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. Judge ay Berman
Speaker 1: Jackson has read the Riot Act to Roger Stone about
Speaker 1: his relentless pursuit of publicity and put him under a
Speaker 1: strict gag order that forbids him from speaking about his
Speaker 1: criminal case or special counsel Robert Muller. Now Stone is
Speaker 1: trying to explain himself to the judge once again, saying
Speaker 1: that he didn't mean to mislead her when he failed
Speaker 1: to tell her about the paperback release of a book
Speaker 1: he wrote about the election, complete with a new introduction
Speaker 1: and title, The Myth of Russian Collusion. In it, he
Speaker 1: refers to Mueller as a crook, joining me as former
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Robert Min's a partner, McCarter and English Bob.
Speaker 1: In a March first warts filing, Stones lawyers referred to
Speaker 1: the book as an upcoming release when it's been available
Speaker 1: online since February nine. There are emails talking about whether
Speaker 1: publishing the book would break the gag order from February
Speaker 1: fifteen through February, how do they explain not telling the
Speaker 1: judge about the book while they're litigating the gag order. Well,
Speaker 1: that's going to be the big question here, because if
Speaker 1: there's one thing that is going to anger Judge Jackson
Speaker 1: here in addition to rager Stone potentially violating the gag order,
Speaker 1: it's that they were not candid with her when they
Speaker 1: last appeared in front of her, essentially on this very issue.
Speaker 1: So if it turns out as it appears, that there
Speaker 1: were emails and discussions and that at the time they
Speaker 1: appeared in court they knew this book was coming out
Speaker 1: with these incendiary comments about Robert Mueller in the new introduction,
Speaker 1: She's going to be very angry and may well this
Speaker 1: side to put Roger Stone in prison leading up to
Speaker 1: his trial. Well, this is a tough judge who put
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort behind bars pending trial for interfering with a witness.
Speaker 1: She lets Stone off with just a tougher gag order
Speaker 1: last time. But she did say this is not baseball.
Speaker 1: You don't get a third chance. Does that sort of
Speaker 1: put her in the spot of having to put him
Speaker 1: in prison, or could there be some lesser kind of
Speaker 1: fine or gag order. Well, I think judges are reluctant
Speaker 1: to put people in prison leading up to a trial.
Speaker 1: In the case of Paul Manafort, the accusation was that
Speaker 1: there was witness tampering, which really is in many ways
Speaker 1: a more serious defense because it goes to the real
Speaker 1: heart of the trial. The allegation is that you're trying
Speaker 1: to affect witness testimony, and that really is a very
Speaker 1: very serious issue. This is a little less serious in
Speaker 1: the sense that it is simply give these statements to
Speaker 1: the public and perhaps affecting the jury pool for this trial.
Speaker 1: But I think here the judge drew a pretty bright
Speaker 1: red line, and it appears at roger Stone crossed that line.
Speaker 1: And judges are reluctant to give you a chance. Have
Speaker 1: you then essentially violate the order and then come back
Speaker 1: and give you a second chance. So she could do
Speaker 1: either one. She could leave him out, But I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be surprised to see if she decides to put him
Speaker 1: in jail. If she decides to leave him out, what
Speaker 1: could she do that she hasn't done already? Well, in
Speaker 1: addition to making it very clear that he is not
Speaker 1: to make any public statements or to tweet, or to
Speaker 1: do any other things that he's already done, she could,
Speaker 1: for example, prohibit him from tweeting at all. She could
Speaker 1: say that he is not allowed to go onto the internet.
Speaker 1: She could put him under house to rest. She could
Speaker 1: prohibit him from having contact with anybody in the media.
Speaker 1: So there are a number of things she could do
Speaker 1: to kind of tighten the noose short of putting him
Speaker 1: in jail. We've talked before about how Roger Stone has
Speaker 1: this relentless pursuit of publicity and this at this point
Speaker 1: he does apparently Dean Bunny for his defense. According to
Speaker 1: the court papers that and the emails, the books have
Speaker 1: not been flying off the shelves even since his arrest,
Speaker 1: which was highly publicized. Could this possibly be a publicity
Speaker 1: stunt to draw attention to the book and more sales
Speaker 1: or is that too dangerous? Well, that's the cynical view here,
Speaker 1: and anybody who knows about Roger Stone and his history
Speaker 1: knows that this is an individual who sort of flirts
Speaker 1: with the line of disaster and is courting publicity, even
Speaker 1: when that publicity sometimes may not be all positive, and
Speaker 1: even when that publicity could possibly land him in jail.
Speaker 1: So the judge may well view him as using the
Speaker 1: court as a vehicle for promoting his book, which will
Speaker 1: only further anger the judge. And I think he will
Speaker 1: seriously clip his wings if she doesn't put him in jail. Altogether,
Speaker 1: this judge is going to be sentencing Paul Manafort. His
Speaker 1: first sentencing was really caused a lot of uproar because
Speaker 1: it was so lenient and uproar about the judicial system
Speaker 1: as well as the judge sentencing in this particular case.
Speaker 1: What's likely from Judge Jackson tomorrow. Well, Judge Jackson is
Speaker 1: a different judge than Judge Ellis who sentenced Paul Manafort
Speaker 1: in the trial in Virginia. But Judge Jackson also has
Speaker 1: different facts before her because he was the one, as
Speaker 1: you mentioned June, who put Paul Manafort in prison for
Speaker 1: campering with witnesses. She also is aware of the sentence
Speaker 1: that Paul Manafort received from Judge Ellis, and I think
Speaker 1: that we will see a sentence here that certainly adds
Speaker 1: additional time to the prison time that Paul Mantifort got
Speaker 1: from Judge Ellis. That was a sentence that was viewed
Speaker 1: as highly controversial. The sentence and guidelines were about twenty years,
Speaker 1: and while everybody expected there to be a departure downward,
Speaker 1: very few people expected a departure as low as forty
Speaker 1: seven months, which is what he received from Judge Ellis.
Speaker 1: So I think we can almost certainly count on additional
Speaker 1: jail time coming out of this sentence from Juke Jackson.
Speaker 1: Whether that's done by giving consecutive time or whether she
Speaker 1: just adds a sentence that is beyond the forty seven
Speaker 1: months that was imposed by Jig Ellis, right, will be
Speaker 1: very interesting to see how she handles that and how
Speaker 1: different it is, if at all, from Judge Ellis. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much, Bob. That's Robert Manzy's a former federal prosecutor
Speaker 1: and a partner now at McCarter in English. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I am June Brosso. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg h