1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:12,840
Speaker 2: In the first court here and in nearly a year,

3
00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:16,239
Speaker 2: a lawyer for Donald Trump clashed with the judge in

4
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:21,200
Speaker 2: the federal election interference prosecution of the former president. Prosecutors

5
00:00:21,200 --> 00:00:24,560
Speaker 2: and defense lawyers are bitterly at odds over the next

6
00:00:24,600 --> 00:00:27,960
Speaker 2: steps in the case. After the Supreme Court narrowed the

7
00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:31,720
Speaker 2: scope of the prosecution by ruling that former presidents are

8
00:00:31,960 --> 00:00:36,120
Speaker 2: entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges. There were several

9
00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:41,240
Speaker 2: tens exchanges between Judge Tanya Chuckkin and Trump lawyer John Lauro,

10
00:00:41,720 --> 00:00:45,840
Speaker 2: particularly when he referenced the November election. We're talking about

11
00:00:45,840 --> 00:00:49,640
Speaker 2: the presidency of the United States, Laura said. At one point,

12
00:00:50,080 --> 00:00:53,479
Speaker 2: Chuckkins shot back, I'm not talking about the presidency of

13
00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:56,639
Speaker 2: the United States. I'm talking about a fore count indictment.

14
00:00:57,000 --> 00:01:00,400
Speaker 2: Joining me is Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg senior reporter who is

15
00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:03,720
Speaker 2: at the hearing and is joining us from the courthouse. ZOEA.

16
00:01:03,760 --> 00:01:07,200
Speaker 2: I understand it was pretty contentious between the judge and

17
00:01:07,640 --> 00:01:08,520
Speaker 2: Trump's attorney.

18
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:12,000
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. You know, I think that the defense

19
00:01:12,120 --> 00:01:14,920
Speaker 3: really wanted to come out swinging, saying that they think

20
00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 3: that the Special Council is rushing and trying to move

21
00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:22,880
Speaker 3: things too fast and prejudice them by going first, essentially

22
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:25,040
Speaker 3: to try and make their case for why the indictment

23
00:01:25,080 --> 00:01:28,120
Speaker 3: should move forward after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, and

24
00:01:28,560 --> 00:01:31,520
Speaker 3: the Judge repeatedly said, you know, I don't want to

25
00:01:31,520 --> 00:01:35,160
Speaker 3: hear rhetoric. I want to hear legal arguments. It doesn't

26
00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:39,160
Speaker 3: seem like there's rushing and you know, references to the election.

27
00:01:39,319 --> 00:01:42,960
Speaker 3: The judge made clear that she was deeply uninterested considering

28
00:01:43,200 --> 00:01:45,960
Speaker 3: the electoral calendar and deciding what to do next. So

29
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:47,360
Speaker 3: those are all tension points.

30
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:51,400
Speaker 2: Today, there was a dispute about which side will file

31
00:01:51,480 --> 00:01:55,520
Speaker 2: briefs first. The Special Council wants to submit a brief

32
00:01:55,560 --> 00:01:59,960
Speaker 2: first on why it's superseding indictment complies with the sup

33
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 2: Frame Court's immunity decision, and it would include a lot

34
00:02:03,640 --> 00:02:08,240
Speaker 2: of evidence like grand jury transcripts and FBI notes on

35
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:09,360
Speaker 2: witness interviews.

36
00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:12,960
Speaker 3: They wanted to essentially lay out the facts and the

37
00:02:13,000 --> 00:02:16,600
Speaker 3: evidence that they're going to present as part of this

38
00:02:16,720 --> 00:02:20,840
Speaker 3: next stage of the case and then argue why those

39
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:24,920
Speaker 3: all survive the immunity decision. Either because they are not

40
00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:29,120
Speaker 3: official acts by Trump as president, or even if they are,

41
00:02:29,639 --> 00:02:32,880
Speaker 3: why they sort of overcome the presumption of immunity that

42
00:02:32,880 --> 00:02:35,400
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court laid out for sort of non core

43
00:02:35,919 --> 00:02:39,080
Speaker 3: official acts by a president. And so they argued that

44
00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:42,200
Speaker 3: the most efficient way to do this, rather than wait

45
00:02:42,280 --> 00:02:46,000
Speaker 3: for Trump to file emotion to dismiss the incitement, which

46
00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:48,040
Speaker 3: would be the normal course of action, would be for

47
00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:51,680
Speaker 3: them to preemptively sort of lay out their case, make

48
00:02:51,720 --> 00:02:56,000
Speaker 3: the argument for why it is legally valid under the

49
00:02:56,000 --> 00:02:59,360
Speaker 3: immunity framework, and then have Trump respond to that.

50
00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:03,400
Speaker 2: So did the judge decide whether to proceed in that

51
00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:05,160
Speaker 2: way with them filing the brief first.

52
00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:08,000
Speaker 3: She did not. She said that she hoped to set

53
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:11,080
Speaker 3: a schedule later in the day or at least soon,

54
00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:14,440
Speaker 3: And you know, agreed with Trump's lawyers that this would

55
00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:16,359
Speaker 3: sort of be going out of order. That's the normal

56
00:03:16,400 --> 00:03:19,480
Speaker 3: course of business, and the normal rules would call for

57
00:03:19,520 --> 00:03:22,200
Speaker 3: the defense to go first and sort of raise the

58
00:03:22,240 --> 00:03:24,520
Speaker 3: points they want to raise about what is sufficient in

59
00:03:24,560 --> 00:03:27,640
Speaker 3: the new indictments. But as the judgment also noted, you know,

60
00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:31,200
Speaker 3: just because normal course of action doesn't mean that they

61
00:03:31,360 --> 00:03:34,800
Speaker 3: can't change up the order and the government argued that

62
00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:40,560
Speaker 3: this would avoid multiple potential appeals by Trump's lawyers, versus

63
00:03:40,760 --> 00:03:43,360
Speaker 3: putting everything sort of in one package and then whoever

64
00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:46,840
Speaker 3: loses can take all of that up to the DC circuit.

65
00:03:47,280 --> 00:03:50,240
Speaker 2: So it seemed as if the judge and the prosecution

66
00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:53,720
Speaker 2: acknowledge that no matter what happened, there was going to

67
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:56,520
Speaker 2: be an appeal, and that the prosecution was just trying

68
00:03:56,520 --> 00:03:58,440
Speaker 2: to keep it down to one appeal.

69
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:02,080
Speaker 3: That's right. Basically, Trump lawyers talked about wanting to handle

70
00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 3: this in a couple stages where they first want to

71
00:04:05,360 --> 00:04:09,560
Speaker 3: argue that by keeping allegations about Donald Trump's efforts to

72
00:04:09,640 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 3: pressure then Vice President Mike Pence in the indictment, that

73
00:04:14,120 --> 00:04:19,200
Speaker 3: that conduct specifically is still official acts not entitled to immunity.

74
00:04:19,560 --> 00:04:21,839
Speaker 3: And if that's the case, they argue, that means that

75
00:04:21,960 --> 00:04:25,440
Speaker 3: this new grand jury that returned the superseding indictment was

76
00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:28,640
Speaker 3: tainted and the entire indictment should be tossed up. And

77
00:04:28,680 --> 00:04:32,000
Speaker 3: then if the judge disagrees and says that the Pence

78
00:04:32,279 --> 00:04:35,000
Speaker 3: information can stay in, then they would go to a

79
00:04:35,080 --> 00:04:37,880
Speaker 3: next round of briefing as to why other parts of

80
00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:41,560
Speaker 3: the indictment bill fail. Out of the immunity test. But yees,

81
00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:45,440
Speaker 3: I think everyone agreed that whatever happens, whatever jun Tutkin does,

82
00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:47,719
Speaker 3: will be appealed, and she at one point even said

83
00:04:47,760 --> 00:04:50,320
Speaker 3: that she thought it was a quote exercise in futility

84
00:04:50,640 --> 00:04:53,200
Speaker 3: to try to set some kind of trial schedule because

85
00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:55,560
Speaker 3: it just doesn't matter, and everything we put on hold

86
00:04:55,560 --> 00:04:57,440
Speaker 3: again when it goes up to the circuit or the

87
00:04:57,440 --> 00:04:58,160
Speaker 3: Supreme courtance.

88
00:04:58,680 --> 00:05:03,000
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers took the position that the whole case has

89
00:05:03,040 --> 00:05:07,560
Speaker 2: to fall if Trump's interactions with Mike Pence are immune

90
00:05:07,560 --> 00:05:11,360
Speaker 2: from prosecution, and did the judge disagree with the defense

91
00:05:11,520 --> 00:05:14,400
Speaker 2: interpretation of the Supreme Court decision?

92
00:05:14,920 --> 00:05:17,520
Speaker 3: Not in so many words, but she suggested that she

93
00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:20,039
Speaker 3: didn't think that it was clear cut that that was

94
00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:23,680
Speaker 3: definitely off limits and that it was official acts and

95
00:05:24,120 --> 00:05:28,360
Speaker 3: immune from prosecution. I think a few times she indicated

96
00:05:28,400 --> 00:05:31,799
Speaker 3: that what exactly the Supreme Court had to say about

97
00:05:31,800 --> 00:05:34,800
Speaker 3: the indictment was not as sort of clear cut as

98
00:05:34,839 --> 00:05:39,240
Speaker 3: Trump's lawyers suggested it was, and that it had to be,

99
00:05:39,400 --> 00:05:43,120
Speaker 3: you know, a fact based determination as opposed to just

100
00:05:43,360 --> 00:05:46,720
Speaker 3: a decision on the wall about whether that that part

101
00:05:46,720 --> 00:05:50,359
Speaker 3: of the indictment is wholesale off limits to prosecutors or not.

102
00:05:50,800 --> 00:05:53,480
Speaker 2: Anyone who read that decision knows it's not clear cut.

103
00:05:53,520 --> 00:05:57,280
Speaker 2: There's not much that's clear cut in that decision. Now. Also,

104
00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:01,400
Speaker 2: the Trump lawyers did not try before for this to

105
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:07,040
Speaker 2: make an argument that the Special Counsel's appointment is unconstitutional,

106
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:10,279
Speaker 2: but now they want to make that argument here they do.

107
00:06:11,040 --> 00:06:13,640
Speaker 3: There was definitely some tense back and forth about that

108
00:06:13,720 --> 00:06:17,400
Speaker 3: as well, you know, with the judge and the prosecutor

109
00:06:17,480 --> 00:06:20,520
Speaker 3: from Jack's miss Office, Tom Wyndham, basically saying that they

110
00:06:20,560 --> 00:06:24,320
Speaker 3: actually missed the deadline to raise that argument before the

111
00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:28,279
Speaker 3: case was paused during the immunity fights. But regardless, you know,

112
00:06:28,360 --> 00:06:31,880
Speaker 3: Judge Chuckkin is going to give them some time to

113
00:06:32,200 --> 00:06:36,080
Speaker 3: raise that argument, but she already signaled that it's an

114
00:06:36,160 --> 00:06:39,520
Speaker 3: uphill battle for them. They noted, you know, that Judge

115
00:06:39,560 --> 00:06:43,080
Speaker 3: Eileen Cannon and Florida had just missed the other case

116
00:06:43,120 --> 00:06:46,760
Speaker 3: that miss Office brought regarding Trump's handling class by documents

117
00:06:46,760 --> 00:06:50,599
Speaker 3: on the appointment's clause issue, and that Justice Thomas, in

118
00:06:50,640 --> 00:06:53,719
Speaker 3: a concurring opinion in the immunity case, had mentioned that

119
00:06:53,800 --> 00:06:57,599
Speaker 3: issue as one of interests him at least. And Trump

120
00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:01,200
Speaker 3: lawyer said, well, these two things you know, really make

121
00:07:01,279 --> 00:07:03,800
Speaker 3: this an important issue for us to approach now. And

122
00:07:03,880 --> 00:07:06,480
Speaker 3: Judge Chuckkins said, I don't know about that. She said

123
00:07:06,480 --> 00:07:09,279
Speaker 3: that she thought Judge Cannon's opinion on this issue was

124
00:07:09,440 --> 00:07:13,000
Speaker 3: not quote, particularly persuasive. So I think we got an

125
00:07:13,040 --> 00:07:17,239
Speaker 3: indication that she's not inclined to join Judge Cannon and Florida.

126
00:07:17,280 --> 00:07:20,720
Speaker 3: And there's also finding PC Circuit president on this issue.

127
00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:23,720
Speaker 3: So regardless of what she thinks about Judge Cannon's opinion,

128
00:07:24,160 --> 00:07:26,440
Speaker 3: her hands are tied here. But they'll be able to

129
00:07:26,520 --> 00:07:30,240
Speaker 3: raise it, but you unlikely to succeed, at least not

130
00:07:30,960 --> 00:07:32,720
Speaker 3: in the way that they did in Florida.

131
00:07:32,960 --> 00:07:35,520
Speaker 2: Is there still an attempt to move the case forward

132
00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:38,640
Speaker 2: quickly even though it's obvious that it can't be tried

133
00:07:38,680 --> 00:07:42,960
Speaker 2: before the election. Or are the prosecutors sort of a

134
00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:44,720
Speaker 2: little bit more laid back about it?

135
00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:47,960
Speaker 3: You know, it's interesting when they put in writing what

136
00:07:48,000 --> 00:07:50,400
Speaker 3: they wanted to do next ahead of this hearing, the

137
00:07:50,440 --> 00:07:54,440
Speaker 3: government noticeably did not commit to a certain date when

138
00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:56,320
Speaker 3: they wanted things to get started. They just said that

139
00:07:56,360 --> 00:07:58,960
Speaker 3: we're prepared to move as quickly as the judge wants

140
00:07:59,000 --> 00:08:02,400
Speaker 3: us to. In court today, Judge Chuckkins said, you got

141
00:08:02,440 --> 00:08:04,560
Speaker 3: to give me more than that. You know, how quickly

142
00:08:04,920 --> 00:08:07,560
Speaker 3: are you prepared to really move and they said three weeks,

143
00:08:07,600 --> 00:08:10,400
Speaker 3: two to three weeks, probably three weeks, so you know,

144
00:08:10,920 --> 00:08:13,920
Speaker 3: that's that is quite fast. And I think it's really

145
00:08:13,960 --> 00:08:18,360
Speaker 3: now a question of is the judge inclined to go

146
00:08:18,440 --> 00:08:22,440
Speaker 3: with that schedule and sort of move things forward and

147
00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:26,880
Speaker 3: have you know, new pleadings and aspects of this fight

148
00:08:27,000 --> 00:08:31,520
Speaker 3: play out publicly before the election, or is she inclined

149
00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:34,640
Speaker 3: to go with the sort of slower pace post election

150
00:08:34,760 --> 00:08:36,800
Speaker 3: schedule that Trump's lawyers have proposed.

151
00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:40,760
Speaker 2: And at one point, did Trump's lawyer actually say that

152
00:08:40,840 --> 00:08:44,840
Speaker 2: they didn't want sensitive information coming out before the election?

153
00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:48,360
Speaker 3: You know what Trump lay, John Laurro said a few

154
00:08:48,360 --> 00:08:52,400
Speaker 3: times because he referred to this quick, sensitive time, and

155
00:08:52,480 --> 00:08:54,440
Speaker 3: he brought that up a few times, and the judge

156
00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:57,079
Speaker 3: finally said, let's talk about what you're talking about here.

157
00:08:57,160 --> 00:09:00,440
Speaker 3: You're talking about the election. She goes, you know, I

158
00:09:00,520 --> 00:09:03,040
Speaker 3: understand that there's an election coming, but and this is

159
00:09:03,040 --> 00:09:05,800
Speaker 3: the point that she's made before the election does not

160
00:09:06,000 --> 00:09:09,280
Speaker 3: dictate my schedule. It's not relevant to the schedule that

161
00:09:09,320 --> 00:09:12,040
Speaker 3: I'm setting here. And at one point she even said

162
00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 3: to trumpflar. She accused them of trying to drag this

163
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:19,600
Speaker 3: out to avoid influencing the election, and you know, their

164
00:09:19,679 --> 00:09:22,320
Speaker 3: argument was that they didn't want the government to sort

165
00:09:22,320 --> 00:09:25,560
Speaker 3: of go first, right, So the implication was that they

166
00:09:25,600 --> 00:09:29,240
Speaker 3: were trying to delay this anything coming out that might

167
00:09:29,280 --> 00:09:32,360
Speaker 3: be hurtful to Trump's campaign before the election. And John

168
00:09:32,400 --> 00:09:34,600
Speaker 3: Laurier pushed back on that and said, no, no, that's

169
00:09:34,600 --> 00:09:36,160
Speaker 3: not what we're trying to do here. We just think

170
00:09:36,200 --> 00:09:39,320
Speaker 3: that the Supreme Court has required us to give these

171
00:09:39,440 --> 00:09:43,840
Speaker 3: very weighty issues related to the presidency careful considerations. That

172
00:09:43,920 --> 00:09:46,720
Speaker 3: it was clear, you know, she was trying to unwrap

173
00:09:46,880 --> 00:09:48,920
Speaker 3: what she said was really the subtext of what they

174
00:09:48,920 --> 00:09:51,439
Speaker 3: were saying. When Dunlaer kept talking about this being a

175
00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:52,520
Speaker 3: sensitive time.

176
00:09:52,880 --> 00:09:55,360
Speaker 2: No surprise that they're trying to delay the case, as

177
00:09:55,360 --> 00:09:59,360
Speaker 2: they've delayed every case so far. Was there any talk

178
00:09:59,480 --> 00:10:03,880
Speaker 2: of whold an evidentiary hearing? Perhaps before the election.

179
00:10:04,200 --> 00:10:06,800
Speaker 3: There was, but it didn't sound like that something that

180
00:10:06,800 --> 00:10:10,679
Speaker 3: would happen anytime here from lawyer John Morrow talked about

181
00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:14,200
Speaker 3: at some point their clients should have the ability to

182
00:10:14,720 --> 00:10:18,880
Speaker 3: question the Special Counsel's witnesses and test their evidence as

183
00:10:18,920 --> 00:10:22,600
Speaker 3: this immunity fight plays out, but neither side was really

184
00:10:22,679 --> 00:10:27,760
Speaker 3: pushing for that kind of airing of evidence or testimony

185
00:10:28,320 --> 00:10:29,199
Speaker 3: in the near future.

186
00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:31,640
Speaker 2: So what's the next thing that will happen.

187
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:34,440
Speaker 3: So what we're waiting for now is for the judge

188
00:10:34,440 --> 00:10:38,800
Speaker 3: to enter a scheduling order and it will indicate sort

189
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:41,679
Speaker 3: of who wins and loses this round, at least when

190
00:10:41,720 --> 00:10:44,760
Speaker 3: it comes to timing, and will see, you know, if

191
00:10:44,800 --> 00:10:48,040
Speaker 3: she sets any deadlines before November fifth, that's really the

192
00:10:48,080 --> 00:10:51,720
Speaker 3: most important operative date right now, and what order she

193
00:10:51,840 --> 00:10:54,200
Speaker 3: puts things in, if she has breathed to do sort

194
00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:56,640
Speaker 3: of all at once, or if she staggers them. But

195
00:10:56,720 --> 00:11:01,040
Speaker 3: we're not really expecting any other surprises on just when

196
00:11:01,080 --> 00:11:04,040
Speaker 3: those first deadlines are Judge Chuckkin.

197
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:09,080
Speaker 2: Judge Chuckkins seems like a no nonsense judge. Judge Chuckkins

198
00:11:09,160 --> 00:11:11,960
Speaker 2: seems like a no nonsense judge.

199
00:11:12,600 --> 00:11:15,880
Speaker 3: She does, and you know, I think as a reporter

200
00:11:16,600 --> 00:11:20,040
Speaker 3: watching her, you could sense the frustration that she had

201
00:11:20,280 --> 00:11:23,520
Speaker 3: with some of the ways that Trump's lawyers were framing

202
00:11:23,920 --> 00:11:26,600
Speaker 3: their arguments. You At one point she told John Laura

203
00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:28,640
Speaker 3: to sort of cool it with the rhetoric, and he

204
00:11:29,040 --> 00:11:31,080
Speaker 3: pushed back and said this is not rhetoric. These are

205
00:11:31,160 --> 00:11:32,040
Speaker 3: legal arguments.

206
00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:35,760
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Zoe for taking us inside the courtroom.

207
00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:40,400
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Senior reporter Zoe Tillman coming up next on

208
00:11:40,440 --> 00:11:44,440
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show. Another twist and turn in the

209
00:11:44,480 --> 00:11:48,640
Speaker 2: odd non Sayyed case, the legal saga that gained national

210
00:11:48,640 --> 00:11:53,040
Speaker 2: attention through the podcast serial. I'm June Grosso and you're

211
00:11:53,120 --> 00:11:57,720
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg. Yet another twist and turn in the

212
00:11:57,760 --> 00:12:01,720
Speaker 2: odd non Sayyed case, a llegal saga that gained national

213
00:12:01,760 --> 00:12:05,600
Speaker 2: attention through the hit podcast serial. After more than two

214
00:12:05,679 --> 00:12:09,480
Speaker 2: decades in prison, Sayed was freed in September of twenty

215
00:12:09,520 --> 00:12:13,640
Speaker 2: twenty two when a Baltimore judge overturned his conviction for

216
00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:16,560
Speaker 2: the murder of his ex girlfriend at the request of

217
00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:20,559
Speaker 2: Baltimore prosecutors, who said they found flaws in the evidence

218
00:12:20,640 --> 00:12:24,679
Speaker 2: used against him at trial. But now Siyed is once

219
00:12:24,720 --> 00:12:30,080
Speaker 2: again facing prison. His conviction has been reinstated after the

220
00:12:30,120 --> 00:12:33,840
Speaker 2: Maryland Supreme Court, in a four to three decision, ruled

221
00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:37,120
Speaker 2: that the earlier proceedings had violated the rights of the

222
00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:41,160
Speaker 2: victim's family because they weren't given enough notice of the

223
00:12:41,200 --> 00:12:44,160
Speaker 2: time of the hearing. Joining me as trial attorney David

224
00:12:44,280 --> 00:12:48,559
Speaker 2: Ring of Tailor and Ring in Los Angeles. If prosecutors

225
00:12:48,600 --> 00:12:52,680
Speaker 2: decide that they've wrongfully convicted someone, shouldn't it be their

226
00:12:52,720 --> 00:12:55,880
Speaker 2: decision to drop the charges? I mean, why should a

227
00:12:55,880 --> 00:12:57,079
Speaker 2: court make that decision?

228
00:12:57,760 --> 00:13:00,120
Speaker 1: The court has a say in that because the or

229
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:02,760
Speaker 1: it's the ultimate gatekeeper. You know, we have to have

230
00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:05,520
Speaker 1: checks and balances. Look, most of the time, if the

231
00:13:05,559 --> 00:13:08,600
Speaker 1: prosecution comes in and says, hey, you know, this guy's

232
00:13:08,640 --> 00:13:12,080
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted, the vast majority of the time, the court's

233
00:13:12,120 --> 00:13:15,080
Speaker 1: going to agree with them and drop the charges. But

234
00:13:15,600 --> 00:13:17,920
Speaker 1: this court still has to sign off on it. There

235
00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:20,360
Speaker 1: still has to be some sort of hearing, and it's

236
00:13:20,440 --> 00:13:22,720
Speaker 1: just a way to have checks and balances to make

237
00:13:22,760 --> 00:13:25,760
Speaker 1: sure that everyone's playing fairly in the system.

238
00:13:26,200 --> 00:13:29,200
Speaker 2: So in this case, the issue is that the victim's brother,

239
00:13:29,679 --> 00:13:33,160
Speaker 2: who spoke at the hearing by video conference from his

240
00:13:33,360 --> 00:13:36,840
Speaker 2: house in California, he argued that you should have gotten

241
00:13:36,840 --> 00:13:40,720
Speaker 2: more notice of the proceeding. He was given notice on

242
00:13:40,840 --> 00:13:42,760
Speaker 2: Friday about a Monday hearing.

243
00:13:43,280 --> 00:13:46,160
Speaker 1: That was the issue. But here's the bigger picture on

244
00:13:46,200 --> 00:13:49,680
Speaker 1: that issue. Because the way it's kind of framed sometimes

245
00:13:49,679 --> 00:13:51,200
Speaker 1: in the media, it's like well, what's the big deal?

246
00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:55,440
Speaker 1: He beared by zoom. But that hearing was a monumental hearing.

247
00:13:55,800 --> 00:13:59,040
Speaker 1: That was a hearing where the prosecution basically came into

248
00:13:59,120 --> 00:14:02,800
Speaker 1: court and said, hey, Court, we want to drop these charges,

249
00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:06,439
Speaker 1: we want to have this conviction overturned. And what Maryland's

250
00:14:06,559 --> 00:14:09,920
Speaker 1: highest court has said in respond to that was, if

251
00:14:09,920 --> 00:14:13,000
Speaker 1: you're going to have a hearing like that, the victim

252
00:14:13,200 --> 00:14:16,760
Speaker 1: or the victim's representative absolutely has a right not only

253
00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:20,400
Speaker 1: to be there in person, but to be heard. And

254
00:14:20,440 --> 00:14:23,200
Speaker 1: that's a big part of this ruling is that you know,

255
00:14:23,480 --> 00:14:27,000
Speaker 1: the victim's brother, mister Lee, he was in California. He

256
00:14:27,120 --> 00:14:29,800
Speaker 1: was given notice on a Friday to be there Monday.

257
00:14:30,040 --> 00:14:32,520
Speaker 1: He had an attorney who was representing him. They said, hey,

258
00:14:32,520 --> 00:14:34,280
Speaker 1: give us another week. We want to be there in

259
00:14:34,320 --> 00:14:36,480
Speaker 1: person and we want to be heard. And they weren't

260
00:14:36,520 --> 00:14:39,560
Speaker 1: given that opportunity. And the key to this decision is

261
00:14:39,640 --> 00:14:43,240
Speaker 1: if he had been given time to come to Baltimore

262
00:14:43,360 --> 00:14:46,600
Speaker 1: to appear in court with his lawyer, the lawyer has

263
00:14:46,640 --> 00:14:49,720
Speaker 1: a right to argue in basically in the shoes of

264
00:14:49,720 --> 00:14:52,960
Speaker 1: the victim and say why is this conviction being dropped?

265
00:14:53,360 --> 00:14:56,520
Speaker 1: There's plenty of evidence here, this guy did it, there's

266
00:14:56,560 --> 00:14:59,000
Speaker 1: no new evidence to drop it, and they basically have

267
00:14:59,240 --> 00:15:03,560
Speaker 1: a right to challenge the prosecution's decision to drop the case.

268
00:15:03,800 --> 00:15:06,400
Speaker 1: That's where this decision is so important.

269
00:15:07,080 --> 00:15:10,680
Speaker 2: There's no set time for the notice to a victim

270
00:15:10,800 --> 00:15:14,360
Speaker 2: in Maryland law. So how did the Maryland Supreme Court

271
00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:17,880
Speaker 2: decide what notice is enough? And how did they.

272
00:15:17,880 --> 00:15:21,520
Speaker 1: Come to that it's a reasonableness standard. And so basically,

273
00:15:21,640 --> 00:15:24,640
Speaker 1: in a very close decision four to three, the Supreme

274
00:15:24,680 --> 00:15:29,920
Speaker 1: Court said it's not reasonable to tell the victims representative

275
00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:32,880
Speaker 1: on a Friday that you're having a hearing on a

276
00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:35,880
Speaker 1: Monday and say, oh, gee, but you can appear by zoom.

277
00:15:36,120 --> 00:15:38,320
Speaker 1: That's not reasonable. They have a right to be there

278
00:15:38,440 --> 00:15:42,480
Speaker 1: in person. So what's reasonable? Okay, set it a week out,

279
00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:44,920
Speaker 1: two weeks out, but setting it on the next business

280
00:15:45,000 --> 00:15:50,200
Speaker 1: day unreasonable. It denied the victim's representative of his right

281
00:15:50,280 --> 00:15:53,520
Speaker 1: to be in court and to be heard. That's the key.

282
00:15:54,080 --> 00:15:57,640
Speaker 2: While the appeal was pending, and eight days before the deadline,

283
00:15:57,880 --> 00:16:03,760
Speaker 2: the Baltimore States Attorney had dropped all charges against Sayed

284
00:16:04,320 --> 00:16:08,080
Speaker 2: in the dessense, Justice Michelle Houghten argued the issue was

285
00:16:08,120 --> 00:16:11,840
Speaker 2: moot because the underlying charges no longer exist. Quote, this

286
00:16:12,000 --> 00:16:16,440
Speaker 2: case exists as a procedural zombie. It has been reanimated

287
00:16:16,520 --> 00:16:20,400
Speaker 2: despite its expiration. The doctrine of mootoness was designed to

288
00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:24,880
Speaker 2: prevent such judicial necromancy. Very good language.

289
00:16:24,880 --> 00:16:28,640
Speaker 1: Then I totally disagree with her. I think in this

290
00:16:28,720 --> 00:16:32,720
Speaker 1: day and age, the victim's rights are incredibly important, and

291
00:16:32,800 --> 00:16:35,760
Speaker 1: too many times the victim or their family the rights

292
00:16:35,800 --> 00:16:39,520
Speaker 1: get trampled in the criminal process and the prosecutor. Remember,

293
00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:43,120
Speaker 1: the prosecutor represents the people. They don't necessarily represent the

294
00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:47,200
Speaker 1: victim's family or the victim. They represent the people. And

295
00:16:47,280 --> 00:16:50,680
Speaker 1: so I think what Maryland Supreme Court has said here is, hey,

296
00:16:50,680 --> 00:16:54,160
Speaker 1: you know what, we're going to respect the victim's rights here.

297
00:16:54,280 --> 00:16:58,400
Speaker 1: And this victim had its rights trampled upon by this prosecutor,

298
00:16:58,480 --> 00:17:02,440
Speaker 1: who who quickly went in court had completely reversed course

299
00:17:02,520 --> 00:17:06,399
Speaker 1: on how they felt about Saii's conviction and suddenly was

300
00:17:06,440 --> 00:17:09,399
Speaker 1: willing to let this guy go free. And basically the

301
00:17:09,480 --> 00:17:13,520
Speaker 1: Supreme Court of Maryland said, hey, you know what, that's

302
00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:17,240
Speaker 1: not fair. This victim her representative has an absolute right

303
00:17:17,280 --> 00:17:21,080
Speaker 1: to be there and to challenge that decision by the prosecutor. Look,

304
00:17:21,160 --> 00:17:23,439
Speaker 1: I think if you want to kind of read between

305
00:17:23,480 --> 00:17:26,000
Speaker 1: the lines here, you know, sometimes we have to read

306
00:17:26,040 --> 00:17:29,040
Speaker 1: between the lines of how these decisions get played out

307
00:17:29,400 --> 00:17:33,240
Speaker 1: in the highest course. I think that the Supreme Court

308
00:17:33,520 --> 00:17:36,480
Speaker 1: is basically saying, we don't think Saia should be free.

309
00:17:36,640 --> 00:17:38,920
Speaker 1: We think there should be a new trial. Why did

310
00:17:38,920 --> 00:17:42,320
Speaker 1: the prosecution, you know, fight this for twenty years and

311
00:17:42,359 --> 00:17:46,200
Speaker 1: then suddenly in twenty twenty two reverse course and say, yeah,

312
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:48,520
Speaker 1: you know what, he should be free. Why did that

313
00:17:48,560 --> 00:17:51,320
Speaker 1: suddenly happen? I think they want to see a new trial.

314
00:17:51,400 --> 00:17:53,200
Speaker 1: They don't want to see him go free.

315
00:17:53,480 --> 00:17:59,200
Speaker 2: Well, the prosecution did a complete new investigation and new

316
00:17:59,280 --> 00:18:04,000
Speaker 2: DNA has staying from the shoes of the victim, excluded

317
00:18:04,119 --> 00:18:08,080
Speaker 2: Sayed as a suspect. The prosecution had new evidence, and

318
00:18:08,160 --> 00:18:10,360
Speaker 2: you know, the rights of the victim are one thing,

319
00:18:10,400 --> 00:18:14,160
Speaker 2: but you know that our justice system is far from

320
00:18:14,200 --> 00:18:17,840
Speaker 2: perfect and there are a lot of wrongful convictions. So

321
00:18:17,960 --> 00:18:20,639
Speaker 2: how do you weigh you know, the twists and turns

322
00:18:20,640 --> 00:18:23,600
Speaker 2: in this case. It's been going on for twenty years,

323
00:18:23,720 --> 00:18:26,560
Speaker 2: you know, the rights of the victim versus the rights

324
00:18:26,640 --> 00:18:32,639
Speaker 2: of a defendant that the prosecution says now was wrongfully convicted.

325
00:18:33,040 --> 00:18:36,320
Speaker 1: Well, so Here's here's where this dynamic kicks in is

326
00:18:36,400 --> 00:18:39,960
Speaker 1: because again it's all about the opportunity to be heard

327
00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:43,359
Speaker 1: and to have a fair playing field. And so when

328
00:18:43,440 --> 00:18:46,680
Speaker 1: the prosecution came in in twenty twenty two and said, oh,

329
00:18:46,720 --> 00:18:51,000
Speaker 1: we have new evidence which we think exonerates, said, well,

330
00:18:51,000 --> 00:18:54,520
Speaker 1: they did that behind closed doors. They didn't do that

331
00:18:54,600 --> 00:18:57,040
Speaker 1: in open court. You know it's come out what the

332
00:18:57,080 --> 00:18:59,520
Speaker 1: evidence was. But I'll tell you, if you'd have fresh

333
00:18:59,560 --> 00:19:02,560
Speaker 1: eyes on that so called new evidence, I'm not sure

334
00:19:02,640 --> 00:19:05,680
Speaker 1: how new or exculpatory it really is. I mean, there's

335
00:19:05,720 --> 00:19:08,679
Speaker 1: no DNA on her shoes. To me, that's like a

336
00:19:08,880 --> 00:19:11,960
Speaker 1: so wet you know, she was strangled to death. Why

337
00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:14,840
Speaker 1: would there be his DNA on her shoes? How does

338
00:19:14,880 --> 00:19:17,560
Speaker 1: that exonerate him? I get it. There's two sides to

339
00:19:17,640 --> 00:19:21,280
Speaker 1: this case. There are people who absolutely believe he got

340
00:19:21,359 --> 00:19:23,639
Speaker 1: railroaded and didn't do it, and there's people who believe

341
00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:27,159
Speaker 1: that he absolutely did it. And so the Supreme Court

342
00:19:27,240 --> 00:19:29,840
Speaker 1: is saying, you know what, not so fast here, not

343
00:19:29,960 --> 00:19:32,800
Speaker 1: so fast prosecution. There's got to be a hearing on this.

344
00:19:33,240 --> 00:19:35,480
Speaker 1: We want to shine a spotlight on what your new

345
00:19:35,480 --> 00:19:39,920
Speaker 1: evidence is and what your reasons are for suddenly reversing

346
00:19:40,000 --> 00:19:42,200
Speaker 1: a conviction and letting a guy go free, and we're

347
00:19:42,200 --> 00:19:44,280
Speaker 1: not going to let you do it behind closed doors.

348
00:19:45,359 --> 00:19:49,600
Speaker 2: Now there's another twist in the case because the Baltimore

349
00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:53,040
Speaker 2: State's Attorney, Marilyn Moseby, who had moved to throw out

350
00:19:53,080 --> 00:19:56,240
Speaker 2: the conviction and drop the charges, she's no longer the

351
00:19:56,280 --> 00:20:01,359
Speaker 2: Baltimore State Attorney. And now there's a new Baltimore's state attorney,

352
00:20:01,600 --> 00:20:04,359
Speaker 2: and his office said it needed time to review the

353
00:20:04,440 --> 00:20:08,240
Speaker 2: Supreme Courts lent the opinion, and to determine whether his

354
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:11,480
Speaker 2: office has a conflict of interest in the case. What

355
00:20:11,680 --> 00:20:14,040
Speaker 2: kind of conflict of interest are they referring to.

356
00:20:14,720 --> 00:20:18,040
Speaker 1: So you have a new prosecutor, Ivan Bates, And in

357
00:20:18,119 --> 00:20:21,320
Speaker 1: his campaign to become the prosecutor, he seemed to be

358
00:20:21,359 --> 00:20:24,960
Speaker 1: a proponent that the conviction should be dropped. And so look,

359
00:20:25,000 --> 00:20:27,879
Speaker 1: he's in a political pickle right now because it's a

360
00:20:27,920 --> 00:20:31,119
Speaker 1: tough decision. Do you drop this conviction for murder or

361
00:20:31,200 --> 00:20:34,400
Speaker 1: do you go ahead and reverse course yet again and

362
00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:37,440
Speaker 1: have a new trial. So he might take the easy

363
00:20:37,440 --> 00:20:40,960
Speaker 1: way out. He might punt it to another independent agency

364
00:20:40,960 --> 00:20:43,320
Speaker 1: and let them make the decision. You know, he may

365
00:20:43,400 --> 00:20:45,159
Speaker 1: look back at it and say, hey, this is too

366
00:20:45,240 --> 00:20:49,399
Speaker 1: much water under the bridge here for this Baltimore prosecution office,

367
00:20:49,640 --> 00:20:53,240
Speaker 1: and we've lost credibility on this case. Let's let an independent,

368
00:20:53,720 --> 00:20:56,760
Speaker 1: another state agency come in and make that decision for us.

369
00:20:57,800 --> 00:21:01,240
Speaker 2: This case, as you know, has gotten so much attention

370
00:21:01,680 --> 00:21:05,040
Speaker 2: because of the serial podcast, and there have been so

371
00:21:05,200 --> 00:21:10,439
Speaker 2: many legal twists and turns in the case. And after

372
00:21:10,480 --> 00:21:14,320
Speaker 2: his release there were crowds outside the courthouse and it

373
00:21:14,400 --> 00:21:20,120
Speaker 2: was covered nationally. He's now out pending the determination here.

374
00:21:20,640 --> 00:21:24,119
Speaker 2: I mean, what would it be like politically for a

375
00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:27,760
Speaker 2: state's attorney to say, oh, we're going to refile charges

376
00:21:28,359 --> 00:21:29,639
Speaker 2: and you have to go back to prison.

377
00:21:30,760 --> 00:21:33,480
Speaker 1: They'd absolutely be an outpright And I don't think anyone's

378
00:21:33,560 --> 00:21:36,720
Speaker 1: expecting that decision to be made for that exact reason,

379
00:21:36,840 --> 00:21:39,400
Speaker 1: because that's a tough decision to say, you know what,

380
00:21:39,520 --> 00:21:42,160
Speaker 1: we're gonna have another trial, We're going to go through

381
00:21:42,200 --> 00:21:44,560
Speaker 1: this all over again, and that's going to be more

382
00:21:44,640 --> 00:21:47,399
Speaker 1: years and more appeals and all that, and you know,

383
00:21:47,440 --> 00:21:49,320
Speaker 1: we're going to take this guy who's now out there

384
00:21:49,320 --> 00:21:51,200
Speaker 1: and free and we're going to put him back in prison.

385
00:21:51,320 --> 00:21:54,159
Speaker 1: That's the toughest decision to make. And you're right, The

386
00:21:54,240 --> 00:21:56,520
Speaker 1: easy decision is we're just going to let things stand

387
00:21:56,520 --> 00:21:59,040
Speaker 1: where they are. We're gon we're gonna pursue this any further.

388
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:01,400
Speaker 1: It's been going on too long already. It's been going

389
00:22:01,440 --> 00:22:04,440
Speaker 1: on for twenty five years. You know, he was convicted

390
00:22:04,760 --> 00:22:07,800
Speaker 1: in the year two thousand. This case has been going

391
00:22:07,800 --> 00:22:10,400
Speaker 1: on for a long time. But it's not over yet

392
00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:13,040
Speaker 1: because we still have to have this new hearing. The

393
00:22:13,119 --> 00:22:15,600
Speaker 1: Supreme Court said there's going to be another hearing on

394
00:22:15,680 --> 00:22:19,680
Speaker 1: whether this conviction is going to be dropped. The victim's

395
00:22:19,720 --> 00:22:22,399
Speaker 1: brother has a right to be heard at that hearing,

396
00:22:22,720 --> 00:22:24,760
Speaker 1: and then there could be appeals that flow from that.

397
00:22:24,960 --> 00:22:27,160
Speaker 1: This case is going to go on for a few

398
00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:28,120
Speaker 1: more years.

399
00:22:28,240 --> 00:22:32,320
Speaker 2: Although if the victim's family gets its chance to appear

400
00:22:32,680 --> 00:22:37,879
Speaker 2: and the charges are dropped again, that should and the appeals,

401
00:22:37,960 --> 00:22:40,520
Speaker 2: I mean, tell us what could happen at this hearing.

402
00:22:40,760 --> 00:22:44,360
Speaker 1: Well, look, here's the possible outcomes of this next hearing. Right,

403
00:22:44,840 --> 00:22:46,880
Speaker 1: So it's going to be a redo, and we don't

404
00:22:46,920 --> 00:22:49,000
Speaker 1: know which way the prosecution is going to come in.

405
00:22:49,040 --> 00:22:51,960
Speaker 1: But let's say the prosecution stays where they were in

406
00:22:52,000 --> 00:22:54,880
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two and says, hey, we think the conviction

407
00:22:54,960 --> 00:22:59,080
Speaker 1: should be overturned, right, and then the mister Lee, the

408
00:22:59,119 --> 00:23:01,240
Speaker 1: brother gets to come in and argue that shouldn't be

409
00:23:01,280 --> 00:23:03,520
Speaker 1: the case. But let's say the judge agrees with that,

410
00:23:04,080 --> 00:23:06,159
Speaker 1: all right, that probably brings an end to the case.

411
00:23:06,320 --> 00:23:10,840
Speaker 1: You know, the conviction's overturned, he's free. Finally it's over. However,

412
00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:13,239
Speaker 1: you know, there's going to be a new judge on

413
00:23:13,320 --> 00:23:15,480
Speaker 1: this hearing. It's not going to be the judge from

414
00:23:15,480 --> 00:23:19,439
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. There's new prosecutors on this case, not

415
00:23:19,520 --> 00:23:22,879
Speaker 1: the same ones from twenty twenty two, and there's a

416
00:23:22,960 --> 00:23:27,919
Speaker 1: decent chance that with the new players involved and a

417
00:23:28,000 --> 00:23:30,720
Speaker 1: new judge, this judge could say, you know what, I'm

418
00:23:30,760 --> 00:23:34,439
Speaker 1: not going to overturn the conviction. We're going to have

419
00:23:34,480 --> 00:23:36,760
Speaker 1: a new trial, and we're going to go back to

420
00:23:36,840 --> 00:23:39,320
Speaker 1: square one, back where we were in two thousand, and

421
00:23:39,400 --> 00:23:42,040
Speaker 1: have a new trial on this whole thing. I agree,

422
00:23:42,040 --> 00:23:44,920
Speaker 1: it's a remote possibility, but it's a possibility.

423
00:23:45,520 --> 00:23:49,119
Speaker 2: And it's really hard to try a murder case twenty

424
00:23:49,160 --> 00:23:51,120
Speaker 2: five years later, very.

425
00:23:51,080 --> 00:23:57,320
Speaker 1: Very difficult, especially given such the high profile, incredibly high

426
00:23:57,320 --> 00:24:01,080
Speaker 1: profile nature of this case and all the interviews and

427
00:24:01,119 --> 00:24:04,760
Speaker 1: the podcasts and all of the statements made by some

428
00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:09,280
Speaker 1: of the key witnesses over the years, and wildly inconsistent

429
00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:13,520
Speaker 1: statements and less space at the forensic evidence twenty five

430
00:24:13,600 --> 00:24:17,040
Speaker 1: years ago is far different than what it is today.

431
00:24:17,280 --> 00:24:20,360
Speaker 1: DNA and cell phone towers and all that. It would

432
00:24:20,400 --> 00:24:24,800
Speaker 1: make it really, really tough to retry this case twenty

433
00:24:24,840 --> 00:24:26,280
Speaker 1: five years later, A.

434
00:24:26,280 --> 00:24:29,399
Speaker 2: Long way to go before that decision is made. Thanks

435
00:24:29,400 --> 00:24:32,600
Speaker 2: so much, David. That's David Ring of Tailor and Ring

436
00:24:33,200 --> 00:24:37,160
Speaker 2: coming up next. Short Sellers are spooked by the Andrew

437
00:24:37,240 --> 00:24:41,119
Speaker 2: Left indictment. I'm Juan Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

438
00:24:42,200 --> 00:24:46,560
Speaker 2: Short Sellers are beefing up disclaimers in their research reports

439
00:24:47,000 --> 00:24:50,480
Speaker 2: in the clearest sign yet that the criminal charges against

440
00:24:50,520 --> 00:24:55,560
Speaker 2: Andrew Left are reverberating throughout the industry. Short seller Andrew

441
00:24:55,640 --> 00:24:58,800
Speaker 2: Left securities fraud trial has been scheduled to start on

442
00:24:58,880 --> 00:25:03,000
Speaker 2: September thirtieth of twenty twenty five in federal court in

443
00:25:03,080 --> 00:25:07,920
Speaker 2: Los Angeles. Prosecutors say Left exploited his ability to move

444
00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:11,560
Speaker 2: stocks in almost two dozen companies. It's sort of a

445
00:25:11,600 --> 00:25:15,320
Speaker 2: novel case, and Bloomberg legal reporter Eric Larson has looked

446
00:25:15,359 --> 00:25:19,400
Speaker 2: into it. Were the criminal charges against Andrew Left sort

447
00:25:19,400 --> 00:25:23,160
Speaker 2: of years in the making, you know, explain what happened there.

448
00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:27,240
Speaker 4: So this investigation by the SEC and the DOJ had

449
00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:30,560
Speaker 4: been going on for a few years. And Andrew Lasty's

450
00:25:30,600 --> 00:25:33,600
Speaker 4: on a prominent short cellar. He's well known in the industry,

451
00:25:33,680 --> 00:25:35,800
Speaker 4: and it was known that, you know, he was one

452
00:25:35,800 --> 00:25:39,600
Speaker 4: of the people who was perhaps concerned. But the investigations

453
00:25:39,600 --> 00:25:41,760
Speaker 4: sort of dragged on for a little while without anything happening,

454
00:25:41,760 --> 00:25:43,840
Speaker 4: so I think some people thought it was over, and

455
00:25:43,880 --> 00:25:46,159
Speaker 4: then you know, in July, out of nowhere came this

456
00:25:46,440 --> 00:25:50,680
Speaker 4: SEC civil complaints and then a DOJ criminal charges for

457
00:25:50,840 --> 00:25:53,639
Speaker 4: security spraud. So this was sort of the culmination of

458
00:25:53,680 --> 00:25:56,600
Speaker 4: this investigation into the industry.

459
00:25:56,960 --> 00:26:00,200
Speaker 2: So what exactly is he accused of doing.

460
00:26:00,560 --> 00:26:04,159
Speaker 4: So it's a securities broad case and it's a little unusual.

461
00:26:04,400 --> 00:26:08,399
Speaker 4: Someone called it a landmark case. And because it's alleging

462
00:26:08,480 --> 00:26:13,040
Speaker 4: securities fraud without pointing to specific victims or anything like that.

463
00:26:13,480 --> 00:26:19,959
Speaker 4: So the indictment accuses Andrew Left of misleading investors by

464
00:26:20,280 --> 00:26:24,679
Speaker 4: issuing his research reports alleging, you know, that a company

465
00:26:24,840 --> 00:26:27,919
Speaker 4: was overvalued by the market, in the hopes that his

466
00:26:28,080 --> 00:26:31,639
Speaker 4: reports and his tweets about his reports and would have

467
00:26:31,760 --> 00:26:34,880
Speaker 4: influence and would move the market just enough for him

468
00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:38,120
Speaker 4: to make some trades, to close out his short positions

469
00:26:38,200 --> 00:26:40,760
Speaker 4: or his long positions in some cases, and to make

470
00:26:40,800 --> 00:26:44,919
Speaker 4: a quick profit. So the DJ alleges that he was

471
00:26:45,240 --> 00:26:48,960
Speaker 4: misleading lying about his views on these companies in some

472
00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:51,800
Speaker 4: cases by putting out target prices, saying that a company

473
00:26:51,880 --> 00:26:54,560
Speaker 4: was trading for X but should be training at you

474
00:26:54,560 --> 00:26:58,840
Speaker 4: know at why, and instead of holding on to his

475
00:26:58,880 --> 00:27:01,720
Speaker 4: position to see if he was correct that the stock

476
00:27:01,760 --> 00:27:05,080
Speaker 4: would fall that low, he would sell it, sometimes within

477
00:27:05,119 --> 00:27:08,359
Speaker 4: hours or days or even minutes of putting out a

478
00:27:08,560 --> 00:27:11,639
Speaker 4: negative report about the company, long before it reached that

479
00:27:11,760 --> 00:27:15,560
Speaker 4: target price, for example. And so the DJ is saying

480
00:27:15,560 --> 00:27:18,080
Speaker 4: that this was evidence of him trying to manipulate the

481
00:27:18,119 --> 00:27:22,120
Speaker 4: market by misleading investors and trying to nudge stocks up

482
00:27:22,160 --> 00:27:23,600
Speaker 4: or down in such a way that he could make

483
00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:27,520
Speaker 4: a quick buck, making between sixteen and twenty million dollars

484
00:27:27,520 --> 00:27:31,600
Speaker 4: in illicit profits over several years of doing this. So

485
00:27:31,640 --> 00:27:34,919
Speaker 4: it's a very unusual case different they're not saying that

486
00:27:35,000 --> 00:27:39,920
Speaker 4: specific investors and specific companies were defrauded of specific amounts

487
00:27:39,920 --> 00:27:43,680
Speaker 4: of money. They're just saying that he manipulated the stocks

488
00:27:43,720 --> 00:27:49,080
Speaker 4: in about fifteen companies, big companies like Tesla American Airlines, Twitter,

489
00:27:49,560 --> 00:27:51,679
Speaker 4: Facebook back when they were known as the Twitter and

490
00:27:51,720 --> 00:27:55,080
Speaker 4: Facebook by putting out negative reports and then making a

491
00:27:55,119 --> 00:27:56,120
Speaker 4: quick profit when the.

492
00:27:56,040 --> 00:28:02,240
Speaker 2: Stocks moved, and this industry general operates in gray areas.

493
00:28:03,000 --> 00:28:05,919
Speaker 4: The way that short sellers I interviewed for the story

494
00:28:06,440 --> 00:28:09,560
Speaker 4: described it is that they thought that there was a

495
00:28:09,560 --> 00:28:12,040
Speaker 4: certain rule books that they were playing under that they

496
00:28:12,119 --> 00:28:15,440
Speaker 4: understood that as long as they put out research reports

497
00:28:15,440 --> 00:28:19,280
Speaker 4: with accurate information and it was clear that they stood

498
00:28:19,320 --> 00:28:22,560
Speaker 4: the benefit from their own trading, that that was sufficient.

499
00:28:22,880 --> 00:28:26,080
Speaker 4: So now I think there's this question about whether or

500
00:28:26,119 --> 00:28:30,640
Speaker 4: not some activities in the short selling industry are okay,

501
00:28:30,720 --> 00:28:33,360
Speaker 4: or whether or not other companies or researchers could be

502
00:28:33,720 --> 00:28:35,439
Speaker 4: in the wrong. You know, a lot of it depends

503
00:28:35,480 --> 00:28:37,600
Speaker 4: on how this case goes, if it goes to trial,

504
00:28:37,640 --> 00:28:40,840
Speaker 4: what a cury decides. So the question that kind of

505
00:28:40,840 --> 00:28:44,720
Speaker 4: boils down to, you know, today, can a short seller

506
00:28:45,040 --> 00:28:48,240
Speaker 4: put out a report that is damning about a company

507
00:28:48,760 --> 00:28:50,760
Speaker 4: in such a way that it nudges the stock down

508
00:28:50,880 --> 00:28:54,160
Speaker 4: and specifically tries to make a profit by trading, you know,

509
00:28:54,160 --> 00:28:57,160
Speaker 4: because short seller is the profit when a stock goes down.

510
00:28:57,280 --> 00:28:59,400
Speaker 4: So if they put out a report that's negative of

511
00:28:59,440 --> 00:29:01,320
Speaker 4: that a company, the stock goes down a bit and

512
00:29:01,360 --> 00:29:03,840
Speaker 4: they trade they can make the money on that. So

513
00:29:04,080 --> 00:29:08,080
Speaker 4: the case put out some clarity around that kind of behavior,

514
00:29:08,560 --> 00:29:10,600
Speaker 4: and I should add that to Andrew left case. So

515
00:29:10,880 --> 00:29:13,200
Speaker 4: it goes a bit further than just saying he did that.

516
00:29:13,200 --> 00:29:16,360
Speaker 4: That invitment is filled with what the DLJA that describes

517
00:29:16,400 --> 00:29:22,280
Speaker 4: with evidence of less specifically misleading the public about his

518
00:29:22,440 --> 00:29:26,720
Speaker 4: trading intentions, So saying I'm going to hold this short

519
00:29:26,760 --> 00:29:29,120
Speaker 4: on this company until it reaches zero, for example, but

520
00:29:29,160 --> 00:29:32,960
Speaker 4: then not actually doing that, and also allegedly lying about

521
00:29:32,960 --> 00:29:36,040
Speaker 4: his coordination with one or two hedge funds that he

522
00:29:36,640 --> 00:29:39,640
Speaker 4: was allegedly secretly working with on the side to carry

523
00:29:39,680 --> 00:29:43,200
Speaker 4: out additional trades on his behalf, coordinating those trades around

524
00:29:43,200 --> 00:29:45,920
Speaker 4: his reports to again make some of this profits. So

525
00:29:46,040 --> 00:29:48,880
Speaker 4: it's not just as straightforward as saying whether the type

526
00:29:48,880 --> 00:29:51,520
Speaker 4: of trading is long or not. A lot of this

527
00:29:51,680 --> 00:29:55,760
Speaker 4: conduct is more specific just to Andrew Left, But that

528
00:29:55,800 --> 00:29:58,440
Speaker 4: doesn't mean that it isn't spooking the industry, and a

529
00:29:58,440 --> 00:30:01,200
Speaker 4: lot of short sellers are concerned that the case could

530
00:30:01,200 --> 00:30:03,520
Speaker 4: have a chilling effect on some of their profitable types

531
00:30:03,520 --> 00:30:04,600
Speaker 4: of trades that they do.

532
00:30:05,080 --> 00:30:09,960
Speaker 2: Eric, his lawyer, Left's lawyer said that his predictions about

533
00:30:10,040 --> 00:30:13,760
Speaker 2: companies were accurate. Does the government disagree with that.

534
00:30:14,560 --> 00:30:17,240
Speaker 4: There are a lot of cases where his predictions about

535
00:30:17,240 --> 00:30:21,600
Speaker 4: companies were accurate, and the government doesn't really specifically allege otherwise.

536
00:30:21,600 --> 00:30:25,160
Speaker 4: And that's another interesting angle to this case here. Obviously,

537
00:30:25,200 --> 00:30:28,680
Speaker 4: the prosecutors are aware of it, and I believe that

538
00:30:28,760 --> 00:30:32,560
Speaker 4: he broke the law anyway in his efforts to allegedly

539
00:30:32,600 --> 00:30:36,600
Speaker 4: manipulate the markets and investors. And it seems that their

540
00:30:36,680 --> 00:30:39,400
Speaker 4: reasoning is that even though he might have been correct

541
00:30:39,680 --> 00:30:43,520
Speaker 4: that a company was heading down for various reasons, that

542
00:30:43,640 --> 00:30:47,160
Speaker 4: his intentions, you know, with putting out his report was

543
00:30:47,200 --> 00:30:50,160
Speaker 4: to try to somehow capture a profit by misleading people

544
00:30:50,240 --> 00:30:52,920
Speaker 4: into helping him move the market down. So it is

545
00:30:53,040 --> 00:30:55,760
Speaker 4: very complicated. I'm not going to pretend to totally understand

546
00:30:55,760 --> 00:30:58,120
Speaker 4: it one hundreds, but it is going to be I

547
00:30:58,160 --> 00:31:01,720
Speaker 4: think that a complicated casey if it goes to a jury,

548
00:31:02,120 --> 00:31:04,440
Speaker 4: and a lot of the short sellers they talked to

549
00:31:04,440 --> 00:31:06,280
Speaker 4: you made that exact point that you made. He was

550
00:31:06,360 --> 00:31:08,360
Speaker 4: right a lot of the time, but you know, some

551
00:31:08,560 --> 00:31:12,200
Speaker 4: of other short sellers prominent short sellers were critical of

552
00:31:12,520 --> 00:31:15,440
Speaker 4: Andrew Left as well. So it's not like there's a

553
00:31:15,600 --> 00:31:19,680
Speaker 4: uniform belief that this case was brought incorrectly. There are

554
00:31:19,680 --> 00:31:22,360
Speaker 4: some short sellers who don't really engage in the type

555
00:31:22,360 --> 00:31:24,960
Speaker 4: of trading that Andrew Left does who thinks that the

556
00:31:25,000 --> 00:31:26,200
Speaker 4: case has some merit.

557
00:31:26,440 --> 00:31:29,480
Speaker 2: Because I can see if the government would go after you,

558
00:31:29,720 --> 00:31:32,880
Speaker 2: even if your predictions were correct. I could see why

559
00:31:33,280 --> 00:31:37,000
Speaker 2: some short sellers would be spooked by this because where's.

560
00:31:36,760 --> 00:31:39,640
Speaker 4: The line exactly? And I think that that's why we

561
00:31:39,720 --> 00:31:44,880
Speaker 4: saw recently two research firms, Hindenberg Research, Carry's del Capital.

562
00:31:45,000 --> 00:31:48,800
Speaker 4: They both recently put out reports, short reports about companies

563
00:31:48,840 --> 00:31:51,920
Speaker 4: that help drive some stock down. As they do, that's

564
00:31:51,920 --> 00:31:54,720
Speaker 4: the normal force of business. And they've always had, like

565
00:31:54,800 --> 00:31:58,720
Speaker 4: all short sellers, including Andrew Left, they have detailed disclaimers,

566
00:31:58,880 --> 00:32:01,920
Speaker 4: you know, telling the public, you know, their opinions, various

567
00:32:01,960 --> 00:32:05,880
Speaker 4: legal assurances that they understand that they're not financial advisors

568
00:32:05,880 --> 00:32:09,040
Speaker 4: for everyone and they could profit if the stock goes down,

569
00:32:09,080 --> 00:32:12,440
Speaker 4: and that sort of thing. But these two outfits, Pinnenberg

570
00:32:12,480 --> 00:32:16,120
Speaker 4: and Carry's Ville recently changed their disclaimers, and Carry's bill

571
00:32:16,320 --> 00:32:19,400
Speaker 4: Capital in particular kind of four page disclaimer on the

572
00:32:19,480 --> 00:32:24,400
Speaker 4: last report specifically ripped apart. This case against Andrew Left

573
00:32:24,600 --> 00:32:28,000
Speaker 4: included a little bit of even like starcasm and humor

574
00:32:28,040 --> 00:32:32,200
Speaker 4: and sort of picking at the allegations and saying, yes,

575
00:32:32,440 --> 00:32:35,640
Speaker 4: let me just be very clear, we might make trade

576
00:32:35,760 --> 00:32:37,959
Speaker 4: after we put out a report to make a profit,

577
00:32:38,120 --> 00:32:40,479
Speaker 4: and you should just assume that's what we're going to do.

578
00:32:40,720 --> 00:32:43,480
Speaker 4: So you can see that there's already been some impacts

579
00:32:43,520 --> 00:32:46,240
Speaker 4: on the industry. But yeah, a lot of this, like

580
00:32:46,280 --> 00:32:48,200
Speaker 4: I said, it's really just going to hinge on where

581
00:32:48,240 --> 00:32:51,680
Speaker 4: this case goes. If the Justice Department has brought a

582
00:32:51,720 --> 00:32:54,560
Speaker 4: good case here and is on point, or if they've

583
00:32:54,640 --> 00:32:57,880
Speaker 4: sort of overstepped and didn't quite understand how the industry worked.

584
00:32:58,280 --> 00:33:01,080
Speaker 4: As Andrew Left's lawyer and some other short sellers told me,

585
00:33:01,680 --> 00:33:05,720
Speaker 4: that's their opinion that the DJ doesn't really understand how

586
00:33:05,720 --> 00:33:08,440
Speaker 4: the industry works, and that's what's brought about this case.

587
00:33:08,800 --> 00:33:13,120
Speaker 2: Well. Also, as you're right, one of less defenses are

588
00:33:13,160 --> 00:33:16,040
Speaker 2: his own disclaimers that he posted. His lawyer said he

589
00:33:16,080 --> 00:33:18,440
Speaker 2: posted a disclaimer that saying that no one should make

590
00:33:18,480 --> 00:33:21,200
Speaker 2: assumptions about his trading. So I don't know that a

591
00:33:21,240 --> 00:33:22,640
Speaker 2: disclaimer is going to do the trick.

592
00:33:23,560 --> 00:33:25,280
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, that's clearly going to be a big

593
00:33:25,320 --> 00:33:28,320
Speaker 4: part of the defense. But I think in probably a

594
00:33:28,320 --> 00:33:31,480
Speaker 4: lot of cases, different types of cases, you know, disclaimers

595
00:33:31,520 --> 00:33:35,240
Speaker 4: a different sorts come up as defenses, and it really

596
00:33:35,320 --> 00:33:37,160
Speaker 4: is going to be up to the jury to decide

597
00:33:37,200 --> 00:33:41,320
Speaker 4: whether or not everything is all fine and dandy because

598
00:33:41,480 --> 00:33:44,560
Speaker 4: of that disclaimer. I think that's far from certain.

599
00:33:45,440 --> 00:33:48,240
Speaker 2: And so what happens next in this case, I think.

600
00:33:48,080 --> 00:33:51,600
Speaker 4: We can expect to see Andrew left the dismissal of

601
00:33:51,640 --> 00:33:54,920
Speaker 4: the indictment at some point. No deadlines that I'm aware

602
00:33:54,920 --> 00:33:55,800
Speaker 4: of said on that yet.

603
00:33:56,360 --> 00:34:00,600
Speaker 2: And while I have you, you're always following the Trump cases.

604
00:34:01,000 --> 00:34:04,000
Speaker 2: He tried once again to move the hush money case

605
00:34:04,680 --> 00:34:07,840
Speaker 2: after the verdict and before the sentencing, he tried to

606
00:34:07,880 --> 00:34:10,759
Speaker 2: move it to federal court. What was his reasoning.

607
00:34:11,400 --> 00:34:16,520
Speaker 4: His reasoning was the July landmark US Supreme Court decision

608
00:34:16,520 --> 00:34:21,400
Speaker 4: on presidential immunity finding that former presidents have some immunity

609
00:34:21,440 --> 00:34:25,280
Speaker 4: from criminal charges for conduct related to their official duties

610
00:34:25,280 --> 00:34:28,840
Speaker 4: in office. And that was a landmark decision finding that

611
00:34:28,840 --> 00:34:32,360
Speaker 4: that type of immunity from criminal charges exist for the

612
00:34:32,400 --> 00:34:35,960
Speaker 4: first time. So that of course came out after his

613
00:34:36,160 --> 00:34:39,840
Speaker 4: conviction in the hush money case in May, so, Trump

614
00:34:40,000 --> 00:34:43,480
Speaker 4: argued that the case should be removed to federal court

615
00:34:43,960 --> 00:34:47,160
Speaker 4: because of the sort of federal questions raised around whether

616
00:34:47,239 --> 00:34:51,480
Speaker 4: or not his trial was painted by evidence or testimony

617
00:34:51,520 --> 00:34:54,480
Speaker 4: that wouldn't have been allowed under this new Supreme Court ruling.

618
00:34:54,520 --> 00:34:57,640
Speaker 4: He argued that only a federal judge should decide this.

619
00:34:58,560 --> 00:35:02,680
Speaker 4: Sister judge here in Manhattan rejected that and said that

620
00:35:02,760 --> 00:35:06,359
Speaker 4: it was not in his jurisdiction to handle a New

621
00:35:06,440 --> 00:35:10,680
Speaker 4: York state law case. Notwithstanding the argument that Trump made.

622
00:35:10,800 --> 00:35:13,160
Speaker 4: It was actually trump second time to try to move

623
00:35:13,239 --> 00:35:16,320
Speaker 4: the case to to federal court. You know, he tried

624
00:35:16,360 --> 00:35:20,160
Speaker 4: that before the trial even happened, and that was shot down.

625
00:35:20,360 --> 00:35:23,400
Speaker 4: He appealed that and sort of abandoned that appeal, so

626
00:35:23,440 --> 00:35:26,080
Speaker 4: it never really went to an appeals court properly. But

627
00:35:26,280 --> 00:35:29,640
Speaker 4: that was, of course before the immunity ruling. So he

628
00:35:29,719 --> 00:35:32,239
Speaker 4: went back for a second bite at the apple. It

629
00:35:32,320 --> 00:35:35,560
Speaker 4: didn't work out, and now he is appealing again.

630
00:35:36,560 --> 00:35:39,560
Speaker 2: Explain one of the reasons why Trump wants to move

631
00:35:39,640 --> 00:35:41,879
Speaker 2: this case to federal court.

632
00:35:42,200 --> 00:35:46,040
Speaker 4: So, one potential benefit of moving this case to federal

633
00:35:46,080 --> 00:35:48,800
Speaker 4: court would be that it could get to the Supreme

634
00:35:48,840 --> 00:35:51,680
Speaker 4: Court faster. You could see him trying to overturn his

635
00:35:52,239 --> 00:35:56,120
Speaker 4: guilty verdict and then if the judge denied that, you know,

636
00:35:56,320 --> 00:35:59,800
Speaker 4: appealing to the Second Circuit and then onto the Supreme Court.

637
00:36:00,160 --> 00:36:03,240
Speaker 4: In this sort of faster track route than you might imagine.

638
00:36:03,520 --> 00:36:05,960
Speaker 4: It's had to work its way through the New York

639
00:36:06,000 --> 00:36:09,399
Speaker 4: State Court his challenge to his verdict, which by the way,

640
00:36:09,440 --> 00:36:12,880
Speaker 4: he's already appealed that verdict in state court. That's one benefit,

641
00:36:12,920 --> 00:36:15,360
Speaker 4: and other is that it simply would delay his sentencing,

642
00:36:15,800 --> 00:36:18,719
Speaker 4: which of course is set for September eighteenth. If this

643
00:36:18,760 --> 00:36:22,319
Speaker 4: had been moved to federal court, that really would have

644
00:36:22,360 --> 00:36:24,399
Speaker 4: been unlikely that that sentence thing would have been able

645
00:36:24,440 --> 00:36:27,399
Speaker 4: to go forward. And of course the election is coming up.

646
00:36:27,640 --> 00:36:31,759
Speaker 4: He has been fighting to avoid being sentenced before the

647
00:36:31,880 --> 00:36:35,239
Speaker 4: voters go to the polls. He calls that election interference.

648
00:36:35,680 --> 00:36:38,760
Speaker 2: Also, if it's a federal case and he wins the election,

649
00:36:39,280 --> 00:36:40,400
Speaker 2: he can dismiss.

650
00:36:40,040 --> 00:36:44,400
Speaker 4: It, right, he can ask the Justice Department to dismiss

651
00:36:44,560 --> 00:36:48,640
Speaker 4: a case in federal court. You know, it's all very unprecedented.

652
00:36:48,680 --> 00:36:51,960
Speaker 4: We did see this, however, happened, you might recall, and

653
00:36:52,120 --> 00:36:55,840
Speaker 4: the civil defamation lawsuits filed by Ejene Carroll that was

654
00:36:55,880 --> 00:36:59,120
Speaker 4: started in state court and he actually was able to

655
00:36:59,200 --> 00:37:02,880
Speaker 4: move it as a result of the Westball Acts. Is

656
00:37:02,920 --> 00:37:04,560
Speaker 4: something I know we talked about a lot back then,

657
00:37:04,680 --> 00:37:08,160
Speaker 4: but the idea being that if has claimed it to

658
00:37:08,200 --> 00:37:11,520
Speaker 4: be covered by that federal law had worked in federal court,

659
00:37:11,560 --> 00:37:13,480
Speaker 4: he could have had the justice part and just missed

660
00:37:13,480 --> 00:37:16,160
Speaker 4: the case that didn't end up happening, But that is

661
00:37:16,200 --> 00:37:18,880
Speaker 4: another benefit to having it in fedal report.

662
00:37:19,200 --> 00:37:23,560
Speaker 2: So many cases and so many motions. Thanks so much, Eric.

663
00:37:24,280 --> 00:37:27,759
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, and that's it for

664
00:37:27,800 --> 00:37:30,839
Speaker 2: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can

665
00:37:30,880 --> 00:37:33,800
Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening

666
00:37:33,840 --> 00:37:37,560
Speaker 2: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg

667
00:37:37,600 --> 00:37:41,680
Speaker 2: dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and

668
00:37:41,760 --> 00:37:43,040
Speaker 2: this is Bloomberg