1 00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:06,800 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. A divided Supreme Court rejects a 2 00:00:06,920 --> 00:00:09,800 Speaker 1: religious challenge, tell us a little about the facts of 3 00:00:09,800 --> 00:00:13,600 Speaker 1: the case. Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg Legal experts, 4 00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:16,919 Speaker 1: I guess his former federal prosecutor Jimmy Garula joining me 5 00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:20,760 Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan Ruben. And analysis of important 6 00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:24,160 Speaker 1: legal issues, cases and headlines the Supreme Court takes on 7 00:00:24,239 --> 00:00:28,560 Speaker 1: state secrets. Multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule? 8 00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:32,599 Speaker 1: Is this lawsuit for real? Bloomberg Law with June Grasso 9 00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:39,599 Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm 10 00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:43,120 Speaker 1: Kimberly Robinson and I'm Greg Store. We're in for Jane Grasso. 11 00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:46,320 Speaker 1: Coming up on the show allegations of voter fraud in 12 00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:50,600 Speaker 1: Florida and a big new whistleblower complaint against Twitter. But first, 13 00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:53,720 Speaker 1: the Justice Department is under pressure to change positions and 14 00:00:53,760 --> 00:00:56,720 Speaker 1: depending Supreme Court case and called for the justices to 15 00:00:56,760 --> 00:01:00,000 Speaker 1: overrule a series of cases that critics say makes resident 16 00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:03,840 Speaker 1: of US territory second class citizens with US isn't aware 17 00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:06,679 Speaker 1: of equally American who represents the plaintiff in the case 18 00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:11,440 Speaker 1: versus United States? Thanks for joining us my pleasure. I'm 19 00:01:11,440 --> 00:01:13,760 Speaker 1: glad to be on your show. So before we jump 20 00:01:13,800 --> 00:01:17,400 Speaker 1: into the cases that you're asking the justices to overturn, 21 00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:20,800 Speaker 1: these so called insular cases, can you tell me about 22 00:01:20,840 --> 00:01:24,360 Speaker 1: what you're asking the justices to do here? What is 23 00:01:24,400 --> 00:01:26,880 Speaker 1: it that your clients are asking for in this case? 24 00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:32,119 Speaker 1: So I represent John City c Manu and other individuals 25 00:01:32,319 --> 00:01:36,880 Speaker 1: born in American Samoa who are now currently living in 26 00:01:37,080 --> 00:01:42,240 Speaker 1: Utah and under discriminatory federal statute despite being born on 27 00:01:42,440 --> 00:01:46,440 Speaker 1: US soil, the federal government does not recognized in the citizens, 28 00:01:46,480 --> 00:01:50,760 Speaker 1: instead labeling them with the subordinate status of non citis 29 00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:56,520 Speaker 1: the national. So this means they have US passports, they're Americans, 30 00:01:56,520 --> 00:01:59,520 Speaker 1: but they're not citizens, and their passports and facts have 31 00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:02,800 Speaker 1: a disclaimer in them saying that the bearer of this 32 00:02:02,960 --> 00:02:05,320 Speaker 1: passport is a national, but not a citizen of the 33 00:02:05,360 --> 00:02:09,360 Speaker 1: United States. Now whatever that means, I mean that is 34 00:02:09,440 --> 00:02:14,040 Speaker 1: incredibly confusing to lawyers, much less to my clients. And 35 00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:16,959 Speaker 1: so as a result, they can't vote in state or 36 00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:21,320 Speaker 1: federal elections, they're ineligible for certain jobs, and all they're 37 00:02:21,360 --> 00:02:25,480 Speaker 1: asking the court to recognize is what citizenship clause of 38 00:02:25,560 --> 00:02:29,560 Speaker 1: the Fourteenth Amendment already guarantees that if you're born on 39 00:02:29,639 --> 00:02:33,600 Speaker 1: sovereign ust soil, you have a rights of citizenship. And 40 00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:37,160 Speaker 1: so you said earlier that there's actually a citizenship clause 41 00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:40,320 Speaker 1: in the Constitution that says, if you're born on American soil, 42 00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:43,440 Speaker 1: then you are an American citizen. And yet the territories 43 00:02:43,480 --> 00:02:46,639 Speaker 1: are subject to these statutes. And that's where these insular 44 00:02:46,680 --> 00:02:48,680 Speaker 1: cases come in. Right, Can you tell us a little 45 00:02:48,720 --> 00:02:51,440 Speaker 1: bit about this series of cases and what it is 46 00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:55,000 Speaker 1: that they held. And so the instant cases are a 47 00:02:55,040 --> 00:03:01,160 Speaker 1: series of Supreme Court decisions decided following the Spanish American War, 48 00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:06,880 Speaker 1: when the United States found itself with these overseas territories 49 00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:10,920 Speaker 1: like Puerto Rico and Guam that were inhabited by population 50 00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:18,200 Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court justices disparaged as alien races, savages, uncivilized, 51 00:03:18,320 --> 00:03:24,000 Speaker 1: unset to be U S citizens. And up until the 52 00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:28,520 Speaker 1: Constitution had always recognized and lawyers had always recognized that 53 00:03:28,880 --> 00:03:32,320 Speaker 1: should the United States acquire areas the US territory, the 54 00:03:32,400 --> 00:03:36,320 Speaker 1: people born there would have a constitutional rights of citizenship. 55 00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:39,920 Speaker 1: Those territories would be on the past to statehood. But 56 00:03:40,000 --> 00:03:44,280 Speaker 1: with the acquisition of these overseas territories, political leaders didn't 57 00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:47,520 Speaker 1: want to extend those rights. The United States wanted to 58 00:03:47,880 --> 00:03:51,960 Speaker 1: join the Club of Imperial Nations, and the only thing 59 00:03:52,040 --> 00:03:55,560 Speaker 1: really standing in the way of that was the U. S. Constitution. 60 00:03:56,240 --> 00:03:59,680 Speaker 1: And so eventually, in a few years after the executive 61 00:03:59,760 --> 00:04:04,120 Speaker 1: brand mentioned, Congress try to buzz the lines. These questions 62 00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:07,880 Speaker 1: came to the U. S. Supreme Court, which essentially ruled 63 00:04:07,880 --> 00:04:13,119 Speaker 1: that Congress has discretion to act outside traditional constitutional limits 64 00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:15,840 Speaker 1: and that the people of these areas would never be 65 00:04:15,880 --> 00:04:19,560 Speaker 1: on the path to eventual full political participation, and that's 66 00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:23,679 Speaker 1: these areas could be held as colonies. And Justice John 67 00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:28,560 Speaker 1: Marshall Harlan, who folks may know as the Loan dissenter 68 00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:32,599 Speaker 1: and the Plussy versus Ferguson, was also the most local 69 00:04:32,600 --> 00:04:36,560 Speaker 1: dissenter in the Insular cases, really making the case that 70 00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:40,960 Speaker 1: our constitution is anti colonials. What would overturning the Insular 71 00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:44,520 Speaker 1: cases mean for American Samoa, and in particular, tell me 72 00:04:44,560 --> 00:04:47,440 Speaker 1: if I've got this wrong, but I understand the American 73 00:04:47,480 --> 00:04:50,320 Speaker 1: Samoa governments has been on the other side of this case, 74 00:04:50,360 --> 00:04:54,240 Speaker 1: and they've expressed concern that there are some cultural practices 75 00:04:54,320 --> 00:04:58,520 Speaker 1: in American Samoa, like the collective ownership of land requirements 76 00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:01,719 Speaker 1: that a certain percentage of the people who own land 77 00:05:02,040 --> 00:05:04,960 Speaker 1: have a certain percentage of their ancestry being Americans smoan. 78 00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:10,320 Speaker 1: Are those potential consequences that those practices would be deemed 79 00:05:10,400 --> 00:05:14,440 Speaker 1: unconstitutional if the Court were to overturn the insular cases. Yes, 80 00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:17,320 Speaker 1: so kind of. The most direct result of overruling in 81 00:05:17,520 --> 00:05:20,920 Speaker 1: cases would be simply to returning to where they stood 82 00:05:21,160 --> 00:05:24,400 Speaker 1: before them, which the United States has always had. Territories 83 00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:27,440 Speaker 1: have always been part of our constitutional structure. Congress has 84 00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:30,960 Speaker 1: always had broad power in those territories. But what the 85 00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:34,720 Speaker 1: Supreme Court and Congress's view prior to the iner cases 86 00:05:34,920 --> 00:05:37,960 Speaker 1: was is that certain stop signs of the Constitution provides, 87 00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:40,400 Speaker 1: like the citizenship clause, that Congress has no power to 88 00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:45,720 Speaker 1: deny birthright citizenships, apply throughout the United States, including the territories. 89 00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:49,520 Speaker 1: And what the Tent Circuit and other circuits and other 90 00:05:49,560 --> 00:05:53,080 Speaker 1: lower courts have done is dramatically expand the scope of 91 00:05:53,080 --> 00:05:56,039 Speaker 1: what the case has actually helped. With respect to the 92 00:05:56,080 --> 00:05:59,840 Speaker 1: opposition from elected officials in American sam MOA, there are 93 00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:04,560 Speaker 1: different views among elected officials within and between different territories. 94 00:06:04,760 --> 00:06:08,600 Speaker 1: You know, American Samoa position comes down to this agreeing 95 00:06:08,640 --> 00:06:12,080 Speaker 1: with the United States that Congress has unfettered discretion to 96 00:06:12,120 --> 00:06:15,560 Speaker 1: answer this question of citizenship. UM and scholars have looked 97 00:06:15,600 --> 00:06:19,400 Speaker 1: at these concerns about these land ownership rules have really 98 00:06:19,400 --> 00:06:22,960 Speaker 1: identified that they're not related to questions of citizenship or 99 00:06:23,000 --> 00:06:26,880 Speaker 1: even the insular cases. In fact, an American Samoa right now, 100 00:06:27,000 --> 00:06:30,080 Speaker 1: the current case law, they're a case decided by three 101 00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:33,880 Speaker 1: federal District court judges sitting by designation in American Samoa 102 00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:38,000 Speaker 1: upheld those land rules without applying the inser cases framework, 103 00:06:38,040 --> 00:06:41,960 Speaker 1: but simply applying traditional equal protection analysis, which certainly applies 104 00:06:42,080 --> 00:06:44,680 Speaker 1: in each of the territories today. That's new where who 105 00:06:44,680 --> 00:06:47,080 Speaker 1: represents the plane of in fittymus on o versus the 106 00:06:47,160 --> 00:06:50,520 Speaker 1: United States. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. Up next, we 107 00:06:50,560 --> 00:06:54,040 Speaker 1: continue our conversation, including efforts to love the Biden administration 108 00:06:54,120 --> 00:06:57,320 Speaker 1: to switch sides. And Kimberly Robinson and I'm Greg Stewart. 109 00:06:57,560 --> 00:07:09,159 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso 110 00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:13,560 Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Gregg Storm and I'm Kimberly Robinson. 111 00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:16,560 Speaker 1: We're in for June Grasso. We've been talking with Niowere 112 00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:19,200 Speaker 1: of equally American about a case pending before the US 113 00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:21,880 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Before we left, we were talking about the 114 00:07:21,920 --> 00:07:25,480 Speaker 1: cases that you're asking the justices to overturn. Now, tell 115 00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:27,600 Speaker 1: us a little bit about the lobbying effort to get 116 00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:30,120 Speaker 1: the US on your side in this case. What does 117 00:07:30,160 --> 00:07:32,760 Speaker 1: that look like, What steps are being taking and by 118 00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:36,040 Speaker 1: which groups? Yeah, so, you know, the question for the 119 00:07:36,080 --> 00:07:38,960 Speaker 1: Department of Justice and the Biden administration to decide is 120 00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:44,320 Speaker 1: whether to support or oppose calls to overrule the insular cases. 121 00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:47,680 Speaker 1: And so just a few months ago, Justice Course such 122 00:07:47,840 --> 00:07:51,120 Speaker 1: a justice so to mayor both agreed that it was 123 00:07:51,200 --> 00:07:53,640 Speaker 1: time for the United States Supreme Court to overrule the 124 00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:58,800 Speaker 1: Insular cases. And echoing their views have been a broad 125 00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:03,200 Speaker 1: array of civil rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, 126 00:08:03,480 --> 00:08:07,040 Speaker 1: Latino Justice pro Best, the Legal Defense Fund, and others 127 00:08:07,200 --> 00:08:12,200 Speaker 1: who have called upon the Biden administration to jettison these archaic, 128 00:08:12,600 --> 00:08:16,680 Speaker 1: racist Supreme Court decisions. At the same time, a number 129 00:08:16,680 --> 00:08:19,960 Speaker 1: of bar associations have also taken a stand, calling on 130 00:08:20,000 --> 00:08:24,480 Speaker 1: the Biden administration to support, rather than opposed, calls to 131 00:08:24,520 --> 00:08:27,800 Speaker 1: overrule the Inser cases. The American Bar Association, just a 132 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:31,560 Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago passed a resolution supporting calls to 133 00:08:31,640 --> 00:08:33,960 Speaker 1: turn the page on the in cases and the colonial 134 00:08:33,960 --> 00:08:37,959 Speaker 1: playwork they established. The New York State Bar Association has 135 00:08:38,000 --> 00:08:41,640 Speaker 1: passed a similar resolution, with bar associations in the US, 136 00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:45,760 Speaker 1: Virgin Islands and Guam being very active and seeking to 137 00:08:45,800 --> 00:08:50,480 Speaker 1: advance equality and overruling the in cases. And we shall 138 00:08:50,559 --> 00:08:54,280 Speaker 1: soon hear what the Biden administration position is in these cases. 139 00:08:54,679 --> 00:08:58,000 Speaker 1: They're set to file their deadline as August twenty nine, 140 00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:00,959 Speaker 1: so we'll soon know what they've decided. Then we'll look 141 00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:03,440 Speaker 1: beyond that to see what the Supreme Court has to set. 142 00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:07,040 Speaker 1: So there was a case last term involving social security 143 00:09:07,080 --> 00:09:09,959 Speaker 1: benefits in the island of Puerto Rico in which the 144 00:09:10,120 --> 00:09:13,640 Speaker 1: Biden administration did not ask the court to overturn the 145 00:09:13,679 --> 00:09:17,640 Speaker 1: insular cases. Is there something about your case that gives 146 00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:22,640 Speaker 1: you reason to hope that the administration may come out differently. Yeah. 147 00:09:22,679 --> 00:09:26,839 Speaker 1: The case last term, United States versus Via Madero, dealt 148 00:09:26,880 --> 00:09:31,360 Speaker 1: with the application of the Equal Protection Clause to federal 149 00:09:31,440 --> 00:09:35,400 Speaker 1: laws that deny federal benefits to residents a certain territories 150 00:09:35,440 --> 00:09:38,760 Speaker 1: while extending them to others, and all throughout the case, 151 00:09:39,160 --> 00:09:42,320 Speaker 1: while the cases kind of hung in the background. They 152 00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:46,920 Speaker 1: weren't central to the actual holdings of the lower courts, 153 00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:49,840 Speaker 1: and the United States had not relied on them to 154 00:09:49,920 --> 00:09:53,079 Speaker 1: advance the argument that residents of Porto Rico could be 155 00:09:53,120 --> 00:09:58,480 Speaker 1: denied on supplemental security income benefits and citizen monuversus United States. 156 00:09:58,559 --> 00:10:02,240 Speaker 1: The Department of Justices argument really begins and ends with 157 00:10:02,360 --> 00:10:07,360 Speaker 1: the cases, So unlike prior cases where the cases were 158 00:10:07,360 --> 00:10:10,320 Speaker 1: in the background, they really are front and center in 159 00:10:10,360 --> 00:10:14,200 Speaker 1: the fit Monum case, and in our petition we expressly 160 00:10:14,280 --> 00:10:17,720 Speaker 1: asked the Supreme Court to consider whether or not to 161 00:10:17,800 --> 00:10:22,079 Speaker 1: overrule the cases. You know, I'm remembering back under President Obama, 162 00:10:22,200 --> 00:10:26,240 Speaker 1: where the Justice Department did in fact change positions on 163 00:10:26,520 --> 00:10:29,480 Speaker 1: the Defense Against Marriage Act in the same sex marriage context, 164 00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:33,760 Speaker 1: and just wondering how unusual is it for an administration 165 00:10:33,960 --> 00:10:36,560 Speaker 1: to kind of do a one eight. At the beginning 166 00:10:36,600 --> 00:10:40,000 Speaker 1: of Biden's term, the Justice Department did change a number 167 00:10:40,040 --> 00:10:43,640 Speaker 1: of its positions from what the Trump Justice Department had 168 00:10:43,679 --> 00:10:48,360 Speaker 1: been litigating. But in fact, probably the more apt president 169 00:10:48,480 --> 00:10:50,959 Speaker 1: to look at in terms of the Justice Department is 170 00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:55,520 Speaker 1: former Acting Solicitor General Neil katial Um. In the Obama 171 00:10:55,559 --> 00:10:59,840 Speaker 1: administration issued a confession of air with respect to the 172 00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:03,720 Speaker 1: Hormatsu case, that's the Japanese internment case, saying that the 173 00:11:03,800 --> 00:11:06,880 Speaker 1: United States have been wrong to argue in favor of 174 00:11:07,000 --> 00:11:11,360 Speaker 1: Japanese internment and really condemning those cases even as they 175 00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:15,600 Speaker 1: remained quote unquote good law under Supreme Court precedent. And 176 00:11:15,640 --> 00:11:19,360 Speaker 1: that's really what all that we're asking the Listener General 177 00:11:19,440 --> 00:11:22,160 Speaker 1: to do here. We wrote her a letter claiming that 178 00:11:22,480 --> 00:11:25,520 Speaker 1: the Justice Departments simply don't rely on these racist cases. 179 00:11:25,679 --> 00:11:29,320 Speaker 1: If they want to continue defending the discriminatory statutes, that's 180 00:11:29,400 --> 00:11:31,599 Speaker 1: up to them. They do have some other arguments, but 181 00:11:31,720 --> 00:11:35,400 Speaker 1: what they shouldn't do is rely on cases that sit 182 00:11:35,480 --> 00:11:38,160 Speaker 1: in the same class as Plessy versus Ferguson, Dread Scott, 183 00:11:38,160 --> 00:11:42,240 Speaker 1: and Cormatsu Um. So, you know, that's what what arguments 184 00:11:42,320 --> 00:11:45,600 Speaker 1: the Department Justice makes to advance their cases completely within 185 00:11:45,640 --> 00:11:48,760 Speaker 1: their discretion. And it's actually a much less of a 186 00:11:48,800 --> 00:11:52,000 Speaker 1: lift for them to decide to stop relying on racist 187 00:11:52,040 --> 00:11:55,800 Speaker 1: Supreme Court cases than other examples like don't know where 188 00:11:55,800 --> 00:12:00,040 Speaker 1: they actually changed their litigating position to support the others 189 00:12:00,040 --> 00:12:03,040 Speaker 1: five and they had been supporting in the case. Remind 190 00:12:03,120 --> 00:12:05,680 Speaker 1: us just exactly where this case stands. This is not 191 00:12:05,840 --> 00:12:10,400 Speaker 1: a case that the Justices have agreed to consider yet, right, Yeah, 192 00:12:10,400 --> 00:12:13,440 Speaker 1: we're still at the review stage. And so at the 193 00:12:13,480 --> 00:12:17,080 Speaker 1: district court, the district court judge ruled in favor of Mr. 194 00:12:17,120 --> 00:12:21,000 Speaker 1: City Simano, recognizing that under Constitution he had the rights 195 00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:24,920 Speaker 1: to citizenship. At the circuit court stage, that decision was 196 00:12:24,960 --> 00:12:29,280 Speaker 1: reversed two to one, with three separate opinions being written 197 00:12:29,280 --> 00:12:33,040 Speaker 1: by the judges at the Tent Circuit. We appealed for 198 00:12:33,280 --> 00:12:36,719 Speaker 1: review by the full Tent Circuit. Weren't successful, but two 199 00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:40,920 Speaker 1: judges did write a very long and scholarly opinion dissenting 200 00:12:40,960 --> 00:12:43,800 Speaker 1: to the denial of that review. And so now we've 201 00:12:43,880 --> 00:12:46,800 Speaker 1: asked the court to take up the case. The anarchist 202 00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:50,880 Speaker 1: briefs that then filed in support of the Supreme Court review. 203 00:12:51,240 --> 00:12:54,400 Speaker 1: And now when people hear from the United States Department 204 00:12:54,480 --> 00:12:56,920 Speaker 1: Justice in the Sister of General on whether they will 205 00:12:56,960 --> 00:12:59,959 Speaker 1: support or oppose the calls to overrule the INFIR case 206 00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:02,720 Speaker 1: is in this case, Neil. One final question. You know 207 00:13:02,960 --> 00:13:05,600 Speaker 1: we've been talking about, you know, how these cases have 208 00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:08,800 Speaker 1: been criticized sort of across the board, including from the 209 00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:13,320 Speaker 1: justices themselves, you know, across the ideological spectrum. Why is 210 00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:15,320 Speaker 1: it that these cases are still on the books and 211 00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:19,040 Speaker 1: still considered good law. What work are they doing now 212 00:13:19,400 --> 00:13:22,360 Speaker 1: that might make the justices hesitate to take them off 213 00:13:22,440 --> 00:13:25,640 Speaker 1: the books. It's really not clear, and that's been one 214 00:13:25,679 --> 00:13:28,240 Speaker 1: the challenges and overruling them. You know, over the last 215 00:13:28,280 --> 00:13:31,240 Speaker 1: five years, there's been three or four big Supreme Court 216 00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:34,920 Speaker 1: cases involving Puerto Rico, where again the inser cases kind 217 00:13:34,920 --> 00:13:38,320 Speaker 1: of hung in the background, but as the Supreme Court 218 00:13:38,640 --> 00:13:41,040 Speaker 1: you know, says they should be helped to their facts 219 00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:46,800 Speaker 1: and narrows them that limit situations where they necessarily arise 220 00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:50,680 Speaker 1: and are central to the disposition of a case. So 221 00:13:50,840 --> 00:13:55,480 Speaker 1: ours is one of perhaps the only situations where lower 222 00:13:55,520 --> 00:13:58,720 Speaker 1: courts would squarely rely on the cases to reach the 223 00:13:58,800 --> 00:14:01,400 Speaker 1: legal result in a case, you know, the Department of 224 00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:03,920 Speaker 1: Justice has been hesitant to call in the Supreme Court 225 00:14:04,080 --> 00:14:07,719 Speaker 1: to overrule them, even when pressed by Justice Court. That's 226 00:14:07,760 --> 00:14:11,040 Speaker 1: three or four separate times, and the argument last term, 227 00:14:11,080 --> 00:14:15,360 Speaker 1: and the Justices themselves until recently have been hesitants too, 228 00:14:15,679 --> 00:14:19,080 Speaker 1: so not kind of reaching out to decide the issue 229 00:14:19,160 --> 00:14:22,000 Speaker 1: even when you know it's been in the mix. And 230 00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:25,640 Speaker 1: that's problematic because you know, the Supreme Court itself is 231 00:14:25,680 --> 00:14:28,440 Speaker 1: responsible for the development of this doctrine. You know, the 232 00:14:28,480 --> 00:14:31,760 Speaker 1: Supreme Court and the Instant their cases reached well beyond 233 00:14:32,520 --> 00:14:35,960 Speaker 1: um the issues in the case to establish this colonial framework. 234 00:14:36,040 --> 00:14:39,480 Speaker 1: So just as the Supreme Court and the justices who 235 00:14:39,480 --> 00:14:42,920 Speaker 1: sit on it were themselves responsible for the instant cases, 236 00:14:43,120 --> 00:14:45,800 Speaker 1: they also need to be responsible for some of the 237 00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:48,640 Speaker 1: solution and addressing the harms that have splunk from that 238 00:14:48,720 --> 00:14:51,600 Speaker 1: of the last more than twenty years. Well, thanks so 239 00:14:51,680 --> 00:14:54,760 Speaker 1: much to our guests nowhere. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. 240 00:14:54,960 --> 00:14:58,320 Speaker 1: I'm Kimberly Robinson and I'm Greg Store. Coming up next. 241 00:14:58,640 --> 00:15:01,760 Speaker 1: Florida has arrested meet people for voter fraud, even though 242 00:15:01,800 --> 00:15:04,440 Speaker 1: many of those people say they thought they were entitled 243 00:15:04,440 --> 00:15:15,600 Speaker 1: to vote. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloombird Law with 244 00:15:15,680 --> 00:15:20,200 Speaker 1: June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Kimberly Robinson and I'm 245 00:15:20,240 --> 00:15:23,680 Speaker 1: Greg Store. We're in for June Grasso. Florida Governor Ron 246 00:15:23,720 --> 00:15:26,520 Speaker 1: De Santis last week trumpeted the arrest of twenty people 247 00:15:26,560 --> 00:15:30,080 Speaker 1: who allegedly committed voter fraud by casting ballots, even though 248 00:15:30,120 --> 00:15:32,680 Speaker 1: they were convicted felons. But it turns out. Many of 249 00:15:32,720 --> 00:15:35,320 Speaker 1: those people say they thought they were entitled to vote. 250 00:15:35,720 --> 00:15:37,920 Speaker 1: With us to talk about this is Neil Voles. He 251 00:15:38,040 --> 00:15:43,000 Speaker 1: is the deputy director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. Neil, 252 00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:48,000 Speaker 1: this all stems from a balled initiative that your group sponsored. 253 00:15:48,400 --> 00:15:51,760 Speaker 1: Tell us what that balled initiative did. Yeah, well, Gregg 254 00:15:51,800 --> 00:15:54,360 Speaker 1: kimberly one, thanks for having having us on and shining 255 00:15:54,440 --> 00:15:57,240 Speaker 1: a light on this important issue. In two thousand eighteen, 256 00:15:57,680 --> 00:16:01,440 Speaker 1: the voters of Florida past Amendment four, which restored the 257 00:16:01,520 --> 00:16:04,600 Speaker 1: voting eligibility for nearly one point four million people with 258 00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:08,040 Speaker 1: past felony convictions. At folks like myself and others in 259 00:16:08,040 --> 00:16:11,800 Speaker 1: our movement who had passed felony convictions and who up 260 00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:14,240 Speaker 1: until that point had to deal with a lifetime voting 261 00:16:14,280 --> 00:16:16,960 Speaker 1: ban in the state of Florida. So this was there's 262 00:16:16,960 --> 00:16:19,000 Speaker 1: a little bit of history here, because this is kind 263 00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:20,960 Speaker 1: of like a Dickens novel, right, the best of times 264 00:16:20,960 --> 00:16:22,560 Speaker 1: the worst of times. On one hand, we saw the 265 00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:26,720 Speaker 1: largest expansion of democracy in our country in a generation, 266 00:16:27,320 --> 00:16:31,000 Speaker 1: but we also saw the implementation of that amendment end 267 00:16:31,080 --> 00:16:35,160 Speaker 1: up requiring people to pay certain financial obligations before they 268 00:16:35,200 --> 00:16:37,360 Speaker 1: are in fact eligible to vote, which means that there 269 00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:40,280 Speaker 1: are hundreds of thousands of people with past convictions who 270 00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:42,720 Speaker 1: are still not yet able to vote in a state 271 00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:44,680 Speaker 1: of Florida. That's right. Yeah, that was one of the 272 00:16:44,760 --> 00:16:46,880 Speaker 1: questions that I had was, you know, there is this 273 00:16:46,960 --> 00:16:49,400 Speaker 1: requirement that felons have to pay off all fines and 274 00:16:49,480 --> 00:16:52,000 Speaker 1: fees before being able to vote. What effect does that 275 00:16:52,080 --> 00:16:55,280 Speaker 1: have with restoring voting rights? Is there any kind of 276 00:16:55,360 --> 00:16:58,080 Speaker 1: evidence that most people have been able to get their 277 00:16:58,120 --> 00:17:00,160 Speaker 1: voting rights back or is this being a of the 278 00:17:00,400 --> 00:17:03,960 Speaker 1: book for that well one. As far as our organization 279 00:17:04,040 --> 00:17:06,200 Speaker 1: and this movement, I mean, we just give up every day, 280 00:17:06,280 --> 00:17:07,720 Speaker 1: you know, kind of put our work boots on and 281 00:17:08,040 --> 00:17:10,119 Speaker 1: just keep moving forward. And I know according to the 282 00:17:10,200 --> 00:17:12,720 Speaker 1: voter file last months voter file UM, there are but 283 00:17:12,840 --> 00:17:15,840 Speaker 1: two hundred sixteen thousand people with past convictions who are 284 00:17:15,840 --> 00:17:18,960 Speaker 1: currently registered in the state of Florida. And that's a 285 00:17:18,960 --> 00:17:20,720 Speaker 1: lot of people, a lot of families, a lot of 286 00:17:20,760 --> 00:17:23,240 Speaker 1: voices being heard. But we know there's still a long 287 00:17:23,240 --> 00:17:26,399 Speaker 1: way to go, especially when you consider that there are 288 00:17:26,440 --> 00:17:28,879 Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of people who have continue and not 289 00:17:29,040 --> 00:17:32,359 Speaker 1: be eligible because they ope financial obligations. What do you 290 00:17:32,400 --> 00:17:35,760 Speaker 1: see are the impacts of these arrests if we see 291 00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:38,639 Speaker 1: that defines and the implementing the legislation is kind of 292 00:17:38,640 --> 00:17:41,119 Speaker 1: holding up the ability of people to regain the right 293 00:17:41,160 --> 00:17:43,000 Speaker 1: to vote. Is this going to have any effect on 294 00:17:43,040 --> 00:17:45,879 Speaker 1: that as well? Yeah, I mean to be honest with you, 295 00:17:45,920 --> 00:17:48,000 Speaker 1: there's such a human element to this, and you know, 296 00:17:48,040 --> 00:17:51,520 Speaker 1: there's not a better advocate for democracy, in my opinion, 297 00:17:51,560 --> 00:17:53,560 Speaker 1: than somebody lost the right to vote and got it back. 298 00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:57,000 Speaker 1: So we know that there's a deeper conversation going on 299 00:17:57,080 --> 00:17:59,280 Speaker 1: here about how we see each other and and and 300 00:17:59,280 --> 00:18:02,800 Speaker 1: and the role in society. But on a very tangible level, 301 00:18:02,800 --> 00:18:05,000 Speaker 1: it also just shines a light on an issue that 302 00:18:05,040 --> 00:18:07,400 Speaker 1: we've been talking about for the last four years since 303 00:18:07,400 --> 00:18:11,119 Speaker 1: the passage of Amendment four. Everywhere we go publicly in 304 00:18:11,200 --> 00:18:13,439 Speaker 1: private meetings, we've been saying the same thing that the 305 00:18:13,480 --> 00:18:16,920 Speaker 1: process is broken, that what we need is a statewide 306 00:18:17,400 --> 00:18:21,359 Speaker 1: database that would allow people to become eligible or understand 307 00:18:21,840 --> 00:18:25,720 Speaker 1: that they're eligible vote from the government on the front end, 308 00:18:26,359 --> 00:18:29,720 Speaker 1: because everybody who's being impacted by this latest move by 309 00:18:30,040 --> 00:18:33,639 Speaker 1: the governor and this election police course actually is in 310 00:18:33,720 --> 00:18:36,520 Speaker 1: the spot in which we should not be um We 311 00:18:36,600 --> 00:18:38,639 Speaker 1: know that when someone registers the vote is it's the 312 00:18:38,720 --> 00:18:42,879 Speaker 1: responsibility of the state that determined an individual's eligibility prior 313 00:18:42,920 --> 00:18:45,920 Speaker 1: to issue a voter identification card. So we're talking about 314 00:18:45,920 --> 00:18:49,919 Speaker 1: people who got identification card voter ID cards from the 315 00:18:50,000 --> 00:18:52,800 Speaker 1: government and therefore it gone through the front end of 316 00:18:52,840 --> 00:18:57,680 Speaker 1: the process. To then spend time and um taxpayer dollars 317 00:18:57,720 --> 00:19:02,040 Speaker 1: investigating and law enforcements time and now arresting people who 318 00:19:02,080 --> 00:19:04,239 Speaker 1: have been given voter ID cards on the front end 319 00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:07,120 Speaker 1: years ago just seems like we're not doing it right, 320 00:19:07,280 --> 00:19:08,800 Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, the best way 321 00:19:08,800 --> 00:19:10,720 Speaker 1: to fight crime is to stop it from happening in 322 00:19:10,720 --> 00:19:13,399 Speaker 1: the first place. Tell us a little more about what 323 00:19:13,480 --> 00:19:16,960 Speaker 1: you're reading and hearing about the people who were arrested 324 00:19:17,080 --> 00:19:21,679 Speaker 1: and why they say they thought they were entitled to vote, 325 00:19:21,760 --> 00:19:24,760 Speaker 1: in addition to the fact that they actually had those 326 00:19:24,800 --> 00:19:28,640 Speaker 1: voter registration cards that you mentioned. Yeah, it's a great question, 327 00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:31,680 Speaker 1: and it just kind of exemplifies kind of the humanity 328 00:19:31,880 --> 00:19:34,600 Speaker 1: of this story, right because across the state, we have 329 00:19:34,720 --> 00:19:38,640 Speaker 1: individuals with their individual stories and family members who are 330 00:19:38,640 --> 00:19:41,879 Speaker 1: reaching out to us who are concerned about their loved ones, 331 00:19:42,280 --> 00:19:44,560 Speaker 1: and we know that it's important for people to be 332 00:19:44,640 --> 00:19:47,360 Speaker 1: able to know that somebody's got their back. And then 333 00:19:47,400 --> 00:19:50,480 Speaker 1: that's the role of FRC and reaching out and talking 334 00:19:50,520 --> 00:19:52,760 Speaker 1: and walking it out with people who are impacted by this. 335 00:19:53,400 --> 00:19:58,000 Speaker 1: The through line of these conversations really just keeps coming 336 00:19:58,040 --> 00:20:00,760 Speaker 1: back to the fact that the states them is not 337 00:20:00,920 --> 00:20:05,000 Speaker 1: working for anybody, right that, uh, you know, we need 338 00:20:05,040 --> 00:20:08,120 Speaker 1: to fix the system to prevent the criminalization of voting, 339 00:20:08,200 --> 00:20:10,800 Speaker 1: and the waste will spending the tax dollars to investigate 340 00:20:10,840 --> 00:20:14,120 Speaker 1: and prosecute flow to citizens. Right, It's just less costly 341 00:20:14,160 --> 00:20:16,720 Speaker 1: and easier to prevent those situations from happening in the 342 00:20:16,760 --> 00:20:19,480 Speaker 1: first place. And when you talk to somebody who gets 343 00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:21,800 Speaker 1: caught up in that process, you know, we don't know 344 00:20:21,880 --> 00:20:26,560 Speaker 1: exactly what every individual's case is. Somebody might have come 345 00:20:26,600 --> 00:20:29,520 Speaker 1: in from another state and they they thought that their 346 00:20:29,600 --> 00:20:33,639 Speaker 1: conviction had been you know, cleared up, or somebody you know, 347 00:20:33,920 --> 00:20:36,600 Speaker 1: went through the clemency process and and and and had 348 00:20:36,600 --> 00:20:40,520 Speaker 1: their voting rights restored. We don't know everybody's individual situation. 349 00:20:40,560 --> 00:20:42,880 Speaker 1: But that's part of the situation that we're dealing with, 350 00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:46,639 Speaker 1: which is the government is the one who can provide 351 00:20:46,640 --> 00:20:49,119 Speaker 1: assurances for folks who are voting. You know, if you 352 00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:51,919 Speaker 1: can't rely on the government to verify their voting and eligibility. 353 00:20:51,960 --> 00:20:54,240 Speaker 1: Who can they rely on? And so to come back 354 00:20:54,400 --> 00:20:57,679 Speaker 1: years afterwards and to begin to prosecute people just shows 355 00:20:57,720 --> 00:21:00,520 Speaker 1: how the system isn't working. Okay, thank you very much. 356 00:21:00,600 --> 00:21:03,000 Speaker 1: That was Neil Voles, the deputy director of the Florida 357 00:21:03,119 --> 00:21:07,959 Speaker 1: Rights Restoration Coalition. Coming up next, Twitter faces a whistleblower 358 00:21:08,000 --> 00:21:11,359 Speaker 1: complaint file by its former security chief. I'm Greg Store 359 00:21:11,520 --> 00:21:22,200 Speaker 1: and I'm Kimberly Robinson. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg 360 00:21:22,320 --> 00:21:27,080 Speaker 1: Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Kimberly Robinson 361 00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:30,439 Speaker 1: and I'm Greg Store. We're in for June Brusso. Twitter 362 00:21:30,520 --> 00:21:33,040 Speaker 1: is facing a new whistleblower complaint with its former head 363 00:21:33,040 --> 00:21:36,240 Speaker 1: of security claiming severe shortcomings and the company's handling of 364 00:21:36,359 --> 00:21:39,800 Speaker 1: users personal data. News of the complaints sent Twitter shares 365 00:21:39,840 --> 00:21:42,480 Speaker 1: tumbling on Tuesday. With us to talk about it is 366 00:21:42,520 --> 00:21:47,520 Speaker 1: Bloomberg News reporter Leah Nilan. She covers the Federal Trade Commission. Leah, 367 00:21:47,520 --> 00:21:49,840 Speaker 1: thanks for being here. Let's start off by just telling 368 00:21:49,920 --> 00:21:53,520 Speaker 1: us who this whistleblower is. Yeah. So, Peter Zak was 369 00:21:53,960 --> 00:21:56,840 Speaker 1: the head of cybersecurity for Twitter. He was brought in 370 00:21:56,920 --> 00:22:01,280 Speaker 1: about after there was another hack of Twitter system, and 371 00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:04,320 Speaker 1: he was there until January when he was fired by 372 00:22:04,440 --> 00:22:09,720 Speaker 1: the Twitter CEO allegedly for performance issues. UM he filed 373 00:22:09,720 --> 00:22:13,359 Speaker 1: a whistle blower complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, the 374 00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:17,840 Speaker 1: Justice Department, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. That whistleblower 375 00:22:17,880 --> 00:22:21,600 Speaker 1: complaint was also sent to members of Congress, and so 376 00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:25,040 Speaker 1: you know, the allegations here are said not only to 377 00:22:25,080 --> 00:22:29,280 Speaker 1: put user data at risk, but also UM, perhaps national security. 378 00:22:29,280 --> 00:22:31,600 Speaker 1: Can you tell us about what allegations are actually in 379 00:22:31,640 --> 00:22:34,400 Speaker 1: the whistle blower complaint. There's a lot of them. So 380 00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:38,920 Speaker 1: there are several allegations about bots, the number of bots 381 00:22:39,000 --> 00:22:42,280 Speaker 1: that Twitter says it has on its platform versus what 382 00:22:42,440 --> 00:22:45,320 Speaker 1: it internally thinks are on the system. This is an issue, 383 00:22:45,640 --> 00:22:49,000 Speaker 1: of course in um elon Musk's potential takeover of Twitter 384 00:22:49,400 --> 00:22:51,600 Speaker 1: and the lawsuit that is now pending up in Delaware 385 00:22:51,600 --> 00:22:54,840 Speaker 1: that's going to trial in October. The other big issue 386 00:22:55,080 --> 00:22:58,439 Speaker 1: is that Twitter has been under order with the Federal 387 00:22:58,480 --> 00:23:01,520 Speaker 1: Trade Commission over at cybrus A scurity practices since two 388 00:23:01,560 --> 00:23:04,359 Speaker 1: thousand eleven. There was at hack back in two thousand 389 00:23:04,440 --> 00:23:07,399 Speaker 1: nine that the FTC investigated and then they reached the 390 00:23:07,440 --> 00:23:10,920 Speaker 1: settlement with Twitter then um and put them under order. 391 00:23:11,000 --> 00:23:13,120 Speaker 1: So they are supposed to be reporting to the FTC 392 00:23:13,400 --> 00:23:16,760 Speaker 1: things on their privacy and data security for twenty years. 393 00:23:17,400 --> 00:23:21,120 Speaker 1: He says that Twitter has not accurately been portraying things 394 00:23:21,160 --> 00:23:24,600 Speaker 1: about its privacy and data security to federal regulators, and 395 00:23:24,640 --> 00:23:27,120 Speaker 1: that they have been in violation of this consent decree. 396 00:23:27,480 --> 00:23:30,000 Speaker 1: This would not actually be the first time that Twitter 397 00:23:30,200 --> 00:23:33,200 Speaker 1: had violated the consent decree. It has already paid a 398 00:23:33,280 --> 00:23:36,480 Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million dollars to the Federal Trade Commission 399 00:23:36,880 --> 00:23:40,520 Speaker 1: for taking user phone numbers that users had uploaded for 400 00:23:40,600 --> 00:23:44,920 Speaker 1: security purposes and using them for targeted advertising. What has 401 00:23:44,960 --> 00:23:48,160 Speaker 1: been the reaction to this complaint? What our lawmakers saying 402 00:23:48,200 --> 00:23:50,919 Speaker 1: about it? What, if anything, are the agency saying about it? 403 00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:54,280 Speaker 1: The agencies are being pretty mum about it right now. Um. 404 00:23:54,320 --> 00:23:57,960 Speaker 1: They usually don't disclose if they are investigating something, but 405 00:23:58,520 --> 00:24:01,720 Speaker 1: almost always when a rate of this nature would be 406 00:24:01,800 --> 00:24:04,400 Speaker 1: submitted to the FTC or even the dj that would 407 00:24:04,400 --> 00:24:06,719 Speaker 1: at least look at it, particularly from someone of this 408 00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:10,200 Speaker 1: level at the company. Congress, however, has been very vocal 409 00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:12,960 Speaker 1: about their concerns you know, most members of Congress actually 410 00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:15,880 Speaker 1: used Twitter, so there is um, you know, a little 411 00:24:15,920 --> 00:24:19,240 Speaker 1: bit of concerned about their own accounts. There is also 412 00:24:19,440 --> 00:24:21,760 Speaker 1: a lot of concern given that, um, you know, the 413 00:24:21,800 --> 00:24:27,000 Speaker 1: Justice Department just convicted a former Twitter employee of using 414 00:24:27,080 --> 00:24:29,040 Speaker 1: his access at the company to spy on behalf of 415 00:24:29,040 --> 00:24:32,159 Speaker 1: the Saudi Arabian government on dissidents. And those were some 416 00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:35,480 Speaker 1: of the sort of like national security concerns that Zak 417 00:24:36,359 --> 00:24:39,600 Speaker 1: talked about in his complaint. He suggested that the Indian 418 00:24:39,640 --> 00:24:43,080 Speaker 1: government had been doing something similar about those who sort 419 00:24:43,080 --> 00:24:46,000 Speaker 1: of opposed the current regime. He also raised some concerns 420 00:24:46,040 --> 00:24:50,720 Speaker 1: about Russia and China, China's access to the platform. Earlier, 421 00:24:50,760 --> 00:24:54,040 Speaker 1: you mentioned the forty four billion dollar deal between Twitter 422 00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:56,320 Speaker 1: and Elon Musk. This has been going back and forth 423 00:24:56,359 --> 00:24:58,560 Speaker 1: or quite a while. Now. Can you tell us how 424 00:24:58,560 --> 00:25:02,760 Speaker 1: the allegations in there could have affect this legal fight? Yes. So, 425 00:25:02,800 --> 00:25:06,000 Speaker 1: one of the big issues in Musk's legal fight has 426 00:25:06,040 --> 00:25:09,520 Speaker 1: to do with the number of bots on Twitter's platform. 427 00:25:09,600 --> 00:25:15,000 Speaker 1: These are computer created accounts, and obviously advertisers don't really 428 00:25:15,000 --> 00:25:17,000 Speaker 1: want to be paying for their ads to be shown 429 00:25:17,040 --> 00:25:19,399 Speaker 1: to computers. They want to pay for their ads to 430 00:25:19,400 --> 00:25:22,239 Speaker 1: be shown to people. Um. So, Musk has alleged that 431 00:25:22,320 --> 00:25:25,000 Speaker 1: the number of bots on the platform is actually much 432 00:25:25,080 --> 00:25:28,800 Speaker 1: higher than what Twitter has disclosed publicly. Twitter says that 433 00:25:28,960 --> 00:25:32,440 Speaker 1: they believe it's about less than five percent of they 434 00:25:32,480 --> 00:25:34,879 Speaker 1: have a funny metric for it, but about five percent 435 00:25:35,000 --> 00:25:38,920 Speaker 1: of active accounts, and za Co says that actually it's 436 00:25:38,960 --> 00:25:42,280 Speaker 1: probably higher than that, and that you know, Twitter has 437 00:25:42,320 --> 00:25:44,880 Speaker 1: been sort of fudging the numbers a little bit internally 438 00:25:45,119 --> 00:25:46,920 Speaker 1: so that they don't have to come up with a 439 00:25:47,480 --> 00:25:51,080 Speaker 1: very clear metric for the number of bots that would 440 00:25:51,119 --> 00:25:55,919 Speaker 1: obviously help you know, Musk's complaint in Delaware, since he 441 00:25:56,080 --> 00:25:58,280 Speaker 1: is trying to walk away from this deal for Twitter 442 00:25:58,480 --> 00:26:00,600 Speaker 1: because of allegations that they didn't you have him enough 443 00:26:00,800 --> 00:26:04,160 Speaker 1: information to accurately estimate the number of thoughts. And so, 444 00:26:04,359 --> 00:26:07,560 Speaker 1: immediately after this complaint became public, he started posting on 445 00:26:07,600 --> 00:26:10,159 Speaker 1: Twitter about how this helped him. There was a a 446 00:26:10,280 --> 00:26:15,240 Speaker 1: meme he posted of Jiminy cricket from Pinocchio. Um And so, 447 00:26:15,440 --> 00:26:19,080 Speaker 1: you know, obviously his lawyers and he were pretty happy 448 00:26:19,119 --> 00:26:23,840 Speaker 1: about this disclosure. The meme referenced whistling. If I recall, yes, 449 00:26:25,640 --> 00:26:29,000 Speaker 1: so step back for a second. Obviously these are allegations 450 00:26:29,119 --> 00:26:31,399 Speaker 1: and so we don't know, you know, the extent to 451 00:26:31,440 --> 00:26:34,840 Speaker 1: which they are true. But how big of a problem 452 00:26:35,040 --> 00:26:37,200 Speaker 1: is this for Twitter? It certainly seems as though it's 453 00:26:37,200 --> 00:26:40,280 Speaker 1: a multifaceted issue for them that they're going to have 454 00:26:40,320 --> 00:26:43,439 Speaker 1: to deal with on on several fronts. Yeah, this is 455 00:26:43,480 --> 00:26:46,320 Speaker 1: what's interesting is compared to the other tech companies, Twitter 456 00:26:46,440 --> 00:26:49,320 Speaker 1: hasn't had as much difficulty in Washington. Yes, they have 457 00:26:49,480 --> 00:26:53,560 Speaker 1: had these investigations by the FTC over security practices in 458 00:26:53,640 --> 00:26:55,800 Speaker 1: two thousand and eleven and then more recently the one 459 00:26:55,920 --> 00:27:00,720 Speaker 1: over phone numbers, but they haven't near really had as 460 00:27:00,800 --> 00:27:03,760 Speaker 1: much difficulties as like Google, which is facing you know, 461 00:27:03,920 --> 00:27:07,119 Speaker 1: about five different anti trust investigations, or Facebook, which is 462 00:27:07,320 --> 00:27:11,919 Speaker 1: also facing several anti trust investigations. Jack Dorsey has testified, 463 00:27:11,960 --> 00:27:14,119 Speaker 1: the former Twitter CEO has testified on the Hill, but 464 00:27:14,160 --> 00:27:16,639 Speaker 1: not nearly as many times as for example, Mark Zuckerberg 465 00:27:16,640 --> 00:27:19,600 Speaker 1: has been dragged up there. But this is like definitely 466 00:27:19,640 --> 00:27:23,560 Speaker 1: the biggest whistleblower complaint that is Twitter has faced, and 467 00:27:23,560 --> 00:27:26,080 Speaker 1: and sort of regulatory issues that Twitter has faced in 468 00:27:26,119 --> 00:27:29,600 Speaker 1: Washington yet, and the fact that it is very multifaceted, 469 00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:33,560 Speaker 1: that it involves you know, user privacy and security. It 470 00:27:33,600 --> 00:27:38,120 Speaker 1: involves national security, It involves potentially lying to advertisers. I mean, 471 00:27:38,359 --> 00:27:41,320 Speaker 1: it runs the gamut, and Twitter, as I said, has 472 00:27:41,359 --> 00:27:44,560 Speaker 1: not generally dealt with as big problems like this in 473 00:27:44,560 --> 00:27:47,720 Speaker 1: the past. What has been Twitter's response so far? Have 474 00:27:47,840 --> 00:27:51,280 Speaker 1: they said anything about the allegations. They've mostly said, you know, 475 00:27:51,440 --> 00:27:54,520 Speaker 1: he was fired for performance issues in January, so please 476 00:27:54,520 --> 00:27:57,480 Speaker 1: take a grain of salt of anything he's saying. And 477 00:27:57,680 --> 00:28:02,800 Speaker 1: you know, they have categorically denied some of his allegations. 478 00:28:02,840 --> 00:28:06,120 Speaker 1: They say that, you know, they particularly have pushed back 479 00:28:06,119 --> 00:28:08,560 Speaker 1: on the allegations about bots and have said that they 480 00:28:08,560 --> 00:28:11,520 Speaker 1: don't think that his allegations are accurate and that they 481 00:28:11,560 --> 00:28:14,560 Speaker 1: intend to contest some of them. What happens next with this, 482 00:28:14,800 --> 00:28:17,960 Speaker 1: or do we know what happens next? Well, obviously you know, 483 00:28:18,160 --> 00:28:21,320 Speaker 1: the trial involving Elon Musk is coming up in October. 484 00:28:21,800 --> 00:28:25,120 Speaker 1: Some of this will definitely get aired there. The FTC, 485 00:28:25,400 --> 00:28:28,160 Speaker 1: as I said, is not probably not going to confirm 486 00:28:28,240 --> 00:28:31,399 Speaker 1: that it's looking into this. It sometimes does confirm in 487 00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:35,240 Speaker 1: what they consider major cases. So for example, it confirmed 488 00:28:35,240 --> 00:28:37,800 Speaker 1: in the Cambridge Analytica case that I was looking at 489 00:28:37,840 --> 00:28:41,080 Speaker 1: Facebook just because that was of such intense public interest. 490 00:28:41,640 --> 00:28:45,360 Speaker 1: But um, they would be looking at this complaint and 491 00:28:45,840 --> 00:28:50,640 Speaker 1: possibly bringing Twitter in to explain why they think that 492 00:28:50,720 --> 00:28:52,880 Speaker 1: this does not violate the consent to cree that they've 493 00:28:53,400 --> 00:28:56,360 Speaker 1: been out for over a decade, and then probably you 494 00:28:56,360 --> 00:28:58,240 Speaker 1: know a lot of members of Congress have already said 495 00:28:58,280 --> 00:29:00,760 Speaker 1: that they want to hear from this whizzle blow personally, 496 00:29:00,800 --> 00:29:03,160 Speaker 1: so we may sort of see a bunch of congressional 497 00:29:03,200 --> 00:29:05,840 Speaker 1: hearings in the same way that we did with Facebook 498 00:29:05,840 --> 00:29:08,680 Speaker 1: whistle blower friends. As how again, lest Fall, can you 499 00:29:08,680 --> 00:29:11,960 Speaker 1: tell us a little bit more about these national security concerns? 500 00:29:12,400 --> 00:29:15,000 Speaker 1: You know, there's an allegation in the witial blower report 501 00:29:15,080 --> 00:29:19,120 Speaker 1: that talks about the access that employees have to certain 502 00:29:19,160 --> 00:29:22,520 Speaker 1: high profile accounts. How does that factor into the concerns 503 00:29:22,520 --> 00:29:25,000 Speaker 1: that are being raised here? Yeah, there's a couple of 504 00:29:25,040 --> 00:29:29,360 Speaker 1: different national security concerns. You know. He says that a 505 00:29:29,360 --> 00:29:33,720 Speaker 1: lot of Twitter employees have access that would allow them 506 00:29:33,760 --> 00:29:38,080 Speaker 1: to uh sort of take over prominent accounts and or 507 00:29:38,400 --> 00:29:42,600 Speaker 1: look in to the d ms that people send. Obviously, 508 00:29:42,640 --> 00:29:44,600 Speaker 1: that could be problematic. I mean, you're not supposed to 509 00:29:44,600 --> 00:29:47,800 Speaker 1: be talking about super secret things on Twitter d m s. 510 00:29:47,920 --> 00:29:50,440 Speaker 1: But aside from that, you know, the case that the 511 00:29:50,480 --> 00:29:54,320 Speaker 1: Justice Department had brought um against the employee who was 512 00:29:54,360 --> 00:29:57,320 Speaker 1: spying for the Saudies. The allegation there was, you know, 513 00:29:57,360 --> 00:30:00,840 Speaker 1: a lot of people in Saudi Arabia had created accounts anonymously, 514 00:30:01,480 --> 00:30:05,360 Speaker 1: but insiders could see, for example, the email or phone 515 00:30:05,440 --> 00:30:08,280 Speaker 1: number that was associated with the account, and if they 516 00:30:08,320 --> 00:30:10,360 Speaker 1: gave that to the government, it would be a way 517 00:30:10,440 --> 00:30:12,560 Speaker 1: for the government to sort of track down people who 518 00:30:12,560 --> 00:30:15,360 Speaker 1: are critics and potentially do you harm to them in 519 00:30:15,400 --> 00:30:20,440 Speaker 1: real life. The the overall kind of atmosphere that this 520 00:30:20,600 --> 00:30:24,080 Speaker 1: complaint suggests about Twitter, tell me if I'm wrong, seems 521 00:30:24,120 --> 00:30:26,400 Speaker 1: to be that this is all stuff that Twitter just 522 00:30:26,480 --> 00:30:29,560 Speaker 1: doesn't care about that much, that it doesn't make a 523 00:30:29,600 --> 00:30:32,880 Speaker 1: priority to deal with these national security issues and just 524 00:30:33,000 --> 00:30:38,240 Speaker 1: general user experience issues. Isn't that right? Yeah, The complaint 525 00:30:38,240 --> 00:30:40,720 Speaker 1: alleges that a lot of Twitter executives just cared much 526 00:30:40,800 --> 00:30:44,680 Speaker 1: more about the company's stock price, that's the company continuing 527 00:30:44,680 --> 00:30:46,960 Speaker 1: to get new users, and they did about the security. 528 00:30:47,480 --> 00:30:50,000 Speaker 1: The whistleblower, as we mentioned, had only been brought in, 529 00:30:50,920 --> 00:30:53,600 Speaker 1: but he is a very prominent cybersecurity expert. He had 530 00:30:53,640 --> 00:30:57,080 Speaker 1: worked you know, for the federal government at places including DARPA. 531 00:30:57,360 --> 00:31:00,640 Speaker 1: He is a well known hacker, so he knows this 532 00:31:00,720 --> 00:31:03,959 Speaker 1: stuff backwards and forwards. And he was talking about Twitter 533 00:31:04,440 --> 00:31:09,400 Speaker 1: not having updated software, not really having information on all 534 00:31:09,480 --> 00:31:13,080 Speaker 1: of the computers that could access its servers. He alleged that, 535 00:31:13,160 --> 00:31:16,400 Speaker 1: you know, if Twitter didn't even have enough backups, so 536 00:31:16,480 --> 00:31:18,640 Speaker 1: if there had been a cyber attack in which they 537 00:31:18,720 --> 00:31:20,960 Speaker 1: attack some of the data centers, the company might not 538 00:31:21,040 --> 00:31:23,680 Speaker 1: even be able to keep its platform up or bring 539 00:31:23,680 --> 00:31:26,680 Speaker 1: it back online. So he was focused a lot more 540 00:31:27,040 --> 00:31:31,320 Speaker 1: on some of the infrastructure cyber security issues then maybe 541 00:31:31,320 --> 00:31:33,680 Speaker 1: past whistleblowers. And he has a lot of knowledge and 542 00:31:33,720 --> 00:31:36,240 Speaker 1: respect within the community, so I think that's why a 543 00:31:36,280 --> 00:31:38,960 Speaker 1: lot of people are taking his complaints seriously. And so 544 00:31:39,040 --> 00:31:41,080 Speaker 1: these are just allegations at this point. But if they 545 00:31:41,120 --> 00:31:43,160 Speaker 1: do turn out to be accurate, what is it that 546 00:31:43,200 --> 00:31:45,040 Speaker 1: can be done about it? Is it only something that 547 00:31:45,040 --> 00:31:47,680 Speaker 1: Twitter can take care of it, or is there something 548 00:31:47,680 --> 00:31:51,280 Speaker 1: that Congress can do for their action by federal officials 549 00:31:51,360 --> 00:31:55,320 Speaker 1: that they can take to kind of clear up these shortcomings. Yeah, Well, 550 00:31:55,360 --> 00:31:58,000 Speaker 1: if Twitter is found to have violated the Federal Trade 551 00:31:58,000 --> 00:32:01,880 Speaker 1: Commission's consent to create the FTC could impose bines on them, 552 00:32:01,880 --> 00:32:04,520 Speaker 1: as I mentioned, they had already paid a one fifty 553 00:32:04,560 --> 00:32:07,920 Speaker 1: million dollar fine. The FTC also does have the ability 554 00:32:07,960 --> 00:32:11,320 Speaker 1: to impose liability on individuals, So if they had found 555 00:32:11,400 --> 00:32:14,600 Speaker 1: that Twitter was flagrantly not paying attention to these issues, 556 00:32:14,640 --> 00:32:18,480 Speaker 1: they could try and impose penalties on individuals. And then 557 00:32:18,720 --> 00:32:21,000 Speaker 1: if they did find that there were other sort of 558 00:32:21,160 --> 00:32:23,800 Speaker 1: employees who had been spying for governments, as in the 559 00:32:23,840 --> 00:32:27,760 Speaker 1: case of the Saudi Arabian case, they could potentially bring 560 00:32:27,800 --> 00:32:31,480 Speaker 1: criminal charges. Okay, well, thank you very much, Bloomberg News 561 00:32:31,640 --> 00:32:34,640 Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission reporter Leah Nilan. That does it for 562 00:32:34,680 --> 00:32:37,520 Speaker 1: this episode of Bloomberg Law. I'm Greg Store and I'm 563 00:32:37,560 --> 00:32:39,480 Speaker 1: Kimberly Robinson. This is Bloomberg