Latest / Bloomberg Law / DOJ Erases Jan 6th Cases & Pirro's Job in Jeopardy

Transcript

DOJ Erases Jan 6th Cases & Pirro's Job in Jeopardy · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: More than three years ago, the Justice Department was touting
0:12
Speaker 2: the guilty verdicts against members of the right wing Oathkeepers
0:16
Speaker 2: for a plot to obstruct Congress's certification of the twenty
0:20
Speaker 2: twenty presidential election. The rare seditious conspiracy verdicts were the
0:26
Speaker 2: crowning achievement of an expansive prosecution effort that followed the
0:30
Speaker 2: violent riots at the Capitol on January sixth of twenty
0:34
Speaker 2: twenty one. But when Donald Trump took office for the
0:38
Speaker 2: second time, he directed his sweeping clemency power toward the
0:43
Speaker 2: more than fifteen hundred people charged in connection with the
0:46
Speaker 2: January sixth attack.
0:48
Speaker 3: I was very proud to pardon the j six postige.
0:53
Speaker 2: And when Trump bragged about the pardons at a rally
0:56
Speaker 2: about a week later, sitting behind him in the VIP
1:00
Speaker 2: section was Stuart Rhodes, the leader of the oath Keepers
1:05
Speaker 2: who'd been released from prison just days earlier after Trump
1:10
Speaker 2: commuted his eighteen year sentence for seditious conspiracy. And now
1:15
Speaker 2: the Trump administration is trying to rewrite the history of
1:19
Speaker 2: the January sixth attack by dismissing the indictments against the
1:24
Speaker 2: oath Keeper's hack. Federal Judge Amitt Metta, who had presided
1:29
Speaker 2: over the oath Keeper's case and sentenced the defendants, criticized
1:33
Speaker 2: the Justice Department, writing that the government quote asked to
1:37
Speaker 2: absolve these defendants of crimes against the United States itself,
1:42
Speaker 2: but he wrote that he had no choice but to
1:44
Speaker 2: grant the administration's motion to dismiss Joining me is Bloomberg
1:49
Speaker 2: Legal reporter Zoe Zoe tell us about the charges against
1:53
Speaker 2: the oath Keepers and their significance.
1:55
Speaker 1: So this was one of the highest profile cases to
1:58
Speaker 1: come out of the January sixth secution effort, where members
2:02
Speaker 1: of the oath Keepers, which was a right wing extremist group,
2:07
Speaker 1: were charged with conspiring well in advance of January sixth,
2:11
Speaker 1: not only to come to Washington to do whatever it
2:15
Speaker 1: took to stop Congress from certifying the election results, but
2:19
Speaker 1: also to bring guns and to stockpile them at a
2:22
Speaker 1: hotel in Virginia. And the theory of that prosecution was,
2:26
Speaker 1: you know, these were not people going to protest and
2:29
Speaker 1: accidentally got swept up that they had been planning potentially
2:33
Speaker 1: to use force and violence to stop Congress. From certifying
2:38
Speaker 1: the election. This was arguably the highest profile of not
2:41
Speaker 1: one of the most high profile cases. It involved charges
2:45
Speaker 1: and ultimately convictions for a seditious conspiracy, which was a
2:48
Speaker 1: very rarely used offense. It's you know, use of force
2:52
Speaker 1: against the US government. This is more than just the
2:56
Speaker 1: garden variety, so to speak, conspiracy to obstruct Congress to
3:00
Speaker 1: that many people faced after January sixth, So these cases
3:02
Speaker 1: were really top of mind for the Justice Department and
3:06
Speaker 1: for the public's understanding of the most serious crimes that
3:12
Speaker 1: were being charged in connection with what had happened on January.
3:15
Speaker 2: Six and how many people were actually convicted in this
3:18
Speaker 2: particular case.
3:19
Speaker 1: There were several dozen I believe prosecutions related in some
3:24
Speaker 1: way to the oathkeepers. But what it came down to
3:26
Speaker 1: here was eight defendants who were convicted, including some of
3:32
Speaker 1: seditious conspiracy, but who weren't part of the Trump pardon.
3:36
Speaker 1: You might remember, on January twentieth, he takes office, he
3:39
Speaker 1: issues a sweeping executive clemency action that covers almost everybody,
3:45
Speaker 1: but not everybody convicted or charged in the January sixth cases,
3:49
Speaker 1: and there were fourteen people who didn't get pardons, but
3:52
Speaker 1: their sentences were commuted, and that included eight of the
3:56
Speaker 1: remaining defendants whose cases were an issue here related to
3:59
Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers case, So, you know, their cases then had
4:03
Speaker 1: still been out there, they.
4:04
Speaker 4: Were appealing their convictions.
4:06
Speaker 1: Ultimately, the Justice Department came back and said to the
4:10
Speaker 1: courts that they wished to vacate those convictions even though
4:13
Speaker 1: Trump hadn't pardoned them. So those were struck, and then
4:17
Speaker 1: what was left were the indictments. They were still you know,
4:20
Speaker 1: on the record, criminally charged with these offenses, and that's
4:24
Speaker 1: what was left for the judge to resolve here.
4:27
Speaker 2: Why didn't Trump pardon them as well?
4:29
Speaker 1: I don't think that he's ever publicly discussed this at length,
4:33
Speaker 1: but I think the inference was that the fourteen people
4:36
Speaker 1: were members of the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys, and
4:39
Speaker 1: these were the most serious, seditious conspiracy cases that the
4:45
Speaker 1: Justice Department had brought. And you know, leading up to
4:49
Speaker 1: Trump returning to office, there had been rumblings coming from
4:53
Speaker 1: Republicans and conservatives, not just Democrats and liberals, blocking at
4:57
Speaker 1: the idea that people who beat up cops, committed violence,
5:02
Speaker 1: or who were convicted of these most serious offenses against
5:06
Speaker 1: the United States government that they should perhaps not benefit
5:09
Speaker 1: from executive clemency, and there was some infighting on the
5:12
Speaker 1: right about whether that would be appropriate and acceptable, and
5:16
Speaker 1: ultimately the President had a sweeping clemency action that covered
5:20
Speaker 1: many people who were convicted or charged with assaulting police officers,
5:24
Speaker 1: but it seemed like perhaps the seditious conspiracy cases were
5:28
Speaker 1: this outlier, so he commuted the sentences. They were released
5:31
Speaker 1: from prison, but didn't take that final step at the time,
5:34
Speaker 1: at least to give them a full pardon.
5:37
Speaker 2: Have you heard before of the Justice Department getting convictions
5:42
Speaker 2: asking to have them vacated and asking to have the
5:46
Speaker 2: indictments dismissed.
5:48
Speaker 1: So the convictions were already vacated, the cases were up
5:51
Speaker 1: on appeal, and the Justice departments asked the appeals court
5:54
Speaker 1: to basically kick them back down with an order to
5:56
Speaker 1: vacate them, finding it.
5:58
Speaker 4: Was in the public interest.
5:59
Speaker 1: The judge in the opinion that we wrote about sort
6:01
Speaker 1: of notes that there wasn't much explanation as to why
6:04
Speaker 1: they wanted to do that and why the DC circuits
6:07
Speaker 1: signed off on that. That being said, there is just
6:09
Speaker 1: a lot of prosecutorial discretion at every level of these cases.
6:13
Speaker 1: So when administrations change, there are always, no matter who's
6:18
Speaker 1: in charge, backtracking of prosecutorial decisions that have been made
6:23
Speaker 1: by past administrations. That's certainly something we see. So what
6:27
Speaker 1: was left was just that the indictments were still active.
6:30
Speaker 1: You know, in theory they could vacate these convictions, but say,
6:33
Speaker 1: you know, there were problems with how this prosecution happened,
6:36
Speaker 1: but we're going to try them again. That was still
6:39
Speaker 1: an option, or just to leave them intact, as the
6:44
Speaker 1: judge said, you know, to create some record that this
6:47
Speaker 1: had all happened in some official legal capacity.
6:51
Speaker 2: The judge pointed out the prosecutors never admitted to any
6:55
Speaker 2: prosecutorial misconduct or legal error or said that the evidence
6:59
Speaker 2: was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. So was he
7:04
Speaker 2: trying to say that this is not about the weaponization
7:08
Speaker 2: of the Justice Department, as the Trump administration and President
7:12
Speaker 2: Trump keeps claiming.
7:14
Speaker 1: Basically, yes, I think he felt that he needed to
7:17
Speaker 1: highlight what was a series of unusual events and you know,
7:23
Speaker 1: in his mind, perplexing and surprising arguments that the government
7:27
Speaker 1: ultimately made to do something that he acknowledged they have
7:31
Speaker 1: the authority to do. It's just normally, he said, it's
7:34
Speaker 1: because they might say, you know, we looked at the
7:36
Speaker 1: evidence again, it was insufficient. We identified deficiencies with what
7:40
Speaker 1: was charged, how the prosecution played out. You know, those
7:44
Speaker 1: are the normal reasons that you would see the government
7:45
Speaker 1: walk back a case where it's already won a conviction.
7:49
Speaker 1: That didn't happen here. And the judge said, what he
7:52
Speaker 1: received from the government was a couple of arguments. One
7:55
Speaker 1: was to protect these defendants from harassment, that as long
7:58
Speaker 1: as the indictments were on the book, the potential for
8:02
Speaker 1: you know, maybe some future trial that this was harassing
8:06
Speaker 1: of individuals whose sentences had been commuted and their convictions vacated.
8:11
Speaker 4: The other reason that he really.
8:13
Speaker 1: Took issue with was this idea that the department said,
8:17
Speaker 1: there was so much publicity around these trials and prosecutions
8:21
Speaker 1: that you don't need a record of criminal activity in
8:24
Speaker 1: the courts. People can just go back and see what
8:27
Speaker 1: happened because there was media coverage. And the judge said,
8:30
Speaker 1: you know, that is not the government stance. The government
8:33
Speaker 1: normally feels that. I think he said, you know, actual
8:35
Speaker 1: accountability is what is in the public interests, not media
8:39
Speaker 1: coverage or public attention. And then Finally, he also pointed
8:42
Speaker 1: out that to say that this was in line with
8:45
Speaker 1: Trump the president's intent didn't quite square with the fact
8:49
Speaker 1: that the President had decided to not pardon these defendants,
8:53
Speaker 1: So he also identified an incongruity in that logic. I
8:57
Speaker 1: think what was really striking about this opinion June was
9:01
Speaker 1: that he decided to take the opportunity to make clear
9:04
Speaker 1: that he was quite disappointed and dismayed and.
9:07
Speaker 4: Upset at the outcome of all of this.
9:10
Speaker 1: These were cases that really consumed the Federal Court in
9:14
Speaker 1: Washington for years after two thousand and one. It was
9:18
Speaker 1: all encompassing, and all the judges spent countless hours reviewing
9:23
Speaker 1: body camera footage from that day, evidence testimony from police
9:28
Speaker 1: officers who were there, and Judge Mata and other colleagues
9:31
Speaker 1: on the bench have publicly expressed their consternation at what
9:37
Speaker 1: they see as a rewriting of fact of what happened
9:40
Speaker 1: on January sixth, and the culpability of at least many
9:45
Speaker 1: of the people who were charged and convicted or what
9:48
Speaker 1: happened that day.
9:49
Speaker 2: You could see almost the sort of sadness and the
9:52
Speaker 2: solemnity behind this. Today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of that
9:57
Speaker 2: day denigrates the work of the prosecutors law enforcement officers
10:01
Speaker 2: who secured these convictions and excuses criminal acts that caused
10:06
Speaker 2: a century's long pillar of our democracy, the peaceful transfer
10:09
Speaker 2: presidential power to buckle. But he said, the court cannot
10:13
Speaker 2: write a different ending. He had no choice. He had
10:17
Speaker 2: to accept it, right.
10:19
Speaker 4: And you know, his choice was to write what he wrote.
10:22
Speaker 1: And he could have simply said, you know, given the
10:27
Speaker 1: explanation from the government, and given the court's lack of
10:31
Speaker 1: authority to supersede these types.
10:33
Speaker 4: Of decisions, I grant the request.
10:35
Speaker 1: I think the choice ultimately that he made was to
10:39
Speaker 1: put down these words that I have to think he
10:42
Speaker 1: knew would get attention and get some coverage as a
10:45
Speaker 1: way of closing out, perhaps the public record of everything
10:51
Speaker 1: that had happened, and maintaining an official record through the
10:53
Speaker 1: legal proceeding of at least his perception of what had happened.
10:57
Speaker 4: And this judge had handled.
10:58
Speaker 1: This case from the very beginning, so he had been
11:01
Speaker 1: there from the start and chose to express these thoughts
11:08
Speaker 1: which one of the defendants already has objected to, and
11:10
Speaker 1: ask that he go back and strike a lot of
11:13
Speaker 1: the extra what they saw is the extra language that
11:16
Speaker 1: was very unfair to their client. As the defense attorneys noted,
11:19
Speaker 1: you know, as long as these convictions were on appeal,
11:22
Speaker 1: they were never finalized, so there was still this presumption
11:25
Speaker 1: of innocence that individuals have until it's final And they
11:30
Speaker 1: argued that they would like him to strike at least
11:31
Speaker 1: some of this language from the opinion in light of that, and.
11:35
Speaker 2: That was a motion made to judgmenta himself.
11:38
Speaker 1: That's right, that came shortly after the opinion was released.
11:42
Speaker 4: A motion to strike.
11:43
Speaker 1: Whether he will entertain that, we don't know, but you know,
11:47
Speaker 1: certainly he has put down and it's now out there
11:50
Speaker 1: for posterity, you know, his final thoughts on how this
11:55
Speaker 1: all unraveled.
11:56
Speaker 2: It'll be really interesting to see what happens. I mean,
11:59
Speaker 2: if he refuses, is that grounds to appeal?
12:02
Speaker 1: I think that would be a tough, tough appeal. You know,
12:05
Speaker 1: much as the government has a lot of prosecutorial discretion,
12:08
Speaker 1: the judges have certainly a lot of discretion in what
12:12
Speaker 1: they write and their opinions. And barring some legal error,
12:16
Speaker 1: it's tough to see what the appeal would look like there.
12:18
Speaker 2: And now this is less than a month after another
12:23
Speaker 2: judge had to dismiss another January sixth related case against
12:28
Speaker 2: another far right group, the Proud Boys.
12:31
Speaker 1: I mean, they've walked back all of the January sixth prosecution.
12:34
Speaker 1: Some of the Proud Boys defendants were among those fourteen
12:37
Speaker 1: individuals who didn't get pardons from the President but commutations.
12:41
Speaker 1: So as judge madea notes here, you know, there were
12:45
Speaker 1: these last lingering cases that needed to be resolved because
12:48
Speaker 1: there weren't pardons to sort of cleanly wipe that slake
12:52
Speaker 1: clean that commutations don't remove a conviction from someone's record,
12:58
Speaker 1: and at that point there's sort of a debate of
13:01
Speaker 1: what's appropriate to keep on the record and how much
13:04
Speaker 1: does something like a commutation absolve someone of the weight
13:09
Speaker 1: of a conviction.
13:11
Speaker 2: And Zoe, do you know have any of the Proud
13:13
Speaker 2: Boys or the Oathkeepers filed claims with the Justice Department
13:18
Speaker 2: for compensation.
13:20
Speaker 1: We know that several members of the Proud Boys have
13:23
Speaker 1: filed a lawsuit seeking compensation that the Justice Department has
13:27
Speaker 1: opposed so far, so that has not gotten anywhere in
13:32
Speaker 1: terms of success on their part. We don't know there
13:36
Speaker 1: haven't been lawsuits on behalf of the Oathkeepers. There have
13:38
Speaker 1: been some from other January sixth defendants who were pardoned.
13:42
Speaker 1: We know that several hundred hundreds of January sixth defendants
13:46
Speaker 1: who got pardons have filed administrative claims. It's not clear
13:50
Speaker 1: to me if any of the oath keepers have. It
13:52
Speaker 1: seems like it would be unlikely until their cases were
13:54
Speaker 1: fully resolved. So that's certainly a line of reporting that
13:57
Speaker 1: will continue to follow. That said, you know, there are
14:01
Speaker 1: a number of pending claims related to January six already.
14:05
Speaker 1: And even though the Justice Department had to walk back
14:09
Speaker 1: a plan for this one point eight billion dollar anti
14:12
Speaker 1: weaponization fund that was seen as a way to sort
14:15
Speaker 1: of more quickly and cleanly pay out claims to January
14:19
Speaker 1: sixth defendants, there are existing pathways that have always been
14:23
Speaker 1: around for folks to pursue these types of compensation claims,
14:26
Speaker 1: and many of them had filed claims long before the
14:28
Speaker 1: fund was announced, and we expect them to continue to
14:31
Speaker 1: press them long after the fund is purportedly dead.
14:36
Speaker 4: So it's very.
14:36
Speaker 1: Much a live issue whether and how much money taxpayers
14:40
Speaker 1: will now end up paying out to these individuals.
14:43
Speaker 2: Is the judgment fund unlimited or is there a limited
14:47
Speaker 2: amount of money in the fund.
14:49
Speaker 1: Our understanding is it's always described as a permanent, indefinite appropriation,
14:54
Speaker 1: so generally it's understood to be unlimited. I haven't come
15:01
Speaker 1: across a case where the government has said we can
15:04
Speaker 1: only afford to pay you so much because we've tapped
15:07
Speaker 1: out the judgment fund this year. You don't really see
15:10
Speaker 1: that come up. Exactly how much gets put in at
15:14
Speaker 1: any given time, Honestly, I don't know, But our understanding
15:18
Speaker 1: is that generally it's considered a sort of infinite pool.
15:22
Speaker 1: Because of the Justice departments brought authority to settle claims
15:26
Speaker 1: that are brought against the government, whether they're administrative which
15:30
Speaker 1: means they don't play out on a public docket, or
15:33
Speaker 1: they're brought in court.
15:34
Speaker 2: How those January sixth claims play out is something that
15:38
Speaker 2: we have to keep track of now. Thanks so much, Zoe.
15:41
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal Reporters, Zoe Tillman.
15:44
Speaker 3: We weren't necessarily thrilled with a contractor, but they did
15:49
Speaker 3: a job and they were fixing any problems. But then
15:54
Speaker 3: I got carried away because the judge was extremely unfriendly
15:57
Speaker 3: to Janine, and frankly, I think she choked.
16:01
Speaker 2: President Trump was quite forgiving of the contractor whose botched
16:06
Speaker 2: installation caused widespread damage to the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool,
16:11
Speaker 2: according to the DCUs attorney, though Trump was not so
16:16
Speaker 2: forgiving of the DCUs attorney, Janine Piro, I.
16:20
Speaker 3: Was disappointed with Jennie Piro, really disappointed with Jennie Piro.
16:24
Speaker 3: She folded like an umbrella.
16:28
Speaker 2: Trump publicly criticized Piero for dismissing charges against individuals accused
16:34
Speaker 2: of vandalizing the reflecting pool. Pierro met with Trump and
16:39
Speaker 2: other officials, including Interior Secretary Doug Bergham, whose department oversaw
16:45
Speaker 2: the project on Monday, but today Trump said he hadn't
16:49
Speaker 2: decided whether to keep her as the top federal prosecutor
16:52
Speaker 2: in Washington. Joining me is Jeff Mason Bloomberg White House
16:56
Speaker 2: and Washington correspondent. Jeff start by telling us at the
17:00
Speaker 2: relationship that Janine Pierrot has had with President Trump, at
17:06
Speaker 2: least up until the last few days.
17:09
Speaker 5: Well, they've been friends for a long time, and he
17:12
Speaker 5: was a big fan of hers when she was on
17:14
Speaker 5: Fox News, which was a job that she had for
17:17
Speaker 5: a long time. And she's been a big defender of
17:21
Speaker 5: President Trump's using that perch and then he brought her
17:24
Speaker 5: into the administration by making her the top attorney in
17:28
Speaker 5: the District of Columbia Washington, DC, and she has used
17:33
Speaker 5: that perch to also really implement a lot of what
17:37
Speaker 5: he was looking for in terms of legal cases here.
17:41
Speaker 5: I remember one of them being and I don't know
17:43
Speaker 5: that she would have spoken to him about it, but
17:45
Speaker 5: it's an example of Trumpian legal procedures, I guess was
17:50
Speaker 5: when she brought the man who had thrown his sub
17:54
Speaker 5: sandwich against a police officer during some kind of a
17:59
Speaker 5: protest and tried to win that case and that didn't
18:02
Speaker 5: work out. So that's just one example that comes to mind.
18:04
Speaker 5: But to your question, they've been longtime allies in any case,
18:10
Speaker 5: and so it was pretty unusual a to see her
18:14
Speaker 5: make a decision that she has to have known was
18:17
Speaker 5: going to upset him and b for him to be
18:21
Speaker 5: as publicly critical of her and that decision as he was.
18:24
Speaker 5: Although I would add an addendum to that last piece,
18:27
Speaker 5: which is we know that President Trump turns on his
18:31
Speaker 5: own and he did that a lot during the first term.
18:35
Speaker 5: He has done it less often during the second term,
18:38
Speaker 5: but he has done it. He fired Pambondi, he fired
18:42
Speaker 5: Christy Nome, the former Attorney General and the former Secretary
18:45
Speaker 5: of Homeland Security, so he absolutely could fire Miss Pierrot,
18:50
Speaker 5: and he might. In fact, he said, I think last
18:54
Speaker 5: night when he was talking to reporters that he hadn't
18:56
Speaker 5: made his decision yet, but he did not do it
18:58
Speaker 5: after their meeting at the White House. And that seems
19:01
Speaker 5: to be at least in part because she made her
19:04
Speaker 5: case for why she had to withdraw the case that
19:09
Speaker 5: he wanted, which was to pursue these these people who
19:14
Speaker 5: they accused of being vandals and lead and of leading
19:17
Speaker 5: them to the the breakdown of the lining on the
19:21
Speaker 5: reflecting pool.
19:22
Speaker 2: So I saw a video of her going into the
19:25
Speaker 2: White House with what prosecutors normally take to court, which is,
19:31
Speaker 2: you know, a weelly with a box of documents, and
19:34
Speaker 2: I mean, do you know what happened in that meeting?
19:36
Speaker 5: Well, the New York Times had a fantastic story about
19:39
Speaker 5: what happened in that meeting. So what I know is
19:41
Speaker 5: from from reading their terrific reporting, and that is that
19:46
Speaker 5: she brought in that case that you were that you
19:49
Speaker 5: were referring to, with a bunch of documents and proof
19:54
Speaker 5: essentially that it was according to her a mess up
19:59
Speaker 5: by the contray and therefore also the Department of Interior,
20:03
Speaker 5: and according to the time, she accused Secretary of Interior
20:07
Speaker 5: Doug Burgham, who was present for this meeting, of lying.
20:12
Speaker 5: And honestly, if she did that in a way, that's
20:16
Speaker 5: also suggesting that the President lied, although perhaps she's giving
20:20
Speaker 5: him cover by saying he was listening to Burgham. I'm
20:25
Speaker 5: not sure. I'm speculating a little bit there. But in
20:28
Speaker 5: any case, she went in to press her case and
20:31
Speaker 5: to make her case for the fact that she decided
20:35
Speaker 5: not to continue with this case. And she did that
20:37
Speaker 5: with the evidence apparently that was in that case that
20:41
Speaker 5: you were referring to.
20:42
Speaker 2: I mean, most lawyers who looked at those charges when
20:45
Speaker 2: the indictment came out, you could see that it was
20:48
Speaker 2: a very hard case to make out, even to make
20:51
Speaker 2: out one thousand dollars worth of damage. It just didn't
20:53
Speaker 2: seem like there was anything to support that in any event.
20:57
Speaker 2: But what makes it different is she didn't just drop
21:01
Speaker 2: the charges. She contradicted what Trump has been saying over
21:05
Speaker 2: and over and over again that vandals caused the damage.
21:10
Speaker 5: That's right, and that contradiction part is what is unusual,
21:16
Speaker 5: certainly to have someone who is close to him and
21:19
Speaker 5: a big supporter to not only contradict his Department of Interior,
21:24
Speaker 5: but to contradict him directly, because he was clearly making
21:28
Speaker 5: that case very publicly, and doing so in the face
21:32
Speaker 5: of certainly a lot of questions from anyone who kind
21:35
Speaker 5: of looked at it and thought, you know, how is
21:37
Speaker 5: it possible that this one olympian and these three other
21:41
Speaker 5: people could have made the damage with a box cutter
21:44
Speaker 5: that in this massive and long reflecting pool. It just
21:48
Speaker 5: didn't pass the logic test for a lot of people.
21:52
Speaker 5: And yet that was not the criteria that President Trump
21:56
Speaker 5: was using, because remember, he made promises about this, and
22:00
Speaker 5: he made promises about it going in that his contractors
22:04
Speaker 5: are the people that he chose were going to be
22:05
Speaker 5: able to do this renovation of the reflecting pool for
22:10
Speaker 5: a much cheaper than any other administration had ever done
22:14
Speaker 5: or ever tried, and much faster and much better, all
22:17
Speaker 5: of the things, all of the superlatives that are part
22:19
Speaker 5: of President Trump's lexicon, he applied to this project. And
22:24
Speaker 5: then it didn't happen. Not only it did not happen,
22:26
Speaker 5: but it failed spectacularly. So he was looking for, as
22:30
Speaker 5: he often does when something goes wrong, a scapegoat, and
22:35
Speaker 5: found a convenient one in these people who had gone
22:38
Speaker 5: by and touched or taken out some of these floating pieces.
22:42
Speaker 5: So again that became his narrative and in you know,
22:47
Speaker 5: and I think it's also right to note that it
22:49
Speaker 5: was also Piro's narrative. At the very beginning. She came
22:54
Speaker 5: out and said, as well, this is the fault of vandals,
22:58
Speaker 5: and that's why I'm starting this case. But then, as
23:01
Speaker 5: I've said a few times over the last few days,
23:03
Speaker 5: the difference between after that between rhetoric that she initially used,
23:10
Speaker 5: that the President continues to use and that Bergham continues
23:13
Speaker 5: to use and what you can prove in court are
23:16
Speaker 5: two completely different things. And that's what she came up against,
23:20
Speaker 5: and that is apparently why she made the decision that
23:22
Speaker 5: she did.
23:23
Speaker 2: As I understand, the President is still sticking with his
23:27
Speaker 2: contention that vandals caused the damage, even though there's been
23:31
Speaker 2: not one iota of proof that there was vandalism on
23:35
Speaker 2: the pool itself.
23:37
Speaker 5: But that's his mo I mean, you're not going to
23:39
Speaker 5: see President Donald Trump back down from that contention because
23:44
Speaker 5: it would suggest that he was wrong. It would suggest
23:48
Speaker 5: that he did not share the truth. It would suggest
23:52
Speaker 5: that he was duped. Any of those three things that
23:54
Speaker 5: I just said would not be the look that he's
23:55
Speaker 5: looking for. He needs to have a scapegoat, and that's
23:58
Speaker 5: what he's chosen to do. So No, he's not backing down,
24:02
Speaker 5: and he's not backing down even now in the face
24:04
Speaker 5: of this evidence that his own ally and the person
24:09
Speaker 5: that he put in as the attorney here in the
24:12
Speaker 5: District of Columbia and friend, he's doing it despite what
24:19
Speaker 5: she has shown him. So I think the next question
24:23
Speaker 5: is does he let that go and hold on to
24:26
Speaker 5: her or does he decide that this was too big
24:30
Speaker 5: of a breach and replace.
24:32
Speaker 2: Her in any respect? Is he sending a message to
24:35
Speaker 2: other administration officials, you know, don't dare contradict me, forget
24:40
Speaker 2: the facts? Or do they know that already?
24:42
Speaker 5: I think it's the latter. I think if anyone came
24:46
Speaker 5: into this administration, into his cabinet or elsewhere working for him,
24:52
Speaker 5: did so without knowing how he has treated high level
24:56
Speaker 5: officials in his orbit in the past, then they would
24:59
Speaker 5: have come in and very uninformed, and that would surprise me.
25:04
Speaker 5: So I you know, he has surrounded himself by people
25:08
Speaker 5: who largely do not contradict him, and so it is
25:12
Speaker 5: what I think is kind of more interesting about this
25:15
Speaker 5: story is that she did and did so, you know,
25:19
Speaker 5: and did so in part to you know, defend herself
25:22
Speaker 5: of course, and her actions and to try to keep
25:24
Speaker 5: her job. But it is certainly not something we've seen
25:30
Speaker 5: much of over the last year and a half during
25:32
Speaker 5: his second term, to have someone in that orbit contradict him.
25:36
Speaker 5: But to your question of whether he's sending a signal,
25:39
Speaker 5: I just think those signals are already very established and
25:42
Speaker 5: very clear from his first term and the first year
25:46
Speaker 5: and a half of his second term. So I think
25:48
Speaker 5: people around him know that.
25:50
Speaker 2: Going to his decision about whether or not to fire Pierro,
25:54
Speaker 2: a lot of people have mentioned that so far he's
25:57
Speaker 2: only fired women. Yeah, So would that factor into his
26:01
Speaker 2: decision at all or other people high up in the administration.
26:06
Speaker 5: Hard to say. I think that you're right to note
26:08
Speaker 5: the facts, and I just don't have anything to add
26:11
Speaker 5: to those facts. He has indeed targeted primarily, if not exclusively,
26:17
Speaker 5: women in his orbit or in his cabinet when he's
26:22
Speaker 5: firing or putting pressure on them to leave, But that
26:27
Speaker 5: does not mean he doesn't have other powerful women around
26:30
Speaker 5: him who have stuck around. Exhibit A of that, of course,
26:33
Speaker 5: is Susie Wilds, his chief of staff, who it's also
26:36
Speaker 5: worth noting, is the first woman to serve as chief
26:40
Speaker 5: of staff to any president, and she is extremely powerful
26:44
Speaker 5: and he likes to emphasize that when he introduces her
26:47
Speaker 5: at meetings and at events. But that said, it is
26:53
Speaker 5: also one hundred percent true the people that he has
26:57
Speaker 5: targeted in this little wave at least to firings that
27:02
Speaker 5: we've seen this year compared to much more common practice
27:06
Speaker 5: and bigger waves during the first term, have all been women.
27:10
Speaker 2: They asked for a reaction from the acting Attorney General,
27:14
Speaker 2: Todd Blanche and he said he thought Pierro was doing
27:16
Speaker 2: a great job. Washington, d C. Is a lot safer
27:20
Speaker 2: no small part to her effort.
27:22
Speaker 5: I thought it was interesting that he showed that he
27:24
Speaker 5: has her back because the acting Attorney General obviously also
27:29
Speaker 5: wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. Number one,
27:33
Speaker 5: he wants this job and on a permanent basis, and
27:36
Speaker 5: wants to move on from being acting to being confirmed.
27:41
Speaker 5: He is the President's former personal attorney and he wants
27:46
Speaker 5: to stay in that orbit. So I think it's that
27:51
Speaker 5: was in some part politically brave for mister Blanche to
27:57
Speaker 5: show his support for Pierro at a time when she
27:59
Speaker 5: is vulnerable in the Trump universe. That said, it's also
28:04
Speaker 5: you know, he's maybe a sign that he thinks that
28:07
Speaker 5: it's likely that she's going to stick around, and he
28:11
Speaker 5: would wanted to show that sign of support.
28:14
Speaker 2: And Blanche was on Capitol Hill again. Republican Senator Susan
28:18
Speaker 2: Collins has come out against his confirmation to be attorney general,
28:23
Speaker 2: and I think Lisa Murkowski. Is there any talk that
28:27
Speaker 2: any other Republicans might oppose it.
28:30
Speaker 5: Well, we don't know about Murkowski, and that's a big
28:33
Speaker 5: question mark. We do know about Susan Collins. She has
28:36
Speaker 5: said that she is not going to vote for him,
28:38
Speaker 5: and that comes as she's seeking reelection in Maine, which
28:42
Speaker 5: is a state that has absolutely been a target by
28:46
Speaker 5: Democrats for the midterm elections and they're trying to topple
28:51
Speaker 5: Susan Collins. And no doubt she took that into consideration
28:56
Speaker 5: when she decided to vote against Todd Blanche. But your
29:00
Speaker 5: right to say that he can only afford to lose
29:02
Speaker 5: two people, So there's one more that he could potentially lose,
29:06
Speaker 5: and that maybe Murkowski, and I'm trying to think of
29:09
Speaker 5: what other Republicans. We're not sure if we know that
29:12
Speaker 5: Senators Corn and Tillis, after bringing up their objections during
29:17
Speaker 5: the committee process, had those objections addressed with regard to
29:23
Speaker 5: the IRS Deal and the what some Democrats anyway, are
29:28
Speaker 5: calling a slush fund, the one point eight billion dollar
29:30
Speaker 5: payout fund for people who were felt that they were
29:35
Speaker 5: targeted by the Department of Justice under President Biden. That
29:40
Speaker 5: right now has gone away, although the President, i might add,
29:45
Speaker 5: has continued to say that he still wants it. So
29:48
Speaker 5: you didn't ask me this, but I'll mention it anyway.
29:50
Speaker 5: That's that's you know, that's still hanging out there, despite
29:54
Speaker 5: the fact that the acting Attorney General did put in
29:56
Speaker 5: writing essentially that it was dead, which is what those
29:58
Speaker 5: two Republican senators wanted to see. But to your broader question,
30:04
Speaker 5: he's lost Collins and so it's it's gonna be close
30:09
Speaker 5: either way, it's gonna be it's gonna be very close.
30:12
Speaker 2: I feel like the tide is with him, though. Thanks
30:15
Speaker 2: so much for coming on today. Jeff, and you'll have
30:17
Speaker 2: to come back again. That's Bloomberg White House and Washington
30:21
Speaker 2: correspondent Jeff Mason. And that's it for this edition of
30:25
Speaker 2: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
30:28
Speaker 2: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
30:31
Speaker 2: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
30:35
Speaker 2: bloomberg dot com slash podcast, Slash Law, And remember to
30:39
Speaker 2: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
30:42
Speaker 2: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
30:46
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg