Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump, Like English King, Pardons Companies

Transcript

Trump, Like English King, Pardons Companies · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:09
Speaker 2: So this is January sixth. These are the hostages, approximately
0:14
Speaker 2: fifteen hundred for a pardon full partner.
0:19
Speaker 1: Just hours after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an
0:24
Speaker 1: order pardoning about fifteen hundred convicted January sixth rioters with
0:30
Speaker 1: six commutations for the people who assaulted law enforcement officers
0:35
Speaker 1: that day.
0:36
Speaker 2: Well, I will say this, They've been in jail for
0:37
Speaker 2: a long time already. I see murderers in this country
0:41
Speaker 2: get two years, one year, and maybe no time, So
0:44
Speaker 2: they've already been in jail for.
0:45
Speaker 1: A long time.
0:46
Speaker 2: These people have.
0:47
Speaker 1: Been destroyed, and the clemen ce spree has not slowed
0:51
Speaker 1: since then. Trump has liberally used the pardon power to
0:55
Speaker 1: wipe out convictions and end prison sentences, granting clemency to
1:00
Speaker 1: almost seventeen hundred people in the past eighteen months. That
1:05
Speaker 1: far outpaces his predecessors, and the grants often benefit allies,
1:11
Speaker 1: donors and loyalists, such as Republican politicians and white collared
1:16
Speaker 1: defendants with impressive campaign donation records, people serving harsh sentences
1:22
Speaker 1: for drug crimes, one time sports stars, and the former
1:26
Speaker 1: president of Honduras also have been granted relief, and showcasing
1:31
Speaker 1: Trump's willingness to blow past the boundaries of executive authority
1:36
Speaker 1: in his second term without regard for legal norms, He's
1:40
Speaker 1: become the first modern US president to issue pardons for companies,
1:45
Speaker 1: from a Middle American auto supplier to a crypto platform
1:49
Speaker 1: and a media startup. It's a step that presidents before
1:53
Speaker 1: him have considered but never dared to take, a step
1:57
Speaker 1: that's wiped out almost two hundred million dollars in financial penalties,
2:03
Speaker 1: some of which were destined for victims of wrongdoing. Joining
2:06
Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eva Benny Morrison, who's written
2:10
Speaker 1: about Trump's pardons of companies. If us start by telling
2:14
Speaker 1: us about Ryan Lalone, one of six people Trump said
2:20
Speaker 1: had been persecuted by the Biden administration for fixing their car.
2:26
Speaker 3: Yes, that's one way to put it. Ryan the Loone
2:30
Speaker 3: is a autoparts dealer from Michigan, and he was charged
2:37
Speaker 3: a few years ago with tampering with emissions controls devices
2:41
Speaker 3: on vehicles. So these controls you need to have them
2:45
Speaker 3: on trucks, especially ambulanced vehicles, school buses, and it's meant
2:49
Speaker 3: to control the amount of emissions that go out of
2:54
Speaker 3: the vehicle and into the air. People in the trucking
2:57
Speaker 3: industry say that they are really come and they break
3:01
Speaker 3: down a lot and it leads to them having to
3:03
Speaker 3: carry out costly repairs. Of course, environmental advocates don't see
3:07
Speaker 3: it that way, and they say, you know, when you
3:09
Speaker 3: don't have these it leads to greater agg polution. So Ryan,
3:12
Speaker 3: along with many other mechanics around the country, had helped
3:16
Speaker 3: a number of heavy vehicle owners Tampa with these controls,
3:19
Speaker 3: essentially so turning them off in a certain way. And
3:23
Speaker 3: he was charged over this behavior a few years ago.
3:27
Speaker 3: His business, his company, Diesel Freak, was also charged and
3:31
Speaker 3: together they were facing a fine of about seven hundred
3:34
Speaker 3: and fifty thousand dollars.
3:36
Speaker 1: Been why did Trump pidon him?
3:38
Speaker 3: So Ryan didn't do any jail time. He was sentenced
3:40
Speaker 3: to probation and he pleaded guilty, but he always maintained
3:46
Speaker 3: that he didn't do anything wrong. And then at the
3:49
Speaker 3: end of last year he heard about President Donald Trump
3:54
Speaker 3: pardoning a fellow Diedel mechanic in Wyoming. This mechanic his
3:58
Speaker 3: namehbers Tory Lake, and like Ryan, he had a company
4:02
Speaker 3: that worked on diesel engines, and he was also charged
4:07
Speaker 3: for carrying out similar behavior and Trump pardoned him, and
4:11
Speaker 3: Ryan thought, wow, you know, I might have a chance
4:13
Speaker 3: here as well. So Ryan got in contact with Troy.
4:17
Speaker 3: He actually went to his pardon party in Wyoming over
4:19
Speaker 3: the winter and ended up teaming up with the same
4:22
Speaker 3: lawyer and lobbyist who helped push for Troy's clemency. And
4:27
Speaker 3: then a day before July four this year, Ryan, along
4:31
Speaker 3: with five other individuals who were charged with similar conduct
4:36
Speaker 3: or received pardons.
4:37
Speaker 1: So Trump is the first president to issue pardons for companies.
4:43
Speaker 3: That's right. What's particularly unusual about the most recent state
4:47
Speaker 3: of pardons is it included pardons for companies. Each of
4:51
Speaker 3: these mechanics or AutoPASS suppliers, their companies were prosecuted as
4:57
Speaker 3: well for this conduct. And Trump signed a bunch of
5:00
Speaker 3: these clemency grants which white claim the convictions against the companies,
5:05
Speaker 3: any individuals, and any outstanding financial penalties for the companies.
5:10
Speaker 3: And this is the first time a president, certainly in
5:13
Speaker 3: modern times, has used the clemency authority in that way.
5:19
Speaker 1: Is it legal? Because former President Jimmy Carter considered it
5:24
Speaker 1: before deciding against pardoning a business that had conspired with
5:29
Speaker 1: the mob to buy a Las Vegas casino because there
5:33
Speaker 1: was a disagreement within his administration about whether the constitution
5:38
Speaker 1: allowed it.
5:39
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is legal, and the White House and told
5:43
Speaker 3: us as part of this reporting that there is nothing
5:46
Speaker 3: in the Constitution that says pardons can only be for people.
5:51
Speaker 3: But I think you know, in the past presidents have
5:54
Speaker 3: seed away from it because it's not good from an
5:57
Speaker 3: optics perspective. I've spoken to a number of academics who've
6:01
Speaker 3: delved into this issue, and one in particular said, there
6:04
Speaker 3: is no way our past president would have touched this
6:07
Speaker 3: with the barge poll. It's one thing to pardon someone
6:11
Speaker 3: who you believe is innocent or has rehabilitated or is remorseful,
6:16
Speaker 3: but it's another thing entirely to get rid of criminal
6:20
Speaker 3: liability of major financial crime. So yes, other presidents in
6:24
Speaker 3: modern times had boy with the idea, but no one's
6:27
Speaker 3: actually done it.
6:28
Speaker 1: So their precedent is Charles the Second of England.
6:32
Speaker 3: Yes. One of the interesting parts of this reporting process
6:36
Speaker 3: was looking at how this debate even started in the
6:40
Speaker 3: White House after Trump came to power in early twenty
6:43
Speaker 3: twenty five and we've heard that the parent company of
6:46
Speaker 3: crypto platform BITMS was discreetly angling for a pardon from
6:51
Speaker 3: President Trump at the time, not only for the individuals
6:54
Speaker 3: who worked there, but for the company itself, which was
6:57
Speaker 3: facing one hundred million dollar fine. And as they were
7:00
Speaker 3: lobbying the administration, advisors at the White House started asking
7:04
Speaker 3: the question, you know, can we even pardon a company?
7:07
Speaker 3: And some advisors they were told saw precedent in King
7:12
Speaker 3: Charles the Second of England pardoning a corporation some three
7:17
Speaker 3: hundred years ago, and that was included in some of
7:21
Speaker 3: the discussion and consideration that went into eventually pardoning the
7:25
Speaker 3: parent company of bit bex.
7:28
Speaker 1: When Trump brags about these acts of clemency, he doesn't
7:32
Speaker 1: mention that they've wiped out almost two hundred million dollars
7:37
Speaker 1: in financial penalties which could be going to victims.
7:41
Speaker 3: Yes, and that's a mix of restitution, forfeiture financial penalties,
7:46
Speaker 3: much of which would have been available through different avenues
7:50
Speaker 3: to victims of crime, particularly the restitution and the forfeiture.
7:54
Speaker 3: And something that's particularly unique about Trump's commutations is that
8:00
Speaker 3: they have also wiped out outstanding financial penalties. So we
8:05
Speaker 3: saw that in the case involving media startup Ousie Media.
8:09
Speaker 3: That company and its founder, Carlos Watson were on the
8:12
Speaker 3: hook for about ninety six million dollars in financial penalties,
8:16
Speaker 3: and Trump commuted the sentence of both Watson and the
8:20
Speaker 3: company and included in that language of that communication was
8:23
Speaker 3: that this applies to any outstanding penalties. And we just
8:28
Speaker 3: haven't seen that under previous presidencies.
8:31
Speaker 1: Carlos Watson really worked this to get this before Trump.
8:35
Speaker 3: Yes, Watson was really working the phones in the lead
8:38
Speaker 3: up to the date that he was meant to begin
8:41
Speaker 3: his ten year prison sentence, and he was reaching out
8:43
Speaker 3: to anyone and everyone that he thought could help push
8:47
Speaker 3: his case for clemency. And based on our reporting, we
8:51
Speaker 3: know that he thought it was possible that he could
8:53
Speaker 3: get a pardon for Ossie Media and not just himself.
8:56
Speaker 3: And in these conversations where he's talking to people to
8:59
Speaker 3: try and get them on board with his clemency push,
9:01
Speaker 3: again and again he's reiterating Ossie and me, Ossie and me,
9:05
Speaker 3: the clemency needs to be for both himself and the company. Also,
9:08
Speaker 3: in his arguments to the administration about why he deserved clemency,
9:13
Speaker 3: he framed the prosecution of his company as just an
9:18
Speaker 3: extra pushed by the Justice Department to crush everything that
9:22
Speaker 3: he believed in. Those arguments obviously resonated with the White House,
9:26
Speaker 3: and President Trump issued a commutation for Watson and Ossie
9:31
Speaker 3: Media on the morning he was due to report to prison.
9:34
Speaker 1: Are the clemency applicants going through the normal process through
9:38
Speaker 1: the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney or are
9:43
Speaker 1: they going around the office and straight to the White House.
9:47
Speaker 3: These company pardons in particular, it's been a bit of
9:51
Speaker 3: a mix. We can tell from the Partner Attorney Office
9:55
Speaker 3: website that Bitmes, for example, didn't apply through the formal
10:00
Speaker 3: channels for a pardon, But the nine Diesel mechanics who
10:04
Speaker 3: received pardons, their name pops up in the database, and
10:07
Speaker 3: that shows us that they at least went through one
10:10
Speaker 3: of the traditional channels in applying for a pardon, which
10:14
Speaker 3: is coming out with that application and filing a bunch
10:17
Speaker 3: of supporting material to the DOJ. So it's definitely been
10:21
Speaker 3: a bit of a mix, which is a pattern that
10:22
Speaker 3: we've also seen with a number of these high profile
10:25
Speaker 3: individual clemencies.
10:27
Speaker 1: I mean, there are lawyers that are connected that specifically
10:32
Speaker 1: put these through or try to put these through.
10:35
Speaker 3: Absolutely. One unique thing we've seen pop up during this
10:40
Speaker 3: Trump administration is this industry of lawyers and lobbyists and
10:45
Speaker 3: consultants and fixers who hold themselves out as having connections
10:50
Speaker 3: and access to people that matter in the White House,
10:53
Speaker 3: and they're marketing those connections to onboard clients who want
10:57
Speaker 3: them and see saying I can get your case in
11:00
Speaker 3: front of the decision makers, in front of the people
11:03
Speaker 3: that matter. But that representation is coming with extraordinary fees.
11:08
Speaker 3: You know, we've heard stories of some lawyers charging at
11:11
Speaker 3: a base level a million dollars, and there are plenty
11:14
Speaker 3: of rumors about the fees being much higher than that.
11:17
Speaker 1: So explain the difference between clemency and a pardon.
11:21
Speaker 3: Clemency is the overarching authority that the president has a
11:27
Speaker 3: stimulated in Article two of the Constitution to forgive penalties
11:34
Speaker 3: imposed on individuals, and in this administration they believe that
11:38
Speaker 3: can also apply it to companies. A pardon wipes clean
11:43
Speaker 3: the conviction and any penalty associated with that, whether it
11:48
Speaker 3: be a prison sentence or financial penalties, whereas a commutation
11:53
Speaker 3: will cut a prison sentence short. So often we'll see
11:57
Speaker 3: people who are in the middle of a lengthy prison
12:00
Speaker 3: sentence will obtain a commutation and they'll be released from
12:05
Speaker 3: prison ten years into their thirty year prison sentence day.
12:09
Speaker 1: And where does Trump stand compared to his predecessors as
12:13
Speaker 1: far as these grants of clemency.
12:15
Speaker 3: Well, we had a close look at how many clemency
12:18
Speaker 3: grants Trump has issued in those eighteen months, and he
12:22
Speaker 3: far outstrips any president during that same period. If we
12:27
Speaker 3: look back at the Biden administration, President Biden issued four
12:33
Speaker 3: thousand on clemency grants by the end of his term,
12:37
Speaker 3: and that was certainly a record. But no president has
12:42
Speaker 3: issued as many grants as Trump has in the first
12:46
Speaker 3: eighteen months of their term.
12:48
Speaker 1: And have a lot of them been I mean politically charged.
12:52
Speaker 3: Trump certainly set the pace on the first day of
12:55
Speaker 3: his term when he issued mass pardons to people charged
13:00
Speaker 3: connection with the January sixth riots on Capitol Hill, So
13:03
Speaker 3: that takes up the bulk of his climency grants. But
13:07
Speaker 3: aside from that, we have seen him issue pardons and
13:11
Speaker 3: commutations to a number of wealthy, well connected, well resourced
13:17
Speaker 3: defendants for white collar crimes and also supporters of his
13:23
Speaker 3: political allies of his and Trevor Milton, for example, donated
13:27
Speaker 3: millions of dollars to his political action committees.
13:31
Speaker 1: And it seems like the July fourth pardoning of the
13:34
Speaker 1: six people who were convicted of violating the Clean Air
13:38
Speaker 1: Act might have been connected to Trump's roll back of
13:42
Speaker 1: Biden's environmental legacy. Did they go through the system?
13:47
Speaker 3: It looks like they all went through the proper process.
13:51
Speaker 3: They filed applications to the Partner Jorney's office. Some of
13:54
Speaker 3: them had their home state senators in their corner also
13:57
Speaker 3: lobbying for them as well, and had their own lobbyists.
14:01
Speaker 3: But it also kind of ties in with these administrations
14:06
Speaker 3: rolling back of certain environmental policies and rules and regulations
14:11
Speaker 3: around admissions, so it fits in with their broader political agenda.
14:15
Speaker 1: And also fits in with Trump's connection to crypto. So
14:20
Speaker 1: tell us about the first company pardon.
14:22
Speaker 3: The first company parton that Trump issued in early twenty
14:26
Speaker 3: twenty five was to HDR Global Trading, which is the
14:30
Speaker 3: parent company of crypto platform Bitmex and bitmes was in
14:36
Speaker 3: strife for violating anti money laundering laws and the company
14:42
Speaker 3: was facing a one hundred million dollar five Bitmex is
14:46
Speaker 3: an interesting one because one of its co founders was
14:50
Speaker 3: embracing Trump's softening stance around crypto. The platform was a
14:56
Speaker 3: early launcher of a derivative swap associated with the Trump
15:01
Speaker 3: Mean Coin. The Trump Mean coin has ended up earning
15:05
Speaker 3: the president millions of dollars, as we've seen in some
15:07
Speaker 3: recent reporting, and the co founder, Arthur Hayes, wrote a
15:12
Speaker 3: essay that was quite widely read by those in the
15:14
Speaker 3: industry calling Trump's embrace of mean coins, framing it as
15:19
Speaker 3: a move towards political accountability. And he'd also in early
15:24
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five he'd been spotted at Mara a Lago
15:27
Speaker 3: at an event there talking about the need for crypto
15:29
Speaker 3: deregulation and crypto the crypto industry is something that certainly
15:34
Speaker 3: President Trump has leaned into pretty strongly in this administration.
15:38
Speaker 1: It's a great story with a lot of research. Thanks
15:41
Speaker 1: so much for sharing it with us. EVA. That's Bloomberg
15:44
Speaker 1: Legal reporter Ava Benny Morrison.
15:47
Speaker 4: Federal prosecutors went to a grand jury to seek criminal
15:52
Speaker 4: charges against members of the United States Senate for something
15:58
Speaker 4: we said. They tried to have us charged and thrown
16:05
Speaker 4: into jail because we said something that they didn't like,
16:13
Speaker 4: because we repeated what the law actually is.
16:18
Speaker 1: Four months ago, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly spoke about the
16:22
Speaker 1: effort by DCUs Attorney Janine Piro to get an indictment
16:27
Speaker 1: against six members of Congress who made a video encouraging
16:32
Speaker 1: US troops to disobey illegal orders, but a grand jury
16:37
Speaker 1: refused to indict them.
16:39
Speaker 4: We know the law and the Constitution is on our side.
16:43
Speaker 4: We saw that yesterday when US citizens the members of
16:48
Speaker 4: a grand jury, they took a stand and said no.
16:52
Speaker 1: A grand jury refusing to indict was once an unusual occurrence,
16:57
Speaker 1: no longer. It's happened in several high profile cases. For example,
17:03
Speaker 1: Virginia grand jurors twice refused to indict, New York Attorney
17:07
Speaker 1: General Letitia James and federal grand jurors in Chicago rejected
17:12
Speaker 1: indictments against at least three people last year, all of
17:16
Speaker 1: whom were accused of assaulting federal agents during the anti
17:20
Speaker 1: immigration crackdown. And now a quiet institutional shift, as judges
17:26
Speaker 1: are expressing doubts that prosecutors are bringing cases based on
17:31
Speaker 1: the strength of the evidence. District courts in Chicago, d C.
17:35
Speaker 1: And Boston are now moving to document the refusal of
17:40
Speaker 1: grand juries to indict My guest is former federal prosecutor.
17:44
Speaker 1: Sharon Filey, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School,
17:48
Speaker 1: explain why judges in some jurisdictions are concerned about what's
17:55
Speaker 1: happening in federal grand jury proceedings.
18:00
Speaker 5: But the grand jury is a really important check on
18:02
Speaker 5: the prosecutorial process. It's actually grounded in the United States
18:07
Speaker 5: Constitution that when you're charged with the serious crime, that
18:11
Speaker 5: you should be charged by way of an indictment that's
18:14
Speaker 5: brought by the grand jury. The purpose of the grand
18:16
Speaker 5: jury is to have an independent group of citizens who
18:20
Speaker 5: look at the evidence of the case and decide if
18:23
Speaker 5: there's sufficient evidence to believe that there's probable cause that
18:27
Speaker 5: a crime was committed and the person that's being charged
18:30
Speaker 5: committed the crime. And the reason why we want to
18:32
Speaker 5: have that independent check is because being charged with a
18:35
Speaker 5: crime is really serious. It has a lot of impact
18:38
Speaker 5: on people's lives. It can cause public reputational harm, it
18:43
Speaker 5: can cause someone to lose their liberty if they're held
18:47
Speaker 5: in detention pending the trial. They could be held and
18:49
Speaker 5: then lose their family, lose their job, lose their home.
18:53
Speaker 5: So there's a lot of consequences for just being charged
18:56
Speaker 5: with the crime, not even being convicted of a crime.
18:58
Speaker 5: So when the government is going to take take that
19:00
Speaker 5: really important step, we do want this independent check, and
19:04
Speaker 5: that's the purpose of a grand jury. So when we
19:06
Speaker 5: have concerned that the government's conduct in front of a
19:10
Speaker 5: grand jury is not what it's supposed to be, and
19:13
Speaker 5: that can be really concerning because it undermines that constitutional
19:17
Speaker 5: right to have this protection that the grand jury provides. Now, normally,
19:23
Speaker 5: proceedings before the grand jury are secret, and they're supposed
19:27
Speaker 5: to be secret. And there's a reason for that too,
19:30
Speaker 5: when you have a government that's investigating an individual that
19:34
Speaker 5: can cause reputational harm. If that were to get out,
19:37
Speaker 5: the person might be entirely innocent. So we don't necessarily
19:41
Speaker 5: want the public to know everything that goes on within
19:44
Speaker 5: the grand jury. And then, of course, also witnesses are
19:48
Speaker 5: called to appear and testify before the grand jury, and
19:52
Speaker 5: we want those witnesses to feel comfortable doing that, and
19:55
Speaker 5: so we want to protect their identity. And so that's
19:58
Speaker 5: why all the proceedings before the great injury are supposed
20:01
Speaker 5: to be secret. Now there's evidence that's been appearing over
20:04
Speaker 5: the last few months. That gives us concern about the
20:07
Speaker 5: conduct of prosecutors when they're appearing before the grand jury.
20:11
Speaker 1: So tell us what the district court in the Northern
20:14
Speaker 1: District of Illinois, which covers Chicago, is doing to address
20:18
Speaker 1: possible problems with grand jury proceedings.
20:22
Speaker 5: In this case, we have the federal court in the
20:25
Speaker 5: Northern District of Illinois, who I guess had some concerns
20:29
Speaker 5: and made a change to their local rules, which they
20:32
Speaker 5: have the power to do. So they created a rule
20:34
Speaker 5: that says that when the government presents an indictment to
20:39
Speaker 5: the grand jury in a case where the government has
20:43
Speaker 5: already charged someone by way of a complaint or by
20:47
Speaker 5: way of an information, and the grand jury says, no,
20:50
Speaker 5: we don't agree that there's enough evidence here to carry
20:53
Speaker 5: this forward to trial, they're going to make that information public.
20:57
Speaker 5: They're going to make that decision by the grand jury public.
21:00
Speaker 5: It's a new rule. So that was the decision that
21:03
Speaker 5: this court made, and we're assuming that it's based on,
21:06
Speaker 5: you know, recent events and activities that were occurring within
21:09
Speaker 5: that particular district.
21:11
Speaker 1: So in Chicago, there was the case where Judge Perry
21:16
Speaker 1: found that there was misconduct at the grand jury including
21:20
Speaker 1: that the prosecutor dismissed a grand juror who didn't agree,
21:24
Speaker 1: they talked to a grandeur outside of the grand jury,
21:29
Speaker 1: they improperly vouched for the evidence. Now, that kind of information,
21:34
Speaker 1: that kind of misconduct, we're not going to learn from
21:38
Speaker 1: just this reporting that's required now, right, We're just going
21:42
Speaker 1: to learn the minimal information.
21:45
Speaker 5: Yeah. So, like I said, the proceedings before the grand jury,
21:49
Speaker 5: which would include all the testimony by the prosecutors as
21:53
Speaker 5: well as the witnesses wilks, still remain secret. Even under
21:57
Speaker 5: this new rule. None of that substantive stuff will come out.
22:01
Speaker 5: This rule merely allows for the court to have a
22:05
Speaker 5: public document that shows that an indictment was presented and
22:09
Speaker 5: it was rejected, and that that's all the information that
22:12
Speaker 5: this rule allows to come out about what happens before
22:15
Speaker 5: the grand jury.
22:16
Speaker 1: So why do you think it's important that even that
22:19
Speaker 1: minimum comes out?
22:20
Speaker 5: Well, for example, if you have a situation where the
22:25
Speaker 5: government you know, is seeking to indict someone without sufficient evidence,
22:30
Speaker 5: in a case where that the person has already been
22:34
Speaker 5: charged publicly, I think the court is saying we want
22:38
Speaker 5: the public to know that and just in case there's
22:40
Speaker 5: concerns concerns around the government conduct and pursuing the case,
22:45
Speaker 5: and so I think that's the purpose of the rule.
22:48
Speaker 1: I was interested because you always heard that famous expression,
22:52
Speaker 1: you know, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.
22:54
Speaker 1: But according to the federal data, grand juries around the
22:58
Speaker 1: country refused to indict fifteen times a year on average,
23:02
Speaker 1: from two thousand and six to twenty sixteen. Is that
23:05
Speaker 1: even a surprising number.
23:07
Speaker 5: Well, I think the thing to understand is that, you
23:10
Speaker 5: know the whole saying about grand juries will undet a
23:14
Speaker 5: ham sandwich. It's important to understand the dynamics of what
23:16
Speaker 5: happens in a grand jury. A grand jury is not
23:19
Speaker 5: like a normal criminal trial where you have both sides
23:23
Speaker 5: arguing about the case, where the government is presenting the
23:27
Speaker 5: evidence saying this person is guilty and the defense counsel
23:31
Speaker 5: is presenting evidence or arguing that he's not. The grand
23:34
Speaker 5: jury is not an adversarial proceeding, meaning only the government
23:38
Speaker 5: is there. So you know, the government is presenting evidence
23:42
Speaker 5: and all they need to do is to put forth
23:45
Speaker 5: enough evidence to prove that there's probable cause to believe
23:48
Speaker 5: that the crime was committed by that person. That's a
23:52
Speaker 5: much lower standard than the proof that we're normally used
23:55
Speaker 5: to seeing in a criminal trial, which is proof beyond
23:58
Speaker 5: a reasonable doubt. So it's not a terribly high standard.
24:01
Speaker 5: So it's only the government there. The other side's not
24:03
Speaker 5: there to argue against what the government is presenting, and
24:06
Speaker 5: it's a fairly low standard, and so that's why it's
24:09
Speaker 5: fairly rare where the government presents a case where you know,
24:13
Speaker 5: a true bill is not authorized by the grand jury.
24:16
Speaker 5: But the other reason why a no true bill decision
24:20
Speaker 5: is rare is because when you're a prosecutor presenting a
24:24
Speaker 5: case before the grand jury, as I mentioned, you know,
24:27
Speaker 5: to get an indictment, all you have to put forth
24:30
Speaker 5: is enough evidence to prove there was probable cause. But
24:33
Speaker 5: you know, ultimately, if you get the indictment, that you're
24:36
Speaker 5: going to have to try the case. And so most prosecutors,
24:41
Speaker 5: at least most good prosecutors are not going to seek
24:44
Speaker 5: an indictment unless they have enough proof to prove the
24:47
Speaker 5: case ultimately, which is prooved beyond a reasonable doubt. And
24:50
Speaker 5: that's another reason why, particularly in the federal system, usually
24:55
Speaker 5: you know, decisions of no bill are rare because most prosecutors,
25:00
Speaker 5: before the indictment, their case is built out, and it's strong,
25:03
Speaker 5: and they know they've got proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
25:06
Speaker 5: and that's why they're pursuing the indictment. And so that's
25:08
Speaker 5: why these no bill decisions usually are somewhat rare.
25:13
Speaker 1: A lot of the high profile cases where grand juries
25:16
Speaker 1: refuse to indict involved political enemies of the president or
25:23
Speaker 1: democratic lawmakers. Do you think the courts are concerned that
25:29
Speaker 1: prosecutors are being influenced by politics?
25:33
Speaker 5: Well, you know, I can't, you know, speak for the
25:36
Speaker 5: court as to why they put this room to place,
25:38
Speaker 5: So I really don't know the answers to that question.
25:41
Speaker 5: And of course, there has been a lot of coverage of,
25:44
Speaker 5: you know, the Department of Justice and the way it
25:47
Speaker 5: is operating these days in a way that is reflecting
25:51
Speaker 5: what seemed to be more politically driven prosecutions than there
25:56
Speaker 5: were before the Trump administration. There's no question about that.
26:00
Speaker 5: There's a lot of debate around that. But I think,
26:04
Speaker 5: you know, what's also been discussed that sort of the
26:07
Speaker 5: issue that's been raised by the most recent misconduct observed
26:10
Speaker 5: here in Chicago is that prosecutors have generally been given
26:15
Speaker 5: this presumption of regularity, right, which is the idea that
26:19
Speaker 5: they're going to handle themselves in the way and on
26:21
Speaker 5: the up and up, they're going to follow the rules
26:24
Speaker 5: and they're going to conduct themselves in a way that
26:27
Speaker 5: the court would trust them to do. And I think
26:30
Speaker 5: what we're seeing in terms of what happened in Chicago
26:34
Speaker 5: most recently is that you know, courts are worried about
26:37
Speaker 5: whether or not they should be giving the prosecutors under
26:41
Speaker 5: this particular Department of Justice's strategy, the way this particular
26:45
Speaker 5: Department of Justice is operating, whether they deserve that presumption
26:50
Speaker 5: of regularity, And so if they have that concern, there
26:53
Speaker 5: are things that the court can do, like creating rules
26:56
Speaker 5: like this to address those concerns.
26:58
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining me share. That's Professor Sharon
27:01
Speaker 1: Fairley of the University of Chicago School of Law. They
27:14
Speaker 1: were cheering in Madrid as Spain defeated Argentina after extra
27:19
Speaker 1: time in a tense final, giving Spain its second World
27:23
Speaker 1: Cup crown. All in all, soccer's biggest show went off well,
27:28
Speaker 1: with a few noted exceptions, like President Trump intervening in
27:33
Speaker 1: the controversy over the red card given to USA player
27:37
Speaker 1: Faller in Balligan, but behind the scenes FIFA's first forty
27:41
Speaker 1: eighteen men's tournament, featuring one hundred four matches across three countries,
27:47
Speaker 1: created more issues and more opportunities for legal friction than
27:52
Speaker 1: any previous tournament. Whether it was t shirt sales or
27:56
Speaker 1: the weather, lawyers played a part in ironing out the kinks.
28:01
Speaker 1: Joining me is David Hellier, Bloomberg UK Business reporter. David
28:05
Speaker 1: Let's start with the conflict over the weather. FIFA considered
28:09
Speaker 1: moving England's match against Mexico forward by six hours because
28:14
Speaker 1: of concerns over thunderstorms and flooding in Mexico City, and
28:20
Speaker 1: England was stunned by the prospect of its preparations being
28:24
Speaker 1: disrupted at short notice. So enter the lawyers.
28:28
Speaker 6: Yeah, so the FA, the Football Association in England, went
28:32
Speaker 6: to an external law firm called Northridge in order to
28:36
Speaker 6: basically get them to argue their case and to give
28:39
Speaker 6: them some extra ammunition. I guess I think there was
28:43
Speaker 6: you know, there was huge pressure to bring the game forward.
28:46
Speaker 6: I mean one of the things you know that the
28:47
Speaker 6: lawyers had to consider was people who bought tickets who
28:50
Speaker 6: were flying in to the game. You know, they would
28:53
Speaker 6: be disadvantaged that there would have to be some sort
28:56
Speaker 6: of compensation so they could use all these kind of arguments.
28:59
Speaker 6: It was kind of unusual, and it seemed to us
29:02
Speaker 6: to kind of merit a piece about the growing use
29:06
Speaker 6: of sports lawyers. I mean, in particular, we focused on
29:09
Speaker 6: the World Cup and football. I mean, I've been looking
29:12
Speaker 6: at issues in English football and the Premier League over
29:16
Speaker 6: the last two or three years, and one of the
29:19
Speaker 6: common refrains from a number of people is this that,
29:23
Speaker 6: you know, so many of the outcomes of matches are
29:26
Speaker 6: now either being settled in law courts or in danger
29:30
Speaker 6: of being settled in law courts, that the crowd only
29:32
Speaker 6: see half the picture they're at the stadium, but really
29:36
Speaker 6: what's going on maybe many weeks later, is kind of
29:39
Speaker 6: more decisive, and that's going on in the law courts.
29:42
Speaker 6: And that's because in this particular instance, because the leagues
29:46
Speaker 6: have brought in very very stringent financial regulations to stop
29:50
Speaker 6: teams from overspending, and you know, it has to be
29:53
Speaker 6: monitored and it has to be regulated by the league.
29:56
Speaker 6: And then immediately the league decides on something to the
30:00
Speaker 6: lawyers and they're kind of arguing against it, and they're
30:03
Speaker 6: saying no, no, no, you know this spending was absolutely legitimate.
30:07
Speaker 6: And what you have, you know, you do have this
30:09
Speaker 6: great shift towards you know, sporting outcomes even being decided
30:13
Speaker 6: by lawyers.
30:15
Speaker 1: Is there a match where the outcome of the match
30:17
Speaker 1: was changed because of legal action.
30:20
Speaker 6: The biggest case ever and it hasn't happened yet, is
30:24
Speaker 6: that a top team in the Premier League, Manchester City,
30:27
Speaker 6: which is owned by UAE interests very closely linked to
30:30
Speaker 6: the state although it's a private company, so Manchester City
30:33
Speaker 6: are owned by them. They are accused of one hundred
30:35
Speaker 6: and fifteen breaches of Premier League rules. And this case
30:39
Speaker 6: has been with the lawyers for several years now and
30:43
Speaker 6: it's now with an independent commission that the Premier League
30:46
Speaker 6: is appointed. Man City have paid so many lawyers, so
30:50
Speaker 6: many barristers. It's costing fortune. The other clubs in the league.
30:54
Speaker 6: They're having to pay part of the bill because it
30:56
Speaker 6: goes to the league and then the league claims it
30:59
Speaker 6: from all the other clubs and it hasn't been resolved.
31:02
Speaker 1: Cape Verd was an underdog and became a fan favorite.
31:06
Speaker 1: That means people are rushing to get T shirts and
31:09
Speaker 1: other paraphernalia, and that led to a dispute over sales
31:14
Speaker 1: rights during the World Cup.
31:16
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean before before the World Cup began, the
31:21
Speaker 6: cape Verde kit, not just the jerseys, but the shorts,
31:24
Speaker 6: the socks and everything that was being licensed to another
31:28
Speaker 6: company called Tempo, and Tempo then lost the contract to
31:34
Speaker 6: Capelli for the World Cup. And as soon as cape Verdi,
31:38
Speaker 6: you know, started doing it became the kind of outsider
31:43
Speaker 6: extraordinary of the tournament. You know. As soon as that
31:45
Speaker 6: started happening in the demand for the kit grew exponentially.
31:49
Speaker 6: Tempo started marketing it's it's old kit, saying, you know,
31:53
Speaker 6: you can buy the cap Verde kit. It wasn't the
31:55
Speaker 6: current kit, it's previous kit. But you know, people wouldn't
31:58
Speaker 6: necessarily know that it's not the the new kit, and
32:01
Speaker 6: it looked very similar. And so again Cape Verde had
32:05
Speaker 6: to reach for the lawyers and issue a cease and
32:08
Speaker 6: assist notice because the profits that they were making from
32:12
Speaker 6: that deal were going to be spread amongst the football
32:16
Speaker 6: association in cape Verde, and Temper were getting their share
32:21
Speaker 6: of that potentially legitimately the one.
32:24
Speaker 1: That everyone heard about, you know, the red card seen
32:26
Speaker 1: around the world was the red card that US President
32:31
Speaker 1: Trump intervened in. Now where would the lawyers fit in?
32:35
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean we never had evidence that they went
32:38
Speaker 6: to outside lawyers, but the Weldon FA, all the football
32:42
Speaker 6: associations have big in house teams. They were exasperated. They
32:46
Speaker 6: definitely went to this appeal. It was turned down and
32:50
Speaker 6: you know Balligan, as we know, he played when you
32:53
Speaker 6: know ninety nine times set one hundred, he wouldn't have played.
32:56
Speaker 6: So that was kind of a real flashpoint. And although
33:00
Speaker 6: we don't know whether they used outside law firms, it
33:02
Speaker 6: was something that all the law firms are kind of
33:04
Speaker 6: using in a way because they're saying, look, you know,
33:07
Speaker 6: this kind of thing can happen, you need to have
33:09
Speaker 6: somebody on board. I talked to a lawyer from a
33:13
Speaker 6: London firm, Bird and Bird, who actually went on a
33:16
Speaker 6: tour with a rugby team with British Lions. So you know,
33:20
Speaker 6: the British Lions rugby team would take a massive physiotherapist,
33:24
Speaker 6: a conditioning coach and they'd also took a lawyer with them.
33:28
Speaker 6: He said that it was a great fun but it
33:30
Speaker 6: wasn't very productive in terms of he didn't have much
33:33
Speaker 6: to do. He had a couple of baligant type incidents
33:36
Speaker 6: which took him a little while to sort that, but
33:39
Speaker 6: not really enough one in each tour, so it wasn't
33:41
Speaker 6: enough to justify. So he was saying he wouldn't recommend
33:45
Speaker 6: taking a lawyer with you, you know, to be with
33:47
Speaker 6: the tour the whole time, but he would say that
33:50
Speaker 6: you need to have a very expert person on the
33:53
Speaker 6: ground in the places you're going to be, and probably
33:55
Speaker 6: back at home as well, would be the ideal from
33:59
Speaker 6: his experience.
34:00
Speaker 1: I mean, these things happen very fast, don't they. The
34:03
Speaker 1: red card incident seem like it started and stopped right away.
34:06
Speaker 6: Yeah, very quick. I mean, on the whole there's something
34:10
Speaker 6: like that will explode, and it's very unlikely they're going
34:13
Speaker 6: to postpone the game until everybody's deliberated. So it's in
34:17
Speaker 6: everybody's interest to basically reach a very swift conclusion so
34:21
Speaker 6: that when the game goes ahead, you know, he's either
34:23
Speaker 6: playing or he's not playing. You know, you can imagine
34:26
Speaker 6: that they maybe couldn't come to a decision, but that
34:29
Speaker 6: would have been an enormous logistical sort of consequences, you know,
34:34
Speaker 6: people buying tickets and having to change them, broadcast arrangements,
34:38
Speaker 6: I mean, the other thing that the lawyer's mentioned to
34:39
Speaker 6: me a lot aside from the things we've talked about
34:42
Speaker 6: are the broadcasting arrangements, because these are signed years in advance.
34:47
Speaker 6: Often Fox signed the agreements I think in twenty fourteen
34:51
Speaker 6: for this World Cup, and it basically gives them certain
34:55
Speaker 6: rights to certain games. And you know, like if the
34:59
Speaker 6: England makes game had been brought forward six hours or something,
35:02
Speaker 6: I mean, they had to be consulted. Their lawyers would
35:05
Speaker 6: have been consulted as well, because that would have made
35:07
Speaker 6: an impact. They would to be at peak time. It
35:10
Speaker 6: would have been twelve o'clock lunchtime instead of seven o'clock
35:12
Speaker 6: in the evening, So that would have had a financial
35:15
Speaker 6: impact on them. You know, there's so many broadcasters involved
35:18
Speaker 6: in an event like this.
35:19
Speaker 1: Let's talk about numbers. So US Soccer twenty twenty five
35:24
Speaker 1: about twenty three million in fees. That's more than double
35:27
Speaker 1: a year earlier. The English Premier League spent one hundred
35:32
Speaker 1: and twenty five million dollars on legal costs over the
35:35
Speaker 1: last two years. According to media reports.
35:38
Speaker 6: This Manchester City case is absolutely enormous. They could end
35:43
Speaker 6: up having some pretty consequential punishments and it's so hotly
35:47
Speaker 6: contested that is really costing an absolute fortune. But it's
35:52
Speaker 6: not just Manchester City. The financial rules have become in
35:55
Speaker 6: Europe so complicated. There's rules for European competitions, there's room
36:00
Speaker 6: rules for domestic competitions. They are really mind boggling some
36:03
Speaker 6: of these rules.
36:04
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, David. That's Bloomberg's David Hellier and that's
36:09
Speaker 1: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
36:11
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
36:13
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
36:18
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
36:23
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
36:26
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
36:30
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg