1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,960 --> 00:00:12,440
Speaker 1: This is gonna be the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland,

3
00:00:12,560 --> 00:00:16,560
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden fighting words from Steve Bannon in

4
00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:20,720
Speaker 1: January after appearing before a judge to face criminal contempt

5
00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:24,560
Speaker 1: charges for defying a subpoena from the January sixth Committee.

6
00:00:24,760 --> 00:00:27,120
Speaker 1: We're gonna go on the offense. We're tired of playing defense.

7
00:00:27,160 --> 00:00:30,280
Speaker 1: We're gonna go on the offense on this and stand by.

8
00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:33,760
Speaker 1: Six months later, there's no offense and not much of

9
00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:37,320
Speaker 1: a defense. Bannon is standing trial in a DC federal

10
00:00:37,400 --> 00:00:41,760
Speaker 1: court on Monday after a judge eviscerated most of his defenses.

11
00:00:42,360 --> 00:00:46,199
Speaker 1: Joining me as former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers and adjunct

12
00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:49,400
Speaker 1: professor at n y U Law School, Jennifer, let's start

13
00:00:49,440 --> 00:00:53,680
Speaker 1: with Bannon trying to get his trial postponed and volunteering

14
00:00:53,800 --> 00:00:58,360
Speaker 1: on the eve of trial to now testify before the committee. Basically,

15
00:00:58,440 --> 00:01:01,360
Speaker 1: the whole game plan for defending usually is delay until

16
00:01:01,360 --> 00:01:03,960
Speaker 1: you can't delay anymore. So that's just kind of a

17
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:06,479
Speaker 1: typical thing, you know, always push it off, push it off.

18
00:01:06,680 --> 00:01:09,240
Speaker 1: But he's just trying to play a game here. I mean,

19
00:01:09,360 --> 00:01:12,000
Speaker 1: he's been charged with contempt for what he did in

20
00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:16,360
Speaker 1: the past in stonewalling the committee, refusing to testify, refusing

21
00:01:16,400 --> 00:01:18,800
Speaker 1: to hand over documents, And this is kind of a

22
00:01:18,880 --> 00:01:22,560
Speaker 1: last effort to say, well, you're claiming that I did

23
00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:24,399
Speaker 1: all this stuff, but you know I'll do it now,

24
00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:26,640
Speaker 1: So let's put it off so that I can actually cooperate,

25
00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:28,520
Speaker 1: which is what you want after all, Like what are

26
00:01:28,560 --> 00:01:31,200
Speaker 1: we doing here sort of things. So really just the

27
00:01:31,319 --> 00:01:34,720
Speaker 1: kind of last gasp for him of a way to

28
00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:37,119
Speaker 1: try to put things off and delay things. And also,

29
00:01:37,319 --> 00:01:41,040
Speaker 1: by the way, plant this kind of jury nullification seed

30
00:01:41,400 --> 00:01:44,320
Speaker 1: in people's minds that why are we making a federal

31
00:01:44,360 --> 00:01:46,880
Speaker 1: case of this if he's actually willing to do it now.

32
00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:51,840
Speaker 1: So Bennon's defense wants to use this supposed new cooperation

33
00:01:51,920 --> 00:01:55,240
Speaker 1: to argue at his trial that he wasn't remiss in

34
00:01:55,320 --> 00:01:58,160
Speaker 1: defying a subpoena from the House Committee in the first place.

35
00:01:58,320 --> 00:02:01,000
Speaker 1: The judge said he would decide lay later whether banning

36
00:02:01,080 --> 00:02:04,320
Speaker 1: can use that as a defense. But how is that relevant?

37
00:02:04,560 --> 00:02:07,400
Speaker 1: Even yeah, you're right, it's not, And that's what d

38
00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:10,160
Speaker 1: o J has said in their response. I mean he

39
00:02:10,280 --> 00:02:14,080
Speaker 1: was charged with what he did in a specific time

40
00:02:14,120 --> 00:02:16,959
Speaker 1: period that has a long past. So even if this

41
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:20,200
Speaker 1: day after they charged him with an indictment he turned

42
00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:22,320
Speaker 1: around and said, hey, okay, you know what, Now, I

43
00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:25,000
Speaker 1: get that you're serious. Now I'm willing to do it,

44
00:02:25,080 --> 00:02:27,880
Speaker 1: even then it would have been too late, because the

45
00:02:27,960 --> 00:02:32,079
Speaker 1: point is you can't just swards a subpoena and ignore

46
00:02:32,120 --> 00:02:35,320
Speaker 1: a subpoena and just get away with it and damage

47
00:02:35,360 --> 00:02:38,880
Speaker 1: their investigation by doing so, and then say, okay, well

48
00:02:38,880 --> 00:02:40,920
Speaker 1: I'll do it when I really get in trouble for it.

49
00:02:41,280 --> 00:02:44,720
Speaker 1: So the point is it's too late to change his tune,

50
00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:47,640
Speaker 1: and it's been too late for a long long time.

51
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:50,720
Speaker 1: So there's no legal way that this is a relevant

52
00:02:50,800 --> 00:02:53,240
Speaker 1: argument for the jury. I think the judge is just

53
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:56,399
Speaker 1: going to reserve, because judges often do that. They don't

54
00:02:56,400 --> 00:02:58,880
Speaker 1: want to decide everything in advance. Sometimes they want to

55
00:02:58,880 --> 00:03:01,480
Speaker 1: see how you and it comes in and things play out.

56
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:04,280
Speaker 1: But I cannot imagine a scenario in which the judge

57
00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:08,600
Speaker 1: allowed Bannon's lawyer to put in that argument, because it's

58
00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:12,160
Speaker 1: just legally completely irrelevant. All it really is a play

59
00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:16,160
Speaker 1: to the jury for nullification, which is not illegally justifiable

60
00:03:16,240 --> 00:03:20,080
Speaker 1: arguments made. The judge denied Bannon's request to delay the

61
00:03:20,120 --> 00:03:24,200
Speaker 1: trial because of publicity surrounding the January six Committee hearings,

62
00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:28,800
Speaker 1: and he also shot down most of Bannon's other proposed defenses. Now,

63
00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:31,840
Speaker 1: some of Bannon's defenses seem like they were out there,

64
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:35,839
Speaker 1: like saying the committee was improperly constituted. Were there any

65
00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:39,480
Speaker 1: that seemed reasonable to you? Most of them did not.

66
00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:45,360
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been shocked to see a judge pushed

67
00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:48,280
Speaker 1: the trial a little bit to get out of the

68
00:03:48,560 --> 00:03:54,080
Speaker 1: active January six Committee hearings. You do want a fair jury.

69
00:03:54,240 --> 00:03:56,720
Speaker 1: You want a jury that says it can be impartial.

70
00:03:57,160 --> 00:03:59,760
Speaker 1: You want a jury that isn't too steep in what

71
00:04:00,120 --> 00:04:04,760
Speaker 1: going on around Trump and Bannon and the January sticks Committee.

72
00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:07,720
Speaker 1: And so I wouldn't have been shocked to see the

73
00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:10,520
Speaker 1: judge say, you know what stuff is going on right now?

74
00:04:10,640 --> 00:04:12,480
Speaker 1: The Committee is going to be done with their hearings

75
00:04:12,480 --> 00:04:15,000
Speaker 1: in a matter of a couple of weeks. Let's push

76
00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 1: it a month so we kind of get out of

77
00:04:16,600 --> 00:04:20,200
Speaker 1: that news cycle about the committee to give us a

78
00:04:20,240 --> 00:04:22,960
Speaker 1: better chance of getting a jury that hasn't been watching

79
00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 1: the hearings and kind of hearing all this on a

80
00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:27,560
Speaker 1: daily basis, so I wouldn't have been surprised at that.

81
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:30,520
Speaker 1: I don't think it's legal error not to do it

82
00:04:30,560 --> 00:04:33,080
Speaker 1: by any stretch. So that argument could have had a

83
00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:35,640
Speaker 1: little bit of traction with the right judge. So after

84
00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:39,400
Speaker 1: Judge Nichols pretty much throughout all these defenses, one of

85
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:42,479
Speaker 1: Bannon's defense attorneys said, what's the point of going to

86
00:04:42,560 --> 00:04:46,599
Speaker 1: trial if there are no defenses? And Judge Nichols said, agreed,

87
00:04:46,960 --> 00:04:49,880
Speaker 1: I mean, what does that say? Yeah, you know, I

88
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:52,640
Speaker 1: don't know. He's just spending right, he's just a little frustrated.

89
00:04:52,720 --> 00:04:54,120
Speaker 1: I think there's a sense for I don't know that

90
00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:56,960
Speaker 1: he's really meant to to put that out there. But

91
00:04:57,080 --> 00:05:00,000
Speaker 1: that's exactly the point. He doesn't have any valid defense

92
00:05:00,120 --> 00:05:03,000
Speaker 1: this to this. I mean, he made a real strategic

93
00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:08,080
Speaker 1: error to just completely stonewall the committee. You know, he

94
00:05:08,120 --> 00:05:11,640
Speaker 1: could have done the Mark Meadows strategy, been a bit

95
00:05:11,680 --> 00:05:15,760
Speaker 1: smarter about negotiating and maybe turning some things over, or

96
00:05:15,800 --> 00:05:18,320
Speaker 1: at least agreeing to show up and claim his privileges

97
00:05:18,320 --> 00:05:20,240
Speaker 1: in person or something. You know, there were lots of

98
00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:24,480
Speaker 1: ways that he could have given a little bit and

99
00:05:24,760 --> 00:05:27,600
Speaker 1: looked like he was at least somewhat cooperative. That would

100
00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:29,760
Speaker 1: have made it much harder for do O J to

101
00:05:29,880 --> 00:05:33,000
Speaker 1: charge him and given him more arguments if they did.

102
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:35,880
Speaker 1: He didn't do that. He wanted to take the hundred

103
00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:39,200
Speaker 1: percent I'm not doing this. Look how loyal I am.

104
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:41,480
Speaker 1: You know, I'm a stand up Trump guy. And that

105
00:05:41,560 --> 00:05:44,000
Speaker 1: really is coming back to bite him now because he

106
00:05:44,120 --> 00:05:47,160
Speaker 1: just doesn't have any defense at all to the way

107
00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:50,760
Speaker 1: that he handled this whole subpoena inquiry. So he's got

108
00:05:50,760 --> 00:05:53,040
Speaker 1: to live with that now. He doesn't have any defenses.

109
00:05:53,080 --> 00:05:54,599
Speaker 1: So as lawyers kind of like, what am I going

110
00:05:54,640 --> 00:05:56,680
Speaker 1: to do at trial? You know, the way that you

111
00:05:56,720 --> 00:05:59,159
Speaker 1: would complain to a colleague or a friend. What the

112
00:05:59,160 --> 00:06:00,919
Speaker 1: world am I going to do standing up trying to

113
00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:03,640
Speaker 1: defend this guy? And the answer is, I don't know.

114
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:06,080
Speaker 1: You know, you're gonna have to see what you can

115
00:06:06,120 --> 00:06:07,880
Speaker 1: come up with. I mean, really, what he's gonna do

116
00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:10,760
Speaker 1: is make a play for jury nullification, which is not

117
00:06:10,839 --> 00:06:12,719
Speaker 1: a legitimate thing to do, and the court will have

118
00:06:12,839 --> 00:06:15,320
Speaker 1: to be careful in the way that it tries to

119
00:06:15,400 --> 00:06:18,039
Speaker 1: kind of cabin those arguments and not letting him go

120
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:21,080
Speaker 1: too far with them. But he doesn't have any legitimate defense.

121
00:06:21,120 --> 00:06:24,240
Speaker 1: But you know that happens. Actually, I mean, it's not

122
00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:27,599
Speaker 1: that uncommon that you have a defendant who insists on

123
00:06:27,720 --> 00:06:30,479
Speaker 1: going to trial, refuses to plead, doesn't really have a

124
00:06:30,520 --> 00:06:33,880
Speaker 1: legitimate defense, and you go through the motions because that's

125
00:06:33,920 --> 00:06:36,520
Speaker 1: the defendant's right, and you end up with a conviction

126
00:06:36,520 --> 00:06:38,800
Speaker 1: in those cases. And that's what I expect to see here.

127
00:06:39,240 --> 00:06:43,120
Speaker 1: What would an argument for jury nullification look like? There's

128
00:06:43,160 --> 00:06:45,880
Speaker 1: a few things. I mean, he could try for nullification

129
00:06:46,000 --> 00:06:48,240
Speaker 1: just on the fact that maybe you end up with

130
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:50,880
Speaker 1: some jurors who like Trump and like Bannon, and maybe

131
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:53,320
Speaker 1: you kind of appeal to them and you want them

132
00:06:53,360 --> 00:06:56,000
Speaker 1: to hang up the jury right so that you can't

133
00:06:56,000 --> 00:06:59,480
Speaker 1: get a conviction because just politically they're on one side,

134
00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:02,400
Speaker 1: you know, ver is the other side. You might say,

135
00:07:02,760 --> 00:07:05,039
Speaker 1: why make a federal case of this kind of just

136
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:08,240
Speaker 1: play to the whole what's the harm here? Really? You know,

137
00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:10,960
Speaker 1: the committees talked to a lot of people. They don't

138
00:07:10,960 --> 00:07:13,920
Speaker 1: really need to talk to everybody. They're just throwing their

139
00:07:13,960 --> 00:07:18,520
Speaker 1: weight around. No harm, no foul. That's another nullification argument.

140
00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:21,960
Speaker 1: I mean, the argument that you raised that he actually

141
00:07:22,440 --> 00:07:26,840
Speaker 1: didn't understand that the subpoena had validity. That's really more

142
00:07:26,880 --> 00:07:28,800
Speaker 1: of a legal argument. I mean that the court's going

143
00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:31,240
Speaker 1: to say it's not a legitimate legal argument. But that's

144
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:34,400
Speaker 1: not as much a nullification argument as these other things,

145
00:07:34,440 --> 00:07:36,920
Speaker 1: which just kind of, you know, it's almost like winking

146
00:07:36,920 --> 00:07:40,080
Speaker 1: at the jury and saying, you know, okay, I get

147
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:43,200
Speaker 1: that it's you know, actually a violation, But what's the

148
00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:44,760
Speaker 1: big deal. Why don't you just let me off the

149
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:47,680
Speaker 1: hook here for a reason that's not legitimate. That's really

150
00:07:47,680 --> 00:07:51,960
Speaker 1: the nullification argument, and that happens. Juries do some strange things.

151
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:56,320
Speaker 1: Defense got one ruling Bannon may present evidence to show

152
00:07:56,360 --> 00:07:59,960
Speaker 1: that his failure to comply with the subpoena wasn't intentional.

153
00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:02,920
Speaker 1: For example, if he was unclear on the deadline for

154
00:08:03,040 --> 00:08:05,680
Speaker 1: his response, I don't know what he could put forth here.

155
00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:08,640
Speaker 1: The judge said that thinking one is legally excluded or

156
00:08:08,720 --> 00:08:11,280
Speaker 1: thinking a subpoena is invalid is not the same as

157
00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:14,360
Speaker 1: thinking a reply date was put on hold, So he'd

158
00:08:14,360 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: have to show some basic misunderstanding. Yeah, this is a

159
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:21,400
Speaker 1: strange one. All this is saying is listen, if you

160
00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:24,440
Speaker 1: have evidence like this, bring it. Of course, you know

161
00:08:24,520 --> 00:08:26,960
Speaker 1: of course you're allowed to bring evidence that you know.

162
00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:29,680
Speaker 1: Let's say he shows up with a letter that says this,

163
00:08:29,840 --> 00:08:31,880
Speaker 1: I got this letter from the committee and it says

164
00:08:32,360 --> 00:08:34,640
Speaker 1: I don't have to comply by that date. Don't worry

165
00:08:34,640 --> 00:08:36,439
Speaker 1: about it. We're pushing it back. You know, you don't

166
00:08:36,480 --> 00:08:38,920
Speaker 1: need to worry about this. The problem is that letter

167
00:08:38,960 --> 00:08:41,920
Speaker 1: doesn't exist. So what the judge is saying is, if

168
00:08:41,960 --> 00:08:45,840
Speaker 1: you actually have evidence that means you're not guilty because

169
00:08:46,000 --> 00:08:49,040
Speaker 1: they gave you, you know, a longer time frame, or

170
00:08:49,080 --> 00:08:51,600
Speaker 1: they narrowed what you have to bring, and then you

171
00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:53,880
Speaker 1: were charged with not bringing something that the committee said

172
00:08:53,880 --> 00:08:56,079
Speaker 1: you don't have to bring. Of course you can present

173
00:08:56,160 --> 00:08:59,000
Speaker 1: that evidence anyone could, right that basically shows that you're

174
00:08:59,000 --> 00:09:02,000
Speaker 1: not guilty of problem is, there is no such evidence.

175
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:05,000
Speaker 1: So that's kind of a false victory for Bannon here

176
00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:07,080
Speaker 1: because he's not going to be able to show that

177
00:09:07,160 --> 00:09:10,480
Speaker 1: the committee didn't try a million times over right to

178
00:09:10,600 --> 00:09:13,040
Speaker 1: get the evidence from him on certain dates that they

179
00:09:13,080 --> 00:09:16,280
Speaker 1: repeated over and over with a certain scope of documents

180
00:09:16,280 --> 00:09:19,000
Speaker 1: and testimony they wanted that they were clear about, and

181
00:09:19,000 --> 00:09:21,360
Speaker 1: that he just completely blew all of it off. So

182
00:09:21,400 --> 00:09:27,160
Speaker 1: what does the government have to show to prove his guilt, Well,

183
00:09:27,200 --> 00:09:32,160
Speaker 1: they'll show that he was very clearly subpoenaed for specific information,

184
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:35,920
Speaker 1: specific testimony, that all of this was very clear to Bannon.

185
00:09:36,320 --> 00:09:39,040
Speaker 1: It wasn't just that it was sent once by certified

186
00:09:39,080 --> 00:09:41,200
Speaker 1: mail and then they ignored it. I mean, they have

187
00:09:41,320 --> 00:09:45,600
Speaker 1: evidence that he received the subpoena right through his counsel,

188
00:09:45,679 --> 00:09:49,319
Speaker 1: that he was aware of these requirements, and that he

189
00:09:49,480 --> 00:09:54,120
Speaker 1: willfully didn't comply. And so you know, there there was

190
00:09:54,480 --> 00:09:58,560
Speaker 1: some discussion of this, for example on his podcast. You know,

191
00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:01,360
Speaker 1: he made public statements that out it. So there's lots

192
00:10:01,360 --> 00:10:03,800
Speaker 1: of ways that they can show that it was a

193
00:10:03,840 --> 00:10:08,120
Speaker 1: bad faith non responsiveness, right, that this wasn't just oh,

194
00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:10,240
Speaker 1: they slipped it through my mailbox and I never thought

195
00:10:10,240 --> 00:10:14,120
Speaker 1: it or it was so confusing and I didn't understand it.

196
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:16,320
Speaker 1: I mean, it was pretty clear from all of the

197
00:10:16,440 --> 00:10:20,000
Speaker 1: surrounding evidence when you look at his public statements, Trump's

198
00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:22,560
Speaker 1: public statements what was going on with other witnesses at

199
00:10:22,559 --> 00:10:25,040
Speaker 1: the time that he knew exactly what he was doing,

200
00:10:25,040 --> 00:10:28,439
Speaker 1: and what he was doing was trying to undercut their

201
00:10:28,480 --> 00:10:31,600
Speaker 1: investigation by not providing them with the evidence that they

202
00:10:31,600 --> 00:10:34,720
Speaker 1: were speaking from him. So Jennifer if he's convicted, he

203
00:10:34,760 --> 00:10:39,080
Speaker 1: can do jail time. He can, he can, absolutely he

204
00:10:39,240 --> 00:10:44,600
Speaker 1: there's actually a mandatory minimum here, so he will do

205
00:10:44,679 --> 00:10:47,520
Speaker 1: jail time if he's convicted. That's the interesting thing about

206
00:10:47,559 --> 00:10:50,800
Speaker 1: this particular misdemeanor. So you know, it's not a lot

207
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:54,280
Speaker 1: of jail time. It's it's thirty days for each count

208
00:10:54,720 --> 00:10:57,280
Speaker 1: and up to a year for each count. So you

209
00:10:57,280 --> 00:10:58,720
Speaker 1: know he would get on the low end of that,

210
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:02,240
Speaker 1: probably the in a mom of one month per count.

211
00:11:02,360 --> 00:11:05,800
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean, Steve Bannon very well could go

212
00:11:05,880 --> 00:11:08,880
Speaker 1: to prison here, and that's obviously what he's now kind

213
00:11:08,920 --> 00:11:11,040
Speaker 1: of doing all these last minute maneuverings to try to

214
00:11:11,080 --> 00:11:14,720
Speaker 1: avoid I want to turn now to another Trump ally

215
00:11:14,880 --> 00:11:19,160
Speaker 1: defying a subpoena. A judge has ordered Republican Senator Lindsey

216
00:11:19,200 --> 00:11:23,400
Speaker 1: Graham to appear before a special grand jury in Atlanta

217
00:11:23,559 --> 00:11:29,640
Speaker 1: investigating interference in the presidential election on August two. He

218
00:11:29,760 --> 00:11:33,440
Speaker 1: said that Graham was a necessary and material witness to

219
00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:36,800
Speaker 1: the grand jury probe. This comes after Graham was subpoena

220
00:11:36,960 --> 00:11:40,000
Speaker 1: and vowed to challenge the subpoena. What else can Graham

221
00:11:40,040 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 1: do to fight this, Well, he's going to ultimately have

222
00:11:43,040 --> 00:11:45,600
Speaker 1: to comply. I suspect he can get more time if

223
00:11:45,640 --> 00:11:49,200
Speaker 1: he wants more time. August is pretty close to now,

224
00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:52,680
Speaker 1: so I'm sure if you know, his lawyer contacts the

225
00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:56,200
Speaker 1: D's office, they can work something out with the timing.

226
00:11:56,600 --> 00:12:00,600
Speaker 1: But this is a legitimate subpoena at Georgia. Judge has

227
00:12:00,600 --> 00:12:06,600
Speaker 1: signed off. They have ways of getting cooperation from other states,

228
00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:09,160
Speaker 1: so that in the worst case scenario playing in now

229
00:12:09,200 --> 00:12:11,840
Speaker 1: for Lindsay Graham, if he absolutely refused to comply, he

230
00:12:11,880 --> 00:12:15,240
Speaker 1: could be arrested and brought to Georgia to testify. So

231
00:12:15,400 --> 00:12:18,760
Speaker 1: he certainly doesn't want to trigger that happening, so he

232
00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:22,400
Speaker 1: is going to have to show up. There Goold moved

233
00:12:22,440 --> 00:12:25,760
Speaker 1: to quash the subpoena, but this judge has already said

234
00:12:25,800 --> 00:12:28,200
Speaker 1: that he finds, you know, he's been necessary witnessed, so

235
00:12:28,559 --> 00:12:30,480
Speaker 1: that's out. So he's going to have to comply. I

236
00:12:30,520 --> 00:12:32,920
Speaker 1: think he can get more time and negotiate some sort

237
00:12:32,920 --> 00:12:35,480
Speaker 1: of appearance that is more convenient for him if he

238
00:12:35,520 --> 00:12:37,839
Speaker 1: wants two or three weeks or whatever it ends up being.

239
00:12:38,120 --> 00:12:40,400
Speaker 1: But he's going to have to show up. Is it

240
00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:42,720
Speaker 1: just political that he doesn't want to show up because

241
00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:45,040
Speaker 1: you know, we all know about the two calls he

242
00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:49,360
Speaker 1: made to the Georgia Secretary of State Raffensburger. Raefensburger has

243
00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:53,400
Speaker 1: already testified to the grand jury, so the grand jury

244
00:12:53,480 --> 00:12:56,480
Speaker 1: knows about it, and he's been told that he's a witness.

245
00:12:56,559 --> 00:12:59,400
Speaker 1: He's not a subject or a target of the investigation.

246
00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:02,440
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's a couple of things going on.

247
00:13:02,440 --> 00:13:05,880
Speaker 1: One thing is in your own self interest. You want

248
00:13:05,920 --> 00:13:09,120
Speaker 1: to make sure that you're not in jeopardy, So being

249
00:13:09,160 --> 00:13:12,160
Speaker 1: told you're not a target is one thing. He might

250
00:13:12,200 --> 00:13:16,199
Speaker 1: also actually be seeking technical immunity. He may want an

251
00:13:16,200 --> 00:13:19,480
Speaker 1: actual order of immunity UM, so his lawyer would be

252
00:13:19,520 --> 00:13:23,800
Speaker 1: negotiating that UM. And then the political side, as you mentioned,

253
00:13:23,800 --> 00:13:27,760
Speaker 1: I mean, he's been a loyal Trump supporter. He doesn't

254
00:13:27,760 --> 00:13:31,360
Speaker 1: want to be seen as going away from that right,

255
00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:32,920
Speaker 1: and he still wants to be seen as a loyal

256
00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:36,560
Speaker 1: Trump supporter. So I think that those things combined is

257
00:13:36,600 --> 00:13:39,160
Speaker 1: why he's reluctant. But he probably knows he's going to

258
00:13:39,240 --> 00:13:40,800
Speaker 1: have to do it. This is a little bit of

259
00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:45,000
Speaker 1: show trial, right, I'm resisting, I'm not doing it. They

260
00:13:45,040 --> 00:13:47,160
Speaker 1: have to come get me and then lo and behold

261
00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:49,160
Speaker 1: in a couple of weeks the areas in Georgia, right,

262
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:51,520
Speaker 1: but he wants to give this kind of impression of

263
00:13:51,600 --> 00:13:54,840
Speaker 1: still being on team Trump and he only has to

264
00:13:54,880 --> 00:13:58,560
Speaker 1: go down there because he has absolutely no choice. Do

265
00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:00,800
Speaker 1: you think it would look bad for a siting senator

266
00:14:01,000 --> 00:14:04,520
Speaker 1: to ask for immunity? I don't know. I mean, listen,

267
00:14:04,520 --> 00:14:07,360
Speaker 1: it's funny. We've seen We're kind of in a different

268
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:09,760
Speaker 1: era now, right. I mean, I think it used to

269
00:14:09,800 --> 00:14:12,320
Speaker 1: be that if you were a senator and you ask

270
00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:15,320
Speaker 1: for immunity from criminal prosecution, everyone would be like, that's

271
00:14:15,320 --> 00:14:17,680
Speaker 1: so outrageous, you know that you think you did something

272
00:14:17,679 --> 00:14:21,560
Speaker 1: that you need immunity for. Nowadays we have people asking

273
00:14:21,600 --> 00:14:24,600
Speaker 1: for pardons, right, So, um, I'm kind of in a

274
00:14:24,720 --> 00:14:27,000
Speaker 1: different world. And you know, I got to tell you

275
00:14:27,000 --> 00:14:28,960
Speaker 1: there are a lot of criminal defense lawyers who, if

276
00:14:28,960 --> 00:14:32,480
Speaker 1: they were representing Lindsey Graham, would say, thank you for

277
00:14:32,600 --> 00:14:35,880
Speaker 1: your statement that he's not a target, but we want immunity.

278
00:14:36,000 --> 00:14:39,040
Speaker 1: You know, that is what really protects your clients. So

279
00:14:39,640 --> 00:14:41,600
Speaker 1: you know, I think a lot of lawyers would be

280
00:14:41,600 --> 00:14:45,440
Speaker 1: pushing for that just as the kind of firmest protection

281
00:14:45,520 --> 00:14:48,480
Speaker 1: for their clients. Now, maybe Lindsay Brown does push back

282
00:14:48,480 --> 00:14:50,760
Speaker 1: and say but I'm a senator. I can't ask for immunity.

283
00:14:50,800 --> 00:14:55,120
Speaker 1: I suppose that's possible, But honestly, nowadays, in the world

284
00:14:55,160 --> 00:14:57,640
Speaker 1: we live in now, with people asking for pardons, I

285
00:14:57,680 --> 00:15:00,320
Speaker 1: think they're more interested in their own kind of self

286
00:15:00,360 --> 00:15:03,520
Speaker 1: interest then and how it appears. So we'll see, we'll

287
00:15:03,520 --> 00:15:05,840
Speaker 1: see if that's how it shakes out, if if that

288
00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:08,920
Speaker 1: comes out publicly, but I think it's probably at least

289
00:15:08,960 --> 00:15:12,240
Speaker 1: under discussion between Lindsey Graham and his lawyer and then

290
00:15:12,280 --> 00:15:15,479
Speaker 1: perhaps with the Dass as well. Thanks so much, Jennifer.

291
00:15:15,680 --> 00:15:19,040
Speaker 1: That's Jennifer Rogers of n y U Law School coming up.

292
00:15:19,120 --> 00:15:24,520
Speaker 1: Brittney Grinder on trial. This is Bloomberg Family, friends and

293
00:15:24,640 --> 00:15:28,000
Speaker 1: teammates have been mounting a full court press to bring

294
00:15:28,240 --> 00:15:31,640
Speaker 1: w n B A star Brittney Grinder back home from Russia,

295
00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:35,200
Speaker 1: where she's been detained since February when Hashee so Sooyle

296
00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:38,640
Speaker 1: was found in her luggage. Her wife, Cheryl Grinder, has

297
00:15:38,680 --> 00:15:41,640
Speaker 1: been speaking out were you sitting over there, Cutchy having

298
00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:46,000
Speaker 1: having coming see your rescue yet there was even a

299
00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:49,680
Speaker 1: phone call with President Joe Biden and a letter from him.

300
00:15:49,880 --> 00:15:53,280
Speaker 1: National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan says the White House is

301
00:15:53,320 --> 00:15:56,400
Speaker 1: doing all it can to secure her release. We are

302
00:15:56,440 --> 00:16:00,160
Speaker 1: working directly with the Russian government through appropriate chan was

303
00:16:00,240 --> 00:16:02,360
Speaker 1: to try to bring a speedy resolution not just to

304
00:16:02,400 --> 00:16:05,600
Speaker 1: her case, but to Paul Wheelan's case as well. Surprising many,

305
00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:09,640
Speaker 1: Grinder pleaded guilty to the Russian drug charges last Thursday,

306
00:16:09,920 --> 00:16:12,960
Speaker 1: saying she packed in a hurry and had no criminal intent.

307
00:16:15,040 --> 00:16:18,800
Speaker 1: The guilty on the charges, but I had no intention

308
00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:23,560
Speaker 1: on breaking any Russian law. Grinder's plea makes a conviction certain,

309
00:16:23,960 --> 00:16:28,400
Speaker 1: but unlike in American courts, it doesn't automatically end her trial.

310
00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:31,720
Speaker 1: Joining me as Jeffrey Kahn, a professor at s m

311
00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:37,720
Speaker 1: used Deadman's School of Law, defendants in Russian courts are convicted.

312
00:16:37,960 --> 00:16:41,640
Speaker 1: What do you think Grinder waited so long to plead guilty. Well,

313
00:16:42,360 --> 00:16:44,720
Speaker 1: that's a complicated question, and there are two ways of

314
00:16:44,760 --> 00:16:47,760
Speaker 1: answering it. One is she didn't have the opportunity. She

315
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:51,280
Speaker 1: was placed in a Russian jail and subjected to pre

316
00:16:51,400 --> 00:16:55,040
Speaker 1: trial detention while the state began its investigation, and so

317
00:16:55,160 --> 00:16:59,360
Speaker 1: she didn't have, under Russian law really any opportunity to

318
00:16:59,400 --> 00:17:03,880
Speaker 1: do so, earliers. The larger answer is the Russian criminal

319
00:17:03,920 --> 00:17:06,879
Speaker 1: justice system operates on very different principles than the US

320
00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:11,200
Speaker 1: adversarial system. Growth lies on something called a case file,

321
00:17:11,560 --> 00:17:14,639
Speaker 1: and this case file is completely in the control of

322
00:17:14,680 --> 00:17:19,119
Speaker 1: the state. It is this binder that contains all the

323
00:17:19,160 --> 00:17:22,600
Speaker 1: evidence that a court will consider. In an American court,

324
00:17:23,280 --> 00:17:27,080
Speaker 1: nothing counts as evidence unless it's been provided through live

325
00:17:27,160 --> 00:17:31,080
Speaker 1: witness testimony. In a Russian court, if it's not in

326
00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:34,120
Speaker 1: the case file, it didn't happen. And although there are

327
00:17:34,280 --> 00:17:38,840
Speaker 1: some opportunities for a defense attorney to ask for things

328
00:17:38,840 --> 00:17:43,720
Speaker 1: to be included in the case file, everything, everything is

329
00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:47,560
Speaker 1: in the control of the state's investigator, the sled the vattal.

330
00:17:47,880 --> 00:17:50,720
Speaker 1: And although that official is supposed to be independent from

331
00:17:50,720 --> 00:17:54,080
Speaker 1: the prosecutor, and that's supposed to preserve an equality of

332
00:17:54,160 --> 00:17:57,919
Speaker 1: arments between the parties, there's always this anxiety that the

333
00:17:57,960 --> 00:18:01,120
Speaker 1: state can put its thumb on the scale with as

334
00:18:01,200 --> 00:18:05,200
Speaker 1: much pressure as it wants. So Grinder's trial is continuing.

335
00:18:05,440 --> 00:18:09,320
Speaker 1: So far there's been what we call good character evidence

336
00:18:09,560 --> 00:18:12,960
Speaker 1: from a Russian team, how long after the trial concludes

337
00:18:13,400 --> 00:18:19,200
Speaker 1: before she sentenced. In the Russian system an imposition of punishment.

338
00:18:19,680 --> 00:18:23,479
Speaker 1: The sentencing usually is done in very close proximity with

339
00:18:23,560 --> 00:18:27,240
Speaker 1: the court's conclusion that the defendant is guilty of a crime.

340
00:18:27,320 --> 00:18:31,800
Speaker 1: So conviction and sentence usually come very close together. That's

341
00:18:31,800 --> 00:18:35,560
Speaker 1: another big difference between the US approach and the Russian approach.

342
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:40,040
Speaker 1: In the US approach, the individual can try to present

343
00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:44,720
Speaker 1: reasons why lesser sentence should be imposed. There is very

344
00:18:44,760 --> 00:18:48,439
Speaker 1: little time in the Russian system for contrition to happen.

345
00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:51,720
Speaker 1: The judge is going to impose that sentence very quickly,

346
00:18:51,800 --> 00:18:54,520
Speaker 1: and so it may be that Ms Grinder was given

347
00:18:54,640 --> 00:18:56,800
Speaker 1: the advice that if she wanted to be able to

348
00:18:56,920 --> 00:19:00,639
Speaker 1: influence the size of her sentence, now is the time.

349
00:19:01,000 --> 00:19:04,040
Speaker 1: In the beginning of Grinder's detention, it seemed like her

350
00:19:04,119 --> 00:19:08,320
Speaker 1: family and supporters kept a low profile, but recently it's

351
00:19:08,359 --> 00:19:11,800
Speaker 1: been just the opposite. There have been press conferences, a

352
00:19:11,840 --> 00:19:15,720
Speaker 1: lot of interviews with her wife, the pressure on President Biden,

353
00:19:16,200 --> 00:19:19,680
Speaker 1: what do you think change the strategy? People who have

354
00:19:19,720 --> 00:19:23,600
Speaker 1: been involved in this sort of circumstance, and it's a

355
00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:27,240
Speaker 1: horrific thing to go through, and so our sympathies really

356
00:19:27,280 --> 00:19:30,679
Speaker 1: have to be with Miss Grinder and her family and

357
00:19:30,760 --> 00:19:34,320
Speaker 1: her supporters because it's very hard to know exactly what

358
00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:36,920
Speaker 1: to do. On the one hand, people have been through

359
00:19:36,960 --> 00:19:39,359
Speaker 1: this say that they're often given to the advice that

360
00:19:39,680 --> 00:19:42,520
Speaker 1: the United States government could act in their interest best

361
00:19:42,600 --> 00:19:45,560
Speaker 1: if there isn't a lot of attention. And since miss

362
00:19:45,640 --> 00:19:49,920
Speaker 1: Grinder was arrested just a week before the Russian Federation

363
00:19:50,320 --> 00:19:53,840
Speaker 1: engaged as a war of aggression against Ukraine, that may

364
00:19:53,840 --> 00:19:56,000
Speaker 1: have been very good advice. Don't let her become a

365
00:19:56,000 --> 00:19:59,160
Speaker 1: bargaining chip. Let's see if we can quietly figure out

366
00:19:59,200 --> 00:20:02,440
Speaker 1: what's going on and if at all possible, get this

367
00:20:02,520 --> 00:20:06,600
Speaker 1: resolved very very quickly. But when the Russian Federation started

368
00:20:06,640 --> 00:20:10,399
Speaker 1: to ask for more and more extensions of time, there

369
00:20:10,480 --> 00:20:14,000
Speaker 1: must have been two or three extensions of time granted,

370
00:20:14,359 --> 00:20:18,800
Speaker 1: because normally the pre trial detention while the state is

371
00:20:18,800 --> 00:20:22,119
Speaker 1: gathering evidence for the case file shouldn't take more than

372
00:20:22,200 --> 00:20:24,960
Speaker 1: two months. But she'd been in pre trial detention for

373
00:20:25,000 --> 00:20:27,400
Speaker 1: more than four and a half months, and I think

374
00:20:27,400 --> 00:20:32,159
Speaker 1: at that point perhaps the family and her supporters decided

375
00:20:32,520 --> 00:20:34,520
Speaker 1: the only way to do this is to make a

376
00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:37,240
Speaker 1: very very loud noise and to bring this to the

377
00:20:37,359 --> 00:20:41,160
Speaker 1: forefront of attention. If she wasn't a bargaining chip before,

378
00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:45,119
Speaker 1: maybe the anxiety was she had become one, and and

379
00:20:45,240 --> 00:20:49,440
Speaker 1: the way to try to influence the proceedings was to

380
00:20:49,920 --> 00:20:52,400
Speaker 1: make a lot of noise and gather a lot of attention.

381
00:20:52,840 --> 00:20:56,199
Speaker 1: In early May, the State Department declared that she had

382
00:20:56,240 --> 00:21:00,920
Speaker 1: been wrongfully detained and didn't explain why they signated her

383
00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:05,760
Speaker 1: as wrongly detained. What are the criteria that they normally use?

384
00:21:06,520 --> 00:21:09,240
Speaker 1: The State Department didn't say, But that really does seem

385
00:21:09,280 --> 00:21:12,920
Speaker 1: to have been the pivot point, doesn't it. Normally states

386
00:21:12,920 --> 00:21:17,760
Speaker 1: will accord a degree of of appreciation to another state's

387
00:21:17,840 --> 00:21:21,919
Speaker 1: criminal justice system, just as we expect that other states,

388
00:21:21,960 --> 00:21:25,720
Speaker 1: when their nationals are charged and tried in our criminal

389
00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:29,800
Speaker 1: justice system, should allow our process UH to UH to

390
00:21:29,920 --> 00:21:33,520
Speaker 1: work its course. But we know from statements by the

391
00:21:33,560 --> 00:21:38,760
Speaker 1: State Department after that designation was imposed that the United

392
00:21:38,760 --> 00:21:43,080
Speaker 1: States had lost confidence that the the law on the books,

393
00:21:43,200 --> 00:21:47,280
Speaker 1: so to speak, which to be frank, is a modern

394
00:21:47,520 --> 00:21:52,480
Speaker 1: and progressive and advanced body of law that was composed

395
00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:55,320
Speaker 1: not only with the help of members of the Council

396
00:21:55,359 --> 00:21:59,080
Speaker 1: of Europe, but also with our own Justice Department's advice

397
00:21:59,480 --> 00:22:02,760
Speaker 1: shortly after the collapse in the years following the collapse

398
00:22:02,800 --> 00:22:05,120
Speaker 1: of the Soviet Union. But the law on the book

399
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:07,800
Speaker 1: doesn't always translate into the law in action, and so

400
00:22:07,840 --> 00:22:11,320
Speaker 1: I think the conclusion must have been reached that whatever

401
00:22:11,359 --> 00:22:15,600
Speaker 1: the law says, Ms. Grinder's case was being dealt with

402
00:22:15,640 --> 00:22:19,640
Speaker 1: in a more political fashion. And that's another big difference, UH,

403
00:22:19,720 --> 00:22:22,119
Speaker 1: not a difference you'll find in the lawbooks, but a

404
00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:26,120
Speaker 1: difference between our system and theirs. When heads of state

405
00:22:26,240 --> 00:22:30,360
Speaker 1: might complain to President Biden that someone is in prison,

406
00:22:30,760 --> 00:22:35,960
Speaker 1: or someone is under investigation or being charged with a

407
00:22:36,080 --> 00:22:39,840
Speaker 1: crime and tried, UH, the president can say, I have

408
00:22:39,960 --> 00:22:44,679
Speaker 1: no influence over what state prosecutors do, and certainly what

409
00:22:44,800 --> 00:22:48,240
Speaker 1: state or federal judges would do. UM. But when a

410
00:22:48,280 --> 00:22:53,040
Speaker 1: case becomes of interest to the Russian UH leadership, there

411
00:22:53,119 --> 00:22:56,919
Speaker 1: isn't that separation of powers in practice, and so a

412
00:22:56,920 --> 00:23:00,399
Speaker 1: lot of experts talk about the establishment of a dual

413
00:23:00,600 --> 00:23:05,119
Speaker 1: state in Russia. For ordinary commercial cases, for ordinary crimes,

414
00:23:05,200 --> 00:23:08,679
Speaker 1: for for issues of no interest to the state. The

415
00:23:08,720 --> 00:23:13,200
Speaker 1: state allows the system to work independently, because every state

416
00:23:13,280 --> 00:23:16,840
Speaker 1: wants to have a working system of justice in order

417
00:23:16,920 --> 00:23:23,760
Speaker 1: to encourage commerce and fairness and and organized society. But

418
00:23:23,800 --> 00:23:26,480
Speaker 1: in the Russian case, at some point it seems Ms.

419
00:23:26,480 --> 00:23:29,040
Speaker 1: Griner's case was seen to be useful and so it

420
00:23:29,119 --> 00:23:31,840
Speaker 1: shifted to a political side. Of the docket, where no

421
00:23:31,920 --> 00:23:35,640
Speaker 1: amount of arguing the law seems to be very helpful.

422
00:23:36,480 --> 00:23:40,080
Speaker 1: There are reports that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

423
00:23:40,320 --> 00:23:44,360
Speaker 1: is going to travel to Russia to try to make

424
00:23:44,400 --> 00:23:48,040
Speaker 1: a deal to free her. He's done this before. I mean,

425
00:23:48,119 --> 00:23:51,160
Speaker 1: is that a good idea to have someone who's not

426
00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:54,640
Speaker 1: connected to the State Department go and try to negotiate?

427
00:23:54,840 --> 00:23:58,679
Speaker 1: I mean, how does he know what the parameters are? Well? Uh,

428
00:23:58,960 --> 00:24:02,719
Speaker 1: former in New Mexico governor, former U N ambassador, Uh,

429
00:24:03,160 --> 00:24:07,080
Speaker 1: Bill Richardson is not really a first timer at this.

430
00:24:07,320 --> 00:24:12,199
Speaker 1: He has a center that focuses on high level UM

431
00:24:12,520 --> 00:24:16,919
Speaker 1: hostage issues and and to some extent, I think that

432
00:24:16,960 --> 00:24:20,440
Speaker 1: we could think of the State departments declaration that Ms.

433
00:24:20,480 --> 00:24:25,760
Speaker 1: Grinder has been wrongfully detained as diplomatic talk for a

434
00:24:25,800 --> 00:24:29,720
Speaker 1: hostage crisis. And UM, so he's going in with that

435
00:24:29,880 --> 00:24:33,879
Speaker 1: degree of expertise. I I would expect that he and

436
00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:38,040
Speaker 1: his center have high level contacts at the State Department

437
00:24:38,200 --> 00:24:42,240
Speaker 1: and and would serve as an intermediary and experienced intermediary

438
00:24:42,600 --> 00:24:45,800
Speaker 1: in in that sense. Um. But you're right that he

439
00:24:45,880 --> 00:24:51,200
Speaker 1: has no formal authority uh and uh to to do

440
00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:55,840
Speaker 1: anything other than really to convey information from one side

441
00:24:55,920 --> 00:25:00,400
Speaker 1: to the other. UM. In the case of UM of

442
00:25:00,640 --> 00:25:05,719
Speaker 1: releasing someone like Victor boot From from federal authority UH,

443
00:25:05,880 --> 00:25:09,120
Speaker 1: that would require the United States to commute his federal

444
00:25:09,160 --> 00:25:12,480
Speaker 1: sentence UH in order to release him. In Russia, it

445
00:25:12,480 --> 00:25:16,080
Speaker 1: would probably occur through Article eight five of the Criminal Code,

446
00:25:16,359 --> 00:25:19,600
Speaker 1: which gives the President of the Russian Federation the power

447
00:25:19,640 --> 00:25:22,359
Speaker 1: to pardon an individual. And that might be why the

448
00:25:22,400 --> 00:25:26,560
Speaker 1: Russian government is insisting that the UM criminal case be

449
00:25:26,600 --> 00:25:30,040
Speaker 1: allowed to proceed all the way through to conviction and sentencing,

450
00:25:30,680 --> 00:25:32,879
Speaker 1: because that would be the mechanism that would be used

451
00:25:33,200 --> 00:25:36,119
Speaker 1: to to effectuate the trade. Do you think that this

452
00:25:36,760 --> 00:25:39,840
Speaker 1: what I call the full court press before could backfire?

453
00:25:40,800 --> 00:25:44,680
Speaker 1: One reason the State Department has generally advised families not

454
00:25:44,800 --> 00:25:47,000
Speaker 1: to go to the press is because of a fear

455
00:25:47,080 --> 00:25:50,560
Speaker 1: that this would actually increase the price, so to speak,

456
00:25:50,720 --> 00:25:54,359
Speaker 1: of return of their family member. That as someone gets

457
00:25:54,359 --> 00:25:59,040
Speaker 1: more and more attention, that person's value goes up. The

458
00:25:59,080 --> 00:26:02,800
Speaker 1: State Department, I think, is also concerned that elevating this

459
00:26:02,880 --> 00:26:05,640
Speaker 1: to such a high level of attention can encourage other

460
00:26:05,720 --> 00:26:11,119
Speaker 1: states two sees and bring up on trial Americans who

461
00:26:11,119 --> 00:26:14,480
Speaker 1: are traveling abroad on the other hand, the families of

462
00:26:14,600 --> 00:26:18,000
Speaker 1: individuals who have been involved in this terrible sort of

463
00:26:18,040 --> 00:26:21,760
Speaker 1: circumstance have sometimes said that they have felt that nothing

464
00:26:21,840 --> 00:26:25,280
Speaker 1: was done until they spoke up and went to the press.

465
00:26:25,520 --> 00:26:28,720
Speaker 1: So could it backfire? It seems that it certainly could,

466
00:26:29,200 --> 00:26:31,800
Speaker 1: but that's not known to anyone, with the exception of

467
00:26:31,840 --> 00:26:35,680
Speaker 1: the Russians. Thanks Jeffrey. That's Professor Jeffrey Kahn of s

468
00:26:35,880 --> 00:26:38,480
Speaker 1: m u S Deadband School of Law. And that's it

469
00:26:38,560 --> 00:26:41,119
Speaker 1: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

470
00:26:41,119 --> 00:26:43,640
Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

471
00:26:43,720 --> 00:26:47,280
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

472
00:26:47,480 --> 00:26:52,520
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

473
00:26:52,920 --> 00:26:55,560
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

474
00:26:55,560 --> 00:26:58,680
Speaker 1: week night at ten b m. Wall Street Time. I'm

475
00:26:58,760 --> 00:27:01,240
Speaker 1: June Grosso and your listening to Bloomberg