taylor Swift.

0:16:36.600 --> 0:16:39.400
<v Speaker 3>And then the hearings in the Senate. That was the push.

0:16:39.600 --> 0:16:42.480
<v Speaker 3>Wasn't it for the Justice Department to actually sue?

0:16:42.680 --> 0:16:45.640
<v Speaker 8>That finally pushed the Justice Department. This has been a

0:16:45.640 --> 0:16:49.800
<v Speaker 8>pretty aggressive Justice Department on any trust to say, you know,

0:16:50.440 --> 0:16:54.360
<v Speaker 8>just really, it's almost fifteen years. It just didn't work

0:16:54.920 --> 0:16:57.840
<v Speaker 8>and it's time to do something about it. So the

0:16:57.920 --> 0:17:02.440
<v Speaker 8>lawsuit we see now is the Justice Department saying Ticketmaster

0:17:02.600 --> 0:17:07.480
<v Speaker 8>has a monopoly position in primary ticketing services, and it's

0:17:07.520 --> 0:17:11.359
<v Speaker 8>solidified by being owned by Live Nation. We've got to

0:17:11.400 --> 0:17:15.360
<v Speaker 8>stop it, declare them monopoly, and then break them up.

0:17:15.680 --> 0:17:18.159
<v Speaker 3>So they're at the motion to dismiss stage, and the

0:17:18.280 --> 0:17:23.040
<v Speaker 3>trial judge had asked Live Nation to identify issues it

0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:27.120
<v Speaker 3>might move to dismiss. Live Nation offered its first official

0:17:27.200 --> 0:17:30.040
<v Speaker 3>response to the suit in a letter to the judge,

0:17:30.359 --> 0:17:34.879
<v Speaker 3>and its response was quite narrow, really just challenging one

0:17:35.359 --> 0:17:39.159
<v Speaker 3>of the government's claims, the tying claim. What did you

0:17:39.200 --> 0:17:40.879
<v Speaker 3>think of Live Nation's response?

0:17:42.880 --> 0:17:48.680
<v Speaker 8>Not much? I mean, okay, it involves a little more

0:17:48.760 --> 0:17:53.119
<v Speaker 8>factual analysis of who's force to do was basically a

0:17:53.200 --> 0:17:58.040
<v Speaker 8>compelled arrangement. So there is in the Justice Department's complaint

0:17:58.119 --> 0:18:02.160
<v Speaker 8>not just a complaint about monopolization of the ticketing markets

0:18:02.200 --> 0:18:06.280
<v Speaker 8>and large venues. There's a complaint about a tying arrangement

0:18:06.520 --> 0:18:10.760
<v Speaker 8>that involves talent itself. So a tying arrangement is basically,

0:18:11.040 --> 0:18:14.040
<v Speaker 8>you have two products. A seller says, if you want

0:18:14.119 --> 0:18:16.560
<v Speaker 8>my A product, guess what you've got to take B.

0:18:17.000 --> 0:18:19.200
<v Speaker 8>So you know, if you want my car, you got

0:18:19.240 --> 0:18:21.480
<v Speaker 8>to take my tires. There's always a question of what

0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:24.960
<v Speaker 8>two products are, but that's the basic of a tying arrangement,

0:18:25.040 --> 0:18:29.000
<v Speaker 8>and the Justice Department alleges that Talent knows there's this

0:18:29.200 --> 0:18:34.919
<v Speaker 8>talent promoting services market that Live Nation also is involved in.

0:18:35.040 --> 0:18:38.080
<v Speaker 8>So if you want those promotion services, you've got to

0:18:38.119 --> 0:18:41.199
<v Speaker 8>be sure to be booked into the proper venues that,

0:18:41.280 --> 0:18:45.399
<v Speaker 8>of course are using Ticketmaster. This is part of the complaint,

0:18:45.720 --> 0:18:49.160
<v Speaker 8>and it's a part that the defendant, Ticketmaster A Love

0:18:49.160 --> 0:18:53.800
<v Speaker 8>of Nation, says it might move to dismiss, but frankly,

0:18:53.920 --> 0:18:57.160
<v Speaker 8>it seems like a rather minor part of the complaint.

0:18:57.280 --> 0:19:00.960
<v Speaker 8>The big part is their monopolization claim and the big

0:19:01.040 --> 0:19:05.400
<v Speaker 8>relief is to break up the company. So time can

0:19:05.440 --> 0:19:08.879
<v Speaker 8>be a problem, and it's historically been a problem, but

0:19:09.400 --> 0:19:13.359
<v Speaker 8>it's not the central problem of this piece of litigation.

0:19:13.880 --> 0:19:16.159
<v Speaker 8>So they haven't made their motion yet and it's a

0:19:16.200 --> 0:19:19.920
<v Speaker 8>little I don't know what they're doing with this particular part.

0:19:20.160 --> 0:19:22.960
<v Speaker 8>They are trying to move the case to a different court,

0:19:23.080 --> 0:19:27.520
<v Speaker 8>so maybe they don't want to reveal their entire legal

0:19:27.560 --> 0:19:30.200
<v Speaker 8>strategy at the moment, I really don't know, but they're

0:19:30.240 --> 0:19:33.159
<v Speaker 8>trying to change where the case is going to be

0:19:33.280 --> 0:19:35.200
<v Speaker 8>tried from New York to DC.

0:19:35.800 --> 0:19:38.359
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and why do they want to change venues? Do

0:19:38.440 --> 0:19:40.639
<v Speaker 3>they think they'll have more luck in DC than in

0:19:40.680 --> 0:19:41.120
<v Speaker 3>New York?

0:19:41.440 --> 0:19:42.760
<v Speaker 8>I knew you were going to ask me that.

0:19:43.320 --> 0:19:44.600
<v Speaker 3>I guess I'm too predictable.

0:19:45.000 --> 0:19:48.600
<v Speaker 8>And I'm not really sure why they want to do that.

0:19:48.840 --> 0:19:53.240
<v Speaker 8>Flow things down. Maybe they're dissatisfied with this particular judge.

0:19:53.280 --> 0:19:56.639
<v Speaker 8>They know who they've got here. Maybe the docket is

0:19:56.720 --> 0:19:59.720
<v Speaker 8>slower in DC, They've got a lot of cases there.

0:20:00.119 --> 0:20:02.600
<v Speaker 8>Part of it may be related to their effort to

0:20:02.800 --> 0:20:07.560
<v Speaker 8>dismiss the state claims. So the states are asking for damages,

0:20:07.920 --> 0:20:11.040
<v Speaker 8>not clear which states, but under their state law. And

0:20:11.359 --> 0:20:14.520
<v Speaker 8>there's now precedent in the DC Circuit which takes a

0:20:14.560 --> 0:20:19.080
<v Speaker 8>somewhat dim view of these kinds of state claims in

0:20:19.160 --> 0:20:22.840
<v Speaker 8>any trust cases, a case that involved the Facebook litigation

0:20:23.080 --> 0:20:26.719
<v Speaker 8>in the District of Columbia. So maybe they feel they

0:20:27.040 --> 0:20:30.399
<v Speaker 8>have a better chance of getting those state claims dismiss there.

0:20:30.600 --> 0:20:33.439
<v Speaker 8>And the state claims also come with a request for

0:20:33.640 --> 0:20:38.200
<v Speaker 8>a jury trial. So hard for me to know exactly strategically,

0:20:38.359 --> 0:20:40.920
<v Speaker 8>you know what all is going on, And I mean,

0:20:41.000 --> 0:20:44.240
<v Speaker 8>obviously people don't ask for change of venue unless they

0:20:44.280 --> 0:20:46.840
<v Speaker 8>think they'll be better off someplace else. But I'm not

0:20:46.960 --> 0:20:48.119
<v Speaker 8>quite sure why they.

0:20:48.000 --> 0:20:51.400
<v Speaker 3>Think that, And so in this letter to the judge

0:20:51.480 --> 0:20:55.800
<v Speaker 3>they try to knock out the state claims in different ways.

0:20:56.040 --> 0:20:58.960
<v Speaker 3>Are they trying to avoid a jury trial in a

0:20:59.040 --> 0:21:03.000
<v Speaker 3>case like this where I mean, who hasn't been aggrieved

0:21:03.160 --> 0:21:05.080
<v Speaker 3>by ticket Master?

0:21:05.400 --> 0:21:08.520
<v Speaker 8>You mean you think the jury might not be too sympathetic.

0:21:08.040 --> 0:21:11.080
<v Speaker 3>That's what I'm thinking, but everyone hates.

0:21:11.200 --> 0:21:14.320
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, that's a good instinct. I think on this they

0:21:14.359 --> 0:21:16.520
<v Speaker 8>really would not want to have to present this case

0:21:16.560 --> 0:21:20.040
<v Speaker 8>to a jury. And the claim for damages seems it's

0:21:20.040 --> 0:21:24.000
<v Speaker 8>a little vague, which the defendant does say, and I

0:21:24.040 --> 0:21:26.520
<v Speaker 8>think correctly, you know, not that he can't be made

0:21:27.000 --> 0:21:30.280
<v Speaker 8>less vague. But if there's not a claim for damages,

0:21:30.600 --> 0:21:33.520
<v Speaker 8>then the case gets tried before a judge, and you

0:21:33.680 --> 0:21:37.240
<v Speaker 8>just hope, I guess that the judges never bought a ticket. Now,

0:21:37.480 --> 0:21:39.520
<v Speaker 8>if it doesn't get moved them, they're going to make

0:21:39.560 --> 0:21:42.200
<v Speaker 8>the same claims in New York. And you know they've

0:21:42.240 --> 0:21:46.440
<v Speaker 8>already cited the DC circuit case. But you know it's

0:21:46.480 --> 0:21:49.000
<v Speaker 8>stronger if it's in a circuit in which you're litigating,

0:21:49.200 --> 0:21:50.840
<v Speaker 8>not in a sister circuit.

0:21:51.119 --> 0:21:53.920
<v Speaker 3>As you mentioned, DOJ wants a breakup of the company,

0:21:54.000 --> 0:21:56.840
<v Speaker 3>which is a drastic remedy. But I've heard it said

0:21:56.920 --> 0:21:59.520
<v Speaker 3>that if it applies anywhere, it should be here.

0:22:00.119 --> 0:22:02.719
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, I mean, in many ways this is I mean,

0:22:02.760 --> 0:22:04.720
<v Speaker 8>I don't know for sure because they don't know the

0:22:04.760 --> 0:22:07.879
<v Speaker 8>inner workings of how integrated the firms are. But this

0:22:07.960 --> 0:22:12.480
<v Speaker 8>should be a case where it's relatively easy, relatively being

0:22:12.480 --> 0:22:16.560
<v Speaker 8>the keyword to break the company up because they do

0:22:16.640 --> 0:22:20.400
<v Speaker 8>operate as at least public Facing has two separate companies.

0:22:20.440 --> 0:22:23.679
<v Speaker 8>They do two separate things. They're in separate markets that

0:22:23.800 --> 0:22:27.760
<v Speaker 8>are linked, but they used to operate separately before and

0:22:27.960 --> 0:22:32.160
<v Speaker 8>presumably could operate separately again. So I think you're right.

0:22:32.560 --> 0:22:34.879
<v Speaker 8>This is a case where, you know, restructuring of the

0:22:34.960 --> 0:22:38.920
<v Speaker 8>company sounds like it is doable. The question is whether

0:22:38.960 --> 0:22:43.280
<v Speaker 8>that's going to change Ticketmaster's monopoly position or not, And

0:22:43.760 --> 0:22:45.920
<v Speaker 8>that's sort of the next step. So you could break

0:22:45.960 --> 0:22:48.680
<v Speaker 8>them up, but you know, how much will that increase

0:22:48.760 --> 0:22:50.200
<v Speaker 8>competition in itself?

0:22:50.640 --> 0:22:54.280
<v Speaker 3>Can live Nation use the fact that DOJ allowed the

0:22:54.320 --> 0:22:57.960
<v Speaker 3>merger to proceed in the first place, and then agreed

0:22:58.000 --> 0:23:02.640
<v Speaker 3>to extend the initial consent decree as recently as twenty nineteen,

0:23:02.720 --> 0:23:07.760
<v Speaker 3>even after it found that live Nation repeatedly violated the decree.

0:23:07.840 --> 0:23:10.560
<v Speaker 8>They will make that argument. Is it a good legal argument?

0:23:11.000 --> 0:23:13.600
<v Speaker 8>I really don't think so. There is not what's called

0:23:13.680 --> 0:23:17.479
<v Speaker 8>in a stoppel against the government. The government is able

0:23:17.560 --> 0:23:22.159
<v Speaker 8>to and free to change its policy as it sees

0:23:22.200 --> 0:23:24.760
<v Speaker 8>how it works. There are older cases in which the

0:23:24.840 --> 0:23:28.840
<v Speaker 8>government accepted this particular remedy. The remedy didn't work out.

0:23:29.119 --> 0:23:32.280
<v Speaker 8>The district court judge in fact in that older case said, gee,

0:23:32.280 --> 0:23:34.760
<v Speaker 8>I can't change this decree. You entered it, and the

0:23:34.800 --> 0:23:37.720
<v Speaker 8>Supreme Court said, no, you can. It didn't work. Ten

0:23:37.840 --> 0:23:40.080
<v Speaker 8>years you had a chance for this to work and

0:23:40.119 --> 0:23:43.199
<v Speaker 8>it didn't bring competition. Ten years is long enough. So

0:23:43.560 --> 0:23:46.520
<v Speaker 8>I don't think in the end that's really a good argument.

0:23:46.760 --> 0:23:50.040
<v Speaker 8>You know, things change and decrees don't work out, and

0:23:50.119 --> 0:23:52.720
<v Speaker 8>they don't bind successive governments forever.

0:23:53.280 --> 0:23:55.680
<v Speaker 3>Always great to get your insights, Harry, Thanks so much.

0:23:56.040 --> 0:23:59.800
<v Speaker 3>That's Professor Harry First of NYU Law School. Coming up next.

0:24:00.119 --> 0:24:04.520
<v Speaker 3>Defense attorneys beware of those plea bargaining sessions. I'm June Grass.

0:24:04.560 --> 0:24:08.800
<v Speaker 3>When you're listening to Bloomberg, Plea bargains account for almost

0:24:08.920 --> 0:24:12.760
<v Speaker 3>ninety eight percent of federal convictions. And we've all seen

0:24:12.800 --> 0:24:16.200
<v Speaker 3>how it works, sort of in movies and TV shows

0:24:16.280 --> 0:24:19.560
<v Speaker 3>like Presumed Innocent, where the defense attorney is trying to

0:24:19.560 --> 0:24:21.160
<v Speaker 3>get his client a plea.

0:24:21.000 --> 0:24:24.080
<v Speaker 9>Deal, blood and guts everywhere at her home, not so

0:24:24.160 --> 0:24:27.119
<v Speaker 9>much as a microscopic drop in this car he cleaned

0:24:27.119 --> 0:24:30.560
<v Speaker 9>it or on his clothing cleaned it also weapons disposed

0:24:30.600 --> 0:24:34.159
<v Speaker 9>that it. Rusty cannot risk spending the rest of his

0:24:34.359 --> 0:24:37.560
<v Speaker 9>natural life in prison, and you cannot chance an acquittal

0:24:37.600 --> 0:24:41.600
<v Speaker 9>and the obliteration of all of your political capital. We'll

0:24:41.640 --> 0:24:43.960
<v Speaker 9>cop to the obstruction three years.

0:24:47.040 --> 0:24:50.560
<v Speaker 4>Ray, you seriously think we'll plead it out on an

0:24:50.560 --> 0:24:52.160
<v Speaker 4>obstruction surn But what.

0:24:52.200 --> 0:24:56.119
<v Speaker 3>If prosecutors use information they get from defense lawyers in

0:24:56.160 --> 0:25:00.240
<v Speaker 3>those sessions against the defendant. That's basically what happened to

0:25:00.280 --> 0:25:04.679
<v Speaker 3>Senator Bob Menandez in his corruption trial. While the gold bars,

0:25:04.720 --> 0:25:07.720
<v Speaker 3>the half million in cash, and the Mercedes Benz got

0:25:07.800 --> 0:25:11.760
<v Speaker 3>most of the attention, federal prosecutors made an unusual and

0:25:11.880 --> 0:25:16.280
<v Speaker 3>aggressive move in charging Menendez with obstruction based on the

0:25:16.320 --> 0:25:19.560
<v Speaker 3>presentation made by his former lawyer in a meeting with

0:25:19.640 --> 0:25:23.880
<v Speaker 3>prosecutors before the indictment. Joining me is former federal prosecutor.

0:25:23.920 --> 0:25:27.719
<v Speaker 3>Ariel Newman, a partner at Bird Marilla Ariel how common

0:25:27.840 --> 0:25:31.080
<v Speaker 3>is it for defense attorneys to meet with prosecutors to

0:25:31.160 --> 0:25:33.120
<v Speaker 3>try to talk them out of bringing charges.

0:25:33.680 --> 0:25:36.720
<v Speaker 10>So in this case, we're talking about pre indictment, meaning

0:25:36.760 --> 0:25:40.280
<v Speaker 10>before the defendant is charged, And these meetings are very,

0:25:40.400 --> 0:25:43.240
<v Speaker 10>very common, especially in the white collar context where we're

0:25:43.240 --> 0:25:46.399
<v Speaker 10>talking about fraud crimes of some sort. We are going

0:25:46.560 --> 0:25:49.840
<v Speaker 10>in and making the case to the prosecutors about why

0:25:49.840 --> 0:25:53.320
<v Speaker 10>they shouldn't pursue a case against our client. And it

0:25:53.359 --> 0:25:56.119
<v Speaker 10>may be legal arguments, it may be factual arguments, but

0:25:56.440 --> 0:25:58.560
<v Speaker 10>we are trying to convince them that they don't have

0:25:58.600 --> 0:26:01.359
<v Speaker 10>a case, or for whatever reason, they shouldn't pursue a

0:26:01.400 --> 0:26:02.439
<v Speaker 10>case that they think they have.

0:26:02.800 --> 0:26:06.960
<v Speaker 3>Are these meetings supposed to be confidential or can prosecutors

0:26:07.040 --> 0:26:09.960
<v Speaker 3>use the information given to them at trial?

0:26:10.600 --> 0:26:13.240
<v Speaker 10>Usually there is an agreement or there's a request for

0:26:13.280 --> 0:26:16.160
<v Speaker 10>an agreement by the defense lawyer that these are protected

0:26:16.200 --> 0:26:19.600
<v Speaker 10>as settlement conversations. There's a sederal rule of evidence that

0:26:19.680 --> 0:26:24.440
<v Speaker 10>says settlement communications can't be admitted for almost and that's

0:26:24.440 --> 0:26:27.760
<v Speaker 10>an important almost almost any purpose at trial, and so

0:26:28.160 --> 0:26:31.080
<v Speaker 10>generally the expectation is that these are going to be

0:26:31.600 --> 0:26:35.440
<v Speaker 10>largely confidential. And then the caveat to that is sometimes there

0:26:35.600 --> 0:26:38.399
<v Speaker 10>is an agent that's an FBI agent, who is taking

0:26:38.400 --> 0:26:41.119
<v Speaker 10>notes during the meeting. If that's happening, you tend to

0:26:41.160 --> 0:26:43.879
<v Speaker 10>know that it may not be as confidential as you hope. Also,

0:26:44.000 --> 0:26:46.280
<v Speaker 10>I mean, I've had it where they write a report

0:26:46.359 --> 0:26:48.520
<v Speaker 10>and then they produce it in discovery. If the government

0:26:48.560 --> 0:26:51.320
<v Speaker 10>goes ahead and charges your clients anyway, and there's other

0:26:51.400 --> 0:26:53.960
<v Speaker 10>people who are charged in the case along with your client,

0:26:54.119 --> 0:26:57.399
<v Speaker 10>and suddenly they are seeing a report about what you

0:26:57.480 --> 0:26:59.840
<v Speaker 10>said during that meeting where you were trying to convince

0:26:59.840 --> 0:27:01.520
<v Speaker 10>the government not to charge your client.

0:27:01.760 --> 0:27:03.800
<v Speaker 3>I mean, was that in a case where you thought

0:27:03.960 --> 0:27:06.440
<v Speaker 3>what you were saying was not to be used.

0:27:06.800 --> 0:27:09.800
<v Speaker 10>We thought it was a confidential settlement meeting. They never

0:27:10.280 --> 0:27:13.919
<v Speaker 10>tried to introduce it at trial. But there isn't really

0:27:14.000 --> 0:27:16.639
<v Speaker 10>anything prohibiting them from doing what they did unless you

0:27:16.680 --> 0:27:19.919
<v Speaker 10>have an agreement explicitly that they won't. And I have

0:27:20.040 --> 0:27:22.280
<v Speaker 10>found more and more as I have asked for those

0:27:22.320 --> 0:27:26.280
<v Speaker 10>agreements that prosecutors and especially prosecutors from what we call

0:27:26.359 --> 0:27:29.080
<v Speaker 10>main Justice DOJ and DC as opposed to the local

0:27:29.160 --> 0:27:32.239
<v Speaker 10>US attorney's office are less and less willing to have

0:27:32.280 --> 0:27:34.160
<v Speaker 10>any sort of agreement about what they're going to do

0:27:34.320 --> 0:27:36.960
<v Speaker 10>with the information you provide. But what happened in the

0:27:36.960 --> 0:27:39.920
<v Speaker 10>Menendez case, Honestly, I've never heard of that before, and

0:27:40.280 --> 0:27:42.440
<v Speaker 10>everybody I've talked to has never heard of it before,

0:27:42.680 --> 0:27:46.800
<v Speaker 10>where prosecutors in that case charged the defendant with obstruction

0:27:47.280 --> 0:27:52.359
<v Speaker 10>because they claim the lawyers provided false factual information during

0:27:52.480 --> 0:27:56.720
<v Speaker 10>those meetings, which they say the lawyers got from the defendant.

0:27:56.720 --> 0:27:59.320
<v Speaker 10>You know, we are always talking about facts during the

0:27:59.440 --> 0:28:03.240
<v Speaker 10>meeting legal arguments, but we're also making factual arguments. And

0:28:03.680 --> 0:28:05.440
<v Speaker 10>I've never heard of and like I say, nobody else

0:28:05.440 --> 0:28:07.240
<v Speaker 10>that I know I has ever heard of the government

0:28:07.320 --> 0:28:10.119
<v Speaker 10>charging obstruction based on what you say during those meetings.

0:28:10.400 --> 0:28:12.479
<v Speaker 3>And we should point out that the exception to the

0:28:12.480 --> 0:28:16.000
<v Speaker 3>federal rule that you referred to before is that statements

0:28:16.080 --> 0:28:20.600
<v Speaker 3>made during these negotiations can be used to prove obstruction,

0:28:21.040 --> 0:28:24.160
<v Speaker 3>as in the Menendez case. So Abby Lowell, a high

0:28:24.160 --> 0:28:29.840
<v Speaker 3>profile criminal defense attorney, represented Menendez in these pre indictment

0:28:29.960 --> 0:28:33.439
<v Speaker 3>negotiations with the prosecutors in the Southern District, and he

0:28:33.520 --> 0:28:36.520
<v Speaker 3>made a PowerPoint presentation. Is that unusual?

0:28:37.040 --> 0:28:40.280
<v Speaker 10>Not at all, very common. That helps outline the discussion,

0:28:40.400 --> 0:28:43.000
<v Speaker 10>helps frame what you're going to be talking about, and

0:28:43.040 --> 0:28:45.880
<v Speaker 10>the hammer home the point that you want the government

0:28:45.880 --> 0:28:49.480
<v Speaker 10>to focus on. So very very common to have a presentation,

0:28:49.680 --> 0:28:53.000
<v Speaker 10>and I think important in any of these presentations that

0:28:53.000 --> 0:28:55.680
<v Speaker 10>that's all what it is, maybe an outline or maybe

0:28:55.720 --> 0:28:57.960
<v Speaker 10>just a couple of bullet points on a screen, maybe

0:28:58.000 --> 0:29:01.560
<v Speaker 10>a couple pictures or citations to cases. None of us

0:29:01.560 --> 0:29:04.480
<v Speaker 10>are putting the entire context of what we're going to

0:29:04.520 --> 0:29:07.040
<v Speaker 10>say up on the screen. In fact, my practices edit

0:29:07.080 --> 0:29:08.760
<v Speaker 10>it down to the fewest words possible.

0:29:09.200 --> 0:29:13.440
<v Speaker 3>The judge allowed the government to introduce a trial pages

0:29:13.680 --> 0:29:18.360
<v Speaker 3>from that PowerPoint presentation. I mean, what about attorney client privilege?

0:29:18.400 --> 0:29:22.680
<v Speaker 3>What about attorney work product? Where were those concepts in this?

0:29:23.360 --> 0:29:26.920
<v Speaker 10>So attorney client privilege once you share with the government,

0:29:27.040 --> 0:29:30.040
<v Speaker 10>let's say what your client said, then it's free game.

0:29:30.160 --> 0:29:32.960
<v Speaker 10>Right you've sort of waived at least as to those statements.

0:29:33.080 --> 0:29:35.720
<v Speaker 10>Arguably the privilege depends how you say it, right, my

0:29:35.920 --> 0:29:39.320
<v Speaker 10>client told me X that's pretty much a waiver. But

0:29:39.880 --> 0:29:43.200
<v Speaker 10>the attorney work product is a different question. And generally

0:29:43.840 --> 0:29:46.200
<v Speaker 10>my view is that we shouldn't be giving the government

0:29:46.240 --> 0:29:48.680
<v Speaker 10>our work product defense lawyers. We shouldn't be giving them

0:29:48.680 --> 0:29:51.720
<v Speaker 10>our powerpoints because they can, as it appears they did

0:29:51.760 --> 0:29:53.760
<v Speaker 10>here take it out of context right here that I

0:29:53.760 --> 0:29:56.280
<v Speaker 10>think they put in four pages from what was obviously

0:29:56.320 --> 0:30:00.360
<v Speaker 10>a longer PowerPoint into evidence and the defense, if I

0:30:00.440 --> 0:30:02.960
<v Speaker 10>understand it, was really stymied in their effort to get

0:30:03.000 --> 0:30:05.160
<v Speaker 10>in any of the context around them. And it's that

0:30:05.320 --> 0:30:08.560
<v Speaker 10>context where the caveats are given, where the lawyers are

0:30:08.760 --> 0:30:11.800
<v Speaker 10>making sure that it's understood that this may not be

0:30:11.920 --> 0:30:14.160
<v Speaker 10>exactly what the client, that maybe this is what our

0:30:14.200 --> 0:30:18.000
<v Speaker 10>investigation has shown or something else. But without that context,

0:30:18.000 --> 0:30:21.200
<v Speaker 10>it becomes very difficult to get the full picture of

0:30:21.240 --> 0:30:23.080
<v Speaker 10>what was actually said during that meeting.

0:30:23.560 --> 0:30:26.280
<v Speaker 3>In light of this, you have written for Bloomberg Law

0:30:26.560 --> 0:30:30.440
<v Speaker 3>some advice for defense lawyers in these situations. First, whether

0:30:30.480 --> 0:30:33.600
<v Speaker 3>to even have the meeting? I mean, how often our

0:30:33.680 --> 0:30:38.800
<v Speaker 3>defense lawyers successful in getting prosecutors not to charge their client?

0:30:39.040 --> 0:30:41.000
<v Speaker 3>Is it worth even having one of these meetings?

0:30:41.320 --> 0:30:43.880
<v Speaker 10>I've done it, and you know people who have had success.

0:30:43.960 --> 0:30:46.840
<v Speaker 10>It depends where the government is in the process and

0:30:47.200 --> 0:30:49.640
<v Speaker 10>how could your facts and your arguments are It is

0:30:49.680 --> 0:30:54.000
<v Speaker 10>certainly in many cases worth making the presentation. First, of all,

0:30:54.240 --> 0:30:57.000
<v Speaker 10>often in advance of that, you have discussions with the

0:30:57.040 --> 0:30:59.680
<v Speaker 10>government where you can learn more about their case and

0:31:00.120 --> 0:31:03.320
<v Speaker 10>gives you a chance to find out sometimes where the

0:31:03.320 --> 0:31:05.800
<v Speaker 10>holes are in your arguments as well. Right if I

0:31:05.840 --> 0:31:08.080
<v Speaker 10>come in and I make some argument, the government says, oh,

0:31:08.080 --> 0:31:11.240
<v Speaker 10>that's all well and good, but what about XYZ And

0:31:11.440 --> 0:31:13.760
<v Speaker 10>for whatever reason I didn't know about X y Z. Well,

0:31:13.920 --> 0:31:16.800
<v Speaker 10>now we're more informed going into the next decisions about

0:31:16.800 --> 0:31:19.960
<v Speaker 10>what we're going to do. The big downside to making

0:31:20.000 --> 0:31:23.000
<v Speaker 10>these presentations is that you're showing your cards to some extent.

0:31:23.400 --> 0:31:26.680
<v Speaker 10>You're going in and you're making your pitch to the government.

0:31:26.680 --> 0:31:30.120
<v Speaker 10>You're arguing your facts, you're arguing your evidence, and you know,

0:31:30.280 --> 0:31:33.040
<v Speaker 10>the sort of conventional wisdom is that that allows the

0:31:33.040 --> 0:31:35.960
<v Speaker 10>government to shore up their case as well. They find

0:31:35.960 --> 0:31:38.520
<v Speaker 10>out where their potential holes are and where the weaknesses

0:31:38.520 --> 0:31:40.720
<v Speaker 10>in their case are. And so it's certainly a balancing

0:31:40.760 --> 0:31:44.200
<v Speaker 10>decision in every situation of whether you do this meeting,

0:31:44.600 --> 0:31:48.280
<v Speaker 10>but in many cases it's worthwhile. And in many cases

0:31:48.280 --> 0:31:51.520
<v Speaker 10>the client is really pushing because they're facing the prospect

0:31:51.560 --> 0:31:54.440
<v Speaker 10>of federal felony charges and this may be the best

0:31:54.440 --> 0:31:56.280
<v Speaker 10>shot they have to avoid them. Or at least they

0:31:56.280 --> 0:31:58.080
<v Speaker 10>think that. And that's one of the things I talk

0:31:58.120 --> 0:32:00.840
<v Speaker 10>about is how to resist that pressure. Whether to resist

0:32:00.920 --> 0:32:03.360
<v Speaker 10>that pressure. It's not always so easy when the guy

0:32:03.440 --> 0:32:06.440
<v Speaker 10>paying the bills is telling you do something to stop this. Please.

0:32:06.800 --> 0:32:09.640
<v Speaker 3>Are there any magic words that you should say at

0:32:09.680 --> 0:32:12.479
<v Speaker 3>the beginning or you should have put in writing so

0:32:12.520 --> 0:32:14.640
<v Speaker 3>that you avoid a menenda situation?

0:32:16.080 --> 0:32:18.120
<v Speaker 10>Well, there are no magic words, and so you just

0:32:18.200 --> 0:32:21.800
<v Speaker 10>have to be careful and clear as you approach this.

0:32:22.080 --> 0:32:23.960
<v Speaker 10>One of the main things is I do think it's

0:32:23.960 --> 0:32:27.680
<v Speaker 10>worth getting an agreement that these are settlement communications and

0:32:27.920 --> 0:32:30.959
<v Speaker 10>that at least gives some protection to how anything that

0:32:31.000 --> 0:32:33.280
<v Speaker 10>comes out of the meeting might be used in the future.

0:32:33.800 --> 0:32:36.440
<v Speaker 10>And a big one that I think we see here

0:32:36.880 --> 0:32:40.920
<v Speaker 10>is where at all possible not to source the information

0:32:41.320 --> 0:32:44.000
<v Speaker 10>that's in your presentation to your client, meaning not to

0:32:44.040 --> 0:32:46.880
<v Speaker 10>say my client told me X or my client says

0:32:47.040 --> 0:32:50.160
<v Speaker 10>why about this situation? And once you say that, you

0:32:50.240 --> 0:32:53.320
<v Speaker 10>are then really putting the client on the line and

0:32:53.360 --> 0:32:54.880
<v Speaker 10>their credibility on the line.

0:32:55.160 --> 0:32:58.600
<v Speaker 3>So, in talking to other defense lawyers, do you think

0:32:58.640 --> 0:33:02.280
<v Speaker 3>that they're more aware now or more afraid of what

0:33:02.360 --> 0:33:03.880
<v Speaker 3>might happen in these meetings?

0:33:04.440 --> 0:33:07.800
<v Speaker 10>I think this prosecution for people who are aware of it,

0:33:07.880 --> 0:33:10.200
<v Speaker 10>sent a bit of a shockwave through the defense bar.

0:33:10.720 --> 0:33:12.800
<v Speaker 10>I haven't had a reaction like I had to this

0:33:12.920 --> 0:33:15.920
<v Speaker 10>article from the defense bar. People pointing out to me

0:33:16.040 --> 0:33:19.680
<v Speaker 10>that they are changing their practices, people responding that they've

0:33:19.720 --> 0:33:21.680
<v Speaker 10>never heard of this, and they're going to have to

0:33:21.720 --> 0:33:23.760
<v Speaker 10>think about it going forward. You know, we're going to

0:33:23.760 --> 0:33:27.959
<v Speaker 10>have to see whether this was an outlier, very aggressive prosecution,

0:33:28.680 --> 0:33:31.240
<v Speaker 10>or whether this is something that is going to be

0:33:31.280 --> 0:33:33.880
<v Speaker 10>a tool, a new tool in the government's told belt,

0:33:33.920 --> 0:33:35.719
<v Speaker 10>and we're all going to have to be cognizant of it.

0:33:35.960 --> 0:33:37.920
<v Speaker 10>So I do think it's going to change or at

0:33:38.000 --> 0:33:40.840
<v Speaker 10>least make us more cautious as we go into these meetings.

0:33:41.120 --> 0:33:43.800
<v Speaker 3>Menanda says he's going to appeal his conviction all the

0:33:43.800 --> 0:33:46.960
<v Speaker 3>way to the Supreme Court if necessary. And we've seen

0:33:47.000 --> 0:33:51.200
<v Speaker 3>the Supreme Court in the last decade or so narrowing

0:33:51.280 --> 0:33:55.360
<v Speaker 3>the definition of corruption, leading to a number of convictions

0:33:55.400 --> 0:33:59.360
<v Speaker 3>of public figures being overturned. Do you think that'll be

0:33:59.400 --> 0:34:01.520
<v Speaker 3>one of his poor So, I'm.

0:34:01.400 --> 0:34:04.440
<v Speaker 10>Sure it's something he'll bring up. I've had bribery cases,

0:34:04.560 --> 0:34:07.080
<v Speaker 10>public corruption cases, and this is sort of where the

0:34:07.120 --> 0:34:09.880
<v Speaker 10>rub is right now as the Supreme Course is going

0:34:09.920 --> 0:34:12.560
<v Speaker 10>through and as you say, narrowing the definition of what

0:34:12.600 --> 0:34:15.080
<v Speaker 10>we call an official act. I would be shocked if

0:34:15.080 --> 0:34:16.920
<v Speaker 10>they don't focus on that. They were focused on it

0:34:17.000 --> 0:34:19.240
<v Speaker 10>in the pre trial and then again during the trial,

0:34:19.520 --> 0:34:21.879
<v Speaker 10>and it seems to me that they've got some good

0:34:21.960 --> 0:34:24.279
<v Speaker 10>arguments and they've got some that may be more of

0:34:24.320 --> 0:34:28.279
<v Speaker 10>a challenge. It's really about whether Menendez was using his

0:34:28.360 --> 0:34:34.840
<v Speaker 10>official position on any decision or action on any question matter, cause, preceding,

0:34:34.920 --> 0:34:37.960
<v Speaker 10>or controversy which may be pending before him in his

0:34:38.000 --> 0:34:43.319
<v Speaker 10>official capacity. So, for instance, he as was alleged interfered

0:34:43.480 --> 0:34:47.640
<v Speaker 10>with a state prosecution by calling up a state prosecutor

0:34:47.640 --> 0:34:49.799
<v Speaker 10>and saying, hey, maybe take another look at this now,

0:34:49.920 --> 0:34:53.399
<v Speaker 10>that's not really something that's pending before him, And maybe

0:34:53.480 --> 0:34:56.120
<v Speaker 10>a harder argument that that's an official act. He doesn't

0:34:56.160 --> 0:34:58.400
<v Speaker 10>really have an official role there. He's sort of using

0:34:58.440 --> 0:35:02.480
<v Speaker 10>his influence and position. Whereas maybe as he's alleged to

0:35:02.600 --> 0:35:07.040
<v Speaker 10>have interfered with the nomination of the US Attorney from

0:35:07.080 --> 0:35:11.239
<v Speaker 10>New Jersey by essentially corruptly making a recommendation to the

0:35:11.280 --> 0:35:13.800
<v Speaker 10>president of who to nominate, well, that may be closer

0:35:13.800 --> 0:35:16.960
<v Speaker 10>to the line because that is the traditional function of

0:35:17.000 --> 0:35:20.040
<v Speaker 10>the senator from a particular state, and that is potentially

0:35:20.120 --> 0:35:23.080
<v Speaker 10>something that was pending before him in his official capacity.

0:35:23.160 --> 0:35:25.719
<v Speaker 10>So it seems to me that they may have some luck,

0:35:25.840 --> 0:35:28.920
<v Speaker 10>but I'd be surprised if they can fully get everything reversed.

0:35:28.960 --> 0:35:30.919
<v Speaker 10>And that's just one part of the case. Obviously, there's

0:35:30.920 --> 0:35:33.840
<v Speaker 10>other pieces that don't rely on that official Act element.

0:35:33.960 --> 0:35:35.960
<v Speaker 10>Those are going to be harder for them to succeed on.

0:35:36.000 --> 0:35:38.080
<v Speaker 3>From what I can see, do you think his conviction

0:35:38.480 --> 0:35:41.600
<v Speaker 3>for being an agent of Egypt will be easier for

0:35:41.640 --> 0:35:42.680
<v Speaker 3>the defense to attack?

0:35:42.960 --> 0:35:44.520
<v Speaker 10>I think what you have to look at is the

0:35:44.520 --> 0:35:50.120
<v Speaker 10>full picture, right, because the argument is essentially that legislators,

0:35:50.120 --> 0:35:52.799
<v Speaker 10>and especially a senior senator like him, who's doing the

0:35:52.840 --> 0:35:55.080
<v Speaker 10>foreign affairs work that he's doing, are going to have

0:35:55.160 --> 0:35:58.160
<v Speaker 10>contact with foreign officials and are going to take positions

0:35:58.200 --> 0:36:02.040
<v Speaker 10>that may be to the benefit of a particular country,

0:36:02.080 --> 0:36:04.080
<v Speaker 10>in this case Egypt, And so that's just sort of

0:36:04.120 --> 0:36:06.640
<v Speaker 10>part and parcel of what they do. And as a

0:36:06.680 --> 0:36:11.160
<v Speaker 10>member of Congress, the challenge in a case like this is, well,

0:36:11.200 --> 0:36:13.919
<v Speaker 10>what about the rest of the picture? Right? And here

0:36:14.000 --> 0:36:16.880
<v Speaker 10>it's the cash and the gold bars and the deleted

0:36:16.920 --> 0:36:19.960
<v Speaker 10>messages and so on and so forth that the jury

0:36:20.000 --> 0:36:22.399
<v Speaker 10>obviously felt that takes it out of the realm of

0:36:22.560 --> 0:36:25.480
<v Speaker 10>what you're doing in your official capacity and puts it

0:36:25.560 --> 0:36:28.000
<v Speaker 10>more into the realm of something that is corrupt. And

0:36:28.080 --> 0:36:30.200
<v Speaker 10>so that's what's going to be the bigger challenge I

0:36:30.239 --> 0:36:32.880
<v Speaker 10>think on appeal is how do you question the jury's

0:36:32.960 --> 0:36:35.440
<v Speaker 10>verdict in light of the full scope of the evidence.

0:36:35.480 --> 0:36:37.719
<v Speaker 10>And that's always what makes these cases difficult.

0:36:38.120 --> 0:36:41.920
<v Speaker 3>Menandez as lawyers say they're going to appeal aggressively, so

0:36:41.960 --> 0:36:44.720
<v Speaker 3>we'll see what arguments they come up with. Thanks so much, Ariel.

0:36:44.920 --> 0:36:47.960
<v Speaker 3>That's Ariel Newman of Bird Marilla. And that's it for

0:36:47.960 --> 0:36:51.000
<v Speaker 3>this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can

0:36:51.040 --> 0:36:53.960
<v Speaker 3>always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening

0:36:54.000 --> 0:36:57.719
<v Speaker 3>to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg

0:36:57.760 --> 0:37:01.799
<v Speaker 3>dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and

0:37:01.960 --> 0:37:03.200
<v Speaker 3>this is Bloomberg