1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloombird Radio.

2
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:11,959
Speaker 1: The entire thing has been a witch hunt and there

3
00:00:12,039 --> 00:00:16,520
Speaker 1: is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign. But

4
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:19,800
Speaker 1: I can always speak for myself and the Russians zero.

5
00:00:21,280 --> 00:00:26,000
Speaker 1: This is a pure and simple witch hunt. This is

6
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:29,040
Speaker 1: a political witch hunt, Calisa, which nobody's that are seen

7
00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:32,920
Speaker 1: towards a pure witch hunt. It's a hoax. It's a

8
00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:35,880
Speaker 1: disgraceful situation. It's a total witch hunt. I've been saying

9
00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:39,199
Speaker 1: it for a long time. Former President Donald Trump has

10
00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:43,680
Speaker 1: repeatedly called the Russia investigation a witch hunt, a hoax,

11
00:00:44,159 --> 00:00:48,159
Speaker 1: a deep state conspiracy to frame him, and Special counsel

12
00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:53,320
Speaker 1: John Durham was tasked with uncovering government misconduct during that investigation,

13
00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:58,560
Speaker 1: But after three years of investigating the investigation, Durham's only

14
00:00:58,600 --> 00:01:02,200
Speaker 1: case to go to trial was prosecution of Michael Sussman,

15
00:01:02,280 --> 00:01:06,440
Speaker 1: a lawyer for Hillary Clinton's twenty sixteen presidential campaign, on

16
00:01:06,520 --> 00:01:10,520
Speaker 1: a single charge of lying to the FBI lying not

17
00:01:10,640 --> 00:01:14,280
Speaker 1: about a conspiracy, but about the identity of his clients

18
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:18,000
Speaker 1: when he passed a tip on in September of and

19
00:01:18,160 --> 00:01:21,720
Speaker 1: after about six hours of deliberations. The jury found the

20
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:26,559
Speaker 1: prosecution hadn't proved its case and acquitted Sessman. I told

21
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:29,720
Speaker 1: the truth to the FBI, and the jury wreck clearly

22
00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:33,120
Speaker 1: recognized that with their unanimous verdict. My guest his former

23
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:37,680
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner McCarter and English. This

24
00:01:37,800 --> 00:01:42,920
Speaker 1: was Durham's first major courtroom test after a three year investigation.

25
00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:45,840
Speaker 1: How big a setback is this for him? Well, it's

26
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:48,800
Speaker 1: a huge setback for Special Counsel John Durham because this

27
00:01:48,880 --> 00:01:52,280
Speaker 1: is the very first case that's gone to trial after

28
00:01:52,600 --> 00:01:56,440
Speaker 1: three years of investigating whether federal agents who investigated the

29
00:01:56,480 --> 00:02:00,600
Speaker 1: twenty steen Trump campaign committed any wrongdoing. So this sense,

30
00:02:00,760 --> 00:02:04,040
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel's office had really put everything on the

31
00:02:04,160 --> 00:02:07,520
Speaker 1: line in this case, even though it ultimately was a

32
00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:11,040
Speaker 1: fairly simple case which charged a single count A lying

33
00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:13,880
Speaker 1: to the FBI. So in a meeting with the General

34
00:02:13,919 --> 00:02:18,000
Speaker 1: Council of the FBI, Sussman presented research that he said

35
00:02:18,040 --> 00:02:23,040
Speaker 1: suggested a possible secret back channel of communications between computer

36
00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:27,480
Speaker 1: service for Russia based Alpha Bank and the Trump organization.

37
00:02:27,760 --> 00:02:31,320
Speaker 1: But that wasn't what the issue was here. The jurors had,

38
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:34,880
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, this really narrow issue to decide one

39
00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:38,360
Speaker 1: false statement, tell us what that was. Sure, So the

40
00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:41,840
Speaker 1: whole case turned on the simple question of whether or

41
00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:44,200
Speaker 1: not Sussman when he came to the FBI had the

42
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:47,400
Speaker 1: single meeting with the General Council of the FBI, whether

43
00:02:47,440 --> 00:02:51,119
Speaker 1: she was there in his individual capacity as an individual

44
00:02:51,200 --> 00:02:55,440
Speaker 1: citizen giving information to the FBI that affected potential national

45
00:02:55,440 --> 00:02:58,000
Speaker 1: security issues, or whether he was there on behalf of

46
00:02:58,040 --> 00:03:01,400
Speaker 1: a client. Now, what the defense argue it ultimately successfully

47
00:03:01,639 --> 00:03:04,840
Speaker 1: was that it didn't really matter because the FBI would

48
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:07,200
Speaker 1: have done the same thing had they known that he

49
00:03:07,280 --> 00:03:10,440
Speaker 1: was there on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And ultimately

50
00:03:10,520 --> 00:03:13,639
Speaker 1: FBI did investigate the information and find out that it

51
00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:16,160
Speaker 1: was without basis, but Sussman said he was there at

52
00:03:16,160 --> 00:03:19,120
Speaker 1: his individual capacity even though he was working for the

53
00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:21,960
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign at the time. On the defense also argued

54
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:24,040
Speaker 1: that it was well known that Sussman had worked for

55
00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:27,720
Speaker 1: Democratic organizations and for the Democratic Party, and so the

56
00:03:27,720 --> 00:03:30,560
Speaker 1: fact that he was tied to the Democrats was well

57
00:03:30,600 --> 00:03:33,520
Speaker 1: known to the FBI at the time they received the information,

58
00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:36,040
Speaker 1: So whether he was actually acting on their behalf at

59
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:39,400
Speaker 1: that moment didn't have a material impact on how the

60
00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:42,400
Speaker 1: FBI treated that information. You will go back to that

61
00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:45,560
Speaker 1: materiality in a moment. But the case depended on the

62
00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:49,960
Speaker 1: testimony of one witness, James Baker, who was the FBI's

63
00:03:50,080 --> 00:03:53,800
Speaker 1: general counsel, when he met with Sussman alone, and he

64
00:03:53,920 --> 00:03:56,800
Speaker 1: took no notes of that meeting, so he had some

65
00:03:56,840 --> 00:04:01,000
Speaker 1: credibility problems that the defense brought out. But that's exactly right,

66
00:04:01,040 --> 00:04:02,440
Speaker 1: and I think that was one of the reasons this

67
00:04:02,520 --> 00:04:05,040
Speaker 1: was a very difficult case from the start, because it's

68
00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: really one person's word against the other as to what

69
00:04:07,880 --> 00:04:10,680
Speaker 1: happened at that meeting. And as you mentioned, James Baker

70
00:04:10,720 --> 00:04:13,680
Speaker 1: that did not take notes. So although his testimony was

71
00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: he was ad percent confident that Sussman insisted to him

72
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:19,200
Speaker 1: that he was not acting on behalf of a client,

73
00:04:19,600 --> 00:04:21,240
Speaker 1: and that if he had known he was acting on

74
00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:24,120
Speaker 1: behalf of a client, he may have handled the conversation

75
00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:27,039
Speaker 1: or the meeting differently. The fact was the defense was

76
00:04:27,120 --> 00:04:30,880
Speaker 1: able to impeach that testimony somewhat by pointing out that

77
00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:34,720
Speaker 1: Sussman had represented cybersecurity clients in the past and that

78
00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:37,839
Speaker 1: Baker had said at various times that he didn't remember

79
00:04:37,880 --> 00:04:40,479
Speaker 1: certain parts of that conversation. And when he took to

80
00:04:40,520 --> 00:04:43,080
Speaker 1: witness stand, he said he couldn't remember a hundred sixteen

81
00:04:43,160 --> 00:04:45,599
Speaker 1: times when the defense to asked him questions, and so

82
00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:49,120
Speaker 1: his testimony wasn't rock solid. Despite the fact that he

83
00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:51,480
Speaker 1: said he was a percent confident, the defense was able

84
00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:55,839
Speaker 1: to bring out instances where his recollection was not entirely

85
00:04:55,920 --> 00:04:59,240
Speaker 1: solid as to what was said at that exact meeting,

86
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:01,560
Speaker 1: and ultimate to leave, the defense was able to make

87
00:05:01,600 --> 00:05:04,120
Speaker 1: a big issue of the fact that this entire case

88
00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:07,360
Speaker 1: was really turning on the question of what happened at

89
00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:10,600
Speaker 1: a brief, thirty minute meeting more than five years ago.

90
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:14,080
Speaker 1: I think the jury ultimately looked at this case and

91
00:05:14,200 --> 00:05:17,200
Speaker 1: decided that it was more political than criminal, and that's

92
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:20,640
Speaker 1: why they ultimately acquitted Sessement after this trial, in only

93
00:05:20,680 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 1: a day and a half of deliberations, Bob prosecutors used

94
00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:28,280
Speaker 1: the case to try to put forward a larger conspiracy theory,

95
00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:32,960
Speaker 1: and in the closing arguments, the defense attorney denigrated that effort.

96
00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:36,560
Speaker 1: Sean Berkowitz said the prosecution was trying to turn a

97
00:05:36,600 --> 00:05:39,839
Speaker 1: thirty minute meeting more than five years ago into a

98
00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:45,080
Speaker 1: giant political conspiracy theory. Apparently that was pretty effective because

99
00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:48,680
Speaker 1: the jury, four women said the prosecution never should have

100
00:05:48,680 --> 00:05:51,800
Speaker 1: brought this case. Do you think that it hurt the

101
00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 1: prosecution to put this in context or did they have

102
00:05:54,839 --> 00:05:57,159
Speaker 1: to put it in context? Well, that was the buying

103
00:05:57,200 --> 00:05:59,360
Speaker 1: the prosecution ultimately was in from the start of this

104
00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:02,360
Speaker 1: case goes. On the one hand, prosecutor said, this case

105
00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:05,520
Speaker 1: is not about politics. It's about telling the truth. It's

106
00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:08,560
Speaker 1: about whether sessamen lie to the FBI in order to

107
00:06:08,600 --> 00:06:10,400
Speaker 1: get that meeting. When he said that he was not

108
00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:13,120
Speaker 1: acting on behalf of a client. But ultimately it was

109
00:06:13,160 --> 00:06:15,280
Speaker 1: about politics, and they had to go back to the

110
00:06:15,279 --> 00:06:18,080
Speaker 1: scene that this was really an attempt by the Clinton

111
00:06:18,080 --> 00:06:21,440
Speaker 1: campaign to try to get the FBI to investigate this

112
00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:25,320
Speaker 1: alleged tie between the Trump organization and this Russian bank

113
00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:28,240
Speaker 1: and then leak that information to the media in the

114
00:06:28,320 --> 00:06:30,520
Speaker 1: hopes that it would get out there in the final

115
00:06:30,600 --> 00:06:33,320
Speaker 1: days of the campaign and affect the campaign in some way.

116
00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:36,400
Speaker 1: That was really what they were trying to suggest, and ultimately,

117
00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:38,520
Speaker 1: I think the defense was able to turn that around

118
00:06:38,560 --> 00:06:41,400
Speaker 1: on its head and say this is simply what's done

119
00:06:41,440 --> 00:06:44,520
Speaker 1: all the time, it's opposition research. And they were also

120
00:06:44,600 --> 00:06:47,160
Speaker 1: able to point out that there was some information from

121
00:06:47,160 --> 00:06:49,719
Speaker 1: the Clinton campaign that said that they did not want

122
00:06:49,760 --> 00:06:52,440
Speaker 1: these allegations to be taken up by the FBI at

123
00:06:52,440 --> 00:06:54,760
Speaker 1: that point because they were concerned that a new story

124
00:06:54,800 --> 00:06:57,920
Speaker 1: about the issue and the investigation might complicate the news

125
00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:00,480
Speaker 1: stories that might come out about it. So it wasn't

126
00:07:00,600 --> 00:07:02,840
Speaker 1: entirely clear that it was in the interest of the

127
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:06,800
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign to have the FBI investigated. They simply wanted

128
00:07:06,839 --> 00:07:09,560
Speaker 1: the news media to write about the potential league because

129
00:07:09,560 --> 00:07:11,320
Speaker 1: they thought that would have more of an impact on

130
00:07:11,360 --> 00:07:16,200
Speaker 1: the election than an FBI investigation. Sussman decided not to

131
00:07:16,240 --> 00:07:20,920
Speaker 1: take the witness stand in his own defense. Obviously, in hindsight,

132
00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:25,080
Speaker 1: that was the right decision, But what kinds of considerations

133
00:07:25,440 --> 00:07:29,400
Speaker 1: would the defense have been weighing. I think that was

134
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:33,760
Speaker 1: a very shrewd strategic decision by the defense because they

135
00:07:33,800 --> 00:07:37,200
Speaker 1: did not want to make this trial about Michael Sussman.

136
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:41,360
Speaker 1: They wanted to make this trial about the inconsistent recollection

137
00:07:41,400 --> 00:07:44,920
Speaker 1: of James Baker, and by not having Sussman take the

138
00:07:45,040 --> 00:07:47,920
Speaker 1: stand and recall what went on at that meeting, the

139
00:07:48,000 --> 00:07:51,560
Speaker 1: defense was able to focus the entire case about what

140
00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:55,160
Speaker 1: James Baker recalled about that brief thirty minute meeting that

141
00:07:55,240 --> 00:07:57,720
Speaker 1: occurred more than five years ago, on the fact that

142
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:01,280
Speaker 1: he took no contemporaneous notes and was simply recalling from

143
00:08:01,320 --> 00:08:04,440
Speaker 1: memory what was said at that meeting. Pub Let me

144
00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:07,200
Speaker 1: ask you this, Since you're a prosecutor for so long,

145
00:08:07,600 --> 00:08:11,280
Speaker 1: isn't it like a matter of course for FBI agents

146
00:08:11,400 --> 00:08:14,000
Speaker 1: or people in the FBI to take notes when they're

147
00:08:14,040 --> 00:08:16,640
Speaker 1: interviewing someone like that. Well, it was a bit of

148
00:08:16,640 --> 00:08:20,440
Speaker 1: an unusual meeting because it was this phone call placed

149
00:08:20,480 --> 00:08:24,400
Speaker 1: from Sussman to the FBI General Council. This is not

150
00:08:24,480 --> 00:08:27,360
Speaker 1: something that occurs on a daily basis, and typically it

151
00:08:27,400 --> 00:08:30,800
Speaker 1: would be something that would be handled by agents rather

152
00:08:30,880 --> 00:08:33,560
Speaker 1: than by the General Council. But yes, that is usually

153
00:08:33,800 --> 00:08:36,400
Speaker 1: the practice of the FBI, first of all, to not

154
00:08:36,520 --> 00:08:38,920
Speaker 1: meet with anybody alone, So that seemed to be someone

155
00:08:38,960 --> 00:08:41,360
Speaker 1: unusual that there would be only one person from the

156
00:08:41,400 --> 00:08:43,920
Speaker 1: FBI at the meeting, and secondly that there were no

157
00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:47,560
Speaker 1: contemporaries notes taken. But at the time, remember, the meeting

158
00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:50,520
Speaker 1: was simply to get information that the FBI may or

159
00:08:50,520 --> 00:08:53,920
Speaker 1: may not use to launch an investigation, so it's not

160
00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:57,959
Speaker 1: completely surprising that there wasn't a full memorandum of that meeting,

161
00:08:58,000 --> 00:09:01,280
Speaker 1: but it is surprising that they were not least contemporaneous

162
00:09:01,280 --> 00:09:05,640
Speaker 1: notes that would have corroborated Baker's testimony about what Sussman

163
00:09:05,720 --> 00:09:07,960
Speaker 1: said to him as to why he was there and

164
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:11,720
Speaker 1: who may have sent him. Let's talk about materiality, because

165
00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:13,840
Speaker 1: part of the reason why this was an uphill battle

166
00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:17,080
Speaker 1: is that the prosecutor had to convince the jury beyond

167
00:09:17,120 --> 00:09:20,559
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt not only that Sussman lied to Baker,

168
00:09:20,880 --> 00:09:24,200
Speaker 1: but that the lie was material enough to influence the

169
00:09:24,320 --> 00:09:29,080
Speaker 1: FBI's actions or decisions. The testimony from Baker again was

170
00:09:29,200 --> 00:09:32,560
Speaker 1: critical on this point, because he testified that had he

171
00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:36,199
Speaker 1: known that Sussman was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign,

172
00:09:36,400 --> 00:09:38,640
Speaker 1: he may not have taken the meeting at all, or

173
00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:41,600
Speaker 1: he would have treated the information differently. That was the

174
00:09:41,679 --> 00:09:45,440
Speaker 1: government's proof that it was material. Now, in response, the

175
00:09:45,480 --> 00:09:48,440
Speaker 1: defense made a compelling case that the FBI was well

176
00:09:48,480 --> 00:09:52,360
Speaker 1: aware that Michael Sussman had worked on behalf of interest

177
00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:55,240
Speaker 1: for the Democratic Party in the past, and so whether

178
00:09:55,360 --> 00:09:57,800
Speaker 1: or not he was acting on behalf of the Clinton

179
00:09:57,840 --> 00:10:00,760
Speaker 1: campaign at the time he was at that meeting, or

180
00:10:00,760 --> 00:10:03,880
Speaker 1: whether he simply had worked for Democratic campaigns and the

181
00:10:03,920 --> 00:10:07,680
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign in other context was really not a material factor.

182
00:10:07,840 --> 00:10:10,640
Speaker 1: In other words, they knew that Michael Sussman was not

183
00:10:10,679 --> 00:10:13,079
Speaker 1: working on behalf of the Republican Party. They knew that

184
00:10:13,120 --> 00:10:16,640
Speaker 1: Michael Sussman was not working on behalf of conservative elements

185
00:10:16,720 --> 00:10:19,280
Speaker 1: in the Republican Party. They knew that this is somebody

186
00:10:19,280 --> 00:10:22,480
Speaker 1: who aligned himself with the Democratic Party, and so whether

187
00:10:22,559 --> 00:10:25,120
Speaker 1: or not he was acting officially on their behalf at

188
00:10:25,160 --> 00:10:27,959
Speaker 1: that moment or not really wouldn't have made any difference

189
00:10:28,080 --> 00:10:30,600
Speaker 1: in terms of how the FBI treated that information. And

190
00:10:30,679 --> 00:10:34,280
Speaker 1: of course, ultimately the FBI took the information and investigated

191
00:10:34,280 --> 00:10:36,920
Speaker 1: it and found out that there was nothing to the

192
00:10:36,960 --> 00:10:41,240
Speaker 1: alleged connection between the Trump organization and this Russian bank. So,

193
00:10:41,360 --> 00:10:45,119
Speaker 1: in essence, the process worked regardless of where the information

194
00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:48,240
Speaker 1: came from. The FBI ran it to ground and decided

195
00:10:48,400 --> 00:10:50,760
Speaker 1: that there was nothing to it. So I think at

196
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:52,439
Speaker 1: the end of the day, one of the problems of

197
00:10:52,520 --> 00:10:57,440
Speaker 1: prosecution had was convincing jurors that this case really mattered,

198
00:10:57,640 --> 00:11:00,480
Speaker 1: that it really mattered whether or not he identified himself

199
00:11:00,520 --> 00:11:04,080
Speaker 1: as working for the Clinton campaign at that moment, since

200
00:11:04,120 --> 00:11:06,680
Speaker 1: the defense argued the FBI was well aware that he

201
00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:09,320
Speaker 1: had worked on behalf of democratic interest in the past.

202
00:11:09,679 --> 00:11:12,600
Speaker 1: To that point, the jury four person said the case

203
00:11:12,840 --> 00:11:15,160
Speaker 1: never should have been brought and that the time could

204
00:11:15,160 --> 00:11:19,240
Speaker 1: have been spent more wisely. And the prosecution couldn't get

205
00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:22,240
Speaker 1: around the fact that the FBI agent they put on

206
00:11:22,280 --> 00:11:26,040
Speaker 1: the stand who initially investigated said that he wouldn't have

207
00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:29,640
Speaker 1: done anything differently if he'd known the tip originated from

208
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:33,720
Speaker 1: a partisan source. So one wonders, with that kind of testimony,

209
00:11:33,760 --> 00:11:38,440
Speaker 1: why Durham even chose to bring this case. That's a

210
00:11:38,480 --> 00:11:41,880
Speaker 1: good question. I think that the Special Counsel looked at

211
00:11:41,920 --> 00:11:45,000
Speaker 1: this case un thought that they had a clear lie here,

212
00:11:45,320 --> 00:11:48,560
Speaker 1: that there was enough evidence to convince a jury that

213
00:11:48,679 --> 00:11:52,040
Speaker 1: Michael Sussman was acting on behalf the Clinton campaign. Remember,

214
00:11:52,240 --> 00:11:55,400
Speaker 1: they did pull his billing records, and they were able

215
00:11:55,440 --> 00:11:58,600
Speaker 1: to show at least a compelling argument that Michael Sussman

216
00:11:58,760 --> 00:12:01,240
Speaker 1: was billing the Clinton camp pain at the time he

217
00:12:01,280 --> 00:12:03,920
Speaker 1: was sitting in on this meeting with Michael Baker, and

218
00:12:03,960 --> 00:12:07,360
Speaker 1: I believe prosecutors thought that was enough. Ultimately, the defense

219
00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:09,439
Speaker 1: was able to show that those billing records were not

220
00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:13,200
Speaker 1: quite as clear as maybe they seemed initially that there

221
00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:15,480
Speaker 1: was billing for the Clinton campaign on the day of

222
00:12:15,480 --> 00:12:18,440
Speaker 1: that meeting, but it wasn't entirely clear that he built

223
00:12:18,800 --> 00:12:21,000
Speaker 1: for the meeting. That even went so far as to

224
00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:24,280
Speaker 1: show that Michael Suftman build the Clinton campaign for the

225
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:26,800
Speaker 1: cost of the flash drive on which he handed the

226
00:12:26,840 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 1: information over to the FBI. So I think they thought

227
00:12:29,760 --> 00:12:32,920
Speaker 1: that that was going to be enough. But ultimately the

228
00:12:33,000 --> 00:12:36,640
Speaker 1: downfall for the prosecution here, in my opinion, is that

229
00:12:36,720 --> 00:12:40,320
Speaker 1: it turned on this one meeting between two individuals that

230
00:12:40,400 --> 00:12:43,960
Speaker 1: occurred five years ago, and there were no contemporaneous notes,

231
00:12:44,000 --> 00:12:47,400
Speaker 1: so it was essentially one person's recollection against the other.

232
00:12:47,640 --> 00:12:50,760
Speaker 1: On the defense was able to raise a reasonable doubt

233
00:12:50,760 --> 00:12:52,760
Speaker 1: in the mind of jurors as to whether or not

234
00:12:52,880 --> 00:12:55,679
Speaker 1: Baker's recollection of what was said at that meeting was

235
00:12:55,760 --> 00:12:58,200
Speaker 1: actually accurate. We want to look at the big picture

236
00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:01,400
Speaker 1: for a moment. Durham's invested gation has now gone on

237
00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:06,319
Speaker 1: longer than the Muller investigation. In he got a guilty

238
00:13:06,360 --> 00:13:10,000
Speaker 1: plea from a former FBI lawyer for altering an email

239
00:13:10,120 --> 00:13:13,400
Speaker 1: relating to a surveillance request, and that lawyer got probation.

240
00:13:13,640 --> 00:13:16,320
Speaker 1: This Suessman case was based on a lie to the

241
00:13:16,400 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 1: FBI and failed in October, Dorms bring a case against

242
00:13:20,920 --> 00:13:25,240
Speaker 1: an analyst who's also charged with lying to the FBI

243
00:13:25,320 --> 00:13:28,960
Speaker 1: about the sources of his information. So these cases are

244
00:13:28,960 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 1: not about misconduct by the FBI in the Russian investigation.

245
00:13:33,800 --> 00:13:39,240
Speaker 1: They're prosecuting lies from people about seemingly peripheral issues. That's

246
00:13:39,280 --> 00:13:41,080
Speaker 1: a great point. And if you remember back to the

247
00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:43,440
Speaker 1: beginning of all this, that was the question. You had

248
00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:47,079
Speaker 1: a couple of FBI agents who had exchanged text messages

249
00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,120
Speaker 1: which tended to show that they were not in favor

250
00:13:50,120 --> 00:13:53,400
Speaker 1: of the election of then candidate Trump, and the focus

251
00:13:53,400 --> 00:13:54,920
Speaker 1: of this was going to be on whether or not

252
00:13:54,960 --> 00:13:58,679
Speaker 1: it was the FBI itself that was out to prevent

253
00:13:58,920 --> 00:14:02,480
Speaker 1: then candidate Trump I'm getting elected president. These cases are

254
00:14:02,520 --> 00:14:05,520
Speaker 1: all about information that is being brought to the FBI,

255
00:14:05,600 --> 00:14:08,920
Speaker 1: and in fact invalidates the fact that the FBI treated

256
00:14:08,960 --> 00:14:12,040
Speaker 1: them fairly and partially and ran them to ground based

257
00:14:12,040 --> 00:14:14,920
Speaker 1: solely on the evidence because they did not pursue in

258
00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:17,600
Speaker 1: this case leads that there was this a leg tied

259
00:14:17,640 --> 00:14:20,520
Speaker 1: between the Trump organization on this Russian bank. They investigated

260
00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:23,000
Speaker 1: and have found there was nothing to it. So this

261
00:14:23,080 --> 00:14:25,960
Speaker 1: is really a case where the process worked and the

262
00:14:26,000 --> 00:14:28,320
Speaker 1: only question is whether or not the people who brought

263
00:14:28,400 --> 00:14:31,840
Speaker 1: the information to the FBI were acting improperly. And I

264
00:14:31,920 --> 00:14:35,040
Speaker 1: often think about this when I see that a prosecution

265
00:14:35,200 --> 00:14:39,000
Speaker 1: ends up being about lying to the FBI. Is that

266
00:14:39,120 --> 00:14:42,480
Speaker 1: almost an admission that you know you couldn't make a

267
00:14:42,520 --> 00:14:45,600
Speaker 1: prosecution based on the charges you were initially looking for,

268
00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:49,000
Speaker 1: so you fall back on this line to the FBI,

269
00:14:49,200 --> 00:14:52,400
Speaker 1: which is a crime, a felony, but still well. I

270
00:14:52,400 --> 00:14:55,680
Speaker 1: do think that plays into the general public perception of

271
00:14:55,720 --> 00:14:57,600
Speaker 1: these types of cases. And now, of course we don't

272
00:14:57,640 --> 00:15:01,040
Speaker 1: really know what else the Special Counsel's Office ad investigating.

273
00:15:01,280 --> 00:15:03,640
Speaker 1: It's possible that there could be other cases that they

274
00:15:03,720 --> 00:15:06,520
Speaker 1: bring in the future that may be more serious than

275
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:09,520
Speaker 1: the ones that they've brought to date, but generally you

276
00:15:09,520 --> 00:15:12,280
Speaker 1: want to bring your best cases first, and these are

277
00:15:12,280 --> 00:15:14,400
Speaker 1: the kind of cases that are sort of around the

278
00:15:14,440 --> 00:15:17,480
Speaker 1: periphery of their general mission. And I do think it

279
00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:20,080
Speaker 1: raises a question in the mind of the public as

280
00:15:20,080 --> 00:15:23,400
Speaker 1: to whether or not this three year investigation by John

281
00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:26,600
Speaker 1: Durham and his Special Counsel Office ultimately has led to

282
00:15:26,640 --> 00:15:30,480
Speaker 1: anything that shows that the FBI was corrupted on The

283
00:15:30,600 --> 00:15:35,720
Speaker 1: FBI conducted investigations in a less than impartial and professional manner.

284
00:15:35,960 --> 00:15:38,240
Speaker 1: These are cases, as I said earlier, that go to

285
00:15:38,280 --> 00:15:41,800
Speaker 1: the integrity of people bringing information to the FBI. But

286
00:15:42,000 --> 00:15:45,520
Speaker 1: so far we've seen no evidence of the FBI acting

287
00:15:45,560 --> 00:15:48,640
Speaker 1: improperly with the information that they receive. We'll see what

288
00:15:48,760 --> 00:15:52,440
Speaker 1: the next trial in October brings out. Thanks so much, Bob.

289
00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:56,280
Speaker 1: That's former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner in mcarter.

290
00:15:56,360 --> 00:16:00,840
Speaker 1: In English, we see that the First Amendment is under

291
00:16:00,880 --> 00:16:04,080
Speaker 1: assault by the social media companies and that is not

292
00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:08,120
Speaker 1: going to be tolerated. In Texas, Texas Governor Greg Abbott

293
00:16:08,240 --> 00:16:12,200
Speaker 1: said that a law barring social media platforms from removing

294
00:16:12,320 --> 00:16:16,360
Speaker 1: content based on the views expressed was needed to protect

295
00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:20,400
Speaker 1: conservative voices from being silenced. But tech groups said the

296
00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:25,400
Speaker 1: law would unconstitutionally require social media companies like Twitter and

297
00:16:25,440 --> 00:16:30,160
Speaker 1: Facebook to allow hate speech and extremism on their platforms,

298
00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:32,880
Speaker 1: and by a five to four vote, the justices put

299
00:16:32,880 --> 00:16:36,680
Speaker 1: the law on hold while a constitutional challenge goes forward

300
00:16:36,760 --> 00:16:39,560
Speaker 1: in a lower court. Joining me is Eric Goldman, a

301
00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:43,640
Speaker 1: professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. Eric tell

302
00:16:43,720 --> 00:16:48,080
Speaker 1: us about this Texas law and its purpose. So last summer,

303
00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:51,640
Speaker 1: Texas enacted a law that was styled a social media

304
00:16:51,760 --> 00:16:56,960
Speaker 1: censorship law, and the sensible purpose is to prevent internet

305
00:16:56,960 --> 00:17:02,560
Speaker 1: services from engaging in biased content moderation, especially moderation that

306
00:17:02,560 --> 00:17:05,800
Speaker 1: would be biased against conservatives. But in fact the bill

307
00:17:06,040 --> 00:17:09,000
Speaker 1: is a form of censorship of social media, so the

308
00:17:09,080 --> 00:17:13,439
Speaker 1: titling was unfortunately ironic. If someone was advocating violence against

309
00:17:13,520 --> 00:17:17,960
Speaker 1: a certain group, would that be allowed under this law?

310
00:17:18,400 --> 00:17:21,600
Speaker 1: The short answer is we don't know, but most likely

311
00:17:22,240 --> 00:17:25,560
Speaker 1: anyone whose content was removed because it was hate speech,

312
00:17:25,680 --> 00:17:30,639
Speaker 1: because it was targeting particular demographics, would likely have a

313
00:17:30,720 --> 00:17:35,720
Speaker 1: claim to assert that they were discriminating against by the service,

314
00:17:36,280 --> 00:17:38,439
Speaker 1: and as a result, the services are going to be

315
00:17:38,480 --> 00:17:42,159
Speaker 1: inhibited in making those decisions. So whether or not the

316
00:17:42,280 --> 00:17:46,879
Speaker 1: law would specifically permit or deny content moderation and circumstance,

317
00:17:47,040 --> 00:17:49,640
Speaker 1: the announce services would likely not touch it. Are there

318
00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:55,480
Speaker 1: certain kinds of speech that social media platforms have to remove? Yes,

319
00:17:55,520 --> 00:17:57,919
Speaker 1: there are. There's actually a wide range of things that

320
00:17:58,000 --> 00:18:01,520
Speaker 1: under existing law, internet services are required to take down,

321
00:18:01,760 --> 00:18:04,280
Speaker 1: and some of this is governed by a statute that

322
00:18:04,320 --> 00:18:07,520
Speaker 1: says that services are protected from third party content, but

323
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:12,480
Speaker 1: it has exceptions, for example, related to violations of federal

324
00:18:12,520 --> 00:18:17,360
Speaker 1: criminal law, also with respect to things like intellectual property violations.

325
00:18:17,359 --> 00:18:21,320
Speaker 1: So you know, services are legally compelled to remove some content,

326
00:18:21,520 --> 00:18:24,480
Speaker 1: and then things like the Texas Bill might say, if

327
00:18:24,480 --> 00:18:27,159
Speaker 1: you're not legally compelled to require it, you have to

328
00:18:27,240 --> 00:18:30,320
Speaker 1: leave it up or face extreme liability. So put student

329
00:18:30,480 --> 00:18:34,040
Speaker 1: services in this really awful position of having to be

330
00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:38,000
Speaker 1: precisely accurate with every single moderation decision to make. So

331
00:18:38,040 --> 00:18:39,800
Speaker 1: what are the arguments that we're made to the court

332
00:18:39,840 --> 00:18:45,720
Speaker 1: here excessis argument is that it's protecting its citizens from

333
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:49,520
Speaker 1: discrimination that's being imposed by services that don't have the

334
00:18:49,640 --> 00:18:52,800
Speaker 1: legal right to do so. And so they've analogized, for example,

335
00:18:52,920 --> 00:18:56,200
Speaker 1: to the telephone service, saying the telephone service doesn't get

336
00:18:56,240 --> 00:18:58,639
Speaker 1: to hang up on your calls because of the fact

337
00:18:58,640 --> 00:19:01,480
Speaker 1: that you might be engaging in each speech. The argument

338
00:19:01,600 --> 00:19:05,280
Speaker 1: against the law is that it's a bald faced imposition

339
00:19:05,320 --> 00:19:09,680
Speaker 1: of government control of editorial decision making the advanced services

340
00:19:09,760 --> 00:19:12,120
Speaker 1: decide which content is fit for their audience or not,

341
00:19:12,320 --> 00:19:16,240
Speaker 1: and the government is imposing its will, saying you can't

342
00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:18,320
Speaker 1: make the decisions, We're going to make them for you.

343
00:19:18,480 --> 00:19:22,639
Speaker 1: So from the opponent standpoint, this is just flat out censorship.

344
00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:29,000
Speaker 1: Am I being crazy and saying that Texas argument sounds ludicrous? No,

345
00:19:29,160 --> 00:19:31,960
Speaker 1: you're not crazy to think that the argument sounds ludicrous.

346
00:19:32,000 --> 00:19:34,760
Speaker 1: And part of that is because this law really was

347
00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:38,119
Speaker 1: never meant to pass. This law, like many others that

348
00:19:38,160 --> 00:19:40,880
Speaker 1: have been introduced across the country, were designed to send

349
00:19:40,880 --> 00:19:45,680
Speaker 1: a message to the voters that the legislature and the

350
00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:48,560
Speaker 1: governor were working to take care of them. But they

351
00:19:48,600 --> 00:19:51,399
Speaker 1: didn't actually want to enact the law. They just needed

352
00:19:51,400 --> 00:19:53,760
Speaker 1: to tell the voters that they cared. So once it

353
00:19:53,840 --> 00:19:57,200
Speaker 1: became law, it became in this huge dilemma because it

354
00:19:57,280 --> 00:20:00,840
Speaker 1: was never meant to actually be effective, and nobody, even

355
00:20:00,920 --> 00:20:03,120
Speaker 1: the proponents, actually want the law to do what it's

356
00:20:03,119 --> 00:20:06,560
Speaker 1: supposed to do. One more thing that's really unusual about

357
00:20:06,560 --> 00:20:08,600
Speaker 1: the Texas Law and a sign that this is a

358
00:20:08,680 --> 00:20:13,960
Speaker 1: law that nobody actually wants. The Texas Law bands spam filtering.

359
00:20:14,280 --> 00:20:19,040
Speaker 1: It basically makes it difficult or impossible for email service

360
00:20:19,119 --> 00:20:24,200
Speaker 1: writers to filter spam out of your inbox. Now that's

361
00:20:24,200 --> 00:20:28,440
Speaker 1: just bad policy. It's really actually unbelievable that any legislator

362
00:20:28,480 --> 00:20:30,919
Speaker 1: would think that that's the right result, and it's a

363
00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:33,320
Speaker 1: sign that this law was really a messaging bill. It

364
00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:38,120
Speaker 1: was never meant to become law, because nobody wants an

365
00:20:38,280 --> 00:20:41,760
Speaker 1: email inbox that's not subject to spam filtering. So these

366
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:45,080
Speaker 1: quote messaging bills designed to send a message but not

367
00:20:45,160 --> 00:20:48,320
Speaker 1: meant to pass are hugely problematic. But if they actually passed,

368
00:20:48,359 --> 00:20:52,000
Speaker 1: they're even more problematic. But yet you had Aldo's dissent

369
00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:55,959
Speaker 1: joined by Thomas and Gorsage. It's a little hard to

370
00:20:55,960 --> 00:21:00,520
Speaker 1: read into the descent that Justice Alito wrote. Has the

371
00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:04,359
Speaker 1: case came to the Supreme Court in a procedurally awkward way,

372
00:21:04,600 --> 00:21:08,520
Speaker 1: And I think that it's understandable that the justices were

373
00:21:08,640 --> 00:21:13,359
Speaker 1: not excited about making a substant decision when they hadn't

374
00:21:13,359 --> 00:21:15,639
Speaker 1: had a chance to be fully briefed in a normal

375
00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:19,639
Speaker 1: appellate process. So I took Justice Alito's opinion as a

376
00:21:19,680 --> 00:21:22,600
Speaker 1: sign that he didn't like the procedural posture of the case,

377
00:21:22,640 --> 00:21:25,919
Speaker 1: which is understandable. I didn't like it either. And yet

378
00:21:26,040 --> 00:21:29,760
Speaker 1: what troubles me is that the consequence of his opinion

379
00:21:29,760 --> 00:21:32,119
Speaker 1: would have been to let this law that's never really

380
00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:35,359
Speaker 1: meant to be law that sounds like it's clearly sensorial,

381
00:21:35,760 --> 00:21:39,520
Speaker 1: go into a fact depending for the proceedings. But Justice

382
00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:44,879
Speaker 1: Thomas last year suggested that the government might constitutionally be

383
00:21:45,000 --> 00:21:49,720
Speaker 1: able to limit Twitter's ability to ban users. Yeah, and

384
00:21:49,800 --> 00:21:52,560
Speaker 1: in that statement that he made, he admitted that he

385
00:21:52,600 --> 00:21:55,439
Speaker 1: had not had the benefit of proper briefing. He was

386
00:21:55,520 --> 00:21:59,000
Speaker 1: just writing. He was just talking um, which of course

387
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:01,600
Speaker 1: is really troubling because that's not really what we expect

388
00:22:01,640 --> 00:22:05,320
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices to do. We expect them to hear

389
00:22:05,400 --> 00:22:09,080
Speaker 1: all the evidence, to hear the perspectives of both sides,

390
00:22:09,160 --> 00:22:12,320
Speaker 1: and then rule on a live case in front of them.

391
00:22:12,400 --> 00:22:15,119
Speaker 1: And Justice Thomas's statement was none of that. So it

392
00:22:15,200 --> 00:22:18,879
Speaker 1: was really actually a tell on Justice Thomas that he

393
00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:21,919
Speaker 1: was willing to pipe up when nobody asked him, and

394
00:22:21,960 --> 00:22:26,199
Speaker 1: he wasn't actually properly prepared. Some people are making a

395
00:22:26,280 --> 00:22:29,120
Speaker 1: lot out of the fact that there was an unusual

396
00:22:29,160 --> 00:22:34,000
Speaker 1: alignment in descent because Justice Kagan joined the three Conservatives,

397
00:22:34,000 --> 00:22:37,280
Speaker 1: but she didn't join Alito's descent, So might this be

398
00:22:37,480 --> 00:22:41,199
Speaker 1: a protest on her part about another decision on the

399
00:22:41,240 --> 00:22:44,280
Speaker 1: shadow docket. It's a little hard to read into Justice

400
00:22:44,480 --> 00:22:47,320
Speaker 1: Kagan's vote in this dicular case, but I don't put

401
00:22:47,359 --> 00:22:49,199
Speaker 1: a lot of stock in it in the sense that

402
00:22:49,640 --> 00:22:52,840
Speaker 1: it ultimately didn't change the outcome nating direction, and she

403
00:22:53,040 --> 00:22:57,360
Speaker 1: very well may have had reservations about the procedural posture

404
00:22:57,359 --> 00:22:59,320
Speaker 1: of the case. As I said, all of us do.

405
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:01,800
Speaker 1: It is not the best way to frame the case.

406
00:23:02,000 --> 00:23:06,200
Speaker 1: So I've looked at her vote as probably more procedurally

407
00:23:06,280 --> 00:23:09,520
Speaker 1: driven and that I have no idea where she'll stand

408
00:23:09,520 --> 00:23:12,000
Speaker 1: when she's probably briefed in a normal appeal. So the

409
00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:15,080
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit, which is based in New Orleans, considered the

410
00:23:15,119 --> 00:23:18,240
Speaker 1: most conservative appellate court in the country, let this law

411
00:23:18,320 --> 00:23:22,119
Speaker 1: take effect. They haven't issued the opinion yet, But the

412
00:23:22,160 --> 00:23:27,240
Speaker 1: Eleventh Circuit, based in Atlanta, also conservative, blocked the core

413
00:23:27,359 --> 00:23:31,520
Speaker 1: of a similar Florida law. Is the Florida law different

414
00:23:31,640 --> 00:23:34,080
Speaker 1: enough from this to have that makes sense? Or or

415
00:23:34,119 --> 00:23:37,560
Speaker 1: are these two circuits in conflict. Well, we really don't

416
00:23:37,560 --> 00:23:39,640
Speaker 1: know what's going on in the Fifth Circuit. And this

417
00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:43,720
Speaker 1: is why the Supreme Court appeal was so procedurally awkward,

418
00:23:43,800 --> 00:23:47,600
Speaker 1: because the Fifth Circuit changed the status quo. It let

419
00:23:47,720 --> 00:23:51,240
Speaker 1: the law go into effect without providing its reasons. It

420
00:23:51,320 --> 00:23:54,600
Speaker 1: didn't explain why it thought that the law should go

421
00:23:54,640 --> 00:23:58,560
Speaker 1: into effect. So everyone had to speculate in the Supreme

422
00:23:58,560 --> 00:24:01,640
Speaker 1: Court appeal about what the Fifth Circuit was even thinking. Now,

423
00:24:01,720 --> 00:24:04,159
Speaker 1: someday we're going to get an opinion from them that

424
00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:07,200
Speaker 1: will clarify that and then we can properly critique where

425
00:24:07,240 --> 00:24:09,960
Speaker 1: their heads at, But today we don't know. I think

426
00:24:10,000 --> 00:24:13,520
Speaker 1: that the Eleventh Circuit opinion was extremely well done. It

427
00:24:13,560 --> 00:24:17,240
Speaker 1: was a very thoughtful opinion written by someone who understands

428
00:24:17,320 --> 00:24:20,159
Speaker 1: the concerns of conservatives both in the Fifth Circuit and

429
00:24:20,240 --> 00:24:23,240
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. So it's a very well done opinion.

430
00:24:23,560 --> 00:24:27,040
Speaker 1: And I think that the Eleventh Circuit opinion applies pretty

431
00:24:27,119 --> 00:24:30,880
Speaker 1: much in toto to the Texas law as well as

432
00:24:30,920 --> 00:24:34,280
Speaker 1: the Florida law. In other words, I think that if

433
00:24:34,280 --> 00:24:38,560
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit is listening to its appelled peers, that

434
00:24:38,640 --> 00:24:40,760
Speaker 1: this opinion ought to get them to rethink what they

435
00:24:40,800 --> 00:24:43,840
Speaker 1: were doing. But if they're marching to their own drummer,

436
00:24:44,200 --> 00:24:46,960
Speaker 1: that creates what's called a circuit split, where the circuits

437
00:24:46,960 --> 00:24:49,160
Speaker 1: are not in agreement but with the laws. And that's

438
00:24:49,160 --> 00:24:52,879
Speaker 1: the kind of thing that very much interests the Supreme Court. Yeah,

439
00:24:52,960 --> 00:24:56,360
Speaker 1: it seems like if this continues that this this will

440
00:24:56,400 --> 00:25:00,359
Speaker 1: come before the Supreme Court again. Do you have faith

441
00:25:00,400 --> 00:25:02,680
Speaker 1: that the you know, the vote would be the same,

442
00:25:02,760 --> 00:25:05,320
Speaker 1: or at least that the law would not be upheld.

443
00:25:05,600 --> 00:25:08,000
Speaker 1: There's no doubt that this that these two laws are

444
00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:12,200
Speaker 1: headed to the Supreme Court, and Justice Alito's opinion actually

445
00:25:12,280 --> 00:25:15,200
Speaker 1: said I would vote in favor of hearing these cases.

446
00:25:15,240 --> 00:25:17,360
Speaker 1: So it seems like there's always three of the nine

447
00:25:17,400 --> 00:25:22,119
Speaker 1: justices were ready to vote to accept review of the laws.

448
00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:24,880
Speaker 1: What happens at that point, I think is it's actually

449
00:25:24,920 --> 00:25:29,280
Speaker 1: really unpredictable. Because the Supreme Court has become unpredictable. We

450
00:25:29,320 --> 00:25:33,199
Speaker 1: don't really know which which biases or norms they're going

451
00:25:33,280 --> 00:25:36,240
Speaker 1: to allow to surface above and beyond the legal review

452
00:25:36,560 --> 00:25:39,600
Speaker 1: that we expect them to do from a pure legal standpoint,

453
00:25:39,680 --> 00:25:43,560
Speaker 1: from a standard constitutional law analysis, I don't even think

454
00:25:43,560 --> 00:25:46,120
Speaker 1: it's a close question. If the Supreme Court applied its

455
00:25:46,119 --> 00:25:50,040
Speaker 1: presidents as they developed over the last several decades, there

456
00:25:50,040 --> 00:25:52,359
Speaker 1: should be no question but that both the Florida Texas

457
00:25:52,400 --> 00:25:54,840
Speaker 1: laws will be struck down in large part, if not

458
00:25:54,920 --> 00:25:57,400
Speaker 1: in total. But the only reason why we don't believe

459
00:25:57,440 --> 00:25:59,679
Speaker 1: that is because we're not sure how much the Supreme

460
00:25:59,720 --> 00:26:03,640
Speaker 1: Court of sticking to espresso. Thanks Eric. That's Professor Eric

461
00:26:03,680 --> 00:26:07,480
Speaker 1: Goldman of Santa Clara University School of Law. And that's

462
00:26:07,520 --> 00:26:09,840
Speaker 1: it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm

463
00:26:09,920 --> 00:26:12,040
Speaker 1: June Grasso. When you're listening to Bloomberg