Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

Let's get to legal analyst June Grosso, host of Bloomberg Law. June, I'm sure it's been busy for you in the last half hour trying to get up to speed. How was this decision divided? In what way did the court come down?

Let's get to legal analyst June Grosso, host of Bloomberg Law. June, I'm sure it's been busy for you in the last half hour trying to get up to speed. How was this decision divided? In what way did the court come down?

Well, that was the surprise of this decision that it was a five to four decision. So the three most conservative justice is Thomas Alito, Gorsich, and Justice Kavanaugh, who tends to be in the middle somewhere, would have granted this application. So it was the three liberal justices, the Chief Justice and Justice Amy Cony Barrett, who denied it. So that's kind of surprising because when you look at Trump's arguments, what he was asking for is to be treated differently from any criminal descendant, without really providing any good explanations for why that should happen. He wanted them to basically extend that controversy ruling giving presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. He wanted them to extend that to a president elect, and they refused to do. So. What they said was that the issues that he's raising can be raised on appeal in the New York case. And also he had claimed that his responsibilities as president elect during the transition would be burdened by his appearing at this sentencing, and they said that his responsibilities were not were relatively insubstantial in this sentencing. So they just basically said no way.

Well, that was the surprise of this decision that it was a five to four decision. So the three most conservative justice is Thomas Alito, Gorsich, and Justice Kavanaugh, who tends to be in the middle somewhere, would have granted this application. So it was the three liberal justices, the Chief Justice and Justice Amy Cony Barrett, who denied it. So that's kind of surprising because when you look at Trump's arguments, what he was asking for is to be treated differently from any criminal descendant, without really providing any good explanations for why that should happen. He wanted them to basically extend that controversy ruling giving presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. He wanted them to extend that to a president elect, and they refused to do. So. What they said was that the issues that he's raising can be raised on appeal in the New York case. And also he had claimed that his responsibilities as president elect during the transition would be burdened by his appearing at this sentencing, and they said that his responsibilities were not were relatively insubstantial in this sentencing. So they just basically said no way.

So in terms of prosecutors pushing back, what was the argument essentially, Well.

So in terms of prosecutors pushing back, what was the argument essentially, Well.

The prosecutor said that one of the things they said was that this was a jury verdict, and under our system, we have to really treasure jury verdicts. We have to respect jury verdicts, and you can't just throw out a jury verdict. They also attacked his arguments that this was going to be some kind of burden on his responsibilities in the transition. And I think what was smart here is that Judge mur Sean and a lot of people, when he first came out and said I'm not going to give him any sentence, said well, what's the point of the sentencing? Then, well, the point is that now Trump couldn't say that, oh, the judge may sentence me to time, or the judge may sentence me to probation, or who knows what, because the judge had said I'm not going to sentence you to anything. I'm going to give you what's called an unconditional discharge. And basically what this is is a symbolic sentencing, so that Trump is now, yes, a convicted felon, and that felony is on the books in New York. And I think the problem for Trump was always the stigma of being, you know, the first felon to be sworn in as president of the United States. So I think that's it's the stigma for him more than anything else, because there's no other impact on him at all. There won't be probation, there won't be even a fine. It'll just be the judge saying, you know, this is the verdict and you're convicted, and then it's over.

The prosecutor said that one of the things they said was that this was a jury verdict, and under our system, we have to really treasure jury verdicts. We have to respect jury verdicts, and you can't just throw out a jury verdict. They also attacked his arguments that this was going to be some kind of burden on his responsibilities in the transition. And I think what was smart here is that Judge mur Sean and a lot of people, when he first came out and said I'm not going to give him any sentence, said well, what's the point of the sentencing? Then, well, the point is that now Trump couldn't say that, oh, the judge may sentence me to time, or the judge may sentence me to probation, or who knows what, because the judge had said I'm not going to sentence you to anything. I'm going to give you what's called an unconditional discharge. And basically what this is is a symbolic sentencing, so that Trump is now, yes, a convicted felon, and that felony is on the books in New York. And I think the problem for Trump was always the stigma of being, you know, the first felon to be sworn in as president of the United States. So I think that's it's the stigma for him more than anything else, because there's no other impact on him at all. There won't be probation, there won't be even a fine. It'll just be the judge saying, you know, this is the verdict and you're convicted, and then it's over.

So is this over? You can can the state appellate courts in New York kind of change the outcome here in any way?

So is this over? You can can the state appellate courts in New York kind of change the outcome here in any way?

Yeah, because he is still and as the justice is said, he can go forward with the appeal as a person normally would go forward. Normally, you wait for the sentencing, you wait for the conviction comes, then the sentencing, and then you can start the appellate process through the New York Appellate courts. Well, Trump jumped all that. You know, he wanted to go right ahead and go to the Supreme Court. And I mean normally most people don't go to the Supreme Court, and normally most people take it through the appellate process. So that's what he's going to do. Now, after the the the judge does the sentencing, then the appeal will take place. He'll have thirty days to file to say that he's filing for appeal, and he can raise all these issues in the appeal. But remember too that some of these issues that were raised in New York the Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals, which is New York's highest court, rejected So but you know he'll raise them again. And I'm sure this case is going to go on for some time. I mean, appeals can take years.

Yeah, because he is still and as the justice is said, he can go forward with the appeal as a person normally would go forward. Normally, you wait for the sentencing, you wait for the conviction comes, then the sentencing, and then you can start the appellate process through the New York Appellate courts. Well, Trump jumped all that. You know, he wanted to go right ahead and go to the Supreme Court. And I mean normally most people don't go to the Supreme Court, and normally most people take it through the appellate process. So that's what he's going to do. Now, after the the the judge does the sentencing, then the appeal will take place. He'll have thirty days to file to say that he's filing for appeal, and he can raise all these issues in the appeal. But remember too that some of these issues that were raised in New York the Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals, which is New York's highest court, rejected So but you know he'll raise them again. And I'm sure this case is going to go on for some time. I mean, appeals can take years.

I have to ask you about the report that Trump had a phone call with Samuel Alito, one of the justices on the court. In the case of whether or not this was in any way related, we don't know that. Alito did say he was giving a former law clerk a recommendation for a role in the new administration. Did how did that feel to you when you got that news.

I have to ask you about the report that Trump had a phone call with Samuel Alito, one of the justices on the court. In the case of whether or not this was in any way related, we don't know that. Alito did say he was giving a former law clerk a recommendation for a role in the new administration. Did how did that feel to you when you got that news.

Well, you know, Alito said that they did not talk about anything having to do with Trump or his cases. You know, there's nothing ethically wrong with that, I think, as long as he didn't discuss any cases before the court. But it does sort of sit. It just sits as something that it appears to be something that looked it's like an ethical violation, even though it's not. It appears to be something that perhaps is. You know, it's unsettling sort of to have a justice of the Supreme Court talking to the president hours before the president elect excuse me, hours before the president elects lawyers file papers with the Supreme Court. It doesn't look good. But as far as you know, whether anything went on, who knows, and Alito said that different it's didn't And that's the way it's going to stay. This is not going to go any further. I mean, we've seen ethical violations, allegations of ethical violations, but the Supreme Court go up through the federal judiciary and they refuse to go forward. So this is certainly nothing's going to happen with the sets for sure.

Well, you know, Alito said that they did not talk about anything having to do with Trump or his cases. You know, there's nothing ethically wrong with that, I think, as long as he didn't discuss any cases before the court. But it does sort of sit. It just sits as something that it appears to be something that looked it's like an ethical violation, even though it's not. It appears to be something that perhaps is. You know, it's unsettling sort of to have a justice of the Supreme Court talking to the president hours before the president elect excuse me, hours before the president elects lawyers file papers with the Supreme Court. It doesn't look good. But as far as you know, whether anything went on, who knows, and Alito said that different it's didn't And that's the way it's going to stay. This is not going to go any further. I mean, we've seen ethical violations, allegations of ethical violations, but the Supreme Court go up through the federal judiciary and they refuse to go forward. So this is certainly nothing's going to happen with the sets for sure.

So you mentioned he's now a convicted felon, and sentencing will happen tomorrow morning at nine thirty am, a Wall Street time. And then on the twentieth, obviously, the President elect will take the oath of office. That's historic in and of itself because never has the United States had a sitting president who has been a convicted felon in the legal community. Are they talking about retaliation in any way? Do you think as the result of this, you.

So you mentioned he's now a convicted felon, and sentencing will happen tomorrow morning at nine thirty am, a Wall Street time. And then on the twentieth, obviously, the President elect will take the oath of office. That's historic in and of itself because never has the United States had a sitting president who has been a convicted felon in the legal community. Are they talking about retaliation in any way? Do you think as the result of this, you.

Mean retaliation for the Manhattan district attorneys or Trump has been talking about retaliation against the Manhattan District attorney since the case was filed. I mean, he has been talking about this throughout. He would do press conferences, you'd come out and make statements during the trial about how unfair the the whole thing was, how you know it was a witch haunt, and how the Manhattan District Attorney had it in for him. It was all political. So that's there. But it's going to be hard to go after a sitting district attorney because he's protected in certain respects for the things that he does in office. And it'll even be I think even he'll get, you know, legal representation free from the States. So it's going to be more difficult than Trump makes it seem. For the Justice Department to even you know, put that case together, and certainly it's not a case that's going to you know, that's going to go forward anywhere that it will probably be dismissed right away if it's brought at all. But you know, that is what Trump has said all along that he you know, so he probably is going to look for retaliation, but I dad he'll get it. What should we be.

Mean retaliation for the Manhattan district attorneys or Trump has been talking about retaliation against the Manhattan District attorney since the case was filed. I mean, he has been talking about this throughout. He would do press conferences, you'd come out and make statements during the trial about how unfair the the whole thing was, how you know it was a witch haunt, and how the Manhattan District Attorney had it in for him. It was all political. So that's there. But it's going to be hard to go after a sitting district attorney because he's protected in certain respects for the things that he does in office. And it'll even be I think even he'll get, you know, legal representation free from the States. So it's going to be more difficult than Trump makes it seem. For the Justice Department to even you know, put that case together, and certainly it's not a case that's going to you know, that's going to go forward anywhere that it will probably be dismissed right away if it's brought at all. But you know, that is what Trump has said all along that he you know, so he probably is going to look for retaliation, but I dad he'll get it. What should we be.

Looking out for, in particular tomorrow morning around these sentencing the language that the judge may use in an addressing President elect Trump.

Looking out for, in particular tomorrow morning around these sentencing the language that the judge may use in an addressing President elect Trump.

I think we should put a stopwatch on how quick the sentencing is because there's really not much to be said. There's not going to be any kind of you know, appeal. I'm sure Trump is not going to Maybe Trump will say something. Actually I could be wrong. He may say something before he's sentenced, but you know, it's going to be very quick because we all know what the judge is going to say, and there's not going to be much of an argument from either side. The judge has already set this out, so I think it's going to be very quick and at most we'll see some kind of statement from Trump, who's going to be a peer by video he doesn't have the judge that he doesn't even have to come into the courtroom. That was another thing that the Supreme Court sort of I must have picked up on that this is just a brief virtual hearing. They said, it's to impose the sentence of unconditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing. So I think what you have to take away from this whole thing is that Judge wanmershawn knew what he was doing and set this up so that the case could be ended without any interference from the Supreme Court or the courts of Appeal in New York.

I think we should put a stopwatch on how quick the sentencing is because there's really not much to be said. There's not going to be any kind of you know, appeal. I'm sure Trump is not going to Maybe Trump will say something. Actually I could be wrong. He may say something before he's sentenced, but you know, it's going to be very quick because we all know what the judge is going to say, and there's not going to be much of an argument from either side. The judge has already set this out, so I think it's going to be very quick and at most we'll see some kind of statement from Trump, who's going to be a peer by video he doesn't have the judge that he doesn't even have to come into the courtroom. That was another thing that the Supreme Court sort of I must have picked up on that this is just a brief virtual hearing. They said, it's to impose the sentence of unconditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing. So I think what you have to take away from this whole thing is that Judge wanmershawn knew what he was doing and set this up so that the case could be ended without any interference from the Supreme Court or the courts of Appeal in New York.

We'll leave it there, June, thank you so much for making time to chat with us. Bloomberg Legal analyst June Grosso, host of the Bloomberg Law Show, helping us understand a little bit more about the decision on the part of the US Supreme Court to clear the way for President elect Trump's sentencing in his hush money criminal case. We are told the sentencing is set for nine thirty am tomorrow. Over four deercents, the justices rejected Trump's request to halt the New York sentencing as even though a State of the FLDS court here in New York is considering Trump's claim of a presidential immunity and as June kind of laid out there. Juan Verschan, the New York judge overseeing this case, has said he will not give Trump jail time, any fine or probation,

We'll leave it there, June, thank you so much for making time to chat with us. Bloomberg Legal analyst June Grosso, host of the Bloomberg Law Show, helping us understand a little bit more about the decision on the part of the US Supreme Court to clear the way for President elect Trump's sentencing in his hush money criminal case. We are told the sentencing is set for nine thirty am tomorrow. Over four deercents, the justices rejected Trump's request to halt the New York sentencing as even though a State of the FLDS court here in New York is considering Trump's claim of a presidential immunity and as June kind of laid out there. Juan Verschan, the New York judge overseeing this case, has said he will not give Trump jail time, any fine or probation,