Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful I just started
Speaker 1: kissing them. It's like a magnet. When you're a start,
Speaker 1: they let you do it. You can do anything. That
Speaker 1: infamous access Hollywood videotape of Donald Trump will be part
Speaker 1: of the evidence that New York author Egene Carroll presents
Speaker 1: in her civil defamation and battery case against Trump overclaims
Speaker 1: that he raped her in a dressing room of Bergdoff
Speaker 1: Goodman back in the nineties. Trump denies the allegations and
Speaker 1: called it a made up scam on his truth social platform,
Speaker 1: but he has not been in the courtroom where a
Speaker 1: jury of six men and three women will decide whether
Speaker 1: he's libel for sexually assaulting Carol decades ago and defaming
Speaker 1: her last year by claiming on social media that she
Speaker 1: fabricated the attack to sell a book. Joining Me is
Speaker 1: Judy's litigation partner of ASK LP, where she leads the
Speaker 1: Sexual abuse practice. This trials about an event that allegedly
Speaker 1: happened thirty years ago. Tell us about the New York
Speaker 1: Adult Survivors Act, which allows Carol to bring this case,
Speaker 1: despite the statute of limitations.
Speaker 2: So the New York's Adult Survirus Act addresses just that issue,
Speaker 2: that being if there was a sexual assault sexual violence
Speaker 2: that occurred against an individual who was eighteen years or older.
Speaker 2: What it does is that it finally brings the law
Speaker 2: to be more consistent with what studies and what science
Speaker 2: has shown, and that is that typically individuals do not
Speaker 2: fully disclose. They may even have partial disclosure, but they
Speaker 2: don't do that until much later in life, average age
Speaker 2: fifty two to fifty three. So this Adult Survivors Act
Speaker 2: allows now for this one year what we call revival
Speaker 2: window for claims to be brought. The window closes in
Speaker 2: November of this year, so this would fall within that
Speaker 2: Act and would be appropriate for her attorneys to file.
Speaker 1: Carol's testimony is going to be bolstered by the testimony
Speaker 1: of two women who publicly claimed that Trump sexually assaulted
Speaker 1: them before the twenty sixteen election, as well as that
Speaker 1: infamous Hollywood Access tape where Trump brags about how easy
Speaker 1: it is for famous men to grope women. Explain why
Speaker 1: the judge is allowing that evidence in which is not
Speaker 1: specifically about this case.
Speaker 2: What I believe that the judge basing is ruling on
Speaker 2: is what we call modus operandi. Typically, Trump's attorney would
Speaker 2: argue that that type of evidence would be prejudicial. However,
Speaker 2: there's exceptions to that rule, and what the judge is
Speaker 2: allowing is showing that this is a practice, this is
Speaker 2: a pattern by this individual to engage in this type
Speaker 2: of behavior, so it's not prejudiced the accused, but more
Speaker 2: so to show that this is part and practice, that
Speaker 2: this is the mode in which this individual carries out
Speaker 2: these violent crimes.
Speaker 1: Usually in civil cases, the plaintiff calls the defendant as
Speaker 1: a witness. Why isn't the plaintiff calling Trump here?
Speaker 2: Well, it's my understanding that missus Carroll's attorneys they have
Speaker 2: a very damaging and very compelling recorded deposition, videotape deposition
Speaker 2: of mister Trump. They were very wise during the discovery
Speaker 2: process to make it videotape depositions. Not every deposition is videotaped,
Speaker 2: but that deposition will be presented and show the jury
Speaker 2: exactly what they need to corroborate and also as evidence
Speaker 2: standing alone on itself, to show the culpability and to
Speaker 2: show that Trump should be liable for the rape of
Speaker 2: miss Carroll, and that's why it's not essential that they
Speaker 2: call him.
Speaker 1: Trump decided not to show up in person for the openings,
Speaker 1: and he may not even attend the trial. Is that
Speaker 1: a mistake on his part? The jury seeing that he's
Speaker 1: not even.
Speaker 2: There, well, you know, I think that speaks to two things.
Speaker 2: I think that that speaks to the way that he
Speaker 2: views these accusations. And it also I know that there
Speaker 2: were certain arguments or applications made to the court by
Speaker 2: mister Takapino, Trump's attorney to state that it would be
Speaker 2: a logistical inconvenience for mister Trump to show up, and
Speaker 2: that was the reason. Why do I think that that's
Speaker 2: a disadvantage. Absolutely, if you know you have someone you're
Speaker 2: being accused of raping another individual, of ruining their life,
Speaker 2: you would expect that one would show up to show
Speaker 2: the jury how serious you take these charges, and that
Speaker 2: you were there to defend against these accusations. So I
Speaker 2: think that the absence of mister Trump during this trial
Speaker 2: speaks volumes to how he feels about the case, how
Speaker 2: he feels about you know, women in general. But this
Speaker 2: type of attitude I have seen through my work is
Speaker 2: nothing new. You have individuals who act out, who believe
Speaker 2: that the accusations of a woman, a man, an individual
Speaker 2: who's alleging sexual violence against them, it's not taken seriously. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: that's still the attitude. So you know, it speaks volumes
Speaker 2: to me, and it's not something that I would ever
Speaker 2: recommend a client.
Speaker 1: To Trump's lawyer Joe Tekapina during his opening, besides casting
Speaker 1: Dad on nearly every detail of Carol's story, he followed
Speaker 1: with an aggressive attack on her, accusing her of exploiting
Speaker 1: her story for personal gain. Quote she became a celebrity
Speaker 1: and loved every minute of it. Is it dangerous in
Speaker 1: a case like this to attack the victim?
Speaker 2: This defense that mister Trump's attorney Joe Tagapina is engaging
Speaker 2: in is unfortunately common, and I think that the trend
Speaker 2: is showing that it is unsuccessful. It is the oldest
Speaker 2: tool in a litigator's book during the course of sexual
Speaker 2: abuse litigation to try to cast the victim, to try
Speaker 2: to cast the survivor miss Carroll an unfavorable light. We
Speaker 2: know that Miss Carroll had risen to prominence, was an
Speaker 2: accomplished career woman professional prior to meeting mister Trump, so
Speaker 2: I think that he'll fail on that. And moreover, mister
Speaker 2: Tagapina is engaging in a code that we know has
Speaker 2: been practiced by individuals that have been accused and by
Speaker 2: culture in general. And here's the code. One blame the victim.
Speaker 2: The second part of that code is to not believe
Speaker 2: the victim that Miss Carroll, it's my understanding. And also
Speaker 2: her attorneys will present other individuals. We talked about this
Speaker 2: just a moment ago, other individuals that also accused mister
Speaker 2: Trump of sexual abuse. So also part of this code,
Speaker 2: in addition to blaming the victim, is that you can't
Speaker 2: have just one survivor say they were raped. You have
Speaker 2: to have a cluster of individuals, more than one woman.
Speaker 2: It's not enough to just move forward on the testimony
Speaker 2: of just one individual. The code also includes retaliating against victims,
Speaker 2: So blaming the victim is a form, it's a degree
Speaker 2: of retaliation. So what he's doing, I think is very dangerous.
Speaker 2: I think that this accomplished very successful professional woman. I
Speaker 2: don't think that it will sit well with the jury.
Speaker 2: And I think that individuals that believe that the way
Speaker 2: to defend a claim to abuse a victim again and
Speaker 2: retraumatize them through this sense of she's doing it for
Speaker 2: There are plenty other ways for individuals to acquire fame
Speaker 2: or notoriety. And I'm sure that missus Carroll would have
Speaker 2: been smart enough, more skilled enough than to accuse mister
Speaker 2: Trump of this heinous crime. And you know, it should
Speaker 2: be noted that she had filed a separate lawsuit based
Speaker 2: on defamation, and to me, that's a very powerful piece
Speaker 2: of evidence.
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyers were planning to show the jury excerpts of
Speaker 1: Egen Carroll's deposition to show evidence of her past sex life,
Speaker 1: and the judge barred.
Speaker 2: That absolutely absolutely. You know, I'm a little shocked when
Speaker 2: you've been accused of something like this and you're desperate
Speaker 2: and you're looking for any type of defense. To me,
Speaker 2: they are looking and searching in the bottom of the
Speaker 2: barrel for a defense. So to try to bring in
Speaker 2: a survivor's past sex life absolutely the most archaic tactic
Speaker 2: they could have used. And it's actually quite embarrassing that
Speaker 2: a survivor would have to even speak to her sex life,
Speaker 2: whatever it is or lack thereof, So to me, that
Speaker 2: is a very weak attempt and again scraping at the
Speaker 2: bottom of the barrel, looking for anything and just trying
Speaker 2: to distract the juror as to the issues.
Speaker 1: How important is Egene Carrol's testimony when she does have
Speaker 1: as we talked about before, she does have corroboration, So
Speaker 1: how important is her testimony itself?
Speaker 2: Absolutely very important. It's something that the jury. What we
Speaker 2: call on our jurors to do is to evaluate the
Speaker 2: credibility to look at the witness as they're testifying. And also,
Speaker 2: because this was brought by her, they have to they
Speaker 2: meeting her team. The plaintiff has to go forward with
Speaker 2: presenting evidence to the jury through her testimony. So it's crucial.
Speaker 2: It's crucial procedurally, and it's also crucial for the jury
Speaker 2: to assess what she's talking about and also to assess
Speaker 2: the different elements of the claims that she's making, the
Speaker 2: allegations she's making. So it's very important, and you know,
Speaker 2: the jury needs to hear what happened.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out what defense the Trump team
Speaker 1: is going to put up besides attacking Carol's story. I mean,
Speaker 1: especially if Trump isn't going to take the stand.
Speaker 2: I agree with you on that point. What is the
Speaker 2: defense and in my opinion, there is no defense. You know,
Speaker 2: from what we know and what has been reported, it's
Speaker 2: two things. And it goes back to that code that
Speaker 2: I was referring to that many times being followed by
Speaker 2: individuals accused of sexual abuse, sexual crimes, and what we
Speaker 2: see in culture blame one defense, blame the victim. So
Speaker 2: first you engage in these types of defenses. First, if
Speaker 2: you can't call it a lie, which I think that
Speaker 2: was one thing early on that mister Trump and his team,
Speaker 2: they just tried to point the finger and say that's
Speaker 2: a lie, didn't happen. Well, in response to that, what
Speaker 2: do we see. We see Miss Carroll's team bring in
Speaker 2: witnesses her what we call outcry witnesses or disclosure witnesses,
Speaker 2: very compelling piece of evidence that she did disclose to
Speaker 2: individuals what happened. And then if that doesn't work, and
Speaker 2: then you say, well, they're making these accusations for some
Speaker 2: type of alternative motives or reasons other than the truth.
Speaker 2: And in this case, what do you have you have
Speaker 2: mister Trump saying that it's because she's seeking notoriety, Well,
Speaker 2: that will be defeated because miss Carroll's team will show
Speaker 2: that she was already an accomplished career woman, and that
Speaker 2: to me, in general, is a very weak defense. So,
Speaker 2: you know, the sum of this, of what I'm saying
Speaker 2: is that they are going to be hard pressed in
Speaker 2: this case to mount a real, true and viable defense.
Speaker 2: The evidence is compelling. The word of one woman, of
Speaker 2: one survivor should be enough in general, and I believe
Speaker 2: it will be enough in this trial.
Speaker 1: The jury is composed of six men and three women.
Speaker 1: Does the plaintiff in a case like this normally want
Speaker 1: more women on the jury who might understand the story better.
Speaker 2: You know, not necessarily the six men. They can have sisters,
Speaker 2: maybe they have partners that are women. So today's jurors
Speaker 2: are sophisticated enough to understand the issues and understand sexual violence,
Speaker 2: and sexual violence doesn't just happen to women. It happens,
Speaker 2: we know, to individuals of any sexual orientation or gender identity.
Speaker 2: So you don't necessarily need to have sick x women
Speaker 2: or a full women jury. Just similarly, you don't need
Speaker 2: to have, you know, a jury of all one race
Speaker 2: to understand the complexities of the issues. So that doesn't necessarily,
Speaker 2: you know, cause concern. I have worked with and I
Speaker 2: have clients that I've represented that have been survivors of
Speaker 2: sexual abuse that are men themselves. So you know, individuals
Speaker 2: today are sophisticated enough to understand violence and sexual violence.
Speaker 1: Thanks Judy. That's Judy Saunders, litigation partner of ask LP
Speaker 1: Rammy winning rapper Pras Michelle, who reinvented himself as a
Speaker 1: political influencer, is at the center of a case about
Speaker 1: an international, multimillion dollar conspiracy across two presidencies. Prosecutors contend
Speaker 1: that Michelle funneled money from a Malaysian billionaire through straw
Speaker 1: donors to Barack Obama's twenty twelve reelection campaign and tried
Speaker 1: to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition
Speaker 1: case on behalf of China Under the Trump administration, That
Speaker 1: billionaire Jolo is now a fugitive and Michelle, who made
Speaker 1: at least eighty eight million dollars in the deals, is
Speaker 1: on trial in federal court in Washington, d c. Joining
Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg legal reporter David Voriakis. Michelle was paid
Speaker 1: twenty million dollars to get Jolo a photo with President
Speaker 1: Barack Obama in twenty twelve. Tell us about that.
Speaker 3: Well, this trial is about pros Michelle, who was a
Speaker 3: Grammy winning rapper from the nineteen nineties hip hop group
Speaker 3: with Fujis. He made a lot of money that way,
Speaker 3: and then about a or soa go, he became friends
Speaker 3: with Jolo, who's a Malaysian tycoon who is suspected of
Speaker 3: stealing literally billions of dollars from the Malaysian development from
Speaker 3: one MDB, and that scandal has been investigated by the
Speaker 3: United States and several other nations. Jolo in twenty twelve
Speaker 3: wanted to get close to President Obama during his re
Speaker 3: election campaign, and he really wanted a photograph with President Obama.
Speaker 3: And Jolo had become friends with pros Michelle and had
Speaker 3: partied with Praz and Praz traveled around the world for
Speaker 3: a period with as Jolo did with other celebrities like
Speaker 3: Leonardo DiCaprio. So in twenty twelve, Jolo paid almost twenty
Speaker 3: one million to pros Michelle to help facilitate him getting
Speaker 3: a photograph with President Obama. And this is one of
Speaker 3: three conspiracies that pros Michelle is charged with at his
Speaker 3: federal trial in Washington for.
Speaker 1: Twenty million dollars couldn't Jolo have donated that and gotten
Speaker 1: a photo that way.
Speaker 3: Well, it's not easy to get close to the president,
Speaker 3: and typically political donors who give a lot of money
Speaker 3: can get close to the president and get a photograph
Speaker 3: or get some FaceTime with the president. But in this case, Jolo,
Speaker 3: as a Malaysian national, was not able to give political
Speaker 3: donations to the Obama campaign. And he also had been
Speaker 3: vetted by the Obama campaign and they were uncomfortable with
Speaker 3: his playboy image and so they did not want him
Speaker 3: in campaign events. Pros Michelle had promised that he would
Speaker 3: do his best. He initially took a million dollars to
Speaker 3: try to think about how to get a photograph or Jolo,
Speaker 3: and then he tried to arrange so that Jolo could
Speaker 3: get into two different campaign events in twenty twelve, and
Speaker 3: in both cases the campaign would not allow Jolo in. Ultimately,
Speaker 3: Jolo got his photograph with Barack and Michelle Obama at
Speaker 3: the holiday party in twenty twelve, and there's a picture
Speaker 3: of the three of them standing by a White House
Speaker 3: Christmas tree.
Speaker 1: Besides using straw donors to funnel illegal donations from low
Speaker 1: into Obama's campaign, what else is he accused of here.
Speaker 3: He's also accused of trying to get the Justice Department
Speaker 3: to drop a pending civil forfeiture case against Jolo. What
Speaker 3: happened in twenty sixteen is the Justice Department to Jolo
Speaker 3: as the US investigations picked up and other investigations around
Speaker 3: the world into whether Jolo stole these billions of dollars
Speaker 3: and then laundered them. And so Jolo was very concerned
Speaker 3: and he wanted to try to to see if he
Speaker 3: could get those charges dropped. And so what he did
Speaker 3: was Hey ultimately one hundred million dollars to a group
Speaker 3: that included pros Michelle, and there were several other people
Speaker 3: who pleaded guilty. There was a former Trump fundraiser, Elliott Broydy,
Speaker 3: there was a former Justice Department attorney, George Higginbotham, whom
Speaker 3: moon lighted as Michelle's lawyer. And there was Nicky Lum Davis,
Speaker 3: who was a Hawaiian businessman. All three of them pleaded guilty,
Speaker 3: but Trump pardoned Broidy, and at the trial, jurors heard
Speaker 3: the testimony from Higginbotham and Broidy were government witnesses testifying
Speaker 3: about how they tried to use Broidy's access to Donald
Speaker 3: Trump and key figures in the Trump administration to get
Speaker 3: the case against Jolo dropped. That was ultimately unsuccessful, and
Speaker 3: later on Jolo was indicted twice by the Justice Department,
Speaker 3: once in Washington and once in Brooklyn, New York.
Speaker 1: Did the prosecutors offer Michelle a deal?
Speaker 3: I believe that the prosecutors did try to negotiate a
Speaker 3: free deal with Michelle, but ultimately was unsuccessful. He chose
Speaker 3: to go to trial. He testified in his own defense,
Speaker 3: and he denied that he was trying to funnel Jolo's
Speaker 3: money into the Obama campaign. He denied that he knew
Speaker 3: that he was supposed to register as a foreign agent
Speaker 3: under the Foreign Agent's Registration Act to reflect his work
Speaker 3: for Jolo in trying to convince the Trump administration to
Speaker 3: drop their investigation of Jolo. And then there's a third
Speaker 3: aspect to the trial, a third conspiracy, which is several
Speaker 3: of the same players pros Michelle, Elliott, Roydy, Nicki, Lum Davis,
Speaker 3: and a couple of others tried to get the US
Speaker 3: government to extradite a Chinese billionaire, Guo Wanghwa, Guy who
Speaker 3: was in the United States living in New York City
Speaker 3: and was a friend of Steve Bannon. He was wanting
Speaker 3: he acted as a dissident in the United States and
Speaker 3: repeatedly criticize the Chinese government and Chinese officials quite explicitly.
Speaker 3: The Chinese didn't like that, and they had charged him
Speaker 3: with crimes in China. They wanted the Trump administration to
Speaker 3: extradite him back so that they could put him on
Speaker 3: trial in China. And so at the same time that
Speaker 3: Cross Michelle was trying to get the US to draw
Speaker 3: this investigation of Jolo, he was also trying to get
Speaker 3: the US to extradite Kuo Wan Guai as Chinese billionaire
Speaker 3: dissidents back to China, and there was a lot of
Speaker 3: intrigue involved in those efforts. At one point he met
Speaker 3: a high ranking security official from China, both in China
Speaker 3: and at the Four Seasons Hotel in Manhattan, to talk
Speaker 3: about the progress in trying to convince the Trump administration
Speaker 3: to extradite Whoa and Guhy. At another point, George Higginbotham,
Speaker 3: who was pros Michelle's personal attorney even though he worked
Speaker 3: for the Justice Department, he went into the Chinese embassy
Speaker 3: on a Sunday morning in Washington to talk about trying
Speaker 3: to extradite Whoawan. Why that effort failed, as did the
Speaker 3: effort to drop the Jolo investigations by the United States.
Speaker 3: But pros Michelle got his money. He made eighteen or
Speaker 3: nineteen million dollars from the twenty twelve effort to get
Speaker 3: Jolo close to President Obama, and he made more than
Speaker 3: seventy million dollars in the later efforts in twenty seventeen
Speaker 3: to extradite Guoha and Guy and get the Jolo case dropped.
Speaker 1: Did he have to give any of that money back.
Speaker 3: It's not part of this trial, but previously the Justice
Speaker 3: Department filed a civil forfeiture suit and feesed a number
Speaker 3: of his accounts. That case is currently on hold, pending
Speaker 3: the outcome of the criminal trial.
Speaker 1: So tell us how was he on the stand? Was
Speaker 1: he a good witness on his own behalf?
Speaker 3: He came across at the end as a sympathetic figure.
Speaker 3: I think it was clear that people understood him better beforehand.
Speaker 3: The question is whether the jury will believe his explanations
Speaker 3: about how he handled the tens of millions of dollars
Speaker 3: he got from Jolo. The prosecutors say that Jolo essentially
Speaker 3: was wandering his money through pros Michelle. And pros Michelle's
Speaker 3: position is that once Jolo paid him the money, it
Speaker 3: was his money and he was free to decide what
Speaker 3: to do with it, That it was no longer Jolo's money,
Speaker 3: and that he saw that money as an investment in
Speaker 3: entertainment ventures.
Speaker 1: So did the prosecutor make any inroads on cross examination
Speaker 1: or did.
Speaker 3: He hold up the prosecutors I thought scored a number
Speaker 3: of points on cross examination, and you know, there's a
Speaker 3: great deal of evidence against pros Michelle, and prose held
Speaker 3: his ground on his central points that it was his money,
Speaker 3: not Jolo's money, once he received it, that he was
Speaker 3: not funneling Low's donations into the Obama campaign, and that
Speaker 3: he was trying to you know, build entertainment business. But
Speaker 3: there was a great deal of testimony against him. There
Speaker 3: was a lot of documentary evidence, and there's his failure
Speaker 3: to register under the Foreign Agent's Registration Act or you know,
Speaker 3: as the agent of China, and so there's a considerable
Speaker 3: amount of evidence that the government has a raid. We'll
Speaker 3: just have to see how the jury is that.
Speaker 1: So this has been a long trial and there have
Speaker 1: been some high profile witness. Is why did Leo DiCaprio testify.
Speaker 3: Well, DiCaprio essentially gave a lot of background on the
Speaker 3: relationship between him and Jolo and Jolo's lifestyle about how
Speaker 3: he spent millions of dollars, you know, living the high
Speaker 3: life in clubs and the bars and on yachts. And
Speaker 3: Dicaprios gave a critical piece of evidence that helped the
Speaker 3: government's case, which is that he said he told DiCaprio
Speaker 3: in twenty twelve that he wanted to put twenty to
Speaker 3: thirty million dollars into the Democratic Party during the election cycle,
Speaker 3: and DiCaprio said, wow, that's a lot of money. And
Speaker 3: so that supports the government's contention that Jolo put twenty
Speaker 3: million dollars toward getting a photograph with President Obama.
Speaker 1: So what is the jury composition of the jury?
Speaker 3: Seven women and five men and who We've been listening
Speaker 3: closely for a month. This could take some time before
Speaker 3: we get a verdict.
Speaker 1: Well, I know you are going to be waiting for
Speaker 1: the verdict, Dan, You'll let us know as soon as
Speaker 1: it happens. Thanks so much, David. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter
Speaker 1: David Voriakis, and that's it for this edition of The
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to tune
Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg