1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:14,160
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has issued twenty opinions in argued cases

3
00:00:14,240 --> 00:00:18,080
Speaker 1: so far this term, and fifteen of them have been unanimous.

4
00:00:18,560 --> 00:00:21,880
Speaker 1: That may seem unusual for a court that's often split

5
00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:26,760
Speaker 1: down ideological lines in controversial cases since the three Trump

6
00:00:26,800 --> 00:00:31,240
Speaker 1: appointees joined the court, leading to a super conservative majority,

7
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:35,279
Speaker 1: but Chief Justice John Roberts has often talked about the

8
00:00:35,320 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 1: importance of unanimity.

9
00:00:37,479 --> 00:00:40,879
Speaker 2: I still think it's an important objective one because I

10
00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:44,640
Speaker 2: think judicial decisions should be narrower rather than broader, and

11
00:00:44,680 --> 00:00:46,400
Speaker 2: the way to do that is to try to get

12
00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:50,040
Speaker 2: as many people on board as you can. That you know,

13
00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:52,279
Speaker 2: if you're going to reach a broad decision that's going

14
00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:55,640
Speaker 2: to cover all sorts of different factional scenarios, a lot

15
00:00:55,640 --> 00:00:57,200
Speaker 2: of people are going to say, well, WHOA, I'm not

16
00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:01,480
Speaker 2: quite sure I agree with that. They might write something narrow,

17
00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:04,120
Speaker 2: But if you keep it narrow that it only decides

18
00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:07,000
Speaker 2: what's absolutely necessary to be decided. Usually you can get

19
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:08,880
Speaker 2: more people to agree with that one.

20
00:01:08,920 --> 00:01:11,760
Speaker 1: But in the next two months, as decisions are handed

21
00:01:11,800 --> 00:01:17,080
Speaker 1: down in controversial cases involving abortion, guns, racial gerrymandering and

22
00:01:17,200 --> 00:01:22,920
Speaker 1: presidential immunity, you can expect that unanimity to evaporate. Joining

23
00:01:22,920 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 1: me is John Elwood, the head of the appelladan Supreme

24
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:29,080
Speaker 1: Court practice at Arnold and Porter. He's been before the

25
00:01:29,319 --> 00:01:33,840
Speaker 1: justices many times. For those who are not familiar, will

26
00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:38,119
Speaker 1: you explain the process the justices go through in making

27
00:01:38,160 --> 00:01:41,240
Speaker 1: these decisions once they've heard oral arguments?

28
00:01:41,760 --> 00:01:42,160
Speaker 3: Sure?

29
00:01:42,280 --> 00:01:42,600
Speaker 4: Well.

30
00:01:42,800 --> 00:01:46,720
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court here is argument for basically two weeks

31
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:50,560
Speaker 3: every month between October and April, and at the end

32
00:01:50,800 --> 00:01:54,880
Speaker 3: of I think each week of argument they vote on

33
00:01:55,880 --> 00:01:59,240
Speaker 3: which position everyone's going to take on every case. And

34
00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:01,920
Speaker 3: I believe that at the end of the whole sitting

35
00:02:02,320 --> 00:02:06,120
Speaker 3: there's a kind of a final tally where the person

36
00:02:06,120 --> 00:02:10,760
Speaker 3: who is presiding, that is, the senior most justice in

37
00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:15,680
Speaker 3: the majority, assigns opinions to all of the justices in

38
00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:18,200
Speaker 3: a way that tries to give them kind of an

39
00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:22,119
Speaker 3: equal share of cases, an equal number of authorships.

40
00:02:22,440 --> 00:02:27,640
Speaker 1: Twenty opinions and argued cases this term fifteen have been unanimous.

41
00:02:28,040 --> 00:02:30,880
Speaker 1: I know the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Cony

42
00:02:30,880 --> 00:02:34,280
Speaker 1: Barrett also has talked about how you know we're unanimous

43
00:02:34,320 --> 00:02:38,000
Speaker 1: on the majority of cases, but tell us about the

44
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:40,080
Speaker 1: kinds of cases they're unanimous on.

45
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:42,960
Speaker 3: Well, most of the cases that have been decided so

46
00:02:43,080 --> 00:02:46,160
Speaker 3: far are not the kind of read letter, big ticket

47
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:50,239
Speaker 3: to mix metaphors cases for the term, they're more generally

48
00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:53,359
Speaker 3: the Duller cases. There are a few cases that are

49
00:02:53,480 --> 00:02:59,120
Speaker 3: more noteworthy which were nonetheless unanimous, which were likely unanimous

50
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:02,079
Speaker 3: because they were so narrow, like, for example, there were

51
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:05,080
Speaker 3: the social media blocking cases link Keepers is Freedom O'Connor

52
00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:09,560
Speaker 3: rat Clippers's garner, which involved a fairly big ticket issue

53
00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:14,600
Speaker 3: about whether when public officials block people on social media

54
00:03:14,680 --> 00:03:18,040
Speaker 3: that is essentially state actions, it is regulated by the

55
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:21,400
Speaker 3: First Amendment. And that was the case that really the

56
00:03:21,639 --> 00:03:24,160
Speaker 3: justices seem to have some trouble grappling with an argument,

57
00:03:24,560 --> 00:03:27,200
Speaker 3: but they decided very little of it. They decided a

58
00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:29,840
Speaker 3: fairly narrow rule and left most of the applications for

59
00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:32,240
Speaker 3: reman and so I think that would have been a

60
00:03:32,400 --> 00:03:35,720
Speaker 3: very easy case to not be unanimous if they had

61
00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:38,160
Speaker 3: decided it any more broadly than they did.

62
00:03:38,760 --> 00:03:43,120
Speaker 1: So are they trying to present a picture of unanimity

63
00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 1: with these cases by, as you say, either limiting them

64
00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:50,960
Speaker 1: or you know, choosing cases that are not hot button.

65
00:03:50,680 --> 00:03:54,520
Speaker 3: Issues well, to begin with, one of the things I

66
00:03:54,600 --> 00:03:57,600
Speaker 3: like to emphasize is that when you're dealing with such

67
00:03:57,680 --> 00:04:01,880
Speaker 3: small numbers, it doesn't take much for things to seem

68
00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:04,080
Speaker 3: like outliers. You know, when you're dealing with just like

69
00:04:04,160 --> 00:04:09,160
Speaker 3: eighteen cases, it only takes something like four extra cases

70
00:04:09,720 --> 00:04:13,080
Speaker 3: to go from an ordinary term to an really unusual

71
00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 3: high water mark of unanimity. And so this is something

72
00:04:16,560 --> 00:04:18,720
Speaker 3: that I always try to emphasize. When you're dealing with

73
00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:21,359
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court, the numbers are so small that it

74
00:04:21,400 --> 00:04:23,920
Speaker 3: doesn't take much for things to look like you have

75
00:04:24,000 --> 00:04:27,640
Speaker 3: some real outlier term or real weird trend. But with that,

76
00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:30,920
Speaker 3: you know, I do think that the Roberts Court does

77
00:04:31,040 --> 00:04:34,560
Speaker 3: try to emphasize unanimity. They also there may be a

78
00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:37,240
Speaker 3: different dynamic in that, you know, they're trying to get

79
00:04:37,320 --> 00:04:42,560
Speaker 3: cases out because they are relatively behind in getting opinions out,

80
00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:45,680
Speaker 3: and so they may just you know, be writing opinions

81
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,480
Speaker 3: narrowly so they can clear those cases out, get them

82
00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:51,400
Speaker 3: out so they can focus on the remaining cases. So

83
00:04:51,440 --> 00:04:53,040
Speaker 3: there are a number of reasons why they might be

84
00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:55,880
Speaker 3: doing it this way. I do think that they try

85
00:04:55,960 --> 00:04:59,400
Speaker 3: to be unanimous whenever they can it's kind of part

86
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:02,159
Speaker 3: of the ethos the Roberts' Court. John Roberts cares about it,

87
00:05:02,200 --> 00:05:04,440
Speaker 3: and I think he tries to job on other people

88
00:05:04,480 --> 00:05:07,480
Speaker 3: into feeling the same way that maybe that they're taking

89
00:05:07,520 --> 00:05:10,839
Speaker 3: relatively few cases. There are very low number of grants'

90
00:05:11,000 --> 00:05:14,120
Speaker 3: term and it may be that they are picking out

91
00:05:14,160 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 3: cases that they feel there's a pair amount of unanimity

92
00:05:16,320 --> 00:05:18,400
Speaker 3: end and it may be that they're, you know, kind

93
00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:21,680
Speaker 3: of clearing the wave for more contentious issues which have

94
00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:23,000
Speaker 3: yet to be decided.

95
00:05:23,839 --> 00:05:28,320
Speaker 1: Every year, the cases that we're waiting for involving hot

96
00:05:28,360 --> 00:05:32,719
Speaker 1: button issues come down at the end of June, sometimes

97
00:05:32,760 --> 00:05:37,480
Speaker 1: the last two days of June, before they go on vacation.

98
00:05:38,360 --> 00:05:40,640
Speaker 1: Is there a reason for that or is it just

99
00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:45,039
Speaker 1: a decision to leave the most controversial cases until the

100
00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:45,800
Speaker 1: final days.

101
00:05:46,520 --> 00:05:49,040
Speaker 3: I think a lot is just explained by the practicality

102
00:05:49,120 --> 00:05:52,440
Speaker 3: of it, which is that descending opinions take more time,

103
00:05:53,120 --> 00:05:56,720
Speaker 3: and sometimes in the most contentious cases there's back and

104
00:05:56,760 --> 00:06:00,480
Speaker 3: forth between the descent and the majority opinion, and when

105
00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:04,040
Speaker 3: people are fine tuning opinions, you know, in draft after

106
00:06:04,120 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 3: draft after draft, it can go kind of down to

107
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:09,720
Speaker 3: the wire. So I think much of it is explained

108
00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:14,039
Speaker 3: simply by the practicality of you know, more opinions, more drafts,

109
00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:14,599
Speaker 3: take more.

110
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:18,880
Speaker 1: Time, And will you explain the process of circulating the

111
00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:23,560
Speaker 1: opinions so all the justices see what others have written

112
00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:25,080
Speaker 1: and can respond to it.

113
00:06:25,560 --> 00:06:29,599
Speaker 3: That's right. A majority opinions circulate, Descending opinions then circulate,

114
00:06:30,200 --> 00:06:34,080
Speaker 3: and each subsequent draft is then circulated to the entire group,

115
00:06:34,640 --> 00:06:38,080
Speaker 3: and then you know, justices who are joining opinions may

116
00:06:38,120 --> 00:06:41,880
Speaker 3: ask for changes. Justices who are joining descent may ask

117
00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:45,640
Speaker 3: for changes. Authors of both majority opinions and authors of

118
00:06:45,640 --> 00:06:49,359
Speaker 3: the sense may tweak their opinions to respond to the

119
00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:52,320
Speaker 3: opinions on the other side, and each of those opinions

120
00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:54,799
Speaker 3: will be circulated as a whole group with a red line,

121
00:06:55,080 --> 00:06:57,560
Speaker 3: so everyone knows what's new and what's been changed is

122
00:06:57,640 --> 00:06:58,320
Speaker 3: the last draft.

123
00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:01,440
Speaker 1: I guess that does show why it takes so long. Now,

124
00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:04,040
Speaker 1: as far as the oral arguments go, and everyone says,

125
00:07:04,080 --> 00:07:06,200
Speaker 1: you can tell what the decision will be from the

126
00:07:06,279 --> 00:07:09,720
Speaker 1: oral arguments, but can you sort of figure out the

127
00:07:09,720 --> 00:07:14,200
Speaker 1: broad strokes of the decision from the oral arguments? Have

128
00:07:14,280 --> 00:07:18,080
Speaker 1: you ever been totally surprised by a decision?

129
00:07:18,240 --> 00:07:18,320
Speaker 2: Like?

130
00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:21,320
Speaker 1: Wow? I never expected that.

131
00:07:21,400 --> 00:07:24,600
Speaker 3: There have been some that surprised me. There was a

132
00:07:24,680 --> 00:07:27,320
Speaker 3: case many years ago when the oral argument was still

133
00:07:27,320 --> 00:07:31,440
Speaker 3: in a pretty rigidly one hour format where there was

134
00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:34,360
Speaker 3: actually kind of a reversal of positions that the position

135
00:07:34,400 --> 00:07:37,559
Speaker 3: that Justice Stevens seemed to be advocating wound up being

136
00:07:37,640 --> 00:07:41,480
Speaker 3: taken up by Justice Scalia and vice versa. But I think,

137
00:07:41,640 --> 00:07:45,200
Speaker 3: especially under the new format, which essentially goes on as

138
00:07:45,240 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 3: long as the justices have questions, I think oral argument

139
00:07:48,520 --> 00:07:51,240
Speaker 3: is a much better predictor of where people are going

140
00:07:51,280 --> 00:07:53,360
Speaker 3: to come out in the end. There are fewer surprises,

141
00:07:53,360 --> 00:07:55,640
Speaker 3: I think under the sort of format because all of

142
00:07:55,680 --> 00:07:58,840
Speaker 3: the issues are thoroughly ventilated the court.

143
00:07:58,880 --> 00:08:01,480
Speaker 1: It's been said a million times, but it's at its

144
00:08:01,480 --> 00:08:05,800
Speaker 1: lowest approval rating since they've been taking those polls. Do

145
00:08:05,840 --> 00:08:09,400
Speaker 1: you think that that matters to the justices or not.

146
00:08:09,680 --> 00:08:11,160
Speaker 1: They're there for life.

147
00:08:10,880 --> 00:08:14,280
Speaker 3: So yeah, I don't think that they're unmindful of it.

148
00:08:14,320 --> 00:08:16,680
Speaker 3: But I think that they kind of do the same

149
00:08:16,760 --> 00:08:19,200
Speaker 3: thing year in and year out. They go in and

150
00:08:19,280 --> 00:08:21,840
Speaker 3: they decide the cases, you know, the way they feel

151
00:08:21,840 --> 00:08:24,440
Speaker 3: that they should be decided. You know, they may try

152
00:08:24,440 --> 00:08:26,720
Speaker 3: to be more unanimous in a particular case or decide

153
00:08:26,720 --> 00:08:29,520
Speaker 3: an issue more narrowly. And I do think that they're

154
00:08:29,560 --> 00:08:33,080
Speaker 3: generally kind of an incremental and minimalist court in the

155
00:08:33,120 --> 00:08:35,800
Speaker 3: sense that I think that they try to decide, and

156
00:08:36,000 --> 00:08:38,320
Speaker 3: many times they try to decide the least that they

157
00:08:38,360 --> 00:08:41,479
Speaker 3: can decide so well. I don't think that they're unmindful

158
00:08:41,520 --> 00:08:43,680
Speaker 3: of it. They read the newspapers. I don't think that

159
00:08:43,720 --> 00:08:45,719
Speaker 3: they let it shape their behavior. I think that they

160
00:08:46,640 --> 00:08:49,520
Speaker 3: I'm kind of one of those pollyannas. You think that

161
00:08:49,559 --> 00:08:53,080
Speaker 3: they really try to just do justice, or they try

162
00:08:53,120 --> 00:08:54,560
Speaker 3: to follow the law in every case.

163
00:08:54,720 --> 00:08:57,680
Speaker 1: As you're talking about the oral arguments as someone who's argued,

164
00:08:57,800 --> 00:09:01,000
Speaker 1: I mean, do the lawyers like the arguments that often

165
00:09:01,040 --> 00:09:02,240
Speaker 1: do go on for hours?

166
00:09:02,440 --> 00:09:04,760
Speaker 3: You know. I actually had a conversation with several other

167
00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:07,880
Speaker 3: kind of repeat players the other day on this, and

168
00:09:07,920 --> 00:09:10,720
Speaker 3: I think generally one thing we like about it is

169
00:09:10,760 --> 00:09:15,320
Speaker 3: that it really does allow everybody to be kind of

170
00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:18,000
Speaker 3: heard fully, and I think that that generally is a

171
00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:21,160
Speaker 3: favorable thing. The downside is that it makes it harder

172
00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:25,160
Speaker 3: to argue more cases. That you can essentially fully ventilate

173
00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:29,920
Speaker 3: one controversial case per day, but if you have a

174
00:09:29,920 --> 00:09:33,200
Speaker 3: second argument it's going to get much more summary treatment,

175
00:09:33,559 --> 00:09:35,600
Speaker 3: and you know that that makes it kind of more

176
00:09:35,640 --> 00:09:37,800
Speaker 3: difficult for the court to hear more cases.

177
00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:41,160
Speaker 1: And they've been cutting down on the number of cases

178
00:09:41,240 --> 00:09:41,760
Speaker 1: that they.

179
00:09:41,679 --> 00:09:44,400
Speaker 3: Take each year, and it's kind of at low low

180
00:09:44,480 --> 00:09:46,439
Speaker 3: EP right now. You know, it's kind of more in

181
00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:48,439
Speaker 3: the sixty case range. And I don't know if they're

182
00:09:48,480 --> 00:09:51,240
Speaker 3: related or not, since they don't explain what they're doing,

183
00:09:51,280 --> 00:09:54,120
Speaker 3: I don't know if they're related. But one consequence of

184
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:57,240
Speaker 3: the longer world argument format is that it makes it

185
00:09:57,240 --> 00:09:58,560
Speaker 3: harder to hear two cases.

186
00:09:58,920 --> 00:10:01,920
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining me today. I appreciate your insights,

187
00:10:02,000 --> 00:10:05,720
Speaker 1: especially knowing that you've argued some ten times before the justices.

188
00:10:06,120 --> 00:10:09,280
Speaker 1: That's John Elwood, head of the Appellatan Supreme Court practice

189
00:10:09,320 --> 00:10:12,559
Speaker 1: at Arnold and Porter. The Supreme Court handed down two

190
00:10:12,679 --> 00:10:16,760
Speaker 1: decisions today and neither of them was unanimous. Coming up

191
00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:19,480
Speaker 1: next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, we'll get an update

192
00:10:19,559 --> 00:10:23,199
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump's hush money trial. This is Bloomberg. Stormy

193
00:10:23,280 --> 00:10:27,200
Speaker 1: Daniels finished her testimony today at Donald Trump's hush money trial.

194
00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:31,600
Speaker 1: The question is did the adult film star help prosecutors

195
00:10:31,679 --> 00:10:35,800
Speaker 1: prove the former president falsified business records. Joining me now

196
00:10:35,840 --> 00:10:39,319
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakiz, who's covering the trial

197
00:10:39,360 --> 00:10:42,200
Speaker 1: for us. All in all, what was your take on

198
00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:45,840
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniel's testimony? Was she credible or not?

199
00:10:46,320 --> 00:10:52,280
Speaker 4: Stormy Daniels gave in passionate testimony that she had a

200
00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:57,240
Speaker 4: sexual encounter with Donald Trump in a Lake Tahoe hotel

201
00:10:57,320 --> 00:11:01,680
Speaker 4: room in two thousand and six, and that, despite very

202
00:11:01,679 --> 00:11:06,000
Speaker 4: intense cross examination, that she was not backing down from

203
00:11:06,040 --> 00:11:10,360
Speaker 4: that account and that she was not motivated by making money,

204
00:11:10,720 --> 00:11:16,520
Speaker 4: even though Trump's lawyer Susan Necklace crossed her on how

205
00:11:16,559 --> 00:11:20,400
Speaker 4: she had made more than a million dollars in various

206
00:11:20,400 --> 00:11:26,000
Speaker 4: commercial ventures based on her account of having sex with Trump,

207
00:11:26,800 --> 00:11:32,360
Speaker 4: and how she had changed key details of that encounter

208
00:11:33,000 --> 00:11:37,520
Speaker 4: a number of times since this happened eighteen years ago.

209
00:11:38,120 --> 00:11:41,120
Speaker 4: And so what Trump's lawyer was trying to do was

210
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:46,720
Speaker 4: raise serious doubts about her credibility before the jury, and

211
00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:51,040
Speaker 4: Stormy Daniels was able to stick to her basic account.

212
00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:56,640
Speaker 4: She sparred with Trump's lawyer Susan Necklace, and while she

213
00:11:57,000 --> 00:12:01,360
Speaker 4: wobbled a bit, she stuck to her core story and

214
00:12:01,840 --> 00:12:03,040
Speaker 4: was not shaken off of that.

215
00:12:03,840 --> 00:12:07,160
Speaker 1: Seems like the testimony is going from you know, compelling

216
00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:10,880
Speaker 1: witness to the paperwork. And it is a case about

217
00:12:10,920 --> 00:12:13,480
Speaker 1: business records. So who was on the stand next?

218
00:12:14,240 --> 00:12:18,160
Speaker 4: The next witness was a publishing executive, and then we

219
00:12:18,240 --> 00:12:24,880
Speaker 4: heard from Medline Westerhouse, who was Trump's assistant just outside

220
00:12:24,920 --> 00:12:31,040
Speaker 4: the Oval office, who testified about how she handled Trump's

221
00:12:31,080 --> 00:12:35,280
Speaker 4: payment of personal bills. This matters in this case because,

222
00:12:35,920 --> 00:12:40,840
Speaker 4: of course Trump was accused of falsifying corporate records to

223
00:12:40,920 --> 00:12:44,559
Speaker 4: hide his repayment to Michael Cohen of one hundred and

224
00:12:44,600 --> 00:12:49,480
Speaker 4: thirty thousand dollars that he paid to Stormy Daniels. And

225
00:12:49,520 --> 00:12:53,360
Speaker 4: I should also say that after the final witness, a

226
00:12:54,080 --> 00:12:59,880
Speaker 4: Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche renewed a mistrial emotion that he's

227
00:13:00,080 --> 00:13:05,320
Speaker 4: made on Tuesday, saying that the judge allowed a great

228
00:13:05,360 --> 00:13:10,000
Speaker 4: deal of prejudicial testimony by Stormy Daniels about the sexual

229
00:13:10,120 --> 00:13:15,679
Speaker 4: encounter that was improper. The judge said that essentially the

230
00:13:15,720 --> 00:13:19,040
Speaker 4: defense had opened the door to that by attacking her

231
00:13:19,120 --> 00:13:23,120
Speaker 4: credibility in their opening statement and saying that the sexual

232
00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:27,079
Speaker 4: encounter did not occur, And so the judge said, well,

233
00:13:27,120 --> 00:13:30,760
Speaker 4: the proseputor was then allowed to bring her on to

234
00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:34,720
Speaker 4: say that yes, it did occur. Todd Blanche also asked

235
00:13:34,720 --> 00:13:39,960
Speaker 4: the judge to modify his gag order on Donald Trump

236
00:13:40,040 --> 00:13:43,840
Speaker 4: to allow him to respond to the Stormy Daniels testimony.

237
00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:45,679
Speaker 4: The judge refused to.

238
00:13:45,640 --> 00:13:48,760
Speaker 1: Do that, and did that argument get heated?

239
00:13:49,720 --> 00:13:53,640
Speaker 4: Yes, it was quite a heated argument for a good

240
00:13:53,679 --> 00:13:58,880
Speaker 4: while after the end of trial testimony and judge was

241
00:13:58,920 --> 00:14:04,320
Speaker 4: Stinelass came back for the prosecutors and essentially said, you

242
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:08,600
Speaker 4: know that all of Todd Blanche's arguments were misguided and

243
00:14:09,520 --> 00:14:14,800
Speaker 4: that the prosecution did nothing improper in eliciting Stormy Daniels

244
00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:18,360
Speaker 4: testimony about what happened in the hotel room in the

245
00:14:18,559 --> 00:14:20,840
Speaker 4: Tao in two thousand and six.

246
00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:27,000
Speaker 1: Since Tuesday, has Trump been following the gag order.

247
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:31,160
Speaker 4: There have been no complaints from the prosecutors that he

248
00:14:31,240 --> 00:14:35,560
Speaker 4: has violated the gag order. He's obviously very angry about

249
00:14:35,600 --> 00:14:40,720
Speaker 4: Stormy daniels testimony. The judge admonished him in a sidebar

250
00:14:41,320 --> 00:14:46,680
Speaker 4: when he was cursing at Stormy Daniels on Tuesday. But

251
00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,680
Speaker 4: as far as I know, he hasn't said anything publicly

252
00:14:51,160 --> 00:14:54,200
Speaker 4: about Stormy Daniels or any other witnesses to violate the

253
00:14:54,240 --> 00:14:59,320
Speaker 4: gag order. Essentially, Todd Blanche asked the judge to allow

254
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:04,160
Speaker 4: the Jackles off so that Trump could talk freely to

255
00:15:04,320 --> 00:15:08,640
Speaker 4: the public and on a campaign trail about Stormy Daniels,

256
00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:12,400
Speaker 4: and the judge said that that would imperil the integrity

257
00:15:12,400 --> 00:15:14,160
Speaker 4: of the proceedings, and he denied them.

258
00:15:14,400 --> 00:15:18,280
Speaker 1: What does the jury have to believe from Stormy daniels

259
00:15:18,440 --> 00:15:22,000
Speaker 1: testimony to make the prosecution's case? I mean, did the

260
00:15:22,040 --> 00:15:24,920
Speaker 1: prosecution even have to call her as a witness?

261
00:15:25,160 --> 00:15:28,640
Speaker 4: And that's an excellent question. It's possible to argue that

262
00:15:29,120 --> 00:15:34,160
Speaker 4: the prosecution could have made their case without Stormy daniels testimony.

263
00:15:34,560 --> 00:15:37,640
Speaker 4: It doesn't matter whether they really had sex or not.

264
00:15:38,360 --> 00:15:42,960
Speaker 4: What matters is that he paid hush payment days before

265
00:15:42,960 --> 00:15:47,720
Speaker 4: the twenty sixteen election to prevent her from going public

266
00:15:47,880 --> 00:15:51,920
Speaker 4: with her account, whether it's true or not. And the trial,

267
00:15:52,000 --> 00:15:56,840
Speaker 4: of course, is about you falsifying records to cover up

268
00:15:57,400 --> 00:16:01,520
Speaker 4: that payment. What the judge said and what the prosecutor

269
00:16:01,600 --> 00:16:06,320
Speaker 4: said is that the testimony by Stormy Daniels was important

270
00:16:06,880 --> 00:16:11,080
Speaker 4: because the defense had called her credibility into question and

271
00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:15,080
Speaker 4: said that this never happened, and so the prosecutor said

272
00:16:15,120 --> 00:16:18,320
Speaker 4: that they needed an opportunity to put her on the

273
00:16:18,400 --> 00:16:21,720
Speaker 4: witness and essentially to show that she was a credible

274
00:16:21,760 --> 00:16:27,240
Speaker 4: witness and that her account was important to complete the story.

275
00:16:27,520 --> 00:16:30,480
Speaker 4: You know why it was that Donald Trump was paying

276
00:16:30,520 --> 00:16:31,760
Speaker 4: the hush money that he paid.

277
00:16:32,240 --> 00:16:35,440
Speaker 1: Has the prosecution decided not to call Karen McDougall.

278
00:16:36,480 --> 00:16:39,880
Speaker 4: The prosecution said they were not calling Karen McDougall. We

279
00:16:39,960 --> 00:16:42,560
Speaker 4: did not get an explanation from the prosecution on that.

280
00:16:43,160 --> 00:16:45,920
Speaker 4: We actually learned that from a defense lawyer in an

281
00:16:46,000 --> 00:16:47,280
Speaker 4: argument before the judge.

282
00:16:47,360 --> 00:16:49,360
Speaker 1: Who's on the stand tomorrow when they.

283
00:16:49,400 --> 00:16:53,200
Speaker 4: Resume as usual. The prosecutors have not said who they're

284
00:16:53,240 --> 00:16:56,880
Speaker 4: calling next. But the big remaining witness is Michael.

285
00:16:56,640 --> 00:17:01,760
Speaker 1: Colin, and that cross examination maybe epic. Thanks so much, David.

286
00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:06,720
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriachis. The dramatic twenty twenty

287
00:17:06,760 --> 00:17:11,160
Speaker 1: one collapse of our Chagos Capital Management will be replayed

288
00:17:11,160 --> 00:17:14,080
Speaker 1: in a criminal trial over the next two months, as

289
00:17:14,160 --> 00:17:19,440
Speaker 1: prosecutors tried to convict founder Bill Wanog for market manipulation, racketeering,

290
00:17:19,520 --> 00:17:23,919
Speaker 1: and fraud. In announcing the charges a year ago, Damian Williams,

291
00:17:23,920 --> 00:17:26,600
Speaker 1: the US attorney for the Southern District of New York

292
00:17:26,840 --> 00:17:31,000
Speaker 1: called it a market manipulation scheme that nearly jeopardized our

293
00:17:31,080 --> 00:17:32,280
Speaker 1: financial system.

294
00:17:32,400 --> 00:17:36,399
Speaker 5: The scheme was a historical scope. We alleged defendants and

295
00:17:36,520 --> 00:17:40,960
Speaker 5: their co conspirators live banks to obtain billions of dollars

296
00:17:41,320 --> 00:17:43,960
Speaker 5: that they then used to inflaye the sock price of

297
00:17:44,160 --> 00:17:49,520
Speaker 5: a number of public retreated companies. The lies that the inflation,

298
00:17:50,160 --> 00:17:55,720
Speaker 5: and the inflation that more lives round and round it way.

299
00:17:57,040 --> 00:18:01,440
Speaker 1: Prosecutors say Wog misled some of Wall Streets biggest banks

300
00:18:01,480 --> 00:18:04,919
Speaker 1: into inflating the value of our Chago's holdings to as

301
00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:08,000
Speaker 1: high as one hundred and sixty billion dollars before the

302
00:18:08,119 --> 00:18:12,479
Speaker 1: family Office imploded, all but erasing his thirty six billion

303
00:18:12,520 --> 00:18:15,679
Speaker 1: dollar fortune. Jury's selection has begun in the case, and

304
00:18:15,680 --> 00:18:19,640
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Chrystal Mesh is covering the trial for US.

305
00:18:20,080 --> 00:18:23,080
Speaker 1: Tell us about Bill Wang? Who is he?

306
00:18:23,960 --> 00:18:27,320
Speaker 6: So Bill Wang? He's a Tiger cub from Julian Robertson's

307
00:18:27,760 --> 00:18:32,159
Speaker 6: camp at Tiger Management. The late Julian Robertson, legendary trader

308
00:18:32,400 --> 00:18:36,159
Speaker 6: who trained quite a few people to become traders and

309
00:18:36,520 --> 00:18:38,960
Speaker 6: kind of launch their own funds and firms. So Bill

310
00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:42,200
Speaker 6: started under him and learned the ropes, and then around

311
00:18:42,520 --> 00:18:44,679
Speaker 6: I think it's two thousand and one he started his

312
00:18:44,760 --> 00:18:47,920
Speaker 6: own firm with some money from Julian roberts I think

313
00:18:47,960 --> 00:18:51,000
Speaker 6: twenty five million, so he ran that. It was called

314
00:18:51,119 --> 00:18:54,160
Speaker 6: Tiger Global Asia, you know, took the name from Robertson

315
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:58,240
Speaker 6: and mainly traded in Asia stocks, but had to eventually

316
00:18:59,480 --> 00:19:02,879
Speaker 6: the firm pleaded guilty to a kind of a stock sandal,

317
00:19:02,920 --> 00:19:07,280
Speaker 6: basically involving tips on Asian equities. He didn't admit any wrongdoing,

318
00:19:07,359 --> 00:19:10,080
Speaker 6: but he settled. But as a result he formed a

319
00:19:10,119 --> 00:19:14,040
Speaker 6: family office. It became our Chagos and basically did the

320
00:19:14,080 --> 00:19:16,480
Speaker 6: same kind of thing trading, made a lot of money

321
00:19:16,520 --> 00:19:19,560
Speaker 6: and then, as everybody knows, blew up in March twenty

322
00:19:19,560 --> 00:19:21,360
Speaker 6: twenty one whether the trade went south.

323
00:19:21,600 --> 00:19:25,479
Speaker 1: He's very religious and he sort of likes to spread

324
00:19:25,480 --> 00:19:27,720
Speaker 1: his faith. I mean, tell me about that aspect of him.

325
00:19:28,040 --> 00:19:30,560
Speaker 6: Yes, very much. In fact, you know, an interesting part

326
00:19:30,560 --> 00:19:34,840
Speaker 6: about this trials we've seen Christianity today. The periodical that

327
00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:38,200
Speaker 6: covers religion and Christianity is here for the trial, so

328
00:19:38,359 --> 00:19:41,360
Speaker 6: that kind of tells the first Yes, definitely never seen

329
00:19:41,400 --> 00:19:44,560
Speaker 6: them before, so definitely preaches his faith. He said he

330
00:19:44,640 --> 00:19:48,000
Speaker 6: invests basically, you know, he takes his hints from the Bible,

331
00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:50,800
Speaker 6: tries to invest in things that he thinks, you know,

332
00:19:50,840 --> 00:19:53,399
Speaker 6: the Lord would want him to invest in. He started

333
00:19:53,400 --> 00:19:56,600
Speaker 6: his own foundation, the Grace and Mercy Foundation, to further

334
00:19:56,720 --> 00:19:59,600
Speaker 6: that goal of religious education. He says, he reads the

335
00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:03,199
Speaker 6: Bible religiously, and we won't know how much of that

336
00:20:03,280 --> 00:20:05,800
Speaker 6: will come up during the trial, and the government pretty

337
00:20:05,840 --> 00:20:09,680
Speaker 6: much wanted to kind of limit that kind of arguments

338
00:20:09,800 --> 00:20:13,120
Speaker 6: about his good acts and his faith, and the judge said,

339
00:20:13,440 --> 00:20:15,560
Speaker 6: we're not going to really go into that. It's hard

340
00:20:15,560 --> 00:20:17,320
Speaker 6: to say how much of that is actually going to

341
00:20:17,359 --> 00:20:19,919
Speaker 6: come up, but one can't imagine that it won't come

342
00:20:20,000 --> 00:20:21,800
Speaker 6: up at all through the witnesses.

343
00:20:21,840 --> 00:20:23,720
Speaker 1: Tell us what he's charged with.

344
00:20:24,119 --> 00:20:26,840
Speaker 6: There are two defendants, so there's Bill Long who was

345
00:20:27,000 --> 00:20:29,840
Speaker 6: the founder, and then the CFO, Patrick Halligan, who's not

346
00:20:30,040 --> 00:20:32,880
Speaker 6: charged in quite so big of a scheme. So Bill

347
00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:37,000
Speaker 6: was basically charged with conspiring with traders at the firm

348
00:20:37,160 --> 00:20:41,760
Speaker 6: to trade. Essentially, he traded on swap, so he was

349
00:20:41,800 --> 00:20:45,040
Speaker 6: trading on margin. But the government's allegation said he was

350
00:20:45,080 --> 00:20:49,359
Speaker 6: trading on margin with multiple firms who didn't really realize

351
00:20:49,560 --> 00:20:52,679
Speaker 6: the level of his exposure, and the allegation so that

352
00:20:52,720 --> 00:20:55,200
Speaker 6: he did this to manipulate the market and drive up

353
00:20:55,280 --> 00:20:58,840
Speaker 6: interest in the stocks that he had invested in, so

354
00:20:59,040 --> 00:21:01,640
Speaker 6: that when you know, his margin ran out and there's

355
00:21:01,880 --> 00:21:04,400
Speaker 6: the banks started to make margin calls because he had

356
00:21:04,640 --> 00:21:08,760
Speaker 6: gotten more credit. Suddenly the stocks started plummeting because they

357
00:21:08,880 --> 00:21:11,840
Speaker 6: realized suddenly how exposed he was. So he's kind of

358
00:21:11,880 --> 00:21:15,320
Speaker 6: accused of that market man infization scheme. And separately, he's

359
00:21:15,359 --> 00:21:19,439
Speaker 6: also accused with the CFO of attempting to mislead the

360
00:21:19,480 --> 00:21:22,480
Speaker 6: banks and fool them into not knowing that he had

361
00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:25,359
Speaker 6: these kind of lines of credit with other institutions.

362
00:21:26,080 --> 00:21:31,760
Speaker 1: I've read that his strategy in retrospect was like market suicide,

363
00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:34,359
Speaker 1: and one of his attorneys said, he never sold a

364
00:21:34,440 --> 00:21:37,600
Speaker 1: nickel of his shares. Does anyone know what the point

365
00:21:37,800 --> 00:21:38,520
Speaker 1: of this was?

366
00:21:39,000 --> 00:21:40,040
Speaker 6: Well, that's a good question.

367
00:21:40,119 --> 00:21:40,280
Speaker 1: You know.

368
00:21:40,320 --> 00:21:42,840
Speaker 6: The judge has questioned the prosecutors like, what was the

369
00:21:42,840 --> 00:21:45,439
Speaker 6: goal of this if he lost all his money? So

370
00:21:45,720 --> 00:21:47,080
Speaker 6: I think that's going to be the main point of

371
00:21:47,119 --> 00:21:49,240
Speaker 6: the defense here is they argue he wasn't trying to

372
00:21:49,280 --> 00:21:51,480
Speaker 6: manipulate the market that he was making on its trades

373
00:21:51,520 --> 00:21:54,080
Speaker 6: and that it fell out for under him, and they

374
00:21:54,200 --> 00:21:58,120
Speaker 6: essentially argued that the banks did their own due diligence.

375
00:21:58,280 --> 00:22:01,960
Speaker 6: These are very sophisticated in institutions that did their own research,

376
00:22:02,040 --> 00:22:04,800
Speaker 6: that weren't going to extend credit unless they felt comfortable

377
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:08,159
Speaker 6: with doing so, and that at the same token, you know,

378
00:22:08,200 --> 00:22:12,120
Speaker 6: they were required to hedge his trades through the contract

379
00:22:12,280 --> 00:22:16,640
Speaker 6: by buying whenever he decided to trade the options. They

380
00:22:16,640 --> 00:22:19,360
Speaker 6: were forced to buy the schairs and the underlying stocks

381
00:22:19,440 --> 00:22:23,560
Speaker 6: as a hedge. He argues that rather than just a

382
00:22:23,640 --> 00:22:26,399
Speaker 6: one for one hedge, one share for every time he bought,

383
00:22:26,680 --> 00:22:29,919
Speaker 6: they were going out and very broadly hedging this and

384
00:22:29,960 --> 00:22:33,040
Speaker 6: therefore kind of he says that underminds the argument that

385
00:22:33,080 --> 00:22:34,439
Speaker 6: the banks didn't know what was going on.

386
00:22:35,119 --> 00:22:38,639
Speaker 1: The key is that the prosecutors say he lied to

387
00:22:38,680 --> 00:22:41,840
Speaker 1: the banks they were barring from and used the swaps

388
00:22:41,840 --> 00:22:45,600
Speaker 1: to conceal the huge positions that he was in. Right,

389
00:22:46,000 --> 00:22:48,159
Speaker 1: So this is federal court. So the judges doing the

390
00:22:48,240 --> 00:22:51,639
Speaker 1: questioning for the jury selection, this case sounds like it

391
00:22:51,680 --> 00:22:55,439
Speaker 1: could be a bit complicated. What kind of jurors are

392
00:22:55,440 --> 00:22:56,200
Speaker 1: they looking for?

393
00:22:57,359 --> 00:22:59,640
Speaker 6: So it's hard to say on that end, but jury

394
00:22:59,680 --> 00:23:02,960
Speaker 6: selection it's been very interesting in this case. Normally when

395
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:07,160
Speaker 6: we do jury selection, every judge is different, but generally,

396
00:23:07,240 --> 00:23:09,840
Speaker 6: you know, they'll bring a lot of jerors into a courtroom.

397
00:23:10,359 --> 00:23:12,959
Speaker 6: They'll you know, ask them if they have time constraints,

398
00:23:12,960 --> 00:23:16,320
Speaker 6: they'll go through their individual history to see if you know,

399
00:23:16,359 --> 00:23:18,720
Speaker 6: they know any of the witnesses or any of the

400
00:23:18,760 --> 00:23:21,080
Speaker 6: parties involved in the case, and then they'll just kind

401
00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:23,679
Speaker 6: of go through what they call bar geer and and

402
00:23:23,760 --> 00:23:26,040
Speaker 6: ask them about, you know, what they read, what, you know,

403
00:23:26,080 --> 00:23:28,639
Speaker 6: what they know about that sort of thing. In this case,

404
00:23:28,680 --> 00:23:31,159
Speaker 6: the judge, because it's going to be a two month trial,

405
00:23:31,640 --> 00:23:34,640
Speaker 6: brought them all in yesterday, brought in the jurors one

406
00:23:34,680 --> 00:23:36,760
Speaker 6: by one and asked them if they could sit for

407
00:23:36,800 --> 00:23:39,520
Speaker 6: two months, that was really it, and if they could,

408
00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:41,520
Speaker 6: they went home for the day and they all came

409
00:23:41,560 --> 00:23:43,880
Speaker 6: back today and they began the process of whittling down

410
00:23:43,920 --> 00:23:47,560
Speaker 6: the jury. So obviously this morning there's lots of questions

411
00:23:47,600 --> 00:23:51,760
Speaker 6: about financial institutions, did you work with the counterparties involved.

412
00:23:51,800 --> 00:23:54,600
Speaker 6: There's more than you know, three dozen witnesses on the

413
00:23:54,600 --> 00:23:59,080
Speaker 6: witness list from counterparties here and multiple banks. So they're

414
00:23:59,119 --> 00:24:03,560
Speaker 6: slowly kind of going through each institution and you know,

415
00:24:03,640 --> 00:24:06,359
Speaker 6: people who have had experience with law enforcement. But we

416
00:24:06,440 --> 00:24:09,480
Speaker 6: really haven't gotten to any kind of individual whittling down.

417
00:24:09,600 --> 00:24:11,639
Speaker 6: So it's kind of hard to see what the strategy

418
00:24:11,760 --> 00:24:14,200
Speaker 6: is behind the jury selection at this point. But I

419
00:24:14,240 --> 00:24:17,880
Speaker 6: will say that the judges made it clear, like many

420
00:24:17,960 --> 00:24:21,119
Speaker 6: judges do, that he wants a big cross section of

421
00:24:21,359 --> 00:24:23,800
Speaker 6: life experiences and things like that on the jury. So

422
00:24:23,840 --> 00:24:26,639
Speaker 6: there's all kinds of people. We've got a general counsel

423
00:24:26,680 --> 00:24:30,080
Speaker 6: for newspapers, We've got people who worked in finance, We've

424
00:24:30,080 --> 00:24:33,199
Speaker 6: got people who worked in construction. We've seen just the

425
00:24:33,280 --> 00:24:36,720
Speaker 6: whole gamut of different occupation through the last two days.

426
00:24:37,400 --> 00:24:40,280
Speaker 1: And now who's expected to testify? Do we know like

427
00:24:40,320 --> 00:24:41,800
Speaker 1: who the main witnesses will be.

428
00:24:42,280 --> 00:24:45,119
Speaker 6: Yeah, So the two big star witnesses or is former

429
00:24:45,160 --> 00:24:48,920
Speaker 6: head trader William Tamida and the former head of risk management,

430
00:24:48,920 --> 00:24:51,440
Speaker 6: which was Scott Becker, and they have both pled guilty

431
00:24:51,760 --> 00:24:54,600
Speaker 6: and agreed to cooperate against him, so they formed the

432
00:24:54,800 --> 00:24:58,080
Speaker 6: majority of the government's case against him. Like I said,

433
00:24:58,119 --> 00:25:01,680
Speaker 6: they will bring up witnesses from the counter parties from

434
00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:04,520
Speaker 6: Credit Suite and many of the other banks likely who

435
00:25:04,560 --> 00:25:07,640
Speaker 6: will testify about you know, their reaction to finding out

436
00:25:07,640 --> 00:25:12,000
Speaker 6: about how exposed our Chagos was, and we should have also,

437
00:25:12,119 --> 00:25:15,480
Speaker 6: like some analysts from the cell side, and also we'll

438
00:25:15,480 --> 00:25:19,000
Speaker 6: definitely have multiple experts from both parties. Beyond that, we're

439
00:25:19,040 --> 00:25:21,040
Speaker 6: still waiting to hear some names of some of the

440
00:25:21,040 --> 00:25:23,120
Speaker 6: people who will be on the witness list.

441
00:25:23,400 --> 00:25:27,639
Speaker 1: I understand that the defense may argue that the prosecution

442
00:25:27,800 --> 00:25:31,439
Speaker 1: is pushing this novel market manipulation theory. Is this the

443
00:25:31,480 --> 00:25:35,280
Speaker 1: first time that the Feds have prosecuted a case like this,

444
00:25:35,560 --> 00:25:37,159
Speaker 1: and maybe this is the first time a case like

445
00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:37,880
Speaker 1: this has happened.

446
00:25:38,000 --> 00:25:41,080
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's definitely kind of the first time that the

447
00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:45,760
Speaker 6: government has kind of brought this kind of broad market

448
00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:49,840
Speaker 6: manipulation scheme. There have been others, but none of them

449
00:25:49,920 --> 00:25:54,679
Speaker 6: have been quite as widespread and infamous. Really, many of

450
00:25:54,720 --> 00:25:57,520
Speaker 6: them have been in kind of niche markets things like that,

451
00:25:57,840 --> 00:26:02,120
Speaker 6: And so it's definitely one of the more interesting prosecutions

452
00:26:02,119 --> 00:26:04,320
Speaker 6: that we've seen a white collar crime in years.

453
00:26:04,640 --> 00:26:07,639
Speaker 1: So Wall Street is watching this, I take it for sure.

454
00:26:07,720 --> 00:26:11,639
Speaker 6: Now, let's be clear, Archie Ghost doesn't exist. Credit Suite

455
00:26:11,760 --> 00:26:14,679
Speaker 6: is bought by UPS and the fallout was broad from this,

456
00:26:14,800 --> 00:26:17,760
Speaker 6: but it's not like there's going to be a broad

457
00:26:17,800 --> 00:26:20,080
Speaker 6: impact on the market from what happens here, but it

458
00:26:20,119 --> 00:26:23,840
Speaker 6: will be a message probably to family offices to be

459
00:26:23,920 --> 00:26:27,080
Speaker 6: more prudent. And you know, there's no doubt that this

460
00:26:27,200 --> 00:26:30,600
Speaker 6: is a fascinating episode in Wall Street history to the

461
00:26:30,640 --> 00:26:34,720
Speaker 6: financial industry. So in that aspect, I think everybody will

462
00:26:34,760 --> 00:26:35,399
Speaker 6: be watching it.

463
00:26:35,720 --> 00:26:40,240
Speaker 1: I'm interested in the judge, Alvin Hellerstein. He's known for

464
00:26:40,400 --> 00:26:46,679
Speaker 1: overseeing the long litigation stemming from the September eleventh terrorist attack.

465
00:26:47,200 --> 00:26:50,400
Speaker 1: And is he ninety years old? Because that gives us

466
00:26:50,440 --> 00:26:51,760
Speaker 1: all hope for the future.

467
00:26:52,200 --> 00:26:55,000
Speaker 6: The judge is ninety years old, you would find it

468
00:26:55,040 --> 00:26:58,840
Speaker 6: hard to believe, given that he went through eight plus

469
00:26:58,840 --> 00:27:02,320
Speaker 6: hours of jury selection yesterday and he candidly admitted he

470
00:27:02,359 --> 00:27:04,200
Speaker 6: was exhausted at the end, but he was back at

471
00:27:04,240 --> 00:27:06,960
Speaker 6: it today. Alvit heller seems a very interesting man. He's

472
00:27:07,000 --> 00:27:10,320
Speaker 6: clearly got his head in the trial. You don't see

473
00:27:10,320 --> 00:27:13,080
Speaker 6: many jurors giving h related excuses.

474
00:27:13,160 --> 00:27:15,840
Speaker 1: What do we know about the prosecutors in the case.

475
00:27:16,200 --> 00:27:20,640
Speaker 6: They've all got some sort of experience in white collar prosecutions.

476
00:27:20,680 --> 00:27:23,760
Speaker 6: Here at the Southern District. Matthew Podolski, who you could

477
00:27:23,800 --> 00:27:26,000
Speaker 6: probably say is the lead prosecutor's co chief of the

478
00:27:26,040 --> 00:27:28,800
Speaker 6: Securities and Kabadie's task Force, and he was one of

479
00:27:28,840 --> 00:27:31,640
Speaker 6: the lead prosecutors in the fraud case against the Nicola Corp.

480
00:27:31,680 --> 00:27:34,679
Speaker 6: Founder Trevor Milton, who was sentenced to four years in

481
00:27:34,720 --> 00:27:38,600
Speaker 6: prison last year for misleading investors about its prospects. Alex

482
00:27:38,680 --> 00:27:42,439
Speaker 6: ross Miller, Alexander Rossman and Andrew Mark Thomas also have

483
00:27:42,680 --> 00:27:45,199
Speaker 6: similar experience in white collar cases, but not as much

484
00:27:45,240 --> 00:27:45,879
Speaker 6: as Podolski.

485
00:27:46,000 --> 00:27:47,560
Speaker 1: And what about the defense attorneys.

486
00:27:47,920 --> 00:27:51,840
Speaker 6: Well, Barry Burke is the defense attorney for Bill Long

487
00:27:51,960 --> 00:27:54,880
Speaker 6: along with his colleagues Jordan Destie's and Dandy James. He's

488
00:27:54,920 --> 00:27:58,320
Speaker 6: a very well known white collar defense attorney. Used to

489
00:27:58,359 --> 00:28:01,320
Speaker 6: be a trial lawyer for the Federal Defender and he's

490
00:28:01,359 --> 00:28:04,640
Speaker 6: represented many high profile white collar defendants. Served as Chief

491
00:28:04,640 --> 00:28:08,040
Speaker 6: and Statement council for the House in the first Senate

492
00:28:08,080 --> 00:28:12,240
Speaker 6: trial of Trump. And also Mary Mulligan is representing the

493
00:28:12,280 --> 00:28:15,560
Speaker 6: CFO Patrick Calligan, and she's a former prosecutor and is

494
00:28:15,840 --> 00:28:19,359
Speaker 6: also a veteran white collar defense attorney who represented the

495
00:28:19,359 --> 00:28:21,720
Speaker 6: Trump Organization CFO Alan Weiselberg.

496
00:28:22,320 --> 00:28:26,600
Speaker 1: Is there any talk of one taking the stand, Well.

497
00:28:26,359 --> 00:28:28,840
Speaker 6: It's a little early for that. It's a great question.

498
00:28:29,240 --> 00:28:30,879
Speaker 6: In every case, it's the question.

499
00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:32,560
Speaker 1: I know, it's always the.

500
00:28:32,560 --> 00:28:35,280
Speaker 6: Question defense case, which is, you know, a month away

501
00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:37,920
Speaker 6: at the least. We haven't heard a lot of talk

502
00:28:37,960 --> 00:28:41,880
Speaker 6: about that. And usually when it comes to white collar cases,

503
00:28:41,920 --> 00:28:46,040
Speaker 6: and really in any kind of case, defendants aren't required

504
00:28:46,040 --> 00:28:48,640
Speaker 6: to tell them if they're going to testify until really

505
00:28:48,680 --> 00:28:52,840
Speaker 6: the last minute. And often, you know, it's really one

506
00:28:52,880 --> 00:28:55,040
Speaker 6: of the only cards that the defense can pull out

507
00:28:55,080 --> 00:28:57,840
Speaker 6: if they're not going to call a real robust case.

508
00:28:58,160 --> 00:29:00,360
Speaker 6: So they like to keep that one close to their

509
00:29:00,440 --> 00:29:03,440
Speaker 6: vest until they really get a sense of when they're

510
00:29:03,440 --> 00:29:05,719
Speaker 6: going to do it. So I wouldn't expect to hear

511
00:29:05,720 --> 00:29:09,080
Speaker 6: anything about that until we get really substantially deep into trial.

512
00:29:09,440 --> 00:29:12,240
Speaker 1: I'm sure we'll be talking again soon. Thanks so much, Chris.

513
00:29:12,520 --> 00:29:16,080
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Chris Dolmesh, and that's it for

514
00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:19,120
Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can

515
00:29:19,160 --> 00:29:22,120
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening

516
00:29:22,160 --> 00:29:25,840
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg

517
00:29:25,880 --> 00:29:29,959
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and

518
00:29:30,080 --> 00:29:31,320
Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg