This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Donald Trump started fundraising off his mugshot less than an hour after it was released in the Georgia racketeering trial last Thursday, and once again slammed the prosecution.
To what has taken place here is the travesty of justice.
We did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong, and everybody knows it.
The former president is also criticizing the decision of DC federal Judge Tanya Chuckkin to set a date of March fourth for the federal trial over his alleged efforts to overturn the twenty twenty election. That's one day before Super Tuesday. Trump called her a biased Trump hating judge on social media. Trump's team had asked for a trial date two years later, in twenty twenty six, but prosecutors argued a speedy trial is needed to prevent the jury pool from being tainted.
Joining me is former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden. Judge Tanya Chutkin said that Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule. There's a societal interest to a speedy trial. Should a judge take into account the fact that he is campaigning for president and she's scheduling a trial date in the midst of it.
To a certain extent, I think yes, But overridingly I think no. That is to say, I think there are circumstances by which people should be allowed to have timeouts in the course of a trial or in the run up to the start of a trial, but not in the nature of the types of timeouts that Trump is asking for. For example, whether there be a trial in January or March of this coming year, or twenty twenty six, as Trump askedport. I think in those broad terms she has to say no, I'm sorry, your day job just
doesn't permit it. But if there's a short time for extenuating circumstances, and I think she should be mindful of it. And I think he actually is trying to do that when she moved the trial from January to March, saying, look, it's complicated, you've got a lot of stuff going on. I'm going to give you two extra months from what the prosecutor wants. And I think that's what should happen in this case.
The defense is arguing that they can't go to trial in four months given them millions of documents. The prosecution says, you know, there aren't that many key documents, and we've created a file of three hundred documents. Quote, it's essentially a roadmap to our case. Can the defense rely on what the prosecution says is a roadmap to their case?
No, they have to make their own roadmaps, and they have to be able to have enough time to call through the documents to make sure that they can create their own roadmaps. But in this case, much of the documents that form the basis of the case, the heart of the case, come from the defendant himself. They are his texts or emails from his associates, or documents that
they've produced in respect to subpoenas. So it's not like these are documents that they are lacking familiarity with, and so I think that it is not unreasonable for them to have a trial date in March. I think that if they acquire the resources to look through this, then they should be able to the One thing that we have to keep in mind is one someump had a lawyer worked on this case for a year and a half or so and just fired him and hired a new lawyer. The new lawyer says, I don't have the
resources to really call through all this discovery. Well, Trump is purportedly a billionaire, and if he doesn't have the resources necessary, then Laurel the attorney, he has to say with client, we have a trial day coming up. I need more resources, and it should be under dependent and obligation to make sure that his team is properly resourced, because they can't claim lack of resources and get a trial delayed, so they can't use it as a delayed tactic.
But to the sent that they really have honest need for additional time, then I think they can petition the court periodically for that. But I think she's given him a good enough leeway to get this done.
So prosecutors said the DC federal trial would take four to six weeks, so that would push past the March twenty fifth date of the New York trial. But Judge Chutkins said that she had a phone call with Judge Murchhon, who's the trial judge for the New York trial. So do you think that they worked it out?
Yeah? And I think that Brad the district attorney in New York, has signaled that he's willing to delay his trial to let the federal case go forward. So yes, I think that New York will take a second feat behind the January sixth trial, and that won't create a conflict.
What about the Atlanta trial if it starts on October twenty third, In other words, if three defendants go on trial and it's not Trump, I mean, is there any you know, excuse for him there?
I don't think so. If there is speedy trial with Sidney Powell and Cheeseborough or anybody else who wants to join it, and the judge severs those defendants from the remainder who want to delay the trial, then I think the trial would proceed against those who have asserted their rights to a speedy trial, and Trump or any other defendant can sit in and watch that trial and get a preview of how the government's case will come in,
and there's an advantage to them in that. Of course, there's a disadvantage, which is that those three people out the speedy trial most likely are going to blame Trump and say that they were just following orders and it was he who was the culprit, and he won't be in the courtroom to defend himself. So there's a un in the angle of this thing. But no, that would not be a basis in my view, for that trial to be delayed because Trump says, I can't be there and therefore I'm going to be.
Prejudiced before we go back to the DC federal trial. So it's Cheeseborough who has been characterized as the architect of the facal scheme, and Sidney Powell and johnny'sman all lawyers want a speedy trial. Why do you think they want a speedy trial.
Well, I think that they think that one it's in their best interest to just get this over with. But two, I think more importantly, I think there's an advantage to somebody like Cheesboro or Sidney Powell, who are lawyers who will be able to say in a separate trial of their own. All we did was provide legal advice, and to the extent that there were actions that were taken that contravened the law, that was not our intention. Our
intention was to say, here are our theories. Even if there was a hail mary component to it, it was still non frivolous legal advice, and we would rather be two lawyers sitting in the courtroom pointing a finger at Donald Trump as a person who misinterpreted what they said and acted in an illegal way, and not have him there to say to the contrary, you guys were the architects.
I think it allows for them to put in their defense of just you know, advising their client without anyone pointing back to fingers and say to them, no, no, no, you were co conspirators in a criminal trial. So I think separating them from the others, probably the lawyer's view, is in their better interest in a more streamlined prosecution.
Now we'll go back to the DC Court. John Loro, who is Trump's attorney, said he's going to file several motions and one which I think everyone expected, arguing that Trump was immune to the charges given that the indictment covers the period when he was president. Is that a good argument.
Yeah, it's a good argument in the sense that it's not been decided by the Supreme Court. Whether it's an argument that will prevail is a different question. And there are lots of cases that are sort of dancing around
this point. Trump versus Vand is one of them. Murder that's the Supreme Court case that was just in twenty twenty when Trump said he should be immune from a grand jury subpoena for his tax records, and the court said that though the president enjoys no absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas, and they made the private papers available to the prosecutors, so said in that context no immunity.
Then you had Nixon versus Fitzgerald, where Nixon claimed immunity and the court said, no, he's not immune from civil lawsuits. And you had PAULA Jones similarly. So there are a lot of cases out there which sort of narrow the circumstances under which immunity applies, But there's nothing directly on points as to whether or not in the context of a criminal case against the former president he has immunity.
I think the question will arise similar to the way it arose yesterday in the Mark Meadows case for removal to federal court, which was were the actions under inquiry undertaken in the official capacity of the officeholder or the case of Meadows, the chief of staff, And if they were undertaken in his official capacity as president or as an official capacity of the case of staff, then it makes it a very close questions to whether or not
immunity and in the case of Meadows, removal applies. So he is absolutely right to file the motion, and it's a good motion to file. I just don't know, because there's not been a decision directly on point how it will be decided. A more important question perhaps is, say the court, here's the motion that dismissed the case for immunity, and the court says, you know what, I don't think so I don't think you were acting in your official capacity. If that is a decision that is made on a
legal question, then it is immediately appealable. If the factual question, you have to wait till after the trial. So there's another whole question of if they're denied their emotion for immunity, can they immediately appeal it to the Court of Appeals and into the Supreme Court, which, if they can, means this case is not going to trial for two years.
He said he'll ask the judge to pause the criminal trial until the immunity issue is fully resolved. But is this judge likely to do that.
No, the judge doesn't seem to have any indication that Kiefi's will pause it. But that's not to say that if they take appeal of the order denying removal or once they get the most dismissed denying immunity, whether they have a right to immediately appeal it or not. That to me also is an unsettled question, and they will ask the Quarter of Appeals to take an immediate appeal from it, which if they accept it, will delay the trial.
If they don't accept it, the trial will go forward, and then after the trial they'll file a motion for a new trial on the ground that the immunity decision was wrong and they should have had immunity.
Laura also said he's going to make a selective prosecution motion that the indictment was brought as retaliation for the federal investigation of Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, which began during Trump's administration. He said he'd used this as a political prosecution.
Dead on arrival. I think I don't believe that that is viable. I think his most viable motions are motions to dismiss because of immunity, and then defenses at trial, which are I lack criminal intent and I was acting on the advice of counsel. I think that's what this trial is about.
Laura sometimes took an aggressive tone, and the judge had to caution him twice to turn down the temperature. Do you think his tone was for the media or was he just impassioned. I mean, a seasoned trial lawyer shouldn't lose his cool, should he.
No, And Laua has a good reputation from president mind who practice in the courts in Florida where Laurel practices. They say he's a smart guy and a good lawyer. I don't know whether he was posturing for his client. That's one of the problems that you often have with a client that's the belligerent, that you feel like you have to be belligerent too. I was surprised to read about the tone he took, and I was also surprised
to hear him say sort of cavalierly or threateningly. Let me tell you this, judge right now, if you make us go to trial, I will not be able to be effective in my assistance of counsel. So like threatening her to say, if you make us go to trial, get ready for an appeal if we lose on effective assistance to council graud. I just don't think that's a good approach to this court or any court to be that belligerent.
Also, it appeared to upset Judge Chuck Kid that he had cited Powell versus Alabama on nineteen thirty two Supreme Court decision that reversed the convictions of the Scottsboro Boys, nine young black men who were falsely accused of raping a white woman. He had cited it in his brief, and the judge said the cases were profoundly different at their core. I mean, why side that case?
Stuttering because I can't understand it. The scots Boys, as you said, falsely accused of rape, were brought to trial within six days, I believe, of their indictment in a racially charged environment, as was often the case in those types of kangaroo court white supremacy based prosecution. To say that that is any way analogous, this is I think an insult to the court, especially an African American woman, to say that somehow my client, Donald Trump analogizes to
the Scottsborough Boys. You know, I just don't get it. I just don't get it, because actually they're an apposite. You know, six days versus almost a year of preparation and white racially charged prosecution and early neutral prosecutions. In this case, I just there was another example of bad decision making by this lawyer.
It's stunning to me that a trialery with his experience, would, you know, take this attitude with the trial judge so early on, this combative, aggressive tone.
I don't know. Maybe he thinks that somehow he is going to bully her. If he is of that mind, he doesn't know this judge, I mean, this judge comes out of the Public Defender Service in the disc of Columbia, which is perhaps the best public defender service in the United States. These lawyers who I've worked with when I was a prettyman fellow in the Sure Court of Disco of Columbia. We work side by side on cases together. These are among the best lawyers in the country who
are used to very hard fights. If he thinks he's going to come into her court from Tampa, Florida with bravado and try to sort of roll her in some way, he needs to go back to Florida.
Let's switch to Mark Meadows, which I mean was a busy day yesterday. So Meadows fought testifying to the January Sixth Committee and to the DC Federal Court. Now he's testifying to save himself. How risky is it for him to take the stand?
Well, I think that he really didn't have a choice because he has the burden of proving that which is required for removal, that he was a federal employee, that he was acting the scope of his employment, and that he has a colorable defense. You weren't going to hear from mc mulvaney or any of the other Trump chiefs of staff to say, you know, yes, this is what
chiefs of staff for Trump to do. There was no one who could help him meet his burden actually other than himself, And so I think George to Wilker, who was a friend and a good lawyer, felt that getting this case removed is Menows's best chance to prevail on the merriage, and they took the chance to put him on the stand because I think they were going to
lose without him. I said earlier there was a hail mary sort of legal analysis from the Cheeseborough group, but I think this is in some sense was a similar fourth down and twenty yards to go type of pass, and they just went foot. I don't know that they connected.
I think that the judge was very skeptical that that which Meadow says was in the scope of his federal employment, like calling Astenberger or visiting the site of the audit, was that which a federal employee can do, especially when the Hatchat prohibits federal employees from getting involved in political campaign. So I think he's not going to win. But I think that Williger thought that this was an important gamble to take, and he took it.
There were several times when he said that he couldn't recall the details of events in late twenty twenty and early twenty twenty one, and you know, the judge also pressed him at some points to be more specific or to actually answer the questions. And it seemed as if there were a lot of holes in his testimony.
For sure. And when he said, I'm the president's alter ego on his right hand, I am the person who is the gatekeeper. I know essentially everything that there is to know, because that's my job, and then says, oh, I didn't realize that there were going to be lawyers on the telephone call to Georgia and that this was about the election interference losses to have Oh, I didn't realize that we were suing. The campaign was suing in missions.
It doesn't strike me that you can read those things side by side and not say, oh, really, you're the alter ego, you're the right hand man, you know everything that's going on. But on these two crucial events that you are named in this diamond, you say, oops, I didn't know that. I think the judge will be very skeptical about it. So I think that it was just the gamble that they thought they needed to detect. But I don't think that Meadows helped himself a lot.
And also was it a two part gamble, because if the judge says this was in the scope of his official duties and transfers the case to federal court, then the next move he'll make is to make a claim of immunity.
Correct exactly. So if you get a trial judge who says, yes, you were acting in the scope of your and therefore this is removable, then that same analysis that got him the removal will be the same analysis that they'll argue
gets him immunity. So it was a predicate for that, not that you needed to do it that way, but the trial judge ruling on the question of in the scope of employment in the removal case, you know, sort of would help that decision for immunity when the most of dismissed immunity grounds is filed.
Finally, so, what do you think the chances are that one of these criminal cases will be tried and completed before the election.
Well, I think, honestly, the case that should be completed and tried before the election is the Marlogo case. That's the most straightforward case. There's some national security documents issues that need to be worked out, but it's a pretty narrow set of questions that have to be answered. So if Eileen Cannon, you know, sort of moves this case along, that case really should be able to go forward before
the election. As to the January sixth or the Bolton County case, it really depends on what happens in the pre trial motion states. If all these motions are filed and the defendants lose and they're not immediately appealable, then I think we'll get a trial also in one of both of those cases before the election. But there are so many if but if there's this case filed, what if there's that boy, So you can't really say, but if it all goes to prosecutors way, and I think the calendar allows for it.
Thanks so much, Michael. That's former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden. Were the ninety three thousand claims have been filed by veterans, their relatives, or camp employees who blame their cancer, Parkinson's disease, and other health issues on the contaminated water at Camp Lea June. So far, the Navy has not settled any
of the claims. That's led to more than eleven hundred lawsuits that potential victims have filed in federal court, and now there's a clash between the plaintiff's lawyers and the Justice Department over how the court should manage what could be thousands of lawsuits over payouts by the government. Marine sickened by their tours at Camp La June say they've waited nearly forty years to have the right to present their case in court, and they don't want to wait
any longer. Joining me is Costubasu, senior enterprise reporter for Bloomberg Law tell us about the background of this fight by veterans over the contaminated water at Camp La June.
Well, you know this has been a battle of like twenty years in the making. You know, early lawsuits were thrown out of court. However, in August of twenty twenty two, President Bidens signed a bill called a Backtact which included compensation a possible compensation for those affected by toxic water at Kampbla June in North Carolina, and a way for them to file lawsuits if their claim was denied by the Navy.
So more than ninety three thousand claims and more than a thousand lawsuits. So they have until August of next year to file their claims with the Navy.
Yes, and we are expecting that number to go up substantially. You know, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that about one million people could have been exposed to toxic water at Cantila June. So that explains the scramble by law firms and the search agencies to find more legion clients.
I mean, the Navy hasn't settled any of these claims.
Yes, and you know people have been filing claims essentially since the bill was signed into law, and there have been about ninety three thousand claims as of this week, and they told me yesterday that none of these claims have been settled the veterans, you know, if a claim is not settled in six months but the Navy or it's denied, they can file a lawsuit. In the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Both sides have file proposals on how this should be managed. What do the competing sides want.
Attorneys for the potential victim, they say that they've been waiting for four decades to make their argument in court. They don't want to wait any further. They want the first trial to be in the first quarter of Onty twenty four. The United States Department of Justice, they say that it might take a little longer to develop relevant expert testimonies. And they're saying that, yeah, we could go to trial in twenty twenty four, it'll be some time.
Later, and so who'ld make the decision.
So there are four judges in the Eastern District of North Carolina who will be deciding in the coming weeks how to manage these huge volume off cases and come up with the plan.
Also been a challenge to the appointment of the lead plaintiff's lawyer and the lead lawyer has a lot of power in a case like this.
Yes, the lead console who'll ed Bell South Carolina lawyer, and there's six other co lead counsoles. They essentially have a lot of control on how these cases will move forward.
And what do we know so far about how the cases are going to be tried.
We don't really know at this point. If they're going to bring a whole lot of cases together and have one trial or have a Tellweather case. It's kind of up in the air. They'll definitely look at these two proposals and kind of mesh them in some ways. I think will know in the coming week.
Thank you, Stu. That's close to Basu, Senior Enterprise reporter for Bloomberg Law. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news by subscribing to the Bloomberg Law Podcast or downloading this show at Bloomberg dot com, USh podcast, Slash Law and attorneys get the latest in AI powered legal analytics, business insights and workflow tools at Bloomberg law
dot com. With guidance from our experts, you'll grasp the latest trends in the legal industry, helping you achieve better results for the practice of law, the business of law, the future of law. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com. I'm June Bronco and you're listening to Bloomberg