1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,240 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 2: So look, all I want to do is this. I

3
00:00:12,400 --> 00:00:13,640
Speaker 2: just want to find.

4
00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:20,680
Speaker 3: Eleven thousand, seven hundred and eighty votes, which is one

5
00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:21,560
Speaker 3: more that we have.

6
00:00:22,440 --> 00:00:26,640
Speaker 1: The sweeping indictment of Donald Trump and eighteen others, alleges

7
00:00:26,680 --> 00:00:30,400
Speaker 1: a vast conspiracy that stretched from the Oval office and

8
00:00:30,480 --> 00:00:34,520
Speaker 1: Trump's infamous call to Georgia's Secretary of State to find

9
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 1: him enough votes to win the battleground state to a

10
00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:41,560
Speaker 1: hearing in Georgia's state House where false statements were made

11
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:46,519
Speaker 1: that Fulton County election workers illegally counted between twelve thousand

12
00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:50,360
Speaker 1: and twenty four thousand fake ballots that were unloaded off

13
00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:52,160
Speaker 1: a truck in the middle of the night.

14
00:00:52,479 --> 00:00:57,000
Speaker 3: They were ballots coming out, thousands and thousands of ballots

15
00:00:57,040 --> 00:01:09,240
Speaker 3: in paper bags, in garbage cans, in cardboard boxes, and

16
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:11,360
Speaker 3: then they were put on a table and they were

17
00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:14,399
Speaker 3: counted for the next three hours.

18
00:01:14,319 --> 00:01:17,480
Speaker 1: To a rural county in Georgia, and the plot to

19
00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:21,480
Speaker 1: access voting machines and even includes the harassment of an

20
00:01:21,480 --> 00:01:25,559
Speaker 1: election worker. But the former president remains defiant.

21
00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:28,280
Speaker 3: We don't take flee deals because I did nothing wrong.

22
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:33,040
Speaker 1: It's called election interference. Joining me is Michael Moore, the

23
00:01:33,080 --> 00:01:36,200
Speaker 1: former US Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia and

24
00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:39,679
Speaker 1: a partner at Moore Hall. Michael. The sheer breath of

25
00:01:39,760 --> 00:01:44,160
Speaker 1: this indictment one hundred and sixty one acts alleged, ranging

26
00:01:44,319 --> 00:01:50,800
Speaker 1: from making false statements and forgery to computer theft and perjury.

27
00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:54,200
Speaker 1: Is it almost too much even for a rico prosecution.

28
00:01:54,880 --> 00:01:57,760
Speaker 2: I think your Anaulynsis is probably right. I mean, the

29
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:00,400
Speaker 2: problem when you cast such a big name is that

30
00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:03,480
Speaker 2: it oftentimes tangles you up too. And that's what she's done.

31
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:06,720
Speaker 2: She's got almost one hundred page indictment, and she's laid

32
00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 2: out all these acts and in places obviously outside of jurisdiction.

33
00:02:10,240 --> 00:02:12,560
Speaker 2: And that's why she used the Rico charges. She wanted

34
00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:15,320
Speaker 2: to be able to talk about all these other allegations

35
00:02:15,400 --> 00:02:17,280
Speaker 2: that she wouldn't have to prove beyond the reason of

36
00:02:17,320 --> 00:02:19,800
Speaker 2: that in which she typical wouldn't have jurisdiction for in

37
00:02:19,840 --> 00:02:22,440
Speaker 2: the indictment. So it's going to be a wail of

38
00:02:22,480 --> 00:02:25,200
Speaker 2: an undertaking without any question. You know, so many of

39
00:02:25,240 --> 00:02:28,640
Speaker 2: the allegations standing alone, especially when we talk about overt

40
00:02:28,680 --> 00:02:32,359
Speaker 2: act standing alone, they're just pretty vanilla and irrelevant to this,

41
00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:35,760
Speaker 2: things like setting a meeting or making a phone call

42
00:02:35,919 --> 00:02:38,440
Speaker 2: or you know, those kinds of innocuous type of things.

43
00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:41,000
Speaker 2: But she's trying to paint the picture and use the

44
00:02:41,040 --> 00:02:45,000
Speaker 2: context of all of this was this big, swirling conspiracy

45
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:47,040
Speaker 2: at the same time. So the problem with that is that,

46
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:49,520
Speaker 2: you know, Rico's great if you're a prosecutor, because you

47
00:02:49,720 --> 00:02:52,400
Speaker 2: can talk about all the dirty laundry that there is

48
00:02:52,440 --> 00:02:55,720
Speaker 2: as opposed to just one defendant's dirty laundry. The double

49
00:02:55,800 --> 00:02:58,040
Speaker 2: edged sword side of that is that you also then

50
00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:00,440
Speaker 2: are binding yourself to having to prove this, because a

51
00:03:00,440 --> 00:03:03,160
Speaker 2: good defense attorney will just look for that one loose

52
00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:05,720
Speaker 2: thread and start to pull it and unrivaled the case

53
00:03:05,960 --> 00:03:08,000
Speaker 2: off of just some part of it that they were

54
00:03:08,040 --> 00:03:10,040
Speaker 2: not able to prove, and you just need to cast

55
00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:12,400
Speaker 2: enough to doubt in the jury's mind to cause them

56
00:03:12,400 --> 00:03:15,640
Speaker 2: to not convict. So sometimes more is less, and that

57
00:03:15,800 --> 00:03:16,799
Speaker 2: may be the case here.

58
00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:20,680
Speaker 1: Funny Willis is seeking a March trial date and says

59
00:03:20,680 --> 00:03:24,200
Speaker 1: she wants to try all nineteen defendants together. Do you

60
00:03:24,240 --> 00:03:26,880
Speaker 1: think the judge will actually let her go to trial

61
00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:28,600
Speaker 1: with nineteen defendants?

62
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:30,639
Speaker 2: I don't think so, And I don't think there's any

63
00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:32,399
Speaker 2: chance in the world she's going to try the case

64
00:03:32,560 --> 00:03:34,480
Speaker 2: or put it up for trial within six months. I

65
00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:37,280
Speaker 2: think that's just a good pr statement to make. But

66
00:03:37,360 --> 00:03:39,800
Speaker 2: I think anybody who watches the court system and certainly

67
00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:41,720
Speaker 2: is familiar with Forulm County, will tell you that case

68
00:03:41,760 --> 00:03:44,200
Speaker 2: isn't going to trial in six months. You'll have defendants

69
00:03:44,200 --> 00:03:46,800
Speaker 2: who ask to sever their charges. That is, they don't

70
00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:49,240
Speaker 2: want to be lucked in with everybody else. The problem

71
00:03:49,320 --> 00:03:51,320
Speaker 2: is if they're in the Rico case, that poses a

72
00:03:51,400 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 2: unique question for a judge. You'll have other defendants who

73
00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:56,720
Speaker 2: may end up cutting some kind of deal. They may

74
00:03:56,760 --> 00:03:59,240
Speaker 2: take a plea agreement or agree to cooperate as a

75
00:03:59,320 --> 00:04:02,200
Speaker 2: testifying which in exchange for their case being dismissed. You

76
00:04:02,280 --> 00:04:04,880
Speaker 2: never know what might happen, but you'll have some defendants

77
00:04:04,960 --> 00:04:07,440
Speaker 2: drop off like that. And that's frankly what I think

78
00:04:07,480 --> 00:04:09,840
Speaker 2: she has done by naming so many people. That is

79
00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:12,640
Speaker 2: to really put the vice scripts on some of these

80
00:04:12,880 --> 00:04:16,160
Speaker 2: defendants to get them to flip and then give testimony.

81
00:04:16,360 --> 00:04:18,360
Speaker 2: And the best way to do that is to name

82
00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:20,800
Speaker 2: them in an indictment. So I think that this is

83
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:24,040
Speaker 2: the kind of case that is likely to not happen

84
00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:27,720
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four, certainly not before the election. And

85
00:04:28,240 --> 00:04:30,320
Speaker 2: I don't see how there's any chance in the world

86
00:04:30,360 --> 00:04:32,960
Speaker 2: that she goes to court with nineteen defendants because at

87
00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:35,320
Speaker 2: one lawyer a peace. I mean, you can imagine the

88
00:04:35,400 --> 00:04:38,200
Speaker 2: pandemonium in the court room with that many lawyers and

89
00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:40,760
Speaker 2: that mean defendants. Every time there's an objection, every time

90
00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:42,760
Speaker 2: there's a witness, and every time there's a document to

91
00:04:42,760 --> 00:04:45,160
Speaker 2: look at it. You know that all of those almost

92
00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:47,960
Speaker 2: twenty groups would be wanting to be heard at the

93
00:04:47,960 --> 00:04:50,760
Speaker 2: same time. So it's it's so likely well.

94
00:04:50,760 --> 00:04:53,640
Speaker 1: And also Trump is known for delay, delay, delay, and

95
00:04:53,680 --> 00:04:57,719
Speaker 1: they'll be pre trial motions. Speaking of which, Trump's former

96
00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:01,880
Speaker 1: chief of staff Mark Meadows, is trying to move the

97
00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:06,680
Speaker 1: Georgia criminal case against him to federal court from state court.

98
00:05:07,080 --> 00:05:09,920
Speaker 1: Do you think he has a good chance of doing that.

99
00:05:10,320 --> 00:05:12,839
Speaker 2: I think it's a good motion. He's filing to move

100
00:05:12,839 --> 00:05:15,839
Speaker 2: it under a federal statute that allows for a state

101
00:05:15,920 --> 00:05:19,040
Speaker 2: case to be transferred to the federal court under certain

102
00:05:19,080 --> 00:05:23,000
Speaker 2: conditions when a federal official has been charged, and it's

103
00:05:23,040 --> 00:05:26,240
Speaker 2: a statue, it's a rule, then it is really centuries

104
00:05:26,279 --> 00:05:30,240
Speaker 2: old that was designed to sort of prohibit state and

105
00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:34,720
Speaker 2: partisan meddling in the business and the affairs of federal officials.

106
00:05:35,120 --> 00:05:38,320
Speaker 2: You can't likely think of much more of a federal

107
00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:41,200
Speaker 2: official than a president, a chief of staff, And the

108
00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:44,680
Speaker 2: conduct that's alleged in the indictment really focuses on the

109
00:05:44,720 --> 00:05:48,200
Speaker 2: efforts surrounding the election. And for an incumbent president with

110
00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:51,279
Speaker 2: an incumbent serving chief of staff, and then I think

111
00:05:51,320 --> 00:05:54,200
Speaker 2: that clearly would be under the scope of their work

112
00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:56,800
Speaker 2: as it related to the election. Whether or not the

113
00:05:56,960 --> 00:06:00,400
Speaker 2: claims about election integrity, whether or not the claim about

114
00:06:00,560 --> 00:06:02,520
Speaker 2: trying to steal the election, those are things that have

115
00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:06,000
Speaker 2: to be adjudicated in a trial. But the argument would

116
00:06:06,040 --> 00:06:07,760
Speaker 2: be and it has to be an argument that is

117
00:06:07,880 --> 00:06:11,080
Speaker 2: least plausible, And so the plausible argument is, if you're

118
00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:14,200
Speaker 2: Medaws or Trump, that I was doing this to make

119
00:06:14,200 --> 00:06:16,200
Speaker 2: sure that the election was accurate. We were doing this

120
00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:18,280
Speaker 2: to make sure that the election I've been stolen. We

121
00:06:18,279 --> 00:06:20,159
Speaker 2: were doing this to make sure there was integrity in

122
00:06:20,160 --> 00:06:22,200
Speaker 2: our electoral system. We were doing this to make sure

123
00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:24,960
Speaker 2: that the vice president knew that he had the ability

124
00:06:25,040 --> 00:06:27,840
Speaker 2: if there was some squirrely activity going on, we thought

125
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:30,200
Speaker 2: he had the ability, based on the advice of our lawyers,

126
00:06:30,240 --> 00:06:33,120
Speaker 2: to pause the electoral vote count or we at least

127
00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:35,840
Speaker 2: have these discussions. So there's a plausible argument that they

128
00:06:35,880 --> 00:06:38,320
Speaker 2: could make that they were trying to do something within

129
00:06:38,360 --> 00:06:41,080
Speaker 2: the scope of federal authority. You know, whether or not

130
00:06:41,200 --> 00:06:43,479
Speaker 2: they win the motion, I think it's a different type

131
00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:46,560
Speaker 2: of motion that was heard in the payment case in

132
00:06:46,640 --> 00:06:49,560
Speaker 2: New York when they tried to transfer that case, and

133
00:06:49,640 --> 00:06:52,280
Speaker 2: the judge basically said, you know, payments of this nature

134
00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:55,520
Speaker 2: or not within the presidential authority, and it's certainly not

135
00:06:55,560 --> 00:06:57,720
Speaker 2: going to scoop their federal work. I think that there's

136
00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:00,640
Speaker 2: a different claim to be had here. So I wasn't

137
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:03,080
Speaker 2: surprised at all to see them make the motion. I

138
00:07:03,080 --> 00:07:06,080
Speaker 2: think Trump will soon be making the same motion, and

139
00:07:06,279 --> 00:07:08,360
Speaker 2: a transfer from the state court to the federal court

140
00:07:08,360 --> 00:07:10,200
Speaker 2: obviously the nearest to his benefit.

141
00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:12,360
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean there won't be cameras in a federal

142
00:07:12,440 --> 00:07:14,960
Speaker 1: court room, and he could get a Trump appointed judge.

143
00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:17,120
Speaker 2: He could. I will tell you that the judges in

144
00:07:17,160 --> 00:07:19,280
Speaker 2: the Northern District of Georgia, and I know most of

145
00:07:19,280 --> 00:07:23,000
Speaker 2: all of them, consider many of friends, even the Trump appointees,

146
00:07:23,200 --> 00:07:26,200
Speaker 2: I would never classify them as MAGA judges. These are

147
00:07:26,200 --> 00:07:29,200
Speaker 2: people who either were order appellate court somewhere got elevated

148
00:07:29,360 --> 00:07:33,400
Speaker 2: what I would call more centrist type individuals. The benefit

149
00:07:33,480 --> 00:07:36,080
Speaker 2: to him would be he would draw from a much

150
00:07:36,240 --> 00:07:40,360
Speaker 2: larger and much more politically palatable to him jury pool.

151
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:42,920
Speaker 2: So you would get outside of Fulton County, where the

152
00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:46,160
Speaker 2: case is now, which was a huge win for Biden,

153
00:07:46,400 --> 00:07:49,560
Speaker 2: and you would get into an area which Tessam Counties

154
00:07:49,680 --> 00:07:52,000
Speaker 2: in the Northern District of Georgia and the Atlanta Division

155
00:07:52,200 --> 00:07:55,360
Speaker 2: that certainly leans Republican, and so it allows him to

156
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:58,560
Speaker 2: try to expand his opportunity to have a jury that

157
00:07:58,680 --> 00:08:01,800
Speaker 2: would more likely have some people law that might identify with,

158
00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:04,600
Speaker 2: you know, Republican leanings and that type of thing. And

159
00:08:04,880 --> 00:08:07,600
Speaker 2: remember that it takes one juror in a criminal case

160
00:08:07,760 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 2: to hang the jury up and to prevent a conviction,

161
00:08:10,280 --> 00:08:12,320
Speaker 2: and so his lawyers are really playing to that one

162
00:08:12,440 --> 00:08:15,480
Speaker 2: or two jurors that they believe would be sympathetic to

163
00:08:15,600 --> 00:08:18,360
Speaker 2: the claim that this was legitimate. So that's why I

164
00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:20,680
Speaker 2: think the move is there. And also I'm sure that

165
00:08:20,920 --> 00:08:23,040
Speaker 2: the lawyers would like the case in federal court for

166
00:08:23,160 --> 00:08:26,280
Speaker 2: the formality of the federal courts are known for a

167
00:08:26,360 --> 00:08:30,400
Speaker 2: stronger motion practice. It obviously would be a clearer path

168
00:08:30,680 --> 00:08:33,640
Speaker 2: or appeal issues both to the federal Court's appeal and

169
00:08:33,720 --> 00:08:36,520
Speaker 2: then to the US Supreme Court of that option offso

170
00:08:36,640 --> 00:08:38,920
Speaker 2: exists in the state proceeding at some point because of

171
00:08:38,920 --> 00:08:41,319
Speaker 2: the constitution issues. But it's just a move that I

172
00:08:41,400 --> 00:08:43,880
Speaker 2: think is at least thought out. It's not a hair

173
00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:44,680
Speaker 2: brained motion.

174
00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:47,079
Speaker 1: If I said that way, do you think that it

175
00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:51,280
Speaker 1: would hamper Willis's ability to try areco case if it

176
00:08:51,440 --> 00:08:53,960
Speaker 1: was in federal court? Would she be hamstrung more?

177
00:08:54,360 --> 00:08:56,280
Speaker 2: I think she may be. I think that it gets

178
00:08:56,320 --> 00:08:58,360
Speaker 2: her off of her home turf. I think that you

179
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:00,439
Speaker 2: played by a little bit different rules. I mean, some

180
00:09:00,559 --> 00:09:02,160
Speaker 2: lawyers don't like to be in federal court at all.

181
00:09:02,360 --> 00:09:04,920
Speaker 2: It's a more formal practice, So it would be outside

182
00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:06,439
Speaker 2: the norm for let's put it that way.

183
00:09:06,720 --> 00:09:10,839
Speaker 1: What defenses do you see Trump possibly raising in this case?

184
00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:13,840
Speaker 2: I mean, I think there will be clear First Amendment defenses.

185
00:09:14,040 --> 00:09:17,800
Speaker 2: We'll have arguments about protective political speech, I think coming up.

186
00:09:17,880 --> 00:09:20,360
Speaker 2: I think with that question, there'll be some executive privilege

187
00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:23,040
Speaker 2: issues that come up. There will be presidential immunity issues,

188
00:09:23,040 --> 00:09:24,959
Speaker 2: that come up again, things that I think the federal

189
00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:26,960
Speaker 2: court will more there may be more use to dealing

190
00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:29,679
Speaker 2: with those than you see in the state courts. He

191
00:09:29,800 --> 00:09:32,439
Speaker 2: won't likely raise, you know, advice of counsel, say I

192
00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:34,839
Speaker 2: was doing what my lawyers told me to do. He

193
00:09:34,960 --> 00:09:38,480
Speaker 2: has a notorious ability to sort of put a buffer

194
00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:42,520
Speaker 2: between him and the criminal gabble coming down on him,

195
00:09:42,520 --> 00:09:45,080
Speaker 2: as you will, and that is to have a lawyer

196
00:09:45,320 --> 00:09:47,679
Speaker 2: or an intermediary or somebody there that you can say, well,

197
00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:49,000
Speaker 2: I was you know, they didn't do exactly what I

198
00:09:49,080 --> 00:09:50,560
Speaker 2: told them to do, or I was doing what they

199
00:09:50,720 --> 00:09:52,520
Speaker 2: suggested that I do. And so in this case, I

200
00:09:52,559 --> 00:09:55,360
Speaker 2: think you'll say, look, we were meeting, the lawyers, came

201
00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:57,679
Speaker 2: up with these ideas. We were just having these creative

202
00:09:57,720 --> 00:10:00,719
Speaker 2: discussions to figure out is a possibility. I didn't know

203
00:10:00,920 --> 00:10:03,880
Speaker 2: if the vote counts had been properly done, and so

204
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:06,200
Speaker 2: we wanted to secure the voting machines to make sure

205
00:10:06,200 --> 00:10:08,719
Speaker 2: that the tampered with our reporting was X, Y and Z.

206
00:10:09,040 --> 00:10:11,800
Speaker 2: But it was all based on the advice of my lawyers,

207
00:10:12,120 --> 00:10:14,679
Speaker 2: and so I think those will be compelling defenses to

208
00:10:14,760 --> 00:10:15,240
Speaker 2: some people.

209
00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:18,560
Speaker 1: But what about the fact that his lawyers are charged

210
00:10:18,679 --> 00:10:20,679
Speaker 1: as co conspirators.

211
00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:22,040
Speaker 2: With him, well, and I think that's going to be

212
00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:24,439
Speaker 2: a defense that they raise. It is unique in the

213
00:10:24,520 --> 00:10:28,040
Speaker 2: sense that we don't criminalize lawyers from being created. We

214
00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:31,720
Speaker 2: don't criminalize people for brainstorming, and we don't criminalize conduct

215
00:10:31,840 --> 00:10:35,040
Speaker 2: rather for really thinking outside the box. Even if at

216
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:38,040
Speaker 2: the end of the day that box becomes just a

217
00:10:38,240 --> 00:10:41,640
Speaker 2: zany idea. We look at it and say, it's okay

218
00:10:41,720 --> 00:10:43,480
Speaker 2: to talk about, it's okay to think. Is if the

219
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:45,719
Speaker 2: case And I think one of the issues with the

220
00:10:45,800 --> 00:10:50,120
Speaker 2: indictment is those discussions are now being considered as overt acts,

221
00:10:50,440 --> 00:10:53,560
Speaker 2: even a simple discussion or simple meeting. There's nothing unusual

222
00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:56,440
Speaker 2: about voices being raised in the old office. There's nothing

223
00:10:56,520 --> 00:10:59,319
Speaker 2: unusual about lawyers telling of the present something. There's nothing

224
00:10:59,400 --> 00:11:02,319
Speaker 2: unusually having lawyers with different views or different opinions, or

225
00:11:02,320 --> 00:11:05,040
Speaker 2: writing a memo and another person says, know that the

226
00:11:05,120 --> 00:11:07,360
Speaker 2: Pelic court is not going to do that, or no,

227
00:11:07,720 --> 00:11:10,480
Speaker 2: that's not supported by the case laws. That's not an

228
00:11:10,559 --> 00:11:14,559
Speaker 2: unusual process, especially in the arena that we're in. So

229
00:11:15,080 --> 00:11:18,640
Speaker 2: I don't know how that will play out, but I

230
00:11:18,720 --> 00:11:20,480
Speaker 2: think you will hear and I imagine you will hear

231
00:11:20,520 --> 00:11:23,280
Speaker 2: the lawyers saying, and at some point they may gain

232
00:11:23,360 --> 00:11:27,960
Speaker 2: some support, not individually, but you know, theoretically they may

233
00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:31,880
Speaker 2: gain support from some more established and respected groups saying, Look,

234
00:11:32,040 --> 00:11:34,960
Speaker 2: a lawyer has to advocate, a lawyer has to be creative.

235
00:11:35,040 --> 00:11:36,920
Speaker 2: A lawyer has to be able to give advice without

236
00:11:36,960 --> 00:11:39,120
Speaker 2: fear of being prosecuted. A lawyer has to be able

237
00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:42,520
Speaker 2: to have a discussion without fear of being prosecuted. And

238
00:11:42,760 --> 00:11:44,720
Speaker 2: they make a big deal about he's lost every case.

239
00:11:45,040 --> 00:11:48,120
Speaker 2: If we're gonna start punishing lawyers because their theory lost

240
00:11:48,200 --> 00:11:49,800
Speaker 2: in every court room, there will be a lot of

241
00:11:49,880 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 2: lawyers in jail. Some people may agree with that, but

242
00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:55,880
Speaker 2: as a principle, that may be something that we hear

243
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:58,000
Speaker 2: more about. Is the case goes on, as you say,

244
00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:00,800
Speaker 2: because we do have lawyers names defendants, and I'm not

245
00:12:01,080 --> 00:12:03,360
Speaker 2: in any way justifying what they did or what they

246
00:12:03,480 --> 00:12:06,160
Speaker 2: said or they took. I mean, if they gave false

247
00:12:06,200 --> 00:12:08,719
Speaker 2: testimony and they knew it, and that's a problem. You know,

248
00:12:08,800 --> 00:12:11,640
Speaker 2: if they had this concerted effort where they had clearly,

249
00:12:11,720 --> 00:12:14,920
Speaker 2: without any doubt, proven that their numbers were wrong, and

250
00:12:15,120 --> 00:12:18,679
Speaker 2: you know, that's a different issue. But to somehow equate

251
00:12:19,280 --> 00:12:23,199
Speaker 2: having a freewheel and creative legal discussion that may have

252
00:12:23,280 --> 00:12:27,719
Speaker 2: gotten animated into criminal conduct. I think maybe something that's

253
00:12:27,760 --> 00:12:29,199
Speaker 2: distressed in a step too far.

254
00:12:29,520 --> 00:12:31,600
Speaker 1: You're talking about the overt acts. There is there anything

255
00:12:31,720 --> 00:12:34,199
Speaker 1: else in the indictment, you know, the structure of it,

256
00:12:34,480 --> 00:12:36,719
Speaker 1: or that you see a problem with.

257
00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:40,280
Speaker 2: Well, when we talk about the removal statue, you know,

258
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:43,079
Speaker 2: when you're saying couldn't be removed to federal courts. When

259
00:12:43,120 --> 00:12:45,120
Speaker 2: I look at the indictment, there are one hundred and

260
00:12:45,160 --> 00:12:48,679
Speaker 2: sixty one overt acts alleged of the indictment, one hundred

261
00:12:48,679 --> 00:12:50,480
Speaker 2: and fifty four of those or a less to have

262
00:12:50,520 --> 00:12:53,240
Speaker 2: occurred while Trump was a sitting president of the United States.

263
00:12:53,640 --> 00:12:57,040
Speaker 2: They charged him in a number of counts, I mean

264
00:12:57,160 --> 00:13:00,880
Speaker 2: probably a dozen counts or so, and only two of

265
00:13:00,960 --> 00:13:02,679
Speaker 2: those that are a legs to acred after he was

266
00:13:02,760 --> 00:13:05,280
Speaker 2: president of the United States. And I think that's going

267
00:13:05,360 --> 00:13:08,960
Speaker 2: to cause some issues, and obviously is another support for removal.

268
00:13:09,520 --> 00:13:13,400
Speaker 2: You know, can a locally elected district attorney charges our

269
00:13:13,440 --> 00:13:15,959
Speaker 2: former president for conduct while he was an acting president

270
00:13:16,240 --> 00:13:18,120
Speaker 2: If that's the case, I mean, if that is going

271
00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:21,360
Speaker 2: to become the law, and that's the case, then I

272
00:13:21,440 --> 00:13:23,640
Speaker 2: imagine you're going to see every president from now on

273
00:13:24,200 --> 00:13:27,920
Speaker 2: indicted by some local DA who happens to be at

274
00:13:27,920 --> 00:13:30,760
Speaker 2: the opposite party for conduct that they didn't agree with

275
00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:32,920
Speaker 2: why personal was president. I mean, we're just headed down

276
00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:35,719
Speaker 2: that path. I mean, I think we're beyond headed down.

277
00:13:35,800 --> 00:13:38,160
Speaker 2: I think we're running full there's not a slippery floor,

278
00:13:38,679 --> 00:13:41,679
Speaker 2: full speed down the road into that. So I think

279
00:13:41,760 --> 00:13:44,440
Speaker 2: those will be arguments that are made. There are issues

280
00:13:44,520 --> 00:13:46,920
Speaker 2: I think with the you know, some things that come

281
00:13:46,960 --> 00:13:48,560
Speaker 2: to mind as I look at the indictment. I mean

282
00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:51,199
Speaker 2: the voting machine issue. You know, who had the authority

283
00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:54,080
Speaker 2: to look at the voting machines. Georgia laws A mended

284
00:13:54,120 --> 00:13:57,360
Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen and local officials are allowed to purchase

285
00:13:57,520 --> 00:14:00,760
Speaker 2: additional voting machines. They used to be the whole statute

286
00:14:00,800 --> 00:14:04,040
Speaker 2: that only the Secretary of State purchased those machines, and

287
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:08,199
Speaker 2: this gave local boards of elections authority to have those machines.

288
00:14:08,280 --> 00:14:11,320
Speaker 2: Store on those kinds of things that may become an

289
00:14:11,320 --> 00:14:14,360
Speaker 2: issue on who had authority. I look at the fake

290
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:18,199
Speaker 2: elector's scheme in the indictment, and I don't know because

291
00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:20,280
Speaker 2: I have not seen the documents, but it will be

292
00:14:20,320 --> 00:14:22,680
Speaker 2: interesting to see. Is there some notation or was there

293
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:25,600
Speaker 2: some reference in the meeting minutes, or is there a

294
00:14:25,680 --> 00:14:29,520
Speaker 2: report or was something said and testimony or what about

295
00:14:29,880 --> 00:14:32,960
Speaker 2: whether or not this was being done to protect alternatives

296
00:14:33,080 --> 00:14:35,840
Speaker 2: or to protect the rights, and the courts ultimately decide

297
00:14:35,880 --> 00:14:38,280
Speaker 2: one way or another. You know, these are things that

298
00:14:38,360 --> 00:14:42,240
Speaker 2: I think may come up again, they being the prosecutors

299
00:14:42,280 --> 00:14:44,880
Speaker 2: having access to information we don't all have right now.

300
00:14:45,040 --> 00:14:48,440
Speaker 2: But just to read through the nearly one hundred pages

301
00:14:48,480 --> 00:14:51,160
Speaker 2: of allegation, I mean, I can see some things that

302
00:14:51,240 --> 00:14:54,200
Speaker 2: I think will become issues. And then a good lawyer

303
00:14:54,320 --> 00:14:57,080
Speaker 2: representing one of the nineteen people, I'm sure we'll grab

304
00:14:57,120 --> 00:14:59,480
Speaker 2: a hole see at least dig into it somewhat.

305
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:03,360
Speaker 1: That's the thing that makes Willis's request for a March

306
00:15:03,520 --> 00:15:07,920
Speaker 1: trial date so curious is that she's trying rapper young

307
00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:12,480
Speaker 1: thug on Rico charges and jury selection has been going

308
00:15:12,520 --> 00:15:14,920
Speaker 1: on for seven months. I mean, I've never heard of

309
00:15:14,960 --> 00:15:16,960
Speaker 1: a jury selection going on for that long.

310
00:15:17,520 --> 00:15:19,640
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's because of the number of defendants.

311
00:15:19,640 --> 00:15:21,320
Speaker 2: I don't know what's going on, but that's a Fulton

312
00:15:21,360 --> 00:15:23,880
Speaker 2: County case where jury selection has been going on. I mean,

313
00:15:23,920 --> 00:15:26,960
Speaker 2: can you imagine having the former president and eighteen of

314
00:15:27,080 --> 00:15:30,640
Speaker 2: his closest friends sitting there selecting the jury. I mean,

315
00:15:31,040 --> 00:15:33,080
Speaker 2: there's just no way the case is going to get done.

316
00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:36,320
Speaker 2: You know, there's there's sort of this frenzy amongst the

317
00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:40,920
Speaker 2: Trump haters. There's so much excitement around the indictment, and

318
00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:43,800
Speaker 2: I worry sometimes it's statements like I'm going to try

319
00:15:43,800 --> 00:15:45,800
Speaker 2: it in six months, or we're gonna get this trial

320
00:15:45,880 --> 00:15:47,720
Speaker 2: six months, or we're gonna try everybody to get I

321
00:15:47,840 --> 00:15:50,200
Speaker 2: worry that sometimes that's like, you know, chumming the water

322
00:15:50,280 --> 00:15:53,000
Speaker 2: a little bit, because it's just not going to happen

323
00:15:53,560 --> 00:15:56,680
Speaker 2: like that, and people need to understand this is likely

324
00:15:56,760 --> 00:16:00,120
Speaker 2: a case and I would say almost certainly crazy thing

325
00:16:00,160 --> 00:16:02,560
Speaker 2: has happened. I would say almost certainly a case that

326
00:16:02,840 --> 00:16:05,600
Speaker 2: we will not see before the election, and then that

327
00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:07,120
Speaker 2: will have its all effect as well.

328
00:16:07,640 --> 00:16:10,400
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Michael. It's great to get insights from

329
00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:13,600
Speaker 1: a lawyer who knows the Georgia courts. That's former US

330
00:16:13,640 --> 00:16:17,160
Speaker 1: Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, Michael Moore of

331
00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:19,600
Speaker 1: Moore Hall. And that's it for this edition of The

332
00:16:19,600 --> 00:16:22,560
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

333
00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:25,720
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

334
00:16:25,760 --> 00:16:30,320
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg

335
00:16:30,400 --> 00:16:34,160
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, and remember to tune

336
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:37,360
Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

337
00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:41,000
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to

338
00:16:41,080 --> 00:16:41,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg