Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The barriers are up in front of the main courthouse
Speaker 1: in Atlanta as officials brace for a new indictment of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump that could come as soon as next week
Speaker 1: in Fulton County Prosecutor Fannie Willis's investigation into the former
Speaker 1: president's efforts to overturn his twenty twenty election loss in
Speaker 1: the state. Fulton County Sheriff Pat Labott says they're prepared
Speaker 1: and if Trump is indicted, the former president will be
Speaker 1: processed like any other accused criminal, including getting a mug shot,
Speaker 1: something that hasn't been done in Trump's three prior indictments.
Speaker 1: We are following our normal practices and so it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter your status.
Speaker 2: We have mugshots ready for you.
Speaker 1: Trump has ratcheted up his attacks on Willis in an
Speaker 1: attack ad and making unfounded and selectacious accusations against her.
Speaker 3: There's a young woman, a young racist in Atlanta, racist
Speaker 3: and they say, I guess. They say that she was
Speaker 3: after a certain gang and she ended up having an
Speaker 3: affair with the head of the gang or a gang member.
Speaker 3: And this is a person that wants to indict me
Speaker 3: she's got a lot of problems.
Speaker 1: Willis has said the accusations are derogatory and false, but
Speaker 1: she urged her staff not to respond to them, saying
Speaker 1: we have a job to do. Willis has been attacked
Speaker 1: by Trump before, as have Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and
Speaker 1: Special counsel Jack Smith, who are both prosecuting Trump, and
Speaker 1: her response has been measured.
Speaker 4: People have the right to say whatever they choose to say,
Speaker 4: is long as it does not rise to the level
Speaker 4: of threats against myself, against my staff, or against my family.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Noah Bookbinder, President and CEO of Citizens
Speaker 1: for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. It's a two and
Speaker 1: a half year investigation. Seventy five witnesses have testified. So
Speaker 1: is the expected Georgia indictment likely to be the most
Speaker 1: expansive regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 2: I guess it depends how you define expansive, because certainly
Speaker 2: Jacksmith's indictment last week covered conduct that occurred all over
Speaker 2: the country, and you know, in that sense was an
Speaker 2: incredibly powerful and expansive indictment. What I think you have
Speaker 2: in Georgia is an investigation that has gone on probably
Speaker 2: longer than any other investigation of Trump into this kind
Speaker 2: of conduct, and that could at least encompass a wide
Speaker 2: range of statutes and a wide range of different types
Speaker 2: of conduct.
Speaker 1: Nearly twenty people have been told reportedly that they could
Speaker 1: face charges in Georgia. CNN is reporting that there will
Speaker 1: be twelve or more indictments, and Trump's attorneys say that
Speaker 1: he's going to be indicted. Does that seem more than likely?
Speaker 2: Well, I think certainly the signals that we've been getting
Speaker 2: from the public statements that Christract attorney Fanny Willis has made,
Speaker 2: the witnesses that have gone in front of the grand jury,
Speaker 2: and the fact that every time at this point that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has been indicted, his attorneys have gone public
Speaker 2: with the fact that he's about to be indicted. So
Speaker 2: all of that suggests that while we don't know exactly
Speaker 2: the contours of it and that will be exactly as reported,
Speaker 2: it does seem like it is moving toward indictments, that
Speaker 2: those indictments will include Donald Trump and will likely include
Speaker 2: a number of other people.
Speaker 1: Three witnesses have been subpoena to appear before the Fulton
Speaker 1: Grand Jurors that are currently hearing cases, the former Lieutenant governor,
Speaker 1: Jeff Duncan, Jen Jordan, a former state senator, and George Cheaty,
Speaker 1: an independent journalist. What does it tell you why would
Speaker 1: she subpoena witnesses when she has all the testimony from
Speaker 1: the investigative grand jury.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's interesting. I think a lot of
Speaker 2: times prosecutors will try to get some testimony in front
Speaker 2: of the grand jury that's actually going to issue the charges.
Speaker 2: It sort of makes it more real to them. A
Speaker 2: lot of times that is simply kind of a summary witness.
Speaker 2: You bring in an agent who's been investigating the case
Speaker 2: and have them go through a lot of the evidence
Speaker 2: that has already been gathered. It is relatively unusual here,
Speaker 2: assuming that this is the moment when a grand jury
Speaker 2: is going to be presented with charges, for new fact
Speaker 2: witnesses to be brought in. It's certainly not at all
Speaker 2: unheard of. I think what it suggests to me is
Speaker 2: that in the time since she last presented evidence to
Speaker 2: the grand jury, they've learned more and found new and
Speaker 2: presumably significant facts that they want to get in front
Speaker 2: of the grand jury so that the indictment can be
Speaker 2: as comprehensive and as current as possible. But it certainly
Speaker 2: does suggest that District Attorney Willis is trying to leave
Speaker 2: no stone unturned and be as comprehensive as possible.
Speaker 1: So a lot of experts are predicting that Willis is
Speaker 1: going to use Rico charges in bringing the case. Does
Speaker 1: that seem like a good guests or estimation based on
Speaker 1: her history of.
Speaker 2: Using rico It does. She has made it a point
Speaker 2: of pride that she has used the Rico statute more
Speaker 2: than her predecessors did. She has built her career in
Speaker 2: some ways on very prominent and aggressive use of that statute,
Speaker 2: and she indicated in letters that she sent to witnesses
Speaker 2: or potential defendants that her office was investigating that. So
Speaker 2: everything points to the fact that that was something that
Speaker 2: she was likely to consider very seriously. And you know, certainly,
Speaker 2: as I am and this sort of bipartisan group of
Speaker 2: experts that I worked with, as we analyzed it, we
Speaker 2: think that the facts in the law are there to
Speaker 2: charge reco in this situation. And since it's something that
Speaker 2: just returning Willis has found to be a powerful rapid
Speaker 2: as prosecutor, it seems like a pretty good guest to
Speaker 2: think that she's she's pretty likely to go there.
Speaker 1: Will you explain the use of RICO and how it
Speaker 1: would enable her to sweep in criminal statutes in Georgia
Speaker 1: and different jurisdictions to explain the reach of RICO.
Speaker 2: Sure, What RICO is racketeering influenced corrupt organizations. These are
Speaker 2: statutes that were put in place to prosecute criminal organizations.
Speaker 2: Traditionally at the federal level, it was the mafia. It's
Speaker 2: been used toward gang but also towards all manner of
Speaker 2: kind of criminal enterprises, every time you have a group
Speaker 2: of people working together to achieve a criminal objective. So
Speaker 2: it's been used against public officials. It was famously in
Speaker 2: Georgia used against a group of teachers and principals who
Speaker 2: were encouraging and pressuring and arranging for their students to
Speaker 2: cheat on standardized tests. So it can be used in
Speaker 2: a lot of different contexts. And what it allows you
Speaker 2: to do is, first of all, tell a kind of
Speaker 2: unified story of a criminal enterprise, of an effort to
Speaker 2: achieve criminal objectives that may be harder to tell when
Speaker 2: you're charging very specific individual statutes. But it also allows
Speaker 2: you to charge a very serious felony offense that may
Speaker 2: be predicated maybe based on commission of some much more
Speaker 2: minor crimes. But if you can prove that they were
Speaker 2: together part of a broader criminal enterprise, you get this
Speaker 2: much more serious offense. And it can also pull in
Speaker 2: offenses that were committed in different places. One of them
Speaker 2: has to have been committed in the county in which
Speaker 2: it's charged, but other ones may not be, so you
Speaker 2: can bring in much more sweeping conduct. Is certainly what
Speaker 2: we've seen suggest that the Fulton County inventstigation has included
Speaker 2: looking into things that happened in other parts of Georgia
Speaker 2: and maybe even things that happened in other parts of
Speaker 2: the United States.
Speaker 1: In the Special Council's January sixth indictment, he recounts the
Speaker 1: events in Georgia. If the Special Council's case goes to
Speaker 1: trial before Georgia, does that impact the trial or proceedings
Speaker 1: in Georgia.
Speaker 2: The only for formal way which it could impact it
Speaker 2: is because you're going to have similar witnesses and presumably
Speaker 2: at least one similar defendant. They're sort of a scheduling question.
Speaker 2: They can't go at the same time generally federal case
Speaker 2: takes precedents and moves first, but these are separate jurisdictions.
Speaker 2: They're separate laws, and what happens in the federal case
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily dictate what will happen in the state case,
Speaker 2: but there are a lot of ways that it can
Speaker 2: impact it. First of all, any kind of testimony that
Speaker 2: happens in the federal case can either be used or
Speaker 2: at least can affect testimony in the state case, because
Speaker 2: if a witness testifies one way in the federal case,
Speaker 2: that same witness can be brought in in the state
Speaker 2: case if they testify to something different, that can be
Speaker 2: used to attack their testimony. So it's going to be
Speaker 2: challenging but also in some ways helpful at times to
Speaker 2: make use of what happened in the federal trial in
Speaker 2: a potential state trial. There's also the sort of persuasive
Speaker 2: effect that if Donald Trump is acquitted in a federal trial,
Speaker 2: even though that should not play any role in evaluating
Speaker 2: the state trial, it certainly is going to be harder
Speaker 2: to get people to think that he committed a crime
Speaker 2: if he's convicted in a federal trial and you then
Speaker 2: have a state trial of very similar offenses. It is
Speaker 2: going to make defending him that much more difficult, even
Speaker 2: though judges and jurors will have to make a significant
Speaker 2: effort to show that they are evaluating the case on
Speaker 2: its own merits. But I think as a practical matter,
Speaker 2: it may be difficult to separate them.
Speaker 1: So these rico prosecutions can take a long time. She
Speaker 1: is trying wrapper young thug and they're seven months into
Speaker 1: the trial and the jury hasn't been selected, So it
Speaker 1: seems like there's no way that this case could ever
Speaker 1: be tried and concluded before the election. And then if
Speaker 1: Trump wins, will he ever face trial.
Speaker 2: Well, that's an interesting issue because one of the concerns
Speaker 2: about federal charges of Donald Trump is that if he
Speaker 2: is elected president, if he has already been convicted, he
Speaker 2: could pardon himself if a case is ongoing, he could
Speaker 2: even though the federal government is not supposed to work
Speaker 2: this way, but he could conceivably appoint an attorney general
Speaker 2: and order that person to dismiss charges against him. So
Speaker 2: there are a lot of ways that he could interfere
Speaker 2: with a federal prosecution. There's also a federal policy that
Speaker 2: the Justice Department doesn't to prosecute a sitting president, which
Speaker 2: could come into play depending on where things are. None
Speaker 2: of that exists at the state level. There is no
Speaker 2: rescription on a state prosecuting a sitting president. There's no
Speaker 2: ability for a president to pardon himself for state offenses.
Speaker 2: It certainly would be very complicated. I would imagine that
Speaker 2: you would be a real struggle for a state court
Speaker 2: to figure out what to do about a prosecution of
Speaker 2: a sitting president, because you don't want to unduly burden
Speaker 2: the ability of a president to serve and to fulfill
Speaker 2: their duties. But there's nothing stopping that case from moving forward.
Speaker 2: And I think you know where there is a real
Speaker 2: concern of Donald Trump in the past has abused the
Speaker 2: authority of the presidency to help himself and his allies,
Speaker 2: and including abusing this justice system that's sort of part
Speaker 2: of his mo There's a real concern that he could
Speaker 2: use elected office to escape accountability, and in some ways,
Speaker 2: this Georgia case could be kind of an antidote to that.
Speaker 1: If there are twelve indictments or even around that number,
Speaker 1: it seems unwieldy to try them together. Would she have
Speaker 1: to split up the trials?
Speaker 2: I think we'll sort of have to see how that
Speaker 2: plays out. And one of the uses of particularly we
Speaker 2: go conspiracy charges is that they can allow a case
Speaker 2: against a large number of people to proceed in a
Speaker 2: way that is powerful and at least reasonably efficient. It
Speaker 2: can be a way to in a lot of cases,
Speaker 2: get a number of people to plead guilty and cooperate
Speaker 2: testify against other members of the charged conspiracy, and it
Speaker 2: can be a way to get in expansive evidence that
Speaker 2: has to do with what maybe what some people were
Speaker 2: doing as part of the conspiracy that would only be
Speaker 2: able to be introduced against other people as part of
Speaker 2: a unified trial into a unified conspiracy. So there can
Speaker 2: be real advantages for a prosecutor to keep people together
Speaker 2: if you're charging something like a Rico conspiracy. But it
Speaker 2: makes it very complicated and certainly would take a long time.
Speaker 2: So that's not going to be the approach if she
Speaker 2: wants it to move quickly. And one of the things
Speaker 2: you saw with Jack Smith's indictment is that he charged
Speaker 2: just Donald Trump, even while charging conspiracy conspiracy charges and
Speaker 2: enumerating some of the other people involved. Presumably he's going
Speaker 2: to charge those other people separately, or at least he
Speaker 2: may because he wants to move quickly, and it's much
Speaker 2: more efficient if you just charge Donald Trump individually. So
Speaker 2: that could be an approach that thester attorney Willis could
Speaker 2: take if she wants to move it quickly, But if
Speaker 2: she wants to make the strongest possible case, she may
Speaker 2: well elect to charge them all together.
Speaker 1: Trump has filed three separate suits to quash Willis's investigation.
Speaker 1: If he's charged, do you think that we'll see the
Speaker 1: defense attorneys bringing up those issues, for example, that the
Speaker 1: special grand jury proceedings were unconstitutional, that Willis made prejudicial
Speaker 1: public statements. Will they be raising those again?
Speaker 2: I think they will unquestionably be raising those again. The
Speaker 2: cases that Donald Trump brought to try to clash this
Speaker 2: investigation have been flapped down pretty comprehensibly at every stage.
Speaker 2: They haven't gotten anywhere. But I think that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: and his attorneys will continue to raise them. They'll try
Speaker 2: to raise them as a legal matter in front of
Speaker 2: whatever judge draws the criminal case against him, assuming there
Speaker 2: is one. I suspect they will also try to bring
Speaker 2: in some version of this whatever they are permitted to
Speaker 2: say in front of a jury to suggest that this
Speaker 2: whole thing is biased and improper. I would think that
Speaker 2: they'll continue in every possible forum and way to make
Speaker 2: those kinds of charges. We haven't seen a lot to
Speaker 2: suggest that they're going to get very far with that,
Speaker 2: but it's to be a key part of both the
Speaker 2: legal and public relations strategy from the former president, so
Speaker 2: I expect we'll see a lot more of that.
Speaker 1: Trump has been attacking the prosecutors who are bringing cases
Speaker 1: against him, Alvin Bragg and Manhattan and Special Counsel Jack Smith,
Speaker 1: but his attacks against will Is seem particularly vicious and personal.
Speaker 1: Is he trying to poison the jury pool? What can
Speaker 1: be done to stop him from making these attacks?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think he's trying to do a couple
Speaker 2: of things. I think he likely is trying to influence
Speaker 2: and to someone said, poison the jury pool, to think
Speaker 2: that these prosecutors are biased and are corrupt and are deranged,
Speaker 2: and these other kinds of words that he uses. I
Speaker 2: think he is also trying to win a presidential election
Speaker 2: and foment to political movement. And these aren't kinds of
Speaker 2: characterizations that are effective that sort of ping up political
Speaker 2: support and outrage and outrage has always been the kind
Speaker 2: of his brand and what he uses to advance his
Speaker 2: political career and his influence. So I think that's something
Speaker 2: that's happening too. I also think that some extent he
Speaker 2: is baiting prosecutors and judges to try to stop him
Speaker 2: from saying these things. He's saying these things that are
Speaker 2: potentially very dangerous. They not only could influence jurors, they
Speaker 2: could lead to violence. We've already seen an instance where
Speaker 2: a supporter of Donald Trump went into an FBI office
Speaker 2: with a gun after the search of mar A Lago
Speaker 2: and his rhetoric in response to that, so there could
Speaker 2: be violence. It's going to be in part incumbent on
Speaker 2: prosecutors and judges to try to curb that. But they
Speaker 2: also understand that Donald Trump is a former president, he's
Speaker 2: a current presidential candidate, and trying to restrict the speech
Speaker 2: of a candidate and a major political leader is fraught
Speaker 2: and is something that would encourage more outrage. And I
Speaker 2: think Donald Trump knows it could be helpful to him
Speaker 2: politically if there is an attempt to kind of muzzle
Speaker 2: him by the court. So he's I think trying to
Speaker 2: put prosecutors and put judges in that box, and I
Speaker 2: think to some extent they may have little choice but
Speaker 2: to try to restrict and control what he's say because
Speaker 2: public safety may demand it.
Speaker 1: How important do you think a Georgia indictment would be
Speaker 1: in context?
Speaker 2: You know, in some ways, if there's an indictment in
Speaker 2: Georgia next week, it could be widely seen by the
Speaker 2: public and widely sort of dismissed as another indictment. It's
Speaker 2: the fourth indictment of Donald Trump, and some will characterize
Speaker 2: that as improper piling on. Others will see it as
Speaker 2: significant just because it's kind of one more. And I
Speaker 2: think it's really important not to lose sight of the
Speaker 2: fact that with the most recent indictment by Jack Smith,
Speaker 2: and potentially with an indictment in Fulham County as well,
Speaker 2: that these are significant because they address the attempts by
Speaker 2: a former president to keep himself in power after losing
Speaker 2: an election, including by encouraging pilance, and that is about
Speaker 2: the most significant offense that a leader in a democracy
Speaker 2: can commit. In a lot of ways, it really threatens
Speaker 2: the continued viability of democracy. And so the indictment we
Speaker 2: saw last week, and assuming there is another one in Georgia.
Speaker 2: These are significant not just because they're kind of one
Speaker 2: more indictment. They're significant because they address conduct that really
Speaker 2: goes to the heart of whether we can still have
Speaker 2: a democracy in this country. And I think it's important
Speaker 2: that not be a loss in coverage that sort of
Speaker 2: just looks at this to the aggregate.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being on the show.
Speaker 2: Noah.
Speaker 1: That's no a Bookbinder, President and CEO of Citizens for
Speaker 1: Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. And that's it for this
Speaker 1: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg