1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:08,440
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio

2
00:00:09,840 --> 00:00:10,520
Speaker 1: on immunity.

3
00:00:10,600 --> 00:00:13,760
Speaker 2: Very simple. If a president of the United States does

4
00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:17,479
Speaker 2: not have immunity, he'll be totally ineffective because he won't

5
00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:19,759
Speaker 2: be able to do anything, because it will mean he'll

6
00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:24,239
Speaker 2: be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted, perhaps as soon as he leaves

7
00:00:24,280 --> 00:00:26,280
Speaker 2: office by the opposing party.

8
00:00:26,720 --> 00:00:29,320
Speaker 3: Donald Trump has been arguing in and out of the

9
00:00:29,360 --> 00:00:33,199
Speaker 3: court room that he has absolute presidential immunity from criminal

10
00:00:33,280 --> 00:00:36,400
Speaker 3: charges that he plotted to overturn the twenty twenty election.

11
00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:37,360
Speaker 4: The d C.

12
00:00:37,560 --> 00:00:42,040
Speaker 3: Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous opinion, categorically rejected

13
00:00:42,040 --> 00:00:45,680
Speaker 3: that argument, but Trump is now asking the Supreme Court

14
00:00:45,840 --> 00:00:49,440
Speaker 3: to intervene. Trump wants the justices to put that DC

15
00:00:49,640 --> 00:00:53,320
Speaker 3: opinion on hold while he appeals it, which will continue

16
00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:57,240
Speaker 3: to delay his criminal trial for election interference. It was

17
00:00:57,280 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 3: the second time in less than a week that Trump

18
00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:02,560
Speaker 3: has else the Justice is to intervene in a major

19
00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:06,120
Speaker 3: case that would smooth the road for his presidential campaign.

20
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:10,280
Speaker 3: The Justices are already considering whether states can bar him

21
00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:13,360
Speaker 3: from this year's presidential ballot because of his role in

22
00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:17,000
Speaker 3: the January sixth Capital riot. Joining me is Dave Ahrenberg,

23
00:01:17,080 --> 00:01:20,039
Speaker 3: Palm Beach County State Attorney. Dave, what was your general

24
00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:23,360
Speaker 3: impression of Trump's application to the Supreme Court.

25
00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:23,679
Speaker 4: For a stay.

26
00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:27,959
Speaker 1: I thought the application for a stay was pretty weak.

27
00:01:28,480 --> 00:01:32,039
Speaker 1: For example, he cited as a reason for the Supreme

28
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:36,959
Speaker 1: Court to grant a stay that his own supporter's First

29
00:01:36,959 --> 00:01:39,920
Speaker 1: AMMA rights would be taken away, and that doesn't make

30
00:01:39,920 --> 00:01:43,679
Speaker 1: any sense. First off, Trump is the descendant, not his supporters.

31
00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:47,160
Speaker 1: And although he likes to nationalize everything, where he makes

32
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:50,040
Speaker 1: any attack on him an attack on the country or

33
00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:52,880
Speaker 1: the MAGA universe. It may play in the court of

34
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:55,400
Speaker 1: public opinion in the far right wing media, but not

35
00:01:55,600 --> 00:01:57,680
Speaker 1: in a court of law. So you cannot go to

36
00:01:57,760 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court and say I have a ruppable harm.

37
00:02:00,640 --> 00:02:03,200
Speaker 1: You must give me a stay, because if you don't

38
00:02:03,200 --> 00:02:06,400
Speaker 1: give me a stay, you're going to violate my supporter's

39
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:10,760
Speaker 1: First Amendments rights to choose who they want as president. No,

40
00:02:11,240 --> 00:02:15,520
Speaker 1: that's ridiculous. Nothing stops your supporters from voting for you.

41
00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:17,960
Speaker 1: You can even be elected from a jail cell. So

42
00:02:18,080 --> 00:02:21,000
Speaker 1: I think the Supreme Court is going to reject this

43
00:02:21,160 --> 00:02:23,520
Speaker 1: request for a stay. You need five justices to go

44
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:25,320
Speaker 1: along with it, and I don't think he's going to

45
00:02:25,320 --> 00:02:28,440
Speaker 1: get that. And if I'm right, that means this case

46
00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:31,440
Speaker 1: will be sent back to the DC Court and it'll

47
00:02:31,480 --> 00:02:34,360
Speaker 1: be game on for Judge Chuckin and Jacksmith, and that

48
00:02:34,520 --> 00:02:38,400
Speaker 1: trial for election interference will be heard before the election.

49
00:02:38,960 --> 00:02:41,639
Speaker 3: Let's talk about some of the arguments that Trump made

50
00:02:41,639 --> 00:02:45,600
Speaker 3: in his application at the Circuit Court. He had argued

51
00:02:45,639 --> 00:02:51,040
Speaker 3: that former presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution. And we've

52
00:02:51,080 --> 00:02:55,480
Speaker 3: all heard by now Judge Florence Penn's hypothetical about a

53
00:02:55,520 --> 00:03:00,040
Speaker 3: president ordering sealed Team six to assassinate a rival, and

54
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:03,160
Speaker 3: he didn't seem to retreat from that argument in the

55
00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:04,359
Speaker 3: Supreme Court filing.

56
00:03:04,880 --> 00:03:06,680
Speaker 1: Yeah, they tried to nuance it a little bit, but

57
00:03:06,720 --> 00:03:08,880
Speaker 1: that is a sure loser. I mean, presidents don't have

58
00:03:08,919 --> 00:03:12,959
Speaker 1: absolute immunity. It's ludicrous to think that you could assassinate

59
00:03:12,960 --> 00:03:16,560
Speaker 1: your political rival. And unless you are impeached by the

60
00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:19,480
Speaker 1: House and convicted by the Senate, then you get away

61
00:03:19,520 --> 00:03:21,639
Speaker 1: scott free. That you can't be charged, You get a

62
00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:24,560
Speaker 1: get out of jail free card. Then just change the

63
00:03:24,560 --> 00:03:27,200
Speaker 1: title of president to king, because that's what we would have.

64
00:03:27,480 --> 00:03:29,960
Speaker 1: But there's a reason why we left the crown many

65
00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:32,320
Speaker 1: years ago, because we don't have a king. We have

66
00:03:32,400 --> 00:03:34,920
Speaker 1: a rule of law and applies to everyone. And the

67
00:03:35,040 --> 00:03:38,280
Speaker 1: DC Circuit Court of Appeals understood that they ruled unanimously

68
00:03:38,640 --> 00:03:40,680
Speaker 1: against Trump, and the Supreme Course is not going to

69
00:03:40,680 --> 00:03:43,440
Speaker 1: accept that argument either. Now, could they take the case

70
00:03:43,520 --> 00:03:47,040
Speaker 1: grant search which only requires four justices not five, and

71
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:50,880
Speaker 1: review the matter and issue a ruling to clarify the

72
00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:54,680
Speaker 1: law of immunity in certain cases. Sure, I could see

73
00:03:54,680 --> 00:03:57,840
Speaker 1: that happening, But I don't see them granting a stay here,

74
00:03:58,400 --> 00:04:00,400
Speaker 1: which would make it a lot harder to try Trump

75
00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:03,600
Speaker 1: before the election. So that's my best guess now. I think,

76
00:04:03,880 --> 00:04:05,760
Speaker 1: on the other hand, when it comes to the other

77
00:04:05,840 --> 00:04:08,680
Speaker 1: case of whether Trump can make the ballot and call

78
00:04:08,800 --> 00:04:10,360
Speaker 1: out in other states, I think they're going to rule

79
00:04:10,360 --> 00:04:12,400
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly for Trump. So I think this is a little

80
00:04:12,440 --> 00:04:14,040
Speaker 1: bit of a give and take. They're going to rule

81
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:15,840
Speaker 1: for Trump that he can stay on the ballot, but

82
00:04:16,000 --> 00:04:17,640
Speaker 1: against Trump here. That's my prediction.

83
00:04:18,040 --> 00:04:21,000
Speaker 3: His counsel said. The Special Council seeks urgently to force

84
00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:23,680
Speaker 3: President Trump into a month's long criminal trial at the

85
00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:28,120
Speaker 3: height of campaign season, effectively sidelining him and preventing him

86
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:31,240
Speaker 3: from campaigning against the current president. I mean, is that

87
00:04:31,320 --> 00:04:34,760
Speaker 3: his new argument that he shouldn't even face trial before

88
00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:37,320
Speaker 3: the election. Is he somehow swinging for the fences.

89
00:04:37,760 --> 00:04:39,400
Speaker 1: Yeah, he wants you to believe he's out there on

90
00:04:39,440 --> 00:04:42,280
Speaker 1: a bus tour around the country, going from town to town,

91
00:04:42,400 --> 00:04:46,680
Speaker 1: shaking hands, kissing babies. No, he's usually just campaigning from

92
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:49,840
Speaker 1: man A Lago on his true social media site, and

93
00:04:49,920 --> 00:04:52,200
Speaker 1: so this doesn't stop him from campaigning. He can be

94
00:04:52,200 --> 00:04:54,800
Speaker 1: in a trial and still do his campaigning and that

95
00:04:54,880 --> 00:04:57,520
Speaker 1: won't have an effect. We could also say that going

96
00:04:57,560 --> 00:05:00,400
Speaker 1: through a trial and having a verdict actually helps the

97
00:05:00,400 --> 00:05:02,680
Speaker 1: public because most of the public in polls show that

98
00:05:02,760 --> 00:05:05,720
Speaker 1: they want to know the results of this case because

99
00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:07,960
Speaker 1: it will help them give them more information on whom

100
00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:10,840
Speaker 1: to vote for. If he found guilty, that is important

101
00:05:10,880 --> 00:05:14,200
Speaker 1: to voters. If he's acquitted, that will be important to voters.

102
00:05:14,720 --> 00:05:17,160
Speaker 1: But if this is stalled till pass the election, the

103
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:19,680
Speaker 1: voters won't get the information they need to make a

104
00:05:19,720 --> 00:05:23,800
Speaker 1: fully informed decision on perhaps the most consequential election of

105
00:05:23,880 --> 00:05:27,320
Speaker 1: our lifetimes. So I think that argument doesn't hold water. Also,

106
00:05:27,360 --> 00:05:30,479
Speaker 1: he's the one who's making this political Jack Smith and

107
00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:32,880
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland don't want to bring up politics in this

108
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:35,680
Speaker 1: They want to stay above the political phrase. So Jack

109
00:05:35,680 --> 00:05:38,279
Speaker 1: Smith has not specifically mentioned that we need to get

110
00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:41,039
Speaker 1: going sooner than later because there's an election coming up.

111
00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:44,279
Speaker 1: He doesn't want to mention the E word. But Trump

112
00:05:44,400 --> 00:05:47,039
Speaker 1: is because when it comes to election interference, he is

113
00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:50,159
Speaker 1: trying to use that to delay his case. He's the

114
00:05:50,160 --> 00:05:52,279
Speaker 1: one who's using the election to try to get away

115
00:05:52,320 --> 00:05:54,160
Speaker 1: with this because he doesn't have a better defense than

116
00:05:54,279 --> 00:05:55,239
Speaker 1: delayed delay delay.

117
00:05:55,480 --> 00:05:57,400
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that was one thing actually, I thought that

118
00:05:57,720 --> 00:06:01,279
Speaker 3: rang true in their application. But Jack Smith has not

119
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:06,240
Speaker 3: specifically said why it's so important that this case go

120
00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:09,320
Speaker 3: forward so quickly. Do you think he has to do

121
00:06:09,360 --> 00:06:10,320
Speaker 3: that at some point?

122
00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:13,120
Speaker 1: Yeah, It's like Jack Smith doesn't want to break the code.

123
00:06:13,360 --> 00:06:15,960
Speaker 1: He and Merrick Jarland are so nervous about being seen

124
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:18,680
Speaker 1: as political that they don't want to mention the E word. No, no, no,

125
00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:21,640
Speaker 1: don't mention it. Just pretend that it doesn't exist. But

126
00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:24,200
Speaker 1: you can't. This is why the Supreme Court refused to

127
00:06:24,560 --> 00:06:27,640
Speaker 1: intervene originally. Remember Jack Smith went to the Supreme Court

128
00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:32,400
Speaker 1: originally on this matter to say, please intervene. You can bigfoot,

129
00:06:32,480 --> 00:06:34,520
Speaker 1: the DC Circuit Court Appeals. We don't have to go

130
00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:36,880
Speaker 1: through those middlemen. Why don't you just do it now?

131
00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:39,320
Speaker 1: But the reason why the Supreme Court said no is

132
00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:43,000
Speaker 1: because jack Smith never told them why this is such

133
00:06:43,320 --> 00:06:46,119
Speaker 1: an emergency. And the real emergency is because there's an election.

134
00:06:46,160 --> 00:06:48,200
Speaker 1: But Jack Smith doesn't want to acknowledge there's an election

135
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:50,719
Speaker 1: coming up. So the Supreme Court said, eh, then there's

136
00:06:50,720 --> 00:06:53,280
Speaker 1: no emergency. Unless you want to say the magic words,

137
00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:55,840
Speaker 1: we're not going to give you the relief. So it's

138
00:06:55,920 --> 00:06:58,960
Speaker 1: interesting now now Jacksmith is telling the Supreme Court don't

139
00:06:58,960 --> 00:07:01,840
Speaker 1: get involved. You know, maybe the best argument Trump has

140
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:04,039
Speaker 1: is that Jack Smith went to you urging you to

141
00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:06,400
Speaker 1: get involved just a short time ago. Now he doesn't

142
00:07:06,400 --> 00:07:08,600
Speaker 1: want you to get involved. So that's a contradiction.

143
00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:09,360
Speaker 4: Yeah.

144
00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:13,320
Speaker 3: Smith had argued that it was of imperative public importance

145
00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:16,360
Speaker 3: that the Supreme Court be the one to resolve Trump's

146
00:07:16,360 --> 00:07:19,440
Speaker 3: immunity claims. So I don't know how he's going to

147
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 3: handle that when he files his papers.

148
00:07:22,560 --> 00:07:24,120
Speaker 1: Well, the way to do it is just to say

149
00:07:24,320 --> 00:07:26,840
Speaker 1: the DC Certain Court of Appeals opinion, which took a

150
00:07:26,880 --> 00:07:30,200
Speaker 1: lot longer than people's thought. He's very thorough, very strong.

151
00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:33,040
Speaker 1: Just defer to that. You don't need to go through this,

152
00:07:33,520 --> 00:07:36,040
Speaker 1: just defer to what they just did. You don't need

153
00:07:36,120 --> 00:07:39,119
Speaker 1: to go any further. You don't need to recreate the wheel.

154
00:07:39,800 --> 00:07:42,120
Speaker 1: And that may work. The Supreme Court is a busy

155
00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:45,000
Speaker 1: institution and maybe they don't want to step into this

156
00:07:45,080 --> 00:07:47,920
Speaker 1: anymore than they have to, and they can just deny Cirt,

157
00:07:48,440 --> 00:07:51,360
Speaker 1: deny the state, and let things play out.

158
00:07:51,880 --> 00:07:55,800
Speaker 3: Trump also asks for a step that could produce additional delay.

159
00:07:56,320 --> 00:07:59,880
Speaker 3: He requests that the Justice's granted stay and hold off

160
00:08:00,040 --> 00:08:03,679
Speaker 3: any further action until the DC Circuit Court decides whether

161
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:06,760
Speaker 3: to reconsider the case on bank, meaning in front of

162
00:08:06,760 --> 00:08:10,560
Speaker 3: the court's full eleven judge bench. But he would have

163
00:08:10,640 --> 00:08:13,600
Speaker 3: to petition the DC Circuit Court for an on bank hearing,

164
00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:16,240
Speaker 3: and that's rare and they probably wouldn't grant it in

165
00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:19,520
Speaker 3: light of the comprehensive opinion by the three judge panel.

166
00:08:19,960 --> 00:08:22,200
Speaker 1: This is an example of Trump wanting to have it

167
00:08:22,200 --> 00:08:25,000
Speaker 1: both ways. He wants to have both pie and ice

168
00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:28,640
Speaker 1: cream for dessert, and that's maybe that's not the buffet

169
00:08:28,640 --> 00:08:31,400
Speaker 1: of Mono lago, but in real life, what he's trying

170
00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:34,360
Speaker 1: to do is to say that I want to go

171
00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:36,680
Speaker 1: back to the d C Circuit Court of Appeals. I

172
00:08:36,800 --> 00:08:41,040
Speaker 1: want them to hear this case unbank, which means the

173
00:08:41,160 --> 00:08:44,079
Speaker 1: full court, not just a three judge panel. And at

174
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:46,600
Speaker 1: the same time, I want a stay from the US

175
00:08:46,640 --> 00:08:49,440
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, now the DC Cervidit Court Appeal. Pull Trump

176
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:53,400
Speaker 1: that you get either or you can either go back

177
00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:55,440
Speaker 1: to US and ask for the on bank hearing. But

178
00:08:55,559 --> 00:08:58,760
Speaker 1: if you do that there's no stay. Then Judge Chunkinson

179
00:08:58,800 --> 00:09:00,520
Speaker 1: start moving on her case. Or he can go straight

180
00:09:00,559 --> 00:09:02,599
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court and then you can seek a

181
00:09:02,679 --> 00:09:05,240
Speaker 1: stay there. Trump is saying, now I want both. I

182
00:09:05,360 --> 00:09:07,440
Speaker 1: want to go back to the full Court and I

183
00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:09,760
Speaker 1: want to stay. And you know why, June. He wants

184
00:09:09,800 --> 00:09:11,680
Speaker 1: to go back to the d C Circuit Court Appeals

185
00:09:11,880 --> 00:09:14,400
Speaker 1: when he knows that court, which is made up mostly

186
00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:17,480
Speaker 1: of democratic appointed judges, will never rule for him. But

187
00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:20,040
Speaker 1: the reason why he wants to go back is because

188
00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:23,240
Speaker 1: it further is his strategy of delay. He wants every

189
00:09:23,320 --> 00:09:25,840
Speaker 1: last hearing he can have because every day that goes

190
00:09:25,880 --> 00:09:29,280
Speaker 1: by without a trial is a victory for Donald Trump.

191
00:09:29,679 --> 00:09:32,240
Speaker 3: Let's say there are five justices to grant a stay.

192
00:09:32,840 --> 00:09:34,880
Speaker 3: How long do you think it would take to move

193
00:09:34,960 --> 00:09:38,679
Speaker 3: that stay through the Supreme Court. You know, they'll probably

194
00:09:38,679 --> 00:09:40,360
Speaker 3: have oral argument scheduled.

195
00:09:40,840 --> 00:09:42,599
Speaker 1: Yeah, if there is a stay, then it makes a

196
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:44,400
Speaker 1: lot harder to try this case before the election. I

197
00:09:44,400 --> 00:09:47,000
Speaker 1: don't think it's impossible. I think there's no stay. I

198
00:09:47,040 --> 00:09:50,559
Speaker 1: think that then this will be tried by the end

199
00:09:50,559 --> 00:09:52,719
Speaker 1: of spring. At least the start of the trial will

200
00:09:52,760 --> 00:09:55,040
Speaker 1: happen by the end of spring. If there is a stay,

201
00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:57,920
Speaker 1: then they'll be lucky to try this in the summertime,

202
00:09:57,920 --> 00:10:00,160
Speaker 1: and then it gets close to the election. So the

203
00:10:00,160 --> 00:10:03,720
Speaker 1: Supreme Court does give the stay in grant cert then

204
00:10:03,840 --> 00:10:05,559
Speaker 1: we just don't know how long it will take. The

205
00:10:05,559 --> 00:10:08,000
Speaker 1: Supreme Court knows this is a matter of great public

206
00:10:08,000 --> 00:10:11,319
Speaker 1: importance and it requires urgency, So I don't think they'll

207
00:10:11,360 --> 00:10:14,400
Speaker 1: go that far, but they may. But they still need

208
00:10:14,440 --> 00:10:16,800
Speaker 1: five votes. And it's not just that they're going to

209
00:10:16,840 --> 00:10:19,800
Speaker 1: agree that there's a repable harm. They'd have to say

210
00:10:20,120 --> 00:10:22,560
Speaker 1: the five justices to grant the state that there's a

211
00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:26,920
Speaker 1: likelihood of success on the merits. Really, you think Trump's

212
00:10:26,920 --> 00:10:29,720
Speaker 1: going to win on his claim of absolute immunity, that

213
00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:32,679
Speaker 1: five justices a majority would say, yeah, we think he's

214
00:10:32,720 --> 00:10:34,840
Speaker 1: got a good case. That's why I don't think that

215
00:10:34,880 --> 00:10:37,120
Speaker 1: he wins on the stay. I don't think there's a

216
00:10:37,200 --> 00:10:39,880
Speaker 1: repable harm, and I definitely don't think there's a likelihood

217
00:10:39,880 --> 00:10:41,120
Speaker 1: of success on the merits.

218
00:10:41,559 --> 00:10:44,839
Speaker 3: So what about if four justices say, let's take this

219
00:10:44,920 --> 00:10:45,840
Speaker 3: case for review.

220
00:10:46,320 --> 00:10:49,200
Speaker 1: Now, I think that could happen all types of four justices,

221
00:10:49,240 --> 00:10:52,000
Speaker 1: not a majority, but four justices to grant cert, which

222
00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:54,760
Speaker 1: is granting certiori, which means we're going to take up

223
00:10:54,760 --> 00:10:56,800
Speaker 1: the case. But that doesn't mean there's a stay. A

224
00:10:56,840 --> 00:10:58,959
Speaker 1: stay requires five justices. So they could take up the

225
00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:00,640
Speaker 1: case and say we're going to review, you know, to

226
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: des guide the matter of absolute immunity, and we want

227
00:11:03,880 --> 00:11:06,120
Speaker 1: to write an opinion about it. But then if there's

228
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:09,600
Speaker 1: no stay, then Judge Huckins can start moving the ball forward.

229
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:13,280
Speaker 1: And then assuming the court rules on this issue in

230
00:11:13,320 --> 00:11:16,880
Speaker 1: a kindly fashion and rejects Trump's claim maps and immunity,

231
00:11:16,920 --> 00:11:18,720
Speaker 1: then the trial can go forward. But as long as

232
00:11:18,760 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 1: there's no stay, then the preliminaries can start going ahead,

233
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:22,720
Speaker 1: and then they can set a trial date and then

234
00:11:22,760 --> 00:11:24,920
Speaker 1: his game on. So I think the bigger question for

235
00:11:24,960 --> 00:11:26,880
Speaker 1: me is not whether they grant cert it's whether they

236
00:11:26,880 --> 00:11:28,920
Speaker 1: grant the state. Trump would rather have to stay than

237
00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:31,319
Speaker 1: the sert because he's more concerned about the delay than

238
00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:32,400
Speaker 1: the ultimate opinion.

239
00:11:32,679 --> 00:11:34,480
Speaker 3: And I have to say his legal team has been

240
00:11:34,640 --> 00:11:38,960
Speaker 3: very good at creating delays in all his cases. Coming

241
00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:42,080
Speaker 3: up next, we'll discuss why Trump and his team went

242
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:45,320
Speaker 3: into a closed door meeting with the judge presiding over

243
00:11:45,320 --> 00:11:49,800
Speaker 3: his criminal case for mishandling classified documents. I'm June Grosso

244
00:11:49,840 --> 00:11:54,840
Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg. On the same day, Trump's

245
00:11:54,840 --> 00:11:58,760
Speaker 3: attorneys file papers asking the Supreme Court to intervene in

246
00:11:58,760 --> 00:12:01,880
Speaker 3: his criminal case on charges of plotting to overturn the

247
00:12:01,920 --> 00:12:05,680
Speaker 3: twenty twenty election. The former president arrived to a crowd

248
00:12:05,720 --> 00:12:09,000
Speaker 3: of supporters at a federal court house in Florida for

249
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:11,800
Speaker 3: a closed hearing in the criminal case charging him with

250
00:12:11,920 --> 00:12:17,120
Speaker 3: mishandling classified documents and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.

251
00:12:17,400 --> 00:12:21,760
Speaker 3: A Trump campaign message to allies had the subject line quote,

252
00:12:21,800 --> 00:12:26,760
Speaker 3: I'm in court again, warning that unspecified opponents quote want

253
00:12:26,800 --> 00:12:30,080
Speaker 3: me arrested and erase from the ballot. Of course, that

254
00:12:30,240 --> 00:12:33,559
Speaker 3: refers to another case before the Supreme Court about whether

255
00:12:33,640 --> 00:12:37,400
Speaker 3: states can bar Trump from this year's presidential ballot because

256
00:12:37,400 --> 00:12:40,840
Speaker 3: of his role in the January sixth riot. The Florida

257
00:12:40,880 --> 00:12:43,840
Speaker 3: court hearing was closed to the public to discuss the

258
00:12:43,880 --> 00:12:47,640
Speaker 3: procedures for handling classified evidence in the trial that's currently

259
00:12:47,679 --> 00:12:51,920
Speaker 3: set for May twentieth. Trial Judge Alien Cannon, a Trump appointee,

260
00:12:52,120 --> 00:12:55,480
Speaker 3: set arguments from defense attorneys in the morning and from

261
00:12:55,559 --> 00:12:59,640
Speaker 3: prosecutors in the afternoon, each outside of the other's presence.

262
00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:04,480
Speaker 3: Been talking to Dave Ehrenberg, the Palm Beach County State Attorney. Dave,

263
00:13:04,600 --> 00:13:07,000
Speaker 3: we don't know exactly what went on in these hearings,

264
00:13:07,280 --> 00:13:09,080
Speaker 3: but give us the gist of what's happening.

265
00:13:09,640 --> 00:13:12,360
Speaker 1: And I think what's happening is that Judge Cannon, who

266
00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:15,480
Speaker 1: is pretty new with this, is trying to be very

267
00:13:15,520 --> 00:13:18,280
Speaker 1: thorough and wants to hear from both sides when this

268
00:13:18,360 --> 00:13:20,440
Speaker 1: hearing really didn't even have to take place, or at

269
00:13:20,520 --> 00:13:22,160
Speaker 1: least they could have done this a while ago, but

270
00:13:22,400 --> 00:13:24,079
Speaker 1: this has been delayed and now they have all these

271
00:13:24,120 --> 00:13:25,960
Speaker 1: different hearings. So that's why this case will never be

272
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 1: heard before the election. Trump gets what he wants. They

273
00:13:28,600 --> 00:13:30,960
Speaker 1: are but what they're talking about is whether under Section

274
00:13:31,000 --> 00:13:33,600
Speaker 1: four of SIPA, which is this Federal Act dealing with

275
00:13:33,600 --> 00:13:37,679
Speaker 1: classified documents. Whether the government can keep some of these

276
00:13:37,679 --> 00:13:41,400
Speaker 1: classified documents concealed out of the discovery process, not having

277
00:13:41,400 --> 00:13:44,360
Speaker 1: to show them to the defense, even though Donald Trump,

278
00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:46,520
Speaker 1: the defendant, is going to be prosecuted based on some

279
00:13:46,600 --> 00:13:48,360
Speaker 1: of these documents, but there is a provision in the

280
00:13:48,400 --> 00:13:50,920
Speaker 1: law on section four that gives the government the power.

281
00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:53,160
Speaker 1: But the defense says, now, we want it all, and

282
00:13:53,640 --> 00:13:56,600
Speaker 1: here's our defense case, which is why they met separately

283
00:13:56,600 --> 00:13:58,240
Speaker 1: with a judge. This is why we want it all.

284
00:13:58,320 --> 00:13:59,920
Speaker 1: This is our case. And we also want the name

285
00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:03,439
Speaker 1: of some of these witnesses involved, and that Jack Smith

286
00:14:03,480 --> 00:14:05,600
Speaker 1: is saying, no, no, no, If we give you some

287
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:08,880
Speaker 1: of these names of some of these individuals who were

288
00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:11,679
Speaker 1: working with then you're going to harass them and you're

289
00:14:11,679 --> 00:14:13,640
Speaker 1: going to intimidate them and threaten them. So no, we

290
00:14:13,679 --> 00:14:15,720
Speaker 1: want to keep a lot of this stuff secret. So

291
00:14:15,760 --> 00:14:18,080
Speaker 1: this is the battle going on right now, and so

292
00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:21,680
Speaker 1: far Judge Cannon has been ruling for the defendant Donald Trump,

293
00:14:21,720 --> 00:14:24,920
Speaker 1: and Jacksmith is saying, please reconsider, and if you don't reconsider,

294
00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:27,200
Speaker 1: subtle threat, we can go to the Eleventh Circuit Court

295
00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:29,160
Speaker 1: of Appeals. Remember what happened last time we went to

296
00:14:29,160 --> 00:14:31,480
Speaker 1: the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Now he didn't say

297
00:14:31,520 --> 00:14:34,720
Speaker 1: that specifically, but that's the underlying threat because the last

298
00:14:34,720 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 1: time that Jacksmith went to the Eleventh Circuit, not only

299
00:14:37,800 --> 00:14:41,080
Speaker 1: did they repudiate Judge Cannon, but they pulled her off

300
00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:43,840
Speaker 1: the case when she was involved, before there were charges filed.

301
00:14:44,520 --> 00:14:47,920
Speaker 3: Judge Cannon had ruled that Smith's team had to file

302
00:14:48,040 --> 00:14:51,360
Speaker 3: a cash of documents on the public docket. But in

303
00:14:51,400 --> 00:14:55,320
Speaker 3: emotion last week, Smith asked her to reconsider, saying it

304
00:14:55,360 --> 00:14:58,520
Speaker 3: would reveal, as you say, the names of potential witnesses

305
00:14:58,920 --> 00:15:02,240
Speaker 3: and also sensitive information. And then he put in that

306
00:15:02,280 --> 00:15:04,920
Speaker 3: little warning. He said it would be clear error, and

307
00:15:05,000 --> 00:15:08,200
Speaker 3: he cited the Eleventh Circuit. If he goes to the

308
00:15:08,200 --> 00:15:12,680
Speaker 3: Eleventh Circuit and they rule against her, could they also

309
00:15:13,200 --> 00:15:16,880
Speaker 3: decide to take her off the case. It's unusual, but

310
00:15:17,200 --> 00:15:18,440
Speaker 3: it's been done, hasn't it.

311
00:15:19,880 --> 00:15:22,040
Speaker 1: Well, Yeah, they took her off the case last time,

312
00:15:22,040 --> 00:15:24,880
Speaker 1: but that was before charge were filed. Here. I think

313
00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:27,160
Speaker 1: what they would do. They would they would probably not

314
00:15:27,200 --> 00:15:30,800
Speaker 1: take her off until Jack Smith requested it. Jack Smith

315
00:15:30,840 --> 00:15:33,120
Speaker 1: would have to make a motion or acuse her. I

316
00:15:33,120 --> 00:15:35,280
Speaker 1: don't think that they would take her off to a

317
00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:39,160
Speaker 1: sponte meaning on their own. But I guess anything's possible

318
00:15:39,200 --> 00:15:43,080
Speaker 1: because this is not her first rodeo here. She got

319
00:15:43,120 --> 00:15:47,320
Speaker 1: involved last year when she shouldn't have in the selection

320
00:15:47,360 --> 00:15:51,320
Speaker 1: of the special Master. She halted this entire investigation. She's

321
00:15:51,360 --> 00:15:53,800
Speaker 1: got in the way of an executive branch investigation before

322
00:15:53,880 --> 00:15:57,600
Speaker 1: charge were filed and halted it and appointed a special Master,

323
00:15:57,640 --> 00:16:00,640
Speaker 1: and the Eleventh Circuit said wait, wait, wait, you can't

324
00:16:00,680 --> 00:16:05,400
Speaker 1: do this and publicly humiliated her and took her off

325
00:16:05,680 --> 00:16:07,880
Speaker 1: the case. It's different, though, once you're the judge officially

326
00:16:07,920 --> 00:16:11,440
Speaker 1: assigned to a case that has been filed, and so

327
00:16:11,560 --> 00:16:14,440
Speaker 1: I think that she can get reputd again and reversed.

328
00:16:14,880 --> 00:16:16,680
Speaker 1: But I'm not so sure they're going to remove her

329
00:16:16,760 --> 00:16:20,480
Speaker 1: from the case unless there's a specific request and grounds

330
00:16:20,800 --> 00:16:22,000
Speaker 1: filed by Jack Smith.

331
00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:24,520
Speaker 3: Does he have the grounds you think? I mean, you know,

332
00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:26,880
Speaker 3: to outside observers, she's in over her head.

333
00:16:27,440 --> 00:16:29,760
Speaker 1: Well, being in over your head and being biased there

334
00:16:29,760 --> 00:16:32,120
Speaker 1: are two different things. If you can show from outside

335
00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:36,480
Speaker 1: observers that it's clear she's evidencing biased, then yeah, then

336
00:16:36,560 --> 00:16:38,600
Speaker 1: that's how you get her removed. But the standard is

337
00:16:38,640 --> 00:16:41,280
Speaker 1: pretty high. It's a high hurdle to reach, and if

338
00:16:41,320 --> 00:16:43,280
Speaker 1: it was easy, jack Smith would have done so already.

339
00:16:43,320 --> 00:16:46,240
Speaker 1: But I do think it's a possibility because how many

340
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:49,600
Speaker 1: times do you have to see these rulings go against

341
00:16:49,680 --> 00:16:52,520
Speaker 1: you to start to say, maybe we should find another judge.

342
00:16:52,800 --> 00:16:55,560
Speaker 1: But if it's because of inexperienced, they're less likely to

343
00:16:55,600 --> 00:16:58,280
Speaker 1: remove her from the case. If it's because she is

344
00:16:58,400 --> 00:17:00,400
Speaker 1: demonstrating bias with the person who will win and her

345
00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:03,040
Speaker 1: to the bench, and then yeah, and then she'd be

346
00:17:03,080 --> 00:17:05,479
Speaker 1: removed and no one wants that. That would be a

347
00:17:05,520 --> 00:17:09,320
Speaker 1: real humiliation for her. So we'll see. Jackson has not

348
00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:13,520
Speaker 1: pressed that nuclear button yet, and I think he's getting

349
00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:14,640
Speaker 1: closer to it every day.

350
00:17:15,080 --> 00:17:19,320
Speaker 3: Trump's lawyers have access to certain of these documents. They've

351
00:17:19,320 --> 00:17:23,040
Speaker 3: been looking at them in a skiff a sensitive compartmented

352
00:17:23,080 --> 00:17:24,240
Speaker 3: information facility.

353
00:17:24,480 --> 00:17:26,920
Speaker 4: Why do they need access to all of them?

354
00:17:27,440 --> 00:17:32,200
Speaker 3: How does seeing the classified documents help their case?

355
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:34,360
Speaker 4: Trump had documents he.

356
00:17:34,440 --> 00:17:38,159
Speaker 3: Wasn't supposed to have and refuse to return them. What

357
00:17:38,240 --> 00:17:41,560
Speaker 3: does it matter what the details in those documents are?

358
00:17:42,040 --> 00:17:44,320
Speaker 3: Are they going to argue, well, Trump was entitled to

359
00:17:44,359 --> 00:17:47,480
Speaker 3: have this classified document, but not that one. Can you

360
00:17:47,520 --> 00:17:49,040
Speaker 3: tell what their strategy is here?

361
00:17:49,600 --> 00:17:51,960
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, they want to have as many hearings as possible.

362
00:17:51,960 --> 00:17:53,960
Speaker 1: They want to have as many motions because they want

363
00:17:54,000 --> 00:17:56,080
Speaker 1: to delay this well past the election, because this is

364
00:17:56,080 --> 00:18:00,160
Speaker 1: the strongest case that prosecutors have against Donald Trump of

365
00:17:59,760 --> 00:18:02,240
Speaker 1: any of the cases. But they got the right judge,

366
00:18:02,280 --> 00:18:04,640
Speaker 1: a new judge who is slow walking this case, and

367
00:18:04,680 --> 00:18:07,720
Speaker 1: now they're making all these motions. But I think in

368
00:18:07,760 --> 00:18:09,199
Speaker 1: the end the government will give them a little more

369
00:18:09,240 --> 00:18:12,160
Speaker 1: leeway they would to other defendants in the same situation

370
00:18:12,280 --> 00:18:15,320
Speaker 1: because he's a former president, because at one point he

371
00:18:15,400 --> 00:18:19,280
Speaker 1: did have legitimate access to many of these documents. But

372
00:18:19,280 --> 00:18:22,919
Speaker 1: there are some documents that he did not have access

373
00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:26,840
Speaker 1: to because they would be after he was president, and

374
00:18:27,040 --> 00:18:29,920
Speaker 1: he has them and kept them and he may never

375
00:18:30,040 --> 00:18:32,560
Speaker 1: have even reviewed them beforehand. We don't know. But there's

376
00:18:32,600 --> 00:18:35,680
Speaker 1: some documents that are so secretive that they think that

377
00:18:35,760 --> 00:18:37,920
Speaker 1: in the hands of even a former president they would

378
00:18:37,920 --> 00:18:41,280
Speaker 1: be it would be a national security risk. So we

379
00:18:41,400 --> 00:18:43,000
Speaker 1: just don't know exactly what they are.

380
00:18:43,480 --> 00:18:49,120
Speaker 3: You mentioned before, keeping witnesses name secret, and so there's

381
00:18:49,160 --> 00:18:53,360
Speaker 3: been a fight over the identity of witnesses, with Special

382
00:18:53,440 --> 00:18:58,480
Speaker 3: Counsel Jack Smith detailing threats against prosecutors, judges, and other witnesses.

383
00:18:58,880 --> 00:19:03,000
Speaker 3: There was also a prospective government witness recently received threats

384
00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:06,400
Speaker 3: over social media that are now the subject of federal investigation.

385
00:19:07,160 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 3: And Trump said it in the court file. And there's

386
00:19:09,280 --> 00:19:12,679
Speaker 3: no compelling interest in keeping the information sealed and no

387
00:19:12,840 --> 00:19:16,320
Speaker 3: legal reason to redact the names. Why do they have

388
00:19:16,359 --> 00:19:20,400
Speaker 3: an interest in publishing the names a legal interest?

389
00:19:20,960 --> 00:19:24,320
Speaker 1: I don't think that they do, although they may say,

390
00:19:24,320 --> 00:19:27,960
Speaker 1: we need to know all the witnesses and evidence against us,

391
00:19:28,040 --> 00:19:30,920
Speaker 1: and we have a six Amendment right to confront our accusers,

392
00:19:30,960 --> 00:19:32,480
Speaker 1: and if there's gonna be a witness against us, we

393
00:19:32,520 --> 00:19:35,159
Speaker 1: want to know. On the other hand, we've seen already

394
00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:38,919
Speaker 1: in other cases where witnesses have been intimidated and if

395
00:19:38,920 --> 00:19:41,439
Speaker 1: their identities get out, they can go into hiding or

396
00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:44,399
Speaker 1: they may try to change their story, and the government

397
00:19:44,440 --> 00:19:47,359
Speaker 1: does not want that to happen. So they're appealing to

398
00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:50,440
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon to keep some of this stuff secret. Judge

399
00:19:50,440 --> 00:19:53,240
Speaker 1: Cannon has been resistant so far, and that's going to

400
00:19:53,240 --> 00:19:56,200
Speaker 1: be the matter of contention before the Eleventh Circuit of

401
00:19:56,280 --> 00:19:59,880
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon doesn't change her opinion because you know, I've.

402
00:19:59,800 --> 00:20:03,879
Speaker 3: Seen trials where police officers who are undercover or different

403
00:20:03,960 --> 00:20:07,000
Speaker 3: kinds of agents. Their identity is protected, they don't even

404
00:20:07,040 --> 00:20:10,080
Speaker 3: give their name when they testify. So it seems like

405
00:20:10,119 --> 00:20:11,880
Speaker 3: there's plenty of reason.

406
00:20:11,680 --> 00:20:17,359
Speaker 1: Here exactly exactly, we're dealing with a political movement here

407
00:20:17,480 --> 00:20:20,959
Speaker 1: which has used threats of violence against its enemies. I mean,

408
00:20:21,000 --> 00:20:22,960
Speaker 1: I don't need to bring up I mean there have

409
00:20:22,960 --> 00:20:25,760
Speaker 1: been many instances of that where Donald Trump will put

410
00:20:25,760 --> 00:20:28,600
Speaker 1: out a tweet against the FBI and then someone shows

411
00:20:28,640 --> 00:20:31,600
Speaker 1: up at the FBI headquarters in Cincinnati and shoots it up,

412
00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:35,480
Speaker 1: or he puts out information about Barack Obama and where

413
00:20:35,520 --> 00:20:38,080
Speaker 1: he lives in Georgetown, and then all of a sudden,

414
00:20:38,119 --> 00:20:40,679
Speaker 1: someone shows up in the van with weapons in the

415
00:20:40,760 --> 00:20:44,879
Speaker 1: van right around Obama's house. So we've seen this kind

416
00:20:44,920 --> 00:20:47,520
Speaker 1: of stuff. And then of course there's January sixth, So

417
00:20:48,240 --> 00:20:50,680
Speaker 1: the government's reason to keep some of this stuff secret.

418
00:20:50,720 --> 00:20:53,640
Speaker 1: There's a reason why in the last trial against Donald Trump,

419
00:20:53,680 --> 00:20:56,440
Speaker 1: the one involving eg and Carroll, that the judge made

420
00:20:56,480 --> 00:20:59,320
Speaker 1: all the jurors anonymous and weren't even allowed to identify them.

421
00:20:59,359 --> 00:21:01,960
Speaker 1: The real name is to each other. So this is

422
00:21:01,960 --> 00:21:04,880
Speaker 1: what happens when you have radicals inside of a political

423
00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:06,360
Speaker 1: movement held bent on violence.

424
00:21:07,080 --> 00:21:11,359
Speaker 3: Now, let's go back to Trump at the closed door hearing,

425
00:21:11,880 --> 00:21:14,720
Speaker 3: so he was there for hours. It seemed to be

426
00:21:14,760 --> 00:21:19,439
Speaker 3: about strategy procedure along those lines, so not something he

427
00:21:19,520 --> 00:21:22,680
Speaker 3: had to attend at all. He has been appearing at

428
00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:28,280
Speaker 3: more hearings lately, plans to attend the Thursday hearing in Atlanta, Georgia,

429
00:21:28,760 --> 00:21:32,760
Speaker 3: on allegations that the Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis

430
00:21:33,160 --> 00:21:37,440
Speaker 3: engaged in an improper relationship with the lead prosecutor in

431
00:21:37,480 --> 00:21:40,920
Speaker 3: that election interference case. We know that when he appears

432
00:21:40,920 --> 00:21:45,520
Speaker 3: in court, he often makes statements outside about how unfair

433
00:21:45,600 --> 00:21:49,879
Speaker 3: the proceedings are or about the witch hunt, etc. But

434
00:21:49,960 --> 00:21:53,000
Speaker 3: he didn't do that in Florida. I'm wondering why you

435
00:21:53,040 --> 00:21:56,160
Speaker 3: think he chose to go to this particular hearing.

436
00:21:56,560 --> 00:22:00,159
Speaker 1: Well, the synicon me would say that Donald Trump, who

437
00:22:00,000 --> 00:22:04,080
Speaker 1: who is very transactional, wanted to show up inside the

438
00:22:04,200 --> 00:22:07,600
Speaker 1: chambers of a judge that he appointed to have a

439
00:22:07,640 --> 00:22:11,640
Speaker 1: subtle reminder that the reason why she's where she is

440
00:22:11,640 --> 00:22:14,240
Speaker 1: is because of him, and no words need to be said.

441
00:22:14,680 --> 00:22:16,840
Speaker 1: And he goes in there with entourage, and perhaps he's

442
00:22:16,840 --> 00:22:19,960
Speaker 1: hoping that she'll be starry either or be reminded. That

443
00:22:20,560 --> 00:22:22,919
Speaker 1: this is the guy who pointed you made your career,

444
00:22:23,480 --> 00:22:27,119
Speaker 1: and so he was there, and we'll see it's so

445
00:22:27,240 --> 00:22:29,720
Speaker 1: far she's ruled for him and just about every matter.

446
00:22:30,040 --> 00:22:31,840
Speaker 1: So it doesn't mattered whether he's shown up or not.

447
00:22:31,960 --> 00:22:34,280
Speaker 1: But I just happily the only reason why he would

448
00:22:34,280 --> 00:22:36,760
Speaker 1: show up in a closed door matter in a situation

449
00:22:36,840 --> 00:22:40,439
Speaker 1: like this, in a complex case, is just that. Also,

450
00:22:41,280 --> 00:22:43,800
Speaker 1: as compared to Atlanta or New York, Fort Pierce is

451
00:22:43,840 --> 00:22:45,960
Speaker 1: a lot close to where he lives in Paul Beach.

452
00:22:46,760 --> 00:22:47,160
Speaker 4: True.

453
00:22:47,400 --> 00:22:50,639
Speaker 3: So now Judge Cannon has scheduled a hearing from March

454
00:22:50,720 --> 00:22:54,080
Speaker 3: first on whether the trial can go forward in May

455
00:22:54,240 --> 00:22:57,480
Speaker 3: as scheduled. I take it you agree with most legal

456
00:22:57,560 --> 00:23:00,760
Speaker 3: experts that there's no way this trial is going forward

457
00:23:00,920 --> 00:23:02,280
Speaker 3: in May.

458
00:23:01,800 --> 00:23:06,160
Speaker 1: No way, this case was never going to go in May,

459
00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:10,960
Speaker 1: because Judge Cannon is new. It's a complex SIPA matter

460
00:23:11,000 --> 00:23:13,720
Speaker 1: classfied documents. You've got federal law, you've got to do

461
00:23:13,800 --> 00:23:17,280
Speaker 1: these private reviews of documents. You've got the ability for

462
00:23:17,320 --> 00:23:21,080
Speaker 1: government under Section four of SIPA to keep documents private

463
00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:23,600
Speaker 1: and then to litigate it. And then you just have

464
00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:25,800
Speaker 1: to look at her pass that she's rulling for the

465
00:23:25,800 --> 00:23:27,960
Speaker 1: defendant in this case pretty much from the beginning. So

466
00:23:28,800 --> 00:23:31,000
Speaker 1: I was thinking that this case will never be heard

467
00:23:31,560 --> 00:23:33,920
Speaker 1: before the election, and then you have other cases. I

468
00:23:33,960 --> 00:23:36,679
Speaker 1: think the only case that will be heard that I

469
00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:38,919
Speaker 1: really believe will be heard will be the DC election

470
00:23:39,000 --> 00:23:41,600
Speaker 1: interference case, because I do believe that that's going to trial.

471
00:23:41,920 --> 00:23:44,439
Speaker 1: The other case that could get hurt is the New

472
00:23:44,520 --> 00:23:47,320
Speaker 1: York case involving the Stormy Daniel's hush money payments. I

473
00:23:47,359 --> 00:23:50,000
Speaker 1: do not believe the Fulton County case will get hurt.

474
00:23:50,040 --> 00:23:52,880
Speaker 1: I think that one is complex. There's many different defendants

475
00:23:52,880 --> 00:23:54,320
Speaker 1: in a rico matter. Right now, you have all the

476
00:23:54,359 --> 00:23:58,200
Speaker 1: controversy involving the DA there Fannie Willis. So i'd say

477
00:23:58,200 --> 00:23:59,840
Speaker 1: the case that I think most likely will be heard

478
00:24:00,119 --> 00:24:03,720
Speaker 1: in DC, and next likely would be in New York.

479
00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:07,639
Speaker 1: But now, unfortunately, the strongest case against Donald Trump, the

480
00:24:07,680 --> 00:24:10,520
Speaker 1: one in Fort Pierce involving the monologue of documents, is

481
00:24:10,560 --> 00:24:12,439
Speaker 1: the least likely to be heard before the election.

482
00:24:12,680 --> 00:24:15,040
Speaker 3: It's been so great talking to you, Dave. Thanks so much.

483
00:24:15,359 --> 00:24:18,560
Speaker 3: That's Dave Ahrenberg, Palm Beach County State Attorney. Coming up

484
00:24:18,600 --> 00:24:22,120
Speaker 3: next on the Bloomberg Law Show. How conservative and liberal

485
00:24:22,359 --> 00:24:27,200
Speaker 3: justices have switched tactics in applying procedural rules that can

486
00:24:27,240 --> 00:24:30,360
Speaker 3: dictate the outcome of a case. I'm June Gross. When

487
00:24:30,359 --> 00:24:34,800
Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg, have you noticed how many Supreme

488
00:24:34,840 --> 00:24:38,720
Speaker 3: Court arguments in controversial cases seem to go off on

489
00:24:38,880 --> 00:24:42,760
Speaker 3: questions of standing, a procedural issue about whether a party

490
00:24:42,840 --> 00:24:45,879
Speaker 3: has a sufficient stake in the case, sort of skin

491
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:49,600
Speaker 3: in the game. And conservative and liberal justices have flipped

492
00:24:49,600 --> 00:24:53,160
Speaker 3: their positions on standing as the composition of the Supreme

493
00:24:53,240 --> 00:24:57,199
Speaker 3: Court has gotten more conservative. It's the conservative justices who

494
00:24:57,240 --> 00:25:00,280
Speaker 3: are now apt to find standing exists in a to

495
00:25:00,359 --> 00:25:03,360
Speaker 3: allow them to take up challenges to hot button issues,

496
00:25:03,600 --> 00:25:07,840
Speaker 3: while the liberal justices are likely to caution against finding standing,

497
00:25:08,280 --> 00:25:11,640
Speaker 3: raising concerns about an overreaching judiciary.

498
00:25:12,359 --> 00:25:12,800
Speaker 4: Joining me.

499
00:25:12,880 --> 00:25:17,320
Speaker 3: Is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg, Supreme Court reporter who's written

500
00:25:17,359 --> 00:25:20,560
Speaker 3: about this. Kimberly tell us a little bit about standing

501
00:25:20,560 --> 00:25:22,600
Speaker 3: and how it's a way for a court to get

502
00:25:22,760 --> 00:25:26,240
Speaker 3: rid of a case without reaching the merits or the

503
00:25:26,359 --> 00:25:31,040
Speaker 3: legal issues, or conversely to take a case that it

504
00:25:31,119 --> 00:25:33,200
Speaker 3: wants to reach the merits and legal issues.

505
00:25:33,760 --> 00:25:35,720
Speaker 5: So, you know, I think it's important to note that

506
00:25:35,760 --> 00:25:39,480
Speaker 5: this technical issue of standing is a really important concept

507
00:25:39,800 --> 00:25:42,880
Speaker 5: in the legal field, and you know, people I talked

508
00:25:42,880 --> 00:25:46,399
Speaker 5: to said that it really plays an important role in

509
00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:51,960
Speaker 5: ensuring that judges are only involved in actual disputes between parties.

510
00:25:52,040 --> 00:25:54,199
Speaker 5: And it's meant a the way to limit, you know,

511
00:25:54,520 --> 00:26:00,000
Speaker 5: judges from intervening and providing their political view on a case.

512
00:26:00,200 --> 00:26:03,359
Speaker 5: So you know, it does play a very important role

513
00:26:03,440 --> 00:26:08,040
Speaker 5: in sort of limiting the judiciary. The problem that we've

514
00:26:08,080 --> 00:26:11,280
Speaker 5: seen is that really since its inceptions, it's been used

515
00:26:11,280 --> 00:26:13,879
Speaker 5: in a political way. That is, in a way that

516
00:26:14,119 --> 00:26:17,440
Speaker 5: allows judges to sort of take a very strict view

517
00:26:17,520 --> 00:26:20,240
Speaker 5: of standing when they get an issue that they'd rather

518
00:26:20,359 --> 00:26:24,000
Speaker 5: not you know, way into, and on the other hand,

519
00:26:24,200 --> 00:26:28,000
Speaker 5: to have a really expansive view of standing when it's

520
00:26:28,000 --> 00:26:31,120
Speaker 5: an issue that they do want to get into. And

521
00:26:31,320 --> 00:26:34,120
Speaker 5: you know, that's been really prevalent at the US Supreme

522
00:26:34,160 --> 00:26:37,280
Speaker 5: Court when we've really seen this flip in the two

523
00:26:37,320 --> 00:26:40,280
Speaker 5: sides happening between those justices on the right and the

524
00:26:40,359 --> 00:26:42,080
Speaker 5: left and the way that they use standing.

525
00:26:42,440 --> 00:26:47,399
Speaker 3: And you spoke to Professor at UC Davis who said

526
00:26:47,440 --> 00:26:52,200
Speaker 3: that the Supreme Court has been centrist basically until recently.

527
00:26:52,640 --> 00:26:55,359
Speaker 5: I mean, obviously that's debatable, but yeah, you know, the

528
00:26:55,400 --> 00:26:58,199
Speaker 5: Supreme Court particularly, you think when Justice Kennedy was on

529
00:26:58,240 --> 00:27:01,480
Speaker 5: the court, there were issues you know, that would swing

530
00:27:01,600 --> 00:27:04,960
Speaker 5: either right or left. Now, of course, the Supreme Court

531
00:27:05,359 --> 00:27:08,720
Speaker 5: is a supermajority of conservative justices. It's a six '

532
00:27:08,800 --> 00:27:11,639
Speaker 5: three divide on the Supreme Court between those that were

533
00:27:11,680 --> 00:27:16,159
Speaker 5: appointed by Republican versus Democratic appointees. And so we've seen

534
00:27:16,240 --> 00:27:19,760
Speaker 5: a lot of cases where that sort of centric view

535
00:27:19,840 --> 00:27:21,840
Speaker 5: of the court really no longer applies.

536
00:27:22,600 --> 00:27:25,280
Speaker 3: In your story, and you talked to so many experts,

537
00:27:25,680 --> 00:27:29,560
Speaker 3: you talk about this change in approach to standing. It

538
00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:32,960
Speaker 3: used to be that liberals wanted to enforce civil rights

539
00:27:33,040 --> 00:27:35,720
Speaker 3: and things like that, so they would bend over backwards

540
00:27:36,000 --> 00:27:39,160
Speaker 3: to find standing, and now it's the conservatives who are

541
00:27:39,240 --> 00:27:42,639
Speaker 3: bending over backwards to find standing to reign in the

542
00:27:42,680 --> 00:27:44,399
Speaker 3: administrative state, et cetera.

543
00:27:45,040 --> 00:27:48,159
Speaker 5: Right, I mean, so, you know, we look historically, particularly

544
00:27:48,280 --> 00:27:50,879
Speaker 5: during the Civil rights era, we can see you know,

545
00:27:50,920 --> 00:27:54,600
Speaker 5: a real push from you know, democratic appointed justices and

546
00:27:54,920 --> 00:27:59,199
Speaker 5: those representing progressive issues to have access to the courts.

547
00:27:59,240 --> 00:28:01,800
Speaker 5: And so if you think about environmental law is sort

548
00:28:01,840 --> 00:28:05,439
Speaker 5: of the easiest way to see this historically. You know,

549
00:28:05,480 --> 00:28:10,320
Speaker 5: if you think that the Environmental Protection Agency has interpreted

550
00:28:10,520 --> 00:28:13,480
Speaker 5: one of its statutes in a way that is harmful

551
00:28:13,600 --> 00:28:16,320
Speaker 5: to the environment. Course is going to be to courts,

552
00:28:16,320 --> 00:28:19,280
Speaker 5: and so there's this real push on you know, sort

553
00:28:19,280 --> 00:28:23,280
Speaker 5: of left leaning justices and entities to say that this

554
00:28:23,400 --> 00:28:26,080
Speaker 5: court should be open to these kinds of claims so

555
00:28:26,119 --> 00:28:28,080
Speaker 5: that there can be some kind of redress. And then

556
00:28:28,119 --> 00:28:31,000
Speaker 5: on the flip side, you know, of course Republicans who

557
00:28:31,080 --> 00:28:34,520
Speaker 5: want to limit that would say there isn't standing, particularly

558
00:28:34,600 --> 00:28:38,040
Speaker 5: again in these environmental cases. Now we really see that

559
00:28:38,040 --> 00:28:40,400
Speaker 5: flipped on its head, where you know, a six three

560
00:28:40,440 --> 00:28:44,880
Speaker 5: conservative majority is really saying we want to sort of

561
00:28:44,920 --> 00:28:48,120
Speaker 5: tackle issues that maybe in the past we would have

562
00:28:48,200 --> 00:28:51,239
Speaker 5: said there's no standing for. But you know, just on

563
00:28:51,280 --> 00:28:53,640
Speaker 5: the other side of the coin, things like you know,

564
00:28:53,680 --> 00:28:57,120
Speaker 5: the Democratic appointees have flip positions as well and are

565
00:28:57,120 --> 00:28:59,680
Speaker 5: now arguing that the Court should really stay out of

566
00:28:59,720 --> 00:29:01,960
Speaker 5: these cases, that this is something that should be left

567
00:29:02,000 --> 00:29:03,840
Speaker 5: to the political branches.

568
00:29:03,640 --> 00:29:05,120
Speaker 4: And Brookings Institution.

569
00:29:05,240 --> 00:29:08,720
Speaker 3: Fellow Scott Anderson told you this really struck me. The

570
00:29:08,800 --> 00:29:12,080
Speaker 3: result has been a hodgepodge of case law where standing

571
00:29:12,080 --> 00:29:16,360
Speaker 3: in areas like environmental law is harder to establish than

572
00:29:16,440 --> 00:29:20,480
Speaker 3: in administrative law and others targeted by conservatives.

573
00:29:20,560 --> 00:29:22,080
Speaker 4: That's concerning.

574
00:29:22,640 --> 00:29:22,920
Speaker 1: Yeah.

575
00:29:22,960 --> 00:29:25,280
Speaker 5: I mean, I think one of these cases, or one

576
00:29:25,320 --> 00:29:27,960
Speaker 5: of the instances where this comes up a lot, is

577
00:29:28,200 --> 00:29:31,760
Speaker 5: whether or not states have the ability to intervene in

578
00:29:31,800 --> 00:29:35,360
Speaker 5: these cases or to bring these cases that are challenges

579
00:29:35,480 --> 00:29:38,480
Speaker 5: to the federal government. A We's seen a wave of

580
00:29:38,600 --> 00:29:43,120
Speaker 5: cases in the Supreme Court that really challenged presidential policies,

581
00:29:43,360 --> 00:29:45,040
Speaker 5: both on the right and the left. We saw a

582
00:29:45,040 --> 00:29:48,640
Speaker 5: lot of it under President Obama, then certainly under President Trump,

583
00:29:48,640 --> 00:29:51,640
Speaker 5: and now under President Biden, where states are asking the

584
00:29:51,680 --> 00:29:55,840
Speaker 5: Supreme Court to invalidate what is essentially a very big

585
00:29:55,880 --> 00:29:58,800
Speaker 5: political issue. And so that's sort of one of the

586
00:29:58,840 --> 00:30:02,560
Speaker 5: biggest areas where we see these hodgepodges is when state's

587
00:30:02,560 --> 00:30:07,960
Speaker 5: intervening both in administrative law cases and in environmental law cases,

588
00:30:08,080 --> 00:30:09,560
Speaker 5: as gott Anderson mentioned.

589
00:30:10,040 --> 00:30:13,960
Speaker 3: And a great example of that is when the Supreme

590
00:30:14,040 --> 00:30:19,320
Speaker 3: Court took up President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program.

591
00:30:19,600 --> 00:30:22,360
Speaker 3: And I remember before the case was argued, a lot

592
00:30:22,400 --> 00:30:24,880
Speaker 3: of people said there's no way that they're going to

593
00:30:24,920 --> 00:30:25,880
Speaker 3: find standing here.

594
00:30:26,280 --> 00:30:28,120
Speaker 4: But then they did find standing.

595
00:30:28,120 --> 00:30:29,760
Speaker 3: So tell us how they found standing.

596
00:30:30,480 --> 00:30:33,239
Speaker 5: That's right, So actually there were two different cases that

597
00:30:33,280 --> 00:30:36,360
Speaker 5: I think really brings this point home that this court

598
00:30:36,440 --> 00:30:38,880
Speaker 5: was considering at the same time. One was brought by

599
00:30:39,120 --> 00:30:43,680
Speaker 5: two individuals who had not been eligible for the student

600
00:30:43,720 --> 00:30:46,960
Speaker 5: loan forgiveness program and they challenged the law, saying that

601
00:30:47,000 --> 00:30:50,240
Speaker 5: they should be eligible, and a unanimous court said, that's

602
00:30:50,320 --> 00:30:53,120
Speaker 5: not enough to give you standing in a case that

603
00:30:53,120 --> 00:30:57,160
Speaker 5: would really open up the challenge to almost everybody who's

604
00:30:57,160 --> 00:30:59,400
Speaker 5: ever taken out student loans. And so, you know, we

605
00:30:59,440 --> 00:31:01,600
Speaker 5: saw a nine er court say there's no standing there.

606
00:31:01,920 --> 00:31:04,520
Speaker 5: But where the justice is split was on a separate

607
00:31:04,600 --> 00:31:08,360
Speaker 5: case where Missouri was claiming that it had set up

608
00:31:08,400 --> 00:31:13,440
Speaker 5: an independent corporation to deal with student loans and because

609
00:31:13,680 --> 00:31:17,200
Speaker 5: they could lose some revenue that Missouri the state, should

610
00:31:17,240 --> 00:31:21,200
Speaker 5: have standing. Importantly, you know, the corporation there that Missouri

611
00:31:21,240 --> 00:31:24,640
Speaker 5: had set up had not challenged the student loans program.

612
00:31:24,680 --> 00:31:28,440
Speaker 5: And so you know, the justices split along ideological lines

613
00:31:28,560 --> 00:31:31,560
Speaker 5: on whether or not Missouri had a strong enough interest

614
00:31:31,560 --> 00:31:35,680
Speaker 5: in that case. Ultimately, you know, the conservatives one in

615
00:31:35,760 --> 00:31:38,120
Speaker 5: that case, and not only did they find the standing,

616
00:31:38,200 --> 00:31:42,360
Speaker 5: but they struck down one of President Biden's key policy issues.

617
00:31:42,840 --> 00:31:48,440
Speaker 3: And Justice Kagan Lena Kagan criticized the majority, saying, quote

618
00:31:48,480 --> 00:31:51,320
Speaker 3: at the behest of a party that has suffered no injury,

619
00:31:51,760 --> 00:31:56,480
Speaker 3: the majority decides a contested public policy issue properly belonging

620
00:31:56,480 --> 00:31:59,920
Speaker 3: to the politically accountable branches and the people they represent,

621
00:32:00,640 --> 00:32:03,600
Speaker 3: in one sentence, summing up the problem we've been talking

622
00:32:03,640 --> 00:32:07,440
Speaker 3: about here. Coming up, we have this battle over the

623
00:32:07,480 --> 00:32:13,000
Speaker 3: abortion pill that provides one of the clearest examples of

624
00:32:13,200 --> 00:32:16,600
Speaker 3: what we've been discussing about standing that's right.

625
00:32:16,720 --> 00:32:19,320
Speaker 5: And so you know, this is the case over whether

626
00:32:19,480 --> 00:32:24,640
Speaker 5: or not the SBA is sort of loosening of regulations

627
00:32:24,680 --> 00:32:27,920
Speaker 5: over mifa pristone, one of the drugs used for early

628
00:32:28,040 --> 00:32:31,320
Speaker 5: term abortions, the most popular form of abortion in the country,

629
00:32:31,440 --> 00:32:35,800
Speaker 5: whether or not those easing of regulation was legal. And

630
00:32:36,080 --> 00:32:38,720
Speaker 5: the group or the people who have brought this challenge

631
00:32:38,800 --> 00:32:42,560
Speaker 5: are a group of anti abortion doctors who don't actually

632
00:32:43,000 --> 00:32:47,240
Speaker 5: prescribe mepha pristone. You know, their argument is that there

633
00:32:47,280 --> 00:32:50,680
Speaker 5: are some complications that happen with mepa pristone, even if

634
00:32:50,720 --> 00:32:55,600
Speaker 5: it's very small, and that there might have to treat

635
00:32:55,640 --> 00:32:58,160
Speaker 5: a patient who has taken it, has taken this drug,

636
00:32:58,840 --> 00:33:02,920
Speaker 5: and that that would harm sort of their own personal beliefs.

637
00:33:02,960 --> 00:33:06,160
Speaker 5: And you know, the Fifth Circuit you know, which sits

638
00:33:06,200 --> 00:33:09,880
Speaker 5: in the South, has increasingly become sort of a conservative

639
00:33:10,160 --> 00:33:13,600
Speaker 5: homestead where people bring these claims because they have really

640
00:33:14,000 --> 00:33:16,800
Speaker 5: had expansive views of standing, because they have had a

641
00:33:16,840 --> 00:33:19,720
Speaker 5: conservative view of the merit. And they found that the

642
00:33:20,040 --> 00:33:23,440
Speaker 5: doctors here did have standing. And so we see in

643
00:33:23,440 --> 00:33:26,280
Speaker 5: the briefing at the Supreme Court that, in addition to

644
00:33:26,520 --> 00:33:29,720
Speaker 5: sort of talking about the merits of the case, standing

645
00:33:29,800 --> 00:33:33,080
Speaker 5: is really a key issue here for the Biden administration

646
00:33:33,160 --> 00:33:35,560
Speaker 5: that's arguing on behalf of the FDA to keep these

647
00:33:35,600 --> 00:33:38,600
Speaker 5: regulations or the loosening of these regulations in place.

648
00:33:38,960 --> 00:33:43,600
Speaker 3: The professors that you talk to about this particular case,

649
00:33:44,000 --> 00:33:48,480
Speaker 3: do a majority think that the doctors don't have standing here?

650
00:33:49,040 --> 00:33:49,240
Speaker 1: Yeah.

651
00:33:49,280 --> 00:33:51,320
Speaker 5: I think of the people that I spoke to, they said,

652
00:33:51,320 --> 00:33:54,880
Speaker 5: this is really a bridge too far. There are cases

653
00:33:54,920 --> 00:33:57,760
Speaker 5: out there where it's hard to tell if a party

654
00:33:57,800 --> 00:34:02,200
Speaker 5: has standing. There's sort of maybe fifty There are these

655
00:34:02,240 --> 00:34:05,560
Speaker 5: close cases, you know, that are really questionable, But they

656
00:34:05,600 --> 00:34:07,400
Speaker 5: say this is not one of them. And I think

657
00:34:07,480 --> 00:34:11,080
Speaker 5: actually that sort of realization is one reason why we

658
00:34:11,160 --> 00:34:14,520
Speaker 5: have again the state of Missouri asking the justices that

659
00:34:14,600 --> 00:34:18,000
Speaker 5: they can intervene in the case just sort of relieve

660
00:34:18,120 --> 00:34:21,960
Speaker 5: some of those standing problems. Now, the Biden administration says

661
00:34:21,960 --> 00:34:24,960
Speaker 5: that Missouri itself has you know, its own standing problems.

662
00:34:25,400 --> 00:34:27,640
Speaker 5: But you know the point is that we see sort

663
00:34:27,680 --> 00:34:31,319
Speaker 5: of people who are arguing to make it harder to

664
00:34:31,360 --> 00:34:33,920
Speaker 5: get access to mis a pristom. They sort of see

665
00:34:33,960 --> 00:34:36,839
Speaker 5: that there are some standing challenges in the case, at

666
00:34:36,920 --> 00:34:38,280
Speaker 5: least with regards to the doctors.

667
00:34:38,680 --> 00:34:42,160
Speaker 3: Missouri wants to intervene and has the Fifth Circuit said

668
00:34:42,200 --> 00:34:45,160
Speaker 3: that they have standing too, or hasn't that gone to

669
00:34:45,160 --> 00:34:45,920
Speaker 3: the Fifth Circuit?

670
00:34:46,200 --> 00:34:48,560
Speaker 5: Well, the lower court has said that they can intervene.

671
00:34:48,560 --> 00:34:50,680
Speaker 5: But you know, this case has already been up at

672
00:34:50,719 --> 00:34:53,760
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court. It's already had breathing. As I mentioned,

673
00:34:54,040 --> 00:34:56,640
Speaker 5: you know, a big part of the argument on both

674
00:34:56,640 --> 00:34:59,319
Speaker 5: sides is whether or not these doctors have standing. The

675
00:34:59,400 --> 00:35:02,520
Speaker 5: question of what they're not Missouri has standing is very different.

676
00:35:03,239 --> 00:35:05,480
Speaker 5: You know, I mentioned the whole idea of state standing

677
00:35:05,560 --> 00:35:09,520
Speaker 5: is really part of this hodgepodge of standing doctrine. If

678
00:35:09,520 --> 00:35:12,800
Speaker 5: you talk to anyone who's really steeped in this issue,

679
00:35:13,040 --> 00:35:14,919
Speaker 5: you know, and try to find a through line, they say,

680
00:35:14,920 --> 00:35:17,800
Speaker 5: there really isn't one at this point, it's an issue

681
00:35:17,800 --> 00:35:20,680
Speaker 5: that the Court is really sort of grappling with, and

682
00:35:21,120 --> 00:35:23,680
Speaker 5: so at least the Biden administration is arguing that it's

683
00:35:23,760 --> 00:35:26,920
Speaker 5: it's just too late. Yes, it's sort of bypasses some

684
00:35:26,960 --> 00:35:29,520
Speaker 5: of the standing problems that the doctors have, but it

685
00:35:29,600 --> 00:35:32,839
Speaker 5: creates new standing issues that just haven't been briefed yet

686
00:35:32,840 --> 00:35:33,680
Speaker 5: as the parties.

687
00:35:34,320 --> 00:35:38,560
Speaker 3: I don't think standing is a concept that most people

688
00:35:38,760 --> 00:35:44,240
Speaker 3: outside the legal community who aren't following these cases closely grasp.

689
00:35:44,560 --> 00:35:46,759
Speaker 3: Do you think it's too technical or too procedural?

690
00:35:47,360 --> 00:35:50,160
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean it's not that it's just so technical either.

691
00:35:50,320 --> 00:35:53,080
Speaker 5: It's also that it's a really fuzzy concept. And so

692
00:35:53,120 --> 00:35:56,879
Speaker 5: it comes from this phrase in the Constitution that requires that,

693
00:35:57,000 --> 00:35:59,840
Speaker 5: you know, Article three, courts have only here quote cases

694
00:35:59,880 --> 00:36:02,920
Speaker 5: and controversies, and you know what a case in controversy

695
00:36:02,960 --> 00:36:05,719
Speaker 5: really means. Like I said, it's really fuzzy, and so

696
00:36:05,840 --> 00:36:08,560
Speaker 5: that provides a lot of wiggle room for the justices.

697
00:36:08,600 --> 00:36:10,680
Speaker 5: And I think it's you know, really interesting to note

698
00:36:10,680 --> 00:36:12,880
Speaker 5: as we talk about this issue that it's not just

699
00:36:12,920 --> 00:36:15,120
Speaker 5: flip clopping on one side of the issue, but it's

700
00:36:15,160 --> 00:36:17,959
Speaker 5: really coolesale flip flopping from both those on the right

701
00:36:18,160 --> 00:36:20,640
Speaker 5: and the left who sort of see standing in a

702
00:36:20,719 --> 00:36:23,480
Speaker 5: totally different way based on the composition of the court.

703
00:36:23,840 --> 00:36:27,000
Speaker 3: It's such an interesting and important concept. Kimberly, thanks so

704
00:36:27,080 --> 00:36:31,040
Speaker 3: much for coming on. That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge,

705
00:36:31,120 --> 00:36:31,640
Speaker 3: Robinson