Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manifort is in the clear.
Speaker 1: He no longer has to worry about the threat of
Speaker 1: spending time in jail again. The manhattander's attempt to bring
Speaker 1: a pardon proof case against Manafort has been foiled by
Speaker 1: the state's top appeals court. Manafort was convicted of federal
Speaker 1: financial crime and illegal lobbying charges and sentenced in twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen to seven and a half years in prison. But
Speaker 1: as Manhattan d A. Cyrus Vans and others anticipated Trump
Speaker 1: pardon Manafort, two lower courts in New York had previously
Speaker 1: ruled that Vance's case, which alleged mortgage fraud in other crimes,
Speaker 1: was so similar to the federal case that it was
Speaker 1: barred by the double jeopardy law. Joining me, as former
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, who teaches at Columbia Law School,
Speaker 1: the constitution bars double jeopardy, but the Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: made an exception for federal and state crimes. Explained that, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know that I would call it an exception.
Speaker 1: It basically the double jeopardy premises that you can't be
Speaker 1: tried twice for the same crime by the same government.
Speaker 1: So in the federal system, that means that, you know,
Speaker 1: if the U. S. Attorney charges you for bank fraud, um,
Speaker 1: they can't turn around and later charge you again for
Speaker 1: the same thank fraud. Nor can another US turney charge
Speaker 1: you for that same bank fraud. But it doesn't apply
Speaker 1: to other governments. So you know, we certainly don't have
Speaker 1: any control over foreign government. So the US government can't
Speaker 1: stop save France from charging someone for a crime even
Speaker 1: if it's been charged in the US. But similarly, under
Speaker 1: our federal system of government, the states are all separate
Speaker 1: sovereigns as well, So the double jeopardy prohibition on charging
Speaker 1: someone twice for the same time doesn't apply to a
Speaker 1: state charge. So that's kind of generally speaking what the
Speaker 1: federal constitution prohibition on double jeopardy sense. But in this case,
Speaker 1: New York had its own double jeopardy law, that's right.
Speaker 1: So you know, all citizens are entitled to the protections
Speaker 1: of the U. S. Constitution. That's kind of the floor,
Speaker 1: that's the baseline, But states are also free in their
Speaker 1: own constitutions to give their own citizens or protections, and
Speaker 1: New York State is a state that does, in fact
Speaker 1: to give its citizens more protection than the Federal Constitution
Speaker 1: does in a whole bunch of areas. But one of
Speaker 1: those areas is in the double jeopardy context. So in
Speaker 1: New York State, it's not the case that if you
Speaker 1: are charged in a federal case and you get to
Speaker 1: the jeopardy point, which is either a conviction or um
Speaker 1: swearing in the jury at a trial, that you can
Speaker 1: charged with that same crime in the state. In fact,
Speaker 1: you can't be, except in certain limited circumstances. So in
Speaker 1: New York State, if you've been charged and convicted by
Speaker 1: the SAIDs for specific conduct, you cannot be charged by
Speaker 1: the state unless an exception applies. If you could describe
Speaker 1: the charges that Vance brought and how he thought that
Speaker 1: they were different from the federal charges, Yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: really good question, because when all of this was happening
Speaker 1: and he started to hear reporting that Syvance was going
Speaker 1: to bring charges, legal observers were talking about, what are
Speaker 1: those charges gonna look like? Clearly he must have something
Speaker 1: different to charge, right, you know, it's generally speaking mortgage fraud,
Speaker 1: bank fraud types of charges, but a lot of us
Speaker 1: thought that you know, maybe there were specific you know,
Speaker 1: reporting requirements in this date, that maybe he filled out
Speaker 1: some false forms that are only chargeable in the state.
Speaker 1: You know, there are lots of those sources of state
Speaker 1: crimes books and records, types of crimes that don't have
Speaker 1: a federal corollary. So a lot of it thought there
Speaker 1: would be something like that. But when the charges came out,
Speaker 1: they really weren't factually distinct from the federal charges, and
Speaker 1: so it was a little bit puzzling, and you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of folks thought that, in fact, what ended
Speaker 1: up happening would happen, which is that those charges would
Speaker 1: be deemed too factually close to and distinct from the
Speaker 1: federal charges, resulting in their rejection under the double jeparty law.
Speaker 1: So when Vance brought those charges, as you mentioned, it
Speaker 1: was fairly clear that he was doing it because of
Speaker 1: the concern that Trump would pardon Manafort, which he did.
Speaker 1: But is there anything wrong with Vance's motivation there in
Speaker 1: bringing the charges. I don't think so. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the point is that if something is chargeable in the state,
Speaker 1: which bank fraud and mortgage trod are chargeable in New
Speaker 1: York State, if you have jurisdiction and venue over those senses.
Speaker 1: The people of the state have an interest in seeing
Speaker 1: that those charges are brought and that you, if with
Speaker 1: you that crime in our state, are punished for that.
Speaker 1: So it's not that it's it's there's something wrong with
Speaker 1: him trying to vindicate the interests of the citizens of
Speaker 1: New York State. And you know, in fact, this notion
Speaker 1: of being charged by the said but then getting out
Speaker 1: of it via a pardon was seemed so problematic that
Speaker 1: the New York State legislature changed the law, saying that
Speaker 1: that now is an exception, like if you are charged
Speaker 1: but then pardoned federally, you now can be charged for
Speaker 1: that thing conduct by the state. But that change was
Speaker 1: made too late to impact Manafort's case because the law
Speaker 1: is not retroact of really applicable. So I don't think
Speaker 1: there's anything wrong. It's kind of an ethical matter with
Speaker 1: bringing the charges. The problem is they just didn't have
Speaker 1: enough of a distinct factual basis to get through the
Speaker 1: double jeopardy law as it existed then for Manafort without
Speaker 1: the pardon exception. Jennifer in its order last week, the
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, without explanation, just said it wouldn't hear
Speaker 1: Vance's appeal of the lower court decisions. Is there anything
Speaker 1: that the lower court judge or the appellate division said
Speaker 1: that struck you, not really, I mean, they just rejected
Speaker 1: the notion that this was different enough. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think the reaction of a lot of legal commentators
Speaker 1: was frustration, you know, the Advance brought a case that
Speaker 1: just wasn't strong enough. I mean, you know, not that
Speaker 1: people thought that he shouldn't be chargeable in the state,
Speaker 1: given that he's now gotten off scot free on the
Speaker 1: federal side, but that there, you know, you really do
Speaker 1: have to comply with the law and bring something factually
Speaker 1: distinct enough, and unfortunately they didn't have that case. And
Speaker 1: if you don't have the case, you shouldn't bring the case. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I didn't see a lot of complaints about
Speaker 1: what the judges did here, more just frustration that Vance
Speaker 1: thought something that at the end of the day wasn't
Speaker 1: going to succeed because they just didn't have enough of
Speaker 1: a distinct factual pattern here. And the fact that the
Speaker 1: state's highest court didn't take the case. But what does
Speaker 1: it say that the court just turn this down and
Speaker 1: didn't allow an argument to be made. Well, the New
Speaker 1: York Court of Appeals, which is our supreme court, they
Speaker 1: don't have to take every case. You know, there are
Speaker 1: some cases that they do have to consider, but a
Speaker 1: lot of their jurisdiction is you know, they can take
Speaker 1: it if they want to take it, and cases that
Speaker 1: they want to take ten tend to be things that
Speaker 1: they think are wrongly decided right that they're gonna overturn,
Speaker 1: or that involved a kind of an area of the
Speaker 1: law that requires clarification, that sort of thing. So if
Speaker 1: they see a case where they look at the decision
Speaker 1: below and they say, well, this decision was correct on
Speaker 1: the law and it's not really a close call because
Speaker 1: the double deeputy law is pretty clear about you know,
Speaker 1: having to have a distinct factual basis, then we're not
Speaker 1: going to take it. I mean, why take it only
Speaker 1: to say, yeah, we agree this is right. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not a novel area of the law. And um,
Speaker 1: you know, so it says to me they didn't consider
Speaker 1: it to be a close case on the merits and
Speaker 1: they didn't see anything else interesting or requiring explanation about
Speaker 1: the case. Um, so you know, they agreed with the
Speaker 1: courts below, So it's there. So is mat A fort
Speaker 1: Scott free because I was reading that the language that
Speaker 1: was used in the parts that Trump gave may not
Speaker 1: cover everything. Yeah, so that's that's an interesting issues. So
Speaker 1: Andrew Weissman, who is UM one of the Mueller team lawyers,
Speaker 1: one of the prosecutors who who um was on Muller
Speaker 1: team and charged and and tries these matters, wrote that
Speaker 1: the pardon that Manafort received is very specific. It only
Speaker 1: applies to the crimes with which he was charged and convicted,
Speaker 1: and so that potentially leaves additional conducts that's chargeable by
Speaker 1: the federal authorities, because you know, you don't always charge
Speaker 1: someone with everything that you know they did, and certainly
Speaker 1: they're not always convicted of everything that you know they did. Right,
Speaker 1: So Andrew says that there's some conduct out there that
Speaker 1: could be charged by the o J again. Now, even
Speaker 1: if that's true, it's really hard to imagine that the
Speaker 1: Biden Justice Department is going to charge Paul Manafort again
Speaker 1: for some of this leftover conduct. Um. But Andrew Wisen's
Speaker 1: you is that technically it's possible. So you know, I
Speaker 1: guess we'll have to wait and see when Garland gets
Speaker 1: into his position, and they start to consider not just Manafort,
Speaker 1: but all of these other Trump world people, um, who
Speaker 1: have outstanding criminal conduct, you know, whether they're going to
Speaker 1: pursue that or not. I remember Weissman also saying that
Speaker 1: they also levied some civil penalties, high civil penalties that
Speaker 1: he would have to pay, so at least there would
Speaker 1: be some measure of justice and some punishment from Manifort
Speaker 1: because everyone anticipated that Trump would pardon Maniford and everyone
Speaker 1: else associated with the Muller investigation. Yeah, and I don't
Speaker 1: think it was a surprise to anyone that raptive partners
Speaker 1: have ended up partnering literally every single figure charged in
Speaker 1: the Muller investigation except for Rick Dates, who was the
Speaker 1: one person who truly did cooperate, signed a cooperation agreement,
Speaker 1: testified at trial, and you know, didn't just kind of
Speaker 1: fake cooperate the way that that Manafort did for a
Speaker 1: short time. So, um, you know, I think it's part
Speaker 1: for prosecutors always to think two steps ahead and to
Speaker 1: try to cro charges in such a way and to
Speaker 1: add civil penalties in a way that insulates them from
Speaker 1: what was really an inappropriate pardon by the president shortly
Speaker 1: before he reached office. Trump also in a last minute
Speaker 1: pardon and really a last minute pardon, he pardoned Steve Bannon,
Speaker 1: and Vance is reportedly exploring a case against Bannon. Will
Speaker 1: that pardon have any effect on Bannon being tried by
Speaker 1: New York So it's really interesting. So Jeoffardy has not
Speaker 1: yet attached for Steve Bannon because it doesn't attach until
Speaker 1: either guilty plea or the jury is born as a trial,
Speaker 1: so there is nothing to stop New York state authorities
Speaker 1: from charging him. But the wrinkle is that former President
Speaker 1: Trump pardon Steve Bannon only and not any of his
Speaker 1: free co defendants. So in the criminal case, the federal
Speaker 1: criminal case again his co defendants, continues and is set
Speaker 1: for trial. You know, I don't know when it's set
Speaker 1: for trial, but it is coming up at some point,
Speaker 1: and so that complicates things a little bit because typically
Speaker 1: prosecutors don't want to have the same evidence and the
Speaker 1: same witnesses being used at the same time in a
Speaker 1: proceeding in federal court. And then also you'll have an
Speaker 1: investigation and ultimately charges in state court, so they're going
Speaker 1: to have to sort out amongst themselves. You know, this
Speaker 1: kind of evidence sharing, and which investigation is gonna go first,
Speaker 1: and whether he can be charged before the federal trial
Speaker 1: happens and so on. Um. But I do expect that,
Speaker 1: given the nature of the conduct and the nature of
Speaker 1: the proof, which seems very strong, the Steed Bannon will eventually,
Speaker 1: perhaps after the federal trial is over, be charged in
Speaker 1: the state with the conduct that he was pardoned for.
Speaker 1: What's his connection to the state. Does he live here?
Speaker 1: I don't know where the bans, but one of I
Speaker 1: believe one of the descendants was based in West Festa
Speaker 1: uh if I'm not mistaken. And in any sort of
Speaker 1: cyber scheme where you have victims that you're reaching out
Speaker 1: to on the Internet and asking them to contribute money
Speaker 1: and they're giving you money, there's almost certain to be
Speaker 1: jurisdiction just about everywhere, to be honest with you, because
Speaker 1: undoubtedly some of the victims of the scheme would have
Speaker 1: been in New York State and would have given money,
Speaker 1: and the descendants would have reached out to residents of
Speaker 1: New York State as part of their scheme itself to
Speaker 1: gather the money. So I'm not exactly sure more of
Speaker 1: connections between the descendants of the state, but certainly, given
Speaker 1: you know the outlets of cyber communications and where the
Speaker 1: victims are likely to be based, there will be jurisdiction
Speaker 1: in New York States. Thanks Jennifer. That's Jennifer Rogers, who
Speaker 1: teaches at Columbia Law School. It was day to a
Speaker 1: former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial. House Impeachment Manager Jamie
Speaker 1: Raskin of Maryland started the proceedings. Raskin said new evidence
Speaker 1: would be presented that would prove that Trump insided his
Speaker 1: mob of supporters to storm the capital and derail the
Speaker 1: proceedings to certify the electoral College result. The evidence will
Speaker 1: be for you to see and hear and digest. The
Speaker 1: evidence will show you that ex President Trump was no
Speaker 1: innocent bystander joining me as former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden, Michael,
Speaker 1: what do you see as the broad strategy of the
Speaker 1: House managers here? The broad strategy of the House managers
Speaker 1: seemed to be to lay the foundation for their brick
Speaker 1: by brick building of a case starting essentially before the
Speaker 1: election even took place, where Trump is saying we can
Speaker 1: only lose by fraud, moving into the post election period
Speaker 1: where he would lose, and then he said, you see,
Speaker 1: it's fraud, just as I told you. Then his efforts
Speaker 1: to undermine and change the results of those elections in
Speaker 1: various states, finally and culminating in January six, and the
Speaker 1: protests and the violence, and the key language that they
Speaker 1: say over and over is what happened on January six
Speaker 1: was predictable and foreseeable, the result of a month long
Speaker 1: campaign to achieve what they achieved, which was an effort
Speaker 1: to stop the certification of the vote on January six.
Speaker 1: So is that the most difficult part of their case,
Speaker 1: actually linking Trump to the attack on the Capitol. Well,
Speaker 1: it's difficult only in the sense that there will be
Speaker 1: a false First Amendment defense that will be laid out,
Speaker 1: which says essentially what he said on January six is
Speaker 1: protected First Amendment speech. What Jamie Raski started today with
Speaker 1: by saying that just doesn't apply. It is not what
Speaker 1: he's on trial for. But I think because it is
Speaker 1: the culminating act, they need to establish this foundation to
Speaker 1: show that that was really not what he is on
Speaker 1: trial for alone, but rather that is part of a
Speaker 1: larger mosaic of activity that he engaged in which he
Speaker 1: knew what would be the result of and in fact
Speaker 1: it was the result of Well at this point, we
Speaker 1: don't know if they're going to have witnesses, but what
Speaker 1: they're doing is there methodically playing video and they're putting
Speaker 1: up stills of tweets. How effective are the tweets of
Speaker 1: rioters in showing that they were following Trump? Well, I
Speaker 1: think that it again goes to the foreseeability of what
Speaker 1: they are trying to prove, which is to say, these
Speaker 1: people knew that they were only there because Trump told
Speaker 1: him to be there, and Trump was able to predict
Speaker 1: and foresee that they would show up because he has
Speaker 1: been for months encouraging them to show up. And so
Speaker 1: I think that it's sort of dove tails with the
Speaker 1: presentation that one Trump is responsible to this, and two
Speaker 1: you can take that as true from the words of
Speaker 1: the people who actually went there because he told them
Speaker 1: to go there. I had not heard this before, but
Speaker 1: they said today that he spent some fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: on ads running right up to January five. That seems
Speaker 1: like it's a powerful piece of evidence exactly, And I
Speaker 1: think that there will be an investigation where there should
Speaker 1: be an investigation of this money trail. Remember My background
Speaker 1: as a prosecutor was as money laundering prosecutor, and when
Speaker 1: I heard the accusation that there was fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: spent in the run up to the January six events
Speaker 1: and to get people to the January six events, I
Speaker 1: want to see who raised that money, how is it raised,
Speaker 1: who spent it, why were they there? Because I think
Speaker 1: that that is also powerful evidence of a premeditated plan
Speaker 1: orchestrated by Trump and a group of people working with
Speaker 1: Trump to create this January six riot. I think it's
Speaker 1: very important evidend. We'll see whether they have it yet,
Speaker 1: but if we don't, I think ultimately we will see that.
Speaker 1: Who do you think would investigate that, because it doesn't
Speaker 1: seem as if Biden's Justice Department is interested in pursuing
Speaker 1: Trump and relitigating it. Well, the Federal Election Commission one
Speaker 1: has a duty to obtain information with respect to anything
Speaker 1: that's campaign related, and so there may be campaign finance
Speaker 1: reasons for the Federal Election Commission to look into it.
Speaker 1: There may be violations of state laws around elections that
Speaker 1: state prosecutors will look into, and I'm not so sure.
Speaker 1: After the dust settles and Merrick Garland is in his
Speaker 1: position that prosecutors are not going to be allowed to
Speaker 1: investigate crimes that occurred in their jurisdiction. So I wouldn't
Speaker 1: say for sure that the Biden administration is not going
Speaker 1: to free prosecutors to look at possible criminal activity in
Speaker 1: their jurisdictions as time passes. So what do you think
Speaker 1: is the hardest part of the House Manager's case. Well,
Speaker 1: the hardest thing they have to do is convinced the
Speaker 1: Republican senators to listen, because there has been reports many
Speaker 1: of the senators are not even paying attention. Yesterday they
Speaker 1: said Marco Rubio and Josh Howley and others are doing
Speaker 1: other things. So part of it is to obtain their attention.
Speaker 1: But I think the hardest thing for them to prove
Speaker 1: is what they are trying to prove, which is this
Speaker 1: is not a one off, one hour speech by Trump,
Speaker 1: but rather this is a fully orchestrated, months long effort
Speaker 1: that January six was the foreseeable and predictable outcome of
Speaker 1: and therefore he's responsible because if it's just one day,
Speaker 1: one speech, then I think it gives his attorneys an opportunity,
Speaker 1: as I say, falsely argue First Amendment and lack of
Speaker 1: foreseeability and he had no intention to incite. But the
Speaker 1: longer the case goes, and the more they can establish
Speaker 1: this timeline that starts before the election where he says
Speaker 1: it's only going to be lost if there's fraud, up
Speaker 1: until his speech on January six, where he then essentially
Speaker 1: blows the whistle and says charge. I think they have
Speaker 1: a strongest case by that, and that's not a simple
Speaker 1: case to make, but that's their strongest argument. Reportedly, Senator
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham told Trump after the first day that it's over. Now,
Speaker 1: the trial is over, and you're going to be acquitted.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine how they feel, the house managers. When
Speaker 1: you're a prosecutor, if you went into a courtroom thinking
Speaker 1: that the jury was against you, I mean, it'd be
Speaker 1: hard to put on the case. Well, it is, yes,
Speaker 1: And I mean the history of civil rights litigation UM
Speaker 1: where they were charging people with violating civil rights, workers
Speaker 1: rights and they were losing to all the juries had
Speaker 1: to be very distressing. But I think in this case
Speaker 1: you have a trial that really is to the American
Speaker 1: public and to history. So I think that these house
Speaker 1: managers know that even if they don't obtain a conviction.
Speaker 1: Even if they can't convince seventeen Republicans, they are broader
Speaker 1: audiences the American people and history, so that it is
Speaker 1: documented what Trump and his allies did and how they
Speaker 1: brought that to life. I think that there's something that
Speaker 1: is very compelling for a prosecutor to say, winner of lose,
Speaker 1: I'm fighting the good fight. Actually, I think it was
Speaker 1: quite a victory yesterday when a Louisiana Senator who hadn't
Speaker 1: voted against the jurisdictional issue when Rand Paul brought it up,
Speaker 1: when they got him to vote for jurisdiction, that was
Speaker 1: a victory of sorts, no question. Whenever you can convince
Speaker 1: somebody who has voted against you in one vote to
Speaker 1: vote in your favor a second vote, that's that's the victory.
Speaker 1: The thing that is interesting to me is to keep
Speaker 1: an eye on McConnell. He's been quiet. He made comments
Speaker 1: early on that he thought Trump was responsible for this.
Speaker 1: He voted yesterday against moving forward, But he may have
Speaker 1: done that reasons that don't relate to how he's going
Speaker 1: to vote on the merit of the case. I still
Speaker 1: think as he goes goes the outcome of this trial.
Speaker 1: I think he's in a lynch pin that many senators
Speaker 1: are looking for his non approval to vote. Someone said,
Speaker 1: and I think it's probably right that were this a
Speaker 1: secret ballot, Trump would probably lose seven eight votes to convict.
Speaker 1: But because it's not a secret ballot, and because these
Speaker 1: senators primarily are concerned about their political career and their
Speaker 1: will being in non America and not its history, and
Speaker 1: not the rule of law and all that stuff, we're
Speaker 1: in this situation of only six voting to convict. So now,
Speaker 1: what can the defense do to counter the House argument?
Speaker 1: What I think that defense is going to try to
Speaker 1: do is to say all the president did was to
Speaker 1: make a speech, a one hour speech on January six,
Speaker 1: which is protected by the First Amendment, and that the
Speaker 1: actions of the mob stormed the capital were not foreseeable
Speaker 1: by him, was not intended by him, and was just
Speaker 1: on them by themselves, without any culpability for him. I
Speaker 1: think the more noise that they can make that all
Speaker 1: Trump did was what he was allowed to do under laws.
Speaker 1: That is, he is allowed to bring lawsuits, he is
Speaker 1: allowed to ask the senators to exercise their power to
Speaker 1: contest the certification on January six. He is allowed as
Speaker 1: a matter of free speech to speak to whomever he
Speaker 1: wants to, and state legislature was about whether there was
Speaker 1: election fraud and that his speech was not inciting, but
Speaker 1: rather it was just rhetoric that is normal in the
Speaker 1: political discourse. I think you'll see a lot of false equivalence.
Speaker 1: They will say, well, Maxine Waters said this, how is
Speaker 1: it if she said that she's not on trial, but
Speaker 1: our guys on trial. So they going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of effort I think to say this speech was hyperbolic,
Speaker 1: but but First Amendment protected. I think that's what they'll
Speaker 1: try to say. You know, it's very hard to know
Speaker 1: what they'll do after listening to their opening arguments yesterday
Speaker 1: because they were incoherent, loud, and incoherent, so it's pretty
Speaker 1: hard to know what their strategy is. But if I
Speaker 1: were representing the president in this case, I would try
Speaker 1: to say that everything that he did was lawful. He
Speaker 1: had a right to allege election fraud, he had a
Speaker 1: right to contest in the courts these elections. He had
Speaker 1: a right to make that speech, and the outcome of
Speaker 1: that events, that series of events was unforeseeable to him
Speaker 1: and so as terrible as it was, a lot of
Speaker 1: people are saying, well, they have to prove you know,
Speaker 1: he had the intent, etcetera. But this isn't a criminal trial.
Speaker 1: Do they really have to meet some kind of burden
Speaker 1: of Well, they have to prove their case. That is,
Speaker 1: they have to prove what they allege in their article
Speaker 1: of impeachment, which is that he incided in an insurrection
Speaker 1: and he did so by a course of conduct that
Speaker 1: took place over many months. So yes, they have a
Speaker 1: burden of proving their case. What is the false analogy
Speaker 1: is to a criminal trial and what I say, there's
Speaker 1: a false First Amendment defense here. In a criminal trial,
Speaker 1: the First Amendment defense is the First Amendment protects me
Speaker 1: from being criminally prosecuted for words out of my mouth,
Speaker 1: absence some imminent, clear and present danger that these words create.
Speaker 1: In an impeachment trial, because there is no criminal penalty,
Speaker 1: that First Amendment defense really doesn't apply. But I think
Speaker 1: that that's what they will continue to try and do,
Speaker 1: and I think the house managers have to continue to
Speaker 1: say it's not about that, don't be misled. This is
Speaker 1: about a month long brick by brick campaign that culminated
Speaker 1: on January six, didn't start and end on January six,
Speaker 1: So we don't know about witnesses. And I understand that
Speaker 1: they're trying to use the video and the tweets and
Speaker 1: instead of witness testimony. But what seems to be missing
Speaker 1: and they refer to the reports that Trump was gleeful
Speaker 1: hearing about this and why he waited until he stepped in,
Speaker 1: Don't they really need someone in order to make the
Speaker 1: case a full case needs someone to talk about how
Speaker 1: Trump reacted to the violence. I think how Trump reacted
Speaker 1: to the violence and the delayed responds calling it to
Speaker 1: an end is very important, definite. That's not clear to
Speaker 1: me though, how they get that, because it seems to
Speaker 1: me that from what we've been hearing about in the press,
Speaker 1: only ones who know that our Trump inner circle people
Speaker 1: she goes stay as Mark Meadows, his children and others
Speaker 1: who were invited by him to watch the videotapes, Jared
Speaker 1: and Ivanka and the likes, And so I don't know
Speaker 1: exactly how you get that. I don't think they'll come voluntarily.
Speaker 1: If you were to subpoena them, then you're in this
Speaker 1: courtroom fight over executive privilege and the trial gets delayed
Speaker 1: forever and ever, but absolutely right. If there is somebody
Speaker 1: who can say I was there and I saw his reaction,
Speaker 1: or I'm one of the people who was calling and
Speaker 1: calling and calling and couldn't get his attention, I think
Speaker 1: that would be powerful elevience. And I think that that
Speaker 1: Ladder group they may get, they may get people who
Speaker 1: have told them about what their efforts were to get
Speaker 1: Trump's attention and they couldn't get it. I think we
Speaker 1: may hear that, but I don't know that we're gonna
Speaker 1: get a live witness who can testified to that. But
Speaker 1: I think you're you're spot on in your evaluation. That
Speaker 1: would be very compelling. So finally, compare this impeachment trial
Speaker 1: to the last impeachment trial. We're only a two days in,
Speaker 1: but still the first Trump's impeachment trial was a little bit,
Speaker 1: you know, esoteric in a sense that you had a
Speaker 1: phone call with a partial transcript where the words weren't
Speaker 1: very clear and you could read into them in different ways,
Speaker 1: and it was not a simple sort of blood and
Speaker 1: gut case. It's much easier to prosecute sort of street
Speaker 1: crimes case with his blood, guts and core that stuff
Speaker 1: than it is a financial crimes case where it's just
Speaker 1: a lot of paper. I think the first case was
Speaker 1: a lot more sort of paper ish in a sense,
Speaker 1: this opaque phone call, and this one is really a blood,
Speaker 1: sweat and tears sort of case where we see the
Speaker 1: video of what's going on, and the key witness in
Speaker 1: this trial so far has and Donald Trump and the
Speaker 1: words out of his mouth, both orally and in tweets.
Speaker 1: I remember we have to say about a tweet is
Speaker 1: that the President said early on in his administration that
Speaker 1: tweets are official presidential communications. They are not simply the
Speaker 1: midnight ramblings of a private citizen. These are official government documents.
Speaker 1: So when he says something in the tweets, it is
Speaker 1: an official statement of the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Thanks Michael. That's Michael Zelden and that's it for the
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso and
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg