# Trump Losses May Cost Taxpayers & Superstar Lawyer Goes to Prison

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 1 Aug 2026, 28 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/6c8c9d2a-ae31-4e1e-99c8-b499000aeda7/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Bloomberg legal reporter Zoe Tillman discusses how the Trump administration’s losses in court could leave taxpayers footing the bill for millions in legal fees. Then Bloomberg Law senior reporter Holly Barker discusses the sentencing of Tom Goldstein, former superstar Supreme Court litigator. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: There's been an unprecedented deluge of hundreds of lawsuits challenging
[0:13] Speaker 2: the Trump administration's boundary pushing uses of executive power, increasing
[0:19] Speaker 2: the amount of taxpayer money at stake. The US government
[0:23] Speaker 2: is on the hook for potentially millions of dollars in
[0:26] Speaker 2: legal bills demanded by successful challengers to some of the
[0:30] Speaker 2: administration's most controversial executive actions and policies. According to a
[0:36] Speaker 2: Bloomberg News analysis of court records, attorneys have sought fees
[0:40] Speaker 2: exceeding one hundred thousand dollars in at least ten cases
[0:44] Speaker 2: over the past year, totaling more than two point five
[0:48] Speaker 2: million dollars. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Zoe Tillman,
[0:52] Speaker 2: who's crunched the numbers. So, Zoey, how much could the
[0:56] Speaker 2: government be on the hook for legal bills for opposing
[1:00] Speaker 2: attorneys who won their cases?
[1:03] Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it's hard to say. You know, we
[1:05] Speaker 3: started with the place where we're at now, which is
[1:08] Speaker 3: potentially millions, because we've flagged at least a number of
[1:12] Speaker 3: cases where there are outstanding pending requests that total more
[1:16] Speaker 3: than two million dollars so far, but that's only in
[1:19] Speaker 3: ten cases, and we know that there are a number
[1:22] Speaker 3: of cases where the Trump administration has lost in the
[1:25] Speaker 3: district court is appealing those losses, and where attorneys have
[1:29] Speaker 3: made clear, you know, should we prevail on appeal, an
[1:32] Speaker 3: attorney feemotion is coming. And there's always this delay with
[1:35] Speaker 3: these types of requests where you can't get paid until
[1:39] Speaker 3: litigation is completely over. So we may not see the
[1:42] Speaker 3: final dollar amounts tally up until you know, two three
[1:47] Speaker 3: years after this early deluge of litigation against the administration.
[1:52] Speaker 3: But you know, we're certainly dealing in the realm already
[1:55] Speaker 3: of millions of dollars.
[1:57] Speaker 2: So tell us about the Equal Access to Justice Act
[2:00] Speaker 2: of nineteen eighty and what it requires.
[2:04] Speaker 3: So the thinking was at the time that you know, individuals,
[2:09] Speaker 3: ordinary Americans, small businesses, nonprofits, entities that you know are
[2:15] Speaker 3: not deep pocketed, may not be able to hire big
[2:18] Speaker 3: law firms and lawyers to vindicate their rights, that they
[2:21] Speaker 3: should not be priced out of pursuing would otherwise be
[2:25] Speaker 3: legitimate claims and grievances against the government. And thinking by
[2:28] Speaker 3: Congress was, you know, if they set limits on who
[2:30] Speaker 3: would be eligible to recover their fees, so it's you know,
[2:34] Speaker 3: their net worth caps for small businesses. There are employee
[2:38] Speaker 3: caps for nonprofits employee caps. So the idea is to
[2:42] Speaker 3: keep it to people who entities that you know, are
[2:44] Speaker 3: not big corporations that obviously you know, may not need
[2:48] Speaker 3: the government to pay back their legal fees. And the
[2:51] Speaker 3: thinking is, if you're a prevailing party and the government's
[2:54] Speaker 3: position in litigation was not quote substantially justified, which has
[2:58] Speaker 3: been interpreted pretty broadly by courts. You know, even if
[3:01] Speaker 3: DOJ says we made a good faith argument here, if
[3:04] Speaker 3: they were found to have certainly done something obviously unlawful
[3:08] Speaker 3: and constitutional, courts have been pretty willing to say, you know,
[3:10] Speaker 3: that was not a substantially justified position that you took
[3:13] Speaker 3: in this litigation. And the courts can award fees. The
[3:17] Speaker 3: amounts tend not to be very high in doing the
[3:21] Speaker 3: historical analysis in most cases, setting aside social security and
[3:25] Speaker 3: veterans benefits cases of which there are thousands, and that's
[3:28] Speaker 3: sort of a different animal from what we're talking about here.
[3:31] Speaker 3: Most of the time these fear awards fall below one
[3:33] Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars, so it's you know, not a lot
[3:36] Speaker 3: of money, but for an ordinary everyday person, tens of
[3:41] Speaker 3: thousands of dollars if they had to lay out that
[3:43] Speaker 3: money to vindicate the rights, is certainly a significant amount
[3:46] Speaker 3: of money.
[3:47] Speaker 2: So, Zoe, and looking at the list that you have
[3:48] Speaker 2: in your story about the requests for fees, the top
[3:53] Speaker 2: requests have to do with cases involving research funding cuts,
[3:58] Speaker 2: and the nonprofit Association of American Universities is looking for
[4:02] Speaker 2: more than one point five million dollars for its attorneys.
[4:06] Speaker 2: Of course, one of their attorneys is Paul Clement, the
[4:09] Speaker 2: former Solicitor General who's argued more cases before the Supreme
[4:13] Speaker 2: Court than anyone else.
[4:15] Speaker 3: Right, that's the four cases that deal with the rate
[4:19] Speaker 3: that agencies reimburse research institutions for the indirect costs of
[4:24] Speaker 3: doing government research. So you know the costs of running
[4:27] Speaker 3: these labs of you know, the sort of overhead, not
[4:31] Speaker 3: the core funding.
[4:33] Speaker 1: For the project.
[4:33] Speaker 3: So the agencies have tried to cut that rate down,
[4:37] Speaker 3: and research institutions have said, this is the lifeblood. Our
[4:40] Speaker 3: ability to function depends on getting reimbursed not just for
[4:44] Speaker 3: you know, the hours that we do the experiment or
[4:46] Speaker 3: the research, but for the cost of doing business of research.
[4:50] Speaker 3: So yeah, those are the four cases by the Association
[4:53] Speaker 3: of American Universities where Paul Clement, who is you know,
[4:57] Speaker 3: boldface name in legal circles for many years, is among
[5:01] Speaker 3: the lawyers, which include other very accomplished lawyers, other big
[5:05] Speaker 3: law firms in Washington. But this is some of the
[5:07] Speaker 3: highest dollar requests because it has involved these very experienced,
[5:11] Speaker 3: veteran Washington lawyers.
[5:13] Speaker 2: Well, I was going to say, are they looking for
[5:15] Speaker 2: five hundred dollars an hour for Paul Clement, because that's
[5:18] Speaker 2: sort of a drop in the bucket for him, isn't it.
[5:20] Speaker 2: It's not really what he would normally charge. I mean,
[5:23] Speaker 2: they charged thousands of dollars, now, that's right.
[5:26] Speaker 3: So the Equal Access to Justice Act does set a
[5:29] Speaker 3: baseline for fees. Normally, I think the baseline rate is
[5:33] Speaker 3: it's like one hundred and twenty five dollars an hour,
[5:36] Speaker 3: with wiggle room for cost of living. So I think
[5:39] Speaker 3: the actual baseline year to year tends to be closer
[5:42] Speaker 3: to two hundred and two hundred and fifty dollars an hour.
[5:45] Speaker 3: But the law allows for some discretion if lawyers can say,
[5:48] Speaker 3: you know, there was special expertise that they brought. It
[5:52] Speaker 3: was extraordinary litigation involving novel questions of law. You know,
[5:56] Speaker 3: if it was a heavier lift than your ordinary loss
[6:00] Speaker 3: against an agency, there is this ability to ask for
[6:03] Speaker 3: higher rates. Now the government will come back sometimes and
[6:07] Speaker 3: say those rates are too high. You've put in for
[6:10] Speaker 3: working too many hours on this. We don't think that's reasonable.
[6:13] Speaker 3: In those cases, they're also arguing that this association is
[6:17] Speaker 3: not eligible to get fees, that they were really suing
[6:21] Speaker 3: on behalf of their members. The association has said that's
[6:24] Speaker 3: not what the standard is. There's litigation about this. So
[6:27] Speaker 3: you know, we're seeing some cases where the government is
[6:29] Speaker 3: is reaching settlements and acknowledging that there is this law
[6:32] Speaker 3: that compels them when they lose in many cases to
[6:35] Speaker 3: pay up, but also in some cases exercising their ability
[6:40] Speaker 3: back and to say, you know, even if we do
[6:42] Speaker 3: have to pay fees, it should not be that much.
[6:45] Speaker 2: And so if they can't reach a settlement, a judge
[6:48] Speaker 2: will decide on the amount.
[6:51] Speaker 3: That's right that I'll decide. You know, were they a
[6:53] Speaker 3: prevailing party, was the government's position substantially justified? Are the
[6:58] Speaker 3: requested fees reasonable? And then you know, ultimately a judgeable
[7:03] Speaker 3: enter and order saying I find the government has to
[7:05] Speaker 3: pay you know, yes you have to pay Paul Clement,
[7:07] Speaker 3: but only three hundred and fifty dollars an hour, not
[7:10] Speaker 3: five hundred dollars an hour. They get into that kind
[7:12] Speaker 3: of granular level of this.
[7:14] Speaker 2: Now immigration case is the Supreme Court is going to
[7:18] Speaker 2: hear a case involving the Equal Access to Justice Act
[7:23] Speaker 2: and immigration.
[7:24] Speaker 3: That's right. So you know, we've a couple of different
[7:26] Speaker 3: buckets here, and that's part of where our estimate of
[7:30] Speaker 3: this potentially being millions of dollars at stake also includes
[7:34] Speaker 3: these other cases where if you have your standard, you know,
[7:37] Speaker 3: I student an agency because they did X with grants
[7:40] Speaker 3: and we won and now we get money. Second category
[7:43] Speaker 3: is habeas cases where the Trump administration has enacted a
[7:48] Speaker 3: very aggressive push to ramp up immigration arrests and deportations,
[7:52] Speaker 3: and that has resulted in a concurrent increase explosion really
[7:57] Speaker 3: of litigation to try and free people from immigration while
[8:00] Speaker 3: they are fighting whether they can be deported, and in
[8:04] Speaker 3: cases where the government has lost, where judges have said,
[8:07] Speaker 3: you know, you have to release this person, not necessarily
[8:10] Speaker 3: that they can't be deported, but you know, the campient custody.
[8:13] Speaker 3: Circuits have split about whether that counts as a you know,
[8:17] Speaker 3: prevailing party substantially justified or not under the Equal Access
[8:21] Speaker 3: to Justice Act. And some courts have awarded fees and
[8:26] Speaker 3: the amounts tend to be smaller than the six figure
[8:29] Speaker 3: requests that we're seeing in these really high profile cases.
[8:32] Speaker 3: But there are a lot of these cases, so you know,
[8:35] Speaker 3: the stakes are also high for what the Supreme Court
[8:38] Speaker 3: does with this next term. You know, if it's five
[8:42] Speaker 3: hundred cases with a couple thousand dollars in each awarded,
[8:47] Speaker 3: you can see how the financial stakes there balloons if
[8:51] Speaker 3: the court says that they can recover these attorney fees.
[8:55] Speaker 3: Now we should say, you know, this court has but
[8:58] Speaker 3: a conservative majority has large sided with the government on
[9:02] Speaker 3: issues related to immigration. So it does seem like there's
[9:05] Speaker 3: an uphill battle for advocates here who are arguing that
[9:08] Speaker 3: this law should cover people who successfully sue the government
[9:12] Speaker 3: to get out of custody. But it's a big ticket
[9:15] Speaker 3: issue on many levels, both in terms of the rights
[9:18] Speaker 3: of people in these cases and also the amount of
[9:20] Speaker 3: money that is at stake if the government loses.
[9:23] Speaker 2: Explain what the judgment fund is and how it's different
[9:27] Speaker 2: from EGA.
[9:28] Speaker 3: They're mostly separate. EG fees are typically paid by the
[9:32] Speaker 3: agency that was sued and that lost, so there are
[9:36] Speaker 3: each year, you know, it's analysis of how much each
[9:38] Speaker 3: agency has had to pay in EG fees and how
[9:41] Speaker 3: many claims they've had to pay out. The judgment fund
[9:45] Speaker 3: is sort of separate. When you see the government because
[9:50] Speaker 3: you tripped and fell on the national mall and you
[9:53] Speaker 3: get hurt because a government employee in a car hit
[9:56] Speaker 3: your car, you know you were in an accident, or
[9:59] Speaker 3: as we've increasingly seen, you know, cases against the government
[10:03] Speaker 3: for damages for certain types of constitutional violations, other types
[10:08] Speaker 3: of damage as harms, tourt actions. Those are not EJA cases.
[10:14] Speaker 3: And when you get attorney fees for winning against the
[10:18] Speaker 3: government in those types of cases or if you reach
[10:20] Speaker 3: a settlement, that money typically comes out of the judgment Fund,
[10:23] Speaker 3: which is a central pool of money. It's an indefinite,
[10:27] Speaker 3: permanent appropriation from Congress that makes money available to the
[10:32] Speaker 3: government to pay court judgments, which can include attorney fees.
[10:36] Speaker 3: Sometimes there is some overlap depending on how cases are
[10:39] Speaker 3: styled against the government, But when we're talking about sort
[10:42] Speaker 3: of bread and butter suing agencies for carrying out policies
[10:48] Speaker 3: that this administration's opponents can tend or unlawful, or in
[10:52] Speaker 3: any administration, when they win attorney fees, it tends to
[10:55] Speaker 3: come out of this EJA bucket as opposed to the
[10:58] Speaker 3: judgment fund bucket, with the understanding that there is some
[11:02] Speaker 3: fuzzying of those lines. Sometimes.
[11:04] Speaker 2: I was surprised in your story you also talk about
[11:07] Speaker 2: there's a jazz musician who's looking for two hundred and
[11:09] Speaker 2: fifty thousand dollars in legal fees. Tell us about that case.
[11:14] Speaker 3: Yeah, So this is a case involving the Kennedy Center
[11:17] Speaker 3: in Washington, which is you know, it's not a federal agency.
[11:22] Speaker 3: We called it a quasi public institution. It was created
[11:25] Speaker 3: as a loving memorial to the late President John F. Kennedy.
[11:29] Speaker 3: The board is largely appointed by the President. It receives
[11:32] Speaker 3: some federal dollars. There is some degree of federal oversight
[11:37] Speaker 3: even though it isn't an agency within the executive branch
[11:41] Speaker 3: in the traditional sense. So this case was sort of
[11:43] Speaker 3: interesting as a Trump adjacent legal fight that has also
[11:47] Speaker 3: now resulted in a fee issue where after the board
[11:52] Speaker 3: voted to put Donald Trump's name on the Kennedy Center
[11:56] Speaker 3: and to add him to the official name. A number
[11:59] Speaker 3: of shows and artists pulled out of performing at the Center,
[12:04] Speaker 3: and this musician, who had performed I think a Christmas
[12:07] Speaker 3: Eve concert for many years, was one of those artists
[12:11] Speaker 3: who withdrew and canceled his performance. So the Kennedy Center
[12:15] Speaker 3: suit and he had said at the time there were
[12:16] Speaker 3: public statements, you know, in news reports that it was
[12:19] Speaker 3: because of this renaming move he used defeated the lawsuit
[12:23] Speaker 3: in DC Superior Court, the local court here. Judge found
[12:27] Speaker 3: that the Kennedy Center was unlikely to win its breach
[12:30] Speaker 3: of contract claim and also that this was what's often
[12:33] Speaker 3: referred to as a slap action, and there was an
[12:36] Speaker 3: anti slap law where, you know, the court found that
[12:40] Speaker 3: they sued this guy specifically because he was exercising his
[12:44] Speaker 3: right to advocate on public issues of concerns. Judge tosses
[12:47] Speaker 3: the case and he's now arguing his lawyers or arguing
[12:50] Speaker 3: that the Kennedy Center is on the hook to pay
[12:54] Speaker 3: their legal fees to the tune of more than two
[12:56] Speaker 3: hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Kennedy Center is not represented
[12:59] Speaker 3: by the Just Just Department in this instance. It's sort
[13:01] Speaker 3: of a it's not quite the same as the other
[13:03] Speaker 3: cases that we talk about in the story, but it
[13:06] Speaker 3: did seem like this extended universe of when we talk
[13:09] Speaker 3: about really the cost of the way this administration has
[13:13] Speaker 3: done business and how much of the actions have wound
[13:18] Speaker 3: up in court? Can you put a dollar amount on that?
[13:20] Speaker 3: And it's a question that I get a lot, and
[13:23] Speaker 3: I'm always interested in ways of answering, which is, you know,
[13:26] Speaker 3: what is the cost of the way that any given
[13:29] Speaker 3: administration and president conducts themselves. And you know, the Kennedy
[13:34] Speaker 3: Center was this example of Trump sort of expanding his
[13:38] Speaker 3: reach into different goddists around Washington and that getting smacked down,
[13:45] Speaker 3: and now the Kennedy Center is potentially on the hook
[13:48] Speaker 3: to pay these legal fees.
[13:50] Speaker 2: Great research, Zoe, great story, Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg
[13:54] Speaker 2: Legal Reporters, Zoe Tilman. Tom Goldstein was a star of
[14:01] Speaker 2: the Supreme Court bar appearing forty four times before the
[14:05] Speaker 2: High Court, but he was living a double life as
[14:08] Speaker 2: a high stakes poker player. And now Goldstein is in
[14:12] Speaker 2: prison serving a six year sentence for tax evasion and
[14:16] Speaker 2: mortgage fraud. The fifteen day trial included testimony about multimillion
[14:21] Speaker 2: dollar poker pots, Goldstein's lavish lifestyle, and there was even
[14:26] Speaker 2: testimony from Hollywood star Toby McGuire, an avid poker player
[14:31] Speaker 2: who enlisted Goldstein's help in recovering a gambling debt from
[14:35] Speaker 2: a billionaire. Goldstein says he'll appeal the verdict. Joining me
[14:40] Speaker 2: is Bloomberg Last senior reporter Holly Barker Holly tell Us
[14:43] Speaker 2: about Goldstein, the Supreme Court litigator before the scandal.
[14:49] Speaker 4: So Tom Goldstein is a prodigious Supreme Court lawyer. He's
[14:54] Speaker 4: argued more than forty cases before the High Court. He
[14:58] Speaker 4: also founded a website called Scotus Blog, which was really
[15:03] Speaker 4: a groundbicking website for access to the Supreme Court. It
[15:08] Speaker 4: was launched at a time where the Supreme Court itself wasn't.
[15:12] Speaker 1: Very easy to navigate.
[15:14] Speaker 4: He built a reputation for himself in sort of an
[15:16] Speaker 4: unusual way. He didn't go to the usual sort of
[15:20] Speaker 4: Ivy League schools, he didn't clerk for a Supreme Court justice.
[15:24] Speaker 4: But yet he built this really grand career in really
[15:28] Speaker 4: great reputation in sort of a scrappy way. So for
[15:31] Speaker 4: legal nerds far and wide, he was sort of a
[15:33] Speaker 4: household name, long before he was indicted on tax fraud charges.
[15:38] Speaker 2: Yeah, so explain the reaction when he was indicted on
[15:43] Speaker 2: tax fraud charges.
[15:45] Speaker 1: People were really shocked.
[15:46] Speaker 4: So in January twenty twenty five, at the tail end
[15:49] Speaker 4: of the Biden administration, an indictment drop and it was
[15:53] Speaker 4: originally twenty two counts. It was went out down on
[15:56] Speaker 4: the government's own motion to dismiss some accounts down to sixteen.
[16:00] Speaker 4: The allegations for the tax offenses really revolved around gold
[16:06] Speaker 4: Scene's ultra high stakes poker habit, which you know, there
[16:10] Speaker 4: had been some reporting on. You know, people knew he
[16:13] Speaker 4: played poker, but I don't think that there was any
[16:16] Speaker 4: appreciation for sort of the real scale of what he
[16:20] Speaker 4: was doing.
[16:21] Speaker 1: So that aspect of it, I think alone was shocking.
[16:23] Speaker 4: But then also this idea that this really well respected
[16:26] Speaker 4: lawyer may have been engaged in dodging his taxes was
[16:30] Speaker 4: you know, obviously shocking in its own way.
[16:32] Speaker 2: So a six week trial tell us about the highlights
[16:37] Speaker 2: of the government's case.
[16:39] Speaker 4: The government presented lots of evidence that gold Scene had
[16:43] Speaker 4: won tens of millions of dollars, sometimes in a single hand,
[16:48] Speaker 4: playing poker, and they showed that his office managers, his
[16:53] Speaker 4: accountants were in the dark. He wasn't proactively sort of
[16:57] Speaker 4: telling them what they needed to know in order to
[17:00] Speaker 4: classify as taxes properly. And it's sentencing. What they basically
[17:04] Speaker 4: said was that this was a decade long intentional effort.
[17:08] Speaker 4: Any omission was by design. He was intentionally opening foreign
[17:13] Speaker 4: bank accounts. He had no reason to think that sort
[17:16] Speaker 4: of the people he delegated responsibility to for his taxes
[17:20] Speaker 4: would be privy to the information that they needed in
[17:23] Speaker 4: order to get it right. And you know, he should
[17:25] Speaker 4: have known better. And they also pointed to he had
[17:28] Speaker 4: irs tax audits and people had sort of flagged for him,
[17:31] Speaker 4: professionals had flagged for him more than ten years ago
[17:35] Speaker 4: that he needed to be sort of cognizant of these
[17:39] Speaker 4: special reporting requirements for gambling and really needed to be careful.
[17:43] Speaker 4: And the government says that instead of sort of responding
[17:46] Speaker 4: to that advice and being compliant, he shifted to a
[17:49] Speaker 4: new accounting firm and sort of started all over and
[17:53] Speaker 4: hit it all from them too. That was sort of
[17:55] Speaker 4: the thrust of it was to the extent that it
[17:57] Speaker 4: looked like mistakes or mission or just in competence or
[18:02] Speaker 4: that this guy just wasn't paying attention to his taxes.
[18:05] Speaker 4: That was really all by design, and gold stated argued that,
[18:09] Speaker 4: you know, look, you're right. I did when a ton
[18:11] Speaker 4: of money, and I didn't always understand exactly how I
[18:15] Speaker 4: was supposed to report it. But my loss is offset
[18:18] Speaker 4: most of my winnings, and I was doing what I
[18:20] Speaker 4: thought I needed to be doing.
[18:22] Speaker 2: Yeah, And so he gambled and took the stand. And
[18:27] Speaker 2: you know, as we've discussed, when you take the stand,
[18:30] Speaker 2: sometimes the jury just focuses on your testimony and everything
[18:33] Speaker 2: else goes out the window. So what was he like
[18:36] Speaker 2: on the stand?
[18:37] Speaker 4: I thought he presented it well. He seemed very well prepared.
[18:41] Speaker 4: It is a gamble, of course, to put somebody in
[18:43] Speaker 4: the stand, but I do think that they sort of
[18:46] Speaker 4: needed to do it because nobody else was going to
[18:49] Speaker 4: be able to explain, you know, what losses he may
[18:52] Speaker 4: have had, for example, that would have offset There's no
[18:55] Speaker 4: other evidence other than his testimony to really cut against
[18:59] Speaker 4: what the government was presenting. So he had to get
[19:01] Speaker 4: up there, and I think he did well, but I
[19:04] Speaker 4: don't think it was enough.
[19:05] Speaker 1: And you know, I do think oftentimes one.
[19:08] Speaker 4: Of the big risks with testifying in your own defense
[19:13] Speaker 4: is that you might get if the court doesn't believe
[19:15] Speaker 4: you and the jury doesn't believe you, there's a risk
[19:17] Speaker 4: that on the back end, it's sentencing, you're going to
[19:20] Speaker 4: get hit with like an obstruction finding, which can increase
[19:23] Speaker 4: your points for purposes of what your sentencing guidelines range
[19:27] Speaker 4: is going to look like. And he did get deemed
[19:29] Speaker 4: for obstruction here, but incidentally it had nothing to do
[19:32] Speaker 4: with this testimony. Instead, it had to do with representations
[19:37] Speaker 4: that he'd made to government agents like IRS agents, after
[19:40] Speaker 4: he knew he was under investigation. But she actually didn't
[19:44] Speaker 4: make a finding of obstruction with respect to his testimony.
[19:47] Speaker 4: So it looks like there wasn't sort of a penalty
[19:50] Speaker 4: on the back end for having taken the stand, at
[19:53] Speaker 4: least beyond how it may have negatively.
[19:55] Speaker 1: Impacted the outcome from his perspective.
[19:59] Speaker 2: Now, at the sentencing, the prosecutors wanted eight years and
[20:04] Speaker 2: they said that his motivation was singular, pure, unrelenting greed.
[20:10] Speaker 2: I thought he had a gambling addiction. Did Judge Lydia K.
[20:14] Speaker 2: Griggsby take into account his gambling addiction when sentencing him?
[20:19] Speaker 4: Well, so he has an expert apparently the details of
[20:22] Speaker 4: all this, the public isn't privy too, but he has
[20:25] Speaker 4: some sort of authority that has prepared a document saying
[20:29] Speaker 4: that he's been struggling with addiction. And it seems like
[20:32] Speaker 4: there might be other mental health issues that were discussed
[20:34] Speaker 4: under seal, But the government has suggested at sentencing that
[20:39] Speaker 4: it sort of isn't buying it. They actually mentioned that
[20:41] Speaker 4: they had tried to subpoena this expert, and the expert
[20:45] Speaker 4: had acknowledged receipt of the subpoena but then just didn't show.
[20:48] Speaker 4: So the government actually wanted to call this expert to testify,
[20:51] Speaker 4: but he just wasn't available. I think that would have
[20:53] Speaker 4: happened during the sealed portion of the hearing. But I mean,
[20:58] Speaker 4: you know, to the accent your question, is this get
[21:00] Speaker 4: factored into his sentence, Griggsby did say, you know that
[21:05] Speaker 4: she was considering what she generally specified as mental health
[21:09] Speaker 4: issues that were discuss during the sealed part of the hearing.
[21:12] Speaker 4: In deviating downward from that sentence in guidelines range and
[21:16] Speaker 4: I should say that you know, the max was higher
[21:19] Speaker 4: than the eight years that the government asked for, but
[21:21] Speaker 4: the government was asking for the maximum of the guidelines
[21:26] Speaker 4: range as it had calculated it, and Goldstein's camp contested
[21:30] Speaker 4: the way that it was calculated and said it was inflated,
[21:32] Speaker 4: but by the government's assessment, it should the sence should
[21:35] Speaker 4: have fallen within at least a recommended range was seventy
[21:38] Speaker 4: eight to ninety seven months, and we wound up with
[21:41] Speaker 4: seventy two.
[21:41] Speaker 1: So Griggs, we debated downwards for that.
[21:44] Speaker 2: I mean, I was surprised that they asked for that
[21:47] Speaker 2: much and that the judge sentenced him to that long
[21:51] Speaker 2: because it's a first defense. What about his career and
[21:55] Speaker 2: all the good he's done in his career, and I
[21:57] Speaker 2: think he also mentored people. I mean, it almost seemed
[22:01] Speaker 2: as if he was being punished for having achieved so
[22:05] Speaker 2: much in the law instead of getting a break for that.
[22:09] Speaker 4: I think, you know, some of that cuts both ways.
[22:11] Speaker 4: And when she imposed a below guideline sentence, she did
[22:14] Speaker 4: say she was taking into account as lack of criminal
[22:17] Speaker 4: history and that already gets factored into her actual guideline
[22:20] Speaker 4: score for that range, but she said she was thinking
[22:23] Speaker 4: about it again in terms of where she resultimately get
[22:26] Speaker 4: a sentence in and she also said, yes, he's done
[22:29] Speaker 4: a lot of charitable work. He was a great mentor
[22:33] Speaker 4: to a lot of people, which came out during trial
[22:36] Speaker 4: and in the letters of support that she received for
[22:38] Speaker 4: purposes of sentencing, and she describes Cota's blog as groundbreaking,
[22:43] Speaker 4: So she was giving him some credit for that, you know,
[22:46] Speaker 4: earlier which she was justifying sort of the need for
[22:49] Speaker 4: a custodial sentence and a significant sentence. You know, she said,
[22:53] Speaker 4: it's an extra disappointing when a really accomplished officer of
[22:57] Speaker 4: the court engages in conduct like this. So, you know,
[23:02] Speaker 4: while his sort of being a zero point offender, being
[23:05] Speaker 4: this really accomplished lawyer, that can help in some ways,
[23:08] Speaker 4: you know, maybe because of the charitable work that he
[23:11] Speaker 4: did his mentorship, but it also sort of makes you wonder, well,
[23:15] Speaker 4: you knew better?
[23:16] Speaker 1: Right, So I think it cuts both ways in that respect.
[23:19] Speaker 2: And he spoke at the sentencing.
[23:21] Speaker 4: He did so when he stood up, he explained that
[23:24] Speaker 4: because he was tending to appeal, there's only so much
[23:28] Speaker 4: he can say, like he doesn't want to say anything
[23:30] Speaker 4: on record that might upset his appeal or even come into.
[23:34] Speaker 1: Play should he win a new trial.
[23:37] Speaker 4: So it was more circumspect, I suppose than it may
[23:40] Speaker 4: have otherwise been. He focused on two things he said
[23:43] Speaker 4: he thought he could do, which was express regret and
[23:46] Speaker 4: try to reassure the court that it could trust him
[23:49] Speaker 4: to respect the process and trust him to remain on release.
[23:53] Speaker 4: And he wasn't ultimately successful on that front. At the
[23:56] Speaker 4: end of the day, Griggsby revoked his bond and he
[23:58] Speaker 4: was remanded into custody. So unlike many, if not most,
[24:02] Speaker 4: white collar defendants, he wasn't allowed to voluntarily surrender. One
[24:06] Speaker 4: of the things he said, sort of in trying to
[24:08] Speaker 4: take responsibility without admitting to any crimes, you know, he
[24:12] Speaker 4: said there was no question that he deeply disappointed people,
[24:15] Speaker 4: and he admitted that he hasn't held himself to the
[24:18] Speaker 4: standards that he should have as a prominent lawyer. And
[24:21] Speaker 4: I think this was sort of the best way he
[24:22] Speaker 4: could own everything that had happened. He said, you know,
[24:25] Speaker 4: I put myself in the position he could make very
[24:29] Speaker 4: negative judgments about my character and where the jury could find.
[24:32] Speaker 1: Me guilty of a crime.
[24:34] Speaker 4: And if anyone wants to know who did that, who
[24:36] Speaker 4: created the circumstances or that could occur.
[24:38] Speaker 1: That's me, and I'm going to be punished for that.
[24:40] Speaker 4: So he tried to take responsibility without jeopardizing his appeal.
[24:45] Speaker 4: He also, in addition to speaking on his own behalf
[24:50] Speaker 4: the court, received more than twenty letters or support, including
[24:53] Speaker 4: from multiple people who served as government witnesses at trial.
[24:57] Speaker 4: So like Bob Safi, this real estate who had trouble
[25:02] Speaker 4: collecting six million that he won from gold Scene in
[25:05] Speaker 4: a two day poker match in twenty seventeen, testified because
[25:09] Speaker 4: he testified about misdirected payments essentially for the most part,
[25:14] Speaker 4: And there were also letters of support from names you
[25:17] Speaker 4: might recognize like Nina Totenberg, the Supreme Court reporter at
[25:21] Speaker 4: NPR and legal scholar Lawrence Tribe and retired reporter Pete Williams.
[25:27] Speaker 4: So he had a substantial amount of support from outsiders,
[25:30] Speaker 4: also family and his friends, and I think notably even
[25:33] Speaker 4: some government witnesses. And you might remember that when he
[25:38] Speaker 4: was on release he had a friend of his serving
[25:41] Speaker 4: as his non residential custodian for a period of time
[25:43] Speaker 4: after his former spouse, I'm not sure where their divorce
[25:47] Speaker 4: proceedings are right now, said I can't do this anymore.
[25:50] Speaker 4: He spoke to and described Goldstein as he said he
[25:55] Speaker 4: hadn't encountered a kinder more generous, more empathetic colleague and
[25:58] Speaker 4: the legal profession. Gold Scene had people in his corner
[26:01] Speaker 4: to help mitigate the sentence.
[26:03] Speaker 2: He said, he's going to appeal. Can you spot any
[26:06] Speaker 2: issues for appeal to.
[26:07] Speaker 4: The extent that there is a colorable appellate issue. I
[26:11] Speaker 4: guarantee he's identified it. There are two, so there are numerous,
[26:15] Speaker 4: but there are two that he raised in his motion
[26:19] Speaker 4: for release pending appeal, which he lost. In arguing that
[26:23] Speaker 4: he raised two appellate issues that he said were sort
[26:26] Speaker 4: of seemed to think were the strongest, and one was
[26:29] Speaker 4: a challenge to the court's instructions on accessory liability, and
[26:34] Speaker 4: the other was the exclusion of text messages that Goldstein
[26:38] Speaker 4: had wanted to get admitted that basically constituted a sort
[26:42] Speaker 4: of ledger of his gambling activities. He was allowed to
[26:45] Speaker 4: rely on them when he testified, but they never went
[26:49] Speaker 4: back to the jury. With respect to the accessory liability issue,
[26:53] Speaker 4: it's sort of complicated, but to sum it up, he
[26:56] Speaker 4: argues that jurors could have read the instructions to allow
[26:59] Speaker 4: them to convict him based on accessory liability even though
[27:03] Speaker 4: they weren't instructed on the elements of accessory liability, and
[27:07] Speaker 4: the court ultimately decided not to include the detailed elements
[27:12] Speaker 4: because well, it's not necessary because there's not enough evidence
[27:15] Speaker 4: to support that theory of liability.
[27:17] Speaker 1: Anyway.
[27:18] Speaker 4: Another thing that she did in the context of those
[27:20] Speaker 4: instructions was she altered the instructions after the parties had
[27:24] Speaker 4: given their closing arguments, which is a violation of procedural rules.
[27:29] Speaker 4: But she said, Okay, sure, it's the violation of procedural rules,
[27:32] Speaker 4: but it wasn't prejudicial in any event, because she just
[27:35] Speaker 4: doesn't see a world in which the jury would have
[27:37] Speaker 4: read the instructions to allow it to convict on accessory liability.
[27:41] Speaker 4: So those are the two issues that he seems to
[27:43] Speaker 4: be most confident about.
[27:45] Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Holly. That's Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter Holly Barker,
[27:50] Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
[27:53] Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
[27:55] Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[28:00] Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
[28:05] Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[28:08] Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
[28:12] Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.