Trump’s Interference in Justice Department Sparks Exodus
It’s heartening to know that, prior to today, there were at least four honorable people in the U.S. Department of Justice. The problem, however, is the same as with the scientists who resign from government positions because their work is ignored and corporate interests dictate public policy. I.e., they are replaced by those loyal to Trump.
I have no idea what this mass exodus from the DoJ will result in, but it’s a shame that four decent people are no longer working there.
Craig,
“Trump’s Interference in Justice Department”
Why lie?
The president didn’t interfere, and there is no “mass exodus”!
4 individuals from a staff of 115,000 is hardly a “mass exodus”.
The 4 prosecutors (all Obama era appointees) were indignant with District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, (also an Obama appointee) questioning the necessity for such a harsh sentence.
Even then, only one prosecutor actually resigned from the DoJ, the other three only retired from this case.
1 out of 115,000 is even less of a “mass exodus”!
As for the President interfering, all he did was send twitter comments about the case to the general public.
Since when is a politician, even the President, prevented from commenting on a public issue regarding a constituent?
Not only is it his right, but duty.
Craig,
Since I last posted, the DoJ has confirmed the President’s tweet had nothing to do with the decision to reverse the sentencing recommendation.
The decision had already been made prior the tweet as soon as senior officials realized the grossly excessive miscalculation by the Prosecutor.
Federal sentencing has two components. The first is the statutory range.
The second is the Federal Sentencing Guidelines issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
The guidelines a complicated table comprising of a point system to calculate an offense level to arrive at sentencing range.
By normal calculation Stone should have been in the 10 to 14 point range, but the court prosecutors assessed this crimes as deserving of 29 to 36 points!
This puts Roger Stone in the category of professional underworld violent crime crime figures.
The Prosecutor argued a nine year sentence is worented because Stone’s obstruction of justice “involved causing or threatening to cause physical injury to a person, or property damage.”
Prosecutors relied upon two threats to a witness ie; “Prepare to die, c-cksucker” and him threatening to “take that dog away from you.”
However, to be considered threats for the purpose of sentencing, the threats ahad to create real fear in the mind of the witness and a real likelihood of the threats being carried out.
In Roger Stone’s case, the evidence of the witness was very clear. The witness was in no real fear and testified at trial that he did not seriously believe Stone would follow through on his so-called threats.
The “victim” of Roger Stone’s bellicose tirades denied the felt threatened and he “chalked up Stone’s rants as just,”Stone being Stone, All bark no bite”.
The failure of the Prosecutor to provide the Sentencing Judge with this frame of reference would be grounds for an immediate appeal. (that’s enough to trigger a DoJ superior to intervene).
However you feel about Roger Stone, he’s entitled to due process and fair treatment.
Even the NYT begrudgingly conceded the DOJ did not consult with the White House regarding their revised recommendation to the court.
The NYT further conceded Attorney-general Barr was not aware of the President’s tweet and that the decision to reel in the earlier sentencing recommendation had been made prior to Trump’s tweet.
But, even that information didn’t prevent you from your rant….