1 00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:12,040 Speaker 1: It was chaos at the heart of American democracy when 3 00:00:12,039 --> 00:00:15,560 Speaker 1: a mob of pro Trump writers stormed the capital, reached 4 00:00:15,600 --> 00:00:20,159 Speaker 1: the security barriers, terrorized lawmakers, and vandalized the offices and 5 00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:24,440 Speaker 1: congressional chambers, delaying the certification of the Electoral College vote. 6 00:00:24,800 --> 00:00:30,160 Speaker 1: President elect Joe Biden was blunt. They were protesters. Don't 7 00:00:30,280 --> 00:00:36,080 Speaker 1: dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, 8 00:00:36,880 --> 00:00:41,280 Speaker 1: domestic terrorists, and Biden was not alone in blaming President 9 00:00:41,320 --> 00:00:45,720 Speaker 1: Trump for inciting his followers. Lawmakers like Republican Senator Mitt 10 00:00:45,840 --> 00:00:49,360 Speaker 1: Romney also placed to blame on Trump. What happened here 11 00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:53,040 Speaker 1: today was an insurrection incited by the President of the 12 00:00:53,080 --> 00:00:56,600 Speaker 1: United States. Joining me is an expert in national security law, 13 00:00:56,760 --> 00:01:00,480 Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Jimmy Garula, a professor at Notre Dame 14 00:01:00,560 --> 00:01:05,720 Speaker 1: Law School. Clearly, the Capitol police were unprepared, with all 15 00:01:05,760 --> 00:01:09,480 Speaker 1: the notice, some from Trump himself, with much of the 16 00:01:09,600 --> 00:01:13,840 Speaker 1: nation bracing for what might happen, and with threats of 17 00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:18,360 Speaker 1: violence on social media. Should they have been prepared for this, 18 00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:23,280 Speaker 1: they had forewarning, literally weeks in advance. I mean Trump 19 00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:27,440 Speaker 1: on Twitter had notified the world that he was again 20 00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:30,959 Speaker 1: recruiting as followers to come to Washington, d C. On 21 00:01:31,120 --> 00:01:34,800 Speaker 1: January six, and he said, you know, be looking out. 22 00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:37,319 Speaker 1: This is gonna be like something you've never seen before. 23 00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:40,520 Speaker 1: It's going to be powerful. I mean, so it was 24 00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:44,840 Speaker 1: clear that again he was recruiting his followers to come 25 00:01:44,880 --> 00:01:47,440 Speaker 1: to d C for this event, and then of course 26 00:01:47,720 --> 00:01:52,960 Speaker 1: at the rally before the actual assault on the Capitol Building, 27 00:01:53,480 --> 00:01:58,480 Speaker 1: he's firing up his supporters and telling them to take 28 00:01:58,520 --> 00:02:01,320 Speaker 1: back America. And in order to do so, you have 29 00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:04,240 Speaker 1: to be strong. We have to use act with strength, 30 00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:08,200 Speaker 1: which is code words for violence. So there was plenty 31 00:02:08,200 --> 00:02:11,560 Speaker 1: of time to prepare. And it's inexcusable. I mean, this 32 00:02:11,600 --> 00:02:15,280 Speaker 1: should never have happened in America. And thank god it 33 00:02:15,360 --> 00:02:18,800 Speaker 1: wasn't worse than it actually was. I mean, had these 34 00:02:19,000 --> 00:02:23,720 Speaker 1: protesters have been more heavily armed when they took siege 35 00:02:23,880 --> 00:02:28,560 Speaker 1: of the Capitol Building, we could be talking about today 36 00:02:28,720 --> 00:02:32,280 Speaker 1: the killing of members of Congress, the killing of senators, 37 00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:36,680 Speaker 1: violence a much larger scale than what was witnessing. This 38 00:02:36,720 --> 00:02:39,240 Speaker 1: can never be permitted to happen again, and I'm hopeful 39 00:02:39,760 --> 00:02:45,000 Speaker 1: that the new administration immediately initiates an investigation or commission 40 00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:47,440 Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of this and to termine 41 00:02:47,520 --> 00:02:50,519 Speaker 1: what went wrong and to ensure that it never happens again. 42 00:02:51,080 --> 00:02:55,200 Speaker 1: Would you call this an insurrection, an attempted coupe? What 43 00:02:55,280 --> 00:02:58,320 Speaker 1: would you term this? Well, it's certainly an insurrection. You know, 44 00:02:58,600 --> 00:03:03,359 Speaker 1: it certainly falls with in the seditious Conspiracy Statute. It's 45 00:03:03,360 --> 00:03:06,120 Speaker 1: an act of sedition. It was an attack either to 46 00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:11,320 Speaker 1: overthrow the government by violence or to prevent the enactment 47 00:03:11,440 --> 00:03:16,000 Speaker 1: of laws by violence, which is also prohibited by the 48 00:03:16,080 --> 00:03:22,760 Speaker 1: sedition conspiracy Statute. These people wanted to disrupt Congress's fulfillment 49 00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:27,040 Speaker 1: of their constitutional duties under the Twelfth Amendment. That's what 50 00:03:27,160 --> 00:03:30,960 Speaker 1: was driving them. The timing of this wasn't accidental. You know, 51 00:03:31,000 --> 00:03:36,760 Speaker 1: their presence on January six, they're storming the Capitol Building 52 00:03:36,920 --> 00:03:43,040 Speaker 1: while Congress was in session undertaking its constitutional duties. That 53 00:03:43,160 --> 00:03:46,040 Speaker 1: was not a coincidence. This was an attempt to disrupt, 54 00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:51,920 Speaker 1: to prevent them from fulfilling those constitutional obligations, from certifying 55 00:03:51,960 --> 00:03:54,680 Speaker 1: the electors and then certifying Joe Biden is an ex 56 00:03:54,760 --> 00:03:58,000 Speaker 1: president of the United States, and I would say further there, 57 00:03:58,000 --> 00:04:02,279 Speaker 1: it was certainly anti Democrat because one of the principal 58 00:04:02,480 --> 00:04:06,840 Speaker 1: cornerstones of our democracy that we have cherished over the 59 00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:10,840 Speaker 1: last two hundred plus years is a peaceful transfer of power. 60 00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:14,640 Speaker 1: There's a range of crimes the rioters could be charged with, 61 00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:19,479 Speaker 1: from misdemeanors to felonies, from vandalism to sedition. Does it 62 00:04:19,560 --> 00:04:22,160 Speaker 1: seem like they're going to be charged with the lower 63 00:04:22,240 --> 00:04:28,640 Speaker 1: level crimes vandalism, breaking and entering, etcetera, rather than sedition. Well, 64 00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:32,400 Speaker 1: I would say certainly everyone that can be identified who 65 00:04:32,480 --> 00:04:35,599 Speaker 1: is inside the Capitol Building should be charged under the 66 00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:41,479 Speaker 1: Anti Riot Act because this clearly satisfies the requirements of 67 00:04:41,480 --> 00:04:43,680 Speaker 1: the statute. I mean, these are people that traveled in 68 00:04:43,800 --> 00:04:47,919 Speaker 1: interstate or used an interstate facility for the purpose of 69 00:04:48,000 --> 00:04:50,919 Speaker 1: engaging in a riot, for either inciting a riot or 70 00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:55,760 Speaker 1: participating in a riot or facilitating acts of violence, which 71 00:04:55,880 --> 00:05:00,400 Speaker 1: is what is required under the statute. And fortunately, many 72 00:05:00,440 --> 00:05:03,520 Speaker 1: of these individuals were caught on video inside the Capitol 73 00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:07,599 Speaker 1: Building and the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are 74 00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:12,080 Speaker 1: going to be able to identify many of these perpetrators quickly, 75 00:05:12,720 --> 00:05:15,520 Speaker 1: and once they're identified, they should be charged by the 76 00:05:15,560 --> 00:05:19,160 Speaker 1: FBI and prosecuted by the Apartment of Justice, the U. S. 77 00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:20,800 Speaker 1: Attorney's office. I mean, it could be the U. S. 78 00:05:20,800 --> 00:05:24,200 Speaker 1: Attorney's offices in the districts where these individuals reside, or 79 00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:27,760 Speaker 1: in the district of Columbia where the offenses were actually committed. 80 00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:31,280 Speaker 1: On the question of sedition, I think here we're talking 81 00:05:31,279 --> 00:05:34,240 Speaker 1: about again a conspiracy, and I think a conspiracy can 82 00:05:34,279 --> 00:05:39,040 Speaker 1: be proven through their concerted action. And their concerted action, 83 00:05:39,080 --> 00:05:43,640 Speaker 1: their intent again was to buy the use of violence 84 00:05:44,200 --> 00:05:47,160 Speaker 1: to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law 85 00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:52,080 Speaker 1: of the United States. That's language from the Seditious Conspiracy Statute, 86 00:05:52,480 --> 00:05:55,520 Speaker 1: to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law 87 00:05:55,560 --> 00:05:57,679 Speaker 1: of the United States. And the law of the United 88 00:05:57,680 --> 00:06:01,200 Speaker 1: States that they were attempting to prevent was the Twelfth Amendment, 89 00:06:02,080 --> 00:06:05,279 Speaker 1: was the certifying of the electors, the recognizing of the 90 00:06:05,320 --> 00:06:08,480 Speaker 1: electoral votes, and certifying of the president. I want to 91 00:06:08,520 --> 00:06:12,080 Speaker 1: get your take on why the Capitol police allowed the 92 00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:16,040 Speaker 1: rioters to leave the Capitol building. We saw a video 93 00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:20,000 Speaker 1: of rioters walking out of the building yelling, threatening to 94 00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:23,680 Speaker 1: come back, with a police officer actually holding the door 95 00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:26,240 Speaker 1: open for them. No, it was it was certainly at 96 00:06:26,240 --> 00:06:29,080 Speaker 1: the very least a dereliction of duty. I can understand, 97 00:06:29,320 --> 00:06:32,120 Speaker 1: you know, the argument that the Capitol Police felt that 98 00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:35,200 Speaker 1: they were overwhelmed, that they didn't have sufficient numbers to 99 00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:38,880 Speaker 1: prevent this assault on the Capitol building. That's one thing, 100 00:06:39,200 --> 00:06:44,080 Speaker 1: But to actually be opening the door, assisting them as 101 00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:48,640 Speaker 1: they're leaving, not attempting to prevent any of this illegal 102 00:06:48,680 --> 00:06:52,039 Speaker 1: conduct that was taking place. These are officers, again, that 103 00:06:52,120 --> 00:06:56,000 Speaker 1: took an oath to defend the constitution to enforce the law. 104 00:06:56,320 --> 00:06:59,560 Speaker 1: They violated that oath. So this isn't simply a question 105 00:06:59,640 --> 00:07:03,600 Speaker 1: or any shoe of the government wasn't adequately prepared to 106 00:07:03,720 --> 00:07:06,360 Speaker 1: deal with the crisis. I think that there are some 107 00:07:06,600 --> 00:07:10,120 Speaker 1: officers that have to be held accountable for dereliction of 108 00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:14,240 Speaker 1: their duties and responsibilities as law enforcement officers. It's shameful. 109 00:07:14,360 --> 00:07:18,440 Speaker 1: It's nothing less than shameful. Beyond that, there was video 110 00:07:18,920 --> 00:07:23,840 Speaker 1: of the Capitol Police letting writers get past the barricades, 111 00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:27,160 Speaker 1: moving the barricades. Even now, people will look at that 112 00:07:27,240 --> 00:07:30,760 Speaker 1: and say, was there an order from above that led 113 00:07:30,800 --> 00:07:34,520 Speaker 1: them to that course. It does raise an interesting question 114 00:07:34,680 --> 00:07:37,520 Speaker 1: whether there was an order. Here's the other aspect of 115 00:07:37,560 --> 00:07:39,840 Speaker 1: that too. If you look at the videos and you 116 00:07:39,880 --> 00:07:43,480 Speaker 1: see some of these protesters. They didn't seem intimidated or 117 00:07:43,480 --> 00:07:46,880 Speaker 1: all are worried by the presence of the law enforcement 118 00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:50,120 Speaker 1: officers of the Capitol Police. They were very confident, they 119 00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:52,880 Speaker 1: were very smug, and the action that they were taking, 120 00:07:52,920 --> 00:07:56,000 Speaker 1: they weren't threatened at all feel threatened at all by 121 00:07:56,080 --> 00:07:58,480 Speaker 1: law enforces. So that makes you wonder. That raises a 122 00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:03,160 Speaker 1: question was there um order, either explicit or implicit, for 123 00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:06,600 Speaker 1: the Capitol Police to stand down, to not enforce the law, 124 00:08:06,760 --> 00:08:10,200 Speaker 1: to not arrest these individuals. I mean I watched literally 125 00:08:10,560 --> 00:08:14,440 Speaker 1: two or three hours of footage on television and did 126 00:08:14,440 --> 00:08:17,520 Speaker 1: not see a single arrest. Now we're told after the 127 00:08:17,520 --> 00:08:20,040 Speaker 1: fact that there were, you know, individual arrest I I 128 00:08:20,080 --> 00:08:23,440 Speaker 1: witnessed hours and hours of illegal activity going on and 129 00:08:23,520 --> 00:08:26,800 Speaker 1: did not see a police officer, a law enforcement officer, 130 00:08:27,000 --> 00:08:32,000 Speaker 1: arrest a single individual. That investigation should result in the 131 00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:36,479 Speaker 1: senior members supervisors of the Capitol Police being fired an individual, 132 00:08:36,679 --> 00:08:40,480 Speaker 1: lower level officers being fired at a minimum, At a minimum, 133 00:08:40,559 --> 00:08:45,640 Speaker 1: our Capitol building, this symbol of democracy, was desecrated in 134 00:08:45,679 --> 00:08:48,560 Speaker 1: a way that should never have ever been permitted to 135 00:08:48,559 --> 00:08:51,120 Speaker 1: happen in this country, and someone has to be held 136 00:08:51,160 --> 00:08:54,960 Speaker 1: accountable for that. There's been a lot of commentary about 137 00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:58,600 Speaker 1: the marked difference in the way the Trump administration handled 138 00:08:59,120 --> 00:09:03,760 Speaker 1: the Black Life Matters protests this summer with federal agents 139 00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:07,560 Speaker 1: and riot gear, tear gas, rubber bullets. That's a fair 140 00:09:07,640 --> 00:09:12,200 Speaker 1: point to raise because we saw over the summer the 141 00:09:12,360 --> 00:09:17,920 Speaker 1: use of force that was employed against peaceful protesters in 142 00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:21,520 Speaker 1: Lafayette Square, and again, as you stayed at tear gas, 143 00:09:21,600 --> 00:09:26,320 Speaker 1: rubber bullets, etcetera. We didn't see that here. And this 144 00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:30,880 Speaker 1: was an assault on the Capitol building. It raises questions, 145 00:09:30,920 --> 00:09:34,680 Speaker 1: you know, had these been block protesters, would they have 146 00:09:34,760 --> 00:09:37,200 Speaker 1: ever been permitted to get that close to the building, 147 00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:40,400 Speaker 1: let alone go into the chambers of the Senate, go 148 00:09:40,520 --> 00:09:43,360 Speaker 1: into the chambers of the House of Representatives. I am 149 00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:46,839 Speaker 1: confident the Capitol police would have found some way to 150 00:09:47,040 --> 00:09:49,679 Speaker 1: restrain them. They wouldn't have made it halfway up the 151 00:09:49,720 --> 00:09:53,320 Speaker 1: steps of the Capitol Building before they were confronted with 152 00:09:53,400 --> 00:09:58,280 Speaker 1: rubber bullets, tear gas, and even more lethal use of force. 153 00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:01,800 Speaker 1: And so that it's another issue that needs to be 154 00:10:02,160 --> 00:10:06,200 Speaker 1: addressed in this inquiry. Is this a dual standard of 155 00:10:06,280 --> 00:10:09,200 Speaker 1: justice here? So if you're a block protester, you're treated 156 00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:11,880 Speaker 1: one way, but that if you're a white protester, and 157 00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:16,600 Speaker 1: we all saw for ourselves that the these protesters are 158 00:10:16,640 --> 00:10:21,240 Speaker 1: white protesters, they're treated differently under the law. Our democracy 159 00:10:21,520 --> 00:10:27,280 Speaker 1: cannot witness and embrace a dual system of justice that 160 00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:30,760 Speaker 1: depends on the color of the person skin. The articles 161 00:10:30,760 --> 00:10:34,520 Speaker 1: of impeachment have already been drafted. How Speaker Nancy Pelosi 162 00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:37,480 Speaker 1: has been calling on Vice President Mike pens to invoke 163 00:10:37,559 --> 00:10:41,199 Speaker 1: the twenty fifth Amendment to remove President Trump from office 164 00:10:41,400 --> 00:10:44,960 Speaker 1: after the attack on the nation's capital by pro Trump rioters, 165 00:10:45,320 --> 00:10:48,240 Speaker 1: and Pelosi says the House will move forward on articles 166 00:10:48,280 --> 00:10:52,480 Speaker 1: of impeachment if nothing is done. A very dangerous person 167 00:10:53,000 --> 00:10:57,319 Speaker 1: who should not continue in office. This is urgent. This 168 00:10:57,440 --> 00:11:01,280 Speaker 1: is the emergency of the highest magnet too. I've been 169 00:11:01,280 --> 00:11:04,800 Speaker 1: talking to national security law expert Jimmy Garula, a professor 170 00:11:04,840 --> 00:11:08,400 Speaker 1: at Notre Dame Law School. Top Democrats are calling on 171 00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:13,440 Speaker 1: Vice President Pence to invoke the amendments. It's never been 172 00:11:13,520 --> 00:11:17,880 Speaker 1: used to remove a president. Do these circumstances fit Amendment? 173 00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:21,600 Speaker 1: I think they do. It's actually Section four of the 174 00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:26,079 Speaker 1: Amendment that's applicable here, and that authorizes the president and 175 00:11:26,160 --> 00:11:29,960 Speaker 1: the majority that's referred to as the principal officers basically 176 00:11:30,040 --> 00:11:32,600 Speaker 1: would be the cabinet members, and in this particular case, 177 00:11:32,640 --> 00:11:37,000 Speaker 1: it would require thirteen cabinet members along with the vice president, 178 00:11:37,080 --> 00:11:41,280 Speaker 1: to conclude that the president is unable to discharge the 179 00:11:41,400 --> 00:11:44,520 Speaker 1: powers and duties of his office. And so here I 180 00:11:44,520 --> 00:11:47,440 Speaker 1: think you can make a compelling case that over the 181 00:11:47,520 --> 00:11:51,160 Speaker 1: last two months, the President Trump has been obsessed with 182 00:11:51,240 --> 00:11:55,080 Speaker 1: the presidential election and his defeat, and his behavior during 183 00:11:55,120 --> 00:12:00,280 Speaker 1: that period of time has become erratic. He's unstable. He 184 00:12:00,400 --> 00:12:06,239 Speaker 1: has advocated his responsibilities with respect to the coronavirus pandemic, 185 00:12:06,480 --> 00:12:11,400 Speaker 1: He's advocated his responsibilities regarding a recent hacking attack by 186 00:12:11,520 --> 00:12:16,240 Speaker 1: a Russia. So I think the prerequisite regarding his inability 187 00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:19,720 Speaker 1: to discharge his powers and duties that's required under the 188 00:12:19,760 --> 00:12:23,880 Speaker 1: amendment can be met. Once that is communicated in writing 189 00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:26,720 Speaker 1: to the leaders of the House and the Senate, then 190 00:12:26,760 --> 00:12:31,920 Speaker 1: the vice president immediately assumes the duty as the acting president. 191 00:12:32,080 --> 00:12:34,680 Speaker 1: But that doesn't end it. I think President Trump would 192 00:12:34,679 --> 00:12:38,120 Speaker 1: immediately contest that, and then it would fall back on 193 00:12:38,200 --> 00:12:42,120 Speaker 1: the vice president to make a further determination of the 194 00:12:42,160 --> 00:12:46,719 Speaker 1: president's lack of capacity to hold office. And I think 195 00:12:46,760 --> 00:12:48,520 Speaker 1: that's probably about as far as we're going to get 196 00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:52,560 Speaker 1: within that short period of time. But interestingly, that would 197 00:12:52,960 --> 00:12:55,880 Speaker 1: deprive the president of his ability to stay in office 198 00:12:56,080 --> 00:12:59,280 Speaker 1: for the balance of his his trump. Now it seems 199 00:12:59,320 --> 00:13:03,280 Speaker 1: highly unliyly that Penn's is going to involve the amendments. 200 00:13:03,360 --> 00:13:05,280 Speaker 1: So then we come to the Democrats threats of a 201 00:13:05,360 --> 00:13:08,640 Speaker 1: second impeachment. How much of the process could they get 202 00:13:08,679 --> 00:13:11,920 Speaker 1: through in the time left till its term ends. It's 203 00:13:11,920 --> 00:13:15,760 Speaker 1: finally unlikely that in that period of time. First of all, 204 00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:17,840 Speaker 1: the publican members of the House are going to be 205 00:13:17,880 --> 00:13:20,280 Speaker 1: fighting this, and they're going to be resisting this at 206 00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:23,200 Speaker 1: every step, and so I think it's highly unlikely in 207 00:13:23,320 --> 00:13:27,480 Speaker 1: days that there would be articles of impeachment that are 208 00:13:27,520 --> 00:13:31,600 Speaker 1: submitted to the House, that are debated. You know that 209 00:13:31,679 --> 00:13:35,880 Speaker 1: there witnesses that are called, and then a vote concluded 210 00:13:36,440 --> 00:13:40,200 Speaker 1: on those articles of impeachment, and then of course that 211 00:13:40,320 --> 00:13:43,840 Speaker 1: again would just be the charging document. Then it would 212 00:13:43,840 --> 00:13:46,320 Speaker 1: be up to the Senate to the side. Again, it 213 00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:50,480 Speaker 1: requires the two thirds vote of the Senate to actually convict. 214 00:13:51,080 --> 00:13:54,800 Speaker 1: It's just not practical, it's not feasible for all of 215 00:13:54,840 --> 00:13:58,920 Speaker 1: that to happen. I think what's more realistic, again, if 216 00:13:59,080 --> 00:14:03,200 Speaker 1: Vice President hence took the initiative and again was able 217 00:14:03,240 --> 00:14:07,280 Speaker 1: to get the support of thirteen cabinet members that he 218 00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:12,360 Speaker 1: could become acting president and probably delay the final process 219 00:14:12,440 --> 00:14:16,280 Speaker 1: here through the balance in the president's term. Thanks Jimmy. 220 00:14:16,520 --> 00:14:21,960 Speaker 1: That's Professor Jimmy Garoule of Notre Dame Law School. The 221 00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:25,320 Speaker 1: votes in Georgia have been counted not once, not twice, 222 00:14:25,520 --> 00:14:29,160 Speaker 1: but three times, and they confirmed that President elect Joe 223 00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:33,880 Speaker 1: Biden beat President Trump by eleven thousand, seven hundred seventy votes. 224 00:14:34,520 --> 00:14:37,600 Speaker 1: But in a sixty two minute call last Saturday, Trump 225 00:14:37,760 --> 00:14:42,400 Speaker 1: pressured Georgia officials, including the Secretary of State, to find 226 00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:46,480 Speaker 1: thousands of votes and recalculate the election results to flip 227 00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:49,640 Speaker 1: the state to him, just enough to pass Biden by 228 00:14:49,720 --> 00:14:54,000 Speaker 1: one vote. So, look, all I wanna do is this. 229 00:14:54,320 --> 00:14:59,720 Speaker 1: I just want to find uh eleven thousand, seven d 230 00:15:00,040 --> 00:15:05,360 Speaker 1: eighty loaves, which is one more that we have. The 231 00:15:05,440 --> 00:15:07,760 Speaker 1: people of Georgia are angry. The people of the country 232 00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:11,040 Speaker 1: are angry, and there's nothing wrong with saying that you know, 233 00:15:11,600 --> 00:15:17,480 Speaker 1: um that you've recalculated. Georgia officials stood firm by the 234 00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:22,240 Speaker 1: election results, joining me as former federal prosecutor Elie Hoenig 235 00:15:22,400 --> 00:15:27,320 Speaker 1: of Lowenstein Sandler. The first broad question, did Trump break 236 00:15:27,400 --> 00:15:30,240 Speaker 1: the law during this call? So I think the short 237 00:15:30,280 --> 00:15:34,520 Speaker 1: answers is quite possibly, maybe meaning towards probably. You know, 238 00:15:34,560 --> 00:15:36,840 Speaker 1: we don't have all the facts, but the call itself 239 00:15:36,920 --> 00:15:40,720 Speaker 1: is a pretty darned good starting point. So both federal 240 00:15:40,800 --> 00:15:44,240 Speaker 1: law and Georgia law are similar in that bottom line, 241 00:15:44,320 --> 00:15:47,359 Speaker 1: They say it is a crime to try to influence 242 00:15:47,400 --> 00:15:51,400 Speaker 1: an election official to count ballots that we're not actually cast. Now, 243 00:15:51,800 --> 00:15:54,840 Speaker 1: clearly Donald Trump is trying to influence and then some 244 00:15:55,520 --> 00:15:59,120 Speaker 1: these Georgia Secretary of State Rapidsburger's overtly pressuring him, even 245 00:15:59,160 --> 00:16:02,320 Speaker 1: threatening him with the potential of criminal prosecution of his own. 246 00:16:02,880 --> 00:16:06,400 Speaker 1: And he's also clearly trying to pressure the Secretary of 247 00:16:06,440 --> 00:16:11,040 Speaker 1: State to count votes in his favor and votes that 248 00:16:11,120 --> 00:16:14,800 Speaker 1: if you are tethered to reality, you know we're never cast, right. 249 00:16:14,840 --> 00:16:17,280 Speaker 1: I mean, every source that has a pined on this, 250 00:16:17,440 --> 00:16:20,840 Speaker 1: from d o J to DHS, two dozens of courts 251 00:16:20,840 --> 00:16:24,800 Speaker 1: have said there was no such fraud. Perversely, I guess 252 00:16:24,840 --> 00:16:27,600 Speaker 1: the best defense of Donald Trump here would be he 253 00:16:27,680 --> 00:16:31,680 Speaker 1: actually believes, truly believes that he got those votes, Because 254 00:16:32,040 --> 00:16:34,280 Speaker 1: if he truly believes he had those votes. It's not 255 00:16:34,360 --> 00:16:37,360 Speaker 1: a crime to ask an official to count votes that 256 00:16:37,440 --> 00:16:40,160 Speaker 1: you truly believe. We're You're You're not asking for some 257 00:16:40,240 --> 00:16:42,960 Speaker 1: fraud to be committed. If in your mind you truly 258 00:16:43,000 --> 00:16:46,200 Speaker 1: believe those votes were for you. Now, that would require 259 00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:49,120 Speaker 1: one to believe Donald Trump is delusional. Perhaps he is. 260 00:16:49,360 --> 00:16:51,000 Speaker 1: And I also think it's a little bit of intention 261 00:16:51,040 --> 00:16:53,360 Speaker 1: with the words Trump uses on the call. If I'm 262 00:16:53,360 --> 00:16:56,880 Speaker 1: a prosecutor, going back to my prosecutorial role, I would say, 263 00:16:56,960 --> 00:16:59,120 Speaker 1: why does he use the word find? We need to 264 00:16:59,320 --> 00:17:02,640 Speaker 1: find these votes? That to me is a little different 265 00:17:02,640 --> 00:17:04,919 Speaker 1: than we need to have a full counting of all 266 00:17:04,920 --> 00:17:07,800 Speaker 1: the votes that were actually cast. And that number, remember 267 00:17:07,840 --> 00:17:12,000 Speaker 1: Donald Trump says we need exactly eleven thousand, seventy or whatever, 268 00:17:12,280 --> 00:17:14,960 Speaker 1: one more vote than he needed. That also is very 269 00:17:15,000 --> 00:17:18,000 Speaker 1: conspicuous and different from we need to count all the votes. 270 00:17:18,400 --> 00:17:20,960 Speaker 1: So I think at a minimum, prosecutors have to take 271 00:17:20,960 --> 00:17:23,080 Speaker 1: a look here, investigate, and sit down and make a 272 00:17:23,160 --> 00:17:26,000 Speaker 1: very hard decision. I want to talk about some problems 273 00:17:26,040 --> 00:17:30,359 Speaker 1: that may occur because the call is very meandering. He 274 00:17:30,400 --> 00:17:34,320 Speaker 1: goes from topic to topic, He skirts the issue a lot, 275 00:17:34,359 --> 00:17:37,680 Speaker 1: and he keeps saying over and over that he won 276 00:17:37,760 --> 00:17:42,920 Speaker 1: the election. So is that a problem? Well, so meandering. Absolutely, 277 00:17:43,359 --> 00:17:45,080 Speaker 1: it's not a problem that he never says I would 278 00:17:45,119 --> 00:17:47,520 Speaker 1: like you to perform this illegal act. I mean, that's 279 00:17:47,520 --> 00:17:50,520 Speaker 1: certainly not required. And yes, it does complicate it though 280 00:17:50,560 --> 00:17:53,919 Speaker 1: that Donald Trump repeatedly he seems like he's almost reading 281 00:17:53,920 --> 00:17:56,720 Speaker 1: off of a list or something of all these wild 282 00:17:56,840 --> 00:17:59,720 Speaker 1: claims that have really come from Twitter or you know, 283 00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:02,880 Speaker 1: far far right wing media and I don't mean Fox News, 284 00:18:02,960 --> 00:18:05,919 Speaker 1: I mean far the right wing than that. And that 285 00:18:05,960 --> 00:18:08,959 Speaker 1: would be the defense, if I'm done Trump's defense lawyer, 286 00:18:09,240 --> 00:18:12,040 Speaker 1: I would argue, he truly believes that he won this 287 00:18:12,080 --> 00:18:15,040 Speaker 1: election and that he's entitled to have the Secretary of 288 00:18:15,040 --> 00:18:17,280 Speaker 1: State recount these votes. And I think the argument is 289 00:18:17,640 --> 00:18:19,840 Speaker 1: that may be a bad look, that may say something 290 00:18:19,880 --> 00:18:24,280 Speaker 1: bad about his own mental stability, But legally it's a 291 00:18:24,400 --> 00:18:28,159 Speaker 1: defense because again, if you truly believe that votes were 292 00:18:28,160 --> 00:18:30,920 Speaker 1: cash for you, and you ask officials to count those votes, 293 00:18:31,000 --> 00:18:33,480 Speaker 1: that's not a fraud. That's not a crime. That would 294 00:18:33,480 --> 00:18:35,840 Speaker 1: be the difficulty in prosecuting this case, and that would 295 00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:38,000 Speaker 1: be something to prosecutors would need to sit down and 296 00:18:38,040 --> 00:18:42,879 Speaker 1: sort of puzzle through in meticulous detail. Is his ignorance 297 00:18:42,880 --> 00:18:45,240 Speaker 1: of the law and excuse he says, I didn't know 298 00:18:45,280 --> 00:18:49,240 Speaker 1: that was a problem. No ignorance of law. It's a motto, 299 00:18:49,280 --> 00:18:51,879 Speaker 1: it's a saying, but it's true. Ignorance of law is 300 00:18:51,880 --> 00:18:54,760 Speaker 1: not a defense. You don't have to know specifically that 301 00:18:55,040 --> 00:18:59,320 Speaker 1: this exact conduct is prohibited by statute. You have to 302 00:18:59,320 --> 00:19:01,320 Speaker 1: know general link that it's wrong. I do want to 303 00:19:01,320 --> 00:19:05,639 Speaker 1: throw in one other potential wrinkle here. Clearly, Donald Trump 304 00:19:05,760 --> 00:19:09,600 Speaker 1: threatens Rappensburger with criminal sanctions of his own right. There's 305 00:19:09,600 --> 00:19:11,800 Speaker 1: that weird passage where Trump says, what you're doing is 306 00:19:11,800 --> 00:19:15,879 Speaker 1: actually a crime, Mr. Happensburger, and paraphrasing here, it is 307 00:19:15,920 --> 00:19:18,480 Speaker 1: a crime, a federal crime, an estate crime. To threaten 308 00:19:18,560 --> 00:19:21,920 Speaker 1: somebody as part of an extortion, as part of trying 309 00:19:21,960 --> 00:19:26,320 Speaker 1: to get something, you want to threaten somebody with unjustified 310 00:19:26,720 --> 00:19:31,080 Speaker 1: criminal charges. Now, there's no argument that Rappensburger committed a 311 00:19:31,119 --> 00:19:33,600 Speaker 1: crime of any sort, but Trump uses that as a 312 00:19:33,640 --> 00:19:36,760 Speaker 1: bully tactic. There is an interpretation of the extortion laws 313 00:19:36,800 --> 00:19:39,720 Speaker 1: that could include that, and I think prosecutors ought to 314 00:19:39,720 --> 00:19:41,959 Speaker 1: look at that as well. Do you really think that 315 00:19:42,000 --> 00:19:45,399 Speaker 1: the threat is that explicit? He talks about a big 316 00:19:45,520 --> 00:19:49,320 Speaker 1: risk of potential criminal charges. Do you really think that 317 00:19:49,480 --> 00:19:53,280 Speaker 1: the threat is explicit enough. Well, that's the question. It's 318 00:19:53,320 --> 00:19:56,960 Speaker 1: not as explicit as a prosecutor would like it to be, right, 319 00:19:57,400 --> 00:19:59,720 Speaker 1: it's not. If you don't do this, I will go 320 00:19:59,800 --> 00:20:02,640 Speaker 1: to FBI and we will indict and prosecute. That would 321 00:20:02,640 --> 00:20:06,240 Speaker 1: be an example of the easiest case. This fall somewhere 322 00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:07,959 Speaker 1: in the middle, And that's why I think that the 323 00:20:07,960 --> 00:20:11,199 Speaker 1: exact verbiage is important. You know, he does say, you know, 324 00:20:11,200 --> 00:20:14,240 Speaker 1: he gets fairly explicit about you you're committing a crime, 325 00:20:14,240 --> 00:20:16,400 Speaker 1: and even has the weird exchange where Trump says something 326 00:20:16,440 --> 00:20:19,480 Speaker 1: like I'm putting you on note, I'm notifying you right now, 327 00:20:19,600 --> 00:20:21,840 Speaker 1: which is I think close to the line. But I 328 00:20:22,080 --> 00:20:26,480 Speaker 1: agree it's not as explicit as other extortions that I've seen, 329 00:20:26,840 --> 00:20:29,720 Speaker 1: for example, in the mob world. But that also doesn't 330 00:20:29,720 --> 00:20:32,960 Speaker 1: necessarily mean he's in the clear either. Explain the willfully 331 00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:37,120 Speaker 1: requirement in the federal law. So will so he essentially 332 00:20:37,160 --> 00:20:41,159 Speaker 1: means with intent to commit a crime, or to commit 333 00:20:41,200 --> 00:20:43,320 Speaker 1: the elements of the crime. So that gets back to 334 00:20:43,359 --> 00:20:46,480 Speaker 1: sort of the state of mind. Is the president in 335 00:20:46,560 --> 00:20:48,920 Speaker 1: the deepest recesses of his mind and by the way. 336 00:20:48,960 --> 00:20:52,280 Speaker 1: This is the difficulty of any intent based crime. Right, 337 00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:54,919 Speaker 1: So for example, a robbery of a seven eleven is 338 00:20:54,920 --> 00:20:56,960 Speaker 1: not an intent based crime. You see someone coming with 339 00:20:57,000 --> 00:20:59,440 Speaker 1: a gun in the mask and demand money, that's a robbery. 340 00:20:59,600 --> 00:21:02,439 Speaker 1: But when you get into things like frauds, then you 341 00:21:02,480 --> 00:21:04,320 Speaker 1: have to get into the mind of the person and 342 00:21:04,359 --> 00:21:06,920 Speaker 1: did they really know what they were proposing. Was they 343 00:21:06,960 --> 00:21:09,920 Speaker 1: fraud or was they llegal or did they actually honestly 344 00:21:09,920 --> 00:21:12,000 Speaker 1: believe that they were entitled to this or that it 345 00:21:12,040 --> 00:21:15,720 Speaker 1: was legitimate. So that's a difficulty here. And you know, 346 00:21:15,840 --> 00:21:18,399 Speaker 1: if I was investigating this, I would start with the 347 00:21:18,440 --> 00:21:20,720 Speaker 1: tape itself, Like I said, I would scrutinize the words 348 00:21:20,760 --> 00:21:23,600 Speaker 1: on the tape, but I'd also i'd subpoena or want 349 00:21:23,640 --> 00:21:26,160 Speaker 1: to speak with those around Donald Trump, the other people 350 00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:29,160 Speaker 1: on that call. Is there evidence that before that call 351 00:21:29,359 --> 00:21:31,920 Speaker 1: or after the call he said to somebody, look, we're 352 00:21:31,920 --> 00:21:33,800 Speaker 1: gonna bend this guy to our will, or is there 353 00:21:33,800 --> 00:21:37,080 Speaker 1: evidency said things that evidence that he doesn't truly believe 354 00:21:37,080 --> 00:21:39,920 Speaker 1: that he was. But there's been reporting out there that 355 00:21:40,040 --> 00:21:42,560 Speaker 1: Donald Trump understands that he lost this election, but he's 356 00:21:42,600 --> 00:21:44,679 Speaker 1: doing this for show, or he's doing this to rally 357 00:21:45,000 --> 00:21:47,760 Speaker 1: donations or support, or to keep themselves relevant. If you 358 00:21:47,800 --> 00:21:50,000 Speaker 1: could find a couple of witnesses to say, I spoke 359 00:21:50,040 --> 00:21:52,040 Speaker 1: with Donald Trump, he told me I know I lost this, 360 00:21:52,119 --> 00:21:55,000 Speaker 1: but just I'm playing this game here, right, It's something 361 00:21:55,000 --> 00:21:57,400 Speaker 1: to that effect I think would be a significant piece 362 00:21:57,400 --> 00:21:59,119 Speaker 1: of evidence. And again that goes to my point of 363 00:21:59,119 --> 00:22:01,359 Speaker 1: why prosecutors and to at least dig in here and 364 00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:04,639 Speaker 1: not just sort of glide past it. Two members of 365 00:22:04,680 --> 00:22:08,200 Speaker 1: Congress referred the case to the FBI. Does that mean 366 00:22:08,240 --> 00:22:12,320 Speaker 1: the FBI will actually do an investigation? No, it does not. 367 00:22:12,440 --> 00:22:15,440 Speaker 1: There's this common misconception out there that there's some magic 368 00:22:15,520 --> 00:22:18,840 Speaker 1: to a referral like criminal referral. There's not. All it 369 00:22:18,880 --> 00:22:22,600 Speaker 1: means is and I've gotten referrals as a prosecutor from 370 00:22:22,600 --> 00:22:25,640 Speaker 1: any source you can name, from members of the public, 371 00:22:26,000 --> 00:22:29,160 Speaker 1: from politicians, you know, you name it. All it means 372 00:22:29,240 --> 00:22:31,959 Speaker 1: is somebody has asked the FBI or whatever your law 373 00:22:32,040 --> 00:22:36,200 Speaker 1: enforcement agency to take a look. Now, referrals are taken seriously, 374 00:22:36,640 --> 00:22:39,679 Speaker 1: and depending on both the source of the referral and 375 00:22:39,720 --> 00:22:43,000 Speaker 1: the apparent seriousness of the conduct and the support for 376 00:22:43,040 --> 00:22:47,760 Speaker 1: the conduct, referrals absolutely can lead law enforcement agencies and 377 00:22:47,760 --> 00:22:51,520 Speaker 1: prosecutors to open cases to take a look. So it's significant, 378 00:22:51,520 --> 00:22:54,760 Speaker 1: but it doesn't find anybody to do anything. The next 379 00:22:54,840 --> 00:22:58,320 Speaker 1: question is, let's just suppose that enough evidence is found, 380 00:22:58,640 --> 00:23:03,879 Speaker 1: who would prosecute with the Justice Department under President elect Biden, 381 00:23:04,119 --> 00:23:06,760 Speaker 1: who said that he is not going to try to 382 00:23:06,800 --> 00:23:09,399 Speaker 1: influence that the Justice Department is there to do its job. 383 00:23:09,880 --> 00:23:13,160 Speaker 1: But are they going to want to start their administration 384 00:23:13,520 --> 00:23:18,800 Speaker 1: by prosecuting a former president? That's a great question, at 385 00:23:18,800 --> 00:23:21,439 Speaker 1: a very important question. Let's start with focusing on the 386 00:23:21,440 --> 00:23:24,720 Speaker 1: federal authorities here, d O. J Joe Biden has done 387 00:23:24,760 --> 00:23:26,840 Speaker 1: one thing that I think is really important and good, 388 00:23:26,840 --> 00:23:28,560 Speaker 1: and one thing that I have an issue with what 389 00:23:28,640 --> 00:23:31,119 Speaker 1: he's done that I think anybody should approve of, is 390 00:23:31,160 --> 00:23:34,360 Speaker 1: he has said publicly and clearly, I will not get 391 00:23:34,400 --> 00:23:37,919 Speaker 1: involved in the prosecutorial decisions of my Attorney General. That 392 00:23:37,920 --> 00:23:40,320 Speaker 1: will be entirely up to the new a G. I 393 00:23:40,359 --> 00:23:42,639 Speaker 1: don't get involved. That That is right, That is correct, 394 00:23:42,640 --> 00:23:44,879 Speaker 1: That is as it should be, that something Donald Trump 395 00:23:44,960 --> 00:23:48,359 Speaker 1: himself frequently violated. What I don't approve of is the 396 00:23:48,400 --> 00:23:52,280 Speaker 1: fact that Joe Biden reportedly told several people around him, 397 00:23:52,280 --> 00:23:54,879 Speaker 1: and this was reported by NBC News. They say they 398 00:23:54,880 --> 00:23:57,480 Speaker 1: had five sources saying this is a few weeks ago, 399 00:23:57,520 --> 00:23:59,800 Speaker 1: that Joe Biden has no interest in having his d 400 00:24:00,160 --> 00:24:03,680 Speaker 1: J go down this rabbit hole of Donald Trump investigations, 401 00:24:03,920 --> 00:24:05,440 Speaker 1: that he does not want to see his d o 402 00:24:05,520 --> 00:24:07,439 Speaker 1: J go that round. Now, Joe Biden has been around 403 00:24:07,440 --> 00:24:11,720 Speaker 1: long enough, you know, forty eight years, that he understands 404 00:24:11,720 --> 00:24:13,360 Speaker 1: that if he's going to make a comment like that 405 00:24:13,440 --> 00:24:15,720 Speaker 1: to five different people, it's going to get out there. 406 00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:19,159 Speaker 1: And so I don't like the fact that Joe Biden 407 00:24:19,600 --> 00:24:21,679 Speaker 1: is doing that, and in so doing is putting a 408 00:24:21,720 --> 00:24:24,760 Speaker 1: thumb on the scale of what the attorney general will do. Now, 409 00:24:24,760 --> 00:24:27,520 Speaker 1: as a practical matter, if you're the new attorney general, 410 00:24:27,880 --> 00:24:30,879 Speaker 1: if you're going to charge and prosecute a case against 411 00:24:30,920 --> 00:24:34,200 Speaker 1: the former president, you have to understand that will consume 412 00:24:34,280 --> 00:24:36,639 Speaker 1: all the oxygen, all the attention, all the focus on 413 00:24:36,800 --> 00:24:39,560 Speaker 1: everything else you do um and probably everything else the 414 00:24:39,640 --> 00:24:43,879 Speaker 1: presidential administration does until that actual trial happens and it's 415 00:24:43,960 --> 00:24:46,560 Speaker 1: over with. We're talking a year, eighteen months. That is 416 00:24:46,600 --> 00:24:49,800 Speaker 1: an enormous distraction, That is an enormous price to pay. 417 00:24:49,880 --> 00:24:52,280 Speaker 1: I fully understand that, and I expect the new A G. 418 00:24:52,840 --> 00:24:55,800 Speaker 1: To to to factor that in. On the other hand, 419 00:24:55,880 --> 00:24:58,280 Speaker 1: I think it's really difficult that the new Attorney General 420 00:24:58,320 --> 00:25:00,480 Speaker 1: and new d o J to just say we were 421 00:25:00,520 --> 00:25:02,920 Speaker 1: not even going to take a look. It's just too 422 00:25:03,000 --> 00:25:06,080 Speaker 1: much of a hassle. It's just too difficult. We're not 423 00:25:06,119 --> 00:25:09,760 Speaker 1: even going to bother with this that I don't approve 424 00:25:09,840 --> 00:25:12,440 Speaker 1: of either as a prosecutor. Look, part of your job 425 00:25:12,480 --> 00:25:14,439 Speaker 1: as a prosecutor, a big part of your job is 426 00:25:14,440 --> 00:25:17,560 Speaker 1: to make difficult decisions and to do things that ruffle feathers. 427 00:25:17,600 --> 00:25:19,320 Speaker 1: And if the job of a prosecutor was to just 428 00:25:19,720 --> 00:25:24,080 Speaker 1: look for the path of least resistance, then well, beyond 429 00:25:24,080 --> 00:25:26,600 Speaker 1: Donald Trump, there's plenty of powerful people who would never 430 00:25:26,640 --> 00:25:30,160 Speaker 1: be investigated. There's plenty of wealthy people, well connected people 431 00:25:30,160 --> 00:25:33,600 Speaker 1: who you would just say, too much trouble, people might resist, 432 00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:35,720 Speaker 1: it might be too much of a circuit. That to me, 433 00:25:35,880 --> 00:25:38,600 Speaker 1: is not the job of a prosecutor. So I will 434 00:25:38,600 --> 00:25:41,399 Speaker 1: say this, at a minimum, I believe d o J 435 00:25:42,280 --> 00:25:45,359 Speaker 1: has a duty to investigate this see what they find. 436 00:25:45,520 --> 00:25:48,240 Speaker 1: But I do appreciate that it's a very difficult charge 437 00:25:48,280 --> 00:25:51,240 Speaker 1: to bring. And I also do appreciate that it's unlikely 438 00:25:51,520 --> 00:25:54,239 Speaker 1: that d o J ultimately will charge the president. There 439 00:25:54,280 --> 00:25:57,639 Speaker 1: may be a slightly different calculus for state level prosecutors, 440 00:25:57,640 --> 00:25:59,520 Speaker 1: but that's how I look at d O J. What 441 00:25:59,600 --> 00:26:01,560 Speaker 1: do you think of the fact that the U S. 442 00:26:01,600 --> 00:26:07,320 Speaker 1: Attorney Atlanta resigned one day after this phone call? Yeah, 443 00:26:07,560 --> 00:26:11,200 Speaker 1: it's in some respect, it's suspicious in some respect. That's 444 00:26:11,240 --> 00:26:14,760 Speaker 1: not the timing everything that's happening in Georgia. You can 445 00:26:15,000 --> 00:26:17,359 Speaker 1: it's consistent with I guess I'll say, we don't know 446 00:26:17,400 --> 00:26:19,960 Speaker 1: what's going on, but it's consistent with he was asked 447 00:26:19,960 --> 00:26:22,439 Speaker 1: to do something that he wasn't comfortable with doing and 448 00:26:22,480 --> 00:26:25,560 Speaker 1: that caused him to resign. It also is unusual that 449 00:26:26,320 --> 00:26:29,000 Speaker 1: the U. S. Attorney would resign with essentially no notice. 450 00:26:29,040 --> 00:26:32,320 Speaker 1: Now what's not unusual is this is resigning season, um 451 00:26:32,400 --> 00:26:34,480 Speaker 1: and it always is. Whenever you're about to have a 452 00:26:34,600 --> 00:26:37,440 Speaker 1: change in administration, especially from one party to the other, 453 00:26:37,680 --> 00:26:41,240 Speaker 1: all the U. S. Attorneys start resigning around now um 454 00:26:42,080 --> 00:26:44,560 Speaker 1: or you know, up to January twenty and then they're 455 00:26:44,560 --> 00:26:47,720 Speaker 1: replaced fairly quickly by the new administration. That's the way 456 00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:51,840 Speaker 1: things go. But usually the way that happens is the U. S. Attorney, 457 00:26:51,920 --> 00:26:54,360 Speaker 1: for example, in New Jersey where I live put out 458 00:26:54,359 --> 00:26:56,840 Speaker 1: a public statement weeks ago, and he said in January 459 00:26:56,880 --> 00:26:59,680 Speaker 1: five will be my last day. Um, you know, two 460 00:26:59,720 --> 00:27:02,440 Speaker 1: weeks notice, three weeks notice. That's normally the way it goes. 461 00:27:02,480 --> 00:27:04,280 Speaker 1: So it is unusual to me that this has happened 462 00:27:04,320 --> 00:27:08,160 Speaker 1: with essentially no notice. And also one of the lawyers 463 00:27:08,160 --> 00:27:11,919 Speaker 1: who was representing Trump on that call, Clio Mitchell, resigned 464 00:27:11,960 --> 00:27:14,919 Speaker 1: from her law firm. Look, obviously there was a lot 465 00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:17,280 Speaker 1: of public pressure. I think the public was by and 466 00:27:17,359 --> 00:27:20,480 Speaker 1: large revolted by what was heard on that call. And 467 00:27:20,600 --> 00:27:22,720 Speaker 1: the lawyer Cleedo Mitchell, is part of it, and she's 468 00:27:22,800 --> 00:27:24,680 Speaker 1: on board with what Donald Trump's doing. And I think 469 00:27:24,840 --> 00:27:28,480 Speaker 1: most worrisome from my perspective looking at her as an attorney, 470 00:27:28,520 --> 00:27:33,160 Speaker 1: is she is completely espousing and supporting these conspiracy theories, 471 00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:36,320 Speaker 1: these theories that have no basis in fact. And you know, 472 00:27:36,400 --> 00:27:38,960 Speaker 1: it's a difficult thing. I don't necessarily believe in going 473 00:27:39,000 --> 00:27:42,800 Speaker 1: after someone's employment or profession or vocation if you disagree 474 00:27:42,800 --> 00:27:45,440 Speaker 1: with what they've done. But there's also a line here 475 00:27:45,440 --> 00:27:49,560 Speaker 1: that lawyers are not the cross of just spinning utter fantasy. 476 00:27:49,600 --> 00:27:53,640 Speaker 1: Your duty bounds to defend a client, including clients who 477 00:27:53,640 --> 00:27:56,480 Speaker 1: may be guilty of things, but it is another matter 478 00:27:56,600 --> 00:28:03,280 Speaker 1: altogether to affirmatively promote outright false statements and fictitious conspiracy theory. 479 00:28:03,440 --> 00:28:07,440 Speaker 1: So that was ultimately the consequence for this attorney. Thanks Ellie. 480 00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:10,840 Speaker 1: That's former federal prosecutor Ellie Hohenick. And that's it for 481 00:28:10,880 --> 00:28:14,000 Speaker 1: the sedition of the Bloomberg Lawn Podcast. I'm June Grosso. 482 00:28:14,119 --> 00:28:16,840 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and remember you can always 483 00:28:16,880 --> 00:28:19,600 Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. 484 00:28:20,000 --> 00:28:23,400 Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever 485 00:28:23,520 --> 00:28:26,520 Speaker 1: you get your favorite podcasts. And please listen to The 486 00:28:26,520 --> 00:28:29,960 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Lawn Show every weeknight at ten pm Eastern on 487 00:28:30,080 --> 00:28:31,040 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio