Latest / Bloomberg Law / Fauci Takes the Fifth & Blanche Confirmation in Jeopardy

Transcript

Fauci Takes the Fifth & Blanche Confirmation in Jeopardy · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: Under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my
0:12
Speaker 2: right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain
0:17
Speaker 2: from answering your questions.
0:19
Speaker 3: Doctor Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than one
0:23
Speaker 3: hundred times and declined to answer dozens of questions from
0:27
Speaker 3: senators in a tense committee hearing about his handling of
0:30
Speaker 3: the COVID nineteen pandemic. The scientist to help lead the
0:34
Speaker 3: nation's COVID nineteen response was subpoenaed to testify under oath
0:39
Speaker 3: by Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky, whose long had
0:44
Speaker 3: an antagonistic relationship with Fauci and his pledged to put
0:48
Speaker 3: him in jail. In his opening statement, Fauci explained why
0:52
Speaker 3: he wouldn't answer the committee's questions.
0:55
Speaker 2: The sole reason he is calling me before this committee
1:00
Speaker 2: is to get me to say something, anything that could
1:04
Speaker 2: vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up in
1:10
Speaker 2: his words quote behind bars unquote.
1:14
Speaker 3: Fauci has become a polarizing figure, even receiving death threats
1:20
Speaker 3: and the partisan divines that have festered for years about
1:23
Speaker 3: the origins and handling of the pandemic. My guest is
1:27
Speaker 3: Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney. Dave Fauci
1:33
Speaker 3: got a pardon in early twenty twenty five from President
1:37
Speaker 3: Joe Biden. Explain why despite that, he didn't want to testify.
1:42
Speaker 1: So, Anthony Fauci is eighty five years old and he
1:46
Speaker 1: wants to live the rest of his life in peace
1:49
Speaker 1: and in freedom. And he saw what happened to Jim Comi,
1:53
Speaker 1: who made some comments in front of Congress that were
1:58
Speaker 1: not lies, was not perjury, but the Department of Justice
2:01
Speaker 1: prosecuted him. Anyways, he was on Trump's target list. Is
2:04
Speaker 1: there anyone else on Trump's target list higher than Anthony Fauci,
2:07
Speaker 1: Well maybe Jack Smith. And Jack Smith too is being
2:10
Speaker 1: referred to the DOJ for allegedly making a false statement
2:13
Speaker 1: before Congress, even though and I've read the statement, it
2:16
Speaker 1: is in no way a false statement. But this is
2:18
Speaker 1: the new weaponization of the DOJ, and members of Congress
2:22
Speaker 1: are leading the way here, and so it would be
2:26
Speaker 1: a badge of honor for members of Congress to put
2:29
Speaker 1: Fauci scalp on their wall. And so Fauci sees this,
2:32
Speaker 1: and his lawyers said, do not say anything. You're covered
2:36
Speaker 1: by the Fifth because although you were pardoned for crimes
2:39
Speaker 1: in the past, and there were no crimes, but Biden
2:42
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure he wasn't prosecuted. The pardon does
2:45
Speaker 1: not cover perjury at this hearing. And if you speak
2:49
Speaker 1: up and you have a mistaken statement or a wrong
2:54
Speaker 1: train of thought, after all, your eighty five years old,
2:56
Speaker 1: or you don't quite get the one hundred thousand thousand
3:00
Speaker 1: documents that have been dropped, but just before the hearing,
3:03
Speaker 1: you don't specifically match your testimony to what's in the documents,
3:07
Speaker 1: then you could be wearing a pair of handcuffs. Is
3:09
Speaker 1: it worth it? So Fauci decided to take the pr
3:13
Speaker 1: hit to look bad in front of the country and
3:15
Speaker 1: say the Fifth to every question. But at least he
3:17
Speaker 1: takes the pr hit with his freedom intact.
3:20
Speaker 3: Listen to Republican Senator Josh Holly questioning Fauci, what colors
3:25
Speaker 3: of kyle you're wearing.
3:27
Speaker 2: On the Advisive Council? I respectfully declined to and sebbased
3:31
Speaker 2: upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
3:34
Speaker 3: What colors the carpet in front of you.
3:39
Speaker 2: On the Advisive Council, I respectfully decline to and sebased
3:43
Speaker 2: upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
3:46
Speaker 2: Let's just get one thing straight.
3:47
Speaker 1: You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because
3:49
Speaker 1: you've been pardoned.
3:50
Speaker 3: Holly was the Attorney General of Missouri. Shouldn't he know better?
3:55
Speaker 1: Well, Supreme Court, there's a there's a case that says
4:00
Speaker 1: you can't have the selective use of the Fifth Amendment. Like,
4:04
Speaker 1: for example, if you say something and then you try
4:07
Speaker 1: to invoke the Fifth in the same subject matter, then
4:10
Speaker 1: you can't do it. You can't pick and choose on
4:12
Speaker 1: the same subject matter. Now, what does the color of
4:16
Speaker 1: Fauci's tie have with what research in a lab? Well,
4:20
Speaker 1: an aggressive prosecutor could say, all right, you had an
4:23
Speaker 1: interpretation of what color your tie is. That shows your
4:27
Speaker 1: state of mind, and that opens the door to everything
4:30
Speaker 1: else involving your state of mind. You see where they're going.
4:32
Speaker 1: So his lawyers are good lawyers, and they just said no,
4:36
Speaker 1: just take the Fifth on everything.
4:38
Speaker 3: Just talk a little bit about how difficult perjury prosecutions are, well.
4:45
Speaker 1: Really hard. Now it's easier to prove making a false
4:47
Speaker 1: statement to Congress slightly easier. I mean, you still have
4:49
Speaker 1: to prove that you intentionally lied. So even if Fauci
4:53
Speaker 1: was brought up on criminal charges for making a false statement,
4:57
Speaker 1: they would never be able to prosecute him because it
4:59
Speaker 1: would likely be be based on something he says that
5:02
Speaker 1: is an answer to an ambiguous question, like James Comey's answer,
5:07
Speaker 1: or it'd be something taken out of context like Jack
5:09
Speaker 1: Smith's answer, And so they're never going to convict him.
5:12
Speaker 1: But that's not what it's about. There's an old saying,
5:15
Speaker 1: you can beat the rat, but you can't beat the ride,
5:17
Speaker 1: and that's what members of Congress like Rand Paul and
5:22
Speaker 1: Holly what they are trying to do here. They want
5:25
Speaker 1: to have the visual of Anthony Fauci being let out
5:29
Speaker 1: in handcuffs, even though he'll never serve a day behind bars.
5:32
Speaker 3: This testimony was so heated and at one point Rand
5:36
Speaker 3: Paul kicked Fauci's lawyer out of the room.
5:41
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, I was watching that, and the lawyer was
5:44
Speaker 1: told repeatedly not to speak. And the lawyer is not
5:48
Speaker 1: supposed to speak because it's the individual that speaks. The
5:51
Speaker 1: lawyer's supposed to advise. And so I understand why he
5:55
Speaker 1: was kicked out, but it tells you more that there
5:58
Speaker 1: was a round of applause from the gallery. He shows
6:00
Speaker 1: how political this is. See, the reason why this is
6:03
Speaker 1: happening is that you have the midterms coming up, and
6:07
Speaker 1: the Republican base has been demoralized, and you've got the
6:10
Speaker 1: Iran warts not going well, You've got prices up, you've
6:14
Speaker 1: got Epstein still the ghost of Epstein floating around, and
6:17
Speaker 1: so this is something that still motivates them. It's Anthony Fauci,
6:21
Speaker 1: who they likened to a devil, to someone who is
6:24
Speaker 1: like should be prosecuted, head on a pike. And because
6:27
Speaker 1: of Biden's pardons, that was all shut down. But here's
6:31
Speaker 1: a way for Rand Paul to get his licks in
6:33
Speaker 1: because there's been a battle between the two of them
6:35
Speaker 1: for years, and for the base to get ginned up.
6:38
Speaker 1: And I was on Twitter looking at some of the
6:40
Speaker 1: tweets from Concerns and they love this. They're the ones
6:44
Speaker 1: who are cheering when the lawyer for Fautu was kicked
6:47
Speaker 1: out of the room, and they're the ones cheering the
6:49
Speaker 1: Faucti looks bad as a result of his repeated invocations
6:52
Speaker 1: of the Fifth Amendment.
6:54
Speaker 3: Rand Paul concluded the nearly three hour hearing by saying,
6:58
Speaker 3: the committee is planning a vote next week on whether
7:02
Speaker 3: to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress.
7:05
Speaker 1: And what happens is you have the committee vote, and
7:07
Speaker 1: then it goes to the full Senate, and then it
7:09
Speaker 1: gets referred to the DOJ, and then the DJ can
7:12
Speaker 1: or cannot for ale the charges are seeking indictment, and
7:16
Speaker 1: then ultimately it's up to a judge. But judges are
7:19
Speaker 1: really protective of the Fifth Amendment. If there is the
7:22
Speaker 1: possibility that you could be prosecuted for a crime, you
7:26
Speaker 1: can take the Fifth Amendment. Now, Rampaul saying, you your pardoned,
7:29
Speaker 1: so you have no right against self incrimination. But that's
7:31
Speaker 1: only partially true because that only applies to pass conduct.
7:35
Speaker 1: You can still be prosecuted for perjury, for making a
7:38
Speaker 1: false statement to Congress. You can still be prosecuted for that,
7:41
Speaker 1: even if you were pardoned for everything else. So that's
7:44
Speaker 1: why it again is a visual. It's the visual of
7:48
Speaker 1: the Republicans taking action against someone that the base of
7:51
Speaker 1: the Republican Party hates, despises, So yeah, they'll do the referral. Ultimately,
7:56
Speaker 1: it will never lead to any day in jail for
8:00
Speaker 1: Anthony fauci.
8:01
Speaker 3: Let's turn out to a committee hearing that is supposed
8:04
Speaker 3: to take place tomorrow, a planned vote to move forward
8:08
Speaker 3: with Todd Blanche's nomination for Attorney General.
8:12
Speaker 1: The selling Fund's just not moving forward. There's no modification.
8:16
Speaker 1: It's just never started. No money went from the Treasury
8:19
Speaker 1: to any other account, there's no commissioners.
8:21
Speaker 2: It's not moving forward.
8:23
Speaker 3: At his confirmation hearings, Blanche had testified that the one
8:27
Speaker 3: point eight billion dollar anti Weaponization Fund was dead, but
8:32
Speaker 3: that has not assured Republican Senator John Cornyn. He's raised
8:37
Speaker 3: concerns that the fund could be resurrected without a commitment
8:41
Speaker 3: in writing from the Trump administration that it is dead,
8:44
Speaker 3: especially since President Trump has expressed continued support for the deal.
8:49
Speaker 3: For the nomination to go through the Senate Judiciary Committee,
8:53
Speaker 3: Blanche needs the votes of every Republican Senator Dave During
8:57
Speaker 3: his confirmation hearing, Blanche admitted that the settlement agreement can
9:02
Speaker 3: be resurrected, and Cornyn wants the Justice Department to put
9:06
Speaker 3: it in writing that the Weaponization Fund is dead. He said,
9:11
Speaker 3: they know what they need to do, but they simply
9:14
Speaker 3: refuse to do it well.
9:17
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche in private admitted to Senator Dick Durbin that
9:22
Speaker 1: the one point seven to seven six billion dollar so
9:25
Speaker 1: called anti Weaponization fund was a mistake. But it's one
9:29
Speaker 1: thing to say that in private. It's another thing to
9:32
Speaker 1: say it in public. It's one thing to say in
9:34
Speaker 1: public that you are not moving forward with this slush fund.
9:39
Speaker 1: It's another thing to put in writing. It's one thing
9:41
Speaker 1: to say that you're not going to create this fund,
9:44
Speaker 1: but it's another thing to also leave open the possibility
9:48
Speaker 1: of giving financial settlements to claims made by January six ers,
9:54
Speaker 1: and he has refused to shut that door, and that's
9:57
Speaker 1: a problem, just like how the DOJ had has given
10:00
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars to the state of Alaska
10:03
Speaker 1: to settle lawsuits there and that helps Lisa Murkowski. Well,
10:07
Speaker 1: he can do the same thing to please Trump. For
10:09
Speaker 1: the January six ers, there have been a lot of
10:10
Speaker 1: claims filed and it's up to him how to settle that. Remember,
10:14
Speaker 1: he's given already a lot of my General Flynn, they
10:16
Speaker 1: can pay off people who they like and stop payments
10:20
Speaker 1: to people they don't, so they have that power, and
10:23
Speaker 1: that's something that I would like to see Todd Blanche
10:26
Speaker 1: go further and say, not only will I put in
10:28
Speaker 1: writing that we are not doing this slush fund, but
10:31
Speaker 1: we are also putting in writing that we are not
10:33
Speaker 1: going to reimburse anyone who makes a claim being part
10:37
Speaker 1: of the January sixth insurrection. He will not do that,
10:40
Speaker 1: and I think that's a problem.
10:42
Speaker 3: They can still give January six people money through regular
10:45
Speaker 3: process and they don't need this slush fund.
10:47
Speaker 1: That's right, No, that's it. But remember Trump wanted the
10:50
Speaker 1: slush one because it was a way to signal that
10:53
Speaker 1: he supports people who supported him. That's why I was
10:56
Speaker 1: created as one point seventy seven six billion dollars at
10:59
Speaker 1: seventeen seventy six. Also, it was a substitute for the
11:04
Speaker 1: settlement that they originally wanted, which was to give Trump
11:07
Speaker 1: the money. This was to settle Trump's claims against the IRS.
11:12
Speaker 1: And it's interesting because Trump has a legitimate claim against ars.
11:15
Speaker 1: They did leak his information. They also leaked Ken Griffin's
11:18
Speaker 1: information and others, but Ken Griffin others accepted an apology
11:22
Speaker 1: and no financial settlement. But Trump wanted the money, and
11:25
Speaker 1: when that looked bad because with self dealing, they settled
11:27
Speaker 1: on this slush fund for their January sixth and other supporters,
11:32
Speaker 1: but that too looks so bad. So what they could
11:35
Speaker 1: still do, though, is settle lawsuits. And that's where Todd
11:39
Speaker 1: Blanche has not committed. One way or another.
11:41
Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg. Social media influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate
11:48
Speaker 3: are accused of rape and sex trafficking in the United Kingdom.
11:52
Speaker 3: They've become among the world's most polarizing Internet personalities with
11:56
Speaker 3: their promotion of wealth, male dominance, and massiley through their
12:01
Speaker 3: social media empire. The new allegations are the latest in
12:05
Speaker 3: a long running international legal scandal involving the Tates that
12:09
Speaker 3: has spanned the US, Britain and Romania. Their attorney, Joseph McBride,
12:14
Speaker 3: has slammed the new criminal charges unveiled against them.
12:18
Speaker 2: We think these charges are selationists and defamatory charges. Andrew
12:22
Speaker 2: and Tristan Tate have been accused of the most heinous
12:26
Speaker 2: acts that two men could be accused of.
12:28
Speaker 3: The Tates say they're innocent of the charges and they'll
12:31
Speaker 3: fight their extradition to the UK. They'll remain in jail
12:34
Speaker 3: in Miami until at least and August thirteenth detention hearing,
12:39
Speaker 3: where a judge will determine whether they'll be released on
12:42
Speaker 3: bail as the extradition process plays out. I've been talking
12:46
Speaker 3: to former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ehrenberg. Dave, so,
12:50
Speaker 3: right now, the Tates are fighting extradition, right.
12:55
Speaker 1: So you have the Tate brothers that are detained and
13:00
Speaker 1: waiting extradition and they're in solitary confinement. They're in solitary
13:03
Speaker 1: confinement not because they're being punished, but because they're high
13:05
Speaker 1: profile figures because of their own outrageous words that have
13:08
Speaker 1: made him into targets. And they're going to fight it,
13:10
Speaker 1: but it could take one to two years to fight it. Ultimately, though,
13:14
Speaker 1: it goes to the courts, and it's a low burden
13:16
Speaker 1: for the government to extradize people because you have a
13:20
Speaker 1: legitimate charge from Great Britain, from the UK where it's
13:24
Speaker 1: serious felonies that's number one. Are they serious crimes yes,
13:27
Speaker 1: and has a probable cause yes, unless they want to
13:31
Speaker 1: say that it's mistaken identity, which is not the case.
13:34
Speaker 1: So they're going to lose in the courts. What they're
13:36
Speaker 1: trying is to get the Trump administration to block it,
13:39
Speaker 1: and after it goes to the courts, then it's up
13:41
Speaker 1: to the Secretary of State Marco Rubio to sign off
13:44
Speaker 1: on it, and by all on occasions he will. Why
13:46
Speaker 1: is he going to die in a hill for the
13:47
Speaker 1: Tape Brothers. I know Marco Rubio, he's a religious guy.
13:50
Speaker 1: I'm sure he finds the Tape Brothers conduct discussing and repulsive.
13:54
Speaker 3: Rubio told report was he was in Manila on July
13:56
Speaker 3: twenty second, that he didn't expect to intervene in the
13:59
Speaker 3: case for now. There's no role for us to play
14:02
Speaker 3: at this moment or maybe ever. But there is a role.
14:05
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, he has to sign off on it. They
14:07
Speaker 1: can't get extradited unless the Secretary of State signs off
14:10
Speaker 1: on it. But it's pretty rote. I think there's only
14:12
Speaker 1: been one example since the treaty between the US and
14:16
Speaker 1: UK has been signed on extraditions, only one example of
14:19
Speaker 1: someone who has not been extradited over to the UK,
14:24
Speaker 1: and that was because the person was related to a
14:27
Speaker 1: diplomatic official with potential diplomatic community situation like this, Why
14:31
Speaker 1: why wouldn't you extradite them? This is we're talking about
14:33
Speaker 1: alleged rape and child pornography. I mean, with the ghosts
14:36
Speaker 1: of Jeffrey Epstein flying above, why or below? Why would
14:40
Speaker 1: you try to make this a big issue? I mean,
14:43
Speaker 1: my gosh, if there's anything that unites the parties, you
14:46
Speaker 1: would think it's fighting sex exploitation of children.
14:49
Speaker 3: So why will it take so long?
14:51
Speaker 1: Then first you go to the magistrate, then a judge,
14:53
Speaker 1: and then it goes to the appellate court. Then it
14:55
Speaker 1: could go to the Supreme Court, and so it could
14:57
Speaker 1: take a while. It could take a year, maybe even
14:59
Speaker 1: a but it's probably in nurse of the benefit of
15:02
Speaker 1: the Tape brothers to just accept the extradition because they're
15:06
Speaker 1: in solitary confinement. They want to spend the next year
15:08
Speaker 1: or two in solitary confinement. Doesn't seem like a victory
15:11
Speaker 1: to me.
15:12
Speaker 3: Well, they're asking for bail while they fight the extradition,
15:17
Speaker 3: and there's going to be bail hearing on August thirteenth.
15:21
Speaker 3: Their lawyers said they've been in solitary confinement, but they're
15:24
Speaker 3: still under threat of getting stabbed, jump, murdered or whatever
15:27
Speaker 3: it is in jail as accused sex offenders, but no
15:30
Speaker 3: evidence of specific threats.
15:33
Speaker 1: If you look up the definition of flight risk. You'll
15:37
Speaker 1: see a picture of the tape.
15:38
Speaker 2: Brothers.
15:39
Speaker 1: Andrew Tate has all these bugattis and planes and money
15:45
Speaker 1: and followers around the world. He's got passports for what
15:48
Speaker 1: twelve different countries. He brags about that he can go
15:52
Speaker 1: in any country and be immune from justice. This is
15:56
Speaker 1: your typical flight risk that prosecutors point to and say,
15:59
Speaker 1: do not let them out of jail. And so he's
16:01
Speaker 1: not going anywhere. Now. What's interesting is that his brother,
16:04
Speaker 1: Tristan Tate, has taken a different approach. His tweets about
16:08
Speaker 1: his conditions are actually respectful. He praises the guards, Andrew
16:11
Speaker 1: Tates the opposite. He can't help being the obnoxious guy
16:14
Speaker 1: that he is. And so it sets up an interesting
16:16
Speaker 1: situation that perhaps, just maybe you think that maybe Tristan
16:20
Speaker 1: Tate sees his only way out of prison before he
16:23
Speaker 1: dies is to flip on his brother. Do you think
16:26
Speaker 1: or at least take a different approach, maybe cooperate. It
16:29
Speaker 1: seems like Andrew's gonna go down with the ship.
16:31
Speaker 3: Does it work anymore to say we'll put an ankle
16:33
Speaker 3: bracelet on you, or does that not work anymore? In
16:36
Speaker 3: the movies they cut them off.
16:37
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, they can cut them off. I mean,
16:39
Speaker 1: he's got access to planes and fast cars and boats
16:43
Speaker 1: and a legion of supporters around the country in so
16:46
Speaker 1: many passports. And after all, he somehow managed to wiggle
16:50
Speaker 1: out of house arrest in Romania because apparently the Trump
16:54
Speaker 1: ministration weighed in on their behalf. They're not going to
16:58
Speaker 1: do it this time. So they are a flight risk.
17:01
Speaker 1: They're the ultimate flight risks. I can't imagine a bigger
17:03
Speaker 1: flight risk. I mean, I know that did he tried
17:06
Speaker 1: to get out and they say you're a flight risk
17:07
Speaker 1: because you're living on a waterfront property in Miami and
17:10
Speaker 1: you've got boats. Yeah, this is times ten for these guys.
17:14
Speaker 1: So no, they're not going anywhere, which is to me
17:16
Speaker 1: why they should stop fighting extradition and just go back
17:19
Speaker 1: and fight the charges.
17:20
Speaker 3: So now let's turn to someone who's already been convicted
17:25
Speaker 3: and sentenced, Brian Kohlberger. So he pleaded guilty last year
17:29
Speaker 3: to murdering four University of Idaho students. He's serving four
17:33
Speaker 3: consecutive life sentences. That guilty plea did spare him from
17:38
Speaker 3: a possible death penalty, but he told The New York
17:41
Speaker 3: Times that he's innocent and he's filed a petition to
17:45
Speaker 3: withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. How difficult
17:49
Speaker 3: is it to withdraw a guilty plea?
17:53
Speaker 1: Almost impossible post sentencing change please, almost never happen. Now,
17:59
Speaker 1: you can try to do it before you get sentenced.
18:02
Speaker 1: You can try to say, you know what, I have
18:03
Speaker 1: a change of heart. And it's still hard. But after
18:06
Speaker 1: you've been sentenced, after the judge has already said, okay,
18:09
Speaker 1: are you sure you want to plead guilty and accept
18:12
Speaker 1: the four life prison terms? And are you doing this
18:16
Speaker 1: because you are guilty?
18:17
Speaker 3: Yes?
18:18
Speaker 1: No, one's co wercuit. Know you like your attorneys?
18:21
Speaker 3: Yes?
18:22
Speaker 1: Now say I'm not guilty. I've been coerced and I
18:24
Speaker 1: don't like my attorneys. Excuse me. You just set the
18:28
Speaker 1: opposite under oath and you can't keep playing with the
18:30
Speaker 1: emotions of the victims' families like this. But that's what
18:33
Speaker 1: he's doing. Guy's a sociopath. The evidence is overwhelming against him.
18:36
Speaker 1: That's why he took the plea. He really should have
18:39
Speaker 1: gone to trials so he would be eligible for the
18:41
Speaker 1: death penalty. But here he is his last throws a
18:43
Speaker 1: power of leverage of relevance, where he is trying to
18:47
Speaker 1: remind people who he is. You know, when he was
18:50
Speaker 1: convicted and sent away, one of the family members of
18:54
Speaker 1: the victims said, we will never think of you ever again.
19:00
Speaker 1: Yet he's insisting that you will. And that's who this
19:02
Speaker 1: person is, haven't The family's been through enough. So he's
19:04
Speaker 1: going to lose. I don't even think he's going to
19:06
Speaker 1: get a hearing. I think the judge will reject it
19:08
Speaker 1: on the paper and he will be spending the rest
19:10
Speaker 1: of his life in prison, which is still too good
19:12
Speaker 1: for a guy like this. The only solace I have
19:14
Speaker 1: is knowing that he hates prison. That's why, another reason
19:17
Speaker 1: why he's doing this.
19:18
Speaker 3: So here's what he said. That his attorneys failed to
19:21
Speaker 3: disclose or review evidence that might have helped his case
19:25
Speaker 3: during plea discussions, and that his attorneys insisted that his
19:28
Speaker 3: plea need not be truthful despite petitioners vehement denial of
19:32
Speaker 3: actual guilt, and they promised life in prison would come
19:35
Speaker 3: with immediate contact, visits, freedom of movement, employment. The standard
19:39
Speaker 3: is to show manifest injustice.
19:42
Speaker 1: Yes, manifest in justice. You've got to show that you
19:44
Speaker 1: are coerced into it. So if he has evidence that
19:46
Speaker 1: he was coerced into taking the plea okay, show that
19:49
Speaker 1: you just can't say it. Do you have evidence of
19:51
Speaker 1: that that you were coerced into doing it or that
19:53
Speaker 1: you had a mental deficiency at the time, not that
19:56
Speaker 1: the attorneys you know, could have been better about researching
19:58
Speaker 1: every lead out there. Those attorneys did an amazing job
20:03
Speaker 1: for him because he was going to get the death penalty.
20:05
Speaker 1: This is a pretty conservative state, Idaho. For innocent college
20:10
Speaker 1: students slaughtered, and he was able to avoid the death penalty.
20:13
Speaker 1: He should not be complaining about his attorneys. He should
20:16
Speaker 1: be setting them a gift basket.
20:17
Speaker 3: Great to have you on as always, Dave. That's Dave Ehrenberg,
20:21
Speaker 3: former Palm Beach County State Attorney. And that's it for
20:25
Speaker 3: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
20:27
Speaker 3: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
20:31
Speaker 3: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
20:34
Speaker 3: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
20:39
Speaker 3: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
20:42
Speaker 3: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Junie Grosso and
20:46
Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg