1
00:00:02,880 --> 00:00:07,080
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,520 --> 00:00:12,720
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James

3
00:00:12,960 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 2: have been involved in a war of words for years

4
00:00:16,520 --> 00:00:20,320
Speaker 2: over the fraud case James brought against Trump and his company.

5
00:00:20,440 --> 00:00:21,759
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty two.

6
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:26,920
Speaker 3: This raging maniac campaigned for office, ranting and raving about

7
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:27,400
Speaker 3: her goal.

8
00:00:27,520 --> 00:00:28,600
Speaker 4: Her only goal is.

9
00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:29,680
Speaker 3: We got to get Donald Trump.

10
00:00:29,680 --> 00:00:30,160
Speaker 4: We'll got together.

11
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:32,240
Speaker 3: If she knew nothing about me, I never heard of her.

12
00:00:33,360 --> 00:00:39,000
Speaker 4: The scale and the scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering,

13
00:00:40,320 --> 00:00:43,760
Speaker 4: and so too is his ego and his belief that

14
00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:46,680
Speaker 4: the rules do not apply to him.

15
00:00:46,760 --> 00:00:50,800
Speaker 3: Very simply put, it's a witch hunt. It's a disgrace.

16
00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:53,560
Speaker 3: We have a corrupt attorney general in the state.

17
00:00:54,840 --> 00:00:57,800
Speaker 5: I am certain that he will engage in name calling

18
00:00:58,160 --> 00:01:02,160
Speaker 5: and taunts and race and call this a witch hunt.

19
00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:04,720
Speaker 5: But at the end of the day, the only thing

20
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:09,080
Speaker 5: that matters are the facts and the numbers and numbers

21
00:01:09,200 --> 00:01:11,000
Speaker 5: my friends don't lie.

22
00:01:11,120 --> 00:01:14,040
Speaker 2: That case resulted in a four hundred and sixty four

23
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:17,880
Speaker 2: million dollar fraud penalty, which is now on appeal to

24
00:01:18,080 --> 00:01:21,960
Speaker 2: New York State's highest court. After a low repellate court

25
00:01:22,080 --> 00:01:25,880
Speaker 2: found it to be excessive, And now the tables have turned,

26
00:01:25,959 --> 00:01:30,640
Speaker 2: and Trump's Justice Department is investigating James over whether that

27
00:01:30,800 --> 00:01:35,319
Speaker 2: fraud case violated Trump's legal rights, in addition to a

28
00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:41,119
Speaker 2: separate investigation for alleged mortgage fraud, which has stalled. On Saturday,

29
00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:45,880
Speaker 2: Trump posted on truth Social addressing US Attorney General Pam

30
00:01:45,959 --> 00:01:50,480
Speaker 2: Bondi quote, Pam, I have reviewed over thirty statements and

31
00:01:50,640 --> 00:01:54,920
Speaker 2: posts saying that essentially same old story as last time.

32
00:01:55,120 --> 00:01:59,400
Speaker 2: All talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about

33
00:01:59,480 --> 00:02:03,880
Speaker 2: Komy Adam, shifty shift, Letitia. They're all guilty as hell,

34
00:02:04,160 --> 00:02:07,440
Speaker 2: but nothing is going to be done end quote. And

35
00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:11,280
Speaker 2: on Sunday, Trump repeated his calls for quick action on

36
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:12,440
Speaker 2: the prosecutions.

37
00:02:12,919 --> 00:02:15,079
Speaker 1: And we have to act fast. One way of the other,

38
00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:18,919
Speaker 1: one way of the other. They're guilty, they're not guilty.

39
00:02:19,000 --> 00:02:20,200
Speaker 6: We have to act fast.

40
00:02:20,520 --> 00:02:21,079
Speaker 3: If they're not.

41
00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:22,280
Speaker 1: Guilty, that's fine.

42
00:02:22,480 --> 00:02:24,840
Speaker 3: If they are guilty, or if they should be judged,

43
00:02:25,160 --> 00:02:27,480
Speaker 3: they should be judged, and we have to do it now.

44
00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:31,840
Speaker 2: My guest is former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor

45
00:02:31,880 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 2: at Cardozo Law School. Jessica Richard Nixon famously had an

46
00:02:37,440 --> 00:02:40,680
Speaker 2: enemy's list, but it was kept under wraps until it

47
00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:46,600
Speaker 2: was exposed by John Deane during testimony before the Watergate Committee.

48
00:02:46,800 --> 00:02:51,480
Speaker 2: But President Trump is publicly urging his attorney general to

49
00:02:51,600 --> 00:02:56,200
Speaker 2: go after his political enemies. What might the repercussions be.

50
00:02:56,760 --> 00:02:59,840
Speaker 7: Well, it's extremely unusual, to say the least, to have

51
00:02:59,880 --> 00:03:03,560
Speaker 7: it president so publicly calling for the prosecution of his

52
00:03:03,720 --> 00:03:07,920
Speaker 7: political adversaries. And should it come to pass that, in fact,

53
00:03:07,919 --> 00:03:10,600
Speaker 7: there are criminal charges brought against the people who he

54
00:03:10,720 --> 00:03:14,560
Speaker 7: is naming and urging his Attorney general to charge, I

55
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:17,520
Speaker 7: think he's going to be providing evidence that would be

56
00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:21,239
Speaker 7: powerful in the motion to dismiss those charges based on

57
00:03:21,320 --> 00:03:23,919
Speaker 7: a claim of selective or vindictive prosecution.

58
00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:28,480
Speaker 2: Traditionally, how much input does a president have on the

59
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:32,720
Speaker 2: Justice Department's decisions to prosecute someone?

60
00:03:32,760 --> 00:03:38,240
Speaker 7: Traditionally, the Justice Department acts independently of the president in

61
00:03:38,440 --> 00:03:44,920
Speaker 7: making individual prosecution decisions, and past administration since Watergate, have

62
00:03:45,040 --> 00:03:49,440
Speaker 7: put into place policies in order to preserve that independence

63
00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:53,200
Speaker 7: and effectively create a firewall between the prosecutors who make

64
00:03:53,280 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 7: charging decisions and the White House. So although the president

65
00:03:57,280 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 7: and his top level officials might have an appropriately would

66
00:04:01,160 --> 00:04:05,120
Speaker 7: have some input into policy priorities when it comes to

67
00:04:05,200 --> 00:04:09,119
Speaker 7: individual charging decisions. That is something that has been understood

68
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:12,960
Speaker 7: that should be undertaken without direct input from the President,

69
00:04:13,400 --> 00:04:17,040
Speaker 7: and that communications between the Department of Justice and the

70
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:21,320
Speaker 7: White House about cases and about even policy priorities should

71
00:04:21,360 --> 00:04:24,680
Speaker 7: be going through a select group of individuals, namely the

72
00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:27,640
Speaker 7: White House Council's Office on behalf of the White House,

73
00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:31,559
Speaker 7: and the Attorney General and other very senior people at

74
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:34,560
Speaker 7: the Department of Justice, so that there will be essentially

75
00:04:34,680 --> 00:04:40,440
Speaker 7: some buffer between any potential interference in individual prosecution decisions.

76
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:45,320
Speaker 2: A federal prosecutor in Virginia resigned from his post after

77
00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:48,440
Speaker 2: being told he would be removed for not bringing mortgage

78
00:04:48,440 --> 00:04:53,320
Speaker 2: fraud charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James, and

79
00:04:53,720 --> 00:04:57,000
Speaker 2: he had determined Bloomberg News's reported that there just wasn't

80
00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:00,719
Speaker 2: enough evidence to support those charges, and that's what a

81
00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:04,480
Speaker 2: prosecutor is supposed to do, right. You only bring charges

82
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:07,560
Speaker 2: if you think you can prove your case before a jury.

83
00:05:07,880 --> 00:05:10,920
Speaker 7: It would appear that that prosecutor, who was a career prosecutor,

84
00:05:10,960 --> 00:05:13,960
Speaker 7: did do the right thing on pains of losing his job.

85
00:05:14,240 --> 00:05:18,080
Speaker 7: He was following the law and the evidence. It would appear.

86
00:05:18,120 --> 00:05:20,120
Speaker 7: Of course, we don't have a direct account from him

87
00:05:20,160 --> 00:05:23,279
Speaker 7: about what happened. But if he resigned his post or

88
00:05:23,360 --> 00:05:26,560
Speaker 7: was forced out because he refused to break charges where

89
00:05:26,560 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 7: there was not evidence to support a charge, or because

90
00:05:30,040 --> 00:05:32,320
Speaker 7: he thought that even if there were such evidence that

91
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:36,080
Speaker 7: it was a politically motivated prosecution, then he upheld the

92
00:05:36,120 --> 00:05:40,760
Speaker 7: norms of prosecutorial independence and professional judgment in doing so.

93
00:05:41,160 --> 00:05:43,400
Speaker 7: And the fact that he resigned or was forced out,

94
00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:46,640
Speaker 7: depending on which account is true, I think is also

95
00:05:46,720 --> 00:05:50,440
Speaker 7: going to be an important part of any claim for

96
00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:55,159
Speaker 7: selective or vindictive prosecution if another prosecutor does file charges,

97
00:05:55,520 --> 00:05:59,960
Speaker 7: because I think it is circumstantial evidence that previous prosecutors,

98
00:06:00,160 --> 00:06:02,640
Speaker 7: who are career prosecutors who looked at the evidence, thought

99
00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:03,520
Speaker 7: they were not warranted.

100
00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:05,359
Speaker 1: In this case, it's a high.

101
00:06:05,240 --> 00:06:08,279
Speaker 2: Bar, isn't it to get a case dismissed on the

102
00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:11,599
Speaker 2: basis of selective or vindictive prosecution.

103
00:06:12,760 --> 00:06:15,400
Speaker 7: It is a very high bar, and such claims are

104
00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:18,960
Speaker 7: notoriously difficult to win on because there is a presumption

105
00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:23,320
Speaker 7: of regularity that attaches to prosecution's decisions, and it requires

106
00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:26,920
Speaker 7: a proof of actual animists in bringing the case against

107
00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:30,039
Speaker 7: an individual. So here the fact that the president is

108
00:06:30,120 --> 00:06:35,040
Speaker 7: out in public effectively directing a prosecution of his political

109
00:06:35,080 --> 00:06:39,520
Speaker 7: opponents regardless of the evidence, essentially saying they're guilty of

110
00:06:39,680 --> 00:06:43,719
Speaker 7: something without regard to whatever may be available or what

111
00:06:43,800 --> 00:06:48,039
Speaker 7: those particular charges might require as elements under the law.

112
00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:51,120
Speaker 7: Combined with the fact that a career prosecutor who was

113
00:06:51,320 --> 00:06:54,760
Speaker 7: charged with the investigation apparently refused to bring charges and

114
00:06:55,160 --> 00:06:58,600
Speaker 7: was fired or resigned over that decision, all of that

115
00:06:59,200 --> 00:07:04,040
Speaker 7: may create ccumstances in which a court actually might dismiss

116
00:07:04,080 --> 00:07:07,719
Speaker 7: the case for vindictive prosecution or in a minimum, order

117
00:07:07,760 --> 00:07:10,760
Speaker 7: a hearing and discovery to get to the bottom of

118
00:07:10,800 --> 00:07:14,080
Speaker 7: the facts about what actually transpired before the case was brought.

119
00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:18,840
Speaker 2: And yet, according to Bloomberg News sources, the Justice Department

120
00:07:18,920 --> 00:07:24,280
Speaker 2: is pushing ahead with its investigation of Letitia James for

121
00:07:24,920 --> 00:07:29,840
Speaker 2: mortgage fraud and apparently got the green light from the

122
00:07:29,880 --> 00:07:34,320
Speaker 2: Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche. But why push this forward

123
00:07:34,360 --> 00:07:37,520
Speaker 2: at this point when the defense is James could raise

124
00:07:37,600 --> 00:07:38,800
Speaker 2: seem to be mounting.

125
00:07:39,080 --> 00:07:42,200
Speaker 7: I can't speak to the reasoning that is occurring within

126
00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:45,240
Speaker 7: the Department of Justice and the Attorney's Office in Virginia

127
00:07:45,280 --> 00:07:49,240
Speaker 7: in continuing the investigation and preparing charges if that, in

128
00:07:49,280 --> 00:07:53,360
Speaker 7: fact is what is happening. The first line of defense,

129
00:07:53,880 --> 00:07:56,400
Speaker 7: if you will, would be a grand jury that would

130
00:07:56,400 --> 00:08:00,160
Speaker 7: hear the evidence that may not return an indictment. That

131
00:08:00,240 --> 00:08:03,280
Speaker 7: also would be highly unusual. And yet we are seeing

132
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:07,920
Speaker 7: around the country grandeurors actually refusing to indict on cases

133
00:08:08,200 --> 00:08:11,320
Speaker 7: where the evidence is lacking or for some other reason

134
00:08:11,360 --> 00:08:14,880
Speaker 7: that's within their purview to reject the charges, perhaps because

135
00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:19,520
Speaker 7: they perceive them as unwarranted, because they're trivial or disproportionate,

136
00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:22,200
Speaker 7: or perhaps because they perceive a political bias.

137
00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:23,800
Speaker 1: So first we'd have.

138
00:08:23,720 --> 00:08:26,720
Speaker 7: To see if a grand jury actually would return an indictment.

139
00:08:26,760 --> 00:08:30,280
Speaker 7: If they don't, the case couldn't go forward unless the

140
00:08:30,280 --> 00:08:33,400
Speaker 7: Department of Justice tried to present it to another grand jury,

141
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:36,120
Speaker 7: which they could. But if they ever do get an indictment,

142
00:08:36,160 --> 00:08:38,360
Speaker 7: then it would go before a judge, and the defense

143
00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:42,040
Speaker 7: and guessing would bring emotion to dismiss based on selective

144
00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:47,319
Speaker 7: or vindictive prosecution. And there although there is this evidence

145
00:08:47,320 --> 00:08:50,439
Speaker 7: we've been discussing that would suggest that these are politically

146
00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:54,600
Speaker 7: motivated prosecutions, as the President has been calling for them

147
00:08:54,840 --> 00:08:58,880
Speaker 7: in public, the challenge might be proving that actually the

148
00:08:59,120 --> 00:09:03,920
Speaker 7: prosecution would not have been brought but for the political animus,

149
00:09:03,920 --> 00:09:07,240
Speaker 7: and then also attributing the political animus that the president

150
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 7: is voicing to the prosecutors who actually.

151
00:09:09,840 --> 00:09:11,000
Speaker 1: Brought the charge.

152
00:09:11,120 --> 00:09:14,200
Speaker 7: I think that those hurdles could be overcome and the

153
00:09:14,280 --> 00:09:17,360
Speaker 7: unique facts presented in this case, but I imagine those

154
00:09:17,360 --> 00:09:19,440
Speaker 7: would be things that the court would have to consider.

155
00:09:19,880 --> 00:09:22,560
Speaker 7: The typical case where somebody brings the claim of vindictive

156
00:09:22,640 --> 00:09:27,320
Speaker 7: or selective prosecution virtually vindictive prosecution, it is often after

157
00:09:27,360 --> 00:09:30,760
Speaker 7: someone has previously been charged and then additional charges are

158
00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:33,320
Speaker 7: launched against them after they exercised their right to go

159
00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:35,480
Speaker 7: to trial, for example, and so the claim is that

160
00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:40,160
Speaker 7: the individual prosecutor involved was being vindictive or a vindictiveness

161
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:43,960
Speaker 7: based on something that the individual who was charged did

162
00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:48,040
Speaker 7: that irritated the individual prosecutor, something perhaps in that person's

163
00:09:48,080 --> 00:09:51,280
Speaker 7: personal life or business affairs. What's unusual here is that

164
00:09:51,360 --> 00:09:55,439
Speaker 7: we would have potentially aligned prosecutors speaking indictment before a

165
00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:58,199
Speaker 7: grand jury, and the animus would have to be attributed

166
00:09:58,240 --> 00:10:00,920
Speaker 7: to that person. That is essentially going from the President

167
00:10:00,920 --> 00:10:03,320
Speaker 7: of the United States through the Attorney General. And so

168
00:10:03,400 --> 00:10:05,880
Speaker 7: that's just not a typical fact pattern that we see

169
00:10:05,880 --> 00:10:06,680
Speaker 7: in these cases.

170
00:10:06,880 --> 00:10:11,520
Speaker 2: The use of mortgage fraud allegations is not restricted to James.

171
00:10:12,240 --> 00:10:16,720
Speaker 2: The Trump administration is pursuing similar charges against California Senator

172
00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:20,280
Speaker 2: Adam Schiff and FED Chair Lisa Cook. I mean, the

173
00:10:20,280 --> 00:10:24,360
Speaker 2: federal government has rarely brought criminal charges over these kinds

174
00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:29,280
Speaker 2: of misstatements about primary residents and mortgage records. And also

175
00:10:29,400 --> 00:10:34,640
Speaker 2: there's reporting that members of Trump's cabinet and other Republican

176
00:10:34,720 --> 00:10:41,360
Speaker 2: officials made similar types of misstatements in mortgage applications. Would

177
00:10:41,400 --> 00:10:43,880
Speaker 2: that be part of a pattern of proof in a

178
00:10:43,960 --> 00:10:47,200
Speaker 2: selective or vindictive prosecution defense?

179
00:10:48,120 --> 00:10:48,440
Speaker 5: Well.

180
00:10:48,640 --> 00:10:52,559
Speaker 7: To prevail on a claim of selective prosecution, the defendants

181
00:10:52,600 --> 00:10:58,679
Speaker 7: would have to establish that they were selected for prosecution

182
00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:04,280
Speaker 7: for a crime that is not frequently charged, and that

183
00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:07,640
Speaker 7: they were selected essentially on the basis of some characteristic

184
00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:11,160
Speaker 7: that is protected. Often such cases are alleged that the

185
00:11:11,200 --> 00:11:15,240
Speaker 7: person was selected based on a legally protected classification such

186
00:11:15,240 --> 00:11:18,280
Speaker 7: as race, But the claims could also be based on

187
00:11:18,679 --> 00:11:21,680
Speaker 7: the person having exercised their First Amendment rights of speech

188
00:11:22,080 --> 00:11:26,240
Speaker 7: and political assembly, for example, And so it would be

189
00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:29,280
Speaker 7: helpful to prevail on such a claim if the defendants

190
00:11:29,320 --> 00:11:33,360
Speaker 7: could show that standalone mortgage fraud claims without proof of

191
00:11:33,559 --> 00:11:38,079
Speaker 7: other criminal activity were rarely brought, and that there were

192
00:11:38,120 --> 00:11:43,200
Speaker 7: other similarly situated persons like themselves and other members of

193
00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:46,400
Speaker 7: the president's own parties, So people who are not political foes,

194
00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:49,320
Speaker 7: people who had not exercised their First Amendment rights to

195
00:11:49,360 --> 00:11:53,560
Speaker 7: criticize the president. If those people were factually similarly situated

196
00:11:53,720 --> 00:11:56,920
Speaker 7: but were not prosecuted, if that could be established, that

197
00:11:57,000 --> 00:11:59,480
Speaker 7: would be very helpful to the defendants if they were

198
00:11:59,520 --> 00:12:01,360
Speaker 7: to bring us elective prosecution claim.

199
00:12:02,480 --> 00:12:08,320
Speaker 2: The criminal referrals are coming from Bill Poulty, who is

200
00:12:08,520 --> 00:12:15,000
Speaker 2: the head of the FHFA, and Adam Schiff's attorney. Pret Barrara,

201
00:12:15,320 --> 00:12:18,640
Speaker 2: the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York,

202
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:23,200
Speaker 2: has described Paulty's actions as highly irregular and part of

203
00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:26,240
Speaker 2: a pattern of him misusing his office to go after

204
00:12:26,360 --> 00:12:31,800
Speaker 2: Trump's political opponents. Would his involvement here be part of,

205
00:12:32,480 --> 00:12:34,880
Speaker 2: you know, a defense if there were.

206
00:12:34,800 --> 00:12:38,440
Speaker 7: A claim for selective or vindictive prosecution, I think the

207
00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:41,880
Speaker 7: court would take into account what are the circumstances that

208
00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:46,600
Speaker 7: contributed to bringing the prosecution, And certainly, if there were

209
00:12:46,600 --> 00:12:51,079
Speaker 7: an evidentiary hearing, the court would consider evidence about those

210
00:12:51,160 --> 00:12:54,760
Speaker 7: circumstances and the historical facts about how this case actually

211
00:12:55,080 --> 00:12:58,080
Speaker 7: wound up being brought. I don't think the fact that

212
00:12:58,120 --> 00:13:01,880
Speaker 7: it originated in a referral from one particular agency versus

213
00:13:01,920 --> 00:13:06,000
Speaker 7: another would be dispositive. But if there's no history of

214
00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:10,280
Speaker 7: cases being referred from that agency that resulted in charges

215
00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:12,640
Speaker 7: being brought for a mortgage fraud, that would certainly be

216
00:13:12,720 --> 00:13:15,560
Speaker 7: I think a data point in the Court's analysis of

217
00:13:15,640 --> 00:13:20,239
Speaker 7: whether there was animus or selection based on political affiliation

218
00:13:20,360 --> 00:13:25,000
Speaker 7: or First Amendment rights behind these particular prosecutions. Something that

219
00:13:25,080 --> 00:13:27,840
Speaker 7: looks irregular, In other words, in the course of how

220
00:13:27,880 --> 00:13:31,360
Speaker 7: these cases were investigated and the decision to charge was made,

221
00:13:31,600 --> 00:13:33,720
Speaker 7: would be something that would be of concern to the Court.

222
00:13:34,080 --> 00:13:38,160
Speaker 2: Coming up next the White House's response, I'm June Grosso

223
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:44,400
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump appealed to

224
00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:48,599
Speaker 2: his Attorney General Pam Bondy on truth Social on Saturday

225
00:13:49,000 --> 00:13:54,080
Speaker 2: to bring charges against former FBI director James Comy, California

226
00:13:54,200 --> 00:13:58,160
Speaker 2: Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James,

227
00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:02,840
Speaker 2: and the Associated Is reporting that the Justice Department is

228
00:14:02,920 --> 00:14:06,800
Speaker 2: preparing to ask a grand jury to indict Comy on

229
00:14:07,000 --> 00:14:11,480
Speaker 2: allegations that he lied to Congress. As prosecutors approach a

230
00:14:11,559 --> 00:14:15,480
Speaker 2: legal deadline for bringing charges, I've been talking to former

231
00:14:15,520 --> 00:14:20,160
Speaker 2: federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School.

232
00:14:21,000 --> 00:14:24,240
Speaker 2: At a press briefing on Monday, the White House Press

233
00:14:24,280 --> 00:14:28,960
Speaker 2: Secretary Caroline Levitt said that the President is fulfilling his

234
00:14:29,040 --> 00:14:33,760
Speaker 2: promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability.

235
00:14:34,480 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 6: It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand

236
00:14:37,600 --> 00:14:42,160
Speaker 6: accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice, and

237
00:14:42,240 --> 00:14:45,280
Speaker 6: nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump.

238
00:14:45,520 --> 00:14:49,400
Speaker 2: Is there any explanation that would justify bringing these kinds

239
00:14:49,400 --> 00:14:53,040
Speaker 2: of prosecutions against political enemies.

240
00:14:54,400 --> 00:15:01,320
Speaker 7: I can't see any explanation for characterizing the these investigations

241
00:15:01,720 --> 00:15:05,240
Speaker 7: that gets around the fact that they seem to be

242
00:15:05,280 --> 00:15:11,720
Speaker 7: explicitly politically motivated and targeting the president's enemies and perceived

243
00:15:11,840 --> 00:15:17,800
Speaker 7: political enemies. If the President wanted to prioritize mortgage fraud cases,

244
00:15:18,200 --> 00:15:22,360
Speaker 7: that would be neutral in terms of who would be targeted.

245
00:15:22,640 --> 00:15:23,560
Speaker 7: That would be one thing.

246
00:15:23,680 --> 00:15:24,280
Speaker 1: That is the.

247
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:27,800
Speaker 7: Kind of policy decision with respect to criminal law enforcement

248
00:15:28,120 --> 00:15:33,880
Speaker 7: that prior administrations have pursued. Every administration has its criminal

249
00:15:33,960 --> 00:15:39,600
Speaker 7: law enforcement priorities, but to start with the individuals who

250
00:15:39,640 --> 00:15:43,040
Speaker 7: are to be prosecuted just flips the normal course and

251
00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:46,800
Speaker 7: the way in which decisions to investigate and prosecute should

252
00:15:46,840 --> 00:15:50,320
Speaker 7: be done and historically have been done following the facts

253
00:15:50,320 --> 00:15:54,520
Speaker 7: and the law, not targeting a particular individual to see

254
00:15:54,600 --> 00:15:57,960
Speaker 7: if any possible case can be developed against them based

255
00:15:58,000 --> 00:16:00,680
Speaker 7: on the fact that the individual is an enemy of

256
00:16:00,800 --> 00:16:02,720
Speaker 7: the president or the administration.

257
00:16:03,720 --> 00:16:07,040
Speaker 2: Three of the people we've been talking about, Letitia James,

258
00:16:07,360 --> 00:16:12,080
Speaker 2: Adam Schiff, and James Comy are attorneys. In fact, call

259
00:16:12,160 --> 00:16:16,720
Speaker 2: Me was formerly the US attorney for Manhattan, but all

260
00:16:16,760 --> 00:16:20,600
Speaker 2: three have hired the lawyers to represent them. Explain what

261
00:16:20,680 --> 00:16:24,720
Speaker 2: goes into having to defend yourself before charges are brought,

262
00:16:25,160 --> 00:16:29,200
Speaker 2: and then once charges are brought, even if they're dismissed

263
00:16:29,360 --> 00:16:31,760
Speaker 2: early on, even.

264
00:16:31,520 --> 00:16:36,560
Speaker 7: If charges are ultimately dismissed, a person's life can be

265
00:16:36,600 --> 00:16:41,480
Speaker 7: made deeply difficult, uncomfortable, and their reputation can be ruined,

266
00:16:41,840 --> 00:16:46,520
Speaker 7: and they can incur ruining financial expense in having to

267
00:16:46,560 --> 00:16:50,480
Speaker 7: defend themselves against allegations that are just out in the

268
00:16:50,480 --> 00:16:54,880
Speaker 7: public even prior to indictment, and then post indictment. Reportedly,

269
00:16:54,920 --> 00:16:58,600
Speaker 7: the individuals who have been named in these investigations have

270
00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:02,240
Speaker 7: had to incur a great deal of expense in lawyer's

271
00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:06,680
Speaker 7: fees in responding to subpoenas, going through their own information

272
00:17:06,800 --> 00:17:10,280
Speaker 7: even before subpoena is issued, to see how they would

273
00:17:10,440 --> 00:17:13,240
Speaker 7: prepare a defense, how they would respond to subpoenas when

274
00:17:13,240 --> 00:17:16,760
Speaker 7: and if they are issued. So is financially an enormous

275
00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:19,240
Speaker 7: burden on an individual is just to be the subject

276
00:17:19,280 --> 00:17:23,360
Speaker 7: of an investigation. And because the way this administration has

277
00:17:23,400 --> 00:17:27,600
Speaker 7: been carrying out a public campaign of smearing the reputations

278
00:17:27,600 --> 00:17:30,600
Speaker 7: of people, which is so far outside the norm of

279
00:17:30,600 --> 00:17:34,320
Speaker 7: what prosecutors ordinarily do and are permitted to do under

280
00:17:34,359 --> 00:17:38,480
Speaker 7: ethics rules, the reputations of these individuals is just being

281
00:17:38,560 --> 00:17:42,720
Speaker 7: dragged through the mud. So we have an complete upending

282
00:17:42,760 --> 00:17:45,399
Speaker 7: of norms in terms of how the Department of Justice

283
00:17:45,520 --> 00:17:48,680
Speaker 7: and the President are going about carrying out a public

284
00:17:48,920 --> 00:17:53,520
Speaker 7: campaign against individuals even before they are charged, and setting

285
00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:56,639
Speaker 7: up a situation where so much is already in the

286
00:17:56,920 --> 00:18:01,040
Speaker 7: public domain, long before charges have been fought and may

287
00:18:01,040 --> 00:18:01,800
Speaker 7: never be filed.

288
00:18:02,800 --> 00:18:07,520
Speaker 2: I'm wondering what this kind of pressure does to attorneys

289
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:11,240
Speaker 2: at the Justice department. There have been both a lot

290
00:18:11,240 --> 00:18:15,920
Speaker 2: of resignations and a lot of firings. What effect does

291
00:18:15,920 --> 00:18:20,040
Speaker 2: this kind of pressure have on the attorneys as they

292
00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:21,679
Speaker 2: do the everyday work.

293
00:18:22,000 --> 00:18:26,160
Speaker 7: This must be enormously demoralizing to attorneys who are still

294
00:18:26,160 --> 00:18:31,359
Speaker 7: working at the Department of Justice, who recognize these efforts

295
00:18:31,440 --> 00:18:38,640
Speaker 7: to investigate and prosecute individuals based on their political speech

296
00:18:38,960 --> 00:18:43,679
Speaker 7: and political affiliation, who recognize this as a tremendous departure

297
00:18:44,119 --> 00:18:48,879
Speaker 7: from not only prosecutorial norms of independence, but from the

298
00:18:48,960 --> 00:18:52,720
Speaker 7: rule of law. And the question is whether those individuals

299
00:18:52,720 --> 00:18:55,000
Speaker 7: who have stuck it out thus far at the Department

300
00:18:55,080 --> 00:18:59,119
Speaker 7: of Justice under President Trump will resign now or whether

301
00:18:59,200 --> 00:19:03,520
Speaker 7: they will wait and they are individually directed to charge

302
00:19:03,680 --> 00:19:08,480
Speaker 7: a person without sufficient evidence based on political motivations, and

303
00:19:08,520 --> 00:19:12,960
Speaker 7: who will be left because as difficult as it would

304
00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:16,240
Speaker 7: be to stay on in the Department of Justice that

305
00:19:16,359 --> 00:19:19,920
Speaker 7: is operating in this fashion, in a sense, we depend

306
00:19:20,119 --> 00:19:24,159
Speaker 7: on career prosecutors who do know what it takes to

307
00:19:24,200 --> 00:19:26,280
Speaker 7: build a case and what is required of them in

308
00:19:26,320 --> 00:19:30,040
Speaker 7: terms of professional norms and their professional ethical obligations. We

309
00:19:30,160 --> 00:19:33,200
Speaker 7: depend on them to be a bulwark against the president,

310
00:19:33,520 --> 00:19:39,919
Speaker 7: the Attorney General and against appointees who the President increasingly

311
00:19:39,960 --> 00:19:44,480
Speaker 7: puts into positions of authority as interim US attorneys, so

312
00:19:44,600 --> 00:19:49,080
Speaker 7: with ultimate authority over the decisions within an individual attorney's office.

313
00:19:49,280 --> 00:19:53,639
Speaker 7: People who have in many cases little to no experience

314
00:19:53,680 --> 00:19:58,239
Speaker 7: as prosecutors or even as criminal law attorneys, who have

315
00:19:58,840 --> 00:20:02,760
Speaker 7: ties to the pres and our loyalist to the president,

316
00:20:02,840 --> 00:20:06,680
Speaker 7: and dependent on the President for their careers. When those

317
00:20:06,720 --> 00:20:10,439
Speaker 7: people are in the highest positions in offices, we really

318
00:20:10,520 --> 00:20:14,600
Speaker 7: rely on the line prosecutors who have been trained in

319
00:20:14,760 --> 00:20:19,399
Speaker 7: professional norms and the law to do their jobs consistent

320
00:20:19,480 --> 00:20:22,040
Speaker 7: with their training and to serve as that bulwark. And

321
00:20:22,080 --> 00:20:25,760
Speaker 7: if those people are all forced out, either because they're

322
00:20:25,800 --> 00:20:28,560
Speaker 7: fired or because they resign because they can no longer

323
00:20:28,560 --> 00:20:31,560
Speaker 7: in good conscience, day than we are at a very

324
00:20:31,600 --> 00:20:32,280
Speaker 7: scary place.

325
00:20:32,600 --> 00:20:36,280
Speaker 2: It's great to get your insights, Jessica. That's Professor Jessica

326
00:20:36,400 --> 00:20:40,560
Speaker 2: Roth of Cardozo Law School. On New York Federal judge

327
00:20:40,560 --> 00:20:45,160
Speaker 2: says that at least two senior Justice Department officials probably

328
00:20:45,280 --> 00:20:50,160
Speaker 2: violated court rules by reposting comments that President Trump made

329
00:20:50,280 --> 00:20:59,200
Speaker 2: about Luigi Mangoni on Fox News on September eighteenthey.

330
00:20:56,840 --> 00:21:00,480
Speaker 3: He shot someone in the back, as clear as you're

331
00:21:00,520 --> 00:21:04,399
Speaker 3: looking at me or I'm looking at you. He looked

332
00:21:04,440 --> 00:21:07,600
Speaker 3: like a pure assassin. I was surprised, actually, you know,

333
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:09,400
Speaker 3: you would have thought this guy would have been at

334
00:21:09,400 --> 00:21:12,119
Speaker 3: a central casting in the movie. And maybe he was.

335
00:21:12,920 --> 00:21:16,080
Speaker 3: But he think of what he did. He openly, it's

336
00:21:16,080 --> 00:21:18,359
Speaker 3: not like she does a question. If there's a question,

337
00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:21,760
Speaker 3: you can understand it, maybe, but there's not a question.

338
00:21:22,440 --> 00:21:26,199
Speaker 2: A video clip of Trump's remarks was posted on the

339
00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:30,400
Speaker 2: social platform x by the White House, and then reposted

340
00:21:30,440 --> 00:21:34,640
Speaker 2: by a Justice Department spokesperson who added the comment quote

341
00:21:34,840 --> 00:21:38,760
Speaker 2: at potus is absolutely right joining me is Bloomberg Legal

342
00:21:38,840 --> 00:21:42,679
Speaker 2: reporter Patricia Hurtado pat tell us about the warning the

343
00:21:42,840 --> 00:21:45,800
Speaker 2: judge gave the Justice Department, Well.

344
00:21:45,640 --> 00:21:49,240
Speaker 1: It comes on the heels of late Friday. Man Gioni's

345
00:21:49,480 --> 00:21:53,399
Speaker 1: lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the indictment or another

346
00:21:53,480 --> 00:21:57,120
Speaker 1: remedy would be two block prosecutors bringing the death penalty

347
00:21:57,160 --> 00:22:01,320
Speaker 1: against him in the federal case, arguing that the Attorney

348
00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:04,400
Speaker 1: General and so many people in the government have made

349
00:22:04,520 --> 00:22:09,880
Speaker 1: statements declaring him guilty. Pam Bonti put things on Twitter

350
00:22:10,200 --> 00:22:14,199
Speaker 1: and those kind of extraneous statements outside of court He

351
00:22:14,520 --> 00:22:17,960
Speaker 1: argued that they poisoned his potential jury pull and was

352
00:22:18,040 --> 00:22:20,040
Speaker 1: going to deprive him of a right to a fair trial,

353
00:22:20,480 --> 00:22:23,680
Speaker 1: especially when he's fighting the death penalty, which is such

354
00:22:23,720 --> 00:22:27,639
Speaker 1: an extraordinary penalty. And then the supplemental filing came in

355
00:22:27,760 --> 00:22:31,600
Speaker 1: night before last, and it was Mangion's lawyers complaining about

356
00:22:31,720 --> 00:22:36,439
Speaker 1: further comments made now by President Trump on Fox News.

357
00:22:37,280 --> 00:22:43,320
Speaker 1: Top DOJ officials retweeted, and White House officials, including Caroline Levitt,

358
00:22:43,359 --> 00:22:47,879
Speaker 1: the White House spokeswoman, basically declaring that Mangioni, who was

359
00:22:47,920 --> 00:22:51,040
Speaker 1: the killer, he was called an assassin, and they were

360
00:22:51,119 --> 00:22:55,840
Speaker 1: linking him to left wing extremists and suggesting he had

361
00:22:55,880 --> 00:23:00,320
Speaker 1: links to people like in antifa, anti fascist organizations, like

362
00:23:00,400 --> 00:23:03,240
Speaker 1: those that had carried out, you know, the killing of

363
00:23:03,960 --> 00:23:07,119
Speaker 1: They didn't mention Charlie Kirk by name, but they insinuated it,

364
00:23:07,640 --> 00:23:12,560
Speaker 1: and DOJ officials had retweeted comments made by the White House.

365
00:23:12,640 --> 00:23:15,760
Speaker 1: A White House official website put it out. Two DOJ

366
00:23:15,960 --> 00:23:19,840
Speaker 1: officials put it out as well as Caroline Levitt at

367
00:23:19,840 --> 00:23:23,760
Speaker 1: a press briefing that was televised also called him an assassin.

368
00:23:23,880 --> 00:23:27,320
Speaker 1: After that happens, Luigi's lawyers complained to get into the

369
00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:30,440
Speaker 1: judge saying, oh, here's further evidence, and this comes on

370
00:23:30,480 --> 00:23:32,160
Speaker 1: the heels of what we said on Friday.

371
00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:34,720
Speaker 2: Did the judge rule from the bench or did she

372
00:23:34,800 --> 00:23:39,800
Speaker 2: take some time to consider the defense's request within minutes.

373
00:23:40,280 --> 00:23:42,640
Speaker 1: The judge in the case, her name is Margaret Garnett,

374
00:23:42,720 --> 00:23:46,080
Speaker 1: she put in an ordered basically threatening that there could

375
00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:49,640
Speaker 1: be sanctions if anybody at DOJ continued to do this.

376
00:23:50,200 --> 00:23:52,840
Speaker 1: And she says it's the duty of the lawyer or

377
00:23:52,920 --> 00:23:58,480
Speaker 1: law firm and of non lawyer personnel to follow her rules.

378
00:23:58,600 --> 00:24:01,639
Speaker 1: And there's a local rule that you're not supposed to

379
00:24:02,040 --> 00:24:05,639
Speaker 1: poison or make comments about a defendant's guilt now that

380
00:24:05,720 --> 00:24:08,679
Speaker 1: the case is in the pre trial phase, and his

381
00:24:08,800 --> 00:24:13,400
Speaker 1: lawyers complained that it basically hampers and hinders their chances

382
00:24:13,400 --> 00:24:16,639
Speaker 1: of getting an untainted jury that can keep an open

383
00:24:16,720 --> 00:24:20,399
Speaker 1: mind about guilt or innocence. She was also suggesting that

384
00:24:20,440 --> 00:24:25,320
Speaker 1: it appears to include people like Attorney General Pam Bondi,

385
00:24:25,800 --> 00:24:28,960
Speaker 1: that they were aware and understood that they were bound

386
00:24:29,000 --> 00:24:32,480
Speaker 1: by this rule. She said, so she wanted a report

387
00:24:32,560 --> 00:24:35,919
Speaker 1: given to her, either from prosecutors in the office or

388
00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:39,480
Speaker 1: from dj to explain to her how they hadn't violated

389
00:24:39,520 --> 00:24:41,400
Speaker 1: the rule and to make sure that there was going

390
00:24:41,440 --> 00:24:44,520
Speaker 1: to be a dissemination of her rule, to make sure

391
00:24:44,600 --> 00:24:48,359
Speaker 1: everybody at DOJ understood what the rule was, don't violate it.

392
00:24:48,920 --> 00:24:53,920
Speaker 2: So now, the judge said that future violations may result

393
00:24:53,960 --> 00:24:58,919
Speaker 2: in sanctions which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of

394
00:24:59,000 --> 00:25:04,119
Speaker 2: court finding, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter.

395
00:25:04,480 --> 00:25:09,000
Speaker 2: Could relief specific to the prosecution of this matter mean

396
00:25:09,480 --> 00:25:13,600
Speaker 2: precluding the federal government from seeking the death penalty or

397
00:25:13,680 --> 00:25:16,360
Speaker 2: even dismissing the federal charges.

398
00:25:16,880 --> 00:25:20,280
Speaker 1: Well, that's what the defense for Manngion argues that this

399
00:25:20,560 --> 00:25:23,520
Speaker 1: is making it impossible for him to get a fair

400
00:25:23,600 --> 00:25:26,080
Speaker 1: federal trial because, I mean, if you have the President

401
00:25:26,119 --> 00:25:29,199
Speaker 1: of the United States making comments on national television, you

402
00:25:29,320 --> 00:25:32,760
Speaker 1: wonder if your potential jury pool is going to be poisoned. Yes,

403
00:25:32,840 --> 00:25:35,840
Speaker 1: that's down the road, but if the ultimate penalty for

404
00:25:35,960 --> 00:25:40,080
Speaker 1: a murder conviction is the death penalty, you wonder if

405
00:25:40,200 --> 00:25:43,080
Speaker 1: somebody as important as the President of the United States,

406
00:25:43,119 --> 00:25:46,640
Speaker 1: as a White House spokeswoman are making comments, as well

407
00:25:46,680 --> 00:25:50,040
Speaker 1: as the Attorney General and top members of DOJ are

408
00:25:50,080 --> 00:25:53,880
Speaker 1: making comments about your guilt, you wonder about the chances

409
00:25:53,880 --> 00:25:56,120
Speaker 1: of getting a fair trial and that's what the defense

410
00:25:56,160 --> 00:25:59,800
Speaker 1: has argued. The ultimate penalty and sanction should be either

411
00:25:59,800 --> 00:26:03,040
Speaker 1: dismissal of the indictment or take the death penalty off

412
00:26:03,080 --> 00:26:03,400
Speaker 1: the table.

413
00:26:03,440 --> 00:26:06,720
Speaker 2: From Angel, what's the timeframe here? How long did the

414
00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:10,160
Speaker 2: judge give the Justice Department to come back with this.

415
00:26:10,800 --> 00:26:14,760
Speaker 1: She's basically wants to know by October third to have

416
00:26:14,960 --> 00:26:18,639
Speaker 1: have a response and a sworn declaration from somebody. And

417
00:26:18,720 --> 00:26:21,840
Speaker 1: she calls it suitable authority, and she named either the

418
00:26:21,920 --> 00:26:25,280
Speaker 1: chief of the Criminal Division in the Southern District or

419
00:26:25,359 --> 00:26:28,640
Speaker 1: another prosecutor in the Southern District. You know, one thing

420
00:26:28,680 --> 00:26:31,800
Speaker 1: to remember about all of this is that we've had

421
00:26:31,840 --> 00:26:36,040
Speaker 1: instances in the past where even a defendant on trial

422
00:26:36,200 --> 00:26:38,720
Speaker 1: in the middle of their trial has been ordered to

423
00:26:38,760 --> 00:26:42,000
Speaker 1: stop making public statements to the press. I mean, we

424
00:26:42,040 --> 00:26:45,320
Speaker 1: had Martin Screlly, who was not facing the death penalty

425
00:26:45,720 --> 00:26:48,760
Speaker 1: but just securities fraw charges, and he was on trial,

426
00:26:48,800 --> 00:26:51,960
Speaker 1: and he walked out and he started talking, and he would,

427
00:26:52,160 --> 00:26:54,800
Speaker 1: you know, make comments every time he left the courthouse,

428
00:26:55,080 --> 00:26:58,360
Speaker 1: and finally the judge was co concerned that he might

429
00:26:58,400 --> 00:27:01,359
Speaker 1: be saying something outside the courthouse front door that the

430
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:04,119
Speaker 1: jurors might hear that you gave him a limit, like

431
00:27:04,160 --> 00:27:08,480
Speaker 1: a parameter of an electric fence, not to talk around

432
00:27:08,560 --> 00:27:11,919
Speaker 1: the courthouse perimeter. So I mean that's somebody they're on

433
00:27:11,960 --> 00:27:14,520
Speaker 1: trial and they're fighting for their life and their career,

434
00:27:14,840 --> 00:27:17,440
Speaker 1: but not fighting against the death penalty and a murder

435
00:27:17,480 --> 00:27:21,400
Speaker 1: conviction that could be life in prison without parole, and.

436
00:27:21,400 --> 00:27:24,760
Speaker 2: Asking to have the federal charges dismissed or the death

437
00:27:24,800 --> 00:27:28,640
Speaker 2: penalty taken off the table. One of the things man

438
00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:33,879
Speaker 2: Joni's lawyers brought up was the high publicity and that

439
00:27:33,960 --> 00:27:36,919
Speaker 2: purp walk that looked like it was staged on a

440
00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:38,320
Speaker 2: Hollywood movie set.

441
00:27:39,400 --> 00:27:42,000
Speaker 1: Well, they talk about the purp Walk. If you think

442
00:27:42,040 --> 00:27:45,960
Speaker 1: about how this case started and the shooting happens first

443
00:27:46,000 --> 00:27:49,879
Speaker 1: week of December. There's a five day man hunt, he's

444
00:27:50,119 --> 00:27:55,640
Speaker 1: arrested in Altuna, Pennsylvania, and then Mangione gets airlifted back

445
00:27:55,720 --> 00:27:59,600
Speaker 1: to New York in a helicopter. He gets brought off

446
00:27:59,640 --> 00:28:03,840
Speaker 1: to Hellpter and he's in shackles and he's surrounded by

447
00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:08,840
Speaker 1: a failanx of armed officers in technical gear. His lawyers

448
00:28:08,880 --> 00:28:12,280
Speaker 1: compared that to looking like something out of a Marvel movie.

449
00:28:12,400 --> 00:28:15,800
Speaker 1: You know that he's not some anti hero, evil villain.

450
00:28:16,040 --> 00:28:19,320
Speaker 1: He's a defendant to have a fair trial. But even

451
00:28:19,320 --> 00:28:22,160
Speaker 1: when he comes to court, they complain that he has

452
00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:25,880
Speaker 1: been produced shackled. He's wearing what they call a three

453
00:28:25,920 --> 00:28:29,399
Speaker 1: piece suit by federal marshals, and that means you've got

454
00:28:29,440 --> 00:28:33,000
Speaker 1: a belt around your waist that's leather with chains like

455
00:28:33,119 --> 00:28:36,720
Speaker 1: Marley's Ghost, you have shackles around your ankles. And he

456
00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:39,480
Speaker 1: gets brought in like this, and at some points he's

457
00:28:39,520 --> 00:28:42,479
Speaker 1: been wearing like a flak jacket on top of that,

458
00:28:42,680 --> 00:28:45,440
Speaker 1: and his lawyers have said, why can't he wear street clothes.

459
00:28:45,480 --> 00:28:48,360
Speaker 1: Other defendants are allowed to come to court and street clothes.

460
00:28:48,880 --> 00:28:53,600
Speaker 2: And also they're claiming that Bondy rushed the decision to

461
00:28:53,640 --> 00:28:58,000
Speaker 2: seek the death penalty and didn't use the protocol that

462
00:28:58,120 --> 00:29:01,560
Speaker 2: prior administrations have used to assess whether there should be

463
00:29:01,640 --> 00:29:02,880
Speaker 2: capital murder charges.

464
00:29:03,160 --> 00:29:06,560
Speaker 1: They're alleging that early on in the waning days of

465
00:29:06,600 --> 00:29:09,800
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, manngi Own's lawyers tried to meet with

466
00:29:09,920 --> 00:29:14,240
Speaker 1: DOJ and the pros Aligned prosecutors from Manhattan FED and

467
00:29:14,320 --> 00:29:16,520
Speaker 1: that they were told they had to wait and they

468
00:29:16,520 --> 00:29:20,600
Speaker 1: were basically put off until the Trump administration takes over.

469
00:29:21,240 --> 00:29:24,520
Speaker 1: I've covered other federal death penalty cases, there's typically a

470
00:29:24,560 --> 00:29:28,440
Speaker 1: procedure that takes months that called the death panel, and

471
00:29:28,560 --> 00:29:32,160
Speaker 1: basically the defense lawyers are allowed to go down and

472
00:29:32,240 --> 00:29:36,240
Speaker 1: main justice and make a presentation to argue mitigating factors

473
00:29:36,320 --> 00:29:39,560
Speaker 1: why it's not a good idea to seek the death penalty,

474
00:29:39,640 --> 00:29:41,800
Speaker 1: or why the death penalty is not appropriate for their

475
00:29:41,800 --> 00:29:44,560
Speaker 1: client's case, for example, if they have a history of

476
00:29:44,600 --> 00:29:47,800
Speaker 1: being abused as a child, or some kind of psychiatric

477
00:29:47,920 --> 00:29:51,640
Speaker 1: problem or some kind of health issue or something, and

478
00:29:51,720 --> 00:29:55,400
Speaker 1: they're allowed to bring the mitigating factors to the government's

479
00:29:55,400 --> 00:29:59,320
Speaker 1: attention so that DOJ may decide, Okay, the death penalty

480
00:29:59,360 --> 00:30:02,480
Speaker 1: doesn't seem a appropriate for this case. They argue this

481
00:30:02,680 --> 00:30:05,400
Speaker 1: was never done, they were never allowed to, and that

482
00:30:05,640 --> 00:30:11,520
Speaker 1: the DOJ with Pambondi automatically leapfrogged, basically jettisoned any kind

483
00:30:11,560 --> 00:30:15,120
Speaker 1: of panel hearing or any mitigating factors hearing, and decided

484
00:30:15,320 --> 00:30:18,800
Speaker 1: on her own, without anybody's input and without hearing from

485
00:30:18,840 --> 00:30:21,120
Speaker 1: the defense, to just go ahead and seek the death penalty.

486
00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:24,840
Speaker 1: So it was a set of complay. According to the defense, what's.

487
00:30:24,640 --> 00:30:26,800
Speaker 2: The next thing that will happen in these cases?

488
00:30:27,600 --> 00:30:30,160
Speaker 1: Well, the next thing that we are waiting for is

489
00:30:30,520 --> 00:30:34,280
Speaker 1: man Gioni's lawyers are supposed to by next week tell

490
00:30:34,360 --> 00:30:37,160
Speaker 1: the court whether or not they're going to in the

491
00:30:37,200 --> 00:30:40,600
Speaker 1: state case and try to put a psychiatric defense up.

492
00:30:41,080 --> 00:30:43,880
Speaker 1: So these are dual cases, and the judge in the

493
00:30:43,920 --> 00:30:48,080
Speaker 1: state case made ruling last week where his lawyers had

494
00:30:48,200 --> 00:30:52,560
Speaker 1: argued this was unfair, it was double jeopardy. In their assessment,

495
00:30:52,640 --> 00:30:55,800
Speaker 1: they said that having to defend himself in a state

496
00:30:55,920 --> 00:30:59,440
Speaker 1: murder case as well at the same time also fighting

497
00:30:59,640 --> 00:31:03,160
Speaker 1: a federal death penalty case was unfair and amounted to

498
00:31:03,200 --> 00:31:06,720
Speaker 1: double jeopardy. The judge in the state case ruled that

499
00:31:06,840 --> 00:31:09,440
Speaker 1: he thought it was too early because the Feds haven't

500
00:31:09,480 --> 00:31:12,800
Speaker 1: started their case. I mean, technically the prosecution is pending,

501
00:31:13,160 --> 00:31:16,560
Speaker 1: but there isn't any trial, So in the date judges assessment,

502
00:31:16,720 --> 00:31:20,120
Speaker 1: it wasn't a double jeopardy problem. It does seem to be, though,

503
00:31:20,200 --> 00:31:23,720
Speaker 1: quind of tough, because there's duly front for Maggione.

504
00:31:24,360 --> 00:31:27,600
Speaker 2: And we should point out that while double jeopardy prevents

505
00:31:27,600 --> 00:31:32,120
Speaker 2: a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense,

506
00:31:32,840 --> 00:31:37,040
Speaker 2: the dual sofe running doctrine allows separate state and federal

507
00:31:37,440 --> 00:31:40,000
Speaker 2: prosecutions for the same conduct.

508
00:31:40,400 --> 00:31:43,360
Speaker 1: The other thing that Mangione's defense has argued is in

509
00:31:43,400 --> 00:31:46,880
Speaker 1: cases like if I don't know our listeners, remember that

510
00:31:46,920 --> 00:31:51,040
Speaker 1: there was a gentleman named Sepos and he was accused

511
00:31:51,040 --> 00:31:54,880
Speaker 1: of mowing down pedestrians on a bike path in Lower

512
00:31:54,920 --> 00:31:59,240
Speaker 1: Manhattan and he ran them down and killed people and

513
00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:02,880
Speaker 1: was convicted. But there was a steakcase and a federal case,

514
00:32:03,280 --> 00:32:06,080
Speaker 1: and there was a time lag between the statecase and

515
00:32:06,120 --> 00:32:09,480
Speaker 1: the federal case, so they weren't proceeding on parallel front

516
00:32:09,520 --> 00:32:13,440
Speaker 1: sets simultaneously, which is what Luigi Mangiones lawyers are saying

517
00:32:13,480 --> 00:32:15,320
Speaker 1: is happening to their clients that.

518
00:32:15,320 --> 00:32:18,240
Speaker 2: Might prove to be an uphill battle. Thanks so much, Pat.

519
00:32:18,520 --> 00:32:21,920
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, and that's it for

520
00:32:21,960 --> 00:32:24,600
Speaker 2: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

521
00:32:24,640 --> 00:32:27,840
Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

522
00:32:28,120 --> 00:32:31,160
Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

523
00:32:31,320 --> 00:32:36,360
Speaker 2: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and

524
00:32:36,440 --> 00:32:39,480
Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

525
00:32:39,600 --> 00:32:43,040
Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

526
00:32:43,080 --> 00:32:44,560
Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg