Latest / Bloomberg Law / NYC Mayor Indicted & Government Sues Visa

Transcript

NYC Mayor Indicted & Government Sues Visa · Bloomberg Law

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:10
  Speaker 2: Today, we are announcing campaign finance, bribery and conspiracy charges
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: against Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City. As
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: the indictment alleges Mayor Adams engaged in a long running
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: conspiracy in which he solicited and knowingly accepted illegal campaign
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: contributions from foreign donors and corporations. As we allege Mayor
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: Adams took these contributions even though he knew they were illegal.
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: Manhattan US Attorney Damian Williams announced the first federal charges
• 0:40
  Speaker 3: ever against a sitting mayor of New York City. The
• 0:43
  Speaker 3: indictment charges Eric Adams with engaging in years of sustained
• 0:47
  Speaker 3: corruption and accepting more than one hundred thousand dollars in
• 0:51
  Speaker 3: lavish bribes from foreign nationals. Williams said that Adams repeatedly
• 0:57
  Speaker 3: crossed bright red lines, leading to the charges of bribery, conspiracy,
• 1:02
  Speaker 3: and breaking campaign finance laws.
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: The conduct alleged in the indictment, the foreign money, the
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: corporate money, the bribery, the years of concealment, is a
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: grave breach of the public's trust.
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: Public office is a privilege.
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: We allege that Mayor Adams abused that privilege and broke
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: the law flaws that are designed to ensure that officials
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: like him serve the people, not the highest bidder, not
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: a foreign bidder, and certainly not a foreign power.
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: These are bright red lines, and we.
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: Allege that the Mayor crossed them again and again for years.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: That is the only reason we are here today.
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: Adams denied wrongdoing and struck a defiant tone in a
• 1:44
  Speaker 3: press conference, vowing to remain in office.
• 1:47
  Speaker 4: My day to day will not change. I will continue
• 1:52
  Speaker 4: to do the job for eight point three million New
• 1:55
  Speaker 4: Yorkers that I was elected to do.
• 1:58
  Speaker 3: Joining me is Richard purflt. A professor at Columbia Law School.
• 2:02
  Speaker 3: Rich this was a really detailed indictment. What struck you most?
• 2:06
  Speaker 5: Good question? I think the level of fact that the
• 2:10
  Speaker 5: government has put in the indictment means that at least
• 2:13
  Speaker 5: some of the counts there are five counts, my sense
• 2:16
  Speaker 5: is that at least four of them are pretty straightforward,
• 2:19
  Speaker 5: and if the government is able to prove in court
• 2:22
  Speaker 5: the facts that they're alleging in the indictment, it would
• 2:24
  Speaker 5: be very hard to defend against them.
• 2:26
  Speaker 3: What are the four that seemed straightforward.
• 2:29
  Speaker 5: So they are the two that are about foreign campaign contributions,
• 2:33
  Speaker 5: and that's one for the twenty twenty one campaign and
• 2:35
  Speaker 5: one for the twenty twenty five campaign. That is flat
• 2:38
  Speaker 5: out illegal. I mean in fact when you actually get
• 2:40
  Speaker 5: to the count I mean, obviously there's a long factual backdrop,
• 2:43
  Speaker 5: but those counts are like two paragraphs long. It's extremely
• 2:46
  Speaker 5: shortened to the point. And if they can show that
• 2:49
  Speaker 5: he kind of intentionally and with his team his associates
• 2:53
  Speaker 5: worked with foreign donors knowing they were foreign donors to
• 2:57
  Speaker 5: get them to contribute to his campaign, that's pretty close
• 3:00
  Speaker 5: to open and shut if the facts prove out. And
• 3:02
  Speaker 5: the other the other two that are pretty close those
• 3:05
  Speaker 5: two just served very powerful is the federal funds ribery ones,
• 3:08
  Speaker 5: which is the ones that basically charge him with kind
• 3:11
  Speaker 5: of bilking the New York City Matching Funds program through
• 3:15
  Speaker 5: various ways, again getting the foreign donations, but also other
• 3:19
  Speaker 5: donations where they broke them down and then persuaded the
• 3:22
  Speaker 5: donors to use straw donors so that larger donations were
• 3:26
  Speaker 5: funneled through smaller donors so that they were matchable under
• 3:28
  Speaker 5: the New York City Matching Funds program. That also is again,
• 3:31
  Speaker 5: if they can prove that, that does seem like a
• 3:34
  Speaker 5: straightforward effort on the part of the mayor to the
• 3:38
  Speaker 5: City of New York. And you know that's what the
• 3:41
  Speaker 5: federal funds bribery thing is. You know, is he in
• 3:43
  Speaker 5: effect using this for his own benefit?
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: Since this is an indictment of the first indictment of
• 3:51
  Speaker 3: a New York City mayor on federal charges, and you
• 3:55
  Speaker 3: know that this has been cleared all the way to
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: the top of the Justice Department. I mean, are you
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: pretty confident that they have the evidence to back up
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: what they allege?
• 4:06
  Speaker 5: No? I mean, I don't know enough, but certainly the
• 4:08
  Speaker 5: indictment is very, very detailed, So they certainly have laid
• 4:11
  Speaker 5: out a set of facts that if they can prove them,
• 4:14
  Speaker 5: you know, are pretty strong. They've laid out a lot
• 4:17
  Speaker 5: of facts. There are no gold bars in this one
• 4:19
  Speaker 5: like Menendez, but they've laid out a lot and a
• 4:22
  Speaker 5: lot of detail.
• 4:23
  Speaker 3: So the US Attorney a big focus of his press
• 4:26
  Speaker 3: conference was that Adams accepted luxury travel. And they had
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: a poster board.
• 4:33
  Speaker 5: Right showing pictures of the fancy hotels and.
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: Things, right and showing the undisclosed travel benefits which are
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: also listed. It was almost a duplicate of what's in
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: the indictment. Is that because it catches the public's eye
• 4:46
  Speaker 3: or is that a very important part of this.
• 4:49
  Speaker 5: I'm sure they use of the photographs are designed to
• 4:51
  Speaker 5: catch the public eye, just like in the Menendez case
• 4:54
  Speaker 5: when they were showing off the gold bars or pictures
• 4:56
  Speaker 5: of the gold bars. Obviously it's playing them the court
• 4:59
  Speaker 5: of public opinion. All was on the court of law.
• 5:01
  Speaker 5: It's not clear that having pictures of fancy hotel rooms
• 5:04
  Speaker 5: in istan bulas that the pictures of the fancy hotel
• 5:06
  Speaker 5: rooms are crucial. The fact that the rooms were renting
• 5:09
  Speaker 5: for a certain rate and night that he wasn't paying.
• 5:11
  Speaker 5: That's actually enough.
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: And it might be surprising to many that this goes
• 5:15
  Speaker 3: back nearly ten years. I mean they went to the
• 5:19
  Speaker 3: time before.
• 5:20
  Speaker 5: He was mayor, right, well, I mean his initial interactions
• 5:24
  Speaker 5: with the Turkish representatives go back to time he's borough president.
• 5:27
  Speaker 5: Of course, he was beginning to organize his campaign to
• 5:30
  Speaker 5: become mayor, so a lot of the fundraising, you know,
• 5:33
  Speaker 5: goes back two years before the election. But he knew
• 5:35
  Speaker 5: he was running and he was borough president, so he
• 5:37
  Speaker 5: did have an official position and had some prestige that's
• 5:40
  Speaker 5: connected to that. Some official powers, powers that borrow president
• 5:43
  Speaker 5: are not great. But you know, the one official thing
• 5:47
  Speaker 5: that he's accused of doing is actually kind of borderline
• 5:50
  Speaker 5: because it's pressuring the Fire Department to accelerate the approval
• 5:54
  Speaker 5: of the opening of the new Turkish building. He actually
• 5:56
  Speaker 5: wasn't mayor yet and he had no formal power over
• 5:59
  Speaker 5: the Fire department. On the other hand, and he was
• 6:00
  Speaker 5: just in the process of winning the election, and he
• 6:02
  Speaker 5: was a city official, and the looral presidents have some
• 6:04
  Speaker 5: role in city government. But I think in some sense there,
• 6:07
  Speaker 5: I think the issues goes more to the fact that
• 6:10
  Speaker 5: at that point he was on the verge of becoming mayor,
• 6:12
  Speaker 5: So you know, at that point he didn't have any
• 6:15
  Speaker 5: formal leverage over the Fire Department, but he would soon.
• 6:19
  Speaker 3: Williams also spoke about how Adams failed to disclose this
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: free and discounted travel. Where does that fit in.
• 6:28
  Speaker 5: That's a good question, because I think a lot of
• 6:30
  Speaker 5: what they described in course are violations of New York
• 6:33
  Speaker 5: City conflict of interest law, which is not a violation
• 6:35
  Speaker 5: of federal law. I mean, the failure to disclose all
• 6:38
  Speaker 5: of these things violated city law. They're giving that as
• 6:41
  Speaker 5: all background, but they're not charging him per se for
• 6:44
  Speaker 5: not disclosing, because that's not a federal violation. I think
• 6:47
  Speaker 5: it goes to the idea that he was hiding it,
• 6:49
  Speaker 5: that he knew that he was getting these benefits, and
• 6:52
  Speaker 5: that there was something improper about the benefits that he
• 6:54
  Speaker 5: was getting, and that he was getting them in order
• 6:56
  Speaker 5: to subsequently influences official actions. So to me, it's more
• 7:00
  Speaker 5: a sense of maybe guilty conscience, but that he was
• 7:03
  Speaker 5: covering his tracks. Because even receiving benefits from these Turkish
• 7:08
  Speaker 5: interests don't necessarily violate federal law. They might have violate
• 7:10
  Speaker 5: at New York City conflicts law, but it was ultimately
• 7:14
  Speaker 5: the connection between getting the benefits and then using them
• 7:17
  Speaker 5: either for his own personal benefit or to get people
• 7:19
  Speaker 5: to support his campaign. That's where I think the connection
• 7:22
  Speaker 5: comes in. There's not a federal crime to violate New
• 7:24
  Speaker 5: York City conflicts laws, but I think they were using
• 7:27
  Speaker 5: it to show that this is part of a broader
• 7:29
  Speaker 5: scheme to get money from these Turkish interests, either just
• 7:33
  Speaker 5: support his campaign and or in exchange for him ultimately
• 7:36
  Speaker 5: doing them favors official favors.
• 7:38
  Speaker 3: There's also allegations that he created a fake paper trail
• 7:43
  Speaker 3: to suggest that he had paid for this. It's the
• 7:47
  Speaker 3: cover up, of.
• 7:47
  Speaker 5: Course, the idea that it wasn't just sloppy, it wasn't
• 7:50
  Speaker 5: just unintentional, that this was all part of a conscious plan.
• 7:53
  Speaker 3: The business is circumventing the city's ban on corporate contributions.
• 7:57
  Speaker 3: How has that been to a federal.
• 7:59
  Speaker 5: Again, so I think part of this idea that he
• 8:03
  Speaker 5: was using the wires, because they says all technically wire
• 8:06
  Speaker 5: fraud to defraud New York City. Because again he was
• 8:10
  Speaker 5: taking those corporate contributions, turning them into individual contributions and
• 8:14
  Speaker 5: matching them. So in effect, this was again part of
• 8:17
  Speaker 5: a scheme to use the wires to defraud New York City.
• 8:21
  Speaker 5: And New York City received federal funds. That's why it's
• 8:23
  Speaker 5: federal program bribery aten US Code six sixty six. I mean,
• 8:28
  Speaker 5: the foreign donations are clearly illegal under federal law. The
• 8:32
  Speaker 5: domestic corporate ones, no. But what they're saying is that
• 8:37
  Speaker 5: he was engaged in a scheme to defraud New York City.
• 8:40
  Speaker 5: Because it's not so much that he got the donations,
• 8:42
  Speaker 5: as he was leveraging the donations to get matching fund money,
• 8:45
  Speaker 5: and that's taxpayer dollars.
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: They mentioned a lot of techs. Most of the texts, though,
• 8:50
  Speaker 3: that are long and outlined, are with a businessman, a
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: Turkish official, a staffer, not Adams himself. There are a
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: few references to Addam, but it's mostly other people and.
• 9:02
  Speaker 5: Right, they're going to have to show that he was
• 9:05
  Speaker 5: part of this, that his staff was doing it on
• 9:07
  Speaker 5: his behalf, and that he knew what they were doing.
• 9:09
  Speaker 3: So the indictment doesn't name names, but there's an unnamed
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: Adam's staffer, and airline manager and several businessmen. Do you
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: think they're already cooperating with prosecutors.
• 9:23
  Speaker 5: I can't speak to that. I mean they've obviously interviewed
• 9:25
  Speaker 5: them and gotten this information from them. Whether they have
• 9:28
  Speaker 5: arrangements with them or not, I don't know, but they
• 9:31
  Speaker 5: wouldn't be going forward and I think unless they felt
• 9:33
  Speaker 5: they had the evidence that they could bring it to court.
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: Do you see any defenses?
• 9:37
  Speaker 5: I didn't know, you know one of the I didn't know.
• 9:40
  Speaker 5: I mean that somewhere along the lines that where you
• 9:42
  Speaker 5: were just hinting, which is these are my staff. I
• 9:44
  Speaker 5: didn't know what they were doing. It's hard to say
• 9:46
  Speaker 5: I didn't know this was illegal, and it could be
• 9:48
  Speaker 5: a I didn't know this was happening, And certainly I
• 9:50
  Speaker 5: think it's probably the strongest defenses if they're already would
• 9:53
  Speaker 5: be in some sense that taking all of these Turkish
• 9:57
  Speaker 5: benefits really, you know, didn't violate the federal law. The
• 10:00
  Speaker 5: government isn't going to have to link up of all
• 10:03
  Speaker 5: the benefits he got to the fact that he took
• 10:05
  Speaker 5: them knowing they were intending to influence him in official actions.
• 10:09
  Speaker 5: That's the bribery standard, that he knew that he was
• 10:12
  Speaker 5: being influenced, that he took them knowing they were intended
• 10:15
  Speaker 5: to influence his official actions. That may be frankly, that
• 10:17
  Speaker 5: may be a challenge for the last count. I haven't
• 10:20
  Speaker 5: really spoken about the last count until now. And that's
• 10:23
  Speaker 5: the straightforward bribery that he took these things. He took
• 10:25
  Speaker 5: all these benefits in exchange for basically pressuring the fire
• 10:28
  Speaker 5: department to accelerate the approval of that building. The challenge
• 10:31
  Speaker 5: there is that he was taking benefits for years and
• 10:34
  Speaker 5: years before, so I think the government is going to
• 10:36
  Speaker 5: have to kind of link up all of the free
• 10:39
  Speaker 5: travel and the free hotel rooms that he got and
• 10:43
  Speaker 5: connect that to the fact that he then did this
• 10:46
  Speaker 5: favor for the Turkish government.
• 10:48
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what struck me is that it just seemed
• 10:51
  Speaker 3: like there was one thing that he did after he'd
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: been you know, graegidly taking these trips, etc.
• 10:58
  Speaker 5: That's going to be the hardest count because you've got
• 11:01
  Speaker 5: the quid and you've got the quote, but do you
• 11:03
  Speaker 5: have the pro you have the linkage, Whereas I think
• 11:06
  Speaker 5: the easiest counts for the foreign funds because to me,
• 11:08
  Speaker 5: if they made the payments and he knew about it
• 11:10
  Speaker 5: or was involved in making that happen, that's all you
• 11:14
  Speaker 5: need to show for the foreign funds, and for the
• 11:17
  Speaker 5: matching funds, it's pretty close. If he knew him he
• 11:20
  Speaker 5: was directing his team to work with these donors to
• 11:24
  Speaker 5: break up their donations into smaller ones and funnel them
• 11:26
  Speaker 5: through employees so that they were all matchable. That's also,
• 11:30
  Speaker 5: you know, a violation of the city law. It connects
• 11:33
  Speaker 5: up with the federal law that makes it a crime
• 11:36
  Speaker 5: basically to defraud a government that's receiving federal funds.
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Columbia Law
• 11:43
  Speaker 3: school professor Richard Brefalt, could Adams be removed from his
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: position as Mayor of New York. I'm June Grosso and
• 11:50
  Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg. Manhattan. US Attorney Damian Williams announced
• 11:56
  Speaker 3: the first criminal charges ever filed against a citty of
• 12:00
  Speaker 3: New York. Today, Eric Adams was indicted on charges of bribery, conspiracy,
• 12:05
  Speaker 3: and breaking campaign finance laws, and Williams promised, or rather warned,
• 12:11
  Speaker 3: there's more to come.
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: This investigation continues.
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: We continue to dig and we will hold more people accountable,
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: and I encourage anyone with information.
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: To come forward and to do so before it is
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: too late.
• 12:26
  Speaker 3: The charges were made public hours after FBI agents entered
• 12:30
  Speaker 3: the mayor's official residence, Gracie Mansion, and seized his phone
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: and electronic devices. It caps an extraordinary few weeks in
• 12:40
  Speaker 3: New York City that have seen a drumbeat of raids, subpoenas,
• 12:44
  Speaker 3: and high level resignations of members of Adam's inner circle.
• 12:48
  Speaker 3: Adams said the indictment didn't come as a surprise.
• 12:52
  Speaker 4: The actions that have unfolded over the last ten months. Yeah,
• 12:58
  Speaker 4: the leaks, the commentary, the demonizes, This did not surprise
• 13:06
  Speaker 4: us that we reached this day.
• 13:08
  Speaker 3: The mayor vowed to stay in office. I've been talking
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: to Richard Brfalt, a professor of Columbia Law School. Rich
• 13:16
  Speaker 3: the Supreme Court has been narrowing the scope of anti
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: corruption laws for more than a decade.
• 13:23
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a legitimate point. So
• 13:25
  Speaker 5: one thing, those will not affect the foreign campaign contributions, Well,
• 13:30
  Speaker 5: I think those are the ones that's going to be
• 13:31
  Speaker 5: the hardest term to fight. That should not affect the
• 13:33
  Speaker 5: foreign campaign contributions. For the others, they do require either
• 13:38
  Speaker 5: the showing of an official action. And you know, that's
• 13:42
  Speaker 5: the question of whether or not pressuring the fire department
• 13:45
  Speaker 5: was an official action. It may be in that it
• 13:48
  Speaker 5: was trying to affect a government decision and he was
• 13:51
  Speaker 5: making phone calls or whatever he was doing to do that,
• 13:54
  Speaker 5: but that's going to be the issue. The issue there
• 13:56
  Speaker 5: will be did he take an official action and was
• 13:59
  Speaker 5: it sufficially tightly linked up to the benefits he received.
• 14:02
  Speaker 5: That one, I think is going to be tricky. And
• 14:04
  Speaker 5: even the first one about the scheming to get the
• 14:08
  Speaker 5: matching funds again is going to have to show that
• 14:11
  Speaker 5: he was kind of showing that he would be influence
• 14:14
  Speaker 5: in some way by these supportive people, So that's what
• 14:17
  Speaker 5: I'm saying. I think the most straightforward is the accepting
• 14:22
  Speaker 5: of foreign funds. First campaign, the foreign campaign contributions.
• 14:26
  Speaker 3: Is that against campaign finance laws?
• 14:28
  Speaker 5: Yes, yes, absolutely. The federal ban on foreign campaign contributions
• 14:32
  Speaker 5: applies to federal, state and local elections.
• 14:35
  Speaker 3: And I think it was on the last day of
• 14:36
  Speaker 3: the term that the Supreme Court came down with that
• 14:40
  Speaker 3: controversial opinion six to three, with the conservatives of course
• 14:44
  Speaker 3: and the majority basically finding that the federal law that
• 14:48
  Speaker 3: prescribes bribes to state and local officials doesn't make it
• 14:53
  Speaker 3: a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their
• 14:57
  Speaker 3: past acts.
• 14:58
  Speaker 5: Snider, yes, so on about right illegal gratuities, but that
• 15:03
  Speaker 5: he hadn't been charged with taking a bribe, so that's
• 15:05
  Speaker 5: not the same thing. They are charging bribery here. The
• 15:08
  Speaker 5: problem in that case is the way the government framed
• 15:11
  Speaker 5: what the man did is first he did the favors
• 15:15
  Speaker 5: for of the private companies, and then he went to
• 15:18
  Speaker 5: them and said, you know, give me a no show
• 15:20
  Speaker 5: job or something like that. The government didn't charge bribery.
• 15:24
  Speaker 5: The government basically charged accepting an illegal gift. Here they're
• 15:28
  Speaker 5: charging bribery.
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: And I'm wondering if the fact that they in the
• 15:32
  Speaker 3: indictment keep repeating that he solicited it, you know, Adam solicited,
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: whether that's just to be sure that they don't end
• 15:39
  Speaker 3: up with a Snyder situation.
• 15:41
  Speaker 5: Right, the language is corruptly solicit anything of value.
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: You never know what the Supreme Court would do. He
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: could get convicted below and the Supreme Court could say.
• 15:49
  Speaker 5: Wait a second, yeah, And the Supreme Court has rejected
• 15:51
  Speaker 5: many many corruption convictions.
• 15:53
  Speaker 3: Is there a reason why?
• 15:55
  Speaker 5: It's hard to say? I mean, one argument is the
• 15:57
  Speaker 5: Supreme Court. These are all involved state and localists, and
• 16:00
  Speaker 5: maybe the Supreme Court is a little nervous about federalizing
• 16:04
  Speaker 5: the state and local misconduct. Maybe they think it should
• 16:06
  Speaker 5: be better handled by local DA's. I don't know. And
• 16:09
  Speaker 5: sometimes there's sort of a First Amendment element that which
• 16:12
  Speaker 5: I think is pretty thin about. You know, people are
• 16:14
  Speaker 5: trying to influence government all the time, and we don't
• 16:16
  Speaker 5: want to make it a crime to try and to
• 16:19
  Speaker 5: be a lobbyist, for example. But I think a lot
• 16:21
  Speaker 5: of the concerns of federalism concerned and almost all those
• 16:23
  Speaker 5: cases have involved the Snyder case involved a small city, Indiana.
• 16:28
  Speaker 5: I mean McDonald, he's a governor, you know, Kelly was
• 16:31
  Speaker 5: port authority, the Buffalo billions or state officials one of them.
• 16:36
  Speaker 5: One of the early cases did involve a pecharive agriculture.
• 16:39
  Speaker 5: So it's not like they're they're always going to support
• 16:41
  Speaker 5: the federal and addictments of federal officials, but most of
• 16:43
  Speaker 5: the cases have involved state and local officials.
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: Now he vows he's going to continue in his role
• 16:50
  Speaker 3: as mayor, right, explain how he could be removed?
• 16:55
  Speaker 5: Okay, Well, so obviously the metre of factive indictment doesn't
• 16:58
  Speaker 5: mean anything in terms of his eligibly to hold office.
• 17:01
  Speaker 5: I actually have to don't know what happens if he's convicted.
• 17:03
  Speaker 5: So let's hold off on that. The city law city
• 17:05
  Speaker 5: charter does not have any provision for impeachment. It does
• 17:08
  Speaker 5: have a provision for removal of the mayor for either
• 17:12
  Speaker 5: temporary inability or permanent inability, but it creates a committee
• 17:16
  Speaker 5: on Inability that does this. That committee is supposed to
• 17:20
  Speaker 5: have five members, actually right now it only has four
• 17:22
  Speaker 5: if there's a vacancy and when the positions the Corporation
• 17:24
  Speaker 5: Council and require the votes of four out of the five.
• 17:27
  Speaker 5: Are now require four out of the four. One of
• 17:30
  Speaker 5: them is a deputy mayor, who is, of course an
• 17:32
  Speaker 5: appointee of the mayor. At the moment, I'm skeptical that
• 17:36
  Speaker 5: the deputy mayor who is his appointee, and I think
• 17:39
  Speaker 5: the deputy may is Sheena Wright, who is also connected
• 17:41
  Speaker 5: with some of these other scandals, would actually be part
• 17:44
  Speaker 5: of a group that would vote to declare him unable
• 17:47
  Speaker 5: to continue in office. There's no impeachment. There is this
• 17:51
  Speaker 5: procedure to have the mayor declared unable, either temporarily or permanently.
• 17:56
  Speaker 5: But the first step in the process requires the action
• 17:59
  Speaker 5: by this committee, and the way the committee is set
• 18:02
  Speaker 5: up that would currently require the agreement of the deputy mayor.
• 18:06
  Speaker 3: I've been reading that the governor could remove him.
• 18:09
  Speaker 5: The governor can remove him. The governor has authority under
• 18:11
  Speaker 5: state law to remove the mayor, and I think Sdr
• 18:14
  Speaker 5: when he was governor, came very close to removing Mayor Walker,
• 18:17
  Speaker 5: who resigned while he was subject to the procedure for removal.
• 18:20
  Speaker 5: The state law says very little about the grounds for removal.
• 18:24
  Speaker 5: It gives a little bit more on the process. The
• 18:27
  Speaker 5: kinds of the little bit of due process that the
• 18:29
  Speaker 5: governor would have to afford the mayor in terms of
• 18:32
  Speaker 5: being able to you know, the charges against him and
• 18:34
  Speaker 5: being able to present a defense. But yes, state law
• 18:37
  Speaker 5: most definitely, very vaguely, but definitely does authorize the governor
• 18:43
  Speaker 5: to remove the mayor.
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: Who would be the next mayor? Is it the barble?
• 18:47
  Speaker 5: I think then it we'd go back to the New
• 18:48
  Speaker 5: York City Charter for filling vacancies, so then it would
• 18:51
  Speaker 5: become again the public advocate.
• 18:53
  Speaker 3: Is there any case in history that compares with this
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: or they say that no New York City mayor has
• 18:59
  Speaker 3: been into on federal charges. I don't know if there
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: was any mayor that's been indicted on SI.
• 19:04
  Speaker 5: I don't know that they were ever indicted, and I
• 19:06
  Speaker 5: you know, my sense is, of course, thinking about Greater
• 19:08
  Speaker 5: New York, Greater New York only goes back to eighteen
• 19:11
  Speaker 5: ninety eight, so I'm I'm not quite sure in the
• 19:12
  Speaker 5: Tammany era whether anybody was ever indicted. But there were
• 19:17
  Speaker 5: some scandals involving mayors. I mean, obviously I mentioned Mayor Walker,
• 19:21
  Speaker 5: and then there's also Mayor O'Dwyer who resigned from office.
• 19:24
  Speaker 5: And I'm not quite sure to what extent they grew
• 19:28
  Speaker 5: out of a kind of a police corruption scandal or
• 19:30
  Speaker 5: around nineteen fifty and I think there were hints of
• 19:33
  Speaker 5: some corruption, but he was never charged with anything. I
• 19:35
  Speaker 5: think even in the Tammany era, a lot of the
• 19:38
  Speaker 5: corruption was all around the mayors, but I'm not sure
• 19:41
  Speaker 5: of any of the mayor's.
• 19:43
  Speaker 3: William said there's more to come. I mean, federal investigators
• 19:47
  Speaker 3: have been pursuing several corruption investigations involving Adams, his senior
• 19:54
  Speaker 3: aides and some of their relatives. And in the last
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: two weeks alone, the police commission and the school's chancellor
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: have resigned. Neither has been charged with a crime or
• 20:04
  Speaker 3: even publicly accused of wrongdoing, right, And.
• 20:08
  Speaker 5: You know, based on the news so far only, it's
• 20:10
  Speaker 5: not clear how those really, if at all, to these
• 20:14
  Speaker 5: The police commissioner who resigned, it sounds like he was
• 20:16
  Speaker 5: caught up in some misconduct involving his brother, some kind
• 20:19
  Speaker 5: of corruption, so I don't know if that relates to this.
• 20:22
  Speaker 5: I have no idea what was what was going on
• 20:24
  Speaker 5: with the school's chancellor, but the bank's brothers, I think,
• 20:27
  Speaker 5: based on the media accounts, the issues I think more
• 20:30
  Speaker 5: involved the one of the bank's brothers who wasn't in government,
• 20:34
  Speaker 5: But I don't know about the ties of the ones
• 20:36
  Speaker 5: who were in government.
• 20:37
  Speaker 3: With the mayor under indictment and all these investigations and
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: city officials resigning, how is he going to run a
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: challenging city like New York.
• 20:48
  Speaker 5: I mean the challenge is really there's the time distraction,
• 20:51
  Speaker 5: and he's got to spend time on his legal defense.
• 20:54
  Speaker 5: And I think also, you know, how effective can he
• 20:57
  Speaker 5: be in kind of dealing with people and either making
• 21:01
  Speaker 5: promises about things he can do or making threats against
• 21:05
  Speaker 5: people who don't go along with him when he wants
• 21:07
  Speaker 5: to adopt certain policies or propose certain laws, And you know,
• 21:11
  Speaker 5: I just think he's likely to be less effective. I mean,
• 21:15
  Speaker 5: it's true that much of the day to day of
• 21:18
  Speaker 5: New York City will keep going. You know, there are
• 21:20
  Speaker 5: many commissioners who have jobs to do, and they'll be
• 21:21
  Speaker 5: doing their jobs. And obviously the vast majority of New
• 21:24
  Speaker 5: York City public employees are going to continue to do
• 21:27
  Speaker 5: whatever they do. But I do think you know, whether
• 21:30
  Speaker 5: it's for can neew initiatives or even you know, at
• 21:33
  Speaker 5: some point they've got to make a budget for the
• 21:35
  Speaker 5: next year. We have a budget for this year, but
• 21:37
  Speaker 5: some point they'll be a budget for next year. You know,
• 21:39
  Speaker 5: at some point it's going to interfere with the ability
• 21:41
  Speaker 5: to move the city forward.
• 21:43
  Speaker 3: It's really a terrible day for the City of New York,
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: no matter which way you look at it. And Adams
• 21:50
  Speaker 3: will be in court tomorrow to be arraigned on corruption charges.
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Rich for your insights. That's Columbia law
• 21:58
  Speaker 3: professor Richard Ruffault coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show.
• 22:02
  Speaker 3: The Biden administration is turning its anti trust attention to
• 22:06
  Speaker 3: the financial services industry, suing Visa. I'm June Grosso and
• 22:11
  Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg. The Biden administration is turning its
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: attention to the financial services industry with its latest anti
• 22:20
  Speaker 3: trust suit. The Justice Department sued Visa on Tuesday, alleging
• 22:25
  Speaker 3: the global payments giant illegally monopolized the debit card market.
• 22:30
  Speaker 3: Antitrust enforcers alleged that Visa, which handles more than sixty
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: percent of the more than four trillion dollars in US
• 22:38
  Speaker 3: debit transactions each year, entered into a series of agreements
• 22:42
  Speaker 3: penalizing merchants who sought to use alternatives and paid potential
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: rivals to stay out of the market. Joining me is
• 22:50
  Speaker 3: Ronald Mann, a professor Columbia Law School, explain the charges
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: against Visa. It's about the debit card market. Tell us
• 22:59
  Speaker 3: about the allegations by the government.
• 23:02
  Speaker 6: So the way that the debit card market works is
• 23:05
  Speaker 6: individual consumers obtain debit cards from the banks which they
• 23:09
  Speaker 6: have accounts, and then they can use these debit cards
• 23:12
  Speaker 6: to make purchases at merchants that take Visa cards, which
• 23:14
  Speaker 6: in the United States is as a practical matter, substantially
• 23:17
  Speaker 6: all retail locations and many online locations. When a merchant
• 23:23
  Speaker 6: accepts it the Visa card for a payment, there's a
• 23:26
  Speaker 6: fee that they pay to Visa for the service of
• 23:28
  Speaker 6: this mulitating the payment. And so if the merchant sells
• 23:30
  Speaker 6: something for one hundred dollars, they don't get to keep
• 23:32
  Speaker 6: one hundred dollars. They get, you know, less than hundred
• 23:35
  Speaker 6: dollars to take a fee. The comb out of the
• 23:37
  Speaker 6: amounts of the consumer since in their bank account through
• 23:40
  Speaker 6: the Visa networked the merchants for decades, is not like
• 23:43
  Speaker 6: the fees they wish the fees will lower. These thinks
• 23:46
  Speaker 6: the fees are the proper amount. The merchants are unhappy.
• 23:48
  Speaker 6: Often consumers are inhappy to be class action litigation. Both
• 23:51
  Speaker 6: consumers believe that prices would be lower if the fees
• 23:55
  Speaker 6: were lower. At this point's happened as the JUST Department
• 23:57
  Speaker 6: has entered into litigation by buying a lawsuit against Visa,
• 24:01
  Speaker 6: and the Just format claims that Visa has acted improperly,
• 24:05
  Speaker 6: violating the any Trust laws by taking steps that make
• 24:09
  Speaker 6: it difficult for people to compete with them. So the
• 24:12
  Speaker 6: things that they challenge are things like provisions in contracts
• 24:16
  Speaker 6: with merchants that make it difficult for competitors to get.
• 24:18
  Speaker 6: In provisions with other people in the industry like Apple,
• 24:21
  Speaker 6: they might make it difficult for other people to get.
• 24:23
  Speaker 6: But it's an any trust lawsuit brought by the Department
• 24:26
  Speaker 6: of Justice suing Visa under the any trust laws, and
• 24:29
  Speaker 6: the merchants are very happy about this course.
• 24:31
  Speaker 3: The Attorney General Merrick Garland said that this conduct affects
• 24:37
  Speaker 3: the price of not one thing, but the price of everything.
• 24:40
  Speaker 3: Do they say how much money is involved? You're like,
• 24:42
  Speaker 3: how much extra consumers are paying?
• 24:46
  Speaker 6: Well, I think reasona lines can differ on the extent
• 24:49
  Speaker 6: to which consumers are paying extra, because that depends on
• 24:52
  Speaker 6: the extent to which the prices are elevated by the
• 24:54
  Speaker 6: paying of the fee, and it's hard to know what
• 24:57
  Speaker 6: the caunterfactual is. So, from Visa's perspective, is the only
• 25:00
  Speaker 6: reason merchants are agreeing to take decent pay the speed
• 25:04
  Speaker 6: is because the costs of competing payment systems are much
• 25:06
  Speaker 6: higher than the fee they're charging. So if merchants instead
• 25:09
  Speaker 6: took cash, it'd be much more expensive for merchants to
• 25:12
  Speaker 6: accept cash, and it would be to accept debit cards,
• 25:14
  Speaker 6: the cost of keeping the cash safe and transporting into
• 25:17
  Speaker 6: the bank, to say nothing in the fact that many
• 25:19
  Speaker 6: people like me don't really carry cash, and so I
• 25:23
  Speaker 6: can't really buy things that stores that only took cash.
• 25:25
  Speaker 6: If they took personal checks, the cost of processing personal
• 25:28
  Speaker 6: checks dwarfs the amount of the interchange piece, so it's
• 25:30
  Speaker 6: hard to know what the counterfactual is. I think economists
• 25:33
  Speaker 6: on both sides could have started that the prices are
• 25:36
  Speaker 6: higher because the level of these fees, but economists would
• 25:38
  Speaker 6: also say that some comest so they're not And I
• 25:40
  Speaker 6: tend to be skeptical these fees are raising prices because
• 25:43
  Speaker 6: they're lower than the cost of competing payment systems by
• 25:46
  Speaker 6: a lot.
• 25:47
  Speaker 3: How important is it to the Justice Department's case that
• 25:52
  Speaker 3: consumers are being hurt by higher prices? I mean, if
• 25:55
  Speaker 3: no one's being hurt by this, someone might say, what's
• 25:58
  Speaker 3: the harm.
• 26:00
  Speaker 6: The merchants feelings as the consumers, as they do believe
• 26:03
  Speaker 6: that the prices are higher, and that the consumers are
• 26:05
  Speaker 6: being hurt. I'm just saying, as a matter of economics,
• 26:08
  Speaker 6: it's not easy to tell that they're being heard of
• 26:11
  Speaker 6: what the amount is. What I'll say in this case
• 26:13
  Speaker 6: is the government isn't saying, because the price is too high,
• 26:17
  Speaker 6: you need to lower the price. The government is saying,
• 26:20
  Speaker 6: you have these contracts that keep out competitors, and we
• 26:23
  Speaker 6: think that these competitors are in the pressure from the
• 26:25
  Speaker 6: competitors would force the price down. So that's somewhat different,
• 26:28
  Speaker 6: and so it's not as necessarily dependent on proving up
• 26:32
  Speaker 6: the amount by which consumers are harmed as it is
• 26:35
  Speaker 6: necessary to prove that these contracts every strained trade by
• 26:39
  Speaker 6: improperly keeping out competitors.
• 26:41
  Speaker 3: According to the complaint, these have viewed Apple pay as
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: an existential threat, and there was also PayPal and Block.
• 26:50
  Speaker 3: Can you explain what happened with these other companies that
• 26:55
  Speaker 3: Visa saw is a threat?
• 26:57
  Speaker 6: Well, PayPal is an needs example to see. You can
• 26:59
  Speaker 6: imagine a world in which PayPal would have developed as
• 27:02
  Speaker 6: a system where people use it without putting credit or
• 27:04
  Speaker 6: debit cards into it, and they kept money loaded at PayPal,
• 27:07
  Speaker 6: and so they could actually process payment transactions without using
• 27:11
  Speaker 6: a credit card or a debit card. And if they
• 27:14
  Speaker 6: did that, those transactions would have been transactions that went
• 27:17
  Speaker 6: off of Visa and MasterCards platforms somewhere else, and that
• 27:19
  Speaker 6: would have been really bad for them. I think historically
• 27:22
  Speaker 6: the way its developed, the overalling majority by size and
• 27:25
  Speaker 6: volume of transactions that are cleared with PayPal, the money
• 27:28
  Speaker 6: comes from a branded credit card debit card, and so
• 27:31
  Speaker 6: that hasn't happened. In theory, the same thing could have
• 27:33
  Speaker 6: happened with Apple Pay. I don't think at this point though,
• 27:36
  Speaker 6: there are any large umber transactions that are made on
• 27:39
  Speaker 6: Apple Pay that don't use a branded credit card or
• 27:42
  Speaker 6: debit card so that don't pay an interchange fee.
• 27:45
  Speaker 3: The complaint alleges that Visa pays Apple hundreds of millions
• 27:50
  Speaker 3: of dollars each year do we know what their agreement is.
• 27:55
  Speaker 6: I actually don't know anything about the arrangement with Apple
• 27:58
  Speaker 6: to discuss there, and the complaint lays it out as
• 28:01
  Speaker 6: if Visa has agreed that it will pay Apple money
• 28:05
  Speaker 6: so that Apple won't compete with it. I think it's
• 28:07
  Speaker 6: highly unlikely there's a contract between Visa and Apple that
• 28:09
  Speaker 6: says we're paying you this money so you won't compete
• 28:11
  Speaker 6: with us. I think Visa thinks it's paying the money
• 28:14
  Speaker 6: for a different reason, would be my guess.
• 28:16
  Speaker 3: The lawsuit is asking the court to order Visa to
• 28:21
  Speaker 3: stop these anti competitive practices, but it's not asking that
• 28:26
  Speaker 3: Visa be broken up.
• 28:27
  Speaker 6: It is not. It's not obvious from the outside how
• 28:32
  Speaker 6: you could break Visa up in irrelevant way. I mean,
• 28:35
  Speaker 6: you could say they can do credit cards in that
• 28:37
  Speaker 6: debit cards, but I mean the problem is there an
• 28:38
  Speaker 6: association of banks essentially that issues payment cards, and the
• 28:43
  Speaker 6: functional difference this decade between debit cards and credit cards
• 28:47
  Speaker 6: is pretty thin. It's it's just not obviously what you
• 28:49
  Speaker 6: would make them still off to break up the company,
• 28:52
  Speaker 6: but anything, I think that's not the motive litigation. The
• 28:54
  Speaker 6: motive litigation I think is actually pretty smart because I
• 28:57
  Speaker 6: think if they were saying, your practicing very process, we
• 29:00
  Speaker 6: want you to lower interchange rates by fifty percent, I
• 29:03
  Speaker 6: think that would be a case that Visa just couldn't settle.
• 29:06
  Speaker 6: It would be impossible Visa sell in the case it
• 29:08
  Speaker 6: has to go to trial, and just because they just
• 29:09
  Speaker 6: couldn't be inflexibility about that. The case that says we
• 29:13
  Speaker 6: want you to change to Visit your contracts. So I
• 29:15
  Speaker 6: can imagine them getting some relief that Visa could agree
• 29:18
  Speaker 6: to voluntarily and Visa might change them to the contracts
• 29:21
  Speaker 6: rather than have a trial. I mean, I mean, that's
• 29:23
  Speaker 6: a lawsuit that could go somewhere, I think successfully, as
• 29:26
  Speaker 6: compared to one just trying to lower the price.
• 29:29
  Speaker 3: So Visa's general counsel Julie Rottenberg said the lawsuit ignores
• 29:34
  Speaker 3: the reality that Visa is just one of many competitors
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: in a debit space that is growing with entrants who
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: are thriving. Is it the debit space growing It seems
• 29:45
  Speaker 3: to be.
• 29:46
  Speaker 6: But I haven't looked at the day of the last
• 29:49
  Speaker 6: year or so, but the share of payment transactions that
• 29:52
  Speaker 6: use debit cards as opposed to other payment devices, it's
• 29:56
  Speaker 6: much harder now than it was twenty years ago, in
• 29:58
  Speaker 6: part because people that are younger, we're more likely to
• 30:00
  Speaker 6: pay with debit cards, and people that are older more
• 30:02
  Speaker 6: likely to pay with credit cards. So the debit cards
• 30:05
  Speaker 6: share is growing now. I think from Visa's perspectives, the
• 30:09
  Speaker 6: competition is between Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and offshore issues like
• 30:16
  Speaker 6: Union paying jay Shub, and there's probably some other ones
• 30:18
  Speaker 6: that I'm not directly familiar with. From the just farmer's perspective,
• 30:23
  Speaker 6: the competition is between Visa because they're the largest debit
• 30:25
  Speaker 6: card person and these what you might call fintech companies
• 30:30
  Speaker 6: that aren't really card networks, that are providing some kind
• 30:33
  Speaker 6: of services trying to get around the card network, like
• 30:36
  Speaker 6: Square and Flat and these kinds of things. It's just
• 30:39
  Speaker 6: a different perspective on what the middle of the competition is.
• 30:42
  Speaker 6: I mean, Visa clearly has competitors that they are, you know,
• 30:46
  Speaker 6: in a next throttling battle with MasterCard and Discover. I mean,
• 30:52
  Speaker 6: and you might say they're winning. May mean are those
• 30:54
  Speaker 6: are large payment networks?
• 30:56
  Speaker 4: Mean?
• 30:56
  Speaker 6: I say, to competing against each other robustly. That's not
• 31:00
  Speaker 6: what this solicit is about.
• 31:01
  Speaker 3: Though, the Justice Department's Anti Trust Division has been bringing
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: case after case after case, and it's also been targeting
• 31:10
  Speaker 3: middlemen that take a kind of transaction fees like the
• 31:15
  Speaker 3: Live Nation suit and part of the case against Apple.
• 31:20
  Speaker 3: Is this a new road for the Justice Department?
• 31:22
  Speaker 6: I would say that any trust division is not much
• 31:25
  Speaker 6: more active under this administration that wasn't in the least administration.
• 31:29
  Speaker 6: I mean there's a different assistant ry Jaler used to be,
• 31:32
  Speaker 6: and I think that they're more active. I think they
• 31:35
  Speaker 6: have a focus on that. I think part is a
• 31:37
  Speaker 6: matter of just kind of updating the kinds of people
• 31:39
  Speaker 6: that you sue. If you're looking at the modern economy,
• 31:43
  Speaker 6: that's what a lot of the biggest people do, is
• 31:44
  Speaker 6: they facilitate transactions. Why get into the middle of transactions
• 31:48
  Speaker 6: and making it cheaper for one person to get together
• 31:51
  Speaker 6: another person in the charge fees for that. It's very
• 31:54
  Speaker 6: difficult to know exactly how think any trust laws should
• 31:58
  Speaker 6: apply to those relationships. Mean, when I went to law school,
• 32:03
  Speaker 6: those kinds of companies didn't really exist, and there aren't
• 32:07
  Speaker 6: any Supreme Court cases that really actually tell you exactly
• 32:11
  Speaker 6: how to think about it. So I think there's some
• 32:13
  Speaker 6: want to be made on exactly what to think about
• 32:15
  Speaker 6: those companies and they're a big part of the economy.
• 32:18
  Speaker 6: They decided they're going to try and make some of it,
• 32:21
  Speaker 6: and some of that they would like to make is
• 32:22
  Speaker 6: going to make it harder for those companies to have
• 32:25
  Speaker 6: a free handed design in the way their platforms work.
• 32:29
  Speaker 3: Last month, a federal judge found that Google violated antitrust laws.
• 32:34
  Speaker 3: Do any of the findings in that case apply to
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: this case.
• 32:40
  Speaker 6: It's not obvious to me that it does. I think
• 32:42
  Speaker 6: the relevance of that case really it's more performative. It's
• 32:47
  Speaker 6: the just Department showed that they have the stamina to
• 32:52
  Speaker 6: take one of these big companies to trial and do
• 32:56
  Speaker 6: such a good job at trial that they win. I mean,
• 32:59
  Speaker 6: Google has highly paid, highly experienced, highly skilled counsel, and
• 33:02
  Speaker 6: they didn't win, and the Justice Department waged them out
• 33:05
  Speaker 6: and won that case. And I think that's sort of
• 33:07
  Speaker 6: a warning of Visa and Visa can't just assume we'll
• 33:11
  Speaker 6: take this to trial and the government will lose patience
• 33:14
  Speaker 6: or the governments flawyers won't be very good. The people
• 33:16
  Speaker 6: who work in any trust vision who do these cases
• 33:19
  Speaker 6: are highly skilled and know what they're doing, as evidenced
• 33:22
  Speaker 6: by winning the Google case. I mean, I think that's
• 33:24
  Speaker 6: the significant case really, is that this is not twenty
• 33:27
  Speaker 6: years ago when the Just Department could just get more
• 33:29
  Speaker 6: easily outlawyered by skilled private any trust lawyers.
• 33:33
  Speaker 3: Between the Justice Department and the FTC, there are so
• 33:38
  Speaker 3: many anti trust cases. Thanks so much for being on
• 33:41
  Speaker 3: this show. That's Professor runold Man of Columbia Law School.
• 33:46
  Speaker 3: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
• 33:49
  Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by
• 33:51
  Speaker 3: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 33:55
  Speaker 3: and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm
• 33:59
  Speaker 3: June also, and this is Bloomberg