Latest / Bloomberg Law / Canadian Wildfire Damage & Trump's Multibillion Dollar Lawsuits

Transcript

Canadian Wildfire Damage & Trump's Multibillion Dollar Lawsuits · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: Canada's wildfire crisis remains critical. About nine hundred wildfires are
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: currently burning in Canada and more than nine million acres
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: of land have been burned. The crisis has spilled across
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: the border, sending dangerous smoke that has turned the skies
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: over cities like New York, Chicago, and DC into a
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: toxic haze. Smoke from wildfires carries noxious gases and particulate
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: matter that can trigger severe respiratory and heart problems in
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: people living thousands of miles away. Last week, more than
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: one hundred million Americans were under air quality alerts. It's
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: just gotten so, so so bad.
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: It's affecting everybody's physical activity, no doubt.
• 0:54
  Speaker 3: It's terrible.
• 0:54
  Speaker 4: And I feel like you go inside you because's still
• 0:56
  Speaker 4: smell it.
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: In Post this weekend, President Trump called Canada's handling of
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: the wildfires willful negligence and said the cost of the
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: pollution should be added to tariffs on that country. My
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: guest is Columbia Law School professor Michael Gerard, an expert
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: in environmental law and director of the Saban Center for
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: Climate Change Law. How much of a danger do the
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: Canadian wildfires pose.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: These Canadian wildfires are enormous. They're spreading unhealthy air throughout
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: North America, and we know that this wildfire smoke causes
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: all kinds of negative health effects. So this is a
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: very serious event.
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: The number of wildfires in both Canada and the United
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: States seems to be growing every year. Is that because
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: of climate change?
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: Yes, they are sparks, mostly by lightning, but climate change
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: is making them much worse. When you have extreme heat conditions,
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: which is what we've been having, it dries out the
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: trees and the other vegetation and when the lightning hits,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: it causes a major fire. So we've always had wildfires,
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: but they're much worse and the smoke conditions are now
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: much worse than they had been in the past.
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: This situation with smoke crossing borders, that's not just limited
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: to Canada and the US is it's a global thing.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: It's right. This has happened for a long time all
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: over the world. There have been efforts to address it legally,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: but there really isn't anything effective that the law can
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: do in terms of imposing liability over this kind of smoke.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: If it were coming from a discrete factory or something
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: that could be a different story. But these wildfires coming
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: from immense areas, there's not really a legal remedy.
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: Would the wildfires be considered a natural disaster like an earthquake.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: Yes, like an earthquaker, a volcano, or something like that.
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: And a country is not liable for a natural disaster
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: that happens within its borders that causes harm in other countries.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: There are other things that countries are doing that there
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: is increasing these wild most notably greenhouse gas emissions, but
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: we don't have an effective legal remedy for this kind
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: of thing.
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: Over the weekend, President Trump expressed criticism of Canada's handling
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: of the wildfires, calling it willful negligence. We're holding Canada
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: responsible for the fact that they're not properly maintaining their
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: forests and brushed therein and the United States is being
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: Well, it's true that a lot of bad air is
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: coming down from Canada, but that's the only part of
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: it that's true. The Canadian northern forests, the boreal forests,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: are about seven times the size of Texas, so what
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: do you do? How do you control that it's naturally occurring?
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: As I say, it's lightning that sparks the wildfires. If
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: anybody wants to complain about the causes of the wildfires,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: it's mostly climate change. And the US is responsible for
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: something like ten times the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: than Canada. So if anybody could sue anybody, it would
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: be Canada suing the US. But of course they can't either.
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: Is that because there's no jurisdiction?
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: That's right? The International Court of Justice in the Hague
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: can adjudicate disputes between countries that have consented to that
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: kind of jurisdiction. The US has not consented to the
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction of the ICG for this kind of case. Even
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: if it had, what would the remedy be. It's not
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: as if Canada can go in with ten million airplanes
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: and put out the wildfires. There really isn't an effective
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: remedy for that.
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: Trump says he's going to increase the tariffs. I mean,
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: that is something I guess he can do, right.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Well, they're actually a legal dispute about that, whether he
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: has the authority to increase the tariffs, but he can
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: try and it may not succeed in courts. But what
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: does it do to help the wildfire situation? It does nothing.
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: I guess. It's like a tit for tat. We'll get
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: some money from you, you know, just recompense, I guess.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: But you know, the wind goes in both directions. Sometimes
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: they smoke from the US coast north and so it
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: is tit for tat and it could start going in
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: the other direction.
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: Singapore has a law in the books.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Right in Southeast Asia, there's a great deal of wildfire
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: smoke coming primarily from agricultural burning in Indonesia and Malaysia.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: So Singapore is one of the places that especially badly
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: hurt by that. Sometimes they have to shut down their airports,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: close their schools. There is a regional agreement in Southeast
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Asia to try to deal with this, but it hasn't
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: accomplished much. The one thing that has happened is that
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: Singapore passed a law saying that any Singaporean companies that
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: engage in this kind of burning in other countries can
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: be libel. So there's a big pulp and paper company
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: based in Singapore that is engaged in this kind of
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: burning in Indonesia, and Singapore has taken some actions against
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: that company, but it's a very, very small and limited
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: kind of action.
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: Let's say there's a business that's been damaged in some
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: way because of the wildfire smoke. For example, some camps
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: have experienced declining numbers. Can they sue Canada in a
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: Canadian court.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: Canada and other countries have sovereign immunity for most kinds
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: of liability unless they have specifically waived their immunity for
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: this kind of case, and I don't believe that Canada
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: has waived its immunity here. When you do have a
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: waiver sovereign immunity, it's usually because the country has been negligent,
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: or somebody gets hit by a postal truck they consue
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: the postal service. But this is not the kind of
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: thing that results from negligence of the kind that typically
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: invokes the waiver of sovereign immunity.
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: So we have an agreement with Canada, the Canadian United
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: States Air Quality Agreement of nineteen ninety one. What's that about.
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: Does it have anything to do with what's happening now?
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: Well, it provides that the two countries can reach agreements
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: on specific kinds of air pollutants and what they're going
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: to do about it. So there's now a specific agreement
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: on sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain. There's an agreement
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: on mercury. So when there is an agreement on specific substances,
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: then the country can be legally obligated to take certain
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: actions to reduce those kinds of pollutants. But there's no
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: such agreement between the United States and Canada covering wildfire smoke. Someday,
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: theoretically they could do that. They can negotiate that, but
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: that hasn't happened.
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: Most countries with this cross border pollution, how do they
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: handle it? Do they work together? Do they make agreements.
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: If it's a controllable kind of pollutant, they can reach
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: agreements on how to handle it. So with acid rain,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: the United States now has a law to reduce the
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: use of high sulfur coal to generate electricity with mercury
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: that there are other specific things that could be done,
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: But with wildfires, particularly the kind of wildfires that are
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: coming down from Canada, there isn't. There are certain forests
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: management things that could be done in different kinds of
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: forests to try to reduce the wildfires on that neither
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: the United States nor Canada have done a terrific job.
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: But these wildfires are such a magnitude that international agreements
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: can have only a very very limited impact.
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: In the US, is that because the administration has dismantled
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: key agencies in fields such as climate and conservation work
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: through mass firings of federal workers.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: One of the things that can be done in certain
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: kinds of forests is called prescribed burning. You go in
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: and you start small fires that clear away the underbrush
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: and so forth, so that other fires can't get so large.
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: The United States for many years had a policy that
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: largely inhibited prescribe burning, and that's one of the reasons
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: some of the fires in the Pacific Northwest have been
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: so bad. Very recently, there was some prescribed fires planned
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: for Minnesota that would have reduced fires there. Under Elon
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: Musk's doge, they greatly cut back on that. They did
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: not engage in the prescribed burning, and so the fires
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: in Minnesota seem to be much worse than they might
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: have been otherwise.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: Looking toward the future, does it seem as if the
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: wildfire situation may get worse in both Canada and the US.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Yes, it'll clearly get worse as the planet gets hotter
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: and you have worse fires. It's no question that the
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: wildfire situation and the smoke situation will get worse. Clearly,
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: the governments can act to help protect their citizens, have
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: better early warning systems, have clean air rooms that are
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: provided for people to don't have air conditioning, and so
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: they provide masks. There are a number of things that
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: can be done to help protect people from the wildfire smoke,
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: but only a very limited amount could be done to
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: reduce the smoke itself over the short and medium term.
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: Over the long term, we need massive reductions in green
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: ass gas emissions, which is mostly involving massive reductions in
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: this fossil fuels, but it takes a very long time
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: for that to have a positive impact on wildfires.
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: I mean, the Trump administration is trying to advance fossil
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: fuel development, right of course.
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: They're moving in exactly the opposite direction of where we
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: need to be. Oh, they're all about trying to maximize
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: both the demand for and the supply of fossil fuels.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: They're denying that climate change is a serious problem. They're
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: trying to wipe out all US policies to address climate chancheck.
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: Can you get insurance for smoke damage?
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: There's actually some dispute about that about whether conventional insurance
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: policies cover smoke damage. You could certainly buy a policy
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: that has a smoke writer, but that's an exception rather
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: than the rule.
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: Biden tried to leave an environmental legacy, and has Trump
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: undone it already. You know, there have been a lot
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: of areas that he's tried to roll back what Biden did.
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: Trump is certainly working hard to undo biden environmental legislation
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: and his other legacy. Now, sometimes the courts have stood
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: in the way. There are lots of litigation pending. In
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: some cases what Trump has tried to do has been halted,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: but in other cases it's gone forward. I would say
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: that the action that has had the most serious effect
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: is the rullback on the motor vehicle standards. Transportation is
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: The Biden administration worked very hard to clean up both
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: the passenger cars and the heavy duty vehicles like trucks
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: and buses, and to move toward electric vehicles, which are
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: ultimately the way we need to go, and Trump has
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: greatly cut back on that has damaged the US electric
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: vehicle industry, greatly helped the Chinese electric vehicle industry since
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: they're making terrific evs that are very inexpensive, but you
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: can't buy in the US. Trump has also slowed down
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: or stopped the closure of a lot of coal fired
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: power plants, which in other major source of greenhouse gass
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: admission in the United States. So he's done a lot
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: of damage.
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: And he speaks out against wind and solar power every
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: chance he gets.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: At a time when he's encouraging data centers, which are
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: greatly increasing the demand for electricity, he's trying to wipe
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: out the principal new source of electricity, which is wind
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: and solar. It's completely irrational.
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me. That's Columbia Law School
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: professor Michael Girard Coming up next. Trump's lawsuits against the
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: media and banks. This is Bloomberg. President Donald Trump is
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: suing the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the BBC, JP,
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: Morgan Chase, and Capital One each for between five and
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: fifteen billion dollars. And there have been some high stakes
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: hearings in Florida after major setbacks in a few of
• 12:46
  Speaker 2: the cases. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson,
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: who has been following all these cases. Eric, Before we
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: get to the cases where Trump is suing, let's talk
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: about the civil cases where he law and verdicts were
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: returned against him, and those involve writer Egene Carroll tell
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: us about the huge verdict in her defamation case against Trump.
• 13:10
  Speaker 4: A big verdict that she won against Trump.
• 13:13
  Speaker 3: Eighty three point three million dollars is what the jury
• 13:17
  Speaker 3: put the damages at. Of course, Trump appealed, it was
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: upheld on appeal, and he's expected to very soon ask
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: the Supreme Court to hear the case. Of course, unclear
• 13:28
  Speaker 3: if the Justices will take it, but he is.
• 13:31
  Speaker 4: Going to ask.
• 13:32
  Speaker 3: And of course his other case with Eagen Carroll, the
• 13:35
  Speaker 3: five million dollar sexual abuse civil case that she also
• 13:40
  Speaker 3: won against Trump. Trump also appealed that and the Supreme
• 13:43
  Speaker 3: Courts declined to hear his appeal, and the President has
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: asked the justices to reconsider that decision, a pretty remarkable
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: request that they have not responded to yet.
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: What is his claim in the defamation case, What might
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: the issue be that he takes to the Supreme Court?
• 14:00
  Speaker 3: So Trump argues that at the trial, the jury heard
• 14:04
  Speaker 3: improper evidence that should not have been in the trial,
• 14:09
  Speaker 3: specifically the testimony and allegations of two other women who
• 14:13
  Speaker 3: had accused Trump of sexual assaults years ago, and the
• 14:17
  Speaker 3: so called Access Hollywood tape in which Trump is on
• 14:21
  Speaker 3: a hot mic speaking crudely about women and being able
• 14:25
  Speaker 3: to grab the genitals of women without consent if you're
• 14:30
  Speaker 3: a star, that sort of thing. Trump argues that was
• 14:33
  Speaker 3: inappropriate to have in the case.
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: So let's turn now to the cases where Trump is
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: suing over defamation. The ten billion dollar lawsuit against the
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal.
• 14:46
  Speaker 3: He's alleging that the Wall Street Journal defamed him with
• 14:48
  Speaker 3: an article related to Jeffrey Epstein, specifically this article about
• 14:53
  Speaker 3: Trump allegedly sending a birthday note to Epstein for his
• 14:58
  Speaker 3: fiftieth birthday yars ago that contained a personal note to
• 15:04
  Speaker 3: Epstein that was sort of typed out within a hand
• 15:09
  Speaker 3: drawn shape of a woman and with Trump's signature forming
• 15:13
  Speaker 3: the pubic region of the drawing. So this was a
• 15:16
  Speaker 3: Wall Street Journal story that said that this was from Trump.
• 15:20
  Speaker 3: Trump denied that and filed this lawsuit.
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: I mean, there was a dismissal of the suit. Why
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: did the judge dismiss the complaint?
• 15:28
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 15:28
  Speaker 3: So, the first version of the complaint was dismissed because
• 15:32
  Speaker 3: it did not have enough details in the complaint backing
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: a so called actual malice, which is a higher standard
• 15:39
  Speaker 3: for public figures like Trump to file defamation lawsuits.
• 15:42
  Speaker 4: They have to show.
• 15:43
  Speaker 3: They have to show that the Wall Street Journal in
• 15:45
  Speaker 3: this case knew that what it was reporting was false
• 15:49
  Speaker 3: or had a reckless disregard for the truth, and.
• 15:51
  Speaker 4: That's actual malice.
• 15:52
  Speaker 3: The judge dismissed the suit, granted the journal's motion to
• 15:56
  Speaker 3: dismiss it, saying that there wasn't enough detail in there
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: to prove actual malice. But the judge dismissed it without
• 16:03
  Speaker 3: prejudice and said that Trump could refile a new version
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: if he wanted to try again, which he did. The
• 16:08
  Speaker 3: journal has moved to dismiss that version as well, and
• 16:11
  Speaker 3: there's actually a hearing on that motion to dismiss on
• 16:14
  Speaker 3: August fifth in Miami.
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: As we said, it's a very high bar to prove
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: actual malice. Did Trump in the complaint in the new
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: complaint make a case for actual malice?
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: I mean, that's really what the hearing is going to
• 16:29
  Speaker 3: be about what the judge is going to have to decide.
• 16:32
  Speaker 4: All I can say is that in the motion.
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: To dismiss the second complaint, the amended complaint, the journal
• 16:38
  Speaker 3: said that there was no new detail backing up actual
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: malice and said the new complaint suffered from all the
• 16:44
  Speaker 3: same problems that what Trump was saying in it was
• 16:48
  Speaker 3: not really factual, that it was just including more details
• 16:52
  Speaker 3: about how the journal purportedly did not support its story sufficiently,
• 16:57
  Speaker 3: did not give enough weight to Trump's denial that he
• 17:00
  Speaker 3: wrote that note, that he had signed it, and that
• 17:04
  Speaker 3: you know, the headline in other parts of the story,
• 17:06
  Speaker 3: you know, explicitly said that it was Trump's note to Epstein,
• 17:10
  Speaker 3: when they allegedly did not back that up in the story.
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: We should say that truth is a defense and didn't
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: A lot of media outlets describe that note as being
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: from Trump.
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: Well, I think the key here on the falsity angle
• 17:25
  Speaker 3: is that the House Democrats released this actual letter. It
• 17:30
  Speaker 3: came in as part of their Epstein investigation. That Epstein
• 17:34
  Speaker 3: estate handed over a lot of you know, stuff of
• 17:36
  Speaker 3: Epstein's and including a big book that compiled all of
• 17:41
  Speaker 3: these birthday notes from other people for Epstein's fiftieth birthday.
• 17:45
  Speaker 3: So that's part of the record that was handed over
• 17:47
  Speaker 3: to Congress, and the journal argues that, you know, that proves.
• 17:51
  Speaker 4: That it was true, and Trump doesn't see that.
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: Land We'll see if the journal gets a dismissal, and
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: if the dismissal is with pread. So now he's also suing, surprise, surprise,
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: the New York Times for fifteen billion, right.
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: And that this complaint alleges defamation from several articles and
• 18:11
  Speaker 3: also a book written by a Time reporter called Lucky Loser,
• 18:17
  Speaker 3: And generally, the complaint alleges that the New York Times
• 18:22
  Speaker 3: just had a policy of treating him unfairly in their stories,
• 18:26
  Speaker 3: that the articles and book demeaned his success as the
• 18:29
  Speaker 3: businessman and in various ways suggested that he hadn't earned
• 18:34
  Speaker 3: his fortune or fame, that it was just sort of
• 18:37
  Speaker 3: handed to him. This case, you might recall, it was
• 18:41
  Speaker 3: not dismissed. It was basically thrown out of court a
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: few days after it was filed by a judge who
• 18:47
  Speaker 3: said that it it violated court ruled by containing way
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: too much detail about Trump's fame and fortune and his
• 18:53
  Speaker 3: rise in politics and other details that the judge said
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: it was completely irrelevant to the lawsuit such that it
• 18:59
  Speaker 3: violated rules, and Trump's lawyer had to refile a version
• 19:04
  Speaker 3: that was half as long. He was given a page limit.
• 19:06
  Speaker 3: And The Times has moved to dismiss it. And it's
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: the same general arguments as the Wall Street Journal cases.
• 19:12
  Speaker 3: They say that their reporting is accurate, they stand by it,
• 19:15
  Speaker 3: and that Trump hasn't properly alleged actual malice. And so
• 19:19
  Speaker 3: this was a case that they just had a hearing
• 19:22
  Speaker 3: on the motion to dismiss last week in Tampa, Florida
• 19:27
  Speaker 3: before a federal judge who did not give any hint
• 19:31
  Speaker 3: one way or the other how he was thinking during
• 19:33
  Speaker 3: that hearing and reserve judgment, and we're expecting a decision
• 19:37
  Speaker 3: on that at any time.
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: That's unusual. Usually there's a little bit of a hint, okay.
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: And he's also suing the BBC for ten billion dollars.
• 19:46
  Speaker 3: Yes, this is over that edit of Trump's so called
• 19:50
  Speaker 3: Stop the Steel speech at that Stop the Steel Speech
• 19:53
  Speaker 3: rally before the January sixth attack on the Capitol. In
• 19:58
  Speaker 3: late twenty twenty four, the BBC did a panorama documentary
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: about Trump's supporters and how he continues to keep support
• 20:07
  Speaker 3: despite his various legal issues and controversial incidents like January sixth,
• 20:13
  Speaker 3: and in that documentary, they spliced together two different parts
• 20:17
  Speaker 3: of his speech into a twelve second clip that made
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: it seem like he had made a direct call for violence.
• 20:24
  Speaker 3: And that's actually something that the BBC chairman apologized for.
• 20:28
  Speaker 3: He issued an apology trying to I think avoid this
• 20:32
  Speaker 3: lawsuit being filed because Trump had threatened to sue. The
• 20:35
  Speaker 3: apology was issued, but they stood by their argument that
• 20:38
  Speaker 3: they hadn't defamed him.
• 20:39
  Speaker 4: So Trump did file the suits, and it's a really
• 20:42
  Speaker 4: unusual case.
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: Frankly, it's going in some different directions than the typical
• 20:47
  Speaker 3: defamation case would at this point, and namely because the
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: BBC has decided to issue dozens of subpoenas to members
• 20:56
  Speaker 3: of Trump's inner circle, former cabinet members, federal agency is
• 21:00
  Speaker 3: trying to build a picture of Trump's communications before leading
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: up to that speech. Essentially, they're arguing on the matter
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: of falsity, you know, whether or not the implication of
• 21:14
  Speaker 3: the twelve second edited clip, notwithstanding the apology, whether it
• 21:19
  Speaker 3: might have actually been accurate, regardless that Trump really was
• 21:22
  Speaker 3: calling for or inciting violence that day, and so they
• 21:26
  Speaker 3: are arguing that the case really Trump has to prove
• 21:29
  Speaker 3: that he did not incite the January sixth riot in
• 21:33
  Speaker 3: order to win this defamation case. That's what the BBC
• 21:35
  Speaker 3: has said in court and in court filings. So that's
• 21:39
  Speaker 3: the point of all of these subpoenas. There was a
• 21:41
  Speaker 3: hearing on those subpoenas last week in Miami, and Trump
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: his lawyer fought very hard over a couple of hours
• 21:48
  Speaker 3: to get those subpoenas thrown out, not only to members
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: of the Inner Circle, but another subpoena to the Trump
• 21:54
  Speaker 3: organization for all kinds of financial documents, because the BBC
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: wants to see evidence that Trump really has suffered billions
• 22:03
  Speaker 3: of dollars in damage to his business and his brand
• 22:08
  Speaker 3: and his future financial prospects, as his complaint claims. So
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: the judge upheld those subpoenas, but she did indicate that
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: she might be narrowing those subpoenas to the Trump Inner
• 22:19
  Speaker 3: Circle because she said she doesn't want this case to
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: become a new trial over January sixth. So she's going
• 22:26
  Speaker 3: to issue a written order later where we'll see what
• 22:29
  Speaker 3: the subpoenas might be narrowed down to. But I feel
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: like it could be a long fight over these subpoenas
• 22:33
  Speaker 3: as well. Say, I don't think this is the last
• 22:36
  Speaker 3: ruling that we'll get on those, but it is an
• 22:39
  Speaker 3: interesting angle for the BBC's defense.
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and also, I mean Trump's wealth increased by almost
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: two billion dollars about since he's been.
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: President's lawyer did raise that fact in the court hearing,
• 22:52
  Speaker 3: saying that you know Trump, he had put the figure
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: out at one point four billion or so. And also
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: the fact that Trump won the election shortly after that
• 23:03
  Speaker 3: documentary went out, so they argue it didn't harm him anyway.
• 23:07
  Speaker 3: But it was interesting to see Trump's lawyer arguing this
• 23:11
  Speaker 3: particular point in court because, especially on the Trump Organization
• 23:15
  Speaker 3: financial documents subpoena, the judge made it clear that it
• 23:18
  Speaker 3: seemed reasonable to subpoena those records of Trump was claiming
• 23:22
  Speaker 3: so much harm, and Trump's lawyer essentially said that he
• 23:25
  Speaker 3: would be willing to correct the record and amend the lawsuits,
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: so basically file a new complaint in order to focus
• 23:33
  Speaker 3: the alleged financial damages only on Trump's reputation. The BBC
• 23:37
  Speaker 3: argues that the Trump Org and Trump's reputation are one
• 23:40
  Speaker 3: and the same, but at any rate, it was a
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: magistrate judge who isn't the official judge overseeing this case,
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: and she said that she wouldn't allow Trump to amend
• 23:49
  Speaker 3: the complaint at this point. He'd have to go back
• 23:51
  Speaker 3: to the main judge overseeing the case and requests permission
• 23:54
  Speaker 3: to do that, which would be remarkable to have to
• 23:56
  Speaker 3: walk back a complaint like that.
• 23:57
  Speaker 4: That request hasn't been made yet.
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: It is an interesting lawsuit to me, the most interesting
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: of the three so far. And Eric, there have been
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: some defamation lawsuits where the defendants have settled with Trump, right.
• 24:11
  Speaker 3: With ABC and CBS, you know, after the election or
• 24:14
  Speaker 3: after he took office.
• 24:16
  Speaker 4: Each of those settled for about.
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: Fifteen sixteen million dollars, so I mean, a lot less
• 24:21
  Speaker 3: money than we're talking about in these other cases. But
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: you know, there were a lot of companies that settled
• 24:25
  Speaker 3: with Trump around that time. And you know there's long
• 24:29
  Speaker 3: running cases involving Twitter now x Facebook, metas Facebook, Google's YouTube.
• 24:35
  Speaker 3: You know that he had sued over his accounts being
• 24:38
  Speaker 3: frozen or canceled after January sixth, that sort of thing,
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: and all of those settled.
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: We should just take note of the timing of those settlements.
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: Stay with me, Eric. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: Law Show, we'll take a look at Trump's suits against
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: two banks for d banking. I'm June Grosso and this
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: is Bloomberg. We're taking a look at the status of
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: President Donald Trump's lawsuits against three media companies and two
• 25:07
  Speaker 2: banks each for between five and fifteen billion dollars. I've
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: been talking to Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. Eric, let's
• 25:16
  Speaker 2: turn to the suit that's gotten the most attention, I think,
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: and that's Trump versus the IRS. That one point eight
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: billion dollar so called Anti Weaponization fund was the subject
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: of much questioning during the confirmation hearings of Todd blanche
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: for Attorney General. He testified the fund is not going forward,
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: but Trump talks about it positively. Nonetheless, it was settled.
• 25:44
  Speaker 3: It's worth noting that Trump filed this ten billion dollar
• 25:48
  Speaker 3: lawsuits to get ten billion dollars four of the leak
• 25:52
  Speaker 3: of his tax information on authorized leak of his tax
• 25:56
  Speaker 3: information to the press by an IRS contractor in twenty nineteen.
• 26:01
  Speaker 3: The contractor, who, by the way, pleaded guilty and was
• 26:02
  Speaker 3: sentenced to five years in prison. So the case didn't
• 26:07
  Speaker 3: really achieve what the stated purpose of the case was
• 26:10
  Speaker 3: to achieve, which is to get ten billion dollars. Instead,
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: they settled it, as you said, for a one point
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: eight billion dollar anti weaponization fund, which everyone was complaining
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: about because it appeared likely to benefit Trump supporters and
• 26:25
  Speaker 3: even January sixth riders. So as you said, that got scrapped.
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: There was a bipartisan outcry. But a day after that settlement,
• 26:33
  Speaker 3: there was a new settlement was also announced that gave
• 26:36
  Speaker 3: Trump and his family and business entities a broad release
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: from audits over past tax information so that there wouldn't
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: be any future actions brought over past tax auds. So
• 26:49
  Speaker 3: it was pretty remarkable and they've kept that in place
• 26:52
  Speaker 3: for now, so that is still an active part of
• 26:56
  Speaker 3: the settlement. But the judge who oversaw the IRS case
• 27:00
  Speaker 3: at the urging of a group of dozens of former
• 27:02
  Speaker 3: federal judges, looked back into the case and how her
• 27:06
  Speaker 3: court was used to achieve this settlements and decided that
• 27:10
  Speaker 3: Trump had attempted to manipulate the court by filing a
• 27:13
  Speaker 3: lawsuit in which he controlled not only his side, but
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: the other side as the president overseeing the IRS and
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: the US Treasury, which was also defendant. So she said
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: that that was wholly inappropriate, and she issued an order
• 27:26
  Speaker 3: barring Trump or the administration from ever citing that settlement
• 27:31
  Speaker 3: that audit immunity settlement in any sort of proceeding, effectively
• 27:35
  Speaker 3: making it useless. So we don't know if the government
• 27:39
  Speaker 3: or Trump are going to appeal that. It's just been
• 27:42
  Speaker 3: sitting there since it was issued. Obviously Trump that's something
• 27:47
  Speaker 3: that he would be likely to appeal, but we don't
• 27:49
  Speaker 3: know that for sure yet.
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe he's waiting until the Blanche nomination gets out
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: of committee. So now pursuing JP Morgan for only five
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: billion dollars the lowest sum he's suing for, I think.
• 28:04
  Speaker 3: Yes, yes, this is a debanking lawsuit saying that JP
• 28:10
  Speaker 3: Morgan closed his personal accounts out of political animus toward
• 28:15
  Speaker 3: him as an anti conservative discrimination. So it wasn't long
• 28:20
  Speaker 3: after January sixth, and after Trump left office that this occurred.
• 28:25
  Speaker 3: So we're at a pretty early stage in that case. Honestly,
• 28:27
  Speaker 3: they're still waiting for a ruling on the Bank's request
• 28:31
  Speaker 3: to move the case from federal court in Florida to
• 28:36
  Speaker 3: Federal Court in Manhattan, where they say it should be.
• 28:40
  Speaker 4: The case has to go.
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: Under their customer agreements, but Trump is arguing against that,
• 28:44
  Speaker 3: wants to keep it in Florida and also wants to
• 28:46
  Speaker 3: move it back to state court from federal court where
• 28:49
  Speaker 3: Chase moved it right after it was filed. So we've
• 28:52
  Speaker 3: got this whole argument going over venue. Part of it
• 28:55
  Speaker 3: has to do with whether Jamie Diamond, the CEO, who's
• 28:57
  Speaker 3: also a defendant, would be part of the case. So
• 29:00
  Speaker 3: it's still very early days on that one, and we're
• 29:03
  Speaker 3: just waiting for this ruling on the venue.
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: The Trump organization is suing Capital One? Is that also debanking?
• 29:11
  Speaker 3: That is it's the same type of lawsuit that we
• 29:13
  Speaker 3: just discussed, except it's filed by Trump Org instead of Trump.
• 29:17
  Speaker 3: Capital One canceled hundreds of Trump Organization accounts I think
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: around March twenty twenty one, so it's very similar, very
• 29:27
  Speaker 3: similar allegations. That's a lawsuit that was also dismissed by
• 29:32
  Speaker 3: actually a Trump appointed judge, but then he allowed Trump
• 29:36
  Speaker 3: Org to actually do discovery into Capital One and then
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: file an amended complaint, which Capital One was not too
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: pleased about, but they went along with that and had
• 29:48
  Speaker 3: been engaging in discovery for months now, and that allowed
• 29:53
  Speaker 3: Trump to file an amended complaint. I wish I could
• 29:56
  Speaker 3: tell you what was different about it or what they
• 29:58
  Speaker 3: found in their discovery, but it's just pages and pages
• 30:02
  Speaker 3: and pages of redactions in the amended complaint. Some pages
• 30:06
  Speaker 3: don't have anything viewable on them real. So I think
• 30:09
  Speaker 3: that those redactions might get lifted after some negotiations. But
• 30:13
  Speaker 3: I don't think I've ever seen that quite before.
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: But a lot of reactions.
• 30:19
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 30:19
  Speaker 3: It does suggest though that maybe trump Borg found something
• 30:23
  Speaker 3: interesting to put in their complaint to back their assertion
• 30:28
  Speaker 3: that Capital One closed the accounts for improper political reasons.
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: So we'll have to wait and see, because that was
• 30:35
  Speaker 3: the reason that the judge dismissed it, so that there
• 30:37
  Speaker 3: just wasn't enough in the complaint to back this assertion
• 30:42
  Speaker 3: that they were closed the accounts were closed for out
• 30:44
  Speaker 3: of political bias.
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: So one of Trump's lawyers has actually been referred to
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: the Florida.
• 30:52
  Speaker 3: Bar Aljandro Brito is Trump's main personal lawyer in all
• 30:57
  Speaker 3: of these cases and also in the one case by
• 31:02
  Speaker 3: Trump Org and in the I R S case that
• 31:05
  Speaker 3: ruling that said that the I R S case was
• 31:08
  Speaker 3: an abuse of the court. That is the ruling in
• 31:12
  Speaker 3: which Brito was referred to the Florida bar for potential
• 31:16
  Speaker 3: disciplinary action. Nothing's happened on that yet, and Brito hasn't
• 31:21
  Speaker 3: commented on it either.
• 31:22
  Speaker 2: Have we gone through all the current suits? Oh no, no, no,
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: we haven't eric because coming back to New York from Florida.
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: So Trump is appealing the hush money conviction.
• 31:34
  Speaker 3: Yes, that has been going on for a while. We're
• 31:38
  Speaker 3: expecting soon that the New York District Attorney, Alvin brag
• 31:42
  Speaker 3: will file his brief in that appeal arguing why the
• 31:46
  Speaker 3: verdict should be upheld. That's in the New York State
• 31:51
  Speaker 3: Court appeal track. But they're also trying to get the
• 31:55
  Speaker 3: federal court to throw it out, arguing again that the
• 31:59
  Speaker 3: case should have been in federal court and that the
• 32:02
  Speaker 3: evidence at trial was not appropriate because the judge allegedly
• 32:07
  Speaker 3: did not fully consider the implications of the Supreme Court's
• 32:11
  Speaker 3: immunity ruling for Trump. That some of the things that
• 32:14
  Speaker 3: came up in the hush money trial should not have
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: been presented to the jurors because it was related to
• 32:20
  Speaker 3: Trump's presidential activities or conversations.
• 32:24
  Speaker 4: So that is something that we're waiting on a decision for.
• 32:29
  Speaker 2: And these cases are going to be around for a
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: long long time, because I mean, is there ever a
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: case where he doesn't take an appeal. He seems to
• 32:41
  Speaker 2: always appeal to the state appellate courts or the federal
• 32:44
  Speaker 2: appellate courts, and then, as we've discussed, he's gone to
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court as well.
• 32:49
  Speaker 3: I think Trump's legal team has strongly indicated that they
• 32:53
  Speaker 3: don't consider any verdict or ruling in any case to
• 32:57
  Speaker 3: be final until every possible peel route has been exhausted.
• 33:02
  Speaker 3: So I think even all these defamation cases, you know,
• 33:05
  Speaker 3: if these complaints are dismissed, we can expect pretty drawn
• 33:09
  Speaker 3: out appeals on that. And actually, as we were discussing
• 33:12
  Speaker 3: actual malice, that standard that was set you know, in
• 33:16
  Speaker 3: the landmark New York Times versus Sullivan.
• 33:18
  Speaker 4: It's a big free speech case.
• 33:20
  Speaker 3: As I said, that, that's set a higher standard for
• 33:22
  Speaker 3: public figures to file defamation lawsuits, with the idea being that,
• 33:27
  Speaker 3: you know, the press needs to be free to look
• 33:29
  Speaker 3: into these public figures to do their jobs and not
• 33:32
  Speaker 3: be afraid of being bogged down by defamation lawsuits, you know,
• 33:36
  Speaker 3: to be chilled by the prospect of that. So that's
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: a standard that I think, you know, Trump's side and
• 33:42
  Speaker 3: plenty of others are hoping maybe the Supreme Court will
• 33:45
  Speaker 3: do away with and I suppose one of these cases
• 33:47
  Speaker 3: would be a way for them to try to make
• 33:49
  Speaker 3: that happen.
• 33:49
  Speaker 2: I think Justice Clarence Thomas is someone who has advocated
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: for that as well. Thanks so much, Eric for going
• 33:56
  Speaker 2: through all these suits with us. That's Bloomberg Legal Reporter
• 34:00
  Speaker 2: Eric Larson, and that's it for this edition of The
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg
• 34:13
  Speaker 2: dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg