Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Urges Prosecution of Enemies & Luigi Mangione

Transcript

Trump Urges Prosecution of Enemies & Luigi Mangione · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James
0:12
Speaker 2: have been involved in a war of words for years
0:16
Speaker 2: over the fraud case James brought against Trump and his company.
0:20
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty two.
0:22
Speaker 3: This raging maniac campaigned for office, ranting and raving about
0:26
Speaker 3: her goal.
0:27
Speaker 4: Her only goal is.
0:28
Speaker 3: We got to get Donald Trump.
0:29
Speaker 4: We'll got together.
0:30
Speaker 3: If she knew nothing about me, I never heard of her.
0:33
Speaker 4: The scale and the scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering,
0:40
Speaker 4: and so too is his ego and his belief that
0:43
Speaker 4: the rules do not apply to him.
0:46
Speaker 3: Very simply put, it's a witch hunt. It's a disgrace.
0:51
Speaker 3: We have a corrupt attorney general in the state.
0:54
Speaker 5: I am certain that he will engage in name calling
0:58
Speaker 5: and taunts and race and call this a witch hunt.
1:02
Speaker 5: But at the end of the day, the only thing
1:04
Speaker 5: that matters are the facts and the numbers and numbers
1:09
Speaker 5: my friends don't lie.
1:11
Speaker 2: That case resulted in a four hundred and sixty four
1:14
Speaker 2: million dollar fraud penalty, which is now on appeal to
1:18
Speaker 2: New York State's highest court. After a low repellate court
1:22
Speaker 2: found it to be excessive, And now the tables have turned,
1:25
Speaker 2: and Trump's Justice Department is investigating James over whether that
1:30
Speaker 2: fraud case violated Trump's legal rights, in addition to a
1:35
Speaker 2: separate investigation for alleged mortgage fraud, which has stalled. On Saturday,
1:41
Speaker 2: Trump posted on truth Social addressing US Attorney General Pam
1:45
Speaker 2: Bondi quote, Pam, I have reviewed over thirty statements and
1:50
Speaker 2: posts saying that essentially same old story as last time.
1:55
Speaker 2: All talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about
1:59
Speaker 2: Komy Adam, shifty shift, Letitia. They're all guilty as hell,
2:04
Speaker 2: but nothing is going to be done end quote. And
2:07
Speaker 2: on Sunday, Trump repeated his calls for quick action on
2:11
Speaker 2: the prosecutions.
2:12
Speaker 1: And we have to act fast. One way of the other,
2:15
Speaker 1: one way of the other. They're guilty, they're not guilty.
2:19
Speaker 6: We have to act fast.
2:20
Speaker 3: If they're not.
2:21
Speaker 1: Guilty, that's fine.
2:22
Speaker 3: If they are guilty, or if they should be judged,
2:25
Speaker 3: they should be judged, and we have to do it now.
2:28
Speaker 2: My guest is former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor
2:31
Speaker 2: at Cardozo Law School. Jessica Richard Nixon famously had an
2:37
Speaker 2: enemy's list, but it was kept under wraps until it
2:40
Speaker 2: was exposed by John Deane during testimony before the Watergate Committee.
2:46
Speaker 2: But President Trump is publicly urging his attorney general to
2:51
Speaker 2: go after his political enemies. What might the repercussions be.
2:56
Speaker 7: Well, it's extremely unusual, to say the least, to have
2:59
Speaker 7: it president so publicly calling for the prosecution of his
3:03
Speaker 7: political adversaries. And should it come to pass that, in fact,
3:07
Speaker 7: there are criminal charges brought against the people who he
3:10
Speaker 7: is naming and urging his Attorney general to charge, I
3:14
Speaker 7: think he's going to be providing evidence that would be
3:17
Speaker 7: powerful in the motion to dismiss those charges based on
3:21
Speaker 7: a claim of selective or vindictive prosecution.
3:24
Speaker 2: Traditionally, how much input does a president have on the
3:28
Speaker 2: Justice Department's decisions to prosecute someone?
3:32
Speaker 7: Traditionally, the Justice Department acts independently of the president in
3:38
Speaker 7: making individual prosecution decisions, and past administration since Watergate, have
3:45
Speaker 7: put into place policies in order to preserve that independence
3:49
Speaker 7: and effectively create a firewall between the prosecutors who make
3:53
Speaker 7: charging decisions and the White House. So although the president
3:57
Speaker 7: and his top level officials might have an appropriately would
4:01
Speaker 7: have some input into policy priorities when it comes to
4:05
Speaker 7: individual charging decisions. That is something that has been understood
4:09
Speaker 7: that should be undertaken without direct input from the President,
4:13
Speaker 7: and that communications between the Department of Justice and the
4:17
Speaker 7: White House about cases and about even policy priorities should
4:21
Speaker 7: be going through a select group of individuals, namely the
4:24
Speaker 7: White House Council's Office on behalf of the White House,
4:27
Speaker 7: and the Attorney General and other very senior people at
4:31
Speaker 7: the Department of Justice, so that there will be essentially
4:34
Speaker 7: some buffer between any potential interference in individual prosecution decisions.
4:41
Speaker 2: A federal prosecutor in Virginia resigned from his post after
4:45
Speaker 2: being told he would be removed for not bringing mortgage
4:48
Speaker 2: fraud charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James, and
4:53
Speaker 2: he had determined Bloomberg News's reported that there just wasn't
4:57
Speaker 2: enough evidence to support those charges, and that's what a
5:00
Speaker 2: prosecutor is supposed to do, right. You only bring charges
5:04
Speaker 2: if you think you can prove your case before a jury.
5:07
Speaker 7: It would appear that that prosecutor, who was a career prosecutor,
5:10
Speaker 7: did do the right thing on pains of losing his job.
5:14
Speaker 7: He was following the law and the evidence. It would appear.
5:18
Speaker 7: Of course, we don't have a direct account from him
5:20
Speaker 7: about what happened. But if he resigned his post or
5:23
Speaker 7: was forced out because he refused to break charges where
5:26
Speaker 7: there was not evidence to support a charge, or because
5:30
Speaker 7: he thought that even if there were such evidence that
5:32
Speaker 7: it was a politically motivated prosecution, then he upheld the
5:36
Speaker 7: norms of prosecutorial independence and professional judgment in doing so.
5:41
Speaker 7: And the fact that he resigned or was forced out,
5:43
Speaker 7: depending on which account is true, I think is also
5:46
Speaker 7: going to be an important part of any claim for
5:50
Speaker 7: selective or vindictive prosecution if another prosecutor does file charges,
5:55
Speaker 7: because I think it is circumstantial evidence that previous prosecutors,
6:00
Speaker 7: who are career prosecutors who looked at the evidence, thought
6:02
Speaker 7: they were not warranted.
6:03
Speaker 1: In this case, it's a high.
6:05
Speaker 2: Bar, isn't it to get a case dismissed on the
6:08
Speaker 2: basis of selective or vindictive prosecution.
6:12
Speaker 7: It is a very high bar, and such claims are
6:15
Speaker 7: notoriously difficult to win on because there is a presumption
6:19
Speaker 7: of regularity that attaches to prosecution's decisions, and it requires
6:23
Speaker 7: a proof of actual animists in bringing the case against
6:26
Speaker 7: an individual. So here the fact that the president is
6:30
Speaker 7: out in public effectively directing a prosecution of his political
6:35
Speaker 7: opponents regardless of the evidence, essentially saying they're guilty of
6:39
Speaker 7: something without regard to whatever may be available or what
6:43
Speaker 7: those particular charges might require as elements under the law.
6:48
Speaker 7: Combined with the fact that a career prosecutor who was
6:51
Speaker 7: charged with the investigation apparently refused to bring charges and
6:55
Speaker 7: was fired or resigned over that decision, all of that
6:59
Speaker 7: may create ccumstances in which a court actually might dismiss
7:04
Speaker 7: the case for vindictive prosecution or in a minimum, order
7:07
Speaker 7: a hearing and discovery to get to the bottom of
7:10
Speaker 7: the facts about what actually transpired before the case was brought.
7:14
Speaker 2: And yet, according to Bloomberg News sources, the Justice Department
7:18
Speaker 2: is pushing ahead with its investigation of Letitia James for
7:24
Speaker 2: mortgage fraud and apparently got the green light from the
7:29
Speaker 2: Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche. But why push this forward
7:34
Speaker 2: at this point when the defense is James could raise
7:37
Speaker 2: seem to be mounting.
7:39
Speaker 7: I can't speak to the reasoning that is occurring within
7:42
Speaker 7: the Department of Justice and the Attorney's Office in Virginia
7:45
Speaker 7: in continuing the investigation and preparing charges if that, in
7:49
Speaker 7: fact is what is happening. The first line of defense,
7:53
Speaker 7: if you will, would be a grand jury that would
7:56
Speaker 7: hear the evidence that may not return an indictment. That
8:00
Speaker 7: also would be highly unusual. And yet we are seeing
8:03
Speaker 7: around the country grandeurors actually refusing to indict on cases
8:08
Speaker 7: where the evidence is lacking or for some other reason
8:11
Speaker 7: that's within their purview to reject the charges, perhaps because
8:14
Speaker 7: they perceive them as unwarranted, because they're trivial or disproportionate,
8:19
Speaker 7: or perhaps because they perceive a political bias.
8:22
Speaker 1: So first we'd have.
8:23
Speaker 7: To see if a grand jury actually would return an indictment.
8:26
Speaker 7: If they don't, the case couldn't go forward unless the
8:30
Speaker 7: Department of Justice tried to present it to another grand jury,
8:33
Speaker 7: which they could. But if they ever do get an indictment,
8:36
Speaker 7: then it would go before a judge, and the defense
8:38
Speaker 7: and guessing would bring emotion to dismiss based on selective
8:42
Speaker 7: or vindictive prosecution. And there although there is this evidence
8:47
Speaker 7: we've been discussing that would suggest that these are politically
8:50
Speaker 7: motivated prosecutions, as the President has been calling for them
8:54
Speaker 7: in public, the challenge might be proving that actually the
8:59
Speaker 7: prosecution would not have been brought but for the political animus,
9:03
Speaker 7: and then also attributing the political animus that the president
9:07
Speaker 7: is voicing to the prosecutors who actually.
9:09
Speaker 1: Brought the charge.
9:11
Speaker 7: I think that those hurdles could be overcome and the
9:14
Speaker 7: unique facts presented in this case, but I imagine those
9:17
Speaker 7: would be things that the court would have to consider.
9:19
Speaker 7: The typical case where somebody brings the claim of vindictive
9:22
Speaker 7: or selective prosecution virtually vindictive prosecution, it is often after
9:27
Speaker 7: someone has previously been charged and then additional charges are
9:30
Speaker 7: launched against them after they exercised their right to go
9:33
Speaker 7: to trial, for example, and so the claim is that
9:35
Speaker 7: the individual prosecutor involved was being vindictive or a vindictiveness
9:40
Speaker 7: based on something that the individual who was charged did
9:44
Speaker 7: that irritated the individual prosecutor, something perhaps in that person's
9:48
Speaker 7: personal life or business affairs. What's unusual here is that
9:51
Speaker 7: we would have potentially aligned prosecutors speaking indictment before a
9:55
Speaker 7: grand jury, and the animus would have to be attributed
9:58
Speaker 7: to that person. That is essentially going from the President
10:00
Speaker 7: of the United States through the Attorney General. And so
10:03
Speaker 7: that's just not a typical fact pattern that we see
10:05
Speaker 7: in these cases.
10:06
Speaker 2: The use of mortgage fraud allegations is not restricted to James.
10:12
Speaker 2: The Trump administration is pursuing similar charges against California Senator
10:16
Speaker 2: Adam Schiff and FED Chair Lisa Cook. I mean, the
10:20
Speaker 2: federal government has rarely brought criminal charges over these kinds
10:24
Speaker 2: of misstatements about primary residents and mortgage records. And also
10:29
Speaker 2: there's reporting that members of Trump's cabinet and other Republican
10:34
Speaker 2: officials made similar types of misstatements in mortgage applications. Would
10:41
Speaker 2: that be part of a pattern of proof in a
10:43
Speaker 2: selective or vindictive prosecution defense?
10:48
Speaker 5: Well.
10:48
Speaker 7: To prevail on a claim of selective prosecution, the defendants
10:52
Speaker 7: would have to establish that they were selected for prosecution
10:59
Speaker 7: for a crime that is not frequently charged, and that
11:04
Speaker 7: they were selected essentially on the basis of some characteristic
11:07
Speaker 7: that is protected. Often such cases are alleged that the
11:11
Speaker 7: person was selected based on a legally protected classification such
11:15
Speaker 7: as race, But the claims could also be based on
11:18
Speaker 7: the person having exercised their First Amendment rights of speech
11:22
Speaker 7: and political assembly, for example, And so it would be
11:26
Speaker 7: helpful to prevail on such a claim if the defendants
11:29
Speaker 7: could show that standalone mortgage fraud claims without proof of
11:33
Speaker 7: other criminal activity were rarely brought, and that there were
11:38
Speaker 7: other similarly situated persons like themselves and other members of
11:43
Speaker 7: the president's own parties, So people who are not political foes,
11:46
Speaker 7: people who had not exercised their First Amendment rights to
11:49
Speaker 7: criticize the president. If those people were factually similarly situated
11:53
Speaker 7: but were not prosecuted, if that could be established, that
11:57
Speaker 7: would be very helpful to the defendants if they were
11:59
Speaker 7: to bring us elective prosecution claim.
12:02
Speaker 2: The criminal referrals are coming from Bill Poulty, who is
12:08
Speaker 2: the head of the FHFA, and Adam Schiff's attorney. Pret Barrara,
12:15
Speaker 2: the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York,
12:19
Speaker 2: has described Paulty's actions as highly irregular and part of
12:23
Speaker 2: a pattern of him misusing his office to go after
12:26
Speaker 2: Trump's political opponents. Would his involvement here be part of,
12:32
Speaker 2: you know, a defense if there were.
12:34
Speaker 7: A claim for selective or vindictive prosecution, I think the
12:38
Speaker 7: court would take into account what are the circumstances that
12:42
Speaker 7: contributed to bringing the prosecution, And certainly, if there were
12:46
Speaker 7: an evidentiary hearing, the court would consider evidence about those
12:51
Speaker 7: circumstances and the historical facts about how this case actually
12:55
Speaker 7: wound up being brought. I don't think the fact that
12:58
Speaker 7: it originated in a referral from one particular agency versus
13:01
Speaker 7: another would be dispositive. But if there's no history of
13:06
Speaker 7: cases being referred from that agency that resulted in charges
13:10
Speaker 7: being brought for a mortgage fraud, that would certainly be
13:12
Speaker 7: I think a data point in the Court's analysis of
13:15
Speaker 7: whether there was animus or selection based on political affiliation
13:20
Speaker 7: or First Amendment rights behind these particular prosecutions. Something that
13:25
Speaker 7: looks irregular, In other words, in the course of how
13:27
Speaker 7: these cases were investigated and the decision to charge was made,
13:31
Speaker 7: would be something that would be of concern to the Court.
13:34
Speaker 2: Coming up next the White House's response, I'm June Grosso
13:38
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump appealed to
13:44
Speaker 2: his Attorney General Pam Bondy on truth Social on Saturday
13:49
Speaker 2: to bring charges against former FBI director James Comy, California
13:54
Speaker 2: Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James,
13:58
Speaker 2: and the Associated Is reporting that the Justice Department is
14:02
Speaker 2: preparing to ask a grand jury to indict Comy on
14:07
Speaker 2: allegations that he lied to Congress. As prosecutors approach a
14:11
Speaker 2: legal deadline for bringing charges, I've been talking to former
14:15
Speaker 2: federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School.
14:21
Speaker 2: At a press briefing on Monday, the White House Press
14:24
Speaker 2: Secretary Caroline Levitt said that the President is fulfilling his
14:29
Speaker 2: promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability.
14:34
Speaker 6: It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand
14:37
Speaker 6: accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice, and
14:42
Speaker 6: nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump.
14:45
Speaker 2: Is there any explanation that would justify bringing these kinds
14:49
Speaker 2: of prosecutions against political enemies.
14:54
Speaker 7: I can't see any explanation for characterizing the these investigations
15:01
Speaker 7: that gets around the fact that they seem to be
15:05
Speaker 7: explicitly politically motivated and targeting the president's enemies and perceived
15:11
Speaker 7: political enemies. If the President wanted to prioritize mortgage fraud cases,
15:18
Speaker 7: that would be neutral in terms of who would be targeted.
15:22
Speaker 7: That would be one thing.
15:23
Speaker 1: That is the.
15:24
Speaker 7: Kind of policy decision with respect to criminal law enforcement
15:28
Speaker 7: that prior administrations have pursued. Every administration has its criminal
15:33
Speaker 7: law enforcement priorities, but to start with the individuals who
15:39
Speaker 7: are to be prosecuted just flips the normal course and
15:43
Speaker 7: the way in which decisions to investigate and prosecute should
15:46
Speaker 7: be done and historically have been done following the facts
15:50
Speaker 7: and the law, not targeting a particular individual to see
15:54
Speaker 7: if any possible case can be developed against them based
15:58
Speaker 7: on the fact that the individual is an enemy of
16:00
Speaker 7: the president or the administration.
16:03
Speaker 2: Three of the people we've been talking about, Letitia James,
16:07
Speaker 2: Adam Schiff, and James Comy are attorneys. In fact, call
16:12
Speaker 2: Me was formerly the US attorney for Manhattan, but all
16:16
Speaker 2: three have hired the lawyers to represent them. Explain what
16:20
Speaker 2: goes into having to defend yourself before charges are brought,
16:25
Speaker 2: and then once charges are brought, even if they're dismissed
16:29
Speaker 2: early on, even.
16:31
Speaker 7: If charges are ultimately dismissed, a person's life can be
16:36
Speaker 7: made deeply difficult, uncomfortable, and their reputation can be ruined,
16:41
Speaker 7: and they can incur ruining financial expense in having to
16:46
Speaker 7: defend themselves against allegations that are just out in the
16:50
Speaker 7: public even prior to indictment, and then post indictment. Reportedly,
16:54
Speaker 7: the individuals who have been named in these investigations have
16:58
Speaker 7: had to incur a great deal of expense in lawyer's
17:02
Speaker 7: fees in responding to subpoenas, going through their own information
17:06
Speaker 7: even before subpoena is issued, to see how they would
17:10
Speaker 7: prepare a defense, how they would respond to subpoenas when
17:13
Speaker 7: and if they are issued. So is financially an enormous
17:16
Speaker 7: burden on an individual is just to be the subject
17:19
Speaker 7: of an investigation. And because the way this administration has
17:23
Speaker 7: been carrying out a public campaign of smearing the reputations
17:27
Speaker 7: of people, which is so far outside the norm of
17:30
Speaker 7: what prosecutors ordinarily do and are permitted to do under
17:34
Speaker 7: ethics rules, the reputations of these individuals is just being
17:38
Speaker 7: dragged through the mud. So we have an complete upending
17:42
Speaker 7: of norms in terms of how the Department of Justice
17:45
Speaker 7: and the President are going about carrying out a public
17:48
Speaker 7: campaign against individuals even before they are charged, and setting
17:53
Speaker 7: up a situation where so much is already in the
17:56
Speaker 7: public domain, long before charges have been fought and may
18:01
Speaker 7: never be filed.
18:02
Speaker 2: I'm wondering what this kind of pressure does to attorneys
18:07
Speaker 2: at the Justice department. There have been both a lot
18:11
Speaker 2: of resignations and a lot of firings. What effect does
18:15
Speaker 2: this kind of pressure have on the attorneys as they
18:20
Speaker 2: do the everyday work.
18:22
Speaker 7: This must be enormously demoralizing to attorneys who are still
18:26
Speaker 7: working at the Department of Justice, who recognize these efforts
18:31
Speaker 7: to investigate and prosecute individuals based on their political speech
18:38
Speaker 7: and political affiliation, who recognize this as a tremendous departure
18:44
Speaker 7: from not only prosecutorial norms of independence, but from the
18:48
Speaker 7: rule of law. And the question is whether those individuals
18:52
Speaker 7: who have stuck it out thus far at the Department
18:55
Speaker 7: of Justice under President Trump will resign now or whether
18:59
Speaker 7: they will wait and they are individually directed to charge
19:03
Speaker 7: a person without sufficient evidence based on political motivations, and
19:08
Speaker 7: who will be left because as difficult as it would
19:12
Speaker 7: be to stay on in the Department of Justice that
19:16
Speaker 7: is operating in this fashion, in a sense, we depend
19:20
Speaker 7: on career prosecutors who do know what it takes to
19:24
Speaker 7: build a case and what is required of them in
19:26
Speaker 7: terms of professional norms and their professional ethical obligations. We
19:30
Speaker 7: depend on them to be a bulwark against the president,
19:33
Speaker 7: the Attorney General and against appointees who the President increasingly
19:39
Speaker 7: puts into positions of authority as interim US attorneys, so
19:44
Speaker 7: with ultimate authority over the decisions within an individual attorney's office.
19:49
Speaker 7: People who have in many cases little to no experience
19:53
Speaker 7: as prosecutors or even as criminal law attorneys, who have
19:58
Speaker 7: ties to the pres and our loyalist to the president,
20:02
Speaker 7: and dependent on the President for their careers. When those
20:06
Speaker 7: people are in the highest positions in offices, we really
20:10
Speaker 7: rely on the line prosecutors who have been trained in
20:14
Speaker 7: professional norms and the law to do their jobs consistent
20:19
Speaker 7: with their training and to serve as that bulwark. And
20:22
Speaker 7: if those people are all forced out, either because they're
20:25
Speaker 7: fired or because they resign because they can no longer
20:28
Speaker 7: in good conscience, day than we are at a very
20:31
Speaker 7: scary place.
20:32
Speaker 2: It's great to get your insights, Jessica. That's Professor Jessica
20:36
Speaker 2: Roth of Cardozo Law School. On New York Federal judge
20:40
Speaker 2: says that at least two senior Justice Department officials probably
20:45
Speaker 2: violated court rules by reposting comments that President Trump made
20:50
Speaker 2: about Luigi Mangoni on Fox News on September eighteenthey.
20:56
Speaker 3: He shot someone in the back, as clear as you're
21:00
Speaker 3: looking at me or I'm looking at you. He looked
21:04
Speaker 3: like a pure assassin. I was surprised, actually, you know,
21:07
Speaker 3: you would have thought this guy would have been at
21:09
Speaker 3: a central casting in the movie. And maybe he was.
21:12
Speaker 3: But he think of what he did. He openly, it's
21:16
Speaker 3: not like she does a question. If there's a question,
21:18
Speaker 3: you can understand it, maybe, but there's not a question.
21:22
Speaker 2: A video clip of Trump's remarks was posted on the
21:26
Speaker 2: social platform x by the White House, and then reposted
21:30
Speaker 2: by a Justice Department spokesperson who added the comment quote
21:34
Speaker 2: at potus is absolutely right joining me is Bloomberg Legal
21:38
Speaker 2: reporter Patricia Hurtado pat tell us about the warning the
21:42
Speaker 2: judge gave the Justice Department, Well.
21:45
Speaker 1: It comes on the heels of late Friday. Man Gioni's
21:49
Speaker 1: lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the indictment or another
21:53
Speaker 1: remedy would be two block prosecutors bringing the death penalty
21:57
Speaker 1: against him in the federal case, arguing that the Attorney
22:01
Speaker 1: General and so many people in the government have made
22:04
Speaker 1: statements declaring him guilty. Pam Bonti put things on Twitter
22:10
Speaker 1: and those kind of extraneous statements outside of court He
22:14
Speaker 1: argued that they poisoned his potential jury pull and was
22:18
Speaker 1: going to deprive him of a right to a fair trial,
22:20
Speaker 1: especially when he's fighting the death penalty, which is such
22:23
Speaker 1: an extraordinary penalty. And then the supplemental filing came in
22:27
Speaker 1: night before last, and it was Mangion's lawyers complaining about
22:31
Speaker 1: further comments made now by President Trump on Fox News.
22:37
Speaker 1: Top DOJ officials retweeted, and White House officials, including Caroline Levitt,
22:43
Speaker 1: the White House spokeswoman, basically declaring that Mangioni, who was
22:47
Speaker 1: the killer, he was called an assassin, and they were
22:51
Speaker 1: linking him to left wing extremists and suggesting he had
22:55
Speaker 1: links to people like in antifa, anti fascist organizations, like
23:00
Speaker 1: those that had carried out, you know, the killing of
23:03
Speaker 1: They didn't mention Charlie Kirk by name, but they insinuated it,
23:07
Speaker 1: and DOJ officials had retweeted comments made by the White House.
23:12
Speaker 1: A White House official website put it out. Two DOJ
23:15
Speaker 1: officials put it out as well as Caroline Levitt at
23:19
Speaker 1: a press briefing that was televised also called him an assassin.
23:23
Speaker 1: After that happens, Luigi's lawyers complained to get into the
23:27
Speaker 1: judge saying, oh, here's further evidence, and this comes on
23:30
Speaker 1: the heels of what we said on Friday.
23:32
Speaker 2: Did the judge rule from the bench or did she
23:34
Speaker 2: take some time to consider the defense's request within minutes.
23:40
Speaker 1: The judge in the case, her name is Margaret Garnett,
23:42
Speaker 1: she put in an ordered basically threatening that there could
23:46
Speaker 1: be sanctions if anybody at DOJ continued to do this.
23:50
Speaker 1: And she says it's the duty of the lawyer or
23:52
Speaker 1: law firm and of non lawyer personnel to follow her rules.
23:58
Speaker 1: And there's a local rule that you're not supposed to
24:02
Speaker 1: poison or make comments about a defendant's guilt now that
24:05
Speaker 1: the case is in the pre trial phase, and his
24:08
Speaker 1: lawyers complained that it basically hampers and hinders their chances
24:13
Speaker 1: of getting an untainted jury that can keep an open
24:16
Speaker 1: mind about guilt or innocence. She was also suggesting that
24:20
Speaker 1: it appears to include people like Attorney General Pam Bondi,
24:25
Speaker 1: that they were aware and understood that they were bound
24:29
Speaker 1: by this rule. She said, so she wanted a report
24:32
Speaker 1: given to her, either from prosecutors in the office or
24:35
Speaker 1: from dj to explain to her how they hadn't violated
24:39
Speaker 1: the rule and to make sure that there was going
24:41
Speaker 1: to be a dissemination of her rule, to make sure
24:44
Speaker 1: everybody at DOJ understood what the rule was, don't violate it.
24:48
Speaker 2: So now, the judge said that future violations may result
24:53
Speaker 2: in sanctions which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of
24:59
Speaker 2: court finding, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter.
25:04
Speaker 2: Could relief specific to the prosecution of this matter mean
25:09
Speaker 2: precluding the federal government from seeking the death penalty or
25:13
Speaker 2: even dismissing the federal charges.
25:16
Speaker 1: Well, that's what the defense for Manngion argues that this
25:20
Speaker 1: is making it impossible for him to get a fair
25:23
Speaker 1: federal trial because, I mean, if you have the President
25:26
Speaker 1: of the United States making comments on national television, you
25:29
Speaker 1: wonder if your potential jury pool is going to be poisoned. Yes,
25:32
Speaker 1: that's down the road, but if the ultimate penalty for
25:35
Speaker 1: a murder conviction is the death penalty, you wonder if
25:40
Speaker 1: somebody as important as the President of the United States,
25:43
Speaker 1: as a White House spokeswoman are making comments, as well
25:46
Speaker 1: as the Attorney General and top members of DOJ are
25:50
Speaker 1: making comments about your guilt, you wonder about the chances
25:53
Speaker 1: of getting a fair trial and that's what the defense
25:56
Speaker 1: has argued. The ultimate penalty and sanction should be either
25:59
Speaker 1: dismissal of the indictment or take the death penalty off
26:03
Speaker 1: the table.
26:03
Speaker 2: From Angel, what's the timeframe here? How long did the
26:06
Speaker 2: judge give the Justice Department to come back with this.
26:10
Speaker 1: She's basically wants to know by October third to have
26:14
Speaker 1: have a response and a sworn declaration from somebody. And
26:18
Speaker 1: she calls it suitable authority, and she named either the
26:21
Speaker 1: chief of the Criminal Division in the Southern District or
26:25
Speaker 1: another prosecutor in the Southern District. You know, one thing
26:28
Speaker 1: to remember about all of this is that we've had
26:31
Speaker 1: instances in the past where even a defendant on trial
26:36
Speaker 1: in the middle of their trial has been ordered to
26:38
Speaker 1: stop making public statements to the press. I mean, we
26:42
Speaker 1: had Martin Screlly, who was not facing the death penalty
26:45
Speaker 1: but just securities fraw charges, and he was on trial,
26:48
Speaker 1: and he walked out and he started talking, and he would,
26:52
Speaker 1: you know, make comments every time he left the courthouse,
26:55
Speaker 1: and finally the judge was co concerned that he might
26:58
Speaker 1: be saying something outside the courthouse front door that the
27:01
Speaker 1: jurors might hear that you gave him a limit, like
27:04
Speaker 1: a parameter of an electric fence, not to talk around
27:08
Speaker 1: the courthouse perimeter. So I mean that's somebody they're on
27:11
Speaker 1: trial and they're fighting for their life and their career,
27:14
Speaker 1: but not fighting against the death penalty and a murder
27:17
Speaker 1: conviction that could be life in prison without parole, and.
27:21
Speaker 2: Asking to have the federal charges dismissed or the death
27:24
Speaker 2: penalty taken off the table. One of the things man
27:28
Speaker 2: Joni's lawyers brought up was the high publicity and that
27:33
Speaker 2: purp walk that looked like it was staged on a
27:36
Speaker 2: Hollywood movie set.
27:39
Speaker 1: Well, they talk about the purp Walk. If you think
27:42
Speaker 1: about how this case started and the shooting happens first
27:46
Speaker 1: week of December. There's a five day man hunt, he's
27:50
Speaker 1: arrested in Altuna, Pennsylvania, and then Mangione gets airlifted back
27:55
Speaker 1: to New York in a helicopter. He gets brought off
27:59
Speaker 1: to Hellpter and he's in shackles and he's surrounded by
28:03
Speaker 1: a failanx of armed officers in technical gear. His lawyers
28:08
Speaker 1: compared that to looking like something out of a Marvel movie.
28:12
Speaker 1: You know that he's not some anti hero, evil villain.
28:16
Speaker 1: He's a defendant to have a fair trial. But even
28:19
Speaker 1: when he comes to court, they complain that he has
28:22
Speaker 1: been produced shackled. He's wearing what they call a three
28:25
Speaker 1: piece suit by federal marshals, and that means you've got
28:29
Speaker 1: a belt around your waist that's leather with chains like
28:33
Speaker 1: Marley's Ghost, you have shackles around your ankles. And he
28:36
Speaker 1: gets brought in like this, and at some points he's
28:39
Speaker 1: been wearing like a flak jacket on top of that,
28:42
Speaker 1: and his lawyers have said, why can't he wear street clothes.
28:45
Speaker 1: Other defendants are allowed to come to court and street clothes.
28:48
Speaker 2: And also they're claiming that Bondy rushed the decision to
28:53
Speaker 2: seek the death penalty and didn't use the protocol that
28:58
Speaker 2: prior administrations have used to assess whether there should be
29:01
Speaker 2: capital murder charges.
29:03
Speaker 1: They're alleging that early on in the waning days of
29:06
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, manngi Own's lawyers tried to meet with
29:09
Speaker 1: DOJ and the pros Aligned prosecutors from Manhattan FED and
29:14
Speaker 1: that they were told they had to wait and they
29:16
Speaker 1: were basically put off until the Trump administration takes over.
29:21
Speaker 1: I've covered other federal death penalty cases, there's typically a
29:24
Speaker 1: procedure that takes months that called the death panel, and
29:28
Speaker 1: basically the defense lawyers are allowed to go down and
29:32
Speaker 1: main justice and make a presentation to argue mitigating factors
29:36
Speaker 1: why it's not a good idea to seek the death penalty,
29:39
Speaker 1: or why the death penalty is not appropriate for their
29:41
Speaker 1: client's case, for example, if they have a history of
29:44
Speaker 1: being abused as a child, or some kind of psychiatric
29:47
Speaker 1: problem or some kind of health issue or something, and
29:51
Speaker 1: they're allowed to bring the mitigating factors to the government's
29:55
Speaker 1: attention so that DOJ may decide, Okay, the death penalty
29:59
Speaker 1: doesn't seem a appropriate for this case. They argue this
30:02
Speaker 1: was never done, they were never allowed to, and that
30:05
Speaker 1: the DOJ with Pambondi automatically leapfrogged, basically jettisoned any kind
30:11
Speaker 1: of panel hearing or any mitigating factors hearing, and decided
30:15
Speaker 1: on her own, without anybody's input and without hearing from
30:18
Speaker 1: the defense, to just go ahead and seek the death penalty.
30:21
Speaker 1: So it was a set of complay. According to the defense, what's.
30:24
Speaker 2: The next thing that will happen in these cases?
30:27
Speaker 1: Well, the next thing that we are waiting for is
30:30
Speaker 1: man Gioni's lawyers are supposed to by next week tell
30:34
Speaker 1: the court whether or not they're going to in the
30:37
Speaker 1: state case and try to put a psychiatric defense up.
30:41
Speaker 1: So these are dual cases, and the judge in the
30:43
Speaker 1: state case made ruling last week where his lawyers had
30:48
Speaker 1: argued this was unfair, it was double jeopardy. In their assessment,
30:52
Speaker 1: they said that having to defend himself in a state
30:55
Speaker 1: murder case as well at the same time also fighting
30:59
Speaker 1: a federal death penalty case was unfair and amounted to
31:03
Speaker 1: double jeopardy. The judge in the state case ruled that
31:06
Speaker 1: he thought it was too early because the Feds haven't
31:09
Speaker 1: started their case. I mean, technically the prosecution is pending,
31:13
Speaker 1: but there isn't any trial, So in the date judges assessment,
31:16
Speaker 1: it wasn't a double jeopardy problem. It does seem to be, though,
31:20
Speaker 1: quind of tough, because there's duly front for Maggione.
31:24
Speaker 2: And we should point out that while double jeopardy prevents
31:27
Speaker 2: a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense,
31:32
Speaker 2: the dual sofe running doctrine allows separate state and federal
31:37
Speaker 2: prosecutions for the same conduct.
31:40
Speaker 1: The other thing that Mangione's defense has argued is in
31:43
Speaker 1: cases like if I don't know our listeners, remember that
31:46
Speaker 1: there was a gentleman named Sepos and he was accused
31:51
Speaker 1: of mowing down pedestrians on a bike path in Lower
31:54
Speaker 1: Manhattan and he ran them down and killed people and
31:59
Speaker 1: was convicted. But there was a steakcase and a federal case,
32:03
Speaker 1: and there was a time lag between the statecase and
32:06
Speaker 1: the federal case, so they weren't proceeding on parallel front
32:09
Speaker 1: sets simultaneously, which is what Luigi Mangiones lawyers are saying
32:13
Speaker 1: is happening to their clients that.
32:15
Speaker 2: Might prove to be an uphill battle. Thanks so much, Pat.
32:18
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, and that's it for
32:21
Speaker 2: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
32:24
Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
32:28
Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
32:31
Speaker 2: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
32:36
Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
32:39
Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
32:43
Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg