Kalanick Takes the Stand at Uber-Waymo Trial

stole critical technology for driverless cars. The most highly anticipated witness took the stand yesterday and had a lot of explaining to do. Billionaire Travis Kalenik, Uber's ousted co founder, is accused of conspiring with one of Weimo's lead engineers to take thousands of proprietary files before he June joined Uber.

Joining me is Bloomberg News Legal editor Peter Bloomberg. Peter tell us the basic questions the jury will have to decide, well, the jury is going to have to decide whether Uber uh improperly took proprietary information that belonged to Alphabet's self driving unit weymo, and specifically Uh. The question is whether Uber used trade secrets intellectual property that belonged to weymo, So Kalinic took the stand yesterday. What was his demeanor

as he was being questioned by Weymo's lawyers. Well, yesterday Uh, klink was was was cooperative and uh and held himself up well, but he tended towards short, sometimes clipped answers. And Uh. Today when he was questioned by Uber's attorney, Uh, he gave more expansive, lengthier answers. Obviously it's more friendly questions. So he feels more comfortable letting loose a bit. Yeah,

might be a tactic to to keep your answers short. Um. In the notes of an in house meeting with the head of Uber's driverless car program in December of Klinik outlined a list of things he wanted quote source all of their data, tagging roadmap, pound of flesh i P. How did he explain that, especially all of their data? Well yesterday Uh. Again when he was being questioned by his adversary's attorneys. Uh, he was on the defensive, and he had to explain that sometimes pound of flesh is

a term he uses. And then when he was asked specifically about i P, which is stands for intellectual property. Uh, he said that he did not remember using that specific word, but he didn't deny it. Then today, when he was being questioned by Uber's attorney, he made clear that when he said he wanted intellectual property, he wanted the intellectual property belonging to Anthony Lewandowski's own startup called Auto. So he wasn't, in other words, he wasn't lusting for Weymo's

intellectual property. Tell us about Anthon Lewandowski, Well, Lewandowski is the engineer who's at the center of this dispute. He was the rock Star robot car project leader for the Weymo unit until January two thousand and sixteen, when he left Weymo, and at that very moment, he was already forming his own self driving startup called Auto, which was then acquired by Uber in August of two thousand and

sixteen in a six eighty million dollar stock deal. So it's the overlap where Lewandowski is transitioning out of Weymo and into forming his own company that's ultimately acquired by Uber, that is the source of tension that's at the center of this case. Stand by one moment, there's some breaking news. Senator Lindsey Graham has said that a budget deal has been reached and he's all in. We are going to have more on that story coming up. So is uh

Lewandowski going to be testifying at this trial? Well, Lewandowski is required to uh go to the witness stand when he has called as a witness by Weymo. But um he has consistently uh stayed uh quiet, uh silent even throughout the year of litigation, asserting his constitutional right against self incrimination. Uh and so um he is expected not to uh say much on the witness stand, but he will be required to tell the jury that he's asserting his Fifth Amendment right. So Peter on the whole, how

has Klinik's testimony been, Well, it's been mixed. Uh certainly Weymo has um has scored uh some zingers with uh the hill even mountain of circumstantial evidence it has that he was conspiring with Levin Daoisi, with Lewandowski even before Lewandowski left Weimo. But on the other hand, uh Kalinnik has had it has had an opportunity to put uh put some of these things into context and put his own um less sinister spin on these events. And just at about forty five seconds here Uh. The judge is

well known for being strict. It tell us a little bit about what's been happening in the courtroom. Well, the judge has has already had to deal with some showdown between the attorneys over what evidence will be allowed UH into the trial. And these um these conferences usually take place out out of the jury's earshot, and the judge has to referee uh disputes over what evidence will be

allowed in. And he has, for instance, ruled that UBER cannot block its former ex board member Bill Gurley from being questioned about his own criticism of how Travis Kalanak handled the acquisition of Lewandowski's auto. And we will have to pick this discussion up again because there's a lot more of this trial to come. Thanks for your insights, Peter. That's Bloomberg News Legal editor, Peter Bloomberg. Will he or

won't he? Will the President sit down for an interview with Special Counsel Robert Muller, as he said he's eager to do, or won't he? The range of people saying he should not agree to an interview is wide, from former Vice President Joe Biden to some of the president's own lawyers. That's according to The New York Times, if the President refuses, it could set the stage for a

constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court. Joining me is Jennifer Daskell, professor at American University Washington College of Law and founding editor of the Just Security blog. Jennifer First, Let's deal with the concerns the president's allies and even his own lawyer have raised that the Special Council could be setting what they call a perjury trap. Explain what that is and how likely it is that Muller's team would abuse the legal process in that way. So perjury is is

simply a charge based on lying under oath um. And so the you know, as to whether or not there is a Trump I mean, it's it's an it's an obligation not to lie under oath um, and so, um, you know it certainly that can be a charge if in fact that happens. But um, you know, I expect and hope that the Muler investigation is proceeding um with good faith, as it should. Now I want to go down the line and deal with all the possibilities if

Trump declines the interview. The New York Times has reported that some members of Trump's legal team believe that Mueller would be reluctant to subpoena him. Mueller has a team of aggressive prosecutors and he seems to be conducting a rigorous investigation. Do you think it likely that he will subpoena Trump? So unclear, It's hard to I mean again, it's it's hard to predict, especially in the midst of

a fast moving investigation like this. And it's obviously huge risks to having a showdown with the President at this point. So if the President refuses UM and he issues a subpoena, then UM, as as um you stated in the lead up to this, that could that could be something that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, just

as the subpoena o uhum tapes and and Watergate. Good. So, you know, I, my guests, you know, if is that, um, Mieler will do everything possible to avoid that because it's obviously controversial, it causes delay, UM, it politicizes even more the investigation beyond what's been politicized already. UM. But then again, if the investigators decide that the testimony that getting getting Trump's statements is essential to the case, then we may

see a subpoena be issued. Hard to say there's precedent for a president being subpoena to testify um in a criminal investigation with Bill Clinton. But so if there is a show down at the Supreme Court, UM are their grounds to distinguish this from the Clinton and Nixon cases and the dictum that the court issued there. So in the in the Nixon case, the the Nixon was was ordered to run over the tapes and he ultimately did UM. You know, I you know it's again these are fact

specific inquiries. But you know, if there's a basis for subpoena, UM, you know, we'd have to wait and see what happens. UM. But I expect that hopefully the president would comply rather than um drag this all the way up to the Supreme Court. So now if the Supreme Court, let's say it is taken to the Supreme Court, If the Supreme Court rules that Trump has to appear before the grand jury, he could take the Fifth Amendment. How would that affect

the legal case against him? If at all? So if he claimed the Fifth Amendment, UM, he would basically UM. Then there would be a choice um the if if in fact, the Miler investigation. If the Miller team decided to UM insist on his testimony, they could not prosecute him based on the statements that he made. UM. So again, it depends UM who is the target of the investigation. There is an ongoing and active legal debate about whether UM it's even possible to criminally charge a sitting president UM.

A lot of scholars say it's not so. UM. President Trump is arguably potentially protected from criminal prosecution UM already UM, but aspis study in the fifth UM that would be an additional protection. So as far as obstruction of justice charges, Mueller would have to establish that Trump acted with corrupt intent? Can you do that without interviewing the president? UM? You know it's it can be difficult, but it's also possible. You know, you don't have to get the statements of

the individual in order to prove that. So UM there could be a whole host of circumstantial evidence of it. Not more than circumstantial evidence, but direct evidence, including documents, including statements of others. UM. So it's it's possible to prove that without UM, without actually getting UM the statements

from from President Trump himself. Again, as I said, there's you know, an ongoing and active debate about whether it's sitting president can be criminally charged, so obstruction of justice charges to the extent that they are brought or more likely to be brought in the course of an impiquement proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution. Um. But we we you know, there's still there's a whole host of hurdles

before that, whatever happen as well. Let's turn to the memo and the Intelligence Committee, which voted unanimously to release the memo. It's now in the president's hands. What is he likely to do so unclear. Some statements today suggested that, um, they are not likely to release the memo, or if

they are, they would release it with significant reductions. UM. You know this, you know, real concerns here that UM, the classification process, that the intelligence um, the access to information intelligence information has been used in a politicized way in ways that are extremely concerning and plate damaging. The New York Times is asking the the FISA Court to unsealed the secret documents related to the wired tapping of Carter Page. I don't believe that's ever been done before.

We have about thirty seconds. Is that a possibility anything is a possibility. Um, you know, a lot of things have happened that I would never have predicted in the past, but I think it's highly unlikely. All right. Thank you. That's Jennifer Daskell, professor at American University Washington College of Law and founding editor of the Just Security Block. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and

on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is Bloomberg