Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: At his confirmation hearing, Judge Merrick Garland, President Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: nominee for Attorney General, said domestic terrorism is a greater
Speaker 1: threat than it has been for decades, and vowed to
Speaker 1: prioritize combating extremist violence. We must do everything in the
Speaker 1: power of the Justice Department to prevent this kind of
Speaker 1: interference with the policies of American democratic institutions, and I
Speaker 1: plan if you no confirm me for Attorney General, to
Speaker 1: do everything in my power to ensure that we are protected. Garland,
Speaker 1: who is now a judge on the US Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals for the District of Columbia, appears headed for a
Speaker 1: bipartisan vote of approval in the Senate, almost five years
Speaker 1: after Senate Republicans blocked consideration of his nomination to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. President Barack Obama joining me is Matthew Schneider,
Speaker 1: former U S attorney in Michigan and a partner at Huntingman.
Speaker 1: So just give me your general impression of Merrick Garland's
Speaker 1: testimony today. So it seems like the questions are following
Speaker 1: into three categories. There's current cases, the Justice Department's independence
Speaker 1: and policy, Well, Mr Garland can't talk about current cases,
Speaker 1: and he's assured the senators that the department will be independent.
Speaker 1: So really the focus of the hearing is about policy
Speaker 1: and in general and but more specifically the focus of
Speaker 1: the hearing is about what policies will the new Attorney
Speaker 1: General make that will be different from the previous administration.
Speaker 1: And this is in a variety of areas climate change,
Speaker 1: voting rights, racism, marijuana, all very very broad topics. And
Speaker 1: he said that his first priority, his first briefing, will
Speaker 1: be to deal with the attack on the Capitol and
Speaker 1: that the tack was not a one off with regard
Speaker 1: to domestic terrorism. How much can an Attorney general's commitment
Speaker 1: make a difference in that regard, Well, in this case
Speaker 1: a lot, because there are multiple cases arising out of
Speaker 1: that incident at the Capitol. Those are all being prosecuted
Speaker 1: by the Justice Department. Because the US Justice Department in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Handles both state and federal cases. So whether
Speaker 1: those cases are charged in any capacity, that's going to
Speaker 1: be a Justice Department initiatives. And if you think about
Speaker 1: who Merrick Garland is, this is really quite revealing that
Speaker 1: he began his testimony by talking about the importance of
Speaker 1: combating domestic terrorism and making that one of his highest priorities. Well,
Speaker 1: look at him himself. He's already done that. He prosecuted
Speaker 1: the Oklahoma City bombing case. So this is a good
Speaker 1: example of why there's really no room for on the
Speaker 1: job training as a new attorney general, and Merritt Garland
Speaker 1: is proving that. In his confirmation hearing, over and over again,
Speaker 1: he said that he will make independent decisions about investigations
Speaker 1: and prosecutions and that he wouldn't have taken the job
Speaker 1: if politics were a part of it. But still he
Speaker 1: was asked that question in different forms over and over.
Speaker 1: Was he not convincing the first five or six times
Speaker 1: he said it? I think he was convincing. But each
Speaker 1: senator wants to ask his or her own questions, and
Speaker 1: that is a very important question and line of questioning
Speaker 1: for the senators, and I think they want absolute assurance
Speaker 1: that that is the case, and he's coming across very convincingly. Now.
Speaker 1: There was a great deal of questioning from Republicans about
Speaker 1: whether he would continue specific investigations and politically sensitive cases.
Speaker 1: The Dorm investigation, the Hunter Biden investigation among them. Did
Speaker 1: his answer satisfy you, Yes, Because as u S Attorney,
Speaker 1: I didn't discuss ongoing cases with the media either, and
Speaker 1: neither ken a nominee for Attorney General. It is the same,
Speaker 1: you do not discuss those ongoing cases. And look, he
Speaker 1: isn't in the Justice Department yet, he doesn't even know.
Speaker 1: He also stated many times, I haven't been briefed on
Speaker 1: this case. He's not up to speed on them. He
Speaker 1: really knows about as much in those cases as a
Speaker 1: normal ordinary American might glean from reading the newspaper. There
Speaker 1: was a great deal of question from Democrats about the
Speaker 1: Justice Department that Garland will inherit, one that was criticized
Speaker 1: for being politicized under Trump and whose staff, according to reporting,
Speaker 1: has gone through some tumultuous times. What did you get
Speaker 1: from him about how he'll handle the administration of the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. I took from that that he will be
Speaker 1: an even hand, and he will be fair, and he
Speaker 1: will manage that the department very very well. What didn't
Speaker 1: really come out in this hearing is when they're talking
Speaker 1: about the morale of the Justice Department. What didn't come
Speaker 1: out is what is the Justice Department. The Justice Department
Speaker 1: is in the U. S. Attorney's offices. The Justice Department
Speaker 1: is in ninety three districts across the country in every
Speaker 1: single state. Those are where the Justice Department employees are,
Speaker 1: and the morale in those offices is quite high. And
Speaker 1: that just didn't come across you mentioned that They were
Speaker 1: asking him about policy. How much of the policy is
Speaker 1: the attorney generals to make? How much is he following
Speaker 1: what the administration tells him? And does it depend on
Speaker 1: the Attorney general? It does depend on the attorney channel.
Speaker 1: That policy comes from the Attorney general, Whether or not
Speaker 1: to prosecute marijuana cases, whether or not to have the
Speaker 1: China initiatives continue that was started under Attorney General just Sessions,
Speaker 1: Whether or not to create an office in the Justice
Speaker 1: Department focus on climate change. Those are decisions that are
Speaker 1: made in the order charts at the Justice Department, So
Speaker 1: certainly he can make a lot of those decisions himself.
Speaker 1: In his remarks, he talked about prioritizing policing and civil
Speaker 1: rights to combat racial discrimination. Any indication how he intends
Speaker 1: to carry that out. Another item that came up in
Speaker 1: this confirmation here was the use of consent decrees. Consent
Speaker 1: decrees to settle cases against police departments in the municipalities.
Speaker 1: Those were used in the Obama administration. Those consent decrees
Speaker 1: were ended in the Trump administration. So the question now
Speaker 1: is will Merrick Garland bring back the use of consent
Speaker 1: decrees against police departments for police actions or wrongs. And
Speaker 1: he indicated that he would. That is a tool that
Speaker 1: is in his toolbox, and I think that's exactly what
Speaker 1: we're going to see. We're going to see the Justice
Speaker 1: Department using consent decrees much like it did in the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, and that aspect will come back. And what
Speaker 1: about prioritizing civil rights? He plans to expand the Justice
Speaker 1: Department Civil Rights Division and to use consent decrees in
Speaker 1: the more forceful manner that has been done in the
Speaker 1: immediate path. And look, everything in the Justice Department, when
Speaker 1: you move one lever, something else reacts. So if you're
Speaker 1: going to increase the enforcement in civil rights, you're going
Speaker 1: to have to look at other parts of the department
Speaker 1: to find out where am I going to cut back?
Speaker 1: Because the Justice Department only has so many employees. And
Speaker 1: I know that Merrick Garland is committed to enforcing the
Speaker 1: work of the Civil Rights Division. The question then becomes,
Speaker 1: where are those bodies going to come from if you
Speaker 1: have to expand the division. There was no reference to
Speaker 1: whether or not he's going to consider criminal charges against
Speaker 1: former President Trump. Are you surprised that no one has
Speaker 1: asked in that question? I am. I'm surprised that the
Speaker 1: questions hasn't been and I'm not going to be surprised
Speaker 1: at all of the answer because he's not going to
Speaker 1: answer that question. It's a question that contemplates of future
Speaker 1: possible criminal prosecution, and as he's indicated repeatedly, he hasn't
Speaker 1: been briefed. He hasn't even met with John Durham. He
Speaker 1: needs to get into the department, find out what's going on,
Speaker 1: and then make those decisions after that, sort of on
Speaker 1: a personal level with him. Do you think a lot
Speaker 1: of attorneys would give up a federal judge ship a
Speaker 1: lifetime appointment to become the attorney general, which is such
Speaker 1: an incredibly hard job. Yes, absolutely, Look, Louis Freed gave
Speaker 1: up his job as a federal judge to become the
Speaker 1: head of the FBI, and I believe he did that
Speaker 1: because he felt that that was his drive and his
Speaker 1: purpose in life to advance the ball. And I think
Speaker 1: Merrick Darlan feels the same way. He is looking at
Speaker 1: a new step in his life. He believes that this
Speaker 1: is the right thing for him to do, and I
Speaker 1: think he'll do a fine job at it as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact. And so for him, it's not always
Speaker 1: about your job security, it's about doing what you think
Speaker 1: is right. Well. But okay, so now the differences between
Speaker 1: the Trump administration and the Biden administration are enormous. We
Speaker 1: envision what does that mean for the priorities of the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. You're going to see a lot change in
Speaker 1: the priorities. And we're talking about the policy here, the
Speaker 1: use of consent decrees in the Civil Rights Division, the
Speaker 1: ability to charge people and give discretion to the line
Speaker 1: assist US attorneys. Attorney General as Croft hit his approach,
Speaker 1: which was less discretion. Eric Holder gave more discretion to
Speaker 1: the assistant at US Attorneys. Jeff Sessions was kind of
Speaker 1: in the middle. But I think you're going to see
Speaker 1: that Mary Garland wants to give more discretion to line
Speaker 1: assistant U S Attorneys. You'll see difference used on how
Speaker 1: to prosecute corporations. I mean, if you think about it
Speaker 1: that way, when you were in the Justice Department under
Speaker 1: President Trump, corporations didn't always have to provide cooperation and
Speaker 1: an investigation. But in the previous administration under Obama, corporations
Speaker 1: were expected to cooperate. And I think you're going to
Speaker 1: see a return to that. And I think you'll also
Speaker 1: see a return to more significant signs for corporations and
Speaker 1: polluters who run a foul federal law. That's going to
Speaker 1: be very significant. I know personally from my discussions with
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Rosen that these things about finding a
Speaker 1: corporation or how to treat a corporation, I know that
Speaker 1: he thought very contemplatively about that. He thought very long
Speaker 1: and hard about those types of decisions because of the
Speaker 1: impact that that could have on shareholders and the corporation itself.
Speaker 1: We have to see what the new approach will be
Speaker 1: under Merrick Garland. If you were advising a corporation, or
Speaker 1: if you if you were running a corporation, what would
Speaker 1: you do. What's your best advice? I would say, look
Speaker 1: at your corporate compliance programs right now, because the President
Speaker 1: of the United States, Mr Biden has said that he
Speaker 1: will quote hold corporate executives personally accountable, including jail time unquote,
Speaker 1: And if I were a corporate executive, I would want
Speaker 1: to make sure that nobody in my company, nobody was
Speaker 1: committing any federal crimes, engaging in wrongdoing, who was polluting,
Speaker 1: was violating any type of regulation. Because the scrutiny is
Speaker 1: about to come, Does Garland have a say in who
Speaker 1: the U S Attorneys are for each district? I mean,
Speaker 1: how does that work? Not? Really? I mean the the
Speaker 1: president will get to select the U. S. Attorneys, and
Speaker 1: that really goes through. Often times there will be local
Speaker 1: committees and the local U. S. Senators will have a
Speaker 1: lot of impact on that. And then once the U. S.
Speaker 1: Senators decide that they feel comfortable with who the U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney nominee will be, that candidate will go to the
Speaker 1: Justice Department and will have an interview with either the
Speaker 1: Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General prior to the appointment.
Speaker 1: But it's usually not that the Attorney General reaches out
Speaker 1: into the state and finds out who they want the U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney to be. Usually the reverse, the state's reach out
Speaker 1: to Washington d c and I know you had a
Speaker 1: special take on the issue of domestic terrorism. Let's look
Speaker 1: at where we are kind of in a historical context.
Speaker 1: Any time that there is a significant act in American history,
Speaker 1: often federal law changes. If you look at the Rise
Speaker 1: of the Mafia, the Congress decided that they would pass RICO.
Speaker 1: If you look at the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress decided
Speaker 1: to pass enhancements to the anti terrorism statutes. After September eleven,
Speaker 1: Congress passed the Patriot Act. So now the question is,
Speaker 1: after the assault on the Capitol on January six, what
Speaker 1: will the Congress respond to Will they pass additional legislation
Speaker 1: that really gives us a more firm and usable domestic
Speaker 1: terrorism law. That is a question that is on the
Speaker 1: table really for Congress. I know it came up in
Speaker 1: the context of the hearing, but that's not really a
Speaker 1: question for the incoming Attorney General. That's a policy choice
Speaker 1: that the Congress can make, and that is certainly to
Speaker 1: be covered in the next coming weeks and months. Thanks Matthew.
Speaker 1: That's Matthew Schneiderman, former U S attorney in Michigan and
Speaker 1: a partner at Huntingman Voting Machine company. Dominion is suing
Speaker 1: my Pillows chief executive officer, Mike Lindell, you know, one
Speaker 1: point three billion dollar defamation lawsuit for echoing Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: hall has claimed that the voting machine company rigged the election.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Eric Larson, Bloomberg Legal reporter. So tell
Speaker 1: us about the lawsuit, Eric, So, Dominion sued Mike Lindel
Speaker 1: four defamations cause for months he's been repeating this false
Speaker 1: claim that Dominion was part of a vast conspiracy to
Speaker 1: uh flip millions of votes away from Trump to ensure
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's victory as part of this vast plot involving
Speaker 1: foreign agents, you know, communist money and even the late
Speaker 1: Venezuelan dictator Hugo Shaviaz So uh he is one of
Speaker 1: several people who who's been one of the loudest uh
Speaker 1: amplifiers of these claims. And so the lawsuit was seen
Speaker 1: as somewhat inevitable, and it was filed here just yesterday.
Speaker 1: And Dominion claims that Lindale increased his sales by as
Speaker 1: much as forty and would issue promotional codes for his
Speaker 1: product like fight for Trump and Q and UM. That's right.
Speaker 1: The evidence played out in the This complaint, which is
Speaker 1: more than a hundred pages, includes a lot of details, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, evidence from Mr Lindell's public appearances, whether on
Speaker 1: sort of like a very conservative or right wing media outlets,
Speaker 1: two appearances in person at events where he would be
Speaker 1: you know, ranting against this unfounded election fraud conspiracy, but
Speaker 1: then at the same time also offering up promotional codes
Speaker 1: to get discounts on pillows and things like that. And
Speaker 1: of course Trump, you know, was a supporter of of
Speaker 1: his company as well. He suggested people go ahead and
Speaker 1: buy his pillows, so he that he got an early
Speaker 1: boost from Trump, you know, several years ago, and I
Speaker 1: was sort of was returning to favor here by going
Speaker 1: on the road to suggest that Trump the election had
Speaker 1: been stolen from him. Dominion had warned Lindale, but Lindale
Speaker 1: didn't back down, No, not at all. The complaints outlines
Speaker 1: that several warning letters were sent to Mr Lendell suggesting
Speaker 1: that he stopped saying the things that he is saying.
Speaker 1: Each time he would go ahead and get back on
Speaker 1: the air and repeat the claims um Indeed, after the
Speaker 1: suit was filed yesterday, I had a phone call, a
Speaker 1: phone conversation with Mr Lendell, and he doubled down again.
Speaker 1: He a plot out repeated his claim that dominion voting
Speaker 1: machines are specifically designed for fraud to steal elections. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, said that again that it was part of
Speaker 1: a plot involving China and other foreign agents. Uh so,
Speaker 1: and insisting that he has mountains of evidence that he's
Speaker 1: going to be able to present in this case, and
Speaker 1: even saying that he welcomed the lawsuit being filed because
Speaker 1: now he'll have an opportunity to present all this evidence
Speaker 1: in court and he's extremely confident that he's gonna win.
Speaker 1: He told you these machines were built to steal elections.
Speaker 1: I'm not a stupid guy. If I didn't have a
Speaker 1: hundred evidence, I wouldn't be doing this. That's correct, And
Speaker 1: you get a sense of of his approach to this
Speaker 1: litigation here. Um. He said as well that he has,
Speaker 1: you know, put all of this evidence up on a website.
Speaker 1: He even says he made um a documentary of his
Speaker 1: own that he's put online. Um. And and the characterization
Speaker 1: of the evidence that he's talking about, you know, I
Speaker 1: haven't looked through at all, but it sounds similar to
Speaker 1: some of the evidence that was put forward and or
Speaker 1: described in all these about sixty lawsuits after the election
Speaker 1: by Trumpler's campaign or his allies that all failed, UM,
Speaker 1: including several by Sydney Powell UM that have the same
Speaker 1: allegations about this alleged you know conspiracy, UM. But those
Speaker 1: there were a lot of affidavits that they weren't signed,
Speaker 1: a lot of it was redacted, and a lot of
Speaker 1: it has been like very explicitly debunked, UM, including especially
Speaker 1: these affidavits around that Venezuelan link. But that doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to dissuade Mr Lindell UM. He again, he says he's
Speaker 1: confident that he's going to win this case. Interesting that
Speaker 1: dominion included in its complaint false claims he'd made about
Speaker 1: his products. That's right. You've got a sense in the
Speaker 1: complaints that Dominion wanted to Um sort of spell out
Speaker 1: of history of of you know, false claims being made
Speaker 1: by Lindell and and My Pillow. And he did point
Speaker 1: out that in this complaints that several you know counties
Speaker 1: in California had accused My Pillow and accused Lindell of
Speaker 1: making false claims about his My Pillow products, saying that
Speaker 1: it's you know, cured all kinds of elements UM like
Speaker 1: cyber myalgia and restless leg syndrome and insomnia, and there's
Speaker 1: you know, they said that's not true. You just can't
Speaker 1: just can't make those claims about your pillows UM. And
Speaker 1: he did reach an agreement with the prosecutors to um
Speaker 1: pay of just about a million dollars fines and a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars UH in donations. On top of that.
Speaker 1: So UM he also UH made some claims about a
Speaker 1: product that supposedly with the pure or treatment for COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen UM that he insisted had past phase one and
Speaker 1: phase two trials and that the FDA would soon be
Speaker 1: approving it UM. The complaint notes that none of those
Speaker 1: trials took place, and of course the FDA did not
Speaker 1: end up approving this. In fact, the FDA put out
Speaker 1: a statement specifically a warning people away from this product.
Speaker 1: So you can see that there's a bit of a
Speaker 1: history of mister Lindell making claims it turned out to
Speaker 1: not be true. UH, So they're trying to tie that
Speaker 1: to the his claims about dominion. Thanks Erk. That's Eric Lawson,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter and that's it for this edition of
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
Speaker 1: latest legal news on a Bloomberg Law podcast. You can
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
Speaker 1: bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law. I'm June Grasso.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and please turn into The
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every week that attend d M Eastern
Speaker 1: right here on Bloomberg Radio