WEBVTT - Roger Stone Faces Judge Again For Concealing Book Release

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.640
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Judge ay Berman

0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:25.440
<v Speaker 1>Jackson has read the Riot Act to Roger Stone about

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:28.520
<v Speaker 1>his relentless pursuit of publicity and put him under a

0:00:28.560 --> 0:00:31.280
<v Speaker 1>strict gag order that forbids him from speaking about his

0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:35.120
<v Speaker 1>criminal case or special counsel Robert Muller. Now Stone is

0:00:35.120 --> 0:00:38.360
<v Speaker 1>trying to explain himself to the judge once again, saying

0:00:38.400 --> 0:00:40.720
<v Speaker 1>that he didn't mean to mislead her when he failed

0:00:40.760 --> 0:00:43.400
<v Speaker 1>to tell her about the paperback release of a book

0:00:43.440 --> 0:00:47.600
<v Speaker 1>he wrote about the election, complete with a new introduction

0:00:47.720 --> 0:00:51.400
<v Speaker 1>and title, The Myth of Russian Collusion. In it, he

0:00:51.479 --> 0:00:54.200
<v Speaker 1>refers to Mueller as a crook, joining me as former

0:00:54.240 --> 0:00:58.600
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutor Robert Min's a partner, McCarter and English Bob.

0:00:58.680 --> 0:01:01.960
<v Speaker 1>In a March first warts filing, Stones lawyers referred to

0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:04.960
<v Speaker 1>the book as an upcoming release when it's been available

0:01:05.000 --> 0:01:09.600
<v Speaker 1>online since February nine. There are emails talking about whether

0:01:09.760 --> 0:01:13.839
<v Speaker 1>publishing the book would break the gag order from February

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:19.160
<v Speaker 1>fifteen through February, how do they explain not telling the

0:01:19.240 --> 0:01:24.640
<v Speaker 1>judge about the book while they're litigating the gag order. Well,

0:01:24.680 --> 0:01:27.000
<v Speaker 1>that's going to be the big question here, because if

0:01:27.000 --> 0:01:30.800
<v Speaker 1>there's one thing that is going to anger Judge Jackson

0:01:30.920 --> 0:01:36.559
<v Speaker 1>here in addition to rager Stone potentially violating the gag order,

0:01:36.959 --> 0:01:39.440
<v Speaker 1>it's that they were not candid with her when they

0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:43.080
<v Speaker 1>last appeared in front of her, essentially on this very issue.

0:01:43.200 --> 0:01:45.880
<v Speaker 1>So if it turns out as it appears, that there

0:01:45.920 --> 0:01:49.080
<v Speaker 1>were emails and discussions and that at the time they

0:01:49.120 --> 0:01:52.200
<v Speaker 1>appeared in court they knew this book was coming out

0:01:52.560 --> 0:01:57.080
<v Speaker 1>with these incendiary comments about Robert Mueller in the new introduction,

0:01:57.640 --> 0:01:59.760
<v Speaker 1>She's going to be very angry and may well this

0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:03.120
<v Speaker 1>side to put Roger Stone in prison leading up to

0:02:03.160 --> 0:02:06.200
<v Speaker 1>his trial. Well, this is a tough judge who put

0:02:06.280 --> 0:02:11.280
<v Speaker 1>Paul Manafort behind bars pending trial for interfering with a witness.

0:02:11.400 --> 0:02:14.720
<v Speaker 1>She lets Stone off with just a tougher gag order

0:02:14.919 --> 0:02:18.440
<v Speaker 1>last time. But she did say this is not baseball.

0:02:18.639 --> 0:02:22.520
<v Speaker 1>You don't get a third chance. Does that sort of

0:02:22.560 --> 0:02:24.960
<v Speaker 1>put her in the spot of having to put him

0:02:25.080 --> 0:02:28.600
<v Speaker 1>in prison, or could there be some lesser kind of

0:02:29.160 --> 0:02:34.560
<v Speaker 1>fine or gag order. Well, I think judges are reluctant

0:02:34.720 --> 0:02:38.280
<v Speaker 1>to put people in prison leading up to a trial.

0:02:38.360 --> 0:02:41.360
<v Speaker 1>In the case of Paul Manafort, the accusation was that

0:02:41.400 --> 0:02:44.840
<v Speaker 1>there was witness tampering, which really is in many ways

0:02:44.840 --> 0:02:47.919
<v Speaker 1>a more serious defense because it goes to the real

0:02:48.440 --> 0:02:52.240
<v Speaker 1>heart of the trial. The allegation is that you're trying

0:02:52.280 --> 0:02:55.560
<v Speaker 1>to affect witness testimony, and that really is a very

0:02:55.720 --> 0:02:58.520
<v Speaker 1>very serious issue. This is a little less serious in

0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:01.200
<v Speaker 1>the sense that it is simply give these statements to

0:03:01.240 --> 0:03:05.079
<v Speaker 1>the public and perhaps affecting the jury pool for this trial.

0:03:05.440 --> 0:03:07.880
<v Speaker 1>But I think here the judge drew a pretty bright

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:12.079
<v Speaker 1>red line, and it appears at roger Stone crossed that line.

0:03:12.440 --> 0:03:16.840
<v Speaker 1>And judges are reluctant to give you a chance. Have

0:03:17.040 --> 0:03:21.240
<v Speaker 1>you then essentially violate the order and then come back

0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:24.360
<v Speaker 1>and give you a second chance. So she could do

0:03:24.440 --> 0:03:26.920
<v Speaker 1>either one. She could leave him out, But I wouldn't

0:03:26.919 --> 0:03:29.000
<v Speaker 1>be surprised to see if she decides to put him

0:03:29.040 --> 0:03:32.040
<v Speaker 1>in jail. If she decides to leave him out, what

0:03:32.080 --> 0:03:36.800
<v Speaker 1>could she do that she hasn't done already? Well, in

0:03:36.840 --> 0:03:40.200
<v Speaker 1>addition to making it very clear that he is not

0:03:40.280 --> 0:03:43.240
<v Speaker 1>to make any public statements or to tweet, or to

0:03:43.920 --> 0:03:46.880
<v Speaker 1>do any other things that he's already done, she could,

0:03:47.200 --> 0:03:51.920
<v Speaker 1>for example, prohibit him from tweeting at all. She could

0:03:51.920 --> 0:03:54.040
<v Speaker 1>say that he is not allowed to go onto the internet.

0:03:54.040 --> 0:03:56.320
<v Speaker 1>She could put him under house to rest. She could

0:03:56.320 --> 0:03:59.880
<v Speaker 1>prohibit him from having contact with anybody in the media.

0:04:00.280 --> 0:04:02.000
<v Speaker 1>So there are a number of things she could do

0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:05.000
<v Speaker 1>to kind of tighten the noose short of putting him

0:04:05.000 --> 0:04:09.480
<v Speaker 1>in jail. We've talked before about how Roger Stone has

0:04:09.520 --> 0:04:13.160
<v Speaker 1>this relentless pursuit of publicity and this at this point

0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:17.159
<v Speaker 1>he does apparently Dean Bunny for his defense. According to

0:04:17.160 --> 0:04:19.719
<v Speaker 1>the court papers that and the emails, the books have

0:04:19.800 --> 0:04:22.880
<v Speaker 1>not been flying off the shelves even since his arrest,

0:04:22.960 --> 0:04:27.360
<v Speaker 1>which was highly publicized. Could this possibly be a publicity

0:04:27.400 --> 0:04:31.120
<v Speaker 1>stunt to draw attention to the book and more sales

0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 1>or is that too dangerous? Well, that's the cynical view here,

0:04:36.600 --> 0:04:40.080
<v Speaker 1>and anybody who knows about Roger Stone and his history

0:04:40.279 --> 0:04:43.000
<v Speaker 1>knows that this is an individual who sort of flirts

0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:49.000
<v Speaker 1>with the line of disaster and is courting publicity, even

0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:52.000
<v Speaker 1>when that publicity sometimes may not be all positive, and

0:04:52.040 --> 0:04:55.880
<v Speaker 1>even when that publicity could possibly land him in jail.

0:04:56.279 --> 0:05:00.200
<v Speaker 1>So the judge may well view him as using the

0:05:00.279 --> 0:05:03.680
<v Speaker 1>court as a vehicle for promoting his book, which will

0:05:03.720 --> 0:05:06.960
<v Speaker 1>only further anger the judge. And I think he will

0:05:07.000 --> 0:05:10.440
<v Speaker 1>seriously clip his wings if she doesn't put him in jail. Altogether,

0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:14.680
<v Speaker 1>this judge is going to be sentencing Paul Manafort. His

0:05:14.880 --> 0:05:19.880
<v Speaker 1>first sentencing was really caused a lot of uproar because

0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:23.479
<v Speaker 1>it was so lenient and uproar about the judicial system

0:05:23.520 --> 0:05:27.279
<v Speaker 1>as well as the judge sentencing in this particular case.

0:05:28.000 --> 0:05:34.159
<v Speaker 1>What's likely from Judge Jackson tomorrow. Well, Judge Jackson is

0:05:34.160 --> 0:05:38.240
<v Speaker 1>a different judge than Judge Ellis who sentenced Paul Manafort

0:05:38.760 --> 0:05:42.880
<v Speaker 1>in the trial in Virginia. But Judge Jackson also has

0:05:43.000 --> 0:05:46.160
<v Speaker 1>different facts before her because he was the one, as

0:05:46.160 --> 0:05:49.880
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned June, who put Paul Manafort in prison for

0:05:50.160 --> 0:05:55.279
<v Speaker 1>campering with witnesses. She also is aware of the sentence

0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:59.200
<v Speaker 1>that Paul Manafort received from Judge Ellis, and I think

0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:02.480
<v Speaker 1>that we will see a sentence here that certainly adds

0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 1>additional time to the prison time that Paul Mantifort got

0:06:06.240 --> 0:06:08.840
<v Speaker 1>from Judge Ellis. That was a sentence that was viewed

0:06:08.880 --> 0:06:12.800
<v Speaker 1>as highly controversial. The sentence and guidelines were about twenty years,

0:06:12.839 --> 0:06:15.839
<v Speaker 1>and while everybody expected there to be a departure downward,

0:06:16.200 --> 0:06:19.080
<v Speaker 1>very few people expected a departure as low as forty

0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:22.200
<v Speaker 1>seven months, which is what he received from Judge Ellis.

0:06:22.200 --> 0:06:24.880
<v Speaker 1>So I think we can almost certainly count on additional

0:06:24.960 --> 0:06:28.359
<v Speaker 1>jail time coming out of this sentence from Juke Jackson.

0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 1>Whether that's done by giving consecutive time or whether she

0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:34.799
<v Speaker 1>just adds a sentence that is beyond the forty seven

0:06:34.800 --> 0:06:37.240
<v Speaker 1>months that was imposed by Jig Ellis, right, will be

0:06:37.360 --> 0:06:40.120
<v Speaker 1>very interesting to see how she handles that and how

0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:43.400
<v Speaker 1>different it is, if at all, from Judge Ellis. Thanks

0:06:43.440 --> 0:06:47.040
<v Speaker 1>so much, Bob. That's Robert Manzy's a former federal prosecutor

0:06:47.080 --> 0:06:50.800
<v Speaker 1>and a partner now at McCarter in English. Thanks for

0:06:50.880 --> 0:06:54.120
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and

0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:57.440
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

0:06:57.480 --> 0:07:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I am June Brosso. This

0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:08.720
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg h