Latest / Bloomberg Law / Suit to Force Trump to Preserve White House Records

Transcript

Suit to Force Trump to Preserve White House Records · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosse from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: You might remember back in September of twenty twenty two,
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: when President Donald Trump insisted he had declassified the boxes
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: of documents he took with him tomorrow Lago by thinking
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: about it.
• 0:22
  Speaker 3: If you're the president of the United States, you can
• 0:24
  Speaker 3: declassify just by saying it's de classified, even by thinking
• 0:28
  Speaker 3: about it, because you're sending it to mar A Lago
• 0:31
  Speaker 3: or to wherever you're sending it, and there doesn't have
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: to be a process. There can be a process, but
• 0:38
  Speaker 3: there doesn't have to be You're the president. You make
• 0:40
  Speaker 3: that decision, so when you send it, it's the classificate
• 0:44
  Speaker 3: I declassified everything.
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: Lawyers for the National Archive spent more than a year
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: trying to retrieve the documents that included records Trump was
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: supposed to turn over to NARA in accordance with the
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: Presidential Records Act, for example, a letter to Trump from
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: North Korean leader Kim Jong un and a letter President
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: Obama left for Trump. But now the Department of Justice's
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: Office of Legal Counsel has written an opinion saying that
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: Trump doesn't have to comply with the nearly fifty year
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: old law governing the handover of presidential records to the
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: National Archives, basically saying that Trump can keep them. Well,
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: the American Historical Association and American Oversight say there's no
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: legal basis for that OLC opinion, and they're suing to
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: get a court to declare that the Presidential Records Act
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: is constitutional and to block Trump from using the OLC
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: opinion to keep the records. My guest is Alison Dreisen,
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: general counsel for the American Historical Association. Allison tell us
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: about the Presidential Records Act and why it's important.
• 1:54
  Speaker 4: Sure, as a representative of the American Historical Association, I'm
• 1:58
  Speaker 4: going to give a little history first. The first act
• 2:01
  Speaker 4: that really dealt with this was something called the Presidential
• 2:05
  Speaker 4: Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, and that was passed by
• 2:10
  Speaker 4: Congress after Watergate, when President Nixon sort of threatened to
• 2:16
  Speaker 4: take all of his records with him while the Special
• 2:20
  Speaker 4: Prosecutor was in fact still investigating issues that had arisen
• 2:24
  Speaker 4: during his administration. So Congress passed the Act reference requiring
• 2:30
  Speaker 4: Nixon to turn over all of his documents and recordings
• 2:33
  Speaker 4: to the Administrator of General Services, and of course he
• 2:36
  Speaker 4: immediately turned around and sued. The case went up to
• 2:40
  Speaker 4: the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court seven to two
• 2:43
  Speaker 4: said the law was constitutional. It was not an unconstitutional
• 2:47
  Speaker 4: infringement on the rights of the executive and upheld the
• 2:51
  Speaker 4: Act and required Nixon to comply with it, which he
• 2:54
  Speaker 4: did so four years later in nineteen seventy eight. Congress
• 2:58
  Speaker 4: then passed a subsequent act, Presidential Records Act, which was
• 3:01
  Speaker 4: to apply to all presidents, not just Nixon, and essentially
• 3:05
  Speaker 4: require the same things, although instead of records having to
• 3:09
  Speaker 4: be delivered to the General Services Administration, they went to NARA,
• 3:14
  Speaker 4: the National Archives and Records Administration, which, and this is relevant,
• 3:19
  Speaker 4: is actually part of the executive branch. So these are
• 3:22
  Speaker 4: not giving records to Congress or anybody else. It stays
• 3:26
  Speaker 4: within the executive branch. And then there are regulations on how,
• 3:30
  Speaker 4: if at all, they get released.
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: So tell us why your group and American Oversight are suing.
• 3:37
  Speaker 4: So on April first, I guess there could be some
• 3:40
  Speaker 4: interpretation that this was an April Fool's joke, but I
• 3:43
  Speaker 4: think it actually wasn't. The Office of Legal Counsel came
• 3:47
  Speaker 4: out with an opinion that stated that the Presidential Records
• 3:52
  Speaker 4: Act is unconstitutional. Now, I am not a litigator, but
• 3:55
  Speaker 4: I do not believe that the Justice Department gets to
• 3:59
  Speaker 4: determine what is constitutional and what is not. They didn't
• 4:04
  Speaker 4: challenge this in any court. They just said it's not constitutional.
• 4:08
  Speaker 4: And therefore the Trump administration and the relevant parts of
• 4:12
  Speaker 4: the Trump administration which are covered by the Presidential Records
• 4:16
  Speaker 4: Act no longer need to comply with it. And that
• 4:19
  Speaker 4: includes things like the National Security Council and other parts
• 4:24
  Speaker 4: of the Executive Branch that would otherwise be covered. Not
• 4:27
  Speaker 4: only do they not need to comply, but that Narraw
• 4:30
  Speaker 4: has no obligation to keep the records that's currently holding secure.
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: I read that the White House Council asked the OLC
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: for an opinion on the constitutionality of the Presidential Records Act.
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: Do you have any knowledge about why they decide at
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: this point to ask for this? I mean, we know
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: that in his first term, President Trump was known to
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: rip up documents and aids pasted them back together, and
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: of course he took boxes and boxes of documents with
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: him tomorrow lago. But do we know why they might
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: be asking for this OLC opinion?
• 5:07
  Speaker 4: Now, No, that would be pure speculation on my part.
• 5:11
  Speaker 4: What they said at some point was that the Council's
• 5:15
  Speaker 4: office was being overwhelmed with questions about compliance with the Act,
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: so they decided to determine you don't have to comply,
• 5:22
  Speaker 4: and therefore we don't have to answer the questions.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: According to your lawsuit, the memo doesn't rely on any
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: judicial decisions or precedent.
• 5:32
  Speaker 4: That is a fifty page memo. So there were an opinion,
• 5:36
  Speaker 4: so there was something cited in it. Most of the
• 5:40
  Speaker 4: ones that I saw were basically articles or you know,
• 5:45
  Speaker 4: theoretical speculative articles that wouldn't describe why there would be
• 5:50
  Speaker 4: a problem with it, and in terms of the Supreme
• 5:53
  Speaker 4: Court case that you would think would be presidential. The
• 5:56
  Speaker 4: bottom line was they said, oh, it was just wrong.
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: That Supreme Court case is basically the only case on
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: the Presidential Records Actor. Are there others?
• 6:05
  Speaker 4: So over forty five years, essentially it has been adhere
• 6:09
  Speaker 4: to and has never been challenged.
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: Do you consider that this follows the broad push the
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: Trump administration has been making to concentrate power in the
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: executive branch.
• 6:20
  Speaker 4: Well, that's kind of an interesting question, because, as I said,
• 6:25
  Speaker 4: what this act requires is that the records be turned
• 6:28
  Speaker 4: over to NARRA. Narra is in fact part of the
• 6:31
  Speaker 4: executive branch. And therefore, although there were things in the
• 6:35
  Speaker 4: opinion that seemed to imply that this was somehow going
• 6:38
  Speaker 4: to give Congress the right to have access to these
• 6:40
  Speaker 4: records that they would otherwise not have the right to,
• 6:44
  Speaker 4: that's actually not what the statute requires. If Congress wants them,
• 6:48
  Speaker 4: they have to go through the same request procedure that
• 6:51
  Speaker 4: any member of the public would need. So it may
• 6:55
  Speaker 4: have been, in somebody's mind an attempt to add power
• 7:00
  Speaker 4: to the executive branch, but in fact that was unnecessary because,
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: as I said, it's the executive branch that controls the
• 7:06
  Speaker 4: records in the first place.
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: Is there any enforcement mechanism for the Presidential Records.
• 7:12
  Speaker 4: Act, Well, you can sue for violation the way you know.
• 7:15
  Speaker 4: It was done down in Florida unsuccessfully after the first
• 7:19
  Speaker 4: Trump administration, and that is why we filed for a
• 7:23
  Speaker 4: preliminary injunction.
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: Tell us what the basis for the preliminary injunction is.
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: So, what the AHA and the American Oversight are concerned
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: about is not only that this would give the president
• 7:35
  Speaker 4: the right to destroy records his own records, right, But
• 7:40
  Speaker 4: it also says that Narraw does not have to abide
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: by the restrictions of the Presidential Records Act for those records.
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: It is holding of other presidential administrations. So you know,
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: they could selectively go through and destroy some records from
• 7:57
  Speaker 4: the Obama administration to make it look like they had
• 8:01
  Speaker 4: considered the wrong thing. You know, whatever, if you control
• 8:04
  Speaker 4: the records, you control the history, and this gives them
• 8:07
  Speaker 4: essentially unfettered power to do that. Obviously, this is the
• 8:12
  Speaker 4: kind of situation. Once you've ripped up a document, it's gone,
• 8:16
  Speaker 4: Once you've erased the tape, by and large, it's gone.
• 8:19
  Speaker 4: So it's, to me, not being a litigator, sort of
• 8:22
  Speaker 4: the perfect instance where a preliminary injunction would be absolutely appropriate. Now, interestingly,
• 8:28
  Speaker 4: our attorneys approached the Department of Justice and said, can
• 8:33
  Speaker 4: we agree? Can we stipulate that the administration will not
• 8:37
  Speaker 4: destroy any records until this is adjudicated? And they refuse
• 8:41
  Speaker 4: to agree to that, which is why we thought a
• 8:44
  Speaker 4: preliminary injunction was kind of the way to go.
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: What might be the ripple effects if this OLC opinion
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: is upheld?
• 8:53
  Speaker 4: Well, I mean, again, I represent the American Historical Association.
• 8:58
  Speaker 4: Our members use the records for research, for reviewing historical
• 9:04
  Speaker 4: events and trying to understand how we came up to
• 9:07
  Speaker 4: be in the position that we were for those events.
• 9:10
  Speaker 4: One of the rationales for the act, frankly, was as well,
• 9:16
  Speaker 4: that you want future presidents right to be able to
• 9:20
  Speaker 4: go back and look at the history of decisions, to
• 9:24
  Speaker 4: understand why we have relations with other countries based on
• 9:29
  Speaker 4: things and you know, the national security interests, whatever, you
• 9:33
  Speaker 4: want them to be able to have a full record
• 9:35
  Speaker 4: and to understand how we got to where we are,
• 9:38
  Speaker 4: not just for the public or for historians, but for
• 9:41
  Speaker 4: use in the governing of the country. If that stuff
• 9:43
  Speaker 4: is not available, if those records are destroyed or selectively destroyed,
• 9:49
  Speaker 4: then our relations with other countries and our relations with
• 9:53
  Speaker 4: people in this country are going to be skewed by
• 9:56
  Speaker 4: the elimination of information fact information that's important to have
• 10:03
  Speaker 4: when we deal with them in the future.
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: This sort of reminds me of the Trump administration's attempt
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: to rewrite history by, for example, taking down mentions of
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: slavery in Philadelphia, and I know your group is suing
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: over that as well. Thanks so much for joining me today. Allison,
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: We'll be sure to keep track of what happens with
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: your requests for a preliminary injunction. That's Alison Dreis, in
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: General counsel of the American Historical Association. Former Homeland Security
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: Secretary Christy Nome will not face a contempt of court hearing,
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: at least not right now. In a two to one decision,
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: a DC federal appeals court blocked a judge from holding
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: a hearing into whether Noman others from the Trump administration
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: we're in contempt of court for deporting two planeloads of
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in l Salvador.
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. Eric, the
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: start of this goes back more than a year. Tell
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: us about it.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so this was over a year ago. Now it
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: feels like ancient history almost. But this was shortly after
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: Trump took office. He declared hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: be members of the Trende Arragua violent gang and used
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: an obscure law called the Alien Enemies Act to unilaterally
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: remove them without you know, the typical due process. Just
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: load them on these these planes. A couple of planes
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: and sent them to El Salvador, to that notorious prison
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: there under an agreement between El Salvador and the US.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: But obviously with all of these people being rounded up
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: and put on these planes, the legal cases were brought
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: and this judge Boseburg, issued an order when the planes
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: were kind of in the air, saying, you know, that
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: they needed to be brought back in not so many words,
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: but they didn't. They had the planes went ahead and
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: landed in Alsavador and took them there, and so there
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: was a question about whether or not the governments had
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: violated the court order, and that's kind of what this
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: particular fight is all about.
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: Well, you mentioned it was more than a year ago.
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: Why has it been so difficult for Boseburg to you know,
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: to find this out, to hold contempt hearing.
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: There was a lot of other stuff going on in
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: the cases, you know, about the people who were impacted.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: So I think that the contempt argument was kind of
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: like a side issue. But there was a question about
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: whether Christinoum then the head of DHS, had been in
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: contempt and others as well by refusing to turn those
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: planes around. And so the judge eventually wanted to hold hearings.
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: I think he had originally planned them to take place
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: in December or so, but the appeals Court issued an
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: administrative stay that sort of paused those hearings from taking
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: place while they issued this decision. And that's, of course
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: the decision that we just got, blocking those hearings from
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: going forward.
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: So it was a two to one decision to Trump
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: appointees and the majority and a Biden appointee in dissent.
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: Explain why the majority ruled against Boseburg.
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: So they sided with the government's argument that a mere
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: federal judge does not have the authority to demand testimony
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: from members of the executive branch. So, as with so
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: many other legal disputes that we've seen involving the Trump administration,
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: it's about the power of the executive in a lot
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: of ways. They said that the judge abused his discretion,
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: that basically, when he found out the names of the
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: people who were involved in this decision, that that was
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: the information he needed and he didn't have any valid
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: reason to be holding hearings on this because it wasn't
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: just going to be Christy Gnome who would have to testify.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: There were others as well, including a whistleblower who presumably
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: was going to have some pretty negative things to say
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: about this decision that was made in the whole process.
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: So completely different version of events came from the dissenting judge,
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: and she basically said that, I mean, these are very
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: long decisions trying to boil. And there was also a
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: concurring opinion, so or there were three opinions altogether, but
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: the dissenting opinion basically said that the majority was kneecapping
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: an investigation into whether the government was in contempt of court,
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: and sort of was almost circular in nature, saying you
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: can't investigate because they didn't do anything wrong, but you can't,
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: you know, investig because they didn't do anything wrong. So
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: it was basically the judge was saying that the majority
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: was kneecapping the investigation and holding that the government simply
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: couldn't be held in contempt, couldn't be prosecuted.
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: And Judge Boseburg, I mean, his name surfaces over and
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: over again because he's been the subject of comments by
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: President Trump that he should be impeach. I mean, he's
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: been on the forefront of a lot of these decisions.
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: Right, he definitely was a judge that was on Trump's
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: radar fairly early on. He's a very no nonsense, you
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: know judge, and issued some pretty strong opinions saying that
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: President Trump or his administration were exceeding their authority, violating
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: the law. You know, he wasn't really mincing words very often,
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: and Trump did not did not like that. But of
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: course Judge Boseburg is still kicking.
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: So and also I have to say that Judge Justin Walker,
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: who wrote the concurring opinion, had nice things to say
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: about Judge Boseburg in the concurring opinion. And it's not over, Eric.
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: The ACLU says they're going to ask for hearing on
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: Bank before the full circuit.
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: So, and we should also point out that the Alien
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: Enemies Act, ultimately it was determined by multiple courts that
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: that law had been completely misused by President Trump in
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: the Venezuela episode and in other courts around the country.
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: Multiple judges from different parties that there simply it's a
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: wartime law. We're not at war, and therefore you can
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: still deport people. You can still round people up and
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: seek to deport them under the immigration laws, but you
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: simply can't do it without any process via this particular law.
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: Let's turn now to Trump's debanking suit against JP Morgan,
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: Chase and CEO Jamie Diamond. Before we talk about the
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: court moves, remind us what the case is about.
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: So this is lawsuit is part of President Trump's case
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: against debanking is the term. He claims that financial institutions,
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: including JP Morgan and another bank he is sued by
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: his company, Capital I, debanked them because of their conservative
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: political views, because of Trump's conservative political views, that they
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: looked at politics and decided we don't want anything to
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: do with you, and that JP Morgan, in JP Morgan's case,
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: closed his personal accounts and in Capitol One's case, closed
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: hundreds of business accounts. This happened in early twenty twenty one,
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: so it wasn't too long after the January sixth attack
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: on the US Capitol by a mob of Trump's supporters,
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: so there were other things going on around the time
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: these decisions were made. That banks have not said publicly
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: why they closed the accounts. Trump is alleging it's because
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: of his conservative political views and that that is illegal
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: under various laws.
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: And why specifically is he suing Jamie Diamond instead of
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: just suing the bank.
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: Well, it depends who you ask. One of the claims
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: in the complaint is that Trump was improperly added to
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: an industry blacklist in quotation marks, saying don't ever do
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: business with this guy because he's bad news. And allegedly
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: Diamond is the one who personally had Trump added to
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: that list. So that is why Diamond has wound up
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: in this complaint. JP Morgan has said that mister Diamond
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: should be dismissed from the complaint because he has nothing,
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: you know, to do with this. And they actually claim
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: that Trump added Diamond specifically as a way to, through
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: a technicality, make it a state Florida case because there's
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: a Florida law of a consumer law that Trump argues
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: allows them to sue in the court as long as
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: they name Diamond.
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: So the issue right now is where the case will
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: be tried.
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: Right Yeah. So it started out as a case filed
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: by Trump's personal lawyer in Miami Dade County. JP Morgan
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: removed it automatically just by sort of asking moved it
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: to federal court, saying this is a federal issue, and
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: now President Trump is trying to both move it back
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: to state court or block it from being moved to
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: New York, which is where JP Morgan ultimately wants it.
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: So right now it's a question of whether or not
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: the case will be moved to Miami Dade County, in
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: which case they attempt by JP Morgan to move it
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: to New York will be moot, or whether or not
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: will move to Manhattan.
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: Right here, if Diamond is dismissed from the suit, then
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: the suit will go forward, likely in Manhattan.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: Right that's the bank's contention. Yeah, they say that he
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: was fraudulently added is sort of like the legal term.
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: So by the way, they've clearly signaled what their motion
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: to dismiss is going to look like when that's filed.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: They're saying that all of their customer agreements that Jabie
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: Morgan Chase explicitly say that any legal dispute of any
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: kind stemming from our customer agreement must be handled in
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: New York courts. And also it says that they can
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: close accounts for any reason they want. Period.
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: It sounds like boilerplate language, So what are the choices
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: of courts to hear this?
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: Right now, the judge is just weighing whether or not
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: to return the case to state court in Florida or
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: alternatively keep it in federal court in Florida or alternatively
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: transferred to federal court in Manhattan.
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: So suing in Florida near mar A Lago. But several
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: of his suits haven't even gotten close to trial, including
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: recently the one against the Wall Street Journal.
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: Yes, a federal judge in Miami dismissed Trump's lawsuit his
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal. I believe it
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: was for ten billion dollars over a story they wrote
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: saying that Trump had drawn a Lewde birthday note for
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein years ago for his fiftieth birthday, one of
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: many prominent people who were supposedly asked to send him notes.
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: Trump denies that, says it's a fake note, it wasn't his,
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: and he sued, said it was false, and the judge
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: said no, because you know, there's a high bar for
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: a public figure like Trump to allege a defamation. They
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: have to show something called actual malice, to show that
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: the publisher knew or recklessly disregarded the potential that it
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: was false. So you have to have some sort of
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: facts in your complaint to suggest that that malice exist,
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: and the judge said there were none, and so the
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: case was dismissed. But there is a little twist here,
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: and that is that Trump is going to get to
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: refile that case by April twenty seventh, I believe is
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: the deadline. The judge gave him pretty quick deadline. And
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: now Trump is asking for discovery into the Wall Street
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: Journal to help beef up his case.
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: And another federal judge in Miami dismissed the Trump organization
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: suit against Capital One as deficient and lacking in detail.
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: That also can be refiled. Thanks so much for joining me, Eric,
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, and that's it for
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast.
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg