Add news
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010June 2010July 2010
August 2010
September 2010October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011March 2011April 2011May 2011June 2011July 2011August 2011September 2011October 2011November 2011December 2011January 2012February 2012March 2012April 2012May 2012June 2012July 2012August 2012September 2012October 2012November 2012December 2012January 2013February 2013March 2013April 2013May 2013June 2013July 2013August 2013September 2013October 2013November 2013December 2013January 2014February 2014March 2014April 2014May 2014June 2014July 2014August 2014September 2014October 2014November 2014December 2014January 2015February 2015March 2015April 2015May 2015June 2015July 2015August 2015September 2015October 2015November 2015December 2015January 2016February 2016March 2016April 2016May 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016October 2016November 2016December 2016January 2017February 2017March 2017April 2017May 2017June 2017July 2017August 2017September 2017October 2017November 2017December 2017January 2018February 2018March 2018April 2018May 2018June 2018July 2018August 2018September 2018October 2018November 2018December 2018January 2019February 2019March 2019April 2019May 2019June 2019July 2019August 2019September 2019October 2019November 2019December 2019January 2020February 2020March 2020April 2020May 2020June 2020July 2020
News Every Day |

Roger Stone Prosecutor Details ‘Political Influence’ Behind Sentencing Fiasco

A career Justice Department attorney who led the prosecution of Roger Stone says he was “explicitly” told that actions were being taken in Stone’s case out of fear of President Trump.

Aaron Zelinsky, an assistant U.S. attorney who also served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, made the claim in written testimony posted Tuesday, ahead of his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday.

Zelinsky’s written testimony focuses on the DOJ’s move to water down the original sentencing recommendation that he and other career prosecutors submitted in the case. Zelensky ultimately withdrew from the case “over the political influence in the case.”

Zelinksy says that he was told that there was “pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice to cut Stone a break,” according to the written remarks.

“I was explicitly told that the motivation for changing the sentencing memo was political, and because the U.S. Attorney was ‘afraid of the President,’” he writes.

Wednesday’s congressional testimony from Zelinsky — and another career DOJ official who is expected to testify about political influence on antitrust actions — will be the highest-profile examination yet of recent controversial DOJ moves under Attorney General Bill Barr.

In addition to the Stone case, the Justice Department has also made drastic changes to its course in Michael Flynn’s case, which it is now pushing to get dismissed.

Zelinsky’s opening remarks claim that the intervention in the Stone case was unlike anything he’d ever seen before at the Department of Justice.

He and his career prosecutors submitted their sentencing memo on Monday, Feb. 10, after they pushed back on initial attempts from the Department to weaken the recommendation, according to the testimony.

At first, when the line prosecutors on Feb. 5 first sent their supervisors their initial draft of the sentencing memo — which recommended Stone serve seven to nine years — their supervisor praised it and said that Stone “deserve[d] every day” they were recommending, according to the testimony.

Two days later, according to Zelinsky, the prosecution team came under pressure from the leadership in the U.S. Attorney’s office — which at the time was led by Timothy Shea, a Barr ally — to change the memo so that a lower sentencing guideline range would be presented to the judge.

Zelinsky’s team objected to these requests because they were “inappropriate” under DOJ policy and “unwarranted” in Stone’s case, Zelinsky says.

“In response, we were told by a supervisor that the U.S. Attorney had political reasons for his instructions, which our supervisor agreed was unethical and wrong,” Zelinksy says. “However, we were instructed that we should go along with the U.S. Attorney’s 10 instructions, because this case was ‘not the hill worth dying on’ and that we could ‘lose our jobs’ if we did not toe the line.”

Zelinsky’s team also received word that the office leadership wanted passages removed describing Stone’s conduct — another directive Zelinsky says was “inconsistent” with DOJ practice.

Zelinsky threatened to withdraw from the case “rather than sign a memo that was the result of wrongful political pressure,” he says, and ultimately his team got an okay to submit a version that included the original sentencing range calculations but removed the passages about Stone’s conduct.

Early the following morning, Trump tweeted angrily about the recommendation, and Zelinksy says he learned from media reports that Tuesday that the Justice Department was planning to claw back the recommendation.

At first the U.S. Attorney’s office told Zelinksy those reports were false, according to his testimony. But later Tuesday his team was informed that there would be a new memo seeking a “substantially” lower the recommended sentence for Stone.

Zelinksy’s request to see the new memo before it was filed was denied, he says.

“We were not informed about the content or substance of the proposed filing, or even who was writing it. We were told that one potential draft of the filing attacked us personally,” he writes.

He and three of his colleagues withdrew from the case that Tuesday afternoon, and no line assistant U.S. attorneys were on the revised memo the DOJ filed, which Zelinksy says is “something that is virtually unprecedented.”

Zelinsky is appearing at Wednesday’s hearing under subpoena, and in his written remarks, he previewed how he’d handle any instances where the DOJ invoked certain privileges in his testimony.

“I intend to respect the invocation of these privileges in appropriate circumstances, but also recognize that, for example, the deliberative process privilege does not apply when testimony sheds light on government misconduct, or when the Government has disclosed deliberative information selectively and misleadingly,” he writes.

“The Department has cleared my submission of this written statement.”

Read the written testimony below:

Read also

A closer look at transgender activism in Europe

Irish housebuilding to fall by one-third due to COVID-19: central bank

Aston Martin Racing Enter First Two Rounds Of 2020 ELMS

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here