Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: Trump Cases, Immigration & Star Lawyer Convicted

Transcript

Weekend Law: Trump Cases, Immigration & Star Lawyer Convicted · Bloomberg Law

0:03
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:09
Speaker 2: Today, an indictment was unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with
0:15
Speaker 2: conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchised voters,
0:21
Speaker 2: and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The
0:26
Speaker 2: indictment was issued by a grandeury of citizens here in
0:29
Speaker 2: the District of Columbia, and it sets forth the crimes
0:32
Speaker 2: charged in detail.
0:34
Speaker 3: Remember about a year ago when Special Council Jack Smith
0:37
Speaker 3: announced the criminal charges against former President Donald Trump, accusing
0:42
Speaker 3: him of plotting to overturn the twenty twenty election. That
0:46
Speaker 3: case has been frozen for almost eight months as Trump's
0:50
Speaker 3: claims of presidential immunity went all the way up to
0:53
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court. But on Tuesday, the Special Council basically
0:58
Speaker 3: announced it's game on by filing a superseding indictment with
1:02
Speaker 3: the exact same four charges, but recalibrated to fit the
1:06
Speaker 3: Supreme Court's controversial decision giving presidents sweeping protections against criminal prosecution.
1:14
Speaker 3: That followed Smith's action on Monday urging the Eleventh Circuit
1:18
Speaker 3: Court of Appeals to reinstate the classified documents case against Trump.
1:22
Speaker 3: A case that was thrown out entirely last month by
1:26
Speaker 3: Judge Eileen Cannon in a stunning, unprecedented decision. Joining me
1:31
Speaker 3: is Dave Ahrenberg, Palm Beach County State Attorney. What do
1:35
Speaker 3: you make of the special Council filing to restart basically
1:39
Speaker 3: both cases this week Monday and Tuesday one two punch.
1:44
Speaker 1: Jack Smith had to do what he had to do
1:46
Speaker 1: because the Supreme Court pushed him into this situation, and
1:49
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon in South Florida pushed him into this situation.
1:52
Speaker 1: So he's just reacting to outside forces. This wasn't something
1:56
Speaker 1: that he wanted to do before the election to try
1:59
Speaker 1: to make it an election issue. He was just being
2:02
Speaker 1: a lawyer, following the evidence of the law and doing
2:04
Speaker 1: what the law required. And so I'm glad he did
2:07
Speaker 1: this because I've always thought that, at least in the
2:09
Speaker 1: DC election interference case, that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling
2:13
Speaker 1: really does not got the case at all. I mean,
2:15
Speaker 1: he had got to shave around the edges, but other
2:17
Speaker 1: than that, the heart of the case still remain.
2:20
Speaker 3: So you weren't surprised that the four charges are the same.
2:25
Speaker 1: No, No, I would be surprised. I ever, weren't the
2:26
Speaker 1: same because the only part of the DC election interference
2:30
Speaker 1: case that needed to be excised was any reference to
2:34
Speaker 1: Trump's alleged influence on the Department of Justice to try
2:38
Speaker 1: to pressure the States to redo the election, to accuse
2:43
Speaker 1: the election of being fraudulent, to threaten to remove the
2:48
Speaker 1: acting Attorney general unless he did Trump's bidding. That stuff,
2:51
Speaker 1: according to the Supreme Court's immunity decision, is all covered
2:56
Speaker 1: by presidential immunity because it's within his core duties to
3:00
Speaker 1: aim and attorney general to have an executive brand that
3:03
Speaker 1: works with and for him, so he's able to get
3:05
Speaker 1: away with that.
3:06
Speaker 3: Chief Justice John Roberts in the immunity decision wrote that
3:10
Speaker 3: a president is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for
3:14
Speaker 3: his interactions with his vice president about constitutional duties, including
3:20
Speaker 3: the vice president's conduct and overseeing the Senate. Is that
3:23
Speaker 3: going to be the most, perhaps problematic part of the
3:26
Speaker 3: superseding indictment in that it keeps in evidence about Trump
3:30
Speaker 3: trying to pressure Pence into disrupting the electoral count I don't.
3:35
Speaker 1: Think so, June, because all of that can be overcome.
3:38
Speaker 1: It's a presumption of community. You just have to show
3:41
Speaker 1: that by prosecuting the president, it does not impinge upon
3:45
Speaker 1: the powers the official acts of a president. You don't
3:49
Speaker 1: want to diminish the powers of a president by going
3:52
Speaker 1: after a president for talking to his vice president. And
3:56
Speaker 1: the reason why he does not impinge upon the core
3:59
Speaker 1: powers of or president is because he was not talking
4:02
Speaker 1: to Vice President Pence as a member of his team.
4:06
Speaker 1: From a White House perspective, it was as a candidate
4:09
Speaker 1: for office. He was talking to Pence to help fix
4:11
Speaker 1: the election. He was talking to Pence as an office seeker,
4:14
Speaker 1: not an office holder. And also, in any event, Pence
4:18
Speaker 1: was acting as the president of the Senate, not as
4:21
Speaker 1: Vice president per se. And so that's another way you
4:23
Speaker 1: get around it, was that this has not hurt the
4:26
Speaker 1: powers of a president to say you're going to be
4:28
Speaker 1: held responsible for your improper communications with Mike Pence as
4:32
Speaker 1: the president of the Senate. Now, if you were talking
4:34
Speaker 1: to Mike Pence about foreign policy in his role as
4:36
Speaker 1: vice president, yes that would be protected, but not when
4:39
Speaker 1: it comes to Trump trying to overturn an election, which
4:41
Speaker 1: is non official act as a candidate for president, not
4:43
Speaker 1: as the president. As a candidate and in so doing
4:46
Speaker 1: going after Mike Pence as the President of the Senate,
4:49
Speaker 1: not as Vice president.
4:50
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court's opinion basically changing what people thought the
4:53
Speaker 3: law was, and yet there's very little guidance in that
4:58
Speaker 3: opinion for prosecutors going forward.
5:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, this Supreme Court decision is broad and it is confusing,
5:05
Speaker 1: and Jack Smith went up and down the chain at
5:08
Speaker 1: DJ talking to this solictener General and others to come
5:11
Speaker 1: up with wording that they thought could pass muster. I
5:14
Speaker 1: do think at some point, and maybe when there's changes
5:16
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court, that this decision will be reversed,
5:18
Speaker 1: just like others in the dustbin of history have been reversed,
5:22
Speaker 1: like Plasy versus Ferguson Kramatsu. There are a line of
5:25
Speaker 1: dispad decisions that have been reversed over the years, and
5:28
Speaker 1: I think this will be one of them because they
5:29
Speaker 1: took something that doesn't exist, presidential unity. I mean, before
5:32
Speaker 1: this opinion, presidential community existed in the civil context, but
5:35
Speaker 1: not the criminal context. And the way they broad it
5:38
Speaker 1: gave the executive branch unprecedented powers, powers that never existed before.
5:42
Speaker 1: And it is set forth all this confusion that not
5:45
Speaker 1: only can you not prosecute a president for his official duties,
5:48
Speaker 1: and they've defined that very broadly. But you can't even
5:51
Speaker 1: get evidence of unofficial acts criminal unofficial acts by way
5:55
Speaker 1: of his official duties, meaning that you can't go and
5:59
Speaker 1: interview the Derment of Justice officials to find out that
6:03
Speaker 1: the president may have sold pardons for bribes. Right, So
6:06
Speaker 1: the way they've done is not just hurt prosecutors when
6:09
Speaker 1: they can't prosecute a president for official acts, but they
6:12
Speaker 1: have kneecap prosecutors in their investigations.
6:15
Speaker 3: Let's talk about what happens next. There's a hearing before
6:18
Speaker 3: Judge chuckk In next week. Do you anticipate the defense
6:22
Speaker 3: objecting to the superseding indictment? And then we'll have more motions,
6:28
Speaker 3: more hearings, more appeals.
6:30
Speaker 1: Delay is their middle name. They're going to keep pursuing delays.
6:33
Speaker 1: They're going to say that this superseding indictment was meant
6:36
Speaker 1: to influence the election and it should be delayed. This
6:40
Speaker 1: is election interference, which is ironic because Trump is being
6:43
Speaker 1: accused of election interference. And they'll find creative ways to
6:46
Speaker 1: say that the indictment still violates the Supreme Courts mandates
6:50
Speaker 1: in the immunity decision, and then once they get a
6:53
Speaker 1: negative ruling from Judge chuck In, they're going to appeal it.
6:56
Speaker 1: And yeah, they just want to force all this as
6:57
Speaker 1: much as possible. Ideally for them, they want this trial
7:00
Speaker 1: to take place half past never and they'll get what
7:03
Speaker 1: they want. If Trump gets elected, Trump will just tell
7:05
Speaker 1: his new attorney general to dismiss everything. But if Trump
7:08
Speaker 1: loses in November, then this will be the first trial
7:11
Speaker 1: that he faces after the election.
7:13
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court directed Judge Chuckkin to determine which allegations
7:17
Speaker 3: in the indictment involved official acts by Trump. Do you
7:21
Speaker 3: think she can decide whether this superseding indictment comports with
7:26
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court's decision without calling any witnesses.
7:30
Speaker 1: That's a really good question, because a lot of us
7:32
Speaker 1: expected her to have a mini trial, which would be
7:36
Speaker 1: an airing of the evidence. Mike Pence would get on
7:38
Speaker 1: the stand and it would be really compelling, and it
7:40
Speaker 1: would happen before the election, and the public would learn
7:42
Speaker 1: about Trump's involvement before, during, and after January sixth, even
7:45
Speaker 1: though there would be no trial until after the election.
7:48
Speaker 1: But according to recent reports, Jack Smith and his team
7:51
Speaker 1: are not going to push forward for a mini trial. Ultimately,
7:53
Speaker 1: it's up to Judge Chuckin to decide. Judge Chuckkin could
7:56
Speaker 1: decide that she can make these decisions based on the
7:59
Speaker 1: paperwork completing. You don't need verbal testimony, but it will
8:02
Speaker 1: be up to the judge to the side. And then
8:04
Speaker 1: the question is when would it happen. When it happen
8:05
Speaker 1: before the election or after? These are the questions. I
8:08
Speaker 1: think that you can do a mini trial before the election. Ultimately,
8:11
Speaker 1: the decision on whether to have a mini trial should
8:13
Speaker 1: be based on the evidence of the law and should
8:15
Speaker 1: have nothing to do with politics. You shouldn't be concerned
8:17
Speaker 1: that there's an election around the corner, and you shouldn't
8:19
Speaker 1: be concerned that people are going to interpret it as
8:21
Speaker 1: being political, because whether you do or you don't, you're
8:24
Speaker 1: going to be accused of weaponizing the Department of Justice,
8:26
Speaker 1: even though you're not. So you just follow the evidence
8:29
Speaker 1: of the law and tune out the noise.
8:30
Speaker 3: But there is so much noise. Dave, Let's turn out
8:33
Speaker 3: to Florida. The Special councils ask in the Eleventh Circuit
8:37
Speaker 3: to reinstate the classified documents case, saying that Trump appoint
8:41
Speaker 3: d Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to throw the case out
8:46
Speaker 3: runs counter to precedent rulings by judges across the country.
8:50
Speaker 3: History and the long standing practices of the Justice Department
8:54
Speaker 3: remind us about Canon's decision dismissing the case.
8:58
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon made such a bizarre decision that it went
9:01
Speaker 1: against all precedents, and I think will almost certainly be
9:05
Speaker 1: overruled by the Eleventh Circuit. Cannon's best chance to keep
9:08
Speaker 1: this on the books would be if the Supreme Court
9:10
Speaker 1: decides to weigh in and then does something radical like
9:13
Speaker 1: they did in the immunity case. Clarence Thomas has already
9:16
Speaker 1: issued a concurring opinion that provided a roadmap for Judge
9:19
Speaker 1: Cannon to rule the way she did, But no other
9:21
Speaker 1: justice signed on his concurring opinion, So I suspect the
9:24
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would not even go along with her approach.
9:28
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm old enough to remember a guy named
9:29
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller, and Robert her and David Weiss. These are
9:33
Speaker 1: all special counsels in recent years, and there was no
9:36
Speaker 1: issue whether they could remain because of the constitutionality of
9:39
Speaker 1: their appointment. Judge Cannon applied a different set of rules
9:42
Speaker 1: to Jack Smith and she'll be overruled for it. Then
9:45
Speaker 1: the big question is will the Eleventh Circuit remove her
9:48
Speaker 1: from the case. I know Jack Smith would want that,
9:50
Speaker 1: he did not ask for it specifically, but the Eleventh
9:52
Speaker 1: Circuit has the power to do it on its own.
9:55
Speaker 1: Don't know if they're going to do it yet, but
9:57
Speaker 1: maybe that day will come well, I think is one.
9:59
Speaker 3: Of the best lines from Smith's brief is quote from
10:03
Speaker 3: before the creation of the Department of Justice until the
10:05
Speaker 3: modern day, attorneys general have repeatedly appointed special and independent
10:10
Speaker 3: counsels to handle federal investigations, including the prosecution of Jefferson Davis,
10:15
Speaker 3: alleged corruption in federal agencies, including the Department of Justice itself, Watergate,
10:21
Speaker 3: and beyond. His argument covers the legal landscape.
10:24
Speaker 1: The president is a special councils are legit, they're legal
10:29
Speaker 1: under the law, their inferior officer, and an Attorney General
10:33
Speaker 1: can appoint them, whether it's Archibald Cox or Robert Mueller.
10:37
Speaker 1: And over the years have been different statutes in place,
10:39
Speaker 1: and the statutes may have not been re enacted or repealed,
10:43
Speaker 1: but special councils remain. And there's never been any court
10:46
Speaker 1: that has looked at this issue because courts have. There's
10:48
Speaker 1: never been a court that is said, yeah, it's an
10:51
Speaker 1: unconstitutional appointment. You have to be confirmed by the Senate.
10:53
Speaker 1: It's never happened. It didn't happen with Clinton and Kenneth Starr,
10:56
Speaker 1: it didn't happen with Nixon and Archibald Coxino. In fact,
10:59
Speaker 1: in the cases, Supreme Court did weigh in on this
11:02
Speaker 1: and indicta meaning and just extra language in the opinion
11:05
Speaker 1: that they did say that the stuffal Council was legit.
11:08
Speaker 1: The way that he was appointed was okay. And so
11:11
Speaker 1: this goes against president for years put a Supreme Court president.
11:15
Speaker 1: And so that's why I'm very confident that Judge Cannon
11:18
Speaker 1: is going to be overturned.
11:19
Speaker 3: Of course, it's unlikely that we'll even get through the
11:22
Speaker 3: Eleventh Circuits process before the election. So whether or not
11:26
Speaker 3: these cases go forward depends on who's elected president. Thanks
11:31
Speaker 3: so much, Dave. That's Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Arenberg.
11:36
Speaker 3: Coming up next on The Bloomberg Law Show. Republican state
11:39
Speaker 3: sue over a Biden program that would give undocumented immigrants
11:44
Speaker 3: married to US citizens a pathway to citizenship. I'm June
11:48
Speaker 3: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Texas and fifteen other
11:53
Speaker 3: Republican led states are suing to end a federal program
11:57
Speaker 3: that could give half a million undocumented immigrant and married
12:00
Speaker 3: to US citizens a pathway to citizenship. Getting legal status
12:05
Speaker 3: after marrying a US citizen is actually a long and
12:08
Speaker 3: tricky process for people who enter the country illegally. They
12:12
Speaker 3: have to first return to their home country before they
12:15
Speaker 3: can legally reside in the US, risking years long or
12:19
Speaker 3: even permanent separation from their families. President Joe Biden had
12:24
Speaker 3: announced the program, called Keeping Families Together in June for.
12:28
Speaker 4: Those wives, their husbands, and their children who have lived
12:31
Speaker 4: in America for a decade or more but are undocumented.
12:34
Speaker 4: This act will allow them to file a paperwork for
12:37
Speaker 4: legal status in the United States allow them to work
12:40
Speaker 4: while they remain with their families in the United States.
12:43
Speaker 3: The states suing to stop the program say that the
12:46
Speaker 3: administration bypassed Congress to create a pathway to citizenship for
12:51
Speaker 3: quote blatant political purposes. On Monday, a Texas federal judge
12:56
Speaker 3: put a fourteen day hold on the program, Although the
12:59
Speaker 3: government can continue accepting applications. Joining me is Leon Fresco,
13:04
Speaker 3: a partner at Holland and Knight and the head of
13:06
Speaker 3: the Justice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration.
13:11
Speaker 3: Leon tell us about the program.
13:13
Speaker 5: It's called the Keeping Families Together Program, or it's also
13:17
Speaker 5: known as the PIP the Parole in Place program. It's
13:21
Speaker 5: a program that the Biden administration put in at the
13:24
Speaker 5: same time that it put in its executive order closing
13:27
Speaker 5: the border, to balance that out by saying that in
13:30
Speaker 5: addition to that provision, there would be a provision that
13:33
Speaker 5: would be more compassionate. I would say that people who
13:37
Speaker 5: are married to United States citizens but who cannot obtain
13:41
Speaker 5: legal status because they crossed the border of the United
13:45
Speaker 5: States unlawfully, those individuals will now be able to get
13:49
Speaker 5: legal status because the thing that was banning them, which
13:52
Speaker 5: was that their admission was not done legally, will be
13:56
Speaker 5: cured by this Parole in Place, which will basically say,
13:59
Speaker 5: we will now admit you, but we won't make you
14:01
Speaker 5: actually come to the border and re enter legally. We'll
14:05
Speaker 5: just give you a parole, which is sort of a
14:07
Speaker 5: permission slip that says, as of this moment, you've entered
14:11
Speaker 5: the United States legally. So now you can go ahead
14:14
Speaker 5: and petition for a green card or lawful permanent residence
14:18
Speaker 5: as it is known because of your marriage to a
14:20
Speaker 5: US A visit.
14:21
Speaker 3: So Texas and sixteen Republican led states are suing to
14:26
Speaker 3: end the program. What's their main legal attack.
14:29
Speaker 5: Well, they have a lot of different theories about why
14:32
Speaker 5: this is not a legal program, but basically it comes
14:37
Speaker 5: down to that. They say that the parole program that
14:41
Speaker 5: the Biden administration has put in is suffering from two
14:43
Speaker 5: main legal defects. The first is that the very concepts
14:48
Speaker 5: of parole in place. Although it's been used in the past,
14:51
Speaker 5: and it was used mostly for the undocumented spousands of
14:55
Speaker 5: people in the military, so nobody cared because people didn't
14:58
Speaker 5: like the idea that a person in a military could
15:00
Speaker 5: have their spouse supportive. So people generally thought that was
15:04
Speaker 5: fine and then sue at the time. But now they're
15:07
Speaker 5: sort of saying, look, we should revisit this concept of
15:10
Speaker 5: can you actually be given a parole if you're already
15:13
Speaker 5: inside the United States. So that's their first argument is
15:17
Speaker 5: that that concept in and of itself is illegal. Now,
15:19
Speaker 5: what a parole is is it a permission for someone
15:23
Speaker 5: who's at the border, who's outside of the country, who's
15:26
Speaker 5: trying to enter, it's a permission to allow them to enter.
15:30
Speaker 5: But it's not a document that you can get once
15:33
Speaker 5: you're inside the United States. So that's their first argument.
15:37
Speaker 5: Their second argument is that in nineteen ninety six, Congress
15:41
Speaker 5: dramatically limited the parole authority to a case by case
15:45
Speaker 5: basis and upon an urgent humanitarian circumstance. And they're saying
15:50
Speaker 5: that neither of those two things applies here because this
15:53
Speaker 5: isn't a case by case basis. This is a programmatic
15:56
Speaker 5: change where even though the administration is saying, look, look
16:00
Speaker 5: there's discretion to deny this on a case by case basis,
16:03
Speaker 5: at all decisions shall be made on a case by
16:05
Speaker 5: case basis, they're saying there's sort of this wink wink understanding.
16:09
Speaker 5: If you meet the criteria for the program, you are
16:13
Speaker 5: going to get it. And so they say that violates
16:15
Speaker 5: the case by case requirement. And they're saying that, look,
16:19
Speaker 5: even if this was case by case, you can only
16:21
Speaker 5: grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or for a significant
16:25
Speaker 5: public benefit. That's the two words that are in the statue.
16:28
Speaker 5: One is urgent humanitarian reason, second is significant public benefit,
16:32
Speaker 5: and they're saying that neither actually exists here, because all
16:36
Speaker 5: this is is an end run around what Congress wanted.
16:39
Speaker 5: Congress didn't want people who crossed the border without authorization
16:43
Speaker 5: to be able to gain legal status in any way.
16:46
Speaker 5: They wanted them to have to leave and have to
16:48
Speaker 5: redo it from the outside. And so they're saying it
16:51
Speaker 5: could never be an urgent humanitarian reason or a significant
16:54
Speaker 5: public benefit to have a parole program whose goal is
16:57
Speaker 5: to circumvent the Congress's statue.
17:00
Speaker 3: The Republicans who are attacking it say it's essentially a
17:03
Speaker 3: form of amnesty for people who broke the law. I mean,
17:07
Speaker 3: Biden is giving special privileges to people because they happen
17:10
Speaker 3: to be married to US citizens, whereas other people who
17:13
Speaker 3: are here who crossed illegally as well, and who've been
17:16
Speaker 3: here for the same amount of time and who haven't
17:18
Speaker 3: violated the laws, et cetera, et cetera, aren't given this.
17:21
Speaker 3: So it does seem a little bit unfaired.
17:24
Speaker 5: Whatever word you want to use, amnesty or some other word,
17:27
Speaker 5: it is correct to say that people who are currently
17:30
Speaker 5: in an unlawful status will if this program survive these
17:34
Speaker 5: court cases be allowed to enter not only into just
17:37
Speaker 5: the lawful status, but ultimately to lawful permanent residency, and ultimately,
17:42
Speaker 5: even after that, potentially US citizenship if this program is
17:46
Speaker 5: allowed to continue so long as they were married to
17:49
Speaker 5: US citizens. And it is true that all of this
17:52
Speaker 5: is sort of being made up on the fly in
17:53
Speaker 5: the sense that this requirement that you had to have
17:56
Speaker 5: been in the country for ten years, none of this
17:59
Speaker 5: is based on anything, just the way they wanted to
18:01
Speaker 5: define the program, which is that you have to have
18:03
Speaker 5: been here for ten years and you have to be
18:05
Speaker 5: married to a US citizen. And you're correct, there's other
18:07
Speaker 5: things you could be that could be more compelling or
18:10
Speaker 5: less compelling, but this is the concept that they chose.
18:14
Speaker 5: And one would say, well, why did they choose this? Well,
18:17
Speaker 5: one is because there's an actual US citizen who sort
18:20
Speaker 5: of has skin in the game here and that there
18:22
Speaker 5: would be harm to that US citizen if they lose
18:25
Speaker 5: their spouse due to deportation. But secondly, there is this
18:29
Speaker 5: concept that was already in play in its entirety, but
18:32
Speaker 5: the only difference was the only people who could take
18:34
Speaker 5: advantage of it were spouses of people in the military.
18:38
Speaker 5: So now it will be spouses of all US citizens.
18:40
Speaker 3: And the Republicans also say that, you know this is
18:43
Speaker 3: close to the election, it's blatant the Biden administration is
18:47
Speaker 3: playing politics here. I mean, has this idea ever come
18:51
Speaker 3: up before?
18:52
Speaker 5: Sure, when the military parole program was announced, this was
18:56
Speaker 5: the fear of a lot of Republicans. They said, one day,
18:59
Speaker 5: somebody going to try to expand this to all US
19:01
Speaker 5: citizens spouses, And they will say, because we didn't object
19:05
Speaker 5: to it at the time when we did it for
19:06
Speaker 5: the military, that we lost our right to object to this,
19:10
Speaker 5: and low and behold, some of those people who did
19:13
Speaker 5: criticize the program at the time have been proven right
19:16
Speaker 5: that that ended up happening, that this program did get expanded.
19:19
Speaker 5: But it is also true that no one filed a
19:21
Speaker 5: lawsuit or objected to the military parole program at the
19:25
Speaker 5: time other than some of the people who do this
19:28
Speaker 5: professionally for a living who don't want any programs of
19:31
Speaker 5: any kind done. They did say this would happen, and
19:35
Speaker 5: so now it has happened. So from the extent of
19:37
Speaker 5: has this been considered the idea was, yes, it was
19:41
Speaker 5: considered from the day that the military program was announced
19:43
Speaker 5: over a decade ago that that would be the potential
19:47
Speaker 5: outcome of this, as they would try to do all
19:49
Speaker 5: spouses at some point. But was this done as an
19:52
Speaker 5: election item? Well, certainly it was done very close to
19:55
Speaker 5: the election. It was done at the same time that
19:57
Speaker 5: the border was closed to appease people who are criticizing
20:01
Speaker 5: that the border was closed. And so there's not an
20:04
Speaker 5: immunity to those criticisms because one could point to those
20:08
Speaker 5: facts and say this was done for political reasons. In
20:11
Speaker 5: any case, the question is what happens now. And the
20:14
Speaker 5: administration is taking these applications, and I think both immigration
20:19
Speaker 5: lawyers and the clients going through this needs to be
20:22
Speaker 5: very careful and needs to decide is this something that
20:25
Speaker 5: I want to do? Where if this gets enjoined or
20:29
Speaker 5: if the administration changes. And now I've put my name
20:32
Speaker 5: forward and I've exposed myself as someone who's here illegally,
20:36
Speaker 5: and I've given my address, and I've given all my
20:38
Speaker 5: biographical information I could be found immediately. Is that something
20:43
Speaker 5: people think is wise to do? So I don't know
20:45
Speaker 5: how many people you're going to see applying for this,
20:48
Speaker 5: So to that extent, it is potentially a useful political move,
20:53
Speaker 5: but a political move done the less.
20:55
Speaker 3: To estimate that about half a million people could be eligible.
20:58
Speaker 3: Factor that in, so, what do you think how strong
21:02
Speaker 3: are the Republican States arguments against this program?
21:05
Speaker 5: The arguments about the way you read the statute are
21:10
Speaker 5: now going to be viewed along the lines of no
21:12
Speaker 5: deference to the administration any longer as we now know.
21:16
Speaker 5: And so the question is does the statute, when you
21:19
Speaker 5: have a plane reading of it, permit this type of
21:22
Speaker 5: parole in place? And that's ultimately going to come down
21:26
Speaker 5: to one judge in Texas well. First there will be
21:28
Speaker 5: the standing question, and the standing question will be very
21:31
Speaker 5: interesting because the most likely way that the States will
21:35
Speaker 5: lose here is in the standing question, which they've lost
21:38
Speaker 5: recently in other lawsuits, because the argument would be why
21:42
Speaker 5: would it be a problem to take people who are
21:45
Speaker 5: here unlawfully and make them legal? What harm does the
21:48
Speaker 5: suits of the states, and the state is saying, well,
21:50
Speaker 5: five years from now, we may need to give benefits
21:53
Speaker 5: to these people when they're eligible for benefits. But interestingly,
21:57
Speaker 5: there's a thing in the law called an affiday of support,
22:01
Speaker 5: which says that if you're sponsoring someone for a marriage
22:03
Speaker 5: based screen card, you actually have to prevent them from
22:07
Speaker 5: getting benefits, meaning you have to pay for whatever it
22:10
Speaker 5: is they need under the law. So it actually will
22:13
Speaker 5: be very interesting to see on standing. If the state loses,
22:17
Speaker 5: that's the most likely way the state will lose. But
22:20
Speaker 5: if they can survive the standing issue, then the question
22:24
Speaker 5: is going to be will a judge first in Texas
22:28
Speaker 5: and the Fifth Circuit then the Supreme Court decides by
22:31
Speaker 5: looking at this statue just the plane language without any difference.
22:34
Speaker 5: Two things, is parole something you can actually do is
22:38
Speaker 5: inside the United States? It'll be hard to make that argument.
22:41
Speaker 5: I don't know a very clear statutory reference that says
22:46
Speaker 5: you can grant parole already inside the United States, as
22:49
Speaker 5: opposed to that something that's happening at the border. Now,
22:52
Speaker 5: that problem theoretically can be fixed by making everyone in
22:55
Speaker 5: this program just check in at the border and come back.
22:58
Speaker 5: So that would sort of be a victory for the
23:01
Speaker 5: States if they ended up winning that, but fair enough.
23:05
Speaker 5: But then the second one that I think they more
23:07
Speaker 5: want to win on is that there isn't a significant
23:10
Speaker 5: public benefit or an urgent humanitarian reason for doing this,
23:14
Speaker 5: And I think that's where the rubber is going to meet.
23:16
Speaker 5: The road, and that's literally just going to be the
23:19
Speaker 5: opinion of the judges, because if there's no difference, then
23:22
Speaker 5: the judges have to decide is this an urgent humanitarian
23:25
Speaker 5: reason or a significant public benefit or isn't it? And
23:29
Speaker 5: I think that's going to be a very interesting question
23:32
Speaker 5: which will just be in the eye of the beholders,
23:35
Speaker 5: and the beholder.
23:35
Speaker 3: Will be a Texas judge. And then the very conservative
23:38
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit now Judge Campbell Barker, who issued the fourteen
23:42
Speaker 3: day stay, said he decided on it after undertaking a
23:47
Speaker 3: first blush review of the merits of the state's arguments. Quote,
23:51
Speaker 3: the claims are substantial and warrant closer consideration than the
23:55
Speaker 3: court has been able to afford to date. So we'll
23:58
Speaker 3: see what the judge does after the fourteen days. Thanks
24:01
Speaker 3: so much. Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight,
24:05
Speaker 3: coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. He was
24:07
Speaker 3: a famous rich La lawyer, made even more famous by
24:11
Speaker 3: the movie Erin Brockovich and as the husband of one
24:14
Speaker 3: of the real housewives of Beverly Hills. But Tom Girardi,
24:18
Speaker 3: now eighty five, broke and suffering from dementia, is facing
24:23
Speaker 3: prison time after being convicted of stealing millions from his clients.
24:27
Speaker 3: That's next. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
24:31
Speaker 6: Mister Girardi was no champion of justice. In fact, he
24:36
Speaker 6: was a perpetrator of injustice, victimizing his own clients when
24:41
Speaker 6: they were most vulnerable and most in need.
24:43
Speaker 3: Tom Girardi has gone from famous legal heavyweight to disgrace
24:48
Speaker 3: disbarred lawyer to convicted felon. Girardi was catapulted into the
24:53
Speaker 3: national limelight after the two thousand Oscar winning movie Aaron
24:57
Speaker 3: Brockovich showcased his role in getting a more than three
25:00
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars settlement from PG and E for poisoning
25:04
Speaker 3: a California town's drinking water.
25:07
Speaker 7: In the interest of putting this whole thing to rest,
25:09
Speaker 7: PG and he is willing to offer the Jensens two
25:11
Speaker 7: hundred and fifty thousand dollars for.
25:13
Speaker 4: Their own two hundred and fifty thousand.
25:17
Speaker 7: In terms of land value out in Hinckley. Mister Masori Leaffield,
25:21
Speaker 7: that's a more than fair price.
25:23
Speaker 4: How about in terms of medical expenses, two hundred and
25:26
Speaker 4: fifty thousand isn't going to come close to what this
25:28
Speaker 4: family is going to have to spend on doctors.
25:30
Speaker 3: He was hailed as a pioneer of toxic tort litigation,
25:34
Speaker 3: known for getting massive settlements for his clients. This season
25:39
Speaker 3: on the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and his fame
25:43
Speaker 3: was enhanced as the husband bank rolling the extravagant lifestyle
25:47
Speaker 3: of one of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. His wife,
25:51
Speaker 3: Erica Girardi.
25:52
Speaker 5: I'm an enigma wrapped in a riddle and cash.
25:56
Speaker 3: But US attorney Martina Strada says Girardi fun did that
26:00
Speaker 3: extravagance by embezzling tens of millions of dollars from his
26:04
Speaker 3: clients in a ten year Ponzi scheme.
26:07
Speaker 6: That mister Giardi chose to take advantage those very same clients,
26:11
Speaker 6: those vulnerable people, the ones who'd gone through traumatic incidents
26:15
Speaker 6: in order to enrich himself.
26:17
Speaker 3: A Los Angeles jury agreed and convicted Girardi of four
26:22
Speaker 3: counts of wire fraud. So now at age eighty five
26:25
Speaker 3: and suffering from dementia, the ones high powered lawyer is
26:29
Speaker 3: facing jail time. Joining me is Bloomberg Law correspondent Maya Spodo,
26:34
Speaker 3: who covered the trial. Maya how did the prosecution present
26:38
Speaker 3: its case against Girardi.
26:40
Speaker 8: So the prosecution's case started rooted in the testimonies of
26:45
Speaker 8: these clients who's missing funds made up the backbone of
26:49
Speaker 8: the charges against Girardi. And so the first witness we
26:52
Speaker 8: heard from was Joseph Rugomez. His home exploded and his
26:58
Speaker 8: body was covered in and his girlfriend died in the explosion,
27:02
Speaker 8: and so we saw him limp up to the witness
27:05
Speaker 8: stand and explain how Girardi used these excuses such as
27:10
Speaker 8: a fake six point five percent interest accruing savings accounts
27:15
Speaker 8: and the sake excuse that he needed approval from a
27:17
Speaker 8: judge to justify stalling these payments to Rugoma. And we
27:22
Speaker 8: heard these excuses get echoed throughout the remaining clients who testified.
27:27
Speaker 8: These excuses became ridiculous. There was one excuse that Girardi
27:32
Speaker 8: used where he said he was having the funds held
27:35
Speaker 8: up because he was working on a tax issue which
27:38
Speaker 8: would tax women more than men on certain personal injury
27:41
Speaker 8: settlements and he needed to work that out with the irs.
27:44
Speaker 8: And even a lawyer at the firm who was freshly
27:46
Speaker 8: out of law school and had just passed the bar
27:49
Speaker 8: spotted that excuse and said that makes no sense. And
27:52
Speaker 8: so we started the case hearing about these excuses and
27:55
Speaker 8: the pain that they caused for clients. And then the
27:57
Speaker 8: prosecutors presented their detailed paths where they followed the money,
28:03
Speaker 8: and we heard from the federal government on what these
28:06
Speaker 8: client trust bake accounts really looked like and where the
28:09
Speaker 8: funds were going. So that's how we got into more
28:11
Speaker 8: of the lavish lifestyle part of the case.
28:14
Speaker 3: Fans of the Real Housewives know about that extravagant lifestyle.
28:18
Speaker 3: How much did the jury learn about it?
28:20
Speaker 8: Sure saw so much money being used to purchase different
28:25
Speaker 8: categories of luxury items, such as two private jets. Girardi
28:29
Speaker 8: purchased expensive jewelry. We saw a check written directly out
28:34
Speaker 8: of one of the client trust accounts for seven hundred
28:36
Speaker 8: and fifty thousand dollars to pay for diamond earrings for
28:41
Speaker 8: his now estranged wife, who is Erica Jane. We also
28:45
Speaker 8: saw how funds were taken from Gerardi Keith to pay
28:50
Speaker 8: for Girardi's memberships and country clubs. One of the lawyers
28:54
Speaker 8: at the firm charged property taxes to his Girardi Keith
28:59
Speaker 8: American Express card, and we also heard details about the
29:04
Speaker 8: lavish parties that were hosted on the company's dime, which
29:09
Speaker 8: had six figure entertainment budgets. There was a Super Bowl
29:13
Speaker 8: party where lawyers were given as goodie bags their own
29:17
Speaker 8: personal jerseys, and all of these parties were being hosted
29:21
Speaker 8: while some clients who were in immense pain still were
29:25
Speaker 8: not receiving all of the settlement funds that they were doe.
29:28
Speaker 3: The testimony of the client victims was very emotional at times.
29:33
Speaker 3: Tell us about the most compelling testimony.
29:36
Speaker 8: So the one that I found most compelling, and also
29:38
Speaker 8: the first client witness that one of the jurors named
29:42
Speaker 8: when he spoke to reporters after the decision was Erica Saldana's.
29:47
Speaker 8: She showed up to court actually with COVID and had
29:51
Speaker 8: to testify remotely, but she was sobbing for much of
29:54
Speaker 8: her testimony. Had to push up her glasses towarde away
29:57
Speaker 8: her tears because she was crying so hard. Her very
30:01
Speaker 8: young son was immobilized after a drunk driver crashed into
30:06
Speaker 8: Saldana's car, and she turned to Gerardi Keis for representation,
30:10
Speaker 8: but she never received from the firm the entire amount
30:14
Speaker 8: of her settlement, which she needed to purchase an accessible
30:16
Speaker 8: home for her son, and so Saldana spoke of how
30:19
Speaker 8: she spent the last year of her son's life chasing
30:22
Speaker 8: down Girardi to ask for the money she needed, and
30:25
Speaker 8: at one point Girardi even called her while she was
30:28
Speaker 8: in the hospital with her son and accused her of
30:31
Speaker 8: not being sympathetic to Girardi's own health issues he was having.
30:35
Speaker 8: He said, I cancer surgery, and she said, how can
30:39
Speaker 8: you accuse me of not being sympathetic to health issues?
30:42
Speaker 8: My son is dying.
30:43
Speaker 3: And the jury heard Girardi's own voice in voicemail messages
30:49
Speaker 3: giving his clients these excuses.
30:51
Speaker 8: Yes, one of the common refrains that he would say
30:54
Speaker 8: to clients was don't be bad to me. Don't be
30:56
Speaker 8: mad at me. I'm a good guy. He would tell clients,
31:00
Speaker 8: including Joe Rogomez, that he loved their family. This was
31:05
Speaker 8: one of the most important cases to him. He would,
31:09
Speaker 8: even into the late years of the firm, send these
31:11
Speaker 8: detailed messages where he got the facts of the case right.
31:14
Speaker 8: He knew who he was talking to, and he was
31:16
Speaker 8: just saying, please, you know, don't be mad at me.
31:19
Speaker 8: The payments are coming later. Here are the reasons why
31:22
Speaker 8: they're being held up.
31:23
Speaker 3: So the prosecutors say it was a Ponzi scheme, how
31:26
Speaker 3: did they show that?
31:27
Speaker 8: They basically showed how they said clients three settlement funds
31:33
Speaker 8: were used to pay off client two settlement funds which
31:36
Speaker 8: were used to pay off client one settlement funds, And
31:40
Speaker 8: they had an IRS agent present an analysis of bank
31:44
Speaker 8: records from the firm's client trust accounts which showed how
31:48
Speaker 8: the settlements from later in the twenty tens were used
31:52
Speaker 8: to pay a client whose settlement was made in twenty thirteen.
31:56
Speaker 8: And the firms client trust accounts are subject to these
31:59
Speaker 8: rules that are very strict, where you can't commingle funds
32:03
Speaker 8: and you can't have a negative balance in the account,
32:05
Speaker 8: otherwise it would alert the state bar. But these transfers
32:09
Speaker 8: happened anyway.
32:10
Speaker 3: The defense tried to shift the blame to Christopher Comone,
32:14
Speaker 3: the former chief financial officer of the law firm, saying
32:17
Speaker 3: he was the one responsible for the loss of client funds,
32:21
Speaker 3: not Girardi. He's going to be tried separately in January.
32:26
Speaker 3: Why didn't that defense work?
32:28
Speaker 8: It wasn't successful because the prosecutors emphasized in closings that
32:33
Speaker 8: they have substantial evidence against Comone and that he is
32:37
Speaker 8: a co defendant in the case and he will see
32:39
Speaker 8: his day in court. The defense spent a lot of
32:42
Speaker 8: time going through records of how Comone used Gerarti Keith's
32:46
Speaker 8: funds to pay essentially shell companies that were either companies
32:51
Speaker 8: where Comone had a leadership role or he was closely
32:55
Speaker 8: affiliated with members of these companies. And they also described
32:59
Speaker 8: how he he paid twenty thousand dollars a month from
33:02
Speaker 8: the firm to his then fiance she testified, and he
33:07
Speaker 8: purchased lavish trips for the two of them. And so
33:10
Speaker 8: the picture that the defense was trying to paint was
33:13
Speaker 8: that Chris Comone was basically taking advantage of Girardi's declining
33:18
Speaker 8: mental state and taking these funds out from under his nose.
33:22
Speaker 8: But the jury didn't ultimately.
33:23
Speaker 3: Buy that Girardi is suffering from dementia and is currently
33:28
Speaker 3: living in the memory ward of a nursing home. So
33:32
Speaker 3: I was very surprised that he took the stand, was
33:36
Speaker 3: his testimony coherent.
33:38
Speaker 8: Everyone in the audience was shocked. It was a surprise
33:41
Speaker 8: move he got upon the stand, and at first it
33:45
Speaker 8: seemed like this was just something that has been programmed
33:49
Speaker 8: into him from years of being this formidable trial lawyer.
33:53
Speaker 8: He had all the instincts. He smiled at the jury,
33:56
Speaker 8: he addressed them when he spoke, he made jokes, He
33:59
Speaker 8: tried to banter with the prosecutor, but it became clear
34:02
Speaker 8: as he was speaking that he was getting some pretty
34:05
Speaker 8: important facts wrong. He said that he thought that Girardi
34:08
Speaker 8: Keith Law firm was still running when it closed down
34:11
Speaker 8: and went into bankruptcy several years ago. And he also
34:14
Speaker 8: said he didn't know his own lawyer's name and the
34:17
Speaker 8: exact quote. This was the last question that his defender
34:21
Speaker 8: asked him. Sam Croft said, Tom, what's my name? And
34:24
Speaker 8: Girardi said, I have no idea. That mean terrible. It's
34:28
Speaker 8: one of those.
34:29
Speaker 3: Do you think his cognitive decline his dementia made him
34:33
Speaker 3: at all sympathetic.
34:34
Speaker 8: It was hard to feel sympathy after all of the
34:38
Speaker 8: clients explained exactly how this death had ruined their lives.
34:45
Speaker 8: I think that the defenders were leaning hard into the
34:50
Speaker 8: appeal to jurors who had family members with dementia, which
34:54
Speaker 8: my grandmother has dementia, so I was thinking of her.
34:57
Speaker 8: But he talked about how his mother, who was a
35:01
Speaker 8: lawyer who had dementia for a couple of years and
35:05
Speaker 8: eventually had to hang up to hat and he was
35:08
Speaker 8: very emotional as he was saying this during closing arguments.
35:11
Speaker 8: But ultimately I don't think that that appeal worked.
35:14
Speaker 3: Apparently not with the jury at least. Did the prosecution
35:18
Speaker 3: acknowledge that Girardi has cognitive issues and how did they
35:22
Speaker 3: deal with it?
35:23
Speaker 8: Yes, they said, and now it's pretty clear that he
35:26
Speaker 8: has cognitive issues. But it's twenty twenty four now, and
35:30
Speaker 8: he didn't conduct the scheme in twenty twenty four. It
35:32
Speaker 8: was from twenty ten to twenty twenty.
35:34
Speaker 3: It was a twelve day trial, and the jury came
35:37
Speaker 3: back with guilty verdicts on all counts after just four
35:42
Speaker 3: hours of deliberations. Did Girardi react when the verdict was read.
35:47
Speaker 8: He did not react as it was read in any
35:50
Speaker 8: significant way. But after he was standing up from the
35:55
Speaker 8: table and walking out, he had this kind of smile
35:59
Speaker 8: on his face that we had seen throughout the trial,
36:03
Speaker 8: which I describe as kind of wax in, and he
36:07
Speaker 8: walked out pretty steadily. One of the reporters asked him
36:11
Speaker 8: if he had comment on the verdict, and he chuckled
36:13
Speaker 8: and he said no, no, And.
36:15
Speaker 3: Maya, you spoke to one of the jurors who said
36:18
Speaker 3: it wasn't a hard decision.
36:20
Speaker 8: He said that the facts were all there. We asked
36:23
Speaker 8: him if anyone on the jury needed to be convinced,
36:26
Speaker 8: and he said no. He's not perhaps representative of the
36:29
Speaker 8: entire group of jurors, but he made it sound like
36:33
Speaker 8: there was very little resistance inside the room.
36:35
Speaker 3: Girardi faces decades in prison when he's sentenced on December sixth,
36:40
Speaker 3: and the US attorney said the fact that he's older
36:44
Speaker 3: doesn't mean they won't seek prison time. So we'll have
36:47
Speaker 3: to see what prosecutors asked for. Thanks so much for
36:50
Speaker 3: coming on the show, Maya. That's Bloomberg Law correspondent Mayas
36:53
Speaker 3: Bodo And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg
36:56
Speaker 3: Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest legal
36:59
Speaker 3: news my subscript and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
37:03
Speaker 3: and at Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm
37:07
Speaker 3: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg