1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,800
Speaker 1: I'm still waiting for some sort of logical explanation for

2
00:00:05,160 --> 00:00:08,680
Speaker 1: the number of sort of fake or spam accounts on Twitter.

3
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:12,840
Speaker 1: Elon Musk has to wait no longer he can find

4
00:00:12,880 --> 00:00:16,320
Speaker 1: the answers in the lawsuit Twitter has filed against him

5
00:00:16,360 --> 00:00:19,560
Speaker 1: after Musk walked away from his forty four billion dollar

6
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:22,640
Speaker 1: deal to buy the company. Joining me is Eric Talley,

7
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:26,360
Speaker 1: a professor at Columbia Law School. Eric, give us your

8
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:30,360
Speaker 1: take on Twitter's complaint here. The lawsuits not terribly surprising.

9
00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:34,280
Speaker 1: The lawyers for Twitter have come out of the box hot,

10
00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:37,479
Speaker 1: and I think everyone expected them to. The relief that

11
00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:41,440
Speaker 1: they're seeking, which is also not surprising, is a specific

12
00:00:41,560 --> 00:00:45,960
Speaker 1: performance order essentially compelling Musk to go through with the deal.

13
00:00:46,159 --> 00:00:49,360
Speaker 1: And they would have asked for that regardless of whether

14
00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:52,280
Speaker 1: it makes sense for Musk to end up owning Twitter

15
00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:55,560
Speaker 1: or not, because that gives them the maximal bargaining leverage.

16
00:00:55,680 --> 00:00:57,680
Speaker 1: If they were to get that order, and he really

17
00:00:57,720 --> 00:01:00,560
Speaker 1: doesn't want to own Twitter, he can, you know, try

18
00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 1: to bargain his way out of it in exchange for

19
00:01:02,920 --> 00:01:06,960
Speaker 1: a significant settlement payment. So the relief that they've thought

20
00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:11,080
Speaker 1: is exactly what everyone predicted they would seek. What they

21
00:01:11,200 --> 00:01:15,160
Speaker 1: have attended to doing in the complaint quite effectively, is

22
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:19,679
Speaker 1: to make sure that they are beginning to state their

23
00:01:19,720 --> 00:01:24,160
Speaker 1: case about how Twitter has all along been duly compliant

24
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:28,680
Speaker 1: with its obligations under the merger agreement, in contrast to

25
00:01:29,080 --> 00:01:32,840
Speaker 1: Mr Musk's contention that they have not been forthcoming in

26
00:01:33,120 --> 00:01:36,720
Speaker 1: delivering of data. I think a lot of people doubted

27
00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:40,720
Speaker 1: Musk's assertions on this, and the complaint sort of lays

28
00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:44,319
Speaker 1: out a little bit more that many of Musk's demands

29
00:01:44,440 --> 00:01:48,080
Speaker 1: for data were actually met by Twitter, and he essentially

30
00:01:48,200 --> 00:01:51,200
Speaker 1: kept escalating them and making them more frequent, not even

31
00:01:51,240 --> 00:01:54,240
Speaker 1: really reviewing what they had already given him, until the

32
00:01:54,320 --> 00:01:56,760
Speaker 1: point where that basically said, now we're not going to

33
00:01:56,840 --> 00:01:59,680
Speaker 1: give you any more. We've got to protect information of

34
00:01:59,720 --> 00:02:03,000
Speaker 1: our clients and customers and so forth. So I think

35
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:05,800
Speaker 1: that that was important because it was going to be

36
00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:09,320
Speaker 1: important for Twitter, even though they're the plaintiff in this lawsuit,

37
00:02:09,480 --> 00:02:12,960
Speaker 1: to be able to fend off arguments from Mr Musk

38
00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:16,040
Speaker 1: that Twitter was in breach first. I don't view the

39
00:02:16,040 --> 00:02:20,680
Speaker 1: complaint as being withering or sarcastic, but it did go

40
00:02:20,840 --> 00:02:25,280
Speaker 1: out of its way to place excerpts of various tweets

41
00:02:25,280 --> 00:02:31,079
Speaker 1: and responses, including poop emojis. In the complaint itself, largely,

42
00:02:31,120 --> 00:02:34,600
Speaker 1: I think, just to signal how exasperating it has been

43
00:02:35,080 --> 00:02:39,000
Speaker 1: to deal with the Musk team on this, particularly as

44
00:02:39,120 --> 00:02:42,240
Speaker 1: it became more and more apparent that Mr Musk was

45
00:02:42,360 --> 00:02:45,000
Speaker 1: really just looking for an escape hatch to try to

46
00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:48,880
Speaker 1: dive out of and try to find some pretextual reason

47
00:02:49,120 --> 00:02:52,560
Speaker 1: not to go forward with the transaction. It says Musk

48
00:02:52,600 --> 00:02:56,000
Speaker 1: apparently believes that he, unlike every other party subject to

49
00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:59,240
Speaker 1: Delaware contract law, is free to change his mind, trash

50
00:02:59,320 --> 00:03:05,079
Speaker 1: the company, disrupt its operations, destroy shareholder value, and walk away. Yes,

51
00:03:05,200 --> 00:03:08,720
Speaker 1: so that is a fairly strong statement in the complaint.

52
00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:11,000
Speaker 1: And and then it's followed up very close to the

53
00:03:11,080 --> 00:03:15,240
Speaker 1: end of complaint with a one sentence paragraph that that

54
00:03:15,320 --> 00:03:17,560
Speaker 1: says something to the effect that, you know, Mr Musk

55
00:03:17,639 --> 00:03:21,000
Speaker 1: must believe that his entire process with Twitter must be

56
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:24,760
Speaker 1: just some elaborate joke. And I think that that is

57
00:03:24,840 --> 00:03:29,280
Speaker 1: an important set of inclusions into this complaint because when

58
00:03:29,280 --> 00:03:32,200
Speaker 1: it comes right down to it, you know, the Delaware

59
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:35,120
Speaker 1: courts or the top business court in the country, and

60
00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:39,560
Speaker 1: for good reason, they have a reputational stake in saying, look,

61
00:03:39,640 --> 00:03:44,160
Speaker 1: we take contracts and contractual obligations seriously, and if your

62
00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:49,640
Speaker 1: cavalier or un serious about getting into a significant deal

63
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:53,480
Speaker 1: and then expect to essentially waltz away into the sunset

64
00:03:53,520 --> 00:03:58,120
Speaker 1: with no repercussions, you're in for a fairly unpleasant surprise.

65
00:03:58,360 --> 00:04:00,960
Speaker 1: That Delaware at least would like to think of itself

66
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:05,680
Speaker 1: as the century that allows people to enter into contracts

67
00:04:05,880 --> 00:04:07,880
Speaker 1: and feel comfortable that the other side is going to

68
00:04:07,960 --> 00:04:10,800
Speaker 1: live up to their obligations because a Delaware court is

69
00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:14,560
Speaker 1: standing there ready to enforce them. And so I think

70
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:17,760
Speaker 1: that some of the more animated parts of this complaint

71
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:23,440
Speaker 1: really are designed to tap into what everyone sort of

72
00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:27,960
Speaker 1: believes that Delaware prides itself is being the business law

73
00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:30,560
Speaker 1: court that you can rely on that is going to

74
00:04:31,240 --> 00:04:35,560
Speaker 1: be willing to, you know, make those difficult decisions to say, yeah,

75
00:04:35,640 --> 00:04:38,039
Speaker 1: we're going to either force someone to go through with

76
00:04:38,080 --> 00:04:42,640
Speaker 1: this contract or have them see significant repercussions if they don't.

77
00:04:42,839 --> 00:04:47,839
Speaker 1: Specific performance is a big ask to Delaware courts often,

78
00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:52,600
Speaker 1: you know, order specific performance of a contract like this. Yeah.

79
00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:56,000
Speaker 1: As a general matter, in contract law, the usual rule

80
00:04:56,240 --> 00:05:00,080
Speaker 1: in the United States is money damages for breaching a

81
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:04,840
Speaker 1: contract but in situations where it's very, very difficult to

82
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:08,119
Speaker 1: come up with those dollar values on how you would

83
00:05:08,120 --> 00:05:13,080
Speaker 1: even compensate someone, then courts have always reserved their so

84
00:05:13,160 --> 00:05:16,680
Speaker 1: called equitable discretion to say, Okay, we're just going to

85
00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:20,159
Speaker 1: actually issue a court order forcing you to make good

86
00:05:20,480 --> 00:05:23,640
Speaker 1: on your promise. Now, a lot of contracting parties, and

87
00:05:23,720 --> 00:05:26,840
Speaker 1: this is true of the Twitter Musk deal as well,

88
00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:31,159
Speaker 1: put in a paragraph that says, by the way, both

89
00:05:31,240 --> 00:05:34,080
Speaker 1: parties hereby acknowledge that it would be really hard to

90
00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:37,080
Speaker 1: come up with money damages, and therefore, if there's a

91
00:05:37,120 --> 00:05:41,680
Speaker 1: breach by either side, the other side will be entitled

92
00:05:41,760 --> 00:05:45,680
Speaker 1: to seek specific performance if they want it. Now, there's

93
00:05:45,720 --> 00:05:48,400
Speaker 1: kind of an interesting question about whether that kind of

94
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:52,400
Speaker 1: provision has an effect on when and other under what

95
00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:55,039
Speaker 1: circumstances a court will say, Okay, we're going to take

96
00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:57,839
Speaker 1: their invitation to do it. Some courts just say no,

97
00:05:57,960 --> 00:05:59,640
Speaker 1: that this is up to me whether to do this

98
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:03,400
Speaker 1: as a judge. But the Delaware courts have definitely been

99
00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:07,359
Speaker 1: willing to look at a contract, take those representations that

100
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:09,240
Speaker 1: are in the contract, and say okay, yeah, we are

101
00:06:09,320 --> 00:06:13,479
Speaker 1: now more willing to enforce this contract with an injunction

102
00:06:13,520 --> 00:06:16,520
Speaker 1: as opposed to money damages. Now the Chancellor who is

103
00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:21,640
Speaker 1: getting this case. Chancellor McCormick, very good judge, incredibly smart,

104
00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:25,040
Speaker 1: hard working, sharp judge. Hasn't been on the court for

105
00:06:25,080 --> 00:06:27,080
Speaker 1: a long time, but she's been on long enough to

106
00:06:27,160 --> 00:06:29,640
Speaker 1: issue some pretty good opinions and people have a high

107
00:06:29,640 --> 00:06:32,640
Speaker 1: regard for her. One of her opinions that she issued

108
00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:36,239
Speaker 1: did exactly what Twitter is hoping that she'll do this time.

109
00:06:36,560 --> 00:06:39,720
Speaker 1: A buyer god weak need about a deal that they

110
00:06:39,760 --> 00:06:42,800
Speaker 1: had entered into it was a much smaller deal, and

111
00:06:43,080 --> 00:06:46,839
Speaker 1: tried to back out of the deal, similarly to Mosque,

112
00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:50,920
Speaker 1: citing various types of pretextual reasons why you know things

113
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:53,279
Speaker 1: were going to fail, the financing was going to fail,

114
00:06:53,480 --> 00:06:57,440
Speaker 1: And Chancellor McCormick was just unsympathetic to those claims and

115
00:06:57,480 --> 00:07:00,760
Speaker 1: basically said, look, you brought that upon your solve. You're

116
00:07:00,800 --> 00:07:04,200
Speaker 1: the one that breathed life into your current failing of

117
00:07:04,279 --> 00:07:06,479
Speaker 1: financing because you didn't want to go through on the deal.

118
00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:09,600
Speaker 1: So you sabotage your own deal. Well, guess what, I'm

119
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:12,040
Speaker 1: going to issue an injunction that forces you to go

120
00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:14,920
Speaker 1: through with it anyway. So I think that the draw

121
00:07:15,160 --> 00:07:18,800
Speaker 1: of Chancellor McCormick. Hearing this case, that was probably welcome

122
00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:22,800
Speaker 1: news to Twitter, probably another source of a concern and

123
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:26,720
Speaker 1: a headache to Mr Musk's attorneys. Matthew Shettenham, a litigation

124
00:07:26,760 --> 00:07:31,640
Speaker 1: analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, gives Twitter a six chance to

125
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:35,239
Speaker 1: win specific performance. What do you think the chances are.

126
00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:37,920
Speaker 1: I think the chances are at least that And I

127
00:07:37,960 --> 00:07:41,560
Speaker 1: would say that the types of situations that could derail

128
00:07:41,720 --> 00:07:45,480
Speaker 1: specific performance, I think are fairly remote here. The one

129
00:07:45,880 --> 00:07:49,920
Speaker 1: issue that could cloud things up a little bit is

130
00:07:50,200 --> 00:07:55,040
Speaker 1: how does that injunction get administered? Even when a court

131
00:07:55,280 --> 00:07:59,480
Speaker 1: is inclined to issue a specific performance decree, it doesn't

132
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:03,239
Speaker 1: necessary only want to sign itself up for a year's

133
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:07,000
Speaker 1: long babysitting service of the parties themselves to try to

134
00:08:07,360 --> 00:08:11,760
Speaker 1: superintend and oversee the process of closing the deal. And

135
00:08:11,840 --> 00:08:15,360
Speaker 1: so that can sometimes be a reason not to grant

136
00:08:15,400 --> 00:08:19,360
Speaker 1: specific performance. And you know, in this instance, it's conceivable

137
00:08:19,480 --> 00:08:22,400
Speaker 1: that a judge might say, well, you know, boy, if

138
00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:25,960
Speaker 1: I compel performance, do I then have to be the

139
00:08:26,160 --> 00:08:29,360
Speaker 1: person who then wrangles all the banks into court and

140
00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:32,080
Speaker 1: tells them that they have to lend on this deal.

141
00:08:32,600 --> 00:08:35,520
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe not. Chentleen mccorma didn't even bother doing that.

142
00:08:35,640 --> 00:08:37,480
Speaker 1: In the other case, you just said you gotta go

143
00:08:37,520 --> 00:08:42,120
Speaker 1: out and get your financing. So that's one potential obstacle.

144
00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:46,920
Speaker 1: There's been some speculation that Musk might just ignore in

145
00:08:47,080 --> 00:08:51,559
Speaker 1: order for specific performance. I doubt that that is going

146
00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:56,880
Speaker 1: to happen. It would be absolutely unaffront to this reputational

147
00:08:56,960 --> 00:08:59,880
Speaker 1: stake that the Delaware Cords have in being serious of

148
00:09:00,080 --> 00:09:05,439
Speaker 1: about enforcing contracts. And because Musk owns so many assets

149
00:09:05,480 --> 00:09:08,520
Speaker 1: that are within the jurisdiction of Delaware, largely in the

150
00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:11,319
Speaker 1: form of stock of other companies that he owns that

151
00:09:11,360 --> 00:09:15,520
Speaker 1: are Delaware companies, it would be not terribly hard for

152
00:09:15,760 --> 00:09:18,120
Speaker 1: Chancellor McCormick to say, Okay, look, if you don't want

153
00:09:18,120 --> 00:09:21,080
Speaker 1: to comply with that, then we will start a civil

154
00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:24,680
Speaker 1: contempt proceeding and I can fashion any remedy I want,

155
00:09:24,760 --> 00:09:28,080
Speaker 1: including the seizure of your stock of other companies that

156
00:09:28,160 --> 00:09:31,440
Speaker 1: you might own. Now, that is definitely the nuclear option,

157
00:09:31,720 --> 00:09:35,079
Speaker 1: but I think most people understand that nuclear option is there,

158
00:09:35,080 --> 00:09:38,120
Speaker 1: hardly ever gets used because most people basically believe the

159
00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:41,000
Speaker 1: Delaware Chancery Corps. So, you know, I think that there

160
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:43,880
Speaker 1: are some folks who are kind of discounting the likelihood

161
00:09:43,920 --> 00:09:46,800
Speaker 1: of specific performance because they just think Musk is gonna

162
00:09:46,880 --> 00:09:51,840
Speaker 1: ignore a specific performance decree. I don't really share that concerns.

163
00:09:51,880 --> 00:09:54,800
Speaker 1: I think that if the decree comes forward, he's going

164
00:09:54,840 --> 00:09:57,600
Speaker 1: to comply with it, and it'll be pretty clear that

165
00:09:57,679 --> 00:09:59,640
Speaker 1: it's going to be in his best interest to comply

166
00:09:59,679 --> 00:10:03,720
Speaker 1: with it. But does Twitter really want Musk to take

167
00:10:03,760 --> 00:10:07,520
Speaker 1: over the company or at that point would they come

168
00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:12,800
Speaker 1: to some kind of agreement, some monetary agreement that I

169
00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:16,400
Speaker 1: think is exactly the end game here. It Maybe we

170
00:10:16,440 --> 00:10:19,800
Speaker 1: don't know for sure. It may be that the vanity

171
00:10:19,840 --> 00:10:23,560
Speaker 1: purchase that Elon Musk was interested in in April is

172
00:10:23,600 --> 00:10:25,880
Speaker 1: still a vanity purchase that he's interested in, and he's

173
00:10:25,920 --> 00:10:27,840
Speaker 1: just trying to get a better price. And if that's

174
00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:30,760
Speaker 1: the case, then the settlement will take the form of

175
00:10:30,800 --> 00:10:34,200
Speaker 1: a recut deal. One of the things that is starting

176
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:37,920
Speaker 1: to push kind of in opposition to that possibility is

177
00:10:37,920 --> 00:10:41,160
Speaker 1: the fact that the relations between pretty much everyone at

178
00:10:41,160 --> 00:10:44,640
Speaker 1: Twitter and Mr Musk have so soured that it's unclear whether,

179
00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:46,560
Speaker 1: you know, if you were to take hold of Twitter

180
00:10:46,640 --> 00:10:49,400
Speaker 1: and go into corporate headquarters one day, there'd be anyone

181
00:10:49,520 --> 00:10:53,000
Speaker 1: left to work with him, So so it may well

182
00:10:53,080 --> 00:10:56,000
Speaker 1: be the case that he doesn't really want to own it.

183
00:10:56,360 --> 00:10:58,600
Speaker 1: If he did, it would be in an even worse

184
00:10:58,600 --> 00:11:01,840
Speaker 1: shape because everyone will be bailing and jumping ship, and

185
00:11:01,920 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: it may just be better to keep it in the

186
00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:08,040
Speaker 1: hands of the distributed public investors at this point. And

187
00:11:08,080 --> 00:11:11,160
Speaker 1: if that's the case, then Twitter will be armed with

188
00:11:11,200 --> 00:11:14,280
Speaker 1: a specific performance decree, but they will sit down and

189
00:11:14,360 --> 00:11:16,560
Speaker 1: bargain with him and say, okay, now that you know

190
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:19,880
Speaker 1: what the disagreement point is here, right that if you

191
00:11:19,920 --> 00:11:22,680
Speaker 1: don't agree to a hefty settlement with us, we're basically

192
00:11:22,720 --> 00:11:25,760
Speaker 1: going to enforce this against you. Uh. That is essentially

193
00:11:25,800 --> 00:11:28,319
Speaker 1: going to loosen up the purse string of a settlement

194
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:32,000
Speaker 1: payment that Elon must would be then willing to pay

195
00:11:32,120 --> 00:11:35,200
Speaker 1: to just walk away and wash his hands entirely of

196
00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:40,360
Speaker 1: this unpleasant episode. Finally, Twitter says that it can do

197
00:11:40,400 --> 00:11:46,000
Speaker 1: this trial in four days. Is that possible? Likely? It

198
00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:50,120
Speaker 1: is not only possible, um, but this happens routinely in

199
00:11:50,160 --> 00:11:54,840
Speaker 1: these expedited proceedings in Delaware court, and so one of

200
00:11:54,880 --> 00:11:57,920
Speaker 1: the um one of the reasons that Delaware is so

201
00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:02,040
Speaker 1: favored as a business litigation and venue is not just

202
00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:04,920
Speaker 1: because of the quality and the predictability of the judges,

203
00:12:05,240 --> 00:12:09,720
Speaker 1: but also because they basically make themselves available in cases

204
00:12:09,760 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: that are UM, you know, critical time critical to adjudicate

205
00:12:14,559 --> 00:12:18,720
Speaker 1: these cases quickly to essentially render an outcome. And I

206
00:12:18,760 --> 00:12:21,560
Speaker 1: think for Twitter, which at this stage is now sort

207
00:12:21,559 --> 00:12:26,120
Speaker 1: of in this UM incredibly unpleasant state of limbo in

208
00:12:26,160 --> 00:12:29,760
Speaker 1: which you know, people are quitting, there's uncertainty about what's

209
00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:32,440
Speaker 1: going to happen, it's pretty clear that they want to

210
00:12:32,480 --> 00:12:36,720
Speaker 1: move forward, and the four day trial for most of

211
00:12:36,720 --> 00:12:39,520
Speaker 1: the facts that are associated with this case, you know,

212
00:12:39,720 --> 00:12:45,800
Speaker 1: probably is not unrealistic UM in any regard because quite frankly,

213
00:12:45,880 --> 00:12:48,800
Speaker 1: many of the back and forth UM interactions in this

214
00:12:48,880 --> 00:12:53,360
Speaker 1: case have ironically enough occurred over Twitter, so they're out there,

215
00:12:53,400 --> 00:12:56,880
Speaker 1: they're publicly known. The one possible exception to this that

216
00:12:57,000 --> 00:12:59,880
Speaker 1: Must you know, alluded to obviously in a in a

217
00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:04,480
Speaker 1: cryptic tweet himself, was you know, whether that's going to

218
00:13:04,600 --> 00:13:09,720
Speaker 1: open the Pandora's box of all the data feed UM

219
00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:13,800
Speaker 1: inputs that Twitter has in order to determine what the

220
00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:19,560
Speaker 1: nature of the alleged bot account problem is inside Twitter.

221
00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:23,240
Speaker 1: I doubt it will get that far. I suspect that

222
00:13:23,400 --> 00:13:25,800
Speaker 1: the way that the whole you know, spam account and

223
00:13:25,880 --> 00:13:28,680
Speaker 1: body account thing has has evolved, and this is in

224
00:13:28,720 --> 00:13:31,600
Speaker 1: the in the complaint as well, is that you know,

225
00:13:31,640 --> 00:13:34,960
Speaker 1: Twitter had a lot of discretion on on how to

226
00:13:35,000 --> 00:13:38,880
Speaker 1: deal with that data um provision process. They were given

227
00:13:38,920 --> 00:13:41,760
Speaker 1: that discretion in the contract, and and the judge is

228
00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:45,640
Speaker 1: likely just going to limit her attention to whether they

229
00:13:45,679 --> 00:13:48,480
Speaker 1: abuse their own discretion, and that's not going to require

230
00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:51,959
Speaker 1: a deep dive into what was it gigabytes petty bytes

231
00:13:52,040 --> 00:13:55,440
Speaker 1: of data that are cited in the complaint. So yeah,

232
00:13:55,520 --> 00:13:56,960
Speaker 1: I think they're going to be able to do this

233
00:13:57,000 --> 00:14:00,560
Speaker 1: in four days. But make no mistake, there are countless

234
00:14:00,559 --> 00:14:03,160
Speaker 1: attorneys on both sides that are now gearing up for

235
00:14:03,240 --> 00:14:05,960
Speaker 1: trial because who canna happen quickly? They've got about six

236
00:14:06,000 --> 00:14:08,680
Speaker 1: weeks before, you know, things are going to get real

237
00:14:08,760 --> 00:14:12,720
Speaker 1: in Delaware. Thanks Eric. That's professor Eric Talley of Columbia

238
00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:15,840
Speaker 1: Law School coming up next. What has the January six

239
00:14:15,840 --> 00:14:20,120
Speaker 1: Committee proven so far? This is Bloomberg. The House committee

240
00:14:20,160 --> 00:14:24,280
Speaker 1: investigating the capital attack on January six is holding its

241
00:14:24,320 --> 00:14:27,920
Speaker 1: eighth public session next week. That was expected to be

242
00:14:28,040 --> 00:14:31,240
Speaker 1: the finale, but now the committee is mapping out steps

243
00:14:31,320 --> 00:14:36,480
Speaker 1: beyond next week's session for continuing its investigation, including possibly

244
00:14:36,520 --> 00:14:39,360
Speaker 1: holding more hearings. What kind of a case has the

245
00:14:39,360 --> 00:14:44,120
Speaker 1: committee presented against former President Donald Trump so far? Joining

246
00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:47,800
Speaker 1: me as former federal prosecutor Kevin O'Brien, a partner at

247
00:14:47,800 --> 00:14:51,800
Speaker 1: Ford O'Brien Landy, what is your take on what the

248
00:14:51,840 --> 00:14:57,080
Speaker 1: committee has proven so far as far as former President

249
00:14:57,120 --> 00:15:01,960
Speaker 1: Trump's involvement. In January six, the hearing was truly impressive,

250
00:15:02,000 --> 00:15:04,960
Speaker 1: the way they weaved all these strands together, and they

251
00:15:05,000 --> 00:15:08,520
Speaker 1: clearly have a theory, which is the Trump is responsible

252
00:15:08,520 --> 00:15:11,760
Speaker 1: for everything. I think Liz Cheney has that wonderful line

253
00:15:11,760 --> 00:15:16,040
Speaker 1: that she repeats, but he knew the mob was angry,

254
00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:20,240
Speaker 1: he knew they were armed and dangerous. Uh, and he

255
00:15:20,320 --> 00:15:23,800
Speaker 1: sent them to the capital anyway, which pretty much I

256
00:15:23,840 --> 00:15:27,920
Speaker 1: think encapsulates the theory. I think from the standpoint of

257
00:15:27,920 --> 00:15:32,120
Speaker 1: a criminal prosecution, though there's still a number of problems.

258
00:15:32,440 --> 00:15:36,120
Speaker 1: You know as someone who's tried criminal cases, that the

259
00:15:36,200 --> 00:15:40,520
Speaker 1: reality is much different at a trial. Fewer things are admissible,

260
00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:44,560
Speaker 1: harder evidence is required, and there are certain legal requirements

261
00:15:44,560 --> 00:15:48,000
Speaker 1: you need to satisfy before you can even get the

262
00:15:48,040 --> 00:15:52,600
Speaker 1: case to trial. I'm concerned that and I think most

263
00:15:52,600 --> 00:15:57,160
Speaker 1: people would actually admit this if you ask them, knowledgeable people,

264
00:15:57,320 --> 00:16:00,360
Speaker 1: even that they haven't made out a case that there

265
00:16:00,440 --> 00:16:05,160
Speaker 1: was a conspiracy between Trump and the mob on January six.

266
00:16:06,000 --> 00:16:11,760
Speaker 1: No one suggested yet that he directly or indirectly reached

267
00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:15,080
Speaker 1: any agreement when any of the leaders, any of the

268
00:16:15,120 --> 00:16:18,680
Speaker 1: Proud Boys or oath keepers, for example, to storm the

269
00:16:18,760 --> 00:16:23,280
Speaker 1: Capitol or wreak violence on the Capitol, or do anything,

270
00:16:23,640 --> 00:16:31,480
Speaker 1: for example, to compel My Pence to undo the electors

271
00:16:31,520 --> 00:16:34,840
Speaker 1: and put in a Trump approved slate of electors that

272
00:16:34,920 --> 00:16:39,640
Speaker 1: would make him the president. There's been no proof of that. Now,

273
00:16:39,680 --> 00:16:42,400
Speaker 1: you don't need that in a criminal case. You don't

274
00:16:42,400 --> 00:16:45,840
Speaker 1: need a conspiracy, but you do have to have some

275
00:16:46,000 --> 00:16:51,160
Speaker 1: link to the violence on that day. Otherwise you're it's like,

276
00:16:51,960 --> 00:16:56,320
Speaker 1: you know, Hamlet playing Hamlet without the ghost. You're talking

277
00:16:56,360 --> 00:17:00,880
Speaker 1: about a bunch of treason as clerks like John Eastman

278
00:17:01,920 --> 00:17:04,359
Speaker 1: and people in the White House coming up with these

279
00:17:04,400 --> 00:17:10,160
Speaker 1: theories that were wrong and get legal. But if that's

280
00:17:10,160 --> 00:17:13,720
Speaker 1: all there is, and those all fell flat, by the way,

281
00:17:13,760 --> 00:17:20,160
Speaker 1: because cooler heads prevailed even within Trump's immediate orbit, if

282
00:17:20,200 --> 00:17:23,280
Speaker 1: that's all you have, then you have a violation of

283
00:17:23,359 --> 00:17:26,879
Speaker 1: law that is somewhat technical, and I think it's unlikely

284
00:17:27,520 --> 00:17:30,160
Speaker 1: or at least there's some significant doubt whether a case

285
00:17:30,280 --> 00:17:35,000
Speaker 1: like that would really appeal to a criminal jury. And

286
00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:37,439
Speaker 1: keep in mind you're talking about an indictment of the

287
00:17:37,480 --> 00:17:40,960
Speaker 1: former president. You need to have a link with the

288
00:17:41,119 --> 00:17:46,600
Speaker 1: violence to make people stand up and say this was wrong,

289
00:17:47,520 --> 00:17:51,359
Speaker 1: this is shocking, and we're going to hold him accountable.

290
00:17:51,440 --> 00:17:55,280
Speaker 1: And and and again, the most obvious way to do

291
00:17:55,320 --> 00:17:58,359
Speaker 1: that is to make him a co conspirator with the

292
00:17:58,400 --> 00:18:03,080
Speaker 1: people who led the riot. And we haven't gotten to

293
00:18:03,160 --> 00:18:07,480
Speaker 1: that point yet. Now some people have suggested we'll get there.

294
00:18:07,640 --> 00:18:09,640
Speaker 1: I mean, we'll see. I guess there's at least one

295
00:18:09,680 --> 00:18:16,199
Speaker 1: more hearing, maybe several more. But but that's that is

296
00:18:16,840 --> 00:18:19,520
Speaker 1: that is a problem. But I think there is another

297
00:18:19,560 --> 00:18:22,720
Speaker 1: way to make the riot part of a criminal case

298
00:18:22,840 --> 00:18:29,919
Speaker 1: against Trump ahead, So no, um, I'll pick up with that. Um.

299
00:18:30,840 --> 00:18:34,480
Speaker 1: It seems like they're relying a lot on his tweets,

300
00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:39,080
Speaker 1: which don't which don't say let's have a march, let's

301
00:18:39,080 --> 00:18:41,879
Speaker 1: stop the steel, let's go to the Capitol, but don't

302
00:18:42,000 --> 00:18:49,400
Speaker 1: see anything. But and also even his his his speech

303
00:18:49,520 --> 00:18:52,800
Speaker 1: that day, you know, sort of went around in circles

304
00:18:52,840 --> 00:18:56,160
Speaker 1: as he talked, talks often in circles, and at one

305
00:18:56,200 --> 00:18:59,040
Speaker 1: point he says, you know, I want to do it peacefully,

306
00:18:59,359 --> 00:19:02,560
Speaker 1: something like to that effect. So it seems like there

307
00:19:02,680 --> 00:19:07,439
Speaker 1: is nothing directly from him unless they get one of

308
00:19:07,480 --> 00:19:12,680
Speaker 1: these people to cooperate. I mean, I tend to agree

309
00:19:12,760 --> 00:19:17,880
Speaker 1: they need to have a solid case on the score. UM.

310
00:19:17,920 --> 00:19:24,480
Speaker 1: They need a witness, preferably from the inside, to come

311
00:19:24,560 --> 00:19:28,800
Speaker 1: forward and say, yes, Trump had a conversation with X,

312
00:19:28,880 --> 00:19:33,520
Speaker 1: or with Y, or a representative of Trump, maybe Mark Meadows,

313
00:19:33,600 --> 00:19:38,199
Speaker 1: who's up to his neck in this thing. Very canny

314
00:19:38,280 --> 00:19:41,480
Speaker 1: the way he never, you know, comes front and center,

315
00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:44,720
Speaker 1: but he's and he says different things to different people.

316
00:19:45,480 --> 00:19:48,199
Speaker 1: He's a little like Trump that way, but he's in

317
00:19:48,200 --> 00:19:51,840
Speaker 1: the thick of it. They need someone like that, um

318
00:19:52,200 --> 00:19:58,359
Speaker 1: as a proxy for Trump having meetings and phone conversations

319
00:19:59,160 --> 00:20:03,440
Speaker 1: where and Sun January six, there are planned out that

320
00:20:03,440 --> 00:20:06,320
Speaker 1: that would be the that would be the best type

321
00:20:06,359 --> 00:20:10,119
Speaker 1: of evidence to have, and so far they don't have it. UM.

322
00:20:10,600 --> 00:20:12,159
Speaker 1: I mean, there is another way to do this. I

323
00:20:12,200 --> 00:20:14,840
Speaker 1: was starting to say, I think one theory, and it's

324
00:20:14,880 --> 00:20:19,120
Speaker 1: been suggested you don't need a full fledged agreement with

325
00:20:19,400 --> 00:20:24,600
Speaker 1: the rioters. Instead, you can take the position, which is

326
00:20:24,640 --> 00:20:27,200
Speaker 1: again part of what loc Cheney has been talking about.

327
00:20:27,240 --> 00:20:30,520
Speaker 1: That Okay, the whole goal here was to pressure Pence.

328
00:20:31,440 --> 00:20:37,280
Speaker 1: And when all these academic efforts failed, uh Eastman, you know,

329
00:20:37,520 --> 00:20:40,800
Speaker 1: Clark and the Justice Department, when all this stuff went

330
00:20:40,880 --> 00:20:44,480
Speaker 1: nowhere and they were sort of comically bad, he then

331
00:20:44,520 --> 00:20:46,639
Speaker 1: realized the only way he was going to get pens

332
00:20:46,720 --> 00:20:49,760
Speaker 1: to do his bidding was to put him in fear

333
00:20:49,800 --> 00:20:52,879
Speaker 1: of his life and have a riot, you know, and

334
00:20:53,040 --> 00:20:57,959
Speaker 1: sue or something so forceful Pence would be required to

335
00:20:58,160 --> 00:21:01,000
Speaker 1: do Trump's bidding. Now that's a crude way of looking

336
00:21:01,000 --> 00:21:05,080
Speaker 1: at the world, but it probably is Trump's view. The

337
00:21:05,200 --> 00:21:10,200
Speaker 1: problem is, again the predicate is a little weak. I mean,

338
00:21:10,240 --> 00:21:14,640
Speaker 1: we don't despite what Cheney said on Tuesday, the evidence

339
00:21:14,680 --> 00:21:18,680
Speaker 1: that Trump knew the crowd was armed is pretty thin.

340
00:21:18,840 --> 00:21:22,960
Speaker 1: The evidence that Trump knew they were dangerous is less thin,

341
00:21:23,280 --> 00:21:26,360
Speaker 1: because in part he was the one working them up.

342
00:21:26,400 --> 00:21:29,440
Speaker 1: But to establish all these things you need some witnesses.

343
00:21:29,480 --> 00:21:33,880
Speaker 1: You can't have commentators speculating or providing their inferences, and

344
00:21:34,040 --> 00:21:36,359
Speaker 1: we haven't heard a lot of that evidence. You know,

345
00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:38,960
Speaker 1: you're you're getting inside his head and saying this is

346
00:21:39,000 --> 00:21:42,320
Speaker 1: what he must be thinking. But you know he's got defenses.

347
00:21:42,640 --> 00:21:44,720
Speaker 1: He can say, I never intended for there to be

348
00:21:44,800 --> 00:21:48,199
Speaker 1: a riot, as you said, Trump pointed out that this

349
00:21:48,240 --> 00:21:52,320
Speaker 1: should be peaceful at various points. He didn't know what

350
00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:55,720
Speaker 1: weapons they were carrying. He was there to give a speech,

351
00:21:55,760 --> 00:21:57,399
Speaker 1: He gave a speech, and then he got in a

352
00:21:57,440 --> 00:22:00,320
Speaker 1: limo and left. So how can he be responsive for

353
00:22:00,400 --> 00:22:06,240
Speaker 1: everything that ensued thereafter? Lisz Cheney uses legal phrases at

354
00:22:06,240 --> 00:22:10,240
Speaker 1: different points since the beginning of these hearings, and on

355
00:22:10,280 --> 00:22:13,760
Speaker 1: Tuesday she said, basically, he can't hide behind the defense

356
00:22:13,800 --> 00:22:17,360
Speaker 1: of being willfully blind, which is a legal term. So

357
00:22:17,520 --> 00:22:19,760
Speaker 1: tell us what she was getting to their Well, she's

358
00:22:19,800 --> 00:22:22,639
Speaker 1: absolutely right. There's a doctrine in the criminal law that

359
00:22:22,720 --> 00:22:28,960
Speaker 1: you can show intent if you willfully disregard manifest facts

360
00:22:29,359 --> 00:22:32,760
Speaker 1: which you know to be true, and those facts lead

361
00:22:32,880 --> 00:22:36,040
Speaker 1: to criminality. You know, judge will put it to the

362
00:22:36,119 --> 00:22:38,960
Speaker 1: jury this way when he or she gives that charge.

363
00:22:39,400 --> 00:22:42,320
Speaker 1: A defendant can't stick his or her head in the sand.

364
00:22:42,840 --> 00:22:46,800
Speaker 1: Defendant is responsible for the natural consequences of what he says.

365
00:22:46,880 --> 00:22:50,159
Speaker 1: For example, and if he knows that a mob has

366
00:22:50,240 --> 00:22:54,240
Speaker 1: worked up and on the verge of violence, and he

367
00:22:54,320 --> 00:22:57,960
Speaker 1: says certain inflammatory things. He can't turn around later and say, well,

368
00:22:58,000 --> 00:23:00,359
Speaker 1: I never intended that they would go out and lynch

369
00:23:00,880 --> 00:23:03,800
Speaker 1: X Y, even in the absence of a clear intent.

370
00:23:04,240 --> 00:23:09,000
Speaker 1: And that's what the conscious disregard charges all about, and

371
00:23:09,080 --> 00:23:11,359
Speaker 1: it's used all the time, and I think it would

372
00:23:11,359 --> 00:23:15,200
Speaker 1: be probably used here if Trump were indicted. The problem

373
00:23:15,359 --> 00:23:18,080
Speaker 1: what is the intent you're talking about? She's talking about

374
00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:21,160
Speaker 1: a problem of intent, And you can use what I've

375
00:23:21,200 --> 00:23:24,960
Speaker 1: just tried to summarize to buttress your case against the

376
00:23:25,000 --> 00:23:27,960
Speaker 1: defendant and show that in this case, Trump had that

377
00:23:28,040 --> 00:23:32,040
Speaker 1: intent but intend to do what. Once again, that sort

378
00:23:32,040 --> 00:23:36,399
Speaker 1: of begs the question was Trump responsible for the riot?

379
00:23:36,640 --> 00:23:39,959
Speaker 1: Did he intend that they would storm the capital and

380
00:23:40,040 --> 00:23:43,760
Speaker 1: threaten Mike Pence and so forth? And it still brings

381
00:23:43,800 --> 00:23:46,440
Speaker 1: you back to the same issue that the link between

382
00:23:46,600 --> 00:23:51,119
Speaker 1: Trump and those things doesn't appear to me yet to

383
00:23:51,240 --> 00:23:55,359
Speaker 1: be that strong. And what the case really needs is

384
00:23:55,840 --> 00:24:00,639
Speaker 1: an insider, someone like Meadows or someone like Bannon or

385
00:24:00,760 --> 00:24:05,840
Speaker 1: Roger Stone, although they'll never get Roger Stone's yeah he's

386
00:24:05,840 --> 00:24:08,960
Speaker 1: in a different reality, that's true, but someone like that,

387
00:24:09,240 --> 00:24:11,919
Speaker 1: And and here's here's the point, June. This points to

388
00:24:12,000 --> 00:24:15,800
Speaker 1: something institutional it's wrong about the case. The January six

389
00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:20,000
Speaker 1: Committee doesn't have the weapons to compel a witness like

390
00:24:20,080 --> 00:24:23,440
Speaker 1: that to come forward. They can't say, and we've got

391
00:24:23,480 --> 00:24:27,000
Speaker 1: you on X y Z crime. Unless you come forward

392
00:24:27,119 --> 00:24:32,040
Speaker 1: and come clean and make a hundred percent truthful, accurate

393
00:24:32,119 --> 00:24:36,359
Speaker 1: and complete proffer of everything you know, you're going to

394
00:24:36,480 --> 00:24:40,960
Speaker 1: go down. Only the Justice Department can do that. And

395
00:24:41,000 --> 00:24:43,359
Speaker 1: I think as people who have pointed out that Andrew

396
00:24:43,359 --> 00:24:45,439
Speaker 1: Weissman had this piece in the New York Times, you

397
00:24:45,480 --> 00:24:47,680
Speaker 1: may have seen us. And where is the Justice Department?

398
00:24:47,920 --> 00:24:52,040
Speaker 1: Why are they, for example, begging the committee for its transcripts.

399
00:24:52,640 --> 00:24:55,639
Speaker 1: They should have their own transcripts. They should have a

400
00:24:55,640 --> 00:24:59,880
Speaker 1: grand jury investigation creating transcripts that no one else can

401
00:25:00,080 --> 00:25:04,639
Speaker 1: see except the criminal investigators working for the Justice Department.

402
00:25:04,960 --> 00:25:07,800
Speaker 1: They're the only ones who can break through. Liz Cheney,

403
00:25:07,840 --> 00:25:11,520
Speaker 1: brilliant as she is and great as this committee has been,

404
00:25:11,760 --> 00:25:14,840
Speaker 1: is not going to be in a position to break through.

405
00:25:15,760 --> 00:25:20,160
Speaker 1: I don't believe and obtain a witness like this. Could

406
00:25:20,160 --> 00:25:24,240
Speaker 1: the Justice Department charge Mark Meadows and then try to

407
00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:27,200
Speaker 1: flip him, you know, That's what they should be doing

408
00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:30,240
Speaker 1: as we speak. They should be thinking of ways to

409
00:25:30,359 --> 00:25:36,520
Speaker 1: make the people around Trump respond to their inquiries in

410
00:25:36,560 --> 00:25:40,320
Speaker 1: a truthful way. It's speech that every prosecutor is seen

411
00:25:41,440 --> 00:25:44,680
Speaker 1: other prosecutors give hundreds of times. You know, it's the

412
00:25:45,000 --> 00:25:48,680
Speaker 1: it's called the crossroads speech, Mark Meadows, You're on the horn.

413
00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:51,600
Speaker 1: You're at a crossroads in your life. You can either

414
00:25:51,680 --> 00:25:55,600
Speaker 1: be indicted and serve a substantial term in jail, or

415
00:25:55,680 --> 00:25:57,719
Speaker 1: you can get out of this and go on with

416
00:25:57,800 --> 00:26:02,400
Speaker 1: your life. What's it going to be? Now, They've obviously

417
00:26:02,440 --> 00:26:05,920
Speaker 1: had those discussions with all these low level rioters and stuff.

418
00:26:06,080 --> 00:26:08,800
Speaker 1: You know, these these guys that come in from Idaho

419
00:26:08,960 --> 00:26:12,880
Speaker 1: and say, gee, I believe Donald Trump that we had

420
00:26:12,920 --> 00:26:16,120
Speaker 1: to save the country. That's why I'm here. It's obviously

421
00:26:16,160 --> 00:26:19,520
Speaker 1: worked with those people, But are they working their way

422
00:26:19,560 --> 00:26:22,760
Speaker 1: up the chain to make the same pitch, just in

423
00:26:22,800 --> 00:26:26,120
Speaker 1: a more sophisticated way to the higher ups. I hope so.

424
00:26:26,600 --> 00:26:29,600
Speaker 1: I hope Andrew Weisman is wrong that they've been sort

425
00:26:29,640 --> 00:26:32,119
Speaker 1: of sitting on their hands. But you know, it's going

426
00:26:32,200 --> 00:26:35,520
Speaker 1: to be a challenge. I think this January six committee

427
00:26:35,600 --> 00:26:38,280
Speaker 1: has been so successful it sort of took the Justice

428
00:26:38,280 --> 00:26:41,680
Speaker 1: Department by surprise, and now they're playing catchup and that's

429
00:26:41,720 --> 00:26:43,760
Speaker 1: not a position they should really be in. They should

430
00:26:43,760 --> 00:26:46,960
Speaker 1: be leading, which is typically what happens in these cases.

431
00:26:47,040 --> 00:26:50,800
Speaker 1: Typically the Justice Department comes in, they blank at the

432
00:26:50,920 --> 00:26:55,240
Speaker 1: territory with grand jury subpoenas, and then they said, everyone else,

433
00:26:55,320 --> 00:26:59,480
Speaker 1: back off grand jury secrecy. We can't tell you what

434
00:26:59,560 --> 00:27:02,520
Speaker 1: we're up to. It's a violation of federal law. See

435
00:27:02,520 --> 00:27:06,080
Speaker 1: Federal Rule six e grand jury secrecy. You got a

436
00:27:06,119 --> 00:27:09,200
Speaker 1: way to We're done, and that usually ticks off state

437
00:27:09,200 --> 00:27:12,320
Speaker 1: Attorney general, ticks off the sec But that's the way

438
00:27:12,359 --> 00:27:15,760
Speaker 1: it works in most of these cases. But evidently they're

439
00:27:15,760 --> 00:27:19,320
Speaker 1: not doing that here. This does focus attention on the

440
00:27:19,359 --> 00:27:21,199
Speaker 1: Justice Department puts a lot of pressure on them. I

441
00:27:21,200 --> 00:27:23,679
Speaker 1: want to read something that Larry Tribe said, and you

442
00:27:23,720 --> 00:27:27,000
Speaker 1: tell me whether you agree. So the former president's direct

443
00:27:27,040 --> 00:27:30,440
Speaker 1: responsibility for the riot, for the insurrection is now much

444
00:27:30,520 --> 00:27:34,199
Speaker 1: easier to prove, and it would be increasingly problematic for

445
00:27:34,240 --> 00:27:37,679
Speaker 1: the Attorney General not to authorize a full blown investigation

446
00:27:37,800 --> 00:27:42,000
Speaker 1: into the president's direct responsibility. Do you agree. I think

447
00:27:42,040 --> 00:27:45,280
Speaker 1: the a G has been trying to set an example

448
00:27:45,480 --> 00:27:50,439
Speaker 1: to show that the Justice Department is above politics, unlike

449
00:27:50,560 --> 00:27:53,920
Speaker 1: during the Trump administration. Yeah, the Justice part is doing

450
00:27:53,960 --> 00:27:56,840
Speaker 1: a great job, you know, generally speaking, but on this

451
00:27:57,480 --> 00:28:01,080
Speaker 1: hot potato, and that's what it is. This is tremendous

452
00:28:01,119 --> 00:28:04,840
Speaker 1: headache for the Justice Department, given all the other things

453
00:28:04,920 --> 00:28:09,720
Speaker 1: they have to do after Trump to restore faith and

454
00:28:09,760 --> 00:28:13,040
Speaker 1: integrity of the Justice Department. It's a tremendous headache a

455
00:28:13,240 --> 00:28:15,640
Speaker 1: because they're going to be blamed no matter what happens.

456
00:28:15,760 --> 00:28:18,680
Speaker 1: Be the case is really his tribe. I think was

457
00:28:18,800 --> 00:28:23,520
Speaker 1: suggesting they're quite and Weissman was in his piece quite massive.

458
00:28:24,440 --> 00:28:29,960
Speaker 1: All these little strands are subtle and difficult to capture.

459
00:28:30,400 --> 00:28:35,399
Speaker 1: All these witnesses have their agendas. Getting the Trump true

460
00:28:35,400 --> 00:28:40,520
Speaker 1: believers to tell the truth is enormously difficult. There aren't

461
00:28:40,520 --> 00:28:45,560
Speaker 1: that many Cassidy Hutchinson's around, unfortunately, and it is a

462
00:28:45,760 --> 00:28:50,760
Speaker 1: very difficult case. And and keep this in mind, it's

463
00:28:50,800 --> 00:28:54,400
Speaker 1: being conducted. The d o J investigation is being conducted

464
00:28:55,000 --> 00:28:58,960
Speaker 1: in broad daylight. Usually when you start an investigation. All right,

465
00:28:59,040 --> 00:29:00,680
Speaker 1: so I do a lot of secure these laws and

466
00:29:00,720 --> 00:29:02,880
Speaker 1: this and this is how the sec or the U. S.

467
00:29:02,920 --> 00:29:07,600
Speaker 1: Attorney's office works in a securities case. Someone a disgruntled investor,

468
00:29:07,840 --> 00:29:12,680
Speaker 1: let's say, sends them a tip and it's confidential, and

469
00:29:12,720 --> 00:29:15,240
Speaker 1: they have months to work on the tip. They gather

470
00:29:15,520 --> 00:29:23,840
Speaker 1: all the records, trading records, securities records, massive recked tax returns, everything.

471
00:29:24,360 --> 00:29:28,040
Speaker 1: They have the paper trail before they even begin, and

472
00:29:28,040 --> 00:29:31,600
Speaker 1: then they start reaching out to witnesses and until they

473
00:29:31,640 --> 00:29:34,400
Speaker 1: reach a certain level, no one knows this is going on,

474
00:29:34,640 --> 00:29:38,719
Speaker 1: so they can operate with tremendous freedom of movement. This

475
00:29:38,800 --> 00:29:42,600
Speaker 1: case is completely different. It's all been vetted. The January

476
00:29:42,640 --> 00:29:45,400
Speaker 1: six Committee has done do good a job. They're not

477
00:29:45,440 --> 00:29:47,760
Speaker 1: going to have any benefit of surprise. They're not going

478
00:29:47,800 --> 00:29:51,120
Speaker 1: to have any secrecy, and that adds to the complexity.

479
00:29:51,160 --> 00:29:54,960
Speaker 1: But as Professor Tribe was suggesting, they have no alternative

480
00:29:55,040 --> 00:29:57,960
Speaker 1: but to go forward and pursue this. It's become a

481
00:29:58,080 --> 00:30:02,040
Speaker 1: much bigger deal. And I think they saw it at

482
00:30:02,080 --> 00:30:06,760
Speaker 1: the beginning of this process, but it's on their doorstep.

483
00:30:07,840 --> 00:30:09,920
Speaker 1: They have to step up to the challenge and do

484
00:30:10,000 --> 00:30:13,760
Speaker 1: this right. It's going to take a tremendous amount of

485
00:30:13,840 --> 00:30:19,040
Speaker 1: talent and time and resources to do this right. And

486
00:30:19,320 --> 00:30:23,040
Speaker 1: then at the end of the day, you've got policy questions.

487
00:30:23,240 --> 00:30:26,360
Speaker 1: Should this guy even be indicted given the impact it's

488
00:30:26,360 --> 00:30:29,560
Speaker 1: going to have on the country, Which Lord knows is

489
00:30:30,280 --> 00:30:34,520
Speaker 1: suffered enough. She might say those aren't easy questions either.

490
00:30:34,960 --> 00:30:38,000
Speaker 1: But to just get to that point where you have

491
00:30:38,120 --> 00:30:41,560
Speaker 1: a choice indict or not indict, it's going to take

492
00:30:41,600 --> 00:30:46,680
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of work. And you know, they've got

493
00:30:46,680 --> 00:30:49,520
Speaker 1: to have the will to undertake it and do it

494
00:30:49,680 --> 00:30:53,000
Speaker 1: aggressively and do it in the right way, and they

495
00:30:53,280 --> 00:30:59,520
Speaker 1: can't let political considerations interfere with that resolve. Um, They've

496
00:30:59,560 --> 00:31:02,000
Speaker 1: got to treat it like any other case. It's it's

497
00:31:02,040 --> 00:31:05,880
Speaker 1: going to be hard. Thanks so much, Kevin. That's Kevin O'Brien,

498
00:31:06,040 --> 00:31:11,320
Speaker 1: a partner at Ford O'Brien. Landy progressives have been pushing

499
00:31:11,360 --> 00:31:15,120
Speaker 1: President Biden and Senate Democrats to move faster on judicial

500
00:31:15,160 --> 00:31:19,720
Speaker 1: nominations as the mid terms threatened their slim Senate majority,

501
00:31:20,040 --> 00:31:23,440
Speaker 1: joining me as an expert on the judiciary, Carl Tobias,

502
00:31:23,440 --> 00:31:26,520
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Richmond Law School. From

503
00:31:26,520 --> 00:31:30,280
Speaker 1: what they understand, Biden and the Democrats are on track

504
00:31:30,400 --> 00:31:34,560
Speaker 1: to leave more than sixty judicial vacancies open at the

505
00:31:34,720 --> 00:31:38,600
Speaker 1: end of this year. I think that's possible because right

506
00:31:38,600 --> 00:31:43,280
Speaker 1: now we have sixty six at the district level and

507
00:31:43,720 --> 00:31:47,040
Speaker 1: eight at the appeals court level, and There are also

508
00:31:47,160 --> 00:31:50,640
Speaker 1: a number of future vacancies where judges make it contingent

509
00:31:51,280 --> 00:31:55,840
Speaker 1: on someone being confirmed for their position, and so it

510
00:31:56,080 --> 00:31:59,000
Speaker 1: is conceivable if you count all of those that they

511
00:31:59,280 --> 00:32:03,120
Speaker 1: will not be a whole lot lower at the end

512
00:32:03,120 --> 00:32:06,920
Speaker 1: of the year. We've seen how important the courts are,

513
00:32:07,040 --> 00:32:11,360
Speaker 1: and progressives are saying that Senate Democrats should change some

514
00:32:11,480 --> 00:32:14,280
Speaker 1: of the rules the way the Republicans change the rule,

515
00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:18,200
Speaker 1: one being you know a simple thing to schedule more

516
00:32:18,360 --> 00:32:24,520
Speaker 1: nominees at each hearing. They only have hearings every two

517
00:32:24,520 --> 00:32:29,040
Speaker 1: weeks that the Senate is in session. Typically there are

518
00:32:29,240 --> 00:32:34,280
Speaker 1: one or two appellate nominees and three or four, sometimes

519
00:32:34,360 --> 00:32:39,360
Speaker 1: five district nominees at each hearing, and so you could

520
00:32:39,560 --> 00:32:43,320
Speaker 1: have more appellate nominees at a particular hearing. I think

521
00:32:43,360 --> 00:32:47,200
Speaker 1: another proposal is to have more frequent hearings instead of

522
00:32:47,240 --> 00:32:50,000
Speaker 1: every two weeks, have them every ten days or even

523
00:32:50,120 --> 00:32:53,560
Speaker 1: one a week, And so that is a possibility that

524
00:32:53,640 --> 00:32:57,000
Speaker 1: has been proposed. Also, tell us about the blue slips,

525
00:32:57,160 --> 00:32:59,960
Speaker 1: because progressive say, let's get rid of the blue slip

526
00:33:00,160 --> 00:33:04,160
Speaker 1: for district court nominees. Yes, that's another possibility, and I

527
00:33:04,200 --> 00:33:11,440
Speaker 1: think Chair Durban has tried to replicate what the Republicans

528
00:33:11,480 --> 00:33:16,360
Speaker 1: did during Trump's time and essentially said what's good for

529
00:33:16,680 --> 00:33:20,120
Speaker 1: Republicans when they have the majority is good for Democrats

530
00:33:20,160 --> 00:33:25,240
Speaker 1: when they have the majority. And so has said that

531
00:33:25,360 --> 00:33:29,640
Speaker 1: blue slips will not apply to Appeals Court nominees because

532
00:33:29,760 --> 00:33:33,360
Speaker 1: Senator Grassles chair said there would be an exception for

533
00:33:33,560 --> 00:33:40,280
Speaker 1: Circuit court nominees. And one way to move more quickly

534
00:33:41,040 --> 00:33:45,040
Speaker 1: is to abolish the blue slip for district courts, But

535
00:33:45,280 --> 00:33:48,760
Speaker 1: so far Senator Durban has said no, and I think

536
00:33:49,520 --> 00:33:54,320
Speaker 1: he knows that that would drive the spiral downward even further,

537
00:33:54,480 --> 00:33:58,320
Speaker 1: and so I think that's the problem for him. That's

538
00:33:58,440 --> 00:34:03,880
Speaker 1: uncharted territory. It certainly would make it easier to nominate

539
00:34:03,920 --> 00:34:09,560
Speaker 1: and confirm candidates for red states, and very few of

540
00:34:09,600 --> 00:34:13,040
Speaker 1: those nominees have come from the White House so far.

541
00:34:13,360 --> 00:34:16,200
Speaker 1: There's been plenty of vacancies in blue states and that

542
00:34:16,360 --> 00:34:20,680
Speaker 1: has kept the White House more than busy. Republicans have

543
00:34:20,840 --> 00:34:25,240
Speaker 1: changed the rules for judicial nominations a couple of times.

544
00:34:25,280 --> 00:34:28,760
Speaker 1: So why are Democrats so reluctant to change the rules

545
00:34:29,080 --> 00:34:31,560
Speaker 1: when there's so much at stake? Why don't they make

546
00:34:31,600 --> 00:34:35,080
Speaker 1: their own rules? Especially when Lindsay Graham has sort of

547
00:34:35,160 --> 00:34:39,160
Speaker 1: promised to change when the Republicans take over. If they

548
00:34:39,200 --> 00:34:43,120
Speaker 1: take over well, and so has Mitch McConnell. He said

549
00:34:43,160 --> 00:34:47,000
Speaker 1: that just about uh a week ago or so in

550
00:34:47,080 --> 00:34:52,879
Speaker 1: Kentucky that he will scrutinize much more closely than Democrats

551
00:34:53,000 --> 00:34:57,560
Speaker 1: have the nominees if the Republicans take the majority in

552
00:34:57,640 --> 00:35:02,560
Speaker 1: the midterm election to November. And so you're correct, but

553
00:35:03,400 --> 00:35:09,920
Speaker 1: Durban also recognizes if that happens, that it could become

554
00:35:09,960 --> 00:35:13,040
Speaker 1: even more draconian and the process could become even worse

555
00:35:13,400 --> 00:35:16,720
Speaker 1: if Democrats were to use those kind of tactics now,

556
00:35:17,600 --> 00:35:21,320
Speaker 1: so I think he's keeping his powder dry. But certainly

557
00:35:21,480 --> 00:35:26,120
Speaker 1: he could schedule either more people on hearings or schedule

558
00:35:26,200 --> 00:35:30,120
Speaker 1: them more often. It does put a strain on the

559
00:35:30,200 --> 00:35:34,600
Speaker 1: resources of the Judiciary Committee, which are rather limited, but

560
00:35:34,680 --> 00:35:38,080
Speaker 1: it would be possible to do that, and so we

561
00:35:38,160 --> 00:35:41,360
Speaker 1: may see it. Um. He hasn't said yet that he will,

562
00:35:42,000 --> 00:35:44,840
Speaker 1: but he could. And but the calendar is difficult now

563
00:35:45,239 --> 00:35:47,759
Speaker 1: if you look, I mean most of August the then

564
00:35:47,840 --> 00:35:51,319
Speaker 1: it traditionally has been out. They could stay later when

565
00:35:51,360 --> 00:35:53,960
Speaker 1: they come back at Labor Day from the August break,

566
00:35:54,080 --> 00:35:57,160
Speaker 1: they'll want to go campaign because the third of them

567
00:35:57,200 --> 00:36:00,960
Speaker 1: will be up or they'll be open seats in their states,

568
00:36:01,000 --> 00:36:03,799
Speaker 1: and so they will want to leave and may not

569
00:36:03,840 --> 00:36:06,359
Speaker 1: come back to after the elections. But there are also

570
00:36:06,480 --> 00:36:09,640
Speaker 1: the possibility to be lamed up after the November eight

571
00:36:09,840 --> 00:36:13,360
Speaker 1: midterm elections, and that could run all the way till

572
00:36:13,640 --> 00:36:17,160
Speaker 1: early January, so there could be more hearings and more

573
00:36:17,640 --> 00:36:21,439
Speaker 1: nominations and more confirmations. Then is there a problem with

574
00:36:21,840 --> 00:36:25,520
Speaker 1: the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer scheduling floor time or

575
00:36:25,560 --> 00:36:28,040
Speaker 1: can he do that if it's important? He can do

576
00:36:28,080 --> 00:36:31,120
Speaker 1: that if it's important. Part of the problem or the

577
00:36:31,800 --> 00:36:35,000
Speaker 1: slowness on the floor can be attributed to the limited

578
00:36:35,000 --> 00:36:39,120
Speaker 1: time that leader and the Democrats have. They basically come

579
00:36:39,120 --> 00:36:41,759
Speaker 1: in on Monday evening and leave on Thursday evening, and

580
00:36:41,920 --> 00:36:44,520
Speaker 1: so there's not a lot of floor time, and some

581
00:36:44,640 --> 00:36:46,839
Speaker 1: of that is going to be used on legislation, but

582
00:36:46,960 --> 00:36:50,680
Speaker 1: it is certainly possible. What isn't happening, which was a

583
00:36:50,680 --> 00:36:53,799
Speaker 1: good tradition both sides followed, was when they come up

584
00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:57,680
Speaker 1: to recesses to gather together a group of people who

585
00:36:57,760 --> 00:37:01,040
Speaker 1: are on the floor and vote them route. But now

586
00:37:01,520 --> 00:37:03,480
Speaker 1: you have to have a cloture vote. Then you have

587
00:37:03,560 --> 00:37:07,040
Speaker 1: to have the confirmation vote, so each nominee takes an hour,

588
00:37:07,400 --> 00:37:09,320
Speaker 1: and then then you have to have debate on thirty

589
00:37:09,360 --> 00:37:13,280
Speaker 1: hours of debate on Appeals Court nominees, and so there

590
00:37:13,520 --> 00:37:15,960
Speaker 1: can be a bit of a log jam created. But

591
00:37:16,239 --> 00:37:18,719
Speaker 1: they could take a week and devote all that week

592
00:37:18,920 --> 00:37:22,240
Speaker 1: to putting people up on the floor. Is the White

593
00:37:22,280 --> 00:37:29,280
Speaker 1: House presenting nominees that are less controversial in an attempt

594
00:37:29,280 --> 00:37:34,360
Speaker 1: to get more through faster? I don't think so. Occasionally

595
00:37:35,000 --> 00:37:39,680
Speaker 1: it seems as if, um, some of the nominees are

596
00:37:40,680 --> 00:37:44,520
Speaker 1: less likely to be considered controversial by the GOP than

597
00:37:45,080 --> 00:37:51,560
Speaker 1: some earlier nominees. For example, UM, you know magistrate judges

598
00:37:51,680 --> 00:37:55,600
Speaker 1: like uh Judge Pryor for the Seventh Circuit and then

599
00:37:55,680 --> 00:38:00,080
Speaker 1: Dana Douglas a magistrate judge for the Fifth Circuit. I

600
00:38:00,120 --> 00:38:06,360
Speaker 1: think are have you know, strong experience uh and have

601
00:38:06,400 --> 00:38:13,360
Speaker 1: been judicial system or um been magistrate judges UM before?

602
00:38:14,120 --> 00:38:20,560
Speaker 1: Though UM, I think to some extent the people For example,

603
00:38:20,960 --> 00:38:25,759
Speaker 1: Judge pan who was not nominated and had a hearing

604
00:38:25,800 --> 00:38:29,560
Speaker 1: already being elevated from the d C District Court for

605
00:38:30,480 --> 00:38:35,520
Speaker 1: a vacancy on the DC Circuit. UH, she is very experienced,

606
00:38:35,560 --> 00:38:39,280
Speaker 1: has been was a Spirit Court judge for ten years

607
00:38:39,280 --> 00:38:44,920
Speaker 1: and then on the DC District Court for a short period. Um.

608
00:38:44,960 --> 00:38:48,240
Speaker 1: But she is the kind of nominee that we're seeing

609
00:38:48,280 --> 00:38:53,360
Speaker 1: now um and as opposed to say someone who is

610
00:38:54,280 --> 00:38:58,600
Speaker 1: has been a federal public defender. So there's some of that,

611
00:38:58,760 --> 00:39:03,440
Speaker 1: but I don't think it's very um, very prevalent um

612
00:39:03,480 --> 00:39:08,000
Speaker 1: and to some extent um they don't want to bring

613
00:39:08,080 --> 00:39:11,359
Speaker 1: forward very controversial people and I don't I don't think

614
00:39:11,400 --> 00:39:16,399
Speaker 1: they have UM and so UM. Maybe there is some

615
00:39:16,520 --> 00:39:20,440
Speaker 1: movement of what you're talking about, but it isn't large

616
00:39:20,520 --> 00:39:25,400
Speaker 1: quantitatively or qualitatively. They're still all very experience and often

617
00:39:25,480 --> 00:39:31,520
Speaker 1: very diverse uh in many ways, especially experience um in ideology.

618
00:39:32,000 --> 00:39:36,200
Speaker 1: Justice Katangi Brown Jackson is joining the court and she's

619
00:39:36,239 --> 00:39:38,760
Speaker 1: going to face a docket with a lot of highly

620
00:39:38,800 --> 00:39:41,960
Speaker 1: controversial cases. Will she make a difference on the court

621
00:39:42,360 --> 00:39:45,959
Speaker 1: because the six to three the super majority has been

622
00:39:46,360 --> 00:39:51,600
Speaker 1: basically you know, controlling and doing what they want. Well,

623
00:39:52,320 --> 00:39:55,080
Speaker 1: I mean, you are buying thirty years of time because

624
00:39:55,080 --> 00:39:59,880
Speaker 1: she's thirty two or so years younger than Justice Prior,

625
00:40:00,000 --> 00:40:03,880
Speaker 1: who was terrific justice. But I think her views are

626
00:40:04,120 --> 00:40:08,720
Speaker 1: are somewhat similar to his and so I think she's

627
00:40:08,840 --> 00:40:14,120
Speaker 1: likely to be a strong voice. Um, but you're correct,

628
00:40:14,320 --> 00:40:19,440
Speaker 1: the math is not very promising. And as Justice Brennan

629
00:40:19,520 --> 00:40:23,239
Speaker 1: used to recognize and did so, well, you have to

630
00:40:23,280 --> 00:40:27,040
Speaker 1: get the five and so she is likely to be

631
00:40:27,200 --> 00:40:30,200
Speaker 1: dissenting on a number of cases. But as she told

632
00:40:30,200 --> 00:40:34,800
Speaker 1: the committee when she was confirmed, she will take each

633
00:40:35,000 --> 00:40:37,920
Speaker 1: case on the law and the facts in the particular cases.

634
00:40:38,360 --> 00:40:42,440
Speaker 1: So we'll see what kind of position she takes, but

635
00:40:42,680 --> 00:40:46,400
Speaker 1: I expect she will be dissenting a fair amount with

636
00:40:46,520 --> 00:40:52,040
Speaker 1: the other Democratic appointees, Elena Kagan and Sonya Soto Mayor.

637
00:40:53,120 --> 00:40:58,319
Speaker 1: So with this last term where the Republican super majority

638
00:40:58,960 --> 00:41:03,560
Speaker 1: did away with the constitutional right to abortion, continued knocking

639
00:41:03,600 --> 00:41:07,200
Speaker 1: down the wall between church and state, took away power

640
00:41:07,239 --> 00:41:10,520
Speaker 1: from the e p A to curb climate change, put

641
00:41:10,520 --> 00:41:13,799
Speaker 1: more guns on the streets in major cities. Is there

642
00:41:14,040 --> 00:41:19,520
Speaker 1: more movement you think to expand the Supreme Court. Well,

643
00:41:19,560 --> 00:41:23,840
Speaker 1: I think there's discussion and talk about that. The President,

644
00:41:23,880 --> 00:41:26,279
Speaker 1: I think, has said that he does not want to

645
00:41:26,320 --> 00:41:29,480
Speaker 1: expand the Supreme Court. They had a commission. The commission

646
00:41:30,080 --> 00:41:33,840
Speaker 1: had a lengthy report but didn't make very strong recommendations.

647
00:41:33,880 --> 00:41:37,160
Speaker 1: But I think there is some more serious discussion, for example,

648
00:41:37,239 --> 00:41:40,920
Speaker 1: of term limits and their questions about whether that could

649
00:41:41,040 --> 00:41:43,880
Speaker 1: withstand a challenge. We'll just have to see. But I

650
00:41:43,920 --> 00:41:47,080
Speaker 1: do think the rulings we saw, especially the abortion ruling,

651
00:41:47,160 --> 00:41:50,480
Speaker 1: but others that you just talked about, are on the

652
00:41:50,480 --> 00:41:55,920
Speaker 1: minds of many Americans, and certainly Dobbs is an issue

653
00:41:56,120 --> 00:42:00,680
Speaker 1: for much of the American population which does favor the

654
00:42:00,760 --> 00:42:05,360
Speaker 1: possibility of legal abortions, and we have many issues to

655
00:42:05,560 --> 00:42:09,400
Speaker 1: address in that area. Thanks Carl. That's Professor Carl Tobias

656
00:42:09,400 --> 00:42:12,640
Speaker 1: of the University of Richmond Law School. Coming up, Steve

657
00:42:12,680 --> 00:42:16,319
Speaker 1: Bannon's trial starts on Monday. This is Bloomberg and that's

658
00:42:16,360 --> 00:42:19,160
Speaker 1: if the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

659
00:42:19,160 --> 00:42:21,600
Speaker 1: can always at the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

660
00:42:21,680 --> 00:42:25,560
Speaker 1: Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

661
00:42:25,600 --> 00:42:30,560
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law.

662
00:42:30,800 --> 00:42:33,080
Speaker 1: I'm June Brassel, and you're listening to Bloomberg