WEBVTT - Trump Appeals & FTC Studies Surveillance Pricing 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio, 0:00:10.160 --> 0:00:13.840 fresh on victories in other legal cases. Donald Trump is 0:00:13.920 --> 0:00:17.200 now asking a New York appeals court to overturn the 0:00:17.280 --> 0:00:21.440 nearly five hundred million dollars civil fraud judgment against him 0:00:21.800 --> 0:00:25.120 after a trial. Judge Arthur and Goren found in February 0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:29.520 that Trump, his company, and top executives, including his sons, 0:00:29.880 --> 0:00:33.800 schemed for years to inflate his wealth on financial statements 0:00:34.159 --> 0:00:37.559 used to secure loans and make deals. In the appeal, 0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:42.560 Trump's lawyers called the judge's decisions legally bereft and untethered 0:00:42.560 --> 0:00:47.120 to the law or to commercial reality, raising several arguments, 0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:50.960 many that echoed the gripes that Trump complained about over 0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:52.400 and over during the trial. 0:00:52.960 --> 0:00:55.560 There were no victims because the banks made a lot 0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:58.160 of money. They made one hundred million dollars and by 0:00:58.200 --> 0:01:03.000 the way, I paid three hundred million dollars in taxes. 0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:06.280 Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, who has 0:01:06.319 --> 0:01:09.920 been covering the New York Trump trials. Eric, before we 0:01:10.000 --> 0:01:12.520 talk about the appeal, tell us about the judge's decision. 0:01:13.480 --> 0:01:17.760 Sure, so this is now several months later after Trump 0:01:18.000 --> 0:01:21.840 was found libel for fraud and the civil fraud case 0:01:21.880 --> 0:01:24.000 brought against him by the New York Attorney General. Of course, 0:01:24.040 --> 0:01:27.200 this stems from his asset valuations of all of his 0:01:27.360 --> 0:01:30.880 various assets that the State of New York alleged had 0:01:30.880 --> 0:01:35.319 been wildly inflated in order to get Trump better terms 0:01:35.360 --> 0:01:39.160 on loans from banks for over a decade. And so 0:01:39.319 --> 0:01:41.839 the state won this trial. It was a non jury trial, 0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:45.560 and in that time, of course, the former president had 0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:49.480 vowed to appeal, and this was his appeal brief filed 0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:53.200 with an intermediate appeals court, which really spelled out his 0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:56.760 case for trying to overturn the verdict and the five 0:01:56.840 --> 0:02:00.760 hundred and fifty four million dollar penalty last him. 0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:04.559 He raises a lot of arguments here, one being that 0:02:04.640 --> 0:02:07.640 there were no victims and no losses right. 0:02:07.720 --> 0:02:10.720 That is one of the top arguments that Trump makes 0:02:10.800 --> 0:02:14.720 in this filing. He argues that the New York Attorney General, 0:02:14.800 --> 0:02:17.680 Letitia James, didn't have any right to bring this case 0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:20.600 under the New York executive law, in part because there 0:02:20.600 --> 0:02:23.240 were no victims. This is a consumer fraud type case. 0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:25.240 They're saying, where are the victims? Where are the consumers 0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:28.600 who are hurt by this. Of course, we will get 0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:31.840 a full response from the Attorney General to this argument 0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:35.080 and others in the brief, but she has previously responded 0:02:35.120 --> 0:02:36.799 to this, and I should note that all of these 0:02:36.880 --> 0:02:38.919 arguments in this brief have sort of been made before 0:02:39.040 --> 0:02:42.520 by Trump. But the Attorney General says that she had 0:02:42.560 --> 0:02:45.320 a right to sue because it's up to the state 0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:48.880 to make sure that documents used in financial transactions, like 0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:51.640 the loan documents at issue in this case, have to 0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:56.000 be accurate and they can't knowingly contain false information. So 0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:58.520 while the banks didn't come out and say, hey, we 0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:02.400 were defrauded here, the idea for Leticia James is is 0:03:02.440 --> 0:03:06.760 that you have to prevent future violations by other individuals 0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:10.040 and companies by showing that they do enforce the law 0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:13.160 here when there's obvious violations according to the state. 0:03:13.919 --> 0:03:18.160 And we have heard this point since the very beginning 0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:22.000 that the Attorney General is politically motivated. 0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:25.680 Right, So that's another one of the arguments spelled out 0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.680 in this brief. They say that the only reason that 0:03:28.760 --> 0:03:31.560 Leticia James brought this case is because she campaigned as 0:03:31.600 --> 0:03:34.320 a Democrat on going after Trump, and that she had 0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:37.080 promised to do that, And in a sense, Trump is 0:03:37.160 --> 0:03:40.160 arguing here that this entire investigation and the lawsuit was 0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:42.240 sort of pretextual, that she had to come up with 0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:45.400 something in order to please the voters who voted for her. 0:03:45.840 --> 0:03:48.320 As with some of the other arguments, you know, Trump 0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:51.720 made this argument repeatedly before this ever went to trial, 0:03:51.760 --> 0:03:55.400 and the judge shot that down repeatedly and allowed the 0:03:55.440 --> 0:03:57.960 case to go to trial. So that's kind of kind 0:03:58.000 --> 0:04:00.440 of a tough one there for Trump to be because 0:04:00.440 --> 0:04:02.360 I believe the appeals court has already kind of heard 0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:04.040 this argument before as well. 0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:08.040 Yes, they heard a lot of these arguments, because Trump's 0:04:08.120 --> 0:04:11.280 lawyers went to the Appellate Division at least ten times 0:04:11.640 --> 0:04:15.760 to challenge the judge's rulings, including during the trial. Most 0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:19.279 of those appeals were, of course unsuccessful. And yet another 0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:23.920 argument that has resurfaced was based on the Statute of limitations. 0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:27.560 Right. So Trump makes a big point in this filing 0:04:27.600 --> 0:04:31.159 of saying that the last time the appeals court heard 0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:33.359 this case, I believe it was when the motion to 0:04:33.400 --> 0:04:36.480 dismiss was denied and the appeals court reviewed that decision. 0:04:37.160 --> 0:04:40.760 It reversed the judge, the trial judge on a few things. First, 0:04:40.800 --> 0:04:43.599 it granted dismissal for Ivanka Trump. Of course left the 0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:46.520 claims pending against Donald Trump and his two sons, Don 0:04:46.600 --> 0:04:50.480 Junior and Eric Trump. But they did reverse on Ivanka 0:04:50.480 --> 0:04:53.160 Trump in part because of the statute of limitations, and 0:04:53.680 --> 0:04:57.240 the court said, you can't go as far back as 0:04:57.240 --> 0:05:01.000 you wanted to in looking at these documents, these transactions. 0:05:01.480 --> 0:05:04.559 So the appeals court didn't say exactly what the trial 0:05:04.600 --> 0:05:06.880 judge had to do with that information and left it 0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:08.960 to the judge to sort of decide himself what to 0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:12.080 do with it. And the judge, Arthur Engron, decided that 0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:16.839 even with that statute of limitations determination, that the older 0:05:16.880 --> 0:05:21.000 documents that were too old had been used repeatedly as 0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:25.000 the years went on to verify Trump's finances and the 0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:29.120 company's finances as the loans continued. So that's how he 0:05:29.640 --> 0:05:32.760 kept the claims alive to go to trial. And Trump 0:05:32.839 --> 0:05:34.680 argues in this document that he never should have done 0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:37.719 that and claims that the judge, you know, just ignored 0:05:37.920 --> 0:05:40.840 the appeals court order for no apparent reason. So that's 0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:42.920 kind of what that part of the argument boils down to. 0:05:43.720 --> 0:05:47.720 They're also questioning the size of the judgment, calling it 0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:53.039 disproportionate and saying that it violates state and US constitutional 0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:55.400 guarantees against excessive punishments. 0:05:55.680 --> 0:05:57.680 Right, So this seems like a little bit more of 0:05:57.720 --> 0:05:59.640 a typical type of thing he might see in an 0:05:59.640 --> 0:06:03.840 appeal where a huge judgment is going to be scrutinized 0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:06.080 by an appeals court and they're going to look at 0:06:06.080 --> 0:06:09.640 whether or not the Attorney General calculated these damages correctly. 0:06:09.880 --> 0:06:12.560 Of course, a lot of that includes interest. So we 0:06:12.640 --> 0:06:14.960 saw a lot of arguments back and forth between the 0:06:14.960 --> 0:06:18.400 parties just leading up to the final award being handed down, 0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:22.120 and the Attorney General is confidence. She says she's confident 0:06:22.160 --> 0:06:25.159 that they calculated all of this correctly. They're clawing back 0:06:25.800 --> 0:06:29.320 what they say was the profit that Trump made off 0:06:29.360 --> 0:06:32.400 of two deals in particular, including the old post office, 0:06:32.400 --> 0:06:35.760 that luxury hotel in DC, and also saying that if 0:06:35.760 --> 0:06:39.320 they hadn't had that money, that profit in Trump's bank account, 0:06:39.320 --> 0:06:41.200 then he wouldn't have been able to do additional deals. 0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:43.880 So they're sort of like clawing back what they say 0:06:44.000 --> 0:06:48.040 was an illegal profit or an improper profit that Trump 0:06:48.080 --> 0:06:51.000 got by lying about the value of his assets and 0:06:51.040 --> 0:06:53.560 getting a better terms on his loans, and then, of course, 0:06:53.600 --> 0:06:55.400 as I said, a lot of that is interest as well. 0:06:55.480 --> 0:06:58.359 So I'm sure we'll see the appeals court scrutinize this 0:06:58.440 --> 0:07:00.480 a lot and perhaps come up with a different poculation. 0:07:00.600 --> 0:07:02.240 But you know, who knows at this point. 0:07:02.440 --> 0:07:05.000 Now, there are some things that you don't normally see 0:07:05.000 --> 0:07:08.920 in appeals Reef sounds sort of like campaigning or Trump 0:07:08.960 --> 0:07:12.160 outside the courthouse that the verdict would be a disaster 0:07:12.280 --> 0:07:15.560 for New York as businesses flee from an attorney general 0:07:15.680 --> 0:07:20.239 targeting victimless transactions, and also talking about him as among 0:07:20.280 --> 0:07:24.800 the most visionary and iconic real estate developers in American history. 0:07:25.240 --> 0:07:27.920 Was there a lot of fluff? I'll call it fluff. 0:07:29.240 --> 0:07:33.000 Well, yes, you could probably call it that, because I 0:07:33.000 --> 0:07:35.440 don't I don't know that the appeals court judges care 0:07:35.560 --> 0:07:38.200 about that in terms of determining whether or not this 0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:41.120 was all correctly done here. But actually that did form 0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:43.920 a big part of the defense case. At trial, his 0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:47.280 lawyers put on a big presentation, you know, a PowerPoint 0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:50.120 looking presentation that went on for quite some time, detailing 0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:53.800 essentially every deal that Trump had ever done, starting from 0:07:53.840 --> 0:07:56.040 the beginning of his career up to the you know, 0:07:56.080 --> 0:07:58.480 the old post office in DC, and you know, putting 0:07:58.480 --> 0:08:00.760 it in these these terms of him being such an 0:08:00.800 --> 0:08:04.760 impressive real estate businessman. But then also they say this 0:08:04.880 --> 0:08:06.760 to make the point that the banks that did business 0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:08.800 with him were eager to do business with him, that 0:08:08.840 --> 0:08:12.480 he was seen as visionary by these lenders that fought 0:08:12.520 --> 0:08:14.280 for his business, and they did put up that kind 0:08:14.320 --> 0:08:17.520 of testimony during the trial to show to make the 0:08:17.560 --> 0:08:19.880 point again, as we said earlier, about there not being 0:08:19.920 --> 0:08:23.600 any victims. So yeah, I mean, it's sort of inevitable 0:08:23.640 --> 0:08:26.080 that you see stuff like that pop up in Trump's filings. 0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:28.400 But I noticed that when he said that, you know, 0:08:28.520 --> 0:08:31.840 businesses were fleeing New York as a result of Letitia 0:08:31.920 --> 0:08:35.520 James's enforcement of this law, that there was no footnote there. 0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:38.600 It didn't lead to any examples of other businesses that 0:08:38.640 --> 0:08:41.760 were fleeing the state as a result of this case 0:08:41.800 --> 0:08:44.720 and this trial. And I remember that after the verdict 0:08:44.760 --> 0:08:47.360 was handed down, Trump had a press conference in which 0:08:47.360 --> 0:08:51.800 he's said that Exxon Mobile had fled New York as 0:08:51.800 --> 0:08:54.640 a result of a lawsuit brought by the New York 0:08:54.679 --> 0:08:57.960 Attorney General, a case that actually the Attorney General lost, 0:08:58.360 --> 0:09:01.160 but at any rate. He said that that excellent had 0:09:01.160 --> 0:09:03.280 fled and that's that's actually just not true. 0:09:03.760 --> 0:09:06.680 Trump had a problem coming up with the cash or 0:09:06.840 --> 0:09:10.080 the money for the appealed bond. Remind us what happened there. 0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:14.600 Yeah, So in order to put that judgment on hold 0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:18.480 during his appeal, he had to put up an appeal 0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:22.480 bond about one hundred and seventy five million dollars. Initially, 0:09:22.520 --> 0:09:25.000 the state wanted an appeal bond of the full amounts 0:09:25.240 --> 0:09:28.320 and plus i think an extra twenty percent, which they 0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:30.640 said that they were entitled to because Trump couldn't be 0:09:30.679 --> 0:09:34.400 trusted to pay up if his appeal failed. But the 0:09:34.440 --> 0:09:38.400 courts did not agree and lowered the size of the 0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:41.960 appeal bond. And of course Trump was able to do 0:09:42.000 --> 0:09:44.840 that by finding a company that provides these bonds based 0:09:44.840 --> 0:09:47.800 out of California, that a Trump supporter essentially owns the 0:09:47.800 --> 0:09:50.760 company and agreed to do that for him. There was 0:09:50.800 --> 0:09:54.080 still some contention between the parties over whether or not 0:09:54.760 --> 0:09:58.120 that company could pay up if necessary, but for all 0:09:58.160 --> 0:10:00.199 intents and purposes that that debate was sort of put 0:10:00.240 --> 0:10:03.280 to rest and the judgment is on hold. Trump's assets 0:10:03.280 --> 0:10:05.560 were not seized, as the Attorney General is threatening to 0:10:05.559 --> 0:10:08.000 do if he didn't pay up. So that bit of 0:10:08.040 --> 0:10:11.720 drama is over, and now it's sort of turning to 0:10:12.160 --> 0:10:16.320 the actual appeals court case, which itself could potentially drag 0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:17.200 on for quite some time. 0:10:17.559 --> 0:10:20.880 Eric Trump's sentencing for his conviction in the hush money 0:10:20.880 --> 0:10:25.040 case has been put off because he's asking the judge 0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:29.480 to toss out his conviction due to the controversial Supreme 0:10:29.559 --> 0:10:33.520 Court opinion on presidential immunity. Where does that stand? 0:10:34.280 --> 0:10:37.840 So, of course, Trump lost his first criminal trial here 0:10:37.840 --> 0:10:40.400 in New York, the so called hush money case over 0:10:40.520 --> 0:10:43.120 the falsified records that hid his hush money payment to 0:10:43.240 --> 0:10:46.600 porn star Stormy Daniels. And even though that verdict was 0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:51.120 handed down by a jury before this Supreme Court's immunity ruling, 0:10:51.280 --> 0:10:53.080 Trump has circled back and said, hey, this has to 0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:55.840 be tossed out. He has asked the judge to do so, 0:10:56.360 --> 0:11:00.440 and the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg is to file 0:11:00.520 --> 0:11:03.680 his response to that request today. We may not necessarily 0:11:03.760 --> 0:11:06.160 see it right away today, but we can expect that 0:11:06.200 --> 0:11:09.360 the prosecutors are going to urge the court to uphold 0:11:09.360 --> 0:11:11.200 the verdicts and say, hey, even though some of this 0:11:11.280 --> 0:11:14.680 evidence in testimony potentially could be impacted by the immunity 0:11:14.720 --> 0:11:17.040 ruling from the Supreme Court. All of the other evidence 0:11:17.040 --> 0:11:20.400 in testimony in the case justify this verdict. I think 0:11:20.400 --> 0:11:22.400 that's probably what we can expect to hear from the 0:11:22.400 --> 0:11:23.200 district attorney. 0:11:23.360 --> 0:11:24.640 Thanks so much for coming on the show. 0:11:24.760 --> 0:11:24.960 Eric. 0:11:25.080 --> 0:11:28.320 That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson coming up next on 0:11:28.320 --> 0:11:32.280 the Bloomberg Lawn Show. The fallout continues in the Alaska 0:11:32.400 --> 0:11:36.600 judge scandal. Just how many cases might be reversed. I'm 0:11:36.679 --> 0:11:43.120 June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Federal prosecutors in 0:11:43.160 --> 0:11:47.839 Alaska have identified nearly two dozen criminal cases with potentially 0:11:48.000 --> 0:11:53.200 undisclosed conflicts of interest involving former federal judge Joshua Kindred 0:11:53.400 --> 0:11:56.680 and the attorneys who worked on cases before him. The 0:11:56.720 --> 0:12:01.679 Trump appointee resigned this month amid allegation of sexual misconduct. 0:12:02.000 --> 0:12:06.920 A judiciary investigation found that Kindred had an inappropriate relationship 0:12:07.000 --> 0:12:09.800 with a female clerk who later worked for the US 0:12:09.880 --> 0:12:13.440 Attorney's office in Alaska. The battle also found the judge 0:12:13.480 --> 0:12:17.800 created a hostile work environment, including by discussing his romantic 0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:20.960 life in the workplace and lied about his conduct to 0:12:21.080 --> 0:12:25.440 judiciary officials conducting the inquiry. The Federal Public Defender's Office 0:12:25.480 --> 0:12:29.520 is undertaking its own review. Federal Defender Jamie McGrady has 0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:33.680 said she believes the number of potentially conflicted cases is 0:12:33.800 --> 0:12:37.800 higher than the twenty three identified by prosecutors. The inquiry 0:12:37.920 --> 0:12:41.400 could lead to the reopening of multiple criminal cases that 0:12:41.600 --> 0:12:44.400 came before Kindred during his more than four years on 0:12:44.440 --> 0:12:47.960 the bench. Joining me is Abby Smith, director of Georgetown 0:12:48.040 --> 0:12:52.600 Law's Criminal Defense and Prisoner Advocacy Clinic. The US Attorney 0:12:52.760 --> 0:12:56.280 is conducting an investigation. The Federal Public Defender is conducting 0:12:56.280 --> 0:13:00.480 an investigation to identify potential conflicts of interest. Would it 0:13:00.520 --> 0:13:03.880 be any case in which the judge had a relationship 0:13:04.080 --> 0:13:06.520 with the attorney? Would it be more than that? 0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:11.679 Well, any investigation would start with the judge having a 0:13:11.720 --> 0:13:15.400 relationship with a prosecutor in an ongoing case in which 0:13:15.440 --> 0:13:20.440 the prosecutor is one of counsel. That needed to have 0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:25.040 been disclosed at the very least, and it was you know, 0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:29.520 up to either side could have asked for recusal or disqualification. 0:13:29.960 --> 0:13:32.520 But I think this case goes beyond that. I mean, 0:13:32.559 --> 0:13:36.120 it sounds like there is a pattern of misbehavior on 0:13:36.160 --> 0:13:40.319 the part of the judge that some would or you 0:13:40.400 --> 0:13:44.040 made him an unfit judge while he was presiding over 0:13:44.120 --> 0:13:48.360 cases period. You know, the case that came to mind 0:13:48.880 --> 0:13:52.160 for me when I read about what's happening in Alaska 0:13:52.480 --> 0:13:55.240 is it's a little different, but it led to the 0:13:55.360 --> 0:14:00.240 dismissal of several dozen cases. It involved a judge who 0:14:00.400 --> 0:14:05.480 had been confronted by the FBI for having taken bribes 0:14:05.640 --> 0:14:10.360 from a leading union in Philadelphia, and they offered her 0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:14.839 a chance to be an informant to earn some mitigation 0:14:15.320 --> 0:14:19.200 and you know, perhaps non prosecution. Anyhow, she wore a 0:14:19.200 --> 0:14:21.560 wire and proceeded to start talking to a bunch of 0:14:21.600 --> 0:14:24.920 other judges as she's a sitting judge presiding over cases 0:14:25.480 --> 0:14:28.680 and basically in the pocket of the FBI, and with 0:14:28.760 --> 0:14:32.680 a deep need to ingratiate herself with the government so 0:14:32.760 --> 0:14:37.120 that she not be prosecuted. So she was wearing many hats. 0:14:37.160 --> 0:14:40.120 And the challenge to all of the cases that she 0:14:40.400 --> 0:14:43.080 ruled upon during that time period was a couple of things. 0:14:43.120 --> 0:14:46.440 As you know, broadly, a problem under the due process 0:14:46.440 --> 0:14:50.800 clause of the US Constitution is this good and fair behavior. 0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:54.040 There were also questions about separation of powers. Can you 0:14:54.080 --> 0:14:58.080 be both a judge and essentially a prosecutorial agent at 0:14:58.120 --> 0:15:01.760 the same time. You know, the idea that she was 0:15:01.880 --> 0:15:04.200 attempting to curry favor, that is, she needed to be 0:15:04.240 --> 0:15:07.640 the best informant she could be meant that some of 0:15:07.680 --> 0:15:10.720 that was going to go down hard on the defendants 0:15:10.760 --> 0:15:13.680 appearing before, so she would be more and more appealing 0:15:13.920 --> 0:15:17.600 to the prosecution. So here's this judge in Alaska who, 0:15:17.880 --> 0:15:20.800 according to what I've read, and one of the more 0:15:20.840 --> 0:15:23.000 troubling aspects of the case is that he was found 0:15:23.040 --> 0:15:27.880 to applied to the higher court investigating him, that he 0:15:27.920 --> 0:15:31.880 had engaged in widespread misconduct, you know, an improper relationship 0:15:32.200 --> 0:15:37.400 with one currently employed prosecutor and being wildly inappropriate, engaging 0:15:37.400 --> 0:15:41.240 in what probably would be hostile workplace environment behavior, maybe 0:15:41.280 --> 0:15:45.040 sexual harassment with others. You know, I'm interested in whether 0:15:45.080 --> 0:15:48.239 there could be a challenge as to general unfitness. 0:15:48.920 --> 0:15:51.960 Is it a no brainer that those cases involving the 0:15:52.040 --> 0:15:55.440 prosecutor he was having the sexual relationship with, or the 0:15:55.480 --> 0:15:58.400 one who sent him the nude photos, will those cases 0:15:58.520 --> 0:16:00.640 easily be reversed? 0:16:01.160 --> 0:16:03.000 Yes, it seems to be. That's the that's the low 0:16:03.040 --> 0:16:06.440 hanging fruit. That should be pretty easy. But the question 0:16:06.560 --> 0:16:10.160 is who's going to start that process. So, just to 0:16:10.200 --> 0:16:14.800 give you the defense perspective, depends. You know, quite often 0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:18.920 it's useful to challenge any and all convictions because it's 0:16:18.960 --> 0:16:21.680 harder to prove a case the more time goes by. 0:16:21.920 --> 0:16:25.760 So arguably there's some strategic advantage and kind of always 0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:27.440 if you get a second bite of the apple, to 0:16:27.480 --> 0:16:30.200 go for it. On the other hand, I don't know. 0:16:30.600 --> 0:16:33.640 You know, maybe this judge was a fairly lenient sentence, 0:16:33.680 --> 0:16:36.760 or maybe you know, there was a plea before him, 0:16:36.760 --> 0:16:39.400 and a better that the defendant be sentenced by this judge, 0:16:39.400 --> 0:16:43.160 no matter how corrupt or bizarre his behavior, than the 0:16:43.240 --> 0:16:45.760 luck of the draw the next time around. So you know, 0:16:45.920 --> 0:16:49.280 I guess question number one will be who brings the challenge? 0:16:49.360 --> 0:16:53.600 Will the federal defenders seek to undo every conviction that 0:16:53.680 --> 0:16:56.760 came before this judge? Will the prosecution, which has an 0:16:56.800 --> 0:17:01.240 ethical responsibility to do justice, will they, on their own accord, 0:17:01.680 --> 0:17:05.280 you know, move to dismiss those cases or somehow seeks 0:17:05.400 --> 0:17:08.400 the ability to not prost those cases after the fact. 0:17:08.440 --> 0:17:10.240 I don't know, and I don't want to paint this 0:17:10.359 --> 0:17:15.760 too broadly, because Alaska's a relatively small jurisdiction as jurisdictions go, 0:17:16.240 --> 0:17:19.440 and you know, the people tend to know each other 0:17:19.520 --> 0:17:22.280 in courthouses, the criminal bar tends to know each other. 0:17:22.359 --> 0:17:24.960 It's not unheard of that a judge is married to 0:17:25.000 --> 0:17:28.400 a prosecutor, or to a defense lawyer, or a prosecutor 0:17:28.440 --> 0:17:31.800 is married to a defense lawyer, because that's the society 0:17:31.880 --> 0:17:35.760 they keep. But it needs to be disclosed, and the 0:17:35.840 --> 0:17:38.600 prudent course would be to not have that person appear 0:17:38.640 --> 0:17:41.200 before you ever if you're married to them. You know, 0:17:41.240 --> 0:17:44.120 I'm not saying that like it doesn't happen. I don't 0:17:44.160 --> 0:17:46.680 need to sound like a Pollyanna about it. But it's 0:17:46.720 --> 0:17:49.359 just that there needs to be disclosure, and the people 0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:53.720 involved need to be wise about ensuring fairness to other people, 0:17:53.720 --> 0:17:56.400 including to the public, because that's the thing about judges 0:17:56.600 --> 0:18:01.119 and prosecutors. Appearance of proprieties the most important thing, because 0:18:01.119 --> 0:18:03.800 that has to do with people regarding the system as legitimate. 0:18:03.960 --> 0:18:06.920 I mean, it seems like the US Attorney's office could 0:18:06.960 --> 0:18:09.560 also be at faull Tier. Yes, three of the lawyers 0:18:09.600 --> 0:18:13.439 were from that office, and apparently the office was aware 0:18:13.520 --> 0:18:15.119 of a conflict. 0:18:14.960 --> 0:18:18.000 Yes, they should have disclosed. They should have said on 0:18:18.160 --> 0:18:20.760 the record so the events could at least consider it 0:18:21.240 --> 0:18:23.400 and want to reveal for the record that or disclosed 0:18:23.440 --> 0:18:25.880 for the record that you know. I have a colleague 0:18:25.880 --> 0:18:28.720 who's currently involved in a relationship with a judge. Here's 0:18:28.760 --> 0:18:32.040 what happens pretty commonly, and I just don't understand why 0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:35.960 this is a problem, because it's so ordinary for judges 0:18:36.119 --> 0:18:39.639 who've had law clerks who then either join the local 0:18:39.720 --> 0:18:43.399 prosecutor's office or the local public defender office or haines 0:18:43.480 --> 0:18:46.720 a shingle. It's usually an arrangement where that judge doesn't 0:18:47.119 --> 0:18:50.600 take cases involving that lawyer who was so recently a 0:18:50.680 --> 0:18:54.280 judge's clerk. Now, depending upon the size of the jurisdiction 0:18:54.480 --> 0:18:58.119 and the years that go by, that could change. But 0:18:58.200 --> 0:19:00.640 I think that's the kind of prudent thing to do. 0:19:01.320 --> 0:19:04.560 And if the judge forgets, then the lawyer should you 0:19:04.760 --> 0:19:07.920 reveal that that's the relationship. It's a little trickier when 0:19:07.960 --> 0:19:11.679 you're defense counsel because defense because our ethical obligation is 0:19:11.680 --> 0:19:14.720 to pursue our client's interests, and there's no ethical rule 0:19:14.800 --> 0:19:17.399 that says you have to disclose that you had some 0:19:17.560 --> 0:19:20.359 sort of relationships with a judge, you know. I mean, 0:19:20.400 --> 0:19:22.520 there are some rules that have to do with what 0:19:22.680 --> 0:19:28.720 proper relationships you know, exist between lawyer and client. But frankly, 0:19:28.840 --> 0:19:31.240 the ethical rules don't have a whole lot to say 0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:35.640 about relationships among lawyers or judges. But the US Attorney's 0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:38.240 office should have disclosed and the judge should have disclosed 0:19:38.960 --> 0:19:39.760 apparently period. 0:19:40.000 --> 0:19:42.240 One of the attorneys of the potential conflict is a 0:19:42.280 --> 0:19:43.360 defense lawyer. 0:19:44.600 --> 0:19:47.000 Well, that, you know, the judge needed to have disclosed. 0:19:47.520 --> 0:19:49.600 So do you understand what I'm saying about The defense 0:19:49.680 --> 0:19:52.760 is in a really different position. I'm not gonna you know, 0:19:52.800 --> 0:19:55.280 I might have a I might have a counseling session 0:19:55.280 --> 0:19:58.720 with my client where I say, look, I have this, 0:19:58.880 --> 0:20:01.919 you know, particular relationtionship with this judge. I want you 0:20:02.000 --> 0:20:06.119 to know that, and if you're uncomfortable with that, you know, 0:20:06.200 --> 0:20:09.240 let's talk. That's true. I mean, you might have a conversation, 0:20:09.400 --> 0:20:12.120 and you probably should have a conversation with your clients. 0:20:12.160 --> 0:20:17.920 But defense lawyer doesn't have to disclose having any sort 0:20:17.960 --> 0:20:21.919 of social relationship with a judge. That would be for 0:20:21.960 --> 0:20:25.520 the judge to do unless the lawyer does that, because 0:20:25.520 --> 0:20:28.720 it serves the client's interest. I mean, I've had judges say, 0:20:28.960 --> 0:20:31.359 you know, I'm a law professor who else appears in court. 0:20:32.080 --> 0:20:35.760 One time, I was at some very large fundraising event 0:20:36.200 --> 0:20:39.280 in Washington, d C. There are probably several hundred people there, 0:20:39.280 --> 0:20:42.320 and I ran into a judge who I sometimes appear before. 0:20:42.600 --> 0:20:45.639 I'm not friends with this judge. I've never socialized with 0:20:45.720 --> 0:20:49.639 this judge. I wouldn't even characterize our contact at the 0:20:49.680 --> 0:20:53.200 event as having a drink together. It didn't go that far. 0:20:53.359 --> 0:20:56.240 It's more like a little small suck. Then the next 0:20:56.240 --> 0:20:58.119 time I appear in court, the judges, I, you know, 0:20:58.160 --> 0:21:02.040 I feel compelled to disclose that that Miss Smith and I, 0:21:02.400 --> 0:21:05.240 you know, are are social acquaintances or something. And I thought, 0:21:05.359 --> 0:21:08.240 oh my god, it's going to hurt my reputation. I'm 0:21:08.280 --> 0:21:11.240 not good friends with this judge, trust me. But no 0:21:11.440 --> 0:21:14.520 judges do that. And I think careful judges would err 0:21:14.520 --> 0:21:17.600 on the side of overdisclosure and let the party stuff 0:21:17.680 --> 0:21:19.840 it out. But I can't believe this judge was keeping 0:21:19.880 --> 0:21:22.720 it secret. And if the US Attorney's office knew, that's 0:21:22.880 --> 0:21:26.239 really bad for him. I'm sure that smart people in 0:21:26.280 --> 0:21:29.199 the local federal defender are thinking of all kinds of 0:21:29.280 --> 0:21:32.560 creative motions to get a second crack in some of 0:21:32.560 --> 0:21:35.639 those cases that were decided by that US Attorney's office 0:21:35.640 --> 0:21:36.480 and that judge. 0:21:36.720 --> 0:21:38.639 Do you think that it will take years for this 0:21:38.800 --> 0:21:41.920 to unwind all the repercussions. 0:21:42.320 --> 0:21:45.200 I don't know, because I betshit things move more quickly 0:21:45.240 --> 0:21:48.520 in Alaska. I don't think the docket is his. If 0:21:48.520 --> 0:21:51.600 this was, you know, the Southern District of New York, 0:21:51.880 --> 0:21:54.479 then I would say could take a long time. But 0:21:54.560 --> 0:21:56.520 I'm not sure it will take that long a time. 0:21:56.920 --> 0:22:01.600 It's really interesting that the judge was not very few judges, 0:22:01.720 --> 0:22:04.560 especially so junior and their tenure, would give up a 0:22:04.600 --> 0:22:08.320 lifetime appointment. There must be dirt there. So you know, 0:22:08.520 --> 0:22:11.879 I think investigation is wise. We may only have the 0:22:11.880 --> 0:22:12.800 tip of the icebergs. 0:22:13.119 --> 0:22:16.280 Let's say you're a defense lawyer looking at this. Your 0:22:16.280 --> 0:22:20.000 client had a case before this judge involving the prosecutor, 0:22:20.200 --> 0:22:23.280