WEBVTT - DA Eyes Racketeering Charges in Trump Indictment

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.280
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.680 --> 0:00:12.680
<v Speaker 1>The barriers are up in front of the main courthouse

0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:16.400
<v Speaker 1>in Atlanta as officials brace for a new indictment of

0:00:16.480 --> 0:00:19.480
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump that could come as soon as next week

0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:24.400
<v Speaker 1>in Fulton County Prosecutor Fannie Willis's investigation into the former

0:00:24.440 --> 0:00:28.280
<v Speaker 1>president's efforts to overturn his twenty twenty election loss in

0:00:28.320 --> 0:00:32.800
<v Speaker 1>the state. Fulton County Sheriff Pat Labott says they're prepared

0:00:33.320 --> 0:00:36.479
<v Speaker 1>and if Trump is indicted, the former president will be

0:00:36.560 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>processed like any other accused criminal, including getting a mug shot,

0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:44.720
<v Speaker 1>something that hasn't been done in Trump's three prior indictments.

0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:49.720
<v Speaker 1>We are following our normal practices and so it doesn't

0:00:49.760 --> 0:00:50.880
<v Speaker 1>matter your status.

0:00:51.120 --> 0:00:53.080
<v Speaker 2>We have mugshots ready for you.

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Trump has ratcheted up his attacks on Willis in an

0:00:57.040 --> 0:01:02.080
<v Speaker 1>attack ad and making unfounded and selectacious accusations against her.

0:01:02.640 --> 0:01:07.200
<v Speaker 3>There's a young woman, a young racist in Atlanta, racist

0:01:08.120 --> 0:01:11.240
<v Speaker 3>and they say, I guess. They say that she was

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:14.160
<v Speaker 3>after a certain gang and she ended up having an

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:16.479
<v Speaker 3>affair with the head of the gang or a gang member.

0:01:16.959 --> 0:01:19.039
<v Speaker 3>And this is a person that wants to indict me

0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:20.320
<v Speaker 3>she's got a lot of problems.

0:01:20.880 --> 0:01:25.280
<v Speaker 1>Willis has said the accusations are derogatory and false, but

0:01:25.400 --> 0:01:28.800
<v Speaker 1>she urged her staff not to respond to them, saying

0:01:29.040 --> 0:01:31.840
<v Speaker 1>we have a job to do. Willis has been attacked

0:01:31.840 --> 0:01:35.720
<v Speaker 1>by Trump before, as have Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and

0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:39.840
<v Speaker 1>Special counsel Jack Smith, who are both prosecuting Trump, and

0:01:39.959 --> 0:01:41.600
<v Speaker 1>her response has been measured.

0:01:42.080 --> 0:01:45.559
<v Speaker 4>People have the right to say whatever they choose to say,

0:01:45.959 --> 0:01:48.320
<v Speaker 4>is long as it does not rise to the level

0:01:48.320 --> 0:01:52.400
<v Speaker 4>of threats against myself, against my staff, or against my family.

0:01:53.080 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Noah Bookbinder, President and CEO of Citizens

0:01:56.680 --> 0:02:00.600
<v Speaker 1>for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. It's a two and

0:02:00.600 --> 0:02:05.440
<v Speaker 1>a half year investigation. Seventy five witnesses have testified. So

0:02:05.600 --> 0:02:09.959
<v Speaker 1>is the expected Georgia indictment likely to be the most

0:02:10.120 --> 0:02:14.600
<v Speaker 1>expansive regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the twenty twenty election.

0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:18.160
<v Speaker 2>I guess it depends how you define expansive, because certainly

0:02:18.560 --> 0:02:24.480
<v Speaker 2>Jacksmith's indictment last week covered conduct that occurred all over

0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:28.200
<v Speaker 2>the country, and you know, in that sense was an

0:02:28.480 --> 0:02:32.400
<v Speaker 2>incredibly powerful and expansive indictment. What I think you have

0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:36.680
<v Speaker 2>in Georgia is an investigation that has gone on probably

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:39.960
<v Speaker 2>longer than any other investigation of Trump into this kind

0:02:40.000 --> 0:02:44.960
<v Speaker 2>of conduct, and that could at least encompass a wide

0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:49.040
<v Speaker 2>range of statutes and a wide range of different types

0:02:49.080 --> 0:02:49.760
<v Speaker 2>of conduct.

0:02:50.840 --> 0:02:54.000
<v Speaker 1>Nearly twenty people have been told reportedly that they could

0:02:54.040 --> 0:02:57.720
<v Speaker 1>face charges in Georgia. CNN is reporting that there will

0:02:57.720 --> 0:03:01.760
<v Speaker 1>be twelve or more indictments, and Trump's attorneys say that

0:03:02.120 --> 0:03:05.240
<v Speaker 1>he's going to be indicted. Does that seem more than likely?

0:03:06.080 --> 0:03:09.200
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think certainly the signals that we've been getting

0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:13.920
<v Speaker 2>from the public statements that Christract attorney Fanny Willis has made,

0:03:14.320 --> 0:03:17.240
<v Speaker 2>the witnesses that have gone in front of the grand jury,

0:03:17.560 --> 0:03:20.280
<v Speaker 2>and the fact that every time at this point that

0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:23.960
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump has been indicted, his attorneys have gone public

0:03:23.960 --> 0:03:26.040
<v Speaker 2>with the fact that he's about to be indicted. So

0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:29.440
<v Speaker 2>all of that suggests that while we don't know exactly

0:03:29.520 --> 0:03:32.320
<v Speaker 2>the contours of it and that will be exactly as reported,

0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:36.320
<v Speaker 2>it does seem like it is moving toward indictments, that

0:03:36.360 --> 0:03:39.520
<v Speaker 2>those indictments will include Donald Trump and will likely include

0:03:39.520 --> 0:03:40.560
<v Speaker 2>a number of other people.

0:03:41.160 --> 0:03:44.920
<v Speaker 1>Three witnesses have been subpoena to appear before the Fulton

0:03:45.200 --> 0:03:49.520
<v Speaker 1>Grand Jurors that are currently hearing cases, the former Lieutenant governor,

0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:54.640
<v Speaker 1>Jeff Duncan, Jen Jordan, a former state senator, and George Cheaty,

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:57.600
<v Speaker 1>an independent journalist. What does it tell you why would

0:03:57.640 --> 0:04:01.000
<v Speaker 1>she subpoena witnesses when she has all the testimony from

0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:02.840
<v Speaker 1>the investigative grand jury.

0:04:03.200 --> 0:04:04.920
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean it's interesting. I think a lot of

0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:10.000
<v Speaker 2>times prosecutors will try to get some testimony in front

0:04:10.040 --> 0:04:12.400
<v Speaker 2>of the grand jury that's actually going to issue the charges.

0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:14.680
<v Speaker 2>It sort of makes it more real to them. A

0:04:14.680 --> 0:04:18.000
<v Speaker 2>lot of times that is simply kind of a summary witness.

0:04:18.040 --> 0:04:20.680
<v Speaker 2>You bring in an agent who's been investigating the case

0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:23.000
<v Speaker 2>and have them go through a lot of the evidence

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:27.039
<v Speaker 2>that has already been gathered. It is relatively unusual here,

0:04:27.080 --> 0:04:29.920
<v Speaker 2>assuming that this is the moment when a grand jury

0:04:29.960 --> 0:04:33.440
<v Speaker 2>is going to be presented with charges, for new fact

0:04:33.520 --> 0:04:37.960
<v Speaker 2>witnesses to be brought in. It's certainly not at all

0:04:38.000 --> 0:04:41.120
<v Speaker 2>unheard of. I think what it suggests to me is

0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:45.479
<v Speaker 2>that in the time since she last presented evidence to

0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:50.039
<v Speaker 2>the grand jury, they've learned more and found new and

0:04:50.279 --> 0:04:53.360
<v Speaker 2>presumably significant facts that they want to get in front

0:04:53.360 --> 0:04:56.039
<v Speaker 2>of the grand jury so that the indictment can be

0:04:56.440 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 2>as comprehensive and as current as possible. But it certainly

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:04.320
<v Speaker 2>does suggest that District Attorney Willis is trying to leave

0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:07.640
<v Speaker 2>no stone unturned and be as comprehensive as possible.

0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:10.479
<v Speaker 1>So a lot of experts are predicting that Willis is

0:05:10.520 --> 0:05:14.680
<v Speaker 1>going to use Rico charges in bringing the case. Does

0:05:14.720 --> 0:05:18.599
<v Speaker 1>that seem like a good guests or estimation based on

0:05:18.720 --> 0:05:19.920
<v Speaker 1>her history of.

0:05:19.880 --> 0:05:23.600
<v Speaker 2>Using rico It does. She has made it a point

0:05:23.600 --> 0:05:27.360
<v Speaker 2>of pride that she has used the Rico statute more

0:05:27.440 --> 0:05:31.960
<v Speaker 2>than her predecessors did. She has built her career in

0:05:32.240 --> 0:05:37.599
<v Speaker 2>some ways on very prominent and aggressive use of that statute,

0:05:38.000 --> 0:05:42.320
<v Speaker 2>and she indicated in letters that she sent to witnesses

0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:45.479
<v Speaker 2>or potential defendants that her office was investigating that. So

0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:47.680
<v Speaker 2>everything points to the fact that that was something that

0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:52.400
<v Speaker 2>she was likely to consider very seriously. And you know, certainly,

0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:54.960
<v Speaker 2>as I am and this sort of bipartisan group of

0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:57.760
<v Speaker 2>experts that I worked with, as we analyzed it, we

0:05:57.800 --> 0:05:59.839
<v Speaker 2>think that the facts in the law are there to

0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:03.600
<v Speaker 2>charge reco in this situation. And since it's something that

0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:07.480
<v Speaker 2>just returning Willis has found to be a powerful rapid

0:06:07.600 --> 0:06:10.120
<v Speaker 2>as prosecutor, it seems like a pretty good guest to

0:06:10.120 --> 0:06:12.080
<v Speaker 2>think that she's she's pretty likely to go there.

0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:15.960
<v Speaker 1>Will you explain the use of RICO and how it

0:06:16.000 --> 0:06:20.200
<v Speaker 1>would enable her to sweep in criminal statutes in Georgia

0:06:20.279 --> 0:06:23.680
<v Speaker 1>and different jurisdictions to explain the reach of RICO.

0:06:24.400 --> 0:06:29.600
<v Speaker 2>Sure, What RICO is racketeering influenced corrupt organizations. These are

0:06:29.960 --> 0:06:34.160
<v Speaker 2>statutes that were put in place to prosecute criminal organizations.

0:06:34.200 --> 0:06:37.080
<v Speaker 2>Traditionally at the federal level, it was the mafia. It's

0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:40.800
<v Speaker 2>been used toward gang but also towards all manner of

0:06:41.000 --> 0:06:43.799
<v Speaker 2>kind of criminal enterprises, every time you have a group

0:06:43.880 --> 0:06:47.719
<v Speaker 2>of people working together to achieve a criminal objective. So

0:06:47.760 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 2>it's been used against public officials. It was famously in

0:06:51.680 --> 0:06:55.159
<v Speaker 2>Georgia used against a group of teachers and principals who

0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:59.120
<v Speaker 2>were encouraging and pressuring and arranging for their students to

0:06:59.200 --> 0:07:02.280
<v Speaker 2>cheat on standardized tests. So it can be used in

0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:06.000
<v Speaker 2>a lot of different contexts. And what it allows you

0:07:06.080 --> 0:07:09.560
<v Speaker 2>to do is, first of all, tell a kind of

0:07:09.680 --> 0:07:13.680
<v Speaker 2>unified story of a criminal enterprise, of an effort to

0:07:14.240 --> 0:07:17.680
<v Speaker 2>achieve criminal objectives that may be harder to tell when

0:07:17.680 --> 0:07:23.080
<v Speaker 2>you're charging very specific individual statutes. But it also allows

0:07:23.120 --> 0:07:28.400
<v Speaker 2>you to charge a very serious felony offense that may

0:07:28.440 --> 0:07:32.640
<v Speaker 2>be predicated maybe based on commission of some much more

0:07:32.920 --> 0:07:36.440
<v Speaker 2>minor crimes. But if you can prove that they were

0:07:36.760 --> 0:07:40.520
<v Speaker 2>together part of a broader criminal enterprise, you get this

0:07:40.920 --> 0:07:44.040
<v Speaker 2>much more serious offense. And it can also pull in

0:07:44.360 --> 0:07:47.320
<v Speaker 2>offenses that were committed in different places. One of them

0:07:47.720 --> 0:07:49.960
<v Speaker 2>has to have been committed in the county in which

0:07:49.960 --> 0:07:52.840
<v Speaker 2>it's charged, but other ones may not be, so you

0:07:52.960 --> 0:07:57.120
<v Speaker 2>can bring in much more sweeping conduct. Is certainly what

0:07:57.200 --> 0:08:01.920
<v Speaker 2>we've seen suggest that the Fulton County inventstigation has included

0:08:02.000 --> 0:08:05.040
<v Speaker 2>looking into things that happened in other parts of Georgia

0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 2>and maybe even things that happened in other parts of

0:08:06.960 --> 0:08:07.920
<v Speaker 2>the United States.

0:08:08.280 --> 0:08:12.520
<v Speaker 1>In the Special Council's January sixth indictment, he recounts the

0:08:12.520 --> 0:08:16.720
<v Speaker 1>events in Georgia. If the Special Council's case goes to

0:08:16.880 --> 0:08:21.280
<v Speaker 1>trial before Georgia, does that impact the trial or proceedings

0:08:21.320 --> 0:08:22.040
<v Speaker 1>in Georgia.

0:08:22.080 --> 0:08:24.440
<v Speaker 2>The only for formal way which it could impact it

0:08:24.480 --> 0:08:27.960
<v Speaker 2>is because you're going to have similar witnesses and presumably

0:08:28.200 --> 0:08:31.280
<v Speaker 2>at least one similar defendant. They're sort of a scheduling question.

0:08:31.440 --> 0:08:35.400
<v Speaker 2>They can't go at the same time generally federal case

0:08:35.600 --> 0:08:39.520
<v Speaker 2>takes precedents and moves first, but these are separate jurisdictions.

0:08:39.559 --> 0:08:45.120
<v Speaker 2>They're separate laws, and what happens in the federal case

0:08:45.360 --> 0:08:48.319
<v Speaker 2>doesn't necessarily dictate what will happen in the state case,

0:08:48.440 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 2>but there are a lot of ways that it can

0:08:50.760 --> 0:08:54.360
<v Speaker 2>impact it. First of all, any kind of testimony that

0:08:54.480 --> 0:08:58.040
<v Speaker 2>happens in the federal case can either be used or

0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:02.240
<v Speaker 2>at least can affect testimony in the state case, because

0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:05.160
<v Speaker 2>if a witness testifies one way in the federal case,

0:09:05.160 --> 0:09:06.959
<v Speaker 2>that same witness can be brought in in the state

0:09:07.000 --> 0:09:10.680
<v Speaker 2>case if they testify to something different, that can be

0:09:11.280 --> 0:09:14.920
<v Speaker 2>used to attack their testimony. So it's going to be

0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:18.400
<v Speaker 2>challenging but also in some ways helpful at times to

0:09:18.440 --> 0:09:21.760
<v Speaker 2>make use of what happened in the federal trial in

0:09:21.800 --> 0:09:24.960
<v Speaker 2>a potential state trial. There's also the sort of persuasive

0:09:25.000 --> 0:09:29.840
<v Speaker 2>effect that if Donald Trump is acquitted in a federal trial,

0:09:30.200 --> 0:09:34.000
<v Speaker 2>even though that should not play any role in evaluating

0:09:34.000 --> 0:09:37.080
<v Speaker 2>the state trial, it certainly is going to be harder

0:09:37.480 --> 0:09:40.480
<v Speaker 2>to get people to think that he committed a crime

0:09:40.520 --> 0:09:43.600
<v Speaker 2>if he's convicted in a federal trial and you then

0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:46.920
<v Speaker 2>have a state trial of very similar offenses. It is

0:09:47.160 --> 0:09:50.319
<v Speaker 2>going to make defending him that much more difficult, even

0:09:50.360 --> 0:09:54.160
<v Speaker 2>though judges and jurors will have to make a significant

0:09:54.160 --> 0:09:57.840
<v Speaker 2>effort to show that they are evaluating the case on

0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:01.080
<v Speaker 2>its own merits. But I think as a practical matter,

0:10:01.400 --> 0:10:03.720
<v Speaker 2>it may be difficult to separate them.

0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:07.480
<v Speaker 1>So these rico prosecutions can take a long time. She

0:10:07.760 --> 0:10:12.319
<v Speaker 1>is trying wrapper young thug and they're seven months into

0:10:12.720 --> 0:10:16.640
<v Speaker 1>the trial and the jury hasn't been selected, So it

0:10:16.679 --> 0:10:19.080
<v Speaker 1>seems like there's no way that this case could ever

0:10:19.160 --> 0:10:24.480
<v Speaker 1>be tried and concluded before the election. And then if

0:10:24.520 --> 0:10:27.360
<v Speaker 1>Trump wins, will he ever face trial.

0:10:27.960 --> 0:10:32.080
<v Speaker 2>Well, that's an interesting issue because one of the concerns

0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:36.600
<v Speaker 2>about federal charges of Donald Trump is that if he

0:10:36.679 --> 0:10:39.800
<v Speaker 2>is elected president, if he has already been convicted, he

0:10:39.800 --> 0:10:43.160
<v Speaker 2>could pardon himself if a case is ongoing, he could

0:10:43.200 --> 0:10:45.839
<v Speaker 2>even though the federal government is not supposed to work

0:10:45.880 --> 0:10:49.040
<v Speaker 2>this way, but he could conceivably appoint an attorney general

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:53.080
<v Speaker 2>and order that person to dismiss charges against him. So

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:56.120
<v Speaker 2>there are a lot of ways that he could interfere

0:10:56.559 --> 0:10:59.920
<v Speaker 2>with a federal prosecution. There's also a federal policy that

0:11:00.160 --> 0:11:03.559
<v Speaker 2>the Justice Department doesn't to prosecute a sitting president, which

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:07.440
<v Speaker 2>could come into play depending on where things are. None

0:11:07.480 --> 0:11:09.600
<v Speaker 2>of that exists at the state level. There is no

0:11:10.200 --> 0:11:14.760
<v Speaker 2>rescription on a state prosecuting a sitting president. There's no

0:11:14.840 --> 0:11:18.280
<v Speaker 2>ability for a president to pardon himself for state offenses.

0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:22.120
<v Speaker 2>It certainly would be very complicated. I would imagine that

0:11:22.440 --> 0:11:24.920
<v Speaker 2>you would be a real struggle for a state court

0:11:25.000 --> 0:11:28.160
<v Speaker 2>to figure out what to do about a prosecution of

0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:32.480
<v Speaker 2>a sitting president, because you don't want to unduly burden

0:11:32.640 --> 0:11:35.640
<v Speaker 2>the ability of a president to serve and to fulfill

0:11:35.720 --> 0:11:40.319
<v Speaker 2>their duties. But there's nothing stopping that case from moving forward.

0:11:40.960 --> 0:11:44.200
<v Speaker 2>And I think you know where there is a real

0:11:44.320 --> 0:11:48.920
<v Speaker 2>concern of Donald Trump in the past has abused the

0:11:48.960 --> 0:11:53.200
<v Speaker 2>authority of the presidency to help himself and his allies,

0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:56.160
<v Speaker 2>and including abusing this justice system that's sort of part

0:11:56.160 --> 0:11:59.840
<v Speaker 2>of his mo There's a real concern that he could

0:12:00.200 --> 0:12:04.120
<v Speaker 2>use elected office to escape accountability, and in some ways,

0:12:04.160 --> 0:12:07.040
<v Speaker 2>this Georgia case could be kind of an antidote to that.

0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:11.559
<v Speaker 1>If there are twelve indictments or even around that number,

0:12:11.880 --> 0:12:14.520
<v Speaker 1>it seems unwieldy to try them together. Would she have

0:12:14.679 --> 0:12:16.679
<v Speaker 1>to split up the trials?

0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:19.040
<v Speaker 2>I think we'll sort of have to see how that

0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:23.719
<v Speaker 2>plays out. And one of the uses of particularly we

0:12:23.880 --> 0:12:28.680
<v Speaker 2>go conspiracy charges is that they can allow a case

0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:32.640
<v Speaker 2>against a large number of people to proceed in a

0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:36.840
<v Speaker 2>way that is powerful and at least reasonably efficient. It

0:12:36.880 --> 0:12:39.280
<v Speaker 2>can be a way to in a lot of cases,

0:12:39.320 --> 0:12:43.160
<v Speaker 2>get a number of people to plead guilty and cooperate

0:12:43.440 --> 0:12:47.240
<v Speaker 2>testify against other members of the charged conspiracy, and it

0:12:47.280 --> 0:12:50.079
<v Speaker 2>can be a way to get in expansive evidence that

0:12:50.480 --> 0:12:52.840
<v Speaker 2>has to do with what maybe what some people were

0:12:52.880 --> 0:12:55.440
<v Speaker 2>doing as part of the conspiracy that would only be

0:12:55.480 --> 0:12:58.880
<v Speaker 2>able to be introduced against other people as part of

0:12:59.120 --> 0:13:02.360
<v Speaker 2>a unified trial into a unified conspiracy. So there can

0:13:02.400 --> 0:13:06.920
<v Speaker 2>be real advantages for a prosecutor to keep people together

0:13:07.040 --> 0:13:09.800
<v Speaker 2>if you're charging something like a Rico conspiracy. But it

0:13:09.840 --> 0:13:13.280
<v Speaker 2>makes it very complicated and certainly would take a long time.

0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:15.800
<v Speaker 2>So that's not going to be the approach if she

0:13:15.880 --> 0:13:17.560
<v Speaker 2>wants it to move quickly. And one of the things

0:13:17.559 --> 0:13:22.440
<v Speaker 2>you saw with Jack Smith's indictment is that he charged

0:13:22.920 --> 0:13:28.880
<v Speaker 2>just Donald Trump, even while charging conspiracy conspiracy charges and

0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:32.480
<v Speaker 2>enumerating some of the other people involved. Presumably he's going

0:13:32.559 --> 0:13:35.400
<v Speaker 2>to charge those other people separately, or at least he

0:13:35.520 --> 0:13:38.640
<v Speaker 2>may because he wants to move quickly, and it's much

0:13:38.679 --> 0:13:42.600
<v Speaker 2>more efficient if you just charge Donald Trump individually. So

0:13:42.760 --> 0:13:45.680
<v Speaker 2>that could be an approach that thester attorney Willis could

0:13:45.720 --> 0:13:48.520
<v Speaker 2>take if she wants to move it quickly, But if

0:13:48.520 --> 0:13:51.760
<v Speaker 2>she wants to make the strongest possible case, she may

0:13:51.800 --> 0:13:53.760
<v Speaker 2>well elect to charge them all together.

0:13:54.120 --> 0:13:59.360
<v Speaker 1>Trump has filed three separate suits to quash Willis's investigation.

0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:02.480
<v Speaker 1>If he's charged, do you think that we'll see the

0:14:02.520 --> 0:14:06.120
<v Speaker 1>defense attorneys bringing up those issues, for example, that the

0:14:06.160 --> 0:14:11.200
<v Speaker 1>special grand jury proceedings were unconstitutional, that Willis made prejudicial

0:14:11.240 --> 0:14:14.360
<v Speaker 1>public statements. Will they be raising those again?

0:14:14.720 --> 0:14:17.840
<v Speaker 2>I think they will unquestionably be raising those again. The

0:14:17.920 --> 0:14:20.840
<v Speaker 2>cases that Donald Trump brought to try to clash this

0:14:20.920 --> 0:14:26.560
<v Speaker 2>investigation have been flapped down pretty comprehensibly at every stage.

0:14:26.600 --> 0:14:29.640
<v Speaker 2>They haven't gotten anywhere. But I think that Donald Trump

0:14:29.640 --> 0:14:31.760
<v Speaker 2>and his attorneys will continue to raise them. They'll try

0:14:31.760 --> 0:14:34.720
<v Speaker 2>to raise them as a legal matter in front of

0:14:35.160 --> 0:14:38.840
<v Speaker 2>whatever judge draws the criminal case against him, assuming there

0:14:38.880 --> 0:14:43.480
<v Speaker 2>is one. I suspect they will also try to bring

0:14:43.520 --> 0:14:46.760
<v Speaker 2>in some version of this whatever they are permitted to

0:14:46.840 --> 0:14:49.560
<v Speaker 2>say in front of a jury to suggest that this

0:14:49.600 --> 0:14:52.360
<v Speaker 2>whole thing is biased and improper. I would think that

0:14:52.440 --> 0:14:56.640
<v Speaker 2>they'll continue in every possible forum and way to make

0:14:56.760 --> 0:15:00.160
<v Speaker 2>those kinds of charges. We haven't seen a lot to

0:15:00.160 --> 0:15:01.880
<v Speaker 2>suggest that they're going to get very far with that,

0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:04.040
<v Speaker 2>but it's to be a key part of both the

0:15:04.120 --> 0:15:07.760
<v Speaker 2>legal and public relations strategy from the former president, so

0:15:07.960 --> 0:15:09.560
<v Speaker 2>I expect we'll see a lot more of that.

0:15:10.080 --> 0:15:14.680
<v Speaker 1>Trump has been attacking the prosecutors who are bringing cases

0:15:14.720 --> 0:15:18.560
<v Speaker 1>against him, Alvin Bragg and Manhattan and Special Counsel Jack Smith,

0:15:18.680 --> 0:15:24.080
<v Speaker 1>but his attacks against will Is seem particularly vicious and personal.

0:15:24.720 --> 0:15:27.680
<v Speaker 1>Is he trying to poison the jury pool? What can

0:15:27.760 --> 0:15:30.720
<v Speaker 1>be done to stop him from making these attacks?

0:15:31.160 --> 0:15:32.560
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I think he's trying to do a couple

0:15:32.560 --> 0:15:36.880
<v Speaker 2>of things. I think he likely is trying to influence

0:15:36.960 --> 0:15:40.240
<v Speaker 2>and to someone said, poison the jury pool, to think

0:15:40.360 --> 0:15:45.600
<v Speaker 2>that these prosecutors are biased and are corrupt and are deranged,

0:15:45.720 --> 0:15:48.160
<v Speaker 2>and these other kinds of words that he uses. I

0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:52.600
<v Speaker 2>think he is also trying to win a presidential election

0:15:53.000 --> 0:15:57.120
<v Speaker 2>and foment to political movement. And these aren't kinds of

0:15:57.200 --> 0:16:01.440
<v Speaker 2>characterizations that are effective that sort of ping up political

0:16:01.480 --> 0:16:04.640
<v Speaker 2>support and outrage and outrage has always been the kind

0:16:04.680 --> 0:16:08.120
<v Speaker 2>of his brand and what he uses to advance his

0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:11.240
<v Speaker 2>political career and his influence. So I think that's something

0:16:11.280 --> 0:16:15.640
<v Speaker 2>that's happening too. I also think that some extent he

0:16:16.400 --> 0:16:21.520
<v Speaker 2>is baiting prosecutors and judges to try to stop him

0:16:21.560 --> 0:16:23.800
<v Speaker 2>from saying these things. He's saying these things that are

0:16:24.000 --> 0:16:28.040
<v Speaker 2>potentially very dangerous. They not only could influence jurors, they

0:16:28.040 --> 0:16:31.560
<v Speaker 2>could lead to violence. We've already seen an instance where

0:16:32.000 --> 0:16:35.240
<v Speaker 2>a supporter of Donald Trump went into an FBI office

0:16:35.320 --> 0:16:39.880
<v Speaker 2>with a gun after the search of mar A Lago

0:16:39.960 --> 0:16:43.480
<v Speaker 2>and his rhetoric in response to that, so there could

0:16:43.520 --> 0:16:46.240
<v Speaker 2>be violence. It's going to be in part incumbent on

0:16:46.680 --> 0:16:49.840
<v Speaker 2>prosecutors and judges to try to curb that. But they

0:16:49.880 --> 0:16:53.520
<v Speaker 2>also understand that Donald Trump is a former president, he's

0:16:53.520 --> 0:16:59.200
<v Speaker 2>a current presidential candidate, and trying to restrict the speech

0:16:59.680 --> 0:17:03.680
<v Speaker 2>of a candidate and a major political leader is fraught

0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:06.960
<v Speaker 2>and is something that would encourage more outrage. And I

0:17:07.000 --> 0:17:09.000
<v Speaker 2>think Donald Trump knows it could be helpful to him

0:17:09.000 --> 0:17:12.119
<v Speaker 2>politically if there is an attempt to kind of muzzle

0:17:12.200 --> 0:17:15.680
<v Speaker 2>him by the court. So he's I think trying to

0:17:15.720 --> 0:17:19.000
<v Speaker 2>put prosecutors and put judges in that box, and I

0:17:19.040 --> 0:17:21.760
<v Speaker 2>think to some extent they may have little choice but

0:17:22.240 --> 0:17:26.440
<v Speaker 2>to try to restrict and control what he's say because

0:17:26.640 --> 0:17:28.119
<v Speaker 2>public safety may demand it.

0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:32.600
<v Speaker 1>How important do you think a Georgia indictment would be

0:17:33.359 --> 0:17:34.320
<v Speaker 1>in context?

0:17:35.200 --> 0:17:37.720
<v Speaker 2>You know, in some ways, if there's an indictment in

0:17:37.800 --> 0:17:42.080
<v Speaker 2>Georgia next week, it could be widely seen by the

0:17:42.119 --> 0:17:45.160
<v Speaker 2>public and widely sort of dismissed as another indictment. It's

0:17:45.200 --> 0:17:50.400
<v Speaker 2>the fourth indictment of Donald Trump, and some will characterize

0:17:50.400 --> 0:17:53.840
<v Speaker 2>that as improper piling on. Others will see it as

0:17:53.880 --> 0:17:57.520
<v Speaker 2>significant just because it's kind of one more. And I

0:17:57.520 --> 0:18:00.560
<v Speaker 2>think it's really important not to lose sight of the

0:18:00.640 --> 0:18:06.159
<v Speaker 2>fact that with the most recent indictment by Jack Smith,

0:18:06.400 --> 0:18:09.760
<v Speaker 2>and potentially with an indictment in Fulham County as well,

0:18:10.040 --> 0:18:15.800
<v Speaker 2>that these are significant because they address the attempts by

0:18:15.840 --> 0:18:20.000
<v Speaker 2>a former president to keep himself in power after losing

0:18:20.000 --> 0:18:24.159
<v Speaker 2>an election, including by encouraging pilance, and that is about

0:18:24.200 --> 0:18:28.360
<v Speaker 2>the most significant offense that a leader in a democracy

0:18:28.800 --> 0:18:31.440
<v Speaker 2>can commit. In a lot of ways, it really threatens

0:18:31.480 --> 0:18:35.000
<v Speaker 2>the continued viability of democracy. And so the indictment we

0:18:35.040 --> 0:18:37.760
<v Speaker 2>saw last week, and assuming there is another one in Georgia.

0:18:38.119 --> 0:18:40.520
<v Speaker 2>These are significant not just because they're kind of one

0:18:40.600 --> 0:18:44.160
<v Speaker 2>more indictment. They're significant because they address conduct that really

0:18:44.160 --> 0:18:45.960
<v Speaker 2>goes to the heart of whether we can still have

0:18:46.000 --> 0:18:48.440
<v Speaker 2>a democracy in this country. And I think it's important

0:18:48.480 --> 0:18:50.679
<v Speaker 2>that not be a loss in coverage that sort of

0:18:51.119 --> 0:18:52.520
<v Speaker 2>just looks at this to the aggregate.

0:18:52.640 --> 0:18:53.960
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for being on the show.

0:18:54.000 --> 0:18:54.359
<v Speaker 2>Noah.

0:18:54.440 --> 0:18:57.560
<v Speaker 1>That's no a Bookbinder, President and CEO of Citizens for

0:18:57.600 --> 0:19:01.159
<v Speaker 1>Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. And that's it for this

0:19:01.320 --> 0:19:04.040
<v Speaker 1>edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

0:19:04.040 --> 0:19:07.120
<v Speaker 1>get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

0:19:07.280 --> 0:19:10.280
<v Speaker 1>You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

0:19:10.440 --> 0:19:15.480
<v Speaker 1>www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and

0:19:15.560 --> 0:19:18.639
<v Speaker 1>remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

0:19:18.720 --> 0:19:22.159
<v Speaker 1>at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

0:19:22.200 --> 0:19:23.679
<v Speaker 1>you're listening to Bloomberg