Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com Slash Podcasts. As Republicans pushed
Speaker 1: to confirm Brett Kavanaugh before the next Supreme Court term begins,
Speaker 1: his nomination is facing new uncertainty after a California psychology
Speaker 1: professor named Christine blaisie Ford came forward and accused the
Speaker 1: Appeals Court judge of sexually assaulting her when they were
Speaker 1: in high school in the nineteen eighties. Speaking with CNN
Speaker 1: last night, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins responded to the news, well,
Speaker 1: I obvious surprised, and uh, it's an issue that I
Speaker 1: brought up with him last Friday, and um he denied um,
Speaker 1: as he did an this written statement. Kavanaugh issued another
Speaker 1: statement today saying this is completely false allegation. I have
Speaker 1: never done anything like what the accuser describes to her
Speaker 1: or to anyone joining me. Is Steve Sanders, professor at
Speaker 1: Indiana University Mara School of Law. Steve has the response
Speaker 1: to the accusation changed since Ford went from being an
Speaker 1: anonymous woman to identifying herself. Well, I think it depends
Speaker 1: on who you're thinking about is doing the responding. Certainly
Speaker 1: the White House and the most partisan supporters of the
Speaker 1: Republicans in the Senate, and if Kavanaugh really haven't changed
Speaker 1: their position, which really positions it seems to be one.
Speaker 1: This has come up so late that that it's not
Speaker 1: fair to include it in what we're considering. Another angle
Speaker 1: is that this happens so long ago, memories can be cloudy.
Speaker 1: We can't judge by the credibility. We can't judge the credibility.
Speaker 1: So I don't think so. I I think the you know,
Speaker 1: the most serious responses coming from those in the middle,
Speaker 1: the sort of vanishing middle I think in this in
Speaker 1: this media environment, who say these are serious accusations. They're
Speaker 1: not yet proven, they're not solid, but they need to
Speaker 1: be investigated, and we need to keep an open mind
Speaker 1: and do as much as we can. That is the
Speaker 1: sort of stock and trade of lawyers in the legal system,
Speaker 1: and that is making careful assessments of evidence and credibility
Speaker 1: on both sides as the story moves forward. So send
Speaker 1: a Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley said he plans to
Speaker 1: start with follow up calls to Kavanaugh and Ford rather
Speaker 1: than calling on Ford to testify before the committee. Alton
Speaker 1: Democratic senators on the committee are seeking a delay. In
Speaker 1: your mind, what should take place next? I think there
Speaker 1: have to be hearing. So as of this morning, uh,
Speaker 1: miss Ford, the the alleged victim in this case, has
Speaker 1: said she's through her attorney that she is very willing
Speaker 1: to testify openly about this. And I believe just this
Speaker 1: morning Judge Kavanaugh has said the same thing as and
Speaker 1: so if you have the two parties to this incident
Speaker 1: willing to talk publicly, willing to testify about it to
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee, I don't see how the Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: cannot reopen this matter, cannot appear to be interested in
Speaker 1: assessing the truth. And at least one Republican on the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee, UM Jeff Lake, has also suggested he thinks
Speaker 1: that um, we need to slow down the process until
Speaker 1: this issue has been fully aired. Now. Brett Kavanaugh has
Speaker 1: hired Beth Wilkinson from the law firm Wilkinson Walsh and
Speaker 1: asked of it's to be his attorney, what does it
Speaker 1: tell you that he is hiring an attorney. Now I
Speaker 1: don't know the details of her background, but you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's probably a wise course. Anytime anyone is
Speaker 1: accused of wrongdoing and faces consequences, where their criminal consequences
Speaker 1: or something else, I think you always want to be
Speaker 1: sure you're thinking clearly, that you're understanding the consequences of
Speaker 1: things you might do or say. There's an old, old
Speaker 1: saying that says a person who serves as his or
Speaker 1: her own attorney has a fool as a client. And
Speaker 1: so I think it's probably wise that even someone is
Speaker 1: well versed in the law, as Judge Kavanaugh is deciding,
Speaker 1: you know, in navigating these very serious accusations, even if
Speaker 1: I'm not facing criminal charges for them and he can't
Speaker 1: because of the statute of limitations, I think, um, you know,
Speaker 1: I need some wise objective counsel as I move forward. Now.
Speaker 1: We can't help miss not miss the comparisons to the
Speaker 1: Anita Hill hearings, and last year Joe Biden, who was
Speaker 1: then the Judiciary Committee chairman, said that to a Vogue,
Speaker 1: I wish I'd been able to do more for Anita Hill.
Speaker 1: I owe her an apology what could be done this
Speaker 1: time to avoid making it a trial of this woman
Speaker 1: as it was. Basically it's called the Anita Hill hearings,
Speaker 1: not that Clarence Thomas hearings. Yeah, I think so much
Speaker 1: of that was just because of the seemingly dismissive attitude
Speaker 1: that many senators as well as the public took to
Speaker 1: Anita Hills testimony. I think it's less likely that will
Speaker 1: happen this time, just because, as has been already said
Speaker 1: in lots of commentary about this, we're in a different
Speaker 1: moment now than we were in the nine eighties, with
Speaker 1: the Me Too movement, with the increased awareness of consciousness
Speaker 1: of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, what women have had to
Speaker 1: endure at the hands of male co workers and male friends,
Speaker 1: and so, make no mistake about it, we're also in
Speaker 1: a very highly polarized time and so again I think
Speaker 1: the most partisan UM supporters of President Trump and the
Speaker 1: most partisan defenders of Judge Cabinet will do anything possible
Speaker 1: UM to undermine UM this person's credit ability, this accuser's credibility. Uh,
Speaker 1: They'll have you know that. They will be interested in
Speaker 1: getting it the truth. But I think the mainstream story
Speaker 1: that we all take away the impression we all take
Speaker 1: away from this incident through the media coverage and the
Speaker 1: broader discussion, will be more respectful of her point of view.
Speaker 1: Whether or not that means most people will be convinced
Speaker 1: that the story happened the way she says that is
Speaker 1: a different question. Now. Many people have said that Justice
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas has been under some kind of a cloud
Speaker 1: during his entire career as a justice because of those allegations.
Speaker 1: Might the same be true if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it will certainly be the case if if
Speaker 1: there are no hearings, I think it would be much
Speaker 1: worse for Judge Kavanaugh. If if the Republicans simply tried
Speaker 1: to sweep this under the rug at this point, then
Speaker 1: I think it would be much more likely that he
Speaker 1: would have that sort of cloud, that sort of sting
Speaker 1: attached to him if there are hearings, if he is
Speaker 1: forced to answer tough questions about this, if his accuser
Speaker 1: is forced to answer tough questions, I think it's just
Speaker 1: hard to predict at this point what the lasting damage
Speaker 1: might be to Judge Cavanaugh. With the lasting impression or
Speaker 1: stigma might be that would cling to him I think
Speaker 1: in this environment, with things changing literally by the hour,
Speaker 1: you simply can't make predictions about where we will be
Speaker 1: a week from now, a month from now, a year
Speaker 1: from now, by the hour, perhaps by the minute, even
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Steve, and let's talk some more later
Speaker 1: about what's going to happen um with Judge Kavanaugh tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Steve standers, He's a professor at Indiana University Morrow School
Speaker 1: of Law. Last Friday, special counsel Robert Mueller's team scored
Speaker 1: a significant win as former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty to conspire against the United States and agreed
Speaker 1: to cooperate in the Mueller investigation. However, speaking with Fox News,
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani said manaforts plea had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with President Trump. The reality is there was a
Speaker 1: quote put up by source close to Manafort that the
Speaker 1: play agreement has and the cooperation agreement has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the Trump campaign quote. There's no evidence of collusion,
Speaker 1: my guest, as former federal prosecutor Robert Mint's a partner
Speaker 1: M Carter in English, Bob Mueller seemed to be using
Speaker 1: the classic prosecution strategy of making deals up the chain,
Speaker 1: And we know that before the plea there were proper
Speaker 1: sessions in which Manafort revealed information to prosecutors. So does
Speaker 1: that indicate that Manafort has important information to give on
Speaker 1: those up the chain? Absolutely, m Prosecutors do not agree
Speaker 1: to these cooperating deals unless they already know what it
Speaker 1: is they're buying. So the process that had to have
Speaker 1: taken place here was that Manafort and his attorneys had
Speaker 1: to go have met with prosecutors and given, as as
Speaker 1: you said, a proffer indicating the information that he would
Speaker 1: be willing to give were he to cooperate. And so
Speaker 1: we can absolutely assume that prosecutors would never have struck
Speaker 1: this deal if they didn't already know that the information
Speaker 1: that Manafort has to offer was going to be useful
Speaker 1: to them in some future prosecution. So what's your reaction
Speaker 1: to Giuliani's statements throughout the weekend that there is no
Speaker 1: evidence that this agreement has anything to do with the
Speaker 1: Trump White House. Well, he's technically correct. We just don't
Speaker 1: know at this point what Manafort knows. The only thing
Speaker 1: we can say is that he does have useful information.
Speaker 1: Now that useful information can go in any number of directions,
Speaker 1: one of which is to provide additional information about the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian money that he was involved with the as the
Speaker 1: superseding information, which is quite voluminous, quite detail, talks about
Speaker 1: some other entities that were involved in this, one of
Speaker 1: which is the law firm, one of which is about
Speaker 1: was a powerful Washington, DC lobbying entity. And it's certainly
Speaker 1: possible that his information could lead to further charges in
Speaker 1: that direction. But there's no question that the other area
Speaker 1: that prosecutors will be questioning Manaford about and have already
Speaker 1: questioned about is the meeting in Trump Tower and any
Speaker 1: information that he may have regarding Russia during the time
Speaker 1: that he was involved running the Trump campaign. Under his
Speaker 1: cooperation agreement, Manaford has to not only talk fully with
Speaker 1: the prosecutors to anything they ask any questions, but he
Speaker 1: has to testify if Mueller wants to even participate in
Speaker 1: undercover activities if requested. Is that especially broad or par
Speaker 1: for the course with plea deals? Now, that's really the
Speaker 1: way these plea deals always work. You cannot cooperate with
Speaker 1: the federal government and with prosecutors unless you're a one
Speaker 1: pent in. They don't accept partial cooperation. They won't agree
Speaker 1: to provide information about some things but not others, because ultimately,
Speaker 1: if you have to testify, you have to be prepared
Speaker 1: to answer all kinds of questions on crossing domination. So
Speaker 1: you're one percent in giving every bit of information that
Speaker 1: you have. That all right now you're asked about to
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors. That's up to prosecutors as to what they
Speaker 1: can do with that information. But he is on the
Speaker 1: government team at this point, and in order to get
Speaker 1: any kind of favorabul treatment from the prosecution, he's going
Speaker 1: to have to cooperate fully with everything he knows, and
Speaker 1: he cannot get caught in selling something that's untruthful or
Speaker 1: his deal will blow up. I've heard different assessments of
Speaker 1: how much time he'll be spending in prison. What's your assessment, Well,
Speaker 1: the answer at this point is nobody knows. It really
Speaker 1: depends on how useful this information is. I think we
Speaker 1: can likely say that even if we were to provide
Speaker 1: very useful and for nation Um, it's unlikely that the
Speaker 1: judge will not give him at least some jail time.
Speaker 1: But I think a ballpark is that without cooperation, he
Speaker 1: probably would have gone to jail for the rest of
Speaker 1: his life, and he who can ride useful information here.
Speaker 1: Depending upon how critical it is and whether he ultimately
Speaker 1: testifies in a whole post of other factors, he possibly
Speaker 1: could walk away with a sentence somewhere in the range
Speaker 1: of five to eight years, and that would given the
Speaker 1: opportunity to perhaps get out of prison and have some
Speaker 1: life after his time at jail. President Trump has not
Speaker 1: commented on Manafort specifically so far, But will this heighten
Speaker 1: the legal pressure on Trump? Well, it really all depends
Speaker 1: on what it is that Manafort knows and is going
Speaker 1: to tell the government. I mean, I think we can
Speaker 1: safely assume that whatever he does know, he's giving up now.
Speaker 1: So what that is and what kind of conversations that
Speaker 1: may have taken place, you know, only he knows. And
Speaker 1: those conversations may have taken place with the president, they
Speaker 1: may have taken place of other members of the President's team.
Speaker 1: And remember also June that his uncorroborated testimony is not
Speaker 1: going to be enough for prosecutors to really a forward
Speaker 1: with anything. Prosecutors will listen to Manta for it, they
Speaker 1: listen to what he says went on, but then they're
Speaker 1: gonna have to go out and corroborate that testimony with
Speaker 1: other evidence, because otherwise they really can't use it to
Speaker 1: go forward with the prosecution. They will have some insight though,
Speaker 1: into that June meeting at Trump Tower that's been talked
Speaker 1: about so much about a minute here, Yes, and that
Speaker 1: is exactly one of the focuses certainly is going to
Speaker 1: be about that meeting, because he's the only person who
Speaker 1: they have the opportunity to talk with now who is
Speaker 1: president at the meeting. They'll want to know what happened
Speaker 1: leading up to the meeting, what happened at the meeting,
Speaker 1: and what happened after the meeting, And that information I
Speaker 1: think is ultimately going to be known either by way
Speaker 1: of further criminal charges or in some subsequent report that
Speaker 1: the Muller team puts together down the road. Okay, Bob,
Speaker 1: not the last time we'll be talking about Manaford, Thanks
Speaker 1: so much. That's Robert Mints. He's a partner at McCarter
Speaker 1: and English. Also remember that Paul Manafort is forfeiting and
Speaker 1: estimated twenty two million dollars worth of real estate in
Speaker 1: New York in courting Manhattan apartments of Brooklyn Townhouse, a
Speaker 1: home in the Hampton's. He's also forfeiting bank accounts and
Speaker 1: insurance agreements. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg