WEBVTT - SBF Trial and Trump Gag Order 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.760 --> 0:00:15.240 Prosecutors anticipate resting their criminal case against Sam Bankman Freed 0:00:15.320 --> 0:00:19.080 by next Thursday. They've built their case around the testimony 0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:22.880 of three members of Bankman Freed's inner circle who pleaded 0:00:22.880 --> 0:00:26.680 guilty and testified against him. Now the question is whether 0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:30.560 Bankman Freed will testify in his own defense, a question 0:00:30.680 --> 0:00:34.360 that's fraught with perils for the defense. Joining me to 0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:38.199 discuss the case, as former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein of 0:00:38.320 --> 0:00:42.480 Cole Shotts, it seems like the prosecution has built an 0:00:42.640 --> 0:00:48.239 almost insurmountable case against Sam Bankman Freed. How strong is 0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:50.080 this case compared to others you've seen. 0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:53.280 It's an extremely strong case for three reasons. Number one, 0:00:53.320 --> 0:00:56.760 because they have first hand individuals who were in the 0:00:56.840 --> 0:01:01.160 room at the table discussing certain acts those being criminal, 0:01:01.280 --> 0:01:04.800 which present a problem for Sam Bacon Freed. They also 0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:10.200 have documents and slack messages and text messages which are 0:01:10.240 --> 0:01:14.280 problematic as well, which supports the discussions, the improper discussions 0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:17.520 that were being held. And then number three, they have 0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:23.760 the industry itself is fraught with problems and the representations 0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:26.880 that were made to investors and things of that nature 0:01:27.360 --> 0:01:31.560 which he has said publicly prior to the criminal charges 0:01:31.600 --> 0:01:35.120 being brought. So that's a trifecta of problems for mister Freed, 0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:38.000 and I think his defense lawyers are having a difficult 0:01:38.000 --> 0:01:41.000 time chipping away at some of the things that are 0:01:41.000 --> 0:01:44.959 being said through testimony, notwithstanding the great efforts that they 0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:46.119 are trying to make. 0:01:46.640 --> 0:01:51.000 Yeah, it seems as if even in pre trial motions, 0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:54.200 the defense seemed to lose almost every important pre trial motion. 0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:59.840 Judge Caplan also seems to be keeping them very tightly 0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:03.720 in check. One of the reporters in the courtroom told 0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:07.680 me that, for example, during the cross examination of Caroline Ellison, 0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:11.840 there were objections to form, objections, objections that were constantly 0:02:11.880 --> 0:02:14.200 sustained and they really couldn't make much headway. 0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:17.600 Yeah, so that's correct. So not only is the defense 0:02:17.960 --> 0:02:21.920 up against testimony and documents, they're up against the judge 0:02:22.160 --> 0:02:25.200 and the structure of the proceeding, and the judge prior 0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:28.680 to trial, for example, you know, prohibited certain of the 0:02:28.720 --> 0:02:31.760 defense witnesses that they wanted to bring in. Example number 0:02:31.800 --> 0:02:33.760 one is the expert from Britain that they wanted to 0:02:33.760 --> 0:02:36.320 bring in to talk about the terms and conditions. So 0:02:36.680 --> 0:02:39.120 their hands were tied from the start of this case, 0:02:39.440 --> 0:02:40.919 and that's really playing out now. 0:02:40.960 --> 0:02:45.480 In reality, those will be appealed. But how much are 0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:49.120 issues like that left to the discretion of the judge. 