July 24, 2025 • 24 mins
Dave Aronberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney, discusses the second in command at the Justice Department going to interview Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted former girlfriend. Michael Gerrard, Director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, discusses the International Court of Justice’s landmark climate decision. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Attorney General Pam Bondi used to say that the Jeffrey
Epstein files would be released.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
You know, tens of thousands of pages of documents and
hundreds and hundreds of victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So the
FBI they have been working round the clock at my directive,
at Kashptel's directive. Now Dan Bongino's there.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Who is a great asset for all of us at
the FBI as well. But yeah, we have to protect
their identity, their personal information to make sure they're safe.
But other than that, we are releasing all of these
documents as soon as we can get them redacted.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
That was Bondi on Fox in March. Now the question
is whether even a congressional subpoena will make the Attorney
General release the files, particularly in light of a Wall
Street Journal report that Bondi toll President Trump. His name
appears multiple times in the finals. As pressure on the
administration to release the Epstein files grows, the Justice Department
(01:12):
is taking a detour, apparently casting itself as searching for
more information on the Epstein case, with Deputy Attorney General
Todd Blanche meeting today with Glaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former
girlfriend who's serving a twenty year sentence in Florida. Joining
me is Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney.
(01:35):
Dave the number two person at the Justice Department, Todd Blanche,
Trump's former criminal defense attorney, is meeting with a convicted
sex trafficker, Gallaine Maxwell, that the Justice Department successfully prosecuted,
and it comes as she's appealing her twenty twenty one conviction.
(01:55):
How odd is this?
Speaker 4 (01:58):
It's extremely odd because generally the number two person at
the deparminative Justice doesn't conduct interviews with potential witnesses, especially
those who have already been convicted by their department of
such a serious crime. I mean, why would you ever
believe anything this woman says. He's not only a convicted
(02:20):
human trafficker, but she's also a liar. She was indicted
for perjury back in twenty twenty and she is someone
who is untrustworthy. But both sides want something here. She
meaning Glen Maxwell, wants a pardon from the President who's
very transactional, and President Trump wants her to exonerate him
(02:42):
to say that Trump had nothing to do with any
of the crimes. Now, I personally believe that Trump had
nothing to do with any of the crimes. But there's
a lot of smoke here because of Trump's name being
in the Epstein files. And you know what they say,
it's not the crime but the cover up. And the
cover up here is to prevent the release of these
files when you promised it over and over again to
(03:04):
your supporters. So, yes, this whole thing is extraordinary. Not
the lease of which is that the number two person
of the Department of Justice doesn't get on a plane
and get a briefcase in a notepad and start acting
like a line prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Bland said he wants to know if Glaine Maxwell has
information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims. But
the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has said that nothing in
the files warranted further investigation or prosecution. So what's going on?
Speaker 4 (03:35):
This is about CYA. It's to protect Donald Trump. This
is to protect him because his name is in the files. Now,
his supporters were led to believe that anyone whose names
in the files must have committed some crimes. They were
led to believe that the number one name in the
file would be Bill Clinton, filed by Bill Gates and
then every other prominent Democrat. Of course, they were lied to,
(03:56):
they were made to look like fools. I mean, these
folks thrive on conspiracy theories and now they're outraged and
they're ready to revolt. So the administration is trying to
placate them further by saying, see, we'll get more information
from this disgraced, convicted human trafficker. Well, what makes you
think she'll be telling the truth? She has every incentive
(04:16):
to lie. She's lie before, she will lie again. Anything
that she says should be corroborated. And then if she
says something to Todd blanche who was President of Trump's
former defense lawyer, his personal defense lawyer, what makes you
think will make its way to the public if it
at all implicates Donald Trump. So this is not how
an investigation should be done. And if the administration wanted
(04:40):
full transparency, they should just release the file subject to
court orders and other privacy concerns involving the victims, and
then I think people would start to move on from
this story. But until that happens, this story ain't going away.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Did you think that she's talking to Blanche. If she
is talking to Blanche, do you think that she's talking
to him under some kind of agreement like queen for
a day where nothing you say is going to be
used against you.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
Her lawyers would never allow her to talk to a prosecutor,
even if it's the number two person at the Department
of Justice and not aligned prosecutor. They would never let
her talk to anyone without a guarantee that she has
immunity for at least those comments on that day. So
some call it a Queen for the day. But she's
not going to jeopardize her appeal and her potential because
(05:32):
she has an appeal pending if she is retried. She
doesn't want this information to come back and haunt her.
So she wants something out of Donald Trump. She wants
a pardon, and she's probably going to be willing to
say anything to get it, but she doesn't want it
to come back at her in a future trial. So yes,
she will get some sort of immunity before she speaks
to Todd Blash. Now she goes before Congress, that too
(05:54):
will require immunity because her lawyers, I would think, would
have the same issue They don't want her to implicate
herself any more than she already has.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Her brother told The New York Post that she's compiling
new evidence pretending to allege government misconduct stemming from her trial,
to hand over to the Justice Department.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Every criminal defendant believes that there's government misconduct for their case,
especially if you're convicted. So yeah, she's going to compile
her evidence. Meanwhile, she had any real evidence that could
be of use to the government to release the victims
and to the public, she would have done so already
because now she's facing twenty years in prison. She's not
getting out until she's seventy five years old at the earliest.
(06:36):
And so if she didn't have the goods back then,
why would we believe she has the goods now. I
think there's a desperate woman who was willing to say anything.
She'll do anything for a pardon. She does not want
to spend her next decade or so behind bars. She's
not used to this lifestyle. She's used to the high life,
(06:56):
life of privilege, life of prestige, and now she's the
only one being locked up for the whole Jeffrey Epstein
saga because Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Dave about the congressional subpoena. The House Overside Chair Republican
James Comer has subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition. In what
circumstances would her lawyer allow her to testify? How would
that kind of testimony help her at all?
Speaker 4 (07:24):
It will help her if she publicly exonerates President Trump.
It will help her get a pardon. That's what she's
aiming for. She wants either a pardon a commutation. She
wants the Department of Justice to not retry the case
if she wins on her appeal, which is going before
the Supreme Court. So there are things that Trump can
offer her, and that's why she'll be doing this. Otherwise,
(07:46):
there's no reason for her to be doing this. I mean,
she's a convicted human trafficker, she's a proven liar. She's
a criminal. And for the Magabase, which thinks that Jeffrey
Epstein is Satan himself, to me how they're willing to
roll out the red carpet for Satan's accomplice.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
The House Oversight sub Committee voted Wednesday to subpoena the
DOJ for the Epstein files. And they're not only looking
for the files, but also communications between former Biden officials
and the Justice Department related to the Epstein matter. Well,
the Justice Department hand them over, especially now that the
(08:27):
Wall Street Journal has reported that Bondie and Blanche informed
the President in May that his name appears multiple times
in the Epstein files.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
Oh, the Department of Justice is not giving Congress anything
with Donald Trump's name in it. So if they give
up the Epstein file, maybe will be a redacted version
of it. But they're not going to do anything to
harm the Boss. I mean, that's why the folks are
there to begin with. That's why Donald Trump put his
two defense lawyers at top positions at the Department of Justice.
(08:59):
That's why I picked the loyalists like Pam Bondi to
be Attorney General. He doesn't want this thing to get
out of hand and get a mind of its own.
That's why he's not going to appoint a special counsel.
People said, we should have a special counsel. Yeah, well,
I remember Bill Clinton had a special counsel. You remember
Janerino stepped aside and had Kenneth Starr investigate Whitewater. Well,
(09:19):
the investigation in Whitewater became an investigation into Monica Lewinsky
and led to Bill Clinton's impeachment. Donald Trump doesn't want
to go down that road. He wants to button this
thing up. But the irony is in his attempt to
cut this off at its knees, he has prolonged the agony.
It's not the crime, it's the cover up. And it
looks like there's been a cover up here, at least
(09:39):
the many in the public, which is why people are
still talking about this.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Does Congress have any levers to pull to force the
Justice Department on this?
Speaker 4 (09:49):
They can subpoena the documents and then go to court,
but you really think the Republicans in Congress are going
to go to court to fight the Republicans and the
executive branch. One thing we've learned from this is that
when the going gets tough, they roll over, They turn
tail and run away. This Congress has a masculated itself
to the executive branch. And I know they're starting to
(10:11):
sense penisn't ask questions about this because their base demands it.
Both They'll only go so far. Donald Trump is the
leader of their party, and when Donald Trump wants something
badly enough, he gets it.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Coming up next, why a Florida judge decided not to
release the transcripts. This is Bloomberg. I've been talking to
Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney, about the
pressure on the Trump administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Let's talk about the grand jury transcripts first. You can
explain why the transcripts will not reveal client lists or
(10:45):
any of the other things that the conspiracy theorists are
looking for.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
The grand jury transcripts are just a portion of the
portion of what people are looking for. See what they
wanted the Epstein files. They want the names of these
third parts parties who allegedly were involved with human trafficking.
Who were these girls trafficked too, That's what people are seeking.
That's not going to be in the grand jury transcripts,
especially redacted once. It's not going to be in there.
(11:13):
So it's pretty much a distraction that the administration is
just seeking these grand jury transcripts and we come on.
First of all, they're not going to get him. The
judges will reject it, and then they can blame the judiciary,
which is part of the strategy because if there's one
group that the MAGA world hates more than the media,
it's the judiciary. It's judges. So that was actually a
smart move I thought by Trump to put the focus
(11:34):
on the judges. But it's still not going to work.
It's not going to satisfy the MAGA base who've been
led to believe there's this client list and that you
have this democratic conspiracy to have a child sex trafficking green. Well,
it's a different role when you go from being a
blogger to being in government. When you're in government, you
got to produce. When you're a blogger, you can say
whatever you want and never be held accountable for it.
(11:55):
And that's a lesson that Caspitel and Dan Begino and
others are learning.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
The Florida said judge has already declined to release the
transcripts on what grounds.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
There are grand jury secrecy rules and you can't get
the grand jury transcripts unless you have an exception under
the federal law, and there's no exception here just because
the public wants to see it. Also, you need to
go to victims and get their permission and approvals, but
the administration didn't do that. They just went right to
the judge because it was about the show. It wasn't
(12:25):
about to go. It was about the show. They wanted
the public to think that they were doing something about transparency.
But the judge rule, as we all expected, the judge
the rule. But even if the judge did produce these
grand jury transcripts, I mean, it's really, as I said,
just a portion of what the public wants. The public
wants names. Grand jury transcripts wouldn't produce those names of
(12:46):
third parties. It would just be the testimony that was
written down and the exhibits that were provided inside the
secret grand jury that led to Epstein's indictment. It's not
going to be what implicates uncharged third parties. And so
if you are waiting for the grand jury transcripts to
(13:06):
answer your at Jeffrey Epstein questions, you'll be waiting a
long time.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
There are still two judges in New York considering the
government's requests to release the grand jury transcripts in the
Epstein and Maxwell cases. They're taking more time and requesting
more information. What do you think they're just not, you know,
denying them out of hand and saying grand jury secrecy.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
The rules up there in that circuit in New York
are a little better for the public to get access
to grand jury transcripts. There's there's a slight opening. It's
not impossible. It's hard, but it's not impossible. So there's
an outside chance that could happen up there. But as
I said, even if you get them, they're going to
(13:54):
be disappointing. They're going to be largely a nothing burger
of people, and it probably suits Trump more if the
judges just reject the request, then Trump can say, see,
I tried, I try to be transparent. Blame those unelected
liberal judges, even though he may have appointed some of them.
But you can just blame the people wearing the black
ropes who get lifetime appointments and carry the gabble. Much
(14:15):
easier to do than to turn and shine the flashlight
on yourself.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
And I want to get your reaction to the Trump
administration falsely claiming that President Obama deliberately manufactured and politicized
intelligence reports about Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election.
I don't know how we got back to this point.
Do you know what this is about?
Speaker 4 (14:39):
Yeah, it's about distraction. It's to take your mind off
of the Jeffrey Epstein situation. So he has Pulsey Gabbert,
who has no business being in government. Quite frankly, she's
a hack. She's not qualified to be the director of
D and I, and she's doing Pulsy Gabbert things by
creating a story out of nothing. Even what she produced
(15:01):
doesn't show what she says it shows. All shows is
that Russia did not manipulate votes. They did not change
the outcome of the election by the voting. But they did,
and it's been proven over and over again, even by
the report by Senator Marco Rubio's Senate Intelligence Committee that
Russia did interfere with the election. They had a favorite
in the election, Donald Trump, and they had a strategy
(15:25):
that they implemented to get involved through spreading disinformation. But
they didn't hack into voting machines. So I don't know
what this thing is about that Tulsa Gabbert is trying
to show, except it's nothing except for a distraction on
the Jeffrey Epstein matter and approves why Tulsa Gabbard is
unfit for office.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Obama spokesman said these bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a
weak attempt at distraction. I mean, this is not the
first time that Trump has attacked Obama.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
Well, that's how he built his political career by claiming
that Obama born in Kenya. This is why the magabase
is so upset about this latest conspiracy theory, because they
were led to believe that there are conspiracies under every
mattress in DC, whether it's Obama being from Kenya, or
the election of twenty twenty being stolen, or Jeffrey Epstein
(16:18):
being part of a Democrat at cabal. But as the
conspiracy theories get destroyed, the magabases is starting to wonder
if they've been misled, if they've been made to look
like fools, And they're understandably point their finger at their
own team because their own team is the one who
(16:39):
has led them astray.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Turning to other legal news, one of the world's most
vulnerable countries to the fallout from climate change has won
a landmark legal battle, giving countries new ammunition to pursue
some of the planet's biggest emitters. Joining me is environmental
law expert Michael Girard, director of Columbia Law schools Saban
Center for Climate Change Law, tell us about this decision
(17:05):
by the International Court of Justice.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
So the International Court of Justice just issued a unanimous
opinion by all fourteen of its judges on climate change.
The decision said that climate change is a grave threat
to humankind and many elements of international law require every
country to act very strongly to try to fight climate change.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
And tell us about the case that was brought to
years ago by.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
Vanuatu vano Watu, which is one of the small island
nations in the Pacific that is really endangered by subl rise,
who was able to organize an international effort and persuade
the UN General Assembly to send to the International Court
of Justice in the Hague questions about what are the
(17:53):
obligations of countries to reduce their greenhouse assmentions and among
other things, to save small island states and everybody else
from the ravages of climate change.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
The ICJ doesn't have the power to enforce the decision
on its own. US is among the countries that doesn't
automatically recognize its legal authority. So what weight does this
opinion have.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
That's right, the ICJ opinions in this kind of case
our advisory. They don't have enforcement power. Many countries of
the world do take the ICJ's decisions seriously, and we've
already seen in quite a few countries around the world
decisions by their own courts saying that their governments aren't
doing enough. I think we'll see a lot more of
(18:43):
those kinds of lawsuits all around the world. We'll see
more lawsuits brought by environmental groups and others in their
national courts saying that under the ICJ opinion and other
legal doctrines, those countries are not doing enough to produce
their green ask gas missions, and that could lead to
enforcement by those national courts against those national governments.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Last year, at least two hundred and twenty six new
climate cases were brought. Are those mostly against countries? Are
they against you know, corporations? You know? Where are they
bringing these suits?
Speaker 5 (19:19):
They're mostly against countries, but very few of them are
what we call strategic litigation, that is trying to get
the country to act more broadly, Most of those lawsuits
are concerning particular projects or our particular small actions. But
we have seen strategic cases that are ordering countries to
do more. We saw them in successful cases the Netherlands, Germany, France, Mexico, Nepal, Brazil,
(19:47):
South Africa. Most recently Hungary, several other countries all around
the world. We're seeing these kinds of cases, these kinds
of decisions from the courts, and I think now we'll
see more of them.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
And our countries complain vying with the results of these
cases when they're decided.
Speaker 5 (20:04):
Not necessarily that's a very good question. We've seen that
the countries are doing something but not necessarily enough, and
frequently the plaintives go back to court to try to
seek more specific enforcement. So the decisions do have a
positive effect, but they're not completely solving the problem.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Are there other international courts that are taking a stand
on climate Yes.
Speaker 5 (20:30):
In the last year and a half or so, we've
seen decisions from the European Court of Human Rights, the
Inter American Court of Human Rights, and the International Tribunal
on the Law of the Sea, and all three of
those international tribunals also said that the countries have an
obligation to reduce their green ass gas emissions and otherwise
(20:51):
address climate change.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Is litigation the best way forward for climate activists or
negotiations ongoing anywhere?
Speaker 5 (21:00):
I wouldn't say that litigation is necessarily the best way.
I think the best way is to try to get
politicians to pass and implement strong laws, but in few
countries as that actually happens. So litigation is one important
part of the toolkit. It's not the biggest part, but
it's one important part, and it just became a lot
stronger with yesterday's decision.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
As far as the United States and the Trump administration,
how has the Trump administration impacted the environment and environmental protections?
Speaker 5 (21:32):
Well, the Trump administration is basically a denying climate change,
or at least that they have to do anything about it.
They're working very hard to stop all of the actions
that had been taken under previous administrations to control climate change.
They again withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. So the
Trump administration is very much moving backwards on all of this.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Let's say that after Trump's term ends, there as a
president who is more concerned about the environment. Can the
Trump administration's actions be easily reversed.
Speaker 5 (22:08):
They can be reversed, but it will take time. Of course.
In the first Trump administration they moved backwards, although not
as faster as quickly, and then when Biden came in,
they did reverse of that and secured passage of the
Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress has now partly revoked. One
of the big problems is loss of staff, loss of expertise,
(22:29):
loss of scientific capability. That'll take some time to rebuild.
So the legal issues most of us can be restored,
but actually regaining the momentum is going to take time.
We will have lost a lot of time that we
don't have.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
What can environmental activists do is it file suits to
try to slow down the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (22:51):
Yes, and there's already a lot of that, and quite
a few of those lossits have had early successes in
the district court, serve in quite a few preliminary injunctions
granted against what the Trump administration is doing. And those
states that still care about climate change are doing a
lot in New York, California, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois, several other
(23:12):
states are acting on their own to reduce their emissions.
But I think the most important thing that needs to
be done is is that nepolling place is to elect
officials at every level, federal, state, and local, who really
are going to act on climate change.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I mean, how do climate deniers even support their position?
Speaker 5 (23:33):
Yeah, I mean there's a small handful of climate deniers
or climate not so batters, as I call them, are
out there, several of whom have just been hired by
the federal government to advise them. They're complete outliers in
the scientific community, but there are a few of those
out there, and there are some news media outlets that
put that out. Nobody has the nerve. No lawyer goes
(23:55):
to court denying climate change. They know that that would
be a real loser, but we still see that in
the political arena and in some media outlets.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Thanks so much. That's Michael Gerard, director of Columbia Law
school Saban Center for Climate Change Law. And that's it
for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,
(24:26):
and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Attorney General Pam Bondi used to say that the Jeffrey
Epstein files would be released.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
You know, tens of thousands of pages of documents and
hundreds and hundreds of victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So the
FBI they have been working round the clock at my directive,
at Kashptel's directive. Now Dan Bongino's there.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Who is a great asset for all of us at
the FBI as well. But yeah, we have to protect
their identity, their personal information to make sure they're safe.
But other than that, we are releasing all of these
documents as soon as we can get them redacted.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
That was Bondi on Fox in March. Now the question
is whether even a congressional subpoena will make the Attorney
General release the files, particularly in light of a Wall
Street Journal report that Bondi toll President Trump. His name
appears multiple times in the finals. As pressure on the
administration to release the Epstein files grows, the Justice Department
(01:12):
is taking a detour, apparently casting itself as searching for
more information on the Epstein case, with Deputy Attorney General
Todd Blanche meeting today with Glaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former
girlfriend who's serving a twenty year sentence in Florida. Joining
me is Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney.
(01:35):
Dave the number two person at the Justice Department, Todd Blanche,
Trump's former criminal defense attorney, is meeting with a convicted
sex trafficker, Gallaine Maxwell, that the Justice Department successfully prosecuted,
and it comes as she's appealing her twenty twenty one conviction.
(01:55):
How odd is this?
Speaker 4 (01:58):
It's extremely odd because generally the number two person at
the deparminative Justice doesn't conduct interviews with potential witnesses, especially
those who have already been convicted by their department of
such a serious crime. I mean, why would you ever
believe anything this woman says. He's not only a convicted
(02:20):
human trafficker, but she's also a liar. She was indicted
for perjury back in twenty twenty and she is someone
who is untrustworthy. But both sides want something here. She
meaning Glen Maxwell, wants a pardon from the President who's
very transactional, and President Trump wants her to exonerate him
(02:42):
to say that Trump had nothing to do with any
of the crimes. Now, I personally believe that Trump had
nothing to do with any of the crimes. But there's
a lot of smoke here because of Trump's name being
in the Epstein files. And you know what they say,
it's not the crime but the cover up. And the
cover up here is to prevent the release of these
files when you promised it over and over again to
(03:04):
your supporters. So, yes, this whole thing is extraordinary. Not
the lease of which is that the number two person
of the Department of Justice doesn't get on a plane
and get a briefcase in a notepad and start acting
like a line prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Bland said he wants to know if Glaine Maxwell has
information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims. But
the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has said that nothing in
the files warranted further investigation or prosecution. So what's going on?
Speaker 4 (03:35):
This is about CYA. It's to protect Donald Trump. This
is to protect him because his name is in the files. Now,
his supporters were led to believe that anyone whose names
in the files must have committed some crimes. They were
led to believe that the number one name in the
file would be Bill Clinton, filed by Bill Gates and
then every other prominent Democrat. Of course, they were lied to,
(03:56):
they were made to look like fools. I mean, these
folks thrive on conspiracy theories and now they're outraged and
they're ready to revolt. So the administration is trying to
placate them further by saying, see, we'll get more information
from this disgraced, convicted human trafficker. Well, what makes you
think she'll be telling the truth? She has every incentive
(04:16):
to lie. She's lie before, she will lie again. Anything
that she says should be corroborated. And then if she
says something to Todd blanche who was President of Trump's
former defense lawyer, his personal defense lawyer, what makes you
think will make its way to the public if it
at all implicates Donald Trump. So this is not how
an investigation should be done. And if the administration wanted
(04:40):
full transparency, they should just release the file subject to
court orders and other privacy concerns involving the victims, and
then I think people would start to move on from
this story. But until that happens, this story ain't going away.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Did you think that she's talking to Blanche. If she
is talking to Blanche, do you think that she's talking
to him under some kind of agreement like queen for
a day where nothing you say is going to be
used against you.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
Her lawyers would never allow her to talk to a prosecutor,
even if it's the number two person at the Department
of Justice and not aligned prosecutor. They would never let
her talk to anyone without a guarantee that she has
immunity for at least those comments on that day. So
some call it a Queen for the day. But she's
not going to jeopardize her appeal and her potential because
(05:32):
she has an appeal pending if she is retried. She
doesn't want this information to come back and haunt her.
So she wants something out of Donald Trump. She wants
a pardon, and she's probably going to be willing to
say anything to get it, but she doesn't want it
to come back at her in a future trial. So yes,
she will get some sort of immunity before she speaks
to Todd Blash. Now she goes before Congress, that too
(05:54):
will require immunity because her lawyers, I would think, would
have the same issue They don't want her to implicate
herself any more than she already has.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Her brother told The New York Post that she's compiling
new evidence pretending to allege government misconduct stemming from her trial,
to hand over to the Justice Department.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Every criminal defendant believes that there's government misconduct for their case,
especially if you're convicted. So yeah, she's going to compile
her evidence. Meanwhile, she had any real evidence that could
be of use to the government to release the victims
and to the public, she would have done so already
because now she's facing twenty years in prison. She's not
getting out until she's seventy five years old at the earliest.
(06:36):
And so if she didn't have the goods back then,
why would we believe she has the goods now. I
think there's a desperate woman who was willing to say anything.
She'll do anything for a pardon. She does not want
to spend her next decade or so behind bars. She's
not used to this lifestyle. She's used to the high life,
(06:56):
life of privilege, life of prestige, and now she's the
only one being locked up for the whole Jeffrey Epstein
saga because Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Dave about the congressional subpoena. The House Overside Chair Republican
James Comer has subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition. In what
circumstances would her lawyer allow her to testify? How would
that kind of testimony help her at all?
Speaker 4 (07:24):
It will help her if she publicly exonerates President Trump.
It will help her get a pardon. That's what she's
aiming for. She wants either a pardon a commutation. She
wants the Department of Justice to not retry the case
if she wins on her appeal, which is going before
the Supreme Court. So there are things that Trump can
offer her, and that's why she'll be doing this. Otherwise,
(07:46):
there's no reason for her to be doing this. I mean,
she's a convicted human trafficker, she's a proven liar. She's
a criminal. And for the Magabase, which thinks that Jeffrey
Epstein is Satan himself, to me how they're willing to
roll out the red carpet for Satan's accomplice.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
The House Oversight sub Committee voted Wednesday to subpoena the
DOJ for the Epstein files. And they're not only looking
for the files, but also communications between former Biden officials
and the Justice Department related to the Epstein matter. Well,
the Justice Department hand them over, especially now that the
(08:27):
Wall Street Journal has reported that Bondie and Blanche informed
the President in May that his name appears multiple times
in the Epstein files.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
Oh, the Department of Justice is not giving Congress anything
with Donald Trump's name in it. So if they give
up the Epstein file, maybe will be a redacted version
of it. But they're not going to do anything to
harm the Boss. I mean, that's why the folks are
there to begin with. That's why Donald Trump put his
two defense lawyers at top positions at the Department of Justice.
(08:59):
That's why I picked the loyalists like Pam Bondi to
be Attorney General. He doesn't want this thing to get
out of hand and get a mind of its own.
That's why he's not going to appoint a special counsel.
People said, we should have a special counsel. Yeah, well,
I remember Bill Clinton had a special counsel. You remember
Janerino stepped aside and had Kenneth Starr investigate Whitewater. Well,
(09:19):
the investigation in Whitewater became an investigation into Monica Lewinsky
and led to Bill Clinton's impeachment. Donald Trump doesn't want
to go down that road. He wants to button this
thing up. But the irony is in his attempt to
cut this off at its knees, he has prolonged the agony.
It's not the crime, it's the cover up. And it
looks like there's been a cover up here, at least
(09:39):
the many in the public, which is why people are
still talking about this.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Does Congress have any levers to pull to force the
Justice Department on this?
Speaker 4 (09:49):
They can subpoena the documents and then go to court,
but you really think the Republicans in Congress are going
to go to court to fight the Republicans and the
executive branch. One thing we've learned from this is that
when the going gets tough, they roll over, They turn
tail and run away. This Congress has a masculated itself
to the executive branch. And I know they're starting to
(10:11):
sense penisn't ask questions about this because their base demands it.
Both They'll only go so far. Donald Trump is the
leader of their party, and when Donald Trump wants something
badly enough, he gets it.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Coming up next, why a Florida judge decided not to
release the transcripts. This is Bloomberg. I've been talking to
Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney, about the
pressure on the Trump administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Let's talk about the grand jury transcripts first. You can
explain why the transcripts will not reveal client lists or
(10:45):
any of the other things that the conspiracy theorists are
looking for.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
The grand jury transcripts are just a portion of the
portion of what people are looking for. See what they
wanted the Epstein files. They want the names of these
third parts parties who allegedly were involved with human trafficking.
Who were these girls trafficked too, That's what people are seeking.
That's not going to be in the grand jury transcripts,
especially redacted once. It's not going to be in there.
(11:13):
So it's pretty much a distraction that the administration is
just seeking these grand jury transcripts and we come on.
First of all, they're not going to get him. The
judges will reject it, and then they can blame the judiciary,
which is part of the strategy because if there's one
group that the MAGA world hates more than the media,
it's the judiciary. It's judges. So that was actually a
smart move I thought by Trump to put the focus
(11:34):
on the judges. But it's still not going to work.
It's not going to satisfy the MAGA base who've been
led to believe there's this client list and that you
have this democratic conspiracy to have a child sex trafficking green. Well,
it's a different role when you go from being a
blogger to being in government. When you're in government, you
got to produce. When you're a blogger, you can say
whatever you want and never be held accountable for it.
(11:55):
And that's a lesson that Caspitel and Dan Begino and
others are learning.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
The Florida said judge has already declined to release the
transcripts on what grounds.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
There are grand jury secrecy rules and you can't get
the grand jury transcripts unless you have an exception under
the federal law, and there's no exception here just because
the public wants to see it. Also, you need to
go to victims and get their permission and approvals, but
the administration didn't do that. They just went right to
the judge because it was about the show. It wasn't
(12:25):
about to go. It was about the show. They wanted
the public to think that they were doing something about transparency.
But the judge rule, as we all expected, the judge
the rule. But even if the judge did produce these
grand jury transcripts, I mean, it's really, as I said,
just a portion of what the public wants. The public
wants names. Grand jury transcripts wouldn't produce those names of
(12:46):
third parties. It would just be the testimony that was
written down and the exhibits that were provided inside the
secret grand jury that led to Epstein's indictment. It's not
going to be what implicates uncharged third parties. And so
if you are waiting for the grand jury transcripts to
(13:06):
answer your at Jeffrey Epstein questions, you'll be waiting a
long time.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
There are still two judges in New York considering the
government's requests to release the grand jury transcripts in the
Epstein and Maxwell cases. They're taking more time and requesting
more information. What do you think they're just not, you know,
denying them out of hand and saying grand jury secrecy.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
The rules up there in that circuit in New York
are a little better for the public to get access
to grand jury transcripts. There's there's a slight opening. It's
not impossible. It's hard, but it's not impossible. So there's
an outside chance that could happen up there. But as
I said, even if you get them, they're going to
(13:54):
be disappointing. They're going to be largely a nothing burger
of people, and it probably suits Trump more if the
judges just reject the request, then Trump can say, see,
I tried, I try to be transparent. Blame those unelected
liberal judges, even though he may have appointed some of them.
But you can just blame the people wearing the black
ropes who get lifetime appointments and carry the gabble. Much
(14:15):
easier to do than to turn and shine the flashlight
on yourself.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
And I want to get your reaction to the Trump
administration falsely claiming that President Obama deliberately manufactured and politicized
intelligence reports about Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election.
I don't know how we got back to this point.
Do you know what this is about?
Speaker 4 (14:39):
Yeah, it's about distraction. It's to take your mind off
of the Jeffrey Epstein situation. So he has Pulsey Gabbert,
who has no business being in government. Quite frankly, she's
a hack. She's not qualified to be the director of
D and I, and she's doing Pulsy Gabbert things by
creating a story out of nothing. Even what she produced
(15:01):
doesn't show what she says it shows. All shows is
that Russia did not manipulate votes. They did not change
the outcome of the election by the voting. But they did,
and it's been proven over and over again, even by
the report by Senator Marco Rubio's Senate Intelligence Committee that
Russia did interfere with the election. They had a favorite
in the election, Donald Trump, and they had a strategy
(15:25):
that they implemented to get involved through spreading disinformation. But
they didn't hack into voting machines. So I don't know
what this thing is about that Tulsa Gabbert is trying
to show, except it's nothing except for a distraction on
the Jeffrey Epstein matter and approves why Tulsa Gabbard is
unfit for office.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Obama spokesman said these bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a
weak attempt at distraction. I mean, this is not the
first time that Trump has attacked Obama.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
Well, that's how he built his political career by claiming
that Obama born in Kenya. This is why the magabase
is so upset about this latest conspiracy theory, because they
were led to believe that there are conspiracies under every
mattress in DC, whether it's Obama being from Kenya, or
the election of twenty twenty being stolen, or Jeffrey Epstein
(16:18):
being part of a Democrat at cabal. But as the
conspiracy theories get destroyed, the magabases is starting to wonder
if they've been misled, if they've been made to look
like fools, And they're understandably point their finger at their
own team because their own team is the one who
(16:39):
has led them astray.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Turning to other legal news, one of the world's most
vulnerable countries to the fallout from climate change has won
a landmark legal battle, giving countries new ammunition to pursue
some of the planet's biggest emitters. Joining me is environmental
law expert Michael Girard, director of Columbia Law schools Saban
Center for Climate Change Law, tell us about this decision
(17:05):
by the International Court of Justice.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
So the International Court of Justice just issued a unanimous
opinion by all fourteen of its judges on climate change.
The decision said that climate change is a grave threat
to humankind and many elements of international law require every
country to act very strongly to try to fight climate change.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
And tell us about the case that was brought to
years ago by.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
Vanuatu vano Watu, which is one of the small island
nations in the Pacific that is really endangered by subl rise,
who was able to organize an international effort and persuade
the UN General Assembly to send to the International Court
of Justice in the Hague questions about what are the
(17:53):
obligations of countries to reduce their greenhouse assmentions and among
other things, to save small island states and everybody else
from the ravages of climate change.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
The ICJ doesn't have the power to enforce the decision
on its own. US is among the countries that doesn't
automatically recognize its legal authority. So what weight does this
opinion have.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
That's right, the ICJ opinions in this kind of case
our advisory. They don't have enforcement power. Many countries of
the world do take the ICJ's decisions seriously, and we've
already seen in quite a few countries around the world
decisions by their own courts saying that their governments aren't
doing enough. I think we'll see a lot more of
(18:43):
those kinds of lawsuits all around the world. We'll see
more lawsuits brought by environmental groups and others in their
national courts saying that under the ICJ opinion and other
legal doctrines, those countries are not doing enough to produce
their green ask gas missions, and that could lead to
enforcement by those national courts against those national governments.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Last year, at least two hundred and twenty six new
climate cases were brought. Are those mostly against countries? Are
they against you know, corporations? You know? Where are they
bringing these suits?
Speaker 5 (19:19):
They're mostly against countries, but very few of them are
what we call strategic litigation, that is trying to get
the country to act more broadly, Most of those lawsuits
are concerning particular projects or our particular small actions. But
we have seen strategic cases that are ordering countries to
do more. We saw them in successful cases the Netherlands, Germany, France, Mexico, Nepal, Brazil,
(19:47):
South Africa. Most recently Hungary, several other countries all around
the world. We're seeing these kinds of cases, these kinds
of decisions from the courts, and I think now we'll
see more of them.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
And our countries complain vying with the results of these
cases when they're decided.
Speaker 5 (20:04):
Not necessarily that's a very good question. We've seen that
the countries are doing something but not necessarily enough, and
frequently the plaintives go back to court to try to
seek more specific enforcement. So the decisions do have a
positive effect, but they're not completely solving the problem.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Are there other international courts that are taking a stand
on climate Yes.
Speaker 5 (20:30):
In the last year and a half or so, we've
seen decisions from the European Court of Human Rights, the
Inter American Court of Human Rights, and the International Tribunal
on the Law of the Sea, and all three of
those international tribunals also said that the countries have an
obligation to reduce their green ass gas emissions and otherwise
(20:51):
address climate change.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Is litigation the best way forward for climate activists or
negotiations ongoing anywhere?
Speaker 5 (21:00):
I wouldn't say that litigation is necessarily the best way.
I think the best way is to try to get
politicians to pass and implement strong laws, but in few
countries as that actually happens. So litigation is one important
part of the toolkit. It's not the biggest part, but
it's one important part, and it just became a lot
stronger with yesterday's decision.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
As far as the United States and the Trump administration,
how has the Trump administration impacted the environment and environmental protections?
Speaker 5 (21:32):
Well, the Trump administration is basically a denying climate change,
or at least that they have to do anything about it.
They're working very hard to stop all of the actions
that had been taken under previous administrations to control climate change.
They again withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. So the
Trump administration is very much moving backwards on all of this.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Let's say that after Trump's term ends, there as a
president who is more concerned about the environment. Can the
Trump administration's actions be easily reversed.
Speaker 5 (22:08):
They can be reversed, but it will take time. Of course.
In the first Trump administration they moved backwards, although not
as faster as quickly, and then when Biden came in,
they did reverse of that and secured passage of the
Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress has now partly revoked. One
of the big problems is loss of staff, loss of expertise,
(22:29):
loss of scientific capability. That'll take some time to rebuild.
So the legal issues most of us can be restored,
but actually regaining the momentum is going to take time.
We will have lost a lot of time that we
don't have.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
What can environmental activists do is it file suits to
try to slow down the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (22:51):
Yes, and there's already a lot of that, and quite
a few of those lossits have had early successes in
the district court, serve in quite a few preliminary injunctions
granted against what the Trump administration is doing. And those
states that still care about climate change are doing a
lot in New York, California, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois, several other
(23:12):
states are acting on their own to reduce their emissions.
But I think the most important thing that needs to
be done is is that nepolling place is to elect
officials at every level, federal, state, and local, who really
are going to act on climate change.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I mean, how do climate deniers even support their position?
Speaker 5 (23:33):
Yeah, I mean there's a small handful of climate deniers
or climate not so batters, as I call them, are
out there, several of whom have just been hired by
the federal government to advise them. They're complete outliers in
the scientific community, but there are a few of those
out there, and there are some news media outlets that
put that out. Nobody has the nerve. No lawyer goes
(23:55):
to court denying climate change. They know that that would
be a real loser, but we still see that in
the political arena and in some media outlets.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Thanks so much. That's Michael Gerard, director of Columbia Law
school Saban Center for Climate Change Law. And that's it
for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,
(24:26):
and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.