WEBVTT - Instant Reaction: Trump Special Counsel New Indictment

0:00:02.440 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.000 --> 0:00:10.200
<v Speaker 2>The US Special Council appointed to investigate claims of interference

0:00:10.200 --> 0:00:13.640
<v Speaker 2>in the twenty twenty election filed updated charges against Donald

0:00:13.640 --> 0:00:16.920
<v Speaker 2>Trump on Tuesday. With more, we've got Bloomberg News US

0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:20.520
<v Speaker 2>legal reporter Eric Larson. He's here in our Bloomberg Interactive

0:00:20.520 --> 0:00:24.200
<v Speaker 2>Brokers studio talk about a surprise fall of filing.

0:00:25.239 --> 0:00:27.360
<v Speaker 3>Come as it really did come as a surprise, and

0:00:27.480 --> 0:00:30.360
<v Speaker 3>of it, we were expecting there to be additional court

0:00:30.400 --> 0:00:32.920
<v Speaker 3>hearings in the case in Washington to see what was

0:00:32.960 --> 0:00:35.600
<v Speaker 3>going to happen next, whether or not the judge there

0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:39.040
<v Speaker 3>would just sort of decide on her own what charges

0:00:39.080 --> 0:00:41.879
<v Speaker 3>in the in the case could go forward given that

0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:46.080
<v Speaker 3>Supreme Court landmark ruling that presidents have some immunity from

0:00:46.120 --> 0:00:48.440
<v Speaker 3>criminal charges. So it was just a wait and see

0:00:48.479 --> 0:00:49.879
<v Speaker 3>what was going to happen with the case. And now

0:00:49.920 --> 0:00:53.320
<v Speaker 3>we know there's a so called superseding indictment, a brand

0:00:53.360 --> 0:00:56.280
<v Speaker 3>new indictment by Jack Smith. They've put in here that

0:00:56.360 --> 0:00:59.360
<v Speaker 3>according like this is their view of how the case

0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:04.560
<v Speaker 3>needed to given that landmark Supreme Court ruling in Trump's

0:01:04.560 --> 0:01:08.720
<v Speaker 3>favor largely, So now we'll sort of restart the case

0:01:08.800 --> 0:01:11.640
<v Speaker 3>a little bit as it moves forward here.

0:01:11.800 --> 0:01:14.119
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, from what I understand, the new indictment cutting certain

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:18.400
<v Speaker 1>allegations related to Trump's communications with government officials, including the

0:01:18.480 --> 0:01:22.200
<v Speaker 1>section related to his alleged efforts to involve the Justice Department,

0:01:23.120 --> 0:01:25.880
<v Speaker 1>But still those same for charges accusing him of conspiring

0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:28.319
<v Speaker 1>to overturn the results of the twenty twenty election still there.

0:01:28.680 --> 0:01:31.440
<v Speaker 1>So is it the whole idea is to make it

0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:33.560
<v Speaker 1>a stronger case for Jacksmith.

0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:36.240
<v Speaker 3>I think the idea is to make it a case that,

0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:39.880
<v Speaker 3>if when it returns to the Supreme Court, will survive

0:01:40.280 --> 0:01:43.199
<v Speaker 3>the new scrutiny that they've put up there. So it's

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:45.800
<v Speaker 3>all going to boil down to whether or not everything

0:01:45.800 --> 0:01:48.360
<v Speaker 3>in the indictment can be viewed as an official act

0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:50.840
<v Speaker 3>or on the outer boundaries of an official act, or

0:01:50.840 --> 0:01:55.040
<v Speaker 3>whether it's private conduct. So Jack Smith's team is, you know,

0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:57.520
<v Speaker 3>clearly that they've gone through they had another grand jury.

0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:00.480
<v Speaker 3>You know, look at this, and I'm this is the

0:02:00.520 --> 0:02:03.240
<v Speaker 3>case that they think will survive the Supreme Court ruling

0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:05.240
<v Speaker 3>if it goes back to the Supreme Court.

0:02:05.600 --> 0:02:07.680
<v Speaker 1>So go ahead, Well, so what happens next?

0:02:07.800 --> 0:02:10.720
<v Speaker 3>So what happens next? I don't know exactly for sure.

0:02:10.800 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 3>But if I had to excuse yeah, well, there's no

0:02:15.320 --> 0:02:19.360
<v Speaker 3>chance of a trial happening before the election at this point.

0:02:19.800 --> 0:02:23.200
<v Speaker 3>Even before this superseding indictment was filed, that seemed like

0:02:23.240 --> 0:02:27.280
<v Speaker 3>it was off not going to happen. So what will

0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:31.360
<v Speaker 3>happen is the case will potentially have a new arguments

0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:35.240
<v Speaker 3>where Trump's lawyers will argue to dismiss this superseding indictment.

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:37.960
<v Speaker 3>You can be sure they'll be disagreement over whether or

0:02:38.000 --> 0:02:40.840
<v Speaker 3>not this has been narrowed enough to fit the Supreme

0:02:40.880 --> 0:02:45.240
<v Speaker 3>Court ruling. Trump's lawyers may seek to narrow it further,

0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:47.960
<v Speaker 3>or to have the whole thing tossed out again is

0:02:47.960 --> 0:02:52.359
<v Speaker 3>another possibility. So it really remains to be seen if

0:02:52.360 --> 0:02:54.400
<v Speaker 3>this ever does go to trial. Of course, plenty of

0:02:54.440 --> 0:02:56.800
<v Speaker 3>people say if Trump wins, he'll just have this case

0:02:56.880 --> 0:03:00.360
<v Speaker 3>thrown out. If he loses, of course, then this case

0:03:00.760 --> 0:03:02.080
<v Speaker 3>we'll proceed.

0:03:02.400 --> 0:03:05.120
<v Speaker 2>Just reminder, this is completely separate from the Manhattan jury

0:03:05.200 --> 0:03:07.760
<v Speaker 2>on May thirtieth finding Trump guilty on thirty four counts

0:03:07.760 --> 0:03:09.560
<v Speaker 2>of falsifying business records.

0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:13.000
<v Speaker 3>Right right, that's a separate case. He was convicted in

0:03:13.040 --> 0:03:15.679
<v Speaker 3>that case that did go to trial, obviously.

0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:17.480
<v Speaker 2>And he'll be sentenced or the Dutch judge he's supposed

0:03:17.480 --> 0:03:19.360
<v Speaker 2>to be sentenced on September eighteenth.

0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:21.639
<v Speaker 3>That is correct, and we are waiting for a decision

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:25.320
<v Speaker 3>from that judge, Juan Marshan here in Manhattan, on whether

0:03:25.400 --> 0:03:28.320
<v Speaker 3>or not to delay that sentencing until after the election.

0:03:28.520 --> 0:03:31.520
<v Speaker 3>Trump made sort of a last ditch motion saying that

0:03:31.520 --> 0:03:34.560
<v Speaker 3>it would be election interference for him to be sentenced

0:03:34.600 --> 0:03:38.440
<v Speaker 3>with the election so near, and some other arguments as well.

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:43.520
<v Speaker 2>If back to the filing from today, if Trump does

0:03:43.600 --> 0:03:45.880
<v Speaker 2>win the election in November, can he make all of

0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:46.560
<v Speaker 2>this go away?

0:03:47.080 --> 0:03:49.960
<v Speaker 3>That is our understanding is that the Justice Department is

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:53.560
<v Speaker 3>part of the executive branch, of course, and the president

0:03:53.600 --> 0:03:56.840
<v Speaker 3>has a lot of authority to pressure or direct the

0:03:56.960 --> 0:04:01.360
<v Speaker 3>Justice Department on cases. That's idly expected that that is

0:04:01.400 --> 0:04:04.720
<v Speaker 3>what Trump would do. It's less clear exactly what steps

0:04:04.720 --> 0:04:06.520
<v Speaker 3>he would have to go through to get there. For example,

0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:10.440
<v Speaker 3>if an Attorney general could theoretically challenge him on that.

0:04:10.560 --> 0:04:14.600
<v Speaker 3>But again, this is a lot of hypotheticals. But certainly

0:04:14.680 --> 0:04:17.279
<v Speaker 3>the legal experts that we've been speaking to for months

0:04:17.279 --> 0:04:20.120
<v Speaker 3>now theorized that if Trump is elected, he would have

0:04:20.160 --> 0:04:21.520
<v Speaker 3>this case tossed out.

0:04:21.720 --> 0:04:24.120
<v Speaker 1>Sure about the Jack Smith. Yes, I mean, this is

0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.080
<v Speaker 1>so remind us of kind of where we are on

0:04:27.120 --> 0:04:31.599
<v Speaker 1>the case the white Board cases against former President Donald Trump.

0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:34.040
<v Speaker 3>Sure, so the one that we know he's already lost.

0:04:34.440 --> 0:04:37.880
<v Speaker 3>He faces up to four years in prison on thirty

0:04:37.880 --> 0:04:40.640
<v Speaker 3>four counts of falsifying business records to hide that hush

0:04:40.680 --> 0:04:44.240
<v Speaker 3>money payment to Stormy Daniels before the twenty sixteen elections.

0:04:44.240 --> 0:04:46.600
<v Speaker 3>So it seems like so long, so long ago he

0:04:46.680 --> 0:04:50.520
<v Speaker 3>was in president when he wasn't president. But he argues,

0:04:50.560 --> 0:04:53.640
<v Speaker 3>actually that this immunity ruling from the Supreme Court affects

0:04:53.880 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 3>that trial as well, even though it had nothing to

0:04:56.480 --> 0:04:59.520
<v Speaker 3>do theoretically with being president. He said that the trial

0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:01.520
<v Speaker 3>that we have here in New York that we covered

0:05:02.040 --> 0:05:05.560
<v Speaker 3>was tainted by testimony and other evidence that wouldn't have

0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:09.160
<v Speaker 3>been allowed under this Supreme Court standard, because even though

0:05:09.160 --> 0:05:11.520
<v Speaker 3>the hush money was paid to Stormy Daniels before the

0:05:11.560 --> 0:05:15.400
<v Speaker 3>twenty sixteen election, some of the witnesses were his White

0:05:15.400 --> 0:05:19.560
<v Speaker 3>House officials. The payments that he made, for example, were made,

0:05:19.800 --> 0:05:22.640
<v Speaker 3>you know, while he was president, repaying Michael Cohen his.

0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:27.920
<v Speaker 2>How does that work though, Well.

0:05:26.440 --> 0:05:28.760
<v Speaker 1>What he's saying is that some of the payments were

0:05:28.920 --> 0:05:31.640
<v Speaker 1>when he was once in the White House, but initially

0:05:32.320 --> 0:05:34.840
<v Speaker 1>the hush money was happened before he was even there.

0:05:34.880 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 3>It was made by Michael Cohen one hundred and thirty

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:39.919
<v Speaker 3>thousand dollars and then he Cohen was and definitely before the.

0:05:39.920 --> 0:05:42.080
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court ruling on immunity, right.

0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:44.560
<v Speaker 3>I mean it potentially is it is a long shot.

0:05:44.640 --> 0:05:47.240
<v Speaker 3>The Manhattan dishest attorney says, there's no way this has

0:05:47.279 --> 0:05:49.880
<v Speaker 3>an effect, and the case should the verdict should not

0:05:49.960 --> 0:05:51.840
<v Speaker 3>be thrown out. So we'll wait to see what happens

0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:54.159
<v Speaker 3>with that. Of course, the other Jack Smith case, the

0:05:54.200 --> 0:05:58.200
<v Speaker 3>other federal case that was brought over Trump's taking of

0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:02.919
<v Speaker 3>classified documents from the White House and his alleged obstruction

0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:05.080
<v Speaker 3>of efforts to get them back, that was dismissed by

0:06:05.160 --> 0:06:08.800
<v Speaker 3>Judge Eileen Cannon and Florida and the Special Counsel is

0:06:08.800 --> 0:06:11.800
<v Speaker 3>going to be appealing to try to get that case revived.

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:13.440
<v Speaker 2>Wasn't there. And there's also the Georgia case.

0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:17.280
<v Speaker 3>There's the Georgia case. Yes, a lot of drama from

0:06:17.279 --> 0:06:21.200
<v Speaker 3>that one. It's sort of been on hold because of

0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:25.839
<v Speaker 3>the dispute over Fannie Willis. The Fulton County District attorney

0:06:25.880 --> 0:06:28.640
<v Speaker 3>there and the relationship that she had with the lead

0:06:29.360 --> 0:06:33.240
<v Speaker 3>her lead prosecutor, and so there's been an effort to

0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:35.880
<v Speaker 3>have her thrown out of the case. And I think

0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:38.760
<v Speaker 3>we're just waiting for something to happen on that. So

0:06:38.800 --> 0:06:40.560
<v Speaker 3>they have to straighten out the whole issue with that

0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:44.159
<v Speaker 3>prosecutor before anything can happen again in that case.

0:06:45.240 --> 0:06:45.840
<v Speaker 1>Unbelievable.

0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:47.039
<v Speaker 3>Thank you so much, You're welcome.

0:06:47.040 --> 0:06:48.640
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much. That really puts it all in

0:06:49.560 --> 0:06:51.159
<v Speaker 1>perspective and gets us up to date.

0:06:51.520 --> 0:06:53.479
<v Speaker 3>I know, yeah, it's like, thank you.

0:06:53.480 --> 0:06:57.000
<v Speaker 2>That's Bloomberg News US legal reporter Eric Larson, who wasn't

0:06:57.080 --> 0:06:59.240
<v Speaker 2>scheduled to be on with us today, but so much.

0:06:59.279 --> 0:07:00.799
<v Speaker 1>First, he's always to stay in August.

0:07:01.440 --> 0:07:03.400
<v Speaker 3>He's always be happy to be here.