Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Former President Donald Trump bid farewell to Washington today, the
Speaker 1: first president in modern history to boycott his successors inauguration.
Speaker 1: What's the road ahead for a man who has never
Speaker 1: adhered to political norms? Joining me is Tina Davis, the
Speaker 1: executive editor of Bloomberg Legal News. You know what's been
Speaker 1: happening with the Trump Empire while he's been president. If
Speaker 1: you look at kind of all of the holdings of
Speaker 1: Trump organization, the president came into office worth about three billion.
Speaker 1: And even though we've had a brilliant economy and excluding
Speaker 1: the pandemic for most of the four years of his term,
Speaker 1: and there's also a massive tax cut program that was
Speaker 1: implemented under his administration, he's actually leaving about five million
Speaker 1: dollars poorer than he came in. And that's most of
Speaker 1: it because of the downturn in the real estate market
Speaker 1: and obviously the downturn in the tourism business. The come
Speaker 1: as a resultable pandemic. This is not a great time
Speaker 1: to be in real estate, either commercial or residential, certainly
Speaker 1: in New York City, and it's not a great time
Speaker 1: to be offering things like golf trips for a lot
Speaker 1: of populace that's still locked down, and his company carries
Speaker 1: a billion dollars in debt. Is he personally liable for
Speaker 1: that and can he cover it? He's not personally liable
Speaker 1: for all of that debt. He's personally liable for about
Speaker 1: three million dollars of that debt, and that's being held
Speaker 1: by Deutsche Bank, which is looking to extricate itself from
Speaker 1: its relationship with the president. So he's gonna have to
Speaker 1: find another lender to take on that debt, or at
Speaker 1: least Deutsche Bank is going to have to find someone
Speaker 1: to offload that debt too. But the other thing to
Speaker 1: think about when you're looking at the stet load, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not a huge stebt load in comparison to the
Speaker 1: values of the properties. And the other thing to think
Speaker 1: about is, you know, you don't have banks right now
Speaker 1: that are desperate to be in the real estate business.
Speaker 1: Nobody's desperate to be in the real estate business. So
Speaker 1: that might also help you know, again, if if it
Speaker 1: comes to a worsening financial situation, you know, you as
Speaker 1: a bank necessarily want to own a hotel right now,
Speaker 1: or want to own a huge commercial property at the moment.
Speaker 1: That also means it's going to be difficult to sell
Speaker 1: assets to raise money. Correct And look, I think, as
Speaker 1: I said, this is not there's no indication at present
Speaker 1: that there are kind of severe financial constraints facing Trump.
Speaker 1: As he returns to Trump's word, but it is not
Speaker 1: a great time to be in these businesses. He's in
Speaker 1: prior years made a lot of money from licensing his name.
Speaker 1: It's not clear exactly what that will look like going forward,
Speaker 1: since we have seen a lot of companies distanced themselves
Speaker 1: in the aftermath of the capital siege. So he's got
Speaker 1: a base of of assets. Whether or not he can
Speaker 1: build on that as is an open question, and how
Speaker 1: he will build on that is an open question. He's
Speaker 1: been counted out many times before and he's managed to
Speaker 1: come back from those. Tell us a little bit about
Speaker 1: his comebacks. Yeah, absolutely. I mean when you think of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, it's always everything is done in a rather
Speaker 1: big way. So you've had the spectacle their bankruptcies after
Speaker 1: he overextended himself. You know, there was a Trump Airline
Speaker 1: at one point. There are a lot of businesses that
Speaker 1: he got into and was not entirely successful with and
Speaker 1: in fact, if you sort of think about his most
Speaker 1: recent rise, you know, when he got the job on
Speaker 1: The Apprentice, he was not necessarily in the best financial
Speaker 1: position of his career. That job helped launch him into
Speaker 1: another kind of stratosphere, both in terms of earnings and
Speaker 1: in terms of having his face before the American public,
Speaker 1: which I think was incredibly helpful as he began this
Speaker 1: presidential run. And again if you think about comebacks, and
Speaker 1: nobody thought he would win in twenty sixteen, and he
Speaker 1: managed to overcome all the skeptics and become the first
Speaker 1: businessman president who never held an elected office before. So
Speaker 1: you can never really again sort of count him out.
Speaker 1: I think that's what we've learned. It has a lot
Speaker 1: changed since the Capital riots. For example, before the riots,
Speaker 1: there was talk of a Trump net work. Yeah, is
Speaker 1: that more difficult now or is it out of the question.
Speaker 1: I think it's not entirely out of the question. And
Speaker 1: I guess the reason I would say that is because
Speaker 1: we've seen so many times that businesses and corporations have
Speaker 1: distanced themselves and then come back to him. I mean,
Speaker 1: thinking the immediate aftermath of what happened in Charlottesville. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of people who quit from the various
Speaker 1: sort of test force that were part of advising the
Speaker 1: White House, and then those people eventually came back around.
Speaker 1: So if you're talking about, I think for media and
Speaker 1: social media specifically, that's one of the places where we
Speaker 1: saw perhaps the greatest reaction when the President lost the
Speaker 1: megaphone that he had in Twitter. That's a real difference,
Speaker 1: you know, that's a very direct way that he had
Speaker 1: of reaching out to all of his followers get eighty
Speaker 1: eight million followers on Twitter. Losing that that microphone, that megaphone,
Speaker 1: as you will, is a real sort of game changer
Speaker 1: in terms of you don't really hear as much him,
Speaker 1: and it will be very interesting going forward to see
Speaker 1: what he uses to replace that. And perhaps that is
Speaker 1: a media channel. He's talked before about wanting to create
Speaker 1: some sort of network that would compete with Fox, which
Speaker 1: he has integrated as you know, not being conservative enough
Speaker 1: from his view. But perhaps it's also a social media channel.
Speaker 1: You know, we've seen Parlor shut down and then ultimately
Speaker 1: able to get back online. Maybe there's another way for
Speaker 1: him to connect with folks. And he has a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of information that he's gotten just from his app.
Speaker 1: So you know, if you are a follower of Trump
Speaker 1: and you've downloaded his app, he has your phone number,
Speaker 1: your email. He has a lot of great information that
Speaker 1: if you're looking to monetize the base, you have the
Speaker 1: potential ability to do that. You sort of think about,
Speaker 1: how do you create potentially a new social media base,
Speaker 1: how do you reach your followers if you're not able
Speaker 1: to use the normal methods of Facebook or Twitter. And
Speaker 1: has there actually been talked about a revival of The Apprentice?
Speaker 1: There has, although he said in the asked he wouldn't
Speaker 1: do it. But as I said before, I don't think
Speaker 1: that you ever completely discount any possibility when it comes
Speaker 1: to this president. He's done so many things that nobody
Speaker 1: expected him to do over the past four years and
Speaker 1: obviously before that as well. He will be looking for
Speaker 1: some sort of way to connect with the people who
Speaker 1: believe in him, and whether that's through traditional media, whether
Speaker 1: that's through building another network, whether it's through taking a
Speaker 1: stake maybe in one American News or Newsmax, which are
Speaker 1: two media outlets that have really been supporting him. There's
Speaker 1: a potential path for him in the years had Simon
Speaker 1: and Schuster. I think it was canceled their book deal
Speaker 1: with Senator Josh Holly after the riot. But is a
Speaker 1: huge book deal for Trump still a possibility. Oh, I
Speaker 1: would say so. And I think, you know, it's a
Speaker 1: little bit different canceling a book deal for a senator,
Speaker 1: and this is again, this is a book deal that
Speaker 1: was about he was writing about technology companies. I think
Speaker 1: there will be appetite, kind of regardless for a memoir
Speaker 1: from the president, which is one of the traditional things
Speaker 1: that presidents do, aside from playing golf and setting up
Speaker 1: their presidential libraries. You know, the tradition is that you
Speaker 1: write a memoir and you usually make several million dollars
Speaker 1: off of that book deal. I would be really surprised
Speaker 1: if no one wanted to bid for that memoir, because
Speaker 1: there is appetite for it. Trump has written several books
Speaker 1: in the past, including most famously The Art of the Deal.
Speaker 1: All of those, of course written with ghost writers. But
Speaker 1: he's shown an interest in book publishing in the past,
Speaker 1: and I wouldn't expect publishing to turn its back on him,
Speaker 1: because this would be an interesting book no matter who
Speaker 1: you supported, No support. It would be an interesting book
Speaker 1: to read his sort of take on the past four
Speaker 1: years and talk a little bit about legal exposure. Now,
Speaker 1: so tell us what some of the possible federal cases
Speaker 1: against him might be. So the federal cases get more
Speaker 1: and more interesting. Up until two weeks ago, I would
Speaker 1: have said that was probably not a great deal of
Speaker 1: of a chance that the Justice Department would necessarily file
Speaker 1: charges against him. But in the aftermath of what happened
Speaker 1: at the spital in January six, he's also potentially facing
Speaker 1: charges of incitement if the U. S. Attorney in the
Speaker 1: District of Columbia decides to pursue that. He is facing
Speaker 1: potential obstruction of justice charges if the Biden administration, if
Speaker 1: their Justice Department decides to move forward with that. So
Speaker 1: those are some of the federal charges cases that are
Speaker 1: outside of the federal jurisdiction. I'm thinking specifically about from
Speaker 1: a couple of cases in New York. And he has
Speaker 1: the New York Attorney General looking at his taxes and
Speaker 1: what he's done there, and you have the Manhattan District
Speaker 1: Attorney who famously went all the way to Supreme Court
Speaker 1: to get access to his financial records. He looks into
Speaker 1: potential fraud by the Trump organization and by Donald Trump himself.
Speaker 1: As far as the federal cases, you know, before the
Speaker 1: Capital riot, it was reported that Joe Biden basically wanted
Speaker 1: to move on. He didn't want the beginning of his
Speaker 1: presidency tarnished by federal charges against Trump. But has that
Speaker 1: whole dynamic change since the riot, Well, I think that
Speaker 1: remains to be seen. I mean, the constant refrain we've
Speaker 1: gotten from the Biden administration is that they want to
Speaker 1: try to make what they see as a deliberate break
Speaker 1: with the policies of the prior administration and tried not
Speaker 1: to be seen as directing the Justice Department who to
Speaker 1: prosecute and who not to prosecute. So their approach is that,
Speaker 1: you know, they plan on being very hands off with
Speaker 1: the just Justice Department and allowing the Justice Partment to
Speaker 1: do its work. But again, I think I feel like
Speaker 1: when you're talking about again, they're not being a huge
Speaker 1: amount of kind of lock him up chance going on
Speaker 1: amongst the Biden administration officials. That may have changed. And
Speaker 1: what's interesting is we heard from the U. S. Attorney
Speaker 1: in the District of Columbia who was enacting the U
Speaker 1: S Attorney, but is a Trump appointee that he would
Speaker 1: not rule out the idea of possibly charging the president,
Speaker 1: as they have hundreds of cases that are now under
Speaker 1: their jurisdiction, and they've arrested more than a hundred people
Speaker 1: in association with what happened on that day. The fact
Speaker 1: that he wouldn't rule it out, I think it's a
Speaker 1: very interesting and very telling statement. Is there a possibility
Speaker 1: of charges from the phone calls that he made to
Speaker 1: Georgia officials to try to change the election results in
Speaker 1: that state? Yeah, so we've heard from uh, we've heard
Speaker 1: at least the idea that the that a prosecutor in
Speaker 1: Fulton County is looking into those Um, I feel like, you,
Speaker 1: you know, you obviously need political support for those things,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure necessarily that there would be support.
Speaker 1: Even though that president has attacked numerous officials in Georgia,
Speaker 1: including the governor and the Secretary of States there, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that that they would have kind of the
Speaker 1: political will to necessarily spend their prosecutors after him. But again,
Speaker 1: in majority kind of democratic areas, and Fulton County being
Speaker 1: one of those, you might see someone try to bring
Speaker 1: a charge a state charge, um, looking at potential election interference.
Speaker 1: Given what was that on that phone call you mentioned
Speaker 1: the Manhattan prosecutors lawsuit and the grand jury investigation there
Speaker 1: there it went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court said, yes, the grand jury can get the tax records,
Speaker 1: but it has to go back and be reviewed. Where
Speaker 1: is that now? I haven't heard that much about that lately.
Speaker 1: What point is it at? Yeah, I mean that's a
Speaker 1: that's a really good question because one of the things
Speaker 1: we've been thinking about is, you know whether or not
Speaker 1: on January if somebody is going to go ahead and
Speaker 1: file charges or you know, unsealing indictment against the president.
Speaker 1: And just a reminder, the president is not immune from
Speaker 1: any kind of charges while he's in office. Certainly he's
Speaker 1: faced several civil cases. Um. There is just sort of
Speaker 1: the idea or the mindset that you can't criminally charge
Speaker 1: the US fitting presidents that has never been tested and
Speaker 1: I don't think it will be in this administration. But yeah,
Speaker 1: if you think about what's gone back and forth with
Speaker 1: the Cyrus Fans case, that's actually back up for the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court for yet another decision. And you know what
Speaker 1: we're hearing, is that the folks in that office are
Speaker 1: waiting or having to wait for the Supreme Court decision
Speaker 1: before they decide you know exactly what they're gonna do
Speaker 1: with all the information in front of them, because they
Speaker 1: they're still waiting for a few key legal documents from
Speaker 1: his financial records. Does he have like different law firms
Speaker 1: handling different cases. Is some one person in charge of
Speaker 1: all this litigation defending him? That's a good question. I
Speaker 1: don't know that there's one single person in charge, and
Speaker 1: in fact, his representation has been kind of an open question.
Speaker 1: It's uh. Law firms have backed away under criticism for
Speaker 1: work as that they've done on behalf of Trump or
Speaker 1: on behalf of Republicans in the aftermath of the election,
Speaker 1: if you're challenging the election results, between several white shoe
Speaker 1: law firms that have decided that they are not going
Speaker 1: to do business, and in one case, a lawyer who
Speaker 1: was on the phone with him during that Georgia phone
Speaker 1: call has parted ways with her law firm because of
Speaker 1: what happened and because she was taking part of that.
Speaker 1: So we also don't know exactly who will represent him
Speaker 1: in his impeachment trial, assuming that goes forward in the Senate.
Speaker 1: Um and probably that won't happen until after he's out
Speaker 1: of office. Um. You know, if you sort of think
Speaker 1: about this is a man who's been who has had
Speaker 1: an incredibly litigious history. He's kept a lot of lawyers
Speaker 1: busy over his time. Um, you know, you sort of
Speaker 1: think about so it's like Mark Kasowitz, who has been
Speaker 1: one of his um strongest you know allies. You know,
Speaker 1: does he go back to using the people he was
Speaker 1: using before who's in the White House. Does he have
Speaker 1: a new round of lawyers that he turns to. Obviously
Speaker 1: we know his close with folks like Alan dere Schwartz
Speaker 1: and um, you know, other people that are equal pundits,
Speaker 1: maybe more than than practicing a lot of law at
Speaker 1: the moment. But you know, where did he turn for
Speaker 1: his legal representation? I think that's a very open question. Also,
Speaker 1: he has failed to pay a lot of his lawyers
Speaker 1: in the past, so that may be another consideration in
Speaker 1: mind when you just saw whether or not to take
Speaker 1: him on as a client. Well, when you think about that,
Speaker 1: you think of specifically uh Rudy Giulietti, who has been
Speaker 1: unbelievably loyal to the President over the past four years, UM,
Speaker 1: and it was reported that he was seeking twenty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a day to represent him in these election cases. UM.
Speaker 1: And then it was also reported that the president was
Speaker 1: not looking to pay that amount. So what I will
Speaker 1: say is, we don't know exactly what's going on there.
Speaker 1: We did see in the last round of UH campaign
Speaker 1: documents that had to be officially filed with the federal
Speaker 1: Election Campaign UM that he was still making payments to
Speaker 1: the same lawyers that you'd expect to see. We did
Speaker 1: not see any payments to Giuliani as we're good as
Speaker 1: of the end of UM I believe the end of November.
Speaker 1: So we don't know if those bilges haven't come too
Speaker 1: yet or if we will see something that UM in
Speaker 1: the next round of campaign documents that are due to
Speaker 1: be published at the end of this month. We talked
Speaker 1: about the retail brand and you know whether that's going
Speaker 1: to take a big hit or not. What about his
Speaker 1: MAGA merchandise and all those things. Yeah, so as part
Speaker 1: of a lot of companies kind of walking away from
Speaker 1: Trump and Trump related entities in the aftermath of January six,
Speaker 1: we did see the Canadian retail giant Shopify basically say
Speaker 1: that they would no longer support the sites that we're
Speaker 1: selling Donald Trump merchandise and the official merchandise specifically, So
Speaker 1: we did see that part of the website. It's becomes
Speaker 1: not very functional after Shopify went through its support UM.
Speaker 1: In fact, it was basically the fight was asking people
Speaker 1: to email their orders, in which if you've ever done
Speaker 1: on on shopping, just feels like you're working in the
Speaker 1: you know, the medieval times. To try to do that UM.
Speaker 1: Over the weekend, that site did get back up and running.
Speaker 1: We're not quite sure exactly who the alternative supplier is
Speaker 1: that they're using to sort of keep the infrastructure working
Speaker 1: so if they can continue to process payments from that UM.
Speaker 1: But I mean you can still buy a Maga hat
Speaker 1: if you want to on his website UM, and and
Speaker 1: all sorts of other merchandise. So, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a president who's never shied away from putting his name
Speaker 1: on UM a lot of items. I'm thinking of Trump
Speaker 1: Steaks and Trump Vodka in particular. UM. I would expect
Speaker 1: that to still be a stream of revenue for him
Speaker 1: going forward. Thanks Tina. That's Tina Davis, Executive editor of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal News. It was a pardon blitz. In Trump's
Speaker 1: last twelve hours in office, the former president pardon seventy
Speaker 1: three people and commuted the sentences of seventy more, joining
Speaker 1: me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints Apart in mcarter
Speaker 1: and English, Bob, the pardon power is one of the
Speaker 1: most unrestrained powers the president has. The pardon power comes
Speaker 1: from the first clause of Article to Section two of
Speaker 1: the Constitution, which provides the President shall have power to
Speaker 1: grant reprieve and pardons for offenses against the United States,
Speaker 1: except in cases of impeachment. So this is an extremely
Speaker 1: broad power. It's vested by the Constitution and the president,
Speaker 1: and there's very little the Congress can do to constrain it,
Speaker 1: short than teaching the president is they believe it's an
Speaker 1: abuse of power. There are some limitations on this very
Speaker 1: broad pardon power. For example, a president cannot pardon anybody
Speaker 1: for a state offense. His partnering power only extends the
Speaker 1: criminal offenses that are federal, and it also does not
Speaker 1: allow the president to pardon somebody for a civil offense.
Speaker 1: So again it's limited only to federal criminal offenses. The
Speaker 1: only explicitit constitutional limitation and the president's pardon power is
Speaker 1: that a president cannot ardon himself or herself in order
Speaker 1: to avoid impeachment. Even if that did occur, it would
Speaker 1: not preclude the House from bringing charges against a president
Speaker 1: for crimes and misdemeanors that would formant a bill of impeachment,
Speaker 1: nor would it prevent a Senate ultimately trying the president.
Speaker 1: How specific does a pardon have to be? Parties typically
Speaker 1: are given after a person has been convicted of a crime,
Speaker 1: and then they specifically referenced the crime. So, for example,
Speaker 1: President Trump had part of Scooter Libby, Paul Manifort, George Papadopolis,
Speaker 1: and Riser Stone in what is a more typical party
Speaker 1: In each of those cases, after asserting that a full
Speaker 1: and unconditional pardon has been given, the pardon that goes
Speaker 1: on to specify the statutes that each of those individuals
Speaker 1: were charged with violating that described in detail the punishments
Speaker 1: they were given. In the case of Michael Flynn, the
Speaker 1: president's former National Stary advisor, that was quite unusual because
Speaker 1: it not only pardoned Flynn for a crime for which
Speaker 1: had guilty, but it also included some very broad language
Speaker 1: which partnered him for any and all possible offenses within
Speaker 1: the jurisdiction of the Special Council's investigating authority or leading
Speaker 1: in any manner to the Special Council's investigation of Russia's
Speaker 1: attempted interference in the twenty sixteen presidential election and links
Speaker 1: to the Trump campaign. One of the big surprises was
Speaker 1: the partnering of Trump's former strategists Steve Bannon, And apparently
Speaker 1: it was whether or not Trump was going to give
Speaker 1: that pardon that kept them from announcing the list. Why
Speaker 1: do you think that was such a controversy for Trump?
Speaker 1: It's difficult to say what was going on in the
Speaker 1: President's mind with regard to Steve Bannon. He's had an
Speaker 1: on again, off again relationship with Mr Bannon over the years,
Speaker 1: where at one point he was Mr Trump chief strategists
Speaker 1: and architects of his twenty sixteen presidential campaign, and another
Speaker 1: point he was on the output the White House. And
Speaker 1: it may be that the President was trying to decide
Speaker 1: ultimately whether he thought that a pardon was appropriate here.
Speaker 1: In this case, Mr Bannon had been charged in August
Speaker 1: of last year with the fraught defrauding contributors to a
Speaker 1: privately funded effort to build Mr Trump's wall along the
Speaker 1: Mexican border. The pardon of Mr benn in this case
Speaker 1: was notable because among all the pardons that were issued here,
Speaker 1: and I think there's about a hundred and forty three
Speaker 1: that were issued today, this was the only one in
Speaker 1: which an individual who had not yet been convicted of
Speaker 1: an offense was given a pardon. In this case, Mr
Speaker 1: Bennon had been charged and he was set to stand trial,
Speaker 1: but he had not yet been convicted of any crime.
Speaker 1: On the overwhelming majority of pardons and commutations that have
Speaker 1: been granted by presidents happened for those individuals who have
Speaker 1: already been convicted and sentence of criminal activity. There was
Speaker 1: also a pardon of a Republican mega donor. It seems
Speaker 1: as if most of the pardons he issued were for
Speaker 1: someone related to him in some way, connected to him
Speaker 1: in some way, not out of the blue. There have
Speaker 1: been controversial partners issued by presidents in the past. For example,
Speaker 1: President Clinton's pardoned Patty Hurst, the first newspaper heiress, had
Speaker 1: been involved with a radical weather underground. Clinton also pardoned
Speaker 1: his half brother Roger Clinton, had been convicted in that
Speaker 1: of cocaine trafficking. Another example of a pardon that was
Speaker 1: considered controversial was when President Obama in seen commuted the
Speaker 1: thirty five year prison sentence of Wiki League's source Kelsey Manning,
Speaker 1: who was arrested in for releasing information regarding the wars
Speaker 1: in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Wiki League's website. Perhaps
Speaker 1: President Clinton's most controversial parton was that of Mark Rich,
Speaker 1: who was a billionaire fugitive after his ex wife Denise
Speaker 1: Rich had given generously to Democratic sources, including more than
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand dollars to support Hillary Clinton's New York
Speaker 1: Senate run on four in the fifty thousands to President
Speaker 1: Clinton's presidential library. But in this case, President Trump's pardons
Speaker 1: has been more closely aligned with people that he knew,
Speaker 1: either directly or indirectly than most of the other controversial
Speaker 1: pardoners by prior presidents. For example, one of President's Trump's
Speaker 1: pardons was of Elliott Brody, a California businessman who was
Speaker 1: a leading fundraiser for Mr Trump's sixteen campaign and inauguration.
Speaker 1: Mr Brodie had admitted they accepted nine million dollars in
Speaker 1: money from a Malaysian financier and that some of that
Speaker 1: money was paid from an associate to push the Trump
Speaker 1: administration for the extradition of a Chinese dissident and to
Speaker 1: drop a case related to an investlement scheme from Malaysian
Speaker 1: Sovereign Wealth Fund at the United States had accused the
Speaker 1: malaysiansin interier of engineering. Do a lot of the pardons
Speaker 1: seemed to involve politicians caught in corruption. There is not
Speaker 1: necessarily any particular scene that has run through the parties
Speaker 1: and commutations of sentences that presidents have issued on their
Speaker 1: way out of office. In this case, we do see
Speaker 1: a trend for President Trump issuing pardons and commutations of
Speaker 1: sentences related to a great number of white collar crimes.
Speaker 1: For example, there were several former political figures among those
Speaker 1: branded clemency by Mr. Trump. Kwamie Kilpatrick, the former mayor
Speaker 1: of Detroit, has his sentence commuted. He was sentenced to
Speaker 1: twenty eight years in prison after being convicted of two
Speaker 1: dozen counts, including racketeering and extortion. President Trump also pardons
Speaker 1: Robert Kays, a former chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party.
Speaker 1: He had been accused in twenty nineteen of bribery and conspiracy.
Speaker 1: The President also prod and Rick Ramzi, a former representative
Speaker 1: of Arizona. He had been sentenced in place thirteen to
Speaker 1: thirty six months in prison associated with a ribery scheme
Speaker 1: involving an Arizona land swap deal. And the President also
Speaker 1: pardoned Randall Duke Cunningham in a case that got a
Speaker 1: lot of publicity involving a former representative of California. In
Speaker 1: two thousand and six, he was sentenced to eight years
Speaker 1: and four months in prison for taking two point four
Speaker 1: million dollars in bribes for military contractors in return for
Speaker 1: smoothing the way for government contracts. So I do think
Speaker 1: that these pardons are unusual in that they involved so
Speaker 1: many white collar crimes, and it does involve a large
Speaker 1: number of people who were involved in politics, either by
Speaker 1: holding elective office or in some way being involved in
Speaker 1: political campaigns and involved in fundraising. I think a case
Speaker 1: that really illustrates the process of getting the attention of
Speaker 1: President Trump is the commutation for SHOLEM Weiss, who is
Speaker 1: believed to be serving the largest white collar sentence in
Speaker 1: US history, eight hundred thirty five year is for money
Speaker 1: laundering and other charges. His nephew, Hershey Martin had a
Speaker 1: campaign to secure the presidential commutation for his uncle. He
Speaker 1: addressed a long string of impassion tweet to the president.
Speaker 1: He contacted dozens of legislators urging them to write letters
Speaker 1: to the White House. He promoted a website featuring endorsements
Speaker 1: from people like Alan Dershowitz. It was literally a campaign,
Speaker 1: but it worked. That's an interesting point to you. And
Speaker 1: because President Trump has not followed the normal pardon process.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice has an office that evaluates all
Speaker 1: of these parton applications, the system that's designed to impose
Speaker 1: some fairness on a process that is otherwise potentially arbitrary.
Speaker 1: To give you an example, they're about fourteen thousand parting
Speaker 1: applications currently pending with the Department of Justice. In this case,
Speaker 1: President Trump, more than any other past president, has largely
Speaker 1: sir convented that process, which he has the right to
Speaker 1: do and take it upon himself to review these pardon
Speaker 1: applications and then discussed it with his assistance and the
Speaker 1: White House Council's Office in making the ultimate decisions. But
Speaker 1: he has not availed himself of the Department of Justices
Speaker 1: office that tally evaluates these parties so it's difficult to
Speaker 1: determine exactly why certain people were granted parties or commutations
Speaker 1: and others were not. One example that you mentioned Salome White,
Speaker 1: who was serving the longest white collar sentence in US history,
Speaker 1: eight thirty five years for money laundering and other charges
Speaker 1: stemming from the failure of National Heritage Life Insurance Company.
Speaker 1: That would seem to be an unusual case for a commutation.
Speaker 1: This is an individual who led while on vail, who
Speaker 1: tried to evade prosecution. But with somebody who was ultimately
Speaker 1: granted a commutational sense by President Trump. We don't know
Speaker 1: exactly why, but we do know is that his nephew
Speaker 1: had engaged in a massive campaign to try to obtain
Speaker 1: a commutation for his uncle, while ultimately he was chosen
Speaker 1: for his commutation of sense. We really don't know, but
Speaker 1: we do know that the President did consider many commutations
Speaker 1: and pardons on his last days in office, as most
Speaker 1: presidents do. Some were granted pardons and commutations and the
Speaker 1: others were not. To show the hectic nature of it
Speaker 1: and the unstructured nature of it. After all, the pardons
Speaker 1: were announced in about an hour before Joe Biden was
Speaker 1: sworn in as President Trump pardoned Albert Pierro Jr. A
Speaker 1: former business partner of his and the ex husband of
Speaker 1: Fox News host Janine Pierrot. It was a real last
Speaker 1: minute pardon. Well, again, the president has the absolute right
Speaker 1: to make these decisions in any way he believes is appropriate.
Speaker 1: It seems in this case he did not follow the
Speaker 1: system that many other presidents have used in order to
Speaker 1: decide who was worthy of a pardon. Um Generally, there
Speaker 1: are factors that the Department Justice has created again in
Speaker 1: order to provide some kind of uniformity and in order
Speaker 1: to avoid an appearance of arbitrarily handing out these very
Speaker 1: important decisions about whether it's the pardons or compute somebody's sentence.
Speaker 1: In this case, we can only speculate that the how
Speaker 1: and why President Trump decided to pardon these individuals on
Speaker 1: his last day in office. It's interesting to point out
Speaker 1: that although many of these pardons and commutations are controversial,
Speaker 1: other presidents have also issued uh controversial pardons and commutations
Speaker 1: as they left office, and comparatively speaking, President Trump has
Speaker 1: actually handed out fewer pardons and communications than his predecessors.
Speaker 1: For example, only George H. W. Bush, another one term president,
Speaker 1: granted fewer pardons and commutations for a time in office. UH,
Speaker 1: President Jimmy Carter granted many more. Even John Kennedy and
Speaker 1: care Afford he did not serve full terms, brands with
Speaker 1: far more petitions than President Trump. Now, what's also notable
Speaker 1: is what names were not on the list. He did
Speaker 1: not pardon himself or his children, and that had been
Speaker 1: expected almost it had been reported that he was thinking
Speaker 1: about pardoning himself or his children. A pardon of his
Speaker 1: children for crimes that have not been charged yet. Would
Speaker 1: that have been an admission of guilt if you accept
Speaker 1: that kind of a pardon, And that's a great question.
Speaker 1: A preemptive pardon for somebody who's not being charged with
Speaker 1: a crime, it would be highly controversial, and it's highly
Speaker 1: questionable as to whether or not that parton would ultimately
Speaker 1: stand up. There are those who were advising the president
Speaker 1: it's in that such a pardon would amount of an
Speaker 1: unnecessary admission of guilt, given that none of the people
Speaker 1: that he was considering himself or his immediate family members
Speaker 1: had been charged with any crime or were known to
Speaker 1: be under federal and instigation. Many lawyers also believe that
Speaker 1: it is not approved it's a pardon people without naming
Speaker 1: the potential crimes for which they are being pardoned. And
Speaker 1: therefore these preemptive pardons, granting people mercy for a crime
Speaker 1: that they had not commit, was set a very bad precedence.
Speaker 1: Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints, a partner McCarter and English.
Speaker 1: President Trump is asking a federal appeals court to rule
Speaker 1: that he qualifies under a law, the west Fall Act
Speaker 1: of that would let him dodge a defamation suit by
Speaker 1: ee Gene Carroll, the New York Advice columnist. Joining me
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Lawson remind us what the
Speaker 1: suit is about and what stage is that right now? Eric, So,
Speaker 1: this is the defamation lawsuit that Egen Carol, the New
Speaker 1: York Advice columnists, filed against President Trump in two thousand
Speaker 1: nineteen after she went public with claims that he raped
Speaker 1: her two decades ago in the Department George dressing room
Speaker 1: in Manhattan, and then he called her a liar, that
Speaker 1: she was politically motivated that sort of thing, and so
Speaker 1: she sued him for defamation essentially over his denial of
Speaker 1: her allegations. Now, the case was in New York State Court.
Speaker 1: More recently, the Justice Department had the case moved to
Speaker 1: federal court and tried to have the federal government substituted
Speaker 1: for Trump as the defendant in the case, which a
Speaker 1: federal law does permit federal employees to a sort of
Speaker 1: a dodge lawsuits against the over acts that relate to
Speaker 1: their job. So the government did try to substitute itself
Speaker 1: with Trump in the case. A federal judge denied that,
Speaker 1: and now that is on appeal. I was surprised to
Speaker 1: learn some of the lawsuits that have been dismissed because
Speaker 1: of the west Fall Act. Tell us about some of
Speaker 1: the cases. Well, yeah, that's the thing is Trump is
Speaker 1: not making this argument out of sinnair. There is this
Speaker 1: west Fall Act of that you know, as I said,
Speaker 1: is supposed to protect federal employees from being sued for
Speaker 1: actions related to their jobs. And in some cases those
Speaker 1: have been defamation suits. Uh, including members of Congress have
Speaker 1: been sued for defamation um for things that they have said. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and and in several cases, including in cases against you know,
Speaker 1: like Senator Elizabeth Warren and things like this, they successfully
Speaker 1: did have the government substituted as themselves in these cases,
Speaker 1: leading to their dismissal because you can't see the government
Speaker 1: for defication. Um. But in those cases, uh, the statements
Speaker 1: that were made, the allegedly defamatory statements were much more
Speaker 1: closely tied to policy issues or matters that were sort
Speaker 1: of in the being denbated at the time, um, whether
Speaker 1: related to terrorism or something like that. So the judges
Speaker 1: held that they were related to their duties as federal
Speaker 1: government employed. But in this case, uh, the words that
Speaker 1: Trump used about aging Carroll, um, denying this sexual assault
Speaker 1: allegation and saying things like she's not my type, never
Speaker 1: met her, don't know, or she's politically motivated. Her lawyer
Speaker 1: argues that, so they're not related to his presidential duty
Speaker 1: in any way. Whereas Trump argues that the denial of
Speaker 1: an allegation is part of its presidential duty. So is
Speaker 1: the argument that he's making before the Federal appeals Court
Speaker 1: the same basic argument that he made before Judge Kaplan. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's correct. They're they're just hoping for a different outcome
Speaker 1: of course with the Federal Spials Court here. Uh. They're
Speaker 1: arguing that for the president to be able to do
Speaker 1: his job and protect his his reputation in office, that's
Speaker 1: sort of thing that he needs to be able to
Speaker 1: uh deny allegations that are made against him. Um, so
Speaker 1: Eating Carroll argues, no, he went too far. If he
Speaker 1: wants to call her a liar, then he's going to
Speaker 1: have approved that her underlying claims our fault and she
Speaker 1: wants to go to trial and prove that they're true. So,
Speaker 1: while it is a defamation case, Eating Carol is hoping
Speaker 1: that it will come down to a trial over whether
Speaker 1: or not the alleged attack actually happens. Is he being
Speaker 1: represented by his own attorneys and the Justice Department attorneys
Speaker 1: or just the Justice Department attorneys. Well, he still has
Speaker 1: his lawyer in the case of Mark Catuit, lawyer that
Speaker 1: he hasn't in a lot of his litigations. Um, he
Speaker 1: also has the Justice Department arguing, um, you know, appealing
Speaker 1: that denial to let the government substitute him. So right
Speaker 1: now the Justice Department is a party in the case.
Speaker 1: Trump is a party in the case, and they're both
Speaker 1: on the same side arguing, uh to let the government
Speaker 1: substitute itself for Trump so that the case can be dismissed.
Speaker 1: So he really does have representations by both the government
Speaker 1: still and his own personal lawyer, Mark Catuitz. When he's
Speaker 1: no longer president, does biden Justice Department have to take over? Yes,
Speaker 1: they will inherit this case along with the you know,
Speaker 1: of course many others. And you know, one would maybe
Speaker 1: suspect that, oh well, if uh, if the Justice Department
Speaker 1: gets if Biden's Justice Department gets this, they'll just drop
Speaker 1: it and saying we no longer want to make this argument.
Speaker 1: But that's really not a foregone conclusion. This question that
Speaker 1: the federal or that the appeals court is going to
Speaker 1: have to answer is two fold. Does the west Ball
Speaker 1: Act apply to a president? And if it does, does
Speaker 1: were Trump's allegedly defamatory comments part of his official duties
Speaker 1: under the west Ball Act? So it may be it's
Speaker 1: that the government may want, even the Biden administration may
Speaker 1: want to argue that the Westpall Acts does apply to
Speaker 1: a president, as it has in past cases. It's never
Speaker 1: been challenged this way before, so the Justice Deparitment may
Speaker 1: sort of agree with half the case. They may want
Speaker 1: Trump to be protected by the Westbell Act, but they
Speaker 1: may then argue, no, those particular comments were not part
Speaker 1: of his official duties. So it's unclear exactly what the
Speaker 1: administration will do. This relates to allegations of something he
Speaker 1: did way before he was president. In other cases, is
Speaker 1: the connection more immediate. That's correct, and in fact, that's
Speaker 1: why Judge Kaplan, the district judge, ruled against the government
Speaker 1: on this question. That's one of the reasons. He said
Speaker 1: that the underlying um sexual assault at the center of
Speaker 1: this defamation case related to old events um and therefore
Speaker 1: we're not related, uh, you know, to his presidential duties.
Speaker 1: So that's going to be another factor I'm sure the
Speaker 1: Appill's court is going to consider. But like I said before,
Speaker 1: Trump is arguing that the denying those old allegations is
Speaker 1: still part of his current presidential duties. Just to clarify,
Speaker 1: if the court decides that this falls under the west
Speaker 1: Fall Act, this case will be dead in the water.
Speaker 1: That's correct. If they If they decide that the president
Speaker 1: is protected by the west Fall Act and that his
Speaker 1: comments about Egan Carol, uh, we're part of his presidential duties,
Speaker 1: then the government would be substituted as defendants and the
Speaker 1: case would then be essentially dismissed. Um. So there would
Speaker 1: be there wouldn't really be any way around that ROBERTA.
Speaker 1: Kaplan is representing Eegan Carol here and she's also involved
Speaker 1: in some other lawsuits against Trump. Yes, she is. She
Speaker 1: is going to have a very busy She is also
Speaker 1: representing Mary Trump, the president's me supports who wrote a
Speaker 1: damning book about Donald Trump UM and was embroiled in
Speaker 1: litigation over that book, which she won UM and then
Speaker 1: she went on to sue the President and UM and
Speaker 1: her aunt uncle for fraud, alleging a massive fraud related
Speaker 1: to the wills of their parents, her grandparents. So that
Speaker 1: case is is still in its early stages. Revert to
Speaker 1: Kaplan is representing Mary Trump's there and she's also representing
Speaker 1: UM some old investors in a company called a c
Speaker 1: N that did a multi level marketing promotion on Trump's
Speaker 1: reality TV shows that they claim he ripped them off
Speaker 1: by falsely telling praising this company without revealing that he
Speaker 1: was being paid to do so. And is the civil
Speaker 1: lawsuit against Trump by Summer Zervo still pending. It is
Speaker 1: UM that is UM on appeal in New York State Court. UH.
Speaker 1: There should be a hearing at some point later this year.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been scheduled yet. It's been sort of stalled
Speaker 1: for a while now after some RESERVO has won the
Speaker 1: most recent argument that case. So it was the dismissal
Speaker 1: motion to dismiss that Trump lost and that's now on appeal.
Speaker 1: Which case is closest to having Trump having to do
Speaker 1: a deposition, having to swear under oath and answer questions.
Speaker 1: That's a very good question. I really wouldn't know. I
Speaker 1: mean eating Carroll's case and some reserves. They both want
Speaker 1: to depose Trump. Um. Theoretically that could happen in either
Speaker 1: one of those cases. UM this year. And Aegean Carroll
Speaker 1: is also looking for a DNA test. Yeah, she wants
Speaker 1: to get a DNA sample from the president. Um. She
Speaker 1: has had the dress that she wore in the shoes
Speaker 1: that she was wearing at the time of the alleged attacks.
Speaker 1: She saved them and hasn't touched them since then. Um.
Speaker 1: She had them tested to pull various DNA samples off
Speaker 1: of them. UM, there was DNA from one unidentified male. UM.
Speaker 1: And they want to tell Trump's DNA to see if
Speaker 1: it's his. I want to talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: the New York prosecutors who are investigating Trump's company for
Speaker 1: possible tax bank and insurance fraud and why they've broadened
Speaker 1: their investigation to include a property in Westchester County called
Speaker 1: Seven Springs. Yes, Seven Springs is a development north of
Speaker 1: New York City that the Trump organization what tried to
Speaker 1: develop UM years ago around I think around two thousand twelve. UM.
Speaker 1: It didn't work out, so they ended up essentially donating
Speaker 1: part of it, and they called it a conservation easement
Speaker 1: and he got quite a large tax benefit for that
Speaker 1: based on a very specific, large appraisal of this property
Speaker 1: which was much more than what they had paid for it.
Speaker 1: And the New York Attorney General has been investigating that. UM.
Speaker 1: It's it's part of it's part of larger investigation into
Speaker 1: Trump's valuations and whether or not in any bank, broad
Speaker 1: or insurance squad might be involved in how they valued
Speaker 1: various assets. These are things that Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer,
Speaker 1: sort of stilled the beans on during his life congressional testimony.
Speaker 1: That's what triggered the New York Attorney Generals investigation, which
Speaker 1: technically we only know about because she had to sue
Speaker 1: to force Trump organization and various other people too uh
Speaker 1: to comply with the subpoenas that she'd spent out that
Speaker 1: civil investigation still ongoing, and was that the investigation where
Speaker 1: Eric Trump was forced to testify. That's correct, The one
Speaker 1: of the subpoenas was for Eric Trump's deposition UM. He
Speaker 1: ultimately lost on his effort to delay it until after
Speaker 1: the presidential election, and he has since been to post
Speaker 1: no idea. Of course what was said. That's all a
Speaker 1: secret information. But eventually we may find out if a
Speaker 1: lawsuit is ever filed, if any alleged wrongdoing is actually
Speaker 1: spelled out in court. But it's too early to know
Speaker 1: for sure if that will happen. If it's the a G. Suing,
Speaker 1: does that mean it's only civil or can it also
Speaker 1: be criminal? Well, right now, it's just a civil investigation.
Speaker 1: My understanding is that if they find criminal activity that
Speaker 1: they would have to refer that out and sort of
Speaker 1: get um an approval to do a criminal case. So
Speaker 1: it's not something that they can that the A G.
Speaker 1: S Office can automatically do on its own, and that's
Speaker 1: separate from the Manhattan District Attorney's investigation. That's correct, that
Speaker 1: they're they're obviously looking out at the same underlying UM
Speaker 1: questions here about seven springs, but as you sell reports
Speaker 1: Um on Friday, they the d AS Office are also investigating.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show, Eric. That's Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Legal reporter Eric Larson. And that's it for the edition
Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Lawn Podcast. I'm June Grass. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for a listening, and remember you can always get
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Laump podcast. You
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and wherever you
Speaker 1: get your favorite podcasts. You're listening to Bloomberg