SOME FORM. EITHER LYING TO FEDERAL
INVESTIGATORS OR LYING TO
LAWMAKERS.
LAWMAKERS. WITH ME NOW IS GLENN KERSHNER,
FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, NOW
NBC LEGAL ANALYST.
WAS IN THE COURTROOM FOR MUCH OF
THE TRIAL.
THE TRIAL. AND BEN WITTES IS BACK.
ALSO, AN NBC LEGAL ANALYST.
SO, GLENN, YOU’VE BEEN THERE
FOR -- WERE YOU SURPRISED BY
THIS VERDICT?
THIS VERDICT? >> NOT AT ALL.
>> SLAM DUNK, HUH?
>> FROM THE MOMENT I SAW THE
PROSECUTORS GIVE THEIR OPENING
STATEMENT AND THEY PROMISED THE
JURY THAT THEY WOULD PROVE THE
CASE LARGELY BY SHOWING THE JURY
E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES FROM
ROGER STONE PROVING THAT HE LIED
TO CONGRESS.
TO CONGRESS. I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE A VERY
STRONG CASE ON THE EVIDENCE.
SURE ENOUGH, THE JURY REALLY
DIDN’T DELIBERATE FOR MUCH MORE
THAN A DAY BEFORE BANGING HIM
OUT ON ALL SEVEN FELONY COUNTS.
>> WHAT’D YOU MAKE OF THE
DEFENDANT?
DEFENDANT? IT DIDN’T SEEM LIKE THEY PUT UP
MUCH OF ONE?
>> WHAT DEFENSE?
>> WHY?
>> WHY? >> THE DEFENSE WAS, YOU KNOW
WHAT, WHAT’S LITTLE LIE TO
CONGRESS?
CONGRESS? IT’S NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
>> WHY DID THEY MAKE THAT THEIR
DEFENSE?
DEFENSE? >> BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T HAVE
ANYTHING ELSE.
ANYTHING ELSE. I THINK YOU COULD’VE GOTTEN THE
BEST LEGAL TEAM AROUND, NOT
SAYING THESE FOLKS WERE NOT
PARTICULARLY STRONG.
PARTICULARLY STRONG. IT WOULDN’T HAVE MATTERED.
WHEN YOU SAY IN YOUR E-MAILS
THINGS THAT SQUARELY CONTRADICT
WHAT YOU TOLD CONGRESS UNDER
OATH, YOUR DEFENSE HAS TO BE,
WELL, I WAS LYING IN MY E-MAILS
AND MY TEXT MESSAGE LGS TOS TO A
FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES ABOUT MY
LIFE.
LIFE. AND WHEN I TOLD CONGRESS I DON’T
KNOW NOTHING ABOUT NOTHING, THAT
WAS THE TRUTH.
I MEAN, THAT DOG IS NOT GONNA
HUNT.
HUNT. >> SO, BEN, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
FOR THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION?
AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE I KNOW
IT’S TECHNICALLY CLOSED.
AND YET, TWO PEOPLE THAT MAY
KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ESSENTIALLY
GOT AWAY WITH LYING TO MUELLER
AND GOT AWAY AND MUELLER -- WE
DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH
WIKILEAKS.
WIKILEAKS. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED
WITH THESE OLIGARCHS BECAUSE
MANAFORT AND STONE SUCCESSFULLY
THWARTED THIS INVESTIGATION.
>> CORRECT.
>> CORRECT. YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT AN
ATYPICAL OUTCOME IN A FEDERAL
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THAT
PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, SUCK IT UP AND
DO THEIR TIME RATHER THAN TURN
AROUND AND COOPERATE.
AND, YOU KNOW, NEITHER PAUL
MANAFORT WITH WHOM THE MUELLER
TEAM DID HAVE A COOPERATION
AGREEMENT THAT DIDN’T WORK OUT
SO WELL FOR THEM.
NOR ROGER STONE, WHO IS A, YOU
KNOW, LIAR UNDER JUST ABOUT ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES
CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES ISN’T ESPECIALLY
GOOD WITNESS OR COOPERATOR.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> SO, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK
THERE’S BIG OPEN QUESTIONS AT
THE END OF THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT’S A FAIRLY
TYPICAL THING IN A MAJOR FEDERAL
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. YOU GO AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO AND
THAT’S AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO.
>> I -- I -- IS IT, THOUGH?
I MEAN, DID THEY SHUT THIS DOWN
TOO SOON?
TOO SOON? BECAUSE I -- IT -- IT SEEMS TO
ME, NUMBER ONE, THEY NEVER
FINISHED THE WIKILEAKS
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. UNLESS -- UNLESS THERE’S A BUNCH
OF STUFF WE DON’T KNOW AND
THEY’RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT
THEY’RE GOING TO DO WITH
ASSANGE.
ASSANGE. BUT IT FEELS LIKE TO ME THEY’VE
NEVER SUCCESSFULLY FINISHED THAT
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. THAT’S NUMBER ONE.
AND -- AND WE STILL DON’T KNOW
WHAT THE ROLE WAS, WHICH WAS THE
RUSSIAN BUSINESS PARTNER OF
MANAFORT’S.
MANAFORT’S. THAT WHOLE EPISODE.
IT -- IT’S SORT OF LIKE -- IT’S
LIKE YOU WATCHED -- BINGED SOME
SEASON AND THEY LEFT THESE TWO
QUESTIONS UNANSWERED THAT MIGHT
ACTUALLY CHANGE THE ENTIRE
OUTCOME OF THE -- OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. >> AND LOOK, IT WOULD BE A VERY
DIFFERENT PICTURE IF WE HAD
CUSTODY OF CONSTANTINE.
BUT LAST I CHECKED, HE WAS
COMFORTABLY IN MOSCOW.
AND JULIAN ASSANGE, WHO IS IN
CUSTODY, IS AT THIS POINT NOT IN
OUR CUSTODY.
OUR CUSTODY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO
FINISH THIS INVESTIGATION AND
SATISFY YOURSELF THAT YOU KNOW
EVERYTHING THESE GUYS KNOW, YOU
GOT TO GET THEM.
>> WHAT’S A LIKELY SENTENCE HERE
FOR STONE THAT’S REALISTIC?
>> SO YOU KNOW THE STATUTORY MAX
IS 50 YEARS.
NOBODY GETS THE STATUTORY MAX
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FEDERAL
SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
SENTENCING GUIDELINES. MY GUESS, CHUCK, IS HIS NUMBERS
ONCE THEY DO A BACKGROUND
INVESTIGATION AND A PRE-SENTENCE
REPORT WILL BE SOMEWHERE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF BETWEEN FIVE AND
TEN YEARS.
TEN YEARS. BUT ONE OTHER THING I WOULD DO
IF I WAS THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS
CASE.
CASE. NOW THAT STONE IS CONVICTED, I
WOULD STEP BACK TO HIM.
I’VE DONE IT MANY TIMES AS A
PROSECUTOR.
PROSECUTOR. I WOULD GET SOMEBODY CONVICTED
IF THEY WOULDN’T COME ON BOARD
UP FRONT AND I REALLY NEEDED
THEM.
THEM. I’D GO BACK TO THEM.
I’D SAY, HOW ABOUT NOW, SPORT?
NOW, YOU’RE FACING A WHOLE LOT
OF TIME.
OF TIME. >> DOESN’T HE WANT TO BET ON THE
PARDON?
PARDON? >> HE MAY BUT WE CAN’T ADJUST
OURSELVES AS PROSECUTORS BY, YOU
KNOW, SPECULATING THAT HE MIGHT
GET A PARDON.
SO WHAT I WOULD DO IS STEP BACK
TO HIM.
TO HIM. HE WOULD STILL GET AN
OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOME CREDIT
AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
HE IS A HORRIBLY INCREDIBLE
WITNESS SO WE MAY NEVER PUT HIM
ON THE STAND BUT ALL THE INTEL
THE PROSECUTORS COULD GET ABOUT
WHAT HE KNOWS OVER THE LAST 40
YEARS ABOUT TRUMP’S CRIMES,
INCLUDING STATE CRIMES IN NEW
YORK.
YORK. THAT COULD BE REALLY VALUABLE.
>> SPEAKING OF NEW YORK, LET’S
TURN TO RUDY GIULIANI.
WHO MAY BE YET ANOTHER ONE.
WE -- WE KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION.
IT -- IT LOOKS TO ME WHERE HE’S
MOST VULNERABLE, BEN, IS ON THIS
ISSUE OF NOT -- BASICALLY DOING
FOREIGN LOBBYING WITHOUT TELLING
THE GOVERNMENT.
THE GOVERNMENT. >> SO THAT’S ONE AREA.
BUT ANOTHER AREA IS THE
SUBSTANTIVE ACTIVITY THAT FRUMAN
AND -- AND PARNAS WERE ENGAGED
IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, IT JUST
DOESN’T SMELL ALTOGETHER KOSHER
AND THIS WAS --
>> THEY MAY BE COOPERATING.
WE DON’T KNOW IF BOTH OF THEM
ARE BUT AT LEAST ONE MAY BE
COOPERATING.
COOPERATING. >> WE’RE STILL IN THE VERY EARLY
STAGES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
BRINGING THE FORCE OF ITS
COERCIVE PRESSURES ON THEM.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE LIKELIHOOD
THAT ONE OR BOTH OF THEM ENDS UP
IN A COOPERATIVE POSTURE IS
NOT -- NOT TRIVIAL.
AND I THINK GIULIANI WOULD BE
VERY WELL-ADVISED TO KEEP HIS
MOUTH SHUT AND GET SOME VERY
GOOD REPRESENTATION.
GOOD REPRESENTATION. >> DO YOU EVER INVESTIGATE A
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY?
YOU EVER BEEN STUCK HAVING TO DO
THAT?
THAT? >> THAT’S A NEW -- THAT’S A NEW
ONE ON ME AND I’VE PROSECUTED
RICO CASES BUT NEVER ONE LIKE
THAT.
THAT. >> IS THIS ONE OF THOSE -- I’M
TOUGHER ON PEOPLE WHO I THINK
KNOW BETTER IN MY OWN HEAD.
I KNOW I DO THAT.
IS THIS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE
RUDY, HE’S GOING TO GET --
IT’S -- HE IS GOING TO GET THE
TOUGHEST TYPE OF PROSECUTION
BECAUSE PROSECUTORS LIKE OF ALL
PEOPLE TO DO THIS TO US.
OR IS THAT HOW IT WORKS?
OR COULD HE HAVE SOME FRIENDLIES
OVER THERE?
OVER THERE? >> IT’S TOUGH TO FIGURE OUT.
FIRST OF ALL, HOW RUDY IS GOING
TO PLAY IT BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT
WE’VE SEEN AND PARTICULARLY IF
PARNAS FLIPS, RUDY HAS GOT TO BE
LOOKING AT HANDCUFFS SOMETIME
SOON.
SOON. AND THEN HE’S GOT TO DECIDE.
>> RUDY, ROGER, PAUL.
MAN, ALL IN JAIL.
>> AND, CHUCK, WHAT DOES HE DO?
AS A FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, DOES
HE WANT TO RUN THE RISK OF
ENDING UP IN THE BUREAU OF
PRISONS WHERE HE WILL NOT FIND A
LOT OF FRIENDS IN THE INMATE
POPULATION.
POPULATION. AND OF COURSE --
>> YOU THINK HE HAS TO REALLY
WORRY ABOUT PRISON TIME?
>> I DO.
>> I DO. I DO.
I DO. GIVEN WHAT WE SEE HIM DOING NOW
IN AT LEAST COORDINATION, MAYBE
COLLUSION AND MAYBE CONSPIRACY
WITH THE PARNAS’S AND THE
FRUMANS OF THE WORLD, THIS LOOKS
LIKE IT COULD GET REALLY
EXCITING FOR RUDY GIULIANI.
>> THE -- THE LINE OF PEOPLE
SEEKING PARDONS FROM PRESIDENT
TRUMP’S GETTING LONGER.
WHAT -- IS THERE ANY DEFENSE
MECHANISM HERE FOR DEMOCRATS OR
FOR THE PROSECUTORS HERE?
>> THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFENSE
MECHANISM.
MECHANISM. THE PRESIDENT HAS THE ABSOLUTE
AUTHORITY TO PARDON ANYBODY HE
WANTS EXCEPT MAYBE HIMSELF AND
EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE ONLY DEFENSE YOU HAVE IS THE
VERY CLEAR STATEMENT THAT THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL
REGARD A SELF-INTERESTED PARDON
OF PAUL MANAFORT OR ROGER STONE
AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.