WEBVTT - Judge Refuses to Bow to Pressure in Roger Stone Case

0:00:00.560 --> 0:00:05.360
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:08.840
<v Speaker 1>Comments from Attorney General William Barr seems to have had

0:00:08.920 --> 0:00:12.040
<v Speaker 1>no effect on President Trump's tweeting about the case of

0:00:12.080 --> 0:00:16.400
<v Speaker 1>his longtime friend Roger Stone, and Trump's tweeting seems to

0:00:16.400 --> 0:00:18.880
<v Speaker 1>have had no effect on the federal judge will be

0:00:18.960 --> 0:00:23.759
<v Speaker 1>sentencing Stone. Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected Stone's requests for

0:00:23.920 --> 0:00:27.560
<v Speaker 1>delay in sentencing so the court can consider his second

0:00:27.560 --> 0:00:30.520
<v Speaker 1>motion for a new trial. Stone will be sentenced for

0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:34.320
<v Speaker 1>a lying to Congress and witness tampering on Thursday, as scheduled.

0:00:34.760 --> 0:00:37.479
<v Speaker 1>President Trump is now calling for the Stone case to

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>be thrown out and continues to make comments about two

0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:45.160
<v Speaker 1>of the highest profile prosecutions during his administration. I think

0:00:45.240 --> 0:00:48.520
<v Speaker 1>Roger Stone has been treated unfairly. I think General Flynn

0:00:48.560 --> 0:00:51.080
<v Speaker 1>has been treated very unfairly. I think a lot of

0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:54.080
<v Speaker 1>people have been treated very unfairly. My guest his former

0:00:54.120 --> 0:00:58.480
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Group.

0:00:58.680 --> 0:01:02.200
<v Speaker 1>Federal Judge Amy Irman Jackson said, there's been a lot

0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:04.720
<v Speaker 1>of work that's gone into the sentencing. It makes sense

0:01:04.760 --> 0:01:08.839
<v Speaker 1>to proceed on Thursday. Does that give you any indication

0:01:08.920 --> 0:01:12.520
<v Speaker 1>that she's not going to be swayed by any of

0:01:12.560 --> 0:01:15.520
<v Speaker 1>the commentary. Yeah, I think that's safe. You know, she

0:01:15.600 --> 0:01:17.840
<v Speaker 1>could have I mean, it's a distraction. She could have

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:19.959
<v Speaker 1>really called the a g and on the carpet and

0:01:20.080 --> 0:01:21.920
<v Speaker 1>d O J because they went from seven to nine

0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 1>years basically saying judges, do whatever you like, We've got

0:01:24.240 --> 0:01:28.040
<v Speaker 1>no positions. A huge sea change, and you know, she

0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:30.520
<v Speaker 1>could have really called him in as an equal branch

0:01:30.560 --> 0:01:33.480
<v Speaker 1>of government. But it's basically going to ignore that, and

0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 1>it's just gonna sentence the defendant probably as she was

0:01:36.880 --> 0:01:39.160
<v Speaker 1>going to do before, because it's only a recommendation by

0:01:39.160 --> 0:01:42.760
<v Speaker 1>the government. So Jeff. Last week, the judge rejected Stone's

0:01:42.840 --> 0:01:45.640
<v Speaker 1>request for a new trial based on bias of one

0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:47.680
<v Speaker 1>of the jurors who worked for the I R S.

0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:51.320
<v Speaker 1>But Stones' lawyers have submitted another request for a new

0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:54.840
<v Speaker 1>trial based on bias of the jury four person. How

0:01:54.840 --> 0:01:58.400
<v Speaker 1>does it judge determine whether there is bias? Well, you mean,

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:01.320
<v Speaker 1>you can look at biases to a person's actions, and

0:02:01.400 --> 0:02:03.320
<v Speaker 1>some of that the defense lawyers knew, I mean, they

0:02:03.400 --> 0:02:06.480
<v Speaker 1>knew this four person and she's come out ran for

0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:09.959
<v Speaker 1>Congress as a Democrat and maybe say some anti Trump things,

0:02:09.960 --> 0:02:11.919
<v Speaker 1>so they didn't know some of that. If there were

0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 1>other things out there that they didn't know, but that

0:02:15.280 --> 0:02:18.160
<v Speaker 1>the four person misled them or lied on the questionnaire

0:02:18.240 --> 0:02:21.919
<v Speaker 1>or her answers, that's a valid argument to make to

0:02:21.919 --> 0:02:23.960
<v Speaker 1>to get a new trial. It's still a long shot,

0:02:24.000 --> 0:02:26.640
<v Speaker 1>but if that's the case, then there is an argument

0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:29.960
<v Speaker 1>there there were some specific questions, you know, related to

0:02:29.960 --> 0:02:33.360
<v Speaker 1>Trump bias or Stone bias. If the judge found she

0:02:33.520 --> 0:02:37.240
<v Speaker 1>lied on those, does that automatically give him a new

0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:41.280
<v Speaker 1>trial or are there other considerations. It's not automatic. It

0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:43.680
<v Speaker 1>really is up to the judge's discretion. And even if

0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:46.120
<v Speaker 1>the district court judge denies it, you know, have a

0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:49.880
<v Speaker 1>pretty good appellate argument because there's nothing more basic and

0:02:49.880 --> 0:02:52.520
<v Speaker 1>a jury trial than to make sure the jury can

0:02:52.560 --> 0:02:55.720
<v Speaker 1>be fair and impartial. And if a journ Again we're

0:02:55.760 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 1>just using hypothetical here, but if a juror lied in

0:02:59.280 --> 0:03:02.000
<v Speaker 1>order to get on that jury, and the law pertained

0:03:02.000 --> 0:03:05.160
<v Speaker 1>to a bias against someone related to the defendant, in

0:03:05.160 --> 0:03:07.600
<v Speaker 1>other words, it wasn't a bias against Stone. That's important

0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:09.800
<v Speaker 1>to keep mind. It's a bias against Trump. Now Stone

0:03:09.919 --> 0:03:12.120
<v Speaker 1>is a connection to Trump, so who knows if that

0:03:12.120 --> 0:03:16.480
<v Speaker 1>would be transferable. So it's definitely not a slam dunk argument.

0:03:17.000 --> 0:03:20.240
<v Speaker 1>Slam dunk argument if this person had a bias against

0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:23.240
<v Speaker 1>the actual defendant and then lied about it. That's not

0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:25.640
<v Speaker 1>the case here. But obviously, as we know, the connection

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.400
<v Speaker 1>between Trump and Stone is very tight. So you know,

0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:30.800
<v Speaker 1>it's a district court argument. If it's denied, it's certainly

0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:33.079
<v Speaker 1>an appellate court argument, and it can keep him out

0:03:33.080 --> 0:03:36.520
<v Speaker 1>of jail during the pendency of that appeal. The lawyers

0:03:36.560 --> 0:03:40.400
<v Speaker 1>in this case not only could have challenged her for bias,

0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:42.680
<v Speaker 1>but also if they didn't like the fact that she

0:03:43.160 --> 0:03:46.280
<v Speaker 1>had run as a Democrat for something, they could have

0:03:46.440 --> 0:03:50.200
<v Speaker 1>knocked off the jury with a peremptory Yeah. Correct. There's

0:03:50.200 --> 0:03:52.640
<v Speaker 1>two kinds of strikes you can make, you know, strike

0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:56.240
<v Speaker 1>for cause, in other words, a juror doesn't understand English.

0:03:56.280 --> 0:03:59.880
<v Speaker 1>That's a prerequisite really to understand the testimony. Is it's

0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 1>as it's coming in, or has a several criminal convictions,

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:06.280
<v Speaker 1>or couldn't be fair to one side or another. Um.

0:04:06.320 --> 0:04:09.920
<v Speaker 1>These are strikes for cause and they're basically unlimited. UM.

0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:14.320
<v Speaker 1>Then there's preemptory challenges, which each side has a certain

0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:17.920
<v Speaker 1>number and can use for any legitimate reason. And by legitimate,

0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:20.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean they can't strike somebody because they're white. You

0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:23.320
<v Speaker 1>can't strike somebody because they're Hispanic. Uh. You know there's

0:04:23.400 --> 0:04:26.160
<v Speaker 1>certain things you cannot strike somebody for. Other than that

0:04:26.240 --> 0:04:27.800
<v Speaker 1>you can literally say I don't like the way they

0:04:27.800 --> 0:04:29.720
<v Speaker 1>look to me. That's fine. You have a certain number

0:04:29.720 --> 0:04:33.200
<v Speaker 1>of pre emptory challenges. So the defense could have stricken

0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:36.680
<v Speaker 1>made an argument to strike her for cause, but that's

0:04:36.680 --> 0:04:38.839
<v Speaker 1>probably not gonna you know, being a Democrat and running

0:04:38.839 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>for Congress is not for cause. But they could have

0:04:41.080 --> 0:04:45.640
<v Speaker 1>used their preemptory challenges they chose not to. Generally do,

0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:51.679
<v Speaker 1>defense lawyers and maybe even prosecutors do an examination of

0:04:51.760 --> 0:04:57.880
<v Speaker 1>the social media history of potential jurors. It depends on

0:04:57.880 --> 0:05:01.320
<v Speaker 1>the case as a As a prosecut here, you're really

0:05:01.400 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 1>run it too often. I mean, you have the FBIHID disposible.

0:05:05.080 --> 0:05:07.479
<v Speaker 1>You're not doing FBI background check on people. But in

0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:09.760
<v Speaker 1>today's day at age, you're a Google search away from

0:05:09.760 --> 0:05:12.719
<v Speaker 1>finding out things about a juror that the questionnaire or

0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:15.840
<v Speaker 1>the judges questions may not cover. And now that I've

0:05:15.880 --> 0:05:18.200
<v Speaker 1>left d O J and in the consulting world. On

0:05:18.400 --> 0:05:21.760
<v Speaker 1>large cases, we do work with lawyers to really, uh,

0:05:21.920 --> 0:05:25.599
<v Speaker 1>you know, look at certain jurors and their social media

0:05:25.640 --> 0:05:28.040
<v Speaker 1>profile because that can be revealing. So it's certainly an

0:05:28.040 --> 0:05:32.599
<v Speaker 1>option available to both sides. Right now, let's turn out

0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:35.479
<v Speaker 1>to the situation at the d o J. Were you

0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:39.040
<v Speaker 1>part of the group of prosecutors who signed this letter

0:05:39.160 --> 0:05:43.440
<v Speaker 1>asking for bars resignation? You know, I was not actually

0:05:43.480 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 1>sent in a what I thought could be a couple

0:05:45.000 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 1>of edits, and I never heard back, So I just

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:50.800
<v Speaker 1>like let that one live. Figured, you know, my name

0:05:50.839 --> 0:05:53.159
<v Speaker 1>on there is not It is not going to persuade anyone.

0:05:53.360 --> 0:05:55.600
<v Speaker 1>It seems to be growing though the number. One day

0:05:55.640 --> 0:05:57.640
<v Speaker 1>I heard a thousand, and the next day I heard

0:05:57.680 --> 0:06:00.400
<v Speaker 1>two thousand, two thousand. I got four emails to asking

0:06:00.440 --> 0:06:02.279
<v Speaker 1>me to sign, as I'm sure a lot of former

0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors did. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer,

0:06:06.839 --> 0:06:10.400
<v Speaker 1>managing director of the Berkeley Research Group, about the continuing

0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:14.719
<v Speaker 1>turmoil at the Justice Department and the upcoming sentencing of

0:06:15.200 --> 0:06:19.000
<v Speaker 1>long time Trump friend Roger Stone. So, Jeff as we're

0:06:19.040 --> 0:06:22.559
<v Speaker 1>talking about more than two thousand prosecutors signed this open letter.

0:06:22.720 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 1>Asking a g bar to resign. What effect does that have? Letters?

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:31.200
<v Speaker 1>You know, during the Trump era, we've had a lot

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:37.280
<v Speaker 1>of letters from prosecutors and former prosecutors asking for different things.

0:06:37.360 --> 0:06:40.640
<v Speaker 1>Does it make any impact? The short answer is no.

0:06:41.279 --> 0:06:44.599
<v Speaker 1>But um, you know he's not a g bar is

0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 1>not leaving because it's a clamor by X A, U

0:06:46.720 --> 0:06:49.839
<v Speaker 1>S A S for him to leave. Um. But it's uh,

0:06:50.000 --> 0:06:52.680
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a shot across the bow. It's telling and

0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:54.640
<v Speaker 1>I think it's telling not just to a G BARRS.

0:06:54.720 --> 0:06:56.880
<v Speaker 1>I think he's a lost cause at this point, but

0:06:57.000 --> 0:07:00.440
<v Speaker 1>to the line assistants at Main Justice and the U. S.

0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:04.279
<v Speaker 1>Attorney's Office, by their former colleagues, that matters because someday

0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:06.360
<v Speaker 1>they're all going to be you know, former not all,

0:07:06.360 --> 0:07:09.800
<v Speaker 1>but n there going to be former d J people. UM.

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:12.160
<v Speaker 1>And it's saying that there's people out there that's sat

0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:16.040
<v Speaker 1>where you sat, UM, that did the job that you're doing. UM,

0:07:16.160 --> 0:07:20.080
<v Speaker 1>and you know, expressing support for the four prosecutors who

0:07:20.160 --> 0:07:23.480
<v Speaker 1>left that case and basically saying, as the letter appropriately did. Look,

0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:25.760
<v Speaker 1>if you're confronted with this kind of issue, you need

0:07:25.800 --> 0:07:29.400
<v Speaker 1>to stand up and say something. It's it's really unprecedented,

0:07:29.560 --> 0:07:31.840
<v Speaker 1>and we use that word a lot right now, um,

0:07:31.880 --> 0:07:35.680
<v Speaker 1>but never before has the Attorney General decided to pick

0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:37.880
<v Speaker 1>and choose a case to put his finger on. I mean,

0:07:38.040 --> 0:07:41.320
<v Speaker 1>there are thousands and thousands of cases going on right

0:07:41.320 --> 0:07:43.720
<v Speaker 1>now where d J is making recommendation, and I don't

0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>think the AG is really get involved in too many

0:07:45.560 --> 0:07:48.880
<v Speaker 1>drug cases in Chicago or Miami or l A right now. However,

0:07:49.000 --> 0:07:51.680
<v Speaker 1>Roger Stoney made a point to get involved in that's absurd.

0:07:52.360 --> 0:07:56.280
<v Speaker 1>The Michael Flynn sentencing is another example. And a few

0:07:56.320 --> 0:08:00.200
<v Speaker 1>weeks ago the Justice Department changed its position and on

0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:05.320
<v Speaker 1>the Michael Flynn sentencing went from opposing probation to not

0:08:05.400 --> 0:08:09.720
<v Speaker 1>opposing probation. So now, in addition to that, there's this

0:08:10.160 --> 0:08:14.520
<v Speaker 1>investigation by an outside council. Tell us about that and

0:08:14.520 --> 0:08:17.120
<v Speaker 1>how unusual that is. It's so usual. I think there's

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:23.720
<v Speaker 1>several investigations of prosecutors by either sitting prosecutors in different districts,

0:08:23.760 --> 0:08:26.320
<v Speaker 1>how the cases were handled. That's never been done before.

0:08:26.520 --> 0:08:28.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, there's an Inspector General who can look at

0:08:28.440 --> 0:08:31.120
<v Speaker 1>certain things, but never before has there been in a a

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:35.520
<v Speaker 1>picture of the room of one prosecutor basically interrogating another prosecutor,

0:08:35.640 --> 0:08:39.600
<v Speaker 1>both being we're both working for d J with you know,

0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:43.200
<v Speaker 1>the goal being apparently with the a G. Bars jappetto

0:08:43.280 --> 0:08:46.920
<v Speaker 1>here trying to dig up something to show that the

0:08:46.960 --> 0:08:49.240
<v Speaker 1>initial cases be at Flynn or Stone or whatever it

0:08:49.320 --> 0:08:53.040
<v Speaker 1>might be. UM had some had some problems with it. Well,

0:08:53.080 --> 0:08:55.560
<v Speaker 1>if that's the case, you've got an inspector general. They're

0:08:55.559 --> 0:08:59.680
<v Speaker 1>going to be criminal charges brought by current by current

0:09:00.040 --> 0:09:03.760
<v Speaker 1>U S attorneys against other assistant U S attorneys. I

0:09:03.760 --> 0:09:06.800
<v Speaker 1>don't know, so this is really no one's done that before.

0:09:06.920 --> 0:09:10.120
<v Speaker 1>It's highly highly unusual isn't even the word for it.

0:09:10.679 --> 0:09:13.880
<v Speaker 1>But again, these are self selecting things that the AG

0:09:14.040 --> 0:09:16.880
<v Speaker 1>is doing. He's not doing this and drug, gun or

0:09:16.920 --> 0:09:20.840
<v Speaker 1>public corruption cases anywhere in the country unless the defendant

0:09:20.960 --> 0:09:23.840
<v Speaker 1>is connected to Trump. That is the only common thread

0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:26.680
<v Speaker 1>through these cases. So it doesn't matter who you voted

0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:29.280
<v Speaker 1>for in two thousand and sixteen. This is just inappropriate.

0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:34.160
<v Speaker 1>It just is. And the a G was on TV

0:09:34.360 --> 0:09:39.000
<v Speaker 1>last week making protestations about his independence, and it was

0:09:39.040 --> 0:09:42.840
<v Speaker 1>said that his that his remarks were to calm any

0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:46.760
<v Speaker 1>kind of mutiny within the Department of Justice. But if

0:09:46.760 --> 0:09:52.559
<v Speaker 1>he continues with these kinds of interrogations and investigations. Does

0:09:52.600 --> 0:09:56.800
<v Speaker 1>that cancel out whatever else he's doing. Yeah, I think

0:09:56.800 --> 0:09:59.480
<v Speaker 1>he failed in his attempt to kind of quell as

0:09:59.520 --> 0:10:01.920
<v Speaker 1>the rank and file. Having said that, you know, the

0:10:02.080 --> 0:10:04.640
<v Speaker 1>ninety four U. S. Attorney's officers are going on, there's

0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:06.839
<v Speaker 1>work being done today. They don't have much respect for

0:10:06.880 --> 0:10:08.760
<v Speaker 1>the a G. They think is a hack, but they're

0:10:08.760 --> 0:10:11.920
<v Speaker 1>doing their job as they should. But his comments basically

0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:14.200
<v Speaker 1>imploring the president to stop tweeting because he's making his

0:10:14.280 --> 0:10:16.360
<v Speaker 1>job harder. I think that was revealed for what it is,

0:10:16.400 --> 0:10:18.280
<v Speaker 1>which is, look, I'll do the work for you, just

0:10:18.320 --> 0:10:21.280
<v Speaker 1>don't bring attention to what I'm doing. So he's still

0:10:21.320 --> 0:10:23.880
<v Speaker 1>moving forward and you have to just step back. I

0:10:23.880 --> 0:10:26.959
<v Speaker 1>mean a G. Bar had had a very good reputation

0:10:27.000 --> 0:10:29.040
<v Speaker 1>before he came back to d o J. Is very

0:10:29.080 --> 0:10:32.520
<v Speaker 1>successful in the private practice. Query why he felt compelled

0:10:32.559 --> 0:10:34.320
<v Speaker 1>to come back to d o J to blow up

0:10:34.320 --> 0:10:38.000
<v Speaker 1>the institution that he proclaims loyalty to. It's just shocking

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:40.400
<v Speaker 1>that he wanted this to be his second act. If

0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:45.760
<v Speaker 1>the public perception of d o j's independence is diminished,

0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:52.000
<v Speaker 1>how difficult is it to reinstate that independence? Yeah, it's

0:10:52.040 --> 0:10:54.080
<v Speaker 1>hard and any prosecutor will tell you it doesn't matter

0:10:54.120 --> 0:10:58.199
<v Speaker 1>whether it's federal or state. You're not only just your reputation,

0:10:58.240 --> 0:11:01.040
<v Speaker 1>but when you peer before the court who you represent

0:11:01.559 --> 0:11:05.080
<v Speaker 1>um is huge, whether it's before a judge or a jury.

0:11:05.160 --> 0:11:07.680
<v Speaker 1>And while the line assistants aren't, you know, taking heat

0:11:07.720 --> 0:11:11.400
<v Speaker 1>for this necessarily, the DJ certainly is look suspect. But

0:11:11.520 --> 0:11:15.000
<v Speaker 1>more importantly, the public needs to have confidence that any

0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:19.040
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement again does not matter federal, state, county, doesn't matter,

0:11:19.600 --> 0:11:22.480
<v Speaker 1>is calling balls and strikes fairly. These are the people

0:11:22.480 --> 0:11:24.360
<v Speaker 1>that have guns. These are the people that can put

0:11:24.440 --> 0:11:26.800
<v Speaker 1>you behind bars. These are people that can have search

0:11:26.840 --> 0:11:29.840
<v Speaker 1>warrants of your house, your bank accounts, or anything else.

0:11:29.880 --> 0:11:33.760
<v Speaker 1>With that kind of almost unfettered power, we have to

0:11:33.800 --> 0:11:37.440
<v Speaker 1>have confidence that those people are using their judgment and

0:11:37.480 --> 0:11:41.720
<v Speaker 1>their resources fairly. If that confidence wanes, it really is

0:11:41.760 --> 0:11:44.640
<v Speaker 1>a bedrock principle of this country, and a g bar

0:11:44.800 --> 0:11:47.720
<v Speaker 1>is just not doing the criminal justice system or this

0:11:47.800 --> 0:11:53.480
<v Speaker 1>country any favors. Here's another probably unprecedented event. The Federal

0:11:53.559 --> 0:11:58.440
<v Speaker 1>Judges Association, citing growing concerns about the Department of Justice

0:11:58.600 --> 0:12:02.160
<v Speaker 1>Bill Barr, President Trump when the intervention of politically sensitive

0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:06.319
<v Speaker 1>cases call for an emergency meeting on the Roger Stone case.

0:12:06.440 --> 0:12:10.160
<v Speaker 1>They thought that they had to meet before their next meeting,

0:12:10.200 --> 0:12:13.959
<v Speaker 1>which is in April. They couldn't wait until April. What

0:12:14.000 --> 0:12:18.679
<v Speaker 1>can the judges do? Well, interesting, the judiciary, you know,

0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 1>are not armed, unlike the executive branch. They can't you know,

0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:24.880
<v Speaker 1>they can't go out and do search warrants or handcuff anybody.

0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:28.200
<v Speaker 1>They really just have the respect of the public. And

0:12:28.240 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 1>that's why nine Justice and Supreme Court when they make edicts,

0:12:30.920 --> 0:12:34.480
<v Speaker 1>we all follow it. So the judiciary can issue letters

0:12:34.640 --> 0:12:36.640
<v Speaker 1>or say things, and maybe as a result of this,

0:12:36.840 --> 0:12:40.520
<v Speaker 1>that branch of the government will issue a letter of report,

0:12:40.760 --> 0:12:43.160
<v Speaker 1>you know something, which is all they can do, um

0:12:43.200 --> 0:12:47.120
<v Speaker 1>basically exclaiming their discomfort or whatever euphemisms they want to use,

0:12:47.400 --> 0:12:51.000
<v Speaker 1>but basically standing up. We saw the second branch of government,

0:12:51.000 --> 0:12:54.319
<v Speaker 1>the legislative branch, fold like a cheap suit with respect

0:12:54.360 --> 0:12:57.319
<v Speaker 1>to the impeachment proceedings. So we've got one more branch

0:12:57.320 --> 0:13:00.079
<v Speaker 1>of government to count on, maybe just to count to

0:13:00.720 --> 0:13:03.199
<v Speaker 1>uh the executive branch, which is getting a little too powerful.

0:13:03.240 --> 0:13:05.240
<v Speaker 1>We'll see what they do, but at most they can

0:13:05.280 --> 0:13:08.640
<v Speaker 1>do is some sort of well written letter. Suppose the

0:13:08.720 --> 0:13:12.400
<v Speaker 1>judge gives Roger Stone a new trial. Is it a

0:13:12.440 --> 0:13:17.520
<v Speaker 1>possibility that the Justice Department under William Barr says, you know,

0:13:17.880 --> 0:13:22.280
<v Speaker 1>we're not going to prosecute him on that anymore. Is

0:13:22.280 --> 0:13:26.400
<v Speaker 1>it a possibility. Absolutely, And that's the moment you will

0:13:26.440 --> 0:13:28.840
<v Speaker 1>see people leaving d O J And I don't want

0:13:28.880 --> 0:13:30.760
<v Speaker 1>to say in droves, I don't want to overexaggerate it,

0:13:30.760 --> 0:13:34.000
<v Speaker 1>but people will leave because that's just a little too blatant,

0:13:34.040 --> 0:13:36.959
<v Speaker 1>even for someone as smart as a g bar. Thanks Jeff.

0:13:37.520 --> 0:13:40.760
<v Speaker 1>That's Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Proof