WEBVTT - Inside Trump Jury Selection & Spy Law

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:13.560
<v Speaker 2>We have a trumpeting judge. We have a judge who

0:00:13.560 --> 0:00:17.720
<v Speaker 2>shouldn't be on this case. He's totally conflicted. But this

0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:21.479
<v Speaker 2>is a trial that should never happen. We think we

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:24.680
<v Speaker 2>have a very conflicted, highly conflicted judge. You shouldn't be

0:00:24.760 --> 0:00:28.480
<v Speaker 2>on the case. And he's rushing this trial and he's

0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:30.760
<v Speaker 2>doing as much as he can for the Democrats. This

0:00:30.880 --> 0:00:37.760
<v Speaker 2>is a Biden inspired witch hunt. It's a political witch hunt.

0:00:38.000 --> 0:00:41.839
<v Speaker 2>It continues, it continues forever, and we're not going to

0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:44.480
<v Speaker 2>be given a fair trial. It's a very very Saturday.

0:00:44.960 --> 0:00:48.160
<v Speaker 3>Donald Trump states his grievance is about the hush money

0:00:48.200 --> 0:00:52.200
<v Speaker 3>trial outside the Manhattan Criminal Court every day before trial

0:00:52.360 --> 0:00:57.120
<v Speaker 3>and after trial. His complaints are basically the same, particularly

0:00:57.200 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 3>about the trial Judge one Marshawn Jump has made motions

0:01:01.120 --> 0:01:04.800
<v Speaker 3>to get the judge to recuse himself twice to no avail,

0:01:05.200 --> 0:01:09.600
<v Speaker 3>and Judge Marshawn is moving things along to Trump's apparent dismay.

0:01:10.120 --> 0:01:13.920
<v Speaker 3>On day two, seven jurors were sworn in. They are

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:18.759
<v Speaker 3>an information technology worker, an English teacher and on collogy nurse,

0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:22.800
<v Speaker 3>a sales professional, a software engineer, and in a bit

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:26.240
<v Speaker 3>of a surprise, two lawyers. The trial is not in

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:30.880
<v Speaker 3>session on Wednesday, so voadir or jury selection will resume tomorrow.

0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:34.880
<v Speaker 3>Five more jurors and six alternates must be selected before

0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:38.960
<v Speaker 3>opening statements can begin. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter

0:01:39.080 --> 0:01:43.120
<v Speaker 3>Patricia Hurtado, who is covering the trial. Patty, I know

0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:47.440
<v Speaker 3>that hordes of reporters have descended on the courthouse set

0:01:47.440 --> 0:01:48.480
<v Speaker 3>the scene for us.

0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:51.560
<v Speaker 4>There have been several hundred reporters that have come down

0:01:51.600 --> 0:01:54.960
<v Speaker 4>to the courthouse in Lower Manhattan. At least there's not

0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:59.520
<v Speaker 4>the anarchy we've had for Trump's arraignment last April. It's

0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:05.640
<v Speaker 4>much more contained. Security is tight, but it's not like

0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:10.280
<v Speaker 4>the staalanth or a wall of Secret Service agents guarding Trump.

0:02:10.680 --> 0:02:14.320
<v Speaker 4>It's been very quiet and contained. Members of the media

0:02:14.400 --> 0:02:18.959
<v Speaker 4>with a media lawyer's coalition went to the court people

0:02:19.040 --> 0:02:21.080
<v Speaker 4>to get it arranged. So you do have to go

0:02:21.120 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 4>through two TSA like screenings, and several hundred reporters are there.

0:02:25.720 --> 0:02:30.079
<v Speaker 4>Some celebrity journalists and celebrity lawyers are there, including Kelly

0:02:30.120 --> 0:02:33.640
<v Speaker 4>and Conway's ex husband George Conway has been spotted in

0:02:33.720 --> 0:02:37.400
<v Speaker 4>the overflow courtroom access the Trump is limited because right

0:02:37.440 --> 0:02:40.080
<v Speaker 4>now we're in jury selections, so the room in the

0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:43.560
<v Speaker 4>courtroom can seed about one hundred. They basically put in

0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 4>ninety six people of prospective jurors, so only six pool

0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:51.440
<v Speaker 4>reporters have been allowed in the actual courtroom with Donald Trump.

0:02:52.040 --> 0:02:55.200
<v Speaker 3>The judge started with close to one hundred jurors on

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 3>the first day, and half of them were dismissed. Just

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:00.240
<v Speaker 3>explain that process of.

0:03:00.320 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 4>Forty two questions questionnaire they have to answer, and right

0:03:04.360 --> 0:03:06.960
<v Speaker 4>off the bat, the judge says, you know, please let

0:03:07.080 --> 0:03:09.360
<v Speaker 4>us know you know about this case and you'd be

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 4>fair and impartial.

0:03:10.680 --> 0:03:14.320
<v Speaker 3>So normally, when duris say they think they can't be

0:03:14.480 --> 0:03:17.280
<v Speaker 3>fair and impartial, the judge just a little more questioning,

0:03:17.320 --> 0:03:20.160
<v Speaker 3>but in this first round he just let them go.

0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:25.240
<v Speaker 4>The judge basically was had ruled the defense wanted them

0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:28.560
<v Speaker 4>all to be explored, like, let's hear what everyone has

0:03:28.600 --> 0:03:31.560
<v Speaker 4>to say why they don't want to be on this case, right,

0:03:32.040 --> 0:03:34.120
<v Speaker 4>and the judge decided that was going to be a

0:03:34.160 --> 0:03:36.640
<v Speaker 4>waste of time. If people were being honest enough to

0:03:36.680 --> 0:03:39.440
<v Speaker 4>say they couldn't be fair, that it would have to

0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:42.720
<v Speaker 4>leave them and take them at face value. Trump's lawyers

0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:45.440
<v Speaker 4>on Monday made an argument that they wanted to hear

0:03:45.640 --> 0:03:48.680
<v Speaker 4>and they made emotion over the weekend that they wanted

0:03:48.720 --> 0:03:52.720
<v Speaker 4>to hear everything everyone had to say, possibly to drag

0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 4>out the proceedings right, and the prosecutors basically accused the

0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:01.480
<v Speaker 4>defense and Trump's team of just trying to collect evidence

0:04:01.520 --> 0:04:03.400
<v Speaker 4>so they could have appeal issues.

0:04:03.840 --> 0:04:08.120
<v Speaker 3>Before the questioning of the individual perspective jurors begins, the

0:04:08.200 --> 0:04:12.920
<v Speaker 3>lawyers make introductory statements. Did anything strike you about those statements?

0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:16.760
<v Speaker 4>Yes, And one of the things I was really struck

0:04:16.800 --> 0:04:20.320
<v Speaker 4>with is one of the prosecutors is a long time

0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:24.640
<v Speaker 4>state rackets prosecutor works in the Manhattan DA's office. His

0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:28.960
<v Speaker 4>name is Josh Steinlass. He's really good, and he gave

0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:34.640
<v Speaker 4>what was pretty amazing feel that was like an opening argument,

0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:38.280
<v Speaker 4>and he said something along the lines of, let's all

0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:42.240
<v Speaker 4>admit this. This is a trial. This extraordinary. The defendant

0:04:42.360 --> 0:04:45.640
<v Speaker 4>is a former president of the United States, current candidate

0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:48.880
<v Speaker 4>running for re election. Some of you may not have

0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:50.720
<v Speaker 4>heard about this case and want to run out of

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:54.680
<v Speaker 4>the courtroom. Let's talk about basically the elephant in the room.

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:58.080
<v Speaker 4>And it was extraordinary. Many many opening statement he said

0:04:58.080 --> 0:05:00.719
<v Speaker 4>this is case has all these unusual l You have

0:05:01.240 --> 0:05:04.240
<v Speaker 4>a foreign president of the United States running for reelection,

0:05:04.640 --> 0:05:09.080
<v Speaker 4>presumptive Republican nominee in a case involves testimony of an

0:05:09.520 --> 0:05:14.320
<v Speaker 4>adult film actress and a lawyer who worked for Trump

0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:17.320
<v Speaker 4>who has pled guilty. Will let's all admit that that

0:05:17.400 --> 0:05:21.600
<v Speaker 4>this is extraordinary, and then went into but let's explore this,

0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:26.040
<v Speaker 4>putting that aside. Do you have opinions negative about this

0:05:26.279 --> 0:05:29.159
<v Speaker 4>or positive? It was pretty unusual, and I thought it

0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:33.560
<v Speaker 4>was a really good window into what the prosecution is going.

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:35.560
<v Speaker 3>To be like what was the basic tenor of the

0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:36.640
<v Speaker 3>defense statement?

0:05:37.040 --> 0:05:40.000
<v Speaker 4>The defense statement was done by Todd Blanche and he

0:05:40.160 --> 0:05:44.440
<v Speaker 4>basically wanted to explore, you know, do people have animates

0:05:44.480 --> 0:05:46.640
<v Speaker 4>to Trump? And what do you think of Donald Trump?

0:05:46.720 --> 0:05:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Do you like him?

0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:50.400
<v Speaker 4>Do you really like him? Do you really really like him?

0:05:50.680 --> 0:05:53.040
<v Speaker 4>Or do you really dislike him? And it was all

0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 4>on do you like him or not like him? And

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:59.560
<v Speaker 4>we had a very unusual person who was eventually struck

0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:03.479
<v Speaker 4>last night. He's a resident of Harlem. He was friends

0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:08.120
<v Speaker 4>with some of the Central Park five descendants and said

0:06:08.279 --> 0:06:12.760
<v Speaker 4>that he knew their cousins too, and that he knew

0:06:12.800 --> 0:06:16.400
<v Speaker 4>Donald Trump had taken out an ad some thirty years ago.

0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:19.200
<v Speaker 4>And if people remember what Donald Trump did in the

0:06:19.279 --> 0:06:22.719
<v Speaker 4>nineteen eighty I guess right around the time of the

0:06:22.839 --> 0:06:26.440
<v Speaker 4>nineteen eighty nine attack of the jogger. So this was

0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:31.320
<v Speaker 4>a case where five young black and Latino used were

0:06:31.440 --> 0:06:36.080
<v Speaker 4>charged with raping and brutally assaulting a white woman jogger

0:06:36.240 --> 0:06:41.440
<v Speaker 4>in Central Park, and they were arrested and convicted by

0:06:41.480 --> 0:06:45.480
<v Speaker 4>the Manhattan District Attorney's office, and then they were eventually

0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:49.359
<v Speaker 4>that same DA Robert Morgenthal in two thousand and two

0:06:49.640 --> 0:06:52.920
<v Speaker 4>said they were wrongfully convicted after a nine month investigation

0:06:53.240 --> 0:06:55.880
<v Speaker 4>and they cleared them of all wrongdoing. But these kids

0:06:55.920 --> 0:06:58.720
<v Speaker 4>had been in prisoned, and one of them is now

0:06:58.720 --> 0:07:02.479
<v Speaker 4>a city councilman, he said belong So Trump at the

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:05.720
<v Speaker 4>time took out a full page ad in many newspapers,

0:07:05.760 --> 0:07:09.960
<v Speaker 4>including my old newspaper of Newsday, basically saying that this

0:07:10.120 --> 0:07:12.920
<v Speaker 4>was an example of how they should reinstate the death penalty.

0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 4>And this guy remembered and he started saying, you know, well,

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:19.880
<v Speaker 4>Trump walks into a room and people pay attention. And

0:07:20.120 --> 0:07:22.920
<v Speaker 4>he also said he didn't read the newspapers because he

0:07:22.960 --> 0:07:29.440
<v Speaker 4>didn't believe them. So eventually guests who struck him the prosecution, yep,

0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:32.400
<v Speaker 4>because it sounded like he might be a guy that

0:07:32.640 --> 0:07:37.280
<v Speaker 4>made believe in conspiracies and also didn't want any information. Plus,

0:07:37.840 --> 0:07:40.240
<v Speaker 4>if he knew that, you know, if the DA's office

0:07:40.280 --> 0:07:44.040
<v Speaker 4>had wrongfully convicted his friends and acquaintances, he may not

0:07:44.120 --> 0:07:46.600
<v Speaker 4>feel too kindly to the DA.

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:51.080
<v Speaker 3>On Day one, in the afternoon, when it seemed to

0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:54.200
<v Speaker 3>be moving at a glacial pace, there are reports that

0:07:54.360 --> 0:07:55.880
<v Speaker 3>Trump sort of dozed off.

0:07:56.600 --> 0:07:59.440
<v Speaker 4>I was in the overflow courtroom, and I did not

0:07:59.560 --> 0:08:03.840
<v Speaker 4>see that, but I did see him close his eyes

0:08:03.960 --> 0:08:07.520
<v Speaker 4>and lean lifting a little bit. Now, my father used

0:08:07.560 --> 0:08:10.680
<v Speaker 4>to do that when he was elderly, and sometimes he

0:08:10.880 --> 0:08:13.880
<v Speaker 4>was asleep. I don't know that I would say that

0:08:14.080 --> 0:08:17.200
<v Speaker 4>definitively that he was asleep. I also saw at one

0:08:17.240 --> 0:08:21.360
<v Speaker 4>moment where Trump was leaning over talking to Todd Blanche,

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:24.560
<v Speaker 4>and he kept talking while Blanch was trying to talk,

0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:27.720
<v Speaker 4>and Blanche put his hand up like okay, you know,

0:08:28.200 --> 0:08:31.120
<v Speaker 4>which is kind of extraordinary. But Trump was trying to

0:08:31.120 --> 0:08:33.600
<v Speaker 4>get his ear when Plant was trying to make an

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:37.280
<v Speaker 4>argument or talk to the prosecutor. So that's not something

0:08:37.280 --> 0:08:39.960
<v Speaker 4>you see every day, but so.

0:08:40.120 --> 0:08:44.040
<v Speaker 3>Did Trump's lawyers really dig into the social media posts

0:08:44.080 --> 0:08:47.200
<v Speaker 3>of prospective jurorsm I mean going back years.

0:08:47.760 --> 0:08:47.960
<v Speaker 2>Yes.

0:08:48.160 --> 0:08:53.000
<v Speaker 4>In fact, there was one woman who was struck. There

0:08:53.040 --> 0:08:57.200
<v Speaker 4>were postings of people celebrating when Joe Biden got elected,

0:08:57.720 --> 0:09:01.240
<v Speaker 4>and she said that she felt it was akin to

0:09:01.520 --> 0:09:05.480
<v Speaker 4>when people celebrated during COVID. Remember when we all went

0:09:05.520 --> 0:09:09.440
<v Speaker 4>out for our stoops and our fire escapes and banged

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:12.520
<v Speaker 4>on pans to support the healthcare workers. That's what she

0:09:12.640 --> 0:09:15.040
<v Speaker 4>said that this was akin to. It was a celebratory

0:09:15.080 --> 0:09:18.320
<v Speaker 4>moment and it was just New York, you know, having

0:09:18.360 --> 0:09:21.600
<v Speaker 4>its day. But she did say she was driving around, honking,

0:09:21.679 --> 0:09:25.320
<v Speaker 4>spreading the cheer. So the judge interviewed her and asked

0:09:25.520 --> 0:09:29.240
<v Speaker 4>further questions and then decided that she wasn't necessarily being

0:09:29.320 --> 0:09:33.160
<v Speaker 4>as forthcoming as she should have been. So when she said, oh,

0:09:33.200 --> 0:09:35.680
<v Speaker 4>I don't have an opinion about Trump, the judge felt

0:09:35.720 --> 0:09:38.840
<v Speaker 4>that that showed that she had an animus towards Trump.

0:09:38.960 --> 0:09:43.200
<v Speaker 4>Another woman that the Defense struck was an older woman

0:09:43.280 --> 0:09:47.920
<v Speaker 4>who's had an image of Obama and Trump standing together.

0:09:48.440 --> 0:09:53.079
<v Speaker 4>This was a Facebook post from back in twenty seventeen,

0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:58.240
<v Speaker 4>and it said, this isn't what I thought when they

0:09:58.280 --> 0:10:02.280
<v Speaker 4>said orange is the new black with Obama and Trump,

0:10:03.200 --> 0:10:06.360
<v Speaker 4>and then it turned out that was her husband's social

0:10:06.400 --> 0:10:11.199
<v Speaker 4>media post, but she had reposted it. So Da was arguing,

0:10:11.240 --> 0:10:13.680
<v Speaker 4>there are lots of these things that the defense was

0:10:13.760 --> 0:10:17.600
<v Speaker 4>trolling back in time and trying to go through everyone's

0:10:17.880 --> 0:10:19.200
<v Speaker 4>social media account.

0:10:20.200 --> 0:10:26.000
<v Speaker 3>Judge Marshawn experienced judge known for being no nonsense, even tempered,

0:10:26.360 --> 0:10:29.600
<v Speaker 3>but even he shouted at Trump on day two.

0:10:30.840 --> 0:10:34.880
<v Speaker 4>He was angry because they called this young woman in

0:10:35.000 --> 0:10:38.360
<v Speaker 4>about the banging of the pants and the celebratory moment, right,

0:10:38.840 --> 0:10:41.520
<v Speaker 4>and they called her back. And if you can imagine,

0:10:41.559 --> 0:10:44.640
<v Speaker 4>this poor young woman is getting brought in and has

0:10:44.640 --> 0:10:47.720
<v Speaker 4>to stand at the podium. She was twelve feet away

0:10:47.760 --> 0:10:52.319
<v Speaker 4>from Trump, and she started answering the questions, and apparently

0:10:52.320 --> 0:10:57.240
<v Speaker 4>Trump was muttering under his breast and gesticulating, and the

0:10:57.360 --> 0:11:00.480
<v Speaker 4>judge heard it and called out Trump on it. And

0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:03.480
<v Speaker 4>he told a Blanche that he had a controllers client

0:11:03.840 --> 0:11:06.840
<v Speaker 4>and he said he would not tolerate any durors to

0:11:06.840 --> 0:11:10.520
<v Speaker 4>be intimidated. So that's Trump being reprimanded by the judge

0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:11.079
<v Speaker 4>and war.

0:11:11.240 --> 0:11:13.480
<v Speaker 3>Coming up next on the Bloomberg Long Show, I'll continue

0:11:13.480 --> 0:11:18.439
<v Speaker 3>this conversation with Bloomberg legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, just, how

0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:21.800
<v Speaker 3>did two lawyers get on the jury. I'm Jim Grosso

0:11:21.960 --> 0:11:27.760
<v Speaker 3>and you're listening to Bloomberg. Donald Trump has pleaded not

0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:32.080
<v Speaker 3>guilty to thirty four felony counts of falsifying business records

0:11:32.440 --> 0:11:35.600
<v Speaker 3>as part of an alleged effort to keep salacious, and

0:11:35.679 --> 0:11:39.280
<v Speaker 3>he says bogus stories about his sex life from emerging

0:11:39.360 --> 0:11:43.240
<v Speaker 3>during his twenty sixteen campaign. The Manhattan trial is being

0:11:43.280 --> 0:11:46.880
<v Speaker 3>referred to as the hush Money Trial. The first seven

0:11:47.000 --> 0:11:51.120
<v Speaker 3>jurors were sworn in on Tuesday after lawyers grilled the

0:11:51.200 --> 0:11:54.840
<v Speaker 3>jury pool about their social media posts, political views, and

0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:58.280
<v Speaker 3>personal lives. There's already been one sort of dust up

0:11:58.280 --> 0:12:02.280
<v Speaker 3>in the court as judge when Marshawn admonished Trump after

0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:05.600
<v Speaker 3>he spoke loudly and gestured while the judge was questioning

0:12:05.600 --> 0:12:08.880
<v Speaker 3>a woman about a social media post. Marshan said, I

0:12:08.880 --> 0:12:11.120
<v Speaker 3>don't know what he was uttering, but it was audible

0:12:11.120 --> 0:12:13.360
<v Speaker 3>and he was gesturing, and he was speaking in the

0:12:13.400 --> 0:12:17.040
<v Speaker 3>direction of the juror. I won't tolerate that. I will

0:12:17.040 --> 0:12:21.280
<v Speaker 3>not tolerate any jurors being intimidated in this courtroom. For

0:12:21.360 --> 0:12:25.199
<v Speaker 3>his part, Trump has complained about the judge every day,

0:12:25.720 --> 0:12:29.800
<v Speaker 3>accusing him of being biased and rushing the trial, especially

0:12:29.880 --> 0:12:32.679
<v Speaker 3>not allowing Trump to miss court one day next week

0:12:33.040 --> 0:12:36.240
<v Speaker 3>so he can travel to DC for the Supreme Court

0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:39.560
<v Speaker 3>oral argument on the question of his presidential immunity.

0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:42.199
<v Speaker 1>Allow us to go.

0:12:42.240 --> 0:12:45.240
<v Speaker 2>To that and will follow me to leave here for

0:12:45.520 --> 0:12:48.240
<v Speaker 2>half a day, go to DC and go for in

0:12:48.360 --> 0:12:52.040
<v Speaker 2>the United States Supreme Court. Because he makes you superior.

0:12:52.080 --> 0:12:53.560
<v Speaker 2>I guess that the Supreme Court.

0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:57.640
<v Speaker 3>I've been talking to Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, who's

0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:02.200
<v Speaker 3>covering the trial. Pat did some jurors just refuse to

0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:04.040
<v Speaker 3>give their opinion of Trump?

0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:07.000
<v Speaker 4>I wouldn't say that. I would say that. People would say,

0:13:07.080 --> 0:13:10.080
<v Speaker 4>I don't have an opinion. That's a difference, right. You know,

0:13:10.440 --> 0:13:12.679
<v Speaker 4>there were people who said, I don't have an opinion.

0:13:12.840 --> 0:13:15.240
<v Speaker 4>I don't think any negative things. I just don't have

0:13:15.280 --> 0:13:17.679
<v Speaker 4>an opinion. I don't think about him. And that might

0:13:17.679 --> 0:13:21.160
<v Speaker 4>be disappointing that Trump that people just don't think about him.

0:13:21.559 --> 0:13:24.960
<v Speaker 4>You know, one juror, potential juror, said, I know our

0:13:25.000 --> 0:13:28.840
<v Speaker 4>country is a huge's resting right now on this. What's

0:13:28.880 --> 0:13:29.480
<v Speaker 4>going to happen?

0:13:29.920 --> 0:13:34.040
<v Speaker 3>Jury selections seemed to be going so slowly, even Tuesday morning,

0:13:34.080 --> 0:13:37.360
<v Speaker 3>with the judge just before lunch break expressing some frustration

0:13:38.000 --> 0:13:41.640
<v Speaker 3>that it was taking too long. Then bam, jurors were

0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:44.760
<v Speaker 3>selected one, two, three in the afternoon. What happened to

0:13:44.800 --> 0:13:45.600
<v Speaker 3>speed it up?

0:13:46.000 --> 0:13:50.080
<v Speaker 4>Everybody is expecting jury selection to be like in federal court.

0:13:50.320 --> 0:13:54.920
<v Speaker 4>State court is very deliberative. It's really slow and plotting.

0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:58.680
<v Speaker 4>I covered Harvey Weinstein's trial. It took ten days to

0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:01.480
<v Speaker 4>pick a jury. So that's the kind of thing that

0:14:01.679 --> 0:14:05.640
<v Speaker 4>is very typical. The lawyers that ask questions, they explore,

0:14:06.160 --> 0:14:09.840
<v Speaker 4>the judge limited statements to half an hour for each side,

0:14:10.480 --> 0:14:14.960
<v Speaker 4>and then what happened is, if you can imagine, so

0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:19.320
<v Speaker 4>there were ninety six potential jurors brought in, fifty excused themselves,

0:14:19.400 --> 0:14:23.240
<v Speaker 4>leaving us with forty six, and then they put eighteen

0:14:23.320 --> 0:14:26.400
<v Speaker 4>in the box and they started asking them in the

0:14:26.480 --> 0:14:29.760
<v Speaker 4>jury box what they thought. So that's what took a

0:14:29.800 --> 0:14:33.480
<v Speaker 4>long time, because the individual jurors had to answer, have

0:14:33.600 --> 0:14:36.320
<v Speaker 4>you ever followed any q Andon movements? Do you have

0:14:36.360 --> 0:14:39.880
<v Speaker 4>any stronger opinions or beliefs about the former president? Do

0:14:39.920 --> 0:14:42.680
<v Speaker 4>you believe he shouldn't be criminally charged? You know, forty

0:14:42.680 --> 0:14:46.400
<v Speaker 4>two questions each person. So that's what was taking a

0:14:46.440 --> 0:14:49.640
<v Speaker 4>long time. And then what ended up happening is after

0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:52.520
<v Speaker 4>all those people were vetted, Trump couldn't put off the

0:14:52.560 --> 0:14:56.680
<v Speaker 4>inevitable and couldn't delay it any longer, and they asked

0:14:56.680 --> 0:15:00.200
<v Speaker 4>for more time. Trump's team asked for more time, and

0:15:00.240 --> 0:15:02.960
<v Speaker 4>then they got a lunch break, and then they came back.

0:15:02.960 --> 0:15:06.080
<v Speaker 4>But they had to exercise peremptory challenges and ask them

0:15:06.120 --> 0:15:07.240
<v Speaker 4>some challenge for cause.

0:15:07.840 --> 0:15:09.440
<v Speaker 3>I just want to explain there are two kinds of

0:15:09.640 --> 0:15:14.200
<v Speaker 3>challenges to a juror, for cause and peremptory. And for

0:15:14.480 --> 0:15:17.840
<v Speaker 3>cause is what it sounds like, the attorney has what

0:15:17.880 --> 0:15:20.800
<v Speaker 3>he or she thinks is a legitimate reason to excuse

0:15:20.840 --> 0:15:24.640
<v Speaker 3>the juror. However, the judge has to agree. The other

0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:27.600
<v Speaker 3>kind of challenge is peremptory, and that is for any

0:15:27.640 --> 0:15:31.400
<v Speaker 3>reason except for reasons of race, sex, and the like.

0:15:31.840 --> 0:15:34.840
<v Speaker 3>In this case, the prosecution and defense each have ten

0:15:34.880 --> 0:15:40.080
<v Speaker 3>peremptory challenges, and so far they've each used six, leaving

0:15:40.120 --> 0:15:44.920
<v Speaker 3>them with four peremptory challenges for the selection of five

0:15:45.000 --> 0:15:48.680
<v Speaker 3>more jurors and six alternates. So Patty, after this first

0:15:48.720 --> 0:15:51.080
<v Speaker 3>group of jurors, they brought in a second group.

0:15:51.480 --> 0:15:54.680
<v Speaker 4>They brought in a second group of ninety six, and

0:15:54.760 --> 0:15:57.920
<v Speaker 4>now they're going through those people, which they're going to

0:15:57.840 --> 0:16:00.520
<v Speaker 4>have to get. They have seven feet a juror, and

0:16:00.560 --> 0:16:03.480
<v Speaker 4>they have to get five more to fill the box,

0:16:03.600 --> 0:16:06.320
<v Speaker 4>and then they have to get at least six alternatives.

0:16:07.280 --> 0:16:11.400
<v Speaker 3>Not one, but two lawyers were seeded. And usually neither

0:16:11.520 --> 0:16:15.360
<v Speaker 3>side wants lawyers on the jury because they can insert

0:16:15.440 --> 0:16:18.760
<v Speaker 3>their own legal opinions and the juror is my turn

0:16:18.840 --> 0:16:21.480
<v Speaker 3>to them for that. Is there anything you remember about

0:16:21.560 --> 0:16:24.320
<v Speaker 3>the questioning of the two lawyers.

0:16:24.040 --> 0:16:27.000
<v Speaker 4>Well, both of them seem to do either business law

0:16:27.120 --> 0:16:31.000
<v Speaker 4>or civil litigation. I definitely know jural number seven is

0:16:31.040 --> 0:16:34.320
<v Speaker 4>a white man, a civil litigator who doesn't know anything

0:16:34.360 --> 0:16:38.000
<v Speaker 4>about criminal law. I don't know anything about election finance.

0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:41.000
<v Speaker 4>To the degree that I know, I can put it aside.

0:16:41.480 --> 0:16:45.000
<v Speaker 4>Do you think you should hold Trump to a higher standard? Answer?

0:16:45.160 --> 0:16:45.320
<v Speaker 2>No.

0:16:45.960 --> 0:16:49.120
<v Speaker 4>What are your thoughts on Trump? Answer ambivalent? Some of

0:16:49.160 --> 0:16:51.160
<v Speaker 4>the things I like, some of the things I don't.

0:16:51.480 --> 0:16:54.000
<v Speaker 4>I'm not sure if I have any opinions about his character.

0:16:54.560 --> 0:16:57.920
<v Speaker 4>I'm not sure I know anything about it. I'm a litigator,

0:16:58.000 --> 0:17:00.440
<v Speaker 4>so I take a law seriously, and I will take

0:17:00.480 --> 0:17:06.159
<v Speaker 4>the judges instruction seriously. Another juror, who is number three,

0:17:06.800 --> 0:17:11.240
<v Speaker 4>apparently a young Asian male, says, I'm not actually super

0:17:11.320 --> 0:17:15.120
<v Speaker 4>familiar with these charges or the other charges. I don't

0:17:15.160 --> 0:17:19.000
<v Speaker 4>really follow the use that closely. I'm a little embarrassing

0:17:19.080 --> 0:17:24.760
<v Speaker 4>to stay he won. Duror, a middle aged man, said

0:17:25.119 --> 0:17:29.920
<v Speaker 4>he's during number four quote. I find him fascinating and mysterious.

0:17:30.000 --> 0:17:32.800
<v Speaker 4>He walks into a room and sets people off. He's

0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:34.080
<v Speaker 4>an IT consultant.

0:17:34.520 --> 0:17:36.919
<v Speaker 3>So the judge had set off two weeks for jury selection.

0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:40.119
<v Speaker 3>Now he asked the first seven jurors to report to

0:17:40.160 --> 0:17:42.160
<v Speaker 3>court as soon as Monday. Does that mean that there

0:17:42.160 --> 0:17:43.960
<v Speaker 3>could be opening statements on Monday?

0:17:44.520 --> 0:17:47.000
<v Speaker 4>That's up in the air. He told the people that

0:17:47.080 --> 0:17:51.119
<v Speaker 4>were sworn in as jurors to keep in touch and

0:17:51.200 --> 0:17:54.720
<v Speaker 4>they could come back Monday for opening depending on how

0:17:54.760 --> 0:18:00.439
<v Speaker 4>things go tomorrow and Friday. But if we all member,

0:18:00.600 --> 0:18:03.840
<v Speaker 4>Monday is the first day of passover and one of

0:18:03.840 --> 0:18:08.360
<v Speaker 4>the members of the defense team is observant, so that

0:18:08.440 --> 0:18:12.040
<v Speaker 4>might mean either a shortened day or if someone on

0:18:12.080 --> 0:18:15.840
<v Speaker 4>the panel is observant, then it would be no trial

0:18:15.920 --> 0:18:19.080
<v Speaker 4>on Monday. So all of it's up in the air. Yes,

0:18:19.440 --> 0:18:24.000
<v Speaker 4>opening statements could happen on Monday, but it's really unclear.

0:18:24.280 --> 0:18:27.120
<v Speaker 4>We have to wait and see what transpires tomorrow and Friday.

0:18:27.320 --> 0:18:29.800
<v Speaker 3>So now let's talk about some of the motions before

0:18:29.880 --> 0:18:34.479
<v Speaker 3>jury selection started. So prosecutors asked the judge to find

0:18:34.520 --> 0:18:38.399
<v Speaker 3>Trump three thousand dollars for three social media posts.

0:18:38.880 --> 0:18:43.360
<v Speaker 4>That was the first thing that the prosecution did on Monday,

0:18:43.480 --> 0:18:45.760
<v Speaker 4>which is one of the reasons why jury selection was

0:18:45.800 --> 0:18:49.280
<v Speaker 4>so slow the entire morning session. Instead of picking the

0:18:49.400 --> 0:18:54.159
<v Speaker 4>jury with all on pre trial motions and asking for

0:18:54.240 --> 0:18:58.640
<v Speaker 4>clarification from Judge Mershaan on his prior ruling like, for example,

0:18:58.720 --> 0:19:01.760
<v Speaker 4>should be access, Ali would say can it be played

0:19:02.040 --> 0:19:05.400
<v Speaker 4>or can at least be quoted from? So what they

0:19:05.680 --> 0:19:09.600
<v Speaker 4>prosecution asked for is they felt that recent postings by

0:19:09.640 --> 0:19:13.640
<v Speaker 4>Donald Trump, including over the weekend, were in violation of

0:19:13.720 --> 0:19:18.360
<v Speaker 4>the judge's gag orders from April first, and they're asking

0:19:18.960 --> 0:19:23.239
<v Speaker 4>for Trump to be sanctioned for the three posting and

0:19:23.760 --> 0:19:27.480
<v Speaker 4>to be found in contempt of court. They also cited

0:19:27.840 --> 0:19:33.160
<v Speaker 4>one that posting that apparently the prosecutor said had been

0:19:33.600 --> 0:19:39.600
<v Speaker 4>posted from the courthouse Monday as a fourth example, but

0:19:39.680 --> 0:19:43.040
<v Speaker 4>they weren't including that in their hopper of you know

0:19:43.119 --> 0:19:47.360
<v Speaker 4>in their basket of misbehavior by Trump, and they want

0:19:47.480 --> 0:19:49.879
<v Speaker 4>him to be fined one thousand dollars for each of

0:19:49.920 --> 0:19:54.119
<v Speaker 4>the three earlier social media postings. And they also wanted

0:19:54.280 --> 0:19:56.880
<v Speaker 4>Trump to be warned that if he continues to violate

0:19:57.200 --> 0:20:00.280
<v Speaker 4>this gag order that he could be jailed. So the

0:20:00.320 --> 0:20:02.639
<v Speaker 4>judge is going to have a hearing and schedule that

0:20:02.840 --> 0:20:03.600
<v Speaker 4>for Tuesday.

0:20:04.119 --> 0:20:07.320
<v Speaker 3>The prosecutor in his statement to the jury said that

0:20:07.480 --> 0:20:10.360
<v Speaker 3>some witnesses have some edge, and he described them as

0:20:10.400 --> 0:20:15.040
<v Speaker 3>a tabloid publisher at adult film star in Trump's former lawyer,

0:20:15.119 --> 0:20:19.439
<v Speaker 3>Michael Cohen was convicted of federal crimes. Michael Cohen is

0:20:19.440 --> 0:20:21.600
<v Speaker 3>going to be the star witness, and there have been

0:20:21.880 --> 0:20:25.320
<v Speaker 3>arguments about his testimony already.

0:20:26.160 --> 0:20:29.920
<v Speaker 4>There were discussions about how much they can the limiting

0:20:30.080 --> 0:20:33.120
<v Speaker 4>of the defense and how much they can go after him.

0:20:33.960 --> 0:20:37.440
<v Speaker 4>The judge basically said that it's fair game to raise

0:20:37.560 --> 0:20:42.720
<v Speaker 4>the arguments about his guilty please, but he didn't want

0:20:42.760 --> 0:20:45.400
<v Speaker 4>to make it a mini trial of the federal case

0:20:45.440 --> 0:20:48.800
<v Speaker 4>against Michael Cohen and make it like Michael Cohen's trial

0:20:48.880 --> 0:20:52.199
<v Speaker 4>rather than Donald Trump's trial. So they can raise the

0:20:52.240 --> 0:20:56.040
<v Speaker 4>background issue of Michael Cohen pleading guilty but they can't

0:20:56.119 --> 0:21:00.600
<v Speaker 4>have a mini trial by the defense to basically reopen

0:21:00.760 --> 0:21:04.240
<v Speaker 4>and relitigate what Michael Cohen played guilty in federal court.

0:21:05.000 --> 0:21:08.720
<v Speaker 3>Trump wanted to be off to campaign in quotes on Wednesdays,

0:21:09.080 --> 0:21:12.359
<v Speaker 3>and he also wanted to be excused next week so

0:21:12.400 --> 0:21:15.760
<v Speaker 3>he could attend the arguments before the Supreme Court on

0:21:16.000 --> 0:21:17.600
<v Speaker 3>his presidential immunities.

0:21:17.800 --> 0:21:20.720
<v Speaker 4>The judge was very stirred with him about that because

0:21:21.200 --> 0:21:25.080
<v Speaker 4>his obligation, he said, is you have an obligation in

0:21:25.119 --> 0:21:28.560
<v Speaker 4>this court, not that court, and you're on trial here.

0:21:29.080 --> 0:21:31.560
<v Speaker 4>I mean, it was almost like he said, you don't

0:21:31.600 --> 0:21:35.280
<v Speaker 4>belong in that Supreme Court. You belong in Manhattan Supreme

0:21:35.320 --> 0:21:38.080
<v Speaker 4>Court where you're on trial. And he wasn't going to

0:21:38.119 --> 0:21:42.000
<v Speaker 4>excuse him. He also wanted what was complaining and asked

0:21:42.560 --> 0:21:46.359
<v Speaker 4>Todd blanche, Trump's lead defense lawyer, that his son is

0:21:46.400 --> 0:21:50.080
<v Speaker 4>graduating from school. I believe he had a graduation to

0:21:50.160 --> 0:21:53.879
<v Speaker 4>attend to, and so does mister Trump for Baron Trump,

0:21:54.440 --> 0:21:56.840
<v Speaker 4>And the judge said, well, we'll cross that bridge. Will

0:21:56.840 --> 0:21:59.280
<v Speaker 4>we get to it, but that's in me. One of

0:21:59.280 --> 0:22:02.440
<v Speaker 4>the funnier USA that happened during jury selection. One of

0:22:02.480 --> 0:22:06.000
<v Speaker 4>the potential jurors was a woman who said her friend

0:22:06.040 --> 0:22:08.560
<v Speaker 4>was getting married in September and if she was picked

0:22:08.600 --> 0:22:11.760
<v Speaker 4>for the jury, would that be a problem. Everyone roared

0:22:11.800 --> 0:22:13.960
<v Speaker 4>with laughter, and the judge said, if this trial is

0:22:14.000 --> 0:22:16.480
<v Speaker 4>still going on in September, we'll all have a problem.

0:22:16.520 --> 0:22:21.199
<v Speaker 3>Basically, at least he can still show a sense of

0:22:21.280 --> 0:22:24.320
<v Speaker 3>humor in the face of all this. It's going to

0:22:24.359 --> 0:22:27.679
<v Speaker 3>be interesting to see whether they can finish the jury

0:22:27.720 --> 0:22:31.280
<v Speaker 3>selection this week and get started sometime next week. Thanks

0:22:31.280 --> 0:22:35.440
<v Speaker 3>so much, pat That's Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg Legal reporter. Coming

0:22:35.520 --> 0:22:37.720
<v Speaker 3>up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, We're going to

0:22:37.760 --> 0:22:41.200
<v Speaker 3>be talking about a controversial spy law that the House

0:22:41.240 --> 0:22:45.760
<v Speaker 3>has reauthorized. Will the Senate do the same? I'm June Gross.

0:22:45.800 --> 0:22:49.359
<v Speaker 3>When you're listening to Bloomberg on this vote, the ya's

0:22:49.400 --> 0:22:52.240
<v Speaker 3>are two seventy three, the na's are one forty seven.

0:22:52.600 --> 0:22:55.080
<v Speaker 3>It's in the hands of the Senate now. The House

0:22:55.119 --> 0:22:58.720
<v Speaker 3>of Representatives voted to reauthorize a key part of the

0:22:58.800 --> 0:23:02.879
<v Speaker 3>Foreign Intelligence Serve Valence Act on Friday. The measure allows

0:23:02.880 --> 0:23:06.880
<v Speaker 3>the federal government to eavesdrop without a warrant on foreigners

0:23:06.920 --> 0:23:12.640
<v Speaker 3>in overseas investigations. The FBI Director warned of dire consequences

0:23:12.680 --> 0:23:16.080
<v Speaker 3>if it's not renewed. But its critics were an unusual

0:23:16.240 --> 0:23:20.920
<v Speaker 3>mix of right wing Republicans and Democrats focused on civil liberties,

0:23:21.240 --> 0:23:24.720
<v Speaker 3>both concerned that it sweeps up the data of Americans.

0:23:25.119 --> 0:23:30.320
<v Speaker 3>Here's Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio and Democratic Representative

0:23:30.440 --> 0:23:32.000
<v Speaker 3>Jerry Nadler of New York.

0:23:32.480 --> 0:23:35.040
<v Speaker 5>If they don't follow the exceptions, and they're searching Americans,

0:23:35.600 --> 0:23:38.760
<v Speaker 5>searching your name, your phone number, your email, addressing this

0:23:38.840 --> 0:23:42.640
<v Speaker 5>giant database, that's it's scarce. And if it's a small number,

0:23:42.800 --> 0:23:44.000
<v Speaker 5>then what's the big deal.

0:23:46.040 --> 0:23:49.159
<v Speaker 6>Officials are supposed to find it reasonably likely that a

0:23:49.240 --> 0:23:51.440
<v Speaker 6>query will turn up evidence of a crime or foreign

0:23:51.440 --> 0:23:55.160
<v Speaker 6>intelligence information, but that did not stop them from searching

0:23:55.160 --> 0:23:58.760
<v Speaker 6>for protesters, politicians, and political donors, to name a few

0:23:59.320 --> 0:24:00.479
<v Speaker 6>without proper credicate.

0:24:01.000 --> 0:24:04.000
<v Speaker 3>Joining me is Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia Law

0:24:04.040 --> 0:24:07.320
<v Speaker 3>School and former senior official at the State Department, the

0:24:07.400 --> 0:24:11.159
<v Speaker 3>Department of Defense, and the National Security Council. Tell us

0:24:11.160 --> 0:24:12.560
<v Speaker 3>about section seven oh two.

0:24:13.520 --> 0:24:17.920
<v Speaker 1>Sure, so the main FISA statue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,

0:24:18.040 --> 0:24:21.800
<v Speaker 1>goes back to the late nineteen seventies. But we're talking

0:24:21.840 --> 0:24:25.600
<v Speaker 1>here about Section seven oh two, which was part of

0:24:25.640 --> 0:24:30.159
<v Speaker 1>a major modernization of that statue in the two thousands,

0:24:30.359 --> 0:24:34.919
<v Speaker 1>and what it allows the government to do is to collect,

0:24:35.440 --> 0:24:40.960
<v Speaker 1>on US soil and with various oversight checks, the electronic

0:24:41.040 --> 0:24:47.600
<v Speaker 1>communications of targeted foreigners abroad, even when those targeted foreigners

0:24:47.800 --> 0:24:53.119
<v Speaker 1>are communicating with Americans. And so to do so, the

0:24:53.200 --> 0:24:58.320
<v Speaker 1>law authorizes the government to order service providers I think

0:24:58.960 --> 0:25:04.760
<v Speaker 1>telecom company or Google to hand over copies of messages

0:25:04.840 --> 0:25:09.680
<v Speaker 1>or calls to or from those targeted foreigners abroad.

0:25:10.960 --> 0:25:14.240
<v Speaker 3>And is the controversial part of this bill, the part

0:25:14.400 --> 0:25:18.399
<v Speaker 3>where in circumstances where Americans are in contact with a

0:25:18.400 --> 0:25:21.880
<v Speaker 3>foreign surveillance target, it sweeps up the data of Americans.

0:25:22.160 --> 0:25:24.520
<v Speaker 3>So why it's controversial, that's right.

0:25:24.920 --> 0:25:32.720
<v Speaker 1>So the statute itself authorizes the government to target foreigners abroad,

0:25:33.560 --> 0:25:38.240
<v Speaker 1>but some of those calls or emails from those targeted

0:25:38.280 --> 0:25:43.720
<v Speaker 1>foreigners abroad are going to be with Americans or people

0:25:43.800 --> 0:25:49.080
<v Speaker 1>here in the United States, and those communications that get

0:25:49.359 --> 0:25:55.080
<v Speaker 1>swept up are often referred to as incidental collection, the

0:25:55.200 --> 0:25:58.800
<v Speaker 1>idea being that the Americans are not the ones being

0:25:58.920 --> 0:26:03.879
<v Speaker 1>targeted foreigners abroad, but oftentimes there are going to be

0:26:04.080 --> 0:26:10.640
<v Speaker 1>some communications with Americans that are collected as well, and

0:26:11.160 --> 0:26:17.399
<v Speaker 1>the biggest controversy is about the FBI's access to those

0:26:17.680 --> 0:26:22.480
<v Speaker 1>incidentally collected communications with Americans.

0:26:22.600 --> 0:26:26.360
<v Speaker 3>It sort of was an unlikely coalition of lawmakers far

0:26:26.840 --> 0:26:30.240
<v Speaker 3>right wing of the Republican Party and Democrats focused on

0:26:30.280 --> 0:26:34.119
<v Speaker 3>civil liberties who were trying to change the law, a

0:26:34.160 --> 0:26:37.160
<v Speaker 3>major change. They wanted to have a warrant requirement.

0:26:37.880 --> 0:26:42.080
<v Speaker 1>As you say, there's a coalition of some strange bedfellows

0:26:42.560 --> 0:26:47.080
<v Speaker 1>who are pushing in Congress for a major reform to

0:26:47.160 --> 0:26:50.800
<v Speaker 1>Section seven zero two, I say a coalition of strange

0:26:50.840 --> 0:26:56.240
<v Speaker 1>bedfellows in that it was members from both the far

0:26:56.400 --> 0:26:59.879
<v Speaker 1>right and the far left. For so long, debates about

0:27:00.080 --> 0:27:03.280
<v Speaker 1>ISSA in Congress were usually between what I might call

0:27:03.480 --> 0:27:09.280
<v Speaker 1>the civil libertarian left and the more hawkish right, as

0:27:09.359 --> 0:27:12.600
<v Speaker 1>well as a lot of members in the center. But

0:27:12.760 --> 0:27:17.240
<v Speaker 1>we've seen the politics of surveillance really shift, and to

0:27:17.359 --> 0:27:21.840
<v Speaker 1>the question of what kind of reform the advocates were

0:27:22.320 --> 0:27:26.719
<v Speaker 1>pushing for, I think the most controversial one was to

0:27:26.880 --> 0:27:30.680
<v Speaker 1>add a warrant requirement. The idea being that every time

0:27:30.760 --> 0:27:35.359
<v Speaker 1>the FBI might want to go into that set of

0:27:35.960 --> 0:27:43.000
<v Speaker 1>incidentally collected communications with Americans in order to the word

0:27:43.080 --> 0:27:48.000
<v Speaker 1>is query that database to look for certain communications within

0:27:48.680 --> 0:27:54.120
<v Speaker 1>that previously collected set the government. The FBI would need

0:27:54.160 --> 0:27:57.680
<v Speaker 1>to go to a court for a warrant and make

0:27:57.720 --> 0:28:02.600
<v Speaker 1>a certain showing in order to then get court permission

0:28:03.040 --> 0:28:05.240
<v Speaker 1>to do that specific query.

0:28:05.840 --> 0:28:08.919
<v Speaker 3>And is getting a warrant so burdensome for the FBI.

0:28:09.880 --> 0:28:13.359
<v Speaker 1>I think some reforms were necessary because there were some

0:28:13.480 --> 0:28:18.560
<v Speaker 1>problems with how the FBI was using the Section seven

0:28:18.680 --> 0:28:23.920
<v Speaker 1>zero two data. But I think a warrant requirement would

0:28:23.920 --> 0:28:27.240
<v Speaker 1>have gone or would go too far. I think that

0:28:27.320 --> 0:28:30.560
<v Speaker 1>for a couple of reasons. First, we're not talking about

0:28:30.600 --> 0:28:36.480
<v Speaker 1>authorizing surveillance here. The surveillance has already been authorized and done.

0:28:36.840 --> 0:28:40.120
<v Speaker 1>And what we're talking about here is the ability of

0:28:40.160 --> 0:28:44.360
<v Speaker 1>the FBI, under certain narrow circumstances to look at that

0:28:44.520 --> 0:28:50.240
<v Speaker 1>information that's already in the government's files. In addition, the

0:28:50.280 --> 0:28:56.000
<v Speaker 1>FBI has already adopted a number of reforms itself since

0:28:56.040 --> 0:28:59.680
<v Speaker 1>some of the problems with seven zho two were exposed.

0:29:00.080 --> 0:29:02.959
<v Speaker 1>But beyond that, I think a warrant requirement would go

0:29:03.200 --> 0:29:09.640
<v Speaker 1>too far. You warrants are by design very burdensome and

0:29:10.080 --> 0:29:14.760
<v Speaker 1>can take time, whereas national security threats move quickly, especially

0:29:15.040 --> 0:29:18.920
<v Speaker 1>in cyberspace. And we're also when it comes to foreign

0:29:18.960 --> 0:29:23.959
<v Speaker 1>intelligence or national security, we're often talking about trying to

0:29:24.320 --> 0:29:31.000
<v Speaker 1>piece together information intelligence in order to determine whether, for example,

0:29:31.600 --> 0:29:36.240
<v Speaker 1>an individual, there's probable cause to believe that an individual

0:29:36.760 --> 0:29:43.000
<v Speaker 1>is engaged in certain types of nefarious conduct. And the

0:29:43.080 --> 0:29:45.800
<v Speaker 1>last point I would just say on this is many

0:29:45.880 --> 0:29:50.440
<v Speaker 1>of the FBI's queries of the seven zero two database

0:29:50.600 --> 0:29:55.920
<v Speaker 1>are related to cybersecurity, especially combating foreign threats like ransomware

0:29:56.000 --> 0:30:00.200
<v Speaker 1>gangs or foreign government agencies that are engaged in in

0:30:00.280 --> 0:30:03.520
<v Speaker 1>fiber attacks, and the FBI needs to move quickly. It

0:30:03.560 --> 0:30:05.920
<v Speaker 1>may need to run a lot of queries in order

0:30:06.040 --> 0:30:09.400
<v Speaker 1>to combat those attacks that weren't.

0:30:09.440 --> 0:30:12.480
<v Speaker 3>Requirement didn't pass in the House. It was a tie vote,

0:30:12.600 --> 0:30:14.200
<v Speaker 3>but section seven oh two did.

0:30:15.000 --> 0:30:19.560
<v Speaker 1>That's right. So the House has reauthorized Section seven oh

0:30:19.600 --> 0:30:24.600
<v Speaker 1>two with a few reforms, not the big controversial one,

0:30:24.600 --> 0:30:28.480
<v Speaker 1>which was the warrant requirement, but with some reforms, and

0:30:28.600 --> 0:30:33.200
<v Speaker 1>the House reauthorized the basic seven oh two authority for

0:30:33.280 --> 0:30:36.720
<v Speaker 1>two years. The cycle had been every five years, but

0:30:36.880 --> 0:30:39.040
<v Speaker 1>as a compromise in the House, it was just a

0:30:39.080 --> 0:30:44.400
<v Speaker 1>two year reauthorization. Now the action switches to the Senate

0:30:44.480 --> 0:30:48.280
<v Speaker 1>to see whether the Senate will pass an identical or

0:30:48.440 --> 0:30:52.680
<v Speaker 1>very similar bill. My best guess is that the Senate

0:30:52.880 --> 0:30:56.880
<v Speaker 1>will maybe even just pass the House's bill and will

0:30:56.920 --> 0:31:00.240
<v Speaker 1>be in a situation where this gets wrapped up quickly

0:31:00.320 --> 0:31:02.320
<v Speaker 1>and sent on to the President for signature.

0:31:02.920 --> 0:31:07.600
<v Speaker 3>So Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said this

0:31:07.640 --> 0:31:11.200
<v Speaker 3>bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions

0:31:11.200 --> 0:31:15.200
<v Speaker 3>of government surveillance authority in history. I'll do everything in

0:31:15.240 --> 0:31:17.760
<v Speaker 3>my power to stop it from passing in the Senate.

0:31:18.360 --> 0:31:21.840
<v Speaker 1>I think that's a gross exaggeration. I think we are

0:31:21.880 --> 0:31:27.880
<v Speaker 1>talking about a very powerful intelligence tool. But because it's

0:31:27.880 --> 0:31:31.160
<v Speaker 1>so powerful, there were from the beginning a number of

0:31:31.280 --> 0:31:34.880
<v Speaker 1>checks that were built into the system. Those checks have

0:31:35.040 --> 0:31:39.040
<v Speaker 1>been improved over time for good reason. I mean, look,

0:31:39.280 --> 0:31:44.160
<v Speaker 1>the FBI was sloppy with this tool. Reforms were necessary,

0:31:44.680 --> 0:31:48.440
<v Speaker 1>but a lot of those reforms were already taken within

0:31:48.480 --> 0:31:52.520
<v Speaker 1>the executive branch. These were things like reducing which FBI

0:31:53.080 --> 0:31:59.000
<v Speaker 1>officials have access to the database, a stronger reporting requirements,

0:31:59.000 --> 0:32:03.880
<v Speaker 1>stronger penalty for violating those rules. These were sensible reforms

0:32:03.920 --> 0:32:07.640
<v Speaker 1>and needed reforms. And the House bill and what I

0:32:07.640 --> 0:32:11.440
<v Speaker 1>think will likely pass. The Senate will codify and law

0:32:11.560 --> 0:32:15.600
<v Speaker 1>some of these reforms. I think the warrant requirement goes

0:32:15.680 --> 0:32:22.120
<v Speaker 1>too far, and I think Senator Widen is underplaying the

0:32:22.200 --> 0:32:29.400
<v Speaker 1>intelligence imperative behind this tool and exaggerating the dangers of it.

0:32:29.920 --> 0:32:32.120
<v Speaker 3>Can I ask you? There was a letter to House

0:32:32.160 --> 0:32:35.960
<v Speaker 3>and Senate leaders where the Department of Justice confirmed that

0:32:36.040 --> 0:32:40.640
<v Speaker 3>the Administration on March fifth submitted certifications to the PFISA

0:32:40.800 --> 0:32:44.360
<v Speaker 3>Court that, if approved, would authorize Section seven O two

0:32:44.480 --> 0:32:46.120
<v Speaker 3>until April of twenty twenty five.

0:32:46.440 --> 0:32:51.320
<v Speaker 1>So one of the questions throughout this reauthorization process is

0:32:51.880 --> 0:32:57.480
<v Speaker 1>exactly when is the true deadline? When does the program

0:32:57.840 --> 0:33:02.600
<v Speaker 1>actually cease to work? And there's been some shifting in

0:33:02.840 --> 0:33:09.200
<v Speaker 1>that timeline as the Executive Branch, in anticipation of possible

0:33:09.240 --> 0:33:13.880
<v Speaker 1>expiration of the statutory authority, has looked at what are

0:33:13.920 --> 0:33:17.920
<v Speaker 1>some orders that we could speak from the Foreign Intelligence

0:33:17.920 --> 0:33:23.800
<v Speaker 1>Surveillance Court that would extend beyond April twenty twenty four,

0:33:24.720 --> 0:33:28.680
<v Speaker 1>when the statutory authority is set to expire. When might

0:33:28.760 --> 0:33:32.440
<v Speaker 1>we'd be able to get an order that would apply

0:33:33.160 --> 0:33:39.800
<v Speaker 1>beyond the statutory expiration. And there is some good reason

0:33:39.880 --> 0:33:43.840
<v Speaker 1>to believe that the Executive Branch could get some orders

0:33:44.160 --> 0:33:47.920
<v Speaker 1>that extend beyond the deadline next week. I think one

0:33:47.960 --> 0:33:51.320
<v Speaker 1>of the problems for the executive branch is that those

0:33:51.560 --> 0:33:56.160
<v Speaker 1>orders would be on much weaker legal ground, much more

0:33:56.200 --> 0:34:01.680
<v Speaker 1>susceptible to challenge without the reauthorization of the statute. So

0:34:01.720 --> 0:34:07.160
<v Speaker 1>they're absolutely right to push for quick reauthorization, and Congress's

0:34:07.360 --> 0:34:09.520
<v Speaker 1>right to think about at the end of this week's

0:34:09.560 --> 0:34:10.600
<v Speaker 1>as the true deadline.

0:34:11.080 --> 0:34:14.120
<v Speaker 3>Let's say Congress reauthorizes it, then is that the end

0:34:14.160 --> 0:34:16.080
<v Speaker 3>of it? Or is the Piza Court still going to

0:34:16.120 --> 0:34:16.520
<v Speaker 3>go ahead?

0:34:16.880 --> 0:34:19.520
<v Speaker 1>So then the pis A Court would still be charged

0:34:19.640 --> 0:34:25.480
<v Speaker 1>with examining the government's new requests for an order. The

0:34:25.520 --> 0:34:29.839
<v Speaker 1>big difference after Congress passes this bill, as I hope

0:34:29.880 --> 0:34:34.520
<v Speaker 1>they do, is the statutory authority would be extended for

0:34:34.600 --> 0:34:39.240
<v Speaker 1>another two years. As I mentioned before, the previous pattern

0:34:39.560 --> 0:34:44.600
<v Speaker 1>had been that the statute would be authorized for five

0:34:44.680 --> 0:34:50.200
<v Speaker 1>years before it would sunset. This would give the congressional

0:34:50.239 --> 0:34:56.200
<v Speaker 1>overseers more of an opportunity to examine how effectively was

0:34:56.239 --> 0:34:59.960
<v Speaker 1>the system working and how effectively were the ZECHS operation,

0:35:00.960 --> 0:35:05.600
<v Speaker 1>And the original request from the executive branch was that

0:35:05.760 --> 0:35:10.000
<v Speaker 1>Congress reauthorized it for another five years. One of the

0:35:10.040 --> 0:35:14.600
<v Speaker 1>compromises in the House was to keep seven zero two

0:35:14.920 --> 0:35:19.640
<v Speaker 1>pretty much the same, but only extend its authorization for

0:35:19.680 --> 0:35:23.160
<v Speaker 1>another two years, this time so Congress would get another

0:35:23.320 --> 0:35:25.240
<v Speaker 1>bite at this within two years.

0:35:25.360 --> 0:35:29.440
<v Speaker 3>Thanks so much. That's Professor Matthew Waxman of Columbia Law School.

0:35:29.640 --> 0:35:32.279
<v Speaker 3>And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:35:32.640 --> 0:35:35.000
<v Speaker 3>Remember you've can always get the latest legal news by

0:35:35.040 --> 0:35:38.839
<v Speaker 3>subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:35:39.160 --> 0:35:43.000
<v Speaker 3>and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm

0:35:43.080 --> 0:35:45.480
<v Speaker 3>June Grosso and this is Bloomberg