WEBVTT - DOJ Ramping Up Probe Into Trump's Inner Circle

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Frustration with the pace of the Johnstice Department's investigation into

0:00:14.840 --> 0:00:18.560
<v Speaker 1>the January sixth attack on the Capitol has spilled over

0:00:18.640 --> 0:00:23.040
<v Speaker 1>into public criticism, including this direct message in March for

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:29.040
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General Merrick Garland from Democratic Congresswoman Elaine Luria. Attorney

0:00:29.080 --> 0:00:33.720
<v Speaker 1>General Garland, do your job so that we can do ours.

0:00:34.040 --> 0:00:38.240
<v Speaker 1>And a federal judge, David Carter, has basically given prosecutors

0:00:38.320 --> 0:00:41.320
<v Speaker 1>a blueprint for how they can indict the former president

0:00:41.640 --> 0:00:44.800
<v Speaker 1>and wrote, based on the evidence, the court finds it

0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:48.680
<v Speaker 1>more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to

0:00:48.760 --> 0:00:54.240
<v Speaker 1>obstruct the joint session of Congress on January six. It's

0:00:54.240 --> 0:00:56.800
<v Speaker 1>been a year and a half since thousands of Trump

0:00:56.880 --> 0:01:00.840
<v Speaker 1>die hards overran the capital, and the House is January six.

0:01:00.880 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 1>Committee will hold hearings in primetime Thursday. But as far

0:01:04.680 --> 0:01:08.840
<v Speaker 1>as the Justice Department's massive investigation into the most serious

0:01:08.880 --> 0:01:13.160
<v Speaker 1>attack on American democracy in the modern era, seventeen months

0:01:13.200 --> 0:01:17.800
<v Speaker 1>in and prosecutors have scored relatively few felony convictions and

0:01:17.840 --> 0:01:21.840
<v Speaker 1>face growing pressure to go after higher level targets, including

0:01:21.880 --> 0:01:25.920
<v Speaker 1>the organizers and the former president himself. However, there are

0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:30.080
<v Speaker 1>indications that the investigation is entering a more aggressive phase

0:01:30.400 --> 0:01:34.959
<v Speaker 1>with respect to potential felonies committed by lawyers and organizers

0:01:35.000 --> 0:01:39.399
<v Speaker 1>ahead of January six to stop the vote certification. Joining

0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:43.080
<v Speaker 1>me is Chris Strom Bloomberg Legal Reporter. Give a sort

0:01:43.080 --> 0:01:47.000
<v Speaker 1>of the scorecard for the investigation so far. You know

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:51.360
<v Speaker 1>how many prosecutions, how many convictions? Give a sort of

0:01:51.400 --> 0:01:55.360
<v Speaker 1>the scorecard for the investigation so far. You know how

0:01:55.400 --> 0:02:01.240
<v Speaker 1>many prosecutions, how many convictions. The investigation has been criticized

0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:04.080
<v Speaker 1>for moving at the glacial pace, and I think the

0:02:04.160 --> 0:02:07.600
<v Speaker 1>statistics back up some of the criticism. So far, as

0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:10.640
<v Speaker 1>the Department has brought charges against about eight hundred and

0:02:10.680 --> 0:02:14.560
<v Speaker 1>fifty individuals, but by far most of the charges are

0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:18.480
<v Speaker 1>for misdemeanors on the day of January six, such as,

0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:22.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, illegally entering the Capitol building, as opposed to

0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 1>any kind of major offenses like felony offenses. Those offenses

0:02:27.520 --> 0:02:30.760
<v Speaker 1>are much more limited in terms of the charges that

0:02:30.840 --> 0:02:34.440
<v Speaker 1>the Department is bringing. So far, the department has charged

0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:39.720
<v Speaker 1>about two hundred fifty people with assaulting or resisting officers,

0:02:39.880 --> 0:02:42.600
<v Speaker 1>which is one of the most serious charges that has

0:02:42.639 --> 0:02:46.000
<v Speaker 1>been brought. In terms of resolutions to some of these cases,

0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:50.080
<v Speaker 1>two hundred fifty people have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and

0:02:50.560 --> 0:02:55.040
<v Speaker 1>sixty impleatly guilty to felony. In terms of sentencing, by far,

0:02:55.280 --> 0:03:00.160
<v Speaker 1>most people are getting probation or finds that are very limited,

0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:04.680
<v Speaker 1>and the most serious punishment so far has gone to

0:03:04.800 --> 0:03:09.080
<v Speaker 1>one person who was sentenced to about five years in prison,

0:03:09.200 --> 0:03:12.880
<v Speaker 1>So that's a significant prison sentence, but that's an exception.

0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:16.680
<v Speaker 1>It's believed that two thousand to two thousand people are

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:19.480
<v Speaker 1>ultimately going to be charged, but the Department has only

0:03:19.520 --> 0:03:22.440
<v Speaker 1>brought charges against eight hundred and fifty people so far,

0:03:22.760 --> 0:03:27.200
<v Speaker 1>and there's been no charges brought for the potentially criminal

0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:31.880
<v Speaker 1>activities that were taking place before January six by former

0:03:31.919 --> 0:03:36.720
<v Speaker 1>President Trump and his lawyers and his inner circle in

0:03:36.840 --> 0:03:41.560
<v Speaker 1>terms of bringing charges related to creating false electors or

0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:46.440
<v Speaker 1>trying to alter vote, or organizing and fundraising to prevent

0:03:46.520 --> 0:03:51.320
<v Speaker 1>the certification of the election. Attorney General Merrick Garland has said,

0:03:51.760 --> 0:03:55.360
<v Speaker 1>I think several times that they're going to follow the

0:03:55.440 --> 0:03:58.960
<v Speaker 1>evidence wherever it leads, but there seems to be no

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:04.400
<v Speaker 1>confidence that they will pursue the former president, if that's

0:04:04.400 --> 0:04:07.880
<v Speaker 1>where the evidence leads, well, there's an interesting dichotomy that

0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:12.840
<v Speaker 1>that's happening with the investigation now. The charges against people

0:04:12.920 --> 0:04:17.039
<v Speaker 1>who had stormed the capital in January six are moving very,

0:04:17.160 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 1>very slow and have seemed to stagnate. But the investigative

0:04:22.160 --> 0:04:26.160
<v Speaker 1>activity against the small group of people who were part

0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:30.720
<v Speaker 1>of Trump's inner circle who were working to overturn the election,

0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:34.919
<v Speaker 1>the investigative activity against them is actually increasing at a

0:04:34.920 --> 0:04:38.920
<v Speaker 1>greater pace. The Justice Department has started issuing grand jury

0:04:39.000 --> 0:04:43.599
<v Speaker 1>subpoenas for information about organizing and fundraising activities in the

0:04:43.680 --> 0:04:47.720
<v Speaker 1>days before January six, about efforts to create false electors

0:04:47.880 --> 0:04:52.360
<v Speaker 1>in key states, and the Justice Department is now increasing

0:04:52.560 --> 0:04:55.840
<v Speaker 1>the pace of the investigation in the amount of investigative

0:04:55.880 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 1>activity into the actions of Trump and the key people

0:05:01.600 --> 0:05:04.279
<v Speaker 1>that we're working with Trump to try to overturn the election.

0:05:05.080 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 1>Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monico said, it's the most complex

0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:14.640
<v Speaker 1>and wide ranging investigation that I've seen in the Department's history.

0:05:14.640 --> 0:05:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Why so so current and former law enforcement officials, including

0:05:19.440 --> 0:05:24.160
<v Speaker 1>police of Monico will say that the volume of material

0:05:24.279 --> 0:05:26.200
<v Speaker 1>that has to be sorted through in order to bring

0:05:26.240 --> 0:05:31.599
<v Speaker 1>criminal charges is immense they are looking through terabytes of

0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:38.679
<v Speaker 1>data that includes surveillance footage, that includes mobile device location history,

0:05:38.720 --> 0:05:43.480
<v Speaker 1>that includes social media activity, and they have to piece

0:05:43.520 --> 0:05:47.800
<v Speaker 1>together these disparate pieces of information and connect them to

0:05:48.360 --> 0:05:53.720
<v Speaker 1>an individual who they positively identify in order to bring

0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:57.400
<v Speaker 1>charges against one person. And so just bringing charges against

0:05:57.400 --> 0:06:00.960
<v Speaker 1>one person for something they did on January six is

0:06:01.040 --> 0:06:05.120
<v Speaker 1>a complex process that investigators have to go through because

0:06:05.279 --> 0:06:08.880
<v Speaker 1>they need to bring charges that they believe they will

0:06:08.880 --> 0:06:11.400
<v Speaker 1>be able to prove in court to a jury and

0:06:11.400 --> 0:06:14.880
<v Speaker 1>that will withstand the criticism of judges and defense lawyers.

0:06:14.960 --> 0:06:18.160
<v Speaker 1>So the amount of material in order to bring charges

0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:23.320
<v Speaker 1>is significant for the activity on January six. And then

0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 1>when you add in the additional investigative activity to look

0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:29.720
<v Speaker 1>at what was happening in the days and weeks leading

0:06:29.760 --> 0:06:33.839
<v Speaker 1>up to January six with efforts to prevent the certification

0:06:33.880 --> 0:06:36.320
<v Speaker 1>of the election and overturn the results of the election,

0:06:36.600 --> 0:06:39.520
<v Speaker 1>that is a whole another can of worms that the

0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:43.640
<v Speaker 1>Department is undertaking now, which includes grand jury subpoenas to

0:06:43.680 --> 0:06:49.920
<v Speaker 1>get information about activities and communications that Trump and Trump

0:06:49.960 --> 0:06:53.719
<v Speaker 1>allies and Trump lawyers were doing. And so the Department

0:06:54.000 --> 0:06:57.840
<v Speaker 1>is only really beginning that second process of getting at

0:06:58.120 --> 0:07:02.359
<v Speaker 1>information related to the activities that were taking place in

0:07:02.360 --> 0:07:06.320
<v Speaker 1>the days and weeks before January six, and the Department

0:07:06.320 --> 0:07:10.760
<v Speaker 1>has to collect that information and is facing resistance from

0:07:10.840 --> 0:07:13.560
<v Speaker 1>some of the people who are being subpoenas, and so

0:07:13.680 --> 0:07:16.880
<v Speaker 1>the Department has to go to court in order to

0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:21.160
<v Speaker 1>try to win rulings to force people to turn over

0:07:21.160 --> 0:07:24.040
<v Speaker 1>that information. And then the department has to use that

0:07:24.120 --> 0:07:27.400
<v Speaker 1>information and sort through it and determine what, if any,

0:07:27.440 --> 0:07:31.200
<v Speaker 1>criminal charges can actually be brought again with the standard

0:07:31.480 --> 0:07:35.280
<v Speaker 1>of proving to a jury that crimes were committed. So

0:07:35.640 --> 0:07:39.520
<v Speaker 1>in totality, the amount of information and the activity of

0:07:39.560 --> 0:07:44.280
<v Speaker 1>the investigation is what people describe as the most significant

0:07:44.320 --> 0:07:48.080
<v Speaker 1>undertaking that the Department has ever has ever done. While

0:07:48.080 --> 0:07:51.520
<v Speaker 1>we're on this point, do we know why the department

0:07:51.600 --> 0:07:58.720
<v Speaker 1>decided not to file charges against Mark Meadows and Dance Cavino.

0:07:59.200 --> 0:08:03.040
<v Speaker 1>So the department has provided very limited information about its

0:08:03.080 --> 0:08:07.520
<v Speaker 1>decision making process and specifically with regard to Meadows and Scavino.

0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:11.560
<v Speaker 1>The Department sent a letter to the Health Committee that

0:08:11.600 --> 0:08:16.400
<v Speaker 1>did the criminal referrals, telling the committee that a prosecution

0:08:16.680 --> 0:08:20.240
<v Speaker 1>is not is not justified because Meadows and Scoveno have

0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:24.280
<v Speaker 1>provided some cooperation to the committee and to the Department,

0:08:24.560 --> 0:08:29.720
<v Speaker 1>and also that they also have executive privileged claim and

0:08:29.760 --> 0:08:33.439
<v Speaker 1>so the Department hasn't provided a full explanation, but those

0:08:33.440 --> 0:08:36.000
<v Speaker 1>are two reasons that that they've cited. How large a

0:08:36.040 --> 0:08:40.079
<v Speaker 1>staff does d o J have handling the investigation in

0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:46.439
<v Speaker 1>the cases, so the investigation is involved d o J

0:08:46.600 --> 0:08:51.480
<v Speaker 1>staff across the country, including FBI field offices across the country.

0:08:51.800 --> 0:08:55.440
<v Speaker 1>The number of people who are actually dedicated to the

0:08:55.480 --> 0:08:59.480
<v Speaker 1>investigation full time is actually pretty small. It's about fifty

0:08:59.520 --> 0:09:03.080
<v Speaker 1>people on a full time basis. But the department rotates

0:09:03.080 --> 0:09:07.480
<v Speaker 1>in people as needed for certain cases, and it assigns

0:09:07.840 --> 0:09:12.200
<v Speaker 1>field offices and u S attorney offices to people in

0:09:12.240 --> 0:09:16.560
<v Speaker 1>those offices across the country to do certain work as needed.

0:09:16.840 --> 0:09:19.559
<v Speaker 1>And the Justice Department is looking for thirty four million

0:09:19.640 --> 0:09:24.360
<v Speaker 1>dollars to hire a hundred thirty one more lawyers to

0:09:24.440 --> 0:09:28.360
<v Speaker 1>work on the case. Now. Just this week, prosecutors added

0:09:28.520 --> 0:09:32.880
<v Speaker 1>charges of seditious conspiracy to its case against members of

0:09:32.920 --> 0:09:36.680
<v Speaker 1>the Proud Boys. Do we know why they're amping up

0:09:36.760 --> 0:09:40.360
<v Speaker 1>the charges? Does it tell you anything? Yeah? The new

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:42.880
<v Speaker 1>charges against against members of the Proud Boys are the

0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:46.040
<v Speaker 1>most significant charges that the Department has brought to dates. Uh,

0:09:46.160 --> 0:09:50.319
<v Speaker 1>the seditious conspiracy charge is the most significant charge that

0:09:50.400 --> 0:09:53.600
<v Speaker 1>the Department has brought. It's been brought against a few

0:09:53.600 --> 0:09:57.360
<v Speaker 1>members of the oath Keepers, and now it's been added

0:09:57.440 --> 0:10:01.040
<v Speaker 1>to previous charges against some members of the Proud Boys.

0:10:01.160 --> 0:10:04.920
<v Speaker 1>And so what it signals is that, um, the government

0:10:05.240 --> 0:10:11.119
<v Speaker 1>is getting more information about how many people were involved

0:10:11.360 --> 0:10:15.760
<v Speaker 1>in actively plotting to stop the certification of the election

0:10:16.600 --> 0:10:20.280
<v Speaker 1>and has what the Department believes is enough evidence to

0:10:20.320 --> 0:10:23.400
<v Speaker 1>prove that in court. And so it just shows the

0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:28.280
<v Speaker 1>progression of the investigation and that the Department will bring

0:10:28.760 --> 0:10:33.760
<v Speaker 1>the most significant charges possible when it's warranted. You write

0:10:33.760 --> 0:10:36.679
<v Speaker 1>that among the cases well along the courts, the Justice

0:10:36.720 --> 0:10:40.520
<v Speaker 1>Department's biggest test will come in August. Tell us about that.

0:10:40.960 --> 0:10:43.320
<v Speaker 1>So in August, the members of the Proud Boys are

0:10:43.320 --> 0:10:46.280
<v Speaker 1>going to go on trial. The Justice Department will will

0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:50.520
<v Speaker 1>begin a trial against members of the Proud Boys on

0:10:50.800 --> 0:10:55.840
<v Speaker 1>felony charges of obstructing Congress from from certifying the election.

0:10:56.360 --> 0:10:59.120
<v Speaker 1>The new charges have been added to members of the

0:10:59.160 --> 0:11:03.040
<v Speaker 1>Proud Boys or seditious conspiracy. It's not clear that the

0:11:03.080 --> 0:11:06.720
<v Speaker 1>Department is going to proceed with those charges in August,

0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:09.840
<v Speaker 1>but the Department does plan to begin the first trial

0:11:10.400 --> 0:11:17.880
<v Speaker 1>alleging a conspiracy against one of the you know, extremist

0:11:17.960 --> 0:11:23.680
<v Speaker 1>organizations that were actively working to stop the certification. Has

0:11:23.720 --> 0:11:27.600
<v Speaker 1>the Department lost any of the trials. The Department has

0:11:27.640 --> 0:11:30.880
<v Speaker 1>not lost any jury trials. The department lost one bench

0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:33.040
<v Speaker 1>trial that that is the trial that was before a

0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:37.640
<v Speaker 1>judge and it was on a misdemeanor that the judge

0:11:38.080 --> 0:11:42.720
<v Speaker 1>acquitted the defendant and that's the only trial that the

0:11:42.760 --> 0:11:46.280
<v Speaker 1>Department has lost. But there's only been six trials. Three

0:11:46.320 --> 0:11:51.800
<v Speaker 1>oath keepers pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. Are they testifying

0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:55.240
<v Speaker 1>in any of the trials or are they just helping

0:11:55.280 --> 0:11:58.280
<v Speaker 1>the government behind the scenes, because there is a trial

0:11:58.320 --> 0:12:03.120
<v Speaker 1>of oath keepers on seditious conspiracy in September. Right now,

0:12:03.360 --> 0:12:05.880
<v Speaker 1>we don't have any statement that they're going to testify

0:12:05.960 --> 0:12:08.600
<v Speaker 1>during the trials. They have earned in cooperation agreements with

0:12:08.640 --> 0:12:12.680
<v Speaker 1>the government, so right now is providing investigatives information behind

0:12:12.720 --> 0:12:16.880
<v Speaker 1>the scenes. So from your reporting, the Justice Department is

0:12:17.200 --> 0:12:22.640
<v Speaker 1>entering a more aggressive phase of the investigation. There's kind

0:12:22.640 --> 0:12:26.480
<v Speaker 1>of two massive investigations that are that are going on.

