Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani has not been charged with any crime yet,
Speaker 1: but could that be changing soon. Prosecutors in the Manhattan
Speaker 1: U s Attorney's Office that Giuliani once headed have been
Speaker 1: investigating the former New York mayor and personal lawyer to
Speaker 1: former President Donald Trump. That became evident when they rated
Speaker 1: his apartment in the early morning hours two weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Greg Ferrell, Bloomberg Legal reporter. Rudy Giuliani's
Speaker 1: lawyer offered to bring his client in for questioning by
Speaker 1: Manhattan federal prosecutors two months ago. Why didn't that happen? Well,
Speaker 1: it's this actually goes back a year and a half.
Speaker 1: So Ever since Rudy Giuliani's business associates left Parniss and
Speaker 1: Igor Frewman, the two guys who were charged a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago in November late late nineteen with campaign
Speaker 1: finance problems. Um it's been reported that Rudy was also
Speaker 1: like a person of interest in that and since then,
Speaker 1: since November of Bob Costello, his lawyer, has tried to
Speaker 1: uh get Rudy in there under like either a proper
Speaker 1: agreement or just like, is there anything you guys need
Speaker 1: to know from us? And it's been kind of like quiet,
Speaker 1: uh no response uh from uh, you know, from well, no,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't put it that way. The response from the
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors in Manhattan has been, I would love to
Speaker 1: have you come in a chat, but we're not going
Speaker 1: to tell you what we want, you know that what
Speaker 1: we're specifically interested in. In other ways, they were treating
Speaker 1: him kind of like he was a suspect um. They
Speaker 1: didn't want to give him advanced notice of what they
Speaker 1: are interested in, what their investigation encompassed. So this has
Speaker 1: been kind of a like a little bit of a
Speaker 1: you know, a dance between Rudy and his lawyer and
Speaker 1: the Feds. Rudy, I think, has wanted to get you know,
Speaker 1: put this behind him and you know, move on, um,
Speaker 1: and the prosecutors in Manhattan are like unwilling to like
Speaker 1: tell him what they're interested in. That's why this become
Speaker 1: a stalemate. And yes, as recently as early March, um,
Speaker 1: you know, Rudy, Laura once again said why you know,
Speaker 1: why don't we just come in and tell you what
Speaker 1: we were doing in Ukraine? And they're saying, like, no preconditions,
Speaker 1: We just you know, uh, you know, if you want
Speaker 1: to come in and talk, come in and talk. And
Speaker 1: Giuliani's lawyer who's also in the seventies in very old
Speaker 1: school guy who used to be a prose baby prosecutor
Speaker 1: way back in the seventies at in Manhattan. So why
Speaker 1: are you guys doing this the hard way? So that
Speaker 1: became the theme of the story, the headline and all that.
Speaker 1: Do do prosecutors meet with lawyers and clients when the
Speaker 1: client is the target of the investigation, that's a little different.
Speaker 1: So when they're when they're when you have a target,
Speaker 1: then they don't want to allow the target, uh, to
Speaker 1: just come in and decide what evidence to put forth.
Speaker 1: They want to you know, keep their maximum flexibility, their
Speaker 1: ability to ask any range of questions. They want to
Speaker 1: hold to that and not give any sort of tip
Speaker 1: as to what they might ask about because they don't want,
Speaker 1: you know, otherwise, why not just you know, submit like
Speaker 1: a series of written questions and you know, rely on
Speaker 1: written responses, you know, make it easy for defense layers. Know,
Speaker 1: the prosecutors I think want to basically you know, at
Speaker 1: their own time and choosing decide what they want to
Speaker 1: ask and when they want to ask it. So then
Speaker 1: does that indicate that Juliani might be a target here? Right,
Speaker 1: they haven't declared it, and of course they don't go
Speaker 1: about declaring that, and um, you know, as of March,
Speaker 1: Rudy was not It's clear that as of early March,
Speaker 1: Rudy was a subject, namely like he was involved with
Speaker 1: some characters who were under investigation over issues that were
Speaker 1: under investigation, but he himself was not a target. But
Speaker 1: there's no declaration of this from the Southern District of
Speaker 1: New York. But the fact that you'd send a bunch
Speaker 1: of FBI agents at six am to collect all his
Speaker 1: electronic devices suggests that, yeah, he like it certainly seems
Speaker 1: like he's a target. They're acting like he's a target.
