Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: So look, all I want to do is this. I
Speaker 2: just want to find.
Speaker 3: Eleven thousand, seven hundred and eighty votes, which is one
Speaker 3: more that we have.
Speaker 1: The sweeping indictment of Donald Trump and eighteen others, alleges
Speaker 1: a vast conspiracy that stretched from the Oval office and
Speaker 1: Trump's infamous call to Georgia's Secretary of State to find
Speaker 1: him enough votes to win the battleground state to a
Speaker 1: hearing in Georgia's state House where false statements were made
Speaker 1: that Fulton County election workers illegally counted between twelve thousand
Speaker 1: and twenty four thousand fake ballots that were unloaded off
Speaker 1: a truck in the middle of the night.
Speaker 3: They were ballots coming out, thousands and thousands of ballots
Speaker 3: in paper bags, in garbage cans, in cardboard boxes, and
Speaker 3: then they were put on a table and they were
Speaker 3: counted for the next three hours.
Speaker 1: To a rural county in Georgia, and the plot to
Speaker 1: access voting machines and even includes the harassment of an
Speaker 1: election worker. But the former president remains defiant.
Speaker 3: We don't take flee deals because I did nothing wrong.
Speaker 1: It's called election interference. Joining me is Michael Moore, the
Speaker 1: former US Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia and
Speaker 1: a partner at Moore Hall. Michael. The sheer breath of
Speaker 1: this indictment one hundred and sixty one acts alleged, ranging
Speaker 1: from making false statements and forgery to computer theft and perjury.
Speaker 1: Is it almost too much even for a rico prosecution.
Speaker 2: I think your Anaulynsis is probably right. I mean, the
Speaker 2: problem when you cast such a big name is that
Speaker 2: it oftentimes tangles you up too. And that's what she's done.
Speaker 2: She's got almost one hundred page indictment, and she's laid
Speaker 2: out all these acts and in places obviously outside of jurisdiction.
Speaker 2: And that's why she used the Rico charges. She wanted
Speaker 2: to be able to talk about all these other allegations
Speaker 2: that she wouldn't have to prove beyond the reason of
Speaker 2: that in which she typical wouldn't have jurisdiction for in
Speaker 2: the indictment. So it's going to be a wail of
Speaker 2: an undertaking without any question. You know, so many of
Speaker 2: the allegations standing alone, especially when we talk about overt
Speaker 2: act standing alone, they're just pretty vanilla and irrelevant to this,
Speaker 2: things like setting a meeting or making a phone call
Speaker 2: or you know, those kinds of innocuous type of things.
Speaker 2: But she's trying to paint the picture and use the
Speaker 2: context of all of this was this big, swirling conspiracy
Speaker 2: at the same time. So the problem with that is that,
Speaker 2: you know, Rico's great if you're a prosecutor, because you
Speaker 2: can talk about all the dirty laundry that there is
Speaker 2: as opposed to just one defendant's dirty laundry. The double
Speaker 2: edged sword side of that is that you also then
Speaker 2: are binding yourself to having to prove this, because a
Speaker 2: good defense attorney will just look for that one loose
Speaker 2: thread and start to pull it and unrivaled the case
Speaker 2: off of just some part of it that they were
Speaker 2: not able to prove, and you just need to cast
Speaker 2: enough to doubt in the jury's mind to cause them
Speaker 2: to not convict. So sometimes more is less, and that
Speaker 2: may be the case here.
Speaker 1: Funny Willis is seeking a March trial date and says
Speaker 1: she wants to try all nineteen defendants together. Do you
Speaker 1: think the judge will actually let her go to trial
Speaker 1: with nineteen defendants?
Speaker 2: I don't think so, And I don't think there's any
Speaker 2: chance in the world she's going to try the case
Speaker 2: or put it up for trial within six months. I
Speaker 2: think that's just a good pr statement to make. But
Speaker 2: I think anybody who watches the court system and certainly
Speaker 2: is familiar with Forulm County, will tell you that case
Speaker 2: isn't going to trial in six months. You'll have defendants
Speaker 2: who ask to sever their charges. That is, they don't
Speaker 2: want to be lucked in with everybody else. The problem
Speaker 2: is if they're in the Rico case, that poses a
Speaker 2: unique question for a judge. You'll have other defendants who
Speaker 2: may end up cutting some kind of deal. They may
Speaker 2: take a plea agreement or agree to cooperate as a
Speaker 2: testifying which in exchange for their case being dismissed. You
Speaker 2: never know what might happen, but you'll have some defendants
Speaker 2: drop off like that. And that's frankly what I think
Speaker 2: she has done by naming so many people. That is
Speaker 2: to really put the vice scripts on some of these
Speaker 2: defendants to get them to flip and then give testimony.
Speaker 2: And the best way to do that is to name
Speaker 2: them in an indictment. So I think that this is
Speaker 2: the kind of case that is likely to not happen
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four, certainly not before the election. And
Speaker 2: I don't see how there's any chance in the world
Speaker 2: that she goes to court with nineteen defendants because at
Speaker 2: one lawyer a peace. I mean, you can imagine the
Speaker 2: pandemonium in the court room with that many lawyers and
Speaker 2: that mean defendants. Every time there's an objection, every time
Speaker 2: there's a witness, and every time there's a document to
Speaker 2: look at it. You know that all of those almost
Speaker 2: twenty groups would be wanting to be heard at the
Speaker 2: same time. So it's it's so likely well.
Speaker 1: And also Trump is known for delay, delay, delay, and
Speaker 1: they'll be pre trial motions. Speaking of which, Trump's former
Speaker 1: chief of staff Mark Meadows, is trying to move the
Speaker 1: Georgia criminal case against him to federal court from state court.
Speaker 1: Do you think he has a good chance of doing that.
Speaker 2: I think it's a good motion. He's filing to move
Speaker 2: it under a federal statute that allows for a state
Speaker 2: case to be transferred to the federal court under certain
Speaker 2: conditions when a federal official has been charged, and it's
Speaker 2: a statue, it's a rule, then it is really centuries
Speaker 2: old that was designed to sort of prohibit state and
Speaker 2: partisan meddling in the business and the affairs of federal officials.
Speaker 2: You can't likely think of much more of a federal
Speaker 2: official than a president, a chief of staff, And the
Speaker 2: conduct that's alleged in the indictment really focuses on the
Speaker 2: efforts surrounding the election. And for an incumbent president with
Speaker 2: an incumbent serving chief of staff, and then I think
Speaker 2: that clearly would be under the scope of their work
Speaker 2: as it related to the election. Whether or not the
Speaker 2: claims about election integrity, whether or not the claim about
Speaker 2: trying to steal the election, those are things that have
Speaker 2: to be adjudicated in a trial. But the argument would
Speaker 2: be and it has to be an argument that is
Speaker 2: least plausible, And so the plausible argument is, if you're
Speaker 2: Medaws or Trump, that I was doing this to make
Speaker 2: sure that the election was accurate. We were doing this
Speaker 2: to make sure that the election I've been stolen. We
Speaker 2: were doing this to make sure there was integrity in
Speaker 2: our electoral system. We were doing this to make sure
Speaker 2: that the vice president knew that he had the ability
Speaker 2: if there was some squirrely activity going on, we thought
Speaker 2: he had the ability, based on the advice of our lawyers,
Speaker 2: to pause the electoral vote count or we at least
Speaker 2: have these discussions. So there's a plausible argument that they
Speaker 2: could make that they were trying to do something within
Speaker 2: the scope of federal authority. You know, whether or not
Speaker 2: they win the motion, I think it's a different type
Speaker 2: of motion that was heard in the payment case in
Speaker 2: New York when they tried to transfer that case, and
Speaker 2: the judge basically said, you know, payments of this nature
Speaker 2: or not within the presidential authority, and it's certainly not
Speaker 2: going to scoop their federal work. I think that there's
Speaker 2: a different claim to be had here. So I wasn't
Speaker 2: surprised at all to see them make the motion. I
Speaker 2: think Trump will soon be making the same motion, and
Speaker 2: a transfer from the state court to the federal court
Speaker 2: obviously the nearest to his benefit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean there won't be cameras in a federal
Speaker 1: court room, and he could get a Trump appointed judge.
Speaker 2: He could. I will tell you that the judges in
Speaker 2: the Northern District of Georgia, and I know most of
Speaker 2: all of them, consider many of friends, even the Trump appointees,
Speaker 2: I would never classify them as MAGA judges. These are
Speaker 2: people who either were order appellate court somewhere got elevated
Speaker 2: what I would call more centrist type individuals. The benefit
Speaker 2: to him would be he would draw from a much
Speaker 2: larger and much more politically palatable to him jury pool.
Speaker 2: So you would get outside of Fulton County, where the
Speaker 2: case is now, which was a huge win for Biden,
Speaker 2: and you would get into an area which Tessam Counties
Speaker 2: in the Northern District of Georgia and the Atlanta Division
Speaker 2: that certainly leans Republican, and so it allows him to
Speaker 2: try to expand his opportunity to have a jury that
Speaker 2: would more likely have some people law that might identify with,
Speaker 2: you know, Republican leanings and that type of thing. And
Speaker 2: remember that it takes one juror in a criminal case
Speaker 2: to hang the jury up and to prevent a conviction,
Speaker 2: and so his lawyers are really playing to that one
Speaker 2: or two jurors that they believe would be sympathetic to
Speaker 2: the claim that this was legitimate. So that's why I
Speaker 2: think the move is there. And also I'm sure that
Speaker 2: the lawyers would like the case in federal court for
Speaker 2: the formality of the federal courts are known for a
Speaker 2: stronger motion practice. It obviously would be a clearer path
Speaker 2: or appeal issues both to the federal Court's appeal and
Speaker 2: then to the US Supreme Court of that option offso
Speaker 2: exists in the state proceeding at some point because of
Speaker 2: the constitution issues. But it's just a move that I
Speaker 2: think is at least thought out. It's not a hair
Speaker 2: brained motion.
Speaker 1: If I said that way, do you think that it
Speaker 1: would hamper Willis's ability to try areco case if it
Speaker 1: was in federal court? Would she be hamstrung more?
Speaker 2: I think she may be. I think that it gets
Speaker 2: her off of her home turf. I think that you
Speaker 2: played by a little bit different rules. I mean, some
Speaker 2: lawyers don't like to be in federal court at all.
Speaker 2: It's a more formal practice, So it would be outside
Speaker 2: the norm for let's put it that way.
Speaker 1: What defenses do you see Trump possibly raising in this case?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think there will be clear First Amendment defenses.
Speaker 2: We'll have arguments about protective political speech, I think coming up.
Speaker 2: I think with that question, there'll be some executive privilege
Speaker 2: issues that come up. There will be presidential immunity issues,
Speaker 2: that come up again, things that I think the federal
Speaker 2: court will more there may be more use to dealing
Speaker 2: with those than you see in the state courts. He
Speaker 2: won't likely raise, you know, advice of counsel, say I
Speaker 2: was doing what my lawyers told me to do. He
Speaker 2: has a notorious ability to sort of put a buffer
Speaker 2: between him and the criminal gabble coming down on him,
Speaker 2: as you will, and that is to have a lawyer
Speaker 2: or an intermediary or somebody there that you can say, well,
Speaker 2: I was you know, they didn't do exactly what I
Speaker 2: told them to do, or I was doing what they
Speaker 2: suggested that I do. And so in this case, I
Speaker 2: think you'll say, look, we were meeting, the lawyers, came
Speaker 2: up with these ideas. We were just having these creative
Speaker 2: discussions to figure out is a possibility. I didn't know
Speaker 2: if the vote counts had been properly done, and so
Speaker 2: we wanted to secure the voting machines to make sure
Speaker 2: that the tampered with our reporting was X, Y and Z.
Speaker 2: But it was all based on the advice of my lawyers,
Speaker 2: and so I think those will be compelling defenses to
Speaker 2: some people.
Speaker 1: But what about the fact that his lawyers are charged
Speaker 1: as co conspirators.
Speaker 2: With him, well, and I think that's going to be
Speaker 2: a defense that they raise. It is unique in the
Speaker 2: sense that we don't criminalize lawyers from being created. We
Speaker 2: don't criminalize people for brainstorming, and we don't criminalize conduct
Speaker 2: rather for really thinking outside the box. Even if at
Speaker 2: the end of the day that box becomes just a
Speaker 2: zany idea. We look at it and say, it's okay
Speaker 2: to talk about, it's okay to think. Is if the
Speaker 2: case And I think one of the issues with the
Speaker 2: indictment is those discussions are now being considered as overt acts,
Speaker 2: even a simple discussion or simple meeting. There's nothing unusual
Speaker 2: about voices being raised in the old office. There's nothing
Speaker 2: unusual about lawyers telling of the present something. There's nothing
Speaker 2: unusually having lawyers with different views or different opinions, or
Speaker 2: writing a memo and another person says, know that the
Speaker 2: Pelic court is not going to do that, or no,
Speaker 2: that's not supported by the case laws. That's not an
Speaker 2: unusual process, especially in the arena that we're in. So
Speaker 2: I don't know how that will play out, but I
Speaker 2: think you will hear and I imagine you will hear
Speaker 2: the lawyers saying, and at some point they may gain
Speaker 2: some support, not individually, but you know, theoretically they may
Speaker 2: gain support from some more established and respected groups saying, Look,
Speaker 2: a lawyer has to advocate, a lawyer has to be creative.
Speaker 2: A lawyer has to be able to give advice without
Speaker 2: fear of being prosecuted. A lawyer has to be able
Speaker 2: to have a discussion without fear of being prosecuted. And
Speaker 2: they make a big deal about he's lost every case.
Speaker 2: If we're gonna start punishing lawyers because their theory lost
Speaker 2: in every court room, there will be a lot of
Speaker 2: lawyers in jail. Some people may agree with that, but
Speaker 2: as a principle, that may be something that we hear
Speaker 2: more about. Is the case goes on, as you say,
Speaker 2: because we do have lawyers names defendants, and I'm not
Speaker 2: in any way justifying what they did or what they
Speaker 2: said or they took. I mean, if they gave false
Speaker 2: testimony and they knew it, and that's a problem. You know,
Speaker 2: if they had this concerted effort where they had clearly,
Speaker 2: without any doubt, proven that their numbers were wrong, and
Speaker 2: you know, that's a different issue. But to somehow equate
Speaker 2: having a freewheel and creative legal discussion that may have
Speaker 2: gotten animated into criminal conduct. I think maybe something that's
Speaker 2: distressed in a step too far.
Speaker 1: You're talking about the overt acts. There is there anything
Speaker 1: else in the indictment, you know, the structure of it,
Speaker 1: or that you see a problem with.
Speaker 2: Well, when we talk about the removal statue, you know,
Speaker 2: when you're saying couldn't be removed to federal courts. When
Speaker 2: I look at the indictment, there are one hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty one overt acts alleged of the indictment, one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty four of those or a less to have
Speaker 2: occurred while Trump was a sitting president of the United States.
Speaker 2: They charged him in a number of counts, I mean
Speaker 2: probably a dozen counts or so, and only two of
Speaker 2: those that are a legs to acred after he was
Speaker 2: president of the United States. And I think that's going
Speaker 2: to cause some issues, and obviously is another support for removal.
Speaker 2: You know, can a locally elected district attorney charges our
Speaker 2: former president for conduct while he was an acting president
Speaker 2: If that's the case, I mean, if that is going
Speaker 2: to become the law, and that's the case, then I
Speaker 2: imagine you're going to see every president from now on
Speaker 2: indicted by some local DA who happens to be at
Speaker 2: the opposite party for conduct that they didn't agree with
Speaker 2: why personal was president. I mean, we're just headed down
Speaker 2: that path. I mean, I think we're beyond headed down.
Speaker 2: I think we're running full there's not a slippery floor,
Speaker 2: full speed down the road into that. So I think
Speaker 2: those will be arguments that are made. There are issues
Speaker 2: I think with the you know, some things that come
Speaker 2: to mind as I look at the indictment. I mean
Speaker 2: the voting machine issue. You know, who had the authority
Speaker 2: to look at the voting machines. Georgia laws A mended
Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen and local officials are allowed to purchase
Speaker 2: additional voting machines. They used to be the whole statute
Speaker 2: that only the Secretary of State purchased those machines, and
Speaker 2: this gave local boards of elections authority to have those machines.
Speaker 2: Store on those kinds of things that may become an
Speaker 2: issue on who had authority. I look at the fake
Speaker 2: elector's scheme in the indictment, and I don't know because
Speaker 2: I have not seen the documents, but it will be
Speaker 2: interesting to see. Is there some notation or was there
Speaker 2: some reference in the meeting minutes, or is there a
Speaker 2: report or was something said and testimony or what about
Speaker 2: whether or not this was being done to protect alternatives
Speaker 2: or to protect the rights, and the courts ultimately decide
Speaker 2: one way or another. You know, these are things that
Speaker 2: I think may come up again, they being the prosecutors
Speaker 2: having access to information we don't all have right now.
Speaker 2: But just to read through the nearly one hundred pages
Speaker 2: of allegation, I mean, I can see some things that
Speaker 2: I think will become issues. And then a good lawyer
Speaker 2: representing one of the nineteen people, I'm sure we'll grab
Speaker 2: a hole see at least dig into it somewhat.
Speaker 1: That's the thing that makes Willis's request for a March
Speaker 1: trial date so curious is that she's trying rapper young
Speaker 1: thug on Rico charges and jury selection has been going
Speaker 1: on for seven months. I mean, I've never heard of
Speaker 1: a jury selection going on for that long.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's because of the number of defendants.
Speaker 2: I don't know what's going on, but that's a Fulton
Speaker 2: County case where jury selection has been going on. I mean,
Speaker 2: can you imagine having the former president and eighteen of
Speaker 2: his closest friends sitting there selecting the jury. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's just no way the case is going to get done.
Speaker 2: You know, there's there's sort of this frenzy amongst the
Speaker 2: Trump haters. There's so much excitement around the indictment, and
Speaker 2: I worry sometimes it's statements like I'm going to try
Speaker 2: it in six months, or we're gonna get this trial
Speaker 2: six months, or we're gonna try everybody to get I
Speaker 2: worry that sometimes that's like, you know, chumming the water
Speaker 2: a little bit, because it's just not going to happen
Speaker 2: like that, and people need to understand this is likely
Speaker 2: a case and I would say almost certainly crazy thing
Speaker 2: has happened. I would say almost certainly a case that
Speaker 2: we will not see before the election, and then that
Speaker 2: will have its all effect as well.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Michael. It's great to get insights from
Speaker 1: a lawyer who knows the Georgia courts. That's former US
Speaker 1: Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, Michael Moore of
Speaker 1: Moore Hall. And that's it for this edition of The
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, and remember to tune
Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg