Trump Assassination Attempt & Terror Groups Charged (with Joyce Vance and Mimi Rocah)
20:44 Share

Hey folks, Joyce Vance here. There was another apparent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump over the weekend at one of his Florida golf courses. The suspect was taken into custody after the incident and was charged Monday with two firearms counts. In other news, federal prosecutors out of the Southern District of New York unveiled charges against six Hamas leaders in connection with their planning and execution of the October 7 attack on Israel last year.

DOJ also announced hate crime, solicitation of murder, and terrorism charges against two leaders of the Terragram Collective terrorist group. Preet Bharara and I are joined this week by Westchester County DA Mimi Rocha to discuss all that and more on a new episode of the Cafe Insider podcast. If you're a member of Cafe Insider, head over to the Insider feed or click the link in the show notes of this podcast to listen to the full analysis.

Stay tuned, listeners. Remain here for an excerpt from our discussion. To become a member of Cafe Insider, head to cafe.com slash insider. You can try the membership for just $1 for one month. That's cafe.com slash insider. Now, on to the show. So I think with this distinguished crew, the first thing we should talk about is the second apparent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

We should say at the outset, as we always do, and some people don't do this, and I think it's a mistake and a problem, political violence, we condemn it. It should not be a part of the process in America or anywhere else, no matter what side of the aisle you're on. It's disgusting and gross, and it shouldn't happen. So let me just sort of lay out a couple of the facts, and then Mimi and Joyce, you should chime in on the legal aspects of this and the investigative aspects of this. So it looks like the person...

who was apprehended and brought into custody is a guy named Ryan Ralph in his upper 50s, used to be a resident of Hawaii, later a resident of North Carolina, who was apparently lying in wait at one of Trump's golf courses in Florida, one hole ahead of where Trump was at the time. Secret service agents saw the front of a rifle poking out of the bushes or the trees, opened fire. The guy escaped.

And through a pretty decent bit of police work and as a consequence of some witness testimony, somebody who was a bystander and took a picture of the car and got a picture of the license plate, they were able to track him down and bring him into custody. He has been charged federally. And Mimi, I want to ask you about the logic of this. He's been charged federally with a statute that we've talked about on the show a number of times for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He has a prior felony conviction. And for being a felon in possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number,

What do you make of the charges, Mimi and Joyce? I mean, I think it absolutely makes sense for him to be charged federally. I would have been surprised if he wasn't for several reasons. First of all, the penalties on a federal charge like this are probably going to be higher than under Florida state law.

In fact, for the obliterated serial number, I believe there's a mandatory minimum. So you always want to start with the higher potential charges. Also, it just makes sense that you would want federal agencies, i.e. the FBI, doing the investigation and investigating.

prosecutors taking the lead in a case that has such a federal interest. So I want to point out that Mimi is saying this, obviously, as someone who used to be a federal prosecutor and was my friend and colleague in the Southern District of New York. But you're saying this now as a sitting district attorney, you would you would you would cede

an investigation like this to the feds? Yes. I mean, first of all, I think I'm saying that honestly. I am saying that honestly. Again, I think there's a real federal interest here. And in gun cases in particular, that's not always the case. But here, given the intended target, there is. And where there's a real federal interest, in addition to the reasons about penalties and whatever, I think that

It's the right thing to do to seed it. And I think Joyce may have actually spoken to Dave Ehrenberg, who's the county attorney, I think is his title, but my equivalent in Florida. And I think he said essentially that, which I think is the right thing. You know, I did. And he said precisely that. He said he was busy working on filing charges and

when he received a call from his federal counterparts advising him that they were going to charge. And he said, absolutely the right thing here. No turf issues, you know, between us and our federal partners. And I think it is a recognition that this is both an incident that merits federal prosecution, but also that the process is likely to produce more serious time in custody. So, Joyce, you know, it's often the case that feds will bring charges right away. They're easy to bring, demonstrably provable.

like the felon in possession of a firearms charge, do you think that's all we're going to see here? Are we going to see something more serious like attempted homicide or some other analog of that in the federal statute? Yeah, I think that's an interesting question, right? These were charges that were brought by complaint. They didn't go to a grand jury. They just wanted to put enough in place to hold Routh in custody.

So the big debate here is whether there's enough evidence to charge some form of attempt. There's a federal statute that also applies to nominees for the presidency for major political parties, so it would cover Donald Trump. And the question in attempt prosecutions

is always, has the defendant engaged in enough conduct to be convicted of attempt? In my office, we used to call it, you know, how far left of boom was the defendant? Here, it will depend on what they develop in the investigation. Is there evidence of his intent? Did he tell anyone, for instance, that he planned to try to kill Trump?

And also this notion of how far has his preparation gone? It looks pretty far to me, lying in wait with an SKS rifle. If the only thing that was left was for him to wait for Trump to show up and then take the shot, we may see a prosecution. Although there is some hesitance, I will tell you, and some support in the case law for not charging when, for instance, he didn't actually take the shot, line up for the shot.

It may be that this case just isn't appropriate for prosecution in that area. There's also the potential charge, you know, of attempting to murder or aggravated assault on a federal agent because obviously he's surrounded by federal agents. But

I think in order to prove the intent in this case, since fortunately this was stopped before it seems, it sounds like, any shots were fired, it's going to come from statements, which I guess he hasn't made, or past statements, social media, things like that about his intent, right? I mean, I think you could do it circumstantially, and it would certainly be buffered by statements or writings or something like that, which I'm sure they're going through now.

So the point that Mimi made is a good one. I think it'll depend on the testimony of one or more Secret Service agents. Did it appear that the gunman was lining up to aim to shoot one of the agents or not? And if he was, then I think there's maybe a plausible charge there too. In this case, I mean, there's going to be an investigation, obviously, a lot of scrutiny as there should be. Did anyone do anything wrong here? I mean, some of the suggestions have been in the reporting that there has long been concern about Donald Trump

golfing on his properties. They're not fully private, they're semi-private. And to the extent that he's able to be photographed long range by cameras with powerful lenses, that suggests he's also capable of being in the crosshairs of a firearm or an assault rifle. And so maybe he shouldn't be doing that.

Does anybody have any sense of, at this early stage, if there was a failure of security in some sense? Or was it a success of security? So look, I think it's a success, right? The reporting that we've seen is that the gunman was about 500 feet away from Trump. That's about a football field and a half, a couple holes away. And this, you know, the way that they secure Trump when he's playing on his private courses is there's a team in front and then there's a team at six o'clock behind him. So they've got coverage of

of the holes that are adjacent to where he's playing. Budgetary constraints mean that a former president doesn't have the resources to secure the entire perimeter.

And that's not the Secret Service's fault, by the way. You know, this is Donald Trump insisting on playing on his own private golf courses with adjacent streets, where, as you point out, anybody with a long-range camera, you know, can line up and take a look at him. The Secret Service warned Trump that this was dangerous while he was president. He resisted that information.

continued to play there. I think it's probably worth noting in that regard that if he was playing on a military course, the Secret Service wouldn't be paying money to his properties for rental of carts and for whatever else agents need while they're there. But, you know,

Maybe that doesn't play a role here. Nonetheless, Trump exposes not just himself, but all of the agents around him to danger every time he plays on one of his courses, as opposed to on a military course that has better security. Can I just add one thing, which is I personally don't necessarily feel equipped to know what Secret Service should have done or not done. I mean, just as a matter of common sense, it seems like this is a

place that's not easy to secure and presents challenges and et cetera. But I think that what we're seeing, right, we've seen now two different attempts, apparently, on a former president's life, very scary, dangerous situations for the country.

And obviously for him and the people around him. I feel like what we're seeing here is sort of what we've seen in our country in general, which is there is such a proliferation of guns. And I'm not saying the Secret Service can't do its job, but it's going to need to adjust in a way. Don't think the Secret Service was developed to

in a country, in a culture where everybody, anybody had access to guns. Obviously, we had assassination attempts in the past, and people who shouldn't have had guns got them. But we know because we unfortunately see it every day, everywhere. It's not just Trump, I guess is what I'm trying to say, who is the victim of this overgunned society. It

It is our entire country, and we all have to adjust the same way schools have to adjust, other soft targets, hard targets. The Secret Service, it seems to me, probably needs to rethink in that way. We're in a different world now where almost anyone can get a gun, especially in a place like Florida and Georgia.

That's just that's I don't want to say that's just the reality because I absolutely, you know, like you don't think it should be that way. But that is where we are at the moment, unfortunately, due to really, you know, bad gun laws. So at this point, I haven't seen it if it exists. Is there any reporting or information from law enforcement about how Ralph, a prior convicted felon,

came into possession of the weapon? Not that I've seen, but that's an incredibly important fact to learn because we keep having this happen, whether it's someone who tries to kill

a former president or someone who does a school shooting where someone who clearly was dangerous enough that they should not have had a firearm did. And I mean, I'm a huge believer in red flag laws. I've seen them in work myself at work and they save lives unquestionably. That's not the only way to prevent people who are dangerous from getting guns, but it's one of them. So I think that is a really important question. I haven't seen anything on it yet.

But it's an interesting question because the SKS is widely available. This was a Russian-developed weapon that preceded the AK-47, which has sort of largely replaced it. But it's available in gun shops and at gun shows. It's not a particularly expensive weapon. Ammunition is widely available for it. This is an individual with two prior felony convictions, so he didn't qualify for a lawful transfer. And he most likely bought the

firearm, maybe at a gun show or perhaps in an illegal transaction. It's interesting to note that the report is that the serial number was partially obliterated. We don't know if he bought it that way or if he himself tried to file or obscure it.

But I thought that that was interesting reporting, that it was partially but not completely removed, which meant it would take them longer to trace the gun's origin. Obviously, that work is all ongoing today, and I suspect we'll know where this gun came from in pretty short order. Can we go back to the issue of sufficient protection? To me, at this point, it should not be an issue of debate, whatever side of the aisle you're on, or whether you're in the legislature or you're in law enforcement or you're just an average citizen.

There have now been two brushes with serious gunmen by the former president. And I think that it stands to reason that whatever the maximum level of protection Trump can get, he should get. Now, whether that's the same as what a sitting president gets, you know, I don't know the answer to that question. Sitting president also has to have the ability to engage in secure comms and to direct military action and all sorts of other things. But to me, any suggestion that there's a budgetary constraint

or some other fiscal or financial limitation on what it would take to give former President Trump and his team a guarantee of the utmost protection from the Secret Service is silly. He should get the max. Does anybody disagree with that? No. No. That was easy. Sorry, can't give you a debate. It's just silly. I mean, we shouldn't be talking about

you know, a few hundred thousand dollars or a million dollars or two million dollars. You can't have it happen a third time. You just can't have it happen a third time. You know, Joe Biden was quick to make the point that the Secret Service needs more funding, that they are not adequately funded for this situation. And I think that's true. That means Congress should act immediately to fix that situation. The burden shouldn't be on the agency to find the money from an already skinny budget, right? This is something where Congress should act immediately.

on a bipartisan basis and send a message that political violence is never, never tolerated. Can I make another comment just about rhetoric? It's a political season. It's very easy and facile for people to say, you know, one side is responsible for heated rhetoric. The other side should tone it down. Everyone should tone it the F down and be careful about their choice of words and be careful about how they talk about this, you know, additional brush with violence.

And some people on the Democratic side and the pro-Kamala Harris side, I won't name them, have said unfortunate things. And they shouldn't do that. You shouldn't joke about political violence. But I will also point out that it is a little bit rich to be lectured by people like Donald Trump and his trash son, Donald Trump Jr., who themselves mocked actual political violence where there was actual injury on the part of the husband of the former speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Here's Donald Trump talking at a rally about

Not long ago. Remember, Paul Pelosi was beaten to a pulp, had a fracture of his skull, was hospitalized as an 82-year-old man, right? This wasn't a threat of violence. This wasn't, you know, the potential violence or hypothetical violence. It was actual violence in his home, beaten in the head, sent to the hospital, 82 years old. And Donald Trump stands up at a rally after that and says, quote, we'll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi who ruined San Francisco. How's her husband doing? Anybody know?

And she's against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house, which obviously didn't do a very good job. And then the son, and I stand by my trash descriptor, retweeted a photo of

of a piece of underwear and a hammer that was captioned, got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready. So everyone should tone it down. Everyone should be sympathetic. Everyone should call out and condemn political violence. For these two people to be lecturing anybody is very, very, very rich.

Totally agree. I mean, that can't be said enough, really. But, you know, not enough, right? I mean, there was some doubling down last night, and J.D. Vance made comments to a religious organization in Georgia questioning why Kamala Harris hadn't been targeted.

And I think the warning goes without saying here, right? If people want to lead this country, then they should be leaders for everyone. But it seems all too often like Trump and Vance are only worried about these issues when they impact them. And their inability to sort of extrapolate that and to have concerns about violence generally, I think is a real flaw that we don't dwell on enough. Trump gets and should get, by the way, support when something like this takes place.

But that doesn't mean he gets a pass for his failure to speak out against violence against others. And also, it's, I mean, we know this, all of us from school.

you know, years in doing federal cases, there are so many people out there who are so easily radicalized, right? There are people who have mental health issues, who become ideological or not ideological. I mean, I think in the first assassination attempt on Trump, there was signs sort of both ways about, you know, the quote, political leanings of the suspect. And, you

So I guess what I'm trying to say is when you talk in these terms that encourage violence, you don't know who you're radicalizing or for what. There are people out there who it's not about their beliefs. They're looking for an excuse to engage in this kind of behavior, to make a martyr of themselves, whatever. I mean, we've seen that so many times. The FBI does napkin talks when they hear about it and go and try to, you know, rebuke.

warn people, and there's too many of them. And so the more that this dialogue happens in public, even if you think that

wrongly that you are inciting your followers, you know, as Trump seems to, to engage in some kind of political violence against the other side, you don't actually have control once the words are out there. And I think that's something that also is not, we're all in this together, literally, because it doesn't matter your political party. People are going to become radicalized and

irrational and do things that are horrible regardless of which side of the fence they're on and they may not be on the side of the fence they may just be looking for their own personal glory.

I hope you found our discussion informative. To listen to the full episode, head over to cafe.com slash insider and become a member. You'll be supporting our work and get exclusive access to full weekly podcast episodes of Insider and bonus material from Stay Tuned with Preet. Head to cafe.com slash insider. Support for this show comes from Amazon Business.

We could all use more time. Amazon Business offers smart business buying solutions so you can spend more time growing your business and less time doing the admin. I can see why they call it smart. Learn more about smart business buying at AmazonBusiness.com. And we're back with Canva Presents Secret Sounds Work Edition. Caller, guess this sound. So close. That's actually publishing a website with Canva Docs. Next caller.

Definitely a mouse click. Nice try. It was sorting 100 sticky notes with a Canva whiteboard. We also would have accepted resizing a Canva video into 10 different sizes. What? No way. Yes way. One click can go a long way. Love your work at Canva.com.