1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,280
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,680 --> 00:00:12,680
Speaker 1: The barriers are up in front of the main courthouse

3
00:00:12,720 --> 00:00:16,400
Speaker 1: in Atlanta as officials brace for a new indictment of

4
00:00:16,480 --> 00:00:19,480
Speaker 1: Donald Trump that could come as soon as next week

5
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:24,400
Speaker 1: in Fulton County Prosecutor Fannie Willis's investigation into the former

6
00:00:24,440 --> 00:00:28,280
Speaker 1: president's efforts to overturn his twenty twenty election loss in

7
00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:32,800
Speaker 1: the state. Fulton County Sheriff Pat Labott says they're prepared

8
00:00:33,320 --> 00:00:36,479
Speaker 1: and if Trump is indicted, the former president will be

9
00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:40,960
Speaker 1: processed like any other accused criminal, including getting a mug shot,

10
00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:44,720
Speaker 1: something that hasn't been done in Trump's three prior indictments.

11
00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:49,720
Speaker 1: We are following our normal practices and so it doesn't

12
00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:50,880
Speaker 1: matter your status.

13
00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:53,080
Speaker 2: We have mugshots ready for you.

14
00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:57,000
Speaker 1: Trump has ratcheted up his attacks on Willis in an

15
00:00:57,040 --> 00:01:02,080
Speaker 1: attack ad and making unfounded and selectacious accusations against her.

16
00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:07,200
Speaker 3: There's a young woman, a young racist in Atlanta, racist

17
00:01:08,120 --> 00:01:11,240
Speaker 3: and they say, I guess. They say that she was

18
00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:14,160
Speaker 3: after a certain gang and she ended up having an

19
00:01:14,160 --> 00:01:16,479
Speaker 3: affair with the head of the gang or a gang member.

20
00:01:16,959 --> 00:01:19,039
Speaker 3: And this is a person that wants to indict me

21
00:01:19,120 --> 00:01:20,320
Speaker 3: she's got a lot of problems.

22
00:01:20,880 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 1: Willis has said the accusations are derogatory and false, but

23
00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:28,800
Speaker 1: she urged her staff not to respond to them, saying

24
00:01:29,040 --> 00:01:31,840
Speaker 1: we have a job to do. Willis has been attacked

25
00:01:31,840 --> 00:01:35,720
Speaker 1: by Trump before, as have Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and

26
00:01:35,840 --> 00:01:39,840
Speaker 1: Special counsel Jack Smith, who are both prosecuting Trump, and

27
00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 1: her response has been measured.

28
00:01:42,080 --> 00:01:45,559
Speaker 4: People have the right to say whatever they choose to say,

29
00:01:45,959 --> 00:01:48,320
Speaker 4: is long as it does not rise to the level

30
00:01:48,320 --> 00:01:52,400
Speaker 4: of threats against myself, against my staff, or against my family.

31
00:01:53,080 --> 00:01:56,680
Speaker 1: Joining me is Noah Bookbinder, President and CEO of Citizens

32
00:01:56,680 --> 00:02:00,600
Speaker 1: for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. It's a two and

33
00:02:00,600 --> 00:02:05,440
Speaker 1: a half year investigation. Seventy five witnesses have testified. So

34
00:02:05,600 --> 00:02:09,959
Speaker 1: is the expected Georgia indictment likely to be the most

35
00:02:10,120 --> 00:02:14,600
Speaker 1: expansive regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the twenty twenty election.

36
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:18,160
Speaker 2: I guess it depends how you define expansive, because certainly

37
00:02:18,560 --> 00:02:24,480
Speaker 2: Jacksmith's indictment last week covered conduct that occurred all over

38
00:02:24,520 --> 00:02:28,200
Speaker 2: the country, and you know, in that sense was an

39
00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:32,400
Speaker 2: incredibly powerful and expansive indictment. What I think you have

40
00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:36,680
Speaker 2: in Georgia is an investigation that has gone on probably

41
00:02:36,720 --> 00:02:39,960
Speaker 2: longer than any other investigation of Trump into this kind

42
00:02:40,000 --> 00:02:44,960
Speaker 2: of conduct, and that could at least encompass a wide

43
00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:49,040
Speaker 2: range of statutes and a wide range of different types

44
00:02:49,080 --> 00:02:49,760
Speaker 2: of conduct.

45
00:02:50,840 --> 00:02:54,000
Speaker 1: Nearly twenty people have been told reportedly that they could

46
00:02:54,040 --> 00:02:57,720
Speaker 1: face charges in Georgia. CNN is reporting that there will

47
00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:01,760
Speaker 1: be twelve or more indictments, and Trump's attorneys say that

48
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:05,240
Speaker 1: he's going to be indicted. Does that seem more than likely?

49
00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:09,200
Speaker 2: Well, I think certainly the signals that we've been getting

50
00:03:09,760 --> 00:03:13,920
Speaker 2: from the public statements that Christract attorney Fanny Willis has made,

51
00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:17,240
Speaker 2: the witnesses that have gone in front of the grand jury,

52
00:03:17,560 --> 00:03:20,280
Speaker 2: and the fact that every time at this point that

53
00:03:20,320 --> 00:03:23,960
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has been indicted, his attorneys have gone public

54
00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:26,040
Speaker 2: with the fact that he's about to be indicted. So

55
00:03:26,280 --> 00:03:29,440
Speaker 2: all of that suggests that while we don't know exactly

56
00:03:29,520 --> 00:03:32,320
Speaker 2: the contours of it and that will be exactly as reported,

57
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:36,320
Speaker 2: it does seem like it is moving toward indictments, that

58
00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:39,520
Speaker 2: those indictments will include Donald Trump and will likely include

59
00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:40,560
Speaker 2: a number of other people.

60
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:44,920
Speaker 1: Three witnesses have been subpoena to appear before the Fulton

61
00:03:45,200 --> 00:03:49,520
Speaker 1: Grand Jurors that are currently hearing cases, the former Lieutenant governor,

62
00:03:49,600 --> 00:03:54,640
Speaker 1: Jeff Duncan, Jen Jordan, a former state senator, and George Cheaty,

63
00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:57,600
Speaker 1: an independent journalist. What does it tell you why would

64
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:01,000
Speaker 1: she subpoena witnesses when she has all the testimony from

65
00:04:01,080 --> 00:04:02,840
Speaker 1: the investigative grand jury.

66
00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:04,920
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's interesting. I think a lot of

67
00:04:04,960 --> 00:04:10,000
Speaker 2: times prosecutors will try to get some testimony in front

68
00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:12,400
Speaker 2: of the grand jury that's actually going to issue the charges.

69
00:04:12,480 --> 00:04:14,680
Speaker 2: It sort of makes it more real to them. A

70
00:04:14,680 --> 00:04:18,000
Speaker 2: lot of times that is simply kind of a summary witness.

71
00:04:18,040 --> 00:04:20,680
Speaker 2: You bring in an agent who's been investigating the case

72
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:23,000
Speaker 2: and have them go through a lot of the evidence

73
00:04:23,000 --> 00:04:27,039
Speaker 2: that has already been gathered. It is relatively unusual here,

74
00:04:27,080 --> 00:04:29,920
Speaker 2: assuming that this is the moment when a grand jury

75
00:04:29,960 --> 00:04:33,440
Speaker 2: is going to be presented with charges, for new fact

76
00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:37,960
Speaker 2: witnesses to be brought in. It's certainly not at all

77
00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:41,120
Speaker 2: unheard of. I think what it suggests to me is

78
00:04:41,160 --> 00:04:45,479
Speaker 2: that in the time since she last presented evidence to

79
00:04:45,520 --> 00:04:50,039
Speaker 2: the grand jury, they've learned more and found new and

80
00:04:50,279 --> 00:04:53,360
Speaker 2: presumably significant facts that they want to get in front

81
00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:56,039
Speaker 2: of the grand jury so that the indictment can be

82
00:04:56,440 --> 00:05:00,680
Speaker 2: as comprehensive and as current as possible. But it certainly

83
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:04,320
Speaker 2: does suggest that District Attorney Willis is trying to leave

84
00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:07,640
Speaker 2: no stone unturned and be as comprehensive as possible.

85
00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:10,479
Speaker 1: So a lot of experts are predicting that Willis is

86
00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:14,680
Speaker 1: going to use Rico charges in bringing the case. Does

87
00:05:14,720 --> 00:05:18,599
Speaker 1: that seem like a good guests or estimation based on

88
00:05:18,720 --> 00:05:19,920
Speaker 1: her history of.

89
00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:23,600
Speaker 2: Using rico It does. She has made it a point

90
00:05:23,600 --> 00:05:27,360
Speaker 2: of pride that she has used the Rico statute more

91
00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:31,960
Speaker 2: than her predecessors did. She has built her career in

92
00:05:32,240 --> 00:05:37,599
Speaker 2: some ways on very prominent and aggressive use of that statute,

93
00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:42,320
Speaker 2: and she indicated in letters that she sent to witnesses

94
00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:45,479
Speaker 2: or potential defendants that her office was investigating that. So

95
00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:47,680
Speaker 2: everything points to the fact that that was something that

96
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:52,400
Speaker 2: she was likely to consider very seriously. And you know, certainly,

97
00:05:52,440 --> 00:05:54,960
Speaker 2: as I am and this sort of bipartisan group of

98
00:05:55,000 --> 00:05:57,760
Speaker 2: experts that I worked with, as we analyzed it, we

99
00:05:57,800 --> 00:05:59,839
Speaker 2: think that the facts in the law are there to

100
00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:03,600
Speaker 2: charge reco in this situation. And since it's something that

101
00:06:03,839 --> 00:06:07,480
Speaker 2: just returning Willis has found to be a powerful rapid

102
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:10,120
Speaker 2: as prosecutor, it seems like a pretty good guest to

103
00:06:10,120 --> 00:06:12,080
Speaker 2: think that she's she's pretty likely to go there.

104
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:15,960
Speaker 1: Will you explain the use of RICO and how it

105
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:20,200
Speaker 1: would enable her to sweep in criminal statutes in Georgia

106
00:06:20,279 --> 00:06:23,680
Speaker 1: and different jurisdictions to explain the reach of RICO.

107
00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:29,600
Speaker 2: Sure, What RICO is racketeering influenced corrupt organizations. These are

108
00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:34,160
Speaker 2: statutes that were put in place to prosecute criminal organizations.

109
00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:37,080
Speaker 2: Traditionally at the federal level, it was the mafia. It's

110
00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:40,800
Speaker 2: been used toward gang but also towards all manner of

111
00:06:41,000 --> 00:06:43,799
Speaker 2: kind of criminal enterprises, every time you have a group

112
00:06:43,880 --> 00:06:47,719
Speaker 2: of people working together to achieve a criminal objective. So

113
00:06:47,760 --> 00:06:51,640
Speaker 2: it's been used against public officials. It was famously in

114
00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:55,159
Speaker 2: Georgia used against a group of teachers and principals who

115
00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 2: were encouraging and pressuring and arranging for their students to

116
00:06:59,200 --> 00:07:02,280
Speaker 2: cheat on standardized tests. So it can be used in

117
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:06,000
Speaker 2: a lot of different contexts. And what it allows you

118
00:07:06,080 --> 00:07:09,560
Speaker 2: to do is, first of all, tell a kind of

119
00:07:09,680 --> 00:07:13,680
Speaker 2: unified story of a criminal enterprise, of an effort to

120
00:07:14,240 --> 00:07:17,680
Speaker 2: achieve criminal objectives that may be harder to tell when

121
00:07:17,680 --> 00:07:23,080
Speaker 2: you're charging very specific individual statutes. But it also allows

122
00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:28,400
Speaker 2: you to charge a very serious felony offense that may

123
00:07:28,440 --> 00:07:32,640
Speaker 2: be predicated maybe based on commission of some much more

124
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:36,440
Speaker 2: minor crimes. But if you can prove that they were

125
00:07:36,760 --> 00:07:40,520
Speaker 2: together part of a broader criminal enterprise, you get this

126
00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 2: much more serious offense. And it can also pull in

127
00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:47,320
Speaker 2: offenses that were committed in different places. One of them

128
00:07:47,720 --> 00:07:49,960
Speaker 2: has to have been committed in the county in which

129
00:07:49,960 --> 00:07:52,840
Speaker 2: it's charged, but other ones may not be, so you

130
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:57,120
Speaker 2: can bring in much more sweeping conduct. Is certainly what

131
00:07:57,200 --> 00:08:01,920
Speaker 2: we've seen suggest that the Fulton County inventstigation has included

132
00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:05,040
Speaker 2: looking into things that happened in other parts of Georgia

133
00:08:05,120 --> 00:08:06,960
Speaker 2: and maybe even things that happened in other parts of

134
00:08:06,960 --> 00:08:07,920
Speaker 2: the United States.

135
00:08:08,280 --> 00:08:12,520
Speaker 1: In the Special Council's January sixth indictment, he recounts the

136
00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:16,720
Speaker 1: events in Georgia. If the Special Council's case goes to

137
00:08:16,880 --> 00:08:21,280
Speaker 1: trial before Georgia, does that impact the trial or proceedings

138
00:08:21,320 --> 00:08:22,040
Speaker 1: in Georgia.

139
00:08:22,080 --> 00:08:24,440
Speaker 2: The only for formal way which it could impact it

140
00:08:24,480 --> 00:08:27,960
Speaker 2: is because you're going to have similar witnesses and presumably

141
00:08:28,200 --> 00:08:31,280
Speaker 2: at least one similar defendant. They're sort of a scheduling question.

142
00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:35,400
Speaker 2: They can't go at the same time generally federal case

143
00:08:35,600 --> 00:08:39,520
Speaker 2: takes precedents and moves first, but these are separate jurisdictions.

144
00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:45,120
Speaker 2: They're separate laws, and what happens in the federal case

145
00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:48,319
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily dictate what will happen in the state case,

146
00:08:48,440 --> 00:08:50,600
Speaker 2: but there are a lot of ways that it can

147
00:08:50,760 --> 00:08:54,360
Speaker 2: impact it. First of all, any kind of testimony that

148
00:08:54,480 --> 00:08:58,040
Speaker 2: happens in the federal case can either be used or

149
00:08:58,080 --> 00:09:02,240
Speaker 2: at least can affect testimony in the state case, because

150
00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:05,160
Speaker 2: if a witness testifies one way in the federal case,

151
00:09:05,160 --> 00:09:06,959
Speaker 2: that same witness can be brought in in the state

152
00:09:07,000 --> 00:09:10,680
Speaker 2: case if they testify to something different, that can be

153
00:09:11,280 --> 00:09:14,920
Speaker 2: used to attack their testimony. So it's going to be

154
00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:18,400
Speaker 2: challenging but also in some ways helpful at times to

155
00:09:18,440 --> 00:09:21,760
Speaker 2: make use of what happened in the federal trial in

156
00:09:21,800 --> 00:09:24,960
Speaker 2: a potential state trial. There's also the sort of persuasive

157
00:09:25,000 --> 00:09:29,840
Speaker 2: effect that if Donald Trump is acquitted in a federal trial,

158
00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:34,000
Speaker 2: even though that should not play any role in evaluating

159
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:37,080
Speaker 2: the state trial, it certainly is going to be harder

160
00:09:37,480 --> 00:09:40,480
Speaker 2: to get people to think that he committed a crime

161
00:09:40,520 --> 00:09:43,600
Speaker 2: if he's convicted in a federal trial and you then

162
00:09:43,679 --> 00:09:46,920
Speaker 2: have a state trial of very similar offenses. It is

163
00:09:47,160 --> 00:09:50,319
Speaker 2: going to make defending him that much more difficult, even

164
00:09:50,360 --> 00:09:54,160
Speaker 2: though judges and jurors will have to make a significant

165
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:57,840
Speaker 2: effort to show that they are evaluating the case on

166
00:09:57,880 --> 00:10:01,080
Speaker 2: its own merits. But I think as a practical matter,

167
00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:03,720
Speaker 2: it may be difficult to separate them.

168
00:10:04,120 --> 00:10:07,480
Speaker 1: So these rico prosecutions can take a long time. She

169
00:10:07,760 --> 00:10:12,319
Speaker 1: is trying wrapper young thug and they're seven months into

170
00:10:12,720 --> 00:10:16,640
Speaker 1: the trial and the jury hasn't been selected, So it

171
00:10:16,679 --> 00:10:19,080
Speaker 1: seems like there's no way that this case could ever

172
00:10:19,160 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 1: be tried and concluded before the election. And then if

173
00:10:24,520 --> 00:10:27,360
Speaker 1: Trump wins, will he ever face trial.

174
00:10:27,960 --> 00:10:32,080
Speaker 2: Well, that's an interesting issue because one of the concerns

175
00:10:32,440 --> 00:10:36,600
Speaker 2: about federal charges of Donald Trump is that if he

176
00:10:36,679 --> 00:10:39,800
Speaker 2: is elected president, if he has already been convicted, he

177
00:10:39,800 --> 00:10:43,160
Speaker 2: could pardon himself if a case is ongoing, he could

178
00:10:43,200 --> 00:10:45,839
Speaker 2: even though the federal government is not supposed to work

179
00:10:45,880 --> 00:10:49,040
Speaker 2: this way, but he could conceivably appoint an attorney general

180
00:10:49,120 --> 00:10:53,080
Speaker 2: and order that person to dismiss charges against him. So

181
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,120
Speaker 2: there are a lot of ways that he could interfere

182
00:10:56,559 --> 00:10:59,920
Speaker 2: with a federal prosecution. There's also a federal policy that

183
00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:03,559
Speaker 2: the Justice Department doesn't to prosecute a sitting president, which

184
00:11:03,880 --> 00:11:07,440
Speaker 2: could come into play depending on where things are. None

185
00:11:07,480 --> 00:11:09,600
Speaker 2: of that exists at the state level. There is no

186
00:11:10,200 --> 00:11:14,760
Speaker 2: rescription on a state prosecuting a sitting president. There's no

187
00:11:14,840 --> 00:11:18,280
Speaker 2: ability for a president to pardon himself for state offenses.

188
00:11:18,480 --> 00:11:22,120
Speaker 2: It certainly would be very complicated. I would imagine that

189
00:11:22,440 --> 00:11:24,920
Speaker 2: you would be a real struggle for a state court

190
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:28,160
Speaker 2: to figure out what to do about a prosecution of

191
00:11:28,200 --> 00:11:32,480
Speaker 2: a sitting president, because you don't want to unduly burden

192
00:11:32,640 --> 00:11:35,640
Speaker 2: the ability of a president to serve and to fulfill

193
00:11:35,720 --> 00:11:40,319
Speaker 2: their duties. But there's nothing stopping that case from moving forward.

194
00:11:40,960 --> 00:11:44,200
Speaker 2: And I think you know where there is a real

195
00:11:44,320 --> 00:11:48,920
Speaker 2: concern of Donald Trump in the past has abused the

196
00:11:48,960 --> 00:11:53,200
Speaker 2: authority of the presidency to help himself and his allies,

197
00:11:53,360 --> 00:11:56,160
Speaker 2: and including abusing this justice system that's sort of part

198
00:11:56,160 --> 00:11:59,840
Speaker 2: of his mo There's a real concern that he could

199
00:12:00,200 --> 00:12:04,120
Speaker 2: use elected office to escape accountability, and in some ways,

200
00:12:04,160 --> 00:12:07,040
Speaker 2: this Georgia case could be kind of an antidote to that.

201
00:12:07,960 --> 00:12:11,559
Speaker 1: If there are twelve indictments or even around that number,

202
00:12:11,880 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: it seems unwieldy to try them together. Would she have

203
00:12:14,679 --> 00:12:16,679
Speaker 1: to split up the trials?

204
00:12:17,679 --> 00:12:19,040
Speaker 2: I think we'll sort of have to see how that

205
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:23,719
Speaker 2: plays out. And one of the uses of particularly we

206
00:12:23,880 --> 00:12:28,680
Speaker 2: go conspiracy charges is that they can allow a case

207
00:12:28,960 --> 00:12:32,640
Speaker 2: against a large number of people to proceed in a

208
00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:36,840
Speaker 2: way that is powerful and at least reasonably efficient. It

209
00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:39,280
Speaker 2: can be a way to in a lot of cases,

210
00:12:39,320 --> 00:12:43,160
Speaker 2: get a number of people to plead guilty and cooperate

211
00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:47,240
Speaker 2: testify against other members of the charged conspiracy, and it

212
00:12:47,280 --> 00:12:50,079
Speaker 2: can be a way to get in expansive evidence that

213
00:12:50,480 --> 00:12:52,840
Speaker 2: has to do with what maybe what some people were

214
00:12:52,880 --> 00:12:55,440
Speaker 2: doing as part of the conspiracy that would only be

215
00:12:55,480 --> 00:12:58,880
Speaker 2: able to be introduced against other people as part of

216
00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:02,360
Speaker 2: a unified trial into a unified conspiracy. So there can

217
00:13:02,400 --> 00:13:06,920
Speaker 2: be real advantages for a prosecutor to keep people together

218
00:13:07,040 --> 00:13:09,800
Speaker 2: if you're charging something like a Rico conspiracy. But it

219
00:13:09,840 --> 00:13:13,280
Speaker 2: makes it very complicated and certainly would take a long time.

220
00:13:13,400 --> 00:13:15,800
Speaker 2: So that's not going to be the approach if she

221
00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:17,560
Speaker 2: wants it to move quickly. And one of the things

222
00:13:17,559 --> 00:13:22,440
Speaker 2: you saw with Jack Smith's indictment is that he charged

223
00:13:22,920 --> 00:13:28,880
Speaker 2: just Donald Trump, even while charging conspiracy conspiracy charges and

224
00:13:29,160 --> 00:13:32,480
Speaker 2: enumerating some of the other people involved. Presumably he's going

225
00:13:32,559 --> 00:13:35,400
Speaker 2: to charge those other people separately, or at least he

226
00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:38,640
Speaker 2: may because he wants to move quickly, and it's much

227
00:13:38,679 --> 00:13:42,600
Speaker 2: more efficient if you just charge Donald Trump individually. So

228
00:13:42,760 --> 00:13:45,680
Speaker 2: that could be an approach that thester attorney Willis could

229
00:13:45,720 --> 00:13:48,520
Speaker 2: take if she wants to move it quickly, But if

230
00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:51,760
Speaker 2: she wants to make the strongest possible case, she may

231
00:13:51,800 --> 00:13:53,760
Speaker 2: well elect to charge them all together.

232
00:13:54,120 --> 00:13:59,360
Speaker 1: Trump has filed three separate suits to quash Willis's investigation.

233
00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:02,480
Speaker 1: If he's charged, do you think that we'll see the

234
00:14:02,520 --> 00:14:06,120
Speaker 1: defense attorneys bringing up those issues, for example, that the

235
00:14:06,160 --> 00:14:11,200
Speaker 1: special grand jury proceedings were unconstitutional, that Willis made prejudicial

236
00:14:11,240 --> 00:14:14,360
Speaker 1: public statements. Will they be raising those again?

237
00:14:14,720 --> 00:14:17,840
Speaker 2: I think they will unquestionably be raising those again. The

238
00:14:17,920 --> 00:14:20,840
Speaker 2: cases that Donald Trump brought to try to clash this

239
00:14:20,920 --> 00:14:26,560
Speaker 2: investigation have been flapped down pretty comprehensibly at every stage.

240
00:14:26,600 --> 00:14:29,640
Speaker 2: They haven't gotten anywhere. But I think that Donald Trump

241
00:14:29,640 --> 00:14:31,760
Speaker 2: and his attorneys will continue to raise them. They'll try

242
00:14:31,760 --> 00:14:34,720
Speaker 2: to raise them as a legal matter in front of

243
00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:38,840
Speaker 2: whatever judge draws the criminal case against him, assuming there

244
00:14:38,880 --> 00:14:43,480
Speaker 2: is one. I suspect they will also try to bring

245
00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:46,760
Speaker 2: in some version of this whatever they are permitted to

246
00:14:46,840 --> 00:14:49,560
Speaker 2: say in front of a jury to suggest that this

247
00:14:49,600 --> 00:14:52,360
Speaker 2: whole thing is biased and improper. I would think that

248
00:14:52,440 --> 00:14:56,640
Speaker 2: they'll continue in every possible forum and way to make

249
00:14:56,760 --> 00:15:00,160
Speaker 2: those kinds of charges. We haven't seen a lot to

250
00:15:00,160 --> 00:15:01,880
Speaker 2: suggest that they're going to get very far with that,

251
00:15:02,400 --> 00:15:04,040
Speaker 2: but it's to be a key part of both the

252
00:15:04,120 --> 00:15:07,760
Speaker 2: legal and public relations strategy from the former president, so

253
00:15:07,960 --> 00:15:09,560
Speaker 2: I expect we'll see a lot more of that.

254
00:15:10,080 --> 00:15:14,680
Speaker 1: Trump has been attacking the prosecutors who are bringing cases

255
00:15:14,720 --> 00:15:18,560
Speaker 1: against him, Alvin Bragg and Manhattan and Special Counsel Jack Smith,

256
00:15:18,680 --> 00:15:24,080
Speaker 1: but his attacks against will Is seem particularly vicious and personal.

257
00:15:24,720 --> 00:15:27,680
Speaker 1: Is he trying to poison the jury pool? What can

258
00:15:27,760 --> 00:15:30,720
Speaker 1: be done to stop him from making these attacks?

259
00:15:31,160 --> 00:15:32,560
Speaker 2: I mean, I think he's trying to do a couple

260
00:15:32,560 --> 00:15:36,880
Speaker 2: of things. I think he likely is trying to influence

261
00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:40,240
Speaker 2: and to someone said, poison the jury pool, to think

262
00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:45,600
Speaker 2: that these prosecutors are biased and are corrupt and are deranged,

263
00:15:45,720 --> 00:15:48,160
Speaker 2: and these other kinds of words that he uses. I

264
00:15:48,200 --> 00:15:52,600
Speaker 2: think he is also trying to win a presidential election

265
00:15:53,000 --> 00:15:57,120
Speaker 2: and foment to political movement. And these aren't kinds of

266
00:15:57,200 --> 00:16:01,440
Speaker 2: characterizations that are effective that sort of ping up political

267
00:16:01,480 --> 00:16:04,640
Speaker 2: support and outrage and outrage has always been the kind

268
00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:08,120
Speaker 2: of his brand and what he uses to advance his

269
00:16:08,160 --> 00:16:11,240
Speaker 2: political career and his influence. So I think that's something

270
00:16:11,280 --> 00:16:15,640
Speaker 2: that's happening too. I also think that some extent he

271
00:16:16,400 --> 00:16:21,520
Speaker 2: is baiting prosecutors and judges to try to stop him

272
00:16:21,560 --> 00:16:23,800
Speaker 2: from saying these things. He's saying these things that are

273
00:16:24,000 --> 00:16:28,040
Speaker 2: potentially very dangerous. They not only could influence jurors, they

274
00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:31,560
Speaker 2: could lead to violence. We've already seen an instance where

275
00:16:32,000 --> 00:16:35,240
Speaker 2: a supporter of Donald Trump went into an FBI office

276
00:16:35,320 --> 00:16:39,880
Speaker 2: with a gun after the search of mar A Lago

277
00:16:39,960 --> 00:16:43,480
Speaker 2: and his rhetoric in response to that, so there could

278
00:16:43,520 --> 00:16:46,240
Speaker 2: be violence. It's going to be in part incumbent on

279
00:16:46,680 --> 00:16:49,840
Speaker 2: prosecutors and judges to try to curb that. But they

280
00:16:49,880 --> 00:16:53,520
Speaker 2: also understand that Donald Trump is a former president, he's

281
00:16:53,520 --> 00:16:59,200
Speaker 2: a current presidential candidate, and trying to restrict the speech

282
00:16:59,680 --> 00:17:03,680
Speaker 2: of a candidate and a major political leader is fraught

283
00:17:03,720 --> 00:17:06,960
Speaker 2: and is something that would encourage more outrage. And I

284
00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:09,000
Speaker 2: think Donald Trump knows it could be helpful to him

285
00:17:09,000 --> 00:17:12,119
Speaker 2: politically if there is an attempt to kind of muzzle

286
00:17:12,200 --> 00:17:15,680
Speaker 2: him by the court. So he's I think trying to

287
00:17:15,720 --> 00:17:19,000
Speaker 2: put prosecutors and put judges in that box, and I

288
00:17:19,040 --> 00:17:21,760
Speaker 2: think to some extent they may have little choice but

289
00:17:22,240 --> 00:17:26,440
Speaker 2: to try to restrict and control what he's say because

290
00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:28,119
Speaker 2: public safety may demand it.

291
00:17:28,760 --> 00:17:32,600
Speaker 1: How important do you think a Georgia indictment would be

292
00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:34,320
Speaker 1: in context?

293
00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:37,720
Speaker 2: You know, in some ways, if there's an indictment in

294
00:17:37,800 --> 00:17:42,080
Speaker 2: Georgia next week, it could be widely seen by the

295
00:17:42,119 --> 00:17:45,160
Speaker 2: public and widely sort of dismissed as another indictment. It's

296
00:17:45,200 --> 00:17:50,400
Speaker 2: the fourth indictment of Donald Trump, and some will characterize

297
00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:53,840
Speaker 2: that as improper piling on. Others will see it as

298
00:17:53,880 --> 00:17:57,520
Speaker 2: significant just because it's kind of one more. And I

299
00:17:57,520 --> 00:18:00,560
Speaker 2: think it's really important not to lose sight of the

300
00:18:00,640 --> 00:18:06,159
Speaker 2: fact that with the most recent indictment by Jack Smith,

301
00:18:06,400 --> 00:18:09,760
Speaker 2: and potentially with an indictment in Fulham County as well,

302
00:18:10,040 --> 00:18:15,800
Speaker 2: that these are significant because they address the attempts by

303
00:18:15,840 --> 00:18:20,000
Speaker 2: a former president to keep himself in power after losing

304
00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:24,159
Speaker 2: an election, including by encouraging pilance, and that is about

305
00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:28,360
Speaker 2: the most significant offense that a leader in a democracy

306
00:18:28,800 --> 00:18:31,440
Speaker 2: can commit. In a lot of ways, it really threatens

307
00:18:31,480 --> 00:18:35,000
Speaker 2: the continued viability of democracy. And so the indictment we

308
00:18:35,040 --> 00:18:37,760
Speaker 2: saw last week, and assuming there is another one in Georgia.

309
00:18:38,119 --> 00:18:40,520
Speaker 2: These are significant not just because they're kind of one

310
00:18:40,600 --> 00:18:44,160
Speaker 2: more indictment. They're significant because they address conduct that really

311
00:18:44,160 --> 00:18:45,960
Speaker 2: goes to the heart of whether we can still have

312
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:48,440
Speaker 2: a democracy in this country. And I think it's important

313
00:18:48,480 --> 00:18:50,679
Speaker 2: that not be a loss in coverage that sort of

314
00:18:51,119 --> 00:18:52,520
Speaker 2: just looks at this to the aggregate.

315
00:18:52,640 --> 00:18:53,960
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being on the show.

316
00:18:54,000 --> 00:18:54,359
Speaker 2: Noah.

317
00:18:54,440 --> 00:18:57,560
Speaker 1: That's no a Bookbinder, President and CEO of Citizens for

318
00:18:57,600 --> 00:19:01,159
Speaker 1: Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. And that's it for this

319
00:19:01,320 --> 00:19:04,040
Speaker 1: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

320
00:19:04,040 --> 00:19:07,120
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

321
00:19:07,280 --> 00:19:10,280
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

322
00:19:10,440 --> 00:19:15,480
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and

323
00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:18,639
Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

324
00:19:18,720 --> 00:19:22,159
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

325
00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:23,679
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg