Speaker 1: From Bloomberg World headquarters the New York I'm Doug Prisoner.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Radio at about the five fifty six
Speaker 1: Wall Street time, covering the breaking news that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has been indicted in New York for directing hush money
Speaker 1: payments to a porn star during his twenty sixteen campaign.
Speaker 1: You're with special coverage here on Bloomberg Radio. I'm joined
Speaker 1: by our legal analyst June Grosso in the Bloomberg Interactive
Speaker 1: Broker studio in New York. We had been debating for
Speaker 1: days on when this was going to occur, if it
Speaker 1: was going to occur at all. This is one of
Speaker 1: several cases that the president could be facing. And so
Speaker 1: now we know that the grand jury has voted to indict.
Speaker 1: And you know, we can't overstate what a historic day
Speaker 1: this is. This is the first prosecution ever, the first
Speaker 1: criminal charges ever against a former president. And yes, it
Speaker 1: seemed that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had backed off
Speaker 1: because there had been all this last week commotion that
Speaker 1: last week was going to be when there was this indictment.
Speaker 1: And then we heard that the grand jury was going
Speaker 1: to be off until April for the Eastern mister break.
Speaker 1: So this came as quite a shock that they have
Speaker 1: already voted, and I mean, listen, they've been considering this
Speaker 1: for quite some time. They were just hearing the very
Speaker 1: last witnesses. And by the way, the very last witness
Speaker 1: was I think Pecker, right, and he was brought in
Speaker 1: we think to robut what had been said about Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen by a former legal advisor to him? So who
Speaker 1: is David Pecker? Again? Remind me this was the catch
Speaker 1: and kill scenario? Right? He was the publisher of the
Speaker 1: National Inquirer, I believe, yes, So he captured the story
Speaker 1: and then tried to bury it so that it couldn't
Speaker 1: come out during the campaign. Right, So he was there,
Speaker 1: we think to buttress Michael Cohen's testimony because Cohen is
Speaker 1: a problematic witness, and he will likely be the star
Speaker 1: witness here. He's a problematic witness because he is a
Speaker 1: convicted felon, convicted for lying to Congress. So right away,
Speaker 1: right there, you have a problem with this kind of
Speaker 1: a witness. But as prosecutors tell you, you know, they
Speaker 1: can't present priests and acquire boys to a jury. They
Speaker 1: have to present who they have and they're usually someone
Speaker 1: who's associated with the crime. So he does have a
Speaker 1: lot going for him, but a lot going against him.
Speaker 1: So they brought in after one of his former attorneys
Speaker 1: came forward, and Trump's lawyers requested that he testified to
Speaker 1: the grand jury. And you're a lot to do that
Speaker 1: in New York. So they requested aim of kind of
Speaker 1: eroding the credibility of Cohen exactly just as if just
Speaker 1: like Trump was invited himself to testify to the grand jury.
Speaker 1: Of course he didn't, and that's a very smart move
Speaker 1: on his side not to come forward. So but you
Speaker 1: can't ask to have a witness come forward. So they
Speaker 1: asked to have this former attorney, former advisor to Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: and he said some things that you tried to undermine
Speaker 1: Cohen's integrity, that he lied about this to him in
Speaker 1: the past. And so then all of a sudden, it
Speaker 1: seemed as if things came to a halt. Then they
Speaker 1: brought in Packer to buttress Michael Cohen. The thing about
Speaker 1: this whole grand jury investigation you've heard came from a
Speaker 1: New York Court of Appeal judge. Prosecutor can get a
Speaker 1: grand jury to indict a ham Sandwich in this case,
Speaker 1: it seemed like Alvin Bragg was almost trying the case,
Speaker 1: not just presenting it to the grand jury so that
Speaker 1: he'd get an indictment, but almost trying the case. And
Speaker 1: perhaps it was an attempt to see how the case
Speaker 1: would flesh out. Perhaps because it's such it's the first indictment,
Speaker 1: there's going to be so much press on this, There's
Speaker 1: going to be so much on this. Perhaps he wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure that he had every eye dotted in
Speaker 1: t cross And a big question is to what happens
Speaker 1: in Georgia because there is another case there very much
Speaker 1: of the focus of or on any interference with the
Speaker 1: election that was going on in twenty sixteen or twenty
Speaker 1: I want to get blend together. Yeah, they do, really.
Speaker 1: I want to get to Ed Baxter, who is in
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg newsroom in San Francisco during our special coverage
Speaker 1: as we learned that a former President Trump has now
Speaker 1: been indicted by the District Attorney in Manhattan for directing
Speaker 1: hush money payments to a porn star during the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen campaign. M. Yeah, I'm sure you're you're looking at
Speaker 1: wires and different types of reaction. What are you seeing yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm seeing a lot of stuff. But what I want
Speaker 1: to ask june A Doug if I may, is what
Speaker 1: happens next? Now? I mean Donald Trump was out, remember
Speaker 1: the famous I'm going to be indicted on Tuesday line,
Speaker 1: said that he wanted to figure out what he was
Speaker 1: going to wear, should he wear a tie? How public
Speaker 1: is this going to be? And I understand and correct
Speaker 1: me if I'm wrong that he's a maralgo. Where does
Speaker 1: this go next? What is the process? So what will
Speaker 1: happen in this case? I've talked to several people and
Speaker 1: they say, you know, he's not going to be treated
Speaker 1: like the ordinary citizen. He's going to be treated like
Speaker 1: the extra ordinary citizen. So a high profile citizen. They're
Speaker 1: going to tell his lawyers. I think Joe Takapino, one
Speaker 1: of his lawyers, has already said that he heard about this.
Speaker 1: So what they're going to do is they're going to
Speaker 1: request and arrange a date for him to come in
Speaker 1: and turn himself in. So there's not going to be
Speaker 1: that perp walk that people may have been expecting. He's
Speaker 1: not going to We don't think he's going to be
Speaker 1: put in handcuffs. But apparently this is all going to
Speaker 1: be worked out between Alvin Bragg's office and his attorneys
Speaker 1: how they want to handle this. But he will have
Speaker 1: to be booked, He'll have to have be fingerprinted and
Speaker 1: have his mug shot taken, and they'll have to be
Speaker 1: an appearance in court where it's expected they're not going
Speaker 1: to request bail or anything. He's going to be sent
Speaker 1: out on his own recognizance. But those details have to
Speaker 1: be done. But you know, how big a deal it
Speaker 1: is may depend more on Donald Trump than anyone else.
Speaker 1: Does he want to make this a big deal? So
Speaker 1: there would be ostensibly an arrangement right when he's charged,
Speaker 1: But after that, I mean a delay. Is that probably
Speaker 1: what we're going to see. Is there a way for
Speaker 1: the Trump legal team to kind of slow the process.
Speaker 1: There will be motion upon motion upon motion upon motion
Speaker 1: to delay the process and to attack the you know,
Speaker 1: the evidence that the district attorney has, and um, you
Speaker 1: know you're going to see a lot happen in the
Speaker 1: courtroom and a lot happen outside the courtroom. And I
Speaker 1: think a lot of this depends on how hard Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg is going to push for a trial date that's close.
Speaker 1: I mean, Trump also remember the trial is coming up
Speaker 1: where Attorney General Letitia James is suing Trump and his company.
Speaker 1: That's coming up. Now that's a civil complaint though right right,
Speaker 1: it is a civil and criminal would take precedence. But
Speaker 1: I'm just saying there's a lot there are a lot
Speaker 1: of balls in the air here with Trump and what's happening.
Speaker 1: So you know, I have no idea when the trial
Speaker 1: would actually be set for ed now going down the
Speaker 1: road though, I mean, this has been from what's been leaked,
Speaker 1: and grand jury always is supposed to be secret. But
Speaker 1: you mentioned that, you know, a very thin case. It's
Speaker 1: a very creative case, if we can put it that
Speaker 1: way at the very least. I mean, this is something
Speaker 1: that he would go down the road of definitely with
Speaker 1: any trial, he could be acquitted. And that has all
Speaker 1: kinds of ramifications as well, exactly. And the case is
Speaker 1: it's a novel legal theory. It's sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: to explain it simply, it's sort of hooks one misdemeanor
Speaker 1: crime onto a felony in order to make it a felony.
Speaker 1: So the misdemeanor would be falsifying business records, which is
Speaker 1: they did not they did not record this hush money
Speaker 1: payment as it should have been recorded it as legal fees,
Speaker 1: I believe, and then the prosecutors have to show an
Speaker 1: intend to defraud and that would be a violation of
Speaker 1: election law. So the theory is that the second kind
Speaker 1: of hooks on the first, and then you get the
Speaker 1: the excuse me, the felony, which is what they want
Speaker 1: because it just you know, hush money payments. That would
Speaker 1: just be a misdemeanor of falsifying business record. June, we
Speaker 1: have Robert Mints with us. He is the former I'll
Speaker 1: be able to explain. Well, you're going to ask the
Speaker 1: first question, let me do the introduction. He is a
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor and now partner at mcarter and English.
Speaker 1: Mister Mints, thanks for being with us first, right out
Speaker 1: of the gate, let me get your reaction. Sure, well,
Speaker 1: it's not surprising really, because of Manhattan District Attorney's office
Speaker 1: has been ramping up this investigation for some time. It's
Speaker 1: public knowledge that the grand jury has been meeting and
Speaker 1: as was close to returning an indictment. And still it's
Speaker 1: shocking to believe that this has actually occurred, that an
Speaker 1: indictment has been returned. And the first former president to
Speaker 1: face criminal charges that case will actually go forward. It's
Speaker 1: still something that is shocking that this has actually come
Speaker 1: to pass. So, Bob, we don't know what the grand
Speaker 1: jury exactly indicted on, but we have an eye idea.
Speaker 1: So tell us about how they're going to use this
Speaker 1: misdemeanor and try to make it into a felony. Well,
Speaker 1: the core of this case is under New York while
Speaker 1: falsifying business records, which can be a crime, and that's
Speaker 1: really the bread and butter for the white collar section
Speaker 1: of the District Attorney's Obviously they charge this falsification of
Speaker 1: business records all the time, something that's not unusual. But here,
Speaker 1: in order to turn this crime into a felony rather
Speaker 1: than a misdemeanor, they have to tie it to a
Speaker 1: second crime. And in this case, it appears that what
Speaker 1: the case is going to turn on is whether or
Speaker 1: not this concealment of these business records as falsifying of
Speaker 1: these business records also as a violation of federal election
Speaker 1: law and the facts here, which really is something that
Speaker 1: is out there now, there's no secret to what this
Speaker 1: case is going to be about. It's going to hinge
Speaker 1: on the handling of this PA and one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty thousand dollars which Michael Khone, the former president's lawyer,
Speaker 1: has said he used to pay off Stormy Daniels in
Speaker 1: order to conceal an alleged affair that President Trump had
Speaker 1: with Stormy Daniels leading into the election. And the question
Speaker 1: here the links beIN really of this whole case is
Speaker 1: going to be the district attorney's ability to prove that
Speaker 1: that money was paid in order to affect the election
Speaker 1: and not for some other reasons. So a defense here,
Speaker 1: for example, that the firm president could raise his Yes,
Speaker 1: I paid that money. He denies that he had the affair,
Speaker 1: but he said he's going to say, I would expect
Speaker 1: that he paid the money in order to save the
Speaker 1: embarrassment to his family and to his wife, and that's
Speaker 1: why he paid off the Stormy Daniels through Michael Kane.
Speaker 1: The government is going to have to prove the d
Speaker 1: is going to have to prove that it was done
Speaker 1: for the purpose of affecting the election and not merely
Speaker 1: in order to preserve the president's public image and to
Speaker 1: save his family from embarrassment. So, Bob, is this just
Speaker 1: novel legal theory or is there a precedent for anything
Speaker 1: like this where you begin with kind of the misdemeanor
Speaker 1: violation and then you pivot and then use that as
Speaker 1: the basis for a kind of a federal charge or
Speaker 1: a criminal charge on on a federal level. Yes, I
Speaker 1: mean that's a great question. I'm not aware of New
Speaker 1: York State prosecutors ever having filed an election law case
Speaker 1: involving a federal campaign before. So this case is novel.
Speaker 1: It's an untested case that no one has brought before
Speaker 1: from the Manhattan DA's office, and it's susceptible to being
Speaker 1: attacked both at the trial level, and even if they
Speaker 1: gain a conviction, it's susceptible to potentially being thrown out
Speaker 1: on appeal. So it is a high risk gambit for
Speaker 1: the Manhattan District Attorney's office to bring this case because
Speaker 1: it is an untested area, and generally prosecutors like to
Speaker 1: stay away from untested areas in civil litigation. You might
Speaker 1: want to bring a case that's never been brought before,
Speaker 1: But as prosecutors, generally, the idea is the law has
Speaker 1: to be black and white. You want to know what's
Speaker 1: right or what's wrong, and you don't want to be
Speaker 1: bringing a case that has never been tested in the
Speaker 1: courts before, because you might go through an entire trial,
Speaker 1: you might even gain a conviction, and then it might
Speaker 1: get thrown out on appeal. Bob. There's also the question
Speaker 1: of whether hush money payment can be a campaign donation.
Speaker 1: I mean, you remember what happened with the prosecution of
Speaker 1: Senator John Edwards, and I see that the Trump team
Speaker 1: has at times raised that They've said he didn't pay
Speaker 1: this hush money because of the campaign. He paid this
Speaker 1: hush money because he wanted to save his wife, Milania
Speaker 1: from being embarrassed. So that's may come up that kind
Speaker 1: of a defense here, Jordan. That exactly was the defense
Speaker 1: in the John Edwards case. That was the situation. If
Speaker 1: you're a call where Senator Edwards wife was battling cancer
Speaker 1: and they was a third party who paid off somebody,
Speaker 1: and that was part of the defense, and it worked.
Speaker 1: There was an acquittal in that case where the jury
Speaker 1: could not decide whether the money was paid for the
Speaker 1: purpose of protecting his position as somebody running for president,
Speaker 1: or whether it was done in order to protect his
Speaker 1: wife and his family. And the prosecutors here are going
Speaker 1: to be facing exactly the same dilemma. So, Bobby, one
Speaker 1: question is it regards you in regard to the investigation
Speaker 1: going on for five years. Is there a statute of
Speaker 1: limitations on any of this? Well, there's a statue of
Speaker 1: the limitations on the misdemeanor count of falsifying business records,
Speaker 1: which has expired. So the only way prosecutors can bring
Speaker 1: this case is by bringing it as a felony, and
Speaker 1: that would be within the statue of the limitations, just
Speaker 1: barely having brought it now, So the case is going
Speaker 1: to rise or fall on their ability to prove this
Speaker 1: felony case. So, Bob, I want to talk a minute
Speaker 1: about Michael colem because so much has been said about
Speaker 1: how he is going to be the star witness and
Speaker 1: all the problems he may encounter, and we saw that there.
Speaker 1: It appears that this indictment may have been delayed because
Speaker 1: the Trump team asked to have one of his former
Speaker 1: advisors come in, who undercut his credibility. So I'm wondering
Speaker 1: how much you think that's really a problem when he's
Speaker 1: been pretty consistent ever since he saw the light, let's
Speaker 1: say about about his position. So he's been pretty consistent
Speaker 1: about what he's said. Yeah, we know Michael Cohen has
Speaker 1: been in and out of the DA's office for a
Speaker 1: long time now, and we also know that he has
Speaker 1: produced these checks that were written by President Trump to
Speaker 1: him as reimbursement for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: that he paid personally to Stormy Daniels. And so there
Speaker 1: is a record here that seems to be consistent with
Speaker 1: Michael's co own testimony. On the other hand, we don't
Speaker 1: know else Michael Cohen may upset to prosecutors. We do
Speaker 1: know that he has told differing stories over time, and
Speaker 1: so he is going to be, in many ways the
Speaker 1: central focus of this case, and we don't know what
Speaker 1: else might be out there to potentially impeach his credibility.
Speaker 1: There was another case, there is another case going on
Speaker 1: in Georgia. We had the special grand jury meet in
Speaker 1: that case and recommend indictments. We don't have a lot
Speaker 1: of visibility into who may be indicted as far as
Speaker 1: I know, and I was asking June this question earlier, Bob,
Speaker 1: whether or not that prosecutor in that case has convened
Speaker 1: a grand jury now with the idea of pursuing criminal charges.
Speaker 1: Talk to me about the context of both of these
Speaker 1: cases seeming to kind of almost coincide with one another,
Speaker 1: and I'm wondering whether prosecutors would wait for the other
Speaker 1: to kind of make the first move. Is that part
Speaker 1: of the strategy here? If there is one, Well, that's
Speaker 1: really hard to say. These cases have taken a long time.
Speaker 1: I think from the standpoint of somebody like myself who
Speaker 1: was a federal prosecutor for ten years and who's been
Speaker 1: following these cases, they've taken a long time to work
Speaker 1: their way through the system and to get to where
Speaker 1: we are today. We know, for example, that federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: who charged Michael Khne Michael Kon as we know, pled
Speaker 1: guilty to these campaign violations, but federal prosecutors never took
Speaker 1: the additional step to charge President Trump. So they looked
Speaker 1: at this evidence and decided for whatever reason, and we
Speaker 1: don't know why, but they decided not to bring the
Speaker 1: federal case against President Trump at the time that they
Speaker 1: charged Michael Khone. The case going on in Georgia is
Speaker 1: a completely separate case regarding the president's elect interference with
Speaker 1: the election. That also has taken a long time. I
Speaker 1: think one of the things that we're seeing here, though,
Speaker 1: is while on the one hand, prosecutors like to take
Speaker 1: their time because they only get one shot really to
Speaker 1: get it right. You cannot go back usually fix these problems.
Speaker 1: Once you bring this indictment, the clock is then running,
Speaker 1: and everything then favors the defense in the sense that
Speaker 1: they have the right to a speedy trial, They have
Speaker 1: a right to their day in court. As the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: you better have all your ducks lined up, all your facts,
Speaker 1: all your witnesses set into place before you bring that indictment.
Speaker 1: So they want to take their time and get it right.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, they are racing against the political
Speaker 1: clock because they are not unmindful of the fact that
Speaker 1: there is an election coming up, the fact that President
Speaker 1: Trump is an announced candidate, There's primaries coming up, and
Speaker 1: the closer that any indictment gets to these primaries and
Speaker 1: to a potential presidential election, the more it looks like
Speaker 1: some kind of attempt to interfere with that election. That's
Speaker 1: not what prosecutors would say they're doing, but they also
Speaker 1: have to be aware of the appearance of that, and
Speaker 1: I think that's one of the reasons we're seeing prostitutors
Speaker 1: finally decide one way or the other which way they
Speaker 1: are going to go in these cases. And we saw
Speaker 1: that the Manhattander has decided to bring English indictment. Bob,
Speaker 1: this may be an unfair question, but I'm going to
Speaker 1: ask you anyway. What happens here is for let's say
Speaker 1: Georgia also comes in with an indictment. How do they
Speaker 1: decide which case takes precedent, which case goes first, and
Speaker 1: you know what happens if it does bump into the
Speaker 1: election electioneering? Well, that's a tough one because you've got
Speaker 1: two different judges and two different jurisdictions. They don't really
Speaker 1: control one another, they don't answer to one another, but
Speaker 1: they are mindful of what's going on. You know, typically
Speaker 1: you have a situation where you've got a federal judge
Speaker 1: on a state court judge. The federal case usually takes precedent,
Speaker 1: so you will see a state corp judge decides to
Speaker 1: take have their case sort of put on the back
Speaker 1: burner and allow the federal case to play out. But
Speaker 1: here this case is obviously being brought in state court
Speaker 1: in New York. The case in Georgia would also be
Speaker 1: before a state court judge. So it's really going to
Speaker 1: be up to the prosecutors and the judges who were
Speaker 1: involved here to determine which case is going to take precedent.
Speaker 1: I suspect they'll look at the cases, they'll decide how
Speaker 1: complicated they are. They may look and decide, you know,
Speaker 1: which case seems to be the stronger case or which
Speaker 1: case is more likely to get a conviction, and that
Speaker 1: may play into the decision about which case to bring first.
Speaker 1: But the short answer to your question, Tune, is that
Speaker 1: there is no plea book. There is no rule as
Speaker 1: to which case goes first. And you forgot the special counsel. Oh,
Speaker 1: that would be a federal case that would take precedent
Speaker 1: most definitely. Let's not go there yet, Bob, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for being with us. Robert Mens's former federal prosecutor,
Speaker 1: is also a partner at McCarter and English. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Special coverage of the news that broke within the
Speaker 1: last hour or so. Donald Trump has been indicted by
Speaker 1: the New York District Attorney for directing hush money payments
Speaker 1: to a porn star during his twenty sixteen campaign. Let's
Speaker 1: bring in Bloomberg's Politics contributor g Genie Schanzano, who joins us. Now, Genie,
Speaker 1: I know that you and Joe Matthew were talking earlier
Speaker 1: about this as the news broke during your TV program.
Speaker 1: I'd like to get your reaction. Yeah. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think the word that comes to mind is unprecedented. And
Speaker 1: we don't know what is going to happen. We don't
Speaker 1: know the charges against him, But what we do know
Speaker 1: is that we have a former president who is going
Speaker 1: to have a mug shot and has his fingerprints taken,
Speaker 1: and who can still run for president from behind bars,
Speaker 1: who just the other day went to Waco where his
Speaker 1: campaign designed these signs which talked about a witch hunt,
Speaker 1: and he is going to continue to use that as
Speaker 1: a way to drum up support. And the other thing
Speaker 1: I would say, just today, we're looking at poles which
Speaker 1: show him with a double digit lead in the Republican
Speaker 1: nomination for president. So you know, when you say unprecedented,
Speaker 1: when you say no rule books, that is exactly where
Speaker 1: we are today. And oh, by the way, this is
Speaker 1: the first, as you've been talking about, of many potential prosecutions.
Speaker 1: In other words, the or indictments, I should say, in
Speaker 1: other words, only the beginning and what is going to
Speaker 1: unfold to be a real, you know, contentious and sort
Speaker 1: of unpredictable election season as we move into twenty four.
Speaker 1: Let's bring in Joe Matthew next. He is Bloomberg's Washington correspondent.
Speaker 1: I want to correct what I just said earlier, Joe,
Speaker 1: I thought Cheney joined you today on the TV program
Speaker 1: when this news broke. I guess that wasn't the radio
Speaker 1: program earlier. Okay, but you were on television when this
Speaker 1: news broke. It was first reported by the New York
Speaker 1: Times during your roundtable discussions. What are some of the
Speaker 1: angles that you were able to tease out on this? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's just depends who you want to
Speaker 1: ask here. One of the questions we've been asking is
Speaker 1: what's the response from Democrats and specifically the administration. The
Speaker 1: answer is none. They're not weighing in on this, and
Speaker 1: it says a lot about the posture of a president
Speaker 1: in the case of Joe Biden, who's considering announcing a
Speaker 1: run for reelection. On the other hand, we saw other
Speaker 1: Democrats like Maxine Waters celebrating this, which really could it
Speaker 1: be a political risk if it does fulfill the narrative
Speaker 1: that Trump supporters have that this is a political attack.
Speaker 1: I do want to mention I spent some time with
Speaker 1: Lannie Davis earlier this week. That's Michael Cohen's lawyer, and
Speaker 1: he just sent me a statement on this, because you know,
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen went to jail. He actually did jail time
Speaker 1: for this, for providing the payments that he says he
Speaker 1: was reimbursed by from Donald Trump. Michael Cohen, he writes,
Speaker 1: made the brave decision to speak truth to power and
Speaker 1: accept the consequences, and has done so ever since. I'm
Speaker 1: proud to have been his lawyer and his friend through
Speaker 1: this long journey on the path to justice and accountability.
Speaker 1: So that's the side the message coming from Michael cohenside.
Speaker 1: We also heard from MAGA Inc statement from Taylor Buddh
Speaker 1: which at MAGA Pack says, this is not an indictment
Speaker 1: of a crime, there was no crime. Instead, this news
Speaker 1: is the indictment of a failed nation. That sounds a
Speaker 1: lot like what we heard from President Trump last weekend
Speaker 1: in Waco. Doug He says that they're coming after me
Speaker 1: because they can't beat me at the ballot box. He
Speaker 1: calls this a new form of election interference. But he
Speaker 1: was able to do a great deal of fundraising as
Speaker 1: a result of he said it right. He sure did
Speaker 1: that day that he said I'll be arrested on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: That goes back to tuesdays now. He raised an enormous
Speaker 1: amount of money, and I suspect that more fundraising emails
Speaker 1: will go out now that it's actually happened. To Genie's point,
Speaker 1: he gets potentially several more turns here. Fulton County, Georgia
Speaker 1: and the Special Council here in Washington are making great progress.
Speaker 1: We actually thought we'd hear from Georgia first. I don't
Speaker 1: know how Genie would agree with me on this, but
Speaker 1: that would suggest that we could hear from Fulton County
Speaker 1: literally any day. Now. Imagine now not only the first
Speaker 1: ever indictment of a former president who happens to be
Speaker 1: seeking reelection, but it would be the first ever multiple
Speaker 1: indictments at once. Genie, you want to weigh in on
Speaker 1: that the Georgia case. Yeah, I think we're what we're
Speaker 1: going to hear in reaction to that, And as Joe mentioned,
Speaker 1: it's a stunning, absolute possibility, you know, is what Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan tweeted, you have a representative in Congress, a leader
Speaker 1: on the Republican side, tweeting outrageous in response to this indictment.
Speaker 1: So you can imagine if the Fulton County prosecutor comes
Speaker 1: down with another indictment. And the challenge here is do
Speaker 1: these multiple indictments seem to Trump reporters and quite frankly
Speaker 1: many on the Republican side, as what Joe described as
Speaker 1: election interference. And this allows Donald Trump to portray himself
Speaker 1: as a victim. And his message has always been not
Speaker 1: just that he's a victim, but that his supporters are
Speaker 1: a victim, that this is a witch hunt not just
Speaker 1: against him, but of them. And he always says, if
Speaker 1: they can do this to me, they'll do this to you.
Speaker 1: So that's what we'll expect to hear from the campaign.
Speaker 1: And I think if we do hear of Fulton County indictment,
Speaker 1: and let's not forget about the federal potential indictments that
Speaker 1: could come down, we are going to hear that in
Speaker 1: steroids as we see these multiple mug shots of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Alan Dershowitz on a conservative network just after this indictment
Speaker 1: is announced, says he's going to use that mug shot
Speaker 1: potentially Donald Trump as a poster for his presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: Imagine that. Well, but Joe, that's an interesting point. I
Speaker 1: mean Donald Trump. By the way, guys, this is the
Speaker 1: first time we're hearing from him. This is a it's long,
Speaker 1: it looks like a newspaper article. But I'll just give
Speaker 1: you a couple of highlights. This is political persecution and
Speaker 1: election interference at the highest level in history. From the
Speaker 1: time I came down the Golden escalator at Trump Tower,
Speaker 1: the radical left Democrats have been engaged in a witch
Speaker 1: hunt to destroy the Make America Again movement. Now I'm
Speaker 1: going to do a little site editing here. Never before
Speaker 1: in our nation's history has this been done. He goes
Speaker 1: on to say Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg handpicked and funded
Speaker 1: by George Soros, and we continue to hear that dog
Speaker 1: whistle is a disgrace. He goes on further to right,
Speaker 1: I believe this witch hunt will backfire. Are massively on
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, and he uses the word we here. We
Speaker 1: will defeat Joe Biden. We are going to throw every
Speaker 1: last one of these crooked Democrats out of office so
Speaker 1: we can make America great again. There you have it
Speaker 1: now at six twenty two pm Eastern time, the statement
Speaker 1: from Donald J. Trump, Joe, I want to bring in
Speaker 1: June Grasso, who is our legal expert here in the
Speaker 1: New York studio. June. We know that the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice now has Jack Smith a special council working on
Speaker 1: two separate cases. Does this necessarily slow in any way
Speaker 1: his intention or strategy, not at all, And he is
Speaker 1: moving at warp speed. You just found out this week
Speaker 1: that Mike Pence has been ordered to testify by a
Speaker 1: judge to testify to the grand jury in that case,
Speaker 1: the case involving January sixth, an investigation into whether Donald
Speaker 1: Trump or his allies had any criminal activities with regard
Speaker 1: to January sixth. So he's moving forward. He's got he's
Speaker 1: got people coming in from lets. His lawyer, he had
Speaker 1: his lawyer, Evan Corkrane come in and they've been fighting
Speaker 1: all these different subpoenas and they've won all of them
Speaker 1: as far as I can, as far as I know.
Speaker 1: So they've won all these subpoenas with really unusual kinds
Speaker 1: of arguments. Evan Corkrane, they used an argument that it
Speaker 1: was an attorney client privilege, and they came back with
Speaker 1: a crime fraud exception to that, and Mike Pence used
Speaker 1: the theory that it was based on the speech or
Speaker 1: debate clause, and the judge said, you can use that
Speaker 1: for some of it, but you can't use it for
Speaker 1: all of it, because everything you did that day was
Speaker 1: not related to your activities on the floor of the House.
Speaker 1: So I'm just saying they are moving really fast. They're
Speaker 1: getting a lot of witnesses that the January sixth Committee
Speaker 1: couldn't get, and that I don't think anyone else has
Speaker 1: gotten either, Mark Meadows, So I think that they're moving
Speaker 1: very quickly, and I don't think that and there if
Speaker 1: they indict, that will take precedence over the state investigations
Speaker 1: will move forward first. That's interesting, Joe. What do we
Speaker 1: know about a reaction either from let's say, Ronda Santis
Speaker 1: or Nicky Haley, any of the other candidates that are
Speaker 1: chasing the GOP nomination. We haven't heard from candidates yet.
Speaker 1: We have heard from a number of lawmakers on both
Speaker 1: sides of the Aisle Adam Schiff Democrat of course Thorn
Speaker 1: on the side of Donald Trump, whose years in the
Speaker 1: White House and in fact was an impeachment. Manager says
Speaker 1: the indictment of a former president is unprecedented, but so
Speaker 1: too is the unlawful conduct in which Trump has been engaged.
Speaker 1: We saw a celebratory statement from Maxine Waters. We've also
Speaker 1: heard very different statements from some Republicans, and they're calling
Speaker 1: this a witch hunt. So so far it, Douget's been
Speaker 1: very predictable. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm just
Speaker 1: really curious to hear what happens when centrists are called
Speaker 1: to speak about this, particularly Democrats who want in Trump districts,
Speaker 1: Republicans who want in Biden districts and have a potential
Speaker 1: a lot to lose if they say the wrong thing
Speaker 1: in the next cycle. So, Genie, neither a criminal charge
Speaker 1: nor a conviction would disqualify mister Trump in any way
Speaker 1: from running or even serving as president. And I'm probably
Speaker 1: going to bet that he is going to proceed here
Speaker 1: full more without kind of tripping over any of these
Speaker 1: legal stumbling blocks. I mean, he knows what he's wants
Speaker 1: and he's going to get there. Yeah. I mean, his
Speaker 1: team has been preparing for this. I think it's clear
Speaker 1: that they did not expect it today. They thought that
Speaker 1: the grand jury was going to be out, they had
Speaker 1: a little bit of time, so I think the timing
Speaker 1: of this coming this afternoon was a shock, but the
Speaker 1: fact that he might be indicted not a shock at all.
Speaker 1: They've been preparing for this. That's why they have the
Speaker 1: witch hunt posters printed. And he is going to run.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've seen this before. Eugene V. Debs in
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty sits in prison for espionage and runs for president.
Speaker 1: So it is absolutely constitutional for him to do it,
Speaker 1: and he has said he will do it, and in fact,
Speaker 1: he is going to use it. He says to make
Speaker 1: the case that he is, as Joe was talking about,
Speaker 1: the victim of political persecution, the victim of election interference,
Speaker 1: that this has been a plan by Democrats. And he
Speaker 1: uses these sort of tropes that he talks about in
Speaker 1: these statements about Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan Day and others
Speaker 1: that are xenophobic and racist. He's used them and tried
Speaker 1: to use them to his advantage. And of course I'm
Speaker 1: looking right now at the Real Clear Politics average. He
Speaker 1: is seventeen points ahead in the Real Clear Politics average.
Speaker 1: So his numbers, by the way, in the last month
Speaker 1: have double digit gone up. So if anybody thinks that
Speaker 1: he is sort of, you know, going to be a
Speaker 1: victimized by this in terms of his support in the
Speaker 1: Republican side, we haven't seen that in the polls yet.
Speaker 1: Of course, the indictment just coming out now, so maybe
Speaker 1: that changes in the next couple of weeks. Joe, talk
Speaker 1: to me a little bit about the reaction that may
Speaker 1: happen from on the part of Trump's supporters to today's
Speaker 1: news and the concern. I'm I'm sure in a number
Speaker 1: of jurisdictions that there could be a level of protesting
Speaker 1: that may risk on I don't want to say violence
Speaker 1: or anything like that, but you know what I'm talking about. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think we can say there's been a
Speaker 1: lot of concern about this. I'm glad you brought it up, Doug.
Speaker 1: There's a reason why barricades are up in front of
Speaker 1: the courthouse in New York. There's a reason why the
Speaker 1: barricades went back up around the Capitol here in Washington.
Speaker 1: When the former president says, you know, kind of following
Speaker 1: up on his it'll be wild a tweak going back
Speaker 1: to January six, we says, protest save our country calling
Speaker 1: for the potential, at least as he said he didn't.
Speaker 1: He didn't call for it, but he was warning of
Speaker 1: the potential for death and destruction. We haven't seen this
Speaker 1: happen yet, though, Doug. You know, when this first was
Speaker 1: brought to our attention by the former president saying is
Speaker 1: going to be arrested to tuesdays ago, there were more
Speaker 1: reporters than protesters in outside that courthouse. And it does
Speaker 1: make you wonder after what we saw in January six
Speaker 1: the hundreds of people who are actually in jail, what
Speaker 1: they did attacking our capital, if they know better. The
Speaker 1: real concern from authorities we've talked to here is a
Speaker 1: lone wolf, somebody driving into the barricade at the capital,
Speaker 1: somebody doing something stupid in front of the courthouse, as
Speaker 1: opposed to an organized event, an organized attack like we
Speaker 1: saw in January sixth. Yeah, most definitely big concern. June
Speaker 1: final thoughts, as we kind of rap, I'm sort of
Speaker 1: numb because we were expecting this for so long, and
Speaker 1: then we sort of put it aside and started to
Speaker 1: think that maybe it wouldn't happen. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: going to be an incredible case, whether it's a misdemeanor
Speaker 1: and a felony hook together. But it's going to be
Speaker 1: an incredible case and we'll see something that we've never
Speaker 1: seen before. We'll see how a president is treated in
Speaker 1: a criminal trial. It's going to be you know, I
Speaker 1: have only superlatives right now. Okay, Well, I want you
Speaker 1: to stick around, June, because we're going to be speaking
Speaker 1: with Michael Zelden in a moment. I want to say
Speaker 1: goodbye and thanks to Joe Matthew, who is a Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Washington correspond and Jeanie Shanzano, who is a Bloomberg Politics contributor,
Speaker 1: joining us as we unpack the news of the last hour,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump being indicted by the New York District Attorney
Speaker 1: for directing hush hush money payments to a porn star
Speaker 1: during his twenty sixteen campaign. All right, now, let's get
Speaker 1: to our guest. We are joined by Michael Zelden. He
Speaker 1: is a former federal prosecutor and former special counsel to
Speaker 1: Robert Muller. He had worked at the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: Mister Zelden, thanks for being with us. Let me get
Speaker 1: your reaction right out of the gate. Well, it's a
Speaker 1: little bit surprising As to the timing, we all thought
Speaker 1: that the grand jury was on pause for minutes, so
Speaker 1: that came as a bit of a surprise. As to
Speaker 1: the merits of the case, we have to see the indictment.
Speaker 1: There are people like me who worried about the integrity
Speaker 1: of a case like this, A state pavement of hush
Speaker 1: money tied to a federal election case never been done before.
Speaker 1: Whether it's a viable legal theory remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: So really we're in the oh my god, he's been
Speaker 1: indicted moment, and now let's see what the prosecutors can
Speaker 1: show us gave reason for that indictment. So, Michael, you
Speaker 1: talked about this novel legal theory. Do you think that
Speaker 1: it's something that a judge might dismiss even before the
Speaker 1: case got to trial. Is it that novel? I don't
Speaker 1: know that it would be that novel that it would
Speaker 1: be dismissed before the case, But it could get dismissed
Speaker 1: mid case, you know, after the prosecution rests, the government
Speaker 1: then turns over to defense and they can move him
Speaker 1: to have the case dismissed at that point. But I
Speaker 1: think on the paper it probably won't get dismissed. It
Speaker 1: probably should go to a jury. But it's a great
Speaker 1: question because the theory is novel. We have to wait
Speaker 1: and see whether the court thinks that it's so novel
Speaker 1: that it is worthy of going forward to the jury
Speaker 1: or gets dismissed right out. We just don't know. We
Speaker 1: know the prosecution star witnesses Michael Cohen, and he is
Speaker 1: a felon, He's been convicted and served time. Does that
Speaker 1: majorly erode his credibility in a case like this? Sure?
Speaker 1: And one of the things that I saw on the
Speaker 1: news today was that Alan Weisselberg, the CFO of the
Speaker 1: Trump organization who's in jail on unrelated charges, has changed
Speaker 1: lawyers from a Trump paid for a lawyer to a
Speaker 1: new legal team, And that gave me pause to wonder
Speaker 1: when whether he's going to start cooperating, because he's the
Speaker 1: person who can make this case much better than Cohen. He,
Speaker 1: though convicted of a crime, really knows much more about
Speaker 1: the financial dealings than does Michael Cohen. So if you've
Speaker 1: just got to Michael cohen witness and documents and an
Speaker 1: argument that this was a payment made not to violate
Speaker 1: through election law, but rather just to protect his family
Speaker 1: from the allegations. It's a very triable case. But they've
Speaker 1: been trying to flip him or prosecutors try to flip
Speaker 1: him for the longest time, and they couldn't. They couldn't
Speaker 1: flip him to testify against Trump. He would testified to
Speaker 1: what happened in the company. But he didn't testify against Trump.
Speaker 1: And he's still being paid by the Trump organization a
Speaker 1: lot of money. Do you really think that he would
Speaker 1: that they'd be able to flip him at this point
Speaker 1: after he's gone to prison. Well, it depends on what
Speaker 1: they have to offer him. For example, if they have
Speaker 1: to offer him another indictment for some type of insurance
Speaker 1: fraud which you've heard about, and he spent time in
Speaker 1: Rikers Island and he knows how unpleasant that is, and
Speaker 1: he's facing the postil he's spending even more time there.
Speaker 1: That might be enough to have him change his mind.
Speaker 1: If they're just saying, please, out of the goodness of
Speaker 1: your heart, do it. There's not a chance when it
Speaker 1: comes to trying to find a jury during the dear process.
Speaker 1: I mean, here we are in Manhattan, and I'm wondering
Speaker 1: whether or not it's going to be very difficult for
Speaker 1: the Trump legal team to even come to an agreement
Speaker 1: with a DA's office on a suitable jury. Is that
Speaker 1: going to be a huge hurtle as well? Well. It's
Speaker 1: going to be a big issue for the judge to
Speaker 1: make sure that the jury's selection process is fair to
Speaker 1: the defendant and fair to the prosecution. And I expect
Speaker 1: that will take a long time. But we have other
Speaker 1: cases that are almost equally famous, though not a former president,
Speaker 1: where they have successfully selected jewelry. So I'm not of
Speaker 1: the mind that they won't be able to do it here.
Speaker 1: It just has to be very carefully undertaken. You can
Speaker 1: have people who have a predisposition of guilt or innocence
Speaker 1: prior to their being seated as a juror and listening
Speaker 1: to the evidence that is accepted in the court. How
Speaker 1: much if you had to bet on it? How much
Speaker 1: of a spectacle do you think Donald Trump will try
Speaker 1: to make out of this arrest or do you think
Speaker 1: it's going to be handled as you know all the
Speaker 1: high profile arrests are. He turns himself in, he gets
Speaker 1: you booked, we see the mug shots eventually, but not
Speaker 1: a lot of hoop law. Are you asking whether Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is able to change his spots at this point
Speaker 1: in his life. I think the answer to that probably
Speaker 1: is no. I expect that, as with the other cases
Speaker 1: with lawyers who have begged him to please ratcheted down
Speaker 1: and he has refused, that will be the case here there.
Speaker 1: I don't think any lawyer really wants their client out
Speaker 1: in the public speaking the way the President has spoken
Speaker 1: in previous cases. So I don't think the president is
Speaker 1: capable of change. Lucky, there's no escalator to come down
Speaker 1: to the arraignment. If you're part of the Trump legal team,
Speaker 1: I mean, are you pretty confident that you understand all
Speaker 1: the evidence against your client at this point or could
Speaker 1: there be a process of discovery where you learn more
Speaker 1: about the evidence that would be kind of incriminating you
Speaker 1: for your client. I think you have a sense of
Speaker 1: what's going on here evidentually, but of course you want
Speaker 1: to find out more. You want to know there have
Speaker 1: been people going in and out of that grand jury
Speaker 1: for a very long time, there have been documents have
Speaker 1: been presented today grandjury for a very low time, and
Speaker 1: as defense counsel, you're entitled to know about this stuff,
Speaker 1: and so you're going to vigorously seek additional information about
Speaker 1: what the charges are. But that said, I think that
Speaker 1: the lawyers for Trump understand pretty fundamentally what's at play here.
Speaker 1: Joan Anything, Well, I'm sort of I think I think we've,
Speaker 1: like I know what, let's talk about the Special counsel
Speaker 1: for a minute and that investigation. Do you think that
Speaker 1: investigation will overtake this investigation? Which of the aspects of
Speaker 1: the Special Council, of the Moro Lago documents or genuinely
Speaker 1: either one? You pick? You pick one. If there's a
Speaker 1: there's a whole realm of possible indictments here, and we'll
Speaker 1: be on air now till about nine tonight. Which is
Speaker 1: the stronger case as you see things at this point? Well,
Speaker 1: it's interesting because both cases now have had very recent
Speaker 1: important developments. In both cases, I believe that the prosecutor
Speaker 1: has needed more direct evidence tying Donald Trump to the activities.
Speaker 1: So in Mara Lago, I think we needed more evidence
Speaker 1: about Trump and the documents and what he said and
Speaker 1: did with respect to those documents. We now know that
Speaker 1: his former lawyer Corkran, who tried to evade testimony assertions
Speaker 1: of executive privilege, has been required to testify and he
Speaker 1: was in the grand jury for three hours. We know
Speaker 1: that the person who worked on Trump's security team that
Speaker 1: actually moved the boxes may well have to testify too,
Speaker 1: So those are very important witnesses to understand whether they
Speaker 1: obstructionist behavior. Similarly, in January six we now know that
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows and a whole host of other inner circle
Speaker 1: Trump people have been required to testify in that case.
Speaker 1: So in both cases we're getting inside the sort of
Speaker 1: dome of Trump's inner circle to see what Trump knew
Speaker 1: and did. And I think both of those cases there
Speaker 1: for are in a much stronger position they were a
Speaker 1: week or so ago, which is the more which is
Speaker 1: a stronger case. I think the Mari Lago case is
Speaker 1: the more straightforward case if they can tie Trump to
Speaker 1: obstructing the investigation, that is, he gave directions of any
Speaker 1: sort to not reply to the grandeous speedis I think
Speaker 1: it's a much more cut and dried case. The January
Speaker 1: sixth case of conspiracy to evade, to avoid, and to
Speaker 1: obstruct the transfer power a little bit more complicated case.
Speaker 1: So if I had to pick one or the other,
Speaker 1: if I were prosecutives that pick one or the other
Speaker 1: to try, and I had the evidence to tie Trump
Speaker 1: to the activity. I'll go at the Marlongo doc so
Speaker 1: Michael June made the case earlier that Special Council Jack
Speaker 1: Smith has been moving very, very expeditiously, and I'm wondering
Speaker 1: whether or not the developments today this indictment from the
Speaker 1: New York DA proves to be a little bit of
Speaker 1: an accelerant to that process, does it or does Jack
Speaker 1: Smith continue to move at his own pace irrespective of
Speaker 1: what we've learned today. I think the latter. I think
Speaker 1: that he has to be bound by the law and
Speaker 1: facts in his case that this doesn't put any additional
Speaker 1: pressure on him to be second, if you will, I
Speaker 1: think that all of these guys, unless they have a
Speaker 1: statue of limitations like New York had where they had
Speaker 1: to move quickly before the statue of limitations ran out,
Speaker 1: which is still a sort of an issue there, I
Speaker 1: think these guys have to go at their own pace
Speaker 1: and make their determinations on the facts and the evidence
Speaker 1: that they're able to acquire. Great conversation, Michael, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for making time to chat with us on
Speaker 1: today's developments. He is Michael Zeldon, former federal prosecutor and
Speaker 1: former special counsel to Robert Muller when he worked at
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice June. Before we get to our
Speaker 1: next guest, is there anything that came out of that
Speaker 1: conversation that caused you to think of something in a
Speaker 1: way maybe that you hadn't thought of previously. Well, I
Speaker 1: think you know, truth be told, we've all discussed these
Speaker 1: cases and they haven't even been brought yet. We've all
Speaker 1: discussed these cases over and over and over again, all
Speaker 1: the little details. I mean, how many cases do you
Speaker 1: know about each subpoena that's been served in all the
Speaker 1: different objections to the subpoena end, do you get a
Speaker 1: comment from the possible defendant on it? So, I think
Speaker 1: that you know, we know the facts. As Bob min
Speaker 1: sends before, the facts are not going to surprise us
Speaker 1: in this case. We know the facts. The question is
Speaker 1: whether putting those facts before a jury and the novel theory,
Speaker 1: whether the jury will convict. Let's bring in Jack Fitzpatrick.
Speaker 1: He is Bloomberg government congressional reporter who joins us on
Speaker 1: the line from Washington. Jack, have you had any reaction
Speaker 1: or learned of any reaction on the part of the
Speaker 1: White House not from the White House yet. It'll be
Speaker 1: very interesting to see how they handle this. It is
Speaker 1: such an unprecedented event that it's hard to imagine that
Speaker 1: they will not put out a comment. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, with the legal troubles around former President Trump,
Speaker 1: it's not something that President Biden has engaged in very frequently,
Speaker 1: so it's a difficult position for them. But at this
Speaker 1: point they are They have not put out a statement
Speaker 1: just yet. It is six forty on Wall Street. You're
Speaker 1: listening to a special coverage. Normally it would be Daybreak Asia,
Speaker 1: but we have preempted that programming to cover the indictment
Speaker 1: of former President Donald Trump here in New York City
Speaker 1: by the city's District Attorney, the charge directing hush money
Speaker 1: payments to a porn star during his twenty sixteen campaign.
Speaker 1: I say that loosely because June, at this point we
Speaker 1: don't know of the specific charges. I just want to
Speaker 1: be specific about that, and I also want to be
Speaker 1: specific in bringing back into the conversation Bloomberg's Ed Baxter,
Speaker 1: who joins us from our newsroom in San Francisco. Eddie,
Speaker 1: I'll turn things over to you, let me ask Jack.
Speaker 1: Then I want to I want to and I know
Speaker 1: that we've talked about this during the hour, but how
Speaker 1: do mister Trump will try? He's a master of rolling
Speaker 1: this and spenning this. How does he spin it and
Speaker 1: actually politically I guess we'll have to wait and see
Speaker 1: some But does this work in his favor? He will
Speaker 1: definitely try to make this work in his favor. It
Speaker 1: raises some questions about how many people will consider this
Speaker 1: something that works in his favor. There is a statement
Speaker 1: out by the former president, a long statement essentially thinking
Speaker 1: this is political persecution and election interference. It's a long
Speaker 1: list of his complains about how he's been treated, taking
Speaker 1: shots at the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg considering that he
Speaker 1: got out in front of this. This for his die
Speaker 1: hard supporters could present a fundraising opportunity, but it certainly
Speaker 1: raises questions about how other Republicans respond to it. What
Speaker 1: Ron De Santis has to say, what Nicky Haley has
Speaker 1: to say, what maybe more moderate Republican voters think about this.
Speaker 1: So it may be sort of a split answer in
Speaker 1: terms of if it helps him with some die hard
Speaker 1: supporters but hurts him elsewhere. Now appalling wise, he is
Speaker 1: still acting showing very very very strongly with his base.
Speaker 1: But within the Republican Party, have we seen any signs
Speaker 1: whatsoever that an indictment could weaken that support or do
Speaker 1: we know or could have strengthen it. That is very
Speaker 1: difficult to predict, and to be honest, at this point
Speaker 1: when you look at the polls and you see he
Speaker 1: is the front runner in a sense. There was just
Speaker 1: a Fox News poll showing Trump in a theoretical Republican
Speaker 1: primary matchup with fifty four percent, a thirty point advantage
Speaker 1: over RHN DE Santists. But remember that it is still
Speaker 1: March twenty twenty three. Desantists has not launched a campaign.
Speaker 1: People are not coming after him just yet. A lot
Speaker 1: of Republicans are playing this very carefully, maybe alluding to
Speaker 1: it at times. There is a statement by Decantists that
Speaker 1: will alluded to his legal troubles, but really, we won't
Speaker 1: know how this plays in polls one until we get
Speaker 1: the polls in two, until someone whether it's RHN DE
Speaker 1: Santist or some other competition decides to go after him
Speaker 1: and make it an issue and try to really make
Speaker 1: a run. Yeah, Jack's hanging there for a second, because
Speaker 1: we are getting a headline up on the terminal that
Speaker 1: it looks like the arraignment, at least according to CNN,
Speaker 1: will happen our early next week. So June, let me
Speaker 1: ask you, and for somebody who's just tuning in to Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: the legal process itself. Obviously, it's not going to be
Speaker 1: as public as the end quotes average citizen. But what
Speaker 1: do we expect for the arraignment and for any kind
Speaker 1: of arrest. Well, first of all, Alvin Bragg's office is
Speaker 1: going to work with Donald Trump's attorneys to arrange him
Speaker 1: turning himself in, so there won't be any purer walk.
Speaker 1: There won't be any handcuffs, though I have heard that
Speaker 1: there have been discussions about whether or not there might
Speaker 1: be handcuffs at some point. That's still an issue apparently,
Speaker 1: but there don't have to be handcuffs. And also, the
Speaker 1: Secret Service has been coordinating security plans with the NYPD,
Speaker 1: and the event of an indictment in arraignment, the arraignment
Speaker 1: would take place in open courtroom in Manhattan. Trump would
Speaker 1: be fingerprinted and booked before that, and that mug shot
Speaker 1: most likely will find its way to you know, every
Speaker 1: media outlet in the country. So as far as that
Speaker 1: the fingerprinting and the booking that would be done as
Speaker 1: in any other case, and then he'll be arraigned in
Speaker 1: open court. And as I said before, it's it's not likely,
Speaker 1: it's unlikely that he you know, that there would be
Speaker 1: any question of bail or anything like that. They'll release
Speaker 1: him on his own recognizance, and then the next step
Speaker 1: depends on, you know, the judge when the next date
Speaker 1: is that they'll do something in court. But you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of this is up to Donald Trump, whether
Speaker 1: he wants to keep this, you know, just driving down
Speaker 1: to the office and turning himself in, or whether he's
Speaker 1: going to come out of the court house after that
Speaker 1: and appear before his whoever's gathered there. I mean, you
Speaker 1: have to say one thing, The New York Police Department
Speaker 1: is ready for whatever happened. They have barricades up, they
Speaker 1: have put special cameras on top of the telephone poles,
Speaker 1: and they're prepared for this. They've dealt with all kinds
Speaker 1: of you know, large groups in different circumstances, and I
Speaker 1: don't think anything will happen in New York. I think
Speaker 1: they're well prepared for what's going to For whatever happens here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and of course there have been just in social media,
Speaker 1: there have been memes there, you know, the late night
Speaker 1: comedians have shown pictures of him behind bars. At this point,
Speaker 1: there's no realistic thinking that he will spend any time
Speaker 1: in jail or is there No. I don't know even
Speaker 1: if he's convicted, if he would spend any time in jail.
Speaker 1: To tell you the truth, just remember this, he travels
Speaker 1: with a Secret Service contingent. So if you even thought
Speaker 1: about putting him in jail with a Secret Service agents
Speaker 1: being the cell with him, would they be outside? There's
Speaker 1: no way he will. He will be held in a
Speaker 1: in a prison cell. Yeah, Okay, and Jack then you know, politically,
Speaker 1: he's still doing a lot of stuff on social media
Speaker 1: and campaign he has announced for the presidency. Does this
Speaker 1: keep him from from doing any of the campaign rallies,
Speaker 1: to do any of campaigning, or do we expect that
Speaker 1: he might even step it up? Well, well, we'll see
Speaker 1: how the exactly how this plays out and what the
Speaker 1: logistics of it are. But I mean it's something he's
Speaker 1: already played up. He also has not been extremely active
Speaker 1: yet because we are early in the presidential cycle for
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. He hasn't been, you know, Cris crossing
Speaker 1: the country constantly on a presidential campaign trail. So there
Speaker 1: are a lot of unknowns, but it does not seem
Speaker 1: like we are at a point right now where this
Speaker 1: would immediately interfere with his political plans. In fact, it's
Speaker 1: something that he has played up and potentially could fundraise
Speaker 1: off of. Not that this is a good thing for
Speaker 1: him overall, necessarily, but it is something that he is
Speaker 1: speaking out about very publicly and seemingly trying to use
Speaker 1: to motivate his core supporters. Still, okay, Jack, Hey, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your help. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's Jack Fitzpatrick, Um, let's bring in June. You're still there,
Speaker 1: I know, and we're going to bring in Joshua at Katzenberg,
Speaker 1: professor at University of New Mexico Law School. I know
Speaker 1: you know Joshua very well. June. You want to go ahead,
Speaker 1: and well, you know, I'll ask the question. The first
Speaker 1: question that we're that we're asking basically every guest, is
Speaker 1: what's your reaction to this finally happening. Well, I think
Speaker 1: it's settles, you know, it settles a question in my
Speaker 1: mind as to whether or not a former president can
Speaker 1: ever be indicted. You know, we've seen this happen in
Speaker 1: other democracies, in Italy, in France, in particular, in Japan.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a Japanese prime minister indicted over
Speaker 1: a Lockheed scandal in the nineteen seventies. And so I
Speaker 1: don't think it's an unhealthy thing for a former president
Speaker 1: to be on the same position is everybody else in
Speaker 1: the country. But but yeah, I'm surprised that it happened
Speaker 1: with the rapidity it did. Yeah, So so Joshua the
Speaker 1: path of this, then he'll go through because this is
Speaker 1: a Manhattan District attorney, so he'll go through basically a
Speaker 1: local process. He in the past has liked to go
Speaker 1: in the process of basically appealing everything all the way
Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court. Where how does this go?
Speaker 1: Where does it end? Well, most of it will stay
Speaker 1: in state court. It's very difficult to get a federal
Speaker 1: court to review state criminal court actions. There is a
Speaker 1: very narrow appeal process under the federal rules of civil
Speaker 1: procedure to do so. But we don't know what arguments
Speaker 1: will raise and just the this isn't fair, it's politically
Speaker 1: motivated that doesn't get you into federal court. What is
Speaker 1: likely to flow this process down is something known as
Speaker 1: this goovery. The defense counsel in this case will undoubtedly
Speaker 1: file dozens and dozens of motions that are not frivolous
Speaker 1: but will come up the works, and so we won't
Speaker 1: have an answer as to what the jury will see
Speaker 1: for a while to come. Okay, And does this any
Speaker 1: way interact with the timing of the other cases, I
Speaker 1: know with us Hour, we've talked about We've talked about Georgia.
Speaker 1: You have also the classified documents. Do just behind the
Speaker 1: scenes in the legal boardrooms. Do you wait and time
Speaker 1: and do this or can all of these kind of
Speaker 1: merge together? Well? You know, the New York Manhattan District
Speaker 1: Attorney in the Fulton County prosecutor down in Georgia are
Speaker 1: running two completely independent investigations, and so my sense is
Speaker 1: they probably didn't do much in the way of coordinating,
Speaker 1: nor should they. The federal investigation is a different matter
Speaker 1: to the We don't know the extent which the federal
Speaker 1: government may have or did not assist in either of
Speaker 1: those two investigations. Obviously, some of the data that was
Speaker 1: developed in the January sixth commission by the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives could be used in either of the two state investigations,
Speaker 1: but particularly so in the Georgia one. Yeah, okay, now yeah,
Speaker 1: and that they in Georgia they've actually said that they're
Speaker 1: moving forward on that as well. So if I'm hearing
Speaker 1: you correctly, they could all they could all be working
Speaker 1: simultaneously at the same time, couldn't they. Yeah. Absolutely, And
Speaker 1: in response to an earlier question that someone else was
Speaker 1: asked on the show about how does this effect as
Speaker 1: campaigning under ordinary New York and frankly the other forty
Speaker 1: nine states criminal justice systems, there's a valid reason for
Speaker 1: delaying a trial in terms of the lawyers having to
Speaker 1: get ready for a trial. It's a very unique argument
Speaker 1: to say, hey, I'm running for political office, so I
Speaker 1: can't go to trial on this date. That probably doesn't
Speaker 1: fall into the category of a reasonable request to delay trial,
Speaker 1: but you never know, so, Jessure, we expected that this
Speaker 1: indictment was going to come out last week, and then
Speaker 1: we had a witness called basically by Trump's lawyers to
Speaker 1: attack the credibility of Michael Cohen, and then we had
Speaker 1: a rebuttal sort of witness called by the prosecutors. Do
Speaker 1: you think that the prosecutors in this case did too
Speaker 1: much in the grand jury called too many witnesses and why, Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's hard to know. And the reason I
Speaker 1: say that it's hard to know is is that they
Speaker 1: may have wanted to put on the strongest case possible
Speaker 1: to withstand a appeals against the indictment as opposed to
Speaker 1: appeals against the potential conviction, should one ever happen. And
Speaker 1: so my senses that's why they probably frontloaded the grand
Speaker 1: jury with as many witnesses as they did. Now, having
Speaker 1: said that, that doesn't tie them into calling those witnesses
Speaker 1: and the actual criminal trial. So I don't think it
Speaker 1: was a mistake to do that. But I do think
Speaker 1: that I don't have a sense that mister Bragg wanted
Speaker 1: this news release today. Maybe he did, but this news
Speaker 1: broke from an anonymous source to the New York Times,
Speaker 1: and then three anonymous sources came through. And what that
Speaker 1: tells me is that it's probably occurred before mister Bragg
Speaker 1: wanted it too, and before all of the law enforcement
Speaker 1: was ready for it to occur. Yeah, and that would
Speaker 1: coincide with the grand jury itself on a three week vacation.
Speaker 1: I mean, this came basically out of a blue and
Speaker 1: a surprise, I would say to most anybody, Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: wondering if someone jumped the gun for personally, you know,
Speaker 1: for personal or political reasons, kind of like the grand
Speaker 1: juror who leaked information publicly so we know her identity
Speaker 1: down in Fulton County, Georgia. That's my sense that now
Speaker 1: there is another possibility of the grand jury being on
Speaker 1: a vacation for three weeks. And that possibility is what
Speaker 1: if mister Bragg intended that grand jury to investigate the
Speaker 1: potential for other charges, so it could have been Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's why the vacation could have occurred. They got more
Speaker 1: witnesses together, but they couldn't get those witnesses before the
Speaker 1: grand jury for another three weeks. And I'm fascinated just
Speaker 1: in the Trump defense, and of course it's going to
Speaker 1: be different in the courtroom than what we're going to
Speaker 1: hear mister Trump trying to tweet on truth social where
Speaker 1: it's a witch hunt, where it's persecution, all of those
Speaker 1: kinds of things. There's a paper trail that goes back
Speaker 1: to him writing a check to Michael Kohn going through
Speaker 1: all of that stuff. Also with Trump denying that anything
Speaker 1: ever had had happened at that was personal expense. Your take,
Speaker 1: does any of that I have the possibility of holding
Speaker 1: legal water. No. I mean, first of all, in order
Speaker 1: to get some of that evidence in the I didn't
Speaker 1: know or it didn't happen. You know, I'm hard pressed
Speaker 1: to think that in order for that to come before
Speaker 1: a jury, he'd have to take the stand. And if
Speaker 1: I were his defense counsel, he's that type of witness
Speaker 1: I would not want taking the standard being subject across
Speaker 1: examination because of all the conflicting things he said, and
Speaker 1: he's tweeted. You want if a defendant takes the stand,
Speaker 1: you want them to be consistent above all else. And
Speaker 1: you know, mister Trump has not been consistent. I have
Speaker 1: he said that the other parts of the tweets or
Speaker 1: the other subject areas of his tweets about being a
Speaker 1: witch hunt. That's not evidence that's going to come before
Speaker 1: a jury. Um, you know, this is a politically charged pace.
Speaker 1: That allegation or they're out to get me. That allegation,
Speaker 1: that's not evidence. That could be an argument raised before
Speaker 1: I judge to dismiss the charges. But it's really unlikely
Speaker 1: that it would ever go you know, that kind of
Speaker 1: an argument would ever be placed before a jury. Yeah, okay, Well,
Speaker 1: and and just very very quickly here will we see
Speaker 1: Donald Trump on the stand? I doubt it. Yeah, like
Speaker 1: I look like I said, You know, I wouldn't if
Speaker 1: I were a defense counsel, I'd be very wary about
Speaker 1: it's his choice. A defense counsel can't stop him. But
Speaker 1: he said a lot of different things about a lot
Speaker 1: of different things, and that would be great fought or
Speaker 1: to cross him. If for the prosecutor, it would be
Speaker 1: just just from the outside, it would be fun. Joshua,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, really appreciate your time. Joshua Kassenberg, Professor,
Speaker 1: University of New Mexico Law School. June is here going
Speaker 1: to bring Doug Krisner back into the conversation, you guys, thoughts, June.
Speaker 1: One of the things I'm most curious about is whether
Speaker 1: or not there's going to be any reaction on the
Speaker 1: part of the public here in New York. You were
Speaker 1: talking earlier about both the Secret Service in the NYPD
Speaker 1: taking preemptive measures around the courthouse in Lower Manhattan, right yeah,
Speaker 1: and you know, when this first came out or when
Speaker 1: Donald Trump said that he was going to be arrested,
Speaker 1: which was less Saturday, and so Saturday before last hot
Speaker 1: time flies. So we expected a lot of demonstrations, A
Speaker 1: lot of people in the New York Police Department ramped
Speaker 1: up for that, and we found very little people. In fact,
Speaker 1: the press outnumbered the protesters outside the courthouse and outside
Speaker 1: Trump Tower, where you usually find any kind of protesters
Speaker 1: for or against Trump there. So, you know, I think
Speaker 1: that a lot of people bull who might be you know,
Speaker 1: avid Trump supporters might be scared off off a little
Speaker 1: by the January sixth investigation and prosecutions where you know,
Speaker 1: they came, some of them came to something that they
Speaker 1: didn't know what would happen, and boom, they ended up
Speaker 1: being inside the you know, the capital and getting prosecuted.
Speaker 1: So I think a lot of people who are you know,
Speaker 1: who might be the really avid supporters might stay back.
Speaker 1: And you know the problem is too that since Trump
Speaker 1: said this, it's been people have been worked up, worked up,
Speaker 1: worked up. Now that it's happened, it's almost anticlimactic in
Speaker 1: a way. And it's the same with his saying it's
Speaker 1: a witch hunt. It's a witch hunt. It's a witch hunt.
Speaker 1: How many times can you say that? And that's something
Speaker 1: that the jury. He's not going to be able to
Speaker 1: preach that to the jury in any of these cases.
Speaker 1: It's going to be based on what happens, you know,
Speaker 1: in the courtroom and the testimony. So I think that
Speaker 1: I'm not expected acting anything to happen, but you never know,
Speaker 1: You never do know, Eddie. And I heard you earlier
Speaker 1: saying that CNN had been reporting that mister Trump will
Speaker 1: likely be arraigned early next week. Is that right? Yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that is the preliminary report, and they were early on
Speaker 1: in the reporting of this. Just very briefly from me, Doug,
Speaker 1: I think that it's gonna be really interesting to see
Speaker 1: how the base of the Republican Party, not the not
Speaker 1: the Trump not the MAGA base, but the base plays
Speaker 1: this to see as we go forward toward the election.
Speaker 1: All right, that we'll wrap up a special hour of
Speaker 1: coverage here on Bloomberg Radio. As we tracked the news
Speaker 1: on Donald Trump being indicted in New York by the
Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and CNN reporting earlier that
Speaker 1: mister Trump will likely be arraigned earlier next week. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg