# Blanche AG Nomination Moves Forward & Betting on Maduro Raid

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 5 Aug 2026, 40 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/bb44e8bf-9084-4f75-89ae-b49d01839eca/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the nomination of Todd Blanche for Attorney General, moving to the full Senate. Business law expert Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School and the co-host of the “Beyond Unprecedented” podcast, discusses a US Soldier arguing that betting with classified information on the Maduro raid, is not a crime. 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: The problem with confirming Todd Blanche is that he has
[0:12] Speaker 2: never been able to shed his role as criminal defense
[0:16] Speaker 2: lawyer for Donald Trump. He just can't do it. He
[0:21] Speaker 2: does not represent the American people now. He will never
[0:24] Speaker 2: represent the American people. He will never do what's best
[0:27] Speaker 2: for the American people. He will only do its best
[0:30] Speaker 2: for Donald Trump.
[0:33] Speaker 3: When he has sworn in as Attorney General, he will
[0:36] Speaker 3: have to swear to uphold, support and defend the Constitution,
[0:42] Speaker 3: but we know that oath will take a back seat
[0:45] Speaker 3: to his loyalty to the president.
[0:48] Speaker 4: It was a consistent criticism from Democratic senators like Adam
[0:53] Speaker 4: Schiff and Masie Herono to the nomination of Todd Blanche
[0:57] Speaker 4: to be the next Attorney General. He's apparent willingness to
[1:00] Speaker 4: aggressively push to meet all of President Trump's demands, eroding
[1:05] Speaker 4: the traditional independence of the Department of Justice. It had
[1:09] Speaker 4: looked like Blanche's nomination was in jeopardy under pressure from
[1:13] Speaker 4: two Republicans over the controversial deal settling Trump's lawsuit against
[1:18] Speaker 4: the IRS with a one point eight billion dollar so
[1:22] Speaker 4: called anti Weaponization fund to compensate his allies, but Republican
[1:27] Speaker 4: Senators John Cornyn and Tom Tillis dropped their opposition after
[1:32] Speaker 4: Blanche posted an order rescinding the fund late Sunday night.
[1:36] Speaker 5: I've never liked this seventeen seventy six fund. It made
[1:39] Speaker 5: no sense to me, and I thought it was an
[1:41] Speaker 5: insult to the police officers of the people that defended
[1:44] Speaker 5: us on January sixth. It's done, it's been rescinded, and
[1:48] Speaker 5: I am satisfied.
[1:50] Speaker 4: Tillis may be satisfied, but Democratic senators like Corey Booker
[1:55] Speaker 4: say the papers attached to Blanche's post have no legal
[1:59] Speaker 4: significance at all.
[2:01] Speaker 6: This is ridiculous. We got nothing, no guarantees whatsoever that
[2:07] Speaker 6: this slush one still can't go forward. We got nothing
[2:12] Speaker 6: that the president of the United States can't cheat on
[2:15] Speaker 6: his taxes and have no accountability.
[2:17] Speaker 4: The vote to advance Blanche's nomination was twelve to ten,
[2:21] Speaker 4: along party lines. Joining me is an expert in constitutional law,
[2:26] Speaker 4: David super, a professor at Georgetown Law. David so tell
[2:30] Speaker 4: us about the two pages Blanche posted, an order signed
[2:34] Speaker 4: by him, and an unsigned memo from the Justice Department.
[2:39] Speaker 7: He basically typed up what he said at the hearing
[2:42] Speaker 7: and posted it. There's literally nothing new there, and indeed
[2:47] Speaker 7: he said there was nothing new there. He's telling the
[2:49] Speaker 7: truth on that. I'm sure he prepared his talking points
[2:53] Speaker 7: for the hearing very very carefully, that those words were
[2:56] Speaker 7: not extemporaneous, and these are the same. He says, looking
[3:03] Speaker 7: entirely retrospectively, that the so called weaponization fund did not
[3:10] Speaker 7: get off the ground. He does not make any promises
[3:13] Speaker 7: that they won't do something like that tomorrow, but he says,
[3:17] Speaker 7: and I think this is historically actuate, it did not start.
[3:21] Speaker 7: And then he says that the immunity for Trump is
[3:25] Speaker 7: limited to Trump, his family, and his organization, which were
[3:29] Speaker 7: the parties the case. We always knew them. So he
[3:33] Speaker 7: is setting to rest the fears of people who can't read,
[3:39] Speaker 7: but he is leaving the rest of us just as
[3:43] Speaker 7: nervous as we were before.
[3:44] Speaker 4: The settlement agreement. Says, this settlement agreement may be modified
[3:48] Speaker 4: only with the written agreement of the parties. And President
[3:52] Speaker 4: Trump didn't sign anything, and he told reporters on Wednesday
[3:56] Speaker 4: that he didn't even look at this.
[3:59] Speaker 7: Yeah, there's many holes here, it's hard to count them.
[4:04] Speaker 7: Blanche says, the agreement didn't go forward, but as you note,
[4:10] Speaker 7: they don't modify it, and he doesn't have authority to
[4:12] Speaker 7: modify it, unless you say, well, actually, he's Trump's lawyer
[4:17] Speaker 7: in all respects, so he can modify it on behalf
[4:20] Speaker 7: of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, which I don't
[4:23] Speaker 7: think is quite the case. But he has no authority
[4:25] Speaker 7: to modify it because it requires the agreement of the
[4:29] Speaker 7: plaintiff's council. So he didn't modify it. He just said
[4:32] Speaker 7: they didn't act on it, which is true, but doesn't
[4:35] Speaker 7: mean they won't act on it in the immediate future
[4:38] Speaker 7: as soon as he's confirmed. And he says that they
[4:43] Speaker 7: haven't put the money out there, but he doesn't promise
[4:46] Speaker 7: not to raid the Justice Fund for payoffs for more
[4:50] Speaker 7: Trump affiliated law breakers. The judgment Fund is still there,
[4:54] Speaker 7: and if Senator Cornyin really was concerned about this, he
[5:00] Speaker 7: should have asked mister blanche for the administration's agreement to
[5:04] Speaker 7: an amendment to the Justice Fund, a quick unanimous consent
[5:07] Speaker 7: bill amending the Justice Fund to make it unavailable to
[5:11] Speaker 7: pay for settlements with anyone affiliated with the president. That
[5:15] Speaker 7: would be an easy fix to make sure this never
[5:17] Speaker 7: happens again, as far as we can tell, that was
[5:20] Speaker 7: even requested, much less done.
[5:23] Speaker 4: Cornyn admitted that the written assurances Blanche gave could later
[5:27] Speaker 4: be reversed, but said despite that, he believed the commitments
[5:32] Speaker 4: that Blanche had given him in recent days. I mean,
[5:35] Speaker 4: this reminds me of Susan Collins saying she believed Brett
[5:39] Speaker 4: Kavanaugh when he said that, you know, roe versus Wade
[5:42] Speaker 4: was safe.
[5:43] Speaker 7: And then when we looked at it, it turned out
[5:46] Speaker 7: that Senator Collins had accepted as an assurance something that
[5:51] Speaker 7: Shirley wasn't Justice Kavanaugh and did the justice as Alito
[5:56] Speaker 7: and Roberts before him had said that Roe v. Wade
[6:01] Speaker 7: was settled law, which is obviously true, but he also
[6:05] Speaker 7: was seeking a job where he would have the authority
[6:08] Speaker 7: to unsettle it, which he did. And so they describe
[6:12] Speaker 7: the present willout making any promises for the future, and
[6:17] Speaker 7: the senators that vote for their confirmation then pretend to
[6:22] Speaker 7: be surprised when they act on powers that they clearly
[6:27] Speaker 7: had clearly retained and never swore off. I can absolutely
[6:32] Speaker 7: believe that if all Todd Blanche said in private to
[6:38] Speaker 7: Senator Cornyn was more or less what he said in
[6:41] Speaker 7: public at the hearing that he will adhere to that
[6:43] Speaker 7: the old settlement fund won't go forward. There will be
[6:46] Speaker 7: a new settlement fund that you and I and anybody
[6:50] Speaker 7: else who doesn't have an electron microscope won't be able
[6:53] Speaker 7: to tell from the old one, but it'll be new.
[6:56] Speaker 7: So he will have nominally kept his word.
[7:00] Speaker 4: Also, a federal judge in Florida had issued a ruling
[7:04] Speaker 4: preventing Trump from enforcing the settlements, saying that the lawsuit
[7:08] Speaker 4: was brought for an improper purpose to gain the imprimature
[7:12] Speaker 4: of judicial legitimacy for a settlement that had no viable
[7:16] Speaker 4: basis in law or fact. Trump on July thirty first
[7:20] Speaker 4: filed notice with the court that he's going to appeal
[7:23] Speaker 4: that ruling. What does that tell you?
[7:26] Speaker 7: It tells you that the weaponization Fund is not dead,
[7:30] Speaker 7: that the tax community is not gone, and that this
[7:35] Speaker 7: is just a second saga in the collusive litigation. Because
[7:40] Speaker 7: of course Trump appeals that decision, and then he orders
[7:44] Speaker 7: the Justice Department not to fight the appeal, so it
[7:48] Speaker 7: will be uncontested in the appellate court. I hope the
[7:53] Speaker 7: Eleventh Circuit has the integrity to appoint someone to participate
[7:58] Speaker 7: as a friend of the court to make the arguments
[8:00] Speaker 7: for affirming what the district court did. But saying we're
[8:05] Speaker 7: going through more judicial proceedings where we control both sides
[8:08] Speaker 7: of the case should give nobody any reassurance. The whole
[8:12] Speaker 7: point of our system is that is an adversary system,
[8:15] Speaker 7: and it only works well, it only purports to work
[8:18] Speaker 7: well when there are serious advocates on both sides. There's
[8:22] Speaker 7: never been that in this case.
[8:24] Speaker 4: Democratic centers voice their opposition to Blanche for other reasons,
[8:29] Speaker 4: the departure of thousands of attorneys and staff at the
[8:33] Speaker 4: Justice Department, the weaponization of the department to pursue Trump's
[8:37] Speaker 4: political enemies. He's protecting Trump in the bungle release of
[8:41] Speaker 4: the Epstein files, to name a few. How do you
[8:45] Speaker 4: judge his performance as acting Attorney General?
[8:49] Speaker 7: Mister Blanche has taken more than two hundred years of careful,
[8:57] Speaker 7: mostly nonpartisan professionalism at the Justice Department and thrown it
[9:03] Speaker 7: in the trash. And he has shown everybody just how
[9:07] Speaker 7: politicized the Department could be. When someone single handedly destroys
[9:15] Speaker 7: the tradition of an agency, he should not be continued
[9:18] Speaker 7: in a position of leading that agency. And if mister
[9:23] Speaker 7: Trump is determined to have Todd Blanche there. He should
[9:26] Speaker 7: be serving in an unconfirmed capacity. What he will now
[9:29] Speaker 7: have is the blessing of the United States Senate, which
[9:33] Speaker 7: was well aware of all the things that he did.
[9:36] Speaker 7: This will, of course become enormously controversial next time we
[9:41] Speaker 7: have a democratic administration and a democratic Attorney general tries
[9:46] Speaker 7: to follow some of the presidents that mister Blanche set.
[9:50] Speaker 7: I hope a democratic attorney general won't follow these precedents
[9:53] Speaker 7: because they're just bad for the country. Whatever side of
[9:57] Speaker 7: the artisan eil you're on. But he is completely reconceived
[10:01] Speaker 7: the Justice Department. Mister Trump has famously complained that he
[10:07] Speaker 7: needed a roy Cohne, he needed a dirty lawyer to
[10:11] Speaker 7: push the limits and get him what he wants, and
[10:15] Speaker 7: I think he's found one.
[10:17] Speaker 4: I was surprised that the Epstein victim's opposition to Blench
[10:22] Speaker 4: and all that went on there didn't cause more Republicans
[10:26] Speaker 4: to hesitate about Blench, because that's been an issue that
[10:30] Speaker 4: President Trump has been unable to put behind him.
[10:34] Speaker 7: I think the word must have gone out that they've
[10:37] Speaker 7: released pretty much everything they have that doesn't terribly incriminate
[10:41] Speaker 7: the president or perhaps some members of Congress as well,
[10:46] Speaker 7: and that the word is that they don't dare push
[10:50] Speaker 7: any farther because the results will be catastrophic. I think
[10:54] Speaker 7: a great many people who voted for the president, and
[10:57] Speaker 7: who voted for Republican members of Congress to support the
[11:00] Speaker 7: president would be shocked, appalled, and deeply disillusioned if they
[11:06] Speaker 7: found out that the President was as closely involved in
[11:10] Speaker 7: mister Epstein's criminal activities as we keep being told. And
[11:16] Speaker 7: the presence in these files of references to documents that
[11:21] Speaker 7: have not been released is an ongoing problem. I think
[11:26] Speaker 7: the decision has been made by Republicans and that they're
[11:29] Speaker 7: largely following the party line to not press further on
[11:32] Speaker 7: this because there's nothing else that could be done that
[11:35] Speaker 7: wouldn't be destructive.
[11:37] Speaker 4: Stay with me, David. Coming up next, I'll continue this
[11:39] Speaker 4: conversation with Georgetown law professor David Super. What's likely to
[11:44] Speaker 4: happen when the full Senate votes on the confirmation of
[11:47] Speaker 4: Blanche This is Bloomberg.
[11:53] Speaker 2: I know I'm on that list. The President reiterated just
[11:56] Speaker 2: the other night that he hates me, which I could
[11:59] Speaker 2: tell you wounds me deeply. He's entitled to his own
[12:05] Speaker 2: views about me or anybody else. He is not entitled, however,
[12:08] Speaker 2: to use the Department of Justice to go after his
[12:11] Speaker 2: political opponents. And the day we say that's okay, and
[12:15] Speaker 2: the day we confirm an attorney general who says that's okay,
[12:19] Speaker 2: is the day that the rule of law becomes merely
[12:23] Speaker 2: an unenforceable idea.
[12:26] Speaker 4: Senator Adam Schiff was one of the Democrats on the
[12:29] Speaker 4: Senate Judiciary Committee who voiced their opposition to the nomination
[12:34] Speaker 4: of President Trump's former criminal defense lawyer to be the
[12:38] Speaker 4: next Attorney General of the United States. But Blanche cleared
[12:42] Speaker 4: that first Senate hurdle after he struck a deal with
[12:46] Speaker 4: two outgoing Republican members about President Trump's one point eight
[12:51] Speaker 4: billion dollar so called Anti Weaponization Fund. But Senator Dick Durbin,
[12:56] Speaker 4: the ranking Democrat on the committee, accused Blood of perjuring himself,
[13:02] Speaker 4: saying Blanche told him creating the fund was a mistake
[13:05] Speaker 4: in front of witnesses during a private meeting in his
[13:08] Speaker 4: office and then lied by denying that during his confirmation hearing.
[13:14] Speaker 8: Prior to this hearing, mister Blanche told me the quote
[13:17] Speaker 8: made a mistake close quote. By creating the January sixth
[13:21] Speaker 8: slush fund? Where did he say it? In my office
[13:24] Speaker 8: with witnesses myself to what I'm about to say. When
[13:29] Speaker 8: asking me about this under oath, mister Blanche falsely claimed
[13:33] Speaker 8: that he never made this statement. That's not true. Mister
[13:37] Speaker 8: Blanche's willingness to casually lie under oath about a statement
[13:41] Speaker 8: he made in a room full of witnesses shows the
[13:43] Speaker 8: links he will go to to avoid offending President Trump.
[13:47] Speaker 4: Almost every Democratic senator expressed concerns about Blanche's weaponization of
[13:53] Speaker 4: the Justice Department to pursue Trump's agenda and go after
[13:57] Speaker 4: his political enemies. I've been talking to Georgetown law professor
[14:01] Speaker 4: David Super. Do you think Durbin was setting up a
[14:04] Speaker 4: possible impeachment action against Blanche? If the Democrats retake Congress?
[14:12] Speaker 7: Even if every single Republican seat turns over in the
[14:16] Speaker 7: election this fall, which it obviously won't, Democrats would not
[14:19] Speaker 7: have enough votes to convict on impeachment anybody. And Dick
[14:24] Speaker 7: Durbins a smart man who knows how to count, so
[14:28] Speaker 7: I don't think he's seriously thinking about impeachment. I think
[14:32] Speaker 7: impeachment serves no useful purpose under these circumstances. But I
[14:37] Speaker 7: do think that he is trying to lay down a
[14:40] Speaker 7: marker for some of these trumped up perjury cases that
[14:45] Speaker 7: the Justice Department is bringing, the suggestion that mister Comy
[14:50] Speaker 7: perjured himself by saying something that was allegedly a little
[14:54] Speaker 7: bit unclear at hearing the assertions that doctor Fauci perjured himself.
[15:00] Speaker 7: I think that mister Drmann is trying to show that
[15:02] Speaker 7: two can play at that game.
[15:04] Speaker 4: So now the nomination advances to the full Senate, where
[15:08] Speaker 4: the Republicans hold fifty three seats. All the Democrats will
[15:12] Speaker 4: vote against Blanche. Is there any Republican in the Senate
[15:16] Speaker 4: who might vote against him?
[15:17] Speaker 7: Susan Collins will vote no because she's in a tough
[15:20] Speaker 7: reelection fight, and they always let Susan Collins vote in
[15:24] Speaker 7: the liberal way when she's up for reelection. Social vote no.
[15:30] Speaker 7: I think Lisa Markowski will vote no because I think
[15:32] Speaker 7: she has integrity and recognizes that mister Blanche is weak
[15:37] Speaker 7: in that area. But I don't think you get a third.
[15:40] Speaker 7: Your two best bets for a third vote would be
[15:42] Speaker 7: corn in Antillis, and they've now declared themselves.
[15:45] Speaker 4: A few of the Democrats, in particular Sheldon Whitehouse and
[15:49] Speaker 4: Corey Booker mention that this was an embarrassment for the
[15:54] Speaker 4: Judiciary Committee that's supposed to be sort of a check
[15:58] Speaker 4: on the other branches of government and especially protective of
[16:04] Speaker 4: the justice system.
[16:06] Speaker 6: We are this is the Judiciary Committee. We're supposed to
[16:10] Speaker 6: be checking and balancing this nation. Why have people on
[16:16] Speaker 6: both sides of the aisle given up on any trust
[16:18] Speaker 6: in government is because we're surrendering any shred of integrity left.
[16:24] Speaker 6: And now we're letting an attorney general become the highest
[16:29] Speaker 6: law enforcement officer in the land and putting no holds whatsoever.
[16:35] Speaker 4: I mean, the Judiciary Committee has yet to reject a
[16:39] Speaker 4: nomination that came to them during Trump's second term. I mean,
[16:45] Speaker 4: what does that say about the Judiciary Committee.
[16:48] Speaker 7: Well, it says the institutional identity is dead, that the
[16:51] Speaker 7: time when members of Congress felt that they were members
[16:55] Speaker 7: of Congress first and Democrats are Republicans second is over,
[16:59] Speaker 7: and that they have taken orders from the administration in
[17:03] Speaker 7: a way that their predecessors not that long ago would
[17:08] Speaker 7: become very angry if they were asked to vote for
[17:11] Speaker 7: someone embarrassing like this, and they are now just falling
[17:14] Speaker 7: into line. The argument that was floated over the weekend,
[17:18] Speaker 7: is we won't get a better nominee from the president.
[17:23] Speaker 7: I'm not sure they would, But getting someone who has
[17:26] Speaker 7: not committed the gross violations of public trusts that mister
[17:31] Speaker 7: Blanche already has is better than waiving someone through who
[17:36] Speaker 7: has committed those acts.
[17:37] Speaker 4: What kind of an attorney general do you think he'll be?
[17:40] Speaker 4: Sometimes when people go into positions like that, they change
[17:45] Speaker 4: for the better.
[17:46] Speaker 7: Sometimes, Oh, I think this is what you see is
[17:49] Speaker 7: what you get, situation. He by all accounts, was a
[17:53] Speaker 7: competent and not particularly ideological prosecutor when he started out
[17:58] Speaker 7: as a lawyer, so he knows how to be a
[17:59] Speaker 7: good lawyer. But he's made a decision in his life
[18:03] Speaker 7: and there's no reason to think he would change, particularly
[18:06] Speaker 7: since he can be dismissed at any time. So I
[18:08] Speaker 7: would not expect him to stand up to the president now.
[18:12] Speaker 7: I would not expect him to say no to the president.
[18:15] Speaker 7: I would not expect any scintilla of moderation out of him.
[18:20] Speaker 7: The Justice Department is just a great, big Trump law firm. Now. Obviously,
[18:24] Speaker 7: Pam Bondi looked like a complete Trump acolyte coming in,
[18:31] Speaker 7: and she served as Attorney General in exactly that way.
[18:35] Speaker 7: She was fired basically for doing something that she had
[18:41] Speaker 7: promised to do with Trump's blessing that blew up in
[18:45] Speaker 7: his face. Concerning the Epstein files, I think that Todd
[18:48] Speaker 7: Blanche has seen how even complete loyalty like hers was
[18:54] Speaker 7: not good enough to save her job. So he's not
[18:56] Speaker 7: going to be under any illusions that he can show
[18:59] Speaker 7: any independence at all and keep his job. And he
[19:03] Speaker 7: has made very clear he is not the sort of
[19:05] Speaker 7: person who will resign on principle, because just about any
[19:10] Speaker 7: principle that is relevant to serving as Attorney General he's
[19:14] Speaker 7: been asked to violate already. The only thing that may
[19:17] Speaker 7: keep him in his job is that he's a man,
[19:19] Speaker 7: and Trump seems to be more inclined to file women.
[19:21] Speaker 4: I believe you're right there. So far, Trump has only
[19:25] Speaker 4: fired women from his cabinet. There was Attorney General Pam Bondi,
[19:30] Speaker 4: DHS Secretary Christy Nome, and the Director of National Intelligence
[19:36] Speaker 4: Chelsea Gabbard. Those are the only three I can think of.
[19:41] Speaker 4: Back to Blench, he could have stayed in the job
[19:43] Speaker 4: as acting Attorney General the same power, So is there
[19:47] Speaker 4: any real difference in him being confirmed as Attorney General.
[19:52] Speaker 7: I think there's a lot of difference in prestige. It
[19:57] Speaker 7: makes it all so much easier to bring someone of
[19:59] Speaker 7: some or temperament in as deputy Attorney General his current
[20:04] Speaker 7: soon to be former job, and he does then get
[20:09] Speaker 7: the blessing of the United States Senate for everything he's done,
[20:14] Speaker 7: and he will very reasonably be able to say, when
[20:17] Speaker 7: he's criticized for new things, he does, you saw me
[20:21] Speaker 7: do similar things and confirm to me, so don't go
[20:25] Speaker 7: pointing fingers. When he revives the Weaponization Fund or raids
[20:30] Speaker 7: the Judgment Fund for other Trump personal expenditures, he will say,
[20:36] Speaker 7: I never promised I wouldn't do it in the future.
[20:38] Speaker 7: I just said that that particular thing had not gone forward,
[20:41] Speaker 7: which it happened. The Senators are leaving themselves wide open
[20:46] Speaker 7: to his doing exactly what he wants to do and
[20:50] Speaker 7: blaming their lack of thoroughness for it, and apparently they
[20:54] Speaker 7: don't care.
[20:54] Speaker 4: Can you think of another Attorney general in history who
[20:57] Speaker 4: was as willing to do the president's big as Blanche
[21:01] Speaker 4: appears to be, and you know BONDI was before him.
[21:05] Speaker 7: Well, the only name that comes to mind, of course,
[21:08] Speaker 7: is John Mitchell. Nixon's attorney general and Nixon's attorney general,
[21:13] Speaker 7: was a frequent visitor to the White House, but he
[21:16] Speaker 7: ended up in the Big House.
[21:18] Speaker 4: Yep. Mitchell was convicted of conspiracy, perjury, and obstruction of
[21:23] Speaker 4: justice for his role in the Watergate scandal and the
[21:27] Speaker 4: cover up. And by the way, David, to your earlier point,
[21:31] Speaker 4: now you have another woman whose job maybe in jeopardy,
[21:34] Speaker 4: and that's the DCUs attorney Janine Piro. Trump is very
[21:39] Speaker 4: unhappy that she dismissed the charges against former Olympic rower
[21:46] Speaker 4: David Hearn, charges of vandalizing the reflecting pool.
[21:51] Speaker 7: Indeed, I mean the news reports today or that her
[21:53] Speaker 7: job seems to be safe, but we read that about
[21:56] Speaker 7: Christine Home and Pam Bondy and others, so it's a
[22:01] Speaker 7: little hard to tell. But the problem with her position
[22:05] Speaker 7: is that if what she's saying is true, then their
[22:09] Speaker 7: corrupt no bid contract to get the reflecting pool done
[22:13] Speaker 7: by a contractor with no experience doing this kind of
[22:17] Speaker 7: work looks like a payoff to a political donor, which
[22:22] Speaker 7: is surely what it is.
[22:23] Speaker 4: It's always great to talk to you, David, thanks so much.
[22:26] Speaker 4: That's Professor David super of Georgetown Law coming up. Next,
[22:31] Speaker 4: a US Army soldier charged with making winning polymarket predictions
[22:36] Speaker 4: based on classified information about the raid to capture then
[22:40] Speaker 4: Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, says the alleged bets aren't a crime,
[22:46] Speaker 4: and he's asking a judge to throw out the case.
[22:49] Speaker 4: I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. A US
[22:54] Speaker 4: Army soldier charged with making winning polymarket predictions based on
[22:59] Speaker 4: class fight information about the raid to capture then Venezuelan
[23:04] Speaker 4: president Nicolas Maduro, is asking a judge to throw out
[23:08] Speaker 4: the case. Lawyers for gannon Ken Vandyke, a Special Forces
[23:12] Speaker 4: soldier who prosecutors said was involved in the planning and
[23:16] Speaker 4: execution of the raid, called the prosecution over zealous and
[23:21] Speaker 4: said the alleged bets are in a crime. Van Dyke
[23:25] Speaker 4: faces a maximum of twenty years behind bars on the
[23:28] Speaker 4: most serious charge, wire fraud. Joining me is Columbia Law
[23:32] Speaker 4: School professor Eric Tally, an expert in business law. Eric,
[23:37] Speaker 4: will you explain what he did what he's charged with doing?
[23:41] Speaker 1: Yeah, Mister van Dyke was charged with illegally making a
[23:47] Speaker 1: prediction market bet on poly market having to do with
[23:51] Speaker 1: whether Nicholas Maduro was going to continue being the president
[23:57] Speaker 1: of Venezuela or continue to be in power. Mister van
[24:00] Speaker 1: Dyke knew about the plans for the operation to go
[24:04] Speaker 1: into Venezuela and capture Maduro, and based on that information,
[24:10] Speaker 1: he ended up opening up a poly market account and
[24:13] Speaker 1: making several bets in favor of Madureau no longer being
[24:17] Speaker 1: in power, and made a fair amount of money off
[24:20] Speaker 1: of that process. And that's what gave rise to the
[24:23] Speaker 1: charges that are being brought now against him.
[24:25] Speaker 4: So they're saying he used classified information. Exactly what does
[24:29] Speaker 4: he charged with?
[24:30] Speaker 1: Yeah, this kind of looks almost like a securities fraud
[24:34] Speaker 1: insider trading type of case, but he was not buying
[24:37] Speaker 1: and selling stocks or bonds or the things that we
[24:40] Speaker 1: usually think of as being securities. He was purchasing this
[24:45] Speaker 1: event driven contract, which is effectively a bet. And so
[24:49] Speaker 1: as a result, standard insider trading approaches don't work as well.
[24:53] Speaker 1: But what does is just another section of federal law
[24:57] Speaker 1: called the Commodities Exchange Act. And there there is a
[25:02] Speaker 1: kind of an interesting debate that's going to be going
[25:04] Speaker 1: on in court as to whether event driven contracts prediction
[25:09] Speaker 1: market contracts fall under the Commodities Exchange Act, and particularly
[25:14] Speaker 1: a specific definition of a contract that the Exchange Act
[25:18] Speaker 1: has involving something known as a swap. Now that sounds
[25:22] Speaker 1: kind of like very Wall Street speak, but what it
[25:24] Speaker 1: really is is just a contract agreeing that you and
[25:27] Speaker 1: I are going to swap piles of money under some circumstances.
[25:31] Speaker 1: And so this can be any contract in which the
[25:35] Speaker 1: decision of whether I pay you or you pay me
[25:38] Speaker 1: is dependent on the occurrence or the non occurrence of
[25:41] Speaker 1: some event that has economic, financial, or commercial consequences. That's
[25:45] Speaker 1: effectively the definition. And to the extent that that definition
[25:49] Speaker 1: fits event driven contracts, and there's been at least one
[25:52] Speaker 1: case that holds that they do, then these types of
[25:56] Speaker 1: contracts would fall under federal law. If that's what happens,
[26:01] Speaker 1: then mister Van Dyke's chances look pretty grim. There are
[26:04] Speaker 1: direct statutes in the US federal law that prohibit informed
[26:09] Speaker 1: trading related to government informations done done by federal employees, officers,
[26:15] Speaker 1: members of the armed forces, and so forth. They generally
[26:19] Speaker 1: predict that anyone or they generally prohibit anyone who has
[26:25] Speaker 1: a financial information or relevant information about some upcoming international
[26:31] Speaker 1: event from entering into a swap contract to favor their
[26:35] Speaker 1: situation or to skew the odds of the contract paying off.
[26:39] Speaker 4: His lawyers say, the alleged bets aren't a crime, how
[26:43] Speaker 4: so what's their argument.
[26:45] Speaker 1: The first argument that they're going to make is that
[26:48] Speaker 1: these contracts just aren't swaps, that they are ordinary gambling
[26:52] Speaker 1: contracts under state law that shouldn't even be regulated by
[26:57] Speaker 1: federal law. Now, if they can convince the court that
[27:00] Speaker 1: that is the case, then a bunch of these statutes
[27:03] Speaker 1: that prohibit insider trading, specifically with respect.
[27:06] Speaker 9: To swaps, they're going to fall away.
[27:09] Speaker 1: The defense isn't completely out of the woods, but it
[27:11] Speaker 1: would eliminate what seems like the most direct form of
[27:15] Speaker 1: liability through these informed trading prohibitions related to swaps. The
[27:20] Speaker 1: problem is that just this past April, there was another
[27:24] Speaker 1: federal court in the Third Circuit that basically held in
[27:29] Speaker 1: a case that involved Calshi Polymarkets, big competitor that sports
[27:33] Speaker 1: event contracts they look a lot like betting, but they
[27:37] Speaker 1: also qualify as swaps because their payoffs are associated with economic, financial,
[27:43] Speaker 1: commercial consequences, and so forth. And so the court in
[27:47] Speaker 1: that case basically said, we're going to have a pretty
[27:49] Speaker 1: open ended and pretty forgiving definition of what constitutes a swap,
[27:54] Speaker 1: and so mister van Dyke's going to have to somehow
[27:58] Speaker 1: convince the court to distinctuish that case or to disagree
[28:01] Speaker 1: with it. It is only a sister jurisdiction, so there's
[28:05] Speaker 1: a chance that he could do it, and if he
[28:07] Speaker 1: does end up doing it, then his road is going
[28:10] Speaker 1: to be much cleaner. Not completely out of the woods,
[28:13] Speaker 1: but much cleaner. And you know, even if these contracts
[28:16] Speaker 1: do constitute swaps and therefore these prohibitions absolutely applied, mister
[28:22] Speaker 1: Vandyke may be able to make a couple of other arguments,
[28:26] Speaker 1: many of them having to do with the newness of
[28:27] Speaker 1: prediction markets and event driven contracts. Is a general matter,
[28:32] Speaker 1: there's a kind of an interpretive approach to criminal prohibitions
[28:36] Speaker 1: that says, let's not be overly expansive and determining or
[28:39] Speaker 1: defining what constitutes a crime, particularly if an ordinary person
[28:43] Speaker 1: wouldn't have reasonably thought that, you know, some offshore prediction
[28:47] Speaker 1: market wager was actually a federally regulated swap. And so
[28:53] Speaker 1: there are cases where COURTZ has said, look, formally, this
[28:56] Speaker 1: looks like it's a violation, but there just wasn't enough
[28:59] Speaker 1: notice to people in mister Van Dyke's position to know
[29:03] Speaker 1: that this was we're going to give him leniency, even
[29:06] Speaker 1: though someone that comes next in a year or two
[29:09] Speaker 1: isn't going to get the same type of leniency. Now,
[29:14] Speaker 1: there is another kind of route that the government has
[29:17] Speaker 1: if they lose on this question of whether these events
[29:20] Speaker 1: driven contracts are quote unquote swaps, and that's that there's
[29:26] Speaker 1: a very well known kind of secret tool that a
[29:30] Speaker 1: lot of prosecutors use, called the mail and wirefraud statutes
[29:34] Speaker 1: that basically say, if you do something naughty, even if
[29:38] Speaker 1: it's not, you know, like a serious, serious felony, but
[29:41] Speaker 1: if you do something that you know clearly is a
[29:44] Speaker 1: violation of.
[29:45] Speaker 9: Law, and you use a cell phone or the telephone or.
[29:49] Speaker 1: Email to do it, you can be convicted of wirefraud,
[29:53] Speaker 1: which has fairly significant criminal consequences.
[29:56] Speaker 9: Associated with it.
[29:57] Speaker 1: Now, in that situation, the US might be able to say, look,
[30:00] Speaker 1: even if these weren't swaps, what mister Van Dyke was
[30:04] Speaker 1: doing was engaging in some form of common law fraud.
[30:07] Speaker 1: He was misusing the information that the government entrusted with
[30:12] Speaker 1: him and trusted him to keep confidential, and he blew
[30:15] Speaker 1: that confidential out of a way used email or a
[30:19] Speaker 1: cell phone to do it and therefore committed wirefraud. And
[30:23] Speaker 1: that is an alternative approach that the government has tried
[30:26] Speaker 1: out in its indictment. That one is going to be
[30:28] Speaker 1: a steeper hill for the government to climb, in large
[30:31] Speaker 1: part because of the United States Supreme Court, which just
[30:34] Speaker 1: a couple of years ago really narrowed what.
[30:37] Speaker 9: It meant to misuse government information.
[30:40] Speaker 1: There was a case that involved regulatory information at the
[30:44] Speaker 1: FDA and the Department of Health and whether various types
[30:47] Speaker 1: of benefits were going to be liberalized or changed and
[30:51] Speaker 1: that would have a big effect on companies, and the
[30:55] Speaker 1: Supreme Court basically held that regulatory.
[30:58] Speaker 9: Information about what the government is.
[31:00] Speaker 1: Going to do, that's not really property that the government
[31:02] Speaker 1: can entrust you with. And that case, mister Van Dyke
[31:06] Speaker 1: may be able to use as well, to say, hey,
[31:09] Speaker 1: information about a potential raid into Venezuela kind of fits
[31:14] Speaker 1: that same definition. This particular type of information, you know,
[31:18] Speaker 1: this is a much more important and sensitive type of
[31:22] Speaker 1: information involving.
[31:23] Speaker 9: A military action.
[31:24] Speaker 1: So the government probably has a little bit better of
[31:28] Speaker 1: a chance to say, yeah, that regulatory case at the
[31:31] Speaker 1: Supreme Court that's different than this particular situation, because you know,
[31:37] Speaker 1: here we're really dealing with things that are of the
[31:39] Speaker 1: utmost importance for the safety and welfare of our armed forces.
[31:44] Speaker 4: Eric, this you know it's a swap? Is it sort
[31:46] Speaker 4: of a legal fiction? Because most people who are betting
[31:50] Speaker 4: on calci or polymarket think they're gambling, don't they.
[31:54] Speaker 1: One of the things that I like to ask my
[31:56] Speaker 1: students when I teach this topic June, is what is
[31:59] Speaker 1: the difference between securities and derivatives, trading, insurance and gambling?
[32:06] Speaker 1: And when you start thinking about the very structure of
[32:09] Speaker 1: this type of a contract, every single one of these
[32:11] Speaker 1: contracts involve one person having to basically you pay money
[32:16] Speaker 1: or transfer value to another if certain facts happen, if certain.
[32:21] Speaker 9: Events come about.
[32:23] Speaker 1: And so the distinction between those three things is, in
[32:27] Speaker 1: many ways only a regulatory distinction. Where did the various
[32:31] Speaker 1: markers or guardrails hold out? And it isn't even necessarily
[32:36] Speaker 1: the case that these three or more categories can't overlap
[32:40] Speaker 1: with one another. It's perfectly possible for something to be
[32:43] Speaker 1: considered gambling and a swap at the same time. And clearly,
[32:47] Speaker 1: mister Vandyke in this case is going to say, well,
[32:50] Speaker 1: I knew this was gambling, but I had no idea
[32:53] Speaker 1: it was a swap.
[32:54] Speaker 9: And that is actually a.
[32:56] Speaker 1: Legal determination that we're only now discovering in real time time.
[33:00] Speaker 1: You shouldn't hold me accountable to a criminal prohibition that
[33:04] Speaker 1: has remained unclear and is only going to get clarified
[33:08] Speaker 1: by this case. And so this idea that this was
[33:11] Speaker 1: only gambling, and it looks a lot more like a
[33:13] Speaker 1: you know, a football bent on the San Francisco forty
[33:16] Speaker 1: nine ers than it does a conventional Wall Street type
[33:19] Speaker 1: of swap as an argument, I'm certain mister.
[33:22] Speaker 9: Van Dyke's lawyers are going to try to impress upon
[33:25] Speaker 9: the court, and you know, they at least.
[33:27] Speaker 1: Stand a chance of convincing a court to be leaning
[33:29] Speaker 1: in this case, even as they send a message to
[33:32] Speaker 1: future traders on polymarket and Calci that you better watch
[33:36] Speaker 1: out that what you're doing could also involve the purchase
[33:39] Speaker 1: and sale of swap contracts.
[33:41] Speaker 4: So, I mean, do you think that the CFTC is
[33:44] Speaker 4: going to win this fight about you know, we're the
[33:47] Speaker 4: ones that are going to regulate these markets, or you know,
[33:50] Speaker 4: the states that want to regulate.
[33:54] Speaker 9: This is the big battle that's happening.
[33:56] Speaker 1: You know barely off stage with this case, right that
[34:00] Speaker 1: proponents of event driven contracts Calshi, Polymarket, others, Robinhood, they
[34:06] Speaker 1: very much want the designation of swaps for these types
[34:09] Speaker 1: of contracts because what that means that they can then
[34:13] Speaker 1: be traded on national exchanges and international exchanges. It also
[34:19] Speaker 1: means that federal law may, at least to some extent,
[34:22] Speaker 1: preempt what state gambling commissioners and governors and legislatures can
[34:28] Speaker 1: do if something is a you know, essentially a federally
[34:31] Speaker 1: recognized contract that can be traded on markets. That having
[34:35] Speaker 1: been said, there still may be some interesting battles to
[34:39] Speaker 1: fight about a whether these things ultimately are going to.
[34:43] Speaker 9: Be deemed to be swaps. Certainly, if we.
[34:46] Speaker 1: Got a conflicting opinion out of the Second Circuit in
[34:49] Speaker 1: this case, then that's setting itself up for a.
[34:52] Speaker 9: Supreme Court review of the question.
[34:54] Speaker 1: But in addition, there is still an open question about
[34:58] Speaker 1: whether if the you know, federal authorities say we think
[35:02] Speaker 1: of this as a swap and we're going.
[35:03] Speaker 9: To allow it, does that preclude state.
[35:06] Speaker 1: Regulators from saying, well, it may be a swap, but
[35:09] Speaker 1: we also think it is gambling, and therefore our jurisdiction
[35:13] Speaker 1: over gambling contracts gets applied as well, and we can
[35:16] Speaker 1: prohibit certain types of contracts regardless of whether there're swaps
[35:20] Speaker 1: or not.
[35:21] Speaker 9: That's going to be an interesting question as well.
[35:24] Speaker 1: The states have taken the position that they have fairly
[35:26] Speaker 1: broad abilities to enforce their gambling prohibitions regardless of what
[35:32] Speaker 1: the CFTC or the federal government thinks they can do
[35:36] Speaker 1: on securities markets or derivative markets fronts. So this is
[35:41] Speaker 1: a battle that in some ways probably should have happened
[35:44] Speaker 1: before this criminal indictment got litigated. But the criminal indictment
[35:49] Speaker 1: is in some ways, you know, driving the bus, or
[35:52] Speaker 1: at least a portion of the route that the bus
[35:54] Speaker 1: is taking. In determining exactly how event driven contracts are
[35:59] Speaker 1: going to be regulated for years to come.
[36:01] Speaker 4: I would bet. I would bet that there are a
[36:04] Speaker 4: lot of people who have used classified information to make
[36:09] Speaker 4: bets on Calshi, particularly in this administration. But why this
[36:13] Speaker 4: focus on this one guy? Was there a reason why
[36:17] Speaker 4: his came up?
[36:18] Speaker 1: It's an interesting observation. You know, the Trump administration has
[36:22] Speaker 1: recently said it's going to you know, offer for sale
[36:26] Speaker 1: early access to mister Trump's truth social posts.
[36:31] Speaker 9: Presumably so people who.
[36:33] Speaker 1: Have bought that early access can pay up and then
[36:35] Speaker 1: can try to make money trading on markets. So there's
[36:38] Speaker 1: there's almost a sense in which that, you know, entire
[36:41] Speaker 1: enterprise is sort of a winking invitation to trade on
[36:46] Speaker 1: the basis of information that has not been broadly disseminated. Now,
[36:51] Speaker 1: you know, there's a question of whether you can even
[36:52] Speaker 1: do that, even if you're the president, whether you're allowed
[36:56] Speaker 1: to do that, and that's a legal question that's.
[36:57] Speaker 9: Going to have to be answered.
[36:59] Speaker 1: But it does sort of create a question about, well, why,
[37:01] Speaker 1: you know, why is it the case that the administration
[37:04] Speaker 1: can sort of say, hey, we're going to just buy
[37:06] Speaker 1: and sell this information at top levels, but our foot
[37:09] Speaker 1: soldiers aren't allowed to.
[37:10] Speaker 9: Trade on the information.
[37:12] Speaker 7: You know.
[37:12] Speaker 9: I guess the part of.
[37:14] Speaker 1: The rationale is that, on some level, I guess it
[37:16] Speaker 1: is up to the federal government on how classified they
[37:18] Speaker 1: want to treat various pieces of information, and foot soldiers
[37:22] Speaker 1: probably aren't in a position where they're going to be
[37:24] Speaker 1: able to make those determinations.
[37:26] Speaker 9: You know.
[37:26] Speaker 1: Another one, I think probably is much more about the
[37:29] Speaker 1: real politic of it. As much as President Trump would
[37:33] Speaker 1: love to monetize access to his own tweets. He is
[37:36] Speaker 1: also continually rankled about various types of leaks in his administration,
[37:43] Speaker 1: in which someone inside the room called someone and the
[37:47] Speaker 1: information got out. The possibility of leaks finding their way
[37:51] Speaker 1: into prediction market prices much more quickly than you know,
[37:55] Speaker 1: a chain of phone calls, I think maybe another thing
[37:58] Speaker 1: that is worrying both the Truck administration and federal prosecutors.
[38:02] Speaker 1: You know, there is generally, you know, kind of a
[38:04] Speaker 1: sense that around, particularly the Venezuela operation, mister van Dyke
[38:09] Speaker 1: was not the only person trading in prediction market securities.
[38:13] Speaker 1: He seems to be the poster child, but there are
[38:16] Speaker 1: other potential prosecutions coming as well. I've generally been supportive
[38:22] Speaker 1: of the idea of prediction markets because they do allow
[38:24] Speaker 1: people to price out various types of contingencies that are
[38:28] Speaker 1: really helpful for purposes of writing insurance contracts, for understanding
[38:32] Speaker 1: whether they should be hedging risks, or understanding what their
[38:35] Speaker 1: risks are, and so forth. The nature of you know
[38:38] Speaker 1: where a lot of these prediction markets are going, however,
[38:42] Speaker 1: can both help that market but can also undermine that market.
[38:46] Speaker 1: If you know something about an event that's coming up
[38:49] Speaker 1: solely because you were lucky enough to overhear it in
[38:52] Speaker 1: a room that the conversation was expected to be private,
[38:55] Speaker 1: or even more so, if you're one of the actors
[38:58] Speaker 1: that can either cause this event to about or not
[39:01] Speaker 1: cause this event to come about, even at the margins,
[39:05] Speaker 1: and you are allowed openly to trade on that information,
[39:08] Speaker 1: that not only is not going to help the market
[39:12] Speaker 1: to kind of kind of reflect real risks that are
[39:14] Speaker 1: going on, it can undermine the very activity of the market.
[39:18] Speaker 1: Who wants to play a game that everyone knows is rigged,
[39:21] Speaker 1: and if you are playing that game with insiders who
[39:25] Speaker 1: are going to beat you at every turn, you were
[39:27] Speaker 1: destined to lose money. So there really is you know,
[39:30] Speaker 1: for the purposes of these markets. I think there is
[39:33] Speaker 1: a very strong social and private incentive of these markets
[39:37] Speaker 1: to try to make sure that informed trading isn't running
[39:40] Speaker 1: rampant around these markets or no one's going to want
[39:42] Speaker 1: to play.
[39:43] Speaker 4: I can see these legal fights playing out for years
[39:46] Speaker 4: to come. Thanks so much, Eric. That's Columbia Law School
[39:50] Speaker 4: professor Eric Tally, And that's it for this edition of
[39:53] Speaker 4: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
[39:55] Speaker 4: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
[39:59] Speaker 4: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
[40:03] Speaker 4: bloomberg dot com slash podcast, slash Law, and remember to
[40:07] Speaker 4: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
[40:10] Speaker 4: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
[40:14] Speaker 4: 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.