This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
In the first court here and in nearly a year, a lawyer for Donald Trump clashed with the judge in the federal election interference prosecution of the former president. Prosecutors and defense lawyers are bitterly at odds over the next steps in the case. After the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the prosecution by ruling that former presidents are entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges. There were several tens exchanges between Judge Tanya Chuckkin and Trump lawyer John Lauro,
particularly when he referenced the November election. We're talking about the presidency of the United States, Laura said. At one point, Chuckkins shot back, I'm not talking about the presidency of the United States. I'm talking about a fore count indictment. Joining me is Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg senior reporter who is at the hearing and is joining us from the courthouse. ZOEA. I understand it was pretty contentious between the judge and Trump's attorney.
Yeah, that's right. You know, I think that the defense really wanted to come out swinging, saying that they think that the Special Council is rushing and trying to move things too fast and prejudice them by going first, essentially to try and make their case for why the indictment should move forward after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, and the Judge repeatedly said, you know, I don't want to
hear rhetoric. I want to hear legal arguments. It doesn't seem like there's rushing and you know, references to the election. The judge made clear that she was deeply uninterested considering the electoral calendar and deciding what to do next. So those are all tension points.
Today, there was a dispute about which side will file briefs first. The Special Council wants to submit a brief first on why it's superseding indictment complies with the sup Frame Court's immunity decision, and it would include a lot of evidence like grand jury transcripts and FBI notes on witness interviews.
They wanted to essentially lay out the facts and the evidence that they're going to present as part of this next stage of the case and then argue why those all survive the immunity decision. Either because they are not official acts by Trump as president, or even if they are, why they sort of overcome the presumption of immunity that the Supreme Court laid out for sort of non core
official acts by a president. And so they argued that the most efficient way to do this, rather than wait for Trump to file emotion to dismiss the incitement, which would be the normal course of action, would be for them to preemptively sort of lay out their case, make the argument for why it is legally valid under the immunity framework, and then have Trump respond to that.
So did the judge decide whether to proceed in that way with them filing the brief first.
She did not. She said that she hoped to set a schedule later in the day or at least soon, And you know, agreed with Trump's lawyers that this would sort of be going out of order. That's the normal course of business, and the normal rules would call for the defense to go first and sort of raise the points they want to raise about what is sufficient in
the new indictments. But as the judgment also noted, you know, just because normal course of action doesn't mean that they can't change up the order and the government argued that this would avoid multiple potential appeals by Trump's lawyers, versus putting everything sort of in one package and then whoever loses can take all of that up to the DC circuit.
So it seemed as if the judge and the prosecution acknowledge that no matter what happened, there was going to be an appeal, and that the prosecution was just trying to keep it down to one appeal.
That's right. Basically, Trump lawyers talked about wanting to handle this in a couple stages where they first want to argue that by keeping allegations about Donald Trump's efforts to pressure then Vice President Mike Pence in the indictment, that that conduct specifically is still official acts not entitled to immunity. And if that's the case, they argue, that means that this new grand jury that returned the superseding indictment was
tainted and the entire indictment should be tossed up. And then if the judge disagrees and says that the Pence information can stay in, then they would go to a next round of briefing as to why other parts of
the indictment bill fail. Out of the immunity test. But yees, I think everyone agreed that whatever happens, whatever jun Tutkin does, will be appealed, and she at one point even said that she thought it was a quote exercise in futility to try to set some kind of trial schedule because it just doesn't matter, and everything we put on hold again when it goes up to the circuit or the Supreme courtance.
Trump's lawyers took the position that the whole case has to fall if Trump's interactions with Mike Pence are immune from prosecution, and did the judge disagree with the defense interpretation of the Supreme Court decision?
Not in so many words, but she suggested that she didn't think that it was clear cut that that was definitely off limits and that it was official acts and
immune from prosecution. I think a few times she indicated that what exactly the Supreme Court had to say about the indictment was not as sort of clear cut as Trump's lawyers suggested it was, and that it had to be, you know, a fact based determination as opposed to just a decision on the wall about whether that that part of the indictment is wholesale off limits to prosecutors or not.
Anyone who read that decision knows it's not clear cut. There's not much that's clear cut in that decision. Now. Also, the Trump lawyers did not try before for this to make an argument that the Special Counsel's appointment is unconstitutional, but now they want to make that argument here they do.
There was definitely some tense back and forth about that as well, you know, with the judge and the prosecutor from Jack's miss Office, Tom Wyndham, basically saying that they actually missed the deadline to raise that argument before the case was paused during the immunity fights. But regardless, you know, Judge Chuckkin is going to give them some time to raise that argument, but she already signaled that it's an
uphill battle for them. They noted, you know, that Judge Eileen Cannon and Florida had just missed the other case that miss Office brought regarding Trump's handling class by documents on the appointment's clause issue, and that Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion in the immunity case, had mentioned that issue as one of interests him at least. And Trump lawyer said, well, these two things you know, really make this an important issue for us to approach now. And
Judge Chuckkins said, I don't know about that. She said that she thought Judge Cannon's opinion on this issue was not quote, particularly persuasive. So I think we got an indication that she's not inclined to join Judge Cannon and Florida. And there's also finding PC Circuit president on this issue. So regardless of what she thinks about Judge Cannon's opinion, her hands are tied here. But they'll be able to raise it, but you unlikely to succeed, at least not in the way that they did in Florida.
Is there still an attempt to move the case forward quickly even though it's obvious that it can't be tried before the election. Or are the prosecutors sort of a little bit more laid back about it?
You know, it's interesting when they put in writing what they wanted to do next ahead of this hearing, the government noticeably did not commit to a certain date when they wanted things to get started. They just said that we're prepared to move as quickly as the judge wants us to. In court today, Judge Chuckkins said, you got to give me more than that. You know, how quickly are you prepared to really move and they said three weeks, two to three weeks, probably three weeks, so you know,
that's that is quite fast. And I think it's really now a question of is the judge inclined to go with that schedule and sort of move things forward and have you know, new pleadings and aspects of this fight play out publicly before the election, or is she inclined to go with the sort of slower pace post election schedule that Trump's lawyers have proposed.
And at one point, did Trump's lawyer actually say that they didn't want sensitive information coming out before the election?
You know what Trump lay, John Laurro said a few times because he referred to this quick, sensitive time, and he brought that up a few times, and the judge finally said, let's talk about what you're talking about here. You're talking about the election. She goes, you know, I understand that there's an election coming, but and this is the point that she's made before the election does not dictate my schedule. It's not relevant to the schedule that I'm setting here. And at one point she even said
to trumpflar. She accused them of trying to drag this out to avoid influencing the election, and you know, their argument was that they didn't want the government to sort of go first, right, So the implication was that they were trying to delay this anything coming out that might be hurtful to Trump's campaign before the election. And John Laurier pushed back on that and said, no, no, that's not what we're trying to do here. We just think that the Supreme Court has required us to give these
very weighty issues related to the presidency careful considerations. That it was clear, you know, she was trying to unwrap what she said was really the subtext of what they were saying. When Dunlaer kept talking about this being a sensitive time.
No surprise that they're trying to delay the case, as they've delayed every case so far. Was there any talk of whold an evidentiary hearing? Perhaps before the election.
There was, but it didn't sound like that something that would happen anytime here from lawyer John Morrow talked about at some point their clients should have the ability to question the Special Counsel's witnesses and test their evidence as this immunity fight plays out, but neither side was really pushing for that kind of airing of evidence or testimony in the near future.
So what's the next thing that will happen.
So what we're waiting for now is for the judge to enter a scheduling order and it will indicate sort of who wins and loses this round, at least when it comes to timing, and will see, you know, if she sets any deadlines before November fifth, that's really the most important operative date right now, and what order she puts things in, if she has breathed to do sort
of all at once, or if she staggers them. But we're not really expecting any other surprises on just when those first deadlines are Judge Chuckkin.
Judge Chuckkins seems like a no nonsense judge. Judge Chuckkins seems like a no nonsense judge.
She does, and you know, I think as a reporter watching her, you could sense the frustration that she had with some of the ways that Trump's lawyers were framing their arguments. You At one point she told John Laura to sort of cool it with the rhetoric, and he pushed back and said this is not rhetoric. These are legal arguments.
Thanks so much, Zoe for taking us inside the courtroom. That's Bloomberg Senior reporter Zoe Tillman coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Another twist and turn in the odd non Sayyed case, the legal saga that gained national attention through the podcast serial. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Yet another twist and turn in the odd non Sayyed case, a llegal saga that gained national
attention through the hit podcast serial. After more than two decades in prison, Sayed was freed in September of twenty twenty two when a Baltimore judge overturned his conviction for the murder of his ex girlfriend at the request of Baltimore prosecutors, who said they found flaws in the evidence used against him at trial. But now Siyed is once
again facing prison. His conviction has been reinstated after the Maryland Supreme Court, in a four to three decision, ruled that the earlier proceedings had violated the rights of the victim's family because they weren't given enough notice of the time of the hearing. Joining me as trial attorney David Ring of Tailor and Ring in Los Angeles. If prosecutors decide that they've wrongfully convicted someone, shouldn't it be their
decision to drop the charges? I mean, why should a court make that decision?
The court has a say in that because the or it's the ultimate gatekeeper. You know, we have to have checks and balances. Look, most of the time, if the prosecution comes in and says, hey, you know, this guy's wrongfully convicted, the vast majority of the time, the court's going to agree with them and drop the charges. But
this court still has to sign off on it. There still has to be some sort of hearing, and it's just a way to have checks and balances to make sure that everyone's playing fairly in the system.
So in this case, the issue is that the victim's brother, who spoke at the hearing by video conference from his house in California, he argued that you should have gotten more notice of the proceeding. He was given notice on Friday about a Monday hearing.
That was the issue. But here's the bigger picture on that issue. Because the way it's kind of framed sometimes in the media, it's like well, what's the big deal? He beared by zoom. But that hearing was a monumental hearing. That was a hearing where the prosecution basically came into court and said, hey, Court, we want to drop these charges,
we want to have this conviction overturned. And what Maryland's highest court has said in respond to that was, if you're going to have a hearing like that, the victim or the victim's representative absolutely has a right not only to be there in person, but to be heard. And that's a big part of this ruling is that you know, the victim's brother, mister Lee, he was in California. He was given notice on a Friday to be there Monday. He had an attorney who was representing him. They said, hey,
give us another week. We want to be there in person and we want to be heard. And they weren't given that opportunity. And the key to this decision is if he had been given time to come to Baltimore to appear in court with his lawyer, the lawyer has a right to argue in basically in the shoes of the victim and say why is this conviction being dropped?
There's plenty of evidence here, this guy did it, there's no new evidence to drop it, and they basically have a right to challenge the prosecution's decision to drop the case. That's where this decision is so important.
There's no set time for the notice to a victim in Maryland law. So how did the Maryland Supreme Court decide what notice is enough? And how did they.
Come to that it's a reasonableness standard. And so basically, in a very close decision four to three, the Supreme Court said it's not reasonable to tell the victims representative on a Friday that you're having a hearing on a Monday and say, oh, gee, but you can appear by zoom. That's not reasonable. They have a right to be there in person. So what's reasonable? Okay, set it a week out, two weeks out, but setting it on the next business
day unreasonable. It denied the victim's representative of his right to be in court and to be heard. That's the key.
While the appeal was pending, and eight days before the deadline, the Baltimore States Attorney had dropped all charges against Sayed in the dessense, Justice Michelle Houghten argued the issue was moot because the underlying charges no longer exist. Quote, this case exists as a procedural zombie. It has been reanimated despite its expiration. The doctrine of mootoness was designed to prevent such judicial necromancy. Very good language.
Then I totally disagree with her. I think in this day and age, the victim's rights are incredibly important, and too many times the victim or their family the rights get trampled in the criminal process and the prosecutor. Remember, the prosecutor represents the people. They don't necessarily represent the victim's family or the victim. They represent the people. And so I think what Maryland Supreme Court has said here is, hey, you know what, we're going to respect the victim's rights here.
And this victim had its rights trampled upon by this prosecutor, who who quickly went in court had completely reversed course on how they felt about Saii's conviction and suddenly was willing to let this guy go free. And basically the Supreme Court of Maryland said, hey, you know what, that's not fair. This victim her representative has an absolute right
to be there and to challenge that decision by the prosecutor. Look, I think if you want to kind of read between the lines here, you know, sometimes we have to read between the lines of how these decisions get played out in the highest course. I think that the Supreme Court is basically saying, we don't think Saia should be free. We think there should be a new trial. Why did the prosecution, you know, fight this for twenty years and then suddenly in twenty twenty two reverse course and say, yeah,
you know what, he should be free. Why did that suddenly happen? I think they want to see a new trial. They don't want to see him go free.
Well, the prosecution did a complete new investigation and new DNA has staying from the shoes of the victim, excluded Sayed as a suspect. The prosecution had new evidence, and you know, the rights of the victim are one thing, but you know that our justice system is far from perfect and there are a lot of wrongful convictions. So how do you weigh you know, the twists and turns
in this case. It's been going on for twenty years, you know, the rights of the victim versus the rights of a defendant that the prosecution says now was wrongfully convicted.
Well, so Here's here's where this dynamic kicks in is because again it's all about the opportunity to be heard and to have a fair playing field. And so when the prosecution came in in twenty twenty two and said, oh, we have new evidence which we think exonerates, said, well, they did that behind closed doors. They didn't do that in open court. You know it's come out what the evidence was. But I'll tell you, if you'd have fresh eyes on that so called new evidence, I'm not sure
how new or exculpatory it really is. I mean, there's no DNA on her shoes. To me, that's like a so wet you know, she was strangled to death. Why would there be his DNA on her shoes? How does that exonerate him? I get it. There's two sides to this case. There are people who absolutely believe he got railroaded and didn't do it, and there's people who believe that he absolutely did it. And so the Supreme Court is saying, you know what, not so fast here, not
so fast prosecution. There's got to be a hearing on this. We want to shine a spotlight on what your new evidence is and what your reasons are for suddenly reversing a conviction and letting a guy go free, and we're not going to let you do it behind closed doors.
Now there's another twist in the case because the Baltimore State's Attorney, Marilyn Moseby, who had moved to throw out the conviction and drop the charges, she's no longer the Baltimore State Attorney. And now there's a new Baltimore's state attorney, and his office said it needed time to review the Supreme Courts lent the opinion, and to determine whether his office has a conflict of interest in the case. What kind of conflict of interest are they referring to.
So you have a new prosecutor, Ivan Bates, And in his campaign to become the prosecutor, he seemed to be a proponent that the conviction should be dropped. And so look, he's in a political pickle right now because it's a tough decision. Do you drop this conviction for murder or do you go ahead and reverse course yet again and have a new trial. So he might take the easy way out. He might punt it to another independent agency
and let them make the decision. You know, he may look back at it and say, hey, this is too much water under the bridge here for this Baltimore prosecution office, and we've lost credibility on this case. Let's let an independent, another state agency come in and make that decision for us.
This case, as you know, has gotten so much attention because of the serial podcast, and there have been so many legal twists and turns in the case. And after his release there were crowds outside the courthouse and it was covered nationally. He's now out pending the determination here. I mean, what would it be like politically for a state's attorney to say, oh, we're going to refile charges and you have to go back to prison.
They'd absolutely be an outpright And I don't think anyone's expecting that decision to be made for that exact reason, because that's a tough decision to say, you know what, we're gonna have another trial, We're going to go through this all over again, and that's going to be more years and more appeals and all that, and you know, we're going to take this guy who's now out there and free and we're going to put him back in prison.
That's the toughest decision to make. And you're right, The easy decision is we're just going to let things stand where they are. We're gon we're gonna pursue this any further. It's been going on too long already. It's been going on for twenty five years. You know, he was convicted in the year two thousand. This case has been going on for a long time. But it's not over yet because we still have to have this new hearing. The Supreme Court said there's going to be another hearing on
whether this conviction is going to be dropped. The victim's brother has a right to be heard at that hearing, and then there could be appeals that flow from that. This case is going to go on for a few more years.
Although if the victim's family gets its chance to appear and the charges are dropped again, that should and the appeals, I mean, tell us what could happen at this hearing.
Well, look, here's the possible outcomes of this next hearing. Right, So it's going to be a redo, and we don't know which way the prosecution is going to come in. But let's say the prosecution stays where they were in twenty twenty two and says, hey, we think the conviction should be overturned, right, and then the mister Lee, the brother gets to come in and argue that shouldn't be the case. But let's say the judge agrees with that, all right, that probably brings an end to the case.
You know, the conviction's overturned, he's free. Finally it's over. However, you know, there's going to be a new judge on this hearing. It's not going to be the judge from twenty twenty two. There's new prosecutors on this case, not the same ones from twenty twenty two, and there's a decent chance that with the new players involved and a new judge, this judge could say, you know what, I'm
not going to overturn the conviction. We're going to have a new trial, and we're going to go back to square one, back where we were in two thousand, and have a new trial on this whole thing. I agree, it's a remote possibility, but it's a possibility.
And it's really hard to try a murder case twenty five years later, very.
Very difficult, especially given such the high profile, incredibly high profile nature of this case and all the interviews and the podcasts and all of the statements made by some of the key witnesses over the years, and wildly inconsistent statements and less space at the forensic evidence twenty five years ago is far different than what it is today. DNA and cell phone towers and all that. It would make it really, really tough to retry this case twenty five years later, A.
Long way to go before that decision is made. Thanks so much, David. That's David Ring of Tailor and Ring coming up next. Short Sellers are spooked by the Andrew Left indictment. I'm Juan Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Short Sellers are beefing up disclaimers in their research reports in the clearest sign yet that the criminal charges against
Andrew Left are reverberating throughout the industry. Short seller Andrew Left securities fraud trial has been scheduled to start on September thirtieth of twenty twenty five in federal court in Los Angeles. Prosecutors say Left exploited his ability to move stocks in almost two dozen companies. It's sort of a novel case, and Bloomberg legal reporter Eric Larson has looked into it. Were the criminal charges against Andrew Left sort of years in the making, you know, explain what happened there.
So this investigation by the SEC and the DOJ had been going on for a few years. And Andrew Lasty's on a prominent short cellar. He's well known in the industry, and it was known that, you know, he was one of the people who was perhaps concerned. But the investigations sort of dragged on for a little while without anything happening, so I think some people thought it was over, and then you know, in July, out of nowhere came this SEC civil complaints and then a DOJ criminal charges for
security spraud. So this was sort of the culmination of this investigation into the industry.
So what exactly is he accused of doing.
So it's a securities broad case and it's a little unusual. Someone called it a landmark case. And because it's alleging securities fraud without pointing to specific victims or anything like that.
So the indictment accuses Andrew Left of misleading investors by issuing his research reports alleging, you know, that a company was overvalued by the market, in the hopes that his reports and his tweets about his reports and would have influence and would move the market just enough for him to make some trades, to close out his short positions or his long positions in some cases, and to make
a quick profit. So the DJ alleges that he was misleading lying about his views on these companies in some cases by putting out target prices, saying that a company was trading for X but should be training at you know at why, and instead of holding on to his position to see if he was correct that the stock would fall that low, he would sell it, sometimes within hours or days or even minutes of putting out a negative report about the company, long before it reached that
target price, for example. And so the DJ is saying that this was evidence of him trying to manipulate the market by misleading investors and trying to nudge stocks up or down in such a way that he could make a quick buck, making between sixteen and twenty million dollars in illicit profits over several years of doing this. So it's a very unusual case different they're not saying that specific investors and specific companies were defrauded of specific amounts
of money. They're just saying that he manipulated the stocks in about fifteen companies, big companies like Tesla American Airlines, Twitter, Facebook back when they were known as the Twitter and Facebook by putting out negative reports and then making a quick profit when the.
Stocks moved, and this industry general operates in gray areas.
The way that short sellers I interviewed for the story described it is that they thought that there was a certain rule books that they were playing under that they understood that as long as they put out research reports with accurate information and it was clear that they stood the benefit from their own trading, that that was sufficient.
So now I think there's this question about whether or not some activities in the short selling industry are okay, or whether or not other companies or researchers could be in the wrong. You know, a lot of it depends on how this case goes, if it goes to trial,
what a cury decides. So the question that kind of boils down to, you know, today, can a short seller put out a report that is damning about a company in such a way that it nudges the stock down and specifically tries to make a profit by trading, you know, because short seller is the profit when a stock goes down. So if they put out a report that's negative of that a company, the stock goes down a bit and
they trade they can make the money on that. So the case put out some clarity around that kind of behavior, and I should add that to Andrew left case. So it goes a bit further than just saying he did that.
That invitment is filled with what the DLJA that describes with evidence of less specifically misleading the public about his trading intentions, So saying I'm going to hold this short on this company until it reaches zero, for example, but then not actually doing that, and also allegedly lying about his coordination with one or two hedge funds that he was allegedly secretly working with on the side to carry out additional trades on his behalf, coordinating those trades around
his reports to again make some of this profits. So it's not just as straightforward as saying whether the type of trading is long or not. A lot of this conduct is more specific just to Andrew Left, But that doesn't mean that it isn't spooking the industry, and a lot of short sellers are concerned that the case could have a chilling effect on some of their profitable types of trades that they do.
Eric, his lawyer, Left's lawyer said that his predictions about companies were accurate. Does the government disagree with that.
There are a lot of cases where his predictions about companies were accurate, and the government doesn't really specifically allege otherwise. And that's another interesting angle to this case here. Obviously, the prosecutors are aware of it, and I believe that he broke the law anyway in his efforts to allegedly
manipulate the markets and investors. And it seems that their reasoning is that even though he might have been correct that a company was heading down for various reasons, that his intentions, you know, with putting out his report was to try to somehow capture a profit by misleading people into helping him move the market down. So it is
very complicated. I'm not going to pretend to totally understand it one hundreds, but it is going to be I think that a complicated casey if it goes to a jury, and a lot of the short sellers they talked to you made that exact point that you made. He was right a lot of the time, but you know, some of other short sellers prominent short sellers were critical of Andrew Left as well. So it's not like there's a
uniform belief that this case was brought incorrectly. There are some short sellers who don't really engage in the type of trading that Andrew Left does who thinks that the case has some merit.
Because I can see if the government would go after you, even if your predictions were correct. I could see why some short sellers would be spooked by this because where's.
The line exactly? And I think that that's why we saw recently two research firms, Hindenberg Research, Carry's del Capital. They both recently put out reports, short reports about companies that help drive some stock down. As they do, that's
the normal force of business. And they've always had, like all short sellers, including Andrew Left, they have detailed disclaimers, you know, telling the public, you know, their opinions, various legal assurances that they understand that they're not financial advisors for everyone and they could profit if the stock goes down,
and that sort of thing. But these two outfits, Pinnenberg and Carry's Ville recently changed their disclaimers, and Carry's bill Capital in particular kind of four page disclaimer on the
last report specifically ripped apart. This case against Andrew Left included a little bit of even like starcasm and humor and sort of picking at the allegations and saying, yes, let me just be very clear, we might make trade after we put out a report to make a profit, and you should just assume that's what we're going to do. So you can see that there's already been some impacts on the industry. But yeah, a lot of this, like I said, it's really just going to hinge on where
this case goes. If the Justice Department has brought a good case here and is on point, or if they've sort of overstepped and didn't quite understand how the industry worked. As Andrew Left's lawyer and some other short sellers told me, that's their opinion that the DJ doesn't really understand how the industry works, and that's what's brought about this case.
Well. Also, as you're right, one of less defenses are his own disclaimers that he posted. His lawyer said he posted a disclaimer that saying that no one should make assumptions about his trading. So I don't know that a disclaimer is going to do the trick.
Yeah, I mean, that's clearly going to be a big part of the defense. But I think in probably a lot of cases, different types of cases, you know, disclaimers a different sorts come up as defenses, and it really is going to be up to the jury to decide whether or not everything is all fine and dandy because of that disclaimer. I think that's far from certain.
And so what happens next in this case, I think.
We can expect to see Andrew left the dismissal of the indictment at some point. No deadlines that I'm aware of said on that yet.
And while I have you, you're always following the Trump cases. He tried once again to move the hush money case after the verdict and before the sentencing, he tried to move it to federal court. What was his reasoning.
His reasoning was the July landmark US Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity finding that former presidents have some immunity from criminal charges for conduct related to their official duties in office. And that was a landmark decision finding that that type of immunity from criminal charges exist for the
first time. So that of course came out after his conviction in the hush money case in May, so, Trump argued that the case should be removed to federal court because of the sort of federal questions raised around whether or not his trial was painted by evidence or testimony that wouldn't have been allowed under this new Supreme Court ruling. He argued that only a federal judge should decide this.
Sister judge here in Manhattan rejected that and said that it was not in his jurisdiction to handle a New York state law case. Notwithstanding the argument that Trump made. It was actually trump second time to try to move the case to to federal court. You know, he tried that before the trial even happened, and that was shot down. He appealed that and sort of abandoned that appeal, so it never really went to an appeals court properly. But that was, of course before the immunity ruling. So he
went back for a second bite at the apple. It didn't work out, and now he is appealing again.
Explain one of the reasons why Trump wants to move this case to federal court.
So, one potential benefit of moving this case to federal court would be that it could get to the Supreme Court faster. You could see him trying to overturn his guilty verdict and then if the judge denied that, you know, appealing to the Second Circuit and then onto the Supreme Court. In this sort of faster track route than you might imagine. It's had to work its way through the New York State Court his challenge to his verdict, which by the way,
he's already appealed that verdict in state court. That's one benefit, and other is that it simply would delay his sentencing, which of course is set for September eighteenth. If this had been moved to federal court, that really would have been unlikely that that sentence thing would have been able to go forward. And of course the election is coming up. He has been fighting to avoid being sentenced before the voters go to the polls. He calls that election interference.
Also, if it's a federal case and he wins the election, he can dismiss.
It, right, he can ask the Justice Department to dismiss a case in federal court. You know, it's all very unprecedented. We did see this, however, happened, you might recall, and the civil defamation lawsuits filed by Ejene Carroll that was started in state court and he actually was able to
move it as a result of the Westball Acts. Is something I know we talked about a lot back then, but the idea being that if has claimed it to be covered by that federal law had worked in federal court, he could have had the justice part and just missed the case that didn't end up happening, But that is another benefit to having it in fedal report.
So many cases and so many motions. Thanks so much, Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, and that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg