1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,680
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,680 --> 00:00:10,000
Speaker 1: The trial is over, but the controversy is not. The

3
00:00:10,119 --> 00:00:14,800
Speaker 1: Roger Stone case has been unprecedented in many respects interferenced

4
00:00:14,840 --> 00:00:18,079
Speaker 1: by the President and the Attorney General, the withdrawal of

5
00:00:18,120 --> 00:00:21,960
Speaker 1: the four prosecutors handling the case, and social media post

6
00:00:22,040 --> 00:00:25,479
Speaker 1: by the defendant against the judge, and now the federal

7
00:00:25,480 --> 00:00:29,680
Speaker 1: trial judge is harshly criticizing the president and false news

8
00:00:29,680 --> 00:00:33,239
Speaker 1: reports for promoting claims of bias that helped fuel threats

9
00:00:33,240 --> 00:00:36,919
Speaker 1: to the jury. Judge Amy Berman Jackson made the comments

10
00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:40,320
Speaker 1: during an unusual hearing on Stone's request for a new trial,

11
00:00:40,720 --> 00:00:43,479
Speaker 1: during which three of the jurors, including the four person

12
00:00:43,560 --> 00:00:46,680
Speaker 1: were questioned. Joining me is Brad Moss, a partner at

13
00:00:46,680 --> 00:00:50,600
Speaker 1: Mark Za. Have you ever heard comments like this coming

14
00:00:50,640 --> 00:00:54,440
Speaker 1: from a judge? So judges are known on occasion to

15
00:00:54,640 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 1: make rather pointed remarks where necessary. What is someone unusual here?

16
00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:04,080
Speaker 1: Is why became required given the political circus and the

17
00:01:04,120 --> 00:01:08,399
Speaker 1: circumstances of a US president, So repeatedly and brazenly, you know,

18
00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:12,120
Speaker 1: chiming in on the case talking about a bias judge,

19
00:01:12,160 --> 00:01:15,240
Speaker 1: talking about a biased jury for a person and arguably

20
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:18,319
Speaker 1: saying that the entire prosecution should not have happened in

21
00:01:18,319 --> 00:01:21,880
Speaker 1: the first place. So that was kind of somewhat unprecedented situation,

22
00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:23,920
Speaker 1: I mean, and the judge made it clear and addressing

23
00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:27,399
Speaker 1: the merits of Roger Stone's motion for her to recuse

24
00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:30,400
Speaker 1: that it was arguably more designed just to you know,

25
00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:34,120
Speaker 1: put the words judge and biased into a media chiron

26
00:01:34,240 --> 00:01:36,440
Speaker 1: for Fox News, that it was based on any kind

27
00:01:36,480 --> 00:01:38,880
Speaker 1: of actual legal merit. And so that's what makes this

28
00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:41,280
Speaker 1: somewhat unusual. And it's what even you know, irritated the

29
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:43,319
Speaker 1: Attorney General. Is it made clear about a week or

30
00:01:43,319 --> 00:01:46,400
Speaker 1: two ago Stone is asking for a new trial, and

31
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:49,680
Speaker 1: his claim is that the jury was biased. Why does

32
00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:52,640
Speaker 1: he think he deserves a new trial. So before you

33
00:01:52,680 --> 00:01:54,840
Speaker 1: ever go to trial, you have to pick a jury,

34
00:01:55,080 --> 00:01:58,440
Speaker 1: and both parties, you know, the government lawyers and the

35
00:01:58,480 --> 00:02:02,440
Speaker 1: defense counsel's lawyers, gets you question or what's called guadire

36
00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:05,040
Speaker 1: each of the individual perspective jurors. You get to ask

37
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:06,760
Speaker 1: them a whole bunch of questions. They fill out a

38
00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:09,760
Speaker 1: questionnaire addressing various issues, and you have the right to

39
00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:13,760
Speaker 1: challenge them as a prospective juror with this particular individual,

40
00:02:13,919 --> 00:02:16,880
Speaker 1: who we found out was later selected on unrelated reasons

41
00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:19,640
Speaker 1: to be the fourth person by the jury. She has

42
00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:23,560
Speaker 1: apparently had some public social media posts, and she was

43
00:02:23,680 --> 00:02:25,880
Speaker 1: very clearly not a fan of the president, not a

44
00:02:25,880 --> 00:02:29,280
Speaker 1: fan of Roger Stone necessarily. But what we found out

45
00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:32,520
Speaker 1: was she didn't evolve the entirety of that information in

46
00:02:32,560 --> 00:02:35,320
Speaker 1: her questionnaire. She simply said, I don't remember the extent

47
00:02:35,639 --> 00:02:37,680
Speaker 1: to which I may have, you know, read news on

48
00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:41,519
Speaker 1: this issue, were commented on it publicly. Now, a competent

49
00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:45,280
Speaker 1: defense team would have searched public records, would have searched

50
00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:48,160
Speaker 1: public social media posts, and would have seen what she

51
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:51,040
Speaker 1: had their online, none of which was set the private,

52
00:02:51,240 --> 00:02:54,600
Speaker 1: and would have bounced her during guadir. They didn't do that.

53
00:02:54,600 --> 00:02:56,919
Speaker 1: That was just a complete fellure of criminal defense one

54
00:02:56,919 --> 00:02:59,160
Speaker 1: on one. So now they're trying to basically get a

55
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:01,200
Speaker 1: second bite at the app both saying well, we missed

56
00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:03,040
Speaker 1: it up the first time, but her answer on the

57
00:03:03,120 --> 00:03:05,800
Speaker 1: questionnaire was, you know, somewhat misleading, and so we didn't

58
00:03:05,800 --> 00:03:08,680
Speaker 1: think to look. That is, to say the least, a

59
00:03:08,800 --> 00:03:12,919
Speaker 1: rather thin legal argument. I don't anticipate it will ultimately succeed.

60
00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:15,720
Speaker 1: But again, this isn't about legal merits. This is about

61
00:03:15,760 --> 00:03:18,200
Speaker 1: setting up a part in down the line. The defense

62
00:03:18,480 --> 00:03:22,000
Speaker 1: actually had a jury consultant working with them. Yeah, you know,

63
00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:23,520
Speaker 1: it's one of those things where this is Alex said

64
00:03:23,600 --> 00:03:25,800
Speaker 1: this Literally all you had to do was google the

65
00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:29,120
Speaker 1: person's name and pull up their social media posts. This

66
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:32,519
Speaker 1: is not exactly a glowing endorsement for that jury consultant

67
00:03:32,600 --> 00:03:37,360
Speaker 1: and his or her work prowess and professionalism. What's the standard?

68
00:03:37,520 --> 00:03:41,400
Speaker 1: Because the jury four person, she might have omitted certain things.

69
00:03:42,160 --> 00:03:45,920
Speaker 1: So basically what the judge has to assess it was

70
00:03:45,960 --> 00:03:48,880
Speaker 1: a couple of different things. One if the person's uh

71
00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:53,280
Speaker 1: statements on the questionnaire were deliberately or knowingly misleading or false.

72
00:03:53,760 --> 00:03:55,800
Speaker 1: Given the way it was couched. And we heard some

73
00:03:55,840 --> 00:03:58,680
Speaker 1: of the testimony from the fourth person herself during the

74
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:02,760
Speaker 1: hearing yesterday, it's thin it best the argument that she

75
00:04:02,920 --> 00:04:05,440
Speaker 1: was deliberately misleading them. She didn't say I haven't read

76
00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:06,880
Speaker 1: anything on this. She says, I don't remember the full

77
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:09,640
Speaker 1: details of what I've seen, so you know, you can imagine.

78
00:04:09,800 --> 00:04:11,800
Speaker 1: She also said, I post all other kinds of things

79
00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:14,400
Speaker 1: on Twitter, but all kinds of other manners of topics,

80
00:04:14,440 --> 00:04:16,800
Speaker 1: so it could be understandable and reasonable that she might

81
00:04:16,839 --> 00:04:21,760
Speaker 1: not remember those specific posts, but everything else they probed into,

82
00:04:22,080 --> 00:04:25,480
Speaker 1: you know, discussions with other jurors. Jurors all denied that

83
00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:28,840
Speaker 1: this person had tried to push them a particular way.

84
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:31,440
Speaker 1: They all denied that she had tried to, you know,

85
00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:33,840
Speaker 1: impose her political views than any of them, and they

86
00:04:33,839 --> 00:04:36,520
Speaker 1: actually said she was the one, the four person was

87
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:38,720
Speaker 1: the one who made clear that everybody need to be

88
00:04:38,839 --> 00:04:41,760
Speaker 1: very careful and review everything very in depth when looking

89
00:04:41,760 --> 00:04:45,279
Speaker 1: over some of these charges. It certainly didn't provide any

90
00:04:45,400 --> 00:04:50,560
Speaker 1: real substantiating evidence of bias or impermissible behavior by the

91
00:04:50,640 --> 00:04:54,560
Speaker 1: fourth person in terms of how this jury ultimately deliberated

92
00:04:54,560 --> 00:04:57,400
Speaker 1: and found Roger Stone guilty. And again, this is all

93
00:04:57,480 --> 00:04:59,960
Speaker 1: just them setting up apart, and if this were any

94
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:02,520
Speaker 1: other case would be a hail mary that everybody would

95
00:05:02,520 --> 00:05:05,000
Speaker 1: be rejecting. A matter of course, the only reason it

96
00:05:05,040 --> 00:05:08,000
Speaker 1: has legs is because it's the president's old friend, Roger Stone,

97
00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:11,400
Speaker 1: and the president's media allies are hyping it. The judge

98
00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:15,520
Speaker 1: said that the filing was somewhat hyperbolic, like the motion

99
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:18,159
Speaker 1: for recusal, It's marked by a tone that I haven't

100
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:22,400
Speaker 1: seen previously in pleadings in this case and was particularly

101
00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:26,159
Speaker 1: reliant on adjectives. That's according to the judge. When the

102
00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:28,479
Speaker 1: facts on his side, you argue law. When the law

103
00:05:28,560 --> 00:05:30,560
Speaker 1: is not on your side, you pound on the desk

104
00:05:30,600 --> 00:05:33,120
Speaker 1: and yell. And that's what Roger stones lawyers were doing here.

105
00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:35,599
Speaker 1: The government had him nailed to write. It was very

106
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:37,640
Speaker 1: clear that what he had done was had crossed the

107
00:05:37,640 --> 00:05:40,479
Speaker 1: line into criminal liability and that's what happened at the trial.

108
00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:43,279
Speaker 1: He was convicted properly and even the Attorney General agrees

109
00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:45,919
Speaker 1: with it that it was a righteous prosecution. This was

110
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:49,919
Speaker 1: all meant for media consumption. Those motions were drafted to

111
00:05:50,120 --> 00:05:54,080
Speaker 1: hype up media awareness and particularly the president's views that

112
00:05:54,160 --> 00:05:57,279
Speaker 1: he and his friends have been unjustly persecuted. It was

113
00:05:57,360 --> 00:06:00,960
Speaker 1: not necessarily meant to win before the judge. I've been

114
00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:04,359
Speaker 1: talking to Brad Moss of Mark Sade about Roger Stone's

115
00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:08,000
Speaker 1: motion for a new trial. The judge denied a previous

116
00:06:08,040 --> 00:06:10,880
Speaker 1: request for a new trial based on claims that a

117
00:06:10,880 --> 00:06:14,480
Speaker 1: different juror was biased against Stone over the weekend. As

118
00:06:14,520 --> 00:06:18,160
Speaker 1: you referred to, she rejected Stone's claim that she herself

119
00:06:18,320 --> 00:06:20,840
Speaker 1: was biased. So does it seem like we can make

120
00:06:20,839 --> 00:06:25,280
Speaker 1: an educated guess where this motion is going to end up.

121
00:06:25,680 --> 00:06:28,640
Speaker 1: I think it's highly unlikely, but I can obviously rule

122
00:06:28,680 --> 00:06:31,120
Speaker 1: it out, but highly unlikely that the judge will be

123
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:33,960
Speaker 1: granting the motion for a new trial here. I'm sure

124
00:06:34,120 --> 00:06:37,839
Speaker 1: roger Stone will appeal that will put any sentencing the

125
00:06:37,920 --> 00:06:41,159
Speaker 1: forty months, that will put that on hold pending appellate review.

126
00:06:41,200 --> 00:06:45,080
Speaker 1: Probably of that appeal of the motion for a new trial.

127
00:06:45,480 --> 00:06:47,680
Speaker 1: I don't have any reason to believe that roger Stone

128
00:06:47,720 --> 00:06:50,640
Speaker 1: will actually spend a single day in jail. Even if

129
00:06:50,640 --> 00:06:53,760
Speaker 1: the President is defeated in November for reelection, he will

130
00:06:53,800 --> 00:06:56,880
Speaker 1: almost certainly issue a pardon then during the lane duck

131
00:06:57,279 --> 00:07:01,320
Speaker 1: prior to departing office. Roger Stone is just stalling for time.

132
00:07:02,279 --> 00:07:05,800
Speaker 1: Speaking of stalling for time, can he drag this out

133
00:07:06,400 --> 00:07:09,720
Speaker 1: until after the election where he will not have to

134
00:07:09,920 --> 00:07:13,280
Speaker 1: report to jail, because if Trump wants to give him

135
00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:16,240
Speaker 1: a pardon, I assume he would want to wait till

136
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 1: after the election so he can. But it's ultimately somewhat

137
00:07:20,720 --> 00:07:23,680
Speaker 1: subject to the whims and discretion of the judge. So

138
00:07:23,720 --> 00:07:26,040
Speaker 1: assuming the judge the next week or two denies the

139
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:28,840
Speaker 1: motion for a new trial, she could if she wanted

140
00:07:29,160 --> 00:07:32,320
Speaker 1: order Roger Stone to surrender within two weeks and start

141
00:07:32,400 --> 00:07:36,400
Speaker 1: his prison sentence while any appeals are ongoing. It is

142
00:07:36,520 --> 00:07:39,680
Speaker 1: more than likely, though, given the notoriety of the case

143
00:07:39,800 --> 00:07:44,360
Speaker 1: and given the non violent circumstances of the charges, that

144
00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:48,200
Speaker 1: she will permit him to remain out on bond pending

145
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:51,520
Speaker 1: the appellate review of her rulings on a motion for

146
00:07:51,560 --> 00:07:54,640
Speaker 1: a new trial is if only to avoid, you know,

147
00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:57,160
Speaker 1: possibly getting smacked down by the d C Circuit later

148
00:07:57,200 --> 00:08:00,840
Speaker 1: on for having put him in jail. President Trump ramped

149
00:08:00,920 --> 00:08:05,000
Speaker 1: up his unorthodox battle with the judiciary and continued his

150
00:08:05,040 --> 00:08:10,200
Speaker 1: assault on judges by demanding that Supreme Court Justices Sonya

151
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:13,920
Speaker 1: Soto Mayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recused themselves from future

152
00:08:13,960 --> 00:08:17,640
Speaker 1: cases involving him or his administration. Let's begin with the

153
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:22,440
Speaker 1: dissenting opinion by Soto Mayor that led to President Trump's comments.

154
00:08:22,680 --> 00:08:25,160
Speaker 1: So to Mayor, in a case in which, in a

155
00:08:25,200 --> 00:08:29,240
Speaker 1: five to four vote, conservative justices are allowing the administration

156
00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:33,080
Speaker 1: to start enforcing its new immigrant wealth test in Illinois

157
00:08:33,080 --> 00:08:36,040
Speaker 1: before the case is heard in the lower courts, explain

158
00:08:36,120 --> 00:08:40,800
Speaker 1: her dissent. Basically, what justice so to Mayora's complaint was

159
00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:44,559
Speaker 1: was that the courts were abdicating their responsibility and essentially

160
00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:49,079
Speaker 1: giving the executive branch too much leeway here on something

161
00:08:49,080 --> 00:08:53,080
Speaker 1: that could have a monumental impact going forward on how

162
00:08:53,120 --> 00:08:55,640
Speaker 1: we handle immigration in this country and allowing it to

163
00:08:55,679 --> 00:08:58,800
Speaker 1: occur while the litigation was still ongoing. But what was

164
00:08:59,040 --> 00:09:01,160
Speaker 1: caught up in what Fox There's an all the conservative

165
00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:03,800
Speaker 1: media was the very hyperbolic nature of some of her

166
00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:06,480
Speaker 1: language in the descent. It was a very fiery descent.

167
00:09:06,520 --> 00:09:08,960
Speaker 1: And there's a long history of justices on the Supreme

168
00:09:08,960 --> 00:09:12,280
Speaker 1: Court and lower courts, you know, issuing occasional fiery descents,

169
00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:14,160
Speaker 1: and she was, as far as I can recall, she

170
00:09:14,280 --> 00:09:17,280
Speaker 1: was largely on her own in this particular descent, And

171
00:09:17,360 --> 00:09:19,439
Speaker 1: so it caught Win and some of the individual and

172
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:21,640
Speaker 1: conservative media had a whole bunch of issue with the

173
00:09:21,760 --> 00:09:24,160
Speaker 1: nature of the verbiage and the language and saying it

174
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:28,640
Speaker 1: was suggesting it was reflecting of her particular ideological bias

175
00:09:28,679 --> 00:09:31,320
Speaker 1: against the president, and that of course, for Donald Trump,

176
00:09:31,360 --> 00:09:33,760
Speaker 1: he thinks any judge who said something bad about him

177
00:09:33,880 --> 00:09:36,920
Speaker 1: is inherently biased and has to accuse, which of course

178
00:09:37,040 --> 00:09:39,920
Speaker 1: is not the standard. Well, the numbers are on Sodo

179
00:09:39,960 --> 00:09:44,200
Speaker 1: mayors side. I've done many segments on the Trump administration

180
00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:47,880
Speaker 1: taking this step of bypassing the appellate courts and running

181
00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:52,040
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court claiming it's an emergency. Also, recently

182
00:09:52,080 --> 00:09:54,640
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court allowed him to take money from the

183
00:09:54,679 --> 00:09:57,559
Speaker 1: Defense and the Pentagon to start building his wall, when

184
00:09:57,600 --> 00:10:00,400
Speaker 1: that case isn't at the Supreme Court yet. Well, and

185
00:10:00,440 --> 00:10:03,600
Speaker 1: so what she's speaking to, and it's partially arguably in

186
00:10:03,600 --> 00:10:06,720
Speaker 1: the end really commenting on the breakdown and political order,

187
00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:09,920
Speaker 1: is that the reason this has become so necessary for

188
00:10:09,960 --> 00:10:14,920
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is because the nature of these controversial policies,

189
00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:16,960
Speaker 1: much of which are being done strictly out of the

190
00:10:17,000 --> 00:10:21,120
Speaker 1: executive branch, such as redirecting a funds appropriated by Congress

191
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:23,640
Speaker 1: to build the walls, such as stuff like the travel bands,

192
00:10:23,720 --> 00:10:28,320
Speaker 1: such as stuff like this immigration welfare review. It's being

193
00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:32,080
Speaker 1: done without proper oversight by Congress and arguably without any

194
00:10:32,160 --> 00:10:35,480
Speaker 1: scrutiny by Congress. And so her complaint is ultimately that

195
00:10:35,480 --> 00:10:37,760
Speaker 1: the courts are not supposed to be used as a

196
00:10:37,760 --> 00:10:42,880
Speaker 1: way to circumvent the other political branch and the Trump administration. Nonetheless,

197
00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:46,400
Speaker 1: it's making rather you know, novel and effective use of

198
00:10:46,440 --> 00:10:49,800
Speaker 1: this emergency stay ordered from the from the Supreme Court

199
00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:51,560
Speaker 1: like they did in the other case that you mentioned,

200
00:10:51,840 --> 00:10:54,800
Speaker 1: to basically allow them to start implementing the procedures, start

201
00:10:54,840 --> 00:10:58,760
Speaker 1: implementing the policy while the legal fight within the branches

202
00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:03,440
Speaker 1: and amongst the Executive Branch and relevant third parties remains ongoing.

203
00:11:03,559 --> 00:11:06,040
Speaker 1: And it's it's a dissent and her view of how

204
00:11:06,120 --> 00:11:09,400
Speaker 1: this is an abuse of the process, although not necessarily

205
00:11:09,440 --> 00:11:12,440
Speaker 1: one that the Supreme Court obviously at the moment, is

206
00:11:12,480 --> 00:11:15,480
Speaker 1: willing to address. There are no rules for when the

207
00:11:15,600 --> 00:11:18,920
Speaker 1: jocision should recuse themselves. They're sort of on their own,

208
00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:22,360
Speaker 1: and there has been some critique that there should be

209
00:11:22,400 --> 00:11:27,680
Speaker 1: some rules. Yeah, and so the problem with imposing rules

210
00:11:27,720 --> 00:11:31,360
Speaker 1: there is because the Supreme Court is basically the only

211
00:11:31,400 --> 00:11:36,240
Speaker 1: piece created by the Constitution, and the qualifications are established

212
00:11:36,240 --> 00:11:40,720
Speaker 1: by the Constitution. It's the one situation where Congress doesn't

213
00:11:40,720 --> 00:11:44,600
Speaker 1: necessarily have the ability to impose requirements or change any

214
00:11:44,600 --> 00:11:49,960
Speaker 1: of those qualifications, or impose recusal requirements absent a constitutional amendment.

215
00:11:50,280 --> 00:11:53,280
Speaker 1: Unlike you know, lower court judges and unlike you know

216
00:11:53,360 --> 00:11:55,600
Speaker 1: a pelic court judges, a lot of which is derived

217
00:11:55,640 --> 00:11:59,840
Speaker 1: from Congressional creation Supreme courts somewhat different there, So these

218
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:03,040
Speaker 1: in court justices take it upon themselves to decide if

219
00:12:03,080 --> 00:12:05,800
Speaker 1: they have to recoose him. You think of Justice Thomas,

220
00:12:05,960 --> 00:12:10,000
Speaker 1: His wife is a very prominent political operative, has been

221
00:12:10,000 --> 00:12:13,439
Speaker 1: extensively involved in any number of campaign of political operations

222
00:12:13,440 --> 00:12:17,280
Speaker 1: over the years, including during the Obama administration, was very

223
00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:20,160
Speaker 1: you know, active and very involved in expressing her views.

224
00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:23,640
Speaker 1: And Justice Thomason was never required or you know, forced

225
00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:26,600
Speaker 1: to recuse himself from any number of issues legal issues

226
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:30,400
Speaker 1: that came before the court that obviously implicated his wife's interests.

227
00:12:30,440 --> 00:12:33,520
Speaker 1: And that was just the reality the situation. There's nothing

228
00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:36,880
Speaker 1: in Justice Ginsburg's comments or in Justice so of Myers

229
00:12:36,960 --> 00:12:40,480
Speaker 1: comments that require them to accuse from Trump related matters.

230
00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:43,520
Speaker 1: This is the President hyping a political argument that has

231
00:12:43,559 --> 00:12:47,280
Speaker 1: no base in reality. Does this complicate in any way

232
00:12:47,720 --> 00:12:52,040
Speaker 1: the administration's legal fights on his behalf? You know, it'll

233
00:12:52,040 --> 00:12:56,160
Speaker 1: certainly annoy someone like Justice Roberts, but I don't anticipate

234
00:12:56,200 --> 00:12:59,199
Speaker 1: that in the end the legal merits will be impacted

235
00:12:59,200 --> 00:13:03,480
Speaker 1: by this plitical circus. By enlarge, these justices are well

236
00:13:03,559 --> 00:13:06,280
Speaker 1: situa wells situated enough in their their confidence their self

237
00:13:06,400 --> 00:13:08,720
Speaker 1: esteem and their egos to not be swayed by whatever

238
00:13:08,800 --> 00:13:12,120
Speaker 1: Donald J. Trump says about them. They've been and gone

239
00:13:12,120 --> 00:13:14,360
Speaker 1: through worse. Uh, this is not the first one of

240
00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:15,840
Speaker 1: the last time they're gonna have to deal with, you know,

241
00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:17,840
Speaker 1: an executive branch they dislike. There are a lot of

242
00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:21,000
Speaker 1: conservative justices who disliked them of what the Obama administration

243
00:13:21,040 --> 00:13:24,320
Speaker 1: to President Obama in particular said about them. You know this,

244
00:13:24,520 --> 00:13:28,200
Speaker 1: This isn't going to sway the legal merits. Ultimately, those

245
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:31,920
Speaker 1: cases will be dependent of some rather narrow issues, especially

246
00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:35,360
Speaker 1: on stuff like the president's tax returns and its financial records.

247
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:38,440
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law, Brad. That's Brad Moss

248
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:42,079
Speaker 1: apartment in Mark. Say. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.

249
00:13:42,720 --> 00:13:42,800
Speaker 1: Ye