i think there are two issues now. i think one issue is one if anything did acosta and possibly other prosecutors do wrong. i think the judge has made a lot of findings. we know that the office of professional responsibility is looking at that and that s going to have to be dealt with on one track. the second track is what happens to the criminal case, the original criminal case? and i don t think that requires acosta or should have any of the original prosecutors. they should have a new untainted team that works on this prosecution. that s what i would do. and i think that s what any office with integrity would do is start with a clean slate of prosecutors, they d have to get familiar with the case. if someone is going to look at this, it s going to be someone not involved in that original prosecution. you expect a new prosecution in this case? i don t see why not. i think at this point we live in an era of the me too era.
and professor hamilton, i want to get your reaction to the judge s ruling today, this is an extraordinary case that we cannot think of anything like it happening before. well, it s refreshing to see that 40 girls could actually been vindicated after a group of men essentially cut a secret deal. what s really amazing about the facts in this case from where i m sitting is how often the prosecutors acosta s people, asked epstein permission whether or not they could talk to the victims. it really is it s a great decision. and when i got this decision today in the front it says opinion and order and so when there s an order i flip to the back page where the judge s order is going to be and you get to that back page and it s mystifying. when it gets down to the final order the judge says the parties should confer and inform the court within 15 days how they
highest powered legal team of any lawsuit yet filed against the border wall. harvard law professor lawrence tribe and a veteran of the george h.w. bush justice department stuart gerson are co-counsel in this case, and they will both join us next. and roger stone is now one word away from going to jail. if he says or writes one word about his case while waiting for trial, the judge is sending him to jail. and later, a judge ruled today that a federal prosecutor broke the law when he helped billionaire sex offender jeffrey epstein escape federal prosecution for trafficking in and raping young girls. that prosecutor is now donald trump s labor secretary. as a fitness junkie, i customize everything - bike, wheels, saddle. that s why i switched to liberty mutual. they customized my insurance, so i only pay for what i need. i insured my car, and my bike.
access to my phone. i mean, there s no one out there who believes that. no. his testimony today was lie after lie after lie and even inconsistent lies from question to question. you know, i think, though, the interesting thing here is the restriction on stone. he now is under a super duper complete gag order, and we ll see how that goes. i think the mob scene you saw at the las vegas airport today was people rushing to vegas to bet on the under on the over-under of how long stone will be able to comply with this court order. and i think that s one thing that was set up today by the judge, which is instead of putting revoking bail today she made it very clear that this is in stone s hands. and the odds that stone honors the conditions seem very low to me. and the gag order actually covers not just roger stone. it covers it says the defendant may not comment publicly about the case indirectly by having statements made publicly on his behalf by
hamilton to be on our side if they were around today. this strikes at the heart of what the framers were attempting to do, which was to prevent the concentration of power and a turn toward the tyranny that was rejected by the american revolution. this is a fundamentally conservative position. it strikes at the heart of separation of powers. there has to be some limit on the power of the executive. an emergency is something that the branches don t have time to consult about. this hardly is the case. and the president s comment that you just quoted makes that very clear. professor tribe, in your law experience, in so many important cases and cases you ve taken to the united states supreme court, have you ever been on the opposite side of a litigant who was so helpful to your case? in public comments that you could then simply type, right into your brief to support your