1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:11,160 --> 00:00:14,640 Speaker 1: As the Supreme Court term ends, the analysis of its 3 00:00:14,680 --> 00:00:19,560 Speaker 1: decisions begins. The biggest question how would a newly established 4 00:00:19,600 --> 00:00:25,160 Speaker 1: conservative majority handle controversial issues. In some cases, the Justice 5 00:00:25,160 --> 00:00:29,400 Speaker 1: has formed unusual alignments. In others, for example, involving gay 6 00:00:29,520 --> 00:00:34,000 Speaker 1: rights versus religious rights, they reached narrow but unanimous decisions. 7 00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:38,360 Speaker 1: And still others the Justice has split down audiological lines 8 00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:41,720 Speaker 1: on issues like voting rights and union rights. One thing 9 00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:44,800 Speaker 1: is certain, the day of the swing justice is gone, 10 00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:48,239 Speaker 1: at least for now. Joining me as constitutional law professor 11 00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:52,080 Speaker 1: Stephen Vladdock of the University of Texas Law School, Steve 12 00:00:52,159 --> 00:00:54,800 Speaker 1: Many say the Court didn't tilt as far to the 13 00:00:54,920 --> 00:00:58,520 Speaker 1: right as expected. What's your take on the term? I mean, 14 00:00:58,680 --> 00:01:01,080 Speaker 1: I think those through such us that the term was 15 00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:04,399 Speaker 1: more moderate than people expected, I think are selling something. 16 00:01:04,440 --> 00:01:07,440 Speaker 1: I think this was about as conservative term as we've 17 00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:10,240 Speaker 1: seen from the Supreme Court really since the nineteen thirties. 18 00:01:10,640 --> 00:01:12,840 Speaker 1: And you know the fact that there are two or 19 00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:16,320 Speaker 1: three cases where the Court didn't go quite as far 20 00:01:16,400 --> 00:01:21,080 Speaker 1: as some conservatives wanted and some liberals feared, doesn't disprove 21 00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:23,080 Speaker 1: that to the contrary. I think, you know, on issue 22 00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:27,119 Speaker 1: after issue, the Court moved sharply and overwhelmingly to the right, 23 00:01:27,200 --> 00:01:30,240 Speaker 1: this term ppetter or course. People point to the fact 24 00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:34,319 Speaker 1: that they only lined up along strict ideological lines six 25 00:01:34,360 --> 00:01:38,560 Speaker 1: to three and seven of the fifty six cases. Doesn't 26 00:01:38,560 --> 00:01:42,520 Speaker 1: that show that it's more of an incremental change. No, 27 00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:44,440 Speaker 1: I mean, I think there are lots of problems with 28 00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:47,039 Speaker 1: that statistics. The first is it's not included in cases 29 00:01:47,480 --> 00:01:49,880 Speaker 1: where they peeled off one of the conservatives, and I 30 00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:52,760 Speaker 1: would include cases like the art threat case about patent 31 00:01:52,840 --> 00:01:55,840 Speaker 1: judges where Justice Thomas wasn't willing to go as far 32 00:01:55,920 --> 00:01:58,840 Speaker 1: as his conservative colleagues. The other problem, tune, is that 33 00:01:58,920 --> 00:02:02,480 Speaker 1: focused him only on fifty are you cases? This is 34 00:02:02,520 --> 00:02:07,200 Speaker 1: the dozens of important orders and rulings the Court handed 35 00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:09,800 Speaker 1: down on the shadow docket where there were plenty of 36 00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:13,600 Speaker 1: ideological split. I mean, if we just look at cases 37 00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:18,079 Speaker 1: where the three Democratic appointees alone dissented, there were eighteen 38 00:02:18,160 --> 00:02:20,760 Speaker 1: of those on the shadow docket. If we add where 39 00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:22,720 Speaker 1: the three of them were joined by a conservative, there 40 00:02:22,720 --> 00:02:25,520 Speaker 1: were twenty one. And so you know, I think the 41 00:02:25,639 --> 00:02:28,840 Speaker 1: efforts by some in the media to portray this as 42 00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:32,720 Speaker 1: a less conservative term and a less divisive term than 43 00:02:32,800 --> 00:02:35,840 Speaker 1: people might have been expecting. Really does require looking at 44 00:02:35,840 --> 00:02:39,679 Speaker 1: the court through a rather stilted pair of glasses. David Cole, 45 00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:42,120 Speaker 1: the National Legal director of the a c L. You 46 00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:45,959 Speaker 1: said the justices really rose above the partisan divide. I 47 00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:48,480 Speaker 1: take it you disagree with that. I mean, you know 48 00:02:48,800 --> 00:02:50,600 Speaker 1: where you stand at the function of where you sit, 49 00:02:50,800 --> 00:02:52,520 Speaker 1: and I think the a c L. YOU had a 50 00:02:52,520 --> 00:02:55,280 Speaker 1: pretty good term in the Supreme Court. But you know, June, 51 00:02:55,280 --> 00:02:57,519 Speaker 1: the reality is that I think there were moments this 52 00:02:57,680 --> 00:03:00,200 Speaker 1: term where the Justice rose above the partisan divide. I mean, 53 00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:02,400 Speaker 1: I think we ought not to lose sight of the 54 00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:04,880 Speaker 1: fact that the Court stayed out of just about all 55 00:03:04,880 --> 00:03:08,600 Speaker 1: of those big election related disputes starting in November, that 56 00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:12,320 Speaker 1: the Court did not take up texas bizarre efforts to 57 00:03:12,480 --> 00:03:14,839 Speaker 1: sue four other states, That the Court did not pick 58 00:03:14,919 --> 00:03:19,800 Speaker 1: up Congressman Mike Kelly's efforts to overturn the results in Pennsylvania. So, 59 00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:22,680 Speaker 1: you know, I certainly think we can point to individual 60 00:03:22,760 --> 00:03:25,400 Speaker 1: instances where the Court acted in a way that was 61 00:03:25,520 --> 00:03:31,000 Speaker 1: very institutionally appropriate and not overtly ideological or partisans That 62 00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:33,560 Speaker 1: doesn't change the fact that, in the mind run of 63 00:03:33,639 --> 00:03:36,440 Speaker 1: divisions from the court, both in the arguing cases and 64 00:03:36,480 --> 00:03:40,120 Speaker 1: in cases that weren't argued. You know, we saw pretty 65 00:03:40,120 --> 00:03:44,520 Speaker 1: sharp turns toward conservative legal views, and we saw pretty 66 00:03:44,520 --> 00:03:48,160 Speaker 1: sharp divisions among the justices as those turns were underway. 67 00:03:48,280 --> 00:03:52,360 Speaker 1: Did you see a coalition among the conservative justices or not? 68 00:03:53,080 --> 00:03:54,880 Speaker 1: I mean, I think that the reality is that there 69 00:03:54,880 --> 00:03:57,400 Speaker 1: are going to be cases we're all six of the 70 00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:00,800 Speaker 1: conservative justice are aligned. We saw that in some of 71 00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:03,920 Speaker 1: the biggest positions from the term, the Cedar Point nursery case, 72 00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:07,480 Speaker 1: the Arizona voting rights case, to California donor disclosure case. 73 00:04:07,680 --> 00:04:09,280 Speaker 1: And I think it's not surprisingly they're going to be 74 00:04:09,320 --> 00:04:12,640 Speaker 1: cases where they are a bit more divided into what 75 00:04:12,720 --> 00:04:14,960 Speaker 1: we might think of as two camps write one with 76 00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:18,400 Speaker 1: Justice Aldo Thomas Gorsage in it, and one with the 77 00:04:18,480 --> 00:04:21,320 Speaker 1: Chief Justice and Justice Cavanaugh embarrassed. And you know, I 78 00:04:21,360 --> 00:04:25,680 Speaker 1: think there are lots of efforts by conservatives to paint 79 00:04:25,920 --> 00:04:29,960 Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh Barrett to Justice Robert's block as moderate. I 80 00:04:30,000 --> 00:04:31,839 Speaker 1: don't think they're moderate. I think they just have a 81 00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:35,560 Speaker 1: different judicial temperament than Aldo, Gorsage and Thomas that they 82 00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:38,080 Speaker 1: share the same views but perhaps are not quite as 83 00:04:38,160 --> 00:04:42,040 Speaker 1: eager to move the court and the doctrine so quickly 84 00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:47,320 Speaker 1: to accommodate those So looking at Justice Barrett, experts say 85 00:04:47,360 --> 00:04:50,520 Speaker 1: she may be more interested in incremental changes as the 86 00:04:50,600 --> 00:04:54,360 Speaker 1: chief is. But she did flip the court on religion 87 00:04:54,640 --> 00:04:59,479 Speaker 1: and COVID restrictions. What do you make of her participation? Yeah, 88 00:04:59,520 --> 00:05:01,800 Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's no question that Justice Barrett 89 00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:04,680 Speaker 1: had a sizeable impact on the Court and that her 90 00:05:04,720 --> 00:05:08,400 Speaker 1: replacing Justice Ginsburg moved the court in ways both obvious 91 00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:10,240 Speaker 1: not obvious. So there were at least a couple of 92 00:05:10,240 --> 00:05:13,400 Speaker 1: cases June, as you know, where the court split five 93 00:05:13,440 --> 00:05:15,880 Speaker 1: to four was Justice Barrett in the majority, the ar 94 00:05:15,920 --> 00:05:19,839 Speaker 1: Threax case being one example, TransUnion being another. Where it 95 00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:22,440 Speaker 1: stands to reason that if Justice Ginsburg has build on 96 00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:24,560 Speaker 1: the court, those cases would have connot the other way. 97 00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:27,600 Speaker 1: But you're right to point to the COVID religious liberty cases. 98 00:05:27,680 --> 00:05:30,920 Speaker 1: I mean, you know, there are cases where as recently 99 00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:35,320 Speaker 1: as last summer, efforts to challenge, for example, California's COVID 100 00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:39,200 Speaker 1: restrictions on religious liberty grounds were failing in the court 101 00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:41,960 Speaker 1: five to four, and by November they were succeeding five 102 00:05:42,000 --> 00:05:44,440 Speaker 1: to four, and the difference is Justice Barrett. So you know, 103 00:05:44,480 --> 00:05:47,039 Speaker 1: I think she clearly made a difference behind the scene. 104 00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:50,680 Speaker 1: I think she also, you know, in those major cases 105 00:05:50,720 --> 00:05:54,760 Speaker 1: where she wrote separately, you know, reflected that exact notion 106 00:05:54,839 --> 00:05:57,320 Speaker 1: that she's not employed as much of a hurry perhaps 107 00:05:57,520 --> 00:06:00,839 Speaker 1: as some of her other conservative colleagues. The five Day 108 00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:05,080 Speaker 1: they handed down two six to three decisions, one limiting 109 00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:09,320 Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act and another limiting disclosure requirements for 110 00:06:09,400 --> 00:06:14,119 Speaker 1: big donors to charity. Where was the incremental move there? And, 111 00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:18,599 Speaker 1: as I always wonder, do they save those cases until 112 00:06:18,680 --> 00:06:21,240 Speaker 1: the end, before they can get in their cars or 113 00:06:21,320 --> 00:06:24,160 Speaker 1: in the planes and and go to vacation. Yeah. I mean, 114 00:06:24,279 --> 00:06:26,800 Speaker 1: I think you're right to suggest that both the Arizona 115 00:06:26,839 --> 00:06:30,160 Speaker 1: Voting Weights case and the Americans for Posterity case are 116 00:06:30,200 --> 00:06:35,680 Speaker 1: not exactly good examples of the moderating incremental tone that 117 00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:38,080 Speaker 1: some commentators have tried to use to describe this term. 118 00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:41,000 Speaker 1: I mean, I think they're exhibits A and B of 119 00:06:41,000 --> 00:06:43,599 Speaker 1: a number of of just how device of and ideological 120 00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:46,440 Speaker 1: the Court has become. The other come that's interesting is 121 00:06:46,560 --> 00:06:49,320 Speaker 1: usually it would be the Chief Justice preference to not 122 00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:51,560 Speaker 1: have that be the last word, to actually go out 123 00:06:51,640 --> 00:06:55,240 Speaker 1: on decisions that make the Court look less political. So imagine, 124 00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:57,960 Speaker 1: for example, if the ruling have come down in the 125 00:06:58,040 --> 00:07:01,839 Speaker 1: last day, where a seven to two cross partisan, cross 126 00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:05,280 Speaker 1: ideological majority throughout the ad A case. But instead we're 127 00:07:05,360 --> 00:07:09,600 Speaker 1: left with those two decisions and the pretty significant impression 128 00:07:09,640 --> 00:07:12,240 Speaker 1: they leave of a course that's not at all troubled 129 00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:16,320 Speaker 1: by handing down major opinions that clearly benefit the Republican 130 00:07:16,360 --> 00:07:18,760 Speaker 1: Party at least in the moment, and clearly to the 131 00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:21,480 Speaker 1: detriment of Democrats. That's, you know, an impression. I would 132 00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:23,520 Speaker 1: have thought the Court would have been a little less 133 00:07:23,560 --> 00:07:26,480 Speaker 1: in a hurry to show to reflect, And yet here 134 00:07:26,480 --> 00:07:29,480 Speaker 1: we are. Do they decide when or does the chief 135 00:07:29,560 --> 00:07:32,040 Speaker 1: decide when these cases are going to come out? Or 136 00:07:32,120 --> 00:07:34,480 Speaker 1: is it as they say that when the decisions come in, 137 00:07:34,560 --> 00:07:36,960 Speaker 1: when all the opinions are written, they hand them down. 138 00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:39,240 Speaker 1: You know, I think it's a combination of both. I mean, 139 00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:42,800 Speaker 1: I think there are some thinking that goes into the 140 00:07:42,840 --> 00:07:45,560 Speaker 1: timing of when particular opinions are released. But you know, 141 00:07:45,600 --> 00:07:47,200 Speaker 1: the reality is that they went all the way to 142 00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:50,240 Speaker 1: July first, and I think it's the first time other 143 00:07:50,280 --> 00:07:52,760 Speaker 1: than last year, whereas you know, they had those special 144 00:07:52,840 --> 00:07:55,920 Speaker 1: may arguments because covid that the Court was still handing 145 00:07:55,960 --> 00:08:00,200 Speaker 1: down Merrit's decisions in July. So you know, I don't 146 00:08:00,200 --> 00:08:03,120 Speaker 1: say that they were necessarily saving those two cases for last. 147 00:08:03,120 --> 00:08:07,160 Speaker 1: I think that, partly owing to their divisiveness, those took 148 00:08:07,200 --> 00:08:09,480 Speaker 1: the longest to write. Then those were the cases that 149 00:08:09,520 --> 00:08:13,280 Speaker 1: the justices were still fighting over. Literally has the last 150 00:08:13,320 --> 00:08:16,000 Speaker 1: day of the term, we're we're counting down. Let me 151 00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:19,320 Speaker 1: ask you about the union case six to three ruling 152 00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:22,240 Speaker 1: against the labor unions, striking down a law neck at 153 00:08:22,320 --> 00:08:26,080 Speaker 1: fifty years ago due to the efforts of Caesar Chavez. 154 00:08:26,600 --> 00:08:28,840 Speaker 1: Has there been a union case in recent years where 155 00:08:28,840 --> 00:08:32,160 Speaker 1: the court ruled in favor of unions, Because I remember 156 00:08:32,160 --> 00:08:35,359 Speaker 1: that one a couple of years back where they overturned 157 00:08:35,360 --> 00:08:38,600 Speaker 1: a forty year precedent. There certainly hasn't been a big 158 00:08:38,679 --> 00:08:40,960 Speaker 1: rule and in favor of unions in a long time. 159 00:08:41,320 --> 00:08:43,640 Speaker 1: But I actually think that the Theater Point nursery decision 160 00:08:44,200 --> 00:08:47,719 Speaker 1: is more than just a big defeat for unions and 161 00:08:47,800 --> 00:08:50,880 Speaker 1: for labor organizing insteads like California, I think it's an 162 00:08:50,880 --> 00:08:56,479 Speaker 1: even bigger reassertion. Are they very strong property rights understanding 163 00:08:56,800 --> 00:08:59,960 Speaker 1: that June frankly is going to have implications bar beyond 164 00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:05,080 Speaker 1: labor organizing. So the notion that any time the government 165 00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:09,440 Speaker 1: requires access to private property, at least for non governmental purposes, 166 00:09:09,480 --> 00:09:12,199 Speaker 1: it's a persse hitching. Well, you know, that's going to 167 00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:15,320 Speaker 1: raise questions about things like the Endangered Species Act. You know, 168 00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:18,560 Speaker 1: the suggestion that we have an absolute and unalienable right 169 00:09:18,600 --> 00:09:21,800 Speaker 1: to exclude from our property. That creates questions about why 170 00:09:21,880 --> 00:09:25,000 Speaker 1: the government allows to voice to meet inspectors on poultry 171 00:09:25,000 --> 00:09:27,319 Speaker 1: plan So it's a big loss for labor, But I 172 00:09:27,360 --> 00:09:30,120 Speaker 1: actually think it's an even bigger ruling in the property 173 00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:32,680 Speaker 1: rights regime. It contemplates and how that's going to play 174 00:09:32,679 --> 00:09:36,440 Speaker 1: out in context far removed from union organizing. I want 175 00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:40,120 Speaker 1: to get your take on the case in Philadelphia where 176 00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:44,400 Speaker 1: a Catholic social services agency excluded same sex couples from 177 00:09:44,400 --> 00:09:48,160 Speaker 1: foster care. So why do you think the liberals went 178 00:09:48,200 --> 00:09:51,760 Speaker 1: in on that decision. Well, I mean, I can't really 179 00:09:51,840 --> 00:09:54,600 Speaker 1: sort of read their minds. My best guess is that 180 00:09:54,679 --> 00:09:56,720 Speaker 1: justice so dom i Or, especially because we've already seen 181 00:09:57,040 --> 00:10:00,640 Speaker 1: Briar and Kiggan, be a little bit more accommodation in 182 00:10:00,679 --> 00:10:03,280 Speaker 1: the context of free exercise claims but I think for 183 00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:06,160 Speaker 1: Justice Soto Mayor, and perhaps for Bryan and Kagan as well, 184 00:10:06,760 --> 00:10:09,600 Speaker 1: part of it was the desire to throw a weight 185 00:10:09,640 --> 00:10:12,640 Speaker 1: behind the Chief's opinion in that case as opposed to 186 00:10:12,679 --> 00:10:15,000 Speaker 1: the separate thing, and by Justice Aldo. You know, the 187 00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:18,960 Speaker 1: majority opinion Fulton does move the law a bit, and does, 188 00:10:19,080 --> 00:10:22,640 Speaker 1: I think, make it easier for religious groups to claim 189 00:10:22,760 --> 00:10:27,079 Speaker 1: a right to exemption or special protections in certain contexts. 190 00:10:27,120 --> 00:10:28,920 Speaker 1: But of course it doesn't move the law nearly as 191 00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:31,199 Speaker 1: much as Justice Alito would have. And I think it's 192 00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:34,040 Speaker 1: quite possible to taste with the specter of right in 193 00:10:34,080 --> 00:10:36,400 Speaker 1: the dissent that would have deprived the Court of a 194 00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:39,760 Speaker 1: majority and therefore required the Court to revisit this issue 195 00:10:39,960 --> 00:10:43,520 Speaker 1: as early as next year, versus form in the majority 196 00:10:43,559 --> 00:10:46,319 Speaker 1: with Chief Justice trying to moderate that decision, trying to 197 00:10:46,360 --> 00:10:48,679 Speaker 1: limit its effects. You know, that was an easy choice 198 00:10:48,720 --> 00:10:51,280 Speaker 1: for at least some of the liberal justices. So do 199 00:10:51,360 --> 00:10:55,000 Speaker 1: you see the Chief's hand, especially in the unanimous results 200 00:10:55,080 --> 00:10:57,960 Speaker 1: with narrow rulings that sort of kicked the can down 201 00:10:57,960 --> 00:11:00,360 Speaker 1: the road as far as the main issues can earned 202 00:11:01,080 --> 00:11:03,280 Speaker 1: So to a point, I think you know we see 203 00:11:03,280 --> 00:11:06,120 Speaker 1: the Chief's hand, But really June I think the power 204 00:11:06,200 --> 00:11:10,360 Speaker 1: based on the court has shifted pretty dramatically from last term, 205 00:11:10,400 --> 00:11:12,679 Speaker 1: where all people would talk about is how everything was 206 00:11:12,800 --> 00:11:14,840 Speaker 1: up to the Chief to this term where I really 207 00:11:14,880 --> 00:11:18,360 Speaker 1: think it's as Kavanaugh and Barrett go, so went the 208 00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:21,480 Speaker 1: court and so yes, the Chief wrote the majority pinion 209 00:11:21,480 --> 00:11:23,280 Speaker 1: is both it, but the only reason why he had 210 00:11:23,280 --> 00:11:26,600 Speaker 1: a majority was because he was joined by Justice Kavanaught Barrett, 211 00:11:26,760 --> 00:11:29,319 Speaker 1: and I think that's where we're heading, is a court 212 00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:32,560 Speaker 1: that's going to move as fast or as slow in 213 00:11:32,720 --> 00:11:36,200 Speaker 1: moving to the right as those two justices in particular 214 00:11:36,240 --> 00:11:39,960 Speaker 1: are willing to allow it to. So Kavanaugh was in 215 00:11:40,040 --> 00:11:44,240 Speaker 1: the majority the most of the time, the Chief second, 216 00:11:45,600 --> 00:11:49,120 Speaker 1: Barrett and Gorst with eight night. So is that the 217 00:11:49,160 --> 00:11:51,480 Speaker 1: new center of the court or do you think there 218 00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:54,440 Speaker 1: is no center of the court? Well, I mean I 219 00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:57,480 Speaker 1: think that's the new median of the court. I'm loath 220 00:11:57,600 --> 00:11:59,600 Speaker 1: to call it the center, right, I don't think there's 221 00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:03,480 Speaker 1: any question And that we assumed when Justice Kavanaugh was 222 00:12:03,520 --> 00:12:06,760 Speaker 1: confirmed to replace us as Kennedy, that either see or 223 00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:08,800 Speaker 1: the Chief would become the new media and we saw 224 00:12:08,840 --> 00:12:11,440 Speaker 1: pretty cliply that it was really the Chief. But with 225 00:12:11,600 --> 00:12:15,200 Speaker 1: Justice Ginsburg's passed in and Justice Barrett's confirmation. You know, 226 00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:18,040 Speaker 1: I think that really not so much marginalized as the chief, 227 00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:20,880 Speaker 1: but means that he no longer wields the kind of 228 00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:24,199 Speaker 1: authority and power and determined to vote that he did 229 00:12:24,280 --> 00:12:26,560 Speaker 1: last term. And so yes, I think the new media 230 00:12:27,080 --> 00:12:30,720 Speaker 1: is the court to newest Justices Justice Kavanaugh and Barrett, 231 00:12:30,760 --> 00:12:34,000 Speaker 1: and as they go, so we'll go at this court. Now, 232 00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:37,600 Speaker 1: what about Justice Briar's role this term. He wrote the 233 00:12:37,640 --> 00:12:42,240 Speaker 1: consequential majority opinions in the Obamacare case, the Cheerleader case, 234 00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:44,920 Speaker 1: which was on student free speech rights, and the Code 235 00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:48,800 Speaker 1: Copyright case at a time when you know, liberals are 236 00:12:48,880 --> 00:12:52,360 Speaker 1: calling on him to retire. Yeah, I mean, I think 237 00:12:52,400 --> 00:12:54,880 Speaker 1: you know, there's no question that he's still enjoying his 238 00:12:55,000 --> 00:12:57,320 Speaker 1: job and is very good at it. And I think, 239 00:12:57,720 --> 00:13:00,720 Speaker 1: you know, the reality from Justice Briar's position is that 240 00:13:00,800 --> 00:13:04,160 Speaker 1: he understands the politics, but I think he also understands 241 00:13:04,200 --> 00:13:07,360 Speaker 1: that the timing really may not be that different this 242 00:13:07,400 --> 00:13:09,679 Speaker 1: time next year than it is this time this year. 243 00:13:09,720 --> 00:13:13,319 Speaker 1: There's no rule about when justice have to announce their retirements. 244 00:13:13,320 --> 00:13:16,080 Speaker 1: There's just a relatively recent norm that they do at 245 00:13:16,080 --> 00:13:17,960 Speaker 1: the end of the term. But I think June. All 246 00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:21,120 Speaker 1: sins being equal, the hoddest I think are still greatly 247 00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:24,480 Speaker 1: in favor of Justice Brier announcing his retirement at least 248 00:13:24,480 --> 00:13:27,280 Speaker 1: by this time next year. And I think if that happens, 249 00:13:27,320 --> 00:13:29,840 Speaker 1: you know, all of the criticisms he's been receiving will 250 00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:33,320 Speaker 1: fade away because Borrowing some really unforeseeable shift and has 251 00:13:33,320 --> 00:13:35,960 Speaker 1: been it between now and then President Biden will get 252 00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:38,640 Speaker 1: to replace him, and they'll get to replace him with 253 00:13:38,679 --> 00:13:40,880 Speaker 1: someone who, presumably by that point, even if it was 254 00:13:40,880 --> 00:13:44,040 Speaker 1: one of President Biden's own appointees to the Lower Court, 255 00:13:44,320 --> 00:13:47,200 Speaker 1: has been in that position for at least a year. Finally, 256 00:13:47,800 --> 00:13:51,240 Speaker 1: are we going to see a much more conservative court 257 00:13:51,400 --> 00:13:54,200 Speaker 1: next term when some of the issues that they take 258 00:13:54,280 --> 00:13:58,319 Speaker 1: up abortion rights, gun rights? Yeah, I mean, I think 259 00:13:58,360 --> 00:14:00,640 Speaker 1: we are heading for a block but their term next 260 00:14:00,720 --> 00:14:02,720 Speaker 1: year compared to this term. And I think that's going 261 00:14:02,760 --> 00:14:05,120 Speaker 1: to be true as much in the cases that we're 262 00:14:05,120 --> 00:14:08,240 Speaker 1: paying less attention to as in the high profile cases 263 00:14:08,320 --> 00:14:10,840 Speaker 1: like the Second Amendic case from New York, the abortion 264 00:14:10,880 --> 00:14:14,160 Speaker 1: case from Mississippi. I don't know that that necessarily means 265 00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:17,679 Speaker 1: that Row is doomed and that the Second Amendment is 266 00:14:17,720 --> 00:14:20,720 Speaker 1: going to be all encompassing. But again, I think this 267 00:14:20,800 --> 00:14:22,800 Speaker 1: is the key point where I think narratives about the 268 00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:25,040 Speaker 1: Supreme Court are missing on the mark. You know, the 269 00:14:25,160 --> 00:14:28,400 Speaker 1: question is not are the Conservatives getting every single thing 270 00:14:28,400 --> 00:14:31,000 Speaker 1: on their wish list? The question is as the Court 271 00:14:31,120 --> 00:14:34,880 Speaker 1: moving the country and our constitutional doctrine tropically to the right, 272 00:14:35,280 --> 00:14:37,000 Speaker 1: and it's really hard to see how we get through 273 00:14:37,080 --> 00:14:40,320 Speaker 1: next term without an even further movement. Right word, Thanks Steve. 274 00:14:40,600 --> 00:14:43,720 Speaker 1: That's Stephen Vladdock of the University of Texas Law School. 275 00:14:46,760 --> 00:14:50,080 Speaker 1: So far this year, former President Donald Trump stoked a 276 00:14:50,160 --> 00:14:54,080 Speaker 1: protest at the US Capital that turned deadly, survived a 277 00:14:54,200 --> 00:14:57,920 Speaker 1: second impeachment trial, and got cut off by his biggest banks. 