You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast.
Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listening on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Jim Ziron's been living at Bloomberg. I'm delighted that Jim is with us today. We spoke on balance of power ahead of the indictment on Bloomberg TV, and now the former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York joints here on sound On. He's also the host of Conversations with Jim Zyn on PBS. So Jim, welcome back. It's great to talk to you twice in twenty four hours here because we actually got this indictment that we were feeling our way through a little bit early yesterday.
Now that you've seen this forty one counts, nineteen defendants, I'm asking the same question of a lot of folks that day. Did Fani Willis bite off more than she can chew?
Oh? I don't think so. I think she's quite experienced in rico cases. It might take some time before they can pick a jury. It might take some time for her to get all this evidence in. But I think that the case is going to proceed, and I think she'll try to prosecute the case expeditiously. Trump will try to put as many hurdles in front of her as he possibly can, and the question is will she'll be able to overcome them?
Well, I guess she clearly has confidence that she can do this and prosecute on nineteen of these individuals at once, because this is the path that she has chosen. I just wonder about motives here. Do you think that this is an intention to get at least some of those eighteen other defendants to roll on the former president.
Well, in every multi defendant conspiracy case in a Rico case is really a glorified conspiracy case. Prosecutors make an effort to get co conspirators to cooperate. Some of them may be named in the indictment. Others may be named as on indicted co conspirators. I think a lot of what's alleged the indictment is supported by evidence that she already has. It's always helpful to a jury to have a live person there tell what their story is. But I don't know that she absolutely needs these people to
flip in order to make a case. She wouldn't know better than I would, but the possibility of co defendants flipping and becoming prosecution witnesses is always there.
We spoke earlier with ty Cobb, Jim, and you heard us talking about the timeline here. He went further to say that the other other case having to do with overturning the election results, that would be the Special Council's January sixth case from Jack Smith, will not be waiting around for this to resolve in Georgia. Here's what he said.
I don't think there's any way Jack Smith would permit miss Willis to go to trial before he does, given the overlap and witnesses, and the damage her use of those witnesses could do to his case.
Is Fannie Willis at the end of the line.
Here, Jim. I don't know where she stands in the line, but I think it's quite clear that Jack Smith's case in Washington is going to go first. One of the interesting things is whether Trump, who was seeking delay all the time, and often seeking delay on grounds that are frivolous and near frivolous, has a pretty good argument to go before the judges in the cases, not the Washington case, but in the other cases, the one in Florida and
the one in New York and Fannie Willis's case. And say, look here, i am former president of the United States, and I have to defend four cases and also run for office. I'm trying to defend myself. How does a citizen fight on four fronts at the same time. So I'd like to stay all the other cases. I'll fight the Washington case, and let's stay all the other cases until the Washington cases resolved. And well that if he gets favorable rulings on such a pitch, that could stand him in good stead.
Well, it's important to point out all the legal fights that he is facing, because it's not just these four criminal trials that he's going to have to see through. There's a number of civil cases as well, and that just kind of adds to the crowded calendar. I guess, Joe, Theoretically, the.
Civil cases would not require his presence in the courtroom during the trial, so he would have less of a burden defending the civil cases because it would be handled by his lawyers.
Okay, that's an important distinction to make. Thank you for that. But of course we're talking here, as you were alluding to, about not just a former president, but man who is
trying to be president again. When we think about the idea that he is a former president could very well theoretically be re elected into the oval office in twenty twenty four, when we're talking about the sentences that could come with a guilty verdict conviction on some of these felony charges, Jim, do you see any real likelihood that he serves any time in prison?
Well, I think if he's convicted, and we have to see what he's convicted of and in which court he's convicted, I think there's a likelihood he'll spend time in prison. In the Georgia case, as I understand it, although the judge has discretion to suspend sentence or put him on probation, if he's convicted, the Georgia case as a mandatory sentence, and he would have to go to prison because of the Rico allegations. So prison is a real threat. I mean,
but Trump is someone who likes to take chances. He has all of his professional career, and he certainly is getting as close to sailing as close to the wind as he possibly can in this case. Boy.
When we talk about prison, though, Jim, what does that look like? Is this a scene from Goodfellows where they're hanging around their bathrobes making tomato sauce? Or are we talking prison? I mean, how would the Secret Service manage that?
Well, I mean there have been all sorts of proposals as to how it could be managed. And he could be in a special kind of prison environment, which is not what we normally think of as prison. I think because of the presence of Secret Service protection. There would have to be some accommodations made. But we're getting way way ahead.
Of the Yes, I don't even I'm not even comfortable talking.
The question is first place, the question is will he be disqualified from running for off Now, none of these convictions are going to disqualify him from running for office. What might disqualify him from running for office? As Section three of the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which two eminent law professors have written about, in which they have put forth decisive opinion that section three is self executing and it would bar him even for running in the primary.
Because well, I was going to ask you about this, Jim, you're a mind reader. I only have a minute left, though. Does that have some grounds in law? What do you think?
Oh? I read in every word of the Law Review article that Boudy and Paulson wrote, and it's just overwhelming. They do an historical analysis of the history of Section three and the language of Section three, and these are two very very conservative, originalist lawyers, and they come to the conclusion that, based on the original meaning of Section three, is disqualified from running for office. And I think that's what this dispute, the last analysis is all about.
Incredible Jim. Thank you Jim Zyron, former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, with remarkable insights. Today, this is Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.