Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller, the Trump aide known as the architect of
Speaker 1: the former president's anti immigrant policies, is reviving as cultural
Speaker 1: crusade as the head of a new activist legal group.
Speaker 1: America First Legal is a conservative nonprofit with disdain for
Speaker 1: the radical left and a wide ranging plan to challenge
Speaker 1: the Biden administration in court. The group has already scored
Speaker 1: some early victories, including in lawsuits accusing the federal government
Speaker 1: of discriminating against white business owners. Joining me is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Legal reporter Eric Larson tell us who Stephen Miller is
Speaker 1: for those who may not know so. Stephen Miller is
Speaker 1: a conservative political operative who served as a senior White
Speaker 1: House aide to Donald Trump UM and also was a
Speaker 1: speechwriter for the president's UM. He is known as the
Speaker 1: sort of the architect of some of Trump's most anti
Speaker 1: immigrant policies, things like the Muslim ban and the family
Speaker 1: separation policies and some of those really divisive policies that
Speaker 1: really riled up a lot of Democrats. Did he start
Speaker 1: America First Legal? He did. It was just started in
Speaker 1: April UM. He did so with the blessing of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: who issued a press release praising his effort and the
Speaker 1: opening of America First Legal. So it is he's leading it, uh,
Speaker 1: and he's doing so with several other former Trump administration
Speaker 1: officials who have joined him in the effort, including a
Speaker 1: former acting US Attorney General Whittaker, and some other folks.
Speaker 1: He's not a lawyer, right, No, he's not a lawyer,
Speaker 1: but he he has a former Justice Department lawyer during
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, Gene Hamilton's who was known for working
Speaker 1: on a lot of immigration UM policies under Trump. UM
Speaker 1: is one of the lead lawyers at America First Legal.
Speaker 1: So they are established right wing legal advocacy groups such
Speaker 1: as Alliance Defending Freedom and Judicial Watch. So why another group, Well,
Speaker 1: that's a good question. Some folks that I spoke with
Speaker 1: in the conservative nonprofit group there said that even though
Speaker 1: there are these other groups that they still feel like
Speaker 1: they're outguns by UM left leaning organizations like the American
Speaker 1: Civil Liberties Union. You know, they want to see something
Speaker 1: that rises to that level. Even though America First Legal
Speaker 1: has just started earlier this year. That's how they kind
Speaker 1: of already wanted to be seen as really going after
Speaker 1: the Biden administration on a range of policies the same
Speaker 1: way that the A. C. L. You did um during
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. So what are some of the aims
Speaker 1: or maybe I should say targets of the group. They're
Speaker 1: pretty wide ranging. Started out with lawsuits against the administration
Speaker 1: challenging racial equity programs that had been built into the
Speaker 1: Pandemic Relief bill that had earmarked billions of dollars to
Speaker 1: be prioritized toward miority owned restaurants in one provision and
Speaker 1: minority owned farms and ranches in another. And he sued
Speaker 1: filed separate lawsuits over both of those and actually one
Speaker 1: injunctions preliminary injunctions against the administration in those cases which
Speaker 1: are still pending. But he's also sued over the Biden
Speaker 1: administrations returned to policies that banned discrimination against people based
Speaker 1: on sexual orientation or gender identity in healthcare and housing
Speaker 1: and alike. UM. And you know that's just the beginning.
Speaker 1: There are several other aspects of the administration that he
Speaker 1: seems to be eyeing, based on the press releases they've
Speaker 1: been putting out and the Freedom of Information Act requests
Speaker 1: that they've been filing and highlighting on their website. You
Speaker 1: said they had scored victories. These are cases where they
Speaker 1: can pick the judge or at least the courthouse that
Speaker 1: will be hearing the case. Yes, they've been filing suits
Speaker 1: in Texas where they can, but also UM in Washington
Speaker 1: d C. Federal Court UM. In the two cases where
Speaker 1: they did get these preliminary injunctions injunctions, granted those were
Speaker 1: in Texas UM. It was a Republican appointed judge who
Speaker 1: did that, But not all of their cases are before
Speaker 1: UM Republican appointed judges, but so far they've had pretty
Speaker 1: good luck with those. In the suits they have filed
Speaker 1: in Texas. Another case where they didn't get an injunction UM,
Speaker 1: but they did get a preliminary ruling UM where the
Speaker 1: judge you know, seemed to praise or side with what
Speaker 1: they were saying about the Biden administration's handling of undocumented
Speaker 1: migrant children at the border. UM. That was another one
Speaker 1: of the first lawsuits that a fl filed, accusing the
Speaker 1: Biden administration of allowing undocumented migrant children in housing in
Speaker 1: the US even though they might have COVID nineteen was
Speaker 1: his argument that it was a health violation and the
Speaker 1: judge in that case, UM said that that, uh, he
Speaker 1: agreed essentially with that case. In that case, did they
Speaker 1: do it in conjunction with the Texas Attorney General? They did,
Speaker 1: And the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a very outspoken
Speaker 1: Republican of course, who has challenged Biden on a range
Speaker 1: of issues. Um, and it is very critical of the
Speaker 1: administration on his own right, Um, you know, filed that lawsuit.
Speaker 1: It's challenges provisions of the Migrant Protection Protocol, which was
Speaker 1: the Trump policies that Biden tried to walk away from
Speaker 1: and is having trouble doing so. And so a f l.
Speaker 1: One of their first clients was the state of Texas,
Speaker 1: which in a way isn't too surprising because they're extremely
Speaker 1: ideologically aligned. Eric tell us more about Miller's suit challenging
Speaker 1: pandemic aid earmarked for minority owned farms. America First Legal
Speaker 1: filed a couple of lawsuits over provideds of built the
Speaker 1: massive stimulus built passed by Congress and included a few
Speaker 1: equity programs in it that tried to essentially right some
Speaker 1: wrongs that have been done previously by prioritizing some money
Speaker 1: for minority owned restaurants as well as minority owned farms
Speaker 1: and branches. And in these two lawsuits, Stephen Miller's group
Speaker 1: claims that it's discrimination, racial discrimination against white people that
Speaker 1: he says is banned by the Civil Rights Act, which
Speaker 1: is kind of interesting that he's you know, the complaint
Speaker 1: itself was actually fairly short, but it included some language
Speaker 1: and references that you would normally see in a suit
Speaker 1: alleging racial discrimination against racial minorities. So it's kind of
Speaker 1: turning it around and using it sort of against these
Speaker 1: minorities interests, UM, which really wasn't lost on the people, uh,
Speaker 1: some of the people who I interviewed for the story. UM.
Speaker 1: I interviewed the John Boyd is the president and founder
Speaker 1: of the National Black Farmers Association. He filed a motion
Speaker 1: to intervene in one of those cases. Than he he
Speaker 1: won that permission, and he says that it's just flat
Speaker 1: out discrimination, that that the real discrimination here is with
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller's lawsuit. UM, that they're trying to pretend that
Speaker 1: there was never any discrimination in the past and therefore
Speaker 1: there should be no measures taken now to fix it
Speaker 1: in the present. Did a f L respond to this,
Speaker 1: I see that their website says it's committed to fighting
Speaker 1: for all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, or creed.
Speaker 1: That's correct. I included that in my story because unfortunately
Speaker 1: they didn't respond to repeated requests for comments. I reached
Speaker 1: out to them numerous times by phone and email, also
Speaker 1: to their PR firm, and they just didn't respond. Although
Speaker 1: they do make regular appearances on on Fox News and
Speaker 1: news Max and O A n UM where they spread
Speaker 1: this message, and of course it's we have to remember
Speaker 1: that this is a nonprofit and they're actively raising money
Speaker 1: at all times. Do most of their cases focus on immigration,
Speaker 1: you know, I really don't think so. I think that that, UM,
Speaker 1: you know, is an obvious interest of Stephen Miller, and
Speaker 1: they do have one or two cases related to that,
Speaker 1: But really they're looking at the whole universe of conservative
Speaker 1: concerns UM, you know, gender identity, UM, LGBT rights, even
Speaker 1: critical race theory, UM. Some of the Freedom of Information
Speaker 1: Act requests that they've filed or demanding, you know, information
Speaker 1: from the Biden administration about why they stopped investigating the
Speaker 1: source of COVID nineteen UM. You know, they even sued
Speaker 1: Biden for forcing Russ Vott off of that naval board UM,
Speaker 1: and he's a he's a member of af L, one
Speaker 1: of the directors. Uh. So there's really just a really
Speaker 1: wide range of UM legal issues that they're looking at here,
Speaker 1: and it's not just immigration. Do we know how much
Speaker 1: funding they have and who is funding them? We don't,
Speaker 1: you know. I would have definitely loved to have asked
Speaker 1: them that question to find out UM, but it's too early.
Speaker 1: It's they're too new to have any UM filings, so
Speaker 1: we really just haven't have no way of knowing. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: because we're a new organization, they seem to have a
Speaker 1: lot of litigation going on, right. I mean, it's you know,
Speaker 1: anything is possible. Of course, we know one person who
Speaker 1: has plenty of money, that's Donald Trump. They always could
Speaker 1: have gotten some from from him, but that's just speculation.
Speaker 1: But they are doing a lot of real work and
Speaker 1: that does cost a lot of money. UM, so one
Speaker 1: can assume that they at least have something that they
Speaker 1: started out with. Is Trump a visible supporter of the group,
Speaker 1: He is UM only in that Uh. The very first
Speaker 1: press release that went out in April, UM quoted President
Speaker 1: Trump praising Stephen Miller by name and saying that the
Speaker 1: left was out funding us in courts us being the right,
Speaker 1: and that we needed something like a fl to counter
Speaker 1: that movement and to to take the Biden administration to court.
Speaker 1: Trump spelled that all out and said that Stephen Miller
Speaker 1: was the guy to do it. You write that prevailing
Speaker 1: in court might not be the primary reason for the group, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was That was one theory from someone I spoke with.
Speaker 1: You know, they see the names involved, they see there's
Speaker 1: quite a bit of evidence of people in Trump's orbit.
Speaker 1: It's sort of now that he's out of office, finding
Speaker 1: ways to sort of cash in using his name and
Speaker 1: tapping into his huge support Um. You know, he has
Speaker 1: millions of supporters all around the country, and a lot
Speaker 1: of them are very angry, and a lot of them
Speaker 1: are really despised the left. And if you say and
Speaker 1: the right things, do the right things, you can really
Speaker 1: capture their attention and get them to open their wallets.
Speaker 1: So there's some you know, some cynicism around that. Of course,
Speaker 1: they probably would say the same thing about people on
Speaker 1: the left and the A C. L U. Do you
Speaker 1: get any sense that what they're doing, the cases that
Speaker 1: they're bringing are any different from those of Alliance Defending
Speaker 1: Freedom or Judicial Watch. I would say that they seem
Speaker 1: to be signaling that they're going to be a lot
Speaker 1: more active than those groups, and that they're going to
Speaker 1: be looking at a much wider range of issues, and
Speaker 1: that they're going to be really focused on the issues
Speaker 1: that in particular, really seem to concern the far farther
Speaker 1: rights individuals. So whereas you might see some of those
Speaker 1: more established groups might be focusing more on you know,
Speaker 1: different policies than maybe aren't quite so controversial. Uh, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's going to be a concern of a
Speaker 1: f L. So did anyone you spoke to think that
Speaker 1: this was a short term endeavor that possibly it won't
Speaker 1: last pass when Trump will decide whether or not to run.
Speaker 1: Someone I spoke to said that it's possible that they're
Speaker 1: just looking for, you know, a paycheck and waiting to
Speaker 1: see what happens in and maybe um they'll be you know,
Speaker 1: back in power and get bigger jobs in the administration
Speaker 1: or something like that. But even if they were able
Speaker 1: to do that, even if Steven Miller, you know, made
Speaker 1: a triumphant return to the White House, I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: surprised if they found some way to keep America First Legal,
Speaker 1: you know, still going and doing what it what it does. Um,
Speaker 1: but right now they need a booking man and that's Biden,
Speaker 1: and he's in office. If that changes, who knows. It
Speaker 1: seems like their cases are anti anti abortion, anti immigrant,
Speaker 1: anti l g B t Q, that they're fighting against
Speaker 1: other people's rights. That's the big difference between what the
Speaker 1: a c l YOU did and what America First Legal
Speaker 1: is doing. Of course, the a c l U was
Speaker 1: raising the alarm about concerns that rights would be taken away,
Speaker 1: and in fact that was the case. That is what
Speaker 1: the Trump administration tried to do. A f L is
Speaker 1: focused on the concerns of really mostly you know, white people,
Speaker 1: straight white men in particular. That seems to be their
Speaker 1: their good Thanks Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson.
Speaker 1: It made headlines when Left Parness and Igor Frewman were
Speaker 1: arrested in boarding a plane with one way tickets to Europe.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors claimed the pair had made donations to American politicians
Speaker 1: to advance the interests of Ukrainian officials. Now Frewman has
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty and Parness's trial seems to have morphed into
Speaker 1: something different altogether. The government's case has almost nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Ukraine and instead focuses on political contributions allegedly
Speaker 1: intended to help launch a cannabis business. Joining me is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Christian Berthelson. So Christian, tell us what
Speaker 1: charges Partners is facing at trial. Yeah, So that's what
Speaker 1: a strange one. You know, left Partners and his business
Speaker 1: associating Frewman were charged two years ago. And you know,
Speaker 1: they were involved in Rudy Giuliani's efforts to dig up
Speaker 1: to her on Joe Biden in Ukraine. And this was
Speaker 1: sort of a subtext to the whole first impeachment trial
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump and the quid pro quo he was
Speaker 1: seeking in Ukraine to get damaging information about the Bidens
Speaker 1: prior to the election. Levin and Igor were working with
Speaker 1: Juliani to try and facilitate that. They were actually arrested
Speaker 1: with one way tickets to leave the country getting on
Speaker 1: an airplane in Washington, d C. The government alleged that
Speaker 1: they had been working for Ukrainian officials to advance their
Speaker 1: interests in the United States and that they were played
Speaker 1: a role in the firing of the then U s
Speaker 1: Ambassador in Ukraine, Mariovanovitch. All of those allegations were then
Speaker 1: sort of quietly dropped from the case about a year ago.
Speaker 1: Mr Freman pleaded guilty. Mr Parnass just started trial yesterday,
Speaker 1: but the charges against him now involved allegedly illegal campaign
Speaker 1: donations he made to try and advance a cannabis business
Speaker 1: in Nevada, California and elsewhere. So it's a very different
Speaker 1: case than what prosecutors said it was when they charged
Speaker 1: it two years ago. Is Ferman going to testify for
Speaker 1: the prosecution. No, so two of the defendants in that case,
Speaker 1: there was four defendants, two of them have pleaded guilty.
Speaker 1: Neither one of them pleaded guilty with the cooperation agreement,
Speaker 1: so they are not expected to become government witnesses during
Speaker 1: the trial. Is there going to be a lot of
Speaker 1: mention of former President Trump or Rudy Giuliani. One would
Speaker 1: have thought that given the way the case was charged
Speaker 1: two years ago, But no, as we get to our trial,
Speaker 1: one of the prosecutors told the judge last week that
Speaker 1: Mr Trump and Mr Giuliani are going to be peripheral
Speaker 1: figures at best. Do you know why this case took
Speaker 1: such a turn. At the prosecutors when they dropped that
Speaker 1: allegation from the case, offered no explanation as to why
Speaker 1: they were doing it. They said they were streamlining certain
Speaker 1: factual assertions and they left it at that, and they
Speaker 1: have declined to say anything beyond that. So that is
Speaker 1: really not much of an answer, uh, and sort of
Speaker 1: leaves it open to speculation as to why. You know,
Speaker 1: they do have the the evidence in the campaign finance
Speaker 1: charges and that's an easier case to bring, and potentially
Speaker 1: what they could have done is sort of just wanted
Speaker 1: to charge and try an easier case rather than getting
Speaker 1: into issues that the defense could have raised about, you know,
Speaker 1: doing something on behalf of the president and whether that
Speaker 1: then became acceptable. I don't know. I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: knows outside of the office why they decided to do
Speaker 1: it that way. And what's parnesses defense. So the campaign
Speaker 1: charges involved funds that came from a Russian investor in
Speaker 1: the cannabis business and that were then used to donate
Speaker 1: to certain state politicians around the country. His defense is
Speaker 1: that there was no conspiracy to do that, and the
Speaker 1: funds that were donated and come from the Russian businessman.
Speaker 1: There are two defendants. Are their defenses united? Are they
Speaker 1: working together? They're actually not working together, which has been
Speaker 1: an interesting development and only become clear in the last
Speaker 1: week or so that the other defendant, andre Ka Kushkin,
Speaker 1: basically says that he was a victim of love Parnoff
Speaker 1: and that this entire scheme with the campaign donations was
Speaker 1: really just a scheme to get money out of Mr
Speaker 1: Kakushion and his Russian investor. And in fact, of the
Speaker 1: million dollars that came from Russia, a little over one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand of it actually was donated to politicians. The
Speaker 1: rest was diverted to other purposes. Let's turn to one
Speaker 1: of the witnesses who will testify at the trial, Adam Laxalt,
Speaker 1: who's running for US Senate in Nevada. I believe, so
Speaker 1: why is he testifying at this trial? That's correct, He's
Speaker 1: expected to testify today. He's kind of an interesting figure
Speaker 1: because he was as attorney general and running for governor
Speaker 1: of Nevada when he received donation from Mr Parnass and
Speaker 1: he of course then went on to become a co
Speaker 1: chair of Trump's reelection campaign in Nevada and fanned a
Speaker 1: lot of the voter fraud allegations that Mr Trump was
Speaker 1: making in an effort to overturn the results into Vada.
Speaker 1: The prosecutors have asked the judge to keep the questioning
Speaker 1: away from that issue, but the defense wants to raise
Speaker 1: it because they think it goes to his credibility as
Speaker 1: a witness. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show,
Speaker 1: I'll continue this conversation with Bloomberg Legal reporter Christian Bertelson,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk about the new U S. Attorney for
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York. You're listening to Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. The U S.
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is
Speaker 1: the most high profile of the ninety three offices around
Speaker 1: the country, known for police Wall Street and prosecuting high
Speaker 1: profile cases involving terrorism, organized crime, and public corruption. Damian
Speaker 1: Williams is the first black person to be in charge
Speaker 1: of the Southern District in its two thirty two year
Speaker 1: history and one of the youngest. I've been talking to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Christian Berthelsson, so tell us about his
Speaker 1: background well, if he's born in New York, New York City,
Speaker 1: grew up in Atlanta, his parents are immigrants, he's quite
Speaker 1: success story. Harvard undergrad, you know, law school, clerked for
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland on the DC Appeals Court UH and Marrick
Speaker 1: Garlands of course, now the Attorney General. He has been
Speaker 1: a U S attorney for think about ten years and
Speaker 1: was elevated first from being a ligned prosecutor to the
Speaker 1: co chief of the Securities Unit, and from there to
Speaker 1: head of the entire office, as last week confirmed by
Speaker 1: the Senate after being nominated earlier this year by President Biden.
Speaker 1: Would you say that he's been the star of the U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office? Certainly. I mean, you know, the Southern District
Speaker 1: Use Attorney's Office has a reputation as being one of
Speaker 1: the most elite offices in the country, partially because of
Speaker 1: you being here in New York and being sort of
Speaker 1: the law enforcement overseer of Wall Street, and within the office,
Speaker 1: the Securities Unit is viewed as the most high profile unit.
Speaker 1: So Mr Williams was a line prosecutor in the unit
Speaker 1: following the financial crisis and did some of the offices
Speaker 1: most high profile cases. They included the conviction of the
Speaker 1: guilty plea of a sitting US congressman for insider trading,
Speaker 1: other cases against hedge funds for insider trading and mismarking
Speaker 1: other forms of security spraud, and another big case involving
Speaker 1: the circulation of non public, highly sensitive information from government
Speaker 1: agencies to hedge funds that inform their trading ahead of
Speaker 1: major decision enoucements. So he's taking over at a time
Speaker 1: when there's been some controversies. Yes, well, you know, the
Speaker 1: past four years under the Trump administration were challenging for
Speaker 1: the Southern District. They included the unceremonious firings of two
Speaker 1: U S attorneys during that period, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a fair amount of meddling from main Justice in the
Speaker 1: Affairs and District, the pardoning of defendants who were convicted
Speaker 1: by this office, including Steve Bannon, Mr. Trump's sometimes political advisor,
Speaker 1: And there have also been miss steps by the office itself.
Speaker 1: There have been multiple cases in recent years where the
Speaker 1: office was found to have withheld important, potentially exculpatory information
Speaker 1: from defense lawyers for defendants that were being prosecuted by
Speaker 1: the office, and it has been castigated by judges in
Speaker 1: this district for not playing fair. So there is a
Speaker 1: fair amount of work to do in rebuilding the reputation
Speaker 1: of this office, both with the public and with the
Speaker 1: judges who who oversee the cases they bring. Is he
Speaker 1: stepping into a role in an office where there's a
Speaker 1: morale problem. Yes, People who have left the office say
Speaker 1: that the lawyers who are there have have been having
Speaker 1: morale issues, partly, you know, the same way everyone has
Speaker 1: with this pandemic and through remote work. But the hits
Speaker 1: to the office's reputation from the evidentiary issues everyone has
Speaker 1: taken hard, and the meddling that came from the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has also weighed on morale there. So yes, you know,
Speaker 1: people say that the new U. S. Attorney has a
Speaker 1: fair amount of work to do in trying to restore
Speaker 1: that office to its prior. The Southern district known for
Speaker 1: prosecuting Wall Street crimes, financial securities fraud. During the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: those crimes are not giving the same attention. Any indication
Speaker 1: what he's going to focus on not really. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: there's no public hearings for the U. S. Attorney nominees,
Speaker 1: so he hasn't had a any kind of public airing
Speaker 1: of you know, his record or or what he sees
Speaker 1: as the office's mission. You know, obviously he has been
Speaker 1: talking to former leaders of the office, former senior officials,
Speaker 1: their friends, colleagues in the months since his nomination as
Speaker 1: he sort of puts together ideas for how he wants
Speaker 1: to lead and what he wants to focus on. But
Speaker 1: the people who have had those conversations with him have
Speaker 1: not wanted to go into great detail about them and
Speaker 1: feel like he should be given room to set those
Speaker 1: priorities and announce those things himself. He just started in
Speaker 1: the job on Sunday, so he hasn't himself held any
Speaker 1: public events yet to articulate that either tell us what
Speaker 1: my profile cases there are in the office right now
Speaker 1: that he's going to be overseen. Well, as you were saying,
Speaker 1: enforcement of white collar of financial type crimes did all
Speaker 1: precipitously during the Trump administration. Part of that is because
Speaker 1: you know, those types of cases tend to come up
Speaker 1: when you have downturns in the market or downturns in
Speaker 1: the economy, and that hasn't been the case in the
Speaker 1: last four years. So there is a bit of a
Speaker 1: cyclical ebb to it. However, you could also infer that
Speaker 1: it just was not a priority of the prior administration
Speaker 1: to bring those kinds of cases. So I think you
Speaker 1: could expect to see an effort to bring more of those.
Speaker 1: You know, this office works particularly closely with the SEC,
Speaker 1: and Gary Gensler, the new SEC chief, has identified areas
Speaker 1: that he sees as right for a greater enforcement. One
Speaker 1: thing that he has focused on is insider trading by
Speaker 1: corporate executives outside of established ten be five plans where
Speaker 1: CEOs have pre established plans to sell equity that they
Speaker 1: accumulate their companies, but you'll occasionally see them either changing
Speaker 1: their plans or trading outside of their plans, and sometimes
Speaker 1: if that is time to market moving information. That's something
Speaker 1: the SEC wants to focus on more. And typically the
Speaker 1: way that works is that you know, the SEC will
Speaker 1: bring its strongest cases where there is evidence of criminality
Speaker 1: to the Southern District and they do those cases jointly.
Speaker 1: So you could expect to see cases like that. So
Speaker 1: the ones that are in the work. H Jollim Maxwell
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein alleged wrangler of underage girls that's charged and
Speaker 1: is coming to trial this fall there was a recently
Speaker 1: charged case corporate case involving an electric vehicle company and
Speaker 1: whether that was misrepresenting its results to the market. But
Speaker 1: there's kind of a dearth right now in big cases
Speaker 1: with a lot of public attention to them. Thanks Christian.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Christian BERTHELSUN and that's it for
Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
Speaker 1: remember to join us weeknights at ten pm Wall Street
Speaker 1: Time for the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Basso, and
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg