Prosecutors Chose the "Hard Way" in Giuliani Raid

Joining me is Greg Ferrell, Bloomberg Legal reporter. Rudy Giuliani's lawyer offered to bring his client in for questioning by Manhattan federal prosecutors two months ago. Why didn't that happen? Well, it's this actually goes back a year and a half. So Ever since Rudy Giuliani's business associates left Parniss and Igor Frewman, the two guys who were charged a couple of years ago in November late late nineteen with campaign

finance problems. Um it's been reported that Rudy was also like a person of interest in that and since then, since November of Bob Costello, his lawyer, has tried to uh get Rudy in there under like either a proper agreement or just like, is there anything you guys need to know from us? And it's been kind of like quiet, uh no response uh from uh, you know, from well, no,

I shouldn't put it that way. The response from the federal prosecutors in Manhattan has been, I would love to have you come in a chat, but we're not going to tell you what we want, you know that what we're specifically interested in. In other ways, they were treating him kind of like he was a suspect um. They didn't want to give him advanced notice of what they

are interested in, what their investigation encompassed. So this has been kind of a like a little bit of a you know, a dance between Rudy and his lawyer and the Feds. Rudy, I think, has wanted to get you know, put this behind him and you know, move on, um, and the prosecutors in Manhattan are like unwilling to like tell him what they're interested in. That's why this become

a stalemate. And yes, as recently as early March, um, you know, Rudy, Laura once again said why you know, why don't we just come in and tell you what we were doing in Ukraine? And they're saying, like, no preconditions, We just you know, uh, you know, if you want to come in and talk, come in and talk. And Giuliani's lawyer who's also in the seventies in very old school guy who used to be a prose baby prosecutor way back in the seventies at in Manhattan. So why

are you guys doing this the hard way? So that became the theme of the story, the headline and all that. Do do prosecutors meet with lawyers and clients when the client is the target of the investigation, that's a little different. So when they're when they're when you have a target, then they don't want to allow the target, uh, to just come in and decide what evidence to put forth. They want to you know, keep their maximum flexibility, their

ability to ask any range of questions. They want to hold to that and not give any sort of tip as to what they might ask about because they don't want, you know, otherwise, why not just you know, submit like a series of written questions and you know, rely on written responses, you know, make it easy for defense layers. Know, the prosecutors I think want to basically you know, at their own time and choosing decide what they want to ask and when they want to ask it. So then

does that indicate that Juliani might be a target here? Right, they haven't declared it, and of course they don't go about declaring that, and um, you know, as of March, Rudy was not It's clear that as of early March, Rudy was a subject, namely like he was involved with some characters who were under investigation over issues that were under investigation, but he himself was not a target. But there's no declaration of this from the Southern District of

New York. But the fact that you'd send a bunch of FBI agents at six am to collect all his electronic devices suggests that, yeah, he like it certainly seems like he's a target. They're acting like he's a target. And in the court of public opinion, and this is what's really angering Rudy's lawyer. In the court of public opinion, when you see a bunch of FBI agents show up at someone's department, the public, you know, can only construe

that as, oh, he must have done something wrong. So basically, Rudy's lawyer and Alan Dershowitz has said the same thing that Alan dersh wits consulting with them that you know, there's a way to do this if you want the devices, you can just to issue a grand jury subpoena. It's all secret. There's no you know, leak of this to the public, and we can negotiate as to whether or not something is uh falls under attorney client privilege or executive privilege in the case of Rudy's most famous client,

former President Donald Trump. So now here you have the former U. S. Attorney from Manhattan, the former mayor of New York. How high a bar would it be to get a search warrant for him? Extremely high? Because yes, the former U S. Attorney for the Southern District, a former number three official in the Reagan Justice Department in the nineteen eighties. Uh, not just a two term New York City mayor, but America's mayor who was lauded for his you know, the valiant performance that he gave after

September eleventh in going to all the firefighter's funerals. He was indefatigable, and he became a symbol, you know, of a resurge in New York in the wake of those attacks and then the presidential candidate. So for Rudy to be being treated like this, not just by the just Department, but by the very office which he led, is pretty astonishing.

And so there's this disconnect, like what Rudy's lawyer and seemed to know about this doesn't add up to the It's almost as other prosecutes went nuclear to take a step like this. It's what they did with Michael Cohen. And look what happened to Michael Cohen. Uh, it ended badly for Cohen. And so that's not to say it's going to end badly for Rudy, but it's there's a if you're in Rudy shoes, there's a disturbing parallel to what happened to the last guy who was Trump's lawyer,

who had FBI agents come and clean out his house. Now, Um, the fact that the raid does that indicate the beginning of the investigation, the middle of the investigation, the end of the investigation where you can't tell. Um, we can't tell, but I would guess the middle. So you don't do this unless you have enough to justify it to a judge that we need to search warrant and we can't give any advanced notice because things might get cleaned or wiped. Uh,

so that's something. However, it can't be near the end because or at least I doubt it, because there's gonna be so much material that even if you had a well formed thesis as to you know, allegations about someone doing something wrong, Um, you're gonna have to go through like a massive amount of material that is contained in those devices through a defined pure time, not up until the present day. But I think the search warrant was just through basically the end of So this is all

focused on Ukraine, so it's about that. But still, um, there's so much material that the Feds are going to have to go through that it can't be like right at the one yard line. That has to be that there's a bit of ways to go before whatever they're gonna file or do they'll do. Do you know exactly what they're investigating him about. It's it's Ukraine? But what what about Ukraine? So the search warrant that was executed was it I guess ten days ago, twelve days ago

on Rudy's apartment. Um, you know, in addition to Rudy's electronic devices, it's specified communications with certain individuals. UM a lawyer in Washington, Victoria Tenzing, who with her husband Joe Dejenev, has been an outspoken proponent and supporter of President Trump UH and was also involved with representations of clients in Ukraine.

And then UM a journalist named John Solomon who wrote a number of articles that UM basically criticized or pointed out, you know, allegedly supposed purportedly negative information about the former

US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Giovanovich. UM and then a couple of Ukrainian former Ukrainian officials who are widely believed you know, in the West to be corrupt, UM who met with Rudy Giuliani and gave him, you know, you know, purportedly incriminating information about either Hunter Biden or Joe Biden.

So this all seems to be swirling around the attempt in to get rid of Marie Jovanovich as the US ambassador in Kiev, and also UM It's coincides with an attempt to basically, uh, you know, create some kind of investigation surrounding the Bidens that you know, would have had

an impact probably in the election. And did Giuliani and his lawyer did Giuliani or his lawyer go to ban Justice to present their case or there Yes, So at the beginning of this um after leave Partisan or Fruman were charged in the fall with you know, campaign finance violations UM. That was also at the time that Rudy had developed his whole thesis about you know, corruption in the Biden family involving Ukraine and this energy company Barisma.

And basically what it would have done if you were to believe what Rudy's you know friends, the former and you know allegedly corrupt Ukrainian officials told him, was that, you know, a Ukraine was involved in the hacking of democratic emails in not Russia, and be uh, you know, Biden was protecting his son and blowing up an investigation

that would have exposed corruption. So it would have been a way to undercut the Mueller investigation, which was in full force that time and causing Trump a lot of problems, and sort of undermine that investigation by claiming and providing, you know, some support for the idea that you know, Russia never got involved in interfering in the election, was all Ukraine and it was on behalf of a cabal

of democratic officials, including you know, Joe Biden. So that's the sort of alternative theory that Rudy was working on. And so when he was when it became clear that an investigation from the federal prosecutors in Manhattan was involved him or at least a couple of his business associates, he wanted to shop this information somewhere. He realized he couldn't go to Manhattan with it because they had other interests.

So he went to main Justice, to Attorney General williambar not directly, but it must have been, you know, a decision must have been made fairly high up in UH in late twenty to basically appoint the U S Attorney in Pittsburgh, the Western District of Pennsylvania, to basically look into Rudy's allegations about corruption by the Bidens in Ukraine.

And so routine is lawyer flew out to Pittsburgh in January, spent several hours before a team of five senior prosecutors and five senior FBI agents from that office, and outlined the whole theory of surrounding Joe Biden basically you know, interfering with you know, the Ukraine to protect his his son hunter who is getting paid very well as a to be on the board of directors of this you know, Dodgy Energy company in Ukraine. So it's not clear that's

gone anywhere. They made that presentation. There's been some follow ups, some of the investigators in Pittsburgh have since you know, done an interview here or there, but there doesn't it doesn't seem to have been and you know, the US Attorney's office obviously won't comment on it. But if that investigation gained any traction at all, it's not clear. There's no evidence of that. It seems to be kind of moribund.

Has Giuliani's attorney said what his defense might be here, Yes, actually that Bob Costello has pointed out that if this is a phara violation, in other words, of violation, if you're claiming that Rudi Giuliani violated the law that requires you know, you register with the Justice Oparment if you're representing a you know, a foreign agent or basically the uh you're representing a foreign entity, either individuals from a foreign country or you know, the sovereign country itself, or

some kind of a company or government, you know, entity of a foreign company in the United States, you have to file what's known as a PHARAH form f A r A. So that has been you know, that was you know, floated against Mike Flynn that he never registered you know, under Farah for his representation of Turkey. And basically what Juliana's lawyer has maintained is that there is an exception to PHARAH. You don't have to you know, file you know, uh pharah if you're acting in defense

of your client. In other words, your act really act me as a lawyer, not a lobbyist. If you're in in this case, Rudy, in his investigations in Ukraine, dealing with a lot of those foreign entities, was just gathering evidence in the defense of his client, Donald J. Trump, who happened to be the President of the United States. This is at a time when Trump was, in fact, you know, the subject of Mueller's criminal investigation into Russian

interference in the election. So therefore, any effort to present a defense for Trump would would constitute you know, the type of you know, basically lawyer client activity that does not require you to file for you know, a Pharaoh registration. So that's the theory, and you know, uh, you know, that's what Rudy's lawyer has maintained. Rudy has quite a team. You mentioned Alan Dershowitz before, but he has a lot

of people on his legal team. Yes. So he has Bob Costello, who is a former colleague of his from the U. S. Sterns Officer Manhattan back in the nineteen seventies and a longtime criminal defense lawyer in the New York area. So Costell has been representing him for at

least a year and a half. He also just added a team of prosecutors from a Brooklyn firm mostly known for its local, you know, crime defenses, but it features a couple of guys a former tired judge um uh included among them, who are experts in search and seizure warrants, and also Dershowitz himself. This is one of his you know, uh you know, strong points, and it's clear from Derschwitz is advising them, so he's not really like a lawyer

for the team. I think that's what a guy like Dershwitz does these days is you know, uh, basically advises consults. But the fact that Dershwitz and the new guys in Brooklyn who have an interest in search and seizure law

are involved. It indicates that it's pretty clear that they want to challenge not just the search warrant that was executed in late April, but you know basically the the eye cloud, the subpoena through which the US government a year and a half ago got basically you know, most of the electronic data you know, call information from Rudy's electronic devices from Apple Inc. In uh late So that

will take a lot of money. Does Giuliani have that money? Well, you know, I've I've read press reports about that as well. It will take a lot of money. And that's the problem with Rudy having represented the President Trump for free basically for a couple of years, as he was not making a lot of money. Um, and uh, you know it's yeah, that's you know, I'm sure these guys are coming on board, you know, confident that they'll get paid. But at the same time, you know, money is an object,

it's not. And Rudy has facing like now this this big lawsuit from the dominion. Uh. You know that that company that does the election machines that has sued you know, Rudy and Sidney Powell and Trump's lawyers who claimed without any evidence that the dominion machines have been manipulated in order to produce a victory for Joe Biden a couple of months ago. So that's a you know, some people might describe that lawsuit is frivolous, but you know that's

going to cost Rudy money as well. That's a different representation with a different set of lawyers. So, yes, Rudy has to be Rudy. Legal bills are are climbing, and it's clear from his divorce papers, the part of it that was public a few years ago that you know, you know, his his his his financial resources are not infinite.

Thanks Craig. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Greg Farrell. Derek Chauvin, and three other former Minneapolis police officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been indicted by a federal grand jury for violating Floyd's constitutional rights during the arrest that sparked nationwide protests over police violence against black people.

The indictment was unsealed Friday and comes less than three weeks after Chauvin was found guilty on separate state charges of murder and manslaughter for holding his knee on Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes. Joining me is Eric Larson Bloomberg Legal reporter. What are the charges that the Feds have brought against Chauvin and the three other officers? So in this case there are three charges. There are

all civil federal civil rights violations here. The first count is against Chauvin accuses him of depriving Mr Floyd of his civil rights is right to be free from improper treatment by a police officer um and violating his rights

in resulting in bodily harmon at forth his death. The second charge is against two of the assisting officers, and they are accused of observing Mr Chauvelin with his knee on Mr floyd neck and essentially failing to intervene uh they could say wilfully failing to intervene and resulting in Mr Floyd's rights being violated. A third charge is against the is against all of the officers, including the fourth officer, and they're accused of failing to offer medical assistance to

Mr Floyd when he clearly needed it. So we often hear about federal charges being brought when state charges fail, for example in the Ronney King case. But here you have Chauvin already convicted of murder. The other officers haven't even gone to trial yet. Is it unusual to bring

federal civil rights charges at this stage? Well, I think we're seeing that this entire case is unique and in a lot of different ways, just because there have been so many instances of this kind of interaction between police and black men not resulting in this type type of action, right, So, just the fact that they bought the charges at all is very different here, especially when you see these charges being brought against officers who were not accused of, you know,

murder the way Chauvin, when they're accused of serious violation simply by not taking any action to intervene. So that makes it pretty unusual. And I think to your point about a federal charges being brought on top of successfully argued state charges, it just shows a signal really from the Justice Department, from the Biden administration that there is a change of tone and how these types of incidents

are going to be handled by the federal government. I think it would have been pretty unusual, even though for the Biden administration um in in in a case such as this, to not do anything even after a successful state case um, you know, as the Attorney General of Minnesota, Keith Ellison said in a statement last week after these charges were brought. He said, the federal government has a responsibility to protect the civil rights as every American and

pursue justice to the fullest extent. And I think that the point that he was sort of getting at there the fullest extent means you bring the charges if a violation has occurred, not just if the state charges failed. And why is there a separate indictment of Chauvin? What is that for? This stems from a separate incidence between a Chauvin and a fourteen year old black boy in two thousand seventeen. He was the responding officer to a

dispute between this boy and his mother. When the boy did not follow his instructions, Chauvin struck him so violently that stitches were necessary, essentially choked and strangled until they passed out, and also had his knee on him to hold him in place for quite some time, even longer than what happened with Mr Floyd. So obviously it would be a good question to find out why it has taken so long while you had to have this much

higher profile murder take place. For this incident to come to light, clearly, the details around it would have already been known to a lot of people for several years now and nothing happened. But at any rate, the charges have been brought now, um, and he has accused of violent in the civil rights of that boy as well. So what does the Justice Department have to prove in a case like this? Do they have to prove that they that the police officers intended to violate the civil

rights of the victims? Sister department have to prove in a case like this? Do they have to prove that they intended to that the police officers intended to violate the civil rights of the victims? I don't know if it's intent would work that way in in a case like this, because it's the charges are pretty specific in what they say, Uh, just that they were aware of what was happening in front of them and chose to

not take action. So UM, you know, when you're in Chauvin's case, you know, being accused of murder, Um, you know you've had Even even in that case, they didn't charge him with with first degree murder, which would have required, um, some proof of intent. So in a case like this, it's you know, it's just going to be showing exactly what happened. I mean, they they are on the video

observing um this, these actions and failing to intervene. Uh So, I think what we'll see is not so much a question of intent as as the defense lawyers possibly trying to raise um questions about what what these other officers were really responsible for, what they were really required to do.

They will point to some evidence that a few of the officers who were actually training at the time their rookies um that uh that they were just essentially doing what Chauvin was requiring them to do, and that he it wasn't up to them to question him beyond they did what they did. Um. Whereas I think the prosecutors are saying that you need to go beyond this, saying, hey, do you think maybe we need to move this man

around so he's doesn't die. They're gonna need They're going to show that they should should have potential physically intervened and stopped a murder from happening in front of them. But you can see that their defense is probably it would make sense that they're going to blame it as much as they can on Chauvin and say, hey, these were rookies and they were it wasn't their place to intervene. Do you know what what Chauvin's defense to the federal

charges would be. I don't know what it would be exactly. I we did reach out to his lawyer or comments after he the grandeury indictment was unfiled. Um, we didn't. He declined to comments. UM. I mean, obviously the defense strategy didn't work out in the state case with those

much more serious charges. Um. But you can imagine that a lot of the defense could translate into this case as well, you know, trying to blame Floyd for what happened, uh, you know, blame his death us on you know, his less health elements and things like that, like they tried in in the federal case. When you're looking at these less you know, serious charges. Obviously, the civil rights violations are very serious, but they're not as as serious as

as a murder manslaughter. Um. That they might be able to push these defenses a little further potentially, who knows. These new federal charges are separate from the federal civil investigation into the Minneapolis police Department and its practices. So the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, right after the conviction of Mr schaubin a parity, announced that the Justice Department was opening an investigation into the policing practices in Minneapolis, UM,

specifically as a result of the George Floyd George Floyd death. UM. He said that the d j is going to be reaching out to community groups and members of public to try to find out about their experience is with the police. UM. So this is something that I think a lot of people were expecting from the Biden administration UM, and not

just Minneapolis specifically. But you know, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is able to use these so called pattern or practice investigations UH to investigate police forces in various cities, and they've they've done so in the past, and and the probes can often end with a consent decree between the police departments and the Justice Department where they agree to various reforms and have to stick to those reforms, and the Justice Department will keep track of

that and make sure that they are sticking to that UM. So that is something that that has been done before, but it really dropped off during the Trump administration not too surprisingly, and I think it was always expected that Um in Biden were elected that the Civil Rights Division would have a new focus on these types of pattern or practice investigations. Schauman is also requesting a new trial.

Are the grounds that he is claiming for that. So. Mr Schauman is requesting a new trial in the state case following his conviction, arguing that, among other things, that the trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis to begin with. UH. He argues that the jurors couldn't possibly have been fair just because of all of the emotion underlying everything that happened in the city around these events, that it should have it should have taken place elsewhere UM.

He also signaled, you know, after the verdict was read out, his lawyers signaled that he could potentially appeal UM for, among other things, claiming that Representative Maxine Waters had made inappropriate comments encouraging a guilty verdict um or during a protest and that somehow that could have tainted jurors who were not sequestered at that time, although there's no evidence that they necessarily heard or saw the footage of her

saying that that that would be something that could potentially be argued on appeal, and in fact, the judge in the state case agreed that those comments were inappropriate and said that, you know, elected officials should not be commenting on trials like that, which was pretty strong words. Um, but it's far from certain that either of these arguments would both go very far, but there's certainly something that

the courts will consider. Thanks Erk. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Lawson, and that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on Bloomberg Lawn podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg