Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: “The only thing you have is your word”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Heidner sues Gaming Board after private info leaked to feds
Posted in:
* 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
Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 9:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: “The only thing you have is your word”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Heidner sues Gaming Board after private info leaked to feds
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Any condemnations coming from Illinois’ GOP congressional delegation? Bueller, Bueller …
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 9:29 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.
Comment by CharlieKratos Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 9:55 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.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 9:59 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
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:00 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.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:05 am
Probably the most pathetic display of your programming yet, Sue. Does your mouth water when you hear the word Trump?
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:13 am
If Trump is so mad about this, he should stop being passive aggressive and just pardon Roger Stone.
Comment by Oak Parker Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:16 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
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:32 am
===Stone was denied a fair trial ===
So, petition for a new trial. What you don’t do is what they did.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:33 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
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:38 am
==after Trump mistakenly waded in==
As opposed to his insightful musings on twitter./s
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:52 am
Sue, Stone also basically threatened to assassinate the judge. Maybe pipe down on this one.
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:54 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.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 10:59 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.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 11:31 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.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 11:36 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.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 11:58 am
===…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.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:07 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?
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:11 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”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:12 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.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:24 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.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:41 pm
==What comes around goes around.==
What are you? In junior high?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 12:42 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.
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 1:21 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?
Comment by 17% Solution Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:08 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
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:20 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
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:22 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).
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:36 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.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:39 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.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:40 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
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 3:53 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.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 4:40 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
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 4:53 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.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Feb 13, 20 @ 5:26 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.==
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.
Comment by 17% Solution Friday, Feb 14, 20 @ 6:38 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.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Feb 14, 20 @ 8:16 am