1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:12,000
Speaker 1: I just know that on a day like today, that

3
00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:14,680
Speaker 1: redemption is possible.

4
00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:18,440
Speaker 2: Thirty five years after they were sentenced to life in

5
00:00:18,520 --> 00:00:22,520
Speaker 2: prison without the possibility of parole for the cold blooded

6
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:26,320
Speaker 2: murders of their parents, a remarkable turn for Eric and

7
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:29,800
Speaker 2: Lyle Menendez. They now have a chance of getting out

8
00:00:29,840 --> 00:00:34,320
Speaker 2: of prison. Family members have supported the brothers throughout the years,

9
00:00:34,880 --> 00:00:37,640
Speaker 2: and they were in court yesterday at the re sentencing

10
00:00:37,720 --> 00:00:42,600
Speaker 2: hearing to testify that not only were Eric and Lyle rehabilitated,

11
00:00:42,760 --> 00:00:47,040
Speaker 2: but they helped other prisoners, including by starting support groups.

12
00:00:47,560 --> 00:00:51,239
Speaker 3: Ultimately, we are here today with this result because of

13
00:00:51,440 --> 00:00:54,279
Speaker 3: Eric and Lyle, because they had They chose to live

14
00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:58,639
Speaker 3: their lives with clarity and a purpose of service that

15
00:00:58,720 --> 00:01:02,440
Speaker 3: the judge was impressed by.

16
00:01:02,480 --> 00:01:06,039
Speaker 4: This is something my grandmother, Joan, has fought for her

17
00:01:06,080 --> 00:01:12,360
Speaker 4: for thirty five years. I really wish she was here today,

18
00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:16,640
Speaker 4: but I'm really excited to give her the news.

19
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:20,800
Speaker 2: LA District Attorney Nathan Hoffman had attempted to block the

20
00:01:20,880 --> 00:01:25,959
Speaker 2: resentencying at every turn, arguing repeatedly that Eric and Lyle

21
00:01:26,040 --> 00:01:29,559
Speaker 2: had not admitted to lies told during their trial about

22
00:01:29,640 --> 00:01:33,200
Speaker 2: why they killed their parents, nor have they taken complete

23
00:01:33,240 --> 00:01:35,280
Speaker 2: responsibility for their crimes.

24
00:01:35,840 --> 00:01:40,479
Speaker 5: Whether it's some Menenda's brothers or anyone who basically engaged

25
00:01:40,520 --> 00:01:44,600
Speaker 5: in a horrific, brutal killing of their parents, shotgunning their

26
00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:48,240
Speaker 5: parents over thirteen times when they were adults eighteen and

27
00:01:48,320 --> 00:01:50,840
Speaker 5: twenty one years old, I would have concern whether it's

28
00:01:50,880 --> 00:01:53,680
Speaker 5: the Menenda's brothers or anyone it fits that profile.

29
00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:57,880
Speaker 2: Both Eric and Lyle addressed the court and took responsibility

30
00:01:57,920 --> 00:02:00,640
Speaker 2: for the murders of their parents and the lies they

31
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:04,560
Speaker 2: told in court. Eric said, I have profound sorrow for

32
00:02:04,640 --> 00:02:07,760
Speaker 2: the tragedy I created. I took the lives of my

33
00:02:07,920 --> 00:02:12,240
Speaker 2: mom and dad. My actions were criminal, cruel, and cowardly.

34
00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 2: Lyle said, I killed my parents. I offer no excuse

35
00:02:16,320 --> 00:02:20,600
Speaker 2: and I don't blame my parents. Judge Michael Jessic resentenced

36
00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:24,640
Speaker 2: the brothers, reducing their sentences from life in prison without

37
00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:29,520
Speaker 2: parole to fifty years to life, making them immediately eligible

38
00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:32,799
Speaker 2: for parole. But there's still a long road ahead that

39
00:02:32,880 --> 00:02:36,040
Speaker 2: goes through the parole board and the governor. Joining me

40
00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:39,800
Speaker 2: is Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney and

41
00:02:39,880 --> 00:02:43,600
Speaker 2: managing partner of Dave Arenberg Law. Dave, let's talk about

42
00:02:43,600 --> 00:02:48,440
Speaker 2: what this resentencing hearing was and what it wasn't. It

43
00:02:48,560 --> 00:02:52,760
Speaker 2: wasn't about re litigating the murders, but it was about

44
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:55,639
Speaker 2: whether the brothers have been rehabilitated.

45
00:02:56,160 --> 00:03:00,600
Speaker 1: The hearing was surely for the judge, that is, whether

46
00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:04,760
Speaker 1: or not the Menendez brothers can be resentenced, and he

47
00:03:04,760 --> 00:03:09,920
Speaker 1: heard testimony from family members and decided that in the

48
00:03:09,960 --> 00:03:14,680
Speaker 1: interest of justice, that Menanda's brothers would be resentenced under

49
00:03:14,960 --> 00:03:18,919
Speaker 1: the rules of the time, which permitted someone who committed

50
00:03:18,960 --> 00:03:22,079
Speaker 1: such a horrific offense who's under the age of twenty

51
00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:25,800
Speaker 1: six to be eligible for parole. The thing is, at

52
00:03:25,840 --> 00:03:29,240
Speaker 1: the time they were sentenced to life in prison without parole,

53
00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 1: but now they're changing it to with pearol, and now

54
00:03:32,360 --> 00:03:35,360
Speaker 1: the Menendez brothers can go before the parole board to

55
00:03:35,440 --> 00:03:36,200
Speaker 1: let him out early.

56
00:03:36,720 --> 00:03:42,040
Speaker 2: Nathan Hoffman, the LA District attorney, opposed to resentencing and

57
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:45,600
Speaker 2: attempted to block it in every way he could. Why

58
00:03:45,760 --> 00:03:47,400
Speaker 2: was he so opposed to it?

59
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:51,480
Speaker 1: He ran on a law and ordered platform and he

60
00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:54,720
Speaker 1: got elected to be tougher on crime as opposed to

61
00:03:54,800 --> 00:03:58,040
Speaker 1: the predecessor Gassone, who was seen as one of those

62
00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:02,760
Speaker 1: Soros reform prosecute. So this is in line with Takman's

63
00:04:02,760 --> 00:04:06,880
Speaker 1: brand to be tough on crime, and he represented what

64
00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:09,640
Speaker 1: I considered like this press the silent majority, not the

65
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:13,880
Speaker 1: celebrities who came out and masked to support the Menendez brothers,

66
00:04:14,240 --> 00:04:18,040
Speaker 1: but people who said, I remember this horrific crime and

67
00:04:18,320 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: they were sentenced a life in prison. To get life

68
00:04:21,400 --> 00:04:24,360
Speaker 1: in prison, and that didn't mean thirty five years in prison.

69
00:04:24,839 --> 00:04:29,240
Speaker 2: The testimony was from family members of the Menendez brothers

70
00:04:29,279 --> 00:04:33,640
Speaker 2: and it was about how they have rehabilitated themselves in prison.

71
00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:37,440
Speaker 1: The family members were the biggest supporters of an early release.

72
00:04:37,760 --> 00:04:41,359
Speaker 1: Now all the family members but seemingly one who passed away,

73
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:44,919
Speaker 1: wanted them out early. But the district attorney does not

74
00:04:45,080 --> 00:04:48,680
Speaker 1: represent the victim, does not represent the family members. They

75
00:04:48,720 --> 00:04:52,360
Speaker 1: represent the people. That's why it's usually the people versus

76
00:04:52,640 --> 00:04:57,240
Speaker 1: Menendez or the state versus Menendez. And in this case,

77
00:04:57,480 --> 00:05:00,719
Speaker 1: the decision of the district attorney was that it is

78
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:04,400
Speaker 1: in the interest of the people of California that the

79
00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:06,640
Speaker 1: Menenda's brothers stay behind bars.

80
00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:12,400
Speaker 2: So they were model prisoners. Apparently, Lyle had absolutely no

81
00:05:12,920 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 2: you know, write ups for violence in the years they

82
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:19,640
Speaker 2: were in prison. Apparently Eric had won. That was twenty

83
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:25,240
Speaker 2: five years ago, So there really was no evidence that

84
00:05:25,279 --> 00:05:27,839
Speaker 2: they hadn't reformed themselves, was there.

85
00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:31,560
Speaker 1: Well, there was a report that showed that they did

86
00:05:31,880 --> 00:05:36,880
Speaker 1: have contraband inside the prison, which was cell phone and

87
00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:41,640
Speaker 1: potential drugs. That's part of a report, and whether or

88
00:05:41,720 --> 00:05:46,280
Speaker 1: not that means they have not been reformed. Well, when

89
00:05:46,279 --> 00:05:50,720
Speaker 1: it comes to violence, they clearly did not commit anything

90
00:05:50,880 --> 00:05:54,520
Speaker 1: like that in prison. They were different people behind bars,

91
00:05:54,560 --> 00:05:56,800
Speaker 1: they helped others. But yet there are a lot of

92
00:05:56,800 --> 00:06:02,080
Speaker 1: people who find God behind bars and they help others,

93
00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:04,680
Speaker 1: and they don't get released early from a life sentence.

94
00:06:04,680 --> 00:06:07,279
Speaker 1: So it seems that the celebrity in this case, the

95
00:06:07,320 --> 00:06:09,279
Speaker 1: power of celebrity made a real difference.

96
00:06:09,440 --> 00:06:13,120
Speaker 2: I wonder if this would have happened if you hadn't

97
00:06:13,160 --> 00:06:17,640
Speaker 2: had that Netflix documentary that sort of introduced a whole

98
00:06:17,720 --> 00:06:22,839
Speaker 2: new generation of people to the Menendez brothers in a

99
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:24,080
Speaker 2: sympathetic way.

100
00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:27,880
Speaker 1: I agree the power of streaming, the power of celebrity.

101
00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:31,160
Speaker 1: I think the Menendez brothers became a cause celeb and

102
00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:34,960
Speaker 1: as a result, they got some benefits from it. They

103
00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:37,279
Speaker 1: got all this worldwide attention they had the best lawyers

104
00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:40,919
Speaker 1: possible for them, and they were able to convince the

105
00:06:41,040 --> 00:06:44,040
Speaker 1: district attorney to side with them to get a resentencing.

106
00:06:44,279 --> 00:06:47,120
Speaker 1: And then that district attorney lost the election, but the

107
00:06:47,200 --> 00:06:50,760
Speaker 1: judge went ahead with it anyways, And now it's up

108
00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:53,080
Speaker 1: to the pro board and the governor, and I think

109
00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:55,360
Speaker 1: they will be let out early. I don't think there

110
00:06:55,360 --> 00:06:58,560
Speaker 1: are any risk of reoffending any violent crime. I think

111
00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:02,400
Speaker 1: they did get reform behind prison walls. But on the

112
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:04,600
Speaker 1: other hand, how many other people in their situation get

113
00:07:04,640 --> 00:07:07,480
Speaker 1: this benefit, get sentence to life in prison and they

114
00:07:07,480 --> 00:07:11,960
Speaker 1: get out early because they were good prisoners. Not many.

115
00:07:12,280 --> 00:07:16,520
Speaker 1: But this case was treated differently because of the celebrity involved,

116
00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:19,000
Speaker 1: because of the notoriety, and that's the issue I have.

117
00:07:19,360 --> 00:07:21,800
Speaker 1: I just don't think they were treated like everyone else.

118
00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:26,360
Speaker 2: But in their second trial, the judge limited the testimony

119
00:07:26,640 --> 00:07:31,080
Speaker 2: about the allegations of abuse, and it's possible the jury

120
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:34,400
Speaker 2: would have come out with a verdict of manslaughter instead

121
00:07:34,440 --> 00:07:38,320
Speaker 2: of murder if the abuse allegations had gotten a full hearing.

122
00:07:39,240 --> 00:07:41,480
Speaker 1: Well, that was a judge's determination at the time, and

123
00:07:41,560 --> 00:07:44,360
Speaker 1: the crimes were not overturned on appeal. I mean the

124
00:07:44,400 --> 00:07:46,440
Speaker 1: proper venue. If you think that the judge made a

125
00:07:46,480 --> 00:07:49,120
Speaker 1: bad decision is to appeal it. But the appellate courts

126
00:07:49,200 --> 00:07:51,600
Speaker 1: did not agree, thought that they got a fair trial.

127
00:07:52,320 --> 00:07:55,800
Speaker 1: And as far as being led out, the real reason

128
00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:57,920
Speaker 1: why they're being led out, apparently, at least according to

129
00:07:57,960 --> 00:08:00,920
Speaker 1: the previous DA, was because of their good behavior behind bars.

130
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 1: But there are a lot of people behind bars who

131
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:06,520
Speaker 1: act with good behavior and they don't get let out early.

132
00:08:06,640 --> 00:08:09,680
Speaker 1: The difference here to me is the celebrity aspect of

133
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:11,360
Speaker 1: it that doesn't exist in other cases.

134
00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:15,200
Speaker 2: The DA Hawkman had complained over and over that they

135
00:08:15,240 --> 00:08:20,160
Speaker 2: hadn't taken responsibility for the crimes, but both brothers made

136
00:08:20,200 --> 00:08:26,960
Speaker 2: these remarkable statements accepting full responsibility for the murders. Lyle

137
00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:29,720
Speaker 2: said that all the choices he made were his own,

138
00:08:29,880 --> 00:08:33,559
Speaker 2: including quote the choice to reload, return to the den,

139
00:08:33,679 --> 00:08:35,560
Speaker 2: and run up to my mother and shoot her in

140
00:08:35,600 --> 00:08:39,080
Speaker 2: the head. And he apologized for making a mockery of

141
00:08:39,120 --> 00:08:42,520
Speaker 2: the criminal legal system by lying. Does that seem like

142
00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:45,640
Speaker 2: the kind of apology that the LADA was looking for.

143
00:08:46,320 --> 00:08:49,840
Speaker 1: It does, and that's something that I thought has been underreported.

144
00:08:49,880 --> 00:08:52,280
Speaker 1: I'm glad you brought it up to gen because Hawkman

145
00:08:52,320 --> 00:08:55,920
Speaker 1: had asked for a real apology, said enough of this abuse,

146
00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:59,320
Speaker 1: excuse take responsibility for your actions. Stop saying that you

147
00:08:59,360 --> 00:09:01,760
Speaker 1: had to kill your parents because they would have killed

148
00:09:01,800 --> 00:09:04,800
Speaker 1: you first. That was a lie all along. And I

149
00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:08,880
Speaker 1: do believe with their statements that they went a long

150
00:09:08,920 --> 00:09:13,480
Speaker 1: way towards meeting Kachman's request, and that's why I think

151
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:15,960
Speaker 1: that they will be released earlier. I do think that

152
00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:21,400
Speaker 1: this was as close to a full fledged apology acknowledgment

153
00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:24,400
Speaker 1: of guilt that we have ever seen from them. It

154
00:09:24,520 --> 00:09:27,520
Speaker 1: was something different than before, and I think that's going

155
00:09:27,559 --> 00:09:28,720
Speaker 1: to lead to their early release.

156
00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:32,120
Speaker 2: The judge called the crime shocking. He said he was

157
00:09:32,160 --> 00:09:35,640
Speaker 2: also shocked by the number of corrections officials who wrote

158
00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:38,480
Speaker 2: letters on behalf of the brothers, and that seemed to

159
00:09:38,520 --> 00:09:40,640
Speaker 2: be an important part of his decision.

160
00:09:41,840 --> 00:09:45,680
Speaker 1: It was something that corrections officials and family members all

161
00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:47,880
Speaker 1: sided with them, and I do think the celebrity part

162
00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:49,720
Speaker 1: of it has something to do with it. The Netflix

163
00:09:49,720 --> 00:09:53,320
Speaker 1: shows the movement behind them. Yeah, I think that did

164
00:09:53,360 --> 00:09:56,959
Speaker 1: persuade people. But I do think also there's really little

165
00:09:56,960 --> 00:09:59,559
Speaker 1: doubt that they are different people today than they were

166
00:09:59,679 --> 00:10:03,040
Speaker 1: back there. They were real spoiled, selfish kids. Who acted

167
00:10:03,320 --> 00:10:06,280
Speaker 1: in a brutal, horrific way. I mean the fact that

168
00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:10,400
Speaker 1: the mother who did not engage in sexual abuse but

169
00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:14,160
Speaker 1: may have helped cover it up. But she was crawling

170
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:17,280
Speaker 1: away after being shot by a shotgun, and then the

171
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:21,400
Speaker 1: brothers went outside to reload to continue to come in

172
00:10:21,480 --> 00:10:24,760
Speaker 1: and shoot her ten times, including in the face. There

173
00:10:24,840 --> 00:10:28,360
Speaker 1: was so much blood on the scene that the cops

174
00:10:28,360 --> 00:10:31,920
Speaker 1: thought this was a mafia hit, and yet they lied

175
00:10:31,920 --> 00:10:35,280
Speaker 1: about everything. They went on a spending spree. Only after

176
00:10:35,320 --> 00:10:38,280
Speaker 1: spending seven hundred thousand dollars in quick turn did they

177
00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:42,720
Speaker 1: attract the attention of law enforcement and then were eventually arrested.

178
00:10:42,760 --> 00:10:45,160
Speaker 1: But they got away with it for a while. They

179
00:10:45,160 --> 00:10:48,240
Speaker 1: got what they wanted, and I thought they deserved their sentence.

180
00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:51,920
Speaker 1: But you know, they are reformed, and if the system

181
00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:54,160
Speaker 1: lets them out early, I don't think they will reoffend.

182
00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:57,760
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Boomberg Law Show, I'll continue

183
00:10:57,760 --> 00:11:01,800
Speaker 2: this conversation with Dave Arenberg. We'll talk about the three

184
00:11:01,840 --> 00:11:05,400
Speaker 2: paths to freedom the Menendez brothers have right now, and

185
00:11:05,480 --> 00:11:09,040
Speaker 2: an update on their racketeering and sex trafficking trial of

186
00:11:09,120 --> 00:11:12,920
Speaker 2: Seawan Combe's I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg,

187
00:11:14,640 --> 00:11:17,440
Speaker 2: Eric and Lyle Menendez have been given their first chance

188
00:11:17,520 --> 00:11:21,720
Speaker 2: at freedom in decades. A Los Angeles judge reduced the

189
00:11:21,760 --> 00:11:26,440
Speaker 2: brother's sentences from life in prison without parole to fifty

190
00:11:26,520 --> 00:11:30,880
Speaker 2: years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole. But

191
00:11:30,960 --> 00:11:34,319
Speaker 2: there's a long road ahead. The brothers now have three

192
00:11:34,360 --> 00:11:37,880
Speaker 2: potential paths to freedom, through the Parole Board, which could

193
00:11:37,880 --> 00:11:41,000
Speaker 2: grant them parole, through the governor, who could grant them

194
00:11:41,080 --> 00:11:45,760
Speaker 2: executive clemency, and through a petition for habeas corpus, where

195
00:11:45,800 --> 00:11:48,559
Speaker 2: a judge could grant them a new trial. I've been

196
00:11:48,559 --> 00:11:52,559
Speaker 2: talking to former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg. Dave,

197
00:11:52,640 --> 00:11:57,120
Speaker 2: their clemency hearing is already set for June thirteenth, and

198
00:11:57,200 --> 00:12:00,920
Speaker 2: as part of the clemency hearing, the Parole Board already

199
00:12:00,920 --> 00:12:05,800
Speaker 2: conducted an evaluation to determine what dangers the brothers may

200
00:12:05,880 --> 00:12:11,600
Speaker 2: pose if released. It's called a comprehensive risk assessment. Here's

201
00:12:11,640 --> 00:12:15,000
Speaker 2: what la DA Nathan Hoffman said about the findings.

202
00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:19,080
Speaker 6: We have this additional new information coming in from the

203
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:24,240
Speaker 6: border Parole senior psychologists that have assessed that risk as

204
00:12:24,240 --> 00:12:27,559
Speaker 6: a moderate risk, not a high risk. Not a low risk,

205
00:12:27,640 --> 00:12:28,680
Speaker 6: but a moderate risk.

206
00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:30,720
Speaker 2: So what do you think is the best path for

207
00:12:30,760 --> 00:12:31,760
Speaker 2: them to get released.

208
00:12:32,200 --> 00:12:34,720
Speaker 1: I was actually surprised when I saw that moderate risk.

209
00:12:35,280 --> 00:12:36,880
Speaker 1: I don't think they will REAFFCD. I mean, there's so

210
00:12:36,920 --> 00:12:38,680
Speaker 1: many eyeballs on these guys. They're going to go on

211
00:12:38,720 --> 00:12:42,240
Speaker 1: the speaking circuit, they're gonna go through reality shows. I mean,

212
00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:44,600
Speaker 1: I think it's unfair because they're going to be treated

213
00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:47,040
Speaker 1: in a way that others are not. They're going to

214
00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:49,800
Speaker 1: get super celebrity and make a lot of money off this,

215
00:12:50,040 --> 00:12:53,400
Speaker 1: and no one should profit off their infamy. But I

216
00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:56,240
Speaker 1: do think that the two tracks will lead to their

217
00:12:56,280 --> 00:12:59,559
Speaker 1: early release, whether it's the Governor Newsom track of the

218
00:12:59,640 --> 00:13:02,760
Speaker 1: clements see board and then signed by the governor or

219
00:13:02,840 --> 00:13:06,000
Speaker 1: the parole board, which is what the judge just sanctioned.

220
00:13:06,240 --> 00:13:08,880
Speaker 1: So either way, I think they're headed towards the release.

221
00:13:09,679 --> 00:13:13,760
Speaker 2: And if the parole board does deny parole, it has

222
00:13:13,840 --> 00:13:17,160
Speaker 2: to do so for a period of three, five, seven,

223
00:13:17,280 --> 00:13:20,680
Speaker 2: ten or fifteen years, so it could deny parole and

224
00:13:20,720 --> 00:13:23,800
Speaker 2: then say, well, come back in three years.

225
00:13:23,920 --> 00:13:26,320
Speaker 1: I would think that would be probably the best case

226
00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:29,520
Speaker 1: scenario for those who want Meananda's brothers to stay behind bars.

227
00:13:29,559 --> 00:13:34,240
Speaker 1: I do not envision them remaining behind bars that much longer,

228
00:13:34,280 --> 00:13:36,720
Speaker 1: so three years may be the outer limit.

229
00:13:37,000 --> 00:13:40,360
Speaker 2: They also filed the habeas corpus petition seeking a new trial.

230
00:13:40,600 --> 00:13:41,959
Speaker 2: Is that still in play?

231
00:13:42,679 --> 00:13:45,559
Speaker 1: That was always the most unlikely thing to happen. Of

232
00:13:45,600 --> 00:13:48,080
Speaker 1: the three of the three choices, three real choices. They

233
00:13:48,080 --> 00:13:50,160
Speaker 1: had the resentate thing, they had the clemency, and then

234
00:13:50,160 --> 00:13:52,400
Speaker 1: they had the habeasts. But the Habeasts was sort of

235
00:13:52,400 --> 00:13:55,440
Speaker 1: a dead end. The other two, though, bore fruit, and

236
00:13:55,920 --> 00:13:58,840
Speaker 1: I think that that's going to lead to their early release.

237
00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:01,439
Speaker 1: But you know, I just wonder had there not been

238
00:14:01,480 --> 00:14:04,400
Speaker 1: Netflix documentaries, would they be in this situation, had Kim

239
00:14:04,440 --> 00:14:06,640
Speaker 1: Kardashian others not taken up their cause, would they be

240
00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:10,760
Speaker 1: in this situation? They committed a horrific, brutal murder and

241
00:14:10,800 --> 00:14:13,760
Speaker 1: lied about it for years, and now they're ready to

242
00:14:13,760 --> 00:14:16,520
Speaker 1: be released after thirty five years of serving a life sent.

243
00:14:16,640 --> 00:14:19,720
Speaker 2: I mean, new evidence had emerged. Did that play any

244
00:14:19,800 --> 00:14:21,920
Speaker 2: part in this resentencing hearing?

245
00:14:22,440 --> 00:14:25,800
Speaker 1: I think it did, because the judge took everything into account.

246
00:14:25,880 --> 00:14:27,920
Speaker 1: It was more than the good behavior. It was the

247
00:14:27,920 --> 00:14:30,920
Speaker 1: fact that there was evidence that the sexual abuse from

248
00:14:30,960 --> 00:14:35,320
Speaker 1: Jose did occur, not conclusive evidence, but we had a

249
00:14:35,400 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 1: letter that one of the Menanda's brothers wrote to a

250
00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:41,440
Speaker 1: cousin that mentioned it. There was also the Menudo boy

251
00:14:41,480 --> 00:14:44,400
Speaker 1: band member who said that Jose engaged in sexual abuse

252
00:14:44,440 --> 00:14:46,840
Speaker 1: with him. So yeah, there is evidence, and that's why

253
00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:49,320
Speaker 1: it could be a manslaughter case instead of a murder

254
00:14:49,360 --> 00:14:52,080
Speaker 1: case as it applies to Jose. And I'm okay if

255
00:14:52,120 --> 00:14:54,560
Speaker 1: they want to let him out early for the murder

256
00:14:54,600 --> 00:14:57,080
Speaker 1: of Jose because of this new evidence, because it been

257
00:14:57,240 --> 00:14:59,840
Speaker 1: good prisoners. The problem I had is the murder of

258
00:14:59,840 --> 00:15:03,680
Speaker 1: them mother Kitty, who did not engage in sexual abuse,

259
00:15:04,280 --> 00:15:06,680
Speaker 1: and they said, well, she enabled them, But here are

260
00:15:06,720 --> 00:15:10,200
Speaker 1: their parents sitting watching TV with their backs turn eating

261
00:15:10,240 --> 00:15:13,480
Speaker 1: ice cream, getting blown away with shotguns by these boys

262
00:15:13,520 --> 00:15:16,760
Speaker 1: who meticulously planned this brutal murder, and then they went

263
00:15:16,800 --> 00:15:19,520
Speaker 1: on a shopping spree after covering it all up. And

264
00:15:19,760 --> 00:15:22,960
Speaker 1: the way they murdered Kitty was so horrific and so

265
00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:27,800
Speaker 1: cold calculated and cruel that I don't think that's a

266
00:15:27,840 --> 00:15:31,000
Speaker 1: manslaughter case. I think that's a murder conviction and should

267
00:15:31,000 --> 00:15:33,680
Speaker 1: stay as a murder conviction. But as I said before,

268
00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:36,520
Speaker 1: this case was really never treated the same as other

269
00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:37,520
Speaker 1: cases from the beginning.

270
00:15:37,720 --> 00:15:40,920
Speaker 2: We'll see what happens with the clemency hearing in about

271
00:15:40,920 --> 00:15:43,880
Speaker 2: a month. Let's turn for a moment to the Sean

272
00:15:43,920 --> 00:15:49,080
Speaker 2: Diddy Combe's trial. It's day three of Combe's trial. He's

273
00:15:49,160 --> 00:15:54,840
Speaker 2: charged with racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage

274
00:15:54,840 --> 00:15:59,760
Speaker 2: in prostitution. His former girlfriend, Cassie Venture, is on the

275
00:16:00,040 --> 00:16:03,960
Speaker 2: stand for the second day, talking about her decade long

276
00:16:04,080 --> 00:16:09,040
Speaker 2: relationship with Colmbs that she says was plagued by jealousy, violence,

277
00:16:09,200 --> 00:16:13,880
Speaker 2: and humiliating sex. The prosecution seems to have a wealth

278
00:16:14,080 --> 00:16:18,960
Speaker 2: of evidence of violence of violent acts. Is that enough

279
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:19,680
Speaker 2: in this case?

280
00:16:20,560 --> 00:16:23,240
Speaker 1: Well, it's not enough just for there to be violent.

281
00:16:23,320 --> 00:16:26,760
Speaker 1: There needs to be more, and I think they have more.

282
00:16:27,000 --> 00:16:30,800
Speaker 1: They've got more because they have more than one witness

283
00:16:30,840 --> 00:16:34,560
Speaker 1: who's going to testify to These freak coughs and the

284
00:16:34,600 --> 00:16:39,320
Speaker 1: freak COFs are in themselves not necessarily illegal, but it

285
00:16:39,440 --> 00:16:43,920
Speaker 1: is illegal when it involves involuntary sexual conduct, when it

286
00:16:43,960 --> 00:16:48,120
Speaker 1: involves alleged human trafficking, when it involves a racketeering an

287
00:16:48,200 --> 00:16:52,680
Speaker 1: ongoing criminal enterprise to service ditty and committing various crimes

288
00:16:52,720 --> 00:16:58,960
Speaker 1: along the way, like arson and obstruction of justice, witness intimidation,

289
00:17:00,920 --> 00:17:03,800
Speaker 1: and all these other types of crimes that fit under

290
00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:08,000
Speaker 1: the racketeering ruber. So, you know, standing alone, maybe there

291
00:17:08,000 --> 00:17:10,600
Speaker 1: are not all times that would have been prosecuted. The

292
00:17:10,640 --> 00:17:12,960
Speaker 1: defense is that this is the domestic violence case, this

293
00:17:13,080 --> 00:17:15,080
Speaker 1: is not a racketeering case, this is not a human

294
00:17:15,119 --> 00:17:18,159
Speaker 1: trafficking case. But taken all together, it does look like

295
00:17:18,200 --> 00:17:21,520
Speaker 1: they have enough evidence to sustain the conviction. And Cassie

296
00:17:21,560 --> 00:17:25,480
Speaker 1: taking the stand yesterday and today has been devastating for

297
00:17:26,080 --> 00:17:29,120
Speaker 1: the defense because she is the one who connects all

298
00:17:29,160 --> 00:17:31,320
Speaker 1: the dots in this case, and she's been a very

299
00:17:31,359 --> 00:17:34,680
Speaker 1: compelling witness, not to mention she's also eight months pregnant,

300
00:17:34,960 --> 00:17:36,920
Speaker 1: so she's a very sympathetic witness as well.

301
00:17:37,600 --> 00:17:42,520
Speaker 2: During the opening statements, the defense attorney claimed that Combe's

302
00:17:42,560 --> 00:17:46,320
Speaker 2: accusers were motivated by money, and she said that Cassie

303
00:17:46,440 --> 00:17:52,040
Speaker 2: Ventura demanded thirty million dollars when she sued him. Quote,

304
00:17:52,240 --> 00:17:54,720
Speaker 2: I want you to ask yourself, how many millions of

305
00:17:54,760 --> 00:17:57,879
Speaker 2: reasons does this witness have to lie? So we can

306
00:17:57,920 --> 00:18:00,359
Speaker 2: assume that that's going to be part of the cross

307
00:18:00,440 --> 00:18:05,080
Speaker 2: examination and why she didn't report it to police and

308
00:18:05,119 --> 00:18:07,960
Speaker 2: instead file the civil suit. Against him.

309
00:18:08,240 --> 00:18:11,240
Speaker 1: She set this all emotion by suing him. It's something

310
00:18:11,720 --> 00:18:13,240
Speaker 1: that takes a lot of courage to be able to

311
00:18:13,240 --> 00:18:16,240
Speaker 1: file something. And it wasn't a money grab when you

312
00:18:16,280 --> 00:18:19,160
Speaker 1: have the other party selling it within a day like essentially,

313
00:18:19,160 --> 00:18:21,680
Speaker 1: they keep her quiet. So if he wants to bring

314
00:18:21,760 --> 00:18:24,320
Speaker 1: up that this is a civil case of money grabbed,

315
00:18:24,440 --> 00:18:25,960
Speaker 1: it's a look bad for him to say, yeah, I

316
00:18:26,000 --> 00:18:27,720
Speaker 1: settled with it a day. That's something you don't do

317
00:18:27,800 --> 00:18:31,480
Speaker 1: unless you know you've done it. So it cuts both ways. Yes,

318
00:18:31,560 --> 00:18:32,920
Speaker 1: you can say why didn't you report this to the

319
00:18:32,920 --> 00:18:36,560
Speaker 1: police and why did you just sue? Well, okay, but

320
00:18:36,600 --> 00:18:39,080
Speaker 1: look what happened. She sued and then the police got involved,

321
00:18:39,080 --> 00:18:43,040
Speaker 1: and so that led to the criminal charges. It's because

322
00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:46,639
Speaker 1: of Cassie that this whole trial is even a current.

323
00:18:46,800 --> 00:18:50,000
Speaker 1: And then he also lied about the fiscal violence all

324
00:18:50,000 --> 00:18:51,800
Speaker 1: of a sudden, he admitted to it only after that

325
00:18:51,840 --> 00:18:55,000
Speaker 1: horrific video came out. That video is very telling. They

326
00:18:55,080 --> 00:18:57,480
Speaker 1: played it already in front of the jury and the

327
00:18:57,560 --> 00:18:59,640
Speaker 1: jury must be appalled by it because that's the only

328
00:18:59,680 --> 00:19:02,199
Speaker 1: thing is it ever admitted to, it seems, is the

329
00:19:02,240 --> 00:19:05,439
Speaker 1: physical violence on that day at that moment, because that

330
00:19:05,640 --> 00:19:08,080
Speaker 1: was the act that was caught on video.

331
00:19:08,400 --> 00:19:11,200
Speaker 2: I read that Diddy was offered a plea deal and

332
00:19:11,240 --> 00:19:13,640
Speaker 2: turned it down. I don't know what he was offered,

333
00:19:13,720 --> 00:19:17,399
Speaker 2: but it does seem like this defense is going to

334
00:19:17,440 --> 00:19:21,080
Speaker 2: be an uphill battled to say the least. So what's

335
00:19:21,119 --> 00:19:22,480
Speaker 2: the defense going to look like?

336
00:19:23,040 --> 00:19:28,720
Speaker 1: The defense is consent, and consent is a legitimate defense

337
00:19:28,800 --> 00:19:31,280
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with adults who allegedly are victims of

338
00:19:31,359 --> 00:19:34,000
Speaker 1: human trafficking. If there were miners consent, it's not a defense.

339
00:19:34,640 --> 00:19:37,560
Speaker 1: But to get a human trafficking conviction, you need force,

340
00:19:37,640 --> 00:19:41,600
Speaker 1: fraud or coercion. Well that's where that video comes into play.

341
00:19:41,720 --> 00:19:44,879
Speaker 1: The force that was used. Her claims a physical violence

342
00:19:44,880 --> 00:19:48,720
Speaker 1: are buttressed by that video. So if they can prove force,

343
00:19:48,760 --> 00:19:51,600
Speaker 1: fraud a coorsion, then all you need is one victim

344
00:19:51,800 --> 00:19:54,159
Speaker 1: and he goes down. But they're trying to show a

345
00:19:54,200 --> 00:19:57,800
Speaker 1: pattern of activity to get that racketeering conviction. And then

346
00:19:57,800 --> 00:20:00,440
Speaker 1: there's the other charges of the man acts by relations,

347
00:20:00,440 --> 00:20:03,359
Speaker 1: which is when you take individuals across state lines or

348
00:20:03,359 --> 00:20:06,040
Speaker 1: purposes of the prostitution. So I think the prosecution has

349
00:20:06,119 --> 00:20:08,200
Speaker 1: enough to win a conviction and to keep Ditty behind

350
00:20:08,200 --> 00:20:10,119
Speaker 1: bars for the rest of his life. The defense is

351
00:20:10,160 --> 00:20:12,320
Speaker 1: going to try their best to poke holes in the

352
00:20:12,400 --> 00:20:16,159
Speaker 1: victims stories and to show that this was a consensual

353
00:20:16,200 --> 00:20:19,080
Speaker 1: activity of these freak coughs. But I don't know. I mean,

354
00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:22,960
Speaker 1: yesterday's and today's testimony, we're going to continue to hurt

355
00:20:23,000 --> 00:20:26,720
Speaker 1: the defense because Cassy comes across as very credible and

356
00:20:26,760 --> 00:20:29,600
Speaker 1: the stuff she's saying is so salacious that it has

357
00:20:29,640 --> 00:20:30,800
Speaker 1: to move the jury.

358
00:20:31,480 --> 00:20:34,600
Speaker 2: So did he took videos of these so called freak

359
00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:38,960
Speaker 2: offs and today they showed the jury stills of them.

360
00:20:39,560 --> 00:20:44,920
Speaker 2: Do you think that just seeing these graphic images will

361
00:20:44,960 --> 00:20:47,040
Speaker 2: impact the jury's view of him.

362
00:20:47,440 --> 00:20:50,080
Speaker 1: There's a rule of evidence that says that the evidence

363
00:20:50,200 --> 00:20:52,720
Speaker 1: is not going to be admitted if it's more prejudicial

364
00:20:52,720 --> 00:20:56,080
Speaker 1: than it is probative, if it's just used for salaciousness,

365
00:20:56,080 --> 00:20:59,160
Speaker 1: if it's just used to inflame the jury. But here

366
00:21:00,119 --> 00:21:03,320
Speaker 1: it's part of the charge, so it is relevant, and

367
00:21:03,400 --> 00:21:05,960
Speaker 1: it is very salacious, and it will have an effect

368
00:21:06,000 --> 00:21:08,240
Speaker 1: on the jury. How do you not when you hear

369
00:21:08,359 --> 00:21:12,600
Speaker 1: things that I can't even repeat on this program, it

370
00:21:12,640 --> 00:21:15,639
Speaker 1: would be believed. You can imagine how the jury feels

371
00:21:15,680 --> 00:21:18,840
Speaker 1: that this was real life. So that's why I think

372
00:21:18,880 --> 00:21:20,920
Speaker 1: that it will come back to haunt Diddy. Now, what's

373
00:21:20,920 --> 00:21:23,879
Speaker 1: ironic is that our culture now, our society, is that

374
00:21:24,520 --> 00:21:27,679
Speaker 1: if he gets acquitted, he'll go back to making records

375
00:21:27,680 --> 00:21:30,720
Speaker 1: and being the super celebrity he is, when in any

376
00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:33,560
Speaker 1: other time you would think that just these allegations, just

377
00:21:33,800 --> 00:21:37,080
Speaker 1: this kind of testimony, would destroy someone's reputation in the

378
00:21:37,080 --> 00:21:40,880
Speaker 1: court of public opinion. But nowadays it seems like even

379
00:21:40,920 --> 00:21:42,680
Speaker 1: being infamous can get them paid.

380
00:21:43,040 --> 00:21:45,080
Speaker 2: I don't know, Dave, Even if he's acquitted, I'm not

381
00:21:45,119 --> 00:21:48,160
Speaker 2: sure he could make a comeback, but he certainly has

382
00:21:48,200 --> 00:21:52,159
Speaker 2: the huge hurdle of a jury verdict ahead of him. First,

383
00:21:52,640 --> 00:21:54,840
Speaker 2: thanks so much for being on the show, Dave. That's

384
00:21:54,920 --> 00:21:58,639
Speaker 2: Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney. Coming up

385
00:21:58,640 --> 00:22:01,320
Speaker 2: next on The Bloomberg Last Show, we'll look at whether

386
00:22:01,359 --> 00:22:06,400
Speaker 2: the US Trade Court might block Trump's Liberation Day global tariffs.

387
00:22:07,000 --> 00:22:13,440
Speaker 2: I'm June Grossel. When you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's

388
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:17,760
Speaker 2: global tariffs are facing a key test in US Trade Court.

389
00:22:18,280 --> 00:22:21,480
Speaker 2: A group of small businesses is urging the court to

390
00:22:21,600 --> 00:22:26,040
Speaker 2: block the tariffs, arguing that Trump invoked a bogus national

391
00:22:26,080 --> 00:22:31,160
Speaker 2: emergency to justify them. The businesses claim that Trump's use

392
00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:36,320
Speaker 2: of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEPA is

393
00:22:36,359 --> 00:22:42,040
Speaker 2: an unprecedented and unlawful expansion of presidential authority that would

394
00:22:42,040 --> 00:22:46,720
Speaker 2: allow him to impose tariffs without meaningful judicial review. The

395
00:22:46,760 --> 00:22:52,240
Speaker 2: Trump administration is arguing that the president's emergency declaration is justified,

396
00:22:52,800 --> 00:22:57,199
Speaker 2: saying the cumulative effects of annual trade deficits are a

397
00:22:57,240 --> 00:23:01,080
Speaker 2: threat to the US economy and supply chain, and further

398
00:23:01,160 --> 00:23:04,440
Speaker 2: that the courts don't have the authority to review Trump's

399
00:23:04,520 --> 00:23:09,440
Speaker 2: interpretation of what an extraordinary threat is. The fight could

400
00:23:09,480 --> 00:23:13,760
Speaker 2: impact trillions of dollars in global trade, and comes amid

401
00:23:13,760 --> 00:23:17,720
Speaker 2: a wave of legal challenges to Trump's executive orders, which

402
00:23:17,720 --> 00:23:21,520
Speaker 2: are testing the limits of presidential power on everything from

403
00:23:21,600 --> 00:23:26,320
Speaker 2: federal spending to restrictions on birthright citizenship. Joining me is

404
00:23:26,320 --> 00:23:31,400
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst Holly From. First of all, this

405
00:23:31,720 --> 00:23:35,399
Speaker 2: is a little known federal court. Tell us about this court.

406
00:23:36,480 --> 00:23:40,119
Speaker 7: So it's the International Trade Court in downtown Manhattan, and

407
00:23:40,200 --> 00:23:44,920
Speaker 7: it handles to speaks arising from terroriffts. So any law

408
00:23:45,040 --> 00:23:48,119
Speaker 7: that provides for a terriff presumably goes to that court.

409
00:23:48,160 --> 00:23:52,040
Speaker 7: Although there is some dispute about whether these lawsuits are

410
00:23:52,480 --> 00:23:55,720
Speaker 7: jurisdiction is whether the International Trade Court has jurisdiction over these.

411
00:23:55,640 --> 00:24:00,800
Speaker 2: Cases the Trump administration. Eric Hamilton was the lawyer, and

412
00:24:01,200 --> 00:24:06,080
Speaker 2: he claimed that the question here is a political question

413
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:09,200
Speaker 2: and that the Court doesn't have the right to decide it.

414
00:24:09,760 --> 00:24:12,639
Speaker 7: That's right. So he's saying that because there's no standard

415
00:24:12,920 --> 00:24:17,280
Speaker 7: about how the court can determine whether there's an emergency

416
00:24:17,359 --> 00:24:22,160
Speaker 7: that meets the International Emergency Economic Powers Act standards, which

417
00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:26,640
Speaker 7: is AEPA. Because there's no standards, there's no discoverable standard,

418
00:24:27,240 --> 00:24:31,560
Speaker 7: that it's a nonussible question. So only the political branches,

419
00:24:31,680 --> 00:24:35,600
Speaker 7: Congress and the President have power to decide whether this

420
00:24:35,800 --> 00:24:39,359
Speaker 7: emergency is trade doesn't sit meet that emergency provision in AEPA.

421
00:24:39,680 --> 00:24:43,000
Speaker 2: How did the judges react to that that they don't

422
00:24:43,000 --> 00:24:44,240
Speaker 2: have the power to decide this.

423
00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:47,000
Speaker 7: I think they pretty much disagreed with that. I think

424
00:24:47,040 --> 00:24:49,879
Speaker 7: that's pretty clear. You know, they said that there is

425
00:24:49,920 --> 00:24:53,399
Speaker 7: this provision that says, you know that a declaration of

426
00:24:53,440 --> 00:24:57,120
Speaker 7: emergency is not reviewable. But because they put these two

427
00:24:57,320 --> 00:25:00,000
Speaker 7: magic words in the statue, which is there has been

428
00:25:00,119 --> 00:25:05,560
Speaker 7: declaration of emergency that presents an quote unusual an extraordinary

429
00:25:05,640 --> 00:25:09,840
Speaker 7: threat to national security or the economy. Because Congress put

430
00:25:09,840 --> 00:25:13,639
Speaker 7: those words in the statute, it was meant for the

431
00:25:13,720 --> 00:25:16,760
Speaker 7: judiciary to interpret that. Why else would they put those

432
00:25:16,800 --> 00:25:19,880
Speaker 7: words in the statue. And what the government argued was that, well,

433
00:25:19,880 --> 00:25:22,080
Speaker 7: that's for the presidents are determined. That's a limit on

434
00:25:22,119 --> 00:25:25,840
Speaker 7: the president his self discretion to determine that this emergency

435
00:25:25,920 --> 00:25:30,800
Speaker 7: falls within that meaning unusual and extraordinary threat. But it's

436
00:25:30,880 --> 00:25:32,280
Speaker 7: not for the court to decide that.

437
00:25:32,880 --> 00:25:38,240
Speaker 2: So let's talk about IPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,

438
00:25:38,600 --> 00:25:43,960
Speaker 2: and the arguments over those words unusual and extraordinary threat

439
00:25:44,040 --> 00:25:46,280
Speaker 2: tell us what the plaintiffs are claiming here.

440
00:25:46,680 --> 00:25:49,520
Speaker 7: So they're saying that the trade deficit is a persistent problem.

441
00:25:49,600 --> 00:25:52,080
Speaker 7: It definitely doesn't arise to the level of an emergency

442
00:25:52,080 --> 00:25:56,000
Speaker 7: of that nature. It's been, you know, in insistence for decades.

443
00:25:56,040 --> 00:25:58,240
Speaker 7: In fact, this is not the largest trade deficit we've

444
00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:02,440
Speaker 7: ever seen. And so while the plaintiffs sort of had

445
00:26:02,440 --> 00:26:05,800
Speaker 7: a difficult time explaining to the court what standard they

446
00:26:05,800 --> 00:26:08,199
Speaker 7: would use to determine whether this is an emergency that

447
00:26:08,240 --> 00:26:11,680
Speaker 7: meets this threat, he said, this is so outside the

448
00:26:11,720 --> 00:26:15,560
Speaker 7: definition of those words that it cannot be possible that

449
00:26:15,600 --> 00:26:18,640
Speaker 7: this trade deficit falls within that definition. So the court

450
00:26:18,680 --> 00:26:20,800
Speaker 7: doesn't even need to set a standard. It could just

451
00:26:21,160 --> 00:26:24,720
Speaker 7: say this is so wildly outside the definition it doesn't

452
00:26:24,760 --> 00:26:25,360
Speaker 7: meet AIPA.

453
00:26:25,880 --> 00:26:30,040
Speaker 2: And the Trump administration's attorney, what was the response, Well, he.

454
00:26:30,040 --> 00:26:33,320
Speaker 7: Was pressed on this also and he says to political question,

455
00:26:33,359 --> 00:26:36,800
Speaker 7: the court shouldn't even review it. But when pressed further,

456
00:26:36,960 --> 00:26:39,040
Speaker 7: and when the Court said, assume that we think that

457
00:26:39,080 --> 00:26:41,199
Speaker 7: we have the power to decide this, he said, well,

458
00:26:41,200 --> 00:26:43,960
Speaker 7: look at the ordinary definitions of unusual extraordinary re for

459
00:26:44,119 --> 00:26:48,240
Speaker 7: them to dictionary definition. And he also said in prior cases,

460
00:26:48,480 --> 00:26:51,240
Speaker 7: the courts have of how those decorations.

461
00:26:51,920 --> 00:26:54,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so I mean, could you tell which way

462
00:26:54,880 --> 00:26:56,320
Speaker 2: the judges were leaning on that?

463
00:26:57,000 --> 00:27:00,240
Speaker 7: So I think it's hard to say. It's very hard

464
00:27:00,280 --> 00:27:03,760
Speaker 7: to say, but I think the court is skeptical. We've

465
00:27:03,800 --> 00:27:06,120
Speaker 7: come out and said we think that these will eventually

466
00:27:06,160 --> 00:27:08,719
Speaker 7: be upheld, but I think the court is skeptical. And

467
00:27:08,760 --> 00:27:11,199
Speaker 7: the court even said judges Sani even said one of

468
00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:13,520
Speaker 7: the judges of the three member panel said, what if

469
00:27:13,520 --> 00:27:15,520
Speaker 7: there's a shortage of peanut butter? Is that a national

470
00:27:15,560 --> 00:27:19,159
Speaker 7: emergency because it's unusual extraordinary? So could the president just

471
00:27:19,200 --> 00:27:21,679
Speaker 7: declare an emergency? They're like what is the limit? And

472
00:27:21,720 --> 00:27:24,760
Speaker 7: I think they're skeptical because if they bought the government's argument,

473
00:27:24,800 --> 00:27:27,359
Speaker 7: there would be no limit on the president's authority and

474
00:27:27,440 --> 00:27:29,840
Speaker 7: when he could declare a national emergency and what terrorists

475
00:27:29,880 --> 00:27:32,560
Speaker 7: he compose. And that's where what the plaintiffs are arguing, like,

476
00:27:32,640 --> 00:27:36,919
Speaker 7: you know, this is the quintessential unlimited exercise of power.

477
00:27:37,600 --> 00:27:41,360
Speaker 2: I mean, did the court discuss Congress and that tariffs

478
00:27:41,400 --> 00:27:43,720
Speaker 2: are you know, within Congress's purview?

479
00:27:44,680 --> 00:27:47,199
Speaker 7: They did, They said, this is you know, Congress's domain.

480
00:27:47,720 --> 00:27:50,679
Speaker 7: You know, the Constitution very clearly says Congress has the

481
00:27:50,720 --> 00:27:54,080
Speaker 7: power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress has the power to

482
00:27:54,119 --> 00:27:57,880
Speaker 7: impose tariffs, and there are two separate provisions and they're

483
00:27:57,920 --> 00:28:01,159
Speaker 7: both with you know, the domain of But the government

484
00:28:01,200 --> 00:28:03,960
Speaker 7: is saying, well, that's true, but they can delegate that

485
00:28:04,080 --> 00:28:06,960
Speaker 7: power to the president and they have here and they

486
00:28:07,000 --> 00:28:10,760
Speaker 7: have before in terms of other statutes that nobody's quibbling about.

487
00:28:10,840 --> 00:28:13,159
Speaker 7: So Section two thirty two, which allows the president to

488
00:28:13,200 --> 00:28:17,640
Speaker 7: impose terrors if imports threat national security, that was delegated

489
00:28:17,680 --> 00:28:20,680
Speaker 7: to the president. So even though Constitution says yes, this

490
00:28:20,760 --> 00:28:23,560
Speaker 7: is the power that Congress has, they can in certain

491
00:28:23,560 --> 00:28:26,080
Speaker 7: circumstances delegate that power to the president, and.

492
00:28:26,000 --> 00:28:27,440
Speaker 2: How have they done that in this case?

493
00:28:27,680 --> 00:28:29,520
Speaker 7: So with what the government is arguing is that with

494
00:28:29,680 --> 00:28:32,919
Speaker 7: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, they gave the Presidence

495
00:28:32,960 --> 00:28:36,720
Speaker 7: the authority to regulate imports, which includes imposing terrorists. If

496
00:28:37,119 --> 00:28:40,479
Speaker 7: the President declares the national emergency that it imposes an

497
00:28:40,520 --> 00:28:43,280
Speaker 7: unusual extraordinary threat to national security or the economy.

498
00:28:44,080 --> 00:28:47,160
Speaker 2: Usually, if you're asking for an injunction, the planets have

499
00:28:47,240 --> 00:28:50,600
Speaker 2: to show irreparable harm. Did they discuss whether they would

500
00:28:50,640 --> 00:28:52,160
Speaker 2: suffer irreparable harm?

501
00:28:52,680 --> 00:28:56,200
Speaker 7: They didn't even get into that. So that's why there's

502
00:28:56,280 --> 00:28:58,080
Speaker 7: this thinking that the court is going to rule on

503
00:28:58,120 --> 00:29:00,520
Speaker 7: the summary judgment each because there's a and in summary

504
00:29:00,560 --> 00:29:03,320
Speaker 7: judgment motion too. So for some re judgment you just

505
00:29:03,320 --> 00:29:04,680
Speaker 7: have to win. In the merits, you don't have to

506
00:29:04,720 --> 00:29:07,760
Speaker 7: show a reparable harm. So there's this thinking that they're

507
00:29:07,760 --> 00:29:09,760
Speaker 7: just going to rule in summary judgment motion one way

508
00:29:09,840 --> 00:29:10,240
Speaker 7: or the other.

509
00:29:11,040 --> 00:29:15,960
Speaker 2: President Nixon used a similar emergency law to issue tariffs

510
00:29:16,160 --> 00:29:21,560
Speaker 2: during a currency devaluation crisis in the early seventies. Tell

511
00:29:21,640 --> 00:29:24,160
Speaker 2: us about that case and is it precedent here?

512
00:29:24,520 --> 00:29:24,600
Speaker 3: So?

513
00:29:24,760 --> 00:29:27,360
Speaker 7: Yes, that is by president. What happened there was President

514
00:29:27,480 --> 00:29:31,120
Speaker 7: Nixon imposed a ten percent tariff on all dutyabul goods

515
00:29:31,160 --> 00:29:35,200
Speaker 7: to address a balance of payments deficit in nineteen seventy one.

516
00:29:35,560 --> 00:29:38,680
Speaker 7: And so there was a court case that arose out

517
00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:41,040
Speaker 7: of that, and the appellate court at the time, which

518
00:29:41,120 --> 00:29:44,280
Speaker 7: is the predecessor to the Federal Circuit, which the International

519
00:29:44,280 --> 00:29:46,719
Speaker 7: Trade Court that's hearing this dispute is bound by the

520
00:29:46,760 --> 00:29:52,160
Speaker 7: predecessor court, found that under a predecessor statute that mirrors

521
00:29:52,160 --> 00:29:55,480
Speaker 7: the language in AIPA, the president had power to impose

522
00:29:55,480 --> 00:29:58,280
Speaker 7: those tariffs, that ten percent tariff on all dutiable goods.

523
00:29:58,400 --> 00:30:02,160
Speaker 7: And so that's case the court was talking about, and

524
00:30:02,360 --> 00:30:04,640
Speaker 7: Dave and said, you know, to the point if that's

525
00:30:04,640 --> 00:30:07,840
Speaker 7: identical language, the court there found that the president had

526
00:30:07,880 --> 00:30:11,479
Speaker 7: power to impose terror when the statute said you can

527
00:30:11,520 --> 00:30:14,600
Speaker 7: regulate imports. So they're bound by that. But the court,

528
00:30:14,680 --> 00:30:17,320
Speaker 7: even you know, is suggesting that there's many distinctions with

529
00:30:17,400 --> 00:30:19,960
Speaker 7: that case in terms of you know, what's happening now.

530
00:30:20,440 --> 00:30:23,320
Speaker 2: So you gave this a sixty percent chance that the

531
00:30:23,360 --> 00:30:26,040
Speaker 2: tariffs will be upheld, explain you know what you base

532
00:30:26,120 --> 00:30:26,360
Speaker 2: that on?

533
00:30:27,080 --> 00:30:29,160
Speaker 7: Sixties percent is more likely than than not, but it's

534
00:30:29,280 --> 00:30:31,840
Speaker 7: very very close. And the reason we think that it

535
00:30:31,880 --> 00:30:34,800
Speaker 7: will be upheld is because, you know, because there is

536
00:30:34,840 --> 00:30:37,880
Speaker 7: this US sheet of precedent which says that very clearly

537
00:30:37,960 --> 00:30:40,239
Speaker 7: that the president has power to regulate imports and that

538
00:30:40,280 --> 00:30:42,520
Speaker 7: includes tariff. And then the court is going to have

539
00:30:42,560 --> 00:30:45,760
Speaker 7: to get into whether there's trede deficit, is an emergency

540
00:30:46,280 --> 00:30:49,520
Speaker 7: and though they seemed inclined to review whether it's an

541
00:30:49,600 --> 00:30:53,520
Speaker 7: unusual extordinary threat, we think ultimately, if this goes up

542
00:30:53,520 --> 00:30:56,200
Speaker 7: to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will hold that

543
00:30:56,240 --> 00:30:58,640
Speaker 7: the president has the power to impose these tariffs and

544
00:30:58,720 --> 00:31:01,720
Speaker 7: that the court shouldn't be tucking guesting the president when

545
00:31:01,720 --> 00:31:03,840
Speaker 7: it comes to declaring emergencies.

546
00:31:04,320 --> 00:31:06,080
Speaker 2: The plane Offs asked the court to rule on an

547
00:31:06,080 --> 00:31:09,960
Speaker 2: expedited basis. Are they going to rule on an expedited basis?

548
00:31:10,320 --> 00:31:12,880
Speaker 7: I think that they're going to rule relatively quickly. So

549
00:31:13,000 --> 00:31:15,880
Speaker 7: this is a case that it's suscepting almost everyone and

550
00:31:15,920 --> 00:31:18,160
Speaker 7: it has national import, So I think they're going to rule.

551
00:31:18,360 --> 00:31:21,920
Speaker 2: I've been two q There are other cases over the tariffs,

552
00:31:21,960 --> 00:31:26,000
Speaker 2: including a case by Democratic Attorneys General. Is that going

553
00:31:26,040 --> 00:31:27,840
Speaker 2: to go to the Trade Court as well?

554
00:31:28,400 --> 00:31:31,200
Speaker 7: Yes, so they filed that in the Trade Court. There

555
00:31:31,240 --> 00:31:34,920
Speaker 7: is another case that California filed outside of the Trade Court,

556
00:31:34,920 --> 00:31:38,080
Speaker 7: which is in a federal court in California, because they're

557
00:31:38,120 --> 00:31:42,760
Speaker 7: contesting the International Trade Court's jurisdiction. But most of these

558
00:31:43,120 --> 00:31:45,640
Speaker 7: have been filed in the Trade Court and there are

559
00:31:45,760 --> 00:31:49,080
Speaker 7: pending motions to transfer all the cases outside to the

560
00:31:49,080 --> 00:31:50,400
Speaker 7: same court to the Trade Court.

561
00:31:50,960 --> 00:31:55,640
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Holly. That's Bloomberg Intelligence Litigation Analyst Holly

562
00:31:55,760 --> 00:31:58,600
Speaker 2: from and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg

563
00:31:58,680 --> 00:32:01,360
Speaker 2: Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal

564
00:32:01,400 --> 00:32:04,400
Speaker 2: news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them

565
00:32:04,400 --> 00:32:09,440
Speaker 2: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,

566
00:32:09,480 --> 00:32:12,840
Speaker 2: slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The

567
00:32:12,840 --> 00:32:16,840
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.

568
00:32:17,440 --> 00:32:20,120
Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg