Schneiderman Steps Down After Physical Abuse Allegations

enforcement official. Schneiderman announced his resignation just hours after a magazine article in which four women accused him of physical violence. Schneiderman said in a statement, while these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office is work at this critical time. Joining me is Bloomberg News

Legal investigative reporter Greg Farrell. Greg tell us about the allegations from these four women broadly, um basically, each of them tells the variants of the same story that they had an intimate relation ship with Sniderman, and that at certain points he struck them, slapped them very hard across the face, uh, in more than one case, choked you know, one or several of the women to the point where you know they felt that they had trouble breathing, UM

left marks on their faces to the to the effect that these women would go and share details with friends to um to corroborate them. UM. And also just a like a power relationship, treating them in demeaning fashion. UM. Forcing them to drink more than they would drink alcohol is at the center of a lot of these uh, you know a lot of these scenes. Yeah. Now, this came as a shock too many people, especially after Schniderman's legislative and legal advocacy for women's rights, his support of

the Me Too movement. Were there any hints about this before the story was published in The New Yorker. No. And it's clear from the New Yorker article, which did an amazing level of reporting on this, that this didn't just come out yesterday. I think the office there has had at least a week I'm guessing, you know, the back and forth on this. UM. It is amazing that nothing like this had come out before, and ironically it

was the Me too movement. I think a number of these women who thought they were individual and this only happened to them and maybe questioned or had self doubt about what their role might have been in this um once a couple of them got together and realized it was more than one women, and then hearing the former attorney general will speak on at some length about women's rights and me too and the importance of treating women

with respect that they know. It's spilled over to the point where two of the four women referenced in the story, we're willing to go on the record with their names. Now. First, Schneiderman was investigating Manhattan d A. Sivance Jr. Now Sivans Jr. Is investigating Eric Schneiderman. I want to say only in New York, but I think this would happen anywhere right now,

like only in New York. It's almost comical. It's not comical, but it's almost common goal the and to some extent, this is not the not Vance's investigation of Schneiderman's conduct that falls well, we'll get to that in a second. First of all, the fact that Governor Cuomo recommended and referred the Vances, you know, lack of prosecution or lack of action against Harvey Weinstein a few years ago, is strange.

I'm not sure if there's any legal basis for one constitutional officer, the governor, ordering another constitutional officer, the a G to investigate a third constitutional office, the Manhattan District Attorney. Um, you might disagree with cy Vance's judgments on things like

the Weinstein case, but but that's his prerogative. He said there wasn't enough, and maybe he's wrong, but that's sort of what you know, prosecutors you run get elected for and if you're unhappy with him, you don't vote from next time. But to go in sick, you know, the Attorney general on that without some real reason, it just seems strange. So anyway, yes, Um, now the conduct here, Uh, this is for Sivance. This seems like a a loser.

I mean, if his office finds like some you know grounds to you know, misdemeanor or felony, uh, you know, charges against Sneiderman, it'll look like political payback. So that's bad too. If they don't find anything, it will look bad like he's weak and he's not doing anything, you know, you know, like like what happened with Dominique straus Khan and like what happened with Weinstein a few years ago. So this is I'm sure something that Sivance is not

like looking forward to yeah, exactly now. Snoderman has gotten national recognition for the role he's played in resisting Trump administration policies from environment to immigration, but he was also seen as someone who would might step in if the president pardoned people close to him like Paul Manaford, and last month they even asked lawmakers to change the States double jeopardy law to exempt presidential pardons. Is there concerned

that those efforts in that role will be abandoned, I'm not. No, I don't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion immediately for a couple of reasons. One, this is still very much a blue state, and whoever replaces Schneiderman is going to be some from the same political background, uh as Schneiderman. It does sort of disrupt I mean, Schneiderman did establish himself as a he was gladly played the role of foil to President Trump and antagonist to President Trump.

So whether or not his successor, you know, relishes the same sort of role, that remains to be seen. However, Schneierman is not the only actor in this case. Again, going back to Sivance, I Vance's office is also looking into conduct related to you know, people around Trump as sort of a and none of them are stepping on

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. But I think it's clear that they're ready and waiting so that if something happens to Mallor or pardons, you know, blanket pardons are issued in these cases that you know, state regulative state, you know, actors in New York can go ahead and take action. So now we're going to have a real election for New York Attorne general because he was the overwhelming favorite before.

What names are being mentioned for the Democratic nominee? There A few of the names we've heard include Kathleen Rice Um and uh, I think Letitia James Um. So clearly several women's names have been put forward and given what happened to Governor Spitzer a decade ago, and now this clearly makes sense that you know, having a woman that position would be a very good move politically. So those

are some of the names. However, Um, there's a there's a this is an interesting political dilemma, or at least a political situation in Albany. They have a chance now in Albany to designate someone to you know, serve as Attorney General until the election in November. Um. I think the hope is they'll find someone who can then be

the woman favorite and keep the job. In other words, basically sliding someone in and politically, uh, they don't want someone who would be too tough or go after corruption in Albany. That that's that's for another show. Thank you so much, breg as a eas that's Bloomberg News Legal investigative reporter Greg Farrell. Gina Haspell spent three decades working in secret, but now the lifelong spy will be making

a very public appearance. She'll be grilled about her secretive work by the Senate Intelligence Committee and her confirmation hearing to become CIA director. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the White House is backing Haspell acting Director. Haspell is a highly qualified, uniquely positioned individual to lead the CIA, and we're very confident in her ability to answer the questions

that we know we're going to come. The focus of the hearings is expected to be on Hospell's involvement in alleged torture programs and her role in destroying videotapes of interrogations of detainees. Joining me is Stephen Vladick, professor at the University of Texas School of Law and co editor in chief of Just Security. Steve you wrote a piece in Just Security entitled the hospital nomination as a reference

end them on unaccountability. Would you explain why there have been no legal remedies in cases of the torture of

US detainees. Sure, and I think you know planetts who have tried to do the US government directly, US governed officers, even US government contractors, based on claims that they were tortured well in US custody have generally had those cases thrown out for a wide range of procedural reasons, to none of us have to do with the merits in none of these cases, to the government, that the court

rule that these planets weren't tortured. In all these cases, the court said there were some obstacle, whether the absence of a cause of accent or whether the possibility that the government defendant might have qualified immunity that would prevent

the court from that. You've decided on the question of whether torture happened and whether these plaintiffs were abused, and so collectively we've gotten to, you know, sixteen years after this program started, with not a single judicial rule in only in one way or the other that abuses that were perpetrated against futilities in the US custody f n I eleven were or were not torture. So why do you see Haspell's confirmation hearing as a referendum on government

accountability rather than a referendum on hospitalstability. Well, I don't think those are mutually exclusive, and the actually it gets both.

But you know, June, many of these opinions by courts that have said it's not necessarily our place to jump over the political branches have pointed to the far better position that Congress is in when it comes to these kinds of highly classified national security programs to find out what happened, to make its own judgments, UM, and to decide whether and how to punish those responsible and if

it's worth stressed. And one of the ways historically that Congress has exercised its leverage and basically you know, effected accountability is by refusing to confirm nominee who were involved in prior abusive government programs. So you know, I think that's why this here um tomorrow is no interesting because it's not just about Hospital herself, who I said quite clearly played a very central role in at least some

aspects of the CIA printation, detention interrogation program. It's also about whether the political branches are going to use this process, the confirmation process, to make up for I think many of the deficits and shortcoming and how we have tried to create a record of the abuses carried out as part of the detention programs is not eleven. So you have you looked at the way the sides are lining up and whether Hasspel is likely to be confirmed. Yeah,

you know, I think it's going to be very close. Um. One of the things that I think is really interesting is there's a bit of a schism even on the sort of pro hospital side. You know, there are some folks who are saying, don't hold it against her that she was part of these abuses at a much different time in our history where I think a lot of

you know, things may have gone wrong. But then you have folks like President Trump, uh, you know, Press Secretary Sanders saying that you know, hass fule record and hasful and involved in these abuses. Um, it's not it's actually a reason to confirm her. That is not that that seeds to be confirmed because of her role in we have not despite them, thankly to you. I don't think

that's doing her any favors. And I actually think that, you know, as the press reporters last week, they are real concerned about whether they're enough votes and whether she might withdraw, rather than risk of potential negative vote. So it's going to be a very interesting to hearing to keep an eye on. Let's turn to another subject you've

written about. You're very prolific. As we noticed, it seems like just about the only thing that has remained consistent in the Trump defense recently is the contention that the president doesn't have to comply with a grand jury subpoena to testify. So, to borrow the title of your column, can the presidency trump a special counsel subpoena? Um? They had a title, a little wordy. I like their en.

I think probably not. I mean, so, there's no Supreme Court case squarely on point with regard to whether a president can get compelled to testify before a grand jury. But you know, the Supreme courts come pretty close. So in the Watergate tapes case in four you know, an eight to nothing court held that President Nixon could be forced to comply with the subpoena ducas take them for

you know, specific evidence in that case, the Watergate tapes. Um. You know, in the Clinton versus Jones case, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that Article two of the Constitution generally pretends the president from having to bear the burden of litigation, including in that case, you know, showing up for a deposition. So you know, there's no square

Supreme Court decision in June. But I do think that if we actually got to a point where the Special Council had a subpoena for a grand drate testiment from the president, Um, you know, I think the president would lose if you tried to challenge that in court, at

least facially. Now that's without regard you know. The president, of course is free to get on the stand and invoke whatever privileges or immunities he might think he has, among them, perhaps most importantly his siphanomic rights, you know, against self incrimination. That's a separate matter from whether he can refuse to comply with the subpoena in the first place. Let me ask you this, because I've been cute curious

about this. It seems obvious from everything that Giuliania said and Trump has said and tweeted that there is not going to be an interview. So in about a minute, tell us why Mueller doesn't just serve him with a grand jury subpoena. Now, so, I think, I mean certain serv of the president with the subpoena is is really fourth of the issue in a way that the Special

Council may not want to or New Tea tude. I think you know, what the President says and what Rudy Giuliani and other sir gets thing on television is one thing. But until then last Muller is completely convinced that there's no accommodation to be reached short of a grand jury subpoena. I think it's in his interest, in everyone's interests to presume that accommodation. No matter what the sound bites all on television, we'll know that those of the comminations have failed.

If and when we get to a moment where Mala really does actually if he's at a subpoena, well it's going to be very interesting, particularly with Rudy Giuliani in this because sometimes whether whether it's a he's pursuing a legal strategy or a public relations strategy. More to come. Thanks, Thank you, Steve. That's Steven Vladick, professor at the University of Texas School of Law and co editor in chief of Just Security. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg Ye