WEBVTT - Stone Gets Over Three Years for Trump Cover-Up

0:00:00.560 --> 0:00:05.360
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:05.840 --> 0:00:09.880
<v Speaker 1>After a week of political turmoil that included the unprecedented

0:00:09.920 --> 0:00:15.000
<v Speaker 1>withdrawal of an entire team of federal prosecutors, extraordinary intervention

0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:20.160
<v Speaker 1>by the Attorney General, and presidential tweets, longtime Trump associate

0:00:20.239 --> 0:00:23.160
<v Speaker 1>Roger Stone was sentenced to three years and four months

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:26.159
<v Speaker 1>in prison for lying to Congress and tampering with a

0:00:26.200 --> 0:00:29.560
<v Speaker 1>witness to protect the President, Trump, who issued some high

0:00:29.560 --> 0:00:33.200
<v Speaker 1>profile pardons earlier this week, said he was holding off

0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:37.000
<v Speaker 1>on a pardon for Stone. And I'm following this very closely,

0:00:37.040 --> 0:00:40.280
<v Speaker 1>and I want to see it play out to what's fullest,

0:00:40.320 --> 0:00:44.199
<v Speaker 1>because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration in

0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:48.159
<v Speaker 1>my opinion. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints

0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:50.839
<v Speaker 1>a partner Mt. Carter in English, So, Bob, this was

0:00:50.920 --> 0:00:54.640
<v Speaker 1>less than the seven to nine years the original prosecutors

0:00:54.720 --> 0:00:58.320
<v Speaker 1>initially asked for. What's your reaction to the sentence? The

0:00:58.360 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 1>sentence that was handed down today by Judge Jackson is

0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:04.959
<v Speaker 1>pretty much in line with what most prosecutors expected in

0:01:05.000 --> 0:01:08.920
<v Speaker 1>this case. Prosecutors initially asked for a sentence in the

0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:11.880
<v Speaker 1>seven to nine year range. That was viewed by some

0:01:11.959 --> 0:01:16.200
<v Speaker 1>people as overly harsh, although it was clearly supported by

0:01:16.240 --> 0:01:20.840
<v Speaker 1>the guidelines. Controversy erupted when William Barr, the Attorney General,

0:01:20.880 --> 0:01:24.600
<v Speaker 1>stepped in, and ultimately there was a second sentencing memorandum

0:01:24.600 --> 0:01:26.800
<v Speaker 1>that was sent into the court which did not ask

0:01:26.840 --> 0:01:29.520
<v Speaker 1>for any particular sentence and in fact left the sentencing

0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:32.000
<v Speaker 1>up to the judge, but it did suggest that a

0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:34.760
<v Speaker 1>sentence in the three to four year range was more

0:01:34.800 --> 0:01:38.119
<v Speaker 1>reasonable and more in line with other cases like this.

0:01:38.480 --> 0:01:41.680
<v Speaker 1>That is exactly where Judge Jackson ultimately ended up here,

0:01:42.000 --> 0:01:44.680
<v Speaker 1>though I think the judge from the very beginning had

0:01:44.680 --> 0:01:46.920
<v Speaker 1>her own mind made up as to where this was

0:01:46.959 --> 0:01:50.640
<v Speaker 1>going to go, and did not necessarily pay close attention

0:01:50.720 --> 0:01:53.120
<v Speaker 1>to either of the sentencing memorandum that were submitted by

0:01:53.120 --> 0:01:57.160
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Justice. After the interference by Attorney General

0:01:57.200 --> 0:02:00.400
<v Speaker 1>bar and the tweets by the President, the sent dancing

0:02:00.520 --> 0:02:03.520
<v Speaker 1>is probably going to be picked Apart for any signs

0:02:03.600 --> 0:02:07.280
<v Speaker 1>that the judge was not independent. Do you see any

0:02:07.320 --> 0:02:10.679
<v Speaker 1>signs that the judge was not independent? I think the

0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:14.600
<v Speaker 1>judge here demonstrated her independence in a number of ways.

0:02:14.680 --> 0:02:18.280
<v Speaker 1>First of all, she addressed the politics of this sentencing,

0:02:18.320 --> 0:02:21.799
<v Speaker 1>which I found to be unusual. Generally judges will stay

0:02:21.840 --> 0:02:24.919
<v Speaker 1>away from the political winds that may swirl around. In particular,

0:02:24.919 --> 0:02:28.360
<v Speaker 1>sentence on this case was even more political than most

0:02:28.680 --> 0:02:32.960
<v Speaker 1>by Judge Jackson really took that issue head on, making

0:02:33.040 --> 0:02:36.679
<v Speaker 1>some statements that were pretty surprising and pretty direct, where

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:40.000
<v Speaker 1>she said, for example, that Stone was not being prosecuted

0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:43.399
<v Speaker 1>for standing up for the president, he was being prosecuted

0:02:43.480 --> 0:02:46.560
<v Speaker 1>for covering up for the president. She also called out

0:02:46.600 --> 0:02:49.359
<v Speaker 1>the Attorney General William Barr in a sense in which

0:02:49.680 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 1>she mentioned that his intervention in this case was unprecedented.

0:02:53.480 --> 0:02:55.800
<v Speaker 1>So she took on those political issues, and then she

0:02:55.880 --> 0:03:00.320
<v Speaker 1>methodically went through all of the misconduct that was reuben

0:03:00.400 --> 0:03:04.000
<v Speaker 1>in her view by prosecutors during the trial, and I

0:03:04.040 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>think really laid out a very damning case of bad

0:03:07.520 --> 0:03:12.080
<v Speaker 1>conduct and illegal conduct by Roger Stone. Although ultimately she

0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 1>sentenced him to a sentence that was less than the

0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:19.520
<v Speaker 1>harshest guideline sentence that prosecutors had originally requested, she said,

0:03:19.560 --> 0:03:23.240
<v Speaker 1>the truth still exists, the truth still matters. Roger Stone's

0:03:23.240 --> 0:03:27.160
<v Speaker 1>insistence that it doesn't, his belligerence, his pride in his

0:03:27.280 --> 0:03:31.200
<v Speaker 1>own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions

0:03:31.240 --> 0:03:36.040
<v Speaker 1>to the foundations of our democracy. Was that for roger

0:03:36.080 --> 0:03:39.720
<v Speaker 1>Stone or was that for President Trump? I think what

0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:43.280
<v Speaker 1>the judgment was really addressing there was the rule of law.

0:03:43.480 --> 0:03:47.160
<v Speaker 1>She wanted to make it clear that this decision, this

0:03:47.280 --> 0:03:50.760
<v Speaker 1>sentence that she was heading down today, was being done

0:03:50.880 --> 0:03:54.320
<v Speaker 1>on objective facts. That she believes that, as she said,

0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:57.440
<v Speaker 1>the truth still matters, and that our institutions and the

0:03:57.480 --> 0:04:02.080
<v Speaker 1>foundations of our democracy in fact depend upon truth telling.

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:06.120
<v Speaker 1>And she viewed roger Stone as somebody who played fast

0:04:06.120 --> 0:04:08.800
<v Speaker 1>and loose with the facts and in some cases, in

0:04:08.880 --> 0:04:12.360
<v Speaker 1>her view, lied directly to the court when certain issues

0:04:12.440 --> 0:04:15.040
<v Speaker 1>came up during the trial. So I think she was

0:04:15.040 --> 0:04:17.560
<v Speaker 1>trying to deliver a message not only to rodger Stone,

0:04:17.880 --> 0:04:20.680
<v Speaker 1>but to the general public that, in her view, this

0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:23.360
<v Speaker 1>was a case very much about telling the truth and

0:04:23.400 --> 0:04:25.839
<v Speaker 1>if you lie, if you lie in court, if you

0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:28.920
<v Speaker 1>lie to mislead Congress, they're going to be serious consequences.

0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:34.120
<v Speaker 1>What I found interesting is that she applied enhancements based

0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:37.920
<v Speaker 1>on things such as Stone's obstruction of the case, including

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:40.240
<v Speaker 1>his use of social media to post a photo of

0:04:40.279 --> 0:04:45.920
<v Speaker 1>the judge where the cross hairs and the prosecutors didn't object.

0:04:46.080 --> 0:04:48.920
<v Speaker 1>These are the new prosecutors coming in on a new

0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:53.440
<v Speaker 1>sentencing memo, and yet they supported the enhancements. Everybody was

0:04:53.480 --> 0:04:57.120
<v Speaker 1>watching very closely the new team of prosecutors who came

0:04:57.160 --> 0:04:59.800
<v Speaker 1>in to handle the sentencing after the four original p

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:03.839
<v Speaker 1>secutors all resigned from the case in protest over the

0:05:03.960 --> 0:05:07.480
<v Speaker 1>changing of the sentencing recommendation. Really, at the end of

0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:10.200
<v Speaker 1>the day, the new prosecutors came in and didn't do

0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:15.000
<v Speaker 1>much very differently than what the original prosecutors had endorsed.

0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:18.680
<v Speaker 1>In fact, the prosecutor who was handling the sentencing hearing

0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:22.720
<v Speaker 1>endorsed the same technical logic that the prior prosecutors had

0:05:22.800 --> 0:05:26.160
<v Speaker 1>used in generating their recommendation of the first sentencing memorandum,

0:05:26.400 --> 0:05:29.240
<v Speaker 1>and all of the enhancements that the original prosecutors had

0:05:29.279 --> 0:05:35.600
<v Speaker 1>originally requested were also supported by the second team of prosecutors.

0:05:35.800 --> 0:05:39.279
<v Speaker 1>The most critical of those enhancements was the one where

0:05:39.360 --> 0:05:43.560
<v Speaker 1>the original team of prosecutors had suggested that Roger Stone

0:05:43.560 --> 0:05:46.400
<v Speaker 1>had threatened a key witness in the case. Uh This

0:05:46.440 --> 0:05:48.640
<v Speaker 1>was an individual named Randy Cretico, who was a New

0:05:48.720 --> 0:05:51.599
<v Speaker 1>York radio host who had critical information to bolster the

0:05:51.640 --> 0:05:55.000
<v Speaker 1>government's case against Stone and prosecutors argue that there was

0:05:55.040 --> 0:05:58.440
<v Speaker 1>an enhancement that moved to sentencing recommendation from three to

0:05:58.480 --> 0:06:01.080
<v Speaker 1>four years all up to seven to nine years based

0:06:01.160 --> 0:06:03.599
<v Speaker 1>upon the belief that he had physically threatened to witness.

0:06:03.920 --> 0:06:07.919
<v Speaker 1>Prosecutors interestingly did not back off from that enhancement, and

0:06:07.960 --> 0:06:10.880
<v Speaker 1>in fact, the judge made a finding that that threat

0:06:11.000 --> 0:06:13.919
<v Speaker 1>was real, despite the fact that Critico had actually written

0:06:13.920 --> 0:06:16.360
<v Speaker 1>a letter to the court saying that although he had

0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:18.960
<v Speaker 1>been the target of that threat, he never, in fact

0:06:19.000 --> 0:06:21.520
<v Speaker 1>actually felt threatened by Stone, that he knew Stone to

0:06:21.560 --> 0:06:23.919
<v Speaker 1>be somebody who would make those kind of comments but

0:06:24.000 --> 0:06:28.040
<v Speaker 1>never follow through. The sentencing of long time Republican operative

0:06:28.080 --> 0:06:31.040
<v Speaker 1>and Trump associate Roger Stone was one of the most

0:06:31.160 --> 0:06:35.040
<v Speaker 1>high profile sentencings in quite a while, capping a week

0:06:35.080 --> 0:06:38.919
<v Speaker 1>of legal drama and political turmoil. My guest as former

0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:43.279
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutor Robert Mint's a partner McCarter in English, So Bob,

0:06:43.360 --> 0:06:46.320
<v Speaker 1>we were discussing the new prosecutors who had to come

0:06:46.320 --> 0:06:48.320
<v Speaker 1>into court for the first time on the day of

0:06:48.400 --> 0:06:51.760
<v Speaker 1>sentencing and face the judge after the initial team of

0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:56.080
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors Withdrew and the judge did say to assistant U. S.

0:06:56.120 --> 0:06:59.360
<v Speaker 1>Attorney John Crabbe, I fear that you know less about

0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:03.360
<v Speaker 1>this case than possibly anybody else in the courtroom, and

0:07:03.560 --> 0:07:08.240
<v Speaker 1>she asked them to explain what happened here, basically, did

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:11.600
<v Speaker 1>you buy their explanation? Well, that was another example I

0:07:11.600 --> 0:07:14.640
<v Speaker 1>think of the judge really taking these issues head on,

0:07:14.800 --> 0:07:17.920
<v Speaker 1>not wanting to dance around what had been the big

0:07:18.000 --> 0:07:20.360
<v Speaker 1>build up to this sentence in this case. And so

0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:24.360
<v Speaker 1>she did ask the prosecutor, what is your position today?

0:07:24.440 --> 0:07:27.760
<v Speaker 1>She emphasized, noting that it had changed from the prior recommendation,

0:07:28.000 --> 0:07:31.280
<v Speaker 1>and she asked for an explanation as to why the

0:07:31.320 --> 0:07:34.280
<v Speaker 1>recommendation had changed. And I thought it was very interesting

0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:37.840
<v Speaker 1>that the prosecutor in the case they did that the

0:07:37.920 --> 0:07:40.960
<v Speaker 1>prior prosecutors had in fact received approval from the U. S.

0:07:41.000 --> 0:07:44.240
<v Speaker 1>Attorney Tim Shay to make the recommendation of seven to

0:07:44.320 --> 0:07:46.880
<v Speaker 1>nine years that they did, and that that filing was

0:07:46.960 --> 0:07:49.680
<v Speaker 1>in good faith. So he actually stood up for the

0:07:49.720 --> 0:07:53.400
<v Speaker 1>prior team of prosecutors and then gave a somewhat vague

0:07:53.400 --> 0:07:57.840
<v Speaker 1>explanation which he described as a miscommunication between the Attorney General,

0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:01.080
<v Speaker 1>William Barr and the new U. S. Attorney in the

0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:04.320
<v Speaker 1>District of Columbia Tim Shay that there was some miscommunication

0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:07.240
<v Speaker 1>here as to what the expectations were from the Attorney

0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:11.120
<v Speaker 1>General and that that's why the original sentencing memorandum recommending

0:08:11.120 --> 0:08:13.800
<v Speaker 1>seven to nine years is ultimately withdrawn in favor of

0:08:13.840 --> 0:08:17.600
<v Speaker 1>the more lenient recommendation of approximately three to four years.

0:08:17.960 --> 0:08:21.600
<v Speaker 1>It's unclear whether the court necessarily bought that complete explanation,

0:08:21.760 --> 0:08:24.560
<v Speaker 1>but I think it's interesting that she asked the prosecutor

0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:27.840
<v Speaker 1>to take her through what essentially went on behind the

0:08:27.880 --> 0:08:30.640
<v Speaker 1>scenes in the Department of Justice leading up to the sentencing.

0:08:31.040 --> 0:08:35.240
<v Speaker 1>At every sentencing, the defendant has an opportunity to address

0:08:35.320 --> 0:08:39.120
<v Speaker 1>the court before the sentence is handed down. In this case,

0:08:39.440 --> 0:08:43.400
<v Speaker 1>Roger Stone decided not to say anything. Why not take

0:08:43.400 --> 0:08:46.880
<v Speaker 1>this opportunity to put something on the record or make

0:08:46.920 --> 0:08:50.760
<v Speaker 1>a final appeal to the judge. That's an interesting question, uh,

0:08:50.920 --> 0:08:54.640
<v Speaker 1>As you said, defendants always have the opportunity to address

0:08:54.679 --> 0:08:57.680
<v Speaker 1>the court prior to sentencing. That is almost always the

0:08:57.880 --> 0:09:01.760
<v Speaker 1>very last stage of the sentence thing proceeding. After prosecutors

0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:04.480
<v Speaker 1>make their arguments for what the appropriate sentence should be,

0:09:04.800 --> 0:09:07.199
<v Speaker 1>the defense team gets to make their other arguments as

0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:09.520
<v Speaker 1>to what the sentencing should be, and the last thing

0:09:09.559 --> 0:09:13.199
<v Speaker 1>the judge hears prior to actually handing down the sentence

0:09:13.640 --> 0:09:16.360
<v Speaker 1>is from the defendant him or herself. In this case,

0:09:16.440 --> 0:09:19.400
<v Speaker 1>Roger Stone chose not to address the court. Most of

0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:23.120
<v Speaker 1>the time, defendants take that opportunity because it's their chance

0:09:23.440 --> 0:09:26.200
<v Speaker 1>to humanize themselves once again in front of the court,

0:09:26.480 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 1>remind the court that they are fathers and mothers and

0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:33.600
<v Speaker 1>husbands and wives, and to try, essentially and last amitted

0:09:33.640 --> 0:09:36.760
<v Speaker 1>effort to sway the judge into perhaps a more lenient sentence.

0:09:36.920 --> 0:09:39.680
<v Speaker 1>In this case, Roger Stone did not take that opportunity.

0:09:39.880 --> 0:09:43.720
<v Speaker 1>It's unclear as to why President Trump was tweeting during

0:09:43.720 --> 0:09:48.640
<v Speaker 1>the sentencing. The speculation is high that Hill pardon Stone,

0:09:49.280 --> 0:09:54.160
<v Speaker 1>especially since that slate of high profile clemencies this week.

0:09:54.960 --> 0:09:57.280
<v Speaker 1>What's your take on that. Is it likely that Stone

0:09:57.320 --> 0:09:59.760
<v Speaker 1>will never serve a day in prison? Well, there's a

0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:02.840
<v Speaker 1>couple of issues here. The judge did agree to leave

0:10:03.520 --> 0:10:07.160
<v Speaker 1>Mr Stone out of jail pending a motion for a

0:10:07.200 --> 0:10:11.240
<v Speaker 1>new trial. There's been some allegation that the jury for

0:10:11.679 --> 0:10:15.640
<v Speaker 1>women in this case was in some way biased. That's

0:10:15.640 --> 0:10:17.040
<v Speaker 1>going to be a motion that's going to be made

0:10:17.040 --> 0:10:18.920
<v Speaker 1>by the defense team, and that the judge said she

0:10:18.960 --> 0:10:22.160
<v Speaker 1>will agree to hear before he were to ask Mr

0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:26.560
<v Speaker 1>Stone to surrender. The other issue is that undoubtedly if

0:10:26.559 --> 0:10:28.440
<v Speaker 1>they don't get a new trial, there will be an

0:10:28.440 --> 0:10:30.800
<v Speaker 1>appeal in this case, and she may also decide to

0:10:30.840 --> 0:10:34.079
<v Speaker 1>leave him out of jail pending the appeal. So it's

0:10:34.200 --> 0:10:37.240
<v Speaker 1>unclear when or if Mr Stone will ever spend a

0:10:37.320 --> 0:10:40.480
<v Speaker 1>day in jail. Now, let's talk about his appeal for

0:10:40.520 --> 0:10:44.480
<v Speaker 1>a moment. His earlier requests for a new trial alleging

0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:47.720
<v Speaker 1>bias by a different juror who is an employee of

0:10:47.760 --> 0:10:50.400
<v Speaker 1>the I R S was denied by the judge. This

0:10:50.440 --> 0:10:53.840
<v Speaker 1>one is under seal, but the indications are that they're

0:10:53.840 --> 0:10:57.679
<v Speaker 1>going to claim the jury four person was biased. If

0:10:57.960 --> 0:11:01.240
<v Speaker 1>they have proof that the very four person was not

0:11:01.480 --> 0:11:06.439
<v Speaker 1>forthcoming in her jury questionnaire, is that enough for a reversal.

0:11:07.040 --> 0:11:09.640
<v Speaker 1>That's an interesting question because you have to remember first

0:11:09.640 --> 0:11:11.880
<v Speaker 1>here that if a defendant is going to be convicted,

0:11:11.880 --> 0:11:15.359
<v Speaker 1>there has to be unanimous agreement among all the jurors

0:11:15.400 --> 0:11:18.360
<v Speaker 1>as to each count that the defendant is in fact guilty.

0:11:18.440 --> 0:11:21.960
<v Speaker 1>So the jury four person is only one vote. But

0:11:22.040 --> 0:11:25.160
<v Speaker 1>on the other hand, if the juror lies during what's

0:11:25.200 --> 0:11:28.600
<v Speaker 1>called boarder, the questioning of jurors when they are selected

0:11:28.640 --> 0:11:30.880
<v Speaker 1>to sit in the jury, and the judge finds that

0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:34.920
<v Speaker 1>it's a material misstatement, it is quite possible that Mr

0:11:34.960 --> 0:11:38.160
<v Speaker 1>Stone could wind up getting a new trial. The interference

0:11:38.440 --> 0:11:43.360
<v Speaker 1>by William Barr seems unnecessary. You know that a judge

0:11:43.440 --> 0:11:48.320
<v Speaker 1>doesn't just buy the prosecution's recommendation, especially a judge who

0:11:48.360 --> 0:11:51.000
<v Speaker 1>sat through a trial and who seems to know this

0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:55.040
<v Speaker 1>defendant pretty well. So why did Barr even feel the

0:11:55.120 --> 0:11:59.760
<v Speaker 1>need to intervene. That's a great question because every federal

0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:02.480
<v Speaker 1>set in federal court for criminal cases governed by something

0:12:02.520 --> 0:12:05.880
<v Speaker 1>called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which is a large book

0:12:06.360 --> 0:12:10.280
<v Speaker 1>that gives weighted factors to all kinds of issues that

0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:13.920
<v Speaker 1>ultimately will increase the potential for a prison term. For example,

0:12:13.960 --> 0:12:16.360
<v Speaker 1>the amount of money that's been stolen, or whether witnesses

0:12:16.400 --> 0:12:19.760
<v Speaker 1>have used obstructive tactics during the trial, or whether witness

0:12:19.800 --> 0:12:22.360
<v Speaker 1>lies during the trial. All of these are ways that

0:12:22.559 --> 0:12:26.320
<v Speaker 1>a defendant sentence can be enhanced. In every single case,

0:12:26.360 --> 0:12:29.240
<v Speaker 1>you have prosecutors going through their sentencing guidelines and then

0:12:29.280 --> 0:12:31.839
<v Speaker 1>making a recommendation based on the facts of each case,

0:12:32.040 --> 0:12:34.959
<v Speaker 1>which of course are always unique, and trying to argue

0:12:34.960 --> 0:12:38.000
<v Speaker 1>to the court which enhancements apply in order to get

0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:42.000
<v Speaker 1>a higher sentence. The defense, not surprisingly is going to

0:12:42.040 --> 0:12:44.120
<v Speaker 1>ask for the most lenient sentence. In this case, they

0:12:44.160 --> 0:12:47.000
<v Speaker 1>ask for probation. At the end of the day, the

0:12:47.160 --> 0:12:51.120
<v Speaker 1>judge has to first make decisions about which enhancement apply

0:12:51.559 --> 0:12:55.240
<v Speaker 1>and where the guideline sentence will come out, but they

0:12:55.280 --> 0:12:58.880
<v Speaker 1>no longer have to follow those guideline sentences. In other words,

0:12:58.880 --> 0:13:01.840
<v Speaker 1>the judge can ultimately make a conclusion that the seven

0:13:01.880 --> 0:13:04.040
<v Speaker 1>to nine year range for a sentence is what the

0:13:04.080 --> 0:13:08.120
<v Speaker 1>guidelines will say, but still sentence a defendant to whatever

0:13:08.360 --> 0:13:11.360
<v Speaker 1>term he or she believes is fair. So in this case,

0:13:11.400 --> 0:13:14.360
<v Speaker 1>the judge handed down a sentence set was below the

0:13:14.400 --> 0:13:19.360
<v Speaker 1>guideline range. And I think really all of this chaos

0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:21.720
<v Speaker 1>that went on leading up to the trial, the initial

0:13:21.720 --> 0:13:25.640
<v Speaker 1>sentencing memo, the second sentencing memo, all of the suggestions

0:13:25.640 --> 0:13:29.199
<v Speaker 1>that there was political influence ultimately played no role at

0:13:29.240 --> 0:13:32.080
<v Speaker 1>all in the sentence that judged Jackson handed down here.

0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:34.320
<v Speaker 1>I think she had a very clear view in her

0:13:34.320 --> 0:13:37.600
<v Speaker 1>mind of what roder Stone did, of how he conducted

0:13:37.679 --> 0:13:40.640
<v Speaker 1>himself both before and during the trial, and she knew

0:13:40.679 --> 0:13:43.800
<v Speaker 1>exactly where she was going to come out in this sentencing,

0:13:44.240 --> 0:13:46.840
<v Speaker 1>regardless of the position that the government took or that

0:13:46.880 --> 0:13:49.280
<v Speaker 1>the defense took in this case. Thanks for being on

0:13:49.280 --> 0:13:52.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law. Bob. That's Robert Mant's a partner M Carter

0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:55.320
<v Speaker 1>in English. Remember you can always listen to the latest

0:13:55.400 --> 0:13:58.680
<v Speaker 1>legal news anytime on our Bloomberg Law podcast. Just go

0:13:58.800 --> 0:14:02.600
<v Speaker 1>to iTunes, so cloud, or Bloomberg dot com slash podcast

0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:08.840
<v Speaker 1>Slash Law. I'm John Russo and this is Bloomberg than