WELCOME TO THE WDSU NEWS HOT SEAT. I’M TRAVERS MACKEL. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE INDICTMENT ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, A FORMER NYPD OFFICER, JEFFREY VAPPIE. WE’LL GET TO THE INDICTMENT IN A SECOND. AND THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM. BUT PUBLIC OFFICIAL ONE WAS LISTED. IT’S BELIEVED TO BE MAYOR LATOYA CANTRELL. I THINK IT’S SAFE TO SAY IT IS HER. WE HAVE TWO FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, SEAN TOOMEY AND BRIAN CAPPOTELLI. WE’LL JUST START LEFT TO RIGHT, OR AT LEAST MY LEFT TO RIGHT, IF YOU WILL. SEAN, GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE INDICTMENT AGAINST VAPPIE AND THE IMPLICATION OF MAYOR CANTRELL. WELL, STARTING WITH THE INDICTMENT, IT REALLY IS SHOCKING THAT THERE REALLY CRIMINALIZING, YOU KNOW, HAVING PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE, WHICH I THINK IS IS REALLY UNHEARD OF. THE FACT THAT VAPPIE IS CHARGED WITH PAYROLL RELATED CRIMES, THE WIRE FRAUD, SEVEN COUNTS AND ONE COUNT OF LYING TO AN FBI AGENT. THE LIE CAME IF YOU READ THE INDICTMENT, WHICH YOU HAVE. THEY ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MAYOR, AND THEY CLAIM HE DENIED IT. WHEN IT’S TRUE. RIGHT. AND THAT’S INCREDIBLY INTERESTING BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T ASK HIM ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS WORKING THAT DAY. INSTEAD, THEY ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP. AND IN ORDER TO BE A FALSE STATEMENT AND MAKE THAT A CRIME, IT’S GOT TO BE MATERIAL TO A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION. THERE WERE INVESTIGATING, NOT HIS RELATIONSHIP, BUT HIS WORK, WHICH IS WHICH IS INTERESTING. BRIAN, I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ON THIS. YOU HAVE REPRESENTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PROSECUTED SOME AS WELL IN YOUR TIME. WHEN YOU READ THE INDICTMENT ON ITS FACE, HOW STRONG DO YOU THINK THIS CASE IS AGAINST VAPPIE? WELL, I WOULD AGREE WITH SHAWN. I MEAN, I THINK IF YOU LOOK THROUGH COUNTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN, THERE’S VERY MINIMAL MONEY AT STAKE. AND I THINK IT ALL DEFAULTS TO COUNT EIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS THE IT’S THE COVER UP, NOT THE CRIME. I DON’T KNOW THAT THE FEDS GO FORWARD IF IT’S JUST COUNTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT COUNT EIGHT, THE SPECIFICITY WITH WHICH THEY GO. DID YOU SAY YOU LOVE HIM? DID YOU KISS HIM? AND HE SAID NO. WHY? HE DIDN’T HAVE A LAWYER AT THAT POINT IS BEYOND BELIEF. BUT HE, ACCORDING TO THE INDICTMENT, LIED. AND CLEARLY WHEN YOU HAVE A CASE LIKE THAT, TO SHAWN’S POINT, IT’S GOT TO BE MATERIAL UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1001, THE LIE HAS TO BE MATERIAL. SHAWN BRINGS UP A GREAT POINT. I’M SURE HIS LAWYER WILL BRING THAT UP. WHAT WERE THEY INVESTIGATING? BECAUSE THE LIE HAS TO BE MATERIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION. ARE THE INVESTIGATING HIS WORK OR ARE THEY INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIP? IT’S NOT A CRIME TO HAVE AN AFFAIR. AND LOOK, COUNT EIGHT. YOU ALL TOUCHED ON JUST TO BRING PEOPLE UP TO SPEED. COUNT EIGHT IS SIMPLE. LYING TO AN FBI AGENT. YOU CAN’T DO THAT. THAT IS A FEDERAL CRIME. JUST SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT. YEAH, IT GOES BACK TO JIM BROWN. YES. JIM BROWN IN PRISON FOR IT. HE WENT TO WENT TO PRISON FOR IT. BUT HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY ON ALL OF THE COUNTS EXCEPT LYING TO AN FBI AGENT. SO I THINK THAT’S WHY THEY WENT FORWARD WITH THE CASE. TO BE CANDID WITH YOU AND SHAWN, YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS WHEN WE HAD YOU ON SET UP JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, THAT THIS MAY BE THE BEGINNING. THIS IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE THE END BECAUSE IS IT SAFE TO SAY WHEN YOU LIST SOMEBODY AS PUBLIC OFFICIAL ONE, WHO’S THE MAYOR? THAT IS PROBABLY NOT WHERE THIS INVESTIGATION STOPS. HE WOULDN’T BE INDICTED IF IT WASN’T THE MAYOR WHO WAS BEING, YOU KNOW, CONNECTED TO. SO IT’S PURELY BECAUSE THE MAYOR IS THE TARGET OF THIS INVESTIGATION. WE’LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. UM, I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED HER ALREADY, UM, IF THEY FELT THEY HAD A STRONG ENOUGH CASE. THEY DON’T. AND I THINK THEY’RE HOPING TO TO MAKE, UH, OFFICER VAPPIE FLIP ON HER. SO YOU ALL HAVE THE REASON WE’RE TALKING TO YOU ALL? UM, WE USE ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES ON FRIDAY AS WELL. MATT CHESTER, WHO PROSECUTED NAGIN. UM, HE HAD GREAT INSIGHT AS WELL. BUT IF YOU COULD BOTH ANSWER THIS AND WE’LL START WITH YOU THIS TIME, BRIAN, ANY TIME THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE U.S. ATTORNEY AND FBI WANT TO LOOK INTO A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, THEY CAN’T DO THAT LIGHTLY. THEY JUST CAN’T DO THAT IN A VACUUM. DO THEY HAVE TO RUN THAT UP THE FLAGPOLE TO D.C.? AND IS THE MAYOR AWARE THAT THEY’RE LOOKING INTO OR AT THIS POINT, AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME? WELL, I THINK THE MAYOR’S BEEN AWARE FOR YEARS, LIKE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HAS. AND THERE’S NO SECRET HERE. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY, YES. YOU CANNOT HAVE A ROGUE PROSECUTOR WHO WANTS TO JUST GO INVESTIGATE A MAYOR FOR SOME PERSONAL OR RETALIATORY REASON. IT’S GOT TO BE RUN THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THROUGH WASHINGTON, D.C. SO THEY HAD TO HAVE REASON. THEY’VE HAD A GRAND JURY GOING FOR SOME TIME NOW AND GET CERTAIN APPROVALS NOW. HOW FAR ALONG ARE THEY WITH RESPECT TO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CASE AGAINST THE MAYOR, WHICH YOU’VE REPORTED ON IN OTHER NEWS STATIONS HAVE REPORTED ON? WE DON’T KNOW AT THIS POINT, BUT CLEARLY, TO SEAN’S POINT, THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE ROAD. AND THEY HOPE TO USE THAT IN SOME FORM OR FASHION TO THE EXTENT HE’S POTENTIALLY GOING TO COOPERATE TO BUILD A BIGGER CASE AGAINST THE MAYOR. I MEAN, THAT’S NO SECRET. LOOK, Y’ALL BOTH HAVE HANDLED HIGH PROFILE CASES. YOU DO DEFENSE WORK. NOW, IF, IF, IF THE MAYOR HAD RETAINED YOU, IF THE MAYOR SAID, LOOK, I WANT TO COME USE YOU, BUT SHE’S NOT WE WANT TO POINT OUT NEITHER ONE OF YOU ALL ARE TIED TO THIS CASE. THAT’S WHY WE’RE USING YOU ALL AS INDEPENDENT LAWYERS HERE. IF THE MAYOR CAME TO YOU, WHAT WOULD YOUR DEFENSE BE? IF SHE WAS NAMED LIKE THIS? IN THIS INDICTMENT? I WANT TO TRY THIS CASE, THIS IS A WINNABLE CASE. AND THE DEFENSE IS SIMPLE. HE WAS DOING HIS JOB. AND YOU CAN DO YOUR JOB AND HAVE A PERSONAL ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PERSON YOU’RE YOU’RE WORKING FOR. IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY. ALL ACROSS AMERICA. IT’S NOT A CRIME. AND THAT’S WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO HAVE TO PROVE. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVE THAT THAT WHEN HE WAS ON DUTY, HE EVEN IF HE WAS BEING ROMANTIC, HE WASN’T PROTECTING HER. AND I THINK THAT’S A HARD THAT’S A, YOU KNOW, BIG HURDLE TO CLEAR. YEAH. SAME QUESTION FOR YOU. YOU RECENTLY REPRESENTED, UH, FORMER STATE SENATOR KAREN CARTER PETERSON. SO YOU HAVE RECENT KNOWLEDGE OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. IF THE MAYOR CAME TO YOU AND SAID, HEY, LOOK, I WANT YOU TO REPRESENT ME. WHAT IS YOUR DEFENSE IF IF BY CHANCE, ANYTHING HAPPENS, WHICH WE WANT TO POINT OUT, SHE IS NOT CHARGED WITH ANY CRIMES, BUT SHE IS AT LEAST MENTIONED IN THIS INDICTMENT. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK I WOULD LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WHAT ARE THE OFFICIAL ACTS? I MEAN, YOU’RE REPRESENTING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, SO YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LOOKING AT WHAT OFFICIAL ACTS ARE THEY TAKING OR NOT TAKING FOR SOME TYPE OF GRATUITY OR SOME OTHER REASON? I MEAN, THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT HERE, I WOULD SAY. WHAT HAS SHE DONE? SHE’S NOT APPROVING THE TIME CARDS. SHE’S NOT TELLING HIM WHERE TO GO AND WHAT TO DO. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE, IT’S A SPEAKING INDICTMENT WHERE THE FEDS ARE POTENTIALLY GOING, WHERE THEY HOPE TO GO WAS THE DISCUSSION. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTERIM POLICE CHIEF AND THE ATTEMPTS MADE TO OVERTURN THAT CIVIL SERVICE DECISION AGAINST VAAPI A WHILE BACK, THAT’S WHEN YOU’RE GETTING CLOSER TO A CASE AGAINST HER. AT THIS POINT, THERE’S NOTHING THAT I SEE THAT IS A SMOKING GUN. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE MAYOR. YEAH. FINAL QUESTION HERE. YOU’RE ALLUDING TO MICHELLE FAULK. IT’S MENTIONED IN THE INDICTMENT THAT POSSIBLY SHE DIDN’T GET THE MAIN JOB AS SUPERINTENDENT BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION. WITH THAT BEING THE MAYOR APPOINTS THE POLICE CHIEF. FINAL QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU. I’LL START WITH YOU, SEAN, AND THEN END WITH YOU, BRIAN, IS THIS A CASE THAT I HATE TO SAY IT’S BEAUTY’S IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. IF YOU’RE THE FEDS, YOU MAY THINK YOU HAVE A STRONG CASE AGAINST SVATBY. POSSIBLY OTHER PEOPLE, POSSIBLY THE MAYOR. BUT IF YOU’RE A DEFENSE LAWYER, JUST WHAT YOU SAID ARE YOU SAYING, HEY, LOOK, I DON’T THINK THIS IS A STRONG CASE, I GUESS. IS THIS A CASE THAT’S. BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER HERE. I THINK IT’S A YEAH, I THINK THIS IS A TOUGH CASE AS A PROSECUTOR TO CONVINCE 12 PEOPLE THAT THIS GUY WASN’T DOING HIS JOB, EVEN IF HE WAS HAVING A RELATIONSHIP. I THINK IT’S A TOUGH CASE TO PROVE. AND YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, AS BRIAN SAID, BRINGING THE MAYOR INTO THIS, THAT THAT WOULD BE A WHOLE NOTHER LEVEL OF OF CONSPIRACY AND THE FACTS JUST AREN’T THERE YET. YEAH. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I MEAN, IT’S ONE OF THESE CASES WHERE DEPENDING ON WHICH PRISM YOU SEE IT THROUGH, YOUR OPINION COULD VARY. YEAH. I MEAN, I AGREE, I THINK SEAN MENTIONED EARLIER YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WERE THEY INVESTIGATING YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT A CRIME TO HAVE AN AFFAIR. AND I THINK THAT’S HOW THE DEFENSE WOULD ATTACK IT. I MEAN, THAT’S WHAT I WOULD SAY IF I WAS DEFENDING THIS CASE. THINGS HAPPEN. PEOPLE HAVE AFFAIRS. THINGS HAPPEN IN THE WORK. BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT A FEDERAL CRIME. AND WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? IF I’M THE DEFENSE LAWYER FOR, YOU KNOW, $300 IN ACCOUNT? I MEAN, IS THAT WHAT YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S SUPPOSED TO DO? THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS YOU KNOW, SHE IS THE MAYOR AND SHE’S USING HER POSITION, ARGUABLY TO GAIN FAVORS OR TRY TO GAIN FAVORS FOR SOMEBODY WHO’S AN NOPD OFFICER. AGAIN, I’LL GO BACK TO WHAT I STARTED WITH IS THE FEDS NEVER CHARGED SOMEBODY WITH ONE COUNT. SO THEY LOSE COUNTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN. THEY WIN COUNT EIGHT. THAT BE LOST. FEDS WON. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. BRIAN CAPPOTELLI, SEAN TOOMEY, WE APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT. TWO FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS NOW DOING CRIMINAL DEFENSE WORK. WELL, OBVIOUSLY CONTINUE TO COVER THIS STORY AS IT UNFOLDS. BUT THAT’S ALL THE TIME THAT WE HAVE FOR THE HOT SEAT. I’M TRAVERS MACKEL. LET’S SEND IT BACK