1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,320 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:14,400 Speaker 2: Movie theaters, basic cable TV distributors, and audiences on every 3 00:00:14,440 --> 00:00:18,799 Speaker 2: sofa and in every movie seat would feel the impact 4 00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:20,599 Speaker 2: of this unlawful merger. 5 00:00:21,120 --> 00:00:25,240 Speaker 3: California is leading a lawsuit by twelve states to block 6 00:00:25,280 --> 00:00:28,560 Speaker 3: what would be the largest merger in the history of Hollywood, 7 00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:32,839 Speaker 3: the combining of two of the largest entertainment companies in 8 00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:37,080 Speaker 3: the world. The anti Dross lawsuit claims that Paramounts one 9 00:00:37,159 --> 00:00:41,520 Speaker 3: hundred and ten billion dollar takeover of Warner Brothers Discovery 10 00:00:41,880 --> 00:00:46,640 Speaker 3: would result in less competition, higher prices, and fewer options 11 00:00:46,680 --> 00:00:51,159 Speaker 3: on big and small screens. The Justice Department declined to 12 00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:55,440 Speaker 3: challenge the deal last month, and California Attorney General Rob 13 00:00:55,480 --> 00:01:00,960 Speaker 3: Banta called out backdoor deals trampling on consumers and free markets. 14 00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:06,280 Speaker 2: Anti trust enforcement is a check on billionaires currying favor 15 00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:10,080 Speaker 2: with the president so he'll do they're bidding. 16 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:15,319 Speaker 3: Thousands of actors, directors, writers, and other industry professionals have 17 00:01:15,480 --> 00:01:20,119 Speaker 3: voiced unequivocal opposition to the Paramount deal, arguing that further 18 00:01:20,240 --> 00:01:24,399 Speaker 3: consolidation will lead to job losses and fewer choices for 19 00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:30,160 Speaker 3: filmmakers and moviegoers. Paramount said the lawsuit distort settled anti 20 00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:34,160 Speaker 3: trust law and maintained that its merger would create a 21 00:01:34,319 --> 00:01:40,480 Speaker 3: stronger competitor against dominant streaming and technology platforms. My guest 22 00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:44,160 Speaker 3: is an expert in anti trust law, Professor Harry First 23 00:01:44,319 --> 00:01:48,680 Speaker 3: of NYU Law School. Harry the States claimed that this 24 00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:51,680 Speaker 3: deal would create a media behemoth. 25 00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:56,920 Speaker 1: Interesting. So this was a choreagraph that appeared in a 26 00:01:56,960 --> 00:02:00,760 Speaker 1: book review that was written by Ty Burr, who had 27 00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:05,360 Speaker 1: been the Boston Globes movie reviewer for many years. It's 28 00:02:05,400 --> 00:02:08,320 Speaker 1: a book about mergers at the movies, and he ends 29 00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:12,320 Speaker 1: it by saying that this merger would reduce the number 30 00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:20,400 Speaker 1: of media behemoths to a monopolistic five. So yes, but no, 31 00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:26,720 Speaker 1: so yes, there are five big companies, but monopolistic and 32 00:02:26,880 --> 00:02:30,200 Speaker 1: five don't go together, so maybe they do for ty 33 00:02:30,360 --> 00:02:34,679 Speaker 1: Burger and you know, and talking about power in sort 34 00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:37,680 Speaker 1: of a colloquial way, but from a legal point of view, 35 00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:41,160 Speaker 1: we're not talking about monopoly, but we are talking about 36 00:02:41,200 --> 00:02:47,160 Speaker 1: significant power and or any trust. It's market power for Hollywood, 37 00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:51,760 Speaker 1: it's money for many people, it's cultural power, and apparently 38 00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:54,920 Speaker 1: for the president it's CNN. I mean, I don't know 39 00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:57,480 Speaker 1: but that seems to be how it comes out. So 40 00:02:57,680 --> 00:03:02,000 Speaker 1: it's lots of things colliding, you know, which makes the 41 00:03:02,040 --> 00:03:07,400 Speaker 1: merger really interesting, you know, along many dimensions. So what 42 00:03:07,560 --> 00:03:12,359 Speaker 1: makes it also interesting and horrible in a way is 43 00:03:12,440 --> 00:03:16,280 Speaker 1: that the story plays out in a way that we're 44 00:03:16,280 --> 00:03:21,120 Speaker 1: too familiar with today in the Trump administration, but really 45 00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:25,880 Speaker 1: we've never seen before in this direct overt way, which 46 00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:29,800 Speaker 1: is there's the law and there's we don't care about 47 00:03:29,800 --> 00:03:32,959 Speaker 1: the law. You know, it's you know what the president 48 00:03:33,000 --> 00:03:36,320 Speaker 1: wants today. And you know, this case has played along 49 00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:41,480 Speaker 1: those two tracks. And the spoiler in this is also 50 00:03:41,560 --> 00:03:44,240 Speaker 1: partly political, but has to play on the legal track, 51 00:03:44,560 --> 00:03:47,480 Speaker 1: can't play on the political track, and that's the States. 52 00:03:47,560 --> 00:03:49,800 Speaker 3: As you're referred to there. The merger has been the 53 00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:55,839 Speaker 3: subject of intense lobbying in d C. As executives, including 54 00:03:56,040 --> 00:03:59,720 Speaker 3: the head of Paramount David Ellison, have tried to curry 55 00:03:59,720 --> 00:04:05,400 Speaker 3: faith with President Trump and other administration officials. So tell 56 00:04:05,480 --> 00:04:07,760 Speaker 3: us about the political background of the deal. 57 00:04:08,720 --> 00:04:15,440 Speaker 1: The background, the political background starts unusually before Paramount's bid 58 00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:19,920 Speaker 1: for Warner is accepted or really made legally. And if 59 00:04:19,960 --> 00:04:23,040 Speaker 1: you read what the Justice Department did at the very end, 60 00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:28,200 Speaker 1: they said in June that we've been investigating this for 61 00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:33,080 Speaker 1: eight months. That's pretty interesting since the merger was just 62 00:04:33,279 --> 00:04:36,560 Speaker 1: noticed to them in February. I know my math is bad, 63 00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:39,160 Speaker 1: but it's not that bad. So that means they started 64 00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:44,559 Speaker 1: investigating this case before the merger was officially notified. Now, 65 00:04:45,200 --> 00:04:48,960 Speaker 1: normal practices, you can't get the Justice Department to tell 66 00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:51,960 Speaker 1: you what they're going to do until you do something. 67 00:04:52,320 --> 00:04:54,440 Speaker 1: You know. You can't call them up and say, excuse me, 68 00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,560 Speaker 1: will you give me an advisory opinion, and some jurisdictions you can. 69 00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:01,840 Speaker 1: In the United States you can't, but apparently these people 70 00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:05,920 Speaker 1: could because this was going on at a time when 71 00:05:05,920 --> 00:05:09,640 Speaker 1: the President was just putting a big I don't want 72 00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:13,599 Speaker 1: to say thumb, I don't know, hand arm whatever he's 73 00:05:13,600 --> 00:05:19,000 Speaker 1: got on the scales for Warner. So Paramount hires the 74 00:05:19,120 --> 00:05:22,200 Speaker 1: guy who used to head the any Trust Division in 75 00:05:22,320 --> 00:05:26,600 Speaker 1: trump On to guide this thing through legally through the 76 00:05:26,640 --> 00:05:29,960 Speaker 1: any Trust Division, and he does a pretty good job 77 00:05:30,279 --> 00:05:33,120 Speaker 1: for his client. Whether it's for us as another story, 78 00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:37,680 Speaker 1: but we didn't hire him, paramounted, Okay, So in February 79 00:05:38,360 --> 00:05:41,680 Speaker 1: this deal gets cleared without what's called a second request. 80 00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:45,240 Speaker 1: So in important mergers, the government says, excuse me, you 81 00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:48,800 Speaker 1: can't close the deal until we look more deeply at 82 00:05:48,839 --> 00:05:52,120 Speaker 1: all the documents. So you have to hold off until 83 00:05:52,640 --> 00:05:56,159 Speaker 1: you've produced all the documents to our satisfaction. That's the norm, 84 00:05:56,200 --> 00:05:58,560 Speaker 1: and a big deal like this. Not for this deal 85 00:05:58,839 --> 00:06:00,520 Speaker 1: in February, they say, we're not even going to do 86 00:06:00,560 --> 00:06:03,159 Speaker 1: a second request. They could have closed it in February, 87 00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:06,359 Speaker 1: but they didn't, so they've continued to fight about it. 88 00:06:06,400 --> 00:06:10,839 Speaker 1: But this is the political track to the deal. But 89 00:06:10,920 --> 00:06:13,920 Speaker 1: then comes the legal track, which is they go through 90 00:06:13,920 --> 00:06:19,720 Speaker 1: some sort of investigation and they close the investigation, which 91 00:06:19,760 --> 00:06:24,080 Speaker 1: they've already sort of closed by not issuing a second request. 92 00:06:24,600 --> 00:06:28,920 Speaker 1: They close this just in June. And a couple things 93 00:06:28,960 --> 00:06:33,520 Speaker 1: interesting about that. Normally the Justice Department does not issue 94 00:06:33,960 --> 00:06:38,359 Speaker 1: closing statements to explain what they're doing. It's very rare, 95 00:06:39,200 --> 00:06:41,800 Speaker 1: so you might say, why did they do it here? 96 00:06:42,240 --> 00:06:45,080 Speaker 1: Good story. They like to be transparent. You know, you 97 00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:48,719 Speaker 1: remember used to say those math exams show your work, right, 98 00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:50,880 Speaker 1: you didn't just guess at the answer. So they want 99 00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:53,960 Speaker 1: to show their work. However, when people in this business 100 00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:56,320 Speaker 1: show their work, they have certain incentives, not to show 101 00:06:56,360 --> 00:06:58,600 Speaker 1: all their work, but to show it in the most 102 00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:01,400 Speaker 1: positive light. This is not a math problem. This is 103 00:07:01,560 --> 00:07:05,640 Speaker 1: a question of judgment. So they file this closing statement. 104 00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:09,680 Speaker 1: And one of the problems with filing closing statements is 105 00:07:09,680 --> 00:07:12,920 Speaker 1: that the people who write them have certain goals. Want 106 00:07:12,960 --> 00:07:15,720 Speaker 1: is to justify what they've done, but another goal may 107 00:07:15,760 --> 00:07:21,280 Speaker 1: be to short circuit other plaintiffs, because the federal authorities 108 00:07:21,320 --> 00:07:23,880 Speaker 1: are not the only people who can sue a stop mergers, 109 00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:27,640 Speaker 1: and specifically the states can. So if you can write 110 00:07:27,640 --> 00:07:30,840 Speaker 1: this and say, you know, my god, this case was 111 00:07:31,320 --> 00:07:34,960 Speaker 1: but you know nothing there, baby, and you think the 112 00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:37,680 Speaker 1: states are going to file, you know that a federal 113 00:07:37,920 --> 00:07:40,920 Speaker 1: is going to read that and maybe it will affect 114 00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:45,960 Speaker 1: what they do. So some people believe, and it's possibly true, 115 00:07:46,400 --> 00:07:49,560 Speaker 1: that one of the goals was to influence any possible 116 00:07:49,680 --> 00:07:53,760 Speaker 1: state litigation. So that's the second interesting part. And the 117 00:07:53,880 --> 00:07:58,560 Speaker 1: third part is how they wrote about the case. And 118 00:07:58,960 --> 00:08:01,200 Speaker 1: it turns out to be interesting because it's so different 119 00:08:01,600 --> 00:08:05,680 Speaker 1: from the state's complaint. And you know, maybe they wanted 120 00:08:05,680 --> 00:08:08,360 Speaker 1: to show their work in a positive light, but there 121 00:08:08,360 --> 00:08:12,200 Speaker 1: are certain things that are not there, and certain things 122 00:08:12,280 --> 00:08:16,400 Speaker 1: presented in an interesting way. So they start out with 123 00:08:16,480 --> 00:08:20,840 Speaker 1: streaming as you know, nothing to see here. Well in 124 00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:23,400 Speaker 1: some ways that that actually is the weaker part or 125 00:08:23,480 --> 00:08:26,240 Speaker 1: the less suspicious part of the case. There are three 126 00:08:26,280 --> 00:08:30,600 Speaker 1: major streaming services and a fourth. If you put in Disney, 127 00:08:31,200 --> 00:08:35,240 Speaker 1: HBO Max, and Paramount Plus. Do you watch Paramount Plus? 128 00:08:35,360 --> 00:08:38,640 Speaker 3: No, I don't do. I HBO has to be the 129 00:08:38,640 --> 00:08:41,199 Speaker 3: winner of that comparison, So. 130 00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:47,280 Speaker 1: You know, these are distant competitors. Netflix is dominant. You know, 131 00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:51,600 Speaker 1: Amazon is strong, Disney is strong, so you can make 132 00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:55,760 Speaker 1: a credible claim that it's still a very competitive market 133 00:08:56,480 --> 00:09:00,280 Speaker 1: and not want to sue about. So that's where they start, 134 00:09:00,760 --> 00:09:04,160 Speaker 1: and then they go to what they call linear TV, 135 00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:07,520 Speaker 1: which I think is an interesting description. You know, I'm 136 00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:11,200 Speaker 1: not sure exactly what they mean by that, except they've 137 00:09:11,240 --> 00:09:16,840 Speaker 1: combined two words that indicate junk who watches you know, 138 00:09:16,960 --> 00:09:18,400 Speaker 1: TV in a line. 139 00:09:18,760 --> 00:09:20,960 Speaker 3: I mean to tell you the truth, Harry, I'm going 140 00:09:21,000 --> 00:09:22,880 Speaker 3: to have to google that unless you. 141 00:09:22,880 --> 00:09:26,760 Speaker 1: Know, I don't know who does that. So it's supposed 142 00:09:26,800 --> 00:09:30,200 Speaker 1: to be cable. Hard to say exactly. They're not really clear, 143 00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:35,960 Speaker 1: but they say, you know, no problem here because this 144 00:09:36,080 --> 00:09:40,360 Speaker 1: kind of TV faces so much competition from pay services, 145 00:09:40,360 --> 00:09:45,080 Speaker 1: from streaming from live from sports, from blah blah, from 146 00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:50,240 Speaker 1: wah wah from who knows, not a problem here. And 147 00:09:50,280 --> 00:09:52,840 Speaker 1: then of course they say for last the thing that 148 00:09:52,880 --> 00:09:56,720 Speaker 1: you might start with first, which is studio film production, 149 00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:01,199 Speaker 1: because this is where the parties are direct Competitior, Paramount 150 00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:05,880 Speaker 1: and Warner. You know, they make blockbusters, so you might 151 00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:09,360 Speaker 1: think they'd start there, but you know, nothing to see 152 00:10:09,400 --> 00:10:15,160 Speaker 1: here because after all lots of competitors. Netflix makes theatrical releases. Yeah, 153 00:10:15,200 --> 00:10:21,400 Speaker 1: I guess Amazon makes stuff for Milania, oh sorry, and Disney, 154 00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:25,439 Speaker 1: and there's lots of other stuff, and so don't worry 155 00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:30,840 Speaker 1: about that, and don't worry about impact on workers in Hollywood, 156 00:10:31,360 --> 00:10:34,600 Speaker 1: because all the incentives are to make more films and 157 00:10:34,679 --> 00:10:39,080 Speaker 1: distribute them theatrically. So that's third on the list. So 158 00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:43,600 Speaker 1: those are the three things. Nothing about viewpoint diversity, which 159 00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:45,920 Speaker 1: a lot of people are worried about, but it's hard 160 00:10:45,960 --> 00:10:49,079 Speaker 1: to make out as any trust matter. You know, CNN 161 00:10:49,160 --> 00:10:54,319 Speaker 1: and CBS under the same tent. The concern about CBS 162 00:10:54,960 --> 00:10:58,040 Speaker 1: enough concern about CBS now, but now they're going to 163 00:10:58,040 --> 00:11:03,800 Speaker 1: control CNN thorn the MAGA side. So no mention of 164 00:11:03,840 --> 00:11:07,840 Speaker 1: that doesn't give us any market shares. So that's the 165 00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:12,000 Speaker 1: first thing you look for. But doesn't mention that, so 166 00:11:12,000 --> 00:11:16,559 Speaker 1: those are omitted and to cap it off nicely from 167 00:11:16,559 --> 00:11:19,720 Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal follows with this story that says 168 00:11:20,160 --> 00:11:24,760 Speaker 1: shock and amazement the staffers working on this, we're surprised 169 00:11:25,080 --> 00:11:28,520 Speaker 1: when the closing statement was issued, which they had no 170 00:11:28,679 --> 00:11:30,840 Speaker 1: role in drafting. Sound familiar. 171 00:11:31,360 --> 00:11:34,880 Speaker 3: It does sound very familiar, something we've talked about recently. 172 00:11:35,559 --> 00:11:37,880 Speaker 3: Stay with me, Harry coming up next on the Bloomberg 173 00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:40,560 Speaker 3: Law Show. Will the States be able to convince a 174 00:11:40,720 --> 00:11:43,960 Speaker 3: judge to issue an injunction to stop the deal from 175 00:11:43,960 --> 00:11:47,440 Speaker 3: going forward? I'm Jim Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. 176 00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:53,120 Speaker 3: California is leading a lawsuit by twelve states to block 177 00:11:53,160 --> 00:11:56,800 Speaker 3: Paramounts one hundred and ten billion dollar takeover of Warner 178 00:11:56,840 --> 00:12:01,840 Speaker 3: Brothers Discovery. The antitrust lawsuit says the merger would result 179 00:12:01,920 --> 00:12:06,240 Speaker 3: in less competition, higher prices, and fewer options on the 180 00:12:06,280 --> 00:12:10,520 Speaker 3: big and the small screen. The Justice Department had declined 181 00:12:10,559 --> 00:12:13,640 Speaker 3: to challenge the dal last month, I've been talking to 182 00:12:13,760 --> 00:12:18,560 Speaker 3: anti trust professor Harry First of NYU Law School. Harry, 183 00:12:18,559 --> 00:12:23,880 Speaker 3: did the States draft their complaint around or in response 184 00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:28,560 Speaker 3: to what the Justice Department had stated in its summary 185 00:12:29,240 --> 00:12:32,560 Speaker 3: of why it was declining to prosecute the case. 186 00:12:33,120 --> 00:12:35,720 Speaker 1: So I'm glad that we had this call after they 187 00:12:35,880 --> 00:12:39,280 Speaker 1: filed the complaint because I would not have predicted it. 188 00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:43,559 Speaker 1: And you know, if you were being skeptical of this complaint, 189 00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:46,439 Speaker 1: you'd say, this is the complaint to save all the 190 00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:50,080 Speaker 1: parts of Hollywood that everyone says it's dead, the theaters, 191 00:12:50,160 --> 00:12:55,160 Speaker 1: the movie theaters, the big motion picture producers, theatrical producers, 192 00:12:55,440 --> 00:12:59,080 Speaker 1: and the cable companies. And it's basic cable. It's not 193 00:12:59,760 --> 00:13:04,120 Speaker 1: fa fancy cable that we pay for with bazillions of dollars. 194 00:13:04,360 --> 00:13:10,719 Speaker 1: It's basic cable that gets you CNN, the basic channels, 195 00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:13,880 Speaker 1: not the premium channels, not even HBO. But it gets 196 00:13:13,960 --> 00:13:17,400 Speaker 1: you CNN, it gets you MTV, I don't know, it 197 00:13:17,400 --> 00:13:19,840 Speaker 1: gets you those kinds of things. It gets you the 198 00:13:19,880 --> 00:13:23,520 Speaker 1: over the air broadcasting. You know, it's basic cable. So 199 00:13:24,280 --> 00:13:27,520 Speaker 1: that's the focus of this complaint. It's not on streaming, 200 00:13:28,360 --> 00:13:32,720 Speaker 1: so they don't go after streaming either. This is, to 201 00:13:33,040 --> 00:13:42,280 Speaker 1: my first reading, a non ideological, carefully drafted complaint designed 202 00:13:42,320 --> 00:13:48,520 Speaker 1: to stop this merger and not get embroiled in any 203 00:13:48,600 --> 00:13:52,720 Speaker 1: fancy theories. There's no labor market theory in this. They 204 00:13:52,760 --> 00:13:57,320 Speaker 1: start with the place where justice stops, which is wide 205 00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:02,040 Speaker 1: release theatrical films, you know, where the competition is direct. 206 00:14:02,520 --> 00:14:07,080 Speaker 1: And then they go to the super sellers, the anticipated 207 00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:11,240 Speaker 1: top grossing theatrical films, which is something the Justice Department 208 00:14:11,280 --> 00:14:14,760 Speaker 1: did in the bookseller's merger. They looked at, you know, 209 00:14:14,880 --> 00:14:18,400 Speaker 1: the New York Times Bestsellers was the market there, the 210 00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:22,440 Speaker 1: Bertlsman case, so their echoes there. This is carefully done. 211 00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:27,240 Speaker 1: And then licensing a basic cable channels, and it points 212 00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:31,120 Speaker 1: out how the two companies are bringing together turner stuff, 213 00:14:31,440 --> 00:14:36,040 Speaker 1: all sorts of stuff, and the cable companies need the package, 214 00:14:36,320 --> 00:14:39,040 Speaker 1: you know, they need the bundle of stuff. And you know, 215 00:14:39,600 --> 00:14:43,440 Speaker 1: maybe the fancy people in Brooklyn have cut the cord, 216 00:14:44,000 --> 00:14:46,440 Speaker 1: but there's still a lot of people who are looking 217 00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:50,360 Speaker 1: at their cable and it's aimed at that. I think 218 00:14:50,360 --> 00:14:54,960 Speaker 1: it's very clever. We now have concentration figures perf and 219 00:14:55,040 --> 00:14:58,760 Speaker 1: doll Hirshman index, the fancy way of saying that these 220 00:14:58,760 --> 00:15:03,520 Speaker 1: are concentrated mark and the complaint references the merger guidelines, 221 00:15:03,560 --> 00:15:06,600 Speaker 1: the federal merger guidelines saying these are way over the top. 222 00:15:06,880 --> 00:15:10,480 Speaker 1: Nice job, and sort of one final thing that I 223 00:15:10,600 --> 00:15:14,760 Speaker 1: noticed it's co signed in council by a private law 224 00:15:14,800 --> 00:15:19,440 Speaker 1: firm that's been hired by California, presumably by the States, 225 00:15:20,200 --> 00:15:25,800 Speaker 1: and signed by a very highly respected any trust litigator, 226 00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:28,920 Speaker 1: Rich Parker, who had been head of the Bureau of 227 00:15:28,920 --> 00:15:31,840 Speaker 1: Competition in the Federal Trade Commission a number of years ago. 228 00:15:32,320 --> 00:15:35,920 Speaker 1: Very well respected. This is a well done to my reading, anyway, 229 00:15:36,680 --> 00:15:40,760 Speaker 1: well done, careful complaint. It's a good, good question, June. 230 00:15:40,840 --> 00:15:45,200 Speaker 1: Is this a direct sort of response to the Justice Department? 231 00:15:45,440 --> 00:15:49,360 Speaker 1: Not completely, because it doesn't buy this linear TV whatever 232 00:15:49,400 --> 00:15:52,440 Speaker 1: that is. It avoids what may have been a trap 233 00:15:52,600 --> 00:15:56,240 Speaker 1: for focusing on streaming markets, although maybe there is a 234 00:15:56,320 --> 00:15:59,520 Speaker 1: question there of cutting off supply to streaming markets, but 235 00:15:59,560 --> 00:16:04,480 Speaker 1: that's more of a vertical supplier buyer complaint. But they're 236 00:16:04,520 --> 00:16:09,800 Speaker 1: looking directly at horizontal competition and price raising. So from 237 00:16:09,880 --> 00:16:12,920 Speaker 1: my reading, well done. And we'll see, of course where 238 00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:16,760 Speaker 1: that goes. So this deal is not over yet, and 239 00:16:16,800 --> 00:16:19,400 Speaker 1: it's not, you know, a throwaway complaint. 240 00:16:19,640 --> 00:16:23,160 Speaker 3: So Paramount said in response to the lawsuit that the 241 00:16:23,240 --> 00:16:28,000 Speaker 3: lawsuit is based on a misrepresentation of competition in the 242 00:16:28,160 --> 00:16:32,280 Speaker 3: entertainment industry today, as numerous anti trust authorities around the 243 00:16:32,280 --> 00:16:36,280 Speaker 3: world have concluded after months of review, this transaction creates 244 00:16:36,320 --> 00:16:41,640 Speaker 3: a stronger competitor against dominant streaming and technology platforms who've 245 00:16:41,680 --> 00:16:45,600 Speaker 3: harmed the market for theatrical exhibition and jobs in the 246 00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:47,080 Speaker 3: entertainment industry. 247 00:16:47,800 --> 00:16:51,120 Speaker 1: So that's a clever political statement. It's a bad legal statement. 248 00:16:51,200 --> 00:16:53,280 Speaker 1: I mean, it's not an effective legal statement. But that's 249 00:16:53,280 --> 00:16:55,760 Speaker 1: not supposed to be. I guess, you know, to say that, 250 00:16:55,920 --> 00:16:58,400 Speaker 1: you know, the merger will help streaming is sort of 251 00:16:58,440 --> 00:17:03,640 Speaker 1: irrelevant under base antitrust law, which has not been challenged, 252 00:17:03,640 --> 00:17:06,639 Speaker 1: that you can't justify a merger that hurts competition in 253 00:17:06,680 --> 00:17:09,720 Speaker 1: one market by saying, oh, but look over here, Gosh, 254 00:17:09,760 --> 00:17:12,320 Speaker 1: we've got some help over in a different market. So 255 00:17:12,960 --> 00:17:15,200 Speaker 1: that's not going to work. Now. If you're going to 256 00:17:15,280 --> 00:17:18,720 Speaker 1: somehow say this will help actually it's going to help 257 00:17:18,800 --> 00:17:25,000 Speaker 1: competition in the market for theatrical movie releases, well, you know, 258 00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:28,280 Speaker 1: that's going to be a bit of a hard sell, 259 00:17:28,400 --> 00:17:31,480 Speaker 1: I think, you know, going around in this Although the 260 00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:34,840 Speaker 1: closing statement doesn't mention, there's a lot of talk about 261 00:17:34,880 --> 00:17:40,080 Speaker 1: their promise of thirty new films you know, after this merger, 262 00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:42,960 Speaker 1: and you know a lot of commentaries saying, you know, 263 00:17:43,000 --> 00:17:45,920 Speaker 1: what are you smoking. You know, those sort of promises 264 00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:49,200 Speaker 1: tend to be discounted as a general matter. But people 265 00:17:49,240 --> 00:17:52,240 Speaker 1: pointing out that releases have been contracted a number of 266 00:17:52,359 --> 00:17:55,320 Speaker 1: years ahead with exhibitors. So you know, the idea that 267 00:17:55,320 --> 00:17:57,280 Speaker 1: all of a sudden, you're going to increase output by 268 00:17:57,800 --> 00:18:00,560 Speaker 1: thirty more is going to be up to them to prove. 269 00:18:00,880 --> 00:18:04,160 Speaker 1: That's going to be their burden, you know, the justification. 270 00:18:04,720 --> 00:18:07,280 Speaker 1: You know, it's on them. So I don't know. I mean, 271 00:18:07,320 --> 00:18:09,400 Speaker 1: I assume they will fight it. 272 00:18:09,880 --> 00:18:12,520 Speaker 3: Yeah, they say they're going to vigorously fight it as usual. 273 00:18:13,040 --> 00:18:15,480 Speaker 3: Do you think that this is strong enough? Is it 274 00:18:15,520 --> 00:18:18,960 Speaker 3: a given that a judge will put a hold on 275 00:18:19,040 --> 00:18:21,640 Speaker 3: the merger until this suit is settled? 276 00:18:22,080 --> 00:18:24,960 Speaker 1: So I think that's a great question. I thought about 277 00:18:25,160 --> 00:18:30,359 Speaker 1: how likely that is. My guess is that the States 278 00:18:30,880 --> 00:18:34,720 Speaker 1: are ready to litigate the merits of the case now. 279 00:18:35,320 --> 00:18:37,919 Speaker 1: They have to be prepared to say we want a 280 00:18:37,920 --> 00:18:43,920 Speaker 1: preliminary injunction, and we want it for a week, a month, whatever, 281 00:18:44,160 --> 00:18:46,560 Speaker 1: but a short time, and then we'll have a hearing 282 00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:50,200 Speaker 1: on the merits. Because everyone knows there's a big freight 283 00:18:50,240 --> 00:18:52,720 Speaker 1: train here, there's a lot of money involved. We can't 284 00:18:52,760 --> 00:18:56,080 Speaker 1: hang this up for a year playing around with when 285 00:18:56,080 --> 00:18:58,960 Speaker 1: we're going to litigate it. So if I were, they 286 00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:01,879 Speaker 1: and my guess is Rich Parker and his team is 287 00:19:02,080 --> 00:19:04,600 Speaker 1: ready to do that as well. I mean, the states 288 00:19:04,680 --> 00:19:08,280 Speaker 1: must be stretched. They've got this, you know, Tegna merger 289 00:19:08,640 --> 00:19:12,159 Speaker 1: that they're litigating, and that's that's a big deal. And 290 00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:15,280 Speaker 1: they've got direct TV in with them, so that's helpful. 291 00:19:15,320 --> 00:19:19,240 Speaker 1: But you know, they're not huge offices. I mean, California's 292 00:19:19,240 --> 00:19:22,440 Speaker 1: a lot of people. But still this is big litigation. 293 00:19:23,160 --> 00:19:26,280 Speaker 1: And of course the parties, I mean, they have infinite 294 00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:29,159 Speaker 1: money to throw at this, so you know, they have 295 00:19:29,240 --> 00:19:32,960 Speaker 1: to really be ready to say we've taken lots of depositions, 296 00:19:33,240 --> 00:19:35,359 Speaker 1: we're ready to go. We don't have to do anything more. 297 00:19:35,680 --> 00:19:39,000 Speaker 1: We're ready to litigate this on the merrits. So that's 298 00:19:39,000 --> 00:19:41,560 Speaker 1: what I hope they're ready to do, because I think 299 00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:44,199 Speaker 1: it's going to be really hard given that the second 300 00:19:44,240 --> 00:19:48,359 Speaker 1: request was passed in February. I mean, maybe that's an 301 00:19:48,440 --> 00:19:51,439 Speaker 1: argument that, well, they haven't been so quick to close it. 302 00:19:52,160 --> 00:19:53,920 Speaker 1: Maybe they don't want to close it so quickly. There's 303 00:19:53,960 --> 00:19:56,119 Speaker 1: a problem, maybe a problem with their financing. 304 00:19:56,800 --> 00:20:00,000 Speaker 3: If they don't complete the merger by the thirtieth of September, 305 00:20:00,640 --> 00:20:03,919 Speaker 3: Paramount has to pay Warner shareholders a twenty five percent 306 00:20:04,040 --> 00:20:06,720 Speaker 3: share ticking feed, which amounts to six hundred and fifty 307 00:20:06,800 --> 00:20:10,080 Speaker 3: million per quarter. The numbers are so big lately that 308 00:20:10,119 --> 00:20:11,840 Speaker 3: it's like, is that a lot to them or not? 309 00:20:12,359 --> 00:20:15,080 Speaker 1: Hey, it's a lot to me. I'm not sure that 310 00:20:15,080 --> 00:20:18,359 Speaker 1: that stands in the way, you know, one way or 311 00:20:18,440 --> 00:20:21,480 Speaker 1: the other. I mean, my guess is it's in their 312 00:20:21,520 --> 00:20:24,240 Speaker 1: interest to get this merger going. I mean, they do 313 00:20:24,359 --> 00:20:27,359 Speaker 1: want to do the merger. They fought so hard to 314 00:20:27,440 --> 00:20:30,000 Speaker 1: get it that it's hard for me to imagine that 315 00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:34,600 Speaker 1: it's in their interests to slow walk the litigation. 316 00:20:35,640 --> 00:20:39,160 Speaker 3: Is any of that part of the litigation that the 317 00:20:39,280 --> 00:20:43,240 Speaker 3: Justice Department made this decision because of politics, not because 318 00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:43,760 Speaker 3: of law. 319 00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:46,800 Speaker 1: I don't know how you litigate that in this context. 320 00:20:46,800 --> 00:20:50,720 Speaker 1: It's not like Justice Department is prosecuting you and you're saying, 321 00:20:50,760 --> 00:20:55,880 Speaker 1: you know that prosecution is politically motivated and we shouldn't 322 00:20:55,880 --> 00:20:59,760 Speaker 1: have to answer your subpoenas. So I don't see how 323 00:20:59,800 --> 00:21:03,320 Speaker 1: it's relevant, And it does strike me as something that 324 00:21:03,359 --> 00:21:07,520 Speaker 1: would slow down the litigation, which I don't think the 325 00:21:07,640 --> 00:21:11,159 Speaker 1: States would want. I don't know what they would achieve 326 00:21:11,240 --> 00:21:14,359 Speaker 1: by slowing it down, unless they think that the financing 327 00:21:14,400 --> 00:21:17,280 Speaker 1: would fall apart or the ticking fee would be so 328 00:21:17,480 --> 00:21:20,400 Speaker 1: large that you'll walk away from the merger. It's hard 329 00:21:20,400 --> 00:21:23,840 Speaker 1: for me to see Paramount walking away from this merger. 330 00:21:23,920 --> 00:21:29,159 Speaker 1: They've invested money and political capital in this, and so 331 00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:32,320 Speaker 1: that's hard to see too. So I don't see it. 332 00:21:32,400 --> 00:21:34,720 Speaker 1: You know, you never know, but I mean I see 333 00:21:34,760 --> 00:21:39,720 Speaker 1: a rather careful complaint. Actually not some political broadside. 334 00:21:39,800 --> 00:21:42,560 Speaker 3: Would this be before a judge or a jury? 335 00:21:42,880 --> 00:21:46,800 Speaker 1: So this is before a judge because you're not asking 336 00:21:46,920 --> 00:21:51,639 Speaker 1: for money damages. You're asking for an injunction to stop something, 337 00:21:51,680 --> 00:21:55,399 Speaker 1: so that that sort of remedy is an equitable remedy 338 00:21:55,560 --> 00:21:59,400 Speaker 1: socided by a judge without a jury. So yes, this 339 00:21:59,440 --> 00:22:02,600 Speaker 1: is before judge. You could in theory, and there have 340 00:22:02,680 --> 00:22:06,639 Speaker 1: been cases where parties suffered damages from a merger, but 341 00:22:06,960 --> 00:22:10,080 Speaker 1: this isn't that case, and states aren't asking for it. 342 00:22:10,560 --> 00:22:14,000 Speaker 3: The Attorney general for California did it press conference in 343 00:22:14,040 --> 00:22:18,480 Speaker 3: front of the Hollywood signs, So I think symbolically. 344 00:22:19,520 --> 00:22:22,840 Speaker 1: Well, yeah, there may be politics going on, you know, 345 00:22:22,960 --> 00:22:27,159 Speaker 1: the plaintiff side. It's uh, you know, it's certainly possible. 346 00:22:27,600 --> 00:22:30,720 Speaker 1: But you know, the states have the constraint that the 347 00:22:30,760 --> 00:22:34,040 Speaker 1: Feds don't. The states actually have to go into court 348 00:22:34,080 --> 00:22:38,560 Speaker 1: and prove something before a judge who's got to by 349 00:22:38,720 --> 00:22:41,639 Speaker 1: the law. So, you know, it's one thing when you 350 00:22:41,640 --> 00:22:44,920 Speaker 1: can keep everything in a matter of discretion and throw 351 00:22:44,960 --> 00:22:48,560 Speaker 1: your weight around and you know, sort of fire the 352 00:22:48,560 --> 00:22:51,280 Speaker 1: people who want to enforce the law and do what 353 00:22:51,320 --> 00:22:55,000 Speaker 1: you want and pay enough people, et cetera, and so forth. 354 00:22:55,040 --> 00:22:58,880 Speaker 1: But the states, whatever their political goals, now have to litigate. 355 00:22:59,200 --> 00:23:02,040 Speaker 3: It seems like the states have taken up the burden 356 00:23:02,080 --> 00:23:05,200 Speaker 3: of antitrust regulation in the Trump administration. 357 00:23:05,960 --> 00:23:10,160 Speaker 1: Well they have, and in a way that the need 358 00:23:10,240 --> 00:23:14,600 Speaker 1: for them goes beyond what it had been at other times. 359 00:23:14,640 --> 00:23:19,080 Speaker 1: So the states taking up the you know, antitrust enforcement 360 00:23:19,119 --> 00:23:24,359 Speaker 1: when the Feds pull back, we've seen before, but never 361 00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:28,520 Speaker 1: quite the pullback in this way. And there is one 362 00:23:28,520 --> 00:23:31,240 Speaker 1: other thing that I didn't mention, and we don't know 363 00:23:31,359 --> 00:23:36,000 Speaker 1: exactly how it'll fare. So in the past, you know, 364 00:23:36,080 --> 00:23:39,400 Speaker 1: when the federal government says, you know, this merger is fine, 365 00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:42,520 Speaker 1: and the states have to go into court, it is 366 00:23:42,560 --> 00:23:47,080 Speaker 1: a problem in litigation because you know, federal judges normally 367 00:23:47,119 --> 00:23:51,160 Speaker 1: think that the federal enforcers, you know, are enforcing the law. 368 00:23:51,240 --> 00:23:54,040 Speaker 1: Know what they're doing. I think they're losing that asset 369 00:23:54,160 --> 00:23:57,440 Speaker 1: the Justice Department, And you know, it's like case after 370 00:23:57,600 --> 00:24:01,359 Speaker 1: case and certainly live nation ticket may is like here's 371 00:24:01,400 --> 00:24:04,959 Speaker 1: your shining example where the Feds withdrawal and the States 372 00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:08,679 Speaker 1: go on and litigate the case and win. So you know, 373 00:24:08,960 --> 00:24:12,679 Speaker 1: I don't know that that closing statement, which is not 374 00:24:12,800 --> 00:24:17,400 Speaker 1: extraordinarily persuasive given the case that's been filed, I don't 375 00:24:17,440 --> 00:24:21,639 Speaker 1: know that it'll get that presumption either from a district 376 00:24:21,720 --> 00:24:25,879 Speaker 1: court judge who looks at this history and says, you know, look, 377 00:24:25,960 --> 00:24:28,640 Speaker 1: I know what's going on here. You know. Okay, that's 378 00:24:28,680 --> 00:24:31,840 Speaker 1: what they say. But okay, States, you don't go to 379 00:24:31,880 --> 00:24:33,720 Speaker 1: it and see if you can prove your case. 380 00:24:34,240 --> 00:24:37,240 Speaker 3: Well, watch carefully for the motions that are bound to come. 381 00:24:37,720 --> 00:24:41,040 Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Harry, as always, that's Professor Harry First 382 00:24:41,160 --> 00:24:45,960 Speaker 3: of NYU Law School. Coming up, the impact of Senator 383 00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:51,119 Speaker 3: Lindsay Graham's death on the Judiciary Committee. This is Bloomberg. 384 00:24:52,800 --> 00:24:56,520 Speaker 3: Senator Lindsay Graham's desk in the Senate Chamber today is 385 00:24:56,640 --> 00:24:59,800 Speaker 3: draped in a black shroud with a vase of white 386 00:25:00,080 --> 00:25:03,919 Speaker 3: flowers atop it. Senate Majority Leader John Thune spoke on 387 00:25:03,960 --> 00:25:05,560 Speaker 3: the Senate floor today. 388 00:25:06,520 --> 00:25:09,639 Speaker 4: It's difficult to believe that Lindsey Graham is no longer 389 00:25:09,640 --> 00:25:12,720 Speaker 4: here with us, that we won't run into him at 390 00:25:12,720 --> 00:25:16,040 Speaker 4: Amenia Day or share a joke with him at this 391 00:25:16,119 --> 00:25:20,719 Speaker 4: afternoon's vote. The halls of the Senate already feel empty 392 00:25:20,760 --> 00:25:21,280 Speaker 4: without him. 393 00:25:21,600 --> 00:25:25,760 Speaker 3: Republicans face an uncertain agenda after the death of the 394 00:25:25,800 --> 00:25:30,000 Speaker 3: prominent seventy one year old senator, a committee chairman and 395 00:25:30,119 --> 00:25:33,760 Speaker 3: Keith player who served as a crucial ally of President 396 00:25:33,800 --> 00:25:37,840 Speaker 3: Donald Trump. He died Saturday after a tear in his aorda, 397 00:25:37,920 --> 00:25:42,280 Speaker 3: according to a statement from his office. The unexpected death 398 00:25:42,320 --> 00:25:46,440 Speaker 3: of the longtime Senate Judiciary Committee member leaves the panel 399 00:25:46,560 --> 00:25:50,960 Speaker 3: without one of Trump's staunchest allies as Senator's Way Todd 400 00:25:51,000 --> 00:25:55,879 Speaker 3: Blanche's attorney general nomination and other key picks. Joining me 401 00:25:55,920 --> 00:25:59,320 Speaker 3: is Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond's 402 00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:02,240 Speaker 3: School of Law. Carl Graham has been in the Senate 403 00:26:02,320 --> 00:26:05,840 Speaker 3: for two decades. Tell us about his legacy. 404 00:26:06,040 --> 00:26:11,360 Speaker 5: Well, it's huge in many ways because he was involved 405 00:26:11,400 --> 00:26:17,960 Speaker 5: in so many different important tasks, especially in trying to 406 00:26:18,080 --> 00:26:22,679 Speaker 5: legislate and pass legislation and work with his colleagues on 407 00:26:22,760 --> 00:26:27,040 Speaker 5: both sides of the isle, but especially I think in 408 00:26:27,080 --> 00:26:31,639 Speaker 5: the Judiciary Committee and on foreign policy of course, but 409 00:26:31,800 --> 00:26:39,439 Speaker 5: in Judiciary he really was instrumental in working across the aisle. 410 00:26:40,080 --> 00:26:45,280 Speaker 5: His great legacy will be in preserving the traditions of 411 00:26:45,320 --> 00:26:52,400 Speaker 5: the Senate in terms of the blue slips, which protect 412 00:26:52,520 --> 00:26:57,720 Speaker 5: the prerogatives of home state senators, and in protecting the 413 00:26:57,760 --> 00:27:04,760 Speaker 5: filmbuster and against strong opposition from the White House in 414 00:27:04,880 --> 00:27:09,359 Speaker 5: this administration and in the first Trump administration. So in 415 00:27:09,440 --> 00:27:14,080 Speaker 5: that way he's been a great protector of the customs 416 00:27:14,119 --> 00:27:17,920 Speaker 5: and traditions of the US Senate. And then, more specifically 417 00:27:17,960 --> 00:27:20,040 Speaker 5: in the Judiciary Committee, did. 418 00:27:19,920 --> 00:27:23,679 Speaker 3: He cross party lines in Judiciary Committee votes? 419 00:27:24,080 --> 00:27:29,040 Speaker 5: In terms of Biden's appointees to the lower federal courts 420 00:27:29,080 --> 00:27:35,720 Speaker 5: in his term, he was clearly the most vociferous proponent 421 00:27:36,280 --> 00:27:41,080 Speaker 5: of those nominees, and only on rare occasions would he 422 00:27:41,359 --> 00:27:45,480 Speaker 5: either choose not to vote or vote against them. And 423 00:27:45,640 --> 00:27:50,400 Speaker 5: he was instrumental in bringing along other people and as 424 00:27:50,440 --> 00:27:54,280 Speaker 5: I said before, honoring blue slips and the traditions of 425 00:27:54,320 --> 00:27:54,840 Speaker 5: the Senate. 426 00:27:55,200 --> 00:27:59,280 Speaker 3: So how do things change on the Senate Judiciary Committee 427 00:27:59,720 --> 00:28:02,480 Speaker 3: with him absence, well, it. 428 00:28:02,560 --> 00:28:07,919 Speaker 5: Still would be eleven to ten in terms of a 429 00:28:07,960 --> 00:28:12,280 Speaker 5: party line vote if all the Republicans were to vote 430 00:28:12,280 --> 00:28:16,520 Speaker 5: in favor of any nominee, and so those people would 431 00:28:16,520 --> 00:28:21,320 Speaker 5: go to the floor and then likely have a party 432 00:28:21,359 --> 00:28:25,600 Speaker 5: line vote there as well. So it would only be 433 00:28:25,760 --> 00:28:30,760 Speaker 5: what I think, with someone very controversial, that there's much 434 00:28:30,920 --> 00:28:35,760 Speaker 5: likelihood that people the President nominates would not get out 435 00:28:35,800 --> 00:28:39,760 Speaker 5: of committee. But of course Graham had enormous influence over 436 00:28:39,800 --> 00:28:42,520 Speaker 5: his colleagues on both sides of the eye, and so 437 00:28:42,680 --> 00:28:47,280 Speaker 5: it may be much more difficult to secure agreements on 438 00:28:48,120 --> 00:28:53,640 Speaker 5: controversial issues where it's necessary maybe to get some Democratic votes, 439 00:28:53,960 --> 00:28:55,160 Speaker 5: especially on the floor. 440 00:28:55,680 --> 00:28:58,120 Speaker 3: I mean, what are some of the votes that are 441 00:28:58,240 --> 00:29:02,040 Speaker 3: upcoming that his absence may affect. 442 00:29:02,800 --> 00:29:07,040 Speaker 5: Well, one huge one is the Save Act. There seem 443 00:29:07,120 --> 00:29:10,240 Speaker 5: to be a number of Republicans who are opposed given 444 00:29:10,360 --> 00:29:16,880 Speaker 5: the upcoming elections and protecting their seats and others where 445 00:29:16,920 --> 00:29:21,120 Speaker 5: Republicans are the nominees. But that is one of the 446 00:29:21,200 --> 00:29:25,720 Speaker 5: major losses and Trump even talked about that just the 447 00:29:25,800 --> 00:29:30,720 Speaker 5: other night and that that was a huge loss for 448 00:29:31,240 --> 00:29:34,600 Speaker 5: his efforts to push the Save Act, which he's championed 449 00:29:34,640 --> 00:29:38,000 Speaker 5: for a long time. That is one of the major ones, 450 00:29:38,320 --> 00:29:42,720 Speaker 5: but all kinds of other areas, of course, ranging from 451 00:29:42,920 --> 00:29:49,200 Speaker 5: Ukraine to Israel, foreign policy matters, and then coming back 452 00:29:49,240 --> 00:29:52,040 Speaker 5: to the Judiciary Committee, even on the day to day 453 00:29:52,080 --> 00:29:58,160 Speaker 5: things like approving US attorneys and improving judges there, I 454 00:29:58,200 --> 00:30:03,200 Speaker 5: think Graham could be very influential, and that's a great loss. 455 00:30:03,640 --> 00:30:09,200 Speaker 3: President Trump's nominee to be the next Attorney General, Todd Blanche, 456 00:30:09,840 --> 00:30:13,520 Speaker 3: is coming up this week for hearings, and Graham was 457 00:30:13,560 --> 00:30:16,840 Speaker 3: a supporter of Blanche. Why do you think some people 458 00:30:16,880 --> 00:30:21,520 Speaker 3: are saying that Graham's absence could affect Blanche's confirmation. 459 00:30:22,160 --> 00:30:26,760 Speaker 5: Well, because of the enormous clout that he had and 460 00:30:26,920 --> 00:30:32,800 Speaker 5: his ability to persuade people. So insofar as Republicans might 461 00:30:33,360 --> 00:30:39,200 Speaker 5: be wavering on the floor, Lindsey, Graham could exercise a 462 00:30:39,680 --> 00:30:45,160 Speaker 5: enormous influence over them and attempt to keep them voting 463 00:30:45,240 --> 00:30:49,520 Speaker 5: in a way that would favor Blanche. And so we'll see, 464 00:30:49,680 --> 00:30:52,200 Speaker 5: I mean, what happens on the Senate floor. But I 465 00:30:52,240 --> 00:30:54,760 Speaker 5: still think if you come back to the committee, likely 466 00:30:54,800 --> 00:30:57,960 Speaker 5: to be a party line eleven ten vote, depending on 467 00:30:58,000 --> 00:31:00,440 Speaker 5: what we see in the hearing coming up. Wednesday. 468 00:31:01,200 --> 00:31:03,200 Speaker 3: Sure to come up in those hearings is the so 469 00:31:03,320 --> 00:31:08,320 Speaker 3: called one point eight billion dollar anti weaponization fund, which 470 00:31:08,360 --> 00:31:13,640 Speaker 3: Blanche was behind. A judge wrote a scathing decision on Monday, 471 00:31:14,120 --> 00:31:16,920 Speaker 3: saying that the IRS suit that led to the settlement 472 00:31:17,280 --> 00:31:20,840 Speaker 3: was a bad faith attempt to manipulate the judicial system, 473 00:31:21,200 --> 00:31:24,840 Speaker 3: and she wrote that she was extremely troubled by how 474 00:31:24,920 --> 00:31:29,720 Speaker 3: Blanche had described the proceedings in congressional testimony and had 475 00:31:29,800 --> 00:31:34,200 Speaker 3: ethical concerns about his involvement in the settlement given his 476 00:31:34,320 --> 00:31:36,200 Speaker 3: past representation of Trump. 477 00:31:37,360 --> 00:31:43,240 Speaker 5: I think you're exactly right the anti weaponization fund, and 478 00:31:43,720 --> 00:31:49,280 Speaker 5: people forget the Tax of Unity agreement that he actually 479 00:31:49,440 --> 00:31:54,480 Speaker 5: drafted and appended to the earlier deal. So both of 480 00:31:54,520 --> 00:31:57,680 Speaker 5: those will be front and center and have been for weeks. 481 00:31:58,320 --> 00:32:03,720 Speaker 5: And finally he said that it was dead, the anti 482 00:32:03,760 --> 00:32:08,480 Speaker 5: weaponization fund, but Trump says he likes it and still 483 00:32:08,520 --> 00:32:13,520 Speaker 5: wants it. And when Judge Brinckhama suggested that it'd be 484 00:32:13,600 --> 00:32:17,760 Speaker 5: in writing from Blanche, it didn't happen. So that's a 485 00:32:17,760 --> 00:32:20,800 Speaker 5: little bit in limbo. And I think that's likely to 486 00:32:20,840 --> 00:32:25,080 Speaker 5: be front and center for Democratic members of the committee, 487 00:32:25,360 --> 00:32:29,080 Speaker 5: especially Durban and Coons and white. 488 00:32:28,840 --> 00:32:32,240 Speaker 3: House, so Blanche can't a fortune. Is any Republican votes 489 00:32:32,240 --> 00:32:33,000 Speaker 3: in the committee? 490 00:32:33,200 --> 00:32:37,000 Speaker 5: Yes, that's correct. Then you have to see who there 491 00:32:37,240 --> 00:32:43,120 Speaker 5: is who might vote. Know, and I think people have 492 00:32:43,320 --> 00:32:48,480 Speaker 5: looked at Tom Tillis from North Carolina and what he 493 00:32:48,520 --> 00:32:51,680 Speaker 5: has had to say, but apparently had a very productive 494 00:32:51,760 --> 00:32:56,560 Speaker 5: meeting with Blanche one on one last week and said 495 00:32:56,640 --> 00:33:00,360 Speaker 5: things that were quite positive. So it's not clear. He 496 00:33:00,440 --> 00:33:07,320 Speaker 5: has said that anyone who favors what happened on January sixth, 497 00:33:07,760 --> 00:33:11,600 Speaker 5: twenty twenty one at the Capitol would be a red 498 00:33:11,640 --> 00:33:15,760 Speaker 5: line that he could not cross. But he seems to 499 00:33:15,960 --> 00:33:23,360 Speaker 5: have experienced a charm offensive from the acting Attorney General nominee. 500 00:33:23,480 --> 00:33:24,720 Speaker 5: So we'll see. 501 00:33:24,720 --> 00:33:27,760 Speaker 3: If Blanche's nomination gets out of committee. What about on 502 00:33:27,880 --> 00:33:31,720 Speaker 3: the Senate floor? Was it just a simple majority? 503 00:33:31,840 --> 00:33:35,160 Speaker 5: Yes? And if it's a tie, of course the Vice 504 00:33:35,200 --> 00:33:36,960 Speaker 5: president can break that tie. 505 00:33:37,200 --> 00:33:38,720 Speaker 3: So how many can they afford to lose? 506 00:33:39,440 --> 00:33:43,440 Speaker 5: They now with McConnell out, who may be back or 507 00:33:43,520 --> 00:33:46,680 Speaker 5: may not be back on that vote it was fifty 508 00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:50,160 Speaker 5: three forty seven, it would be fifty one forty seven, 509 00:33:50,640 --> 00:33:52,200 Speaker 5: which becomes pretty close. 510 00:33:53,000 --> 00:33:57,800 Speaker 3: And how long after Todd Blanche's hearings will they vote 511 00:33:58,000 --> 00:34:00,640 Speaker 3: on the nomination in the Judiciary Cause Committee. 512 00:34:01,200 --> 00:34:06,800 Speaker 5: Usually it's about three weeks afterward, the Thursday, three weeks 513 00:34:06,840 --> 00:34:09,840 Speaker 5: out from when the hearing is. I think they would 514 00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:12,279 Speaker 5: like to get that done before they move on to 515 00:34:12,360 --> 00:34:16,279 Speaker 5: August break, which will come on August sixth or so 516 00:34:16,480 --> 00:34:20,440 Speaker 5: or August seven, and then they'll be out until after 517 00:34:20,600 --> 00:34:25,160 Speaker 5: Labor Day. It's pretty tight scheduled to make that because 518 00:34:25,200 --> 00:34:28,640 Speaker 5: there are others in the queue, and it depends on 519 00:34:28,680 --> 00:34:32,480 Speaker 5: how many votes then can squeeze out, and then of 520 00:34:32,520 --> 00:34:33,920 Speaker 5: course people may leave early. 521 00:34:34,600 --> 00:34:38,839 Speaker 3: The governor is going to appoint Graham's sister, so does 522 00:34:38,880 --> 00:34:43,759 Speaker 3: she automatically then go into Graham's seat on the Judiciary Committee. 523 00:34:45,080 --> 00:34:47,919 Speaker 5: I think the short answer is no, and I think 524 00:34:47,920 --> 00:34:53,080 Speaker 5: the long answer is no, partly because remember back to 525 00:34:53,320 --> 00:34:57,000 Speaker 5: a very similar situation with Diane Feinstein just a couple 526 00:34:57,040 --> 00:35:01,840 Speaker 5: of years ago, when she was sick and wouldn't resign, 527 00:35:01,880 --> 00:35:06,400 Speaker 5: and ultimately she died, and they someone from California was 528 00:35:06,920 --> 00:35:10,520 Speaker 5: then appointed and I think then took over her seat, 529 00:35:10,920 --> 00:35:14,359 Speaker 5: but that went on for months. I think you need 530 00:35:14,400 --> 00:35:17,680 Speaker 5: a vote on the Senate floor to approve that person. 531 00:35:18,120 --> 00:35:22,480 Speaker 5: So I don't know that it will move that quickly 532 00:35:23,080 --> 00:35:28,520 Speaker 5: or that she could be equipped to serve. I mean, 533 00:35:28,560 --> 00:35:32,560 Speaker 5: I think the person who's substituted in for Feinstein was 534 00:35:32,600 --> 00:35:36,600 Speaker 5: a lawyer, had considerable expertise, and so I don't know 535 00:35:36,840 --> 00:35:41,480 Speaker 5: about Lindsey Graham's sister in that situation. 536 00:35:42,000 --> 00:35:46,360 Speaker 3: So are there any judicial nominees that are in danger 537 00:35:46,600 --> 00:35:49,759 Speaker 3: because of Graham's absence on the committee? 538 00:35:50,520 --> 00:35:55,080 Speaker 5: I don't think so. Because of what we've been talking 539 00:35:55,080 --> 00:35:57,759 Speaker 5: about about the numbers, it still will come out of 540 00:35:57,800 --> 00:36:03,239 Speaker 5: committee if there are no Republican defectors at eleven ten. 541 00:36:03,719 --> 00:36:07,040 Speaker 5: If it's a party line vote, Assuming so, it would 542 00:36:07,120 --> 00:36:12,640 Speaker 5: have to be somebody who's very controversial, and there's been 543 00:36:12,680 --> 00:36:15,920 Speaker 5: a lot of party line voting, especially on the appellate nominees, 544 00:36:16,200 --> 00:36:18,960 Speaker 5: and so I will see. We can see this week. Actually, 545 00:36:19,120 --> 00:36:22,120 Speaker 5: Matthew Schwartz for the second Circuit will probably have a 546 00:36:22,200 --> 00:36:26,680 Speaker 5: vote on Tuesday. He had culture on party line vote. 547 00:36:27,239 --> 00:36:31,640 Speaker 5: The same with the six Circuit nominee Benjamin Flowers, who 548 00:36:31,680 --> 00:36:33,840 Speaker 5: also may be up this week. And there are some 549 00:36:34,440 --> 00:36:36,879 Speaker 5: district nominees that I think they'll all go through. 550 00:36:37,600 --> 00:36:41,600 Speaker 3: Certainly, the highlight will be the hearings over the nomination 551 00:36:42,040 --> 00:36:46,600 Speaker 3: of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche Thanks so much. Carl. 552 00:36:46,920 --> 00:36:50,640 Speaker 3: That's Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School 553 00:36:50,640 --> 00:36:52,800 Speaker 3: of Law. And that's it for this edition of The 554 00:36:52,840 --> 00:36:55,800 Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest 555 00:36:55,840 --> 00:36:58,960 Speaker 3: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find 556 00:36:58,960 --> 00:37:03,560 Speaker 3: them on Apple podcast, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg 557 00:37:03,600 --> 00:37:07,399 Speaker 3: dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune 558 00:37:07,400 --> 00:37:10,640 Speaker 3: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm 559 00:37:10,719 --> 00:37:14,279 Speaker 3: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to 560 00:37:14,320 --> 00:37:14,880 Speaker 3: Bloomberg