WEBVTT - Menendez Brothers Path to Freedom & Trump Tariffs

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.720 --> 0:00:12.000
<v Speaker 1>I just know that on a day like today, that

0:00:12.480 --> 0:00:14.680
<v Speaker 1>redemption is possible.

0:00:15.280 --> 0:00:18.440
<v Speaker 2>Thirty five years after they were sentenced to life in

0:00:18.520 --> 0:00:22.520
<v Speaker 2>prison without the possibility of parole for the cold blooded

0:00:22.600 --> 0:00:26.320
<v Speaker 2>murders of their parents, a remarkable turn for Eric and

0:00:26.400 --> 0:00:29.800
<v Speaker 2>Lyle Menendez. They now have a chance of getting out

0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:34.320
<v Speaker 2>of prison. Family members have supported the brothers throughout the years,

0:00:34.880 --> 0:00:37.640
<v Speaker 2>and they were in court yesterday at the re sentencing

0:00:37.720 --> 0:00:42.600
<v Speaker 2>hearing to testify that not only were Eric and Lyle rehabilitated,

0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 2>but they helped other prisoners, including by starting support groups.

0:00:47.560 --> 0:00:51.239
<v Speaker 3>Ultimately, we are here today with this result because of

0:00:51.440 --> 0:00:54.279
<v Speaker 3>Eric and Lyle, because they had They chose to live

0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:58.639
<v Speaker 3>their lives with clarity and a purpose of service that

0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:02.440
<v Speaker 3>the judge was impressed by.

0:01:02.480 --> 0:01:06.039
<v Speaker 4>This is something my grandmother, Joan, has fought for her

0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:12.360
<v Speaker 4>for thirty five years. I really wish she was here today,

0:01:13.440 --> 0:01:16.640
<v Speaker 4>but I'm really excited to give her the news.

0:01:17.000 --> 0:01:20.800
<v Speaker 2>LA District Attorney Nathan Hoffman had attempted to block the

0:01:20.880 --> 0:01:25.959
<v Speaker 2>resentencying at every turn, arguing repeatedly that Eric and Lyle

0:01:26.040 --> 0:01:29.559
<v Speaker 2>had not admitted to lies told during their trial about

0:01:29.640 --> 0:01:33.200
<v Speaker 2>why they killed their parents, nor have they taken complete

0:01:33.240 --> 0:01:35.280
<v Speaker 2>responsibility for their crimes.

0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:40.479
<v Speaker 5>Whether it's some Menenda's brothers or anyone who basically engaged

0:01:40.520 --> 0:01:44.600
<v Speaker 5>in a horrific, brutal killing of their parents, shotgunning their

0:01:44.640 --> 0:01:48.240
<v Speaker 5>parents over thirteen times when they were adults eighteen and

0:01:48.320 --> 0:01:50.840
<v Speaker 5>twenty one years old, I would have concern whether it's

0:01:50.880 --> 0:01:53.680
<v Speaker 5>the Menenda's brothers or anyone it fits that profile.

0:01:54.200 --> 0:01:57.880
<v Speaker 2>Both Eric and Lyle addressed the court and took responsibility

0:01:57.920 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 2>for the murders of their parents and the lies they

0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:04.560
<v Speaker 2>told in court. Eric said, I have profound sorrow for

0:02:04.640 --> 0:02:07.760
<v Speaker 2>the tragedy I created. I took the lives of my

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:12.240
<v Speaker 2>mom and dad. My actions were criminal, cruel, and cowardly.

0:02:13.080 --> 0:02:16.200
<v Speaker 2>Lyle said, I killed my parents. I offer no excuse

0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:20.600
<v Speaker 2>and I don't blame my parents. Judge Michael Jessic resentenced

0:02:20.680 --> 0:02:24.640
<v Speaker 2>the brothers, reducing their sentences from life in prison without

0:02:24.720 --> 0:02:29.520
<v Speaker 2>parole to fifty years to life, making them immediately eligible

0:02:29.560 --> 0:02:32.799
<v Speaker 2>for parole. But there's still a long road ahead that

0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:36.040
<v Speaker 2>goes through the parole board and the governor. Joining me

0:02:36.120 --> 0:02:39.800
<v Speaker 2>is Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney and

0:02:39.880 --> 0:02:43.600
<v Speaker 2>managing partner of Dave Arenberg Law. Dave, let's talk about

0:02:43.600 --> 0:02:48.440
<v Speaker 2>what this resentencing hearing was and what it wasn't. It

0:02:48.560 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 2>wasn't about re litigating the murders, but it was about

0:02:52.840 --> 0:02:55.639
<v Speaker 2>whether the brothers have been rehabilitated.

0:02:56.160 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 1>The hearing was surely for the judge, that is, whether

0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:04.760
<v Speaker 1>or not the Menendez brothers can be resentenced, and he

0:03:04.760 --> 0:03:09.920
<v Speaker 1>heard testimony from family members and decided that in the

0:03:09.960 --> 0:03:14.680
<v Speaker 1>interest of justice, that Menanda's brothers would be resentenced under

0:03:14.960 --> 0:03:18.919
<v Speaker 1>the rules of the time, which permitted someone who committed

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:22.079
<v Speaker 1>such a horrific offense who's under the age of twenty

0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:25.800
<v Speaker 1>six to be eligible for parole. The thing is, at

0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:29.240
<v Speaker 1>the time they were sentenced to life in prison without parole,

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:32.000
<v Speaker 1>but now they're changing it to with pearol, and now

0:03:32.360 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 1>the Menendez brothers can go before the parole board to

0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:36.200
<v Speaker 1>let him out early.

0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:42.040
<v Speaker 2>Nathan Hoffman, the LA District attorney, opposed to resentencing and

0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 2>attempted to block it in every way he could. Why

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:47.400
<v Speaker 2>was he so opposed to it?

0:03:47.720 --> 0:03:51.480
<v Speaker 1>He ran on a law and ordered platform and he

0:03:51.560 --> 0:03:54.720
<v Speaker 1>got elected to be tougher on crime as opposed to

0:03:54.800 --> 0:03:58.040
<v Speaker 1>the predecessor Gassone, who was seen as one of those

0:03:58.080 --> 0:04:02.760
<v Speaker 1>Soros reform prosecute. So this is in line with Takman's

0:04:02.760 --> 0:04:06.880
<v Speaker 1>brand to be tough on crime, and he represented what

0:04:06.920 --> 0:04:09.640
<v Speaker 1>I considered like this press the silent majority, not the

0:04:09.680 --> 0:04:13.880
<v Speaker 1>celebrities who came out and masked to support the Menendez brothers,

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:18.040
<v Speaker 1>but people who said, I remember this horrific crime and

0:04:18.320 --> 0:04:21.360
<v Speaker 1>they were sentenced a life in prison. To get life

0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:24.360
<v Speaker 1>in prison, and that didn't mean thirty five years in prison.

0:04:24.839 --> 0:04:29.240
<v Speaker 2>The testimony was from family members of the Menendez brothers

0:04:29.279 --> 0:04:33.640
<v Speaker 2>and it was about how they have rehabilitated themselves in prison.

0:04:34.040 --> 0:04:37.440
<v Speaker 1>The family members were the biggest supporters of an early release.

0:04:37.760 --> 0:04:41.359
<v Speaker 1>Now all the family members but seemingly one who passed away,

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:44.919
<v Speaker 1>wanted them out early. But the district attorney does not

0:04:45.080 --> 0:04:48.680
<v Speaker 1>represent the victim, does not represent the family members. They

0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:52.360
<v Speaker 1>represent the people. That's why it's usually the people versus

0:04:52.640 --> 0:04:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Menendez or the state versus Menendez. And in this case,

0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:00.719
<v Speaker 1>the decision of the district attorney was that it is

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:04.400
<v Speaker 1>in the interest of the people of California that the

0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:06.640
<v Speaker 1>Menenda's brothers stay behind bars.

0:05:07.360 --> 0:05:12.400
<v Speaker 2>So they were model prisoners. Apparently, Lyle had absolutely no

0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:16.240
<v Speaker 2>you know, write ups for violence in the years they

0:05:16.240 --> 0:05:19.640
<v Speaker 2>were in prison. Apparently Eric had won. That was twenty

0:05:19.680 --> 0:05:25.240
<v Speaker 2>five years ago, So there really was no evidence that

0:05:25.279 --> 0:05:27.839
<v Speaker 2>they hadn't reformed themselves, was there.

0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:31.560
<v Speaker 1>Well, there was a report that showed that they did

0:05:31.880 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 1>have contraband inside the prison, which was cell phone and

0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:41.640
<v Speaker 1>potential drugs. That's part of a report, and whether or

0:05:41.720 --> 0:05:46.280
<v Speaker 1>not that means they have not been reformed. Well, when

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:50.720
<v Speaker 1>it comes to violence, they clearly did not commit anything

0:05:50.880 --> 0:05:54.520
<v Speaker 1>like that in prison. They were different people behind bars,

0:05:54.560 --> 0:05:56.800
<v Speaker 1>they helped others. But yet there are a lot of

0:05:56.800 --> 0:06:02.080
<v Speaker 1>people who find God behind bars and they help others,

0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 1>and they don't get released early from a life sentence.

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:07.279
<v Speaker 1>So it seems that the celebrity in this case, the

0:06:07.320 --> 0:06:09.279
<v Speaker 1>power of celebrity made a real difference.

0:06:09.440 --> 0:06:13.120
<v Speaker 2>I wonder if this would have happened if you hadn't

0:06:13.160 --> 0:06:17.640
<v Speaker 2>had that Netflix documentary that sort of introduced a whole

0:06:17.720 --> 0:06:22.839
<v Speaker 2>new generation of people to the Menendez brothers in a

0:06:23.040 --> 0:06:24.080
<v Speaker 2>sympathetic way.

0:06:24.680 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 1>I agree the power of streaming, the power of celebrity.

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:31.160
<v Speaker 1>I think the Menendez brothers became a cause celeb and

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:34.960
<v Speaker 1>as a result, they got some benefits from it. They

0:06:34.960 --> 0:06:37.279
<v Speaker 1>got all this worldwide attention they had the best lawyers

0:06:38.160 --> 0:06:40.919
<v Speaker 1>possible for them, and they were able to convince the

0:06:41.040 --> 0:06:44.040
<v Speaker 1>district attorney to side with them to get a resentencing.

0:06:44.279 --> 0:06:47.120
<v Speaker 1>And then that district attorney lost the election, but the

0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:50.760
<v Speaker 1>judge went ahead with it anyways, And now it's up

0:06:50.800 --> 0:06:53.080
<v Speaker 1>to the pro board and the governor, and I think

0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:55.360
<v Speaker 1>they will be let out early. I don't think there

0:06:55.360 --> 0:06:58.560
<v Speaker 1>are any risk of reoffending any violent crime. I think

0:06:59.160 --> 0:07:02.400
<v Speaker 1>they did get reform behind prison walls. But on the

0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:04.600
<v Speaker 1>other hand, how many other people in their situation get

0:07:04.640 --> 0:07:07.480
<v Speaker 1>this benefit, get sentence to life in prison and they

0:07:07.480 --> 0:07:11.960
<v Speaker 1>get out early because they were good prisoners. Not many.

0:07:12.280 --> 0:07:16.520
<v Speaker 1>But this case was treated differently because of the celebrity involved,

0:07:16.560 --> 0:07:19.000
<v Speaker 1>because of the notoriety, and that's the issue I have.

0:07:19.360 --> 0:07:21.800
<v Speaker 1>I just don't think they were treated like everyone else.

0:07:22.000 --> 0:07:26.360
<v Speaker 2>But in their second trial, the judge limited the testimony

0:07:26.640 --> 0:07:31.080
<v Speaker 2>about the allegations of abuse, and it's possible the jury

0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:34.400
<v Speaker 2>would have come out with a verdict of manslaughter instead

0:07:34.440 --> 0:07:38.320
<v Speaker 2>of murder if the abuse allegations had gotten a full hearing.

0:07:39.240 --> 0:07:41.480
<v Speaker 1>Well, that was a judge's determination at the time, and

0:07:41.560 --> 0:07:44.360
<v Speaker 1>the crimes were not overturned on appeal. I mean the

0:07:44.400 --> 0:07:46.440
<v Speaker 1>proper venue. If you think that the judge made a

0:07:46.480 --> 0:07:49.120
<v Speaker 1>bad decision is to appeal it. But the appellate courts

0:07:49.200 --> 0:07:51.600
<v Speaker 1>did not agree, thought that they got a fair trial.

0:07:52.320 --> 0:07:55.800
<v Speaker 1>And as far as being led out, the real reason

0:07:55.800 --> 0:07:57.920
<v Speaker 1>why they're being led out, apparently, at least according to

0:07:57.960 --> 0:08:00.920
<v Speaker 1>the previous DA, was because of their good behavior behind bars.

0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:02.720
<v Speaker 1>But there are a lot of people behind bars who

0:08:03.680 --> 0:08:06.520
<v Speaker 1>act with good behavior and they don't get let out early.

0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:09.680
<v Speaker 1>The difference here to me is the celebrity aspect of

0:08:09.720 --> 0:08:11.360
<v Speaker 1>it that doesn't exist in other cases.

0:08:11.680 --> 0:08:15.200
<v Speaker 2>The DA Hawkman had complained over and over that they

0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:20.160
<v Speaker 2>hadn't taken responsibility for the crimes, but both brothers made

0:08:20.200 --> 0:08:26.960
<v Speaker 2>these remarkable statements accepting full responsibility for the murders. Lyle

0:08:27.040 --> 0:08:29.720
<v Speaker 2>said that all the choices he made were his own,

0:08:29.880 --> 0:08:33.559
<v Speaker 2>including quote the choice to reload, return to the den,

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:35.560
<v Speaker 2>and run up to my mother and shoot her in

0:08:35.600 --> 0:08:39.080
<v Speaker 2>the head. And he apologized for making a mockery of

0:08:39.120 --> 0:08:42.520
<v Speaker 2>the criminal legal system by lying. Does that seem like

0:08:42.559 --> 0:08:45.640
<v Speaker 2>the kind of apology that the LADA was looking for.

0:08:46.320 --> 0:08:49.840
<v Speaker 1>It does, and that's something that I thought has been underreported.

0:08:49.880 --> 0:08:52.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm glad you brought it up to gen because Hawkman

0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:55.920
<v Speaker 1>had asked for a real apology, said enough of this abuse,

0:08:56.040 --> 0:08:59.320
<v Speaker 1>excuse take responsibility for your actions. Stop saying that you

0:08:59.360 --> 0:09:01.760
<v Speaker 1>had to kill your parents because they would have killed

0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:04.800
<v Speaker 1>you first. That was a lie all along. And I

0:09:04.880 --> 0:09:08.880
<v Speaker 1>do believe with their statements that they went a long

0:09:08.920 --> 0:09:13.480
<v Speaker 1>way towards meeting Kachman's request, and that's why I think

0:09:13.920 --> 0:09:15.960
<v Speaker 1>that they will be released earlier. I do think that

0:09:16.240 --> 0:09:21.400
<v Speaker 1>this was as close to a full fledged apology acknowledgment

0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:24.400
<v Speaker 1>of guilt that we have ever seen from them. It

0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:27.520
<v Speaker 1>was something different than before, and I think that's going

0:09:27.559 --> 0:09:28.720
<v Speaker 1>to lead to their early release.

0:09:29.240 --> 0:09:32.120
<v Speaker 2>The judge called the crime shocking. He said he was

0:09:32.160 --> 0:09:35.640
<v Speaker 2>also shocked by the number of corrections officials who wrote

0:09:35.760 --> 0:09:38.480
<v Speaker 2>letters on behalf of the brothers, and that seemed to

0:09:38.520 --> 0:09:40.640
<v Speaker 2>be an important part of his decision.

0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:45.680
<v Speaker 1>It was something that corrections officials and family members all

0:09:45.720 --> 0:09:47.880
<v Speaker 1>sided with them, and I do think the celebrity part

0:09:47.880 --> 0:09:49.720
<v Speaker 1>of it has something to do with it. The Netflix

0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:53.320
<v Speaker 1>shows the movement behind them. Yeah, I think that did

0:09:53.360 --> 0:09:56.959
<v Speaker 1>persuade people. But I do think also there's really little

0:09:56.960 --> 0:09:59.559
<v Speaker 1>doubt that they are different people today than they were

0:09:59.679 --> 0:10:03.040
<v Speaker 1>back there. They were real spoiled, selfish kids. Who acted

0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:06.280
<v Speaker 1>in a brutal, horrific way. I mean the fact that

0:10:06.640 --> 0:10:10.400
<v Speaker 1>the mother who did not engage in sexual abuse but

0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:14.160
<v Speaker 1>may have helped cover it up. But she was crawling

0:10:14.200 --> 0:10:17.280
<v Speaker 1>away after being shot by a shotgun, and then the

0:10:17.360 --> 0:10:21.400
<v Speaker 1>brothers went outside to reload to continue to come in

0:10:21.480 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>and shoot her ten times, including in the face. There

0:10:24.840 --> 0:10:28.360
<v Speaker 1>was so much blood on the scene that the cops

0:10:28.360 --> 0:10:31.920
<v Speaker 1>thought this was a mafia hit, and yet they lied

0:10:31.920 --> 0:10:35.280
<v Speaker 1>about everything. They went on a spending spree. Only after

0:10:35.320 --> 0:10:38.280
<v Speaker 1>spending seven hundred thousand dollars in quick turn did they

0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:42.720
<v Speaker 1>attract the attention of law enforcement and then were eventually arrested.

0:10:42.760 --> 0:10:45.160
<v Speaker 1>But they got away with it for a while. They

0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:48.240
<v Speaker 1>got what they wanted, and I thought they deserved their sentence.

0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:51.920
<v Speaker 1>But you know, they are reformed, and if the system

0:10:52.000 --> 0:10:54.160
<v Speaker 1>lets them out early, I don't think they will reoffend.

0:10:54.920 --> 0:10:57.760
<v Speaker 2>Coming up next on the Boomberg Law Show, I'll continue

0:10:57.760 --> 0:11:01.800
<v Speaker 2>this conversation with Dave Arenberg. We'll talk about the three

0:11:01.840 --> 0:11:05.400
<v Speaker 2>paths to freedom the Menendez brothers have right now, and

0:11:05.480 --> 0:11:09.040
<v Speaker 2>an update on their racketeering and sex trafficking trial of

0:11:09.120 --> 0:11:12.920
<v Speaker 2>Seawan Combe's I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg,

0:11:14.640 --> 0:11:17.440
<v Speaker 2>Eric and Lyle Menendez have been given their first chance

0:11:17.520 --> 0:11:21.720
<v Speaker 2>at freedom in decades. A Los Angeles judge reduced the

0:11:21.760 --> 0:11:26.440
<v Speaker 2>brother's sentences from life in prison without parole to fifty

0:11:26.520 --> 0:11:30.880
<v Speaker 2>years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole. But

0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:34.319
<v Speaker 2>there's a long road ahead. The brothers now have three

0:11:34.360 --> 0:11:37.880
<v Speaker 2>potential paths to freedom, through the Parole Board, which could

0:11:37.880 --> 0:11:41.000
<v Speaker 2>grant them parole, through the governor, who could grant them

0:11:41.080 --> 0:11:45.760
<v Speaker 2>executive clemency, and through a petition for habeas corpus, where

0:11:45.800 --> 0:11:48.559
<v Speaker 2>a judge could grant them a new trial. I've been

0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:52.559
<v Speaker 2>talking to former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg. Dave,

0:11:52.640 --> 0:11:57.120
<v Speaker 2>their clemency hearing is already set for June thirteenth, and

0:11:57.200 --> 0:12:00.920
<v Speaker 2>as part of the clemency hearing, the Parole Board already

0:12:00.920 --> 0:12:05.800
<v Speaker 2>conducted an evaluation to determine what dangers the brothers may

0:12:05.880 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 2>pose if released. It's called a comprehensive risk assessment. Here's

0:12:11.640 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 2>what la DA Nathan Hoffman said about the findings.

0:12:15.800 --> 0:12:19.080
<v Speaker 6>We have this additional new information coming in from the

0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:24.240
<v Speaker 6>border Parole senior psychologists that have assessed that risk as

0:12:24.240 --> 0:12:27.559
<v Speaker 6>a moderate risk, not a high risk. Not a low risk,

0:12:27.640 --> 0:12:28.680
<v Speaker 6>but a moderate risk.

0:12:29.040 --> 0:12:30.720
<v Speaker 2>So what do you think is the best path for

0:12:30.760 --> 0:12:31.760
<v Speaker 2>them to get released.

0:12:32.200 --> 0:12:34.720
<v Speaker 1>I was actually surprised when I saw that moderate risk.

0:12:35.280 --> 0:12:36.880
<v Speaker 1>I don't think they will REAFFCD. I mean, there's so

0:12:36.920 --> 0:12:38.680
<v Speaker 1>many eyeballs on these guys. They're going to go on

0:12:38.720 --> 0:12:42.240
<v Speaker 1>the speaking circuit, they're gonna go through reality shows. I mean,

0:12:42.320 --> 0:12:44.600
<v Speaker 1>I think it's unfair because they're going to be treated

0:12:44.960 --> 0:12:47.040
<v Speaker 1>in a way that others are not. They're going to

0:12:47.120 --> 0:12:49.800
<v Speaker 1>get super celebrity and make a lot of money off this,

0:12:50.040 --> 0:12:53.400
<v Speaker 1>and no one should profit off their infamy. But I

0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:56.240
<v Speaker 1>do think that the two tracks will lead to their

0:12:56.280 --> 0:12:59.559
<v Speaker 1>early release, whether it's the Governor Newsom track of the

0:12:59.640 --> 0:13:02.760
<v Speaker 1>clements see board and then signed by the governor or

0:13:02.840 --> 0:13:06.000
<v Speaker 1>the parole board, which is what the judge just sanctioned.

0:13:06.240 --> 0:13:08.880
<v Speaker 1>So either way, I think they're headed towards the release.

0:13:09.679 --> 0:13:13.760
<v Speaker 2>And if the parole board does deny parole, it has

0:13:13.840 --> 0:13:17.160
<v Speaker 2>to do so for a period of three, five, seven,

0:13:17.280 --> 0:13:20.680
<v Speaker 2>ten or fifteen years, so it could deny parole and

0:13:20.720 --> 0:13:23.800
<v Speaker 2>then say, well, come back in three years.

0:13:23.920 --> 0:13:26.320
<v Speaker 1>I would think that would be probably the best case

0:13:26.360 --> 0:13:29.520
<v Speaker 1>scenario for those who want Meananda's brothers to stay behind bars.

0:13:29.559 --> 0:13:34.240
<v Speaker 1>I do not envision them remaining behind bars that much longer,

0:13:34.280 --> 0:13:36.720
<v Speaker 1>so three years may be the outer limit.

0:13:37.000 --> 0:13:40.360
<v Speaker 2>They also filed the habeas corpus petition seeking a new trial.

0:13:40.600 --> 0:13:41.959
<v Speaker 2>Is that still in play?

0:13:42.679 --> 0:13:45.559
<v Speaker 1>That was always the most unlikely thing to happen. Of

0:13:45.600 --> 0:13:48.080
<v Speaker 1>the three of the three choices, three real choices. They

0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:50.160
<v Speaker 1>had the resentate thing, they had the clemency, and then

0:13:50.160 --> 0:13:52.400
<v Speaker 1>they had the habeasts. But the Habeasts was sort of

0:13:52.400 --> 0:13:55.440
<v Speaker 1>a dead end. The other two, though, bore fruit, and

0:13:55.920 --> 0:13:58.840
<v Speaker 1>I think that that's going to lead to their early release.

0:13:58.880 --> 0:14:01.439
<v Speaker 1>But you know, I just wonder had there not been

0:14:01.480 --> 0:14:04.400
<v Speaker 1>Netflix documentaries, would they be in this situation, had Kim

0:14:04.440 --> 0:14:06.640
<v Speaker 1>Kardashian others not taken up their cause, would they be

0:14:07.240 --> 0:14:10.760
<v Speaker 1>in this situation? They committed a horrific, brutal murder and

0:14:10.800 --> 0:14:13.760
<v Speaker 1>lied about it for years, and now they're ready to

0:14:13.760 --> 0:14:16.520
<v Speaker 1>be released after thirty five years of serving a life sent.

0:14:16.640 --> 0:14:19.720
<v Speaker 2>I mean, new evidence had emerged. Did that play any

0:14:19.800 --> 0:14:21.920
<v Speaker 2>part in this resentencing hearing?

0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:25.800
<v Speaker 1>I think it did, because the judge took everything into account.

0:14:25.880 --> 0:14:27.920
<v Speaker 1>It was more than the good behavior. It was the

0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:30.920
<v Speaker 1>fact that there was evidence that the sexual abuse from

0:14:30.960 --> 0:14:35.320
<v Speaker 1>Jose did occur, not conclusive evidence, but we had a

0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:37.640
<v Speaker 1>letter that one of the Menanda's brothers wrote to a

0:14:37.680 --> 0:14:41.440
<v Speaker 1>cousin that mentioned it. There was also the Menudo boy

0:14:41.480 --> 0:14:44.400
<v Speaker 1>band member who said that Jose engaged in sexual abuse

0:14:44.440 --> 0:14:46.840
<v Speaker 1>with him. So yeah, there is evidence, and that's why

0:14:46.880 --> 0:14:49.320
<v Speaker 1>it could be a manslaughter case instead of a murder

0:14:49.360 --> 0:14:52.080
<v Speaker 1>case as it applies to Jose. And I'm okay if

0:14:52.120 --> 0:14:54.560
<v Speaker 1>they want to let him out early for the murder

0:14:54.600 --> 0:14:57.080
<v Speaker 1>of Jose because of this new evidence, because it been

0:14:57.240 --> 0:14:59.840
<v Speaker 1>good prisoners. The problem I had is the murder of

0:14:59.840 --> 0:15:03.680
<v Speaker 1>them mother Kitty, who did not engage in sexual abuse,

0:15:04.280 --> 0:15:06.680
<v Speaker 1>and they said, well, she enabled them, But here are

0:15:06.720 --> 0:15:10.200
<v Speaker 1>their parents sitting watching TV with their backs turn eating

0:15:10.240 --> 0:15:13.480
<v Speaker 1>ice cream, getting blown away with shotguns by these boys

0:15:13.520 --> 0:15:16.760
<v Speaker 1>who meticulously planned this brutal murder, and then they went

0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:19.520
<v Speaker 1>on a shopping spree after covering it all up. And

0:15:19.760 --> 0:15:22.960
<v Speaker 1>the way they murdered Kitty was so horrific and so

0:15:23.320 --> 0:15:27.800
<v Speaker 1>cold calculated and cruel that I don't think that's a

0:15:27.840 --> 0:15:31.000
<v Speaker 1>manslaughter case. I think that's a murder conviction and should

0:15:31.000 --> 0:15:33.680
<v Speaker 1>stay as a murder conviction. But as I said before,

0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:36.520
<v Speaker 1>this case was really never treated the same as other

0:15:36.560 --> 0:15:37.520
<v Speaker 1>cases from the beginning.

0:15:37.720 --> 0:15:40.920
<v Speaker 2>We'll see what happens with the clemency hearing in about

0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:43.880
<v Speaker 2>a month. Let's turn for a moment to the Sean

0:15:43.920 --> 0:15:49.080
<v Speaker 2>Diddy Combe's trial. It's day three of Combe's trial. He's

0:15:49.160 --> 0:15:54.840
<v Speaker 2>charged with racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage

0:15:54.840 --> 0:15:59.760
<v Speaker 2>in prostitution. His former girlfriend, Cassie Venture, is on the

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:03.960
<v Speaker 2>stand for the second day, talking about her decade long

0:16:04.080 --> 0:16:09.040
<v Speaker 2>relationship with Colmbs that she says was plagued by jealousy, violence,

0:16:09.200 --> 0:16:13.880
<v Speaker 2>and humiliating sex. The prosecution seems to have a wealth

0:16:14.080 --> 0:16:18.960
<v Speaker 2>of evidence of violence of violent acts. Is that enough

0:16:19.000 --> 0:16:19.680
<v Speaker 2>in this case?

0:16:20.560 --> 0:16:23.240
<v Speaker 1>Well, it's not enough just for there to be violent.

0:16:23.320 --> 0:16:26.760
<v Speaker 1>There needs to be more, and I think they have more.

0:16:27.000 --> 0:16:30.800
<v Speaker 1>They've got more because they have more than one witness

0:16:30.840 --> 0:16:34.560
<v Speaker 1>who's going to testify to These freak coughs and the

0:16:34.600 --> 0:16:39.320
<v Speaker 1>freak COFs are in themselves not necessarily illegal, but it

0:16:39.440 --> 0:16:43.920
<v Speaker 1>is illegal when it involves involuntary sexual conduct, when it

0:16:43.960 --> 0:16:48.120
<v Speaker 1>involves alleged human trafficking, when it involves a racketeering an

0:16:48.200 --> 0:16:52.680
<v Speaker 1>ongoing criminal enterprise to service ditty and committing various crimes

0:16:52.720 --> 0:16:58.960
<v Speaker 1>along the way, like arson and obstruction of justice, witness intimidation,

0:17:00.920 --> 0:17:03.800
<v Speaker 1>and all these other types of crimes that fit under

0:17:03.840 --> 0:17:08.000
<v Speaker 1>the racketeering ruber. So, you know, standing alone, maybe there

0:17:08.000 --> 0:17:10.600
<v Speaker 1>are not all times that would have been prosecuted. The

0:17:10.640 --> 0:17:12.960
<v Speaker 1>defense is that this is the domestic violence case, this

0:17:13.080 --> 0:17:15.080
<v Speaker 1>is not a racketeering case, this is not a human

0:17:15.119 --> 0:17:18.159
<v Speaker 1>trafficking case. But taken all together, it does look like

0:17:18.200 --> 0:17:21.520
<v Speaker 1>they have enough evidence to sustain the conviction. And Cassie

0:17:21.560 --> 0:17:25.480
<v Speaker 1>taking the stand yesterday and today has been devastating for

0:17:26.080 --> 0:17:29.120
<v Speaker 1>the defense because she is the one who connects all

0:17:29.160 --> 0:17:31.320
<v Speaker 1>the dots in this case, and she's been a very

0:17:31.359 --> 0:17:34.680
<v Speaker 1>compelling witness, not to mention she's also eight months pregnant,

0:17:34.960 --> 0:17:36.920
<v Speaker 1>so she's a very sympathetic witness as well.

0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:42.520
<v Speaker 2>During the opening statements, the defense attorney claimed that Combe's

0:17:42.560 --> 0:17:46.320
<v Speaker 2>accusers were motivated by money, and she said that Cassie

0:17:46.440 --> 0:17:52.040
<v Speaker 2>Ventura demanded thirty million dollars when she sued him. Quote,

0:17:52.240 --> 0:17:54.720
<v Speaker 2>I want you to ask yourself, how many millions of

0:17:54.760 --> 0:17:57.879
<v Speaker 2>reasons does this witness have to lie? So we can

0:17:57.920 --> 0:18:00.359
<v Speaker 2>assume that that's going to be part of the cross

0:18:00.440 --> 0:18:05.080
<v Speaker 2>examination and why she didn't report it to police and

0:18:05.119 --> 0:18:07.960
<v Speaker 2>instead file the civil suit. Against him.

0:18:08.240 --> 0:18:11.240
<v Speaker 1>She set this all emotion by suing him. It's something

0:18:11.720 --> 0:18:13.240
<v Speaker 1>that takes a lot of courage to be able to

0:18:13.240 --> 0:18:16.240
<v Speaker 1>file something. And it wasn't a money grab when you

0:18:16.280 --> 0:18:19.160
<v Speaker 1>have the other party selling it within a day like essentially,

0:18:19.160 --> 0:18:21.680
<v Speaker 1>they keep her quiet. So if he wants to bring

0:18:21.760 --> 0:18:24.320
<v Speaker 1>up that this is a civil case of money grabbed,

0:18:24.440 --> 0:18:25.960
<v Speaker 1>it's a look bad for him to say, yeah, I

0:18:26.000 --> 0:18:27.720
<v Speaker 1>settled with it a day. That's something you don't do

0:18:27.800 --> 0:18:31.480
<v Speaker 1>unless you know you've done it. So it cuts both ways. Yes,

0:18:31.560 --> 0:18:32.920
<v Speaker 1>you can say why didn't you report this to the

0:18:32.920 --> 0:18:36.560
<v Speaker 1>police and why did you just sue? Well, okay, but

0:18:36.600 --> 0:18:39.080
<v Speaker 1>look what happened. She sued and then the police got involved,

0:18:39.080 --> 0:18:43.040
<v Speaker 1>and so that led to the criminal charges. It's because

0:18:43.080 --> 0:18:46.639
<v Speaker 1>of Cassie that this whole trial is even a current.

0:18:46.800 --> 0:18:50.000
<v Speaker 1>And then he also lied about the fiscal violence all

0:18:50.000 --> 0:18:51.800
<v Speaker 1>of a sudden, he admitted to it only after that

0:18:51.840 --> 0:18:55.000
<v Speaker 1>horrific video came out. That video is very telling. They

0:18:55.080 --> 0:18:57.480
<v Speaker 1>played it already in front of the jury and the

0:18:57.560 --> 0:18:59.640
<v Speaker 1>jury must be appalled by it because that's the only

0:18:59.680 --> 0:19:02.199
<v Speaker 1>thing is it ever admitted to, it seems, is the

0:19:02.240 --> 0:19:05.439
<v Speaker 1>physical violence on that day at that moment, because that

0:19:05.640 --> 0:19:08.080
<v Speaker 1>was the act that was caught on video.

0:19:08.400 --> 0:19:11.200
<v Speaker 2>I read that Diddy was offered a plea deal and

0:19:11.240 --> 0:19:13.640
<v Speaker 2>turned it down. I don't know what he was offered,

0:19:13.720 --> 0:19:17.399
<v Speaker 2>but it does seem like this defense is going to

0:19:17.440 --> 0:19:21.080
<v Speaker 2>be an uphill battled to say the least. So what's

0:19:21.119 --> 0:19:22.480
<v Speaker 2>the defense going to look like?

0:19:23.040 --> 0:19:28.720
<v Speaker 1>The defense is consent, and consent is a legitimate defense

0:19:28.800 --> 0:19:31.280
<v Speaker 1>when you're dealing with adults who allegedly are victims of

0:19:31.359 --> 0:19:34.000
<v Speaker 1>human trafficking. If there were miners consent, it's not a defense.

0:19:34.640 --> 0:19:37.560
<v Speaker 1>But to get a human trafficking conviction, you need force,

0:19:37.640 --> 0:19:41.600
<v Speaker 1>fraud or coercion. Well that's where that video comes into play.

0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:44.879
<v Speaker 1>The force that was used. Her claims a physical violence

0:19:44.880 --> 0:19:48.720
<v Speaker 1>are buttressed by that video. So if they can prove force,

0:19:48.760 --> 0:19:51.600
<v Speaker 1>fraud a coorsion, then all you need is one victim

0:19:51.800 --> 0:19:54.159
<v Speaker 1>and he goes down. But they're trying to show a

0:19:54.200 --> 0:19:57.800
<v Speaker 1>pattern of activity to get that racketeering conviction. And then

0:19:57.800 --> 0:20:00.440
<v Speaker 1>there's the other charges of the man acts by relations,

0:20:00.440 --> 0:20:03.359
<v Speaker 1>which is when you take individuals across state lines or

0:20:03.359 --> 0:20:06.040
<v Speaker 1>purposes of the prostitution. So I think the prosecution has

0:20:06.119 --> 0:20:08.200
<v Speaker 1>enough to win a conviction and to keep Ditty behind

0:20:08.200 --> 0:20:10.119
<v Speaker 1>bars for the rest of his life. The defense is

0:20:10.160 --> 0:20:12.320
<v Speaker 1>going to try their best to poke holes in the

0:20:12.400 --> 0:20:16.159
<v Speaker 1>victims stories and to show that this was a consensual

0:20:16.200 --> 0:20:19.080
<v Speaker 1>activity of these freak coughs. But I don't know. I mean,

0:20:19.520 --> 0:20:22.960
<v Speaker 1>yesterday's and today's testimony, we're going to continue to hurt

0:20:23.000 --> 0:20:26.720
<v Speaker 1>the defense because Cassy comes across as very credible and

0:20:26.760 --> 0:20:29.600
<v Speaker 1>the stuff she's saying is so salacious that it has

0:20:29.640 --> 0:20:30.800
<v Speaker 1>to move the jury.

0:20:31.480 --> 0:20:34.600
<v Speaker 2>So did he took videos of these so called freak

0:20:34.640 --> 0:20:38.960
<v Speaker 2>offs and today they showed the jury stills of them.

0:20:39.560 --> 0:20:44.920
<v Speaker 2>Do you think that just seeing these graphic images will

0:20:44.960 --> 0:20:47.040
<v Speaker 2>impact the jury's view of him.

0:20:47.440 --> 0:20:50.080
<v Speaker 1>There's a rule of evidence that says that the evidence

0:20:50.200 --> 0:20:52.720
<v Speaker 1>is not going to be admitted if it's more prejudicial

0:20:52.720 --> 0:20:56.080
<v Speaker 1>than it is probative, if it's just used for salaciousness,

0:20:56.080 --> 0:20:59.160
<v Speaker 1>if it's just used to inflame the jury. But here

0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:03.320
<v Speaker 1>it's part of the charge, so it is relevant, and

0:21:03.400 --> 0:21:05.960
<v Speaker 1>it is very salacious, and it will have an effect

0:21:06.000 --> 0:21:08.240
<v Speaker 1>on the jury. How do you not when you hear

0:21:08.359 --> 0:21:12.600
<v Speaker 1>things that I can't even repeat on this program, it

0:21:12.640 --> 0:21:15.639
<v Speaker 1>would be believed. You can imagine how the jury feels

0:21:15.680 --> 0:21:18.840
<v Speaker 1>that this was real life. So that's why I think

0:21:18.880 --> 0:21:20.920
<v Speaker 1>that it will come back to haunt Diddy. Now, what's

0:21:20.920 --> 0:21:23.879
<v Speaker 1>ironic is that our culture now, our society, is that

0:21:24.520 --> 0:21:27.679
<v Speaker 1>if he gets acquitted, he'll go back to making records

0:21:27.680 --> 0:21:30.720
<v Speaker 1>and being the super celebrity he is, when in any

0:21:30.720 --> 0:21:33.560
<v Speaker 1>other time you would think that just these allegations, just

0:21:33.800 --> 0:21:37.080
<v Speaker 1>this kind of testimony, would destroy someone's reputation in the

0:21:37.080 --> 0:21:40.880
<v Speaker 1>court of public opinion. But nowadays it seems like even

0:21:40.920 --> 0:21:42.680
<v Speaker 1>being infamous can get them paid.

0:21:43.040 --> 0:21:45.080
<v Speaker 2>I don't know, Dave, Even if he's acquitted, I'm not

0:21:45.119 --> 0:21:48.160
<v Speaker 2>sure he could make a comeback, but he certainly has

0:21:48.200 --> 0:21:52.159
<v Speaker 2>the huge hurdle of a jury verdict ahead of him. First,

0:21:52.640 --> 0:21:54.840
<v Speaker 2>thanks so much for being on the show, Dave. That's

0:21:54.920 --> 0:21:58.639
<v Speaker 2>Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney. Coming up

0:21:58.640 --> 0:22:01.320
<v Speaker 2>next on The Bloomberg Last Show, we'll look at whether

0:22:01.359 --> 0:22:06.400
<v Speaker 2>the US Trade Court might block Trump's Liberation Day global tariffs.

0:22:07.000 --> 0:22:13.440
<v Speaker 2>I'm June Grossel. When you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's

0:22:13.440 --> 0:22:17.760
<v Speaker 2>global tariffs are facing a key test in US Trade Court.

0:22:18.280 --> 0:22:21.480
<v Speaker 2>A group of small businesses is urging the court to

0:22:21.600 --> 0:22:26.040
<v Speaker 2>block the tariffs, arguing that Trump invoked a bogus national

0:22:26.080 --> 0:22:31.160
<v Speaker 2>emergency to justify them. The businesses claim that Trump's use

0:22:31.240 --> 0:22:36.320
<v Speaker 2>of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEPA is

0:22:36.359 --> 0:22:42.040
<v Speaker 2>an unprecedented and unlawful expansion of presidential authority that would

0:22:42.040 --> 0:22:46.720
<v Speaker 2>allow him to impose tariffs without meaningful judicial review. The

0:22:46.760 --> 0:22:52.240
<v Speaker 2>Trump administration is arguing that the president's emergency declaration is justified,

0:22:52.800 --> 0:22:57.199
<v Speaker 2>saying the cumulative effects of annual trade deficits are a

0:22:57.240 --> 0:23:01.080
<v Speaker 2>threat to the US economy and supply chain, and further

0:23:01.160 --> 0:23:04.440
<v Speaker 2>that the courts don't have the authority to review Trump's

0:23:04.520 --> 0:23:09.440
<v Speaker 2>interpretation of what an extraordinary threat is. The fight could

0:23:09.480 --> 0:23:13.760
<v Speaker 2>impact trillions of dollars in global trade, and comes amid

0:23:13.760 --> 0:23:17.720
<v Speaker 2>a wave of legal challenges to Trump's executive orders, which

0:23:17.720 --> 0:23:21.520
<v Speaker 2>are testing the limits of presidential power on everything from

0:23:21.600 --> 0:23:26.320
<v Speaker 2>federal spending to restrictions on birthright citizenship. Joining me is

0:23:26.320 --> 0:23:31.400
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst Holly From. First of all, this

0:23:31.720 --> 0:23:35.399
<v Speaker 2>is a little known federal court. Tell us about this court.

0:23:36.480 --> 0:23:40.119
<v Speaker 7>So it's the International Trade Court in downtown Manhattan, and

0:23:40.200 --> 0:23:44.920
<v Speaker 7>it handles to speaks arising from terroriffts. So any law

0:23:45.040 --> 0:23:48.119
<v Speaker 7>that provides for a terriff presumably goes to that court.

0:23:48.160 --> 0:23:52.040
<v Speaker 7>Although there is some dispute about whether these lawsuits are

0:23:52.480 --> 0:23:55.720
<v Speaker 7>jurisdiction is whether the International Trade Court has jurisdiction over these.

0:23:55.640 --> 0:24:00.800
<v Speaker 2>Cases the Trump administration. Eric Hamilton was the lawyer, and

0:24:01.200 --> 0:24:06.080
<v Speaker 2>he claimed that the question here is a political question

0:24:06.240 --> 0:24:09.200
<v Speaker 2>and that the Court doesn't have the right to decide it.

0:24:09.760 --> 0:24:12.639
<v Speaker 7>That's right. So he's saying that because there's no standard

0:24:12.920 --> 0:24:17.280
<v Speaker 7>about how the court can determine whether there's an emergency

0:24:17.359 --> 0:24:22.160
<v Speaker 7>that meets the International Emergency Economic Powers Act standards, which

0:24:22.200 --> 0:24:26.640
<v Speaker 7>is AEPA. Because there's no standards, there's no discoverable standard,

0:24:27.240 --> 0:24:31.560
<v Speaker 7>that it's a nonussible question. So only the political branches,

0:24:31.680 --> 0:24:35.600
<v Speaker 7>Congress and the President have power to decide whether this

0:24:35.800 --> 0:24:39.359
<v Speaker 7>emergency is trade doesn't sit meet that emergency provision in AEPA.

0:24:39.680 --> 0:24:43.000
<v Speaker 2>How did the judges react to that that they don't

0:24:43.000 --> 0:24:44.240
<v Speaker 2>have the power to decide this.

0:24:45.000 --> 0:24:47.000
<v Speaker 7>I think they pretty much disagreed with that. I think

0:24:47.040 --> 0:24:49.879
<v Speaker 7>that's pretty clear. You know, they said that there is

0:24:49.920 --> 0:24:53.399
<v Speaker 7>this provision that says, you know that a declaration of

0:24:53.440 --> 0:24:57.120
<v Speaker 7>emergency is not reviewable. But because they put these two

0:24:57.320 --> 0:25:00.000
<v Speaker 7>magic words in the statue, which is there has been

0:25:00.119 --> 0:25:05.560
<v Speaker 7>declaration of emergency that presents an quote unusual an extraordinary

0:25:05.640 --> 0:25:09.840
<v Speaker 7>threat to national security or the economy. Because Congress put

0:25:09.840 --> 0:25:13.639
<v Speaker 7>those words in the statute, it was meant for the

0:25:13.720 --> 0:25:16.760
<v Speaker 7>judiciary to interpret that. Why else would they put those

0:25:16.800 --> 0:25:19.880
<v Speaker 7>words in the statue. And what the government argued was that, well,

0:25:19.880 --> 0:25:22.080
<v Speaker 7>that's for the presidents are determined. That's a limit on

0:25:22.119 --> 0:25:25.840
<v Speaker 7>the president his self discretion to determine that this emergency

0:25:25.920 --> 0:25:30.800
<v Speaker 7>falls within that meaning unusual and extraordinary threat. But it's

0:25:30.880 --> 0:25:32.280
<v Speaker 7>not for the court to decide that.

0:25:32.880 --> 0:25:38.240
<v Speaker 2>So let's talk about IPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,

0:25:38.600 --> 0:25:43.960
<v Speaker 2>and the arguments over those words unusual and extraordinary threat

0:25:44.040 --> 0:25:46.280
<v Speaker 2>tell us what the plaintiffs are claiming here.

0:25:46.680 --> 0:25:49.520
<v Speaker 7>So they're saying that the trade deficit is a persistent problem.

0:25:49.600 --> 0:25:52.080
<v Speaker 7>It definitely doesn't arise to the level of an emergency

0:25:52.080 --> 0:25:56.000
<v Speaker 7>of that nature. It's been, you know, in insistence for decades.

0:25:56.040 --> 0:25:58.240
<v Speaker 7>In fact, this is not the largest trade deficit we've

0:25:58.280 --> 0:26:02.440
<v Speaker 7>ever seen. And so while the plaintiffs sort of had

0:26:02.440 --> 0:26:05.800
<v Speaker 7>a difficult time explaining to the court what standard they

0:26:05.800 --> 0:26:08.199
<v Speaker 7>would use to determine whether this is an emergency that

0:26:08.240 --> 0:26:11.680
<v Speaker 7>meets this threat, he said, this is so outside the

0:26:11.720 --> 0:26:15.560
<v Speaker 7>definition of those words that it cannot be possible that

0:26:15.600 --> 0:26:18.640
<v Speaker 7>this trade deficit falls within that definition. So the court

0:26:18.680 --> 0:26:20.800
<v Speaker 7>doesn't even need to set a standard. It could just

0:26:21.160 --> 0:26:24.720
<v Speaker 7>say this is so wildly outside the definition it doesn't

0:26:24.760 --> 0:26:25.360
<v Speaker 7>meet AIPA.

0:26:25.880 --> 0:26:30.040
<v Speaker 2>And the Trump administration's attorney, what was the response, Well, he.

0:26:30.040 --> 0:26:33.320
<v Speaker 7>Was pressed on this also and he says to political question,

0:26:33.359 --> 0:26:36.800
<v Speaker 7>the court shouldn't even review it. But when pressed further,

0:26:36.960 --> 0:26:39.040
<v Speaker 7>and when the Court said, assume that we think that

0:26:39.080 --> 0:26:41.199
<v Speaker 7>we have the power to decide this, he said, well,

0:26:41.200 --> 0:26:43.960
<v Speaker 7>look at the ordinary definitions of unusual extraordinary re for

0:26:44.119 --> 0:26:48.240
<v Speaker 7>them to dictionary definition. And he also said in prior cases,

0:26:48.480 --> 0:26:51.240
<v Speaker 7>the courts have of how those decorations.

0:26:51.920 --> 0:26:54.840
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and so I mean, could you tell which way

0:26:54.880 --> 0:26:56.320
<v Speaker 2>the judges were leaning on that?

0:26:57.000 --> 0:27:00.240
<v Speaker 7>So I think it's hard to say. It's very hard

0:27:00.280 --> 0:27:03.760
<v Speaker 7>to say, but I think the court is skeptical. We've

0:27:03.800 --> 0:27:06.120
<v Speaker 7>come out and said we think that these will eventually

0:27:06.160 --> 0:27:08.719
<v Speaker 7>be upheld, but I think the court is skeptical. And

0:27:08.760 --> 0:27:11.199
<v Speaker 7>the court even said judges Sani even said one of

0:27:11.200 --> 0:27:13.520
<v Speaker 7>the judges of the three member panel said, what if

0:27:13.520 --> 0:27:15.520
<v Speaker 7>there's a shortage of peanut butter? Is that a national

0:27:15.560 --> 0:27:19.159
<v Speaker 7>emergency because it's unusual extraordinary? So could the president just

0:27:19.200 --> 0:27:21.679
<v Speaker 7>declare an emergency? They're like what is the limit? And

0:27:21.720 --> 0:27:24.760
<v Speaker 7>I think they're skeptical because if they bought the government's argument,

0:27:24.800 --> 0:27:27.359
<v Speaker 7>there would be no limit on the president's authority and

0:27:27.440 --> 0:27:29.840
<v Speaker 7>when he could declare a national emergency and what terrorists

0:27:29.880 --> 0:27:32.560
<v Speaker 7>he compose. And that's where what the plaintiffs are arguing, like,

0:27:32.640 --> 0:27:36.919
<v Speaker 7>you know, this is the quintessential unlimited exercise of power.

0:27:37.600 --> 0:27:41.360
<v Speaker 2>I mean, did the court discuss Congress and that tariffs

0:27:41.400 --> 0:27:43.720
<v Speaker 2>are you know, within Congress's purview?

0:27:44.680 --> 0:27:47.199
<v Speaker 7>They did, They said, this is you know, Congress's domain.

0:27:47.720 --> 0:27:50.679
<v Speaker 7>You know, the Constitution very clearly says Congress has the

0:27:50.720 --> 0:27:54.080
<v Speaker 7>power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress has the power to

0:27:54.119 --> 0:27:57.880
<v Speaker 7>impose tariffs, and there are two separate provisions and they're

0:27:57.920 --> 0:28:01.159
<v Speaker 7>both with you know, the domain of But the government

0:28:01.200 --> 0:28:03.960
<v Speaker 7>is saying, well, that's true, but they can delegate that

0:28:04.080 --> 0:28:06.960
<v Speaker 7>power to the president and they have here and they

0:28:07.000 --> 0:28:10.760
<v Speaker 7>have before in terms of other statutes that nobody's quibbling about.

0:28:10.840 --> 0:28:13.159
<v Speaker 7>So Section two thirty two, which allows the president to

0:28:13.200 --> 0:28:17.640
<v Speaker 7>impose terrors if imports threat national security, that was delegated

0:28:17.680 --> 0:28:20.680
<v Speaker 7>to the president. So even though Constitution says yes, this

0:28:20.760 --> 0:28:23.560
<v Speaker 7>is the power that Congress has, they can in certain

0:28:23.560 --> 0:28:26.080
<v Speaker 7>circumstances delegate that power to the president, and.

0:28:26.000 --> 0:28:27.440
<v Speaker 2>How have they done that in this case?

0:28:27.680 --> 0:28:29.520
<v Speaker 7>So with what the government is arguing is that with

0:28:29.680 --> 0:28:32.919
<v Speaker 7>the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, they gave the Presidence

0:28:32.960 --> 0:28:36.720
<v Speaker 7>the authority to regulate imports, which includes imposing terrorists. If

0:28:37.119 --> 0:28:40.479
<v Speaker 7>the President declares the national emergency that it imposes an

0:28:40.520 --> 0:28:43.280
<v Speaker 7>unusual extraordinary threat to national security or the economy.

0:28:44.080 --> 0:28:47.160
<v Speaker 2>Usually, if you're asking for an injunction, the planets have

0:28:47.240 --> 0:28:50.600
<v Speaker 2>to show irreparable harm. Did they discuss whether they would

0:28:50.640 --> 0:28:52.160
<v Speaker 2>suffer irreparable harm?

0:28:52.680 --> 0:28:56.200
<v Speaker 7>They didn't even get into that. So that's why there's

0:28:56.280 --> 0:28:58.080
<v Speaker 7>this thinking that the court is going to rule on

0:28:58.120 --> 0:29:00.520
<v Speaker 7>the summary judgment each because there's a and in summary

0:29:00.560 --> 0:29:03.320
<v Speaker 7>judgment motion too. So for some re judgment you just

0:29:03.320 --> 0:29:04.680
<v Speaker 7>have to win. In the merits, you don't have to

0:29:04.720 --> 0:29:07.760
<v Speaker 7>show a reparable harm. So there's this thinking that they're

0:29:07.760 --> 0:29:09.760
<v Speaker 7>just going to rule in summary judgment motion one way

0:29:09.840 --> 0:29:10.240
<v Speaker 7>or the other.

0:29:11.040 --> 0:29:15.960
<v Speaker 2>President Nixon used a similar emergency law to issue tariffs

0:29:16.160 --> 0:29:21.560
<v Speaker 2>during a currency devaluation crisis in the early seventies. Tell

0:29:21.640 --> 0:29:24.160
<v Speaker 2>us about that case and is it precedent here?

0:29:24.520 --> 0:29:24.600
<v Speaker 3>So?

0:29:24.760 --> 0:29:27.360
<v Speaker 7>Yes, that is by president. What happened there was President

0:29:27.480 --> 0:29:31.120
<v Speaker 7>Nixon imposed a ten percent tariff on all dutyabul goods

0:29:31.160 --> 0:29:35.200
<v Speaker 7>to address a balance of payments deficit in nineteen seventy one.

0:29:35.560 --> 0:29:38.680
<v Speaker 7>And so there was a court case that arose out

0:29:38.680 --> 0:29:41.040
<v Speaker 7>of that, and the appellate court at the time, which

0:29:41.120 --> 0:29:44.280
<v Speaker 7>is the predecessor to the Federal Circuit, which the International

0:29:44.280 --> 0:29:46.719
<v Speaker 7>Trade Court that's hearing this dispute is bound by the

0:29:46.760 --> 0:29:52.160
<v Speaker 7>predecessor court, found that under a predecessor statute that mirrors

0:29:52.160 --> 0:29:55.480
<v Speaker 7>the language in AIPA, the president had power to impose

0:29:55.480 --> 0:29:58.280
<v Speaker 7>those tariffs, that ten percent tariff on all dutiable goods.

0:29:58.400 --> 0:30:02.160
<v Speaker 7>And so that's case the court was talking about, and

0:30:02.360 --> 0:30:04.640
<v Speaker 7>Dave and said, you know, to the point if that's

0:30:04.640 --> 0:30:07.840
<v Speaker 7>identical language, the court there found that the president had

0:30:07.880 --> 0:30:11.479
<v Speaker 7>power to impose terror when the statute said you can

0:30:11.520 --> 0:30:14.600
<v Speaker 7>regulate imports. So they're bound by that. But the court,

0:30:14.680 --> 0:30:17.320
<v Speaker 7>even you know, is suggesting that there's many distinctions with

0:30:17.400 --> 0:30:19.960
<v Speaker 7>that case in terms of you know, what's happening now.

0:30:20.440 --> 0:30:23.320
<v Speaker 2>So you gave this a sixty percent chance that the

0:30:23.360 --> 0:30:26.040
<v Speaker 2>tariffs will be upheld, explain you know what you base

0:30:26.120 --> 0:30:26.360
<v Speaker 2>that on?

0:30:27.080 --> 0:30:29.160
<v Speaker 7>Sixties percent is more likely than than not, but it's

0:30:29.280 --> 0:30:31.840
<v Speaker 7>very very close. And the reason we think that it

0:30:31.880 --> 0:30:34.800
<v Speaker 7>will be upheld is because, you know, because there is

0:30:34.840 --> 0:30:37.880
<v Speaker 7>this US sheet of precedent which says that very clearly

0:30:37.960 --> 0:30:40.239
<v Speaker 7>that the president has power to regulate imports and that

0:30:40.280 --> 0:30:42.520
<v Speaker 7>includes tariff. And then the court is going to have

0:30:42.560 --> 0:30:45.760
<v Speaker 7>to get into whether there's trede deficit, is an emergency

0:30:46.280 --> 0:30:49.520
<v Speaker 7>and though they seemed inclined to review whether it's an

0:30:49.600 --> 0:30:53.520
<v Speaker 7>unusual extordinary threat, we think ultimately, if this goes up

0:30:53.520 --> 0:30:56.200
<v Speaker 7>to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will hold that

0:30:56.240 --> 0:30:58.640
<v Speaker 7>the president has the power to impose these tariffs and

0:30:58.720 --> 0:31:01.720
<v Speaker 7>that the court shouldn't be tucking guesting the president when

0:31:01.720 --> 0:31:03.840
<v Speaker 7>it comes to declaring emergencies.

0:31:04.320 --> 0:31:06.080
<v Speaker 2>The plane Offs asked the court to rule on an

0:31:06.080 --> 0:31:09.960
<v Speaker 2>expedited basis. Are they going to rule on an expedited basis?

0:31:10.320 --> 0:31:12.880
<v Speaker 7>I think that they're going to rule relatively quickly. So

0:31:13.000 --> 0:31:15.880
<v Speaker 7>this is a case that it's suscepting almost everyone and

0:31:15.920 --> 0:31:18.160
<v Speaker 7>it has national import, So I think they're going to rule.

0:31:18.360 --> 0:31:21.920
<v Speaker 2>I've been two q There are other cases over the tariffs,

0:31:21.960 --> 0:31:26.000
<v Speaker 2>including a case by Democratic Attorneys General. Is that going

0:31:26.040 --> 0:31:27.840
<v Speaker 2>to go to the Trade Court as well?

0:31:28.400 --> 0:31:31.200
<v Speaker 7>Yes, so they filed that in the Trade Court. There

0:31:31.240 --> 0:31:34.920
<v Speaker 7>is another case that California filed outside of the Trade Court,

0:31:34.920 --> 0:31:38.080
<v Speaker 7>which is in a federal court in California, because they're

0:31:38.120 --> 0:31:42.760
<v Speaker 7>contesting the International Trade Court's jurisdiction. But most of these

0:31:43.120 --> 0:31:45.640
<v Speaker 7>have been filed in the Trade Court and there are

0:31:45.760 --> 0:31:49.080
<v Speaker 7>pending motions to transfer all the cases outside to the

0:31:49.080 --> 0:31:50.400
<v Speaker 7>same court to the Trade Court.

0:31:50.960 --> 0:31:55.640
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much, Holly. That's Bloomberg Intelligence Litigation Analyst Holly

0:31:55.760 --> 0:31:58.600
<v Speaker 2>from and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg

0:31:58.680 --> 0:32:01.360
<v Speaker 2>Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal

0:32:01.400 --> 0:32:04.400
<v Speaker 2>news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them

0:32:04.400 --> 0:32:09.440
<v Speaker 2>on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,

0:32:09.480 --> 0:32:12.840
<v Speaker 2>slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The

0:32:12.840 --> 0:32:16.840
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.

0:32:17.440 --> 0:32:20.120
<v Speaker 2>I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg