September 18, 2025 • 39 mins
Retired federal judges Andre Davis, formerly of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Paul Michel, formerly of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, discuss the growing threats against federal judges and the attack on the Constitution. Bloomberg legal reporter Madlin Mekelburg, discusses the case against Tyler Robinson for the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Rhetoric against federal judges has reached unprecedented levels, with President
Trump calling judges incompetent, crooked, USA, hating and monsters. US
Attorney General Pam Bondi calling out individual judges who rule
against the administration by name, and the administration filing an
(00:29):
extraordinary lawsuit against all the federal district court judges in
the state of Maryland. Along with the rhetoric, threats against
judges are surging. The US Marshall Service has investigated close
to four hundred threats against federal judges in the first
five months of this year alone. A group of more
(00:49):
than forty retired federal judges appointed by both Republican and
Democratic presidents see this landscape as attempts to intimidate and
pressure judge just sway their opinions and shake the public's
trust in the courts. So on Constitution Day they released
an open letter warning that the Constitution and the judiciary
(01:11):
is under attack. My guests are two of those judges
from the Keep our Republic's Article three coalition. Judge Andre Davis,
formerly of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit and the District of Maryland, and Judge Paul Michelle,
formerly of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
thanks so much for joining me. Judge Davis, I'll start
(01:33):
with a question to you. Tell us why you and
the other retired judges decided to write this letter.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Sitting judges, as you know, are bound by the Coote
of Judicial Ethics, can speak only through their written opinions
and from oral opinions from the bench, and so they
are greatly limited, in fact prohibited really from responding to
some of the more outrageous and extreme attack on the judiciary,
(02:02):
on individual judges. And so what my friend Judge Michelle
and his colleague Bob Sindrich decided was that this election
or community if you will, of retired federal judges, at
this moment in our history, we're seeing the same thing, namely,
(02:22):
an unprecedented and very dangerous attack on the judiciary, on
the third branch of government in the United States, and
putting at risk not just the rule of law and
our democracy as we know it, but the actual lives
of judges and their family members. And so that's what
(02:44):
prompted us to take what I think is an unprecedented
step ourselves by coming together as a group of retired
judges appointed by presidents from both parties to speak with
one voice and call attention to the danger that is
(03:05):
not just implicit but unavoidable in the times of rhetoric
that are being used and the direct attacks on the
judiciary and the rule of law. And so we're speaking
with one voice to one educate the public and to
speak out in support of our colleagues who work day
in and day out to do the people's work in
(03:27):
dispensing justice.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Judge Michelle So. President Trump has verbally attacked judges who
ruled against him. He's call them radical left lunatics, crooked.
The US Attorney General Pam Bondi has called out judges
by name who ruled against Trump's policies, also calling them
similar names. What can you, as retired judges do to
(03:51):
stop this criticism and this attack that's coming from the
top of the executive branch.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Well, my hope is that if the the citizenry can
be better educated about the proper function and duties of judges,
they will see that the threat to judges is really
a threat against their own rights being protected by courts.
Courts have to be independent of political pressures, whether from
(04:17):
the White House or the Justice Department or elsewhere, and
that is what's under attack now. And we think that
we have unusual credibility because we're so nonpartisan, non political,
or you could almost say bipartisan, because we have about
half our judges appointed by Republican administrations and half by
(04:41):
democratic administrations, and we're enormously diverse personally, but as Judge
Davis rightly says, we're completely united and being horrified at
the status quo, feeling like this is a moment of
grave danger for our country, our democracy, and the rule
of law. When write down to it, at the end
(05:01):
of the day, either the written law is going to
control or what the executive wants is going to control.
Is it the rule of law or the rule of
a king. That's what really is at stake here. And
we think that the shrill attacks such as those who
cite and quote can be discouraged by the media and
(05:25):
the citizenry objecting loudly to that kind of language, whether
it's from Congress persons calling for impeachment of a judge
simply for doing his or her job and ruling on
a case or coming from the White House or the
Justice Department, and this is a moment of enormous danger
for our country. One of the problems is the citizens
(05:48):
have been very much misled. Too many of them are
not well versed in understandings of basic constitutional government procedures
and structures in our country. So, for example, the most
important certain things citizens need to realize is the job
of a judge is not to promote the agenda of
any president or any political party or any other political leader.
(06:11):
The job of the judge is strictly to apply the
written law, the precedents, and the statutes to the case
in front of him. And finally, I think the judiciary
is that it's most valuable and most important when it
serves as a check, just as the founder is expected
checks and balances is the phrase we often use. So
(06:33):
that if the executive does something that's unlawful, the judge
puts a hal to it, and the courts say that
can't continue, so they issue injunctions and the executive has
to stop doing the illegal things, and of course they
can continue with all the things that are lawful. So
that's really the bottom line here.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
So the administration continually runs to the Supreme Court when
lower courts hand in its agenda, and on more than
a dozen occasions since the new administration came in, the
Supreme Court has lifted an injunction issued by a trial
judge who had said that the administration was at least
probably acting illegally. And sometimes the court offers a few sentences,
(07:18):
sometimes nothing. And I'm wondering if that gives the average
person a distorative view of what the lower courts are
doing in limiting the administration and what the Supreme Court
is doing in allowing the administration to move forward.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Well, you know, you've put your finger on something that's very,
very frankly disheartening about the current legal landscape. The point
is that every federal district judge, without exception, who has
ruled against some policy of this administration, was acting in
(07:54):
absolute good faith in his and her attempt to not
just statutory law, not just constitutional law, but the Supreme
Court's own precedents. That's what the federal district judges around
the country have been doing for the last seven or
(08:16):
eight months. And in those instances, many of them, I
would even say most of those instances where the administration
has appealed those adverse decisions by federal district judges. In
most instances, the federal appellate courts, of which there are thirteen,
(08:39):
the federal appellate courts have largely left in place the
orders of the district judges. So what we see in
the so called shadow docket, I'm sure most of your
listeners are familiar with that term by now, is that
the Supreme Court is reversing the decisions in large part
(09:03):
without explaining how or why those decisions are being reversed.
And so that leaves, you know, in the mind of
many lay people this very distorted vi somehow that the
lower federal courts, the district judges, who hear from the parties,
(09:24):
hear from the lawyers, consider the evidence, make a ruling
which is then left in place by the intermediate appellate court,
and the matter gets up to the Supreme Court, and
the Supreme Court in one or two sentences, as you say,
reverse that decision. Well, a lot of people you know,
on the street, not versed in the law, somehow are
(09:48):
persuaded that the lower court judges are somehow against the administration.
And as Judge Michelle just very poignantly pointed out all
the judges are doing is try their best to apply
the law, and so it this serves justice in all
honesty to leave in the minds of people that somehow
(10:10):
the Supreme Court is protecting this administration from lower court judges,
and that just feeds into this misinformation, this distorted view
that so many in high office continue to create, that
the judiciary is full of lunatics and activists, and nothing
(10:35):
could be further from the truth. So hopefully, in the
fullness of time, hopefully not too far in the future,
this landscape that's been created through the procedural and processes
that have been employed will see the light of day.
And one of the things that the Article three Coalition
is trying so desperately to do to continue to educate
(10:59):
people about the role of judges, the role of the judiciary,
how the judiciary works, the right to an appeal, and
how reason judgment is the coin of the realm when
it comes to j judiciary.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
And Judge Michelle Justice Neil Gorsitz recently admonished lower court
judges not to so called defy the Supreme Court, and
Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs said that it was unhelpful
and unnecessary to criticize district courts that are working to
make sense of Supreme Court orders that are not models
of clarity and have left many issues unresolved. And another
(11:38):
judge said, I didn't understand that the orders on the
emergency docket were precedent. I mean, what about a Supreme
Court justice calling out district court judges.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Well. One complexity that the public doesn't understand, but it's
rather important, is that nearly all of the injunctions that
have been issued by the district judges around the country,
and these hundreds of suits challenging Trump administration actions, are
very preliminary. They're actually called preliminary injunctions, and that's because
(12:11):
there hasn't yet been a trial, there hasn't yet been
a final resolution of disputed facts. So these are truly
preliminary in the sense that the district judge is making
a prediction, a judgment that likely the challenger will win
over the administration's defense. But it's a speculative judgment. I'm
(12:33):
not defensive of the Supreme Court and the extent to
which they've intervened, but it is important to recognize that
they aren't saying the administration was right and the district
judge was wrong. What they're really saying is, we don't
know for sure yet, so we're going to delay a
remedy until there's been actual fact findings and what lawyers
(12:56):
call a final judgment. But beyond that, it is it's
certainly true that some of these orders have no reasoning
coming down from the Supreme Court. Others are very terse
and sometimes unclear. I don't think it's helpful for Judge
Burrows and the Supreme Court justices to get in a
public shouting match in effect, although they of course he
(13:17):
did it in writing. But she has a point. The
district judges are striving to apply the law faithfully and impartially,
and I think usually they get it right, and particularly
where they're upheld as has been true in a number
of these cases by the Court of Appeals above them,
the Supreme Court ought to be very hesitant to jump
(13:39):
in and overrule both of the so called lower courts,
as the constitution that calls them the inferior courts, which
are very unfortunate phrase because they're not inferior. But in
terms of the admonition from judge courts, I don't know
what he's talking about. I don't see any judge, including
Judge William Young in Boston, has been defiant as refusing
(14:02):
to follow some clear direction from the Supreme Court, So
I'm not quite sure what he's referring to. But it's
not very helpful, and it's a further demoralization of the
district judges, who do ninety percent of the work in
the judicial system, and who should be respected and supported
by the public and by the rest of the judicial
(14:24):
establishment and not pilloried as if they're rebellious children or
something because they're not.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Coming up next. The effect of all those six to
three Supreme Court decisions on the emergency docket you're listening to, Bloomberg,
I've been talking to retired federal judges Andre Davis and
Paul Michelle about an unprecedented bipartisan statement from more than
forty retired federal judges appointed by six different presidents across
(14:53):
both parties, speaking out about how the constitution and the
judiciary is under attack. Judge Davis, I'm wondering about the
effect of so many, perhaps most, of these Supreme Court
emergency decisions coming down six to three down partisan lines,
(15:14):
especially in this environment where judges are more and more
being identified by the party of the president who appointed them,
even at the district court level. So you'll hear well
that judge is a Trump appointee, that judge is a
Biden appointee. It seems like people are talking about a
judge's political affiliations more than ever before.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
I think that's a very regrettable development in our legal
ecosystem and in the media. The people apparently want to
know that information, and of course that information is available,
one hopes, and frankly, I believe as a judge appointed
(16:00):
by two Democratic presidents, that is, presidents from the Democratic Party,
one would like to think that no one would ever imagine,
when I was an active judge that I made a
ruling on the basis of the party identification of the
president who appointed me. And frankly, it borders on offensive
(16:24):
to individual judges. I can share a very quick anecdote
when I was on the district court early in my tenure,
after having been appointed by President Clinton to the Federal
District Court in Baltimore, I struck down the city's affirmative
action plan as unconstitutional, and of course, while it was
(16:47):
still much rare, than now. I think the lead in
the newspaper was Clinton appointed judge strikes down an affirmative
action plan, and I think it might have said a
black Clinton appointed judge. Well, I was following the law,
and that's what judges do. No judge calls the president
(17:08):
who appointed him or her to check in on how
the case should come out. It's absurd, it's offensive, but
again you raise a good point. This is the system
we seem to be swimming in these days, and I
hope that one day soon that will fall out of favor.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Judge Michelle, So what can you do as retired judges?
What do you plan to do?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Well?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
We can explain so that the public and the media
and community leaders, including the business community and other sectors
of our society, have a better understanding and are in
a position to fairly evaluate whether the complaints being made
by high officials in the White House are accurate or not,
(17:55):
and then to call out bad conduct by people who
are attacking judge just for doing your job. I couldn't
agree more with Judge Davis about how hard every one
of us tries the minute we take the oath to
put behind us our personal opinions, our prior political affiliations,
(18:15):
our party registration, our friendships, everything. Becoming a federal judge,
it's almost a little bit like becoming a minister or
a priest or a rabbi. You're a part of a
discipline based on written text, and you swear allegiance to
that text, and you have to discipline yourself to not
(18:35):
let other considerations enter into your decision making. And my impression,
and I've sat with five different circuit courts, is that
the judges do that very faithfully. I'd say ninety nine
percent of the time or more. The judges I sat
with were not acting at all from a political standpoint,
(18:57):
And I often couldn't even remember which party they were
appointed under because it just didn't show up in anything
that they said or wrote or how they voted. So
we've got a real problem in this country if the
public continues to have the view that Judge Davis is
a Democratic judge and Judge Michelle is a Republican judge,
(19:19):
because it's totally false, where judges of the law, not
of our political background, and people need to understand that.
And really it's the great strength in the system. It
means that every citizen can depend on his or her
rights being defended in court by impartial judges because they
(19:39):
can't be pressured by politicians to rule a certain way.
They're going to rule based on the settled law, the precedents,
as lawyers call them. And that's a great comfort not
only to every citizen in individual rights cases, but also
to every corporation. If the corporations can't depend on judges
to treat them under the law fairly, they're going to
(20:02):
stop taking risks, stop making investments, stop building factories if
they can't count on getting a fair shake from the
federal judges, if IRS comes after them, or the Securities
Exchange Commission or any other arm of the government. They
have to be confident that they're not on an enemy's
list in the White House, that they're going to be
treated like any other company or individual by our judges.
(20:26):
And the judges do a very good job, in my
opinion and from my experience, at being completely impartial, particularly
at every level of the court system, except the Supreme Court,
which does look more political to me than the other
two levels of the court system.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Judge Davis, just as Amy Coney Barrett, recently downplayed President
Trump's criticism of federal judges, saying that US presidents have
a long history of criticizing the judiciary. But we talked
before about how this administration, even when so far to
sue the entire federal bench, all the district court judges
(21:04):
in Maryland, is this administration different in the way it
treats federal judges, and you know, even the way it
appoints federal judges more looking for more ideologues than for
you know, the what used to be considering you know,
the ABA approved judges.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
This administration, from top to bottom, absolutely treats the federal
judiciary in ways that, frankfully, no administration before now has.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
Ever treated the federal judiciary.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
The appaminum attacks, the atuperative rhetoric, the name calling, the
takeover of the Justice Department, which, for primary memorial, one
of the pillars of our constitutional system, even though it's
not written into the constitution. You know, there are a
(21:54):
lot of norms that have come into play over these
two hundred and fifty years that are very important, one
of which is the independence not just of the judiciary,
but the independence of the Department of Justice from the
White House. These are structural strengths in our system and
so yes. The attack by this administration on the judiciary
(22:20):
as a whole, on individual judges, the name calling, the purposeful, wilful,
intentional undermining of the rule of law itself is very dangerous,
inimical to constitutional democracy, and I hope, I hope that
(22:41):
with our voices as the Article three Coalition, with the
voices of so many law firms and law organizations and
other civic minded organizations, I hope this will stop and
will return to a time when each branch of government
(23:01):
showed the respect that was due it from all the others.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
To not just have one other thought. The vicious language
that's been used against judges who've ruled in a way
the administration doesn't like has to be understood as to
its impact. It's not a question of the judge's feelings
are hurt. We don't care about feelings when we're judges.
We're not embarrassed to be criticized. We're criticized all the time.
(23:26):
It's part of the job. We know that, we understand that.
But the problem now is that when the president or
the Attorney General makes these vituperative attacks and social media
that thousands of deranged, fanatical, unstable individuals out there in
the blogosphere may take it into their mind that they
(23:46):
have to save the country by going to get rid
of Judge Michelle or Judge Davis because they've ruled in away.
The President says, it's terrible. So now the attacks on
judges are coming from from strangers. You can't even identify
who it might be. In the old days, it was
usually a losing litigant who was upset with the judge,
So the Martial Service could better protect us because they
(24:09):
could see who the source of the threat was coming from.
Now they have no way of knowing or predicting. It
makes it much harder for the very able Marshal Service
to effectively protect judges. So this is a grave threat
to the functioning of our democracy because if judges are terrified,
no matter how brave they are, there's a danger that
(24:30):
subconsciously it could influence their rulings and make them, so
to speak, pull punches for fear of being the target
of some deranged person who would try to kill them
or harass their family or whatever. So it's not a
question of hurt feelings from sharp criticism. It's a question
(24:50):
of actual incitement to violence.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
And the Marshal Service is fielding more online threats to
judges than ever before. Four. Thank you both so much
for joining me today. That's Judge Paul Michelle, formerly of
the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Andre Davis,
formerly of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. They're both
part of the Keep Our Republic's Article three coalition.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson. Could you state
your name?
Speaker 4 (25:23):
Tyler James Robinson.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Twenty two year old Tyler Robinson appeared in court for
the first time on Tuesday, facing aggravated murder charges as
prosecutors seek the death penalty against him for the fatal
shooting of conservative activists Charlie Kirk. Utah County Attorney Jeff
Gray explained the aggravating factors in his decision to pursue
(25:46):
the death penalty.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
The state is further alleging aggravating factors on counts one
and two because the defendant is believed to have targeted
Charlie Kirk based on Charlie Kirk's political expression and did
so knowing that children were present and would witness the homicide.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Robinson is charged with seven counts in all, joining me
is Bloomberg Legal reporter Madlen Mackelberg Madline tell us about
this first appearance by Robinson.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
K Tyler.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
Robinson came before a judge for the first time this week,
and it was a virtual appearance in a courtroom, which
is pretty standard apparently for criminal cases in Utah County
where he was charged. And he appeared via zoom from
the jail and the judge who will be presiding over
the criminal case moving forward, read the charges allowed to him,
(26:40):
informed him that there was a possible sentence of the
death penalty associated with those charges, and he asked him
if he had an attorney yet, and he does not
have a lawyer for him yet. The judge said, based
on his financial status, one will be appointed for him,
and that's something that we can expect to happen in
the next few weeks here.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
And from what I understand, it has to be an
attorney that's rule a qualified, meaning an attorney who's qualified
to deal with capital cases, so that limits the attorneys available.
Did Robinson enter.
Speaker 5 (27:11):
A plea, No, We're not going to see him enter
a plea for at least a few weeks, the way
that things work in Utah. The next hearing is also
going to be virtual, meaning that Robinson will be zooming
in from the courthouse and they'll be discussing whether or
not he wants to waive his right to a preliminary hearing.
(27:31):
This is a hearing where they would talk about whether
there's enough validity to the charges to move forward to
an arraignment, which would be yet another hearing where he
would actually enter a plea to the charges before him.
So we along road to go before we get there,
and from.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
What authorities have said, he has not made a confession
and he's not talking to investigators.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
So Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray has been the public
faith of the prosecution so far, and he's really declined
to weigh in on exactly how much Robinson may or
may not be cooperating with investigators. But we heard previously
from law enforcement authorities that he has not been cooperative
with them. There's no evidence so far that he's given
(28:17):
them any kind of confession or admitted to anything. Although
I'm sure you saw prosecutors released a ton of evidence
that they say they have against him, which include text
messages where he's talking about the shooting, but they decline
to say whether they can strue those as being a confession,
and at this point we have no reason to believe
that he's confessed to authorities or that he's even cooperating
(28:40):
with them.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Well, let's talk a little bit about those text messages
to his roommate and why prosecutors are highlighting them.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
So, while he may not be cooperating with them, it's
very clear that his family and people close to him are,
or at least have been providing law enforcement with information
regarding their communications with him leading up to the shooting
and following the shooting. Now, prosecutors say that he was
in a romantic relationship with his roommate and that when
(29:14):
he was on campus allegedly committing this act, he sent
a message to his roommate telling them to look under
his keyboard on his computer, and when the roommate checked
under the keyboard, there was a note there that said, quote,
I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and
I'm going to take it. And what followed is a
series of messages that are allegedly between the roommate and Robinson.
(29:38):
You know, the roommate is expressing confusion shock, saying you're
joking right, and Robinson apparently said to them, I'm not joking.
The roommate says, you weren't the one who did this, right,
Robinson says, I am, I'm sorry. They go back and
forth in this exchange, and Robinson apparently is talking about
how he attempted to hide his rifle, how police arrested
(29:59):
somebody at the shooting who was not him. I'm sure
you remember those hours afterwards when police kept saying they
had someone in custody, but they were not the suspect
in this case. So I think the messages are significant
because it clearly shows that Robinson was talking about doing
this and explaining some of his thought process behind it,
(30:19):
which is that he said, quote, I had enough of
his hatred talking about Kirk.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Prosecutors didn't out and out state a motive, did they.
I mean, I know that Gray had said Robinson was
becoming more pro gae and trans rights oriented, but did
they explicitly say here's the motive.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
No, So they talked about the political elements of the
situation here, but they have said that they're not talking
about a motive at this point. They're only talking about
the evidence that they have, which seems to include statements
from Robinson's mother, who's the one who told investigators that
in recent years her son had become more politically engaged
with some of these left leaning causes and more pro
(31:03):
gae and trans writes focused. That's something that was in
the charging documents that came forward, and that seems to
be significant because his family said that they identify as
being more conservative voters.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
His parents turned him in, right, So, when.
Speaker 5 (31:19):
They discovered and identified in the images that law enforcement
released that the shooter resembled their son, apparently, they had
some phone call conversations with him, had him come back
to the house, and they spoke with a family friend
who is a retired law enforcement official, and together they
encouraged him to turn himself into local authorities where he's from,
(31:40):
which is about four hours away from where the university
is where Kirk was speaking when he was shot.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
And prosecutors have some physical evidence DNA evidence.
Speaker 5 (31:50):
Right, So, prosecutors say that they have DNA from the
trigger of the rifle that they believe was used in
the shooting and the towel that the rifle was found
wrapped in when they recovered it from the scene. They
say the DNA they collected their matches Robinson.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
And what about his conversations on Discord. The FBI director
said that they're investigating the people who were involved in
those conversations.
Speaker 5 (32:17):
Apparently Robinson was having conversations on Discord, which is a
popular chat application that's used for people who play in
stream video games. This is my understanding of it, but
apparently he was having a conversation with a group of
friends and making jokes about the shooting and connecting himself
to it without admitting anything. And those conversations have been
(32:41):
discussed by, as you say, the FBI director and some
officials publicly, but they're not actually mentioned in the charging
documents that we saw filed from prosecutors. So we have
to assume that'll be part of the evidence that they
present against him at some point, but it hasn't been
part of this initial charging.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Authorities consider him a sole actor here or are they
looking for accomplices.
Speaker 5 (33:06):
So at this point, prosecutors and law enforcements say that
they are continuing investigating, they're leaving no stone unturned, but
they've declined to answer questions of whether they believe he
acted alone or this was a coordinated attempt. And so
at this point nobody else has been named as a suspect,
or even as somebody who has contributed to this in
(33:26):
a different way, and so the investigation continues. It's possible
that we see future charges against another individual, but at
this point there's no evidence to suggest that they have
somebody else in mind.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Before Robinson was even arrested, Utah's governor said they would
pursue the death penalty, but what did the prosecutors say?
He decided to seek the death penalty.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
So there's been a lot of talk about this. The
Utah governor came out and said that he was planning
to pursue it. President Trump has said you need to
pursue the death penalty, and when we heard from the
county attorney this week, he said he made this decision
independent of any outside influence and that while he spoke
with both the governor and the president at least representatives
for their respective administrations, he said he didn't receive pressure
(34:14):
from them to make that decision and they didn't raise
it with him. So he's wanting to be clear that
this is something he's pursuing based on the evidence that
he has, and part of that is this idea that
when the shooting occurred, there were children present, and there
was also a risk of injury to other people that
were there. So it wasn't a straightforward murder situation where
(34:36):
it was just between two individuals. He was firing a
shot across a crowd of people and there was a
risk of injury to others who were there.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Did the prosecutors say where the political element of this
fits in? Is he considering that this shooting was politically motivated?
Speaker 5 (34:53):
Prosecutors noted in the charging documents that Robinson intentionally selected
Kirk because of his perception regarding Kirk's political expression. So
that's the mention that we've seen from prosecutors in the
formal court documents that he was motivated by the political expression,
but they haven't declared that as the official motive, but
(35:14):
they've noted that that was part of why Robinson allegedly
decided to shoot Kirk.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
About half the states have the death penalty on the books.
When was the last time Utah used it? So?
Speaker 5 (35:27):
Utah is one of twenty three states in the US
that currently allows for the death penalty to be imposed
on an individual. Compared to other states, they have had
less executions. Typically, when you're talking about the modern era
of the death penalty, we look at executions since nineteen
seventy six, which was when the Supreme Court said that
(35:48):
it is legal as a form of sentencing, and so
since then, Utah has executed eight people.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
And what's the method of execution in Utah?
Speaker 5 (35:59):
So, Utah Ya Like most states, every state that allows
for the death penalty, their primary means of administering it
is through lethal injection. But Utah is unique in that
it's one of just five states that allows for a
firing squad to be used in execution. But that's only
in the situation where the state can't acquire the drugs
(36:20):
that are required for lethal injection.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
The last time the firing squad was used was in
twenty ten, not so long ago. Are the Feds also
considering bringing charges against Robinson?
Speaker 5 (36:31):
I think that's certainly a possibility. We've heard people in
the Trump administration say that that's something that they're looking at.
Prosecutors in Utah County declined to answer questions about that
as well. They said that's a decision that's totally up
to the federal government. If they have charges that they
want to pursue at a federal level. Nothing's been filed yet,
but you know that's always possible.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
And Madeline, you recently went to the campus where the
shooting occurred. Tell us what it's like there now.
Speaker 5 (37:00):
That's right. So campus has been closed since the shooting,
but it reopened yesterday. Classes resumed and so there were
multiple memorial sites set up at the university and they
were encouraging members of the public and students to leave
offerings and to have a moment of silence at the
(37:20):
site of the shooting if that's something that was meaningful
for them. I spent a few hours there in the
evening before classes resumed, and then again on Wednesday morning,
and the mood was the same both days I was there.
It was very somber, very quiet. People were incredibly emotional
and they were passing through leaving flowers, reading signs. There
(37:42):
was chalk left out and people had scrawled different messages
on the sidewalks, on the roadways and even on the
side of some buildings, expressing support for Charlie and expressing,
you know, mournful feelings but also hopeful feelings for the future,
and saying things along the lines of this didn't happen
in Vain. Your mission is going to continue. And people
(38:04):
who visited the Amphitheater area where Kirk was actually shot.
The university had placed these metal barriers preventing people from
walking in, but many people came and leaned against the
edge of them and just kind of were reflecting silently
as they looked on this area. But if you passing through,
would stop and turn and look back up towards the
building which you can see from there where the suspect
(38:27):
allegedly fired from. So there was a lot of interest,
but most of it was coming from a place of
mourning and wanting to find community and returning to the scene.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
The next hearing is on September twenty ninth. Will see
if we learn more then. Thanks so much, Madeline. That's
Bloomberg Legal reporter Madeleine Mecklberg, 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 Podcasts, Spotify, and at
www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And
(39:02):
remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg
You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Rhetoric against federal judges has reached unprecedented levels, with President
Trump calling judges incompetent, crooked, USA, hating and monsters. US
Attorney General Pam Bondi calling out individual judges who rule
against the administration by name, and the administration filing an
(00:29):
extraordinary lawsuit against all the federal district court judges in
the state of Maryland. Along with the rhetoric, threats against
judges are surging. The US Marshall Service has investigated close
to four hundred threats against federal judges in the first
five months of this year alone. A group of more
(00:49):
than forty retired federal judges appointed by both Republican and
Democratic presidents see this landscape as attempts to intimidate and
pressure judge just sway their opinions and shake the public's
trust in the courts. So on Constitution Day they released
an open letter warning that the Constitution and the judiciary
(01:11):
is under attack. My guests are two of those judges
from the Keep our Republic's Article three coalition. Judge Andre Davis,
formerly of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit and the District of Maryland, and Judge Paul Michelle,
formerly of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
thanks so much for joining me. Judge Davis, I'll start
(01:33):
with a question to you. Tell us why you and
the other retired judges decided to write this letter.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Sitting judges, as you know, are bound by the Coote
of Judicial Ethics, can speak only through their written opinions
and from oral opinions from the bench, and so they
are greatly limited, in fact prohibited really from responding to
some of the more outrageous and extreme attack on the judiciary,
(02:02):
on individual judges. And so what my friend Judge Michelle
and his colleague Bob Sindrich decided was that this election
or community if you will, of retired federal judges, at
this moment in our history, we're seeing the same thing, namely,
(02:22):
an unprecedented and very dangerous attack on the judiciary, on
the third branch of government in the United States, and
putting at risk not just the rule of law and
our democracy as we know it, but the actual lives
of judges and their family members. And so that's what
(02:44):
prompted us to take what I think is an unprecedented
step ourselves by coming together as a group of retired
judges appointed by presidents from both parties to speak with
one voice and call attention to the danger that is
(03:05):
not just implicit but unavoidable in the times of rhetoric
that are being used and the direct attacks on the
judiciary and the rule of law. And so we're speaking
with one voice to one educate the public and to
speak out in support of our colleagues who work day
in and day out to do the people's work in
(03:27):
dispensing justice.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Judge Michelle So. President Trump has verbally attacked judges who
ruled against him. He's call them radical left lunatics, crooked.
The US Attorney General Pam Bondi has called out judges
by name who ruled against Trump's policies, also calling them
similar names. What can you, as retired judges do to
(03:51):
stop this criticism and this attack that's coming from the
top of the executive branch.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Well, my hope is that if the the citizenry can
be better educated about the proper function and duties of judges,
they will see that the threat to judges is really
a threat against their own rights being protected by courts.
Courts have to be independent of political pressures, whether from
(04:17):
the White House or the Justice Department or elsewhere, and
that is what's under attack now. And we think that
we have unusual credibility because we're so nonpartisan, non political,
or you could almost say bipartisan, because we have about
half our judges appointed by Republican administrations and half by
(04:41):
democratic administrations, and we're enormously diverse personally, but as Judge
Davis rightly says, we're completely united and being horrified at
the status quo, feeling like this is a moment of
grave danger for our country, our democracy, and the rule
of law. When write down to it, at the end
(05:01):
of the day, either the written law is going to
control or what the executive wants is going to control.
Is it the rule of law or the rule of
a king. That's what really is at stake here. And
we think that the shrill attacks such as those who
cite and quote can be discouraged by the media and
(05:25):
the citizenry objecting loudly to that kind of language, whether
it's from Congress persons calling for impeachment of a judge
simply for doing his or her job and ruling on
a case or coming from the White House or the
Justice Department, and this is a moment of enormous danger
for our country. One of the problems is the citizens
(05:48):
have been very much misled. Too many of them are
not well versed in understandings of basic constitutional government procedures
and structures in our country. So, for example, the most
important certain things citizens need to realize is the job
of a judge is not to promote the agenda of
any president or any political party or any other political leader.
(06:11):
The job of the judge is strictly to apply the
written law, the precedents, and the statutes to the case
in front of him. And finally, I think the judiciary
is that it's most valuable and most important when it
serves as a check, just as the founder is expected
checks and balances is the phrase we often use. So
(06:33):
that if the executive does something that's unlawful, the judge
puts a hal to it, and the courts say that
can't continue, so they issue injunctions and the executive has
to stop doing the illegal things, and of course they
can continue with all the things that are lawful. So
that's really the bottom line here.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
So the administration continually runs to the Supreme Court when
lower courts hand in its agenda, and on more than
a dozen occasions since the new administration came in, the
Supreme Court has lifted an injunction issued by a trial
judge who had said that the administration was at least
probably acting illegally. And sometimes the court offers a few sentences,
(07:18):
sometimes nothing. And I'm wondering if that gives the average
person a distorative view of what the lower courts are
doing in limiting the administration and what the Supreme Court
is doing in allowing the administration to move forward.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Well, you know, you've put your finger on something that's very,
very frankly disheartening about the current legal landscape. The point
is that every federal district judge, without exception, who has
ruled against some policy of this administration, was acting in
(07:54):
absolute good faith in his and her attempt to not
just statutory law, not just constitutional law, but the Supreme
Court's own precedents. That's what the federal district judges around
the country have been doing for the last seven or
(08:16):
eight months. And in those instances, many of them, I
would even say most of those instances where the administration
has appealed those adverse decisions by federal district judges. In
most instances, the federal appellate courts, of which there are thirteen,
(08:39):
the federal appellate courts have largely left in place the
orders of the district judges. So what we see in
the so called shadow docket, I'm sure most of your
listeners are familiar with that term by now, is that
the Supreme Court is reversing the decisions in large part
(09:03):
without explaining how or why those decisions are being reversed.
And so that leaves, you know, in the mind of
many lay people this very distorted vi somehow that the
lower federal courts, the district judges, who hear from the parties,
(09:24):
hear from the lawyers, consider the evidence, make a ruling
which is then left in place by the intermediate appellate court,
and the matter gets up to the Supreme Court, and
the Supreme Court in one or two sentences, as you say,
reverse that decision. Well, a lot of people you know,
on the street, not versed in the law, somehow are
(09:48):
persuaded that the lower court judges are somehow against the administration.
And as Judge Michelle just very poignantly pointed out all
the judges are doing is try their best to apply
the law, and so it this serves justice in all
honesty to leave in the minds of people that somehow
(10:10):
the Supreme Court is protecting this administration from lower court judges,
and that just feeds into this misinformation, this distorted view
that so many in high office continue to create, that
the judiciary is full of lunatics and activists, and nothing
(10:35):
could be further from the truth. So hopefully, in the
fullness of time, hopefully not too far in the future,
this landscape that's been created through the procedural and processes
that have been employed will see the light of day.
And one of the things that the Article three Coalition
is trying so desperately to do to continue to educate
(10:59):
people about the role of judges, the role of the judiciary,
how the judiciary works, the right to an appeal, and
how reason judgment is the coin of the realm when
it comes to j judiciary.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
And Judge Michelle Justice Neil Gorsitz recently admonished lower court
judges not to so called defy the Supreme Court, and
Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs said that it was unhelpful
and unnecessary to criticize district courts that are working to
make sense of Supreme Court orders that are not models
of clarity and have left many issues unresolved. And another
(11:38):
judge said, I didn't understand that the orders on the
emergency docket were precedent. I mean, what about a Supreme
Court justice calling out district court judges.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Well. One complexity that the public doesn't understand, but it's
rather important, is that nearly all of the injunctions that
have been issued by the district judges around the country,
and these hundreds of suits challenging Trump administration actions, are
very preliminary. They're actually called preliminary injunctions, and that's because
(12:11):
there hasn't yet been a trial, there hasn't yet been
a final resolution of disputed facts. So these are truly
preliminary in the sense that the district judge is making
a prediction, a judgment that likely the challenger will win
over the administration's defense. But it's a speculative judgment. I'm
(12:33):
not defensive of the Supreme Court and the extent to
which they've intervened, but it is important to recognize that
they aren't saying the administration was right and the district
judge was wrong. What they're really saying is, we don't
know for sure yet, so we're going to delay a
remedy until there's been actual fact findings and what lawyers
(12:56):
call a final judgment. But beyond that, it is it's
certainly true that some of these orders have no reasoning
coming down from the Supreme Court. Others are very terse
and sometimes unclear. I don't think it's helpful for Judge
Burrows and the Supreme Court justices to get in a
public shouting match in effect, although they of course he
(13:17):
did it in writing. But she has a point. The
district judges are striving to apply the law faithfully and impartially,
and I think usually they get it right, and particularly
where they're upheld as has been true in a number
of these cases by the Court of Appeals above them,
the Supreme Court ought to be very hesitant to jump
(13:39):
in and overrule both of the so called lower courts,
as the constitution that calls them the inferior courts, which
are very unfortunate phrase because they're not inferior. But in
terms of the admonition from judge courts, I don't know
what he's talking about. I don't see any judge, including
Judge William Young in Boston, has been defiant as refusing
(14:02):
to follow some clear direction from the Supreme Court, So
I'm not quite sure what he's referring to. But it's
not very helpful, and it's a further demoralization of the
district judges, who do ninety percent of the work in
the judicial system, and who should be respected and supported
by the public and by the rest of the judicial
(14:24):
establishment and not pilloried as if they're rebellious children or
something because they're not.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Coming up next. The effect of all those six to
three Supreme Court decisions on the emergency docket you're listening to, Bloomberg,
I've been talking to retired federal judges Andre Davis and
Paul Michelle about an unprecedented bipartisan statement from more than
forty retired federal judges appointed by six different presidents across
(14:53):
both parties, speaking out about how the constitution and the
judiciary is under attack. Judge Davis, I'm wondering about the
effect of so many, perhaps most, of these Supreme Court
emergency decisions coming down six to three down partisan lines,
(15:14):
especially in this environment where judges are more and more
being identified by the party of the president who appointed them,
even at the district court level. So you'll hear well
that judge is a Trump appointee, that judge is a
Biden appointee. It seems like people are talking about a
judge's political affiliations more than ever before.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
I think that's a very regrettable development in our legal
ecosystem and in the media. The people apparently want to
know that information, and of course that information is available,
one hopes, and frankly, I believe as a judge appointed
(16:00):
by two Democratic presidents, that is, presidents from the Democratic Party,
one would like to think that no one would ever imagine,
when I was an active judge that I made a
ruling on the basis of the party identification of the
president who appointed me. And frankly, it borders on offensive
(16:24):
to individual judges. I can share a very quick anecdote
when I was on the district court early in my tenure,
after having been appointed by President Clinton to the Federal
District Court in Baltimore, I struck down the city's affirmative
action plan as unconstitutional, and of course, while it was
(16:47):
still much rare, than now. I think the lead in
the newspaper was Clinton appointed judge strikes down an affirmative
action plan, and I think it might have said a
black Clinton appointed judge. Well, I was following the law,
and that's what judges do. No judge calls the president
(17:08):
who appointed him or her to check in on how
the case should come out. It's absurd, it's offensive, but
again you raise a good point. This is the system
we seem to be swimming in these days, and I
hope that one day soon that will fall out of favor.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Judge Michelle, So what can you do as retired judges?
What do you plan to do?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Well?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
We can explain so that the public and the media
and community leaders, including the business community and other sectors
of our society, have a better understanding and are in
a position to fairly evaluate whether the complaints being made
by high officials in the White House are accurate or not,
(17:55):
and then to call out bad conduct by people who
are attacking judge just for doing your job. I couldn't
agree more with Judge Davis about how hard every one
of us tries the minute we take the oath to
put behind us our personal opinions, our prior political affiliations,
(18:15):
our party registration, our friendships, everything. Becoming a federal judge,
it's almost a little bit like becoming a minister or
a priest or a rabbi. You're a part of a
discipline based on written text, and you swear allegiance to
that text, and you have to discipline yourself to not
(18:35):
let other considerations enter into your decision making. And my impression,
and I've sat with five different circuit courts, is that
the judges do that very faithfully. I'd say ninety nine
percent of the time or more. The judges I sat
with were not acting at all from a political standpoint,
(18:57):
And I often couldn't even remember which party they were
appointed under because it just didn't show up in anything
that they said or wrote or how they voted. So
we've got a real problem in this country if the
public continues to have the view that Judge Davis is
a Democratic judge and Judge Michelle is a Republican judge,
(19:19):
because it's totally false, where judges of the law, not
of our political background, and people need to understand that.
And really it's the great strength in the system. It
means that every citizen can depend on his or her
rights being defended in court by impartial judges because they
(19:39):
can't be pressured by politicians to rule a certain way.
They're going to rule based on the settled law, the precedents,
as lawyers call them. And that's a great comfort not
only to every citizen in individual rights cases, but also
to every corporation. If the corporations can't depend on judges
to treat them under the law fairly, they're going to
(20:02):
stop taking risks, stop making investments, stop building factories if
they can't count on getting a fair shake from the
federal judges, if IRS comes after them, or the Securities
Exchange Commission or any other arm of the government. They
have to be confident that they're not on an enemy's
list in the White House, that they're going to be
treated like any other company or individual by our judges.
(20:26):
And the judges do a very good job, in my
opinion and from my experience, at being completely impartial, particularly
at every level of the court system, except the Supreme Court,
which does look more political to me than the other
two levels of the court system.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Judge Davis, just as Amy Coney Barrett, recently downplayed President
Trump's criticism of federal judges, saying that US presidents have
a long history of criticizing the judiciary. But we talked
before about how this administration, even when so far to
sue the entire federal bench, all the district court judges
(21:04):
in Maryland, is this administration different in the way it
treats federal judges, and you know, even the way it
appoints federal judges more looking for more ideologues than for
you know, the what used to be considering you know,
the ABA approved judges.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
This administration, from top to bottom, absolutely treats the federal
judiciary in ways that, frankfully, no administration before now has.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
Ever treated the federal judiciary.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
The appaminum attacks, the atuperative rhetoric, the name calling, the
takeover of the Justice Department, which, for primary memorial, one
of the pillars of our constitutional system, even though it's
not written into the constitution. You know, there are a
(21:54):
lot of norms that have come into play over these
two hundred and fifty years that are very important, one
of which is the independence not just of the judiciary,
but the independence of the Department of Justice from the
White House. These are structural strengths in our system and
so yes. The attack by this administration on the judiciary
(22:20):
as a whole, on individual judges, the name calling, the purposeful, wilful,
intentional undermining of the rule of law itself is very dangerous,
inimical to constitutional democracy, and I hope, I hope that
(22:41):
with our voices as the Article three Coalition, with the
voices of so many law firms and law organizations and
other civic minded organizations, I hope this will stop and
will return to a time when each branch of government
(23:01):
showed the respect that was due it from all the others.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
To not just have one other thought. The vicious language
that's been used against judges who've ruled in a way
the administration doesn't like has to be understood as to
its impact. It's not a question of the judge's feelings
are hurt. We don't care about feelings when we're judges.
We're not embarrassed to be criticized. We're criticized all the time.
(23:26):
It's part of the job. We know that, we understand that.
But the problem now is that when the president or
the Attorney General makes these vituperative attacks and social media
that thousands of deranged, fanatical, unstable individuals out there in
the blogosphere may take it into their mind that they
(23:46):
have to save the country by going to get rid
of Judge Michelle or Judge Davis because they've ruled in away.
The President says, it's terrible. So now the attacks on
judges are coming from from strangers. You can't even identify
who it might be. In the old days, it was
usually a losing litigant who was upset with the judge,
So the Martial Service could better protect us because they
(24:09):
could see who the source of the threat was coming from.
Now they have no way of knowing or predicting. It
makes it much harder for the very able Marshal Service
to effectively protect judges. So this is a grave threat
to the functioning of our democracy because if judges are terrified,
no matter how brave they are, there's a danger that
(24:30):
subconsciously it could influence their rulings and make them, so
to speak, pull punches for fear of being the target
of some deranged person who would try to kill them
or harass their family or whatever. So it's not a
question of hurt feelings from sharp criticism. It's a question
(24:50):
of actual incitement to violence.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
And the Marshal Service is fielding more online threats to
judges than ever before. Four. Thank you both so much
for joining me today. That's Judge Paul Michelle, formerly of
the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Andre Davis,
formerly of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. They're both
part of the Keep Our Republic's Article three coalition.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson. Could you state
your name?
Speaker 4 (25:23):
Tyler James Robinson.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Twenty two year old Tyler Robinson appeared in court for
the first time on Tuesday, facing aggravated murder charges as
prosecutors seek the death penalty against him for the fatal
shooting of conservative activists Charlie Kirk. Utah County Attorney Jeff
Gray explained the aggravating factors in his decision to pursue
(25:46):
the death penalty.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
The state is further alleging aggravating factors on counts one
and two because the defendant is believed to have targeted
Charlie Kirk based on Charlie Kirk's political expression and did
so knowing that children were present and would witness the homicide.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Robinson is charged with seven counts in all, joining me
is Bloomberg Legal reporter Madlen Mackelberg Madline tell us about
this first appearance by Robinson.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
K Tyler.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
Robinson came before a judge for the first time this week,
and it was a virtual appearance in a courtroom, which
is pretty standard apparently for criminal cases in Utah County
where he was charged. And he appeared via zoom from
the jail and the judge who will be presiding over
the criminal case moving forward, read the charges allowed to him,
(26:40):
informed him that there was a possible sentence of the
death penalty associated with those charges, and he asked him
if he had an attorney yet, and he does not
have a lawyer for him yet. The judge said, based
on his financial status, one will be appointed for him,
and that's something that we can expect to happen in
the next few weeks here.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
And from what I understand, it has to be an
attorney that's rule a qualified, meaning an attorney who's qualified
to deal with capital cases, so that limits the attorneys available.
Did Robinson enter.
Speaker 5 (27:11):
A plea, No, We're not going to see him enter
a plea for at least a few weeks, the way
that things work in Utah. The next hearing is also
going to be virtual, meaning that Robinson will be zooming
in from the courthouse and they'll be discussing whether or
not he wants to waive his right to a preliminary hearing.
(27:31):
This is a hearing where they would talk about whether
there's enough validity to the charges to move forward to
an arraignment, which would be yet another hearing where he
would actually enter a plea to the charges before him.
So we along road to go before we get there,
and from.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
What authorities have said, he has not made a confession
and he's not talking to investigators.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
So Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray has been the public
faith of the prosecution so far, and he's really declined
to weigh in on exactly how much Robinson may or
may not be cooperating with investigators. But we heard previously
from law enforcement authorities that he has not been cooperative
with them. There's no evidence so far that he's given
(28:17):
them any kind of confession or admitted to anything. Although
I'm sure you saw prosecutors released a ton of evidence
that they say they have against him, which include text
messages where he's talking about the shooting, but they decline
to say whether they can strue those as being a confession,
and at this point we have no reason to believe
that he's confessed to authorities or that he's even cooperating
(28:40):
with them.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Well, let's talk a little bit about those text messages
to his roommate and why prosecutors are highlighting them.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
So, while he may not be cooperating with them, it's
very clear that his family and people close to him are,
or at least have been providing law enforcement with information
regarding their communications with him leading up to the shooting
and following the shooting. Now, prosecutors say that he was
in a romantic relationship with his roommate and that when
(29:14):
he was on campus allegedly committing this act, he sent
a message to his roommate telling them to look under
his keyboard on his computer, and when the roommate checked
under the keyboard, there was a note there that said, quote,
I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and
I'm going to take it. And what followed is a
series of messages that are allegedly between the roommate and Robinson.
(29:38):
You know, the roommate is expressing confusion shock, saying you're
joking right, and Robinson apparently said to them, I'm not joking.
The roommate says, you weren't the one who did this, right,
Robinson says, I am, I'm sorry. They go back and
forth in this exchange, and Robinson apparently is talking about
how he attempted to hide his rifle, how police arrested
(29:59):
somebody at the shooting who was not him. I'm sure
you remember those hours afterwards when police kept saying they
had someone in custody, but they were not the suspect
in this case. So I think the messages are significant
because it clearly shows that Robinson was talking about doing
this and explaining some of his thought process behind it,
(30:19):
which is that he said, quote, I had enough of
his hatred talking about Kirk.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Prosecutors didn't out and out state a motive, did they.
I mean, I know that Gray had said Robinson was
becoming more pro gae and trans rights oriented, but did
they explicitly say here's the motive.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
No, So they talked about the political elements of the
situation here, but they have said that they're not talking
about a motive at this point. They're only talking about
the evidence that they have, which seems to include statements
from Robinson's mother, who's the one who told investigators that
in recent years her son had become more politically engaged
with some of these left leaning causes and more pro
(31:03):
gae and trans writes focused. That's something that was in
the charging documents that came forward, and that seems to
be significant because his family said that they identify as
being more conservative voters.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
His parents turned him in, right, So, when.
Speaker 5 (31:19):
They discovered and identified in the images that law enforcement
released that the shooter resembled their son, apparently, they had
some phone call conversations with him, had him come back
to the house, and they spoke with a family friend
who is a retired law enforcement official, and together they
encouraged him to turn himself into local authorities where he's from,
(31:40):
which is about four hours away from where the university
is where Kirk was speaking when he was shot.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
And prosecutors have some physical evidence DNA evidence.
Speaker 5 (31:50):
Right, So, prosecutors say that they have DNA from the
trigger of the rifle that they believe was used in
the shooting and the towel that the rifle was found
wrapped in when they recovered it from the scene. They
say the DNA they collected their matches Robinson.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
And what about his conversations on Discord. The FBI director
said that they're investigating the people who were involved in
those conversations.
Speaker 5 (32:17):
Apparently Robinson was having conversations on Discord, which is a
popular chat application that's used for people who play in
stream video games. This is my understanding of it, but
apparently he was having a conversation with a group of
friends and making jokes about the shooting and connecting himself
to it without admitting anything. And those conversations have been
(32:41):
discussed by, as you say, the FBI director and some
officials publicly, but they're not actually mentioned in the charging
documents that we saw filed from prosecutors. So we have
to assume that'll be part of the evidence that they
present against him at some point, but it hasn't been
part of this initial charging.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Authorities consider him a sole actor here or are they
looking for accomplices.
Speaker 5 (33:06):
So at this point, prosecutors and law enforcements say that
they are continuing investigating, they're leaving no stone unturned, but
they've declined to answer questions of whether they believe he
acted alone or this was a coordinated attempt. And so
at this point nobody else has been named as a suspect,
or even as somebody who has contributed to this in
(33:26):
a different way, and so the investigation continues. It's possible
that we see future charges against another individual, but at
this point there's no evidence to suggest that they have
somebody else in mind.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Before Robinson was even arrested, Utah's governor said they would
pursue the death penalty, but what did the prosecutors say?
He decided to seek the death penalty.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
So there's been a lot of talk about this. The
Utah governor came out and said that he was planning
to pursue it. President Trump has said you need to
pursue the death penalty, and when we heard from the
county attorney this week, he said he made this decision
independent of any outside influence and that while he spoke
with both the governor and the president at least representatives
for their respective administrations, he said he didn't receive pressure
(34:14):
from them to make that decision and they didn't raise
it with him. So he's wanting to be clear that
this is something he's pursuing based on the evidence that
he has, and part of that is this idea that
when the shooting occurred, there were children present, and there
was also a risk of injury to other people that
were there. So it wasn't a straightforward murder situation where
(34:36):
it was just between two individuals. He was firing a
shot across a crowd of people and there was a
risk of injury to others who were there.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Did the prosecutors say where the political element of this
fits in? Is he considering that this shooting was politically motivated?
Speaker 5 (34:53):
Prosecutors noted in the charging documents that Robinson intentionally selected
Kirk because of his perception regarding Kirk's political expression. So
that's the mention that we've seen from prosecutors in the
formal court documents that he was motivated by the political expression,
but they haven't declared that as the official motive, but
(35:14):
they've noted that that was part of why Robinson allegedly
decided to shoot Kirk.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
About half the states have the death penalty on the books.
When was the last time Utah used it? So?
Speaker 5 (35:27):
Utah is one of twenty three states in the US
that currently allows for the death penalty to be imposed
on an individual. Compared to other states, they have had
less executions. Typically, when you're talking about the modern era
of the death penalty, we look at executions since nineteen
seventy six, which was when the Supreme Court said that
(35:48):
it is legal as a form of sentencing, and so
since then, Utah has executed eight people.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
And what's the method of execution in Utah?
Speaker 5 (35:59):
So, Utah Ya Like most states, every state that allows
for the death penalty, their primary means of administering it
is through lethal injection. But Utah is unique in that
it's one of just five states that allows for a
firing squad to be used in execution. But that's only
in the situation where the state can't acquire the drugs
(36:20):
that are required for lethal injection.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
The last time the firing squad was used was in
twenty ten, not so long ago. Are the Feds also
considering bringing charges against Robinson?
Speaker 5 (36:31):
I think that's certainly a possibility. We've heard people in
the Trump administration say that that's something that they're looking at.
Prosecutors in Utah County declined to answer questions about that
as well. They said that's a decision that's totally up
to the federal government. If they have charges that they
want to pursue at a federal level. Nothing's been filed yet,
but you know that's always possible.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
And Madeline, you recently went to the campus where the
shooting occurred. Tell us what it's like there now.
Speaker 5 (37:00):
That's right. So campus has been closed since the shooting,
but it reopened yesterday. Classes resumed and so there were
multiple memorial sites set up at the university and they
were encouraging members of the public and students to leave
offerings and to have a moment of silence at the
(37:20):
site of the shooting if that's something that was meaningful
for them. I spent a few hours there in the
evening before classes resumed, and then again on Wednesday morning,
and the mood was the same both days I was there.
It was very somber, very quiet. People were incredibly emotional
and they were passing through leaving flowers, reading signs. There
(37:42):
was chalk left out and people had scrawled different messages
on the sidewalks, on the roadways and even on the
side of some buildings, expressing support for Charlie and expressing,
you know, mournful feelings but also hopeful feelings for the future,
and saying things along the lines of this didn't happen
in Vain. Your mission is going to continue. And people
(38:04):
who visited the Amphitheater area where Kirk was actually shot.
The university had placed these metal barriers preventing people from
walking in, but many people came and leaned against the
edge of them and just kind of were reflecting silently
as they looked on this area. But if you passing through,
would stop and turn and look back up towards the
building which you can see from there where the suspect
(38:27):
allegedly fired from. So there was a lot of interest,
but most of it was coming from a place of
mourning and wanting to find community and returning to the scene.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
The next hearing is on September twenty ninth. Will see
if we learn more then. Thanks so much, Madeline. That's
Bloomberg Legal reporter Madeleine Mecklberg, 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 Podcasts, Spotify, and at
www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And
(39:02):
remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.