0:12:26.480 --> 0:12:28.880
<v Speaker 1>One is very public in the sense that it's an

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:31.959
<v Speaker 1>investigation to what happened on January six in the attack

0:12:32.000 --> 0:12:35.120
<v Speaker 1>on the Capitol, and that's where all of the charges

0:12:35.200 --> 0:12:37.560
<v Speaker 1>have focused so far. But the other part of the

0:12:37.600 --> 0:12:42.080
<v Speaker 1>investigation is now picking up momentum, which is looking at

0:12:42.640 --> 0:12:47.439
<v Speaker 1>the conspiracy by Trump and his allies to come up

0:12:47.520 --> 0:12:51.679
<v Speaker 1>with ways to prevent the certification of the election in

0:12:51.720 --> 0:12:56.320
<v Speaker 1>the days and weeks before January six, which includes creating

0:12:56.360 --> 0:13:00.120
<v Speaker 1>false electors, and the Department has now shown that it

0:13:00.400 --> 0:13:05.600
<v Speaker 1>is actively investigating that element of the whole effort to

0:13:05.720 --> 0:13:09.200
<v Speaker 1>stop the election certification. Thanks for being on the show, Chris.

0:13:09.559 --> 0:13:15.000
<v Speaker 1>That's Chris Strom. Bloomberg legal reporter Elon Musk is threatening

0:13:15.040 --> 0:13:17.960
<v Speaker 1>to walk away from his deal to buy Twitter if

0:13:18.000 --> 0:13:20.960
<v Speaker 1>the social network doesn't do more to prove that its

0:13:21.040 --> 0:13:24.800
<v Speaker 1>users are real people. In the securities filing on Monday,

0:13:25.000 --> 0:13:27.920
<v Speaker 1>Musk said he thinks Twitter is in material breach of

0:13:27.960 --> 0:13:31.560
<v Speaker 1>their merger agreement by not meeting his demands for more

0:13:31.600 --> 0:13:36.280
<v Speaker 1>information about spam and fake accounts. Complicating Musk's claims is

0:13:36.320 --> 0:13:39.920
<v Speaker 1>the fact that he's been complaining about Twitter's bots publicly

0:13:40.320 --> 0:13:42.720
<v Speaker 1>since before he made an offer to buy the company.

0:13:43.040 --> 0:13:46.360
<v Speaker 1>Here's Mosk at a Ted Talk in April. Well, a

0:13:46.440 --> 0:13:50.240
<v Speaker 1>top priority I have I would have is eliminating the

0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:54.400
<v Speaker 1>spam and scam butts um and the butt armies that

0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:59.760
<v Speaker 1>are on Twitter. Um. You know, I think I think

0:13:59.880 --> 0:14:05.640
<v Speaker 1>these these fun influence that they're not there, they make

0:14:05.679 --> 0:14:10.400
<v Speaker 1>the product much worse. Um if I you know, if

0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:16.160
<v Speaker 1>I had a dose coin for every cryptoscataway soul. The

0:14:16.240 --> 0:14:19.000
<v Speaker 1>problem for a mosque is not only that the merger

0:14:19.080 --> 0:14:22.320
<v Speaker 1>includes a one billion dollar breakup fee, but that he

0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:26.200
<v Speaker 1>can't just walk away by paying that The agreement includes

0:14:26.240 --> 0:14:30.160
<v Speaker 1>a specific performance provision that allows Twitter to force Musk

0:14:30.240 --> 0:14:33.920
<v Speaker 1>to consummate the deal in court if necessary. My guest

0:14:34.000 --> 0:14:37.600
<v Speaker 1>is Eric Tallely, a professor at Columbia Law School. Tell

0:14:37.680 --> 0:14:42.000
<v Speaker 1>me about this security filing on Monday. So this was

0:14:42.040 --> 0:14:46.120
<v Speaker 1>a letter from Elon Musk's attorney to Twitter. It probably

0:14:46.760 --> 0:14:49.520
<v Speaker 1>wasn't even something that had to be filed as an

0:14:49.560 --> 0:14:53.360
<v Speaker 1>SEC filing. This was a type of a private correspondence

0:14:53.440 --> 0:14:56.880
<v Speaker 1>that wouldn't necessarily be required to be sent out to

0:14:56.920 --> 0:14:59.560
<v Speaker 1>all public investors. But of course a lot of times

0:14:59.600 --> 0:15:02.080
<v Speaker 1>people do that if they want more optics for it

0:15:02.120 --> 0:15:04.840
<v Speaker 1>as well. So I view this as a type of

0:15:04.880 --> 0:15:08.640
<v Speaker 1>correspondence that was intended not just for Twitter, but also

0:15:08.760 --> 0:15:12.680
<v Speaker 1>for a broader audience. But the lawyers saying that Twitter

0:15:12.800 --> 0:15:17.600
<v Speaker 1>breached their agreement by not meeting more demands for information

0:15:17.600 --> 0:15:21.680
<v Speaker 1>about spam and fake accounts. So is this a legitimate

0:15:22.480 --> 0:15:27.360
<v Speaker 1>claim that his lawyer is making. It could be in theory,

0:15:27.600 --> 0:15:30.680
<v Speaker 1>depending on the nature of the context of the claim.

0:15:31.200 --> 0:15:34.400
<v Speaker 1>But this context already has some history behind it. So

0:15:34.840 --> 0:15:38.880
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk has now for weeks been talking about the

0:15:38.920 --> 0:15:43.000
<v Speaker 1>spam and bought account issues that have caused him to

0:15:43.080 --> 0:15:46.440
<v Speaker 1>reconsider whether he wants to go forward with this transaction.

0:15:46.960 --> 0:15:49.640
<v Speaker 1>But the way that he had been phrasing this that

0:15:49.720 --> 0:15:52.240
<v Speaker 1>didn't really line up with the contract that he signed.

0:15:52.240 --> 0:15:55.920
<v Speaker 1>The contract that he signed didn't really directly allow him

0:15:55.960 --> 0:15:59.280
<v Speaker 1>to walk away just because there were spam or bought accounts.

0:15:59.280 --> 0:16:02.560
<v Speaker 1>In fact, he was loudly proclaiming that was the reason

0:16:02.600 --> 0:16:04.600
<v Speaker 1>that he should buy Twitter, so that he could get

0:16:04.680 --> 0:16:08.200
<v Speaker 1>rid of the spam and bought accounts. So the newest

0:16:08.680 --> 0:16:11.920
<v Speaker 1>strategy that he's undertaken, the one that you know clearly

0:16:11.960 --> 0:16:14.040
<v Speaker 1>has a little bit of involved in by his lawyer,

0:16:14.480 --> 0:16:17.360
<v Speaker 1>is to focus on a different part of the contract,

0:16:17.760 --> 0:16:22.040
<v Speaker 1>but one that still relates to his already professed concern

0:16:22.120 --> 0:16:27.080
<v Speaker 1>about spam accounts, and that's a disclosure obligation that Twitter

0:16:27.200 --> 0:16:30.840
<v Speaker 1>has to make if Musk makes information request to them,

0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:34.760
<v Speaker 1>And in this case, Musk had requested more information about

0:16:34.800 --> 0:16:39.080
<v Speaker 1>how they verify the fraction of accounts at Twitter that

0:16:39.120 --> 0:16:43.480
<v Speaker 1>our spam accounts, and presumably Twitter has been responding to

0:16:43.520 --> 0:16:47.520
<v Speaker 1>those requests for information. This letter states that at least

0:16:47.520 --> 0:16:50.760
<v Speaker 1>in Elon Musk's view, they have not responded adequately, and

0:16:50.800 --> 0:16:54.360
<v Speaker 1>their responses have been so inadequate so as to breach

0:16:54.720 --> 0:16:58.800
<v Speaker 1>the contract from their perspective. Now, that's an interesting move

0:16:59.000 --> 0:17:03.480
<v Speaker 1>because it now re focuses the attention on the conduct

0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:06.320
<v Speaker 1>of Twitter. But we don't know an awful lot about

0:17:06.400 --> 0:17:09.600
<v Speaker 1>exactly what the conduct of Twitter has been. It's pretty

0:17:09.600 --> 0:17:12.560
<v Speaker 1>clear they really want to close this deal. It's pretty

0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:15.960
<v Speaker 1>clear that they have the incentive to try to play ball.

0:17:16.200 --> 0:17:19.280
<v Speaker 1>If there are various types of request for information, they're

0:17:19.280 --> 0:17:22.800
<v Speaker 1>made forward by the same token. Twitter is also under

0:17:22.880 --> 0:17:28.520
<v Speaker 1>a contractual obligation itself to avoid making disclosures that would

0:17:28.600 --> 0:17:31.840
<v Speaker 1>breach someone's privacy rights, or that would be illegal, or

0:17:31.880 --> 0:17:36.280
<v Speaker 1>that would ultimately be inconsistent with their long term strategic

0:17:36.800 --> 0:17:39.560
<v Speaker 1>positioning and so there may be some sort of situations

0:17:39.560 --> 0:17:42.760
<v Speaker 1>where Twitter had said to Musk, yeah, we can give

0:17:42.800 --> 0:17:45.400
<v Speaker 1>you some information, but we can't give you so much

0:17:45.400 --> 0:17:48.359
<v Speaker 1>information that it would essentially undermine our ability to be

0:17:48.400 --> 0:17:52.000
<v Speaker 1>a competitor in this in this space, or would violate

0:17:52.080 --> 0:17:56.639
<v Speaker 1>some regulation or law, or might undermine someone's privacy rights.

0:17:56.920 --> 0:17:58.840
<v Speaker 1>And so my guess is at least viewed in a

0:17:58.960 --> 0:18:02.560
<v Speaker 1>microscope that to where this conflict really is living. But

0:18:02.640 --> 0:18:04.320
<v Speaker 1>in some sense this is all a bit of a

0:18:04.359 --> 0:18:07.199
<v Speaker 1>side show that is fronting for some buyer's remorse that

0:18:07.320 --> 0:18:09.960
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk, no doubt has having signed up a deal

0:18:10.000 --> 0:18:12.719
<v Speaker 1>for fifty four dollars for a company that's in a

0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:14.840
<v Speaker 1>sector that has been somewhat in free fall for the

0:18:14.920 --> 0:18:18.400
<v Speaker 1>last couple of months. So the context in this situation

0:18:18.880 --> 0:18:21.600
<v Speaker 1>is that everyone kind of knew that he was desperately

0:18:21.640 --> 0:18:23.720
<v Speaker 1>looking around for a way to either get out of

0:18:23.720 --> 0:18:27.840
<v Speaker 1>the deal or renegotiate the price. His first strategy wasn't

0:18:27.840 --> 0:18:31.320
<v Speaker 1>a very good one. His second strategy has gotten lawyered

0:18:31.359 --> 0:18:34.800
<v Speaker 1>up a little bit more. But in the hindsight of

0:18:34.920 --> 0:18:38.120
<v Speaker 1>knowing that he was always trying to do this anyway,

0:18:38.200 --> 0:18:41.960
<v Speaker 1>it makes anyone, including a judge potentially much more skeptical

0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:44.920
<v Speaker 1>about whether this strategy is a bona fide strategy either.

0:18:46.000 --> 0:18:50.400
<v Speaker 1>So let's suppose that Twitter hasn't given all the information

0:18:50.560 --> 0:18:55.960
<v Speaker 1>because of privacy concerns. Is that enough to be a

0:18:56.160 --> 0:19:01.880
<v Speaker 1>material breach of Twitter's obligations under this agree No, generally not.

0:19:02.080 --> 0:19:05.520
<v Speaker 1>So there are two reasons why it's not. First of all, explicitly,

0:19:05.560 --> 0:19:08.520
<v Speaker 1>in the very same section of the contract that Mr

0:19:08.640 --> 0:19:12.600
<v Speaker 1>Musk's lawyer has been citing, Twitter retains the right not

0:19:12.800 --> 0:19:16.720
<v Speaker 1>to hand over information that would be confidential, that might

0:19:16.960 --> 0:19:21.000
<v Speaker 1>cause it to breach someone's privacy rights, or that might

0:19:21.160 --> 0:19:25.359
<v Speaker 1>undermine its future competitive position. And so it's conceivable to

0:19:25.400 --> 0:19:27.800
<v Speaker 1>me that that's the exact claim they're making. He's not

0:19:27.920 --> 0:19:30.600
<v Speaker 1>satisfied with it, but it is in fact baked into

0:19:30.640 --> 0:19:34.960
<v Speaker 1>their contract rights already. Moreover, if these are the types

0:19:35.000 --> 0:19:38.560
<v Speaker 1>of infirmities that can be cured over time, it also

0:19:38.680 --> 0:19:41.280
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't get him off the hook from the deal. It

0:19:41.320 --> 0:19:44.680
<v Speaker 1>would essentially possibly delay the closing of the deal until

0:19:44.720 --> 0:19:47.520
<v Speaker 1>they could resolve what would and would not be disclosed.

0:19:47.920 --> 0:19:50.639
<v Speaker 1>But it's not going to be a likely excuse to

0:19:50.680 --> 0:19:54.080
<v Speaker 1>walk away from the deal. So just explain, we've talked

0:19:54.080 --> 0:19:57.920
<v Speaker 1>about this before. Why it's more than just a one

0:19:58.040 --> 0:20:03.119
<v Speaker 1>billion dollar termination fee. Twitter can can force him to

0:20:03.240 --> 0:20:06.680
<v Speaker 1>go through the contract. Yeah, that as a general matter,

0:20:06.760 --> 0:20:10.760
<v Speaker 1>they can. Now, there are some situations in which he

0:20:10.800 --> 0:20:13.120
<v Speaker 1>would be able to walk away from the contract and

0:20:13.280 --> 0:20:16.720
<v Speaker 1>pay a one billion dollar termination fee, but those are

0:20:16.800 --> 0:20:20.240
<v Speaker 1>relatively small compared to the situations under which, you know,

0:20:20.280 --> 0:20:22.919
<v Speaker 1>Twitter could just force him to go through with his

0:20:23.119 --> 0:20:27.280
<v Speaker 1>side of the deal. Probably the biggest potential out he has,

0:20:27.560 --> 0:20:30.200
<v Speaker 1>and the way that kind of toggle onto this idea

0:20:30.240 --> 0:20:32.280
<v Speaker 1>that he could just walk away with a billion dollars

0:20:32.760 --> 0:20:36.639
<v Speaker 1>is if his financing fails for the transaction, and you know,

0:20:36.760 --> 0:20:40.960
<v Speaker 1>significant component of the purchase price is going to be

0:20:41.040 --> 0:20:43.960
<v Speaker 1>through money that's borrowed from third party lenders who have

0:20:44.000 --> 0:20:49.080
<v Speaker 1>themselves made commitment letters to Twitter. So one of the

0:20:49.119 --> 0:20:52.920
<v Speaker 1>possible reasons why Musk is trying to be so focal

0:20:53.359 --> 0:20:58.200
<v Speaker 1>and vocal about this particular issue is, you know, possibly

0:20:58.320 --> 0:21:01.480
<v Speaker 1>he is trying to encourage the very folks that he

0:21:01.640 --> 0:21:05.080
<v Speaker 1>arranged to lend him money to start getting cold feet

0:21:05.160 --> 0:21:08.000
<v Speaker 1>about lending him money, because if they get cold feet

0:21:08.040 --> 0:21:10.479
<v Speaker 1>and say, sorry, the deal is off, We're not going

0:21:10.520 --> 0:21:13.280
<v Speaker 1>to lend anymore. That's the one or one of a

0:21:13.400 --> 0:21:17.240
<v Speaker 1>few scenarios where he would plausibly be able to walk

0:21:17.280 --> 0:21:20.240
<v Speaker 1>away and be exposed only up to this billion dollar

0:21:20.359 --> 0:21:24.080
<v Speaker 1>termination feet. How long does Twitter have to wait before

0:21:24.119 --> 0:21:29.360
<v Speaker 1>it says, okay, we're going to court to enforce this contract. Well,

0:21:29.440 --> 0:21:32.600
<v Speaker 1>in principle, they could file suit anytime they wanted. I

0:21:32.640 --> 0:21:34.480
<v Speaker 1>think one of the things that you really want to

0:21:34.480 --> 0:21:38.359
<v Speaker 1>try to balance from Twitter's perspective is to assemble a

0:21:38.640 --> 0:21:42.160
<v Speaker 1>track record of acting in good faith, moving things along

0:21:42.200 --> 0:21:45.959
<v Speaker 1>in the direction of trying to close this transaction without

0:21:46.000 --> 0:21:50.199
<v Speaker 1>yourself getting hotheaded or overly demanding. So, you know, the

0:21:50.200 --> 0:21:53.280
<v Speaker 1>executives of Twitter and their legal team has no doubt

0:21:53.400 --> 0:21:56.040
<v Speaker 1>sort of taken this lesson to heart that they're in

0:21:56.080 --> 0:21:59.280
<v Speaker 1>a relatively strong position based on the contract to the

0:21:59.320 --> 0:22:03.040
<v Speaker 1>extent that Musk is trying to goad them into a

0:22:03.080 --> 0:22:07.120
<v Speaker 1>public spat or a spat that causes them to start

0:22:07.160 --> 0:22:10.159
<v Speaker 1>acting petty and withholding things that could just put them

0:22:10.160 --> 0:22:12.320
<v Speaker 1>in breach of this contract. So I think, you know,

0:22:12.400 --> 0:22:16.000
<v Speaker 1>their approach is probably the right one is to say,

0:22:16.480 --> 0:22:20.240
<v Speaker 1>navigate this boat as steadily as we can, realizing that

0:22:20.280 --> 0:22:22.359
<v Speaker 1>we're going to get hit by a tidal wave every

0:22:22.359 --> 0:22:25.480
<v Speaker 1>once in a while that's got Elon Musk's fingerprints all

0:22:25.520 --> 0:22:29.000
<v Speaker 1>over it, but keep sailing towards the north Star. And

0:22:29.040 --> 0:22:32.119
<v Speaker 1>if at some point he does something definitive as a

0:22:32.200 --> 0:22:34.960
<v Speaker 1>move to walk away from the deal, that's when we

0:22:35.000 --> 0:22:37.439
<v Speaker 1>will go ahead and file suit, having put together a

0:22:37.480 --> 0:22:41.000
<v Speaker 1>fairly lengthy track record of all the things that we've

0:22:41.040 --> 0:22:44.399
<v Speaker 1>done to try to consummate this deal, and all the

0:22:44.440 --> 0:22:46.960
<v Speaker 1>things that Mr Musk has done and possibly people who

0:22:46.960 --> 0:22:49.600
<v Speaker 1>are allied with him to try to kneecap the deal.

0:22:49.920 --> 0:22:52.240
<v Speaker 1>And both of these parties are under an obligation to

0:22:52.359 --> 0:22:55.320
<v Speaker 1>try to expend their efforts at at least not to

0:22:55.440 --> 0:22:58.639
<v Speaker 1>undermine the deal, if not to cause the deal to close.

0:22:58.920 --> 0:23:02.160
<v Speaker 1>Does it fit in any way or that must waved

0:23:02.240 --> 0:23:06.320
<v Speaker 1>a chance to look at Twitter's finances beyond what was

0:23:06.400 --> 0:23:10.480
<v Speaker 1>publicly available? Does that count against him in any way?

0:23:10.720 --> 0:23:13.919
<v Speaker 1>In principle it it hugely counts against him. You know,

0:23:14.000 --> 0:23:17.040
<v Speaker 1>this is endemically a problem when a buyer of a

0:23:17.160 --> 0:23:21.679
<v Speaker 1>large company that these are always relatively complex entities. You know,

0:23:21.680 --> 0:23:24.479
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't have always the same information that the seller might.

0:23:24.560 --> 0:23:26.199
<v Speaker 1>So there are a couple different ways to deal with it.

0:23:26.720 --> 0:23:29.120
<v Speaker 1>One is that you could just say, look, I want

0:23:29.160 --> 0:23:32.239
<v Speaker 1>to be able to do what's called due diligence on

0:23:32.400 --> 0:23:35.760
<v Speaker 1>this this purchase, and I want to investigate the value

0:23:35.840 --> 0:23:39.600
<v Speaker 1>of this company. I want access to your detailed proprietary

0:23:39.640 --> 0:23:42.920
<v Speaker 1>books and records. As a very very common way to

0:23:43.280 --> 0:23:47.240
<v Speaker 1>UH to engineer a deal involving, you know, situations where

0:23:47.240 --> 0:23:49.440
<v Speaker 1>buyers are worried that they don't know all the information.

0:23:49.880 --> 0:23:51.560
<v Speaker 1>He waived that, you know, and he was kind of

0:23:51.600 --> 0:23:54.680
<v Speaker 1>public about waiving it. The other way to do it

0:23:54.720 --> 0:23:57.840
<v Speaker 1>is potentially to have the sellers say, Okay, look, you

0:23:58.080 --> 0:24:00.000
<v Speaker 1>don't have to investigate these, but we're going to provide

0:24:00.200 --> 0:24:05.760
<v Speaker 1>various types of warranties and guarantees and representations that this

0:24:05.880 --> 0:24:08.920
<v Speaker 1>is going to be you know, completely fine. Um, you'll

0:24:08.960 --> 0:24:12.600
<v Speaker 1>you'll discover that, you know, what you're buying is as advertised.

0:24:12.880 --> 0:24:15.119
<v Speaker 1>And so I think that's kind of a corner that

0:24:15.160 --> 0:24:17.639
<v Speaker 1>he's backed himself into having not done any of the

0:24:17.720 --> 0:24:21.360
<v Speaker 1>due diligence. You know, He's been trying to formulate arguments

0:24:21.400 --> 0:24:26.120
<v Speaker 1>that suggests that Twitter made a concrete warranty about how

0:24:26.119 --> 0:24:29.480
<v Speaker 1>many spam accounts there are out there. The problem is

0:24:29.520 --> 0:24:33.040
<v Speaker 1>that that's not even all that clear either, there's nothing

0:24:33.080 --> 0:24:36.600
<v Speaker 1>explicitly in the contract. There's an indirect reference to their

0:24:36.600 --> 0:24:40.360
<v Speaker 1>prior securities filings, and that's essentially what he's seizing on.

0:24:40.520 --> 0:24:44.720
<v Speaker 1>But those prior securities filings that talk about the spam

0:24:44.760 --> 0:24:50.119
<v Speaker 1>accounts are themselves heavily lawyered and equivocal as to whether

0:24:50.200 --> 0:24:54.280
<v Speaker 1>they are definitive estimates as opposed to, well, this is

0:24:54.320 --> 0:24:57.240
<v Speaker 1>our best shot at telling you, you know, based on

0:24:57.320 --> 0:25:00.439
<v Speaker 1>our own sampling, what the fraction looks like, but we

0:25:00.520 --> 0:25:02.040
<v Speaker 1>might be wrong, and there are a bunch of different

0:25:02.040 --> 0:25:05.119
<v Speaker 1>ways to measure this. So to sum this all up,

0:25:05.640 --> 0:25:09.360
<v Speaker 1>this letter is it an attempt by Musk to create

0:25:09.400 --> 0:25:13.680
<v Speaker 1>a paper trail in his goal of blowing up the deal.

0:25:14.200 --> 0:25:17.199
<v Speaker 1>I think that's probably the best interpretation of what's going on,

0:25:17.400 --> 0:25:21.879
<v Speaker 1>at least to to create a colorable chance that he

0:25:21.920 --> 0:25:24.680
<v Speaker 1>could blow up the deal so that he could walk

0:25:24.880 --> 0:25:29.080
<v Speaker 1>back into a negotiating room with Twitter representatives and at

0:25:29.160 --> 0:25:32.800
<v Speaker 1>least negotiate for a lower price. It is not the

0:25:32.880 --> 0:25:35.679
<v Speaker 1>strongest hands to be playing, however, it's a It's not

0:25:35.800 --> 0:25:37.760
<v Speaker 1>an uncommon thing to do to sort of say, oh,

0:25:37.760 --> 0:25:41.280
<v Speaker 1>can I get a better price? But usually something really

0:25:41.359 --> 0:25:44.679
<v Speaker 1>unexpected has to happen. Or an egregious breach of a

0:25:44.800 --> 0:25:48.000
<v Speaker 1>covenant or a prominense has to have occurred, but that

0:25:48.080 --> 0:25:50.480
<v Speaker 1>doesn't seem to be the case, at least with what's

0:25:50.520 --> 0:25:53.640
<v Speaker 1>publicly known this far, other than the allegations that Mr

0:25:53.720 --> 0:25:57.399
<v Speaker 1>Musk or Mr Musk's lawyer have made. So he's not

0:25:57.520 --> 0:26:01.480
<v Speaker 1>playing a particularly strong hand. But people can sometimes win

0:26:01.560 --> 0:26:04.199
<v Speaker 1>on a bluff of a strong hand, and so I

0:26:04.200 --> 0:26:07.119
<v Speaker 1>think that's kind of the hope that Twitter will at

0:26:07.200 --> 0:26:10.760
<v Speaker 1>least back down enough to allow him to give a

0:26:10.840 --> 0:26:13.240
<v Speaker 1>slight haircut to the price of the deal that he

0:26:13.359 --> 0:26:17.440
<v Speaker 1>signed up at fifty four and twenty cents. From Twitter's perspective,

0:26:17.480 --> 0:26:19.919
<v Speaker 1>I think they also know that they're playing a relatively

0:26:20.000 --> 0:26:23.320
<v Speaker 1>strong hand legally, and they're not going to be that

0:26:23.520 --> 0:26:25.920
<v Speaker 1>willing to give ground. They might give ground a little

0:26:25.920 --> 0:26:29.560
<v Speaker 1>bit because litigation is costly, and it's time consuming and

0:26:29.640 --> 0:26:32.560
<v Speaker 1>it's distracting. So it's possible they would give a little

0:26:32.560 --> 0:26:35.960
<v Speaker 1>bit of ground just to grease the wheels. But Twitter's

0:26:36.000 --> 0:26:41.680
<v Speaker 1>negotiating posture is a relatively strong one. Now, if the mailstrom,

0:26:41.720 --> 0:26:45.480
<v Speaker 1>the public mailstrom, the letters like this kick up cause

0:26:45.600 --> 0:26:49.760
<v Speaker 1>the lenders to get cold feet, obviously, that could change

0:26:49.800 --> 0:26:53.359
<v Speaker 1>the equation a little bit, but it could also complicate it,

0:26:53.400 --> 0:26:56.960
<v Speaker 1>both for Musk and for the lenders. If he ends

0:26:57.040 --> 0:27:01.120
<v Speaker 1>up sort of being seen as deliberately trying to sabotage

0:27:01.200 --> 0:27:04.359
<v Speaker 1>his own deal. UH, that could put him on the

0:27:04.359 --> 0:27:08.240
<v Speaker 1>hook for various types of liabilities, both inside and outside

0:27:08.600 --> 0:27:12.080
<v Speaker 1>the terms of the contract. UH. And in addition, the

0:27:12.200 --> 0:27:15.280
<v Speaker 1>lenders themselves, to the extent that they're seen is effectively,

0:27:15.520 --> 0:27:19.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, conspiring with him to blow up the deal. UH.

0:27:19.480 --> 0:27:21.960
<v Speaker 1>They may not be able to walk away scott free either.

0:27:22.160 --> 0:27:26.080
<v Speaker 1>So it's somewhat perilous terrain. If in fact, what the

0:27:26.840 --> 0:27:32.760
<v Speaker 1>calculated approaches here is to try to sneakily or coyly

0:27:33.240 --> 0:27:36.200
<v Speaker 1>recruit the lenders to bail out of a deal so

0:27:36.240 --> 0:27:40.040
<v Speaker 1>as to give Mr Musk an easier set of walking

0:27:40.080 --> 0:27:45.080
<v Speaker 1>papers himself. We'll see what Musk's next move is. Thanks Eric.

0:27:45.400 --> 0:27:49.280
<v Speaker 1>That's Professor Eric Talley of Columbia Law School, and that's

0:27:49.320 --> 0:27:51.919
<v Speaker 1>it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

0:27:51.960 --> 0:27:54.560
<v Speaker 1>you can always get the latest legal news honor Bloomberg

0:27:54.640 --> 0:27:58.199
<v Speaker 1>Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:27:58.400 --> 0:28:03.440
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law,

0:28:03.840 --> 0:28:06.479
<v Speaker 1>and remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every

0:28:06.480 --> 0:28:10.440
<v Speaker 1>week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow,

0:28:10.560 --> 0:28:12.159
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg