1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:11,200 --> 00:00:15,159
Speaker 2: Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the

3
00:00:15,200 --> 00:00:17,480
Speaker 2: Supreme Court of the United States.

4
00:00:17,480 --> 00:00:20,440
Speaker 3: Oh yay, oh yay, Oh yay.

5
00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:24,800
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court justices returned to the bench on Monday

6
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:28,200
Speaker 4: to kick off a new term with high profile cases

7
00:00:28,280 --> 00:00:32,360
Speaker 4: over transgender rights, ghost guns, and the death penalty. The

8
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:36,159
Speaker 4: justices are coming off a blockbustered term marked by a

9
00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:41,440
Speaker 4: barrage of highly controversial, far reaching rulings, including decisions on

10
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:46,000
Speaker 4: presidential immunity and rolling back the power of federal agencies.

11
00:00:46,400 --> 00:00:50,280
Speaker 4: The Court is facing continuing criticism and calls for reform

12
00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:54,120
Speaker 4: after ethical controversies, and with public trust in the Court

13
00:00:54,280 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 4: continuing its downward spiral to historic lows. Add to that

14
00:00:59,120 --> 00:01:02,880
Speaker 4: the fact that some of the justices have publicly expressed

15
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:07,800
Speaker 4: concerns about the Court's direction. Justice Sonya Sotomayor revealed that

16
00:01:07,920 --> 00:01:10,600
Speaker 4: there are days when she comes back to her office

17
00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:14,760
Speaker 4: after the announcement of a decision, closes the door and cries.

18
00:01:15,319 --> 00:01:20,039
Speaker 1: Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in

19
00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:23,840
Speaker 1: my heart. But I have to get up the next

20
00:01:23,880 --> 00:01:26,520
Speaker 1: morning and keep on fighting.

21
00:01:27,120 --> 00:01:31,880
Speaker 4: Justice Elena Kagan says, she expresses her frustrations about the

22
00:01:31,920 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 4: Court not playing by the rules in a different way.

23
00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:37,560
Speaker 5: I got where the frustration comes from. I'm more of

24
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:42,000
Speaker 5: a wolf slammer, you know, come back to my room

25
00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:48,160
Speaker 5: and punch you know. Yeah, I am frustrated and saddened

26
00:01:48,200 --> 00:01:50,600
Speaker 5: by that. And what I take that to me in

27
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:55,280
Speaker 5: is you know that courts should respect precedent except in

28
00:01:55,400 --> 00:01:58,040
Speaker 5: unusual cases. I take it to me, and that courts

29
00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:04,360
Speaker 5: should spect and adhere to their own methodological commitments.

30
00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:07,880
Speaker 4: The new term is shaping up to be less contentious

31
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:11,399
Speaker 4: than the last, but it's still early. More cases will

32
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:14,080
Speaker 4: be added to the docket and the Court could be

33
00:02:14,160 --> 00:02:18,840
Speaker 4: drawn into the contentious presidential election. Joining me is former

34
00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:23,000
Speaker 4: United States Solicitor General Gregory gar the Global Chair of

35
00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:26,560
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Latham and Watkins.

36
00:02:26,919 --> 00:02:30,840
Speaker 4: Greg The Supreme Court's coming off this blockbuster term some

37
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:35,960
Speaker 4: highly controversial six to three decisions. There are continuing calls

38
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:40,160
Speaker 4: for reform. Public trust is on a downward slide. What's

39
00:02:40,240 --> 00:02:43,679
Speaker 4: on the line, if anything, for the Court this term.

40
00:02:43,600 --> 00:02:46,120
Speaker 6: Well, I think a lots on the line. Every year

41
00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:48,880
Speaker 6: for the Supreme Court is a big year. As you say,

42
00:02:49,040 --> 00:02:53,080
Speaker 6: there's been some clouds surrounding the Supreme Court recently, and

43
00:02:53,160 --> 00:02:55,000
Speaker 6: so they've got to go back to work, and they've

44
00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:57,680
Speaker 6: got to, you know, as always, work on building and

45
00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:01,320
Speaker 6: sustaining the public trust. They've got twenty eight cases so far,

46
00:03:01,440 --> 00:03:04,160
Speaker 6: which is light as the docket's been in recent terms.

47
00:03:04,280 --> 00:03:07,280
Speaker 6: But things always heat up in October and we expect

48
00:03:07,320 --> 00:03:09,560
Speaker 6: that the Court will add to its docket, and for

49
00:03:09,639 --> 00:03:12,079
Speaker 6: all we know, there could be election related cases down

50
00:03:12,120 --> 00:03:13,000
Speaker 6: the pipeline as well.

51
00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:14,680
Speaker 4: Well, let's take a look at some of the cases

52
00:03:14,720 --> 00:03:15,720
Speaker 4: coming up at the court.

53
00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 7: If you order practice like this and over here, it

54
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:21,440
Speaker 7: includes the parts you need, the direction of assembling a

55
00:03:21,480 --> 00:03:23,160
Speaker 7: functioning firem. You bought a gun.

56
00:03:23,400 --> 00:03:27,200
Speaker 4: President Joe Biden demonstrated how easy ghost guns are to

57
00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:30,560
Speaker 4: assemble at home in less than thirty minutes. Now his

58
00:03:30,680 --> 00:03:35,320
Speaker 4: administration is at the Supreme Court defending its regulation of

59
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:39,120
Speaker 4: ghost guns, and this case will be argued on Tuesday.

60
00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:41,040
Speaker 8: Greg tell us about the issues.

61
00:03:41,440 --> 00:03:43,840
Speaker 6: So, the Court has taken a number of gun cases

62
00:03:43,960 --> 00:03:46,560
Speaker 6: in recent years, and they sort of fall into two dockets.

63
00:03:46,760 --> 00:03:51,160
Speaker 6: One set of cases involves challenges under the Second Amendment

64
00:03:51,280 --> 00:03:55,000
Speaker 6: and the individual right to their firearms. The second involves

65
00:03:55,040 --> 00:03:58,640
Speaker 6: more traditional administrative law type challenges, where the argument is

66
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:02,600
Speaker 6: that an agency has to rule involving guns that exceeds

67
00:04:02,600 --> 00:04:06,080
Speaker 6: its statutory authority. The ghost gun case falls into that

68
00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:09,000
Speaker 6: latter category. As you noted, it involves a challenge of

69
00:04:09,080 --> 00:04:12,880
Speaker 6: twenty twenty two regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

70
00:04:12,920 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 6: and Firearms that defines kits that are sold with parts

71
00:04:16,560 --> 00:04:18,720
Speaker 6: that can be used to assemble a gun in as

72
00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:21,440
Speaker 6: little as thirty minutes. And the rule says that those

73
00:04:21,560 --> 00:04:25,000
Speaker 6: kits qualify as a firearm under the Gun Control Act

74
00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:28,320
Speaker 6: and can be regulated as such. And that's important, the

75
00:04:28,320 --> 00:04:33,279
Speaker 6: government claims, because the guns, once assembled, lack serial numbers,

76
00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:35,960
Speaker 6: and so that's why they're known as ghost guns. So

77
00:04:36,080 --> 00:04:38,480
Speaker 6: this case is a lot like the bump stock case

78
00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:42,280
Speaker 6: that the Supreme Court decided last year Garland versus car Hill.

79
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:45,320
Speaker 6: In that case, the court invalidated a rule regulating bump

80
00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:49,640
Speaker 6: stocks as going beyond the technical definition in a statute

81
00:04:49,760 --> 00:04:53,560
Speaker 6: barring machine guns. So we can expect a very technical

82
00:04:53,640 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 6: review of the part kits and ghost guns in this

83
00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:01,920
Speaker 6: case and whether that assemblage qualif as a firearm under

84
00:05:01,960 --> 00:05:05,039
Speaker 6: the Gun Control Act. The Court previously undered in order

85
00:05:05,080 --> 00:05:07,599
Speaker 6: in this case, allowing the government to reinstate the rule

86
00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:10,760
Speaker 6: while it was being litigated. But Justices Thomas, Alito and

87
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:14,080
Speaker 6: Gorsich and Kavanaugh all descended from that, which means that

88
00:05:14,160 --> 00:05:18,040
Speaker 6: the Chief Justice and Justice Barrett likely hold the controlling

89
00:05:18,120 --> 00:05:18,960
Speaker 6: votes in this case.

90
00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:23,200
Speaker 4: Can you read anything into the fact that the Court

91
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:27,640
Speaker 4: is allowing the rule to be enforced until it's settled

92
00:05:27,640 --> 00:05:28,479
Speaker 4: at the Supreme Court.

93
00:05:28,680 --> 00:05:31,560
Speaker 6: I wouldn't read too much into that, June. You know,

94
00:05:31,600 --> 00:05:33,360
Speaker 6: now that the case is before the Court, I think

95
00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:35,359
Speaker 6: the justices will take a close look at it. I

96
00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:38,359
Speaker 6: think what is significant is that in that prior order

97
00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:41,640
Speaker 6: you had four justices descending, So you can expect that

98
00:05:41,720 --> 00:05:44,880
Speaker 6: those justices are probably skeptical of the rule as it

99
00:05:44,920 --> 00:05:45,880
Speaker 6: arives at the Court.

100
00:05:46,360 --> 00:05:51,120
Speaker 4: As you said, this is really a conventional statutory interpretation case.

101
00:05:51,640 --> 00:05:55,919
Speaker 4: The Justices sidestepped a lot of appeals over the Second Amendment,

102
00:05:56,200 --> 00:06:00,599
Speaker 4: including challenges to bans in Illinois on assault style weapons

103
00:06:00,640 --> 00:06:05,799
Speaker 4: and large capacity magazines and federal bands on firearm possession

104
00:06:05,880 --> 00:06:08,919
Speaker 4: by felons and drug users. Do you think they're taking

105
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:10,560
Speaker 4: a break from the Second Amendment.

106
00:06:10,960 --> 00:06:12,479
Speaker 6: I think some of them would like to take a

107
00:06:12,480 --> 00:06:15,320
Speaker 6: break from the Second Amendment, but the cases keep coming.

108
00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:18,480
Speaker 6: The recent decision a few terms ago in Bruin sort

109
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:22,000
Speaker 6: of re establishing the framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges,

110
00:06:22,040 --> 00:06:24,719
Speaker 6: has created a lot of litigation. There's more cases in

111
00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:27,600
Speaker 6: the pipeline, so I think, whether anyone likes it or not,

112
00:06:27,640 --> 00:06:29,680
Speaker 6: I think we're going to see a stream of gun

113
00:06:29,720 --> 00:06:31,359
Speaker 6: cases arriving at the Supreme Court.

114
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:33,839
Speaker 4: On Wednesday, the court is going to hear a death

115
00:06:33,880 --> 00:06:37,200
Speaker 4: penalty case that dates back to two thousand and four

116
00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:41,279
Speaker 4: when Richard Glossip was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

117
00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:45,880
Speaker 4: His execution date has been set nine times and he's

118
00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:48,200
Speaker 4: had his last meal three times.

119
00:06:48,680 --> 00:06:50,440
Speaker 9: It does get to the point where you go through

120
00:06:50,440 --> 00:06:53,800
Speaker 9: it so many times and you're sitting there thinking to yourself, Man,

121
00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:56,279
Speaker 9: is this ever going to end? I mean, one way

122
00:06:56,400 --> 00:06:58,200
Speaker 9: or the other. Either give me my freedom back and

123
00:06:58,320 --> 00:07:01,559
Speaker 9: we've already proven that I'm in it there, or you'll

124
00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:03,719
Speaker 9: just get it over with that you don't have to

125
00:07:03,800 --> 00:07:04,720
Speaker 9: keep going through it.

126
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:09,440
Speaker 4: The documentary Killing Richard Glossop added to the notoriety. His

127
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:14,040
Speaker 4: case is gained. Greg Glossip remains on death row, despite

128
00:07:14,080 --> 00:07:17,200
Speaker 4: the fact that the case against him has fallen apart

129
00:07:17,240 --> 00:07:20,240
Speaker 4: in many ways over the last twenty years.

130
00:07:20,680 --> 00:07:23,760
Speaker 6: This is truly someone who has had almost nine lives already.

131
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:26,720
Speaker 6: So he was sentenced to death for a killing at

132
00:07:26,760 --> 00:07:30,560
Speaker 6: a motel in Oklahoma City in which the case really

133
00:07:30,680 --> 00:07:33,880
Speaker 6: turned on the testimony of one individual who worked at

134
00:07:33,880 --> 00:07:37,800
Speaker 6: the hotel and who said that Richard Glossip paid demand

135
00:07:37,840 --> 00:07:40,640
Speaker 6: to kill the victim. And what makes this case really

136
00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:45,640
Speaker 6: interesting today is that Glossop's challenge is now supported by

137
00:07:45,680 --> 00:07:48,640
Speaker 6: the people who sought the death penalty against him, the

138
00:07:48,680 --> 00:07:52,880
Speaker 6: prosecutor's attorney general in this case of Yoklahoma, who now agrees,

139
00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:57,560
Speaker 6: based on newly discovered evidence that glossop conviction is tainted

140
00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:02,960
Speaker 6: by constitutional errors, including very important Brady error. Brady is

141
00:08:02,960 --> 00:08:06,600
Speaker 6: the decision in which puts an obligation on the prosecution

142
00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:10,280
Speaker 6: to come forward with excilpblatory evidence in criminal cases. In

143
00:08:10,280 --> 00:08:13,400
Speaker 6: this case, the claim is based on the prosecution's failure

144
00:08:13,480 --> 00:08:16,680
Speaker 6: to turn over excilplatory evidence that bore in the credibility

145
00:08:16,680 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 6: of the state's star witness, again, this man who claimed

146
00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:22,720
Speaker 6: that Glossip paid him to kill the victim. The Oklahoma

147
00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:26,160
Speaker 6: Court of Appeals refused to set aside gloss of death sentence.

148
00:08:26,440 --> 00:08:30,360
Speaker 6: Even notwithstanding the attorney general's own confession of error in

149
00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:33,920
Speaker 6: the case, Supreme Court, which hasn't taken many death cases

150
00:08:33,960 --> 00:08:37,080
Speaker 6: in the past few years, granted review. So now it'll

151
00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:40,120
Speaker 6: be really interesting to see what the Supreme Court does

152
00:08:40,280 --> 00:08:44,320
Speaker 6: as it reviews gloss of claims of constitutional error again

153
00:08:44,480 --> 00:08:48,280
Speaker 6: with the attorney general of the state separately represented are

154
00:08:48,280 --> 00:08:51,839
Speaker 6: doing alongside glossop and then looking in the background of

155
00:08:51,880 --> 00:08:55,199
Speaker 6: this case is the interesting question of how courts should

156
00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:58,320
Speaker 6: treat a state's own confession of error in a decade's

157
00:08:58,400 --> 00:09:00,560
Speaker 6: old case. On the one hand, you think that would

158
00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:03,440
Speaker 6: be a pretty compelling reason to re examine and perhaps

159
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:06,000
Speaker 6: set aside a conviction. On the other hand, there have

160
00:09:06,080 --> 00:09:09,679
Speaker 6: been some concerns of political considerations that could enter the

161
00:09:09,760 --> 00:09:12,160
Speaker 6: mix as you go from one administration to the next.

162
00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:14,120
Speaker 6: So that the court's going to take a close and

163
00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:15,360
Speaker 6: fresh look at this case.

164
00:09:15,480 --> 00:09:18,760
Speaker 4: The Court's not going to consider all the alleged errors

165
00:09:18,800 --> 00:09:23,320
Speaker 4: by police and prosecutors, but just that prosecutors didn't turn

166
00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:27,680
Speaker 4: over these handwritten notes that the state's key witness was

167
00:09:27,760 --> 00:09:30,840
Speaker 4: suffering from a serious mental disorder.

168
00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:32,840
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's exactly right. There are a lot of claims

169
00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:35,440
Speaker 6: in the case. But the Supreme Court's review here is

170
00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:38,599
Speaker 6: going to focus on that Rady error, which involved the

171
00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:41,880
Speaker 6: failure to turn over those notes which mister Glossip claims

172
00:09:41,880 --> 00:09:45,120
Speaker 6: could have been used to impeach this witness, whose testimony

173
00:09:45,200 --> 00:09:47,800
Speaker 6: the case I think both sides agree basically turned on.

174
00:09:48,400 --> 00:09:52,320
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court has a history of allowing executions to

175
00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:57,120
Speaker 4: go forward, finding that state conviction should remain final even

176
00:09:57,160 --> 00:10:02,360
Speaker 4: when evidence reveals the convictions to be unreliable. Just last week,

177
00:10:02,559 --> 00:10:06,160
Speaker 4: in a six to three decision, the Court allowed Missouri

178
00:10:06,280 --> 00:10:10,360
Speaker 4: to execute a man despite opposition to the execution from

179
00:10:10,440 --> 00:10:14,280
Speaker 4: the prosecutor's office and the victim's family. So if the

180
00:10:14,320 --> 00:10:19,120
Speaker 4: Court sticks to the idea that state convictions should be final,

181
00:10:19,679 --> 00:10:23,000
Speaker 4: will it make any difference how strong the evidence of

182
00:10:23,040 --> 00:10:26,760
Speaker 4: a constitutional violation is in Glossop's case.

183
00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:29,400
Speaker 6: I think you're right, June, that the Court has been

184
00:10:29,640 --> 00:10:33,680
Speaker 6: hesitant to overturn state court convictions in a way. It

185
00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:37,480
Speaker 6: has to be because of the statutory law governing habeas

186
00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:41,160
Speaker 6: corpus and the like. But nevertheless, here there are clean

187
00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:45,400
Speaker 6: constitutional claims of error, including Brady, and that's something that

188
00:10:45,559 --> 00:10:48,880
Speaker 6: justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum they have

189
00:10:49,000 --> 00:10:51,360
Speaker 6: taken very seriously, and the fact that this is a

190
00:10:51,480 --> 00:10:54,680
Speaker 6: death case only raises the stake. So I think it's

191
00:10:54,720 --> 00:10:58,000
Speaker 6: the court it looks at this record and agrees there

192
00:10:58,040 --> 00:11:00,800
Speaker 6: is constitutional error here. I would supprise if it didn't

193
00:11:00,840 --> 00:11:04,400
Speaker 6: take some form of corrective action, But there's no doubt

194
00:11:04,520 --> 00:11:08,559
Speaker 6: that those challenging death sentences face an uphill battle before

195
00:11:08,600 --> 00:11:09,560
Speaker 6: the current court.

196
00:11:09,720 --> 00:11:12,280
Speaker 4: Stay with me, Greg. Coming up next on the Bloomberg

197
00:11:12,360 --> 00:11:16,079
Speaker 4: Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with former US Solicitor

198
00:11:16,160 --> 00:11:20,319
Speaker 4: General Gregory gar will discuss probably the most high profile

199
00:11:20,480 --> 00:11:24,880
Speaker 4: case this term, involving a polarizing issue in this country,

200
00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:28,640
Speaker 4: a ban on gender transition care for minors, plus a

201
00:11:28,679 --> 00:11:34,160
Speaker 4: free speech case involving age verification requirements for pornographic websites,

202
00:11:34,480 --> 00:11:37,920
Speaker 4: and a challenge to the FDA's refusal to allow flavored

203
00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:40,920
Speaker 4: VP products on the market. I'm June Gross when you're

204
00:11:40,960 --> 00:11:43,240
Speaker 4: listening to Bloomberg, we.

205
00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:46,160
Speaker 7: Need to push back against the hundreds of callous and

206
00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:51,240
Speaker 7: cynical bills and laws introduced in states targeting transgender children,

207
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:56,959
Speaker 7: terrifying families, and criminalizing doctors and nurses. These bills and

208
00:11:57,040 --> 00:12:01,439
Speaker 7: laws attack the most basic values freedoms we have as Americans.

209
00:12:01,440 --> 00:12:04,840
Speaker 7: That's not hyperble, that's a fact, the right to be yourself.

210
00:12:05,040 --> 00:12:09,120
Speaker 4: On Pride Day last year, President Joe Biden addressed perhaps

211
00:12:09,160 --> 00:12:12,360
Speaker 4: one of the most politically divisive issues in the country,

212
00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:17,440
Speaker 4: gender transition care for miners. In the last three years alone,

213
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:21,640
Speaker 4: half the states have enacted laws barring miners from accessing

214
00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:26,240
Speaker 4: gender affirming healthcare, and now the Biden administration will be

215
00:12:26,360 --> 00:12:30,800
Speaker 4: challenging Tennessee's ban on gender transition care for miners at

216
00:12:30,800 --> 00:12:33,400
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court in one of the most high profile

217
00:12:33,520 --> 00:12:36,280
Speaker 4: cases of the term. I've been talking to former US

218
00:12:36,320 --> 00:12:40,280
Speaker 4: Solicitor General Gregory Garr, a partner at Latham and Watkins

219
00:12:40,640 --> 00:12:42,600
Speaker 4: Greig tell us about the issues in this case.

220
00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:45,480
Speaker 6: So this is really the one big culture war case

221
00:12:45,520 --> 00:12:48,679
Speaker 6: that's currently on the docket right now. It involves a

222
00:12:48,760 --> 00:12:52,040
Speaker 6: challenge to a Tennessee law that bars gender type medical

223
00:12:52,080 --> 00:12:56,480
Speaker 6: procedures or treatment for miners, including surgeries and puberty blockers

224
00:12:56,480 --> 00:12:59,040
Speaker 6: and hormone treatments and the like. And it's a lot

225
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:02,040
Speaker 6: that twenty one others day have enacted right now in

226
00:13:02,120 --> 00:13:06,320
Speaker 6: similar form, and several individuals backed by the Biden administration

227
00:13:06,400 --> 00:13:09,120
Speaker 6: itself have challenged the law on the ground that it

228
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:13,600
Speaker 6: rests on a sex based classification that violates the Equal

229
00:13:13,760 --> 00:13:17,920
Speaker 6: Protection Clause. The Sixth Circuit upheld the law below Supreme

230
00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:21,080
Speaker 6: Court granted review and that the key question now is

231
00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:24,840
Speaker 6: whether the law triggers heightened scrutiny under the equal Protection

232
00:13:24,920 --> 00:13:28,680
Speaker 6: clause or instead the much lower rational basis review. And

233
00:13:28,720 --> 00:13:31,079
Speaker 6: that turns on whether you view the Tennessee laws making

234
00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:35,040
Speaker 6: a classification based on sex or instead one that is

235
00:13:35,120 --> 00:13:37,920
Speaker 6: based on the regulation of access to medical care and

236
00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:41,640
Speaker 6: that acts on an even handed basis among miners regardless

237
00:13:41,679 --> 00:13:44,280
Speaker 6: of sex. And what's interesting about this is that question

238
00:13:44,640 --> 00:13:47,840
Speaker 6: implicates a case from a few terms ago Bostk versus

239
00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:50,720
Speaker 6: Clayton County, in which the Court, in a closely divided

240
00:13:50,760 --> 00:13:54,680
Speaker 6: opinion written by Justice Gorsicic joining with the more liberal justices,

241
00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:59,160
Speaker 6: held the Title seven's prohibition against sex based discrimination applies

242
00:13:59,200 --> 00:14:02,520
Speaker 6: to sexual or so. The US argues that the reason

243
00:14:02,600 --> 00:14:05,960
Speaker 6: of Mastuk leads to the conclusion that laws concerning access

244
00:14:06,120 --> 00:14:09,040
Speaker 6: to gender treatments are sex based in the sense that

245
00:14:09,440 --> 00:14:13,080
Speaker 6: one who is male at birth can get testosterone treatments,

246
00:14:13,280 --> 00:14:17,120
Speaker 6: but a female at birth can't. Whereas the state argues

247
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:20,400
Speaker 6: in this case that the law doesn't draw any distinction

248
00:14:20,480 --> 00:14:23,640
Speaker 6: based on sex because it simply applies to all minors

249
00:14:23,640 --> 00:14:26,040
Speaker 6: and borrowers access to these treatments in the case of

250
00:14:26,080 --> 00:14:30,640
Speaker 6: gender type procedures for all individuals regardless of sex. Lurking

251
00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:33,560
Speaker 6: in the background of this case is a debate over

252
00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:37,160
Speaker 6: the medical importance of these treatments for those seeking access

253
00:14:37,240 --> 00:14:40,440
Speaker 6: to them, which you could well color the legal arguments

254
00:14:40,440 --> 00:14:41,840
Speaker 6: on both sides of the case.

255
00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:47,080
Speaker 4: So could this decision establish a landmark legal precedent.

256
00:14:47,560 --> 00:14:49,800
Speaker 6: I think it's going to be quite important because this

257
00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:52,480
Speaker 6: is one of the early cases in which the Court

258
00:14:52,600 --> 00:14:58,200
Speaker 6: has confronted the issue of transgender rights and laws drawing

259
00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:01,760
Speaker 6: classifications of this type. So, although I suspect that the

260
00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:06,040
Speaker 6: Court's decision will be focused on the Tennessee law at

261
00:15:06,040 --> 00:15:09,800
Speaker 6: issue here, I think it could have long term implications

262
00:15:09,880 --> 00:15:13,480
Speaker 6: for laws and actions dealing with this important question.

263
00:15:14,200 --> 00:15:21,000
Speaker 4: Another case involving miners is about age verification for pornographic websites,

264
00:15:21,200 --> 00:15:22,640
Speaker 4: and it's a First Amendment case.

265
00:15:23,640 --> 00:15:27,000
Speaker 6: So Texas enacted a law that says that any website

266
00:15:27,000 --> 00:15:32,160
Speaker 6: that publishes pornographic or other harmful material must require users

267
00:15:32,200 --> 00:15:35,520
Speaker 6: to verify that they're eighteen years or older in order

268
00:15:35,560 --> 00:15:39,760
Speaker 6: to access the site using various forms of virtual ideas.

269
00:15:39,920 --> 00:15:41,760
Speaker 6: And the argument that the plan is brought in this

270
00:15:41,880 --> 00:15:44,680
Speaker 6: case is that the law violates the First Amendment by

271
00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:49,239
Speaker 6: burdening adults rights to access the material on such websites

272
00:15:49,280 --> 00:15:52,040
Speaker 6: by basically making it more burdens than their cumbersome to

273
00:15:52,280 --> 00:15:53,960
Speaker 6: have to show an idea or the like to get

274
00:15:54,000 --> 00:15:56,720
Speaker 6: onto the site. The Fifth Circuit upheld the law in

275
00:15:56,720 --> 00:15:59,320
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court granted review. This is another case where

276
00:15:59,360 --> 00:16:01,960
Speaker 6: that the big ques question is how strictly the court

277
00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:04,680
Speaker 6: has to review the law. Do you apply strict scrutiny

278
00:16:04,760 --> 00:16:07,800
Speaker 6: or the much lower form of review rational basis, And

279
00:16:07,840 --> 00:16:10,480
Speaker 6: that turns on the Court's reading of a fifty five

280
00:16:10,560 --> 00:16:13,680
Speaker 6: year old case called Ginsburg versus New York in nineteen

281
00:16:13,720 --> 00:16:15,800
Speaker 6: sixty eight, in which the Court held that the States

282
00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:20,440
Speaker 6: may restrict miners' access to pornographic material. But in more

283
00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:23,440
Speaker 6: recent cases, including case ten years or so ago in

284
00:16:23,480 --> 00:16:27,680
Speaker 6: Ashcroft versus acl You, the Court has subjected laws restricting

285
00:16:27,880 --> 00:16:30,920
Speaker 6: adult access to websites and the like to strict scrutiny.

286
00:16:31,320 --> 00:16:34,560
Speaker 6: And this court has established itself as very pro First

287
00:16:34,560 --> 00:16:37,240
Speaker 6: Amendment and arguably is one of the most pro First

288
00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:41,000
Speaker 6: Amendment courts in the Court's history, so it'll be interesting

289
00:16:41,080 --> 00:16:43,240
Speaker 6: to see how it analyzes this law.

290
00:16:43,640 --> 00:16:47,520
Speaker 4: So the Supreme Court in April refused a request by

291
00:16:47,520 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 4: the challengers to halt enforcement of the law while litigation.

292
00:16:51,840 --> 00:16:53,360
Speaker 8: In the dispute proceeds.

293
00:16:53,680 --> 00:16:55,680
Speaker 4: Every time they do something like that, I say, does

294
00:16:55,720 --> 00:16:57,720
Speaker 4: that indicate where they're going here?

295
00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:01,000
Speaker 6: I mean, of course, if the court really hates a law,

296
00:17:01,040 --> 00:17:03,600
Speaker 6: it's kind of prevented from being in forced, So that

297
00:17:03,600 --> 00:17:05,840
Speaker 6: that's a strong indication it's not going to get a

298
00:17:05,880 --> 00:17:08,840
Speaker 6: favorable reception when it arrives. But it's a really high

299
00:17:08,880 --> 00:17:13,119
Speaker 6: standard to invalidate a law during litigation. And so I

300
00:17:13,160 --> 00:17:15,159
Speaker 6: think that's, you know, one sort of tea leaf. But

301
00:17:15,240 --> 00:17:17,320
Speaker 6: I think that in itself is unlikely to tell us

302
00:17:17,359 --> 00:17:19,520
Speaker 6: much about how the Court would resolve this case. So

303
00:17:19,600 --> 00:17:22,360
Speaker 6: this well could be a case that involves an interesting

304
00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:23,800
Speaker 6: lineup in a narrow decision.

305
00:17:24,040 --> 00:17:27,920
Speaker 4: And another case concerns vaping and young people and get

306
00:17:27,960 --> 00:17:28,520
Speaker 4: your head.

307
00:17:28,320 --> 00:17:28,960
Speaker 2: Out of the cloud.

308
00:17:29,440 --> 00:17:32,679
Speaker 3: Today nearly eight thousand kids will start vaping in maybe

309
00:17:32,680 --> 00:17:35,040
Speaker 3: even yours learn about the dangers.

310
00:17:35,400 --> 00:17:39,160
Speaker 4: Despite the many warnings, middle and high school students used

311
00:17:39,200 --> 00:17:42,840
Speaker 4: e cigarettes or vapes more than any other tobacco product

312
00:17:42,840 --> 00:17:46,360
Speaker 4: this year, and most of them used flavored vapes, according

313
00:17:46,359 --> 00:17:49,400
Speaker 4: to the CDC. So Greg, the Supreme Court is going

314
00:17:49,400 --> 00:17:52,480
Speaker 4: to hear this case over the Food and Drug Administration's

315
00:17:52,720 --> 00:17:57,200
Speaker 4: power to bar flavored vaping products over concerns they're likely

316
00:17:57,240 --> 00:17:58,840
Speaker 4: to appeal to young people.

317
00:17:59,400 --> 00:18:03,359
Speaker 6: And here it's a challenge to the FDA's defense of

318
00:18:03,400 --> 00:18:06,640
Speaker 6: its rejection of the applications by two companies who sell

319
00:18:06,720 --> 00:18:10,760
Speaker 6: flavored vaping products. The FAA declined the application, as it

320
00:18:10,800 --> 00:18:13,800
Speaker 6: has done for most similar applications, because of public health

321
00:18:13,800 --> 00:18:17,440
Speaker 6: concerns stemming from the use of flavored vaping products and

322
00:18:17,520 --> 00:18:20,720
Speaker 6: the attraction of minors. And so the companies argued here

323
00:18:20,760 --> 00:18:24,400
Speaker 6: that the FDA had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by

324
00:18:24,400 --> 00:18:27,680
Speaker 6: acting arbitrarily and capriciously, in that it engaged in sort

325
00:18:27,720 --> 00:18:32,000
Speaker 6: of an unfair surprise by changing the rules for evaluating

326
00:18:32,040 --> 00:18:36,280
Speaker 6: these applications in midstream with that fair notice, and improperly

327
00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:39,639
Speaker 6: refusing to consider certain evidence. It was something of a

328
00:18:39,680 --> 00:18:42,399
Speaker 6: surprise that the Fifth Circuit here broke with other courts

329
00:18:42,400 --> 00:18:45,359
Speaker 6: that had faced similar challenges and finding that the FDA

330
00:18:45,480 --> 00:18:49,439
Speaker 6: had acted unlawfully into approving these applications, and so I

331
00:18:49,480 --> 00:18:52,040
Speaker 6: think that this could be a sleeper case. And it's

332
00:18:52,080 --> 00:18:55,720
Speaker 6: definitely an interesting case to follow because it's really more

333
00:18:55,840 --> 00:18:58,880
Speaker 6: of a Nuts and Bolt's administrative law case than sort

334
00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:01,760
Speaker 6: of an e cigarette case. But a decision upholding the

335
00:19:01,800 --> 00:19:06,359
Speaker 6: Fifth Circuit I think would invigorate arbitrary and capricious challenges

336
00:19:06,560 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 6: to all sorts of rules. And one thing that we've

337
00:19:09,240 --> 00:19:11,800
Speaker 6: seen in the past few years, as you know, is

338
00:19:11,840 --> 00:19:15,240
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court taking an intense interest in administrative law

339
00:19:15,280 --> 00:19:19,400
Speaker 6: cases and really sort of pushing back on various aspects

340
00:19:19,480 --> 00:19:23,320
Speaker 6: of the administrative state kept off last term. Of course,

341
00:19:23,320 --> 00:19:25,800
Speaker 6: in the decision overturning several deference.

342
00:19:26,160 --> 00:19:31,000
Speaker 4: Could there be far reaching implications of ruling against the

343
00:19:31,080 --> 00:19:34,439
Speaker 4: FDA in a case like this concerning the health of

344
00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:38,360
Speaker 4: young people? Or is the issue narrower in just concerning

345
00:19:38,480 --> 00:19:40,600
Speaker 4: the arbitrary and capricious standard.

346
00:19:41,359 --> 00:19:44,240
Speaker 6: In a sense, it's broader, June, I think it does

347
00:19:44,400 --> 00:19:48,640
Speaker 6: raise public health implications of allowing these sorts of products

348
00:19:48,680 --> 00:19:51,200
Speaker 6: which FDA is regulating. And of course, if the Supreme

349
00:19:51,240 --> 00:19:53,720
Speaker 6: Court affirms the Fifth Circuit here, it doesn't mean that

350
00:19:53,760 --> 00:19:55,960
Speaker 6: the applications would be granted, it would mean that the

351
00:19:56,040 --> 00:19:58,200
Speaker 6: FDA would have to go back and take another look

352
00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:02,439
Speaker 6: at them. Presumably, the broader implications here are if the

353
00:20:02,480 --> 00:20:07,120
Speaker 6: Supreme Court agrees that the agencies acted arbitrarily here, then

354
00:20:07,160 --> 00:20:08,920
Speaker 6: I think what it would mean is that courts would

355
00:20:08,960 --> 00:20:12,600
Speaker 6: have to take a much closer look at agency decision

356
00:20:12,640 --> 00:20:16,680
Speaker 6: making and claims that agencies have changed the rules sort

357
00:20:16,720 --> 00:20:20,560
Speaker 6: of in the course of an administrative decision making process.

358
00:20:20,880 --> 00:20:24,320
Speaker 6: That's the sort of claim that agencies, you know, typically

359
00:20:24,520 --> 00:20:27,320
Speaker 6: at one a decade or so ago, and you know

360
00:20:27,520 --> 00:20:29,960
Speaker 6: it's tougher sledding these days. So I do think that

361
00:20:30,040 --> 00:20:32,960
Speaker 6: this is a really important case to keep our eyes home.

362
00:20:33,320 --> 00:20:36,760
Speaker 4: Next, let's turn to a business case involving the legal

363
00:20:36,800 --> 00:20:42,080
Speaker 4: standards for investor claims in shareholder lawsuits. And this also

364
00:20:42,160 --> 00:20:45,800
Speaker 4: happens to involve Crypto. Tell us a little about this case.

365
00:20:46,400 --> 00:20:49,280
Speaker 6: So this is a technical securities case. The question is

366
00:20:49,359 --> 00:20:52,480
Speaker 6: whether the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation

367
00:20:52,680 --> 00:20:56,720
Speaker 6: Formact apply to allegations of security fraud based on internal

368
00:20:56,760 --> 00:21:00,159
Speaker 6: company documents. That's a plan of seeking to establish the

369
00:21:00,359 --> 00:21:04,639
Speaker 6: enter using company documents, have to allege the actual contents

370
00:21:05,000 --> 00:21:08,399
Speaker 6: of those documents. And the question tends to come up

371
00:21:08,400 --> 00:21:12,639
Speaker 6: when securities planets claim that a company's internal documents contradict

372
00:21:12,720 --> 00:21:16,000
Speaker 6: its public statements that the company's executives and the like

373
00:21:16,040 --> 00:21:19,360
Speaker 6: are making two investors. But oftentimes, or sometimes at leaves,

374
00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:21,800
Speaker 6: the planets don't actually have their hands on the documents,

375
00:21:21,840 --> 00:21:24,359
Speaker 6: so they're making allegations based on what they surmise are

376
00:21:24,400 --> 00:21:27,520
Speaker 6: in the documents. In this case, the planeffs claim that

377
00:21:27,560 --> 00:21:31,520
Speaker 6: the CEO of Navidia, a company in the manufacturer's computer chips,

378
00:21:31,560 --> 00:21:34,600
Speaker 6: made public statements at odds with the company's reports about

379
00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:38,800
Speaker 6: whether crypto miners or gamers were buying their chips, which

380
00:21:38,880 --> 00:21:43,119
Speaker 6: became important when Navidia's revenues dropped after the twenty eighteen

381
00:21:43,320 --> 00:21:47,000
Speaker 6: crypto crash. The planets argue that imposing a heightened pleading

382
00:21:47,040 --> 00:21:50,320
Speaker 6: standard in this context is at odds with the PSLRA

383
00:21:50,720 --> 00:21:53,760
Speaker 6: and the court's prior precedents, and the Supreme Court, though

384
00:21:53,960 --> 00:21:58,359
Speaker 6: in prior cases, has generally sort of rigorously enforced these

385
00:21:58,400 --> 00:22:01,520
Speaker 6: heightened pleading standards. There's a related question that comes up

386
00:22:01,560 --> 00:22:03,560
Speaker 6: in this case which is interesting, which is whether a

387
00:22:03,600 --> 00:22:07,919
Speaker 6: planeff can rely on expert testimony itself to establish the

388
00:22:07,960 --> 00:22:11,919
Speaker 6: falsity of internal documents based on an assumption of what

389
00:22:11,960 --> 00:22:15,119
Speaker 6: the information the documents contain. So that'll be one we

390
00:22:15,160 --> 00:22:17,480
Speaker 6: want to follow as well. You know, the backdrop of

391
00:22:17,520 --> 00:22:20,760
Speaker 6: this case is that business really has had something of

392
00:22:20,800 --> 00:22:24,000
Speaker 6: a mixed record before this court in the past few terms.

393
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:27,000
Speaker 6: This is not a court that is reflectively ruling in

394
00:22:27,080 --> 00:22:30,399
Speaker 6: favor of business, and so it will be interesting to

395
00:22:30,400 --> 00:22:32,920
Speaker 6: follow this case and see where the court ends up here.

396
00:22:33,359 --> 00:22:37,760
Speaker 4: So a decision here could give companies leverage for earlier

397
00:22:37,840 --> 00:22:40,320
Speaker 4: dismissal of shareholder lawsuits.

398
00:22:40,600 --> 00:22:44,000
Speaker 6: Exactly. If the heightened pleating standards apply to these sorts

399
00:22:44,040 --> 00:22:46,800
Speaker 6: of claims and internal documents, then it's going to be

400
00:22:46,960 --> 00:22:50,640
Speaker 6: much harder for plantiffs to bring claims based on internal

401
00:22:50,680 --> 00:22:53,359
Speaker 6: company documents because they often don't have access to the

402
00:22:53,359 --> 00:22:54,879
Speaker 6: full contents of those documents.

403
00:22:55,520 --> 00:23:00,720
Speaker 4: Also on the docket an environmental case involving water pollution

404
00:23:01,000 --> 00:23:05,359
Speaker 4: and the EPA's powers. And this is San Francisco suing

405
00:23:05,440 --> 00:23:08,200
Speaker 4: the EPA. Not one of the cities I would expect

406
00:23:08,200 --> 00:23:10,040
Speaker 4: to go against the EPA.

407
00:23:10,119 --> 00:23:12,680
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's kind of an indication of where we arrived

408
00:23:12,720 --> 00:23:16,760
Speaker 6: with aggressive environmental enforcement, where you've got San Francisco itself

409
00:23:16,800 --> 00:23:19,679
Speaker 6: taking on the APA. So this case arises out of

410
00:23:19,680 --> 00:23:22,240
Speaker 6: a permit issued by EPA under the Clean Water Act

411
00:23:22,400 --> 00:23:26,080
Speaker 6: for San Francisco's discharge of sewage into the Pacific Ocean,

412
00:23:26,119 --> 00:23:28,679
Speaker 6: and the question is whether the Clean Water Act authorizes

413
00:23:28,760 --> 00:23:32,879
Speaker 6: EPA to impose general water quality standards on San Francisco

414
00:23:32,920 --> 00:23:35,960
Speaker 6: and other jurisdictions for the quality of the receiving waters

415
00:23:36,080 --> 00:23:40,760
Speaker 6: as opposed to specific what's called effluent limitations on discharges.

416
00:23:40,880 --> 00:23:43,639
Speaker 6: San Francisco itself taking on the APA. So San Francisco

417
00:23:43,720 --> 00:23:46,240
Speaker 6: argues that the Clean Water Act was intentionally designed to

418
00:23:46,359 --> 00:23:49,159
Speaker 6: enable EPA to regulate what was coming out of the

419
00:23:49,240 --> 00:23:53,200
Speaker 6: pipe or what's known as point sources through these effluent limitations,

420
00:23:53,200 --> 00:23:56,840
Speaker 6: which impose specific limits on particular pollutants, and that you know,

421
00:23:56,960 --> 00:23:59,760
Speaker 6: EPA is sort of changing the game when it's trying

422
00:23:59,800 --> 00:24:04,720
Speaker 6: to imposed general water quality standards on the regulated which

423
00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:08,439
Speaker 6: then is much more abstract and difficult for jurisdictions to

424
00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:11,680
Speaker 6: comply with. But EPA says not so fast. EPA says

425
00:24:11,680 --> 00:24:15,360
Speaker 6: that that the Clean Water Act can't be interpreted that narrowly,

426
00:24:15,720 --> 00:24:19,159
Speaker 6: that although it refers to effluent limitations on discharge, that

427
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:23,320
Speaker 6: it also allows EPA to regulate water quality in other ways.

428
00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:26,960
Speaker 6: The case really boils down to whether EPA's interpretation violates

429
00:24:26,960 --> 00:24:29,640
Speaker 6: the Administrative Procedure Act on the ground that it contravenes

430
00:24:29,840 --> 00:24:32,200
Speaker 6: the Statute. Now, this is exactly the sort of thing

431
00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:35,240
Speaker 6: to which EPA would have asked for and received Chevron

432
00:24:35,280 --> 00:24:38,080
Speaker 6: deference a decade or so ago after the liver Bright

433
00:24:38,160 --> 00:24:40,200
Speaker 6: decision Last Room, though, it's going to have to fight

434
00:24:40,280 --> 00:24:42,040
Speaker 6: this one out on the level playing field.

435
00:24:42,320 --> 00:24:46,640
Speaker 4: And do you think that Lowerbright and the courts I'm

436
00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:50,760
Speaker 4: going to say tendency to eliminate environmental protections or to

437
00:24:50,840 --> 00:24:53,720
Speaker 4: rule against the EPA. I mean, last Rum, the Court

438
00:24:53,840 --> 00:24:58,000
Speaker 4: blocked EPA's good neighbor ozone rule. Do you think that

439
00:24:58,119 --> 00:25:00,560
Speaker 4: bodes ill for the EPA?

440
00:25:00,600 --> 00:25:02,760
Speaker 6: I think it could. I mean there's been something of

441
00:25:02,800 --> 00:25:07,480
Speaker 6: a perfect storm where you combine aggressive agency enforcement with

442
00:25:07,960 --> 00:25:11,280
Speaker 6: reliance on broad statu story provisions, which is what we've

443
00:25:11,320 --> 00:25:13,680
Speaker 6: seen come up time and again in these cases. And

444
00:25:13,920 --> 00:25:16,840
Speaker 6: if that's the way the Supreme Court views this case,

445
00:25:16,920 --> 00:25:19,120
Speaker 6: then EPA may be in for a fight.

446
00:25:19,600 --> 00:25:22,320
Speaker 4: It's going to be an interesting term. Thanks so much

447
00:25:22,400 --> 00:25:25,520
Speaker 4: for joining me, Greg for our yearly preview of the

448
00:25:25,600 --> 00:25:30,119
Speaker 4: Supreme Court's term that's former US Solicitor General Gregory garr,

449
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:33,639
Speaker 4: a partner at Latham and Watkins. Coming up next. New

450
00:25:33,720 --> 00:25:37,320
Speaker 4: York City Mayor Eric Adams may have more legal trouble.

451
00:25:37,520 --> 00:25:39,879
Speaker 4: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

452
00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:44,720
Speaker 10: I don't know any elected officials in this city that

453
00:25:45,960 --> 00:25:49,320
Speaker 10: does not make a call on behalf of a constituent

454
00:25:49,920 --> 00:25:53,840
Speaker 10: to address an issue. And I'm hopeful because I think,

455
00:25:54,280 --> 00:25:56,520
Speaker 10: and I will continue to say, I did nothing wrong.

456
00:25:56,920 --> 00:26:01,480
Speaker 4: New York City Mayor Eric Adams remains defined, proclaiming his

457
00:26:01,600 --> 00:26:06,160
Speaker 4: innocence of federal corruption charges and resisting calls to resign,

458
00:26:06,560 --> 00:26:10,680
Speaker 4: despite prosecutors revealing in court that there may be additional

459
00:26:10,840 --> 00:26:14,440
Speaker 4: charges against the mayor and there will likely be indictments

460
00:26:14,560 --> 00:26:19,840
Speaker 4: of people around him. Adams is already facing charges of bribery, conspiracy,

461
00:26:20,040 --> 00:26:24,439
Speaker 4: and breaking campaign finance laws. Federal prosecutors say the former

462
00:26:24,520 --> 00:26:30,680
Speaker 4: police captain secretly accepted illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals

463
00:26:30,720 --> 00:26:35,600
Speaker 4: and improper benefits, including luxury travel and perks from foreign

464
00:26:35,680 --> 00:26:39,800
Speaker 4: business people. Adam's attorney has rolled out an aggressive defense

465
00:26:39,960 --> 00:26:43,359
Speaker 4: both in court and in public, making a motion to

466
00:26:43,400 --> 00:26:47,000
Speaker 4: dismiss part of the case accusing the government of leaking

467
00:26:47,080 --> 00:26:51,160
Speaker 4: grand jury information and holding a press conference to attack

468
00:26:51,200 --> 00:26:55,920
Speaker 4: the indictment. Alex Spiro says the mayor's flights, upgrades, meals,

469
00:26:55,960 --> 00:26:59,720
Speaker 4: and hotel rooms do not count as bribes under federal law.

470
00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:04,640
Speaker 3: Congressmen get upgrades, they get corner suites, they get better

471
00:27:04,680 --> 00:27:07,440
Speaker 3: tables at restaurants, they get free appetizers, they have their

472
00:27:07,600 --> 00:27:10,760
Speaker 3: iced t filled up. That's just what happens. That's the truth.

473
00:27:11,240 --> 00:27:15,119
Speaker 3: And we don't in the law leave these public servants

474
00:27:15,200 --> 00:27:18,000
Speaker 3: to be asking themselves every single time, every single day

475
00:27:18,040 --> 00:27:21,000
Speaker 3: they have any interaction with the public, is accepting this

476
00:27:21,400 --> 00:27:24,119
Speaker 3: or taking that appetizer or not waiting in line a

477
00:27:24,240 --> 00:27:25,440
Speaker 3: violation of federal law.

478
00:27:25,880 --> 00:27:29,680
Speaker 4: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, a lecturer

479
00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:31,760
Speaker 4: in law at Columbia Law School.

480
00:27:32,160 --> 00:27:32,960
Speaker 8: The defense is.

481
00:27:32,920 --> 00:27:36,600
Speaker 4: Being very aggressive. They made a motion to dismiss part

482
00:27:36,600 --> 00:27:39,840
Speaker 4: of the case. Within days of the indictment. The defense

483
00:27:39,880 --> 00:27:44,800
Speaker 4: attorney held a press conference. Is this for political purposes,

484
00:27:44,840 --> 00:27:48,400
Speaker 4: a political strategy or is there a legal strategy in here?

485
00:27:48,960 --> 00:27:51,320
Speaker 2: Well, I think they're trying to do all of it right.

486
00:27:51,359 --> 00:27:54,119
Speaker 2: I Mean, he's a sitting official, so clearly they want

487
00:27:54,160 --> 00:27:56,720
Speaker 2: to work on the political side, but you know, this

488
00:27:56,880 --> 00:27:59,640
Speaker 2: is a legal case, their legal motions to be made,

489
00:27:59,800 --> 00:28:03,679
Speaker 2: and you know, even the notion of him aggressively saying

490
00:28:03,760 --> 00:28:07,680
Speaker 2: he's going to stay in office has legal implications because

491
00:28:08,119 --> 00:28:11,879
Speaker 2: resigning could be part of a plea agreement, maybe getting

492
00:28:11,920 --> 00:28:14,280
Speaker 2: him a more favorable deal if he wanted to do that.

493
00:28:14,480 --> 00:28:16,760
Speaker 2: So I think it's all part and parcel of an

494
00:28:16,800 --> 00:28:22,119
Speaker 2: aggressive overall defense strategy. But they really are being aggressive.

495
00:28:22,160 --> 00:28:25,560
Speaker 2: I mean, you rarely see the motions about the grand

496
00:28:25,600 --> 00:28:29,280
Speaker 2: jury lease alleging that prosecutors or agents somehow the government

497
00:28:29,760 --> 00:28:32,760
Speaker 2: leaked information out of the grand jury. So I mean

498
00:28:32,760 --> 00:28:36,159
Speaker 2: they're firing on all cylinders right now. It's going to

499
00:28:36,240 --> 00:28:38,000
Speaker 2: keep the Southern District busy for sure.

500
00:28:38,400 --> 00:28:39,160
Speaker 8: I mean that was.

501
00:28:39,240 --> 00:28:43,760
Speaker 4: A point blank accusation that the Southern District had been

502
00:28:43,840 --> 00:28:49,000
Speaker 4: leaking information about Adam's alleged crime for nearly a year.

503
00:28:49,600 --> 00:28:53,200
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't know what they're basing that on,

504
00:28:53,560 --> 00:28:55,720
Speaker 2: and I think, you know, they better have receipts if

505
00:28:55,720 --> 00:28:58,920
Speaker 2: they're going to allege something like that, So we'll see

506
00:28:58,960 --> 00:29:02,520
Speaker 2: what they say. That would be unprecedented for the Southern

507
00:29:02,560 --> 00:29:05,920
Speaker 2: District to be found guilty of something like that, so

508
00:29:06,280 --> 00:29:08,760
Speaker 2: you know, my inclination is to say that that it's

509
00:29:08,760 --> 00:29:10,920
Speaker 2: not true and that they won't find any basis to

510
00:29:11,040 --> 00:29:14,280
Speaker 2: belief that that happened. But you know, obviously you never know.

511
00:29:14,480 --> 00:29:16,680
Speaker 2: I mean, there could be a bad seed somewhere, but

512
00:29:16,920 --> 00:29:20,720
Speaker 2: that is so opposite of the ethos of that office

513
00:29:20,880 --> 00:29:23,080
Speaker 2: that you know, it would shock me if that ended

514
00:29:23,160 --> 00:29:25,160
Speaker 2: up being true. So, you know, we'll see how it

515
00:29:25,280 --> 00:29:25,720
Speaker 2: lays out.

516
00:29:26,000 --> 00:29:30,520
Speaker 4: They're making a motion to dismiss the bribery charge, and

517
00:29:30,720 --> 00:29:33,360
Speaker 4: the defense attorney said that doesn't amount to a federal

518
00:29:33,440 --> 00:29:36,840
Speaker 4: crime at all. At first, they're saying there's no quid

519
00:29:36,880 --> 00:29:41,600
Speaker 4: pro quo, that there was no contemporary exchange of this

520
00:29:41,800 --> 00:29:46,320
Speaker 4: for that, and that Adams allegedly received these benefits over

521
00:29:46,480 --> 00:29:51,560
Speaker 4: years and it wasn't connected to helping Turkey open its consulate.

522
00:29:51,920 --> 00:29:54,960
Speaker 4: I mean, does there have to be a contemporaneous quid

523
00:29:54,960 --> 00:29:55,400
Speaker 4: pro quo?

524
00:29:56,200 --> 00:29:59,840
Speaker 2: So you have to have an agreement to do some

525
00:30:00,120 --> 00:30:04,440
Speaker 2: thing before you give over whatever the benefit is. The

526
00:30:04,480 --> 00:30:07,240
Speaker 2: Supreme Court ruled in the last term that it can't

527
00:30:07,280 --> 00:30:10,000
Speaker 2: be a gratuity, which would mean kind of a tip

528
00:30:10,080 --> 00:30:12,600
Speaker 2: after the fact. It has to be an agreement before.

529
00:30:13,200 --> 00:30:16,160
Speaker 2: But I think the defense is being a little too

530
00:30:16,200 --> 00:30:19,480
Speaker 2: aggressive with what they're saying. It has to be right.

531
00:30:19,520 --> 00:30:23,080
Speaker 2: They're providing a more strict reading of the statute than

532
00:30:23,280 --> 00:30:26,960
Speaker 2: is in the statutory language and then has been blessed

533
00:30:26,960 --> 00:30:29,600
Speaker 2: by the Supreme Court. What has happened in the last

534
00:30:29,680 --> 00:30:33,200
Speaker 2: fifteen years or so is all of these public corruption

535
00:30:33,280 --> 00:30:36,240
Speaker 2: statutes have gone up for interpretation of the Supreme Court

536
00:30:36,280 --> 00:30:40,560
Speaker 2: and have been narrowed and made more strict, except this one,

537
00:30:40,600 --> 00:30:44,120
Speaker 2: which is Section sixty six six Federal Program bribery. This

538
00:30:44,160 --> 00:30:46,880
Speaker 2: is the one that hasn't really been considered by the

539
00:30:46,920 --> 00:30:50,440
Speaker 2: Court yet on this point. So you know, listen, they're

540
00:30:50,520 --> 00:30:55,120
Speaker 2: kind of pitching an interpretation of this statute that it's

541
00:30:55,200 --> 00:30:58,800
Speaker 2: theoretically possible the Supreme Court could agree with if this

542
00:30:58,880 --> 00:31:01,520
Speaker 2: case or another case life gets up to the Supreme Court.

543
00:31:01,840 --> 00:31:05,120
Speaker 2: But where the law sits now, I think they're being

544
00:31:05,240 --> 00:31:08,160
Speaker 2: overly strict with what they're saying. So I think what's

545
00:31:08,200 --> 00:31:10,840
Speaker 2: going to happen is that the judge is going to

546
00:31:11,000 --> 00:31:14,920
Speaker 2: reject this motion right now and say it's a question

547
00:31:15,000 --> 00:31:17,200
Speaker 2: of fact and the jury will have to decide whether

548
00:31:17,280 --> 00:31:20,040
Speaker 2: or not they've met the quid pro quo requirement in

549
00:31:20,120 --> 00:31:24,040
Speaker 2: this case. Per the statutory language, and then if Adams

550
00:31:24,080 --> 00:31:27,880
Speaker 2: is convicted, as he appeals up the chain afterwards, then

551
00:31:27,920 --> 00:31:31,240
Speaker 2: we'll see whether the Second Circuit and ultimately the Supreme

552
00:31:31,280 --> 00:31:35,160
Speaker 2: Court are more in his mindset as far as what

553
00:31:35,240 --> 00:31:38,800
Speaker 2: the statutes would be. But I think for now, prosecutors

554
00:31:38,880 --> 00:31:41,360
Speaker 2: they're on safe ground with the charge as it is.

555
00:31:41,640 --> 00:31:45,760
Speaker 4: Also, Mayor Adams and his defense counsel have said that

556
00:31:46,000 --> 00:31:51,320
Speaker 4: courtesies to politicians are not federal crimes. His attorney, Spiro said,

557
00:31:51,400 --> 00:31:54,200
Speaker 4: Congressmen get upgrades, they get corner suites, they get better

558
00:31:54,200 --> 00:31:57,600
Speaker 4: tables and restaurants, they get free appetizers, they have their

559
00:31:57,760 --> 00:31:58,640
Speaker 4: iced tea filled up.

560
00:31:58,800 --> 00:32:02,360
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, but you can't do it in exchange. You know,

561
00:32:02,440 --> 00:32:05,920
Speaker 2: you can't offer benefits in exchange for those things of

562
00:32:06,000 --> 00:32:09,240
Speaker 2: value that you're taking. There are also rules that apply

563
00:32:09,320 --> 00:32:13,000
Speaker 2: to Adams that require him to file disclosure forms about

564
00:32:13,320 --> 00:32:16,160
Speaker 2: benefits that he's getting over a certain amount of money,

565
00:32:16,200 --> 00:32:19,560
Speaker 2: and he didn't file those forms properly with respect to

566
00:32:19,600 --> 00:32:22,280
Speaker 2: all these benefits that are listed in the indictment. So

567
00:32:22,800 --> 00:32:26,840
Speaker 2: you know, there's a non disclosure part of this that

568
00:32:27,320 --> 00:32:30,360
Speaker 2: makes it look more suspicious that he understood that these

569
00:32:30,360 --> 00:32:32,960
Speaker 2: were things that he should not be taking. And again

570
00:32:33,000 --> 00:32:35,400
Speaker 2: it's all about the exchange, like could he take an

571
00:32:35,520 --> 00:32:38,360
Speaker 2: upgrade if randomly he went to check in for his

572
00:32:38,440 --> 00:32:41,560
Speaker 2: flight and someone said, hey, you're a great mayor. We'd

573
00:32:41,600 --> 00:32:44,120
Speaker 2: like to upgrade you to business class. If there wasn't

574
00:32:44,160 --> 00:32:47,760
Speaker 2: anything about and I expect something from you in return,

575
00:32:47,960 --> 00:32:51,080
Speaker 2: then sure that wouldn't be bribery. But that's not what's

576
00:32:51,160 --> 00:32:54,240
Speaker 2: being alleged here. So you know, part of their job

577
00:32:54,400 --> 00:32:56,600
Speaker 2: is to try to kind of pooh pooh the allegations

578
00:32:56,640 --> 00:32:58,880
Speaker 2: and make it seem like no big deal. So that's

579
00:32:58,960 --> 00:33:02,720
Speaker 2: what they're doing here, and I understand that. But when

580
00:33:02,720 --> 00:33:05,320
Speaker 2: they say things kind of generically like oh, it's like

581
00:33:05,400 --> 00:33:08,160
Speaker 2: filling up your IC, it's not like filling up your IC.

582
00:33:09,000 --> 00:33:13,400
Speaker 4: Now the donations from foreign sources through straw donors. His

583
00:33:13,520 --> 00:33:17,480
Speaker 4: attorney said those charges are based on one Adam staffer

584
00:33:17,880 --> 00:33:18,480
Speaker 4: who lied.

585
00:33:19,000 --> 00:33:21,520
Speaker 2: Well, so this is interesting. I mean, listen, they want

586
00:33:21,520 --> 00:33:23,720
Speaker 2: to say something about every part of the case, right,

587
00:33:23,760 --> 00:33:26,239
Speaker 2: They don't want to concede anything at this point. What

588
00:33:26,280 --> 00:33:28,800
Speaker 2: they're saying about this part of the case is what

589
00:33:28,840 --> 00:33:32,000
Speaker 2: you would expect when there's a cooperating witness. Okay, there's

590
00:33:32,080 --> 00:33:34,880
Speaker 2: evidence against our guy. Okay, this looks really bad, but

591
00:33:34,960 --> 00:33:38,160
Speaker 2: that person is a liar. That's the oldest argument in

592
00:33:38,200 --> 00:33:41,000
Speaker 2: the book, right, and that is clearly a question of facts.

593
00:33:41,040 --> 00:33:44,120
Speaker 2: It's going to be for the jury at trial. There's

594
00:33:44,240 --> 00:33:46,520
Speaker 2: no way that piece of the case is getting dismissed

595
00:33:46,600 --> 00:33:50,000
Speaker 2: at this point or any point before trial and the jury.

596
00:33:50,040 --> 00:33:52,480
Speaker 2: We'll have to sort it out when this person tensifies.

597
00:33:52,520 --> 00:33:55,040
Speaker 2: Do we believe her? Is she credible? Is there other

598
00:33:55,160 --> 00:33:58,160
Speaker 2: evidence in the case that corroborates her? And prosecutors, as

599
00:33:58,160 --> 00:34:00,560
Speaker 2: you know, will be working hard. They are they have been,

600
00:34:00,560 --> 00:34:03,080
Speaker 2: I'm sure, but will continue to work hard to find

601
00:34:03,120 --> 00:34:06,200
Speaker 2: corroborating evidence that they will present to the jury so

602
00:34:06,240 --> 00:34:08,279
Speaker 2: that they can say it's not just her, it's all

603
00:34:08,280 --> 00:34:11,359
Speaker 2: this other information. It's text messages, it's you know, other

604
00:34:11,400 --> 00:34:15,040
Speaker 2: people testifying similarly, and so on. The one thing about

605
00:34:15,040 --> 00:34:17,879
Speaker 2: this piece of the case, which generally I think is

606
00:34:18,080 --> 00:34:22,319
Speaker 2: quite strong given what's listed in the indictment, is that

607
00:34:22,520 --> 00:34:25,560
Speaker 2: it's not all that much money, at least as they've

608
00:34:25,640 --> 00:34:29,280
Speaker 2: laid it out so far. I mean, they talk about

609
00:34:29,360 --> 00:34:33,600
Speaker 2: ten million dollars in matching funds that the campaign received,

610
00:34:33,880 --> 00:34:36,400
Speaker 2: but that's the overall amount of matching funds, not the

611
00:34:36,440 --> 00:34:40,120
Speaker 2: amount of funds that were foreign donors or the use

612
00:34:40,160 --> 00:34:43,799
Speaker 2: of straw donors. So that amount seems to be much

613
00:34:43,920 --> 00:34:46,840
Speaker 2: much smaller. And so it'll be interesting to see as

614
00:34:46,880 --> 00:34:49,720
Speaker 2: this case developed, if they will come up with more,

615
00:34:50,000 --> 00:34:52,960
Speaker 2: you know, if they're currently scrubbing all of his donations

616
00:34:53,000 --> 00:34:54,920
Speaker 2: to try to see if there were other straw donors

617
00:34:54,960 --> 00:34:57,640
Speaker 2: or other foreign donors, because I think they will want

618
00:34:57,719 --> 00:34:59,960
Speaker 2: to get that to be as big a number as possible.

619
00:35:00,080 --> 00:35:03,080
Speaker 2: Otherwise you risk the jury saying really, only you know,

620
00:35:03,200 --> 00:35:06,120
Speaker 2: fourteen thousand dollars or whatever it is, that's not a

621
00:35:06,160 --> 00:35:08,280
Speaker 2: lot of money to be taken from the city.

622
00:35:09,040 --> 00:35:11,600
Speaker 4: Is this count the straw donor's count? Is that a

623
00:35:11,600 --> 00:35:17,200
Speaker 4: more straightforward count legally than the bribery, whereas it's more factual.

624
00:35:17,719 --> 00:35:20,799
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're both factual, but this one is cleaner. I mean,

625
00:35:21,280 --> 00:35:24,600
Speaker 2: if the people who gave them money were foreign, you

626
00:35:24,640 --> 00:35:27,640
Speaker 2: can prove the straw donor scheme, and you prove that

627
00:35:27,719 --> 00:35:31,520
Speaker 2: Adams knew about it, and how did people do it purposefully?

628
00:35:31,600 --> 00:35:34,560
Speaker 2: Then that's it. You don't have to worry about, you know,

629
00:35:34,800 --> 00:35:37,200
Speaker 2: the timing of the exchange and was.

630
00:35:37,160 --> 00:35:37,759
Speaker 4: This for that?

631
00:35:38,080 --> 00:35:40,640
Speaker 2: And it is a little cleaner, I think, which is

632
00:35:40,680 --> 00:35:44,360
Speaker 2: why I say it's stronger. And the only concern that

633
00:35:44,440 --> 00:35:46,640
Speaker 2: I have about that piece of it is that I

634
00:35:46,680 --> 00:35:49,520
Speaker 2: just don't think the amounts seemed to be very high. Now,

635
00:35:49,560 --> 00:35:52,239
Speaker 2: the foreign element of it, the fact that there were

636
00:35:52,280 --> 00:35:55,600
Speaker 2: foreign donors, the amount doesn't really matter. I mean, you're

637
00:35:55,640 --> 00:35:59,400
Speaker 2: not allowed to accept money in your campaign from foreign people,

638
00:35:59,480 --> 00:36:01,560
Speaker 2: or even on New York City residents. I mean, it's

639
00:36:01,600 --> 00:36:03,720
Speaker 2: not just out of the US. You know, these people

640
00:36:03,760 --> 00:36:06,000
Speaker 2: have to be New York City residents in order to

641
00:36:06,040 --> 00:36:08,560
Speaker 2: get the matching funds, so that doesn't really have an

642
00:36:08,600 --> 00:36:11,400
Speaker 2: amount tied to it per se. But for the New

643
00:36:11,480 --> 00:36:14,160
Speaker 2: York City residents for whom matching funds were given at

644
00:36:14,200 --> 00:36:17,759
Speaker 2: an eight to one ratio, So if you give up

645
00:36:17,800 --> 00:36:20,279
Speaker 2: to two hundred and fifty dollars, it's matched eight to one,

646
00:36:20,320 --> 00:36:23,480
Speaker 2: you get two thousand dollars from the city. That's where

647
00:36:23,520 --> 00:36:26,200
Speaker 2: I think they don't have a high number of straw

648
00:36:26,280 --> 00:36:30,040
Speaker 2: donors that they can say definitively, at least in the indictment.

649
00:36:30,120 --> 00:36:34,000
Speaker 2: Now were straw donors from these foreign donations. So I'm

650
00:36:34,080 --> 00:36:36,279
Speaker 2: looking to see if they actually come up with a

651
00:36:36,320 --> 00:36:39,120
Speaker 2: bigger number as they continue to investigate well.

652
00:36:39,200 --> 00:36:42,719
Speaker 4: At a hearing this week, the federal prosecutors said they're

653
00:36:42,760 --> 00:36:46,640
Speaker 4: pursuing several related investigations that could lead to additional corruption

654
00:36:46,840 --> 00:36:51,560
Speaker 4: charges against Atoms and quite likely indictments for people in

655
00:36:51,640 --> 00:36:52,320
Speaker 4: his orbit.

656
00:36:52,760 --> 00:36:55,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's the way that they work, That's how

657
00:36:55,080 --> 00:36:57,160
Speaker 2: I would expect them to do things. I mean, we

658
00:36:57,320 --> 00:37:00,719
Speaker 2: know already that there have been investigations in members of

659
00:37:00,800 --> 00:37:05,000
Speaker 2: his administration, and those may be unrelated to Adams, so

660
00:37:05,320 --> 00:37:07,879
Speaker 2: that may not result in any more charges for him.

661
00:37:08,080 --> 00:37:10,200
Speaker 2: But I also think they will try to expand this

662
00:37:10,320 --> 00:37:14,359
Speaker 2: particular investigation. The indictment suggests that there were numerous other

663
00:37:14,400 --> 00:37:16,600
Speaker 2: people who were involved in this game, right, who were

664
00:37:16,600 --> 00:37:19,640
Speaker 2: helping him, not just the one aid of his So

665
00:37:19,840 --> 00:37:23,200
Speaker 2: I would think that there will be more people charged

666
00:37:23,400 --> 00:37:26,239
Speaker 2: or if not charged along with Adams, that they would

667
00:37:26,280 --> 00:37:29,279
Speaker 2: please separately and become cooperating witnesses. You know, one of

668
00:37:29,280 --> 00:37:31,800
Speaker 2: the things that always happened after you bring an indictment

669
00:37:32,400 --> 00:37:35,919
Speaker 2: is that people come forward, right, So people who were

670
00:37:35,960 --> 00:37:39,600
Speaker 2: previously maybe afraid to talk will come forward. People who

671
00:37:39,640 --> 00:37:42,360
Speaker 2: think that they're now in danger of being caught up

672
00:37:42,360 --> 00:37:45,600
Speaker 2: in the case themselves may actually start to cooperate. So

673
00:37:45,800 --> 00:37:48,760
Speaker 2: As you get more witnesses in and you learn more,

674
00:37:49,120 --> 00:37:50,960
Speaker 2: you may find out things. You may find out that

675
00:37:51,120 --> 00:37:53,960
Speaker 2: when this investigation broke and they started talking to people

676
00:37:54,320 --> 00:37:57,080
Speaker 2: that Eric Adams are, people close to him were contacting

677
00:37:57,160 --> 00:37:59,920
Speaker 2: potential witnesses and telling them, you know, not to cooperate,

678
00:38:00,200 --> 00:38:03,279
Speaker 2: to wipe their phones. There's already some evidence in the

679
00:38:03,320 --> 00:38:06,960
Speaker 2: indictment about you should erased all your text messages with me, etc.

680
00:38:07,440 --> 00:38:10,400
Speaker 2: So as more and more people are coming forward with information,

681
00:38:10,480 --> 00:38:13,000
Speaker 2: they'll see whether they could actually bring more charges.

682
00:38:13,040 --> 00:38:15,800
Speaker 4: A lot more to come in the case. Thanks so much, Jennifer.

683
00:38:16,120 --> 00:38:19,799
Speaker 4: That's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, and that's it for

684
00:38:19,840 --> 00:38:22,839
Speaker 4: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can

685
00:38:22,920 --> 00:38:25,880
Speaker 4: always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening

686
00:38:25,880 --> 00:38:29,560
Speaker 4: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg

687
00:38:29,600 --> 00:38:32,040
Speaker 4: dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law.

688
00:38:32,360 --> 00:38:35,080
Speaker 8: I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg