More and more people are trading full time, jobs for the flexibility of the freelance life, and that means a fresh expiring, talent ready to be hired. How will you find it effect you x, you, I designer tech, support or greater answer. Is upwards give up work as the world's work marketplace for finding great talent. It's basically a team leaders dream connect with the of independent talent. Fine exciting new collaborations and higher very specific role. You ve been looking to fail.

Your team on the world's work marketplace up work, dot, com, advertising, weak New York returns this October eighteenth, twenty first with a hybrid educational and entertaining experience, join great minds from brands, agencies, tech and media companies for four days of inspiration live from Hudson yards or stream all sessions from home in on your schedule, with alive podcast, recording of New York, magazines, Pivot C M, o keener presentations, fiery debates and interactive workshops on the latest trends. You won't want to miss this a dummy New York for tickets are more information. Gonna advertising we gotta come from CAFE and W N Y see studios. Welcome to a special episode of stay tuned

Preet Bharara. It's ten, a dot m, I'm at Nyu LAW school. You may hear some noise in the background. I would have done the special episode on Friday, but I was traveling to Chicago. So my first reaction to the Flynn Guilty plea Was I thought there would be more pages because of all the news whirling around with respect to what Flint had done with the folks from Russia? some of the allegations that were reported about his interactions with the government of Turkey, his failure to register as a foreign agent, the same kind of thing that Paul metaphor has been charged with so I kind of expected like a lot of other people. It may be a lot of you that he would be charged with more things so

There has been a lot of discussion and hypotheses hiding about what it means that Michael Flynn was charged and plug guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI. So let me say first off the bat. I think there are basically three options for what microphones guilty plea on Friday means, and the first is the one that most people think is true and I hate to say it for some of you, but I don't know that. I fully agree with that, and the first possibility is that Michael Flynn got a sweetheart deal and even though he only plead guilty to the one crime bomb, could charge him with a lot more things, including far violations obstruction and who knows what else and the reasoning goes and speculation goes. He got a pass on all of those other crimes because he has information that

so valuable and he so willing to be cooperative that the special council offers decided to give him that pass, and his information is valuable enough to be used against other people up the food chain, perhaps even against the President of the United States himself. The second possibility is that this is really all the Mahler team. Has there been some people speculating about that and he hasn't been able to prove or doesn't find it reasonable. Equitable were just to charge him with anything else and in the third possibility. Is that what you see is only the beginning and that Michael Flint his pledge guilty to this one charge, but the Mullah team is either holding back on other charges to which Michael Flynn will plead guilty if and when they form the basis for charging some other folks. So let me take those

civilities one of the time, the first. The idea that Michael Flynn has gotten the sweetheart deal of a lifetime. I don't know that. I believe that and let me just take a step backwards and explain why I say that in my office, the southern district of New York, we had a practice in a policy. We thought for good reason of making sure when we had evidence against somebody in wanted them to flip. We made them plead guilty to every back. That they had ever done, especially if we were later gonna be alleging. Other people had engaged in an activity as well, and we did it. I think, for a few reasons, one it's the right thing to do so that the bad conduct of the person you flipped would be laid out before the sentencing judge, so that that judge would know the full range of conduct- and you know, impose a sentence appropriately, taking into account, of course, the cooperation and substantial assistance that had been provided to them.

Another reason is strategic or tactical, and that is if you're gonna have a witness whose cooperating with the government later having to testify about other people's bag conduct that he participated in. You want you witness to have pledge guilty to that, because otherwise the only thing that the jury will know for a fact about your witness, as is the case with Michael Flynn, is a he isn't admitted convicted liar and so you're standing in court, asking Michael Flynn hypothetically to testify against Jarred Kirshner for crimes of Michael flung himself has engaged in its the better practice as a matter of trials strategy and trying to get ultimate justice. In any case, to have your own. Witness has taken responsibility for the same conduct that you're trying to put someone else in prison, for that is the way it usually operates. That's the way you usually get the conviction.

That's the way I think. Ultimately, justice is done owing to qualify that by saying that not every prosecutor's office functions that way, and there are times I suppose, when someone has such extraordinary information that I suppose hypothetically you would give that kind of deal. I'm not sure that a small idea, I'm not sure, that's a fair idea in that's why I tend not to think it's the case that they just wipe the slate clean with Michael Flynn, and they thought that he was guilty of all these other things, but are giving him a complete pass on it. I just don't buy it. I think that the Mahler team operates more in the tradition of of the classical way that I described so that leads to the second option. The second theory, you might be surprised to hear me, say: there's a decent reason for thinking

That's all that mother has at this point by nature of eliminating option one if you proceedings against somebody, even if your proceeding quickly you ve gotta, usually want to do all of it at once, and so, if they had this other evidence against Michael Flynn, you would expect it to be in the paperwork that we saw on Friday, and so, even though lots and lots of people, because I don't like Donald Trump or for other reasons, are hyper ventilating about the possibility. Michael Flynn being chargeable with all sorts of other crimes. Remember neither you nor I have investigated case. Neither you nor I have innovative way. It is neither you nor I have looked at all the precedence of all the statutes, and it may be that the multi, his look at all those things and decided. You know what. This is what we have right now. We want to make sure that Michael and takes responsibility for the one clear crime that we can prove and to which he is prepared to plead guilty in exchange for

his cooperation and testimony and other matters, and that might be it so people need to really consider the possibility that this might be it, but there is a third possibility and in a small informal survey of very smart people that I spoke to a weekend who used to be in this business also is an option that some people favour, and that is it is the case option one that Michael Flynn has gotten a swede ideal of a lifetime. It's not the case option two that the Mahler team a dead end and is, and is not able to charge of everything else, but the third option is. It may be the case that Michael Flint understands that for now he was expected to plead guilty to the most easily provable,

There is a challenge which is a tenuous e thousand one violation lying to the FBI and, as the team begins to uncover evidence and build a case against other people, whether that's chaired cushioning or the president, I say himself or other folks. They may be reluctant to have Michael Flynn at this point in time, plead guilty in a way that suggests the guilt of other people, because its premature because are not yet to pull the trigger because is not yet clear that they will ever be in a position to charge those other people. Ordinarily, in cases that I oversaw particular public corruption, any concerned about this public taint that would come to pass against these other people prematurely. What you do is you have the presently guilty under seal now. I'm not sure why that didn't happen in the microphone case. Maybe this to continue the hypothetical stringing along of this idea that they thought it would get

because her leaks and it's hard to tempt down on all information coming out of this and other than do that they're taking one step at a time, and so, although I don't recall too many cases where you had phases of guilty plea on the part of a cooperating witness because of the union, nature of the circumstances here and the tremendous amount of collateral damage that could occur with respect to other people. That's a possibility. So, as I see it, those are the three options in every one that I know whose really smart, who actually was in the business of doing this work, doesn't think it's option one either. Meanwhile, everyone ASEAN Tv seem to think it

someone. I could be wrong, but I really don't see, option one and only the two long, so just a couple more good points and then I'll see that on Thursday point one, the Logan ACT even hearing a lot about Logan. I can a lot of you We are hopeful that there could be a charge under Logan. What is the Logan ACT, as I'm sure you ve heard by now? It's a seventeen ninety nine statute that essentially bars private citizens from interfering with diplomatic relations between the? U S.

When governments- and there has been some discussion on what about whether Michael Flynn engage in a violation of Logan acted couple. Things remember about the Logan ACT. Are these one? The Logan ACT has never successfully been prosecuted even has been in the books since the eighteenth century, too. It's kind of a non statute, and there are a lot of folks who think it's sort of unusual to have this kind of abroad. Ban that the main criticisms of Logan ACT are. First, people have raise an objection. Two prosecution under the Logan ACT based on a first amendment, theory that you should be able to say what you want to say. I find that that objection at the persuasive second people have said in academia and other circles that maybe the act can be enforced because it hasn't been a long time under some doctrine and obscure doctrine. I don't think that's you know a grey objection either my fundamental objection.

To the idea of a Logan. I prosecution of Jarred, Kirshner or any other person in the Trump orbit is that the whole world is watching if you're gonna bring a charge of that Business against members of the White House, with the president himself you want to rely on a statute that has been proven that has been tested whose parameters are clear, that the courts have entertained and written about, and you have precedents too went to. It seems odd, unless you have really really really clear, overwhelming facts to hang your hat on something like the Logan ACT, there's a lot of talk out there that this is a clear violation of how people are saying that in the way there saying it, because you have a bunch of words on a piece of paper and you don't have a history prosecution, Logan ACT. So when people are saying it's a clear violation, the speaking based on, I think a little bit hopefulness. That is not borne out by the history of the act.

Text. Point will probably get into more this on Thursday, but why have you here at listening over the weekend? The president said a lot of terrible things about the FBI. I don't really get it for president batches, his own FBI, he bash as his own intelligence agencies. He, on the other hand, he embraced and praises to high heaven, authoritarian, like Lattimer Putin, deter day of the Philippines and the one of Turkey and I just want to say, as I said on Twitter this weekend, nobody's perfect. No institution is perfect But the minimum of the FBI are among the best people. I know they care about the country they care about public safety, they, unlike most people who are bashing them, including the present states, put their lives in the line. Day in this country and around the world to keep us safe. I think they should get our thanks, not mockery from the president. The United States last point before I get out of here.

I think just yesterday or earlier this morning, one of the president's lawyers, John Doubt with whom I have some familiarity, is taking the position that the President of the United States, based on his position alone, cannot, as a legal matter, obstruct justice. So I have a strong reaction to that. One I think that's nonsense, I think it's telling that Mr Dowd is no longer saying the president didn't do these things he sang, even if he did, it can't be obstruction. This comes on the heels, of course, of the controversy over down from the tree Over the weekend where he said he fired Michael Flynn, because you lie to the vice president and also because he lied to the FBI, and I wanna get into all this now, but that John down no often appears out of the blue and says he drafted that tweet. You know defence lawyers they're, doing a job because happen defend their client. When you have a high profile client, you defend them not only in court, but before that you make arguments to the.

press into the media in the papers and on television in John down is doing that. I had it. Its agenda when he represented an individual, Nimrod, Roger Random, who was convicted on all counts and during the course of that violent after that trial, John doubts and a lot of how shall I put it ludicrous silly things, so that's par for the course for him, and I will put too much stock in what a defence lawyer says on behalf of his client. Basically one who is the kinds of things at John doubted said before That's all I got for now. I gotta run we'll have a full episode with an interview for you on Thursday. God knows how many things ludicrous and otherwise we're gonna happen between now and then stated