# DOJ Erases Jan 6th Cases & Pirro's Job in Jeopardy

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 6 Aug 2026, 31 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/7559e69b-341e-428f-a169-b49e01133083/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses the Trump administration dismissing the indictments for seditious conspiracy against the right -wing Oath Keepers for their actions in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Jeff Mason, Bloomberg White House and Washington correspondent, discusses why President Trump is considering firing DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: More than three years ago, the Justice Department was touting
[0:12] Speaker 2: the guilty verdicts against members of the right wing Oathkeepers
[0:16] Speaker 2: for a plot to obstruct Congress's certification of the twenty
[0:20] Speaker 2: twenty presidential election. The rare seditious conspiracy verdicts were the
[0:26] Speaker 2: crowning achievement of an expansive prosecution effort that followed the
[0:30] Speaker 2: violent riots at the Capitol on January sixth of twenty
[0:34] Speaker 2: twenty one. But when Donald Trump took office for the
[0:38] Speaker 2: second time, he directed his sweeping clemency power toward the
[0:43] Speaker 2: more than fifteen hundred people charged in connection with the
[0:46] Speaker 2: January sixth attack.
[0:48] Speaker 3: I was very proud to pardon the j six postige.
[0:53] Speaker 2: And when Trump bragged about the pardons at a rally
[0:56] Speaker 2: about a week later, sitting behind him in the VIP
[1:00] Speaker 2: section was Stuart Rhodes, the leader of the oath Keepers
[1:05] Speaker 2: who'd been released from prison just days earlier after Trump
[1:10] Speaker 2: commuted his eighteen year sentence for seditious conspiracy. And now
[1:15] Speaker 2: the Trump administration is trying to rewrite the history of
[1:19] Speaker 2: the January sixth attack by dismissing the indictments against the
[1:24] Speaker 2: oath Keeper's hack. Federal Judge Amitt Metta, who had presided
[1:29] Speaker 2: over the oath Keeper's case and sentenced the defendants, criticized
[1:33] Speaker 2: the Justice Department, writing that the government quote asked to
[1:37] Speaker 2: absolve these defendants of crimes against the United States itself,
[1:42] Speaker 2: but he wrote that he had no choice but to
[1:44] Speaker 2: grant the administration's motion to dismiss Joining me is Bloomberg
[1:49] Speaker 2: Legal reporter Zoe Zoe tell us about the charges against
[1:53] Speaker 2: the oath Keepers and their significance.
[1:55] Speaker 1: So this was one of the highest profile cases to
[1:58] Speaker 1: come out of the January sixth secution effort, where members
[2:02] Speaker 1: of the oath Keepers, which was a right wing extremist group,
[2:07] Speaker 1: were charged with conspiring well in advance of January sixth,
[2:11] Speaker 1: not only to come to Washington to do whatever it
[2:15] Speaker 1: took to stop Congress from certifying the election results, but
[2:19] Speaker 1: also to bring guns and to stockpile them at a
[2:22] Speaker 1: hotel in Virginia. And the theory of that prosecution was,
[2:26] Speaker 1: you know, these were not people going to protest and
[2:29] Speaker 1: accidentally got swept up that they had been planning potentially
[2:33] Speaker 1: to use force and violence to stop Congress. From certifying
[2:38] Speaker 1: the election. This was arguably the highest profile of not
[2:41] Speaker 1: one of the most high profile cases. It involved charges
[2:45] Speaker 1: and ultimately convictions for a seditious conspiracy, which was a
[2:48] Speaker 1: very rarely used offense. It's you know, use of force
[2:52] Speaker 1: against the US government. This is more than just the
[2:56] Speaker 1: garden variety, so to speak, conspiracy to obstruct Congress to
[3:00] Speaker 1: that many people faced after January sixth, So these cases
[3:02] Speaker 1: were really top of mind for the Justice Department and
[3:06] Speaker 1: for the public's understanding of the most serious crimes that
[3:12] Speaker 1: were being charged in connection with what had happened on January.
[3:15] Speaker 2: Six and how many people were actually convicted in this
[3:18] Speaker 2: particular case.
[3:19] Speaker 1: There were several dozen I believe prosecutions related in some
[3:24] Speaker 1: way to the oathkeepers. But what it came down to
[3:26] Speaker 1: here was eight defendants who were convicted, including some of
[3:32] Speaker 1: seditious conspiracy, but who weren't part of the Trump pardon.
[3:36] Speaker 1: You might remember, on January twentieth, he takes office, he
[3:39] Speaker 1: issues a sweeping executive clemency action that covers almost everybody,
[3:45] Speaker 1: but not everybody convicted or charged in the January sixth cases,
[3:49] Speaker 1: and there were fourteen people who didn't get pardons, but
[3:52] Speaker 1: their sentences were commuted, and that included eight of the
[3:56] Speaker 1: remaining defendants whose cases were an issue here related to
[3:59] Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers case, So, you know, their cases then had
[4:03] Speaker 1: still been out there, they.
[4:04] Speaker 4: Were appealing their convictions.
[4:06] Speaker 1: Ultimately, the Justice Department came back and said to the
[4:10] Speaker 1: courts that they wished to vacate those convictions even though
[4:13] Speaker 1: Trump hadn't pardoned them. So those were struck, and then
[4:17] Speaker 1: what was left were the indictments. They were still you know,
[4:20] Speaker 1: on the record, criminally charged with these offenses, and that's
[4:24] Speaker 1: what was left for the judge to resolve here.
[4:27] Speaker 2: Why didn't Trump pardon them as well?
[4:29] Speaker 1: I don't think that he's ever publicly discussed this at length,
[4:33] Speaker 1: but I think the inference was that the fourteen people
[4:36] Speaker 1: were members of the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys, and
[4:39] Speaker 1: these were the most serious, seditious conspiracy cases that the
[4:45] Speaker 1: Justice Department had brought. And you know, leading up to
[4:49] Speaker 1: Trump returning to office, there had been rumblings coming from
[4:53] Speaker 1: Republicans and conservatives, not just Democrats and liberals, blocking at
[4:57] Speaker 1: the idea that people who beat up cops, committed violence,
[5:02] Speaker 1: or who were convicted of these most serious offenses against
[5:06] Speaker 1: the United States government that they should perhaps not benefit
[5:09] Speaker 1: from executive clemency, and there was some infighting on the
[5:12] Speaker 1: right about whether that would be appropriate and acceptable, and
[5:16] Speaker 1: ultimately the President had a sweeping clemency action that covered
[5:20] Speaker 1: many people who were convicted or charged with assaulting police officers,
[5:24] Speaker 1: but it seemed like perhaps the seditious conspiracy cases were
[5:28] Speaker 1: this outlier, so he commuted the sentences. They were released
[5:31] Speaker 1: from prison, but didn't take that final step at the time,
[5:34] Speaker 1: at least to give them a full pardon.
[5:37] Speaker 2: Have you heard before of the Justice Department getting convictions
[5:42] Speaker 2: asking to have them vacated and asking to have the
[5:46] Speaker 2: indictments dismissed.
[5:48] Speaker 1: So the convictions were already vacated, the cases were up
[5:51] Speaker 1: on appeal, and the Justice departments asked the appeals court
[5:54] Speaker 1: to basically kick them back down with an order to
[5:56] Speaker 1: vacate them, finding it.
[5:58] Speaker 4: Was in the public interest.
[5:59] Speaker 1: The judge in the opinion that we wrote about sort
[6:01] Speaker 1: of notes that there wasn't much explanation as to why
[6:04] Speaker 1: they wanted to do that and why the DC circuits
[6:07] Speaker 1: signed off on that. That being said, there is just
[6:09] Speaker 1: a lot of prosecutorial discretion at every level of these cases.
[6:13] Speaker 1: So when administrations change, there are always, no matter who's
[6:18] Speaker 1: in charge, backtracking of prosecutorial decisions that have been made
[6:23] Speaker 1: by past administrations. That's certainly something we see. So what
[6:27] Speaker 1: was left was just that the indictments were still active.
[6:30] Speaker 1: You know, in theory they could vacate these convictions, but say,
[6:33] Speaker 1: you know, there were problems with how this prosecution happened,
[6:36] Speaker 1: but we're going to try them again. That was still
[6:39] Speaker 1: an option, or just to leave them intact, as the
[6:44] Speaker 1: judge said, you know, to create some record that this
[6:47] Speaker 1: had all happened in some official legal capacity.
[6:51] Speaker 2: The judge pointed out the prosecutors never admitted to any
[6:55] Speaker 2: prosecutorial misconduct or legal error or said that the evidence
[6:59] Speaker 2: was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. So was he
[7:04] Speaker 2: trying to say that this is not about the weaponization
[7:08] Speaker 2: of the Justice Department, as the Trump administration and President
[7:12] Speaker 2: Trump keeps claiming.
[7:14] Speaker 1: Basically, yes, I think he felt that he needed to
[7:17] Speaker 1: highlight what was a series of unusual events and you know,
[7:23] Speaker 1: in his mind, perplexing and surprising arguments that the government
[7:27] Speaker 1: ultimately made to do something that he acknowledged they have
[7:31] Speaker 1: the authority to do. It's just normally, he said, it's
[7:34] Speaker 1: because they might say, you know, we looked at the
[7:36] Speaker 1: evidence again, it was insufficient. We identified deficiencies with what
[7:40] Speaker 1: was charged, how the prosecution played out. You know, those
[7:44] Speaker 1: are the normal reasons that you would see the government
[7:45] Speaker 1: walk back a case where it's already won a conviction.
[7:49] Speaker 1: That didn't happen here. And the judge said, what he
[7:52] Speaker 1: received from the government was a couple of arguments. One
[7:55] Speaker 1: was to protect these defendants from harassment, that as long
[7:58] Speaker 1: as the indictments were on the book, the potential for
[8:02] Speaker 1: you know, maybe some future trial that this was harassing
[8:06] Speaker 1: of individuals whose sentences had been commuted and their convictions vacated.
[8:11] Speaker 4: The other reason that he really.
[8:13] Speaker 1: Took issue with was this idea that the department said,
[8:17] Speaker 1: there was so much publicity around these trials and prosecutions
[8:21] Speaker 1: that you don't need a record of criminal activity in
[8:24] Speaker 1: the courts. People can just go back and see what
[8:27] Speaker 1: happened because there was media coverage. And the judge said,
[8:30] Speaker 1: you know, that is not the government stance. The government
[8:33] Speaker 1: normally feels that. I think he said, you know, actual
[8:35] Speaker 1: accountability is what is in the public interests, not media
[8:39] Speaker 1: coverage or public attention. And then Finally, he also pointed
[8:42] Speaker 1: out that to say that this was in line with
[8:45] Speaker 1: Trump the president's intent didn't quite square with the fact
[8:49] Speaker 1: that the President had decided to not pardon these defendants,
[8:53] Speaker 1: So he also identified an incongruity in that logic. I
[8:57] Speaker 1: think what was really striking about this opinion June was
[9:01] Speaker 1: that he decided to take the opportunity to make clear
[9:04] Speaker 1: that he was quite disappointed and dismayed and.
[9:07] Speaker 4: Upset at the outcome of all of this.
[9:10] Speaker 1: These were cases that really consumed the Federal Court in
[9:14] Speaker 1: Washington for years after two thousand and one. It was
[9:18] Speaker 1: all encompassing, and all the judges spent countless hours reviewing
[9:23] Speaker 1: body camera footage from that day, evidence testimony from police
[9:28] Speaker 1: officers who were there, and Judge Mata and other colleagues
[9:31] Speaker 1: on the bench have publicly expressed their consternation at what
[9:37] Speaker 1: they see as a rewriting of fact of what happened
[9:40] Speaker 1: on January sixth, and the culpability of at least many
[9:45] Speaker 1: of the people who were charged and convicted or what
[9:48] Speaker 1: happened that day.
[9:49] Speaker 2: You could see almost the sort of sadness and the
[9:52] Speaker 2: solemnity behind this. Today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of that
[9:57] Speaker 2: day denigrates the work of the prosecutors law enforcement officers
[10:01] Speaker 2: who secured these convictions and excuses criminal acts that caused
[10:06] Speaker 2: a century's long pillar of our democracy, the peaceful transfer
[10:09] Speaker 2: presidential power to buckle. But he said, the court cannot
[10:13] Speaker 2: write a different ending. He had no choice. He had
[10:17] Speaker 2: to accept it, right.
[10:19] Speaker 4: And you know, his choice was to write what he wrote.
[10:22] Speaker 1: And he could have simply said, you know, given the
[10:27] Speaker 1: explanation from the government, and given the court's lack of
[10:31] Speaker 1: authority to supersede these types.
[10:33] Speaker 4: Of decisions, I grant the request.
[10:35] Speaker 1: I think the choice ultimately that he made was to
[10:39] Speaker 1: put down these words that I have to think he
[10:42] Speaker 1: knew would get attention and get some coverage as a
[10:45] Speaker 1: way of closing out, perhaps the public record of everything
[10:51] Speaker 1: that had happened, and maintaining an official record through the
[10:53] Speaker 1: legal proceeding of at least his perception of what had happened.
[10:57] Speaker 4: And this judge had handled.
[10:58] Speaker 1: This case from the very beginning, so he had been
[11:01] Speaker 1: there from the start and chose to express these thoughts
[11:08] Speaker 1: which one of the defendants already has objected to, and
[11:10] Speaker 1: ask that he go back and strike a lot of
[11:13] Speaker 1: the extra what they saw is the extra language that
[11:16] Speaker 1: was very unfair to their client. As the defense attorneys noted,
[11:19] Speaker 1: you know, as long as these convictions were on appeal,
[11:22] Speaker 1: they were never finalized, so there was still this presumption
[11:25] Speaker 1: of innocence that individuals have until it's final And they
[11:30] Speaker 1: argued that they would like him to strike at least
[11:31] Speaker 1: some of this language from the opinion in light of that, and.
[11:35] Speaker 2: That was a motion made to judgmenta himself.
[11:38] Speaker 1: That's right, that came shortly after the opinion was released.
[11:42] Speaker 4: A motion to strike.
[11:43] Speaker 1: Whether he will entertain that, we don't know, but you know,
[11:47] Speaker 1: certainly he has put down and it's now out there
[11:50] Speaker 1: for posterity, you know, his final thoughts on how this
[11:55] Speaker 1: all unraveled.
[11:56] Speaker 2: It'll be really interesting to see what happens. I mean,
[11:59] Speaker 2: if he refuses, is that grounds to appeal?
[12:02] Speaker 1: I think that would be a tough, tough appeal. You know,
[12:05] Speaker 1: much as the government has a lot of prosecutorial discretion,
[12:08] Speaker 1: the judges have certainly a lot of discretion in what
[12:12] Speaker 1: they write and their opinions. And barring some legal error,
[12:16] Speaker 1: it's tough to see what the appeal would look like there.
[12:18] Speaker 2: And now this is less than a month after another
[12:23] Speaker 2: judge had to dismiss another January sixth related case against
[12:28] Speaker 2: another far right group, the Proud Boys.
[12:31] Speaker 1: I mean, they've walked back all of the January sixth prosecution.
[12:34] Speaker 1: Some of the Proud Boys defendants were among those fourteen
[12:37] Speaker 1: individuals who didn't get pardons from the President but commutations.
[12:41] Speaker 1: So as judge madea notes here, you know, there were
[12:45] Speaker 1: these last lingering cases that needed to be resolved because
[12:48] Speaker 1: there weren't pardons to sort of cleanly wipe that slake
[12:52] Speaker 1: clean that commutations don't remove a conviction from someone's record,
[12:58] Speaker 1: and at that point there's sort of a debate of
[13:01] Speaker 1: what's appropriate to keep on the record and how much
[13:04] Speaker 1: does something like a commutation absolve someone of the weight
[13:09] Speaker 1: of a conviction.
[13:11] Speaker 2: And Zoe, do you know have any of the Proud
[13:13] Speaker 2: Boys or the Oathkeepers filed claims with the Justice Department
[13:18] Speaker 2: for compensation.
[13:20] Speaker 1: We know that several members of the Proud Boys have
[13:23] Speaker 1: filed a lawsuit seeking compensation that the Justice Department has
[13:27] Speaker 1: opposed so far, so that has not gotten anywhere in
[13:32] Speaker 1: terms of success on their part. We don't know there
[13:36] Speaker 1: haven't been lawsuits on behalf of the Oathkeepers. There have
[13:38] Speaker 1: been some from other January sixth defendants who were pardoned.
[13:42] Speaker 1: We know that several hundred hundreds of January sixth defendants
[13:46] Speaker 1: who got pardons have filed administrative claims. It's not clear
[13:50] Speaker 1: to me if any of the oath keepers have. It
[13:52] Speaker 1: seems like it would be unlikely until their cases were
[13:54] Speaker 1: fully resolved. So that's certainly a line of reporting that
[13:57] Speaker 1: will continue to follow. That said, you know, there are
[14:01] Speaker 1: a number of pending claims related to January six already.
[14:05] Speaker 1: And even though the Justice Department had to walk back
[14:09] Speaker 1: a plan for this one point eight billion dollar anti
[14:12] Speaker 1: weaponization fund that was seen as a way to sort
[14:15] Speaker 1: of more quickly and cleanly pay out claims to January
[14:19] Speaker 1: sixth defendants, there are existing pathways that have always been
[14:23] Speaker 1: around for folks to pursue these types of compensation claims,
[14:26] Speaker 1: and many of them had filed claims long before the
[14:28] Speaker 1: fund was announced, and we expect them to continue to
[14:31] Speaker 1: press them long after the fund is purportedly dead.
[14:36] Speaker 4: So it's very.
[14:36] Speaker 1: Much a live issue whether and how much money taxpayers
[14:40] Speaker 1: will now end up paying out to these individuals.
[14:43] Speaker 2: Is the judgment fund unlimited or is there a limited
[14:47] Speaker 2: amount of money in the fund.
[14:49] Speaker 1: Our understanding is it's always described as a permanent, indefinite appropriation,
[14:54] Speaker 1: so generally it's understood to be unlimited. I haven't come
[15:01] Speaker 1: across a case where the government has said we can
[15:04] Speaker 1: only afford to pay you so much because we've tapped
[15:07] Speaker 1: out the judgment fund this year. You don't really see
[15:10] Speaker 1: that come up. Exactly how much gets put in at
[15:14] Speaker 1: any given time, Honestly, I don't know, But our understanding
[15:18] Speaker 1: is that generally it's considered a sort of infinite pool.
[15:22] Speaker 1: Because of the Justice departments brought authority to settle claims
[15:26] Speaker 1: that are brought against the government, whether they're administrative which
[15:30] Speaker 1: means they don't play out on a public docket, or
[15:33] Speaker 1: they're brought in court.
[15:34] Speaker 2: How those January sixth claims play out is something that
[15:38] Speaker 2: we have to keep track of now. Thanks so much, Zoe.
[15:41] Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal Reporters, Zoe Tillman.
[15:44] Speaker 3: We weren't necessarily thrilled with a contractor, but they did
[15:49] Speaker 3: a job and they were fixing any problems. But then
[15:54] Speaker 3: I got carried away because the judge was extremely unfriendly
[15:57] Speaker 3: to Janine, and frankly, I think she choked.
[16:01] Speaker 2: President Trump was quite forgiving of the contractor whose botched
[16:06] Speaker 2: installation caused widespread damage to the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool,
[16:11] Speaker 2: according to the DCUs attorney, though Trump was not so
[16:16] Speaker 2: forgiving of the DCUs attorney, Janine Piro, I.
[16:20] Speaker 3: Was disappointed with Jennie Piro, really disappointed with Jennie Piro.
[16:24] Speaker 3: She folded like an umbrella.
[16:28] Speaker 2: Trump publicly criticized Piero for dismissing charges against individuals accused
[16:34] Speaker 2: of vandalizing the reflecting pool. Pierro met with Trump and
[16:39] Speaker 2: other officials, including Interior Secretary Doug Bergham, whose department oversaw
[16:45] Speaker 2: the project on Monday, but today Trump said he hadn't
[16:49] Speaker 2: decided whether to keep her as the top federal prosecutor
[16:52] Speaker 2: in Washington. Joining me is Jeff Mason Bloomberg White House
[16:56] Speaker 2: and Washington correspondent. Jeff start by telling us at the
[17:00] Speaker 2: relationship that Janine Pierrot has had with President Trump, at
[17:06] Speaker 2: least up until the last few days.
[17:09] Speaker 5: Well, they've been friends for a long time, and he
[17:12] Speaker 5: was a big fan of hers when she was on
[17:14] Speaker 5: Fox News, which was a job that she had for
[17:17] Speaker 5: a long time. And she's been a big defender of
[17:21] Speaker 5: President Trump's using that perch and then he brought her
[17:24] Speaker 5: into the administration by making her the top attorney in
[17:28] Speaker 5: the District of Columbia Washington, DC, and she has used
[17:33] Speaker 5: that perch to also really implement a lot of what
[17:37] Speaker 5: he was looking for in terms of legal cases here.
[17:41] Speaker 5: I remember one of them being and I don't know
[17:43] Speaker 5: that she would have spoken to him about it, but
[17:45] Speaker 5: it's an example of Trumpian legal procedures, I guess was
[17:50] Speaker 5: when she brought the man who had thrown his sub
[17:54] Speaker 5: sandwich against a police officer during some kind of a
[17:59] Speaker 5: protest and tried to win that case and that didn't
[18:02] Speaker 5: work out. So that's just one example that comes to mind.
[18:04] Speaker 5: But to your question, they've been longtime allies in any case,
[18:10] Speaker 5: and so it was pretty unusual a to see her
[18:14] Speaker 5: make a decision that she has to have known was
[18:17] Speaker 5: going to upset him and b for him to be
[18:21] Speaker 5: as publicly critical of her and that decision as he was.
[18:24] Speaker 5: Although I would add an addendum to that last piece,
[18:27] Speaker 5: which is we know that President Trump turns on his
[18:31] Speaker 5: own and he did that a lot during the first term.
[18:35] Speaker 5: He has done it less often during the second term,
[18:38] Speaker 5: but he has done it. He fired Pambondi, he fired
[18:42] Speaker 5: Christy Nome, the former Attorney General and the former Secretary
[18:45] Speaker 5: of Homeland Security, so he absolutely could fire Miss Pierrot,
[18:50] Speaker 5: and he might. In fact, he said, I think last
[18:54] Speaker 5: night when he was talking to reporters that he hadn't
[18:56] Speaker 5: made his decision yet, but he did not do it
[18:58] Speaker 5: after their meeting at the White House. And that seems
[19:01] Speaker 5: to be at least in part because she made her
[19:04] Speaker 5: case for why she had to withdraw the case that
[19:09] Speaker 5: he wanted, which was to pursue these these people who
[19:14] Speaker 5: they accused of being vandals and lead and of leading
[19:17] Speaker 5: them to the the breakdown of the lining on the
[19:21] Speaker 5: reflecting pool.
[19:22] Speaker 2: So I saw a video of her going into the
[19:25] Speaker 2: White House with what prosecutors normally take to court, which is,
[19:31] Speaker 2: you know, a weelly with a box of documents, and
[19:34] Speaker 2: I mean, do you know what happened in that meeting?
[19:36] Speaker 5: Well, the New York Times had a fantastic story about
[19:39] Speaker 5: what happened in that meeting. So what I know is
[19:41] Speaker 5: from from reading their terrific reporting, and that is that
[19:46] Speaker 5: she brought in that case that you were that you
[19:49] Speaker 5: were referring to, with a bunch of documents and proof
[19:54] Speaker 5: essentially that it was according to her a mess up
[19:59] Speaker 5: by the contray and therefore also the Department of Interior,
[20:03] Speaker 5: and according to the time, she accused Secretary of Interior
[20:07] Speaker 5: Doug Burgham, who was present for this meeting, of lying.
[20:12] Speaker 5: And honestly, if she did that in a way, that's
[20:16] Speaker 5: also suggesting that the President lied, although perhaps she's giving
[20:20] Speaker 5: him cover by saying he was listening to Burgham. I'm
[20:25] Speaker 5: not sure. I'm speculating a little bit there. But in
[20:28] Speaker 5: any case, she went in to press her case and
[20:31] Speaker 5: to make her case for the fact that she decided
[20:35] Speaker 5: not to continue with this case. And she did that
[20:37] Speaker 5: with the evidence apparently that was in that case that
[20:41] Speaker 5: you were referring to.
[20:42] Speaker 2: I mean, most lawyers who looked at those charges when
[20:45] Speaker 2: the indictment came out, you could see that it was
[20:48] Speaker 2: a very hard case to make out, even to make
[20:51] Speaker 2: out one thousand dollars worth of damage. It just didn't
[20:53] Speaker 2: seem like there was anything to support that in any event.
[20:57] Speaker 2: But what makes it different is she didn't just drop
[21:01] Speaker 2: the charges. She contradicted what Trump has been saying over
[21:05] Speaker 2: and over and over again that vandals caused the damage.
[21:10] Speaker 5: That's right, and that contradiction part is what is unusual,
[21:16] Speaker 5: certainly to have someone who is close to him and
[21:19] Speaker 5: a big supporter to not only contradict his Department of Interior,
[21:24] Speaker 5: but to contradict him directly, because he was clearly making
[21:28] Speaker 5: that case very publicly, and doing so in the face
[21:32] Speaker 5: of certainly a lot of questions from anyone who kind
[21:35] Speaker 5: of looked at it and thought, you know, how is
[21:37] Speaker 5: it possible that this one olympian and these three other
[21:41] Speaker 5: people could have made the damage with a box cutter
[21:44] Speaker 5: that in this massive and long reflecting pool. It just
[21:48] Speaker 5: didn't pass the logic test for a lot of people.
[21:52] Speaker 5: And yet that was not the criteria that President Trump
[21:56] Speaker 5: was using, because remember, he made promises about this, and
[22:00] Speaker 5: he made promises about it going in that his contractors
[22:04] Speaker 5: are the people that he chose were going to be
[22:05] Speaker 5: able to do this renovation of the reflecting pool for
[22:10] Speaker 5: a much cheaper than any other administration had ever done
[22:14] Speaker 5: or ever tried, and much faster and much better, all
[22:17] Speaker 5: of the things, all of the superlatives that are part
[22:19] Speaker 5: of President Trump's lexicon, he applied to this project. And
[22:24] Speaker 5: then it didn't happen. Not only it did not happen,
[22:26] Speaker 5: but it failed spectacularly. So he was looking for, as
[22:30] Speaker 5: he often does when something goes wrong, a scapegoat, and
[22:35] Speaker 5: found a convenient one in these people who had gone
[22:38] Speaker 5: by and touched or taken out some of these floating pieces.
[22:42] Speaker 5: So again that became his narrative and in you know,
[22:47] Speaker 5: and I think it's also right to note that it
[22:49] Speaker 5: was also Piro's narrative. At the very beginning. She came
[22:54] Speaker 5: out and said, as well, this is the fault of vandals,
[22:58] Speaker 5: and that's why I'm starting this case. But then, as
[23:01] Speaker 5: I've said a few times over the last few days,
[23:03] Speaker 5: the difference between after that between rhetoric that she initially used,
[23:10] Speaker 5: that the President continues to use and that Bergham continues
[23:13] Speaker 5: to use and what you can prove in court are
[23:16] Speaker 5: two completely different things. And that's what she came up against,
[23:20] Speaker 5: and that is apparently why she made the decision that
[23:22] Speaker 5: she did.
[23:23] Speaker 2: As I understand, the President is still sticking with his
[23:27] Speaker 2: contention that vandals caused the damage, even though there's been
[23:31] Speaker 2: not one iota of proof that there was vandalism on
[23:35] Speaker 2: the pool itself.
[23:37] Speaker 5: But that's his mo I mean, you're not going to
[23:39] Speaker 5: see President Donald Trump back down from that contention because
[23:44] Speaker 5: it would suggest that he was wrong. It would suggest
[23:48] Speaker 5: that he did not share the truth. It would suggest
[23:52] Speaker 5: that he was duped. Any of those three things that
[23:54] Speaker 5: I just said would not be the look that he's
[23:55] Speaker 5: looking for. He needs to have a scapegoat, and that's
[23:58] Speaker 5: what he's chosen to do. So No, he's not backing down,
[24:02] Speaker 5: and he's not backing down even now in the face
[24:04] Speaker 5: of this evidence that his own ally and the person
[24:09] Speaker 5: that he put in as the attorney here in the
[24:12] Speaker 5: District of Columbia and friend, he's doing it despite what
[24:19] Speaker 5: she has shown him. So I think the next question
[24:23] Speaker 5: is does he let that go and hold on to
[24:26] Speaker 5: her or does he decide that this was too big
[24:30] Speaker 5: of a breach and replace.
[24:32] Speaker 2: Her in any respect? Is he sending a message to
[24:35] Speaker 2: other administration officials, you know, don't dare contradict me, forget
[24:40] Speaker 2: the facts? Or do they know that already?
[24:42] Speaker 5: I think it's the latter. I think if anyone came
[24:46] Speaker 5: into this administration, into his cabinet or elsewhere working for him,
[24:52] Speaker 5: did so without knowing how he has treated high level
[24:56] Speaker 5: officials in his orbit in the past, then they would
[24:59] Speaker 5: have come in and very uninformed, and that would surprise me.
[25:04] Speaker 5: So I you know, he has surrounded himself by people
[25:08] Speaker 5: who largely do not contradict him, and so it is
[25:12] Speaker 5: what I think is kind of more interesting about this
[25:15] Speaker 5: story is that she did and did so, you know,
[25:19] Speaker 5: and did so in part to you know, defend herself
[25:22] Speaker 5: of course, and her actions and to try to keep
[25:24] Speaker 5: her job. But it is certainly not something we've seen
[25:30] Speaker 5: much of over the last year and a half during
[25:32] Speaker 5: his second term, to have someone in that orbit contradict him.
[25:36] Speaker 5: But to your question of whether he's sending a signal,
[25:39] Speaker 5: I just think those signals are already very established and
[25:42] Speaker 5: very clear from his first term and the first year
[25:46] Speaker 5: and a half of his second term. So I think
[25:48] Speaker 5: people around him know that.
[25:50] Speaker 2: Going to his decision about whether or not to fire Pierro,
[25:54] Speaker 2: a lot of people have mentioned that so far he's
[25:57] Speaker 2: only fired women. Yeah, So would that factor into his
[26:01] Speaker 2: decision at all or other people high up in the administration.
[26:06] Speaker 5: Hard to say. I think that you're right to note
[26:08] Speaker 5: the facts, and I just don't have anything to add
[26:11] Speaker 5: to those facts. He has indeed targeted primarily, if not exclusively,
[26:17] Speaker 5: women in his orbit or in his cabinet when he's
[26:22] Speaker 5: firing or putting pressure on them to leave, But that
[26:27] Speaker 5: does not mean he doesn't have other powerful women around
[26:30] Speaker 5: him who have stuck around. Exhibit A of that, of course,
[26:33] Speaker 5: is Susie Wilds, his chief of staff, who it's also
[26:36] Speaker 5: worth noting, is the first woman to serve as chief
[26:40] Speaker 5: of staff to any president, and she is extremely powerful
[26:44] Speaker 5: and he likes to emphasize that when he introduces her
[26:47] Speaker 5: at meetings and at events. But that said, it is
[26:53] Speaker 5: also one hundred percent true the people that he has
[26:57] Speaker 5: targeted in this little wave at least to firings that
[27:02] Speaker 5: we've seen this year compared to much more common practice
[27:06] Speaker 5: and bigger waves during the first term, have all been women.
[27:10] Speaker 2: They asked for a reaction from the acting Attorney General,
[27:14] Speaker 2: Todd Blanche and he said he thought Pierro was doing
[27:16] Speaker 2: a great job. Washington, d C. Is a lot safer
[27:20] Speaker 2: no small part to her effort.
[27:22] Speaker 5: I thought it was interesting that he showed that he
[27:24] Speaker 5: has her back because the acting Attorney General obviously also
[27:29] Speaker 5: wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. Number one,
[27:33] Speaker 5: he wants this job and on a permanent basis, and
[27:36] Speaker 5: wants to move on from being acting to being confirmed.
[27:41] Speaker 5: He is the President's former personal attorney and he wants
[27:46] Speaker 5: to stay in that orbit. So I think it's that
[27:51] Speaker 5: was in some part politically brave for mister Blanche to
[27:57] Speaker 5: show his support for Pierro at a time when she
[27:59] Speaker 5: is vulnerable in the Trump universe. That said, it's also
[28:04] Speaker 5: you know, he's maybe a sign that he thinks that
[28:07] Speaker 5: it's likely that she's going to stick around, and he
[28:11] Speaker 5: would wanted to show that sign of support.
[28:14] Speaker 2: And Blanche was on Capitol Hill again. Republican Senator Susan
[28:18] Speaker 2: Collins has come out against his confirmation to be attorney general,
[28:23] Speaker 2: and I think Lisa Murkowski. Is there any talk that
[28:27] Speaker 2: any other Republicans might oppose it.
[28:30] Speaker 5: Well, we don't know about Murkowski, and that's a big
[28:33] Speaker 5: question mark. We do know about Susan Collins. She has
[28:36] Speaker 5: said that she is not going to vote for him,
[28:38] Speaker 5: and that comes as she's seeking reelection in Maine, which
[28:42] Speaker 5: is a state that has absolutely been a target by
[28:46] Speaker 5: Democrats for the midterm elections and they're trying to topple
[28:51] Speaker 5: Susan Collins. And no doubt she took that into consideration
[28:56] Speaker 5: when she decided to vote against Todd Blanche. But your
[29:00] Speaker 5: right to say that he can only afford to lose
[29:02] Speaker 5: two people, So there's one more that he could potentially lose,
[29:06] Speaker 5: and that maybe Murkowski, and I'm trying to think of
[29:09] Speaker 5: what other Republicans. We're not sure if we know that
[29:12] Speaker 5: Senators Corn and Tillis, after bringing up their objections during
[29:17] Speaker 5: the committee process, had those objections addressed with regard to
[29:23] Speaker 5: the IRS Deal and the what some Democrats anyway, are
[29:28] Speaker 5: calling a slush fund, the one point eight billion dollar
[29:30] Speaker 5: payout fund for people who were felt that they were
[29:35] Speaker 5: targeted by the Department of Justice under President Biden. That
[29:40] Speaker 5: right now has gone away, although the President, i might add,
[29:45] Speaker 5: has continued to say that he still wants it. So
[29:48] Speaker 5: you didn't ask me this, but I'll mention it anyway.
[29:50] Speaker 5: That's that's you know, that's still hanging out there, despite
[29:54] Speaker 5: the fact that the acting Attorney General did put in
[29:56] Speaker 5: writing essentially that it was dead, which is what those
[29:58] Speaker 5: two Republican senators wanted to see. But to your broader question,
[30:04] Speaker 5: he's lost Collins and so it's it's gonna be close
[30:09] Speaker 5: either way, it's gonna be it's gonna be very close.
[30:12] Speaker 2: I feel like the tide is with him, though. Thanks
[30:15] Speaker 2: so much for coming on today. Jeff, and you'll have
[30:17] Speaker 2: to come back again. That's Bloomberg White House and Washington
[30:21] Speaker 2: correspondent Jeff Mason. And that's it for this edition of
[30:25] Speaker 2: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
[30:28] Speaker 2: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
[30:31] Speaker 2: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
[30:35] Speaker 2: bloomberg dot com slash podcast, Slash Law, And remember to
[30:39] Speaker 2: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
[30:42] Speaker 2: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
[30:46] Speaker 2: 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.