WEBVTT - Trump Electors Targeted in Georgia Criminal Probe 0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:09.200 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio, Fred, 0:00:09.280 --> 0:00:11.600 what are we gonna do? We won the election and 0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:14.000 it's not fair to take it away from us like this. 0:00:14.400 --> 0:00:18.599 That now infamous phone call from former President Donald Trump 0:00:18.640 --> 0:00:22.239 to the Georgia's Secretary of State to find just enough 0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:25.200 votes to flip the state to him is at the 0:00:25.239 --> 0:00:29.320 center of the investigation by the Fulton County District Attorney 0:00:29.360 --> 0:00:34.440 into criminal interference in the presidential election. In May, District 0:00:34.440 --> 0:00:38.280 Attorney Fannie Willis took the unusual step of requesting a 0:00:38.400 --> 0:00:41.839 special grand jury, and in an interview with CNN, she 0:00:42.040 --> 0:00:45.000 was clear about her intent to cast a wide net, 0:00:45.440 --> 0:00:48.600 including this election of a fake slate of Trump electors 0:00:48.680 --> 0:00:53.840 in Georgia. We're gonna look at anything connected with interference 0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:58.160 with the election, and so I've allowed that to be 0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:01.680 a broad scope, not just the president's phone call that 0:01:01.800 --> 0:01:05.280 you played there, but other things that indicate that there 0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:11.480 may have been interference with that election, to include fake electorate. 0:01:12.280 --> 0:01:15.600 Now it appears she may be closer to announcing charges. 0:01:16.080 --> 0:01:20.120 Willis has sent so called target letters to sixteen Republicans 0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:23.880 who served as fake Trump electors to warn them that 0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:27.120 they could be indicted. My guest is Michael Moore, the 0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:30.080 former U S Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia 0:01:30.360 --> 0:01:34.360 and a partner with Moore Hall. Did willis really have 0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:38.000 to call a special grand jury because that special grand 0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:42.679 jury can indict? Well, she's using the special grand jury 0:01:42.720 --> 0:01:46.319 because she's limited on what she can do investigative wives 0:01:46.680 --> 0:01:50.320 with a regular criminal grand jury in Georgia. So in Georgia, 0:01:50.480 --> 0:01:53.240 the criminal grand jury, the rule is that you have 0:01:53.360 --> 0:01:56.160 to present them with an indictment. We would call it 0:01:56.320 --> 0:01:58.880 laying an indictment on the table before the grand jury, 0:01:59.280 --> 0:02:02.320 and that would mean you had already determined which parties 0:02:02.320 --> 0:02:04.240 you were going to ask to and diet what charges 0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:06.880 specifically you're going to ask to die at all. And 0:02:06.960 --> 0:02:09.120 she didn't have that information yet, and she could have 0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:11.120 done that on some limited charges and sort of the 0:02:11.200 --> 0:02:14.160 target approach, But here she's using the special grand jury 0:02:14.200 --> 0:02:16.760 statue to allow her to investigate. And that's sort of 0:02:16.800 --> 0:02:19.280 the difference in federal and state grand juries. The federal 0:02:19.280 --> 0:02:22.560 grand jury has the party issues to penas, to investigate cases, 0:02:22.600 --> 0:02:25.679 to call witnesses before them as they appropriate, and the 0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:29.959 special grand jury mirrors a little bit of the federal 0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:32.320 grand jury. The only difference, as you mentioned, is that 0:02:32.400 --> 0:02:34.880 this special grand jury does not have the power under 0:02:34.919 --> 0:02:37.040 the state statue to issue a diet. They would send 0:02:37.080 --> 0:02:40.240 the issue a report or a recommendation that'd be given 0:02:40.240 --> 0:02:42.440 to her answer the court, and she would then make 0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:45.240 a decision with orne. She then wants to present a 0:02:45.400 --> 0:02:49.840 limited case to a regular criminal grand jury. So she's 0:02:49.960 --> 0:02:53.359 using this to gather information, to bring in witnesses who 0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:56.600 may have been relurked to testify, to gather documents and 0:02:56.880 --> 0:03:00.320 text messages, this kind of thing, and then she'll ultial 0:03:00.360 --> 0:03:02.360 in making decision whether or she wants to present that 0:03:02.440 --> 0:03:06.040 to a to a regular criminal granjeur. Michael, what does 0:03:06.080 --> 0:03:10.480 it tell you that Willis sent these target letters. It's 0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:13.920 an interesting play of events right now. That is, I 0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:18.200 think there's some interest in this fake elector scheme, and 0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:20.560 she has been digging into that. You wouldn't have to 0:03:20.560 --> 0:03:22.880 look very hard to feel like that she's in fact 0:03:23.040 --> 0:03:25.800 expanding the scoop of what could have been a very 0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:30.079 narrowly tailored case, a clean cut case against Trump if 0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:32.600 she wanted to do it, based on the telephone called Raffersburg. 0:03:33.000 --> 0:03:35.200 But it appears that she's broadening it out to other 0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:38.320 people maybe in that orbit or closer to the inner circle, 0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:41.880 and dealing with the efforts to basically avoid out the 0:03:41.920 --> 0:03:45.280 electors who were from Georgia and to avoid apple votes 0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:47.920 that have been cast here. So I'm not surprised to 0:03:48.000 --> 0:03:50.080 see or do that. It's a little interesting that she 0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:53.360 would do it in such a public way, especially given 0:03:53.440 --> 0:03:56.200 some of the political alliances that she has, And I 0:03:56.200 --> 0:03:58.800 think that may come into play here that she has 0:03:58.840 --> 0:04:01.160 actually sent out to notice in the middle of a 0:04:01.280 --> 0:04:04.240 peated campaign season, because typically you don't always see a 0:04:04.320 --> 0:04:06.960 prosecutor be quite as public about those types of things, 0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:09.400 and I think for a good reason. So I think 0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:11.880 she's clearly broad in the scoop. I think she may 0:04:11.960 --> 0:04:13.880 be fishing with a little bit too broad and met 0:04:13.920 --> 0:04:16.840 right Naviga. Sometimes that's where you get caught, you tangled 0:04:16.880 --> 0:04:18.560 up in your own men. And I think some of 0:04:18.560 --> 0:04:21.640 the public comments about the target letters who they went 0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:24.640 to in the time of the may open rose some 0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:28.479 questions down the road a public courts. She last week 0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:33.560 subpoenaed members of Trump's inner circle, former lawyer Rudy Giuliani, 0:04:33.720 --> 0:04:38.039 Senator Lindsey Graham's six other attorneys, and Graham has already 0:04:38.040 --> 0:04:41.120 indicated that he's going to fight it. So this will 0:04:41.320 --> 0:04:43.720 drag out. If she's trying to get people from out 0:04:43.720 --> 0:04:45.840 of state, it will. And I think you know there 0:04:46.320 --> 0:04:48.880 you've seen I think it was yesterday or the day before, 0:04:49.560 --> 0:04:52.719 Georgia Congressman. And he also now has served notice that 0:04:52.720 --> 0:04:55.040 he intends to have the challenge heard in the federal court. 0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:56.800 I think there's a federal court here and set up 0:04:56.839 --> 0:04:59.400 for next week has been scheduled there on the Chavison 0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:02.359 subpoenas you to him. There's a specific provision under the 0:05:02.600 --> 0:05:06.359 federal statutes that allows for sort of a high ranking 0:05:06.520 --> 0:05:09.240 member of the executive brand, if there's a civil or 0:05:09.240 --> 0:05:11.920 criminal action in which their allegations against it, you can 0:05:11.960 --> 0:05:14.640 serve notice and assets case be transferred to the federal court. 0:05:14.640 --> 0:05:16.359 And I think you're gonna see them taking advantage of that. 0:05:16.480 --> 0:05:18.920 And it's a good process in the sense that sort 0:05:18.920 --> 0:05:22.600 of limits overreach by the as who may be aggressive. 0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:24.160 We're not saying she is in this case, but as 0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:27.000 a general principle, it's a sort of a safety valve there. 0:05:27.160 --> 0:05:29.920 But it also is naturally going to drag out the time, 0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:33.720 and her grandjeury is authorized. The special purpose Granders author 0:05:33.839 --> 0:05:36.520 us to convene for about a year. But you also 0:05:36.560 --> 0:05:39.120 have to be thinking that we're getting into election seasons, 0:05:39.360 --> 0:05:44.360 and prosecutors must be they must be conscious of how 0:05:44.520 --> 0:05:48.200 the actions that they undertake may be perceived around election time. 0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:52.039 You simply cannot if the goal is to preserve the 0:05:52.200 --> 0:05:56.039 confidence in the court system and in the prosecutor's decisions 0:05:56.040 --> 0:05:58.680 and then charge of decisions that are made, you cannot 0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:02.200 be seen is somebody who's attempted to be be used the 0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:06.240 criminal process to influence the outcome of an election. You'll 0:06:06.279 --> 0:06:08.000 remember that was one of the big issues with Trump 0:06:08.040 --> 0:06:09.719 and the Department of Justice. I mean he wanted to 0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:13.039 use the department sort of look at political enemies. Well, 0:06:13.160 --> 0:06:15.200 you can't do that as a prosecutor. I mean, they're 0:06:15.279 --> 0:06:19.200 bar implications, their coat of ethics implications. And so the 0:06:19.279 --> 0:06:21.600 timing may become a factor for her, and the law 0:06:21.640 --> 0:06:24.120 ofness goes out whether we're in the federal court having 0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:27.240 federal judges rule on motions to quash that may be 0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:29.839 found for certain sutainas, or whether or not we're in 0:06:29.880 --> 0:06:32.800 the appellate court system. Because their privilege issues and a 0:06:32.880 --> 0:06:36.680 turning client protection issues that come up. Then that is 0:06:36.839 --> 0:06:40.920 maxually going to delay ultimately this this special purpose grand 0:06:40.960 --> 0:06:44.560 jury issue, and they report thinking about all the evidence 0:06:44.560 --> 0:06:48.919 she started out with, including that taped phone call, and 0:06:48.960 --> 0:06:53.360 now she also has the testimony she's taken from state officials. 0:06:53.440 --> 0:06:56.520 I'm wondering why it's taking so long for her to 0:06:56.560 --> 0:07:00.680 decide whether or not to indict Trump. Sure, and I 0:07:00.680 --> 0:07:03.760 think that's a question is well placed. I don't think 0:07:03.760 --> 0:07:06.080 there's any questions she could have based on the tape 0:07:06.080 --> 0:07:08.560 recording as she had, which is for two of us. 0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:11.040 I mean, how many times do you get bostly recorded confession. 0:07:11.240 --> 0:07:13.520 She could have tried to bring charges forward in a 0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:16.119 regular ranger without the nief the special grander. She simply 0:07:16.160 --> 0:07:19.360 could have, you know, in between two regular alleged felons. 0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:21.400 She could have stuck the truck in Nightinga right in 0:07:21.400 --> 0:07:23.320 the middle of it, and and the grudgery could decided 0:07:23.360 --> 0:07:25.960 with him out there going to issue the indictment. You know, 0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:28.520 I understand that she may have had some reticence on 0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:31.080 the part of Rappensburger, who was at the time in 0:07:31.120 --> 0:07:34.240 the middle of a heated primary battle and he may 0:07:34.280 --> 0:07:36.240 have been fact and reticence to come forward because it 0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:39.840 would have appeared that he was cooperating against the former president. 0:07:39.880 --> 0:07:42.160 But she had the recording, and so he tells me 0:07:42.240 --> 0:07:45.200 that she's simply broadened it out. She's looking for other 0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:47.640 people who may have been involved in the planning or 0:07:47.680 --> 0:07:50.960 the efforts to overturn at least the vote totals in Georgia, 0:07:51.160 --> 0:07:53.120 and making it more of a guess, more of a 0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:55.360 spider web and which she can catch more flight as 0:07:55.360 --> 0:07:58.520 opposed to support of the clean cut case. At the 0:07:58.600 --> 0:08:00.160 end of the day, I don't know if that have 0:08:00.240 --> 0:08:02.280 been the right call. And again I don't I don't 0:08:02.280 --> 0:08:04.520 want to second guess everything she's doing. I mean, she 0:08:04.600 --> 0:08:07.239 may have and does have access to facts and evidence 0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:09.200 that I don't have and the pelic doesn't have. But 0:08:09.280 --> 0:08:11.200 as you look at it, I mean, one principle usually 0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:13.400 remains true, and that is that when you keep it simple, 0:08:13.600 --> 0:08:16.040 it often makes for a better case. It's easier to prove, 0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:20.200 it takes less confusion for a jury, it creates less defenses. 0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:23.760 It also creates less pellet issues that would be often 0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:26.320 decided about pelt courts, which in Georgia as you may 0:08:26.360 --> 0:08:29.840 know our pelt courts are basically controlled by Republican appointees 0:08:29.880 --> 0:08:32.240 are good judges and friends of behind and such. But 0:08:32.440 --> 0:08:35.840 you have to wonder about the survival of some of 0:08:35.840 --> 0:08:38.040 these allegations that may be pushing an envelope a little 0:08:38.040 --> 0:08:40.640 bit if they got to the a Pelic court. In 0:08:40.760 --> 0:08:44.880 recent court filing, she has indicated I understand that charges 0:08:44.920 --> 0:08:50.600 including racketeering and conspiracy are being considered. That would become 0:08:50.760 --> 0:08:55.480 a really complicated case, wouldn't it. It's an extraordinary complicated case. 0:08:55.920 --> 0:08:59.240 And you think about racketeering and conspiracy cases when you 0:08:59.240 --> 0:09:02.600 think about organized crime rings, and you know, if you're 0:09:02.600 --> 0:09:05.000 trying to bring down a mafia family in New York, 0:09:05.040 --> 0:09:08.080 he might be talking about racketeering cases. So you're bringing 0:09:08.120 --> 0:09:12.760 it down a drug distribution enterprise somewhere. You think about 0:09:13.040 --> 0:09:19.000 reco cases um conspiracy cases, and so it is legally permissible, 0:09:19.080 --> 0:09:21.880 I will say in in circumstances, the question of is 0:09:21.880 --> 0:09:23.680 whether or not it's wise In a case like this, 0:09:24.120 --> 0:09:25.800 there are many prosecutors who will tell you that you 0:09:25.800 --> 0:09:28.560 should not consider sort of the policy implications and what 0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:32.040 may be out there, other than just following the fact 0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:35.160 and following evidence. We're a little bit in uncharted waters here, No, 0:09:35.360 --> 0:09:37.040 not a little bit. We just from off the Deacon 0:09:37.320 --> 0:09:39.600 and uncharted water. So that is that, you know, we're 0:09:39.600 --> 0:09:42.640 talking about whether or not an indictment is going to 0:09:42.720 --> 0:09:45.880 issue for a former president for conduct that he is 0:09:45.880 --> 0:09:48.280 alleged you have committed while in fact he was president 0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:52.040 out his states, and you have to consider that, and 0:09:52.120 --> 0:09:54.880 you have to consider what it means for the country, 0:09:55.080 --> 0:09:58.160 for the future people who hold that office. And again, 0:09:58.200 --> 0:10:00.839 I think the appellate courts were then we're talking about 0:10:00.880 --> 0:10:03.000 the Supreme Court of Georgia, where we're talking about the 0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:05.400 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal quarter, where we're 0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:07.400 talking about the United States Supreme Court, I think they're 0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:10.960 gonna be cognitive. The fact that this could be setting 0:10:11.000 --> 0:10:14.920 a president that is dangerous. And so when you overreach 0:10:15.000 --> 0:10:17.079 and when you sort of fish with too big a net, 0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:19.839 you bring a lot of these issues at play. If 0:10:19.840 --> 0:10:22.120 you had taken a simple approach and you said, look, 0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:25.439 as a prosecutor, I feel like this is called Rapidsburger 0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:28.160 was in fact illegal, that it was an effort to 0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:30.360 put pressure on the elections official, that it was an 0:10:30.360 --> 0:10:34.160 effort to solicit somebody to commit election fraud and this 0:10:34.200 --> 0:10:37.240 is a very clear case. Or you say, well, look 0:10:37.280 --> 0:10:40.400 there's evidence of witness tampering. And I'm thinking now about 0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:43.679 the prominent justice looking at if in fact allegations coming 0:10:43.679 --> 0:10:45.680 out from a general cist committing or true. Do you 0:10:45.720 --> 0:10:48.840 look at those and so that was conduct committed post presidency, 0:10:49.280 --> 0:10:52.319 that's something that may not have those same policy implications 0:10:52.320 --> 0:10:54.720 going forward. Those soon to me to be much cleaner 0:10:54.800 --> 0:10:57.280 cases for appellate course to the side, and I think 0:10:57.320 --> 0:11:00.320 maybe less dangerous as a president going forward. Again, we've 0:11:00.400 --> 0:11:02.880 not faced this, and I can tell you State d 0:11:03.000 --> 0:11:04.880 a's don't face this where they have to sit down 0:11:04.920 --> 0:11:06.559 and make a decision whether or not they're going to 0:11:06.640 --> 0:11:10.120 die upon the president and so um, it's a little 0:11:10.120 --> 0:11:12.439 bit maybe some decisions may be a little bit made 0:11:12.480 --> 0:11:14.199 on the fly. I think there's no text put to 0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:16.040 go back and look at this the side, but this 0:11:16.080 --> 0:11:17.280 is how we ought to do it, this is what 0:11:17.280 --> 0:11:20.360 we're going to do. I just worry sometimes it's complicating 0:11:20.400 --> 0:11:22.760 a case. As I say, not only gives issues for 0:11:22.880 --> 0:11:25.160 the defense and the appellate courts, it makes it more 0:11:25.200 --> 0:11:28.679 confusing for a jury and it brings in other factors 0:11:28.720 --> 0:11:32.679 that I think in reality we have to consider. Aside 0:11:32.720 --> 0:11:35.760 from that, does she have the chops to prosecute a 0:11:35.800 --> 0:11:39.520 former president because we've seen that the new Manhattan d 0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:42.600 A doesn't seem too he backed off that case as 0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:46.080 soon as he got into office. Well, she's a good lawyer, 0:11:46.200 --> 0:11:49.360 she's a good prosecutor. She has experienced. Again, not the 0:11:49.400 --> 0:11:52.000 second guessing her at all. If you think about it 0:11:52.040 --> 0:11:54.880 from sort of a general rule or general principle, I 0:11:54.880 --> 0:11:57.120 think it's better if we talked about the Department of 0:11:57.200 --> 0:11:59.360 Justice acting when it comes to a case like this 0:11:59.480 --> 0:12:01.480 than just a local be a. I mean, think about 0:12:01.559 --> 0:12:05.199 what happens if Joe Biden goes to Texas and he 0:12:05.240 --> 0:12:07.880 makes a speech near the border about America wealth and 0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:10.360 all people and all people ought to come and you know, 0:12:10.600 --> 0:12:13.400 and then suddenly some local DA decides that they're going 0:12:13.440 --> 0:12:17.800 to prosecute Joe Biden for solicited people to commit immigration 0:12:17.880 --> 0:12:21.240 crimes or something. You know. That may sound extreme, but 0:12:21.320 --> 0:12:23.960 weird extreme waters here, and so I think you have 0:12:24.040 --> 0:12:26.000 to think about it that way. You know, the Congress 0:12:26.040 --> 0:12:28.120 obviously they were the statute says that when this kind 0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:30.120 of thing happens, you can ask that if we transferred 0:12:30.120 --> 0:12:31.959 to the federal course, So that strikes me as a 0:12:32.000 --> 0:12:35.480 place where this type of case is probably more appropriately heard. 0:12:35.760 --> 0:12:37.920 The prosecutors have a duty to prosecute crimes within the 0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:41.000 jurisdiction if they think that something is there. She clearly 0:12:41.040 --> 0:12:43.320 has moved forward with some belief that she thinks there 0:12:43.360 --> 0:12:45.760 may be evidence of a crime committed. But again, you 0:12:45.800 --> 0:12:49.360 are talking about prosecuting for a state crime a formal 0:12:49.400 --> 0:12:52.440 president for crimes that he committed while he was president 0:12:52.480 --> 0:12:54.880 of the United States, and that we take Trump out 0:12:54.880 --> 0:12:57.160 of it and bring in and you can choose, you know, 0:12:57.240 --> 0:13:00.480 bring in whoever you believe was the most beloved prison history. 0:13:00.600 --> 0:13:03.160 I'm sure you may find some state prosecutor somewhere who 0:13:03.200 --> 0:13:05.280 disagreed with something that he had done. Would it be 0:13:05.320 --> 0:13:08.880 appropriate for that state prosecutor to a dike that president 0:13:08.960 --> 0:13:11.240 for crimes that he committed while he was president of 0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:13.200 the United States? And that's a question I think that 0:13:13.520 --> 0:13:16.000 is looming out because we have these kind of discussions. 0:13:16.160 --> 0:13:19.800 A lot of people say that the Georgia investigation is 0:13:19.840 --> 0:13:23.960 the most serious case facing Trump. Do you disagree with that? Then? 0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:26.760 I disagree in the sense that I think a case 0:13:26.880 --> 0:13:29.040 brought forward by the Department of Justice would be the 0:13:29.080 --> 0:13:31.480 most serious case, no matter what that case may be. 0:13:31.640 --> 0:13:34.000 And really the reason is this, I think the likel 0:13:34.040 --> 0:13:36.720 here that you would ever find the former president sitting 0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:40.400 in a Georgia penitentiary be slim or none. I just 0:13:40.480 --> 0:13:43.320 don't think that's going to and even just logistics, just 0:13:43.400 --> 0:13:45.360 because he would have been convicted of that crime with 0:13:45.480 --> 0:13:48.400 former presidents that the private the Secret Services Texas, so 0:13:48.480 --> 0:13:50.640 I don't think you're gonna find a secret service bucking 0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:52.800 up with him, you know, at the state prison. And 0:13:52.840 --> 0:13:55.000 I just don't think so happened. So when I think 0:13:55.040 --> 0:13:57.920 about cases and whether or not they're serious, jail tip 0:13:58.040 --> 0:14:00.120 sort of offer table, I do think there's self than 0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:02.680 to be said about the message of his fins to 0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:05.960 have the United States Department of Justice moved forward on 0:14:06.040 --> 0:14:09.120 the case with career prosecutors that are to be a 0:14:09.200 --> 0:14:12.400 political and free the allegations against a sense of the 0:14:12.480 --> 0:14:15.400 chief executive of the United States. And I don't know 0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:17.880 if they'll be able to produce the evidence to prove 0:14:17.960 --> 0:14:20.840 their allegation or not, but if in fact they can 0:14:20.880 --> 0:14:24.880 prove that either the former president ordered someone to try 0:14:24.880 --> 0:14:27.480 to influence a witness or he himself tried to influence 0:14:27.480 --> 0:14:29.960 a witness to this telephone call. They're able to tie 0:14:30.000 --> 0:14:33.200 those ins together. I think that makes a pretty strong 0:14:33.640 --> 0:14:35.720 rope that would be used to tie not around it. 0:14:36.240 --> 0:14:39.520 That to me is conduct. Again, not to repeat myself, 0:14:39.520 --> 0:14:41.680 but when I look at it, I think about conducts 0:14:41.720 --> 0:14:44.320 that would be performed after it was president of the 0:14:44.400 --> 0:14:46.840 United States. You know, we have an impeachment process that 0:14:47.120 --> 0:14:50.120 is really supposed to clean up messes about the aptitude, 0:14:50.240 --> 0:14:52.120 and we have a twenty put the amendment process. Just 0:14:52.160 --> 0:14:54.960 because somebody is reckless while they're in office, or somebody 0:14:55.280 --> 0:14:58.240 negigent while they're in office, or somebody is derelict, it 0:14:58.320 --> 0:15:00.960 is part of his duties while they're office. That's why 0:15:01.040 --> 0:15:04.040 we have the impeachment process for a president president. That's 0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:07.560 why we have ah amendment process for the cabin to 0:15:07.600 --> 0:15:09.640 come in if they think that there's been something here. 0:15:10.080 --> 0:15:12.480 I think that, you know, looking back and based on 0:15:12.560 --> 0:15:14.560 the evidence that we say, we could say at least 0:15:14.640 --> 0:15:17.360 I will say hopefully, I think the Senate failed. I 0:15:17.360 --> 0:15:19.840 think that they there was a clear evidence that would 0:15:19.840 --> 0:15:23.040 have supported the conviction, but only impeachment charges. They didn't 0:15:23.040 --> 0:15:26.280 do that, and that is our system. So we they're 0:15:26.320 --> 0:15:29.200 just going to rely on state d as to do 0:15:29.320 --> 0:15:33.040 the job that the Senate didn't do. And I would 0:15:33.080 --> 0:15:35.560 just lean towards the fact that I think that charges 0:15:35.600 --> 0:15:38.280 brought by the United States Department of Justice within that 0:15:38.400 --> 0:15:40.840 ben not only more serious, but would sort of carry 0:15:40.840 --> 0:15:45.080 the weight of the justice system behind behind those charges. 0:15:45.480 --> 0:15:49.160 Is Trump's intent the biggest problem and all these the 0:15:49.200 --> 0:15:53.080 biggest challenge in all these cases, it's certainly a required 0:15:53.080 --> 0:15:56.640 element for criminal prosecution, ands in is a sort of 0:15:56.720 --> 0:16:00.080 the cornerstone from bringing criminal charges, and I think to 0:16:00.120 --> 0:16:02.040 come to play in a number of cases. In the 0:16:02.080 --> 0:16:05.160 Georgia case presence the telephone call, well, you know, I 0:16:05.160 --> 0:16:07.240 can think of ways that who could argue that he 0:16:07.320 --> 0:16:10.400 was simply a tender who was calling saying, can't we 0:16:10.440 --> 0:16:12.920 find more votes? Can't you just find that twelve hundred, 0:16:12.960 --> 0:16:16.280 twelve thousand, eleven thousands of under eighty votes? Whatever it was? 0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:18.520 To so I overcome this depths that I mean, I can, 0:16:18.600 --> 0:16:20.480 I can think of ways you can argue, and I'm 0:16:20.520 --> 0:16:23.760 not that's not how I happen to feel about his call, 0:16:23.840 --> 0:16:25.600 but I could I can see as somebody can make 0:16:25.600 --> 0:16:27.720 that argument that he didn't really have the intent. He 0:16:27.800 --> 0:16:30.960 was simply a losing candidate who was searching for ways 0:16:31.120 --> 0:16:34.520 to overcome an elect election. That's when you think about 0:16:34.600 --> 0:16:37.280 any of the allegations against him. I mean, there's been 0:16:37.480 --> 0:16:40.120 much made about, you know, whether or not his direction 0:16:40.240 --> 0:16:43.360 to allow people to come into the speech on January 0:16:43.480 --> 0:16:46.160 six and not worried about going through battle detectives and 0:16:46.320 --> 0:16:48.760 somehow that's some indication that he was intending to send 0:16:48.800 --> 0:16:51.040 him down to the to the Capitol. Well, you could 0:16:51.040 --> 0:16:53.240 also be argued that he's just a narcissist and he 0:16:53.280 --> 0:16:55.160 was trying to build his crowd size, which we know 0:16:55.440 --> 0:16:58.560 from the inauguration day for has been a cornerstone for 0:16:58.640 --> 0:17:01.480 him or something that's the extraordinary portant. How many people 0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:03.600 show up in his rallies, how many people attended as 0:17:03.600 --> 0:17:05.920 an auguration, how big the crowd coming to hear everything. 0:17:06.040 --> 0:17:08.480 Is he adored by his fan and so you can 0:17:08.520 --> 0:17:11.119 make arguments, I think, you know, one way or another. 0:17:11.640 --> 0:17:16.080 That's why things like emails, that's why things like text messages. 0:17:16.160 --> 0:17:19.520 That's why direct statements that people bring in and not 0:17:19.600 --> 0:17:23.000 just hear such statements that that to me is important 0:17:23.000 --> 0:17:27.119 improveing intent. You know, we we we really have to 0:17:27.119 --> 0:17:31.080 be careful not to as we talk about charges against 0:17:31.359 --> 0:17:33.200 a former president, and we don't need to just get 0:17:33.320 --> 0:17:35.639 kind of lost in our onn echo chamber. You know, 0:17:35.680 --> 0:17:38.200 the fact that he threw a plate against the wall 0:17:38.240 --> 0:17:41.040 and some ketchup was on the wall, or the fact 0:17:41.080 --> 0:17:43.800 that he slammed his hands on the desk and yelled 0:17:43.840 --> 0:17:45.320 at people in the meeting, Well, let me tell you 0:17:45.760 --> 0:17:47.879 my belief at the bottom of my heart is that 0:17:47.960 --> 0:17:49.800 it's not the first time of plate's been thrown in 0:17:49.840 --> 0:17:53.159 the lighter, the first time somebody has yelled in the 0:17:53.160 --> 0:17:56.960 oval office. And so it makes for sexy commentary, but 0:17:57.040 --> 0:18:01.200 it's not necessarily I think, indicative of and in and 0:18:01.560 --> 0:18:04.280 it may be out of what we'd call societal norms 0:18:04.359 --> 0:18:09.119 and and social graces, but that's not enough the end 0:18:09.240 --> 0:18:12.480 of itself, to to to prove a criminal intent. It's 0:18:12.520 --> 0:18:14.880 a big bourden, and it should be when you're talking 0:18:14.920 --> 0:18:20.480 about people's liberty and proving that they did violated criminal statute. 0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:22.320 It's a It's a big birden and we want it 0:18:22.320 --> 0:18:24.520 to be. And we don't want to shift that or 0:18:24.600 --> 0:18:27.280 change that just because it might be a Trump's scenario. 0:18:27.600 --> 0:18:30.199 We still want prosecutes to have to prove intent, and 0:18:30.240 --> 0:18:32.600 that's why they I think going through the witnesses and 0:18:32.640 --> 0:18:34.800 at the end of the day, we're seeing witness the 0:18:34.800 --> 0:18:37.280 subpoena and even in the federal grand jury case to 0:18:37.280 --> 0:18:40.439 find out was there any direct communication, with any direct 0:18:40.560 --> 0:18:44.040 orders of commands from Trump. You don't prosecute inner circles, 0:18:44.400 --> 0:18:47.680 you know, outside of conspiracy charges. We talked about that. 0:18:48.280 --> 0:18:50.040 You have to look and see can I prove it? 0:18:50.040 --> 0:18:52.440 If you think about it this way, So, think about 0:18:52.480 --> 0:18:58.080 the Godfather and he sends a direct command to somebody. Well, 0:18:58.480 --> 0:19:00.359 the fact that the horse head is of being in 0:19:00.440 --> 0:19:04.280 somebody's bed in the Godfather, unless you could prove that 0:19:04.320 --> 0:19:07.280 the Godfather ordered to be slipt, you can't prove his intent. 0:19:07.800 --> 0:19:10.640 But if you've got somebody who said the Godfather told 0:19:10.640 --> 0:19:12.240 me to cut the horse head off and take it 0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:14.639 to sell us those bed, that's a different thing. And 0:19:14.680 --> 0:19:16.760 so they've got to sort of get to that place 0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:21.560 and build that bridge between both the facts and the allegations. 0:19:21.560 --> 0:19:24.760 And that's that's where intent comes in. She hasn't ruled 0:19:24.800 --> 0:19:28.080 out subpoena Trump, but if she's after Trump, if he's 0:19:28.119 --> 0:19:31.560 the target, can she subpoena him, or should she subpoena him. 0:19:31.920 --> 0:19:34.520 She should not subpoena him. I mean, generally a prosecutor 0:19:34.560 --> 0:19:38.040 would not be putting somebody up who's a target just 0:19:38.080 --> 0:19:40.399 to claim the Fifth Amendment in front of the grand jury. 0:19:40.560 --> 0:19:43.040 So I would I would be surprised that she would 0:19:43.119 --> 0:19:45.639 be subpoena him, and maybe that she's talking about her. 0:19:45.720 --> 0:19:48.440 She's wanting to subpena him for evidence in another case 0:19:48.480 --> 0:19:50.879 that he's not a target. But I can't believe at 0:19:50.880 --> 0:19:53.560 this stage. And that's a that's a great example two 0:19:53.840 --> 0:19:57.600 of um you know folks who say, well, prosecutors shouldn't 0:19:57.600 --> 0:19:59.520 take into account of policy and that should just move 0:19:59.600 --> 0:20:02.280