This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful I just started kissing them. It's like a magnet. When you're a start, they let you do it. You can do anything. That infamous access Hollywood videotape of Donald Trump will be part of the evidence that New York author Egene Carroll presents in her civil defamation and battery case against Trump overclaims that he raped her in a dressing room of Bergdoff
Goodman back in the nineties. Trump denies the allegations and called it a made up scam on his truth social platform, but he has not been in the courtroom where a jury of six men and three women will decide whether he's libel for sexually assaulting Carol decades ago and defaming her last year by claiming on social media that she fabricated the attack to sell a book. Joining Me is Judy's litigation partner of ASK LP, where she leads the
Sexual abuse practice. This trials about an event that allegedly happened thirty years ago. Tell us about the New York Adult Survivors Act, which allows Carol to bring this case, despite the statute of limitations.
So the New York's Adult Survirus Act addresses just that issue, that being if there was a sexual assault sexual violence that occurred against an individual who was eighteen years or older. What it does is that it finally brings the law to be more consistent with what studies and what science has shown, and that is that typically individuals do not fully disclose. They may even have partial disclosure, but they don't do that until much later in life, average age
fifty two to fifty three. So this Adult Survivors Act allows now for this one year what we call revival window for claims to be brought. The window closes in November of this year, so this would fall within that Act and would be appropriate for her attorneys to file.
Carol's testimony is going to be bolstered by the testimony of two women who publicly claimed that Trump sexually assaulted them before the twenty sixteen election, as well as that infamous Hollywood Access tape where Trump brags about how easy it is for famous men to grope women. Explain why the judge is allowing that evidence in which is not specifically about this case.
What I believe that the judge basing is ruling on is what we call modus operandi. Typically, Trump's attorney would
argue that that type of evidence would be prejudicial. However, there's exceptions to that rule, and what the judge is allowing is showing that this is a practice, this is a pattern by this individual to engage in this type of behavior, so it's not prejudiced the accused, but more so to show that this is part and practice, that this is the mode in which this individual carries out these violent crimes.
Usually in civil cases, the plaintiff calls the defendant as a witness. Why isn't the plaintiff calling Trump here?
Well, it's my understanding that missus Carroll's attorneys they have a very damaging and very compelling recorded deposition, videotape deposition of mister Trump. They were very wise during the discovery
process to make it videotape depositions. Not every deposition is videotaped, but that deposition will be presented and show the jury exactly what they need to corroborate and also as evidence standing alone on itself, to show the culpability and to show that Trump should be liable for the rape of miss Carroll, and that's why it's not essential that they call him.
Trump decided not to show up in person for the openings, and he may not even attend the trial. Is that a mistake on his part? The jury seeing that he's not even.
There, well, you know, I think that speaks to two things. I think that that speaks to the way that he views these accusations. And it also I know that there were certain arguments or applications made to the court by mister Takapino, Trump's attorney to state that it would be a logistical inconvenience for mister Trump to show up, and that was the reason. Why do I think that that's
a disadvantage. Absolutely, if you know you have someone you're being accused of raping another individual, of ruining their life, you would expect that one would show up to show the jury how serious you take these charges, and that you were there to defend against these accusations. So I think that the absence of mister Trump during this trial speaks volumes to how he feels about the case, how he feels about you know, women in general. But this type of attitude I have seen through my work is
nothing new. You have individuals who act out, who believe that the accusations of a woman, a man, an individual who's alleging sexual violence against them, it's not taken seriously. Unfortunately, that's still the attitude. So you know, it speaks volumes to me, and it's not something that I would ever recommend a client.
To Trump's lawyer Joe Tekapina during his opening, besides casting Dad on nearly every detail of Carol's story, he followed with an aggressive attack on her, accusing her of exploiting her story for personal gain. Quote she became a celebrity and loved every minute of it. Is it dangerous in a case like this to attack the victim?
This defense that mister Trump's attorney Joe Tagapina is engaging in is unfortunately common, and I think that the trend is showing that it is unsuccessful. It is the oldest tool in a litigator's book during the course of sexual abuse litigation to try to cast the victim, to try to cast the survivor miss Carroll an unfavorable light. We know that Miss Carroll had risen to prominence, was an accomplished career woman professional prior to meeting mister Trump, so
I think that he'll fail on that. And moreover, mister Tagapina is engaging in a code that we know has been practiced by individuals that have been accused and by culture in general. And here's the code. One blame the victim. The second part of that code is to not believe the victim that Miss Carroll, it's my understanding. And also her attorneys will present other individuals. We talked about this just a moment ago, other individuals that also accused mister
Trump of sexual abuse. So also part of this code, in addition to blaming the victim, is that you can't have just one survivor say they were raped. You have to have a cluster of individuals, more than one woman. It's not enough to just move forward on the testimony of just one individual. The code also includes retaliating against victims, So blaming the victim is a form, it's a degree of retaliation. So what he's doing, I think is very dangerous.
I think that this accomplished very successful professional woman. I don't think that it will sit well with the jury. And I think that individuals that believe that the way to defend a claim to abuse a victim again and retraumatize them through this sense of she's doing it for There are plenty other ways for individuals to acquire fame or notoriety. And I'm sure that missus Carroll would have been smart enough, more skilled enough than to accuse mister
Trump of this heinous crime. And you know, it should be noted that she had filed a separate lawsuit based on defamation, and to me, that's a very powerful piece of evidence.
Trump's lawyers were planning to show the jury excerpts of Egen Carroll's deposition to show evidence of her past sex life, and the judge barred.
That absolutely absolutely. You know, I'm a little shocked when you've been accused of something like this and you're desperate and you're looking for any type of defense. To me, they are looking and searching in the bottom of the barrel for a defense. So to try to bring in a survivor's past sex life absolutely the most archaic tactic
they could have used. And it's actually quite embarrassing that a survivor would have to even speak to her sex life, whatever it is or lack thereof, So to me, that is a very weak attempt and again scraping at the bottom of the barrel, looking for anything and just trying to distract the juror as to the issues.
How important is Egene Carrol's testimony when she does have as we talked about before, she does have corroboration, So how important is her testimony itself?
Absolutely very important. It's something that the jury. What we call on our jurors to do is to evaluate the credibility to look at the witness as they're testifying. And also, because this was brought by her, they have to they meeting her team. The plaintiff has to go forward with presenting evidence to the jury through her testimony. So it's crucial.
It's crucial procedurally, and it's also crucial for the jury to assess what she's talking about and also to assess the different elements of the claims that she's making, the allegations she's making. So it's very important, and you know, the jury needs to hear what happened.
I'm trying to figure out what defense the Trump team is going to put up besides attacking Carol's story. I mean, especially if Trump isn't going to take the stand.
I agree with you on that point. What is the defense and in my opinion, there is no defense. You know, from what we know and what has been reported, it's two things. And it goes back to that code that I was referring to that many times being followed by individuals accused of sexual abuse, sexual crimes, and what we see in culture blame one defense, blame the victim. So
first you engage in these types of defenses. First, if you can't call it a lie, which I think that was one thing early on that mister Trump and his team, they just tried to point the finger and say that's a lie, didn't happen. Well, in response to that, what do we see. We see Miss Carroll's team bring in witnesses her what we call outcry witnesses or disclosure witnesses, very compelling piece of evidence that she did disclose to
individuals what happened. And then if that doesn't work, and then you say, well, they're making these accusations for some type of alternative motives or reasons other than the truth. And in this case, what do you have you have mister Trump saying that it's because she's seeking notoriety, Well, that will be defeated because miss Carroll's team will show that she was already an accomplished career woman, and that
to me, in general, is a very weak defense. So, you know, the sum of this, of what I'm saying is that they are going to be hard pressed in this case to mount a real, true and viable defense. The evidence is compelling. The word of one woman, of one survivor should be enough in general, and I believe it will be enough in this trial.
The jury is composed of six men and three women. Does the plaintiff in a case like this normally want more women on the jury who might understand the story better.
You know, not necessarily the six men. They can have sisters, maybe they have partners that are women. So today's jurors are sophisticated enough to understand the issues and understand sexual violence, and sexual violence doesn't just happen to women. It happens, we know, to individuals of any sexual orientation or gender identity. So you don't necessarily need to have sick x women or a full women jury. Just similarly, you don't need to have, you know, a jury of all one race
to understand the complexities of the issues. So that doesn't necessarily, you know, cause concern. I have worked with and I have clients that I've represented that have been survivors of sexual abuse that are men themselves. So you know, individuals today are sophisticated enough to understand violence and sexual violence.
Thanks Judy. That's Judy Saunders, litigation partner of ask LP Rammy winning rapper Pras Michelle, who reinvented himself as a political influencer, is at the center of a case about
an international, multimillion dollar conspiracy across two presidencies. Prosecutors contend that Michelle funneled money from a Malaysian billionaire through straw donors to Barack Obama's twenty twelve reelection campaign and tried to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China Under the Trump administration, That billionaire Jolo is now a fugitive and Michelle, who made at least eighty eight million dollars in the deals, is
on trial in federal court in Washington, d c. Joining me is Bloomberg legal reporter David Voriakis. Michelle was paid twenty million dollars to get Jolo a photo with President Barack Obama in twenty twelve. Tell us about that.
Well, this trial is about pros Michelle, who was a Grammy winning rapper from the nineteen nineties hip hop group with Fujis. He made a lot of money that way, and then about a or soa go, he became friends with Jolo, who's a Malaysian tycoon who is suspected of stealing literally billions of dollars from the Malaysian development from one MDB, and that scandal has been investigated by the
United States and several other nations. Jolo in twenty twelve wanted to get close to President Obama during his re election campaign, and he really wanted a photograph with President Obama. And Jolo had become friends with pros Michelle and had partied with Praz and Praz traveled around the world for a period with as Jolo did with other celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio. So in twenty twelve, Jolo paid almost twenty one million to pros Michelle to help facilitate him getting
a photograph with President Obama. And this is one of three conspiracies that pros Michelle is charged with at his federal trial in Washington for.
Twenty million dollars couldn't Jolo have donated that and gotten a photo that way.
Well, it's not easy to get close to the president, and typically political donors who give a lot of money can get close to the president and get a photograph or get some FaceTime with the president. But in this case, Jolo, as a Malaysian national, was not able to give political donations to the Obama campaign. And he also had been vetted by the Obama campaign and they were uncomfortable with his playboy image and so they did not want him
in campaign events. Pros Michelle had promised that he would do his best. He initially took a million dollars to try to think about how to get a photograph or Jolo, and then he tried to arrange so that Jolo could get into two different campaign events in twenty twelve, and
in both cases the campaign would not allow Jolo in. Ultimately, Jolo got his photograph with Barack and Michelle Obama at the holiday party in twenty twelve, and there's a picture of the three of them standing by a White House Christmas tree.
Besides using straw donors to funnel illegal donations from low into Obama's campaign, what else is he accused of here.
He's also accused of trying to get the Justice Department to drop a pending civil forfeiture case against Jolo. What happened in twenty sixteen is the Justice Department to Jolo as the US investigations picked up and other investigations around the world into whether Jolo stole these billions of dollars and then laundered them. And so Jolo was very concerned and he wanted to try to to see if he
could get those charges dropped. And so what he did was Hey ultimately one hundred million dollars to a group that included pros Michelle, and there were several other people who pleaded guilty. There was a former Trump fundraiser, Elliott Broydy, there was a former Justice Department attorney, George Higginbotham, whom moon lighted as Michelle's lawyer. And there was Nicky Lum Davis,
who was a Hawaiian businessman. All three of them pleaded guilty, but Trump pardoned Broidy, and at the trial, jurors heard the testimony from Higginbotham and Broidy were government witnesses testifying about how they tried to use Broidy's access to Donald Trump and key figures in the Trump administration to get the case against Jolo dropped. That was ultimately unsuccessful, and later on Jolo was indicted twice by the Justice Department, once in Washington and once in Brooklyn, New York.
Did the prosecutors offer Michelle a deal?
I believe that the prosecutors did try to negotiate a free deal with Michelle, but ultimately was unsuccessful. He chose to go to trial. He testified in his own defense, and he denied that he was trying to funnel Jolo's money into the Obama campaign. He denied that he knew that he was supposed to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent's Registration Act to reflect his work for Jolo in trying to convince the Trump administration to
drop their investigation of Jolo. And then there's a third aspect to the trial, a third conspiracy, which is several of the same players pros Michelle, Elliott, Roydy, Nicki, Lum Davis, and a couple of others tried to get the US government to extradite a Chinese billionaire, Guo Wanghwa, Guy who was in the United States living in New York City
and was a friend of Steve Bannon. He was wanting he acted as a dissident in the United States and repeatedly criticize the Chinese government and Chinese officials quite explicitly. The Chinese didn't like that, and they had charged him with crimes in China. They wanted the Trump administration to extradite him back so that they could put him on
trial in China. And so at the same time that Cross Michelle was trying to get the US to draw this investigation of Jolo, he was also trying to get the US to extradite Kuo Wan Guai as Chinese billionaire dissidents back to China, and there was a lot of intrigue involved in those efforts. At one point he met a high ranking security official from China, both in China and at the Four Seasons Hotel in Manhattan, to talk about the progress in trying to convince the Trump administration
to extradite Whoa and Guhy. At another point, George Higginbotham, who was pros Michelle's personal attorney even though he worked for the Justice Department, he went into the Chinese embassy on a Sunday morning in Washington to talk about trying to extradite Whoawan. Why that effort failed, as did the effort to drop the Jolo investigations by the United States.
But pros Michelle got his money. He made eighteen or nineteen million dollars from the twenty twelve effort to get Jolo close to President Obama, and he made more than seventy million dollars in the later efforts in twenty seventeen to extradite Guoha and Guy and get the Jolo case dropped.
Did he have to give any of that money back.
It's not part of this trial, but previously the Justice Department filed a civil forfeiture suit and feesed a number of his accounts. That case is currently on hold, pending the outcome of the criminal trial.
So tell us how was he on the stand? Was he a good witness on his own behalf?
He came across at the end as a sympathetic figure. I think it was clear that people understood him better beforehand. The question is whether the jury will believe his explanations about how he handled the tens of millions of dollars he got from Jolo. The prosecutors say that Jolo essentially
was wandering his money through pros Michelle. And pros Michelle's position is that once Jolo paid him the money, it was his money and he was free to decide what to do with it, That it was no longer Jolo's money, and that he saw that money as an investment in entertainment ventures.
So did the prosecutor make any inroads on cross examination or did.
He hold up the prosecutors I thought scored a number of points on cross examination, and you know, there's a great deal of evidence against pros Michelle, and prose held his ground on his central points that it was his money, not Jolo's money, once he received it, that he was not funneling Low's donations into the Obama campaign, and that he was trying to you know, build entertainment business. But
there was a great deal of testimony against him. There was a lot of documentary evidence, and there's his failure to register under the Foreign Agent's Registration Act or you know, as the agent of China, and so there's a considerable amount of evidence that the government has a raid. We'll just have to see how the jury is that.
So this has been a long trial and there have been some high profile witness. Is why did Leo DiCaprio testify.
Well, DiCaprio essentially gave a lot of background on the relationship between him and Jolo and Jolo's lifestyle about how he spent millions of dollars, you know, living the high life in clubs and the bars and on yachts. And Dicaprios gave a critical piece of evidence that helped the government's case, which is that he said he told DiCaprio in twenty twelve that he wanted to put twenty to thirty million dollars into the Democratic Party during the election cycle,
and DiCaprio said, wow, that's a lot of money. And so that supports the government's contention that Jolo put twenty million dollars toward getting a photograph with President Obama.
So what is the jury composition of the jury?
Seven women and five men and who We've been listening closely for a month. This could take some time before we get a verdict.
Well, I know you are going to be waiting for the verdict, Dan, You'll let us know as soon as it happens. Thanks so much, David. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis, 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 into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm
Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg