1
00:00:00,880 --> 00:00:03,520
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast.

2
00:00:03,920 --> 00:00:07,480
Speaker 2: Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com,

3
00:00:07,520 --> 00:00:10,639
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listening

4
00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:12,800
Speaker 2: on demand wherever you get your podcasts.

5
00:00:13,840 --> 00:00:16,440
Speaker 1: Jim Ziron's been living at Bloomberg. I'm delighted that Jim

6
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:18,800
Speaker 1: is with us today. We spoke on balance of power

7
00:00:19,200 --> 00:00:21,360
Speaker 1: ahead of the indictment on Bloomberg TV, and now the

8
00:00:21,360 --> 00:00:23,799
Speaker 1: former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New

9
00:00:23,880 --> 00:00:26,560
Speaker 1: York joints here on sound On. He's also the host

10
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:31,360
Speaker 1: of Conversations with Jim Zyn on PBS. So Jim, welcome back.

11
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:33,400
Speaker 1: It's great to talk to you twice in twenty four

12
00:00:33,400 --> 00:00:36,040
Speaker 1: hours here because we actually got this indictment that we

13
00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:39,440
Speaker 1: were feeling our way through a little bit early yesterday.

14
00:00:39,479 --> 00:00:43,240
Speaker 1: Now that you've seen this forty one counts, nineteen defendants,

15
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:45,960
Speaker 1: I'm asking the same question of a lot of folks

16
00:00:45,960 --> 00:00:48,879
Speaker 1: that day. Did Fani Willis bite off more than she

17
00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:49,360
Speaker 1: can chew?

18
00:00:49,800 --> 00:00:52,440
Speaker 2: Oh? I don't think so. I think she's quite experienced

19
00:00:52,479 --> 00:00:57,560
Speaker 2: in rico cases. It might take some time before they

20
00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:00,560
Speaker 2: can pick a jury. It might take some time for

21
00:01:00,600 --> 00:01:04,120
Speaker 2: her to get all this evidence in. But I think

22
00:01:04,240 --> 00:01:07,360
Speaker 2: that the case is going to proceed, and I think

23
00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:12,880
Speaker 2: she'll try to prosecute the case expeditiously. Trump will try

24
00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:16,680
Speaker 2: to put as many hurdles in front of her as

25
00:01:16,680 --> 00:01:20,800
Speaker 2: he possibly can, and the question is will she'll be

26
00:01:20,800 --> 00:01:21,800
Speaker 2: able to overcome them?

27
00:01:22,920 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 3: Well, I guess she clearly has confidence that she can

28
00:01:27,560 --> 00:01:30,120
Speaker 3: do this and prosecute on nineteen of these individuals at once,

29
00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:33,000
Speaker 3: because this is the path that she has chosen. I

30
00:01:33,080 --> 00:01:35,520
Speaker 3: just wonder about motives here. Do you think that this

31
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:37,920
Speaker 3: is an intention to get at least some of those

32
00:01:37,959 --> 00:01:41,959
Speaker 3: eighteen other defendants to roll on the former president.

33
00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:47,800
Speaker 2: Well, in every multi defendant conspiracy case in a Rico

34
00:01:47,960 --> 00:01:52,960
Speaker 2: case is really a glorified conspiracy case. Prosecutors make an

35
00:01:53,000 --> 00:01:56,880
Speaker 2: effort to get co conspirators to cooperate. Some of them

36
00:01:56,880 --> 00:01:59,600
Speaker 2: may be named in the indictment. Others may be named

37
00:01:59,640 --> 00:02:04,080
Speaker 2: as on indicted co conspirators. I think a lot of

38
00:02:04,240 --> 00:02:09,800
Speaker 2: what's alleged the indictment is supported by evidence that she

39
00:02:09,840 --> 00:02:13,360
Speaker 2: already has. It's always helpful to a jury to have

40
00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:18,680
Speaker 2: a live person there tell what their story is. But

41
00:02:18,720 --> 00:02:20,960
Speaker 2: I don't know that she absolutely needs these people to

42
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:24,080
Speaker 2: flip in order to make a case. She wouldn't know

43
00:02:24,480 --> 00:02:28,560
Speaker 2: better than I would, but the possibility of co defendants

44
00:02:29,200 --> 00:02:33,400
Speaker 2: flipping and becoming prosecution witnesses is always there.

45
00:02:34,120 --> 00:02:37,679
Speaker 1: We spoke earlier with ty Cobb, Jim, and you heard

46
00:02:37,720 --> 00:02:41,880
Speaker 1: us talking about the timeline here. He went further to

47
00:02:41,919 --> 00:02:45,920
Speaker 1: say that the other other case having to do with

48
00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:48,720
Speaker 1: overturning the election results, that would be the Special Council's

49
00:02:48,760 --> 00:02:53,720
Speaker 1: January sixth case from Jack Smith, will not be waiting

50
00:02:53,760 --> 00:02:56,799
Speaker 1: around for this to resolve in Georgia. Here's what he said.

51
00:02:56,840 --> 00:03:00,720
Speaker 4: I don't think there's any way Jack Smith would permit

52
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:04,480
Speaker 4: miss Willis to go to trial before he does, given

53
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:09,320
Speaker 4: the overlap and witnesses, and the damage her use of

54
00:03:09,400 --> 00:03:11,240
Speaker 4: those witnesses could do to his case.

55
00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:13,639
Speaker 1: Is Fannie Willis at the end of the line.

56
00:03:13,440 --> 00:03:16,639
Speaker 2: Here, Jim. I don't know where she stands in the line,

57
00:03:16,720 --> 00:03:19,119
Speaker 2: but I think it's quite clear that Jack Smith's case

58
00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:22,960
Speaker 2: in Washington is going to go first. One of the

59
00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:27,639
Speaker 2: interesting things is whether Trump, who was seeking delay all

60
00:03:27,680 --> 00:03:31,200
Speaker 2: the time, and often seeking delay on grounds that are

61
00:03:31,560 --> 00:03:35,680
Speaker 2: frivolous and near frivolous, has a pretty good argument to

62
00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:41,280
Speaker 2: go before the judges in the cases, not the Washington case,

63
00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:45,240
Speaker 2: but in the other cases, the one in Florida and

64
00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:48,920
Speaker 2: the one in New York and Fannie Willis's case. And say,

65
00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:52,720
Speaker 2: look here, i am former president of the United States,

66
00:03:53,200 --> 00:03:57,680
Speaker 2: and I have to defend four cases and also run

67
00:03:57,720 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 2: for office. I'm trying to defend myself. How does a

68
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:09,200
Speaker 2: citizen fight on four fronts at the same time. So

69
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:11,840
Speaker 2: I'd like to stay all the other cases. I'll fight

70
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:15,160
Speaker 2: the Washington case, and let's stay all the other cases

71
00:04:15,240 --> 00:04:19,440
Speaker 2: until the Washington cases resolved. And well that if he

72
00:04:19,480 --> 00:04:23,880
Speaker 2: gets favorable rulings on such a pitch, that could stand

73
00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:24,640
Speaker 2: him in good stead.

74
00:04:25,440 --> 00:04:28,040
Speaker 3: Well, it's important to point out all the legal fights

75
00:04:28,040 --> 00:04:30,360
Speaker 3: that he is facing, because it's not just these four

76
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:33,960
Speaker 3: criminal trials that he's going to have to see through.

77
00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:37,279
Speaker 3: There's a number of civil cases as well, and that

78
00:04:37,400 --> 00:04:41,800
Speaker 3: just kind of adds to the crowded calendar. I guess, Joe, Theoretically, the.

79
00:04:41,760 --> 00:04:45,360
Speaker 2: Civil cases would not require his presence in the courtroom

80
00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:48,279
Speaker 2: during the trial, so he would have less of a

81
00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:51,800
Speaker 2: burden defending the civil cases because it would be handled

82
00:04:51,839 --> 00:04:52,600
Speaker 2: by his lawyers.

83
00:04:52,800 --> 00:04:55,520
Speaker 3: Okay, that's an important distinction to make. Thank you for that.

84
00:04:55,680 --> 00:04:58,280
Speaker 3: But of course we're talking here, as you were alluding to,

85
00:04:58,400 --> 00:05:00,560
Speaker 3: about not just a former president, but man who is

86
00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:05,400
Speaker 3: trying to be president again. When we think about the

87
00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:09,280
Speaker 3: idea that he is a former president could very well

88
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:12,839
Speaker 3: theoretically be re elected into the oval office in twenty

89
00:05:12,839 --> 00:05:15,800
Speaker 3: twenty four, when we're talking about the sentences that could

90
00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:20,840
Speaker 3: come with a guilty verdict conviction on some of these

91
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 3: felony charges, Jim, do you see any real likelihood that

92
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:25,960
Speaker 3: he serves any time in prison?

93
00:05:26,480 --> 00:05:29,680
Speaker 2: Well, I think if he's convicted, and we have to

94
00:05:29,720 --> 00:05:33,240
Speaker 2: see what he's convicted of and in which court he's convicted,

95
00:05:33,880 --> 00:05:36,360
Speaker 2: I think there's a likelihood he'll spend time in prison.

96
00:05:37,720 --> 00:05:41,680
Speaker 2: In the Georgia case, as I understand it, although the

97
00:05:41,760 --> 00:05:46,360
Speaker 2: judge has discretion to suspend sentence or put him on probation,

98
00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:49,440
Speaker 2: if he's convicted, the Georgia case as a mandatory sentence,

99
00:05:50,640 --> 00:05:53,000
Speaker 2: and he would have to go to prison because of

100
00:05:53,080 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 2: the Rico allegations. So prison is a real threat. I mean,

101
00:05:57,720 --> 00:06:00,159
Speaker 2: but Trump is someone who likes to take chances. He

102
00:06:00,240 --> 00:06:06,040
Speaker 2: has all of his professional career, and he certainly is

103
00:06:07,279 --> 00:06:09,559
Speaker 2: getting as close to sailing as close to the wind

104
00:06:09,560 --> 00:06:12,000
Speaker 2: as he possibly can in this case. Boy.

105
00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:15,160
Speaker 1: When we talk about prison, though, Jim, what does that

106
00:06:15,160 --> 00:06:17,360
Speaker 1: look like? Is this a scene from Goodfellows where they're

107
00:06:17,360 --> 00:06:20,120
Speaker 1: hanging around their bathrobes making tomato sauce? Or are we

108
00:06:20,200 --> 00:06:22,479
Speaker 1: talking prison? I mean, how would the Secret Service manage that?

109
00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:25,760
Speaker 2: Well, I mean there have been all sorts of proposals

110
00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:28,039
Speaker 2: as to how it could be managed. And he could

111
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:35,520
Speaker 2: be in a special kind of prison environment, which is

112
00:06:35,960 --> 00:06:40,039
Speaker 2: not what we normally think of as prison. I think

113
00:06:40,160 --> 00:06:44,880
Speaker 2: because of the presence of Secret Service protection. There would

114
00:06:44,920 --> 00:06:48,760
Speaker 2: have to be some accommodations made. But we're getting way

115
00:06:48,839 --> 00:06:49,680
Speaker 2: way ahead.

116
00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:52,480
Speaker 1: Of the Yes, I don't even I'm not even comfortable talking.

117
00:06:53,160 --> 00:06:56,840
Speaker 2: The question is first place, the question is will he

118
00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:00,880
Speaker 2: be disqualified from running for off Now, none of these

119
00:07:00,880 --> 00:07:03,960
Speaker 2: convictions are going to disqualify him from running for office.

120
00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:07,920
Speaker 2: What might disqualify him from running for office? As Section

121
00:07:08,080 --> 00:07:11,640
Speaker 2: three of the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which two

122
00:07:11,720 --> 00:07:17,360
Speaker 2: eminent law professors have written about, in which they have

123
00:07:17,520 --> 00:07:24,440
Speaker 2: put forth decisive opinion that section three is self executing

124
00:07:25,040 --> 00:07:29,280
Speaker 2: and it would bar him even for running in the primary.

125
00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:32,720
Speaker 1: Because well, I was going to ask you about this, Jim,

126
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:34,960
Speaker 1: you're a mind reader. I only have a minute left, though.

127
00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:39,080
Speaker 1: Does that have some grounds in law? What do you think?

128
00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:45,360
Speaker 2: Oh? I read in every word of the Law Review

129
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:52,320
Speaker 2: article that Boudy and Paulson wrote, and it's just overwhelming.

130
00:07:52,400 --> 00:07:55,240
Speaker 2: They do an historical analysis of the history of Section

131
00:07:55,360 --> 00:07:58,040
Speaker 2: three and the language of Section three, and these are

132
00:07:58,040 --> 00:08:05,200
Speaker 2: two very very conservative, originalist lawyers, and they come to

133
00:08:05,280 --> 00:08:09,120
Speaker 2: the conclusion that, based on the original meaning of Section three,

134
00:08:09,280 --> 00:08:12,680
Speaker 2: is disqualified from running for office. And I think that's

135
00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:16,200
Speaker 2: what this dispute, the last analysis is all about.

136
00:08:16,480 --> 00:08:21,440
Speaker 1: Incredible Jim. Thank you Jim Zyron, former Assistant US Attorney

137
00:08:21,520 --> 00:08:25,920
Speaker 1: for the Southern District of New York, with remarkable insights. Today,

138
00:08:26,000 --> 00:08:32,080
Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast.

139
00:08:32,160 --> 00:08:35,280
Speaker 1: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,

140
00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:37,760
Speaker 1: and anywhere else you get your podcasts. And you can

141
00:08:37,800 --> 00:08:40,800
Speaker 1: find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one

142
00:08:40,840 --> 00:08:45,240
Speaker 1: pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.