Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Comments from Attorney General William Barr seems to have had
Speaker 1: no effect on President Trump's tweeting about the case of
Speaker 1: his longtime friend Roger Stone, and Trump's tweeting seems to
Speaker 1: have had no effect on the federal judge will be
Speaker 1: sentencing Stone. Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected Stone's requests for
Speaker 1: delay in sentencing so the court can consider his second
Speaker 1: motion for a new trial. Stone will be sentenced for
Speaker 1: a lying to Congress and witness tampering on Thursday, as scheduled.
Speaker 1: President Trump is now calling for the Stone case to
Speaker 1: be thrown out and continues to make comments about two
Speaker 1: of the highest profile prosecutions during his administration. I think
Speaker 1: Roger Stone has been treated unfairly. I think General Flynn
Speaker 1: has been treated very unfairly. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people have been treated very unfairly. My guest his former
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Group.
Speaker 1: Federal Judge Amy Irman Jackson said, there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of work that's gone into the sentencing. It makes sense
Speaker 1: to proceed on Thursday. Does that give you any indication
Speaker 1: that she's not going to be swayed by any of
Speaker 1: the commentary. Yeah, I think that's safe. You know, she
Speaker 1: could have I mean, it's a distraction. She could have
Speaker 1: really called the a g and on the carpet and
Speaker 1: d O J because they went from seven to nine
Speaker 1: years basically saying judges, do whatever you like, We've got
Speaker 1: no positions. A huge sea change, and you know, she
Speaker 1: could have really called him in as an equal branch
Speaker 1: of government. But it's basically going to ignore that, and
Speaker 1: it's just gonna sentence the defendant probably as she was
Speaker 1: going to do before, because it's only a recommendation by
Speaker 1: the government. So Jeff. Last week, the judge rejected Stone's
Speaker 1: request for a new trial based on bias of one
Speaker 1: of the jurors who worked for the I R S.
Speaker 1: But Stones' lawyers have submitted another request for a new
Speaker 1: trial based on bias of the jury four person. How
Speaker 1: does it judge determine whether there is bias? Well, you mean,
Speaker 1: you can look at biases to a person's actions, and
Speaker 1: some of that the defense lawyers knew, I mean, they
Speaker 1: knew this four person and she's come out ran for
Speaker 1: Congress as a Democrat and maybe say some anti Trump things,
Speaker 1: so they didn't know some of that. If there were
Speaker 1: other things out there that they didn't know, but that
Speaker 1: the four person misled them or lied on the questionnaire
Speaker 1: or her answers, that's a valid argument to make to
Speaker 1: to get a new trial. It's still a long shot,
Speaker 1: but if that's the case, then there is an argument
Speaker 1: there there were some specific questions, you know, related to
Speaker 1: Trump bias or Stone bias. If the judge found she
Speaker 1: lied on those, does that automatically give him a new
Speaker 1: trial or are there other considerations. It's not automatic. It
Speaker 1: really is up to the judge's discretion. And even if
Speaker 1: the district court judge denies it, you know, have a
Speaker 1: pretty good appellate argument because there's nothing more basic and
Speaker 1: a jury trial than to make sure the jury can
Speaker 1: be fair and impartial. And if a journ Again we're
Speaker 1: just using hypothetical here, but if a juror lied in
Speaker 1: order to get on that jury, and the law pertained
Speaker 1: to a bias against someone related to the defendant, in
Speaker 1: other words, it wasn't a bias against Stone. That's important
Speaker 1: to keep mind. It's a bias against Trump. Now Stone
Speaker 1: is a connection to Trump, so who knows if that
Speaker 1: would be transferable. So it's definitely not a slam dunk argument.
Speaker 1: Slam dunk argument if this person had a bias against
Speaker 1: the actual defendant and then lied about it. That's not
Speaker 1: the case here. But obviously, as we know, the connection
Speaker 1: between Trump and Stone is very tight. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's a district court argument. If it's denied, it's certainly
Speaker 1: an appellate court argument, and it can keep him out
Speaker 1: of jail during the pendency of that appeal. The lawyers
Speaker 1: in this case not only could have challenged her for bias,
Speaker 1: but also if they didn't like the fact that she
Speaker 1: had run as a Democrat for something, they could have
Speaker 1: knocked off the jury with a peremptory Yeah. Correct. There's
Speaker 1: two kinds of strikes you can make, you know, strike
Speaker 1: for cause, in other words, a juror doesn't understand English.
Speaker 1: That's a prerequisite really to understand the testimony. Is it's
Speaker 1: as it's coming in, or has a several criminal convictions,
Speaker 1: or couldn't be fair to one side or another. Um.
Speaker 1: These are strikes for cause and they're basically unlimited. UM.
Speaker 1: Then there's preemptory challenges, which each side has a certain
Speaker 1: number and can use for any legitimate reason. And by legitimate,
Speaker 1: I mean they can't strike somebody because they're white. You
Speaker 1: can't strike somebody because they're Hispanic. Uh. You know there's
Speaker 1: certain things you cannot strike somebody for. Other than that
Speaker 1: you can literally say I don't like the way they
Speaker 1: look to me. That's fine. You have a certain number
Speaker 1: of pre emptory challenges. So the defense could have stricken
Speaker 1: made an argument to strike her for cause, but that's
Speaker 1: probably not gonna you know, being a Democrat and running
Speaker 1: for Congress is not for cause. But they could have
Speaker 1: used their preemptory challenges they chose not to. Generally do,
Speaker 1: defense lawyers and maybe even prosecutors do an examination of
Speaker 1: the social media history of potential jurors. It depends on
Speaker 1: the case as a As a prosecut here, you're really
Speaker 1: run it too often. I mean, you have the FBIHID disposible.
Speaker 1: You're not doing FBI background check on people. But in
Speaker 1: today's day at age, you're a Google search away from
Speaker 1: finding out things about a juror that the questionnaire or
Speaker 1: the judges questions may not cover. And now that I've
Speaker 1: left d O J and in the consulting world. On
Speaker 1: large cases, we do work with lawyers to really, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, look at certain jurors and their social media
Speaker 1: profile because that can be revealing. So it's certainly an
Speaker 1: option available to both sides. Right now, let's turn out
Speaker 1: to the situation at the d o J. Were you
Speaker 1: part of the group of prosecutors who signed this letter
Speaker 1: asking for bars resignation? You know, I was not actually
Speaker 1: sent in a what I thought could be a couple
Speaker 1: of edits, and I never heard back, So I just
Speaker 1: like let that one live. Figured, you know, my name
Speaker 1: on there is not It is not going to persuade anyone.
Speaker 1: It seems to be growing though the number. One day
Speaker 1: I heard a thousand, and the next day I heard
Speaker 1: two thousand, two thousand. I got four emails to asking
Speaker 1: me to sign, as I'm sure a lot of former
Speaker 1: prosecutors did. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer,
Speaker 1: managing director of the Berkeley Research Group, about the continuing
Speaker 1: turmoil at the Justice Department and the upcoming sentencing of
Speaker 1: long time Trump friend Roger Stone. So, Jeff as we're
Speaker 1: talking about more than two thousand prosecutors signed this open letter.
Speaker 1: Asking a g bar to resign. What effect does that have? Letters?
Speaker 1: You know, during the Trump era, we've had a lot
Speaker 1: of letters from prosecutors and former prosecutors asking for different things.
Speaker 1: Does it make any impact? The short answer is no.
Speaker 1: But um, you know he's not a g bar is
Speaker 1: not leaving because it's a clamor by X A, U
Speaker 1: S A S for him to leave. Um. But it's uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's a shot across the bow. It's telling and
Speaker 1: I think it's telling not just to a G BARRS.
Speaker 1: I think he's a lost cause at this point, but
Speaker 1: to the line assistants at Main Justice and the U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office, by their former colleagues, that matters because someday
Speaker 1: they're all going to be you know, former not all,
Speaker 1: but n there going to be former d J people. UM.
Speaker 1: And it's saying that there's people out there that's sat
Speaker 1: where you sat, UM, that did the job that you're doing. UM,
Speaker 1: and you know, expressing support for the four prosecutors who
Speaker 1: left that case and basically saying, as the letter appropriately did. Look,
Speaker 1: if you're confronted with this kind of issue, you need
Speaker 1: to stand up and say something. It's it's really unprecedented,
Speaker 1: and we use that word a lot right now, um,
Speaker 1: but never before has the Attorney General decided to pick
Speaker 1: and choose a case to put his finger on. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are thousands and thousands of cases going on right
Speaker 1: now where d J is making recommendation, and I don't
Speaker 1: think the AG is really get involved in too many
Speaker 1: drug cases in Chicago or Miami or l A right now. However,
Speaker 1: Roger Stoney made a point to get involved in that's absurd.
Speaker 1: The Michael Flynn sentencing is another example. And a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago the Justice Department changed its position and on
Speaker 1: the Michael Flynn sentencing went from opposing probation to not
Speaker 1: opposing probation. So now, in addition to that, there's this
Speaker 1: investigation by an outside council. Tell us about that and
Speaker 1: how unusual that is. It's so usual. I think there's
Speaker 1: several investigations of prosecutors by either sitting prosecutors in different districts,
Speaker 1: how the cases were handled. That's never been done before.
Speaker 1: You know, there's an Inspector General who can look at
Speaker 1: certain things, but never before has there been in a a
Speaker 1: picture of the room of one prosecutor basically interrogating another prosecutor,
Speaker 1: both being we're both working for d J with you know,
Speaker 1: the goal being apparently with the a G. Bars jappetto
Speaker 1: here trying to dig up something to show that the
Speaker 1: initial cases be at Flynn or Stone or whatever it
Speaker 1: might be. UM had some had some problems with it. Well,
Speaker 1: if that's the case, you've got an inspector general. They're
Speaker 1: going to be criminal charges brought by current by current
Speaker 1: U S attorneys against other assistant U S attorneys. I
Speaker 1: don't know, so this is really no one's done that before.
Speaker 1: It's highly highly unusual isn't even the word for it.
Speaker 1: But again, these are self selecting things that the AG
Speaker 1: is doing. He's not doing this and drug, gun or
Speaker 1: public corruption cases anywhere in the country unless the defendant
Speaker 1: is connected to Trump. That is the only common thread
Speaker 1: through these cases. So it doesn't matter who you voted
Speaker 1: for in two thousand and sixteen. This is just inappropriate.
Speaker 1: It just is. And the a G was on TV
Speaker 1: last week making protestations about his independence, and it was
Speaker 1: said that his that his remarks were to calm any
Speaker 1: kind of mutiny within the Department of Justice. But if
Speaker 1: he continues with these kinds of interrogations and investigations. Does
Speaker 1: that cancel out whatever else he's doing. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: he failed in his attempt to kind of quell as
Speaker 1: the rank and file. Having said that, you know, the
Speaker 1: ninety four U. S. Attorney's officers are going on, there's
Speaker 1: work being done today. They don't have much respect for
Speaker 1: the a G. They think is a hack, but they're
Speaker 1: doing their job as they should. But his comments basically
Speaker 1: imploring the president to stop tweeting because he's making his
Speaker 1: job harder. I think that was revealed for what it is,
Speaker 1: which is, look, I'll do the work for you, just
Speaker 1: don't bring attention to what I'm doing. So he's still
Speaker 1: moving forward and you have to just step back. I
Speaker 1: mean a G. Bar had had a very good reputation
Speaker 1: before he came back to d o J. Is very
Speaker 1: successful in the private practice. Query why he felt compelled
Speaker 1: to come back to d o J to blow up
Speaker 1: the institution that he proclaims loyalty to. It's just shocking
Speaker 1: that he wanted this to be his second act. If
Speaker 1: the public perception of d o j's independence is diminished,
Speaker 1: how difficult is it to reinstate that independence? Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: hard and any prosecutor will tell you it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: whether it's federal or state. You're not only just your reputation,
Speaker 1: but when you peer before the court who you represent
Speaker 1: um is huge, whether it's before a judge or a jury.
Speaker 1: And while the line assistants aren't, you know, taking heat
Speaker 1: for this necessarily, the DJ certainly is look suspect. But
Speaker 1: more importantly, the public needs to have confidence that any
Speaker 1: law enforcement again does not matter federal, state, county, doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: is calling balls and strikes fairly. These are the people
Speaker 1: that have guns. These are the people that can put
Speaker 1: you behind bars. These are people that can have search
Speaker 1: warrants of your house, your bank accounts, or anything else.
Speaker 1: With that kind of almost unfettered power, we have to
Speaker 1: have confidence that those people are using their judgment and
Speaker 1: their resources fairly. If that confidence wanes, it really is
Speaker 1: a bedrock principle of this country, and a g bar
Speaker 1: is just not doing the criminal justice system or this
Speaker 1: country any favors. Here's another probably unprecedented event. The Federal
Speaker 1: Judges Association, citing growing concerns about the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: Bill Barr, President Trump when the intervention of politically sensitive
Speaker 1: cases call for an emergency meeting on the Roger Stone case.
Speaker 1: They thought that they had to meet before their next meeting,
Speaker 1: which is in April. They couldn't wait until April. What
Speaker 1: can the judges do? Well, interesting, the judiciary, you know,
Speaker 1: are not armed, unlike the executive branch. They can't you know,
Speaker 1: they can't go out and do search warrants or handcuff anybody.
Speaker 1: They really just have the respect of the public. And
Speaker 1: that's why nine Justice and Supreme Court when they make edicts,
Speaker 1: we all follow it. So the judiciary can issue letters
Speaker 1: or say things, and maybe as a result of this,
Speaker 1: that branch of the government will issue a letter of report,
Speaker 1: you know something, which is all they can do, um
Speaker 1: basically exclaiming their discomfort or whatever euphemisms they want to use,
Speaker 1: but basically standing up. We saw the second branch of government,
Speaker 1: the legislative branch, fold like a cheap suit with respect
Speaker 1: to the impeachment proceedings. So we've got one more branch
Speaker 1: of government to count on, maybe just to count to
Speaker 1: uh the executive branch, which is getting a little too powerful.
Speaker 1: We'll see what they do, but at most they can
Speaker 1: do is some sort of well written letter. Suppose the
Speaker 1: judge gives Roger Stone a new trial. Is it a
Speaker 1: possibility that the Justice Department under William Barr says, you know,
Speaker 1: we're not going to prosecute him on that anymore. Is
Speaker 1: it a possibility. Absolutely, And that's the moment you will
Speaker 1: see people leaving d O J And I don't want
Speaker 1: to say in droves, I don't want to overexaggerate it,
Speaker 1: but people will leave because that's just a little too blatant,
Speaker 1: even for someone as smart as a g bar. Thanks Jeff.
Speaker 1: That's Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Proof