Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of
Speaker 1: the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional
Speaker 1: rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of
Speaker 1: our investigations. Despite the intention of Attorney General Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: and the Justice Department to keep secret the details of
Speaker 1: its investigation and unprecedented search of former President Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: Moral Lago estate, the federal judge who approved the search
Speaker 1: warrant has other ideas. US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhardt ruled
Speaker 1: that portions of the FBI affidavit used to secure the
Speaker 1: search warrant should be unsealed, and he gave the government
Speaker 1: until noon on Thursday to propose what information in the
Speaker 1: affidavit should be kept secret. Joining me as former federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor Jennifer Rogers electure at Columbia Law School, Jennifer, are
Speaker 1: you surprised that the judge has decided to release parts
Speaker 1: of that FBI affidavit? Yes, I was really surprised. I,
Speaker 1: along with basically every other legal commentator I saw, I
Speaker 1: thought that there was virtually no chance the judge would
Speaker 1: do that. I guess the judge was just convinced here
Speaker 1: that there's such great public interest in this that, assuming
Speaker 1: it can be properly redacted, the public ought to be
Speaker 1: able to see portions of it. So now the big
Speaker 1: question turns to what redactions will the judge except from
Speaker 1: d o J. Just how unusual is it to unseal
Speaker 1: an affidavit while the investigation is still going on. It's
Speaker 1: very unusual, and usually it's because the person whose property
Speaker 1: has been searched has no interest in the public learning
Speaker 1: about that and learning about the investigations that is likely
Speaker 1: targeting that person, So you know, you don't typically have
Speaker 1: people wanting these things publicly released. This, of course, is
Speaker 1: a unique situation where Trump wants to try to turn
Speaker 1: it to his advantage and claim he's being targeted and
Speaker 1: so on. So that's why we are where we are.
Speaker 1: And also, of course Trump isn't the party that moves
Speaker 1: to unseal. It was media organizations. Media doesn't typically care
Speaker 1: about your average search warrants explain what kind of information
Speaker 1: normally goes into an affidavits supporting a search want request,
Speaker 1: So it's not the entire investigation necessarily, but what it
Speaker 1: has to do is established probable cause that at least
Speaker 1: one crime has been committed and that evidence of that
Speaker 1: crime can be found at the scene that is to
Speaker 1: be searched. So they have to go through the information
Speaker 1: that leads to that conclusion. So in this case, I
Speaker 1: assume that it goes through however they learned that there
Speaker 1: were potentially documents that should not have been at Mara
Speaker 1: Lagos there. It likely goes through the negotiations with Trump's team,
Speaker 1: the back and forth that they had the boxes that
Speaker 1: worst these by National Archives. However, they determined that there
Speaker 1: were still things outstanding, the further negotiations, the subpoena, and
Speaker 1: then ultimately, however, they reached a conclusion that there still
Speaker 1: were items outstanding that were likely at Moral Lago That
Speaker 1: may include statements from witnesses who saw documents there. It's
Speaker 1: essentially the evidence that establishes to a judge of satisfaction
Speaker 1: not be under reasonable doubt, not even by a preponderance,
Speaker 1: but at least that there's probable cause to believe this
Speaker 1: crime has been committed and you can find the evidence there.
Speaker 1: And importantly, it has to be that the evidence is
Speaker 1: there at the time they're going to search. It can't
Speaker 1: be at one time there was evidence there. It has
Speaker 1: to be fairly fresh. J. Brad, the Justice Department's counter
Speaker 1: intelligence chief, argued that the ongoing investigation would be severely compromised,
Speaker 1: including the names of agents and witnesses, and that there
Speaker 1: was a threat of possible obstruction and interference in the investigation.
Speaker 1: In a case where the judge has already found probable
Speaker 1: cause that there's a violation of one of the obstruction statutes.
Speaker 1: That sounds pretty convincing to me at least. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: and that's why it's so critical what the judge does
Speaker 1: with the request for redaction, because you know, there's really
Speaker 1: no point in releasing a document if virtually everything in
Speaker 1: it is redacted and you can't learn anything. I mean,
Speaker 1: that doesn't assist the public and this matter of great importance,
Speaker 1: as the judge has determined. On the other hand, I
Speaker 1: think the judge should take seriously the Justice Department's concerns
Speaker 1: about its investigation and the integrity of the investigation, and
Speaker 1: of course the safety of most primarily witnesses, not just
Speaker 1: their safety, but that they should not be tampered with,
Speaker 1: of course, So you know, weighing all of that, the
Speaker 1: question is how extensive. Will the redactions speak? You know,
Speaker 1: there's some information in the public already about these negotiations
Speaker 1: between Trump's team and the National Archives and then eventually
Speaker 1: the FBI. Some of that seems like it could come
Speaker 1: out and not be redacted. That would be safe. You know.
Speaker 1: The things I expect to be redacted are whatever source
Speaker 1: information they received that these documents are still at Moral
Speaker 1: Lago and exactly where they are. That's the sort of
Speaker 1: information you would think would be redacted. And then of
Speaker 1: course anything else sensitive that they think would jeopardize the
Speaker 1: ongoing nature of the investigation will likely be redacted to
Speaker 1: But I expect they can release some of this, particularly
Speaker 1: about the back and forth with Team Trump and his
Speaker 1: lawyers and the National Archives and SBI. I think we'll
Speaker 1: see some of that. Do you think we'll learn more
Speaker 1: about the classified documents that they were looking for. That's
Speaker 1: an interesting question. I certainly who were certainly not going
Speaker 1: to see any information that's specific enough that itself is classified.
Speaker 1: You know, In other words, we're not going to hear, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a cable that talks about you know, Russia's nuclear
Speaker 1: program and says that it's you know, X, Y and
Speaker 1: Z but would the judge entertain releasing some gen neural
Speaker 1: information about the nature of the documents? Um, I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I mean maybe if the judge determines that that that
Speaker 1: information doesn't jeopardize the investigation. I mean, that seems to
Speaker 1: be where he will likely draw the line. So we
Speaker 1: could learn more, but it'll be fairly general. The judge
Speaker 1: gave the Justice Department a week to propose what information
Speaker 1: the documents should be kept secret, and he said he'll
Speaker 1: propose his own redactions if he disagrees with their. So
Speaker 1: is he trying to send a message to them, don't
Speaker 1: redact everything, or I'm going to do my own stuff. Oh?
Speaker 1: Of course, of course he's saying, be reasonable, you know,
Speaker 1: don't send me a document that that redacts everything except
Speaker 1: the the BUZ and the a's in the end, you know,
Speaker 1: the articles. Um, so sure he's saying, don't do this,
Speaker 1: but you know they should be reasonable anyway, you know.
Speaker 1: And and I suspect, you know, what usually happens is
Speaker 1: the o J is a little bit too conservative and
Speaker 1: the judge may push back a little bit. So you
Speaker 1: know what, we'll have to see what we end up with.
Speaker 1: I mean, hopefully the public will be able to learn
Speaker 1: a bit more without jeopardizing the investigation or any of
Speaker 1: the witnesses. I mean, I think that's what all of
Speaker 1: us wants. What does it tell you that one of
Speaker 1: Trump's attorneys attended the court hearing but declined to comment
Speaker 1: other than to say Trump wants the affidavit unsealed. So
Speaker 1: it's interesting. So, of course Trump has been saying for
Speaker 1: days that he wants the affidavit unsealed. But my view
Speaker 1: is he doesn't really want it unsealed. He wants to
Speaker 1: see it because he wants to identify people who have
Speaker 1: provided information to the government against him. But does he
Speaker 1: really want it fully unsealed? Does he really want the
Speaker 1: public to be able to see the basis for the
Speaker 1: probably cause to believe that crimes have been committed? In
Speaker 1: evidence of those crimes, you know, is at Mara Lago,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. So. I think the reason that
Speaker 1: he had a lawyer there but didn't actually make a
Speaker 1: formal legal filing calling for the unsealing, joining in the
Speaker 1: media's request really shows that he actually doesn't want it
Speaker 1: in public, He just wants to know within it. Now,
Speaker 1: he said he'd allow the government time to appeal his ruling.
Speaker 1: Is that something you think the Justice Department might actually
Speaker 1: do appeal? I think they might appeal if in the
Speaker 1: end they feel that the judge's ruling releases too much information.
Speaker 1: So we'll we'll have to wait and see what the
Speaker 1: outcome of that is. But yet, certainly, if they think
Speaker 1: that their investigation is jeopardized, or certainly any classified material
Speaker 1: is jeopardized by what the judge wants to be released,
Speaker 1: I think they will appeal. Thanks Jennifer. That's former federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor Jennifer Rogers. We will not talk about this until
Speaker 1: it's over. It's a grand jury and grand juries, as
Speaker 1: I recall, a secret Rudy Giuliani appeared before the Georgia
Speaker 1: grand jury investigating criminal efforts to overturn the election on Wednesday.
Speaker 1: Giuliani was told that he's now target of the investigation
Speaker 1: that Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis has been conducting
Speaker 1: for more than a year. We're gonna look at everything
Speaker 1: until that investigation is complete. It's not known what Giuliani
Speaker 1: said in his six hours in the closed door session,
Speaker 1: but he made several appearances before Georgia lawmakers promoting conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories and claiming that he had evidence of widespread voter fraud.
Speaker 1: You can see them counting the ballots more than once, two, three, four,
Speaker 1: or five times. You would have to be a moron
Speaker 1: not to realize if that voter fraud. Joining me is
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Widra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: was told by Atlanta prosecutors that he's a target in
Speaker 1: their investigation. Is it unusual to call a target to
Speaker 1: testify before the grand jury? Why would he answer any
Speaker 1: questions when he's the target? Well, I think that's a
Speaker 1: very good question. You know, if you are called before
Speaker 1: a grand jury, you can be called as a witness,
Speaker 1: you know, simply a material witness, or you can be
Speaker 1: called as a target. And we understand that he is
Speaker 1: a target, and that means that the grand jury and
Speaker 1: the prosecutor likely have substantial evidence that linked him to
Speaker 1: a crime, and he could very likely be charged. So
Speaker 1: I think there is a very very strong likelihood that
Speaker 1: he invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and
Speaker 1: declined to answer questions. You know, he could have also
Speaker 1: tried to put forth this attorney client privilege, but I
Speaker 1: don't think that really would relate to most of the
Speaker 1: questions of allegations of crime, because they simply weren't taking
Speaker 1: place in conversations between him and Donald Trump. And also
Speaker 1: there's a client fraud exception to the attorney client privilege,
Speaker 1: which doesn't allow you to assert that privilege over fraudulent
Speaker 1: criminal conversation. On his podcast on Monday, Giuliani said, quote,
Speaker 1: as I recall correctly, I appeared in Georgia as attorney
Speaker 1: for Donald J. Trump, So I'm going to be prosecuted
Speaker 1: for what I did as an attorney. Does that theory
Speaker 1: make sense to you? No, it doesn't make a lot
Speaker 1: of sense. You know, it's unclear whether Julian was on
Speaker 1: a mission from Trump as his attorney in George or not.
Speaker 1: But the real gist of the matter is when he
Speaker 1: was making these public statements that the you know, for example,
Speaker 1: to the Georgia send a judiciary committee hearing about election integrity,
Speaker 1: you know, in which he spread conspiracy theories about what
Speaker 1: he referred to his widespread irregularities, which there's been absolutely
Speaker 1: no evidence bound that that has any merit whatsoever. You know,
Speaker 1: whether those are part of an unlawful, coordinated attempt to
Speaker 1: alter the outcome of the elections, and that's not protected
Speaker 1: by any type of attorney relationship. If Juliani made statements
Speaker 1: at legislative hearings in Georgia falsely claiming that there have
Speaker 1: been widespread voter products, so he testified before the grand
Speaker 1: jury for about six hours, does that length of time
Speaker 1: mean that he didn't take the fifth for every question
Speaker 1: or didn't invoke attorney client privilege, or could it take
Speaker 1: that long just to have them ask questions and answer?
Speaker 1: In other words, does the time tell us anything? The
Speaker 1: time doesn't necessarily tell us what happened. You know, he
Speaker 1: could very well have pleaded the fifth to every question
Speaker 1: and they simply had six hours worth with breaks, of course,
Speaker 1: a question to ask him, because very frequently prosecutors who
Speaker 1: are investigators will continue to ask the questions even if
Speaker 1: they know that the witness is going to invocus fifth,
Speaker 1: and so you know, it definitely does go faster than
Speaker 1: if the witness gave a full answer to the questions.
Speaker 1: It nonetheless does take quite a bit of time. Among
Speaker 1: the potential crimes that the d. A. Willis is investigating
Speaker 1: is making false statements to state and local government bodies,
Speaker 1: as well as solicitation of election fraud and conspiracy. Since
Speaker 1: Giuliani's statements before Georgia lawmakers have been proven, does it
Speaker 1: seem like it would be difficult for him to get
Speaker 1: around a charge of making false statements to state government bodies. Right,
Speaker 1: And that's why in some ways claims about attorney client privilege,
Speaker 1: you know, don't really make sense in this instance, because
Speaker 1: Juliani was making public comments. They were during a legislative
Speaker 1: committee hearing. They have been televised, you know, we've seen
Speaker 1: the tape. So these statements are out there, and the
Speaker 1: fact that they are false is incredibly well known, even
Speaker 1: if some people continue to refuse to accept that truth.
Speaker 1: And so we know that the scope of the investigation
Speaker 1: that D. A. Willis is undertaking includes the call between
Speaker 1: Trump and Rappensburger, which call between Rappensburger and Senator Graham,
Speaker 1: and also include these false comments made by Juliani. And
Speaker 1: so given that it is so clear cut, it could
Speaker 1: be an important first step for this investigation to charge
Speaker 1: Juliani and then go from there. You know, I think
Speaker 1: also it would be in a important steps for the
Speaker 1: nation because we have continually heard these false claims of
Speaker 1: election abroad about the twenty elections. They've been said over
Speaker 1: and over publicly by Donald Trump and his allies without
Speaker 1: really any consequence or accountability, And so I think to
Speaker 1: have some actual accountability attached to those false statements could
Speaker 1: be a way of finally getting more people on board
Speaker 1: with the actual truth that there wasn't wide spread election
Speaker 1: fraud of the twenty twenty election. And so I think
Speaker 1: charging Giuliani for those false statements would be an important
Speaker 1: step in the d A investigation and could be an
Speaker 1: important step for the country as well. Atlanta prosecutors have
Speaker 1: also told sixteen Trump fake electors that their targets. But
Speaker 1: this focus on Giuliani brings that investigation right into Trump's
Speaker 1: inner circle. Giuliani went from being a material witness to
Speaker 1: being a target. So is Trump far behind or is
Speaker 1: that a bridge to far? You know, We certainly don't know.
Speaker 1: We can speculate based on what the DA is investigating.
Speaker 1: And one of the things she is specifically investigating is
Speaker 1: a phone call between Donald Trump himself and Wrapping Burger.
Speaker 1: And so if that particular call is part of the
Speaker 1: scope of the investigation, obviously that directly involves Trump. And
Speaker 1: so I think that if I were Donald Trump, I
Speaker 1: would continue to be nervous about this investigation. Willis has
Speaker 1: said that the investigation could result in a multi defendant
Speaker 1: racketeering or conspiracy case. She's brought rico cases before, and
Speaker 1: so does it seem like the time that she's taking
Speaker 1: and the people that she's calling in before the grand
Speaker 1: jury lead to a conclusion that it's a bigger case
Speaker 1: than we might have anticipated when she started. Yes, well,
Speaker 1: I think that that often happens with grand juries, because
Speaker 1: you know, part of the reason you have a grand
Speaker 1: jury when you're engaged an investigation is to have the
Speaker 1: authority to subpoena witnesses and information because there are limits
Speaker 1: to getting people to willingly participate in your investigation. Is
Speaker 1: so very frequently after you and panel a grand jury,
Speaker 1: you will learn new things. So I think that it
Speaker 1: would be not surprising at all if her investigation did
Speaker 1: continue to turn up additional evidence of criminal activity and
Speaker 1: unlawful activity. Willis has said that the investigation could result
Speaker 1: in a multidefendant racketeering or conspiracy case. She's brought rico
Speaker 1: cases before, and so does it seem like the time
Speaker 1: that she's taking and the people that she's calling in
Speaker 1: before the grand jury lead to a conclusion that it's
Speaker 1: a bigger case than we might have anticipated when she started. Yes, well,
Speaker 1: I think that that often happens with grand juries because
Speaker 1: you know, part of the reason you have a grand
Speaker 1: jury when you're engaged in investigation is to have the
Speaker 1: authority to subpoena witnesses and information because you know there
Speaker 1: are limits to getting people to willingly participate in your investigation.
Speaker 1: Is so very frequently after you and panel a grand jury,
Speaker 1: you will learn new things. So I think that it
Speaker 1: would be, um, not surprising at all if her investigation
Speaker 1: did continue to turn up additional evidence of criminal activity
Speaker 1: and unlawful activity. And um, we know that just from
Speaker 1: the January six committee hearings that there were a lot
Speaker 1: of tentacles to this effort to Keith Donald Trump empowered
Speaker 1: despite the votes in the election. And you know in
Speaker 1: Georgia in particular, President Biden one by nearly twelve thousand bots. Um.
Speaker 1: So you know, it wouldn't be surprising if the grand
Speaker 1: jury investigation turned up additional evidence and the tard Its group,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned Senator Lindsey Graham and also to other
Speaker 1: lawyers who represented Trump during the election, tried to challenge
Speaker 1: the subpoenas. Graham was turned down and Jenna Ellis, the
Speaker 1: attorney was turned down John Eastman, it's still up in
Speaker 1: the air. The judge is not being intimidated or playing
Speaker 1: around with this, neither is the d A. Is it
Speaker 1: unusual to have these national figures being called to a
Speaker 1: grand jury by a county d A. So there's there's
Speaker 1: very little that is normal about this, but it is,
Speaker 1: I would say appropriate. You have state and local laws
Speaker 1: that apply to everyone, whether you're you know, powerful or
Speaker 1: power less, whether you're um infamous statist or just a
Speaker 1: regular person, and you know it. So this is very
Speaker 1: unusual because we have this coordinated effort going up to
Speaker 1: the former president of the United States to overturn the
Speaker 1: will of the people, and it happens to be centered
Speaker 1: in Fulton County, Georgia. But in many ways, you know,
Speaker 1: the president and his allies took the fight to Sultan
Speaker 1: County by making these unsubstantiated claims of election of fraud
Speaker 1: that they claimed took place in Fulton County. And the
Speaker 1: fact is that no election fraud took place, No widespread
Speaker 1: election fraud took place, in Fulton County. And so the
Speaker 1: Fulton County d A is pushing back against this conspiracy
Speaker 1: to try to overturn the results of the people who
Speaker 1: voted in that county and the people across the nation
Speaker 1: who voted to put Joe Biden into power instead of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. And so it certainly is high profile, of course,
Speaker 1: but I think that what we're seeing is a d
Speaker 1: A and a judge and a and jury who are
Speaker 1: not afraid to really stand up to say no one
Speaker 1: is above the law, and we are going to require
Speaker 1: you to comply with the law, even if we're, you know,
Speaker 1: just a little county in Georgia. Our laws apply to everyone,
Speaker 1: including you. Thanks so much, Elizabeth. That's Elizabeth Widerette, president
Speaker 1: of the Constitutional Accountability Center. Alan Weisselberg, the Trump organization's
Speaker 1: longtime chief financial officer, pleaded guilty to evading taxes on
Speaker 1: a free apartment and other perks amounting to more than
Speaker 1: one point seven million dollars worth of untaxed extras, striking
Speaker 1: a deal with prosecutors that could make him a star
Speaker 1: witness against the company. At a trial this fall. The
Speaker 1: seventy five year old acknowledged guilt on all fifteen charges.
Speaker 1: As part of his plea agreement, Weislberg will spend five
Speaker 1: months behind bars, followed by five years of probation. He
Speaker 1: also agreed to pay nearly two million dollars in back taxes,
Speaker 1: penalties and interest. Joining me as Greg Farrell Bloomberg News
Speaker 1: investigative reporter for the Legal Enforcement Team. Is this plea
Speaker 1: deal Weislberg flipping on Trump? No, not in the sense
Speaker 1: that we understand flipping as being let's say Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: several years ago, where this Cohen describes he decided to
Speaker 1: plead guilty, and he testified to the best of his knowledge,
Speaker 1: including against Trump in the Stormy Daniel's case and related cases,
Speaker 1: and eventually has really been aggressive in promoting that. Weizelberg's
Speaker 1: trying to walk a fine line he wants to and
Speaker 1: succeeded in reducing exposure to life five months maximum. He's
Speaker 1: the guy seventy that matters. I mean, he might get
Speaker 1: you know, less than that, and he's playing guilty to
Speaker 1: fifteen charges and he will be required, if called, to
Speaker 1: testify in the rest of the trial against the Trump organization,
Speaker 1: to testify about what he did. So it's not like
Speaker 1: ratting out Donald Trump personally saying I was in the
Speaker 1: room with him and did this, but just providing testimony
Speaker 1: that as an official, the guy who actually controlled the
Speaker 1: finances and the payments, et cetera of the company, it's
Speaker 1: going to be very damaging to the organization and implicitly
Speaker 1: to Trump himself. I looked at it in a different way.
Speaker 1: He didn't implicate Trump or his family, and he's not
Speaker 1: going to testify about Trump and his family, and he
Speaker 1: hasn't cooperated with prosecutors in their broader investigation into Trump,
Speaker 1: So why give him a deal? I think the prosecutors
Speaker 1: a must have realized that despite the fact that he's
Speaker 1: facing fifteen years, a guy his age on something like
Speaker 1: this where there's not a lot of case history is
Speaker 1: probably not at awhere near that, and then the effort
Speaker 1: and manpower going into prosecuting him versus the value he
Speaker 1: would have to testify in court about his role there,
Speaker 1: like publiclarations. Wise, it's already a victory, you know, because
Speaker 1: everybody was giving up on Alvin Bragg when the investigation
Speaker 1: of Trump were dead, you know, when those two star
Speaker 1: appointees of Civance left, and now this is very much
Speaker 1: back in the game. So it's a momentum for the
Speaker 1: d a's office if they want to continue pursuing Trump himself.
Speaker 1: It cuts out a very toilsome part of the trial
Speaker 1: against an individual, and it's much tougher to get a
Speaker 1: criminal conviction of a guy who seventy five years old,
Speaker 1: and you generate some sympathy for him that it isn't
Speaker 1: an organization. People just don't care about finding an organization guilty.
Speaker 1: The organizations not going to jail. So there are several upsides,
Speaker 1: you know, embedded in this for the prosecution, right. So,
Speaker 1: and the fact that the Trump organization sent out a
Speaker 1: statement that I had done nothing wrong and look forward
Speaker 1: to going to trial, and the company called Wisselberg a
Speaker 1: fine and honorable man, So they're happy that he kept
Speaker 1: his mouth shut, at least as far as Trump is concerned.
Speaker 1: So let's talk a little bit about the criminal investigation
Speaker 1: to Trump, which you referenced. So there was this push
Speaker 1: when Civance was prosecutor to try to pursue this criminally,
Speaker 1: and we went up to the Supreme Court to get
Speaker 1: the tax documents, push, push, push, and then Alvin Brad
Speaker 1: comes in and nothing. He says, it's still going on.
Speaker 1: But is it is there an investigation going on? This
Speaker 1: is a a complex story, so to simplify it, you
Speaker 1: are correct. The former district attorneys I Vance Um embarked
Speaker 1: on this prosecution several years ago after a Bloomberg story.
Speaker 1: A story in Bloomberg News pointed out that you know,
Speaker 1: Wislberg had been paying for the Trump organization, had been
Speaker 1: paying for the apartment of Weislberg's son and his wife,
Speaker 1: and all sorts of other payments like that that were
Speaker 1: off the books and books and records, violations to conceal
Speaker 1: a fraud. That's a that's a that's a that's a
Speaker 1: crime in New York state law. So prosecute started that,
Speaker 1: and you're right. They asked for eight years of Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns and the company's tax returns, and Trump, as usual,
Speaker 1: fought it all the way to the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: lost and went to the Supreme Court again. So he
Speaker 1: helped run out the clock by ending that way against ivance. However,
Speaker 1: it was a year ago or late June early July
Speaker 1: last year, when Weisselberg and the organization would charged criminally.
Speaker 1: Um and Vance had decided not to run for re
Speaker 1: election and he had six months left in his term.
Speaker 1: And it's strange how he played the last few months.
Speaker 1: I think he could have you know, there was no
Speaker 1: new information that came in in the second half of UH,
Speaker 1: and yet he waited until mid December, with two weeks
Speaker 1: left in his term and a successor who had been elected,
Speaker 1: UM to you know, basically, UH direct his top two
Speaker 1: deputies to pursue this aggressively with an eye towards getting
Speaker 1: indicted within three months of the new guy's term. So
Speaker 1: um anyway, you know, this is how it's unfolds. Uh.
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg takes office and uh uh you know, he
Speaker 1: starts going over some of the material there. Some of
Speaker 1: the material that had been passed along to Alvin Bragg
Speaker 1: by the two men you know in question van system
Speaker 1: did not contain some of the downsides of a prosecution.
Speaker 1: In other words, there was a lot of paperwork and
Speaker 1: arguments why this was the right thing to do, uh
Speaker 1: and why it could be very winnable. There were a
Speaker 1: few documents that had been existed in the office that
Speaker 1: pointed out the challenges of this case that were omitted
Speaker 1: from the file that these two individuals presented to Alvin Bragg,
Speaker 1: and of course, you know, he's the Bosty office. When
Speaker 1: he eventually did see this, he developed some skepticism towards
Speaker 1: the presentations they had made to him. Um. And then
Speaker 1: I guess the video. When they realized they weren't going
Speaker 1: to be controlling this investigation or getting what they wanted, um,
Speaker 1: they quit. One of one of the two wrote a
Speaker 1: resignation letter h that was so detailed and critical of
Speaker 1: Brag that it had to have been something that was
Speaker 1: designed to be put in the public domain. UM. So yes,
Speaker 1: there was. So there was a widespread belief that, based
Speaker 1: on the resignation letter, that that Bragg's investigation was over. Um.
Speaker 1: But I think he was hoping to get something more
Speaker 1: and as small as this. My it be even though
Speaker 1: you and I wouldn't use the word flip to uh
Speaker 1: to talk about al Weisenberg, he will have to testify
Speaker 1: truthfully about crimes he committed and admitted to. So this
Speaker 1: is something that's going to be damaging it. This could
Speaker 1: be something like even though it might seem incremental, I
Speaker 1: think it's a little bigger than that that could break
Speaker 1: other pieces of the puzzle loose. So anyway, that's a
Speaker 1: you know, a summary of the events of the last
Speaker 1: more complex, and a lot of things we don't know
Speaker 1: from the outside looking in looking at this investigation, all
Speaker 1: that will happen to the Trump organization, as I understand
Speaker 1: it is fines if they're convicted. Is the Attorney General
Speaker 1: Letitia James? Is investigation more problematic for Trump? Yes? I
Speaker 1: think so for several reasons. One, it's a civil case.
Speaker 1: It's a civil case, which means, you know, the bar
Speaker 1: is lower in terms of a jury if she actually
Speaker 1: files the suit against the Trump organization accusative defraud and
Speaker 1: New York State and other entities. But she represents the
Speaker 1: state so defraud and New York's date of tax revenue
Speaker 1: or whatever, um, she has a lot of strong evidence
Speaker 1: on her own. Um. The fact that the CFO of
Speaker 1: the Trump organization, you know, in another venue, the d
Speaker 1: A's Office, criminally pleaded guilty to fifteen criminal counts about
Speaker 1: tax evasion and tax abuse is a positive for her,
Speaker 1: you know, to the extent she wants to bring it
Speaker 1: in and I like, do you need me more evidence
Speaker 1: that you know, the Trump organization intentionally cheated new York State.
Speaker 1: You have got the CFO admitting to a portion of
Speaker 1: that so if she does, and when Trump himself and
Speaker 1: his son, uh, finally Stafford depositions they took the Fifth
Speaker 1: Amendment UM like frequently and provided no meaningful answers. Now
Speaker 1: that's another difference between a criminal investigation by the d
Speaker 1: A and a civil investigation by the a g UM.
Speaker 1: In a criminal trial, you know, a jury is not
Speaker 1: allowed to draw any inferences from a witness who takes
Speaker 1: the fifth UM. There's a protection against that. But in
Speaker 1: a civil trial, you can draw an inference. UM. That's
Speaker 1: sort of so if you could say, you know, we
Speaker 1: talked to the CEO, we tried to depose him. In
Speaker 1: this case, this would be letician James's people. If she
Speaker 1: goes to trial and he took the fifth he refused
Speaker 1: to answer any questions on the grounds that may incriminate him.
Speaker 1: So that's something that a jury could you know, take
Speaker 1: as a as an inference. So I think she has
Speaker 1: a much higher chance of success with this UM. And
Speaker 1: then yes, she has the power to you know, first
Speaker 1: of all, uh, that could be a huge financial penalty
Speaker 1: which would really you know, cripple the Trump organization or worse,
Speaker 1: I mean, she tried to disband UM, the National Rifle
Speaker 1: Association in the n r A. So I'm not sure
Speaker 1: she'd be a very squeamish or uh, you know, delicate
Speaker 1: about how to treat the Trump organization. I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: surprised if she really went for it and say this
Speaker 1: is a criminal enterprise and you know, should not be
Speaker 1: allowed to do business or be headquartered in New York. So, Wiselberg,
Speaker 1: the judge is not going to sentence him till after
Speaker 1: the trial in October. Yes, So that's that's a standard practice.
Speaker 1: So in order to ensure you don't want to be
Speaker 1: too lenient or too harsh, you know, you want to
Speaker 1: see if the guy actually was truthfully testifying. Otherwise, if
Speaker 1: things go sideways or he doesn't testify truthfully, that will
Speaker 1: affect the sentence. The prosecutors might tear it him and say, no,
Speaker 1: this guy, you know, didn't tell the truth, and he's
Speaker 1: got a two million dollar fine, which might be a
Speaker 1: drop in the bucket to him. I don't I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if it's a drop in the bucket to him.
Speaker 1: But for someone facing you know, time in Riker's jail,
Speaker 1: that's the least of his problems, if you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. So he's got the money, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: he would not want to pay it, but the serious
Speaker 1: jail time, years in prison at his age, it's sort
Speaker 1: of like the real you know, sort of damocles over him.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Greg. That's Greg Ferrell, Bloomberg News investigative
Speaker 1: reporter for the Legal Enforcement Team. The Trump Organization is
Speaker 1: facing the same charges as Weisselberg. In a statement, the
Speaker 1: organization said, we now look forward to having our day
Speaker 1: in court, which quite interestingly, has been scheduled for October
Speaker 1: twenty four, just days before the midterm elections. And that's
Speaker 1: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg