1 00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,680 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:05,840 --> 00:00:09,360 Speaker 1: A stunning rebuke to the Justice Department, all four US 3 00:00:09,440 --> 00:00:13,080 Speaker 1: government prosecutors who backed a long prison stay for Trump, 4 00:00:13,080 --> 00:00:17,400 Speaker 1: ally Roger Stone, resigned from the case after senior Justice 5 00:00:17,440 --> 00:00:21,800 Speaker 1: Department officials intervened to recommend a more lenient sentence for Stone. 6 00:00:22,120 --> 00:00:25,439 Speaker 1: In a sentencing memo filed on Monday, prosecutors in the 7 00:00:25,480 --> 00:00:28,640 Speaker 1: Stone case recommended a sentence of seven to nine years 8 00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:32,519 Speaker 1: for his conviction for witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and 9 00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:36,480 Speaker 1: lying to Congress. At two a m. On Tuesday, President 10 00:00:36,479 --> 00:00:41,159 Speaker 1: Trump tweeted, quote, cannot allow this miscarriage of justice, and 11 00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:45,520 Speaker 1: by Tuesday afternoon, the Justice Department filed an amended sentencing memo, 12 00:00:45,800 --> 00:00:51,200 Speaker 1: calling the earlier recommendation excessive and unwarranted. A complete reversal. 13 00:00:51,240 --> 00:00:55,360 Speaker 1: Of course. President Trump denied being involved. No, I didn't 14 00:00:55,360 --> 00:00:57,000 Speaker 1: speak to the Justice. I'd be able to do it 15 00:00:57,000 --> 00:00:58,920 Speaker 1: if I wanted. I have the absolute right to do it. 16 00:00:59,480 --> 00:01:02,600 Speaker 1: I stay out of things to a degree that people 17 00:01:02,600 --> 00:01:04,759 Speaker 1: wouldn't believe. But I didn't speak to him. I thought 18 00:01:04,800 --> 00:01:10,000 Speaker 1: the recommendation was ridiculous. I thought the whole prosecution was ridiculous, 19 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:13,360 Speaker 1: joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints a partner 20 00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:17,319 Speaker 1: mcarter in English. Have you ever seen an entire team 21 00:01:17,319 --> 00:01:22,520 Speaker 1: of prosecutors resigning due to interference from senior officials? I 22 00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:26,280 Speaker 1: think this is really unprecedented. In this case, there were 23 00:01:26,280 --> 00:01:30,520 Speaker 1: four prosecutors on the case, all career prosecutors, all withdrew 24 00:01:30,600 --> 00:01:32,440 Speaker 1: from the case, and one even one so far as 25 00:01:32,480 --> 00:01:36,360 Speaker 1: to resign the position from the Department of Justice. So 26 00:01:36,760 --> 00:01:40,000 Speaker 1: it really has created quite a stir and frankly, the 27 00:01:40,040 --> 00:01:43,840 Speaker 1: optics of this are just terrible for the Department of Justice. So, Bob, 28 00:01:43,880 --> 00:01:47,039 Speaker 1: the optics are bad, but just how bad. One of 29 00:01:47,080 --> 00:01:51,280 Speaker 1: the absolute bedrock principles of the justice system in our 30 00:01:51,320 --> 00:01:55,120 Speaker 1: country is the belief that every defendant will have their 31 00:01:55,280 --> 00:01:59,560 Speaker 1: fair day in court and that prosecutors will pursue cases 32 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,560 Speaker 1: based upon whether or not they believe a crime has 33 00:02:02,600 --> 00:02:06,360 Speaker 1: been committed without any interference from any kind of political 34 00:02:06,440 --> 00:02:10,720 Speaker 1: outside influences. And what we've seen here is the situation where, 35 00:02:10,760 --> 00:02:13,519 Speaker 1: regardless of which side of this case you come down on, 36 00:02:13,800 --> 00:02:16,520 Speaker 1: the fact is that there is the appearance of outside 37 00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:20,360 Speaker 1: influence by the White House that has put pressure on 38 00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:23,440 Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. Whether or not that's true, whether 39 00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:26,760 Speaker 1: or not the president's tweet occurred after the decision was made, 40 00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:30,440 Speaker 1: is really irrelevant. There's just an appearance here that this 41 00:02:30,520 --> 00:02:34,280 Speaker 1: case is being handled in some way outside of the 42 00:02:34,280 --> 00:02:37,280 Speaker 1: mainstream channels of the Department of Justice, and that decisions 43 00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:41,359 Speaker 1: are being made for reasons other than what is possibly 44 00:02:41,680 --> 00:02:45,440 Speaker 1: the strongest prosecutable case for the Department of Justice, and 45 00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:48,640 Speaker 1: that a recommendation for sentencing here is being made for 46 00:02:48,720 --> 00:02:52,720 Speaker 1: reasons other than what the law requires. So President Trump 47 00:02:52,800 --> 00:02:55,519 Speaker 1: said he didn't talk to anyone in the Department of Justice, 48 00:02:55,639 --> 00:02:58,320 Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice says the same thing. But 49 00:02:58,400 --> 00:03:01,440 Speaker 1: you're saying that it does and even matter if he 50 00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:04,800 Speaker 1: spoke to someone at the Department of Justice. Does it 51 00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:10,360 Speaker 1: matter if the Department of Justice was responding to perceived 52 00:03:10,480 --> 00:03:15,040 Speaker 1: pressure from his tweets at two in the morning on Tuesday, 53 00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:18,560 Speaker 1: after the filing was made on Monday, and then all 54 00:03:18,600 --> 00:03:21,720 Speaker 1: of a sudden, a new filing on Tuesday afternoon. Sure, 55 00:03:21,760 --> 00:03:24,079 Speaker 1: And that's exactly the problem here, is that if you 56 00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:27,600 Speaker 1: look at the sequence of the president's tweets and then 57 00:03:28,000 --> 00:03:31,760 Speaker 1: the recalling of the original recommendation on the second recommendation 58 00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:34,640 Speaker 1: being issued as to the sentencing in the Rider Stone case. 59 00:03:34,880 --> 00:03:38,200 Speaker 1: There's an appearance of outside influence here, and that goes 60 00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:40,880 Speaker 1: to the very heart of what people believe should be 61 00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:44,800 Speaker 1: the impartial administration of justice without any political outside influence. 62 00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:47,160 Speaker 1: You have to remember that the Stone case was one 63 00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:50,760 Speaker 1: of the most high profile criminal prosecutions arising from the 64 00:03:50,800 --> 00:03:55,160 Speaker 1: nearly two year investigation of Russian interference in the election 65 00:03:55,520 --> 00:03:58,800 Speaker 1: by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller. This was a case 66 00:03:58,880 --> 00:04:02,360 Speaker 1: that was politically charged from the very beginning. Mr Stone 67 00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:06,440 Speaker 1: was a longtime friend of Mr Trump and was convicted 68 00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:10,200 Speaker 1: last November for obstructing an inquiry by the House Intelligence 69 00:04:10,240 --> 00:04:13,400 Speaker 1: Committee into Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election. He 70 00:04:13,480 --> 00:04:16,599 Speaker 1: was convicted for lying to investigators under oats and for 71 00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:19,200 Speaker 1: trying to block the testimony of the witness who would 72 00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:22,680 Speaker 1: have exposed his lies. So this case always had a 73 00:04:22,720 --> 00:04:26,120 Speaker 1: political overlay, and to inject more politics into it right 74 00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:28,600 Speaker 1: in the eve of sentencing is something that has many 75 00:04:28,680 --> 00:04:33,000 Speaker 1: people very concerned. As a former prosecutor, how does a 76 00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:36,720 Speaker 1: sentencing recommendation work in a high profile case like this? 77 00:04:37,240 --> 00:04:41,640 Speaker 1: Would the line prosecutors have consulted senior officials in d 78 00:04:41,760 --> 00:04:45,839 Speaker 1: o J before making their initial recommendation of seven to 79 00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:50,240 Speaker 1: nine years. Yeah, and that's a great question because people 80 00:04:50,279 --> 00:04:53,360 Speaker 1: on the outside don't necessarily understand how these decisions are made. 81 00:04:53,560 --> 00:04:56,039 Speaker 1: So what happens here in most cases, and what happened 82 00:04:56,040 --> 00:04:59,040 Speaker 1: in this case, is that the line prosecutors, the prosecutors 83 00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:00,680 Speaker 1: who lived with the case night and day and know 84 00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:04,160 Speaker 1: actually prosecute the case through trial, make a recommendation as 85 00:05:04,160 --> 00:05:06,400 Speaker 1: to what they think is an appropriate sentence that has 86 00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:08,680 Speaker 1: to be approved up to the ranks of the U. S. 87 00:05:08,720 --> 00:05:11,200 Speaker 1: Attorney's office, and in this case, the U. S Attorney 88 00:05:11,279 --> 00:05:14,840 Speaker 1: in the District of Washington, d C approved the recommendation. 89 00:05:15,040 --> 00:05:17,360 Speaker 1: But in a very high profile case like this, it's 90 00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:20,679 Speaker 1: not at all uncommon for sentencing recommendations to be reviewed 91 00:05:20,680 --> 00:05:25,559 Speaker 1: by senior officials in main justice in Washington, d C. Here, 92 00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:30,679 Speaker 1: apparently there was no clear agreement between the line prosecutors 93 00:05:30,839 --> 00:05:33,960 Speaker 1: and those higher up the chain in Washington before this 94 00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:38,280 Speaker 1: initial sentencing memorandum was released. The line prosecutors clearly had 95 00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:41,000 Speaker 1: the approval of the U. S. Attorney, which is usually 96 00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:44,960 Speaker 1: the only approval you need for a final sentencing memorandum. 97 00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:48,960 Speaker 1: There was some consultation with Main Justice. Where exactly that 98 00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:52,120 Speaker 1: went off the rails, It's impossible to say at this point, 99 00:05:52,240 --> 00:05:55,080 Speaker 1: but the fact is that that sentencing memorandum was delivered 100 00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:58,120 Speaker 1: to the court, it was backed up by law and 101 00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:02,599 Speaker 1: facts and recommended a particular guideline sentence, and now the 102 00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:05,279 Speaker 1: Department Justice is walking it back in a way that 103 00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:08,680 Speaker 1: gives the appearance that there was outside political influence that 104 00:06:08,800 --> 00:06:12,840 Speaker 1: effected the decision. Now would the walk back have required 105 00:06:13,000 --> 00:06:16,400 Speaker 1: approval from a g bar, Well, it's hard to say. 106 00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:18,040 Speaker 1: You have to assume in a case like this that 107 00:06:18,080 --> 00:06:21,640 Speaker 1: the Attorney General would be paying close attention, particularly to 108 00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:24,640 Speaker 1: walk back a sentencing memorandum, in a case that is 109 00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:27,360 Speaker 1: as visible on high profile as this. We don't really 110 00:06:27,400 --> 00:06:29,880 Speaker 1: know what went on behind the scenes here, but the 111 00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:33,080 Speaker 1: key to this case really focused on the steps that 112 00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:38,000 Speaker 1: Roger Stone took during and after the trial. What prosecutors 113 00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:41,080 Speaker 1: believe was an attempt by Stone to interfere in the 114 00:06:41,080 --> 00:06:43,560 Speaker 1: administration of justice, and a lot of that had to 115 00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:46,560 Speaker 1: do with texts and emails that he was sending to 116 00:06:46,640 --> 00:06:49,320 Speaker 1: a critical witness where he made a death threat to 117 00:06:49,360 --> 00:06:52,320 Speaker 1: that witness. Now, what makes this case interesting is that 118 00:06:52,320 --> 00:06:56,279 Speaker 1: that witness Randy Cretico, actually submitted a letter to the 119 00:06:56,279 --> 00:06:59,760 Speaker 1: court saying he never believed that Roger Stone was threatening 120 00:06:59,800 --> 00:07:02,440 Speaker 1: him and he did not feel in danger, and in fact, 121 00:07:02,480 --> 00:07:05,799 Speaker 1: at the end of the day, he did testify against Stone. 122 00:07:06,040 --> 00:07:08,600 Speaker 1: And so there's a little ambiguity here as to whether 123 00:07:08,680 --> 00:07:11,520 Speaker 1: this threat really should have been treated as seriously as 124 00:07:11,560 --> 00:07:15,080 Speaker 1: prosecutors recommended. But that's a decision that really is hashed 125 00:07:15,080 --> 00:07:19,200 Speaker 1: out internally within the Department of Justice. And historically, when 126 00:07:19,200 --> 00:07:22,760 Speaker 1: a witness tries to interfere with a trial, threatens witnesses. 127 00:07:22,960 --> 00:07:25,440 Speaker 1: In this case, there was even an attempt to threaten 128 00:07:25,520 --> 00:07:28,520 Speaker 1: the judge through a social media posting. That type of 129 00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:32,560 Speaker 1: activity is usually treated very seriously and it's not unusual 130 00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:35,320 Speaker 1: to see a sentence get enhanced substantially for that kind 131 00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:40,320 Speaker 1: of conduct. The four prosecutors in their initial sentencing recommendation 132 00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:44,120 Speaker 1: cited some of the aggravating factors that you just mentioned, 133 00:07:44,240 --> 00:07:49,920 Speaker 1: also Stone disobeying the judges orders. So is the sentence 134 00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:55,000 Speaker 1: recommended of seven to nine years Is that a little aggressive? Well, 135 00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:58,440 Speaker 1: it's a judgment call if you view those threats as 136 00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:03,000 Speaker 1: actually impeding the trial, having threatened to witness, if you 137 00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:06,640 Speaker 1: believe that the social media postings in any way interfered 138 00:08:06,680 --> 00:08:08,520 Speaker 1: with the trial itself, and I think you have to 139 00:08:08,560 --> 00:08:12,480 Speaker 1: take that conduct very seriously. Obviously, the defense lawyers took 140 00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:16,400 Speaker 1: the opposite view, and they characterized the prosecution's arguments as overblown, 141 00:08:16,640 --> 00:08:19,440 Speaker 1: and they noted that while the witness, Mr. Cretico, who 142 00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:22,320 Speaker 1: was a New York radio host, refused to testify before 143 00:08:22,360 --> 00:08:26,480 Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committee, he was later repeatedly interviewed by 144 00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:29,280 Speaker 1: the FBI and appeared before the grand jury and testified 145 00:08:29,480 --> 00:08:32,120 Speaker 1: against Mr Stone during the trial. So there are two 146 00:08:32,200 --> 00:08:34,520 Speaker 1: sides to the story as to whether or not these 147 00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:38,320 Speaker 1: threats were real, whether they actually impeded justice. But prosecutors 148 00:08:38,440 --> 00:08:41,200 Speaker 1: ultimately made a decision which was supported by the facts 149 00:08:41,200 --> 00:08:43,679 Speaker 1: and supported by the guidelines, that the seven to nine 150 00:08:43,760 --> 00:08:47,800 Speaker 1: years was a reasonable recommendation. The defense disagrees, and ultimately 151 00:08:47,840 --> 00:08:49,920 Speaker 1: will be up to the court to decide what sentences 152 00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:53,680 Speaker 1: handed down here. The government's the government's second memo on 153 00:08:53,760 --> 00:08:57,800 Speaker 1: sentencing is called the Supplemental and Amending Sentencing Memorandum, and 154 00:08:57,840 --> 00:09:02,360 Speaker 1: it says the prior filing quote does not accurately reflect 155 00:09:02,360 --> 00:09:05,480 Speaker 1: the Department of Justice's position on what would be a 156 00:09:05,559 --> 00:09:09,000 Speaker 1: reasonable sentence in this matter. So how will the judge, 157 00:09:09,160 --> 00:09:14,640 Speaker 1: you know, determine which of these memos to follow, if any. Well, 158 00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:17,760 Speaker 1: it's important to realize that, first of all, the federal 159 00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:22,400 Speaker 1: sentencing guidelines, which give some general idea as to what 160 00:09:22,559 --> 00:09:26,199 Speaker 1: is sentencing range should be, are not mandatory and are 161 00:09:26,200 --> 00:09:30,160 Speaker 1: not binding on the court. Secondly, even what prosecutors recommend 162 00:09:30,559 --> 00:09:32,600 Speaker 1: is not something that is binding on the court. It's 163 00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:36,000 Speaker 1: just something that a judge will consider carefully in sentencing. 164 00:09:36,040 --> 00:09:39,400 Speaker 1: And the way that against obviously the defense position where 165 00:09:39,600 --> 00:09:41,560 Speaker 1: they will be arguing for a much lighter sentence in 166 00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:44,480 Speaker 1: this case, they're asking for for probation. At the end 167 00:09:44,480 --> 00:09:46,720 Speaker 1: of the day, it's up to the court. The court 168 00:09:46,760 --> 00:09:49,559 Speaker 1: will often sentence the defendant to less than what prosecutors 169 00:09:49,600 --> 00:09:52,400 Speaker 1: are asking for and more than the defense is seeking. 170 00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:55,880 Speaker 1: So in this case, Judge Amy Burman Jackson, who sat 171 00:09:55,960 --> 00:09:58,880 Speaker 1: through the entire trial and who observed Mr Stone and 172 00:09:58,960 --> 00:10:01,200 Speaker 1: is well aware of all of his conduct and all 173 00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:05,559 Speaker 1: of his attempts to arguably influence the trial through impermissible 174 00:10:05,559 --> 00:10:09,640 Speaker 1: ways through social media posting and through texts and emails 175 00:10:09,679 --> 00:10:13,480 Speaker 1: to this witness, she I believe has a very firm 176 00:10:13,559 --> 00:10:17,000 Speaker 1: understanding and in her own mind a belief as to 177 00:10:17,040 --> 00:10:19,360 Speaker 1: whether or not that conduct should be treated as harshly 178 00:10:19,360 --> 00:10:22,600 Speaker 1: as prosecutors initially recommended. So at the end of the day, 179 00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:24,640 Speaker 1: I'm not sure that any of this will really make 180 00:10:24,679 --> 00:10:27,120 Speaker 1: a difference as to what sentence will be handed down here. 181 00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:30,120 Speaker 1: I believe Judge Berman will make the decision based upon 182 00:10:30,160 --> 00:10:32,920 Speaker 1: the facts as she knows them, and she will ultimately 183 00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:36,520 Speaker 1: decide what she believed is a fair sentence under these circumstances. 184 00:10:36,800 --> 00:10:40,160 Speaker 1: You were talking about the optics of the situation, and 185 00:10:40,360 --> 00:10:44,840 Speaker 1: talking about optics, let's talk about former National Security Advisor 186 00:10:44,960 --> 00:10:50,880 Speaker 1: Michael Flynn, because prosecutors sought six months in prison, and 187 00:10:50,920 --> 00:10:54,520 Speaker 1: then a few weeks ago they backtracked on that and 188 00:10:54,559 --> 00:10:58,480 Speaker 1: said they would not oppose probation instead of prison time. 189 00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:03,120 Speaker 1: So putting that Mueller case together with the Stone Muller case, 190 00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:05,880 Speaker 1: what are the optics. Well, that's part of the problem 191 00:11:05,920 --> 00:11:09,880 Speaker 1: here is that the Stone case is not a standalone issue. 192 00:11:10,440 --> 00:11:13,880 Speaker 1: You've got the case of Flynn, where as you say, 193 00:11:13,920 --> 00:11:16,760 Speaker 1: they stepped back their position there as well, not as 194 00:11:16,840 --> 00:11:20,080 Speaker 1: dramatically as is being done here with Riser Stone. But 195 00:11:20,120 --> 00:11:23,640 Speaker 1: it's another example of how people on the outside may 196 00:11:23,720 --> 00:11:26,840 Speaker 1: look at this and believe that there's some political influence 197 00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:29,559 Speaker 1: that's going into these decisions that are being made by 198 00:11:29,600 --> 00:11:32,640 Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. There's a lot of judgment that 199 00:11:32,679 --> 00:11:35,840 Speaker 1: goes into these decisions. It's wrong to think that these 200 00:11:35,880 --> 00:11:38,320 Speaker 1: are black and white decisions that you simply have to 201 00:11:38,320 --> 00:11:41,040 Speaker 1: take these facts and apply them to the federal sentencing 202 00:11:41,040 --> 00:11:44,880 Speaker 1: guidelines and you automatically add up to a sentence that 203 00:11:45,040 --> 00:11:48,839 Speaker 1: is clear and undisputed. That's really not the way it works. 204 00:11:48,880 --> 00:11:52,119 Speaker 1: There's a good amount of judgment that goes into applying 205 00:11:52,160 --> 00:11:54,880 Speaker 1: these sentencing guidelines to the facts of the case. And 206 00:11:54,920 --> 00:11:57,640 Speaker 1: at the end of the day, the guidelines are only advisory, 207 00:11:57,840 --> 00:11:59,800 Speaker 1: so it's ultimately up to the judge to decide what 208 00:11:59,880 --> 00:12:03,640 Speaker 1: to do. But what's important is that the decision, however 209 00:12:03,920 --> 00:12:06,480 Speaker 1: it is achieved, is one that is made for the 210 00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:10,000 Speaker 1: right reasons, particularly that it's not being made based upon 211 00:12:10,080 --> 00:12:13,680 Speaker 1: any outside political influence. The Justice Department is supposed to 212 00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:17,840 Speaker 1: operate independently of the White House in criminal investigations and 213 00:12:17,840 --> 00:12:23,760 Speaker 1: in prosecutions, but is that observed strictly in every presidential administration. 214 00:12:24,080 --> 00:12:29,160 Speaker 1: Former Attorney General Eric Holder faced complaints from Republicans that 215 00:12:29,240 --> 00:12:33,760 Speaker 1: he was too close to President Barack Obama. So how 216 00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:38,080 Speaker 1: strictly is that observed well, And that's exactly the tension 217 00:12:38,120 --> 00:12:40,680 Speaker 1: that you always see in the Department of Justice. The 218 00:12:40,720 --> 00:12:45,160 Speaker 1: Attorney General is obviously a political appointment. It's typically somebody 219 00:12:45,440 --> 00:12:48,840 Speaker 1: who is trusted by the president, and so there's always 220 00:12:48,840 --> 00:12:51,840 Speaker 1: a concern that not only the Attorney General, but those 221 00:12:52,160 --> 00:12:55,880 Speaker 1: that are surrounding the attorney general are political appointees and 222 00:12:55,920 --> 00:12:58,280 Speaker 1: could in some way influence the decisions made by the 223 00:12:58,320 --> 00:13:01,400 Speaker 1: Department of Justice. Most of the men and women who 224 00:13:01,440 --> 00:13:04,559 Speaker 1: serve in the Department of Justice are career prosecutors who 225 00:13:04,640 --> 00:13:08,599 Speaker 1: are not politically active, who don't involve themselves in politics 226 00:13:08,800 --> 00:13:11,480 Speaker 1: in any significant way. In fact, they're barred under the 227 00:13:11,600 --> 00:13:14,240 Speaker 1: law from doing so, and those are the ones who 228 00:13:14,280 --> 00:13:17,000 Speaker 1: make most of the decisions. But when you get these 229 00:13:17,080 --> 00:13:21,320 Speaker 1: very high profile cases, highly politically charged cases, those are 230 00:13:21,360 --> 00:13:23,480 Speaker 1: the types of cases that will ultimately make their way 231 00:13:23,559 --> 00:13:25,640 Speaker 1: up to the highest levels of the Department of Justice. 232 00:13:25,800 --> 00:13:28,200 Speaker 1: And that's when you have to be concerned that outside 233 00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:32,079 Speaker 1: political influences may infect decisions that are being made that 234 00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:36,440 Speaker 1: should be purely an impartial decision based upon the fair 235 00:13:36,480 --> 00:13:40,480 Speaker 1: administration of justice. Thanks Bob that's Robert Man's a partner. 236 00:13:40,520 --> 00:13:43,400 Speaker 1: McCarter in English.