WEBVTT - NBA Gambling Scandal, Third Term & House Maps

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.440
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.119 --> 0:00:11.520
<v Speaker 2>I'm not tap of nine names, along with phone numbers

0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:13.840
<v Speaker 2>are some of the wealthiest and most famous people in

0:00:13.880 --> 0:00:16.119
<v Speaker 2>the world. I put the numbers in my phone and

0:00:16.160 --> 0:00:19.080
<v Speaker 2>composed a simple message, There'd be a game tomorrow night.

0:00:19.079 --> 0:00:21.200
<v Speaker 2>At the Cobra launch, there was a ten thousand dollars

0:00:21.200 --> 0:00:24.520
<v Speaker 2>buy in. Two weeks later, around two am, there was

0:00:24.560 --> 0:00:26.520
<v Speaker 2>a pot that was up to one point three million

0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:30.320
<v Speaker 2>pre flop with five players still in the game belonged

0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:32.600
<v Speaker 2>to Player X. People wanted to say they played with

0:00:32.680 --> 0:00:34.600
<v Speaker 2>them the same way they wanted to say they wrote

0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:35.680
<v Speaker 2>on air Force one.

0:00:36.400 --> 0:00:39.080
<v Speaker 3>Do you understand that you were charged in count twenty

0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:41.400
<v Speaker 3>with operating an illegal gambling business.

0:00:41.560 --> 0:00:45.440
<v Speaker 1>The indictment in the NBA gambling scandal sounds a lot

0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:50.159
<v Speaker 1>like the movie Molly's Game High Stakes Poker, where celebrities

0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:55.840
<v Speaker 1>called face cards draw in unsuspecting rich players called phish

0:00:56.120 --> 0:01:01.560
<v Speaker 1>who dropped big money in illegal private games by organized crime.

0:01:01.920 --> 0:01:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Federal prosecutors alleged that Portland Trailblazers head coach Chauncey Billups

0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:11.000
<v Speaker 1>and former player Damon Jones were the face cards who

0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:14.759
<v Speaker 1>were on the so called cheating team, luring big money

0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:19.280
<v Speaker 1>players into rig poker games where a sophisticated technology like

0:01:19.400 --> 0:01:23.839
<v Speaker 1>hidden cameras in poker chip trays, rigged card shuffling machines,

0:01:24.040 --> 0:01:27.880
<v Speaker 1>and even X ray equipment built into the tables helped

0:01:27.880 --> 0:01:31.560
<v Speaker 1>them cheat the fish out of millions of dollars. Almost

0:01:31.600 --> 0:01:35.200
<v Speaker 1>thirty other people are charged in the poker scheme, including

0:01:35.280 --> 0:01:39.440
<v Speaker 1>members of the Banano, Gambino, and Genevici crime families with

0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:45.600
<v Speaker 1>expected colorful nicknames like Flappy the Wrestler, black Tony, Big Bruce,

0:01:45.840 --> 0:01:50.960
<v Speaker 1>and Pooky. My guest is former federal prosecutor Joshua F. Talis,

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:54.520
<v Speaker 1>a partner at Palace Partners. He prosecuted the real life

0:01:54.640 --> 0:01:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Molly Bloom and the others involved in that one hundred

0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:01.320
<v Speaker 1>million dollar gambling ring that was fixtionalized in the movie

0:02:01.400 --> 0:02:04.960
<v Speaker 1>Molly's Game. Josh, the high stakes poker games in this

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:08.200
<v Speaker 1>indictment look a lot like those in Molly's Game and

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:11.240
<v Speaker 1>even use the same terminology.

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:13.919
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, I mean, it's funny. When I was an associate

0:02:13.960 --> 0:02:17.000
<v Speaker 4>at Walktell Lefton, I did an independent investigation for the

0:02:17.120 --> 0:02:20.080
<v Speaker 4>NBA that cum it intid called the Pedowitz Report, which

0:02:20.120 --> 0:02:22.960
<v Speaker 4>is when a referee named Tim Donneghe was indicted in

0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:25.600
<v Speaker 4>the Eastern District for being part of a scheme with

0:02:26.040 --> 0:02:29.760
<v Speaker 4>LCN where the allegations were that he was throwing games

0:02:29.840 --> 0:02:32.760
<v Speaker 4>or betting on games. And then you fast forward to

0:02:32.960 --> 0:02:35.160
<v Speaker 4>Molly's Game, which is one of the first big cases

0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:37.320
<v Speaker 4>I worked on when I was a prosecutor, where they

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:40.760
<v Speaker 4>are running illegal gambling businesses, including poker rooms, and you

0:02:40.760 --> 0:02:42.920
<v Speaker 4>sort of mushed the two together, and then you have

0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:45.079
<v Speaker 4>these new Eastern District indictments.

0:02:44.960 --> 0:02:47.320
<v Speaker 1>And tell us what the indictment says happened with these

0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:48.160
<v Speaker 1>poker games.

0:02:48.680 --> 0:02:51.280
<v Speaker 4>So there are two crimes being charged. The first one

0:02:51.440 --> 0:02:56.040
<v Speaker 4>is operating in illegal gambling business. So it's the business

0:02:56.080 --> 0:02:59.079
<v Speaker 4>aspect of it, which is generally that what's called the how,

0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:02.280
<v Speaker 4>so that people who are sponsoring the game are taking

0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:05.400
<v Speaker 4>a rake or percentage of the pot or the money

0:03:05.400 --> 0:03:08.160
<v Speaker 4>on the table. So that's where the sponsors or the

0:03:08.240 --> 0:03:12.079
<v Speaker 4>people running the game are profiting, regardless of what happens

0:03:12.240 --> 0:03:14.440
<v Speaker 4>with the cards. They're just taking a percentage of the money.

0:03:14.480 --> 0:03:17.160
<v Speaker 4>That's what makes it illegal in New York State at least.

0:03:17.480 --> 0:03:19.680
<v Speaker 1>So you can play in a poker game for money

0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:21.119
<v Speaker 1>and that's not illegal.

0:03:21.280 --> 0:03:23.000
<v Speaker 4>If the two of us ever had the pleasure of

0:03:23.000 --> 0:03:25.320
<v Speaker 4>sitting down to play poker with a couple other people,

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:27.079
<v Speaker 4>that's totally okay.

0:03:27.600 --> 0:03:29.320
<v Speaker 1>But in this case, they're saying that the game was

0:03:29.440 --> 0:03:33.200
<v Speaker 1>rigged so that the so called fish would lose.

0:03:33.720 --> 0:03:33.880
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:03:33.960 --> 0:03:35.600
<v Speaker 4>That's like the added layer of it. It's sort of

0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:38.080
<v Speaker 4>like a fraud piece, which is the game wasn't even fair.

0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:41.840
<v Speaker 4>The card shufflers were rigged. The tables had some camera

0:03:41.920 --> 0:03:44.200
<v Speaker 4>set up that allowed them to see the cards, the

0:03:44.240 --> 0:03:47.000
<v Speaker 4>cards were marked in some ways, people were wearing some

0:03:47.040 --> 0:03:49.760
<v Speaker 4>sort of contact lens or glasses. It wasn't a fair

0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:53.240
<v Speaker 4>game to begin with. In addition to being an illegal business.

0:03:53.160 --> 0:03:57.400
<v Speaker 1>Phillips and Jones were referred to as face cards. In

0:03:57.480 --> 0:04:00.680
<v Speaker 1>the indictment, it said that everyone at the table who

0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:04.000
<v Speaker 1>wasn't a target was in on the scam. They were

0:04:04.080 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 1>charged with wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy, but were

0:04:08.240 --> 0:04:11.800
<v Speaker 1>in charge with operating an illegal gambling business.

0:04:12.080 --> 0:04:14.960
<v Speaker 4>I mean, generally the fraud and money laundering charges are

0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:18.280
<v Speaker 4>more serious than the gambling charges, or at least they

0:04:18.560 --> 0:04:21.240
<v Speaker 4>expose an individual to more jail time potentially.

0:04:21.520 --> 0:04:24.440
<v Speaker 1>Can you tell how strong the case is against them?

0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:26.719
<v Speaker 4>It's always hard to tell when you read an indictment.

0:04:26.760 --> 0:04:29.960
<v Speaker 4>An indictment, it makes it sound like it's obvious. It's

0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:32.839
<v Speaker 4>a great case. I mean, if true. You know, the

0:04:32.880 --> 0:04:34.680
<v Speaker 4>government always thinks it holds the best hand. That's why

0:04:34.720 --> 0:04:36.760
<v Speaker 4>they brought the case. I'm sure there's another side of

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:38.600
<v Speaker 4>the story. Whether it holds up, I don't know.

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:42.720
<v Speaker 1>Chauncey Billups attorney said, to believe that Chauncey Billups did

0:04:42.720 --> 0:04:44.839
<v Speaker 1>with the federal government is accusing him of as to

0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:48.039
<v Speaker 1>believe that he'd risk his Hall of Fame, legacy, his reputation,

0:04:48.160 --> 0:04:48.880
<v Speaker 1>and his freedom.

0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:51.400
<v Speaker 4>Well, that's exactly the point, which is, these guys make

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:53.120
<v Speaker 4>a lot of money from their day job. Why are

0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:55.440
<v Speaker 4>would they risk it all here, which, by the way,

0:04:55.760 --> 0:04:58.000
<v Speaker 4>makes good sense and has so on a jury appeal.

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:01.120
<v Speaker 1>If they actually took part in the game, what kind

0:05:01.160 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 1>of defenses could they raise.

0:05:03.240 --> 0:05:05.520
<v Speaker 4>It's always hard to tell from the diamy exactly what's

0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:08.320
<v Speaker 4>going on, but I think part of it may be. Listen,

0:05:08.400 --> 0:05:10.599
<v Speaker 4>just being there doesn't mean they were part of it, right.

0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:12.840
<v Speaker 4>They may be playing cards, they may be betting, they

0:05:12.839 --> 0:05:15.280
<v Speaker 4>may be doing whatever. That doesn't mean they're in on it,

0:05:15.360 --> 0:05:17.400
<v Speaker 4>which happens all the time, right, they may have been

0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:21.040
<v Speaker 4>participating in what was it otherwise the illegal game, and

0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:23.680
<v Speaker 4>the promoters may have been using that as a way

0:05:23.720 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 4>to draw people in, but that doesn't mean that they

0:05:25.520 --> 0:05:26.800
<v Speaker 4>were in on the whole scheme.

0:05:27.320 --> 0:05:30.799
<v Speaker 1>So the charge is that from April of twenty nineteen

0:05:31.040 --> 0:05:34.680
<v Speaker 1>to the present, the rick poker scheme caused losses to

0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:38.719
<v Speaker 1>the victims of seven million dollars. That doesn't seem a

0:05:38.720 --> 0:05:42.280
<v Speaker 1>lot over six years. And when the director of the

0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:45.960
<v Speaker 1>FBI said the fraud is mind boggling.

0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:47.760
<v Speaker 4>I mean, seven million dollars is still a lot. But

0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:49.240
<v Speaker 4>I agree with you. Given the amount of money that

0:05:49.279 --> 0:05:51.800
<v Speaker 4>flies around in these games, I wouldn't call it mind bottling.

0:05:52.000 --> 0:05:54.360
<v Speaker 4>I mean these high stakes poker games, there can be

0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:56.360
<v Speaker 4>millions of dollars changing hands at a night.

0:05:56.560 --> 0:05:59.760
<v Speaker 1>To establish the money laundering and wire fraud, what do

0:05:59.839 --> 0:06:01.960
<v Speaker 1>the prosecutors have to prove.

0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:04.400
<v Speaker 4>The way to think of frauds is when someone makes

0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:08.160
<v Speaker 4>a misrepresentation to someone to get them to turn over

0:06:08.279 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 4>money and they lose money as a result. You have

0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:13.240
<v Speaker 4>to make a misstatement to someone with the intent that

0:06:13.279 --> 0:06:16.440
<v Speaker 4>you're defrauding them. And then laundering money is either you

0:06:16.520 --> 0:06:20.040
<v Speaker 4>are moving money that was derived from a criminal scheme,

0:06:20.440 --> 0:06:22.440
<v Speaker 4>or you are out of the scheme, or you're moving

0:06:22.480 --> 0:06:24.400
<v Speaker 4>money in to promote the scheme. Those are like the

0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:26.760
<v Speaker 4>basic types of money laundering, but you have to have

0:06:26.839 --> 0:06:29.520
<v Speaker 4>the fraud to prove the money laundering. Generally, like the

0:06:29.560 --> 0:06:31.400
<v Speaker 4>fraud is sort of a prerequisite.

0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:34.719
<v Speaker 1>There are more than thirty defendants here. How do you

0:06:34.800 --> 0:06:38.919
<v Speaker 1>try a case like this? I assume separate trials, But

0:06:39.120 --> 0:06:40.280
<v Speaker 1>how is that decided?

0:06:40.839 --> 0:06:44.000
<v Speaker 4>You can't try thirty people at once. It's not permitted.

0:06:44.120 --> 0:06:47.440
<v Speaker 4>It's also just practically impossible. What generally happens in a

0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:50.120
<v Speaker 4>case like this where this many people charged is those

0:06:50.160 --> 0:06:52.120
<v Speaker 4>that sort of don't have much of a defense or

0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:53.840
<v Speaker 4>they're not charging with the very serious client, they may

0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:57.400
<v Speaker 4>just plead out and it could reduce into a smaller

0:06:57.440 --> 0:06:59.320
<v Speaker 4>group of people if they choose to go to trial.

0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:01.720
<v Speaker 4>That's what happened in the Mally's Game case. We indicted

0:07:01.720 --> 0:07:04.560
<v Speaker 4>I think thirty three people where there were three separate

0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:07.120
<v Speaker 4>racketeering schemes. In the end, we'd never had a trial

0:07:07.120 --> 0:07:08.799
<v Speaker 4>because everyone basically pled guilty.

0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:11.400
<v Speaker 1>And then came the book and the movie. Do you

0:07:11.440 --> 0:07:15.360
<v Speaker 1>think that the FBI pursued this investigation for so long

0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:19.240
<v Speaker 1>because of the alleged mafia connections.

0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:21.680
<v Speaker 4>I mean, when you have the mafia, when you have

0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:24.120
<v Speaker 4>sports betting, when you have the integrity of the game

0:07:24.160 --> 0:07:27.880
<v Speaker 4>at stake, obviously that interests a lot of parties. It's

0:07:27.880 --> 0:07:30.440
<v Speaker 4>not necessarily clear to me that the f I was

0:07:30.480 --> 0:07:32.880
<v Speaker 4>looking at this since twenty nineteen. It may be that

0:07:33.000 --> 0:07:36.520
<v Speaker 4>as the investigation went on they learned about conduct that

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:39.080
<v Speaker 4>proceeded when they started the investigation. So that doesn't mean

0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:40.920
<v Speaker 4>that they couldn't charge it if they had started the

0:07:40.920 --> 0:07:43.680
<v Speaker 4>investigation twenty twenty four and then they learn Actually all

0:07:43.720 --> 0:07:45.560
<v Speaker 4>this is singing on from twenty nineteen.

0:07:45.560 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>And tell us about the second indictment involving sports betting,

0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:52.800
<v Speaker 1>where Miami Heat guard Terry Rosier was charged.

0:07:53.320 --> 0:07:55.080
<v Speaker 4>Sure, I mean, I think that's the one that goes

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:57.360
<v Speaker 4>the integrity of the game. I kind of view that

0:07:57.400 --> 0:08:00.880
<v Speaker 4>as the more serious of the indictments. It is that

0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:03.880
<v Speaker 4>the NBA has a code of conduct, and one of

0:08:03.920 --> 0:08:05.920
<v Speaker 4>the provisions of the code of conduct is that there's

0:08:06.200 --> 0:08:09.280
<v Speaker 4>confidential information or non public information, and in this case,

0:08:09.320 --> 0:08:11.360
<v Speaker 4>it would be which players are injured, who's going to

0:08:11.400 --> 0:08:14.520
<v Speaker 4>sit out, who may not play, and that information was

0:08:14.560 --> 0:08:17.400
<v Speaker 4>being leaked and then used by people to make prop bets,

0:08:17.440 --> 0:08:19.640
<v Speaker 4>and a prop bet is like a proposition bet, where

0:08:19.680 --> 0:08:22.200
<v Speaker 4>you can not necessarily even bet on who's going to

0:08:22.240 --> 0:08:25.040
<v Speaker 4>win the game, but how a particular player will perform.

0:08:25.360 --> 0:08:28.080
<v Speaker 4>And some of the bets were saying that someone would

0:08:28.120 --> 0:08:30.360
<v Speaker 4>play or not player score certain number of points, and

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:32.079
<v Speaker 4>some of them were just bets on the outcome of

0:08:32.120 --> 0:08:34.760
<v Speaker 4>the game. But here it's a kin to insider trading.

0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:36.560
<v Speaker 4>But I don't want to suggest it is insider trading

0:08:36.600 --> 0:08:39.200
<v Speaker 4>because it's a wire fraud case. This isn't securities fraud.

0:08:39.440 --> 0:08:41.680
<v Speaker 4>But the gist is that there was non public information

0:08:41.679 --> 0:08:44.640
<v Speaker 4>about NBA players that was used to bet and that

0:08:44.920 --> 0:08:46.360
<v Speaker 4>violated the code of conduct.

0:08:46.760 --> 0:08:46.960
<v Speaker 5>Well.

0:08:46.960 --> 0:08:50.160
<v Speaker 1>In hyping up the indictment, the director of the FBI

0:08:50.360 --> 0:08:55.520
<v Speaker 1>cash Ptail called it the insider trading saga for the NBA.

0:08:56.120 --> 0:09:00.280
<v Speaker 1>One thing about Rosier, the NBA cleared him after an investigation,

0:09:00.440 --> 0:09:00.920
<v Speaker 1>didn't they.

0:09:01.360 --> 0:09:03.800
<v Speaker 4>I think the issue is the devil's in the details.

0:09:03.880 --> 0:09:07.160
<v Speaker 4>I mean my recollection of Rozier is that he may

0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:09.600
<v Speaker 4>have texted one of the other members of the scheme

0:09:09.679 --> 0:09:11.840
<v Speaker 4>saying that he was going to leave the game early,

0:09:12.320 --> 0:09:15.200
<v Speaker 4>and there was discussion about bets being placed, which doesn't

0:09:15.200 --> 0:09:17.559
<v Speaker 4>necessarily mean he wasn't hurt, But what it means is

0:09:17.600 --> 0:09:20.160
<v Speaker 4>that he was telling someone who wasn't supposed to know

0:09:20.520 --> 0:09:22.240
<v Speaker 4>that he was injured or that he wasn't going to

0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:24.920
<v Speaker 4>play the whole game. The NBA is very good at this,

0:09:25.040 --> 0:09:28.880
<v Speaker 4>at policing betting and the integrity the game. Adam Silvers

0:09:29.040 --> 0:09:32.400
<v Speaker 4>is amazing as the commissioner, and they take this seriously.

0:09:32.679 --> 0:09:34.920
<v Speaker 4>The question is, you know, did they have access to

0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:38.000
<v Speaker 4>everything that the FBI had access to. The NBA doesn't

0:09:38.000 --> 0:09:39.480
<v Speaker 4>have the powers of the FBI.

0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:45.120
<v Speaker 1>These are two separate indictments, separate schemes that involved thirty

0:09:45.120 --> 0:09:48.960
<v Speaker 1>four defendants, only three connected to the NBA. Yet it

0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:53.280
<v Speaker 1>was announced with such fanfare. About twenty people crowded on

0:09:53.320 --> 0:09:57.400
<v Speaker 1>the stage, including the director of the FBI and New

0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:02.440
<v Speaker 1>York City's police commissioner. The gations date back years, and

0:10:02.520 --> 0:10:05.840
<v Speaker 1>yet the announcements were made the opening week of the

0:10:06.000 --> 0:10:08.800
<v Speaker 1>NBA season. This seems like a lot of hype.

0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:11.920
<v Speaker 4>Oh sure, that's definitely what the government's doing. They want

0:10:11.920 --> 0:10:15.560
<v Speaker 4>to amplify the press impact of the indictments and the

0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:21.440
<v Speaker 4>extent that it confuses what the NBA employees players were doing.

0:10:21.920 --> 0:10:24.960
<v Speaker 4>It just makes it more pressworthy. Obviously, it matters if

0:10:25.000 --> 0:10:27.480
<v Speaker 4>someone is actually a playing for the NBA or working

0:10:27.480 --> 0:10:29.719
<v Speaker 4>as a coach at the time they do certain of

0:10:29.760 --> 0:10:32.240
<v Speaker 4>the conduct. That's why it would matter in terms of

0:10:32.360 --> 0:10:35.400
<v Speaker 4>leaking the information. And then to extend that these guys

0:10:35.400 --> 0:10:38.320
<v Speaker 4>were doing something on their own time involving poker, it's

0:10:38.400 --> 0:10:40.640
<v Speaker 4>kind of irrelevant. I don't think this is the type

0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:44.360
<v Speaker 4>of investigation that you needed to be announced on the

0:10:44.400 --> 0:10:47.000
<v Speaker 4>eve of you know, the timing was a little odd

0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:49.400
<v Speaker 4>when the FBI director shows up for an announcement of

0:10:49.440 --> 0:10:52.320
<v Speaker 4>an investigation like this. Again, criminal cases are serious, but

0:10:52.400 --> 0:10:54.880
<v Speaker 4>you know, this isn't like they broke the biggest insider

0:10:54.960 --> 0:10:58.080
<v Speaker 4>trading case ever, or this is a big terrorism case

0:10:58.160 --> 0:11:00.559
<v Speaker 4>where the FBI director may show up. It's a big

0:11:00.640 --> 0:11:02.440
<v Speaker 4>case and that it goes to the integrity of the game,

0:11:02.520 --> 0:11:04.480
<v Speaker 4>but it's kind of just a run of the no

0:11:04.679 --> 0:11:06.800
<v Speaker 4>gambling case in the poker world.

0:11:06.960 --> 0:11:09.600
<v Speaker 1>We'll see how many defendants are left when and if

0:11:09.640 --> 0:11:13.520
<v Speaker 1>this goes to trial. Thanks so much, josh that's former

0:11:13.640 --> 0:11:18.920
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutor Joshua F. Talis of Palace Partners. President Donald

0:11:18.920 --> 0:11:22.880
<v Speaker 1>Trump has once again suggested he'd like to extend his

0:11:23.000 --> 0:11:27.440
<v Speaker 1>stay at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue for a third term.

0:11:27.760 --> 0:11:30.760
<v Speaker 2>I would love to do it. I have my best numbers.

0:11:30.800 --> 0:11:30.959
<v Speaker 6>Ever.

0:11:31.120 --> 0:11:34.240
<v Speaker 1>Trump has flirted with the idea of a third term before,

0:11:34.720 --> 0:11:38.240
<v Speaker 1>for example, in March, just a little over a month

0:11:38.320 --> 0:11:39.520
<v Speaker 1>into his second term.

0:11:39.840 --> 0:11:41.640
<v Speaker 5>They do say there's a way you can do it,

0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:42.800
<v Speaker 5>but I don't know about that.

0:11:43.760 --> 0:11:47.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm just telling you I have had more people say

0:11:47.200 --> 0:11:51.520
<v Speaker 1>please run again, but this time. There is also those

0:11:51.720 --> 0:11:55.440
<v Speaker 1>Trump twenty twenty eight red baseball caps that set on

0:11:55.559 --> 0:11:59.040
<v Speaker 1>his desk during a meeting with congressional leaders this month.

0:11:59.280 --> 0:12:03.160
<v Speaker 1>There's the thing tank called Third Term Project. And there's

0:12:03.200 --> 0:12:07.439
<v Speaker 1>even a Justice Department lawyer in six circuit oral arguments

0:12:07.760 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 1>referring to a new administration quote three years in the

0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:15.480
<v Speaker 1>future or seven years in the future. And of course

0:12:15.800 --> 0:12:20.559
<v Speaker 1>Trump has not explicitly ruled out a third term. Joining

0:12:20.559 --> 0:12:24.000
<v Speaker 1>me is constitutional law expert David super, a professor at

0:12:24.080 --> 0:12:27.840
<v Speaker 1>Georgetown Law. So, David, I reread the twenty second Amendment.

0:12:28.360 --> 0:12:31.920
<v Speaker 1>It plainly states that no one can be elected president

0:12:31.960 --> 0:12:34.720
<v Speaker 1>more than twice. I mean, how plain is it? How

0:12:34.800 --> 0:12:36.000
<v Speaker 1>clear is it?

0:12:36.000 --> 0:12:39.360
<v Speaker 6>It could not be clearer, and it could not be plainer.

0:12:39.800 --> 0:12:43.479
<v Speaker 6>It's short it's sweet. It's to the point not allowing

0:12:43.960 --> 0:12:46.040
<v Speaker 6>anyone to run for a third term.

0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:51.120
<v Speaker 1>Now, there are different kinds of scenarios out there that

0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:54.760
<v Speaker 1>Trump allies have put forward. One of the arguments is

0:12:54.760 --> 0:12:58.240
<v Speaker 1>that the twenty second Amendment only explicitly bars a person

0:12:58.280 --> 0:13:02.400
<v Speaker 1>from being elected more than two presidential terms, but doesn't

0:13:02.440 --> 0:13:06.760
<v Speaker 1>say anything about serving a third term. So the theory

0:13:07.040 --> 0:13:11.200
<v Speaker 1>is that Trump could run as vice president and then

0:13:11.360 --> 0:13:15.320
<v Speaker 1>have whatever lucky candidate for president it is resign and

0:13:15.360 --> 0:13:17.280
<v Speaker 1>then Trump takes the White House.

0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:20.880
<v Speaker 6>That doesn't work either, because of the twelfth Amendment, which

0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:25.439
<v Speaker 6>says that any candidate for vice president must be constitutionally

0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:29.640
<v Speaker 6>qualified to serve as president, which mister Trump isn't.

0:13:30.200 --> 0:13:34.600
<v Speaker 1>In fact, Trump himself sort of dismissed that. He said,

0:13:34.600 --> 0:13:37.240
<v Speaker 1>I'd be allowed to do that, but I think people

0:13:37.280 --> 0:13:42.040
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't like that. It's too cute. Also, didn't Vladimir Putin

0:13:42.120 --> 0:13:44.679
<v Speaker 1>sort of do something like that years ago where he

0:13:45.400 --> 0:13:48.240
<v Speaker 1>put a deputy in to serve in his place for

0:13:48.480 --> 0:13:50.120
<v Speaker 1>one term and then he took over.

0:13:51.000 --> 0:13:54.679
<v Speaker 6>It's disappointing that this country is taking its political lessons

0:13:54.720 --> 0:13:58.800
<v Speaker 6>from Russia these days, But yes, what Putin did was

0:13:59.280 --> 0:14:03.760
<v Speaker 6>stepped down from being president for one term and let

0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:09.880
<v Speaker 6>a trusted ally of his serve as a figurehead president

0:14:10.000 --> 0:14:13.880
<v Speaker 6>while Putin ran things as Prime minister, then came back

0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:17.720
<v Speaker 6>and became president again. A few problems with that. One

0:14:17.880 --> 0:14:21.560
<v Speaker 6>is it's too cute. Two is we don't have prime

0:14:21.560 --> 0:14:26.280
<v Speaker 6>ministerships here, so there's no obvious alternate role for Trump

0:14:26.360 --> 0:14:29.520
<v Speaker 6>to go into to serve it. Three, Russia's limit is

0:14:29.560 --> 0:14:33.280
<v Speaker 6>on consecutive terms. The twenty second Amendment is a limit

0:14:33.360 --> 0:14:36.360
<v Speaker 6>on total terms. And four, why are we taking our

0:14:36.400 --> 0:14:37.960
<v Speaker 6>political lessons from Russia?

0:14:38.000 --> 0:14:41.040
<v Speaker 1>And just explain to get rid of the twenty second Amendment?

0:14:41.040 --> 0:14:41.800
<v Speaker 1>What would it take?

0:14:42.160 --> 0:14:45.280
<v Speaker 6>Repealing the twenty second Amendment would take a two thirds

0:14:45.360 --> 0:14:50.920
<v Speaker 6>vote from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three

0:14:51.000 --> 0:14:54.160
<v Speaker 6>quarters of the states, which is thirty eight states. So

0:14:54.320 --> 0:15:00.560
<v Speaker 6>you would need ratification from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts. Somehow,

0:15:00.600 --> 0:15:02.400
<v Speaker 6>I don't think those states are going to be working

0:15:02.520 --> 0:15:04.840
<v Speaker 6>very hard to get mister Trump a third term.

0:15:05.240 --> 0:15:09.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, even how Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed repealing the twenty

0:15:09.720 --> 0:15:10.560
<v Speaker 1>second Amendment.

0:15:10.960 --> 0:15:13.160
<v Speaker 6>I don't see a way to amend the constitution because

0:15:13.160 --> 0:15:14.760
<v Speaker 6>it takes about ten years to do that.

0:15:15.160 --> 0:15:18.680
<v Speaker 1>Speaking about the Speaker of the House. Yet another theory

0:15:19.040 --> 0:15:21.680
<v Speaker 1>is that Trump could become the Speaker of the House,

0:15:21.920 --> 0:15:25.440
<v Speaker 1>which apparently posits that it's easy to be elected Speaker

0:15:25.440 --> 0:15:28.200
<v Speaker 1>of the House, and then if both the president and

0:15:28.360 --> 0:15:32.760
<v Speaker 1>vice president, who would have to be Trump Ally's, resign

0:15:33.280 --> 0:15:34.200
<v Speaker 1>he could take over.

0:15:34.720 --> 0:15:34.920
<v Speaker 5>Yeah.

0:15:34.960 --> 0:15:37.240
<v Speaker 6>I keep sending in my resume to be Speaker of

0:15:37.240 --> 0:15:39.720
<v Speaker 6>the House and nothing ever happens. I'm not sure what

0:15:39.760 --> 0:15:44.880
<v Speaker 6>the problem is in eery that could be said to

0:15:44.920 --> 0:15:49.240
<v Speaker 6>be valid. The Speaker of the House is elected, and

0:15:49.880 --> 0:15:53.200
<v Speaker 6>if the purpose of electing mister Trumps speaker is to

0:15:53.240 --> 0:15:56.240
<v Speaker 6>make him president, I think there's an argument that that

0:15:56.320 --> 0:16:01.080
<v Speaker 6>would also violate the twenty second Amendment of the Constitution,

0:16:01.160 --> 0:16:04.280
<v Speaker 6>But it certainly puts a thumb in the eye of

0:16:04.680 --> 0:16:09.120
<v Speaker 6>popular intent. We had had a four term president, President Roosevelt.

0:16:09.680 --> 0:16:13.640
<v Speaker 6>The country across all political lines concluded that that was

0:16:13.680 --> 0:16:16.840
<v Speaker 6>too much power for any individual to have, that it

0:16:17.040 --> 0:16:21.640
<v Speaker 6>resembled authoritarian countries too much, and we decided we didn't

0:16:21.680 --> 0:16:25.040
<v Speaker 6>want to do that anymore. And this is yet again

0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:31.240
<v Speaker 6>mister Trump and his allies disregarding the people's choice through

0:16:31.240 --> 0:16:32.080
<v Speaker 6>their constitution.

0:16:32.640 --> 0:16:35.360
<v Speaker 1>Have you heard any other theories of how he could

0:16:35.400 --> 0:16:37.080
<v Speaker 1>become president for a third.

0:16:36.880 --> 0:16:39.800
<v Speaker 6>Term and then the other one. I guess it's very straightforward.

0:16:39.960 --> 0:16:42.800
<v Speaker 6>Just do it and see if anyone stops you. And

0:16:43.680 --> 0:16:49.040
<v Speaker 6>this Supreme Court has been willing to avoid a number

0:16:49.280 --> 0:16:57.640
<v Speaker 6>of constitutional violations and most obviously declining to consider or

0:16:57.680 --> 0:17:02.280
<v Speaker 6>allow anyone else to consider whether mister Trump was disqualified

0:17:02.480 --> 0:17:06.720
<v Speaker 6>under the insurrection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. He may

0:17:06.920 --> 0:17:09.600
<v Speaker 6>just take the position that he can run, he can

0:17:09.680 --> 0:17:12.240
<v Speaker 6>do it, and he doesn't think anyone will stop him.

0:17:12.440 --> 0:17:15.760
<v Speaker 1>Is this speculation hopeful in a way because Trump is

0:17:15.800 --> 0:17:20.280
<v Speaker 1>still talking about legal ways to stay in office and

0:17:20.359 --> 0:17:23.160
<v Speaker 1>not suggesting that he would just refuse to leave.

0:17:23.680 --> 0:17:28.280
<v Speaker 6>Well, there has been talk in the past that he

0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:33.080
<v Speaker 6>might do something like what you're suggesting. He made some

0:17:33.160 --> 0:17:38.480
<v Speaker 6>comments about that in twenty twenty, which I hope were

0:17:38.520 --> 0:17:41.800
<v Speaker 6>not taken very seriously. Certainly didn't deserve to be taken

0:17:41.960 --> 0:17:46.320
<v Speaker 6>very seriously. But some of his supporters have suggested that

0:17:46.440 --> 0:17:49.199
<v Speaker 6>he could somehow declare some kind of a state of

0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:54.840
<v Speaker 6>emergency someone called it a sovereignty crisis and suspend elections

0:17:54.880 --> 0:17:59.120
<v Speaker 6>on that basis. There's no authority whatsoever in the constitution

0:17:59.359 --> 0:18:01.640
<v Speaker 6>for that. If he were to do that, he would

0:18:01.680 --> 0:18:04.480
<v Speaker 6>effectively be repudiating the Constitution.

0:18:05.200 --> 0:18:07.680
<v Speaker 1>And you think that the Supreme Court might not even

0:18:07.760 --> 0:18:11.760
<v Speaker 1>step in if he decides to run for a third term.

0:18:12.080 --> 0:18:15.359
<v Speaker 6>No, I think they would. I think this Court is

0:18:16.040 --> 0:18:20.160
<v Speaker 6>hoping against hope that he won't force their hand by

0:18:20.200 --> 0:18:25.560
<v Speaker 6>doing something completely delegitimizing. But I don't believe that there

0:18:25.560 --> 0:18:29.520
<v Speaker 6>are five justices who have so totally lost faith in

0:18:29.560 --> 0:18:31.159
<v Speaker 6>the country that they would put up with that.

0:18:31.520 --> 0:18:34.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it could be he's trolling the Democrats, he's

0:18:34.920 --> 0:18:38.040
<v Speaker 1>entertaining his base, or he doesn't want to look like

0:18:38.080 --> 0:18:38.760
<v Speaker 1>a lame duck.

0:18:39.119 --> 0:18:42.600
<v Speaker 6>Yes, I think so. Presidents have often had a lot

0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:47.600
<v Speaker 6>of trouble in their second terms in office. President Reagan

0:18:48.040 --> 0:18:52.560
<v Speaker 6>was unstoppable in his first term and stumbled quite badly

0:18:52.640 --> 0:18:57.080
<v Speaker 6>in his second. President Bush was very strong in his

0:18:57.160 --> 0:19:01.560
<v Speaker 6>first and got the Great Recession and Hurricane Katrina in

0:19:01.640 --> 0:19:05.120
<v Speaker 6>the second. President Obama lost all kinds of esteem by

0:19:05.160 --> 0:19:08.080
<v Speaker 6>his second term. And I think President Trump doesn't want

0:19:08.119 --> 0:19:09.680
<v Speaker 6>to follow that example.

0:19:10.240 --> 0:19:13.520
<v Speaker 1>And was it President Reagan who suggested getting rid of

0:19:13.600 --> 0:19:15.680
<v Speaker 1>the twenty second Amendment.

0:19:15.840 --> 0:19:19.639
<v Speaker 6>He did, I'm not sure how seriously. A number of

0:19:19.720 --> 0:19:23.439
<v Speaker 6>presidents get fond of the job and start thinking that

0:19:23.480 --> 0:19:26.560
<v Speaker 6>the twenty second Amendment is a bad idea, but I

0:19:26.560 --> 0:19:29.760
<v Speaker 6>don't think anyone took him very seriously or move very

0:19:29.800 --> 0:19:33.280
<v Speaker 6>far with it, in part because President Reagan was already

0:19:33.440 --> 0:19:37.560
<v Speaker 6>quite a fanst age. Of course, President Trump is much older.

0:19:37.600 --> 0:19:40.960
<v Speaker 1>And Trump would be the oldest president in history by

0:19:41.000 --> 0:19:44.560
<v Speaker 1>the time he leaves office. David. In the last nine months,

0:19:44.640 --> 0:19:50.840
<v Speaker 1>Trump has already done so much to expand his presidential authority,

0:19:51.320 --> 0:19:55.199
<v Speaker 1>and he's used the specter of national emergencies over and

0:19:55.280 --> 0:20:00.560
<v Speaker 1>over again, for example, to impose tariffs, to send troops

0:20:00.560 --> 0:20:06.000
<v Speaker 1>into democratic led cities, to crack down on illegal immigration,

0:20:06.520 --> 0:20:10.439
<v Speaker 1>and on and on. He declared eight national emergencies in

0:20:10.480 --> 0:20:15.240
<v Speaker 1>his first hundred days. Has any other president during peacetime

0:20:16.000 --> 0:20:17.240
<v Speaker 1>exercised such.

0:20:17.119 --> 0:20:21.960
<v Speaker 6>Power now, there's nothing remotely close to this. Richard Dixon

0:20:22.119 --> 0:20:25.680
<v Speaker 6>was accused, with some justification of trying to build an

0:20:25.680 --> 0:20:29.879
<v Speaker 6>imperial presidency. But I can't think of anything that mister

0:20:29.960 --> 0:20:33.120
<v Speaker 6>Nixon tried to do that mister Trump hasn't done much

0:20:33.160 --> 0:20:35.800
<v Speaker 6>more of. And I can think of many things that

0:20:35.840 --> 0:20:38.879
<v Speaker 6>mister Trump has done that mister Nixon never dreamed of doing.

0:20:39.200 --> 0:20:44.040
<v Speaker 6>President Lincoln used a great many powers during the Civil War,

0:20:44.160 --> 0:20:48.399
<v Speaker 6>some of which may have exceeded his constitutional authority, not

0:20:49.160 --> 0:20:51.480
<v Speaker 6>on the level of what we're seeing here.

0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:55.080
<v Speaker 1>Of the Supreme Court cases coming up that are going

0:20:55.160 --> 0:20:59.600
<v Speaker 1>to test presidential authority, is the Tariff's case the most

0:20:59.640 --> 0:21:03.440
<v Speaker 1>signif again, or is there another one that's more significant.

0:21:03.720 --> 0:21:09.000
<v Speaker 6>The CAF's case is extremely significant because the Supreme Court

0:21:09.520 --> 0:21:16.080
<v Speaker 6>is filled with self defined textualists, and it's almost impossible

0:21:16.680 --> 0:21:20.800
<v Speaker 6>to find anything like the powers the President is claiming

0:21:21.320 --> 0:21:24.080
<v Speaker 6>in the text of the statute he is citing. So

0:21:24.800 --> 0:21:28.560
<v Speaker 6>the Court is going to have to either abandon any

0:21:28.600 --> 0:21:35.200
<v Speaker 6>pretense of textualism or limit the president's authority very dramatically.

0:21:35.240 --> 0:21:35.640
<v Speaker 5>There.

0:21:35.880 --> 0:21:38.960
<v Speaker 6>The other case that I'm watching very closely is the

0:21:38.960 --> 0:21:42.480
<v Speaker 6>case involving doctor Cook in the Federal Reserve, because the

0:21:42.520 --> 0:21:47.120
<v Speaker 6>Supreme Court basically told President Trump, you can fire anyone

0:21:47.200 --> 0:21:50.760
<v Speaker 6>except a Federal Reserve governor, and he turned around and

0:21:50.800 --> 0:21:54.560
<v Speaker 6>fired a Federal Reserve governor. If the Supreme Court is

0:21:54.640 --> 0:21:57.840
<v Speaker 6>willing to let him do that, then they are effectively

0:21:57.920 --> 0:22:01.359
<v Speaker 6>allowing themselves to be humiliated by the President, and we

0:22:01.480 --> 0:22:03.880
<v Speaker 6>can't really expect much of them going forward.

0:22:04.320 --> 0:22:06.399
<v Speaker 1>What do you think of Trump saying he's going to

0:22:06.440 --> 0:22:09.840
<v Speaker 1>attend the Supreme Court oral arguments on the tariffs.

0:22:10.480 --> 0:22:13.600
<v Speaker 6>I think oral arguments are fascinating and you think for

0:22:13.640 --> 0:22:17.960
<v Speaker 6>a good time. I think with most courts, when a

0:22:18.160 --> 0:22:22.800
<v Speaker 6>party speeaks to pressure them, the court feels considerable pressure

0:22:23.160 --> 0:22:27.439
<v Speaker 6>to demonstrate its independence. If I were a lawyer at

0:22:27.440 --> 0:22:30.040
<v Speaker 6>the White House or Justice Department, I would beg him

0:22:30.080 --> 0:22:30.800
<v Speaker 6>not to do that.

0:22:31.400 --> 0:22:34.439
<v Speaker 1>Well, we'll find out next Wednesday if Trump is in

0:22:34.520 --> 0:22:38.240
<v Speaker 1>the audience for the oral arguments or not. So he's

0:22:38.280 --> 0:22:41.000
<v Speaker 1>great to talk to you, David, Thanks so much. That's

0:22:41.000 --> 0:22:45.080
<v Speaker 1>Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next on

0:22:45.080 --> 0:22:48.680
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law Show. The latest salvo in the national

0:22:48.760 --> 0:22:52.640
<v Speaker 1>redistricting fight is coming from New York City. I'm June

0:22:52.680 --> 0:22:58.160
<v Speaker 1>Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump's push

0:22:58.240 --> 0:23:02.320
<v Speaker 1>for Republicans to redraw US House districts ahead of next

0:23:02.440 --> 0:23:08.840
<v Speaker 1>year's midterm elections has triggered unprecedented mid decade gerrymandering, starting

0:23:08.840 --> 0:23:12.920
<v Speaker 1>with the states of Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio,

0:23:13.160 --> 0:23:17.800
<v Speaker 1>where Republicans have already drawn nine new GOP leaning House seats,

0:23:18.119 --> 0:23:22.560
<v Speaker 1>but Democratic states led by California are fighting back or

0:23:22.640 --> 0:23:27.240
<v Speaker 1>trying to as gerrymandering in many blue states is hampered

0:23:27.280 --> 0:23:32.680
<v Speaker 1>by independent redistricting commissions or bans on mid decade redistricting.

0:23:33.040 --> 0:23:36.680
<v Speaker 1>House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffreys was in Illinois this week

0:23:36.880 --> 0:23:41.120
<v Speaker 1>to try to convince Democrats there to redraw the state's maps.

0:23:41.680 --> 0:23:44.359
<v Speaker 3>Donald Trump and Republicans have decided that they were going

0:23:44.440 --> 0:23:47.720
<v Speaker 3>to try to jerrymander congressional maps all across the country

0:23:48.200 --> 0:23:50.720
<v Speaker 3>as part of their effort to rig the midterm elections

0:23:51.800 --> 0:23:56.000
<v Speaker 3>and deny the American people the ability to decide who

0:23:56.040 --> 0:24:00.720
<v Speaker 3>should hold the gavels in the aftermath of the elections

0:24:00.720 --> 0:24:03.040
<v Speaker 3>that will take place in November of twenty twenty six.

0:24:03.960 --> 0:24:06.720
<v Speaker 3>Democrats have made claire that we are going to.

0:24:06.720 --> 0:24:11.760
<v Speaker 1>Respond, and the latest Democratic response comes from New York

0:24:11.840 --> 0:24:15.040
<v Speaker 1>City in a lawsuit by a group of voters claiming

0:24:15.080 --> 0:24:19.040
<v Speaker 1>that the congressional district held by the city's only Republican

0:24:19.119 --> 0:24:24.480
<v Speaker 1>representative is impermissibly drawn to shut out black and Latino voters.

0:24:25.320 --> 0:24:28.120
<v Speaker 1>My guest is Jeffrey Weiss, a professor at New York

0:24:28.200 --> 0:24:32.359
<v Speaker 1>Law School who directs the school's New York Elections, Census

0:24:32.400 --> 0:24:37.480
<v Speaker 1>and Redistricting Institute. Jeff tell us about this lawsuit that's

0:24:37.800 --> 0:24:40.960
<v Speaker 1>challenging New York's eleventh Congressional district.

0:24:41.400 --> 0:24:44.760
<v Speaker 5>Well, we have a new lawsuit filed earlier this week

0:24:44.840 --> 0:24:48.160
<v Speaker 5>by a group of New York voters who are arguing

0:24:48.440 --> 0:24:53.959
<v Speaker 5>that the current congressional district that includes Staten Island and

0:24:54.040 --> 0:24:58.720
<v Speaker 5>parts of Brooklyn teluts pnority voting strength, that the black

0:24:58.760 --> 0:25:03.040
<v Speaker 5>and Hispanic voters power is diminished by the way the

0:25:03.080 --> 0:25:05.879
<v Speaker 5>district is drawn now, and that they would have a

0:25:06.040 --> 0:25:09.159
<v Speaker 5>much more effective voice in the ability to elect a

0:25:09.240 --> 0:25:13.879
<v Speaker 5>preferred candidate if parts of Manhattan were appended to the

0:25:13.920 --> 0:25:15.560
<v Speaker 5>district instead of Brooklyn.

0:25:16.160 --> 0:25:17.800
<v Speaker 1>Is this an unusual lawsuit.

0:25:18.200 --> 0:25:22.040
<v Speaker 5>It's unusual in the sense that's being brought mid decade. Obviously,

0:25:22.119 --> 0:25:26.200
<v Speaker 5>it's got political connotations that it would change the dynamic

0:25:26.240 --> 0:25:28.800
<v Speaker 5>of who's running for re election in New York, that

0:25:29.200 --> 0:25:34.199
<v Speaker 5>current Republican congress Member Nicole Meliotacus would find herself no

0:25:34.320 --> 0:25:38.800
<v Speaker 5>longer in conservative white areas in Brooklyn, but rather parts

0:25:38.840 --> 0:25:41.439
<v Speaker 5>of Lower Manhattan. That it would be a district where

0:25:41.760 --> 0:25:44.400
<v Speaker 5>the Democrats are expected to do a lot better. It's

0:25:44.560 --> 0:25:48.240
<v Speaker 5>also a district where Dan Goldman, who is the incumbent

0:25:48.400 --> 0:25:52.960
<v Speaker 5>now in a district that includes Manhattan and Brooklyn would

0:25:52.960 --> 0:25:57.639
<v Speaker 5>probably find himself in better territory and also probably stave

0:25:57.720 --> 0:26:01.040
<v Speaker 5>off a primary challenge within the Demo Credit Party from

0:26:01.119 --> 0:26:05.440
<v Speaker 5>several Brooklyn elected officials who have indicated their intent to

0:26:05.520 --> 0:26:06.880
<v Speaker 5>run against him in a primary.

0:26:07.480 --> 0:26:10.920
<v Speaker 1>Is this lawsuit different because it's based on the New

0:26:11.000 --> 0:26:16.200
<v Speaker 1>York State Constitution rather than the US Constitution? So well,

0:26:16.240 --> 0:26:21.679
<v Speaker 1>test how protective the state constitution is of minority voting rights.

0:26:22.160 --> 0:26:26.280
<v Speaker 5>Well, this claim is based on the state constitutional protections

0:26:26.320 --> 0:26:30.879
<v Speaker 5>that redistricting maps have to honor minority voting strain that

0:26:30.920 --> 0:26:35.439
<v Speaker 5>you cannot dilute minority voters from their ability to elect

0:26:35.480 --> 0:26:40.560
<v Speaker 5>preferred candidates, and the state constitution uses very similar language

0:26:40.600 --> 0:26:43.920
<v Speaker 5>to the Federal Voting Rights Act, which happens to be

0:26:44.080 --> 0:26:48.400
<v Speaker 5>subject to a challenge now from the Louisiana Congressional redistricting

0:26:48.560 --> 0:26:52.280
<v Speaker 5>before the US Supreme Court. The validity the future of

0:26:52.320 --> 0:26:54.960
<v Speaker 5>the Federal Voting Rights Act was heard in a case

0:26:55.040 --> 0:26:58.040
<v Speaker 5>two weeks ago, and we expect any time from the

0:26:58.119 --> 0:27:00.439
<v Speaker 5>end of this year, but more likely by the end

0:27:00.480 --> 0:27:03.080
<v Speaker 5>of June, for the Supreme Court to hand down a

0:27:03.160 --> 0:27:06.399
<v Speaker 5>decision where most of us think they're going to do

0:27:06.480 --> 0:27:09.440
<v Speaker 5>something to change the dynamic of the Voting Rights Act,

0:27:09.440 --> 0:27:13.280
<v Speaker 5>but not eliminated entirely. But that's reading the tea leaves

0:27:13.320 --> 0:27:13.840
<v Speaker 5>too much.

0:27:14.280 --> 0:27:17.919
<v Speaker 1>Well, your prediction there fits in with the predictions of

0:27:18.160 --> 0:27:22.480
<v Speaker 1>other election law experts. So let's say the Supreme Court

0:27:22.720 --> 0:27:26.280
<v Speaker 1>does change the Voting Rights Act in some way. Will

0:27:26.280 --> 0:27:28.280
<v Speaker 1>that affect the New York Constitution.

0:27:29.080 --> 0:27:32.520
<v Speaker 5>Well, it could affect the state Constitution to the extent

0:27:32.640 --> 0:27:35.879
<v Speaker 5>of what the Supreme Court might limit. Right now, the

0:27:36.240 --> 0:27:41.159
<v Speaker 5>gold standard in vote dilution is Section two of the

0:27:41.240 --> 0:27:45.440
<v Speaker 5>Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court adopted a test

0:27:45.600 --> 0:27:48.720
<v Speaker 5>in the mid nineteen eighties in a North Carolina case

0:27:48.800 --> 0:27:53.840
<v Speaker 5>called Thornberg versus Jingles, where a challenging minority group has

0:27:53.880 --> 0:27:56.720
<v Speaker 5>to demonstrate to a court that, if it claims it

0:27:56.760 --> 0:28:00.320
<v Speaker 5>should have an effective minority district, you've got to have

0:28:00.600 --> 0:28:04.480
<v Speaker 5>fifty percent or more of a district being comprised of

0:28:04.680 --> 0:28:08.000
<v Speaker 5>minority voters. Second, you have to show that the minority

0:28:08.080 --> 0:28:12.679
<v Speaker 5>voters vote cohesively pretty much the same way for similar candidates.

0:28:12.880 --> 0:28:16.480
<v Speaker 5>And third, most importantly, you've got to show that there

0:28:16.560 --> 0:28:20.120
<v Speaker 5>is a high level of racially polarized voting, where white

0:28:20.200 --> 0:28:26.280
<v Speaker 5>voters constantly outvote minority voters' abilities to elect preferred candidates

0:28:26.359 --> 0:28:29.400
<v Speaker 5>in primaries or general elections. So if you meet those

0:28:29.440 --> 0:28:34.800
<v Speaker 5>three prongs, size, cohesiveness, and polarized voting, then you have

0:28:35.040 --> 0:28:38.840
<v Speaker 5>a Voting Rights Act violation situation. And the Supreme Court

0:28:38.880 --> 0:28:42.000
<v Speaker 5>is now being asked whether that test is still a

0:28:42.120 --> 0:28:45.240
<v Speaker 5>cogent one to use now in the twenty first century.

0:28:45.680 --> 0:28:50.120
<v Speaker 1>So, in this case, black and Latino voters constitute nearly

0:28:50.200 --> 0:28:55.320
<v Speaker 1>a quarter of the voting population in that congressional district.

0:28:55.640 --> 0:28:56.680
<v Speaker 1>Is that enough then?

0:28:57.000 --> 0:29:00.320
<v Speaker 5>Well, what the plaintiffs are doing here. They're challenging the

0:29:00.720 --> 0:29:03.520
<v Speaker 5>map based on the state Constitution, but they're trying to

0:29:03.560 --> 0:29:06.680
<v Speaker 5>incoperate the New York State Voting Rights Act, which was

0:29:06.760 --> 0:29:10.440
<v Speaker 5>enacted by the legislature in twenty twenty two. The State

0:29:10.520 --> 0:29:14.560
<v Speaker 5>Voting Rights Act does not apply to congressional districts, but

0:29:14.680 --> 0:29:18.560
<v Speaker 5>it does lay out different kinds of criteria and standards

0:29:18.600 --> 0:29:22.560
<v Speaker 5>that courts should look to when looking at vote dilution

0:29:22.720 --> 0:29:27.120
<v Speaker 5>claims in counties, towns, cities, and villages. So they're saying

0:29:27.200 --> 0:29:30.840
<v Speaker 5>that there is similar preamble language in both the state

0:29:30.880 --> 0:29:34.160
<v Speaker 5>Constitution and the State Voting Rights Act that it makes

0:29:34.200 --> 0:29:38.680
<v Speaker 5>a lot of sense to also incorporate the State statue

0:29:38.760 --> 0:29:43.960
<v Speaker 5>standards into the state constitutional situation, and that will probably

0:29:44.080 --> 0:29:46.800
<v Speaker 5>be one of the first arguments that I think intervening

0:29:46.840 --> 0:29:49.760
<v Speaker 5>Republicans will make to dismiss this case is that the

0:29:49.880 --> 0:29:53.360
<v Speaker 5>State Voting Rights Act doesn't apply. What the plaintiffs are

0:29:53.400 --> 0:29:56.720
<v Speaker 5>doing here is using these state Voting Rights ac criteria that,

0:29:57.160 --> 0:29:59.680
<v Speaker 5>unlike federal law, where you need to have a district

0:29:59.760 --> 0:30:03.680
<v Speaker 5>of a at least fifty percent plus minority voter population,

0:30:04.160 --> 0:30:07.480
<v Speaker 5>the federal Voting Right Stack requires the fifty percent pretty

0:30:07.520 --> 0:30:11.000
<v Speaker 5>much of one racial group, be the black or Hispanic orasion.

0:30:11.480 --> 0:30:14.760
<v Speaker 5>But the state law permits you to aggregate or put

0:30:14.800 --> 0:30:19.400
<v Speaker 5>together smaller communities of what's the black and Hispanic populations

0:30:19.760 --> 0:30:23.160
<v Speaker 5>that you can combine voters, and that, in essence is

0:30:23.200 --> 0:30:26.440
<v Speaker 5>what they're looking to do by adding a part of

0:30:26.520 --> 0:30:30.120
<v Speaker 5>Manhattan to the Staten Island based district.

0:30:30.640 --> 0:30:34.680
<v Speaker 1>Would doing this create one of those odd looking shape

0:30:34.760 --> 0:30:36.240
<v Speaker 1>districts on the map.

0:30:36.960 --> 0:30:41.440
<v Speaker 5>The Hispanic population in Lower Manhattan is not adjacent to

0:30:41.560 --> 0:30:44.640
<v Speaker 5>South Ferry right the foot of Manhattan Island by the

0:30:44.760 --> 0:30:48.840
<v Speaker 5>New York Harbor. It's considerably north there, so you'd have

0:30:48.960 --> 0:30:52.240
<v Speaker 5>to take Staten Island, take the Staten Island Ferry over

0:30:52.320 --> 0:30:56.120
<v Speaker 5>to Manhattan and drive up aways basically up to the

0:30:56.120 --> 0:30:59.320
<v Speaker 5>Brooklyn Bridge, where you have an Hispanic population in the

0:30:59.360 --> 0:31:02.520
<v Speaker 5>lower east side, up to by fourteenth Street. And that

0:31:02.640 --> 0:31:06.240
<v Speaker 5>raises the question of whether race is the predominant factor

0:31:06.520 --> 0:31:09.640
<v Speaker 5>in creating this district, because that runs against what the

0:31:09.680 --> 0:31:13.520
<v Speaker 5>Supreme Court has said about racial garry mandering, which is

0:31:13.560 --> 0:31:17.720
<v Speaker 5>subject to strict scrutiny and has to be narrowly tailored

0:31:17.720 --> 0:31:21.320
<v Speaker 5>to remedy specific problem. So the plaintiffs are going to

0:31:21.360 --> 0:31:24.000
<v Speaker 5>have to demonstrate to the court why a district that

0:31:24.120 --> 0:31:28.400
<v Speaker 5>constitutes Staten Island and parts of Old Manhattan makes sense,

0:31:28.640 --> 0:31:29.400
<v Speaker 5>as if a lot.

0:31:29.280 --> 0:31:33.760
<v Speaker 1>Of these new districts make sense. So Melia Takis said,

0:31:34.200 --> 0:31:38.600
<v Speaker 1>it's a frivolous lawsuit trying to upband our congressional district.

0:31:38.960 --> 0:31:41.600
<v Speaker 1>And she noted that the current map was approved by

0:31:41.680 --> 0:31:47.560
<v Speaker 1>New York's Democratic controlled state legislature and Democratic governor. Does

0:31:47.600 --> 0:31:50.480
<v Speaker 1>she have the advantage here? In other words, is this

0:31:50.640 --> 0:31:52.920
<v Speaker 1>an uphill battle for the Democrats?

0:31:53.360 --> 0:31:56.960
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, the clock is ticking. The State Supreme Court only

0:31:57.000 --> 0:32:00.280
<v Speaker 5>has two months to render a decision, which we take

0:32:00.360 --> 0:32:03.840
<v Speaker 5>us to mid to late December. Petitioning for the twenty

0:32:03.920 --> 0:32:07.920
<v Speaker 5>twenty six election cycle right now gets underway in late February,

0:32:08.200 --> 0:32:11.560
<v Speaker 5>so that leaves very little time for New York's mid

0:32:11.640 --> 0:32:15.080
<v Speaker 5>level appeals court, the Appellate Division, and then finally the

0:32:15.200 --> 0:32:18.280
<v Speaker 5>State Court of Appeals and already to hear this case.

0:32:18.480 --> 0:32:21.800
<v Speaker 5>And you can pretty much be sure that whoever objects

0:32:21.800 --> 0:32:26.120
<v Speaker 5>to this case, and I'm anticipating Republican interveners will strenuously

0:32:26.200 --> 0:32:29.120
<v Speaker 5>try to slow this case down and prevent it from

0:32:29.200 --> 0:32:31.400
<v Speaker 5>impacting the twenty twenty six elections.

0:32:31.800 --> 0:32:35.160
<v Speaker 1>Jeff. There was litigation around the New York maps for years,

0:32:35.640 --> 0:32:39.840
<v Speaker 1>and the Democrats control both houses and the governor's office.

0:32:40.200 --> 0:32:42.680
<v Speaker 1>Now they're suing over their own maps. Tell us how

0:32:42.720 --> 0:32:43.360
<v Speaker 1>we got.

0:32:43.120 --> 0:32:46.240
<v Speaker 5>Here, well, I think by twenty twenty four, after a

0:32:46.280 --> 0:32:49.720
<v Speaker 5>failed process in twenty twenty two where a state commission

0:32:49.880 --> 0:32:53.800
<v Speaker 5>that was proved by the voters twenty fourteen basically imploded

0:32:53.920 --> 0:32:56.760
<v Speaker 5>and subject to a court order, went back to work

0:32:56.800 --> 0:33:00.520
<v Speaker 5>and finished the job by January twenty twenty four, the

0:33:00.560 --> 0:33:03.680
<v Speaker 5>legislature wanted to end this process have a new map

0:33:03.680 --> 0:33:07.920
<v Speaker 5>for twenty twenty four, actually a bipartisan map with Republican support.

0:33:08.240 --> 0:33:11.480
<v Speaker 5>So the map that was agreed to took some strenuous

0:33:11.520 --> 0:33:14.680
<v Speaker 5>effort early last year, and the case that's been brought

0:33:14.720 --> 0:33:18.480
<v Speaker 5>now you can consider somewhat democrats challenging democrats.

0:33:18.800 --> 0:33:21.600
<v Speaker 1>Is there any other effort underway in New York State to.

0:33:21.760 --> 0:33:25.600
<v Speaker 5>Redistrict Well, there is another approach. Earlier in the summer,

0:33:25.800 --> 0:33:28.880
<v Speaker 5>the Senate Deputy majority Leader and a member of the

0:33:28.920 --> 0:33:33.600
<v Speaker 5>Assembly introduced a resolution in the legislature that would permit

0:33:34.000 --> 0:33:38.400
<v Speaker 5>New York to redraw the district lines mid decade, if

0:33:38.520 --> 0:33:41.960
<v Speaker 5>and only after any other state does the same thing

0:33:42.360 --> 0:33:46.600
<v Speaker 5>in mid decades. So since Texas already went ahead and

0:33:47.000 --> 0:33:50.800
<v Speaker 5>mid decade redistricted, this amendment would let New York also

0:33:50.920 --> 0:33:54.600
<v Speaker 5>redistrict mid decade. The state constitution right now prohibits that.

0:33:55.080 --> 0:33:57.840
<v Speaker 5>But the barrier to that is that, since the state

0:33:57.920 --> 0:34:02.560
<v Speaker 5>constitution now currently does are mid decade redistricting, you have

0:34:02.640 --> 0:34:05.400
<v Speaker 5>to change the constitution, and to do that you need

0:34:05.440 --> 0:34:09.920
<v Speaker 5>to have an amendment go through two separately elected legislatures.

0:34:09.920 --> 0:34:13.279
<v Speaker 5>So the plan now is to pass something, whether it's

0:34:13.320 --> 0:34:17.120
<v Speaker 5>the amendment that was introduced earlier this summer or possibly

0:34:17.160 --> 0:34:20.600
<v Speaker 5>a more expansive amendment, but to do that next year,

0:34:20.920 --> 0:34:24.120
<v Speaker 5>then pass it again with the new legislature in twenty

0:34:24.200 --> 0:34:27.640
<v Speaker 5>twenty seven, so that the voters can then approve the

0:34:27.760 --> 0:34:31.520
<v Speaker 5>question and then enable the legislature to redraw a new

0:34:31.560 --> 0:34:34.120
<v Speaker 5>map for twenty twenty eight. This is similar to the

0:34:34.160 --> 0:34:37.440
<v Speaker 5>process that's getting underway this week in Virginia. The New

0:34:37.520 --> 0:34:42.720
<v Speaker 5>York situation is complicated in that we've got politics, personalities,

0:34:42.920 --> 0:34:46.759
<v Speaker 5>competing lawsuits, and the calendar all running against each other

0:34:46.760 --> 0:34:47.600
<v Speaker 5>at the same time.

0:34:48.000 --> 0:34:51.959
<v Speaker 1>With all these states redistricting, what are the maps going

0:34:52.000 --> 0:34:56.000
<v Speaker 1>to look like after the midterms? All Republican House seats

0:34:56.080 --> 0:34:59.040
<v Speaker 1>in one state, all Democratic House seats in another.

0:34:59.480 --> 0:35:02.200
<v Speaker 5>That's why I think this will continue till twenty twenty eight,

0:35:02.239 --> 0:35:04.440
<v Speaker 5>and then we have twenty thirty ahead of us, where

0:35:04.800 --> 0:35:07.719
<v Speaker 5>the White House is already trying to manipulate the way

0:35:07.760 --> 0:35:12.400
<v Speaker 5>the census is conducted to base the numbers on citizens

0:35:12.480 --> 0:35:14.920
<v Speaker 5>and not on the whole number of persons as the

0:35:14.960 --> 0:35:18.959
<v Speaker 5>Constitution requires. So this is a multifaceted battle.

0:35:19.120 --> 0:35:24.400
<v Speaker 1>Multifaceted and seemingly never ending. Thanks for an interesting conversation, Jeff.

0:35:24.600 --> 0:35:28.080
<v Speaker 1>That's Professor Jeffrey Weiss of New York Law School. And

0:35:28.120 --> 0:35:30.280
<v Speaker 1>that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:35:30.600 --> 0:35:33.000
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:35:33.000 --> 0:35:37.279
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:35:37.480 --> 0:35:42.520
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast, slash Law,

0:35:42.920 --> 0:35:45.520
<v Speaker 1>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:35:45.560 --> 0:35:49.440
<v Speaker 1>weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

0:35:49.600 --> 0:35:51.200
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg