2/12/20: This is how the rule of law
dies. Prosecutors in the case against former Trump political adviser Roger
Stone recommend a prison sentence of 7-9 years.
____________________
“Investigations into election interference concern our national security, the integrity of our democratic processes, and the enforcement of our nation’s criminal laws.”
Sentencing document
____________________
In a sentencing document they note that Stone “obstructed Congress’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, lied under oath, and tampered with a witness.” Even after the defendant was sentenced, as a result of information uncovered by the Mueller probe, Stone, “displayed contempt for this Court and the rule of law [emphasis added].”
The prosecutors further conclude: “Investigations into election interference concern our national security, the integrity of our democratic processes, and the enforcement of our nation’s criminal laws.”
(All of Stone’s lies
shielded President Trump.)
President Trump hears the news and says it’s “disgraceful” to suggest one of the people who lied for his protection should have to spend so much time behind bars. “This is a horrible and very unfair situation,” he tweets. “The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”
(Stone
is the sixth member of Trump’s campaign to be convicted of a felony.)
Tuesday morning, someone wakes up at the DOJ and a different, much lighter sentence is recommended.
The Department of Justice decides that Stone should receive a sentence that is “far less” than what prosecutors handling the case have demanded. Stone should serve 15-21 months. Perhaps he could be sent to his room without his supper. The judge in this case, the DOJ opines, should consider the “advanced age, health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history in fashioning an appropriate sentence.”
Aaron Zelinsky, the lead prosecutor handling the case,
immediately resigns. So do three top aides.
Michael R. Bromwich, a former Inspector General at the DOJ, issues a warning in a tweet:
Memo to all career DOJ employees.
This is not what you signed up for. The four prosecutors who bailed on the
Stone case have shown the way. Report all instances of improper political
influence and other misdeeds to the DOJ IG, who is required to protect your
identity.
Bromwich, whose job as IG was to make sure his agency
didn’t break the law, later explains to the Washington Post that he hopes the
federal judge in charge of the case will take necessary action. “The remedy,”
he says, “is that it’s completely within Judge [Amy Berman] Jackson’s power to
call a hearing and find out what the hell is going on. She now has two
sentencing memos that conflict with each other. If I’m the judge, I want to
know what explains this irregularity.” (See: 6/23/20 and 6/24/20.)
*
AT LEAST two men in Washington D.C. are thrilled with the news. You have, of course, the convicted felon: Mr. Stone.
He’s hoping to catch a major break. He could spend less than a year in jail, if he gets time off for good behavior.
The other guy is President Trump. “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr,” he tweets, “for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress!”
(Trump doesn’t like it when juries convict his pals.)
It’s not like Lazarus, rising from the dead.
Several Republican lawmakers rise up, as if from the dead, to criticize the president’s involvement in the Stone matter.
They don’t rise very far because they and their entire party have been emasculated in the last three years. It’s not like Lazarus, rising from the dead. More like the corpse gives a few twitches.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who may have cast the deciding vote in the “Ghost Trial,” when she decided she didn’t want to hear from any witnesses in the impeachment matter, is miffed – just miffed! – by the president’s latest attempt to flatten the rule of law like an egg and cheese omelet he sat on by mistake at one of his private resort buffets. “I don’t like this chain of events where you have a ... proceeding, a sentencing, a recommended sentence, the president weighs in and all of the sudden Justice comes back, says ‘change the deal.’ I think most people would look at that and say ‘hmm, that just doesn’t look right [emphasis added, unless otherwise noted].’ And I think they’re right.”
Murkowski goes on to say, she doesn’t “think the president should be determining what the sentences are.”
Or, as this liberal might say, “No shit!”
Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, who often twitches, as if ready to
rise up against Trump, but then reverts to a comatose state, tells reporters Mr.
Trump “should not have gotten involved…I think the president would be better
served by never commenting on a pending federal investigation. I said that back
when the Mueller investigation was going on, and it’s certainly the case when
you’re at a sentencing stage.”
Senate Eunuch and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham told reporters he didn’t think Trump was trying to “bully” the judge who will ultimately decide Stone’s sentence. Still, he added, “I don’t think he should be commenting on cases in the system. I don’t think that’s appropriate.”
Not exactly a heroic stand.
“I do not have an opinion on that.”
Generally, speaking, GOP senators act like it’s fine if the President of the Banana Republic of Trumpistan comments on the sentencing of a man who lied in court to protect the president doing the commenting. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas says it’s “kind of immaterial,” when asked if he thinks Trump is interfering. The rule of law. Kind of immaterial. Sen. Graham returns to Eunuch Mode and says he isn’t “losing any sleep” over the resignations of the four prosecutors.
Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, who cast a key vote against calling witnesses in the “Ghost Trial,” ducked a chance to criticize the president for putting a thumb on the scales of justice in a case where he had selfish motives to see that Stone didn’t earn a tough sentence.
“The sentencing is in the hands of the courts, which should make an appropriate decision,” Alexander says. “And politics should never play a part in law enforcement. So that’s what I have to say about that.”
It was left then to Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell to encapsulate the cowardice of the GOP crowd. Asked about the
president’s actions regarding the Stone sentence, he replied, “I do not have an opinion on that.”
*
THE “ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE” (a.k.a. “reporters doing their jobs”) have a chance to ask the president about the Stone case on Wednesday afternoon. Trump, too, is a coward when cornered. He insists he had nothing to do with the call by DOJ for a lighter sentence. But even if he did, he had every right to interfere with the workings of the courts because he’s President of Trumpistan.
He wouldn’t do that, though. Because he’s a pillar of rectitude. But he could if he wanted. And it wouldn’t be his fault if someone down the chain of command in the Department of “Justice,” (as he used to put it, placing the word in parenthesis) understood the signals he was sending.
“I’d be able to do it if I wanted. I have the absolute right to do it. I stay out of things,” he tells representatives of the free press. But, no, he didn’t interfere and ask the DOJ to change the recommendation.
“I didn’t speak to them. I thought the recommendation was ridiculous. I thought the whole prosecution was ridiculous,” he continued. “I thought it was an insult to our country and it shouldn’t happen.”
(Did
he mean the jury was ridiculous when it convicted Stone?)
Finally, reporters asked Trump what he had learned in recent days, what with getting impeached, and now his old buddy Stone maybe facing serious jail time, kind of like Paul Manafort, his other old buddy.
Trump admitted he had grown wiser as a result. You figure he’s going to say, “I guess I should stop hiring people who get convicted of so many felonies.”
Or: “I’m going to have to stop soliciting foreign help every time I run for president.”
But this is the man who runs the Banana Republic. He has learned, he says. He has learned, “That the Democrats are crooked. They got a lot of crooked things going. That they’re vicious.”
Okay: He hasn’t learned shit.
POSTSCRIPT: It turns out this blogger is not overreacting in stating his concerns. Even “Banana Republic Bill” weighs in Thursday. AG Barr recognizes the problem the president’s tweets represent.
That is, it appears Trump is trying to interfere with the normal patterns of American justice. And it appears that he is, because…
He is.
____________________
The president’s comments, “make it impossible for me to do my job, and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.”
Attorney General Bill Barr (a.k.a. “Banana Republic
Bill”)
____________________
In an interview with ABC, Barr says he was under the impression that prosecutors in the Stone case had planned to “defer to the judge” in sentencing.
He said he was surprised when the 7-9 year sentence recommendation was announced by the media.
He and top DOJ aides made the decision to recommend a lighter sentence, a decision that he “thought was fair and reasonable in this particular case.”
Barr went on to assure his interviewer, “In fact, the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.”
However, to have the president making public comments,
about the department, about people
in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the
department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for
me to do my job, and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department
that we’re doing our work with integrity.
He insists he won’t be “bullied” by anyone.
“I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me,” he adds.
Barr agrees that the president can ask for cases to be opened that “don’t affect his personal interest.” Terrorism? the interviewer suggests. Yes, Barr agrees. Or “fraud by a bank.”
If the president suggests investigating a political opponent,
however, “then an Attorney General shouldn’t carry that out. Wouldn’t carry
that out.”
No comments:
Post a Comment