45/47 DoJ v2.0

mickeyrat · February 2020

Thought this deserved its own discussion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barrs-internal-reviews-and-re-investigations-feed-resentment-suspicion-inside-justice-dept/2020/02/15/7007695a-5029-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html

The Justice Department in the Trump era has repeatedly tasked U.S. attorneys from far-flung offices to parachute into politically explosive cases in Washington, raising concerns among current and former officials that agency leaders are trying to please the president by reviewing and reinvestigating cases in which he is personally or politically invested.

After a tumultuous week for federal law enforcement in which Attorney General William P. Barr declared he could not do his job if the president kept tweeting about criminal cases, and officials revealed they had dropped one politically charged case while adding new prosecutors to others, several current and former officials expressed alarm at what they characterized as a troubling pattern.

“The power to investigate is the power to destroy,” said Gregory A. Brower, a former U.S. attorney and former senior FBI official. The current approach to sensitive cases, he said, “gives the appearance of politics coming into play whenever the president has a perceived political enemy. . . . The ability to simply point to a pending investigation against a person can have devastating effects on that person and can have a potential political benefit to the person orchestrating the investigation.”

[Justice Dept. won’t charge McCabe in false statements probe]

On Friday, prosecutors said they would no longer pursue a criminal case against Andrew McCabe, the former acting FBI director who has long been a target of Trump’s vitriol.

The decision infuriated the president, according to a senior White House official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail internal discussions. Trump ranted privately to associates about the announcement, telling one he’s always known McCabe was a “bad guy."

continues...

mickeyrat · February 2020

Former Justice Dept. Lawyers Press for Barr to Step Down https://nyti.ms/3bE9BXf

By Katie Benner

Feb. 16, 2020Updated 9:50 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials called on Attorney General William P. Barr on Sunday to step down after he intervened last week to lower the Justice Department’s sentencing recommendation for President Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr.

They also urged current government employees to report any signs of unethical behavior at the Justice Department to the agency’s inspector general and to Congress.

“Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice,” the former Justice Department lawyers, who came from across the political spectrum, wrote in an open letter on Sunday. Those actions, they said, “require Mr. Barr to resign.”

The sharp denunciation of Mr. Barr underlined the extent of the fallout over the case of Mr. Stone, capping a week that strained the attorney general’s relationship with his rank and file, and with the president himself.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

After prosecutors on Monday recommended a prison sentence of up to nine years for Mr. Stone, who was convicted of obstructing a congressional inquiry, Mr. Trump lashed out at federal law enforcement. Senior officials at the department, including Mr. Barr, overrode the recommendation the next day with a more lenient one, immediately prompting accusations of political interference, and the four lawyers on the Stone case abruptly withdrew in protest.

The Justice Department said the case had not been discussed with anyone at the White House, but that Mr. Trump congratulated Mr. Barr on his decision did little to dispel the perception of political influence. And as the president widened his attacks on law enforcement, Mr. Barr publicly reproached the president, saying that Mr. Trump’s statements undermined him, as well the department.

“I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me,” Mr. Barr said during a televised interview on Thursday with ABC News.

In the days after the interview, Mr. Trump has been relatively muted. He said on Twitter that he had not asked Mr. Barr to “do anything in a criminal case.” As president, he added, he had “the legal right to do so” but had “so far chosen not to!”

But lawyers across the Justice Department continue to worry about political interference from the president despite public pushback by Mr. Barr, long considered a close ally of Mr. Trump’s.

Protect Democracy, a nonprofit legal group, gathered the signatures from Justice Department alumni and said it would collect more.

In May, Protect Democracy gathered signatures for a letter that said the Mueller report presented enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with obstruction of justice were that an option. At the close of his investigation, the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III declined to indicate whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, citing a decades-old department opinion that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. That letter was also critical of Mr. Barr.

Even as the lawyers condemned Mr. Barr on Sunday, they said they welcomed his rebuke of Mr. Trump and his assertions that law enforcement must be independent of politics.

mickeyrat · February 2020

continued...

But Mr. Barr’s “actions in doing the president’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words,” they said.

The letter comes days after some Democratic senators pressed for Mr. Barr to resign, and after the New York City Bar Association said that it had formally reported the attorney general’s behavior to the Justice Department’s inspector general.

Strikingly, the lawyers called upon current department employees to be on the lookout for future abuses and to be willing to bring oversight to the department.

“Be prepared to report future abuses to the inspector general, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and Congress,” they wrote, and “to refuse to carry out directives that are inconsistent with their oaths of office.”

Prosecutors who currently work at the department should withdraw from cases that involve abuses or political interference, the lawyers said.

As a last resort, they asked Justice Department employees “to resign and report publicly — in a manner consistent with professional ethics — to the American people the reasons for their resignation.”

Katie Benner covers the Justice Department. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @ktbenner

mickeyrat · February 2020

If William Barr Truly Believed in Rule of Law, He Would Resign
https://news.yahoo.com/william-barr-truly-believed-rule-190047288.html

RoleModelsinBlood31 · February 2020

They smell what’s coming down the line from Durham and are scared shitless. The whole narrative is going to come out as true and trump is going to bury those involved. This whole sentence recommendation thing was a sham and a play to create another show as evidenced by the fact that they recommended to the AG a normal sentence when the dept was briefed and then (knowing that the media would spin it into a frenzy), recommended a completely different one on monday. They knew that 7-9 years was insane and that trump would freak as would Barr, and then they the prosecutors could stomp their feet and quit to make a bold “crybaby” statement. Any legal minded person knows that’s not how it’s done, you recommend and follow through with the same, or you come out looking like a clown. No surprise that 3 of these 4 prosecutors who staged this sham and then ran were on Meuller’s fake team too.

A Justice Department official issued a statement in which he characterized the sentence recommended by the prosecutors on the case as “extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate.” Additionally, he said the proposed sentence was “not what had been briefed to the Department.”

dismiss, call it a conspiracy, whatever you want. Durham’s grand jury and pending indictments is making waves already.

mickeyrat · February 2020

sooooo, Jan 30 Barr names Timothy Shea as US Attorney for DC(edit named interim)....Feb 10 they submit sentencing recommendation for 7-9 years. 53 pages laying out his crimes, precedents etc.

SHEA SIGNED THE RECOMMENDATION, so its laughable the claims by Barr et all about its excessive and they were going to change it.....

Renfield · February 2020

Attorney General Wiliam Barr considering resigning if the president keeps tweeting - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raises-possibility-of-suing-those-involved-in-prosecuting-roger-stone/2020/02/18/238279fc-5250-11ea-9e47-59804be1dcfb_story.html

Gern Blansten · February 2020

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

They smell what’s coming down the line from Durham and are scared shitless. The whole narrative is going to come out as true and trump is going to bury those involved. This whole sentence recommendation thing was a sham and a play to create another show as evidenced by the fact that they recommended to the AG a normal sentence when the dept was briefed and then (knowing that the media would spin it into a frenzy), recommended a completely different one on monday. They knew that 7-9 years was insane and that trump would freak as would Barr, and then they the prosecutors could stomp their feet and quit to make a bold “crybaby” statement. Any legal minded person knows that’s not how it’s done, you recommend and follow through with the same, or you come out looking like a clown. No surprise that 3 of these 4 prosecutors who staged this sham and then ran were on Meuller’s fake team too.

A Justice Department official issued a statement in which he characterized the sentence recommended by the prosecutors on the case as “extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate.” Additionally, he said the proposed sentence was “not what had been briefed to the Department.”

dismiss, call it a conspiracy, whatever you want. Durham’s grand jury and pending indictments is making waves already.

It seems like you are insane.

Halifax2TheMax · March 2020

Is corrupt and CYA disBarr should be impeached and disbarred, yo!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/mueller-report-attorney-general-william-barr/2020/03/05/3fa7afce-5f2c-11ea-b29b-9db42f7803a7_story.html

dignin · March 2020

Halifax2TheMax said:

Is corrupt and CYA disBarr should be impeached and disbarred, yo!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/mueller-report-attorney-general-william-barr/2020/03/05/3fa7afce-5f2c-11ea-b29b-9db42f7803a7_story.html

OBAMA DEEP STATE JUDGE!

mickeyrat · March 2020

OH HELL FUCKING NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/21/doj-coronavirus-emergency-powers-140023

By BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN

03/21/2020 01:01 PM EDT

The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads through the United States.

Documents reviewed by POLITICO detail the department’s requests to lawmakers on a host of topics, including the statute of limitations, asylum and the way court hearings are conducted. POLITICO also reviewed and previously reported on documents seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the documents.

The move has tapped into a broader fear among civil liberties advocates and Donald Trump’s critics — that the president will use a moment of crisis to push for controversial policy changes. Already, he has cited the pandemic as a reason for heightening border restrictions and restricting asylum claims. He has also pushed for further tax cuts as the economy withers, arguing that it would soften the financial blow to Americans. And even without policy changes, Trump has vast emergency powers that he could legally deploy right now to try and slow the coronavirus outbreak.

The DOJ requests — which are unlikely to make it through a Democratic-led House — span several stages of the legal process, from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.

The Justice Department seal. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images

In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”

The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ document wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies, but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”

The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus –– the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release.

“Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, the executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”

Reimer said the possibility of chief judges suspending all court rules during an emergency without a clear end in sight was deeply disturbing.

“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he said.

The department also asked Congress to pause the statute of limitations for criminal investigations and civil proceedings during national emergencies, “and for one year following the end of the national emergency,” according to the draft legislative text.

Trump recently declared the coronavirus crisis a national emergency.

Another controversial request: The department is looking to change the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in some cases to expand the use of videoconference hearings, and to let some of those hearings happen without defendants’ consent, according to the draft legislative text.

“Video teleconferencing may be used to conduct an appearance under this rule,” read a draft of potential new language for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f), crossing out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”

“Video teleconferencing may be used to arraign a defendant,” read draft text of rule 10(c), again striking out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”

Reimer said forcing people to have hearings over video rather than in person would threaten civil liberties.

“If it were with the consent of the accused person it would be fine,” he said. “But if it’s not with the consent of the accused person, it’s a terrible road to go down. We have a right to public trials. People have a right to be present in court.”

The department also wants Congress to change the law to explicitly say that people with Covid-19 –– the illness caused by the novel coronavirus –– are not included among those who may apply for asylum. And the department asked for the same change regarding people who are “subject to a presidential proclamation suspending and limiting the entry of aliens into the United States,” according to the draft legislative language.

Layli Miller-Munro, the CEO of the Tahirih Justice Center, which advocates for women and girls fleeing violence, said the language would block anyone on a presidential travel ban list from seeking asylum in the U.S.

“I think it’s a humanitarian tragedy that fails to recognize that vulnerable people from those countries are among the most persecuted and that protecting them is exactly what the refugee convention was designed to do,” she said.

The asylum request comes as the Trump administration on Friday said that it would begin denying entry to all migrants illegally crossing the U.S. southern border, including those seeking asylum.

“I hope we come out of this with a sense of oneness, interconnectedness,” Miller-Munro said of the coronavirus pandemic. “Borders can’t protect us. Viruses do not care.”

josevolution · March 2020

mickeyrat said:

OH HELL FUCKING NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/21/doj-coronavirus-emergency-powers-140023

By BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN

03/21/2020 01:01 PM EDT

The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads through the United States.

Documents reviewed by POLITICO detail the department’s requests to lawmakers on a host of topics, including the statute of limitations, asylum and the way court hearings are conducted. POLITICO also reviewed and previously reported on documents seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the documents.

The move has tapped into a broader fear among civil liberties advocates and Donald Trump’s critics — that the president will use a moment of crisis to push for controversial policy changes. Already, he has cited the pandemic as a reason for heightening border restrictions and restricting asylum claims. He has also pushed for further tax cuts as the economy withers, arguing that it would soften the financial blow to Americans. And even without policy changes, Trump has vast emergency powers that he could legally deploy right now to try and slow the coronavirus outbreak.
The DOJ requests — which are unlikely to make it through a Democratic-led House — span several stages of the legal process, from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.

The Justice Department seal. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images

In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”

The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ document wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies, but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”

The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus –– the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release.

“Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, the executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”

Reimer said the possibility of chief judges suspending all court rules during an emergency without a clear end in sight was deeply disturbing.

“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he said.

The department also asked Congress to pause the statute of limitations for criminal investigations and civil proceedings during national emergencies, “and for one year following the end of the national emergency,” according to the draft legislative text.

Trump recently declared the coronavirus crisis a national emergency.

Another controversial request: The department is looking to change the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in some cases to expand the use of videoconference hearings, and to let some of those hearings happen without defendants’ consent, according to the draft legislative text.

“Video teleconferencing may be used to conduct an appearance under this rule,” read a draft of potential new language for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f), crossing out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”

“Video teleconferencing may be used to arraign a defendant,” read draft text of rule 10(c), again striking out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”

Reimer said forcing people to have hearings over video rather than in person would threaten civil liberties.
“If it were with the consent of the accused person it would be fine,” he said. “But if it’s not with the consent of the accused person, it’s a terrible road to go down. We have a right to public trials. People have a right to be present in court.”

The department also wants Congress to change the law to explicitly say that people with Covid-19 –– the illness caused by the novel coronavirus –– are not included among those who may apply for asylum. And the department asked for the same change regarding people who are “subject to a presidential proclamation suspending and limiting the entry of aliens into the United States,” according to the draft legislative language.

Layli Miller-Munro, the CEO of the Tahirih Justice Center, which advocates for women and girls fleeing violence, said the language would block anyone on a presidential travel ban list from seeking asylum in the U.S.

“I think it’s a humanitarian tragedy that fails to recognize that vulnerable people from those countries are among the most persecuted and that protecting them is exactly what the refugee convention was designed to do,” she said.

The asylum request comes as the Trump administration on Friday said that it would begin denying entry to all migrants illegally crossing the U.S. southern border, including those seeking asylum.

“I hope we come out of this with a sense of oneness, interconnectedness,” Miller-Munro said of the coronavirus pandemic. “Borders can’t protect us. Viruses do not care.”

Filed Under:
Department Of Justice,
DOJ,
Donald Trump,
Donald Trump 2020,

lol we can’t protest these days no gatherings of 10 or more

josevolution · March 2020

Gern Blansten said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

They smell what’s coming down the line from Durham and are scared shitless. The whole narrative is going to come out as true and trump is going to bury those involved. This whole sentence recommendation thing was a sham and a play to create another show as evidenced by the fact that they recommended to the AG a normal sentence when the dept was briefed and then (knowing that the media would spin it into a frenzy), recommended a completely different one on monday. They knew that 7-9 years was insane and that trump would freak as would Barr, and then they the prosecutors could stomp their feet and quit to make a bold “crybaby” statement. Any legal minded person knows that’s not how it’s done, you recommend and follow through with the same, or you come out looking like a clown. No surprise that 3 of these 4 prosecutors who staged this sham and then ran were on Meuller’s fake team too.

A Justice Department official issued a statement in which he characterized the sentence recommended by the prosecutors on the case as “extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate.” Additionally, he said the proposed sentence was “not what had been briefed to the Department.”

dismiss, call it a conspiracy, whatever you want. Durham’s grand jury and pending indictments is making waves already.

It seems like you are insane.

lol 😂

josevolution · March 2020

https://apple.news/AQLlxdiXyQFW_hfxwW8XI7A
Like Mickeyrat said, Hell fucking no this fucking Bill Barr wants total population control , even after all this is over he wants to put into place policy that will prevent massive protests, people better wake up to this they want to subdue the population period!

Halifax2TheMax · March 2020

Bush put people in cages because of I guess Iraq. But now? TeamTrump Treason is buying all that he can to prevent dissent and the Berniebrosises are too fucking stupid to see it. In a spending bill no less. Really?Are you woke? Where’s our waving arms and what is wrong with with corporations?

mickeyrat · March 2020

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/03/30/doj-examining-sen-richard-burr-for-stock-dump/

mickeyrat · May 2020

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-dept-moves-to-void-michael-flynns-conviction-in-muellers-russia-probe/2020/05/07/9bd7885e-679d-11ea-b313-df458622c2cc_story.html

Barr is moving to drop the Flynn case. Judge may not go for it..

mickeyrat · May 2020

U.S. judge puts Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Michael Flynn on hold
By Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig
May 12 at 11:50 PM ET
A U.S. judge put on hold the Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Michael Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the bid to exonerate President Trump’s former national security adviser of lying to the FBI.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said in an order Tuesday that he expects individuals and organizations will seek to intervene in the politically charged case. Having others weigh in could preface more aggressive steps that the federal judge in Washington could take, including — as many outside observers have called for — holding a hearing to consider what to do.

Sullivan’s order came after the government took the highly irregular step Thursday of reversing its stance on upholding Flynn’s guilty plea.

The action by Sullivan, a veteran 72-year-old jurist with a national reputation for advocating defendants’ rights to full government disclosure of evidence, appears to rule out immediate action on the Justice Department’s decision to reverse course and throw out Flynn’s December 2017 guilty plea.

Sullivan said he will “at the appropriate time” set a schedule for outside parties to argue against the Justice Department’s claims as the government seeks to drop the charges.

Such “friend-of-the court” or “amicus brief[s] should normally be allowed when a party is not represented . . . has an interest in some other case that may be affected . . . [or] has unique information or perspective that can help the court,” Sullivan said.

The judge said he would be a rigorous gatekeeper, adding, “A criminal proceeding is not a free for all.”

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In an immediate written response to the court, Flynn’s defense said the order was prompted by a notice Monday from an unspecified group referring to itself as “Watergate Prosecutors” that sought to file arguments in the case.

“No rule allows this filing,” Flynn attorney Sidney Powell objected.
Powell said in the more than two years of Flynn’s prosecution, “This Court has consistently — on twenty-four (24) previous occasions — summarily refused to permit any third party to inject themselves or their views into this case.”

Powell also challenged the constitutionality of Sullivan’s order, saying the courts have no authority to permit a third party to “usurp the role of the government’s counsel” in prosecuting an individual in a criminal case.

“This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life — and that of his entire family,” Powell wrote. “No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense.”

The judge’s ruling appeared to be prompted by a unique request filed one day earlier by the team of Watergate prosecutors who pursued an investigation of President Richard Nixon. They sought to file a friend-of-the-court brief to give their legal arguments against Barr’s unusual reversal of Flynn’s prosecution and said they had a “unique perspective on the need for independent scrutiny and oversight to ensure that crucial decisions about prosecutions of high-ranking government officials are made in the public interest.”

“The integrity of prosecutorial decision making is a cornerstone of the rule of law,” they wrote. “Amici have a special interest in restoring the public trust in prosecutorial decision making and in public confidence in the viability of future independent investigations and prosecutions if the results of such work are likely to be subjected to reversal by transparent political influence.”

Sullivan’s order noted that he was proceeding under a rule of civil procedure that gives judges sole discretion to accept outside arguments. Although there is no parallel criminal rule, the federal appeals court for Washington has ruled external entities in criminal cases can always ask to file an amicus brief, Sullivan said.

Legal experts said the order allows others to file objections to the Justice Department’s move and could open the door for adversarial proceedings in which one or more attorneys argue against the Justice Department. It would also permit, if the judge chooses, requiring both sides to produce evidence and revisit the case for and against Flynn.

In an evidentiary hearing, Sullivan could call witnesses — such as Flynn, his investigators or even prosecutors — to obtain more facts about how the case was handled and why Flynn and agents took the steps they did.

Sullivan has not hesitated to personally question Flynn in court before, as he did during a 2018 hearing, when he rejected a defense motion supported by the government for probation.

Sullivan had said he was not satisfied by the former three-star Army general’s cooperation with special counsel’s probe.

“Arguably, you sold your country out,” Sullivan told Flynn.

Flynn was convicted of lying to investigators about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador about easing U.S. sanctions during Trump’s presidential transition in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn had initially repeated that he was guilty of lying, that no one had coerced him to admit his guilt and that he had no intention of taking back that plea. Flynn also said he took responsibility for wrongdoing that also culminated in his firing by Trump for misleading Vice President Pence, White House aides and the public.

[Flynn decision cheered by Trump and the right, as critics decry it as an attack on the rule of law]

After Mueller’s investigation into 2016 campaign interference closed last year, Flynn changed defense teams, began attacking prosecutors and gained Trump’s support, claiming he was entrapped in a partisan FBI and Justice Department conspiracy.

In January, Attorney General William P. Barr tapped Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, to review how the case had been handled. Jensen said publicly last week that he recommended it be dropped. Jensen asserted that newly analyzed FBI reports and communications showed the bureau had no valid basis to question Flynn, so any lies he told were not relevant to a criminal probe.

The Justice Department’s attempts to dismiss the case last week prompted fresh accusations from law enforcement officials and Democrats that the criminal justice system was caving to political pressure from the Trump administration.

Flynn prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, a Mueller team member, quit the case in apparent protest before the Justice Department’s move to drop the charges, while Trump applauded the actions.

Matt Zapotosky contributed to this report.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2020

so. corrupt. and they don't care. they don't care at all. this is trump's doj. they are salivating at the ability to do whatever the fuck they want in plain view. it's sickening.

Gern Blansten · May 2020

It is interesting how team tRump states that he can do anything he wants as president, has immunity, etc., yet they are stating that Obama broke the law somehow.

The distraction they intentionally create is amazing. I hope we are smart enough to get rid of these fucks.

Halifax2TheMax · May 2020

I like this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/court-asks-retired-judge-to-fight-justice-dept-effort-to-drop-michael-flynn-case-and-examine-if-ex-trump-adviser-committed-perjury/2020/05/13/8c0deb0a-9567-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

45/47 DoJ v2.0

Comments

Categories