1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:05,800 --> 00:00:08,840
Speaker 1: Comments from Attorney General William Barr seems to have had

3
00:00:08,920 --> 00:00:12,040
Speaker 1: no effect on President Trump's tweeting about the case of

4
00:00:12,080 --> 00:00:16,400
Speaker 1: his longtime friend Roger Stone, and Trump's tweeting seems to

5
00:00:16,400 --> 00:00:18,880
Speaker 1: have had no effect on the federal judge will be

6
00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:23,759
Speaker 1: sentencing Stone. Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected Stone's requests for

7
00:00:23,920 --> 00:00:27,560
Speaker 1: delay in sentencing so the court can consider his second

8
00:00:27,560 --> 00:00:30,520
Speaker 1: motion for a new trial. Stone will be sentenced for

9
00:00:30,520 --> 00:00:34,320
Speaker 1: a lying to Congress and witness tampering on Thursday, as scheduled.

10
00:00:34,760 --> 00:00:37,479
Speaker 1: President Trump is now calling for the Stone case to

11
00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:40,960
Speaker 1: be thrown out and continues to make comments about two

12
00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:45,160
Speaker 1: of the highest profile prosecutions during his administration. I think

13
00:00:45,240 --> 00:00:48,520
Speaker 1: Roger Stone has been treated unfairly. I think General Flynn

14
00:00:48,560 --> 00:00:51,080
Speaker 1: has been treated very unfairly. I think a lot of

15
00:00:51,080 --> 00:00:54,080
Speaker 1: people have been treated very unfairly. My guest his former

16
00:00:54,120 --> 00:00:58,480
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Group.

17
00:00:58,680 --> 00:01:02,200
Speaker 1: Federal Judge Amy Irman Jackson said, there's been a lot

18
00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:04,720
Speaker 1: of work that's gone into the sentencing. It makes sense

19
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:08,839
Speaker 1: to proceed on Thursday. Does that give you any indication

20
00:01:08,920 --> 00:01:12,520
Speaker 1: that she's not going to be swayed by any of

21
00:01:12,560 --> 00:01:15,520
Speaker 1: the commentary. Yeah, I think that's safe. You know, she

22
00:01:15,600 --> 00:01:17,840
Speaker 1: could have I mean, it's a distraction. She could have

23
00:01:17,880 --> 00:01:19,959
Speaker 1: really called the a g and on the carpet and

24
00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:21,920
Speaker 1: d O J because they went from seven to nine

25
00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:24,240
Speaker 1: years basically saying judges, do whatever you like, We've got

26
00:01:24,240 --> 00:01:28,040
Speaker 1: no positions. A huge sea change, and you know, she

27
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:30,520
Speaker 1: could have really called him in as an equal branch

28
00:01:30,560 --> 00:01:33,480
Speaker 1: of government. But it's basically going to ignore that, and

29
00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:36,880
Speaker 1: it's just gonna sentence the defendant probably as she was

30
00:01:36,880 --> 00:01:39,160
Speaker 1: going to do before, because it's only a recommendation by

31
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:42,760
Speaker 1: the government. So Jeff. Last week, the judge rejected Stone's

32
00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:45,640
Speaker 1: request for a new trial based on bias of one

33
00:01:45,680 --> 00:01:47,680
Speaker 1: of the jurors who worked for the I R S.

34
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:51,320
Speaker 1: But Stones' lawyers have submitted another request for a new

35
00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:54,840
Speaker 1: trial based on bias of the jury four person. How

36
00:01:54,840 --> 00:01:58,400
Speaker 1: does it judge determine whether there is bias? Well, you mean,

37
00:01:58,400 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 1: you can look at biases to a person's actions, and

38
00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:03,320
Speaker 1: some of that the defense lawyers knew, I mean, they

39
00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:06,480
Speaker 1: knew this four person and she's come out ran for

40
00:02:06,560 --> 00:02:09,959
Speaker 1: Congress as a Democrat and maybe say some anti Trump things,

41
00:02:09,960 --> 00:02:11,919
Speaker 1: so they didn't know some of that. If there were

42
00:02:11,960 --> 00:02:15,200
Speaker 1: other things out there that they didn't know, but that

43
00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:18,160
Speaker 1: the four person misled them or lied on the questionnaire

44
00:02:18,240 --> 00:02:21,919
Speaker 1: or her answers, that's a valid argument to make to

45
00:02:21,919 --> 00:02:23,960
Speaker 1: to get a new trial. It's still a long shot,

46
00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:26,640
Speaker 1: but if that's the case, then there is an argument

47
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:29,960
Speaker 1: there there were some specific questions, you know, related to

48
00:02:29,960 --> 00:02:33,360
Speaker 1: Trump bias or Stone bias. If the judge found she

49
00:02:33,520 --> 00:02:37,240
Speaker 1: lied on those, does that automatically give him a new

50
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:41,280
Speaker 1: trial or are there other considerations. It's not automatic. It

51
00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:43,680
Speaker 1: really is up to the judge's discretion. And even if

52
00:02:43,720 --> 00:02:46,120
Speaker 1: the district court judge denies it, you know, have a

53
00:02:46,120 --> 00:02:49,880
Speaker 1: pretty good appellate argument because there's nothing more basic and

54
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:52,520
Speaker 1: a jury trial than to make sure the jury can

55
00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:55,720
Speaker 1: be fair and impartial. And if a journ Again we're

56
00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:59,160
Speaker 1: just using hypothetical here, but if a juror lied in

57
00:02:59,280 --> 00:03:02,000
Speaker 1: order to get on that jury, and the law pertained

58
00:03:02,000 --> 00:03:05,160
Speaker 1: to a bias against someone related to the defendant, in

59
00:03:05,160 --> 00:03:07,600
Speaker 1: other words, it wasn't a bias against Stone. That's important

60
00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:09,800
Speaker 1: to keep mind. It's a bias against Trump. Now Stone

61
00:03:09,919 --> 00:03:12,120
Speaker 1: is a connection to Trump, so who knows if that

62
00:03:12,120 --> 00:03:16,480
Speaker 1: would be transferable. So it's definitely not a slam dunk argument.

63
00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:20,240
Speaker 1: Slam dunk argument if this person had a bias against

64
00:03:20,320 --> 00:03:23,240
Speaker 1: the actual defendant and then lied about it. That's not

65
00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:25,640
Speaker 1: the case here. But obviously, as we know, the connection

66
00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:28,400
Speaker 1: between Trump and Stone is very tight. So you know,

67
00:03:28,440 --> 00:03:30,800
Speaker 1: it's a district court argument. If it's denied, it's certainly

68
00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:33,079
Speaker 1: an appellate court argument, and it can keep him out

69
00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:36,520
Speaker 1: of jail during the pendency of that appeal. The lawyers

70
00:03:36,560 --> 00:03:40,400
Speaker 1: in this case not only could have challenged her for bias,

71
00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:42,680
Speaker 1: but also if they didn't like the fact that she

72
00:03:43,160 --> 00:03:46,280
Speaker 1: had run as a Democrat for something, they could have

73
00:03:46,440 --> 00:03:50,200
Speaker 1: knocked off the jury with a peremptory Yeah. Correct. There's

74
00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:52,640
Speaker 1: two kinds of strikes you can make, you know, strike

75
00:03:52,680 --> 00:03:56,240
Speaker 1: for cause, in other words, a juror doesn't understand English.

76
00:03:56,280 --> 00:03:59,880
Speaker 1: That's a prerequisite really to understand the testimony. Is it's

77
00:04:00,200 --> 00:04:03,360
Speaker 1: as it's coming in, or has a several criminal convictions,

78
00:04:03,480 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 1: or couldn't be fair to one side or another. Um.

79
00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:09,920
Speaker 1: These are strikes for cause and they're basically unlimited. UM.

80
00:04:10,080 --> 00:04:14,320
Speaker 1: Then there's preemptory challenges, which each side has a certain

81
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:17,920
Speaker 1: number and can use for any legitimate reason. And by legitimate,

82
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:20,280
Speaker 1: I mean they can't strike somebody because they're white. You

83
00:04:20,320 --> 00:04:23,320
Speaker 1: can't strike somebody because they're Hispanic. Uh. You know there's

84
00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:26,160
Speaker 1: certain things you cannot strike somebody for. Other than that

85
00:04:26,240 --> 00:04:27,800
Speaker 1: you can literally say I don't like the way they

86
00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:29,720
Speaker 1: look to me. That's fine. You have a certain number

87
00:04:29,720 --> 00:04:33,200
Speaker 1: of pre emptory challenges. So the defense could have stricken

88
00:04:33,440 --> 00:04:36,680
Speaker 1: made an argument to strike her for cause, but that's

89
00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:38,839
Speaker 1: probably not gonna you know, being a Democrat and running

90
00:04:38,839 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 1: for Congress is not for cause. But they could have

91
00:04:41,080 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 1: used their preemptory challenges they chose not to. Generally do,

92
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:51,679
Speaker 1: defense lawyers and maybe even prosecutors do an examination of

93
00:04:51,760 --> 00:04:57,880
Speaker 1: the social media history of potential jurors. It depends on

94
00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:01,320
Speaker 1: the case as a As a prosecut here, you're really

95
00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:05,080
Speaker 1: run it too often. I mean, you have the FBIHID disposible.

96
00:05:05,080 --> 00:05:07,479
Speaker 1: You're not doing FBI background check on people. But in

97
00:05:07,480 --> 00:05:09,760
Speaker 1: today's day at age, you're a Google search away from

98
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:12,719
Speaker 1: finding out things about a juror that the questionnaire or

99
00:05:12,720 --> 00:05:15,840
Speaker 1: the judges questions may not cover. And now that I've

100
00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:18,200
Speaker 1: left d O J and in the consulting world. On

101
00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:21,760
Speaker 1: large cases, we do work with lawyers to really, uh,

102
00:05:21,920 --> 00:05:25,599
Speaker 1: you know, look at certain jurors and their social media

103
00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:28,040
Speaker 1: profile because that can be revealing. So it's certainly an

104
00:05:28,040 --> 00:05:32,599
Speaker 1: option available to both sides. Right now, let's turn out

105
00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:35,479
Speaker 1: to the situation at the d o J. Were you

106
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:39,040
Speaker 1: part of the group of prosecutors who signed this letter

107
00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:43,440
Speaker 1: asking for bars resignation? You know, I was not actually

108
00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:45,000
Speaker 1: sent in a what I thought could be a couple

109
00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:47,560
Speaker 1: of edits, and I never heard back, So I just

110
00:05:48,000 --> 00:05:50,800
Speaker 1: like let that one live. Figured, you know, my name

111
00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:53,159
Speaker 1: on there is not It is not going to persuade anyone.

112
00:05:53,360 --> 00:05:55,600
Speaker 1: It seems to be growing though the number. One day

113
00:05:55,640 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: I heard a thousand, and the next day I heard

114
00:05:57,680 --> 00:06:00,400
Speaker 1: two thousand, two thousand. I got four emails to asking

115
00:06:00,440 --> 00:06:02,279
Speaker 1: me to sign, as I'm sure a lot of former

116
00:06:02,279 --> 00:06:06,640
Speaker 1: prosecutors did. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer,

117
00:06:06,839 --> 00:06:10,400
Speaker 1: managing director of the Berkeley Research Group, about the continuing

118
00:06:10,440 --> 00:06:14,719
Speaker 1: turmoil at the Justice Department and the upcoming sentencing of

119
00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:19,000
Speaker 1: long time Trump friend Roger Stone. So, Jeff as we're

120
00:06:19,040 --> 00:06:22,559
Speaker 1: talking about more than two thousand prosecutors signed this open letter.

121
00:06:22,720 --> 00:06:28,760
Speaker 1: Asking a g bar to resign. What effect does that have? Letters?

122
00:06:28,839 --> 00:06:31,200
Speaker 1: You know, during the Trump era, we've had a lot

123
00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:37,280
Speaker 1: of letters from prosecutors and former prosecutors asking for different things.

124
00:06:37,360 --> 00:06:40,640
Speaker 1: Does it make any impact? The short answer is no.

125
00:06:41,279 --> 00:06:44,599
Speaker 1: But um, you know he's not a g bar is

126
00:06:44,600 --> 00:06:46,640
Speaker 1: not leaving because it's a clamor by X A, U

127
00:06:46,720 --> 00:06:49,839
Speaker 1: S A S for him to leave. Um. But it's uh,

128
00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:52,680
Speaker 1: it's it's a shot across the bow. It's telling and

129
00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:54,640
Speaker 1: I think it's telling not just to a G BARRS.

130
00:06:54,720 --> 00:06:56,880
Speaker 1: I think he's a lost cause at this point, but

131
00:06:57,000 --> 00:07:00,440
Speaker 1: to the line assistants at Main Justice and the U. S.

132
00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:04,279
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office, by their former colleagues, that matters because someday

133
00:07:04,320 --> 00:07:06,360
Speaker 1: they're all going to be you know, former not all,

134
00:07:06,360 --> 00:07:09,800
Speaker 1: but n there going to be former d J people. UM.

135
00:07:09,920 --> 00:07:12,160
Speaker 1: And it's saying that there's people out there that's sat

136
00:07:12,160 --> 00:07:16,040
Speaker 1: where you sat, UM, that did the job that you're doing. UM,

137
00:07:16,160 --> 00:07:20,080
Speaker 1: and you know, expressing support for the four prosecutors who

138
00:07:20,160 --> 00:07:23,480
Speaker 1: left that case and basically saying, as the letter appropriately did. Look,

139
00:07:23,520 --> 00:07:25,760
Speaker 1: if you're confronted with this kind of issue, you need

140
00:07:25,800 --> 00:07:29,400
Speaker 1: to stand up and say something. It's it's really unprecedented,

141
00:07:29,560 --> 00:07:31,840
Speaker 1: and we use that word a lot right now, um,

142
00:07:31,880 --> 00:07:35,680
Speaker 1: but never before has the Attorney General decided to pick

143
00:07:35,720 --> 00:07:37,880
Speaker 1: and choose a case to put his finger on. I mean,

144
00:07:38,040 --> 00:07:41,320
Speaker 1: there are thousands and thousands of cases going on right

145
00:07:41,320 --> 00:07:43,720
Speaker 1: now where d J is making recommendation, and I don't

146
00:07:43,760 --> 00:07:45,480
Speaker 1: think the AG is really get involved in too many

147
00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:48,880
Speaker 1: drug cases in Chicago or Miami or l A right now. However,

148
00:07:49,000 --> 00:07:51,680
Speaker 1: Roger Stoney made a point to get involved in that's absurd.

149
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:56,280
Speaker 1: The Michael Flynn sentencing is another example. And a few

150
00:07:56,320 --> 00:08:00,200
Speaker 1: weeks ago the Justice Department changed its position and on

151
00:08:00,280 --> 00:08:05,320
Speaker 1: the Michael Flynn sentencing went from opposing probation to not

152
00:08:05,400 --> 00:08:09,720
Speaker 1: opposing probation. So now, in addition to that, there's this

153
00:08:10,160 --> 00:08:14,520
Speaker 1: investigation by an outside council. Tell us about that and

154
00:08:14,520 --> 00:08:17,120
Speaker 1: how unusual that is. It's so usual. I think there's

155
00:08:17,160 --> 00:08:23,720
Speaker 1: several investigations of prosecutors by either sitting prosecutors in different districts,

156
00:08:23,760 --> 00:08:26,320
Speaker 1: how the cases were handled. That's never been done before.

157
00:08:26,520 --> 00:08:28,400
Speaker 1: You know, there's an Inspector General who can look at

158
00:08:28,440 --> 00:08:31,120
Speaker 1: certain things, but never before has there been in a a

159
00:08:31,200 --> 00:08:35,520
Speaker 1: picture of the room of one prosecutor basically interrogating another prosecutor,

160
00:08:35,640 --> 00:08:39,600
Speaker 1: both being we're both working for d J with you know,

161
00:08:39,679 --> 00:08:43,200
Speaker 1: the goal being apparently with the a G. Bars jappetto

162
00:08:43,280 --> 00:08:46,920
Speaker 1: here trying to dig up something to show that the

163
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:49,240
Speaker 1: initial cases be at Flynn or Stone or whatever it

164
00:08:49,320 --> 00:08:53,040
Speaker 1: might be. UM had some had some problems with it. Well,

165
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:55,560
Speaker 1: if that's the case, you've got an inspector general. They're

166
00:08:55,559 --> 00:08:59,680
Speaker 1: going to be criminal charges brought by current by current

167
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:03,760
Speaker 1: U S attorneys against other assistant U S attorneys. I

168
00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:06,800
Speaker 1: don't know, so this is really no one's done that before.

169
00:09:06,920 --> 00:09:10,120
Speaker 1: It's highly highly unusual isn't even the word for it.

170
00:09:10,679 --> 00:09:13,880
Speaker 1: But again, these are self selecting things that the AG

171
00:09:14,040 --> 00:09:16,880
Speaker 1: is doing. He's not doing this and drug, gun or

172
00:09:16,920 --> 00:09:20,840
Speaker 1: public corruption cases anywhere in the country unless the defendant

173
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:23,840
Speaker 1: is connected to Trump. That is the only common thread

174
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:26,680
Speaker 1: through these cases. So it doesn't matter who you voted

175
00:09:26,720 --> 00:09:29,280
Speaker 1: for in two thousand and sixteen. This is just inappropriate.

176
00:09:29,440 --> 00:09:34,160
Speaker 1: It just is. And the a G was on TV

177
00:09:34,360 --> 00:09:39,000
Speaker 1: last week making protestations about his independence, and it was

178
00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:42,840
Speaker 1: said that his that his remarks were to calm any

179
00:09:42,920 --> 00:09:46,760
Speaker 1: kind of mutiny within the Department of Justice. But if

180
00:09:46,760 --> 00:09:52,559
Speaker 1: he continues with these kinds of interrogations and investigations. Does

181
00:09:52,600 --> 00:09:56,800
Speaker 1: that cancel out whatever else he's doing. Yeah, I think

182
00:09:56,800 --> 00:09:59,480
Speaker 1: he failed in his attempt to kind of quell as

183
00:09:59,520 --> 00:10:01,920
Speaker 1: the rank and file. Having said that, you know, the

184
00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:04,640
Speaker 1: ninety four U. S. Attorney's officers are going on, there's

185
00:10:04,679 --> 00:10:06,839
Speaker 1: work being done today. They don't have much respect for

186
00:10:06,880 --> 00:10:08,760
Speaker 1: the a G. They think is a hack, but they're

187
00:10:08,760 --> 00:10:11,920
Speaker 1: doing their job as they should. But his comments basically

188
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:14,200
Speaker 1: imploring the president to stop tweeting because he's making his

189
00:10:14,280 --> 00:10:16,360
Speaker 1: job harder. I think that was revealed for what it is,

190
00:10:16,400 --> 00:10:18,280
Speaker 1: which is, look, I'll do the work for you, just

191
00:10:18,320 --> 00:10:21,280
Speaker 1: don't bring attention to what I'm doing. So he's still

192
00:10:21,320 --> 00:10:23,880
Speaker 1: moving forward and you have to just step back. I

193
00:10:23,880 --> 00:10:26,959
Speaker 1: mean a G. Bar had had a very good reputation

194
00:10:27,000 --> 00:10:29,040
Speaker 1: before he came back to d o J. Is very

195
00:10:29,080 --> 00:10:32,520
Speaker 1: successful in the private practice. Query why he felt compelled

196
00:10:32,559 --> 00:10:34,320
Speaker 1: to come back to d o J to blow up

197
00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:38,000
Speaker 1: the institution that he proclaims loyalty to. It's just shocking

198
00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:40,400
Speaker 1: that he wanted this to be his second act. If

199
00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:45,760
Speaker 1: the public perception of d o j's independence is diminished,

200
00:10:46,440 --> 00:10:52,000
Speaker 1: how difficult is it to reinstate that independence? Yeah, it's

201
00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:54,080
Speaker 1: hard and any prosecutor will tell you it doesn't matter

202
00:10:54,120 --> 00:10:58,199
Speaker 1: whether it's federal or state. You're not only just your reputation,

203
00:10:58,240 --> 00:11:01,040
Speaker 1: but when you peer before the court who you represent

204
00:11:01,559 --> 00:11:05,080
Speaker 1: um is huge, whether it's before a judge or a jury.

205
00:11:05,160 --> 00:11:07,680
Speaker 1: And while the line assistants aren't, you know, taking heat

206
00:11:07,720 --> 00:11:11,400
Speaker 1: for this necessarily, the DJ certainly is look suspect. But

207
00:11:11,520 --> 00:11:15,000
Speaker 1: more importantly, the public needs to have confidence that any

208
00:11:15,080 --> 00:11:19,040
Speaker 1: law enforcement again does not matter federal, state, county, doesn't matter,

209
00:11:19,600 --> 00:11:22,480
Speaker 1: is calling balls and strikes fairly. These are the people

210
00:11:22,480 --> 00:11:24,360
Speaker 1: that have guns. These are the people that can put

211
00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:26,800
Speaker 1: you behind bars. These are people that can have search

212
00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:29,840
Speaker 1: warrants of your house, your bank accounts, or anything else.

213
00:11:29,880 --> 00:11:33,760
Speaker 1: With that kind of almost unfettered power, we have to

214
00:11:33,800 --> 00:11:37,440
Speaker 1: have confidence that those people are using their judgment and

215
00:11:37,480 --> 00:11:41,720
Speaker 1: their resources fairly. If that confidence wanes, it really is

216
00:11:41,760 --> 00:11:44,640
Speaker 1: a bedrock principle of this country, and a g bar

217
00:11:44,800 --> 00:11:47,720
Speaker 1: is just not doing the criminal justice system or this

218
00:11:47,800 --> 00:11:53,480
Speaker 1: country any favors. Here's another probably unprecedented event. The Federal

219
00:11:53,559 --> 00:11:58,440
Speaker 1: Judges Association, citing growing concerns about the Department of Justice

220
00:11:58,600 --> 00:12:02,160
Speaker 1: Bill Barr, President Trump when the intervention of politically sensitive

221
00:12:02,200 --> 00:12:06,319
Speaker 1: cases call for an emergency meeting on the Roger Stone case.

222
00:12:06,440 --> 00:12:10,160
Speaker 1: They thought that they had to meet before their next meeting,

223
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:13,959
Speaker 1: which is in April. They couldn't wait until April. What

224
00:12:14,000 --> 00:12:18,679
Speaker 1: can the judges do? Well, interesting, the judiciary, you know,

225
00:12:19,120 --> 00:12:21,880
Speaker 1: are not armed, unlike the executive branch. They can't you know,

226
00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:24,880
Speaker 1: they can't go out and do search warrants or handcuff anybody.

227
00:12:24,920 --> 00:12:28,200
Speaker 1: They really just have the respect of the public. And

228
00:12:28,240 --> 00:12:30,880
Speaker 1: that's why nine Justice and Supreme Court when they make edicts,

229
00:12:30,920 --> 00:12:34,480
Speaker 1: we all follow it. So the judiciary can issue letters

230
00:12:34,640 --> 00:12:36,640
Speaker 1: or say things, and maybe as a result of this,

231
00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:40,520
Speaker 1: that branch of the government will issue a letter of report,

232
00:12:40,760 --> 00:12:43,160
Speaker 1: you know something, which is all they can do, um

233
00:12:43,200 --> 00:12:47,120
Speaker 1: basically exclaiming their discomfort or whatever euphemisms they want to use,

234
00:12:47,400 --> 00:12:51,000
Speaker 1: but basically standing up. We saw the second branch of government,

235
00:12:51,000 --> 00:12:54,319
Speaker 1: the legislative branch, fold like a cheap suit with respect

236
00:12:54,360 --> 00:12:57,319
Speaker 1: to the impeachment proceedings. So we've got one more branch

237
00:12:57,320 --> 00:13:00,079
Speaker 1: of government to count on, maybe just to count to

238
00:13:00,720 --> 00:13:03,199
Speaker 1: uh the executive branch, which is getting a little too powerful.

239
00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:05,240
Speaker 1: We'll see what they do, but at most they can

240
00:13:05,280 --> 00:13:08,640
Speaker 1: do is some sort of well written letter. Suppose the

241
00:13:08,720 --> 00:13:12,400
Speaker 1: judge gives Roger Stone a new trial. Is it a

242
00:13:12,440 --> 00:13:17,520
Speaker 1: possibility that the Justice Department under William Barr says, you know,

243
00:13:17,880 --> 00:13:22,280
Speaker 1: we're not going to prosecute him on that anymore. Is

244
00:13:22,280 --> 00:13:26,400
Speaker 1: it a possibility. Absolutely, And that's the moment you will

245
00:13:26,440 --> 00:13:28,840
Speaker 1: see people leaving d O J And I don't want

246
00:13:28,880 --> 00:13:30,760
Speaker 1: to say in droves, I don't want to overexaggerate it,

247
00:13:30,760 --> 00:13:34,000
Speaker 1: but people will leave because that's just a little too blatant,

248
00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:36,959
Speaker 1: even for someone as smart as a g bar. Thanks Jeff.

249
00:13:37,520 --> 00:13:40,760
Speaker 1: That's Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Proof