This is Bloomberg Law with June Graasso

from Bloomberg Radio.

Under the advice of my attorneys, I will

invoke my right under the fifth

amendment of the Constitution

to refrain from answering your

questions.

>> Dr. Anthony Fouchy invoked the fifth

amendment more than a hundred times and

declined to answer dozens of questions

from senators in a tense committee

hearing about his handling of the co9

pandemic. The scientist who helped lead

the nation's CO 19 response was

subpoenaed to testify under oath by

Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky,

who's long had an antagonistic

relationship with Fouchy and has pledged

to put him in jail. In his opening

statement, Fouchi explained why he

wouldn't answer the committee's

questions.

The sole reason he is calling me before

this committee is to get me to say

something, anything that could vindicate

his repeated public pledges that I end

up, in his words, quote, behind bars,"

unquote. Fouchi has become a polarizing

figure, even receiving death threats in

the partisan divides that have festered

for years about the origins and handling

of the pandemic. My guest is Dave

Aaronburgg, former Palm Beach County

State Attorney. Dave Fouchy got a pardon

in early 2025 from President Joe Biden.

Explain why despite that, he didn't want

to testify. So Anthony Fouchi is 85

years old and he wants to live the rest

of his life in peace and in freedom. And

he saw what happened to Jim Comey who

made some comments in front of Congress

that were not lies, was not perjury, but

the Department of Justice prosecuted him

anyways. He was on Trump's target list.

Is there anyone else on Trump's target

list higher than Anthony Fouchy? Well,

maybe Jack Smith. And Jack Smith too is

being referred to the DOJ for allegedly

making a false statement before

Congress. Even though, and I've read the

statement, it is in no way a false

statement, but this is the new

weaponization of the DOJ and members of

Congress are leading the way here. And

so it would be a badge of honor for

members of Congress to put Fouchy scalp

on their wall. And so Fouchy sees this

and his lawyers said, "Do not say

anything. You're covered by the fifth."

Because although you were pardoned for

crimes in the past and there were no

crimes, but Biden wanted to make sure he

wasn't prosecuted, the pardon does not

cover perjury at this hearing. And if

you speak up and you have a mistaken uh

statement or a wrong train of thought,

after all, you're 85 years old or you

don't quite get the 100,000 documents

that have been dropped just before the

hearing. you don't specifically match

your testimony to what's in the

documents, then you could be wearing a

pair of handcuffs. Is it worth it? So

Fouchy decided to take the PR hit to

look bad in front of the country and say

the fifth to every question, but at

least he takes the PR hit with his

freedom intact.

>> Listen to Republican Senator Josh Holly

questioning Fouchy.

>> What color is the car you're wearing?

On the advice of council, I respectfully

decline to answer based upon my rights

under the fifth amendment to the

constitution.

>> What color is the carpet in front of

you?

>> On the advice of council, I respectfully

declined to answer based upon my rights

under the fifth amendment to the

constitution.

>> Let's just get one thing straight. You

don't have any rights under the fifth

amendment because you've been pardoned.

>> Was the attorney general of Missouri.

Shouldn't he know better? Well, the

Supreme Court there's a there's a case

that says that you can't have the

selective use of the fifth amendment.

Like for example, if you say something

and then you try to invoke the fifth in

the same subject matter, then you can't

do it. You can't pick and choose on the

same subject matter. Now, what does the

color of Fouchi's tie have with what

research in a lab? Well, an aggressive

prosecutor could say, "All right, you

you had an interpretation of what color

your tie is. That shows your state of

mind, and that opens the door to

everything else involving your state of

mind." You see where they're going? So,

his lawyers are good lawyers, and they

just said, "No, just take the fifth on

everything."

>> Just talk a little bit about how

difficult perjury prosecutions are.

>> Well, really hard. Now, it's easier to

prove making a false statement to

Congress. Slightly easier. I mean, you

still have to prove that you

intentionally lied. So, even if Fouchy

was brought up on criminal charges for

making a false statement, they would

never be able to prosecute him because

it would likely be based on something he

says that is an answer to an ambiguous

question like James Comey's answer or it

would be something taken out of context

like Jack Smith's answer. And so,

they're never going to convict him. But

that's not what it's about. There's an

old saying, you can beat the rap but you

can't beat the ride. And that's what

members of Congress like Ran Paul and

Holly, what they are trying to do here.

They want to have the visual of Anthony

Fouchy being let out in handcuffs even

though he'll never serve a day behind

bars.

>> This testimony was so heated and at one

point Rand Paul kicked Fouch's lawyer

out of the room.

>> Yeah. Now I I was uh watching that and

the lawyer was told repeatedly not to

speak and the lawyer is not supposed to

speak because it's the individual that

speaks. The lawyer is supposed to advise

and so I I understand why he was kicked

out but it tells you more that there was

a round of applause from the gallery.

Shows you how political this is. See,

the the reason why this is happening is

that you have the midterms coming up and

the Republican base has been

demoralized. I mean, you've got the Iran

war, it's not going well. You've got

prices up. You've got Epstein still, the

ghost of Epstein floating around. And

so, this is something that still

motivates them. It's Anthony Fouchy, who

they likened to a devil, to someone who

is like should be prosecuted head on a

pike. And because of Biden's pardons,

that was all shut down. But here's a way

for Rand Paul to get his licks in

because there's been a battle between

the two of them for years and for the

base to get jinned up. And I was on

Twitter looking at some of the tweets

from conservatives and they love this.

They're the ones who were cheering when

the lawyer for Fouchy was kicked out of

the room. And they're the ones cheering

that Fouchy looks bad as a result of his

repeated invocations of the Fifth

Amendment. Ran Paul concluded the nearly

three-hour hearing by saying the

committee is planning a vote next week

on whether to hold Fouchy in contempt of

Congress.

>> And what happens is you have the

committee vote and then it goes to the

full Senate and then it gets referred to

the DOJ and then the DOJ can or cannot

file the charges or seek an indictment

and then ultimately it's up to a judge.

But judges are really protective of the

fifth amendment. If there is the

possibility that you could be prosecuted

for a crime, you can take the fifth

amendment. Now, Rand Paul is saying you

were pardoned. So, you have no right

against self-inccrimination. But that's

only partially true because that only

applies to past conduct. You can still

be prosecuted for perjury, for making a

false statement to Congress. You can

still be prosecuted for that even if you

were pardoned for everything else. So,

that's why it again is a visual. It's

the visual of the Republicans taking

action against someone that the base of

the Republican party hates, despises.

So, yeah, they'll do the referral.

Ultimately, it will never lead to any

day in jail for Anthony Fouchy.

>> Let's turn now to a committee hearing

that is supposed to take place tomorrow.

A planned vote to move forward with Todd

Blanch's nomination for attorney

general.

>> The settlement fund's just not moving

forward. There's no there's no

modification. and it's just it never

started. No money went from the Treasury

to any other account. There's no

commissioners. It's not moving forward.

>> At his confirmation hearings, Blanch had

testified that the $1.8 billion

anti-weaponization fund was dead, but

that has not assured Republican Senator

John Cornin. He's raised concerns that

the fund could be resurrected without a

commitment in writing from the Trump

administration that it is dead,

especially since President Trump has

expressed continued support for the

deal. For the nomination to go through

the Senate Judiciary Committee, Blanch

needs the votes of every Republican

senator. Dave, during his confirmation

hearing, Blanch admitted that the

settlement agreement can be resurrected.

And Cornin wants the Justice Department

to put it in writing that the

weaponization fund is dead. He said they

know what they need to do, but they

simply refuse to do it. Well, Todd

Blanch in private admitted to Senator

Dick Durban that the $ 1.776 billion

so-called anti-weaponization fund was a

mistake. But it's one thing to say that

in private, it's another thing to say it

in public. It's one thing to say in

public that you are not moving forward

with this slush fund. It's another thing

to put in writing. It's one thing to say

that you're not going to create this

fund, but it's another thing to also

leave open the possibility of giving

financial settlements to claims made by

January 6ers. And he has refused to shut

that door. And that's a problem. Just

like how the DOJ has given hundreds of

millions of dollars to the state of

Alaska to settle lawsuits there and that

helps Lisa Marowski. Well, he can do the

same thing to please Trump for the

January 6ers. There have been a lot of

claims filed and it's up to him how to

settle that. Remember, he's given

already a lot of money to General Flynn.

They can pay off people who they like

and stop payments to people they don't.

So, they have that power. And that's

something that I would like to see Todd

Blanch go further and say not only will

I put in writing that we are not doing

this slush fund, but we are also putting

in writing that we are not going to

reimburse anyone who makes a claim being

part of the January 6 insurrection. He

will not do that. And I think that's a

problem.

>> They can still give January 6 people

money through regular process and they

don't need the slush fund.

>> That's right. No, that's it. But

remember, Trump wanted the slush fund

because it was a way to signal that he

supports people who supported him.

That's why it was created as 1.776

billion 1776. Also, it was a substitute

for the settlement that they originally

wanted, which was to give Trump the

money. This was to settle Trump's claims

against the IRS. And it's interesting

because Trump has a legitimate claim

against the IRS. They did leak his

information. They also leaked Ken

Griffin's information. and others. But

Ken Griffin and others accepted an

apology and no financial settlement. But

Trump wanted the money and when that

looked bad because it was self-deing,

they settled on this slush fund for

their January 6 and other supporters.

But that too looked so bad. So what they

could still do though is settle

lawsuits. And that's where Todd Blanch

has not committed one way or another.

>> This is Bloomberg.

Social media influencers Andrew and

Tristan Tate are accused of rape and sex

trafficking in the United Kingdom.

They've become among the world's most

polarizing internet personalities with

their promotion of wealth, male

dominance, and misogyny through their

social media empire. The new allegations

are the latest in a long-running

international legal scandal involving

the Tate that has spanned the US,

Britain, and Romania. Their attorney,

Joseph McBride, has slammed the new

criminal charges unveiled against them.

>> We think these charges are salacious and

defamatory charges. Andrew and Tristan

Tate have been accused of the most

heinous acts that two men could be

accused of.

>> The Tates say they're innocent of the

charges, and they'll fight their

extradition to the UK. They'll remain in

jail in Miami until at least an August

13th detention hearing where a judge

will determine whether they'll be

released on bail as the extradition

process plays out. I've been talking to

former Palm Beach County State Attorney

Dave Aaronburgg. Dave, so right now the

Tates are fighting extradition.

>> Right. So you have the Tate brothers

that are detained and awaiting

extradition and they're in solitary

confinement. They're in solitary

confinement, not because they're being

punished, but because they're

high-profile figures, because of their

own outrageous words that have made them

into targets, and they're going to fight

it, but it could take one to two years

to fight it. Ultimately, though, it goes

to the courts, and it's a low burden for

the government to extradite people

because you have a legitimate charge

from Great Britain, from the UK, where

it's serious felonies. That's number

one. Are they serious crimes? Yes. And

is there probable cause? Yes. unless

they want to say that it's mistaken

identity, which is not the case. So,

they're going to lose in the courts.

What they're trying is to get the Trump

administration to block it. And after it

goes through the courts, then it's up to

the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to

sign off on it. And by all indications,

he will. Why is he going to die in a

hill for the Tape brothers? I know Marco

Rubio. He's a religious guy. I'm sure he

finds the Tape Brothers conduct

disgusting and repulsive. Rubio told

reporters he was in Manila on July 22nd

that he didn't expect to intervene in

the case for now. There's no role for us

to play at this moment or maybe ever,

but there is a role.

>> Well, yeah, he has to sign off on it.

They can't get extradited unless the

Secretary of State signs off on it. But

it's pretty wrote. I think there's only

been one example since the treaty

between the US and UK has been signed on

extraditions. only one example of

someone who has not been extradited over

to the UK and that was because the

person was related to a diplomatic

official with potential diplomatic

immunity. A situation like this, why why

wouldn't you extradite them? This is

we're talking about alleged rape and

child pornography. I mean, with the

ghost of Jeffrey Epstein flying above,

why or below? Why would you try to make

this a big issue? I mean, my gosh, if

there's anything that that unites the

parties, you would think it's fighting

sex exploitation of children.

>> So, why will it take so long then?

>> First, you go to the magistrate, then a

judge, and then it goes to the appellet

court, then it could go to the Supreme

Court. And so, it could take a while. It

could take a year, maybe even longer.

But it's probably in the benefit of the

tape brothers to just accept the

extradition because they're in solitary

confinement. Do they want to spend the

next year or two in solitary

confinement? doesn't seem like a victory

to me.

>> Well, they're asking for bail while they

while they fight the extradition. And

there's going to be a bail hearing on

August 13th. Their lawyer said they've

been in solitary confinement, but

they're still under threat of getting

stabbed, jumped, murdered, or whatever

it is in jail as accused sex offenders,

but no evidence of specific threats.

>> If you look up the definition of flight

risk, you'll see a picture of the Tate

brothers. Andrew Tate has all these

Bugattis and planes and money and

followers around the world. He's got

passports for what 12 different

countries. He brags about that he can go

to any country and be immune from

justice. This is your typical flight

risk that prosecutors point to and say

do not let them out of jail. And so he's

not going anywhere. Now what's

interesting is that his brother Tristan

Tate has taken a different approach. His

tweets about his conditions are actually

respectful. He praises the guards.

Andrew Tate's the opposite. He can't

help from being the obnoxious guy that

he is. And so it sets up an interesting

situation that perhaps, just maybe, you

think that maybe Tristan Tate sees his

only way out of prison before he dies is

to flip on his brother. Do you think? Or

at least take a different approach.

Maybe cooperate. It seems like Andrew is

going to go down with the ship.

>> Does it work anymore to say we'll put an

ankle bracelet on you, or does that not

work anymore? In the movies, they cut

them off. I don't know.

>> Yeah, they can cut him off. I mean, he's

got access to planes and fast cars and

boats and a legion of supporters around

the country and so many passports. And

after all, he somehow managed to wiggle

out of house arrest in Romania because

apparently the Trump administration

weighed in on their behalf. They're not

going to do it this time. So, no, they

are a flight risk. They're the ultimate

flight risk. I can't imagine a bigger

flight risk. I mean, I know that Diddy

tried to get out and they said, "You're

a flight risk cuz you're living on a

waterfront property in Miami and you've

got boats." Yeah, this is times 10 for

these guys. So, no, they're not going

anywhere. Which is to me why they should

stop fighting extradition and just go

back and fight the charges.

>> So, now let's turn to someone who's

already been convicted and sentenced,

Brian Coberger. So, he pleaded guilty

last year to murdering four University

of Idaho students. He's serving four

consecutive life sentences. That guilty

plea did spare him from a possible death

penalty. But he told the New York Times

that he's innocent and he's filed a

petition to withdraw his guilty plea and

go to trial. How difficult is it to

withdraw a guilty plea?

>> Almost impossible. Post sentencing

change of pleas.

Now you can try to do it before you get

sentenced. You can try to say, you know

what, I have a change of heart. And it's

still hard. But after you've been

sentenced, after the judge has already

said, okay, are you sure you want to

plead guilty and accept the four life

prison terms? And are you doing this

because you are guilty? Yes. No one's

coerced you? No. You like your

attorneys? Yes. For them to now say,

"I'm not guilty. I've been coerced and I

don't like my attorneys." Well, excuse

me. uh you just said the opposite under

oath and you can't keep playing with the

emotions of the victim's families like

this. But that's what he's doing. Guy's

a sociopath. The evidence is

overwhelming against him. That's why he

took the plea. He really should have

gone to trial so he would be eligible

for the death penalty. But here he is,

his last throws of power, of leverage,

of relevance where he is trying to

remind people who he is. You know, when

he was convicted and sent away, one of

the family members of the victim said,

"We will never think of you ever again."

But yet, he's insisting that you will,

and that's who this person is, haven't

the family's been through enough. So,

he's going to lose. I don't even think

he's going to get a hearing. I think the

judge will reject it on the paper, and

he will be spending the rest of his life

in prison, which is still too good for a

guy like this. The only solace I have is

knowing that he hates prison. That's why

another reason why he's doing this. So,

here's what he said. That his attorneys

failed to disclose or review evidence

that might have helped his case during

plea discussions. And that his attorneys

insisted that his plea need not be

truthful. Despite petitioners vehement

denial of actual guilt, and they

promised life in prison would come with

immediate contact, visits, freedom of

movement, employment. The standard is to

show manifest injustice. Injustice.

>> Yes. Manifest injustice. You've got to

show that you were coerced into it. So

if he has evidence that he was coerced

into taking the plea, okay, show that

you just can't say it. Do you have

evidence of that? That you were coerced

into doing it or that you had a mental

deficiency at the time. Not that the

attorneys, you know, could have been

better about researching every uh lead

out there. They those attorneys did an

amazing job for him because he was going

to get the death penalty. This is a

pretty conservative state, Idaho. Four

innocent college students slaughtered

and he was able to avoid the death

penalty. He should not be complaining

about his attorneys. He should be

setting them a gift basket.

>> Great to have you on as always, Dave.

That's Dave Aaronburgg, former Palm

Beach County state attorney. And that's

it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law

Show. Remember, you can always get the

latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law

podcast. You can find them on Apple

Podcast, Spotify, and at

www.bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law.

And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg

Law Show every week night at 1000 p.m.

Wall Street time. I'm June Graasso and

you're listening to Bloomberg.