Jack - Tower Of Indignation (feat Joyce Vance)

Episode Date: April 20, 2020

Today on MSW: we have an interview with Joyce Vance, the Roger Stone retrial motion denial ruling, Bill Barr's attempt to make a deal with Australia as he investigates the origins of the Mueller probe, plus updates on Cohen, Stone, and Manafort.

They might be giants that have been on the road for too long. Too long. And they might be giants aren't even sorry. Not even sorry. And audiences like the shows too much. Too much. And now they might be giants that are playing their breakthrough album, Fla-

All of it. And they still have time for other songs. They're fooling around. Who can stop? They might be giants and their liberal rocket gender. Who? No one. Disadvantaged pay for was somebody else's money.

Thanks to Caliper CBD for supporting Mollershy Road, Caliper is the first to provide consistent, convenient, and precise CBD in a water soluble powder. Unlike CBD oils, Caliper CBD powder is completely tasteless and mixes easily in any food or drink. Get 20% off your first order when you use promo code AG at try caliper.com slash AG. And thanks to the Awful Nutri podcast for supporting Mollershi Road. Awful Nutrials are role-playing game podcasts that includes classic D&D, call of Cthulhu episodes, and some kids on bikes, which is an RPG based on Stranger Things. Join myself and several other comics as we

destroy canon and blow off some steam. Find Awful Nutrile wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Scott Dworkin from the Democratic Coalition and you're listening to Mola Sheebrook. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I said. That's obviously what the opposition is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time, a tree,

in that campaign, and I didn't have, and I have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for having nothing to do with Putin? I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening,

I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So it is political, you're a communist! No, Mr. Green, communism is just a red herring, like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist. all members of the oldest profession. I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to Mueller. She wrote, I'm your host, A.G. I am solo today. We are quarantining, sheltering in place, staying at home, etc. Jordan's going to be sending in her remote hot note later in the show. She'll be covering a new story that bar pressed Australia for help on his investigation into the Mueller probe as they worked on freeing hostages and I'll be covering the 81 page ruling of Judge Jackson denying Roger Stone a retrial. It's really nice and I'll also be replaying an interview from Joyce Fance. We did for our other podcast the daily beans about the upcoming Trump tax Supreme Court arguments But before we get to those stories and the headlines, we have a few corrections. It's time to stay.

It's time for me to say I'm sorry. Oh, I made a mistake. Oh. Okay, so from Stephen Harris Scott, A.G. you're the best. I love you so much. I love you too. On Thursday's show, you called the 2000 election riot, the J.C.C.C. riot.

It's actually the Brooks Brothers riot. Huge difference. Got it. Yes, you are correct. It is Brooks Brothers, not J.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C.C at my local university, often a very popular class in non-pandemic times, maybe because of the subtitle from the Black Death to the Walking Dead. Cool, huh? I planned not to teach this fall, but I am now, because obviously. P-S-S, Jordan is so, so funny. All right, well thank you. And on behalf of Jordan, thank you too. That was from Stephen. And from Jared, I truly appreciate listening to you recount

the daily news, and it helps feel that my anger about situations we are currently in. I think on the Thursday show, you mentioned about Treasury Secretary Steve, saying that people could live on $1,200 for 10 weeks. I listened to the gist. And Mike Pesca walked through what he actually said. He was trying to say the $1,200 would provide supplemental income for 10 weeks, but was to be combined with people still being able to work or access unemployment benefits. Just to clarify, keep up the good work. All right, good to know, thank you. And from Richard, you have a wonderful enlightening podcast. Thank you very much. I am a patron. I

recently increased my contribution. Picky, I know, but on the daily beans for Friday, April 17th, you said World War One Museum in Kansas. It is in Kansas City, Missouri. Not Kansas. The museum is a wonderful history lesson for World War I. Thank you for your podcast. I have recommended to many folks. You folks are good. Yes, thank you. It is in Kansas City, Missouri.

That's where I had a health care leadership development. Some sort of thing that I was selected to participate in. We were in Kansas City, Missouri. And that is where World War I Museum is. So those are corrections. If were in Kansas City, Missouri, and that is where the World War One Museum is. So those are corrections. If you have any for either podcast, please head to mullersheyrope.com, click contact, select Corrections from the drop-down menu, and build us a complement sandwich, we'll get it right eventually. And with that, let's get to some of the headlines with just the facts. All right, so let's talk about some of the old school fellas,

Manafort Cohen and Stone O'My. Manafort has asked to be released to House arrest as have Cohen. And Stone says he doesn't want to go to prison at all. He said it would be a death sentence to him. Cohen got his request granted. He is being sent home. He's going to serve out his entire sentence on home arrest. So he will be doing that. No word yet on Manifort and no word on stones request either,

at least as of the time of this recording. No, we'll keep you up to date on that. And of course, apparently Cohen has been writing a tell all book from prison. So, you know, I already agreed that I wasn't gonna give any money to Bolton and buy his book because he was completely useless. And in the entire impeachment inquiry, we really needed his testimony and he's a dick. But I would read Cohen's book. So, I'm looking forward to that. It's gonna be some sort of crazy ass shit. And you know, maybe we'll find out if we went to Prague in the summer of 2016. And a review of the unredacted Mueller report was scheduled for tomorrow by Reggie Walton, but could be delayed

further because of coronavirus considerations. I asked Glenn Kirschner, former DC Federal Prosecutor, did an interview for the Daily Beans episode with him today. And I asked him if he'd heard any updates and he said, no, hasn't heard anything. But, you know, Reggie Walton is a good judge and there will probably definitely be some sort of a minute order update he gave himself the 420 date. And so we expect, at least Glenn expects,

we should hear something, at least one expects. We should hear something at least in by way of a minute order as to what the disposition is of his review. As we know, Reggie Walton had some very choice words in a few different rulings and findings and court documents about Bill Barr's handling of the rollout of the Mueller report, his mischaracterization of the findings that he is unscrupulous and unable to be trusted and he wanted to review the entire unredacted Mueller report to see if those redactions were appropriate. And he has it. It's been handed over. It was handed over March 30th.

It was given over on the deadline that the court ordered and he put off till 420, his in-camera review, and camera means, you know, in private, because I have coronavirus, and obviously that's still a raging thing that's happening, so we will let you know what Reggie Walton says. So keep listening. And the Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the Mazaar's and Deutsche Bank Trump cases. A few days ago, I spoke to Joyce Vance about those upcoming hearings on our sister podcast

The Daily Beans. And since we have time today, I wanted to share that interview with you here on Mullershee Road in case you don't listen to both podcasts. So let's take a listen to that interview. All right, everybody. Welcome back, joining us today to discuss the upcoming rescheduled Trump Tax Returns and Financial Scotus Supreme Court cases is former federal prosecutor and University of Alabama law professor Joyce Vance.

Joyce, thanks for agreeing to speak with me today. Glad to be with you. It's how are you holding up? How's everything at home? Well, you know, we've got four children. Three of them are with us and one is around the corner in his own home. Three dogs and four cats, so I'll just characterize it as lively. Lively, I like it. It's very politically correct of you to say. So, the reason I want to speak to you today, as many have heard,

there are some Supreme Court cases regarding Trump's financials, which include Mazaars, which is an accounting firm of his, and of course Deutsche Bank, we all know what that is. And they have been scheduled for oral arguments on May 12th. They've been rescheduled because they were postponed from their original. I think it was a March 31st hearing date. And I was hoping you could just give us sort of a brief overview of those cases.

Well, here's what's in stake. And it's three cases. They've been consolidated together because they raised similar issues. And the issue is who is entitled to President Trump's tax returns? Can Congress get it under statutes that make it relatively clear that Congress is entitled to obtain tax returns. And similarly, kind of state prosecutor, in this case Manhattan DA Cyrus found who I am not related to, the advance have the ability to get those tax returns for use in a criminal

investigation. So those are the two issues that will be keyed up for the supreme court to decide and what are uh... at just out of curiosity what are the trump administration's arguments uh... just really briefly against why uh... these shouldn't be handed over so you know from far human comes down to this

i'm king and i can do whatever I want and you can't do anything to me. And what we've heard in these cases, particularly as to the Manhattan DA part of the case, is really particularly repugnant to the rule of law. Because Trump has said, not only can you not investigate me, or rather not only can you not prosecute me federal government, you can't even investigate me Congress and state DAs, you guys can't investigate me either.

So it's really unsavable that the president takes this position. In fact, arguably it even keeps investigation from others, not just Trump, but his companies or his family and his work associates. It would keep those investigations from moving forward. All that to say that there is very strong precedent against the position that Trump has taken here. Yeah, and speaking of the precedent, one of the main reasons I wanted to have you on is a lot of our listeners have sort of lost faith in the court because of some things that have

happened between, you know, while this has been postponed, thinking about maybe the Wisconsin voting decision that came down from the Supreme Court. But as you said, these specific cases have pretty clear precedent, don't they? They do. And look, you know, I'm not going to lie to your listeners. The Wisconsin decision, I think, was very difficult to swallow. And it's worth noting that it was a five-four-division decision. And the court split on political lines.

And something that courts prior to the Robert's courts have really sought to do is to avoid those split decisions, to avoid political decisions, to try to find consensus. Sometimes that can be why it takes cases longer to come out, opinions longer to take out, then the litigants would like because the court is searching for a narrow set of facts and legal rules that it can agree upon. That has not been the trend in the Robert's Court, which has had more five-four decisions than any of its predecessors, I think.

So that's a real issue that we face here. The case law is pretty clear. Every lower court, the district and court of appeals to have considered these issues, has ruled that Trump's taxes must be turned over. So here we find ourselves in the Supreme Court with a case that's not very unusual except that it involves a president. Now what happens if they decide either in favor of Trump or they decide on jurisdictional

reasons and I can't remember the word for that but you know that the Supreme Court isn't here to decide this, this must be decided by impeachment or whatever, you know, some other means or et cetera by Congress or a separate branch of government. The group member, because we've had decisions before where they've set, and they've been overturned, but we've had decisions before where they go to the court. This isn't the court's job, you know,

to be the referee between the executive branch and the legislative branches. What happens in those scenarios? Is it over? Does it kick back down to previous decisions? How does that work? Yeah. So you're suggesting the court might duck deciding the issues here, saying that it's a political

question, and that the courts don't interfere in those. I think that that's an unlikely outcome here because this is really just a question about when a subpoena can get enforced. After all, subpoenas were delivered to third parties to try to get copies of the president's tax returns. And so that's really the issue that's at stake. That's not a political issue. That's the sort of legal issue that's clearly just visible in the Supreme Court. In fact, they decided a very similar issue in Clinton v. Jones. And the precedent in that case should dictate that the court here also enforces the Pino. Does any of the Watergate Nixon era precedent play a role in these decisions or possibly are there similarities there?

Well, I think that there is this overriding notion that the president at some point in time is obligated to give up items when they're properly subpoenaed, but remember in these cases, the subpoenaed but remember in these cases this is the news are not president trump there in fact to third party holders of his tax returns so the question is a little bit new walks in that regard right because the argument as well yet to a third party but it's about the president of the united states is tax returns exactly nonetheless the president

when you stack it all up, seems relatively clear, and no court so far has found the contrary. All right. Well, we look forward to those arguments. I think I read that they're going to be recorded or available to the public for listening. Do you know any, do you know that? Answer, I don't know that answer. You know, I do know the answer to that.

They're pooling the Supreme Court normally some period of time after argument. You can get a download of the audio, of course, in federal court proceedings or not videotape. There are no cameras in the court. That's been a subject of some controversy. Here they'll be pooling the feed for the media. And I understand that C-SPAN will actually be airing it, no video just audio. So, you know, maybe we all ought to take a mid-morning coffee break together that day and listen in. I think that would be a wonderful thing to do. I will definitely

be listening to it and can you tell us just timing-wise because I know a lot of people uh... you know this is about the rule of law this isn't political however uh... when in relation to the elections will this decision come out do you think a lot of people speculating it could be october you know hard to say the supreme court decides cases the term that here's them in typically they on mondays will announce their decisions from the bench. The last week, the court that's in session, they often schedule additional days. But with coronavirus and with the shifting of these cases and the moving of dates, and

sort of extending things, I think it's difficult to predict when we're here. The hope, though, is that the court will act expeditiously. These are not difficult issues, and there is no reason to get the country, the clarity that it needs on these issues. And the oral arguments are those usually just a day? Right. It'll just be typically if the court were in session, physically hearing cases, they would hear usually

a number of cases on any given morning with argument by the parties from both sides. Awesome. Well, thank you for for summoning that up for us and for giving us a little insight into. I mean, I still don't think we can imagine what to expect. I still I personally think that this will go in favor of the House. I'm a little less sure about the side-vants situation specifically. I know that there was some discussion about whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony and the statute of limitations and

that's why they were trying to push it through but I don't know we'll see we'll see how it all shakes out at least we'll be able to listen to it on C-SPAN. Absolutely, we'll all be listening together. All right, well thank you, again, for your time. Everybody, follow her on Twitter at Joyce White Vance, MSNBC contributor, former federal prosecutor Joyce. Thanks again for helping clarify these issues. Thank you, stay safe.

All right, we'll be right back with Hot Notes and Jordan. Hey, everybody, it's AG. Today's episode of Moller She Wrote It, brought to you by Caliper. Countless products promise to promote wellness. There's drastic diets, extreme fitness routines, over the top supplement regimens. The list never ends. But who says taking care of yourself needs to be so hard? What's great about CBD is that it helps you feel better naturally without making drastic

changes to your routine. But let's be real. Dropers full of funny tasting tinctures never felt like the best modern science had to offer. In comes caliper, a better way to consume CBD. Caliper believes that everyone deserves to feel better naturally. The drastic changes shouldn't be required. That's why they made a more precise and reliable CBD product that's easier to take than oils.

Caliper CBD are the first to provide consistent, convenient, and precise CBD in a water soluble powder. Unlike CBD oils, caliper CBD is completely tasteless, so you get all the benefits of CBD in a dissolvable powder that mixes easily in any food or drink. I love that Caliper CBD comes in convenient pre-measured packets as well, so I don't have to do any guesswork, and there's no weird grassy flavor, so I can easily integrate it into my daily routine by adding it to my morning coffee or my protein shake. Caliper CBD really helps with stress, it helps me to feel calm, unless sore, and it even helps me sleep easier. Caliper is made with all

natural non-GMO ingredients. No fillers, no added chemicals, or artificial flavors. It works so well because your body absorbs caliper more rapidly than with oils. Caliper gives you all the benefits of CBD in just 15 minutes. That's about twice as fast as CBD oil. When your body is mostly water, oil and water don't mix. It's clinically proven. Your body absorbs 450% more CBD with caliper compared to the tinctures. That is crazy.

Caliper CBD comes in affordable 10 and 30 count packs. You can get started for under 20 bucks. Get 20% off your first order when you use promo code AG at trycaliper.com slash AG. Caliper is so sure you'll love the product. And they even offer a 30-day money back guarantee. So that's try caliper.com slash AG. And don't forget promo code AG for 20% off your first order.

Hot notes. All right, everybody. Welcome back. We now are going to turn to a story about Bill Barr and Australia and hostage negotiation, not hostage negotiations. Is that hostage negotiations? We're negotiating some people who are being held. And she has that for you. Let's take a listen.

Hello and welcome to Jordan's hot note from my kitchen. Hope everyone's doing okay this Sunday, Monday, whenever you're listening to us. My hot note today is centered around the one and only, the horrible attorney general, Bill Barr, everybody. This is reporting coming out of the daily beast. If you have not taken some serious time to go, check out their page and follow and subscribe.

Certainly do that, because they get a bunch of amazing scoops on stories. And people always seem to be willing to talk to the Daily Beast. And they get a lot of really great anonymous insights that I find a lot of, you know, it'll eventually wind up getting picked up by, you know, mainstream news and stuff.

But just a great follow, DailyBeast, DailyBeast.com, the dailybeast.com. Go catch him. But article I'm going to go over today by them is entitled Bar Press, Australia, for help on Mueller review, as DOJ worked to free its hostages. So here we go. Let's jump right into it. Got some some good old-fashioned Molar-centric news amidst all of this COVID craziness, so we'll have a throwback piece here Okay, so essentially what this story is looking at is talks that Bill Barr and his people were having with

Australians about various matters all at the same time. And it looks like some of these matters may have been being used as some sort of leverage for them to get help in other matters, the other matters being looking into the origins of Mueller's Russia investigation, which is something obviously that a DOJ and Trump have been obsessed with. This is Durham's redo investigation because the original findings by the IG weren't good enough and didn't satisfy them enough, even though it was filled with plenty of criticism

for the FBI and how they handled things. And it wasn't enough. So Barr is allocating and you know, that everyone's dedicating many resources that we should not be dedicating to re-investigating and re-investigating the investigation over and over and over again. So what was so basically, like I said,

bar was talking with Australians, trying to get their help looking into the origins of Mueller's Russia investigation. He followed up about the Mueller re-investigation to US officials and a third individual familiar with the matter confirmed all this to the Daily Beast. And this was happening as American and Australian officials were finalizing their plans to try to free a pair of Australian bloggers that were jailed in Iran, according to four sources, including those two US officials and one former US official. The American government were agreeing to help facilitate and put together the release of those bloggers in part by agreeing to pull back from their pursuit of the extradition of in

Iranian scientists held in Australia and apparently just days before these talks happened in September about the before these talks happened in September about the re-investigation of the Mueller investigation, this Trump himself pushed the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to help bar with this inquiry, and this also coincided within official Australian state visit. So like I said, all of these investigations and talks are happening right in the exact same timeline, the discussions between the US and Australia. They raise questions daily, be reports about why the DOJ engaged in a behind the scenes effort to help win the release of those Australian bloggers from Iran,

and whether that request, the president's request to have the country assistant bars Russia inquiry influenced the department's decision-making. So there's a lot to look into here ethics wise, obviously. There's a great quote from Claire Fingleston about this. She's a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania and the director of the Center for Ethics in the Rule of Law. Claire says, this, or I should say,

Dr. Fingleston, which is the best last name ever, she says, the story suggests that the president is continuing to use the authority of his office to pressure foreign leaders into assisting him in covering up Russia's assistance with his 2016 victory. This is the same conduct for which Trump was impeached, and the reporting suggests that he is undeterred. She adds, if the administration engaged in this swap as part of a deal with the Australian government in which it would support Trump's counter-narrative to the Mueller report, then Department officials are actively using US diplomacy to undermine our

US national security interests. So again, another story where this would be more the same, kind of same old same old in terms of them trying to leverage quid pro quo with other countries in terms of getting information that is going to beneficial to one person and one person only and that is Donald Fukken Trump. And I hope to see, I think we all hope to see, in ethics investigation of some kind, into this sort of contact conduct within the DOJ and the State Department. The official press answer, press answer, that's not what that's called, it wasn't a press release, comment, the official comment behalf of the DOJ was as the Australians themselves have stated to suggest a link between those issues and the ongoing Durham investigation is false and unsupported by the facts. So of course that is

what they're saying, just another one of those things that looks like it's sketchy and the question is sketch or not and it looks like it's sketch and it's probably going to be a while if we ever see an investigation into that. And I mean right now it's like there are so many things there's truly a perpetual amount of things to investigate. This is just another one of those but yeah they crusade to try to undermine the molar investigation, which is now pretty much closed up and done with the exceptions of some of the tendrils of that investigation that still continue in other districts and other courts, it's just their Benghazi, right? But even more so because it led to the president of the United States being tried for impeachment. So they will not stop this COVID-19 situation.

I think time is going to tell if their efforts that are in line with what daily beasts is reporting on continued behind the scenes. During this time, the news is obviously entirely inundated and saturated with COVID-19 news, you know, kind of as I think it should be, and that makes sense. But who knows what they've been doing right now as every, you know, America's attention has been placed on what is you know really a Inhuman force. I have to wonder if they're still continuing back channel sort of lines of communication and And if they're trying to take this as an opportunity to make a bunch of progress quote-unquote on those fronts just in, you know, investigating the investigators or whatever bullshit Giuliani is up to, can you only imagine what the hell he's up to? It cannot be good. It cannot be good. He's

not self-quarantining in his bat cave as he should be. You know he's out flying around probably doing some crazy shit. And I'm literally flying because you're not supposed to be. Who knows? I don't know where the fuck Juliani is right now actually. If anybody has any leads as to his whereabouts, I'm curious just to know what he's doing, what he's up to. But I digress. My point is over email at the very least. I'd be very surprised to know if there's not still a bunch of sketchy shenanigans going on in terms of this whole investigating investigators. And that's just a little bit of a throwback piece for you,

everybody. Don't forget, they're still all of the crime that they had laid their roots down to continue to cover up and continue to perpetuate throughout this administration's end with the hopes of Trump getting reelected in 2020 and hoping to hit the ground running. I'm sure with all of those plans, as soon as COVID-19 relents in any way that allows them to go into the next phases of their sketchy plans, but there's still really evil people

at the helm of this administration that are planning to keep being evil. So keep an eye out, we'll keep an eye out, obviously. Thank you, Daily Beast, for your continued awesome scoops and for the credibility that you can lend with your reporting and the people that talk to you. It's always really awesome reading your pieces. Go check them out at dailybeast.com. And that has been my hot note to everybody. Hope you're having a great Sunday and you are off to a great week, considering stay

strong, stay inside, stay healthy. I love you all. All right. Have a good day. Bye. All right. Welcome back. My hot note is all about Amy Berman, Judge Jackson of your nasty,

and her wonderful 81-page ruling on Roger Stone's motion for a retrial. If you remember, he was mad that one of the jurors, the four person, was biased against him and he filed a motion to have a brand new trial and that the old findings should be dismissed and She says no first of all I I encourage you to read Read the ruling it's really well written Very thorough first thing she does is goes over the series of events, you know the trial and What led to it and then how what the verdict was and the sentencing and then the hearing they had a hearing about where they questioned some of the jurors even though she judge Jackson didn't have to have that hearing but she did she had two of them and

spoke to some of the jurors including the four person About the concerns that Roger Stone's legal team had. She was just covering all of her bases, I'm sure. So after she goes over the series of events, she says it's important to emphasize that the question before the court is not whether the defense would have taken a different approach toward the juror

if it had seen the posts earlier. The trial is over and a verdict, which was based largely on the defendant's own texts and emails, and was, Ampli supported by this undisputed evidence, has been returned. At this point, it is incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate that the juror lied, and that a truthful answer would have supplied grounds for the court to strike her for cause. Also, a defendant seeking a neutral must establish that the information presented in the motion could not have been discovered earlier, through exercise through the exercise of due diligence. And only, if those criteria are met, would one then even assess whether a lack of newly discovered evidence affected the conviction. Judge Jackson continued to say that the social media posts weren't even about Roger Stone,

the ones that they're complaining about, and that the social media posts would have been easily discovered with that due diligence that she mentioned. If Stone's lawyers had just Googled this four person or even during jury selection, they could have seen it. Um, she, uh, Judge Jackson says, quote, the assumption underlying the motion that one can infer from the juror's opinions about the president that she could not fairly consider the evidence against the defendant. That is not supported by any facts or data and is contrary to controlling legal precedent.

The motion is a tower of indignation, but at the end of the day, there is little of substance holding it up. Therefore, the request for a new trial will be denied based on the facts and the case law set out in detail in the body of this opinion, and which are summarized briefly here. And then, on the second reason for retrial, quote, as for the second basis for the motion for a new trial, which is jurorumist conduct, the defendant contends that the juror did not comply with the court's instructions because her social media posts reveal that during a period between the completion of the questionnaire and the verdict, she was aware of some new developments in the news concerning the president or politics,

but there was no prohibition against reading or discussing news in general or even news about the president in this case. The jurors were told to turn away from any public publicity concerning the case, and for that reason the defense conceded at the hearing that the juror did not transmit any posts during the trial in violation of the court's instructions not transmit any posts during the trial in violation of the court's instructions not to communicate about the case. So Judge Jackson then goes on through the procedural history, including jury selection. Then she includes the questionnaire of the juror in question, the proper transmission of the questionnaire to counsel.

She has a whole section on that. She has the process that the lawyers had to go through to request to strike jurors and she has the subsequent hearing and the questioning of the jurors and then she has the trial itself. She talks about that and then post-vertic activity. She goes through all of that and that is the bulk of this ruling. And then she breaks down the case law and the criteria for the new trial. So the criteria needed for the new trial, she breaks that down and then it cites all the case law. And then her response is to Stone's failure to meet those criteria.

She discusses that and that even the case law that Stone's lawyers cited in their emotion do not apply and she goes through every single detail as to why there are erroneous case citations and do not apply in this particular case as far as meeting the criteria to even begin to assess if a retrial is necessary. And she goes into how with just a few clicks of a mouse, the stone team could have found these posts during jury selection and did not. Nor did they bring them up in the motions to strike jurors. Therefore, they don't meet the criteria that says that you have to prove that this juror lied and that due diligence was followed. It wasn't.

They could have looked this up. And then she concludes with after she says, after consideration of the content of the questionnaire in its entirety, the four persons statements and demeanor during Voir Dyer, the posts in defendant's composite exhibit and the testimony adduced at the February 25th hearing. The court finds that the four person did not answer questions falsely on the questionnaire or during Wardire, and she did not engage in misconduct during the trial, and the defendant did not use diligence to discover the information present in his own motion. Therefore, the court concludes in its discretion that the defense has not presented grounds for a new trial under Rule 33, nor has it supplied any reason to believe that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice.

And for these reasons, the motion, docket number 313, will be denied. And I love that they put denied in all caps. I think that's my favorite part of all of that. So that's what's going on with the stone retrial. He's been ordered to present himself sometime after the next 14 days to serve his 40 months. Of course, as I said, he's filed a thing saying, you can't send me to jail. It's a death sentence. I'm assuming that just like Cohen that stone and man of fort Will probably be given the option not the option, but the I suppose they'll be allowed to serve their sentences from home confinement And and to be honest, I mean, I know people might be upset about that. And there are reasons to be upset.

And the reasons are the, you know, that justice might not be applied equally in this case. Is every person who's in jail being given the option to submit a motion to serve the rest of their prison sentence at home and are those being granted? Probably not. It's a very high profile cases, and I assume because they're high profile cases, that these will be considered pretty readily and probably decided in favor of home arrest.

So you can put some beans on Manifort and Stone being able to serve. I think Stone's got 40 months. Although seven to nine years was recommended, if you remember, by the newly installed US attorney there in DC. And of course, as we know, Bill Barr intervened, the Department of Justice wrote a second summary sentencing recommendation saying, it should be far less than that but didn't really specifically say it was written very poorly. And while that sentencing was not argued in court by the Department of Justice, that second sentencing recommendation,

Stone only got 40 months. So that was a downward departure from what was recommended in the original sentencing recommendation from the probation office of Seven and nine years and of course it would have been fewer years than that But it did get bumped up because of the actual threats there's like a like a Rocker on there that bumps it up points you get extra points if you were like physically threatening and he did it up points, you get extra points if you were like physically threatening. And he did a credit code if you remember and his dog. So seven to nine years, got 40 months. I do think you can put beans on the fact that he will be allowed to serve those 40 months

from his home on home confinement. Now, I think that should be applied equally to everyone. Except, you know, obviously, maybe violent criminals. I mean, I'm sure there's a lot of lines to be drawn, but I mean, that's not always the way. And, you know, had this not been a high profile, rich white duty, probably would be somewhere

in between seven and nine years, just like was recommended by the Department of Justice. And this wasn't just some arbitrary recommendation. There are rules for making sentencing recommendations for prosecutors, and they followed these rules. And this particular Department of Justice, when Jeff Sessions got there, said, hey, we're going to make it so you have to recommend when you're a prosecutor you got to recommend the maximum a sentence and guidelines and under previous administrations usually Democratic administrations they they have the prosecutors recommend the minimum and during republican administrations they have them recommend the maximum that's been the pattern and

in this case the prosecutors did recommend the maximum. The new guy, Trump's guy there, the bar put in, one of the bars friends put in in DC, who took over for Jesse Liu, who was screwed out of her job. Remember, they offered her a job over at, well, you get a year ago, they offered her a job at Department of Justice, number three at the DOJ, and she turned it down to stay as a US attorney in District of Columbia. And then was offered a job in the Treasury and said, you got to hurry up and go to the Treasury. And then so when she left to go be at work at the Treasury, then they withdrew her nomination to work at the Treasury. And so she was out of a job. But the guy who replaced her,

signed off on the 7 to 9-year-sensing recommendation. And so I think we all remember this pretty well, but I just wanted to give you a little bit of a refresher so that you sort of knew where I was coming from on that. But those are of the hot notes, and that is our show today. It's a short show as things are going right now. We're losing some advertisers advertisers and so that is why and I just wanted to let you know, everything is good, everything is fine.

And we'll keep bringing you the news, we'll keep bringing you the molar news. And if you have any corrections, like we said at the top of the show, just go to mullershearote.com and select contact, pull corrections down from the dropdown and send away, and we'll get it right. And thank you for sending those

and your compliments and which is awesome, by the way. That's it, that's the show. Everybody, please take care of yourselves and take care of each other. I've been AG, and this is Mullershierote. ["Mullershierote"] Mullershierote is executive produced and directed by A.G. and Jordan Coburn with engineering and editing by Mackenzie Mazal and Starburn's industries. Our marketing manager, production and social media direction is by Amanda Reader, fact-checking

your research by A.G., Jordan Coburn and Amanda Reader, and our knowledgeable listeners. Our web design and branding are by Joao Reader with Moxie Design Studios and our website is molochhirope.com Hi, I'm Harry Littman, host of Talking Feds. A round table that brings together prominent figures from government law and journalism for a dynamic discussion of the most important topics of the day. Each Monday, I'm joined by a slate of Feds favorites and new voices to break down the headlines and give the insider's view of what's going on in Washington and beyond. Plus, Sidebar is explaining important legal concepts read by your favorite celebrities.

Find Talking Feds wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-O-W-Media. The S-O-W Media.