1
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,280 --> 00:00:12,600
Speaker 1: The eyes of the crypto world turned to Washington, DC

3
00:00:12,840 --> 00:00:17,360
Speaker 1: this week as Grayscale Investments faced off against the Securities

4
00:00:17,360 --> 00:00:20,400
Speaker 1: and Exchange Commission with about five and a half billion

5
00:00:20,440 --> 00:00:24,599
Speaker 1: dollars in unlocked value at stake and huge implications for

6
00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:28,440
Speaker 1: the crypto industry. The drama centers on the fourteen point

7
00:00:28,480 --> 00:00:32,360
Speaker 1: eight billion dollar Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, which has been trading

8
00:00:32,400 --> 00:00:36,720
Speaker 1: at a steep discount to the cryptocurrency it holds. Grayscale

9
00:00:36,760 --> 00:00:40,880
Speaker 1: wants to convert its Bitcoin trust into an exchange traded fund,

10
00:00:41,280 --> 00:00:45,280
Speaker 1: but the SEC rejected the plan. In June, the DC

11
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:49,440
Speaker 1: Federal Appeals Court judges grilled the SEC on its decision

12
00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:53,239
Speaker 1: to reject their proposed spot bitcoin ETF when it had

13
00:00:53,280 --> 00:00:57,560
Speaker 1: earlier approved a similar product based on bitcoin futures. Here's

14
00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:01,320
Speaker 1: Chief Circuit Judge Sri Shrine Vassin and Judge Naomi Rao

15
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:06,560
Speaker 1: whether Commission really needs to explain is how it understands

16
00:01:06,560 --> 00:01:11,440
Speaker 1: the relationship between bitcoin futures and the spot price a bitcoin,

17
00:01:11,840 --> 00:01:14,560
Speaker 1: Because it seems to me that these things, I mean,

18
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:17,160
Speaker 1: you know, one is just essentially a derivative of the

19
00:01:17,240 --> 00:01:20,880
Speaker 1: other they moved together in ninety nine point nine percent

20
00:01:20,920 --> 00:01:24,240
Speaker 1: of the time, it's just going to follow like the

21
00:01:24,360 --> 00:01:27,800
Speaker 1: night follows the day that it affects both because the

22
00:01:27,800 --> 00:01:30,279
Speaker 1: futures market, of course, it turns on the spot market.

23
00:01:30,680 --> 00:01:33,800
Speaker 1: Joining me is security's law expert Robert him a partner

24
00:01:33,800 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 1: at Tartar Krinsky and Drogan. Bob tell us. How we

25
00:01:36,680 --> 00:01:40,920
Speaker 1: got to arguments at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Well,

26
00:01:40,920 --> 00:01:45,480
Speaker 1: this all started when Greyscale wanted to create an exchange

27
00:01:45,520 --> 00:01:49,480
Speaker 1: traded product for its Bitcoin trust, and the Bitcoin Trust

28
00:01:49,760 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 1: is priced and trades in actual bitcoins, unlike some of

29
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:56,680
Speaker 1: the other exchange products that are currently on the market

30
00:01:56,760 --> 00:02:01,480
Speaker 1: that concern futures contracts, and as a result, Grayscale and

31
00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:06,320
Speaker 1: an exchange called ARCA applied to the SEC asking permission

32
00:02:06,600 --> 00:02:11,000
Speaker 1: for gray scales Bitcoin Trust to become an exchange traded

33
00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:15,840
Speaker 1: product and be available for retail investors. The SEC rejected

34
00:02:15,880 --> 00:02:20,920
Speaker 1: that proposal in twenty twenty two, and Grayscale sued the

35
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:25,200
Speaker 1: SEC and file the petition with the DC Circuit Court,

36
00:02:25,720 --> 00:02:29,760
Speaker 1: arguing that the SEC's rejection of its request was an

37
00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:33,560
Speaker 1: arbitrary and capricious decision which should be overturned. By the court.

38
00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:39,240
Speaker 1: Why did the SEC reject gray Scales application. The SEC's

39
00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:44,120
Speaker 1: entire argument for why it rejected gray Scales application is

40
00:02:44,160 --> 00:02:47,960
Speaker 1: that gray Scales product with Bitcoin it trades in the

41
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:52,320
Speaker 1: spot market, which means essentially that Grayscale has a trust

42
00:02:52,400 --> 00:02:56,920
Speaker 1: that actually owns bitcoin digital currency, and the current products

43
00:02:56,960 --> 00:02:59,440
Speaker 1: that are on the market that are exchange traded products.

44
00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:04,679
Speaker 1: The underling asset in those products are futures Bitcoin futures contracts,

45
00:03:05,040 --> 00:03:08,680
Speaker 1: and according to the SEC's reasoning, the SEC told the

46
00:03:08,760 --> 00:03:12,079
Speaker 1: court that there's a big difference between those two types

47
00:03:12,120 --> 00:03:16,320
Speaker 1: of structures because with futures contracts, those are regulated products.

48
00:03:16,400 --> 00:03:20,320
Speaker 1: They're overseen by the CME, there's market surveillance, and there's

49
00:03:20,320 --> 00:03:23,720
Speaker 1: all sorts of investor protections in place, whereas with the

50
00:03:23,760 --> 00:03:28,320
Speaker 1: bitcoin spot market, it's essentially an unregulated market. There's no

51
00:03:28,400 --> 00:03:32,280
Speaker 1: regulator that oversees that. As a result, the SEC felt

52
00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:35,120
Speaker 1: that there just wasn't enough safeguards in place for Gray

53
00:03:35,160 --> 00:03:38,880
Speaker 1: Scales trust to warrant it being approved for retail trading.

54
00:03:39,080 --> 00:03:43,400
Speaker 1: And how did Grayscale frame its arguments to the DC circuit.

55
00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:46,200
Speaker 1: What the court specifically is looking at is whether the

56
00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:50,440
Speaker 1: SEC has articulated a reasonable position or not when it

57
00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:54,640
Speaker 1: distinguishes between exchange traded products that are based on futures

58
00:03:55,120 --> 00:03:58,920
Speaker 1: versus exchange traded products that are based on actual bitcoin,

59
00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:02,360
Speaker 1: and arding to Grayscale, their arguments are is that there's

60
00:04:02,360 --> 00:04:05,960
Speaker 1: really no meaningful distinction between the two and that any

61
00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:09,880
Speaker 1: sort of concerns the SEC has about manipulation or fraud

62
00:04:10,360 --> 00:04:14,440
Speaker 1: in the unregulated bitcoin market, you know, essentially also have

63
00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:17,520
Speaker 1: to carry over to the futures market because those futures

64
00:04:17,600 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: contracts are based on this unregulated market. So what gray

65
00:04:21,400 --> 00:04:23,719
Speaker 1: Scales argument to the court is is that the SEC

66
00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:27,480
Speaker 1: is drawing a distinction here that has no real substantive

67
00:04:27,680 --> 00:04:31,920
Speaker 1: weight behind it, and the SEC obviously disagrees with Dad

68
00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:34,479
Speaker 1: and is putting forward its reasons for why it thinks

69
00:04:34,520 --> 00:04:38,080
Speaker 1: there's a difference between the two markets. In the oral arguments,

70
00:04:38,120 --> 00:04:41,880
Speaker 1: the judges seem to be grilling the SEC's attorney more

71
00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:44,800
Speaker 1: than gray Scale's attorney. The judges really seem to be

72
00:04:44,839 --> 00:04:47,720
Speaker 1: picking up a lot of the points that gray Scale

73
00:04:47,880 --> 00:04:51,040
Speaker 1: raised in their briefs, especially when it was the SEC's

74
00:04:51,120 --> 00:04:54,440
Speaker 1: lawyer's turn to argue. The judges were really pressing the

75
00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:58,760
Speaker 1: SEC to explain and justify the position that there is

76
00:04:58,800 --> 00:05:02,599
Speaker 1: some sort of meaningful distinction between the bitcoin futures market

77
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:06,320
Speaker 1: and the bitcoin spot market. And from listening to the

78
00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:10,240
Speaker 1: judges questions and seeing how they responded to the arguments,

79
00:05:10,640 --> 00:05:13,440
Speaker 1: it seemed like the judges were really not convinced by

80
00:05:13,440 --> 00:05:16,560
Speaker 1: the SEC's arguments that there was a valid basis between

81
00:05:16,600 --> 00:05:21,479
Speaker 1: distinguishing these different types of exchange traded products. Tell us

82
00:05:21,520 --> 00:05:24,560
Speaker 1: about the different ways the Court could rule here. So

83
00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:27,760
Speaker 1: I think there's still a lot of uncertainty ahead for Grayscale,

84
00:05:27,800 --> 00:05:30,560
Speaker 1: because the Court here can do a few different things.

85
00:05:30,800 --> 00:05:33,919
Speaker 1: One of course, it could agree with the SEC that

86
00:05:34,040 --> 00:05:36,640
Speaker 1: there is some sort of reasonable basis for the arguments

87
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:40,720
Speaker 1: that the SEC is making, And the court's role is

88
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:43,760
Speaker 1: really not to sit in second guests the SEC and

89
00:05:43,839 --> 00:05:48,040
Speaker 1: to substitute its judgment for the SEC's judgment. The courts

90
00:05:48,080 --> 00:05:51,159
Speaker 1: they are really to ensure the SEC hasn't gone off

91
00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:54,440
Speaker 1: the rails and has not presented any sort of reasonable

92
00:05:54,520 --> 00:05:57,560
Speaker 1: argument for its position. If the Court finds that there's

93
00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:01,680
Speaker 1: even some reasonableness to the section, it could very well

94
00:06:01,760 --> 00:06:06,480
Speaker 1: sustain the SEC's position and uphold the denial of the listing.

95
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:12,560
Speaker 1: Gray Scales argument is that the SEC's position is just arbitrary, capricious,

96
00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:16,800
Speaker 1: and their lawyer, Donald Barelli, who is the former Solicitor

97
00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:19,960
Speaker 1: General of the United States, made the point in his

98
00:06:20,080 --> 00:06:23,280
Speaker 1: argument that this is a very different case because gray

99
00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:27,039
Speaker 1: Scale is actually asking for more regulation. They've applied to

100
00:06:27,080 --> 00:06:30,880
Speaker 1: the SEC to become a regulated exchange traded product, and

101
00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:33,960
Speaker 1: they want that SEC regulation in order to offer and

102
00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:36,960
Speaker 1: trade their shares because right now this is traded in

103
00:06:37,000 --> 00:06:39,880
Speaker 1: the over the counter market, which is subject to a

104
00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:43,800
Speaker 1: lot less regulation. So gray Scale is actually arguing that

105
00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:46,560
Speaker 1: they want to come under SEC regulation for this product.

106
00:06:46,800 --> 00:06:49,040
Speaker 1: And what's your best guess about how the court might

107
00:06:49,160 --> 00:06:52,000
Speaker 1: rule here. You never really know in litigation how things

108
00:06:52,000 --> 00:06:53,880
Speaker 1: are going to come out, even though some of the

109
00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:57,000
Speaker 1: questions seem to be favorable to gray Scale, and the

110
00:06:57,040 --> 00:06:59,400
Speaker 1: Court could still do a couple of things. Even if

111
00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:02,680
Speaker 1: it doesn't rule outright in favor of the SEC. It

112
00:07:02,800 --> 00:07:05,640
Speaker 1: could rule in favor of Grayscale and just overturn the

113
00:07:05,720 --> 00:07:09,800
Speaker 1: SEC's decision and allow the fund to begin trading. Or

114
00:07:10,320 --> 00:07:13,040
Speaker 1: kind of a middle ground approach is that the Court

115
00:07:13,080 --> 00:07:15,960
Speaker 1: could send it back to the SEC and say you

116
00:07:16,000 --> 00:07:19,800
Speaker 1: need to reconsider this because we don't find your reasoning persuasive,

117
00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:23,000
Speaker 1: and I think that might be the most likely scenario,

118
00:07:23,640 --> 00:07:27,360
Speaker 1: especially given the recent blow up of FTX and all

119
00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:30,440
Speaker 1: the problems that have been occurring in the crypto market.

120
00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:32,360
Speaker 1: I think the judges are going to be reluctant to

121
00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:35,760
Speaker 1: just replace the SEC's judgment with their own and say

122
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:39,040
Speaker 1: that this exchange fund can now begin trading which is

123
00:07:39,080 --> 00:07:41,520
Speaker 1: based on bitcoin. There may be a lot of reluctance

124
00:07:41,760 --> 00:07:44,480
Speaker 1: on the judge's part to do that, and it may

125
00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:47,040
Speaker 1: be more comfortable for them to send it back to

126
00:07:47,080 --> 00:07:50,360
Speaker 1: the SEC with more guidance and have the SEC take

127
00:07:50,360 --> 00:07:53,080
Speaker 1: a second look at this. Do you think that a

128
00:07:53,200 --> 00:08:00,320
Speaker 1: spot bitcoin ETF protects investors better? As the really argued? Well,

129
00:08:00,360 --> 00:08:03,800
Speaker 1: I think that the SEC's arguments were fairly weak. While

130
00:08:03,920 --> 00:08:08,080
Speaker 1: their concerns about fraud and manipulation are well justified in

131
00:08:08,160 --> 00:08:13,280
Speaker 1: the bitcoin market. The SEC specifically mentioned things like wash trading,

132
00:08:13,400 --> 00:08:17,240
Speaker 1: insider trading, hacking. You know, those are all very legitimate

133
00:08:17,320 --> 00:08:20,920
Speaker 1: concerns that need to be addressed, But the SEC really,

134
00:08:21,080 --> 00:08:23,480
Speaker 1: in my opinion, didn't do a very good job of

135
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:27,960
Speaker 1: explaining why those same risks are less when you have

136
00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:32,080
Speaker 1: a futures product based on bitcoin, And it seems to

137
00:08:32,120 --> 00:08:34,880
Speaker 1: the judges and to me that there really are the

138
00:08:34,960 --> 00:08:39,560
Speaker 1: same risks. And the interesting thing about the Grayscale case too,

139
00:08:39,600 --> 00:08:42,199
Speaker 1: is that there's been a number of amiki that have

140
00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:45,120
Speaker 1: filed Friends of the Court briefs, and in some of

141
00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:48,040
Speaker 1: those briefs there was some pretty compelling arguments made about

142
00:08:48,040 --> 00:08:51,880
Speaker 1: all the steps that the exchanges and other service providers

143
00:08:51,960 --> 00:08:54,560
Speaker 1: take to try to address those sort of fraudulent and

144
00:08:54,679 --> 00:08:58,840
Speaker 1: manipulative practices in the bitcoin spot market. Grayscale has said

145
00:08:58,920 --> 00:09:01,800
Speaker 1: that if it loses, it will appeal to the Supreme

146
00:09:01,880 --> 00:09:05,079
Speaker 1: Court and that if it loses, it may try a

147
00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:07,560
Speaker 1: tender offer. Do you think the Supreme Court would take

148
00:09:07,559 --> 00:09:10,440
Speaker 1: this case? Well, this case has more going for it

149
00:09:10,440 --> 00:09:13,480
Speaker 1: than the average case. It is a very important case

150
00:09:13,600 --> 00:09:17,400
Speaker 1: to the crypto industry, as is evidenced from the fact

151
00:09:17,480 --> 00:09:21,640
Speaker 1: that so many amicus briefs were filed, and bitcoin is

152
00:09:21,679 --> 00:09:25,200
Speaker 1: the largest digital currency by far its market cap is

153
00:09:25,240 --> 00:09:29,040
Speaker 1: four hundred billion. The gray Scale Trust itself has twelve

154
00:09:29,040 --> 00:09:31,960
Speaker 1: billion of bitcoin, so this is clearly a case that

155
00:09:32,040 --> 00:09:38,320
Speaker 1: has national implications and importance for a developing industry. And

156
00:09:38,559 --> 00:09:40,960
Speaker 1: as of the last few years, the Supreme Court has

157
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:44,280
Speaker 1: also shown an interest in taking cases where the SEC

158
00:09:44,400 --> 00:09:46,839
Speaker 1: has been a respondent, because there are a number of

159
00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:49,160
Speaker 1: cases that have come out over the last five years

160
00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:52,160
Speaker 1: where the SEC has lost at the Supreme Court because

161
00:09:52,200 --> 00:09:55,920
Speaker 1: the Court viewed the Commission is either overstepping its boundaries

162
00:09:56,040 --> 00:09:59,320
Speaker 1: or acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. So I

163
00:09:59,360 --> 00:10:02,120
Speaker 1: do think that this cases more than an average cases

164
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:05,240
Speaker 1: chance of success in being taken up by the Supreme Court.

165
00:10:05,320 --> 00:10:07,679
Speaker 1: But still it's a very small percentage of cases are

166
00:10:07,920 --> 00:10:10,760
Speaker 1: taken by the Supreme Court. Yes, smaller and smaller every year,

167
00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:14,840
Speaker 1: it seems. Something So, And what about Grayscale trying a

168
00:10:14,880 --> 00:10:17,120
Speaker 1: tender offer? You know, I think that's going to be

169
00:10:17,160 --> 00:10:21,640
Speaker 1: an interesting option. You know, it's clearly PLANEDZ. I think

170
00:10:21,880 --> 00:10:25,400
Speaker 1: for Grayscale it's not an ideal solution because it's going

171
00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:28,160
Speaker 1: to be quite a bit more costly. It's a different

172
00:10:28,160 --> 00:10:32,040
Speaker 1: regulatory path that's involved, and I think that Grayscale would

173
00:10:32,120 --> 00:10:35,400
Speaker 1: much prefer to have this product traded in the market,

174
00:10:35,600 --> 00:10:39,199
Speaker 1: and it would also allow it to grow and to

175
00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:42,520
Speaker 1: really set this standard. The tender offer may be something

176
00:10:42,600 --> 00:10:44,920
Speaker 1: that they would look at. I don't think they've really

177
00:10:45,080 --> 00:10:47,920
Speaker 1: fleshed out the idea very much in terms of pricing

178
00:10:47,960 --> 00:10:51,239
Speaker 1: and valuation and how that would work with the discount

179
00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:54,319
Speaker 1: to the market, whether the tenderoffer would be made at

180
00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:57,319
Speaker 1: some premium or whether it would be the full discount.

181
00:10:57,520 --> 00:10:59,360
Speaker 1: So I think there's a lot of open questions on

182
00:10:59,440 --> 00:11:03,000
Speaker 1: the tender for plan. Still, has the SEC been cracking

183
00:11:03,080 --> 00:11:07,040
Speaker 1: down on digital asset products in general, Yes, I would

184
00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:10,720
Speaker 1: say so. Ever since the new chair came in, Gary Gensler,

185
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:15,480
Speaker 1: he's been very aggressive in terms of tackling the cryptocurrency

186
00:11:16,120 --> 00:11:19,400
Speaker 1: issues and digital asset issues. There has been a number

187
00:11:19,400 --> 00:11:24,439
Speaker 1: of enforcement cases under his tenure against digital asset companies.

188
00:11:24,840 --> 00:11:27,200
Speaker 1: I would say it's it's a real effort on the

189
00:11:27,280 --> 00:11:31,760
Speaker 1: SEC's part to expand their turf and to bring these

190
00:11:31,800 --> 00:11:36,240
Speaker 1: digital assets under the umbrella of securities regulation and everything

191
00:11:36,240 --> 00:11:40,040
Speaker 1: that goes with it in terms of disclosures and regulation

192
00:11:40,080 --> 00:11:44,920
Speaker 1: of trading platforms and all of the surveillance and so forth.

193
00:11:45,040 --> 00:11:49,120
Speaker 1: So yes, and that emphasis only got stronger in the

194
00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:53,160
Speaker 1: wake of the FTX collapse and really brought that to

195
00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:56,360
Speaker 1: the top of the SEC's agenda in terms of regulating

196
00:11:56,360 --> 00:12:01,800
Speaker 1: digital assets and cryptocurrencies. So the SEC has rejected several

197
00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:06,760
Speaker 1: applications for ETF similar to this. If the court rules

198
00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:12,440
Speaker 1: against the SEC here, will it have to reconsider those applications.

199
00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:16,480
Speaker 1: Not necessarily because this case is going to be limited

200
00:12:16,600 --> 00:12:19,880
Speaker 1: just a gray scale, but if the SEC loses, those

201
00:12:19,920 --> 00:12:24,160
Speaker 1: other funds certainly may want to reapply to the SEC

202
00:12:24,440 --> 00:12:27,520
Speaker 1: and get the benefit of any sort of favorable decision

203
00:12:27,720 --> 00:12:30,840
Speaker 1: on that. And it's an interesting point the SEC is

204
00:12:30,880 --> 00:12:34,400
Speaker 1: making because the gray Scales almost their entire argument is

205
00:12:34,440 --> 00:12:38,640
Speaker 1: that the SEC is treating their bitcoin fund differently than

206
00:12:38,679 --> 00:12:43,120
Speaker 1: the exchange traded products that were approved, even though essentially

207
00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:48,439
Speaker 1: in gray scale's view, they're economically very, very similar, and

208
00:12:48,800 --> 00:12:51,480
Speaker 1: the SEC notes that, well, you know, in their view,

209
00:12:51,520 --> 00:12:53,920
Speaker 1: that's not the case. The SEC says that they've been

210
00:12:54,040 --> 00:12:58,679
Speaker 1: very consistent in terms of rejecting exchange traded products that

211
00:12:59,000 --> 00:13:02,199
Speaker 1: were based on bitcoin spot prices, just like here, though

212
00:13:02,240 --> 00:13:05,480
Speaker 1: the SEC is arguing to the court the relevant comparison

213
00:13:05,600 --> 00:13:09,920
Speaker 1: is not looking at futures based funds to spot based funds,

214
00:13:09,960 --> 00:13:13,440
Speaker 1: but the relevant consideration is how did the SEC treat

215
00:13:13,640 --> 00:13:18,040
Speaker 1: other spot funds, And they've rejected those applications too, So

216
00:13:18,120 --> 00:13:21,319
Speaker 1: in the SEC's view, they are being consistent in the

217
00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:24,200
Speaker 1: way they're treating gray Scale because they've rejected gray Scale

218
00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:27,560
Speaker 1: just like they've rejected other spot ETF types of funds

219
00:13:27,559 --> 00:13:30,960
Speaker 1: for bitcoin. A lot of people interested in this decision,

220
00:13:31,040 --> 00:13:34,679
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert him of Tartar, Krinsky

221
00:13:34,720 --> 00:13:40,319
Speaker 1: and Drogen. Special Counsel Jack Smith is moving aggressively in

222
00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:45,439
Speaker 1: his investigation, subpoenaing former Vice President Mike Pence, former White

223
00:13:45,440 --> 00:13:49,080
Speaker 1: House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and several of Trump's

224
00:13:49,080 --> 00:13:53,320
Speaker 1: attorneys to testify before the grand jury. Multiple news outlets

225
00:13:53,320 --> 00:13:56,320
Speaker 1: are reporting that the special counsel is asking a judge

226
00:13:56,360 --> 00:14:00,920
Speaker 1: to bypass the attorney client privilege claims made by Trump's attorney,

227
00:14:00,920 --> 00:14:04,560
Speaker 1: Evan Corkran due to the crime fraud exception. Joining me

228
00:14:04,640 --> 00:14:08,520
Speaker 1: is former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner McCarter and English.

229
00:14:08,960 --> 00:14:13,400
Speaker 1: Trump's attorney, Evan Corkran had raised attorney client privilege claims,

230
00:14:13,800 --> 00:14:17,320
Speaker 1: but the special counsel is asking the judge to bypass

231
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:21,720
Speaker 1: those claims of attorney client privilege by invoking the crime

232
00:14:21,760 --> 00:14:26,120
Speaker 1: fraud exception. Explain what the crime fraud exception is. The

233
00:14:26,200 --> 00:14:30,120
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege is a broad privilege that protects all

234
00:14:30,160 --> 00:14:34,760
Speaker 1: communications between a client and an attorney, whether it's information

235
00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:36,800
Speaker 1: that the client is giving to the attorney in or

236
00:14:36,880 --> 00:14:40,040
Speaker 1: to seek legal advice or advice that the attorney is

237
00:14:40,080 --> 00:14:43,240
Speaker 1: giving to the client. But there is one exception to

238
00:14:43,400 --> 00:14:46,480
Speaker 1: that that is often used by prosecutors, and that's something

239
00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:49,840
Speaker 1: called the crime fraud exception. What that means is that

240
00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:52,920
Speaker 1: there's an exception where there's reason to believe that the

241
00:14:53,040 --> 00:14:56,880
Speaker 1: legal advice that the attorney is giving is being used

242
00:14:56,920 --> 00:14:59,560
Speaker 1: in furtherance of a crime. So, in other words, of

243
00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:01,840
Speaker 1: a client and comes in and talks about something they

244
00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:04,400
Speaker 1: did in the past, that would all be covered by

245
00:15:04,440 --> 00:15:08,160
Speaker 1: the privilege, even though the prior conduct may constitute a crime.

246
00:15:08,400 --> 00:15:11,640
Speaker 1: What you cannot do is close your conversations with your

247
00:15:11,640 --> 00:15:16,320
Speaker 1: attorney going forward if you're talking about a prospective crime.

248
00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:19,520
Speaker 1: So if you're asking for advice from an attorney about

249
00:15:19,640 --> 00:15:22,680
Speaker 1: conduct that may in and of itself be criminal and

250
00:15:22,720 --> 00:15:25,280
Speaker 1: has not yet occurred, that is something that does not

251
00:15:25,320 --> 00:15:28,000
Speaker 1: fall within the attorney client privilege, but is something called

252
00:15:28,000 --> 00:15:31,480
Speaker 1: the crime fraud exception. What does it tell you that

253
00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:36,000
Speaker 1: the special counsel is invoking that here? Does it tell

254
00:15:36,000 --> 00:15:39,360
Speaker 1: you just that they suspect that a crime was committed,

255
00:15:39,960 --> 00:15:44,240
Speaker 1: or that they suspect the lawyer was involved in the crime. Well,

256
00:15:44,280 --> 00:15:47,240
Speaker 1: in this case, mister Corkran was among at least three

257
00:15:47,320 --> 00:15:50,520
Speaker 1: lawyers for a former President Trump who appeared before a

258
00:15:50,560 --> 00:15:54,560
Speaker 1: grand jury in January as part of the investigation into

259
00:15:54,600 --> 00:16:00,920
Speaker 1: classified documents discovered at former President's Trump Maralago's residence in Florida.

260
00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:05,040
Speaker 1: And during the course of that investigation, mister Corkran emerged

261
00:16:05,080 --> 00:16:08,960
Speaker 1: as a figure of interest because federal investigators spoke to

262
00:16:09,040 --> 00:16:12,240
Speaker 1: him about the fact that he handled mister Trump's response

263
00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:15,960
Speaker 1: is the government's request to return those records that the

264
00:16:16,040 --> 00:16:18,760
Speaker 1: government said belonged to the presidency and did not belong

265
00:16:18,800 --> 00:16:21,680
Speaker 1: to mister Trump personally. And in fact, there came a

266
00:16:21,760 --> 00:16:24,920
Speaker 1: point in time where there was a statement that was

267
00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:28,400
Speaker 1: signed by another attorney, not by mister Corkrane, where that

268
00:16:28,480 --> 00:16:30,760
Speaker 1: attorney vouched for the fact that they had done a

269
00:16:30,800 --> 00:16:34,680
Speaker 1: diligent search of Marilago and did not believe that they

270
00:16:34,680 --> 00:16:39,400
Speaker 1: were any classified documents located at the former president's resident.

271
00:16:39,840 --> 00:16:43,240
Speaker 1: Following that, we all know the federal government came in.

272
00:16:43,280 --> 00:16:46,640
Speaker 1: The FBI came in and did a search of Marilago

273
00:16:46,720 --> 00:16:50,480
Speaker 1: and found additional classified documents. And still likely what they

274
00:16:50,520 --> 00:16:53,240
Speaker 1: want to talk to mister Corkran about is what he

275
00:16:53,440 --> 00:16:57,120
Speaker 1: did in terms of looking for those documents and whether

276
00:16:57,280 --> 00:17:00,840
Speaker 1: or not his conversations with former President Trump in any

277
00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:06,199
Speaker 1: way facilitated and obstruction of justice crime. Going forward, do

278
00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:11,240
Speaker 1: prosecutors often invoke the crime fraud exception or is it unusual?

279
00:17:11,640 --> 00:17:14,440
Speaker 1: The crime fraud excepts is not something that comes up

280
00:17:14,480 --> 00:17:19,399
Speaker 1: all the time because judges are generally pretty wary of

281
00:17:19,600 --> 00:17:23,320
Speaker 1: piercing the attorney client privilege. It is such a bedrock

282
00:17:23,440 --> 00:17:26,919
Speaker 1: concept in our protections and our civil rights in the

283
00:17:26,960 --> 00:17:30,919
Speaker 1: way that individuals are able to talk to their attorneys

284
00:17:30,960 --> 00:17:33,200
Speaker 1: and they have to be able to believe that all

285
00:17:33,240 --> 00:17:36,800
Speaker 1: the conversations with their attorneys are protected in order to

286
00:17:36,840 --> 00:17:39,359
Speaker 1: get fair legal advice. You can't be in a situation

287
00:17:39,520 --> 00:17:42,400
Speaker 1: where a client is fearful that the information that he's

288
00:17:42,440 --> 00:17:44,680
Speaker 1: giving he or she is giving to his attorney will

289
00:17:44,720 --> 00:17:47,840
Speaker 1: somehow be made public. On the other hand, where it's

290
00:17:47,920 --> 00:17:50,879
Speaker 1: clear and organized crime cases are One example that I

291
00:17:50,960 --> 00:17:54,399
Speaker 1: prosecuted and we did see this come up time and again,

292
00:17:54,920 --> 00:17:58,320
Speaker 1: is where an outside council can be used not to

293
00:17:58,480 --> 00:18:02,080
Speaker 1: give advice to a client about some prior conduct at

294
00:18:02,080 --> 00:18:04,800
Speaker 1: defense against the potential criminal charge. It could be brought

295
00:18:04,800 --> 00:18:08,200
Speaker 1: down the road, but lawyers have been used in order

296
00:18:08,240 --> 00:18:12,399
Speaker 1: to help guide organized crime figures and other criminals in

297
00:18:12,560 --> 00:18:15,520
Speaker 1: terms of perpetrating crimes in the future. And that's where

298
00:18:15,560 --> 00:18:18,520
Speaker 1: you see a piercing of the attorney client privilege based

299
00:18:18,560 --> 00:18:21,480
Speaker 1: upon the crime product exception. So while it's unusual, it's

300
00:18:21,480 --> 00:18:27,200
Speaker 1: certainly not unheard of. Since Jack Smith was appointed special counsel,

301
00:18:27,320 --> 00:18:31,840
Speaker 1: does it seem as if his department is moving aggressively

302
00:18:32,119 --> 00:18:37,000
Speaker 1: their subpoenaing former Vice President Mike Penson, former White House

303
00:18:37,040 --> 00:18:40,600
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, And here you have they're

304
00:18:40,600 --> 00:18:43,240
Speaker 1: trying to get more information out of the lawyers. I

305
00:18:43,240 --> 00:18:46,040
Speaker 1: wouldn't call it aggressive, but I would call it mindful

306
00:18:46,080 --> 00:18:49,720
Speaker 1: of the fact that the presidential election is approaching, the

307
00:18:49,800 --> 00:18:53,720
Speaker 1: presidential primaries are approaching, and there is a general rule

308
00:18:53,800 --> 00:18:56,320
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice that you do not want

309
00:18:56,320 --> 00:18:59,520
Speaker 1: to return indictments so close in time to an election.

310
00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:03,000
Speaker 1: They could in some way impact that election. So while

311
00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:05,600
Speaker 1: on the one hand, as the prosecutor and someone who's

312
00:19:05,640 --> 00:19:07,919
Speaker 1: going to be careful and thorough, you want to make

313
00:19:07,960 --> 00:19:10,760
Speaker 1: sure you're dinning while your eyes, you're crossing your keys.

314
00:19:11,119 --> 00:19:13,280
Speaker 1: You want to take your time and build your case

315
00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:15,680
Speaker 1: to make sure if you do seek an indictment from

316
00:19:15,680 --> 00:19:18,520
Speaker 1: the grand jury, that it's a strong one and ultimately

317
00:19:18,520 --> 00:19:20,480
Speaker 1: you're going to be able to convict when you get

318
00:19:20,520 --> 00:19:23,399
Speaker 1: to trial. On the other hand, in a sense, the

319
00:19:23,440 --> 00:19:27,680
Speaker 1: special prosecutor is racing against the political clock, because clearly

320
00:19:27,880 --> 00:19:29,480
Speaker 1: he does not want to be in a position where

321
00:19:29,520 --> 00:19:32,879
Speaker 1: he's returning an indictment close in time to the primaries

322
00:19:32,960 --> 00:19:35,760
Speaker 1: or close in time for the presidential election, such that

323
00:19:35,880 --> 00:19:38,159
Speaker 1: there can be an argument that could be made that

324
00:19:38,359 --> 00:19:41,280
Speaker 1: is in some way political interference with the outcome of

325
00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:45,560
Speaker 1: the election. As far as the subpoena of Mike Pants,

326
00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:50,359
Speaker 1: let's talk first about what former President Trump is trying

327
00:19:50,400 --> 00:19:54,440
Speaker 1: to do to block that subpoena, or at least to

328
00:19:54,680 --> 00:20:00,520
Speaker 1: block specific issues he claims were covered by executive privilege.

329
00:20:01,240 --> 00:20:05,800
Speaker 1: Former President Trump has repeatedly invoked the legal protection of

330
00:20:05,880 --> 00:20:08,639
Speaker 1: executive privilege to try to block the testimony of his

331
00:20:08,800 --> 00:20:12,720
Speaker 1: allies from subpoenas related to the January sixth attack on

332
00:20:12,760 --> 00:20:16,399
Speaker 1: the US capital. In this case, he has thought to

333
00:20:16,520 --> 00:20:20,000
Speaker 1: block the testimony of former President Might Tense on the

334
00:20:20,000 --> 00:20:24,760
Speaker 1: basis that that is also covered by executive privilege. Executive

335
00:20:24,760 --> 00:20:27,359
Speaker 1: privilege is a legal protection for the president of the

336
00:20:27,400 --> 00:20:30,120
Speaker 1: United States that allows them to shield some of their

337
00:20:30,160 --> 00:20:34,240
Speaker 1: private communications from Congress and the course, and basically, at

338
00:20:34,280 --> 00:20:38,679
Speaker 1: its core, it is designed to allow presidential advisors to

339
00:20:38,800 --> 00:20:43,000
Speaker 1: give candidate advice free from fear of public disclosure, to

340
00:20:43,080 --> 00:20:47,040
Speaker 1: allow presidents to deliberate productively, to have all the information

341
00:20:47,080 --> 00:20:49,560
Speaker 1: they may need in order to make a decision without

342
00:20:49,720 --> 00:20:53,520
Speaker 1: the fear that those discussions would someday become public. In

343
00:20:53,560 --> 00:20:57,160
Speaker 1: this case, there's a question about whether the former president

344
00:20:57,359 --> 00:21:00,560
Speaker 1: has a right to invoke executive privilege. That's something that

345
00:21:00,600 --> 00:21:03,679
Speaker 1: has been tested by the courts, and in most instances

346
00:21:03,680 --> 00:21:07,320
Speaker 1: the courts have ruled against former President Trump. In addition,

347
00:21:07,440 --> 00:21:11,400
Speaker 1: executive privilege is clearly not something that is absolute, and

348
00:21:11,560 --> 00:21:15,040
Speaker 1: generally the courts have held that if the information that

349
00:21:15,200 --> 00:21:17,960
Speaker 1: is being sought is in connective with a criminal investigation

350
00:21:18,440 --> 00:21:22,960
Speaker 1: that overrides executive privilege, is it more for the current

351
00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:27,760
Speaker 1: president than a prior president. The question of whether a

352
00:21:27,800 --> 00:21:32,520
Speaker 1: former president can invoke executive privilege is still somewhat unsettled.

353
00:21:33,040 --> 00:21:36,840
Speaker 1: President Nixon tried to invoke executive privilege after he left

354
00:21:36,920 --> 00:21:41,679
Speaker 1: office when prosecutors were seeking tapes in connection with the

355
00:21:41,760 --> 00:21:45,200
Speaker 1: Watergate break, and in that case, we know Nixon lost

356
00:21:45,280 --> 00:21:47,679
Speaker 1: the case. He had to turn over the tape, but

357
00:21:47,800 --> 00:21:50,720
Speaker 1: the court was never entirely clear on the question of

358
00:21:50,760 --> 00:21:54,720
Speaker 1: whether a former president could exercise executive privilege or not.

359
00:21:54,960 --> 00:21:56,879
Speaker 1: So far, in the cases that have been tested by

360
00:21:56,920 --> 00:22:00,600
Speaker 1: former President Trump, he has not prevailed. In most cases,

361
00:22:00,600 --> 00:22:02,199
Speaker 1: of course, never a looted on the fact that the

362
00:22:02,200 --> 00:22:05,320
Speaker 1: information that was thought was done in connection with a

363
00:22:05,440 --> 00:22:09,440
Speaker 1: criminal investigation, and that is something that the Supreme Court

364
00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:13,080
Speaker 1: has always acknowledged will outweigh the protection of executive privilege.

365
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:18,000
Speaker 1: Mike Pence himself is not using an executive privilege argument.

366
00:22:18,240 --> 00:22:21,400
Speaker 1: He's using the speech and debate clause. I think it's

367
00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:23,800
Speaker 1: the first time it's been used by a vice president

368
00:22:23,840 --> 00:22:27,280
Speaker 1: in these kinds of circumstances. Explain what that's about. The

369
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:30,959
Speaker 1: speech or debate clause is designed as a safeguard against

370
00:22:30,960 --> 00:22:36,240
Speaker 1: politically motivated civil litigation or criminal prosecutions that can kill

371
00:22:36,359 --> 00:22:41,520
Speaker 1: congressional debate or arguably intimidate legislators. In this case, the

372
00:22:41,640 --> 00:22:45,200
Speaker 1: former Vice president Pence is calling the subpoena by the

373
00:22:45,280 --> 00:22:50,439
Speaker 1: Special Council unconstitutional, arguing that the executive branch cannot summon

374
00:22:50,520 --> 00:22:53,640
Speaker 1: officials in the legislative branch into court or in any

375
00:22:53,640 --> 00:22:57,440
Speaker 1: other place. The facts here are that as Vice president,

376
00:22:58,040 --> 00:23:00,840
Speaker 1: Vice President Pence with a member of the executive branch

377
00:23:01,119 --> 00:23:04,240
Speaker 1: during the Trump administration, but also held a unique role

378
00:23:04,560 --> 00:23:08,080
Speaker 1: as all vice presidents do, as also acting as President

379
00:23:08,080 --> 00:23:10,880
Speaker 1: of the Senate, and he does preside over the joint

380
00:23:10,920 --> 00:23:13,760
Speaker 1: session of Congress, in this case, the one that certified

381
00:23:13,800 --> 00:23:17,240
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty electoral vogue count. The Vice president also

382
00:23:17,320 --> 00:23:20,879
Speaker 1: acts in the legislative capacity by breaking ties in the Senate.

383
00:23:21,040 --> 00:23:24,879
Speaker 1: So the argument in support of his contention that the

384
00:23:24,920 --> 00:23:27,800
Speaker 1: Special Council is not in pedal to subpoena him in

385
00:23:27,920 --> 00:23:31,280
Speaker 1: connection with his role and certifying the twenty twenty election

386
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:34,600
Speaker 1: is that he was acting in the legislative capacity rather

387
00:23:34,640 --> 00:23:39,240
Speaker 1: than an executive capacity when he was deciding whether or

388
00:23:39,280 --> 00:23:43,880
Speaker 1: not he would certify those election results. Lindsay Graham used

389
00:23:43,880 --> 00:23:46,879
Speaker 1: this to try to block a subpoena in Georgia. The

390
00:23:46,920 --> 00:23:49,440
Speaker 1: subpoena was not blocked, but the judge said he could

391
00:23:49,520 --> 00:23:54,720
Speaker 1: raise objections during the testimony to specific things. Is that

392
00:23:54,800 --> 00:23:58,040
Speaker 1: a ruling that Mike Pence might face? Sure? I mean

393
00:23:58,200 --> 00:24:01,480
Speaker 1: this question of whether or not vice president draws the

394
00:24:01,640 --> 00:24:06,240
Speaker 1: same speech or debate protections as members of Congress is

395
00:24:06,359 --> 00:24:09,919
Speaker 1: largely unsettled. It's a murky area where frankly, there is

396
00:24:10,000 --> 00:24:13,160
Speaker 1: no clear outcome. On the other hand, I think it's

397
00:24:13,240 --> 00:24:16,200
Speaker 1: clear that it will not act as a blanket or

398
00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:21,199
Speaker 1: wholesale protection against Vice President Pence from having to appear

399
00:24:21,240 --> 00:24:23,600
Speaker 1: before the grand jury and answer any questions at all.

400
00:24:23,840 --> 00:24:26,920
Speaker 1: As you point out, when Lindsey Graham tried to raise

401
00:24:27,000 --> 00:24:30,000
Speaker 1: the question of speech or debate clause, which frankly is

402
00:24:30,119 --> 00:24:33,199
Speaker 1: arguably a stronger argument than the one being raised by

403
00:24:33,320 --> 00:24:36,840
Speaker 1: Vice President Pence, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said

404
00:24:36,880 --> 00:24:39,760
Speaker 1: that he had to appear in front of that grand jury.

405
00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:42,760
Speaker 1: They compel them to testify, and they said so long

406
00:24:42,800 --> 00:24:46,720
Speaker 1: as investigators steer their questions away from anything involving his

407
00:24:46,920 --> 00:24:50,280
Speaker 1: legislative responsibilities, they were entitled to make him appear before

408
00:24:50,280 --> 00:24:53,119
Speaker 1: the grand jury and answer questions. I think in this case,

409
00:24:53,160 --> 00:24:56,200
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, Vice President Pence will

410
00:24:56,240 --> 00:24:59,639
Speaker 1: also be required to answer questions about some of the

411
00:24:59,680 --> 00:25:03,760
Speaker 1: act vities. Exactly the scope of the speech or debate

412
00:25:03,800 --> 00:25:07,520
Speaker 1: cosse protection is unclear, but it will likely not act

413
00:25:07,600 --> 00:25:11,760
Speaker 1: as a blanket protection that will bar the special prosecutor

414
00:25:11,800 --> 00:25:14,840
Speaker 1: for asking him any questions whatsoever in connection with the

415
00:25:14,840 --> 00:25:18,760
Speaker 1: certification of the twenty twenty election. Thanks Bob. That's Robert

416
00:25:18,800 --> 00:25:21,480
Speaker 1: Mints of McCarter and English, and that's it for this

417
00:25:21,640 --> 00:25:24,359
Speaker 1: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

418
00:25:24,400 --> 00:25:27,280
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

419
00:25:27,600 --> 00:25:30,640
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

420
00:25:30,760 --> 00:25:35,800
Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and

421
00:25:35,880 --> 00:25:38,320
Speaker 1: remember to tune in to The Bloomberg Law Show every

422
00:25:38,359 --> 00:25:42,320
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Junie Grossow,

423
00:25:42,400 --> 00:25:44,000
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg