Text
Phone

Videos

Child Porn Case Dismissed

Written by Tom Church on . Posted in TV Appearances.

Transcript:

Erin Coleman: News at 6:00 p.m. Federal prosecutors have dropped child porn charges against a former local middle school teacher. Investigative reporter Aaron Diamant is live at the federal courthouse downtown, and Arron, you spoke exclusively with that man now working to repair his reputation.

Aaron: And this is where, until recently, William Kimbrell of Covington was scheduled to stand trial on those child porn charges. Prosecutors recently dropped those charges after his lawyer dug up new evidence, who now has a warning for anyone who uses so-called peer-to-peer software to search for things online.

William: I’ve worked hard to build my reputation over the years, and you know, in just a matter of minutes, it was simply destroyed.

Aaron: Federal child pornography charges blew up William Kimbrell’s life early last year.

William: I had no idea what was going on, and I immediately felt that it could be a mistake.

Aaron: But, this indictment followed by a scathing press release from the U.S. Attorney’s office claimed that analysis of Kimbrell’s home computer found remnants of files on the computer and was able to determine that Kimbrell had accessed child pornography on the internet from October to December 2013, which includes the period that he was working as a teacher. Kimbrell quickly resigned from the Barrow County School system, but always maintained his innocence.

William: I didn’t do this. I’ve never done anything like this, and I never will. It’s just not who I am, and anybody that knows me, knows that.

Aaron: Recently, just days before trial, federal prosecutors suddenly dropped all charges.

Page: I think it’s the second time I’ve had this happen in twenty years.

Aaron: Attorney Page Pate told us his client doesn’t deny using peer-to-peer software to access legal adult content and music files online, as for those so-called file remnants on Kimbrell’s computer that got the feds attention.

Page: It is entirely possible, we’ve seen this in other cases, where you’ll be searching for something legal, and you’ll get something illegal. And at that point, you can’t just delete it off the computer. It doesn’t go away.

Aaron: And one cyber-security expert told us today that amateur users should steer clear of these peer-to-peer sites for a long list of security and safety reasons. Meantime, the U.S. Attorney’s office here in Atlanta declined our request for a comment on this story. We’re live in downtown Atlanta tonight. Aaron Diamant. Channel Two Action News.

George Zimmerman Trial Analysis

Written by Tom Church on . Posted in TV Appearances.

Transcript:

Wolf: Page, first of all, what was your bottom line assessment on this, the final day of arguments?

Page: Well, it was a long day for the jury and I’m not at all surprised they were ready to go home at 6:00. I think the lawyers did a great job. I think the state, the prosecution had to try to bring in motion back into this case. They certainly tried to do that. Mr. Guy’s rebuttal closing argument was fantastic. For the first time in a long time, the jury was asked to step in to the shoes of Trayvon Martin. You know, up to this point in the trial, everybody’s been focused on what was George Zimmerman thinking. Where was he, what was he doing? I think it was important for the state to remind the jury that we’re here because Trayvon Martin is dead. I think that was very effective.

Wolf: Page, were the lies significant?

Page: Not necessarily. But many times, the jury will look at a potential witness, a defendant, and believe that if they lied about little things, their minor inconsistencies, then maybe they’re lying about the big stuff, too. And I think the state had to do this. I mean, this is the whole reason they put Mr. Zimmerman’s prior statements into evidence. And that was, I think, a mistake, because then, the defense did not have to call him. I think if you’re attacking Zimmerman’s credibility, it would have been much more effective if you are cross-examining him at trial. But at this point, all they can do is reference those statements and try to get the jury to think, “Look, if he’s inconsistent about some minor things, then you can’t believe any of his story and that’s not the way it went down.

Wolf: I’m gonna have our legal analysts all stand by. We have much more to assess in this Zimmerman trial. It wrapped up today. The jury began three and a half hours of deliberations. They’re gonna resume deliberations tomorrow morning, 9 a.m. Eastern.

Let’s bring back our experts, our legal analysts Sunny Hostin and the criminal defense attorney Page Pate. Page, what do you think about this relationship between the attorneys on both sides and the judge?

Page: In this case, I really think the relationship has been fairly good. They’ve all been professional. You know, I think we can expect a certain amount of stress to go along with almost any criminal trial, especially one like this, where everyone in the world is literally watching. So it’s a fine line. The judge has to keep things moving along and I certainly think she’s done that in this case, but also be fair. Let both parties present their case and give them every opportunity that they need within the law and I think she’s done that.

Wolf: You know, it’s interesting, Page. We did some checking. Amount of time in major cases, high-profile cases, recent ones, the juries deliberated before they reached a decision. In the Jodi Arias trial, the jury took nearly 15 hours, guilty of first-degree murder. Casey Anthony trial, the jury took more than 10 hours, acquitted of first-degree murder. Back in 1995, in the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury took less than four hours, acquitted of two counts of murder. The longer… Is there a rule of thumb among lawyers, criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, the longer a jury deliberates, the more or the less likely of acquittal or a guilty verdict?

Page: You know, that’s a great question. I’ve been trying criminal cases now for 20 years and I can’t figure it out. You know, I’ve had juries come back and find my clients not guilty and they’ve done it very quickly. Then I’ve had jurors come back or basically stay out days, stay out longer than the trial lasted. You know, what it does indicate to me, though, is they’re spending a lot of time with the case. In my experience, talking to jurors after a trial is over with, you normally find that they want to do their job and they want to do it the right way. I think that’s why they ask for their inventory list. They’re gonna go through this stuff. They’re gonna be methodical. They know everybody’s watching them. They know Trayvon Martin’s family has been in the courtroom every day. This case matters. It matters to them, it matters to the parties, the lawyers. So they’re gonna take their time, but I don’t think how long they stay out is really indicative of their ultimate verdict.

Wolf: Yeah, I think you’re right.

Search Warrants for Cohen

Search Warrants for Cohen

Written by Tom Church on . Posted in Federal Crimes, TV Appearances.

TRANSCRIPT:

Don: Sources tell CNN President Trump is furious about the FBI raid on his attorney and they say no one wants him to do anything when he’s this angry. But what will all this mean for the investigation? I wanna bring in now, CNN legal analyst Page Pate and Areva Martin, also, Areva is the, I should tell you, the author of the bestseller, “Make it Rain.” Defense attorney Joe Tacopina is here, as well. Good evening, thank you all for joining us. Joe, a source tells CNN that the raid on president Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, was, quote, “Mostly related to Stormy Daniels.” And that the warrant also mentioned election laws. The coverage of the Stormy Daniels scandal took so much heat for so long, and now here we are, right?

Joe: You know, I mean, Don, I really called this a month ago because when Michael Cohen went out there and pronounced that he paid the $130,000 to Stormy Daniels and Trump knew nothing about it, then, of course, his client confirmed that last week on Air Force One, it sealed the deal. This day was coming because what they just both admitted that this was a fraud. That the agreement…forget the agreement, that’s null and void and that’s fraudulent because you cannot bind the client. As a lawyer, when the client doesn’t know you’re binding him, you can’t pay money on the client’s behalf without the client knowing it. That’s from the validity of the agreement standpoint. But now what you do is you now tread into campaign finance laws and that territory because this could be looked at as an in-kind contribution at the time of the election. This is a real problem and I’m telling you, this is the reason right here, I strongly believe is, because of the words of both Michael Cohen and Donald Trump.

Don: Wow. Page Pate, it’s also being reported that Cohen is under investigation for possible bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign finance violations, what does that tell you about this investigation?

Joe: All could be related to the same transaction.

Don: Page.

Page: Well, Don, I think this goes way beyond Stormy Daniels. I mean, we can speculate as to why he would be considered for a bank fraud charge, I guess it’s possible that the source of the funds he says he got this off of his, you know, it’s a second mortgage or home equity line. What did he tell the lender that he was using this money for? Suddenly not to pay off a porn star. So maybe there was a false statement in connection with those bank applications, perhaps there are campaign finance violations. But I can’t believe that we would see a search warrant, multiple search warrants being executed on a lawyer’s office and hotel room based upon a possible campaign finance violation. I mean, these are extraordinarily rare, you have to go through so many obstacles to get a search warrant like this before you execute it that I’ve gotta believe it’s something more than Stormy Daniels, and something more than maybe an in-kind contribution.

Don: Areva, what do you think?

Areva: Well, we’ve been listening to…I’ve been listening to the reporting all day, Don, and the reporting is that there is likely a lot more than just the transaction involving Stormy Daniels that the special counsel’s office and perhaps the FBI have been, you know, watching this and watching Michael Cohen. And this is not something that just happened overnight, that this is the result of perhaps weeks and weeks of investigation involving him, and just as Page said, to get a magistrate to sign off on these search warrants, one commentator today said, “This is a subpoena on steroids.” And, you know, just to give your audience some sense of how difficult this is, the attorney-client privilege is what’s at stake here, so when the FBI goes in and gets all of this information, these bank records, these documents from Michael Cohen’s office, they have to be concerned about that, and there’re actually two teams that are going to be involved in looking at this material to make sure that any information that’s given over to these investigators doesn’t violate that attorney-client privilege. And I wanna note that Paul Manafort is the only other person where we’ve seen search warrants, you know, knocks on the doors from the FBI, you know, documents seized from the private residence of someone that’s the subject of the investigation and 96 days after that search warrant, indictments filed against Paul Manafort. So this doesn’t look good for Michael Cohen.

Don: Page, what did you wanna say?

Joe: And Don, understand this, understand this. The way this has to go…this has nothing to do with Bob Mueller, I’ve really seen statements where White House and Trump are attacking Mueller. Mueller at this point has to consult with the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who works for Trump, by the way. And once there is something that could be outside of his jurisdiction, which this would be if it’s not directly related to Russia, he has to consult with the deputy attorney general, the deputy attorney general then decides. Do I send this to the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, another counsel, or keep it within the Special Counsel, Bob Mueller? Here he sent it outside, but then what has to happen is they have to go to a special unit in the Justice Department, because a lawyer is involved, and you have confidential documents, you have attorney-client documents and communications. So a tag team that gets appointed, and a special unit in the Justice Department has to approve this warrant. This went so high up and has nothing to do with Bob Mueller or Democrats or whatever else he wants. This is the Justice Department, how it works every single day of the week, but for some reason, the president cannot cope with that and I heard him refer to this as a break-in today, a break-in like a burglary or something like that. This is the Justice Department and what chills me as a lawyer, forget about being a defense lawyer or a former prosecutor as I am, is that our president is attacking the foundation of our justice system in this country by calling into question the FBI, the Justice Department, his own attorney general, every judge who ever rules against him. It’s just unhealthy for the sort of the health of this justice system.

Don: Every time something doesn’t go his way or he feels that someone is somehow wrong to him, he attacks them and even if it’s people he appointed, Page, Stormy Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti spoke to Anderson Cooper just a short time ago about Cohen’s situation. Watch this.

Michael: This is a very, very serious matter, needless to say, and as I predicted last week, it appears that the noose is tightening around Michael Cohen. I think the president has considerable reason to be concerned, a lot of faith and confidence has been put in Michael Cohen, I think the expectation was that he was gonna be the fall guy.

But make no mistake about it. There’s gonna be a lot of sleepless nights at the White House from here on out.

Don: …agree? Is Cohen in a lot of trouble, Page?

Page: I think Cohen has to be in a lot of trouble. You don’t execute a search warrant like this, multiple search warrants like this without a solid foundation. What I would love to see is the affidavit supporting these search warrants, the statement made by the agents to establish enough probable cause to get a judge to sign off on this warrant. It’s not a witch hunt, it’s not a fishing expedition, they have identified probable cause…

Don: Hey, Page.

Page: Yes.

Don: Let me play what the president said about that, then I’m gonna let you finish your statement. Let’s play what he said.

Donald: The attorney general made a terrible mistake when he did this and when he recused himself, or he should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself and we would have put a different attorney general in. And so he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country. But you’ll figure that out.

Don: But again, that has nothing to do with Cohen, what he was referring to. But anyway, go on, Page.

Page: Well, one thing that was important about that clip, you heard he said, that President Trump said that Sessions made a mistake and then he referred back to not recusing himself. I think in this situation given the fact that main Justice probably knew about these search warrants before they were executed that Sessions had an opportunity to step in and stop this just like the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and no one did. So what does that tell you that’s in this affidavit? What evidence is it that they have pinpointed that Michael Cohen has access to that will prove evidence of some crime? I cannot wait to see what’s in that affidavit because I think it’s gonna shock us all.

Don: Whoa.

Areva: Don, I wanna say, too. You know, Michael Cohen made this bed that he’s now being forced to lie in. All the hubris around being the fixer and, you know, talking about his, you know, the job that he did for Donald Trump that went far beyond that that a lawyer does for a client. And that’s going to come back, I think, and cause serious harm for him because any of those documents or any of those records that were seized today, those documents that don’t relate to him performing services as an attorney for Donald Trump. And we know that he often served as his business adviser, his political adviser, he wasn’t always acting as Donald Trump’s attorney. And there won’t be any confidentiality, there won’t be any attorney-client with respect to any of those documents. So I think Michael Cohen and Donald Trump…I can’t emphasize enough how much they have made their own beds in this situation and been their worst enemies in terms of the rhetoric that they’ve spewed throughout this entire case with Stormy Daniels.

Don: Joe, I want you to hold that thought because Page Pate said that he can’t wait to see what’s in that affidavit. My question to you is, are we ever going to get to see it? I want you to answer it, though, on the other side of the break. We’ll be right back.

Page Pate, Areva Martin, and Joe Tacopina are back with me. So are we gonna see the affidavit? Joe Tacopina?

Joe: Well, the only way we’re gonna see the affidavit is if, unfortunately, for Michael Cohen, is if he gets charged with something and there’s what they call discovery. Or if another individual gets charged based on the fruits, so to speak, the evidence uncovered in the search warrant today. I mean, someone has to get charged. Most likely someone would have to get charged for these documents to ever see the light of day because they’re sealed, they’re not public records at this point. If someone’s charged because of it, the warrant and the affirmation inside the warrant, whatever the agent has sworn out to then becomes subject to challenge, so that’s when we’ll get to see.

Don: Okay. So Stormy Daniels’ attorney says that he will release a composite sketch of a man who allegedly threatened the adult film actress back in 2011. Here’s what he told CNN earlier today.

Michael: We’re gonna be releasing that tomorrow along with a significant reward asking that the public come forward. We are very close to identifying this individual, there is significant evidence that this actually happened. We’re gonna release that in the coming weeks and I’m also confident that when we release this sketch tomorrow and when we offer this sizable reward, someone is gonna come forward and is going to tighten the noose, if you will, on this issue.

Don: Okay, so Areva, I wanna ask you what you make of that move from Stormy Daniels’ attorney. But just to…he was on Anderson later on this evening and he said they weren’t expecting this whole Michael Cohen thing to come about, so it may be in the next 48 hours instead of tomorrow that they’re gonna release it. But what do you think of this move?

Areva: Yeah, Don. You know, earlier today when I was going to come on, we were gonna be talking about, you know, Avenatti’s attempt to depose and his motion to the federal court asking again for an opportunity to depose Trump and Michael Cohen and then we got news of, you know, the search warrant and it just took the news in a different direction. This individual that Stormy Daniels said threatened her, we have no reason to believe that she’s not credible with respect to the threat, we don’t have any evidence to date, though, to suggest that this person was in any way affiliated with Michael Cohen or Donald Trump. We know Michael Cohen has denied being involved in any way, you know, in terms of threatening Stormy Daniels or her daughter that was in the car at the time that it allegedly happened. So it’s gonna be interesting to see if someone does identify this individual and if they can connect the dots between this individual and anyone in the Trump, you know, team, Donald Trump himself, or Michael Cohen, or any other lawyer, or agent of the lawyers. That’s gonna be something we’ll have to see. Right now, no evidence to suggest there was any connection, but I’m glad they are releasing it because if this person this did threaten Stormy Daniels and her daughter, of course, this person should be brought to justice.

Don: Okay, so this is Josh Campbell, you know, Josh Campbell was a former special supervisory agent for the FBI. He’s now a contributor here on CNN. And this is one of his tweets, he said, “This tonight from a former FBI colleague: ‘I’ve been an FBI special agent for 20 years and I’ve only seen a handful of searches executed on attorneys. All of those attorneys went to prison.'” What do you think of that, Page?

Page: Don, that’s consistent with my experience. I’ve been involved with two, where I represented lawyers and yes, in both of those cases, the lawyers were prosecuted. Again, we’ve been talking about it all night, it’s been reported all day. This is truly an extraordinary situation to get a search warrant executed on a lawyer’s office, not to mention the president’s personal lawyer, but any lawyer representing Joe Blow, you have to jump through so many different hoops to get that, that there must be specific credible evidence that, number one, a crime has been committed and number two, you’re going to find evidence of that crime at the attorney’s office. So, again, I’m hopeful that at some point, whether it’s as a result of criminal charges or simply after the investigation has concluded, the affidavit will be unsealed and the American people will know what types of allegations and evidence they actually have relating to this situation because it must be significant.

Don: Yes. So listen, this is the Michael Cohen part of the investigation, which is the Southern District of New York. On the Russian investigation, the president has really had a hard time rebuilding his legal team since his former attorney, John Dowd resigned, that was back in March. And then just after that was announced, Joe diGenova was coming on board, conflicts kept him from joining. Do you think the news of the raid on Michael Cohen, you think it’s gonna make it harder, Joe, for him to rebuild his team?

Joe: No, I mean, look, again, Page said it right, I said it before, it’s an extraordinary circumstance when a lawyer’s office is raided. There has to be something in there that’s real, not just speculation. I think lawyers understand, real lawyers understand where there’s the line and how not to cross…

Don: Talk to me about that, what do you mean? Tell me.

Joe: Well, because there are certain things you can do when representing a client and you have to act within the boundaries, obviously, of the law, but also within the boundaries of the canons of ethics. And you have to understand, you have to know the canons of ethics and know the law that affect when we represent someone. So you can’t go out there publicly and say, “I did something that’s a violation of canons of ethics,” like say, “I bound my client with a settlement agreement, I paid the money myself and I never let him know about it.” I mean, he actually said that publicly, which any lawyer understands is a violation of the canons of ethics and possibly even a crime because they have bank fraud allegations involved here. I don’t think it’s gonna scare a real lawyer away, I mean, real lawyers who understand what their roles and responsibilities are, where the line is, how to fight vigorously, how to fight strongly for a client as I do, we all do every single day, but you also know you do within the boundaries of the canons of ethics.

Areva: Don, I disagree with Joe.

Don: Go ahead: Areva.

Areva: We’ve been hearing reports for the last couple of months about all the big, you know, Washington lawyers, the big New York lawyers are staying away from Donald Trump, that he’s tried to hire multiple lawyers…

Joe: No, no, Areva. You’re right, but, no, no, the question from Don… Yeah, but the question from Don, “Is the Michael Cohen raid gonna scare lawyers away?” I think that’s a different question.

Areva: Joe, let me finish…

Joe: I don’t think there’s a lot lawyers who wanna represent Donald Trump.

Areva: Joe, you said what you said what you said and I’m disagreeing with you. I think it’s going make it very difficult…

Joe: Yeah, but I’m correcting you because you’re not understanding what I said.

Areva: You can’t correct me. I disagree with you.

Don: All right, mommy and daddy are fighting, it’s uncomfortable, but go on.

Areva: I disagree with you that I think is going to make it very difficult for Trump to hire a lawyer and definitely a high-caliber lawyer. And we’ve seen it’s been very difficult for him to do so for multiple reasons, not just what happened today with respect to Michael Cohen, but Donald Trump as a client, he’s a very difficult client, he doesn’t follow the instructions of his lawyers. He talks when he shouldn’t be talking, he tweets when he shouldn’t be tweeting, and he’s the worst client to have for any lawyer, whether you’re a quote, unquote, “real lawyer” or not. So I think this does make it…

Joe: I agree.

Areva: …just all the more difficult for him to hire the kind of high-caliber lawyer that you would need to handle the kind of legal trouble that he finds himself in.

Don: Finally some agreement, Page. So listen, Page, Michael Cohen, though, is one of the president’s closest confidants, he’s his attorney, but is also a friend, a confidant. Now he is tied up in this investigation himself, what does that mean that Trump and Cohen…does it mean that they can’t discuss matters related to Stormy Daniels without it being potentially an obstruction of justice?

Page: “Potentially” is the big word there, Don. And that’s a very good point, I mean, you have to be extraordinarily careful now when you’re talking to a subject of the investigation who’s had a search warrant executed on his office, had documents taken, will likely be approached and interviewed again perhaps by someone in the United States Attorney’s office. So if the president or anyone acting on his behalf suggests that Michael Cohen get rid of some documents, not provide some documents that may not have been seized or in any way tries to influence his testimony or cooperation with the government, yes, that could be a possible charge of obstruction completely separate from the Russian investigation.

Don: This is Monday, what is Tuesday gonna bring? I mean, what is Friday gonna bring? My goodness, these weeks are so long.

Page: Well, Don, that’s the problem because we don’t know what to expect from this president. What we saw today from this president concerns me more than the investigation, because he is unhinged. And Joe is right, a good lawyer would not put himself in the situation where he’s both a friend and a legal counsel to someone like the president in these situations. But Areva is also right, who wants to represent this guy who’s gonna go out there and give this long, just completely uncoached narrative in front of the media about his thoughts on an ongoing investigation? Difficult client, difficult circumstance.

Don: When he’s supposed to be talking about a chemical weapons attack in Syria, which is of the utmost importance and very serious. Thank you, guys, I appreciate your time.

Page: Thank you.

Should President Trump agree to be interviewed by the Special Counsel?

Written by Page Pate on . Posted in Legal Analysis.

Transcript:

Brooke: More breaking news. We’re following, today, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee says it is time to subpoena former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and to enforce the subpoena of the former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. Talking about Congressman Adam Schiff, he wants to compel both of these men to testify in this house intel investigation into Russian election medaling. Lewandowski reportedly informing Schiff that he will not voluntarily return to appear before his committee. So, let’s talk it all over with CNN legal analyst Page Pate. He’s also a criminal defense and constitutional attorney. Page Pate, nice to see you.

Page: Good to see you, Brooke.

Brooke: So, just your reaction to Bannon trying to save what he has to say for Mueller and Schiff basically saying, you know, not so fast. What happens if Bannon and Lewandowski resist?

Page: Well, that’s a great question because we’re now seeing the congressional investigations play out in many ways the way we’ve seen some of the Special Counsel’s investigation play out because subpoenas will now be served, and presumably, enforced on these witnesses if they do not come to terms and voluntarily appear in front of these committees and produce whatever documents are being requested. Now, once the subpoena is served, the lawyers for Bannon…they can file an objection to that and it would eventually go to court for a resolution as to whether or not they actually have to appear and provide whatever documents are being requested.

Brooke: Okay. That’s those two guys. Let’s talk about the president because the latest, you know, sort of, strand on the story of will he…won’t he talk to, you know, Bob Mueller or Mueller’s team, the Special Counsel when they ask. They haven’t yet. You know, his lawyers are trying to avoid that potentially. But, to me, what’s being overlooked here is the rationale to why Trump wants to talk to him. From our reporting, Page, it’s because the president thinks he is a master at these sorts of things because of his experience with lawsuits and the fact that he has been in so may depositions.

Page: Brooke, I have represented many people, high-level executives, political figures, never the president, but many people who were targets of a criminal investigation or a subject of a criminal investigation. And they think if they just had the chance, they could go in there and explain it all to the investigators. They could talk themselves out of being charged. That makes absolutely no sense, especially in a case like this. This is not the beginning of the investigation where the Special Counsel’s Office is simply trying to gather facts. They already have a lot of facts. The purpose for interviewing the president is to confront him with those facts. The missing link here in an obstruction investigation is the intent of the president. And the only way the Special Counsel’s Office really gets to that intent is to interview the president. So, there’s absolutely no legal reason for doing it. Any lawyer worth his salt or her salt would never let the president go into an interview like that.

Brooke: So, you talked about all your different kinds of clients who thought that they could go in and talk themselves out of it. And in this case, we’re talking about the president. What do you think it…is it hubris?

Page: I think it is. Absolutely. Because what are you gonna do? Convince the Special Counsel’s Office that they’re wrong about whatever conclusions they’ve made? We don’t know what conclusions they’ve made, but they have absolutely reviewed a lot of evidence. They know things that the president, presumably, does not know about what other witnesses like Michael Flynn may have said during his cooperation with the Special Counsel. So, you don’t go into an interview and think you can have a man to man showdown when you don’t know what the other side has. There’s just a no-win scenario here for the president by going into a meeting like that.

Brooke: Okay. Let me play one piece of sound. This is from Congressman Trey Gowdy. He is blaming the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, for what he sees as Bob Mueller’s overreach.

Trey: I have fear that jurisdiction may wander a bit. I think it already has. It’s already wandered a little bit, but I would not blame Bob Mueller. I would blame whoever drafted the jurisdiction in the charter that empowered him. And if you look at it, it says matters that may arise from the investigation. What in the heck does that mean? I mean, is that a bank robbery in Topeka, Kansas?

Woman: And that language came from Rob Rosenstein?

Trey: Yes, ma’am.

Brooke: So, what’s the root of the message there, Page? Is that just, again, another example of trying to get out ahead and weaken the Mueller investigation?

Page: I think so, Brooke, because now if there’s an obstruction charge or a money laundering charge or something that arises out of the investigation but is not directly related to the Russia part of the investigation, then you may have Trump and some of his supporters in the White House and in Congress saying, “Wait a minute, this was something the Special Counsel was not even supposed to look at.” And because his direction was so poorly drafted and vague, he was able to, as representative Gowdy said, wander into these areas. But Brooke, that’s necessary for an investigation like this. We don’t know what evidence the Special Counsel is going to uncover during the investigation until the investigation is over. So, you have to give the Special Counsel some leeway to pursue those leads. And there’s always a check, always a check by a deputy attorney general who can say, “No. Don’t go there.”

Brooke: Page Pate, thank you so much.

Page: Thank you, Brooke.

Elements of Obstruction of Justice

Written by Tom Church on . Posted in TV Appearances.

Transcript:

Fredricka: Joining me right now, CNN Legal Analyst, Michael Zeldin, Robert Mueller’s former Special Assistant at the Department of Justice. Good to see you. And here in Atlanta with me, CNN Legal Analyst and Defense Attorney Page Pate. Good to see you as well. All right, so Michael, let me begin with you. So, a second special counsel to investigate the DOJ, FBI. Necessary?

Michael: Well, I don’t think it falls within the purview of the regulations. I don’t understand why, if there’s anything that needs to be investigated here, the Justice Department can’t investigate it itself. But, beyond that, there is an Inspector General report that is being undertaken, and I think that it would behoove all of us to wait to see what the Inspector General says about the communication that Struck had during this campaign to see whether it’s actionable in the first place, and if it is actionable, whether or not it can be handled properly by the DOJ, or whether it needs to go outside the DOJ. So, I think Senator Graham is a bit premature in his call for a second special counsel.

Fredricka: All right, Page, I saw you nodding. Apparently, you’re in agreement with that?

Page: Yeah, I think the Office of Inspector General should look at this first. I mean, we’ve got to stop thinking about the Justice Department as a tool in the political arsenal. This is supposed to be mostly, I understand it’s in the executive branch, but independent as far as criminal investigations. Because if we’re going to have any credibility in what the Department of Justice does, we have to believe that it’s free from political influence and…

Fredricka: And disciplinary action was taken. I mean, he was removed once the discovery was made. You know, meantime you’ve got, you know, Senator Graham, along with Senate Judiciary Chairman, Chuck Grassley, also referring the author of that infamous Russian dossier, Christopher Steele, now, to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution over potential false statements. And now, yet another type of investigation. Does that kind of muddy the water or is there real credence there?

Page: I mean, I don’t know. Based on what we’ve seen reported, I don’t think there’s evidence of a crime that was committed there. But again, if we’re diverting Department of Justice resources, basically on a political witchhunt or an attempt to be proactive and to go on the offense instead of being on the defense, then we’re misusing the Department of Justice. We’re misusing the prosecutors, the agents, who are there to protect us and investigate legitimate crimes.

Fredricka: So Michael, how do you see this, and which is it, the White House sending a message that the DOJ can be trusted or that it can’t be trusted?

Michael: Well, it’s clearly sending a mixed message. The earlier reporting today in the New York Times, that the White House Counsel, the communications guy Spicer, and Chief of State Priebus, all going over to speak to Sessions to implore him not to follow what the law requires him to have done, which is to have recused himself, which he did properly…

Fredricka: For a conflict of interest?

Michael : …right, speaks to pressure that Page is talking about that really doesn’t belong in the criminal justice system because it undermines the integrity of that system. So, when you have Grassley and Graham sending a referral to the FBI, the first and only referral, being that of the author of the Steele…

Fredricka: Dossier.

Michael: …dossier, it just creates all sorts of appearances that make this appear to be political. And that, I think, is really troublesome.

Fredricka: And then, today, you have a White House Advisor, Stephen Miller, on with Jake Tapper earlier today, trying to downplay the report in the New York Times about a draft letter that Bob Mueller and his team have, which makes the inference that, you know, the White House had a direct hand in the firing of James Comey and a connection to the Russian investigation, etc. So Miller tried to make the case that the Russian Investigation had nothing to do with the firing of Comey, contradicting the President’s own words when he was talking to NBC. Here’s a recollection of that interview.

Stephen: The final draft of the letter has the same line about the fact that there is a Trump-Russia investigation that this has nothing to do with.

President Trump: I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, “You know? This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.”

Fredricka: Okay, so, Page, the President has said he’d be willing to talk to Bob Muller. So, whether it would be under oath or not, that makes a difference, that he said on the record, in an interview, one thing, and now his folks are trying to say something else.

Page: Fred, I don’t know that they realize what they’re doing here. I mean, let’s go back up for a second. There’s nothing wrong with the President interfering with an investigation in the Department of Justice. He’s the Chief Executive, the Justice Department is under the Executive. He can decide that an investigation needs to stop, one needs to start. Technically, that’s his job. The question about obstruction, the issue that the Special Counsel’s office is looking at, is did he act with corrupt intent? Was he trying to protect himself, his family members, his business interests? So, while a President does have influence over the Justice Department, that’s the way the Constitution is designed, our separation of powers, he cannot act with an improper influence. So, the different statements…

Fredricka: So, when the President said, just last week, “I can do whatever I want with the Justice Department”, you’re saying?

Page: Not so. Not when he acts with a corrupt intent, when it’s more about him than about the country. So, all of these misstatements, all these inconsistent statements, they’re not on the same page. That can be evidence of that corrupt intent.

Fredricka: All right, Michael, last word on that?

Michael: Well, I think that the putting together of an obstruction of justice case is a complicated process with lots of little pieces of a mosaic that have to be added together. I don’t yet think that we are there, but when you see things like deconstruction by Stephen Miller, or the ordering of McGahn to go speak to Sessions about a recusal that the law requires him to do, all those things get to be factored into the process. And Mueller will have to figure out whether or not it rises to the level of an indictable offense or an impeachable referral. I don’t see it yet, but they are not helping themselves in any way, shape, or form in the way they’ve been proceeding with this investigation, which should be, “Let it go, let’s be quiet, and we’ll see what happens.”

Fredricka: And of course, this is assessing all the stuff that’s public.

Michael: Right.

Page: Right.

Fredricka: Stuff that’s not so public?

Michael: That’s exactly right.

Fredricka: We don’t know.

Michael: We don’t know.

Page: We don’t know everything.

Michael: That’s right. We don’t know what Mueller knows.

Fredricka: All right, Michael Zeldin, Page Pate, thanks to both of you, appreciate it.

Page: Thank you.

Michael: Okay.

Fredricka: We’ll be right…

Awards

Top 40 Under 40
Best Lawyers
Thomas Church
Rated by Super Lawyers


loading ...