0:02:49.120 --> 0:02:50.919 I mean, we all know it's very difficult to get 0:02:50.919 --> 0:02:53.360 a conviction, assuming he's convicted overturned. 0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:56.920 How much is that in the discretion of the judge. 0:02:56.760 --> 0:02:59.720 A tremendous amount. The judge is the referee essentially, and 0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:03.000 he is able to call balls and strikes when necessary. 0:03:03.400 --> 0:03:05.880 And there is guidance through the appellate courts, through the 0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:09.160 Second Circuit for example, or through other rulings that the 0:03:09.200 --> 0:03:11.840 courts have made, or for instance, the Federal rules of 0:03:11.840 --> 0:03:15.600 criminal procedure guide the court in making those decisions. But 0:03:15.639 --> 0:03:18.880 the judge has given great latitude in determining the type 0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:21.919 of evidence, the relevance of that evidence, how it comes in, 0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:25.280 whether it comes in, whether it can be challenged, things 0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:26.000 of that nature. 0:03:26.400 --> 0:03:30.360 So you had these three witnesses who decided to cooperate 0:03:30.400 --> 0:03:34.000 with the state to our longtime friends of his ones 0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:39.080 a former girlfriend. Does that make their testimony more believable? 0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:43.280 I think it does, And the reason is because they're 0:03:43.280 --> 0:03:46.400 not nuanced to the scene. It's not as though for 0:03:46.480 --> 0:03:48.640 six months, you know, they dropped in out of the 0:03:48.680 --> 0:03:52.080 sky and then in that six month period there were 0:03:52.120 --> 0:03:55.720 some criminal acts. They gave a little bit of the 0:03:55.880 --> 0:03:59.600 longer history that they had with Sam Bank and free 0:04:00.240 --> 0:04:03.440 the run up to him starting the business, their involvement, 0:04:03.720 --> 0:04:06.600 their role in the company, and then ultimately it's spiraling 0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:09.080 out of control. And I think that gives them a 0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:12.760 little bit of credibility in the jury's eyes, because you know, 0:04:12.840 --> 0:04:15.280 they can give a little bit more context, and when 0:04:15.320 --> 0:04:19.200 they speak to things like what Sam Bankuenfried was saying 0:04:19.240 --> 0:04:21.400 at some of those meetings and some of the decisions 0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:24.000 he was making, they can give some context to that 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:27.400 because they've known him so long. And so from my perspective, 0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:31.680 when you've got that longtime relationship that favors the government. 0:04:31.920 --> 0:04:36.040 Insofar as the testimony coming out and really hurting the defendant, 0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:36.560 what do. 0:04:36.520 --> 0:04:38.880 You think about I mean, it happens all the time, 0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:42.360 but the judge allowing in all the evidence about you know, 0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:46.800 Caroline Nelson testifying about his image and how he thought 0:04:46.839 --> 0:04:51.000 his hair helped his image and trading in luxury cars, 0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:55.760 for more inexpensive cars and then even profane messages he 0:04:55.960 --> 0:05:00.520 sent to reporters about regulators after the collapse. When is 0:05:00.560 --> 0:05:02.880 that kind of testimony too much? 0:05:03.600 --> 0:05:07.240 And that's the judge's kind of role as a referee, 0:05:07.279 --> 0:05:09.400 to say, come on, that's a little too much. Is 0:05:09.400 --> 0:05:12.560 it relevant for the nice time for you to emphasize 0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:14.560 that he wanted to have a nice image. But look, 0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:16.880 the government's putting it in because they want to show 0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:19.400 what was his motivation in stealing the money and moving 0:05:19.440 --> 0:05:21.760 the money and transferring the money. They want to show 0:05:21.800 --> 0:05:24.240 that his motivation was to look good and feel good 0:05:24.279 --> 0:05:27.719 and to give this impression to people throughout, you know, 0:05:27.760 --> 0:05:30.719 the United States or throughout the world that he was 0:05:30.760 --> 0:05:34.400 this successful mogul and that he really was an ourcle 0:05:34.440 --> 0:05:37.560 into the future, and you know, him being an oracle 0:05:38.080 --> 0:05:40.880 is the aura that he tried to create. But of 0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:42.880 course the reality is much different. 0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:46.279 By all accounts, the defense didn't make much headway in 0:05:46.320 --> 0:05:51.600 the cross examination of those three Inner Circle witnesses. They 0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:54.200 did poke some holes in the testimony here and there. 0:05:54.560 --> 0:05:55.800 Does that really help in the. 0:05:55.839 --> 0:05:58.800 End, I think the answers probably know. It's like chopping 0:05:58.839 --> 0:06:00.520 down an oak tree. You can make a couple of 0:06:00.520 --> 0:06:02.560 swings with an axe, but that's not going to take 0:06:02.600 --> 0:06:03.240 down the tree. 0:06:03.400 --> 0:06:06.320 Is there any point at which the jury looks at 0:06:06.320 --> 0:06:10.080 these three, who are you saying, yeah, I took part 0:06:10.080 --> 0:06:12.120 in this, but he directed me to do it, and 0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:14.240 then all of a sudden, you know, maya copo, may 0:06:14.279 --> 0:06:16.800 a couple when things collapse and they get caught and 0:06:16.839 --> 0:06:19.480 decide to flip. Is there any point that the jury says, 0:06:19.640 --> 0:06:21.440 why are these three getting off? 0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:22.200 And he's here? 0:06:22.480 --> 0:06:25.960 Well, that certainly is how the defense wants to frame it. 0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:28.800 I think the difficulty with that is they're not getting off. 0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:32.919 They've played guilty to very significant and very material criminal 0:06:33.000 --> 0:06:36.080 charges which will carry with its significant penalties. And that's 0:06:36.120 --> 0:06:38.640 the response if and when the defense says to them 0:06:38.720 --> 0:06:41.040 during a cross examination and did say to them, well, 0:06:41.080 --> 0:06:43.559 aren't you getting a sweetheart deal now? And that's always 0:06:43.600 --> 0:06:46.040 the push and pull when you have a cooperating witness 0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:48.200 on the witness stand, is you know, are they getting 0:06:48.320 --> 0:06:50.599 really a sweetheart deal? And that's where the jury to 0:06:50.680 --> 0:06:53.360 assess their credibility to a jury to assess are they 0:06:53.400 --> 0:06:56.839 testifying only to get a better deal? Here? It doesn't 0:06:56.839 --> 0:06:59.000 look like they got a great deal here. They knew 0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:01.640 that they were kind of in their tracks and wanted 0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:04.760 to save some semblance of the remainder of their life 0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:07.320 by pleading guilty and then moving on with their life. 0:07:07.320 --> 0:07:09.840 But as a consequence of that, they had to testify 0:07:09.880 --> 0:07:11.000 against their former friend. 0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:12.920 Do you think they'll actually serve jail time. 0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:15.840 I think they have real exposure. Yes, there's a lot 0:07:15.880 --> 0:07:17.520 of money here. I think a lot of eyes are 0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:19.720 going to be looking at all of these pleas and 0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:21.440 I think they have some real problems here. 0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:22.480 What do you think. 0:07:22.360 --> 0:07:26.520 About the prosecution portraying him as a criminal mastermind? 0:07:26.880 --> 0:07:29.280 Look, I mean, I think that's somewhat of the narrative 0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:32.480 that the government has to tell. They don't want to 0:07:32.520 --> 0:07:36.320 suggest that he was this ninety twenty year old kid 0:07:36.840 --> 0:07:39.520 just you know, playing with house money. I think they 0:07:39.560 --> 0:07:41.280 have to make him out to be a little bit 0:07:41.320 --> 0:07:44.200 more sinister, a little bit more systematic. I'm a little 0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:46.720 bit more conniving. That is just part of their narrative. 0:07:46.800 --> 0:07:48.880 I mean, when I look at all of these guys, 0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:52.560 the three cooperating witnesses who played guilty in Sambank and Free, 0:07:52.680 --> 0:07:54.320 it just reminds me of when I sit in the room, 0:07:54.360 --> 0:07:56.000 and I look at my nieces and nephews who were 0:07:56.000 --> 0:07:58.160 in their twenties, and I look and I think to myself, 0:07:58.240 --> 0:08:01.400 could they be entrusted with ten? I need thirty billion dollars? 0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:04.320 And he answers no, you know, And it's remarkable to 0:08:04.400 --> 0:08:09.200 me that very sophisticated investors gave so much money repeatedly 0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:11.920 to a group of people that were in their mid twenties. 0:08:12.080 --> 0:08:15.040 And we're, you know, waving a shiny object, which was cryptocurrency. 0:08:15.200 --> 0:08:18.440 So that's a larger takeaway from this situation. But I 0:08:18.480 --> 0:08:20.760 think all four of them have some real exposure here. 0:08:21.120 --> 0:08:24.520 The big question is at every criminal trial is whether 0:08:24.680 --> 0:08:28.280 the defendant will take the stand in his own defense? 0:08:28.760 --> 0:08:29.360 What do you think? 0:08:30.240 --> 0:08:32.920 I think that's a great question, and someone in Vegas 0:08:32.960 --> 0:08:35.560 is probably betting on that. I think he may want 0:08:35.600 --> 0:08:38.160 to do something. His lawyers may want to do something 0:08:38.280 --> 0:08:41.440 very different, although I think they're setting it up with 0:08:41.679 --> 0:08:44.720 the recent argument that he's not getting his medication, he's 0:08:44.760 --> 0:08:47.160 not able to assist in his own defense. So you 0:08:47.240 --> 0:08:51.120 can kind of see the ground work being laid where 0:08:51.280 --> 0:08:54.479 they may not call him because he's not getting his medication, 0:08:54.760 --> 0:08:57.040 and maybe they're setting up an appeal issue that he 0:08:57.120 --> 0:09:01.520 maybe would have testified, But look, the reason testify is 0:09:01.559 --> 0:09:04.480 because they believe that they can tell their story better 0:09:04.679 --> 0:09:07.760 and they can provide an explanation and they can justify 0:09:07.840 --> 0:09:10.960 what they did and how they did it. Here, that's very, 0:09:11.120 --> 0:09:14.319 very difficult because he's going to have to counter three 0:09:14.360 --> 0:09:18.120 people who were in the room during these discussions, who 0:09:18.200 --> 0:09:22.599 all gave pretty consistent testimony. And for him to testify, 0:09:23.000 --> 0:09:26.040 of course, he's opening himself up and risking a pretty 0:09:26.080 --> 0:09:29.920 ferocious cross examination, and that is a real problem for him. 0:09:29.880 --> 0:09:32.880 In all the prior statements he's made. But well, I 0:09:32.920 --> 0:09:35.079 want to say it's his only hope, his only chance 0:09:35.160 --> 0:09:38.200 to convince perhaps one or two jurors correct. 0:09:38.240 --> 0:09:41.160 I mean, he may feel, and his defense lawyers may feel, 0:09:41.360 --> 0:09:43.240 what have I got to lose? We're deep in the 0:09:43.280 --> 0:09:45.920 hole here, and this may be the only ladder out 0:09:46.120 --> 0:09:49.600 is to have him testify and to humanize the situation 0:09:49.880 --> 0:09:52.160 and to talk about how he really tried to do 0:09:52.240 --> 0:09:54.640 all the right things and he wasn't misleading anyone, and 0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:56.800 he really tried to make, you know, good decisions, and 0:09:56.840 --> 0:09:59.679 he relied upon other people. He relied upon Miss Ellison, 0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.520 relied upon mister Gary Wong, things of that nature. But again, 0:10:04.080 --> 0:10:06.240 as good as he thinks his testimony is going to 0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:09.880 come off, the prosecution is salivating, waiting in the wings 0:10:09.880 --> 0:10:13.040 to cross examine him and to use a multitude of 0:10:13.040 --> 0:10:16.520 statements he's made previously in their examination, and that's going 0:10:16.559 --> 0:10:17.559 to be quite fascinating. 0:10:17.760 --> 0:10:20.000 If he does take the stand, one thing is sure, 0:10:20.200 --> 0:10:23.440 the courtroom will be packed. Thanks so much, Michael. That's 0:10:23.480 --> 0:10:28.000 former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein of Coal Shots. Coming up next, 0:10:28.320 --> 0:10:32.719 the latest gag order on Donald Trump. My speech has 0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:33.800 been taken away from me. 0:10:33.920 --> 0:10:36.680 I'm a candidate that's running for office, and I'm not 0:10:36.720 --> 0:10:37.560 allowed to stay. 0:10:38.760 --> 0:10:39.719 This is a real road. 0:10:39.960 --> 0:10:42.680 It's all coming out of the Developer of Justice. 0:10:42.800 --> 0:10:45.600 Is all set up by bike and is thuff that 0:10:45.679 --> 0:10:46.600 he's surrounded with. 0:10:47.280 --> 0:10:51.559 Of course, contrary to his statements, Donald Trump was in 0:10:51.679 --> 0:10:55.920 fact speaking to the media after federal Judge Tanya Chuckkin 0:10:56.120 --> 0:10:59.720 imposed a partial gag order on him. The order bars 0:10:59.720 --> 0:11:05.000 the former president from publicly criticizing witnesses, prosecutors, court staff, 0:11:05.040 --> 0:11:08.720 and their families involved in the Special Council's case against 0:11:08.800 --> 0:11:11.920 him for attempts to overturn the twenty twenty election. The 0:11:12.000 --> 0:11:15.280 judge found that Trump's barrage of attacks on those in 0:11:15.320 --> 0:11:19.439 the case posed a significant and immediate risk of intimidating 0:11:19.480 --> 0:11:23.840 witnesses and jeopardizing the safety of the public servants involved. 0:11:24.559 --> 0:11:27.960 Joining me is former prosecutor Rebecca Roythee, a professor at 0:11:28.040 --> 0:11:32.240 New York Law School. Do Trump's attacks on the judiciary 0:11:32.440 --> 0:11:33.400 stand alone? 0:11:33.520 --> 0:11:36.120 Have we ever seen anything quite like this before? 0:11:36.559 --> 0:11:38.800 I mean, I think the unique thing about it. Normally, 0:11:39.559 --> 0:11:42.240 you know, somebody who's embroiled in a legal system, a 0:11:42.280 --> 0:11:45.600 criminal defendant, you know, it doesn't seem so unusual for 0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:48.880 that person to attack the system that has targeted him 0:11:48.960 --> 0:11:52.240 or her. But of course the scale and the prominence 0:11:52.280 --> 0:11:53.920 of this defendant makes a difference. 0:11:54.080 --> 0:11:56.880 This goes back to when he was president and he 0:11:57.000 --> 0:12:00.600 was calling out judges and the chief Justice. There are 0:12:00.600 --> 0:12:02.840 no Trump judges or Obama judges. 0:12:03.800 --> 0:12:04.000 Right. 0:12:04.040 --> 0:12:05.920 It goes back, and it's a little bit relentless, like 0:12:05.960 --> 0:12:10.160 it's not just you know, one individual instance of a 0:12:10.840 --> 0:12:13.760 court case or a lawsuit or a ruling that came 0:12:13.800 --> 0:12:15.920 out against him, Because you know, I do think that 0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:19.440 you know, you can see politicians saying similar sorts of 0:12:19.520 --> 0:12:24.200 things in isolated instances, But I think it's the repeated 0:12:24.880 --> 0:12:29.000 nature of the comments and his styles of the way 0:12:29.000 --> 0:12:34.280 that they're made an exaggerated, extreme version of what somebody 0:12:34.280 --> 0:12:35.800 else might say in those instances. 0:12:36.080 --> 0:12:39.160 Do you think because they're exaggerated and extreme, a lot 0:12:39.200 --> 0:12:42.599 of people, most people just you know, disregard them. Or 0:12:42.640 --> 0:12:45.240 do you think that his attacks do have an effect 0:12:45.360 --> 0:12:48.480 on the standing of the judiciary in the public's eye. 0:12:48.880 --> 0:12:51.079 It's an empirical question and a hard one to know 0:12:51.280 --> 0:12:53.600 for sure, but I think it's effective. You know, I 0:12:53.600 --> 0:12:58.760 think people are already skeptical, as we Americans are bred 0:12:58.760 --> 0:13:02.920 to be about government institutions, and that's a healthy kind 0:13:02.960 --> 0:13:05.720 of suspicion or questioning. But you know, I think he 0:13:05.880 --> 0:13:08.680 feeds on this and turns it into something that's closer 0:13:08.720 --> 0:13:12.320 to kind of paranoia that is not necessarily based in fact, 0:13:12.360 --> 0:13:16.240 and more concerning than anything else. And so, you know, 0:13:16.280 --> 0:13:19.760 I think he's been particularly effective in this particular regard 0:13:20.160 --> 0:13:24.320 lloiding both you know, vulnerabilities in the system and a 0:13:24.400 --> 0:13:28.880 culture of healthy questioning among citizens in America. 0:13:29.000 --> 0:13:31.959 So let's discuss what judges have done and can do. 0:13:32.440 --> 0:13:36.080 Tell us about the competing interests the judges have to 0:13:36.160 --> 0:13:37.439 consider so. 0:13:37.600 --> 0:13:41.000 Judges are in a difficult position because they're weighing the 0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:47.079 importance of the integrity of their proceedings and concern for 0:13:48.160 --> 0:13:52.960 manipulation of witnesses, potential jurors, and any other kind of 0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:58.040 undermining of the fairness of the process, along with a 0:13:58.600 --> 0:14:03.560 extremely important First Amendment right that anyone has to speak out, 0:14:03.600 --> 0:14:07.640 but particularly somebody who's running for president of the United States. 0:14:08.120 --> 0:14:11.679 At the hearing, Judge chuck In apparently was a pretty 0:14:11.720 --> 0:14:16.120 heated discussion at times. She said, one could come away 0:14:16.120 --> 0:14:18.840 from these arguments with a mistake in understanding that the 0:14:18.880 --> 0:14:20.920 First Amendment is an absolute right. 0:14:21.280 --> 0:14:22.000 That's false. 0:14:22.200 --> 0:14:25.640 The First Amendment yields to the administration of justice. I 0:14:25.640 --> 0:14:28.360 know it's not an absolute right, but does it always 0:14:28.440 --> 0:14:30.640 yield to the administration of justice? 0:14:30.960 --> 0:14:35.000 Well, whenever there is a compelling government interest for limiting speech, 0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:38.280 speech can be limited in certain ways. And so you know, 0:14:38.360 --> 0:14:42.080 it is true that there are often restrictions on people's 0:14:42.080 --> 0:14:46.120 speech when that speech interferes with the administration of justice 0:14:46.200 --> 0:14:49.000 or the integrity of a judicial system. I think it 0:14:49.040 --> 0:14:53.120 would be wrong to say absolutely the administration of justice 0:14:53.320 --> 0:14:56.480 is a more important value than First Amendment rights, and 0:14:56.520 --> 0:14:58.800 I don't think that's exactly what she was trying to say, 0:14:58.840 --> 0:15:01.840 but it would be misinterpreted it and it would be 0:15:01.880 --> 0:15:04.520 wrong if that's what she was suggesting. But what I 0:15:04.560 --> 0:15:08.600 think is accurate is that First Amendment law is designed 0:15:08.880 --> 0:15:12.560 to balance different interests than While the First Amendment weighs 0:15:12.640 --> 0:15:16.360 extremely strongly, and especially in the context of political speech, 0:15:16.880 --> 0:15:20.360 is almost absolute, it's not entirely and it does, in 0:15:20.440 --> 0:15:24.080 certain circumstances give way, and the law is clear about that. 0:15:24.200 --> 0:15:26.880 So she's right in saying that it's not an absolute right, 0:15:26.920 --> 0:15:29.920 but I think it is an exaggeration to say it 0:15:29.920 --> 0:15:30.840 always yields. 0:15:31.560 --> 0:15:34.680 She decided to sort of come to some middle ground 0:15:34.800 --> 0:15:37.080 almost not quite right. 0:15:37.200 --> 0:15:41.040 So what she decided to do was to draw a 0:15:41.440 --> 0:15:46.520 limited gag order that restricts the former president's speech in 0:15:46.560 --> 0:15:50.520 a certain regard, but allows him to engage in sort 0:15:50.560 --> 0:15:54.840 of broader, more rhetorical criticisms of the justice system, but 0:15:55.200 --> 0:15:58.480 limits his ability or restricts his ability to single out 0:15:58.520 --> 0:16:04.800 particular players and criticize those particular individuals actors you know, 0:16:04.840 --> 0:16:06.960 who are involved in this particular prosecution. 0:16:07.640 --> 0:16:12.680 You know, he's slammed judges and the district attorneys who 0:16:13.000 --> 0:16:17.840 are prosecuting him. For example, he's unleashed a barrage of 0:16:18.440 --> 0:16:22.920 criticism and ridicule against the New York Attorney General who's 0:16:22.960 --> 0:16:26.640 coming after his business empire for years, and even in 0:16:26.680 --> 0:16:29.960 court has made motions saying this is a political prosecution, 0:16:30.160 --> 0:16:32.600 et cetera. So I'm wondering if that's on the same 0:16:32.720 --> 0:16:35.600 level as calling out the judges in. 0:16:35.640 --> 0:16:37.800 Terms of the level of harm. I think it's even 0:16:38.040 --> 0:16:41.960 potentially greater in part because, especially on the federal level, 0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:44.560 what he's doing is exploiting a kind of weakness in 0:16:44.600 --> 0:16:48.480 our system, which is our federal system of prosecution is 0:16:48.560 --> 0:16:51.200 embedded under the executive So even if there is a 0:16:51.240 --> 0:16:55.200 special prosecutor, which there is in this case, that prosecutor 0:16:55.360 --> 0:16:58.920 report to the Attorney General, who in turn is a 0:16:58.960 --> 0:17:02.040 cabinet member, and at that's chosen by the president. So 0:17:02.600 --> 0:17:05.320 while I believe President Biden when he says he's not 0:17:05.440 --> 0:17:11.080 involved in this prosecution, there are no legal limits or 0:17:11.119 --> 0:17:14.959 are no absolute barriers to his involvement. That you know, 0:17:15.000 --> 0:17:17.520 that is the way that our system works. So I 0:17:17.560 --> 0:17:20.800 think that on some level the public is aware of this, 0:17:21.000 --> 0:17:26.120 and therefore he gets more traction from arguing that prosecutors 0:17:26.280 --> 0:17:30.680 are at least in the federal system, you know, dominated 0:17:31.080 --> 0:17:35.960 or driven by this political animus. And I think that judges, 0:17:36.280 --> 0:17:39.720 while it's true, you know, are also political appointees, it 0:17:39.920 --> 0:17:42.080 is a separate branch. And I think on some level 0:17:42.080 --> 0:17:45.120 people grasp that. And there's still a greater faith, even 0:17:45.119 --> 0:17:48.240 if it is waning, in judges and the judicial system 0:17:48.320 --> 0:17:52.479 than there is in these individual prosecutions. And so, you know, 0:17:52.640 --> 0:17:55.399 I do think it's it does more damage in part 0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:58.800 because of the weaknesses that are built into our system. 0:17:59.560 --> 0:18:04.280 That even his attorney, John Lauro argued in the court 0:18:04.359 --> 0:18:08.160 that Trump was being punished by the Biden administration during 0:18:08.160 --> 0:18:12.680 an election cycle. He also argued that this was the 0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:17.760 sign of a nation veering into totalitarianism. And those arguments 0:18:17.880 --> 0:18:21.160 seem to me more like for the public than they 0:18:21.160 --> 0:18:22.520 are for the judge. 0:18:22.760 --> 0:18:24.320 Yeah, I mean, I don't think any of that is 0:18:24.359 --> 0:18:27.520 going to be effective before the judge, but this is 0:18:27.560 --> 0:18:29.920 a refrain that they are going to repeat at every 0:18:29.960 --> 0:18:33.199 moment that they possibly can. And I think the separation 0:18:33.680 --> 0:18:37.520 of these legal cases from the political case that he's 0:18:37.560 --> 0:18:41.280 making has collapsed, and essentially he has combined both. And 0:18:41.359 --> 0:18:44.639 of course, in the courtroom. There will be restrictions, but 0:18:44.760 --> 0:18:48.200 insofar as they bleed over and that there's so much 0:18:48.240 --> 0:18:51.399 public attention that he's going to use every moment he 0:18:51.440 --> 0:18:55.160 can to hammer this political message. But has been relatively 0:18:56.040 --> 0:18:57.320 successful for him. 0:18:57.640 --> 0:19:00.359 And I've listened to some of his speeches on the 0:19:00.400 --> 0:19:02.440 campaign trail recently. 0:19:02.440 --> 0:19:03.560 It may be difficult for him. 0:19:03.600 --> 0:19:05.280 He's going to have to have a whole new shtick 0:19:05.359 --> 0:19:09.359 because he goes back again and again to talking about 0:19:09.400 --> 0:19:13.760 the judges and the prosecutors. You know, they're deranged, talking 0:19:13.840 --> 0:19:16.880 about the system being against him, and he circles back 0:19:16.880 --> 0:19:18.679 to that over and over. So he's going to have 0:19:18.720 --> 0:19:24.440 to do a complete redo of his rallies, I guess right. 0:19:24.480 --> 0:19:26.720 You know, it also raises the question of how the 0:19:26.840 --> 0:19:29.399 judge is going to enforce her order, because you know, 0:19:29.440 --> 0:19:31.840 it's one thing to issue this s gag order and 0:19:32.119 --> 0:19:34.040 in a way it's throwing down a gauntlet. I mean, 0:19:34.080 --> 0:19:38.639 if he does decide to violate that order, what is 0:19:38.680 --> 0:19:40.600 she going to do? And so you know there are 0:19:40.600 --> 0:19:42.879 a lot of legal options open to her, but you 0:19:42.920 --> 0:19:45.800 know those options again are problematic. I mean, we are 0:19:45.880 --> 0:19:51.399 in this unique situation not because the prosecution, you know, 0:19:51.560 --> 0:19:54.919 is being handled and manipulated by the Biden administration that 0:19:55.000 --> 0:19:58.439 has a grudge against its adversary, but rather because the 0:19:58.480 --> 0:20:02.200 former president has created the situation, and you know, he's 0:20:02.280 --> 0:20:05.560 created it and he you know, plans to run with 0:20:05.600 --> 0:20:09.040 it in this particular way, and that is largely what's 0:20:09.119 --> 0:20:12.040 unique about it. What's unique about it is not just 0:20:12.240 --> 0:20:14.720 the alleged crimes that he may have committed, but of 0:20:14.760 --> 0:20:19.080 course the way that he approaches litigation and approaches these 0:20:19.080 --> 0:20:23.680 criminal cases. It's just so belligerent and you know, pushing 0:20:23.800 --> 0:20:28.960 every last limit and forcing the judge to respond. And so, 0:20:29.520 --> 0:20:31.000 you know, I don't know what she would do under 0:20:31.040 --> 0:20:33.719 those circumstances, but I think it's equally possible that he 0:20:33.760 --> 0:20:36.800 ignores her order as it would be that he, you know, 0:20:36.960 --> 0:20:39.920 alters his speech entirely on the campaign trail. 0:20:40.880 --> 0:20:43.719 Hours after the gag order, at a campaign event in Iowa, 0:20:43.800 --> 0:20:47.320 Trump said, quote, a judge doesn't like me too much. 0:20:47.720 --> 0:20:49.639 Her whole life is not liking me. 0:20:49.840 --> 0:20:51.479 Then you know what a gag order is. 0:20:51.560 --> 0:20:54.200 You can't speak badly about your opponent. Maybe he got 0:20:54.240 --> 0:20:57.159 the message, at least for the time being, because it 0:20:57.200 --> 0:20:58.000 doesn't seem like. 0:20:57.960 --> 0:21:00.080 That really violates her order, does it. 0:21:00.240 --> 0:21:02.640 Judge doesn't like A judge doesn't like. 0:21:02.640 --> 0:21:05.640 Me much, right, So that's what I mean. He's going 0:21:05.720 --> 0:21:07.280 to push the limits of this order. 0:21:07.359 --> 0:21:07.800 I don't know. 0:21:08.040 --> 0:21:11.320 If I were interpreting it, I certainly wouldn't say he's 0:21:11.400 --> 0:21:14.000 crossed over line. But he's come very very close. And 0:21:14.320 --> 0:21:17.840 given the fact that he's not the most precise with language, No, 0:21:18.080 --> 0:21:21.560 when what point does he actually walk over to the 0:21:21.600 --> 0:21:24.800 other side? And I mean, at this point it's useful 0:21:24.880 --> 0:21:27.359 to him. I think now he can use the gag 0:21:27.480 --> 0:21:31.040 order because the gag order itself has political value for him, 0:21:31.119 --> 0:21:33.920 because he doesn't have to attack the judge. If he's 0:21:34.000 --> 0:21:36.960 attacking the gag order, you know, if he's saying, well, 0:21:37.000 --> 0:21:40.000 here it is, you know, proof positive the Biden administration 0:21:40.119 --> 0:21:42.879