1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,480
Speaker 1: Yeah, a court order is forcing some of Donald Trump's

2
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:06,960
Speaker 1: former top tax lawyers to give thousands of documents to

3
00:00:07,080 --> 00:00:11,240
Speaker 1: investigators showing the risk attorney's face when their own actions

4
00:00:11,280 --> 00:00:14,440
Speaker 1: go under a microscope. Joining me is Christopher for a

5
00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:17,960
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law team leader for the business of law. So

6
00:00:18,040 --> 00:00:20,759
Speaker 1: Chris tell us about these documents that the lawyers have

7
00:00:20,840 --> 00:00:25,200
Speaker 1: to turn over. So a judge ordered these attorneys that

8
00:00:25,360 --> 00:00:28,760
Speaker 1: Morgan Lewis, who have been representing and advising President Trump

9
00:00:28,760 --> 00:00:31,720
Speaker 1: and his companies on various tax matters, to turn over

10
00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:35,839
Speaker 1: a couple of thousand dot com pages of documents at

11
00:00:35,920 --> 00:00:39,360
Speaker 1: least regarding some of that advice in some of the

12
00:00:39,479 --> 00:00:43,680
Speaker 1: specific tax transactions that Trump was involved in. And it's

13
00:00:44,000 --> 00:00:46,320
Speaker 1: they're being turned over to the New York Attorney General

14
00:00:46,360 --> 00:00:49,520
Speaker 1: that Tisha James as part of a probe um into

15
00:00:49,560 --> 00:00:53,280
Speaker 1: some accusations of tax cheating by Trump and the Trump organization.

16
00:00:54,240 --> 00:00:57,760
Speaker 1: Did the law firm try to fight the request, try

17
00:00:57,800 --> 00:01:00,600
Speaker 1: to claim attorney client privilege? And how did that go?

18
00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:04,000
Speaker 1: Apparently not so well they did, and it didn't go

19
00:01:04,120 --> 00:01:08,160
Speaker 1: well for them. The firm made two arguments that it

20
00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:11,479
Speaker 1: was these documents were covered and protected by attorney client

21
00:01:11,560 --> 00:01:14,800
Speaker 1: privilege between the firm and the company, and also that

22
00:01:14,840 --> 00:01:17,800
Speaker 1: they were attorney work product, which doesn't have to be

23
00:01:17,840 --> 00:01:21,399
Speaker 1: turned over under the rules for this kind of thing.

24
00:01:21,720 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 1: The judge rejected that argument and said that UM a

25
00:01:25,520 --> 00:01:28,280
Speaker 1: lot of these documents had to do with UM sort

26
00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:32,280
Speaker 1: of talking about statements to the media UM communications of

27
00:01:32,319 --> 00:01:36,120
Speaker 1: a non legal advice matter. Whether that's because the actual

28
00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:39,720
Speaker 1: subject of the communication was not a legal question, or

29
00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:44,440
Speaker 1: because non lawyers and folks who were not UM clients

30
00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:48,080
Speaker 1: were also involved in some of those communications. We have

31
00:01:48,200 --> 00:01:51,720
Speaker 1: not seen the actual documents ourselves, those have been under

32
00:01:52,240 --> 00:01:55,240
Speaker 1: UH feel by the court UM. But what we do

33
00:01:55,320 --> 00:01:59,200
Speaker 1: know is that they the investigators are looking in particular

34
00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:03,680
Speaker 1: at two acts deals that these lawyers advised Trump on.

35
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:06,240
Speaker 1: One of them has to do with the property in Westchester,

36
00:02:06,320 --> 00:02:08,600
Speaker 1: New York, UH and the other one is out in

37
00:02:08,840 --> 00:02:12,000
Speaker 1: l a UM. And what they're looking at here is

38
00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:15,960
Speaker 1: that there were certain property and easement on certain property

39
00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:20,680
Speaker 1: owned by Trump was donated UH for charitable causes as

40
00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:23,920
Speaker 1: a conservation easement. And what they're looking at there is

41
00:02:23,960 --> 00:02:28,440
Speaker 1: how much of a tax UH break the company took

42
00:02:28,440 --> 00:02:31,880
Speaker 1: in return for donating those easements, and the tax break

43
00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:35,240
Speaker 1: is based on how those the properties were valued. And

44
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:38,680
Speaker 1: there are some allegations there that the Trump organization has

45
00:02:38,720 --> 00:02:42,079
Speaker 1: been inflating the value not only of these two easements,

46
00:02:42,080 --> 00:02:44,720
Speaker 1: but of a wide range of property for several years

47
00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:48,519
Speaker 1: now in order to get tax breaks UM and favorable loans.

48
00:02:49,480 --> 00:02:54,720
Speaker 1: How much is done by accountants and how much by lawyers,

49
00:02:54,800 --> 00:02:56,640
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of money involved here and

50
00:02:56,680 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 1: a lot of different things in play, so I think

51
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:02,480
Speaker 1: can vary based on the situation, but it was safe

52
00:03:02,520 --> 00:03:06,239
Speaker 1: to assume that an organization the size of the Trump

53
00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:10,519
Speaker 1: organization would not only have tax lawyers working on these things,

54
00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:14,920
Speaker 1: but professional accountants as well, and so it would be

55
00:03:14,960 --> 00:03:19,520
Speaker 1: done under the advice of both the lawyers and the accountants. UM.

56
00:03:19,680 --> 00:03:21,960
Speaker 1: My understanding and what I was told from some of

57
00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:24,680
Speaker 1: the experts here is that the accountant would certainly be

58
00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:28,960
Speaker 1: the first line there and the person who's who's calculating

59
00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:31,920
Speaker 1: what the value of this property is UM, But the

60
00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:36,440
Speaker 1: tax lawyers would ultimately be reviewing that and making calls

61
00:03:36,480 --> 00:03:39,520
Speaker 1: in terms of how whether that's um you know, they're

62
00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:42,440
Speaker 1: pushing the envelope too much in terms of the value

63
00:03:42,880 --> 00:03:46,800
Speaker 1: or running into potential legal questions. Otherwise, the lawyers who

64
00:03:46,800 --> 00:03:49,600
Speaker 1: have represented him. The tax lawyers have represented him for

65
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:53,760
Speaker 1: a while. Right, that's right. The firm is Morgan Lewis,

66
00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:57,640
Speaker 1: and it's a pair of attorneys, most notably a woman

67
00:03:57,720 --> 00:04:02,000
Speaker 1: named Sherry Dillon, who some oakes may remember appeared at

68
00:04:02,400 --> 00:04:07,200
Speaker 1: with then President elect Trump in two UM at a

69
00:04:07,280 --> 00:04:12,040
Speaker 1: closely watched UM press conference at his hotel in Manhattan

70
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:15,520
Speaker 1: in which President Trump pledged and rolled out a plan

71
00:04:16,240 --> 00:04:18,440
Speaker 1: under which he was going to divest from all of

72
00:04:18,520 --> 00:04:22,359
Speaker 1: his various businesses before entering the White House. And he

73
00:04:22,440 --> 00:04:25,560
Speaker 1: also showed up with a stack of boxes which he

74
00:04:25,600 --> 00:04:28,880
Speaker 1: claimed where his tax returns um which he also said

75
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:31,280
Speaker 1: he was willing to turn over just as soon as

76
00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:35,279
Speaker 1: this ongoing UM audit was finished. And so Dylan was

77
00:04:35,320 --> 00:04:39,320
Speaker 1: standing by his side there and and even was wampooned

78
00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:42,200
Speaker 1: on on Saturday Night Live the next week when they

79
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:45,240
Speaker 1: did their own skit on that press conference. UM. So

80
00:04:45,279 --> 00:04:47,760
Speaker 1: she's been well known as a Trump tax advisor for

81
00:04:47,880 --> 00:04:51,359
Speaker 1: several years, even dating back to before when she joined

82
00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:54,480
Speaker 1: Morgan Lewis six or seven years ago. And then the

83
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,440
Speaker 1: other person at issue here is a guy named William Nelson,

84
00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:01,520
Speaker 1: who's a tax law veteran, had worked UM during the

85
00:05:01,560 --> 00:05:04,839
Speaker 1: Reagan administration and has been with the firm for several decades.

86
00:05:05,520 --> 00:05:08,240
Speaker 1: Both of these attorneys, in addition to a few others

87
00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:11,400
Speaker 1: from Morgan Lewis, has really been the primary advisors for

88
00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:13,880
Speaker 1: the Trump Organization and President Trump on a lot of

89
00:05:13,920 --> 00:05:19,200
Speaker 1: his tax matters. Can lawyers advising clients about tax matters

90
00:05:19,600 --> 00:05:24,600
Speaker 1: be themselves found responsible for a client's illegal acts or

91
00:05:24,640 --> 00:05:28,880
Speaker 1: illegal claims made? Potentially? And I think it's worth pointing

92
00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:32,880
Speaker 1: out here that there has been no public accusation that

93
00:05:33,000 --> 00:05:35,920
Speaker 1: either of these two attorneys, or that the firm otherwise

94
00:05:36,040 --> 00:05:41,000
Speaker 1: has violated ethics laws, ethics rules, criminal laws, or itself

95
00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:44,279
Speaker 1: is facing any civil liability. But it is interesting to

96
00:05:44,320 --> 00:05:47,880
Speaker 1: see that investigators are taking a closer look at these transactions,

97
00:05:47,920 --> 00:05:51,279
Speaker 1: and it specifically are looking at these lawyers roles in

98
00:05:51,320 --> 00:05:56,080
Speaker 1: those transactions. So my understanding is that there is certainly

99
00:05:56,480 --> 00:05:59,320
Speaker 1: some gray area and some wiggle room here, and that

100
00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:04,159
Speaker 1: attorney UM should be allowed to, if they're clients, full

101
00:06:04,200 --> 00:06:07,360
Speaker 1: throated advice. And if you know, it turns out down

102
00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:10,239
Speaker 1: the road that the I R S or the SEC

103
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:14,400
Speaker 1: or a judge maybe UM disagrees with the legal conclusions

104
00:06:14,440 --> 00:06:17,680
Speaker 1: that the attorney reached. That's not necessarily going to get

105
00:06:17,680 --> 00:06:20,560
Speaker 1: the attorney in hot water unless the advice was just

106
00:06:20,640 --> 00:06:24,159
Speaker 1: so reckless or off base. But where attorneys can run

107
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:28,320
Speaker 1: into trouble are in these situations where either they are

108
00:06:28,360 --> 00:06:31,560
Speaker 1: putting their stamp of approval knowingly on some sort of

109
00:06:31,640 --> 00:06:34,719
Speaker 1: unlawful behavior, or if they're just burying their heads in

110
00:06:34,760 --> 00:06:37,880
Speaker 1: the sands and pretending like it's not going on. And

111
00:06:37,920 --> 00:06:41,520
Speaker 1: so we've seen that in some high profile cases over

112
00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:44,840
Speaker 1: the course of the last decade or so, where attorneys

113
00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:48,680
Speaker 1: may face even criminal penalties, and in one situation where

114
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:51,839
Speaker 1: a tax firm because of the civil penalties that they faced,

115
00:06:51,880 --> 00:06:54,080
Speaker 1: wrapped up in one of those cases that wound up

116
00:06:54,080 --> 00:06:57,480
Speaker 1: going out of business. So a lot of times a

117
00:06:57,560 --> 00:07:01,480
Speaker 1: lawyer will give advice and it pushes the envelope and

118
00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:05,520
Speaker 1: the client says, let's go for it. Is that kind

119
00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:09,280
Speaker 1: of advice testing the limits of the law. Is that

120
00:07:09,360 --> 00:07:13,080
Speaker 1: kind of advice criminal? I'm hesitant to say that it's criminal,

121
00:07:13,120 --> 00:07:16,120
Speaker 1: but it's certainly moving into that gray area where there

122
00:07:16,160 --> 00:07:18,840
Speaker 1: could be some problems. I mean, one person's view of

123
00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:22,560
Speaker 1: what's pushing the envelope and another of what criminal certainly

124
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:26,120
Speaker 1: could be different. And some of the tax law experts

125
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:29,760
Speaker 1: and legal ethics experts say that firms are more and

126
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:34,040
Speaker 1: more aware of these gray areas and more and more

127
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:39,160
Speaker 1: UM unwilling to test them, particularly the larger firms that

128
00:07:39,240 --> 00:07:42,679
Speaker 1: have a lot to risk. We're not talking about taking

129
00:07:42,720 --> 00:07:48,920
Speaker 1: advantage of tax loopholes, correct, UM. Certainly there's nothing wrong

130
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:53,280
Speaker 1: with UM any person or business taking advantage of all

131
00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:56,720
Speaker 1: of the tax benefits and breaks that are available to

132
00:07:56,800 --> 00:08:00,880
Speaker 1: them under the law. In this particular case, what we

133
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:04,640
Speaker 1: know about the allegations is that investigators both the state

134
00:08:04,760 --> 00:08:08,120
Speaker 1: and the city level at the Manhattan d A's office

135
00:08:08,480 --> 00:08:13,440
Speaker 1: are looking into whether the Trump organization violated UH several

136
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 1: laws by really inflating and overvaluing these properties. In order

137
00:08:19,800 --> 00:08:24,120
Speaker 1: to does a lawyer have to report a client if

138
00:08:24,160 --> 00:08:27,680
Speaker 1: he or she suspects the client is doing something illegal

139
00:08:27,800 --> 00:08:33,560
Speaker 1: like inflating assets. There is a that's a very very

140
00:08:33,640 --> 00:08:37,400
Speaker 1: gray area and very largely based on the situation and

141
00:08:37,440 --> 00:08:41,000
Speaker 1: the state that you're in, because you're talking about largely

142
00:08:41,120 --> 00:08:44,959
Speaker 1: state legal ethics rules UM, which vary from state to state.

143
00:08:45,880 --> 00:08:49,920
Speaker 1: But that being said, in recent cases, what you're seeing

144
00:08:50,320 --> 00:08:55,240
Speaker 1: UM is not the firm or the lawyer necessarily reporting

145
00:08:55,280 --> 00:08:58,160
Speaker 1: the client anywhere, but they do have an obligation to

146
00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:03,400
Speaker 1: step down UM and top advising or representing the clients

147
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:08,520
Speaker 1: in particular, and attorneys looking at potential um personal liability

148
00:09:08,640 --> 00:09:11,760
Speaker 1: or ethics charges if they knowingly sign their name to

149
00:09:11,880 --> 00:09:14,240
Speaker 1: something that's filed with the I R. S ors filed

150
00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:17,520
Speaker 1: in court that they know is false or is misleading

151
00:09:17,600 --> 00:09:21,240
Speaker 1: or otherwise violating the law. So who are they bringing

152
00:09:21,320 --> 00:09:26,080
Speaker 1: the charges against them? It doesn't sound like it's criminal charges. Unclear,

153
00:09:26,679 --> 00:09:30,319
Speaker 1: I'll say for now, the both Letitia James, the A. G.

154
00:09:30,559 --> 00:09:35,360
Speaker 1: Her Office, and the Manhattan DA Civans have been um,

155
00:09:35,400 --> 00:09:37,760
Speaker 1: you know, sort of holding their cards close to the

156
00:09:37,840 --> 00:09:41,560
Speaker 1: vest in terms of the details of what they're looking

157
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:46,120
Speaker 1: into and what potential liability either the President or his

158
00:09:46,200 --> 00:09:49,880
Speaker 1: companies may face as a result of that. It seems

159
00:09:49,920 --> 00:09:54,680
Speaker 1: certainly like um everything is is potentially on the table um.

160
00:09:54,720 --> 00:09:58,160
Speaker 1: And it also seems certainly like the president, the former

161
00:09:58,200 --> 00:10:02,160
Speaker 1: president and his companies are the primary target of these probes.

162
00:10:02,400 --> 00:10:07,960
Speaker 1: The lawyers are simply being swept in as those probes playout.

163
00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:11,440
Speaker 1: Because it seems like you have two different factors. You

164
00:10:11,520 --> 00:10:14,400
Speaker 1: keep describing gray areas, and there certainly are a lot

165
00:10:14,440 --> 00:10:17,240
Speaker 1: of gray areas in this where it's even hard to

166
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:20,240
Speaker 1: draw a line. And then on the other side, you

167
00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:24,360
Speaker 1: have these tax rules that are so complex that a

168
00:10:24,480 --> 00:10:29,319
Speaker 1: client by themselves wouldn't be able to in most instances

169
00:10:29,720 --> 00:10:33,240
Speaker 1: come up with these things. They need an expert exactly.

170
00:10:33,240 --> 00:10:36,439
Speaker 1: And you could certainly see why an individual or the

171
00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:39,200
Speaker 1: the person at the company who's signing their name on

172
00:10:39,320 --> 00:10:42,439
Speaker 1: these these tax documents would turn around and say, well,

173
00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:45,040
Speaker 1: I just listened to the advice of my accountants and

174
00:10:45,080 --> 00:10:48,200
Speaker 1: my lawyers. Um. And certainly that would be a hurdle.

175
00:10:49,080 --> 00:10:52,200
Speaker 1: Although that's not a defense, could certainly be a hurdle

176
00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:57,280
Speaker 1: in terms of where these investigations go um probing into

177
00:10:57,320 --> 00:11:01,520
Speaker 1: the Trump organization and the former president. I'm certain that

178
00:11:01,640 --> 00:11:04,640
Speaker 1: the investigators are trying to dig in there and get

179
00:11:04,640 --> 00:11:06,920
Speaker 1: a better sense of who was making the calls on

180
00:11:07,000 --> 00:11:10,520
Speaker 1: these things, who knew what was going on, and there

181
00:11:10,600 --> 00:11:13,679
Speaker 1: was the envelope was being pushed or lines were crossed,

182
00:11:14,400 --> 00:11:17,040
Speaker 1: Who was making that call? And because I take it

183
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:19,760
Speaker 1: because you mentioned a few cases in your story that

184
00:11:19,960 --> 00:11:22,200
Speaker 1: there aren't that many cases that have been brought against

185
00:11:22,320 --> 00:11:26,160
Speaker 1: lawyers in tax matters, that's right. I mean the ones

186
00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:29,120
Speaker 1: that you see are the ones where, UM, folks are

187
00:11:29,120 --> 00:11:31,520
Speaker 1: really caught red handed there, you know, whether it's in

188
00:11:31,559 --> 00:11:34,720
Speaker 1: communications or or they admit to it in cord or

189
00:11:34,720 --> 00:11:39,680
Speaker 1: to investigators where UH lawyers are knowingly violating the law

190
00:11:40,480 --> 00:11:43,480
Speaker 1: to assist that their clients, and those are the sort

191
00:11:43,520 --> 00:11:48,880
Speaker 1: of open and closed cases, UM, and that are easier

192
00:11:48,920 --> 00:11:52,400
Speaker 1: to prosecute. I would assume, and you could see why investigators,

193
00:11:52,440 --> 00:11:55,480
Speaker 1: because there's so much gray area here, UH may not

194
00:11:55,960 --> 00:11:59,600
Speaker 1: to vote resources to those cases where it's unclear, UM,

195
00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:03,080
Speaker 1: you what's legal advice and what's criminal activity. Has any

196
00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:07,640
Speaker 1: lawyer gone to prison over this? Yes? UM, there was

197
00:12:07,840 --> 00:12:11,800
Speaker 1: a lawyer I believe he was at Sidley Austin, and

198
00:12:11,880 --> 00:12:13,760
Speaker 1: he was sentenced to six and a half years in

199
00:12:13,920 --> 00:12:18,520
Speaker 1: prison for writing letters that authorized tax shelters that k

200
00:12:18,760 --> 00:12:22,240
Speaker 1: PMG had created for various wealthy customers. So he did

201
00:12:22,280 --> 00:12:26,280
Speaker 1: six years in jail. UH, and the firm Sidley was

202
00:12:26,360 --> 00:12:29,400
Speaker 1: forced to say more than thirty nine million dollars in

203
00:12:29,440 --> 00:12:32,040
Speaker 1: a civil penalty to the I R. Tell us about

204
00:12:32,120 --> 00:12:35,800
Speaker 1: the timing here. This is all happening at the same

205
00:12:35,840 --> 00:12:40,560
Speaker 1: time that Morgan Lewis is trying to separate itself from

206
00:12:40,600 --> 00:12:43,400
Speaker 1: Trump and the Trump organization as a client. A week

207
00:12:43,520 --> 00:12:46,920
Speaker 1: or two before the judge made this ruling, the firm

208
00:12:47,000 --> 00:12:51,000
Speaker 1: said publicly that it would be no longer representing Trump

209
00:12:51,040 --> 00:12:53,560
Speaker 1: for his companies. Can they just drop a client in

210
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:57,360
Speaker 1: the middle of an investigation? It's not that easy, for sure.

211
00:12:57,440 --> 00:12:59,959
Speaker 1: And I should say that these Morgan Lewis attorneys are

212
00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:03,880
Speaker 1: among a small army of lawyers from various firms that

213
00:13:03,920 --> 00:13:07,760
Speaker 1: are representing Trump contax in a wide range of other matters,

214
00:13:07,760 --> 00:13:10,920
Speaker 1: so he has no shortage of attorneys at his disposal.

215
00:13:11,280 --> 00:13:15,960
Speaker 1: But there are legal and ethical responsibilities in terms of

216
00:13:16,240 --> 00:13:19,199
Speaker 1: a firm extricating itself from a client in the middle

217
00:13:19,240 --> 00:13:23,240
Speaker 1: of an investigation or a court case. So, UM, it's

218
00:13:23,240 --> 00:13:26,240
Speaker 1: not something where they can say, Okay, we're done here. Uh,

219
00:13:26,280 --> 00:13:29,200
Speaker 1: and that's the end of it. There's you know, um

220
00:13:29,240 --> 00:13:32,560
Speaker 1: ethical rules that have to be met, and um, they

221
00:13:32,600 --> 00:13:36,800
Speaker 1: have to make sure that Trump has other council available

222
00:13:36,880 --> 00:13:39,520
Speaker 1: and and that they're checking all the boxes from the

223
00:13:39,640 --> 00:13:43,679
Speaker 1: ethics side. Thanks Chris. That's Christopher op for a Bloomberg

224
00:13:43,800 --> 00:13:47,920
Speaker 1: Law team leader for the Business of Law. I've been

225
00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:51,280
Speaker 1: talking to former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner of

226
00:13:51,360 --> 00:13:55,400
Speaker 1: Carter in English about the unprecedented second impeachment trial of

227
00:13:55,559 --> 00:13:59,640
Speaker 1: former President Donald Trump, seems as if we know the

228
00:14:00,160 --> 00:14:05,680
Speaker 1: come already, what's the point. Well, that is a great question,

229
00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:09,400
Speaker 1: and that highlights the fact that that an impeachment in

230
00:14:09,440 --> 00:14:13,080
Speaker 1: the House followed by a trial in the Senate looks

231
00:14:13,120 --> 00:14:16,640
Speaker 1: a lot like a criminal trial, but in many respects

232
00:14:16,679 --> 00:14:19,680
Speaker 1: it's nothing like it at all. In fact, an impeachment

233
00:14:19,720 --> 00:14:25,080
Speaker 1: process is really a purely political process. For example, if

234
00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:28,440
Speaker 1: this were to be a criminal trial and jurors were

235
00:14:28,440 --> 00:14:31,920
Speaker 1: to have already announced that they were inclined to either

236
00:14:32,000 --> 00:14:34,920
Speaker 1: convict or a quit a defendant, they would not even

237
00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:38,160
Speaker 1: be permitted to sit on that jury. But in this case,

238
00:14:38,520 --> 00:14:40,520
Speaker 1: the jurors are members of the United States said it,

239
00:14:40,640 --> 00:14:44,160
Speaker 1: many of whom have already announced that they were leaning

240
00:14:44,240 --> 00:14:48,480
Speaker 1: either towards conviction or acquittal. Some have maintained that they're

241
00:14:48,480 --> 00:14:51,040
Speaker 1: going to keep an open mind, but in this case,

242
00:14:51,400 --> 00:14:54,640
Speaker 1: it seems that the outcome is preordained. There was emotion

243
00:14:54,760 --> 00:14:59,560
Speaker 1: presented by Senator brand Paul already before this process has

244
00:14:59,560 --> 00:15:02,600
Speaker 1: already be gone, in which senators voted on the question

245
00:15:02,680 --> 00:15:06,320
Speaker 1: of whether or not this impeachment trial was even constitutional

246
00:15:06,360 --> 00:15:09,680
Speaker 1: to begin with. The argument was that to cause President

247
00:15:09,680 --> 00:15:14,520
Speaker 1: Trump is no longer sitting president, that this impeachment is unconstitutional,

248
00:15:14,560 --> 00:15:17,840
Speaker 1: And there were enough Republican senators forty five of them

249
00:15:17,880 --> 00:15:21,600
Speaker 1: in fact, who already voted in favor of that motion,

250
00:15:21,840 --> 00:15:25,320
Speaker 1: that suggests that they are disinclined to vote for conviction

251
00:15:25,520 --> 00:15:29,600
Speaker 1: based upon this argument that the entire process is unconstitutional

252
00:15:29,840 --> 00:15:33,240
Speaker 1: at this point. So it does seem that unless there

253
00:15:33,320 --> 00:15:36,480
Speaker 1: is a huge shift in opinion on the part of

254
00:15:36,520 --> 00:15:39,800
Speaker 1: the Republican senator's very unlikely we're going to see a

255
00:15:39,800 --> 00:15:42,280
Speaker 1: conviction at the end of this process. So the first

256
00:15:42,360 --> 00:15:45,160
Speaker 1: day is going to be devoted to arguments about the

257
00:15:45,200 --> 00:15:49,240
Speaker 1: constitutionality of having an impeachment trial when a president is

258
00:15:49,280 --> 00:15:52,200
Speaker 1: out of office, and we can expect the vote to

259
00:15:52,240 --> 00:15:57,360
Speaker 1: be similar to that taken after Rand Paul's argument. So

260
00:15:57,400 --> 00:16:01,400
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, the actual trial will start. Reportedly, the house

261
00:16:01,440 --> 00:16:04,560
Speaker 1: managers have learned from last time, and they're going to

262
00:16:04,600 --> 00:16:09,920
Speaker 1: have a much more concise and shorter presentation, heavy on video.

263
00:16:10,000 --> 00:16:14,000
Speaker 1: What are you expecting to see? Reportedly, the house managers

264
00:16:14,440 --> 00:16:17,360
Speaker 1: have learned from the last time, and they're going to

265
00:16:17,480 --> 00:16:22,160
Speaker 1: have a much shorter presentation, heavy on video. What do

266
00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:24,880
Speaker 1: we know about what they might do here. I think

267
00:16:24,880 --> 00:16:28,040
Speaker 1: we're going to see the House managers having learned quite

268
00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:30,840
Speaker 1: a bit from the first impeachment trial, which went on

269
00:16:31,000 --> 00:16:34,480
Speaker 1: for almost three weeks, and many people, including members of

270
00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:37,200
Speaker 1: the Senate who stat through that trial found much of

271
00:16:37,200 --> 00:16:42,160
Speaker 1: the presentation repetitive and uninteresting. In this case, I think

272
00:16:42,240 --> 00:16:44,920
Speaker 1: we're going to see something entirely different. This is going

273
00:16:44,960 --> 00:16:48,640
Speaker 1: to be a video heavy presentation. It's going to be

274
00:16:49,200 --> 00:16:52,320
Speaker 1: very visual, and there's going to be a reliance on

275
00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:56,520
Speaker 1: primary source material as opposed to witness testimony. So what

276
00:16:56,560 --> 00:16:59,320
Speaker 1: I mean by that is instead of having videos of

277
00:16:59,400 --> 00:17:03,240
Speaker 1: individual who testified before House committees, we're going to see

278
00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:09,040
Speaker 1: the presentations by House managers here largely replaying actual clips

279
00:17:09,080 --> 00:17:13,960
Speaker 1: of President Trumps giving speeches, of President Trump tweeting out comments,

280
00:17:14,359 --> 00:17:17,200
Speaker 1: and that is going to be the focus of their case.

281
00:17:17,520 --> 00:17:20,000
Speaker 1: They are going to try to build this case around

282
00:17:20,119 --> 00:17:24,840
Speaker 1: President Trump's own words and own tweets. It seems like

283
00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:29,840
Speaker 1: the problem is going to be connecting his words to

284
00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:34,840
Speaker 1: his supporters actually storming the capital. I think we we're

285
00:17:34,840 --> 00:17:37,800
Speaker 1: going to see here is a presentation that takes the

286
00:17:37,880 --> 00:17:41,879
Speaker 1: Senate chronologically through the month long build up to the

287
00:17:42,000 --> 00:17:45,680
Speaker 1: January six storming of the Capital. They're going to try

288
00:17:45,720 --> 00:17:49,159
Speaker 1: to replay all the speeches, all of the comments, all

289
00:17:49,200 --> 00:17:52,840
Speaker 1: of the tweets that were made by President Trump challenging

290
00:17:53,119 --> 00:17:57,520
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of the election, challenging the outcome of the

291
00:17:57,640 --> 00:18:01,320
Speaker 1: voting process, and then they are going to build to

292
00:18:01,400 --> 00:18:05,280
Speaker 1: the presentation of Presidents Frump speaking outside the White House

293
00:18:05,400 --> 00:18:09,000
Speaker 1: only hours before the mob overtook the police and invaded

294
00:18:09,040 --> 00:18:12,000
Speaker 1: the Capitol building. They're going to key, in particular on

295
00:18:12,080 --> 00:18:15,600
Speaker 1: the President's comments his supporters to fight like hell and

296
00:18:15,720 --> 00:18:19,040
Speaker 1: march to the capital and confront Congress when Congress was

297
00:18:19,119 --> 00:18:22,960
Speaker 1: at that point certifying the election. The challenge for House

298
00:18:23,040 --> 00:18:26,840
Speaker 1: managers here is whether or not they can convince any

299
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:32,200
Speaker 1: number of Republican Senators that it was foreseeable based upon

300
00:18:32,280 --> 00:18:36,800
Speaker 1: the president's comments that this insurrection should happen. It all

301
00:18:36,960 --> 00:18:39,879
Speaker 1: changes on the question of what was the President's intent

302
00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:44,080
Speaker 1: and was it foreseeable that this violence would erupt based

303
00:18:44,160 --> 00:18:47,360
Speaker 1: upon his language. That is going to be the challenge here,

304
00:18:47,560 --> 00:18:49,159
Speaker 1: and at the end of the day, it's going to

305
00:18:49,200 --> 00:18:53,800
Speaker 1: be difficult to convince the number of Republican senators seventeens

306
00:18:53,920 --> 00:18:57,040
Speaker 1: in order to gain a convintion. But let's remember also

307
00:18:57,480 --> 00:19:02,240
Speaker 1: that this impeachment process and this Peachman trial is largely

308
00:19:02,400 --> 00:19:06,880
Speaker 1: aimed at public opinion. House managers know that it's unlikely

309
00:19:06,920 --> 00:19:09,080
Speaker 1: they're going to get a conviction here, and so what

310
00:19:09,119 --> 00:19:12,280
Speaker 1: they're really trying to do is create a record for

311
00:19:12,440 --> 00:19:16,520
Speaker 1: the public to consume as they watch the events leading

312
00:19:16,600 --> 00:19:21,040
Speaker 1: up to January six unfold again during this trial, all

313
00:19:21,040 --> 00:19:25,200
Speaker 1: indications are that they're not going to call witnesses. Does

314
00:19:25,240 --> 00:19:29,680
Speaker 1: it leave something out of the presentation if you don't

315
00:19:29,720 --> 00:19:35,679
Speaker 1: have witnesses talking about what President Trump's reaction to the

316
00:19:35,800 --> 00:19:39,919
Speaker 1: riot was and his failure to take quick action to

317
00:19:40,000 --> 00:19:44,320
Speaker 1: stop the riot. Well, it's interesting because some of the

318
00:19:44,440 --> 00:19:47,439
Speaker 1: key witnesses in this trial are actually the members of

319
00:19:47,440 --> 00:19:51,240
Speaker 1: the Senate themselves, who leaves through the events of January six.

320
00:19:51,640 --> 00:19:54,200
Speaker 1: So that's another way in which this is a very

321
00:19:54,280 --> 00:19:57,879
Speaker 1: unusual trial. Typically, if this were to be a criminal trial,

322
00:19:57,920 --> 00:20:00,840
Speaker 1: for example, you would never have somebody sitting as a

323
00:20:00,960 --> 00:20:04,240
Speaker 1: juror who is actually also a witness. But here we

324
00:20:04,320 --> 00:20:06,800
Speaker 1: have all of the members of the Senate who sat

325
00:20:06,840 --> 00:20:09,960
Speaker 1: through the events of January six and witnessed the events

326
00:20:10,040 --> 00:20:13,800
Speaker 1: unfolding in real time before their very eyes. But what's

327
00:20:13,880 --> 00:20:18,679
Speaker 1: missing here is direct evidence of President Trump's reaction to

328
00:20:18,760 --> 00:20:21,879
Speaker 1: these events. We know that he was slow to ask

329
00:20:21,920 --> 00:20:25,280
Speaker 1: the rioters, the people who had overtaken the police and

330
00:20:25,359 --> 00:20:29,040
Speaker 1: taken control of the Capitol building to leave, but other

331
00:20:29,119 --> 00:20:32,080
Speaker 1: than that, there isn't a lot of evidence that shows

332
00:20:32,359 --> 00:20:37,119
Speaker 1: president state of mind while these rioters had stormed the

333
00:20:37,160 --> 00:20:43,919
Speaker 1: Capitol Building. There is some indication that the president's lawyers

334
00:20:43,960 --> 00:20:48,720
Speaker 1: may use video from Democrats talking to crowds, trying to,

335
00:20:48,800 --> 00:20:52,960
Speaker 1: I guess, replicate the idea of riling up a crowd,

336
00:20:53,040 --> 00:20:57,280
Speaker 1: But does that have any bearing here. There is a

337
00:20:57,320 --> 00:21:01,800
Speaker 1: possibility that in the president's offense, you're going to see

338
00:21:01,920 --> 00:21:07,280
Speaker 1: his lawyers find examples of Democrats giving speeches that they

339
00:21:07,320 --> 00:21:11,439
Speaker 1: will argue, we're equally incendiary. In other words, they're going

340
00:21:11,480 --> 00:21:15,439
Speaker 1: to argue that Democrats in other contexts gave speeches to

341
00:21:15,520 --> 00:21:18,919
Speaker 1: their supporters that were just as fiery, that were just

342
00:21:18,960 --> 00:21:23,239
Speaker 1: as incendiary, and in those cases nobody said anything, and

343
00:21:23,280 --> 00:21:26,680
Speaker 1: they were not responsible for any violence that may have ensued.

344
00:21:26,920 --> 00:21:29,840
Speaker 1: In this case, there was violence of a different sort.

345
00:21:29,960 --> 00:21:32,440
Speaker 1: There was the storming of the capital. But the point

346
00:21:32,480 --> 00:21:35,040
Speaker 1: that the president's lawyers will be trying to make here

347
00:21:35,800 --> 00:21:39,400
Speaker 1: is that the president was not responsible for that conduct

348
00:21:39,720 --> 00:21:44,000
Speaker 1: because it was, in some substance not all that different

349
00:21:44,160 --> 00:21:47,720
Speaker 1: from the same type of language that Democrats used in

350
00:21:47,800 --> 00:21:52,280
Speaker 1: trying to speak to their base of supporters. Another constitutional

351
00:21:52,359 --> 00:21:56,120
Speaker 1: argument the defense is going to use is that Trump

352
00:21:56,160 --> 00:21:59,720
Speaker 1: had the First Amendment right to make the speech that

353
00:21:59,800 --> 00:22:03,359
Speaker 1: he did. Is that a strong or weak argument in

354
00:22:03,400 --> 00:22:07,800
Speaker 1: your opinion? Well, it's really not a case about First

355
00:22:07,840 --> 00:22:11,760
Speaker 1: Amendment right. It's a case about whether it was foreseeable

356
00:22:12,119 --> 00:22:15,679
Speaker 1: that this insurrection would have resulted as a result of

357
00:22:15,720 --> 00:22:19,760
Speaker 1: the words that were spoken. One of the interesting issues

358
00:22:19,800 --> 00:22:23,040
Speaker 1: that we may see unfold in terms of the president's

359
00:22:23,040 --> 00:22:27,280
Speaker 1: defense team is how they handle the president's claims about

360
00:22:27,400 --> 00:22:30,480
Speaker 1: election fraud and that the results of the election were

361
00:22:30,520 --> 00:22:35,000
Speaker 1: stolen from him. That's a highly controversial area that Republicans

362
00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:37,200
Speaker 1: in the Senate do not want to see as the

363
00:22:37,320 --> 00:22:41,800
Speaker 1: centerpiece of that defense. So far, the defense lawyers have

364
00:22:41,960 --> 00:22:45,040
Speaker 1: handled that in a very delicate way by arguing that

365
00:22:45,080 --> 00:22:48,560
Speaker 1: there was quote unquote insufficient evidence it true that the

366
00:22:48,600 --> 00:22:52,080
Speaker 1: president's claims about election fraud were fall So in some

367
00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:54,840
Speaker 1: ways they're trying to thread the needle there by not

368
00:22:54,960 --> 00:22:58,679
Speaker 1: taking on that issue directly, which is something that Senate

369
00:22:58,680 --> 00:23:02,399
Speaker 1: Republicans do not want to see as a centerpiece of

370
00:23:02,440 --> 00:23:05,600
Speaker 1: the President's defense, but at the same time not leaving

371
00:23:05,640 --> 00:23:10,159
Speaker 1: it out altogether, which is something that former President Trump

372
00:23:10,480 --> 00:23:14,480
Speaker 1: legedly feel strongly about. In the brief that the defense

373
00:23:14,640 --> 00:23:19,160
Speaker 1: filed today, their final brief before trial, they really made

374
00:23:19,160 --> 00:23:22,480
Speaker 1: a political argument against the Democrats as well. They said

375
00:23:22,560 --> 00:23:26,080
Speaker 1: that this was an act of political theater and that

376
00:23:26,160 --> 00:23:29,520
Speaker 1: the Democrats were exploiting the chaos and trauma of the

377
00:23:29,600 --> 00:23:34,879
Speaker 1: Capitol riot just continuing their attacks on Trump. Is that

378
00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:36,920
Speaker 1: a good argument to make in a case like this

379
00:23:37,359 --> 00:23:41,080
Speaker 1: to blame the prosecution basically, But what they're trying to

380
00:23:41,240 --> 00:23:44,560
Speaker 1: argue is that the Democrats are trying to take political

381
00:23:44,640 --> 00:23:49,440
Speaker 1: advantage of this very unfortunate event that costs the line

382
00:23:50,040 --> 00:23:53,760
Speaker 1: of five Americans when individual store in the Capitol building.

383
00:23:54,040 --> 00:23:56,800
Speaker 1: And in a sense they are correct and that this

384
00:23:57,080 --> 00:24:00,520
Speaker 1: is a political process. But I think that argument is

385
00:24:00,560 --> 00:24:03,919
Speaker 1: going to get overwhelmed by the visual evidence of the

386
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:08,160
Speaker 1: events of the day, showing these people storming the building,

387
00:24:08,480 --> 00:24:11,679
Speaker 1: pushing past Capitol police officers. That is going to be

388
00:24:11,760 --> 00:24:14,760
Speaker 1: something that is gonna be very difficult to rebut and

389
00:24:14,960 --> 00:24:18,040
Speaker 1: trying to suggest that this is all about politics, I

390
00:24:18,040 --> 00:24:21,040
Speaker 1: think is probably not going to be a particularly persuasive

391
00:24:21,160 --> 00:24:23,600
Speaker 1: argument for those people who are going to watch this

392
00:24:23,720 --> 00:24:26,960
Speaker 1: trial unfold on television. Do you think that it's an

393
00:24:27,040 --> 00:24:32,000
Speaker 1: uphill battle to prove Trump's intent? If this were a

394
00:24:32,000 --> 00:24:34,919
Speaker 1: criminal trial, would they be able to prove his intent

395
00:24:35,040 --> 00:24:38,760
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, that is a great question,

396
00:24:39,240 --> 00:24:42,119
Speaker 1: But remember it's not a criminal trial here until the

397
00:24:42,280 --> 00:24:47,639
Speaker 1: standards that ultimately senators will use to either convict or

398
00:24:47,680 --> 00:24:50,920
Speaker 1: a quit here, or whatever they feel in their heart,

399
00:24:51,000 --> 00:24:53,600
Speaker 1: in their soul as they look at this evidence is

400
00:24:53,640 --> 00:24:56,600
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. There is no legal standard

401
00:24:56,920 --> 00:25:00,920
Speaker 1: by which senators will judge either the guilt or innocent

402
00:25:01,000 --> 00:25:04,639
Speaker 1: of the president in this case. It seems that both

403
00:25:04,680 --> 00:25:10,000
Speaker 1: sides want this to be a really quick trial, about

404
00:25:10,000 --> 00:25:12,560
Speaker 1: a week long. Is that too short to get all

405
00:25:12,640 --> 00:25:15,280
Speaker 1: this in and in a week? A week would be

406
00:25:15,320 --> 00:25:20,800
Speaker 1: an unprecedented impeachment trial. Remember that President Trump's first impeachment

407
00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:24,320
Speaker 1: trial lasted three weeks. And this is of course the

408
00:25:24,320 --> 00:25:26,920
Speaker 1: first time that any president in US history has been

409
00:25:26,960 --> 00:25:30,400
Speaker 1: impeached twice. So this is going to be a very

410
00:25:30,480 --> 00:25:36,920
Speaker 1: abbreviated trial. It's going to be mostly visual and video testimony,

411
00:25:37,119 --> 00:25:39,879
Speaker 1: and in the end, both sides want to see this

412
00:25:40,040 --> 00:25:43,719
Speaker 1: over as quickly as possible for their own reasons. Democrats

413
00:25:43,800 --> 00:25:46,760
Speaker 1: don't want to be seen as overdoing this case. They

414
00:25:46,760 --> 00:25:49,800
Speaker 1: were in some ways criticized during the first minute impeachment

415
00:25:49,800 --> 00:25:53,520
Speaker 1: trial for giving a case that went on longer than

416
00:25:53,560 --> 00:25:56,760
Speaker 1: it should have, it lost the public's interest in some ways,

417
00:25:56,840 --> 00:26:00,440
Speaker 1: and was very repetitive, and other proportions of their presentation here.

418
00:26:00,480 --> 00:26:02,960
Speaker 1: They want something that's going to be riveting, that's going

419
00:26:03,000 --> 00:26:06,800
Speaker 1: to be very cinematic, almost Hollywood like, something that they

420
00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:11,880
Speaker 1: will hope that the public will watch closely for one week. Republicans,

421
00:26:11,880 --> 00:26:14,240
Speaker 1: on the other hand, also want to have this over

422
00:26:14,600 --> 00:26:17,600
Speaker 1: as soon as possible because they would like to get

423
00:26:17,640 --> 00:26:22,040
Speaker 1: this behind them and move on. Some Republicans want to

424
00:26:22,080 --> 00:26:23,959
Speaker 1: move on to what they hope will be a post

425
00:26:24,040 --> 00:26:29,920
Speaker 1: Trump Republican party. Others are continuing to build their future

426
00:26:30,240 --> 00:26:33,320
Speaker 1: around Trump Party. So we'll just have to see how

427
00:26:33,320 --> 00:26:36,920
Speaker 1: that plays out for Republicans. Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints

428
00:26:36,960 --> 00:26:39,680
Speaker 1: of McCarter and English, and that's it for the edition

429
00:26:39,720 --> 00:26:42,800
Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Lawn Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so

430
00:26:42,880 --> 00:26:45,480
Speaker 1: much for listening, and remember you can always get the

431
00:26:45,520 --> 00:26:48,680
Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can

432
00:26:48,720 --> 00:26:52,200
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get

433
00:26:52,240 --> 00:27:01,040
Speaker 1: your favorite podcasts. You're listening to Bloomburn