Trump Urges Prosecution of Enemies & Luigi Mangione

0:00The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand, but by embedding AI across HR, IT, and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks, and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business, IBM. Healthcare doesn't always work great. If you've ever waited on a refill or couldn't schedule an appointment, you get it. That's the kind of stuff Optum is changing.

0:38They're using data and technology to integrate patient care, pharmacy, and everything else. So healthcare is connected, not complicated. What's that look like? Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person. How you need it. Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Learn more at business.optum.com. As industries evolve faster than ever, companies need an environment that accelerates strategic growth, and Michigan delivers on that promise. From emerging startups to global enterprises, Michigan offers what executives value most, a resilient, innovative ecosystem, diverse communities that attract top talent, and a quality of life that supports work-life balance.

1:19With our unified Team Michigan approach, businesses scale faster and compete at the highest level. Michigan, pure opportunity. Seize your opportunity at michiganbusiness.org. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. President Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James have been involved in a war of words for years over the fraud case James brought against Trump and his company in 2022. This raging maniac campaigned for office ranting and raving about her goal. Her only goal is we got to get Donald Trump. We're going to get him. She knew nothing about me. I never heard of her.

2:03The scale and the scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering. And so too is his ego and his belief that the rules do not apply to him. Very simply put, it's a witch hunt. It's a disgrace. We have a corrupt attorney general in this state. I am certain that he will engage in name-calling and taunts and race-baiting and call this a witch hunt. But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters are the facts and the numbers. And numbers, my friends, don't lie. That case resulted in a$464 million fraud penalty, which is now on appeal to New York State's highest court after a lower appellate court found it to be excessive.

2:54And now the tables have turned and Trump's Justice Department is investigating James over whether that fraud case violated Trump's legal rights, in addition to a separate investigation for alleged mortgage fraud, which has stalled. On Saturday, Trump posted on Truth Social addressing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, quote, Pam, I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that essentially same old story as last time. All talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam Shifty Schiff, Letitia? They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done, end quote. And on Sunday, Trump repeated his calls for quick action on the prosecutions.

3:43And we have to act fast, one way or the other, one way or the other. They're guilty, they're not guilty, we have to act fast. If they're not guilty, that's fine. If they are guilty or if they should be judged, they should be judged. And we have to do it now. My guest is former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School. Jessica, Richard Nixon famously had an enemies list, but it was kept under wraps until it was exposed by John Dean during testimony before the Watergate Committee. But President Trump is publicly urging his attorney general to go after his political enemies.

4:24What might the repercussions be? Well, it's extremely unusual, to say the least, to have a president so publicly calling for the prosecution of his political adversaries. And should it come to pass that, in fact, there are criminal charges brought against the people who he is naming and urging his attorney general to charge, I think he's going to be providing evidence that would be powerful in a motion to dismiss those charges based on a claim of selective or vindictive prosecution. Traditionally, how much input does a president have on the Justice Department's decisions to prosecute someone. Traditionally, the Justice Department acts independently of the president in making individual prosecution decisions.

5:12And past administrations since Watergate have put into place policies in order to preserve that independence and effectively create a firewall between the prosecutors who make charging decisions and the White House. So although the president and his top-level officials might have and appropriately would have some input into policy priorities, when it comes to individual charging decisions, that is something that has been understood that should be undertaken without direct input from the president, and that communications between the Department of Justice and the White House about cases and about even policy priorities should be going through a select group of individuals, namely the White House Counsel's Office on behalf of the White House and the Attorney General and other very senior people at the Department of Justice so that there will be essentially some buffer between any potential interference in individual prosecution decisions.

6:11A federal prosecutor in Virginia resigned from his post after being told he would be removed for not bringing mortgage fraud charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James and And he had determined, Bloomberg News has reported, that there just wasn't enough evidence to support those charges. And that's what a prosecutor is supposed to do, right? You only bring charges if you think you can prove your case before a jury. It would appear that that prosecutor, who was a career prosecutor, did do the right thing on pains of losing his job. He was following the law and the evidence, it would appear.

6:48Of course, we don't have a direct account from him about what happened. But if he resigned his post or was forced out because he refused to bring charges where there was not evidence to support a charge or because he thought that even if there were such evidence that it was a politically motivated prosecution, then he upheld the norms of prosecutorial independence and professional judgment in doing so. And the fact that he resigned or was forced out, depending on which account is true, I think is also going to be an important part of any claim for selective or vindictive prosecution if another prosecutor does file charges.

7:25Because I think it is circumstantial evidence that previous prosecutors who are career prosecutors who looked at the evidence thought they were not warranted in this case. It's a high bar, isn't it, to get a case dismissed on the basis of selective or vindictive prosecution? It is a very high bar, and such claims are notoriously difficult to win on because there is a presumption of regularity that attaches to prosecution's decisions. And it requires a proof of actual animus in bringing the case against an individual. So here, the fact that the president is out in public effectively directing a prosecution of his political opponents, regardless of the evidence, essentially saying they're guilty of something without regard to whatever may be available or what those particular charges might require as elements under the law, combined with the fact that a career prosecutor who was charged with the investigation apparently refused to bring charges and was fired or resigned over that decision.

8:28All of that may create the circumstances in which a court actually might dismiss the case for vindictive prosecution or in a minimum order of hearing and discovery to get to the bottom of the facts about what actually transpired before the case was brought. And yet, according to Bloomberg News sources, the Justice Department is pushing ahead with its investigation of Letitia James for mortgage fraud and apparently got the green light from the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. But why push this forward at this point when the defenses James could raise seem to be mounting? I can't speak to the reasoning that is occurring within the Department of Justice and the Attorney's Office in Virginia in continuing the investigation and preparing charges, if that, in fact, is what is happening.

9:21The first line of defense, if you will, would be a grand jury that would hear the evidence that may not return an indictment. That also would be highly unusual. And yet we are seeing around the country grand jurors actually refusing to indict on cases where the evidence is lacking or for some other reason that's within their purview to reject the charges, perhaps because they perceive them as unwarranted because they're trivial or disproportionate, or perhaps because they perceive a political bias. So first, we'd have to see if a grand jury actually would return an indictment. If they don't, the case couldn't go forward unless the Department of Justice tried to present it to another grand jury, which they could.

10:04But if they ever do get an indictment, then it would go before a judge, and the defense, I'm guessing, would bring a motion to dismiss based on selective or vindictive prosecution. And there, although there is this evidence we've been discussing that would suggest that these are politically motivated prosecutions, as the president has been calling for them in public, the challenge might be proving that actually the prosecution would not have been brought but for the political animus, and then also attributing the political animus that the president is voicing to the prosecutors who actually brought the charge.

10:41I think that those hurdles could be overcome and the unique facts presented in this case, but I imagine those would be things that the court would have to consider. The typical case where somebody brings a claim of vindictive or selective prosecution, originally vindictive prosecution, it is often after someone has previously been charged and then additional charges are lodged against them after they exercise their right to go to trial, for example. And so the claim is that the individual prosecutor involved was being vindictive or a vindictiveness based on something that the individual who was charged did that irritated the individual prosecutor, something perhaps in that person's personal life or business affairs.

11:20What's unusual here is that we would have potentially a line prosecutor taking an indictment before a grand jury, and the animus would have to be attributed to that person that is essentially flowing from the president of the United States through the attorney general. And so that's just not a typical fact pattern that we see in these cases. The use of mortgage fraud allegations is not restricted to James. The Trump administration is pursuing similar charges against California Senator Adam Schiff and Fed Chair Lisa Cook. I mean, the federal government has rarely brought criminal charges over these kinds of misstatements about primary residence and mortgage records.

11:59And also there is reporting that members of Trump's cabinet and other Republican officials made similar types of misstatements in mortgage applications. Would that be part of a pattern of proof in a selective or vindictive prosecution defense? Well, to prevail on a claim of selective prosecution, the defendants would have to establish that they were selected for prosecution for a crime that is not frequently charged and that they were selected essentially on the basis of some characteristic that is protected. Often such cases are alleged that the person was selected based on a legally protected classification such as race.

12:46But the claim could also be based on the person having exercised their First Amendment rights of speech and political assembly, for example. And so it would be helpful to prevail on such a claim if the defendants could show that standalone mortgage fraud claims without proof of other criminal activity were rarely brought. and that there were other similarly situated persons like themselves and other members of the president's own party, so people who are not political foes, people who had not exercised their First Amendment rights to criticize the president, that those people were factually similarly situated but were not prosecuted.

13:25If that could be established, that would be very helpful to the defendants if they were to bring a selective prosecution claim. The criminal referrals are coming from Bill Pulte, who is the head of the FHFA. And Adam Schiff's attorney, Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has described Pulte's actions as highly irregular and part of a pattern of him misusing his office to go after Trump's political opponents. would his involvement here be part of a defense? If there were a claim for a selective or vindictive prosecution, I think the court would take into account what are the circumstances that contributed to bringing the prosecution.

14:16And certainly if there were an evidentiary hearing, the court would consider evidence about those circumstances and the historical facts about how this case actually wound up being brought. I don't think the fact that it originated in a referral from one particular agency versus another would be dispositive. But if there's no history of cases being referred from that agency that resulted in charges being brought for mortgage fraud, that would certainly be, I think, a data point in the court's analysis of whether there was animus or selection based on political affiliation or First Amendment rights behind these particular prosecutions, something that looks irregular, In other words, in the course of how these cases were investigated and the decision to charge was made would be something that would be of concern to the court.

15:04Coming up next, the White House's response. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. Support for the show comes from Public.com. If you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions, buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash, putting on a hedge. On public, you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf. Just describe what you want to do in plain English. Like, if the VIX hits 25, buy a put option on the S &P 500. Or, if my cash balance goes above$20 ,000, move the excess into my direct index. You approve of the workflow and your agent handles the rest.

15:43Monitoring the market, watching for your conditions, and executing your strategies exactly as defined. An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API. Go to public.com slash market and fund your account in five minutes or less. That's public.com slash market. Paid for by Public Investing. Brokered services by Open to the Public Investing, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, LLC, SEC Registered Advisor. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. This message is brought to you by Apple Card.

16:23Apple Card lets you earn daily cash back on every purchase, every day. Applying the wallet app on iPhone today. Subject to credit approval, Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch. Terms and more at applecard.com. If your best finance people are doing expense reports, chasing receipts, or spending time on month-end close, It's time to get Brex AF, a gentic finance that eliminates that work before it starts. Learn more at Brex.com slash AF. President Donald Trump appealed to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, on Truth Social on Saturday to bring charges against former FBI Director James Comey, California Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

17:08And the Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department is preparing to ask a grand jury to indict Comey on allegations that he lied to Congress as prosecutors approach a legal deadline for bringing charges. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School. At a press briefing on Monday, the White House Press Secretary, Caroline Levitt, said that the president is fulfilling his promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability. It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice.

17:52And nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump. Is there any explanation that would justify bringing these kinds of prosecutions against political enemies? I can't see any explanation for characterizing these investigations that gets around the fact that they seem to be explicitly politically motivated and targeting the president's enemies and perceived political enemies. If the president wanted to prioritize mortgage fraud cases, that would be neutral in terms of who would be targeted. That would be one thing. That is the kind of policy decision with respect to criminal law enforcement that prior administrations have pursued.

18:41Every administration has its criminal law enforcement priorities. But to start with the individuals who are to be prosecuted just flips the normal course and the way in which decisions to investigate and prosecute should be done and historically have been done, following the facts and the law, not targeting a particular individual to see if any possible case can be developed against them based on the fact that the individual is an enemy of the process. president or the administration. Three of the people we've been talking about, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and James Comey, are attorneys. In fact, Comey was formerly the U.S.

19:24attorney for Manhattan, but all three have hired lawyers to represent them. Explain what goes into having to defend yourself before charges are brought, and then once charges are brought, even if they're dismissed early on. Even if charges are ultimately dismissed, a person's life can be made deeply difficult, uncomfortable, their reputation can be ruined, and they can incur a ruining financial expense in having to defend themselves against allegations that are just out in the public, even prior to indictment, and then post-indictment. Reportedly, the individuals who have been named in these investigations have had to incur a great deal of expense in lawyers' fees in responding to subpoenas, going through their own information even before a subpoena is issued to see how they would prepare a defense, how they would respond to subpoenas when and if they are issued.

20:24So it is financially an enormous burden on an individual just to be the subject of an investigation. And because the way this administration has been carrying out a public campaign of smearing the reputations of people, which is so far outside the norm of what prosecutors ordinarily do and are permitted to do under ethics rules, the reputations of these individuals is just being dragged through the mud. So we have a complete upending of norms in terms of how the Department of Justice and the president are going about carrying out a public campaign against individuals even before they are charged and setting up a situation where so much is already in the public domain long before charges have been filed and may never be filed.

21:13I'm wondering what this kind of pressure does to attorneys at the Justice Department. There have been both a lot of resignations and a lot of firings. What effect does this kind of pressure have on the attorneys as they do the everyday work? This must be enormously demoralizing to attorneys who are still working at the Department of Justice, who recognize these efforts to investigate and prosecute individuals based on their political speech and political affiliation, who recognize this as a tremendous departure from not only prosecutorial norms of independence, but from the rule of law. And the question is whether those individuals who have stuck it out thus far at the Department of Justice under President Trump will resign now or whether they will wait until they are individually directed to charge a person without sufficient evidence based on political motivations and who will be left.

22:19because as difficult as it would be to stay on in the Department of Justice that is operating in this fashion, in a sense, we depend on career prosecutors who do know what it takes to build a case and what is required of them in terms of professional norms and their professional ethical obligations. We depend on them to be a bulwark against the president, the attorney general, and against appointees who the president increasingly puts into positions of authority as interim U.S. attorneys, so with ultimate authority over the decisions within an individual U.S. attorney's office, people who have, in many cases, little to no experience as prosecutors or even as criminal law attorneys who have ties to the president and are loyalists to the president and dependent on the president for their careers, when those people are in the highest positions in offices, we really rely on the line prosecutors who have been trained in professional norms and the law to do their jobs consistent with their training and to serve as that bulwark.

23:32And if those people are all forced out, either because they're fired or because they resign because they can no longer in good conscience stay, then we are at a very scary place. It's great to get your insights, It's Jessica. That's Professor Jessica Roth of Cardozo Law School. Support for the show comes from public.com. If you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions. Buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash, putting on a hedge. On public, you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf. Just describe what you want to do in plain English.

24:08Like, if the VIX hits 25, buy a put option on the S &P 500. or if my cash balance goes above$20 ,000, move the excess into my direct index. You approve the workflow and your agent handles the rest. Monitoring the market, watching for your conditions and executing your strategies exactly as defined. An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API. Go to public.com slash market and fund your account in five minutes or less. That's public.com slash market. Paid for by Public Investing. Brokered services by Open to the Public Investing, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC.

24:50Advisory services by Public Advisors, LLC, SEC Registered Advisor. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card lets you earn daily cash back on every purchase, every day. Applying the Wallet app on iPhone today. Subject to credit approval, Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch. Terms and more at applecard.com. Ask yourself, what are your best people spending their time on right now? Expense reports, receipt chasing, month-end close that takes weeks. You become what you spend on, and that's not what you're building toward.

25:26Brex is the intelligent finance platform that eliminates that work before it starts. AI agents that handle the manual stuff automatically, so your team can spend their time on what actually compounds. It's time to get Brex AF. Learn more at brex.com slash AF. A New York federal judge says that at least two senior Justice Department officials probably violated court rules by reposting comments that President Trump made about Luigi Mangione on Fox News on September 18th. Think about Mangione. He shot someone in the back. as clear as you're looking at me or I'm looking at you, he shot, he looked like a pure assassin.

26:11I was surprised actually, you know, you would have thought this guy would have been at a central casting in the movie and maybe he was, but he, think of what he did. He openly, it's not like, gee, there's a question. If there's a question, you can understand it maybe, but there's not a question. A video clip of Trump's remarks was posted on the social platform X by the White House and then reposted by a Justice Department spokesperson who added the comment, quote, at POTUS is absolutely right. Joining me is Bloomberg legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. Pat, tell us about the warning the judge gave the Justice Department.

26:50Well, it comes on the heels of late Friday. Mangione's lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the indictment or another remedy would be to block prosecutors bringing the death penalty against him in the federal case, arguing that the attorney general and so many people in the government have made statements declaring him guilty. Pam Bondi put things on Twitter and those kind of extraneous statements outside of court. He argued that they poisoned his potential jury pool and was going to deprive him a right to have fair trial, especially when he's fighting the death penalty, which is such an extraordinary penalty.

27:31And then the supplemental filing came in the night before last, and it was Mangione's lawyers complaining about further comments made now by President Trump on Fox News, top DOJ officials retweeted, and White House officials, including Caroline Levitt, the White House spokeswoman, basically declaring that Mangione was the killer. He was called an assassin. And they were linking him to left-wing extremists and suggesting he had links to people like an Antifa, anti-fascist organizations like those that had carried out, you know, the killing of... They didn't mention Charlie Kirk by name, but they insinuated it.

28:12And DOJ officials had retweeted comments made by the White House. A White House official website put it out. Two DOJ officials put it out, as well as Caroline Levitt at a press briefing that was televised also called him an assassin. After that happens, Luigi's lawyers complained again to the judge saying, oh, here's further evidence. And this comes on the heels of what we said on Friday. Did the judge rule from the bench or did she take some time to consider the defense's request? Within minutes, the judge in the case, her name is Margaret Garnett, she put in an order basically threatening that there could be sanctions if anybody at DOJ continued to do this.

28:55And she says it's the duty of the lawyer or law firm and of non-lawyer personnel to follow her rules. And there's a local rule that you're not supposed to poison or make comments about a defendant's guilt now that the case is in the pretrial phase. And his lawyers complained that it basically hampers and hinders their chances of getting an untainted jury that can keep an open mind about guilt or innocence. She was also suggesting that it appears to include people like Attorney General Pam Bondi, that they were aware and understood that they were bound by this rule, she said. So she wanted a report given to her, either from prosecutors in the office or from DOJ, to explain to her how they hadn't violated the rule and to make sure that there was going to be a dissemination of her rule to make sure everybody at DOJ understood what the rule was.

29:52Don't violate it. So now the judge said that future violations may result in sanctions, which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter. Could relief specific to the prosecution of this matter mean precluding the federal government from seeking the death penalty or even dismissing the federal charges? Well, that's what the defense for Mangione argues, that this is making it impossible for him to get a fair federal trial. Because, I mean, if you have the president of the United States making comments on national television, you wonder if your potential jury pool is going to be poisoned.