Category Archives: Robert Mueller

Judge in Roger Stone case rebukes Trump-backed conspiracies in impassioned stand for ‘truth’ and the rule of law

Judge in Roger Stone case rebukes Trump-backed conspiracies in impassioned stand for ‘truth’ and the rule of law
By Marshall Cohen
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/politics/amy-berman-jackson-roger-stone-sentencing-trump-fallout/index.html

Washington (CNN)The judge who decided Roger Stone’s fate made an impassioned plea for the truth and the rule of law at his sentencing hearing Thursday, a direct rebuke of President Donald Trump amid the deepening crisis over his interference in the Justice Department.

But federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s intense appeal Thursday in a packed Washington courtroom quickly collided with the reality of Trump’s presidency.

Before, during and after the sentencing hearing, Trump promoted some of the same conspiracy theories that Jackson methodically dismantled while explaining her decision to send Stone to prison for more than three years.

And before the end of the day, Trump teased the eventual possibility of pardoning Stone, his longtime friend and political booster.

For about 50 intense minutes on Thursday, Jackson highlighted Stone’s crimes and condemned the scorched-earth politics that he and Trump championed for years, most recently in 2016.

Along the way, she debunked no fewer than five conspiracy theories that have found a home on Trump’s Twitter feed, conservative media outlets and Stone’s allies on the fringes of the Internet.

First, Jackson said it’s “beyond debate” that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election, citing conclusions from across the US government. But Trump has never unequivocally accepted these findings, and has publicly embraced denials from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Then, Jackson added, “This case did not arise because Roger Stone was being pursued by his political enemies,”, or because of Stone’s ties to Republicans, as Trump has alleged. Instead, Stone was charged because he told “flat-out lies” to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, then threatened a witness who could expose his lies.

All of the false statements, Jackson noted, were made “not to some secret anti-Trump cabal,” but to the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee in 2017.

This zinger was a clear shot at Trump’s claim that a “deep state” in the US government has tried to take him down.

The courtroom was hushed while Jackson summed up Stone’s crimes: “He wasn’t prosecuted for standing up for the President. He was prosecuted for covering up for the President.”

The split-screen day highlights how Trump knows the rules of the game and bends them to his own advantage. Jackson’s comments were uttered in a closed courtroom, where cameras are banned, with about 150 people listening. But Trump’s comments are broadcast live on national TV and amplified to his 72 million followers.

Tension in the courthouse

Inside the courtroom, as Jackson tore into the unfounded theories, Stone’s family, friends and supporters grew sullen. His stepdaughter leaned forward and pressed her clasped hands to her face. One friend hunched over in his seat, staring down at the floor. Another friend silently cried.

Jackson grew more intense as she defended the Justice Department prosecutors who tried the case but quit last week after Trump and Attorney General William Barr criticized their original sentencing recommendation, which asked that Stone serve seven to nine years in prison.

“Any suggestion the prosecutors did anything … improper or unethical is incorrect,” Jackson said, even though Trump repeatedly claimed they were “rogue” and “corrupt,” smearing their reputations because some of them worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“The truth still exists. The truth still matters,” Jackson said, echoing a passionate and persuasive refrain that one of the now-sidelined prosecutors made during closing arguments in November.

The jury convicted Stone of lying to Congress when he said he didn’t talk about WikiLeaks with anyone on the Trump campaign. The evidence showed that he discussed it with senior officials like Paul Manafort and Steve Bannon, and even Trump himself, Jackson noted.

Later Thursday, Trump falsely insisted that “Roger was never involved in the Trump campaign for president.

“The jury also found Stone guilty of tampering with a key witness, radio host Randy Credico, and pressuring him to plead the Fifth Amendment when he was asked by the House to testify. The pressure included profane language and violent threats against Credico and his beloved dog.

But Trump downplayed Stone’s conviction at an event in Nevada, aptly about criminal justice reform. He said it wasn’t as bad as the movies, where mobsters put “guns to people’s heads.”

“Maybe there was tampering (by Stone), and maybe there wasn’t,” Trump said.

The disgust over Stone’s brazen lies to Congress and efforts to impede an investigation into critical national security issues “should transcend party,” Jackson said repeatedly at the hearing.

After the proceedings wrapped up, Stone was spotted at a ritzy Washington restaurant watching Trump’s speech.

In today’s mind-numbingly polarized climate, which in many ways was engineered by Stone himself, Jackson’s appeals to America’s most basic virtues fell flat.

At the Palm steakhouse, Stone appeared calm, with his jacket off, and surrounded by his supporters and loved ones. He ate chicken paillard and watched on a cell phone while the President talked about his case.

Asked if he was expecting clemency from his ally, Stone responded: “I don’t know, that’s why we’re watching. The President is speaking right now.”

CNN’s Katelyn Polantz, Nicolle Okoren, Evan Perez and Shimon Prokupecz contributed to this report.

Trump says he’s the nation’s top cop, a debatable claim

Trump says he’s the nation’s top cop, a debatable claim
By Mark Sherman
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-he-s-the-nation-s-top-cop-a-debatable-claim/ar-BB10aAdA

President Donald Trump asserts that he is the nation’s top cop, a title more typically accorded the attorney general.

Even the Trump-cheerleading White House website sides with the attorney general, describing him as the “chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.”

But the president’s claim is consistent with the robust view of executive power that Trump and his supporters have put forth since he took office in 2017. And some conservative legal minds think Trump is right, but that it’s better public policy to keep law enforcement at arm’s length.

Several veterans of President Barack Obama’s administration described Trump’s assertion as dangerous and simply wrong on the law.

Since the Senate impeachment trial ended with his acquittal, Trump has urged leniency for convicted confidant Roger Stone, pushed impeachment witnesses out of their jobs, verbally attacked a federal judge and complained that a juror who voted to convict Stone was biased.

The president has denied that he intervened to force the Justice Department to withdraw a recommendation of seven to nine years in prison for Stone. Attorney General William Barr has backed Trump up, saying he did not consult with the president before ordering a call for a shorter prison term.

But Trump said there would have been nothing wrong if he had stepped in. “I’m allowed to be totally involved. I’m actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country. But I’ve chosen not to be involved,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

That’s essentially the same message Trump’s lawyers sent special counsel Robert Mueller in January 2018, as they offered to provide written answers to Mueller’s questions to the president about possible obstruction of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired,” Trump lawyer John Dowd wrote.

John Yoo, a University of California at Berkeley law school professor and Justice Department lawyer during President George W. Bush’s administration, said the Constitution gives the president the power Trump claims.

“But while the President is in charge constitutionally, as a matter of good policy, presidents have kept law enforcement at arms length. Neutrality in law enforcement is important if the government is to have the credibility and integrity to convince judges and juries, who are the ones who ultimate render the verdict,” Yoo wrote in an email.

Josh Blackman, a South Texas College of Law professor, agreed with Yoo about Trump’s authority over criminal prosecutions. “The President can delegate that power to the AG, but ultimately the President has the final call,” Blackman wrote in an email.

But the latest actions by Trump drew condemnation from more than 2,400 former Justice Department officials who served in Democratic and Republican administrations. In an open letter, they said that the department’s rule book for its lawyers calls for impartial decision-making that is insulated from political influence.

“All DOJ lawyers are well-versed in these rules, regulations, and constitutional commands. They stand for the proposition that political interference in the conduct of a criminal prosecution is anathema to the Department’s core mission and to its sacred obligation to ensure equal justice under the law,” the department alumni wrote.

Martin Lederman, a Georgetown law professor and former Obama Justice Department official, said on Twitter that Congress, not the president, gives the authority to prosecute to the attorney general. It’s also the attorney general’s responsibility, Lederman said, to stand up to a president who charts an unlawful course, “knowing that it might … lead to removal.”

Chris Lu, who managed Obama’s Cabinet in his first term, said the Obama White House followed its predecessors in adhering to strict rules on who could communicate with the Justice Department and on what topics.

“What Trump is suggesting is at odds with this longstanding precedent and dangerous to the principle of impartial justice,” Lu said.