Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast.
Speaker 2: Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listening
Speaker 2: on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Jim Ziron's been living at Bloomberg. I'm delighted that Jim
Speaker 1: is with us today. We spoke on balance of power
Speaker 1: ahead of the indictment on Bloomberg TV, and now the
Speaker 1: former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New
Speaker 1: York joints here on sound On. He's also the host
Speaker 1: of Conversations with Jim Zyn on PBS. So Jim, welcome back.
Speaker 1: It's great to talk to you twice in twenty four
Speaker 1: hours here because we actually got this indictment that we
Speaker 1: were feeling our way through a little bit early yesterday.
Speaker 1: Now that you've seen this forty one counts, nineteen defendants,
Speaker 1: I'm asking the same question of a lot of folks
Speaker 1: that day. Did Fani Willis bite off more than she
Speaker 1: can chew?
Speaker 2: Oh? I don't think so. I think she's quite experienced
Speaker 2: in rico cases. It might take some time before they
Speaker 2: can pick a jury. It might take some time for
Speaker 2: her to get all this evidence in. But I think
Speaker 2: that the case is going to proceed, and I think
Speaker 2: she'll try to prosecute the case expeditiously. Trump will try
Speaker 2: to put as many hurdles in front of her as
Speaker 2: he possibly can, and the question is will she'll be
Speaker 2: able to overcome them?
Speaker 3: Well, I guess she clearly has confidence that she can
Speaker 3: do this and prosecute on nineteen of these individuals at once,
Speaker 3: because this is the path that she has chosen. I
Speaker 3: just wonder about motives here. Do you think that this
Speaker 3: is an intention to get at least some of those
Speaker 3: eighteen other defendants to roll on the former president.
Speaker 2: Well, in every multi defendant conspiracy case in a Rico
Speaker 2: case is really a glorified conspiracy case. Prosecutors make an
Speaker 2: effort to get co conspirators to cooperate. Some of them
Speaker 2: may be named in the indictment. Others may be named
Speaker 2: as on indicted co conspirators. I think a lot of
Speaker 2: what's alleged the indictment is supported by evidence that she
Speaker 2: already has. It's always helpful to a jury to have
Speaker 2: a live person there tell what their story is. But
Speaker 2: I don't know that she absolutely needs these people to
Speaker 2: flip in order to make a case. She wouldn't know
Speaker 2: better than I would, but the possibility of co defendants
Speaker 2: flipping and becoming prosecution witnesses is always there.
Speaker 1: We spoke earlier with ty Cobb, Jim, and you heard
Speaker 1: us talking about the timeline here. He went further to
Speaker 1: say that the other other case having to do with
Speaker 1: overturning the election results, that would be the Special Council's
Speaker 1: January sixth case from Jack Smith, will not be waiting
Speaker 1: around for this to resolve in Georgia. Here's what he said.
Speaker 4: I don't think there's any way Jack Smith would permit
Speaker 4: miss Willis to go to trial before he does, given
Speaker 4: the overlap and witnesses, and the damage her use of
Speaker 4: those witnesses could do to his case.
Speaker 1: Is Fannie Willis at the end of the line.
Speaker 2: Here, Jim. I don't know where she stands in the line,
Speaker 2: but I think it's quite clear that Jack Smith's case
Speaker 2: in Washington is going to go first. One of the
Speaker 2: interesting things is whether Trump, who was seeking delay all
Speaker 2: the time, and often seeking delay on grounds that are
Speaker 2: frivolous and near frivolous, has a pretty good argument to
Speaker 2: go before the judges in the cases, not the Washington case,
Speaker 2: but in the other cases, the one in Florida and
Speaker 2: the one in New York and Fannie Willis's case. And say,
Speaker 2: look here, i am former president of the United States,
Speaker 2: and I have to defend four cases and also run
Speaker 2: for office. I'm trying to defend myself. How does a
Speaker 2: citizen fight on four fronts at the same time. So
Speaker 2: I'd like to stay all the other cases. I'll fight
Speaker 2: the Washington case, and let's stay all the other cases
Speaker 2: until the Washington cases resolved. And well that if he
Speaker 2: gets favorable rulings on such a pitch, that could stand
Speaker 2: him in good stead.
Speaker 3: Well, it's important to point out all the legal fights
Speaker 3: that he is facing, because it's not just these four
Speaker 3: criminal trials that he's going to have to see through.
Speaker 3: There's a number of civil cases as well, and that
Speaker 3: just kind of adds to the crowded calendar. I guess, Joe, Theoretically, the.
Speaker 2: Civil cases would not require his presence in the courtroom
Speaker 2: during the trial, so he would have less of a
Speaker 2: burden defending the civil cases because it would be handled
Speaker 2: by his lawyers.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's an important distinction to make. Thank you for that.
Speaker 3: But of course we're talking here, as you were alluding to,
Speaker 3: about not just a former president, but man who is
Speaker 3: trying to be president again. When we think about the
Speaker 3: idea that he is a former president could very well
Speaker 3: theoretically be re elected into the oval office in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four, when we're talking about the sentences that could
Speaker 3: come with a guilty verdict conviction on some of these
Speaker 3: felony charges, Jim, do you see any real likelihood that
Speaker 3: he serves any time in prison?
Speaker 2: Well, I think if he's convicted, and we have to
Speaker 2: see what he's convicted of and in which court he's convicted,
Speaker 2: I think there's a likelihood he'll spend time in prison.
Speaker 2: In the Georgia case, as I understand it, although the
Speaker 2: judge has discretion to suspend sentence or put him on probation,
Speaker 2: if he's convicted, the Georgia case as a mandatory sentence,
Speaker 2: and he would have to go to prison because of
Speaker 2: the Rico allegations. So prison is a real threat. I mean,
Speaker 2: but Trump is someone who likes to take chances. He
Speaker 2: has all of his professional career, and he certainly is
Speaker 2: getting as close to sailing as close to the wind
Speaker 2: as he possibly can in this case. Boy.
Speaker 1: When we talk about prison, though, Jim, what does that
Speaker 1: look like? Is this a scene from Goodfellows where they're
Speaker 1: hanging around their bathrobes making tomato sauce? Or are we
Speaker 1: talking prison? I mean, how would the Secret Service manage that?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean there have been all sorts of proposals
Speaker 2: as to how it could be managed. And he could
Speaker 2: be in a special kind of prison environment, which is
Speaker 2: not what we normally think of as prison. I think
Speaker 2: because of the presence of Secret Service protection. There would
Speaker 2: have to be some accommodations made. But we're getting way
Speaker 2: way ahead.
Speaker 1: Of the Yes, I don't even I'm not even comfortable talking.
Speaker 2: The question is first place, the question is will he
Speaker 2: be disqualified from running for off Now, none of these
Speaker 2: convictions are going to disqualify him from running for office.
Speaker 2: What might disqualify him from running for office? As Section
Speaker 2: three of the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which two
Speaker 2: eminent law professors have written about, in which they have
Speaker 2: put forth decisive opinion that section three is self executing
Speaker 2: and it would bar him even for running in the primary.
Speaker 1: Because well, I was going to ask you about this, Jim,
Speaker 1: you're a mind reader. I only have a minute left, though.
Speaker 1: Does that have some grounds in law? What do you think?
Speaker 2: Oh? I read in every word of the Law Review
Speaker 2: article that Boudy and Paulson wrote, and it's just overwhelming.
Speaker 2: They do an historical analysis of the history of Section
Speaker 2: three and the language of Section three, and these are
Speaker 2: two very very conservative, originalist lawyers, and they come to
Speaker 2: the conclusion that, based on the original meaning of Section three,
Speaker 2: is disqualified from running for office. And I think that's
Speaker 2: what this dispute, the last analysis is all about.
Speaker 1: Incredible Jim. Thank you Jim Zyron, former Assistant US Attorney
Speaker 1: for the Southern District of New York, with remarkable insights. Today,
Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast.
Speaker 1: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and anywhere else you get your podcasts. And you can
Speaker 1: find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one
Speaker 1: pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.