1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:06,880
Speaker 1: M Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso.

2
00:00:07,240 --> 00:00:10,200
Speaker 1: Every day we bring you insight and analysis into the

3
00:00:10,240 --> 00:00:13,160
Speaker 1: most important legal news of the day. You can find

4
00:00:13,200 --> 00:00:17,239
Speaker 1: more episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts,

5
00:00:17,239 --> 00:00:22,520
Speaker 1: SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Cases challenging

6
00:00:22,520 --> 00:00:25,840
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's edition of a citizenship question to the

7
00:00:26,600 --> 00:00:29,760
Speaker 1: census are moving forward in federal courts in New York, California,

8
00:00:29,800 --> 00:00:32,839
Speaker 1: and Maryland. Speaking to the House Oversight Committee in May,

9
00:00:33,000 --> 00:00:37,000
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton voiced her concerns about the question.

10
00:00:37,960 --> 00:00:41,680
Speaker 1: You do not believe, in your expert opinion, that asking

11
00:00:41,760 --> 00:00:45,159
Speaker 1: this a question, even after Mr Levitt's testimony, will have

12
00:00:45,320 --> 00:00:51,080
Speaker 1: any effects upon the willingness of people to answer questions.

13
00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:55,240
Speaker 1: You think that there is no danger here. Joining me

14
00:00:55,320 --> 00:01:00,000
Speaker 1: is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law. Kimberly,

15
00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 1: why does the Trump administration say this question should be

16
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:08,720
Speaker 1: added and what is the challenger's response? Well, the citizenship

17
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:12,120
Speaker 1: question is a question that has appeared on the census

18
00:01:12,160 --> 00:01:15,639
Speaker 1: before UH several decades ago, and it has since been

19
00:01:15,680 --> 00:01:20,119
Speaker 1: taken off Now, the way that this citizenship question got

20
00:01:20,120 --> 00:01:23,080
Speaker 1: added on this time is somewhat of a mystery. The

21
00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:27,199
Speaker 1: Department of Commerce, which is responsible for the Census, says

22
00:01:27,240 --> 00:01:29,840
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice actually reached out to it

23
00:01:30,400 --> 00:01:33,560
Speaker 1: UH to ask that the citizenship question be added to

24
00:01:33,560 --> 00:01:36,920
Speaker 1: the census in order to give the Department of Justice

25
00:01:36,959 --> 00:01:41,119
Speaker 1: more information to successfully enforce the Voting Rights Act, which

26
00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:45,720
Speaker 1: is a landmark act protecting minority voting rights. Now, this

27
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 1: question is currently asked on a different survey sent out

28
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:52,760
Speaker 1: by the Census Bureau, but the Department of UH Justice

29
00:01:52,800 --> 00:01:56,120
Speaker 1: says that it needs even more responses UH and that

30
00:01:56,200 --> 00:01:58,520
Speaker 1: it should go on the Census, which is sent to

31
00:01:58,680 --> 00:02:03,560
Speaker 1: every American household. Now, during these cases, there's been some

32
00:02:03,600 --> 00:02:06,559
Speaker 1: evidence that it was actually the Commerce Department that reached

33
00:02:06,560 --> 00:02:08,679
Speaker 1: out to the d o J. And one of the

34
00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:10,760
Speaker 1: judges in these cases out of New York said that

35
00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:14,920
Speaker 1: the citizenship question was really a problem in search or

36
00:02:14,919 --> 00:02:18,920
Speaker 1: a solution in search of a problem. And you know,

37
00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:22,240
Speaker 1: opponents of the citizenship question really point to that latter

38
00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:25,359
Speaker 1: timeline as evidence that you know, the v r A

39
00:02:25,480 --> 00:02:29,079
Speaker 1: excuse is really just a pretext for the Trump administration

40
00:02:29,600 --> 00:02:34,200
Speaker 1: UH to be able to UH depressed response rates among

41
00:02:34,240 --> 00:02:37,720
Speaker 1: immigrant communities, and they stressed that it's not only UH

42
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:42,280
Speaker 1: supposed to depress depress response rates from individuals who entered

43
00:02:42,280 --> 00:02:45,320
Speaker 1: the country illegally, but even U s citizens who may

44
00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:49,200
Speaker 1: live in household with individuals who entered the country illegally.

45
00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:53,079
Speaker 1: Did any of the courts consider any of President Trump's

46
00:02:53,120 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 1: statements regarding immigration, Well, they did tangentially so at this

47
00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:01,800
Speaker 1: point of the litigation, and the question is whether or

48
00:03:01,800 --> 00:03:05,720
Speaker 1: not the Trump administration can even be challenged on these

49
00:03:05,800 --> 00:03:08,960
Speaker 1: kinds of decisions, or whether or not it's UH completely

50
00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:12,120
Speaker 1: something that's left up to the political branches UH separate

51
00:03:12,160 --> 00:03:15,640
Speaker 1: from the judiciary. And so in reviewing whether or not

52
00:03:16,200 --> 00:03:18,240
Speaker 1: these claims can be made and whether or not the

53
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:21,600
Speaker 1: plaintiffs have brought forth enough evidence to go forward, the

54
00:03:21,639 --> 00:03:25,600
Speaker 1: courts have focused on whether or not response rates will

55
00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:29,080
Speaker 1: actually be depressed, and at least one of the federal

56
00:03:29,160 --> 00:03:33,360
Speaker 1: judges noted that the current political climate certainly suggests that

57
00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:37,600
Speaker 1: individuals may be afraid, given some of then candidate Trump

58
00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:42,600
Speaker 1: statements and the Trump administration's immigration position. So it's there

59
00:03:42,600 --> 00:03:47,520
Speaker 1: are separate cases. Is there any similarity in the legal

60
00:03:47,640 --> 00:03:50,520
Speaker 1: arguments of the challengers. Are they basing it on the

61
00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:54,440
Speaker 1: same considerations? Well, there are really there are a few

62
00:03:54,680 --> 00:03:58,160
Speaker 1: different legal challenges that are brought in these cases. All

63
00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:03,160
Speaker 1: of them include uh statutory claims um that relate to

64
00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:07,040
Speaker 1: a statue that effectively cabins the way that the executive

65
00:04:07,080 --> 00:04:10,040
Speaker 1: can change the federal law. But they also make some

66
00:04:10,200 --> 00:04:14,760
Speaker 1: larger constitutional claims that vary slightly. But all of the cases,

67
00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:17,359
Speaker 1: all six of them, are all seeking the same result,

68
00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:21,599
Speaker 1: and that is an order prohibiting the Trump administration from

69
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:26,360
Speaker 1: putting this question onsus. So now timing is essential here

70
00:04:26,560 --> 00:04:31,839
Speaker 1: because questions need to be finalized before the spring of

71
00:04:33,120 --> 00:04:37,599
Speaker 1: Will the courts be able to resolve these issues by then? Well,

72
00:04:37,600 --> 00:04:39,680
Speaker 1: the courts do know that they're operating on quite a

73
00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:43,040
Speaker 1: tight timeline. And that's because even though the census questions

74
00:04:43,080 --> 00:04:45,440
Speaker 1: won't go out until, of course, they have to be

75
00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:47,840
Speaker 1: published and they have to be printed and then actually

76
00:04:47,839 --> 00:04:51,159
Speaker 1: sent out. UM. So there's somewhat of a moving target

77
00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:54,240
Speaker 1: for these cases. Right now, they're on track to be

78
00:04:54,680 --> 00:04:56,719
Speaker 1: uh to go at least one of them to go

79
00:04:56,760 --> 00:04:59,599
Speaker 1: to trial in January. And that's really kind of the

80
00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:03,560
Speaker 1: limit of where uh the opponents who are challenging this question.

81
00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:06,440
Speaker 1: Think that the trial courts uh need to finish up

82
00:05:06,480 --> 00:05:09,880
Speaker 1: in order to allow for enough time for appeals to follow.

83
00:05:10,600 --> 00:05:13,000
Speaker 1: In time for appeals, this could be appealed to the

84
00:05:13,040 --> 00:05:16,320
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Well, that's right, And these are the kinds

85
00:05:16,360 --> 00:05:20,440
Speaker 1: of cases, UH, kinds of really consequential cases that the

86
00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:24,720
Speaker 1: justices do like to um intervene on, especially if the

87
00:05:24,760 --> 00:05:28,440
Speaker 1: courts in these cases come to different results. So Kimberly,

88
00:05:28,520 --> 00:05:33,200
Speaker 1: what kind of evidence is likely to be presented at trial? Well,

89
00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:35,240
Speaker 1: they're likely going to be looking at whether or not

90
00:05:35,320 --> 00:05:38,680
Speaker 1: the citizenship question will in effect lower response rates. And

91
00:05:38,720 --> 00:05:41,279
Speaker 1: I think one of the key pieces of information for

92
00:05:41,279 --> 00:05:43,640
Speaker 1: the opponents is actually going to be the Commerce Department's

93
00:05:44,040 --> 00:05:50,520
Speaker 1: own findings that citizenship question would depress UH response rates dramatically.

94
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:53,960
Speaker 1: And another you know, piece that they're going to be

95
00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:57,720
Speaker 1: looking at, is really the purpose of adding the citizenship question.

96
00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:02,000
Speaker 1: Is the v R a defense something that is true

97
00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:05,440
Speaker 1: or is it just a pretext to harm President Trump's

98
00:06:05,480 --> 00:06:10,320
Speaker 1: political opponents? So then what will the government present if

99
00:06:10,720 --> 00:06:13,600
Speaker 1: their own experts are going to testify on behalf of

100
00:06:13,640 --> 00:06:17,919
Speaker 1: the challengers, Well, the experts likely the government will present

101
00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:21,359
Speaker 1: experts UM that support their timeline that it was the

102
00:06:21,400 --> 00:06:24,599
Speaker 1: Commerce or the Department of Justice that reached out to

103
00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:27,200
Speaker 1: the Commerce Department, and that there's a good reason for

104
00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:30,920
Speaker 1: doing this, and that is of course enforcing voting rights um.

105
00:06:30,920 --> 00:06:34,000
Speaker 1: And they'll be pressing on the increased information that they'll

106
00:06:34,040 --> 00:06:38,880
Speaker 1: get by adding this information, Toss and well, will Will

107
00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:42,359
Speaker 1: Burross take the stand that you think, well, this is

108
00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:46,520
Speaker 1: really uh, it's brought against the Secretary in his um

109
00:06:46,640 --> 00:06:50,960
Speaker 1: capacity as uh, you know, an official, but likely he

110
00:06:51,040 --> 00:06:53,200
Speaker 1: has had very little to do with the actual question.

111
00:06:53,400 --> 00:06:56,000
Speaker 1: It's more likely we'll see individuals from the Census Bureau

112
00:06:56,040 --> 00:06:59,240
Speaker 1: who will be presented in these cases. You sound really

113
00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:03,120
Speaker 1: like senating cases, more fascinating than I initially thought. Thanks

114
00:07:03,160 --> 00:07:07,279
Speaker 1: so much, Kimberly. That's Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Supreme Court reporter

115
00:07:07,360 --> 00:07:11,120
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg Law. Also remember that the Census is tied

116
00:07:11,160 --> 00:07:13,560
Speaker 1: to not only how many representatives there are in the

117
00:07:13,560 --> 00:07:16,520
Speaker 1: House of Representatives for states, but also allocates more than

118
00:07:16,600 --> 00:07:24,800
Speaker 1: six hundred seventy five billion dollars in federal funding. President

119
00:07:24,800 --> 00:07:28,240
Speaker 1: Trump has shown support for former campaign chairman Paul Manaford,

120
00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:30,560
Speaker 1: who was found guilty on eight counts of bank and

121
00:07:30,600 --> 00:07:33,880
Speaker 1: tax fraud last week in tweets and speaking with Fox

122
00:07:33,880 --> 00:07:37,480
Speaker 1: News last week, I have great respect for what he's

123
00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:40,600
Speaker 1: done in terms of what he's gone through some of

124
00:07:40,640 --> 00:07:44,360
Speaker 1: the charges say threw against him. Every consultant, every lobbyist

125
00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:49,240
Speaker 1: in Washington probably does. But despite the President's support, Manafort's

126
00:07:49,360 --> 00:07:52,800
Speaker 1: legal woes seemed to be snowballing. He faces a second

127
00:07:52,840 --> 00:07:55,720
Speaker 1: trial starting in Washington, d C. Next month on money

128
00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:59,600
Speaker 1: laundering and obstruction of justice charges, and a potential third

129
00:07:59,640 --> 00:08:03,840
Speaker 1: trial in Virginia. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mints,

130
00:08:03,880 --> 00:08:07,400
Speaker 1: a partner Macarter in English. So, Bob Manafort was convicted

131
00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:10,480
Speaker 1: last week on eight counts of tax and bank fraud,

132
00:08:10,520 --> 00:08:14,800
Speaker 1: but the jury hung on ten other counts. The prosecutors

133
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:17,160
Speaker 1: are going to tell us today, are going to tell

134
00:08:17,240 --> 00:08:19,880
Speaker 1: man of for more importantly, whether they're going to pursue

135
00:08:19,920 --> 00:08:24,760
Speaker 1: a retrial. What are the chances they'll retry him? Well,

136
00:08:24,760 --> 00:08:29,560
Speaker 1: I think typically they would not, because the charges that

137
00:08:29,680 --> 00:08:33,680
Speaker 1: he was convicted of already carry substantial jail time, and

138
00:08:33,760 --> 00:08:36,640
Speaker 1: so it might not be worth the government's time to

139
00:08:36,800 --> 00:08:40,600
Speaker 1: investage resources in the retrial. But in this case, I

140
00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:44,679
Speaker 1: could see prosecutors at this point telling Judge ellis that

141
00:08:44,840 --> 00:08:48,479
Speaker 1: they do intend at this point in time to retry

142
00:08:48,520 --> 00:08:51,680
Speaker 1: those ten charges. We do know from speaking with yourors

143
00:08:52,240 --> 00:08:55,440
Speaker 1: after the trial that there was a loan holdout, so

144
00:08:55,520 --> 00:08:59,160
Speaker 1: it was only there were only one vote away from

145
00:08:59,160 --> 00:09:02,000
Speaker 1: getting conviction, then those ten other accounts. And as a

146
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:04,600
Speaker 1: practical matter, what prosecutors can do is allowed the case

147
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:07,760
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. To proceed, see how that goes,

148
00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:10,840
Speaker 1: and then ultimately they can always make the decision not

149
00:09:10,960 --> 00:09:13,640
Speaker 1: to go forward with this third trial if they decide

150
00:09:13,640 --> 00:09:16,080
Speaker 1: that that's the right thing for them to do. Man

151
00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:19,880
Speaker 1: of Forts lawyers reportedly, we're talking about a plea deal

152
00:09:19,960 --> 00:09:24,000
Speaker 1: with prosecutors while the Virginia jury was deliberating. That's stalled

153
00:09:24,080 --> 00:09:27,480
Speaker 1: over issues reportedly, according to The Wall Street Journal, raised

154
00:09:27,480 --> 00:09:31,040
Speaker 1: by the prosecutors. So it's obvious why he would want

155
00:09:31,040 --> 00:09:34,280
Speaker 1: a plea deal. But why would Muller be inclined to

156
00:09:34,360 --> 00:09:36,600
Speaker 1: give him a deal when he has him, you might

157
00:09:36,640 --> 00:09:40,439
Speaker 1: say over a barrel. Well, there'd be two reasons. One

158
00:09:40,840 --> 00:09:44,960
Speaker 1: is simply to gain the certainty of a conviction in

159
00:09:45,080 --> 00:09:47,959
Speaker 1: d C. Although that seems like a strong case, and

160
00:09:48,679 --> 00:09:51,400
Speaker 1: the jury pool in the District of Columbia is likely

161
00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:54,559
Speaker 1: to be more favorable to the government. The jury pool

162
00:09:54,559 --> 00:09:57,360
Speaker 1: in the Eastern District of Virginia will typically draw on

163
00:09:57,520 --> 00:10:00,680
Speaker 1: more Republican voters, and we know that there were a

164
00:10:00,760 --> 00:10:03,000
Speaker 1: number of supporters of the president that we're on that

165
00:10:03,480 --> 00:10:06,640
Speaker 1: jury panel. So I think prosecutors are probably feeling pretty

166
00:10:06,679 --> 00:10:09,160
Speaker 1: good about their chances of a conviction in Washington, d c.

167
00:10:09,600 --> 00:10:12,280
Speaker 1: But if they can get that conviction by way of

168
00:10:12,320 --> 00:10:14,880
Speaker 1: a plea, they still may be interested in doing it.

169
00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:18,559
Speaker 1: And then, of course there's always a possibility of Manafort

170
00:10:18,640 --> 00:10:22,520
Speaker 1: agreeing to cooperate, which is really what prosecutors are looking

171
00:10:22,520 --> 00:10:24,959
Speaker 1: for here. On the more pressure that they apply to him,

172
00:10:25,280 --> 00:10:29,280
Speaker 1: the more likely that becomes as a possibility. So cooperation

173
00:10:29,280 --> 00:10:33,800
Speaker 1: would be an essential part of any plea. Uh it could.

174
00:10:33,880 --> 00:10:36,080
Speaker 1: I think they would be willing to take a plea

175
00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:40,560
Speaker 1: without cooperation, but they're much likely much more likely to

176
00:10:40,640 --> 00:10:43,840
Speaker 1: give him less favorable terms. If all he's looking for

177
00:10:44,240 --> 00:10:48,640
Speaker 1: is a straight up plea without cooperation. With cooperation, he's

178
00:10:48,679 --> 00:10:50,920
Speaker 1: going to get a sanction of the same terms. But

179
00:10:50,960 --> 00:10:53,839
Speaker 1: then of course there's the opportunity for the judge to

180
00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:58,319
Speaker 1: move to reduce that sentence based upon his cooperation. So

181
00:10:58,559 --> 00:11:01,360
Speaker 1: Mr Manaford has a lot his plate right now, a

182
00:11:01,400 --> 00:11:04,160
Speaker 1: lot of difficult decisions to be made. But if he

183
00:11:04,400 --> 00:11:06,720
Speaker 1: is going to strike a deal, and he is going

184
00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:09,760
Speaker 1: and he is going to consider cooperating, now it's really

185
00:11:09,760 --> 00:11:12,120
Speaker 1: the time to do it. He's really got to probably

186
00:11:12,559 --> 00:11:16,200
Speaker 1: make that decision before this Washington trial gets underway. So, Bob,

187
00:11:16,280 --> 00:11:19,400
Speaker 1: if you were his defense attorney, how would you tell

188
00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:25,600
Speaker 1: him to factor in the possibility of a pardon from Trump. Well,

189
00:11:25,640 --> 00:11:30,280
Speaker 1: that's a very interesting question, and it's very difficult to

190
00:11:30,320 --> 00:11:33,439
Speaker 1: come up with some kind of number and give your

191
00:11:33,480 --> 00:11:35,800
Speaker 1: clients some kind of comfort as to whether or not

192
00:11:35,880 --> 00:11:38,360
Speaker 1: that's going to happen. The President has obviously made a

193
00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 1: number of statements about that possibility. He has reportedly discussed

194
00:11:42,800 --> 00:11:46,880
Speaker 1: that internally with his lawyers. Um. But whether or not

195
00:11:47,320 --> 00:11:50,800
Speaker 1: the political blowback will be so substantial that he ultimately

196
00:11:50,840 --> 00:11:53,360
Speaker 1: decides not to do that, We'll just have to wait

197
00:11:53,400 --> 00:11:55,560
Speaker 1: and see. And I think one thing the President is

198
00:11:55,559 --> 00:11:59,480
Speaker 1: doing also is perhaps waiting to see where Manifort goes

199
00:11:59,559 --> 00:12:04,600
Speaker 1: with this. His Manafort continues to stand Paul, as the

200
00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:07,160
Speaker 1: President put it in, continue to fight these charges and

201
00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:10,040
Speaker 1: not cut a deal. He may wait and let let

202
00:12:10,040 --> 00:12:12,360
Speaker 1: this play out. Let's see if he gets convicted in

203
00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:14,920
Speaker 1: Washington as his trial goes forward, and then make a

204
00:12:14,920 --> 00:12:17,360
Speaker 1: decision at some point in the future. Let's talk about

205
00:12:17,360 --> 00:12:21,240
Speaker 1: that upcoming trial and DC charges of conspiring to launder money,

206
00:12:21,280 --> 00:12:25,480
Speaker 1: obstruct justice, and acting as an unregistered foreign lobbyist. But

207
00:12:25,559 --> 00:12:30,480
Speaker 1: a very different judge, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, how issued

208
00:12:30,520 --> 00:12:34,040
Speaker 1: different from Judge Ellis, who had There was a lot

209
00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:36,560
Speaker 1: of criticism of Judge Ellis for his comments during the

210
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:41,079
Speaker 1: trial and his rulings against the prosecution. Well, I think

211
00:12:41,120 --> 00:12:44,360
Speaker 1: what we can say June is that Judge Ellis, through

212
00:12:44,559 --> 00:12:46,640
Speaker 1: his comments during the course of the trial and in

213
00:12:46,640 --> 00:12:49,800
Speaker 1: particular during the course of motions that were argued in

214
00:12:49,800 --> 00:12:53,520
Speaker 1: the case before the trial and underway, showed some sympathy

215
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:57,679
Speaker 1: towards Mr Manafort, and some antipathy to the government's case

216
00:12:57,720 --> 00:13:00,720
Speaker 1: and to the government's handling of the trial as the

217
00:13:00,760 --> 00:13:06,520
Speaker 1: case proceeded. So far, Judge Berman Jackson has shown no

218
00:13:06,720 --> 00:13:11,840
Speaker 1: particular sympathy towards Mr Manafort. She's known as a very straightforward,

219
00:13:11,920 --> 00:13:14,720
Speaker 1: plate down the middle kind of judge. She's not going

220
00:13:14,800 --> 00:13:18,560
Speaker 1: to tolerate any nonsense, uh, and I think she is

221
00:13:18,600 --> 00:13:22,720
Speaker 1: going to probably inject herself and her personality and her

222
00:13:22,760 --> 00:13:26,520
Speaker 1: personal style into the trial, less than we saw with

223
00:13:26,640 --> 00:13:29,720
Speaker 1: Judge Ellis in the case in the Eastern District of Virginia.

224
00:13:29,920 --> 00:13:32,480
Speaker 1: She's also the judge who sent Manafort to jail pre

225
00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:37,240
Speaker 1: trial during and so at this point they're talking about

226
00:13:37,440 --> 00:13:41,200
Speaker 1: questions the jury can be asked, and the prosecutors want

227
00:13:42,559 --> 00:13:44,680
Speaker 1: to be able to ask or to have the judge

228
00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:50,720
Speaker 1: ask about whether jurors voted in the election, whether they

229
00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:53,920
Speaker 1: had any opinions of Trump or others associated with his

230
00:13:54,000 --> 00:13:58,000
Speaker 1: campaign for president. Is the judge likely to allow those

231
00:13:58,040 --> 00:14:02,360
Speaker 1: specific kinds of questions. Well, it's interesting they have the

232
00:14:02,480 --> 00:14:06,200
Speaker 1: same type of back and forth in advance of the

233
00:14:06,280 --> 00:14:09,240
Speaker 1: trial before Judge Ellis, and in that case, Judge Ellis

234
00:14:09,240 --> 00:14:11,400
Speaker 1: made clear that he was not going to go down

235
00:14:11,440 --> 00:14:15,320
Speaker 1: that road. He was not going to inject politics into

236
00:14:15,320 --> 00:14:19,800
Speaker 1: this trial, even through a backdoor questioning of jurors. And

237
00:14:19,920 --> 00:14:24,040
Speaker 1: I would suspect that Judge Berman Jackson will agree with

238
00:14:24,120 --> 00:14:28,280
Speaker 1: that strategy. The problem was getting into questions about whether

239
00:14:28,280 --> 00:14:31,040
Speaker 1: people voted in whether they have any particular feelings about

240
00:14:31,280 --> 00:14:34,880
Speaker 1: the president and about his associates, is that it injects

241
00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:37,880
Speaker 1: a level of politics into the trial that I think

242
00:14:37,920 --> 00:14:41,160
Speaker 1: the judge is going to try to avoid, so I

243
00:14:41,200 --> 00:14:44,600
Speaker 1: think they're going to say listen. Would be interesting for

244
00:14:44,720 --> 00:14:47,360
Speaker 1: both sides, the defense and the prostitution to know the

245
00:14:47,360 --> 00:14:49,480
Speaker 1: answers to these questions, but I think it's best if

246
00:14:49,480 --> 00:14:52,960
Speaker 1: nobody knows and we will find out after the trial,

247
00:14:53,040 --> 00:14:55,760
Speaker 1: as we did in the Virginia case. Thanks so much, Bob.

248
00:14:56,000 --> 00:14:59,360
Speaker 1: That's Robert Mans. He's a partner at McCarter in English.

249
00:14:59,560 --> 00:15:03,200
Speaker 1: Thanks listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe

250
00:15:03,240 --> 00:15:06,480
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and

251
00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:11,000
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This

252
00:15:11,360 --> 00:15:17,520
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg m