Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Irrelevance of the Truth
The letter sent by 1,100 former officials from the Department of Justice condemning AG William Barr is a travesty. That these former officials would demand AG Barr’s resignation in the face of the circumstances that have been publicized and the lack of a complete set of facts is so blatantly political that it should be embarrassing to all of them. They are so blinded by their political biases, however, that they have no clue about how they have tarnished their own reputations.
If we look carefully at this situation, we can see that there are differences of opinion on what actually happened regarding the sentencing recommendation of the Stone case. The protest letter authors assume they know exactly what happened, but given AG Barr’s reputation, I think they don’t have the grounds for a legitimate protest. In their letter, they make this statement:
The Department has a long-standing practice in which political appointees set broad policies that line prosecutors apply to individual cases. That practice exists to animate the constitutional principles regarding the even-handed application of the law. Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case. It is even more outrageous for the Attorney General to intervene as he did here — after the President publicly condemned the sentencing recommendation that line prosecutors had already filed in court.
The statement that I italicized is simply untrue. It may be rare for the top leaders to overrule, but they do. In fact, AG Barr had to step in because although the four prosecutors had recommended seven to nine years to the top leadership, they were told this sentence recommendation was excessive and to reduce it. They decided, however, to “bully” Timothy Shea, who had recently been made the top federal prosecutor in DC, into signing off on the longer sentence. It’s called insubordination. Shea’s misstep was one factor behind this judicial mess.
But AG Barr refused to let the recommendation stand; he was not going to let these rogue prosecutors decide on their own what was appropriate.
Jonathan Turley, a highly regarded professor at George Washington University Law School wrote on the appropriateness of AG Barr’s actions:
First, the prosecutors may have filed without approval and in conflict with the views of Main Justice. That would be an act of insubordination if Main Justice had not signed off on the recommendation or ordered a different recommendation. These prosecutors are subject to the decisions of the Justice Department on policy and strategy.
Second, Main Justice may have demanded a change after the recommendation that the prosecutors may have viewed as political interference from the White House. The prosecutors could argue that they set the recommendation at the high end, but still within, the sentencing guidelines. That would, of course, be equally serious and concerning.
Turley’s concern was not the action that AG Barr took to rescind the recommendation, but the circumstances that motivated the action:
Thus, it is not improper as a general rule to have Main Justice intervene in a case or countermand local prosecutors. The sole question is the impetus for the change. If the Criminal Division objected on the same grounds that many of us have been raising, it would not be improper. If the White House objected, the move to override the local prosecutors would be a serious breach of prosecutorial integrity and independence. Given the President’s public statement, we cannot rule out the latter and assume the former. That is why Barr needs to make this normally confidential process much more transparent.
Timelines for these actions are mixed and confusing. President Trump was foolish to speak publicly about the Stone case; he could have privately consulted AG Barr. I fully supported Barr’s public criticism of Trump’s tweets regarding specific cases in the DOJ, although it’s not clear whether his protest will make a difference. At least he told the public that he’s not under anyone’s thumb.
He will appear before the House Judiciary Committee in late March on this subject.
Naturally, if you hate the President and AG Barr’s actions in the DOJ to-date, you assume the worst. The willingness of the former DOJ employees to tar the DOJ and AG Barr because of their assumptions is one more example of the irrelevance of the truth for the Left.
Published in Law
Before I know whether Jonathan Turley should be “highly regarded” or not, I’ll have to see a complete list of all his political affiliations and contributions and ..:
When are they going to give up on this “thought crime nonsense? 1984 is a dystopian novel,not a blueprint!
The letter they wrote is a clever diversion. Instead of focusing on the insubordination of the prosecutors, they’re going after Barr and Trump. Of course, they’d like to think that if they were in the shoes of the four prosecutors, they would be just as brave. How dare Barr act like their boss!
The recommendation by the four prosecutors (two of whom were part of the sleazo Mueller team, and other two just routine DOJ hacks) was a setup. If they were allowed to go ahead with it they knew the judge would not accept their recommendation so it was all for show and they’d become heroes and if they were overruled by DOJ they could make an issue of it and become heroes.
The 1100 former DOJ lawyers should just be ignored. In fact, their complaint tells us Barr is on the right track and is further evidence of the extent of corrupt partisanship at DOJ and for how long it has gone on. They didn’t care when Holder was running around boasting he was Obama’s wingman, they didn’t care when 2/3 of the IGs in the government, including Horowitz at DOJ, sent letter to Congress complaining about Administration obstruction of their investigations, obstruction they specifically said was led by Holder at DOJ, they didn’t care when Holder was cited for contempt of Congress and ignored it, they didn’t care when Obama obstructed justice in the Clinton email investigation. We can go on and on.
I also think Trump should just have kept quiet. And he needs to keep quiet about any pending cases. Barr is right about that.
And, I suppose these same 1,100 former DOJ officials saw no problem with Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s famous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Oh, I forgot, they were just talking about their grandchildren. Move along folks; nothing to see here.
Whoa! Late Breaking News! Eight legal analysts who work for CNN and MSNBC signed a petition calling for the resignation of Attorney General William Barr. Well there, you have it…He’s gotta go!
A large number of people will never dig into the details, will only accept that former officials are criticizing Barr and Trump. Fortunately, I think enough Trump supporters see this for the crock that it is.
Should Trump be re-elected, one positive action would be to reorganize the Justice Department and make it smaller. (wash and repeat for other federal departments) Along with decreasing the number of potential leakers, it would result in fewer former officials who could criticize future Republican presidents.
I only have to know that Barr is being attacked by former DOJ officials and CNN employees to feel confident he is doing something right.
All excellent points, @gumbymark. I suspect that Timothy Shea has been “counseled” on not letting himself be bullied, too. I suspect what they were demanding was so outrageous that he signed off without thinking. I suspect he’ll know better next time!
Actually I heard there’s a new book out on that little tarmac encounter. I don’t know if it’s worth looking into; at this point, nothing will happen. Thanks, @cacrabtree.
Right on all counts, @tedley. What disturbs me about the letter is that people will be convinced by the sheer number of attorneys who spoke out, without knowing there’s no “there there.” But the DOJ needs some major cleaning. I hope Barr is figuring out who to dump.
Yep! Over the target, as they say. Thanks, @songwriter.
The count is now 2000 former DOJ officials. I don’t know why there are so many former DOJ officials that have TDS. I am beginning to think that the swamp gas of DC is permanently altering minds. Or, the DOJ is a magnet for those with pre-TDS.
I think it would be interesting to see a list of whom these 1100 attorneys voted for in 1916. I’d be surprised if more than 5 voted for President Trump.
President Obama brought many attorneys who shared his worldview into the Department of Justice (DOJ) during his administration. He and Eric Holder made the DOJ a highly politicized organization. When President Trump was elected most of these attorneys joined Civil Service and became permanent DOJ employees. I agree that Trump should not tweet about cases or judges. He should give his opinion to Attorney Barr in private. My fear is that if he continues to tweet about DOJ as he is currently doing, he runs the risk that the results of Attorney Durham’s investigation will not be considered credible. If Trump doesn’t like the sentence that Stone is given, he can always pardon him.
Interesting point, @alkennedy. Although the Left will discredit Durham’s report anyway.
What I hate is the murky, tangled mess that these things always are. They always seem to require some insider knowledge of judicial matters, which I do not possess. There is always someone with a well written defense of the actions, but there is always someone with a well written critique of the actions as well. And where can I go to get unbiased details about who Roger Stone is? Nowhere. Not Fox, not CNN, not NYT. Nowhere.
Clarity is very important to me, too, @spin. The mess that we’ve muddled through over the last three years has been so frustrating.
Yes. Obama and Holder packed DOJ with political appointees that they got civil service status for. I don’t recall the details but it was news about 8 years ago. The DOJ is far too large and the role of Mueller (actually Weissmann) is not one anyone should be proud of,. His performance at his hearing shows that he was a figurehead to cover the partisans running the operation.
https://www.fedsmith.com/2017/09/28/gao-finds-76-instances-obama-political-appointees-burrowing/
Yes, but he (President Trump) still needs to stop. It lends credibility to their campaign to discredit. Let Barr & Co. do his job.
It started before Obama. Remember Janet Reno and her Deputy AG, Eric Holder? And it’s not just the DOJ.
James Howard Kunstler has a somewhat optimistic view:
Dan Bongino noted that the DOJ had egg on its face after a DC jury acquitted Gregory Craig and didn’t want to risk another loss. Lisa Page would probably have had to testify against him to make the case.
Her photo toasting the charges against him being dropped suggests that as far as she’s concerned, omertà is the word. There were earlier reports that she’d been flipped, though. If she was, her handlers have her playing a long game.
Time will tell.
What’s the crock?
That Roger Stone was found guilty?
That the sentencing was so severe?
The media outrage at DOJs ignoring the recommended sentence?
The Russian investigation itself?
What are you calling a crock?
That the prosecutors made such a ridiculous sentencing recommendation.
The entire Russia investigation.
On the other hand, Stone was guilty and would be found so again in a retrial.
On the third hand, it was a crock that the Mueller team authorized a SWAT team arrest of Stone at his home, after making sure to tip off CNN when there is no doubt he would have surrendered himself like most defendants in similar situation.
On the fourth hand, the prosecution itself never would have happened but for the crock of the entire Russia investigation.
Andy McCarthy always helps”
Spot on Susan!
1100 former DOJ officials… There need to be a lot more former DOJ officials. The problem is, the problem is in every branch of government at every level.
Remember, in most cities, chiefs of police serve at the pleasure of the mayor or city manager. This is what gives the Mayor of LA pleasure:
I just don’t get it. Seeing Chiefs refuse to enforce the law is incomprehensible to me. Over politics? Really?
They should get the Theophilus Eugene Connor Award for distinguished public service.
Unfortunately, this is looking more like
realitytomorrow’s California headlines every day: