Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Former Trump campaign
Speaker 1: chairman Paul Manafort is set to go on trial tomorrow
Speaker 1: in Virginia on banking and tax fraud charges. President Trump
Speaker 1: was sympathetic toward man of Port when speaking with Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity on Fox News earlier this month. Paul Manafort, Who's
Speaker 1: who really is a nice man. You look at what's
Speaker 1: going on with him. It's like al capone two thousand
Speaker 1: and five tax case or a case that I guess
Speaker 1: very It's just a sad thing. It's a very sad
Speaker 1: thing for our country to say this. Joining us is
Speaker 1: Robert Mints, a former federal prosecutor and a partner in
Speaker 1: McCarter and English Bob. During a storm of tweets on Sunday,
Speaker 1: Trump went on the offensive against Mueller personally. He said,
Speaker 1: in part, is Robert Mueller ever going to release his
Speaker 1: conflicts of interest with respect to President Trump, including the
Speaker 1: fact that we had a very nasty and contentious business relationship.
Speaker 1: The only thing we know, just a side note about
Speaker 1: the allegations, which Mueller has denied, is that at Trump
Speaker 1: National Golf Club in Virginia, there was a dispute and
Speaker 1: fees according to Trump's people, but not according to Mueller's people.
Speaker 1: So why this pre trial flutter, Well, it's hard to
Speaker 1: say exactly what's behind the motivations for going after Mueller
Speaker 1: at this point, although obviously there's been a steady drumbeat
Speaker 1: of criticism of the Special prosecutor, both by the President
Speaker 1: and by his legal team. I think one thing we
Speaker 1: can say for sure is it Judge Ellis, who is
Speaker 1: the trial judge and will be hearing this case, has
Speaker 1: made clear to both prosecutors and the defense that he
Speaker 1: is not going to tolerate the injection of any political
Speaker 1: issues into this trial, and he's not going to allow
Speaker 1: lawyers to stray into areas that he believes could prejudice
Speaker 1: the jury. So, for example, he's told the defense that
Speaker 1: they cannot attack the motive of prosecutors for bringing this case.
Speaker 1: He's admonished prosecutors not to tie this case to Russian
Speaker 1: collusion because it's really not about Russian collusion, and prosecutors
Speaker 1: in fact have said that they will barely mention the
Speaker 1: word Russia if they make it at all during this trial. Bob,
Speaker 1: given what you just said that that this case really
Speaker 1: isn't about Russia, can you put it in context with
Speaker 1: the rest of the Muller probe? What difference does this
Speaker 1: trial make for the purposes of that probe and for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Uh, That's a great question, Greg, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the answer is, first of all, that Manifort
Speaker 1: supporters what argue this case has absolutely nothing to do
Speaker 1: with Muller's inquiry, and in fact, they filed a motion
Speaker 1: with the court to dismiss the case that very basis,
Speaker 1: saying that the Special Prosecutor had exceeded his mandate in
Speaker 1: bringing these charges. At the end of the day, this
Speaker 1: case is about money that Mr Mantafort hallogally earned in
Speaker 1: connection with work he had done over in politics in
Speaker 1: the Ukraine, and the government's cases that he failed to
Speaker 1: disclose many millions of dollars on his income taxes and
Speaker 1: then later committed bank fraud in connection with certain loans.
Speaker 1: The value of the case to the Mueller investigation is
Speaker 1: whether or not they can ultimately put enough pressure on
Speaker 1: Mr Manafort to have him cooperate with them, because he
Speaker 1: did serve as the head of the Trump campaign during
Speaker 1: a key moment during the election, and there's no question
Speaker 1: that Mueller and his team believe that he's got valuable
Speaker 1: information should they get him to agree to cooperate. Bob,
Speaker 1: we already know a lot about what the prosecutors are
Speaker 1: going to present, and they have thirty five witnesses, they
Speaker 1: have five exhibits. Do you see any holes in the
Speaker 1: prosecution's case that Manaforts attorneys might be able to use. Well.
Speaker 1: So far, Manaforts defense team has done more of a
Speaker 1: job attacking the process rather than the substance of these allegations. So,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned a minute ago, they attacked prosecutors for
Speaker 1: overstepping their bounds by bringing this prosecution in the first place.
Speaker 1: But they've really not gone after the substance of this case.
Speaker 1: So it's a bit of an open question at this
Speaker 1: point as to what their strategy will be. It would
Speaker 1: seem that this is a very well documented case based
Speaker 1: upon the evidence that we've seen so far that's been
Speaker 1: released in discovery, But obviously, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: prosecutors are going to have to prove that Mr Manafort
Speaker 1: intended to evade his taxes and that he specifically lied
Speaker 1: to bank officials in in getting a loan uh These
Speaker 1: are specific intent crimes, and prosecutors are going to intend
Speaker 1: to do that through these voluminous records and through the
Speaker 1: assistance of the testimony of Rick Gates, who was MANA
Speaker 1: for It's right hand man and who pled guilty last
Speaker 1: February and is now cooperating with the government against his
Speaker 1: former boss Bob. This is potentially one of two criminal
Speaker 1: trials against Manafort. There's another one in federal court in
Speaker 1: in d Cum. How would you compare the two cases?
Speaker 1: Is are they totally separate? Is this one address rehearsal
Speaker 1: for the second one? How do they interact with each other? Well,
Speaker 1: there is a fair amount of overlap. This case, as
Speaker 1: I mentioned, is really about tax evasion and bank fraud.
Speaker 1: The Virginia case, which will start in September after this
Speaker 1: case is concluded UH involves um bank fraud as well,
Speaker 1: but also involves him failing to Manafort failing to file
Speaker 1: uh F bars, which are declaring money that he has
Speaker 1: earned overseas, and failing to identify himself as a far
Speaker 1: An agent. So they are similar, but they're different. And
Speaker 1: one of the real questions is why Manaforts Team has
Speaker 1: elected to try these cases separately. Prosecutors had no choice
Speaker 1: but to bring certain charges into Virginia and certain charges
Speaker 1: in the District of Columbia. Typically, defense lawyers will want
Speaker 1: to consolidate those cases as they as they can uh
Speaker 1: in order to give the government only one shot at
Speaker 1: their clients. Here we're seeing Manaforts Team allow the government
Speaker 1: to go after him twice, and there's a question as
Speaker 1: to why they're doing that that. That's always been my question,
Speaker 1: but I don't think we have any answers yet. Maybe
Speaker 1: we will later on. Thanks so much, Bob. As always,
Speaker 1: that's from our federal prosecutor. Robert Menzi is a partner
Speaker 1: at McCarter in English. The Board of c v S
Speaker 1: will be meeting today to discuss the future of CEO
Speaker 1: Leslie Mounvez, who is accused of sexual harassment by six women.
Speaker 1: In a New Yorker article, author Ronan Pharaoh said at
Speaker 1: the women he interviewed reported a culture of harassment and
Speaker 1: retaliation at CBS. They also said that they were speaking
Speaker 1: out because they were afraid there was a broader culture
Speaker 1: of impunity across this company, which is something we heard
Speaker 1: from dozens of people. In the article, Moonvest acknowledge there
Speaker 1: were times decades ago when he may have made some
Speaker 1: women uncomfortable by making advances, but said he never used
Speaker 1: his position to harm anyone's career, joining us as Debora
Speaker 1: Cats founding partner at Cats, Marshall and Banks Debora. It
Speaker 1: seems that when there have been sexual harassment allegations made
Speaker 1: in the cases of other high profile men in the media,
Speaker 1: such as Charlie Rose Matt Lauer, they left their jobs
Speaker 1: almost immediately after the news reports. So is it likely
Speaker 1: that the board will ask Moonvest to step down before
Speaker 1: a full investigation can be completed. Given these well documented
Speaker 1: allegations in the Pharaoh article, it would be inconceivable to
Speaker 1: me that the board would not ask him to step down.
Speaker 1: This is a publicly traded company. The allegations are serious.
Speaker 1: The allegations and retaliation show uh tremendous abuse of authority
Speaker 1: and power, and I can't see CBS doing anything other
Speaker 1: than asking him to step down. If that's the case,
Speaker 1: what was the purpose of the statement that CBS is
Speaker 1: independent directors put out earlier saying that they plan to
Speaker 1: investigate and hire an outside law firm. Uh. Is that
Speaker 1: not an effort to buy a little time to to
Speaker 1: to figure out exactly what's going on? Well? Perhaps, but
Speaker 1: you can imagine that if he gets fired and there's
Speaker 1: not an investigation that's independent that's conducted, UH, he has
Speaker 1: a massive amount of severance that he would be claiming
Speaker 1: in entitlement to the bottom line is that CBS needs
Speaker 1: to investigate this, and they need to understand how broad
Speaker 1: the behavior is, how many people were affected by it,
Speaker 1: how many people were aware of the behavior, and whether
Speaker 1: Moonvest's conduct are really affected other divisions and the behavior
Speaker 1: of others, allowing situations like, for example, UH Charlie Rose
Speaker 1: and what we now know our serious allegations at UH
Speaker 1: in other divisions to take place. So Deborah Ronan Faraoh said,
Speaker 1: the women he interviewed reported a culture of harassment and
Speaker 1: retaliation at CBS. When the allegations are this old, how
Speaker 1: do you how do you know whether that culture is
Speaker 1: continuing or not? And how do you investigate it? You
Speaker 1: investigated by UH speaking to people who have relevant information,
Speaker 1: companies that really want to get at the issue of
Speaker 1: culture and how pervasive harassment and fears of retaliation are
Speaker 1: actually can do things like conduct climate surveys and do
Speaker 1: focus groups, and once an independent investigator gets on board,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a list of people who are the
Speaker 1: appropriate people to talk to and they will have that list.
Speaker 1: There are pending EO C charges again CBS, UH, so
Speaker 1: those would be people to speak to. But typically investigators,
Speaker 1: in speaking to one woman who has been arasked, will say,
Speaker 1: speak to this other woman. And it goes on and
Speaker 1: on and on, and even though the allegations are old,
Speaker 1: the ones in the story, there are ones that were
Speaker 1: from the early two thousand's And my guess is uh,
Speaker 1: the behavior uh continued, It typically doesn't end. UM. So
Speaker 1: the investigators have a lot of work to do, and
Speaker 1: they're not only looking at moonvess behavior, but what happened
Speaker 1: with the structure at CBS? What what what structurally is
Speaker 1: broken there that would not allow people to come forward
Speaker 1: with allegations for fear of retaliation, because that's what allows
Speaker 1: this broader culture of immunity. Can you speak to less?
Speaker 1: Moon was a public stance as a supporter of the
Speaker 1: Me Too movement. UM is obviously these are still just
Speaker 1: allegations at this point. But if these allegations are true,
Speaker 1: is that just rank ypocrisy in his part? Well, we
Speaker 1: see this again and again. We see this with Eric Schneiderman.
Speaker 1: We saw this with Harvey Weinstein. What people's public stances
Speaker 1: is often quite different from their private behavior, and it's
Speaker 1: far worse than hypocrisy. In fact, it sometimes helps facilitate
Speaker 1: very predatory behavior when you're perceived as someone who's a
Speaker 1: champion of women. So, Deborah, the legal battle with Sherry Redstone,
Speaker 1: who wants to merge CBS with Viacom, has been portrayed
Speaker 1: as this Moonvez versus Redstone. You know, how might that
Speaker 1: be affected by these by the allegations alone, Well, it
Speaker 1: seems to me that Redstone is in a much better
Speaker 1: position to say, as a majority shareholder, we are not
Speaker 1: keeping him in this position regardless of that ongoing legal battle.
Speaker 1: Um move has has has violated the trust of the
Speaker 1: company and and shareholders, and she would certainly be within
Speaker 1: her rights to say enough is enough. And Deborah, what
Speaker 1: about the women who were allegedly harassed and abused? Do
Speaker 1: they have some legal recourse here? Are is everything going
Speaker 1: to be beyond the Statute of limitations. I think that
Speaker 1: we don't know that yet. Certainly allegations from twenty years
Speaker 1: ago or beyond the statute of limitations, whether anyone has
Speaker 1: been affected within the relevant statute of limitations, we need
Speaker 1: to wait and see. But I do understand that there
Speaker 1: are pending e e o C charges and those would
Speaker 1: be those would the claims that can be pursued. I
Speaker 1: don't know who they're against. I just know that there
Speaker 1: are pending charges with the e o C. All right,
Speaker 1: just the start of this story. That's Debora Cats of Cats,
Speaker 1: Marshall and Banks. Thanks Deborah, thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the
Speaker 1: show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com
Speaker 1: slash podcasts. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg Ye