1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,240
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,280 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 2: In the interest of putting this whole thing to rest,

3
00:00:12,600 --> 00:00:15,000
Speaker 2: PG and he is willing to offer the Jensens two

4
00:00:15,080 --> 00:00:16,600
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty thousand dollars for.

5
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:19,720
Speaker 3: Their own two hundred and fifty thousand.

6
00:00:20,760 --> 00:00:24,119
Speaker 2: In terms of land value out in Hinckley. Mister Masory,

7
00:00:24,160 --> 00:00:25,840
Speaker 2: we feel that's a more than fair price.

8
00:00:26,600 --> 00:00:29,640
Speaker 4: How about in terms of medical expenses, two hundred and

9
00:00:29,680 --> 00:00:31,800
Speaker 4: fifty thousand isn't going to come close to what this

10
00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:33,519
Speaker 4: family is going to have to spend on doctors.

11
00:00:33,760 --> 00:00:38,200
Speaker 5: Attorney Tom Girardi was catapulted into the national limelight after

12
00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:42,360
Speaker 5: the two thousand Oscar winning legal drama Aaron Brockovich highlighted

13
00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:44,760
Speaker 5: his role in getting a more than three hundred million

14
00:00:44,800 --> 00:00:48,800
Speaker 5: dollars settlement against PG and E for poisoning a California

15
00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:52,199
Speaker 5: town's drinking water. He was hailed as a pioneer of

16
00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:56,960
Speaker 5: toxic tort litigation and known for extracting massive settlements for

17
00:00:57,000 --> 00:01:04,320
Speaker 5: his clients. This season, on the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,

18
00:01:04,319 --> 00:01:07,800
Speaker 5: his fame was only enhanced as the husband bankrolling the

19
00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:12,720
Speaker 5: extravagant lifestyle of the Real housewives of Beverly Hills Erica Girardi,

20
00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:17,360
Speaker 5: whose ostentatious displays of wealth were over the top even

21
00:01:17,440 --> 00:01:18,640
Speaker 5: for a real housewife.

22
00:01:18,720 --> 00:01:22,280
Speaker 1: I'm an enigma wrapped in a riddle and cash.

23
00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 5: But the eighty five year old man now sitting at

24
00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:29,200
Speaker 5: the defendant's table in an LA courtroom is a far

25
00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:34,160
Speaker 5: cry from that powerful lawyer. Girardi is now bankrupt, disbarred,

26
00:01:34,520 --> 00:01:37,280
Speaker 5: living in a dementia wing of a nursing home, and

27
00:01:37,440 --> 00:01:41,479
Speaker 5: on trial for stealing fifteen million dollars from his clients.

28
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:45,119
Speaker 5: Joining me his trial attorney, David Ring of Taylor Ring

29
00:01:45,160 --> 00:01:48,480
Speaker 5: in LA. For people who might not know, tell us

30
00:01:48,520 --> 00:01:53,280
Speaker 5: about Tom Girardi. You know, the star lawyer and his reputation.

31
00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:58,120
Speaker 6: Tom Girardi was a legend in Los Angeles legal circles.

32
00:01:58,200 --> 00:02:02,960
Speaker 6: He's a plaintiff's trial lawyer. He represented victims of horrific

33
00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:07,560
Speaker 6: accidents like plane crashes and horrible automobile accents and things

34
00:02:07,640 --> 00:02:10,920
Speaker 6: like that. And he'd been a legendary trio loor in

35
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:14,480
Speaker 6: Los Angeles since the nineteen eighties. He was as big

36
00:02:14,520 --> 00:02:18,560
Speaker 6: as it gets in Los Angeles. He was politically connected.

37
00:02:18,919 --> 00:02:22,919
Speaker 6: He was well known to be connected with the courts

38
00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:26,080
Speaker 6: and the judges, and he was a very powerful man,

39
00:02:26,240 --> 00:02:29,880
Speaker 6: and so you know, he was untouchable. He was untouchable

40
00:02:29,919 --> 00:02:33,440
Speaker 6: in Los Angeles for many, many, many years until this

41
00:02:33,600 --> 00:02:35,560
Speaker 6: scandal imploded in twenty twenty.

42
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:38,520
Speaker 5: Tell us about the scandal that sort of opened this

43
00:02:38,720 --> 00:02:39,800
Speaker 5: Pandora's box.

44
00:02:40,320 --> 00:02:43,680
Speaker 6: What caused the downfall of Tom Girardi in his law firm.

45
00:02:43,880 --> 00:02:47,640
Speaker 6: It all started with a particular lawsuit, the Lion air

46
00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:51,400
Speaker 6: plane crash, which happened in Jakarta, and Tom Girardi in

47
00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:55,400
Speaker 6: his firm, they would represent victims in big airplane crashes

48
00:02:55,480 --> 00:02:58,639
Speaker 6: like that, even if the crash happened halfway across the world.

49
00:02:58,880 --> 00:03:02,919
Speaker 6: And that litigation was centered in Chicago in federal court,

50
00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:05,640
Speaker 6: and ultimately it was settled. You know, Boeing and some

51
00:03:05,720 --> 00:03:09,120
Speaker 6: other defendants paid a lot of money, and Tom Girardi

52
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:12,919
Speaker 6: represented families who had lost loved ones in that plane crash.

53
00:03:13,160 --> 00:03:17,080
Speaker 6: Now he had a co council in Chicago, Chicago firm,

54
00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 6: and when the settlement was reached and the money was

55
00:03:20,800 --> 00:03:25,000
Speaker 6: paid by the defendants, Tom Girardi's firm didn't pay his clients,

56
00:03:25,360 --> 00:03:29,200
Speaker 6: one excuse after another. The firm in Chicago started to

57
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:32,240
Speaker 6: get very, very upset because clients are supposed to be

58
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:34,880
Speaker 6: paid out right away. And so this firm in Chicago

59
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:37,760
Speaker 6: went to federal court and said, there is some suspicious

60
00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:40,760
Speaker 6: going on here. Tom Girardi's firm is not paying out

61
00:03:40,840 --> 00:03:44,120
Speaker 6: money that they have received to the clients. And the

62
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:48,880
Speaker 6: federal court judge got very involved, went ballistic, and basically

63
00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:52,000
Speaker 6: some ined Tom Girardi and others to court and it

64
00:03:52,080 --> 00:03:55,120
Speaker 6: all unfolded there because it was a house of cards

65
00:03:55,400 --> 00:03:57,400
Speaker 6: and it all fell apart at that point, and it

66
00:03:57,440 --> 00:04:01,640
Speaker 6: became clear that Tom Girardi had been stealing money from

67
00:04:01,760 --> 00:04:03,080
Speaker 6: clients and from his firm.

68
00:04:03,280 --> 00:04:06,880
Speaker 5: Will you explain the basics of the prosecution's case against

69
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:08,360
Speaker 5: him in the LA trial.

70
00:04:08,960 --> 00:04:12,880
Speaker 6: Tom Girardi is being prosecuted for wire fraud, and the

71
00:04:12,880 --> 00:04:16,839
Speaker 6: wire fraud involves, you know, four or five clients. Look,

72
00:04:16,920 --> 00:04:19,080
Speaker 6: he defraud a whole lot more than four or five

73
00:04:19,160 --> 00:04:22,200
Speaker 6: clients over at the years, but the US Attorney's Office

74
00:04:22,279 --> 00:04:25,039
Speaker 6: in Los Angeles has narrowed it down to about four

75
00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:29,320
Speaker 6: or five families who basically had their funds, their settlements

76
00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:30,640
Speaker 6: stolen by Tom Girardi.

77
00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:30,839
Speaker 7: You know.

78
00:04:30,960 --> 00:04:35,600
Speaker 6: So he's accused of misappropriation of client funds and wire fraud,

79
00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:40,039
Speaker 6: and the amounting question this trial is about fifteen million dollars. Again,

80
00:04:40,279 --> 00:04:43,880
Speaker 6: you look at the long term wrongdoings by mister Girardi

81
00:04:43,960 --> 00:04:47,120
Speaker 6: and he absconded with a whole lot more than fifteen million.

82
00:04:47,320 --> 00:04:51,000
Speaker 6: And prosecution is close to resting their case. And they've

83
00:04:51,040 --> 00:04:56,400
Speaker 6: put on these victims who have explained how they weren't

84
00:04:56,400 --> 00:04:59,000
Speaker 6: given their settlement funds and all the excuses they were

85
00:04:59,000 --> 00:05:01,760
Speaker 6: given over time. And they've also had witnesses who are

86
00:05:01,800 --> 00:05:05,200
Speaker 6: the lawyers for these victims after the fact, who tried

87
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:07,279
Speaker 6: to help them get the money from Girardi, you know,

88
00:05:07,320 --> 00:05:09,479
Speaker 6: when they weren't being paid, and these lawyers come in say,

89
00:05:09,520 --> 00:05:11,279
Speaker 6: the excuses we got were absurd.

90
00:05:12,040 --> 00:05:15,840
Speaker 5: Is it basically like a Ponzi scheme that he allegedly operated.

91
00:05:16,520 --> 00:05:21,000
Speaker 6: I equate Tom Girardi to Bernie Madoff, the same type

92
00:05:21,000 --> 00:05:24,719
Speaker 6: of personality, the same type of long running fraud, just

93
00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:29,440
Speaker 6: the absolute despicable conduct of stealing from your own clients

94
00:05:29,480 --> 00:05:32,920
Speaker 6: who you have a duty of loyalty to. And so yeah,

95
00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:36,599
Speaker 6: it basically was a Ponzi scheme. What Tom Girardi apparently

96
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:40,760
Speaker 6: was doing was he spent extravagantly. We all know he

97
00:05:40,839 --> 00:05:43,760
Speaker 6: is married to Erica Jane from the Real Housewives and

98
00:05:43,800 --> 00:05:47,160
Speaker 6: the amount of money that was flowing from Tom for

99
00:05:47,279 --> 00:05:51,280
Speaker 6: his lifestyle and for Erica Jane's lifestyle, and so settlement

100
00:05:51,320 --> 00:05:54,120
Speaker 6: would come in, it would go into the Girardi and

101
00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:57,880
Speaker 6: Keys client trust fund, and Tom Girardi would take some

102
00:05:58,520 --> 00:06:02,000
Speaker 6: or all of it for his own personal, improper purposes

103
00:06:02,200 --> 00:06:04,960
Speaker 6: and then would lie to the client the money didn't

104
00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:08,279
Speaker 6: come in yet. Oh there's a hold up. Oh it's

105
00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:11,520
Speaker 6: being taxed, all sorts of stories not to pay them out.

106
00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:14,200
Speaker 6: Then when another big settlement came in, Okay, he might

107
00:06:14,240 --> 00:06:16,600
Speaker 6: pay out the person who'd been complaining for a year

108
00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:19,240
Speaker 6: or two, But now he'd stiff that client from their

109
00:06:19,279 --> 00:06:22,119
Speaker 6: settlement funds, and so yeah, basically a Ponzi scheme.

110
00:06:22,600 --> 00:06:27,680
Speaker 5: The prosecution is painting him as a celebrity attorney turned villain.

111
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:31,120
Speaker 5: But the defendant sitting there in the courtroom is this

112
00:06:31,320 --> 00:06:36,040
Speaker 5: eighty five year old in mental decline. He's been diagnosed

113
00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:39,440
Speaker 5: with dementia, lives in a nursing home. So might the

114
00:06:39,520 --> 00:06:42,720
Speaker 5: jury feel sympathy for him or say why are they

115
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:44,640
Speaker 5: going after him at this point?

116
00:06:44,880 --> 00:06:48,440
Speaker 6: Here's how that plays out in this particular Los Angeles trial.

117
00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:51,760
Speaker 6: The crimes that Tom Grady's being accused of committing date

118
00:06:51,800 --> 00:06:54,640
Speaker 6: back to twenty ten, and there's no evidence that he

119
00:06:54,680 --> 00:06:58,200
Speaker 6: had any real mental decline until about twenty twenty. So

120
00:06:58,279 --> 00:07:02,599
Speaker 6: he was perfectly fity ten through twenty twenty. He was

121
00:07:02,640 --> 00:07:07,640
Speaker 6: in courts, he was given speeches, he was politicians, fundraisers,

122
00:07:07,760 --> 00:07:10,880
Speaker 6: He was in perfect mental health between twenty ten and

123
00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:14,200
Speaker 6: twenty twenty when some of these crimes were committed, And

124
00:07:14,240 --> 00:07:17,480
Speaker 6: it really was only in twenty twenty when, yeah, he

125
00:07:17,560 --> 00:07:21,200
Speaker 6: absolutely did have some sort of mental decline, And now

126
00:07:21,240 --> 00:07:24,680
Speaker 6: they say he has early on Alzheimer's or dementia, and

127
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:27,160
Speaker 6: he does not look well at all in court. But

128
00:07:27,680 --> 00:07:30,880
Speaker 6: what the prosecution will do and has done, is say,

129
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:33,080
Speaker 6: can't look at this man for what he is right

130
00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:35,640
Speaker 6: now here today, look at what he's done over the

131
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:39,040
Speaker 6: past fifteen years, back to twenty ten, when he was

132
00:07:39,160 --> 00:07:41,320
Speaker 6: absolutely positively competent.

133
00:07:41,600 --> 00:07:47,120
Speaker 5: The defense is blaming the XCFO Christopher Cayman, who's charge

134
00:07:47,160 --> 00:07:51,000
Speaker 5: with fraud for allegedly stealing from both client accounts and

135
00:07:51,080 --> 00:07:55,160
Speaker 5: the firm's operating fund. A judge has split Girardi's trial

136
00:07:55,280 --> 00:08:00,200
Speaker 5: from Cayman's, so that's quite advantageous to Girardi's defense is

137
00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:03,880
Speaker 5: his lyric and point at Cayman as the real villain here.

138
00:08:04,560 --> 00:08:08,240
Speaker 6: Yes, so Tom Girardi really has two main points in

139
00:08:08,280 --> 00:08:11,960
Speaker 6: his defense. One is that, oh, you know, he was unfit,

140
00:08:12,120 --> 00:08:15,800
Speaker 6: he was mentally declining, he had dementia, He didn't know

141
00:08:15,840 --> 00:08:18,840
Speaker 6: what he was doing. He couldn't have controlled these accounts

142
00:08:18,960 --> 00:08:21,520
Speaker 6: or this money because he really couldn't even handle his

143
00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:24,440
Speaker 6: own data day activities. That's a big part of their defense.

144
00:08:24,520 --> 00:08:27,040
Speaker 6: And the other part is what you mentioned that the

145
00:08:27,120 --> 00:08:30,560
Speaker 6: law firm Girardi and Keith had a chief financial officer

146
00:08:30,640 --> 00:08:34,640
Speaker 6: named Chris Cayman, and mister Caymen is separately charged from

147
00:08:34,679 --> 00:08:38,160
Speaker 6: mister Girardi for crimes that mister Cayman committed, and so

148
00:08:38,360 --> 00:08:42,200
Speaker 6: absolutely in this case, Tom Girardi's defense is to point

149
00:08:42,200 --> 00:08:44,880
Speaker 6: the finger at Chris Cayman, the CFO, and say, you

150
00:08:44,920 --> 00:08:47,840
Speaker 6: know what, he's the guy who is stealing the money.

151
00:08:48,080 --> 00:08:50,920
Speaker 6: He's the guy who you know, wreaked havoc on the

152
00:08:51,000 --> 00:08:55,360
Speaker 6: law firm's financial resources and the client trust accounts. The

153
00:08:55,520 --> 00:08:59,040
Speaker 6: problem with that is that it's going to become pretty

154
00:08:59,160 --> 00:09:03,040
Speaker 6: clear at the CFO Chris came in, he was conducting

155
00:09:03,040 --> 00:09:06,440
Speaker 6: what they've called is a side fraud. He knew that

156
00:09:06,520 --> 00:09:10,080
Speaker 6: Girardi was playing Shenanigans with all the money. I mean,

157
00:09:10,120 --> 00:09:12,520
Speaker 6: he was a CFO. He knew what was going on,

158
00:09:12,760 --> 00:09:15,280
Speaker 6: and he knew he could get away with from pzzling money.

159
00:09:15,320 --> 00:09:18,520
Speaker 6: And so what he did He saw this firm in disarray,

160
00:09:18,760 --> 00:09:21,440
Speaker 6: knew what Girardi was doing, so he started to steal

161
00:09:21,520 --> 00:09:24,480
Speaker 6: money on his own. And that's going to be a

162
00:09:24,559 --> 00:09:28,040
Speaker 6: separate trial down the road against mister Cayman, who had

163
00:09:28,040 --> 00:09:30,480
Speaker 6: fled the country and they brought him back here. But

164
00:09:30,640 --> 00:09:34,640
Speaker 6: it certainly gives Tom Girardi's lawyers some arguments in this

165
00:09:34,679 --> 00:09:37,880
Speaker 6: particular trial. My personal opinion, I don't think it's going

166
00:09:37,920 --> 00:09:39,440
Speaker 6: to carry the day for Tom Girardi.

167
00:09:39,800 --> 00:09:42,480
Speaker 5: Apparently there is some evidence coming in. On the fifth

168
00:09:42,600 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 5: day of the trial, there was testimony about a secret

169
00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:49,560
Speaker 5: bank account that was hidden from Girardi. So the defense

170
00:09:49,760 --> 00:09:54,160
Speaker 5: is looking at that as evidence showing that Girardi wasn't

171
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:56,480
Speaker 5: aware of all that was going on at the firm.

172
00:09:56,840 --> 00:10:00,680
Speaker 6: Tell you what, this very very very interesting development in

173
00:10:00,800 --> 00:10:03,920
Speaker 6: the case, this secret bank account, and we don't know

174
00:10:03,960 --> 00:10:06,520
Speaker 6: a lot about it yet. It really just surfaced for

175
00:10:06,559 --> 00:10:09,640
Speaker 6: the first time in the media at least in this lawsuit.

176
00:10:09,679 --> 00:10:12,320
Speaker 6: No one had really heard about this secret bank account before.

177
00:10:12,520 --> 00:10:16,000
Speaker 6: But what it appears to have been is part of

178
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:21,720
Speaker 6: perhaps Chris came in side fraud where someone set up

179
00:10:21,760 --> 00:10:25,800
Speaker 6: another bank account and a different bank than the law

180
00:10:25,840 --> 00:10:30,000
Speaker 6: firm routinely used, and was siphoning money over to this

181
00:10:30,120 --> 00:10:32,680
Speaker 6: other bank account, and we don't really know why. We

182
00:10:32,760 --> 00:10:34,520
Speaker 6: do know that checks were written out of it, we

183
00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:36,840
Speaker 6: know clients were paid money out of it, but we

184
00:10:36,920 --> 00:10:40,520
Speaker 6: also know that didn't really start until close to twenty

185
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:43,600
Speaker 6: nineteen or twenty twenty. And so again you got to

186
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:46,199
Speaker 6: go back and look at the crimes that are ledged

187
00:10:46,240 --> 00:10:49,000
Speaker 6: against Girardi and those days all the way back to

188
00:10:49,080 --> 00:10:52,680
Speaker 6: twenty ten in this case. So again, this secret bank

189
00:10:52,679 --> 00:10:56,720
Speaker 6: account very interesting, raises eyebrows for sure, but I don't

190
00:10:56,720 --> 00:10:58,760
Speaker 6: think it's enough to get Tom Girardi off.

191
00:10:59,360 --> 00:11:03,200
Speaker 5: And there were more two hundred misconduct complaints filed against

192
00:11:03,280 --> 00:11:07,439
Speaker 5: Girardi before the State Bar of California over four decades,

193
00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:10,880
Speaker 5: yet he managed to avoid any disciplinary action until I

194
00:11:10,880 --> 00:11:13,720
Speaker 5: think about twenty twenty two. And the parents of a

195
00:11:13,760 --> 00:11:17,239
Speaker 5: boy who died of cancer who was represented by Girardi

196
00:11:17,679 --> 00:11:21,920
Speaker 5: have filed a class action lawsuit against the California State

197
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:26,960
Speaker 5: Bar alleging gross negligence and reckless misconduct. What's your take

198
00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:27,720
Speaker 5: on that case.

199
00:11:28,280 --> 00:11:31,600
Speaker 6: I think it's definitely got legs. There has been a

200
00:11:31,640 --> 00:11:35,080
Speaker 6: lot that has come out against the California State Bar

201
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:39,400
Speaker 6: since this Girardi scandal erupted four years ago, and it's

202
00:11:39,640 --> 00:11:43,720
Speaker 6: absolutely mind numbing and despicable what has been shown. This

203
00:11:43,760 --> 00:11:46,839
Speaker 6: shows you how powerful Tom Girardi was. Tom Girardi had

204
00:11:46,880 --> 00:11:50,200
Speaker 6: the state bar wrapped around his finger. Tom Girardi had

205
00:11:50,440 --> 00:11:53,880
Speaker 6: so many complaints made against him over the course of

206
00:11:54,080 --> 00:11:57,319
Speaker 6: twenty or thirty years, and how did he get away

207
00:11:57,360 --> 00:12:00,719
Speaker 6: with that? He was the ultimate mastermind. This guy had

208
00:12:00,800 --> 00:12:06,000
Speaker 6: so many connections. He actually placed an investigator in the

209
00:12:06,120 --> 00:12:11,000
Speaker 6: state Bar office who was there handling complaints against Gerbarti.

210
00:12:11,240 --> 00:12:13,760
Speaker 6: Tom Girardi was very close with some of these state

211
00:12:13,800 --> 00:12:17,640
Speaker 6: bar judges. And so the system, now that we've seen

212
00:12:17,679 --> 00:12:21,000
Speaker 6: it exposed for what it was. It was a sham

213
00:12:21,240 --> 00:12:24,760
Speaker 6: and Tom Girardi manipulated the state bar system and he

214
00:12:24,840 --> 00:12:28,080
Speaker 6: got away with it for thirty plus years despite having

215
00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:31,640
Speaker 6: hundreds of complaints made against him, and not one thing

216
00:12:31,720 --> 00:12:33,559
Speaker 6: was ever done to him. Shameful.

217
00:12:33,880 --> 00:12:36,120
Speaker 5: We'll see what the jury decides in this case. Thanks

218
00:12:36,160 --> 00:12:40,000
Speaker 5: so much, David. That's LA trial attorney David Ring. I'm

219
00:12:40,080 --> 00:12:42,280
Speaker 5: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

220
00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:46,080
Speaker 4: Starting today, we're Cansiley student Debtford borrowers who are enrolled

221
00:12:46,080 --> 00:12:49,280
Speaker 4: in the Save Plan and have been paying student loans

222
00:12:49,440 --> 00:12:51,280
Speaker 4: for as little as ten years.

223
00:12:51,600 --> 00:12:55,800
Speaker 5: Back in February, President Biden unveiled the Save Plan, a

224
00:12:55,880 --> 00:12:59,800
Speaker 5: student loan repayment program that ties how much someone pays

225
00:12:59,800 --> 00:13:04,720
Speaker 5: he month to their income. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said

226
00:13:04,720 --> 00:13:07,360
Speaker 5: the program is targeted to certain borrowers.

227
00:13:07,760 --> 00:13:10,080
Speaker 8: These are people that took out loans of twelve thousand

228
00:13:10,120 --> 00:13:13,680
Speaker 8: dollars or less, smaller loans. We know that these folks

229
00:13:13,720 --> 00:13:16,680
Speaker 8: are more likely to go into default, so that's the

230
00:13:16,720 --> 00:13:19,360
Speaker 8: group we targeted with this debt relief announcement.

231
00:13:19,559 --> 00:13:23,400
Speaker 5: But eight million borrowers enrolled in Save have endured the

232
00:13:23,559 --> 00:13:27,120
Speaker 5: chaos of conflicting up and down legal rulings on the

233
00:13:27,200 --> 00:13:30,520
Speaker 5: viability of the program. That's because more than a dozen

234
00:13:30,600 --> 00:13:36,120
Speaker 5: Republican led states filed lawsuits challenging the plan in two jurisdictions,

235
00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:39,440
Speaker 5: Kansas and Missouri, and now the Eighth Circuit Court of

236
00:13:39,440 --> 00:13:44,000
Speaker 5: Appeals in Missouri has issued an extraordinary sweeping order blocking

237
00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:49,040
Speaker 5: the program everywhere while litigation proceeds. This conflicts with a

238
00:13:49,120 --> 00:13:53,360
Speaker 5: decision from the Tenth Circuit in Colorado. On Tuesday, the

239
00:13:53,360 --> 00:13:57,720
Speaker 5: Biden administration filed an emergency petition at the Supreme Court

240
00:13:57,960 --> 00:14:01,920
Speaker 5: asking the justices to reinstead the Save Plan joining me

241
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:06,600
Speaker 5: is constitutional law Professor Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School, Mike,

242
00:14:06,760 --> 00:14:09,920
Speaker 5: is the Safe Plan different from the Biden student loan

243
00:14:10,000 --> 00:14:14,240
Speaker 5: relief plan the Supreme Court throughout in July of last year?

244
00:14:14,880 --> 00:14:17,760
Speaker 7: Yes, I mean it had some different details in terms

245
00:14:17,760 --> 00:14:20,040
Speaker 7: of who is eligible and what you had do to file.

246
00:14:20,520 --> 00:14:24,440
Speaker 7: But the more important piece in terms of the legal

247
00:14:24,600 --> 00:14:27,840
Speaker 7: aspect is that it relied on a different set of

248
00:14:27,880 --> 00:14:29,120
Speaker 7: statutory authorities.

249
00:14:29,600 --> 00:14:32,800
Speaker 5: So a three judge panel of the Eighth Circuit with

250
00:14:32,960 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 5: three Republican appointees called the plan a vast assertion of

251
00:14:37,640 --> 00:14:40,280
Speaker 5: newfound power. Tell us about their decision.

252
00:14:40,680 --> 00:14:44,080
Speaker 7: So the court had two issues to decide. It first

253
00:14:44,160 --> 00:14:48,520
Speaker 7: needed to decide whether there was standing for the plaintiffs,

254
00:14:48,560 --> 00:14:51,800
Speaker 7: which were a bunch of states that were basically led

255
00:14:51,840 --> 00:14:55,120
Speaker 7: by Republicans, And there it essentially relied on the Supreme

256
00:14:55,160 --> 00:14:58,000
Speaker 7: Court case because Missouri is one of the plaintiffs in

257
00:14:58,040 --> 00:15:00,840
Speaker 7: the earlier case. The Supreme courts had that Missouri had

258
00:15:00,920 --> 00:15:06,440
Speaker 7: standing because this corporation that Missouri had chartered to process loans,

259
00:15:06,600 --> 00:15:09,320
Speaker 7: known as Mohila, could suffer legal injury, and that injury

260
00:15:09,320 --> 00:15:12,880
Speaker 7: would be translated to the state. The censer on that

261
00:15:12,880 --> 00:15:14,640
Speaker 7: point in the Supreme Court. But that's sort of what

262
00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:16,240
Speaker 7: are under the bridge, So there was really no issue

263
00:15:16,240 --> 00:15:19,440
Speaker 7: about standing for the Eighth Circuit to decide. The heart

264
00:15:19,440 --> 00:15:24,680
Speaker 7: of the matter was whether this was something authorized by

265
00:15:24,760 --> 00:15:27,680
Speaker 7: an Act of Congress, and the Biden administration had a

266
00:15:27,720 --> 00:15:31,040
Speaker 7: decent argument that if you read the literal text of

267
00:15:31,080 --> 00:15:33,680
Speaker 7: the statute, it does seem to give the Secretary of

268
00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:40,360
Speaker 7: Education broad discretion to modify loans to delay payments, including

269
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:41,080
Speaker 7: on principle.

270
00:15:41,320 --> 00:15:43,040
Speaker 3: But the Court said two things.

271
00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:45,880
Speaker 7: First, they said, well, there are other parts of the

272
00:15:45,920 --> 00:15:51,200
Speaker 7: same statutory's team that expressly grant to the Department of

273
00:15:51,320 --> 00:15:56,360
Speaker 7: Education the authority to forgive loans, and given that Congress

274
00:15:56,400 --> 00:16:00,600
Speaker 7: did those expressly, it's unlikely that Congress would have intended

275
00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:04,360
Speaker 7: for the Secretary of Education in this more general language

276
00:16:04,800 --> 00:16:08,000
Speaker 7: to be able to forgive loans. The second thing they

277
00:16:08,040 --> 00:16:11,800
Speaker 7: said was the language you quoted, which is that in

278
00:16:11,840 --> 00:16:15,360
Speaker 7: the last few years, the Supreme Court, and especially to

279
00:16:15,640 --> 00:16:19,120
Speaker 7: Justice Roberts, have relied on something that has come to

280
00:16:19,160 --> 00:16:21,760
Speaker 7: be known as the major questions doctrine, and the basic

281
00:16:21,800 --> 00:16:24,880
Speaker 7: idea there is that if an agency is going to

282
00:16:24,920 --> 00:16:28,600
Speaker 7: be exercising power over a very large part of the

283
00:16:28,680 --> 00:16:33,160
Speaker 7: economy or our social life, then you need to find

284
00:16:33,480 --> 00:16:37,680
Speaker 7: authorization for the agency to do so in the express

285
00:16:37,840 --> 00:16:40,040
Speaker 7: language of Congress. So it's kind of what someone is

286
00:16:40,040 --> 00:16:42,880
Speaker 7: called a clear statement rule. Although there's some debate among

287
00:16:42,920 --> 00:16:46,200
Speaker 7: administrative law scholars and even by Justice Barrett questioning whether

288
00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:48,720
Speaker 7: that's exactly how to understand it. But in any event,

289
00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:51,160
Speaker 7: that's what the Eighth Circuit said. They said, Look, this

290
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:54,240
Speaker 7: is just not the kind of thing that Congress has

291
00:16:54,280 --> 00:16:57,000
Speaker 7: given you power to do. Maybe Congress could do that,

292
00:16:57,120 --> 00:16:59,520
Speaker 7: maybe Congress could do it itself, but they haven't done it.

293
00:17:00,000 --> 00:17:02,840
Speaker 5: Where do issue the injunction? Did the Eighth Circuit find

294
00:17:02,880 --> 00:17:06,920
Speaker 5: that there was irreparable injury to the Republican States here?

295
00:17:07,320 --> 00:17:07,520
Speaker 4: Yeah?

296
00:17:07,520 --> 00:17:11,520
Speaker 7: Well, so that's the interesting thing. Yes, although the core

297
00:17:11,800 --> 00:17:15,160
Speaker 7: of the decision in the Court says this is likelihood

298
00:17:15,160 --> 00:17:17,760
Speaker 7: of success on the merit, of course, it's really kind

299
00:17:17,800 --> 00:17:20,200
Speaker 7: of hard to see how there's an irreparable injury to

300
00:17:20,320 --> 00:17:22,600
Speaker 7: Missouri because they're going to be collecting a little bit

301
00:17:22,680 --> 00:17:26,080
Speaker 7: less in interest through this entity that they've created to

302
00:17:26,160 --> 00:17:30,360
Speaker 7: process loans, but that there is not a reparable injury

303
00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:34,640
Speaker 7: to the millions of borrowers who now have to pay

304
00:17:34,680 --> 00:17:36,520
Speaker 7: off these student loans when they thought they were going

305
00:17:36,520 --> 00:17:39,359
Speaker 7: to be eligible for some forgiveness. Court doesn't say that

306
00:17:39,400 --> 00:17:43,159
Speaker 7: the borrowers don't have an injury or even an irreparable injury.

307
00:17:43,240 --> 00:17:45,359
Speaker 7: But the Court doesn't really get to the question of

308
00:17:45,640 --> 00:17:46,320
Speaker 7: balancing of.

309
00:17:46,320 --> 00:17:48,760
Speaker 3: The equities, which is typically the last.

310
00:17:48,400 --> 00:17:51,280
Speaker 7: Step in one of these decisions, whether the grade in

311
00:17:51,359 --> 00:17:52,000
Speaker 7: junctior belief.

312
00:17:52,320 --> 00:17:57,080
Speaker 5: Republican attorneys general filed separate lawsuits over the Safe Plan,

313
00:17:57,240 --> 00:18:01,480
Speaker 5: this one and one filed in Kansas. The Tenth Circuit

314
00:18:01,840 --> 00:18:06,320
Speaker 5: said the plan could take effect while the court battle continues.

315
00:18:06,400 --> 00:18:09,840
Speaker 5: So now you have an Eighth Circuit decision contrary to

316
00:18:09,880 --> 00:18:13,160
Speaker 5: the Tenth Circuit decision. Does this mean that the Supreme

317
00:18:13,240 --> 00:18:15,159
Speaker 5: Court is going to take up the case?

318
00:18:15,800 --> 00:18:16,359
Speaker 7: Presumably?

319
00:18:16,480 --> 00:18:16,720
Speaker 3: Yes.

320
00:18:16,800 --> 00:18:19,080
Speaker 7: You know what interesting about this case and so many

321
00:18:19,080 --> 00:18:22,320
Speaker 7: other Supreme Court hears these days, is there hasn't been

322
00:18:22,320 --> 00:18:24,480
Speaker 7: a trial. This is on a preliminary in junction, and

323
00:18:24,520 --> 00:18:26,120
Speaker 7: maybe you don't need a trial because it's really.

324
00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:27,080
Speaker 3: Just a pure question of law.

325
00:18:27,440 --> 00:18:31,440
Speaker 7: But it's technically what they were doing was addressing whether

326
00:18:31,480 --> 00:18:35,080
Speaker 7: to keep a stay pending appeal in place or to

327
00:18:35,160 --> 00:18:38,960
Speaker 7: modify it. But the bottom line of the Eighth Circuit

328
00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:44,880
Speaker 7: ruling is that the program is enjoined indefinitely pending Supreme

329
00:18:44,920 --> 00:18:49,679
Speaker 7: Court reversal or potentially I suppose the case could go

330
00:18:49,680 --> 00:18:51,560
Speaker 7: back to the district court and somehow the district court

331
00:18:51,600 --> 00:18:53,919
Speaker 7: could find the case comes out the other way, but

332
00:18:54,160 --> 00:18:57,000
Speaker 7: you know that would result in reversal almost immediately because

333
00:18:57,119 --> 00:19:00,240
Speaker 7: here likelihood of success in the merits means we think

334
00:19:00,359 --> 00:19:03,120
Speaker 7: the merits favor the challengers, meaning the state.

335
00:19:03,560 --> 00:19:07,840
Speaker 5: The Biden administration has tried all kinds of loan forgiveness

336
00:19:07,880 --> 00:19:12,399
Speaker 5: plans to get around the Supreme Court's decision, and it

337
00:19:12,440 --> 00:19:16,200
Speaker 5: appears they're gearing up for another one come fall, because

338
00:19:16,200 --> 00:19:19,919
Speaker 5: the Education Department has email borrowers to let it know

339
00:19:20,080 --> 00:19:22,840
Speaker 5: by August thirtieth if they want to opt out of

340
00:19:22,880 --> 00:19:26,240
Speaker 5: any future programs. I mean, is there any point anymore

341
00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:29,720
Speaker 5: for the Biden administration to keep trying The plans just

342
00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:30,960
Speaker 5: get blocked by courts.

343
00:19:31,359 --> 00:19:33,399
Speaker 7: Well, you know, it depends on what you mean by

344
00:19:33,400 --> 00:19:37,600
Speaker 7: a point, right, If the point is to actually deliver

345
00:19:38,080 --> 00:19:42,399
Speaker 7: debt forgiveness to borrowers, probably not. You know, you would

346
00:19:42,480 --> 00:19:46,720
Speaker 7: think that if you want to deliver that forgiveness through

347
00:19:46,920 --> 00:19:50,600
Speaker 7: existing statutory authority for one of the federal agencies, you

348
00:19:50,600 --> 00:19:54,880
Speaker 7: would start with the strongest case for doing so, And

349
00:19:55,400 --> 00:19:58,840
Speaker 7: you know, the backups tend to have somewhat weaker arguments.

350
00:19:58,880 --> 00:20:03,080
Speaker 7: Although I will say that the argument for the programmer

351
00:20:03,200 --> 00:20:07,159
Speaker 7: was just struck down didn't rely on the kind of

352
00:20:07,200 --> 00:20:11,800
Speaker 7: emergency theory that the previous one did. So it's possible

353
00:20:12,320 --> 00:20:15,120
Speaker 7: that they will eventually hit upon something that the Supreme

354
00:20:15,160 --> 00:20:18,160
Speaker 7: Court and the lower federal courts accept. I just think

355
00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:19,680
Speaker 7: it's not very likely.

356
00:20:20,280 --> 00:20:24,359
Speaker 5: So you think that practically speaking, there'll be no substantial

357
00:20:24,480 --> 00:20:29,399
Speaker 5: student debt relief program during the Biden administration, Yeah, I think.

358
00:20:29,280 --> 00:20:31,720
Speaker 7: That's right, just given the pace of litigation, right, so

359
00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:33,800
Speaker 7: that you could throw a Hail Mary Kney appeal to

360
00:20:33,840 --> 00:20:37,840
Speaker 7: the US Supreme Court and hope that they side with

361
00:20:38,320 --> 00:20:41,879
Speaker 7: the Tenth Circuit rather than the Eighth Circuit. But again,

362
00:20:42,280 --> 00:20:47,720
Speaker 7: given how closely the Eighth Circuit's logic tracks the logic

363
00:20:47,840 --> 00:20:50,680
Speaker 7: of the Supreme Court's own opinion in Biden against Nebraska,

364
00:20:50,720 --> 00:20:53,439
Speaker 7: the earlier case. I don't think that's going to happen.

365
00:20:54,040 --> 00:20:59,119
Speaker 5: Why are the Republican states so bent, so driven to

366
00:20:59,160 --> 00:21:02,640
Speaker 5: stop any student loan forgiveness? Is it just because it's

367
00:21:02,680 --> 00:21:06,480
Speaker 5: a Biden administration initiative or is it some other reason?

368
00:21:07,080 --> 00:21:10,160
Speaker 3: Well, I think they've got three kinds of reasons.

369
00:21:10,400 --> 00:21:13,920
Speaker 7: One is, you know, anything your forum against. I think

370
00:21:13,920 --> 00:21:16,240
Speaker 7: that there is some of that going on here. But

371
00:21:16,480 --> 00:21:19,880
Speaker 7: I think a second piece is that you know, they're

372
00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:27,240
Speaker 7: hostile to executive branch agencies doing things that Congress hasn't

373
00:21:27,359 --> 00:21:30,639
Speaker 7: clearly authorized because they're hostile to the administrative state. And

374
00:21:30,680 --> 00:21:34,000
Speaker 7: you saw that in the overruling of Chevron, You've seen

375
00:21:34,040 --> 00:21:36,439
Speaker 7: that in the Major Questions doctrine. You see that in

376
00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:40,159
Speaker 7: these suggestions by various Conservative justices that they'd like to

377
00:21:40,680 --> 00:21:44,240
Speaker 7: revitalize the so called non delegation doctrine. I should say

378
00:21:44,240 --> 00:21:47,679
Speaker 7: that the Republicans in Congress are much more hostile to

379
00:21:47,920 --> 00:21:51,040
Speaker 7: the executive doing things that aren't very clearly authorized by

380
00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:53,720
Speaker 7: Congress when it's a democratic presidents, and they are when

381
00:21:53,760 --> 00:21:56,080
Speaker 7: it's a Republican president. But that you know that door

382
00:21:56,119 --> 00:21:58,800
Speaker 7: swings both ways. That's just generally true. And then the

383
00:21:58,840 --> 00:22:01,320
Speaker 7: third thing I'll say is that you know, there are

384
00:22:02,040 --> 00:22:08,280
Speaker 7: I think legitimate policy reasons to it's not necessarily oppose

385
00:22:08,400 --> 00:22:13,320
Speaker 7: a student's debt forgiveness to think about the issue in.

386
00:22:13,280 --> 00:22:14,600
Speaker 3: A broader perspective.

387
00:22:14,880 --> 00:22:19,000
Speaker 7: So it's true that people who borrowed money to go

388
00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:21,080
Speaker 7: to college, or even to go to grad school or

389
00:22:21,200 --> 00:22:24,080
Speaker 7: professional school and now are battled with a lot of

390
00:22:24,119 --> 00:22:28,080
Speaker 7: debt find that difficult, especially if they didn't have you know,

391
00:22:28,160 --> 00:22:30,640
Speaker 7: fixed rates, which we typically don't for these things, especially

392
00:22:31,000 --> 00:22:33,560
Speaker 7: as we've been in a high interest rate environment for

393
00:22:33,680 --> 00:22:37,440
Speaker 7: the last couple of years. But so do other people, right,

394
00:22:37,600 --> 00:22:39,680
Speaker 7: you know, if you borrow money to start a business,

395
00:22:39,920 --> 00:22:42,960
Speaker 7: you could be saddled with a lot of debt. If

396
00:22:43,080 --> 00:22:48,359
Speaker 7: you went to a less expensive college, then you might

397
00:22:48,400 --> 00:22:50,439
Speaker 7: have gone to that might have given you a somewhat

398
00:22:50,440 --> 00:22:54,240
Speaker 7: more prestigious degree because you didn't want to be saddled

399
00:22:54,280 --> 00:22:57,320
Speaker 7: with debt, and you paid for your education out of pocket,

400
00:22:57,680 --> 00:22:59,879
Speaker 7: or you got loans that aren't covered by one of

401
00:23:00,160 --> 00:23:03,040
Speaker 7: these relief programs. Then you might say, well, I'm similarly

402
00:23:03,080 --> 00:23:04,920
Speaker 7: situated to the people who are getting this relief.

403
00:23:05,080 --> 00:23:06,679
Speaker 3: I should get the relief as well.

404
00:23:06,960 --> 00:23:09,000
Speaker 7: And there is of course a revenue hit to the

405
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:12,200
Speaker 7: federal government, which means either you're going to run larger

406
00:23:12,240 --> 00:23:14,600
Speaker 7: deficits or you're going to have to cut somewhere else.

407
00:23:14,680 --> 00:23:16,840
Speaker 3: So it's not as though student debt.

408
00:23:16,680 --> 00:23:21,840
Speaker 7: Forgiveness is a slam dunk on the policy side. And

409
00:23:21,880 --> 00:23:24,440
Speaker 7: so I think it's quite possible that some Republicans, probably

410
00:23:24,440 --> 00:23:28,440
Speaker 7: even some Democrats, think that while this may or may

411
00:23:28,440 --> 00:23:32,760
Speaker 7: not have certain political impacts, and it's certainly valuable to

412
00:23:32,800 --> 00:23:35,719
Speaker 7: the people who get the forgiveness and they certainly, you know,

413
00:23:36,119 --> 00:23:38,920
Speaker 7: use it, it's not necessarily the best policy, of all

414
00:23:38,960 --> 00:23:39,640
Speaker 7: things considered.

415
00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:42,679
Speaker 5: The next thing we'll hear on this will probably be

416
00:23:42,840 --> 00:23:46,280
Speaker 5: whether the Supreme Court decides to take the case. Thanks

417
00:23:46,280 --> 00:23:50,280
Speaker 5: so much, Mike Best. Professor Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School. Now,

418
00:23:50,280 --> 00:23:53,480
Speaker 5: if you're one of the borrowers enrolled in the save plan,

419
00:23:53,880 --> 00:23:56,800
Speaker 5: you don't have to worry about payments or interest accruing.

420
00:23:56,880 --> 00:24:01,440
Speaker 5: Yet the Education Department has put all low in forbearance

421
00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:06,679
Speaker 5: while the litigation continues. I'm June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg.

422
00:24:11,040 --> 00:24:15,840
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

423
00:24:17,040 --> 00:24:21,440
Speaker 5: Robert F. Kennedy Junior's independent presidential campaign took a hit

424
00:24:21,560 --> 00:24:24,120
Speaker 5: this week when a judge kicked him off the ballot

425
00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:27,440
Speaker 5: in New York after finding that he falsely claimed a

426
00:24:27,520 --> 00:24:31,240
Speaker 5: New York residence on his nominating petitions, despite the fact

427
00:24:31,280 --> 00:24:34,359
Speaker 5: that he lives in California. It's a ruling that could

428
00:24:34,359 --> 00:24:38,439
Speaker 5: create problems for the candidate as he faces challenges elsewhere.

429
00:24:38,840 --> 00:24:42,600
Speaker 5: Following a short trial, Judge Christina Reba found that Kennedy

430
00:24:42,720 --> 00:24:45,640
Speaker 5: was using a sham address on the petitions to put

431
00:24:45,640 --> 00:24:48,280
Speaker 5: his name on the New York ballot. In her decision

432
00:24:48,320 --> 00:24:51,959
Speaker 5: on Monday, the judge said that quote using a friend's

433
00:24:52,119 --> 00:24:56,480
Speaker 5: address for political and voting purposes while barely stepping foot

434
00:24:56,480 --> 00:24:59,919
Speaker 5: on the premises, does not equate to residency under the

435
00:25:00,080 --> 00:25:04,080
Speaker 5: election law. In an interview with CBS six in Albany,

436
00:25:04,480 --> 00:25:07,679
Speaker 5: Kennedy compared his situation to that of his late father,

437
00:25:08,040 --> 00:25:11,040
Speaker 5: Senator Robert F. Kennedy, when he ran in New York

438
00:25:11,160 --> 00:25:12,360
Speaker 5: in nineteen sixty eight.

439
00:25:13,119 --> 00:25:18,040
Speaker 1: He was also, ironically also called a carpetbagger. In other words,

440
00:25:18,119 --> 00:25:20,120
Speaker 1: you know that he didn't really live in New York State.

441
00:25:20,480 --> 00:25:23,840
Speaker 1: So sixty years later, now I'm running and I'm being

442
00:25:23,880 --> 00:25:26,040
Speaker 1: told I don't live in New York State. My driver's

443
00:25:26,080 --> 00:25:28,560
Speaker 1: license here, I vote in this state, my car is

444
00:25:28,600 --> 00:25:33,600
Speaker 1: registered here, my law licenses in this state, not California,

445
00:25:34,760 --> 00:25:37,760
Speaker 1: my law offices in the state. I pay income tagris

446
00:25:37,800 --> 00:25:38,280
Speaker 1: in this state.

447
00:25:38,640 --> 00:25:42,679
Speaker 5: Kennedy is facing challenges in more than a half dozen states,

448
00:25:42,720 --> 00:25:46,280
Speaker 5: some alleging that he falsely listed the same New York address.

449
00:25:46,640 --> 00:25:49,880
Speaker 5: He's appealing the New York decision joining me is elections

450
00:25:49,960 --> 00:25:53,639
Speaker 5: law expert Richard Brofalt, a professor at Columbia Law School,

451
00:25:54,119 --> 00:25:57,440
Speaker 5: rich how is residency defined under New York law.

452
00:25:57,720 --> 00:26:02,320
Speaker 4: Residency means domicile is the place that you maintain is

453
00:26:02,359 --> 00:26:04,719
Speaker 4: your home and if you are a way, you intend

454
00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:07,919
Speaker 4: to return to it. New York law recognizes that people

455
00:26:08,040 --> 00:26:10,880
Speaker 4: can have multiple residents. You could have a main home

456
00:26:10,920 --> 00:26:12,760
Speaker 4: and a summer home and another home, but one of

457
00:26:12,800 --> 00:26:15,119
Speaker 4: them has to be the place that is your primary

458
00:26:15,119 --> 00:26:17,280
Speaker 4: residence in legal terms, your domicile.

459
00:26:17,800 --> 00:26:22,520
Speaker 5: Kennedy listed as his residence a friend's house in Katona,

460
00:26:22,600 --> 00:26:25,439
Speaker 5: New York, where he said he rented a bedroom, but

461
00:26:25,560 --> 00:26:29,040
Speaker 5: he admitted at trial that he only spent one night

462
00:26:29,119 --> 00:26:32,000
Speaker 5: there that was about a month ago. In June. There's

463
00:26:32,040 --> 00:26:34,840
Speaker 5: no written lease. He only made a rent payment. After

464
00:26:34,880 --> 00:26:37,439
Speaker 5: a New York Post story came out, he moved with

465
00:26:37,520 --> 00:26:40,240
Speaker 5: his kids and his pets except for the Falcons and

466
00:26:40,280 --> 00:26:43,399
Speaker 5: the Hawk, to California in twenty fourteen. He bought a

467
00:26:43,440 --> 00:26:45,640
Speaker 5: house there, and when asked a trilo if he lives

468
00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:48,399
Speaker 5: in California, he said yes. I mean, what is his

469
00:26:48,800 --> 00:26:51,600
Speaker 5: reason for claiming New York residency?

470
00:26:52,000 --> 00:26:55,440
Speaker 4: Oh, his reason, I think is that his running mate

471
00:26:55,680 --> 00:26:59,680
Speaker 4: is a California resident, and under the constitution he went

472
00:26:59,720 --> 00:27:03,800
Speaker 4: in the electoral votes, the California electors cannot vote for

473
00:27:03,880 --> 00:27:06,800
Speaker 4: both of them. In other words, if he somehow carried California,

474
00:27:07,000 --> 00:27:10,000
Speaker 4: the California electors are prohibited by the constitution for voting

475
00:27:10,040 --> 00:27:12,160
Speaker 4: for two people from their own state, so he had

476
00:27:12,200 --> 00:27:14,520
Speaker 4: to have a separate residency from his vice president.

477
00:27:14,880 --> 00:27:15,000
Speaker 8: Well.

478
00:27:15,119 --> 00:27:18,760
Speaker 5: The judge said that he demonstrated a long standing pattern

479
00:27:18,800 --> 00:27:22,280
Speaker 5: of borrowing addresses to keep up the appearances of New

480
00:27:22,359 --> 00:27:26,200
Speaker 5: York residency. I mean, at one point he claimed residency

481
00:27:26,400 --> 00:27:29,000
Speaker 5: at a house that his sister had sold and neither

482
00:27:29,000 --> 00:27:30,240
Speaker 5: of them lived in anymore.

483
00:27:30,640 --> 00:27:32,720
Speaker 4: Apparently he's still registered to vote in New York. He

484
00:27:32,760 --> 00:27:35,000
Speaker 4: has a new York driver's license, and has some other

485
00:27:35,040 --> 00:27:38,639
Speaker 4: New York connections, and in some kind of fairness, he

486
00:27:38,880 --> 00:27:40,840
Speaker 4: was a New York resident for a long while and

487
00:27:40,920 --> 00:27:43,359
Speaker 4: had a lot of connections to New York. But yes,

488
00:27:43,520 --> 00:27:46,240
Speaker 4: as I think the judge found, for quite a long

489
00:27:46,240 --> 00:27:48,919
Speaker 4: period of time, recently he's been living in California with

490
00:27:49,080 --> 00:27:52,639
Speaker 4: his wife and children and pets, and California has, I

491
00:27:52,640 --> 00:27:54,960
Speaker 4: think the court found that it seems reasonable, has been

492
00:27:54,960 --> 00:27:57,800
Speaker 4: his principal residence for the last several years. As the

493
00:27:57,800 --> 00:28:00,800
Speaker 4: court said, you need a specific place to be a residence,

494
00:28:00,880 --> 00:28:04,119
Speaker 4: not some general geographic area like he's had connections to

495
00:28:04,119 --> 00:28:06,159
Speaker 4: New York, but you actually need to have, as the

496
00:28:06,200 --> 00:28:09,080
Speaker 4: course as a specific abode in New York in order

497
00:28:09,080 --> 00:28:11,439
Speaker 4: for New York to be a residence, and he doesn't

498
00:28:11,440 --> 00:28:11,880
Speaker 4: have one.

499
00:28:12,119 --> 00:28:14,359
Speaker 5: So some of the reasons he claims residency, or he

500
00:28:14,440 --> 00:28:18,160
Speaker 5: has New York state fishing and falconry licenses, a New

501
00:28:18,200 --> 00:28:21,760
Speaker 5: York state driver's license and vehicle registration, a New York

502
00:28:21,760 --> 00:28:25,240
Speaker 5: state voter registration, a license to practice law in New York,

503
00:28:25,280 --> 00:28:27,960
Speaker 5: and he pays New York state taxes. Do any of

504
00:28:28,000 --> 00:28:29,800
Speaker 5: those count toward residency?

505
00:28:30,119 --> 00:28:32,280
Speaker 4: They will all be relevant if he actually had a

506
00:28:32,359 --> 00:28:34,720
Speaker 4: home in New York. I mean again, I think if

507
00:28:34,720 --> 00:28:36,760
Speaker 4: he had an actual home in New York and as

508
00:28:36,800 --> 00:28:39,800
Speaker 4: well as an actual home in California, it would support

509
00:28:40,000 --> 00:28:43,280
Speaker 4: his argument that New York is his primary home. But

510
00:28:43,480 --> 00:28:45,800
Speaker 4: the problem is he has no home in New York

511
00:28:45,920 --> 00:28:48,120
Speaker 4: at all. So I mean, I think those would have

512
00:28:48,160 --> 00:28:51,360
Speaker 4: been relevant if it was more of a contest as

513
00:28:51,440 --> 00:28:54,200
Speaker 4: to whether or not New York or California was his home.

514
00:28:54,360 --> 00:28:56,640
Speaker 4: He had various legal ties to New York, but the

515
00:28:56,680 --> 00:29:00,640
Speaker 4: low requires that he actually has an actual physical residence

516
00:29:00,680 --> 00:29:02,719
Speaker 4: in New York, and that is one thing that he

517
00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:03,760
Speaker 4: does not appear to have.

518
00:29:04,280 --> 00:29:06,800
Speaker 5: And as far as the spare bedroom that he was

519
00:29:06,840 --> 00:29:11,480
Speaker 5: supposedly renting out, court said quote, the court finds Kennedy's

520
00:29:11,520 --> 00:29:15,000
Speaker 5: testimony that he may return to that bedroom to reside

521
00:29:15,040 --> 00:29:18,080
Speaker 5: with his wife, family members, multiple pets, and all of

522
00:29:18,080 --> 00:29:22,680
Speaker 5: his personal belongings to be highly improbable, if not preposterous.

523
00:29:23,000 --> 00:29:25,600
Speaker 5: I mean, when you look at his testimony and the

524
00:29:25,640 --> 00:29:29,120
Speaker 5: testimony of other witnesses, it seems almost like an open

525
00:29:29,160 --> 00:29:30,040
Speaker 5: and shut case.

526
00:29:30,360 --> 00:29:31,880
Speaker 4: I think that's right, I mean, in some sense. To

527
00:29:31,960 --> 00:29:36,120
Speaker 4: Judge's first point was how strictly or loosely do I

528
00:29:36,160 --> 00:29:38,680
Speaker 4: have to interpret residence, and she says, under New York

529
00:29:38,720 --> 00:29:42,360
Speaker 4: state law, under near Court of Appeals decisions, some election

530
00:29:42,680 --> 00:29:46,840
Speaker 4: qualifications can be interpreted loosely, but these very formal, specific

531
00:29:46,880 --> 00:29:50,240
Speaker 4: ones have to be interpreted strictly so that the courts

532
00:29:50,280 --> 00:29:53,240
Speaker 4: are consistent from case to case. So the first thing is,

533
00:29:53,240 --> 00:29:55,520
Speaker 4: you really do have to show that you're a resident,

534
00:29:55,560 --> 00:29:58,080
Speaker 4: and then she went through what that entails, and then

535
00:29:58,120 --> 00:30:00,760
Speaker 4: there was extensive testimony from all the people who are

536
00:30:00,840 --> 00:30:03,240
Speaker 4: arguably for letting him a home, and it was pretty

537
00:30:03,240 --> 00:30:06,400
Speaker 4: clear that his connection to the place he's claiming to

538
00:30:06,400 --> 00:30:09,280
Speaker 4: be a home is extremely attenuated. As he pointed out,

539
00:30:09,320 --> 00:30:11,920
Speaker 4: it's one bedroom in somebody else's house. He's only been

540
00:30:11,960 --> 00:30:14,000
Speaker 4: there one night in the entire time he's had a

541
00:30:14,000 --> 00:30:16,880
Speaker 4: connection to it. He wasn't paying rent until this case

542
00:30:16,920 --> 00:30:19,640
Speaker 4: became a case, and then he paid it retroactively back rent.

543
00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:22,440
Speaker 4: And the home itself is under forclosure. And as she

544
00:30:22,480 --> 00:30:25,520
Speaker 4: points out, he is an entire household in California, and

545
00:30:25,560 --> 00:30:28,320
Speaker 4: it says seems unlikely that if he were to return

546
00:30:28,360 --> 00:30:30,320
Speaker 4: to New York, he would be returning to that one

547
00:30:30,320 --> 00:30:32,080
Speaker 4: bedroom with his whole household.

548
00:30:32,320 --> 00:30:36,240
Speaker 5: He also claimed advice of counsel that his lawyer told

549
00:30:36,320 --> 00:30:37,560
Speaker 5: him this was okay.

550
00:30:37,520 --> 00:30:41,440
Speaker 4: It doesn't work. I mean, he's not being prosecuted for lying.

551
00:30:41,880 --> 00:30:43,880
Speaker 4: It's just that he had a fell out a form

552
00:30:44,040 --> 00:30:46,040
Speaker 4: and he filled out before him inaccurately.

553
00:30:46,280 --> 00:30:49,760
Speaker 5: So he's appealing the decision in New York Appellate Court,

554
00:30:50,120 --> 00:30:52,520
Speaker 5: and his legal team has said they're going to seek

555
00:30:52,600 --> 00:30:56,600
Speaker 5: injunctive relief in federal court, and they're arguing that the

556
00:30:56,720 --> 00:31:02,280
Speaker 5: US Constitution's Twelfth Amendment governs the residency of presidential and

557
00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:06,640
Speaker 5: vice presidential candidates, not state law. And they made a

558
00:31:06,680 --> 00:31:10,000
Speaker 5: similar argument before the judge in New York who rejected it.

559
00:31:10,240 --> 00:31:11,360
Speaker 5: What do you think of that argument.

560
00:31:11,720 --> 00:31:14,080
Speaker 4: It's kind of a red herring. I mean, yes, New

561
00:31:14,160 --> 00:31:17,160
Speaker 4: York State could not require him to be a resident

562
00:31:17,240 --> 00:31:20,320
Speaker 4: of New York State. That would be unconstitutional. But New

563
00:31:20,400 --> 00:31:22,040
Speaker 4: York State is not doing that. New York State is

564
00:31:22,040 --> 00:31:24,400
Speaker 4: simply saying, in order to get on the ballot, you

565
00:31:24,480 --> 00:31:26,600
Speaker 4: have to fill out a form, and you have to

566
00:31:26,640 --> 00:31:30,240
Speaker 4: fill out the form accurately. And the Supreme Court is

567
00:31:30,280 --> 00:31:32,920
Speaker 4: in the past recognized that states can set their own

568
00:31:33,000 --> 00:31:35,720
Speaker 4: rules for getting on the ballot, provided that they're reasonable

569
00:31:35,800 --> 00:31:38,240
Speaker 4: rules that they're not on duly burdensome, that they're not

570
00:31:38,360 --> 00:31:41,520
Speaker 4: too hard to satisfy. You couldn't require somebody to have

571
00:31:41,640 --> 00:31:44,200
Speaker 4: a humongous number of signatures in a very short period

572
00:31:44,200 --> 00:31:46,400
Speaker 4: of time. That would be too burdensome. But I think

573
00:31:46,560 --> 00:31:48,440
Speaker 4: a rule that simply states you have to put down

574
00:31:48,480 --> 00:31:50,920
Speaker 4: your place of residence is the kind of rule that

575
00:31:51,080 --> 00:31:54,120
Speaker 4: probably for most candidates, is not on duly burthensome. And

576
00:31:54,160 --> 00:31:56,800
Speaker 4: the Court has recognized the right of state and effects

577
00:31:56,840 --> 00:31:59,120
Speaker 4: that require certain forms to be filled out and order

578
00:31:59,120 --> 00:32:01,640
Speaker 4: did on the ballot. So just to repeat, he does

579
00:32:01,680 --> 00:32:03,640
Speaker 4: not have to be a New York resident, but he

580
00:32:03,680 --> 00:32:05,560
Speaker 4: does have to fill out the form correctly.

581
00:32:05,920 --> 00:32:10,120
Speaker 5: Could this open him up to challenges in other states

582
00:32:10,200 --> 00:32:15,160
Speaker 5: because apparently his campaign used the same address to gather

583
00:32:15,400 --> 00:32:17,480
Speaker 5: signatures in other states.

584
00:32:17,800 --> 00:32:20,080
Speaker 4: That's an interesting question, and I would break it up

585
00:32:20,120 --> 00:32:22,960
Speaker 4: into a couple of parts. So in a number of states,

586
00:32:22,960 --> 00:32:24,760
Speaker 4: now he is actually on the ballot, he has been

587
00:32:24,800 --> 00:32:28,120
Speaker 4: approved by the relevant decision maker, whether it's the Secretary

588
00:32:28,120 --> 00:32:30,280
Speaker 4: of State of that state or possibly even by a

589
00:32:30,320 --> 00:32:33,800
Speaker 4: court after a litigation. So one issue in those states

590
00:32:33,840 --> 00:32:36,760
Speaker 4: would be can that be reopened once the person has

591
00:32:36,760 --> 00:32:38,520
Speaker 4: actually gotten on the ballot and that would turn on

592
00:32:38,560 --> 00:32:41,480
Speaker 4: the law of that state. Second question, and which would

593
00:32:41,480 --> 00:32:43,600
Speaker 4: be true both in those states in the states where

594
00:32:43,720 --> 00:32:46,280
Speaker 4: the prosecutor on the ballot has not been resolved, is

595
00:32:46,520 --> 00:32:49,479
Speaker 4: you know, is this required on their forms? And how

596
00:32:49,880 --> 00:32:54,320
Speaker 4: stringently or liberally do they apply the requirements of their forms.

597
00:32:54,560 --> 00:32:56,640
Speaker 4: That would be a second question. Now the words some

598
00:32:56,720 --> 00:32:59,520
Speaker 4: states might be willing to waive a mistake. New York

599
00:32:59,800 --> 00:33:01,760
Speaker 4: was not. So those are really sort of two big

600
00:33:01,800 --> 00:33:04,440
Speaker 4: open questions. He's on the ballot now and I don't

601
00:33:04,480 --> 00:33:07,200
Speaker 4: know the exact number, but it's around twenty states that

602
00:33:07,240 --> 00:33:10,040
Speaker 4: have been resolved, and that would turn on what their

603
00:33:10,120 --> 00:33:12,680
Speaker 4: rules are on reopening a question like that. And the

604
00:33:12,680 --> 00:33:15,040
Speaker 4: second would be, you know, was it required in these

605
00:33:15,080 --> 00:33:17,120
Speaker 4: states to fill out this form to state a place

606
00:33:17,160 --> 00:33:19,680
Speaker 4: of residents. That seems like a reasonable kind of a

607
00:33:19,720 --> 00:33:22,440
Speaker 4: normal bureaucratic requirement, and it is I think relevant to

608
00:33:22,480 --> 00:33:24,640
Speaker 4: the Twelfth Amendment problem of making sure you don't have

609
00:33:24,680 --> 00:33:26,880
Speaker 4: two people from the same state, which is also happens

610
00:33:26,880 --> 00:33:27,480
Speaker 4: to be your state.

611
00:33:27,560 --> 00:33:27,960
Speaker 2: But then the.

612
00:33:28,000 --> 00:33:31,480
Speaker 4: Question is how stringently are they going to enforce that rule?

613
00:33:31,560 --> 00:33:35,000
Speaker 4: And different state courts might have different policies on how

614
00:33:35,040 --> 00:33:37,760
Speaker 4: strictly or loosely they enforce a rule like that.

615
00:33:38,120 --> 00:33:41,760
Speaker 5: Taking that into account, then might a New York Appellate

616
00:33:41,840 --> 00:33:43,880
Speaker 5: court be willing to waive the mistake.

617
00:33:44,360 --> 00:33:46,120
Speaker 4: It's not out of the question. I mean, you know,

618
00:33:46,160 --> 00:33:49,840
Speaker 4: there is a tension between you know, making someone available

619
00:33:49,880 --> 00:33:53,400
Speaker 4: to the voters, and it's not relevant to his eligibility

620
00:33:53,400 --> 00:33:55,880
Speaker 4: to be elected or his seriousness as a candidate. It

621
00:33:55,880 --> 00:33:57,800
Speaker 4: doesn't affect whether or not he's over thirty five and

622
00:33:57,840 --> 00:34:01,000
Speaker 4: a citizen. That's basically the eligibility to press. And many

623
00:34:01,040 --> 00:34:03,760
Speaker 4: states do require that you gather a certain number of

624
00:34:03,800 --> 00:34:06,760
Speaker 4: signatures that either you be nominated by your party, or

625
00:34:06,800 --> 00:34:08,600
Speaker 4: that if you're running as an independent, you get a

626
00:34:08,640 --> 00:34:11,160
Speaker 4: certain number of signatures, or running is a new party

627
00:34:11,160 --> 00:34:13,239
Speaker 4: that your new party gets a certain number of signatures,

628
00:34:13,600 --> 00:34:16,800
Speaker 4: And those are all designed to establish that the candidate

629
00:34:17,239 --> 00:34:21,560
Speaker 4: is serious not trivolous. He's presumably satisfied that. So I

630
00:34:21,560 --> 00:34:24,600
Speaker 4: could imagine a court saying that a question that doesn't

631
00:34:24,680 --> 00:34:28,759
Speaker 4: bear on his eligibility to serve and seriousness as a

632
00:34:28,800 --> 00:34:31,160
Speaker 4: candidate might be one that we would be willing to wigh.

633
00:34:31,360 --> 00:34:34,160
Speaker 4: He is running for a national office, and there is

634
00:34:34,239 --> 00:34:39,040
Speaker 4: some argument that court should be less restrictive because I mean,

635
00:34:39,280 --> 00:34:41,839
Speaker 4: he was going to be really in contention that having

636
00:34:41,840 --> 00:34:44,160
Speaker 4: a rule like this to knock somebody off the ballot,

637
00:34:44,280 --> 00:34:46,600
Speaker 4: that would affect a serious national candidate sort off. You

638
00:34:46,600 --> 00:34:49,000
Speaker 4: don't want individual states to be doing that. So that

639
00:34:49,040 --> 00:34:50,759
Speaker 4: would be one possibility. But the other would be that

640
00:34:50,800 --> 00:34:53,839
Speaker 4: the court might also stick with what this lower court

641
00:34:53,880 --> 00:34:56,520
Speaker 4: said is to some things which are not that burdensome,

642
00:34:56,880 --> 00:35:00,400
Speaker 4: it's best to be absolutely strict. Otherwise the chance pols

643
00:35:00,400 --> 00:35:02,799
Speaker 4: are explaining a role in different judges applying the same

644
00:35:02,840 --> 00:35:05,839
Speaker 4: rule differently in different cases whom's very large. So there

645
00:35:05,880 --> 00:35:10,240
Speaker 4: was an argument from consistent application a fairly straightforward rule

646
00:35:10,440 --> 00:35:13,279
Speaker 4: that says you should enforce it, versus the argument that

647
00:35:13,400 --> 00:35:17,000
Speaker 4: this does not really go to either his eligibily disserve

648
00:35:17,360 --> 00:35:19,960
Speaker 4: or his seriousness as a candidate. So maybe you waive it.

649
00:35:20,040 --> 00:35:21,759
Speaker 4: I mean, I could see it coming out either way.

650
00:35:22,360 --> 00:35:24,880
Speaker 5: And so what's your gut feeling about what an appellate

651
00:35:24,920 --> 00:35:25,600
Speaker 5: court might do.

652
00:35:26,160 --> 00:35:28,399
Speaker 4: It's very hard to imagine that an appellate court will

653
00:35:28,400 --> 00:35:30,960
Speaker 4: overturn this on the facts. But the real question is

654
00:35:31,000 --> 00:35:32,839
Speaker 4: what do you do with it? Basically, do you let

655
00:35:33,040 --> 00:35:35,560
Speaker 4: go and say, well, you know, we don't have to

656
00:35:35,560 --> 00:35:37,480
Speaker 4: interpret it that strictly or do you do with the

657
00:35:37,560 --> 00:35:40,040
Speaker 4: trial court didn't say, well, you know, our presence requires

658
00:35:40,160 --> 00:35:43,040
Speaker 4: strict application and he's not a resident.

659
00:35:43,520 --> 00:35:47,640
Speaker 5: This challenge was brought by four voters with the backing

660
00:35:47,880 --> 00:35:53,359
Speaker 5: of the democratically aligned Clear Choice Action. Right, the Democrats

661
00:35:53,400 --> 00:35:58,279
Speaker 5: have dedicated a substantial legal and ground operation to challenging

662
00:35:58,880 --> 00:36:00,840
Speaker 5: third party candidate ballid access.

663
00:36:01,160 --> 00:36:03,600
Speaker 4: That's right, although it's interesting now at Lisa clink to

664
00:36:03,760 --> 00:36:08,120
Speaker 4: recent surveys, it's now unclear from whom Kennedy pulls more votes,

665
00:36:08,440 --> 00:36:11,280
Speaker 4: Harris or Trump. So it's true, and he began obviously

666
00:36:11,320 --> 00:36:14,080
Speaker 4: he was a Democrat. He comes from an obviously extremely

667
00:36:14,120 --> 00:36:17,800
Speaker 4: distinguished and famous Democratic family. I think people assume Democrats

668
00:36:17,800 --> 00:36:20,360
Speaker 4: assume that he's going to draw mostly Democrats. I guess

669
00:36:20,520 --> 00:36:23,600
Speaker 4: recent polling surveys suggests that may be closer to fifty

670
00:36:23,600 --> 00:36:25,840
Speaker 4: to fifty as whether he's pulling from Trump or Harris.

671
00:36:25,960 --> 00:36:28,239
Speaker 4: So it's not one hundred percent clear. This is all

672
00:36:28,320 --> 00:36:30,960
Speaker 4: right strategy for the Democrats. But this is the strategy

673
00:36:31,000 --> 00:36:31,800
Speaker 4: they've been pursuing.

674
00:36:31,920 --> 00:36:34,319
Speaker 5: Thanks for being on the show, rich that's Columbia Law

675
00:36:34,360 --> 00:36:37,719
Speaker 5: School professor Richard Ruffault. And that's it for this edition

676
00:36:37,760 --> 00:36:40,759
Speaker 5: of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get

677
00:36:40,800 --> 00:36:43,520
Speaker 5: the latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the

678
00:36:43,560 --> 00:36:47,600
Speaker 5: show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com,

679
00:36:47,640 --> 00:36:51,880
Speaker 5: slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is

680
00:36:51,920 --> 00:36:52,480
Speaker 5: Bloomberg