July 2, 2025 • 33 mins
Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses why a jury acquitted Sean “Diddy” Combs of the most serious charges against him. Kenneth Marcus, founder and CEO of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, discusses the Trump administration’s latest legal front against Harvard University. 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.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
After more than six weeks of sometimes graphic and emotional testimony,
the jury deliberated about thirteen hours before acquitting Sean Diddy
Comb's of the most serious charges against him, racketeering, conspiracy,
and sex trafficking charges relating to allegations that he used
his money, power and physical force to manipulate his girlfriends
(00:32):
into hundreds of drug fueled sex marathons. The jury only
convicted Combs of the lesser charge of transportation to engage
in prostitution, so instead of facing a life sentence, Combs
is facing a maximum prison sentence of ten years and
likely much less than that. After the verdict was read,
(00:54):
Combs put his hands together and mouthed thank you to
the jurors. He got down on his knee, his head bowed,
apparently in prayer. As the jurors left the courtroom, his
relatives in the audience applauded him and his lawyers, some
of whom had tears in their eyes as he was
led out of court. My guest is former federal prosecutor
(01:14):
Robert Mintz, a partner maccarter in English. Bob apparently, Combs,
his relatives, and his lawyers all thought that this was
a win, despite the fact that he is facing some
prison time.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Given the charges he was potentially facing, which included up
to life in prison for the racketeering conspiracy and a
minimum sentence of fifteen years to life for sex trafficking,
the fact that he was only convicted of two counts
of transportation to engaging prostitution can't be viewed as anything
other than a win by the defense and a bitter
(01:50):
loss for prosecutors.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Let's go through the charges. So the top count racketeering conspiracy,
and the charge has historical life been used to take
down mob bosses like John Gotti. Did the prosecutors overcharge
him with this count?
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Well, I think that's going to be the question that
prosecutors will have to ask themselves when they look back
on this case, whether or not it was overcharged with
the Rico conspiracy. Now, the Rico conspiracy, as you say,
has been used traditionally in order to prosecute organized crime figures,
but it has been used more broadly in recent years
and was used in a high profile case just a
(02:31):
couple of years ago in the r. Kelly case where
that hip hop artist was also charged with rico and
sex trafficking in twenty twenty one, and in that instance
prosecutors did get a conviction. But here jurors ultimately concluded
that the rico conspiracy was overcharged, that the prosecution did
not meet the burden of showing that Sean Combs had
(02:54):
used his business empire as a vehicle in order to
commit further out at and in order to force his
former girlfriends into performing sexual acts against their will.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Bob, when a prosecutor overcharges, does that give the defense
an opening to, you know, to get the jury to
doubt the whole case, that it's all exaggerated.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Well, that's ultimately where this case turned. It was really
an argument by the defense that although mister Combe had
committed some abhorrent acts, they had the video of him
picking Passi Ventura by the elevator bank out in Beverly
Hills that was undeniably bad behavior and painted mister Combs
in a very negative light. But when that was held
(03:41):
up against the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy, which
included certain criminal acts such as forced labor, bribery, obstruction
of justice, all of that was thrown in and basically
prosecutors were staying that he uses vast empire that he
built up over many years simply as a means of
(04:02):
forcing these ex girlfriends to continue to perform these sexual
acts against their will, and all the while they were
coerced into doing this. The defense was able to effectively
pick that apart by showing text messages from both of
the victims which at various times suggested that they had
participated in these acts willfully, that they were not coerced,
(04:25):
that they could have left but chose not to, And
ultimately I think that was the downfall for the prostitution's case.
It really ultimately turned on whether they believed that the
victims were actually trapped in this relationship and had no
way out and were literally forced to commit these acts,
or whether this is more complex than that, and the
(04:46):
defense was able to show that these relationships, while toxic,
while not healthy, and while it involved bad behavior by
mister Holmes, didn't rise to the level of racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
The jury said yesterday afternoon that it was unable to
reach a verdict, a unanimous verdict on the racketeering conspiracy
charge because there were jurors with unpersuadable views on both sides.
But today, after an hour of deliberations, they came to
a unanimous verdict on that charge. Do you think that
(05:22):
with the long weekend ahead, the jurors who wanted to
convict on that charge sort of caved.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Well, it's impossible to know really what goes on in
the jury room. You don't know the dialogue between and
among the jurors, the conversations that are going on. But
it did seem like the fact that they were stuck
on this most serious charge suggested to at least some
observers that they found a guilty verdict on some of
(05:49):
the lesser charges, including perhaps the sex trafficking. But it
turned out that they only convicted on the most minor charges,
and they did reach a decision before the long holiday weekend.
That's not unusual. Juries like to go home for weekends.
They like to put this case behind them. But on
the other hand, when you were the prosecution, you're sitting
(06:10):
there thinking that was a seven week trial. We produced
over thirty witnesses, and the fact that juris came back
in only two days with a verdict suggested that they
moved very quickly through this process looking at the evidence
and reaching a verdict in a way that prosecutors are
certainly disappointed with.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
So the two sex trafficking acquittals which stem from allegations
that Combs coerced to women his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventur
and a Jane Doe into these so called freak offs,
and Ventura testified over four days some very emotional testimony.
I mean, you refer to this, but did the jurors
(06:49):
just not believe her?
Speaker 3 (06:51):
It's hard to say exactly what they were thinking. That
testimony was compelling, That testimony had to be very emotional
for juris to it through, and yet at the end
of the day they did not believe that she was
necessarily compelled to participate in commercial sex acts through force, fraud,
and coercion. The key here is there has to be
(07:13):
a link between the force, the fraud, and the coercion
and the acts of sex, and I think at the
end of the day the evidence was just not clear
enough for them to meet that burden. Remember, prosecutors have
to prove in their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything
less than that will result in an acquittal, as we
saw here.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
And sex trafficking did the charges even fit the facts here?
Aren't people usually charged with sex trafficking when it's unrelated people,
not people in long term relationships like these women in Combs.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Yeah, that was I think one of the problems too,
because the victims here were involved in these long term relationships,
and they had written many messages, emails, text messages, other
writings evidencing their love for mister Combs at various times.
The fact that they willingly participated in some of these acts,
the fact that they did things in order to please him,
(08:10):
and the fact fact that after some of these sessions
they texted him saying that they enjoyed them. And I
think it was very difficult for jurors to necessarily conclude
that all of this was done against their will, that
none of it was consensual. And as you say, June,
it's a situation where the sex trafficking charge is typically
brought in an instance where the perpetrator does not have
(08:33):
a relationship with the victim. Here there was a long
term relationship, one that was very complicated, and also one
in which the victims had benefited financially from their relationship
with mister Combs. So it became I think very difficult
for jurors to sort out the true nature of those relationships.
I don't think they necessarily disbelieved the victims, but I
(08:56):
think they ultimately concluded that the fact as presented to
them in court did not meet the elements of the
sex trafficking charges.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
So you mentioned the financial settlements. Ventura got thirty million
dollars from Comb's and hotel, and that was used by
the defense attorney in his closing statements. He called her
a winner. And I'm wondering how much a huge settlement
like that might affect a jury's view of a witness.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I think it had to affect them, and I don't
think it necessarily meant that jurors didn't believe what she
was saying, But I think it fed into the defense's
narrative that this was a complicated relationship, that the relationship
was toxic. But at the end of the day, there
was responsibility by both parties that created this toxic relationship,
(09:50):
and they ultimately could not conclude that mister Combs should
be convicted of this very serious charge based on a
record that was unclear at best.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
He was convicted. He was He was convicted of two
counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. That stems from
allegations that he paid sex workers to come to his
freak off parties. Tell us about that. That's a felony
violation of the Federal Man Act.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
These were the charges that were really easiest for prosecutors
to prove, because all they have to show is that
individual's cross state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution.
And there was plenty of evidence presented at the trial
that mister Colms had made arrangements for these male prostitutes
to meet with his girlfriends. He'd bought plane tickets, there
(10:39):
were credit card statements, there were hotel records. These were
the charges that prosecutors were able to prove fairly readily,
and there wasn't really much of a defense to them.
I think the defense strategy was to focus on the
more serious charges, which they ultimately succeeded in convincing jurors
to quit their client on Bob.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
I'm wondering because the jurors found him guilty of the
lowest count, whether some jurors thought this case is overcharge,
let's go for the lowest count, or whether they took
each charge and considered each one on its own merits.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
One thing that you do see sometimes behind the curtains
in jury deliberations is what it's called a compromised verdict. Now,
there's no way to know whether that happened here or not,
but you do sometimes have jurors on one side who
want to convict on all counts, jurors on the other
side who may want to acquit, and ultimately they may
compromise by convicting on some but not all counts. We
(11:39):
don't really know whether that happened here, and I'm not
suggesting that it necessarily did, but that is a phenomenon
that happened sometimes. We don't know whether that was going
on here or whether jurors simply went through these counts
count by count And we're convinced that the sex trafficking
and the rico conspiracy charges were just as you said, June,
(11:59):
over charge and did not apply the fact of the case.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Stay with me, Bob. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
Laws Show, I'll continue this conversation with former federal prosecutor
Robert Mintz. We'll talk about the defense strategy and how
it won the jurors over despite not presenting any witnesses.
I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Sean did
(12:23):
he Combs dropped to his knees and prayed in the
courtroom after he was acquitted today of sex trafficking and
racketeering charges that could have put him behind bars for life.
The hip hop mogul was convicted of lesser prostitution related offenses.
He still faces prison time, but likely much much less
(12:44):
than the ten year maximum. I've been talking to former
federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter in english Combe's defense.
Did it take a huge risk by deciding not to
put on any witnesses at all and to rely on
the cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses, which sometimes went
(13:05):
on longer than the direct examinations.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
No.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
I think from the very start the defense strategy was
always to win their case through cross examination. I think
they correctly sized the case up and knew that it
was going to turn on the testimony of the two
victims and how compelling they were, and that by adding
witnesses for the defense it was only going to complicate
the case and create a more complex narrative for them
(13:31):
to have to convince cures ask exactly what was going
on here. They wanted the case ultimately to be about
these two victims and to show that the relationship that
they were in with mister Colmbs over many years was
one in which they gained financially, one in which they
willingly participated. In no doubt, they were ups and downs
in those relationships, and there were some domestic violence that
(13:53):
went on, and the defense readily admitted that. But the
question is did it really rise to the level of
racketeering conspiracy. Defense placed a large set that the jurors
would ultimately answer that question in the negative, and ultimately
they prevailed.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
The defense also took the tact of saying, you're not
going to like him. He is a drug user, he's
guilty of domestic violence, but he's not a sex trafficker.
And the women were willing participants.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Make no mistake, the defense had a tall order here
because they were presenting a defendant to the jury who
was not necessarily all that likable, a defendant who engaged
in some reprehensible conduct, who was on video beating up
his girlfriend, who at times had used controlling and threatening language,
(14:41):
so he wasn't particularly likable. In the way he was
presented to the jury, which is why I think they
decided ultimately to not have him take the stand. But
the focus of the case from the defense standpoint was
going to be more on the victims and really trying
to show jurors that the government had overcharged this case.
They presented this as a case of lifestyle versus criminality,
(15:05):
and ultimately all those of the lifestyle that I doubt
many jurors could really relate to. It was something that
they were willing to accept in the sense that they
did not believe that much of the conduct that the
government had put on during the course of the trial
amounted to criminal conduct.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Yeah. I mean, so the government pulled out all the stops,
they had all kinds of witnesses. Do you think they
did something wrong or they missed something, or was just
a question of overcharging.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
I think from the very beginning this was going to
be a difficult case for prosecutors, and prosecutors really bet
the entire case on the testimony of their victims. They
were hoping that these victims would come across as credible.
I think they were hoping that in this day and age,
jurors would be sensitive to the fact that there can't
(15:54):
be abusive relationships where women are assaulted but don't necessarily
leave their partners, and that doesn't mean that the acts
were consensual. There was a lot of complexity here that
I think the prosecution was hoping that curs could sort out,
and it simply turned out that yours were not buying
everything the government was trying to argue in terms of
(16:17):
who mister Combs was and what kind of criminality he
ultimately engaged in.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
So technically he faces ten years on each of the
transporting counts, but realistically, how much time do you think
the judge will give him.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Well, the judge is certainly going to take into account
the fact that mister Combs has already been in jail
for about a year, and he'll get credit for that
time serves. In terms of the two counts conviction, it's
highly likely that those will run concurrently, which means they
will run at the same time, so he won't be
facing twenty years. Really, the maximum sentence here will be ten,
(16:53):
but I don't think he'll even get that. The Federal
sentence in guidelines, which give judges guidance as to what
type of sentence they should hand down are going to
come out much lower than the ten years. And at
the end of the day here this is really up
to the judge. The judge has complete discretion, has to
decide what the appropriate sentence is here, and I think
that he will sentence mister Colmbs to some time in prison,
(17:16):
but it's not going to be anything close to ten years.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Do you think there's some added pressure on the judge
because of all the publicity this case has gotten, you know,
pressure not to let Combs off too lightly.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Well, the judge is not supposed to consider outside pressure
as you do. The judge is supposed to look at
the facts and all the circumstances. He sat through the trial,
he heard all the testimony, he heard from all the victims,
and he heard the defense arguments, and he has to
fashion a sentence that he believes is ultimately fair. But
I think as a practical matter, the judge can't ignore
the more serious charges that the defendant faced here and
(17:52):
the high publicity factor that was associated with this case.
So I think the judge is going to have to
balance all these factors, and I do think the judge
will sentenced mister Colmbs to some time in jail, but
they think it will be far less than the maximum
ten years that he's facing on each of the accounts.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Combs's lawyers said he'd likely face twenty one to twenty
seven months, but prosecutors said he'd likely face fifty one
to sixty three months, and he's already served nine months
because he's been jailed since his arrest. So we shall see.
But as you say, the final decision is the judges,
and the judge denied him bond and made the decision
(18:31):
to keep him in jail while he awaits sentencing.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
The fact that the judge refused bail here and decided
to keep mister Combs in jail pending sentencing, I think
reflects the very serious nature of these charges. Even though
he was ultimately not convicted of the most serious charges,
He's alreays spent a year in jail. He'll get time
served for this additional time between the time of conviction
(18:56):
and his sentencing, so ultimately it doesn't really work against him.
But I think the judge here is trying to convey
the fact that although he was ultimately convicted only of
the two less serious charges, the judge still considers this
a very serious case and still considers the conduct for
which mister Colmes was convicted as serious conduct that creates
(19:21):
a danger to the community.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints of maccarter and
English and in other legal news today. In a courtroom
in Boise, Idaho, Ryan Colberger pleaded guilty to the brutal
stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students in twenty
twenty two in order to avoid the death penalty. The
killings initially baffled law enforcement and unnerved the rural college
(19:47):
town of Moscow. Colberger was arrested in Pennsylvania, where his
parents lived, after investigators recovered a Q tip from the
garbage at his parents' house to match Colberger's DNA to
genetic material from a knife sheath found at the crime scene.
At the time, Colberger had just completed his first semester
as a graduate student in criminal justice at Washington State.
(20:11):
In the two years since his arrest, his attorneys unsuccessfully
attempted to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty and
challenged DNA evidence, but a plea deal was their final
alternative to spare his life. Before the start of a
trial in August Colberger remained impassive as Judge Stephen Hipler
(20:31):
questioned him, and he admitted to breaking into a rental
home through a kitchen sliding door and killing the four
friends who appeared to have no connection with him.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, in Leyta County, State
of Idaho, kill and murder Madison Mogan a human being?
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (20:55):
And did you do that willfully and lawfully, deliberately and
with premeditation and melissauthorpe of poor thought?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:03):
Did you Honor about that same date in Moscow, Idaho,
kill and murder Kayleie Gonzalez a human being?
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:12):
And did you do that wilfully, unlawfully, deliberately and with
premeditation and malicapport thought?
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:20):
And did you on that same date in Moscow, Idaho
kill and murder Xana Kernodle pardon me a human being?
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:27):
And did you do that wilfully and lawfully deliberately, with
premeditation and malicipport thought.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:34):
And then on or about November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
again in Leytoc County, Idaho, did you kill and murder
Ethan Chapin a human being?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, with premeditation and
malicapor thought yes.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Colberger will serve consecutive life sentences. At least one of
the families opposed the Plea deal, but others supported it,
saying they were ready to begin healing. The motive for
the murder remains unclear, and the murder weapon still has
not been found. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
(22:12):
This week, the Trump administration said an investigation found that
Harvard University violated civil rights laws in its treatment of
Jewish and Israeli students, further endangering federal funding for the school.
This ramps up pressure on the country's oldest university, less
than two weeks after President Donald Trump said he was
(22:33):
nearing a deal with the school following months of attacking it.
Harvard said it strongly disagrees with the government's findings and
said it has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate
and bias and remains committed to ensuring that Jewish and
Israeli students can thrive on campus. My guest is Ken Marcus,
(22:54):
the founder, chairman and CEO of the Brandeis Center. He
was the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights during
the first Trump administration, tell us about the allegations of
the Trump administration here.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
The Trump administration is alleging that Harvard violated Title six
of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four by
tolerating a hostile environment for Jewish students. Title six is
the key federal civil rights statute that provides protection for
students at federally assisted programs and activities against discrimination on
(23:32):
the basis of race, color, or national origin.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
So Harvard disputes the government's accounts, and it has said
several times in different settings that it has worked to
combat anti semitism.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Harvard has promised to take a number of steps to
address anti semitism, including in particular in their settlement with
my organization, the Louis Dei Brandeis Center. Those steps included,
for example, adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition
of anti Semitism. That's a major step, and it suggests
(24:09):
that Harvard is willing to use the standard that is
considered to be the gold standard for assessing anti semitism.
But Harvard certainly hasn't done all of the things that
advocates are urging, and there is room for improvement, to
be sure.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Tell us about that. What more you'd like to see.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
There are certainly things that Harvard can do to improve
its disciplinary process. There are things that it can do
to address the use of masks and protests. Harvard could
do more to address the kind of shunning of Jewish
and Israeli students that the task force has identified. There
(24:49):
are certainly lots of things that Harvard can do that
it hasn't yet committed to doing, and we'll see what
it does or doesn't do. But it certainly doesn't hurt
to have some pressure coming from outside sources like the
federal government.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
Harvard has said that the government in this case failed
to follow procedures for terminating funding over alleged violations of
Title six. Could that lead to dismissal of these allegations
by the administration.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
It really makes sense that Harvard will argue that the
federal government didn't follow the steps that are usually required.
I think that the federal government's recent findings of violation
from the Department of Health and Human Services was intended
in part to cure any potential deficiencies to dot the
(25:37):
eyes and cross the t's Whether the court would find
that the procedural irregularities rose to a level that provides
a defense for Harvard is something that we will just
have to see and what would.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Be the penalty for these alleged violations of Title six
if proven.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
One could certainly see additional loss of federal funds from
Harvard University. We could also see additional lawsuits from students, faculty, alumni,
and others. There are lots of different remedies that could
come into play, and it would be a significant stain
(26:18):
on the reputation of what has been, over the years,
one of our most prestigious institutions.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
The Trump administration initially accused Harvard of fostering anti Semitism,
but the attack has expanded to include accusations of political
bias and promoting diversity initiatives and hiring and admissions, and
the Trump administration's demand seem to be going far beyond
(26:46):
fighting anti semitism.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
There's no question that the Trump administration is urging Harvard
to do things that are not directly related to anti semitism,
but which the federal government argueses indirectly related. Critics of
the Trump administration suggest that It might be pretextual for
the Trump administration to go after Harvard for anti semitism
(27:11):
when they're concerned about things like DEI, But from the
administration's perspective, the fact is that DEI is related to
anti Semitism and some fairly complex and tight ways. For example,
not only do DEI programs often omit anti Semitism and
Jewish identity, but they will sometimes create stereotypes of Jews,
(27:36):
sometimes viewing Jews as being oppressors and participating in structures
of persecution, and therefore should be considered not as victims
but as perpetrators. When the Trump administration urges Arvored to
do things that aren't directly related to anti Semitism, the
argument is that they are nevertheless indirectly related.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
The Trump administration has real targeted Harvard. I mean, it's
scrap more than two point six billion dollars in federal
research funding for Harvard, threaten the school's tax exempt status,
and try to prevent it from enrolling foreign students. Why
is it so laser focused on Harvard?
Speaker 1 (28:18):
The Trump administration is actually focused on a lot of
institutions right now. Harvard and Columbia are the two that
we see the greatest amount of energy directed at But
there are actually quite a number over sixty institutions that
have been named by the Education Department the hindful that
are subject to present proactive reviews, and that I would
(28:42):
say others are also in the scopes. Those institutions that
think that they are in the clear because the Trump
administration is only focused on Harvard, I think are mistaken
the aims of the Trump administration. They are looking much
more broadly.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Do you agree with the way the administration is going
about this? I mean cutting off the funding, trying to
prevent foreign students from enrolling. That hurts a lot of
third parties. Why not let the courts decide this?
Speaker 1 (29:14):
The Trump administration properly recognizes a few things that had
eluded the prior administration. The first is that the post
October seventh environment on college campuses is extraordinary and unprecedented,
and therefore requires a response that is unprecedented and extraordinary.
(29:35):
The second is that the situation that we're seeing at
institutions like Harvard is pervasive of the institution, and therefore
the response should be a whole of the government response,
one that involves not only the Education Department, but also
agencies like Justice, the General Services, Administration, Health and Human Services,
(29:59):
and the agencies as well. What we're seeing is an
action that is fast, that is powerful, and that is
very broad. That is, I would say, exactly what is
needed in the present moment.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Harvard has been in talks with the White House. Apparently
they've stalled.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
We've seen that President Trump is always looking to make
a favorable deal that will benefit the American people. So
I would say that President Garber would be wise to
do what he can to enter into a settlement that
enables Harvard to do the research and teaching that it
wants to do, while enabling the government to be able
(30:45):
to say, truly and honestly that it is ensuring compliance
of federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish and all students.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
And tell me a little bit about your lawsuit against Harvard.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
We at the Louis de Brandai sent sued Harvard University
over the hostile environment at that campus since October seven
and also prior to October seven, as well as assaults
on Jewish students and discrimination against Israeli students who were
prevented from providing the speech and presentations that were available
(31:24):
to other students. We obtained earlier this year a favorable settlement.
Not all of the terms are public, but they include
some things that I believe can make some difference for
Harvard University. One of the big advances from our settlement
with Harvard University is that the university agreed to adopt
(31:46):
in its conduct code and elsewhere the definition of anti Semitism,
which is considered to be the gold standard for assessing
allegations of discrimination against Jewish students. That's the so called
IRA or International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working definition of Antisemitism.
Harvard also agreed to provide a new official who would
(32:09):
be an expert on this issue and who would monitor
incidents at Harvard and make sure that they were no
longer double standards used to assess allegations of anti Semitism?
Speaker 2 (32:21):
And do you think the Trump administration is going to
continue this attack on Harvard?
Speaker 1 (32:27):
While the Trump administration has already been taking a large
number of very forceful actions against Harvard, it's not clear
that they're done. There are agencies like the Securities and
Exchange Commission that could also be engaged with potential additional
remedies that go even beyond what we've seen so far.
(32:50):
At the same time, we know that the administration is
not focused only on Harvard and that there is more
to come for other Universe cities around the country and
perhaps other institutions as well.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Thanks for joining me today. That's Ken Marcus of the
Brandeis Center, 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 Podcast. You can find
them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg
dot com slash podcast slash Law, And remember to tune
(33:24):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
After more than six weeks of sometimes graphic and emotional testimony,
the jury deliberated about thirteen hours before acquitting Sean Diddy
Comb's of the most serious charges against him, racketeering, conspiracy,
and sex trafficking charges relating to allegations that he used
his money, power and physical force to manipulate his girlfriends
(00:32):
into hundreds of drug fueled sex marathons. The jury only
convicted Combs of the lesser charge of transportation to engage
in prostitution, so instead of facing a life sentence, Combs
is facing a maximum prison sentence of ten years and
likely much less than that. After the verdict was read,
(00:54):
Combs put his hands together and mouthed thank you to
the jurors. He got down on his knee, his head bowed,
apparently in prayer. As the jurors left the courtroom, his
relatives in the audience applauded him and his lawyers, some
of whom had tears in their eyes as he was
led out of court. My guest is former federal prosecutor
(01:14):
Robert Mintz, a partner maccarter in English. Bob apparently, Combs,
his relatives, and his lawyers all thought that this was
a win, despite the fact that he is facing some
prison time.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Given the charges he was potentially facing, which included up
to life in prison for the racketeering conspiracy and a
minimum sentence of fifteen years to life for sex trafficking,
the fact that he was only convicted of two counts
of transportation to engaging prostitution can't be viewed as anything
other than a win by the defense and a bitter
(01:50):
loss for prosecutors.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Let's go through the charges. So the top count racketeering conspiracy,
and the charge has historical life been used to take
down mob bosses like John Gotti. Did the prosecutors overcharge
him with this count?
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Well, I think that's going to be the question that
prosecutors will have to ask themselves when they look back
on this case, whether or not it was overcharged with
the Rico conspiracy. Now, the Rico conspiracy, as you say,
has been used traditionally in order to prosecute organized crime figures,
but it has been used more broadly in recent years
and was used in a high profile case just a
(02:31):
couple of years ago in the r. Kelly case where
that hip hop artist was also charged with rico and
sex trafficking in twenty twenty one, and in that instance
prosecutors did get a conviction. But here jurors ultimately concluded
that the rico conspiracy was overcharged, that the prosecution did
not meet the burden of showing that Sean Combs had
(02:54):
used his business empire as a vehicle in order to
commit further out at and in order to force his
former girlfriends into performing sexual acts against their will.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Bob, when a prosecutor overcharges, does that give the defense
an opening to, you know, to get the jury to
doubt the whole case, that it's all exaggerated.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Well, that's ultimately where this case turned. It was really
an argument by the defense that although mister Combe had
committed some abhorrent acts, they had the video of him
picking Passi Ventura by the elevator bank out in Beverly
Hills that was undeniably bad behavior and painted mister Combs
in a very negative light. But when that was held
(03:41):
up against the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy, which
included certain criminal acts such as forced labor, bribery, obstruction
of justice, all of that was thrown in and basically
prosecutors were staying that he uses vast empire that he
built up over many years simply as a means of
(04:02):
forcing these ex girlfriends to continue to perform these sexual
acts against their will, and all the while they were
coerced into doing this. The defense was able to effectively
pick that apart by showing text messages from both of
the victims which at various times suggested that they had
participated in these acts willfully, that they were not coerced,
(04:25):
that they could have left but chose not to, And
ultimately I think that was the downfall for the prostitution's case.
It really ultimately turned on whether they believed that the
victims were actually trapped in this relationship and had no
way out and were literally forced to commit these acts,
or whether this is more complex than that, and the
(04:46):
defense was able to show that these relationships, while toxic,
while not healthy, and while it involved bad behavior by
mister Holmes, didn't rise to the level of racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
The jury said yesterday afternoon that it was unable to
reach a verdict, a unanimous verdict on the racketeering conspiracy
charge because there were jurors with unpersuadable views on both sides.
But today, after an hour of deliberations, they came to
a unanimous verdict on that charge. Do you think that
(05:22):
with the long weekend ahead, the jurors who wanted to
convict on that charge sort of caved.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Well, it's impossible to know really what goes on in
the jury room. You don't know the dialogue between and
among the jurors, the conversations that are going on. But
it did seem like the fact that they were stuck
on this most serious charge suggested to at least some
observers that they found a guilty verdict on some of
(05:49):
the lesser charges, including perhaps the sex trafficking. But it
turned out that they only convicted on the most minor charges,
and they did reach a decision before the long holiday weekend.
That's not unusual. Juries like to go home for weekends.
They like to put this case behind them. But on
the other hand, when you were the prosecution, you're sitting
(06:10):
there thinking that was a seven week trial. We produced
over thirty witnesses, and the fact that juris came back
in only two days with a verdict suggested that they
moved very quickly through this process looking at the evidence
and reaching a verdict in a way that prosecutors are
certainly disappointed with.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
So the two sex trafficking acquittals which stem from allegations
that Combs coerced to women his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventur
and a Jane Doe into these so called freak offs,
and Ventura testified over four days some very emotional testimony.
I mean, you refer to this, but did the jurors
(06:49):
just not believe her?
Speaker 3 (06:51):
It's hard to say exactly what they were thinking. That
testimony was compelling, That testimony had to be very emotional
for juris to it through, and yet at the end
of the day they did not believe that she was
necessarily compelled to participate in commercial sex acts through force, fraud,
and coercion. The key here is there has to be
(07:13):
a link between the force, the fraud, and the coercion
and the acts of sex, and I think at the
end of the day the evidence was just not clear
enough for them to meet that burden. Remember, prosecutors have
to prove in their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything
less than that will result in an acquittal, as we
saw here.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
And sex trafficking did the charges even fit the facts here?
Aren't people usually charged with sex trafficking when it's unrelated people,
not people in long term relationships like these women in Combs.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Yeah, that was I think one of the problems too,
because the victims here were involved in these long term relationships,
and they had written many messages, emails, text messages, other
writings evidencing their love for mister Combs at various times.
The fact that they willingly participated in some of these acts,
the fact that they did things in order to please him,
(08:10):
and the fact fact that after some of these sessions
they texted him saying that they enjoyed them. And I
think it was very difficult for jurors to necessarily conclude
that all of this was done against their will, that
none of it was consensual. And as you say, June,
it's a situation where the sex trafficking charge is typically
brought in an instance where the perpetrator does not have
(08:33):
a relationship with the victim. Here there was a long
term relationship, one that was very complicated, and also one
in which the victims had benefited financially from their relationship
with mister Combs. So it became I think very difficult
for jurors to sort out the true nature of those relationships.
I don't think they necessarily disbelieved the victims, but I
(08:56):
think they ultimately concluded that the fact as presented to
them in court did not meet the elements of the
sex trafficking charges.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
So you mentioned the financial settlements. Ventura got thirty million
dollars from Comb's and hotel, and that was used by
the defense attorney in his closing statements. He called her
a winner. And I'm wondering how much a huge settlement
like that might affect a jury's view of a witness.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I think it had to affect them, and I don't
think it necessarily meant that jurors didn't believe what she
was saying, But I think it fed into the defense's
narrative that this was a complicated relationship, that the relationship
was toxic. But at the end of the day, there
was responsibility by both parties that created this toxic relationship,
(09:50):
and they ultimately could not conclude that mister Combs should
be convicted of this very serious charge based on a
record that was unclear at best.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
He was convicted. He was He was convicted of two
counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. That stems from
allegations that he paid sex workers to come to his
freak off parties. Tell us about that. That's a felony
violation of the Federal Man Act.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
These were the charges that were really easiest for prosecutors
to prove, because all they have to show is that
individual's cross state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution.
And there was plenty of evidence presented at the trial
that mister Colms had made arrangements for these male prostitutes
to meet with his girlfriends. He'd bought plane tickets, there
(10:39):
were credit card statements, there were hotel records. These were
the charges that prosecutors were able to prove fairly readily,
and there wasn't really much of a defense to them.
I think the defense strategy was to focus on the
more serious charges, which they ultimately succeeded in convincing jurors
to quit their client on Bob.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
I'm wondering because the jurors found him guilty of the
lowest count, whether some jurors thought this case is overcharge,
let's go for the lowest count, or whether they took
each charge and considered each one on its own merits.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
One thing that you do see sometimes behind the curtains
in jury deliberations is what it's called a compromised verdict. Now,
there's no way to know whether that happened here or not,
but you do sometimes have jurors on one side who
want to convict on all counts, jurors on the other
side who may want to acquit, and ultimately they may
compromise by convicting on some but not all counts. We
(11:39):
don't really know whether that happened here, and I'm not
suggesting that it necessarily did, but that is a phenomenon
that happened sometimes. We don't know whether that was going
on here or whether jurors simply went through these counts
count by count And we're convinced that the sex trafficking
and the rico conspiracy charges were just as you said, June,
(11:59):
over charge and did not apply the fact of the case.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Stay with me, Bob. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
Laws Show, I'll continue this conversation with former federal prosecutor
Robert Mintz. We'll talk about the defense strategy and how
it won the jurors over despite not presenting any witnesses.
I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Sean did
(12:23):
he Combs dropped to his knees and prayed in the
courtroom after he was acquitted today of sex trafficking and
racketeering charges that could have put him behind bars for life.
The hip hop mogul was convicted of lesser prostitution related offenses.
He still faces prison time, but likely much much less
(12:44):
than the ten year maximum. I've been talking to former
federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter in english Combe's defense.
Did it take a huge risk by deciding not to
put on any witnesses at all and to rely on
the cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses, which sometimes went
(13:05):
on longer than the direct examinations.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
No.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
I think from the very start the defense strategy was
always to win their case through cross examination. I think
they correctly sized the case up and knew that it
was going to turn on the testimony of the two
victims and how compelling they were, and that by adding
witnesses for the defense it was only going to complicate
the case and create a more complex narrative for them
(13:31):
to have to convince cures ask exactly what was going
on here. They wanted the case ultimately to be about
these two victims and to show that the relationship that
they were in with mister Colmbs over many years was
one in which they gained financially, one in which they
willingly participated. In no doubt, they were ups and downs
in those relationships, and there were some domestic violence that
(13:53):
went on, and the defense readily admitted that. But the
question is did it really rise to the level of
racketeering conspiracy. Defense placed a large set that the jurors
would ultimately answer that question in the negative, and ultimately
they prevailed.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
The defense also took the tact of saying, you're not
going to like him. He is a drug user, he's
guilty of domestic violence, but he's not a sex trafficker.
And the women were willing participants.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Make no mistake, the defense had a tall order here
because they were presenting a defendant to the jury who
was not necessarily all that likable, a defendant who engaged
in some reprehensible conduct, who was on video beating up
his girlfriend, who at times had used controlling and threatening language,
(14:41):
so he wasn't particularly likable. In the way he was
presented to the jury, which is why I think they
decided ultimately to not have him take the stand. But
the focus of the case from the defense standpoint was
going to be more on the victims and really trying
to show jurors that the government had overcharged this case.
They presented this as a case of lifestyle versus criminality,
(15:05):
and ultimately all those of the lifestyle that I doubt
many jurors could really relate to. It was something that
they were willing to accept in the sense that they
did not believe that much of the conduct that the
government had put on during the course of the trial
amounted to criminal conduct.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Yeah. I mean, so the government pulled out all the stops,
they had all kinds of witnesses. Do you think they
did something wrong or they missed something, or was just
a question of overcharging.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
I think from the very beginning this was going to
be a difficult case for prosecutors, and prosecutors really bet
the entire case on the testimony of their victims. They
were hoping that these victims would come across as credible.
I think they were hoping that in this day and age,
jurors would be sensitive to the fact that there can't
(15:54):
be abusive relationships where women are assaulted but don't necessarily
leave their partners, and that doesn't mean that the acts
were consensual. There was a lot of complexity here that
I think the prosecution was hoping that curs could sort out,
and it simply turned out that yours were not buying
everything the government was trying to argue in terms of
(16:17):
who mister Combs was and what kind of criminality he
ultimately engaged in.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
So technically he faces ten years on each of the
transporting counts, but realistically, how much time do you think
the judge will give him.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Well, the judge is certainly going to take into account
the fact that mister Combs has already been in jail
for about a year, and he'll get credit for that
time serves. In terms of the two counts conviction, it's
highly likely that those will run concurrently, which means they
will run at the same time, so he won't be
facing twenty years. Really, the maximum sentence here will be ten,
(16:53):
but I don't think he'll even get that. The Federal
sentence in guidelines, which give judges guidance as to what
type of sentence they should hand down are going to
come out much lower than the ten years. And at
the end of the day here this is really up
to the judge. The judge has complete discretion, has to
decide what the appropriate sentence is here, and I think
that he will sentence mister Colmbs to some time in prison,
(17:16):
but it's not going to be anything close to ten years.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Do you think there's some added pressure on the judge
because of all the publicity this case has gotten, you know,
pressure not to let Combs off too lightly.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Well, the judge is not supposed to consider outside pressure
as you do. The judge is supposed to look at
the facts and all the circumstances. He sat through the trial,
he heard all the testimony, he heard from all the victims,
and he heard the defense arguments, and he has to
fashion a sentence that he believes is ultimately fair. But
I think as a practical matter, the judge can't ignore
the more serious charges that the defendant faced here and
(17:52):
the high publicity factor that was associated with this case.
So I think the judge is going to have to
balance all these factors, and I do think the judge
will sentenced mister Colmbs to some time in jail, but
they think it will be far less than the maximum
ten years that he's facing on each of the accounts.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Combs's lawyers said he'd likely face twenty one to twenty
seven months, but prosecutors said he'd likely face fifty one
to sixty three months, and he's already served nine months
because he's been jailed since his arrest. So we shall see.
But as you say, the final decision is the judges,
and the judge denied him bond and made the decision
(18:31):
to keep him in jail while he awaits sentencing.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
The fact that the judge refused bail here and decided
to keep mister Combs in jail pending sentencing, I think
reflects the very serious nature of these charges. Even though
he was ultimately not convicted of the most serious charges,
He's alreays spent a year in jail. He'll get time
served for this additional time between the time of conviction
(18:56):
and his sentencing, so ultimately it doesn't really work against him.
But I think the judge here is trying to convey
the fact that although he was ultimately convicted only of
the two less serious charges, the judge still considers this
a very serious case and still considers the conduct for
which mister Colmes was convicted as serious conduct that creates
(19:21):
a danger to the community.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints of maccarter and
English and in other legal news today. In a courtroom
in Boise, Idaho, Ryan Colberger pleaded guilty to the brutal
stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students in twenty
twenty two in order to avoid the death penalty. The
killings initially baffled law enforcement and unnerved the rural college
(19:47):
town of Moscow. Colberger was arrested in Pennsylvania, where his
parents lived, after investigators recovered a Q tip from the
garbage at his parents' house to match Colberger's DNA to
genetic material from a knife sheath found at the crime scene.
At the time, Colberger had just completed his first semester
as a graduate student in criminal justice at Washington State.
(20:11):
In the two years since his arrest, his attorneys unsuccessfully
attempted to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty and
challenged DNA evidence, but a plea deal was their final
alternative to spare his life. Before the start of a
trial in August Colberger remained impassive as Judge Stephen Hipler
(20:31):
questioned him, and he admitted to breaking into a rental
home through a kitchen sliding door and killing the four
friends who appeared to have no connection with him.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, in Leyta County, State
of Idaho, kill and murder Madison Mogan a human being?
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (20:55):
And did you do that willfully and lawfully, deliberately and
with premeditation and melissauthorpe of poor thought?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:03):
Did you Honor about that same date in Moscow, Idaho,
kill and murder Kayleie Gonzalez a human being?
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:12):
And did you do that wilfully, unlawfully, deliberately and with
premeditation and malicapport thought?
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:20):
And did you on that same date in Moscow, Idaho
kill and murder Xana Kernodle pardon me a human being?
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:27):
And did you do that wilfully and lawfully deliberately, with
premeditation and malicipport thought.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:34):
And then on or about November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
again in Leytoc County, Idaho, did you kill and murder
Ethan Chapin a human being?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, with premeditation and
malicapor thought yes.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Colberger will serve consecutive life sentences. At least one of
the families opposed the Plea deal, but others supported it,
saying they were ready to begin healing. The motive for
the murder remains unclear, and the murder weapon still has
not been found. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
(22:12):
This week, the Trump administration said an investigation found that
Harvard University violated civil rights laws in its treatment of
Jewish and Israeli students, further endangering federal funding for the school.
This ramps up pressure on the country's oldest university, less
than two weeks after President Donald Trump said he was
(22:33):
nearing a deal with the school following months of attacking it.
Harvard said it strongly disagrees with the government's findings and
said it has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate
and bias and remains committed to ensuring that Jewish and
Israeli students can thrive on campus. My guest is Ken Marcus,
(22:54):
the founder, chairman and CEO of the Brandeis Center. He
was the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights during
the first Trump administration, tell us about the allegations of
the Trump administration here.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
The Trump administration is alleging that Harvard violated Title six
of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four by
tolerating a hostile environment for Jewish students. Title six is
the key federal civil rights statute that provides protection for
students at federally assisted programs and activities against discrimination on
(23:32):
the basis of race, color, or national origin.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
So Harvard disputes the government's accounts, and it has said
several times in different settings that it has worked to
combat anti semitism.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Harvard has promised to take a number of steps to
address anti semitism, including in particular in their settlement with
my organization, the Louis Dei Brandeis Center. Those steps included,
for example, adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition
of anti Semitism. That's a major step, and it suggests
(24:09):
that Harvard is willing to use the standard that is
considered to be the gold standard for assessing anti semitism.
But Harvard certainly hasn't done all of the things that
advocates are urging, and there is room for improvement, to
be sure.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Tell us about that. What more you'd like to see.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
There are certainly things that Harvard can do to improve
its disciplinary process. There are things that it can do
to address the use of masks and protests. Harvard could
do more to address the kind of shunning of Jewish
and Israeli students that the task force has identified. There
(24:49):
are certainly lots of things that Harvard can do that
it hasn't yet committed to doing, and we'll see what
it does or doesn't do. But it certainly doesn't hurt
to have some pressure coming from outside sources like the
federal government.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
Harvard has said that the government in this case failed
to follow procedures for terminating funding over alleged violations of
Title six. Could that lead to dismissal of these allegations
by the administration.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
It really makes sense that Harvard will argue that the
federal government didn't follow the steps that are usually required.
I think that the federal government's recent findings of violation
from the Department of Health and Human Services was intended
in part to cure any potential deficiencies to dot the
(25:37):
eyes and cross the t's Whether the court would find
that the procedural irregularities rose to a level that provides
a defense for Harvard is something that we will just
have to see and what would.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Be the penalty for these alleged violations of Title six
if proven.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
One could certainly see additional loss of federal funds from
Harvard University. We could also see additional lawsuits from students, faculty, alumni,
and others. There are lots of different remedies that could
come into play, and it would be a significant stain
(26:18):
on the reputation of what has been, over the years,
one of our most prestigious institutions.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
The Trump administration initially accused Harvard of fostering anti Semitism,
but the attack has expanded to include accusations of political
bias and promoting diversity initiatives and hiring and admissions, and
the Trump administration's demand seem to be going far beyond
(26:46):
fighting anti semitism.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
There's no question that the Trump administration is urging Harvard
to do things that are not directly related to anti semitism,
but which the federal government argueses indirectly related. Critics of
the Trump administration suggest that It might be pretextual for
the Trump administration to go after Harvard for anti semitism
(27:11):
when they're concerned about things like DEI, But from the
administration's perspective, the fact is that DEI is related to
anti Semitism and some fairly complex and tight ways. For example,
not only do DEI programs often omit anti Semitism and
Jewish identity, but they will sometimes create stereotypes of Jews,
(27:36):
sometimes viewing Jews as being oppressors and participating in structures
of persecution, and therefore should be considered not as victims
but as perpetrators. When the Trump administration urges Arvored to
do things that aren't directly related to anti Semitism, the
argument is that they are nevertheless indirectly related.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
The Trump administration has real targeted Harvard. I mean, it's
scrap more than two point six billion dollars in federal
research funding for Harvard, threaten the school's tax exempt status,
and try to prevent it from enrolling foreign students. Why
is it so laser focused on Harvard?
Speaker 1 (28:18):
The Trump administration is actually focused on a lot of
institutions right now. Harvard and Columbia are the two that
we see the greatest amount of energy directed at But
there are actually quite a number over sixty institutions that
have been named by the Education Department the hindful that
are subject to present proactive reviews, and that I would
(28:42):
say others are also in the scopes. Those institutions that
think that they are in the clear because the Trump
administration is only focused on Harvard, I think are mistaken
the aims of the Trump administration. They are looking much
more broadly.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Do you agree with the way the administration is going
about this? I mean cutting off the funding, trying to
prevent foreign students from enrolling. That hurts a lot of
third parties. Why not let the courts decide this?
Speaker 1 (29:14):
The Trump administration properly recognizes a few things that had
eluded the prior administration. The first is that the post
October seventh environment on college campuses is extraordinary and unprecedented,
and therefore requires a response that is unprecedented and extraordinary.
(29:35):
The second is that the situation that we're seeing at
institutions like Harvard is pervasive of the institution, and therefore
the response should be a whole of the government response,
one that involves not only the Education Department, but also
agencies like Justice, the General Services, Administration, Health and Human Services,
(29:59):
and the agencies as well. What we're seeing is an
action that is fast, that is powerful, and that is
very broad. That is, I would say, exactly what is
needed in the present moment.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Harvard has been in talks with the White House. Apparently
they've stalled.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
We've seen that President Trump is always looking to make
a favorable deal that will benefit the American people. So
I would say that President Garber would be wise to
do what he can to enter into a settlement that
enables Harvard to do the research and teaching that it
wants to do, while enabling the government to be able
(30:45):
to say, truly and honestly that it is ensuring compliance
of federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish and all students.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
And tell me a little bit about your lawsuit against Harvard.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
We at the Louis de Brandai sent sued Harvard University
over the hostile environment at that campus since October seven
and also prior to October seven, as well as assaults
on Jewish students and discrimination against Israeli students who were
prevented from providing the speech and presentations that were available
(31:24):
to other students. We obtained earlier this year a favorable settlement.
Not all of the terms are public, but they include
some things that I believe can make some difference for
Harvard University. One of the big advances from our settlement
with Harvard University is that the university agreed to adopt
(31:46):
in its conduct code and elsewhere the definition of anti Semitism,
which is considered to be the gold standard for assessing
allegations of discrimination against Jewish students. That's the so called
IRA or International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working definition of Antisemitism.
Harvard also agreed to provide a new official who would
(32:09):
be an expert on this issue and who would monitor
incidents at Harvard and make sure that they were no
longer double standards used to assess allegations of anti Semitism?
Speaker 2 (32:21):
And do you think the Trump administration is going to
continue this attack on Harvard?
Speaker 1 (32:27):
While the Trump administration has already been taking a large
number of very forceful actions against Harvard, it's not clear
that they're done. There are agencies like the Securities and
Exchange Commission that could also be engaged with potential additional
remedies that go even beyond what we've seen so far.
(32:50):
At the same time, we know that the administration is
not focused only on Harvard and that there is more
to come for other Universe cities around the country and
perhaps other institutions as well.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Thanks for joining me today. That's Ken Marcus of the
Brandeis Center, 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 Podcast. You can find
them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg
dot com slash podcast slash Law, And remember to tune
(33:24):
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
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com