1 00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:04,680 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. Employers frequently exploit the weaknesses in 2 00:00:04,720 --> 00:00:05,000 Speaker 1: the law. 3 00:00:05,040 --> 00:00:07,360 Speaker 2: Of course, are going to be asking questions about separation 4 00:00:07,440 --> 00:00:08,119 Speaker 2: of powers. 5 00:00:08,240 --> 00:00:11,160 Speaker 1: One by one, Google settled with all of these other plaintiffs. 6 00:00:11,160 --> 00:00:14,480 Speaker 1: Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. 7 00:00:14,520 --> 00:00:17,959 Speaker 2: Joining me is immigration law expertly on Fresco, First Amendment 8 00:00:18,040 --> 00:00:19,960 Speaker 2: law expert Caroline Malick. 9 00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:23,720 Speaker 1: Corbin, and analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines. 10 00:00:23,800 --> 00:00:26,599 Speaker 3: The trial judge may well want to hold a hearing. 11 00:00:26,720 --> 00:00:29,200 Speaker 4: They have never said this case should never have been 12 00:00:29,200 --> 00:00:30,320 Speaker 4: brought in the first place. 13 00:00:30,400 --> 00:00:34,560 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. 14 00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:42,040 Speaker 3: Welcome to Bloomberg Law. I'm Ami Morris in for June Grosso. June. 15 00:00:42,080 --> 00:00:45,199 Speaker 3: We'll be back next week. Ahead. In this hour, we 16 00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:48,559 Speaker 3: look at a consolidation effort in the federal government that 17 00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:52,400 Speaker 3: might leave some disabled contractors at risk, Plus the trial 18 00:00:52,440 --> 00:00:54,720 Speaker 3: of Sean Diddy Coomb's We'll get into some of the 19 00:00:54,800 --> 00:00:57,840 Speaker 3: legal twists in the trial of the music mogul, But 20 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:01,280 Speaker 3: first we look at how Supreme Court rulings on Biden 21 00:01:01,360 --> 00:01:06,560 Speaker 3: administration policy could end up threatening President Trump's sweeping global tariffs. 22 00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:10,160 Speaker 3: The Supreme Court ruled against a few key climate change 23 00:01:10,160 --> 00:01:13,800 Speaker 3: and student debt initiatives of then President Joe Biden using 24 00:01:13,800 --> 00:01:17,520 Speaker 3: what's called the Major Questions doctrine, and now that same 25 00:01:17,640 --> 00:01:20,640 Speaker 3: doctrine could be used to challenge the legal standing of 26 00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:25,120 Speaker 3: the Trump administration's tariff practices. Joining us now to discuss 27 00:01:25,160 --> 00:01:29,319 Speaker 3: how this could play out, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Greg, 28 00:01:29,480 --> 00:01:32,520 Speaker 3: always a pleasure, Thanks for taking the time with us. First, 29 00:01:32,600 --> 00:01:35,880 Speaker 3: let's look at the Major Questions doctrine. What does that say? 30 00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:36,400 Speaker 4: Yeah? 31 00:01:36,400 --> 00:01:39,600 Speaker 2: Amy, The Major Questions doctrine is something the Supreme Court 32 00:01:39,760 --> 00:01:43,119 Speaker 2: had never mentioned explicitly until twenty twenty two, but in 33 00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:46,880 Speaker 2: this case involving climate change, the Court's conservative majority said, 34 00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:50,840 Speaker 2: when there is an issue that has major political and 35 00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:56,360 Speaker 2: economic significance, like climate change, if Congress is going to 36 00:01:56,440 --> 00:01:59,360 Speaker 2: tell a federal agency you have the power to do something, 37 00:01:59,560 --> 00:02:02,600 Speaker 2: we expect Congress to be very explicit in doing that. 38 00:02:03,080 --> 00:02:06,280 Speaker 2: Otherwise we're going to interpret the law as not giving 39 00:02:06,280 --> 00:02:09,840 Speaker 2: the agency that authority. And that is something the Supreme 40 00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:15,000 Speaker 2: Court has used again in restricting what the Biden deministration 41 00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:15,400 Speaker 2: could do. 42 00:02:16,639 --> 00:02:20,640 Speaker 3: Okay, so let's break this down. How was this used 43 00:02:20,720 --> 00:02:24,000 Speaker 3: against some of those Biden administration initiatives. I know it 44 00:02:24,040 --> 00:02:28,320 Speaker 3: was specifically environmental like climate change. 45 00:02:28,639 --> 00:02:31,480 Speaker 2: Yeah, so I mentioned the twenty twenty two case. It 46 00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:34,440 Speaker 2: actually stemmed from something Barack Obama had tried to do, 47 00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:38,720 Speaker 2: his so called Clean Power Plan, which would have the 48 00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:43,120 Speaker 2: EPA was going to put limits on greenhouse gas emissions 49 00:02:43,120 --> 00:02:47,680 Speaker 2: from power plants, trying to basically shift energy production away 50 00:02:47,720 --> 00:02:52,240 Speaker 2: from coal fired plants, and the Supreme Court in a 51 00:02:52,320 --> 00:02:55,480 Speaker 2: case the procedure is kind of complicated, but not really important. 52 00:02:55,720 --> 00:02:58,680 Speaker 2: The essence of it was the Supreme Court said, where 53 00:02:58,720 --> 00:03:01,520 Speaker 2: even though the Clean Power Plant hadn't gone into effect, 54 00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:05,320 Speaker 2: we're going to evaluate it and determine that the EPPA 55 00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:07,960 Speaker 2: did not have the authority to do this. Congress in 56 00:03:08,040 --> 00:03:11,720 Speaker 2: the Clean Iract wasn't specific enough and that ended up 57 00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:14,600 Speaker 2: limiting what Joe Biden could try to do going forward 58 00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:18,360 Speaker 2: on climate change, because, as with so many areas in 59 00:03:18,400 --> 00:03:22,280 Speaker 2: this day and age, climate change is an area where 60 00:03:22,320 --> 00:03:25,600 Speaker 2: Congress really hasn't said a whole lot. That the agencies 61 00:03:25,639 --> 00:03:29,480 Speaker 2: had been trying to use really old statutes, decades old 62 00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:32,400 Speaker 2: statutes like the Clean Air Act to do things, and 63 00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:35,920 Speaker 2: in that context, the Court said, no, you don't have 64 00:03:35,960 --> 00:03:38,440 Speaker 2: the authority. It meant that Congress would have to do something. 65 00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:42,600 Speaker 3: Okay, so this is a matter of authority. Then how 66 00:03:42,640 --> 00:03:45,920 Speaker 3: does this then apply to tariffs? It seems very different 67 00:03:45,960 --> 00:03:47,760 Speaker 3: from climate change in student debt. 68 00:03:48,680 --> 00:03:53,880 Speaker 2: It's very different, But the concept is certainly at least 69 00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:58,400 Speaker 2: arguably applicable because Donald trum Trump's tariffs, of course, are 70 00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:04,720 Speaker 2: certainly of major economic and political importance. And the fight 71 00:04:04,840 --> 00:04:08,080 Speaker 2: that's been going on in the courts, primarily the Court 72 00:04:08,120 --> 00:04:11,240 Speaker 2: of International Trade here in Washington and now the Federal 73 00:04:11,280 --> 00:04:15,600 Speaker 2: Appeals Court the Federal Circuit, is over whether a statute 74 00:04:15,640 --> 00:04:20,279 Speaker 2: Congress passed dealing with emergency situations and things the president 75 00:04:20,320 --> 00:04:24,680 Speaker 2: could do in emergency situations, whether that statute gives him 76 00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:28,320 Speaker 2: the authority to do what he wants to do. So 77 00:04:28,320 --> 00:04:31,000 Speaker 2: it's similar to kind of how the Clean Air Act, 78 00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:36,159 Speaker 2: which was enacted without thinking about climate change at the time, 79 00:04:36,200 --> 00:04:38,479 Speaker 2: because it wasn't really a thing when Congress passed that. 80 00:04:39,279 --> 00:04:42,240 Speaker 2: It's the same sort of thing where Congress passes statute 81 00:04:42,279 --> 00:04:47,839 Speaker 2: statute and nothing in it specifically says the president would 82 00:04:47,839 --> 00:04:52,320 Speaker 2: have the power to enact worldwide sort of the indefinite 83 00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:57,200 Speaker 2: tariffs totaling billions or trillions of dollars, and so the 84 00:04:57,320 --> 00:04:59,640 Speaker 2: argument is somewhat similar. 85 00:05:00,080 --> 00:05:03,480 Speaker 3: In a situation like this, did the Biden administration or 86 00:05:03,800 --> 00:05:06,800 Speaker 3: now the Trump administration, because the Court of International Trade 87 00:05:06,839 --> 00:05:10,480 Speaker 3: in vote the same doctrine against those tariffs? Did either 88 00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:14,479 Speaker 3: administration have a defense? Is this a case that can continue? 89 00:05:16,520 --> 00:05:20,800 Speaker 2: So in both cases the administration said, Hey, if you 90 00:05:20,839 --> 00:05:24,640 Speaker 2: look at the words of the statute, it's actually it's 91 00:05:24,640 --> 00:05:28,760 Speaker 2: actually enough that the statute gives us the authority to. 92 00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:29,800 Speaker 5: Do what we want to do. 93 00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:33,160 Speaker 2: And they also, you know, the Biden administration was able 94 00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:35,960 Speaker 2: to argue at the time, Hey, this notion of the 95 00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:40,479 Speaker 2: major questions doctrine isn't really a thing, you know, don't 96 00:05:40,640 --> 00:05:44,640 Speaker 2: superimpose this. This thing that kind of puts your thumb 97 00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:47,719 Speaker 2: on the scale against us, puts your thumb on the 98 00:05:47,760 --> 00:05:52,120 Speaker 2: scale against an agency being able to do something that 99 00:05:52,200 --> 00:05:54,440 Speaker 2: ship has sort of sailed. The Supreme Court had said, yeah, 100 00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:56,320 Speaker 2: we're going to put our thumb on. 101 00:05:56,000 --> 00:05:57,680 Speaker 5: The scale in these circumstances. 102 00:05:58,160 --> 00:05:59,880 Speaker 2: The other thing that Donald Trump is able to our 103 00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:04,320 Speaker 2: u in this context is the clean Arac case involved 104 00:06:04,400 --> 00:06:07,479 Speaker 2: the APA. It involves a federal agency and the question 105 00:06:07,560 --> 00:06:10,240 Speaker 2: was whether Congress had delegated the authority. 106 00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:10,800 Speaker 5: To this agency. 107 00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:14,640 Speaker 2: In this case, the authority that Congress has delegated through 108 00:06:14,680 --> 00:06:18,000 Speaker 2: the statute known as IEPA was directly to the president, 109 00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:21,679 Speaker 2: not to an agency. And so they are arguing, among 110 00:06:21,720 --> 00:06:25,279 Speaker 2: other things, in this context, Hey, this Major Questions Doctrine 111 00:06:25,440 --> 00:06:28,960 Speaker 2: doesn't even apply. In fact, you should be very deferential 112 00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:31,880 Speaker 2: to the president because we're dealing with an area involving 113 00:06:31,920 --> 00:06:36,719 Speaker 2: foreign affairs where the president, everybody agrees, plays the leading 114 00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:38,760 Speaker 2: role under a constitutional structure. 115 00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:42,679 Speaker 3: Well, that kind of changes my next question. I wanted 116 00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:45,080 Speaker 3: to know if the Major Questions doctrine was sort of 117 00:06:45,080 --> 00:06:47,720 Speaker 3: a way to reign in the power of the executive branch. 118 00:06:47,920 --> 00:06:50,760 Speaker 3: But it sounds almost like it's a way to balance 119 00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:53,400 Speaker 3: the power among the different branches of government. 120 00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:57,000 Speaker 2: That is certainly how the Court thinks about it. It 121 00:06:57,040 --> 00:07:00,159 Speaker 2: has had the effect, certainly has had the effect in 122 00:07:00,200 --> 00:07:04,440 Speaker 2: democratic administrations of reigning in those agencies. But the way 123 00:07:04,480 --> 00:07:07,839 Speaker 2: the Court has articulated it, and they haven't, you know, 124 00:07:08,000 --> 00:07:09,040 Speaker 2: said a whole lot. 125 00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:10,640 Speaker 5: But basically the way the Court has. 126 00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:13,280 Speaker 2: Looked at it is to say, this is something that 127 00:07:14,440 --> 00:07:18,840 Speaker 2: enforces the constitutional separation of powers, ensures that Congress is 128 00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:22,600 Speaker 2: able to do what it is trying to do, and 129 00:07:22,640 --> 00:07:26,000 Speaker 2: that its words are not being taken to give the 130 00:07:26,040 --> 00:07:30,200 Speaker 2: president another branch of the government more power than or 131 00:07:30,400 --> 00:07:34,880 Speaker 2: an agency, at least more power than Congress intended. So 132 00:07:36,440 --> 00:07:38,880 Speaker 2: it is, you know, for those proponents of the Major 133 00:07:38,960 --> 00:07:42,920 Speaker 2: Questions doctrine, it is something that is designed to make 134 00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:45,360 Speaker 2: sure everybody stays in their constitutional lanes. 135 00:07:46,360 --> 00:07:50,680 Speaker 3: Is the Major Questions Doctrine something that is invoked frequently? 136 00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:53,600 Speaker 3: Is that an archaic rule that is being trodded out 137 00:07:53,800 --> 00:07:56,840 Speaker 3: as those as people feel like they need to rein 138 00:07:56,920 --> 00:07:59,800 Speaker 3: in other branches of government. How archaic or how new 139 00:07:59,840 --> 00:08:00,320 Speaker 3: is this? 140 00:08:01,320 --> 00:08:05,480 Speaker 2: So the phrase itself is new. The Supreme Court hadn't 141 00:08:05,480 --> 00:08:09,080 Speaker 2: actually used it in an opinion until twenty twenty two, 142 00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:12,600 Speaker 2: and it's only used it one time since then, in 143 00:08:12,640 --> 00:08:16,640 Speaker 2: the case involving that you alluded to Joe Biden's effort 144 00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:22,840 Speaker 2: to slash student debt. The concepts have been there, and 145 00:08:22,880 --> 00:08:24,920 Speaker 2: when the Court used the phrase ites that we're just 146 00:08:24,960 --> 00:08:28,760 Speaker 2: taking the concepts and applying them. So you could look 147 00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:32,320 Speaker 2: back at a couple other Biden cases involving things like 148 00:08:33,120 --> 00:08:36,320 Speaker 2: his effort to require workers to either get a COVID 149 00:08:36,400 --> 00:08:40,160 Speaker 2: vaccine or take weekly tests. The Court sort of use 150 00:08:40,240 --> 00:08:42,800 Speaker 2: that notion that this is such a big thing that 151 00:08:43,520 --> 00:08:45,840 Speaker 2: we're expecting Congress to have been a little more explicit 152 00:08:45,840 --> 00:08:49,960 Speaker 2: if it was letting the federal agencies enact such a thing. 153 00:08:51,280 --> 00:08:53,760 Speaker 5: In terms of going back beyond that, you know, there's. 154 00:08:53,559 --> 00:08:55,920 Speaker 2: A real debate as to whether this is sort of 155 00:08:56,000 --> 00:08:59,240 Speaker 2: a creation of the Court's conservative majority, or if it 156 00:08:59,320 --> 00:09:03,840 Speaker 2: is actually some thing that is more steeped in decades 157 00:09:03,840 --> 00:09:05,480 Speaker 2: of Supreme Court tradition. 158 00:09:06,200 --> 00:09:10,120 Speaker 3: Could this argument between the Court of International Trade and 159 00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:14,120 Speaker 3: the Trump administration over tariffs? Could that argument? Could that 160 00:09:14,200 --> 00:09:16,040 Speaker 3: case wind up before the Supreme Court? 161 00:09:17,240 --> 00:09:19,560 Speaker 5: I would certainly expect it to in some form. 162 00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:22,760 Speaker 2: So, as you and I talk, we are waiting, and 163 00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:26,760 Speaker 2: this probably won't happen until next week sometime. We're waiting 164 00:09:26,840 --> 00:09:29,760 Speaker 2: for this federal appeals court known as the Federal Circuit 165 00:09:29,800 --> 00:09:32,880 Speaker 2: here in Washington, to say whether it's going. 166 00:09:32,760 --> 00:09:35,520 Speaker 5: To let the tariffs stay. 167 00:09:35,240 --> 00:09:39,080 Speaker 2: In effect while the litigation goes forward potentially for several months. 168 00:09:39,640 --> 00:09:42,640 Speaker 2: If that court says no, we're not going to let 169 00:09:42,679 --> 00:09:45,800 Speaker 2: those tariffs be in effect, then I would expect the 170 00:09:45,800 --> 00:09:48,880 Speaker 2: administration to very quickly turn to the Supreme Court. Now, 171 00:09:48,920 --> 00:09:52,480 Speaker 2: this would just be an emergency application most likely where 172 00:09:52,480 --> 00:09:55,120 Speaker 2: they would say, hey, you know, let us put the 173 00:09:55,120 --> 00:09:57,400 Speaker 2: tariffs in effect while we fight over stuff like the 174 00:09:57,440 --> 00:10:01,000 Speaker 2: major Questions doctrine. But it certainly poss that it will 175 00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:04,640 Speaker 2: get escalated quickly, either by the administration or by the 176 00:10:04,720 --> 00:10:08,920 Speaker 2: court and sweeping questions about whether these tariffs are legal 177 00:10:09,040 --> 00:10:09,440 Speaker 2: at all. 178 00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:11,920 Speaker 3: All right, we're going to shift gears now. 179 00:10:11,960 --> 00:10:12,240 Speaker 5: Greg. 180 00:10:12,280 --> 00:10:15,240 Speaker 3: We're talking with Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. And 181 00:10:15,640 --> 00:10:18,480 Speaker 3: there have been some recent Supreme Court decisions just handed 182 00:10:18,520 --> 00:10:21,960 Speaker 3: down this past week. Let's get into them and we'll 183 00:10:21,960 --> 00:10:24,160 Speaker 3: do this kind of quickly. The gun makers that were 184 00:10:24,160 --> 00:10:27,840 Speaker 3: shielded from Mexico's lawsuit based on some US laws that 185 00:10:27,920 --> 00:10:31,760 Speaker 3: shield gun manufacturers. The Court ruled in favor of the 186 00:10:31,760 --> 00:10:34,600 Speaker 3: gun makers. Is this more of a technicality than maybe 187 00:10:34,640 --> 00:10:35,320 Speaker 3: on the merits? 188 00:10:35,360 --> 00:10:36,160 Speaker 4: What say you? 189 00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:41,560 Speaker 2: It's certainly a case. It's very definitive for this Mexico lawsuit. 190 00:10:41,600 --> 00:10:43,920 Speaker 2: The question about how much impact it's going to have 191 00:10:44,000 --> 00:10:47,199 Speaker 2: more broadly kind of remains to be seen. The Court 192 00:10:47,320 --> 00:10:51,680 Speaker 2: said that Mexico did not have They were alleging that 193 00:10:51,800 --> 00:10:56,560 Speaker 2: the gun industry aided an embedded drug cartel violence in Mexico, 194 00:10:56,679 --> 00:10:59,680 Speaker 2: and the Supreme Court essentially said this complaint is not 195 00:10:59,800 --> 00:11:04,240 Speaker 2: near specific enough for that sort of allegation to go forward. 196 00:11:05,800 --> 00:11:10,000 Speaker 2: That there's another legal argument that the gunmakers were making 197 00:11:10,040 --> 00:11:12,480 Speaker 2: that would have been even broader, would have thrown out 198 00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:13,720 Speaker 2: even more lawsuits. 199 00:11:14,920 --> 00:11:17,679 Speaker 5: So the people on the gun safety side of this 200 00:11:18,240 --> 00:11:19,840 Speaker 5: argument are. 201 00:11:21,120 --> 00:11:22,960 Speaker 2: Breathing a little bit of a sigh of relief that 202 00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:25,400 Speaker 2: the court's ruling did not go farther than it did. 203 00:11:26,120 --> 00:11:30,000 Speaker 3: And the Supreme Court also revived a straight woman's job 204 00:11:30,080 --> 00:11:34,280 Speaker 3: bias lawsuit, which appears to allow more reverse discrimination cases 205 00:11:34,280 --> 00:11:35,079 Speaker 3: to be brought. 206 00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:38,800 Speaker 2: Yeah some parts. In some parts of the country, some 207 00:11:38,880 --> 00:11:43,240 Speaker 2: federal appeals courts had said that when a straight person, 208 00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:46,480 Speaker 2: a white person, a man, tries to file a lawsuit 209 00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:49,600 Speaker 2: saying I was discriminated against them the job, that they 210 00:11:49,640 --> 00:11:51,679 Speaker 2: had to show a little something more to get their 211 00:11:51,720 --> 00:11:54,280 Speaker 2: case to the jury. They had to show something called 212 00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:58,800 Speaker 2: background circumstances to support support the suspicion that the defendant 213 00:11:58,880 --> 00:12:03,560 Speaker 2: is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. And 214 00:12:03,640 --> 00:12:09,520 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court unanimously said, no, every plaintiff, whether they're whatever, race, 215 00:12:09,559 --> 00:12:12,800 Speaker 2: whatever gender, has to prove the same thing. 216 00:12:12,920 --> 00:12:14,959 Speaker 5: Nobody has a special requirement like that. 217 00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:18,199 Speaker 3: Interesting, and we're gonna have to leave it there, Greg, 218 00:12:18,240 --> 00:12:20,160 Speaker 3: thank you so much for taking the time with us. 219 00:12:20,400 --> 00:12:23,960 Speaker 3: Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter Greg Store. Now coming up, we 220 00:12:24,080 --> 00:12:27,520 Speaker 3: turned to the Trump Administration's dismantling of federal agencies and 221 00:12:27,559 --> 00:12:31,440 Speaker 3: how those with disabilities might wind up caught in the crossfire. 222 00:12:31,880 --> 00:12:35,000 Speaker 3: I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg. 223 00:12:48,800 --> 00:12:53,559 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. 224 00:12:54,920 --> 00:12:57,680 Speaker 3: I'm Amy Morris filling in for June Grosso. The Trump 225 00:12:57,720 --> 00:13:00,840 Speaker 3: administration is pushing a budget proposal that would put the 226 00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:05,680 Speaker 3: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in charge of policing federal contractors 227 00:13:05,679 --> 00:13:09,880 Speaker 3: for bias against people with disabilities. As of right now, however, 228 00:13:09,920 --> 00:13:13,400 Speaker 3: the EEOC does not have the authority to audit companies. 229 00:13:13,840 --> 00:13:17,480 Speaker 3: This is a complicated situation. We welcome Bloomberg's Rebecca clar 230 00:13:17,559 --> 00:13:19,839 Speaker 3: to help clear all of this up. Rebecca, thank you 231 00:13:19,920 --> 00:13:21,480 Speaker 3: so much for taking the time with us. 232 00:13:22,040 --> 00:13:23,079 Speaker 6: Yeah, thanks for having me. 233 00:13:23,679 --> 00:13:26,160 Speaker 3: Now, first let's get a little background. We're talking about 234 00:13:26,200 --> 00:13:29,920 Speaker 3: the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and we are 235 00:13:29,960 --> 00:13:34,600 Speaker 3: talking about the OFCCP, a completely different agency. What does 236 00:13:34,640 --> 00:13:35,280 Speaker 3: each one do? 237 00:13:36,840 --> 00:13:37,040 Speaker 5: Right? 238 00:13:37,280 --> 00:13:41,160 Speaker 6: So, you know, the EEOC is an agency that's very 239 00:13:41,240 --> 00:13:44,640 Speaker 6: charge driven. So if you're a worker and you want 240 00:13:44,640 --> 00:13:48,319 Speaker 6: to file a charge of alleging that your employer discriminated 241 00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:50,520 Speaker 6: you in some way, you can go to the EEOC 242 00:13:50,960 --> 00:13:53,960 Speaker 6: or to estate or local agency, and that's really where 243 00:13:54,000 --> 00:13:57,440 Speaker 6: their power lies. You know, they also have some sort 244 00:13:57,480 --> 00:14:02,400 Speaker 6: of guidance and policy role making abilities, but they're really 245 00:14:02,480 --> 00:14:05,880 Speaker 6: charged driven, so it's more of a reactive approach to discrimination. 246 00:14:06,480 --> 00:14:11,440 Speaker 6: The LOFCCP, which is or was a Department of Labor 247 00:14:12,120 --> 00:14:16,000 Speaker 6: sub agency that's the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. 248 00:14:16,320 --> 00:14:20,360 Speaker 6: They oversaw similar you know, anti bias, anti discrimination work, 249 00:14:20,640 --> 00:14:23,600 Speaker 6: but for federal contractors. So if you were a company 250 00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:27,000 Speaker 6: doing business with the government with contracts of certain sizes, 251 00:14:27,480 --> 00:14:30,840 Speaker 6: you have this extra level of proactive work that you 252 00:14:30,960 --> 00:14:34,040 Speaker 6: had to do to ensure that you weren't discriminating against 253 00:14:34,400 --> 00:14:36,720 Speaker 6: your workers. And part of what they were able to 254 00:14:36,760 --> 00:14:39,880 Speaker 6: do is do these audits of companies so you know, 255 00:14:39,920 --> 00:14:42,320 Speaker 6: there doesn't have to be any sort of evidence of 256 00:14:42,320 --> 00:14:45,400 Speaker 6: discrimination happening. If you were a company that does business 257 00:14:45,400 --> 00:14:48,840 Speaker 6: with the government, you'd have these regular audits where you 258 00:14:48,880 --> 00:14:50,960 Speaker 6: could you know, they could come in look at sort 259 00:14:51,000 --> 00:14:54,440 Speaker 6: of your policies and what's happening there, and then you know, 260 00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:59,080 Speaker 6: take action based on that. The Trump administration, through an 261 00:14:59,080 --> 00:15:04,760 Speaker 6: executive order, sought to eliminate the OFCCP in terms of 262 00:15:04,920 --> 00:15:07,120 Speaker 6: most of the work that it had been doing on 263 00:15:07,280 --> 00:15:10,640 Speaker 6: race and sex based discrimination because that was all established 264 00:15:10,680 --> 00:15:15,720 Speaker 6: through an executive order. There were two other statutory obligations 265 00:15:15,760 --> 00:15:19,040 Speaker 6: that the Office saw that they can't undo through an 266 00:15:19,040 --> 00:15:21,920 Speaker 6: executive order, and one of those is Section five O 267 00:15:22,080 --> 00:15:25,600 Speaker 6: three of the Rehabilitation Act, which looks at anti discrimination 268 00:15:25,720 --> 00:15:28,840 Speaker 6: of disabled workers. And that's through this budget proposal. What 269 00:15:28,880 --> 00:15:32,640 Speaker 6: they're proposing to have the EEOC in force now is 270 00:15:32,680 --> 00:15:36,720 Speaker 6: sort of looking at this anti bias work against disabled 271 00:15:36,720 --> 00:15:40,560 Speaker 6: workers at federal contractors. But again, it sort of leaves 272 00:15:40,560 --> 00:15:44,960 Speaker 6: some of these potential gaps depending on how this goes through, 273 00:15:45,280 --> 00:15:49,280 Speaker 6: since the EEOC doesn't necessarily have that power already. 274 00:15:49,920 --> 00:15:51,840 Speaker 3: All right, let's get into all of that now. You 275 00:15:51,920 --> 00:15:56,359 Speaker 3: mentioned what's left of the OFCCP. That's the Federal contractor 276 00:15:57,560 --> 00:16:00,440 Speaker 3: a group that they're the ones who watch out make 277 00:16:00,480 --> 00:16:05,400 Speaker 3: sure that there's no discrimination among the federal contractors. And 278 00:16:05,720 --> 00:16:09,480 Speaker 3: on the surface, it looks as though they're kind of 279 00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:12,760 Speaker 3: similar positions, but you talked with a former director there, 280 00:16:12,840 --> 00:16:16,560 Speaker 3: Larry Laber, who says they do not have the same function. 281 00:16:16,680 --> 00:16:18,120 Speaker 3: What is his take on all this. 282 00:16:19,440 --> 00:16:21,560 Speaker 6: Yeah, you know, I think you know a lot of 283 00:16:21,600 --> 00:16:25,200 Speaker 6: these former officials and they you know, I think from 284 00:16:25,240 --> 00:16:28,480 Speaker 6: the outside, it seems like here are these two agencies 285 00:16:28,640 --> 00:16:31,680 Speaker 6: that are both handling anti discrimination work. I think the 286 00:16:31,720 --> 00:16:34,040 Speaker 6: core of the difference is that the work that the 287 00:16:34,040 --> 00:16:40,320 Speaker 6: OCCP was doing is more proactive approach to limiting discrimination, 288 00:16:40,480 --> 00:16:43,960 Speaker 6: So they're able to audit these companies without having any 289 00:16:44,040 --> 00:16:47,680 Speaker 6: sort of evidence of discrimination happening and do more of 290 00:16:47,680 --> 00:16:52,800 Speaker 6: that investigatory work versus the EEOC largely doesn't have the 291 00:16:52,880 --> 00:16:57,200 Speaker 6: power to investigate companies unless they already have evidence or 292 00:16:57,240 --> 00:16:59,520 Speaker 6: in most cases have a charge of a worker coming 293 00:16:59,560 --> 00:17:04,800 Speaker 6: forward saying I've been discriminated against. And that power really 294 00:17:04,840 --> 00:17:08,680 Speaker 6: allowed the CCP to look at large companies that do 295 00:17:08,840 --> 00:17:12,760 Speaker 6: business with the government and try to find these, you know, 296 00:17:12,880 --> 00:17:16,280 Speaker 6: spots where there might be discrimination happening, even without a 297 00:17:16,320 --> 00:17:19,240 Speaker 6: work or coming forward. I know, something that I've spoken 298 00:17:19,280 --> 00:17:23,240 Speaker 6: to about attorneys in this area as well as former officials, 299 00:17:23,320 --> 00:17:26,600 Speaker 6: is that it often, you know, found these gaps, especially 300 00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:29,440 Speaker 6: in terms of hiring or discrimination on that front, where 301 00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:32,119 Speaker 6: you might as an applicant not know that you are 302 00:17:32,160 --> 00:17:35,040 Speaker 6: being discriminated against. But if they're able to look at 303 00:17:35,080 --> 00:17:37,600 Speaker 6: all of this data and audit these companies, those were 304 00:17:37,640 --> 00:17:40,200 Speaker 6: some of the areas where they were able to find discrimination. 305 00:17:42,200 --> 00:17:46,320 Speaker 3: As you mentioned, the EEOC doesn't have that authority. Do 306 00:17:46,720 --> 00:17:49,879 Speaker 3: they intend to get that authority? Is there a way 307 00:17:49,960 --> 00:17:53,600 Speaker 3: for the administration to grant them that authority to help 308 00:17:53,640 --> 00:17:56,160 Speaker 3: fill those gaps? Or is this a congressional issue? 309 00:17:57,440 --> 00:17:57,640 Speaker 4: Right? 310 00:17:57,760 --> 00:18:00,879 Speaker 6: So, I think, you know, some of the appear to 311 00:18:00,880 --> 00:18:05,080 Speaker 6: be some open questions where it's a little unclear exactly 312 00:18:05,119 --> 00:18:07,800 Speaker 6: how this is going to go down. It seems pretty 313 00:18:07,800 --> 00:18:10,720 Speaker 6: clear from most experts I spoke to you that this 314 00:18:10,840 --> 00:18:13,640 Speaker 6: is something that Congress is going to have to reauthorize 315 00:18:14,640 --> 00:18:18,679 Speaker 6: in order to give Section five oh three enforcement to 316 00:18:18,760 --> 00:18:23,760 Speaker 6: the EEOC, beyond just approving the budget. Since statutorially it 317 00:18:23,840 --> 00:18:26,240 Speaker 6: granted it to the Department of Labor and since they're 318 00:18:26,320 --> 00:18:29,960 Speaker 6: moving it to this outside agency, you know, most people 319 00:18:29,960 --> 00:18:32,040 Speaker 6: think this is going to take an Act of Congress 320 00:18:32,080 --> 00:18:35,320 Speaker 6: to do that. Another aspect of this, though, is that 321 00:18:35,760 --> 00:18:40,960 Speaker 6: the actual statute itself doesn't necessarily have that auditing power 322 00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:45,320 Speaker 6: within it. That's something that came from regulations and rolemaking 323 00:18:45,680 --> 00:18:48,560 Speaker 6: over time. So I think it's you know, remains to 324 00:18:48,600 --> 00:18:53,359 Speaker 6: be seen if in taking over that power, if the 325 00:18:53,440 --> 00:18:57,199 Speaker 6: EEOC would also intend to use the audits or not. 326 00:18:57,520 --> 00:18:59,720 Speaker 6: And I think, you know, some of what I was 327 00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:02,120 Speaker 6: hearing from experts and people who have worked in this 328 00:19:02,880 --> 00:19:06,920 Speaker 6: field before of OCCP compliance, it seems like either if 329 00:19:06,960 --> 00:19:10,480 Speaker 6: EEOC does do this, it could be a pretty significant 330 00:19:10,560 --> 00:19:13,600 Speaker 6: expansion into sort of their power and sort of the 331 00:19:13,640 --> 00:19:17,600 Speaker 6: scope of their enforcement, or if they choose to leave 332 00:19:17,640 --> 00:19:20,400 Speaker 6: the auditing to the wayside and non enforce that aspect, 333 00:19:20,880 --> 00:19:24,800 Speaker 6: then seemingly left in a similar situation where now nobody 334 00:19:24,880 --> 00:19:27,560 Speaker 6: is auditing for this the way that OCCP. 335 00:19:27,320 --> 00:19:30,560 Speaker 3: Was clarify something for me, you had already mentioned that 336 00:19:30,720 --> 00:19:33,560 Speaker 3: hundreds of people at the OFCCP have already been laid 337 00:19:33,560 --> 00:19:36,919 Speaker 3: off except for those very few who would be helping 338 00:19:36,960 --> 00:19:40,160 Speaker 3: with these cases under Section five O three, and then 339 00:19:40,240 --> 00:19:43,760 Speaker 3: of course they would wind up working for the other agency, 340 00:19:43,880 --> 00:19:48,920 Speaker 3: the EEOC. Is this already underway? Has this already happened? 341 00:19:49,280 --> 00:19:52,200 Speaker 6: So right at the same time as we're seeing this happening, 342 00:19:52,359 --> 00:19:56,160 Speaker 6: you know, what's left of the statutory obligation. So there's 343 00:19:56,280 --> 00:19:58,240 Speaker 6: section five O three, which is being proposed to go 344 00:19:58,280 --> 00:20:03,000 Speaker 6: to EEOC, as well as as a similar statutory obligation 345 00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:07,119 Speaker 6: for veterans for discrimination against veterans, which is proposed to 346 00:20:07,160 --> 00:20:11,160 Speaker 6: be rehoused somewhere else within the Department of Labor. Those 347 00:20:11,240 --> 00:20:14,560 Speaker 6: weren't as major of a focus of what the OCCP 348 00:20:14,880 --> 00:20:18,840 Speaker 6: was doing based on sex and race discrimination, which has 349 00:20:18,880 --> 00:20:21,879 Speaker 6: been rescinded through this executive order. So sort of as 350 00:20:21,960 --> 00:20:27,760 Speaker 6: part of that, the OCCP has already put many workers 351 00:20:27,800 --> 00:20:31,480 Speaker 6: sought to lay off, almost the entire workforce that's been 352 00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:34,920 Speaker 6: held up, you know, due to a pause on broader 353 00:20:35,000 --> 00:20:39,280 Speaker 6: federal layoffs. They're keeping only a small portion of staff 354 00:20:39,320 --> 00:20:42,159 Speaker 6: on now. I think it remains to be seeing, you know, 355 00:20:42,200 --> 00:20:45,920 Speaker 6: if they plan to move people around into these other 356 00:20:46,000 --> 00:20:49,000 Speaker 6: agencies and how they plan to do that, you know. 357 00:20:49,040 --> 00:20:51,000 Speaker 6: I think some of that could also be tied up 358 00:20:51,040 --> 00:20:54,520 Speaker 6: in how these court cases go about the federal worker layoffs. 359 00:20:55,000 --> 00:20:57,960 Speaker 6: I know that the EEOC did request in its budget 360 00:20:58,000 --> 00:21:01,960 Speaker 6: a little bit more enforcement and like more money from 361 00:21:01,960 --> 00:21:05,960 Speaker 6: Congress for you know, enforcing Section five O three and 362 00:21:06,040 --> 00:21:08,720 Speaker 6: sort of expanding that. So I think some of this 363 00:21:08,840 --> 00:21:11,840 Speaker 6: we'll come down to what budgets approved and how the 364 00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:14,560 Speaker 6: EOC goes about this, as well as still some of 365 00:21:14,600 --> 00:21:18,159 Speaker 6: those open questions on how these proposed layoffs are are 366 00:21:18,200 --> 00:21:18,560 Speaker 6: going to go. 367 00:21:19,920 --> 00:21:22,560 Speaker 3: So then what is happening now to those cases that 368 00:21:22,600 --> 00:21:26,640 Speaker 3: we're already pending with the OFCCP, right. 369 00:21:26,760 --> 00:21:30,600 Speaker 6: So that's another thing that I'm you know, hearing from 370 00:21:30,760 --> 00:21:34,640 Speaker 6: from workers that are there, that are you know, even 371 00:21:34,720 --> 00:21:37,760 Speaker 6: before the layoffs, there was a memo that went around 372 00:21:37,840 --> 00:21:42,040 Speaker 6: saying because of the President's executive order, all of this 373 00:21:42,119 --> 00:21:45,159 Speaker 6: work had been paused. So not just the work on 374 00:21:45,520 --> 00:21:49,640 Speaker 6: race and sex discrimination that they sort of overturned by 375 00:21:49,680 --> 00:21:52,840 Speaker 6: rescinding that executive order, but you know, work like the 376 00:21:52,880 --> 00:21:55,159 Speaker 6: cases under Section five O three as well as those 377 00:21:55,200 --> 00:21:58,639 Speaker 6: audience have all been held in a buiance. So you know, 378 00:21:58,960 --> 00:22:02,440 Speaker 6: if you're someone who had filed a complaint with the office, 379 00:22:02,880 --> 00:22:06,000 Speaker 6: you're basically left in this waiting period and in this 380 00:22:06,080 --> 00:22:10,000 Speaker 6: limbo where you're not exactly sure what's happening with your case. 381 00:22:10,040 --> 00:22:13,080 Speaker 6: You're not getting updates because you know, the workers there 382 00:22:13,160 --> 00:22:15,960 Speaker 6: have been told not to do anything, and now the 383 00:22:16,040 --> 00:22:18,600 Speaker 6: vast majority of them are also on administrative leave. 384 00:22:20,040 --> 00:22:23,439 Speaker 3: So what recourse is there then for those workers impacted 385 00:22:23,680 --> 00:22:26,000 Speaker 3: and those whose cases are affected. And if you think 386 00:22:26,000 --> 00:22:28,159 Speaker 3: about it, just from the way you've described it, you 387 00:22:28,200 --> 00:22:32,880 Speaker 3: have the OFCCP workers they were laid off, the EEOC 388 00:22:33,080 --> 00:22:35,400 Speaker 3: workers who now have to take on an entirely new 389 00:22:35,440 --> 00:22:37,920 Speaker 3: workload with which they are not only not familiar, they'd 390 00:22:37,960 --> 00:22:41,280 Speaker 3: have to be retrained for plus those cases that are 391 00:22:41,280 --> 00:22:44,520 Speaker 3: pending or in limbo for those other workers who are 392 00:22:44,560 --> 00:22:47,520 Speaker 3: not part of either agency, but they are you know, 393 00:22:47,680 --> 00:22:49,920 Speaker 3: using those agencies to help them out in their cases. 394 00:22:50,480 --> 00:22:52,560 Speaker 3: So is there a way to untangle this? This seems 395 00:22:52,560 --> 00:22:54,960 Speaker 3: like it effects hundreds of people, if not thousands. 396 00:22:55,240 --> 00:22:58,280 Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, you know, all of these cases are 397 00:22:58,359 --> 00:23:02,240 Speaker 6: being held up now. I think you know, for for 398 00:23:02,359 --> 00:23:06,600 Speaker 6: some cases, there are you know, circumstances where things you know, 399 00:23:06,640 --> 00:23:10,560 Speaker 6: are considered dual filed between the OCCP and EEOC if 400 00:23:10,560 --> 00:23:13,840 Speaker 6: there's overlap in both of these. But you know, the 401 00:23:13,880 --> 00:23:19,640 Speaker 6: EEOC historically has been under resourced. They you know, have 402 00:23:19,880 --> 00:23:22,400 Speaker 6: a higher case load than I think they're they're managing. 403 00:23:22,440 --> 00:23:25,800 Speaker 6: So this would definitely you know, be adding to that 404 00:23:25,960 --> 00:23:28,560 Speaker 6: without sort of a clear distinction on if they're going 405 00:23:28,600 --> 00:23:32,040 Speaker 6: to be getting more resources in order to make up 406 00:23:32,040 --> 00:23:36,159 Speaker 6: that workload, especially sort of you know, with this period 407 00:23:36,160 --> 00:23:38,760 Speaker 6: in time, seemingly adding to some of that backlog. 408 00:23:39,240 --> 00:23:41,359 Speaker 3: So are we bound to see some of this show 409 00:23:41,440 --> 00:23:44,800 Speaker 3: up in court cases challenging the president's authority to do 410 00:23:44,880 --> 00:23:47,080 Speaker 3: this or are we more likely to see this show 411 00:23:47,160 --> 00:23:50,720 Speaker 3: up on Capitol Hill asking Congress for help in the 412 00:23:50,760 --> 00:23:51,960 Speaker 3: president's authority to do this? 413 00:23:52,560 --> 00:23:52,720 Speaker 1: Right? 414 00:23:52,840 --> 00:23:55,320 Speaker 6: I mean, you know, I think it seems pretty clear 415 00:23:55,320 --> 00:23:58,280 Speaker 6: from experts I talked to that the aspects that he 416 00:23:58,359 --> 00:24:03,440 Speaker 6: overturned with the executive order, it was you know, made 417 00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:06,399 Speaker 6: through an executive order, so there was the power to 418 00:24:06,480 --> 00:24:08,480 Speaker 6: undo that. I think, you know, it remains to be 419 00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:12,000 Speaker 6: seen if potentially a future administration would would try to 420 00:24:12,040 --> 00:24:14,040 Speaker 6: bring that back, and if they would do that through 421 00:24:14,560 --> 00:24:18,280 Speaker 6: you know, totally restoring the o OFCCP or trying to 422 00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:21,280 Speaker 6: use some other agencies or elsewhere in the Department of 423 00:24:21,359 --> 00:24:24,240 Speaker 6: Labor to do that. I think, you know, the next 424 00:24:24,280 --> 00:24:27,920 Speaker 6: steps really are to see what Congress does in terms 425 00:24:28,000 --> 00:24:32,640 Speaker 6: of if they give this authorization to the EEOC or 426 00:24:32,880 --> 00:24:35,399 Speaker 6: and you know, what power they they get with that, 427 00:24:35,480 --> 00:24:38,160 Speaker 6: as well as sort of through the budget process, what 428 00:24:38,240 --> 00:24:39,560 Speaker 6: resources they're given for this. 429 00:24:40,320 --> 00:24:42,199 Speaker 3: Okay, So at this point, Rebecca, what are you going 430 00:24:42,240 --> 00:24:44,320 Speaker 3: to be watching for as this progresses. 431 00:24:45,760 --> 00:24:48,080 Speaker 6: Yeah, I think a big part on this is sort 432 00:24:48,119 --> 00:24:51,720 Speaker 6: of looking, you know, trying to hear from people and 433 00:24:52,160 --> 00:24:54,359 Speaker 6: see what's going on with these cases that you mentioned 434 00:24:54,400 --> 00:24:57,600 Speaker 6: are are sort of paused and trying to understand that 435 00:24:57,600 --> 00:25:00,560 Speaker 6: that impact on this on you know, our ends on 436 00:25:00,600 --> 00:25:04,800 Speaker 6: disabled workers. You know. I think another aspect to look 437 00:25:04,840 --> 00:25:07,640 Speaker 6: for will be sort of in this budget process, what 438 00:25:07,720 --> 00:25:11,040 Speaker 6: resources the agency is given and you know, if they're 439 00:25:11,080 --> 00:25:13,560 Speaker 6: able to really take on this this workload. 440 00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:17,720 Speaker 3: All right, Rebecca Klar with Bloomberg Industry, thank you so 441 00:25:17,800 --> 00:25:20,000 Speaker 3: much for joining us and for trying to help clear 442 00:25:20,080 --> 00:25:21,760 Speaker 3: all of this up for us. It does sound like 443 00:25:22,040 --> 00:25:24,200 Speaker 3: a little bit of an alphabet soup because of all 444 00:25:24,240 --> 00:25:27,200 Speaker 3: the acronyms, but it is an important issue and we're 445 00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:29,159 Speaker 3: going to continue to follow it with you. Thank you, 446 00:25:29,200 --> 00:25:30,240 Speaker 3: Rebecca for joining us. 447 00:25:30,800 --> 00:25:31,159 Speaker 1: Thank you. 448 00:25:31,800 --> 00:25:33,919 Speaker 3: Up next on Bloomberg Law, we're going to turn to 449 00:25:34,160 --> 00:25:36,760 Speaker 3: the trial of Sean Diddy Colmbs. We're going to look 450 00:25:36,760 --> 00:25:39,399 Speaker 3: into some of the testimony that we've already heard and 451 00:25:39,480 --> 00:25:41,919 Speaker 3: what some of the defense is going to be for 452 00:25:42,000 --> 00:25:44,960 Speaker 3: the music mogul. I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso. 453 00:25:45,160 --> 00:25:46,000 Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg. 454 00:25:48,880 --> 00:25:53,560 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. 455 00:25:54,720 --> 00:25:56,840 Speaker 3: I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso. 456 00:25:56,920 --> 00:25:57,200 Speaker 1: June. 457 00:25:57,200 --> 00:26:00,080 Speaker 3: We'll be back next week, and we're watching the ex 458 00:26:00,560 --> 00:26:05,280 Speaker 3: trial of entertainment industry mogul Sean Diddycomb's. Several people, including 459 00:26:05,320 --> 00:26:08,679 Speaker 3: his former girlfriend singer Cassie Ventura, have testified in this 460 00:26:08,800 --> 00:26:12,600 Speaker 3: high profile case with some disturbing testimony. Here to help 461 00:26:12,680 --> 00:26:15,760 Speaker 3: us break it down, as Dave Ehrenberg, managing partner of 462 00:26:15,840 --> 00:26:19,080 Speaker 3: Dave Ehrenberg Law and former Palm Beach County State Attorney 463 00:26:19,520 --> 00:26:22,800 Speaker 3: David is a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Shawn 464 00:26:22,840 --> 00:26:28,440 Speaker 3: Combs faces five criminal counts, including racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, 465 00:26:28,480 --> 00:26:35,639 Speaker 3: transportation to engage in prostitution. Some witnesses have testified under oath, 466 00:26:35,720 --> 00:26:38,280 Speaker 3: but they took the fifth so that they could be 467 00:26:38,359 --> 00:26:42,679 Speaker 3: granted immunity. Explain how that works. Why are these witnesses 468 00:26:42,760 --> 00:26:44,960 Speaker 3: looking for immunity in this case? 469 00:26:46,359 --> 00:26:48,920 Speaker 4: Good to be with you, Amy, It's because they worry 470 00:26:48,960 --> 00:26:53,520 Speaker 4: about their own criminal liability, whether it's someone who did drugs, 471 00:26:53,560 --> 00:26:58,439 Speaker 4: sold drugs, or perhaps was a participant in the schemes themselves. 472 00:26:58,680 --> 00:27:01,119 Speaker 4: They want to make sure they're not going to step 473 00:27:01,560 --> 00:27:04,119 Speaker 4: on a land mine, and they all are represented by 474 00:27:04,160 --> 00:27:08,040 Speaker 4: lawyers themselves, because once the Feds start calling you, you 475 00:27:08,080 --> 00:27:10,240 Speaker 4: call a lawyer, and the lawyer probably told them, don't 476 00:27:10,240 --> 00:27:12,399 Speaker 4: say a word unless they give you immunity. And the 477 00:27:12,400 --> 00:27:15,159 Speaker 4: Feds are not interested, it seems like, in prosecuting anyone 478 00:27:15,160 --> 00:27:18,080 Speaker 4: else for these crimes except for Diddy, so they were 479 00:27:18,119 --> 00:27:19,680 Speaker 4: quick to give everyone immunity. 480 00:27:20,480 --> 00:27:23,159 Speaker 3: That's interesting, I wondered, because one of the things he 481 00:27:23,280 --> 00:27:27,920 Speaker 3: is charged with is racketeering conspiracy. Conspiracy means more than 482 00:27:27,960 --> 00:27:31,920 Speaker 3: one person could culms also be taking other people down. 483 00:27:32,000 --> 00:27:35,680 Speaker 3: Are we looking at other possible defendants down the line? 484 00:27:37,560 --> 00:27:40,040 Speaker 4: Perhaps, but they would have to be defendants who did 485 00:27:40,080 --> 00:27:42,680 Speaker 4: not get immunity, because once the Feds give you that immunity, 486 00:27:43,359 --> 00:27:47,040 Speaker 4: then that pretty much is it. I mean, there are 487 00:27:47,280 --> 00:27:51,280 Speaker 4: opportunities if the Feds develop a case independent of the testimony, 488 00:27:51,320 --> 00:27:53,600 Speaker 4: but it looks like the Feds are not interested in others. 489 00:27:53,920 --> 00:27:56,280 Speaker 4: They want to go to the top of the food 490 00:27:56,320 --> 00:27:59,480 Speaker 4: chain here. And yes, you're correct in that the racketeering 491 00:27:59,600 --> 00:28:04,080 Speaker 4: charge does require there to be a criminal enterprise. That 492 00:28:04,160 --> 00:28:10,320 Speaker 4: means did bad Boy Records become his henchmen to commit crimes? 493 00:28:10,359 --> 00:28:13,760 Speaker 4: So it's not just some legitimate record label, but rather 494 00:28:14,040 --> 00:28:17,199 Speaker 4: an enterprise to commit crimes to do his bidding. That 495 00:28:17,280 --> 00:28:20,000 Speaker 4: means there have to be others involved, other employees. That's 496 00:28:20,040 --> 00:28:22,320 Speaker 4: why you're saying so many employees called to the stand, 497 00:28:22,760 --> 00:28:26,440 Speaker 4: because that shows racketeering and it also shows that a 498 00:28:26,480 --> 00:28:28,720 Speaker 4: lot of people got immunity for their conduct. 499 00:28:29,240 --> 00:28:32,400 Speaker 3: Now, drug use is factoring into some of this testimony. 500 00:28:32,480 --> 00:28:36,240 Speaker 3: We're hearing about everything from marijuana to cocaine, ecstasy, katamine, 501 00:28:36,280 --> 00:28:39,040 Speaker 3: and as you mentioned in your first answer, there a 502 00:28:39,040 --> 00:28:40,960 Speaker 3: lot of people who might have been involved in that 503 00:28:41,040 --> 00:28:44,560 Speaker 3: drug use are getting immunity because of that. Could that 504 00:28:44,680 --> 00:28:47,560 Speaker 3: drug use, though, be a defense for colms? 505 00:28:48,920 --> 00:28:52,000 Speaker 4: Yes, it's being used right now to undermine the credibility 506 00:28:52,040 --> 00:28:54,800 Speaker 4: of witnesses saying you really don't remember this right because 507 00:28:54,840 --> 00:28:58,600 Speaker 4: you were under the influence of drugs, and you sold drugs, 508 00:28:58,600 --> 00:29:01,120 Speaker 4: and you were involved with so much drug use, and 509 00:29:01,160 --> 00:29:04,800 Speaker 4: that tarnishes the witness in front of the jury, because 510 00:29:04,800 --> 00:29:06,880 Speaker 4: you have jurors who probably are not involved in the 511 00:29:06,880 --> 00:29:09,600 Speaker 4: world of free coughs and rampant drug use, who are 512 00:29:09,640 --> 00:29:12,840 Speaker 4: seeing this outer world that they don't understand perhaps and 513 00:29:12,880 --> 00:29:14,920 Speaker 4: they may just throw up their hands and say a 514 00:29:14,920 --> 00:29:19,000 Speaker 4: plague on both your houses. That's a strategy of defence team. 515 00:29:19,480 --> 00:29:21,800 Speaker 3: Is that usually an effective strategy. 516 00:29:22,640 --> 00:29:26,840 Speaker 4: Well, it's a strategy because defensellers are stuck with the 517 00:29:26,880 --> 00:29:29,320 Speaker 4: facts that they're given, and here the facts are pretty 518 00:29:29,360 --> 00:29:33,360 Speaker 4: damning against Diddy. So they're going to try to mock 519 00:29:33,400 --> 00:29:37,080 Speaker 4: it up by saying that all these witnesses engaged in 520 00:29:37,160 --> 00:29:41,400 Speaker 4: drug use, they were all consensual partners in this weird 521 00:29:41,520 --> 00:29:45,760 Speaker 4: freak cough game, and it's all consensual. So that's the 522 00:29:45,840 --> 00:29:48,440 Speaker 4: kind of stuff they're saying. Now, you could have a 523 00:29:48,520 --> 00:29:52,680 Speaker 4: consensual free cough and then the consent gets revoked at 524 00:29:52,680 --> 00:29:55,360 Speaker 4: some point. For Cassie at the beginning, did seem like 525 00:29:55,440 --> 00:30:00,360 Speaker 4: she was interested in will a willing participant. She would 526 00:30:00,360 --> 00:30:02,840 Speaker 4: say it's because she loved at least she thought she 527 00:30:02,920 --> 00:30:04,760 Speaker 4: loved Diddy, and she wanted to please him, and she 528 00:30:04,840 --> 00:30:07,360 Speaker 4: was scared of him. And at some point she said 529 00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:11,000 Speaker 4: that she wanted to stop this, so you can revoke 530 00:30:11,080 --> 00:30:14,320 Speaker 4: your earlier consent, and then it would be human trafficking, 531 00:30:14,320 --> 00:30:19,120 Speaker 4: and then it could be racketeering where there are acts 532 00:30:19,200 --> 00:30:23,360 Speaker 4: predicate acts that Diddy allegedly committed, like arson and intimidation 533 00:30:23,440 --> 00:30:27,480 Speaker 4: of witnesses and extortion and others human trafficking that could 534 00:30:27,560 --> 00:30:29,640 Speaker 4: lead to a guilty verdict here. So you know, life 535 00:30:29,760 --> 00:30:34,480 Speaker 4: is complicated. This case is complicated because you have victims 536 00:30:34,520 --> 00:30:37,360 Speaker 4: who at some point did seem like they were willing 537 00:30:37,400 --> 00:30:41,520 Speaker 4: to go along. But doesn't mean that that consent lasts forever. 538 00:30:42,360 --> 00:30:45,000 Speaker 3: Now, one thing that does keep coming out in testimony 539 00:30:45,080 --> 00:30:48,920 Speaker 3: is that so many people, mostly women, were victimized but 540 00:30:49,040 --> 00:30:53,000 Speaker 3: said nothing. Some women even described themselves as being brainwashed. 541 00:30:53,320 --> 00:30:55,479 Speaker 3: I wonder if the defense could also seize on that 542 00:30:55,600 --> 00:30:58,640 Speaker 3: and then downplay it because in some of this cross 543 00:30:58,640 --> 00:31:02,400 Speaker 3: examination it clear they're trying to make the witness less 544 00:31:02,480 --> 00:31:05,040 Speaker 3: credible and make them look like they're lying or just confused. 545 00:31:05,440 --> 00:31:08,920 Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a good point because the defense is trying 546 00:31:08,960 --> 00:31:12,800 Speaker 4: to put the witnesses and the victim on trial as well. Now, 547 00:31:13,320 --> 00:31:15,800 Speaker 4: in a trial, it's only a defendant who's on trial, 548 00:31:16,280 --> 00:31:19,360 Speaker 4: but the jury will look to see if they like 549 00:31:19,440 --> 00:31:22,000 Speaker 4: the witnesses, if they believe the witnesses, if they believe 550 00:31:22,040 --> 00:31:25,880 Speaker 4: the victim, and if they don't believe part of their testimony, 551 00:31:25,920 --> 00:31:29,840 Speaker 4: they have the right to disregard their entire testimony. And 552 00:31:30,160 --> 00:31:31,880 Speaker 4: that's what the defense is trying to do. They're trying 553 00:31:31,880 --> 00:31:34,480 Speaker 4: to poke holes to say you don't remember this, you're 554 00:31:34,560 --> 00:31:39,960 Speaker 4: on drugs there, you were engaged in voluntary prostitution, or 555 00:31:40,000 --> 00:31:42,560 Speaker 4: you're a sex worker and that's your profession. And then 556 00:31:42,600 --> 00:31:44,120 Speaker 4: they look at the jury they say, you see what 557 00:31:44,160 --> 00:31:46,880 Speaker 4: we're dealing with here, and they're hoping that at least 558 00:31:46,920 --> 00:31:51,080 Speaker 4: one juror sympathizes with the defense or at least doesn't 559 00:31:51,280 --> 00:31:56,400 Speaker 4: like the witnesses or victim. And if that happens, then 560 00:31:56,680 --> 00:31:59,400 Speaker 4: that's a hung jury. And if everyone has a reasonable 561 00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:01,880 Speaker 4: doubt or like, well this is not yeah, it would 562 00:32:01,920 --> 00:32:04,680 Speaker 4: be reasonable doubt because it's a federal criminal case, then 563 00:32:04,720 --> 00:32:05,560 Speaker 4: it would be an acquittal. 564 00:32:06,040 --> 00:32:08,880 Speaker 3: You've been following this so closely from the very beginning. 565 00:32:09,120 --> 00:32:13,320 Speaker 3: What is the most damning evidence that the prosecution has 566 00:32:13,640 --> 00:32:17,320 Speaker 3: against Sean Culmes? If it's not just his word against 567 00:32:17,360 --> 00:32:18,640 Speaker 3: their word, the. 568 00:32:18,560 --> 00:32:21,680 Speaker 4: Most devastating evidence is that video from the Interconninal hotel. 569 00:32:22,440 --> 00:32:24,720 Speaker 4: That video has been shown multiple times at the trial, 570 00:32:25,040 --> 00:32:29,560 Speaker 4: and that video speaks volumes. It shows did he engage 571 00:32:29,720 --> 00:32:33,600 Speaker 4: in serious violence against Cassie? So when didty says that 572 00:32:33,680 --> 00:32:37,360 Speaker 4: there was no force, fraud or coersion here? Well, what 573 00:32:37,600 --> 00:32:39,840 Speaker 4: was on that video? What did we just watch? We 574 00:32:39,920 --> 00:32:43,680 Speaker 4: can see with our own eyes and essentially Ditty's defenses, 575 00:32:43,680 --> 00:32:46,440 Speaker 4: who you're gonna believe me are your lyon eyes. Well, 576 00:32:46,520 --> 00:32:50,840 Speaker 4: that video does tell that Diddy engaged in the force 577 00:32:51,640 --> 00:32:56,440 Speaker 4: or corrosion needed to establish human trafficking, and it also 578 00:32:56,960 --> 00:33:00,640 Speaker 4: can lead to racketeering in showing that he to force 579 00:33:00,720 --> 00:33:05,000 Speaker 4: himself to put others under his thumb to make others 580 00:33:05,000 --> 00:33:09,000 Speaker 4: comply with his will. And that's why they engage allegedly 581 00:33:09,040 --> 00:33:13,360 Speaker 4: in arson and witness intimidation and extortion and all these 582 00:33:13,400 --> 00:33:16,360 Speaker 4: other things like human trafficking. So that video is the 583 00:33:16,360 --> 00:33:17,440 Speaker 4: most powerful evidence. 584 00:33:17,480 --> 00:33:21,800 Speaker 3: Now is that the summation of the defense strategy that 585 00:33:21,880 --> 00:33:25,760 Speaker 3: Comb's team has is that the witnesses may be lying, 586 00:33:25,800 --> 00:33:29,160 Speaker 3: they're confused, and that technically this really shouldn't be tried 587 00:33:29,200 --> 00:33:32,280 Speaker 3: in this court for this venue anyway. 588 00:33:32,400 --> 00:33:35,280 Speaker 4: Yes, what did he is trying to say is that 589 00:33:35,400 --> 00:33:40,280 Speaker 4: he acted badly there, He was a jealous boyfriend. And 590 00:33:40,600 --> 00:33:43,360 Speaker 4: perhaps this is a domestic violence case which is prosecuted 591 00:33:43,400 --> 00:33:45,880 Speaker 4: in state court, non federal court. And this is not 592 00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:51,080 Speaker 4: a state court case. And so that's why he's saying 593 00:33:51,120 --> 00:33:55,040 Speaker 4: that this is not unlike any other basic domestic violence case. 594 00:33:55,200 --> 00:33:57,960 Speaker 4: It's based on jealousy. In fact, in that video, an 595 00:33:57,960 --> 00:34:01,040 Speaker 4: infamous video at the Innercana Hotel, see him grabbing for 596 00:34:01,120 --> 00:34:03,760 Speaker 4: her phone. So he's saying, you see, I was jealous. 597 00:34:03,800 --> 00:34:06,160 Speaker 4: I want to know what's on her phone. These are 598 00:34:06,400 --> 00:34:09,880 Speaker 4: a lover's quarrel, and I admit I acted badly, but 599 00:34:09,920 --> 00:34:13,800 Speaker 4: it's not human trafficking. Human trafficking is commercial sex acts 600 00:34:14,520 --> 00:34:18,600 Speaker 4: involving force, fraud, a coorsion. The sex acts involved here, 601 00:34:18,640 --> 00:34:23,720 Speaker 4: according to Diddy, were consensual. That fight was separate from 602 00:34:24,160 --> 00:34:27,520 Speaker 4: the freak coughs. She was consenting to the free cost. 603 00:34:27,520 --> 00:34:29,480 Speaker 4: But when it came to the fight, that was purely 604 00:34:29,520 --> 00:34:32,680 Speaker 4: domestic violence and should be seen as such. That is 605 00:34:32,719 --> 00:34:35,720 Speaker 4: a big load for the jury to have to separate 606 00:34:35,760 --> 00:34:38,239 Speaker 4: the two, to have to say, yeah, you're right, he 607 00:34:38,280 --> 00:34:41,240 Speaker 4: acted badly here with force and coercion, but had nothing 608 00:34:41,280 --> 00:34:43,480 Speaker 4: to do with the underlying freak offs. 609 00:34:43,920 --> 00:34:44,400 Speaker 1: Ah. 610 00:34:44,440 --> 00:34:45,880 Speaker 4: I don't buy it. I don't think the jury will 611 00:34:45,920 --> 00:34:46,359 Speaker 4: bite either. 612 00:34:46,680 --> 00:34:50,920 Speaker 3: There is another witness also who testified that Comes dangled 613 00:34:50,920 --> 00:34:53,239 Speaker 3: her from a balcony and it wasn't his girlfriend, it 614 00:34:53,280 --> 00:34:55,719 Speaker 3: was a friend, and that she was dangled from the 615 00:34:55,800 --> 00:35:01,600 Speaker 3: seventeenth floor balcony. Does that testimony help the prosecution with 616 00:35:01,719 --> 00:35:04,040 Speaker 3: the weight of the video. I mean, did he can 617 00:35:04,040 --> 00:35:06,040 Speaker 3: make the argument or his team can make the argument 618 00:35:06,080 --> 00:35:11,160 Speaker 3: that the video shows a domestic case. But it seems 619 00:35:11,200 --> 00:35:14,960 Speaker 3: like dangling your aid or your your girlfriend's friend from 620 00:35:15,000 --> 00:35:19,399 Speaker 3: a balcony wouldn't necessarily be a domestic right. 621 00:35:19,440 --> 00:35:21,799 Speaker 4: I'm sorry even that, because you're right. You see, this 622 00:35:21,840 --> 00:35:25,239 Speaker 4: is the amount of evidence that the prosecution has here. 623 00:35:25,280 --> 00:35:28,280 Speaker 4: And your racketeering was invented to go after the mafia, 624 00:35:28,800 --> 00:35:30,719 Speaker 4: but it's not just for the mafia anymore. We saw 625 00:35:30,760 --> 00:35:33,760 Speaker 4: it use in a variety of cases, including one against r. Kelly. 626 00:35:33,800 --> 00:35:36,880 Speaker 4: So you've got a fellow, a music mogul who was 627 00:35:36,960 --> 00:35:41,359 Speaker 4: taken down by racketeering. And if you don't want to 628 00:35:42,000 --> 00:35:46,399 Speaker 4: be charged like a mobster, then don't dangle someone over 629 00:35:46,480 --> 00:35:50,480 Speaker 4: a balcony. But that's what he's been alleged here of doing. 630 00:35:50,600 --> 00:35:53,719 Speaker 4: That's what this witness said that he did to her, 631 00:35:53,880 --> 00:35:56,680 Speaker 4: and they're desperately trying to poke holes in her story. 632 00:35:57,120 --> 00:36:00,239 Speaker 3: Could Combs also face civil action once this criminal child's. 633 00:36:00,080 --> 00:36:04,200 Speaker 4: Over oh one hundred percent, he's already facing civil action. 634 00:36:05,000 --> 00:36:07,480 Speaker 4: And when you're a wealthy guy, apparently he's worth a 635 00:36:07,560 --> 00:36:10,440 Speaker 4: quarter of a billion dollars. Yeah, he's going to be 636 00:36:10,560 --> 00:36:14,120 Speaker 4: tied up in civil lawsuits forever, and the question is 637 00:36:14,160 --> 00:36:17,200 Speaker 4: whether he'll face them from a prison cell or whether 638 00:36:17,280 --> 00:36:20,040 Speaker 4: he will be living the high life again. Either way, 639 00:36:20,080 --> 00:36:21,640 Speaker 4: he's not getting out of this entirely. 640 00:36:22,640 --> 00:36:25,799 Speaker 3: And as we've established, you followed this case from the 641 00:36:25,920 --> 00:36:28,920 Speaker 3: very beginning. You've been watching the trial, You've been keeping 642 00:36:29,080 --> 00:36:31,239 Speaker 3: a close eye on all of it. Have you ever 643 00:36:31,280 --> 00:36:32,719 Speaker 3: seen anything like this? 644 00:36:33,320 --> 00:36:35,560 Speaker 4: Well, I don't know. I've never seen anything like this. 645 00:36:35,640 --> 00:36:39,520 Speaker 4: I mean, there are Kelly allegations were somewhat similar, but 646 00:36:40,480 --> 00:36:44,040 Speaker 4: to have Arson in a whole team of people around 647 00:36:44,040 --> 00:36:49,600 Speaker 4: you who are trying to exert force to have you 648 00:36:49,760 --> 00:36:52,480 Speaker 4: comply with their will, I think the close thing I've 649 00:36:52,520 --> 00:36:56,160 Speaker 4: seen is the R. Kelly case, But this takes it 650 00:36:56,200 --> 00:36:59,080 Speaker 4: to another level. I mean, no matter what happens here, 651 00:36:59,760 --> 00:37:02,680 Speaker 4: the offended didty should be tard and feathered in the 652 00:37:02,719 --> 00:37:06,359 Speaker 4: court of public opinion. He has acted so badly that 653 00:37:06,480 --> 00:37:11,560 Speaker 4: he should not be accepted anymore in polite society where 654 00:37:11,760 --> 00:37:14,360 Speaker 4: he gets invited to the met gala or gets to 655 00:37:14,400 --> 00:37:17,160 Speaker 4: pretend that he didn't do all these things. And this 656 00:37:17,239 --> 00:37:20,120 Speaker 4: is absolutely despicable behavior. I mean, the baby oil and 657 00:37:20,160 --> 00:37:23,120 Speaker 4: the drugs and the steps that were taking to cover 658 00:37:23,160 --> 00:37:27,000 Speaker 4: everything up, and the extortion allegedly, and the arson allegedly, 659 00:37:27,080 --> 00:37:31,640 Speaker 4: and putting people over balconies allegedly, and just that videotape alone, 660 00:37:31,680 --> 00:37:33,800 Speaker 4: the video alone, which we didn't have a video on 661 00:37:33,840 --> 00:37:38,000 Speaker 4: the R. Kelly case. So the video of Ditty committing 662 00:37:38,440 --> 00:37:42,080 Speaker 4: terrible violence against Cassie manhandling her, that alone should just 663 00:37:42,600 --> 00:37:45,560 Speaker 4: get him canceled. And I'm not one who likes canceled culture, 664 00:37:45,640 --> 00:37:47,320 Speaker 4: but this is a guy deserves to be canceled. 665 00:37:47,680 --> 00:37:50,320 Speaker 3: And just finally, one big difference between Ditty and R. 666 00:37:50,400 --> 00:37:53,080 Speaker 3: Kelly is R Kelly was a music artist, but Ditty 667 00:37:53,239 --> 00:37:56,400 Speaker 3: was a mogul in music industry, in the food industry, 668 00:37:56,440 --> 00:37:59,880 Speaker 3: in the fashion industry, and as you mentioned, worth the 669 00:38:00,120 --> 00:38:03,799 Speaker 3: quarter billion dollars and go back twenty thirty years. He 670 00:38:03,800 --> 00:38:06,960 Speaker 3: helped change how the music industry, the R and B 671 00:38:07,080 --> 00:38:13,160 Speaker 3: industry operated, And this trial is a pretty damning. 672 00:38:14,920 --> 00:38:18,440 Speaker 4: It's terrible. You know, in today's society, it seems like 673 00:38:18,520 --> 00:38:21,880 Speaker 4: everyone can make a comeback and that nothing sticks to 674 00:38:21,920 --> 00:38:25,560 Speaker 4: people anymore, But this should stick to him. This guy's 675 00:38:25,600 --> 00:38:28,799 Speaker 4: a bad dude, and I'm hoping that they'll be just 676 00:38:28,840 --> 00:38:29,760 Speaker 4: as done in this case. 677 00:38:30,800 --> 00:38:33,759 Speaker 3: Our thanks to former Palm Beach County State Attorney and 678 00:38:33,840 --> 00:38:37,120 Speaker 3: managing partner at Dave Arenberg Law, Dave Ehrenberg, thank you 679 00:38:37,200 --> 00:38:39,359 Speaker 3: so much for joining us. That does it. For this 680 00:38:39,560 --> 00:38:42,760 Speaker 3: edition of Bloomberg Law, I'm Amy Morris in for June Grasso. 681 00:38:43,080 --> 00:38:45,920 Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg. Stay with us today's top stories in 682 00:38:45,960 --> 00:38:48,320 Speaker 3: global business. Headlines are coming up right now