Trump's Tariffs & Trump's 'Enemies': Jack Smith, James Comey & Letitia James

0:00Some people treat Chachi-PT like some kind of smart search engine, and some use it to get work done. Chachi-PT work is a new way of working in Chachi-PT that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put Chachi-PT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chachi-PT.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro Plans. Wise is the smart way to manage the currencies you need around the globe. When you send money abroad using your bank, you could get hit with hidden fees and exchange rate markups. Here's a better way. Try Wise. Wise uses the exchange rate you'd usually find on Google with no unwelcome surprises. Plus, most transfers happen in under 20 seconds, which means your money arrives in less time

1:01than you've been listening to me. It's simple and free to sign up when you download the Wise app. Be smart, get wise! Teas and Cs apply. If you're a business owner, you need a card that can keep up. With the Delta Sky Miles Reserve Business American Express Card, every day purchases transform into miles you can use towards future travel, so businesses usually can lead to a well-deserved getaway. And for a limited time, card members can earn 200,000 bonus miles. The highest miles offered this year. Whether you're traveling for business or planning your next adventure, now's a great time to make every purchase go further. Apply today at www.delta.com slash podcast. Offer ends November 4th, minimum spending requirements in terms of apply. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. President Trump's signature economic policy is under a judicial microscope again.

2:02And the administration faced skeptical questions from a US trade court about the legal foundation underpinning Trump's latest round of global tariffs. Trump's tariffs have faced a rocky legal path, and one of the questions facing the judge is whether the tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 were a pretext to revive earlier global tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Zoe Tillman. She attended the hearings at the US Trade Court yesterday, so we explain which tariffs are an issue in this case. So every time I say I'm going to court for tariffs, someone says to me, I thought that was done. And I say, no, there are more tariffs. So this is the third round of what we often refer to as global tariffs that President Trump has sought to impose. There was the first round that was last year under international economic emergency powers law. Supreme Court said he couldn't do that. So then they announced what was

3:08inherently a temporary set. But again, of global tariffs under a different legal authority, you call it Section 122, but those were always going to be short term. They have a time limit under the statute. So everyone knew there was a date, expiration date on those. In the meantime, they announced they were launching investigations under what's known as Section 301, which has to do with trade practices that hurt US commerce and the US economy. And they announced they were investigating dozens of countries for this, which the statute requires. It can't just be all of a sudden you wake up and decide to do it. So they announced an investigation. And on the day that the temporary tariffs expire, they say, we've finished our investigation. We've determined that these 60 economies covering 86, I believe countries, because they count the EU as one economy. They all have unfair practices. And specifically, they don't do enough to deal with forced labor

4:09in the goods that they import, which in turn hurts the US economy because it undercuts US goods in their trade around the world, because we combat forced labor, other countries don't. So what we're now dealing with is the third set of tariffs. It's not every country in the world, but it's dozens and dozens of countries that they've now sought to impose these tariffs on. Small businesses, democratic states sued. Tell us what the argument of the plaintiffs is. So the overarching argument is that this is all a pretext. That courts keep knocking down the tariffs that President Trump wants to impose. And so they are searching for any legal authority that they can find to do it. Regardless of whether it's the intended or valid use of that legal authority. So that's their sort of sweeping argument here. That whatever they say they're doing, whatever reason they're giving to do it is significantly undermined by the fact that Trump himself

5:10and other high-level officials have said, this is the alternative to the tariffs that we have been unable to keep in place otherwise. It's worth noting that the emergency powers tariffs were in place for months and months, while the case was litigated. So they were collecting, I think it's something like $130 plus billion in tariffs. They collected those. When they lost in the Supreme Court, they've now had to spend months refunding that money back to businesses. So they were able to enforce those tariffs for a period of time. They lost. They've had to give all that money back. They collected more tariffs under the stopgap measures. Those were still in litigation when they expired. And now these new tariffs are in place. So they've sort of been able to do it just in fits and starts and getting knocked down significantly earlier this year. So that's a broad argument. Drilling down, not really what the hearing yesterday focused mostly on, were the arguments that this is just not with the statute and what Congress intended. That under Section 301,

6:14there are certain guidelines for what the U.S. Trade Representative has to show what he has to do in order to impose these tariffs. And what the challengers say is that the way that they've gone about it, issuing a single report saying based on a handful of case studies, the economic principles that play here for how forced labor may implicate the U.S. economy. Because many other countries import these types of goods where we know forced labor is an issue, applying these principles broadly, they all should be subject to tariffs. And the challengers say, no, no, this is not what's supposed to happen. It's supposed to be country by country. There's supposed to be unique specific investigations and country specific findings. Not only that there's forced labor in their import of goods, but that poses a burden on the U.S. economy and how. And so there's all these different steps that are supposed to be followed. And the challengers say that the way this administration did it, unprecedented massive investigation.

7:18It only took two and a half months where in the past, you know, a single investigation might take seven months. That none of this is the way it's supposed to go under the law. And that's really the core of the challenge and what the judges focused on at the hearing yesterday. I mean, does the trade rep or the administration claim that they actually investigated all these countries in that short period of time? They do. They say that the trade representative, James and Greer has broad discretion in making these types of determinations and that they essentially check the boxes that they needed to. They provided an appendix showing that these different economies do import the types of goods that can be an issue when we're talking about industries where forced labor is a problem. No one is disputing that forced labor is a problem. It's not sort of in question here. So they say, you know, then applying these economic principles broadly, if you look at case studies involving, for instance, China importing Brazilian beef where there's

8:22a forced labor issue. And then, you know, that beef circulates in a way around the world that undercuts the US beef imports that, you know, there's an implication there that you can apply these broadly and that they've done enough to satisfy this statute. Now, the challengers say, okay, but you exempted Brazilian beef from the tariffs. So that case study doesn't quite hold up the way that, you know, the government says it does. It's something that came up yesterday. But there's really this back and forth about how much detailed specific analysis and concrete analysis. The challengers say this can't be a may hurt the US economy. It can't be a likely to hurt the US economy. They have to show it does and how. So at each step, the challengers say it's not enough. At each step, the government says we did enough to satisfy this statute. Whether certain areas or questions that the judges concentrated on. Yeah, so they gave not a lot

9:22of time to the pretext argument. There were questions at the beginning about it. You know, they wanted to test the waters on that a bit with the challengers. They didn't ask the government any questions about that. You know, it's always hard to predict, but might mean that they're not super focused on it. On the more core legal questions, though, the lawyer for the Justice Department faced some very skeptical questions from the judges about how they were reading and interpreting the statute, where during one notable exchange, one of the judges was asking, you know, there are two subsections here that define unreasonable trade practices. The trade rep is supposed to base his decision on one, which one? And DOJ lawyers said neither. And judge was sort of a stonest and said, I don't understand. And they went back and forth. And the Justice Department lawyers said, we just disagree with your interpretation of the structure of this law and what's required. There were a couple exchanges like that where there just seemed to be a disconnect between

10:23how the judges were thinking about this case and the Justice Department's interpretation of the law here. Always with the caveat that questions and arguments don't always predict what judges are thinking or how they're going to rule, but it did seem like they at least had a lot of questions about how the Justice Department was doing this. And there made some comments suggesting that they weren't quite sold on it yet. One of the judges pointed out that there was not a lot of depth in the evidence the administration cited to show how it determines certain goods were affected by forced labor. Right. There was a lot of discussion of lists of evidence in an appendix that was submitted along with the trade representatives report that listed all the countries that were subject to these tariffs and saying, you know, here are the goods that they import. But the judges really seem to be looking for more analysis connecting all the threads of information that the administration had profited as the reason these tariffs were needed. It's one thing to say, while these countries import goods that we know are implicated by forced labor, that they were

11:29wondering what is the evidence that that is what's happening. What is the evidence that these goods from this country are coming to the United States and burdening US commerce and the US economy. So I think they were pushing the Justice Department lawyer to pull more of these things together and explain how they had done a sufficient specific enough analysis to justify these tariffs against each economy. So is it possible that the judges could give the trade rep a chance to fix the gaps in the record? Yes. That was another notable exchange or several exchanges during the hearing and discussing what the remedy could be if they determined that the record just wasn't clear. Do they go back and give them more time to essentially try again? Do they just say this is just not enough and if you need to reopen the record to do better, then that means that this was a loss for you and you can't keep this case indefinitely delayed to do that. And the lawyer for the

12:34challenges, Pratik Shah, he explicitly told the judges that he would rather that his clients lose and be able to take this up on appeal, then have it go back to the trade rep and leave the case in limbo. Obviously, he thinks they should win and he certainly wasn't conceding anything, but the idea was that they don't want this dragging out for months and months and months while these tariffs are still in effect. They want clarity. Everyone, I think the implicit acknowledgement was that this is probably going to go back up on appeal. Probably going to end up in the Supreme Court, especially if the government loses again, so they don't want this to drag out. The $130 billion in emergency economic powers tariffs that were collected before the Supreme Court said those tariffs were on lawful, the business community does not want that again. They don't want to pay $130 billion tariffs and then deal with refunds a year down the line. It's not an appetite for that. So I think this suggestion was give us a ruling on the law and let us move forward. It's worth saying that it's

13:36also not clear how broad a ruling might be. The judges discussed whether they could issue relief beyond the businesses that sued, whether they could issue relief that applied to tariffs beyond the countries that these small businesses import goods from, this is stemming from ruling from the Supreme Court last year that really narrow the ability of courts to issue sweeping injunctions that apply far beyond the parties in a case. But the idea, the challenger said is they wanted a ruling that this is unlawful and that would open the door for other businesses to come in and get their refunds challenged at what have you. So the short term relief, even if they win, might be pretty narrow. It might just be that these businesses don't have to pay tariffs, not all businesses, but it would kick off litigation that everyone seems to acknowledge needs to happen to get a final legal ruling on whether these are okay. And we have no idea when the trade court will come down with its decision. Thanks so much, Zoe. That's Bloomberg Legal Reporter Zoe Tillman.

14:39Some people treat Chachy PT like some kind of smart search engine and some use it to get work done. Chachy PT work is a new way of working in Chachy PT that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put Chachy PT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chachy PT dot com by selecting work mode available on plus and pro plans. The world of business is constantly evolving every day new challenges new opportunities new ways of working. Comcast business keeps you totally in step with secure AI back networking built to power the way modern business gets things done today in more than 100 countries around the world.

15:41That's some serious muscle and get this Comcast business powers over 90% of the fortune 500 and millions of small businesses behind it all network engineers, cybersecurity specialists, support teams, thousands of experts answering your call at 2 a.m. like its 2 p.m. Always on always ready. That's a lot of coffee. One partner powering how business gets done for companies of every size all around the globe. When you add it all up, no one does business like Comcast business. This is Alexis Christoffer's for Bloomberg surveillance AI is everywhere outcomes are not not because AI doesn't work but because AI hasn't reached the workflows yet. The campaigns, the launches, the quarterly planning those workflows are still run by humans alone. AI is making individuals faster but it's not making businesses more productive. That's the gap Asana is built to close. Asana is the operating system for human agent teams. Your easy button for AI productivity

16:44across every team ready to go AI teammates prebuilt for marketing ops and IT. No prompt engineering, no setup. They show up where the work is happening already onboarded in your workflows ready to deliver and the more they work with your team the smarter they get. With Asana, your whole company can work on the same plan towards the same goal whether you're a team of 10 or 10,000. Asana, where humans and agents work flow together. Try it at asana.com. That's ASANA.com. In testimony before Congress, former special counsel Jack Smith, stood by his prosecutions of President Trump for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and for storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lagoa state. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation. If asked whether to prosecute a former president

17:45today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat. But Republican senators were more interested in accusing Smith of abusing his power by subpoenaing Republicans' phone records and texts, some like Louisiana Senator John Kennedy attacked Smith personally. But the questioning that drew the most attention was when Missouri Republican Senator Eric Schmidt tried to catch Smith purgeering himself about attending a Hawks game in Atlanta in 2024. What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a warrior Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024, the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair? Smith denied meeting Atlanta. Smith denied meeting Atlanta prosecutor Fannie Willis, who was investigating Trump and said he wasn't in Atlanta at the time.

18:46I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing right around that time and the Marshall Service was there with me. You could check if that was the exact date. It was Maryland playing Iowa. It turns out Schmidt had confused an Iowa Hawkeyes basketball game for an Atlanta Hawks game. But he never retracted his statements about purgeery or calling Smith a dirt bag. Joining me is an expert in constitutional law. How what was the purpose or point of this hearing? I mean the hearing seems to cover the similar ground of administration trying to embarrass or go after or trip up political enemies. And clearly, Jack Smith, that special counsel who headed the investigations into whether Trump committed crimes is a figure that attracts resentment and hatred amongst the MAGA faithful.

19:49He stood by his decision to prosecute the president. Was much of the hearing on his bases for prosecuting the president or was it more about the Republicans being upset about his obtaining their phone records and text messages? The focal point really was on the fact that Republicans felt that Smith embarrassed members of Congress by looking at their phone records. There was a relevance here. The relevance was that Jack Smith wanted to see whether outside educators were trying to call members of Congress to upset the electoral vote at the time after the election for Biden. And so it's relevant, but on the other hand, it is an extraordinary measure to subpoena the phone records of members of Congress. They felt their privacy was invaded. They felt that some of their contact should not be disclosed to the outside world. So it had created that very deep tension. And you know, in retrospect, maybe even though the records could have been relevant

20:50to the investigation, maybe Jack Smith should have stayed his hand and not requested those and obtained those very private records of calls that members of Congress had. Now interestingly, some of the interlocutors said that Smith violated the speech and debate clause by grabbing these records. And I have to say that's a frivolous argument. And I'm quite surprised that members of Congress would relate that. All the speech and debate clause does is protect members of Congress from being prosecuted for what they say on the Congressional floor. These calls were not on the Congressional floor and there was no prosecution. So simply it's not relevant, but that was some significant discussion of that in the hearings as well. Could Smith be prosecuted for what he did? You know, he got a judge's permission, right? But he said that he didn't tell the judge it was for members of Congress. I don't think that he could be prosecuted for that. At least in retrospect, we have to remember there's been a lot of time. There's a great crisis at back around January 6th,

21:54but again, maybe history won't say that that was a good move, but certainly it's not a crime. Maybe history won't say that that was a good move, but certainly it's not a crime. Do you think it was unethical what he did? I think it was questionable judgment. I mean, again, going back to the time frame, we were really worried that there was a conspiracy to overthrow the government and that members of Congress would refuse to count all the electoral votes. And so, you know, Jack Smith wanted to unearth that at the time. And so, so say if there was this great conspiracy, we have to reveal it now and punish it. And I don't think the conspiracy was as wide as he feared, but I think that in terms of using his powers to get the filmmakers, again, at least with the comfort of history, was excessive and probably was a questionable judgment. Not unethical, not illegal, but questionable judgment. The focus in reports about this hearing ended up being on Schmidt trying to set a perjury trap

22:57for Smith, which fell apart. Well, the whole idea of calling Jack Smith, the front of Congress, was as in other cases, was to create a perjury trap. And what Senator Smith started out by trying to suggest that there was some conspiracy between Fannie Willis, as you've mentioned, the Georgia prosecutor and Jack Smith turned out to be kind of a common part of the hearing because it turns out that Schmidt had the wrong basketball game and that there were even witnesses placing Jack Smith at a woman's Hawkeye game, so they could watch Caitlin Clark as opposed to in Georgia at that time. So that went back by her belly, but it does reveal the weaponization, the political nature of this whole inquiry. And you know, the rhetoric from Republicans was just over the top. You had Senator John Kennedy saying, you make me want to throw up in my mouth. And Ted Cruz was talking about Les Mizz. I mean, it was just so over the top.

23:59Well, I think that was Senator Tillis, the Republican who commented well that we have to understand the dangers and the risks of politicizing this process. And I think he was right on the money. And in case we have a shift and the midterms, I think we have to give serious thought so that the Democrats, if they're in charge, don't just give vent to the same kind of base impulses as the Republicans did. I've already heard leading Democrats say, of course, the first thing we're going to do is impeach as many people as we can. And this kind of tit for a tat is not going to the country. And I think we need to think of a different process, a different way to explore the past through commissions or other kinds of means so that we can get to what governing demands, which is some kind of compromise across party lines. We're not close to that now. And this kind of fear that we saw with the question, you Smith, is some of the worst kind of theater. And I hope that if there is a shift in the midterm, it just doesn't repeat itself. The Republicans are repeatedly complaining that

25:03the Biden administration weaponized the justice department. But the Trump justice department is weaponized against his perceived enemies. And obviously, this is a constantly frame under the Trump administration and the Trump DOJ go after people like Komi go after people like Jack Smith and more. And it just doesn't leave the country any better. And so I hope that if there is a shift that some lessons from these kinds of waste of energy and this venom and this anger, we can try to mute it. So Smith said he expects to face personal consequences. He believes the Trump administration will do everything in its power to try to build a case against him. He's one of the top on Trump's list. Jeff Komi, you have the New York Attorney General, Latisha James, you have Jack Smith. We can't forget Jerome Powell. Well, they tried and failed on Jerome Powell so far. And also when he testified before the House, there was also that kind of perjury trap effort.

26:07And Jim Jordan referred Smith to the justice department for potential prosecution without going through a full vote of the House saying he lied to Congress. So is it just a question of when Smith is going to be indicted or is there a question of if I think there's a question that I mean the Trump administration has moved very aggressively as we've talked about against Tisha James, against Komi, against Jerome Powell. And it's gone much slower against Jack Smith, which suggests that they're having trouble with unworthening some kind of theory that at least looks good in the newspapers of nowhere else. So I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. It could happen. And obviously this was an effort to make it happen by laying the perjury traps as you suggested. But I don't think it's the done deal for sure. Their grand conspiracy investigation in Florida, the judge overseeing that is Eileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who dismissed the classified documents case and consistently ruled

27:11in favor of Trump. She was even overturned twice by the 11th Circuit. Smith said he couldn't talk about some things because the final report he drafted about the classified documents case, she has permanently barred the report's release and blocked officials from discussing it. But I suppose no one in the Justice Department is going to appeal that at this point. I think that's right. And so until another administration, everything that Eileen Cannon blocked, she's blocking. We'll have to wait to see if the Justice Department moves against Smith. Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor Harold Crent of the Chicago Kent College of Law. Some people treat Chachi PT like some kind of smart search engine. And some use it to get work done. Chachi PT work is a new way of working in Chachi PT that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs, and

28:17scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put Chachi PT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chachi PT dot com by selecting work mode available on plus and pro plans. The world of business is constantly evolving every day. New challenges, new opportunities, new ways of working. Comcast business keeps you totally in step with secure AI back networking built to power the way modern business gets things done today in more than 100 countries around the world. That's some serious muscle and get this Comcast business powers over 90% of the Fortune 500 and millions of small businesses behind it all network engineers, cybersecurity specialists, support teams, thousands of experts answering your call at 2 a.m. like it's 2 p.m. Always on, always ready. That's a lot of coffee. One partner powering how business gets done for companies of every size all around

29:22the globe. When you add it all up, no one does business like Comcast business. This is Alexis Christophers for Bloomberg surveillance. AI is everywhere. Outcomes are not not because AI doesn't work, but because AI hasn't reached the workflows yet. The campaigns, the launches, the quarterly planning, those workflows are still run by humans alone. AI is making individuals faster, but it's not making businesses more productive. That's the gap. Asana is built to close. Asana is the operating system for human agent teams. Your easy button for AI productivity across every team. Ready to go. AI teammates prebuilt for marketing, ops and IT. No prompt engineering, no setup. They show up where the work is happening already onboarded in your workflows. Ready to deliver. And the more they work with your team, the smarter they get. With Asana, your whole company can work on the same plan towards the same goal, whether you're a team of 10 or 10,000. Asana, where humans and agents work flow together. Try it at asana.com. That's ASANA.com.

30:29New York Attorney General Latisha James and former FBI director James Comey were the earliest targets of President Trump's push to have the justice department prosecute his perceived political enemies. You may remember back in October when Comey was charged for allegedly lying to Congress about whether he had ever authorized leaks to the media. And James was charged for a supposed mortgage fraud scheme. Last fall, a judge dismissed both cases after concluding that Trump loyalist Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully serving as interim US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia when she secured indictments against Comey and James. Well, that case is not over. The Trump administration is attempting to revive those prosecutions at the fourth circuit court of appeals. Joining me is Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter Holly Barker. Holly, tell us about the issue before the fourth circuit. So the appeal before the fourth circuit boils down to whether

31:35Lindsey Halligan, the former interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was lawfully appointed when she obtained indictments of James Comey and Latisha James. And if not, whether the appropriate remedy was dismissal of the indictments against them. The first question, whether Halligan was lawfully appointed, turns on whether the statute that authorized the appointment, which is Section 546, authorize the attorney general to make successive 120-day appointments. The statute issue allows the AG to appoint an interim US attorney for a period of 120 days. The question is whether or not they can do that more than once. Once they've appointed somebody and they've served at 120-day term, can they then appoint another US attorney to fill that position? So the question of whether Halligan was lawfully appointed revolves around whether or not the statute allows the attorney general to make successive 120-day appointments of interim attorney

32:36generals. In this case, Halligan's predecessor, Eric Sebert, had already served out a 120-day term after being appointed by the attorney general, Pam Bondy, plus a few months as the district courts interim appointee. The district court here was Judge Cameron McGowan Curry of the District of South Carolina. He was sitting by designation for the Eastern District of Virginia. Paul C. indictments because he said that that wasn't allowed. The statute doesn't allow the attorney general to make a second third, fourth, fifth, 120-day appointment under the statute. In Curry's view and in the defendant's view, once the 120 days are up, the statute shifts power to the district court to make any further interim US attorney appointments. During the oral arguments, the chief judge Albert Diaz said that the Trump administration's interpretation would allow the Department of Justice to make a limitless number of interim appointments and that would evade the Senate's authority to approve US attorneys. That's right. He was skeptical of the government's reading before that

33:40reason. He pointed out he used the phrase endless carousel, which I think he borrowed from the district court, an endless carousel of interim appointees, which would basically enable the AG to forever dodge presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Even very early on the argument, he said, how can that be? Later in the argument, the government has sort of said, well, but the incentives are such that the executive is going to want to work with the district court. And I think I was seen to be cold comfort to Diaz. He said at some point, under your reading of the statute, that's the logical conclusion, the carousel thing, that on, quote, day 119 continue with succession of appointments thereby essentially cutting off the district court and the Senate's advice and consent power. Under your reading of the statute, I'm nefarious, and I do well, executive could do just that. So Diaz seemed reluctant to adopt a reading that would enable this kind of misconduct, even if the incentives in the government's view would foster cooperation

34:46between the executive and the judiciary. The panel of three judges were two Obama appointees and one was a Trump appointee. Chief Judge Diaz is a Obama appointee. The other judge who was an Obama appointee on the panel was senior judge Henry Floyd. He was also skeptical of the Justice Department's argument. And then Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, seemed to be leaning in the government's direction. Was he doing a textualist reading of the statute? Richard Sen was heavily fixated on the statutory text. The judges also discussed whether if they find that Halligan's appointment was defective, whether dismissing the indictments would be the remedy. The court did spend some time talking about remedies and what the correct fix was. And also whether or not sort of in real time, the government was able to cure any defective indictment to the

35:46eccentric appointment was defective. The first argument is that she was an attorney for the government. So for purposes of the federal rules of criminal procedure, she was authorized to pay a report for the grand jury. So her title really doesn't matter. The second argument is ratifications. And the judges did spend a fair amount of time on this particular issue. So the idea is that the government claims that Bondi retroactively designated Halligan as a special attorney. And so that cured any defect in her initial appointment. And they also stated because Bondi had had the authority to indict James and Comey when they were indicted that she can basically retroactively ratify Halligan's actions. And some of the argument about ratification revolved around sort of laws of principle and agency. And one of the points that Defense Council made was, is this concept that really is sort of a civil concept be imported into a context where somebody's freedom is at stake? The third argument that the government raised that the indictments can

36:51stand is the de facto officer doctrine. And it's basically that Halligan was performing official duties under the cover of authority. So not all of her actions should be invalidated. And their final argument was that the error was harmless. So even if the appointment was flawed, the grand jury's decision to indict was independent and should be respected. At some point, and I think much more than once the government was using a phrase, strong medicine, when talking about dismissal of the indictments is a cure. And so we should mention that the Trump administration has been trying to install loyalists in this way in many U.S. attorney's offices across the country. And other appellate courts have ruled against the Trump administration. So three courts of appeals have weighed in on Trump's apparent efforts to sort of get around presidential appointments and a confirmation. But the three circuit courts that have weighed in, which are the second and the ninth and the third, they were ruling on the attorney general's

37:55appointments under a different statute called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. And that's a totally different mechanism for temporarily filling these seats. So those decisions aren't going to control this one. That said, not that they would anyway because they're sister courts, but they were dealing with a different substance to this. You still, they sort of signal this reluctance among federal appellate courts to embrace any sort of approach to this that would threaten to indefinitely circumvent presidential appointments and a confirmation. It's hard for me to see this as anything, but trying to avoid getting the Senate's advice and consent. Yeah, it's interesting. So it's like sort of a halogen, they screwed up because they just, they didn't know what they were doing yet. And they sort of refined their approach to getting around Senate confirmation after Comey and James raised their objections to the indictments. You know, Section 546 might not work.

38:59So they got smarter after that. So these other three circuits, the second to third and the ninth, the government was doing was under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The first assistant, somebody with a title of first assistant automatically assumes the duties of the US Attorney when that seat becomes vacant. So instead of some of the president appointing a new US Attorney for Senate confirmation, what they were doing instead was appointing a first assistant after the US Attorney's seat was already vacant. And they would just sit there below the US Attorney's seat but perform all of the functions. So it's a different kind of workaround. It's think some courts have referred to it as a first assistant workaround. And what they've said is no, the statute doesn't contemplate that the vacancy will open up and that you can then appoint a first assistant who will then assume that role in responsibility. That automatic succession only happens if that first

40:02assistant is already in place when the seat is vacated. And it sounds like the fourth circuit, the majority of the fourth circuit panel was skeptical of the government's argument here. Thanks so much, Holly. That's Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter Holly Barker. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall Street Time. I'm June Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. If you're a business owner, you need a card that can keep up. With the Delta Sky Miles Reserve Business American Express Card, every day purchases transform into miles you can use towards future travel. So, businesses usually can lead to a well-deserved getaway. And for a limited time,

41:04card members can earn 200,000 bonus miles. The highest miles offered this year. Whether you're traveling for business or planning your next adventure, now's a great time to make every purchase go further. Apply today at www.delta.com slash podcast. Offer ends November 4th, minimum spending requirements in terms of supply. Meet the Red Bull Dragonberry Emergizer. It's one of the many new drinks out now. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire. Try them all only at McDonald's. A business gift should do more than check a box. It should reflect your brand and show someone they're appreciated, recognized, and truly seen. Four imprint offers thousands of high quality customizable products. Like premium apparel, drinkware, tech and more, making it easy to create a gift that feels meaningful and on brand. And with four imprint's expert support in their 360-degree guarantee, you can be four imprint certain your order will arrive exactly as intended.

42:06Explore gifting with confidence at foreemprint.com. Four imprint. Four certain.