278 00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:02,760 Speaker 1: Trump is facing defamation suits, fraud suits, and capital riot suits, 279 00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:06,960 Speaker 1: plus an ongoing investigation into election fraud in Georgia. But 280 00:15:07,040 --> 00:15:09,920 Speaker 1: the biggest challenge for the former president maybe from the 281 00:15:09,920 --> 00:15:13,440 Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney's office. In the first criminal case to 282 00:15:13,480 --> 00:15:16,360 Speaker 1: emerge from the years long investigation of Trump and his 283 00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:20,160 Speaker 1: business dealings. Joining me is Bloomberg Leal reporter Greg Farrell 284 00:15:20,520 --> 00:15:23,800 Speaker 1: tell us about the allegations in the case. The charges 285 00:15:23,840 --> 00:15:27,560 Speaker 1: against Weislberg and and the Trump organization are similar, and 286 00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:31,480 Speaker 1: they're both wrapped up. They're focused on the conduct of 287 00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:36,280 Speaker 1: the CFO and how he labeled various basically payments made 288 00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:41,440 Speaker 1: to himself and presumably other employees, and how things that 289 00:15:41,520 --> 00:15:48,280 Speaker 1: were essentially compensation either salary or bonus were underreported to 290 00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:51,240 Speaker 1: the I R S and paid in such a way 291 00:15:51,240 --> 00:15:54,640 Speaker 1: as they would not have to be disclosed as as compensation. 292 00:15:54,720 --> 00:15:58,880 Speaker 1: So the Trump organization benefited by directing or you know, 293 00:15:58,880 --> 00:16:01,120 Speaker 1: sending out moneys that they didn't have to get be 294 00:16:01,240 --> 00:16:05,320 Speaker 1: taxed on. And Allen Weislberg in particular benefited because he 295 00:16:05,600 --> 00:16:09,440 Speaker 1: made an annual basically salary and bonus of I think 296 00:16:09,520 --> 00:16:13,480 Speaker 1: ninety dollars. And this is the key element to it. Weislberg, 297 00:16:13,680 --> 00:16:16,560 Speaker 1: for most of the past decade of the period in question, 298 00:16:17,000 --> 00:16:21,760 Speaker 1: was basically guaranteed a salary and bonus of nine dollars. 299 00:16:22,320 --> 00:16:25,080 Speaker 1: That's not what was reported to the tax authorities. Since then, 300 00:16:25,160 --> 00:16:28,840 Speaker 1: some lesser number was. And then a series of other payments, 301 00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:32,760 Speaker 1: some disguised as like a consulting fee or some disguised 302 00:16:32,800 --> 00:16:36,400 Speaker 1: as other compensation or payments to a school that would 303 00:16:36,400 --> 00:16:40,400 Speaker 1: actually be Weiselberg's grandchildren went there at the Columbia Preparatory 304 00:16:40,440 --> 00:16:44,880 Speaker 1: School et cetera. And these payments would, over you know, 305 00:16:45,120 --> 00:16:48,160 Speaker 1: the course of the year, add up to the full 306 00:16:48,400 --> 00:16:51,160 Speaker 1: salary and bonus that he was guaranteed. But what was 307 00:16:51,200 --> 00:16:54,400 Speaker 1: reported was a lesser number. So this wasn't just a 308 00:16:54,480 --> 00:16:57,760 Speaker 1: one off or as the critics and the Trump organization 309 00:16:57,880 --> 00:17:01,600 Speaker 1: lawyers tried to say last week that, you know, maybe 310 00:17:01,600 --> 00:17:05,160 Speaker 1: somebody didn't remember that a perk should have been recorded 311 00:17:05,200 --> 00:17:08,399 Speaker 1: as tax. This was clearly a pattern, you know, to 312 00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:13,240 Speaker 1: obscure how much money people got paid, to hide the 313 00:17:13,240 --> 00:17:15,520 Speaker 1: ways in which they got paid, or make it more difficult, 314 00:17:15,800 --> 00:17:19,399 Speaker 1: and as a result to uh, you know, help senior 315 00:17:19,480 --> 00:17:23,879 Speaker 1: executives or Alan Weislberg at least at the Trump organization, um, 316 00:17:23,920 --> 00:17:26,520 Speaker 1: you know, pay less in tax than you had to 317 00:17:26,880 --> 00:17:30,960 Speaker 1: and also presumably help the Trump organization you avoid paying taxes. 318 00:17:31,840 --> 00:17:36,399 Speaker 1: There are some pretty audacious claims of personal expenses like 319 00:17:36,560 --> 00:17:41,680 Speaker 1: new beds, flat screen television's, carpet installation, and furniture. Those 320 00:17:41,720 --> 00:17:45,120 Speaker 1: are just so audacious. If I R. S looks at that, yes, 321 00:17:45,200 --> 00:17:47,080 Speaker 1: I guess you could look at it this way. If 322 00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:50,600 Speaker 1: someone gets paid high salary and they want to redecorate 323 00:17:50,600 --> 00:17:52,960 Speaker 1: their apartment or their son and daughter in law's apartment, 324 00:17:53,240 --> 00:17:55,640 Speaker 1: with a flat screen TV and bed that God bless them. 325 00:17:55,680 --> 00:17:59,720 Speaker 1: That's that's fine. But in order to basically reduce the 326 00:18:00,000 --> 00:18:01,600 Speaker 1: out that would have to be paid to the government, 327 00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:04,399 Speaker 1: reduced the tax that Alan Wisenberg would owe or the 328 00:18:04,400 --> 00:18:07,959 Speaker 1: payroll tax that the Trump organization would owe to, you know, 329 00:18:08,000 --> 00:18:10,200 Speaker 1: allow these payments to be made in such a way 330 00:18:10,240 --> 00:18:12,359 Speaker 1: as to not attract the attention of the tax man. 331 00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:14,679 Speaker 1: That's what the problem is here. It's not as though 332 00:18:14,680 --> 00:18:17,240 Speaker 1: the perks were obscene, you know, you remember like the 333 00:18:17,320 --> 00:18:19,560 Speaker 1: Tycho case, because we you and I go back away 334 00:18:19,960 --> 00:18:23,399 Speaker 1: and some of the literally obscene expenditures. You know, how 335 00:18:23,480 --> 00:18:25,760 Speaker 1: much money was paid a shower, curtains and a tour 336 00:18:25,840 --> 00:18:28,960 Speaker 1: that in Dennis Kozlowski's you know, apartment in the Upper 337 00:18:28,960 --> 00:18:31,200 Speaker 1: East Side, and those were like that was some of 338 00:18:31,240 --> 00:18:33,439 Speaker 1: the prosecutors tried it out at trial to show like 339 00:18:33,480 --> 00:18:36,879 Speaker 1: how over the topics compensation was. This is not that 340 00:18:36,920 --> 00:18:39,360 Speaker 1: I mean, this is large sums of money. I'm sure 341 00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:42,560 Speaker 1: four year, fifty tho dollars a crack per year at 342 00:18:42,880 --> 00:18:46,080 Speaker 1: you know, the Columbia Prep of very expensive private school 343 00:18:46,080 --> 00:18:49,800 Speaker 1: in Manhattan for Weislberg's grandkids. But it's not that kind 344 00:18:49,840 --> 00:18:53,000 Speaker 1: of you know, everybody is a flat screen TV's instead 345 00:18:53,000 --> 00:18:55,879 Speaker 1: of paying for the normal way. Um, it was hidden 346 00:18:55,880 --> 00:18:58,560 Speaker 1: in disguise. It was a direct payment to avoid you know, 347 00:18:58,680 --> 00:19:01,920 Speaker 1: the attention of the taxes are so the sons had 348 00:19:01,960 --> 00:19:05,320 Speaker 1: benefits as well, and you mentioned the grand children's tuition, 349 00:19:05,400 --> 00:19:09,400 Speaker 1: but also apartments. Why weren't they charged? Good question. There's 350 00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:12,159 Speaker 1: several ways that if you could look at this in 351 00:19:12,160 --> 00:19:14,680 Speaker 1: the last few weeks indictment, you know, from different angles. 352 00:19:14,680 --> 00:19:16,879 Speaker 1: One is the actual charging document that it is the 353 00:19:16,960 --> 00:19:20,280 Speaker 1: charges we just discussed against Weiselberg and against the Trump organization. 354 00:19:20,720 --> 00:19:23,920 Speaker 1: The other was what's left out, what's included, and what's 355 00:19:23,960 --> 00:19:27,160 Speaker 1: left out, And they included, the prosecutors include the information 356 00:19:27,200 --> 00:19:30,320 Speaker 1: about how this money flowed to at least one of 357 00:19:30,359 --> 00:19:33,400 Speaker 1: Weiselberg's sons in the form of a free apartment right 358 00:19:33,440 --> 00:19:35,960 Speaker 1: on Central Park, as well as tuition payments at a 359 00:19:36,040 --> 00:19:39,200 Speaker 1: very expensive school. Caleb Melby of Bloomberg get a great 360 00:19:39,200 --> 00:19:42,040 Speaker 1: story last November calling attention to this that there was 361 00:19:42,040 --> 00:19:45,120 Speaker 1: the free apartment that had tax consequences and this grew 362 00:19:45,160 --> 00:19:47,479 Speaker 1: out of documents that you know, we're filed in a 363 00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:51,800 Speaker 1: divorce case between Alan Weiselberg's son Barry and his now 364 00:19:51,880 --> 00:19:55,320 Speaker 1: ex wife, Jennifer um. So. I think this attracted the 365 00:19:55,320 --> 00:19:58,119 Speaker 1: attention of prosecutors, and I think one of the reasons 366 00:19:58,200 --> 00:20:01,439 Speaker 1: the prosecutors focused in demonstrated that they knew where this 367 00:20:01,480 --> 00:20:04,320 Speaker 1: money went, who benefited um is to send a signal 368 00:20:04,320 --> 00:20:07,080 Speaker 1: to Weiselberg that you know, we have information on your 369 00:20:07,080 --> 00:20:10,280 Speaker 1: son as well. And part of the indictment last week 370 00:20:10,359 --> 00:20:13,440 Speaker 1: is not just to charge crimes or allegate alleged crimes 371 00:20:13,480 --> 00:20:15,560 Speaker 1: that have to be proven in court. It's also to 372 00:20:15,600 --> 00:20:18,000 Speaker 1: send a signal to Weiselberg that we're serious about this, 373 00:20:18,359 --> 00:20:21,399 Speaker 1: and you may want to rethink your position as to 374 00:20:21,400 --> 00:20:23,399 Speaker 1: whether not defending yourself and going to court is the 375 00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:26,000 Speaker 1: best idea. So, you know, I don't know this, but 376 00:20:26,040 --> 00:20:29,560 Speaker 1: it's a pretty obvious prosecutorial attack that they're demonstrating him 377 00:20:29,560 --> 00:20:31,439 Speaker 1: that they have enough information to make a charge of 378 00:20:31,520 --> 00:20:33,800 Speaker 1: some kind gets one of his sons, and that will 379 00:20:33,840 --> 00:20:37,080 Speaker 1: almost certainly be a factor in Alan Weislberg's thinking going forward. 380 00:20:37,560 --> 00:20:40,720 Speaker 1: The New York Attorney Generals, So the investigation goes on, 381 00:20:41,280 --> 00:20:46,280 Speaker 1: are we expecting more charges ahead given that this is 382 00:20:46,320 --> 00:20:49,120 Speaker 1: the CFO, I would say yes, They've got plenty more. Joey, 383 00:20:49,119 --> 00:20:51,280 Speaker 1: I'm not sure they're going to file soon. I actually 384 00:20:51,320 --> 00:20:54,399 Speaker 1: suspect that the world has changed for Alan Weislberg in 385 00:20:54,400 --> 00:20:57,280 Speaker 1: the past week. He's gone from being a guy who 386 00:20:57,400 --> 00:21:00,760 Speaker 1: is the CFO of Trump organization and written about occasionally 387 00:21:00,800 --> 00:21:04,520 Speaker 1: and obliquely in various news articles as possibly being under investigation, 388 00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:07,520 Speaker 1: and now last week he was on page one of 389 00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:10,080 Speaker 1: most newspapers in the New York area and in every 390 00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:13,080 Speaker 1: news cast about the Trump organization. He's been accused of 391 00:21:13,080 --> 00:21:16,960 Speaker 1: criminal activity. That changes guy's mindset before this is sort 392 00:21:16,960 --> 00:21:19,479 Speaker 1: of like possible, but we'll say suddenly, no, they did 393 00:21:19,600 --> 00:21:22,840 Speaker 1: charge me, and now everybody I know and everybody of 394 00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:25,640 Speaker 1: my social circle and family, it's it's out there. It's 395 00:21:25,680 --> 00:21:28,080 Speaker 1: tough to go on just pretend that, you know, life 396 00:21:28,119 --> 00:21:31,080 Speaker 1: is business as usual after an event like last week. 397 00:21:31,240 --> 00:21:33,200 Speaker 1: So that's one thing to keep an eye on. But yes, 398 00:21:33,240 --> 00:21:35,280 Speaker 1: I think the investigation does continue. It's not as though 399 00:21:35,440 --> 00:21:37,880 Speaker 1: they're done. Okay, we found, you know what a criminality 400 00:21:37,920 --> 00:21:39,879 Speaker 1: we expected to find, and now we can just shut 401 00:21:39,880 --> 00:21:42,680 Speaker 1: down the investigation of the Trump organization and all its 402 00:21:42,680 --> 00:21:47,360 Speaker 1: senior executives. This looks like the case or the investigation 403 00:21:47,560 --> 00:21:51,399 Speaker 1: that's closest to the possibility of any criminal liability for 404 00:21:51,440 --> 00:21:54,560 Speaker 1: Trump himself. Well, I think this is a clear and 405 00:21:54,600 --> 00:21:57,879 Speaker 1: present danger for the former president, just the the allegations 406 00:21:57,880 --> 00:22:00,560 Speaker 1: have been made. It goes to the heart of his existence. 407 00:22:00,680 --> 00:22:03,080 Speaker 1: He's been best known for decades before he even came 408 00:22:03,119 --> 00:22:04,600 Speaker 1: on the scene. He wouldn't have been famous had it 409 00:22:04,640 --> 00:22:07,280 Speaker 1: not been for the Trump organization and his sort of 410 00:22:07,280 --> 00:22:10,680 Speaker 1: swashbuckling role as a major player in the real estate 411 00:22:10,720 --> 00:22:13,440 Speaker 1: market in Manhattan, and then a casino operator, and then 412 00:22:13,600 --> 00:22:16,520 Speaker 1: that great career booster on The Apprentice where he was 413 00:22:16,560 --> 00:22:18,840 Speaker 1: a big success and developed a lot of fans, and 414 00:22:18,880 --> 00:22:22,679 Speaker 1: it all grew out of the Trump organization. And this indictment, 415 00:22:22,760 --> 00:22:25,000 Speaker 1: these charges go to the heart of that is. This 416 00:22:25,040 --> 00:22:27,280 Speaker 1: is what the organization is. It's like if it turns 417 00:22:27,320 --> 00:22:30,400 Speaker 1: out that this was a large part of the conduct 418 00:22:30,400 --> 00:22:32,600 Speaker 1: and not like a one off by a rogue employee. 419 00:22:32,800 --> 00:22:35,679 Speaker 1: This is at the heart of the creation myths of 420 00:22:35,760 --> 00:22:39,160 Speaker 1: Donald Trump. You know, his fabulously successful real estate company. 421 00:22:39,440 --> 00:22:42,680 Speaker 1: As you mentioned, there was a pressure campaign to try 422 00:22:42,720 --> 00:22:46,240 Speaker 1: to get Weiselberg to flip. How much time would he 423 00:22:46,280 --> 00:22:49,840 Speaker 1: get here? Would this push him anymore than than he 424 00:22:49,920 --> 00:22:53,160 Speaker 1: already has been pushed because he knew what the charges 425 00:22:53,200 --> 00:22:57,240 Speaker 1: were going to be coming out. Uh no, he didn't. 426 00:22:57,320 --> 00:23:01,840 Speaker 1: So there's a whole psychology around found this process of 427 00:23:02,320 --> 00:23:05,680 Speaker 1: pressuring a key witness. When you're in particularly white collar 428 00:23:05,760 --> 00:23:08,720 Speaker 1: crime case, you need insiders. To go back to en Ron, 429 00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:11,240 Speaker 1: it took prosecutors a while, but they finally got Handy 430 00:23:11,280 --> 00:23:14,159 Speaker 1: Fast out the CFO and once they had him, you know, 431 00:23:14,280 --> 00:23:16,000 Speaker 1: they had a key to the safe, to the vault, 432 00:23:16,040 --> 00:23:18,800 Speaker 1: the black box, and they were able to demonstrate that 433 00:23:18,880 --> 00:23:22,480 Speaker 1: trial Alan Weisenberg plays a similar role here. He knows 434 00:23:22,560 --> 00:23:25,080 Speaker 1: everything about the finances. He knows where the money was paid, 435 00:23:25,119 --> 00:23:27,680 Speaker 1: why I was paid, and why it wasn't paid, etcetera, etcetera. 436 00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:30,439 Speaker 1: And yes, there was a pressure campaign. It was clear 437 00:23:30,880 --> 00:23:34,600 Speaker 1: that by calling certain witnesses in etcetera, prosecutors were sending 438 00:23:34,600 --> 00:23:38,280 Speaker 1: a signal that that Wisenberg should be be wary. Uh 439 00:23:38,320 --> 00:23:40,719 Speaker 1: they were, as far as we know, never any discussions 440 00:23:40,720 --> 00:23:44,000 Speaker 1: about cooperating. But this is how the dance works. And 441 00:23:44,080 --> 00:23:46,439 Speaker 1: so they hit him with a series of charges and 442 00:23:47,320 --> 00:23:48,760 Speaker 1: once again, to go back to what I think the 443 00:23:48,760 --> 00:23:52,840 Speaker 1: Trunk organization's lawyers expected, was something that was very much 444 00:23:52,880 --> 00:23:55,600 Speaker 1: small ball, just like Okay, so he got the use 445 00:23:55,640 --> 00:23:58,000 Speaker 1: of a Mercedes. Uh, you know, year and year out 446 00:23:58,000 --> 00:24:00,000 Speaker 1: he and his wife they didn't report on taxas big 447 00:24:00,000 --> 00:24:04,359 Speaker 1: heal um. But the indictment cast a much longer shadow 448 00:24:04,400 --> 00:24:05,960 Speaker 1: than that. It was not just the Mercedes, who was 449 00:24:06,000 --> 00:24:08,600 Speaker 1: a bunch of these other things that were enumerated, and 450 00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:13,760 Speaker 1: most I think damaging to Weislberg. That was that one charge, 451 00:24:14,080 --> 00:24:16,880 Speaker 1: grand larceny in the second degree. Most of the other 452 00:24:16,960 --> 00:24:19,920 Speaker 1: charges that he was hit with are you know, three 453 00:24:19,920 --> 00:24:22,560 Speaker 1: to four year max. And if you're convicted on all 454 00:24:22,600 --> 00:24:24,320 Speaker 1: of them, it's not like you'll have to serve three 455 00:24:24,320 --> 00:24:27,680 Speaker 1: to four years times you know, six or however many 456 00:24:27,760 --> 00:24:30,760 Speaker 1: charges that they are for a total of twenty years. No, 457 00:24:30,960 --> 00:24:32,680 Speaker 1: they tend to all you know, get to be served 458 00:24:32,680 --> 00:24:35,080 Speaker 1: at the same time. And maybe the maximum he actually 459 00:24:35,080 --> 00:24:37,560 Speaker 1: serving Joe would be two years. But the grand larceny 460 00:24:37,640 --> 00:24:42,480 Speaker 1: charge is what exposes to a maximum to of fifteen years. 461 00:24:42,560 --> 00:24:44,800 Speaker 1: So if he could get as many as you know, 462 00:24:44,800 --> 00:24:46,600 Speaker 1: if he's convicted on that and he gets say half 463 00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:48,560 Speaker 1: of it, eight or ten and then some of these 464 00:24:48,560 --> 00:24:51,239 Speaker 1: other charges, it's like for a seventy three year old guy, 465 00:24:51,280 --> 00:24:54,119 Speaker 1: that's real time is for anybody. But he's you know, 466 00:24:54,160 --> 00:24:56,840 Speaker 1: he's a guy in his golden years. So the grand 467 00:24:56,920 --> 00:25:00,880 Speaker 1: larceny charge is key here, and it's it's very interesting. 468 00:25:01,640 --> 00:25:04,560 Speaker 1: It's in some ways the smallest amount of money involved, 469 00:25:04,800 --> 00:25:07,200 Speaker 1: because they enumerated a total of one point seven six 470 00:25:07,240 --> 00:25:11,280 Speaker 1: million dollars in funds that Weislberg you know, didn't pay 471 00:25:11,320 --> 00:25:13,640 Speaker 1: taxes on but enjoyed the benefit of and got to 472 00:25:13,680 --> 00:25:16,399 Speaker 1: start a key O I RA with etcetera, etcetera. But 473 00:25:16,520 --> 00:25:20,000 Speaker 1: of that one point seven six million, there's a sub 474 00:25:20,400 --> 00:25:23,480 Speaker 1: set of nine thousand dollars and change almost ninety five 475 00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:28,760 Speaker 1: thousand dollars in federal tax refunds that Weiselberg got. So, 476 00:25:28,800 --> 00:25:31,920 Speaker 1: in other words, most of these other crimes are tax related. 477 00:25:31,960 --> 00:25:35,280 Speaker 1: He failed to report income or you know, didn't report 478 00:25:35,280 --> 00:25:38,080 Speaker 1: it properly, etcetera, etcetera. That's the whole pattern. But in 479 00:25:38,080 --> 00:25:42,000 Speaker 1: this one one he submitted his tax statements to the 480 00:25:42,040 --> 00:25:45,760 Speaker 1: federal government and because he underreported his income, he got 481 00:25:45,760 --> 00:25:50,479 Speaker 1: a refund. So he's not basically just hiding or you know, 482 00:25:51,200 --> 00:25:55,600 Speaker 1: disguising money that he's you know, earned or received from 483 00:25:55,600 --> 00:25:58,000 Speaker 1: the Trump organization and not paying full taxes on it. 484 00:25:58,160 --> 00:26:00,919 Speaker 1: He's actually going and sending a document to the federal 485 00:26:00,960 --> 00:26:04,760 Speaker 1: government and getting a tax return, and year in and 486 00:26:04,840 --> 00:26:07,000 Speaker 1: year out, it was like ten grand this year, fifteen 487 00:26:07,040 --> 00:26:09,520 Speaker 1: grand that year, to grand the other year. But over 488 00:26:09,560 --> 00:26:11,959 Speaker 1: the course of more than ten years it added up 489 00:26:11,960 --> 00:26:15,639 Speaker 1: to nine dollars of money he extracted from the government. 490 00:26:15,680 --> 00:26:18,479 Speaker 1: So that's why that's a more serious charge and has 491 00:26:18,520 --> 00:26:22,040 Speaker 1: a much longer, a much greater you know, uh, sentencing 492 00:26:22,160 --> 00:26:24,880 Speaker 1: range for judges. So now we don't go back as 493 00:26:24,920 --> 00:26:27,760 Speaker 1: far as this, but this sort of reminds me of 494 00:26:27,800 --> 00:26:31,679 Speaker 1: al Capone because because they couldn't get him on the 495 00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:35,280 Speaker 1: real crime, so they got him on tax evasion. Um, 496 00:26:35,320 --> 00:26:37,760 Speaker 1: I guess I would offer a different view on the 497 00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:41,080 Speaker 1: al Capone part al campone being a no notorious snow 498 00:26:41,119 --> 00:26:43,600 Speaker 1: abster who killed lots of people or was responsible for 499 00:26:43,600 --> 00:26:45,080 Speaker 1: the death of lots of people. And of course we're 500 00:26:45,080 --> 00:26:47,880 Speaker 1: not talking about anything even near that here. Um, there 501 00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:52,159 Speaker 1: are allegations that the Trump organization you know, uh, didn't 502 00:26:52,160 --> 00:26:55,760 Speaker 1: tell the truth to banks, didn't you know, provide you know, 503 00:26:55,840 --> 00:26:59,840 Speaker 1: accurate financial numbers to banks and insurance companies, etcetera. And therefore, 504 00:27:00,240 --> 00:27:03,080 Speaker 1: you know, could have defraud these banks. So there's that 505 00:27:03,080 --> 00:27:06,240 Speaker 1: that would be that's that's in what we know about 506 00:27:06,240 --> 00:27:09,159 Speaker 1: would be you know, among the more serious possible crimes 507 00:27:09,160 --> 00:27:11,639 Speaker 1: that the organization, not any individual I'm not going to 508 00:27:11,680 --> 00:27:15,160 Speaker 1: mention any names, but the the but the organization itself 509 00:27:15,280 --> 00:27:18,920 Speaker 1: could be accused of. What I think last week's indictment 510 00:27:18,960 --> 00:27:22,440 Speaker 1: showed was that instead of being one off or you've got, 511 00:27:22,520 --> 00:27:24,680 Speaker 1: you know, a guy in a senior position who likes 512 00:27:24,680 --> 00:27:26,879 Speaker 1: to feather his nest a little bit. But you know, 513 00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:30,320 Speaker 1: you can't impute anything to the organization. Uh No, the 514 00:27:30,640 --> 00:27:34,520 Speaker 1: charges were against the Trump organization as well. And further, 515 00:27:35,119 --> 00:27:39,480 Speaker 1: if the CFO of the organization, if the allegations are true, 516 00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:43,520 Speaker 1: then there's there's no way that the CFO of this 517 00:27:43,680 --> 00:27:48,880 Speaker 1: organization handled and hit his income um from the tax 518 00:27:48,920 --> 00:27:52,800 Speaker 1: authorities and he was like a lone wolf or rogue employee. 519 00:27:53,000 --> 00:27:55,600 Speaker 1: It has to be that other senior executives did this 520 00:27:55,880 --> 00:27:58,840 Speaker 1: as well. It's already been reported that the chief operating Officer, 521 00:27:58,880 --> 00:28:02,199 Speaker 1: Matthew Calamari, also received a significant portion of or at 522 00:28:02,240 --> 00:28:04,760 Speaker 1: least a portion of his salary and bonus in the 523 00:28:04,760 --> 00:28:07,520 Speaker 1: form of perks. And now he's got to be thinking, 524 00:28:07,560 --> 00:28:09,280 Speaker 1: even though he was in charge, oh man, what if 525 00:28:09,320 --> 00:28:11,520 Speaker 1: they come after me? And then of course there were 526 00:28:11,520 --> 00:28:14,520 Speaker 1: the people who were above Weiselberg in Calamari. You know 527 00:28:14,560 --> 00:28:17,960 Speaker 1: whose last name is Trump, so it's it's I think 528 00:28:17,960 --> 00:28:20,840 Speaker 1: in some ways this was the signal by the prosecutors 529 00:28:20,840 --> 00:28:23,760 Speaker 1: to Weislberg that yes, we have this on you, and 530 00:28:24,240 --> 00:28:27,120 Speaker 1: we figured out, you know, how these payments are made 531 00:28:27,119 --> 00:28:30,320 Speaker 1: to you know, basically reduce you know, the amount of 532 00:28:30,320 --> 00:28:33,280 Speaker 1: tack shift to pay uh. And also it's likely that 533 00:28:33,320 --> 00:28:35,760 Speaker 1: there are many other people senior levels in the company 534 00:28:36,000 --> 00:28:39,440 Speaker 1: who played this game. So that's I think like another 535 00:28:39,480 --> 00:28:42,320 Speaker 1: element to this as well. There's no way that this 536 00:28:42,920 --> 00:28:47,200 Speaker 1: behavior was confined to one person. As far as the 537 00:28:47,920 --> 00:28:51,720 Speaker 1: man named Trump for for President Donald Trump, his name 538 00:28:51,760 --> 00:28:55,640 Speaker 1: was on some checks I understand is that the only places, 539 00:28:56,400 --> 00:29:00,400 Speaker 1: basically his only appearance uh in the indictment was the 540 00:29:00,440 --> 00:29:04,840 Speaker 1: fact that UM payments were made on behalf of Wiselberg 541 00:29:05,600 --> 00:29:07,720 Speaker 1: checks were made from the Trump organization hand or are 542 00:29:07,840 --> 00:29:10,680 Speaker 1: signed by you know, the account of Donald Trump too. 543 00:29:10,840 --> 00:29:14,080 Speaker 1: I think the Columbia Prep School, the the expensive prep 544 00:29:14,120 --> 00:29:19,480 Speaker 1: school that Weiselberg's grandkids attend UM. I there there's no 545 00:29:19,800 --> 00:29:21,920 Speaker 1: significance to the fact that it was run from him. 546 00:29:21,960 --> 00:29:23,480 Speaker 1: I think it was clear that this is part of 547 00:29:23,800 --> 00:29:28,360 Speaker 1: you know, the Trump organization and Wiselberg's pattern of conduct. 548 00:29:28,840 --> 00:29:32,800 Speaker 1: UM however, UM by just you know, inserting and allowing, 549 00:29:32,960 --> 00:29:36,120 Speaker 1: you know, making sure they made Donald Trump aware as 550 00:29:36,160 --> 00:29:38,440 Speaker 1: well that they've been tracking these funds and where they go. 551 00:29:38,960 --> 00:29:41,280 Speaker 1: And I think the real concern is that, you know, 552 00:29:42,040 --> 00:29:47,560 Speaker 1: did Trump do anything similar to what Weiselberg is alleged 553 00:29:47,560 --> 00:29:49,760 Speaker 1: to have done in terms of, you know, getting paid 554 00:29:49,800 --> 00:29:52,560 Speaker 1: a certain amount of money but not you know, obscuring 555 00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:57,120 Speaker 1: or not disclosing that. UM and UH Civevance's office, the 556 00:29:57,160 --> 00:29:59,920 Speaker 1: d A's office knows it because they've got Trump's attack return, 557 00:30:00,400 --> 00:30:04,160 Speaker 1: so that I think in many ways, last week's indictments 558 00:30:04,200 --> 00:30:07,480 Speaker 1: served as to file charges against the CFO, to file 559 00:30:07,600 --> 00:30:10,840 Speaker 1: charges against the company, but also to send a signal 560 00:30:10,920 --> 00:30:13,600 Speaker 1: to Weiselberg and to send the signal to you know 561 00:30:13,760 --> 00:30:18,520 Speaker 1: this other senior executives of the Trump organization, including the CEO, UM, 562 00:30:18,560 --> 00:30:21,680 Speaker 1: the former president of what they've got, how many cards 563 00:30:21,680 --> 00:30:23,520 Speaker 1: they've gotten their hand. They didn't show everything, but they 564 00:30:23,560 --> 00:30:26,160 Speaker 1: showed enough to know that, you know, they've they've cracked 565 00:30:26,160 --> 00:30:29,040 Speaker 1: this particular secret. If this is in fact a pattern 566 00:30:29,080 --> 00:30:31,640 Speaker 1: of behavior at the Trump organization of how people got paid. 567 00:30:32,400 --> 00:30:35,840 Speaker 1: Coming back to your point about alcohol, you know, facetiously. 568 00:30:36,120 --> 00:30:39,840 Speaker 1: It's like, um, some people fantasize that the Trump organization 569 00:30:39,920 --> 00:30:42,920 Speaker 1: must have had, you know, done strange deals or laundered 570 00:30:42,920 --> 00:30:46,000 Speaker 1: money around who knows. But this is simple and this 571 00:30:46,080 --> 00:30:49,960 Speaker 1: is something understandable to every taxpayer in the country. It's like, 572 00:30:50,320 --> 00:30:52,920 Speaker 1: you know, okay, you know, this guy on Wisberg has 573 00:30:52,920 --> 00:30:55,000 Speaker 1: alleged to have not paid his taxes, and if goes 574 00:30:55,080 --> 00:30:57,280 Speaker 1: up the food chain and other senior people a Trump 575 00:30:57,360 --> 00:31:00,840 Speaker 1: organization in the same boat, that's a crime. And it's uh, 576 00:31:00,920 --> 00:31:03,000 Speaker 1: you know, it could be if you've got you know, refunds, 577 00:31:03,240 --> 00:31:05,520 Speaker 1: you know, grand larceny in the second degree, which carries 578 00:31:05,560 --> 00:31:08,760 Speaker 1: a serious sentence. So this is a serious This this, 579 00:31:08,760 --> 00:31:11,240 Speaker 1: this indictment last week was a serious signal, not just 580 00:31:11,280 --> 00:31:14,320 Speaker 1: to Weisenberg himself, but to the Trump organization and the 581 00:31:14,360 --> 00:31:17,080 Speaker 1: former president. I think about what the d A's office 582 00:31:17,120 --> 00:31:20,080 Speaker 1: has Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show. Greg. That's 583 00:31:20,080 --> 00:31:23,120 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Greg Farrell, And that's it for the 584 00:31:23,240 --> 00:31:25,880 Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always 585 00:31:25,920 --> 00:31:28,880 Speaker 1: get the latest legal moves on our Bloomberg podcast. You 586 00:31:28,920 --> 00:31:32,800 Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www 587 00:31:32,880 --> 00:31:36,920 Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot Com, slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June 588 00:31:36,960 --> 00:31:39,000 Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg