WEBVTT - Trump Pleads Not Guilty to Obstructing 2020 Election

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.560 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 2>In a Washington, d C. Federal courtroom today, Donald Trump

0:00:13.440 --> 0:00:17.040
<v Speaker 2>pleaded not guilty to trying to overturn the results of

0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:20.639
<v Speaker 2>his twenty twenty election loss, answering for the first time

0:00:20.760 --> 0:00:24.200
<v Speaker 2>the federal charges that accuse him of orchestrating a brazen

0:00:24.239 --> 0:00:28.080
<v Speaker 2>attempt to block the peaceful transfer of presidential power and

0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 2>interfere with the voting rights of millions of Americans. Special

0:00:32.080 --> 0:00:36.000
<v Speaker 2>counsel Jack Smith secured a four count indictment on Tuesday

0:00:36.320 --> 0:00:40.080
<v Speaker 2>that accuses Trump of conspiring to defraud the US by

0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:44.040
<v Speaker 2>interfering with the counting of votes in twenty twenty, obstructing

0:00:44.080 --> 0:00:48.239
<v Speaker 2>and conspiring to obstruct Congress's certification of the election results,

0:00:48.600 --> 0:00:52.160
<v Speaker 2>and conspiring against the right to vote. Before leaving DC,

0:00:52.600 --> 0:00:56.080
<v Speaker 2>Trump said this was a persecution of a political opponent.

0:00:56.480 --> 0:00:59.760
<v Speaker 3>This is the persecution of the person that's leading by

0:00:59.880 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 3>very very substantial numbers in the Republican primary and leading

0:01:04.600 --> 0:01:07.399
<v Speaker 3>Biden by a lot. So if you can't beat him,

0:01:07.440 --> 0:01:10.560
<v Speaker 3>you persecute him, or you prosecute him. We can't let

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:11.920
<v Speaker 3>this happen in America.

0:01:11.959 --> 0:01:14.440
<v Speaker 2>Thank you very much, every much joining me is former

0:01:14.480 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 2>federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Ma Carter in English, Bob.

0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:21.600
<v Speaker 2>The first hearing in this case is set for August

0:01:21.680 --> 0:01:25.640
<v Speaker 2>twenty eighth, and it will be before Judge Tanya Chutkin

0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:28.640
<v Speaker 2>will be the trial judge. She's been on the bench

0:01:28.680 --> 0:01:31.520
<v Speaker 2>for almost a decade and she's known for being tough

0:01:31.640 --> 0:01:35.480
<v Speaker 2>at sentencing of January sixth defendants. Tell us a little

0:01:35.480 --> 0:01:37.160
<v Speaker 2>about her well.

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 1>She was appointed by former President Obama and she has

0:01:40.920 --> 0:01:45.520
<v Speaker 1>presided over a number of the January sixth trials and

0:01:45.600 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 1>the results of those cases have shown her to be

0:01:48.080 --> 0:01:51.640
<v Speaker 1>a tough sentensor, particularly when it comes to these crimes.

0:01:52.200 --> 0:01:55.840
<v Speaker 1>She was famous for saying that the president is not

0:01:56.040 --> 0:01:58.560
<v Speaker 1>the king, and so I think she has some strong

0:01:58.680 --> 0:02:02.200
<v Speaker 1>views about what going on on January sixth. And although

0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:06.480
<v Speaker 1>she was previously a public defender, so she was remember

0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 1>on the other side of these cases. In her professional

0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:12.800
<v Speaker 1>career before going on to the Bank, she was defending defendants.

0:02:12.840 --> 0:02:16.240
<v Speaker 1>She's not a former prosecutor. She has a record of

0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:20.520
<v Speaker 1>being tough on sentencing when it comes to January sixth defendants.

0:02:20.760 --> 0:02:23.800
<v Speaker 2>There was a case before her involving Trump where she

0:02:24.000 --> 0:02:27.919
<v Speaker 2>rejected his attempts to block the January sixth Committee from

0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:32.280
<v Speaker 2>getting his White House papers, and in comment, she's rejected

0:02:32.280 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 2>the theory that the twenty twenty election was marred by

0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:40.360
<v Speaker 2>widespread fraud and called it a lawfully conducted election. Is

0:02:40.360 --> 0:02:44.000
<v Speaker 2>that viewpoint going to make some of Trump's defenses and

0:02:44.160 --> 0:02:45.120
<v Speaker 2>claims harder.

0:02:46.240 --> 0:02:49.399
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so, because, remember, this trial is not

0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:53.000
<v Speaker 1>going to be about whether the election was stolen, not

0:02:53.040 --> 0:02:55.639
<v Speaker 1>going to be about whether they was fraud in connection

0:02:55.800 --> 0:02:59.480
<v Speaker 1>with the election. It's going to be about whether prosecutors

0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:02.600
<v Speaker 1>can prove that former President Trump knew that he had

0:03:02.639 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 1>lost the election and yet made statements suggesting that it

0:03:06.440 --> 0:03:10.280
<v Speaker 1>was stolen and incited people to interfere with the lawful

0:03:10.320 --> 0:03:11.359
<v Speaker 1>transition of power.

0:03:12.000 --> 0:03:15.880
<v Speaker 2>The prosecution's case, it's really thorough. But do you think

0:03:15.880 --> 0:03:19.320
<v Speaker 2>that they have things that they've saved, you know, additional

0:03:19.360 --> 0:03:20.800
<v Speaker 2>things that are not in the indictment.

0:03:21.320 --> 0:03:23.840
<v Speaker 1>Oh? Absolutely. I think what we're seeing here is a

0:03:23.960 --> 0:03:28.200
<v Speaker 1>very detailed indictment that reads almost like a crime thriller,

0:03:28.480 --> 0:03:31.120
<v Speaker 1>but it sets out at the very beginning of the

0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:35.160
<v Speaker 1>indictment really the government's theme, the central theme of the

0:03:35.280 --> 0:03:38.720
<v Speaker 1>prosecution here is that former President Trump lost the twenty

0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:42.240
<v Speaker 1>twenty presidential election, and that despite having lost, he was

0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:46.000
<v Speaker 1>determined to remain in power. The prosecution wants to turn

0:03:46.080 --> 0:03:49.320
<v Speaker 1>this case into a test as to whether or not

0:03:49.680 --> 0:03:53.880
<v Speaker 1>people who did on that jury understand that. According to prosecutors,

0:03:54.200 --> 0:03:57.400
<v Speaker 1>this was not about a president who genuinely believed he

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:00.360
<v Speaker 1>had lost, but someone who knew he had lost would

0:04:00.400 --> 0:04:04.400
<v Speaker 1>go to all ends, both legal and illegal, in order

0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:07.320
<v Speaker 1>to try to remain in power. And the prosecution states,

0:04:07.320 --> 0:04:10.120
<v Speaker 1>in the beginning of the indictment, the defendant spread lies

0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:13.280
<v Speaker 1>that there had been outcome determinative fraud in the election

0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:15.720
<v Speaker 1>and that he had actually won. And this is really

0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 1>the central key statement of this entire indictment. These claims

0:04:19.400 --> 0:04:22.200
<v Speaker 1>were false, and the defendant knew that they were false.

0:04:22.520 --> 0:04:24.159
<v Speaker 1>That's what this case will ultimately turn on.

0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.320
<v Speaker 2>Is the toughest hurdle for prosecutor is going to be

0:04:27.600 --> 0:04:28.920
<v Speaker 2>proving Trump's intent.

0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:31.520
<v Speaker 1>You always have to prove intent when it comes to

0:04:31.560 --> 0:04:34.520
<v Speaker 1>a criminal case, so you always have to show that

0:04:34.560 --> 0:04:37.080
<v Speaker 1>the defendant a knew what he was doing and b

0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:39.880
<v Speaker 1>knew what he was doing was wrong. You don't have

0:04:39.960 --> 0:04:42.960
<v Speaker 1>to specifically show that a defendant knew they were breaking

0:04:43.080 --> 0:04:46.320
<v Speaker 1>the law. They just have to show what's called criminal

0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:50.600
<v Speaker 1>intent or bad intent, that they willfully did something that

0:04:50.640 --> 0:04:53.280
<v Speaker 1>they knew was a bad thing to do, that they

0:04:53.320 --> 0:04:56.640
<v Speaker 1>knew was not truthful, that they knew was deceitful, that

0:04:56.680 --> 0:04:59.600
<v Speaker 1>they knew was in some way bad conduct. And here

0:05:00.120 --> 0:05:04.800
<v Speaker 1>bad conduct is to try to incite individuals, encourage people,

0:05:05.279 --> 0:05:08.640
<v Speaker 1>lead people to conspire with individuals in order to take

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:12.440
<v Speaker 1>unlawful means in order to overturn the election. So what

0:05:12.480 --> 0:05:16.159
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors will try to do here is to say, Number one,

0:05:16.279 --> 0:05:19.560
<v Speaker 1>former President Trump was absolutely entitled to his opinion. This

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:23.040
<v Speaker 1>is not a First Amendment case. He was allowed to

0:05:23.080 --> 0:05:26.279
<v Speaker 1>be publicly about the election. He was allowed to even

0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:29.960
<v Speaker 1>claim that there had been outcome determinative fraud, even though

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:33.800
<v Speaker 1>that was not true, And he was entitled to formally

0:05:33.960 --> 0:05:36.920
<v Speaker 1>challenge the results of the election, but he had to

0:05:36.920 --> 0:05:40.200
<v Speaker 1>do it through lawful and appropriate means. And in order

0:05:40.200 --> 0:05:42.360
<v Speaker 1>for prosecutors to win this case, they have to convince

0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:45.479
<v Speaker 1>this jury that not only did former President Trump know

0:05:45.600 --> 0:05:48.919
<v Speaker 1>that he lost, but that he took illegal means in

0:05:49.000 --> 0:05:51.160
<v Speaker 1>order to try to stay in power. And by that

0:05:51.200 --> 0:05:54.040
<v Speaker 1>I mean they refer to the false electors, they refer

0:05:54.200 --> 0:05:59.200
<v Speaker 1>to putting pressure on the former vice president but not

0:05:59.400 --> 0:06:02.200
<v Speaker 1>certify the election when he had no power to do it,

0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:03.920
<v Speaker 1>and they knew he had no power to do it.

0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:06.240
<v Speaker 1>So that's really the crux of this case when it

0:06:06.320 --> 0:06:07.640
<v Speaker 1>ultimately gets in front of the jury.

0:06:08.160 --> 0:06:12.360
<v Speaker 2>So will former Vice President Mike Pence be a star witness?

0:06:12.960 --> 0:06:16.160
<v Speaker 1>I certainly think that he will. One of the things

0:06:16.160 --> 0:06:17.960
<v Speaker 1>that you see in this indictment, and it's called a

0:06:18.080 --> 0:06:22.159
<v Speaker 1>speaking indictment, because remember, prosecutors don't have to lay out

0:06:22.200 --> 0:06:24.400
<v Speaker 1>all of these facts in an indictment. All they have

0:06:24.480 --> 0:06:28.080
<v Speaker 1>to do is basically assert what the charges are, the

0:06:28.160 --> 0:06:30.920
<v Speaker 1>crime that was violated. They have to give enough detail

0:06:31.240 --> 0:06:33.440
<v Speaker 1>so a defendant knows how to defend the case. So

0:06:33.480 --> 0:06:35.919
<v Speaker 1>they have to say dates and time, and they have

0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:39.400
<v Speaker 1>to make certain statements in order to support their allegations.

0:06:39.480 --> 0:06:41.600
<v Speaker 1>But they certainly don't need to go into the detail

0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:45.400
<v Speaker 1>that Special Counsel Jacksbith did here. But he did it

0:06:45.440 --> 0:06:47.880
<v Speaker 1>I think for a very specific reason because he knows

0:06:48.000 --> 0:06:50.560
<v Speaker 1>that part of the defense strategy is going to be

0:06:50.640 --> 0:06:53.240
<v Speaker 1>to try to play to the court of public opinion,

0:06:53.560 --> 0:06:55.640
<v Speaker 1>and so he has to get his side of the

0:06:55.720 --> 0:06:58.200
<v Speaker 1>case out there in front of the public. At the

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:02.200
<v Speaker 1>very beginning your earlier June, I do think he has

0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:05.400
<v Speaker 1>held back some evidence, some statement, and he has not

0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:07.880
<v Speaker 1>shown all of his cards in this indictment.

0:07:08.880 --> 0:07:14.720
<v Speaker 2>So the co conspirators six co conspirators are not named,

0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:18.080
<v Speaker 2>but we can figure out basically who five of the

0:07:18.160 --> 0:07:22.360
<v Speaker 2>six are. Why didn't he charge the co conspirators in

0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:25.200
<v Speaker 2>this case? Is it just to streamline the case and

0:07:25.200 --> 0:07:26.480
<v Speaker 2>get it to trial faster.

0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:29.520
<v Speaker 1>Well, that's a great question, and the answer to that

0:07:29.720 --> 0:07:33.360
<v Speaker 1>is we're not quite sure. The Permit of Justice guidelines

0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 1>say that if you are going to name somebody in

0:07:36.880 --> 0:07:40.240
<v Speaker 1>an indictment and essentially accuse them of committing a crime,

0:07:40.680 --> 0:07:43.160
<v Speaker 1>you have to charge them. So it would have been

0:07:43.280 --> 0:07:47.240
<v Speaker 1>entirely improper to name the co conspirators in this indictment

0:07:47.240 --> 0:07:50.200
<v Speaker 1>because they're unindicted. They've not been charged with a crime.

0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:53.120
<v Speaker 1>And the theory behind that is simple. If you're going

0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:55.840
<v Speaker 1>to name somebody in indictment and essentially a lege they

0:07:55.840 --> 0:07:58.240
<v Speaker 1>committed a crime, you have to give them their day

0:07:58.280 --> 0:08:00.800
<v Speaker 1>in court to clear their name. So because they were

0:08:00.840 --> 0:08:05.400
<v Speaker 1>not charged they were not specifically named. That doesn't mean, however,

0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:08.760
<v Speaker 1>that there can't be what's called a superseding indictment, which

0:08:08.800 --> 0:08:11.400
<v Speaker 1>is a second indictment. We saw that happen in the

0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:14.680
<v Speaker 1>mar A Lago case already, where there was a superseding indictment,

0:08:14.880 --> 0:08:18.960
<v Speaker 1>and prosecutors at that point can add additional defendants. So

0:08:19.080 --> 0:08:23.160
<v Speaker 1>the reason for naming unindicted co conspirators can be several.

0:08:23.200 --> 0:08:26.680
<v Speaker 1>It can be evidentiary because a statement by an unindicted

0:08:26.680 --> 0:08:30.920
<v Speaker 1>co conspirator is admitted without being considered hearsay, because that

0:08:31.040 --> 0:08:34.200
<v Speaker 1>unindicted co conspirator was still part of the conspiracy. The

0:08:34.280 --> 0:08:38.200
<v Speaker 1>other thing that prosecutors do in naming unindicted co conspirators

0:08:38.360 --> 0:08:42.439
<v Speaker 1>is to essentially send a strong message to unindicted co

0:08:42.520 --> 0:08:45.240
<v Speaker 1>conspirators that they are more or less in the on

0:08:45.400 --> 0:08:48.959
<v Speaker 1>deck circle for the superseding indictment. In other words, they

0:08:49.000 --> 0:08:52.320
<v Speaker 1>may very well be named in the next case if

0:08:52.360 --> 0:08:55.800
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors decide to obtain a superseding indictment. In that case,

0:08:55.960 --> 0:08:59.679
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors can additional charges, they can add additional facts, and

0:08:59.720 --> 0:09:02.640
<v Speaker 1>they can add additional defendant And it's quite possible that

0:09:02.679 --> 0:09:05.240
<v Speaker 1>we will see a superseding indicting in this case and

0:09:05.320 --> 0:09:08.880
<v Speaker 1>additional defendants get added to it. So it puts pressure

0:09:09.320 --> 0:09:13.280
<v Speaker 1>on these co conspirators that perhaps decide to cooperate with

0:09:13.360 --> 0:09:16.760
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutors. And there's no doubt that at least with

0:09:16.800 --> 0:09:19.240
<v Speaker 1>some of these co conspirators, prosecutors are trying to put

0:09:19.280 --> 0:09:21.160
<v Speaker 1>pressure on them in order to try to get them

0:09:21.200 --> 0:09:24.599
<v Speaker 1>to cooperate. By naming them as an unindicted co conspirator,

0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:27.320
<v Speaker 1>it really rackets up the pressure because it sends a

0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:30.960
<v Speaker 1>very clear and public signal potential defendant that they are

0:09:31.000 --> 0:09:32.360
<v Speaker 1>in the crosshairs of the government.

0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:36.800
<v Speaker 2>John Eastman's lawyer said that he is co conspirator number two.

0:09:37.360 --> 0:09:40.400
<v Speaker 2>In the indictment, Eastman is described as an attorney who

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:43.840
<v Speaker 2>devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the

0:09:43.920 --> 0:09:49.160
<v Speaker 2>Vice president's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct

0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:52.760
<v Speaker 2>the certification of the presidential election. Eastman's lawyer said he's

0:09:52.800 --> 0:09:56.280
<v Speaker 2>preparing a brief that he is going to submit to

0:09:56.320 --> 0:10:01.120
<v Speaker 2>the Special Council outlining he was an attorney, was as

0:10:01.320 --> 0:10:04.080
<v Speaker 2>counsel and he didn't give any illegal advice. And he

0:10:04.240 --> 0:10:08.319
<v Speaker 2>also said, if charged, he's going to trial, is there

0:10:08.360 --> 0:10:12.240
<v Speaker 2>any world in which the Special Council would take what

0:10:12.320 --> 0:10:14.200
<v Speaker 2>he says in a brief and go, oh, we're not

0:10:14.240 --> 0:10:16.360
<v Speaker 2>going to charge him, then I don't think so.

0:10:16.480 --> 0:10:18.959
<v Speaker 1>I think this is all done for political seater. It's

0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:23.040
<v Speaker 1>all done to play to the public. The prosecutors already

0:10:23.200 --> 0:10:26.280
<v Speaker 1>know what positions each of these co co conspirators took

0:10:26.600 --> 0:10:29.600
<v Speaker 1>in order to name them as co conspirators in the

0:10:29.640 --> 0:10:33.960
<v Speaker 1>first place, prosecutors have essentially already determined that they have

0:10:34.040 --> 0:10:37.400
<v Speaker 1>committed a provable crime. Because if it comes to trial

0:10:37.679 --> 0:10:42.320
<v Speaker 1>and prosecutors have not named these unindicted co conspirators as defendants,

0:10:42.600 --> 0:10:45.920
<v Speaker 1>but prosecutors want to get their statements admitted a trial,

0:10:46.200 --> 0:10:48.560
<v Speaker 1>they will have to convince the judge that these unindicted

0:10:48.600 --> 0:10:52.640
<v Speaker 1>co conspirators committed a crime, and therefore a co conspirator's

0:10:52.679 --> 0:10:56.400
<v Speaker 1>statement is not considered hearsay and those statements would be admissible.

0:10:56.600 --> 0:10:59.719
<v Speaker 1>So prosecutors have essentially made up their minds to the

0:11:00.000 --> 0:11:03.880
<v Speaker 1>middle culpability of these unindicted coked spirits already, and it's

0:11:03.960 --> 0:11:07.720
<v Speaker 1>highly unlikely that any threats or comments or additional information

0:11:07.840 --> 0:11:10.199
<v Speaker 1>provided by any of their council are going to change

0:11:10.200 --> 0:11:11.400
<v Speaker 1>the mind to prosecutors.

0:11:12.080 --> 0:11:15.199
<v Speaker 2>What I found surprising is Trump's lawyers have been on

0:11:15.480 --> 0:11:20.640
<v Speaker 2>TV and they're still pushing the defense of First Amendment

0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:22.800
<v Speaker 2>that he had a right to say what he said,

0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:26.600
<v Speaker 2>and it doesn't seem to fit how the Special Council

0:11:26.840 --> 0:11:29.600
<v Speaker 2>has drawn up this indictment.

0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:34.200
<v Speaker 1>Well, the Special Council has clearly anticipated this First Amendment

0:11:34.240 --> 0:11:38.040
<v Speaker 1>defense because former President Trump's lawyers had already been hinting

0:11:38.240 --> 0:11:40.120
<v Speaker 1>that that's the direction they were going to go if

0:11:40.240 --> 0:11:43.840
<v Speaker 1>charges were brought. And that's why he included a paragraph

0:11:43.840 --> 0:11:47.600
<v Speaker 1>at the very beginning of the indictment saying that the defendant,

0:11:47.720 --> 0:11:51.080
<v Speaker 1>former President Trump, had a right like every American, to

0:11:51.160 --> 0:11:54.840
<v Speaker 1>speak publicly about the election and to even claim falsely

0:11:55.200 --> 0:11:58.120
<v Speaker 1>that there had been outcome determinative fraud during the election

0:11:58.520 --> 0:12:00.800
<v Speaker 1>and that he had won. Trying to get out in

0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:03.200
<v Speaker 1>front of that issue and show that they are not

0:12:03.480 --> 0:12:06.560
<v Speaker 1>trying to restrain his right to speak, They're not trying

0:12:06.600 --> 0:12:09.440
<v Speaker 1>to restrain his right to express an opinion. But what

0:12:09.520 --> 0:12:12.800
<v Speaker 1>the indictment focuses on is not words but action. And

0:12:12.880 --> 0:12:15.400
<v Speaker 1>part of the conspiracy is a group of people who

0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:18.880
<v Speaker 1>could aspire with one another, often by acts and by words,

0:12:18.920 --> 0:12:21.800
<v Speaker 1>to do something that's illegal. And so what prosecutors have

0:12:21.920 --> 0:12:24.960
<v Speaker 1>done is they put in a lot of detail about

0:12:25.120 --> 0:12:27.840
<v Speaker 1>acts that were taken, not just words that were spoken,

0:12:28.240 --> 0:12:32.240
<v Speaker 1>although they did include a number of statements allegedly made

0:12:32.280 --> 0:12:35.720
<v Speaker 1>by former President Trump that they say the former president

0:12:35.840 --> 0:12:38.839
<v Speaker 1>knew at the time were false. For example, they say

0:12:38.920 --> 0:12:42.280
<v Speaker 1>the defendant insinuated that more than ten thousand dead voters

0:12:42.559 --> 0:12:46.440
<v Speaker 1>had voted in Georgia, which is demonstrably false. They say

0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:49.120
<v Speaker 1>that former President Trump astirred there had been two hundred

0:12:49.160 --> 0:12:53.120
<v Speaker 1>and five thousand more votes than voters in Pennsylvania, another

0:12:53.200 --> 0:12:56.320
<v Speaker 1>fact that is demonstrably false, and the prosecutors a leged

0:12:56.559 --> 0:12:59.439
<v Speaker 1>the president knew at the time was false. They also

0:12:59.520 --> 0:13:02.599
<v Speaker 1>say that foreigner president Trump had been making statements that

0:13:02.679 --> 0:13:06.280
<v Speaker 1>there was a suspicious jump of votes in Detroit, Michigan,

0:13:06.480 --> 0:13:10.040
<v Speaker 1>again something they say is a demonstrably false statement, when

0:13:10.080 --> 0:13:12.720
<v Speaker 1>that former President Trump knew it was false at the

0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:15.120
<v Speaker 1>time that he made it. So they've attacked the First

0:13:15.160 --> 0:13:19.760
<v Speaker 1>Amendment argument both by showing that statements made by former

0:13:19.800 --> 0:13:24.520
<v Speaker 1>President Trump were knowingly false, but also really focusing on

0:13:24.720 --> 0:13:28.280
<v Speaker 1>conduct rather than statements. And I think that's why you

0:13:28.400 --> 0:13:31.959
<v Speaker 1>did not see any charges that were brought directly as

0:13:32.000 --> 0:13:34.880
<v Speaker 1>a result of the events of January sixth and the

0:13:35.040 --> 0:13:39.160
<v Speaker 1>statements that former President Trump made at that rally that

0:13:39.280 --> 0:13:43.000
<v Speaker 1>ultimately incided the right. They wanted to stay far away

0:13:43.120 --> 0:13:46.640
<v Speaker 1>from an argument that the president truly believed that he

0:13:46.720 --> 0:13:49.600
<v Speaker 1>had won the election and that all of his statements

0:13:49.640 --> 0:13:51.680
<v Speaker 1>to the people that day that ultimately led to the

0:13:51.800 --> 0:13:55.000
<v Speaker 1>riot were protected by the First Amendment. They left that

0:13:55.040 --> 0:13:58.240
<v Speaker 1>out of the indictment intentionally in order to anticipate this

0:13:58.280 --> 0:13:59.320
<v Speaker 1>First Amendment defense.

0:14:00.480 --> 0:14:05.320
<v Speaker 2>Another defense that is being bandied about is adviceive counsel

0:14:05.559 --> 0:14:08.720
<v Speaker 2>that he was just following what his lawyers told him.

0:14:09.160 --> 0:14:11.880
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and I think that actually is a defense that

0:14:12.000 --> 0:14:17.040
<v Speaker 1>may ultimately prove to be most troublesome for prosecutors. You know,

0:14:17.120 --> 0:14:19.640
<v Speaker 1>here is a case where you had a long list

0:14:19.720 --> 0:14:23.080
<v Speaker 1>of lawyers providing advice to the president, many of them

0:14:23.120 --> 0:14:26.120
<v Speaker 1>telling him there was no election fraud. You did not

0:14:26.240 --> 0:14:29.920
<v Speaker 1>win the election. His Attorney general at the time, Bill Barr,

0:14:29.960 --> 0:14:32.320
<v Speaker 1>told him there was no election of fraud. Lots of

0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:35.520
<v Speaker 1>other high ranking attorneys in the Department of Justice confirm

0:14:35.640 --> 0:14:38.640
<v Speaker 1>that view. But he picked and choosed among the lawyers

0:14:38.680 --> 0:14:41.320
<v Speaker 1>he wanted to believe, and he ultimately found lawyers who

0:14:41.360 --> 0:14:43.960
<v Speaker 1>were willing to tell him what he wanted to believe.

0:14:44.440 --> 0:14:48.520
<v Speaker 1>There is something called a reliance on professional advice defense.

0:14:48.800 --> 0:14:51.160
<v Speaker 1>Now what that means if you were to go down

0:14:51.520 --> 0:14:54.720
<v Speaker 1>talk to your lawyer, provide your lawyer with all truthful

0:14:54.760 --> 0:14:58.280
<v Speaker 1>and complete information, and that lawyer tells you to do something,

0:14:58.480 --> 0:15:01.400
<v Speaker 1>and then you do it, that you're breaking the law,

0:15:01.760 --> 0:15:04.840
<v Speaker 1>you can rightfully raise as a defense the fact that

0:15:04.880 --> 0:15:08.040
<v Speaker 1>you relied in good faith on the advice that you

0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:10.680
<v Speaker 1>got from your lawyer. You didn't mislead your lawyer. You

0:15:10.720 --> 0:15:12.920
<v Speaker 1>gave your lawyer all the relevant facts, and you just

0:15:12.960 --> 0:15:16.120
<v Speaker 1>got bad advice from that lawyer. And that really shifts

0:15:16.240 --> 0:15:19.600
<v Speaker 1>the burden onto the prosecution here. To show that your

0:15:19.640 --> 0:15:23.520
<v Speaker 1>reliance was not in good faith. Here, prosecutors will have

0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:26.960
<v Speaker 1>to show that these lawyers were cooking up schemes that

0:15:27.120 --> 0:15:30.320
<v Speaker 1>even the president knew was false. And they've done that

0:15:30.760 --> 0:15:34.360
<v Speaker 1>by alluding to certain statements that former presidents Trump made

0:15:34.440 --> 0:15:38.280
<v Speaker 1>about these various lawyers that showed that he really didn't

0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:40.680
<v Speaker 1>believe what they were saying, that he knew that their

0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:44.680
<v Speaker 1>statements and their legal advice was really on the fringes

0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:48.520
<v Speaker 1>of legality and was not supported by the law. And

0:15:48.560 --> 0:15:51.360
<v Speaker 1>that is bolstered by the fact that other lawyers were

0:15:51.440 --> 0:15:54.960
<v Speaker 1>telling him, including his own Attorney General that this information

0:15:55.040 --> 0:15:57.600
<v Speaker 1>that he was getting from these other lawyers was simply

0:15:57.680 --> 0:16:01.040
<v Speaker 1>not sound legal advice, and that it was not something

0:16:01.080 --> 0:16:02.320
<v Speaker 1>that was true.

0:16:02.480 --> 0:16:06.320
<v Speaker 2>Is advice of counsel available if the lawyer is a

0:16:06.320 --> 0:16:07.280
<v Speaker 2>co conspirator?

0:16:07.640 --> 0:16:10.480
<v Speaker 1>Well, that rigs is an interesting question because typically when

0:16:10.480 --> 0:16:13.560
<v Speaker 1>the advice of council defense is raised, the lawyer is

0:16:13.640 --> 0:16:16.560
<v Speaker 1>not a defendant in the case or a co conspirator.

0:16:17.080 --> 0:16:21.520
<v Speaker 1>So here if prosecutors prove that those lawyers who are

0:16:21.560 --> 0:16:25.640
<v Speaker 1>co conspirators also violated the law, and that really does

0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:29.440
<v Speaker 1>exiscerate that defense. It undermines the defense because it shows

0:16:29.480 --> 0:16:32.920
<v Speaker 1>that those lawyers didn't really believe what they were saying.

0:16:33.160 --> 0:16:36.080
<v Speaker 1>But prosecutors still have to prove that even if the

0:16:36.160 --> 0:16:39.600
<v Speaker 1>lawyers didn't believe it, that former President Trump also didn't

0:16:39.600 --> 0:16:40.040
<v Speaker 1>believe it.

0:16:40.400 --> 0:16:45.400
<v Speaker 2>Let's talk timing. So basically, from October through May, he's

0:16:45.440 --> 0:16:49.160
<v Speaker 2>got four trials pending, and two of them are criminal.

0:16:49.760 --> 0:16:53.280
<v Speaker 2>Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has hinted that he'd be willing

0:16:53.360 --> 0:16:57.000
<v Speaker 2>to push his trial date in order to help a

0:16:57.040 --> 0:17:01.440
<v Speaker 2>federal prosecution in the interest of justice. Can the Special

0:17:01.520 --> 0:17:05.000
<v Speaker 2>Council get this case tried before the.

0:17:05.000 --> 0:17:09.359
<v Speaker 1>Election, Well, that really is the central question here, because

0:17:09.920 --> 0:17:12.959
<v Speaker 1>if these cases are not tried before the election, and

0:17:13.080 --> 0:17:16.400
<v Speaker 1>if foreigner President Trump is the Republican nominee, and if

0:17:16.400 --> 0:17:18.920
<v Speaker 1>he wins, if he becomes the next president of the

0:17:19.040 --> 0:17:22.720
<v Speaker 1>United States, then with these cases pending, it's highly likely

0:17:23.000 --> 0:17:25.480
<v Speaker 1>he will appoint an attorney general who will simply just

0:17:25.880 --> 0:17:29.720
<v Speaker 1>dismiss these charges and not pursue them on the federal level.

0:17:29.960 --> 0:17:32.359
<v Speaker 1>That doesn't mean that the case with the Matt DA's

0:17:32.400 --> 0:17:35.199
<v Speaker 1>office goes away, because that's the state case and the

0:17:35.240 --> 0:17:38.400
<v Speaker 1>president can't do anything about those charges. But in terms

0:17:38.440 --> 0:17:41.200
<v Speaker 1>of the federal charges, which are the most serious, that

0:17:41.359 --> 0:17:44.199
<v Speaker 1>really is up to the Department of Justice. In terms

0:17:44.240 --> 0:17:47.160
<v Speaker 1>of the two federal cases they've brought in the Southern

0:17:47.200 --> 0:17:50.880
<v Speaker 1>District of Florida and now in the District of Columbia,

0:17:50.920 --> 0:17:55.440
<v Speaker 1>and the judges on those cases, generally speaking, if prosecutors

0:17:55.560 --> 0:17:58.639
<v Speaker 1>tells the judge in Washington, DC and the judge in

0:17:58.680 --> 0:18:01.560
<v Speaker 1>Florida the time that they'd like to pursue these cases,

0:18:01.560 --> 0:18:03.959
<v Speaker 1>I think you'll see the judges go along with that.

0:18:04.160 --> 0:18:06.800
<v Speaker 1>Prosecutors are the ones who are bringing these cases, and

0:18:06.840 --> 0:18:09.240
<v Speaker 1>it's really up to the judges in terms of timing.

0:18:09.480 --> 0:18:12.600
<v Speaker 1>But Again, any judge, whether it's the judge in Washington,

0:18:12.680 --> 0:18:15.159
<v Speaker 1>DC or the judge in South Florida, is going to

0:18:15.160 --> 0:18:19.200
<v Speaker 1>be mindful of giving the defense appropriate time to prepare

0:18:19.280 --> 0:18:21.320
<v Speaker 1>for a trial, because the last thing in the world

0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:23.560
<v Speaker 1>they want to do is go to the lengthy trial,

0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:26.240
<v Speaker 1>then have it go up on appeal in the event

0:18:26.280 --> 0:18:29.080
<v Speaker 1>of it conviction and have it overturned because the defense

0:18:29.119 --> 0:18:32.040
<v Speaker 1>council says, Judge, we did not have an adequate time

0:18:32.080 --> 0:18:35.000
<v Speaker 1>to prepare our defense, that this was a rush in

0:18:35.080 --> 0:18:38.239
<v Speaker 1>order to get this thing tried before the election, and

0:18:38.320 --> 0:18:41.159
<v Speaker 1>we were not able to adequately go through the mountains

0:18:41.160 --> 0:18:44.479
<v Speaker 1>of evidence, interview witnesses, and prepare our defense, and the

0:18:44.600 --> 0:18:47.840
<v Speaker 1>entire case gets thrown out on appeal. So the judge

0:18:47.880 --> 0:18:50.600
<v Speaker 1>is going to be balancing the timing of this case.

0:18:51.000 --> 0:18:54.000
<v Speaker 1>I think no judge is immune to the fact that

0:18:54.040 --> 0:18:56.639
<v Speaker 1>there's an election coming up on the impact of this

0:18:56.800 --> 0:18:59.320
<v Speaker 1>trial on that election, But they're also going to have

0:18:59.359 --> 0:19:01.960
<v Speaker 1>to be very careful full, whether it's the judge in Washington,

0:19:02.000 --> 0:19:04.320
<v Speaker 1>DC or the judge in South Florida, to give the

0:19:04.400 --> 0:19:07.640
<v Speaker 1>defense a fair and appropriate time in order to prepare.

0:19:07.680 --> 0:19:10.600
<v Speaker 2>With the other criminal indictments and the one possibly coming

0:19:10.640 --> 0:19:15.200
<v Speaker 2>in Georgia. How important is this indictment? Is this case?

0:19:15.920 --> 0:19:19.800
<v Speaker 1>Well, there's an interesting debate really over which case is

0:19:20.080 --> 0:19:23.280
<v Speaker 1>more easily provable by the prosecution. In terms of these

0:19:23.280 --> 0:19:26.800
<v Speaker 1>two federal indictments. Some people think that the mar Lago case,

0:19:27.119 --> 0:19:30.240
<v Speaker 1>while less important, certainly does not strike at the heart

0:19:30.240 --> 0:19:33.320
<v Speaker 1>of democracy the way the January sixth case does. But

0:19:33.400 --> 0:19:36.480
<v Speaker 1>some people think the evidence there is more straightforward and

0:19:36.560 --> 0:19:39.480
<v Speaker 1>more overwhelming. On the other hand, that's the case that

0:19:39.520 --> 0:19:42.760
<v Speaker 1>will ultimately go to trial in a venue that was

0:19:42.800 --> 0:19:46.520
<v Speaker 1>more favorable to President Trump. More people voted for him

0:19:46.560 --> 0:19:49.160
<v Speaker 1>in the district where that case will be tried, whereas

0:19:49.320 --> 0:19:52.399
<v Speaker 1>the district of Columbia is an area that former President

0:19:52.440 --> 0:19:57.160
<v Speaker 1>Trump lost overwhelmingly. In terms of import I don't think

0:19:57.200 --> 0:20:00.640
<v Speaker 1>there's anybody who could possibly say that the January sixth indictment,

0:20:00.680 --> 0:20:03.800
<v Speaker 1>this case that just came down, could be any more important.

0:20:04.000 --> 0:20:07.200
<v Speaker 1>It really strikes at the very heart of our democracy.

0:20:07.560 --> 0:20:11.520
<v Speaker 1>It essentially accuses the former president of losing the election

0:20:12.000 --> 0:20:16.120
<v Speaker 1>and refusing to see power to his rightfully elected successor.

0:20:16.359 --> 0:20:19.520
<v Speaker 1>There's nothing more important to our democracy than the orderly

0:20:19.560 --> 0:20:23.119
<v Speaker 1>transition of power, and prosecutors have a leg tier that

0:20:23.240 --> 0:20:28.800
<v Speaker 1>former President Trump attempted to subvert that very important procedural process.

0:20:29.320 --> 0:20:34.080
<v Speaker 2>Finally, what stood out to you about this indictment about

0:20:34.119 --> 0:20:36.000
<v Speaker 2>the structure or the facts.

0:20:37.119 --> 0:20:40.919
<v Speaker 1>One thing very striking about this January sixth indictment is

0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:43.679
<v Speaker 1>the enormous amount of work that went into putting this

0:20:43.760 --> 0:20:47.040
<v Speaker 1>indictment together in a relatively short period of time. It's

0:20:47.160 --> 0:20:51.040
<v Speaker 1>clear that the Special Council's Office has interviewed hundreds of

0:20:51.080 --> 0:20:55.280
<v Speaker 1>witnesses about the events surrounding January sixth, leading up to it,

0:20:55.320 --> 0:20:58.119
<v Speaker 1>on the events that occurred after that, and there are

0:20:58.160 --> 0:21:01.960
<v Speaker 1>other witnesses and another statement, no doubt that prosecutors have

0:21:02.240 --> 0:21:04.640
<v Speaker 1>and will use at a trial that we don't even

0:21:04.680 --> 0:21:07.359
<v Speaker 1>know about yet because the prosecution is not about to

0:21:07.359 --> 0:21:11.440
<v Speaker 1>show their entire hand in this indictment. So it's very thorough,

0:21:11.640 --> 0:21:14.560
<v Speaker 1>it's very detailed. I think it's going to keep the

0:21:14.560 --> 0:21:18.720
<v Speaker 1>defense guessing as to what other evidence may be out there.

0:21:19.000 --> 0:21:21.360
<v Speaker 1>We saw that happen in the mar Lago case, where

0:21:21.400 --> 0:21:25.520
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors withheld certain evidence when they first indicted the case,

0:21:25.800 --> 0:21:28.080
<v Speaker 1>and then in the superseding indictment, they showed that they

0:21:28.080 --> 0:21:30.600
<v Speaker 1>had more evidence than the defense even knew that they

0:21:30.680 --> 0:21:33.520
<v Speaker 1>had I suspect the same may be going on here.

0:21:33.960 --> 0:21:36.960
<v Speaker 1>Part of the risk of any defendant who's going to

0:21:37.000 --> 0:21:40.200
<v Speaker 1>try their case in public is that when they make

0:21:40.320 --> 0:21:44.119
<v Speaker 1>statements about the indictment, they are more or less locking

0:21:44.160 --> 0:21:46.960
<v Speaker 1>themselves into a particular position, and if it turns out

0:21:47.000 --> 0:21:51.240
<v Speaker 1>the prosecutors have more evidence that contradicts those statements, that

0:21:51.240 --> 0:21:54.320
<v Speaker 1>can ultimbly come back to haunt the defendant at trial.

0:21:54.560 --> 0:21:56.359
<v Speaker 2>Always so great to have you on the show, Bob,

0:21:56.359 --> 0:21:59.560
<v Speaker 2>and to get your insights, that's former federal prosecutor Robert

0:21:59.560 --> 0:22:02.520
<v Speaker 2>mens Up, partner maccarter and English. And that's it for

0:22:02.520 --> 0:22:05.119
<v Speaker 2>this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

0:22:05.200 --> 0:22:08.439
<v Speaker 2>always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

0:22:08.720 --> 0:22:11.720
<v Speaker 2>You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

0:22:11.880 --> 0:22:16.919
<v Speaker 2>www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and

0:22:17.000 --> 0:22:20.080
<v Speaker 2>remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

0:22:20.160 --> 0:22:23.600
<v Speaker 2>at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

0:22:23.640 --> 0:22:25.119
<v Speaker 2>you're listening to Bloomberg