The second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump may have ended last weekend with another acquittal, but that is likely not the end of cases against him across the nation. GBH Morning Edition host Joe Mathieu spoke with Northeastern University law professor and GBH News legal analyst Daniel Medwed about what legal actions could still be taken against the former president. The transcript below has been edited for clarity.
Joe Mathieu: First off, what are the legal implications of this most recent acquittal, Daniel? Could Trump still be charged with crimes related to the riot at the Capitol — a lot was said even from [Senate] Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — or is there some kind of double jeopardy consideration knowing that this was had in Congress?
Daniel Medwed: Well, the short answer is no. The impeachment process is really a unicorn in the legal system. It has this unique process with different rules and evidentiary standards that are far from the typical jury trial. So the consequence of an acquittal in the well of the Senate like this is very different from the consequence of acquittal after a regular jury trial. What that means is there's no double jeopardy bar, and the U.S. attorney for D.C., Michael Sherwin, could proceed to investigate and potentially charge Trump with crimes stemming from the Capital riot. He's already filed more than 200 charges, including conspiracy charges. But frankly, I think a more pressing worry or concern for Trump relates to [potential] charges in other jurisdictions.
Mathieu: So this is what's keeping him up at night, right? We've heard reports of investigations in New York and in Georgia, among other places, Daniel. Which, if any of these, do you think might actually lead to charges?
Medwed: Yeah, it's a little bit like pick your poison; there are so many. I think the most concerning one, for him at least, relates to an investigation in Georgia. The Fulton County DA's office, which covers Atlanta, recently opened an investigation into alleged election interference stemming from that notorious phone call that Trump had with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which he implored the secretary to find him a precise number of votes, which conveniently were the precise number of votes that would put him over the top and secure electoral votes from Georgia. This strikes me, at least as an outside observer, as a pretty straightforward case. Election meddling is a crime, and you have a tape recording of that phone call with very damning statements by Trump. Those statements, moreover, would be admissible in a criminal trial. They're not hearsay because there's essentially an exception when the statements come from a prospective criminal defendant. So that case is quite clear, at least relatively speaking, compared to the sophisticated, nuanced financial cases that are being investigated elsewhere.
Mathieu: To Daniel's point, here's a piece of tape from that phone call.
Former President Donald Trump clip: So look, all I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have, because we won the state.
Mathieu: Makes it pretty cut and dry, Daniel. To your point, though, it's a different situation in New York.
Medwed: Absolutely. That's a chilling tape, hearing that again. Now, it appears as though there are multiple investigations in New York, including some spearheaded by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, into bank, insurance, mortgage and tax fraud. And as part of that investigation, Vance has tried to secure financial records from the Trump organization; he has petitioned for them. He's been stymied so far, even though the U.S. Supreme Court voted last year by a seven-to-two margin that those reports have to be disclosed. Trump filed a new claim [and] the case is now stalled again in the U.S. Supreme Court. It might take a while to play out. So that's what's happening in New York, and there are still cases in Washington, D.C. related to potential financial improprieties with the inauguration way back when in 2017.
Mathieu: How about civil suits against Trump, Daniel? Is that an issue as well?
Medwed: It is. And that's a fascinating one because a lot of people nowadays are talking about the power of civil suits as opposed to criminal charges as a way of deterring bad actors. So on the one hand, there are a bunch of civil suits that were either pending before Trump became president or emerged during his presidency, but were put on hold based on the idea that a president shouldn't be distracted from their activities by the threat of a lawsuit. One of them relates to the defamation lawsuit by Jean Carroll, who has asserted that she was sexually assaulted by Trump and then badmouthed by him publicly. There also could be some personal injury actions deriving from the Capitol riot. So I think there are a lot of potential civil suits.
