WEBVTT - Trump Indicted on Federal Criminal Charges 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:10.760 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:12.520 --> 0:00:15.680 Our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an 0:00:15.680 --> 0:00:19.400 example for the world. We have one set of laws 0:00:19.400 --> 0:00:24.520 in this country, and the apply to everyone applying those laws, 0:00:24.880 --> 0:00:28.960 collecting facts. That's what determines the outcome of an investigation. 0:00:30.400 --> 0:00:33.000 Nothing more, nothing less. 0:00:33.600 --> 0:00:36.880 Special counsel Jack Smith took only two and a half 0:00:36.960 --> 0:00:41.040 minutes to comment on the first federal criminal charges against 0:00:41.080 --> 0:00:45.200 a former president in US history. Smith let the indictment 0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:49.080 against former President Donald Trump speak for him. Trump is 0:00:49.200 --> 0:00:53.200 charged with thirty seven counts over his handling of classified information, 0:00:53.680 --> 0:00:59.480 including willful retention of national defense information, corruptly concealing documents, 0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:04.960 conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements. He declared 0:01:05.000 --> 0:01:08.959 his innocence in a video response on truth Social calling 0:01:09.000 --> 0:01:12.520 the investigation the Boxes hoax, just. 0:01:12.480 --> 0:01:15.720 Like the Russia Russian Russia hoax and all of the others. 0:01:15.800 --> 0:01:16.800 It has been going on. 0:01:16.800 --> 0:01:20.520 For seven years that they can't stop because its election 0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:22.320 interference at the highest level. 0:01:22.319 --> 0:01:24.240 There's never been anything like what's happened. 0:01:24.600 --> 0:01:27.840 I'm an innocent man, I'm an innocent person. A longtime 0:01:27.880 --> 0:01:31.840 Trump baide was also indicted on six charges. Joining me 0:01:31.959 --> 0:01:35.119 is Joshua Castenberg, a professor at the University of New 0:01:35.160 --> 0:01:38.920 Mexico Law School and a former prosecutor and judge in 0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:43.120 the US Air Forces. This is what's called a talking indictment, 0:01:43.400 --> 0:01:47.360 and the story it tells in words, texts, photographs, and 0:01:47.480 --> 0:01:53.240 transcribed conversations, is of Trump's relentless efforts to hide classified 0:01:53.320 --> 0:01:58.000 documents related to the national defense from federal prosecutors and 0:01:58.080 --> 0:02:01.440 his own attorneys. What's your asessment of how the indictment 0:02:01.480 --> 0:02:02.440 presents the case? 0:02:03.760 --> 0:02:07.640 So it brings a picture of clarity that the government's 0:02:07.840 --> 0:02:12.560 proof is pretty solid, particularly in regard to the recorded 0:02:12.639 --> 0:02:17.160 conversation he had where he admitted that the document he 0:02:17.240 --> 0:02:21.280 waived around the military attack plan was mark secret or 0:02:21.360 --> 0:02:25.520 top secret. He boasted about it basically to a non 0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:29.400 law enforcement official. This was a journalist or a writer 0:02:29.480 --> 0:02:31.760 who was going to write a book. And so my 0:02:32.040 --> 0:02:35.679 first thought is, well, the government has some pretty compelling evidence. 0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:39.360 I can't imagine why it would be ruled inadmissible because 0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:42.040 it goes to the heart of the offense and there's 0:02:42.080 --> 0:02:46.920 no like suppression motion or law enforcement misconduct type motion 0:02:47.120 --> 0:02:50.600 involved here. It's a private citizen that made a recording 0:02:50.720 --> 0:02:52.079 with Trump's permissions. 0:02:52.360 --> 0:02:54.760 How do you fight that kind of evidence as a 0:02:54.800 --> 0:02:55.679 defense attorney. 0:02:56.000 --> 0:03:00.880 You know, for criminal defense attorneys, that type of evidence 0:03:01.240 --> 0:03:05.160 is usually what they might consider nightmare evidence that their 0:03:05.200 --> 0:03:08.760 client does because it shows wrongdoing and it shows knowledge 0:03:08.760 --> 0:03:12.880 of wrongdoing, and you know, absinute confession, you don't get 0:03:12.919 --> 0:03:16.200 better evidence than that. As a prosecutor in a case 0:03:16.360 --> 0:03:20.040 that doesn't involve DNA, you know, the defense is likely 0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:23.440 to argue something unique, like while he's the former president 0:03:23.480 --> 0:03:26.480 of the United States, he had the authority to do that. 0:03:26.639 --> 0:03:30.320 They'll probably argue something known as mistake of law. And 0:03:30.320 --> 0:03:32.920 that's when someone acts because they believe they had the 0:03:33.000 --> 0:03:35.840 legal authority to do something when they didn't. And you know, 0:03:35.840 --> 0:03:38.520 there are all sorts of famous cases on mistake of law, 0:03:38.600 --> 0:03:41.520 including a Supreme Court case that involves someone who didn't 0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:44.400 pay their taxes. They made the argument that they had 0:03:44.480 --> 0:03:47.800 been advised by attorneys and the government that they didn't 0:03:47.840 --> 0:03:50.480 need to pay their taxes. You know, his lawyers they're 0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:52.600 going to throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall 0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:54.520 and see what six this is what they should do. 0:03:54.800 --> 0:03:58.240 But right now I would say it's the mistake of law. Defense, 0:03:58.280 --> 0:04:01.320 where he makes the argument, I'm not a lawyer, I'm 0:04:01.360 --> 0:04:04.320 a business mana turned president of the United States. I 0:04:04.400 --> 0:04:07.120 rely on the advice of lawyers. This was the advice 0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:09.000 I got. I thought it was okay to do. 0:04:09.520 --> 0:04:14.440 And does the indictment convey the seriousness and the danger 0:04:14.520 --> 0:04:17.160 to national security from his actions? 0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:21.559 Well, absolutely. Look if you had a person who worked 0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:25.360 at Department of Defense, whether they were military or civilian, 0:04:25.640 --> 0:04:29.960 or CIA or National Security Agency, waving around a document 0:04:30.040 --> 0:04:32.919 the way he did with that boast, my thought is 0:04:33.240 --> 0:04:37.360 absent somebody who is not guilty by reason of mental defect, 0:04:37.480 --> 0:04:40.000 that that individual would likely go to jail for a 0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:43.880 long long time. Now, this isn't quite a case of spying, 0:04:44.240 --> 0:04:47.320 but let's remember Robert Hansen just died in prison for 0:04:47.440 --> 0:04:51.280 spying for the Soviet Union. Jonathan Pollard spied for our 0:04:51.320 --> 0:04:54.719 ally Israel. He's spending life without parol. You know, in 0:04:54.800 --> 0:04:57.880 a jail he is take a step one step removed 0:04:57.880 --> 0:05:01.760 from that is someone who intentionally disregards the law and 0:05:01.839 --> 0:05:05.479 puts national security at rest. Usually those people go to 0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:06.799 jail in the decades. 0:05:07.040 --> 0:05:11.719 These allegations are very very serious, but it's almost comical 0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:15.840 the way Trump had those boxes moved around mar A Lago, 0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:19.479 from the ballroom to a bathroom, to a storeage room 0:05:19.520 --> 0:05:22.560 in his office, and then on a plane to Bedminster, 0:05:22.760 --> 0:05:26.760 New Jersey. And there are pictures documenting it all, even 0:05:26.800 --> 0:05:29.159 when some of the documents spilled out of a box 0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:30.719 and were scattered on the floor. 0:05:31.120 --> 0:05:33.880 It shows a certain degree of knowledge that you shouldn't 0:05:33.920 --> 0:05:37.040 have the documents if you do that, and also paranoia 0:05:37.120 --> 0:05:39.840 that you'll get caught. Now, there's a movie based on 0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:42.640 one of the John Grisham books where the lawyer tells 0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:46.400 his mafia client, I have documents on you that are 0:05:46.480 --> 0:05:49.240 at sea, and as long as nothing happens to me, 0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.400 those documents will never be back at port. And I 0:05:52.480 --> 0:05:55.240 get the feeling that this is kind of the mentality 0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:59.080 that's gone on here, about shifting boxes from a bedroom 0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:03.320 to a bathroom to Bedminster, keeping them on the go constantly, 0:06:03.440 --> 0:06:04.640 never getting into port. 0:06:05.279 --> 0:06:08.400 There's a lot of information in here that appears to 0:06:08.480 --> 0:06:13.480 be coming from Trump's lawyer, Evan Corkran, who's identified as 0:06:13.720 --> 0:06:18.280 lawyer number one. The Special Council has notes from Torcrene 0:06:18.520 --> 0:06:22.720 and a detailed voice memo from a key period in 0:06:22.760 --> 0:06:27.039 which he was recounting the team's private deliberations, and it's 0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:30.520 evidence that the prosecutor got because the judge pierced the 0:06:30.560 --> 0:06:34.680 attorney client privilege due to the crime fraud exception. And 0:06:34.720 --> 0:06:37.520 I believe that some of Trump's lawyers have referenced that 0:06:37.760 --> 0:06:40.760 piercing of attorney client privilege in interviews. 0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:44.159 Of all the issues out there, that's the one to 0:06:44.160 --> 0:06:47.400 pay attention to with the most focused at the beginning. 0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:51.159 So the crime fraud exception has been an exception created 0:06:51.200 --> 0:06:54.880 by the court and written into the roles of attorney ethics. 0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:58.039 That all fifty states have different ethics rules, but they 0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:00.880 basically all say the same thing, which is, there is 0:07:00.920 --> 0:07:04.280 an exception to the attorney client privilege when the attorney 0:07:04.360 --> 0:07:07.120 is part of an ongoing crime or a member of 0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:11.840 a conspiracy, then the privilege does not exist. That The 0:07:11.960 --> 0:07:15.960 issue that percolates up in cases that involve the crime 0:07:16.000 --> 0:07:20.520 fraud exception is is that the government sometimes makes mistakes 0:07:20.640 --> 0:07:24.240 in assessing what the degree of culpability of the attorney is. 0:07:25.080 --> 0:07:28.120 In a mafia case, when an attorney allows his office 0:07:28.240 --> 0:07:31.400 or her office to be used expressly for the purpose 0:07:31.440 --> 0:07:34.720 of illegal conduct, that's easy to prove. But when an 0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:38.200 attorney is simply giving a client advice on how to 0:07:38.280 --> 0:07:41.720 deal with charges against them or their criminal activity that 0:07:41.760 --> 0:07:45.560 the government doesn't yet know about. It gets somewhat dice these. 0:07:45.800 --> 0:07:48.480 Of all the issues, that's the one to pay attention, 0:07:48.760 --> 0:07:51.840 because if the criminal charges get dismissed, it'll be dismissed 0:07:51.880 --> 0:07:54.760 on that basis. If they don't get dismissed, it'll be 0:07:54.760 --> 0:07:58.760 an ongoing issue for appeal. I don't think it'll happen, 0:07:58.920 --> 0:08:02.080 but I wouldn't rule out the possibility. And the reason 0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:04.440 why I don't think it'll happen is because I think 0:08:04.480 --> 0:08:09.320 this particular special Council was very cautious and how they 0:08:09.360 --> 0:08:13.160 approached this issue and every other issue that's been involved 0:08:13.360 --> 0:08:17.160 in both grand juries. Nonetheless, you never know what all 0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:19.760 the facts are at this point that we're talking about, 0:08:19.880 --> 0:08:22.840 so I leave the door open to it being a possibility. 0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:29.040 Now, Trump's allies and Trump himself has floated this defense 0:08:29.120 --> 0:08:33.920 that he had already used his presidential powers to declassify documents. 0:08:34.040 --> 0:08:36.600 And you know, some of the things he said about 0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:41.320 declassifying documents seem ludicrous. But could that be part of 0:08:41.320 --> 0:08:42.520 his defense anyway? 0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:46.800 Well, you know, I think because the uniqueness of this case. 0:08:46.840 --> 0:08:50.120 They could try to advance it as a defense, but 0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:52.800 to me, the biggest barrier to get that defense to 0:08:52.840 --> 0:08:56.360 even be considered by a jury. To paraphrase an old 0:08:56.440 --> 0:08:59.400 movie with Tom Cruise, show me the money, because if 0:08:59.440 --> 0:09:03.119 you're in a through that defense then produced a document 0:09:03.400 --> 0:09:07.160 that was filed in official channels that shows that you 0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:10.800 gave a blanket declassification. And you can't just do that 0:09:10.920 --> 0:09:13.920 with you the word of mouth, Hey I declassified this. 0:09:14.120 --> 0:09:16.520 There has to be a process that was followed or 0:09:16.559 --> 0:09:19.160 a memorandum out there somewhere, and none of that has 0:09:19.240 --> 0:09:20.200 yet been produced. 0:09:20.520 --> 0:09:23.720 What do you think about the Special Council's decision to 0:09:23.760 --> 0:09:27.960 bring this indictment before a Florida grand jury rather than 0:09:28.000 --> 0:09:29.320 a DC grand jury. 0:09:29.679 --> 0:09:32.920 What the Special Council has done, in the best educated 0:09:32.960 --> 0:09:35.240 guess I can give, is that they determined that when 0:09:35.280 --> 0:09:39.480 the documents were transported to Florida that occurred when Donald 0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:42.559 Trump was still President of the United States, holding those 0:09:42.600 --> 0:09:46.200 documents in his possession after he left office is the 0:09:46.240 --> 0:09:50.080 centerpiece of the crime that's charged, and the only trial 0:09:50.240 --> 0:09:53.720 venue under the US Constitution that would be available would 0:09:53.760 --> 0:09:56.480 be the United States District courts in the state of 0:09:56.480 --> 0:10:00.120 Florida and not in Washington, d C. So I think 0:10:00.400 --> 0:10:04.000 what the Special Council did by creating a second grand 0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:08.240 jury in Florida was to safeguard a criminal trial against 0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:11.760 unnecessary appellate issues that would otherwise arise. 0:10:11.920 --> 0:10:14.640 Do you think it'll be harder for the Special Council 0:10:14.960 --> 0:10:18.840 to select a jury in Florida, a state that Trump won. 0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:24.440 I don't really like to presuppose that you can't find 0:10:24.480 --> 0:10:27.600 a fair jury in a state simply because there's a 0:10:27.679 --> 0:10:31.800 popular person on trial. Let's remember that there were people 0:10:31.840 --> 0:10:34.840 on the jury of Paul Manifort that voted for Trump. 0:10:35.000 --> 0:10:39.400 That will be a lifelong Republicans who convicted Paul Manifort. Now, 0:10:39.480 --> 0:10:42.800 Manafort wasn't a popular person in the way of the president, 0:10:42.880 --> 0:10:46.599 but certainly the political pressures were out there to support Manifort. 0:10:46.679 --> 0:10:49.280 I would hope that you find twelve jurors in an 0:10:49.280 --> 0:10:52.160 equal number of alternatives that truly will look at the 0:10:52.400 --> 0:10:54.920 evidence in a fair and impartial manner and follow the 0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:57.600 judge's instructions on the law. But it may be more 0:10:57.640 --> 0:11:00.240 difficult to get to those twelves. But that's what the war. 0:11:00.400 --> 0:11:04.520 Your processes for federal Judge Eileen Cannon is going to 0:11:04.559 --> 0:11:08.199 be assigned the case. And she was the judge who 0:11:08.240 --> 0:11:12.080 was appointed as a Special Master to review the material 0:11:12.240 --> 0:11:16.920 seized last year, and she gave some odd, if not 0:11:17.240 --> 0:11:20.520 bizarre rulings and one was thrown out in entirety by 0:11:20.520 --> 0:11:23.240 the Eleventh Circuit. This seems like it's just bad luck 0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:27.280 for the Special Council. But could they somehow get her recused. 0:11:27.440 --> 0:11:29.880 They could move to try to get her recused, but 0:11:29.960 --> 0:11:32.880 I'm not sure they'll do that because the law presumes 0:11:32.960 --> 0:11:35.920 that judges do not act in a political manner, whether 0:11:35.960 --> 0:11:38.839 you agree with their rulings or not. I know that 0:11:38.880 --> 0:11:42.440 the media and the general public has come to believe 0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:46.160 that that's not an accurate statement. And look, in some cases, 0:11:46.200 --> 0:11:48.880 it's not an accurate statement. And part of that is 0:11:48.880 --> 0:11:51.880 the fault of the judges themselves, who engage in public, 0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:55.880 you know, and well known activities, giving speeches, buying closed doors, 0:11:56.120 --> 0:12:01.119 making accusations against others, and you know, having bizarre financial 0:12:01.120 --> 0:12:04.880 and friendly relationships. But simply because a judge had rulings 0:12:04.920 --> 0:12:08.960 that were overturned in the past, isn't a basis for recusal. 0:12:09.040 --> 0:12:13.080 You'd have to find a tie between the judge and 0:12:13.320 --> 0:12:16.880 the defendant some kind of significant nature to even be 0:12:16.960 --> 0:12:20.560 able to convince the judge to recuse themselves, because under 0:12:20.600 --> 0:12:22.559 the law, judge has a duty to serve. 0:12:23.280 --> 0:12:27.080 Is it a problem for the prosecutors if she remains 0:12:27.120 --> 0:12:30.200 on the case, because that Eleventh Circuit panel was really 0:12:30.240 --> 0:12:33.120 critical of her and said she overstepped her bounds in 0:12:33.240 --> 0:12:35.520 exercising jurisdiction. 0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:39.040 It could be a problem for the prosecution. It certainly 0:12:39.080 --> 0:12:41.640 could be. I don't know enough about her for me 0:12:41.720 --> 0:12:44.720 to make a valuation judgment. What I'm going to assume 0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:47.280 happened if she had a defined view of the law 0:12:47.760 --> 0:12:52.280 when she made those rulings, and she issued her decisions 0:12:52.360 --> 0:12:55.640 based on her best efforts as to the defined view 0:12:55.679 --> 0:12:59.080 of the law. You know, she was overturned rather quickly 0:12:59.160 --> 0:13:02.600 and critically by circuit judges, some of whom are known 0:13:02.679 --> 0:13:06.080 for being conservative, and they had at least appointments arising 0:13:06.080 --> 0:13:09.559 out of the Bush administration and even the Trump administration 0:13:09.920 --> 0:13:13.200 on that point. On the other hand, that decision, which 0:13:13.240 --> 0:13:16.040 was highly critical of her, might actually cause her to 0:13:16.120 --> 0:13:20.040 use more circumspection and openness in this particular case. I 0:13:20.120 --> 0:13:23.040 can't really give a comment beyond that at this point. 0:13:23.440 --> 0:13:26.840 So now the timing of the trial. So everyone's wondering, 0:13:27.080 --> 0:13:30.400 could this happen before the presidential election. 0:13:31.320 --> 0:13:34.480 Well, if it doesn't happen before the presidential election, and 0:13:34.520 --> 0:13:37.480 if the next president happens to be Donald Trump, who 0:13:37.760 --> 0:13:41.400 has followed in the tradition of Grover Cleveland with a 0:13:41.559 --> 0:13:44.640 second but non consecutive term, then there won't be a 0:13:44.720 --> 0:13:47.360 trial when he's sitting as president. So I'm not sure 0:13:47.360 --> 0:13:49.760 it'll happen at all. But the earliest that could occur 0:13:49.840 --> 0:13:52.679 then is sometime in twenty twenty nine. You know. Having 0:13:52.720 --> 0:13:55.520 said that, people asked all the time, can someone run 0:13:55.640 --> 0:13:58.000 for president from jail? And the answer is yes. In 0:13:58.080 --> 0:14:01.120 point of fact, Eugene Deb's, a lay leader, did ran 0:14:01.160 --> 0:14:04.280 on the Socialist Party ticket in nineteen twenty when he 0:14:04.400 --> 0:14:07.440 was behind bars after being convicted of violations of the 0:14:07.800 --> 0:14:11.920 Espionage Act. The Constitution only has a standard based on 0:14:12.160 --> 0:14:15.640 age and the fact that you're born in the United States, 0:14:15.679 --> 0:14:19.240 which and regardless of whether Trump's indicted or in jail, 0:14:19.400 --> 0:14:22.320 the Constitution doesn't prevent him from running for office or 0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:23.440 serving an office. 0:14:23.640 --> 0:14:27.160 Jack Smith mentioned a speedy trial. How fast do you 0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:28.440 think they could get to trial? 0:14:28.880 --> 0:14:32.520 You know, if the defense council asked for a speedy trial, 0:14:32.720 --> 0:14:34.920 you could have a trial within a period of a 0:14:35.000 --> 0:14:38.280 month or so in theory. But typically, and I have 0:14:38.360 --> 0:14:41.520 no idea what Trump's defense council would be, but typically 0:14:41.880 --> 0:14:44.360 these kind of cases are dragged out for a while 0:14:44.480 --> 0:14:46.880 and there's not a lot the government can do about that. 0:14:47.640 --> 0:14:50.080 How likely do you think it is that Jack Smith 0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:51.480 would offer Trump a. 0:14:51.480 --> 0:14:55.000 Deal if we weren't talking about a former president in 0:14:55.040 --> 0:14:57.120 a case like this, it would be ripe for a 0:14:57.200 --> 0:15:01.320 deal to be made mishandling classified evidence. In my prior 0:15:01.440 --> 0:15:04.080 time as a trial judge, I can't recall a case 0:15:04.160 --> 0:15:07.320 that actually went the full litigation. I said as a 0:15:07.400 --> 0:15:10.000 judge on four cases that ended up being a deal 0:15:10.200 --> 0:15:13.040 at the end of the day. So the unlikelihood of 0:15:13.080 --> 0:15:16.960 a deal actually going forward is that Donald Trump doesn't 0:15:17.000 --> 0:15:20.400 seem to be the kind of defendant who wants to 0:15:20.480 --> 0:15:23.920 concede that he committed a crime or have done any wrongdoing, 0:15:24.400 --> 0:15:28.760 even if there's no jail time involved. And given his 0:15:28.960 --> 0:15:31.960 public statements and the fact that he's running for president 0:15:32.080 --> 0:15:35.120 and has claimed I never did anything wrong, I think 0:15:35.160 --> 0:15:38.080 that it's really unlikely that the defense would enter into 0:15:38.080 --> 0:15:39.400 plean negotiations. 0:15:39.680 --> 0:15:42.120 What about Trump's aid? Do you think they'll offer him 0:15:42.160 --> 0:15:42.520 a deal? 0:15:42.800 --> 0:15:46.840 Oh? Yes, you know, the case is probably very strong 0:15:46.920 --> 0:15:49.920 on some of the charges, maybe not strong on all 0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:53.280 of those. But a case always becomes stronger when a 0:15:53.320 --> 0:15:57.720 co conspirator splits off from the conspiracy, leads guilty, and 0:15:57.800 --> 0:16:00.680 agrees to testify against the remains members. 0:16:00.960 --> 0:16:03.040 So I think there will be And do you think 0:16:03.040 --> 0:16:06.600 we'll learn anything more when Trump goes to court on Tuesday? 0:16:06.960 --> 0:16:10.120 Most importantly to me, we don't know what the status 0:16:10.200 --> 0:16:12.880 of the grand jury meeting in Washington, d C. Is 0:16:12.920 --> 0:16:16.320 with the January sixth type charges. And I think we'll 0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:20.720 get a better picture of the January sixth grand jury 0:16:20.840 --> 0:16:24.120 on Tuesday because I have this suspicion in my mind 0:16:24.240 --> 0:16:27.760 that the trial judge, when they start talking about scheduling, 0:16:27.800 --> 0:16:31.480 will ask the question, well, what about the grand jury 0:16:31.520 --> 0:16:34.880 in Washington, d C. And the prosecutors will probably feel 0:16:34.920 --> 0:16:37.480 compelled to answer and give some timeline to that. 0:16:38.000 --> 0:16:42.000 Finally, you know, Jack Smith's statement in just about two 0:16:42.040 --> 0:16:45.320 and a half minutes hit on a lot of important points, 0:16:45.600 --> 0:16:48.680 one being that he said, we have one set of 0:16:48.760 --> 0:16:52.040 laws in this country and they apply to everyone. In 0:16:52.120 --> 0:16:53.960 other words, no one's above the law. 0:16:54.600 --> 0:16:56.800 Yeah, you know, some members of the House and the 0:16:56.840 --> 0:17:00.560 Senate and other Republicans who are allied with Donald Trump 0:17:00.560 --> 0:17:02.680 has said this kind of thing doesn't go to trial. 0:17:02.760 --> 0:17:06.240 This is, you know, targeting the former president. But earlier 0:17:06.320 --> 0:17:10.119 this week, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel went to 0:17:10.280 --> 0:17:13.439 US district court and was sentenced to three years for 0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:17.760 the mishandling of classified data data that he kept past 0:17:17.880 --> 0:17:21.320 his retirement in his possession. This was not a case 0:17:21.520 --> 0:17:23.680 that we know of where he was trying to sell 0:17:23.760 --> 0:17:27.200 classified data to the Chinese. He just collected a lot 0:17:27.200 --> 0:17:30.159 of it and safeguarded it for whatever reason in his 0:17:30.240 --> 0:17:33.040 own possessions. And he's not allowed to do that under 0:17:33.080 --> 0:17:34.920 the law. And he ended up getting three years in 0:17:35.040 --> 0:17:38.160 jail for breaking that laws. So I think when I hear, 0:17:38.760 --> 0:17:41.840 you know, from Trump's allies, this is targeting the president. 0:17:41.920 --> 0:17:45.720 This hasn't happened before. Yes, it has to ordinary citizens. 0:17:45.720 --> 0:17:48.200 And I think the most important point to take away 0:17:48.240 --> 0:17:51.000 from a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel is, here's a 0:17:51.040 --> 0:17:53.879 member of the United States government who fell under the 0:17:53.920 --> 0:17:57.280 command of a commander in chief at one point, who's 0:17:57.320 --> 0:17:59.760 going to jail for three years. And if you don't 0:17:59.800 --> 0:18:04.199 take Donald Trump to trial for this, you're excusing a 0:18:04.320 --> 0:18:07.280 senior commander in this case, the commander in chief, from 0:18:07.359 --> 0:18:12.520 criminal liability and prosecuting junior individuals who fell under his 0:18:12.640 --> 0:18:16.680 command for an identical crime. And that plays into the narrative. 0:18:16.760 --> 0:18:19.359 I hear over and over again from my students and 0:18:19.400 --> 0:18:22.000 see from the general public that we have two kinds 0:18:22.000 --> 0:18:24.640 of criminal law in this country, one for the wealthy 0:18:24.680 --> 0:18:26.760 and powerful and one for everyone else. 0:18:27.080 --> 0:18:30.800 That's such a compelling comparison. Thanks so much, josh That's 0:18:30.840 --> 0:18:34.679 Professor Joshua Castenberg of the University of New Mexico Law School. 0:18:36.320 --> 0:18:39.760 If it seems like Supreme Court arguments are going longer 0:18:39.800 --> 0:18:43.280 than usual, it's because they are. Eighty percent of Supreme 0:18:43.280 --> 0:18:46.480 Court arguments went over there a lot of time. This term. 0:18:46.720 --> 0:18:50.040 Gone are the days of Chief Justice William Renquist, who 0:18:50.040 --> 0:18:53.520 would cut off people mid syllable the very millisecond the 0:18:53.680 --> 0:18:56.840 argument was over. That's according to Haines and Boone partner 0:18:56.960 --> 0:19:00.440 Daniel Geyser. Joining me is Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court reporter 0:19:00.600 --> 0:19:05.800 Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, who's studied and written about this extended 0:19:06.040 --> 0:19:09.760 argument time. Some of these arguments seem to go on 0:19:10.000 --> 0:19:13.760 and on and on. What's the average time these days 0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:16.040 compared to what the allotted time is. 0:19:17.080 --> 0:19:20.520 Well, you know, back in the day, particularly when Chief 0:19:20.600 --> 0:19:23.400 Justice Rinquist was in charge, but also the early years 0:19:23.440 --> 0:19:27.240 of Chief Justice John Roberts, you know, cases would average 0:19:27.359 --> 0:19:30.080 about sixty minutes. There were some that would go a 0:19:30.119 --> 0:19:34.080 little bit longer they were scheduled to go over. Now though, 0:19:34.200 --> 0:19:38.400 you know, we have cases that are going over about 0:19:38.440 --> 0:19:42.399 thirty minutes on average, and that has led to over 0:19:42.440 --> 0:19:45.879 twenty eight hours of extra argument time on top of 0:19:45.920 --> 0:19:48.080 the sixty three that they've justice to the plans, a 0:19:48.119 --> 0:19:51.560 really significant amount of time that they're spending on these arguments. 0:19:51.640 --> 0:19:53.920 Do they have little lights that remind them when their 0:19:53.960 --> 0:19:54.560 time is up? 0:19:54.600 --> 0:19:57.880 Still, they do have lights that will tell the advocate 0:19:58.040 --> 0:20:00.840 you have, you know, five minutes left, you have one 0:20:00.880 --> 0:20:03.760 minute left. But then the court has added on this 0:20:03.920 --> 0:20:07.200 extra round of questioning where each justice gets to ask, 0:20:07.359 --> 0:20:10.080 you know, any questions that they still have lingering, and 0:20:10.160 --> 0:20:12.240 that is not timed and that's where we see a 0:20:12.240 --> 0:20:16.000 lot of this extra time happening is after the advocate 0:20:16.040 --> 0:20:18.440 has sort of gotten there as thirty minutes or so, 0:20:18.840 --> 0:20:21.440 and then you know, you throw on an extra nine 0:20:21.520 --> 0:20:23.679 rounds of questioning can get pretty timely. 0:20:24.160 --> 0:20:28.119 And you talk to a lawyer who said that Chief 0:20:28.240 --> 0:20:31.960 Justice Renquist would actually cut people off mid syllable. 0:20:32.840 --> 0:20:35.359 That's right. I mean, when that red light went on, 0:20:35.880 --> 0:20:38.120 you were done. You could ask for some extra time 0:20:38.160 --> 0:20:40.840 if you wanted to finish your sentence, but three words 0:20:40.880 --> 0:20:43.640 maybe you would get out. Otherwise you were not being 0:20:43.800 --> 0:20:46.800 in the good graces of the justices. But that's really 0:20:46.880 --> 0:20:47.639 changed a lot. 0:20:47.920 --> 0:20:48.160 Now. 0:20:48.280 --> 0:20:52.600 Now you'll see advocates go on for sentences, which doesn't 0:20:52.600 --> 0:20:55.119 sound like a lot, but in the Supreme Court, in 0:20:55.119 --> 0:20:56.320 that court room, it is. 0:20:56.600 --> 0:20:59.320 So explain why this change came about. 0:21:00.000 --> 0:21:03.040 Well, it really is an effect of the pandemic. So 0:21:03.800 --> 0:21:06.720 when March twenty twenty year olled around, the court had 0:21:06.760 --> 0:21:10.960 some more arguments scheduled, but they canceled them and pretty 0:21:11.040 --> 0:21:15.359 quickly switched to hearing arguments over the phone. And it 0:21:15.440 --> 0:21:19.080 was pretty clear that just you know, having nine people 0:21:19.280 --> 0:21:21.879 free for all over the phone was not going to 0:21:21.920 --> 0:21:24.679 be a workable way to conduct these arguments. And so 0:21:24.840 --> 0:21:27.920 it started going in order of seniority, starting with the 0:21:27.960 --> 0:21:31.040 Chief Justice, and then sort of going on through the 0:21:31.080 --> 0:21:35.200 associate justices, and when the court came back, I guess 0:21:35.200 --> 0:21:37.640 they found something that they liked about it, because they 0:21:37.800 --> 0:21:40.840 sort of tacked it on to what they had been 0:21:40.880 --> 0:21:43.560 doing before. And so now the attorneys that I spoke 0:21:43.600 --> 0:21:46.480 to that it's sort of a hybrid system now where 0:21:46.520 --> 0:21:49.520 there's this you know, free for all, any justice can 0:21:49.600 --> 0:21:52.159 jump in, and then there's this extra question and you know, 0:21:52.240 --> 0:21:55.119 that's what's been leading to these really long arguments. 0:21:55.160 --> 0:21:59.320 And it was a pandemic that led to that moment 0:21:59.440 --> 0:22:03.119 where Justice Clarence Thomas spoke. All of a sudden, it 0:22:03.280 --> 0:22:07.800 seemed like everyone stopped to listen, right, And you. 0:22:07.760 --> 0:22:10.840 Know, again I spoke with some advocates who said, it's 0:22:10.920 --> 0:22:15.440 not trivial to hear from Justice Thomas. He has been 0:22:15.520 --> 0:22:18.560 on the course the longest of any justice currently serving, 0:22:19.080 --> 0:22:23.359 and he asked a lot of really intelligent and probing questions. 0:22:23.400 --> 0:22:25.560 And what we saw during the pandemic, and what we 0:22:25.800 --> 0:22:28.919 continued to see is that now he's participating in a 0:22:28.920 --> 0:22:31.560 lot of the questions that the other justices asked are 0:22:31.600 --> 0:22:35.040 building off of questions from Justice Thomas. So you know, 0:22:35.200 --> 0:22:38.640 adding in an additional justice proved to be beneficial for 0:22:38.680 --> 0:22:41.600