1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,440
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:11,520
Speaker 2: I'm not tap of nine names, along with phone numbers

3
00:00:11,640 --> 00:00:13,840
Speaker 2: are some of the wealthiest and most famous people in

4
00:00:13,880 --> 00:00:16,119
Speaker 2: the world. I put the numbers in my phone and

5
00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:19,080
Speaker 2: composed a simple message, There'd be a game tomorrow night.

6
00:00:19,079 --> 00:00:21,200
Speaker 2: At the Cobra launch, there was a ten thousand dollars

7
00:00:21,200 --> 00:00:24,520
Speaker 2: buy in. Two weeks later, around two am, there was

8
00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:26,520
Speaker 2: a pot that was up to one point three million

9
00:00:26,520 --> 00:00:30,320
Speaker 2: pre flop with five players still in the game belonged

10
00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:32,600
Speaker 2: to Player X. People wanted to say they played with

11
00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:34,600
Speaker 2: them the same way they wanted to say they wrote

12
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:35,680
Speaker 2: on air Force one.

13
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:39,080
Speaker 3: Do you understand that you were charged in count twenty

14
00:00:39,159 --> 00:00:41,400
Speaker 3: with operating an illegal gambling business.

15
00:00:41,560 --> 00:00:45,440
Speaker 1: The indictment in the NBA gambling scandal sounds a lot

16
00:00:45,600 --> 00:00:50,159
Speaker 1: like the movie Molly's Game High Stakes Poker, where celebrities

17
00:00:50,240 --> 00:00:55,840
Speaker 1: called face cards draw in unsuspecting rich players called phish

18
00:00:56,120 --> 00:01:01,560
Speaker 1: who dropped big money in illegal private games by organized crime.

19
00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:07,240
Speaker 1: Federal prosecutors alleged that Portland Trailblazers head coach Chauncey Billups

20
00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:11,000
Speaker 1: and former player Damon Jones were the face cards who

21
00:01:11,040 --> 00:01:14,759
Speaker 1: were on the so called cheating team, luring big money

22
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:19,280
Speaker 1: players into rig poker games where a sophisticated technology like

23
00:01:19,400 --> 00:01:23,839
Speaker 1: hidden cameras in poker chip trays, rigged card shuffling machines,

24
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 1: and even X ray equipment built into the tables helped

25
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:31,560
Speaker 1: them cheat the fish out of millions of dollars. Almost

26
00:01:31,600 --> 00:01:35,200
Speaker 1: thirty other people are charged in the poker scheme, including

27
00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:39,440
Speaker 1: members of the Banano, Gambino, and Genevici crime families with

28
00:01:39,560 --> 00:01:45,600
Speaker 1: expected colorful nicknames like Flappy the Wrestler, black Tony, Big Bruce,

29
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:50,960
Speaker 1: and Pooky. My guest is former federal prosecutor Joshua F. Talis,

30
00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:54,520
Speaker 1: a partner at Palace Partners. He prosecuted the real life

31
00:01:54,640 --> 00:01:57,240
Speaker 1: Molly Bloom and the others involved in that one hundred

32
00:01:57,320 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 1: million dollar gambling ring that was fixtionalized in the movie

33
00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:04,960
Speaker 1: Molly's Game. Josh, the high stakes poker games in this

34
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:08,200
Speaker 1: indictment look a lot like those in Molly's Game and

35
00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:11,240
Speaker 1: even use the same terminology.

36
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:13,919
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, it's funny. When I was an associate

37
00:02:13,960 --> 00:02:17,000
Speaker 4: at Walktell Lefton, I did an independent investigation for the

38
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:20,080
Speaker 4: NBA that cum it intid called the Pedowitz Report, which

39
00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:22,960
Speaker 4: is when a referee named Tim Donneghe was indicted in

40
00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:25,600
Speaker 4: the Eastern District for being part of a scheme with

41
00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:29,760
Speaker 4: LCN where the allegations were that he was throwing games

42
00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:32,760
Speaker 4: or betting on games. And then you fast forward to

43
00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:35,160
Speaker 4: Molly's Game, which is one of the first big cases

44
00:02:35,200 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 4: I worked on when I was a prosecutor, where they

45
00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:40,760
Speaker 4: are running illegal gambling businesses, including poker rooms, and you

46
00:02:40,760 --> 00:02:42,920
Speaker 4: sort of mushed the two together, and then you have

47
00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:45,079
Speaker 4: these new Eastern District indictments.

48
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:47,320
Speaker 1: And tell us what the indictment says happened with these

49
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:48,160
Speaker 1: poker games.

50
00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:51,280
Speaker 4: So there are two crimes being charged. The first one

51
00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:56,040
Speaker 4: is operating in illegal gambling business. So it's the business

52
00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:59,079
Speaker 4: aspect of it, which is generally that what's called the how,

53
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:02,280
Speaker 4: so that people who are sponsoring the game are taking

54
00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:05,400
Speaker 4: a rake or percentage of the pot or the money

55
00:03:05,400 --> 00:03:08,160
Speaker 4: on the table. So that's where the sponsors or the

56
00:03:08,240 --> 00:03:12,079
Speaker 4: people running the game are profiting, regardless of what happens

57
00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:14,440
Speaker 4: with the cards. They're just taking a percentage of the money.

58
00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:17,160
Speaker 4: That's what makes it illegal in New York State at least.

59
00:03:17,480 --> 00:03:19,680
Speaker 1: So you can play in a poker game for money

60
00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:21,119
Speaker 1: and that's not illegal.

61
00:03:21,280 --> 00:03:23,000
Speaker 4: If the two of us ever had the pleasure of

62
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 4: sitting down to play poker with a couple other people,

63
00:03:25,360 --> 00:03:27,079
Speaker 4: that's totally okay.

64
00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:29,320
Speaker 1: But in this case, they're saying that the game was

65
00:03:29,440 --> 00:03:33,200
Speaker 1: rigged so that the so called fish would lose.

66
00:03:33,720 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 2: Right.

67
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:35,600
Speaker 4: That's like the added layer of it. It's sort of

68
00:03:35,640 --> 00:03:38,080
Speaker 4: like a fraud piece, which is the game wasn't even fair.

69
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:41,840
Speaker 4: The card shufflers were rigged. The tables had some camera

70
00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:44,200
Speaker 4: set up that allowed them to see the cards, the

71
00:03:44,240 --> 00:03:47,000
Speaker 4: cards were marked in some ways, people were wearing some

72
00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:49,760
Speaker 4: sort of contact lens or glasses. It wasn't a fair

73
00:03:49,880 --> 00:03:53,240
Speaker 4: game to begin with. In addition to being an illegal business.

74
00:03:53,160 --> 00:03:57,400
Speaker 1: Phillips and Jones were referred to as face cards. In

75
00:03:57,480 --> 00:04:00,680
Speaker 1: the indictment, it said that everyone at the table who

76
00:04:00,760 --> 00:04:04,000
Speaker 1: wasn't a target was in on the scam. They were

77
00:04:04,080 --> 00:04:08,240
Speaker 1: charged with wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy, but were

78
00:04:08,240 --> 00:04:11,800
Speaker 1: in charge with operating an illegal gambling business.

79
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:14,960
Speaker 4: I mean, generally the fraud and money laundering charges are

80
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:18,280
Speaker 4: more serious than the gambling charges, or at least they

81
00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:21,240
Speaker 4: expose an individual to more jail time potentially.

82
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:24,440
Speaker 1: Can you tell how strong the case is against them?

83
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:26,719
Speaker 4: It's always hard to tell when you read an indictment.

84
00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:29,960
Speaker 4: An indictment, it makes it sound like it's obvious. It's

85
00:04:30,000 --> 00:04:32,839
Speaker 4: a great case. I mean, if true. You know, the

86
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:34,680
Speaker 4: government always thinks it holds the best hand. That's why

87
00:04:34,720 --> 00:04:36,760
Speaker 4: they brought the case. I'm sure there's another side of

88
00:04:36,760 --> 00:04:38,600
Speaker 4: the story. Whether it holds up, I don't know.

89
00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:42,720
Speaker 1: Chauncey Billups attorney said, to believe that Chauncey Billups did

90
00:04:42,720 --> 00:04:44,839
Speaker 1: with the federal government is accusing him of as to

91
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:48,039
Speaker 1: believe that he'd risk his Hall of Fame, legacy, his reputation,

92
00:04:48,160 --> 00:04:48,880
Speaker 1: and his freedom.

93
00:04:49,200 --> 00:04:51,400
Speaker 4: Well, that's exactly the point, which is, these guys make

94
00:04:51,440 --> 00:04:53,120
Speaker 4: a lot of money from their day job. Why are

95
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:55,440
Speaker 4: would they risk it all here, which, by the way,

96
00:04:55,760 --> 00:04:58,000
Speaker 4: makes good sense and has so on a jury appeal.

97
00:04:58,400 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 1: If they actually took part in the game, what kind

98
00:05:01,160 --> 00:05:02,640
Speaker 1: of defenses could they raise.

99
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:05,520
Speaker 4: It's always hard to tell from the diamy exactly what's

100
00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:08,320
Speaker 4: going on, but I think part of it may be. Listen,

101
00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:10,599
Speaker 4: just being there doesn't mean they were part of it, right.

102
00:05:10,640 --> 00:05:12,840
Speaker 4: They may be playing cards, they may be betting, they

103
00:05:12,839 --> 00:05:15,280
Speaker 4: may be doing whatever. That doesn't mean they're in on it,

104
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:17,400
Speaker 4: which happens all the time, right, they may have been

105
00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:21,040
Speaker 4: participating in what was it otherwise the illegal game, and

106
00:05:21,320 --> 00:05:23,680
Speaker 4: the promoters may have been using that as a way

107
00:05:23,720 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 4: to draw people in, but that doesn't mean that they

108
00:05:25,520 --> 00:05:26,800
Speaker 4: were in on the whole scheme.

109
00:05:27,320 --> 00:05:30,799
Speaker 1: So the charge is that from April of twenty nineteen

110
00:05:31,040 --> 00:05:34,680
Speaker 1: to the present, the rick poker scheme caused losses to

111
00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:38,719
Speaker 1: the victims of seven million dollars. That doesn't seem a

112
00:05:38,720 --> 00:05:42,280
Speaker 1: lot over six years. And when the director of the

113
00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:45,960
Speaker 1: FBI said the fraud is mind boggling.

114
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:47,760
Speaker 4: I mean, seven million dollars is still a lot. But

115
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:49,240
Speaker 4: I agree with you. Given the amount of money that

116
00:05:49,279 --> 00:05:51,800
Speaker 4: flies around in these games, I wouldn't call it mind bottling.

117
00:05:52,000 --> 00:05:54,360
Speaker 4: I mean these high stakes poker games, there can be

118
00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:56,360
Speaker 4: millions of dollars changing hands at a night.

119
00:05:56,560 --> 00:05:59,760
Speaker 1: To establish the money laundering and wire fraud, what do

120
00:05:59,839 --> 00:06:01,960
Speaker 1: the prosecutors have to prove.

121
00:06:02,240 --> 00:06:04,400
Speaker 4: The way to think of frauds is when someone makes

122
00:06:04,440 --> 00:06:08,160
Speaker 4: a misrepresentation to someone to get them to turn over

123
00:06:08,279 --> 00:06:10,520
Speaker 4: money and they lose money as a result. You have

124
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:13,240
Speaker 4: to make a misstatement to someone with the intent that

125
00:06:13,279 --> 00:06:16,440
Speaker 4: you're defrauding them. And then laundering money is either you

126
00:06:16,520 --> 00:06:20,040
Speaker 4: are moving money that was derived from a criminal scheme,

127
00:06:20,440 --> 00:06:22,440
Speaker 4: or you are out of the scheme, or you're moving

128
00:06:22,480 --> 00:06:24,400
Speaker 4: money in to promote the scheme. Those are like the

129
00:06:24,440 --> 00:06:26,760
Speaker 4: basic types of money laundering, but you have to have

130
00:06:26,839 --> 00:06:29,520
Speaker 4: the fraud to prove the money laundering. Generally, like the

131
00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:31,400
Speaker 4: fraud is sort of a prerequisite.

132
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:34,719
Speaker 1: There are more than thirty defendants here. How do you

133
00:06:34,800 --> 00:06:38,919
Speaker 1: try a case like this? I assume separate trials, But

134
00:06:39,120 --> 00:06:40,280
Speaker 1: how is that decided?

135
00:06:40,839 --> 00:06:44,000
Speaker 4: You can't try thirty people at once. It's not permitted.

136
00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:47,440
Speaker 4: It's also just practically impossible. What generally happens in a

137
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:50,120
Speaker 4: case like this where this many people charged is those

138
00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:52,120
Speaker 4: that sort of don't have much of a defense or

139
00:06:52,120 --> 00:06:53,840
Speaker 4: they're not charging with the very serious client, they may

140
00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:57,400
Speaker 4: just plead out and it could reduce into a smaller

141
00:06:57,440 --> 00:06:59,320
Speaker 4: group of people if they choose to go to trial.

142
00:06:59,640 --> 00:07:01,720
Speaker 4: That's what happened in the Mally's Game case. We indicted

143
00:07:01,720 --> 00:07:04,560
Speaker 4: I think thirty three people where there were three separate

144
00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:07,120
Speaker 4: racketeering schemes. In the end, we'd never had a trial

145
00:07:07,120 --> 00:07:08,799
Speaker 4: because everyone basically pled guilty.

146
00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:11,400
Speaker 1: And then came the book and the movie. Do you

147
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:15,360
Speaker 1: think that the FBI pursued this investigation for so long

148
00:07:15,560 --> 00:07:19,240
Speaker 1: because of the alleged mafia connections.

149
00:07:19,640 --> 00:07:21,680
Speaker 4: I mean, when you have the mafia, when you have

150
00:07:21,760 --> 00:07:24,120
Speaker 4: sports betting, when you have the integrity of the game

151
00:07:24,160 --> 00:07:27,880
Speaker 4: at stake, obviously that interests a lot of parties. It's

152
00:07:27,880 --> 00:07:30,440
Speaker 4: not necessarily clear to me that the f I was

153
00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:32,880
Speaker 4: looking at this since twenty nineteen. It may be that

154
00:07:33,000 --> 00:07:36,520
Speaker 4: as the investigation went on they learned about conduct that

155
00:07:36,640 --> 00:07:39,080
Speaker 4: proceeded when they started the investigation. So that doesn't mean

156
00:07:39,080 --> 00:07:40,920
Speaker 4: that they couldn't charge it if they had started the

157
00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:43,680
Speaker 4: investigation twenty twenty four and then they learn Actually all

158
00:07:43,720 --> 00:07:45,560
Speaker 4: this is singing on from twenty nineteen.

159
00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:49,160
Speaker 1: And tell us about the second indictment involving sports betting,

160
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:52,800
Speaker 1: where Miami Heat guard Terry Rosier was charged.

161
00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:55,080
Speaker 4: Sure, I mean, I think that's the one that goes

162
00:07:55,160 --> 00:07:57,360
Speaker 4: the integrity of the game. I kind of view that

163
00:07:57,400 --> 00:08:00,880
Speaker 4: as the more serious of the indictments. It is that

164
00:08:01,120 --> 00:08:03,880
Speaker 4: the NBA has a code of conduct, and one of

165
00:08:03,920 --> 00:08:05,920
Speaker 4: the provisions of the code of conduct is that there's

166
00:08:06,200 --> 00:08:09,280
Speaker 4: confidential information or non public information, and in this case,

167
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:11,360
Speaker 4: it would be which players are injured, who's going to

168
00:08:11,400 --> 00:08:14,520
Speaker 4: sit out, who may not play, and that information was

169
00:08:14,560 --> 00:08:17,400
Speaker 4: being leaked and then used by people to make prop bets,

170
00:08:17,440 --> 00:08:19,640
Speaker 4: and a prop bet is like a proposition bet, where

171
00:08:19,680 --> 00:08:22,200
Speaker 4: you can not necessarily even bet on who's going to

172
00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:25,040
Speaker 4: win the game, but how a particular player will perform.

173
00:08:25,360 --> 00:08:28,080
Speaker 4: And some of the bets were saying that someone would

174
00:08:28,120 --> 00:08:30,360
Speaker 4: play or not player score certain number of points, and

175
00:08:30,400 --> 00:08:32,079
Speaker 4: some of them were just bets on the outcome of

176
00:08:32,120 --> 00:08:34,760
Speaker 4: the game. But here it's a kin to insider trading.

177
00:08:34,760 --> 00:08:36,560
Speaker 4: But I don't want to suggest it is insider trading

178
00:08:36,600 --> 00:08:39,200
Speaker 4: because it's a wire fraud case. This isn't securities fraud.

179
00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:41,680
Speaker 4: But the gist is that there was non public information

180
00:08:41,679 --> 00:08:44,640
Speaker 4: about NBA players that was used to bet and that

181
00:08:44,920 --> 00:08:46,360
Speaker 4: violated the code of conduct.

182
00:08:46,760 --> 00:08:46,960
Speaker 5: Well.

183
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:50,160
Speaker 1: In hyping up the indictment, the director of the FBI

184
00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:55,520
Speaker 1: cash Ptail called it the insider trading saga for the NBA.

185
00:08:56,120 --> 00:09:00,280
Speaker 1: One thing about Rosier, the NBA cleared him after an investigation,

186
00:09:00,440 --> 00:09:00,920
Speaker 1: didn't they.

187
00:09:01,360 --> 00:09:03,800
Speaker 4: I think the issue is the devil's in the details.

188
00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:07,160
Speaker 4: I mean my recollection of Rozier is that he may

189
00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:09,600
Speaker 4: have texted one of the other members of the scheme

190
00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:11,840
Speaker 4: saying that he was going to leave the game early,

191
00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:15,200
Speaker 4: and there was discussion about bets being placed, which doesn't

192
00:09:15,200 --> 00:09:17,559
Speaker 4: necessarily mean he wasn't hurt, But what it means is

193
00:09:17,600 --> 00:09:20,160
Speaker 4: that he was telling someone who wasn't supposed to know

194
00:09:20,520 --> 00:09:22,240
Speaker 4: that he was injured or that he wasn't going to

195
00:09:22,240 --> 00:09:24,920
Speaker 4: play the whole game. The NBA is very good at this,

196
00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:28,880
Speaker 4: at policing betting and the integrity the game. Adam Silvers

197
00:09:29,040 --> 00:09:32,400
Speaker 4: is amazing as the commissioner, and they take this seriously.

198
00:09:32,679 --> 00:09:34,920
Speaker 4: The question is, you know, did they have access to

199
00:09:34,960 --> 00:09:38,000
Speaker 4: everything that the FBI had access to. The NBA doesn't

200
00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:39,480
Speaker 4: have the powers of the FBI.

201
00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:45,120
Speaker 1: These are two separate indictments, separate schemes that involved thirty

202
00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:48,960
Speaker 1: four defendants, only three connected to the NBA. Yet it

203
00:09:49,000 --> 00:09:53,280
Speaker 1: was announced with such fanfare. About twenty people crowded on

204
00:09:53,320 --> 00:09:57,400
Speaker 1: the stage, including the director of the FBI and New

205
00:09:57,480 --> 00:10:02,440
Speaker 1: York City's police commissioner. The gations date back years, and

206
00:10:02,520 --> 00:10:05,840
Speaker 1: yet the announcements were made the opening week of the

207
00:10:06,000 --> 00:10:08,800
Speaker 1: NBA season. This seems like a lot of hype.

208
00:10:09,200 --> 00:10:11,920
Speaker 4: Oh sure, that's definitely what the government's doing. They want

209
00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:15,560
Speaker 4: to amplify the press impact of the indictments and the

210
00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:21,440
Speaker 4: extent that it confuses what the NBA employees players were doing.

211
00:10:21,920 --> 00:10:24,960
Speaker 4: It just makes it more pressworthy. Obviously, it matters if

212
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:27,480
Speaker 4: someone is actually a playing for the NBA or working

213
00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:29,719
Speaker 4: as a coach at the time they do certain of

214
00:10:29,760 --> 00:10:32,240
Speaker 4: the conduct. That's why it would matter in terms of

215
00:10:32,360 --> 00:10:35,400
Speaker 4: leaking the information. And then to extend that these guys

216
00:10:35,400 --> 00:10:38,320
Speaker 4: were doing something on their own time involving poker, it's

217
00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:40,640
Speaker 4: kind of irrelevant. I don't think this is the type

218
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:44,360
Speaker 4: of investigation that you needed to be announced on the

219
00:10:44,400 --> 00:10:47,000
Speaker 4: eve of you know, the timing was a little odd

220
00:10:47,200 --> 00:10:49,400
Speaker 4: when the FBI director shows up for an announcement of

221
00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:52,320
Speaker 4: an investigation like this. Again, criminal cases are serious, but

222
00:10:52,400 --> 00:10:54,880
Speaker 4: you know, this isn't like they broke the biggest insider

223
00:10:54,960 --> 00:10:58,080
Speaker 4: trading case ever, or this is a big terrorism case

224
00:10:58,160 --> 00:11:00,559
Speaker 4: where the FBI director may show up. It's a big

225
00:11:00,640 --> 00:11:02,440
Speaker 4: case and that it goes to the integrity of the game,

226
00:11:02,520 --> 00:11:04,480
Speaker 4: but it's kind of just a run of the no

227
00:11:04,679 --> 00:11:06,800
Speaker 4: gambling case in the poker world.

228
00:11:06,960 --> 00:11:09,600
Speaker 1: We'll see how many defendants are left when and if

229
00:11:09,640 --> 00:11:13,520
Speaker 1: this goes to trial. Thanks so much, josh that's former

230
00:11:13,640 --> 00:11:18,920
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Joshua F. Talis of Palace Partners. President Donald

231
00:11:18,920 --> 00:11:22,880
Speaker 1: Trump has once again suggested he'd like to extend his

232
00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:27,440
Speaker 1: stay at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue for a third term.

233
00:11:27,760 --> 00:11:30,760
Speaker 2: I would love to do it. I have my best numbers.

234
00:11:30,800 --> 00:11:30,959
Speaker 6: Ever.

235
00:11:31,120 --> 00:11:34,240
Speaker 1: Trump has flirted with the idea of a third term before,

236
00:11:34,720 --> 00:11:38,240
Speaker 1: for example, in March, just a little over a month

237
00:11:38,320 --> 00:11:39,520
Speaker 1: into his second term.

238
00:11:39,840 --> 00:11:41,640
Speaker 5: They do say there's a way you can do it,

239
00:11:41,720 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 5: but I don't know about that.

240
00:11:43,760 --> 00:11:47,080
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you I have had more people say

241
00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:51,520
Speaker 1: please run again, but this time. There is also those

242
00:11:51,720 --> 00:11:55,440
Speaker 1: Trump twenty twenty eight red baseball caps that set on

243
00:11:55,559 --> 00:11:59,040
Speaker 1: his desk during a meeting with congressional leaders this month.

244
00:11:59,280 --> 00:12:03,160
Speaker 1: There's the thing tank called Third Term Project. And there's

245
00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:07,439
Speaker 1: even a Justice Department lawyer in six circuit oral arguments

246
00:12:07,760 --> 00:12:11,600
Speaker 1: referring to a new administration quote three years in the

247
00:12:11,679 --> 00:12:15,480
Speaker 1: future or seven years in the future. And of course

248
00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:20,559
Speaker 1: Trump has not explicitly ruled out a third term. Joining

249
00:12:20,559 --> 00:12:24,000
Speaker 1: me is constitutional law expert David super, a professor at

250
00:12:24,080 --> 00:12:27,840
Speaker 1: Georgetown Law. So, David, I reread the twenty second Amendment.

251
00:12:28,360 --> 00:12:31,920
Speaker 1: It plainly states that no one can be elected president

252
00:12:31,960 --> 00:12:34,720
Speaker 1: more than twice. I mean, how plain is it? How

253
00:12:34,800 --> 00:12:36,000
Speaker 1: clear is it?

254
00:12:36,000 --> 00:12:39,360
Speaker 6: It could not be clearer, and it could not be plainer.

255
00:12:39,800 --> 00:12:43,479
Speaker 6: It's short it's sweet. It's to the point not allowing

256
00:12:43,960 --> 00:12:46,040
Speaker 6: anyone to run for a third term.

257
00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:51,120
Speaker 1: Now, there are different kinds of scenarios out there that

258
00:12:51,240 --> 00:12:54,760
Speaker 1: Trump allies have put forward. One of the arguments is

259
00:12:54,760 --> 00:12:58,240
Speaker 1: that the twenty second Amendment only explicitly bars a person

260
00:12:58,280 --> 00:13:02,400
Speaker 1: from being elected more than two presidential terms, but doesn't

261
00:13:02,440 --> 00:13:06,760
Speaker 1: say anything about serving a third term. So the theory

262
00:13:07,040 --> 00:13:11,200
Speaker 1: is that Trump could run as vice president and then

263
00:13:11,360 --> 00:13:15,320
Speaker 1: have whatever lucky candidate for president it is resign and

264
00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:17,280
Speaker 1: then Trump takes the White House.

265
00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:20,880
Speaker 6: That doesn't work either, because of the twelfth Amendment, which

266
00:13:20,880 --> 00:13:25,439
Speaker 6: says that any candidate for vice president must be constitutionally

267
00:13:25,559 --> 00:13:29,640
Speaker 6: qualified to serve as president, which mister Trump isn't.

268
00:13:30,200 --> 00:13:34,600
Speaker 1: In fact, Trump himself sort of dismissed that. He said,

269
00:13:34,600 --> 00:13:37,240
Speaker 1: I'd be allowed to do that, but I think people

270
00:13:37,280 --> 00:13:42,040
Speaker 1: wouldn't like that. It's too cute. Also, didn't Vladimir Putin

271
00:13:42,120 --> 00:13:44,679
Speaker 1: sort of do something like that years ago where he

272
00:13:45,400 --> 00:13:48,240
Speaker 1: put a deputy in to serve in his place for

273
00:13:48,480 --> 00:13:50,120
Speaker 1: one term and then he took over.

274
00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:54,679
Speaker 6: It's disappointing that this country is taking its political lessons

275
00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:58,800
Speaker 6: from Russia these days, But yes, what Putin did was

276
00:13:59,280 --> 00:14:03,760
Speaker 6: stepped down from being president for one term and let

277
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:09,880
Speaker 6: a trusted ally of his serve as a figurehead president

278
00:14:10,000 --> 00:14:13,880
Speaker 6: while Putin ran things as Prime minister, then came back

279
00:14:14,040 --> 00:14:17,720
Speaker 6: and became president again. A few problems with that. One

280
00:14:17,880 --> 00:14:21,560
Speaker 6: is it's too cute. Two is we don't have prime

281
00:14:21,560 --> 00:14:26,280
Speaker 6: ministerships here, so there's no obvious alternate role for Trump

282
00:14:26,360 --> 00:14:29,520
Speaker 6: to go into to serve it. Three, Russia's limit is

283
00:14:29,560 --> 00:14:33,280
Speaker 6: on consecutive terms. The twenty second Amendment is a limit

284
00:14:33,360 --> 00:14:36,360
Speaker 6: on total terms. And four, why are we taking our

285
00:14:36,400 --> 00:14:37,960
Speaker 6: political lessons from Russia?

286
00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:41,040
Speaker 1: And just explain to get rid of the twenty second Amendment?

287
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:41,800
Speaker 1: What would it take?

288
00:14:42,160 --> 00:14:45,280
Speaker 6: Repealing the twenty second Amendment would take a two thirds

289
00:14:45,360 --> 00:14:50,920
Speaker 6: vote from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three

290
00:14:51,000 --> 00:14:54,160
Speaker 6: quarters of the states, which is thirty eight states. So

291
00:14:54,320 --> 00:15:00,560
Speaker 6: you would need ratification from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts. Somehow,

292
00:15:00,600 --> 00:15:02,400
Speaker 6: I don't think those states are going to be working

293
00:15:02,520 --> 00:15:04,840
Speaker 6: very hard to get mister Trump a third term.

294
00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:09,720
Speaker 1: Yeah, even how Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed repealing the twenty

295
00:15:09,720 --> 00:15:10,560
Speaker 1: second Amendment.

296
00:15:10,960 --> 00:15:13,160
Speaker 6: I don't see a way to amend the constitution because

297
00:15:13,160 --> 00:15:14,760
Speaker 6: it takes about ten years to do that.

298
00:15:15,160 --> 00:15:18,680
Speaker 1: Speaking about the Speaker of the House. Yet another theory

299
00:15:19,040 --> 00:15:21,680
Speaker 1: is that Trump could become the Speaker of the House,

300
00:15:21,920 --> 00:15:25,440
Speaker 1: which apparently posits that it's easy to be elected Speaker

301
00:15:25,440 --> 00:15:28,200
Speaker 1: of the House, and then if both the president and

302
00:15:28,360 --> 00:15:32,760
Speaker 1: vice president, who would have to be Trump Ally's, resign

303
00:15:33,280 --> 00:15:34,200
Speaker 1: he could take over.

304
00:15:34,720 --> 00:15:34,920
Speaker 5: Yeah.

305
00:15:34,960 --> 00:15:37,240
Speaker 6: I keep sending in my resume to be Speaker of

306
00:15:37,240 --> 00:15:39,720
Speaker 6: the House and nothing ever happens. I'm not sure what

307
00:15:39,760 --> 00:15:44,880
Speaker 6: the problem is in eery that could be said to

308
00:15:44,920 --> 00:15:49,240
Speaker 6: be valid. The Speaker of the House is elected, and

309
00:15:49,880 --> 00:15:53,200
Speaker 6: if the purpose of electing mister Trumps speaker is to

310
00:15:53,240 --> 00:15:56,240
Speaker 6: make him president, I think there's an argument that that

311
00:15:56,320 --> 00:16:01,080
Speaker 6: would also violate the twenty second Amendment of the Constitution,

312
00:16:01,160 --> 00:16:04,280
Speaker 6: But it certainly puts a thumb in the eye of

313
00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:09,120
Speaker 6: popular intent. We had had a four term president, President Roosevelt.

314
00:16:09,680 --> 00:16:13,640
Speaker 6: The country across all political lines concluded that that was

315
00:16:13,680 --> 00:16:16,840
Speaker 6: too much power for any individual to have, that it

316
00:16:17,040 --> 00:16:21,640
Speaker 6: resembled authoritarian countries too much, and we decided we didn't

317
00:16:21,680 --> 00:16:25,040
Speaker 6: want to do that anymore. And this is yet again

318
00:16:25,800 --> 00:16:31,240
Speaker 6: mister Trump and his allies disregarding the people's choice through

319
00:16:31,240 --> 00:16:32,080
Speaker 6: their constitution.

320
00:16:32,640 --> 00:16:35,360
Speaker 1: Have you heard any other theories of how he could

321
00:16:35,400 --> 00:16:37,080
Speaker 1: become president for a third.

322
00:16:36,880 --> 00:16:39,800
Speaker 6: Term and then the other one. I guess it's very straightforward.

323
00:16:39,960 --> 00:16:42,800
Speaker 6: Just do it and see if anyone stops you. And

324
00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:49,040
Speaker 6: this Supreme Court has been willing to avoid a number

325
00:16:49,280 --> 00:16:57,640
Speaker 6: of constitutional violations and most obviously declining to consider or

326
00:16:57,680 --> 00:17:02,280
Speaker 6: allow anyone else to consider whether mister Trump was disqualified

327
00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:06,720
Speaker 6: under the insurrection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. He may

328
00:17:06,920 --> 00:17:09,600
Speaker 6: just take the position that he can run, he can

329
00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:12,240
Speaker 6: do it, and he doesn't think anyone will stop him.

330
00:17:12,440 --> 00:17:15,760
Speaker 1: Is this speculation hopeful in a way because Trump is

331
00:17:15,800 --> 00:17:20,280
Speaker 1: still talking about legal ways to stay in office and

332
00:17:20,359 --> 00:17:23,160
Speaker 1: not suggesting that he would just refuse to leave.

333
00:17:23,680 --> 00:17:28,280
Speaker 6: Well, there has been talk in the past that he

334
00:17:28,760 --> 00:17:33,080
Speaker 6: might do something like what you're suggesting. He made some

335
00:17:33,160 --> 00:17:38,480
Speaker 6: comments about that in twenty twenty, which I hope were

336
00:17:38,520 --> 00:17:41,800
Speaker 6: not taken very seriously. Certainly didn't deserve to be taken

337
00:17:41,960 --> 00:17:46,320
Speaker 6: very seriously. But some of his supporters have suggested that

338
00:17:46,440 --> 00:17:49,199
Speaker 6: he could somehow declare some kind of a state of

339
00:17:49,280 --> 00:17:54,840
Speaker 6: emergency someone called it a sovereignty crisis and suspend elections

340
00:17:54,880 --> 00:17:59,120
Speaker 6: on that basis. There's no authority whatsoever in the constitution

341
00:17:59,359 --> 00:18:01,640
Speaker 6: for that. If he were to do that, he would

342
00:18:01,680 --> 00:18:04,480
Speaker 6: effectively be repudiating the Constitution.

343
00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:07,680
Speaker 1: And you think that the Supreme Court might not even

344
00:18:07,760 --> 00:18:11,760
Speaker 1: step in if he decides to run for a third term.

345
00:18:12,080 --> 00:18:15,359
Speaker 6: No, I think they would. I think this Court is

346
00:18:16,040 --> 00:18:20,160
Speaker 6: hoping against hope that he won't force their hand by

347
00:18:20,200 --> 00:18:25,560
Speaker 6: doing something completely delegitimizing. But I don't believe that there

348
00:18:25,560 --> 00:18:29,520
Speaker 6: are five justices who have so totally lost faith in

349
00:18:29,560 --> 00:18:31,159
Speaker 6: the country that they would put up with that.

350
00:18:31,520 --> 00:18:34,600
Speaker 1: I mean, it could be he's trolling the Democrats, he's

351
00:18:34,920 --> 00:18:38,040
Speaker 1: entertaining his base, or he doesn't want to look like

352
00:18:38,080 --> 00:18:38,760
Speaker 1: a lame duck.

353
00:18:39,119 --> 00:18:42,600
Speaker 6: Yes, I think so. Presidents have often had a lot

354
00:18:42,640 --> 00:18:47,600
Speaker 6: of trouble in their second terms in office. President Reagan

355
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:52,560
Speaker 6: was unstoppable in his first term and stumbled quite badly

356
00:18:52,640 --> 00:18:57,080
Speaker 6: in his second. President Bush was very strong in his

357
00:18:57,160 --> 00:19:01,560
Speaker 6: first and got the Great Recession and Hurricane Katrina in

358
00:19:01,640 --> 00:19:05,120
Speaker 6: the second. President Obama lost all kinds of esteem by

359
00:19:05,160 --> 00:19:08,080
Speaker 6: his second term. And I think President Trump doesn't want

360
00:19:08,119 --> 00:19:09,680
Speaker 6: to follow that example.

361
00:19:10,240 --> 00:19:13,520
Speaker 1: And was it President Reagan who suggested getting rid of

362
00:19:13,600 --> 00:19:15,680
Speaker 1: the twenty second Amendment.

363
00:19:15,840 --> 00:19:19,639
Speaker 6: He did, I'm not sure how seriously. A number of

364
00:19:19,720 --> 00:19:23,439
Speaker 6: presidents get fond of the job and start thinking that

365
00:19:23,480 --> 00:19:26,560
Speaker 6: the twenty second Amendment is a bad idea, but I

366
00:19:26,560 --> 00:19:29,760
Speaker 6: don't think anyone took him very seriously or move very

367
00:19:29,800 --> 00:19:33,280
Speaker 6: far with it, in part because President Reagan was already

368
00:19:33,440 --> 00:19:37,560
Speaker 6: quite a fanst age. Of course, President Trump is much older.

369
00:19:37,600 --> 00:19:40,960
Speaker 1: And Trump would be the oldest president in history by

370
00:19:41,000 --> 00:19:44,560
Speaker 1: the time he leaves office. David. In the last nine months,

371
00:19:44,640 --> 00:19:50,840
Speaker 1: Trump has already done so much to expand his presidential authority,

372
00:19:51,320 --> 00:19:55,199
Speaker 1: and he's used the specter of national emergencies over and

373
00:19:55,280 --> 00:20:00,560
Speaker 1: over again, for example, to impose tariffs, to send troops

374
00:20:00,560 --> 00:20:06,000
Speaker 1: into democratic led cities, to crack down on illegal immigration,

375
00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:10,439
Speaker 1: and on and on. He declared eight national emergencies in

376
00:20:10,480 --> 00:20:15,240
Speaker 1: his first hundred days. Has any other president during peacetime

377
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:17,240
Speaker 1: exercised such.

378
00:20:17,119 --> 00:20:21,960
Speaker 6: Power now, there's nothing remotely close to this. Richard Dixon

379
00:20:22,119 --> 00:20:25,680
Speaker 6: was accused, with some justification of trying to build an

380
00:20:25,680 --> 00:20:29,879
Speaker 6: imperial presidency. But I can't think of anything that mister

381
00:20:29,960 --> 00:20:33,120
Speaker 6: Nixon tried to do that mister Trump hasn't done much

382
00:20:33,160 --> 00:20:35,800
Speaker 6: more of. And I can think of many things that

383
00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:38,879
Speaker 6: mister Trump has done that mister Nixon never dreamed of doing.

384
00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:44,040
Speaker 6: President Lincoln used a great many powers during the Civil War,

385
00:20:44,160 --> 00:20:48,399
Speaker 6: some of which may have exceeded his constitutional authority, not

386
00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:51,480
Speaker 6: on the level of what we're seeing here.

387
00:20:52,040 --> 00:20:55,080
Speaker 1: Of the Supreme Court cases coming up that are going

388
00:20:55,160 --> 00:20:59,600
Speaker 1: to test presidential authority, is the Tariff's case the most

389
00:20:59,640 --> 00:21:03,440
Speaker 1: signif again, or is there another one that's more significant.

390
00:21:03,720 --> 00:21:09,000
Speaker 6: The CAF's case is extremely significant because the Supreme Court

391
00:21:09,520 --> 00:21:16,080
Speaker 6: is filled with self defined textualists, and it's almost impossible

392
00:21:16,680 --> 00:21:20,800
Speaker 6: to find anything like the powers the President is claiming

393
00:21:21,320 --> 00:21:24,080
Speaker 6: in the text of the statute he is citing. So

394
00:21:24,800 --> 00:21:28,560
Speaker 6: the Court is going to have to either abandon any

395
00:21:28,600 --> 00:21:35,200
Speaker 6: pretense of textualism or limit the president's authority very dramatically.

396
00:21:35,240 --> 00:21:35,640
Speaker 5: There.

397
00:21:35,880 --> 00:21:38,960
Speaker 6: The other case that I'm watching very closely is the

398
00:21:38,960 --> 00:21:42,480
Speaker 6: case involving doctor Cook in the Federal Reserve, because the

399
00:21:42,520 --> 00:21:47,120
Speaker 6: Supreme Court basically told President Trump, you can fire anyone

400
00:21:47,200 --> 00:21:50,760
Speaker 6: except a Federal Reserve governor, and he turned around and

401
00:21:50,800 --> 00:21:54,560
Speaker 6: fired a Federal Reserve governor. If the Supreme Court is

402
00:21:54,640 --> 00:21:57,840
Speaker 6: willing to let him do that, then they are effectively

403
00:21:57,920 --> 00:22:01,359
Speaker 6: allowing themselves to be humiliated by the President, and we

404
00:22:01,480 --> 00:22:03,880
Speaker 6: can't really expect much of them going forward.

405
00:22:04,320 --> 00:22:06,399
Speaker 1: What do you think of Trump saying he's going to

406
00:22:06,440 --> 00:22:09,840
Speaker 1: attend the Supreme Court oral arguments on the tariffs.

407
00:22:10,480 --> 00:22:13,600
Speaker 6: I think oral arguments are fascinating and you think for

408
00:22:13,640 --> 00:22:17,960
Speaker 6: a good time. I think with most courts, when a

409
00:22:18,160 --> 00:22:22,800
Speaker 6: party speeaks to pressure them, the court feels considerable pressure

410
00:22:23,160 --> 00:22:27,439
Speaker 6: to demonstrate its independence. If I were a lawyer at

411
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:30,040
Speaker 6: the White House or Justice Department, I would beg him

412
00:22:30,080 --> 00:22:30,800
Speaker 6: not to do that.

413
00:22:31,400 --> 00:22:34,439
Speaker 1: Well, we'll find out next Wednesday if Trump is in

414
00:22:34,520 --> 00:22:38,240
Speaker 1: the audience for the oral arguments or not. So he's

415
00:22:38,280 --> 00:22:41,000
Speaker 1: great to talk to you, David, Thanks so much. That's

416
00:22:41,000 --> 00:22:45,080
Speaker 1: Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next on

417
00:22:45,080 --> 00:22:48,680
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show. The latest salvo in the national

418
00:22:48,760 --> 00:22:52,640
Speaker 1: redistricting fight is coming from New York City. I'm June

419
00:22:52,680 --> 00:22:58,160
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump's push

420
00:22:58,240 --> 00:23:02,320
Speaker 1: for Republicans to redraw US House districts ahead of next

421
00:23:02,440 --> 00:23:08,840
Speaker 1: year's midterm elections has triggered unprecedented mid decade gerrymandering, starting

422
00:23:08,840 --> 00:23:12,920
Speaker 1: with the states of Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio,

423
00:23:13,160 --> 00:23:17,800
Speaker 1: where Republicans have already drawn nine new GOP leaning House seats,

424
00:23:18,119 --> 00:23:22,560
Speaker 1: but Democratic states led by California are fighting back or

425
00:23:22,640 --> 00:23:27,240
Speaker 1: trying to as gerrymandering in many blue states is hampered

426
00:23:27,280 --> 00:23:32,680
Speaker 1: by independent redistricting commissions or bans on mid decade redistricting.

427
00:23:33,040 --> 00:23:36,680
Speaker 1: House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffreys was in Illinois this week

428
00:23:36,880 --> 00:23:41,120
Speaker 1: to try to convince Democrats there to redraw the state's maps.

429
00:23:41,680 --> 00:23:44,359
Speaker 3: Donald Trump and Republicans have decided that they were going

430
00:23:44,440 --> 00:23:47,720
Speaker 3: to try to jerrymander congressional maps all across the country

431
00:23:48,200 --> 00:23:50,720
Speaker 3: as part of their effort to rig the midterm elections

432
00:23:51,800 --> 00:23:56,000
Speaker 3: and deny the American people the ability to decide who

433
00:23:56,040 --> 00:24:00,720
Speaker 3: should hold the gavels in the aftermath of the elections

434
00:24:00,720 --> 00:24:03,040
Speaker 3: that will take place in November of twenty twenty six.

435
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:06,720
Speaker 3: Democrats have made claire that we are going to.

436
00:24:06,720 --> 00:24:11,760
Speaker 1: Respond, and the latest Democratic response comes from New York

437
00:24:11,840 --> 00:24:15,040
Speaker 1: City in a lawsuit by a group of voters claiming

438
00:24:15,080 --> 00:24:19,040
Speaker 1: that the congressional district held by the city's only Republican

439
00:24:19,119 --> 00:24:24,480
Speaker 1: representative is impermissibly drawn to shut out black and Latino voters.

440
00:24:25,320 --> 00:24:28,120
Speaker 1: My guest is Jeffrey Weiss, a professor at New York

441
00:24:28,200 --> 00:24:32,359
Speaker 1: Law School who directs the school's New York Elections, Census

442
00:24:32,400 --> 00:24:37,480
Speaker 1: and Redistricting Institute. Jeff tell us about this lawsuit that's

443
00:24:37,800 --> 00:24:40,960
Speaker 1: challenging New York's eleventh Congressional district.

444
00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:44,760
Speaker 5: Well, we have a new lawsuit filed earlier this week

445
00:24:44,840 --> 00:24:48,160
Speaker 5: by a group of New York voters who are arguing

446
00:24:48,440 --> 00:24:53,959
Speaker 5: that the current congressional district that includes Staten Island and

447
00:24:54,040 --> 00:24:58,720
Speaker 5: parts of Brooklyn teluts pnority voting strength, that the black

448
00:24:58,760 --> 00:25:03,040
Speaker 5: and Hispanic voters power is diminished by the way the

449
00:25:03,080 --> 00:25:05,879
Speaker 5: district is drawn now, and that they would have a

450
00:25:06,040 --> 00:25:09,159
Speaker 5: much more effective voice in the ability to elect a

451
00:25:09,240 --> 00:25:13,879
Speaker 5: preferred candidate if parts of Manhattan were appended to the

452
00:25:13,920 --> 00:25:15,560
Speaker 5: district instead of Brooklyn.

453
00:25:16,160 --> 00:25:17,800
Speaker 1: Is this an unusual lawsuit.

454
00:25:18,200 --> 00:25:22,040
Speaker 5: It's unusual in the sense that's being brought mid decade. Obviously,

455
00:25:22,119 --> 00:25:26,200
Speaker 5: it's got political connotations that it would change the dynamic

456
00:25:26,240 --> 00:25:28,800
Speaker 5: of who's running for re election in New York, that

457
00:25:29,200 --> 00:25:34,199
Speaker 5: current Republican congress Member Nicole Meliotacus would find herself no

458
00:25:34,320 --> 00:25:38,800
Speaker 5: longer in conservative white areas in Brooklyn, but rather parts

459
00:25:38,840 --> 00:25:41,439
Speaker 5: of Lower Manhattan. That it would be a district where

460
00:25:41,760 --> 00:25:44,400
Speaker 5: the Democrats are expected to do a lot better. It's

461
00:25:44,560 --> 00:25:48,240
Speaker 5: also a district where Dan Goldman, who is the incumbent

462
00:25:48,400 --> 00:25:52,960
Speaker 5: now in a district that includes Manhattan and Brooklyn would

463
00:25:52,960 --> 00:25:57,639
Speaker 5: probably find himself in better territory and also probably stave

464
00:25:57,720 --> 00:26:01,040
Speaker 5: off a primary challenge within the Demo Credit Party from

465
00:26:01,119 --> 00:26:05,440
Speaker 5: several Brooklyn elected officials who have indicated their intent to

466
00:26:05,520 --> 00:26:06,880
Speaker 5: run against him in a primary.

467
00:26:07,480 --> 00:26:10,920
Speaker 1: Is this lawsuit different because it's based on the New

468
00:26:11,000 --> 00:26:16,200
Speaker 1: York State Constitution rather than the US Constitution? So well,

469
00:26:16,240 --> 00:26:21,679
Speaker 1: test how protective the state constitution is of minority voting rights.

470
00:26:22,160 --> 00:26:26,280
Speaker 5: Well, this claim is based on the state constitutional protections

471
00:26:26,320 --> 00:26:30,879
Speaker 5: that redistricting maps have to honor minority voting strain that

472
00:26:30,920 --> 00:26:35,439
Speaker 5: you cannot dilute minority voters from their ability to elect

473
00:26:35,480 --> 00:26:40,560
Speaker 5: preferred candidates, and the state constitution uses very similar language

474
00:26:40,600 --> 00:26:43,920
Speaker 5: to the Federal Voting Rights Act, which happens to be

475
00:26:44,080 --> 00:26:48,400
Speaker 5: subject to a challenge now from the Louisiana Congressional redistricting

476
00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:52,280
Speaker 5: before the US Supreme Court. The validity the future of

477
00:26:52,320 --> 00:26:54,960
Speaker 5: the Federal Voting Rights Act was heard in a case

478
00:26:55,040 --> 00:26:58,040
Speaker 5: two weeks ago, and we expect any time from the

479
00:26:58,119 --> 00:27:00,439
Speaker 5: end of this year, but more likely by the end

480
00:27:00,480 --> 00:27:03,080
Speaker 5: of June, for the Supreme Court to hand down a

481
00:27:03,160 --> 00:27:06,399
Speaker 5: decision where most of us think they're going to do

482
00:27:06,480 --> 00:27:09,440
Speaker 5: something to change the dynamic of the Voting Rights Act,

483
00:27:09,440 --> 00:27:13,280
Speaker 5: but not eliminated entirely. But that's reading the tea leaves

484
00:27:13,320 --> 00:27:13,840
Speaker 5: too much.

485
00:27:14,280 --> 00:27:17,919
Speaker 1: Well, your prediction there fits in with the predictions of

486
00:27:18,160 --> 00:27:22,480
Speaker 1: other election law experts. So let's say the Supreme Court

487
00:27:22,720 --> 00:27:26,280
Speaker 1: does change the Voting Rights Act in some way. Will

488
00:27:26,280 --> 00:27:28,280
Speaker 1: that affect the New York Constitution.

489
00:27:29,080 --> 00:27:32,520
Speaker 5: Well, it could affect the state Constitution to the extent

490
00:27:32,640 --> 00:27:35,879
Speaker 5: of what the Supreme Court might limit. Right now, the

491
00:27:36,240 --> 00:27:41,159
Speaker 5: gold standard in vote dilution is Section two of the

492
00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:45,440
Speaker 5: Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court adopted a test

493
00:27:45,600 --> 00:27:48,720
Speaker 5: in the mid nineteen eighties in a North Carolina case

494
00:27:48,800 --> 00:27:53,840
Speaker 5: called Thornberg versus Jingles, where a challenging minority group has

495
00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:56,720
Speaker 5: to demonstrate to a court that, if it claims it

496
00:27:56,760 --> 00:28:00,320
Speaker 5: should have an effective minority district, you've got to have

497
00:28:00,600 --> 00:28:04,480
Speaker 5: fifty percent or more of a district being comprised of

498
00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:08,000
Speaker 5: minority voters. Second, you have to show that the minority

499
00:28:08,080 --> 00:28:12,679
Speaker 5: voters vote cohesively pretty much the same way for similar candidates.

500
00:28:12,880 --> 00:28:16,480
Speaker 5: And third, most importantly, you've got to show that there

501
00:28:16,560 --> 00:28:20,120
Speaker 5: is a high level of racially polarized voting, where white

502
00:28:20,200 --> 00:28:26,280
Speaker 5: voters constantly outvote minority voters' abilities to elect preferred candidates

503
00:28:26,359 --> 00:28:29,400
Speaker 5: in primaries or general elections. So if you meet those

504
00:28:29,440 --> 00:28:34,800
Speaker 5: three prongs, size, cohesiveness, and polarized voting, then you have

505
00:28:35,040 --> 00:28:38,840
Speaker 5: a Voting Rights Act violation situation. And the Supreme Court

506
00:28:38,880 --> 00:28:42,000
Speaker 5: is now being asked whether that test is still a

507
00:28:42,120 --> 00:28:45,240
Speaker 5: cogent one to use now in the twenty first century.

508
00:28:45,680 --> 00:28:50,120
Speaker 1: So, in this case, black and Latino voters constitute nearly

509
00:28:50,200 --> 00:28:55,320
Speaker 1: a quarter of the voting population in that congressional district.

510
00:28:55,640 --> 00:28:56,680
Speaker 1: Is that enough then?

511
00:28:57,000 --> 00:29:00,320
Speaker 5: Well, what the plaintiffs are doing here. They're challenging the

512
00:29:00,720 --> 00:29:03,520
Speaker 5: map based on the state Constitution, but they're trying to

513
00:29:03,560 --> 00:29:06,680
Speaker 5: incoperate the New York State Voting Rights Act, which was

514
00:29:06,760 --> 00:29:10,440
Speaker 5: enacted by the legislature in twenty twenty two. The State

515
00:29:10,520 --> 00:29:14,560
Speaker 5: Voting Rights Act does not apply to congressional districts, but

516
00:29:14,680 --> 00:29:18,560
Speaker 5: it does lay out different kinds of criteria and standards

517
00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:22,560
Speaker 5: that courts should look to when looking at vote dilution

518
00:29:22,720 --> 00:29:27,120
Speaker 5: claims in counties, towns, cities, and villages. So they're saying

519
00:29:27,200 --> 00:29:30,840
Speaker 5: that there is similar preamble language in both the state

520
00:29:30,880 --> 00:29:34,160
Speaker 5: Constitution and the State Voting Rights Act that it makes

521
00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:38,680
Speaker 5: a lot of sense to also incorporate the State statue

522
00:29:38,760 --> 00:29:43,960
Speaker 5: standards into the state constitutional situation, and that will probably

523
00:29:44,080 --> 00:29:46,800
Speaker 5: be one of the first arguments that I think intervening

524
00:29:46,840 --> 00:29:49,760
Speaker 5: Republicans will make to dismiss this case is that the

525
00:29:49,880 --> 00:29:53,360
Speaker 5: State Voting Rights Act doesn't apply. What the plaintiffs are

526
00:29:53,400 --> 00:29:56,720
Speaker 5: doing here is using these state Voting Rights ac criteria that,

527
00:29:57,160 --> 00:29:59,680
Speaker 5: unlike federal law, where you need to have a district

528
00:29:59,760 --> 00:30:03,680
Speaker 5: of a at least fifty percent plus minority voter population,

529
00:30:04,160 --> 00:30:07,480
Speaker 5: the federal Voting Right Stack requires the fifty percent pretty

530
00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:11,000
Speaker 5: much of one racial group, be the black or Hispanic orasion.

531
00:30:11,480 --> 00:30:14,760
Speaker 5: But the state law permits you to aggregate or put

532
00:30:14,800 --> 00:30:19,400
Speaker 5: together smaller communities of what's the black and Hispanic populations

533
00:30:19,760 --> 00:30:23,160
Speaker 5: that you can combine voters, and that, in essence is

534
00:30:23,200 --> 00:30:26,440
Speaker 5: what they're looking to do by adding a part of

535
00:30:26,520 --> 00:30:30,120
Speaker 5: Manhattan to the Staten Island based district.

536
00:30:30,640 --> 00:30:34,680
Speaker 1: Would doing this create one of those odd looking shape

537
00:30:34,760 --> 00:30:36,240
Speaker 1: districts on the map.

538
00:30:36,960 --> 00:30:41,440
Speaker 5: The Hispanic population in Lower Manhattan is not adjacent to

539
00:30:41,560 --> 00:30:44,640
Speaker 5: South Ferry right the foot of Manhattan Island by the

540
00:30:44,760 --> 00:30:48,840
Speaker 5: New York Harbor. It's considerably north there, so you'd have

541
00:30:48,960 --> 00:30:52,240
Speaker 5: to take Staten Island, take the Staten Island Ferry over

542
00:30:52,320 --> 00:30:56,120
Speaker 5: to Manhattan and drive up aways basically up to the

543
00:30:56,120 --> 00:30:59,320
Speaker 5: Brooklyn Bridge, where you have an Hispanic population in the

544
00:30:59,360 --> 00:31:02,520
Speaker 5: lower east side, up to by fourteenth Street. And that

545
00:31:02,640 --> 00:31:06,240
Speaker 5: raises the question of whether race is the predominant factor

546
00:31:06,520 --> 00:31:09,640
Speaker 5: in creating this district, because that runs against what the

547
00:31:09,680 --> 00:31:13,520
Speaker 5: Supreme Court has said about racial garry mandering, which is

548
00:31:13,560 --> 00:31:17,720
Speaker 5: subject to strict scrutiny and has to be narrowly tailored

549
00:31:17,720 --> 00:31:21,320
Speaker 5: to remedy specific problem. So the plaintiffs are going to

550
00:31:21,360 --> 00:31:24,000
Speaker 5: have to demonstrate to the court why a district that

551
00:31:24,120 --> 00:31:28,400
Speaker 5: constitutes Staten Island and parts of Old Manhattan makes sense,

552
00:31:28,640 --> 00:31:29,400
Speaker 5: as if a lot.

553
00:31:29,280 --> 00:31:33,760
Speaker 1: Of these new districts make sense. So Melia Takis said,

554
00:31:34,200 --> 00:31:38,600
Speaker 1: it's a frivolous lawsuit trying to upband our congressional district.

555
00:31:38,960 --> 00:31:41,600
Speaker 1: And she noted that the current map was approved by

556
00:31:41,680 --> 00:31:47,560
Speaker 1: New York's Democratic controlled state legislature and Democratic governor. Does

557
00:31:47,600 --> 00:31:50,480
Speaker 1: she have the advantage here? In other words, is this

558
00:31:50,640 --> 00:31:52,920
Speaker 1: an uphill battle for the Democrats?

559
00:31:53,360 --> 00:31:56,960
Speaker 5: Yeah, the clock is ticking. The State Supreme Court only

560
00:31:57,000 --> 00:32:00,280
Speaker 5: has two months to render a decision, which we take

561
00:32:00,360 --> 00:32:03,840
Speaker 5: us to mid to late December. Petitioning for the twenty

562
00:32:03,920 --> 00:32:07,920
Speaker 5: twenty six election cycle right now gets underway in late February,

563
00:32:08,200 --> 00:32:11,560
Speaker 5: so that leaves very little time for New York's mid

564
00:32:11,640 --> 00:32:15,080
Speaker 5: level appeals court, the Appellate Division, and then finally the

565
00:32:15,200 --> 00:32:18,280
Speaker 5: State Court of Appeals and already to hear this case.

566
00:32:18,480 --> 00:32:21,800
Speaker 5: And you can pretty much be sure that whoever objects

567
00:32:21,800 --> 00:32:26,120
Speaker 5: to this case, and I'm anticipating Republican interveners will strenuously

568
00:32:26,200 --> 00:32:29,120
Speaker 5: try to slow this case down and prevent it from

569
00:32:29,200 --> 00:32:31,400
Speaker 5: impacting the twenty twenty six elections.

570
00:32:31,800 --> 00:32:35,160
Speaker 1: Jeff. There was litigation around the New York maps for years,

571
00:32:35,640 --> 00:32:39,840
Speaker 1: and the Democrats control both houses and the governor's office.

572
00:32:40,200 --> 00:32:42,680
Speaker 1: Now they're suing over their own maps. Tell us how

573
00:32:42,720 --> 00:32:43,360
Speaker 1: we got.

574
00:32:43,120 --> 00:32:46,240
Speaker 5: Here, well, I think by twenty twenty four, after a

575
00:32:46,280 --> 00:32:49,720
Speaker 5: failed process in twenty twenty two where a state commission

576
00:32:49,880 --> 00:32:53,800
Speaker 5: that was proved by the voters twenty fourteen basically imploded

577
00:32:53,920 --> 00:32:56,760
Speaker 5: and subject to a court order, went back to work

578
00:32:56,800 --> 00:33:00,520
Speaker 5: and finished the job by January twenty twenty four, the

579
00:33:00,560 --> 00:33:03,680
Speaker 5: legislature wanted to end this process have a new map

580
00:33:03,680 --> 00:33:07,920
Speaker 5: for twenty twenty four, actually a bipartisan map with Republican support.

581
00:33:08,240 --> 00:33:11,480
Speaker 5: So the map that was agreed to took some strenuous

582
00:33:11,520 --> 00:33:14,680
Speaker 5: effort early last year, and the case that's been brought

583
00:33:14,720 --> 00:33:18,480
Speaker 5: now you can consider somewhat democrats challenging democrats.

584
00:33:18,800 --> 00:33:21,600
Speaker 1: Is there any other effort underway in New York State to.

585
00:33:21,760 --> 00:33:25,600
Speaker 5: Redistrict Well, there is another approach. Earlier in the summer,

586
00:33:25,800 --> 00:33:28,880
Speaker 5: the Senate Deputy majority Leader and a member of the

587
00:33:28,920 --> 00:33:33,600
Speaker 5: Assembly introduced a resolution in the legislature that would permit

588
00:33:34,000 --> 00:33:38,400
Speaker 5: New York to redraw the district lines mid decade, if

589
00:33:38,520 --> 00:33:41,960
Speaker 5: and only after any other state does the same thing

590
00:33:42,360 --> 00:33:46,600
Speaker 5: in mid decades. So since Texas already went ahead and

591
00:33:47,000 --> 00:33:50,800
Speaker 5: mid decade redistricted, this amendment would let New York also

592
00:33:50,920 --> 00:33:54,600
Speaker 5: redistrict mid decade. The state constitution right now prohibits that.

593
00:33:55,080 --> 00:33:57,840
Speaker 5: But the barrier to that is that, since the state

594
00:33:57,920 --> 00:34:02,560
Speaker 5: constitution now currently does are mid decade redistricting, you have

595
00:34:02,640 --> 00:34:05,400
Speaker 5: to change the constitution, and to do that you need

596
00:34:05,440 --> 00:34:09,920
Speaker 5: to have an amendment go through two separately elected legislatures.

597
00:34:09,920 --> 00:34:13,279
Speaker 5: So the plan now is to pass something, whether it's

598
00:34:13,320 --> 00:34:17,120
Speaker 5: the amendment that was introduced earlier this summer or possibly

599
00:34:17,160 --> 00:34:20,600
Speaker 5: a more expansive amendment, but to do that next year,

600
00:34:20,920 --> 00:34:24,120
Speaker 5: then pass it again with the new legislature in twenty

601
00:34:24,200 --> 00:34:27,640
Speaker 5: twenty seven, so that the voters can then approve the

602
00:34:27,760 --> 00:34:31,520
Speaker 5: question and then enable the legislature to redraw a new

603
00:34:31,560 --> 00:34:34,120
Speaker 5: map for twenty twenty eight. This is similar to the

604
00:34:34,160 --> 00:34:37,440
Speaker 5: process that's getting underway this week in Virginia. The New

605
00:34:37,520 --> 00:34:42,720
Speaker 5: York situation is complicated in that we've got politics, personalities,

606
00:34:42,920 --> 00:34:46,759
Speaker 5: competing lawsuits, and the calendar all running against each other

607
00:34:46,760 --> 00:34:47,600
Speaker 5: at the same time.

608
00:34:48,000 --> 00:34:51,959
Speaker 1: With all these states redistricting, what are the maps going

609
00:34:52,000 --> 00:34:56,000
Speaker 1: to look like after the midterms? All Republican House seats

610
00:34:56,080 --> 00:34:59,040
Speaker 1: in one state, all Democratic House seats in another.

611
00:34:59,480 --> 00:35:02,200
Speaker 5: That's why I think this will continue till twenty twenty eight,

612
00:35:02,239 --> 00:35:04,440
Speaker 5: and then we have twenty thirty ahead of us, where

613
00:35:04,800 --> 00:35:07,719
Speaker 5: the White House is already trying to manipulate the way

614
00:35:07,760 --> 00:35:12,400
Speaker 5: the census is conducted to base the numbers on citizens

615
00:35:12,480 --> 00:35:14,920
Speaker 5: and not on the whole number of persons as the

616
00:35:14,960 --> 00:35:18,959
Speaker 5: Constitution requires. So this is a multifaceted battle.

617
00:35:19,120 --> 00:35:24,400
Speaker 1: Multifaceted and seemingly never ending. Thanks for an interesting conversation, Jeff.

618
00:35:24,600 --> 00:35:28,080
Speaker 1: That's Professor Jeffrey Weiss of New York Law School. And

619
00:35:28,120 --> 00:35:30,280
Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

620
00:35:30,600 --> 00:35:33,000
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

621
00:35:33,000 --> 00:35:37,279
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

622
00:35:37,480 --> 00:35:42,520
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast, slash Law,

623
00:35:42,920 --> 00:35:45,520
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

624
00:35:45,560 --> 00:35:49,440
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

625
00:35:49,600 --> 00:35:51,200
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg