How New Guilty Pleas Affect Trump Case in Georgia

Middle District of Georgia. So Michael, just how significant are these three Please?

DA much further down the road. And really, this is why the charges that Sidney Powell pled to were basically dealing with a Coffee County issue and that part of the state, and whether or not somebody access some voting machines down there to do a review and whether or not that was proper, I'm not sure anybody will ever be able to put that directly back on the former president. When you look at the chessbro plea, he pleaded guilty

to charges surrounding the fake electors. And remember it was really his legal memos that sort of set up the idea of using this alternate slate of electors. And so I think the former president would be able to say I've relied on his advice and he told me what to do, and you know, he was a lawyer, and you know this kind of thing and they've done it in Hawaii and it is different. But I just don't know how far that goes. So there is some significance,

and I think it's always useful information. You know, if you think about a puzzle, you'd have to put all the pieces together to see it. This is simply a couple of pieces. But I think the DA will have access to it may frankly become more useful to the federal prosecution given what we know about that case, and in that case it's a much more tailored type prosecution

with Trump as the defendant. And there may be some information that Ms Powell has about individual meetings that she had with the former president to give some context to some of the allegations that special counsel is making. So I don't think it was necessarily a game changer for Fulton County, but it may be useful in Washington in that case.

this case. And so to the extent that these two defendants filed for some relief under the Speedy Trial Act in the State of Georgia, which meant their case had to be tried and started at least jury selected in October, I think that put the DA a little bit under the gun, and these were not two defendants were the greatest cases that she wanted to go with first. So what we saw then is a plea offer made. And it's not uncommon for people to make plea offers. That's

sort of just playbook stuff for prosecutors. But we saw

a plea offer made that really was pretty insignificant. What we saw obviously will misdemeanor please for miss Powell, and a felony plea dealing with file and a paper and preparing a paper for mister Chesbrook, both receiving probation, both apparently being able to maintain their first defender of status and so they'll have no criminal conviction at all, both could vote, and both those kinds of things that we think about often following a criminal conviction, those won't be

in place for them. So to think about this is that these were the architects, or the masterminds, if you will, of the big election scheme and the fraud, the big life.

The sentence of probation was pretty meager, especially then when you stack that up against the sentences that we've seen for some of the January the sixth defendants, who while clearly that was at least it might beinion an insurrection effort and an effort to go in and recav it at the Capitol, but you're seeing many many of them get jail time, which you have the people who came up or who were responsible at least for the theories and the stories that may have been the catalyst for

that day. They're getting dis demain or promoted sentences. So it seems a lot, and that tells me that it was likely that did not want this to be the case that she put forward first. It also tells me that now the judge will have another he had blocked off I believe five months for the trial. This gives some ability for them to maneuver and try to put if they can squeeze another group of dependents in somewhere in the first half of next year. I think you'll see some effort to do that.

doesn't necessarily mean it's a criminal charge. So I think she's looking at and they're probably considering her a being a witness to again sort of give context to what happened without necessarily being a key codefendant. Think about a bank robbery case and you send your accomplice out to buy the guns while you go steal the car. It's going to be the getaway car, and then you meet

back at a certain place, you go in rob the bank. Well, clearly there's a great testimony to be had by one defendant there against the other about what their role may have been. I don't know, And frankly, we just don't know, because there are parts of this case that we don't have a complete vision to yet. But we don't know how much information she has to directly sort of point the finger Trump. There may be other people in the campaign. There may be other people that were there at that meeting.

There may be other folks who she had contact with about you know, we're going to look at these election machines and that information be relevant, but it may not be sort of the silver bullet that folks thought it might be.

and I'll testify that in fact I did it. But it doesn't mean that that person has to have changed their mind or changed their theory about why they So you oftentimes see the defendants say, well, the government's got me. I did this. In fact, I did what they're saying. I had my own reasons for it, but this is what I did it, and I do want to put this behind me. I don't know how it could be the I mean, he may not have snitched directly on somebody, but I think his testimony could come in and be

problematic for defendants certainly. So he may not have said, well, John Doe, and I went to the printer and printed these things off. You know, that would be directly snitching on John Doe, but he may talk about the calls that he made, the efforts that he had, the discussions that he had to sort of implement this alternate slate

of electors. And at that point, and it's up to the Trier fact which will likely be a jury to decide whether or not those other defendants be off what they did, based in part, at least upon some testimony that print may give.

believe that the election was completely legitimate. And I think that's maybe what people are thinking when they think about the import of these particular pleas, like somehow these folks have had a you know, come to Jesus moment and have decided that everything they've ever done was wrong, and it was all off or aught, And so they're entering their plea that may not in fact be the case.

They're required to acknowledge their criminal conduct or conduct in a criminal case, but they're not necessarily required to give up personally held beliefs, and so it may become it may very become a fine life or prosecutor to walk on with orn. I decided to call this witness because they may say something that rings true with some potential juror, or they may say something that puts a cloud over my allegations against another defend that you're that type of thing.

And so that's why I say that it's always significant to have co defendants flea, but it's not necessarily the end of the case by any stretch of the imagination.

misdemeanor counts. I've been talking to Michael Moore of Moore Hall. You mentioned the Special Council's case. These two are also co conspirators. I think it's three to five in the Special Council's election interference case. Do you think the defense has been in touch with the Special Council? I mean, do you plead in a state case when you have exposure in a federal case.

So I would hope and expect that there was some discussion about how these defendants would move forward in the face and sort of the second Acts that was hanging over their head, and that'd be in the federal case, so I do think. And then they may be called to give testimony. And one thing to remember is they are on probation in their own state probation here, Well, one thing you can't do while your own probation has

commit other crimes. And so it would be a fool's errand for them to go out and try to give perjured testimony or false testimony in another court proceeding, especially one in a federal court somewhere.

in my case. And I think that's that's what we're seeing. So I expect that they will use the leverage they have over these dependents because of their probation and otherwise to get them into a trupal testimony. I also think you here in at some point acknowledge some type of arrangement for their testimony he's made through their law game.

But I mean, frankly, I really think that it was the idea that you know, and if I were advising these particular fits, it would have been, Look, can you admit to this conduct? They're asking you to admit to it. That answer is yes, you're getting a misdemeanor. You know, that's basically like a steam ticket at Georgia. You know, they may be stacked on top of each other and you're going to get twelve months probation for each one.

But it's a misdemeanor. In miss Powerce case, in mister Chessbrow's case, you know it's a felony, but you're not gonna have a record because you can obey yourself with certain first offendit of protection and that type of thing, and so you know you can get this behind you. And the fines were nominal. I mean, they got to write a letter of apology, you know, this kind of stuff.

I don't know that that's that was something that I feel like particularly compelling and the bi but okay, and so it really was by all standards, I think a good deal for these defendants to be able to basically turn the page on this chapter. And so I don't know that other defendants may get the same type of offer. I think the strategic move to file the speedy trial demand played into the decision here, the fact that this

case is going to have to be tried. I think all of this stuff was in the mix in the state was willing to essentially let these two go, and frankly too, because I think it was a tougher case. When you have lawyers sitting as defendants, you have unique legal defenses that can be raised, and those are things that the state may not want to deal with at this point of the case, especially when they're looking at other council like Eastman, Julian at that type of thing.

his timb on folks. But so I do think he always has something to fear, and I think he has to be thinking at this point, you know, I hope this is the end. I don't think these folks are going to hurt me, but I still need to be aware of the possibility that other people who I may not have as much influence with, they may in fact decide, you know, that they're going to come forward with some

other you know, some of them more daming testimony. Ms Powell's charges were so limited in the indictment, and you know, this was a very thorough indictment. And have they had some additional overt acts? Have they had some additional predicate acts that impacted her? I think we would have seen that spelled out in the DA's case. But the allegations that they made against Ms Powell were sort of specific as it related to this incident in Coffee County, Georgia.

The allegations against mister Chessbro, of course dealt with a very new position relating to the alternative electors. Again, both somewhat removed, I think from the former president. You know, there'll be a unique argument. I think that you will hear and it will be a defense. I think you may be seeing it somewhat now from Trump saying that he wasn't represented by Sidney Powell. We may have in fact, now we may be seeing sort of the technical niceties

of who is the actual client. Is that Trump is an individual? Is it or is it the Trump campaign which Trump is not named as an individual, or is it you know, another organization, And so we may start seeing those maneuverings as well. It'll will be instancy who Princess Mistyles says she was representing in a particular tie.

Does that mean he can't readily rely on that for fear that he may They didn't represent him individually, but they represented something to somebody that he may have been associated with, or a group he may have been associated with. Does that mean that he loses that defense. I don't think he does, because I think sort of the executive privilege umbrella is made in fact to sort of cover this very situation where you have advice coming from different people.

But it's a great point, and I think again it's relevant because of the unique nature of this case and bringing charges, especially the state charges against a former president for conduct that occurred while he was a sitting president of the United States, enjoying in fact that privilege. So that's a question that I thank you. May find nine folks and all a nice bench in Washington, d C. Making a decision about it.

to support Israel and Ukraine. The migration challenges facing the US are increasing, with record numbers of migrants at the southern border. Arrest for illegal crossings were up twenty one percent last month to two hundred and nineteen thousand. Joining me is immigration law expertly on Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. There were more migrant encounters last month than in any month last year. So whatever the Biden administration is doing is not working.

were taking too long. And even though there are legal pathways, and it's just to give the Bide the administration credits for the two legal pathways they created, which number one A parole program that allows you to apply online and if you are from Cuba eighty Nicaragri, Venezuela, you can potentially win one of thirty thousand monthly plots to come in or what's called the CBP one app appointment system where you actually show up in an orderly fashion for

the court of Entry. Those are great new innovations, but because each of them takes too long and is not guarantee to actually lead to either an appointment or a plot, people have decided to take matters into their own hands, and the consequences of doing that are insignificant because just the fact that you're banned from asylum ten years from now when your case finally gets the immigration court doesn't seem to matter to people because they can still a

get something called withholding of removal, which is less than asylum allows them to say, but me, some significant percentage of this group isn't looking to actually show up the immigration court at the end of the day, but it's just looking to be in America and bide their time.

And so from that perspective, that's what we're seeing. We're now seeing that that trial and error period has failed, and people realize that the unlawful route is still the route, unfortunately that pays the best civity.

money is really going to make the process smoother. But people are complaining that the point of this is not to make the process smoother, it's to try to actually make it so that only people with the most credible possible asylum cases actually end up entering the interior of the United States, and that money can't go to that because the law doesn't permit that at the moment. The law says, if you articulate any credible fear of asylum, you have to be let into the interior of the country.

And so all that this money does is get that initial processing period faster and more efficiently handled for people.

And the problem is that that moves the needle. And let's say, instead of eighty percent of the claims being successful, we now see there's actually been a reduction sixty percent of the claims being successful. But we're talking about sixty percent of two hundred thousand people coming into the country, and so people won't feel that numerically because it's still one hundred and forty thousand people, which if you were to do that on an annualized basis, is still nearly

two million people. And so that's the problem that they're running up again, is they actually are dialing it up as much as possible. But even within that comfine unless you were to do something illegal and just start wholeheartedly banning people saying that nobody's claim as credible. People generally are coached who say the right words that will articulate the credible fear claim for whatever country they're from, and

so it's very hard to shut it down completely. But you have seen it dialed up, but again you're dialing it up from a percentage standpoint of a march larger numerator, and so eighty percent of one hundred thousand was still less than sixty percent of two hundred thousand.

and forty thousand for twenty twenty four. Tell us about the changes that the Department of Homelands Security is proposing.

and everything else, and that was about a ten thousand dollars expense for employers, so multiple employers didn't want to do that for the same person. But the Trump administration changed this process and said, instead of having to put the whole application in upfront, just put your name, address, date, pass for a number of very simple data and then if you win, we'll ask you to come forward and put in the entire three hundred PA each application. The

odor is process. Okay, that's great, and it found efficient, but everything has trained out some life, and so what happened was because it became so easy and so cheap to put in applications, what happened was companies, not the larger tech companies, not the Googles and Intels and ciscos of the world, but these sort of smaller tech companies that might have fifty one hundred employees that are these sort of you know, family owned type tech companies decided

to basically fool their resources together and form maybe blocks of one hundred two hundred companies where they would all apply for the exact same list of ten thousand workers from India, let's say. And then, however those workers ended up getting selected from whichever companies they just transferred them to end up getting an even number of workers for the companies. So that was radically gaining the system, and it was creating many, many more applications that were actually

naturally desired. And so what this change does is this change says you can only apply for a person one time, meaning that person only has one chance to win the lottery. They don't have sixty different chances to win the lottery.

But from there then they can go to any of the employers that express an interest to them, which will ultimately then give them more bargaining power visa v. Their ability to say, Okay, I just want a lottery slot, so if you want to have me because I've won a lottery slot, you can have me tack amongst the employers which one you want. So it's changed the ballad from the employers rigging the system to now a more employee based chance to be a free agent, so to speak.

Mayor Eric Adams announced in July that New York City would start giving adult migrants sixty days notice to move out of city shelters, and about three thousand asylum seekers have been told their time was up in the shelters, but about half have reapplied to stay. I've been talking to Leon Fresco, a partner to Holland a Knight. What else can Adams do?

quickly and they can either succeed or not succeed. But those people shouldn't be in shelter, they shouldn't be homeless, they shouldn't be in the middle of the street. The only people who should be leading ice custody are people who have a sixth address and someone who's willing to take quote unquote ownership or custody of the person make sure that they'll show up the court and do the

things they need to do. And really, if we're talking about more money for the Department of Homeland Security, that's what it should be going for. And we're not saying that people need to be in a prison. That's nobody needs to do that, but you have to have them in a facility where they can't leave and where their case can then be adjudicated quickly, so that at that point then either they get to stay and they can start working immediately and they're not a drain on the society.

Or if they don't have an asylum plane, they can be repatriated back to their home country.

agree to it. But even if Ice doesn't agree to it, just Adam pushing for it at least solves the problem from his perspective because he can say, this is what needs to happen, this is what has traditionally happened. I'm not being cruel. Everybody who has come into America for decades has known if you don't have a fixed address or a fixed sponsor, you can't expect to be let out of immigration. Something in New.

have a conversation with these people. Do you really, really, really really not have someone in the United States that can sponsor you, because if you're not, then we're going to have to put you back at immigration custody.

to get into the country. And with all of that, people understand these are the ways to safely enter the United States, and a politician saying don't come in is not going to have any relevance to those individuals. What we'll have relevance are the real time reports people are receiving, and there's no way now in twenty twenty three to

block those real time reports. So the only way to change the infrastructure of what's happening in the border is to actually change the manner in which people are being processed and have that word get out that looks spending fifty thousand dollars is not leading anywhere because you're only sucking the tention or you're only being put out into Mexico while you wait for your case to be decided.

The results they hear is you're allowed to answer the United States without any conditions other than to record month from now that's not going to.

weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg