Georgia Election Probe Into Trump Heats Up

into throwing out Joe Biden's presidential election victory. And now Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis has gotten the courts permission to convene a special grand jury in the investigation, joining me as former federal Prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner

McCarter and English Bob. Why did the prosecutor request a special grand The Fulton County District Attorney made that request because she said that key witnesses and the investigation, including for example, the Georgia's Secretary of State, would not cooperate without being subpoena to testify. So the special grand jury was created to give her the power to bring these

individuals before the grand jury. Interestingly, the special grand Jury gives her the power to have a grand jury whose sole focus is this investigation, and they're able to meet on a more regular basis and will move this investigation along at a much quicker pace. Of course, the big question is whether Trump's attempts to reverse the outcome in Georgia were criminal. What will the prosecutor be looking at?

The phone Country District Attorney is going to look at certain key events that occurred on January See Specifically, at three pm on Saturday, there was a phone call which was recorded between President Trump on the Secretary of State in which prosect shooters may alleged that President Trump tried to push and coerce this in Secretary of State into

counting George's presidential votes in a way that favored President Trump. Specifically, the language in the phone call includes President Trump stating to the Secretary of State, I think it's pretty clear that we won. We won very substantially in Georgia. And then the President, according to the tape, went on to say, it's more illegal for you than it is for them, because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal offense and you can't let that happen.

And then he says, what is probably the key in that phone call, the key words in that telephone call. All I want to do is this. I want to find eleven thousand seven under eight votes, which is more than we have because we won the state. That's going to be the key fact in that investigation, and prosecutors will try to prove that what the president was doing was the reatening the Secretary of State that if he did not yield to that request, that he himself could

face criminal charges. That is what the case will be about. The particular statutes that the prosecutor in Georgia will be looking at our two criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, conspiracy to commit election fraud. George's conspiracy to commit election frond statute makes it a crime when one conspires or

agrees with another to violate Georgia's election laws. And what's important here is that that crime, as with any conspiracy law, is complete when there's an agreement to violate the law and one overt act is taken in further into that conspiracy. But it is not necessary to prove that the conspiracy was consummated In other words, the scheme does not have

to succeed to be criminal. The second statute that prosecutors will be looking at, the Georgia criminal solicitation statute that makes it a crime when a person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud. When was that

intent another person engages in conduct that constitutes of felony. Here, the underlying felony would essentially be tampering with the election results, and what prosecutors would have to show was that Trump was demanding that the Secretary of State alter the final vote palities so that it would appear that he won the election, when in fact he did not. As far as the criminal solicitation charge, does it seem as if the phone call would almost be enough. That's a great question.

It does seem like the phone call is quite damning, but when you look closely at the words that were spoken, it is not nearly as clear cut as it first appears. The key language in that phone call is when President Trump allegedly said to the Secretary of State, all I want to do is this. I just want to find eleven thousand, seven eight votes, which is one more than

we have because we won the state. The key to this prosecution is that the date will have to show that President Trump knew in fact that he lost the election and that he was asking the Secretary of State to quote unquote find votes that did not exist. It would be a defense to this criminal case if President Trump could show that he actually believed he won the state of Georgia, even if it turns out that that's

not incorrect. But if all he was asking the Secretary of State to do was to find real votes, was to locate votes that actually were made legally for him that put him over the top in Georgia, that actually would be a defense to these criminal charges. So the

entire case turns on the intent of the president. Did he ask the Secretary of State to find votes that didn't exist knowing that he in fact had lost the election, or did he have a real, genuine belief that he won the election and that he was simply asking the Secretary of State to find actual votes in order to validate what he already believed that he in fact won the election. So now it seems as if the conspiracy

to commit election fraud would be even more difficult. Who would be in on the conspiracy would it be the people on the phone with Trump except for Ravensburg. So when the President made that call to the Secretary of State, there were others on the line, including a team of

election law lawyers representing the president. If the prosecutors could prove that the President conspired with any single one of those individuals, then there was an agreement to perform in a legal act, and as long as one step was taken in further into that conspiracy. That step would be the phone call to the Secretary of State to try to convince him to overturn the election. That would be what prosecutors would have to prove in order to make

those charges stick. We all know the old saying, I think it came from a one time Court of Appeals judge, that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham Sandwich. So does it seem as if this prosecutor could bring charge is if she wants to. But does the prosecutor consider whether or not you can actually

get a conviction? Sure? What goes on in the grand jury is that prosecutors have to show that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the individual named in the indictment has committed that crime. That's the lowest standard we have in our criminal justice system. There's probable cause in order to get the indictment. However, in order to get the conviction, it's it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest legal standard we

have in our legal system. While it's relatively easy for prosecutors to get an indictment because of the lower criminal standard, and because in front of the grand jury, the grand jurors only here the prosecutor's side of the case. In other words, they only hear the evidence to support if finding a probable cause. They don't hear the defense side

of the case. It's relatively easy to get an indictment, but a prosecutor never wants to get an indictment that they don't believe they can ultimately prove in court, and particularly in a case like this that would be enormously high profile, with the stakes enormously high, I don't think we're going to see the prosecutor pursue this case unless she believes that she can ultimately get a conviction if

this case were to go to trial. It seems that most people looking at all the possible criminal cases against Trump. See the Georgia case as the most direct and having the most possibilities for conviction. Do you agree with that, Well, it is the most clear cut case in the sense that the facts are not particularly complicated. It also has the virtue from the prosecutor's side of the case, of having an actual tape of President Trump speaking to the

Secretary of State. So, in other words, prosecutors would argue that there is an actual recording of the crime in

real time. They would have to stand up before before jurors and convince them that the president in that conversation, in that recorded conversation, was attempting to get the Secretary of State to find non existent votes, and that President Trump knew at the time that he had lost the election and was seeking to have it overturned by asking the Secretary of State to intervene at the Tampa with

the results of that election. Let's turn out to New York, And of course there are parallel investigations by the New York Attorney General and the Manhattan But the Attorney General is fighting to get testimony from the eldest Trump children, and so she released a hundred fifty seven page court document.

What did you see that struck you there. What's important to note here is that the New York Attorney General filed a motion to compel the former president along with his son Donald Trump Junior, and Ivanka Trump, the handover documents and answer questions about the series of valuations of key properties part of the New York based Trump organization empire.

That was meant was a motion to quash from the Trump team, and that resulted in this filing by the New York Attorney General in which she detailed a lot of the evidence that they had already gathered in this investigation. But it's important to note that the Attorney General's investigation in New York is a civil case, which means nobody's going to jail as a result of that investigation. All that can result there is that there will be an imposition of a fine at the end of that case.

So the Attorney General claims that Trump's financial filings have misstated objective facts, that the Trump organization used fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions. She's been investigating since is the problem? How hard it is to convict someone of fraud in a case like this. Sure well, in the civil case, the standard of proof is merely

preponderance of the evidence. So unlike the criminal case that's going on with the Manhattan District Attorney's office or the criminal case that's going on in Georgia, the Attorney General in New York only has to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means slightly more than fifty percent. But they're still difficulties even improving that case.

For one thing, it's a complicated financial fraud case, and it's difficult to prove criminal intent unless the documents are crystal clear that there was an intent to mislead into fraud, and unless you have someone on the inside, a co conspirator, who can take jurors by the hand through all these complicated documents and show them that, in fact, there was criminal intent here, there was knowledge that what was being done was wrong, there was knowledge that the information that

was being filed was false. They don't have that here in terms of a cooperator as far as we know. And the documents themselves are complicated. They're complicated financial documents that also have the added difficulty of having been reviewed

and approved by attorneys. So one of the defenses that the Trump organization can raise is that they rely in good faith on professional advice, that these documents were reviewed by lawyers and by accountants, and even if ultimately they were wrong, they were allied in good faith on those professionals,

and therefore they're not guilty of committing that offense. Another challenge for the New York Attorney General's Office investigation is that she is trying to prove objectively that these valuations were incorrect. So she's trying to find discrepancies in all these financial filings and show that at one time and for one purpose, a certain property was valued at X, and that the same property for at another time, for

another purpose was valued at Why. These are objective discrepancies in the valuations, and she's trying to use that to show that they had to note that these valuations were not correct and that they were being manipulated for various purposes in order to obtain economic advantages for the Trump organization.

But even that argument can be challenging because it is perfectly permissible to value different properties at different amounts based upon the context that the valuation is being done, so the rules may differ if the valuation is being done, for example, for a mortgage or loan application, as opposed to some other circumstance. So even the discrepancies alone may not be enough to prove that there was an intent

to defraud here. Those are additional challenges that the New York Attorney General will have to overcome if she's ultimately going to bring a case of fraud against President Trump or anybody else in the Trump organization. Thanks Bob, that's Robert mans of McCarter and English. Gun violence is on the rise in Manhattan. Last Friday, two police officers were

shot and killed in Harlem. There have been thirteen shootings in Manhattan so far this year, compared to seven during the same period in according to New York Police Department statistics. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Brad, who has been under pressure over a memoy issued for swearing prosecution of certain crimes, said addressing gun violence will be a top priority for his office. Joining me as Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, pat tell us about this memo from brag that has

gotten so much attention. Well, it was a law enforcement memo to his staff prosecutors. They're called the system district attorneys, and this was a memo that laid out how they were going to pursue certain crimes and not seek certain penalties automatically, you know, not pursue fair beating cases or sex worker cases like aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle can only be charged if a motorist is also accused of being involved in the dangerous driving or crashes

that injure someone. They can't be used against people who don't pay their fine. People who burglarize apartments or buildings or basements of a commercial building or an apartment would face burglary charges, but they would carry lesser punishments that cautions that don't automatic. We seek to have someone incarcerated when they get arrested. You know, that only pursued those

kinds of cases there's an imminent threat of harm. Resisting arrest could only be charged if the person is arresting for a serious crime, not just standing around when the cops are telling them to move. And Brag's theories apparently behind us, were that he wanted to stop police from basically arresting black and list Latin neck and minorities that are targeted typically under these kinds of cases. What has happened, though, is there's been a lot of interpretation of the memo.

Miss memo. It was basically sort of suggesting a little more leniency or giving the prosecutors more discretion and don't automatically charge everything that gets arrested and make it a felony. Was basically came at a time right head up into an increase in crime. There's been a spike and recent

violence crimes including shootings and gun violence. So this policy Day one memo came head on into shootings and the pushing of the woman Michelle go office worker who was shoved to her death in front of an oncoming subway car in Manhattan. And there was a girl fatally shot. She was a Burger King worker. She was fatally shot at the bear robbery at the at the Burger King. So these kinds of crimes, of course, are getting a lot of headlines, and Bragg's policies seemed to have collided

head on with this spike. I mean, the New York Police Commissioner, the first black woman to hold that job, criticized his policies. They were even starting to be calls for removing him from office. Yes, and Tom Squazzy, who's running for governor the Republican he is called upon Kathy Hokel to remove Brag and she apparently has the power to do so. And she's running for re election after she was appointed to replace Andrew Cuomo, so she's having to deal with this issue where she's being asked to

review Bragg and possibly remove him. So she's going to be meeting with him, it's been reported. So you know, it's a lot happening in three weeks where you have a new police commissioner and then you have a new mayor who is a former cop who's dealing with this spike in crime citywide. Mayor Adams has given his support and says that he thinks that Bragg is a brilliant prosecutor. But you know, there was something interesting I covered yesterday.

There was a conference with the New York State Bar Association with four District Attorneys around the state, including the Erie County d A. Flynn as well as Mimi Roca of Westchester d A and Eric Gonzalis the Brooklyn d A. And it was interesting because some of them have accomplished into progressive policies, ameliorating you know, the harm that incarceration does to you. They were talking about different policies they've instituted.

So for example, Alvin brad gets a lot of attention yesterday for announcings and he was going to have like a guns are prosecutor to handle gun cases. And Arinzale said that last August and no one said anything, you know, and Erik Gonzalez was talking about policies that he's enacted because there was such a rise in crime when he took over when Ken Thompson died in sixteen and then ran for d a in Seen, and he said he was managed with some policies. They've been focused on certain crimes,

certain resentivis, balons who have violent backgrounds. They basically focused on certain gang cases and made these cases against he said, the ones that pulled the triggers. And they've been out actually able to bring down crime and there's been a reduction in crime in Brooklyn and the d a in Erie County was talking about certain alternatives to incarceration cases where they take young people who have possibly been involved

in the shooting. They may have been victims, they were not the defendant the person who was arrested for the gun possession. But they target them and work with them to get them out of the system. So they will take them out. And you know, it could be that this kid was the victim of a shooting and may go get a gun, and with this program, they intervened with the kids and to get them out of the system.

It seems like in some interviews I've seen that Bragg has backed off a little on that memo, or tried to. He has given It was a two hour seminar last week at n y U Law School and where he's an adjunct, and he was asked by a law professor at n y U Law School that's the former federal prosecutor in the Southern District that used to work with him. And he has spoken that, you know, he business interpreted and that it was a problem. He received criticism from

the his memo, his Day one memo. It was a failure to communicate properly what the memo was really about, and he said he called it maybe too legalistic and confusing to to the public. Some people have said that was the problem, or perhaps you know, it was a little and artfully done. Other people have not had this issue in the first three weeks of work and also didn't at least nine Manhattan prosecutors quit after he took over. Well,

I mean one series. We had a Bloomberg meeting with him on Friday of last week and ed board meeting, and that, you know, he said, insisted that some of those nine that were counted, that top people that quit included the DA himself, Uh Divance, who was obviously going to leave. And he said, it's always when there's a change in regime happens, there will be a change in the top management. And he said the same thing had happened when he was in the New York Attorney General's Office.

All the top managers had left. However, one of the key people that the Manhattan DA's office lost is the spectacular prosecutor. She's a veteran and she's a fierce, fierce child prosecutor. Her name is Jonah Lucy, and she prosecuted Harvey Weinstein. So now they've lost her. And the Court of Appeals was voicing some criticism of the way the case was handled in the use of these witnesses that are not direct victims, but they're kind of out Pride witnesses.

So the if the court appeals court reverses the conviction of Harvey Weinstein, now one of the most senior people in the office, who's been there for like thecover case of where fully twenty five years, you know, she is no longer there. He would not answer what they would do. He said, there's many talented staffers that can that can handle the prosecution. So what does he say he's going to focus on. Well, he wants to do a lot

of things. He wants to focus on gun violence. He wants to focus on you know, lowering uh, you know, the number of youth and black and Latin Neck people who get arrested that he thinks they've been lawfully targeted for law enforcement and put a little more parity into the into the system, the criminal justice system. But it's a lot on his plate right quickly in the middle of what many people perceive as a crime wave. And you know, he's gotten there's been some criticism. In fact,

you know, there's been stories. I think people see if you go to the Dwayne Read or a local drug store, you can't buy anything on the shelves, including toothpaste because of you know, people are shop raising shoplifters, and so if that's happening in the Manhattan store, and then you read a memo that says, hey, let's not arrest everyone, let's think about maybe an alternative through this process criminal justice system process, you can see people getting a little

frustrated that, you know, they're worried about getting mugged, or some people say that it's not necessarily as bad in certain crimes are not as bad as it was in the nineteen eighties and nineties during the crack epidemic, but it's not good. What about the prosecution of Trump, which he inherited from civants the former d A. That was an interesting question. My colleagues aggressively questioned him on that, and he will not say he will not talk about it.

And I guess we have to understand that there is a grand jury involved in this investigation, and prosecutors are prohibited from discussing grand jury matters. But he has said repeatedly that he has this expertise when he was on the campaign, that he had these this expertise, and as in the New York Attorney General's Office prosecuting Trump organization in Trump University. So these are kinds of background cases that he has, so he has the wherewithal and the skill.

He's also kept the same people in place that we're doing the prosecution under his predecessors. Ivan, And what's his relationship now with the New York Police Commissioner. When there was this acrimony between the em police commissioner, who was reacting to this memo she she had sent out, the police commissioners sent out a memo to her in the thirty six thousand members of the force saying, you know

that we need to be careful about this. And I think Bragg realized that he had to have some meeting with the police department because the two are partners in this process. And so they so the police commission or Key Chance Stool and I've met with brag Um a week ago Friday now, so it's two weeks now after that rocky week to agree that they were going to work together in a more collaborative fashion. So, I mean,

I guess this is all the learning process. We haven't had a new man at and d A, I mean SI Vance with for eleven years and Bob Morgan thou was for thirty some years. So in forty some years you know, this is the fourth district attorney, so I guess it's a learning experience for everybody involved. Thanks Pat. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, and that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg