Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Another dramatic twist
Speaker 1: to the impeachment inquiry, putting Rudy Giuliani closer to the
Speaker 1: center of that inquiry into whether President Trump wrongly pressured
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rival while withholding
Speaker 1: aid to the country. Two of Giuliani's associates have been
Speaker 1: indicted on campaign finance charges for criminal charges including conspiracy,
Speaker 1: falsifying records, and lying to the Federal Election Commission. Joining
Speaker 1: me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, head of the
Speaker 1: white collar practice at McCarter in English. So people often
Speaker 1: here campaign finance charges and dismiss them as something that's
Speaker 1: not that serious. Just how serious are these charges? Well,
Speaker 1: these are very serious charges, and they carry potential lengthy
Speaker 1: prison sentences if somebody is convicted. And essentially what federal
Speaker 1: law prohibits here are foreign campaign contributions to American politicians
Speaker 1: at any level of government, and the idea behind this
Speaker 1: is simply that we don't want foreign governments to be
Speaker 1: interfering in our electoral process, whether that's on the state
Speaker 1: or federal level. These two men were arrested at the
Speaker 1: airport as they were about to board a flight to
Speaker 1: Germany with one way plane tickets. That's something that juries
Speaker 1: can really latch onto. Here. What we had was what's
Speaker 1: called a sealed indictment. That means that these individuals a
Speaker 1: four individuals charged in this case had already been indicted
Speaker 1: by a federal grand jury, and the U. S. Attorney's
Speaker 1: Office simply had not unsealed that indictment. What they did was,
Speaker 1: as soon as they found out that these two individuals
Speaker 1: were about to board a plane to leave the country
Speaker 1: and had one way tickets, they went out and arrested
Speaker 1: them immediately because there was certainly a chance that they
Speaker 1: would go to a country where extradition would be difficult
Speaker 1: or perhaps impossible, and then it would be almost impossible
Speaker 1: to ultimately bring these two individuals to justice. So would
Speaker 1: jury draw an adverse inference from that that they were
Speaker 1: had one weight plane tickets, Well, it really depends on
Speaker 1: the circumstances. Of their departure. If they could, for example,
Speaker 1: point to the fact that they were traveling overseas for
Speaker 1: some legitimate business reason, or that they had traveled overseas
Speaker 1: on a routine basis, it might not appear as necessarious.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, if prosecutors can point to the
Speaker 1: fact that these individuals had gotten wind of these charges
Speaker 1: or knew that the government may have been closing in
Speaker 1: on them, and then boarded a plane to travel overseas,
Speaker 1: that could be some indication of consciousness of guilt. House
Speaker 1: Democrats have subpoenaed the two associates for their communications with Giuliani,
Speaker 1: and they've also subpoenaed Giuliani for his communications with them,
Speaker 1: among other things. Are there any grounds for them to
Speaker 1: oppose handing over the documents. Well, the two individuals that
Speaker 1: have now been indicted are unlikely to cooperate with any
Speaker 1: congressional investigations, are now facing federal criminal charges, and they
Speaker 1: will undoubtedly assert their Fifth Amendment right and perhaps also
Speaker 1: a certifistmen or right against turning over any documents. Rudy Giuliani,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, is in a different situation. He's
Speaker 1: obviously not being charged with any criminal offense. Here is
Speaker 1: not directly related to any of the criminal charges that
Speaker 1: have been filed against these individuals. But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: he is a central witness in this criminal case, so
Speaker 1: any testimony that he would give before Congress would certainly
Speaker 1: involve these allegations. And he's in a bit of a
Speaker 1: box here because he has to decide whether to be
Speaker 1: forthcoming and completely cooperate with Congressional investigators, which could potentially
Speaker 1: imperil him in a criminal case, or whether to decide
Speaker 1: to refuse to cooperate. Bob, he said so much already,
Speaker 1: and a lot of it contradictory. So is the difference
Speaker 1: here that he would be testifying under oath and not
Speaker 1: just talking to a news host. I think the difference
Speaker 1: here is that he is now, while not charged himself
Speaker 1: with any criminal wrongdoing, he is just a little bit
Speaker 1: closer to individuals who have been charged. Giuliani has acknowledged
Speaker 1: that these two individuals who have been charged in this
Speaker 1: election interference case worked with him as he attempted to
Speaker 1: try to get the Ukrainian government to investigate the bidens,
Speaker 1: So they are linked with him in a way that
Speaker 1: puts him in greater peril where he decided to testify
Speaker 1: freely before Congress. In most cases like this, the two
Speaker 1: men are facing prison time, you'd expect that they would
Speaker 1: make a deal with prosecutors give information on someone higher
Speaker 1: up the chain in exchange for leniency. How much pressure
Speaker 1: will they be under to flip and give information, perhaps
Speaker 1: on Giuliani. Well, like any defendants who have been charged
Speaker 1: with a federal crime and our fasting significant jail time,
Speaker 1: one way out of their troubles is to decide to
Speaker 1: join the government's team and cooperate. That could essentially buy
Speaker 1: their way out of jail. It really depends on the individuals,
Speaker 1: how much j time they're facing, and whether or not
Speaker 1: they're willing to roll the dice and take their case
Speaker 1: to trial, knowing that if they lose, they'll wind up
Speaker 1: in jail for months and perhaps in even years. The
Speaker 1: U S attorney in Manhattan said, the investigation is ongoing,
Speaker 1: and it's the SDN wise Public Corruption Unit that's involved
Speaker 1: in the investigation. That's the same unit of prosecutors that
Speaker 1: handle the case against Michael Cohen, President Trump's former personal lawyer.
Speaker 1: What does that tell you, Well, any case that involves
Speaker 1: potential election interference is going to typically be prosecuted by
Speaker 1: the Public Corruption Unit in the U. S. Attorney's Office.
Speaker 1: But we also know that Michael Cohen has cooperated with
Speaker 1: the Manhattan District Attorney's office and is apparently eager to
Speaker 1: continue to cooperate, so there's a possibility that his cooperation
Speaker 1: played some role in this investigation. We know that he
Speaker 1: had some ties to the Ukraine, so that's really an
Speaker 1: unanswered question, but we may learn more about that as
Speaker 1: this case unfolds. So Giuliani is being scrutinized by federal
Speaker 1: investigators for his financial dealings a core to Bloomberg sources,
Speaker 1: this is a man who made his reputation as a
Speaker 1: crusading prosecutor who took down dirty financiers and organized crime
Speaker 1: when he himself was the U. S. Attorney in Manhattan.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't he know enough to avoid the pitfalls? And that's
Speaker 1: a great question. Certainly. People who have followed Rudy Giuliani's
Speaker 1: career have seen a stark contrast between the way he
Speaker 1: conducted himself as a U. S. Attorney and as the
Speaker 1: mayor of the City of New York and the way
Speaker 1: he has conducted himself more recently, both in terms of
Speaker 1: his business dealings with Ukraine and his representation of the president.
Speaker 1: It's really hard to square the two um and it's
Speaker 1: hard to know what's going on inside Rudy Giuliani's mind,
Speaker 1: but he certainly has to be giving serious thought to
Speaker 1: the fact that he is being drawn into this criminal investigation.
Speaker 1: And it also raises the interesting question of whether or
Speaker 1: not Giuliani can continue to act as an attorney for
Speaker 1: the president now that he is at least a witness
Speaker 1: in this federal criminal prosecution. Is Giuliani more like Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: who flipped on President Trump, or more like former presidential
Speaker 1: aid g. Gordon Liddy, who refused to flip on President Nixon.
Speaker 1: That's a very difficult question. But so far, Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: has displayed complete loyalty to the President and has been
Speaker 1: one of his most vigorous advocates at every stage of
Speaker 1: the process, both during the campaign, during the Muller investigation,
Speaker 1: and now during this impeachment inquiry. So I think it
Speaker 1: would be very surprising to see him alter his position
Speaker 1: from that role, and I think will continue to see
Speaker 1: him defending the president. The only question now is will
Speaker 1: he also have to be defending his own actions. Thanks
Speaker 1: for being on Bloomberg Law, Bob. That's Robert Man's a
Speaker 1: partner McCarter in English. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg m