Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It's been quite
Speaker 1: a day for Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign manager.
Speaker 1: In d C. Manafort was sentenced to a total of
Speaker 1: seven and a half years in prison for conspiracy and fraud,
Speaker 1: and in New York, he was indicted in a new
Speaker 1: sixteen count indictment, the first charges that are outside President
Speaker 1: Trump's pardon power. Joining me is Brad Moss, a partner.
Speaker 1: Mark said, so, Brad, let's begin with the sentencing judge
Speaker 1: any Berman. Jackson is a tough judge, and she said
Speaker 1: it's hard to overstate the number of lies Manafort told
Speaker 1: in the amount of money involved in the charges, but
Speaker 1: she didn't give him the maximum. She could have um
Speaker 1: a little bit. But I think what you've seen now
Speaker 1: from two different federal judges is they're not all that keen.
Speaker 1: They don't truly love these sentencing guidelines they've been given
Speaker 1: when it comes to pure white collar criminal cases. Whether
Speaker 1: or not that's wise or not, whether it's appropriate or
Speaker 1: not as not for me to say, but they clearly
Speaker 1: don't think it's all that altogether justified to go as
Speaker 1: harsh as the guidelines recommended. I mean, the recommendation for
Speaker 1: the witness tampering was five years. And clearly Judge Jackson,
Speaker 1: who's taken a very harsh approach on this and has
Speaker 1: been very skeptical of Paul Manafford's explanations, I thought that
Speaker 1: was way overboard. So, you know, like with any case,
Speaker 1: you know, there's wild cards. One of the wild card
Speaker 1: is going to be the judge. And even though Judge
Speaker 1: Jackson gave Paul Manaford a far big, you know, harsher
Speaker 1: tongue lashing than what Judge Ellis did, she did not
Speaker 1: add too much to the sentence total of seven and
Speaker 1: a half years between the two federal cases. He could
Speaker 1: be out by going to be behavior from federal charges.
Speaker 1: So she was also considering the charges that he had
Speaker 1: been handed down by Judge Ellis. Correct. So yeah, so
Speaker 1: it's so part of it was concurrent with what judge
Speaker 1: Judge Ellis had done forty seven months. So a portion
Speaker 1: of what Judge Jackson laid down was concurrent or overlapping,
Speaker 1: which Judge Ellis got something of the charges were similar
Speaker 1: and related, but the witness tampering part that was separate,
Speaker 1: that was being served consecutively. So in total for all
Speaker 1: federal charges that the seven and a half years now.
Speaker 1: She made a point of pushing back on the defense
Speaker 1: attorney's repeated assertions that Manafort was mere collateral damage in
Speaker 1: the Special counsel's investigation. Tell us a little bit about that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a political posturing move that the
Speaker 1: defense lawyers have been doing throughout this case in the
Speaker 1: one Eastern District of Virginia, trying to kind of appeal
Speaker 1: through findings to the president's you know, hinting towards, you know,
Speaker 1: a part in saying, you know, Paul manaforts being prosecutive
Speaker 1: for things that don't have to do this telling with
Speaker 1: Russian collusion. Judge Ellis was a little bit more sympathetic
Speaker 1: to that argument, at least than a sentencing context. Obviously,
Speaker 1: neither Judge Allis nor Judge Jackson tossed the cases based
Speaker 1: off that nor what they have as a matter of law.
Speaker 1: But Judge Jackson didn't want to hear it. She said, look,
Speaker 1: these are serious charges. Whether or not it has to
Speaker 1: do with collusion is irrelevant, and she made clear that
Speaker 1: the cases, the case brought against Manaport does not resolve
Speaker 1: one way or the other whether there was Russian collusion,
Speaker 1: and no one said it would. Now shall we call
Speaker 1: it unusual timing convenience? I don't know, But just after
Speaker 1: the sentencing we learn about the indictment in New York
Speaker 1: State by Manhattan District Attorneys Cyrus Vance. This has been
Speaker 1: in the works for some time, but just announced now.
Speaker 1: Correct from the filing, it appears they got this indictment
Speaker 1: last week on the seventh. They were just holding on
Speaker 1: for it, waiting for the moment for man of fourth
Speaker 1: sentencing to come down so they could drop this and
Speaker 1: add on to the pain state charges that are completely
Speaker 1: beyond the scope of what Donald Trump can pardon. So
Speaker 1: even if the President were to pardon Paul Manafort today,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure he will not be doing, but even
Speaker 1: if you were to do that, Paul would still face
Speaker 1: very serious mortgage fraud charges coming out of New York
Speaker 1: and will obviously face several years in prison from that.
Speaker 1: So tell us a little bit more about the charges
Speaker 1: in New York State and how they differ from the
Speaker 1: charges that Manafort has faced. Sure, so the facts um
Speaker 1: overlap a little bit, but the legal aspects of a
Speaker 1: little difference. So in the federal cases it was about
Speaker 1: money laundering and tax fraud and registering as a foreign agent,
Speaker 1: things along those lines. What the State of New York
Speaker 1: has brought our mortgage fraud charges with respect to the
Speaker 1: information Paul Manafort was outlining in bank loan documents trying
Speaker 1: to get mortgages on properties in the state of New York.
Speaker 1: You know, anybody who's ever gotten a mortgage knows you
Speaker 1: fill out that paperwork, you've outline your assets and how
Speaker 1: much of the property you own, how much is under
Speaker 1: you know, covered by more existing mortgages. And they are
Speaker 1: stating that he defrauded the state in how he outlined
Speaker 1: information in those documents. So, Brad, is this really unusual?
Speaker 1: Would it be considered piling on if it weren't for
Speaker 1: the fact that this pardon has been talked about and
Speaker 1: dangled around. I mean, the State of New York certainly
Speaker 1: has its discretion to to have pursued this Either way,
Speaker 1: I don't know if they would have spent the time
Speaker 1: to do it if they weren't concerned that the president
Speaker 1: was going to try to give Paul man afore you know, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the easy way out with a part in.
Speaker 1: So sure, is it a little bit of political action here?
Speaker 1: Of course? Is that anything new in the United States
Speaker 1: America now? And some people may be interested in in
Speaker 1: finding out just how a person who is serving time
Speaker 1: in prison then ends up having to defend themselves. How
Speaker 1: what the logistics are here. Yeah, there's gonna be a lot,
Speaker 1: you know, it's gonna be a question of does Paul
Speaker 1: Manafort want to bother showing up at these hearings. He
Speaker 1: stopped coming once he had been confined to jail. He
Speaker 1: stopped coming to the hearings in federal court because it's
Speaker 1: a whole huge process at several hours the time in
Speaker 1: transit and then sitting in holding rooms. And for a
Speaker 1: guy who was once very high on the hog and
Speaker 1: living in you know, luxury and mansions and you know,
Speaker 1: big parties with ten thous dollar plate dinners to suddenly
Speaker 1: just be in the orange jumpsuit sitting next to comic criminals,
Speaker 1: it's a little bit you know, degrading and I'm sure
Speaker 1: he doesn't like doing it and the attorneys fees here,
Speaker 1: any idea what neighborhood there in At this point we
Speaker 1: only have forty five seconds, so you can just speculate
Speaker 1: a little easily. He's looking at hundreds of thousands and
Speaker 1: additional fees. I'm pretty sure he's going to seek a
Speaker 1: plea be able to try to minimize that the man
Speaker 1: has the family still he's at trying to take care of.
Speaker 1: You can't pay out those kind of fees, all right, Brad,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for following this with us and for
Speaker 1: your insights. That's Brad Moss. He's that's a Brad Moss.
Speaker 1: He's a partner at Mark's State. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I am June Brosso. This is Bloomberg