# Weekend Law: Fauci, Blanche & Pirro in the Legal News

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 7 Aug 2026, 38 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/72bbe59a-5ffa-4ce1-8121-b49f016f6c03/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

June Grasso discusses the top stories of the week with Professor David Super of Georgetown Law, Robert Mintz of McCarter & English and former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: Under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my
[0:12] Speaker 2: right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain
[0:17] Speaker 2: from answering your questions.
[0:19] Speaker 3: Doctor Anthony Fauci took the Fifth Amendment more than one
[0:22] Speaker 3: hundred times during a Senate Committee hearing on his handling
[0:26] Speaker 3: of the COVID nineteen pandemic, arguing that the hearing called
[0:30] Speaker 3: by Committee Chair Rand Paul was intended to trap him
[0:34] Speaker 3: into committing perjury.
[0:36] Speaker 2: The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole
[0:41] Speaker 2: reason he is calling me before this committee is to
[0:45] Speaker 2: get me to say something, anything that could vindicate his
[0:51] Speaker 2: repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words,
[0:56] Speaker 2: quote behind bars.
[0:58] Speaker 3: And on Thursday, or Paul took a step toward putting
[1:02] Speaker 3: Fauci behind bars when the Committee voted along party lines
[1:06] Speaker 3: to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress.
[1:09] Speaker 4: We're voting on whether or witness who has received the
[1:12] Speaker 4: benefit of a sweeping federal pardon can be ordered by
[1:15] Speaker 4: this committee to answer questions and then defy that order
[1:19] Speaker 4: without consequence.
[1:20] Speaker 3: A contempt resolution would normally head to the full Senate
[1:24] Speaker 3: for a vote. However, Paul bypassed that vote and had
[1:28] Speaker 3: the prosecution referral and delivered to the Justice Department. My
[1:32] Speaker 3: guest is Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney.
[1:36] Speaker 3: David explained why Fauci took the fifth even though he
[1:40] Speaker 3: got a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden covering his
[1:44] Speaker 3: actions from twenty fourteen through January nineteenth of twenty twenty five.
[1:50] Speaker 5: Anthony Fauci took the Fifth Amendment because he knew he
[1:53] Speaker 5: was walking into a perjury trap, and his lawyers knew
[1:56] Speaker 5: that and told him that perjury is not part of
[2:00] Speaker 5: the pardon you received, that you can still be prosecuted
[2:02] Speaker 5: for that. And even though it's going to look bad
[2:04] Speaker 5: in the court of public opinion, you have to realize
[2:06] Speaker 5: that public statements made by Rand Paul and others show
[2:10] Speaker 5: that their intent was to lock Fauci up, and you
[2:13] Speaker 5: were just walking into a buzzsaw because they just dropped
[2:17] Speaker 5: thousands of pages of documents right before the hearing. And
[2:20] Speaker 5: you have an eighty five year old man who's going
[2:22] Speaker 5: to be asked all these details in if he slips up,
[2:25] Speaker 5: if he makes a mistake, he's on a one way
[2:28] Speaker 5: ticket to the HUSCAL And if you had any doubts
[2:31] Speaker 5: about that, just ask James Comy, who was prosecuted for
[2:36] Speaker 5: lying to Congress even though he didn't lie to Congress,
[2:38] Speaker 5: or Jerome Powell, who was sent as a referral to
[2:41] Speaker 5: the DOJ for allegedly making a false statement to Congress
[2:45] Speaker 5: when he didn't or Jack Smith, who currently is under
[2:48] Speaker 5: a referral from Congress to the DOJ for making a
[2:51] Speaker 5: false statement to Congress that he did not make. So
[2:54] Speaker 5: if Congress wants to weaponize the DOJ against you, they
[2:58] Speaker 5: will under this administration.
[3:00] Speaker 3: Senator Rand Paul continues to say that Fauci had no
[3:04] Speaker 3: valid Fifth Amendment claim because the pardon nullified it, and
[3:08] Speaker 3: that he waived any remaining protection by testifying.
[3:12] Speaker 5: Okay, First, a pardon does not shield a witness from
[3:15] Speaker 5: potential state level charges, and there are states who could
[3:18] Speaker 5: prosecute him, and so he does have a legitimate claim
[3:20] Speaker 5: to the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. Plus, a pardon
[3:24] Speaker 5: does not protect against a perjury charge because a parton
[3:26] Speaker 5: only protects you from charges that would have stemmed from
[3:30] Speaker 5: things you've done in the past, not from something you're
[3:32] Speaker 5: doing now, which is a statement before Congress, and if
[3:36] Speaker 5: the Congress thinks that you are fibbing, they will refer
[3:39] Speaker 5: it for prosecution. Plus, a pardon does not affect state
[3:42] Speaker 5: level charges. And so that's why he did have a
[3:45] Speaker 5: legitimate claim of the Fifth Amendment here. It's Ran Paul's
[3:49] Speaker 5: own words being used against him that he wants to
[3:52] Speaker 5: lock this guy up. And so this was not just
[3:55] Speaker 5: a fact finding enterprise where they had a good faith
[3:58] Speaker 5: discussion about the origin of COVID. He's testified many times
[4:03] Speaker 5: before about this. What this was about was to find
[4:06] Speaker 5: a reason, a way to get Fauci prosecute an eighty
[4:09] Speaker 5: five year old man for slipping up and then getting
[4:12] Speaker 5: what Rand Paul has dreamed of, which is Anthony Fauci
[4:16] Speaker 5: waking up in an orange jumpsuit and a pair of
[4:18] Speaker 5: steel bracelets.
[4:19] Speaker 3: Paul bypassed a vote by the full Senate. Could there
[4:22] Speaker 3: be any consequences for that.
[4:25] Speaker 5: Well, that's going to be another argument for Fauci's lawyers
[4:28] Speaker 5: if this ever results in a prosecution, because you're supposed
[4:31] Speaker 5: to send it to the full Senate for the vote,
[4:33] Speaker 5: and he is short circuiting that process to send it
[4:37] Speaker 5: directly to the DOJ. And deviates from standard institutional procedure.
[4:41] Speaker 5: This does open the way for a defense alwyer to
[4:44] Speaker 5: say this is an illegal procedure. You're supposed to get
[4:47] Speaker 5: the approval of the full Senate. You can't just go
[4:49] Speaker 5: around that procedure. And now, under federal law, a statutory
[4:54] Speaker 5: criminal contempt of Congress charged that obligates the US Attorney
[4:58] Speaker 5: to bring the case has to be certified by the
[5:00] Speaker 5: full Senate or the Full House. So what they're trying
[5:03] Speaker 5: to do here is to send it to the DOJ
[5:07] Speaker 5: as a recommendation without a legal mandate to act, just
[5:11] Speaker 5: as a request. But I still don't think that holds
[5:15] Speaker 5: water because the DJ can always reject vote by the
[5:20] Speaker 5: US House or the US Senate. They've done that in
[5:23] Speaker 5: the past. Merrick Garland did that when the Democratic House
[5:26] Speaker 5: tried to send some people to the DJ for contempt
[5:31] Speaker 5: who didn't want to cooperate with the January sixth investigation.
[5:34] Speaker 5: It's up to the DOJ. They have prostitutoral discretion. So
[5:38] Speaker 5: I don't think you can get around the full Senate
[5:41] Speaker 5: having to approve this by saying it's just a recommendation,
[5:44] Speaker 5: not a mandate. It's never a mandate to the DOJ.
[5:47] Speaker 5: It's always really a recommendation.
[5:49] Speaker 3: The top Democrat on the committee, Senator Gary Peters, so
[5:54] Speaker 3: that if the committee tries to punish a witness for
[5:56] Speaker 3: asserting their Fifth Amendment rights, witnesses will argue that appearing
[6:01] Speaker 3: before Congress exposes them to punishment, regardless of whether they
[6:06] Speaker 3: comply with the subpoena and invoke a constitutional protection. Do
[6:10] Speaker 3: you think that future witnesses would be chilled by what's
[6:14] Speaker 3: happening here.
[6:15] Speaker 5: I think that all future witnesses who are in the
[6:18] Speaker 5: crosshairs of President Trump and leaders of the MAGA world
[6:22] Speaker 5: are going to think twice, this is what happens when
[6:24] Speaker 5: you weaponize the Department of Justice to go after Trump's enemies,
[6:28] Speaker 5: whether it's Jerome Powell or Jack Smith or James Comy.
[6:31] Speaker 5: Future witnesses are going to see that, and they're going
[6:33] Speaker 5: to say, wait, wait, these guys didn't lie to Congress,
[6:36] Speaker 5: and yet they're being referred for criminal prosecution for lying
[6:40] Speaker 5: to Congress. I mean, James Comy even was charged with
[6:44] Speaker 5: lying to Congress, and that was based on an ambiguity.
[6:47] Speaker 5: So you can see why they're saying, Okay, this is
[6:50] Speaker 5: not just a figment of our imagination. Normally, you cannot
[6:54] Speaker 5: just take the fifth because you don't want to enter
[6:56] Speaker 5: into a perjury trap. But this perjury trap is real.
[6:59] Speaker 5: This is a case where the monsters under your bed
[7:02] Speaker 5: really do exist.
[7:04] Speaker 3: The decision on whether to bring charges against Fauci is
[7:08] Speaker 3: now in the hands of DCUs attorney Janine Piro. Do
[7:12] Speaker 3: you have any doubt that she'll indict him after President
[7:16] Speaker 3: Trump suggested on Thursday that Fauci should be prosecuted.
[7:21] Speaker 5: They're getting Janine Piro at the perfect time, which is
[7:25] Speaker 5: a time of vulnerability where she's worried about being fired
[7:28] Speaker 5: by President Trump because she moved to dismiss the case
[7:32] Speaker 5: against David Hearn, the guy who was wrongfully prosecuted for
[7:36] Speaker 5: vandalizing the reflecting pond, which he didn't do, and so
[7:40] Speaker 5: Trump is very upset with her. So to keep her job,
[7:42] Speaker 5: she's going to do, in my mind, what the administration
[7:46] Speaker 5: expects her to do.
[7:47] Speaker 3: So, Dave, let's assume that Fauci is indicted. Is it
[7:52] Speaker 3: a good defense that this was a perjury trap?
[7:56] Speaker 6: Oh?
[7:56] Speaker 5: Absolutely, And they're going to use rand Paul's words against
[7:59] Speaker 5: them because ram Paul and others said that, Yeah, we
[8:02] Speaker 5: want to prosecut him. He needs to be in handcuffs,
[8:05] Speaker 5: and so you can't look at this in a bubble.
[8:07] Speaker 5: Normally you would say, no, you can't take the Fifth
[8:10] Speaker 5: in a situation like this where you're being asked questions
[8:15] Speaker 5: and you've been given a pardon, and the only criminal
[8:18] Speaker 5: liability here is just the fact that you may or
[8:23] Speaker 5: may not be telling the truth. Now, in response, thousands
[8:26] Speaker 5: lawyers are going to say, the perjury trap is real.
[8:29] Speaker 5: We're not living in normal times. You can't look at
[8:31] Speaker 5: this in a bubble. This is a situation where the
[8:35] Speaker 5: senators have said we want to prosecute him. We're bringing
[8:39] Speaker 5: him back before this body, not as a fact finding mission,
[8:43] Speaker 5: because we've already done that, but to catch him in perjury.
[8:47] Speaker 5: And then the defense orders will point to Jack Smith
[8:50] Speaker 5: and James Comy and Jerome Palace here, this is what
[8:53] Speaker 5: we're trying to avoid. And then on top of that,
[8:55] Speaker 5: they can also mention you've got very aggressive Republican state
[9:00] Speaker 5: attorney generals who are around the country trying to prosecute Fauci,
[9:04] Speaker 5: and Fauci's pardons do not protect him against that. So
[9:07] Speaker 5: he does have a legitimate claim to take the Fifth Amendment.
[9:10] Speaker 3: Right so Fauci is being investigated by state attorneys general
[9:15] Speaker 3: in four states, three of them have joined forces to
[9:19] Speaker 3: subpoena him, and Florida's Attorney general in your neck of
[9:23] Speaker 3: the Woods, Dave said Fauci could have broken Florida law
[9:26] Speaker 3: if he personally profited off the guidance he issued during COVID.
[9:32] Speaker 3: I mean these sound like up ill battles, to say
[9:34] Speaker 3: the least.
[9:35] Speaker 5: So Number one, the Attorney General Florida is up for
[9:38] Speaker 5: election in November, and this is the type of thing
[9:42] Speaker 5: that will motivate his political base. And it's one thing
[9:46] Speaker 5: to say you're investigating, another thing to actually bring charges.
[9:49] Speaker 5: Does Florida have jurisdiction over someone who is a federal
[9:52] Speaker 5: official at the time. You're not given the ability under
[9:55] Speaker 5: the supremacy clause to do that. You're a state official.
[9:58] Speaker 5: There's the doctor and a federal mas unity. State officials
[10:01] Speaker 5: generally lack the jurisdictional authorities to prosecute federal executive officers
[10:05] Speaker 5: for things that they've done within the scope of their
[10:07] Speaker 5: official federal duties, so you wouldn't have the jurisdiction. Plus,
[10:10] Speaker 5: is there a Florida connection that gives him jurisdiction? Does
[10:13] Speaker 5: the statue limitations bar any prosecution. There are so many
[10:17] Speaker 5: reasons why you cannot get a prosecution here, and it
[10:21] Speaker 5: just shows that it's all political. But the fact that
[10:23] Speaker 5: the state attorneys general are threatening this gives yet another
[10:28] Speaker 5: defense to Fauci's lawyers to say, this is why we
[10:31] Speaker 5: took the Fifth Amendment.
[10:32] Speaker 3: Peter Navarro was found guilty of contempt of Congress and
[10:36] Speaker 3: served four months. Steve Bannon also served four months for
[10:40] Speaker 3: contempt of Congress. Their appeals, multiple appeals failed. So is
[10:45] Speaker 3: Fauci any different?
[10:47] Speaker 5: Yes, very different. You know what the biggest different June,
[10:50] Speaker 5: It's that Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon didn't even show up.
[10:54] Speaker 5: Anthony Fauci showed up. He showed up to answer questions,
[10:56] Speaker 5: but then when he realized he was walking into a
[10:58] Speaker 5: perjury trap where the senator is saying we're going to
[11:01] Speaker 5: prosecute you, where state attorneys general are like chomping at
[11:04] Speaker 5: the bit, that's when they took the fifth That's different
[11:07] Speaker 5: than Bannon or Navarro, who thumbed their noses at the committee,
[11:10] Speaker 5: didn't even show up. And that's why I think you'll
[11:14] Speaker 5: see Fauci defend himself and win as opposed to Navarro
[11:18] Speaker 5: and Bannon, who lost.
[11:20] Speaker 3: This is guaranteed to be another saga at the Justice Department.
[11:25] Speaker 3: Always a pleasure to talk to you, Dave. That's former
[11:28] Speaker 3: Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ehrenberg coming up next
[11:32] Speaker 3: on the Bloomberg Law Show. Despite strong opposition, even from
[11:37] Speaker 3: two Republican Senators, Todd Blant will be the next Attorney
[11:41] Speaker 3: General of the United States. Remember you can always get
[11:44] Speaker 3: the latest legal news by listening to our Bloomberg Law
[11:47] Speaker 3: podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I'm June Grosso
[11:52] Speaker 3: and this is Bloomberg.
[11:55] Speaker 1: All considered, I will vote for mister Blanche. I'll be
[11:59] Speaker 1: criticized for this vote.
[12:00] Speaker 3: What's new And with the vote of Republican Senator Bill Cassidy,
[12:04] Speaker 3: Todd Bland secured enough votes to become the next Attorney
[12:08] Speaker 3: General of the United States, putting the difficult confirmation battle
[12:13] Speaker 3: behind him. As acting Attorney General, Blanche had aggressively pushed
[12:17] Speaker 3: to meet all of President Trump's demands, including targeting his
[12:22] Speaker 3: political enemies, thus eroding the traditional independence of the Justice Department.
[12:28] Speaker 7: The problem with confirming Todd Blanche is that he has
[12:31] Speaker 7: never been able to shed his role as criminal defense
[12:36] Speaker 7: lawyer for Donald Trump. He just can't do it. He
[12:40] Speaker 7: does not represent the American people now. He will never
[12:44] Speaker 7: represent the American people.
[12:46] Speaker 8: When he has sworn in as Attorney General, he will
[12:49] Speaker 8: have to swear to uphol, support and defend the Constitution.
[12:55] Speaker 8: But we know that oath will take a back seat
[12:59] Speaker 8: to his to the president.
[13:02] Speaker 3: Blanche's absolute loyalty to Trump was raised as a concern
[13:06] Speaker 3: by many Democratic senators like Adam Schiff and Masihrono, and
[13:11] Speaker 3: also by Republican senator Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who
[13:16] Speaker 3: refused to support him. But it was Blanche's unprecedented deal
[13:21] Speaker 3: to settle Trump's IRS lawsuit with a one point eight
[13:25] Speaker 3: billion dollar fund to compensate his allies that almost tanked
[13:29] Speaker 3: Blanche's nomination. Republican Senators John Cornyn and Tom Tillis only
[13:35] Speaker 3: dropped their opposition after Blanche posted an order last Sunday
[13:40] Speaker 3: rescinding the so called Anti Weaponization Fund and narrowing Trump's
[13:45] Speaker 3: tax immunity deal.
[13:47] Speaker 5: I've never liked this seventeen seventy six fund.
[13:50] Speaker 9: It made no sense to me, and I thought it
[13:51] Speaker 9: was an insult to the police officers of the people
[13:54] Speaker 9: that defended us on January the sixth.
[13:56] Speaker 10: It's done.
[13:57] Speaker 6: It's been rescinded, and I am said satisfied.
[14:01] Speaker 3: Though Senator Tillis may think the fund is done, Democratic
[14:05] Speaker 3: senators like Corey Booker say the papers attached to Blanche's
[14:09] Speaker 3: post have no legal significance at all.
[14:13] Speaker 1: This is ridiculous. We got nothing, no guarantees whatsoever that
[14:19] Speaker 1: this slush one still can't go forward. We got nothing
[14:23] Speaker 1: that the President of the United States can't cheat on
[14:26] Speaker 1: his taxes and have no accountability.
[14:28] Speaker 3: Joining me is an expert in constitutional law, David Super,
[14:32] Speaker 3: a professor at Georgetown Law. David tell us about the
[14:36] Speaker 3: two pages that Blanche posted that led Senators Cornin and
[14:41] Speaker 3: Tillis to fold. One is in order signed by Blanche
[14:45] Speaker 3: and the other is an unsigned memo from the Justice Department.
[14:49] Speaker 6: He basically typed up what he said that the hearing
[14:52] Speaker 6: and posted it. There's literally nothing new there, and indeed
[14:57] Speaker 6: he said there was nothing new there. He's telling the
[14:59] Speaker 6: truth on them. I'm sure he prepared his talking points
[15:03] Speaker 6: for the hearing very very carefully, that those words were
[15:06] Speaker 6: not extemporaneous, and these are the same words he says,
[15:11] Speaker 6: looking entirely retrospectively that the so called weaponization fund did
[15:19] Speaker 6: not get off the ground. He does not make any
[15:22] Speaker 6: promises that they won't do something like that tomorrow, but
[15:25] Speaker 6: he says, and I think this is historically actually it
[15:28] Speaker 6: did not start. And then he says that the immunity
[15:32] Speaker 6: for Trump is limited to Trump, his family, and his organization,
[15:37] Speaker 6: which were the parties to the case. We always knew them.
[15:40] Speaker 6: So he is setting to rest the fears of people
[15:45] Speaker 6: who can't read, but he is leaving the rest of
[15:49] Speaker 6: us just as nervous as we were before.
[15:52] Speaker 3: The settlement agreement. Says, this settlement agreement may be modified
[15:56] Speaker 3: only with the written agreement of the parties. And President
[16:00] Speaker 3: Trump didn't sign anything, and he told reporters on Wednesday
[16:04] Speaker 3: that he didn't even look at this.
[16:06] Speaker 6: Yeah, there's so many holes here, it's hard to count them.
[16:12] Speaker 6: Blanche says, the agreement didn't go forward, but as you note,
[16:17] Speaker 6: they don't modify it, and he doesn't have authority to
[16:20] Speaker 6: modify it unless you say, well, actually, he's Trump's lawyer
[16:24] Speaker 6: in all respects, so he can modify it on behalf
[16:27] Speaker 6: of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, which I don't
[16:30] Speaker 6: think is quite the case, but he has no authority
[16:32] Speaker 6: to modify it because it requires the agreement of the
[16:36] Speaker 6: plaintiff's council, so he didn't modify it. He just said
[16:39] Speaker 6: they didn't act on it, which is true, but doesn't
[16:42] Speaker 6: mean they won't act on it in the immediate future
[16:45] Speaker 6: as soon as he's confirmed. And he says that they
[16:50] Speaker 6: haven't put the money out there, but he doesn't promise
[16:52] Speaker 6: not to raid the Justice Fund for payoffs for more
[16:56] Speaker 6: Trump affiliated law breakers. The judgment fund is still there,
[17:00] Speaker 6: and if Senator Cornin really was concerned about this, he
[17:06] Speaker 6: should have asked mister Blanche for the administration's agreement to
[17:10] Speaker 6: an amendment to the Justice Fund, a quick unanimous consent
[17:13] Speaker 6: bill amending the Justice Fund to make it unavailable to
[17:17] Speaker 6: pay for settlements with anyone affiliated with the president. That
[17:21] Speaker 6: would be an easy fixed to make sure this never
[17:23] Speaker 6: happens again. As far as we can tell, that was
[17:25] Speaker 6: even requested, much less done.
[17:28] Speaker 3: Also, a federal judge in Florida had issued a ruling
[17:31] Speaker 3: preventing Trump from enforcing the one point eight billion dollar
[17:36] Speaker 3: fund and the tax immunity deal. She said his IRS
[17:40] Speaker 3: lawsuit was a sham and had no basis in law
[17:43] Speaker 3: or fact. Well, on July thirty first, Trump filed a
[17:47] Speaker 3: notice that he would appeal her ruling. What does that
[17:50] Speaker 3: tell you?
[17:51] Speaker 6: It tells you that the weaponization fund is not dead,
[17:55] Speaker 6: that the tax immunity is not gone, and that this
[18:00] Speaker 6: is just a second saga in the collusive litigation. Because,
[18:05] Speaker 6: of course Trump appeals that decision, and then he orders
[18:08] Speaker 6: the Justice Department not to fight the appeal so it
[18:12] Speaker 6: will be uncontested in the appellate court. I hope the
[18:17] Speaker 6: Eleventh Circuit has the integrity to appoint someone to participate
[18:22] Speaker 6: as a friend of the court to make the arguments
[18:24] Speaker 6: for affirming what the district court did. But saying we're
[18:28] Speaker 6: going through more judicial proceedings where we control both sides
[18:31] Speaker 6: of the case should give nobody any reassurance. The whole
[18:35] Speaker 6: point of our system is that is an adversary system,
[18:38] Speaker 6: and it only works well, it only purports to work
[18:40] Speaker 6: well when there are serious advocates on both sides. There's
[18:44] Speaker 6: never been that in this case.
[18:46] Speaker 3: Democratic centers voice their opposition to blanch for other reasons,
[18:51] Speaker 3: the departure of thousands of attorneys and staff at the
[18:55] Speaker 3: Justice Department, the weaponization of the Department to pursue Trump's
[18:59] Speaker 3: political enemies, his protecting Trump in the bungle release of
[19:03] Speaker 3: the Epstein files, to name a few, how do you
[19:07] Speaker 3: judge his performance as acting Attorney General?
[19:11] Speaker 6: Mister Blanche has taken more than two hundred years of careful,
[19:19] Speaker 6: mostly nonpartisan professionalism at the Justice Department, thrown it in
[19:24] Speaker 6: the trash, and he has shown everybody just how politicized
[19:29] Speaker 6: the Department could be. When someone single handedly destroys the
[19:35] Speaker 6: tradition of an agency, he should not be continued in
[19:38] Speaker 6: a position of leading that agency. The argument that was
[19:42] Speaker 6: floated is we won't get a better nominee from the President.
[19:47] Speaker 6: I'm not sure they would, but getting someone who has
[19:51] Speaker 6: not committed the gross violations of public trusts that mister
[19:55] Speaker 6: Blanche already has is better than waiving someone through who
[20:00] Speaker 6: has committed those acts. And if mister Trump is determined
[20:04] Speaker 6: to have Todd Blanche there, he should be serving in
[20:07] Speaker 6: an unconfirmed capacity. What he will now have is the
[20:11] Speaker 6: blessing of the United States Senate, which was well aware
[20:15] Speaker 6: of all the things that he did. This will of
[20:17] Speaker 6: course become enormously controversial. Next time we have a democratic
[20:22] Speaker 6: administration and a democratic attorney General tries to follow some
[20:27] Speaker 6: of the precedents that mister Blanche set. I hope a
[20:30] Speaker 6: Democratic attorney general won't follow these precedents because they're just
[20:34] Speaker 6: bad for the country, whatever side of the artisan eili're on.
[20:38] Speaker 6: But he has completely reconceived the Justice Department. Mister Trump
[20:43] Speaker 6: has famously complained that he needed a roy Cohne, he
[20:48] Speaker 6: needed a dirty lawyer to push the limits and get
[20:51] Speaker 6: him what he wants, and I think he's found one.
[20:55] Speaker 3: I was surprised that the Epstein victim's opposition to Blanch
[21:00] Speaker 3: and all that went on there didn't cause more Republicans
[21:04] Speaker 3: to hesitate about Blench, because that's been an issue that
[21:08] Speaker 3: President Trump has been unable to put behind him.
[21:12] Speaker 6: I think the word must have gone out that they've
[21:15] Speaker 6: released pretty much everything they have that doesn't terribly incriminate
[21:19] Speaker 6: the President or perhaps some members of Congress as well,
[21:23] Speaker 6: and that the word is that they don't dare push
[21:26] Speaker 6: any farther because the results will be catastrophic. I think
[21:30] Speaker 6: a great many people who voted for the president, and
[21:33] Speaker 6: who voted for Republican members of Congress to support the
[21:36] Speaker 6: president would be shocked, appalled, and deeply disillusioned if they
[21:42] Speaker 6: found out that the president was as closely involved in
[21:46] Speaker 6: mister Epstein's criminal activities as we keep being told. And
[21:52] Speaker 6: the presence in these files of references to documents that
[21:56] Speaker 6: have not been released is an ongoing problem. I think
[22:01] Speaker 6: the decision has been made by Republicans and that they're
[22:04] Speaker 6: largely following the party line to not press further on
[22:07] Speaker 6: this because there's nothing else that can be done that
[22:10] Speaker 6: wouldn't be destructive.
[22:12] Speaker 3: David, what kind of an attorney general do you think
[22:14] Speaker 3: Blanche will be? Sometimes when people get a new position,
[22:19] Speaker 3: they step up.
[22:20] Speaker 6: Oh, I think this is what you see is what
[22:22] Speaker 6: you get, situation. He by all accounts, was a competent
[22:27] Speaker 6: and not particularly ideological prosecutor when he started out as
[22:31] Speaker 6: a lawyer, so he knows how to be a good lawyer.
[22:33] Speaker 6: But he's made a decision in his life and there's
[22:36] Speaker 6: no reason to think he would change, particularly since he
[22:39] Speaker 6: can be dismissed at any time. So I would not
[22:42] Speaker 6: expect him to stand up to the president now. I
[22:46] Speaker 6: would not expect him to say no to the president.
[22:48] Speaker 6: I would not expect any scintilla of moderation out of him.
[22:53] Speaker 6: The Justice Department is just a great, big, Trump Law firm. Now,
[22:57] Speaker 6: obviously Pam Bondi looked like a complete Trump acolyte coming in,
[23:04] Speaker 6: and she served as attorney general in exactly that way.
[23:08] Speaker 6: She was fired basically for doing something that she had
[23:13] Speaker 6: promised to do with Trump's blessing that blew up in
[23:17] Speaker 6: his face. Concerning the Epstein files, I think that Todd
[23:21] Speaker 6: Blanche has seen how even complete loyalty like hers was
[23:26] Speaker 6: not good enough to save her job. So he's not
[23:28] Speaker 6: going to be under any illusions that he can show
[23:31] Speaker 6: any independence at all and keep his job. And he
[23:34] Speaker 6: has made very clear he is not the sort of
[23:37] Speaker 6: person who will resign on principle, because just about any
[23:41] Speaker 6: significant principle that is relevant to serving as attorney general
[23:45] Speaker 6: he's been asked to violate already.
[23:47] Speaker 3: Let's end with the historical question. Can you think of
[23:50] Speaker 3: any other attorney general in our recent history who was
[23:54] Speaker 3: as willing to do the president's bidding as Blanche appears
[23:59] Speaker 3: to be.
[24:00] Speaker 6: Well, the only name that comes to mind, of course,
[24:02] Speaker 6: is John Mitchell, Nixon's attorney general. And Nixon's attorney general
[24:07] Speaker 6: was a frequent visitor to the White House, but they
[24:10] Speaker 6: ended up in the Big House.
[24:12] Speaker 3: You're right, of course, I looked it up. Mitchell did
[24:14] Speaker 3: serve nineteen months in prison for his role in the
[24:17] Speaker 3: Watergate scandal. Thanks so much for joining me, David, I
[24:21] Speaker 3: always appreciate your insights. That's Professor David super of Georgetown
[24:26] Speaker 3: Law coming up next. A judge dismisses the felony case
[24:30] Speaker 3: against a former olympian for damage to the reflecting pool.
[24:34] Speaker 3: But the case isn't over yet. I'm June Grosso and
[24:37] Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg.
[24:40] Speaker 10: The evidence shows, and we will prove beyond a reasonable
[24:44] Speaker 10: doubt that Hern wilfully destroyed property at the Lincoln Memorial
[24:49] Speaker 10: reflecting pool. This was a delivered act to damage the
[24:54] Speaker 10: reflecting pool at the National Mall.
[24:57] Speaker 3: At a press conference a little over a month ago,
[25:00] Speaker 3: DCUs attorney Janine Piro repeatedly said that her office had evidence,
[25:06] Speaker 3: including witnesses, to prove that former Olympic rower David Hearn
[25:11] Speaker 3: had damaged the reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial by
[25:15] Speaker 3: violently ripping up sealant from the bottom of the pool.
[25:18] Speaker 3: Piero charged Herne with felony vandalism and rejected any suggestion
[25:24] Speaker 3: that the pool had already been damaged.
[25:26] Speaker 10: Oh he damaged it.
[25:28] Speaker 5: Further, But do you had already been damaged.
[25:30] Speaker 10: Before he damaged the pool?
[25:32] Speaker 3: But then a stunning about face. Piero's office admitted in
[25:37] Speaker 3: a court filing that they didn't have the evidence against
[25:41] Speaker 3: herne and that the damage was actually the result of
[25:44] Speaker 3: a botched installation by the contractor. They asked the court
[25:49] Speaker 3: to dismiss the case, but President Trump continues to insist
[25:53] Speaker 3: that the pool was damaged by vandals.
[25:56] Speaker 4: I was disappointed with Jennie Piro, really disappointed with j Nibor.
[26:03] Speaker 1: She folded like an umbrella.
[26:05] Speaker 3: On Thursday, a judge dismissed the felony vandalism charge against
[26:09] Speaker 3: hern My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a
[26:13] Speaker 3: partner maccarter and English Bob Pierro blamed the Interior Department
[26:18] Speaker 3: for providing less than fulsome information, but also wrote the
[26:23] Speaker 3: filing that a visual inspection showed damage throughout the reflecting pool,
[26:27] Speaker 3: even in the middle, where a vandal wouldn't likely attempt
[26:31] Speaker 3: to peel the learning. I mean, shouldn't the US Attorney's
[26:34] Speaker 3: office have done a minimal at least investigation before they
[26:38] Speaker 3: file felony charges against someone.
[26:41] Speaker 9: That's exactly the question here and why this is such
[26:44] Speaker 9: an embarrassing setback for the Department of Justice, because typically
[26:48] Speaker 9: the Department of Justice does not rely on another agency
[26:53] Speaker 9: to do its own investigation, and in this particular case,
[26:57] Speaker 9: there was no real rush. In other words, we didn't
[27:00] Speaker 9: have a circumstance where there was a potential danger to
[27:03] Speaker 9: the community or where the potential defendant was a flight risk.
[27:08] Speaker 9: There was no reason the Department of Justice had to
[27:10] Speaker 9: move to indict him so quickly, and for them to
[27:14] Speaker 9: now turn around and say that the information that they
[27:18] Speaker 9: had been given by the Interior Department was incorrect. And
[27:21] Speaker 9: as you said, the visual inspection revealed damage throughout the
[27:25] Speaker 9: reflecting pool such that a vandal would not likely have
[27:28] Speaker 9: attempted to peel. The lining back really undermines the Department
[27:33] Speaker 9: of Justice position because it shows that they never did
[27:36] Speaker 9: a thorough investigation before going into the grand jury and
[27:40] Speaker 9: seeking an indictment in this case.
[27:42] Speaker 3: I mean, you don't often hear about a federal prosecutor
[27:46] Speaker 3: sort of taking back an indictment.
[27:49] Speaker 9: The idea of the Department of Justice simply outright dismissing
[27:54] Speaker 9: charges after an indictment is brought is exceedingly rare. It
[27:59] Speaker 9: almost never happens, and the reason it doesn't happen is
[28:02] Speaker 9: because federal prosecutors typically take their time to investigate cases
[28:08] Speaker 9: to make sure that they have enough evidence to gain
[28:12] Speaker 9: a conviction if their case goes to trial. In fact,
[28:15] Speaker 9: the guidelines for the US Attorney's Office require that prosecutors
[28:20] Speaker 9: cannot go into a grand jury and present a case
[28:23] Speaker 9: or indictment unless they believe that they have evidence that
[28:28] Speaker 9: would be admissible at trial that is likely to result
[28:32] Speaker 9: in a conviction. So here it seems like there was
[28:35] Speaker 9: a real rush to judgment where they went out and
[28:37] Speaker 9: they indicted based on limited information that was coming from
[28:41] Speaker 9: the Interior Department, and it turned out, according to the
[28:44] Speaker 9: Department of Justice, to not be true.
[28:47] Speaker 3: It seemed from the start that the US Attorney was overcharging. Here.
[28:52] Speaker 3: It reminded me of the case where a guy who
[28:55] Speaker 3: became known as the sandwich guy through a subway sandwich
[28:59] Speaker 3: at an ice officer PIO. Tried to get a felony
[29:02] Speaker 3: indictment and the grand jury refused, so the office then
[29:07] Speaker 3: tried him for a misdemeanor and a trial jury acquitted him.
[29:11] Speaker 9: Even of that, no, I think that's a fair point,
[29:13] Speaker 9: because let's keep in mind that this case turned on
[29:17] Speaker 9: a single count of property destruction, which carries a maximum
[29:21] Speaker 9: sentence of up to ten years in prison if there's
[29:24] Speaker 9: a conviction. And the key to removing this case from
[29:29] Speaker 9: a misdemeanor which would only allow a prison sentence of
[29:32] Speaker 9: up to a year, to a felony, which in this
[29:34] Speaker 9: case allows a prison sentence of up to ten years,
[29:38] Speaker 9: is the government's ability to prove that the defendant caused
[29:41] Speaker 9: at least one thousand dollars in damage to the pool.
[29:45] Speaker 9: What ended up happening here is that the defense council
[29:49] Speaker 9: focused on that damages issue, because what they were trying
[29:52] Speaker 9: to do is at a minimum, move this case from
[29:55] Speaker 9: a felony back to a misdemeanor by trying to show
[29:58] Speaker 9: that the government could not meet that one thousand dollars threshold,
[30:02] Speaker 9: and they focused on testimony that apparently occurred in the
[30:05] Speaker 9: grand jury in order to obtain this indictment, where the
[30:09] Speaker 9: government apparently presented only one witness on that element, on
[30:13] Speaker 9: that critical element of showing that the damage caused allegedly
[30:17] Speaker 9: by this defendant was at least one thousand dollars. According
[30:21] Speaker 9: to the defense, that witness testified that the property had
[30:25] Speaker 9: already deteriorated, that the pool had already begun to fall
[30:30] Speaker 9: apart in terms of the lining coming up from the bottom,
[30:33] Speaker 9: and that the repairs that would have been needed would
[30:35] Speaker 9: have been needed even without mister Hearn's alleged conduct, and
[30:40] Speaker 9: that the witness testified also that he could not quantify
[30:44] Speaker 9: any loss caused by the alleged conduct of the defendant.
[30:48] Speaker 9: So they were really already attacking not only the question
[30:53] Speaker 9: of whether their client committed any crime at all, but
[30:55] Speaker 9: they were focusing on whether the government could meet this
[30:58] Speaker 9: thousand dollars threshold that they used to turn this case
[31:01] Speaker 9: from a misdemeanor into a felony.
[31:04] Speaker 3: I'm wondering about the timing here, because they dropped the
[31:07] Speaker 3: charges shortly after the defense was trying to get the
[31:12] Speaker 3: grand jury transcripts because of what they said were irregularities
[31:16] Speaker 3: in the process. And we have seen in several instances
[31:20] Speaker 3: irregularities in the presentation of cases by federal prosecutors to
[31:27] Speaker 3: grand juries, and I'm wondering if that might have been
[31:31] Speaker 3: an impetus for dropping the case as well, that those
[31:34] Speaker 3: would have been revealed.
[31:36] Speaker 9: Now that's exactly right, that was what the defense had
[31:38] Speaker 9: focused on. And according to the defense, the sole witness
[31:42] Speaker 9: that the government relied on to prove damages did not
[31:46] Speaker 9: even say or suggest that the alleged conduct by mister
[31:49] Speaker 9: Hearn had compromised the liner at all, And in fact,
[31:54] Speaker 9: in the charging document he was simply charged with touching
[31:59] Speaker 9: some of the liner that had floated to the surface.
[32:02] Speaker 9: According to the prosecution, even in the indictment, he was
[32:06] Speaker 9: accused of pulling up a two foot square piece of
[32:10] Speaker 9: the pool's lining. Now, the defendant's version of what happened,
[32:13] Speaker 9: and this is a statement he gave just before his arrest,
[32:16] Speaker 9: is that he was biking and he pulled over to
[32:20] Speaker 9: the pool there and put his hand in the reflecting pool,
[32:24] Speaker 9: and he said that he reached in to examine the
[32:26] Speaker 9: pool's newly peeled coating and briefly touched a chunk attached
[32:30] Speaker 9: to the side of the pool. But he said that
[32:32] Speaker 9: he obeyed a part worker who was standing right there
[32:35] Speaker 9: with him and told him to let it go. So
[32:38] Speaker 9: he basically said he did absolutely nothing to in any
[32:42] Speaker 9: way vandalize the reflecting pool. And it seems that the
[32:46] Speaker 9: government's witness largely corroborated the defendant statement, and that is
[32:51] Speaker 9: perhaps the reason why we're seeing this sudden dismissal of
[32:55] Speaker 9: this indictment, because again, it's so exceedingly rare that prosecute
[33:00] Speaker 9: will fully dismiss the case rather than try to plete
[33:04] Speaker 9: it down to a misdemeanor or work out some kind
[33:07] Speaker 9: of a plea deal. Here, it seems that the grand
[33:10] Speaker 9: jury testimony that the defense was pressing for and that
[33:14] Speaker 9: a judge would likely require prosecutors to turn over, may
[33:19] Speaker 9: have completely undermined the prosecution's case. And before that happened,
[33:23] Speaker 9: it seems that Janine Piro, the US Attorney for the
[33:26] Speaker 9: District of Columbia, felt that she had no choice but
[33:30] Speaker 9: to dismiss the case.
[33:31] Speaker 3: President Trump is very angry about this. It looked for
[33:35] Speaker 3: a while like Janeine Piro's job was on the line,
[33:38] Speaker 3: and when Pierro's office asked the judge to dismiss the case,
[33:42] Speaker 3: they asked to dismiss it without prejudice, meaning they could
[33:46] Speaker 3: bring it again. I mean, could you see the office
[33:49] Speaker 3: bringing these charges again.
[33:51] Speaker 9: I think the defense would have an ample basis to
[33:55] Speaker 9: try to move to dismiss them. And at the end
[33:57] Speaker 9: of the day, it doesn't seem like the facts here
[34:00] Speaker 9: are going to change.
[34:01] Speaker 6: What was really.
[34:02] Speaker 9: Extraordinary here was that not only did Misspiro dismiss these charges,
[34:08] Speaker 9: but the government did so in a twenty page court filing,
[34:12] Speaker 9: with the judge in the case saying that they had
[34:15] Speaker 9: been provided with additional documents by the Interior Department since
[34:19] Speaker 9: the indictment showing that the damage was a result of
[34:23] Speaker 9: a botched installation by a contractor, as well as the
[34:27] Speaker 9: quote rushed to complete the project prior to events associated
[34:31] Speaker 9: with the America two fifty celebration in the week surrounding
[34:35] Speaker 9: Independence Day twenty twenty six. So what's really unusual here
[34:40] Speaker 9: is that this dismissal didn't solely focus on the conduct
[34:45] Speaker 9: of this defendant. In other words, it wasn't simply saying,
[34:49] Speaker 9: this is why we have to dismiss this case against
[34:51] Speaker 9: this defendant.
[34:52] Speaker 6: Instead, it was.
[34:53] Speaker 9: A broad rebuke of the entire concept that any of
[34:57] Speaker 9: the damage caused by the reflecting pool was done by vandals.
[35:02] Speaker 9: It really completely undermined the narrative that came not only
[35:07] Speaker 9: from President Trump, but also from the Interior Secretary, who
[35:11] Speaker 9: took a completely different position and immediately issued a statement
[35:15] Speaker 9: saying that the Interior Department provided the US Attorney's Office
[35:19] Speaker 9: with expert and eyewitness testimonies to the damage done by vandals,
[35:24] Speaker 9: and provided every piece of evidence they asked for and
[35:27] Speaker 9: in the requested timeline detailing each area of damage to
[35:31] Speaker 9: the pool. So what we're seeing here is really an
[35:35] Speaker 9: unheard of scenario where you have one branch of government
[35:39] Speaker 9: blaming and criticizing the other, a dispute between the Department
[35:43] Speaker 9: of Justice and the President, the dispute between the Department
[35:46] Speaker 9: of Justice and the Interior Department, and all of this
[35:49] Speaker 9: is playing out in full public view. It's really something
[35:52] Speaker 9: that is extraordinary and is unheard of where you see
[35:56] Speaker 9: this type of internal debate within the government being played
[36:00] Speaker 9: out on the national stage in full public view, on
[36:04] Speaker 9: such a high profile issue. And given the high profile
[36:07] Speaker 9: nature of this prosecution, because of all of the publicity
[36:12] Speaker 9: surrounding the reflecting pool and Independence Day and the very
[36:16] Speaker 9: high profile repairs and having it ready in time for
[36:20] Speaker 9: Independence Day, it really is extraordinary that the US Attorney
[36:24] Speaker 9: has blamed the Interior Department and really come very close
[36:28] Speaker 9: to saying that they were misled. Janein Piro actually said
[36:32] Speaker 9: that they would never have brought this case had they
[36:35] Speaker 9: known of the evidence that was being withheld withheld from
[36:40] Speaker 9: the Department of Justice by the Interior Department. That is
[36:43] Speaker 9: an extraordinary charge from one agency to another.
[36:46] Speaker 3: And the case is an over Bob. The judge still
[36:49] Speaker 3: hasn't decided whether to dismiss the charges with prejudice meaning
[36:54] Speaker 3: they can't be brought again, or to dismiss them without prejudice,
[36:58] Speaker 3: meaning they can be again. There'll be arguments on that,
[37:03] Speaker 3: I believe in September, so we'll talk again. That's Robert
[37:07] Speaker 3: Mints of Macarter and English. And that's it for this
[37:10] Speaker 3: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
[37:12] Speaker 3: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
[37:16] Speaker 3: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
[37:19] Speaker 3: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and
[37:24] Speaker 3: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
[37:27] Speaker 3: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
[37:31] Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.