WEBVTT - Weekend Law: Comey Indicted, Wind Farms & Hate Speech

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.480
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.840 --> 0:00:13.480
<v Speaker 2>Former FBI Director James Comy was defiant in the face

0:00:13.520 --> 0:00:17.759
<v Speaker 2>of a federal indictment on two felony charges of making

0:00:17.840 --> 0:00:22.239
<v Speaker 2>false statements and obstruction. My heart is broken for the

0:00:22.280 --> 0:00:25.639
<v Speaker 2>Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the

0:00:25.640 --> 0:00:26.920
<v Speaker 2>federal judicial system.

0:00:27.480 --> 0:00:29.920
<v Speaker 3>I'm innocent, so let's have a trial.

0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:36.200
<v Speaker 2>The unprecedented indictment came just five days after President Donald Trump,

0:00:36.560 --> 0:00:40.280
<v Speaker 2>in a post on truth Social demanded that Attorney General

0:00:40.360 --> 0:00:45.400
<v Speaker 2>Pam Bondi bring charges against his perceived enemies, naming Comy,

0:00:45.640 --> 0:00:50.640
<v Speaker 2>New York Attorney General Letitia James, and California Senator Adam Schiff.

0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:54.960
<v Speaker 2>The charges center on testimony Comy gave in response to

0:00:55.120 --> 0:00:59.600
<v Speaker 2>questions from Republican Senator Ted Cruz during a twenty twenty

0:00:59.640 --> 0:01:04.399
<v Speaker 2>hearing over the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the

0:01:04.440 --> 0:01:05.600
<v Speaker 2>twenty sixteen election.

0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:09.520
<v Speaker 3>What mister McKay is saying and what you testify to

0:01:09.560 --> 0:01:11.440
<v Speaker 3>this committee cannot both be true.

0:01:11.520 --> 0:01:14.880
<v Speaker 1>One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?

0:01:16.080 --> 0:01:18.520
<v Speaker 3>I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by

0:01:18.560 --> 0:01:21.160
<v Speaker 3>what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May

0:01:21.160 --> 0:01:22.280
<v Speaker 3>of twenty seventeen.

0:01:22.800 --> 0:01:27.560
<v Speaker 2>The indictment follows chaos inside the Justice Department after career

0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:32.399
<v Speaker 2>prosecutors advised against bringing the charges, and the acting US

0:01:32.560 --> 0:01:36.959
<v Speaker 2>Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia who resigned was

0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:41.480
<v Speaker 2>replaced by one of Trump's personal attorneys, an insurance lawyer

0:01:41.640 --> 0:01:46.760
<v Speaker 2>with no prosecutorial experience. Joining me is former federal prosecutor

0:01:46.840 --> 0:01:51.000
<v Speaker 2>Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter and English Bob. What is

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:54.560
<v Speaker 2>the significance of this indictment, Well.

0:01:54.440 --> 0:01:58.160
<v Speaker 3>It's enormously significant in the sense that it's the first

0:01:58.200 --> 0:02:02.560
<v Speaker 3>time of former FBI director has ever been indicted. And

0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:07.280
<v Speaker 3>it's also very unusual because the subject of this indictment,

0:02:07.440 --> 0:02:12.600
<v Speaker 3>James Comey, has been an antagonist to President Trump for

0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:16.119
<v Speaker 3>so many years now, and there was pressure, frankly by

0:02:16.200 --> 0:02:19.239
<v Speaker 3>the White House on the Department of Justice to take

0:02:19.280 --> 0:02:21.960
<v Speaker 3>a look at this case and to bring charges against

0:02:21.960 --> 0:02:27.720
<v Speaker 3>the former FBI director. There are long standing, unwritten norms

0:02:27.760 --> 0:02:31.959
<v Speaker 3>that have separated the Department of Justice from the White House,

0:02:32.000 --> 0:02:36.520
<v Speaker 3>and all of the presidential predecessors to President Trump have

0:02:36.760 --> 0:02:40.440
<v Speaker 3>at least to some degree, sought to distance themselves from

0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:45.120
<v Speaker 3>the Justice Department's prosecutorial decisions. Certainly, at least in public.

0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:48.519
<v Speaker 3>They have declined to weigh in on pending cases, for example,

0:02:48.960 --> 0:02:52.680
<v Speaker 3>especially those types of cases that touched on politics. And

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:56.880
<v Speaker 3>they have at least spoken publicly about the deference that

0:02:56.919 --> 0:03:00.639
<v Speaker 3>the White House gives to the Department of Justice, tradition

0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:05.560
<v Speaker 3>of independence that allows prosecutors to make decisions about whether

0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:09.280
<v Speaker 3>or not to bring cases based solely upon the evidence

0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:13.280
<v Speaker 3>and the law, without any outside influence or even the

0:03:13.320 --> 0:03:17.840
<v Speaker 3>appearance of any political pressure behind the decision whether to

0:03:17.880 --> 0:03:19.040
<v Speaker 3>bring a criminal case.

0:03:19.560 --> 0:03:24.799
<v Speaker 2>The indictment is less than two pages, so very minimal information.

0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:27.320
<v Speaker 2>What do we know about the charges?

0:03:27.960 --> 0:03:32.320
<v Speaker 3>The indictment stems from James Coomy's sworn appearance during a

0:03:32.480 --> 0:03:37.800
<v Speaker 3>Judiciary committee hearing on the FBI's handling of investigations into

0:03:37.920 --> 0:03:42.200
<v Speaker 3>Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election. What prosecutors are

0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:46.680
<v Speaker 3>alleging in this indictment is that mister Komy knowingly misled

0:03:46.800 --> 0:03:50.800
<v Speaker 3>senators on two critical points. First, the government claims that

0:03:50.880 --> 0:03:55.200
<v Speaker 3>Comy falsely denied authorizing anyone at the FBI to act

0:03:55.200 --> 0:03:59.040
<v Speaker 3>as an anonymous source to the media regarding the investigation.

0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:03.320
<v Speaker 3>To the charging documents, he did it willfully and knowingly

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:07.600
<v Speaker 3>and made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement by

0:04:07.600 --> 0:04:11.040
<v Speaker 3>falsely stating to a United States Senator that he had

0:04:11.040 --> 0:04:14.200
<v Speaker 3>not authorized someone else at the FBI to be an

0:04:14.200 --> 0:04:18.800
<v Speaker 3>anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation. The

0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:23.240
<v Speaker 3>second charge allegacy Comy obstructed Congress by making false and

0:04:23.279 --> 0:04:28.039
<v Speaker 3>misleading statements basically aimed at impeding the committee's inquiry into

0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:32.039
<v Speaker 3>the FBI's actions regarding the twenty sixteen election. The third

0:04:32.120 --> 0:04:35.560
<v Speaker 3>proposed count, which was an obstruction of a congressional proceeding,

0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:40.240
<v Speaker 3>was rejected, apparently by the Grand Injury. Court. Records show

0:04:40.320 --> 0:04:44.920
<v Speaker 3>that grandeurors did not find sufficient evidence to support that charge,

0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:47.560
<v Speaker 3>and that was dropped from the indictment, which was then

0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:49.600
<v Speaker 3>revised and presented to the judge.

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:54.040
<v Speaker 2>Though false statements may sound like a pretty straightforward charge

0:04:54.080 --> 0:04:57.880
<v Speaker 2>to prove, actually proving the crime of false statements is

0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:03.080
<v Speaker 2>anything but easy. Ask Special counsel John Durham. Two people

0:05:03.200 --> 0:05:06.880
<v Speaker 2>charged by him with making false statements were acquitted at trial.

0:05:07.200 --> 0:05:09.280
<v Speaker 2>So what does a prosecutor have to prove?

0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:09.600
<v Speaker 1>Here?

0:05:10.320 --> 0:05:13.880
<v Speaker 3>To prove the case of making false statements, prosecutors will

0:05:13.920 --> 0:05:17.279
<v Speaker 3>have to convince the jury that James Comy not only

0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:21.000
<v Speaker 3>made false statements to Congress, but that he did so knowingly,

0:05:21.640 --> 0:05:24.920
<v Speaker 3>and that any false statements that he made were material

0:05:25.240 --> 0:05:28.560
<v Speaker 3>to the focus of the Senate proceedings. So essentially, what

0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:31.680
<v Speaker 3>has to happen in these types of prosecutions and why

0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:34.760
<v Speaker 3>they are so rare, is that prosecutors have to get

0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:37.720
<v Speaker 3>inside the head of the person who is making the statement.

0:05:37.760 --> 0:05:39.640
<v Speaker 1>They have to get inside the mind.

0:05:39.400 --> 0:05:42.320
<v Speaker 3>Of the defendant and prove that what the defendant said

0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:44.960
<v Speaker 3>was not only false, but it was knowingly false, that

0:05:45.040 --> 0:05:47.440
<v Speaker 3>they knew at the time they were making it it

0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:50.000
<v Speaker 3>was an untruth, and then they also have to show

0:05:50.200 --> 0:05:53.480
<v Speaker 3>that it was a material untruth. That's why we see

0:05:53.720 --> 0:05:56.720
<v Speaker 3>very few of these types of cases brought, and very

0:05:56.720 --> 0:05:58.320
<v Speaker 3>few of the cases are successful.

0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:02.239
<v Speaker 2>Might be even offer in this case because it's based

0:06:02.360 --> 0:06:08.080
<v Speaker 2>on Senator Cruz summarizing prior testimony. Add to that, a

0:06:08.200 --> 0:06:13.760
<v Speaker 2>twenty eighteen Inspector General's report found that Comy's deputy Andy

0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:19.760
<v Speaker 2>McCabe made multiple false or misleading statements and credited Comy's

0:06:19.839 --> 0:06:22.520
<v Speaker 2>version of the conversation over McCabe's.

0:06:22.839 --> 0:06:26.800
<v Speaker 3>The charges heres focused specifically on questions asked by Senator

0:06:26.839 --> 0:06:30.600
<v Speaker 3>Ted Cruz about testimony that Comy gave in twenty seventeen

0:06:31.040 --> 0:06:35.200
<v Speaker 3>asserting that he did not authorize leaking information regarding the

0:06:35.279 --> 0:06:40.359
<v Speaker 3>FBI's investigations into then President Donald Trump or former Secretary

0:06:40.400 --> 0:06:45.920
<v Speaker 3>of State Hillary Clinton. Comy testified unequivocally to Senator Cruz.

0:06:46.000 --> 0:06:51.200
<v Speaker 3>I stand by that testimony. Interestingly, Comy's deputy, Andrew McCabe,

0:06:51.520 --> 0:06:55.240
<v Speaker 3>has said that Comy authorized him to leak the information

0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:58.839
<v Speaker 3>to the press. According to a twenty eighteen Justice Department

0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:03.000
<v Speaker 3>Inspector General report, Now, when the Inspector General looked into

0:07:03.000 --> 0:07:06.400
<v Speaker 3>this issue, and he looked at the testimony of James

0:07:06.440 --> 0:07:10.280
<v Speaker 3>Comy and compared that to Andrew McCabe, they are directly

0:07:10.280 --> 0:07:13.240
<v Speaker 3>in conflict with one another. And so the Inspector General

0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 3>had to look at the credibility of each of those

0:07:16.160 --> 0:07:18.200
<v Speaker 3>speakers and look at the rest of the information that

0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:21.320
<v Speaker 3>was available to make a determination as to who it

0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:24.800
<v Speaker 3>believed was telling the truth. In that case, the Inspector

0:07:24.920 --> 0:07:28.800
<v Speaker 3>General actually found that mister Comy's testimony.

0:07:28.520 --> 0:07:29.440
<v Speaker 1>Was more incredible.

0:07:29.640 --> 0:07:32.760
<v Speaker 3>They found the Cave's testimony not credible. In fact, it

0:07:32.920 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 3>concluded in that report the overwhelming weight of evidence supported

0:07:36.880 --> 0:07:40.720
<v Speaker 3>Comy's version of the conversation and not McCabe. So at

0:07:40.760 --> 0:07:43.160
<v Speaker 3>the end of the day, here you've got a he said,

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:48.080
<v Speaker 3>he said situation where two people are giving contradictory evidence

0:07:48.240 --> 0:07:50.880
<v Speaker 3>as to whether or not a conversation took place. And

0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 3>those cases are very difficult to prove, because, again, the

0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:57.360
<v Speaker 3>standard of proof in any criminal case is beyond a

0:07:57.440 --> 0:08:01.040
<v Speaker 3>reasonable doubt. And when you've got two witnesses give testimony

0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:05.560
<v Speaker 3>that's directly contradictory to one another, it's difficult to prove

0:08:05.680 --> 0:08:08.960
<v Speaker 3>that one of them is absolutely true and the other

0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:12.080
<v Speaker 3>is absolutely false. And in this case, it is compounded

0:08:12.120 --> 0:08:14.440
<v Speaker 3>by the fact that the Inspector General looked at this

0:08:14.600 --> 0:08:18.560
<v Speaker 3>very same issue and the inspector General's report ultimately concluded

0:08:18.760 --> 0:08:21.600
<v Speaker 3>that it was Komy who was more credible and the

0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:24.760
<v Speaker 3>Cabe had not been truthful to the Inspector General during

0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:25.560
<v Speaker 3>that investigation.

0:08:25.960 --> 0:08:30.520
<v Speaker 2>Komy could raise a defense of vindictive or selective prosecution.

0:08:31.360 --> 0:08:33.640
<v Speaker 2>I know it's a high bar, but here you have

0:08:34.240 --> 0:08:38.080
<v Speaker 2>the President of the United States in writing demanding that

0:08:38.120 --> 0:08:42.120
<v Speaker 2>the Attorney General indict Komy, and a few days later,

0:08:42.200 --> 0:08:46.840
<v Speaker 2>after turmoil in the US Attorney's office, he's indicted, and

0:08:46.920 --> 0:08:51.679
<v Speaker 2>President Trump again in writing celebrates that it's.

0:08:51.600 --> 0:08:56.199
<v Speaker 3>Really difficult to say exactly how much of this collateral

0:08:56.360 --> 0:09:00.000
<v Speaker 3>evidence will be admitted and considered by the judge, because

0:09:00.000 --> 0:09:03.160
<v Speaker 3>because none of this has really ever happened before, there

0:09:03.280 --> 0:09:06.439
<v Speaker 3>was clearly pressure brought to bear on the Attorney General

0:09:06.800 --> 0:09:11.960
<v Speaker 3>to bring this case. Ultimately, the acting US Attorney in

0:09:12.000 --> 0:09:14.800
<v Speaker 3>the Eastern District of Virginia presented this case to a

0:09:14.800 --> 0:09:18.320
<v Speaker 3>grand jury, and a majority of the grand jurors voted

0:09:18.360 --> 0:09:22.840
<v Speaker 3>in favor of two of the three counts. Probably that

0:09:22.880 --> 0:09:25.720
<v Speaker 3>will then mean that this case will proceed to trial.

0:09:26.040 --> 0:09:29.160
<v Speaker 3>Although I think we can expect the defense to raise

0:09:29.280 --> 0:09:32.760
<v Speaker 3>the fact that there was this outside pressure, and whether

0:09:32.840 --> 0:09:35.760
<v Speaker 3>or not a judge will consider that, I think we'll

0:09:35.760 --> 0:09:38.600
<v Speaker 3>have to wait and see. The problem with that defense

0:09:38.760 --> 0:09:42.640
<v Speaker 3>is that it would essentially turn the US Attorney and

0:09:42.720 --> 0:09:46.480
<v Speaker 3>others inside the Justice Department into witnesses as to what

0:09:46.760 --> 0:09:50.560
<v Speaker 3>actually motivated their desire to present this case. So, while

0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:53.880
<v Speaker 3>I think the optics of that are favorable to the defense,

0:09:54.240 --> 0:09:56.760
<v Speaker 3>I'm not sure that a judge will eventually want to

0:09:56.800 --> 0:10:00.160
<v Speaker 3>go down that road. The judge will more likely focus

0:10:00.160 --> 0:10:04.280
<v Speaker 3>on the evidence itself and listen to the various defenses

0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:07.120
<v Speaker 3>that James Comey's lawyers bring at trial.

0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:09.720
<v Speaker 2>So you think this will get to trial, it won't

0:10:09.720 --> 0:10:11.080
<v Speaker 2>be dismissed beforehand.

0:10:11.480 --> 0:10:13.640
<v Speaker 3>Well, again, it's hard to say, but I can tell

0:10:13.640 --> 0:10:17.640
<v Speaker 3>you that it's exceedingly rare for a federal criminal indictment

0:10:17.679 --> 0:10:20.880
<v Speaker 3>to be dismissed on a motion to dismiss basis. In

0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:23.440
<v Speaker 3>other words, what a judge has to do is look

0:10:23.480 --> 0:10:27.520
<v Speaker 3>at the face of the indictment and decides that, based

0:10:27.600 --> 0:10:31.440
<v Speaker 3>upon the allegations in the indictment and based upon the

0:10:31.480 --> 0:10:33.480
<v Speaker 3>evidence that the government has.

0:10:33.200 --> 0:10:35.800
<v Speaker 1>No reasonable jury could convict.

0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:39.000
<v Speaker 3>Now, it's possible in this case that a judge might

0:10:39.080 --> 0:10:42.320
<v Speaker 3>do that, but again, the facts here are so unusual

0:10:42.679 --> 0:10:45.240
<v Speaker 3>that I think it's very difficult to predict what a

0:10:45.360 --> 0:10:48.559
<v Speaker 3>judge is going to do. So the defense actually has

0:10:48.720 --> 0:10:53.000
<v Speaker 3>multiple opportunities to try to derail this case. They'll certainly

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:56.560
<v Speaker 3>move to dismiss the indictment on the basis of some

0:10:56.679 --> 0:11:01.120
<v Speaker 3>kind of improper pressure or impropriety for the grand jury.

0:11:01.840 --> 0:11:04.480
<v Speaker 3>They'll try to allege that there's not sufficient evidence to

0:11:04.559 --> 0:11:05.800
<v Speaker 3>let this case even.

0:11:05.600 --> 0:11:06.640
<v Speaker 1>Proceed to trial.

0:11:07.360 --> 0:11:10.040
<v Speaker 3>If it gets past that stage, which it likely will,

0:11:10.440 --> 0:11:13.679
<v Speaker 3>they then have another opportunity to move to dismiss at

0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:17.880
<v Speaker 3>the close of the government's case, arguing that no reasonable

0:11:17.960 --> 0:11:21.319
<v Speaker 3>jury could convict based upon the evidence that was presented.

0:11:21.440 --> 0:11:23.840
<v Speaker 3>And then the defense can argue again at the close

0:11:23.880 --> 0:11:26.280
<v Speaker 3>of the trial that it should not even go to

0:11:26.320 --> 0:11:29.720
<v Speaker 3>the jury because no reasonable jury could convict based upon

0:11:29.760 --> 0:11:32.920
<v Speaker 3>the evidence. And then there's one last opportunity for the defense.

0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:35.240
<v Speaker 3>Even after the case goes to the jury. In the

0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:38.640
<v Speaker 3>event that the jury convicts, they can argue to the

0:11:38.760 --> 0:11:41.800
<v Speaker 3>judge that, despite the fact that the jury returned to

0:11:41.840 --> 0:11:46.080
<v Speaker 3>conviction here, that the evidence was legally insufficient, and the

0:11:46.240 --> 0:11:50.160
<v Speaker 3>judge actually has the opportunity to overturn the jury's decision.

0:11:50.800 --> 0:11:54.160
<v Speaker 2>And what about the effect on the Justice Department of

0:11:54.240 --> 0:11:58.000
<v Speaker 2>bringing a high profile case like this under pressure and

0:11:58.080 --> 0:12:01.000
<v Speaker 2>despite the reservations of career prosecutors.

0:12:01.640 --> 0:12:05.079
<v Speaker 3>Well, I can tell you that political prosecutions and US

0:12:05.120 --> 0:12:10.200
<v Speaker 3>Attorney's offices around the country are run by separate groups

0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:15.080
<v Speaker 3>within the office prosecutors who specialize in political corruption, and

0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:19.320
<v Speaker 3>when those cases are brought against elected officials or former

0:12:19.360 --> 0:12:23.600
<v Speaker 3>elected officials, they receive the highest degree of scrutiny. In

0:12:23.640 --> 0:12:26.920
<v Speaker 3>other words, the weight of the evidence and the propriety

0:12:27.040 --> 0:12:30.120
<v Speaker 3>the charges are reviewed. Not only within the US Attorney's office,

0:12:30.160 --> 0:12:34.400
<v Speaker 3>but also by officials in main Justice. It gets a

0:12:34.440 --> 0:12:36.880
<v Speaker 3>lot of eyes looking at it, a lot of career

0:12:37.000 --> 0:12:40.600
<v Speaker 3>prosecutors looking at it and weighing in on whether or

0:12:40.679 --> 0:12:44.400
<v Speaker 3>not to proceed. And that's done because prosecutors know that

0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:49.040
<v Speaker 3>these types of cases elected government officials, high level appointed

0:12:49.080 --> 0:12:53.800
<v Speaker 3>government officials, these are high stakes, high profile cases, and

0:12:53.920 --> 0:12:56.719
<v Speaker 3>if they're going to be brought, prosecutors want to make

0:12:56.760 --> 0:13:00.199
<v Speaker 3>sure that they're going to win because every time the

0:13:00.320 --> 0:13:03.839
<v Speaker 3>case is brought against a high level elected official or

0:13:03.920 --> 0:13:07.920
<v Speaker 3>former elected official, or former high ranking government official, if

0:13:07.960 --> 0:13:11.560
<v Speaker 3>the prosecution does not come back with a conviction, it

0:13:11.640 --> 0:13:15.480
<v Speaker 3>damages the reputation of the department and can have repercussions

0:13:15.600 --> 0:13:20.000
<v Speaker 3>about future cases. Because bear in mind that all these decisions,

0:13:20.080 --> 0:13:22.440
<v Speaker 3>at the end of the day in any criminal case

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:27.480
<v Speaker 3>are made by jurors. These are everyday people, and if

0:13:27.480 --> 0:13:31.680
<v Speaker 3>there is a general perception out there that the Department

0:13:31.679 --> 0:13:35.960
<v Speaker 3>of Justice is overreaching and bringing cases that it shouldn't

0:13:35.960 --> 0:13:40.840
<v Speaker 3>be reaching, jurors may become more skeptical of these cases

0:13:40.880 --> 0:13:45.040
<v Speaker 3>in the future. Historically, when an assistant US attorney stands

0:13:45.040 --> 0:13:48.040
<v Speaker 3>before a jury, they bring a certain amount of credibility

0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:52.000
<v Speaker 3>with them. They bring years and years of a reputation

0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:55.840
<v Speaker 3>of the Department of Justice of bringing cases that are

0:13:55.880 --> 0:13:58.480
<v Speaker 3>supported not only by the law but by the facts.

0:13:58.760 --> 0:14:01.240
<v Speaker 3>And so there is quite frankly, a certain amount of

0:14:01.280 --> 0:14:04.840
<v Speaker 3>deference that jurors often give to the government and that

0:14:04.960 --> 0:14:08.000
<v Speaker 3>judges often give to the government. Will have to see

0:14:08.200 --> 0:14:12.520
<v Speaker 3>if this type of external pressure begins to erode that trust,

0:14:12.840 --> 0:14:15.720
<v Speaker 3>because that can have an effect on other cases that

0:14:15.760 --> 0:14:18.040
<v Speaker 3>are being brought by the Department of Justice in the future.

0:14:18.440 --> 0:14:21.280
<v Speaker 2>And this is just the beginning of a long process.

0:14:21.360 --> 0:14:25.360
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mince of Macarter and English.

0:14:25.600 --> 0:14:30.680
<v Speaker 2>I'm June Gross. So when you're listening to Bloomberg. President

0:14:30.760 --> 0:14:36.080
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump has long criticized wind power, claiming it's expensive

0:14:36.200 --> 0:14:42.120
<v Speaker 2>and unreliable, and that massive wind turbans are unsightly, kill birds,

0:14:42.320 --> 0:14:46.520
<v Speaker 2>cause cancer, and drive whales crazy. Wind is the most

0:14:46.520 --> 0:14:51.120
<v Speaker 2>expensive form of energy, and it destroys the beauty of

0:14:51.200 --> 0:14:55.640
<v Speaker 2>your fields and your planes, and your and your waterways.

0:14:55.720 --> 0:15:01.520
<v Speaker 3>And Darling, I want to watch Trump and television tonight,

0:15:02.760 --> 0:15:05.280
<v Speaker 3>but the wind stop blowing and I can't watch.

0:15:05.440 --> 0:15:07.120
<v Speaker 2>There's no electricity in the house.

0:15:07.240 --> 0:15:10.880
<v Speaker 3>Darling, you want to see a bird cemetery. Go under

0:15:10.920 --> 0:15:12.840
<v Speaker 3>a windmill sometime you'll see the status.

0:15:14.040 --> 0:15:18.000
<v Speaker 2>And since returning to office, Trump has launched an attack

0:15:18.200 --> 0:15:22.920
<v Speaker 2>on wind power. His administration has stopped construction on major

0:15:23.000 --> 0:15:28.400
<v Speaker 2>offshore wind farms, revoked wind energy permits, cancel plans to

0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:33.080
<v Speaker 2>use large areas of federal waters for new offshore wind development,

0:15:33.320 --> 0:15:37.320
<v Speaker 2>and stop nearly seven hundred million dollars in federal funding

0:15:37.640 --> 0:15:41.960
<v Speaker 2>for a dozen offshore wind projects. But on Monday, a

0:15:42.120 --> 0:15:47.520
<v Speaker 2>major wind for wind energy DC Federal Judge Royce Lamberth

0:15:47.720 --> 0:15:50.680
<v Speaker 2>rule that work can resume on construction of a nearly

0:15:50.840 --> 0:15:54.520
<v Speaker 2>completed wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island, and

0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:59.480
<v Speaker 2>that the Trump administrations stop work order violated federal law

0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:03.960
<v Speaker 2>because it was arbitrary and capricious following years of planning

0:16:04.000 --> 0:16:08.160
<v Speaker 2>and coordination with the US government. My guest is environmental

0:16:08.240 --> 0:16:11.800
<v Speaker 2>law expert Pat Parento, a professor at the Vermont Law

0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:15.240
<v Speaker 2>and Graduate School. Pat tell us about this wind farm

0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:18.760
<v Speaker 2>off the coast of Rhode Island that's eighty percent complete.

0:16:18.880 --> 0:16:22.800
<v Speaker 1>Correct, It's a six billion dollar wind farm, would be

0:16:22.840 --> 0:16:26.960
<v Speaker 1>the largest in the United States. It's funded primarily by

0:16:27.360 --> 0:16:30.520
<v Speaker 1>a Danish firm or stead, So you know you're talking

0:16:30.560 --> 0:16:34.360
<v Speaker 1>about six billion dollars of investment in American energy supply,

0:16:34.880 --> 0:16:38.160
<v Speaker 1>and there was over twelve hundred jobs associated with it,

0:16:38.280 --> 0:16:41.320
<v Speaker 1>and the stop work order that the Department of Interior

0:16:41.480 --> 0:16:45.480
<v Speaker 1>issued threw those people out of work immediately. So yeah,

0:16:45.520 --> 0:16:49.160
<v Speaker 1>it's eighty percent complete. They need to install twenty turbans

0:16:49.240 --> 0:16:51.680
<v Speaker 1>to finish it, and they need to do it quickly

0:16:51.840 --> 0:16:56.480
<v Speaker 1>because the supply chain for getting the turbines here and

0:16:56.600 --> 0:17:00.560
<v Speaker 1>assembled and installed. You know, they're raising the cal it's

0:17:00.600 --> 0:17:04.000
<v Speaker 1>a clock for weather, and it's a clock for getting

0:17:04.240 --> 0:17:07.600
<v Speaker 1>the kind of support you need to get these turbines installed.

0:17:07.680 --> 0:17:07.920
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:11.320
<v Speaker 1>So this project is designed to serve three hundred and

0:17:11.359 --> 0:17:16.080
<v Speaker 1>fifty thousand home it's huge, it's fourteen hundred megawat and

0:17:16.320 --> 0:17:20.480
<v Speaker 1>it's also critical to the New England energy supply going forward.

0:17:20.520 --> 0:17:23.800
<v Speaker 1>So you know this project and Cape Wind is another

0:17:24.040 --> 0:17:27.919
<v Speaker 1>major offshore wind farm that was on the books but

0:17:27.960 --> 0:17:30.960
<v Speaker 1>now it's installed by Trump as well. So these two

0:17:31.160 --> 0:17:36.480
<v Speaker 1>wind projects are critical to supplying electricity in New England.

0:17:36.680 --> 0:17:39.760
<v Speaker 1>And of course electricity demands are going up in large

0:17:39.800 --> 0:17:43.240
<v Speaker 1>part in response to the AI build out and the big,

0:17:43.320 --> 0:17:46.399
<v Speaker 1>huge data centers that are stucking up so much energy.

0:17:46.840 --> 0:17:51.360
<v Speaker 1>It's also designed to lower electricity bills because the biggest

0:17:51.760 --> 0:17:55.360
<v Speaker 1>electricity demand is peak demand in the winter for heating,

0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:59.240
<v Speaker 1>and right now New England is relying very heavily on gas,

0:17:59.680 --> 0:18:03.560
<v Speaker 1>and you know, gas prices are incredibly volatile. So the

0:18:03.760 --> 0:18:07.879
<v Speaker 1>estimate is that this project alone would reduce electricity bills

0:18:07.920 --> 0:18:10.800
<v Speaker 1>in New England by five hundred million dollars. So, you know,

0:18:10.880 --> 0:18:15.520
<v Speaker 1>it's crazy because you've got a project supplying energy that's needed,

0:18:16.200 --> 0:18:21.280
<v Speaker 1>lowering energy prices, providing stability, and the Trump administration comes

0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:25.320
<v Speaker 1>along and issues this stopped work order, throws people out

0:18:25.320 --> 0:18:28.119
<v Speaker 1>of work, and now Judge Lambert has said, no, you

0:18:28.200 --> 0:18:28.919
<v Speaker 1>can't do that.

0:18:29.680 --> 0:18:35.120
<v Speaker 2>In stopping the project, the Trump administration cited national security concerns.

0:18:35.720 --> 0:18:37.560
<v Speaker 2>What national security concerns?

0:18:38.240 --> 0:18:42.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, well, you know it was a Secretary Bergham, Interior Secretary,

0:18:42.400 --> 0:18:46.840
<v Speaker 1>who said it has to do with cybersecurity, and there's

0:18:46.880 --> 0:18:52.399
<v Speaker 1>a concern about whether there would be undersea drone attacks

0:18:53.000 --> 0:18:55.840
<v Speaker 1>because of course you have to monitor not only the

0:18:55.880 --> 0:18:58.360
<v Speaker 1>operation of the turbines, but the fact that you've got

0:18:58.359 --> 0:19:01.199
<v Speaker 1>to get the electricity on shore. The point is that

0:19:01.240 --> 0:19:04.800
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Defense has already approved the system that

0:19:04.840 --> 0:19:07.600
<v Speaker 1>they're going to be using to monitor all this stuff.

0:19:07.640 --> 0:19:12.520
<v Speaker 1>So this national security excuse is illegitimate. I mean, if

0:19:12.520 --> 0:19:16.080
<v Speaker 1>there is really a national security issue, what exactly is it?

0:19:16.280 --> 0:19:19.960
<v Speaker 1>Why was that evidence not introduced before Judge Lambert? And

0:19:20.040 --> 0:19:20.480
<v Speaker 1>it wasn't.

0:19:21.160 --> 0:19:26.199
<v Speaker 2>The company claimed that the Trump administration violated a constitutional

0:19:26.280 --> 0:19:30.280
<v Speaker 2>right to do process and that the stop work order

0:19:30.480 --> 0:19:34.280
<v Speaker 2>was arbitrary and capricious. So tell us what the judge decided.

0:19:34.600 --> 0:19:38.199
<v Speaker 1>So Clambert said it was the height of arbitrary and

0:19:38.200 --> 0:19:41.399
<v Speaker 1>capricious action. In other words, there was no evidence introduced

0:19:41.640 --> 0:19:44.600
<v Speaker 1>to suggest that there really was a national security problem.

0:19:44.840 --> 0:19:47.359
<v Speaker 1>There was no evidence introduced that the company is in

0:19:47.440 --> 0:19:52.520
<v Speaker 1>violation of any environmental or regulatory requirement. This project has

0:19:52.600 --> 0:19:57.760
<v Speaker 1>been through ten years of analysis. I mean, in other respects,

0:19:57.960 --> 0:20:01.720
<v Speaker 1>the Trump administration is going crazy over the delays and

0:20:01.960 --> 0:20:06.800
<v Speaker 1>energy projects from environmental reviews and regulatory requirements. Well, this

0:20:06.880 --> 0:20:10.040
<v Speaker 1>project's been through ten years of it. So there's no

0:20:10.280 --> 0:20:14.400
<v Speaker 1>issue here, no legitimate issue for why this project shouldn't

0:20:14.400 --> 0:20:16.760
<v Speaker 1>be completed and come online.

0:20:16.920 --> 0:20:21.920
<v Speaker 2>The Trump administration usually appeals every federal district court's order

0:20:21.960 --> 0:20:24.680
<v Speaker 2>that goes against them. Do you think the project can

0:20:24.720 --> 0:20:30.400
<v Speaker 2>be completed before an appellate court or the Supreme Court intervenes.

0:20:31.040 --> 0:20:33.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I would have expected to have seen an

0:20:33.200 --> 0:20:36.360
<v Speaker 1>announcement from the Trump administration that they were going to appeal,

0:20:37.080 --> 0:20:41.719
<v Speaker 1>but they haven't. So that suggests to me that perhaps

0:20:41.880 --> 0:20:45.639
<v Speaker 1>they've rethought this, and at least as regards this project,

0:20:46.040 --> 0:20:48.680
<v Speaker 1>they're willing to back off and let it go forward.

0:20:48.800 --> 0:20:51.040
<v Speaker 1>I can't be sure of that, obviously, I wouldn't take

0:20:51.040 --> 0:20:54.800
<v Speaker 1>that to the bank necessarily, but it may be that,

0:20:54.920 --> 0:20:57.320
<v Speaker 1>at least on this one, they'll let it go.

0:20:57.840 --> 0:21:03.360
<v Speaker 2>Recently, the Trump administration has move to invalidate or reconsider

0:21:03.600 --> 0:21:07.840
<v Speaker 2>permits for other wind projects near Massachusetts that have yet

0:21:07.840 --> 0:21:10.960
<v Speaker 2>to start construction. Two weeks ago, they asked a court

0:21:11.040 --> 0:21:13.720
<v Speaker 2>to cancel the approval of a six billion dollar wind

0:21:13.800 --> 0:21:18.080
<v Speaker 2>project planned off Maryland's coast. I mean, are they targeting

0:21:18.440 --> 0:21:20.199
<v Speaker 2>all of these wind projects?

0:21:20.440 --> 0:21:20.600
<v Speaker 3>Oh?

0:21:20.680 --> 0:21:23.960
<v Speaker 1>Yes, they are definitely, not just wind but solar as well.

0:21:24.200 --> 0:21:27.439
<v Speaker 1>So it's across the board, though, and Bergham and the

0:21:27.480 --> 0:21:31.520
<v Speaker 1>Department of Energy are under orders executive orders from the

0:21:31.560 --> 0:21:36.840
<v Speaker 1>President to oppose renewable energy development. If there truly was

0:21:36.920 --> 0:21:40.879
<v Speaker 1>an energy emergency, why on earth would you stop projects

0:21:40.920 --> 0:21:42.959
<v Speaker 1>that are you know, not only in the pipeline, but

0:21:43.080 --> 0:21:46.040
<v Speaker 1>under construction and for which money is coming in from

0:21:46.119 --> 0:21:48.919
<v Speaker 1>outside the United States to build them, you know, in

0:21:49.240 --> 0:21:53.440
<v Speaker 1>electric vehicle plants in Georgia coming from South Korea, et cetera.

0:21:53.600 --> 0:21:57.080
<v Speaker 1>So this war on renewables makes no sense.

0:21:57.720 --> 0:22:00.280
<v Speaker 2>And so in light of all that, how how big

0:22:00.320 --> 0:22:03.440
<v Speaker 2>a win is Judge Lamberth's decision.

0:22:04.000 --> 0:22:06.160
<v Speaker 1>Oh, I think it's a huge win for not only

0:22:06.280 --> 0:22:09.160
<v Speaker 1>this project, but the other projects you mentioned that are

0:22:09.160 --> 0:22:11.800
<v Speaker 1>on the books for New England. I don't know whether

0:22:11.880 --> 0:22:14.240
<v Speaker 1>it will revive all of them or not, but this

0:22:14.320 --> 0:22:17.600
<v Speaker 1>would be the first order coming from a federal judge

0:22:17.640 --> 0:22:21.000
<v Speaker 1>saying to the Trump administration, you simply can't do this.

0:22:21.359 --> 0:22:24.080
<v Speaker 1>It's certainly granting them a stay of execution.

0:22:24.880 --> 0:22:30.200
<v Speaker 2>According to Bloomberg analysis, altogether, more than fifteen thousand prospective

0:22:30.280 --> 0:22:33.879
<v Speaker 2>and current jobs tied to win projects in New England

0:22:33.880 --> 0:22:38.520
<v Speaker 2>are under threat from the potential shutdowns, and there are

0:22:38.560 --> 0:22:43.800
<v Speaker 2>all kinds of other effects. For example, you know, Massachusetts

0:22:43.880 --> 0:22:46.679
<v Speaker 2>has a state organization has spent more than twenty million

0:22:46.800 --> 0:22:51.760
<v Speaker 2>in total offshore wind job training program. So the ramifications

0:22:51.960 --> 0:22:53.520
<v Speaker 2>are widespread.

0:22:54.280 --> 0:23:00.080
<v Speaker 1>Yes, they are for jobs, for investment, for lowering electricity bills,

0:23:00.440 --> 0:23:05.280
<v Speaker 1>for making energy more affordable for American consumers right down

0:23:05.280 --> 0:23:09.199
<v Speaker 1>the line. Never mind climate, never mind you know, environmental

0:23:09.240 --> 0:23:12.680
<v Speaker 1>impacts of energy development. If you think about gas, right,

0:23:12.960 --> 0:23:14.840
<v Speaker 1>where does the gas come from? Well, some of it

0:23:14.840 --> 0:23:18.919
<v Speaker 1>comes from the Marcella's shale in Pennsylvania, in Maryland, but

0:23:19.040 --> 0:23:21.760
<v Speaker 1>a lot of it comes from Ohio and further west,

0:23:21.840 --> 0:23:24.119
<v Speaker 1>and that's got to get there by pipeline. So you've

0:23:24.119 --> 0:23:27.600
<v Speaker 1>got to build all of this infrastructure, which is very expensive,

0:23:27.920 --> 0:23:31.120
<v Speaker 1>and then you've got to hope that gas prices remain stable,

0:23:31.119 --> 0:23:34.919
<v Speaker 1>which they don't. They're incredibly volatile because we're exporting a

0:23:34.960 --> 0:23:38.440
<v Speaker 1>lot of the gas. That's another priority of the administration.

0:23:38.680 --> 0:23:40.480
<v Speaker 1>They don't want to just produce the gas for a

0:23:40.600 --> 0:23:43.840
<v Speaker 1>US consumption, They want to produce it to send it overseas.

0:23:44.000 --> 0:23:48.880
<v Speaker 1>So all of these factors really support the idea if

0:23:48.920 --> 0:23:51.679
<v Speaker 1>you want to have a mixed energy portfolio. You know

0:23:51.720 --> 0:23:54.280
<v Speaker 1>a lot of us are concerned about over reliance on

0:23:54.400 --> 0:23:57.280
<v Speaker 1>gas and certainly coal and oil. But the point is

0:23:57.440 --> 0:24:00.639
<v Speaker 1>you can have all of those different in green to

0:24:00.760 --> 0:24:04.639
<v Speaker 1>a sensible energy policy. But that's not what we have.

0:24:04.960 --> 0:24:08.520
<v Speaker 1>We have a single minded determination to build as much

0:24:08.560 --> 0:24:11.760
<v Speaker 1>gas and revive the coal industry. That's going to drive

0:24:11.840 --> 0:24:15.280
<v Speaker 1>up consumer prices. Never mind the environmental impacts.

0:24:15.680 --> 0:24:20.000
<v Speaker 2>Ken what the Trump administration is doing here with wind

0:24:20.080 --> 0:24:26.080
<v Speaker 2>and solar power be unwound if the next administration supports

0:24:26.320 --> 0:24:27.359
<v Speaker 2>renewable energy.

0:24:27.880 --> 0:24:29.800
<v Speaker 1>You know, one of the biggest problems is if you

0:24:29.880 --> 0:24:33.520
<v Speaker 1>discourage this investment, you discourage the banks in the United

0:24:33.560 --> 0:24:35.640
<v Speaker 1>States and elsewhere around the world. Some of the other

0:24:35.720 --> 0:24:38.720
<v Speaker 1>banks around the world have even more money to invest.

0:24:38.880 --> 0:24:42.360
<v Speaker 1>You know, if you're a discouraging investment in energy supply,

0:24:43.040 --> 0:24:46.040
<v Speaker 1>that is going to have long term impacts for sure.

0:24:46.680 --> 0:24:49.320
<v Speaker 1>Whether or not that can be turned around is an

0:24:49.400 --> 0:24:53.840
<v Speaker 1>open question. But right now the evidence is that we're

0:24:53.840 --> 0:24:57.280
<v Speaker 1>not only not building systems that we need, but we're

0:24:57.280 --> 0:25:00.680
<v Speaker 1>discouraging people from investing in those and.

0:25:00.680 --> 0:25:04.640
<v Speaker 2>Pat what's the landscape for future legal actions as far

0:25:04.720 --> 0:25:06.359
<v Speaker 2>as wind farms are concerned.

0:25:06.760 --> 0:25:12.440
<v Speaker 1>The Trump administration is reviewing permit plans for other wind farms,

0:25:12.920 --> 0:25:14.640
<v Speaker 1>and so the first step is going to be what's

0:25:14.680 --> 0:25:16.960
<v Speaker 1>the result of that review. Are they going to pull

0:25:17.040 --> 0:25:21.440
<v Speaker 1>back and cancel leases, Are they going to cancel permits?

0:25:21.960 --> 0:25:24.320
<v Speaker 1>Are they going to try to stop these projects through

0:25:24.320 --> 0:25:25.199
<v Speaker 1>that mechanism?

0:25:25.520 --> 0:25:25.720
<v Speaker 3>Right?

0:25:25.960 --> 0:25:28.520
<v Speaker 1>And then of course people will sue, and if those

0:25:28.600 --> 0:25:31.280
<v Speaker 1>kinds of cases get to court, depending on what the

0:25:31.359 --> 0:25:35.440
<v Speaker 1>administration has actually ruled or said about them, then you're

0:25:35.440 --> 0:25:38.480
<v Speaker 1>going to get into questions about can you really stop

0:25:38.560 --> 0:25:42.520
<v Speaker 1>these projects? Can you really cancel these leases or permits?

0:25:42.920 --> 0:25:45.919
<v Speaker 1>You know, those are all questions in the future, and

0:25:46.040 --> 0:25:49.160
<v Speaker 1>until we see exactly what Trump's going to do case

0:25:49.200 --> 0:25:52.120
<v Speaker 1>by case, project by project, we won't be able to say.

0:25:52.400 --> 0:25:55.400
<v Speaker 2>And with all the litigation that's probably ahead, does the

0:25:55.520 --> 0:26:01.080
<v Speaker 2>Justice Department still have experienced environmental litigators in place? I

0:26:01.119 --> 0:26:04.040
<v Speaker 2>know there's been a lot of shuffling and moving lawyers

0:26:04.080 --> 0:26:07.760
<v Speaker 2>to areas that they're not familiar with, like immigration, and

0:26:07.840 --> 0:26:10.320
<v Speaker 2>because of that, a lot of lawyers have also left.

0:26:10.760 --> 0:26:15.080
<v Speaker 1>They have fired or reassigned some of the senior lawyers

0:26:15.280 --> 0:26:18.560
<v Speaker 1>in the Department of Justice in the Environmental Division. If

0:26:18.560 --> 0:26:21.679
<v Speaker 1>they're bringing people in to the Department of Justice that

0:26:21.840 --> 0:26:27.800
<v Speaker 1>don't have deep experience in these very complicated environmental laws.

0:26:27.880 --> 0:26:30.600
<v Speaker 1>If you think about the Outer Continental Shelf, you know,

0:26:30.720 --> 0:26:35.040
<v Speaker 1>there's a long history of incredibly dense law that governs

0:26:35.080 --> 0:26:37.720
<v Speaker 1>what happens on the outer Continental shelf. And then you

0:26:37.800 --> 0:26:40.640
<v Speaker 1>layer on all the other laws, the Endangered Species Act,

0:26:40.720 --> 0:26:44.879
<v Speaker 1>the Marine Mammal Protection Act and this Magdison Stevens Sustainable

0:26:44.920 --> 0:26:48.639
<v Speaker 1>Fisheries Act. So you're talking about an incredible complex of

0:26:48.760 --> 0:26:51.119
<v Speaker 1>federal law that has a very long history back to

0:26:51.160 --> 0:26:54.200
<v Speaker 1>there in some cases beyond the seventies when we saw

0:26:54.200 --> 0:26:57.560
<v Speaker 1>all the environmental legislation being passed it by Congress. So

0:26:57.800 --> 0:27:00.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, you just can't drop lawyers into the middle

0:27:00.359 --> 0:27:02.600
<v Speaker 1>of something like that and expect them to really know

0:27:03.119 --> 0:27:04.719
<v Speaker 1>their way around these blogs.

0:27:04.880 --> 0:27:07.280
<v Speaker 2>It's not an easy area of the law to litigate.

0:27:07.440 --> 0:27:10.520
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much, Pat. That's Professor Pat Parento of the

0:27:10.600 --> 0:27:15.320
<v Speaker 2>Vermont Law and Graduate School. US Attorney General Pam Bondi

0:27:15.560 --> 0:27:19.600
<v Speaker 2>threatened to go after hate speech on a podcast last week.

0:27:19.840 --> 0:27:24.720
<v Speaker 1>We will absolutely target you, go after you if you

0:27:24.920 --> 0:27:27.840
<v Speaker 1>are targeting anyone with hate speech.

0:27:28.400 --> 0:27:32.679
<v Speaker 2>Bondy was wrong. Hate speech is not a crime. In fact,

0:27:32.800 --> 0:27:36.639
<v Speaker 2>hate speech is free speech protected by the First Amendment.

0:27:37.400 --> 0:27:41.960
<v Speaker 2>Just ask the Supreme Court. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote

0:27:42.000 --> 0:27:46.000
<v Speaker 2>in twenty seventeen, quote, the proudest boast of our free

0:27:46.040 --> 0:27:50.199
<v Speaker 2>speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express

0:27:50.520 --> 0:27:54.600
<v Speaker 2>the thought that we hate. Bondi's remarks to criticism from

0:27:54.640 --> 0:27:58.280
<v Speaker 2>across the political spectrum and she tried to walk them

0:27:58.359 --> 0:28:02.439
<v Speaker 2>back with some confusing posts on X joining me is

0:28:02.520 --> 0:28:06.119
<v Speaker 2>First Amendment expert Timothy Zick, a professor at William and

0:28:06.160 --> 0:28:10.600
<v Speaker 2>Mary Law School, Tim can you define hate speech for US?

0:28:10.800 --> 0:28:13.960
<v Speaker 4>Well, it doesn't have a definition in US law or

0:28:14.040 --> 0:28:17.840
<v Speaker 4>First Amendment or prudence. There's no category of hate speech

0:28:18.240 --> 0:28:22.399
<v Speaker 4>that is unprotected under the First Amendment. That's in contrast

0:28:22.440 --> 0:28:25.600
<v Speaker 4>to European countries and other countries that do have the

0:28:25.760 --> 0:28:31.280
<v Speaker 4>statutory prescriptions on speech that derrigates or criticizes people based

0:28:31.320 --> 0:28:35.520
<v Speaker 4>on gender or race or some other protected characteristic. But

0:28:35.560 --> 0:28:39.040
<v Speaker 4>if the Attorney General should know, in the United States

0:28:39.160 --> 0:28:42.880
<v Speaker 4>in general, hate speech is not criminally prescribable.

0:28:43.280 --> 0:28:46.480
<v Speaker 2>The Supreme Court has protected hate speech in more than

0:28:46.520 --> 0:28:49.719
<v Speaker 2>one case. The one that stands out in my mind

0:28:50.040 --> 0:28:54.479
<v Speaker 2>is Brandenburg versus Ohio, the case involving the Nazi Party

0:28:54.640 --> 0:28:57.920
<v Speaker 2>marching in Skokie, Illinois, in nineteen seventy seven.

0:28:58.360 --> 0:29:02.239
<v Speaker 4>Well, the Supreme Court and others has come down on

0:29:02.320 --> 0:29:05.080
<v Speaker 4>the side of freedom of expression right in the sense

0:29:05.120 --> 0:29:09.400
<v Speaker 4>that the government cannot criminalize or otherwise punish the expression

0:29:09.400 --> 0:29:13.880
<v Speaker 4>of viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are offensive or vile

0:29:14.520 --> 0:29:19.680
<v Speaker 4>or derogatory. Right so even speach in supportive Nazism, this

0:29:19.760 --> 0:29:24.240
<v Speaker 4>is a general matter protected speech. Speech that offends people

0:29:24.280 --> 0:29:28.680
<v Speaker 4>based on race, or gender or sexual orientation, that's also

0:29:28.960 --> 0:29:33.840
<v Speaker 4>protected speech. And the Supreme Court has been consistent in

0:29:34.280 --> 0:29:36.960
<v Speaker 4>drawing that line where it has in the sense that

0:29:37.080 --> 0:29:40.600
<v Speaker 4>you know, whether it's Nazis marching in Skoki, that case reached,

0:29:40.600 --> 0:29:43.280
<v Speaker 4>the Supreme Court is that decided. Look, the town of

0:29:43.280 --> 0:29:46.200
<v Speaker 4>Skokey cannot enact all these ordinances to try and prevent

0:29:46.280 --> 0:29:50.480
<v Speaker 4>Nazis from marching or displaying Nazi regalia. The Supreme Court

0:29:50.520 --> 0:29:55.239
<v Speaker 4>protects viewpoints even if they're vile. There are some narrow exceptions, right,

0:29:55.280 --> 0:29:57.840
<v Speaker 4>If you threaten another person to fothering injoy your death,

0:29:58.080 --> 0:30:01.640
<v Speaker 4>if you incite other people to auge and imminent unlawful

0:30:01.680 --> 0:30:04.760
<v Speaker 4>activity that's likely to occur, those sorts of things are

0:30:04.800 --> 0:30:08.440
<v Speaker 4>not protected. The government cannot have the power to tell

0:30:08.480 --> 0:30:12.600
<v Speaker 4>an audience in the United States what speech is appropriate

0:30:12.840 --> 0:30:14.640
<v Speaker 4>or too offensive to be heard.

0:30:14.880 --> 0:30:18.160
<v Speaker 2>But the Court has recognized an exception to the First

0:30:18.200 --> 0:30:22.080
<v Speaker 2>Amendment for threats of violence. How are they defined?

0:30:22.680 --> 0:30:26.160
<v Speaker 4>That's a narrow exception to First Amendment protection. Right, So

0:30:26.400 --> 0:30:29.280
<v Speaker 4>if you communicate what the Court is defined as a

0:30:29.400 --> 0:30:33.239
<v Speaker 4>serious expression of an intent to inflict bodily harm or

0:30:33.280 --> 0:30:36.800
<v Speaker 4>death on the person. Then you can be punished for

0:30:36.960 --> 0:30:40.160
<v Speaker 4>that kind of speech. But the narrowness here is, you know,

0:30:40.200 --> 0:30:42.320
<v Speaker 4>it has to be a serious expression. It can't be

0:30:42.320 --> 0:30:46.240
<v Speaker 4>something said in jets. It can't be hyperbolic language where

0:30:46.240 --> 0:30:49.360
<v Speaker 4>you say, well this person should be hung for their crimes,

0:30:49.520 --> 0:30:51.960
<v Speaker 4>that sort of thing. It has to be more directed,

0:30:52.080 --> 0:30:55.360
<v Speaker 4>more specific, And as the Supreme Court has recently said,

0:30:55.760 --> 0:30:59.320
<v Speaker 4>uttered recklessly that you know, there's a risk when you

0:30:59.360 --> 0:31:01.760
<v Speaker 4>say the word that a person will perceive what you're

0:31:01.800 --> 0:31:04.640
<v Speaker 4>saying is threatening. But you say it anyway. So it's

0:31:04.680 --> 0:31:08.680
<v Speaker 4>not just threatening language. That's not unprotected speech. It's something

0:31:08.840 --> 0:31:12.440
<v Speaker 4>far more specific than that. And when the Attorney General said, well,

0:31:12.480 --> 0:31:14.720
<v Speaker 4>what I meant to say it wasn't hate speech, really,

0:31:14.720 --> 0:31:17.320
<v Speaker 4>it was threat Well, none of the speech that we've

0:31:17.360 --> 0:31:23.080
<v Speaker 4>been talking about since Charlie Kirk's assassination, you know, constitutes threats.

0:31:23.440 --> 0:31:26.040
<v Speaker 4>Right when you praise or celebrate someone's death, that's not

0:31:26.080 --> 0:31:29.600
<v Speaker 4>a threat. So you know, she got it wrong twice. Essentially.

0:31:30.360 --> 0:31:33.880
<v Speaker 2>She also said in her explanation, you can't call for

0:31:33.960 --> 0:31:38.000
<v Speaker 2>someone's murder. You cannot swat a member of Congress. You

0:31:38.040 --> 0:31:41.160
<v Speaker 2>cannot dos a conservative family and think it will be

0:31:41.200 --> 0:31:44.960
<v Speaker 2>brushed off as free speech. These acts are punishable crimes,

0:31:45.360 --> 0:31:47.640
<v Speaker 2>and every single threat will be met with the full

0:31:47.720 --> 0:31:52.080
<v Speaker 2>force of the law. Are all the things she mentioned punishable.

0:31:52.080 --> 0:31:54.840
<v Speaker 4>Well, some of them are protected, right. It depends on

0:31:54.880 --> 0:31:57.080
<v Speaker 4>the sort of statute that you're looking at, you know,

0:31:57.080 --> 0:32:01.080
<v Speaker 4>how narrowly it's defining harassment. For example, sample or threat.

0:32:01.560 --> 0:32:05.680
<v Speaker 4>Calling for the murder of someone is not incitement. It

0:32:05.800 --> 0:32:06.760
<v Speaker 4>is not a threat.

0:32:07.160 --> 0:32:07.360
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:32:07.640 --> 0:32:10.560
<v Speaker 4>I wish you know so and so would die. Is

0:32:10.600 --> 0:32:13.120
<v Speaker 4>a terrible thing to think and a terrible thing to say,

0:32:13.800 --> 0:32:18.120
<v Speaker 4>but it's not unprotected expression under our First Amendment doctrines

0:32:18.240 --> 0:32:22.080
<v Speaker 4>and jurisprudence. Yes, there's conduct that you can go after.

0:32:22.160 --> 0:32:26.640
<v Speaker 4>If I repeatedly harass someone, whether it's online or offline,

0:32:26.760 --> 0:32:29.360
<v Speaker 4>then that can rise to the level of harassment. But

0:32:29.360 --> 0:32:31.520
<v Speaker 4>there I'm not being punished for my expression. I'm being

0:32:31.560 --> 0:32:36.560
<v Speaker 4>punished for the act of repetitious harassment of another. And

0:32:36.680 --> 0:32:42.160
<v Speaker 4>docting is difficult, right, because just publishing information about, say,

0:32:42.200 --> 0:32:46.560
<v Speaker 4>where someone lives, is not necessarily unprotected speech.

0:32:46.760 --> 0:32:46.920
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:32:47.160 --> 0:32:49.400
<v Speaker 4>A lot depends on the contact. And again they said

0:32:49.440 --> 0:32:51.200
<v Speaker 4>it's statute under which you're reviewing it.

0:32:52.080 --> 0:32:54.880
<v Speaker 2>And wasn't there a Supreme Court case a few years

0:32:54.920 --> 0:32:58.920
<v Speaker 2>ago involving threats on the internet.

0:32:58.600 --> 0:33:02.360
<v Speaker 4>Counterman versus Colorado. Yeah, that was this very recent threats

0:33:02.400 --> 0:33:05.600
<v Speaker 4>case the Supreme Court handed down. There was a singer

0:33:05.800 --> 0:33:10.880
<v Speaker 4>who had some uninvited online messages. Tried to block the

0:33:10.920 --> 0:33:14.040
<v Speaker 4>person from contacting her. He just opened new accounts and

0:33:14.120 --> 0:33:19.120
<v Speaker 4>kept contacting her, And eventually this person was prosecuted for

0:33:19.120 --> 0:33:22.000
<v Speaker 4>form of harassments. But the court below and then the

0:33:22.040 --> 0:33:24.760
<v Speaker 4>Supreme Court treated it as raising the question of whether

0:33:25.120 --> 0:33:28.080
<v Speaker 4>this person had communicated what it called true threats as

0:33:28.080 --> 0:33:32.360
<v Speaker 4>I described earlier, serious expressions of an intent to cause

0:33:32.480 --> 0:33:36.040
<v Speaker 4>bodily injury or death to another. And what the court

0:33:36.160 --> 0:33:38.880
<v Speaker 4>was wrestling with in that piece was a mental state

0:33:38.920 --> 0:33:42.760
<v Speaker 4>required for the speaker, and a number of courts before

0:33:42.800 --> 0:33:46.360
<v Speaker 4>that had sort of adopted this subjective test. Well, if

0:33:46.400 --> 0:33:48.880
<v Speaker 4>I'm the audience for that speech and I perceived it

0:33:48.920 --> 0:33:52.040
<v Speaker 4>subjectively as threatening, that should be enough. And the court

0:33:52.120 --> 0:33:54.760
<v Speaker 4>was worried, well, that's not speech protective enough. That's going

0:33:54.840 --> 0:34:00.080
<v Speaker 4>to cause misunderstandings to be translated into criminalized threat. We

0:34:00.120 --> 0:34:02.920
<v Speaker 4>don't want that, But we also don't want a sort

0:34:02.920 --> 0:34:05.520
<v Speaker 4>of lower standard. So let's find something in the middle

0:34:05.560 --> 0:34:09.560
<v Speaker 4>for a goldilock standard, and they settle on recklessness. If

0:34:09.560 --> 0:34:13.440
<v Speaker 4>the person knows of a substantial risk that the person

0:34:13.520 --> 0:34:16.720
<v Speaker 4>he is communicating with is when it perceives the speech

0:34:16.800 --> 0:34:19.600
<v Speaker 4>is threatening, then that's the kind of recklessness that the

0:34:19.600 --> 0:34:22.880
<v Speaker 4>First Amendment requires before you label something a true threat.

0:34:23.239 --> 0:34:27.800
<v Speaker 2>So you have the Attorney General's remarks, you have Todd Blanche,

0:34:27.840 --> 0:34:32.200
<v Speaker 2>the Deputy Attorney General, saying that people protesting at a

0:34:32.239 --> 0:34:36.440
<v Speaker 2>restaurant while Trump was having dinner might have committed a crime.

0:34:37.000 --> 0:34:40.640
<v Speaker 2>And you have President Trump's statements, including saying to an

0:34:40.719 --> 0:34:45.160
<v Speaker 2>ABC reporter, will probably go after people like you because

0:34:45.160 --> 0:34:48.359
<v Speaker 2>you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. Why is there

0:34:48.400 --> 0:34:51.400
<v Speaker 2>this fundamental misunderstanding of hate speech.

0:34:52.040 --> 0:34:54.480
<v Speaker 4>Well, I don't know if it's a misunderstanding. I mean,

0:34:54.520 --> 0:34:58.080
<v Speaker 4>it's just been sort of President Trump's a longstanding position, right,

0:34:58.120 --> 0:35:02.160
<v Speaker 4>He either doesn't understand or doesn't appreciate freedom of expression.

0:35:02.360 --> 0:35:06.759
<v Speaker 4>So his view is that negative press isn't protected. You

0:35:06.760 --> 0:35:11.759
<v Speaker 4>can pull the broadcast license of a broadcaster that publishes

0:35:12.040 --> 0:35:16.560
<v Speaker 4>critical coverage of him. It's consistently negative right. That, of course,

0:35:16.640 --> 0:35:20.120
<v Speaker 4>is contrary to the First Amendment. Going after your political

0:35:20.200 --> 0:35:23.320
<v Speaker 4>enemies for things that they say is part of the

0:35:23.360 --> 0:35:27.840
<v Speaker 4>sort of Trump mantra, but it is unconstitutional. And you know,

0:35:27.880 --> 0:35:30.000
<v Speaker 4>what's interesting to me is recently people have said, oh,

0:35:30.080 --> 0:35:33.560
<v Speaker 4>we've crossed some line here where the president is threatening

0:35:33.600 --> 0:35:36.920
<v Speaker 4>retribution into this political enemy. We are nine months into

0:35:36.960 --> 0:35:40.960
<v Speaker 4>a retribution campaign. It's gotten louder, but it's been there

0:35:41.000 --> 0:35:43.520
<v Speaker 4>the whole time. I mean, they've gone after law firms,

0:35:43.840 --> 0:35:48.760
<v Speaker 4>international students, the American Bar Association, and plenty of others

0:35:48.960 --> 0:35:52.440
<v Speaker 4>up to this point. What's different is it's more explicit,

0:35:52.480 --> 0:35:55.600
<v Speaker 4>I suppose one could say, and the drumbeat is getting louder.

0:35:55.640 --> 0:35:59.240
<v Speaker 4>We're going to go after particularly so called left leaning

0:35:59.560 --> 0:36:02.960
<v Speaker 4>speakers or organizations who say things that we don't like,

0:36:03.320 --> 0:36:07.800
<v Speaker 4>and the First Amendment stands in complete opposition to that position.

0:36:08.360 --> 0:36:12.680
<v Speaker 4>So what's changed. I mean, the Kirk assassination horrific event,

0:36:13.760 --> 0:36:16.880
<v Speaker 4>bound to create, you know, sort of churn and backlash,

0:36:17.000 --> 0:36:21.319
<v Speaker 4>but the administration's answer to that has been again, we're

0:36:21.320 --> 0:36:24.520
<v Speaker 4>going to go after the left so called and we're

0:36:24.520 --> 0:36:28.920
<v Speaker 4>going to punish speakers who say nasty things about Charlie

0:36:29.000 --> 0:36:31.640
<v Speaker 4>Kirk or you know, about President Trump and the First

0:36:31.680 --> 0:36:33.879
<v Speaker 4>Amendment just simply doesn't allow them to do that.

0:36:34.400 --> 0:36:39.920
<v Speaker 2>Across the country, people from teachers to airline pilots to

0:36:40.120 --> 0:36:46.719
<v Speaker 2>healthcare workers have been fired, suspended, or disciplined over remarks,

0:36:46.760 --> 0:36:51.800
<v Speaker 2>particularly social media posts about Charlie Kirk and Vice President J. D.

0:36:52.040 --> 0:36:56.799
<v Speaker 2>Vance encouraged reporting these remarks to people's employers.

0:36:57.480 --> 0:37:00.600
<v Speaker 3>So when you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them

0:37:00.640 --> 0:37:02.520
<v Speaker 3>out in hell, call their employer.

0:37:03.040 --> 0:37:05.720
<v Speaker 4>We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe

0:37:05.840 --> 0:37:06.759
<v Speaker 4>in civility.

0:37:07.239 --> 0:37:11.040
<v Speaker 2>Explain why the First Amendment doesn't protect private employees.

0:37:11.680 --> 0:37:15.399
<v Speaker 4>The rules are different for private and government speakers. Right,

0:37:15.480 --> 0:37:18.080
<v Speaker 4>So if you're talking about a private employee and at

0:37:18.080 --> 0:37:20.960
<v Speaker 4>will employee who can be dismissed for any reason, at

0:37:20.960 --> 0:37:24.600
<v Speaker 4>all or no reason, then they can be dismissed or

0:37:25.040 --> 0:37:28.120
<v Speaker 4>speech that they publish or communicate. There are only a

0:37:28.160 --> 0:37:32.480
<v Speaker 4>few states where you get some statutory protection for political speech,

0:37:32.719 --> 0:37:36.200
<v Speaker 4>but in general, you speak at your peril. With respect

0:37:36.280 --> 0:37:40.560
<v Speaker 4>to private employment, public employment is very different. Public employees

0:37:40.560 --> 0:37:44.520
<v Speaker 4>retain some First Amendment right as citizens to speak on

0:37:45.040 --> 0:37:48.799
<v Speaker 4>newsworthy matters, which certainly covers the speech that has been

0:37:49.080 --> 0:37:53.000
<v Speaker 4>sort of debated post to Charlie Kirks murder, and it's complicated.

0:37:53.120 --> 0:37:56.560
<v Speaker 4>So if you're a public employee and you say something offensive,

0:37:56.680 --> 0:38:01.040
<v Speaker 4>Let's say you praise Charlie Kirks murder and you're university professor,

0:38:01.560 --> 0:38:04.920
<v Speaker 4>and your employer says, well, I'm going to terminate your employment. Well,

0:38:04.920 --> 0:38:08.200
<v Speaker 4>putting aside the ten year and academic freedom problems there,

0:38:08.600 --> 0:38:11.640
<v Speaker 4>as a public employee, you have a First Amendment right

0:38:11.840 --> 0:38:15.000
<v Speaker 4>to communicate that, but the Supreme Court has said what

0:38:15.040 --> 0:38:17.440
<v Speaker 4>you get as a public employee if you speak on

0:38:17.520 --> 0:38:20.120
<v Speaker 4>matters of public concerns, is a balance. We're going to

0:38:20.160 --> 0:38:22.960
<v Speaker 4>balance your right to speak against the employer's interest in

0:38:23.040 --> 0:38:28.279
<v Speaker 4>efficient operations. So across a range of public employment, what

0:38:28.400 --> 0:38:30.480
<v Speaker 4>you might find in some cases is that courts will

0:38:30.480 --> 0:38:33.080
<v Speaker 4>side with the employer. What you said was so offensive

0:38:33.600 --> 0:38:36.880
<v Speaker 4>it created disruption in the workplace, and we're not required

0:38:36.880 --> 0:38:39.720
<v Speaker 4>to tolerate that. So it can be complicated to respect

0:38:39.719 --> 0:38:43.040
<v Speaker 4>the public employment, but it's much simpler with regard to private.

0:38:43.040 --> 0:38:45.400
<v Speaker 2>Do you think a hate speech case will reach the

0:38:45.440 --> 0:38:46.560
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court?

0:38:46.680 --> 0:38:49.319
<v Speaker 4>It's not clear yet what the administration intends to do

0:38:49.640 --> 0:38:53.879
<v Speaker 4>with respect to so called hate speech investigations or prosecutions.

0:38:53.960 --> 0:38:57.279
<v Speaker 4>Mostly what they're doing is threatening to investigate people for

0:38:57.600 --> 0:39:00.239
<v Speaker 4>core political speech. So we wouldn't even be taught talking

0:39:00.239 --> 0:39:02.520
<v Speaker 4>about hate speech. It would be more you know, I'm

0:39:02.520 --> 0:39:06.520
<v Speaker 4>going to go after George Sorows organization because it supports

0:39:06.640 --> 0:39:11.240
<v Speaker 4>left wing positions or its funds left wing political activist

0:39:11.280 --> 0:39:13.600
<v Speaker 4>and what's clearly unconstitutional. I don't even know if the

0:39:13.600 --> 0:39:16.400
<v Speaker 4>Supreme Court would be interested in a case like that.

0:39:16.560 --> 0:39:20.040
<v Speaker 4>I'm assuming a lower court would say that's unconstitutional. But

0:39:20.120 --> 0:39:22.600
<v Speaker 4>there are cases in the First Amendment realm that may

0:39:22.640 --> 0:39:25.600
<v Speaker 4>make it to the Court, some of them involving maybe

0:39:25.680 --> 0:39:28.520
<v Speaker 4>the rights of non citizens under the First Amendment, which

0:39:28.560 --> 0:39:31.200
<v Speaker 4>the Court has been unclear about. I may want to

0:39:31.239 --> 0:39:34.359
<v Speaker 4>clarify that. Some of the university cases, the Harvard case,

0:39:34.400 --> 0:39:38.800
<v Speaker 4>for example, where the administration is terminating funds the university

0:39:38.840 --> 0:39:42.080
<v Speaker 4>says based on their speech, maybe there'll be a press

0:39:42.120 --> 0:39:45.200
<v Speaker 4>case involving a broadcast license or something like that. I

0:39:45.200 --> 0:39:47.600
<v Speaker 4>can imagine the Court being interested in those cases.

0:39:47.920 --> 0:39:51.440
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much, Tim. That's Professor Timothy Zick of William

0:39:51.480 --> 0:39:54.359
<v Speaker 2>and Mary Law School. And that's it for this edition

0:39:54.400 --> 0:39:57.040
<v Speaker 2>of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

0:39:57.080 --> 0:40:00.239
<v Speaker 2>the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

0:40:00.280 --> 0:40:04.360
<v Speaker 2>can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

0:40:04.480 --> 0:40:08.760
<v Speaker 2>dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast, slash Law, and remember

0:40:08.800 --> 0:40:11.759
<v Speaker 2>to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

0:40:11.760 --> 0:40:15.239
<v Speaker 2>ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

0:40:15.320 --> 0:40:16.560
<v Speaker 2>listening to Bloomberg