January 30, 2025 • 35 mins
Labor and employment law expert Kate Andrias, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the first union win at a Whole Foods. Dave Aronberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney, discusses the possibility that charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams could be dropped and the Kash Patel confirmation hearings for FBI Director. Bloomberg legal reporter David Voreacos discusses the sentencing of former US Senator Bob Menendez.
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 Grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Workers at a Whole Foods market in Pennsylvania voted to
unionize this week, the first win for labor at the
Amazon owned grocery store chain. Amazon has fiercely resisted union
organizing efforts by its workers and is still waging a
court battle against the first union election at a Staten
Island warehouse three years ago, even challenging the structure of
(00:32):
the National Labor Relations Board at a federal appeals court.
Joining me is an expert in labor and employment law,
Kate Andreas, a professor at Columbia Law School. Kate tell
us about this first union win at Whole Foods, at.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Least within the United States. It's the first to organize,
and Amazon has been a notoriously anti union company. It
bought the union, as you know, very aggressively in its warehouses,
where one group of workers has successfully or But these
workers at Whole Foods also work for Amazon or in
the Amazon's overall corporate family, and they decided to organize
(01:08):
the union. They withstood a very intense anti union campaign
by the employer, but a majority of them continued stuck together.
And did vote in an NLRB election to unionize.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It was closed one hundred and thirty workers to one hundred.
Tell us about this campaign of intimidation, and the union
local also filed unfair labored practice charges against Amazon.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Yeah, I mean that kind of close vote count is
not at all uncommon due to anti union campaigns that
employers run. So frequently. When workers file for an election,
they have a very strong majority, and then what happens
is that employers engage in a lot of anti union campaigning,
some of which is illegal, some of which is legal,
(01:55):
but that is aimed to course workers into not exercising
their right to unionize, ranging from things like holding mandatory
meetings where they tell workers not to vote for the union,
or they suggest that if they do, they're going to
lose benefits. Sometimes they threaten individual workers or even fire
individual workers, and all of those activities are designed to
(02:16):
try to commence workers not to organize unions. The allegation
is that Holso did commit various unfair labor practices during
this campaign, but it doesn't have to be adjudicated by
the board.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
The company has five days to challenge the election before
the results are certified and then it has to bargain
with the union for a contract covering the stores unionized workers.
But nearly three years ago, and we talked about this,
Amazon warehouse workers in Staten Island voted to be represented
by a union. Now they've since affiliated with the Teamsters,
(02:51):
but Amazon has refused to come to the bargaining table
in three years.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Yeah, I mean, so, the problem is that the law
obligates employers to bargain in good faith, but it doesn't
have a lot of enforcement mechanism. For example, it doesn't
have a mechanism for the government for the NRB to
impose a settlement if the employer refuses to bargain in
good faith. So employers frequently exploit the weaknesses and the
laws to resist bargaining, especially for a first contract. So
(03:19):
for example, it can file challenges and objections, even frivolous objections,
just to delay. But even if they just agree to bargain,
often they engage in surface bargaining. So just going through
the motions of bargaining and again doing so is elegal.
It's an unfair labor practice, but the remedies essentially are insufficient.
Usually what happens is the boards orders them to bargain.
(03:40):
So it really does highlight why we need labor law
or form in this country. That said, it doesn't mean
workers never win first contract. And when they're sufficiently united
and when they successfully organize other stores within the chain,
that often creates enough economic pressure on the company to bargain.
And so what we've seen happen, for example, in Starbucks,
(04:01):
they also haven't reached a first contract, but they've made
a lot more progress and the company does appear to
be bargaining because so many Starbucks shops across the country
have organized. The more workers organize, the more power they
have within a particular firm, the more likely it is
they are able to win a first contract, even if
the employer violates the law. The other complication they sing
(04:24):
workers today, as weak as the law is, the Biden
Board was very aggressive in trying to enforce the law,
in going to court where necessary to get injunctions and
issuing decisions against employers who violate the law. And the
future of the board is very much in question right
now under the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
The Amazon workers in Staten Island are affiliated now with
the Teamsters, a really powerful union. If the Teamsters can't
get Amazon to the bargaining table. Then I wonder what
can well.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
I think that the workers now have a a lot
more resources behind them because they have affiliated with the Teamsters.
I also think that the Teamsters are working with other
Amazon workers across the country to try to organize that
other facilities, and that really can help build enough power
to force Amazon into bargaining. So I think that really
has to be a long term strategy of organizing more
(05:18):
workers within the company. I know that many workers are interested,
or as I understand, at least some of the new
workers within the company are interested, and so I think
long term, if more warehouses organized, then that can create
enough pressure on the company to bargain in good face.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
this conversation with Columbia Law School professor Kate Andreas. Amazon
has challenged the election outcome in court. They accuse the
NLRBF tampering in the union election, and Amazon, along with
Elon Musk's space x, is challenging the constitutionality of the
(05:55):
National Labor Relations Board at the Fifth Circuit, which is
the most conservative circuit in the country. Tell us about
their arguments at the Fifth Circuit about the constitutionality of
the NLRB.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
So Amazon is making a number of arguments about why
the board is unconstitutional, including arguing that the structure of
the NRB is unconstitutional. And this is part of a
number of cases that various employers have brought challenging the
constitutionality of the board. Among other arguments, they contend that
the fact that the president cannot fire board members or
(06:30):
fire administrative law judges whenever he wants, that that is unconstitutional.
And they also argue that the structure of the board,
because the board exercises various powers that are not purely
executive in nature, that that violates principles of separation of powers.
And it means that Congress has delegated too much power
(06:51):
to the executive branch. So they're making some fairly fundamental
arguments challenging the structure of the board, which would also
drawn to question many other administrative agencies. And these are
arguments that the Supreme Court rejected nearly one hundred years ago.
First in a case involving the Federal Trade Commission, the
(07:13):
Court held that it is permissible for Congress to put
restrictions on when the president can fire board members when
there's a multi member board, so it is permissible for
Congress to design an agency so that has some measure
of independence from the president to create multi member boards
where the board members serve for terms and can only
(07:33):
be removed for cause. The Supreme Court is already format
and a case calls Humphrey's Executor way back in nineteen
thirty five, and then in nineteen thirty seven, the Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of the NLRA. So the companies,
including Amazon, are challenging these nearly one hundred years of
precedent that holds that the board is constitutional and that
(07:55):
the MLRA is constitutional. So they're really trying to upend
our system of law that's been around for one hundred
years and also attack the whole administrative state in doing so.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
So that brings me to the question that I've been
asking a lot lately. Those decisions were well before the
Roberts Court began to curb agency powers. So might this
court look at the issue differently?
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yeah, I think there's a real risk. So, as you said,
the Roberts Court has issued a series of opinions that
weakens the administrative agencies, and these cases which Amazon is pursuing,
but also which President Trump is peeing up because he
just fired one of the board members. These cases key
up for the Supreme Court a question about whether or
(08:41):
not it should overrule this very long standing precedent. And
there certainly is some reason to fear that this court
that has been so hostile to administrative agencies and also
so hot out so workers in various labor cases, might
find merit in these really unprecedented legal arguments.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Let's talk for minute about that he removed a democratic
member of the NLRB. Also he removed two Democratic EEOC commissioners.
Those actions are unprecedented. But as far as the NLRB goes,
is it unlawful?
Speaker 3 (09:18):
I believe it is unlawful under the existing law because
the statute allows the president to fire board members upon
notice and hearing for neglect of duty or mal seasons
in office, but for no other cause, And as far
as I know, there's been no allegation that the board
member who is removed engaged in any neglect of duty
(09:40):
or malfeasance in office. So it is, on its face
an action that is illegal that contradicts the statute.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Kate, does the same thing apply to the firings of
the EOC commissioners or is that a different.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Law, So it's a different statute, but it also has
four cause protection, so those commissioners also can only be
removed for cause. And my understanding again is that there's
no allegation that they did anything that was merit termination
for cause.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
I assume that the commissioners are going to file lawsuits
over these firings, and anyone Trump appoints to fill those
slots would be in a tenuous position. How long could
litigation like this take.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Well, in the ordinary case, it could take quite a
while for a case to go all the way up
through the court system. There's also the possibility that the
parties would seek expedited relief. That it's a little hard
to predict how long it will take. Similar issues, though,
are also percolating in those other cases that we discussed,
where the employers have made the argument that these removal protections,
(10:44):
the statutory provisions that prevent the president from firing board
members are illegal. So the case could get up to
the Supreme Court either through challenge made by the EOC
commissioners or Commissioner willcoxim on the board, or through one
of these other cases that's currently in the Fifth Circuit to.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
The Supreme Court's decisions having to do with appointments and
protections for removal have any bearing here.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
There are a few cases from the Court in recent
years that have drawn into question removal protections of other
kinds of officers with an administrative agencies. So there was
a case in which the Court held that protections against
removal for a single head agency that those are unconstitutional.
(11:33):
And there was another case where the Court held that
dual for cause protection, so that there's essentially two layers
of protection, that that is impermissible.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
But the Court.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Hasn't extended those rulings to either these multi member boards
where the decision was reached in nineteen thirty five that
that is okay to protect them from firing, nor has
it been extended the idea that the president has the
right to fire whomever he wants whenever he wants to
administrative law judges. There's good policy reasons for not allowing
(12:03):
the president to fire administrative law judges or members of
these independent agencies board members or commissioners. So with the judges,
in order to have a system of rule of law,
we want judges to have a measure of independence to
be doing their work based on merit and not out
of fear that if they issue a decision with which
(12:25):
the president disagrees that they'll lose their job. It's the
same basic idea for why we have life tenure for
federal judges. We want a system of independence judging to
uphold the rule of law, and that's why Congress designed
the system in that way. The same thing with these
multi member agencies. Congress designed them in order that they
would have a certain measure of independence from the president. Now,
(12:45):
they still ultimately largely follow the president's policy used because
when the president wins, he or she ends up appointing
the majority of the members. So we do see the
board's policies splitting quite a bit when there's a administration.
But they don't have to be worried about losing their jobs,
you know, unless they violate the law or in some
(13:06):
other way. It deserves to be fired for cause.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
So, I mean, we're going from a president Biden who
walked the picket lines in Detroit to a president that
is opposed to unions. Besides, you know what you've talked about,
are there any other implications of having a president like
this in the White House.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
I mean, the President has made really clear that he's
opposed to unions, he's opposed to workers having the right
to strike, he's opposed to workers unionizing. What we saw
during the last Trump administration was that he ticked officials
to lead agencies who took a very anti worker position
on a range of issues, from overtime pay to right
(13:51):
to organize, to who counts as an employee and therefore
gets rights under the Statute, a whole host of issues.
Trump has in the past at least picked officials to
leave the agency who's taken a very anti worker position.
My guess is more likely to see that happen again.
In addition, I think we also will see a lot
(14:11):
of anti worker activity from this administration with respect to
the federal workforce, as we already have.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
We certainly have seen a lot of that and several
lawsuits filed already. Thanks so much, Kate. That's Professor Kate
Andreas of Columbia Law School. Eric Adams is the first
New York City mayor in modern history to be indicted
while in office, facing federal charges of bribery, fraud, conspiracy,
(14:38):
and soliciting illegal campaign contributions. Adams has pleaded not guilty
and refused to step down. He's also been making overtures
to President Donald Trump, attending his inauguration, and even traveling
to mar A Lago in Florida just before the inauguration
to meet with the President elect. Adams has said legal
(15:00):
case was never discussed.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
He went in a.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
Small conversation as he is getting ready to move into
the presidency.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
I enjoyed a conversation.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
We talked about the issue of the City of New yorkery.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Now, as first reported by The New York Times, Justice
Department officials have discussed dropping the corruption chargers against Adams
with prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who
are handling the case. Joining me is Dave Ahrenberg. Former
Palm Beach County State Attorney. Eric Adams is scheduled to
go to trial in April. To these Justice Department discussions
(15:36):
about dropping the case against him at this point strike
you as unusual, fishy or par for the course.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Well, June, We've always known that Donald Trump was transactional
and he liked people who like him, and Eric Adams
went to mar A Lago at the last minute when
he got the invitation, and he also went to the
inauguration at the last minute when he got the invitation.
He went down there to pay homage, to pay tribute
to the leader, the guy who could pardon him, and
(16:06):
it looks like it's paying dividends. Eric Adams is saying
that those visits were to represent the people in New York,
but they weren't on his official calendar, and he didn't
want too many people to know what he was doing
and when he was talking about. So we know what
was going on here. Eric Adams is there to stave himself.
He knows he's not going to get re elected as
mayor and so he wants to preserve his freedom and
(16:27):
looks like it may be working.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Eric adams lawyer is Alex Spiro, the personal attorney for
Elon Musk. Does that connection to Trump's new best friend
help well?
Speaker 1 (16:40):
When it comes to Alex Spuro, He has had a
lot of high profile clients. He's currently representing Jay Z
for example, he successfully got Alec Baldwin out of his mess.
He's a bulldog. He is a very aggressive attorney. Someone
He's not very well liked because he is known for
being extremely arrogant, so he fits right in with this
(17:00):
crowd apparently. I don't know how much influence he has
in magaworld, but I'm sure he helps with Elon, which
helps with Trump. But ultimately it's Trump's decision. And Trump
likes people who like him, and Eric Adams has gone
overboard to genuflect at the Trump Alter. This is so obvious.
I mean, we all know that Eric Adams is a
whole lot of legal trouble that Trump can get him
(17:22):
out of. Only Trump can save him. Really, Now, what
is interesting is that when he took off to the inauguration,
he left a couple of Martin Luther King Day events
that he had committed to and he just took off.
He seems to know that his political days in New
York are numbered, and so now it's all about protecting
your freedom.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
New York is a sanctuary city and there was a
high profile ICE raid pre dawn raid in the Bronx
on Tuesday, which the new Secretary of Homeland Security went
on and Adam said later that he directed the NYPD
to coordinate with DHS, Homeland Security investigations, and other federal
(18:05):
law enforcement agencies as allowed by law to conduct a
targeted operation. Quite a different reaction than from the mayor
of Chicago, which is also a sanctuary city.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Well yeah, I mean, and the mayor is interested in
staying out of the houscau and so I'm not surprised
he hasn't raised the fuss about Trump's executive actions. So
this is the administration we're going to be dealing with.
This is administration that is transactional. And Eric Adams is
facing years in prison. Look at Bob Menendez. Bob Menendez
(18:38):
and Eric Adams essentially did the same thing allegedly where
Eric Adams was involved with Turkey, Bob Menendez was involved
with Egypt, and they were all taking foreign funds illegally
allegedly for Eric Adams. And when it comes to the
tune of them, look how different it. Meanwhile, Eric Adams
may get a pardon and may even avoid a trial,
(18:59):
and Bob Menendez was sentenced to eleven years in prison.
It just depends, I guess, on whether or not the
President of the United States likes you. And Bob Menendez
now is speaking out and saying things that are sympathetic
towards Donald Trump. I wonder why you know, Bob Menendez
came out and said that he understands Donald Trump's feelings
(19:20):
about federal law enforcement and the weaponization. And you know,
so now he's starting to play for the part. I
mean to get in line, Michael Abanati. You've got all
these people who used to be Trump critics now lining
up to say nice things about the guy who could
secure their freedom.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
And to add to the list of people seeking pardons.
Sam bankman Fried, according to Bloomberg sources, his parents are
exploring ways to secure a pardon. They've had meetings in
recent weeks with lawyers and other figures considered to be
in Trump's orbit about clemency for SBF, who's serving a
(19:56):
twenty five year sentence. Trump has set the president, as
you mentioned, for Adams, let's talk about getting a pardon
versus having the Justice Department drop the charges. It looks
better for both Trump and Eric Adams if the case
is dropped, rather than that he's convicted and given a pardon.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Oh yeah. Also, it avoids a lot of expense, time
aggravation if you can just get rid of it now.
But no matter what happens, Eric Adams, his political career's toast.
It just whether or not he can stay out of
prison and avoid his trials. So I mean I would
blame him for trying to play for that that's his
best route to get out of these charges. More charges
could be coming. Of course, he could always stay state charges,
(20:39):
which are pardon proof, So that's another possibility. If he
is pardoned before any trials he wants, a jury is seated,
then double jeopardy attaches, and so there is a pitfall.
There is a risk in having a pardon that comes
too soon, because then it could still open them up
to state charges.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
What's also sort of unusual and perhaps problematic for the
Southern District is that the interim US Attorney last week
issued this rebuke to Adams claims that he's the victim
of political persecution. And also earlier this month, prosecutors wrote
(21:17):
that they'd continued to uncover additional criminal conduct by Adams,
indicating that there might be new charges in the works,
and the defense attorney also mentioned additional evidence. So it's
a peculiar time to be dropping the case, and it's
a bad look for the Southern District.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Well, the bad look would be for the White House
if they bigfooted the Southern District and said we're ending
this whole case and because of politics purely, but we
saw fifteen hundred writers get pardoned. Some of them are
violent cop attackers, So why should we be surprised that
Trump looks like he is going to pardon the mayor
(21:57):
meer City who is playing Knight.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
I wonder what the future of public corruption cases is
in the Trump administration because earlier this week, the Justice
Department senior career official in charge of overseeing public corruption
investigations resigned after the Trump administration reassigned him to a
(22:21):
new role working on immigration issues, and federal prosecutors have
moved to stop several ongoing cases, including one against Jeffrey Fortenberry,
a Republican congressman from Nebraska who is facing a second
trial on campaign finance violations.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
Again, we're going to see this a lot where people
who are independent of Trump, who to go a different
direction than the White House will be reassigned, removed, fired.
There'll be a lot of that going on. I'm hopeful
that when Pambondi is confirmed as Attorney General, they'll study
the ship, because right now the ship of the Department
(23:01):
of Justice is singing. Well. One thing you can say
is that none of this is a surprise. I mean,
Trump ran on politicizing the Department of Justice. He was
going to make sure they're not independent. He ran as
being your retribution, and so we should not be surprised
by it. It's just it's gotten real lately because you
see actual things happening, like the release of violent rioters,
(23:22):
the ending of corruption cases. It just depends on which
side you're on. Are you on Trump's side or are
you on the other side, because if you're on the
other side against Trump, then those cases aren't going away.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Of course, they also fired at least a dozen prosecutors
who worked on Trump's criminal cases. Quote in light of
their actions, the acting Attorney General does not trust these
officials to assist in faithfully implementing the president's agenda. This
action is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization
of government. Can those prosecutors now sue the Trump administration?
Speaker 1 (23:58):
They do every coourse because they are not political appointees,
they have civil service protections. But even though they can
win in court and get their jobs back, really, what
future do they have at this Department of Justice? Even
if they get their job back, they'll get reassigned to
some area where they don't want to be. You know,
(24:18):
they'll get sent to the basement to count paper clips.
So no matter what happens, their days at the Department
of Justice under his disadministration are numbered as far as
winning in court. Yeah, they said, win in court and
get some back pay and have the court chastise in
Trump administration. But you know Trump doesn't care.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Stay with me, Dave. Coming up next, as President Trump
is reshaping the Justice Department. His pick to lead the FBI,
Cash Patel faced opposition from Senate Democrats during his confirmation
hearings today, with critics accusing him of lacking experience and
judgment to lead the agency. Patateel insisted that he didn't
(24:59):
have enemies list and that the bureau under his leadership
would not seek retribution against Trump's adversaries or launch investigations
for political purposes.
Speaker 5 (25:12):
The only thing that will matter if I'm confirmed as
a director of the FBI is a de weaponized, depoliticized
system of law enforcement, completely devoted to rigorous obedience of
the Constitution and a singular standard of justice.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Patel faced a persistent line of attack from Democrat They
confronted Patel with a vast catalog of his incendiary statements,
including an enemies list in the twenty twenty three book
he authored, and his calls for purging anti Trump conspirators
in the government den news media. Here's an exchange he
had with Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
Here's what this nominee himself has said about using his
office to prosecute journalists. We will go out and find
the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media.
We're gonna come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly.
(26:11):
Is that a correct quotation, mister Patel, Senator. That's a
partial quotation, but it's correct in part.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
I've been talking to former Palm Beach County State Attorney
Dave Ahrenberg. So Trump has picked to lead the FBI,
a man who sat on a podcast after the election
that he would turn the FBI building into a museum.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Isn't a critic of the FBI, calling it the deep state.
I've known Cash to Tell for a while and havn't
spoken him and for seen him since twenty seventeen. But
he was, i would say, previously on Team normal until
he changed around twenty twenty. I think it was when
the CIA flagged his national security file and referred him
(26:56):
to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation over allegedly
mishandling classified information. And this is while Patel was high
up in the Trump National Security Agency, and so Petatel
reacted to that, and that would be, according to Petel's critics,
his villain origination story, because that's when he hardened his
(27:19):
views against the so called deep state because he had
to deal with that criminal investigation of him, and he
said he did nothing wrong. This was a material that
he included in a memo that he circulated involving the
Russia probe. So you know, he's always been out out
to get those who investigated Trump over Russia, and now
(27:39):
he saw the CIA moving against him, so he was
out to get them after that, and then later on
in twenty twenty two, he learned that the Department of
Justice had subpoenaed his Gmail account as personal emails. Back
in twenty seventeen while he was working for the House
(28:03):
Select Intelligence Committee as senior counsel and they were investigating
a potential leak that happened, a leak of national security information.
So Ptel did not realize that his emails had been
subpoenaed and given over to the Department of Justice, so
that just stealed his resolve to go after the so
called deep State. That's what led to his enemy's list
(28:24):
sixty individuals from the Deep States who he wants to incarcerate,
including members of what he calls the media mafia. So
that's why Cash Pattel became who he is today. He's
a different person than when I knew him a few
years ago.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
So what is his goal for the FBI?
Speaker 3 (28:40):
Then?
Speaker 1 (28:40):
He has said that he wants to get the FBI
back to being copped where they're not involved with the
intelligence community. But you remember the reason why the FBI
is involved with intelligence and worked so closely with the CIA.
It was because of nine to eleven. There was so
much criticism that the FBI was asleep at the wheel,
that beIN Logen was doing all these infarious things, and
the FBI was not coordinating with the CIA, and that's
(29:03):
why there were reforms in place. So it looks like
Pateel wants to undo that and go back to the
original mission of the FBI domestic law enforcement. But that
will come at the expense, in my mind, of national security.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Up to six top FBI executives have been told to
expect reassignments if Cash Pattel is confirmed as director and
they're the official handling active terrorists, cyber and other threats.
And these are people who are experienced in their field
and well respected.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Right because he wants to limit the scope of the FBI.
His personal experience was that the FBI encroached upon his
personal liberties and he liked Trump interprets actions against themselves
actions against the United States. So Trump says, I will
be a retribution, and cast Hotel has the same enemies
(30:00):
list as Donald Trump, So it's a match made in
heaven right well, because both of them are on the
same page when it comes to going after the same enemies. Now,
I do think that once Cash Mootel is in the
role FBI director, I do think he will back off
a bit on just targeting enemies because caam Bondi already
said that's not going to happen here, and he can
(30:22):
only go so far. He can get himself in a
lot of trouble if he fakes evidence and brings garbage
cases against individuals, he will blow up in the space now,
but he can do damage if he does go after
individuals he the spikes. As they say, you can beat
the rat, but you can't beat the ride.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Let's say he's successful at what he wants to do
to the FBI and he remains in office for four years,
how much damage can he do?
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Well if he changes the scope of the FBI to
no longer work with THECI on intelligence, international terrorism, and counterintelligence,
then I think actional security will be at risk. That's
what led to nine to eleven. So you may not
see the impact until much later, but at some point,
if God forbid, there's a terrorist attacking is touching you
(31:10):
wonder why the FBI was not coordinating with our spy agencies.
Well there's a reason why.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Well we shall see if a fierce critic of the
FBI gets to lead it. Thanks so much, Dave. That's
Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney. Former US
Senator Bob Menendez was sentenced to eleven years in prison
for acting as a foreign agent of Egypt and accepting
gold bars and other bribes in what prosecutors said was
(31:39):
perhaps the worst corruption case ever involving a US senator.
Menendez maintains his innocence.
Speaker 4 (31:46):
Welcome to the Southern District of New York, the wild
West of political prosecutions. President Trump is right. This process
is political and it's corrupted to the core.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis, who covered
the trial. In Sentencing David, eleven years for a seventy
one year old man seems like a harsh punishment.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
It is a very tough sentence that US histric Judge
Sidney Stein gave to ex Senator Menendez, but it's actually
a departure downward from advisory sentencing guidelines under federal law.
The judge gave him a bit of leniency for his
age and for his five decades of service to the
(32:33):
public as an elected official.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Tell Us about his tearful plead to the judge before he.
Speaker 6 (32:39):
Was sentenced, Bob Menendez was quite choked up. The courtroom
was packed, and he made a heartfelt, emotional appeal for mercy.
He asked the judge to consider his long career in
the Senate and the House, and the many actions he
(33:01):
had taken for his constituents, the legislative accomplishments that he
had achieved, and the advocacy that he had put forward
on behalf of Hispanics, people in New Jersey, even refugees
or immigrants in the United States. He sort of gave
(33:23):
a tearful overview of his career and said that the
judge should not focus only on his crimes, but you
know the full accomplishments in his life.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
When he went outside the courtroom, he seemed to be
reaching out to President Trump. He said, the process is
political and it's corrupted to the core. I hope President
Trump cleans up the cesspool and restores integrity to the system.
Is he looking for a pardon from Trump?
Speaker 6 (33:55):
He is planning to ask Trump for a pardon. It's
not clear whether that would happen. He has been a
vocal critic of Trump for many years, but in saying
that he's the victim of a witch hunt now, which
is what he said yesterday, he's sort of parroting the
language that Trump uses, and he seems to be appealing
(34:19):
to Trump's sense that the Justice Department is broken and
carries out vindictive and political prosecutions.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
He says he's going to appeal. Do you know any
of the arguments he plans to raise in the appeal?
Speaker 6 (34:33):
Yeah, A couple of the arguments have to do with
the speech or debate protections that legislators have through the
US Constitution. There was a dispute that happened in the
last couple of months relating to the laptop full of
exhibits that went to jurors, and prosecutors disclosed that they
(34:54):
gave exhibits that were unredacted and supposed to be reacted
to the jury that the defense lawyer said directly implicated
the speechure debate clause by referring to legislative actions. That
Menendez took quite.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
A downfall for a once powerful and respected senator. Thanks
so much, David. That's David Voriakis, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, 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,
(35:35):
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 Grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Workers at a Whole Foods market in Pennsylvania voted to
unionize this week, the first win for labor at the
Amazon owned grocery store chain. Amazon has fiercely resisted union
organizing efforts by its workers and is still waging a
court battle against the first union election at a Staten
Island warehouse three years ago, even challenging the structure of
(00:32):
the National Labor Relations Board at a federal appeals court.
Joining me is an expert in labor and employment law,
Kate Andreas, a professor at Columbia Law School. Kate tell
us about this first union win at Whole Foods, at.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Least within the United States. It's the first to organize,
and Amazon has been a notoriously anti union company. It
bought the union, as you know, very aggressively in its warehouses,
where one group of workers has successfully or But these
workers at Whole Foods also work for Amazon or in
the Amazon's overall corporate family, and they decided to organize
(01:08):
the union. They withstood a very intense anti union campaign
by the employer, but a majority of them continued stuck together.
And did vote in an NLRB election to unionize.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It was closed one hundred and thirty workers to one hundred.
Tell us about this campaign of intimidation, and the union
local also filed unfair labored practice charges against Amazon.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Yeah, I mean that kind of close vote count is
not at all uncommon due to anti union campaigns that
employers run. So frequently. When workers file for an election,
they have a very strong majority, and then what happens
is that employers engage in a lot of anti union campaigning,
some of which is illegal, some of which is legal,
(01:55):
but that is aimed to course workers into not exercising
their right to unionize, ranging from things like holding mandatory
meetings where they tell workers not to vote for the union,
or they suggest that if they do, they're going to
lose benefits. Sometimes they threaten individual workers or even fire
individual workers, and all of those activities are designed to
(02:16):
try to commence workers not to organize unions. The allegation
is that Holso did commit various unfair labor practices during
this campaign, but it doesn't have to be adjudicated by
the board.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
The company has five days to challenge the election before
the results are certified and then it has to bargain
with the union for a contract covering the stores unionized workers.
But nearly three years ago, and we talked about this,
Amazon warehouse workers in Staten Island voted to be represented
by a union. Now they've since affiliated with the Teamsters,
(02:51):
but Amazon has refused to come to the bargaining table
in three years.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Yeah, I mean, so, the problem is that the law
obligates employers to bargain in good faith, but it doesn't
have a lot of enforcement mechanism. For example, it doesn't
have a mechanism for the government for the NRB to
impose a settlement if the employer refuses to bargain in
good faith. So employers frequently exploit the weaknesses and the
laws to resist bargaining, especially for a first contract. So
(03:19):
for example, it can file challenges and objections, even frivolous objections,
just to delay. But even if they just agree to bargain,
often they engage in surface bargaining. So just going through
the motions of bargaining and again doing so is elegal.
It's an unfair labor practice, but the remedies essentially are insufficient.
Usually what happens is the boards orders them to bargain.
(03:40):
So it really does highlight why we need labor law
or form in this country. That said, it doesn't mean
workers never win first contract. And when they're sufficiently united
and when they successfully organize other stores within the chain,
that often creates enough economic pressure on the company to bargain.
And so what we've seen happen, for example, in Starbucks,
(04:01):
they also haven't reached a first contract, but they've made
a lot more progress and the company does appear to
be bargaining because so many Starbucks shops across the country
have organized. The more workers organize, the more power they
have within a particular firm, the more likely it is
they are able to win a first contract, even if
the employer violates the law. The other complication they sing
(04:24):
workers today, as weak as the law is, the Biden
Board was very aggressive in trying to enforce the law,
in going to court where necessary to get injunctions and
issuing decisions against employers who violate the law. And the
future of the board is very much in question right
now under the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
The Amazon workers in Staten Island are affiliated now with
the Teamsters, a really powerful union. If the Teamsters can't
get Amazon to the bargaining table. Then I wonder what
can well.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
I think that the workers now have a a lot
more resources behind them because they have affiliated with the Teamsters.
I also think that the Teamsters are working with other
Amazon workers across the country to try to organize that
other facilities, and that really can help build enough power
to force Amazon into bargaining. So I think that really
has to be a long term strategy of organizing more
(05:18):
workers within the company. I know that many workers are interested,
or as I understand, at least some of the new
workers within the company are interested, and so I think
long term, if more warehouses organized, then that can create
enough pressure on the company to bargain in good face.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
this conversation with Columbia Law School professor Kate Andreas. Amazon
has challenged the election outcome in court. They accuse the
NLRBF tampering in the union election, and Amazon, along with
Elon Musk's space x, is challenging the constitutionality of the
(05:55):
National Labor Relations Board at the Fifth Circuit, which is
the most conservative circuit in the country. Tell us about
their arguments at the Fifth Circuit about the constitutionality of
the NLRB.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
So Amazon is making a number of arguments about why
the board is unconstitutional, including arguing that the structure of
the NRB is unconstitutional. And this is part of a
number of cases that various employers have brought challenging the
constitutionality of the board. Among other arguments, they contend that
the fact that the president cannot fire board members or
(06:30):
fire administrative law judges whenever he wants, that that is unconstitutional.
And they also argue that the structure of the board,
because the board exercises various powers that are not purely
executive in nature, that that violates principles of separation of powers.
And it means that Congress has delegated too much power
(06:51):
to the executive branch. So they're making some fairly fundamental
arguments challenging the structure of the board, which would also
drawn to question many other administrative agencies. And these are
arguments that the Supreme Court rejected nearly one hundred years ago.
First in a case involving the Federal Trade Commission, the
(07:13):
Court held that it is permissible for Congress to put
restrictions on when the president can fire board members when
there's a multi member board, so it is permissible for
Congress to design an agency so that has some measure
of independence from the president to create multi member boards
where the board members serve for terms and can only
(07:33):
be removed for cause. The Supreme Court is already format
and a case calls Humphrey's Executor way back in nineteen
thirty five, and then in nineteen thirty seven, the Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of the NLRA. So the companies,
including Amazon, are challenging these nearly one hundred years of
precedent that holds that the board is constitutional and that
(07:55):
the MLRA is constitutional. So they're really trying to upend
our system of law that's been around for one hundred
years and also attack the whole administrative state in doing so.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
So that brings me to the question that I've been
asking a lot lately. Those decisions were well before the
Roberts Court began to curb agency powers. So might this
court look at the issue differently?
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yeah, I think there's a real risk. So, as you said,
the Roberts Court has issued a series of opinions that
weakens the administrative agencies, and these cases which Amazon is pursuing,
but also which President Trump is peeing up because he
just fired one of the board members. These cases key
up for the Supreme Court a question about whether or
(08:41):
not it should overrule this very long standing precedent. And
there certainly is some reason to fear that this court
that has been so hostile to administrative agencies and also
so hot out so workers in various labor cases, might
find merit in these really unprecedented legal arguments.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Let's talk for minute about that he removed a democratic
member of the NLRB. Also he removed two Democratic EEOC commissioners.
Those actions are unprecedented. But as far as the NLRB goes,
is it unlawful?
Speaker 3 (09:18):
I believe it is unlawful under the existing law because
the statute allows the president to fire board members upon
notice and hearing for neglect of duty or mal seasons
in office, but for no other cause, And as far
as I know, there's been no allegation that the board
member who is removed engaged in any neglect of duty
(09:40):
or malfeasance in office. So it is, on its face
an action that is illegal that contradicts the statute.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Kate, does the same thing apply to the firings of
the EOC commissioners or is that a different.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Law, So it's a different statute, but it also has
four cause protection, so those commissioners also can only be
removed for cause. And my understanding again is that there's
no allegation that they did anything that was merit termination
for cause.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
I assume that the commissioners are going to file lawsuits
over these firings, and anyone Trump appoints to fill those
slots would be in a tenuous position. How long could
litigation like this take.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Well, in the ordinary case, it could take quite a
while for a case to go all the way up
through the court system. There's also the possibility that the
parties would seek expedited relief. That it's a little hard
to predict how long it will take. Similar issues, though,
are also percolating in those other cases that we discussed,
where the employers have made the argument that these removal protections,
(10:44):
the statutory provisions that prevent the president from firing board
members are illegal. So the case could get up to
the Supreme Court either through challenge made by the EOC
commissioners or Commissioner willcoxim on the board, or through one
of these other cases that's currently in the Fifth Circuit to.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
The Supreme Court's decisions having to do with appointments and
protections for removal have any bearing here.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
There are a few cases from the Court in recent
years that have drawn into question removal protections of other
kinds of officers with an administrative agencies. So there was
a case in which the Court held that protections against
removal for a single head agency that those are unconstitutional.
(11:33):
And there was another case where the Court held that
dual for cause protection, so that there's essentially two layers
of protection, that that is impermissible.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
But the Court.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Hasn't extended those rulings to either these multi member boards
where the decision was reached in nineteen thirty five that
that is okay to protect them from firing, nor has
it been extended the idea that the president has the
right to fire whomever he wants whenever he wants to
administrative law judges. There's good policy reasons for not allowing
(12:03):
the president to fire administrative law judges or members of
these independent agencies board members or commissioners. So with the judges,
in order to have a system of rule of law,
we want judges to have a measure of independence to
be doing their work based on merit and not out
of fear that if they issue a decision with which
(12:25):
the president disagrees that they'll lose their job. It's the
same basic idea for why we have life tenure for
federal judges. We want a system of independence judging to
uphold the rule of law, and that's why Congress designed
the system in that way. The same thing with these
multi member agencies. Congress designed them in order that they
would have a certain measure of independence from the president. Now,
(12:45):
they still ultimately largely follow the president's policy used because
when the president wins, he or she ends up appointing
the majority of the members. So we do see the
board's policies splitting quite a bit when there's a administration.
But they don't have to be worried about losing their jobs,
you know, unless they violate the law or in some
(13:06):
other way. It deserves to be fired for cause.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
So, I mean, we're going from a president Biden who
walked the picket lines in Detroit to a president that
is opposed to unions. Besides, you know what you've talked about,
are there any other implications of having a president like
this in the White House.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
I mean, the President has made really clear that he's
opposed to unions, he's opposed to workers having the right
to strike, he's opposed to workers unionizing. What we saw
during the last Trump administration was that he ticked officials
to lead agencies who took a very anti worker position
on a range of issues, from overtime pay to right
(13:51):
to organize, to who counts as an employee and therefore
gets rights under the Statute, a whole host of issues.
Trump has in the past at least picked officials to
leave the agency who's taken a very anti worker position.
My guess is more likely to see that happen again.
In addition, I think we also will see a lot
(14:11):
of anti worker activity from this administration with respect to
the federal workforce, as we already have.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
We certainly have seen a lot of that and several
lawsuits filed already. Thanks so much, Kate. That's Professor Kate
Andreas of Columbia Law School. Eric Adams is the first
New York City mayor in modern history to be indicted
while in office, facing federal charges of bribery, fraud, conspiracy,
(14:38):
and soliciting illegal campaign contributions. Adams has pleaded not guilty
and refused to step down. He's also been making overtures
to President Donald Trump, attending his inauguration, and even traveling
to mar A Lago in Florida just before the inauguration
to meet with the President elect. Adams has said legal
(15:00):
case was never discussed.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
He went in a.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
Small conversation as he is getting ready to move into
the presidency.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
I enjoyed a conversation.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
We talked about the issue of the City of New yorkery.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Now, as first reported by The New York Times, Justice
Department officials have discussed dropping the corruption chargers against Adams
with prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who
are handling the case. Joining me is Dave Ahrenberg. Former
Palm Beach County State Attorney. Eric Adams is scheduled to
go to trial in April. To these Justice Department discussions
(15:36):
about dropping the case against him at this point strike
you as unusual, fishy or par for the course.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Well, June, We've always known that Donald Trump was transactional
and he liked people who like him, and Eric Adams
went to mar A Lago at the last minute when
he got the invitation, and he also went to the
inauguration at the last minute when he got the invitation.
He went down there to pay homage, to pay tribute
to the leader, the guy who could pardon him, and
(16:06):
it looks like it's paying dividends. Eric Adams is saying
that those visits were to represent the people in New York,
but they weren't on his official calendar, and he didn't
want too many people to know what he was doing
and when he was talking about. So we know what
was going on here. Eric Adams is there to stave himself.
He knows he's not going to get re elected as
mayor and so he wants to preserve his freedom and
(16:27):
looks like it may be working.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Eric adams lawyer is Alex Spiro, the personal attorney for
Elon Musk. Does that connection to Trump's new best friend
help well?
Speaker 1 (16:40):
When it comes to Alex Spuro, He has had a
lot of high profile clients. He's currently representing Jay Z
for example, he successfully got Alec Baldwin out of his mess.
He's a bulldog. He is a very aggressive attorney. Someone
He's not very well liked because he is known for
being extremely arrogant, so he fits right in with this
(17:00):
crowd apparently. I don't know how much influence he has
in magaworld, but I'm sure he helps with Elon, which
helps with Trump. But ultimately it's Trump's decision. And Trump
likes people who like him, and Eric Adams has gone
overboard to genuflect at the Trump Alter. This is so obvious.
I mean, we all know that Eric Adams is a
whole lot of legal trouble that Trump can get him
(17:22):
out of. Only Trump can save him. Really, Now, what
is interesting is that when he took off to the inauguration,
he left a couple of Martin Luther King Day events
that he had committed to and he just took off.
He seems to know that his political days in New
York are numbered, and so now it's all about protecting
your freedom.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
New York is a sanctuary city and there was a
high profile ICE raid pre dawn raid in the Bronx
on Tuesday, which the new Secretary of Homeland Security went
on and Adam said later that he directed the NYPD
to coordinate with DHS, Homeland Security investigations, and other federal
(18:05):
law enforcement agencies as allowed by law to conduct a
targeted operation. Quite a different reaction than from the mayor
of Chicago, which is also a sanctuary city.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Well yeah, I mean, and the mayor is interested in
staying out of the houscau and so I'm not surprised
he hasn't raised the fuss about Trump's executive actions. So
this is the administration we're going to be dealing with.
This is administration that is transactional. And Eric Adams is
facing years in prison. Look at Bob Menendez. Bob Menendez
(18:38):
and Eric Adams essentially did the same thing allegedly where
Eric Adams was involved with Turkey, Bob Menendez was involved
with Egypt, and they were all taking foreign funds illegally
allegedly for Eric Adams. And when it comes to the
tune of them, look how different it. Meanwhile, Eric Adams
may get a pardon and may even avoid a trial,
(18:59):
and Bob Menendez was sentenced to eleven years in prison.
It just depends, I guess, on whether or not the
President of the United States likes you. And Bob Menendez
now is speaking out and saying things that are sympathetic
towards Donald Trump. I wonder why you know, Bob Menendez
came out and said that he understands Donald Trump's feelings
(19:20):
about federal law enforcement and the weaponization. And you know,
so now he's starting to play for the part. I
mean to get in line, Michael Abanati. You've got all
these people who used to be Trump critics now lining
up to say nice things about the guy who could
secure their freedom.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
And to add to the list of people seeking pardons.
Sam bankman Fried, according to Bloomberg sources, his parents are
exploring ways to secure a pardon. They've had meetings in
recent weeks with lawyers and other figures considered to be
in Trump's orbit about clemency for SBF, who's serving a
(19:56):
twenty five year sentence. Trump has set the president, as
you mentioned, for Adams, let's talk about getting a pardon
versus having the Justice Department drop the charges. It looks
better for both Trump and Eric Adams if the case
is dropped, rather than that he's convicted and given a pardon.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Oh yeah. Also, it avoids a lot of expense, time
aggravation if you can just get rid of it now.
But no matter what happens, Eric Adams, his political career's toast.
It just whether or not he can stay out of
prison and avoid his trials. So I mean I would
blame him for trying to play for that that's his
best route to get out of these charges. More charges
could be coming. Of course, he could always stay state charges,
(20:39):
which are pardon proof, So that's another possibility. If he
is pardoned before any trials he wants, a jury is seated,
then double jeopardy attaches, and so there is a pitfall.
There is a risk in having a pardon that comes
too soon, because then it could still open them up
to state charges.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
What's also sort of unusual and perhaps problematic for the
Southern District is that the interim US Attorney last week
issued this rebuke to Adams claims that he's the victim
of political persecution. And also earlier this month, prosecutors wrote
(21:17):
that they'd continued to uncover additional criminal conduct by Adams,
indicating that there might be new charges in the works,
and the defense attorney also mentioned additional evidence. So it's
a peculiar time to be dropping the case, and it's
a bad look for the Southern District.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Well, the bad look would be for the White House
if they bigfooted the Southern District and said we're ending
this whole case and because of politics purely, but we
saw fifteen hundred writers get pardoned. Some of them are
violent cop attackers, So why should we be surprised that
Trump looks like he is going to pardon the mayor
(21:57):
meer City who is playing Knight.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
I wonder what the future of public corruption cases is
in the Trump administration because earlier this week, the Justice
Department senior career official in charge of overseeing public corruption
investigations resigned after the Trump administration reassigned him to a
(22:21):
new role working on immigration issues, and federal prosecutors have
moved to stop several ongoing cases, including one against Jeffrey Fortenberry,
a Republican congressman from Nebraska who is facing a second
trial on campaign finance violations.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
Again, we're going to see this a lot where people
who are independent of Trump, who to go a different
direction than the White House will be reassigned, removed, fired.
There'll be a lot of that going on. I'm hopeful
that when Pambondi is confirmed as Attorney General, they'll study
the ship, because right now the ship of the Department
(23:01):
of Justice is singing. Well. One thing you can say
is that none of this is a surprise. I mean,
Trump ran on politicizing the Department of Justice. He was
going to make sure they're not independent. He ran as
being your retribution, and so we should not be surprised
by it. It's just it's gotten real lately because you
see actual things happening, like the release of violent rioters,
(23:22):
the ending of corruption cases. It just depends on which
side you're on. Are you on Trump's side or are
you on the other side, because if you're on the
other side against Trump, then those cases aren't going away.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Of course, they also fired at least a dozen prosecutors
who worked on Trump's criminal cases. Quote in light of
their actions, the acting Attorney General does not trust these
officials to assist in faithfully implementing the president's agenda. This
action is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization
of government. Can those prosecutors now sue the Trump administration?
Speaker 1 (23:58):
They do every coourse because they are not political appointees,
they have civil service protections. But even though they can
win in court and get their jobs back, really, what
future do they have at this Department of Justice? Even
if they get their job back, they'll get reassigned to
some area where they don't want to be. You know,
(24:18):
they'll get sent to the basement to count paper clips.
So no matter what happens, their days at the Department
of Justice under his disadministration are numbered as far as
winning in court. Yeah, they said, win in court and
get some back pay and have the court chastise in
Trump administration. But you know Trump doesn't care.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Stay with me, Dave. Coming up next, as President Trump
is reshaping the Justice Department. His pick to lead the FBI,
Cash Patel faced opposition from Senate Democrats during his confirmation
hearings today, with critics accusing him of lacking experience and
judgment to lead the agency. Patateel insisted that he didn't
(24:59):
have enemies list and that the bureau under his leadership
would not seek retribution against Trump's adversaries or launch investigations
for political purposes.
Speaker 5 (25:12):
The only thing that will matter if I'm confirmed as
a director of the FBI is a de weaponized, depoliticized
system of law enforcement, completely devoted to rigorous obedience of
the Constitution and a singular standard of justice.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Patel faced a persistent line of attack from Democrat They
confronted Patel with a vast catalog of his incendiary statements,
including an enemies list in the twenty twenty three book
he authored, and his calls for purging anti Trump conspirators
in the government den news media. Here's an exchange he
had with Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
Here's what this nominee himself has said about using his
office to prosecute journalists. We will go out and find
the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media.
We're gonna come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly.
(26:11):
Is that a correct quotation, mister Patel, Senator. That's a
partial quotation, but it's correct in part.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
I've been talking to former Palm Beach County State Attorney
Dave Ahrenberg. So Trump has picked to lead the FBI,
a man who sat on a podcast after the election
that he would turn the FBI building into a museum.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Isn't a critic of the FBI, calling it the deep state.
I've known Cash to Tell for a while and havn't
spoken him and for seen him since twenty seventeen. But
he was, i would say, previously on Team normal until
he changed around twenty twenty. I think it was when
the CIA flagged his national security file and referred him
(26:56):
to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation over allegedly
mishandling classified information. And this is while Patel was high
up in the Trump National Security Agency, and so Petatel
reacted to that, and that would be, according to Petel's critics,
his villain origination story, because that's when he hardened his
(27:19):
views against the so called deep state because he had
to deal with that criminal investigation of him, and he
said he did nothing wrong. This was a material that
he included in a memo that he circulated involving the
Russia probe. So you know, he's always been out out
to get those who investigated Trump over Russia, and now
(27:39):
he saw the CIA moving against him, so he was
out to get them after that, and then later on
in twenty twenty two, he learned that the Department of
Justice had subpoenaed his Gmail account as personal emails. Back
in twenty seventeen while he was working for the House
(28:03):
Select Intelligence Committee as senior counsel and they were investigating
a potential leak that happened, a leak of national security information.
So Ptel did not realize that his emails had been
subpoenaed and given over to the Department of Justice, so
that just stealed his resolve to go after the so
called deep State. That's what led to his enemy's list
(28:24):
sixty individuals from the Deep States who he wants to incarcerate,
including members of what he calls the media mafia. So
that's why Cash Pattel became who he is today. He's
a different person than when I knew him a few
years ago.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
So what is his goal for the FBI?
Speaker 3 (28:40):
Then?
Speaker 1 (28:40):
He has said that he wants to get the FBI
back to being copped where they're not involved with the
intelligence community. But you remember the reason why the FBI
is involved with intelligence and worked so closely with the CIA.
It was because of nine to eleven. There was so
much criticism that the FBI was asleep at the wheel,
that beIN Logen was doing all these infarious things, and
the FBI was not coordinating with the CIA, and that's
(29:03):
why there were reforms in place. So it looks like
Pateel wants to undo that and go back to the
original mission of the FBI domestic law enforcement. But that
will come at the expense, in my mind, of national security.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Up to six top FBI executives have been told to
expect reassignments if Cash Pattel is confirmed as director and
they're the official handling active terrorists, cyber and other threats.
And these are people who are experienced in their field
and well respected.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Right because he wants to limit the scope of the FBI.
His personal experience was that the FBI encroached upon his
personal liberties and he liked Trump interprets actions against themselves
actions against the United States. So Trump says, I will
be a retribution, and cast Hotel has the same enemies
(30:00):
list as Donald Trump, So it's a match made in
heaven right well, because both of them are on the
same page when it comes to going after the same enemies. Now,
I do think that once Cash Mootel is in the
role FBI director, I do think he will back off
a bit on just targeting enemies because caam Bondi already
said that's not going to happen here, and he can
(30:22):
only go so far. He can get himself in a
lot of trouble if he fakes evidence and brings garbage
cases against individuals, he will blow up in the space now,
but he can do damage if he does go after
individuals he the spikes. As they say, you can beat
the rat, but you can't beat the ride.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Let's say he's successful at what he wants to do
to the FBI and he remains in office for four years,
how much damage can he do?
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Well if he changes the scope of the FBI to
no longer work with THECI on intelligence, international terrorism, and counterintelligence,
then I think actional security will be at risk. That's
what led to nine to eleven. So you may not
see the impact until much later, but at some point,
if God forbid, there's a terrorist attacking is touching you
(31:10):
wonder why the FBI was not coordinating with our spy agencies.
Well there's a reason why.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Well we shall see if a fierce critic of the
FBI gets to lead it. Thanks so much, Dave. That's
Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney. Former US
Senator Bob Menendez was sentenced to eleven years in prison
for acting as a foreign agent of Egypt and accepting
gold bars and other bribes in what prosecutors said was
(31:39):
perhaps the worst corruption case ever involving a US senator.
Menendez maintains his innocence.
Speaker 4 (31:46):
Welcome to the Southern District of New York, the wild
West of political prosecutions. President Trump is right. This process
is political and it's corrupted to the core.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis, who covered
the trial. In Sentencing David, eleven years for a seventy
one year old man seems like a harsh punishment.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
It is a very tough sentence that US histric Judge
Sidney Stein gave to ex Senator Menendez, but it's actually
a departure downward from advisory sentencing guidelines under federal law.
The judge gave him a bit of leniency for his
age and for his five decades of service to the
(32:33):
public as an elected official.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Tell Us about his tearful plead to the judge before he.
Speaker 6 (32:39):
Was sentenced, Bob Menendez was quite choked up. The courtroom
was packed, and he made a heartfelt, emotional appeal for mercy.
He asked the judge to consider his long career in
the Senate and the House, and the many actions he
(33:01):
had taken for his constituents, the legislative accomplishments that he
had achieved, and the advocacy that he had put forward
on behalf of Hispanics, people in New Jersey, even refugees
or immigrants in the United States. He sort of gave
(33:23):
a tearful overview of his career and said that the
judge should not focus only on his crimes, but you
know the full accomplishments in his life.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
When he went outside the courtroom, he seemed to be
reaching out to President Trump. He said, the process is
political and it's corrupted to the core. I hope President
Trump cleans up the cesspool and restores integrity to the system.
Is he looking for a pardon from Trump?
Speaker 6 (33:55):
He is planning to ask Trump for a pardon. It's
not clear whether that would happen. He has been a
vocal critic of Trump for many years, but in saying
that he's the victim of a witch hunt now, which
is what he said yesterday, he's sort of parroting the
language that Trump uses, and he seems to be appealing
(34:19):
to Trump's sense that the Justice Department is broken and
carries out vindictive and political prosecutions.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
He says he's going to appeal. Do you know any
of the arguments he plans to raise in the appeal?
Speaker 6 (34:33):
Yeah, A couple of the arguments have to do with
the speech or debate protections that legislators have through the
US Constitution. There was a dispute that happened in the
last couple of months relating to the laptop full of
exhibits that went to jurors, and prosecutors disclosed that they
(34:54):
gave exhibits that were unredacted and supposed to be reacted
to the jury that the defense lawyer said directly implicated
the speechure debate clause by referring to legislative actions. That
Menendez took quite.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
A downfall for a once powerful and respected senator. Thanks
so much, David. That's David Voriakis, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, 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,
(35:35):
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
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.