Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: More than three years ago, the Justice Department was touting
Speaker 2: the guilty verdicts against members of the right wing Oathkeepers
Speaker 2: for a plot to obstruct Congress's certification of the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty presidential election. The rare seditious conspiracy verdicts were the
Speaker 2: crowning achievement of an expansive prosecution effort that followed the
Speaker 2: violent riots at the Capitol on January sixth of twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one. But when Donald Trump took office for the
Speaker 2: second time, he directed his sweeping clemency power toward the
Speaker 2: more than fifteen hundred people charged in connection with the
Speaker 2: January sixth attack.
Speaker 3: I was very proud to pardon the j six postige.
Speaker 2: And when Trump bragged about the pardons at a rally
Speaker 2: about a week later, sitting behind him in the VIP
Speaker 2: section was Stuart Rhodes, the leader of the oath Keepers
Speaker 2: who'd been released from prison just days earlier after Trump
Speaker 2: commuted his eighteen year sentence for seditious conspiracy. And now
Speaker 2: the Trump administration is trying to rewrite the history of
Speaker 2: the January sixth attack by dismissing the indictments against the
Speaker 2: oath Keeper's hack. Federal Judge Amitt Metta, who had presided
Speaker 2: over the oath Keeper's case and sentenced the defendants, criticized
Speaker 2: the Justice Department, writing that the government quote asked to
Speaker 2: absolve these defendants of crimes against the United States itself,
Speaker 2: but he wrote that he had no choice but to
Speaker 2: grant the administration's motion to dismiss Joining me is Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Legal reporter Zoe Zoe tell us about the charges against
Speaker 2: the oath Keepers and their significance.
Speaker 1: So this was one of the highest profile cases to
Speaker 1: come out of the January sixth secution effort, where members
Speaker 1: of the oath Keepers, which was a right wing extremist group,
Speaker 1: were charged with conspiring well in advance of January sixth,
Speaker 1: not only to come to Washington to do whatever it
Speaker 1: took to stop Congress from certifying the election results, but
Speaker 1: also to bring guns and to stockpile them at a
Speaker 1: hotel in Virginia. And the theory of that prosecution was,
Speaker 1: you know, these were not people going to protest and
Speaker 1: accidentally got swept up that they had been planning potentially
Speaker 1: to use force and violence to stop Congress. From certifying
Speaker 1: the election. This was arguably the highest profile of not
Speaker 1: one of the most high profile cases. It involved charges
Speaker 1: and ultimately convictions for a seditious conspiracy, which was a
Speaker 1: very rarely used offense. It's you know, use of force
Speaker 1: against the US government. This is more than just the
Speaker 1: garden variety, so to speak, conspiracy to obstruct Congress to
Speaker 1: that many people faced after January sixth, So these cases
Speaker 1: were really top of mind for the Justice Department and
Speaker 1: for the public's understanding of the most serious crimes that
Speaker 1: were being charged in connection with what had happened on January.
Speaker 2: Six and how many people were actually convicted in this
Speaker 2: particular case.
Speaker 1: There were several dozen I believe prosecutions related in some
Speaker 1: way to the oathkeepers. But what it came down to
Speaker 1: here was eight defendants who were convicted, including some of
Speaker 1: seditious conspiracy, but who weren't part of the Trump pardon.
Speaker 1: You might remember, on January twentieth, he takes office, he
Speaker 1: issues a sweeping executive clemency action that covers almost everybody,
Speaker 1: but not everybody convicted or charged in the January sixth cases,
Speaker 1: and there were fourteen people who didn't get pardons, but
Speaker 1: their sentences were commuted, and that included eight of the
Speaker 1: remaining defendants whose cases were an issue here related to
Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers case, So, you know, their cases then had
Speaker 1: still been out there, they.
Speaker 4: Were appealing their convictions.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, the Justice Department came back and said to the
Speaker 1: courts that they wished to vacate those convictions even though
Speaker 1: Trump hadn't pardoned them. So those were struck, and then
Speaker 1: what was left were the indictments. They were still you know,
Speaker 1: on the record, criminally charged with these offenses, and that's
Speaker 1: what was left for the judge to resolve here.
Speaker 2: Why didn't Trump pardon them as well?
Speaker 1: I don't think that he's ever publicly discussed this at length,
Speaker 1: but I think the inference was that the fourteen people
Speaker 1: were members of the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys, and
Speaker 1: these were the most serious, seditious conspiracy cases that the
Speaker 1: Justice Department had brought. And you know, leading up to
Speaker 1: Trump returning to office, there had been rumblings coming from
Speaker 1: Republicans and conservatives, not just Democrats and liberals, blocking at
Speaker 1: the idea that people who beat up cops, committed violence,
Speaker 1: or who were convicted of these most serious offenses against
Speaker 1: the United States government that they should perhaps not benefit
Speaker 1: from executive clemency, and there was some infighting on the
Speaker 1: right about whether that would be appropriate and acceptable, and
Speaker 1: ultimately the President had a sweeping clemency action that covered
Speaker 1: many people who were convicted or charged with assaulting police officers,
Speaker 1: but it seemed like perhaps the seditious conspiracy cases were
Speaker 1: this outlier, so he commuted the sentences. They were released
Speaker 1: from prison, but didn't take that final step at the time,
Speaker 1: at least to give them a full pardon.
Speaker 2: Have you heard before of the Justice Department getting convictions
Speaker 2: asking to have them vacated and asking to have the
Speaker 2: indictments dismissed.
Speaker 1: So the convictions were already vacated, the cases were up
Speaker 1: on appeal, and the Justice departments asked the appeals court
Speaker 1: to basically kick them back down with an order to
Speaker 1: vacate them, finding it.
Speaker 4: Was in the public interest.
Speaker 1: The judge in the opinion that we wrote about sort
Speaker 1: of notes that there wasn't much explanation as to why
Speaker 1: they wanted to do that and why the DC circuits
Speaker 1: signed off on that. That being said, there is just
Speaker 1: a lot of prosecutorial discretion at every level of these cases.
Speaker 1: So when administrations change, there are always, no matter who's
Speaker 1: in charge, backtracking of prosecutorial decisions that have been made
Speaker 1: by past administrations. That's certainly something we see. So what
Speaker 1: was left was just that the indictments were still active.
Speaker 1: You know, in theory they could vacate these convictions, but say,
Speaker 1: you know, there were problems with how this prosecution happened,
Speaker 1: but we're going to try them again. That was still
Speaker 1: an option, or just to leave them intact, as the
Speaker 1: judge said, you know, to create some record that this
Speaker 1: had all happened in some official legal capacity.
Speaker 2: The judge pointed out the prosecutors never admitted to any
Speaker 2: prosecutorial misconduct or legal error or said that the evidence
Speaker 2: was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. So was he
Speaker 2: trying to say that this is not about the weaponization
Speaker 2: of the Justice Department, as the Trump administration and President
Speaker 2: Trump keeps claiming.
Speaker 1: Basically, yes, I think he felt that he needed to
Speaker 1: highlight what was a series of unusual events and you know,
Speaker 1: in his mind, perplexing and surprising arguments that the government
Speaker 1: ultimately made to do something that he acknowledged they have
Speaker 1: the authority to do. It's just normally, he said, it's
Speaker 1: because they might say, you know, we looked at the
Speaker 1: evidence again, it was insufficient. We identified deficiencies with what
Speaker 1: was charged, how the prosecution played out. You know, those
Speaker 1: are the normal reasons that you would see the government
Speaker 1: walk back a case where it's already won a conviction.
Speaker 1: That didn't happen here. And the judge said, what he
Speaker 1: received from the government was a couple of arguments. One
Speaker 1: was to protect these defendants from harassment, that as long
Speaker 1: as the indictments were on the book, the potential for
Speaker 1: you know, maybe some future trial that this was harassing
Speaker 1: of individuals whose sentences had been commuted and their convictions vacated.
Speaker 4: The other reason that he really.
Speaker 1: Took issue with was this idea that the department said,
Speaker 1: there was so much publicity around these trials and prosecutions
Speaker 1: that you don't need a record of criminal activity in
Speaker 1: the courts. People can just go back and see what
Speaker 1: happened because there was media coverage. And the judge said,
Speaker 1: you know, that is not the government stance. The government
Speaker 1: normally feels that. I think he said, you know, actual
Speaker 1: accountability is what is in the public interests, not media
Speaker 1: coverage or public attention. And then Finally, he also pointed
Speaker 1: out that to say that this was in line with
Speaker 1: Trump the president's intent didn't quite square with the fact
Speaker 1: that the President had decided to not pardon these defendants,
Speaker 1: So he also identified an incongruity in that logic. I
Speaker 1: think what was really striking about this opinion June was
Speaker 1: that he decided to take the opportunity to make clear
Speaker 1: that he was quite disappointed and dismayed and.
Speaker 4: Upset at the outcome of all of this.
Speaker 1: These were cases that really consumed the Federal Court in
Speaker 1: Washington for years after two thousand and one. It was
Speaker 1: all encompassing, and all the judges spent countless hours reviewing
Speaker 1: body camera footage from that day, evidence testimony from police
Speaker 1: officers who were there, and Judge Mata and other colleagues
Speaker 1: on the bench have publicly expressed their consternation at what
Speaker 1: they see as a rewriting of fact of what happened
Speaker 1: on January sixth, and the culpability of at least many
Speaker 1: of the people who were charged and convicted or what
Speaker 1: happened that day.
Speaker 2: You could see almost the sort of sadness and the
Speaker 2: solemnity behind this. Today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of that
Speaker 2: day denigrates the work of the prosecutors law enforcement officers
Speaker 2: who secured these convictions and excuses criminal acts that caused
Speaker 2: a century's long pillar of our democracy, the peaceful transfer
Speaker 2: presidential power to buckle. But he said, the court cannot
Speaker 2: write a different ending. He had no choice. He had
Speaker 2: to accept it, right.
Speaker 4: And you know, his choice was to write what he wrote.
Speaker 1: And he could have simply said, you know, given the
Speaker 1: explanation from the government, and given the court's lack of
Speaker 1: authority to supersede these types.
Speaker 4: Of decisions, I grant the request.
Speaker 1: I think the choice ultimately that he made was to
Speaker 1: put down these words that I have to think he
Speaker 1: knew would get attention and get some coverage as a
Speaker 1: way of closing out, perhaps the public record of everything
Speaker 1: that had happened, and maintaining an official record through the
Speaker 1: legal proceeding of at least his perception of what had happened.
Speaker 4: And this judge had handled.
Speaker 1: This case from the very beginning, so he had been
Speaker 1: there from the start and chose to express these thoughts
Speaker 1: which one of the defendants already has objected to, and
Speaker 1: ask that he go back and strike a lot of
Speaker 1: the extra what they saw is the extra language that
Speaker 1: was very unfair to their client. As the defense attorneys noted,
Speaker 1: you know, as long as these convictions were on appeal,
Speaker 1: they were never finalized, so there was still this presumption
Speaker 1: of innocence that individuals have until it's final And they
Speaker 1: argued that they would like him to strike at least
Speaker 1: some of this language from the opinion in light of that, and.
Speaker 2: That was a motion made to judgmenta himself.
Speaker 1: That's right, that came shortly after the opinion was released.
Speaker 4: A motion to strike.
Speaker 1: Whether he will entertain that, we don't know, but you know,
Speaker 1: certainly he has put down and it's now out there
Speaker 1: for posterity, you know, his final thoughts on how this
Speaker 1: all unraveled.
Speaker 2: It'll be really interesting to see what happens. I mean,
Speaker 2: if he refuses, is that grounds to appeal?
Speaker 1: I think that would be a tough, tough appeal. You know,
Speaker 1: much as the government has a lot of prosecutorial discretion,
Speaker 1: the judges have certainly a lot of discretion in what
Speaker 1: they write and their opinions. And barring some legal error,
Speaker 1: it's tough to see what the appeal would look like there.
Speaker 2: And now this is less than a month after another
Speaker 2: judge had to dismiss another January sixth related case against
Speaker 2: another far right group, the Proud Boys.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've walked back all of the January sixth prosecution.
Speaker 1: Some of the Proud Boys defendants were among those fourteen
Speaker 1: individuals who didn't get pardons from the President but commutations.
Speaker 1: So as judge madea notes here, you know, there were
Speaker 1: these last lingering cases that needed to be resolved because
Speaker 1: there weren't pardons to sort of cleanly wipe that slake
Speaker 1: clean that commutations don't remove a conviction from someone's record,
Speaker 1: and at that point there's sort of a debate of
Speaker 1: what's appropriate to keep on the record and how much
Speaker 1: does something like a commutation absolve someone of the weight
Speaker 1: of a conviction.
Speaker 2: And Zoe, do you know have any of the Proud
Speaker 2: Boys or the Oathkeepers filed claims with the Justice Department
Speaker 2: for compensation.
Speaker 1: We know that several members of the Proud Boys have
Speaker 1: filed a lawsuit seeking compensation that the Justice Department has
Speaker 1: opposed so far, so that has not gotten anywhere in
Speaker 1: terms of success on their part. We don't know there
Speaker 1: haven't been lawsuits on behalf of the Oathkeepers. There have
Speaker 1: been some from other January sixth defendants who were pardoned.
Speaker 1: We know that several hundred hundreds of January sixth defendants
Speaker 1: who got pardons have filed administrative claims. It's not clear
Speaker 1: to me if any of the oath keepers have. It
Speaker 1: seems like it would be unlikely until their cases were
Speaker 1: fully resolved. So that's certainly a line of reporting that
Speaker 1: will continue to follow. That said, you know, there are
Speaker 1: a number of pending claims related to January six already.
Speaker 1: And even though the Justice Department had to walk back
Speaker 1: a plan for this one point eight billion dollar anti
Speaker 1: weaponization fund that was seen as a way to sort
Speaker 1: of more quickly and cleanly pay out claims to January
Speaker 1: sixth defendants, there are existing pathways that have always been
Speaker 1: around for folks to pursue these types of compensation claims,
Speaker 1: and many of them had filed claims long before the
Speaker 1: fund was announced, and we expect them to continue to
Speaker 1: press them long after the fund is purportedly dead.
Speaker 4: So it's very.
Speaker 1: Much a live issue whether and how much money taxpayers
Speaker 1: will now end up paying out to these individuals.
Speaker 2: Is the judgment fund unlimited or is there a limited
Speaker 2: amount of money in the fund.
Speaker 1: Our understanding is it's always described as a permanent, indefinite appropriation,
Speaker 1: so generally it's understood to be unlimited. I haven't come
Speaker 1: across a case where the government has said we can
Speaker 1: only afford to pay you so much because we've tapped
Speaker 1: out the judgment fund this year. You don't really see
Speaker 1: that come up. Exactly how much gets put in at
Speaker 1: any given time, Honestly, I don't know, But our understanding
Speaker 1: is that generally it's considered a sort of infinite pool.
Speaker 1: Because of the Justice departments brought authority to settle claims
Speaker 1: that are brought against the government, whether they're administrative which
Speaker 1: means they don't play out on a public docket, or
Speaker 1: they're brought in court.
Speaker 2: How those January sixth claims play out is something that
Speaker 2: we have to keep track of now. Thanks so much, Zoe.
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal Reporters, Zoe Tillman.
Speaker 3: We weren't necessarily thrilled with a contractor, but they did
Speaker 3: a job and they were fixing any problems. But then
Speaker 3: I got carried away because the judge was extremely unfriendly
Speaker 3: to Janine, and frankly, I think she choked.
Speaker 2: President Trump was quite forgiving of the contractor whose botched
Speaker 2: installation caused widespread damage to the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool,
Speaker 2: according to the DCUs attorney, though Trump was not so
Speaker 2: forgiving of the DCUs attorney, Janine Piro, I.
Speaker 3: Was disappointed with Jennie Piro, really disappointed with Jennie Piro.
Speaker 3: She folded like an umbrella.
Speaker 2: Trump publicly criticized Piero for dismissing charges against individuals accused
Speaker 2: of vandalizing the reflecting pool. Pierro met with Trump and
Speaker 2: other officials, including Interior Secretary Doug Bergham, whose department oversaw
Speaker 2: the project on Monday, but today Trump said he hadn't
Speaker 2: decided whether to keep her as the top federal prosecutor
Speaker 2: in Washington. Joining me is Jeff Mason Bloomberg White House
Speaker 2: and Washington correspondent. Jeff start by telling us at the
Speaker 2: relationship that Janine Pierrot has had with President Trump, at
Speaker 2: least up until the last few days.
Speaker 5: Well, they've been friends for a long time, and he
Speaker 5: was a big fan of hers when she was on
Speaker 5: Fox News, which was a job that she had for
Speaker 5: a long time. And she's been a big defender of
Speaker 5: President Trump's using that perch and then he brought her
Speaker 5: into the administration by making her the top attorney in
Speaker 5: the District of Columbia Washington, DC, and she has used
Speaker 5: that perch to also really implement a lot of what
Speaker 5: he was looking for in terms of legal cases here.
Speaker 5: I remember one of them being and I don't know
Speaker 5: that she would have spoken to him about it, but
Speaker 5: it's an example of Trumpian legal procedures, I guess was
Speaker 5: when she brought the man who had thrown his sub
Speaker 5: sandwich against a police officer during some kind of a
Speaker 5: protest and tried to win that case and that didn't
Speaker 5: work out. So that's just one example that comes to mind.
Speaker 5: But to your question, they've been longtime allies in any case,
Speaker 5: and so it was pretty unusual a to see her
Speaker 5: make a decision that she has to have known was
Speaker 5: going to upset him and b for him to be
Speaker 5: as publicly critical of her and that decision as he was.
Speaker 5: Although I would add an addendum to that last piece,
Speaker 5: which is we know that President Trump turns on his
Speaker 5: own and he did that a lot during the first term.
Speaker 5: He has done it less often during the second term,
Speaker 5: but he has done it. He fired Pambondi, he fired
Speaker 5: Christy Nome, the former Attorney General and the former Secretary
Speaker 5: of Homeland Security, so he absolutely could fire Miss Pierrot,
Speaker 5: and he might. In fact, he said, I think last
Speaker 5: night when he was talking to reporters that he hadn't
Speaker 5: made his decision yet, but he did not do it
Speaker 5: after their meeting at the White House. And that seems
Speaker 5: to be at least in part because she made her
Speaker 5: case for why she had to withdraw the case that
Speaker 5: he wanted, which was to pursue these these people who
Speaker 5: they accused of being vandals and lead and of leading
Speaker 5: them to the the breakdown of the lining on the
Speaker 5: reflecting pool.
Speaker 2: So I saw a video of her going into the
Speaker 2: White House with what prosecutors normally take to court, which is,
Speaker 2: you know, a weelly with a box of documents, and
Speaker 2: I mean, do you know what happened in that meeting?
Speaker 5: Well, the New York Times had a fantastic story about
Speaker 5: what happened in that meeting. So what I know is
Speaker 5: from from reading their terrific reporting, and that is that
Speaker 5: she brought in that case that you were that you
Speaker 5: were referring to, with a bunch of documents and proof
Speaker 5: essentially that it was according to her a mess up
Speaker 5: by the contray and therefore also the Department of Interior,
Speaker 5: and according to the time, she accused Secretary of Interior
Speaker 5: Doug Burgham, who was present for this meeting, of lying.
Speaker 5: And honestly, if she did that in a way, that's
Speaker 5: also suggesting that the President lied, although perhaps she's giving
Speaker 5: him cover by saying he was listening to Burgham. I'm
Speaker 5: not sure. I'm speculating a little bit there. But in
Speaker 5: any case, she went in to press her case and
Speaker 5: to make her case for the fact that she decided
Speaker 5: not to continue with this case. And she did that
Speaker 5: with the evidence apparently that was in that case that
Speaker 5: you were referring to.
Speaker 2: I mean, most lawyers who looked at those charges when
Speaker 2: the indictment came out, you could see that it was
Speaker 2: a very hard case to make out, even to make
Speaker 2: out one thousand dollars worth of damage. It just didn't
Speaker 2: seem like there was anything to support that in any event.
Speaker 2: But what makes it different is she didn't just drop
Speaker 2: the charges. She contradicted what Trump has been saying over
Speaker 2: and over and over again that vandals caused the damage.
Speaker 5: That's right, and that contradiction part is what is unusual,
Speaker 5: certainly to have someone who is close to him and
Speaker 5: a big supporter to not only contradict his Department of Interior,
Speaker 5: but to contradict him directly, because he was clearly making
Speaker 5: that case very publicly, and doing so in the face
Speaker 5: of certainly a lot of questions from anyone who kind
Speaker 5: of looked at it and thought, you know, how is
Speaker 5: it possible that this one olympian and these three other
Speaker 5: people could have made the damage with a box cutter
Speaker 5: that in this massive and long reflecting pool. It just
Speaker 5: didn't pass the logic test for a lot of people.
Speaker 5: And yet that was not the criteria that President Trump
Speaker 5: was using, because remember, he made promises about this, and
Speaker 5: he made promises about it going in that his contractors
Speaker 5: are the people that he chose were going to be
Speaker 5: able to do this renovation of the reflecting pool for
Speaker 5: a much cheaper than any other administration had ever done
Speaker 5: or ever tried, and much faster and much better, all
Speaker 5: of the things, all of the superlatives that are part
Speaker 5: of President Trump's lexicon, he applied to this project. And
Speaker 5: then it didn't happen. Not only it did not happen,
Speaker 5: but it failed spectacularly. So he was looking for, as
Speaker 5: he often does when something goes wrong, a scapegoat, and
Speaker 5: found a convenient one in these people who had gone
Speaker 5: by and touched or taken out some of these floating pieces.
Speaker 5: So again that became his narrative and in you know,
Speaker 5: and I think it's also right to note that it
Speaker 5: was also Piro's narrative. At the very beginning. She came
Speaker 5: out and said, as well, this is the fault of vandals,
Speaker 5: and that's why I'm starting this case. But then, as
Speaker 5: I've said a few times over the last few days,
Speaker 5: the difference between after that between rhetoric that she initially used,
Speaker 5: that the President continues to use and that Bergham continues
Speaker 5: to use and what you can prove in court are
Speaker 5: two completely different things. And that's what she came up against,
Speaker 5: and that is apparently why she made the decision that
Speaker 5: she did.
Speaker 2: As I understand, the President is still sticking with his
Speaker 2: contention that vandals caused the damage, even though there's been
Speaker 2: not one iota of proof that there was vandalism on
Speaker 2: the pool itself.
Speaker 5: But that's his mo I mean, you're not going to
Speaker 5: see President Donald Trump back down from that contention because
Speaker 5: it would suggest that he was wrong. It would suggest
Speaker 5: that he did not share the truth. It would suggest
Speaker 5: that he was duped. Any of those three things that
Speaker 5: I just said would not be the look that he's
Speaker 5: looking for. He needs to have a scapegoat, and that's
Speaker 5: what he's chosen to do. So No, he's not backing down,
Speaker 5: and he's not backing down even now in the face
Speaker 5: of this evidence that his own ally and the person
Speaker 5: that he put in as the attorney here in the
Speaker 5: District of Columbia and friend, he's doing it despite what
Speaker 5: she has shown him. So I think the next question
Speaker 5: is does he let that go and hold on to
Speaker 5: her or does he decide that this was too big
Speaker 5: of a breach and replace.
Speaker 2: Her in any respect? Is he sending a message to
Speaker 2: other administration officials, you know, don't dare contradict me, forget
Speaker 2: the facts? Or do they know that already?
Speaker 5: I think it's the latter. I think if anyone came
Speaker 5: into this administration, into his cabinet or elsewhere working for him,
Speaker 5: did so without knowing how he has treated high level
Speaker 5: officials in his orbit in the past, then they would
Speaker 5: have come in and very uninformed, and that would surprise me.
Speaker 5: So I you know, he has surrounded himself by people
Speaker 5: who largely do not contradict him, and so it is
Speaker 5: what I think is kind of more interesting about this
Speaker 5: story is that she did and did so, you know,
Speaker 5: and did so in part to you know, defend herself
Speaker 5: of course, and her actions and to try to keep
Speaker 5: her job. But it is certainly not something we've seen
Speaker 5: much of over the last year and a half during
Speaker 5: his second term, to have someone in that orbit contradict him.
Speaker 5: But to your question of whether he's sending a signal,
Speaker 5: I just think those signals are already very established and
Speaker 5: very clear from his first term and the first year
Speaker 5: and a half of his second term. So I think
Speaker 5: people around him know that.
Speaker 2: Going to his decision about whether or not to fire Pierro,
Speaker 2: a lot of people have mentioned that so far he's
Speaker 2: only fired women. Yeah, So would that factor into his
Speaker 2: decision at all or other people high up in the administration.
Speaker 5: Hard to say. I think that you're right to note
Speaker 5: the facts, and I just don't have anything to add
Speaker 5: to those facts. He has indeed targeted primarily, if not exclusively,
Speaker 5: women in his orbit or in his cabinet when he's
Speaker 5: firing or putting pressure on them to leave, But that
Speaker 5: does not mean he doesn't have other powerful women around
Speaker 5: him who have stuck around. Exhibit A of that, of course,
Speaker 5: is Susie Wilds, his chief of staff, who it's also
Speaker 5: worth noting, is the first woman to serve as chief
Speaker 5: of staff to any president, and she is extremely powerful
Speaker 5: and he likes to emphasize that when he introduces her
Speaker 5: at meetings and at events. But that said, it is
Speaker 5: also one hundred percent true the people that he has
Speaker 5: targeted in this little wave at least to firings that
Speaker 5: we've seen this year compared to much more common practice
Speaker 5: and bigger waves during the first term, have all been women.
Speaker 2: They asked for a reaction from the acting Attorney General,
Speaker 2: Todd Blanche and he said he thought Pierro was doing
Speaker 2: a great job. Washington, d C. Is a lot safer
Speaker 2: no small part to her effort.
Speaker 5: I thought it was interesting that he showed that he
Speaker 5: has her back because the acting Attorney General obviously also
Speaker 5: wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. Number one,
Speaker 5: he wants this job and on a permanent basis, and
Speaker 5: wants to move on from being acting to being confirmed.
Speaker 5: He is the President's former personal attorney and he wants
Speaker 5: to stay in that orbit. So I think it's that
Speaker 5: was in some part politically brave for mister Blanche to
Speaker 5: show his support for Pierro at a time when she
Speaker 5: is vulnerable in the Trump universe. That said, it's also
Speaker 5: you know, he's maybe a sign that he thinks that
Speaker 5: it's likely that she's going to stick around, and he
Speaker 5: would wanted to show that sign of support.
Speaker 2: And Blanche was on Capitol Hill again. Republican Senator Susan
Speaker 2: Collins has come out against his confirmation to be attorney general,
Speaker 2: and I think Lisa Murkowski. Is there any talk that
Speaker 2: any other Republicans might oppose it.
Speaker 5: Well, we don't know about Murkowski, and that's a big
Speaker 5: question mark. We do know about Susan Collins. She has
Speaker 5: said that she is not going to vote for him,
Speaker 5: and that comes as she's seeking reelection in Maine, which
Speaker 5: is a state that has absolutely been a target by
Speaker 5: Democrats for the midterm elections and they're trying to topple
Speaker 5: Susan Collins. And no doubt she took that into consideration
Speaker 5: when she decided to vote against Todd Blanche. But your
Speaker 5: right to say that he can only afford to lose
Speaker 5: two people, So there's one more that he could potentially lose,
Speaker 5: and that maybe Murkowski, and I'm trying to think of
Speaker 5: what other Republicans. We're not sure if we know that
Speaker 5: Senators Corn and Tillis, after bringing up their objections during
Speaker 5: the committee process, had those objections addressed with regard to
Speaker 5: the IRS Deal and the what some Democrats anyway, are
Speaker 5: calling a slush fund, the one point eight billion dollar
Speaker 5: payout fund for people who were felt that they were
Speaker 5: targeted by the Department of Justice under President Biden. That
Speaker 5: right now has gone away, although the President, i might add,
Speaker 5: has continued to say that he still wants it. So
Speaker 5: you didn't ask me this, but I'll mention it anyway.
Speaker 5: That's that's you know, that's still hanging out there, despite
Speaker 5: the fact that the acting Attorney General did put in
Speaker 5: writing essentially that it was dead, which is what those
Speaker 5: two Republican senators wanted to see. But to your broader question,
Speaker 5: he's lost Collins and so it's it's gonna be close
Speaker 5: either way, it's gonna be it's gonna be very close.
Speaker 2: I feel like the tide is with him, though. Thanks
Speaker 2: so much for coming on today. Jeff, and you'll have
Speaker 2: to come back again. That's Bloomberg White House and Washington
Speaker 2: correspondent Jeff Mason. And that's it for this edition of
Speaker 2: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
Speaker 2: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 2: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
Speaker 2: bloomberg dot com slash podcast, Slash Law, And remember to
Speaker 2: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
Speaker 2: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg