WEBVTT - SCOTUS Unanimous for Now & Stormy's Cross 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:14.160 The Supreme Court has issued twenty opinions in argued cases 0:00:14.240 --> 0:00:18.080 so far this term, and fifteen of them have been unanimous. 0:00:18.560 --> 0:00:21.880 That may seem unusual for a court that's often split 0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:26.760 down ideological lines in controversial cases since the three Trump 0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:31.240 appointees joined the court, leading to a super conservative majority, 0:00:31.760 --> 0:00:35.279 but Chief Justice John Roberts has often talked about the 0:00:35.320 --> 0:00:37.120 importance of unanimity. 0:00:37.479 --> 0:00:40.879 I still think it's an important objective one because I 0:00:40.880 --> 0:00:44.640 think judicial decisions should be narrower rather than broader, and 0:00:44.680 --> 0:00:46.400 the way to do that is to try to get 0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:50.040 as many people on board as you can. That you know, 0:00:50.159 --> 0:00:52.279 if you're going to reach a broad decision that's going 0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:55.640 to cover all sorts of different factional scenarios, a lot 0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:57.200 of people are going to say, well, WHOA, I'm not 0:00:57.280 --> 0:01:01.480 quite sure I agree with that. They might write something narrow, 0:01:02.000 --> 0:01:04.120 But if you keep it narrow that it only decides 0:01:04.200 --> 0:01:07.000 what's absolutely necessary to be decided. Usually you can get 0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:08.880 more people to agree with that one. 0:01:08.920 --> 0:01:11.760 But in the next two months, as decisions are handed 0:01:11.800 --> 0:01:17.080 down in controversial cases involving abortion, guns, racial gerrymandering and 0:01:17.200 --> 0:01:22.920 presidential immunity, you can expect that unanimity to evaporate. Joining 0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:25.480 me is John Elwood, the head of the appelladan Supreme 0:01:25.560 --> 0:01:29.080 Court practice at Arnold and Porter. He's been before the 0:01:29.319 --> 0:01:33.840 justices many times. For those who are not familiar, will 0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:38.119 you explain the process the justices go through in making 0:01:38.160 --> 0:01:41.240 these decisions once they've heard oral arguments? 0:01:41.760 --> 0:01:42.160 Sure? 0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:42.600 Well. 0:01:42.800 --> 0:01:46.720 The Supreme Court here is argument for basically two weeks 0:01:47.200 --> 0:01:50.560 every month between October and April, and at the end 0:01:50.800 --> 0:01:54.880 of I think each week of argument they vote on 0:01:55.880 --> 0:01:59.240 which position everyone's going to take on every case. And 0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:01.920 I believe that at the end of the whole sitting 0:02:02.320 --> 0:02:06.120 there's a kind of a final tally where the person 0:02:06.120 --> 0:02:10.760 who is presiding, that is, the senior most justice in 0:02:10.800 --> 0:02:15.680 the majority, assigns opinions to all of the justices in 0:02:15.680 --> 0:02:18.200 a way that tries to give them kind of an 0:02:18.200 --> 0:02:22.119 equal share of cases, an equal number of authorships. 0:02:22.440 --> 0:02:27.640 Twenty opinions and argued cases this term fifteen have been unanimous. 0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:30.880 I know the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Cony 0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:34.280 Barrett also has talked about how you know we're unanimous 0:02:34.320 --> 0:02:38.000 on the majority of cases, but tell us about the 0:02:38.120 --> 0:02:40.080 kinds of cases they're unanimous on. 0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:42.960 Well, most of the cases that have been decided so 0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:46.160 far are not the kind of read letter, big ticket 0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:50.239 to mix metaphors cases for the term, they're more generally 0:02:50.639 --> 0:02:53.359 the Duller cases. There are a few cases that are 0:02:53.480 --> 0:02:59.120 more noteworthy which were nonetheless unanimous, which were likely unanimous 0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:02.079 because they were so narrow, like, for example, there were 0:03:02.160 --> 0:03:05.080 the social media blocking cases link Keepers is Freedom O'Connor 0:03:05.120 --> 0:03:09.560 rat Clippers's garner, which involved a fairly big ticket issue 0:03:10.160 --> 0:03:14.600 about whether when public officials block people on social media 0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:18.040 that is essentially state actions, it is regulated by the 0:03:18.080 --> 0:03:21.400 First Amendment. And that was the case that really the 0:03:21.639 --> 0:03:24.160 justices seem to have some trouble grappling with an argument, 0:03:24.560 --> 0:03:27.200 but they decided very little of it. They decided a 0:03:27.240 --> 0:03:29.840 fairly narrow rule and left most of the applications for 0:03:30.000 --> 0:03:32.240 reman and so I think that would have been a 0:03:32.400 --> 0:03:35.720 very easy case to not be unanimous if they had 0:03:35.760 --> 0:03:38.160 decided it any more broadly than they did. 0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:43.120 So are they trying to present a picture of unanimity 0:03:43.280 --> 0:03:46.880 with these cases by, as you say, either limiting them 0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:50.960 or you know, choosing cases that are not hot button. 0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:54.520 Issues well, to begin with, one of the things I 0:03:54.600 --> 0:03:57.600 like to emphasize is that when you're dealing with such 0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:01.880 small numbers, it doesn't take much for things to seem 0:04:01.920 --> 0:04:04.080 like outliers. You know, when you're dealing with just like 0:04:04.160 --> 0:04:09.160 eighteen cases, it only takes something like four extra cases 0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:13.080 to go from an ordinary term to an really unusual 0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:16.560 high water mark of unanimity. And so this is something 0:04:16.560 --> 0:04:18.720 that I always try to emphasize. When you're dealing with 0:04:19.000 --> 0:04:21.359 the Supreme Court, the numbers are so small that it 0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:23.920 doesn't take much for things to look like you have 0:04:24.000 --> 0:04:27.640 some real outlier term or real weird trend. But with that, 0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:30.920 you know, I do think that the Roberts Court does 0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:34.560 try to emphasize unanimity. They also there may be a 0:04:34.600 --> 0:04:37.240 different dynamic in that, you know, they're trying to get 0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:42.560 cases out because they are relatively behind in getting opinions out, 0:04:42.920 --> 0:04:45.680 and so they may just you know, be writing opinions 0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.480 narrowly so they can clear those cases out, get them 0:04:48.480 --> 0:04:51.400 out so they can focus on the remaining cases. So 0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:53.040 there are a number of reasons why they might be 0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:55.880 doing it this way. I do think that they try 0:04:55.960 --> 0:04:59.400 to be unanimous whenever they can it's kind of part 0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:02.159 of the ethos the Roberts' Court. John Roberts cares about it, 0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:04.440 and I think he tries to job on other people 0:05:04.480 --> 0:05:07.480 into feeling the same way that maybe that they're taking 0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:10.839 relatively few cases. There are very low number of grants' 0:05:11.000 --> 0:05:14.120 term and it may be that they are picking out 0:05:14.160 --> 0:05:16.240 cases that they feel there's a pair amount of unanimity 0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:18.400 end and it may be that they're, you know, kind 0:05:18.400 --> 0:05:21.680 of clearing the wave for more contentious issues which have 0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:23.000 yet to be decided. 0:05:23.839 --> 0:05:28.320 Every year, the cases that we're waiting for involving hot 0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:32.719 button issues come down at the end of June, sometimes 0:05:32.760 --> 0:05:37.480 the last two days of June, before they go on vacation. 0:05:38.360 --> 0:05:40.640 Is there a reason for that or is it just 0:05:41.320 --> 0:05:45.039 a decision to leave the most controversial cases until the 0:05:45.080 --> 0:05:45.800 final days. 0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:49.040 I think a lot is just explained by the practicality 0:05:49.120 --> 0:05:52.440 of it, which is that descending opinions take more time, 0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:56.720 and sometimes in the most contentious cases there's back and 0:05:56.760 --> 0:06:00.480 forth between the descent and the majority opinion, and when 0:06:00.480 --> 0:06:04.040 people are fine tuning opinions, you know, in draft after 0:06:04.120 --> 0:06:06.760 draft after draft, it can go kind of down to 0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:09.720 the wire. So I think much of it is explained 0:06:09.760 --> 0:06:14.039 simply by the practicality of you know, more opinions, more drafts, 0:06:14.040 --> 0:06:14.599 take more. 0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:18.880 Time, And will you explain the process of circulating the 0:06:18.960 --> 0:06:23.560 opinions so all the justices see what others have written 0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:25.080 and can respond to it. 0:06:25.560 --> 0:06:29.599 That's right. A majority opinions circulate, Descending opinions then circulate, 0:06:30.200 --> 0:06:34.080 and each subsequent draft is then circulated to the entire group, 0:06:34.640 --> 0:06:38.080 and then you know, justices who are joining opinions may 0:06:38.120 --> 0:06:41.880 ask for changes. Justices who are joining descent may ask 0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:45.640 for changes. Authors of both majority opinions and authors of 0:06:45.640 --> 0:06:49.359 the sense may tweak their opinions to respond to the 0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:52.320 opinions on the other side, and each of those opinions 0:06:52.360 --> 0:06:54.799 will be circulated as a whole group with a red line, 0:06:55.080 --> 0:06:57.560 so everyone knows what's new and what's been changed is 0:06:57.640 --> 0:06:58.320 the last draft. 0:06:58.880 --> 0:07:01.440 I guess that does show why it takes so long. Now, 0:07:01.440 --> 0:07:04.040 as far as the oral arguments go, and everyone says, 0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:06.200 you can tell what the decision will be from the 0:07:06.279 --> 0:07:09.720 oral arguments, but can you sort of figure out the 0:07:09.720 --> 0:07:14.200 broad strokes of the decision from the oral arguments? Have 0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:18.080 you ever been totally surprised by a decision? 0:07:18.240 --> 0:07:18.320 Like? 0:07:18.560 --> 0:07:21.320 Wow? I never expected that. 0:07:21.400 --> 0:07:24.600 There have been some that surprised me. There was a 0:07:24.680 --> 0:07:27.320 case many years ago when the oral argument was still 0:07:27.320 --> 0:07:31.440 in a pretty rigidly one hour format where there was 0:07:31.480 --> 0:07:34.360 actually kind of a reversal of positions that the position 0:07:34.400 --> 0:07:37.559 that Justice Stevens seemed to be advocating wound up being 0:07:37.640 --> 0:07:41.480 taken up by Justice Scalia and vice versa. But I think, 0:07:41.640 --> 0:07:45.200 especially under the new format, which essentially goes on as 0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:48.440 long as the justices have questions, I think oral argument 0:07:48.520 --> 0:07:51.240 is a much better predictor of where people are going 0:07:51.280 --> 0:07:53.360 to come out in the end. There are fewer surprises, 0:07:53.360 --> 0:07:55.640 I think under the sort of format because all of 0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:58.840 the issues are thoroughly ventilated the court. 0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:01.480 It's been said a million times, but it's at its 0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:05.800 lowest approval rating since they've been taking those polls. Do 0:08:05.840 --> 0:08:09.400 you think that that matters to the justices or not. 0:08:09.680 --> 0:08:11.160 They're there for life. 0:08:10.880 --> 0:08:14.280 So yeah, I don't think that they're unmindful of it. 0:08:14.320 --> 0:08:16.680 But I think that they kind of do the same 0:08:16.760 --> 0:08:19.200 thing year in and year out. They go in and 0:08:19.280 --> 0:08:21.840 they decide the cases, you know, the way they feel 0:08:21.840 --> 0:08:24.440 that they should be decided. You know, they may try 0:08:24.440 --> 0:08:26.720 to be more unanimous in a particular case or decide 0:08:26.720 --> 0:08:29.520 an issue more narrowly. And I do think that they're 0:08:29.560 --> 0:08:33.080 generally kind of an incremental and minimalist court in the 0:08:33.120 --> 0:08:35.800 sense that I think that they try to decide, and 0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:38.320 many times they try to decide the least that they 0:08:38.360 --> 0:08:41.479 can decide so well. I don't think that they're unmindful 0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:43.680 of it. They read the newspapers. I don't think that 0:08:43.720 --> 0:08:45.719 they let it shape their behavior. I think that they 0:08:46.640 --> 0:08:49.520 I'm kind of one of those pollyannas. You think that 0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:53.080 they really try to just do justice, or they try 0:08:53.120 --> 0:08:54.560 to follow the law in every case. 0:08:54.720 --> 0:08:57.680 As you're talking about the oral arguments as someone who's argued, 0:08:57.800 --> 0:09:01.000 I mean, do the lawyers like the arguments that often 0:09:01.040 --> 0:09:02.240 do go on for hours? 0:09:02.440 --> 0:09:04.760 You know. I actually had a conversation with several other 0:09:04.840 --> 0:09:07.880 kind of repeat players the other day on this, and 0:09:07.920 --> 0:09:10.720 I think generally one thing we like about it is 0:09:10.760 --> 0:09:15.320 that it really does allow everybody to be kind of 0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:18.000 heard fully, and I think that that generally is a 0:09:18.040 --> 0:09:21.160 favorable thing. The downside is that it makes it harder 0:09:21.160 --> 0:09:25.160 to argue more cases. That you can essentially fully ventilate 0:09:25.360 --> 0:09:29.920 one controversial case per day, but if you have a 0:09:29.920 --> 0:09:33.200 second argument it's going to get much more summary treatment, 0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:35.600 and you know that that makes it kind of more 0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:37.800 difficult for the court to hear more cases. 0:09:38.600 --> 0:09:41.160 And they've been cutting down on the number of cases 0:09:41.240 --> 0:09:41.760 that they. 0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:44.400 Take each year, and it's kind of at low low 0:09:44.480 --> 0:09:46.439 EP right now. You know, it's kind of more in 0:09:46.480 --> 0:09:48.439 the sixty case range. And I don't know if they're 0:09:48.480 --> 0:09:51.240 related or not, since they don't explain what they're doing, 0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:54.120 I don't know if they're related. But one consequence of 0:09:54.160 --> 0:09:57.240 the longer world argument format is that it makes it 0:09:57.240 --> 0:09:58.560 harder to hear two cases. 0:09:58.920 --> 0:10:01.920 Thanks so much for joining me today. I appreciate your insights, 0:10:02.000 --> 0:10:05.720 especially knowing that you've argued some ten times before the justices. 0:10:06.120 --> 0:10:09.280 That's John Elwood, head of the Appellatan Supreme Court practice 0:10:09.320 --> 0:10:12.559 at Arnold and Porter. The Supreme Court handed down two 0:10:12.679 --> 0:10:16.760 decisions today and neither of them was unanimous. Coming up 0:10:16.760 --> 0:10:19.480 next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, we'll get an update 0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:23.199 from Donald Trump's hush money trial. This is Bloomberg. Stormy 0:10:23.280 --> 0:10:27.200 Daniels finished her testimony today at Donald Trump's hush money trial. 0:10:27.760 --> 0:10:31.600 The question is did the adult film star help prosecutors 0:10:31.679 --> 0:10:35.800 prove the former president falsified business records. Joining me now 0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:39.319 is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakiz, who's covering the trial 0:10:39.360 --> 0:10:42.200 for us. All in all, what was your take on 0:10:42.480 --> 0:10:45.840 Stormy Daniel's testimony? Was she credible or not? 0:10:46.320 --> 0:10:52.280 Stormy Daniels gave in passionate testimony that she had a 0:10:52.320 --> 0:10:57.240 sexual encounter with Donald Trump in a Lake Tahoe hotel 0:10:57.320 --> 0:11:01.680 room in two thousand and six, and that, despite very 0:11:01.679 --> 0:11:06.000 intense cross examination, that she was not backing down from 0:11:06.040 --> 0:11:10.360 that account and that she was not motivated by making money, 0:11:10.720 --> 0:11:16.520 even though Trump's lawyer Susan Necklace crossed her on how 0:11:16.559 --> 0:11:20.400 she had made more than a million dollars in various 0:11:20.400 --> 0:11:26.000 commercial ventures based on her account of having sex with Trump, 0:11:26.800 --> 0:11:32.360 and how she had changed key details of that encounter 0:11:33.000 --> 0:11:37.520 a number of times since this happened eighteen years ago. 0:11:38.120 --> 0:11:41.120 And so what Trump's lawyer was trying to do was 0:11:41.520 --> 0:11:46.720 raise serious doubts about her credibility before the jury, and 0:11:47.040 --> 0:11:51.040 Stormy Daniels was able to stick to her basic account. 0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:56.640 She sparred with Trump's lawyer Susan Necklace, and while she 0:11:57.000 --> 0:12:01.360 wobbled a bit, she stuck to her core story and 0:12:01.840 --> 0:12:03.040 was not shaken off of that. 0:12:03.840 --> 0:12:07.160 Seems like the testimony is going from you know, compelling 0:12:07.200 --> 0:12:10.880 witness to the paperwork. And it is a case about 0:12:10.920 --> 0:12:13.480 business records. So who was on the stand next? 0:12:14.240 --> 0:12:18.160 The next witness was a publishing executive, and then we 0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:24.880 heard from Medline Westerhouse, who was Trump's assistant just outside 0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:31.040 the Oval office, who testified about how she handled Trump's 0:12:31.080 --> 0:12:35.280 payment of personal bills. This matters in this case because, 0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:40.840 of course Trump was accused of falsifying corporate records to 0:12:40.920 --> 0:12:44.559 hide his repayment to Michael Cohen of one hundred and 0:12:44.600 --> 0:12:49.480 thirty thousand dollars that he paid to Stormy Daniels. And 0:12:49.520 --> 0:12:53.360 I should also say that after the final witness, a 0:12:54.080 --> 0:12:59.880 Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche renewed a mistrial emotion that he's 0:13:00.080 --> 0:13:05.320 made on Tuesday, saying that the judge allowed a great 0:13:05.360 --> 0:13:10.000 deal of prejudicial testimony by Stormy Daniels about the sexual 0:13:10.120 --> 0:13:15.679 encounter that was improper. The judge said that essentially the 0:13:15.720 --> 0:13:19.040 defense had opened the door to that by attacking her 0:13:19.120 --> 0:13:23.120 credibility in their opening statement and saying that the sexual 0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:27.079 encounter did not occur, And so the judge said, well, 0:13:27.120 --> 0:13:30.760 the proseputor was then allowed to bring her on to 0:13:30.840 --> 0:13:34.720 say that yes, it did occur. Todd Blanche also asked 0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:39.960 the judge to modify his gag order on Donald Trump 0:13:40.040 --> 0:13:43.840 to allow him to respond to the Stormy Daniels testimony. 0:13:44.480 --> 0:13:45.679 The judge refused to. 0:13:45.640 --> 0:13:48.760 Do that, and did that argument get heated? 0:13:49.720 --> 0:13:53.640 Yes, it was quite a heated argument for a good 0:13:53.679 --> 0:13:58.880 while after the end of trial testimony and judge was 0:13:58.920 --> 0:14:04.320 Stinelass came back for the prosecutors and essentially said, you 0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:08.600 know that all of Todd Blanche's arguments were misguided and 0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:14.800 that the prosecution did nothing improper in eliciting Stormy Daniels 0:14:14.920 --> 0:14:18.360 testimony about what happened in the hotel room in the 0:14:18.559 --> 0:14:20.840 Tao in two thousand and six. 0:14:22.000 --> 0:14:27.000 Since Tuesday, has Trump been following the gag order. 0:14:27.360 --> 0:14:31.160 There have been no complaints from the prosecutors that he 0:14:31.240 --> 0:14:35.560 has violated the gag order. He's obviously very angry about 0:14:35.600 --> 0:14:40.720 Stormy daniels testimony. The judge admonished him in a sidebar 0:14:41.320 --> 0:14:46.680 when he was cursing at Stormy Daniels on Tuesday. But 0:14:47.320 --> 0:14:50.680 as far as I know, he hasn't said anything publicly 0:14:51.160 --> 0:14:54.200 about Stormy Daniels or any other witnesses to violate the 0:14:54.240 --> 0:14:59.320 gag order. Essentially, Todd Blanche asked the judge to allow 0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:04.160 the Jackles off so that Trump could talk freely to 0:15:04.320 --> 0:15:08.640 the public and on a campaign trail about Stormy Daniels, 0:15:09.000 --> 0:15:12.400 and the judge said that that would imperil the integrity 0:15:12.400 --> 0:15:14.160 of the proceedings, and he denied them. 0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:18.280 What does the jury have to believe from Stormy daniels 0:15:18.440 --> 0:15:22.000 testimony to make the prosecution's case? I mean, did the 0:15:22.040 --> 0:15:24.920 prosecution even have to call her as a witness? 0:15:25.160 --> 0:15:28.640 And that's an excellent question. It's possible to argue that 0:15:29.120 --> 0:15:34.160 the prosecution could have made their case without Stormy daniels testimony. 0:15:34.560 --> 0:15:37.640 It doesn't matter whether they really had sex or not. 0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:42.960 What matters is that he paid hush payment days before 0:15:42.960 --> 0:15:47.720 the twenty sixteen election to prevent her from going public 0:15:47.880 --> 0:15:51.920 with her account, whether it's true or not. And the trial, 0:15:52.000 --> 0:15:56.840 of course, is about you falsifying records to cover up 0:15:57.400 --> 0:16:01.520 that payment. What the judge said and what the prosecutor 0:16:01.600 --> 0:16:06.320 said is that the testimony by Stormy Daniels was important 0:16:06.880 --> 0:16:11.080 because the defense had called her credibility into question and 0:16:11.200 --> 0:16:15.080 said that this never happened, and so the prosecutor said 0:16:15.120 --> 0:16:18.320 that they needed an opportunity to put her on the 0:16:18.400 --> 0:16:21.720 witness and essentially to show that she was a credible 0:16:21.760 --> 0:16:27.240 witness and that her account was important to complete the story. 0:16:27.520 --> 0:16:30.480 You know why it was that Donald Trump was paying 0:16:30.520 --> 0:16:31.760 the hush money that he paid. 0:16:32.240 --> 0:16:35.440 Has the prosecution decided not to call Karen McDougall. 0:16:36.480 --> 0:16:39.880 The prosecution said they were not calling Karen McDougall. We 0:16:39.960 --> 0:16:42.560 did not get an explanation from the prosecution on that. 0:16:43.160 --> 0:16:45.920 We actually learned that from a defense lawyer in an 0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:47.280 argument before the judge. 0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:49.360 Who's on the stand tomorrow when they. 0:16:49.400 --> 0:16:53.200 Resume as usual. The prosecutors have not said who they're 0:16:53.240 --> 0:16:56.880 calling next. But the big remaining witness is Michael. 0:16:56.640 --> 0:17:01.760 Colin, and that cross examination maybe epic. Thanks so much, David. 0:17:02.080 --> 0:17:06.720 That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriachis. The dramatic twenty twenty 0:17:06.760 --> 0:17:11.160 one collapse of our Chagos Capital Management will be replayed 0:17:11.160 --> 0:17:14.080 in a criminal trial over the next two months, as 0:17:14.160 --> 0:17:19.440 prosecutors tried to convict founder Bill Wanog for market manipulation, racketeering, 0:17:19.520 --> 0:17:23.919 and fraud. In announcing the charges a year ago, Damian Williams, 0:17:23.920 --> 0:17:26.600 the US attorney for the Southern District of New York 0:17:26.840 --> 0:17:31.000 called it a market manipulation scheme that nearly jeopardized our 0:17:31.080 --> 0:17:32.280 financial system. 0:17:32.400 --> 0:17:36.399 The scheme was a historical scope. We alleged defendants and 0:17:36.520 --> 0:17:40.960 their co conspirators live banks to obtain billions of dollars 0:17:41.320 --> 0:17:43.960 that they then used to inflaye the sock price of 0:17:44.160 --> 0:17:49.520 a number of public retreated companies. The lies that the inflation, 0:17:50.160 --> 0:17:55.720 and the inflation that more lives round and round it way. 0:17:57.040 --> 0:18:01.440 Prosecutors say Wog misled some of Wall Streets biggest banks 0:18:01.480 --> 0:18:04.919 into inflating the value of our Chago's holdings to as 0:18:05.000 --> 0:18:08.000 high as one hundred and sixty billion dollars before the 0:18:08.119 --> 0:18:12.479 family Office imploded, all but erasing his thirty six billion 0:18:12.520 --> 0:18:15.679 dollar fortune. Jury's selection has begun in the case, and 0:18:15.680 --> 0:18:19.640 Bloomberg Legal reporter Chrystal Mesh is covering the trial for US. 0:18:20.080 --> 0:18:23.080 Tell us about Bill Wang? Who is he? 0:18:23.960 --> 0:18:27.320 So Bill Wang? He's a Tiger cub from Julian Robertson's 0:18:27.760 --> 0:18:32.159 camp at Tiger Management. The late Julian Robertson, legendary trader 0:18:32.400 --> 0:18:36.159 who trained quite a few people to become traders and 0:18:36.520 --> 0:18:38.960 kind of launch their own funds and firms. So Bill 0:18:39.040 --> 0:18:42.200 started under him and learned the ropes, and then around 0:18:42.520 --> 0:18:44.679 I think it's two thousand and one he started his 0:18:44.760 --> 0:18:47.920 own firm with some money from Julian roberts I think 0:18:47.960 --> 0:18:51.000 twenty five million, so he ran that. It was called 0:18:51.119 --> 0:18:54.160 Tiger Global Asia, you know, took the name from Robertson 0:18:54.240 --> 0:18:58.240 and mainly traded in Asia stocks, but had to eventually 0:18:59.480 --> 0:19:02.879 the firm pleaded guilty to a kind of a stock sandal, 0:19:02.920 --> 0:19:07.280 basically involving tips on Asian equities. He didn't admit any wrongdoing, 0:19:07.359 --> 0:19:10.080 but he settled. But as a result he formed a 0:19:10.119 --> 0:19:14.040 family office. It became our Chagos and basically did the 0:19:14.080 --> 0:19:16.480 same kind of thing trading, made a lot of money 0:19:16.520 --> 0:19:19.560 and then, as everybody knows, blew up in March twenty 0:19:19.560 --> 0:19:21.360 twenty one whether the trade went south. 0:19:21.600 --> 0:19:25.479 He's very religious and he sort of likes to spread 0:19:25.480 --> 0:19:27.720 his faith. I mean, tell me about that aspect of him. 0:19:28.040 --> 0:19:30.560 Yes, very much. In fact, you know, an interesting part 0:19:30.560 --> 0:19:34.840 about this trials we've seen Christianity today. The periodical that 0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:38.200 covers religion and Christianity is here for the trial, so 0:19:38.359 --> 0:19:41.360 that kind of tells the first Yes, definitely never seen 0:19:41.400 --> 0:19:44.560 them before, so definitely preaches his faith. He said he 0:19:44.640 --> 0:19:48.000 invests basically, you know, he takes his hints from the Bible, 0:19:48.119 --> 0:19:50.800 tries to invest in things that he thinks, you know, 0:19:50.840 --> 0:19:53.399 the Lord would want him to invest in. He started 0:19:53.400 --> 0:19:56.600 his own foundation, the Grace and Mercy Foundation, to further 0:19:56.720 --> 0:19:59.600 that goal of religious education. He says, he reads the 0:19:59.600 --> 0:20:03.199 Bible religiously, and we won't know how much of that 0:20:03.280 --> 0:20:05.800 will come up during the trial, and the government pretty 0:20:05.840 --> 0:20:09.680 much wanted to kind of limit that kind of arguments 0:20:09.800 --> 0:20:13.120 about his good acts and his faith, and the judge said, 0:20:13.440 --> 0:20:15.560 we're not going to really go into that. It's hard 0:20:15.560 --> 0:20:17.320 to say how much of that is actually going to 0:20:17.359 --> 0:20:19.919 come up, but one can't imagine that it won't come 0:20:20.000 --> 0:20:21.800 up at all through the witnesses. 0:20:21.840 --> 0:20:23.720 Tell us what he's charged with. 0:20:24.119 --> 0:20:26.840 There are two defendants, so there's Bill Long who was 0:20:27.000 --> 0:20:29.840 the founder, and then the CFO, Patrick Halligan, who's not 0:20:30.040 --> 0:20:32.880 charged in quite so big of a scheme. So Bill 0:20:33.000 --> 0:20:37.000 was basically charged with conspiring with traders at the firm 0:20:37.160 --> 0:20:41.760 to trade. Essentially, he traded on swap, so he was 0:20:41.800 --> 0:20:45.040 trading on margin. But the government's allegation said he was 0:20:45.080 --> 0:20:49.359 trading on margin with multiple firms who didn't really realize 0:20:49.560 --> 0:20:52.679 the level of his exposure, and the allegation so that 0:20:52.720 --> 0:20:55.200 he did this to manipulate the market and drive up 0:20:55.280 --> 0:20:58.840 interest in the stocks that he had invested in, so 0:20:59.040 --> 0:21:01.640 that when you know, his margin ran out and there's 0:21:01.880 --> 0:21:04.400 the banks started to make margin calls because he had 0:21:04.640 --> 0:21:08.760 gotten more credit. Suddenly the stocks started plummeting because they 0:21:08.880 --> 0:21:11.840 realized suddenly how exposed he was. So he's kind of 0:21:11.880 --> 0:21:15.320 accused of that market man infization scheme. And separately, he's 0:21:15.359 --> 0:21:19.439 also accused with the CFO of attempting to mislead the 0:21:19.480 --> 0:21:22.480 banks and fool them into not knowing that he had 0:21:22.680 --> 0:21:25.359 these kind of lines of credit with other institutions. 0:21:26.080 --> 0:21:31.760 I've read that his strategy in retrospect was like market suicide, 0:21:32.160 --> 0:21:34.359 and one of his attorneys said, he never sold a 0:21:34.440 --> 0:21:37.600 nickel of his shares. Does anyone know what the point 0:21:37.800 --> 0:21:38.520 of this was? 0:21:39.000 --> 0:21:40.040 Well, that's a good question. 0:21:40.119 --> 0:21:40.280 You know. 0:21:40.320 --> 0:21:42.840 The judge has questioned the prosecutors like, what was the 0:21:42.840 --> 0:21:45.439 goal of this if he lost all his money? So 0:21:45.720 --> 0:21:47.080 I think that's going to be the main point of 0:21:47.119 --> 0:21:49.240 the defense here is they argue he wasn't trying to 0:21:49.280 --> 0:21:51.480 manipulate the market that he was making on its trades 0:21:51.520 --> 0:21:54.080 and that it fell out for under him, and they 0:21:54.200 --> 0:21:58.120 essentially argued that the banks did their own due diligence. 0:21:58.280 --> 0:22:01.960 These are very sophisticated in institutions that did their own research, 0:22:02.040 --> 0:22:04.800 that weren't going to extend credit unless they felt comfortable 0:22:05.200 --> 0:22:08.159 with doing so, and that at the same token, you know, 0:22:08.200 --> 0:22:12.120 they were required to hedge his trades through the contract 0:22:12.280 --> 0:22:16.640 by buying whenever he decided to trade the options. They 0:22:16.640 --> 0:22:19.360 were forced to buy the schairs and the underlying stocks 0:22:19.440 --> 0:22:23.560 as a hedge. He argues that rather than just a 0:22:23.640 --> 0:22:26.399 one for one hedge, one share for every time he bought, 0:22:26.680 --> 0:22:29.919 they were going out and very broadly hedging this and 0:22:29.960 --> 0:22:33.040 therefore kind of he says that underminds the argument that 0:22:33.080 --> 0:22:34.439 the banks didn't know what was going on. 0:22:35.119 --> 0:22:38.639 The key is that the prosecutors say he lied to 0:22:38.680 --> 0:22:41.840 the banks they were barring from and used the swaps 0:22:41.840 --> 0:22:45.600 to conceal the huge positions that he was in. Right, 0:22:46.000 --> 0:22:48.159 So this is federal court. So the judges doing the 0:22:48.240 --> 0:22:51.639 questioning for the jury selection, this case sounds like it 0:22:51.680 --> 0:22:55.439 could be a bit complicated. What kind of jurors are 0:22:55.440 --> 0:22:56.200 they looking for? 0:22:57.359 --> 0:22:59.640 So it's hard to say on that end, but jury 0:22:59.680 --> 0:23:02.960 selection it's been very interesting in this case. Normally when 0:23:03.000 --> 0:23:07.160 we do jury selection, every judge is different, but generally, 0:23:07.240 --> 0:23:09.840 you know, they'll bring a lot of jerors into a courtroom. 0:23:10.359 --> 0:23:12.959 They'll you know, ask them if they have time constraints, 0:23:12.960 --> 0:23:16.320 they'll go through their individual history to see if you know, 0:23:16.359 --> 0:23:18.720 they know any of the witnesses or any of the 0:23:18.760 --> 0:23:21.080 parties involved in the case, and then they'll just kind 0:23:21.119 --> 0:23:23.679