WEBVTT - Implications of Mark Meadows Getting Immunity 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:14.000 Mark Meadows, listen, I did this for seven years. As 0:00:14.040 --> 0:00:15.960 you guys know, you do not give. 0:00:15.800 --> 0:00:18.120 Immunity complete immunity. 0:00:18.160 --> 0:00:21.119 It's a former White House chief of staff unless he's got. 0:00:20.920 --> 0:00:23.919 Information that is devastating and that you couldn't get any 0:00:23.920 --> 0:00:24.400 other way. 0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:28.480 Donald Trump is a huge trouble. Chris Christy, the former 0:00:28.640 --> 0:00:32.280 US Attorney for New Jersey and a current presidential candidate, 0:00:32.560 --> 0:00:35.640 was blunt about the news that Mark Meadows, the final 0:00:35.720 --> 0:00:39.320 chief of staff to Donald Trump, was given immunity from 0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:43.360 prosecution by the Special Council in the election interference case 0:00:43.440 --> 0:00:48.479 against the former president. According to Bloomberg sources, Meadows testified 0:00:48.479 --> 0:00:52.360 before the DC Grand Jury that he repeatedly told Trump 0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:55.200 in the weeks following the conclusion of the twenty twenty 0:00:55.240 --> 0:01:01.120 election that claims of election fraud were baseless. Trump denies 0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:05.039 that because I've spoken to Mark Medos many many times 0:01:05.080 --> 0:01:09.600 over the years, and he strongly believed the election was rigged. 0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:12.280 Now, of course, you know, deranged Jack Smith and the 0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:15.800 prosecutors and go after somebody for years and they say, look, 0:01:15.840 --> 0:01:19.200 here's the story. We'll give you nothing will erect a 0:01:19.200 --> 0:01:21.319 statute to you, or you're going to go to jail 0:01:21.360 --> 0:01:25.319 for ten years but having done nothing wrong. So you know, 0:01:25.480 --> 0:01:27.520 a lot of people have to make that decision. Some 0:01:27.520 --> 0:01:30.040 people would never make that decision, other people would. 0:01:30.440 --> 0:01:33.639 Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mentz, a partner 0:01:33.720 --> 0:01:37.120 McCarter and English Bob. There are different kinds of immunity. 0:01:37.600 --> 0:01:40.039 What kind does Meadows reportedly have? 0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:45.199 Based upon report? Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump's final 0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:48.600 chief of staff, has spoken with Special Counsel Jack Smith's 0:01:48.600 --> 0:01:52.840 team at least three times and reportedly has testified before 0:01:52.880 --> 0:01:57.240 the federal grand jury. That only came after Meadows was 0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:00.920 granted immunity to testify under oath. In this case, there's 0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:05.760 two types of immunity. There's use community and transactional immunity. Reportedly, 0:02:05.800 --> 0:02:09.360 mister Meadows was given use community, which protects him from 0:02:09.520 --> 0:02:13.640 any statements he makes to the grand jury or information 0:02:13.960 --> 0:02:17.200 derived from those statements. So what that means effectively is 0:02:17.200 --> 0:02:21.200 that prosecutors can't use those statements and can't use information 0:02:21.440 --> 0:02:24.840 derived from those statements in a prosecution against them in 0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:28.200 the future. As a practical matter, it is very difficult 0:02:28.240 --> 0:02:32.119 for prosecutors to pursue a criminal case against somebody, even 0:02:32.200 --> 0:02:34.920 if they've only been given this use community, because they 0:02:34.919 --> 0:02:37.960 would have to show that they brought these charges based 0:02:38.000 --> 0:02:41.600 not upon the statements and not derived from those statements 0:02:41.720 --> 0:02:44.320 in order to make a successful case. So they would 0:02:44.360 --> 0:02:46.960 have to show that there's some kind of independent source 0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:50.240 for the evidence that they use to charge somebody. As 0:02:50.280 --> 0:02:52.840 a practical matter, what that means is, once somebody's given 0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:57.160 use community, it effectively means that prosecutors have decided not 0:02:57.280 --> 0:03:00.799 to charge them with a criminal offense related to that testimony. 0:03:00.919 --> 0:03:04.800 Former New Jersey US Attorney Christie has said that as 0:03:04.800 --> 0:03:10.040 a prosecutor, you don't give immunity to someone like Mark Meadows, 0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:14.040 the former chief of staff, unless he has some devastating 0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:17.560 evidence against Trump. Do you agree with that in this case. 0:03:17.840 --> 0:03:19.760 Well, there's a couple of reasons you'd want to give 0:03:19.800 --> 0:03:22.840 somebody immunity. One of them is because that you do 0:03:22.919 --> 0:03:26.080 believe they have valuable evidence and you're willing to essentially 0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:30.119 immunize them from prosecution in exchange for the testimony they're 0:03:30.120 --> 0:03:33.200 about to give. But there are also some other reasons why 0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:35.520 you would give immunity, And one of them is to 0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:39.400 lock in that testimony of that witness. So what would 0:03:39.440 --> 0:03:41.600 have happened if they had not given immunity to Mark 0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:44.160 Meadows is he would have gone before the grand jury 0:03:44.320 --> 0:03:46.960 and he would have asserted his Fifth Amendment right against 0:03:46.960 --> 0:03:50.920 self incrimination and refuse to answer questions that would leave 0:03:50.960 --> 0:03:54.360 prosecutors not knowing what he might stay at a trial 0:03:54.440 --> 0:03:58.200 down the road. By giving him immunity, they essentially forced 0:03:58.280 --> 0:04:01.440 him to testify because he could no longer rely on 0:04:01.600 --> 0:04:04.200 that Fifth Amendment right, and it forced him to go 0:04:04.320 --> 0:04:08.360 on the record under oath with his statements about everything 0:04:08.400 --> 0:04:11.920 the prosecutor asked him about related to January sixth, the 0:04:11.960 --> 0:04:15.120 events around the January sixth and efforts to overturn the 0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:16.000 twenty twenty election. 0:04:16.720 --> 0:04:19.840 I mean, it does seem like Meadows has a lot 0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:23.160 to talk about. He was in this really unique position 0:04:23.520 --> 0:04:27.520 by Trump's side, seemingly a central player in efforts to 0:04:27.800 --> 0:04:31.480 overturn the election. So all those meetings we heard about 0:04:31.520 --> 0:04:34.600 inside the White House in the run up to January sixth, 0:04:35.320 --> 0:04:36.120 he was privy to. 0:04:37.160 --> 0:04:39.760 He certainly was a central figure. As you say, The 0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:42.880 January sixth Committee report placed him in the thick of 0:04:42.920 --> 0:04:45.720 a series of key meetings and actions inside the White 0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.520 House during the run up to the US capital attack. 0:04:48.800 --> 0:04:51.880 He was also on that infamous call with the Georgia 0:04:51.960 --> 0:04:55.600 Secretary of State where Trump said, find me eleven thou 0:04:55.880 --> 0:04:58.480 seven hundred and eighty votes. So he is on the 0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:03.039 inside of many of the most controversial and critical aspects 0:05:03.080 --> 0:05:06.200 of the case that prosecutors are pursuing in federal court 0:05:06.240 --> 0:05:06.920 in Washington. 0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:11.040 Now, one thing may cut against the importance of his testimony. 0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:17.560 ABC News reported that investigators specifically asked Meadows if Trump 0:05:17.680 --> 0:05:20.800 ever acknowledged to him that he lost the election, and 0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:25.200 Medows told investigators that he never heard Trump say that. 0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:30.080 Does that missing element make his testimony a little less 0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:31.800 valuable to prosecutors? 0:05:32.200 --> 0:05:32.640 Well, that's a. 0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:35.680 Great question, is and we really don't know how valuable 0:05:35.720 --> 0:05:39.280 Mark Metow's testimony might be. It's hard to stay because 0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:42.159 we don't know exactly what he said. But we can 0:05:42.279 --> 0:05:45.480 surmise from his prior statements and from the information that 0:05:45.520 --> 0:05:49.920 we are getting from news sources, that he is contradicting 0:05:50.200 --> 0:05:53.880 President Trump's statements immediately after the election, and he is 0:05:54.000 --> 0:05:57.680 interestingly contradicting his own statements in a book that he 0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:00.599 wrote shortly after the election, in which he's supported the 0:06:00.680 --> 0:06:04.599 allegation that there were improprieties and irregularities connected to the 0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:08.440 twenty twenty election. According to reports, now he has backtracked 0:06:08.640 --> 0:06:11.480 and reversed his position on that and acknowledged that there 0:06:11.560 --> 0:06:14.560 was no credible evidence that there was any tampering or 0:06:14.600 --> 0:06:17.560 illegality associated with the twenty twenty election that would have 0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:20.520 overturned the election results, and that he said as much 0:06:20.600 --> 0:06:23.440 to former President Trump. That goes to the heart of 0:06:23.480 --> 0:06:26.479 the Trump defense, which is the president's state of mind 0:06:26.800 --> 0:06:29.719 when he decided to pursue these attacks on the twenty 0:06:29.760 --> 0:06:31.080 twenty election results. 0:06:31.480 --> 0:06:34.920 Meadows took public stances that the election was stolen. As 0:06:34.960 --> 0:06:37.039 you said in his book, he said the election was 0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:40.719 stolen and rigged. So how much credibility will he have 0:06:40.839 --> 0:06:44.040 before a jury when now he's saying, no, I lied, 0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:45.760 or words to that effect. 0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:49.560 Well, that's the problem the prosecutors frequently faced with people 0:06:49.600 --> 0:06:53.120 who cooperate with him. It's not unusual for a witness 0:06:53.160 --> 0:06:56.880 who have testified and who have made statements saying one thing, 0:06:56.960 --> 0:06:59.360 and then when it comes to trial, they now reverse 0:06:59.440 --> 0:07:02.560 their position, and ultimately the credibility of the witness depends 0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:05.800 upon how they can explain the change in their position. 0:07:06.120 --> 0:07:07.880 In this case, the statements that were made in the 0:07:07.880 --> 0:07:10.720 book were obviously not under oath. When he was finally 0:07:10.760 --> 0:07:13.760 placed under oath, or perhaps forced to be placed under 0:07:13.800 --> 0:07:16.480 oaths because of the immunity deal, he told the truth. 0:07:16.560 --> 0:07:18.320 That's what prosecutors are going to argue. 0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:24.440 It seems a little different, though, because he memorialized these 0:07:24.520 --> 0:07:28.040 lies in a published book, and I'm sure the defense 0:07:28.120 --> 0:07:31.440 is going to read from pertinent parts of that book 0:07:31.680 --> 0:07:32.760 if he takes the stand. 0:07:33.240 --> 0:07:35.520 Yeah, I mean, that makes him a flawed witness for sure. 0:07:35.600 --> 0:07:38.720 And he has gone on records having said that he 0:07:38.840 --> 0:07:41.840 believes much of what Trump has said regarding the election. 0:07:42.360 --> 0:07:45.480 Now he's changing course here and saying he didn't believe 0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:48.040 it at all. That's something the prosecutors will have to 0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:50.800 address if they decide to use him as a key 0:07:50.840 --> 0:07:52.160 witness in the federal trial. 0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:57.000 And Bob, will you explain the importance to the prosecution 0:07:57.840 --> 0:08:01.880 of the reporting that Meadows said he repeatedly told Trump 0:08:02.320 --> 0:08:06.400 in the weeks following the twenty twenty election that claims 0:08:06.400 --> 0:08:08.600 of election fraud were baseless. 0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:13.200 If that's true, that could bolster the prostitution's case that 0:08:13.240 --> 0:08:16.800 Trump pushed to reverse his defeat knowing that that was 0:08:16.880 --> 0:08:19.280 not true. At the end of the day, the case 0:08:19.360 --> 0:08:22.520 turns on what's called the men's rea, or the corrupt 0:08:22.640 --> 0:08:26.920 intent of former President Trump. Prosecutors have to prove that 0:08:26.960 --> 0:08:31.480 he knew when he pushed these fake electors and these 0:08:31.560 --> 0:08:34.760 allegations of tampering with the election, that he knew that 0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:37.280 it was not true at the time. And if it's 0:08:37.320 --> 0:08:40.560 true that Mark Meadows repeatedly told him that it was 0:08:40.640 --> 0:08:43.920 not true, that helps get to this question of state 0:08:43.960 --> 0:08:47.440 of mind. The real question is is it reasonable? Is 0:08:47.480 --> 0:08:51.560 it believable that former President Trump did not believe that 0:08:51.640 --> 0:08:54.760 he lost that election. That requires the jury to get 0:08:54.760 --> 0:08:57.240 into the mind of the defendant to try to understand 0:08:57.280 --> 0:08:59.520 what he was thinking. And the only way to do 0:08:59.600 --> 0:09:03.560 that is to show circumstantially by witness testimony what he 0:09:03.640 --> 0:09:05.440 was told at the time and what he may have 0:09:05.520 --> 0:09:08.760 said in response to others telling him that the election 0:09:08.920 --> 0:09:09.360 was lost. 0:09:10.000 --> 0:09:14.400 Meadows was not among the six unindicted co conspirators described 0:09:14.559 --> 0:09:19.440 in the August indictment returned against Trump. Does that indicate 0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:22.760 that prosecutors at that point knew that he was going 0:09:22.800 --> 0:09:25.880 to cooperate or targeted him as a cooperator. 0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:30.079 There's long been speculation about whether Mark Meadows was actually 0:09:30.080 --> 0:09:33.679 cooperating with federal prosecutors, because, if you remember, the Department 0:09:33.720 --> 0:09:37.400 of Justice declined to prosecute him for refusing to comply 0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:41.080 with his subpoenas to turnover documents to the Congressional committee 0:09:41.080 --> 0:09:44.439 investigating the January sixth, twenty twenty one attack on the 0:09:44.520 --> 0:09:48.160 US Capitol. Others were prosecuted for their failure to cooperate, 0:09:48.440 --> 0:09:51.480 he was not, and so there has long been questions 0:09:51.520 --> 0:09:55.640 about whether mister Meadows was cooperating with federal prosecutors. And 0:09:55.679 --> 0:09:58.559 now that he has struck this immunity deal allegedly, that 0:09:58.720 --> 0:10:01.160 only adds further fear fuel to that speculation. 0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:03.880 Coming up next, we'll take a look at the barrage 0:10:03.880 --> 0:10:06.599 of arguments Trump is making to try to get the 0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:10.480 DC judge to dismiss the election interference case against him. 0:10:10.800 --> 0:10:17.160 I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. This is 0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:23.520 Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Stunny News 0:10:23.520 --> 0:10:26.640 this week that Mark Meadows, the final chief of staff 0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:30.240 to Donald Trump, has been given immunity from prosecution in 0:10:30.280 --> 0:10:33.920 the election interference case against the former president, and has 0:10:34.040 --> 0:10:37.920 testified before a DC grand jury hearing evidence in the case. 0:10:38.280 --> 0:10:42.280 According to Bloomberg's sources, in his testimony before the grand jury, 0:10:42.720 --> 0:10:46.640 Meadows said he repeatedly told Trump that claims of election 0:10:46.840 --> 0:10:51.320 fraud in the twenty twenty presidential election were baseless. Trump 0:10:51.320 --> 0:10:55.360 has denied that on truth Social saying, quote, Mark Meadows 0:10:55.440 --> 0:10:59.400 never told me that allegations of significant fraud about the 0:10:59.440 --> 0:11:04.080 rigged election we're baseless. The former president also addressed that 0:11:04.480 --> 0:11:07.240 during a break in the Manhattan trial where his business 0:11:07.240 --> 0:11:08.400 empire is at stake. 0:11:08.960 --> 0:11:11.920 But Mark Medo has always felt it was radio. His 0:11:11.960 --> 0:11:15.000 whole thing was rigged, and it was still element. 0:11:15.200 --> 0:11:18.280 I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz of 0:11:18.360 --> 0:11:21.120 McCarter and English. So, as you say, as part of 0:11:21.160 --> 0:11:25.560 the immunity deal, the evidence Meadows gives can't be used 0:11:25.559 --> 0:11:28.320 against him in a federal prosecution, But what about in 0:11:28.400 --> 0:11:31.240 the Georgia prosecution where he's a co defendant. 0:11:32.080 --> 0:11:35.000 That's an excellent point, because the immunity deal that he 0:11:35.080 --> 0:11:38.880 has from the federal prosecutors only protects him from federal 0:11:38.920 --> 0:11:42.960 prosecutors using those statement in a federal prosecution does not 0:11:43.080 --> 0:11:47.280 protect them from the state prosecution that is ongoing in Georgia, 0:11:47.320 --> 0:11:49.520 where he has charged as the defendant in a rico 0:11:49.640 --> 0:11:53.480 conspiracy to overturn the election. So it suggests to me 0:11:53.640 --> 0:11:56.120 that at some point he may also strike a deal 0:11:56.240 --> 0:11:58.960 to plead guilty in the case in Georgia, although that 0:11:59.040 --> 0:12:00.000 has not yet happened. 0:12:00.480 --> 0:12:03.320 If you were his lawyer, would you allow him to 0:12:03.840 --> 0:12:06.760 give evidence in a federal case, you know, when he 0:12:06.840 --> 0:12:08.840 has jeopardy in a state case. 0:12:09.400 --> 0:12:12.600 Meadows was not indicted in the federal case in Washington 0:12:12.679 --> 0:12:14.400 that's set to go to trial in March, but he 0:12:14.640 --> 0:12:18.439 was charged alongside former President Trump and other top allies 0:12:18.480 --> 0:12:21.920 in the Fulton County District Attorney case being Georgia. There 0:12:21.960 --> 0:12:24.920 he was charged on rico conspiracy charges for trying to 0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:29.040 overturn the twenty twenty election results. And the interesting development 0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:32.560 here is by striking this immunity deal and being forced 0:12:32.600 --> 0:12:35.760 to give testimony in the federal case, will those statements 0:12:35.840 --> 0:12:39.120 ultimately used against them in the case in Georgia. Under 0:12:39.120 --> 0:12:42.880 the law, there's nothing that ties the DA's handing Georgia 0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:47.080 to not use that information. Federal prosecutors can be willing 0:12:47.120 --> 0:12:50.199 to give up prosecution of mister Meadows in a federal 0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:52.480 case and agree not to use his statements in any 0:12:52.559 --> 0:12:56.680 federal prosecution, but they cannot bar the DA in Georgia 0:12:56.720 --> 0:12:57.960 from using those statements. 0:12:58.240 --> 0:13:00.800 Are you surprised that so many people are flipping on 0:13:00.920 --> 0:13:05.920 Donald Trump? We have Mark Meadows, we have four people 0:13:06.200 --> 0:13:10.880 in Georgia, including three attorneys, and CNN is reporting that 0:13:10.960 --> 0:13:14.199 the Georgia DA is talking to six other defendants. 0:13:15.080 --> 0:13:17.559 Well, again, just to be clear, we don't know whether 0:13:17.640 --> 0:13:21.240 Mark Meadows has actually become a cooperator with federal prosecutors. 0:13:21.440 --> 0:13:25.160 Maybe that he did, but we can't necessarily make that 0:13:25.280 --> 0:13:28.280 conclusion based upon the information we have. We just know 0:13:28.360 --> 0:13:31.120 that he's been given immunity and he's given testimony. We'll 0:13:31.120 --> 0:13:33.240 have to see where that case goes. But we do 0:13:33.360 --> 0:13:36.600 know that other individuals in the Georgia case have pled 0:13:36.640 --> 0:13:39.160 guilty and have agreed to cooperate, and that's always a 0:13:39.160 --> 0:13:41.880 bad sign for the defense. You always want a united 0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:44.800 front as a defendant. In this case, it was particularly 0:13:44.920 --> 0:13:47.960 useful for the Trump team to have a case go 0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:51.680 to trial before former President Trump went to trial in Georgia. 0:13:51.880 --> 0:13:54.720 That would have given him a preview of the state's case. 0:13:54.960 --> 0:13:57.400 It would have allowed them to hear the testimony from 0:13:57.400 --> 0:14:00.719 the state's witnesses, had to use that testimony later on 0:14:00.840 --> 0:14:03.720 in a case against former President Trump when all these 0:14:03.720 --> 0:14:06.400 defendants decide to plead guilty rather than go to trial. 0:14:06.480 --> 0:14:09.320 It's the prive defense of that advantage. 0:14:09.720 --> 0:14:14.320 Turning away from Mark Meadows, on Monday, Trump rolled out 0:14:14.360 --> 0:14:18.760 a new multi pronged attack in the federal election obstruction case, 0:14:19.440 --> 0:14:25.160 making arguments based on claims of presidential immunity, selective prosecution, 0:14:25.680 --> 0:14:30.360 the First Amendment, do process, and more. Judge Tanya Chutkin 0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:33.160 to throw out the case against him, which is schedule 0:14:33.280 --> 0:14:36.040 to begin on March fourth. Do any of the arguments 0:14:36.080 --> 0:14:37.560 seem like winners to you. 0:14:38.080 --> 0:14:42.480 We've seen former President Trump lawyers unleasha barrage of defenses 0:14:42.840 --> 0:14:44.960 in the federal case that's set to go to trial 0:14:45.000 --> 0:14:48.520 in March. They have argued a number of defenses. I 0:14:48.560 --> 0:14:51.320 don't think any of them are likely to succeed before 0:14:51.360 --> 0:14:54.800 this judge. One of them is presidential immunity. We've seen 0:14:54.800 --> 0:14:58.080 that argument made time and again. Essentially, what the Trump 0:14:58.120 --> 0:15:01.440 team is claiming is that former President Trump has immunity 0:15:01.480 --> 0:15:05.480 against charges for conduct that falls within what's called the 0:15:05.520 --> 0:15:09.360 outer perimeter of his presidential duties. The US Supreme Court 0:15:09.400 --> 0:15:12.400 adopted that standard a long time ago to protect current 0:15:12.520 --> 0:15:16.440 and former presidents against civil lawsuits, but it's an open 0:15:16.520 --> 0:15:20.480 question about how that is affected by criminal prosecutions. The 0:15:20.480 --> 0:15:24.640 Trump lawyers argue that a strong shield is necessary to 0:15:24.720 --> 0:15:28.160 empower presidents to make decisions in office without worrying about 0:15:28.200 --> 0:15:32.760 threats of future charges from political rivals. Prosecutors argue there's 0:15:32.760 --> 0:15:35.640 no support of position in the Constitution or in any 0:15:35.680 --> 0:15:38.640 Supreme Court president, and they say it should be harder, 0:15:39.080 --> 0:15:42.280 not easier, for current and former office holders to claim 0:15:42.360 --> 0:15:45.960 criminal immunity because those prosecutions are meant to protect the 0:15:46.000 --> 0:15:49.200 interests of the public, not private parties. So we're in 0:15:49.280 --> 0:15:53.120 uncharted ordered once again with this argument, because we've never 0:15:53.160 --> 0:15:56.000 had a circumstance where a president was attempting to claim 0:15:56.080 --> 0:15:58.280 immunity from a criminal prosecution. 0:15:58.720 --> 0:16:02.160 You know, Selective prosecution is another one of the arguments 0:16:02.200 --> 0:16:06.080 they're making, and he's used that before, for example in 0:16:06.120 --> 0:16:09.440 the New York Attorney General civil case against him. And 0:16:09.480 --> 0:16:12.360 listen to what he said outside the courtroom. This is a. 0:16:12.360 --> 0:16:15.720 Railroad, and it's all coming out of the Department of Justice. 0:16:15.800 --> 0:16:18.680 It's all set up by Biden and his thubs that 0:16:18.760 --> 0:16:22.080 he's surrounded with to try and stick out an election 0:16:22.280 --> 0:16:25.000 victory that he's not entitled to win because he's been 0:16:25.000 --> 0:16:28.400 the worst president in the history of our country. 0:16:28.680 --> 0:16:31.800 Well, I think we're seeing the selective prosecution argument coming 0:16:31.840 --> 0:16:34.920 out again and again because it serves two purposes. One, 0:16:35.040 --> 0:16:37.280 it is a legal argument that they can make, albeit 0:16:37.400 --> 0:16:40.000 one that's very difficult to prove. But I also think 0:16:40.040 --> 0:16:43.600 it plays to the larger attempt by the Trump defense 0:16:43.680 --> 0:16:47.400 team to sell this case and to sell the defense 0:16:47.720 --> 0:16:51.120 to the public at lawrence. The selective prosecution argument is 0:16:51.200 --> 0:16:55.600 essentially the argument that former President Trump is being treated unfairly, 0:16:55.600 --> 0:16:58.920 that he's being singled out by an allegedly corrupt Department 0:16:58.960 --> 0:17:02.600 of Justice, and that President Biden is behind all of 0:17:02.640 --> 0:17:06.040 these prosecutions in order to try to eliminate his chief 0:17:06.160 --> 0:17:09.399 rival in the upcoming election. But the reality is that 0:17:09.440 --> 0:17:13.320 these selective prosecutions from a legal standpoint, are exceedingly difficult 0:17:13.600 --> 0:17:16.920 to win. People make these arguments all the time. For example, 0:17:17.119 --> 0:17:20.080 if you're driving down the highway and you're in a 0:17:20.119 --> 0:17:22.280 group of ten cars that are all speeding. You get 0:17:22.359 --> 0:17:25.000 pulled over, you could turn around and say, why am 0:17:25.040 --> 0:17:27.080 I being pulled over when the nine other people were 0:17:27.080 --> 0:17:29.480 doing exactly what I was doing and none of them 0:17:29.600 --> 0:17:33.239 are being prosecuted for speeding. The reality is that in 0:17:33.359 --> 0:17:36.359 order for that defense have any merits, you have to 0:17:36.400 --> 0:17:39.159 show not only that you're singled out, but that you 0:17:39.200 --> 0:17:43.520 were singled out for some discriminatory or unconstitutional reason. Here 0:17:43.560 --> 0:17:46.199 that's going to be very difficult to prove. Essentially, the 0:17:46.240 --> 0:17:49.800 defense would have to prove that there's a political motive 0:17:49.880 --> 0:17:53.760 for all of these prosecutions, and that President Biden is 0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:57.120 somehow behind these prosecutions. That's an argument we've heard over 0:17:57.160 --> 0:17:59.639 and over again, but not one that is likely to 0:17:59.680 --> 0:18:01.639 be well received by this judge. 0:18:01.880 --> 0:18:06.359 Well, Special Counsel Jacksmith's office already filed its opposition to 0:18:06.440 --> 0:18:10.320 Trump's presidential immunity claim, and they're going to have two 0:18:10.359 --> 0:18:14.760 weeks to respond to this latest round of challenges. Thanks 0:18:14.760 --> 0:18:18.359 so much, Bob. That's former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a 0:18:18.440 --> 0:18:22.480 partner Maccarter and English Sam Bankman. Freed came to court 0:18:22.520 --> 0:18:25.920 today prepared to take the stand and defend his actions 0:18:25.920 --> 0:18:28.040 in the lead up to the collapse of his digital 0:18:28.040 --> 0:18:31.359 asset Empire. To the jury, it's always risky for a 0:18:31.400 --> 0:18:33.720 defend and to take the stand, but it may have 0:18:33.800 --> 0:18:37.560 been Bankman Freed's only play after taking a beating from 0:18:37.680 --> 0:18:41.080 former colleagues who described him as the mastermind of a 0:18:41.200 --> 0:18:45.720 year's long scheme to defraud FTX customers and investors. But 0:18:45.880 --> 0:18:49.879 instead of testifying to the jury, Bankman Freed spent three 0:18:49.920 --> 0:18:54.480 hours testifying to Judge Lewis Kaplan, trying to convince the 0:18:54.600 --> 0:18:57.960 judge to allow him to testify to the jury about 0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:01.159 the role FTX lawyer's play in the lead up to 0:19:01.200 --> 0:19:04.920 the collapse of the crypto exchange and the alleged mismanagement 0:19:05.040 --> 0:19:08.520 of customer funds. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Bob 0:19:08.640 --> 0:19:12.200 van Vores, who was in the courtroom today to see 0:19:12.200 --> 0:19:17.520 this testimony before the testimony. So, Bob, did Bankmin Freed 0:19:17.600 --> 0:19:20.359 give any testimony before the jury today? 0:19:21.080 --> 0:19:22.919 Not in front of the jury. That's the thing. He 0:19:23.000 --> 0:19:26.080 spent the entire afternoon on the stand, but he was 0:19:26.160 --> 0:19:30.320 previewing testimony that he wants to give relating to advice 0:19:30.400 --> 0:19:34.080 that he got from lawyers. So Judge Kaplan is listened 0:19:34.119 --> 0:19:36.040 to the testimony, he's going to rule in the morning. 0:19:36.600 --> 0:19:38.840 What the jury gets to hear they got sent home 0:19:38.880 --> 0:19:39.560 after lunch. 0:19:40.160 --> 0:19:43.840 This is something advice of counsel that the judge nixt 0:19:44.160 --> 0:19:47.879 stopped the defense from using at the beginning of the 0:19:47.920 --> 0:19:49.719 trial in the opening statements. 0:19:50.160 --> 0:19:52.680 Well, yeah, that's the thing. The judge said that they 0:19:52.680 --> 0:19:54.800 couldn't bring it up in the opening statement, but that 0:19:55.000 --> 0:19:56.639 you know, when it came to the trial, when it 0:19:56.680 --> 0:19:59.200 came to actual questions, he'd rule on a case by 0:19:59.240 --> 0:20:03.199 case basis. So he told the parties that, you know, 0:20:03.440 --> 0:20:07.439 rather than rule on objections after objections when they come up, 0:20:07.760 --> 0:20:11.400 he would listen to banquin free testimony and let them 0:20:11.440 --> 0:20:14.159 know what was okay and what was not okay, not 0:20:14.320 --> 0:20:18.680 basically what was addressed rehearsal for his testimony, So tell 0:20:18.760 --> 0:20:19.080 us what. 0:20:19.080 --> 0:20:21.720 He testified to some of the areas he testified to. 0:20:22.119 --> 0:20:25.800 So he got up and was asked on direct basically 0:20:26.160 --> 0:20:29.840 about particular transactions that were problematic that were part of 0:20:29.880 --> 0:20:33.680 the charges of the case. And you know, did lawyers 0:20:33.760 --> 0:20:37.639 advise him on that these included There was testimony early 0:20:37.680 --> 0:20:41.400 in the trial about how he told people to put 0:20:41.440 --> 0:20:46.679 their communications on auditorily so that communications would delete after 0:20:46.720 --> 0:20:48.639 a week. His side was trying to show that that 0:20:49.160 --> 0:20:51.320 wasn't sinister at all, but that it was part of 0:20:51.359 --> 0:20:54.760 a document retention policy and that he was advised by 0:20:54.840 --> 0:20:57.840 lawyers and that lawyers were aware of them. Basically, the 0:20:57.920 --> 0:21:01.000 point that defense is trying to get across is that 0:21:01.440 --> 0:21:04.600 he did things in the plain sight of lawyers, and 0:21:04.760 --> 0:21:08.080 so therefore he didn't have any intent to defraud people. 0:21:08.640 --> 0:21:11.879 So it's not really an advice of counsel defense so 0:21:12.040 --> 0:21:13.760 much as it's a sort. 0:21:13.600 --> 0:21:17.320 Of a take on that, Yeah, that's exactly right. They're 0:21:17.359 --> 0:21:21.240 not putting a formal advice of counsel defense where he 0:21:21.280 --> 0:21:24.119 would say, look, I ran this by my lawyer. My 0:21:24.200 --> 0:21:28.200 lawyer told me to do this. Did it. Therefore, even 0:21:28.240 --> 0:21:31.480 if it, you know, was against the law, you can't 0:21:31.920 --> 0:21:34.760 prosecute you for that. It's less formal than that. It's 0:21:34.800 --> 0:21:37.920 just that, you know, he's saying that I didn't have 0:21:38.200 --> 0:21:41.760 criminal intent here because you know, obviously I was doing 0:21:41.760 --> 0:21:43.760 this in fronal lawyers. I thought it was okay, and 0:21:43.800 --> 0:21:45.639 that shows that I thought it was okay. 0:21:46.200 --> 0:21:50.520 So Judge Caplan has it seems like with every major 0:21:50.880 --> 0:21:55.000 motion question that's come up, Judge Caplan has ruled against 0:21:55.280 --> 0:21:58.720 bank and freed. Today. He asked his lawyer about a 0:21:58.760 --> 0:22:02.520 hypothetical situation where someone comes across a large sum of money, 0:22:03.119 --> 0:22:05.880 uses a lawyer to buy an apartment on billionaire's row, 0:22:06.000 --> 0:22:09.199 and is later charged with money laundering. How is that 0:22:09.240 --> 0:22:12.600 different from what you're trying to do in principle? It 0:22:12.720 --> 0:22:14.960 sounds like he doubts this as well. 0:22:15.880 --> 0:22:17.840 It does sound like he's skeptical, and we're going to 0:22:17.880 --> 0:22:21.280 find out tomorrow morning. You know, how much of if 0:22:21.320 --> 0:22:24.440 any of this he's going to allow in. The prosecution 0:22:25.240 --> 0:22:28.200 is trying to argue that, you know, this is basically 0:22:28.960 --> 0:22:31.640 evidence that's going to confuse the jury, and that's not 0:22:31.760 --> 0:22:35.159 going to basically elucidate the points that the defense is 0:22:35.200 --> 0:22:38.720