>> Chicago's U.S.

Attorney Andrew Boutros is under fire over his office's handling of the Broad view.

6 case more than 100 former federal prosecutor signed an open letter this week saying Boutros tarnish the officer's reputation after prosecutors made improper communications with grand jury members in the letter, they say, quote, These matters raised questions about whether there is a failure of leadership in the office.

We deeply respect and whether once forbidden political considerations are infecting prosecutorial decisions.

The answer to both questions in our view is yes.

Joining us are 2 of the letters signatories, John Gallo, a former assistant U.S.

attorney in the Northern District of Illinois.

And Patrick Collins, also a former assistant U.S.

attorney in the Northern District.

Thanks to both for joining us.

So, John, let's start with some of the misconduct that you'all letter.

What did Andrew Boutros is office do wrong in a grand jury proceedings in the brought the 6 case that we've been hearing so much about this, we >> Well, the headlines are about touching by the assistant U.S.

attorney in the grand jury.

Basically.

Saying from a personal perspective, she believed the case was meritorious about and the grand jury.

Talking to grand jurors outside the grand jury room.

Question excluding jurors which she didn't have the power to do anyway.

But excluding jurors asking them to be excluded if they were skeptical about the charges and then there issues later with a redactions, which is a separate issue.

>> Right, Patrick, what was your reaction when you learned about this alleged misconduct?

>> Very similar Judge Perry and again, Judge Perry made these comments that I think really where the impetus for the letter, Perry experienced judge, but also a former federal prosecutor, said she had never seen like this in terms of misconduct in the grand jury.

And she talked about the presumption of regularity and brand I think the reason that I signed the letter, I love that office has some of the best professionals.

My life wasn't perfect.

A lot of great people.

There are a lot of great people there today.

And I think part of our message was also for the young.

Prosecutors you know, do the job, hold the standard.

And I think there's Judge Perry's eyes.

There was a management of the standard.

>> Join, you mentioned the redactions being sort of a separate issue because we know that the attorneys initially redacted great deal of beings these transcripts.

And then Judge Perry asked for them to be unredacted in to see more.

And for those of us who do not practice I guess my question was what of a grand jury transcript is a judge typically allowed to see why?

Why might they have been taken the step?

The attorneys taking the step to to redact grand jury transcript before getting into a judge.

>> The answer is whatever she wants to see.

She she can see me when you're the judge.

You can see whatever you want to see.

And I can't.

And still the final des to what they thought they were doing when they submitted redacted transcripts other than to try hi from the court.

Things that happened in the grand jury.

So there are also several pages missing.

You know, there's this expression, you know, if someone tries to hide something that's evidence consciousness of guilt.

So I think that everyone looking hindsight 2020, but if they just given the transcripts from the beginning, it would have come actually been much better for them.

>> How has this election is conduct?

Has this behavior different from from what you knew the U.S.

attorney's office to be like when you work there?

>> This particular circumstance.

this particular case.

I'm hoping is isolated example because the things that happened that context talking to grand jurors about the case outside the grand jury room personally vouching.

>> For >> validity of the case.

Those kinds of things, frankly, were unheard of prior to this circumstance, embrace what ice on those grand jury grand jury is a secret place.

That's actually where investigators go to actually present evidence and actually make your case better.

It said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich because I think goes to the control.

The prosecutor's office have over the process.

What we saw in this case is grand jurors were asking good questions.

They wanted to know the facts.

They wanted to understand what a conspiracy as it's the very questions that if I heard is a prosecutor back when I was there, I would use it to make my case better.

But there was a rush to try to get the case indicted and we'll find out sort of why that rush was.

But this grand jury was working.

I was so proud to read these grand jurors questions because it showed that they were actually doing their job and they were sort of being run over by the folks which is extraordinarily rare from from my 12 years.

There.

>> So the U.S.

Andrew Boutros, he has himself denied any knowledge of the allegations when he appeared before Judge Perry when the case was dismissed or the charges were dropped, he apologized himself.

Patrick, is he is he free of blame here?

Should he have known that his attorneys were behaving this way?

>> He is the leader of the office.

And so, you know, the buck stops with him.

It's topped with every U.S.

attorney that I ever served under the facts will play out brand us.

I think there there's another case that's now affected.

And the judge Coleman basically said I'm going to have a hearing and so we'll we'll see.

I think I don't know what Mr Buttress knowing when that's not my job.

The lawyer, there are some very good lawyers that will figure that out if need be.

I think what he he absolutely is responsible is for the tone and tenor of the office.

>> So one through line in the letter that you all signed on to was the political interference and political fealty that you feel like is happening.

You alright, quote, for decades, our former officer and a reputation for winning significant cases while playing by the rules.

We hope that the next few months will provide an opportunity to begin an effort to restore this reputation that, however, will require candor from U.S.

Attorney Andrew Boutros, the courage to stand above and apart from political fealty.

No, of course he's the Andrew Joseph said that he and his office have acted irrespective of politics.

You clearly disagree with that.

>> We think it's a serious concern that should be raised.

mean, there's a justice manual that has to be followed by everybody.

But people who signed this letter, Brenda 7 decades of people offices were not ever perfect.

And it's not it's about how you did that job.

And I do think what brought us all together is the standard doing that job.

And I overlap with Andrew.

He's a very competent lawyer.

He knows how the standard should be followed.

And I think that's what we were really writing about.

>> So you both mentioned another case that is before Judge Coleman because yesterday that judge ordered an evidentiary hearing in a separate high-profile case, also relating to Loretto Hospital.

In that case, the same PA USA who has prosecuted a broad view, 6 cases.

Also the prosecutor in the Loretto Hospital case John, could we see more of this happening in the northern districts?

>> just on the basis of what you just described, at least suggests that with respect to this particular prosecutor, in other cases she's had maybe that was a practice that she had.

Now, whether that extends to the other other lawyers in the office, I can't.

brand is just to know that that Loretto case, this is the very kind of case that the office.

>> Gets the headlines for its a 900 million dollar alleged fraud.

If that case has to be dismissed because of the compromise, that's a serious staying on the office because those that if you take the immigration and then the big cases of both of those are gone.

That's a problem.

>> Staying on the office in that it is a failure to adequately prosecute what might have been a 900 million dollar fraud problem.

Again, the process will play out.

But the Loretto case, that is the kind of case that that office over 7 decades is sort of famous, if you will, for doing bringing big ticket fraud cases.

Big-ticket cub, public corruption, king, terrorism.

That is what that office is known for staying in the office.

What I would suggest on top of what Pat said.

>> Now, judges are wondering when the U.S.

Attorney's office says something to them.

Are they hearing the truth?

That is never in my experience ever been an issue.

Prior to the circumstance, right?

And we've heard judge Perry say that, you know, that there's this loss of trust right?

>> John, what do you think Andrew Boutros should do to go about restoring his office's reputation because you all did not call for his resignation as have some elected officials.

First of all, to acknowledge and to accept.

>> What is true, which are that these prosecutions were flawed and to recognize them as having been flawed and to say I'm going we're going to fix this.

to explain how he's going to fix it.

There's a separate kind of related point, which but it's a more macro point about him.

And that is that the case is the office traditionally did.

Are not being investigated and prosecuted.

Now.

So now you're having cases which are state court gun cases being brought in federal court.

We're small drug case is being brought in federal court.

First to get statistics as opposed to working on the systemic.

Problems.

Jang cases like get Thanks for disciples, organized crime cases.

Same protection of a smaller state cases out of state court, picking those up in federal which means they're not chasing some of the bigger.

>> We are cases that's where we'll have to leave it.

Obviously like both of you said we'll have to watch this play out even further.

John Gallo, Patrick Collins, thank you both for joining us.

Thank