1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:12,879 Speaker 2: Former National security advisor John Bolton has agreed to plead 3 00:00:12,960 --> 00:00:17,680 Speaker 2: guilty to a single count of retaining classified information and 4 00:00:17,800 --> 00:00:21,360 Speaker 2: pay a two point twenty five million dollar fine under 5 00:00:21,360 --> 00:00:25,160 Speaker 2: a deal with the Justice Department first reported by CNN. 6 00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:29,440 Speaker 2: The deal would resolve the criminal case filed in October 7 00:00:29,800 --> 00:00:34,080 Speaker 2: that charged Bolton with eighteen counts of either retaining or 8 00:00:34,120 --> 00:00:39,880 Speaker 2: disseminating classified information, including diary like notes from his time 9 00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:43,000 Speaker 2: in government that officials say he shared with his family 10 00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:46,400 Speaker 2: members as he was preparing a memoir about his time 11 00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:50,000 Speaker 2: in office. Bolton is expected to submit the change of 12 00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:53,840 Speaker 2: plea at a rearraignment hearing at the US District Court 13 00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,400 Speaker 2: in Maryland on June twenty sixth. My guest is national 14 00:00:57,480 --> 00:01:02,400 Speaker 2: security expert Brad Moss apart at Mark Zaid. Brad Bolton 15 00:01:02,440 --> 00:01:05,800 Speaker 2: had said that he was targeted for political reasons. His 16 00:01:05,920 --> 00:01:09,959 Speaker 2: lawyer had argued that the conduct at issue was reviewed 17 00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:14,080 Speaker 2: years earlier and deemed not criminal, and Bolton vowed to 18 00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:17,280 Speaker 2: defend what he said was lawful conduct. So are you 19 00:01:17,360 --> 00:01:21,399 Speaker 2: surprised that he's taking a plea and folding at this point. 20 00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:24,280 Speaker 1: So I think there are multiple factors that came into 21 00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:26,840 Speaker 1: this For John Bolton. One, you have to think of 22 00:01:26,880 --> 00:01:30,399 Speaker 1: time and expense, even if he's victorious, even if he 23 00:01:30,480 --> 00:01:33,480 Speaker 1: takes this, you know, through pre trial motions and ultimately 24 00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:36,479 Speaker 1: to trial, even if he succeeds and is acquitted, that's 25 00:01:36,520 --> 00:01:39,360 Speaker 1: going to be potentially millions of dollars in legal fees, 26 00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:44,200 Speaker 1: all kinds of time of stress and effort. And he 27 00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:46,840 Speaker 1: had to look at it from the view of is 28 00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:50,360 Speaker 1: there a way that I can mitigate the pain, not 29 00:01:50,640 --> 00:01:53,880 Speaker 1: put my family through all of this and potentially still 30 00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:56,480 Speaker 1: either a void prison time or minimize it. And so 31 00:01:56,560 --> 00:02:00,680 Speaker 1: I think that's likely why they took this step. I mean, 32 00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:02,800 Speaker 1: and you have to think about it. There were numerous 33 00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:06,080 Speaker 1: charges in the original indictment. I think it was at 34 00:02:06,160 --> 00:02:09,320 Speaker 1: least ten. This is down to a single charge of 35 00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:12,880 Speaker 1: retention of national defense information that he's pleading guilty to. 36 00:02:13,919 --> 00:02:16,240 Speaker 1: It speaks a bit to some of the weaknesses that 37 00:02:16,280 --> 00:02:19,480 Speaker 1: would have existed in the government's case. There absolutely would 38 00:02:19,520 --> 00:02:22,800 Speaker 1: have been the vindictive prosecution, pre trial motions that would 39 00:02:22,800 --> 00:02:25,600 Speaker 1: have had all kinds of fights over discovery. There would 40 00:02:25,639 --> 00:02:28,800 Speaker 1: have been fights over whether or not he had declassified 41 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:32,240 Speaker 1: it as an original classification authority himself when he sent 42 00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:34,639 Speaker 1: stuff over. They would have invoked some of Trump's arguments 43 00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:38,120 Speaker 1: about how you know, he could have declassified things. So 44 00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:41,160 Speaker 1: it would have gotten messy and it would have dug 45 00:02:41,200 --> 00:02:44,720 Speaker 1: into some of the underlying weaknesses in the government's case 46 00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:48,079 Speaker 1: if this had gone through. So you know, that's why 47 00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:51,360 Speaker 1: I'd say that Bolton took this deal to minimize in 48 00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:54,320 Speaker 1: a future pain and potentially get off with no more 49 00:02:54,320 --> 00:02:56,480 Speaker 1: than maybe thirty days or something like that. I could 50 00:02:56,480 --> 00:02:59,120 Speaker 1: easily see him getting a very light sentence here and 51 00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:01,560 Speaker 1: for the government get their scalp and they get to 52 00:03:01,600 --> 00:03:02,000 Speaker 1: go home. 53 00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:04,119 Speaker 3: Bolton has exposure here. 54 00:03:04,160 --> 00:03:08,120 Speaker 2: He could face anywhere from no time behind bars to 55 00:03:08,240 --> 00:03:11,560 Speaker 2: five years in prison. So that's something that prosecutors can 56 00:03:11,560 --> 00:03:15,200 Speaker 2: make a recommendation on and the judge is free to 57 00:03:15,240 --> 00:03:15,840 Speaker 2: ignore it. 58 00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:19,480 Speaker 1: Whether it's a formal agreement or a recommendation that would 59 00:03:19,520 --> 00:03:23,560 Speaker 1: be part of the plea. If the judge chooses to 60 00:03:23,639 --> 00:03:27,160 Speaker 1: go beyond sort of what was recommended, then Bolton has 61 00:03:27,200 --> 00:03:30,560 Speaker 1: the option, of course, to pull back that plea and 62 00:03:30,680 --> 00:03:35,720 Speaker 1: move forward. But you look at similar plea deals for 63 00:03:35,840 --> 00:03:39,920 Speaker 1: situations like this. Think about David Petraeus who got off 64 00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:41,800 Speaker 1: with a slap on the risk. You know what, I 65 00:03:41,800 --> 00:03:44,880 Speaker 1: don't I even got probation. You know, you think about 66 00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:47,440 Speaker 1: Hillar Clinton, there wasn't even an indictment because of the 67 00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:50,960 Speaker 1: weaknesses in the case. There's a lot of instances where 68 00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:52,880 Speaker 1: I could see a judge looking at this saying, you 69 00:03:52,960 --> 00:03:56,000 Speaker 1: got the two million dollar fine, I might give you 70 00:03:56,120 --> 00:03:59,720 Speaker 1: thirty days in prison at most, or I might just 71 00:03:59,760 --> 00:04:04,040 Speaker 1: put you want three years supervised probation. You know, John Bolton, 72 00:04:04,080 --> 00:04:07,080 Speaker 1: whatever my political and policy differences with him, as far 73 00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:09,960 Speaker 1: as I know, has no criminal background. You know, this 74 00:04:10,000 --> 00:04:12,240 Speaker 1: would be a first time offender, so that would all 75 00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:15,600 Speaker 1: play in his favor in terms of limiting jail time, 76 00:04:15,760 --> 00:04:18,640 Speaker 1: just like it would have for Donald Trump, if you know, 77 00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:21,599 Speaker 1: he had one reelection, he would have had that option 78 00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:25,200 Speaker 1: of playing up first time offender elderly man. You know 79 00:04:25,400 --> 00:04:27,640 Speaker 1: card that John Bolton, no doubt's going to play out. 80 00:04:27,960 --> 00:04:30,440 Speaker 2: Is it a weakness in the case against him that 81 00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:35,880 Speaker 2: he didn't actually have the classified documents? It was notes 82 00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:36,760 Speaker 2: about meetings. 83 00:04:36,800 --> 00:04:39,680 Speaker 1: I think, yeah, everything as far as I can tell, 84 00:04:39,720 --> 00:04:41,479 Speaker 1: And you know, I had to relook through the indictment 85 00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:44,839 Speaker 1: myself to you know, try to refresh my memory was diaries, 86 00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:49,320 Speaker 1: which doesn't make this okay. You can't transcribe information into 87 00:04:50,040 --> 00:04:53,839 Speaker 1: into an unclassified diary. That is information you know is classified, 88 00:04:53,839 --> 00:04:56,200 Speaker 1: that you got from classified documents. That's not like a 89 00:04:56,240 --> 00:04:59,160 Speaker 1: secret you know loophole to it. But he's not the first, 90 00:04:59,160 --> 00:05:00,680 Speaker 1: and he's not going to be the life asked who 91 00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:03,200 Speaker 1: writes up these diaries, because everybody works in government at 92 00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:04,960 Speaker 1: that kind of level eventually wants to write a book 93 00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:07,800 Speaker 1: and make some money. So he had these diaries, he 94 00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:10,960 Speaker 1: arguably should have known that the information he was documenting 95 00:05:11,000 --> 00:05:15,039 Speaker 1: in them and sharing with people was classified. That was 96 00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:18,839 Speaker 1: the crux of the case. The weakness for the government 97 00:05:19,320 --> 00:05:21,040 Speaker 1: was going to be twofold one. They were going to 98 00:05:21,120 --> 00:05:23,400 Speaker 1: have to do a whole lot of classified discovery and 99 00:05:23,440 --> 00:05:28,960 Speaker 1: classified presentations to link where he got the information to 100 00:05:29,120 --> 00:05:31,839 Speaker 1: what he documented in the diaries. So that was going 101 00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:35,160 Speaker 1: to be a whole lot of Classified Information Procedures Act work. 102 00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:37,280 Speaker 1: But then they were also going to have to get 103 00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:41,400 Speaker 1: around this issue of when have you ever otherwise prosecuted 104 00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:45,040 Speaker 1: someone for diaries? When have you ever otherwise prosecuted someone 105 00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:48,200 Speaker 1: for talking about it to a family member? As far 106 00:05:48,200 --> 00:05:50,839 Speaker 1: as I know, no one's ever gotten prosecuted in that context. 107 00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:54,600 Speaker 1: It's always been the documents. It was the documents for Trump, 108 00:05:54,720 --> 00:05:58,480 Speaker 1: it was the documents for Petraeus. You know, everybody else 109 00:05:58,480 --> 00:06:02,279 Speaker 1: always had the actual document it's with classification markings on them, 110 00:06:02,520 --> 00:06:04,000 Speaker 1: and that just didn't exist here. 111 00:06:04,040 --> 00:06:05,960 Speaker 3: For Bolton you mentioned betrayus. 112 00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:12,119 Speaker 2: Do cases about mishandling classified documents often end in plea 113 00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:13,920 Speaker 2: deals or do they go to trial? 114 00:06:14,320 --> 00:06:17,240 Speaker 1: For the most part, they almost always end in plea deals. 115 00:06:17,839 --> 00:06:22,200 Speaker 1: There's rare sort of exceptions to the rule. You think 116 00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:25,680 Speaker 1: about Jeffrey Sterling and the you know, the alleged leak 117 00:06:25,960 --> 00:06:28,960 Speaker 1: to the Times and what he had provided of the 118 00:06:29,040 --> 00:06:32,960 Speaker 1: James Risen that actually made it to a trial. But 119 00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:36,240 Speaker 1: for the most part, when people took home classified documents, 120 00:06:36,320 --> 00:06:37,920 Speaker 1: you know, to think of the guy in Maryland from 121 00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:40,120 Speaker 1: a few years back, that was a plea deal. Think 122 00:06:40,120 --> 00:06:42,359 Speaker 1: of Edwid Snowden. If he had ever been prosecuted and 123 00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:44,719 Speaker 1: gone to trial was in the United States, that would 124 00:06:44,720 --> 00:06:46,840 Speaker 1: have almost certainly gone to a plea deal. Think of 125 00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:50,120 Speaker 1: Chelsea Manning, who ultimately I believe ended up some sort 126 00:06:50,120 --> 00:06:51,640 Speaker 1: of a plea deal. I know there was an aspect 127 00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:54,760 Speaker 1: that actually went to trial, but limitations on that. You know, 128 00:06:55,200 --> 00:06:58,760 Speaker 1: in the end the government usually can win that, but 129 00:06:58,839 --> 00:07:03,160 Speaker 1: it becomes extremely time consuming and burdensome because of all 130 00:07:03,160 --> 00:07:06,440 Speaker 1: the class fight information that's involved. There are procedures, have SIPA, 131 00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:09,239 Speaker 1: there's a way to do it, but they really don't 132 00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:09,680 Speaker 1: like to. 133 00:07:10,960 --> 00:07:14,679 Speaker 2: I'm surprised in one sense that they reached a plead 134 00:07:14,680 --> 00:07:20,400 Speaker 2: deal here because, I mean, President Trump so obviously dislikes Bolton. 135 00:07:20,840 --> 00:07:23,400 Speaker 2: I would think that this wouldn't make him very happy. 136 00:07:23,800 --> 00:07:25,640 Speaker 1: He's gonna get the headline he wants. It's gonna be 137 00:07:25,680 --> 00:07:28,120 Speaker 1: headlines today, the next couple of days, and then again 138 00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:33,160 Speaker 1: he's when Bolton is sentenced, saying Trump hater John Bolton 139 00:07:33,960 --> 00:07:36,960 Speaker 1: pleads guilty in his sentence to X Y Z days 140 00:07:37,120 --> 00:07:41,760 Speaker 1: for a stealing classified information. That's what he wants. He 141 00:07:41,800 --> 00:07:45,400 Speaker 1: doesn't actually care how long Bolton's in jail. He cares 142 00:07:45,440 --> 00:07:49,240 Speaker 1: about the headlines, and he cares about the procedural stories 143 00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:51,880 Speaker 1: because that aids his ego and they can run on 144 00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:54,680 Speaker 1: that and say, see, all these people came after me. 145 00:07:54,960 --> 00:07:56,440 Speaker 1: They're the ones who are really crooks. 146 00:07:56,880 --> 00:07:59,720 Speaker 2: This case start under the Biden administration. But is this 147 00:07:59,800 --> 00:08:06,040 Speaker 2: case dissimilar to other cases against Trump's perceived political enemies 148 00:08:06,200 --> 00:08:09,200 Speaker 2: like the Jim Comy case and the Letitia James case. 149 00:08:09,600 --> 00:08:12,000 Speaker 1: This was the one that when they first came up, 150 00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:14,040 Speaker 1: when they first did the search warrants, and then eventually 151 00:08:14,040 --> 00:08:16,440 Speaker 1: when they had the indictments, that a lot of people 152 00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:19,400 Speaker 1: who had cried foul about some of these other cases 153 00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:23,800 Speaker 1: like Comy, Leticia James, Adam Schiff, Lisa Cook, everybody kind 154 00:08:23,800 --> 00:08:26,440 Speaker 1: of held their fire a bit because there was some 155 00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:29,960 Speaker 1: actual fire. It wasn't just smoke. There was some legitimate 156 00:08:30,000 --> 00:08:35,400 Speaker 1: meat on this bone. And what Bolton did certainly was 157 00:08:35,520 --> 00:08:39,439 Speaker 1: not appropriate. Whether or not he would have lost that trial, 158 00:08:40,000 --> 00:08:41,760 Speaker 1: you know, six to five and pick them, you know, 159 00:08:41,880 --> 00:08:44,520 Speaker 1: he's really hard to kind of know for certain, especially 160 00:08:44,559 --> 00:08:47,280 Speaker 1: in a jury pool and district of Maryland that would 161 00:08:47,280 --> 00:08:49,960 Speaker 1: have played against Trump to an extent. I could certainly 162 00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:53,160 Speaker 1: see him potentially getting acquitted on several of the charges. 163 00:08:53,520 --> 00:08:57,360 Speaker 1: But there was something there. There was a legitimate basis, 164 00:08:57,559 --> 00:08:59,800 Speaker 1: which was why it got started up in twenty twenty 165 00:08:59,840 --> 00:09:03,960 Speaker 1: one one, and which is why it went ultimately to prosecution. Now, 166 00:09:04,360 --> 00:09:06,880 Speaker 1: whether or not they would have ever bothered if it 167 00:09:06,920 --> 00:09:09,840 Speaker 1: wasn't John Bolton, that's something they would have fought in 168 00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:12,000 Speaker 1: the pretroal motions over selective prosecution. 169 00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:16,959 Speaker 2: So here's a question I often ask lawyers. When there's 170 00:09:17,040 --> 00:09:22,600 Speaker 2: some obvious evidence that's found, why would he keep incriminating 171 00:09:22,800 --> 00:09:27,080 Speaker 2: evidence at his home and office for the FBI to find? 172 00:09:27,360 --> 00:09:28,320 Speaker 3: Why not get rid of it? 173 00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:32,439 Speaker 1: So there's a level of arrogance that comes into play 174 00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:35,600 Speaker 1: for what I've described. And this isn't a liberal, conservative, 175 00:09:35,640 --> 00:09:39,520 Speaker 1: Republican Democrat thing. This is a senior level government person thing. 176 00:09:39,880 --> 00:09:42,439 Speaker 1: When you've been at that senior level for so long 177 00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:45,800 Speaker 1: and everybody's always handled everything for you on the detail 178 00:09:45,880 --> 00:09:48,600 Speaker 1: side for classified information, you just kind of feel like 179 00:09:48,640 --> 00:09:51,480 Speaker 1: you can do whatever you want. He's not the only one. 180 00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:53,360 Speaker 1: Like I said, we saw what Petraeus did, we saw 181 00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:56,280 Speaker 1: how Clinton got tied up in stuff. They get sort 182 00:09:56,320 --> 00:09:58,600 Speaker 1: of disconnected from the you know, the nuts and bolts 183 00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:00,520 Speaker 1: of it, and they start thinking, oh, I can just 184 00:10:00,600 --> 00:10:02,880 Speaker 1: keep this. No one's ever going to care, And to 185 00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:06,640 Speaker 1: be fair, most times, the government really doesn't care. They 186 00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:09,240 Speaker 1: don't have time to prosecute all these I guarantee you 187 00:10:09,280 --> 00:10:11,240 Speaker 1: if you went through the house of every former senior 188 00:10:11,240 --> 00:10:15,079 Speaker 1: official from the last four administrations, you'd find something. You'd 189 00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:18,400 Speaker 1: find diaries, you'd find notes, You'd find a number of 190 00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:21,640 Speaker 1: things that potentially could be classified because people are stupid 191 00:10:21,640 --> 00:10:24,040 Speaker 1: and they're arrogant. So I think that played a role 192 00:10:24,080 --> 00:10:26,440 Speaker 1: for Bolton, who had been, you know, a senior official 193 00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:29,320 Speaker 1: in two different administrations. The man there was the pinnacle 194 00:10:29,320 --> 00:10:32,040 Speaker 1: of the idea of the DC national security insider. 195 00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:35,680 Speaker 2: Well, see what happens in court on June twenty sixth, 196 00:10:36,000 --> 00:10:40,359 Speaker 2: Thanks so much, brad that's national security expert Bradley Moss 197 00:10:40,520 --> 00:10:44,839 Speaker 2: a partner Mark Zaid on the verge of trial and 198 00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:49,120 Speaker 2: after a closed door hearing, there was a stunning implosion 199 00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:52,400 Speaker 2: of a case against a group of protesters accused of 200 00:10:52,480 --> 00:10:55,760 Speaker 2: blocking a federal agent from an ICE facility in the 201 00:10:55,840 --> 00:11:01,080 Speaker 2: Chicago suburbs last year. The reason miss con by federal 202 00:11:01,120 --> 00:11:05,520 Speaker 2: prosecutors at the grand jury. Judge April Perry said her 203 00:11:05,559 --> 00:11:09,840 Speaker 2: trust in prosecutors had been broken after finding that they 204 00:11:09,960 --> 00:11:14,080 Speaker 2: improperly spoke to grand jurors outside the grand jury room, 205 00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:18,319 Speaker 2: personally vouched for the strength of the case, and excused 206 00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:22,160 Speaker 2: grand jurors who disagreed with the government's case. It's not 207 00:11:22,280 --> 00:11:26,520 Speaker 2: the first instance of federal prosecutors in the Trump administration 208 00:11:26,960 --> 00:11:31,880 Speaker 2: having cases dismissed because of misconduct in grand jury proceedings. 209 00:11:32,400 --> 00:11:36,040 Speaker 2: My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy Garoule, a professor 210 00:11:36,080 --> 00:11:39,800 Speaker 2: at Notre Dame Law School. So, Jimmy, here's the misconduct 211 00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:46,080 Speaker 2: that Judge Perry found. Improper prosecutorial communications. Prosecutor spoke to 212 00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:50,400 Speaker 2: grand jurors outside the grand jury room. A prosecutor personally 213 00:11:50,520 --> 00:11:53,720 Speaker 2: vouched for the strength of the case, and grand jurors 214 00:11:53,720 --> 00:11:57,520 Speaker 2: who had disagreed with the government's case were excused from deliberating. 215 00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:01,720 Speaker 2: These aren't subtle mistakes there, pretty basic, aren't they. 216 00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:05,000 Speaker 4: They're shocking. It's a scandal. 217 00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:09,280 Speaker 5: Prosecutors are supposed to be a minister of justice, not 218 00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:13,679 Speaker 5: a minister of corruption, you know, dishonesty and deception, and 219 00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:15,280 Speaker 5: that's what we're seeing here. 220 00:12:15,600 --> 00:12:19,439 Speaker 2: Is there any way they could have been mistaken about any. 221 00:12:19,200 --> 00:12:21,959 Speaker 4: Of this only in this regard. 222 00:12:22,440 --> 00:12:25,520 Speaker 5: So, one of the interesting dynamics we've seen over the 223 00:12:25,559 --> 00:12:29,400 Speaker 5: last year is a number of prosecutors have left the 224 00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:31,959 Speaker 5: Department of Justice. And these are some of the more 225 00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:36,240 Speaker 5: experienced prosecutors, and they have left because many at least 226 00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:39,520 Speaker 5: believe that they've been placed in an untenable situation where 227 00:12:39,559 --> 00:12:42,840 Speaker 5: they've been required to bring criminal charges when they didn't 228 00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:45,840 Speaker 5: think there was sufficient evidence to support criminal charges, or 229 00:12:45,880 --> 00:12:49,240 Speaker 5: dismiss criminal charges when they felt that the case should 230 00:12:49,240 --> 00:12:49,960 Speaker 5: go forward. 231 00:12:50,720 --> 00:12:52,679 Speaker 4: And those more. 232 00:12:52,520 --> 00:12:58,160 Speaker 5: Experienced prosecutors are being replaced by inexperienced prosecutors. And I've 233 00:12:58,160 --> 00:13:01,599 Speaker 5: seen this first hand. I was a federal prosecutor in 234 00:13:01,640 --> 00:13:05,040 Speaker 5: the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. Individuals that were 235 00:13:05,120 --> 00:13:10,840 Speaker 5: considered for an AUSA position, which were considered really prestigious positions, 236 00:13:11,240 --> 00:13:14,319 Speaker 5: they probably on average had close to five years experience 237 00:13:14,720 --> 00:13:17,600 Speaker 5: before being hired by the Department of Justice. I had 238 00:13:17,600 --> 00:13:19,920 Speaker 5: a former student of mind here at Notre Dame Law 239 00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:23,920 Speaker 5: School who was recently hired after she graduated from law school. 240 00:13:24,120 --> 00:13:28,680 Speaker 5: She had zero legal experience. She recently graduated from high school. 241 00:13:29,040 --> 00:13:30,840 Speaker 5: And so I think that could be one of the 242 00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:35,280 Speaker 5: problems that they're bringing in these inexperienced lawyers to assume 243 00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:42,520 Speaker 5: these very difficult positions a federal prosecutor serious cases, complex cases, 244 00:13:42,760 --> 00:13:44,720 Speaker 5: and they just don't have the experience that they don't 245 00:13:44,720 --> 00:13:46,800 Speaker 5: have the training. So that would be in essence to 246 00:13:46,880 --> 00:13:48,880 Speaker 5: kind of give the Department of Justice the benefit of 247 00:13:48,920 --> 00:13:51,240 Speaker 5: the doubt. But with respect to the prosecutors in the 248 00:13:51,320 --> 00:13:56,760 Speaker 5: Chicago case. I think this was just the end Justifiabedes situation. 249 00:13:56,960 --> 00:14:00,520 Speaker 5: You know, they wanted to get indictments against the Chicago testers, 250 00:14:00,760 --> 00:14:03,200 Speaker 5: and they were going to take no frun answers. So basically, 251 00:14:03,240 --> 00:14:05,880 Speaker 5: this was an attempt to rig the grand jury system 252 00:14:06,160 --> 00:14:08,480 Speaker 5: to ensure that they would get the indictments that they 253 00:14:08,480 --> 00:14:08,960 Speaker 5: were seeking. 254 00:14:09,160 --> 00:14:11,760 Speaker 2: Because at least one was an experienced prosecutor, I don't 255 00:14:11,800 --> 00:14:15,280 Speaker 2: know about the others. So the judge said, I've read hundreds, 256 00:14:15,280 --> 00:14:19,160 Speaker 2: if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who 257 00:14:19,160 --> 00:14:22,240 Speaker 2: are the most junior of prosecutors. I have never seen 258 00:14:22,240 --> 00:14:25,720 Speaker 2: the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that 259 00:14:25,800 --> 00:14:28,440 Speaker 2: I saw in those transcripts. So let's go through some 260 00:14:28,520 --> 00:14:32,040 Speaker 2: of what she found so disturbing. Explain what's wrong with 261 00:14:32,200 --> 00:14:36,320 Speaker 2: personally vouching for your case before a grand jury, saying, 262 00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:38,320 Speaker 2: you know this case, this is a winning case. I 263 00:14:38,320 --> 00:14:39,880 Speaker 2: know it's a winning case. Something like that. 264 00:14:40,440 --> 00:14:43,920 Speaker 5: Now that grand jurors are to make the decision of 265 00:14:44,000 --> 00:14:47,040 Speaker 5: whether or not there's probable cause to believe that a 266 00:14:47,080 --> 00:14:50,120 Speaker 5: crime has been committed, and if so, whether there's probable 267 00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:53,440 Speaker 5: cost believe that the target of the grand jury investigation 268 00:14:53,760 --> 00:14:58,120 Speaker 5: committed the crime, and those decisions should be made exclusively 269 00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:02,440 Speaker 5: on the evidence that been presented to the grand jury, 270 00:15:02,640 --> 00:15:06,960 Speaker 5: not the prosecutor's opinion regarding the strength of the case, 271 00:15:07,400 --> 00:15:09,840 Speaker 5: the strength of the evidence, but on the evidence itself. 272 00:15:10,040 --> 00:15:15,120 Speaker 5: And this is very basic fundamental you know, ethics, professional responsibility. 273 00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:18,160 Speaker 5: One point. Oh, this wasn't a mistake. I mean, this 274 00:15:18,240 --> 00:15:21,280 Speaker 5: was just a blatant violation of fundamental rules of professional 275 00:15:21,360 --> 00:15:22,640 Speaker 5: responsibility and ethics. 276 00:15:23,160 --> 00:15:26,480 Speaker 2: Also, I mean talking about blatant talk about speaking to 277 00:15:26,520 --> 00:15:29,920 Speaker 2: grand jurors outside the grand jury room and then dismissing 278 00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:33,120 Speaker 2: some grand jurors. How would they expect to get away 279 00:15:33,200 --> 00:15:35,440 Speaker 2: with that? I mean, is the problem that the grand 280 00:15:35,480 --> 00:15:39,000 Speaker 2: jury process is secret, and how does a defense lawyer 281 00:15:39,120 --> 00:15:40,440 Speaker 2: or judge know what's going on. 282 00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:42,440 Speaker 4: That's exactly the case. 283 00:15:42,880 --> 00:15:46,680 Speaker 5: So the grand jury proceedings are secret proceedings only by 284 00:15:47,400 --> 00:15:51,480 Speaker 5: the prosecutor. And so because of the secretive nature of 285 00:15:51,680 --> 00:15:55,520 Speaker 5: the granduurary proceedings, I'm sure the prosecutors think, well, whatever 286 00:15:55,600 --> 00:15:59,640 Speaker 5: we're doing that's improper, whatever misconduct we're engaged in, is 287 00:15:59,680 --> 00:16:00,880 Speaker 5: not to be revealed. 288 00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:02,280 Speaker 4: It's not going to be disclosed. 289 00:16:02,720 --> 00:16:04,960 Speaker 3: And I mean This is not the only case. 290 00:16:05,240 --> 00:16:09,280 Speaker 2: There was a case in in Wyoming, a panel of 291 00:16:09,320 --> 00:16:14,240 Speaker 2: three judges throughout nine indictments, including some for murder, after 292 00:16:14,280 --> 00:16:18,600 Speaker 2: the examination of the grand jury proceedings revealed misconduct by 293 00:16:18,760 --> 00:16:23,040 Speaker 2: the US attorney himself, the Trump appointed US attorney who 294 00:16:23,040 --> 00:16:27,280 Speaker 2: had had no prosecutorial experience at all. To your point, 295 00:16:27,920 --> 00:16:32,240 Speaker 2: so you have inexperienced people leading a US attorney's office 296 00:16:32,280 --> 00:16:35,880 Speaker 2: and going before grand juries. But some of this seems 297 00:16:36,080 --> 00:16:36,920 Speaker 2: really basic. 298 00:16:37,360 --> 00:16:40,160 Speaker 4: Oh it is. It is very basic. You know. There's 299 00:16:40,200 --> 00:16:41,160 Speaker 4: really no excuse. 300 00:16:41,520 --> 00:16:45,360 Speaker 5: I mean, this goes to just fundamental principles of fairness 301 00:16:45,840 --> 00:16:51,080 Speaker 5: and new process, independence, impartiality. As I stated, this is 302 00:16:51,120 --> 00:16:55,040 Speaker 5: an attempt to rig the system to obtain the result 303 00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:58,880 Speaker 5: that the prosecutors are seeking to obtain, which is shocking 304 00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:03,240 Speaker 5: considering the fact that the grand jury system really favors prosecutors. 305 00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:07,439 Speaker 5: As I stated, there's no judge, there's no defense lawyer. 306 00:17:07,760 --> 00:17:11,560 Speaker 5: The standard of proof is merely probable cause. And then 307 00:17:11,600 --> 00:17:15,600 Speaker 5: in addition, the prosecutor doesn't have to prove probable cause. 308 00:17:16,080 --> 00:17:22,639 Speaker 5: By unanimous determination of the grand jurors. It's enough that twelve. 309 00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:24,560 Speaker 5: All they have to prove is twelve of the twenty 310 00:17:24,640 --> 00:17:29,000 Speaker 5: three grand jurors, just a simple majority have concluded that 311 00:17:29,040 --> 00:17:32,560 Speaker 5: there's probable cause. And further, the rules of evidence don't 312 00:17:32,600 --> 00:17:36,400 Speaker 5: apply in the grand jury room, so prosecutors can introduce 313 00:17:36,440 --> 00:17:41,120 Speaker 5: hearsay evidence, double hearsay, triple hearsay evidence. And despite all 314 00:17:41,160 --> 00:17:45,920 Speaker 5: of these rules favoring the prosecution, these prosecutors still felt 315 00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:49,360 Speaker 5: that it was necessary to rig the system. They were 316 00:17:49,520 --> 00:17:53,879 Speaker 5: confident that they could prevail based upon those rules, and 317 00:17:53,920 --> 00:17:58,399 Speaker 5: they needed to reach out and have improper contact with 318 00:17:58,600 --> 00:18:02,199 Speaker 5: the members of the grand jury. With respect to grandeurors 319 00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:06,080 Speaker 5: that had ruled or decided against them in prior cases, 320 00:18:06,359 --> 00:18:09,440 Speaker 5: they decided, let's just exclude those grand jurors. We don't 321 00:18:09,440 --> 00:18:12,680 Speaker 5: want them on the grand jury because they might decide 322 00:18:13,160 --> 00:18:16,399 Speaker 5: against us. I mean, this is just shocking conduct and 323 00:18:16,560 --> 00:18:21,960 Speaker 5: most disturbing. It's not limited to the fairness and the 324 00:18:21,960 --> 00:18:26,000 Speaker 5: injustice of the particular case, but it creates a loss 325 00:18:26,000 --> 00:18:29,240 Speaker 5: of trust. There's this loss of trust in the justice 326 00:18:29,280 --> 00:18:34,080 Speaker 5: department that's beginning to emerge, and judges across the country 327 00:18:34,640 --> 00:18:38,760 Speaker 5: are beginning to question, can we really believe what the 328 00:18:38,800 --> 00:18:42,040 Speaker 5: prosecutor is saying? Can we really trust the arguments and 329 00:18:42,040 --> 00:18:45,080 Speaker 5: the representation that prosecutors are making and when we get 330 00:18:45,119 --> 00:18:48,320 Speaker 5: to that point, that becomes a crisis. I think that 331 00:18:48,400 --> 00:18:51,320 Speaker 5: we're really on the verge of a crisis within the. 332 00:18:51,200 --> 00:18:52,280 Speaker 4: Department of Justice. 333 00:18:52,520 --> 00:18:55,840 Speaker 2: Yeah, the judge in this case, Judge April Perry, told 334 00:18:56,280 --> 00:19:00,760 Speaker 2: Andrew Boutrose, who is the Trump appointed US attorney for Chicago, 335 00:19:00,800 --> 00:19:05,200 Speaker 2: who appeared in court to apologize for the mistakes made. 336 00:19:05,560 --> 00:19:09,120 Speaker 2: Judge Perry said, quote, I do believe deeply the presumption 337 00:19:09,200 --> 00:19:12,600 Speaker 2: of regularity and that most government attorneys are doing the 338 00:19:12,640 --> 00:19:15,919 Speaker 2: best they can to do the right thing. That trust 339 00:19:15,960 --> 00:19:20,040 Speaker 2: has been broken, and that's been happening in courtrooms across 340 00:19:20,080 --> 00:19:20,640 Speaker 2: the country. 341 00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:23,639 Speaker 5: And what we're beginning to see is in more and 342 00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:28,760 Speaker 5: more cases, defendants are challenging raising legal challenges to the 343 00:19:28,800 --> 00:19:33,120 Speaker 5: integrity of the procedures of process inside the grand jury room. 344 00:19:33,840 --> 00:19:37,760 Speaker 5: And this is now an argument that is being raised 345 00:19:37,920 --> 00:19:42,720 Speaker 5: in multiple cases across the country, again challenging the regularity, 346 00:19:42,760 --> 00:19:45,960 Speaker 5: of fairness, the presumption of regularity, and again I think 347 00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:48,280 Speaker 5: it is creating a crisis of trust. 348 00:19:48,640 --> 00:19:51,280 Speaker 4: Crisis of trust within the Department of Justice. 349 00:19:51,000 --> 00:19:53,400 Speaker 5: And not only with judges, but I think more broadly 350 00:19:53,440 --> 00:19:56,159 Speaker 5: with the public at large. If the public starts losing 351 00:19:56,240 --> 00:20:00,000 Speaker 5: trust in the criminal justice system starts losing trust is 352 00:20:00,080 --> 00:20:03,560 Speaker 5: the integrity of prosecutor's offices. Then that does not speak 353 00:20:03,600 --> 00:20:07,000 Speaker 5: well for the future of criminal justice. 354 00:20:06,760 --> 00:20:07,680 Speaker 4: In this country. 355 00:20:08,119 --> 00:20:13,280 Speaker 2: As you mentioned, lawyers in Don Lemon's case as well 356 00:20:13,320 --> 00:20:17,840 Speaker 2: as the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center reference 357 00:20:17,960 --> 00:20:22,359 Speaker 2: this Chicago case. So defense lawyers are trying to get 358 00:20:22,600 --> 00:20:26,920 Speaker 2: the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings, which had always 359 00:20:26,960 --> 00:20:30,199 Speaker 2: been super super secret, shall we say, but I mean 360 00:20:30,320 --> 00:20:34,600 Speaker 2: Judge Perry is thinking of releasing the grand jury transcripts here? 361 00:20:35,000 --> 00:20:37,639 Speaker 2: How else can defendants really find out what happened in 362 00:20:37,680 --> 00:20:38,640 Speaker 2: the grand jury room? 363 00:20:38,920 --> 00:20:41,520 Speaker 5: Well, that creates a problem because you stated you grand 364 00:20:41,600 --> 00:20:46,240 Speaker 5: jury secrecy credit. It's embodied in Rule sixty of the 365 00:20:46,400 --> 00:20:50,840 Speaker 5: Rules of Criminal Procedure. And it's important because we want 366 00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:53,720 Speaker 5: persons that appear before the grand jury. We want them 367 00:20:53,760 --> 00:20:59,400 Speaker 5: to testify openly, freely, be frank and open about what 368 00:20:59,520 --> 00:21:03,200 Speaker 5: evidence they may have. And if their identity is going 369 00:21:03,240 --> 00:21:06,440 Speaker 5: to be disclosed, then this could have a chilling effect 370 00:21:06,920 --> 00:21:10,040 Speaker 5: on their willingness to participate in the grand jury in proceding. 371 00:21:10,480 --> 00:21:15,919 Speaker 5: So it has implications far beyond the individual case. But 372 00:21:16,119 --> 00:21:20,760 Speaker 5: when the seed of distrust has been planted with the courts, 373 00:21:21,000 --> 00:21:23,199 Speaker 5: with the general public. We're going to see more and 374 00:21:23,280 --> 00:21:26,359 Speaker 5: more challenges to the integrity of the grand jury process, 375 00:21:26,720 --> 00:21:29,800 Speaker 5: and it could have a chilling effect with respect to 376 00:21:29,840 --> 00:21:34,160 Speaker 5: witnesses willing to come forward and testify before the grand 377 00:21:34,200 --> 00:21:36,800 Speaker 5: jury for fear that again the transfer is going to 378 00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:40,120 Speaker 5: be disclosed and maybe their identity, maybe their name might 379 00:21:40,160 --> 00:21:43,120 Speaker 5: not be disclosed, but someone could determine their identity based 380 00:21:43,200 --> 00:21:46,800 Speaker 5: upon the testimony that is presented to the grand jury. 381 00:21:47,080 --> 00:21:51,000 Speaker 2: To show how I guess concern the Chicago US Attorney 382 00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:55,080 Speaker 2: is about this. They are reaching out to defense attorneys 383 00:21:55,080 --> 00:21:59,040 Speaker 2: in cases that were handled by these prosecutors and they've 384 00:21:59,040 --> 00:22:02,960 Speaker 2: agreed to give defense the minutes of the grand jury 385 00:22:02,960 --> 00:22:04,640 Speaker 2: proceedings in their cases. 386 00:22:05,280 --> 00:22:07,080 Speaker 4: I mean, again, this is totally unverbal. 387 00:22:07,400 --> 00:22:09,480 Speaker 5: And in all the years that I worked as a prosecutor, 388 00:22:09,640 --> 00:22:13,480 Speaker 5: as an assistant US attorney, as a DOJ prosecutor, this 389 00:22:13,560 --> 00:22:18,600 Speaker 5: didn't happen. What we're witnessing today is not normal. You know, 390 00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:23,520 Speaker 5: this is exceedingly rare, and it's very disturbing, and it 391 00:22:23,640 --> 00:22:29,520 Speaker 5: raises serious consequences about prosecutors that are engaging in this misconduct, 392 00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:32,640 Speaker 5: and they should not be leaving their ethics, their ethical 393 00:22:32,760 --> 00:22:36,800 Speaker 5: values outside the courtroom or outside the grand jury room. 394 00:22:37,240 --> 00:22:41,960 Speaker 5: We need prosecutors that embrace honesty justice, that are governed 395 00:22:42,119 --> 00:22:44,640 Speaker 5: by those And here's one advice that I would give 396 00:22:44,760 --> 00:22:49,399 Speaker 5: every prosecutor. Every federal prosecutor should read Justice Jackson's speech. 397 00:22:49,880 --> 00:22:53,600 Speaker 5: Robert Jackson, former Attorney General of the United States. He 398 00:22:53,640 --> 00:22:58,040 Speaker 5: gave an address to the second annual US Prosecutor's Conference 399 00:22:58,200 --> 00:23:01,520 Speaker 5: in Washington, DC in nineteen four and there he talked 400 00:23:01,560 --> 00:23:05,320 Speaker 5: about the prosecutor, stating that, well, the prosecutor is his 401 00:23:05,560 --> 00:23:08,800 Speaker 5: best as one of the most beneficent forces in our society. 402 00:23:09,160 --> 00:23:11,879 Speaker 5: When he acts for malice or other base motives, he 403 00:23:12,040 --> 00:23:14,880 Speaker 5: is one of the worst, one of the worst forces. 404 00:23:15,359 --> 00:23:18,359 Speaker 5: Those words really need to be taken to heart by 405 00:23:18,040 --> 00:23:19,919 Speaker 5: every prosecutor in this country. 406 00:23:19,920 --> 00:23:21,159 Speaker 4: They need to read this speech. 407 00:23:21,440 --> 00:23:23,879 Speaker 5: They should have the speech framed and hung on the 408 00:23:23,880 --> 00:23:25,000 Speaker 5: wall in their office. 409 00:23:25,160 --> 00:23:29,440 Speaker 2: The US Attorney in Chicago in the press release mentioned 410 00:23:29,680 --> 00:23:33,600 Speaker 2: that speech by Jackson. So we've seen a lot of 411 00:23:34,160 --> 00:23:38,920 Speaker 2: cases not only in Chicago, but in DC and Los 412 00:23:38,960 --> 00:23:45,080 Speaker 2: Angeles related to immigration sweeps where grand jurors have refused 413 00:23:45,080 --> 00:23:47,840 Speaker 2: to indict, which used to be unheard of and I'm 414 00:23:47,880 --> 00:23:51,920 Speaker 2: wondering if they're overcharging, is that why they're having problems 415 00:23:52,560 --> 00:23:53,560 Speaker 2: with grand juries. 416 00:23:53,840 --> 00:23:55,600 Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's part of the concern. 417 00:23:55,880 --> 00:23:58,119 Speaker 5: I think part of the concern is that the grand 418 00:23:58,160 --> 00:24:01,080 Speaker 5: jurors are looking at some of these charges and they're 419 00:24:01,080 --> 00:24:03,600 Speaker 5: looking at them and saying, this just doesn't seem right. 420 00:24:03,720 --> 00:24:07,320 Speaker 5: There seems to be a disconnect between the severity of 421 00:24:07,359 --> 00:24:10,520 Speaker 5: the charges that are being filed where they're seeking an indictment, 422 00:24:10,600 --> 00:24:14,480 Speaker 5: and the conduct, the harm caused by. 423 00:24:14,400 --> 00:24:15,639 Speaker 4: The target of the grand jury. 424 00:24:15,760 --> 00:24:20,040 Speaker 5: You know, there's this disconnect between the harm and the 425 00:24:20,080 --> 00:24:23,919 Speaker 5: severity of the charge, and therefore they're unwilling to return 426 00:24:23,960 --> 00:24:26,920 Speaker 5: an indictment. It just doesn't seem fundamentally fair to them. 427 00:24:27,200 --> 00:24:29,880 Speaker 5: And I think as a result of that, that might 428 00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:33,280 Speaker 5: be one of the reasons why prosecutors are trying to 429 00:24:33,359 --> 00:24:36,439 Speaker 5: gain the grand jury system to ensure that there's an 430 00:24:36,520 --> 00:24:41,960 Speaker 5: indictment where there may be reluctant grandeurs unwilling to indict 431 00:24:42,280 --> 00:24:44,680 Speaker 5: because they think that the case has been overcharged by. 432 00:24:44,600 --> 00:24:47,000 Speaker 2: The rush care they're going to have a sanctions hearing. 433 00:24:47,040 --> 00:24:49,920 Speaker 2: Do you think that these prosecutors will be sanctioned well 434 00:24:49,920 --> 00:24:50,600 Speaker 2: as possible? 435 00:24:50,680 --> 00:24:54,679 Speaker 5: This misconduct in the Chicago case in particular is quite 436 00:24:54,760 --> 00:24:58,520 Speaker 5: quite eggregious. So I think that there could be some 437 00:24:58,720 --> 00:25:02,919 Speaker 5: individual sanctions will beyond the dismissal of the indictment. 438 00:25:03,160 --> 00:25:05,560 Speaker 4: We'll wait and see, And that's part of the problem, 439 00:25:05,680 --> 00:25:05,840 Speaker 4: you know. 440 00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:08,760 Speaker 5: Part of the problem is that when prosecutors engage in 441 00:25:08,840 --> 00:25:13,159 Speaker 5: gross misconduct, there are very few sanctions that they are 442 00:25:13,200 --> 00:25:17,080 Speaker 5: subjected to, and that's in large part because of the qualified immunity, 443 00:25:17,440 --> 00:25:23,560 Speaker 5: because internal disciplinary proceedings within the bar, it's very difficult 444 00:25:23,640 --> 00:25:26,199 Speaker 5: to a very very high standard, high bar that has 445 00:25:26,280 --> 00:25:29,560 Speaker 5: we met in order to sanction the prosecutor, and so 446 00:25:30,000 --> 00:25:32,879 Speaker 5: there isn't much of a deterrent effect. So if you 447 00:25:32,960 --> 00:25:35,640 Speaker 5: engage in this type of misconduct, yeah, the case might 448 00:25:35,880 --> 00:25:38,720 Speaker 5: be dismissed, but there's nothing that's going to happen to 449 00:25:38,840 --> 00:25:42,119 Speaker 5: the prosecutor personally for his or her misconduct. 450 00:25:42,160 --> 00:25:44,960 Speaker 4: And I think that's a problem. There's no price to pay. 451 00:25:44,920 --> 00:25:47,000 Speaker 5: So if you're not going to be sanctioned, then what's 452 00:25:47,040 --> 00:25:49,680 Speaker 5: a disincentive here for engaging this kind of conduct. 453 00:25:49,880 --> 00:25:53,880 Speaker 2: The Chicago US Attorney's Office has implemented a quote remediation 454 00:25:54,119 --> 00:25:58,160 Speaker 2: plan for its grand jury procedures, and that includes increase 455 00:25:58,200 --> 00:26:03,080 Speaker 2: and expanded education about grand jury presentations, extensive deep dive 456 00:26:03,119 --> 00:26:05,719 Speaker 2: training from national experts outside the office. 457 00:26:05,920 --> 00:26:09,399 Speaker 5: You don't need deep dive training on the violations that 458 00:26:09,480 --> 00:26:12,760 Speaker 5: are at issue here. I mean the prohibition on vouching 459 00:26:13,119 --> 00:26:15,240 Speaker 5: regarding the evidence. That doesn't need any kind of a 460 00:26:15,280 --> 00:26:19,679 Speaker 5: deep dive. That's not a complicated issue that requires, you know, 461 00:26:19,800 --> 00:26:24,199 Speaker 5: extensive training. Dismissing members of the grand jury that you 462 00:26:24,280 --> 00:26:28,840 Speaker 5: don't like this stuff is just so fundamentally basic. It 463 00:26:28,880 --> 00:26:34,199 Speaker 5: doesn't require any type of extensive, extra deep dive training 464 00:26:34,480 --> 00:26:37,800 Speaker 5: for prosecutors to know right from wrong on these very 465 00:26:37,840 --> 00:26:38,840 Speaker 5: fundamental issues. 466 00:26:39,000 --> 00:26:40,080 Speaker 4: It's just so disturbing. 467 00:26:40,160 --> 00:26:44,000 Speaker 5: You know, we're seeing cases being dismissed because of selective prosecution. 468 00:26:44,080 --> 00:26:48,640 Speaker 5: We're seeing grandeurs time and time again failing to bring 469 00:26:48,920 --> 00:26:52,080 Speaker 5: charges because they think that the evidence doesn't support the 470 00:26:52,160 --> 00:26:55,719 Speaker 5: charges or they've been overcharged by the prosecutor, and all 471 00:26:55,760 --> 00:26:59,639 Speaker 5: of it is just it's really damaged the reputation of 472 00:26:59,680 --> 00:27:03,520 Speaker 5: the justice and it's going to take I think years 473 00:27:03,560 --> 00:27:08,960 Speaker 5: and years to regain that trust with the judiciary, with 474 00:27:09,040 --> 00:27:12,399 Speaker 5: members of the bourt, with the general public. This is 475 00:27:12,440 --> 00:27:14,479 Speaker 5: going to be damaged. It's going to be a long lasting. 476 00:27:14,480 --> 00:27:16,160 Speaker 5: It's not going to be quickly remedy. 477 00:27:16,760 --> 00:27:18,640 Speaker 2: I'm sure we're going to hear a lot more when 478 00:27:18,800 --> 00:27:22,480 Speaker 2: grand jury transcripts are released in some of these cases. 479 00:27:23,119 --> 00:27:25,879 Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me, Jimmy. That's Professor Jimmy 480 00:27:25,880 --> 00:27:33,400 Speaker 2: Garoule of Notre Dame Law School. Only fifteen federal judges 481 00:27:33,480 --> 00:27:37,080 Speaker 2: have been impeached in our nation's history. The House hasn't 482 00:27:37,119 --> 00:27:41,400 Speaker 2: moved forward with an impeachment proceeding in sixteen years, even 483 00:27:41,440 --> 00:27:45,600 Speaker 2: though Republicans have filed impeachment resolutions for a number of 484 00:27:45,640 --> 00:27:49,160 Speaker 2: federal judges who've ruled against the Trump administration. 485 00:27:49,720 --> 00:27:51,920 Speaker 3: However, House Judiciary. 486 00:27:51,320 --> 00:27:56,320 Speaker 2: Chairman Jim Jordan is considering congressional action against a Georgia 487 00:27:56,400 --> 00:28:00,440 Speaker 2: federal judge for a very different reason. The judge had 488 00:28:00,480 --> 00:28:04,480 Speaker 2: an affair in her chambers and lied to judiciary officials 489 00:28:04,480 --> 00:28:09,320 Speaker 2: about it. Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Mognac. Suzanne, 490 00:28:09,359 --> 00:28:12,639 Speaker 2: I've never heard of a scandal quite like this in 491 00:28:12,680 --> 00:28:14,680 Speaker 2: the courts. Tell us what happened. 492 00:28:15,320 --> 00:28:18,840 Speaker 6: A judicial misconduct committee found in a decision released in 493 00:28:18,920 --> 00:28:22,159 Speaker 6: late May that a federal judge unnamed in the decision 494 00:28:22,320 --> 00:28:25,800 Speaker 6: had been having an affair inside of her chambers during 495 00:28:25,840 --> 00:28:28,800 Speaker 6: business hours and an earshot of her clerks with a 496 00:28:28,800 --> 00:28:32,359 Speaker 6: commander in the police department. The decision didn't name the judge, 497 00:28:32,359 --> 00:28:34,960 Speaker 6: but did provide a number of biographical details both about 498 00:28:34,960 --> 00:28:37,040 Speaker 6: Horror and the man she was having the affair with, 499 00:28:37,440 --> 00:28:40,480 Speaker 6: and Bloomberg Law has confirmed through those details and additional 500 00:28:40,520 --> 00:28:43,000 Speaker 6: reporting that the judge is Judge Eleanor Ross of the 501 00:28:43,040 --> 00:28:46,680 Speaker 6: Northern District of Georgia. Obviously, this was a violation of 502 00:28:47,000 --> 00:28:51,200 Speaker 6: judicial codes of conduct. The committee, however, recommended a private 503 00:28:51,240 --> 00:28:55,160 Speaker 6: reprimand by not publicizing her name, and didn't recommend that 504 00:28:55,200 --> 00:28:57,640 Speaker 6: she be removed from the bench, instead that she write 505 00:28:57,640 --> 00:28:59,120 Speaker 6: apology letters to her clerks. 506 00:29:00,360 --> 00:29:03,160 Speaker 2: If Bloomberg Law hadn't found this out, the people that 507 00:29:03,200 --> 00:29:05,640 Speaker 2: came in front of her are the defendants. The plaintiffs 508 00:29:05,840 --> 00:29:09,480 Speaker 2: wouldn't have known whether or not she has a conflict 509 00:29:09,520 --> 00:29:12,080 Speaker 2: that they should protest. 510 00:29:12,560 --> 00:29:14,520 Speaker 6: That's correct, and that's something that we've heard a lot 511 00:29:14,560 --> 00:29:17,120 Speaker 6: about from legal ethicists who've weighed on this case, to 512 00:29:17,120 --> 00:29:20,120 Speaker 6: say that you know that's correct. By not publicizing her name, 513 00:29:20,160 --> 00:29:23,200 Speaker 6: it does take away the opportunity for a potential litigant 514 00:29:23,200 --> 00:29:26,240 Speaker 6: in her courtroom to raise a conflict concern or to 515 00:29:26,280 --> 00:29:28,800 Speaker 6: request refusal from a case. That was one of the 516 00:29:28,840 --> 00:29:31,240 Speaker 6: reasons that might have leaned in favor of releasing her name, 517 00:29:31,280 --> 00:29:34,120 Speaker 6: but ultimately it's not the decision the Eleventh Circuit came to. 518 00:29:34,320 --> 00:29:36,920 Speaker 6: They also did take a look to see if she'd 519 00:29:36,960 --> 00:29:40,120 Speaker 6: had any cases where the Atlanta Police Department was a 520 00:29:40,120 --> 00:29:43,320 Speaker 6: party during the relevant period of time during what she 521 00:29:43,360 --> 00:29:45,520 Speaker 6: was having the affair with the police officer, and they 522 00:29:45,560 --> 00:29:47,880 Speaker 6: determined that she had not. So the Eleventh Circuit on 523 00:29:47,920 --> 00:29:49,320 Speaker 6: their own just said, you know, we don't see a 524 00:29:49,360 --> 00:29:51,880 Speaker 6: conflict here, but they did concede that it had raised 525 00:29:51,880 --> 00:29:53,680 Speaker 6: a risk of conflict and even made a point of 526 00:29:53,720 --> 00:29:56,520 Speaker 6: noting that she hadn't herself taken any efforts to be 527 00:29:56,560 --> 00:29:58,920 Speaker 6: taken off those cases. She had essentially just gotten lucky 528 00:29:58,920 --> 00:30:00,720 Speaker 6: and not been given any of them. And I should 529 00:30:00,720 --> 00:30:02,800 Speaker 6: also know that she was additionally reprimanded for lying about 530 00:30:02,800 --> 00:30:05,320 Speaker 6: some of this conduct, which may end up being among 531 00:30:05,360 --> 00:30:06,400 Speaker 6: the more serious charges. 532 00:30:07,080 --> 00:30:11,160 Speaker 2: Yes, in the judiciary chair said, a key fact is 533 00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:15,400 Speaker 2: that she lied to the judges investigating her misconduct, and 534 00:30:15,480 --> 00:30:19,880 Speaker 2: there was another instance where a judicial council found that 535 00:30:20,000 --> 00:30:22,040 Speaker 2: the judge acted improperly. 536 00:30:22,400 --> 00:30:25,600 Speaker 6: That's correct. She attended a campaign watch party for the 537 00:30:25,600 --> 00:30:28,560 Speaker 6: primary for District Attorney Fanny Willis a couple of years ago. 538 00:30:29,000 --> 00:30:31,520 Speaker 6: That party was found I've been an inappropriate political event 539 00:30:31,560 --> 00:30:34,120 Speaker 6: for a federal judge to go to. And we've already 540 00:30:34,120 --> 00:30:37,040 Speaker 6: seen one recusal request from the Justice Department based on 541 00:30:37,080 --> 00:30:39,040 Speaker 6: that conduct in a voting rights case down in Georgia. 542 00:30:39,480 --> 00:30:40,680 Speaker 3: A recusal request. 543 00:30:40,840 --> 00:30:43,040 Speaker 2: So it's initially it's up to the judge to decide 544 00:30:43,080 --> 00:30:47,160 Speaker 2: whether to recuse herself or not. What are legal ethics 545 00:30:47,240 --> 00:30:51,280 Speaker 2: experts telling you about this request for recusal on the 546 00:30:51,360 --> 00:30:52,120 Speaker 2: voting case. 547 00:30:52,800 --> 00:30:54,960 Speaker 6: I've been told that they don't see it as frivolous. 548 00:30:55,320 --> 00:30:57,440 Speaker 6: For one, I think this is a case in which 549 00:30:57,440 --> 00:31:00,280 Speaker 6: the Justice Department is seeking Georgia voter registration and formation 550 00:31:00,840 --> 00:31:03,480 Speaker 6: its just lawsuit against the Secretary of State's office at 551 00:31:03,520 --> 00:31:07,960 Speaker 6: brad Raethisberger, and they're making the argument that because this 552 00:31:08,120 --> 00:31:10,680 Speaker 6: judge has clearly a friendship with DA Fanny Willis and 553 00:31:10,720 --> 00:31:13,800 Speaker 6: attended her victory party, that this counts as an endorsement 554 00:31:13,960 --> 00:31:16,680 Speaker 6: of her of the Democratic Party. Fanny Willis, of course, 555 00:31:16,720 --> 00:31:19,520 Speaker 6: is the DA who brought criminal charges against President Donald 556 00:31:19,560 --> 00:31:23,000 Speaker 6: Trump during the last administration related to his efforts to 557 00:31:23,000 --> 00:31:26,760 Speaker 6: overturn his twenty twenty election loss. They're making the case 558 00:31:26,800 --> 00:31:28,840 Speaker 6: that this shows that she should not be allowed to 559 00:31:28,840 --> 00:31:33,040 Speaker 6: preside over cases involving election integrity efforts in this space. 560 00:31:33,520 --> 00:31:35,520 Speaker 6: She has yet to decide that motion, but it has 561 00:31:35,520 --> 00:31:36,560 Speaker 6: been filed in his pending. 562 00:31:36,840 --> 00:31:41,240 Speaker 2: The ethics experts did they say what they thought an 563 00:31:41,280 --> 00:31:45,280 Speaker 2: appropriate punishment would be for her misconduct. 564 00:31:45,880 --> 00:31:47,719 Speaker 6: A lot of people we spoke to felt that her 565 00:31:47,760 --> 00:31:50,880 Speaker 6: name should have been publicly revealed by the judiciary, because, 566 00:31:50,880 --> 00:31:53,320 Speaker 6: of course, even when we see the Justice Department's requests 567 00:31:53,320 --> 00:31:55,920 Speaker 6: for recusal, they were relying on our and other news 568 00:31:55,920 --> 00:31:58,680 Speaker 6: reports that have floated her name. The judiciary has not 569 00:31:58,840 --> 00:32:01,560 Speaker 6: on its own confirmed this name. They haven't denied it, 570 00:32:01,600 --> 00:32:03,840 Speaker 6: but they have not come out and confirmed it. And 571 00:32:03,920 --> 00:32:05,480 Speaker 6: a lot of ethicists said that this would have made 572 00:32:05,480 --> 00:32:07,920 Speaker 6: it a lot easier for litigants if that name had 573 00:32:07,920 --> 00:32:10,960 Speaker 6: been published. And while it's true that a federal judges 574 00:32:11,000 --> 00:32:13,560 Speaker 6: may not be as likely to hear local police cases, 575 00:32:14,040 --> 00:32:15,880 Speaker 6: it may come up in the civil rights context, and 576 00:32:15,920 --> 00:32:17,640 Speaker 6: it's not possible there could be a context in which 577 00:32:17,680 --> 00:32:19,520 Speaker 6: this would come up. And so the fact that they 578 00:32:19,600 --> 00:32:22,160 Speaker 6: withheld their name did take away the opportunity for litigans 579 00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:24,560 Speaker 6: to consider if there may be a conflict. It just 580 00:32:24,600 --> 00:32:25,520 Speaker 6: creates uncertainty. 581 00:32:26,080 --> 00:32:29,560 Speaker 2: Let's turn to a completely different subject, but one that 582 00:32:30,040 --> 00:32:33,720 Speaker 2: I'm really interested in and you're covering. A judge is 583 00:32:33,800 --> 00:32:37,480 Speaker 2: ordered that President Donald Trump's name be removed from the 584 00:32:37,560 --> 00:32:40,240 Speaker 2: Kennedy Center building tell us more. 585 00:32:41,040 --> 00:32:43,880 Speaker 6: Last week, the Trump administration was deal yet another blow 586 00:32:43,960 --> 00:32:46,760 Speaker 6: in federal courts, this time by a Washington federal judge 587 00:32:47,000 --> 00:32:50,440 Speaker 6: who found that they had acted improperly what of regard 588 00:32:50,480 --> 00:32:52,880 Speaker 6: to the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts here in Washington. 589 00:32:53,280 --> 00:32:56,400 Speaker 6: The judge ordered the Kennedy Center to remove Trump's name 590 00:32:56,920 --> 00:32:59,520 Speaker 6: from the letters on its facade. Trump had, of course, 591 00:32:59,520 --> 00:33:01,960 Speaker 6: attempted to rename the Kennedy Center to be the Donald J. 592 00:33:02,040 --> 00:33:04,560 Speaker 6: Trump and John F. Kennedy Center. I should say it's 593 00:33:04,600 --> 00:33:07,400 Speaker 6: a memorial to John F. Kennedy, obviously, our former president, 594 00:33:07,960 --> 00:33:10,680 Speaker 6: and the judge found that Congress had intended the building 595 00:33:10,720 --> 00:33:13,800 Speaker 6: to be named for JFK and for JFK only. They 596 00:33:13,840 --> 00:33:17,160 Speaker 6: also the judge also came and stopped the administration from 597 00:33:17,640 --> 00:33:20,240 Speaker 6: a planned two year closure of the Kennedy Center beginning 598 00:33:20,240 --> 00:33:23,720 Speaker 6: this summer for renovations. That's something that the Kennedy Center's board, 599 00:33:23,960 --> 00:33:27,000 Speaker 6: mostly of handpicked board members by President Donald Trump and 600 00:33:27,480 --> 00:33:30,360 Speaker 6: who chairs this board. That board had voted in March 601 00:33:30,480 --> 00:33:33,520 Speaker 6: to close the center for two years for renovations, and 602 00:33:33,520 --> 00:33:36,320 Speaker 6: the judge found that they just had not received enough 603 00:33:36,360 --> 00:33:38,640 Speaker 6: information to have made that decision. They said that he 604 00:33:38,680 --> 00:33:41,320 Speaker 6: said that the word had considered really a one sided 605 00:33:41,320 --> 00:33:45,560 Speaker 6: presentation and a predetermined outcome. So the board is free 606 00:33:45,600 --> 00:33:48,240 Speaker 6: to decide to vote again to close the center for renovations, 607 00:33:48,240 --> 00:33:50,840 Speaker 6: but they're required to consider more information if they do 608 00:33:51,040 --> 00:33:53,280 Speaker 6: come to that conclusion. The judge also made clear that 609 00:33:53,680 --> 00:33:56,480 Speaker 6: needed repairs to the Kennedy Center are permitted, so it's 610 00:33:56,520 --> 00:33:58,320 Speaker 6: not that they can't touch the building, but they have 611 00:33:58,400 --> 00:34:01,000 Speaker 6: to take Trump's name off the outside, and they can't 612 00:34:01,040 --> 00:34:03,560 Speaker 6: just decide to close it for two years without more 613 00:34:03,600 --> 00:34:05,000 Speaker 6: information under consideration. 614 00:34:05,600 --> 00:34:09,200 Speaker 2: And in the case of Trump's ballroom, work is still 615 00:34:09,239 --> 00:34:13,040 Speaker 2: going on even though a federal judge found that it 616 00:34:13,160 --> 00:34:14,680 Speaker 2: was not a legal construction. 617 00:34:15,280 --> 00:34:16,920 Speaker 6: That's correct. But when it comes to the ballroom, the 618 00:34:16,960 --> 00:34:19,720 Speaker 6: administration has gotten an order from the d C Circuit 619 00:34:19,760 --> 00:34:23,960 Speaker 6: that allows them to continue with construction while proceedings continue. 620 00:34:24,120 --> 00:34:26,080 Speaker 6: So while we've seen a lot from Trump and others 621 00:34:26,080 --> 00:34:29,400 Speaker 6: about how the courts are messing with his plans for 622 00:34:29,520 --> 00:34:33,359 Speaker 6: the ballroom and affecting national security. In fact, construction has 623 00:34:33,400 --> 00:34:36,439 Speaker 6: not been interrupted. Certainly, there's probably some uncertainty for them, 624 00:34:36,440 --> 00:34:39,759 Speaker 6: but construction has continued unobated. And the DC Circuit will 625 00:34:39,800 --> 00:34:42,160 Speaker 6: actually be hearing oral arguments in the White House ballroom 626 00:34:42,160 --> 00:34:44,719 Speaker 6: case and this coming Friday on June fifth, So that 627 00:34:44,760 --> 00:34:47,160 Speaker 6: case is moving at a pretty fast rate. So we'll 628 00:34:47,160 --> 00:34:49,239 Speaker 6: see how how the Appeals Court ends up deciding on 629 00:34:49,239 --> 00:34:49,760 Speaker 6: the merits. 630 00:34:49,800 --> 00:34:53,760 Speaker 2: Do you know who's on that panel, because so often, sadly, 631 00:34:53,880 --> 00:34:58,279 Speaker 2: in these cases involving Trump, it ends up being Democratic 632 00:34:58,320 --> 00:35:02,040 Speaker 2: appointees on one side Republican appointees on the other. 633 00:35:02,400 --> 00:35:04,759 Speaker 6: The DC Circuit has a three judge panel that will 634 00:35:04,800 --> 00:35:08,359 Speaker 6: hear the appeal. Its judges Patricia Mallett, Judges Naomi Rao, 635 00:35:08,560 --> 00:35:12,520 Speaker 6: and Bradley Garcia. Both judges Garcia and Mallett are Democratic appointees, 636 00:35:12,560 --> 00:35:15,120 Speaker 6: and Judge Raw is first administration Trump appointing. 637 00:35:15,800 --> 00:35:19,960 Speaker 2: So we'll see tomorrow how those arguments go. Thanks so much, Suzanne. 638 00:35:20,400 --> 00:35:24,759 Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monnac, And that's it for 639 00:35:24,800 --> 00:35:27,440 Speaker 2: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can 640 00:35:27,440 --> 00:35:30,640 Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. 641 00:35:30,960 --> 00:35:34,000 Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at 642 00:35:34,160 --> 00:35:39,200 Speaker 2: www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and 643 00:35:39,280 --> 00:35:42,319 Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight 644 00:35:42,400 --> 00:35:45,840 Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and 645 00:35:45,920 --> 00:35:47,400 Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg