1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,440
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,400 --> 00:00:15,360
Speaker 2: Every individual charge in the indictment is charged with one

3
00:00:15,480 --> 00:00:23,240
Speaker 2: count of violating Georgia's Racketeer, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

4
00:00:24,920 --> 00:00:30,280
Speaker 2: through participation in a criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia

5
00:00:30,880 --> 00:00:37,159
Speaker 2: and elsewhere to accomplish the illegal goal of allowing Donald J.

6
00:00:37,440 --> 00:00:43,000
Speaker 2: Trump to seize the presidential term of office. Beginning on

7
00:00:43,159 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 2: January twentieth, twenty.

8
00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:49,360
Speaker 3: One, Fulton County DA Fani Willis announced the indictment of

9
00:00:49,400 --> 00:00:53,080
Speaker 3: Donald Trump and eighteen others over their efforts to overturn

10
00:00:53,159 --> 00:00:56,240
Speaker 3: his twenty twenty election loss in the state. It was

11
00:00:56,280 --> 00:01:01,040
Speaker 3: a sweeping indictment under Georgia's RICO Statute, alledging forty one

12
00:01:01,120 --> 00:01:05,320
Speaker 3: felonies and a vast conspiracy that stretched from the Oval

13
00:01:05,360 --> 00:01:08,880
Speaker 3: office and Trump's infamous call to the Secretary of State

14
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:12,800
Speaker 3: to find him eleven seven hundred and eighty votes, to

15
00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:16,960
Speaker 3: the fake electors scheme to apply to access voting machines

16
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:19,840
Speaker 3: in a rural county in Georgia, and even to the

17
00:01:19,840 --> 00:01:23,520
Speaker 3: harassment of election worker Ruby Freeman. Joining me is former

18
00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:27,360
Speaker 3: federal prosecutor Jimmy Garoul a professor at Notre Dame Law School.

19
00:01:28,440 --> 00:01:32,720
Speaker 3: This is a sweeping indictment. What was your general impression.

20
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 4: Well, my first impression was the scope of the indictment.

21
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:39,119
Speaker 4: So here we're talking about an indictment that charges former

22
00:01:39,200 --> 00:01:44,800
Speaker 4: President Trump and eighteen other defendants. These are not unindicted

23
00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:48,880
Speaker 4: co conspirators. These are actually individuals that are charged in

24
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 4: the indictment itself. So a total of nineteenth defendants charged,

25
00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:57,040
Speaker 4: and then collectively the indictment alleges forty one counts, you know,

26
00:01:57,120 --> 00:02:01,840
Speaker 4: forty one violations of criminal activity. Former President Trump himself

27
00:02:01,960 --> 00:02:05,720
Speaker 4: was charged in thirteen counts. And then the big ticket

28
00:02:05,720 --> 00:02:10,359
Speaker 4: item is the inclusion of the Georgia Rico Statute. And

29
00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:13,400
Speaker 4: not only was former President Trump and others charged with

30
00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:16,880
Speaker 4: substance of RICO, a violation of the Rico Statute itself,

31
00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:21,640
Speaker 4: but also conspiracy to violate RICO, which is just sweeping

32
00:02:21,720 --> 00:02:24,760
Speaker 4: in scope in terms of the type of criminal activity

33
00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:28,880
Speaker 4: that can be included and litigated prosecuted in the case.

34
00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:30,000
Speaker 5: You know, there are.

35
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:34,160
Speaker 3: Sort of different baskets of charges. How does a jury

36
00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:37,160
Speaker 3: take it all in? You know, the false statements to

37
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:41,959
Speaker 3: Georgia officials, the fake electors, the harassment of an election worker,

38
00:02:42,080 --> 00:02:45,360
Speaker 3: the theft of election data and ballots in a rural

39
00:02:45,400 --> 00:02:49,240
Speaker 3: county in Georgia. I mean, the indictment is just sprawling.

40
00:02:49,680 --> 00:02:52,680
Speaker 4: Well, it really is. And so you compair the Georgia

41
00:02:52,720 --> 00:02:57,440
Speaker 4: indictment with the January sixth indictment that Special Council Jack

42
00:02:57,520 --> 00:03:02,920
Speaker 4: Smith brought, and they are dramatic, dramatically different. And so

43
00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:07,320
Speaker 4: the January sixth indictment charged only one individual, you know,

44
00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:13,440
Speaker 4: nineteen individuals, and the number of criminal accounts were substantially fewer.

45
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:17,600
Speaker 4: And so the problem that I see with the Georgia

46
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:21,880
Speaker 4: indictment is just the logistics, first of all, of how

47
00:03:21,919 --> 00:03:27,880
Speaker 4: you're going to prosecute in a single trial nineteen individuals,

48
00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:31,080
Speaker 4: each of which are likely to be represented by multiple

49
00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:35,600
Speaker 4: criminal defense lawyers. So just in the well of the courtroom,

50
00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:37,600
Speaker 4: what is that courtroom going to look like. That's going

51
00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:41,440
Speaker 4: to have nineteen defendants, you know, who knows, twenty thirty

52
00:03:41,680 --> 00:03:47,400
Speaker 4: forty defense lawyers, and then each of those defense lawyers

53
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:51,280
Speaker 4: is going to have an opportunity to individually cross examine

54
00:03:51,960 --> 00:03:56,640
Speaker 4: each government witness. Each defendant will have an opportunity to

55
00:03:56,720 --> 00:04:00,560
Speaker 4: make an individual opening statement and closing argument. So that's

56
00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:04,960
Speaker 4: nineteen opening statements just by the defense, nineteen closing arguments

57
00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:09,120
Speaker 4: just by the defense, every government witness examined, cross examined,

58
00:04:09,320 --> 00:04:13,160
Speaker 4: potentially nineteen different times. And then by the way, in

59
00:04:13,280 --> 00:04:17,440
Speaker 4: the Rico conspiracy count it alleges one hundred and sixty

60
00:04:17,480 --> 00:04:22,799
Speaker 4: one acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. And so how

61
00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:26,640
Speaker 4: is the jury going to consolidate and organize and keep

62
00:04:26,680 --> 00:04:29,479
Speaker 4: straight all of the counts. And not all of the

63
00:04:29,560 --> 00:04:33,400
Speaker 4: counts relate to each of the nineteen defendants. So some

64
00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:37,560
Speaker 4: counts relate only to certain defendants, other counts relate to

65
00:04:37,720 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 4: other defendants, And so it's going to be a monumental

66
00:04:41,080 --> 00:04:47,080
Speaker 4: challenge for the jury to understand and compartmentalize and collate

67
00:04:47,320 --> 00:04:51,440
Speaker 4: and keep straight the criminal charges against each defendant.

68
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:57,200
Speaker 3: In the case, Rico chargers were designed to combat organize crime.

69
00:04:57,600 --> 00:05:00,280
Speaker 3: It's a way to get to the mob boss at

70
00:05:00,279 --> 00:05:02,840
Speaker 3: the top who doesn't get his hands dirty. And then

71
00:05:02,839 --> 00:05:07,600
Speaker 3: there are lower levels of players or defendants. Is it

72
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:10,880
Speaker 3: likely in this case that some of those other defendants

73
00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:13,640
Speaker 3: might flip on the guy at the top and his

74
00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:17,600
Speaker 3: close associates and testify for the prosecution.

75
00:05:18,880 --> 00:05:21,719
Speaker 4: Well, he could, certainly. I mean the Georgia Rico statue

76
00:05:21,760 --> 00:05:24,080
Speaker 4: carries a penalty of up to a maximum of twenty

77
00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:27,280
Speaker 4: years in prison and a minimum five years in prison.

78
00:05:27,839 --> 00:05:29,880
Speaker 4: So the sensing judge is not going to have any

79
00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:34,680
Speaker 4: discretion with respect to, for example, placing someone on probation.

80
00:05:35,240 --> 00:05:38,279
Speaker 4: The judge would have to is required by statue to

81
00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:41,360
Speaker 4: impose a sense of at least five years and conceivably

82
00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:44,279
Speaker 4: up to a maximum of twenty years. So every defendant

83
00:05:44,360 --> 00:05:47,120
Speaker 4: has a very strong incentive to cooperate and not go

84
00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:50,800
Speaker 4: to trial to avoid receiving at least sense of five

85
00:05:50,880 --> 00:05:53,600
Speaker 4: years in prison. But I think the advantage of the

86
00:05:53,680 --> 00:05:55,800
Speaker 4: Rico statute, and you touched on this, I mean it

87
00:05:55,839 --> 00:06:00,960
Speaker 4: was initially drafted and targeted against organized crime. And the

88
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:04,240
Speaker 4: value is this, and the justification for RICO is this

89
00:06:04,640 --> 00:06:09,920
Speaker 4: that criminal organizations engage in diverse criminal activity. So for example,

90
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:14,360
Speaker 4: if we took a drug enterprise a drug cartel, members

91
00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:17,320
Speaker 4: of the drug cartel, some of them would engage in

92
00:06:17,440 --> 00:06:21,640
Speaker 4: drug trafficking, the sale, the trafficking and illicit drugs. Others

93
00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:24,920
Speaker 4: may engage in bribery. Others may engage in extortion. Other

94
00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:28,360
Speaker 4: members may engage in violent crimes directed at members of

95
00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:33,960
Speaker 4: a rival drug organization. So traditional conspiracy law isn't adequate

96
00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:37,559
Speaker 4: to deal with that type of diverse criminal activity because

97
00:06:37,560 --> 00:06:40,200
Speaker 4: you wouldn't have a single agreement. You know, one group

98
00:06:40,240 --> 00:06:42,039
Speaker 4: of members of the drug cartel would say, well, we

99
00:06:42,080 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 4: had an agreement to engage in violent crime, we had

100
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:46,719
Speaker 4: an agreement to engage in bribery. Others we had an

101
00:06:46,760 --> 00:06:48,919
Speaker 4: agreement to engage in extortion, we had an agreement to

102
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:52,240
Speaker 4: engage in drug trafficking. So there are multiple different agreements. Well, here,

103
00:06:52,320 --> 00:06:55,680
Speaker 4: under RICO, the focus is not on the agreement. The

104
00:06:55,720 --> 00:06:59,440
Speaker 4: focus is on the nature of the organization itself, and

105
00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:03,320
Speaker 4: if the organization has a common purpose and engages in

106
00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:07,919
Speaker 4: diverse criminal activity to further that single criminal purpose, that

107
00:07:08,160 --> 00:07:10,560
Speaker 4: all of those individuals can be charged in a single

108
00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:14,080
Speaker 4: indictment in the absence of a single agreement.

109
00:07:14,840 --> 00:07:15,960
Speaker 5: So, now, what does.

110
00:07:15,840 --> 00:07:19,280
Speaker 3: A prosecutor have to prove in order to get a

111
00:07:19,400 --> 00:07:23,000
Speaker 3: RICO conviction. It should that is charged with RICO and

112
00:07:23,280 --> 00:07:25,160
Speaker 3: one or more other charges.

113
00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:27,280
Speaker 4: Right, Well, they're going to have to prove that all

114
00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:31,800
Speaker 4: nineteen defendants were members of an enterprise. An enterprise is

115
00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:35,560
Speaker 4: a legal term of art and basically it means any

116
00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:39,520
Speaker 4: group of individuals associated in fact, and that were acting

117
00:07:39,760 --> 00:07:44,840
Speaker 4: in furtherance of a single criminal purpose. So this association

118
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:48,200
Speaker 4: in fact enterprise is very loose knit. There has to

119
00:07:48,200 --> 00:07:51,680
Speaker 4: be relationships between the individuals. They have to work together

120
00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:54,280
Speaker 4: as a unit. They have to work in furtherance of

121
00:07:54,320 --> 00:07:57,640
Speaker 4: a common criminal purpose. And so the argument would be

122
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:01,120
Speaker 4: here that all of these nineteen individuals charge in the

123
00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:05,360
Speaker 4: Georgia indictment, we're working together. They were working in association

124
00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:10,120
Speaker 4: and collaboration for the single purpose of keeping President Trump

125
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:15,560
Speaker 4: in power, to ensure that the electoral votes were cast

126
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:19,640
Speaker 4: in favor of President Trump and not in favor of

127
00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:24,280
Speaker 4: President Biden, even to the tune of just disregarding legitimate

128
00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:27,880
Speaker 4: electoral votes and replacing those with again the slate of

129
00:08:28,120 --> 00:08:31,760
Speaker 4: bake electors. So that's the enterprise, and that's the purpose

130
00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:35,240
Speaker 4: of the enterprise, all these individuals working together in furtherance

131
00:08:35,280 --> 00:08:38,280
Speaker 4: of this common scheme to keep President Trump in power.

132
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:40,520
Speaker 5: And then it has to be an avert act.

133
00:08:40,760 --> 00:08:43,840
Speaker 4: Then the next important element is there has to be

134
00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:47,560
Speaker 4: a pattern of racketeering activity, So the members of this

135
00:08:47,800 --> 00:08:52,720
Speaker 4: enterprise has to engage and racketeing activity. Racketeering activity is

136
00:08:52,800 --> 00:08:56,679
Speaker 4: really kind of an umbrella term that incorporates within it

137
00:08:56,880 --> 00:09:01,680
Speaker 4: very specific crimes enumerated in the status such as false statements,

138
00:09:02,000 --> 00:09:06,079
Speaker 4: you know, bribery and other you know, similar types of offenses,

139
00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:09,199
Speaker 4: So that would be racketing activity. But then there has

140
00:09:09,240 --> 00:09:12,800
Speaker 4: to be a pattern of racketing activity. So the pattern

141
00:09:12,920 --> 00:09:16,199
Speaker 4: is the third element, and that requires that each individual,

142
00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:19,280
Speaker 4: if you're charged with the substance of RICO offense, engaged

143
00:09:19,320 --> 00:09:23,079
Speaker 4: in two or more acts of racketing activity again in

144
00:09:23,200 --> 00:09:27,880
Speaker 4: further into the enterprise. But if you're charged with conspiracy

145
00:09:28,600 --> 00:09:32,360
Speaker 4: to commit RICO, then you just have to agree to

146
00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:35,920
Speaker 4: further the objective of the enterprise, you know, keep President

147
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:40,360
Speaker 4: Trump in power at all means, and some member of

148
00:09:40,520 --> 00:09:44,719
Speaker 4: the enterprise of the conspiracy must have committed two or

149
00:09:44,760 --> 00:09:48,880
Speaker 4: more acts of racketeering activity the pattern of racketing activity.

150
00:09:49,040 --> 00:09:51,440
Speaker 4: So under the conspiracy provision, you don't have to prove

151
00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:55,640
Speaker 4: that each member of the conspiracy himself or herself committed

152
00:09:55,640 --> 00:09:59,640
Speaker 4: two acts of racketeering activity, just that they agreed that

153
00:09:59,720 --> 00:10:02,760
Speaker 4: some member of the conspiracy or members of the conspiracy

154
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:05,840
Speaker 4: would commit two or more actual recturing activity.

155
00:10:06,960 --> 00:10:11,679
Speaker 3: So you prosecuted Rico as a federal prosecutor in LA

156
00:10:11,880 --> 00:10:14,680
Speaker 3: the way she's laid this out, will it make for

157
00:10:14,720 --> 00:10:16,320
Speaker 3: an easy case for her to prove?

158
00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:18,200
Speaker 5: I mean, a lot is going on here.

159
00:10:18,679 --> 00:10:21,679
Speaker 4: Well, I think the difficulty again is the breadth of

160
00:10:21,720 --> 00:10:24,960
Speaker 4: the indictment, even the recoindictment. It's just going to be

161
00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:27,840
Speaker 4: a lot for the jury to have to digest and

162
00:10:27,920 --> 00:10:32,480
Speaker 4: keep straight again, one hundred and sixty one acts, overt acts,

163
00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:37,520
Speaker 4: and further into the conspiracy, nineteen defendants, forty one counts,

164
00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:40,760
Speaker 4: and so it's just going to be a lot of information,

165
00:10:40,880 --> 00:10:43,760
Speaker 4: a lot of evidence to keep sorted out, to keep

166
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:48,240
Speaker 4: straight in their minds with respect to each defendant in

167
00:10:48,280 --> 00:10:51,719
Speaker 4: the case. So, therefore, what are the kind of implications

168
00:10:51,760 --> 00:10:54,880
Speaker 4: of that? I mean, it just strikes me that this

169
00:10:55,040 --> 00:10:56,959
Speaker 4: is not a case that's going to go to trial quickly.

170
00:10:57,360 --> 00:11:00,800
Speaker 4: Because you've got nineteen defendants. Each of these defendants and

171
00:11:00,840 --> 00:11:03,720
Speaker 4: their defense counselor are going to file pre trial motions,

172
00:11:03,720 --> 00:11:06,480
Speaker 4: probably multiple pre trial motions that the court is going

173
00:11:06,520 --> 00:11:08,160
Speaker 4: to have to rule on that There's going to have

174
00:11:08,200 --> 00:11:11,800
Speaker 4: to be time set aside for briefing each of these motions,

175
00:11:12,000 --> 00:11:14,800
Speaker 4: time for the judge to consider and rule on each

176
00:11:14,840 --> 00:11:17,680
Speaker 4: of these motions. Some of these rulings may be appealed,

177
00:11:17,960 --> 00:11:22,600
Speaker 4: not could delay the trial further, and then picking a jury.

178
00:11:22,920 --> 00:11:25,360
Speaker 4: Picking a jury is going to be an incredible challenge

179
00:11:25,480 --> 00:11:28,880
Speaker 4: to ensure that you have an unbiased and impartial jury

180
00:11:29,120 --> 00:11:31,280
Speaker 4: in this super high profile case.

181
00:11:31,720 --> 00:11:35,360
Speaker 3: Filton County DA Finni Willis said last night that she

182
00:11:35,480 --> 00:11:38,040
Speaker 3: wants to try this in six months. Do you think

183
00:11:38,040 --> 00:11:40,360
Speaker 3: that's just out of the question.

184
00:11:40,800 --> 00:11:43,800
Speaker 4: I don't think it's realistic. I think that once the

185
00:11:43,920 --> 00:11:47,959
Speaker 4: judge starts scheduling the timing for the pre trial motions,

186
00:11:48,000 --> 00:11:50,160
Speaker 4: the time that it's going to take again to argue

187
00:11:50,240 --> 00:11:52,520
Speaker 4: these motions for the court to consider them to rule

188
00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:56,840
Speaker 4: on them. Discovery, the prosecution has to disclose materials to

189
00:11:56,880 --> 00:11:59,040
Speaker 4: the other side, to the defense. The defense has to

190
00:11:59,040 --> 00:12:02,319
Speaker 4: be given a reasonable time to consider the discovery materials,

191
00:12:02,320 --> 00:12:05,439
Speaker 4: file pre trial motions thereafter. So there's so many moving

192
00:12:05,520 --> 00:12:09,200
Speaker 4: parts here. It's just difficult for me to see how

193
00:12:09,280 --> 00:12:12,800
Speaker 4: all of this can be resolved in time for the

194
00:12:12,840 --> 00:12:15,440
Speaker 4: trial to take place. I mean, it's even difficult for

195
00:12:15,480 --> 00:12:18,240
Speaker 4: me to imagine that a trial would begin in six months.

196
00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:20,240
Speaker 4: And then the next question is, well, how long is

197
00:12:20,240 --> 00:12:23,320
Speaker 4: the trial going to take itself? So the trial itself

198
00:12:23,360 --> 00:12:27,200
Speaker 4: could be multiple months in duration, and so when you

199
00:12:27,240 --> 00:12:30,560
Speaker 4: start adding all of this up, it's inconceivable to me

200
00:12:30,640 --> 00:12:32,600
Speaker 4: that it could be completed in a six month period

201
00:12:32,640 --> 00:12:33,080
Speaker 4: of time.

202
00:12:33,240 --> 00:12:36,560
Speaker 3: So Fanny Willa says she wants to try all nineteen together.

203
00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:39,600
Speaker 3: Could a judge say that can't be done. We have

204
00:12:39,640 --> 00:12:40,439
Speaker 3: to split this up.

205
00:12:40,720 --> 00:12:43,000
Speaker 4: It could certainly happened, and it has in the past.

206
00:12:43,200 --> 00:12:46,120
Speaker 4: And the argument would be that the defendant or defendants

207
00:12:46,120 --> 00:12:49,319
Speaker 4: couldnot receive due process, you know, a fair trial if

208
00:12:49,320 --> 00:12:52,120
Speaker 4: they're charged you know, collectively. And so part of the

209
00:12:52,160 --> 00:12:54,880
Speaker 4: problem here, and you've alluded to this that some of

210
00:12:54,920 --> 00:12:58,920
Speaker 4: the defendants named in the indictment were minor players. There

211
00:12:58,920 --> 00:13:02,680
Speaker 4: are more peripheral players, their criminal activity was more limited

212
00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:07,359
Speaker 4: in scope, and other players like former President Trump, Rudy Giuliani,

213
00:13:07,600 --> 00:13:11,080
Speaker 4: John Eastman, and others, their activity was much more substantial.

214
00:13:11,400 --> 00:13:15,079
Speaker 4: And so the argument would be by the peripheral defendants

215
00:13:15,720 --> 00:13:18,640
Speaker 4: that for them to be tried along with these individuals

216
00:13:18,640 --> 00:13:22,480
Speaker 4: who were more heavily substantially involved in criminal activity. There's

217
00:13:22,520 --> 00:13:25,160
Speaker 4: this fear that there's going to be the spillover effect

218
00:13:25,480 --> 00:13:29,920
Speaker 4: of evidence that Giuliani allegedly committed that former President Trump

219
00:13:30,320 --> 00:13:32,959
Speaker 4: that is going to be considered against some of these

220
00:13:33,000 --> 00:13:37,160
Speaker 4: more minor participants in the criminal activity. So I would

221
00:13:37,160 --> 00:13:39,880
Speaker 4: not be surprised at all if, first of all, there's

222
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:42,160
Speaker 4: going to be motion to several There'll be multiple motions

223
00:13:42,160 --> 00:13:45,760
Speaker 4: to sever defendants from the case, and I would not

224
00:13:45,800 --> 00:13:48,360
Speaker 4: be surprised if the judge granted some of those motions

225
00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:48,920
Speaker 4: for severance.

226
00:13:49,320 --> 00:13:52,880
Speaker 3: What's the hardest thing about trying a Rico case as

227
00:13:52,920 --> 00:13:53,800
Speaker 3: a prosecutor?

228
00:13:54,040 --> 00:13:56,240
Speaker 4: Well, I think again, establishing, You know, you have to

229
00:13:56,320 --> 00:13:59,840
Speaker 4: establish the enterprise, and so you have to be able

230
00:13:59,880 --> 00:14:03,960
Speaker 4: to fit each individual in the enterprise. I think, you know, establishing,

231
00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:05,920
Speaker 4: you know, what was their role, what was their function,

232
00:14:06,640 --> 00:14:09,920
Speaker 4: what was the purpose of the enterprise, what was its goal,

233
00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:13,080
Speaker 4: what was its objective? And then what did each of

234
00:14:13,120 --> 00:14:18,600
Speaker 4: these nineteen defendants do in furtherance off that goal and

235
00:14:18,640 --> 00:14:21,160
Speaker 4: those of those objectives. And so I think, you know,

236
00:14:21,240 --> 00:14:24,920
Speaker 4: the enterprise is going to be a challenging issue. I

237
00:14:24,960 --> 00:14:27,760
Speaker 4: think more so for some defendants than others. I think

238
00:14:27,800 --> 00:14:31,960
Speaker 4: with certain defendants, in particular former President Trump, it's going

239
00:14:32,040 --> 00:14:34,520
Speaker 4: to be easier to place him in the enterprise. I mean,

240
00:14:34,520 --> 00:14:36,960
Speaker 4: he was the orchestra conductor. He was the one who's

241
00:14:37,040 --> 00:14:41,000
Speaker 4: directing the activities of the enterprise, you know, telling Juliani

242
00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:44,240
Speaker 4: what to do in Eastman and other members of the

243
00:14:44,320 --> 00:14:46,680
Speaker 4: enterprise what to do. So it's going to be easier

244
00:14:47,080 --> 00:14:49,680
Speaker 4: with respects to him, but with respect to others, you know,

245
00:14:49,680 --> 00:14:51,200
Speaker 4: it's going to be it's going to be difficult to

246
00:14:51,200 --> 00:14:54,480
Speaker 4: fit them into the contours of the enterprise. So that's

247
00:14:54,480 --> 00:14:56,040
Speaker 4: going to be a major challenge.

248
00:14:56,280 --> 00:14:57,320
Speaker 5: And one defense.

249
00:14:57,400 --> 00:15:00,560
Speaker 3: Let's say former President Trump doesn't necessary, I really have

250
00:15:00,680 --> 00:15:03,960
Speaker 3: to know the other defendants in the enterprise.

251
00:15:04,320 --> 00:15:06,880
Speaker 4: Well, that's correct, that's correct, and that's a plus for

252
00:15:07,000 --> 00:15:11,000
Speaker 4: the prosecution. So there's no requirement that each member of

253
00:15:11,080 --> 00:15:15,240
Speaker 4: the enterprise know the identities of the other members of

254
00:15:15,280 --> 00:15:19,000
Speaker 4: the enterprise and their criminal activity, you know, what they're

255
00:15:19,000 --> 00:15:23,320
Speaker 4: engaged in. It's just enough that each defendant was a

256
00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:25,840
Speaker 4: member of the enterprise. What's the evidence that the infentant

257
00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:28,080
Speaker 4: was a member of the enterprise and what role did

258
00:15:28,080 --> 00:15:31,080
Speaker 4: that individual play in furthering the objectives of the enterprise.

259
00:15:31,520 --> 00:15:35,240
Speaker 4: So it could be that conceivably one of the members

260
00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:38,000
Speaker 4: of the enterprise, maybe only knew one or two other

261
00:15:38,080 --> 00:15:41,360
Speaker 4: members of the enterprise, wasn't aware of fifteen or so

262
00:15:41,840 --> 00:15:44,760
Speaker 4: members that it doesn't matter the prosecution does have to

263
00:15:44,840 --> 00:15:48,040
Speaker 4: prove this knowledge of the identities of each member and

264
00:15:48,080 --> 00:15:49,080
Speaker 4: the role that they played.

265
00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:53,240
Speaker 3: This district attorney likes rico cases. She likes to bring

266
00:15:53,360 --> 00:15:56,720
Speaker 3: rico cases. But what's the downside of bringing a rico

267
00:15:56,880 --> 00:16:01,400
Speaker 3: case when she's behind now the other criminal cases because

268
00:16:01,400 --> 00:16:04,920
Speaker 3: she's filed last and the election is coming up.

269
00:16:05,320 --> 00:16:06,720
Speaker 5: He could become a president.

270
00:16:07,280 --> 00:16:07,480
Speaker 2: Yeah.

271
00:16:07,800 --> 00:16:10,280
Speaker 4: I think the argument that she would likely make for

272
00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:12,800
Speaker 4: charging the case the way that she charged it was

273
00:16:12,840 --> 00:16:15,160
Speaker 4: that she wants to give the jury the complete picture

274
00:16:15,400 --> 00:16:18,160
Speaker 4: that she wants to the jury to know the full nature,

275
00:16:18,480 --> 00:16:21,200
Speaker 4: you know, the scope and breadth of the criminal activity

276
00:16:21,920 --> 00:16:26,440
Speaker 4: that former President Trump and others were allegedly involved in.

277
00:16:26,640 --> 00:16:29,000
Speaker 4: And so she doesn't want to carve it out into

278
00:16:29,040 --> 00:16:32,240
Speaker 4: sections or pieces, but she wants the full scope, the

279
00:16:32,280 --> 00:16:35,600
Speaker 4: full breadth of the criminal activity with respect to again

280
00:16:36,000 --> 00:16:40,680
Speaker 4: preventing the peaceful transfer of power to then President elect Biden.

281
00:16:40,920 --> 00:16:43,440
Speaker 4: So I think that's the argument that she would make.

282
00:16:43,640 --> 00:16:47,080
Speaker 4: But the counter argument is, well, logistically, this is going

283
00:16:47,120 --> 00:16:50,360
Speaker 4: to be so difficult, it's going to be almost unmanageable

284
00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:54,560
Speaker 4: to present this type of case before a single group

285
00:16:54,600 --> 00:16:55,120
Speaker 4: of jurors.

286
00:16:55,760 --> 00:16:57,320
Speaker 5: And if this does.

287
00:16:57,120 --> 00:17:00,440
Speaker 3: Not get tried before the election, And there are a

288
00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:02,800
Speaker 3: lot of ifs here. If it doesn't get dried before

289
00:17:02,840 --> 00:17:06,920
Speaker 3: the election, if Trump wins the election, even though he's

290
00:17:06,960 --> 00:17:09,639
Speaker 3: supposed to then come to Georgia for the trial, I mean,

291
00:17:09,640 --> 00:17:12,159
Speaker 3: there'll be a lot of different ways for him to

292
00:17:12,280 --> 00:17:12,920
Speaker 3: put it off.

293
00:17:13,080 --> 00:17:14,919
Speaker 4: Right, Well, I can try to put it off. The

294
00:17:14,960 --> 00:17:18,639
Speaker 4: other interesting thing here is that with the federal cases,

295
00:17:18,680 --> 00:17:22,240
Speaker 4: a federal indictment, I think that former President Trump's strategy

296
00:17:22,280 --> 00:17:25,520
Speaker 4: may be, well, let's delay, delay, delay. If he is

297
00:17:25,600 --> 00:17:30,120
Speaker 4: elected president, then he'll pardon himself, or let's delay delay, delay,

298
00:17:30,600 --> 00:17:33,399
Speaker 4: even if he's not the Republican nominee, but there's some

299
00:17:33,480 --> 00:17:37,280
Speaker 4: other Republican nominee that person is elected president, then the

300
00:17:37,320 --> 00:17:43,040
Speaker 4: Republican president will pardon former President Trump. That doesn't work

301
00:17:43,680 --> 00:17:48,240
Speaker 4: in Georgia because again, the president has no authority, no

302
00:17:48,359 --> 00:17:52,600
Speaker 4: power to grant a pardon with respect to a state

303
00:17:53,080 --> 00:17:55,720
Speaker 4: criminal conviction. So then one would argue, yeah, well the

304
00:17:55,760 --> 00:17:59,000
Speaker 4: governor must Well, in some cases that may be true,

305
00:17:59,240 --> 00:18:01,800
Speaker 4: but that's not the case in Georgia. So it's not

306
00:18:01,920 --> 00:18:05,240
Speaker 4: the governor who has the power to grant a pardon.

307
00:18:05,440 --> 00:18:09,080
Speaker 4: It's the pro board that has been afforded the power

308
00:18:09,560 --> 00:18:12,720
Speaker 4: not the governor to grant a pardon, but to make

309
00:18:12,800 --> 00:18:17,040
Speaker 4: matters even worse for former President Trump, the pro board

310
00:18:17,160 --> 00:18:21,040
Speaker 4: can only grant a pardon after the defendant has served

311
00:18:21,400 --> 00:18:25,840
Speaker 4: his or her sentence, and then only five years after that,

312
00:18:26,160 --> 00:18:30,560
Speaker 4: assuming there have been no criminal offenses, no criminal activity,

313
00:18:30,680 --> 00:18:34,439
Speaker 4: that persons not engaged in criminal activity during that subsequent

314
00:18:34,520 --> 00:18:37,720
Speaker 4: five year period of time. So assuming you know the

315
00:18:37,760 --> 00:18:41,000
Speaker 4: what if you know what if President Trump were convicted

316
00:18:41,400 --> 00:18:45,359
Speaker 4: in Georgia and sought a pardon, well, the part would

317
00:18:45,359 --> 00:18:48,600
Speaker 4: have to go before the pro board in Georgia. President

318
00:18:48,680 --> 00:18:51,439
Speaker 4: Trump would have to serve his sentence, and then he

319
00:18:51,480 --> 00:18:54,640
Speaker 4: could only be eligible for a pardon five years after

320
00:18:54,720 --> 00:18:57,720
Speaker 4: his sentence, assuming he had not engaged in criminal activity

321
00:18:57,760 --> 00:19:00,720
Speaker 4: during that five year period of time. So it's a

322
00:19:00,840 --> 00:19:04,639
Speaker 4: much much worse situation for President Trump with respect to

323
00:19:04,760 --> 00:19:08,320
Speaker 4: a pardon than it would be under the federal indictments.

324
00:19:08,440 --> 00:19:11,400
Speaker 3: Do you see any defenses for him? I mean First

325
00:19:11,440 --> 00:19:13,159
Speaker 3: Amendment he keeps on talking about.

326
00:19:13,560 --> 00:19:13,600
Speaker 2: No.

327
00:19:13,800 --> 00:19:16,680
Speaker 4: The problem here is that I think it's a stronger

328
00:19:16,760 --> 00:19:19,920
Speaker 4: case in a way than the January sixth federal indictment

329
00:19:19,960 --> 00:19:23,959
Speaker 4: against Trump, because I mean, the productate offenses themselves involve

330
00:19:24,080 --> 00:19:29,160
Speaker 4: false statements to government officials, specifically members of the Georgia

331
00:19:29,400 --> 00:19:33,879
Speaker 4: House of Representatives or the Georgia State Senate. So making

332
00:19:33,920 --> 00:19:36,639
Speaker 4: a false statement I won the election, I won the election,

333
00:19:37,200 --> 00:19:41,960
Speaker 4: and you're making that statement to state legislative officials, that's

334
00:19:42,000 --> 00:19:45,800
Speaker 4: a crime in Georgia. And so he doesn't have a

335
00:19:45,840 --> 00:19:49,399
Speaker 4: First Amendment right to make false statements. Giuliani does not

336
00:19:49,480 --> 00:19:52,439
Speaker 4: have a first Amendment right to make false statements to

337
00:19:52,600 --> 00:19:57,360
Speaker 4: Georgia legislative officials. And then in addition, one of the

338
00:19:57,560 --> 00:20:01,040
Speaker 4: criminal charges that are included in the indict in a solicitation.

339
00:20:01,680 --> 00:20:06,200
Speaker 4: So if you're soliciting someone at public official to violate

340
00:20:06,280 --> 00:20:09,879
Speaker 4: their oath as a public officer, then that's a crime.

341
00:20:10,080 --> 00:20:14,160
Speaker 4: So where he is reaching out to Raffensberger and saying,

342
00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:19,320
Speaker 4: find me eleven thousand, seven hundred and eighty votes, so

343
00:20:19,359 --> 00:20:24,240
Speaker 4: he's soliciting him to violate his oath of office, especially

344
00:20:24,600 --> 00:20:29,800
Speaker 4: when Brad Rafthensburger's told him there aren't eleven thousand plus votes.

345
00:20:30,280 --> 00:20:33,840
Speaker 4: You know, the irregularities voting the regulatories were minor, They

346
00:20:33,840 --> 00:20:37,880
Speaker 4: weren't significant enough to make a difference. We have audited

347
00:20:38,000 --> 00:20:43,240
Speaker 4: and re audited the election and the votes that were cast.

348
00:20:43,600 --> 00:20:47,520
Speaker 4: We've determined that there were only minor irregularly. Doesn't matter.

349
00:20:48,200 --> 00:20:52,320
Speaker 4: Find me seven hundred and eighty votes. So he's soliciting him,

350
00:20:52,480 --> 00:20:55,840
Speaker 4: the Secretary of State, to violate his oath in office.

351
00:20:55,840 --> 00:20:58,520
Speaker 4: If that's not protected free speech.

352
00:20:59,000 --> 00:21:01,440
Speaker 3: Thanks for being on the show, Jimmy. That's Professor Jimmy

353
00:21:01,480 --> 00:21:03,320
Speaker 3: Garule of Notre Dame Law School.

354
00:21:04,680 --> 00:21:07,840
Speaker 1: The appointment of mister Weiss's reinforces for the American people,

355
00:21:08,440 --> 00:21:13,679
Speaker 1: the Department's committed meant to both independence and accountability in

356
00:21:13,720 --> 00:21:15,520
Speaker 1: particularly sensitive matters.

357
00:21:16,119 --> 00:21:19,639
Speaker 3: Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed a special counsel to

358
00:21:19,760 --> 00:21:24,880
Speaker 3: oversee the Justice Department's ongoing criminal investigation into President Joe

359
00:21:24,920 --> 00:21:28,960
Speaker 3: Biden's son, after a controversial plea deal for Hunter Biden

360
00:21:29,160 --> 00:21:33,159
Speaker 3: fell apart in court last month. Delaware US Attorney David

361
00:21:33,200 --> 00:21:36,960
Speaker 3: Wise has already been overseeing the probe for five years

362
00:21:37,320 --> 00:21:39,639
Speaker 3: and requested special council status.

363
00:21:40,400 --> 00:21:43,440
Speaker 1: A special counsel, he will continue to have the authority

364
00:21:43,480 --> 00:21:47,879
Speaker 1: and responsibility that he has previously exercised to oversee the

365
00:21:47,920 --> 00:21:52,800
Speaker 1: investigation and decide where, when, and whether to file charges.

366
00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:57,199
Speaker 3: The special council appointment was announced. Justice prosecutors revealed in

367
00:21:57,320 --> 00:22:00,399
Speaker 3: court that Plea talks with Hunter Biden had read an

368
00:22:00,480 --> 00:22:04,639
Speaker 3: impasse and file to dismiss the tax charges against Biden

369
00:22:04,680 --> 00:22:08,639
Speaker 3: and Delaware, indicating they could charge him instead in another court.

370
00:22:08,840 --> 00:22:11,840
Speaker 3: Biden's attorneys are arguing that the second part of the deal,

371
00:22:12,200 --> 00:22:15,439
Speaker 3: a diversion agreement on a felony gun charge, is valid

372
00:22:15,480 --> 00:22:19,359
Speaker 3: and binding. My guest is Joshua Castenberg, a professor at

373
00:22:19,400 --> 00:22:22,240
Speaker 3: the University of New Mexico Law School and a former

374
00:22:22,359 --> 00:22:25,879
Speaker 3: prosecutor and judge in the US Air Force. Weis a

375
00:22:25,920 --> 00:22:30,720
Speaker 3: Trump appointee, had already been operating largely independently, and he

376
00:22:30,800 --> 00:22:33,439
Speaker 3: told Congress last month that he'd never been denied the

377
00:22:33,480 --> 00:22:38,040
Speaker 3: authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction. So why ask

378
00:22:38,119 --> 00:22:41,480
Speaker 3: to be made special counsel? What does that give him?

379
00:22:41,800 --> 00:22:41,879
Speaker 4: So?

380
00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:46,800
Speaker 6: In theory, a special council has greater protections from being

381
00:22:46,920 --> 00:22:50,680
Speaker 6: arbitrarily dismissed from the case, can run the case more

382
00:22:50,720 --> 00:22:54,920
Speaker 6: independently without the oversight or direct oversight of the Attorney

383
00:22:55,000 --> 00:22:59,160
Speaker 6: General until the special council concludes her or his report.

384
00:22:59,440 --> 00:23:03,920
Speaker 6: He may remember where Durham gave his report to Americ Garland,

385
00:23:04,080 --> 00:23:08,000
Speaker 6: and there was really no oversight involved whatsoever. By the

386
00:23:08,040 --> 00:23:11,480
Speaker 6: Biden administration into that. So that's the theory behind the

387
00:23:11,560 --> 00:23:15,879
Speaker 6: special Council, greater protections, more independence than the normal United

388
00:23:15,920 --> 00:23:19,320
Speaker 6: States attorney. Whether that's true or not in all cases

389
00:23:19,440 --> 00:23:21,160
Speaker 6: is you have to take it on a case by

390
00:23:21,240 --> 00:23:24,520
Speaker 6: case basis. But the idea of a special Council actually

391
00:23:24,560 --> 00:23:28,080
Speaker 6: goes back one hundred years ago to the Teapot Dome scandal.

392
00:23:28,359 --> 00:23:31,440
Speaker 6: Most Americans that they know about special Council, they think

393
00:23:31,520 --> 00:23:36,400
Speaker 6: back to Leon Jaworski or Archibald Cox during Watergates. They

394
00:23:36,440 --> 00:23:40,640
Speaker 6: think about the Iron Contra investigations. But here's the thing

395
00:23:40,680 --> 00:23:43,040
Speaker 6: about a special Council that they think is important for

396
00:23:43,080 --> 00:23:46,480
Speaker 6: the American people to understand. In this case, it makes

397
00:23:46,520 --> 00:23:50,879
Speaker 6: sense to have a special council if allegations are at

398
00:23:51,000 --> 00:23:53,879
Speaker 6: or very close to the President of the United States.

399
00:23:53,960 --> 00:23:57,360
Speaker 6: It builds more confidence in the Justice Department because there's

400
00:23:57,400 --> 00:24:01,439
Speaker 6: a different set of governing regulations under the CFR, the

401
00:24:01,480 --> 00:24:05,520
Speaker 6: Code of Federal Regulations, than there are under US attorneys. Now,

402
00:24:05,640 --> 00:24:08,800
Speaker 6: not every American and certainly not some Americans on the

403
00:24:08,880 --> 00:24:11,480
Speaker 6: right or the representatives in Congress, are going to buy

404
00:24:11,520 --> 00:24:13,880
Speaker 6: off on what I'm saying. But this is about the

405
00:24:13,880 --> 00:24:17,119
Speaker 6: best you can have in terms of the executive branch

406
00:24:17,320 --> 00:24:21,639
Speaker 6: investigating itself, there's no better substitute than what's going on now.

407
00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:25,200
Speaker 3: Do you think that part of the reason Garland agreed

408
00:24:25,240 --> 00:24:32,000
Speaker 3: to this is because of criticism from congressional Republicans and

409
00:24:32,560 --> 00:24:36,880
Speaker 3: the testimony of two IRS whistleblowers who said that there

410
00:24:36,920 --> 00:24:40,040
Speaker 3: was improper political interference in the investigation.

411
00:24:41,080 --> 00:24:44,800
Speaker 6: I think that's probably in all likelihood that's a major factor.

412
00:24:44,840 --> 00:24:48,440
Speaker 6: But there's another factor involved too, and that is former

413
00:24:48,480 --> 00:24:53,520
Speaker 6: President Trump is facing two federal indictments. And if you

414
00:24:53,600 --> 00:24:58,600
Speaker 6: think about the optics of going after a former president

415
00:24:58,800 --> 00:25:01,920
Speaker 6: as the Justice Department and should be doing, but going

416
00:25:01,960 --> 00:25:06,040
Speaker 6: after the former president vigorously and ethically, you want the

417
00:25:06,080 --> 00:25:09,440
Speaker 6: same set of rules to apply to the current president's son.

418
00:25:09,480 --> 00:25:14,080
Speaker 6: And the fundamental question that the Independent Council can get at,

419
00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:18,080
Speaker 6: more likely than a sitting in the United States Attorney

420
00:25:18,560 --> 00:25:21,960
Speaker 6: is whether or not Hunter Biden was simply trading on

421
00:25:22,080 --> 00:25:25,920
Speaker 6: his dad's name, which is entirely possible, or whether the

422
00:25:25,960 --> 00:25:29,320
Speaker 6: President or others in the Oval Office knew about it

423
00:25:29,400 --> 00:25:32,359
Speaker 6: and did nothing about it. And so that's really what

424
00:25:32,440 --> 00:25:35,359
Speaker 6: the Special Council was likely to get at. The things

425
00:25:35,400 --> 00:25:39,480
Speaker 6: we already know the tax fraud. It's probably going to

426
00:25:39,520 --> 00:25:43,399
Speaker 6: be wrapped up again in a Weiss's report, just like

427
00:25:43,480 --> 00:25:46,359
Speaker 6: there was already an indictment under him for this. But

428
00:25:46,440 --> 00:25:49,520
Speaker 6: I think that's the important feature here. Not pre judging

429
00:25:49,600 --> 00:25:52,520
Speaker 6: the case at all, but I do think it's to

430
00:25:52,640 --> 00:25:56,120
Speaker 6: satisfy people who are wondering whether there's two standards, one

431
00:25:56,200 --> 00:25:59,200
Speaker 6: for a sitting president, one for a former president.

432
00:26:00,280 --> 00:26:04,440
Speaker 3: Has been investigating Hunter Biden for five years, and Biden's

433
00:26:04,440 --> 00:26:08,560
Speaker 3: attorneys say, if there was anything to be found, wouldn't

434
00:26:08,560 --> 00:26:09,520
Speaker 3: he have found it already?

435
00:26:10,240 --> 00:26:12,680
Speaker 6: Well, I think that's a fair comment. I absolutely think

436
00:26:12,680 --> 00:26:15,280
Speaker 6: it's a fair observation. And look, you know, you and

437
00:26:15,320 --> 00:26:18,040
Speaker 6: I and people across the spectrum have been around the

438
00:26:18,040 --> 00:26:21,440
Speaker 6: block to know that. Let's say that mister Weis determines

439
00:26:21,520 --> 00:26:24,960
Speaker 6: that there's no there there regarding the president, it's not

440
00:26:25,040 --> 00:26:28,080
Speaker 6: going to satisfy a certain fraction of the American people

441
00:26:28,080 --> 00:26:31,440
Speaker 6: who are willing to see the worst in the Biden administration.

442
00:26:31,760 --> 00:26:34,520
Speaker 6: Just like if Jack Smiths found there was no there

443
00:26:34,680 --> 00:26:37,920
Speaker 6: there on the January sixth investigation, there'd be a certain

444
00:26:37,960 --> 00:26:40,840
Speaker 6: fraction of the American people who would think that would

445
00:26:40,880 --> 00:26:42,600
Speaker 6: be a cover up. As it turns out there was

446
00:26:42,640 --> 00:26:46,720
Speaker 6: a lot of there there in regard to Jack Met's investigation.

447
00:26:46,880 --> 00:26:49,919
Speaker 6: But I think there's a political aspect to the appointment

448
00:26:49,960 --> 00:26:53,359
Speaker 6: of mister Weiss, you know, transitioning from the United States

449
00:26:53,440 --> 00:26:56,359
Speaker 6: Attorney to a special Council. But it is a fair

450
00:26:56,480 --> 00:26:59,760
Speaker 6: question that you know, Biden's attorneys have raised, good gosh

451
00:27:00,160 --> 00:27:02,520
Speaker 6: five years to look at this and what else is

452
00:27:02,560 --> 00:27:04,480
Speaker 6: there to be found? And you know, at the end

453
00:27:04,520 --> 00:27:06,440
Speaker 6: of the day, it may be that there's nothing more

454
00:27:06,440 --> 00:27:09,320
Speaker 6: to be found and we're back to just the tax indictments.

455
00:27:09,720 --> 00:27:13,479
Speaker 3: Wis's team told the federal court they'd likely move forward

456
00:27:13,480 --> 00:27:16,400
Speaker 3: with charges in California or Washington. Do you think that's

457
00:27:16,440 --> 00:27:17,920
Speaker 3: part of it too, that they don't want to try

458
00:27:17,920 --> 00:27:18,840
Speaker 3: this in Delaware.

459
00:27:19,440 --> 00:27:21,760
Speaker 6: Well, it'd be tough to try this in Delaware. But

460
00:27:21,960 --> 00:27:25,040
Speaker 6: Hunter Biden is entitled, like all of us are, to

461
00:27:25,119 --> 00:27:28,399
Speaker 6: a fixed amendment protection known as the vicinage clause. And

462
00:27:29,040 --> 00:27:31,720
Speaker 6: not so jolly Old England, which this country had a

463
00:27:31,760 --> 00:27:34,880
Speaker 6: rebellion from. You could have been alleged to have committed

464
00:27:34,880 --> 00:27:38,400
Speaker 6: a crime, you know, up in Glasgow, Scotland, and four

465
00:27:38,480 --> 00:27:40,840
Speaker 6: years or five years go by and you're hauled down

466
00:27:40,880 --> 00:27:44,399
Speaker 6: to London to be tried there and your witnesses don't show,

467
00:27:44,480 --> 00:27:47,320
Speaker 6: and you know, evidence that you need to secure your

468
00:27:47,320 --> 00:27:50,199
Speaker 6: innocence isn't there. And so the framers of our constitution

469
00:27:50,359 --> 00:27:54,199
Speaker 6: understood that people are supposed to be tried in the

470
00:27:54,240 --> 00:27:57,000
Speaker 6: criminal court where the crime is alleged to have happened.

471
00:27:57,480 --> 00:27:59,880
Speaker 6: You know, in the Internet age, the government can skirt

472
00:27:59,880 --> 00:28:02,760
Speaker 6: around the plane language of that because you can always

473
00:28:02,840 --> 00:28:05,720
Speaker 6: make the argument, well, there's an aspect of the crime

474
00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:09,119
Speaker 6: in California, even if it was completed in Delaware. And

475
00:28:09,200 --> 00:28:12,440
Speaker 6: that's something Hunter Biden can challenge. But it makes sense

476
00:28:12,480 --> 00:28:16,040
Speaker 6: to me why this special counsel would look at California

477
00:28:16,119 --> 00:28:19,760
Speaker 6: other than Delaware. And maybe they can point to a

478
00:28:19,880 --> 00:28:23,680
Speaker 6: major feature of an allegation that occurred in California, but

479
00:28:24,080 --> 00:28:26,040
Speaker 6: that hasn't really been open to us yet.

480
00:28:27,000 --> 00:28:29,440
Speaker 3: Now I want to go back to what happened here,

481
00:28:29,480 --> 00:28:30,880
Speaker 3: Why we're at this point.

482
00:28:31,359 --> 00:28:32,840
Speaker 5: How strange was it?

483
00:28:32,920 --> 00:28:37,760
Speaker 3: How unusual that the prosecution and the defense didn't have

484
00:28:38,280 --> 00:28:42,480
Speaker 3: the plea deal nailed down. They seem to disagree about

485
00:28:42,480 --> 00:28:44,760
Speaker 3: what the plea deal was about when they were before

486
00:28:44,800 --> 00:28:46,200
Speaker 3: the judge in Delaware.

487
00:28:46,360 --> 00:28:50,160
Speaker 6: It's a rarity, It's an absolute rarity. But it does happen.

488
00:28:50,200 --> 00:28:53,040
Speaker 6: I mean, as a former prosecutor, I remember one case

489
00:28:53,520 --> 00:28:57,000
Speaker 6: where you know, we had written down in our agreement

490
00:28:57,040 --> 00:29:01,120
Speaker 6: with the defendant no further prosecution out. Our defendant was

491
00:29:01,160 --> 00:29:04,720
Speaker 6: wanted and charged in absentia with crimes in the Philippines.

492
00:29:05,000 --> 00:29:07,320
Speaker 6: He and his attorneys believed that he wouldn't be subject

493
00:29:07,400 --> 00:29:10,080
Speaker 6: to extradition back to the Philippines or he was a citizen.

494
00:29:10,200 --> 00:29:12,520
Speaker 6: We said to the judge, we have no ability to

495
00:29:12,600 --> 00:29:15,560
Speaker 6: bind you know, the United States government to a non

496
00:29:15,600 --> 00:29:20,160
Speaker 6: extradition agreement within this that's a state department matter. You know,

497
00:29:20,480 --> 00:29:23,000
Speaker 6: that only happened once in my over twenty years of

498
00:29:23,080 --> 00:29:26,880
Speaker 6: being a prosecutor. This one is a trickier one. And

499
00:29:26,960 --> 00:29:29,719
Speaker 6: you know, some people jumped on the judge for interfering

500
00:29:29,760 --> 00:29:33,120
Speaker 6: in the plea agreement. But unlike the US District Court

501
00:29:33,200 --> 00:29:36,720
Speaker 6: judge in Florida who is sitting on the Marrol Lago base,

502
00:29:36,920 --> 00:29:39,320
Speaker 6: you know, offenses in the Trump case, I think this

503
00:29:39,440 --> 00:29:41,920
Speaker 6: judge made the right call. In Delaware. If you have

504
00:29:41,960 --> 00:29:45,560
Speaker 6: a disagreement between the prosecutor and the defense council, and

505
00:29:45,600 --> 00:29:49,720
Speaker 6: it's a complex disagreement, then you don't approve the plea agreement.

506
00:29:49,720 --> 00:29:51,320
Speaker 6: And you tell them to go back and talk to

507
00:29:51,360 --> 00:29:51,800
Speaker 6: each other.

508
00:29:52,360 --> 00:29:55,560
Speaker 3: So this was supposed to be a two part deal

509
00:29:55,680 --> 00:30:00,560
Speaker 3: for Biden, a guilty plea on misdemeanor tax offenses and

510
00:30:00,640 --> 00:30:04,840
Speaker 3: a diversion agreement that would spare him from prosecution on

511
00:30:04,920 --> 00:30:08,800
Speaker 3: a felony gun charge. Biden's attorneys said in court papers

512
00:30:08,800 --> 00:30:11,800
Speaker 3: that were filed on Sunday night that the diversion agreement

513
00:30:11,840 --> 00:30:15,400
Speaker 3: on the felony gun charge is binding and still in place.

514
00:30:16,080 --> 00:30:19,240
Speaker 3: And they quoted from the prosecutors at that July hearing

515
00:30:19,600 --> 00:30:22,880
Speaker 3: who said that the diversion agreement was a bilateral agreement

516
00:30:22,920 --> 00:30:26,640
Speaker 3: between the parties that stands alone from the plea agreement.

517
00:30:27,040 --> 00:30:29,440
Speaker 5: Do they have a good argument, You know, they have what.

518
00:30:29,480 --> 00:30:32,520
Speaker 6: I call a colorable argument, because once it defend and

519
00:30:32,680 --> 00:30:35,720
Speaker 6: enters into a plea agreement with the government, whether it's

520
00:30:35,720 --> 00:30:39,040
Speaker 6: a state prosecutor or a federal prosecutor, and they do

521
00:30:39,280 --> 00:30:42,840
Speaker 6: something in regard to the agreement, like, for example, a

522
00:30:42,880 --> 00:30:46,160
Speaker 6: person agrees to enter into alcoholics anonymous as part of

523
00:30:46,400 --> 00:30:50,200
Speaker 6: a plea agreement and a doik. Once they do that,

524
00:30:50,440 --> 00:30:54,080
Speaker 6: they enter into alcoholics anonymous, the government's bound to the agreement.

525
00:30:54,120 --> 00:30:57,880
Speaker 6: Because plea agreements run on the same serio as American

526
00:30:57,920 --> 00:31:02,640
Speaker 6: contract law. You've had a performance, and you know one

527
00:31:02,680 --> 00:31:06,080
Speaker 6: side does the performance, the promise is now binding. The

528
00:31:06,080 --> 00:31:09,160
Speaker 6: government is making the argument it's not that clear cut,

529
00:31:09,240 --> 00:31:11,840
Speaker 6: but I will say Hunter Biden's attorneys are not shooting

530
00:31:11,880 --> 00:31:14,520
Speaker 6: in the dark on that there's case law on their side.

531
00:31:14,920 --> 00:31:18,080
Speaker 3: Weiss is taking the position that although a prosecutor working

532
00:31:18,080 --> 00:31:20,600
Speaker 3: for him had signed the deal, it was only a

533
00:31:20,680 --> 00:31:23,800
Speaker 3: draft and could be revised or even abandoned depending on

534
00:31:23,880 --> 00:31:27,960
Speaker 3: the circumstances. I mean, how often do prosecutors reneg on

535
00:31:28,000 --> 00:31:28,680
Speaker 3: a plea deal?

536
00:31:29,000 --> 00:31:32,920
Speaker 6: Does that happen only if they discover additional misconduct and

537
00:31:33,000 --> 00:31:36,200
Speaker 6: additional crimes, or in cases where you have like a

538
00:31:36,320 --> 00:31:39,480
Speaker 6: group of defendants and a conspiracy and one of them's

539
00:31:39,520 --> 00:31:41,920
Speaker 6: cut a deal and they find out that the one

540
00:31:41,920 --> 00:31:45,240
Speaker 6: who's cut a deal is obstructing justice. Things like that.

541
00:31:45,320 --> 00:31:48,200
Speaker 6: It's a very very rare day. And you know, if

542
00:31:48,240 --> 00:31:51,640
Speaker 6: the assistant US attorney that drafted that plea agreement and

543
00:31:51,720 --> 00:31:55,280
Speaker 6: signed it signed it as part of the prosecution team,

544
00:31:55,800 --> 00:31:59,840
Speaker 6: that typically will bind the United States Attorney because it's

545
00:31:59,880 --> 00:32:02,520
Speaker 6: one one of mister Weiss's agents who have the authority

546
00:32:02,560 --> 00:32:05,520
Speaker 6: to do that. And again, that's what operates on usual

547
00:32:05,640 --> 00:32:08,760
Speaker 6: contract laws. So to call it a draft opinion when

548
00:32:08,800 --> 00:32:12,320
Speaker 6: both sides sign it, that's not accurate. I mean there

549
00:32:12,320 --> 00:32:15,240
Speaker 6: may be a viability to pulling out of the agreement.

550
00:32:15,360 --> 00:32:17,960
Speaker 6: And that's why I said there's a colorable argument raised.

551
00:32:18,040 --> 00:32:20,040
Speaker 6: I don't think we have all of the facts, but

552
00:32:20,400 --> 00:32:23,080
Speaker 6: I do think there's enough law on Hunter Biden's side

553
00:32:23,160 --> 00:32:25,280
Speaker 6: to force the agreement into action.

554
00:32:26,000 --> 00:32:27,800
Speaker 5: But not on the tax charges.

555
00:32:28,240 --> 00:32:30,840
Speaker 6: Not on the tax charges no, So is it going.

556
00:32:30,720 --> 00:32:33,400
Speaker 3: To be up to this judge in Delaware to decide this?

557
00:32:33,880 --> 00:32:37,120
Speaker 6: Well, Hunter Biden can appeal, as can the government can

558
00:32:37,160 --> 00:32:40,520
Speaker 6: appeal from this district court judge's rolling to the Federal

559
00:32:40,560 --> 00:32:44,000
Speaker 6: Court of Appeals above them in the Second Circuit. Having

560
00:32:44,080 --> 00:32:47,080
Speaker 6: said that, that really will delay this case. When you

561
00:32:47,120 --> 00:32:50,800
Speaker 6: appeal what's known as an interlocutory appeal, you could add

562
00:32:50,880 --> 00:32:54,080
Speaker 6: six months to a year to the timeline of getting

563
00:32:54,080 --> 00:32:57,320
Speaker 6: this case to trial. So that's a decision that both

564
00:32:57,360 --> 00:32:59,120
Speaker 6: sides need to make. Do they want to go to

565
00:32:59,200 --> 00:33:00,200
Speaker 6: trial or not?

566
00:33:00,760 --> 00:33:04,280
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden's counsel has said, but there's not necessarily going

567
00:33:04,320 --> 00:33:07,480
Speaker 3: to be a trial. But would Wiss have done what

568
00:33:07,560 --> 00:33:10,160
Speaker 3: he's done? You know, have the Attorney General make him

569
00:33:10,160 --> 00:33:13,920
Speaker 3: a special counsel, if he didn't intend to go to trial,

570
00:33:13,920 --> 00:33:16,280
Speaker 3: if he was just going to continue with a plea agreement.

571
00:33:16,840 --> 00:33:20,280
Speaker 6: Ah, that's a good question. You know, that calls for

572
00:33:20,360 --> 00:33:23,400
Speaker 6: a lot of speculation on mine or anyone else's part.

573
00:33:23,720 --> 00:33:27,040
Speaker 6: I think that there's a possibility that he would do that.

574
00:33:27,280 --> 00:33:30,800
Speaker 6: There's a possibility that, you know, he wants to depoliticize

575
00:33:30,840 --> 00:33:33,719
Speaker 6: the case and just run it again as a straight

576
00:33:33,800 --> 00:33:38,520
Speaker 6: up criminal law investigation. But just earlier today or late yesterday,

577
00:33:38,880 --> 00:33:43,120
Speaker 6: get someone like Senator Ted Cruz casting aspersions on Weiss,

578
00:33:43,160 --> 00:33:45,520
Speaker 6: and so there's no way to depoliticize this.

579
00:33:46,200 --> 00:33:49,160
Speaker 3: You hear a Republicans saying over and over that Hunter

580
00:33:49,240 --> 00:33:52,680
Speaker 3: Biden got a sweetheart deal. But after a five year

581
00:33:52,720 --> 00:33:56,240
Speaker 3: investigation where they are and the plea agreement falling apart,

582
00:33:57,000 --> 00:33:59,080
Speaker 3: it doesn't seem like a sweetheart deal.

583
00:33:59,760 --> 00:34:02,800
Speaker 6: No, well, it's not a sweetheart deal. In fact, I'm

584
00:34:02,840 --> 00:34:06,680
Speaker 6: not a tax expert whatsoever, but I do, like you,

585
00:34:06,920 --> 00:34:09,719
Speaker 6: listen to tax law experts, and there seems to be

586
00:34:09,800 --> 00:34:15,800
Speaker 6: a consensus that on the tax charges, oftentimes the federal

587
00:34:15,840 --> 00:34:19,520
Speaker 6: government does not prosecute these charges in criminal court. They

588
00:34:19,640 --> 00:34:22,640
Speaker 6: just reverted to a civil court hearing, and so you know,

589
00:34:22,640 --> 00:34:25,719
Speaker 6: if you look at tax fraud as a crime, it

590
00:34:25,760 --> 00:34:28,200
Speaker 6: may be that he didn't get a sweetheart deal at all,

591
00:34:28,360 --> 00:34:31,480
Speaker 6: because if you were John Q citizen, he wouldn't be

592
00:34:31,480 --> 00:34:33,080
Speaker 6: going to trial in the first place.

593
00:34:33,600 --> 00:34:37,600
Speaker 3: The other interesting thing is that last week the Fifth

594
00:34:37,600 --> 00:34:42,279
Speaker 3: Circuit rule that drug users shouldn't automatically be banned from

595
00:34:42,400 --> 00:34:46,560
Speaker 3: having guns and overturned a conviction under this same law

596
00:34:46,600 --> 00:34:50,480
Speaker 3: that hunter Biden was being prosecuted under. The Fifth Circuit

597
00:34:50,520 --> 00:34:53,479
Speaker 3: is now the highest court to consider the law since

598
00:34:53,480 --> 00:34:57,160
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court's ruined decision. So that's another thing for

599
00:34:57,239 --> 00:35:00,880
Speaker 3: hunter Biden's attorneys to use if they're an appeal or

600
00:35:00,920 --> 00:35:02,840
Speaker 3: if they appear before another judge.

601
00:35:03,200 --> 00:35:07,440
Speaker 6: Absolutely, that one is fascinating. The US District Court in

602
00:35:07,719 --> 00:35:11,160
Speaker 6: Delaware is not bound by the Fifth Circuits decision, but

603
00:35:11,280 --> 00:35:17,120
Speaker 6: it certainly is strong, strong persuasive authority, and so it's fascinating.

604
00:35:17,160 --> 00:35:19,760
Speaker 6: And you know, I think a US District Court judge

605
00:35:19,920 --> 00:35:22,919
Speaker 6: ought to be very reluctant not to follow the Fifth

606
00:35:23,000 --> 00:35:23,880
Speaker 6: Circuits rolling.

607
00:35:24,600 --> 00:35:28,239
Speaker 3: This appointment puts the Justice Department in the middle of

608
00:35:28,280 --> 00:35:32,920
Speaker 3: this unprecedented scenario in which three different special councils are

609
00:35:32,960 --> 00:35:37,520
Speaker 3: investigating the president, his son, and the Republican front runner,

610
00:35:37,600 --> 00:35:40,719
Speaker 3: former President Donald Trump. Do you think the appointment of

611
00:35:40,719 --> 00:35:43,919
Speaker 3: these special council is because of the partisanship or because

612
00:35:43,960 --> 00:35:45,680
Speaker 3: special councils are really needed.

613
00:35:45,920 --> 00:35:48,080
Speaker 6: I think it's a combination of both. And I can't

614
00:35:48,080 --> 00:35:51,520
Speaker 6: wait percentages on it, but it seems like and you

615
00:35:51,600 --> 00:35:55,160
Speaker 6: can throw in two justices on the Supreme Court right now.

616
00:35:55,360 --> 00:35:59,080
Speaker 6: The media reporting on reality, and what I mean by

617
00:35:59,120 --> 00:36:02,080
Speaker 6: reality is is that you know, for example, Pro Publica

618
00:36:02,200 --> 00:36:05,680
Speaker 6: is not making anything up in regard to Justice Clarence

619
00:36:05,719 --> 00:36:09,759
Speaker 6: Thomas and Justice Elito jack Smith isn't making anything up

620
00:36:09,760 --> 00:36:12,600
Speaker 6: in regard to former President Donald Trump. I mean, you

621
00:36:12,640 --> 00:36:16,200
Speaker 6: can interpret the facts that have been presented differently, but

622
00:36:16,239 --> 00:36:19,239
Speaker 6: the facts are real. But it seems to me we're

623
00:36:19,239 --> 00:36:21,680
Speaker 6: living in a sea of corruption. You know, my high

624
00:36:21,719 --> 00:36:24,840
Speaker 6: school freshman daughter actually used those very words to me

625
00:36:24,920 --> 00:36:27,799
Speaker 6: the other day. Maybe the hope is is that the

626
00:36:27,840 --> 00:36:30,200
Speaker 6: appointment of the special counsel, and I think those are

627
00:36:30,239 --> 00:36:33,520
Speaker 6: very accurate words. But maybe the hope is with the

628
00:36:33,560 --> 00:36:37,560
Speaker 6: special counsel, is it at least diffuses that feeling that

629
00:36:37,600 --> 00:36:40,040
Speaker 6: we are, you know, swimming in a sea of corruption

630
00:36:40,160 --> 00:36:44,000
Speaker 6: in Washington. D C not accusing President Joe Biden of

631
00:36:44,040 --> 00:36:47,680
Speaker 6: being corrupt because for all we know, he, like many parents,

632
00:36:47,719 --> 00:36:50,040
Speaker 6: just has a blind spot, you know, for one of

633
00:36:50,080 --> 00:36:53,640
Speaker 6: his kids. But there's still something out there that needs

634
00:36:53,640 --> 00:36:56,959
Speaker 6: to be investigated because it doesn't quite pass the smell test.

635
00:36:57,680 --> 00:37:00,920
Speaker 3: Is there a danger in this case where the investigation

636
00:37:00,960 --> 00:37:02,640
Speaker 3: has been going on for five years that with a

637
00:37:02,680 --> 00:37:07,120
Speaker 3: Special Council it will take even longer to resolve?

638
00:37:07,719 --> 00:37:07,879
Speaker 4: Oh?

639
00:37:07,920 --> 00:37:10,879
Speaker 6: There certainly is, I mean there is. And the other

640
00:37:10,960 --> 00:37:14,160
Speaker 6: thing is for the Republicans, like you know, Senator Cruz,

641
00:37:14,239 --> 00:37:17,880
Speaker 6: who are hoping for this big smoking gun and perhaps

642
00:37:17,880 --> 00:37:22,040
Speaker 6: an eventual trial and conviction, the Special Council and the

643
00:37:22,080 --> 00:37:25,000
Speaker 6: American public should keep in mind that some of the

644
00:37:25,040 --> 00:37:28,360
Speaker 6: information that was developed before it got to the Justice

645
00:37:28,400 --> 00:37:32,760
Speaker 6: Department was developed by individuals close to the former President

646
00:37:32,800 --> 00:37:36,640
Speaker 6: Donald Trump, like Rudy Giuliani. And as a former prosecutor,

647
00:37:36,760 --> 00:37:39,319
Speaker 6: I sure wouldn't want to go before a jury and

648
00:37:39,600 --> 00:37:43,359
Speaker 6: have my witnesses cross examined about laptops, you know, and

649
00:37:43,600 --> 00:37:48,640
Speaker 6: information garnered in Ukraine that comes from Rudy Giuliani or

650
00:37:48,719 --> 00:37:51,640
Speaker 6: others in the Trump orbit. I certainly wouldn't want that,

651
00:37:52,280 --> 00:37:55,840
Speaker 6: you know, going back to the January sixth indictments on

652
00:37:55,920 --> 00:38:00,000
Speaker 6: the former president. Every single one of those co conspirats

653
00:38:00,719 --> 00:38:03,959
Speaker 6: is alleged to have committed significant crimes even though they're

654
00:38:03,960 --> 00:38:06,760
Speaker 6: not named, and it would shock me if they weren't

655
00:38:06,840 --> 00:38:07,800
Speaker 6: charged as well.

656
00:38:08,120 --> 00:38:11,320
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, josh That's Professor Joshua Castenberg at the

657
00:38:11,400 --> 00:38:14,440
Speaker 3: University of New Mexico Law School, and that's it for

658
00:38:14,480 --> 00:38:17,120
Speaker 3: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

659
00:38:17,160 --> 00:38:20,400
Speaker 3: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

660
00:38:20,680 --> 00:38:23,680
Speaker 3: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

661
00:38:23,840 --> 00:38:28,880
Speaker 3: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and

662
00:38:28,960 --> 00:38:32,000
Speaker 3: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

663
00:38:32,120 --> 00:38:35,560
Speaker 3: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Jim Grosso and

664
00:38:35,600 --> 00:38:37,080
Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg