SUMMARY:On Tuesday, President Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of 11 people he said had served enough time or been treated unfairly. The moves come as the President has sharply criticized the Department of Justice for its handling of the case of longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone. William Brangham talks to two former judges, Harvard Law School’s Nancy Gertner and University of Utah’s Paul Cassell.
No matter what William Barr says, his actions (including his 6/8/2018 'memo' [download link] to Trump via AG Rod Rosenstein, that got him his job, saying Presidents can do anything they want) has demonstrated loud and clear the he is Trump's personal layer, and NOT the layer of the American people or protector of he Constitution.
SUMMARY: Roger Stone, the sixth former associate of President Trump to be convicted on charges stemming from the Mueller probe, is again at the center of controversy. Federal prosecutors recommended Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison, but senior Justice Department officials intervened. Now, all four line prosecutors quit the case. John Yang talks to The Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Four lawyers who prosecuted Roger Stone quit the case Tuesday after the Justice Department said it would take the extraordinary step of lowering the amount of prison time it would seek for President Donald Trump’s longtime ally and confidant.
The decision by the Justice Department came just hours after Trump complained that the recommended sentence for Stone was “very horrible and unfair.” The Justice Department said the sentencing recommendation was made Monday night — before Trump’s tweet — and prosecutors had not spoken to the White House about it.
The four attorneys, including two who were early members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia team, had made up the Justice Department’s trial team and had signed onto a Monday court filing that recommended up to nine years in prison for Stone.
The department’s decision to back off the sentencing recommendation raised questions about political interference and whether Trump’s views hold unusual sway over the Justice Department, which is meant to operate independently of the White House in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
Attorney General William Barr has been a steady ally of Trump’s, clearing the President of obstruction of justice even when special counsel Robert Mueller had pointedly declined to do so and declaring that the FBI’s Russia investigation — which resulted in charges against Stone — had been based on a “bogus narrative.”
On Monday night, prosecutors had recommended Stone serve seven to nine years behind bars after being convicted of charges including lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election. The recommendation raised the prospect that Stone could receive the harshest sentence of any of the half-dozen Trump aides charged in Mueller’s probe.
In a tweet early Tuesday, Trump said the case against Stone was a “miscarriage of justice.” A Justice Department official said authorities decided to step in and seek a shorter sentence because they had been taken by surprise by the initial recommendation. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said prosecutors had told the department to expect a shorter recommendation.
It is extremely rare for Justice Department leaders to reverse the decision of its own prosecutors on a sentencing recommendation, particularly after that recommendation has been submitted to the court. Normally, United States attorneys have wide latitude to recommend sentences on cases that they prosecuted.
The departures came abruptly after the decision by Justice. Jonathan Kravis resigned his position as an assistant U.S. attorney. He had been a veteran prosecutor in Washington [DC], and though not part of Robert Mueller’s original team, was nonetheless involved in multiple cases brought by the special counsel’s office. Besides the Stone prosecution, Kravis had also signed onto the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, which resolved with a guilty plea, and against a Russian troll farm accused of sponsoring a cover social media campaign aimed at dividing public opinion during the 2016 presidential election.
Aaron Zelinsky quit the case and his job in Washington [DC], and would go back to his job as a federal prosecutor in Baltimore. He was working there when he was selected in 2017 for the Mueller team. He was involved in cases aimed at determining what knowledge the Trump campaign had about Democratic emails that were hacked by Russia and what efforts Trump aides made to get information about them. He was also involved in the prosecution of George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign aide who played a critical role in the FBI launching its investigation in the summer of 2016.
A third prosecutor, Adam Jed, who was an original member of Mueller’s team, also withdrew from the case. His status at the Justice Department was not clear. Before joining Mueller’s team, he worked on civil cases at the Justice Department.
After the attorneys quit the case, Justice Department officials filed a revised sentencing memorandum with the judge, arguing its initial recommendation could be “considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances,” but that it would defer to the court. None of the original prosecutors in Stone’s case signed onto the revised memo.
Sentencing decisions are ultimately up to the judge, who in this case may side with the original recommendation. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has repeatedly scolded Stone for his out-of-court behavior, which included a social media post he made of the judge with what appeared to be crosshairs of a gun.
The judge barred Stone from social media last July after concluding that she repeatedly flouted his gag order.
Meanwhile, Democrats decried the decision, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for an investigation by the DOJ’s Inspector General.
“The rule of law and this grand, grand tradition of this wonderful Justice Department is being totally perverted to Donald Trumps’ own personal desires and needs,” the New York Democrat said. “And it’s a disgrace.’’
House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff said it would be a blatant abuse of power if the Justice Department intervened on behalf of Trump.
“Doing so would send an unmistakable message that President Trump will protect those who lie to Congress to cover up his own misconduct, and that the Attorney General will join him in that effort,” the California Democrat said.
Trump later told reporters that he didn’t speak to Justice officials. “I would be able to do it if I wanted,” he said. “I have the absolute right to do it. I stay out of things to a degree that people wouldn’t believe, but I didn’t speak to them.”
Federal prosecutors also recently softened their sentencing position on former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying that they would not oppose a probation of punishment after initially saying that he deserved up to six months in prison for lying to the FBI. The Flynn prosecution is also being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington.
In the initial memorandum Monday evening, prosecutors asked for Stone to serve between 87 and 108 months in federal prison — the sentence they said was in line with federal guidelines. Such a sentence would send a message to deter others who might consider lying or obstructing a congressional probe or tampering with witnesses, they said.
The prosecutors wrote in the court papers that “Stone’s actions were not a one-off mistake in judgment” and that he “decided to double – and triple – down on his criminal conduct by tampering with a witness for months in order to make sure his obstruction would be successful.”
Stone has denied wrongdoing and consistently criticized the case against him as politically motivated. He did not take the stand during his trial and his lawyers did not call any witnesses in his defense.
Witnesses in the case testified that Trump’s campaign viewed Stone as an “access point” to the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks, which was in possession of more than 19,000 emails hacked from the servers of the Democratic National Committee and tried to use him to get advance word about hacked emails damaging to Hillary Clinton.
Prosecutors charged that Stone lied to Congress about his conversations about WikiLeaks with New York radio host Randy Credico — who had scored an interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016 — and conservative writer and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi.
SUMMARY:Outrage over the Justice Department's new, shorter sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, an ally of President Trump, bubbled over on Wednesday on Capitol Hill, where congressional critics of the president say he unfairly interfered to help a friend. Are the Justice Department's moves justified? Yamiche Alcindor talks with two former Justice Department officials, Mary McCord and James Trusty.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the deal to reopen the government temporarily, the President’s falling approval ratings and the indictment of former Trump adviser Roger Stone.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): Now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
We meet just a matter of hours, Mark, since the President announced that he was going to go along with a Democratic plan in the short-term just to get the government back open.
But we just heard Amna speaking to these two, the federal employee Brad Hufford, LaJuanna Russell, who's a contractor.
You get a sense that this really did harm people. The 35 days, it wasn't just a blip. It was something that affected people's lives.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: I don't think there's any question, Judy.
And particularly with the move, pushed by Vice President Cheney, but endorsed by Republicans, and not totally resisted by Democrats, to privatize by contract so many federal responsibilities.
And these people are not federal employees. They are not going to be reimbursed for the time off, the time off, the time out of work.
And so I think, you know, it's being felt everywhere. And it was capped by Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, absolutely insensitive remarks about, why don't you just take a loan?
I mean, get a payday loan? How about that? That's a pretty good deal. And if they dismantle the Consumer Protection Agency anymore under Mick Mulvaney, it'll even be probably 35-percent-a-week interest.
So it just — it does. It hurts. And there's pain all the way around.
Judy Woodruff: David, what about that?
And we just heard Ms. Russell say at the end, if nothing else, maybe the public gets a little bit of an education about what the federal government means.
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes, I'm more on the conservative side. Not always a fan of gigantic government, but always been an admirer of federal workers.
When you get inside these agencies, you see how good and how high-quality the people are.
I had a chance to talk to Brad backstage. And he's traveling a lot for FEMA, going to where people are in need, inconveniencing himself, living out of a suitcase, for a government worker, and for us, for the citizens. And those people really do sacrifice.
I recommend a book by Michael Lewis, or a podcast by Michael Lewis, on the National Weather Service. And you see from this podcast, which you can get on Audible — not to do an ad for Michael — but how fanatical they are about trying to get the weather forecast correctly.
And they're making public sector incomes, but these people are generally — whether you like big government or small government, the people who do this work are dedicated to that work.
Judy Woodruff: It makes a difference.
So, let's talk about this agreement, or temporary agreement, Mark. Three weeks, no money in there for the border wall, but the President is right now saying, I want it to — it's got to be in there, or I'm not going to sign a permanent funding deal.
Mark Shields: A very respected national Republican said to me this afternoon, everybody knows what happened. Five weeks, and the President got nothing.
It was a cave. It was a total fold.
I give both Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer credit for not doing a victory dance in the end zone or spiking the ball today, and being rather generous in their remarks. But this was a total — I mean, the President insisted and demanded the money for the wall. It's not in it.
He demanded to speak to the nation from the House chamber, the majestic, historic setting, not the state capitol in Lansing or Charleston, West Virginia, that was offered to him. He didn't get it.
So, it was — it was a total defeat for him. And, believe me, Judy, there will not be the will among Republicans in three weeks to go back and do this again. Once it's open, it's going to be opened.
Judy Woodruff: And what does that mean, David?
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks: Yes, I agree with that totally. It was a total victory.
It's so unfair. Mark's football team is going to the Super Bowl. The Democrats have this big triumph.
(LAUGHTER)
He paid his dues in years past, as a Boston sports — sports fan.
But it is a total — a total victory for the Democrats.
I turned on some conservative talk radio, the Sean Hannity show this afternoon. And Sean was trying to defend it, but his callers were having none of it. They thought, this is a collapse, this is a defeat, we're really downhearted.
And they understood what happened, that the poll ratings were just terrible. His poll ratings have dropped to 37 percent. I saw in one poll today 34 percent, which is an all-time low.
And now they're likely to go a little lower, by the way, because now he's base is a little upset with them. And you think, three weeks in advance — I would say this to federal workers — the Democrats are feeling great about themselves.
If Donald Trump wants bring this on again, they're happy. If — the Republicans are miserable. They never want to come back to where they are right now. And so the odds that we will have another shutdown strike me as low.
And it would be — for Trump, it would be suicidally low to — just to try this again.
Judy Woodruff: But he's sticking. I mean, Mark, the President right now is saying, I'm going to have money for the wall.
Mark Shields: No, he is saying that.
I — just to pick up on one point that David made, a Marquette University poll, which is a respected poll in Wisconsin, reported that not only simply that 29 percent supported the shutdown and 66 percent opposed it, but the important question came out this week, their results; 27 percent would definitely vote to reelect Donald Trump, 27 percent, and 49 percent would definitely vote for anybody else.
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: And this is a state [Wisconsin] he won.
Mark Shields: And it's a state that he carried.
And it's a state where yesterday, Ron Johnson, the Republican senator, chastised and publicly scolded the Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, for allowing this to happen.
So if one wants to see how things do develop here in Washington, and we do listen to the people back home, I think this is a case of the Republicans listening to the people back home.
David Brooks:McConnell's whole affect today was a masterpiece in, 'I have nothing to do with this.' He was like, that happened in some other universe, it wasn't me.
And so nobody wants to be associated with this.
(CROSSTALK)
Mark Shields: The thing, Judy, he had no next move. I mean, Donald Trump…
Judy Woodruff: The President.
(CROSSTALK)
Did he have an alternative?
Mark Shields: He had no alternative.
And what's remarkable is, the difference in real estate, in real estate — respect to the profession — I tell David, oh, no, we just had the plumbing done a year-and-a-half. Oh, no, the roof is in great shape, because it's a one-off deal. I mean, if it isn't David, then I'm doing with Mr. X, OK?
In politics, your word is the coin of the realm. That's what — the one thing you have, and seeing the same colleagues every day. And if the word gets out that Shields can't be trusted, that Shields folds, that Shields doesn't keep his word, then you're dead — you're dead meat in a legislative body. No one's going to trust you.
And Donald Trump doesn't understand that. He comes out of real estate. You cut the deal, then you move on. But now he's got the same people he's dealing with.
And part of Mitch McConnell's timidity, beyond natural caution, was he was terrified. He knew exactly that Trump had broken his word just in December.
Judy Woodruff: But he's still the President, David. He still got a Republican Senate.
David Brooks: Right. But I'm not sure how many of them will want to walk in any difficult confrontation with him.
And just the — as Mark said, it's always great to declare a shutdown, because you get that first burst of, oh, yes, we're really standing up. But then you have to have step two, three, four, five, and you have to have a path to victory.
And in every government shutdown, from the Ted Cruz one to this one, they have never had a path to get there. And it's always hurt the side that instigated it.
SUMMARY:Former Trump adviser Roger Stone has been indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller on seven counts, including obstructing an investigation, making false statements and tampering with a witness. The indictment focuses on the relationship with WikiLeaks head Julian Assange and damaging emails released by WikiLeaks. Nick Schifrin reports and discusses with former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
