Judge Refuses to Bow to Pressure in Roger Stone Case

motion for a new trial. Stone will be sentenced for a lying to Congress and witness tampering on Thursday, as scheduled. President Trump is now calling for the Stone case to be thrown out and continues to make comments about two of the highest profile prosecutions during his administration. I think Roger Stone has been treated unfairly. I think General Flynn has been treated very unfairly. I think a lot of

people have been treated very unfairly. My guest his former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Group. Federal Judge Amy Irman Jackson said, there's been a lot of work that's gone into the sentencing. It makes sense to proceed on Thursday. Does that give you any indication that she's not going to be swayed by any of the commentary. Yeah, I think that's safe. You know, she

could have I mean, it's a distraction. She could have really called the a g and on the carpet and d O J because they went from seven to nine years basically saying judges, do whatever you like, We've got no positions. A huge sea change, and you know, she could have really called him in as an equal branch of government. But it's basically going to ignore that, and it's just gonna sentence the defendant probably as she was going to do before, because it's only a recommendation by

the government. So Jeff. Last week, the judge rejected Stone's request for a new trial based on bias of one of the jurors who worked for the I R S. But Stones' lawyers have submitted another request for a new trial based on bias of the jury four person. How

does it judge determine whether there is bias? Well, you mean, you can look at biases to a person's actions, and some of that the defense lawyers knew, I mean, they knew this four person and she's come out ran for Congress as a Democrat and maybe say some anti Trump things, so they didn't know some of that. If there were other things out there that they didn't know, but that the four person misled them or lied on the questionnaire or her answers, that's a valid argument to make to

to get a new trial. It's still a long shot, but if that's the case, then there is an argument there there were some specific questions, you know, related to Trump bias or Stone bias. If the judge found she lied on those, does that automatically give him a new trial or are there other considerations. It's not automatic. It

really is up to the judge's discretion. And even if the district court judge denies it, you know, have a pretty good appellate argument because there's nothing more basic and a jury trial than to make sure the jury can be fair and impartial. And if a journ Again we're just using hypothetical here, but if a juror lied in order to get on that jury, and the law pertained to a bias against someone related to the defendant, in other words, it wasn't a bias against Stone. That's important

to keep mind. It's a bias against Trump. Now Stone is a connection to Trump, so who knows if that would be transferable. So it's definitely not a slam dunk argument. Slam dunk argument if this person had a bias against the actual defendant and then lied about it. That's not the case here. But obviously, as we know, the connection between Trump and Stone is very tight. So you know, it's a district court argument. If it's denied, it's certainly an appellate court argument, and it can keep him out

of jail during the pendency of that appeal. The lawyers in this case not only could have challenged her for bias, but also if they didn't like the fact that she had run as a Democrat for something, they could have knocked off the jury with a peremptory Yeah. Correct. There's two kinds of strikes you can make, you know, strike for cause, in other words, a juror doesn't understand English.

That's a prerequisite really to understand the testimony. Is it's as it's coming in, or has a several criminal convictions, or couldn't be fair to one side or another. Um. These are strikes for cause and they're basically unlimited. UM. Then there's preemptory challenges, which each side has a certain number and can use for any legitimate reason. And by legitimate, I mean they can't strike somebody because they're white. You can't strike somebody because they're Hispanic. Uh. You know there's

certain things you cannot strike somebody for. Other than that you can literally say I don't like the way they look to me. That's fine. You have a certain number of pre emptory challenges. So the defense could have stricken made an argument to strike her for cause, but that's probably not gonna you know, being a Democrat and running for Congress is not for cause. But they could have

used their preemptory challenges they chose not to. Generally do, defense lawyers and maybe even prosecutors do an examination of the social media history of potential jurors. It depends on the case as a As a prosecut here, you're really run it too often. I mean, you have the FBIHID disposible. You're not doing FBI background check on people. But in today's day at age, you're a Google search away from finding out things about a juror that the questionnaire or

the judges questions may not cover. And now that I've left d O J and in the consulting world. On large cases, we do work with lawyers to really, uh, you know, look at certain jurors and their social media profile because that can be revealing. So it's certainly an option available to both sides. Right now, let's turn out to the situation at the d o J. Were you part of the group of prosecutors who signed this letter

asking for bars resignation? You know, I was not actually sent in a what I thought could be a couple of edits, and I never heard back, So I just like let that one live. Figured, you know, my name on there is not It is not going to persuade anyone. It seems to be growing though the number. One day I heard a thousand, and the next day I heard two thousand, two thousand. I got four emails to asking me to sign, as I'm sure a lot of former

prosecutors did. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Group, about the continuing turmoil at the Justice Department and the upcoming sentencing of long time Trump friend Roger Stone. So, Jeff as we're talking about more than two thousand prosecutors signed this open letter. Asking a g bar to resign. What effect does that have? Letters?

You know, during the Trump era, we've had a lot of letters from prosecutors and former prosecutors asking for different things. Does it make any impact? The short answer is no. But um, you know he's not a g bar is not leaving because it's a clamor by X A, U S A S for him to leave. Um. But it's uh, it's it's a shot across the bow. It's telling and I think it's telling not just to a G BARRS.

I think he's a lost cause at this point, but to the line assistants at Main Justice and the U. S. Attorney's Office, by their former colleagues, that matters because someday they're all going to be you know, former not all, but n there going to be former d J people. UM. And it's saying that there's people out there that's sat where you sat, UM, that did the job that you're doing. UM, and you know, expressing support for the four prosecutors who

left that case and basically saying, as the letter appropriately did. Look, if you're confronted with this kind of issue, you need to stand up and say something. It's it's really unprecedented, and we use that word a lot right now, um, but never before has the Attorney General decided to pick and choose a case to put his finger on. I mean, there are thousands and thousands of cases going on right now where d J is making recommendation, and I don't think the AG is really get involved in too many

drug cases in Chicago or Miami or l A right now. However, Roger Stoney made a point to get involved in that's absurd. The Michael Flynn sentencing is another example. And a few weeks ago the Justice Department changed its position and on the Michael Flynn sentencing went from opposing probation to not opposing probation. So now, in addition to that, there's this investigation by an outside council. Tell us about that and

how unusual that is. It's so usual. I think there's several investigations of prosecutors by either sitting prosecutors in different districts, how the cases were handled. That's never been done before.

You know, there's an Inspector General who can look at certain things, but never before has there been in a a picture of the room of one prosecutor basically interrogating another prosecutor, both being we're both working for d J with you know, the goal being apparently with the a G. Bars jappetto here trying to dig up something to show that the initial cases be at Flynn or Stone or whatever it might be. UM had some had some problems with it. Well,

if that's the case, you've got an inspector general. They're going to be criminal charges brought by current by current U S attorneys against other assistant U S attorneys. I don't know, so this is really no one's done that before. It's highly highly unusual isn't even the word for it. But again, these are self selecting things that the AG is doing. He's not doing this and drug, gun or public corruption cases anywhere in the country unless the defendant

is connected to Trump. That is the only common thread through these cases. So it doesn't matter who you voted for in two thousand and sixteen. This is just inappropriate. It just is. And the a G was on TV last week making protestations about his independence, and it was said that his that his remarks were to calm any kind of mutiny within the Department of Justice. But if he continues with these kinds of interrogations and investigations. Does

that cancel out whatever else he's doing. Yeah, I think he failed in his attempt to kind of quell as the rank and file. Having said that, you know, the ninety four U. S. Attorney's officers are going on, there's work being done today. They don't have much respect for the a G. They think is a hack, but they're doing their job as they should. But his comments basically imploring the president to stop tweeting because he's making his

job harder. I think that was revealed for what it is, which is, look, I'll do the work for you, just don't bring attention to what I'm doing. So he's still moving forward and you have to just step back. I mean a G. Bar had had a very good reputation before he came back to d o J. Is very successful in the private practice. Query why he felt compelled to come back to d o J to blow up the institution that he proclaims loyalty to. It's just shocking

that he wanted this to be his second act. If the public perception of d o j's independence is diminished, how difficult is it to reinstate that independence? Yeah, it's hard and any prosecutor will tell you it doesn't matter whether it's federal or state. You're not only just your reputation, but when you peer before the court who you represent um is huge, whether it's before a judge or a jury. And while the line assistants aren't, you know, taking heat

for this necessarily, the DJ certainly is look suspect. But more importantly, the public needs to have confidence that any law enforcement again does not matter federal, state, county, doesn't matter, is calling balls and strikes fairly. These are the people that have guns. These are the people that can put you behind bars. These are people that can have search warrants of your house, your bank accounts, or anything else.

With that kind of almost unfettered power, we have to have confidence that those people are using their judgment and their resources fairly. If that confidence wanes, it really is a bedrock principle of this country, and a g bar is just not doing the criminal justice system or this

country any favors. Here's another probably unprecedented event. The Federal Judges Association, citing growing concerns about the Department of Justice Bill Barr, President Trump when the intervention of politically sensitive cases call for an emergency meeting on the Roger Stone case. They thought that they had to meet before their next meeting, which is in April. They couldn't wait until April. What can the judges do? Well, interesting, the judiciary, you know,

are not armed, unlike the executive branch. They can't you know, they can't go out and do search warrants or handcuff anybody. They really just have the respect of the public. And that's why nine Justice and Supreme Court when they make edicts,

we all follow it. So the judiciary can issue letters or say things, and maybe as a result of this, that branch of the government will issue a letter of report, you know something, which is all they can do, um basically exclaiming their discomfort or whatever euphemisms they want to use, but basically standing up. We saw the second branch of government, the legislative branch, fold like a cheap suit with respect

to the impeachment proceedings. So we've got one more branch of government to count on, maybe just to count to uh the executive branch, which is getting a little too powerful. We'll see what they do, but at most they can do is some sort of well written letter. Suppose the judge gives Roger Stone a new trial. Is it a possibility that the Justice Department under William Barr says, you know, we're not going to prosecute him on that anymore. Is

it a possibility. Absolutely, And that's the moment you will see people leaving d O J And I don't want to say in droves, I don't want to overexaggerate it, but people will leave because that's just a little too blatant, even for someone as smart as a g bar. Thanks Jeff. That's Jeffrey Kramer, managing director of the Berkeley Research Proof