Latest / Bloomberg Law / Union Win at Whole Foods & Kash Patel Grilled

Transcript

Union Win at Whole Foods & Kash Patel Grilled · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
0:09
Speaker 2: Workers at a Whole Foods market in Pennsylvania voted to
0:12
Speaker 2: unionize this week, the first win for labor at the
0:15
Speaker 2: Amazon owned grocery store chain. Amazon has fiercely resisted union
0:21
Speaker 2: organizing efforts by its workers and is still waging a
0:24
Speaker 2: court battle against the first union election at a Staten
0:27
Speaker 2: Island warehouse three years ago, even challenging the structure of
0:32
Speaker 2: the National Labor Relations Board at a federal appeals court.
0:36
Speaker 2: Joining me is an expert in labor and employment law,
0:38
Speaker 2: Kate Andreas, a professor at Columbia Law School. Kate tell
0:42
Speaker 2: us about this first union win at Whole Foods, at.
0:46
Speaker 3: Least within the United States. It's the first to organize,
0:49
Speaker 3: and Amazon has been a notoriously anti union company. It
0:53
Speaker 3: bought the union, as you know, very aggressively in its warehouses,
0:57
Speaker 3: where one group of workers has successfully or But these
1:00
Speaker 3: workers at Whole Foods also work for Amazon or in
1:03
Speaker 3: the Amazon's overall corporate family, and they decided to organize
1:08
Speaker 3: the union. They withstood a very intense anti union campaign
1:11
Speaker 3: by the employer, but a majority of them continued stuck together.
1:16
Speaker 3: And did vote in an NLRB election to unionize.
1:20
Speaker 2: It was closed one hundred and thirty workers to one hundred.
1:23
Speaker 2: Tell us about this campaign of intimidation, and the union
1:28
Speaker 2: local also filed unfair labored practice charges against Amazon.
1:33
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean that kind of close vote count is
1:36
Speaker 3: not at all uncommon due to anti union campaigns that
1:40
Speaker 3: employers run. So frequently. When workers file for an election,
1:44
Speaker 3: they have a very strong majority, and then what happens
1:48
Speaker 3: is that employers engage in a lot of anti union campaigning,
1:52
Speaker 3: some of which is illegal, some of which is legal,
1:55
Speaker 3: but that is aimed to course workers into not exercising
1:58
Speaker 3: their right to unionize, ranging from things like holding mandatory
2:02
Speaker 3: meetings where they tell workers not to vote for the union,
2:06
Speaker 3: or they suggest that if they do, they're going to
2:08
Speaker 3: lose benefits. Sometimes they threaten individual workers or even fire
2:12
Speaker 3: individual workers, and all of those activities are designed to
2:16
Speaker 3: try to commence workers not to organize unions. The allegation
2:20
Speaker 3: is that Holso did commit various unfair labor practices during
2:24
Speaker 3: this campaign, but it doesn't have to be adjudicated by
2:27
Speaker 3: the board.
2:28
Speaker 2: The company has five days to challenge the election before
2:31
Speaker 2: the results are certified and then it has to bargain
2:35
Speaker 2: with the union for a contract covering the stores unionized workers.
2:39
Speaker 2: But nearly three years ago, and we talked about this,
2:43
Speaker 2: Amazon warehouse workers in Staten Island voted to be represented
2:47
Speaker 2: by a union. Now they've since affiliated with the Teamsters,
2:51
Speaker 2: but Amazon has refused to come to the bargaining table
2:54
Speaker 2: in three years.
2:55
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, so, the problem is that the law
2:58
Speaker 3: obligates employers to bargain in good faith, but it doesn't
3:02
Speaker 3: have a lot of enforcement mechanism. For example, it doesn't
3:06
Speaker 3: have a mechanism for the government for the NRB to
3:09
Speaker 3: impose a settlement if the employer refuses to bargain in
3:12
Speaker 3: good faith. So employers frequently exploit the weaknesses and the
3:15
Speaker 3: laws to resist bargaining, especially for a first contract. So
3:19
Speaker 3: for example, it can file challenges and objections, even frivolous objections,
3:23
Speaker 3: just to delay. But even if they just agree to bargain,
3:27
Speaker 3: often they engage in surface bargaining. So just going through
3:30
Speaker 3: the motions of bargaining and again doing so is elegal.
3:33
Speaker 3: It's an unfair labor practice, but the remedies essentially are insufficient.
3:37
Speaker 3: Usually what happens is the boards orders them to bargain.
3:40
Speaker 3: So it really does highlight why we need labor law
3:42
Speaker 3: or form in this country. That said, it doesn't mean
3:45
Speaker 3: workers never win first contract. And when they're sufficiently united
3:49
Speaker 3: and when they successfully organize other stores within the chain,
3:53
Speaker 3: that often creates enough economic pressure on the company to bargain.
3:58
Speaker 3: And so what we've seen happen, for example, in Starbucks,
4:01
Speaker 3: they also haven't reached a first contract, but they've made
4:03
Speaker 3: a lot more progress and the company does appear to
4:06
Speaker 3: be bargaining because so many Starbucks shops across the country
4:10
Speaker 3: have organized. The more workers organize, the more power they
4:14
Speaker 3: have within a particular firm, the more likely it is
4:17
Speaker 3: they are able to win a first contract, even if
4:20
Speaker 3: the employer violates the law. The other complication they sing
4:24
Speaker 3: workers today, as weak as the law is, the Biden
4:29
Speaker 3: Board was very aggressive in trying to enforce the law,
4:32
Speaker 3: in going to court where necessary to get injunctions and
4:36
Speaker 3: issuing decisions against employers who violate the law. And the
4:40
Speaker 3: future of the board is very much in question right
4:42
Speaker 3: now under the Trump administration.
4:44
Speaker 2: The Amazon workers in Staten Island are affiliated now with
4:48
Speaker 2: the Teamsters, a really powerful union. If the Teamsters can't
4:52
Speaker 2: get Amazon to the bargaining table. Then I wonder what
4:56
Speaker 2: can well.
4:57
Speaker 3: I think that the workers now have a a lot
5:00
Speaker 3: more resources behind them because they have affiliated with the Teamsters.
5:03
Speaker 3: I also think that the Teamsters are working with other
5:06
Speaker 3: Amazon workers across the country to try to organize that
5:09
Speaker 3: other facilities, and that really can help build enough power
5:12
Speaker 3: to force Amazon into bargaining. So I think that really
5:15
Speaker 3: has to be a long term strategy of organizing more
5:18
Speaker 3: workers within the company. I know that many workers are interested,
5:23
Speaker 3: or as I understand, at least some of the new
5:25
Speaker 3: workers within the company are interested, and so I think
5:27
Speaker 3: long term, if more warehouses organized, then that can create
5:31
Speaker 3: enough pressure on the company to bargain in good face.
5:34
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
5:36
Speaker 2: this conversation with Columbia Law School professor Kate Andreas. Amazon
5:41
Speaker 2: has challenged the election outcome in court. They accuse the
5:44
Speaker 2: NLRBF tampering in the union election, and Amazon, along with
5:50
Speaker 2: Elon Musk's space x, is challenging the constitutionality of the
5:55
Speaker 2: National Labor Relations Board at the Fifth Circuit, which is
5:59
Speaker 2: the most conservative circuit in the country. Tell us about
6:03
Speaker 2: their arguments at the Fifth Circuit about the constitutionality of
6:07
Speaker 2: the NLRB.
6:08
Speaker 3: So Amazon is making a number of arguments about why
6:11
Speaker 3: the board is unconstitutional, including arguing that the structure of
6:16
Speaker 3: the NRB is unconstitutional. And this is part of a
6:19
Speaker 3: number of cases that various employers have brought challenging the
6:22
Speaker 3: constitutionality of the board. Among other arguments, they contend that
6:26
Speaker 3: the fact that the president cannot fire board members or
6:30
Speaker 3: fire administrative law judges whenever he wants, that that is unconstitutional.
6:35
Speaker 3: And they also argue that the structure of the board,
6:39
Speaker 3: because the board exercises various powers that are not purely
6:43
Speaker 3: executive in nature, that that violates principles of separation of powers.
6:47
Speaker 3: And it means that Congress has delegated too much power
6:51
Speaker 3: to the executive branch. So they're making some fairly fundamental
6:56
Speaker 3: arguments challenging the structure of the board, which would also
7:00
Speaker 3: drawn to question many other administrative agencies. And these are
7:04
Speaker 3: arguments that the Supreme Court rejected nearly one hundred years ago.
7:09
Speaker 3: First in a case involving the Federal Trade Commission, the
7:13
Speaker 3: Court held that it is permissible for Congress to put
7:16
Speaker 3: restrictions on when the president can fire board members when
7:20
Speaker 3: there's a multi member board, so it is permissible for
7:23
Speaker 3: Congress to design an agency so that has some measure
7:26
Speaker 3: of independence from the president to create multi member boards
7:30
Speaker 3: where the board members serve for terms and can only
7:33
Speaker 3: be removed for cause. The Supreme Court is already format
7:36
Speaker 3: and a case calls Humphrey's Executor way back in nineteen
7:39
Speaker 3: thirty five, and then in nineteen thirty seven, the Supreme
7:42
Speaker 3: Court upheld the constitutionality of the NLRA. So the companies,
7:47
Speaker 3: including Amazon, are challenging these nearly one hundred years of
7:51
Speaker 3: precedent that holds that the board is constitutional and that
7:55
Speaker 3: the MLRA is constitutional. So they're really trying to upend
7:58
Speaker 3: our system of law that's been around for one hundred
8:02
Speaker 3: years and also attack the whole administrative state in doing so.
8:06
Speaker 2: So that brings me to the question that I've been
8:07
Speaker 2: asking a lot lately. Those decisions were well before the
8:12
Speaker 2: Roberts Court began to curb agency powers. So might this
8:17
Speaker 2: court look at the issue differently?
8:19
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's a real risk. So, as you said,
8:22
Speaker 3: the Roberts Court has issued a series of opinions that
8:26
Speaker 3: weakens the administrative agencies, and these cases which Amazon is pursuing,
8:31
Speaker 3: but also which President Trump is peeing up because he
8:34
Speaker 3: just fired one of the board members. These cases key
8:38
Speaker 3: up for the Supreme Court a question about whether or
8:41
Speaker 3: not it should overrule this very long standing precedent. And
8:44
Speaker 3: there certainly is some reason to fear that this court
8:47
Speaker 3: that has been so hostile to administrative agencies and also
8:50
Speaker 3: so hot out so workers in various labor cases, might
8:54
Speaker 3: find merit in these really unprecedented legal arguments.
8:59
Speaker 2: Let's talk for minute about that he removed a democratic
9:03
Speaker 2: member of the NLRB. Also he removed two Democratic EEOC commissioners.
9:10
Speaker 2: Those actions are unprecedented. But as far as the NLRB goes,
9:16
Speaker 2: is it unlawful?
9:18
Speaker 3: I believe it is unlawful under the existing law because
9:21
Speaker 3: the statute allows the president to fire board members upon
9:26
Speaker 3: notice and hearing for neglect of duty or mal seasons
9:30
Speaker 3: in office, but for no other cause, And as far
9:33
Speaker 3: as I know, there's been no allegation that the board
9:37
Speaker 3: member who is removed engaged in any neglect of duty
9:40
Speaker 3: or malfeasance in office. So it is, on its face
9:44
Speaker 3: an action that is illegal that contradicts the statute.
9:47
Speaker 2: Kate, does the same thing apply to the firings of
9:50
Speaker 2: the EOC commissioners or is that a different.
9:52
Speaker 3: Law, So it's a different statute, but it also has
9:56
Speaker 3: four cause protection, so those commissioners also can only be
9:59
Speaker 3: removed for cause. And my understanding again is that there's
10:02
Speaker 3: no allegation that they did anything that was merit termination
10:06
Speaker 3: for cause.
10:06
Speaker 2: I assume that the commissioners are going to file lawsuits
10:09
Speaker 2: over these firings, and anyone Trump appoints to fill those
10:14
Speaker 2: slots would be in a tenuous position. How long could
10:18
Speaker 2: litigation like this take.
10:20
Speaker 3: Well, in the ordinary case, it could take quite a
10:23
Speaker 3: while for a case to go all the way up
10:25
Speaker 3: through the court system. There's also the possibility that the
10:29
Speaker 3: parties would seek expedited relief. That it's a little hard
10:33
Speaker 3: to predict how long it will take. Similar issues, though,
10:37
Speaker 3: are also percolating in those other cases that we discussed,
10:40
Speaker 3: where the employers have made the argument that these removal protections,
10:44
Speaker 3: the statutory provisions that prevent the president from firing board
10:48
Speaker 3: members are illegal. So the case could get up to
10:51
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court either through challenge made by the EOC
10:54
Speaker 3: commissioners or Commissioner willcoxim on the board, or through one
10:58
Speaker 3: of these other cases that's currently in the Fifth Circuit to.
11:01
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court's decisions having to do with appointments and
11:06
Speaker 2: protections for removal have any bearing here.
11:11
Speaker 3: There are a few cases from the Court in recent
11:14
Speaker 3: years that have drawn into question removal protections of other
11:20
Speaker 3: kinds of officers with an administrative agencies. So there was
11:24
Speaker 3: a case in which the Court held that protections against
11:28
Speaker 3: removal for a single head agency that those are unconstitutional.
11:33
Speaker 3: And there was another case where the Court held that
11:35
Speaker 3: dual for cause protection, so that there's essentially two layers
11:39
Speaker 3: of protection, that that is impermissible.
11:42
Speaker 1: But the Court.
11:42
Speaker 3: Hasn't extended those rulings to either these multi member boards
11:47
Speaker 3: where the decision was reached in nineteen thirty five that
11:50
Speaker 3: that is okay to protect them from firing, nor has
11:53
Speaker 3: it been extended the idea that the president has the
11:55
Speaker 3: right to fire whomever he wants whenever he wants to
11:58
Speaker 3: administrative law judges. There's good policy reasons for not allowing
12:03
Speaker 3: the president to fire administrative law judges or members of
12:08
Speaker 3: these independent agencies board members or commissioners. So with the judges,
12:13
Speaker 3: in order to have a system of rule of law,
12:15
Speaker 3: we want judges to have a measure of independence to
12:19
Speaker 3: be doing their work based on merit and not out
12:22
Speaker 3: of fear that if they issue a decision with which
12:25
Speaker 3: the president disagrees that they'll lose their job. It's the
12:27
Speaker 3: same basic idea for why we have life tenure for
12:29
Speaker 3: federal judges. We want a system of independence judging to
12:33
Speaker 3: uphold the rule of law, and that's why Congress designed
12:36
Speaker 3: the system in that way. The same thing with these
12:38
Speaker 3: multi member agencies. Congress designed them in order that they
12:41
Speaker 3: would have a certain measure of independence from the president. Now,
12:45
Speaker 3: they still ultimately largely follow the president's policy used because
12:50
Speaker 3: when the president wins, he or she ends up appointing
12:53
Speaker 3: the majority of the members. So we do see the
12:56
Speaker 3: board's policies splitting quite a bit when there's a administration.
13:01
Speaker 3: But they don't have to be worried about losing their jobs,
13:04
Speaker 3: you know, unless they violate the law or in some
13:06
Speaker 3: other way. It deserves to be fired for cause.
13:09
Speaker 2: So, I mean, we're going from a president Biden who
13:13
Speaker 2: walked the picket lines in Detroit to a president that
13:19
Speaker 2: is opposed to unions. Besides, you know what you've talked about,
13:22
Speaker 2: are there any other implications of having a president like
13:27
Speaker 2: this in the White House.
13:29
Speaker 1: Yeah.
13:29
Speaker 3: I mean, the President has made really clear that he's
13:31
Speaker 3: opposed to unions, he's opposed to workers having the right
13:34
Speaker 3: to strike, he's opposed to workers unionizing. What we saw
13:38
Speaker 3: during the last Trump administration was that he ticked officials
13:42
Speaker 3: to lead agencies who took a very anti worker position
13:47
Speaker 3: on a range of issues, from overtime pay to right
13:51
Speaker 3: to organize, to who counts as an employee and therefore
13:55
Speaker 3: gets rights under the Statute, a whole host of issues.
13:59
Speaker 3: Trump has in the past at least picked officials to
14:02
Speaker 3: leave the agency who's taken a very anti worker position.
14:06
Speaker 3: My guess is more likely to see that happen again.
14:09
Speaker 3: In addition, I think we also will see a lot
14:11
Speaker 3: of anti worker activity from this administration with respect to
14:15
Speaker 3: the federal workforce, as we already have.
14:18
Speaker 2: We certainly have seen a lot of that and several
14:20
Speaker 2: lawsuits filed already. Thanks so much, Kate. That's Professor Kate
14:25
Speaker 2: Andreas of Columbia Law School. Eric Adams is the first
14:29
Speaker 2: New York City mayor in modern history to be indicted
14:33
Speaker 2: while in office, facing federal charges of bribery, fraud, conspiracy,
14:38
Speaker 2: and soliciting illegal campaign contributions. Adams has pleaded not guilty
14:43
Speaker 2: and refused to step down. He's also been making overtures
14:47
Speaker 2: to President Donald Trump, attending his inauguration, and even traveling
14:52
Speaker 2: to mar A Lago in Florida just before the inauguration
14:57
Speaker 2: to meet with the President elect. Adams has said legal
15:00
Speaker 2: case was never discussed.
15:02
Speaker 4: He went in a.
15:03
Speaker 5: Small conversation as he is getting ready to move into
15:07
Speaker 5: the presidency.
15:09
Speaker 4: I enjoyed a conversation.
15:10
Speaker 6: We talked about the issue of the City of New yorkery.
15:13
Speaker 2: Now, as first reported by The New York Times, Justice
15:16
Speaker 2: Department officials have discussed dropping the corruption chargers against Adams
15:21
Speaker 2: with prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who
15:24
Speaker 2: are handling the case. Joining me is Dave Ahrenberg. Former
15:28
Speaker 2: Palm Beach County State Attorney. Eric Adams is scheduled to
15:31
Speaker 2: go to trial in April. To these Justice Department discussions
15:36
Speaker 2: about dropping the case against him at this point strike
15:39
Speaker 2: you as unusual, fishy or par for the course.
15:45
Speaker 1: Well, June, We've always known that Donald Trump was transactional
15:49
Speaker 1: and he liked people who like him, and Eric Adams
15:53
Speaker 1: went to mar A Lago at the last minute when
15:55
Speaker 1: he got the invitation, and he also went to the
15:58
Speaker 1: inauguration at the last minute when he got the invitation.
16:01
Speaker 1: He went down there to pay homage, to pay tribute
16:04
Speaker 1: to the leader, the guy who could pardon him, and
16:06
Speaker 1: it looks like it's paying dividends. Eric Adams is saying
16:09
Speaker 1: that those visits were to represent the people in New York,
16:12
Speaker 1: but they weren't on his official calendar, and he didn't
16:15
Speaker 1: want too many people to know what he was doing
16:17
Speaker 1: and when he was talking about. So we know what
16:19
Speaker 1: was going on here. Eric Adams is there to stave himself.
16:22
Speaker 1: He knows he's not going to get re elected as
16:23
Speaker 1: mayor and so he wants to preserve his freedom and
16:27
Speaker 1: looks like it may be working.
16:29
Speaker 2: Eric adams lawyer is Alex Spiro, the personal attorney for
16:33
Speaker 2: Elon Musk. Does that connection to Trump's new best friend
16:38
Speaker 2: help well?
16:40
Speaker 1: When it comes to Alex Spuro, He has had a
16:42
Speaker 1: lot of high profile clients. He's currently representing Jay Z
16:47
Speaker 1: for example, he successfully got Alec Baldwin out of his mess.
16:51
Speaker 1: He's a bulldog. He is a very aggressive attorney. Someone
16:55
Speaker 1: He's not very well liked because he is known for
16:58
Speaker 1: being extremely arrogant, so he fits right in with this
17:00
Speaker 1: crowd apparently. I don't know how much influence he has
17:04
Speaker 1: in magaworld, but I'm sure he helps with Elon, which
17:07
Speaker 1: helps with Trump. But ultimately it's Trump's decision. And Trump
17:11
Speaker 1: likes people who like him, and Eric Adams has gone
17:15
Speaker 1: overboard to genuflect at the Trump Alter. This is so obvious.
17:18
Speaker 1: I mean, we all know that Eric Adams is a
17:20
Speaker 1: whole lot of legal trouble that Trump can get him
17:22
Speaker 1: out of. Only Trump can save him. Really, Now, what
17:25
Speaker 1: is interesting is that when he took off to the inauguration,
17:29
Speaker 1: he left a couple of Martin Luther King Day events
17:32
Speaker 1: that he had committed to and he just took off.
17:34
Speaker 1: He seems to know that his political days in New
17:37
Speaker 1: York are numbered, and so now it's all about protecting
17:41
Speaker 1: your freedom.
17:43
Speaker 2: New York is a sanctuary city and there was a
17:46
Speaker 2: high profile ICE raid pre dawn raid in the Bronx
17:50
Speaker 2: on Tuesday, which the new Secretary of Homeland Security went
17:54
Speaker 2: on and Adam said later that he directed the NYPD
17:59
Speaker 2: to coordinate with DHS, Homeland Security investigations, and other federal
18:05
Speaker 2: law enforcement agencies as allowed by law to conduct a
18:09
Speaker 2: targeted operation. Quite a different reaction than from the mayor
18:14
Speaker 2: of Chicago, which is also a sanctuary city.
18:17
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I mean, and the mayor is interested in
18:20
Speaker 1: staying out of the houscau and so I'm not surprised
18:24
Speaker 1: he hasn't raised the fuss about Trump's executive actions. So
18:28
Speaker 1: this is the administration we're going to be dealing with.
18:30
Speaker 1: This is administration that is transactional. And Eric Adams is
18:35
Speaker 1: facing years in prison. Look at Bob Menendez. Bob Menendez
18:38
Speaker 1: and Eric Adams essentially did the same thing allegedly where
18:42
Speaker 1: Eric Adams was involved with Turkey, Bob Menendez was involved
18:46
Speaker 1: with Egypt, and they were all taking foreign funds illegally
18:51
Speaker 1: allegedly for Eric Adams. And when it comes to the
18:54
Speaker 1: tune of them, look how different it. Meanwhile, Eric Adams
18:57
Speaker 1: may get a pardon and may even avoid a trial,
18:59
Speaker 1: and Bob Menendez was sentenced to eleven years in prison.
19:02
Speaker 1: It just depends, I guess, on whether or not the
19:06
Speaker 1: President of the United States likes you. And Bob Menendez
19:09
Speaker 1: now is speaking out and saying things that are sympathetic
19:14
Speaker 1: towards Donald Trump. I wonder why you know, Bob Menendez
19:16
Speaker 1: came out and said that he understands Donald Trump's feelings
19:20
Speaker 1: about federal law enforcement and the weaponization. And you know,
19:24
Speaker 1: so now he's starting to play for the part. I
19:26
Speaker 1: mean to get in line, Michael Abanati. You've got all
19:29
Speaker 1: these people who used to be Trump critics now lining
19:32
Speaker 1: up to say nice things about the guy who could
19:34
Speaker 1: secure their freedom.
19:35
Speaker 2: And to add to the list of people seeking pardons.
19:39
Speaker 2: Sam bankman Fried, according to Bloomberg sources, his parents are
19:43
Speaker 2: exploring ways to secure a pardon. They've had meetings in
19:47
Speaker 2: recent weeks with lawyers and other figures considered to be
19:50
Speaker 2: in Trump's orbit about clemency for SBF, who's serving a
19:56
Speaker 2: twenty five year sentence. Trump has set the president, as
20:00
Speaker 2: you mentioned, for Adams, let's talk about getting a pardon
20:05
Speaker 2: versus having the Justice Department drop the charges. It looks
20:09
Speaker 2: better for both Trump and Eric Adams if the case
20:14
Speaker 2: is dropped, rather than that he's convicted and given a pardon.
20:18
Speaker 1: Oh yeah. Also, it avoids a lot of expense, time
20:21
Speaker 1: aggravation if you can just get rid of it now.
20:23
Speaker 1: But no matter what happens, Eric Adams, his political career's toast.
20:27
Speaker 1: It just whether or not he can stay out of
20:29
Speaker 1: prison and avoid his trials. So I mean I would
20:31
Speaker 1: blame him for trying to play for that that's his
20:33
Speaker 1: best route to get out of these charges. More charges
20:36
Speaker 1: could be coming. Of course, he could always stay state charges,
20:39
Speaker 1: which are pardon proof, So that's another possibility. If he
20:43
Speaker 1: is pardoned before any trials he wants, a jury is seated,
20:47
Speaker 1: then double jeopardy attaches, and so there is a pitfall.
20:50
Speaker 1: There is a risk in having a pardon that comes
20:54
Speaker 1: too soon, because then it could still open them up
20:56
Speaker 1: to state charges.
20:57
Speaker 2: What's also sort of unusual and perhaps problematic for the
21:02
Speaker 2: Southern District is that the interim US Attorney last week
21:07
Speaker 2: issued this rebuke to Adams claims that he's the victim
21:12
Speaker 2: of political persecution. And also earlier this month, prosecutors wrote
21:17
Speaker 2: that they'd continued to uncover additional criminal conduct by Adams,
21:22
Speaker 2: indicating that there might be new charges in the works,
21:25
Speaker 2: and the defense attorney also mentioned additional evidence. So it's
21:30
Speaker 2: a peculiar time to be dropping the case, and it's
21:32
Speaker 2: a bad look for the Southern District.
21:35
Speaker 1: Well, the bad look would be for the White House
21:37
Speaker 1: if they bigfooted the Southern District and said we're ending
21:42
Speaker 1: this whole case and because of politics purely, but we
21:46
Speaker 1: saw fifteen hundred writers get pardoned. Some of them are
21:50
Speaker 1: violent cop attackers, So why should we be surprised that
21:55
Speaker 1: Trump looks like he is going to pardon the mayor
21:57
Speaker 1: meer City who is playing Knight.
22:01
Speaker 2: I wonder what the future of public corruption cases is
22:05
Speaker 2: in the Trump administration because earlier this week, the Justice
22:10
Speaker 2: Department senior career official in charge of overseeing public corruption
22:15
Speaker 2: investigations resigned after the Trump administration reassigned him to a
22:21
Speaker 2: new role working on immigration issues, and federal prosecutors have
22:26
Speaker 2: moved to stop several ongoing cases, including one against Jeffrey Fortenberry,
22:33
Speaker 2: a Republican congressman from Nebraska who is facing a second
22:37
Speaker 2: trial on campaign finance violations.
22:40
Speaker 1: Again, we're going to see this a lot where people
22:43
Speaker 1: who are independent of Trump, who to go a different
22:46
Speaker 1: direction than the White House will be reassigned, removed, fired.
22:51
Speaker 1: There'll be a lot of that going on. I'm hopeful
22:54
Speaker 1: that when Pambondi is confirmed as Attorney General, they'll study
22:58
Speaker 1: the ship, because right now the ship of the Department
23:01
Speaker 1: of Justice is singing. Well. One thing you can say
23:03
Speaker 1: is that none of this is a surprise. I mean,
23:05
Speaker 1: Trump ran on politicizing the Department of Justice. He was
23:08
Speaker 1: going to make sure they're not independent. He ran as
23:11
Speaker 1: being your retribution, and so we should not be surprised
23:14
Speaker 1: by it. It's just it's gotten real lately because you
23:17
Speaker 1: see actual things happening, like the release of violent rioters,
23:22
Speaker 1: the ending of corruption cases. It just depends on which
23:26
Speaker 1: side you're on. Are you on Trump's side or are
23:29
Speaker 1: you on the other side, because if you're on the
23:30
Speaker 1: other side against Trump, then those cases aren't going away.
23:34
Speaker 2: Of course, they also fired at least a dozen prosecutors
23:38
Speaker 2: who worked on Trump's criminal cases. Quote in light of
23:41
Speaker 2: their actions, the acting Attorney General does not trust these
23:45
Speaker 2: officials to assist in faithfully implementing the president's agenda. This
23:50
Speaker 2: action is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization
23:53
Speaker 2: of government. Can those prosecutors now sue the Trump administration?
23:58
Speaker 1: They do every coourse because they are not political appointees,
24:03
Speaker 1: they have civil service protections. But even though they can
24:07
Speaker 1: win in court and get their jobs back, really, what
24:10
Speaker 1: future do they have at this Department of Justice? Even
24:14
Speaker 1: if they get their job back, they'll get reassigned to
24:16
Speaker 1: some area where they don't want to be. You know,
24:18
Speaker 1: they'll get sent to the basement to count paper clips.
24:22
Speaker 1: So no matter what happens, their days at the Department
24:25
Speaker 1: of Justice under his disadministration are numbered as far as
24:29
Speaker 1: winning in court. Yeah, they said, win in court and
24:31
Speaker 1: get some back pay and have the court chastise in
24:35
Speaker 1: Trump administration. But you know Trump doesn't care.
24:38
Speaker 2: Stay with me, Dave. Coming up next, as President Trump
24:41
Speaker 2: is reshaping the Justice Department. His pick to lead the FBI,
24:46
Speaker 2: Cash Patel faced opposition from Senate Democrats during his confirmation
24:51
Speaker 2: hearings today, with critics accusing him of lacking experience and
24:55
Speaker 2: judgment to lead the agency. Patateel insisted that he didn't
24:59
Speaker 2: have enemies list and that the bureau under his leadership
25:03
Speaker 2: would not seek retribution against Trump's adversaries or launch investigations
25:10
Speaker 2: for political purposes.
25:12
Speaker 5: The only thing that will matter if I'm confirmed as
25:14
Speaker 5: a director of the FBI is a de weaponized, depoliticized
25:19
Speaker 5: system of law enforcement, completely devoted to rigorous obedience of
25:23
Speaker 5: the Constitution and a singular standard of justice.
25:26
Speaker 2: Patel faced a persistent line of attack from Democrat They
25:30
Speaker 2: confronted Patel with a vast catalog of his incendiary statements,
25:35
Speaker 2: including an enemies list in the twenty twenty three book
25:38
Speaker 2: he authored, and his calls for purging anti Trump conspirators
25:43
Speaker 2: in the government den news media. Here's an exchange he
25:46
Speaker 2: had with Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
25:50
Speaker 4: Here's what this nominee himself has said about using his
25:56
Speaker 4: office to prosecute journalists. We will go out and find
26:01
Speaker 4: the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media.
26:06
Speaker 4: We're gonna come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly.
26:11
Speaker 4: Is that a correct quotation, mister Patel, Senator. That's a
26:15
Speaker 4: partial quotation, but it's correct in part.
26:20
Speaker 2: I've been talking to former Palm Beach County State Attorney
26:23
Speaker 2: Dave Ahrenberg. So Trump has picked to lead the FBI,
26:27
Speaker 2: a man who sat on a podcast after the election
26:31
Speaker 2: that he would turn the FBI building into a museum.
26:35
Speaker 1: Isn't a critic of the FBI, calling it the deep state.
26:38
Speaker 1: I've known Cash to Tell for a while and havn't
26:41
Speaker 1: spoken him and for seen him since twenty seventeen. But
26:44
Speaker 1: he was, i would say, previously on Team normal until
26:47
Speaker 1: he changed around twenty twenty. I think it was when
26:51
Speaker 1: the CIA flagged his national security file and referred him
26:56
Speaker 1: to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation over allegedly
27:02
Speaker 1: mishandling classified information. And this is while Patel was high
27:06
Speaker 1: up in the Trump National Security Agency, and so Petatel
27:11
Speaker 1: reacted to that, and that would be, according to Petel's critics,
27:15
Speaker 1: his villain origination story, because that's when he hardened his
27:19
Speaker 1: views against the so called deep state because he had
27:22
Speaker 1: to deal with that criminal investigation of him, and he
27:26
Speaker 1: said he did nothing wrong. This was a material that
27:28
Speaker 1: he included in a memo that he circulated involving the
27:32
Speaker 1: Russia probe. So you know, he's always been out out
27:35
Speaker 1: to get those who investigated Trump over Russia, and now
27:39
Speaker 1: he saw the CIA moving against him, so he was
27:43
Speaker 1: out to get them after that, and then later on
27:47
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, he learned that the Department of
27:52
Speaker 1: Justice had subpoenaed his Gmail account as personal emails. Back
27:58
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen while he was working for the House
28:03
Speaker 1: Select Intelligence Committee as senior counsel and they were investigating
28:07
Speaker 1: a potential leak that happened, a leak of national security information.
28:11
Speaker 1: So Ptel did not realize that his emails had been
28:15
Speaker 1: subpoenaed and given over to the Department of Justice, so
28:18
Speaker 1: that just stealed his resolve to go after the so
28:21
Speaker 1: called deep State. That's what led to his enemy's list
28:24
Speaker 1: sixty individuals from the Deep States who he wants to incarcerate,
28:27
Speaker 1: including members of what he calls the media mafia. So
28:31
Speaker 1: that's why Cash Pattel became who he is today. He's
28:35
Speaker 1: a different person than when I knew him a few
28:37
Speaker 1: years ago.
28:37
Speaker 2: So what is his goal for the FBI?
28:40
Speaker 3: Then?
28:40
Speaker 1: He has said that he wants to get the FBI
28:42
Speaker 1: back to being copped where they're not involved with the
28:46
Speaker 1: intelligence community. But you remember the reason why the FBI
28:49
Speaker 1: is involved with intelligence and worked so closely with the CIA.
28:53
Speaker 1: It was because of nine to eleven. There was so
28:55
Speaker 1: much criticism that the FBI was asleep at the wheel,
28:57
Speaker 1: that beIN Logen was doing all these infarious things, and
29:00
Speaker 1: the FBI was not coordinating with the CIA, and that's
29:03
Speaker 1: why there were reforms in place. So it looks like
29:05
Speaker 1: Pateel wants to undo that and go back to the
29:07
Speaker 1: original mission of the FBI domestic law enforcement. But that
29:11
Speaker 1: will come at the expense, in my mind, of national security.
29:16
Speaker 2: Up to six top FBI executives have been told to
29:20
Speaker 2: expect reassignments if Cash Pattel is confirmed as director and
29:27
Speaker 2: they're the official handling active terrorists, cyber and other threats.
29:32
Speaker 2: And these are people who are experienced in their field
29:36
Speaker 2: and well respected.
29:38
Speaker 1: Right because he wants to limit the scope of the FBI.
29:43
Speaker 1: His personal experience was that the FBI encroached upon his
29:48
Speaker 1: personal liberties and he liked Trump interprets actions against themselves
29:53
Speaker 1: actions against the United States. So Trump says, I will
29:56
Speaker 1: be a retribution, and cast Hotel has the same enemies
30:00
Speaker 1: list as Donald Trump, So it's a match made in
30:03
Speaker 1: heaven right well, because both of them are on the
30:05
Speaker 1: same page when it comes to going after the same enemies. Now,
30:09
Speaker 1: I do think that once Cash Mootel is in the
30:11
Speaker 1: role FBI director, I do think he will back off
30:16
Speaker 1: a bit on just targeting enemies because caam Bondi already
30:19
Speaker 1: said that's not going to happen here, and he can
30:22
Speaker 1: only go so far. He can get himself in a
30:24
Speaker 1: lot of trouble if he fakes evidence and brings garbage
30:29
Speaker 1: cases against individuals, he will blow up in the space now,
30:31
Speaker 1: but he can do damage if he does go after
30:35
Speaker 1: individuals he the spikes. As they say, you can beat
30:38
Speaker 1: the rat, but you can't beat the ride.
30:41
Speaker 2: Let's say he's successful at what he wants to do
30:43
Speaker 2: to the FBI and he remains in office for four years,
30:48
Speaker 2: how much damage can he do?
30:49
Speaker 1: Well if he changes the scope of the FBI to
30:53
Speaker 1: no longer work with THECI on intelligence, international terrorism, and counterintelligence,
30:59
Speaker 1: then I think actional security will be at risk. That's
31:01
Speaker 1: what led to nine to eleven. So you may not
31:04
Speaker 1: see the impact until much later, but at some point,
31:08
Speaker 1: if God forbid, there's a terrorist attacking is touching you
31:10
Speaker 1: wonder why the FBI was not coordinating with our spy agencies.
31:14
Speaker 1: Well there's a reason why.
31:16
Speaker 2: Well we shall see if a fierce critic of the
31:18
Speaker 2: FBI gets to lead it. Thanks so much, Dave. That's
31:23
Speaker 2: Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney. Former US
31:28
Speaker 2: Senator Bob Menendez was sentenced to eleven years in prison
31:32
Speaker 2: for acting as a foreign agent of Egypt and accepting
31:35
Speaker 2: gold bars and other bribes in what prosecutors said was
31:39
Speaker 2: perhaps the worst corruption case ever involving a US senator.
31:44
Speaker 2: Menendez maintains his innocence.
31:46
Speaker 4: Welcome to the Southern District of New York, the wild
31:49
Speaker 4: West of political prosecutions. President Trump is right. This process
31:55
Speaker 4: is political and it's corrupted to the core.
32:00
Speaker 2: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis, who covered
32:03
Speaker 2: the trial. In Sentencing David, eleven years for a seventy
32:06
Speaker 2: one year old man seems like a harsh punishment.
32:11
Speaker 6: It is a very tough sentence that US histric Judge
32:14
Speaker 6: Sidney Stein gave to ex Senator Menendez, but it's actually
32:19
Speaker 6: a departure downward from advisory sentencing guidelines under federal law.
32:26
Speaker 6: The judge gave him a bit of leniency for his
32:29
Speaker 6: age and for his five decades of service to the
32:33
Speaker 6: public as an elected official.
32:36
Speaker 2: Tell Us about his tearful plead to the judge before he.
32:39
Speaker 6: Was sentenced, Bob Menendez was quite choked up. The courtroom
32:43
Speaker 6: was packed, and he made a heartfelt, emotional appeal for mercy.
32:51
Speaker 6: He asked the judge to consider his long career in
32:57
Speaker 6: the Senate and the House, and the many actions he
33:01
Speaker 6: had taken for his constituents, the legislative accomplishments that he
33:07
Speaker 6: had achieved, and the advocacy that he had put forward
33:12
Speaker 6: on behalf of Hispanics, people in New Jersey, even refugees
33:19
Speaker 6: or immigrants in the United States. He sort of gave
33:23
Speaker 6: a tearful overview of his career and said that the
33:28
Speaker 6: judge should not focus only on his crimes, but you
33:32
Speaker 6: know the full accomplishments in his life.
33:36
Speaker 2: When he went outside the courtroom, he seemed to be
33:41
Speaker 2: reaching out to President Trump. He said, the process is
33:45
Speaker 2: political and it's corrupted to the core. I hope President
33:47
Speaker 2: Trump cleans up the cesspool and restores integrity to the system.
33:52
Speaker 2: Is he looking for a pardon from Trump?
33:55
Speaker 6: He is planning to ask Trump for a pardon. It's
33:58
Speaker 6: not clear whether that would happen. He has been a
34:01
Speaker 6: vocal critic of Trump for many years, but in saying
34:08
Speaker 6: that he's the victim of a witch hunt now, which
34:10
Speaker 6: is what he said yesterday, he's sort of parroting the
34:14
Speaker 6: language that Trump uses, and he seems to be appealing
34:19
Speaker 6: to Trump's sense that the Justice Department is broken and
34:24
Speaker 6: carries out vindictive and political prosecutions.
34:28
Speaker 2: He says he's going to appeal. Do you know any
34:30
Speaker 2: of the arguments he plans to raise in the appeal?
34:33
Speaker 6: Yeah, A couple of the arguments have to do with
34:37
Speaker 6: the speech or debate protections that legislators have through the
34:41
Speaker 6: US Constitution. There was a dispute that happened in the
34:45
Speaker 6: last couple of months relating to the laptop full of
34:49
Speaker 6: exhibits that went to jurors, and prosecutors disclosed that they
34:54
Speaker 6: gave exhibits that were unredacted and supposed to be reacted
34:59
Speaker 6: to the jury that the defense lawyer said directly implicated
35:04
Speaker 6: the speechure debate clause by referring to legislative actions. That
35:09
Speaker 6: Menendez took quite.
35:11
Speaker 2: A downfall for a once powerful and respected senator. Thanks
35:16
Speaker 2: so much, David. That's David Voriakis, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, and
35:20
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
35:23
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
35:25
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
35:29
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast Slash Law,
35:35
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
35:37
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
35:41
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg