Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Fardon, other former Chicago feds blast USDOJ
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Fardon, other former Chicago feds blast USDOJ

Thursday, Feb 13, 2020

* NY Times with the setup

For decades after Watergate, the White House treated the Justice Department with the softest of gloves, fearful that any appearance of political interference would resurrect the specter of Attorney General John Mitchell helping President Richard M. Nixon carry out a criminal conspiracy for political ends.

In 2001, William P. Barr, describing his first stint as attorney general, under President George Bush, spoke of the department’s protected status in the post-Watergate era. “You didn’t mess around with it, didn’t intervene, you didn’t interfere,” he recalled in an oral history.

Fast forward to 2020, and Mr. Barr is attorney general once more. But President Trump’s ground-shaking conduct has demolished those once-sacrosanct guardrails. Mr. Barr’s intervention to lessen a prison sentencing recommendation for the president’s convicted friend Roger J. Stone Jr. prompted all four career prosecutors handling the matter to quit the case.

* WBEZ’s Dave McKinney and Tony Arnold with the local angle

Chicago’s former top federal prosecutor on Wednesday harshly condemned his former employer, the U.S. Justice Department, after it bowed to President Donald Trump and relaxed sentencing recommendations for the president’s friend, Roger Stone.

Zachary Fardon, who served as U.S. Attorney in Chicago between 2013 and 2017, told WBEZ he had never seen anything like what unfolded Tuesday in Stone’s case but predicted the precedent would not undercut efforts by federal prosecutors in Chicago to fight political corruption. […]

Asked how he would have handled things if he were prosecuting Stone’s case, Fardon said, “Exactly what those prosecutors did yesterday, which is remove myself. […]

“I think we are in unchartered waters on this one,” former FBI Agent-in-Charge Robert Grant told WBEZ in reference to the resignations in Stone’s case. […]

“What we did and what federal prosecutors all over the country do are they’re trying to do justice, they’re trying to do the right thing. And that should not and hasn’t in the past been dependent on who’s sitting in the White House,” said Eric Sussman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice at Chicago’s Reed Smith law office.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

35 Comments
  1. - Norseman - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 9:29 am:

    Any condemnations coming from Illinois’ GOP congressional delegation? Bueller, Bueller …


  2. - CharlieKratos - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 9:55 am:

    They need to understand that this form of corruption isn’t “winning”. Fear of irrelevance has caused the GOP to embrace, or at least selectively ignore, corruption that sets a very, very dangerous precedent.


  3. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 9:59 am:

    === They need to understand that this form of corruption isn’t “winning”===

    That will be seen as true …or not… come November.

    The rule of law, ethics, morality is on the ballot, this instance is but another brick on the scale. The truth now isn’t the rule of law being subverted, the truth is if it wins in November.

    I wouldn’t bet against a re-elect.


  4. - Sue - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:00 am:

    Apparently all the info isn’t out yet. The Jury Forewoman in the Stone case was a Dem activist and candidate for Congress. They just uncovered social media condemning both Trump and Stone and praising Muller. These texts seemed to have been overlooked in advance of the trial and not disclosed on her jury questionnaire. This would give Stone a 100 percent shot at a new trial alleging juror bias and put this juror on n criminal jeopardy


  5. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:05 am:

    ===The Jury Forewoman in the Stone case was a Dem activist===

    Jury vote was unanimous. And it’s a free country. Not everyone on that jury had to be a Republican.


  6. - Excitable Boy - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:13 am:

    Probably the most pathetic display of your programming yet, Sue. Does your mouth water when you hear the word Trump?


  7. - Oak Parker - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:16 am:

    If Trump is so mad about this, he should stop being passive aggressive and just pardon Roger Stone.


  8. - Sue - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:32 am:

    Rich. But you ignore the more important part of my text- the fricking forewoman had anti stone texts on social media before the trial. In what universe do you reside not to see Stone was denied a fair trial


  9. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:33 am:

    ===Stone was denied a fair trial ===

    So, petition for a new trial. What you don’t do is what they did.


  10. - Sue - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:38 am:

    This information just surfaced yesterday after Trump mistakenly waded in. The juror in response to Trump praised the prosecutors which in turn led to someone searching her social media. Clearly both sides dropped the ball investigating the jury pool but it seems the woman failed to disclose. The Judge who is one of the best will be forced to declare a mistrial. Don’t be surprised if the juror isn’t indicted


  11. - Jocko - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:52 am:

    ==after Trump mistakenly waded in==

    As opposed to his insightful musings on twitter./s


  12. - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:54 am:

    Sue, Stone also basically threatened to assassinate the judge. Maybe pipe down on this one.


  13. - Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:59 am:

    Jurors only have to disclose what they are asked to disclose. It would depend on what the jurors were asked. Also, the trial judge denied a filed under seal motion for a new trial yesterday on grounds of juror bias.


  14. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 11:31 am:

    The Justice Department under Donald Trump has become an embarassment. The Attorney General is like every other syncophant cabinet member in the Trump Administration.


  15. - Responsa - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 11:36 am:

    Before people get way over their skis on this we should find out more about the voir dire process and whether the forewoman answered honestly. Could make a huge difference one way or the other.


  16. - Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 11:58 am:

    “The Justice Department under Donald Trump has become an embarassment. The Attorney General is like every other syncophant cabinet member in the Trump Administration”

    What comes around goes around. Holder was constantly under attack from the GOP for his perceived “partisan” application of Prosecutorial Discretion.


  17. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:07 pm:

    ===…perceived “partisan” application of Prosecutorial Discretion.===

    (Sigh)

    This is a situation where a man is convicted, and the DOJ decided to formally ask for sentencing and POTUS, of course via tweet, believes the sentence is far too harsh, let alone saying his own Justice Department was wrong to prosecute… so, the four prosecutors, they resign from the case in protest to this WH interference.

    I’m sorry, can you enlighten me where the Obama White House interfered with its own Justice Department, publicly, to say a convicted individual should get leniency *after* a recommended sentence by his own Justice Department abd before a federal judge rendered sentencing.

    That is apples to apples.


  18. - Pundent - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:11 pm:

    =Before people get way over their skis on this we should find out more about the voir dire process and whether the forewoman answered honestly.=

    By all means. But shouldn’t that process play out through the normal appeal process as it would with any other allegation of jury bias? Do you think that if it did the prosecutors would have still all resigned?


  19. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:12 pm:

    To the post,

    I also come at this with this thinking;

    POTUS feels this need to make small all these convictions by his allies and a lighter sentence, (as this POTUS keeps comparing “9 years” to “harsher” crimes) allows this feeling that all that was done is “nothing” and that eventual pardon is more than justified for a man serving 24 months versus 9 years.

    The pardon is very likely, it’s not been wholly ruled out, but POTUS wants a light sentence to make the whole package and pardon seem “trivial”

    Pardoning a man doing 9 years to save you isn’t a good look. Pardoning that same man doing 24 months seems “less icky”


  20. - Responsa - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:24 pm:

    -@ Pundent - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:11 pm:

    I’m not going to wade into this because I just don’t know. However my understanding is that the prosecutors resigned over what they considered interference into the sentencing protocol related to a verdict. The issue with the forewoman and voir dire, however, goes to the legitimacy of the trial and the verdict on which the sentence rec. was made. So the issues are related but also separate.


  21. - Pundent - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:41 pm:

    =I’m not going to wade into this because I just don’t know.=

    Well let me help you. There’s a prescribed process for dealing with this. And this ain’t it.

    I’ll also clue you in on something else. Every person sitting on a jury brings with them personal beliefs and biases. The goal of voir dire is balance not perfection.


  22. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:42 pm:

    ==What comes around goes around.==

    What are you? In junior high?


  23. - anon2 - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 1:21 pm:

    Sounds like Stone had incompetent counsel in not asking prospective jurors about political activism. That juror does not account for unanimous verdicts on seven felonies.


  24. - 17% Solution - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:08 pm:

    == The Jury Forewoman in the Stone case was a Dem activist and candidate for Congress.==
    We are in deep trouble if we deny activists jury duty. Do you really think the apathetic folks will step up to the plate?


  25. - Sue - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:20 pm:

    17 percent- you conveniently dropped the rest …who posted on social media information critical of both Trump and Stone before the trial even started. Nice try though


  26. - Sue - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:22 pm:

    Anon- you fail to mention the juror though one of twelve WAS the forewoman. You think she might have had some influence in the jury room. Stone is going to get a new trial due to the malfeasance of that juror


  27. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:36 pm:

    ==juror though one of twelve WAS the forewoman. You think she might have had some influence in the jury room.==

    So now you’re accusing the juror of strong arming every other juror to bring back a guilty verdict? You have some evidence of this? Because if you don’t you’re nothing but another person pushing kooky conspiracy theories (and this is one I’ve not heard before so you’re ahead of the curve in Trump land).


  28. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:39 pm:

    ==who posted on social media information critical of both Trump ==

    So are you saying only pro-Trump people should have been jurors? Because that sounds exactly like what you are saying. We’d never get a jury seated if we start weeding through everybody’s social media posts.


  29. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:40 pm:

    Sue:

    I guess my larger question is why are you defending a guy who clearly committed a crime and who has also threatened a judge. You sure pick winners to defend.


  30. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:53 pm:

    Well, this was unexpected. Barr tellling the President to go fly a kite? Wonder if he’ll have a job tomorrow.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/barr-trump-twitter/index.html


  31. - Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 4:40 pm:

    –Stone is going to get a new trial due to the malfeasance of that juror–

    Doubt it. At most the judge may interview the other jurors. If the juror in question didn’t unduly influence their decision, motion denied.


  32. - Sue - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 4:53 pm:

    Demoralized - you obviously are not a trial lawyer. If your were you would know that the federal questionnaires used in district courts make the prospective jurors disclose whether they have posted info which might disclose potential bias


  33. - Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 5:26 pm:

    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/ejuror/TransportRoom?servlet=question_ex

    Here’s the questionnaire from the DC federal court. Nothing about posts or bias. Any questions of that nature would have to be proposed in voir dire by the parties and approved for use by the judge.


  34. - 17% Solution - Friday, Feb 14, 20 @ 6:38 am:

    == 17 percent- you conveniently dropped the rest …who posted on social media information critical of both Trump and Stone before the trial even started.==
    What did she say? It’s not unusual for someone to have an opinion about a person in the spotlight, be it a politician or a movie star.
    There is a difference between someone disagreeing with another person on policy and wanting that person to serve time even though he is innocent.


  35. - Pundent - Friday, Feb 14, 20 @ 8:16 am:

    17 Percent -. Too late. Sue has already declared a mistrial and indicted the juror. Not based on the rule of law mind you but the rule of Trump. Under this construct you apply the set of rules that’s supports your conclusion. Everything else is deemed incredibly unfair; a witch hunt and/or a hoax.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Pritzker contributes $51.5 million to his "Fair Tax" campaign account
* *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: This just in...
* Reader comments closed for the holiday weekend
* *** UPDATED x3 *** Devore tells reporters he's won both cases
* Question of the day
* 869 new cases, 36 additional deaths, 2.6 percent positivity rate
* *** UPDATED x2 - ILGOP will appeal *** Federal judge denies ILGOP's TRO request: "Granting Plaintiffs the relief they seek would pose serious risks to public health"
* Today's must-watch video
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: New ads; More react to Wednesday's edition (password fixed)
* After returning from Florida, Rep. Bailey won't get tested "on the advice of his doctor"
* We're number one... in FBI gun background checks during June
* White Sox vs. Cardinals at Field of Dreams game
* Lightfoot spins tall tale to justify preemptive sweeps
* Well, that escalated quickly
* If you want schools to reopen, wear a mask, keep your distance and wash your hands
* 1.43 million Americans, 45.25 thousand Illinoisans filed new unemployment claims last week
* Open thread
* *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller