Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump's Aggressive Election Strategy

Transcript

Trump's Aggressive Election Strategy · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: They say the third time's a charm. Well, maybe this
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: latest appeal to the Supreme Court will be the final
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: word on the maps Missouri will use in the midterm.
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: The dispute over a new map drawn to help Republicans
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: gain a seat in the pivotal midterms has triggered confusion
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: and uncertainty for more than a million potential voters who
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: could be shuffled among districts. It comes amid crucial administrative deadlines.
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: Election officials in Missouri have already started mailing ballots to
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: military personnel and other voters outside the country. In two
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: separate rulings this month, the Supreme Court has told Missouri
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: it must use its old map, not the new gerrymandered
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: map drawn up by Republicans. But on Monday, a three-judge
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said the
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: Constitution requires that the state use the same voting map
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: in November that it used during the primary elections. And
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: now the case is back at the Supreme Court. Joining
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: me is Danielle Lang, Vice President for Voting Rights and
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: the Rule of Law at the Campaign Legal Center. Danielle,
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: Missouri's redistricting battle has been among the longest and most
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: complex in the roughly dozen states that have sought to
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: change their House districts over the past year. Explain why
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: it's back at the Supreme Court once again.
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: That's a great question. I think it's because some of
• 1:37
  Speaker 3: the plaintiffs in the Missouri case can't quite get the
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: hint from the Supreme Court. And that seems to be
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: the case, I think, for the Eighth Circuit as well.
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: So twice this has been before the Supreme Court already.
• 1:49
  Speaker 3: And the Supreme Court has said, no, we have to
• 1:51
  Speaker 3: follow what the Missouri Supreme Court has said about the
• 1:55
  Speaker 3: redistricting and what map needs to be used. But notwithstanding
• 2:00
  Speaker 3: those two prior orders from the Supreme Court, the Eighth
• 2:04
  Speaker 3: Circuit nonetheless ruled in favor of plaintiffs that are trying
• 2:08
  Speaker 3: to seek the use of a map that the Missouri
• 2:10
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court has said cannot be used. And under those circumstances,
• 2:14
  Speaker 3: we have to go back to the Supreme Court to
• 2:16
  Speaker 3: correct that error.
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: So the Supreme Court ordered Missouri to use its old
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: map in the upcoming midterm elections. However, during the primaries,
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: Missouri used the new map, which was drawn up to
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: give Republicans an advantage. So they're using a map with
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: different lines from that used when voters went to the
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: polls for the primaries, that does seem like it might
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: cause some problems. And the Eighth Circuit said it's unconstitutional.
• 2:48
  Speaker 3: Right. But I would just say in this context, I
• 2:51
  Speaker 3: think the Supreme Court has already been clear. You know,
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: these are not new facts. The issue was already brought
• 2:56
  Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court of whether or not the Missouri
• 3:00
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court's order could be evaded. And the answer was no.
• 3:04
  Speaker 3: And so under those circumstances, I wouldn't expect there to
• 3:07
  Speaker 3: be a change in the Supreme Court's position.
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: And also the ballots have been mailed already, right, to
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: overseas and military voters?
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: Exactly.
• 3:15
  Speaker 3: You know, it is far too late to change things.
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: The election is underway and the Supreme Court has already
• 3:21
  Speaker 3: spoken twice.
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: Let's turn now to some of the problems that seem
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: to be arising ahead of the election. as President Trump
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: is trying to assert greater federal control over the elections,
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: and the Justice Department is employing an aggressive strategy that
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: includes suing states for voter records, investigating election officials, and
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: even seizing ballots in some states. And this is setting
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: off alarm bells as to what might happen on Election Day.
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: And the NAACP is suing over what it says is
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: a Trump administration plan to station armed federal agents near
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: voting locations. The federal government has sent monitors to election
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: sites before. Tell us what normally happens.
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: Yes, there's been a longstanding federal observer policy and program
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: from the Department of Justice as well as congressional observers.
• 4:21
  Speaker 3: But that's all they are. They are observers. They cannot interfere.
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: They cannot even enter polling places unless they're invited. They
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: have to stand outside. And so it is not the
• 4:33
  Speaker 3: case that observers can interfere with our elections in any way.
• 4:38
  Speaker 3: So that's a longstanding practice. And of course, I would
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: expect there to be observers at the polls this year,
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: the same way that they have always been. Of course,
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: there have been concerning and fear-mongering statements from members of
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: the administration saying, suggesting perhaps more nefarious motives at the
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: polls by federal officials. But their federal law is actually
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: very clear. There's a statute that says that you cannot
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: send federal armed officials to the polls. Point blank. That
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: is the law. There are no ifs, ands, or buts
• 5:14
  Speaker 3: to that law. And so there is no reason for
• 5:19
  Speaker 3: there to be federal armed officials at the polls.
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: Have the Justice Department or FBI officials hinted that they
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: might be armed?
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I think that that is the image
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: that is evoked by FBI officers, ICE and the like,
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: is that those are typically law enforcement that are armed officials.
• 5:38
  Speaker 3: But the point is that there is no kind of
• 5:40
  Speaker 3: military or law enforcement, federal law enforcement permitted at the polls.
• 5:44
  Speaker 3: In fact, many states don't even allow state law enforcement
• 5:48
  Speaker 3: to be at the polls, except for under very limited circumstances. Because,
• 5:53
  Speaker 3: of course, voters should feel at ease at the polls.
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: And there are some communities that feel very ill at
• 5:59
  Speaker 3: ease when law enforcement is present.
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: So the NAACP is one of the groups that's suing
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: over this plan to place armed federal agents at the polls. So,
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, what can they hope to get before an
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: election that would stop that from happening?
• 6:15
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that groups like the NAACP are putting
• 6:18
  Speaker 3: down a marker to make it very clear in the
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: litigation that the law stands, that the law is clear,
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: and that federal law enforcement will not be tolerated at
• 6:30
  Speaker 3: the polls, and that the civic engagement community, the civil
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: rights community has voters back. And so... We'll see how
• 6:39
  Speaker 3: that litigation plays out and whether or not there will
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: be any kind of preliminary relief sought there. But one
• 6:45
  Speaker 3: way or another, it lays down a very clear marker.
• 6:47
  Speaker 3: This is the law and we will not tolerate it
• 6:50
  Speaker 3: to be violated.
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: I'm also wondering, so if despite this, armed agents end
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: up at the polls, what happens at the polls? Because
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: at that point you have disruption. I'm sure you have
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: some voters who are intimidated already. What happens if the
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: state runs to court or the county runs to court
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: and tries to get an order? Yeah.
• 7:11
  Speaker 3: First, I just want to assure listeners that we don't
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: have any reason to believe that there's going to be
• 7:17
  Speaker 3: kind of swarms of law enforcement at the polls. I
• 7:20
  Speaker 3: expect 2026 elections to go the way that voters normally
• 7:25
  Speaker 3: experience their elections, that they go to the polls, they
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: meet their friendly election officials, they get their sticker and
• 7:32
  Speaker 3: And they go along their merry way. But, you know,
• 7:37
  Speaker 3: as this lawsuit kind of demonstrates, civic engagement communities are
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: prepared for every eventuality and to protect voters. So what
• 7:45
  Speaker 3: does that look like? Okay, so if law enforcement appears
• 7:50
  Speaker 3: improperly at the polls, voters are going to have community
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: members there with them. They can just go ahead and vote. right?
• 7:58
  Speaker 3: They're going to move forward with their day. They're going
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: to lawfully cast their ballot and move on. And in
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: the meanwhile, there will be very prompt legal action. And
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: I would imagine that any such attempts at deployments would
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: be very quickly cut off.
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: I mentioned the head of the Civil Rights Division before,
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: Harmeet Dhillon. Historically, the Justice Department has has focused on
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: addressing racial discrimination, language and disability access at polls, and
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: other barriers to voting. Under President Trump, that's changed. And
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: now you have the department suing more than two dozen
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: states for their voter rolls. Explain why they want those rolls.
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the Department of Justice has been on a mission
• 8:48
  Speaker 3: to try to hoover up all of Americans' voter data
• 8:52
  Speaker 3: across the entire country, including social security numbers, driver's license numbers,
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: voter history. There's just no reason for the Department of
• 9:01
  Speaker 3: Justice to do that. There is no lawful basis for
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: the Department of Justice to do that. And it raises
• 9:06
  Speaker 3: both concerns about their motives as well as the privacy
• 9:09
  Speaker 3: of that data for American voters. And the good news
• 9:13
  Speaker 3: is that they have been unsuccessful. Red and blue states
• 9:16
  Speaker 3: alike have pushed back and they have been unanimous in
• 9:20
  Speaker 3: their victories thus far in the courts and kind of
• 9:23
  Speaker 3: pushing back on those attempts to hoover up American voter data.
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: Does this search for state voter rolls have anything to
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: do with the case before the Supreme Court where we're
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: waiting for the court to make a decision about the
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: Trump administration's use of the SAVE database?
• 9:42
  Speaker 3: Yes and no, I would say. Technically, no. And the
• 9:45
  Speaker 3: Department of Justice has at times suggested that they are unrelated.
• 9:50
  Speaker 3: But at the same time, we actually do know from
• 9:54
  Speaker 3: reporting that the Department of Justice did appear to be
• 9:58
  Speaker 3: sharing that data with... with Department of Homeland Security and
• 10:02
  Speaker 3: using this so-called SAVE database to try to match voters
• 10:07
  Speaker 3: to other federal data. And what the district court and
• 10:12
  Speaker 3: the D.C. Circuit found in that case is that that
• 10:15
  Speaker 3: entire process was unlawful. It violated the Privacy Act, and
• 10:20
  Speaker 3: it had all sorts of both security and accuracy concerns.
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll talk
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: about how state election officials and county officials are trying
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: to game out what might happen, the worst-case scenarios during
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: the midterm elections. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: While the Constitution largely puts states in charge of elections,
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: President Trump has sought to reach into virtually every corner
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: of the voting process as he boosts baseless accusations of
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: widespread fraud. And he's empowered agencies like the Justice Department
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: to pursue extraordinary legal tactics to assert greater federal control
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: over U.S. elections. I've been talking to Danielle Lange. Vice
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: President for Voting Rights and the Rule of Law at
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: the Campaign Legal Center. Harmeet Dhillon, who's the head of
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, warned of
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: criminal investigations of state and local election officials for failing
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: to clean up voter rolls. Sending letters to top election
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: officials nationwide. I mean, is there a reason for her warning?
• 11:33
  Speaker 3: This is intimidation and nothing more. If you'll remember back
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: at the beginning of the year when there was that
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: huge ice surge in Minneapolis, the Department of Justice was
• 11:45
  Speaker 3: trying to kind of trade on, oh, perhaps we will
• 11:49
  Speaker 3: pull back on our ice surge if you will give
• 11:51
  Speaker 3: us this data or information that we want about voters,
• 11:55
  Speaker 3: which just shows the kind of length of intimidation that
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: and kind of thuggery that the Department of Justice has
• 12:02
  Speaker 3: been willing to engage in when it comes to their
• 12:05
  Speaker 3: mission to undermine our elections. So I see those letters
• 12:09
  Speaker 3: of kind of trying to threaten election officials into doing
• 12:12
  Speaker 3: their bidding as just another element in that scheme. Election
• 12:17
  Speaker 3: officials have regular list maintenance processes that they go through
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: year round. They are constantly cleaning their rolls to make
• 12:26
  Speaker 3: sure that people who've passed away or moved are removed
• 12:29
  Speaker 3: and that everybody who's newly registered gets registered. That's their
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: job and they know how to do it well. I
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: will say the one time that they're not doing it,
• 12:38
  Speaker 3: they're not doing kind of removal list maintenance is right now.
• 12:42
  Speaker 3: In the 90 days before a federal election, it's actually
• 12:45
  Speaker 3: illegal to engage in systematic list maintenance. So election officials
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: have already gone through all those processes in a timely
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: manner so that they could pause them in the run-up
• 12:55
  Speaker 3: to the election so that nobody gets improperly removed without
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: the ability to kind of fix it before the election.
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: Every investigation, et cetera, has shown that the incidence of
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: non-citizens voting is very, very low. But we had that
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: disclosure in New Jersey of the state software error that
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: registered several thousand non-citizens in 2023 and 2024, including several
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: hundred who ended up voting. And I wonder how much
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: that is giving credence to Trump's continuing claims of fraud
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: and non-citizens voting.
• 13:36
  Speaker 3: Listen, the administration has been on a consistent message, unsupported
• 13:41
  Speaker 3: by the facts or the evidence for a long time,
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: while predating this particular data point about New Jersey, telling
• 13:49
  Speaker 3: Americans lies about the integrity of our elections. And so
• 13:54
  Speaker 3: I think that you would tell those lies under any circumstances.
• 13:57
  Speaker 3: It is a mission of the administration to undermine our elections.
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: What happened in New Jersey was actually an example of
• 14:06
  Speaker 3: where there are errors, how the system should work. They
• 14:09
  Speaker 3: found the errors. They fixed them. They resolved it. And
• 14:13
  Speaker 3: it's important to note here that that was a data issue.
• 14:17
  Speaker 3: It was not a question of voters trying to engage
• 14:21
  Speaker 3: in subterfuge. These were individuals who had actually disclosed their
• 14:25
  Speaker 3: citizenship status when they got their driver's license. And the
• 14:29
  Speaker 3: agency made an error a data error. So nothing in
• 14:33
  Speaker 3: a kind of new restrictions on voting or the like
• 14:37
  Speaker 3: would have prevented that. It was a human data error.
• 14:42
  Speaker 3: And we caught it and we fixed it. And that's
• 14:45
  Speaker 3: exactly what should happen.
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: California's AG Rob Bonta told Bloomberg recently that Democratic state
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: officials are gaming out worst case scenarios for November, including
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: if federal agents show up to seize ballots. What happens
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: if federal agents come to try to seize ballots?
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: Here's what I'll say.
• 15:09
  Speaker 3: I think our elections are going to run really well
• 15:10
  Speaker 3: in 2026. The federal government doesn't have power over running
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: our elections. Their elections are run by thousands of individual
• 15:20
  Speaker 3: jurisdictions with their own power over the elections and election materials.
• 15:25
  Speaker 3: I also think it's right for state officials to be
• 15:28
  Speaker 3: gaming out worst case scenarios because, of course, this administration
• 15:33
  Speaker 3: has engaged in a lot of really dangerous threats. It
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: has engaged in unprecedented activities like going to seize the
• 15:40
  Speaker 3: ballot materials in Fulton County, Georgia. And what I would
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: expect is that state officials will be very well prepared
• 15:48
  Speaker 3: to push back on those, to immediately seek return of
• 15:52
  Speaker 3: those materials, to make sure that we have backup data
• 15:55
  Speaker 3: where possible to verify our election results. And so I
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: am gratified, although I very much hope it's unnecessary, that
• 16:05
  Speaker 3: state officials will have plans for every scenario.
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: And so now as far as there have been all the,
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: you know, the legal battles over mail-in ballots and the
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: post office trying to impose rules on the states submitting ballots,
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: has that all been settled? Is that all over? Yes.
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: The USPS rule is not going to be in place
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: in any way, shape, or form for the 2026 election.
• 16:36
  Speaker 3: It has been enjoined by Congress. two separate district courts,
• 16:40
  Speaker 3: the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, has said we
• 16:43
  Speaker 3: are not going to disrupt that injunction.
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: As far as going back to the Missouri map and
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: the congressional map situations, all this confusion over the maps
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: and this last-minute jockeying is because President Trump made that request,
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: starting with Texas, to redistrict. Besides Missouri, are there any
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: other states' maps that are still in question?
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: No, there should not be. Elections are underway. You know,
• 17:11
  Speaker 3: I mean, for the reasons we talked about at the
• 17:12
  Speaker 3: top of our discussion, Missouri also shouldn't be a question
• 17:16
  Speaker 3: except for the kind of unreasonable behavior, I think, of
• 17:19
  Speaker 3: the plaintiffs in that case. And I very much hope
• 17:22
  Speaker 3: that that's going to be put to an end, hopefully today,
• 17:27
  Speaker 3: if not later this week by the Supreme Court. And
• 17:31
  Speaker 3: so voters have really been put through the ringer this
• 17:34
  Speaker 3: year with this redistricting war. It's something that voters should
• 17:38
  Speaker 3: not have had to face. It is absurd for there
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: to be this race to the bottom when it comes
• 17:46
  Speaker 3: to redistricting when there doesn't need to be any redistricting
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: being done mid-cycle. Normally, we only redistrict every 10 years
• 17:55
  Speaker 3: with new census results. This is unprecedented. But I think
• 17:59
  Speaker 3: that we are at the end and it's time for
• 18:02
  Speaker 3: voters to actually have their voices heard.
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: Is the whole point of a lot of this just
• 18:07
  Speaker 2: intimidation and to try to stop people from coming to
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: the polls?
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: I think that is part of the purpose, but I
• 18:14
  Speaker 3: don't think it will work. I think there is this
• 18:16
  Speaker 3: idea that we can kind of demoralize voters. We can
• 18:21
  Speaker 3: scare voters. We can confuse voters. And so that will
• 18:26
  Speaker 3: change the outcomes of an election. But I actually think
• 18:29
  Speaker 3: American voters are a lot more resilient than that. They
• 18:32
  Speaker 3: can kind of see through things. all of this morass
• 18:36
  Speaker 3: and see that what's really happening is that there's a
• 18:38
  Speaker 3: lot of attention being paid to the rules of voting
• 18:41
  Speaker 3: trying to undermine their vote because their vote is powerful.
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: I am pretty confident that voters are going to be
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: steadfast in making sure that their voices are heard.
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: There's always, I don't know, is it always or often
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: litigation after the elections over results?
• 18:59
  Speaker 3: I suppose I would say often, but it's close to
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: always if you think about a national election, there's always
• 19:04
  Speaker 3: going to be some elections that are very close and
• 19:06
  Speaker 3: therefore lead to some post-election litigation.
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: Are you guys anticipating that there'll be even more this midterm?
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: I think it's really hard to say. You know, a
• 19:17
  Speaker 3: lot of this will often depend on how close the
• 19:19
  Speaker 3: races are. When elections aren't that close, it doesn't really
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: leave a lot of options for candidates to try to
• 19:27
  Speaker 3: undermine the results. where they are closer or where candidates
• 19:34
  Speaker 3: are unwilling to concede to the voice of the American people.
• 19:39
  Speaker 3: They will sometimes try to use the courts as a
• 19:41
  Speaker 3: way to change the results. But I've been through a
• 19:45
  Speaker 3: few cycles of that now, and it doesn't succeed.
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: The Justice Department is still re-litigating or investigating the 2020 election.
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: I mean, they actually seized ballots in Georgia, right?
• 19:58
  Speaker 3: They did seize ballot materials in Georgia related to the
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: 2020 election. That's correct.
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's been litigated so many times, I can't imagine.
• 20:06
  Speaker 3: So many times over. I can tell you that you
• 20:09
  Speaker 3: and most Americans would prefer to not hear anything more
• 20:13
  Speaker 3: about another investigation into an election that occurred six years ago.
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: Oh, I'm wondering, I've been reading about concerns for the
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: safety of election officials and election workers because in recent years,
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: they've been subjected to more threats of harassment and violence
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: than And that some election offices have done security upgrades
• 20:39
  Speaker 2: because of these threats.
• 20:41
  Speaker 3: I mean, let me start by saying that I think
• 20:43
  Speaker 3: that listeners, if there's one thing they can do to
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: help support our elections, be kind to your election officials.
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: Say thank you. They are doing hard work and it
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: is a real civic duty and it's a labor of
• 20:55
  Speaker 3: love for election officers. officials. They serve our democracy at
• 20:59
  Speaker 3: the front lines. And they have been subject to really
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: outrageous harassment and intimidation because of the lies that have
• 21:07
  Speaker 3: been told to the American people.
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: About our elections.
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: And I find that really heartbreaking. That being said, I
• 21:14
  Speaker 3: do think that state-level officials have worked hard to make
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: sure that election officials have the support that they need.
• 21:21
  Speaker 3: And we're continuing to try to provide election officials with
• 21:25
  Speaker 3: the support that they need. Some states have specific laws
• 21:29
  Speaker 3: protecting against intimidation. And that's a place where we need
• 21:33
  Speaker 3: to continue to pump resources. If we care about our democracy,
• 21:36
  Speaker 3: we need to continue to pump resources into its clean administration,
• 21:40
  Speaker 3: make sure that officials have everything they need to do
• 21:43
  Speaker 3: their job safely.
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: And do you have any advice for voters in general?
• 21:48
  Speaker 3: It's a busy time, and I think it can be
• 21:50
  Speaker 3: really dizzying. I think the one thing I would say
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: is that listeners are going to see a lot in
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: the news about voting rules and challenges in the news,
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: and it will be hard to follow it all. But
• 22:01
  Speaker 3: I think you can have faith that at the end
• 22:03
  Speaker 3: of the day, what's going to happen this November is
• 22:06
  Speaker 3: we're going to have an election day. We're going to
• 22:08
  Speaker 3: cast our ballot. Those ballots are going to get counted.
• 22:11
  Speaker 3: And then we're going to have results. And those results
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: are going to lead to new elected officials throughout the country.
• 22:18
  Speaker 3: And so there's going to be a lot of dizzying
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: fights in the short term. But voters just have to
• 22:24
  Speaker 3: have the eye on their prize, which is to just
• 22:27
  Speaker 3: make sure that they know what they need to do
• 22:30
  Speaker 3: to make a plan to vote.
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me today, Danielle. That's Danielle Lange.
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: Vice President for Voting Rights and the Rule of Law
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: at the Campaign Legal Center. Coming up next on the
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. San Francisco is suing Trump's social media platform,
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: Truth Social, for offering customers who pay $ 100, 000 a month
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: priority access to the president's and other high-level officials' posts
• 22:57
  Speaker 2: before they're available to the public. I'm June Grosso, and
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg. San Francisco's city attorney is urging
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: a state court to block Trump's social media platform, Truth Social,
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: from offering customers who pay $ 100, 000 a month priority access
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: to the president's and other high-level officials' posts before they're
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: available to other users. In the lawsuit filed in San
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: Francisco's Superior Court, The city attorney says that Trump Media
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: and Technology Group is aiding and abetting Trump's violations of
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: federal ethics and anti-corruption law and violating other federal laws
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: that protect against insider trading. Quote, it's a pay to
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: play scheme for early access to the president's market moving
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: government decisions. This public scheme has turned public trust into
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: private profit. This is corruption, plain and simple. Trump media
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: said the lawsuit fails to grasp the basic distinction between
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: public and non-public information. Joining me is Bloomberg Law's senior correspondent,
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: Alex Ebert. Alex, tell us more about this, shall we
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: call it a service?
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: So Trump media and through their company, Truth Social, they've
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: created a paid subscription program that allows early access to
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: Trump and other senior officials' posts on Truth Social. It's
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: called Truth API. And for $ 100, 000 a month, you get
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: some early access to some pretty critical information if you
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: were a trader. Think about announcements about tariffs, or maybe
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: if there's a merger happening that the government is allowing,
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: or perhaps if the government leaked the Bureau of Labor
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: Statistics a little bit early. These kind of things might
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: pop up on Truth Social, and these people would have
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: first dibs at getting to see them.
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: Is this already ongoing? Have people subscribed?
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: This is ongoing. People have subscribed. There's been an investor
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: call about it. And the early sort of pronouncements on
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: it are that we've seen investors interested in it. We've
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: seen crypto firms interested in it. And these are folks
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: that really can take advantage of lightning quick actions on
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: information to make bets in.
• 25:19
  Speaker 3: The stock market.
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: $ 100, 000 a month. I mean, to me, that's high, but
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: is that high for a service like this?
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: Well, I'm not aware of what the market price is
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: for a service like this, but let's consider we work
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: for Bloomberg, right? It is definitely more than you'd pay
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: for a terminal subscription. And the difference there between buying
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: a terminal subscription or purchasing a true social API framework
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: is that This is public information from public officials that
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: they got from their public offices. And so you see
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: lawsuits challenging this idea of potential trading on the information
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: that you get from being in office.
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: The San Francisco city attorney is suing. Why are they
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: suing in particular?
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they're suing because they're saying this is about the
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: haves and have nots. You're going to have a lot
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: of investors in the world that can't afford $ 100, 000 a
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: month to get at this information. And they're saying some
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: pension funds can't get at it. People with their 401ks,
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: they're not going to have the same access to this
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: quick information from Trump and other members of his cabinet
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: that would allow them to trade as quickly and efficiently
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: as the people that are paying into Truth API. They're
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: saying that this creates violations of California's unfair competition law.
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: It certainly seems unethical. But Trump has made billions of
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: dollars during his presidency doing things that other presidents would
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: never have done. I mean, most other presidents don't do
• 26:48
  Speaker 2: any business dealings during their presidency.
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: Well, I'm not here to comment on the ethics of it,
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: but it's definitely unprecedented.
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: And in the lawsuit, you see San Francisco trying to
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: do an interesting bank shot here. They're trying to say
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: that this program violates federal laws, right? Securities violations or
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: insider trading violations. And because of that, you can sue
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: claiming that this is an unfair business practice in California.
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: That is different from the litigation that we're seeing out
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: of the D.C. District Court. There you have a couple
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: of nonprofits suing, saying these are constitutional violations. We're talking
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: about people trading on their office and it's violating First Amendment,
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act rights of U.S. citizens.
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: So what are the plaintiffs looking for in these lawsuits?
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: Well, the two different lawsuits, I believe, are looking for
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: the exact same thing, which is to shut this down.
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: The question is going to be, you know, in California,
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: can you get some sort of injunction there that covers
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: the state and does that matter? You know, can you
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: get it to cover the entire country? And the same
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: in D.C. For the folks in D.C., their claim is, listen,
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: we have a First Amendment right to listen. This is
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: public information. You can't trade on it for ethics reasons.
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: But for constitutional reasons, you cannot do this because when
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: that information becomes public, it is in the public sphere.
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: This is a public forum. You need to give this
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: up to the public. So we need to stop the
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: president's company from doing so.
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: Trump media said in a statement that the lawsuit fails
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: to grasp the basic distinction between public and non-public information
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: and also accused the city's attorneys of being left wing activists.
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: What is the Trump administration's position?
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: The Trump administration's position is that they can do that.
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: I think it'll be really interesting to watch this litigation
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: moving forward for a couple of reasons, if we can
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: just roll the clock. I think the first will be standing, right?
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: Especially in the city's case, it'll be interesting to see
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: if the court there finds issues with that. I think
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: it'll be fascinating to watch if the underlying claims here
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: get a really hard look too, because... You know, we
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: are talking about something that's a little bit more amorphous
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: there and kind of a bank shot relying on federal laws.
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: You've seen under this unfair competition law, insider trading type
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: suits brought against some defendants, including big investment firms. But
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: they're rare, right? And do those cases brought against folks
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: like Morgan Stanley and Coinbase sort of play in the
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: same sandbox as something against a social media company where
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: the whole idea behind it is to share information? So
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: these are sort of open questions there. And then in
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: the District of Columbia case, I'm going to be really
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: interested to see how standing works there as well. Because
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: if I were the Trump administration or its defenders, I
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: would be saying that, you know, there is a delay
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: on public dissemination of information between groups of people all
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: the time. And depending on the amount of delay here,
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: you know, this might be fine under the Constitution.
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: As you write on Monday, a group of former prosecutors
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: and federal agents filed an amicus brief in yet another
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: case against this service in the Southern District of New York.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: So you have this group of amicus, 53 prosecutors and
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: law enforcement agents that worked on public integrity, public corruption matters.
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: And they're pointing to all of these concerns over the
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: ethics that you were bringing up before. They're just trading
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: on public information. This is profiting from the.
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: Office.
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: And it's not just Trump. We're talking about posts from
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: other federal officials. You've got Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: You've got HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. You've got
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FBI Director Kash Patel. And
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: at least in the D.C. litigation, you have Natalie Hart,
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: Trump's executive assistant, as a defendant because she's the fast
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: fingers behind Trump's true social posts. So it's even broader
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: than Trump when it comes to this idea of taking
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: public information, putting it behind a paywall, at least for
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: a limited amount of time, and extracting profits from it.
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: I mean, this is unique, right? This has never happened before.
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: Anything like this.
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: This is unique. There is no precedent for it. You
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: don't see anything in these lawsuits referencing back to anything from,
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: you know, the times of earlier American scandals. You know,
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: we're inside the eye of a hurricane here, you know,
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: looking out at the combination between an aggressive social media
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: company that's looking to monetize and compete using, you know,
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: an owner president's post. And you're looking at liberal groups
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: reaching out to try to stop it, you know, because
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: they see it either as disadvantaging their people limiting access
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: to public information or as a grift. So, yes, this
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: is completely unheard of.
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: I mean, if this were not President Trump, it's something
• 32:03
  Speaker 2: that you would expect an agency like the SEC to
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: be investigating.
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: You'd expect that. I think that we would run into
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: similar issues that we saw with investigations regarding Jack Smith
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: and the fact that you cannot investigate a sitting president. But,
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: you know, we also have some interesting nesting issues there, right?
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: Because Trump's trust, the blind trust, holds his ownership in this.
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: And so I'm sure there's someone out there who can
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: make an argument that there should be an investigation into this,
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: but you don't have that yet. You see in California, too,
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: that the underlying allegations here sort of, you know, beg
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: for that, right? They're saying that there are violations here
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: of securities laws, but you don't have an investigation to
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: back that up. So the question then becomes, if you
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: don't have some sort of written in stone violation there,
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: can you support the allegations that San Francisco is bringing?
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: Do you know how Truth Social is doing as a company?
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: Not well, according to Bloomberg's own reporting. During a recent call,
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: it sounds like there are several hundred million dollars in debt.
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: The gist is that, you know, they're sort of floundering
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: and this could be a way for them to make
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: up the gap that they have between other social media companies.
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: And $ 100, 000, you know, per user that's looking for this
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: quick information is not a drop in the bucket. That
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: can be serious cash.
• 33:33
  Speaker 2: And do you have any idea how much they've made
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: so far?
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: I've seen reporting that indicates that they've made about a
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: million dollars in one month.
• 33:41
  Speaker 2: I'm surprised there hasn't been more publicity about this, at
• 33:45
  Speaker 2: least so far. Perhaps the lawsuits will bring the publicity.
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: You see these lawsuits trying to attack and challenge this
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: unprecedented business relationship with the sitting president that raises all
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: of these issues and concerns. There's going to be fights
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: over standing. There's going to be fights over applications of
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: these law and whether these litigants can prove of these claims.
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: But the underlying accusation that a public official is seeking
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: to profit from early announcements, that's not in dispute. It's
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: actually the business model.
• 34:20
  Speaker 2: Well, thanks so much for the conversation, Alex. That's Bloomberg
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: Law Senior Correspondent Alex Ebert. And that's it for this
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always
• 34:29
  Speaker 2: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
• 34:36
  Speaker 2: www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.