1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,920 --> 00:00:13,640
Speaker 2: Donald Trump started fundraising off his mugshot less than an

3
00:00:13,720 --> 00:00:17,080
Speaker 2: hour after it was released in the Georgia racketeering trial

4
00:00:17,200 --> 00:00:21,360
Speaker 2: last Thursday, and once again slammed the prosecution.

5
00:00:21,440 --> 00:00:24,800
Speaker 3: To what has taken place here is the travesty of justice.

6
00:00:24,800 --> 00:00:27,800
Speaker 1: We did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong, and everybody

7
00:00:27,840 --> 00:00:28,240
Speaker 1: knows it.

8
00:00:28,440 --> 00:00:32,240
Speaker 2: The former president is also criticizing the decision of DC

9
00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:35,920
Speaker 2: federal Judge Tanya Chuckkin to set a date of March

10
00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:39,040
Speaker 2: fourth for the federal trial over his alleged efforts to

11
00:00:39,120 --> 00:00:43,600
Speaker 2: overturn the twenty twenty election. That's one day before Super Tuesday.

12
00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:47,880
Speaker 2: Trump called her a biased Trump hating judge on social media.

13
00:00:48,320 --> 00:00:51,440
Speaker 2: Trump's team had asked for a trial date two years later,

14
00:00:51,520 --> 00:00:55,400
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty six, but prosecutors argued a speedy trial

15
00:00:55,480 --> 00:00:58,560
Speaker 2: is needed to prevent the jury pool from being tainted.

16
00:00:58,880 --> 00:01:02,760
Speaker 2: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden. Judge Tanya

17
00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:06,280
Speaker 2: Chutkin said that Trump, like any defendant, will have to

18
00:01:06,319 --> 00:01:09,920
Speaker 2: make the trial date work regardless of his schedule. There's

19
00:01:09,920 --> 00:01:14,160
Speaker 2: a societal interest to a speedy trial. Should a judge

20
00:01:14,319 --> 00:01:18,200
Speaker 2: take into account the fact that he is campaigning for

21
00:01:18,319 --> 00:01:21,839
Speaker 2: president and she's scheduling a trial date in the midst

22
00:01:21,840 --> 00:01:22,080
Speaker 2: of it.

23
00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:26,920
Speaker 3: To a certain extent, I think yes, But overridingly I

24
00:01:26,959 --> 00:01:29,720
Speaker 3: think no. That is to say, I think there are

25
00:01:29,800 --> 00:01:34,160
Speaker 3: circumstances by which people should be allowed to have timeouts

26
00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:37,400
Speaker 3: in the course of a trial or in the run

27
00:01:37,480 --> 00:01:40,520
Speaker 3: up to the start of a trial, but not in

28
00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:43,200
Speaker 3: the nature of the types of timeouts that Trump is

29
00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:46,240
Speaker 3: asking for. For example, whether there be a trial in

30
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 3: January or March of this coming year, or twenty twenty six,

31
00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:53,960
Speaker 3: as Trump askedport. I think in those broad terms she

32
00:01:54,040 --> 00:01:56,440
Speaker 3: has to say no, I'm sorry, your day job just

33
00:01:56,480 --> 00:02:00,560
Speaker 3: doesn't permit it. But if there's a short time for

34
00:02:00,720 --> 00:02:03,920
Speaker 3: extenuating circumstances, and I think she should be mindful of it.

35
00:02:03,960 --> 00:02:05,960
Speaker 3: And I think he actually is trying to do that

36
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:09,840
Speaker 3: when she moved the trial from January to March, saying, look,

37
00:02:10,080 --> 00:02:11,960
Speaker 3: it's complicated, you've got a lot of stuff going on.

38
00:02:12,360 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 3: I'm going to give you two extra months from what

39
00:02:14,240 --> 00:02:16,760
Speaker 3: the prosecutor wants. And I think that's what should happen

40
00:02:16,760 --> 00:02:17,320
Speaker 3: in this case.

41
00:02:17,560 --> 00:02:20,959
Speaker 2: The defense is arguing that they can't go to trial

42
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:25,640
Speaker 2: in four months given them millions of documents. The prosecution says,

43
00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:28,920
Speaker 2: you know, there aren't that many key documents, and we've

44
00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:32,880
Speaker 2: created a file of three hundred documents. Quote, it's essentially

45
00:02:32,919 --> 00:02:36,720
Speaker 2: a roadmap to our case. Can the defense rely on

46
00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:39,760
Speaker 2: what the prosecution says is a roadmap to their case?

47
00:02:40,680 --> 00:02:43,880
Speaker 3: No, they have to make their own roadmaps, and they

48
00:02:43,919 --> 00:02:46,480
Speaker 3: have to be able to have enough time to call

49
00:02:46,600 --> 00:02:48,960
Speaker 3: through the documents to make sure that they can create

50
00:02:49,080 --> 00:02:52,320
Speaker 3: their own roadmaps. But in this case, much of the

51
00:02:52,360 --> 00:02:55,800
Speaker 3: documents that form the basis of the case, the heart

52
00:02:55,880 --> 00:02:59,480
Speaker 3: of the case, come from the defendant himself. They are

53
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:04,640
Speaker 3: his texts or emails from his associates, or documents that

54
00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:09,000
Speaker 3: they've produced in respect to subpoenas. So it's not like

55
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:13,000
Speaker 3: these are documents that they are lacking familiarity with, and

56
00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:15,720
Speaker 3: so I think that it is not unreasonable for them

57
00:03:15,720 --> 00:03:17,760
Speaker 3: to have a trial date in March. I think that

58
00:03:17,919 --> 00:03:21,280
Speaker 3: if they acquire the resources to look through this, then

59
00:03:21,280 --> 00:03:22,760
Speaker 3: they should be able to the One thing that we

60
00:03:22,800 --> 00:03:24,360
Speaker 3: have to keep in mind is one someump had a

61
00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:25,919
Speaker 3: lawyer worked on this case for a year and a

62
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:29,440
Speaker 3: half or so and just fired him and hired a

63
00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:31,720
Speaker 3: new lawyer. The new lawyer says, I don't have the

64
00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:35,920
Speaker 3: resources to really call through all this discovery. Well, Trump

65
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:39,480
Speaker 3: is purportedly a billionaire, and if he doesn't have the

66
00:03:39,600 --> 00:03:43,280
Speaker 3: resources necessary, then Laurel the attorney, he has to say

67
00:03:43,360 --> 00:03:45,720
Speaker 3: with client, we have a trial day coming up. I

68
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:48,400
Speaker 3: need more resources, and it should be under dependent and

69
00:03:48,520 --> 00:03:51,800
Speaker 3: obligation to make sure that his team is properly resourced,

70
00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:54,760
Speaker 3: because they can't claim lack of resources and get a

71
00:03:54,960 --> 00:03:58,200
Speaker 3: trial delayed, so they can't use it as a delayed tactic.

72
00:03:58,480 --> 00:04:01,600
Speaker 3: But to the sent that they really have honest need

73
00:04:01,680 --> 00:04:03,640
Speaker 3: for additional time, then I think they can petition the

74
00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:06,520
Speaker 3: court periodically for that. But I think she's given him

75
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:09,400
Speaker 3: a good enough leeway to get this done.

76
00:04:09,760 --> 00:04:13,440
Speaker 2: So prosecutors said the DC federal trial would take four

77
00:04:13,440 --> 00:04:16,679
Speaker 2: to six weeks, so that would push past the March

78
00:04:16,760 --> 00:04:20,000
Speaker 2: twenty fifth date of the New York trial. But Judge

79
00:04:20,440 --> 00:04:24,599
Speaker 2: Chutkins said that she had a phone call with Judge Murchhon,

80
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:27,520
Speaker 2: who's the trial judge for the New York trial. So

81
00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:29,440
Speaker 2: do you think that they worked it out?

82
00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:33,520
Speaker 3: Yeah? And I think that Brad the district attorney in

83
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:36,159
Speaker 3: New York, has signaled that he's willing to delay his

84
00:04:36,360 --> 00:04:39,280
Speaker 3: trial to let the federal case go forward. So yes,

85
00:04:39,320 --> 00:04:41,640
Speaker 3: I think that New York will take a second feat

86
00:04:41,760 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 3: behind the January sixth trial, and that won't create a conflict.

87
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:49,640
Speaker 2: What about the Atlanta trial if it starts on October

88
00:04:49,680 --> 00:04:53,000
Speaker 2: twenty third, In other words, if three defendants go on

89
00:04:53,080 --> 00:04:55,400
Speaker 2: trial and it's not Trump, I mean, is there any

90
00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:57,240
Speaker 2: you know, excuse for him there?

91
00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:01,000
Speaker 3: I don't think so. If there is speedy trial with

92
00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:04,479
Speaker 3: Sidney Powell and Cheeseborough or anybody else who wants to

93
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:08,479
Speaker 3: join it, and the judge severs those defendants from the

94
00:05:08,560 --> 00:05:11,680
Speaker 3: remainder who want to delay the trial, then I think

95
00:05:11,680 --> 00:05:14,760
Speaker 3: the trial would proceed against those who have asserted their

96
00:05:15,080 --> 00:05:18,200
Speaker 3: rights to a speedy trial, and Trump or any other

97
00:05:18,240 --> 00:05:21,479
Speaker 3: defendant can sit in and watch that trial and get

98
00:05:21,480 --> 00:05:25,160
Speaker 3: a preview of how the government's case will come in,

99
00:05:25,440 --> 00:05:27,839
Speaker 3: and there's an advantage to them in that. Of course,

100
00:05:27,839 --> 00:05:30,640
Speaker 3: there's a disadvantage, which is that those three people out

101
00:05:30,680 --> 00:05:33,440
Speaker 3: the speedy trial most likely are going to blame Trump

102
00:05:33,640 --> 00:05:35,520
Speaker 3: and say that they were just following orders and it

103
00:05:35,680 --> 00:05:38,120
Speaker 3: was he who was the culprit, and he won't be

104
00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:40,720
Speaker 3: in the courtroom to defend himself. So there's a un

105
00:05:40,839 --> 00:05:43,159
Speaker 3: in the angle of this thing. But no, that would

106
00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:45,880
Speaker 3: not be a basis in my view, for that trial

107
00:05:45,960 --> 00:05:48,400
Speaker 3: to be delayed because Trump says, I can't be there

108
00:05:48,440 --> 00:05:49,640
Speaker 3: and therefore I'm going to be.

109
00:05:49,560 --> 00:05:53,520
Speaker 2: Prejudiced before we go back to the DC federal trial.

110
00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:58,640
Speaker 2: So it's Cheeseborough who has been characterized as the architect

111
00:05:58,839 --> 00:06:03,320
Speaker 2: of the facal scheme, and Sidney Powell and johnny'sman all

112
00:06:03,400 --> 00:06:06,359
Speaker 2: lawyers want a speedy trial. Why do you think they

113
00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:07,600
Speaker 2: want a speedy trial.

114
00:06:09,160 --> 00:06:13,440
Speaker 3: Well, I think that they think that one it's in

115
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:16,279
Speaker 3: their best interest to just get this over with. But two,

116
00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:19,240
Speaker 3: I think more importantly, I think there's an advantage to

117
00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:23,240
Speaker 3: somebody like Cheesboro or Sidney Powell, who are lawyers who

118
00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:25,960
Speaker 3: will be able to say in a separate trial of

119
00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:29,760
Speaker 3: their own. All we did was provide legal advice, and

120
00:06:29,800 --> 00:06:32,239
Speaker 3: to the extent that there were actions that were taken

121
00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:38,080
Speaker 3: that contravened the law, that was not our intention. Our

122
00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:41,200
Speaker 3: intention was to say, here are our theories. Even if

123
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:44,760
Speaker 3: there was a hail mary component to it, it was

124
00:06:44,880 --> 00:06:48,080
Speaker 3: still non frivolous legal advice, and we would rather be

125
00:06:48,440 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 3: two lawyers sitting in the courtroom pointing a finger at

126
00:06:51,520 --> 00:06:55,119
Speaker 3: Donald Trump as a person who misinterpreted what they said

127
00:06:55,160 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 3: and acted in an illegal way, and not have him

128
00:06:58,520 --> 00:07:02,160
Speaker 3: there to say to the contrary, you guys were the architects.

129
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:04,799
Speaker 3: I think it allows for them to put in their

130
00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:08,880
Speaker 3: defense of just you know, advising their client without anyone

131
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:11,160
Speaker 3: pointing back to fingers and say to them, no, no, no,

132
00:07:11,200 --> 00:07:13,720
Speaker 3: you were co conspirators in a criminal trial. So I

133
00:07:13,720 --> 00:07:16,920
Speaker 3: think separating them from the others, probably the lawyer's view,

134
00:07:16,960 --> 00:07:20,080
Speaker 3: is in their better interest in a more streamlined prosecution.

135
00:07:20,680 --> 00:07:23,520
Speaker 2: Now we'll go back to the DC Court. John Loro,

136
00:07:23,720 --> 00:07:26,920
Speaker 2: who is Trump's attorney, said he's going to file several

137
00:07:26,960 --> 00:07:31,640
Speaker 2: motions and one which I think everyone expected, arguing that

138
00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:35,560
Speaker 2: Trump was immune to the charges given that the indictment

139
00:07:35,640 --> 00:07:39,240
Speaker 2: covers the period when he was president. Is that a

140
00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:40,280
Speaker 2: good argument.

141
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:42,800
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good argument in the sense that it's

142
00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:47,320
Speaker 3: not been decided by the Supreme Court. Whether it's an

143
00:07:47,400 --> 00:07:51,160
Speaker 3: argument that will prevail is a different question. And there

144
00:07:51,160 --> 00:07:54,400
Speaker 3: are lots of cases that are sort of dancing around

145
00:07:54,400 --> 00:07:57,559
Speaker 3: this point. Trump versus Vand is one of them. Murder

146
00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:01,560
Speaker 3: that's the Supreme Court case that was just in twenty

147
00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:05,440
Speaker 3: twenty when Trump said he should be immune from a

148
00:08:05,480 --> 00:08:08,679
Speaker 3: grand jury subpoena for his tax records, and the court

149
00:08:08,800 --> 00:08:12,880
Speaker 3: said that though the president enjoys no absolute immunity from

150
00:08:12,920 --> 00:08:17,320
Speaker 3: state criminal subpoenas, and they made the private papers available

151
00:08:17,320 --> 00:08:20,600
Speaker 3: to the prosecutors, so said in that context no immunity.

152
00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:25,720
Speaker 3: Then you had Nixon versus Fitzgerald, where Nixon claimed immunity

153
00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:28,800
Speaker 3: and the court said, no, he's not immune from civil lawsuits.

154
00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:31,840
Speaker 3: And you had PAULA Jones similarly. So there are a

155
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:35,400
Speaker 3: lot of cases out there which sort of narrow the

156
00:08:35,640 --> 00:08:40,080
Speaker 3: circumstances under which immunity applies, But there's nothing directly on

157
00:08:40,200 --> 00:08:42,520
Speaker 3: points as to whether or not in the context of

158
00:08:42,520 --> 00:08:45,960
Speaker 3: a criminal case against the former president he has immunity.

159
00:08:46,080 --> 00:08:48,640
Speaker 3: I think the question will arise similar to the way

160
00:08:48,640 --> 00:08:52,960
Speaker 3: it arose yesterday in the Mark Meadows case for removal

161
00:08:52,960 --> 00:08:57,080
Speaker 3: to federal court, which was were the actions under inquiry

162
00:08:57,520 --> 00:09:02,600
Speaker 3: undertaken in the official capacity of the officeholder or the

163
00:09:02,640 --> 00:09:05,160
Speaker 3: case of Meadows, the chief of staff, And if they

164
00:09:05,160 --> 00:09:08,720
Speaker 3: were undertaken in his official capacity as president or as

165
00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:10,960
Speaker 3: an official capacity of the case of staff, then it

166
00:09:10,960 --> 00:09:13,240
Speaker 3: makes it a very close questions to whether or not

167
00:09:13,400 --> 00:09:17,120
Speaker 3: immunity and in the case of Meadows, removal applies. So

168
00:09:17,400 --> 00:09:20,439
Speaker 3: he is absolutely right to file the motion, and it's

169
00:09:20,440 --> 00:09:23,040
Speaker 3: a good motion to file. I just don't know, because

170
00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:25,880
Speaker 3: there's not been a decision directly on point how it

171
00:09:25,920 --> 00:09:30,400
Speaker 3: will be decided. A more important question perhaps is, say

172
00:09:30,520 --> 00:09:33,400
Speaker 3: the court, here's the motion that dismissed the case for immunity,

173
00:09:33,600 --> 00:09:35,360
Speaker 3: and the court says, you know what, I don't think

174
00:09:35,400 --> 00:09:37,720
Speaker 3: so I don't think you were acting in your official capacity.

175
00:09:38,040 --> 00:09:41,880
Speaker 3: If that is a decision that is made on a

176
00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:46,000
Speaker 3: legal question, then it is immediately appealable. If the factual question,

177
00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:48,120
Speaker 3: you have to wait till after the trial. So there's

178
00:09:48,160 --> 00:09:52,640
Speaker 3: another whole question of if they're denied their emotion for immunity,

179
00:09:52,720 --> 00:09:55,280
Speaker 3: can they immediately appeal it to the Court of Appeals

180
00:09:55,320 --> 00:09:58,079
Speaker 3: and into the Supreme Court, which, if they can, means

181
00:09:58,200 --> 00:10:01,240
Speaker 3: this case is not going to trial for two years.

182
00:10:01,559 --> 00:10:04,600
Speaker 2: He said he'll ask the judge to pause the criminal

183
00:10:04,640 --> 00:10:07,400
Speaker 2: trial until the immunity issue is fully resolved. But is

184
00:10:07,440 --> 00:10:08,760
Speaker 2: this judge likely to do that.

185
00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:12,120
Speaker 3: No, the judge doesn't seem to have any indication that

186
00:10:12,280 --> 00:10:15,320
Speaker 3: Kiefi's will pause it. But that's not to say that

187
00:10:15,679 --> 00:10:21,160
Speaker 3: if they take appeal of the order denying removal or

188
00:10:21,559 --> 00:10:25,760
Speaker 3: once they get the most dismissed denying immunity, whether they

189
00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:28,640
Speaker 3: have a right to immediately appeal it or not. That

190
00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:32,280
Speaker 3: to me also is an unsettled question, and they will

191
00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:35,040
Speaker 3: ask the Quarter of Appeals to take an immediate appeal

192
00:10:35,040 --> 00:10:38,400
Speaker 3: from it, which if they accept it, will delay the trial.

193
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:40,760
Speaker 3: If they don't accept it, the trial will go forward,

194
00:10:40,800 --> 00:10:44,480
Speaker 3: and then after the trial they'll file a motion for

195
00:10:44,520 --> 00:10:48,120
Speaker 3: a new trial on the ground that the immunity decision

196
00:10:48,280 --> 00:10:50,760
Speaker 3: was wrong and they should have had immunity.

197
00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:54,400
Speaker 2: Laura also said he's going to make a selective prosecution

198
00:10:54,600 --> 00:10:59,000
Speaker 2: motion that the indictment was brought as retaliation for the

199
00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:03,680
Speaker 2: federal investigation of Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, which began

200
00:11:03,800 --> 00:11:06,680
Speaker 2: during Trump's administration. He said he'd used this as a

201
00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:08,520
Speaker 2: political prosecution.

202
00:11:08,480 --> 00:11:11,160
Speaker 3: Dead on arrival. I think I don't believe that that

203
00:11:11,440 --> 00:11:15,959
Speaker 3: is viable. I think his most viable motions are motions

204
00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:21,800
Speaker 3: to dismiss because of immunity, and then defenses at trial,

205
00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:25,760
Speaker 3: which are I lack criminal intent and I was acting

206
00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:28,520
Speaker 3: on the advice of counsel. I think that's what this

207
00:11:28,640 --> 00:11:29,480
Speaker 3: trial is about.

208
00:11:30,000 --> 00:11:34,319
Speaker 2: Laura sometimes took an aggressive tone, and the judge had

209
00:11:34,320 --> 00:11:38,000
Speaker 2: to caution him twice to turn down the temperature. Do

210
00:11:38,040 --> 00:11:40,680
Speaker 2: you think his tone was for the media or was

211
00:11:40,720 --> 00:11:44,400
Speaker 2: he just impassioned. I mean, a seasoned trial lawyer shouldn't

212
00:11:44,600 --> 00:11:46,080
Speaker 2: lose his cool, should he.

213
00:11:46,400 --> 00:11:49,280
Speaker 3: No, And Laua has a good reputation from president mind

214
00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:52,400
Speaker 3: who practice in the courts in Florida where Laurel practices.

215
00:11:52,480 --> 00:11:54,920
Speaker 3: They say he's a smart guy and a good lawyer.

216
00:11:55,240 --> 00:11:57,640
Speaker 3: I don't know whether he was posturing for his client.

217
00:11:57,720 --> 00:12:00,200
Speaker 3: That's one of the problems that you often have with

218
00:12:00,240 --> 00:12:02,640
Speaker 3: a client that's the belligerent, that you feel like you

219
00:12:02,720 --> 00:12:06,800
Speaker 3: have to be belligerent too. I was surprised to read

220
00:12:06,840 --> 00:12:09,559
Speaker 3: about the tone he took, and I was also surprised

221
00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:13,480
Speaker 3: to hear him say sort of cavalierly or threateningly. Let

222
00:12:13,480 --> 00:12:15,760
Speaker 3: me tell you this, judge right now, if you make

223
00:12:15,840 --> 00:12:17,760
Speaker 3: us go to trial, I will not be able to

224
00:12:17,800 --> 00:12:20,680
Speaker 3: be effective in my assistance of counsel. So like threatening

225
00:12:20,760 --> 00:12:22,720
Speaker 3: her to say, if you make us go to trial,

226
00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:26,040
Speaker 3: get ready for an appeal if we lose on effective

227
00:12:26,080 --> 00:12:28,520
Speaker 3: assistance to council graud. I just don't think that's a

228
00:12:28,720 --> 00:12:32,320
Speaker 3: good approach to this court or any court to be

229
00:12:32,760 --> 00:12:33,520
Speaker 3: that belligerent.

230
00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:37,280
Speaker 2: Also, it appeared to upset Judge Chuck Kid that he

231
00:12:37,360 --> 00:12:41,960
Speaker 2: had cited Powell versus Alabama on nineteen thirty two Supreme

232
00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:45,920
Speaker 2: Court decision that reversed the convictions of the Scottsboro Boys,

233
00:12:46,120 --> 00:12:49,439
Speaker 2: nine young black men who were falsely accused of raping

234
00:12:49,520 --> 00:12:52,000
Speaker 2: a white woman. He had cited it in his brief,

235
00:12:52,040 --> 00:12:55,920
Speaker 2: and the judge said the cases were profoundly different at

236
00:12:55,960 --> 00:12:58,480
Speaker 2: their core. I mean, why side that case?

237
00:13:00,360 --> 00:13:04,199
Speaker 3: Stuttering because I can't understand it. The scots Boys, as

238
00:13:04,200 --> 00:13:07,480
Speaker 3: you said, falsely accused of rape, were brought to trial

239
00:13:07,520 --> 00:13:10,679
Speaker 3: within six days, I believe, of their indictment in a

240
00:13:10,880 --> 00:13:14,839
Speaker 3: racially charged environment, as was often the case in those

241
00:13:14,920 --> 00:13:19,520
Speaker 3: types of kangaroo court white supremacy based prosecution. To say

242
00:13:19,559 --> 00:13:24,160
Speaker 3: that that is any way analogous, this is I think

243
00:13:24,200 --> 00:13:27,040
Speaker 3: an insult to the court, especially an African American woman,

244
00:13:27,320 --> 00:13:32,240
Speaker 3: to say that somehow my client, Donald Trump analogizes to

245
00:13:32,840 --> 00:13:35,840
Speaker 3: the Scottsborough Boys. You know, I just don't get it.

246
00:13:35,960 --> 00:13:38,439
Speaker 3: I just don't get it, because actually they're an apposite.

247
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:41,640
Speaker 3: You know, six days versus almost a year of preparation

248
00:13:42,080 --> 00:13:47,600
Speaker 3: and white racially charged prosecution and early neutral prosecutions. In

249
00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:50,840
Speaker 3: this case, I just there was another example of bad

250
00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:52,640
Speaker 3: decision making by this lawyer.

251
00:13:52,920 --> 00:13:56,840
Speaker 2: It's stunning to me that a trialery with his experience, would,

252
00:13:57,080 --> 00:14:00,320
Speaker 2: you know, take this attitude with the trial judge so

253
00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:03,880
Speaker 2: early on, this combative, aggressive tone.

254
00:14:04,200 --> 00:14:07,360
Speaker 3: I don't know. Maybe he thinks that somehow he is

255
00:14:07,480 --> 00:14:11,760
Speaker 3: going to bully her. If he is of that mind,

256
00:14:12,120 --> 00:14:15,000
Speaker 3: he doesn't know this judge, I mean, this judge comes

257
00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:17,679
Speaker 3: out of the Public Defender Service in the disc of Columbia,

258
00:14:17,679 --> 00:14:20,200
Speaker 3: which is perhaps the best public defender service in the

259
00:14:20,280 --> 00:14:23,120
Speaker 3: United States. These lawyers who I've worked with when I

260
00:14:23,240 --> 00:14:25,760
Speaker 3: was a prettyman fellow in the Sure Court of Disco

261
00:14:25,720 --> 00:14:28,800
Speaker 3: of Columbia. We work side by side on cases together.

262
00:14:29,120 --> 00:14:31,400
Speaker 3: These are among the best lawyers in the country who

263
00:14:31,440 --> 00:14:34,320
Speaker 3: are used to very hard fights. If he thinks he's

264
00:14:34,320 --> 00:14:38,360
Speaker 3: going to come into her court from Tampa, Florida with

265
00:14:38,480 --> 00:14:41,520
Speaker 3: bravado and try to sort of roll her in some way,

266
00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:43,600
Speaker 3: he needs to go back to Florida.

267
00:14:44,040 --> 00:14:46,560
Speaker 2: Let's switch to Mark Meadows, which I mean was a

268
00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:50,800
Speaker 2: busy day yesterday. So Meadows fought testifying to the January

269
00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:54,000
Speaker 2: Sixth Committee and to the DC Federal Court. Now he's

270
00:14:54,080 --> 00:14:58,360
Speaker 2: testifying to save himself. How risky is it for him

271
00:14:58,400 --> 00:14:59,360
Speaker 2: to take the stand?

272
00:15:00,280 --> 00:15:04,320
Speaker 3: Well, I think that he really didn't have a choice

273
00:15:04,760 --> 00:15:09,320
Speaker 3: because he has the burden of proving that which is

274
00:15:09,440 --> 00:15:12,160
Speaker 3: required for removal, that he was a federal employee, that

275
00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:14,680
Speaker 3: he was acting the scope of his employment, and that

276
00:15:14,840 --> 00:15:17,480
Speaker 3: he has a colorable defense. You weren't going to hear

277
00:15:17,560 --> 00:15:21,320
Speaker 3: from mc mulvaney or any of the other Trump chiefs

278
00:15:21,320 --> 00:15:23,920
Speaker 3: of staff to say, you know, yes, this is what

279
00:15:24,080 --> 00:15:27,320
Speaker 3: chiefs of staff for Trump to do. There was no

280
00:15:27,720 --> 00:15:31,720
Speaker 3: one who could help him meet his burden actually other

281
00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:34,200
Speaker 3: than himself, And so I think George to Wilker, who

282
00:15:34,240 --> 00:15:36,480
Speaker 3: was a friend and a good lawyer, felt that getting

283
00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:40,360
Speaker 3: this case removed is Menows's best chance to prevail on

284
00:15:40,440 --> 00:15:43,040
Speaker 3: the merriage, and they took the chance to put him

285
00:15:43,080 --> 00:15:44,680
Speaker 3: on the stand because I think they were going to

286
00:15:44,760 --> 00:15:48,520
Speaker 3: lose without him. I said earlier there was a hail

287
00:15:48,600 --> 00:15:53,000
Speaker 3: mary sort of legal analysis from the Cheeseborough group, but

288
00:15:53,080 --> 00:15:55,880
Speaker 3: I think this is in some sense was a similar fourth

289
00:15:55,920 --> 00:15:59,080
Speaker 3: down and twenty yards to go type of pass, and

290
00:15:59,600 --> 00:16:02,600
Speaker 3: they just went foot. I don't know that they connected.

291
00:16:02,680 --> 00:16:05,960
Speaker 3: I think that the judge was very skeptical that that

292
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:09,080
Speaker 3: which Meadow says was in the scope of his federal employment,

293
00:16:09,280 --> 00:16:13,160
Speaker 3: like calling Astenberger or visiting the site of the audit,

294
00:16:13,840 --> 00:16:17,440
Speaker 3: was that which a federal employee can do, especially when

295
00:16:17,480 --> 00:16:22,040
Speaker 3: the Hatchat prohibits federal employees from getting involved in political campaign.

296
00:16:22,280 --> 00:16:24,480
Speaker 3: So I think he's not going to win. But I

297
00:16:24,520 --> 00:16:28,640
Speaker 3: think that Williger thought that this was an important gamble

298
00:16:28,720 --> 00:16:29,680
Speaker 3: to take, and he took it.

299
00:16:30,760 --> 00:16:33,200
Speaker 2: There were several times when he said that he couldn't

300
00:16:33,200 --> 00:16:37,000
Speaker 2: recall the details of events in late twenty twenty and

301
00:16:37,080 --> 00:16:40,200
Speaker 2: early twenty twenty one, and you know, the judge also

302
00:16:40,320 --> 00:16:43,240
Speaker 2: pressed him at some points to be more specific or

303
00:16:43,280 --> 00:16:46,360
Speaker 2: to actually answer the questions. And it seemed as if

304
00:16:46,400 --> 00:16:48,960
Speaker 2: there were a lot of holes in his testimony.

305
00:16:48,960 --> 00:16:53,320
Speaker 3: For sure. And when he said, I'm the president's alter

306
00:16:53,520 --> 00:16:57,200
Speaker 3: ego on his right hand, I am the person who

307
00:16:57,240 --> 00:17:00,400
Speaker 3: is the gatekeeper. I know essentially everything that there is

308
00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:03,080
Speaker 3: to know, because that's my job, and then says, oh,

309
00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:05,600
Speaker 3: I didn't realize that there were going to be lawyers

310
00:17:05,600 --> 00:17:08,399
Speaker 3: on the telephone call to Georgia and that this was

311
00:17:08,440 --> 00:17:11,480
Speaker 3: about the election interference losses to have Oh, I didn't

312
00:17:11,520 --> 00:17:14,280
Speaker 3: realize that we were suing. The campaign was suing in missions.

313
00:17:14,440 --> 00:17:16,840
Speaker 3: It doesn't strike me that you can read those things

314
00:17:17,240 --> 00:17:19,800
Speaker 3: side by side and not say, oh, really, you're the

315
00:17:19,880 --> 00:17:21,840
Speaker 3: alter ego, you're the right hand man, you know everything

316
00:17:21,880 --> 00:17:25,399
Speaker 3: that's going on. But on these two crucial events that

317
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:28,280
Speaker 3: you are named in this diamond, you say, oops, I

318
00:17:28,320 --> 00:17:30,719
Speaker 3: didn't know that. I think the judge will be very

319
00:17:30,760 --> 00:17:34,119
Speaker 3: skeptical about it. So I think that it was just

320
00:17:34,640 --> 00:17:37,159
Speaker 3: the gamble that they thought they needed to detect. But

321
00:17:37,240 --> 00:17:39,800
Speaker 3: I don't think that Meadows helped himself a lot.

322
00:17:40,440 --> 00:17:43,600
Speaker 2: And also was it a two part gamble, because if

323
00:17:43,600 --> 00:17:46,480
Speaker 2: the judge says this was in the scope of his

324
00:17:46,560 --> 00:17:51,000
Speaker 2: official duties and transfers the case to federal court, then

325
00:17:51,000 --> 00:17:53,440
Speaker 2: the next move he'll make is to make a claim

326
00:17:53,440 --> 00:17:54,080
Speaker 2: of immunity.

327
00:17:54,480 --> 00:17:58,520
Speaker 3: Correct exactly. So if you get a trial judge who says, yes,

328
00:17:58,600 --> 00:18:01,120
Speaker 3: you were acting in the scope of your and therefore

329
00:18:01,119 --> 00:18:05,840
Speaker 3: this is removable, then that same analysis that got him

330
00:18:06,080 --> 00:18:09,120
Speaker 3: the removal will be the same analysis that they'll argue

331
00:18:09,320 --> 00:18:12,640
Speaker 3: gets him immunity. So it was a predicate for that,

332
00:18:13,080 --> 00:18:15,359
Speaker 3: not that you needed to do it that way, but

333
00:18:15,600 --> 00:18:19,600
Speaker 3: the trial judge ruling on the question of in the

334
00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:22,520
Speaker 3: scope of employment in the removal case, you know, sort

335
00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:26,520
Speaker 3: of would help that decision for immunity when the most

336
00:18:26,560 --> 00:18:28,760
Speaker 3: of dismissed immunity grounds is filed.

337
00:18:29,160 --> 00:18:31,480
Speaker 2: Finally, so, what do you think the chances are that

338
00:18:31,560 --> 00:18:34,600
Speaker 2: one of these criminal cases will be tried and completed

339
00:18:35,040 --> 00:18:36,480
Speaker 2: before the election.

340
00:18:37,160 --> 00:18:41,760
Speaker 3: Well, I think, honestly, the case that should be completed

341
00:18:41,800 --> 00:18:45,040
Speaker 3: and tried before the election is the Marlogo case. That's

342
00:18:45,080 --> 00:18:49,080
Speaker 3: the most straightforward case. There's some national security documents issues

343
00:18:49,119 --> 00:18:51,720
Speaker 3: that need to be worked out, but it's a pretty

344
00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:55,240
Speaker 3: narrow set of questions that have to be answered. So

345
00:18:55,320 --> 00:18:59,080
Speaker 3: if Eileen Cannon, you know, sort of moves this case along,

346
00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:02,200
Speaker 3: that case really should be able to go forward before

347
00:19:02,320 --> 00:19:07,919
Speaker 3: the election. As to the January sixth or the Bolton

348
00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:10,159
Speaker 3: County case, it really depends on what happens in the

349
00:19:10,200 --> 00:19:14,000
Speaker 3: pre trial motion states. If all these motions are filed

350
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:17,719
Speaker 3: and the defendants lose and they're not immediately appealable, then

351
00:19:17,760 --> 00:19:20,560
Speaker 3: I think we'll get a trial also in one of

352
00:19:20,640 --> 00:19:24,000
Speaker 3: both of those cases before the election. But there are

353
00:19:24,040 --> 00:19:29,080
Speaker 3: so many if but if there's this case filed, what

354
00:19:29,200 --> 00:19:32,000
Speaker 3: if there's that boy, So you can't really say, but

355
00:19:32,040 --> 00:19:34,720
Speaker 3: if it all goes to prosecutors way, and I think

356
00:19:34,760 --> 00:19:36,159
Speaker 3: the calendar allows for it.

357
00:19:36,440 --> 00:19:40,320
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Michael. That's former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden.

358
00:19:41,840 --> 00:19:45,560
Speaker 2: Were the ninety three thousand claims have been filed by veterans,

359
00:19:45,600 --> 00:19:50,520
Speaker 2: their relatives, or camp employees who blame their cancer, Parkinson's disease,

360
00:19:50,600 --> 00:19:54,240
Speaker 2: and other health issues on the contaminated water at Camp

361
00:19:54,320 --> 00:19:58,160
Speaker 2: Lea June. So far, the Navy has not settled any

362
00:19:58,160 --> 00:20:01,199
Speaker 2: of the claims. That's led to more than eleven hundred

363
00:20:01,280 --> 00:20:05,679
Speaker 2: lawsuits that potential victims have filed in federal court, and

364
00:20:05,720 --> 00:20:08,399
Speaker 2: now there's a clash between the plaintiff's lawyers and the

365
00:20:08,680 --> 00:20:12,120
Speaker 2: Justice Department over how the court should manage what could

366
00:20:12,160 --> 00:20:15,960
Speaker 2: be thousands of lawsuits over payouts by the government. Marine

367
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:18,840
Speaker 2: sickened by their tours at Camp La June say they've

368
00:20:18,840 --> 00:20:21,560
Speaker 2: waited nearly forty years to have the right to present

369
00:20:21,640 --> 00:20:24,000
Speaker 2: their case in court, and they don't want to wait

370
00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:28,240
Speaker 2: any longer. Joining me is Costubasu, senior enterprise reporter for

371
00:20:28,280 --> 00:20:32,280
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law tell us about the background of this fight

372
00:20:32,600 --> 00:20:36,320
Speaker 2: by veterans over the contaminated water at Camp La June.

373
00:20:36,760 --> 00:20:39,720
Speaker 1: Well, you know this has been a battle of like

374
00:20:39,840 --> 00:20:43,200
Speaker 1: twenty years in the making. You know, early lawsuits were

375
00:20:43,200 --> 00:20:47,600
Speaker 1: thrown out of court. However, in August of twenty twenty two,

376
00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:52,960
Speaker 1: President Bidens signed a bill called a Backtact which included

377
00:20:53,160 --> 00:20:58,040
Speaker 1: compensation a possible compensation for those affected by toxic water

378
00:20:58,160 --> 00:21:02,679
Speaker 1: at Kampbla June in North Carolina, and a way for

379
00:21:02,760 --> 00:21:06,120
Speaker 1: them to file lawsuits if their claim was denied by

380
00:21:06,119 --> 00:21:06,560
Speaker 1: the Navy.

381
00:21:07,119 --> 00:21:10,399
Speaker 2: So more than ninety three thousand claims and more than

382
00:21:10,440 --> 00:21:14,280
Speaker 2: a thousand lawsuits. So they have until August of next

383
00:21:14,359 --> 00:21:16,240
Speaker 2: year to file their claims with the Navy.

384
00:21:17,520 --> 00:21:22,359
Speaker 1: Yes, and we are expecting that number to go up substantially.

385
00:21:23,320 --> 00:21:28,080
Speaker 1: You know, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that about

386
00:21:28,200 --> 00:21:31,520
Speaker 1: one million people could have been exposed to toxic water

387
00:21:31,600 --> 00:21:35,720
Speaker 1: at Cantila June. So that explains the scramble by law

388
00:21:35,800 --> 00:21:39,679
Speaker 1: firms and the search agencies to find more legion clients.

389
00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:43,320
Speaker 2: I mean, the Navy hasn't settled any of these claims.

390
00:21:43,600 --> 00:21:46,840
Speaker 1: Yes, and you know people have been filing claims essentially

391
00:21:47,280 --> 00:21:51,320
Speaker 1: since the bill was signed into law, and there have

392
00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:54,480
Speaker 1: been about ninety three thousand claims as of this week,

393
00:21:55,000 --> 00:21:58,160
Speaker 1: and they told me yesterday that none of these claims

394
00:21:58,160 --> 00:22:01,280
Speaker 1: have been settled the veterans, you know, if a claim

395
00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:04,000
Speaker 1: is not settled in six months but the Navy or

396
00:22:04,040 --> 00:22:07,280
Speaker 1: it's denied, they can file a lawsuit. In the Eastern

397
00:22:07,320 --> 00:22:09,359
Speaker 1: District of North Carolina.

398
00:22:09,359 --> 00:22:13,919
Speaker 2: Both sides have file proposals on how this should be managed.

399
00:22:14,560 --> 00:22:16,480
Speaker 2: What do the competing sides want.

400
00:22:17,400 --> 00:22:21,000
Speaker 1: Attorneys for the potential victim, they say that they've been

401
00:22:21,119 --> 00:22:24,840
Speaker 1: waiting for four decades to make their argument in court.

402
00:22:25,240 --> 00:22:28,480
Speaker 1: They don't want to wait any further. They want the

403
00:22:28,600 --> 00:22:31,680
Speaker 1: first trial to be in the first quarter of Onty

404
00:22:31,760 --> 00:22:37,520
Speaker 1: twenty four. The United States Department of Justice, they say

405
00:22:37,600 --> 00:22:40,760
Speaker 1: that it might take a little longer to develop relevant

406
00:22:40,840 --> 00:22:43,840
Speaker 1: expert testimonies. And they're saying that, yeah, we could go

407
00:22:43,880 --> 00:22:46,480
Speaker 1: to trial in twenty twenty four, it'll be some time.

408
00:22:46,400 --> 00:22:48,520
Speaker 2: Later, and so who'ld make the decision.

409
00:22:48,960 --> 00:22:51,720
Speaker 1: So there are four judges in the Eastern District of

410
00:22:51,800 --> 00:22:54,760
Speaker 1: North Carolina who will be deciding in the coming weeks

411
00:22:54,880 --> 00:22:58,280
Speaker 1: how to manage these huge volume off cases and come

412
00:22:58,359 --> 00:22:58,920
Speaker 1: up with the plan.

413
00:23:00,160 --> 00:23:03,760
Speaker 2: Also been a challenge to the appointment of the lead

414
00:23:03,800 --> 00:23:06,480
Speaker 2: plaintiff's lawyer and the lead lawyer has a lot of

415
00:23:06,520 --> 00:23:07,680
Speaker 2: power in a case like this.

416
00:23:08,359 --> 00:23:13,240
Speaker 1: Yes, the lead console who'll ed Bell South Carolina lawyer,

417
00:23:13,520 --> 00:23:17,679
Speaker 1: and there's six other co lead counsoles. They essentially have

418
00:23:17,760 --> 00:23:21,200
Speaker 1: a lot of control on how these cases will move forward.

419
00:23:21,920 --> 00:23:24,239
Speaker 2: And what do we know so far about how the

420
00:23:24,280 --> 00:23:26,080
Speaker 2: cases are going to be tried.

421
00:23:26,720 --> 00:23:29,320
Speaker 1: We don't really know at this point. If they're going

422
00:23:29,400 --> 00:23:31,960
Speaker 1: to bring a whole lot of cases together and have

423
00:23:32,040 --> 00:23:35,959
Speaker 1: one trial or have a Tellweather case. It's kind of

424
00:23:36,080 --> 00:23:38,640
Speaker 1: up in the air. They'll definitely look at these two

425
00:23:38,640 --> 00:23:42,199
Speaker 1: proposals and kind of mesh them in some ways. I

426
00:23:42,240 --> 00:23:43,880
Speaker 1: think will know in the coming week.

427
00:23:44,160 --> 00:23:48,040
Speaker 2: Thank you, Stu. That's close to Basu, Senior Enterprise reporter

428
00:23:48,119 --> 00:23:50,879
Speaker 2: for Bloomberg Law. And that's it for this edition of

429
00:23:50,880 --> 00:23:53,560
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

430
00:23:53,640 --> 00:23:56,919
Speaker 2: latest legal news by subscribing to the Bloomberg Law Podcast

431
00:23:57,359 --> 00:24:00,680
Speaker 2: or downloading this show at Bloomberg dot com, USh podcast,

432
00:24:00,800 --> 00:24:04,719
Speaker 2: Slash Law and attorneys get the latest in AI powered

433
00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:09,280
Speaker 2: legal analytics, business insights and workflow tools at Bloomberg law

434
00:24:09,359 --> 00:24:12,840
Speaker 2: dot com. With guidance from our experts, you'll grasp the

435
00:24:12,960 --> 00:24:16,359
Speaker 2: latest trends in the legal industry, helping you achieve better

436
00:24:16,400 --> 00:24:19,800
Speaker 2: results for the practice of law, the business of law,

437
00:24:19,960 --> 00:24:23,600
Speaker 2: the future of law. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com. I'm

438
00:24:23,680 --> 00:24:25,720
Speaker 2: June Bronco and you're listening to Bloomberg