Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: Jimmy Kimmel, Short Seller Trial & Trump vs Monuments

Transcript

Weekend Law: Jimmy Kimmel, Short Seller Trial & Trump vs Monuments · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: Here's the joke that made President Trump call for Jimmy
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: Kimmel to be fired for the second time in less
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: than a year.
• 0:16
  Speaker 3: Look at Moss, so beautiful, missus Trump, you have a
• 0:18
  Speaker 3: glow like an expectant widow.
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: Last September, Kimmel was suspended for six days after Trump
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: demanded he be fired for comments he made about the
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk that backfired when Kimmel's
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: ratings actually went off after his forced hiatus, and ABC
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: had to contend with Disney plus subscriber cancelations from the
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: program Blackout. Still, Federal Communications Commissioned Chairman Brendan Carr seems
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: to be taking Trump's grudge against Kimmel seriously. He's taken
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: the rare, almost unprecedented step of calling Disney's eight ABCTV
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: station licenses in for early review, ostensibly over Disney's diversity,
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: equity and inclusion practices, and Carr is also investigating ABC's
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: daytime talk show The View after declaring its subject to
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: equal time rules for political candidates. But there are signs
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: that Disney is taking a different approach, this time around
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: standing its ground and fighting back. The company fired back
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: at the FCC in a lengthy filing, accusing the agency
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: of seeking to chill critical protected speech and shape media
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: content to its liking. Joining me is Professor Daniel Lyons
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: of Boston College Law School, a telecommunications law expert. Is
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: FCC chair Brendan Carr taking a different approach from his
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: predecessors at the agency.
• 1:53
  Speaker 4: It's a good question, a good place to start the
• 1:55
  Speaker 4: conversation because SEC Chairman Brendan Carr has been so different
• 1:59
  Speaker 4: than his press assessors on the issues of old media speech.
• 2:03
  Speaker 4: So over the past twenty years or so, the FCC
• 2:06
  Speaker 4: has been focused significantly upon things like broadband right, expanding
• 2:10
  Speaker 4: broadband whether or not, net neutrality rules, things like that.
• 2:13
  Speaker 4: But prior to the Internet era right, the FCC was
• 2:16
  Speaker 4: America's communications regulator and developed a whole lot of doctrines
• 2:21
  Speaker 4: balancing the government's interest in regulating communications with the limits
• 2:25
  Speaker 4: on the government of the First Amendment. We thought for
• 2:27
  Speaker 4: a long time that most of these doctrines were relatively settled.
• 2:31
  Speaker 4: They haven't really changed much since the late nineties, but
• 2:34
  Speaker 4: Chairman Carr has shown an interest in aggressively exploring the
• 2:39
  Speaker 4: gray areas that were left unexplored by bipartisan commissions in
• 2:45
  Speaker 4: years past. So we say this with the comments that
• 2:48
  Speaker 4: he had with regard to Jimmy Kimmel's statements after Charlie
• 2:51
  Speaker 4: Kirks murder. We saw it even earlier than that, the
• 2:54
  Speaker 4: FCC began questioning PBS's sponsorship. The statements before shows which
• 3:00
  Speaker 4: zetorships are legal but commercials are not, and the line
• 3:03
  Speaker 4: between the two is not always being clear. So the
• 3:05
  Speaker 4: agency has shown an interest in revisiting all of these
• 3:08
  Speaker 4: doctrines and getting the sense of whether it should more
• 3:11
  Speaker 4: aggressively pursue the old media rules that had originally been
• 3:15
  Speaker 4: at sporte in the pre Internet era. This coincides with
• 3:19
  Speaker 4: the fact that we have a president who is much
• 3:20
  Speaker 4: more interested in old media than occupants of the White
• 3:23
  Speaker 4: House in years past. The President seems particularly interested in
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: questions about what broadcast news is doing, what cable news
• 3:31
  Speaker 4: is doing, which feel much more like nineteen nineties and
• 3:33
  Speaker 4: two thousands questions than they do the most relevant communications
• 3:37
  Speaker 4: law issues of twenty twenty.
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: Six and our car and Trump moving in lockstep.
• 3:42
  Speaker 4: Brending Carr's been pretty open about the fact that he's
• 3:44
  Speaker 4: responding to what his boss wants. That the FCC is,
• 3:49
  Speaker 4: Although it's structured as an independent agency, it lacks the
• 3:53
  Speaker 4: job protection that many other independent agencies have, which means
• 3:57
  Speaker 4: that the commissioners work at the whim of the President.
• 4:00
  Speaker 4: And Car has shown not just a realization about that,
• 4:04
  Speaker 4: but a zeal in kind of doing his part within
• 4:07
  Speaker 4: a Republican commission to tow the party line. There's another,
• 4:10
  Speaker 4: in think situation where the president has at least set
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: the direction and Car is following. I think the language
• 4:16
  Speaker 4: that Car is using in this context right, it's about
• 4:18
  Speaker 4: clarifying the scope of the equal time rule and the
• 4:23
  Speaker 4: broadcast music Central. It doesn't seem coincidental that the same
• 4:27
  Speaker 4: network is being picked on in all of these situations,
• 4:30
  Speaker 4: and they happen to be the same network that the
• 4:32
  Speaker 4: president has in his crosshairs.
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: The FCC is investigating the ABC talk show The View,
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: and in January, the FCC told broadcasters that talk shows
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: and late night programs hosting political candidates have to give
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: equal time to opponents. The View has had this exemption,
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: So tell us about equal time and the exemption.
• 4:54
  Speaker 4: Well, so, I think it's important to put this in
• 4:56
  Speaker 4: the broader context of how the First Amendment interacts with
• 4:59
  Speaker 4: FCC see Broadcast regulation.
• 5:01
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 5:01
  Speaker 4: So, the Supreme Court has made clear that in most contexts,
• 5:05
  Speaker 4: the government can't tell a particular platform or speaker what
• 5:10
  Speaker 4: they can and can't say.
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 5:12
  Speaker 4: This is Mammy Herald versus Tornillo, where the state of
• 5:15
  Speaker 4: Florida tried to adopt a rite a reply statute for
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: newspapers off a newspaper editorial criticized one candidate, that it
• 5:21
  Speaker 4: had to give equal space to that candidate to respond.
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: And of course this is a violation of the right
• 5:26
  Speaker 4: of editorial control, the right to decide what I say,
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: what I don't say, and what I choose to put
• 5:31
  Speaker 4: on page one versus what I choose to put on
• 5:32
  Speaker 4: page thirteen. The Supreme Court revisited this just recently with
• 5:35
  Speaker 4: regard to Facebook and Twitter and other Internet platforms in
• 5:39
  Speaker 4: the case just a couple.
• 5:40
  Speaker 5: Of years ago.
• 5:41
  Speaker 4: So broadcast is an exception to that strong limit on
• 5:44
  Speaker 4: government power, because broadcasters I have to apply for a
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: license to use the electromatic spectrum in order to send
• 5:51
  Speaker 4: their signal held over the airwaves. Broadcast television and radio,
• 5:55
  Speaker 4: the Supreme Court held did not have the same rights
• 5:57
  Speaker 4: of editorial control. The reason for this ostend simply was scarcity.
• 6:02
  Speaker 4: There's only so much electromagnetic spectrum, and so when the
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: government is handing out these limited licenses, it should have
• 6:08
  Speaker 4: the ability to decide that the users of these licenses
• 6:11
  Speaker 4: present both sides of a debate. This was a case
• 6:14
  Speaker 4: called Red Lion in the late nineteen sixties, but there
• 6:17
  Speaker 4: was always the concern that Red Lion was on a
• 6:19
  Speaker 4: very thin read at the time. Most America got its
• 6:23
  Speaker 4: television through broadcasters before the cable industry, and so broadcasters
• 6:28
  Speaker 4: had a very significant control over the pipe into people's homes.
• 6:31
  Speaker 4: And more importantly, the court said, we recognized that there
• 6:35
  Speaker 4: could be for somement problems with even this exception. If
• 6:39
  Speaker 4: broadcasters are unwilling to address political controversies because of fear
• 6:45
  Speaker 4: that they have to provide equal talking time to the
• 6:48
  Speaker 4: other side, and it causes them to chill political speech generally,
• 6:51
  Speaker 4: then it might be that even Red Lion isign constitutional.
• 6:54
  Speaker 4: We revisit this question. The FCC phased out the Fairness
• 6:57
  Speaker 4: Doctor of the nineteen eighties, but one vestige of it
• 7:01
  Speaker 4: still remains, which is the equal time rule. The equal
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: time rule says that if you have a qualified candidate
• 7:06
  Speaker 4: during an electoral period and to make an appearance, then
• 7:09
  Speaker 4: the other candidates in the election have the right to
• 7:12
  Speaker 4: demand equal opportunity to be heard on the broadcast network.
• 7:16
  Speaker 4: And that was an issue in the View. So ostensibly
• 7:19
  Speaker 4: the View had James tallerco on as a guest, and
• 7:24
  Speaker 4: Car's position was this could have implications for the equal
• 7:27
  Speaker 4: time rule, such that Telrico's opponent should be allowed time
• 7:30
  Speaker 4: on the View as well. Back in the nineteen fifties,
• 7:33
  Speaker 4: this became an issue in the Chicago mayoral election. Mayor
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: Daily was a welcoming a delegation from a foreign city
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: and it made the broadcast news. And this guy, Lars Daily,
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: who was no relation to Mayor Daily. He was a
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: perennial fringe candidate. He was on the ballot every year
• 7:49
  Speaker 4: and got like three votes. He would walk around wearing
• 7:51
  Speaker 4: like an Uncle Sam outfit. He wrote to the SEC
• 7:54
  Speaker 4: and demanded equal time. He said, if you're going to
• 7:55
  Speaker 4: put Mayor Daily on, then I deserve equal time. And lo,
• 7:57
  Speaker 4: and behold everyone's surprise, the FCC granted it. The Congress
• 8:00
  Speaker 4: freaked out about this and passed what they call the
• 8:02
  Speaker 4: bonafide news exemption. If a candidate appears on your broadcast
• 8:06
  Speaker 4: as part of a bonafide news broadcast, then it wouldn't
• 8:10
  Speaker 4: trigger the equal time rules. Partly in order to preserve
• 8:13
  Speaker 4: the spirit of the First Amendment, right this idea that
• 8:16
  Speaker 4: you should be able to cover newsworthy events. If you
• 8:19
  Speaker 4: decide you don't want to cover newsworthy events because of
• 8:21
  Speaker 4: fear of triggering the equal time rules, that's a problem
• 8:24
  Speaker 4: for society in general. So the scope of the bonafide
• 8:28
  Speaker 4: news exemption is what's an issue here. As news evolved
• 8:32
  Speaker 4: in format and as broadcasts became less and less of
• 8:36
  Speaker 4: a dominant information provider, the SEC traditionally has added more
• 8:40
  Speaker 4: and more programs to the exemption category. So in nineteen
• 8:44
  Speaker 4: eighty four, Phil Donna Hues Talk Show was recognized as
• 8:46
  Speaker 4: a bona fide news broadcast because it was covering topical issues.
• 8:50
  Speaker 4: Later on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher Weirdly, the Howard
• 8:53
  Speaker 4: Stern Show and The Tonight Show is granted an exception,
• 8:56
  Speaker 4: and the View was granted an exception in two thousand
• 8:58
  Speaker 4: and two or two thousand and three. So it was
• 9:01
  Speaker 4: that exemption that car has announced the desire to kind
• 9:05
  Speaker 4: of tighten up, make it not as expansive as it
• 9:09
  Speaker 4: has been in FCC's past. So in January, the FCC
• 9:14
  Speaker 4: issued guidance saying, going forward, we're going to apply this
• 9:18
  Speaker 4: much more stringently, and those of you who have existing
• 9:20
  Speaker 4: exemptions should not assume they can be blanket exemptions. And
• 9:23
  Speaker 4: that's what now is being built on. With regard to
• 9:26
  Speaker 4: the specific inquiry into taller Eco's appearance on the View, Carr.
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: Is also reviewing whether to revoke the broadcast licenses for
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: Disney owned local ABC stations, and it's actually over Disney's
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: DEI practices. Carr said. The timing is purely coincidental, but
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: it came right after Trump demanded that Kim will be
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: fired for the second time. Is there any precedent for
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: revoking licenses like this?
• 9:53
  Speaker 4: These licenses to broadcasts, they are issued for an eight
• 9:56
  Speaker 4: year period and then they come up for renewal. But
• 9:59
  Speaker 4: there is a strong norm and in fact legal precedent
• 10:02
  Speaker 4: for a presumption that they would be renewed. The FCC
• 10:05
  Speaker 4: only doesn't renew a broadcast license in the event that
• 10:09
  Speaker 4: the broadcasters found to have engage in a repeated pattern
• 10:11
  Speaker 4: and practice of violating FCC rules. The only instance I'm
• 10:16
  Speaker 4: aware of was a religious broadcaster in the nineteen nineties
• 10:20
  Speaker 4: that lost its rights because it had represented itself as
• 10:22
  Speaker 4: a minority owned broadcaster to take advantage of the minority
• 10:25
  Speaker 4: preference rules, and it turns out it was more of
• 10:28
  Speaker 4: a straw man than a real minority owned business. And
• 10:30
  Speaker 4: so when it came time for the license to be renewed,
• 10:33
  Speaker 4: the sec chose not to renew it. But because broadcasters
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: invest a lot of money in the expectation that this
• 10:40
  Speaker 4: would be renewed, the DC circuits recognized the renewal is
• 10:42
  Speaker 4: almost like a property interest, and so there's a high
• 10:45
  Speaker 4: barrier to a license not being renewed. What's unusual in
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: this case is that most of ABC's licenses aren't due
• 10:52
  Speaker 4: for renewal for several years. The Commission has stepped up
• 10:56
  Speaker 4: and moved the timeline forward for starting the process and
• 11:00
  Speaker 4: asking for all the compliance measures, long before ABC expected
• 11:04
  Speaker 4: to given the Commission's history.
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: So even if it goes through the process and somehow
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: they revoke the licenses, there would be a huge court
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: battle after that right that might go up to the
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court.
• 11:16
  Speaker 4: Yeah, and ultimately it may be that ABC wins that challenge. Right,
• 11:20
  Speaker 4: Maybe that at the end of the day, the FCC
• 11:22
  Speaker 4: chooses not to revoke the licenses, or if they revoke
• 11:25
  Speaker 4: the licenses, ABC SUS and successfully get some reinstated. But
• 11:28
  Speaker 4: that in itself is a tremendous cost. And this is
• 11:31
  Speaker 4: what communications car sometimes call regulation by Ray's eyebrow, Right, the.
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: Situation where the FCC may or may not have legal
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: authority to what it wants to do, but it can
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: ask questions to try to nudge broadcasters to voluntarily comply
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: with requirements that the agency may not be able.
• 11:49
  Speaker 4: To outright demand. And there's a long history of that
• 11:51
  Speaker 4: in the FCC, as you might imagine.
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: Disney in twenty twenty four settled a fifteen million dollar
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: defamation lawsuit brought by Trump against George Stefanopolis and ABC
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: News anchor, and it did pull Kimmel off the air
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: for several days last fall after cars threats. But Disney's
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: taking an aggressive stance this time, and it's filing with
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: the FCC. It accused the agency of seeking to chill
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: critical protected speech and to shape media content to its liking.
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: Are they under less pressure for some reason? Why do
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: you think that they're deciding to really aggressively fight back.
• 12:28
  Speaker 4: Well, one, I think they're on pretty strong legal ground.
• 12:31
  Speaker 4: The constitutional ground for the equal time exception to the
• 12:37
  Speaker 4: first time and I think is relatively weak. The Red Lion,
• 12:39
  Speaker 4: I think was dubious when it was decided. I don't
• 12:41
  Speaker 4: know that it has very many supporters on the Supreme
• 12:44
  Speaker 4: Court today. Justice Thomas has come out explicitly to call
• 12:47
  Speaker 4: for overturning it in the right facts, I think if
• 12:50
  Speaker 4: it gets a spring what you don't get there. But
• 12:51
  Speaker 4: also the fact that the View has been granted an
• 12:55
  Speaker 4: exemption as a bona fide news broadcast in two thousand
• 12:58
  Speaker 4: and three makes it very hard or the FCC to
• 13:01
  Speaker 4: punish it for conduct it took under that exemption. The
• 13:04
  Speaker 4: SCC can make a decision going forward, but to the
• 13:07
  Speaker 4: extent that it's trying to sanction ABC for having Tall
• 13:11
  Speaker 4: Rico on during the time when the View has bonafide
• 13:14
  Speaker 4: news exemption license from the FCC, I think he's on
• 13:18
  Speaker 4: a very good ground in defending where it's at. So
• 13:20
  Speaker 4: I think this is the Word's decided to draw the
• 13:21
  Speaker 4: line in the sand, and I think it's a very
• 13:22
  Speaker 4: good line to draw. And you're right, it's Roy brought
• 13:24
  Speaker 4: in some heavy hitters. Paul Clement was the signatory on
• 13:27
  Speaker 4: the brief. Who is no stranger to taking on and
• 13:31
  Speaker 4: winning very difficult Supreme Court cases.
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: Certainly not. He is one of the premier Supreme Court litigators.
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: A former Solicitor General. I believe he's argued more cases
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: before the Supreme Court than any other lawyer. He's appeared
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: before the justices several times this term, including representing Federal
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in her fight to prevent President
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: Trump from firing her. Thanks so much for taking us
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: through this latest saga involving ABC in the FCC. That's
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: Daniel Lyon's a professor at Boston College Law School. Short
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: Sellers are making money when others are losing it, so
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: they're generally not well liked. In fact, a short seller
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: was even cast as the super villain in the James
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: Bond film Casino Royale terrorist financier lashef uses a warlord's
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: money to short sell stock.
• 14:28
  Speaker 5: Can you believe in God, mister Lachief, No, I believe
• 14:33
  Speaker 5: in a reconable rate of return. I want no risk
• 14:36
  Speaker 5: in the portfolio.
• 14:38
  Speaker 4: I agreed, I have the money, so showed another million
• 14:42
  Speaker 4: shares of sky Fleet Stock. Sir, you must know you're
• 14:46
  Speaker 4: betting against the market. No one expects this stock to
• 14:50
  Speaker 4: go anywhere but up just do it.
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: And now one of the most prominent short sellers is
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: on trial for securities fraud. Andrew Left rose to fame
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: with sensational tweets that went viral, published reports claiming firms
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: were overvalued or had engaged in fraud, betting against companies
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: like Game Stock and Valiant Pharmaceuticals, and hyping his positions
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: on financial TV shows in a bit of irony. Left,
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: who accused so many others of fraud, is now on
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: trial for defrauding investors. Prosecutors say he used explosive social
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: media posts about dozens of companies to illegally move their
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: stock and make a quick profit, market manipulation that totalled
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: as much as twenty million dollars. The fifty five year
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: old denies misleading investors and says he genuinely believed in
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: his stock calls. My guest is securities law expert James Park,
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: a professor at UCLA Law School. Jim, give us a
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: picture of who Andrew Left is.
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: He started out by publishing research report companies through his
• 16:01
  Speaker 3: platform Citrin Research, often making negative recommendations. I think he's
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: mainly known for correctly identifying problems at a company called
• 16:11
  Speaker 3: Valiant Pharmaceuticals, a company that engaged in questionable practices with
• 16:16
  Speaker 3: respect to recognizing sales, and so, you know, he published
• 16:19
  Speaker 3: a report identifying some of the questionable practices. He also
• 16:23
  Speaker 3: came up interestingly in the game Stop Saga from a
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: few years ago, where he had taken a short position
• 16:29
  Speaker 3: in the company and retail investors basically rallied on Reddit
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: to squeeze the short ben You know, with those successes,
• 16:37
  Speaker 3: he's gained a high profile. You know, he makes recommendations
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: with respecta companies, emails them out, has an online platform
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: as using social media a lot, is frequently invited on
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: various shows, and has a lot of medium appearances. And
• 16:53
  Speaker 3: so he's somebody with a higher profile than most folks
• 16:56
  Speaker 3: who are doing research and you know, taking short positions
• 17:00
  Speaker 3: potentially in companies.
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: The government is accusing him of manipulating the stock market.
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: Tell us about the charges here.
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: He was indicted for various counts of securities fraud, manipulation
• 17:13
  Speaker 3: and fraud. More generally, the manipulation argument is that he
• 17:18
  Speaker 3: would basically establish positions in a stock, whether it was
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: long or short, issue a recommendation with respect to that position,
• 17:27
  Speaker 3: which he would disseminate to the public, presumably according to
• 17:32
  Speaker 3: the prosecutors, with the intent to either inflate or deflate
• 17:36
  Speaker 3: the stock, given his high profile, and then he would
• 17:39
  Speaker 3: quickly reverse his position. And I think the argument there
• 17:42
  Speaker 3: is that that shows he did not believe his recommendation,
• 17:47
  Speaker 3: that he was issuing these recommendations to artificially manipulate the
• 17:52
  Speaker 3: price of these stocks, and that his actions, which often
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: came very soon after the recommendation, indicates that he did
• 18:01
  Speaker 3: not sincerely believe, you know, his recommendation that you should
• 18:05
  Speaker 3: buy the stock or sell the stock, because he was
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: doing the reverse. And you know, there might have been
• 18:09
  Speaker 3: a dozen or so of these transactions, maybe more that
• 18:13
  Speaker 3: the prosecutors alleged he profited by around twenty million dollars
• 18:17
  Speaker 3: through this market manipulation.
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: Is this an aggressive legal theory for the prosecution. Is
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: it an uphill battle for prosecutors to prove this.
• 18:26
  Speaker 3: It's not a commonly prosecuted back pattern. I think that's
• 18:31
  Speaker 3: fair to say, you know, do the prosecutors have a
• 18:35
  Speaker 3: very well developed case. I think they have a lot
• 18:38
  Speaker 3: of evidence, right, They have a lot of evidence about
• 18:41
  Speaker 3: not only his recommendations, of course, which are public, but
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: what he did. And there is you know, some email
• 18:47
  Speaker 3: evidence that could be interpreted in a way that the
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: jury might be able to conclude that you know, he
• 18:54
  Speaker 3: knew that the information was false. Now that's up to
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: the jury, and emails have a lot of ways that
• 18:59
  Speaker 3: they can be interpreted. You know, market manipulation cases are
• 19:04
  Speaker 3: are tough, right, It's tough to prove the intent because
• 19:08
  Speaker 3: a lot of the actions that could potentially be manipulative,
• 19:13
  Speaker 3: you know, may be motivated by legitimate reason. You know,
• 19:17
  Speaker 3: he may legitimately believe part of his recommendation, some of
• 19:20
  Speaker 3: his recommendation, you know, maybe he changed his mind right
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: very soon after. And so, you know, market manipulation is challenging.
• 19:28
  Speaker 3: We've talked, you know, a few years ago about the
• 19:29
  Speaker 3: Bill Huang case. That's one where I noted that it's
• 19:33
  Speaker 3: hard to establish manipulation, and the prosecution did in that case.
• 19:37
  Speaker 3: And so I think that the cases is novel and
• 19:41
  Speaker 3: interesting because you know, manipulation is not prosecuted as much
• 19:45
  Speaker 3: as say insider trading, for example. It's a little bit
• 19:48
  Speaker 3: more straightforward when I've taken non public information, I'm an insider,
• 19:52
  Speaker 3: I trade on it. That is usually more straightforward than
• 19:56
  Speaker 3: a situation where somebody is is engaging in various training
• 20:00
  Speaker 3: activity and around recommendations that they've issued. And so I
• 20:03
  Speaker 3: think it's just less common to bring cases like this.
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: So far, prosecutors have focused on the stocks of two
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: companies they say Left tweeted about and then trade it
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: on Twitter, and Chronos Group, which is a cannabis company,
• 20:18
  Speaker 2: and they call stock analysts to the stand who disagreed
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: with Left's negative reports about the companies. On cross examination,
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: the defense attorney seem to be trying to highlight its
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: position that analysts can disagree about stocks and Left was
• 20:35
  Speaker 2: just telling the public what he believed.
• 20:38
  Speaker 3: I think the analyst recommendation or the analysts testimony is
• 20:41
  Speaker 3: probably serving as a baseline. You know, these are the
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: facts that were out there, and you know, without specific
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: facts contradicting that, if you're just kind of saying this
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: stuff without any basis and you're only doing it to
• 20:56
  Speaker 3: manipulate the stock price, that that's going to be problematic.
• 21:00
  Speaker 3: Disagreement is not broad. People have the ability to disagree,
• 21:04
  Speaker 3: But I think it shows the context of how the
• 21:07
  Speaker 3: stock was understood, and if you are deliberately issuing false
• 21:11
  Speaker 3: information that that is essentially what the cases is about.
• 21:15
  Speaker 3: But the testimony by the stock analyst by itself is
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: not going to be able to establish that these statements
• 21:21
  Speaker 3: were false, that he knew that they were false.
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: The defense hasn't said whether or not Left is going
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: to take the stand. Obviously, a defendant doesn't have to
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: take the stand and it can't be held against him,
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: But there are some instances. For example, prosecutors have introduced
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: testimony that the stock of Kronos plunged twenty eight percent
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: after Left's report that Kronos was misleading investors about its
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: distribution commitments, and prosecutors say, shortly after the tweet, about
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: twenty four minutes later, Left started closing out his short position.
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: How will the defense exps blame what happened in those
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: twenty four minutes if Left doesn't take the stand.
• 22:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know how his operation works, whether he
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: does all the research himself or whether there's somebody else
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: who does that. I think that, you know, ideally he
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: would explain, you know, what was my basis for making
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: this this statement? About this company? What did I look
• 22:20
  Speaker 3: at and why did I quickly close out the position?
• 22:23
  Speaker 3: I think that's also a question that could be asked,
• 22:27
  Speaker 3: and it might be difficult to establish that without the
• 22:32
  Speaker 3: person who's making the recommendation taking the stand.
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: Jim, I've been reading some headlines that say is short
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: selling facing a reckoning referring to this trial. Do you
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: think it is?
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: I don't think so. You know, some of the transactions
• 22:46
  Speaker 3: were long positions. Now you know, he is maybe known
• 22:50
  Speaker 3: as a short seller, but he does make long recommendations
• 22:54
  Speaker 3: as well. There's a Facebook transaction where he says it's
• 22:57
  Speaker 3: going to one hundreds sixty dollars a share and he
• 22:59
  Speaker 3: sells out at much less than that after the price
• 23:02
  Speaker 3: goes up, And so, you know, you might think of
• 23:04
  Speaker 3: it as more perhaps a case involving the use of
• 23:08
  Speaker 3: social media, the use of kind of online recommendations. Is
• 23:13
  Speaker 3: that the place where you could have a bit of
• 23:15
  Speaker 3: a chilling effect, And so I think you might even
• 23:18
  Speaker 3: think of the case a bit broader than it being about,
• 23:22
  Speaker 3: you know, somebody who is specifically selling companies short and
• 23:26
  Speaker 3: making allegations that the price should go down. I think
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: it's a bit broader than that. It is the combination
• 23:31
  Speaker 3: of you know, do short sellers sometimes use social media? Sure,
• 23:34
  Speaker 3: I don't know that they do that to the extent
• 23:37
  Speaker 3: that mister Left did, and that might be kind of
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: what the case ultimately is about, is that technology has
• 23:43
  Speaker 3: you know, made it difficult to regulate conduct that might
• 23:47
  Speaker 3: manipulate markets because before social media, you couldn't move a
• 23:50
  Speaker 3: stock price like this, but now you know, there's some
• 23:53
  Speaker 3: individuals who can.
• 23:54
  Speaker 2: Short sellers were already spooked by Left's indictment, especially because
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: criminal investigators in DC and LA had been investigating short
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: selling for years. Some of Leff's biggest competitors have already
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: left the market, some came out with more extensive disclaimers.
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: So this case is really being watched closely.
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: No, I think it's it's tough being a short seller.
• 24:19
  Speaker 3: It's always been tough. Nobody likes you. And you know
• 24:22
  Speaker 3: there's long been scrutiny of short sellers and their statements.
• 24:25
  Speaker 3: You know, one that comes in mind. You know Bill
• 24:27
  Speaker 3: Ackman years ago, like in the early two thousands, was
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: investigated by the New York Attorney General's Office and maybe
• 24:34
  Speaker 3: the SEC about a report he published about a company
• 24:37
  Speaker 3: called Mbia and you know, I think that short sellers
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: that are sophisticated should know that their statements are going
• 24:44
  Speaker 3: to be scrutinized and that they cannot release information or
• 24:49
  Speaker 3: facts that they know are false. That's part of the
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: business right, is that you're violating Rule ten B five
• 24:54
  Speaker 3: if you issue false information relating to the purchaser sale
• 24:58
  Speaker 3: of security. Probably some other state law theories as well,
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: and so there's always been scrutiny. Taking it to a
• 25:06
  Speaker 3: criminal level, I think though, does raise some additional reason
• 25:12
  Speaker 3: to be cautious with these types of statements. So I
• 25:15
  Speaker 3: think in that regard, you know, when you have a
• 25:17
  Speaker 3: criminal case that really gets people's attention, and he is
• 25:20
  Speaker 3: known primarily as somebody who recommends short positions, has taken
• 25:23
  Speaker 3: short positions. He's an activist investor, and so I think
• 25:27
  Speaker 3: that's right that it is something that activist short investors
• 25:31
  Speaker 3: will be aware of.
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: The trial is expected to last another two weeks, so
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: we'll see what happens. Thanks so much, Jim. That's Professor
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: James Park of UCLA Law School coming up next. Then
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: many lawsuits over Trump's attempted makeover of the nation's capital.
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 25:54
  Speaker 5: You see that the trucks and trains and excavators in
• 25:57
  Speaker 5: the background, and you hear them, And every time I
• 26:00
  Speaker 5: hear them, I love the sound.
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: And there are plenty of other constructions sounds in the
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: nation's capital that would please President Trump, as well as
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: the sound of another lawsuit being filed every time he
• 26:12
  Speaker 2: attempts to remake a historic landmark. The latest is the
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial, one of the most
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: iconic spots on the National Mall, but now the pool's
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: basin is being repainted from the neutral colors originally used
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: to a color called American Flag blue that was suggested
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: by one of Trump's former swimming pool contractors. And over
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: the years as a developer, I have probably built more
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: than one hundred swimming pools different buildings I built.
• 26:42
  Speaker 5: And I have some really good pool buildings. I also
• 26:45
  Speaker 5: had some really bad ones.
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: A nonprofit filed a lawsuit this week to stop Trump
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: from altering the Lincoln Memorial without the reviews and consultations
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: required before altering a registered historic landmark. The Cult Landscape
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: Foundation argues that the reflecting pool's neutral color is a
• 27:05
  Speaker 2: character defining feature of the site intended to convey greater
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: depth than reflection, it says, repainting. It follows the pattern
• 27:14
  Speaker 2: of Trump's other renovations like tearing down the East Wing
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: to build a ballroom, closing the Kennedy Center for two
• 27:22
  Speaker 2: years for renovations, and other projects that have drawn lawsuits
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: from historical societies and nonprofits for similar reasons. My guest
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: is former federal prosecutor Nima Romani, president of West Coast
• 27:36
  Speaker 2: Trial Lawyers. Nima tell us what the Cultural Landscape Foundation
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: is arguing in its lawsuit.
• 27:43
  Speaker 5: The lawsuit is alleging that the Trump administration didn't comply
• 27:48
  Speaker 5: with federal laws, specifically procedural law related to historic monuments
• 27:54
  Speaker 5: and environmental analyzes. This is similar to the Administrative Procedure
• 27:59
  Speaker 5: Act argument that many other planiffs have been using to
• 28:02
  Speaker 5: slow down the Trump administration. Now, those laws essentially say
• 28:06
  Speaker 5: that when a monument is altered in any way, there
• 28:12
  Speaker 5: has to be the opportunity for public comment, consultation with
• 28:16
  Speaker 5: other federal agencies, assessment of environmental impacts. And again this
• 28:21
  Speaker 5: is all procedural, but it can slow down this process,
• 28:24
  Speaker 5: which is what the planiniffs are trying to do.
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: The Trump administration is well aware of these requirements because
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: they're being sued in other cases. So ignoring similar requirements.
• 28:36
  Speaker 5: Oh, there's no question, And this really raises the fundamental
• 28:41
  Speaker 5: constitutional issue. What happens if the executive branch that is
• 28:44
  Speaker 5: tasked with enforcing the law doesn't follow the law. Who's
• 28:48
  Speaker 5: going to compel them to do so? Now, obviously, you know,
• 28:51
  Speaker 5: an Article three judge can step in and issue some
• 28:54
  Speaker 5: sort of order and injunction and hopefully there is compliance
• 28:58
  Speaker 5: with that. But yeah, this is a persistent problem by
• 29:02
  Speaker 5: this administration. I mean, there are these laws in the
• 29:04
  Speaker 5: books and they don't necessarily think that it applies to them.
• 29:08
  Speaker 5: And in this particular case with the reflecting Pool, the
• 29:11
  Speaker 5: president is trying to get this done before the two
• 29:15
  Speaker 5: hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our nation in just a
• 29:17
  Speaker 5: couple months, so we're really short on time and that's
• 29:21
  Speaker 5: why he's paying this company a significant sum of money
• 29:25
  Speaker 5: to get it done so quickly.
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: And the government awarded the firm a no bid contract
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: so bypassing the requirement to seek competing bids, and the
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: expected cost has now ballooned from one point eight million
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: to thirteen point one million.
• 29:43
  Speaker 5: It is, and the administration is saying that there's a
• 29:46
  Speaker 5: timing issue and that's why they're doing it. They have
• 29:49
  Speaker 5: to get this done, and that's why they're paying so much.
• 29:51
  Speaker 5: You know, from the Trump administration's perspective, the way they're
• 29:56
  Speaker 5: phrasing this for the litigation is that this is just
• 29:58
  Speaker 5: a necessary repair. This isn't an alteration because the executive
• 30:03
  Speaker 5: in their mandate to maintain these properties. Obviously they can
• 30:07
  Speaker 5: repair monuments, right and there's certain areas of the law
• 30:12
  Speaker 5: where the executive has much more discretion, obviously national security issues.
• 30:16
  Speaker 5: The other is routine maintenance and repair. So you see
• 30:20
  Speaker 5: the plaintiffs in these cases arguing that any of these
• 30:23
  Speaker 5: it could be the reflecting pool, it can be the
• 30:26
  Speaker 5: Kennedy Center of the White House, that these are fundamental
• 30:29
  Speaker 5: changes and alterations that would require approval of Congress or
• 30:34
  Speaker 5: others potentially, not just routine repairs. And of course the
• 30:39
  Speaker 5: government is arguing in their papers that this is just
• 30:43
  Speaker 5: a repair in the case of the reflecting pool, that
• 30:45
  Speaker 5: there are cracks, there's allergy, and that this isn't a
• 30:49
  Speaker 5: fundamentally different paint job changing the monument. It's simply just
• 30:53
  Speaker 5: a repair. In preparation for the big celebration.
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: And what do you think of their argument that the
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: urgency is the country's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary and
• 31:03
  Speaker 2: that warrants an exemption from the law's procedural requirements.
• 31:08
  Speaker 5: I don't think it's a particularly good argument, because the
• 31:11
  Speaker 5: President himself has come out and said that he wants
• 31:14
  Speaker 5: to paint an American blue. So you know, it seems
• 31:17
  Speaker 5: like he backtracked a little bit from that statement, but
• 31:20
  Speaker 5: it seems like it's an aesthetic change, and a significant
• 31:23
  Speaker 5: one at that. So obviously, time is an issue, and
• 31:27
  Speaker 5: we know that some of these government contracts can take
• 31:30
  Speaker 5: some time. In the case the Kennedy Center, we're talking
• 31:32
  Speaker 5: about two years. This has to happen in two months.
• 31:35
  Speaker 5: So that's something that I think should be taken into consideration.
• 31:39
  Speaker 5: But if it's a fundamental change, and this is something
• 31:42
  Speaker 5: that is really within Congress's authority and they haven't delegated
• 31:47
  Speaker 5: this to the executive and we also have the separation
• 31:50
  Speaker 5: of powers.
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: Issue here talking about the Kennedy Center, So the closure
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: is supposed to be for renovations, but that covers a
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: lot of ground. The issues the same basically as in
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: the Reflecting Pool lawsuit.
• 32:05
  Speaker 5: It's similar issues. The Kennedy Center is slightly different in
• 32:08
  Speaker 5: terms of how it's structured. It does get its authority
• 32:11
  Speaker 5: from Congress, but it's essentially a nonprofit with a board.
• 32:14
  Speaker 5: There's some board issues. There's labor issues as well, if
• 32:17
  Speaker 5: you're shutting something down, and there's you know, government employees
• 32:21
  Speaker 5: that are going to be essentially let go. So it's
• 32:23
  Speaker 5: a little bit more complicated than the Reflecting Pool, but
• 32:26
  Speaker 5: it does raise the same issues. So you see again
• 32:30
  Speaker 5: in their filing papers the government arguing that things are
• 32:33
  Speaker 5: going to be the same. Right that the bust of
• 32:36
  Speaker 5: John F. Kennedy will remain, the quotes on the walls
• 32:40
  Speaker 5: will remain. The changes are for repair purposes only. The
• 32:45
  Speaker 5: design of the center will not change. The Department of
• 32:49
  Speaker 5: Justice was saying that, look, these are necessary repairs because
• 32:51
  Speaker 5: the Kennedy Center was falling apart. There's cracks, you know,
• 32:55
  Speaker 5: the ceiling was going to collapse. This is dangerous and
• 32:58
  Speaker 5: judges are going to be obviously a lot more liberal
• 33:02
  Speaker 5: when it comes to the government making repairs necessary repairs
• 33:06
  Speaker 5: if it's a safety issue. And I think a little
• 33:08
  Speaker 5: bit different the Reflecting Pool extent that the repairs were made.
• 33:11
  Speaker 5: I don't think anyone was arguing that it was for safety,
• 33:14
  Speaker 5: but I think in the Kennedy Center, and again, that
• 33:18
  Speaker 5: case is going to come down to, is this an
• 33:21
  Speaker 5: esthetic redesign, a fundamental alteration of this historic building, or
• 33:27
  Speaker 5: is it just necessary repairs because attendees could get hurt,
• 33:30
  Speaker 5: and obviously we know if they get hurt and the
• 33:32
  Speaker 5: government can be sued in the Federal to Claims Act.
• 33:35
  Speaker 5: So I think that's the biggest issue in the case.
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: And the nonprofits lawyer pointed to the destruction of the
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: East Wing last year, when Trump had initially said that
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: constructing the ballroom wouldn't impact the existing structure.
• 33:52
  Speaker 5: I did want to interfere with the current building.
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: I won't be It'll be near it, but not touching it,
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: and pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: the biggest fan of.
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: The cost of that has also ballooned and gone from
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: being paid for by private donations to being paid for
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: by taxpayers. And you mentioned national security before. The administration
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: is trying to frame the incident outside the White House
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: Correspondence Association's dinner as demonstrating that the ballroom is essential
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: for national security. Saturday night.
• 34:26
  Speaker 5: It was good for one thing.
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: People are loving my ballroom, now that's the only thing
• 34:31
  Speaker 2: I love my ballroom when they're using the Correspondence Center
• 34:35
  Speaker 2: and what happened there. But that's not the kind of
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: event that would even be held at the White House.
• 34:40
  Speaker 2: That's a private event. So that comparison doesn't work in.
• 34:44
  Speaker 5: Talking points immediately after the shooting that this is why
• 34:48
  Speaker 5: we need the president of WALDO. But you're absolutely right.
• 34:51
  Speaker 5: The White House Correspondent Center is a private event. It's
• 34:53
  Speaker 5: held at the Washington Hilton, one of the few venues
• 34:56
  Speaker 5: in Washington, DC that can accommodate proud of two thousand
• 35:01
  Speaker 5: or more people. Famously where Ronald Reagan was also shot.
• 35:04
  Speaker 5: The ball romans for a different purpose altogether. It's to
• 35:09
  Speaker 5: host heads of state. It's not like the White House
• 35:12
  Speaker 5: Correspondence can call and rent it or any other private
• 35:17
  Speaker 5: organization or group. So it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem.
• 35:22
  Speaker 5: But of course, you know, politically it makes for a
• 35:25
  Speaker 5: great talking point, so you see it parroted by a
• 35:28
  Speaker 5: lot of talking heads.
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: Seemingly lost in all this is that a federal judge,
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: Richard Leon found that Trump didn't have authority to tear
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: down the East Wing and build a new structure on
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: White House grounds. That decision is being appealed, but the
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: government has made a motion asking the judge to dissolve
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: his own ruling in light of the incident at the
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: Correspondent's dinner. These motion papers are so unusual that's putting
• 35:57
  Speaker 2: it mildly. They talk about Trump arrangement syndrome, and there
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: are multiple randomly capitalized words and exclamation points.
• 36:07
  Speaker 5: People the DOJ, they are jocking for position to appiece
• 36:11
  Speaker 5: of their boss, the President of the United States. The
• 36:13
  Speaker 5: way Acting Attorney General Todd blanche has handled the Comy case,
• 36:17
  Speaker 5: for instance, right eighty six forty seven. I don't think
• 36:20
  Speaker 5: that's a meritorious case at all, and I think most
• 36:23
  Speaker 5: former DOJ lawyers would agree. But I think that's probably
• 36:27
  Speaker 5: something that was done because Donald Trump dislikes Comy, and
• 36:30
  Speaker 5: I understand why he dislikes Colly, and I understand why
• 36:33
  Speaker 5: Democrats dislike call me. A lot of people dislike call me.
• 36:35
  Speaker 5: But if you want to prosecute and prosecute him for
• 36:38
  Speaker 5: what he allegedly did, which is leak information the Wall
• 36:42
  Speaker 5: Street Journal and compromise their national security, and you know,
• 36:44
  Speaker 5: you're prosecuting for Instagram posts. But I digress. Now you
• 36:47
  Speaker 5: have another DOJ official, high level who's filing emotion which
• 36:52
  Speaker 5: reads likely was written by Donald Trump on truth Social
• 36:56
  Speaker 5: It was bizarre, something I'd never seen is talk about
• 36:59
  Speaker 5: Trump drain syndrome. It's writing in caps. I mean, it
• 37:03
  Speaker 5: was really surreal. I mean I was just blown away.
• 37:06
  Speaker 5: But it was clearly something that was an attempt, in
• 37:09
  Speaker 5: my opinion, to pander to the president as opposed to
• 37:12
  Speaker 5: arguing the facts and the law.
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: This line struck me, saying that this frivolous and meritless
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: lawsuit was filed quote because it is Donald J. Trump,
• 37:22
  Speaker 2: solid caps, a highly successful real estate developer who has
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: abilities that others don't, especially those who assumed the office
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: of president. And it was signed by three political appointees.
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: No career attorneys signed that. I guess I didn't want
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: their name on that. But the appeals court has lifted
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: the injunction on the construction of the ballroom, so that's
• 37:43
  Speaker 2: going forward.
• 37:44
  Speaker 5: The problem is this, it's one thing that stopped construction
• 37:48
  Speaker 5: or stop painting or renovations. Once it's done, I don't
• 37:53
  Speaker 5: think a court is going to tell the government to
• 37:58
  Speaker 5: tear it down. That's a very different kind of order.
• 38:03
  Speaker 5: And what's going to happen with the reflecting pool, you know,
• 38:06
  Speaker 5: Jo just going to say we got to paint it back,
• 38:08
  Speaker 5: or you know, the Kennedy Center. Once those renovations are
• 38:11
  Speaker 5: being done, you can't restore it. It doesn't make any
• 38:15
  Speaker 5: sense legally or you know, practically. So I think this
• 38:20
  Speaker 5: is part and parcel of the government strategy let's move forward,
• 38:23
  Speaker 5: sort of a ask for forgiveness rather than asking for
• 38:27
  Speaker 5: permission type argument, but a.
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: Lot more litigation to come. Thanks so much, Nima. That's
• 38:32
  Speaker 2: former federal prosecutor Nima Romani, and that's it for this
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
• 38:38
  Speaker 2: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and
• 38:50
  Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
• 38:53
  Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg