Latest / Bloomberg Law / Possible Clancy Retrial & Civil Rights Upheaval

Transcript

Possible Clancy Retrial & Civil Rights Upheaval · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: Since a mistrial was declared in the trial of Lindsay
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: Clancy for murdering her three children, one juror after another
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: has come out to complain about the lone holdout juror
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: who caused the mistrial. Juror Nick Dargy said the lone
• 0:24
  Speaker 2: juror wouldn't explain his position or even lean on the
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: evidence to inform his opinion.
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: There was... Several times I would ask him to show
• 0:34
  Speaker 3: us evidence or describe a witness testimony that helped to
• 0:40
  Speaker 3: prove what he was saying, and he couldn't.
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: The defense attorney has filed papers asking the judge to
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity despite the mistrial.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: Joining me to discuss this case and other legal issues
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: is Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney.
• 1:01
  Speaker 3: Dave.
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: The criticism and the investigation into this one holdout juror
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: from the defense attorney, from the other jurors. I mean,
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: have you seen anything like this before where a holdout
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: was so criticized?
• 1:16
  Speaker 4: No, but that's the Internet culture we're living in. Everyone
• 1:18
  Speaker 4: is an Internet sleuth or they're conspiracy theorists. There are
• 1:21
  Speaker 4: a number of people who actually believe that Patrick Clancy
• 1:24
  Speaker 4: is the one who committed the murders, even though Lindsay
• 1:26
  Speaker 4: Clancy admitted it. Her lawyer admitted it. You have to
• 1:30
  Speaker 4: be a real ghoul to pile on a suffering father
• 1:33
  Speaker 4: like this. Ridiculous. But when people are passionate, they've dug
• 1:37
  Speaker 4: their heels in on a side. It reflects society, how
• 1:41
  Speaker 4: we're at each other's throats all the time now. So
• 1:43
  Speaker 4: I'm not surprised that you have these jurors ganging up
• 1:45
  Speaker 4: on this one holdout juror. I'm just surprised that the
• 1:48
  Speaker 4: juror was able to hold out because when everyone's against
• 1:51
  Speaker 4: you 11 to 1 and you only think stopping everyone
• 1:54
  Speaker 4: from going home to see their families, it's hard to
• 1:56
  Speaker 4: say no.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: What do you think about what the other jurors have
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: said about the deliberations and that this juror wasn't open
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: to discussion and that he had doubt?
• 2:07
  Speaker 4: Well, there's a question whether his doubts were reasonable doubt.
• 2:09
  Speaker 4: There was a note to the judge that says that
• 2:11
  Speaker 4: he had doubts. That's OK. You can have doubts and
• 2:13
  Speaker 4: still find someone guilty. You just can't have reasonable doubts.
• 2:17
  Speaker 4: And then the judge did what the judge is supposed
• 2:19
  Speaker 4: to do. He called everyone in. He questioned every juror.
• 2:22
  Speaker 4: He reread them the instructions. He even gave them the
• 2:26
  Speaker 4: Allen charge, which is to go back in and really
• 2:29
  Speaker 4: work hard to get to a verdict, a unanimous verdict.
• 2:32
  Speaker 4: And in the end, the juror held out. That's the
• 2:34
  Speaker 4: jury system. We give a lot of deference to people
• 2:37
  Speaker 4: who serve as jurors and how they work behind the
• 2:41
  Speaker 4: closed doors of the jury room. We let them battle
• 2:44
  Speaker 4: it out as long as it's not illegal, as long
• 2:46
  Speaker 4: as there's no physical threats, and as long as he
• 2:49
  Speaker 4: follows the instructions. But quite frankly, even if he didn't
• 2:52
  Speaker 4: follow the instructions, if there was jury nullification, that too
• 2:56
  Speaker 4: is not suggested, it's not advised, but it happens all
• 3:00
  Speaker 4: the time.
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: Her lawyer asked the president to pardon her. Now, he
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: must know that the president can't pardon someone for a
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: state crime.
• 3:10
  Speaker 4: He did it on purpose. He knew what he was doing.
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: He knows that Trump cannot pardon someone for a state crime.
• 3:15
  Speaker 4: But he also knows that Tim Cruz, who is the
• 3:17
  Speaker 4: district attorney, is the only Republican elected district attorney in
• 3:21
  Speaker 4: all of Massachusetts. He's one of 11, 10 Democrats, one Republican.
• 3:26
  Speaker 4: And Tim is someone I know, by the way. When
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: I was state attorney for 12 years, everyone knew Tim
• 3:30
  Speaker 4: Cruz because he was a leader in the National District
• 3:34
  Speaker 4: Attorney Association. Well-respected, well-liked. And the play here is for
• 3:39
  Speaker 4: the defense lawyer, Reddington, to appeal to Trump, who then
• 3:43
  Speaker 4: can tell his fellow Republican to lay off and not
• 3:46
  Speaker 4: try it again. But I know Tim Cruz, and he
• 3:48
  Speaker 4: doesn't care what politicians think. He is motivated by the
• 3:51
  Speaker 4: evidence and the law.
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: Clancy's attorney officially filed papers asking the judge to find
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: her not guilty by reason of insanity. Quote, no rational
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: no mental disease or defect. when the Commonwealth's own proof
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: established that she did. I mean, that seems like an
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: odd argument to make to a judge.
• 4:15
  Speaker 4: The discretion of whether she gets tried again is all
• 4:18
  Speaker 4: in the hands of the district attorney. The judges are
• 4:20
  Speaker 4: not going to take this out of the DA's hands.
• 4:23
  Speaker 4: It was 11-1. He's trying to essentially get the judges
• 4:26
  Speaker 4: to say, now go and override the jury decision here,
• 4:29
  Speaker 4: which was a hung jury. It's not going to happen.
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: But I think all this is to apply some political
• 4:34
  Speaker 4: pressure on Tim Cruz, whether it's to ask Trump to
• 4:37
  Speaker 4: get involved, whether it's to file appeals, whether it's to
• 4:39
  Speaker 4: do press conferences, do interviews on major shows, is to
• 4:43
  Speaker 4: try to make Tim Cruz feel that it's a lost cause,
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: that 11 to 1 is a jury telling you not
• 4:51
  Speaker 4: to do it again. And quite frankly, even though I'm
• 4:53
  Speaker 4: normally on the side of prosecutors and I really do
• 4:55
  Speaker 4: like Tim Cruz, I think when a jury tells you
• 4:58
  Speaker 4: 11 to 1 that they disagree with you, it's time
• 5:01
  Speaker 4: to cut a deal.
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: I mean, they could revamp the way they present the case.
• 5:06
  Speaker 4: Yeah, you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
• 5:09
  Speaker 4: It's not going to be easy no matter what kind
• 5:11
  Speaker 4: of strategy they employ because there is real evidence that
• 5:14
  Speaker 4: Lindsay Clancy was under the throes of serious mental illness.
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: She had psychosis and you had all these doctors who
• 5:22
  Speaker 4: seemed to over-medicate her, medical professionals. I think the biggest evidence,
• 5:26
  Speaker 4: at least to some of the jurors, was the fact
• 5:27
  Speaker 4: that she's not a bad mom other than the horrific
• 5:31
  Speaker 4: murders she committed at the end. There's no evidence that
• 5:33
  Speaker 4: she was trying to get out of being a mom
• 5:36
  Speaker 4: and go on the dating scene like others we've seen.
• 5:38
  Speaker 4: We've seen others who have been tried, some convicted, some not,
• 5:41
  Speaker 4: Casey Anthony. where they wanted to go party. And here
• 5:45
  Speaker 4: you have a woman who, by all accounts, was a
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: good mom who wasn't under the throes of psychosis, was
• 5:51
  Speaker 4: listening to voices in her head. And as someone who's
• 5:54
  Speaker 4: normally pro-prosecution, I just always thought it was going to
• 5:57
  Speaker 4: be near impossible to get a unanimous jury to find
• 5:59
  Speaker 4: her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder. Maybe manslaughter
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: as just a middle ground so that everyone can compromise,
• 6:07
  Speaker 4: but not murder.
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: So you have the jurors talking. you have the majority
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: of public sentiment seems to be on her side. And
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: then you have Patrick Clancy, the father, who had, after
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: the mistrial, called the prospect of a second trial extraordinarily painful.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: And he's going to appear on 60 Minutes on Sunday.
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: Will this play into Cruz's decision about whether to retry her?
• 6:35
  Speaker 4: I do think that public sentiment matters because When you're
• 6:40
  Speaker 4: a district attorney, you're under an ethical responsibility only to
• 6:43
  Speaker 4: pursue charges when you have a good faith belief. You
• 6:46
  Speaker 4: can get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. And even
• 6:49
  Speaker 4: if you think the evidence and the law is on
• 6:51
  Speaker 4: your side, if you know that we're not going to
• 6:53
  Speaker 4: convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and then you
• 6:55
  Speaker 4: add to it that the main victim who's still alive now,
• 6:59
  Speaker 4: which is the father of these poor three kids, doesn't
• 7:03
  Speaker 4: want to go through this again, you take that into consideration.
• 7:05
  Speaker 4: In fact, you have to take it into consideration under
• 7:08
  Speaker 4: Marcy's law. Victim's rights are there even though the decision
• 7:12
  Speaker 4: is ultimately up to the prosecutor. But the prosecutor listens
• 7:16
  Speaker 4: to others.
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: What do you think a reasonable plea deal would be?
• 7:20
  Speaker 4: Well, that is the big question here because you can't
• 7:23
  Speaker 4: force someone to go into a mental facility for a
• 7:26
  Speaker 4: certain number of years because the mental facility is not
• 7:29
  Speaker 4: considered punishment. It's not a prison. You can do a
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: plea deal saying prison for X years. but you can't
• 7:36
  Speaker 4: do it for a mental facility. And what those of
• 7:38
  Speaker 4: us who are former prosecutors and current prosecutors are always
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: worried about is that, well, yeah, you let her go
• 7:43
  Speaker 4: to a mental facility and then the doctor says, okay,
• 7:45
  Speaker 4: she's good now. Six months later and the judge lets
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: her free and then she has more kids. You don't
• 7:49
  Speaker 4: want that to happen. So I would think perhaps they
• 7:52
  Speaker 4: can cut a deal where she serves a little time
• 7:55
  Speaker 4: in prison, then goes to a mental facility, or maybe
• 7:59
  Speaker 4: she agrees not to seek the termination of her of
• 8:05
  Speaker 4: her treatment after a certain time. But I don't know
• 8:07
  Speaker 4: how you can do the latter. And I don't know
• 8:09
  Speaker 4: when it comes to the former, if Reddington, the defense lawyer,
• 8:12
  Speaker 4: is going to agree to any incarceration. After all, he's
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: playing with a stacked deck. He knows he's got 11
• 8:17
  Speaker 4: to 1. Why would he give in now?
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: Well, he came outside the courthouse and said, we won.
• 8:22
  Speaker 4: Well, that was a little bit of bluster. I mean,
• 8:23
  Speaker 4: he did win in that it's not a conviction. But
• 8:27
  Speaker 4: I'll bet you right now he wishes he didn't gloat
• 8:30
  Speaker 4: as much because now he's appealing to Tim Cruz and
• 8:33
  Speaker 4: trying to be nice to him. because it is all
• 8:35
  Speaker 4: in his discretion. He should not have gone out and
• 8:38
  Speaker 4: chastised the loan juror, the holdout juror. That was a
• 8:41
  Speaker 4: bad look and also really is not what lawyers are
• 8:43
  Speaker 4: supposed to do. He did more than chastise. He accused
• 8:46
  Speaker 4: him of committing felonies in the court, of lying under oath,
• 8:49
  Speaker 4: and said he robbed the jury of their verdict. I mean,
• 8:51
  Speaker 4: come on. Also, he shouldn't have criticized Tim Cruz, who's
• 8:54
  Speaker 4: just doing his job as a prosecutor. He condemned him
• 8:58
  Speaker 4: by name, saying that he didn't really care about the victims.
• 9:00
  Speaker 4: That's OK, well, if you're going to go down that road,
• 9:06
  Speaker 4: don't expect Tim Cruz to offer his handout with a deal.
• 9:10
  Speaker 4: So now you see him backtracking. But I think that
• 9:13
  Speaker 4: he wishes he didn't say the things he did.
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: We'll see how the judge treats those motions at the
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: next hearing, which is on September 29th. Let's turn now
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: to another tragic case involving the murders of family members.
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: In Los Angeles, District Attorney Nathan Hockman has announced that
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: He won't seek the death penalty against Nick Reiner, who's
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: facing murder charges for the killing of his parents, Rob
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: and Michelle Reiner.
• 9:42
  Speaker 5: We have gone through a rigorous review where we look
• 9:46
  Speaker 5: at the aggravating factors as well as the mitigating factors.
• 9:50
  Speaker 4: We have spoken to the victim's family.
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: We have spoken to prosecutors, law enforcement.
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: Even though there's a lying in wait charge, was this
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: a death penalty case? No.
• 10:01
  Speaker 4: Also, the death penalty is not real in California. When
• 10:03
  Speaker 4: was the last time someone was given a death penalty
• 10:05
  Speaker 4: in California? I think the last death penalty case they
• 10:07
  Speaker 4: had was like 2005. Is that the last time someone
• 10:10
  Speaker 4: was executed there? And there's a moratorium. Governor Newsom has
• 10:13
  Speaker 4: a moratorium. So he was never going to get the
• 10:16
  Speaker 4: death penalty. So when people say, well, he gave up
• 10:18
  Speaker 4: his leverage, meaning Hockman, the DA, who I have a
• 10:20
  Speaker 4: lot of respect for, that he gave up his leverage
• 10:23
  Speaker 4: in taking it off the table. He gave up his
• 10:25
  Speaker 4: leverage if it was a real thing. It's just not
• 10:27
  Speaker 4: a real thing. Yes, he did lie in wait. Yes,
• 10:29
  Speaker 4: he did show that he tried to cover up his tracks,
• 10:32
  Speaker 4: which shows that he's not insane legally because he knew
• 10:35
  Speaker 4: the difference between right and wrong. Why did he hide?
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: Why did he try to cover up what he did?
• 10:39
  Speaker 4: Because he knew what he did was wrong. At the
• 10:41
  Speaker 4: same time, he does have mental health issues. And at
• 10:44
  Speaker 4: the same time, the surviving family members do not want
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: him to get the death penalty. And at the same time,
• 10:51
  Speaker 4: Michelle and Rob Reiner were vehemently opposed to the death penalty.
• 10:54
  Speaker 4: So you know what they would have wanted here, life
• 10:56
  Speaker 4: in prison, not death. So you can see why Nathan
• 10:59
  Speaker 4: Hockman made the decision he did.
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: What his defense might be.
• 11:03
  Speaker 4: Oh, well, his defense is going to be insanity. They're
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: going to say he did not know the difference between
• 11:08
  Speaker 4: right and wrong. He does have an established medical condition.
• 11:11
  Speaker 4: He has mental health issues throughout his whole history. and
• 11:15
  Speaker 4: in fact was displaying weirdness just before. He was at
• 11:18
  Speaker 4: that party, I think at Conan O'Brien's house, and he
• 11:21
  Speaker 4: was creeping out the guests. So they're going to say, yeah,
• 11:24
  Speaker 4: this was a mental break from an insane individual. The
• 11:26
  Speaker 4: problem is that there's evidence of premeditation. The problem also
• 11:31
  Speaker 4: is that there is evidence of concealment, of hiding. He
• 11:35
  Speaker 4: ran away, tried to hide in a hotel room. Why
• 11:37
  Speaker 4: do you do that? Because you knew you committed a crime,
• 11:39
  Speaker 4: so you can't really get the insanity of victory that
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: others can get like Lindsay Clancy.
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: This is Bloomberg.
• 11:49
  Speaker 5: This is the first time of all the people we've
• 11:52
  Speaker 5: brought in, of all the powerful billionaires and political people
• 11:59
  Speaker 5: we've brought in for interviews and depositions, this is the
• 12:01
  Speaker 5: first time anyone's filed suit.
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: That was House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer talking about
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: private equity billionaire Leon Black filing a lawsuit against the
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: House Oversight Committee rather than comply with two subpoenas issued
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: in the committee's investigation into notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: One calling for him to testify under oath in a
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: deposition and another calling for him to turn over all
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: nondisclosure agreements in his possession. And on Wednesday, the committee
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: voted unanimously to hold Black in contempt of Congress for
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: defying those subpoenas. I've been talking to former Palm Beach
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: County State Attorney Dave Ehrenberg. Dave, he defied two subpoenas.
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: Why wouldn't he be held in contempt of Congress?
• 12:53
  Speaker 4: He does have some defenses. First, he has top-notch lawyers.
• 12:56
  Speaker 4: Not only are they impressive lawyers, they're all connected. And
• 12:59
  Speaker 4: they're going to be working DOJ to say, hey, use
• 13:01
  Speaker 4: your discretion. Their defense is that Leon Black already voluntarily appeared.
• 13:07
  Speaker 4: So it's not like a Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro situation.
• 13:10
  Speaker 4: He appeared already voluntarily. And now under the subpoena, instead
• 13:14
  Speaker 4: of just saying I'm not appearing, he went to court
• 13:16
  Speaker 4: and sought a court order to stop it. Now that's pending.
• 13:19
  Speaker 4: And so his argument is you guys jumped the gun.
• 13:22
  Speaker 4: At least wait to see what the court says. On
• 13:23
  Speaker 4: the other hand, there is nothing that prevents Congress moving
• 13:27
  Speaker 4: ahead with contempt even while a court case is pending.
• 13:30
  Speaker 4: Peter Navarro had a court case pending while he was
• 13:33
  Speaker 4: not only referred but also convicted of contempt. He had
• 13:37
  Speaker 4: a court case pending. So the DOJ pursued charges and
• 13:40
  Speaker 4: then got a conviction against Peter Navarro. But on the
• 13:42
  Speaker 4: other hand, Peter Navarro's lawsuit was garbage. It was like
• 13:46
  Speaker 4: a scattershot lawsuit, whereas the one filed by Leon Black
• 13:50
  Speaker 4: raises issues of privacy. They're talking about NDAs involving people
• 13:54
  Speaker 4: who have nothing to do with Epstein. And so he's
• 13:57
  Speaker 4: trying to say that the subpoenas are overbroad. that he's
• 14:00
  Speaker 4: already cooperated and that he is acting in good faith
• 14:03
  Speaker 4: trying to get a judicial decision. So why would he
• 14:06
  Speaker 4: be prosecuted for that? So we'll see what happens.
• 14:08
  Speaker 2: Black walked out of that deposition after refusing to answer
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: questions about the nondisclosure agreements. He had a decades-long relationship
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: with Epstein and acknowledged paying Epstein $ 158 million over the
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: years for which he said was for estate and tax
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: planning advice. And the committee considers him to be an
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: important witness. Here's Chair James Comer.
• 14:35
  Speaker 5: There's a lot of concerning things in the documents. There
• 14:40
  Speaker 5: are a lot of statements from the survivors that are
• 14:44
  Speaker 5: very concerning as well with respect to Mr.
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: Black. Would a judge really quash these subpoenas? President Clinton
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, testified before
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: the committee after being subpoenaed. But Leon Black, no.
• 15:01
  Speaker 4: You make great points because there is a middle ground here.
• 15:05
  Speaker 4: What he could do is to submit the information to
• 15:08
  Speaker 4: the congressional committee and then seek redactions or at least
• 15:13
  Speaker 4: be held in confidence for people who are not involved
• 15:17
  Speaker 4: with Epstein at all. There are certain ways they could
• 15:18
  Speaker 4: work that out with the committee. And it's like an
• 15:20
  Speaker 4: in-camera review inside the The four walls where no one
• 15:24
  Speaker 4: else can see, at least not all of it. But
• 15:26
  Speaker 4: he didn't do that. He went to the court. And
• 15:29
  Speaker 4: you're right to bring up the Clintons because the presumption
• 15:32
  Speaker 4: is that Congress has broad authority to subpoena people. And
• 15:37
  Speaker 4: he's saying, well, this is not a legislative purpose. You've
• 15:40
  Speaker 4: got broad legislative purpose. You could say we're looking at
• 15:42
  Speaker 4: this to reform the finance industry to make sure they
• 15:45
  Speaker 4: don't protect sex traffickers in the future. So I think
• 15:48
  Speaker 4: that Leon Black is going to lose in court. But
• 15:51
  Speaker 4: his defense is until that happens, he shouldn't be prosecuted
• 15:55
  Speaker 4: for trying.
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that $ 158 million that supposedly went for
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: financial advice to Jeffrey Epstein.
• 16:03
  Speaker 4: Yeah, that's the biggest question with Epstein that's still outstanding.
• 16:06
  Speaker 4: How did he make his money? He made all this
• 16:08
  Speaker 4: money and people are saying it's blackmail. We still haven't
• 16:11
  Speaker 4: seen that. There really hasn't been anyone, I think, except
• 16:13
  Speaker 4: for Bill Gates, who has accused Jeffrey Epstein of blackmail.
• 16:15
  Speaker 4: But there's more there. This is not the end. And
• 16:19
  Speaker 4: I suspect after this administration is out, we'll see more.
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: The Justice Department, a spokesperson said that prosecutors take the
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: contempt vote seriously. and that Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: for D.C., will review the referral of Mr. Black carefully.
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: What's your guess on whether or not they'll bring criminal charges?
• 16:39
  Speaker 4: I think they probably do. I think that this administration
• 16:41
  Speaker 4: wants to be seen as getting tough on Epstein when
• 16:45
  Speaker 4: it comes to the low-hanging fruit. Like, look at the
• 16:48
  Speaker 4: vote in Congress. It was unanimous. In the committee, it
• 16:51
  Speaker 4: was unanimous. When do you ever see that? You can
• 16:53
  Speaker 4: have a vote on the skies, but you wouldn't get unanimity.
• 16:56
  Speaker 4: But here they did. So I do think that they're
• 16:59
  Speaker 4: going to end up filing charges. But the one thing
• 17:02
  Speaker 4: that could stop that is if a court acts, and
• 17:04
  Speaker 4: I don't think, as you said, that the court is
• 17:06
  Speaker 4: going to issue an injunction to stop Congress from moving
• 17:08
  Speaker 4: forward with this. So he may want to take a
• 17:12
  Speaker 4: lesson from Bill Clinton and say, OK, mea culpa, let's
• 17:15
  Speaker 4: turn over the documents. I don't want to wear an
• 17:17
  Speaker 4: orange jumpsuit.
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: Speaking of wearing orange jumpsuits, the Tate brothers, Prosecutors in
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: the U.K. have lodged a formal request for the extradition
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: of brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate to face a total
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: of 59 charges in the U.K., including rape and counts
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: related to sex trafficking and indecent images of a child.
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: The brothers lost a bid to be released from a
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: Florida jail on bail last week. Any surprise there?
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: None.
• 17:44
  Speaker 4: I mean, it would have been a surprise if they
• 17:47
  Speaker 4: got out. See, the presumption in international extradition cases is …
• 17:51
  Speaker 4: for pretrial detention. This is not a domestic criminal case
• 17:55
  Speaker 4: where the presumption is to give you bail because in
• 17:58
  Speaker 4: an international extradition case, why are you being extradited? Because
• 18:02
  Speaker 4: you fled to another country. That's why the presumption is
• 18:07
  Speaker 4: we're not going to let you out because you're a
• 18:08
  Speaker 4: flight risk, especially we have Andrew and Tristan Tate who
• 18:11
  Speaker 4: brag about how many passports they have. I'm going to
• 18:13
  Speaker 4: have seven, eight who brag about how much money they
• 18:16
  Speaker 4: have and their followers will do anything for them. They're
• 18:19
  Speaker 4: like the definition of a flight risk.
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: So the defense attorney says they're going to be challenging
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: the extradition requests, arguing they were not backed up by
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: information needed under the extradition agreement. I mean even if
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: that's true, I assume they can get the information they need.
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: Is there any reason to think that– I mean this
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: has to go through the State Department too, right?
• 18:39
  Speaker 4: So the process is you– get put in jail pending extradition.
• 18:44
  Speaker 4: And then you fight your extradition if you want to.
• 18:46
  Speaker 4: So they're kept in jail until they get their hearing
• 18:50
  Speaker 4: and then they'll appeal it. And the longer they fight it,
• 18:52
  Speaker 4: the longer they'll be incarcerated. So it's up to them
• 18:55
  Speaker 4: whether they want to speed this up or make this linger.
• 18:57
  Speaker 4: And it could take up to two years because they're
• 19:00
  Speaker 4: planning on fighting it. And as far as their best
• 19:03
  Speaker 4: chance of getting out, it's not in a court of
• 19:06
  Speaker 4: law because there's really a low standard to keep someone
• 19:10
  Speaker 4: and then extradite someone. When it comes to international extradition,
• 19:13
  Speaker 4: is there probable cause?
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 19:14
  Speaker 4: They got plenty of evidence. Are these serious crimes that
• 19:17
  Speaker 4: be punished seriously in the United States?
• 19:18
  Speaker 5: Yes.
• 19:19
  Speaker 4: Do they have the right guys?
• 19:20
  Speaker 5: Yes.
• 19:22
  Speaker 4: So these guys are going home. And is there an
• 19:24
  Speaker 4: extradition treaty? And there is clearly. The only way they
• 19:28
  Speaker 4: would not be extradited is if Marco Rubio, the Secretary
• 19:31
  Speaker 4: of State, puts the kibosh on it. He does have
• 19:34
  Speaker 4: that power. But why would he do that? I know
• 19:36
  Speaker 4: Marco Rubio. I served in the state legislature with him.
• 19:39
  Speaker 4: He's a religious guy. I will bet you he finds
• 19:42
  Speaker 4: these people repulsive. He's not not only going to lay
• 19:46
  Speaker 4: down the tracks for these guys. If he did so,
• 19:49
  Speaker 4: it would be. the end of his political career. I mean,
• 19:52
  Speaker 4: because this is Epstein 2.0. Why would you want to
• 19:54
  Speaker 4: lead with your chin?
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: They'll either be in jail here or in jail in
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: the UK.
• 20:00
  Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly. That's why I think they should just stop
• 20:04
  Speaker 4: fighting it. They were complaining about the conditions here. They
• 20:06
  Speaker 4: were saying they're being treated like animals. They said they
• 20:08
  Speaker 4: were treated like hardened criminals, like terrorists, because they were
• 20:12
  Speaker 4: put in solitary confinement. And then the judge outed them
• 20:15
  Speaker 4: and said, you're actually not in solitary confinement. In reality,
• 20:18
  Speaker 4: you guys are cellmates, which is funny because it's like,
• 20:22
  Speaker 4: is there anything that these guys say that is the truth?
• 20:24
  Speaker 4: I mean, they're not in solitary confinement, but they're in
• 20:27
  Speaker 4: the SHU, which is the special housing unit. And I
• 20:30
  Speaker 4: guess they've watched too many episodes of Orange is the
• 20:32
  Speaker 4: New Black, which equates the SHU to solitary confinement. But
• 20:36
  Speaker 4: in the real world, the SHU is not always solitary confinement,
• 20:39
  Speaker 4: and they're not. In fact, they're working as orderlies in
• 20:42
  Speaker 4: the SHU. So they get out and about. They have
• 20:44
  Speaker 4: more time with their lawyer than most other inmates do.
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: We covered a lot of issues, Dave. Thanks so much.
• 20:49
  Speaker 2: That's former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ehrenberg. Coming
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: up next, changes to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. The Justice
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: Department's Civil Rights Division has revamped priorities, shifting from protecting
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: historically marginalized communities to other conservative priorities, including protecting gun rights.
• 21:19
  Speaker 2: Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon is rebuilding the division with
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: lawyers who have backgrounds in conservative advocacy and Republican politics.
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: Joining me is Reagan Rush, who was a longtime career
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: lawyer at the division. She now leads Democracy Forward's Red
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: Line for Civil Rights. Reagan, tell us about the Civil
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: Rights Division before the Trump administration, what it was known for.
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: The Civil Rights Division was founded in 1957 to enforce
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: our nation's civil rights laws as they were delegated by
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: Congress to the Attorney General to enforce. And it was
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: really born out of the civil rights movement and the
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: black struggle for civil rights. But Over the years, as
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: Congress has passed more and more civil rights laws and
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: dedicated those to the division over the years, everything from
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: the Americans with Disabilities Act to the Fair Housing Act
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: to criminal hate crime acts. And so those have all
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: been delegated, and the size and the mission of the
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: division has grown, but it has always served that same
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: foundational purpose. of protecting marginalized communities and being real of
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: the federal backstop of where people can go when their
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: civil rights are being violated, sometimes at the hands of
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: private individuals, but sometimes at the hands of state and
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: local government. So that's the mission that has been served
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: for decades.
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: And how has that mission changed under the Trump administration
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: or specifically under Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon?
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: Here at Democracy Board's Red Line for Civil Rights, we
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: track the changes in the Civil Rights Division, and they
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: have been profound. The Trump administration has politicized the Civil
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: Rights Division's mission really towards pursuing the political and conservative
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: ideological goals of this administration. And so in many ways,
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: it has abandoned its mission. We're tracking over 200 instances
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: of either walking away from cases and abandoning communities, marginalized communities,
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: to repurposing and using the civil rights law sometimes to
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: actually turn against and reduce rights for the very people
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: that the laws were meant to protect.
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: So more than 300 of the civil rights division's 400-plus
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: lawyers left in the past 19 months. Does that track
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: with what's happened in the rest of the Justice Department?
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: Well, the Justice Department overall has seen... substantial attrition, that
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: is sure, across the board. But certainly the Civil Rights
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: Division has been one of the divisions that has been
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: hit quite hard and early on. And then the Civil
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: Rights Division really started hollowing out early last year. And
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: so that has continued. And certainly it's a trend that
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: we have seen across the department.
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: She has had a recruitment campaign for, quote, civil rights warriors.
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: And there are more than 80 new attorneys who have
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: experience in conservative legal groups and Republican Party. Is she
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: doing what Democratic administrations have done, but on the other side?
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: Or is this something more?
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: Just the recruitment of lawyers is not unusual. I think
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: that what is unusual here is just the wholesale rework
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: of the division's mission. And we are seeing the work
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: that many of these people have done in the past
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: have worked for organizations who are committed to really rolling
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: back civil rights in this country. And so that is
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: not something that we have seen to this degree. Certainly,
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: There is a documented history of politicized hiring during the
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: Bush administration. There was an Office of Inspector General report
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: on that, and it was overt. And so following that,
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: the division made extensive efforts to put guardrails in place
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: to ensure that people who were hired into the division
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: had access the skills and expertise needed and that was
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: not ideological or politically based. It was based on hiring
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: high-quality lawyers who had demonstrated experience and relevant experience enforcing
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: our nation's civil rights laws and who had impeccable judgment
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: and strong academic credentials. And I was involved in many
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: of that hiring. We had Do the new lawyers have
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: the same credentials that you mentioned? Are the hiring standards
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: the same? I am not privy to have the howling
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: has happened and how it has unrolled. What I can
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: see is the output. And certainly instances that have reported
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: where people have been hired who have had professional responsibility
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: issues or crimes even, these are not things that would
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: have past muster and past tiring. That is for certain.
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: And so it is deeply concerning to see. It is
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: not a surprise, though, given where the Trump administration has
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: taken the division over the last year and need people
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: who are ideologically aligned in order to carry out this
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: political ideological enforcement of civil rights.
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: There's now a second amendment section to protect gun rights.
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: Was there anything resembling that before?
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: No, no. The Second Amendment section is brand new. The
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: division in its history has never enforced the Second Amendment.
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: Congress has never delegated to the division enforcement of the
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: Second Amendment. And it really is not consistent with the mission,
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: which is really to serve as a federal backstop where
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: people can go when their rights aren't otherwise vindicated. There
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: is a incredibly powerful and robust Second Amendment community out there.
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: And so I really questioned the need for any federal
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: civil rights enforcement in that area and why it is
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: that the division that was founded to enforce rights on
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: behalf of marginalized communities is enforcing the Second Amendment. On
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: top of that, the law that is being used in
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: order to enforce the Second Amendment is the Police Pattern
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: of Practice Misconduct Statute, which was passed in the wake
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: of the Rodney King beating and Congress's recognition that the
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: federal government should have a role when there are systemic
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: pattern or practice violations of constitutional and civil rights by
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: state and local police. And so to use that statute
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment while
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: they are also shutting down and have shut down police
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: misconduct work across the division is pretty astounding.
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: And in the voting rights section... I mean, you associated
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: the Civil Rights Division before with trying to expand the
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: right to vote. Now it appears that they're doing just
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: the opposite. They filed lawsuits against 30 states and D.C.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: demanding access to voter data to identify alleged non-citizen voting
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: and other potential voter fraud.
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: That's right. The division's founding in the 57th Civil Rights
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: Act included provisions about the right to vote. And it has,
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: for all those years, focused on ballot access, protecting the
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: right to vote. And instead, we have here the division
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: really focused on trying to, at least it does, root
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: out fraud and non-citizen voting. Those are things that really
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: were the purview of the criminal division and the public
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: integrity section, not of the civil rights division, because the
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: civil rights division focuses on the laws that it enforces.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: And so the unprecedented search across the country to try
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: and obtain statewide voter lists from nearly every every state
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: so that the divisions can sort of loom over the
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: shoulder of states, in the words of one court that
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: rejected DOJ's attempts, is really unprecedented. And it also is
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: inconsistent with the country's division of who runs elections. That
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: is state and local government that's enshrined in our Constitution,
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: not the federal government. And so it is a a
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: profound expansion of the federal government's role here and something
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: that has been wildly unsuccessful. They have filed 31 cases
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: to try and seek access to voter dating roles and
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: had so far lost 23 and not one inning.
• 30:22
  Speaker 2: And is there any other area of the Civil Rights
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: Division that sort of stands out to you? for the
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: changes made during the Trump administration?
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: I think that another area that folks may not think of, Alphand,
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: is the area of disability rights. And so the division
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act that was signed into
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: law by President Bush and had bipartisan support throughout its history.
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: But this civil rights division and this administration has moved
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: to actually try and unwind one of the most key
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: tenets of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that's the
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: right for people with disabilities to live in their own
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: homes and communities and to make choices for themselves. generally
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: referred to as the integration mandate. And just a couple
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: of months ago, DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, in response
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: to a request from the White House, issued an opinion
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: where it opined that the law is different than what
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: courts and the Supreme Court has said for decades. And
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: it is now moving to dismiss many of those cases,
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: which is just a profound change in the area of
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: disability rights enforcement. And so there's really no area across
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: the division that hasn't been affected by this administration's change
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: in civil rights approach.
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: Let's say the next administration is a Democratic administration with
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: goals similar to what was in place before the Civil
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: Rights Division. I mean, how long does it take to
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: transform a division back to what it was?
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: That is very tough to answer. I think, you know,
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: two factors. One is the institutional knowledge this administration has
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: driven out the door is really irreplaceable. I mean, we're
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: talking about centuries collectively of civil rights enforcement by the
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: career attorneys that used to populate the division throughout administrations.
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: And so there are people left in the division from
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: that who have that kind of institutional knowledge, but that
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: number continues to reduce. And so that will be a
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: paramount challenge. Um, I think it also depends what the
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: status of civil rights laws are in the courts. And
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: so DOJ is certainly working to put a thumb on
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: the scale for as much as possible to try and
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: sort of solidify its views, its narrowing views of civil
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: rights laws in decisions across the country. And so to
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: the extent it is successful, which we do not know
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: at this stage, many of these cases are continuing to
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: play out, that will make it harder for courts future
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: civil rights enforcement at the federal level and beyond. And
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: so those are two of the many factors that will
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: be involved in looking at what a buildback potentially of
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: the Civil Rights Division looks like and what role it
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: will play in future enforcement of this country's civil rights.
• 33:17
  Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me today. That's Reagan Rush,
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: Director of Democracy Forward's Red Line for Civil Rights. And
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember,
• 33:28
  Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 33:34
  Speaker 2: and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m.
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.