# New Attorney General's First Moves & Jan 6th Rioters Sue for Damages

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 11 Apr 2026, 35 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/4f2a5d92-f53a-43c0-a7ed-b42901713aab/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Dave Aronberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney, discusses the Justice Department under the new Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Dennis Fan, a professor at Columbia Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, discusses a lawsuit by January 6th rioters to collect damages from the federal government. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:10] Speaker 2: Here's how Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, newly minted as
[0:15] Speaker 2: the nation's top law enforcement officer, explained the purging of
[0:19] Speaker 2: attorneys at the Justice Department.
[0:22] Speaker 3: You had prosecutors that were absolutely not doing the right thing, okay,
[0:25] Speaker 3: and so none of those prosecutors. I hope everybody agrees
[0:29] Speaker 3: that they shouldn't work here if you're not doing the
[0:31] Speaker 3: right thing.
[0:31] Speaker 2: To Blanche, prosecutors not doing the right thing means they
[0:35] Speaker 2: worked on the criminal investigations into President Trump. He failed
[0:40] Speaker 2: to mention that most prosecutors work on the cases they're
[0:44] Speaker 2: assigned to. I've been talking to Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm
[0:47] Speaker 2: Beach County State Attorney. Dave. I've seen different numbers, but
[0:51] Speaker 2: thousands of prosecutors and FBI agents have been fired or
[0:56] Speaker 2: resigned since Trump's second term began. You have inexperienced attorneys
[1:02] Speaker 2: appearing in federal court, or attorneys who have experience in
[1:07] Speaker 2: other areas. They have, for example, they have military lawyers
[1:10] Speaker 2: going in and doing immigration cases.
[1:13] Speaker 4: And it suffers because first you have judges who no
[1:16] Speaker 4: longer give so much deference to the Department of Justice.
[1:18] Speaker 4: That's a problem because these are really important cases. Federal
[1:21] Speaker 4: prosecutors bring important cases. These are cases involving national security terrorism,
[1:26] Speaker 4: I mean, and if they start to lose credibility in
[1:28] Speaker 4: the eyes of the bench, then Katie bar the door.
[1:32] Speaker 4: So you have that, and then you have just the
[1:33] Speaker 4: fact that when these young, inexperienced prosecutors who have now
[1:37] Speaker 4: taken over from much more experienced prosecutors, are at trial,
[1:41] Speaker 4: they are facing on the other side some of the
[1:43] Speaker 4: most experienced criminal defense lawyers, because that's who practices in
[1:46] Speaker 4: federal court, and that's going to jeopardize your conviction rates,
[1:50] Speaker 4: and you just do not want guilty people to go free.
[1:53] Speaker 2: The Justice Department is backtracking on assurances it made to
[1:56] Speaker 2: career attorneys they'd remain insulated from White House politics, and
[2:02] Speaker 2: they're transferring white collar prosecutors to this new division.
[2:06] Speaker 4: What's going on is that this is another policy that
[2:10] Speaker 4: comes out of the White House where they want to
[2:11] Speaker 4: focus on the government fraud and blue states. This is
[2:15] Speaker 4: the Minnesota public assistance scandal that is a real issue.
[2:19] Speaker 4: By the way, there is real fraud there, and they
[2:22] Speaker 4: want to lean into that by sending in more resources
[2:27] Speaker 4: to root out the fraud and prosecute it. Okay, but
[2:29] Speaker 4: they're doing so now by shifting people over from other
[2:33] Speaker 4: parts of the DOJ. These are some of the most
[2:36] Speaker 4: experienced white collar fraud prosecutors who end up getting lots
[2:40] Speaker 4: of money back for the government. These are people who
[2:43] Speaker 4: go after these wealthy individuals who believe that they're above
[2:46] Speaker 4: the law and they get a huge recovery. And instead
[2:49] Speaker 4: of going after those elites who managed not to pay
[2:53] Speaker 4: taxes or to find ways to go around the law,
[2:56] Speaker 4: now they're going to focus on the poorests who are
[3:00] Speaker 4: making advantage of government assistance. But you should be able
[3:03] Speaker 4: to do both at the same time. It's a shame
[3:05] Speaker 4: if you have to shift people over from divisions that
[3:08] Speaker 4: are working to help promote a political agenda, which is
[3:13] Speaker 4: to go and double down on the public assistance fraud
[3:16] Speaker 4: that it's just become such a big issue on the right.
[3:19] Speaker 2: So now, as far as the replacement for Bondie Lee Zelden,
[3:24] Speaker 2: the head of the EPA, has been mentioned, and you
[3:28] Speaker 2: talked about this before. It's the question of who can
[3:31] Speaker 2: Trump get through the Senate. You had Matt Gates that
[3:35] Speaker 2: was a no go, right, Zelden has already been approved
[3:39] Speaker 2: by the Senate for the EPA position. Do you think
[3:42] Speaker 2: Trump would be satisfied with Zelden. He's done what he
[3:45] Speaker 2: wants at the EPA.
[3:47] Speaker 4: Yeah, But being Attorney General is different. At the EPA,
[3:50] Speaker 4: you don't have grand juries, you don't have jurors, you
[3:53] Speaker 4: don't have judges. You just make policy and then you
[3:57] Speaker 4: hope that they'll win in court. But those core ket
[4:00] Speaker 4: he says, take years. So right now these all of
[4:01] Speaker 4: them looks fine. He's doing Trump's bidding at the EPA.
[4:05] Speaker 4: I don't think that Zelden would satisfy Trump. I think
[4:08] Speaker 4: Trump wants someone who will burn the house down. He
[4:11] Speaker 4: wants to Matt Gates. Matt Gates won't get confirmed. He
[4:14] Speaker 4: wants Sidney Powell. Sidney Powell won't get confirmed. He wants
[4:17] Speaker 4: Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Jili won't get confirmed. So I think
[4:19] Speaker 4: then he's got to find someone who he thinks will
[4:22] Speaker 4: be loyal to him over everything else and can get confirmed.
[4:26] Speaker 4: Maybe Alena Habba watched for her. Todd Blanch seriously wants
[4:30] Speaker 4: this job, and he is making a big play for
[4:33] Speaker 4: the job. But Trump right now seems unconvinced. I think
[4:36] Speaker 4: Trump still thinks that Todd Blanche is too much on
[4:39] Speaker 4: Team Normal and he wants someone in the Roy Cohne mode.
[4:43] Speaker 2: So Todd Blanche has one hundred and twenty days before
[4:46] Speaker 2: he has to either exit that office or be nominated.
[4:50] Speaker 1: He's actually Twitter in ten days days.
[4:52] Speaker 2: Okay, I got it.
[4:53] Speaker 1: I just trans numbers.
[4:54] Speaker 2: So he has time to maybe try to prove himself.
[4:57] Speaker 2: So do you think he would get through a Senate
[4:59] Speaker 2: confirmation Todd Lynch.
[5:01] Speaker 4: I think would very likely get through a Senate confirmation,
[5:04] Speaker 4: But they're going to make sure if he's nominated or anyone,
[5:07] Speaker 4: it's going to be before November, because the Democrats could win
[5:10] Speaker 4: control of the Senate and then it's a game changer.
[5:13] Speaker 1: So watch for that.
[5:14] Speaker 2: I hadn't thought about that. Good point. Now let's turn
[5:17] Speaker 2: to the world of Trump's private litigation. Trump is asking
[5:22] Speaker 2: the New York state's highest court, which is the Court
[5:25] Speaker 2: of Appeals, unlike most states, which is the Supreme Court.
[5:28] Speaker 1: So we have it that the lowest court in New York, yes.
[5:31] Speaker 2: The Supreme Court, the Appellate Division, and then the Court
[5:33] Speaker 2: of Appeals. So he's asking the Court of Appeals to
[5:36] Speaker 2: vacate the judge's finding in that Letitia James case where
[5:40] Speaker 2: he was liable for inflating the value of his real estate.
[5:44] Speaker 2: And they've already gotten the Appellate Division to strike down
[5:48] Speaker 2: the four hundred and sixty four million dollar fraud penalty,
[5:52] Speaker 2: finding that it was unconstitutionally excessive, although it upheld the
[5:56] Speaker 2: finding that he broke the law by inflating the value
[5:59] Speaker 2: of assets like Marl Lago. But enter Michael Cohen, his
[6:05] Speaker 2: former fixer again.
[6:07] Speaker 4: Well, Michael Cohen was an important witness in the Sister
[6:11] Speaker 4: James case against Donald Trump, and now Michael Cohen is
[6:14] Speaker 4: saying that his testimony was coerced. So he's being accused
[6:19] Speaker 4: politically of trying to get back into Trump world for
[6:23] Speaker 4: whatever reason. And so that's a controverse and he's dealing
[6:26] Speaker 4: with that. But aside from that, from a legal standpoint,
[6:30] Speaker 4: he wasn't the reason in my mind that the judge,
[6:33] Speaker 4: Judge and Goron made the decision he did, because the
[6:37] Speaker 4: judge made it clear that there was amount of evidence
[6:39] Speaker 4: and he based it on a lot of the paperwork.
[6:41] Speaker 4: In fact, he gave some rejudgment, meaning a ruled for
[6:45] Speaker 4: the state early on in the case based on the
[6:48] Speaker 4: papers not based on Michael Cohen. So even if there
[6:51] Speaker 4: was something untowared by the prospers, and we don't know
[6:55] Speaker 4: if that's true, we haven't seen any evidence that other
[6:57] Speaker 4: than Michael Cohen now saying it, you could say it's
[7:00] Speaker 4: harmless error, that it's not what led to the verdict,
[7:04] Speaker 4: and thus the court would not overturn it finding of liability.
[7:08] Speaker 2: Right, And I remember when Michael Cohen was testifying, the
[7:13] Speaker 2: discussion was, well, can he be believed because he's flip
[7:16] Speaker 2: flopped and now he's flip flopping again.
[7:19] Speaker 4: In this sub stack, you'd have to show corroboration. You
[7:22] Speaker 4: have to show the internal records, and that's where the
[7:26] Speaker 4: judges could say, the sister James, produce all the internal
[7:29] Speaker 4: communications between you and Michael Cohen, and that would show
[7:35] Speaker 4: whether there was undue pressure there.
[7:38] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[7:39] Speaker 4: I don't know what to think about it, but I
[7:41] Speaker 4: do know that Trump has already won because he was
[7:45] Speaker 4: able to eliminate the entire massive penalty that was imposed.
[7:50] Speaker 4: Now the findings the liability is still on the books,
[7:54] Speaker 4: So this is just essentially picking the bones. This is
[7:57] Speaker 4: just like Trump has already won and now he wants
[8:00] Speaker 4: everything else to go his way, just overturn the entire
[8:03] Speaker 4: ruling in the case.
[8:04] Speaker 2: You know, this shows you about money and the justice system,
[8:07] Speaker 2: because he has enough money to keep going back. You know,
[8:11] Speaker 2: another bite at the apple, another bite at the apple,
[8:14] Speaker 2: and we'll see what happens.
[8:15] Speaker 4: And he's got really good lawyers to do it. He
[8:17] Speaker 4: won at the Intermediate Court Appeals because it overturned the
[8:20] Speaker 4: massive judgment, and now he wants everything overturned.
[8:24] Speaker 1: I don't know. I still think it's an uphole client.
[8:26] Speaker 2: He wants it overturned because the New York Attorney General's
[8:29] Speaker 2: Office wants the New York Court of Appeals to reinstate
[8:33] Speaker 2: that nearly half billion dollar fraud verdict. So a win
[8:37] Speaker 2: here by the Court of Appeals would be like a
[8:38] Speaker 2: knockout punch. I guess, Dave. Let's turn from Trump and
[8:42] Speaker 2: the Justice Department for a minute and talk about the
[8:45] Speaker 2: Supreme Court. This actually surprised me. One Supreme Court justice
[8:51] Speaker 2: criticizing another. So, during a talk at the University of
[8:55] Speaker 2: Kansas Law School, Liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor criticized Conserva Justice
[9:00] Speaker 2: Brett Kavanaugh, and she didn't name him, but it was
[9:03] Speaker 2: crystal clear who she was talking about quote. I had
[9:06] Speaker 2: a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these
[9:09] Speaker 2: are only temporary stops, talking about the stops that Ice
[9:13] Speaker 2: was doing to check immigration status, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh
[9:18] Speaker 2: had written there, it's typically brief and they'll promptly go free,
[9:22] Speaker 2: and they've been called now Kavanaugh stops, and Justice Sodemayor said, quote,
[9:26] Speaker 2: this is from a man whose parents were professionals and
[9:30] Speaker 2: probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour.
[9:34] Speaker 2: I mean, Supreme Court justices critique each other in their opinions,
[9:38] Speaker 2: but you don't often hear a justice. In fact, I
[9:41] Speaker 2: can't think of any other time where a justice has
[9:44] Speaker 2: criticized another justice so openly and so personally.
[9:50] Speaker 4: No, but we use the word unprecedented all the time.
[9:53] Speaker 4: Now it's our day and age where it is about
[9:57] Speaker 4: speaking out and taking shots at people and getting like
[10:00] Speaker 4: and clicks and attention. And I think that takes its
[10:04] Speaker 4: lead from the person at the top, Donald Trump. I mean,
[10:06] Speaker 4: that's his style, and so you're seeing people from all
[10:08] Speaker 4: walks of life. Is even Supreme Court justices emulate that,
[10:12] Speaker 4: leaving no holds barred, and so I think that it
[10:15] Speaker 4: is unusual for a different time, But today, should be
[10:18] Speaker 4: really be that surprised.
[10:20] Speaker 2: I mean, I wonder what happens at the next conference
[10:23] Speaker 2: the justices have, whether there is tension in the air.
[10:26] Speaker 5: Well.
[10:27] Speaker 4: This is something very personal to Justice Soda my Arm.
[10:29] Speaker 4: I mean, she's the first Hispanic on the Court, and
[10:33] Speaker 4: she sees that Trump's immigration policies have targeted Hispanics, and
[10:38] Speaker 4: in this one in particular, which allows Ice to go
[10:42] Speaker 4: and question and detain people solely because of race, because
[10:46] Speaker 4: of the language we're speaking, and she thought that this
[10:50] Speaker 4: would be unconstitutional to do so because they don't have problem,
[10:52] Speaker 4: cause they don't have any evidence that someone is undocumented
[10:56] Speaker 4: other than the language are speaking where they're hanging out
[10:59] Speaker 4: and their race. And Justice Kavanaugh had a concurring opinion
[11:03] Speaker 4: that offended not Justice Sodo my or, but others, especially
[11:06] Speaker 4: progressives who look tone deaf, where Justice Kavanaugh was saying, well,
[11:10] Speaker 4: you know, these are just temporary stops, and all you
[11:13] Speaker 4: have to do is just prove that they're not undocumented
[11:15] Speaker 4: and they're released, when in reality, it's a lot more
[11:18] Speaker 4: than that, and that's why people on the left call
[11:21] Speaker 4: them Kavanaugh stops to this day. So Justice Sonimar is
[11:25] Speaker 4: reflecting the sentiments the outrage on the left.
[11:28] Speaker 2: In twenty twenty four, she and conservative Justice Amy Cony
[11:32] Speaker 2: Barrett would appear together. They made several joint appearances to
[11:36] Speaker 2: try to show, you know, collegiality and civil disagreement and
[11:40] Speaker 2: to promote public trust in the court.
[11:43] Speaker 4: Amy Coney Barrett's key the reason why you don't want
[11:45] Speaker 4: to mess with Amy Conebarrett because it's her court. This
[11:48] Speaker 4: is a Barrett justice Roberts Court, because they're the two
[11:51] Speaker 4: swing justices. See, Kavanaugh doesn't get that grace because he's
[11:56] Speaker 4: not a swing justice. He is seen as in the
[11:58] Speaker 4: can for Trump. So soy Mars is essentially saying it,
[12:02] Speaker 4: I'll take him on. I would bet that if it
[12:04] Speaker 4: was Amy Cony Barrett who had that concurrence, she wouldn't
[12:06] Speaker 4: be as quick to lash out at her.
[12:09] Speaker 2: You make an interesting point, Dave, Thanks so much for
[12:12] Speaker 2: joining me today. That's day Arenberg, former Palm Beach County
[12:16] Speaker 2: State Attorney, coming up next on The Bloomberg Law Show.
[12:20] Speaker 2: Some members of the mob who stormed the capitol on
[12:23] Speaker 2: January sixth are suing the government for millions of dollars,
[12:28] Speaker 2: claiming police officers who defended the capital that day were
[12:32] Speaker 2: using excessive force. Remember you can always get the latest
[12:35] Speaker 2: legal news by listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast. You
[12:39] Speaker 2: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg
[12:42] Speaker 2: dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and
[12:46] Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg. Here's how Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche,
[12:54] Speaker 2: newly minted as the nation's top law enforcement officer, explained
[12:59] Speaker 2: the per of attorneys at the Justice Department.
[13:03] Speaker 3: You had prosecutors that were absolutely not doing the right thing, okay,
[13:06] Speaker 3: and so none of those prosecutors, I hope everybody agrees
[13:09] Speaker 3: that they shouldn't work here if you're not doing the
[13:12] Speaker 3: right thing.
[13:12] Speaker 2: To Blanche, prosecutors not doing the right thing means they
[13:16] Speaker 2: worked on the criminal investigations into President Trump. He failed
[13:21] Speaker 2: to mention that most prosecutors work on the cases they're
[13:25] Speaker 2: assigned to. I've been talking to Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm
[13:28] Speaker 2: Beach County State Attorney.
[13:30] Speaker 4: Dave.
[13:30] Speaker 2: I've seen different numbers, but thousands of prosecutors and FBI
[13:35] Speaker 2: agents have been fired or resigned since Trump's second term began.
[13:40] Speaker 2: So you have inexperienced attorneys appearing in federal court or
[13:45] Speaker 2: attorneys who have experience in other areas. They have, for example,
[13:50] Speaker 2: they have military lawyers going in and doing immigration cases.
[13:54] Speaker 4: And it suffers because first you have judges who no
[13:57] Speaker 4: longer give so much deference to the Department of Justice.
[13:59] Speaker 4: That's a problem because these are really important cases. Federal
[14:02] Speaker 4: prosecutors bring important cases. These are cases involving national security, terrorism,
[14:07] Speaker 4: and if they start to lose credibility in the eyes
[14:10] Speaker 4: of the bench, then Katie bar the door. So you
[14:13] Speaker 4: have that, and then you have just the fact that
[14:15] Speaker 4: when these young, inexperienced prosecutors who have now taken over
[14:19] Speaker 4: from much more experienced prosecutors are at trial, they are
[14:22] Speaker 4: facing on the other side some of the most experienced
[14:24] Speaker 4: criminal defense lawyers, because that's who practices in federal court,
[14:28] Speaker 4: and that's going to jeopardize your conviction rates, and you
[14:31] Speaker 4: just do not want guilty people to go free.
[14:33] Speaker 2: The Justice Department is backtracking on assurances it made to
[14:37] Speaker 2: career attorneys they'd remain insulated from White House politics, and
[14:43] Speaker 2: they're transferring white collar prosecutors to this new division.
[14:47] Speaker 4: What's going on is that this is another policy that
[14:50] Speaker 4: comes out of the White House where they want to
[14:52] Speaker 4: focus on the government fraud and blue states. This is
[14:55] Speaker 4: the Minnesota public assistance scandal that is a real issue.
[15:00] Speaker 4: By the way, there is real fraud there and they
[15:03] Speaker 4: want to lean into that by sending in more resources
[15:07] Speaker 4: to root out the fraud and prosecute it. Okay, but
[15:10] Speaker 4: they're doing so now by shifting people over from other
[15:14] Speaker 4: parts of the DOJ. These are some of the most
[15:17] Speaker 4: experienced white collar fraud prosecutors who end up getting lots
[15:21] Speaker 4: of money back for the government. These are people who
[15:23] Speaker 4: go after these wealthy individuals who believe that they're above
[15:27] Speaker 4: the law and they get a huge recovery. And instead
[15:30] Speaker 4: of going after those elites who managed not to pay
[15:34] Speaker 4: taxes or to find ways to go around the law,
[15:37] Speaker 4: now they're going to focus on the poorests who are
[15:40] Speaker 4: taking advantage of government assistance. But you should be able
[15:44] Speaker 4: to do both at the same time. It's a shame
[15:45] Speaker 4: if you have to shift people over from divisions that
[15:49] Speaker 4: are working to help promote a political agenda, which is
[15:54] Speaker 4: to go and double down on the public assistance fraud
[15:57] Speaker 4: that it's just become such a big issue on the right.
[16:00] Speaker 2: So now, as far as the replacement for Bondie Lee Zelden,
[16:05] Speaker 2: the head of the EPA has been mentioned, and you
[16:09] Speaker 2: talked about this before. It's the question of who can
[16:12] Speaker 2: Trump get through the Senate. You had Matt Gates, that
[16:16] Speaker 2: was a no go, right, Zelden has already been approved
[16:20] Speaker 2: by the Senate for the EPA position. Do you think
[16:23] Speaker 2: Trump would be satisfied with Zelden. He's done what he
[16:26] Speaker 2: wants at the EPA.
[16:27] Speaker 4: Yeah, But being Turney general is different.
[16:30] Speaker 1: At the EPA.
[16:31] Speaker 4: You don't have grand juries, you don't have jurors, you
[16:34] Speaker 4: don't have judges. You just make policy and then you
[16:38] Speaker 4: hope that the I'll win in court. But those court
[16:40] Speaker 4: cases take years. So right now these Aldam looks fine.
[16:43] Speaker 4: He's doing Trump's bidding at the EPA. I don't think
[16:46] Speaker 4: that Zelden would satisfy Trump. I think Trump wants someone
[16:50] Speaker 4: who will burn the house down. He wants to Matt Gates.
[16:53] Speaker 4: Matt Gates won't get confirmed. He wants Sidney Powell. Sidney
[16:56] Speaker 4: Powell won't get confirmed. He wants Ruby Giuliani. Rudy juli
[16:59] Speaker 4: won't get conf So I think then he's got to
[17:01] Speaker 4: find someone who thinks will be loyal to him over
[17:05] Speaker 4: everything else and can get confirmed. Maybe Alena Habit watch
[17:09] Speaker 4: for her. Todd Blanch seriously wants this job, and he
[17:13] Speaker 4: is making a big play for the job, but Trump
[17:15] Speaker 4: right now seems unconvinced. I think Trump still thinks that
[17:18] Speaker 4: Todd Blanche is too much on Team Normal and he
[17:21] Speaker 4: wants someone in the Roy Kohane mode.
[17:24] Speaker 2: So Todd Blanch has one hundred and twenty days before
[17:27] Speaker 2: he has to either exit that office or be nominated.
[17:30] Speaker 1: To He's actually turn ten days days.
[17:33] Speaker 2: Okay, I got it. I just numbers, so he has
[17:36] Speaker 2: time to maybe try to prove himself. So do you
[17:38] Speaker 2: think he would get through a Senate confirmation Todd Blanch.
[17:42] Speaker 4: I think would very likely get through a Senate confirmation.
[17:45] Speaker 4: But they're going to make sure if he's nominated or anyone,
[17:48] Speaker 4: it's going to before November because the Democrats could win
[17:51] Speaker 4: control of the Senate and then it's a game changer.
[17:54] Speaker 1: So watch for that.
[17:55] Speaker 2: I hadn't thought about that. Good point. Now let's turn
[17:58] Speaker 2: to the world of Trump's litigation. Trump is asking the
[18:03] Speaker 2: New York state's highest court, which is the Court of Appeals,
[18:06] Speaker 2: unlike most states, which is the Supreme Court.
[18:09] Speaker 1: So we have it that lowest court in New York.
[18:11] Speaker 2: Yes, the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division, and then the
[18:14] Speaker 2: Court of Appeals. So he's asking the Court of Appeals
[18:17] Speaker 2: to vacate the judge's finding in that Letitia James case
[18:20] Speaker 2: where he was liable for inflating the value of his
[18:24] Speaker 2: real estate. And they've already gotten the Appellate Division to
[18:28] Speaker 2: strike down the four hundred and sixty four million dollar
[18:31] Speaker 2: fraud penalty, finding that it was unconstitutionally excessive, although it
[18:36] Speaker 2: upheld the finding that he broke the law by inflating
[18:40] Speaker 2: the value of assets like Mara a Lago. But enter
[18:44] Speaker 2: Michael Cohen, his former fixer.
[18:47] Speaker 4: Again, well, Michael Cohen was an important witness in Letitia
[18:52] Speaker 4: James case against Donald Trump, and now Michael Cohen is
[18:55] Speaker 4: saying that his testimony was coerced. So he he's being
[19:00] Speaker 4: accused politically of trying to get back into Trump world
[19:03] Speaker 4: for whatever reason. And so that's a controversy and he's
[19:07] Speaker 4: dealing with that. But aside from that, from a legal standpoint,
[19:10] Speaker 4: he wasn't the reason in my mind that the judge,
[19:14] Speaker 4: Judge and Goron made the decision he did. Because the
[19:18] Speaker 4: judge made it clear that there was amount of evidence
[19:20] Speaker 4: and he based it on a lot of the paperwork.
[19:22] Speaker 4: In fact, he gave some rejudgment, meaning a ruled for
[19:26] Speaker 4: the state early on in the case, based on the papers,
[19:29] Speaker 4: not based on Michael Cohen. So even if there was
[19:33] Speaker 4: something untowared by the prospers, and we don't know if
[19:36] Speaker 4: that's true, we haven't seen any evidence that other than
[19:38] Speaker 4: Michael Cohen now saying it, you could say it's harmless error,
[19:42] Speaker 4: that it's not what led to the verdict, and thus
[19:46] Speaker 4: the court would not overturn it finding a liability right.
[19:49] Speaker 2: And I remember when Michael Cohen was testifying, the discussion was,
[19:54] Speaker 2: well can he be believed because he's flip flopped and
[19:58] Speaker 2: now he's flip flopp again.
[20:00] Speaker 1: In this sub stack, you'd have to show corroboration.
[20:03] Speaker 4: You have to show the internal records, and that's where
[20:06] Speaker 4: the judges could say, the sister James, produce all the
[20:10] Speaker 4: internal communications between you and Michael Cohen, and that would
[20:15] Speaker 4: show whether there was undue pressure there.
[20:19] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[20:19] Speaker 4: I don't know what to think about it, but I
[20:22] Speaker 4: do know that Trump has already won because he was
[20:26] Speaker 4: able to eliminate the entire massive penalty that was imposed.
[20:31] Speaker 4: Now the findings. The liability is still on the books,
[20:35] Speaker 4: so this is just essentially picking the bones. This is
[20:38] Speaker 4: just like Trump's already won and now he wants everything
[20:41] Speaker 4: else to go his way. Just overturn the entire ruling
[20:44] Speaker 4: in the case.
[20:45] Speaker 2: You know, this shows you about money and the justice system,
[20:48] Speaker 2: because he has enough money to keep going back. You know,
[20:52] Speaker 2: another bite at the apple, another bite at the apple,
[20:54] Speaker 2: and we'll see what happens.
[20:56] Speaker 4: And he's got really good lawyers to do it. He
[20:58] Speaker 4: won at the Intermediate Court of Appeals because it overturned
[21:01] Speaker 4: the massive judgment, and now he wants everything overturned.
[21:05] Speaker 1: I don't know. I still think it's an uphole client.
[21:07] Speaker 2: He wants it overturned because the New York Attorney General's
[21:10] Speaker 2: Office wants the New York Court of Appeals to reinstate
[21:14] Speaker 2: that nearly half billion dollar fraud verdict. So a win
[21:17] Speaker 2: here by the Court of Appeals would be like a
[21:19] Speaker 2: knockout punch. I guess, Dave, let's turn from Trump and
[21:23] Speaker 2: the Justice Department for a minute and talk about the
[21:26] Speaker 2: Supreme Court. This actually surprised me. One Supreme Court justice
[21:32] Speaker 2: criticizing another. So, during a talk at the University of Kansas,
[21:36] Speaker 2: law school, Liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor criticized conservative Justice Brett Cavanaugh,
[21:42] Speaker 2: and she didn't name him, but it was crystal clear
[21:45] Speaker 2: who she was talking about. Quote. I had a colleague
[21:48] Speaker 2: in that case who wrote, you know, these are only
[21:50] Speaker 2: temporary stops, talking about the stops that Ice was doing
[21:55] Speaker 2: to check immigration status, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh had written,
[22:00] Speaker 2: there's typically brief and they'll promptly go free, and they've
[22:03] Speaker 2: been called now Kavanaugh stops, and Justice Sodomayor said, quote,
[22:07] Speaker 2: this is from a man whose parents were professionals and
[22:10] Speaker 2: probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour.
[22:15] Speaker 2: I mean, Supreme Court justice is critique each other in
[22:18] Speaker 2: their opinions, but you don't often hear a justice. In fact,
[22:22] Speaker 2: I can't think of any other time where a justice
[22:25] Speaker 2: has criticized another justice so openly and so personally.
[22:31] Speaker 4: No, but we use the word unprecedented all the time.
[22:34] Speaker 4: Now it's our day and age where it is about
[22:38] Speaker 4: speaking out and taking shots at people and getting likes
[22:41] Speaker 4: and clicks and attention. And I think that takes its
[22:44] Speaker 4: lead from the person at the top, Donald Trump. I
[22:47] Speaker 4: mean that's his style, and so you're seeing people from
[22:49] Speaker 4: all walks of life. Is even Supreme Court justices emulate that,
[22:53] Speaker 4: leaving no holds barred, And so I think that it
[22:56] Speaker 4: is unusual for a different time, but today should be
[22:59] Speaker 4: really that surprised.
[23:01] Speaker 2: I mean, I wonder what happens at the next conference
[23:04] Speaker 2: the justices have, whether there is tension in the air. Well.
[23:08] Speaker 1: This is something very personal to Justice Soda my Or.
[23:10] Speaker 4: I mean, she's the first Hispanic on the Court, and
[23:13] Speaker 4: she sees that Trump's immigration policies have targeted Hispanics, and
[23:19] Speaker 4: in this one in particular, which allows ICE to go
[23:23] Speaker 4: and question and detain people solely because of race, because
[23:27] Speaker 4: of the language we're speaking, And she thought that this
[23:31] Speaker 4: would be unconstitutional to do so because they don't have problem,
[23:33] Speaker 4: cause they don't have any evidence that someone is undocumented
[23:37] Speaker 4: other than the languages are speaking where they're hanging out
[23:39] Speaker 4: and their race. And Justice Kavanaugh had a concurring opinion
[23:44] Speaker 4: that offended not just Justice Soda my R, but others,
[23:47] Speaker 4: especially progressives who look tone deaf. Where Justice Kavanaugh was say, well,
[23:51] Speaker 4: you know, these are just temporary stops, and all you
[23:53] Speaker 4: have to do is just prove that they're not undocumented
[23:56] Speaker 4: and they're released when in reality, it's a lot more
[23:59] Speaker 4: than that, and that's why people on the left call
[24:02] Speaker 4: them Kavanaugh stops to this day, So Justice sodymer is
[24:06] Speaker 4: reflecting the sentiments the outrage on the left.
[24:09] Speaker 2: In twenty twenty four, she and conservative Justice Amy Coney
[24:13] Speaker 2: Barrett would appear together. They made several joint appearances to
[24:17] Speaker 2: try to show, you know, collegiality and civil disagreement and
[24:21] Speaker 2: to promote public trust in the court.
[24:24] Speaker 4: Amy Coney Barrett's key the reason why you don't want
[24:26] Speaker 4: to mess with Amy Conebarrett because it's her court. This
[24:29] Speaker 4: is a Barrett justice Roberts court because of the two
[24:32] Speaker 4: swing justices. See, Kavanaugh doesn't get that grace because he's
[24:36] Speaker 4: not a swing justice. He is seen as in the
[24:39] Speaker 4: can for Trump. And so Sody Mars is essentially saying, ed,
[24:43] Speaker 4: I'll take him on. I would bet that if it
[24:45] Speaker 4: was Amy Coney Barrett who had that concurrence, she wouldn't
[24:47] Speaker 4: be as quick to lash out at her.
[24:50] Speaker 2: You make an interesting point, Dave, Thanks so much for
[24:53] Speaker 2: joining me today. That's day the Arenberg, former Palm Beach
[24:57] Speaker 2: County State attorney. Coming up next on The Bloomberg Law Show.
[25:01] Speaker 2: Some members of the mob who stormed the capital on
[25:04] Speaker 2: January sixth are suing the government for millions of dollars,
[25:09] Speaker 2: claiming police officers who defended the capitol that day were
[25:13] Speaker 2: using excessive force. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
[25:18] Speaker 2: Some members of the mob who stormed the capital on
[25:21] Speaker 2: January sixth are now suing the federal government asking for
[25:26] Speaker 2: about eighteen million dollars in damages. They claim they suffered
[25:31] Speaker 2: physical and emotional injuries from the indiscriminate use of force
[25:35] Speaker 2: by the police officers who defended the capitol that day.
[25:39] Speaker 2: The lead plaintiff in this proposed class action is aj Fisher,
[25:44] Speaker 2: who was charged with assault before his case was erased
[25:48] Speaker 2: by the blanket pardon from President Donald Trump. It will
[25:51] Speaker 2: be up to the Justice Department to decide whether to
[25:54] Speaker 2: fight the case or settle it. Last summer, the Department
[25:58] Speaker 2: agreed to pay out five million dollars to the family
[26:02] Speaker 2: of Ashley Babbitt, a January sixth rioter who was shot
[26:05] Speaker 2: and killed by police as she tried to enter the
[26:09] Speaker 2: Speaker's lobby. Joining me is Dennis Fann, a professor at
[26:13] Speaker 2: Columbia Law School and a former prosecutor at the Justice Department, Dennis,
[26:18] Speaker 2: this isn't the only suit where people in the January
[26:22] Speaker 2: sixth mob are trying to recover money.
[26:26] Speaker 5: Well, there's been definitely multiple instances of you know, trying
[26:31] Speaker 5: to sue the United States for damages. This class action
[26:37] Speaker 5: is one of those, is probably the most recent one.
[26:41] Speaker 5: Most notably Donald Trump. Also there's reports that he filed
[26:46] Speaker 5: an FTCA administrative claim to get something along the lines
[26:51] Speaker 5: of people think it's like two hundred and thirty million
[26:53] Speaker 5: dollars or something from the government. I think this has
[26:57] Speaker 5: been sort of and parcel of what these January six
[27:00] Speaker 5: riders have been thinking about. There are, of course a
[27:03] Speaker 5: lot of individuals at January Thats who participated in it,
[27:07] Speaker 5: and many of them, now that they've been pardoned or
[27:09] Speaker 5: had their senses commuted, are kind of coming back and saying, actually,
[27:13] Speaker 5: we are we were the good guys in this whole thing,
[27:16] Speaker 5: and it is a police that assaulted us, not the
[27:18] Speaker 5: other way around.
[27:19] Speaker 2: So they're trying to rewrite history basically.
[27:23] Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, I think they're trying to rewrite history.
[27:25] Speaker 5: I think that's probably the best way to think about it, right.
[27:30] Speaker 5: I mean, the current president and one of the first
[27:34] Speaker 5: things he did was to blanket part in all of
[27:37] Speaker 5: these individuals, regardless of how violent they were, regardless of
[27:43] Speaker 5: what kind of intent that they had. And that wasn't
[27:45] Speaker 5: just to get them out of jail. It was to
[27:48] Speaker 5: make it seem like they really were not culpable, that
[27:54] Speaker 5: they had no culpability, that they were on the right
[27:58] Speaker 5: side of things. And it's a really kind of cynical
[28:00] Speaker 5: way for your bedding history where you know, people often
[28:04] Speaker 5: joke with the winner's write history, but that's truly what's
[28:07] Speaker 5: happening is that they feel like, because they want an election,
[28:11] Speaker 5: they hold the keys to the truth that they were
[28:15] Speaker 5: they were right about everything, but you know, you can
[28:17] Speaker 5: both win an election and I could be wrong about
[28:20] Speaker 5: the January sixth ride and the insurrection.
[28:23] Speaker 2: Tell us more about their claims.
[28:25] Speaker 5: Yeah, So the claim is one under the Special Torque
[28:28] Speaker 5: Claims Act, and that PCA is just a broad statute
[28:34] Speaker 5: you might think of. You know, normally, when you get
[28:37] Speaker 5: into a car crash with somebody, right like, you have
[28:39] Speaker 5: a you have a torque claim and you can see
[28:41] Speaker 5: them in torque. And what the Federal trit claim back
[28:44] Speaker 5: does is it lets you bring tort actions against federal
[28:48] Speaker 5: officers it's a federal officer, you know, a postal truck
[28:53] Speaker 5: to hit you with their car or hit your car,
[28:56] Speaker 5: you would you bring an FPCA claim, you'd islo it
[29:00] Speaker 5: administrative claim first with the government. The government would either
[29:04] Speaker 5: act on that or not and kind of pay you
[29:06] Speaker 5: out or designed not to. And then if they didn't,
[29:10] Speaker 5: you would file a case in court under the FTCA.
[29:14] Speaker 5: It'd be just like any other kind of court case.
[29:16] Speaker 5: And so these these individuals are claiming that, you know,
[29:21] Speaker 5: the officers or negligence officers also intentionally kind of use
[29:25] Speaker 5: excessive force. You know, usually what happens in all of
[29:30] Speaker 5: these things is the main defense, or one of the
[29:33] Speaker 5: main defenses, is that the government says what we were
[29:36] Speaker 5: doing was discretionary. Right, There's something called the discretionary function exception.
[29:41] Speaker 5: This is way down in the weeds of the law,
[29:44] Speaker 5: but what it means is if it's something where the
[29:46] Speaker 5: government had some discretion, where officers didn't have an exact
[29:51] Speaker 5: white look, then that's a complete defense to a tort diction.
[29:56] Speaker 5: So you know, this might come up when you have
[29:58] Speaker 5: park rangers who are fighting a so you know, fire
[30:02] Speaker 5: burns down a bunch of things. You say, well, the
[30:05] Speaker 5: park rangers were totally negligent. And you know, the park
[30:08] Speaker 5: rangers are going to come in court and they're going
[30:09] Speaker 5: to say, oh, look, there's not really exactly a playbook
[30:12] Speaker 5: on how you find a fire. Sometimes you start on
[30:14] Speaker 5: this side, sometimes you start on that side. Sometimes you
[30:17] Speaker 5: kind of let things burn for a little bit, to
[30:19] Speaker 5: let the fire kind of burn out. Other Times, you know,
[30:23] Speaker 5: you try to throw some sand over the area. Other
[30:26] Speaker 5: times you kind of send in a whole bunch of individuals.
[30:29] Speaker 5: Sometimes you don't send in that many, and there's a
[30:31] Speaker 5: whole variety of choices, and there's not an exact line
[30:35] Speaker 5: by line playbook of what should happen, and so the
[30:38] Speaker 5: discretionary function, exception well almost always in those cases kind
[30:42] Speaker 5: of kick out it towards you. I mean, that's like
[30:45] Speaker 5: probably what you would think of is the right results
[30:48] Speaker 5: here is you know, there's not really a playbook for
[30:51] Speaker 5: the Capitol police where when it's like where there wasn't
[30:55] Speaker 5: Maybe there is now, but back then there wasn't really
[30:58] Speaker 5: a playbook of like what happens when as a violent
[31:01] Speaker 5: mob drives to overturnment election, Like the what is like
[31:05] Speaker 5: step one and step two and step three of what
[31:07] Speaker 5: you're supposed to do, and that as usually is a defense.
[31:11] Speaker 2: Do you think this case will survive to a trial
[31:14] Speaker 2: or will it be dismissed beforehand?
[31:17] Speaker 5: I don't think the hope here is that they're going
[31:19] Speaker 5: to litigate this to judgment. They're going to kind of
[31:23] Speaker 5: finish the lawsuit and a judge or a jury is
[31:26] Speaker 5: going to rule on the case, and that they're going
[31:28] Speaker 5: to get to win. I think they're hoping is that
[31:32] Speaker 5: they're going to get settlement out of it. I think
[31:34] Speaker 5: they're taking their cues and they have maybe it's a
[31:39] Speaker 5: real view of or kind of a real estue of
[31:42] Speaker 5: what the Department of Justice currently is like. Maybe it's
[31:45] Speaker 5: a highly politicized or cynic will view of what the
[31:48] Speaker 5: Department of Justice is like. But I think their hope
[31:50] Speaker 5: is that they're going to bring this lawsuits and then
[31:52] Speaker 5: somebody at DOJ just because they why not settle this
[31:55] Speaker 5: with them?
[31:56] Speaker 2: I mean, there's precedent for that, right. We had the
[32:00] Speaker 2: Ashley Babbitt settlement for what five million dollars and Michael Flynn,
[32:04] Speaker 2: the former National security advisor who had pled guilty at
[32:08] Speaker 2: one point, he got more than a million dollars. I
[32:12] Speaker 2: mean the Justice Department can just settle these lawsuits right
[32:15] Speaker 2: without any authorization from a judge or anything like that.
[32:20] Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, depending on how much money it is,
[32:22] Speaker 5: they can go up to different chains. If I last
[32:25] Speaker 5: remember correctly, it's like like four million dollars or something,
[32:29] Speaker 5: the head of the Civil Division can settle that. But
[32:31] Speaker 5: if it's like over that, then you know, the Attorney
[32:33] Speaker 5: General has to personally sign off on it, which kind
[32:37] Speaker 5: of raises a whole set of questions if these individuals
[32:40] Speaker 5: were individuals who might have us engaged in criminal conduct.
[32:44] Speaker 5: But yeah, they could sign off on it. You don't
[32:47] Speaker 5: really I mean these settlements, you don't really have an
[32:50] Speaker 5: ability to come We're kind of a strong ability to
[32:54] Speaker 5: come in and object to them. So that's the real
[32:57] Speaker 5: danger of it. And I think you're right with the
[33:00] Speaker 5: the David example and the microplane example. They raised the
[33:03] Speaker 5: kind of a whole host of issues about how the
[33:05] Speaker 5: government has been using its authority to settle these types
[33:09] Speaker 5: of cases. I mean, just to say this bluntly, but
[33:11] Speaker 5: like you know, actually data of course, like died in
[33:14] Speaker 5: the attack issue a shot, these individuals are nowhere close
[33:19] Speaker 5: to that life like they were kind of by all
[33:22] Speaker 5: accounts subject to what you would think of as like
[33:26] Speaker 5: ordinary crowd control tactics. They weren't subject to things that
[33:29] Speaker 5: are Do you think of it as or nearly an
[33:32] Speaker 5: excessive force, right?
[33:34] Speaker 2: I mean, it's stunning to me that they're bringing a
[33:37] Speaker 2: case like this and just trying to rewrite history.
[33:42] Speaker 5: I mean, it's expending that they're rewriting history to their
[33:45] Speaker 5: they're rewriting their own history. And their history was that
[33:48] Speaker 5: the Capitol police loved them and that they you know,
[33:52] Speaker 5: ushered them in that they were complete fans of these people.
[33:58] Speaker 5: They were giving them tours, totally happy to have all
[34:01] Speaker 5: these insurrectionist of the capital. And now they're saying, well, no, no, no,
[34:06] Speaker 5: they actually the Capital Beliefs were the ones using access
[34:09] Speaker 5: before that they were kind of antagonistic to these individuals.
[34:14] Speaker 5: And you're like, well, you know, which which way was it?
[34:16] Speaker 5: Is it that they saw you as kind of in
[34:19] Speaker 5: directionists or is that they saw you as kind of
[34:21] Speaker 5: friendly visitors? Were you innocent? Were you not a scammed
[34:25] Speaker 5: through the names? But like, there are a number of
[34:27] Speaker 5: these individuals who were members of the Broad Boys that right,
[34:30] Speaker 5: and who were kind of charged as such. I think
[34:33] Speaker 5: they can't even get their own sort of historical narrative right,
[34:36] Speaker 5: and they're they're using it selectively when it helps them.
[34:40] Speaker 2: It will be very interesting to see if the Justice
[34:43] Speaker 2: Department decides to settle this case. Thanks for joining me
[34:48] Speaker 2: on the show. That's Professor Dennis Fan of Columbia Law School,
[34:53] Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
[34:55] Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
[34:58] Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[35:02] Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
[35:08] Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[35:10] Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
[35:14] Speaker 2: and 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.