Speaker 1: And in the court of public opinion, and this is
Speaker 1: what's really angering Rudy's lawyer. In the court of public opinion,
Speaker 1: when you see a bunch of FBI agents show up
Speaker 1: at someone's department, the public, you know, can only construe
Speaker 1: that as, oh, he must have done something wrong. So basically,
Speaker 1: Rudy's lawyer and Alan Dershowitz has said the same thing
Speaker 1: that Alan dersh wits consulting with them that you know,
Speaker 1: there's a way to do this if you want the devices,
Speaker 1: you can just to issue a grand jury subpoena. It's
Speaker 1: all secret. There's no you know, leak of this to
Speaker 1: the public, and we can negotiate as to whether or
Speaker 1: not something is uh falls under attorney client privilege or
Speaker 1: executive privilege in the case of Rudy's most famous client,
Speaker 1: former President Donald Trump. So now here you have the
Speaker 1: former U. S. Attorney from Manhattan, the former mayor of
Speaker 1: New York. How high a bar would it be to
Speaker 1: get a search warrant for him? Extremely high? Because yes,
Speaker 1: the former U S. Attorney for the Southern District, a
Speaker 1: former number three official in the Reagan Justice Department in
Speaker 1: the nineteen eighties. Uh, not just a two term New
Speaker 1: York City mayor, but America's mayor who was lauded for
Speaker 1: his you know, the valiant performance that he gave after
Speaker 1: September eleventh in going to all the firefighter's funerals. He
Speaker 1: was indefatigable, and he became a symbol, you know, of
Speaker 1: a resurge in New York in the wake of those
Speaker 1: attacks and then the presidential candidate. So for Rudy to
Speaker 1: be being treated like this, not just by the just Department,
Speaker 1: but by the very office which he led, is pretty astonishing.
Speaker 1: And so there's this disconnect, like what Rudy's lawyer and
Speaker 1: seemed to know about this doesn't add up to the
Speaker 1: It's almost as other prosecutes went nuclear to take a
Speaker 1: step like this. It's what they did with Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1: And look what happened to Michael Cohen. Uh, it ended
Speaker 1: badly for Cohen. And so that's not to say it's
Speaker 1: going to end badly for Rudy, but it's there's a
Speaker 1: if you're in Rudy shoes, there's a disturbing parallel to
Speaker 1: what happened to the last guy who was Trump's lawyer,
Speaker 1: who had FBI agents come and clean out his house. Now, Um,
Speaker 1: the fact that the raid does that indicate the beginning
Speaker 1: of the investigation, the middle of the investigation, the end
Speaker 1: of the investigation where you can't tell. Um, we can't tell,
Speaker 1: but I would guess the middle. So you don't do
Speaker 1: this unless you have enough to justify it to a
Speaker 1: judge that we need to search warrant and we can't
Speaker 1: give any advanced notice because things might get cleaned or wiped. Uh,
Speaker 1: so that's something. However, it can't be near the end
Speaker 1: because or at least I doubt it, because there's gonna
Speaker 1: be so much material that even if you had a
Speaker 1: well formed thesis as to you know, allegations about someone
Speaker 1: doing something wrong, Um, you're gonna have to go through
Speaker 1: like a massive amount of material that is contained in
Speaker 1: those devices through a defined pure time, not up until
Speaker 1: the present day. But I think the search warrant was
Speaker 1: just through basically the end of So this is all
Speaker 1: focused on Ukraine, so it's about that. But still, um,
Speaker 1: there's so much material that the Feds are going to
Speaker 1: have to go through that it can't be like right
Speaker 1: at the one yard line. That has to be that
Speaker 1: there's a bit of ways to go before whatever they're
Speaker 1: gonna file or do they'll do. Do you know exactly
Speaker 1: what they're investigating him about. It's it's Ukraine? But what
Speaker 1: what about Ukraine? So the search warrant that was executed
Speaker 1: was it I guess ten days ago, twelve days ago
Speaker 1: on Rudy's apartment. Um, you know, in addition to Rudy's
Speaker 1: electronic devices, it's specified communications with certain individuals. UM a
Speaker 1: lawyer in Washington, Victoria Tenzing, who with her husband Joe Dejenev,
Speaker 1: has been an outspoken proponent and supporter of President Trump
Speaker 1: UH and was also involved with representations of clients in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And then UM a journalist named John Solomon who wrote
Speaker 1: a number of articles that UM basically criticized or pointed out,
Speaker 1: you know, allegedly supposed purportedly negative information about the former
Speaker 1: US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Giovanovich. UM and then a
Speaker 1: couple of Ukrainian former Ukrainian officials who are widely believed
Speaker 1: you know, in the West to be corrupt, UM who
Speaker 1: met with Rudy Giuliani and gave him, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: purportedly incriminating information about either Hunter Biden or Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: So this all seems to be swirling around the attempt
Speaker 1: in to get rid of Marie Jovanovich as the US
Speaker 1: ambassador in Kiev, and also UM It's coincides with an
Speaker 1: attempt to basically, uh, you know, create some kind of
Speaker 1: investigation surrounding the Bidens that you know, would have had
Speaker 1: an impact probably in the election. And did Giuliani and
Speaker 1: his lawyer did Giuliani or his lawyer go to ban
Speaker 1: Justice to present their case or there Yes, So at
Speaker 1: the beginning of this um after leave Partisan or Fruman
Speaker 1: were charged in the fall with you know, campaign finance
Speaker 1: violations UM. That was also at the time that Rudy
Speaker 1: had developed his whole thesis about you know, corruption in
Speaker 1: the Biden family involving Ukraine and this energy company Barisma.
Speaker 1: And basically what it would have done if you were
Speaker 1: to believe what Rudy's you know friends, the former and
Speaker 1: you know allegedly corrupt Ukrainian officials told him, was that,
Speaker 1: you know, a Ukraine was involved in the hacking of
Speaker 1: democratic emails in not Russia, and be uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Biden was protecting his son and blowing up an investigation
Speaker 1: that would have exposed corruption. So it would have been
Speaker 1: a way to undercut the Mueller investigation, which was in
Speaker 1: full force that time and causing Trump a lot of problems,
Speaker 1: and sort of undermine that investigation by claiming and providing,
Speaker 1: you know, some support for the idea that you know,
Speaker 1: Russia never got involved in interfering in the election, was
Speaker 1: all Ukraine and it was on behalf of a cabal
Speaker 1: of democratic officials, including you know, Joe Biden. So that's
Speaker 1: the sort of alternative theory that Rudy was working on.
Speaker 1: And so when he was when it became clear that
Speaker 1: an investigation from the federal prosecutors in Manhattan was involved
Speaker 1: him or at least a couple of his business associates,
Speaker 1: he wanted to shop this information somewhere. He realized he
Speaker 1: couldn't go to Manhattan with it because they had other interests.
Speaker 1: So he went to main Justice, to Attorney General williambar
Speaker 1: not directly, but it must have been, you know, a
Speaker 1: decision must have been made fairly high up in UH
Speaker 1: in late twenty to basically appoint the U S Attorney
Speaker 1: in Pittsburgh, the Western District of Pennsylvania, to basically look
Speaker 1: into Rudy's allegations about corruption by the Bidens in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And so routine is lawyer flew out to Pittsburgh in January,
Speaker 1: spent several hours before a team of five senior prosecutors
Speaker 1: and five senior FBI agents from that office, and outlined
Speaker 1: the whole theory of surrounding Joe Biden basically you know,
Speaker 1: interfering with you know, the Ukraine to protect his his
Speaker 1: son hunter who is getting paid very well as a
Speaker 1: to be on the board of directors of this you know,
Speaker 1: Dodgy Energy company in Ukraine. So it's not clear that's
Speaker 1: gone anywhere. They made that presentation. There's been some follow ups,
Speaker 1: some of the investigators in Pittsburgh have since you know,
Speaker 1: done an interview here or there, but there doesn't it
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to have been and you know, the US
Speaker 1: Attorney's office obviously won't comment on it. But if that
Speaker 1: investigation gained any traction at all, it's not clear. There's
Speaker 1: no evidence of that. It seems to be kind of moribund.
Speaker 1: Has Giuliani's attorney said what his defense might be here, Yes,
Speaker 1: actually that Bob Costello has pointed out that if this
Speaker 1: is a phara violation, in other words, of violation, if
Speaker 1: you're claiming that Rudi Giuliani violated the law that requires
Speaker 1: you know, you register with the Justice Oparment if you're
Speaker 1: representing a you know, a foreign agent or basically the
Speaker 1: uh you're representing a foreign entity, either individuals from a
Speaker 1: foreign country or you know, the sovereign country itself, or
Speaker 1: some kind of a company or government, you know, entity
Speaker 1: of a foreign company in the United States, you have
Speaker 1: to file what's known as a PHARAH form f A
Speaker 1: r A. So that has been you know, that was
Speaker 1: you know, floated against Mike Flynn that he never registered
Speaker 1: you know, under Farah for his representation of Turkey. And
Speaker 1: basically what Juliana's lawyer has maintained is that there is
Speaker 1: an exception to PHARAH. You don't have to you know,
Speaker 1: file you know, uh pharah if you're acting in defense
Speaker 1: of your client. In other words, your act really act
Speaker 1: me as a lawyer, not a lobbyist. If you're in
Speaker 1: in this case, Rudy, in his investigations in Ukraine, dealing
Speaker 1: with a lot of those foreign entities, was just gathering
Speaker 1: evidence in the defense of his client, Donald J. Trump,
Speaker 1: who happened to be the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: This is at a time when Trump was, in fact,
Speaker 1: you know, the subject of Mueller's criminal investigation into Russian
Speaker 1: interference in the election. So therefore, any effort to present
Speaker 1: a defense for Trump would would constitute you know, the
Speaker 1: type of you know, basically lawyer client activity that does
Speaker 1: not require you to file for you know, a Pharaoh registration.
Speaker 1: So that's the theory, and you know, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: that's what Rudy's lawyer has maintained. Rudy has quite a team.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Alan Dershowitz before, but he has a lot
Speaker 1: of people on his legal team. Yes. So he has
Speaker 1: Bob Costello, who is a former colleague of his from
Speaker 1: the U. S. Sterns Officer Manhattan back in the nineteen
Speaker 1: seventies and a longtime criminal defense lawyer in the New
Speaker 1: York area. So Costell has been representing him for at
Speaker 1: least a year and a half. He also just added
Speaker 1: a team of prosecutors from a Brooklyn firm mostly known
Speaker 1: for its local, you know, crime defenses, but it features
Speaker 1: a couple of guys a former tired judge um uh
Speaker 1: included among them, who are experts in search and seizure warrants,
Speaker 1: and also Dershowitz himself. This is one of his you know,
Speaker 1: uh you know, strong points, and it's clear from Derschwitz
Speaker 1: is advising them, so he's not really like a lawyer
Speaker 1: for the team. I think that's what a guy like
Speaker 1: Dershwitz does these days is you know, uh, basically advises consults.
Speaker 1: But the fact that Dershwitz and the new guys in
Speaker 1: Brooklyn who have an interest in search and seizure law
Speaker 1: are involved. It indicates that it's pretty clear that they
Speaker 1: want to challenge not just the search warrant that was
Speaker 1: executed in late April, but you know basically the the
Speaker 1: eye cloud, the subpoena through which the US government a
Speaker 1: year and a half ago got basically you know, most
Speaker 1: of the electronic data you know, call information from Rudy's
Speaker 1: electronic devices from Apple Inc. In uh late So that
Speaker 1: will take a lot of money. Does Giuliani have that money? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I've I've read press reports about that as well.
Speaker 1: It will take a lot of money. And that's the
Speaker 1: problem with Rudy having represented the President Trump for free
Speaker 1: basically for a couple of years, as he was not
Speaker 1: making a lot of money. Um, and uh, you know
Speaker 1: it's yeah, that's you know, I'm sure these guys are
Speaker 1: coming on board, you know, confident that they'll get paid.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, you know, money is an object,
Speaker 1: it's not. And Rudy has facing like now this this
Speaker 1: big lawsuit from the dominion. Uh. You know that that
Speaker 1: company that does the election machines that has sued you know,
Speaker 1: Rudy and Sidney Powell and Trump's lawyers who claimed without
Speaker 1: any evidence that the dominion machines have been manipulated in
Speaker 1: order to produce a victory for Joe Biden a couple
Speaker 1: of months ago. So that's a you know, some people
Speaker 1: might describe that lawsuit is frivolous, but you know that's
Speaker 1: going to cost Rudy money as well. That's a different
Speaker 1: representation with a different set of lawyers. So, yes, Rudy
Speaker 1: has to be Rudy. Legal bills are are climbing, and
Speaker 1: it's clear from his divorce papers, the part of it
Speaker 1: that was public a few years ago that you know,
Speaker 1: you know, his his his his financial resources are not infinite.
Speaker 1: Thanks Craig. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Greg Farrell. Derek Chauvin,
Speaker 1: and three other former Minneapolis police officers involved in the
Speaker 1: death of George Floyd have been indicted by a federal
Speaker 1: grand jury for violating Floyd's constitutional rights during the arrest
Speaker 1: that sparked nationwide protests over police violence against black people.
Speaker 1: The indictment was unsealed Friday and comes less than three
Speaker 1: weeks after Chauvin was found guilty on separate state charges
Speaker 1: of murder and manslaughter for holding his knee on Floyd's
Speaker 1: neck for more than nine minutes. Joining me is Eric
Speaker 1: Larson Bloomberg Legal reporter. What are the charges that the
Speaker 1: Feds have brought against Chauvin and the three other officers?
Speaker 1: So in this case there are three charges. There are
Speaker 1: all civil federal civil rights violations here. The first count
Speaker 1: is against Chauvin accuses him of depriving Mr Floyd of
Speaker 1: his civil rights is right to be free from improper
Speaker 1: treatment by a police officer um and violating his rights
Speaker 1: in resulting in bodily harmon at forth his death. The
Speaker 1: second charge is against two of the assisting officers, and
Speaker 1: they are accused of observing Mr Chauvelin with his knee
Speaker 1: on Mr floyd neck and essentially failing to intervene uh
Speaker 1: they could say wilfully failing to intervene and resulting in
Speaker 1: Mr Floyd's rights being violated. A third charge is against
Speaker 1: the is against all of the officers, including the fourth officer,
Speaker 1: and they're accused of failing to offer medical assistance to
Speaker 1: Mr Floyd when he clearly needed it. So we often
Speaker 1: hear about federal charges being brought when state charges fail,
Speaker 1: for example in the Ronney King case. But here you
Speaker 1: have Chauvin already convicted of murder. The other officers haven't
Speaker 1: even gone to trial yet. Is it unusual to bring
Speaker 1: federal civil rights charges at this stage? Well, I think
Speaker 1: we're seeing that this entire case is unique and in
Speaker 1: a lot of different ways, just because there have been
Speaker 1: so many instances of this kind of interaction between police
Speaker 1: and black men not resulting in this type type of action, right, So,
Speaker 1: just the fact that they bought the charges at all
Speaker 1: is very different here, especially when you see these charges
Speaker 1: being brought against officers who were not accused of, you know,
Speaker 1: murder the way Chauvin, when they're accused of serious violation
Speaker 1: simply by not taking any action to intervene. So that
Speaker 1: makes it pretty unusual. And I think to your point
Speaker 1: about a federal charges being brought on top of successfully
Speaker 1: argued state charges, it just shows a signal really from
Speaker 1: the Justice Department, from the Biden administration that there is
Speaker 1: a change of tone and how these types of incidents
Speaker 1: are going to be handled by the federal government. I
Speaker 1: think it would have been pretty unusual, even though for
Speaker 1: the Biden administration um in in in a case such
Speaker 1: as this, to not do anything even after a successful
Speaker 1: state case um, you know, as the Attorney General of Minnesota,
Speaker 1: Keith Ellison said in a statement last week after these
Speaker 1: charges were brought. He said, the federal government has a
Speaker 1: responsibility to protect the civil rights as every American and
Speaker 1: pursue justice to the fullest extent. And I think that
Speaker 1: the point that he was sort of getting at there
Speaker 1: the fullest extent means you bring the charges if a
Speaker 1: violation has occurred, not just if the state charges failed.
Speaker 1: And why is there a separate indictment of Chauvin? What
Speaker 1: is that for? This stems from a separate incidence between
Speaker 1: a Chauvin and a fourteen year old black boy in
Speaker 1: two thousand seventeen. He was the responding officer to a
Speaker 1: dispute between this boy and his mother. When the boy
Speaker 1: did not follow his instructions, Chauvin struck him so violently
Speaker 1: that stitches were necessary, essentially choked and strangled until they
Speaker 1: passed out, and also had his knee on him to
Speaker 1: hold him in place for quite some time, even longer
Speaker 1: than what happened with Mr Floyd. So obviously it would
Speaker 1: be a good question to find out why it has
Speaker 1: taken so long while you had to have this much
Speaker 1: higher profile murder take place. For this incident to come
Speaker 1: to light, clearly, the details around it would have already
Speaker 1: been known to a lot of people for several years
Speaker 1: now and nothing happened. But at any rate, the charges
Speaker 1: have been brought now, um, and he has accused of
Speaker 1: violent in the civil rights of that boy as well.
Speaker 1: So what does the Justice Department have to prove in
Speaker 1: a case like this? Do they have to prove that
Speaker 1: they that the police officers intended to violate the civil
Speaker 1: rights of the victims? Sister department have to prove in
Speaker 1: a case like this? Do they have to prove that
Speaker 1: they intended to that the police officers intended to violate
Speaker 1: the civil rights of the victims? I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's intent would work that way in in a case
Speaker 1: like this, because it's the charges are pretty specific in
Speaker 1: what they say, Uh, just that they were aware of
Speaker 1: what was happening in front of them and chose to
Speaker 1: not take action. So UM, you know, when you're in
Speaker 1: Chauvin's case, you know, being accused of murder, Um, you
Speaker 1: know you've had Even even in that case, they didn't
Speaker 1: charge him with with first degree murder, which would have required, um,
Speaker 1: some proof of intent. So in a case like this,
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's just going to be showing exactly
Speaker 1: what happened. I mean, they they are on the video
Speaker 1: observing um this, these actions and failing to intervene. Uh So,
Speaker 1: I think what we'll see is not so much a
Speaker 1: question of intent as as the defense lawyers possibly trying
Speaker 1: to raise um questions about what what these other officers
Speaker 1: were really responsible for, what they were really required to do.
Speaker 1: They will point to some evidence that a few of
Speaker 1: the officers who were actually training at the time their
Speaker 1: rookies um that uh that they were just essentially doing
Speaker 1: what Chauvin was requiring them to do, and that he
Speaker 1: it wasn't up to them to question him beyond they
Speaker 1: did what they did. Um. Whereas I think the prosecutors
Speaker 1: are saying that you need to go beyond this, saying, hey,
Speaker 1: do you think maybe we need to move this man
Speaker 1: around so he's doesn't die. They're gonna need They're going
Speaker 1: to show that they should should have potential physically intervened
Speaker 1: and stopped a murder from happening in front of them.
Speaker 1: But you can see that their defense is probably it
Speaker 1: would make sense that they're going to blame it as
Speaker 1: much as they can on Chauvin and say, hey, these
Speaker 1: were rookies and they were it wasn't their place to intervene.
Speaker 1: Do you know what what Chauvin's defense to the federal
Speaker 1: charges would be. I don't know what it would be exactly.
Speaker 1: I we did reach out to his lawyer or comments
Speaker 1: after he the grandeury indictment was unfiled. Um, we didn't.
Speaker 1: He declined to comments. UM. I mean, obviously the defense
Speaker 1: strategy didn't work out in the state case with those
Speaker 1: much more serious charges. Um. But you can imagine that
Speaker 1: a lot of the defense could translate into this case
Speaker 1: as well, you know, trying to blame Floyd for what happened, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, blame his death us on you know, his
Speaker 1: less health elements and things like that, like they tried
Speaker 1: in in the federal case. When you're looking at these
Speaker 1: less you know, serious charges. Obviously, the civil rights violations
Speaker 1: are very serious, but they're not as as serious as
Speaker 1: as a murder manslaughter. Um. That they might be able
Speaker 1: to push these defenses a little further potentially, who knows.
Speaker 1: These new federal charges are separate from the federal civil
Speaker 1: investigation into the Minneapolis police Department and its practices. So
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, right after the conviction of
Speaker 1: Mr schaubin a parity, announced that the Justice Department was
Speaker 1: opening an investigation into the policing practices in Minneapolis, UM,
Speaker 1: specifically as a result of the George Floyd George Floyd death. UM.
Speaker 1: He said that the d j is going to be
Speaker 1: reaching out to community groups and members of public to
Speaker 1: try to find out about their experience is with the police. UM.
Speaker 1: So this is something that I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people were expecting from the Biden administration UM, and not
Speaker 1: just Minneapolis specifically. But you know, the Civil Rights Division
Speaker 1: of the Justice Department is able to use these so
Speaker 1: called pattern or practice investigations UH to investigate police forces
Speaker 1: in various cities, and they've they've done so in the past,
Speaker 1: and and the probes can often end with a consent
Speaker 1: decree between the police departments and the Justice Department where
Speaker 1: they agree to various reforms and have to stick to
Speaker 1: those reforms, and the Justice Department will keep track of
Speaker 1: that and make sure that they are sticking to that UM.
Speaker 1: So that is something that that has been done before,
Speaker 1: but it really dropped off during the Trump administration not
Speaker 1: too surprisingly, and I think it was always expected that
Speaker 1: Um in Biden were elected that the Civil Rights Division
Speaker 1: would have a new focus on these types of pattern
Speaker 1: or practice investigations. Schauman is also requesting a new trial.
Speaker 1: Are the grounds that he is claiming for that. So.
Speaker 1: Mr Schauman is requesting a new trial in the state
Speaker 1: case following his conviction, arguing that, among other things, that
Speaker 1: the trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis to
Speaker 1: begin with. UH. He argues that the jurors couldn't possibly
Speaker 1: have been fair just because of all of the emotion
Speaker 1: underlying everything that happened in the city around these events,
Speaker 1: that it should have it should have taken place elsewhere UM.
Speaker 1: He also signaled, you know, after the verdict was read out,
Speaker 1: his lawyers signaled that he could potentially appeal UM for,
Speaker 1: among other things, claiming that Representative Maxine Waters had made
Speaker 1: inappropriate comments encouraging a guilty verdict um or during a
Speaker 1: protest and that somehow that could have tainted jurors who
Speaker 1: were not sequestered at that time, although there's no evidence
Speaker 1: that they necessarily heard or saw the footage of her
Speaker 1: saying that that that would be something that could potentially
Speaker 1: be argued on appeal, and in fact, the judge in
Speaker 1: the state case agreed that those comments were inappropriate and
Speaker 1: said that, you know, elected officials should not be commenting
Speaker 1: on trials like that, which was pretty strong words. Um,
Speaker 1: but it's far from certain that either of these arguments
Speaker 1: would both go very far, but there's certainly something that
Speaker 1: the courts will consider. Thanks Erk. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter
Speaker 1: Eric Lawson, and that's it for the edition of the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
Speaker 1: legal news on Bloomberg Lawn podcasts. You can find them
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at www dot Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg