WASHINGTON – Still reeling from a highly public clash that led to the firing of one of its most prominent prosecutors, the Justice Department again finds itself under a glaring spotlight as two of its employees told Congress Wednesday that the agency’s leadership abused its power at the behest of President Donald Trump.
Aaron Zelinsky, one of the attorneys who prosecuted Roger Stone, said that the Justice Department gave the GOP operative “unprecedentedly favorable treatment” and pressured prosecutors to “cut Stone a break” by recommending a lenient sentence because he is an ally of the president, according to his prepared statement. He and the other prosecutors were told to go along, Zelinsky said, or they could be fired.
John Elias, an attorney in the department’s Antitrust Division, said that the agency’s political appointees pursued unwarranted investigations over the objections of career employees. One investigation, Elias said, was launched after a Trump tweet.
The pair offered the blistering criticisms of Justice Department leadership before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating allegations of political interference within the agency.
‘Unprecedentedly favorable treatment’:DOJ gave Roger Stone favorable treatment because he is an ally of the president, prosecutor says
Such potentially damaging testimony – delivered in a public spectacle – is unusual as career Justice Department attorneys typically don’t go before Congress, let alone publicly rebuke their own superiors. A 2000 Justice Department letter said the agency believed its career prosecutors should not be required to testify before Congress because doing so could compromise their independence.
That Zelinsky and Elias are doing so says a lot about concerns among career employees over what they see as politicization of the Justice Department, said William Yeomans, a Justice Department veteran who served under five Republican and Democratic presidents, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush.
“It’s incredibly disturbing. And I think it’s quite courageous that they’re coming forward,” Yeomans said. “There’s very strong ethic in DOJ against going public. They avoid the press, they avoid publicity. For these career prosecutors to think things have gone so far off the rails that they need to speak out, that speaks volumes about what’s going on inside the Department of Justice.”
Testimonies are latest allegations of political meddling
Zelinsky and Elias were subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee, but Yeomans said the two could have defied the congressional subpoena as others in the Trump administration have done during the impeachment proceedings against the president.
The testimonies are the latest in a parade of allegations that Attorney General William Barr has turned the Justice Department into a political annex of the president.
Last weekend, Barr and Geoffrey Berman, the former Manhattan chief federal prosecutor, clashed over control of one of the Justice Department’s most powerful offices that prosecuted and investigated several Trump allies. Barr had announced that Berman will be resigning as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York to make way for the president’s favored replacement. But Berman fired back, saying he has no intention of resigning. Trump then fired Berman, ending a standoff that fueled allegations that the administration is removing those it considers to be disloyal or a threat.
Geoffrey Berman firing:AG Barr’s glowing account of NY prosecutor’s work further clouds dismissal
‘No intention of resigning’:US attorney in Manhattan vows to resist Barr’s effort to oust him, continue probes
Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said he will look into the matter as part of the committee’s broader investigation on the politicization of the Justice Department. Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday that Barr has accepted an invitation to appear before the committee on July 28.
In the fraught prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a retired federal judge accused the Justice Department of abusing its prosecutorial power by providing special treatment to an ally of the president.
‘Unethical and wrong’
Zelinsky, one of the prosecutors on former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, said in his opening statement that the Justice Department’s leadership from the highest levels pressured prosecutors to recommend a lenient sentence for Stone for political reasons – a move that a supervisor acknowledged was “unethical and wrong.” He said he and the other prosecutors on the case repeatedly raised concerns about “such political favoritism,” but their objections “were not heeded.”
Zelinsky and the three other career attorneys who prosecuted Stone quit from the case in protest. The prosecutors had recommended a prison sentence of seven to nine years for Stone, whom a jury had convicted of seven crimes, including lying to Congress to protect Trump and his campaign. But the Justice Department backed away from that recommendation – an unusual move that comes after Trump’s public criticism of the sentence.
The Justice Department said Zelinsky’s allegations were his own interpretation of events and were not based on conversations with Barr or others in the political leadership. The department said Barr believed the sentence recommendation was too excessive and decided to “correct” it independently – without consulting Trump or anyone at the White House.
“The Attorney General stated during his confirmation hearing that it (is) his job to ensure that the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law is above and away from politics,” the department said.
The Roger Stone case:Prosecutors quit as DOJ backtracks on prison recommendation for Trump ally
Another career prosecutor, Elias, said the agency’s leadership launched multiple investigations of marijuana mergers because Barr personally disfavors the cannabis industry.
In his opening statement, Elias said the head of the Antitrust Division acknowledged during a staff meeting that the investigations were launched because the cannabis industry was unpopular “on the fifth floor,” a reference to Barr’s office in the Justice Department’s headquarters.
“Personal dislike of the industry is not a proper basis upon which to ground an antitrust investigation,” said Elias, who joined the Justice Department in 2006.
Elias will also testify about the Justice Department’s decision to investigate whether four major automakers violated antitrust laws by striking a deal with California to reduce emissions. The companies agreed to adopt environmental standards that were stricter than the rules the Trump administration preferred, causing a series of furious tweets from the president.
Emissions deal:Ford, VW, BMW, Honda reach agreement with California, bucking rollback
“The day after the tweets, Antitrust Division political leadership instructed staff to initiate an investigation,” Elias said, adding that career staff believed there was no basis for the investigation because states have wide latitude to adopt environmental regulations.
A Justice Department spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment about Elias’ allegations.
What’s unusual, what’s not
Yeomans said it is not unusual for the Justice Department under different administrations to have varying political priorities. For example, consent decrees and investigations of police departments accused of systemic abuse was a top priority during the Obama administration. The Trump administration has moved away from consent decrees and has focused on other civil rights investigations involving religious liberty and sexual harassment.
But what’s highly unusual, Yeomans said, is for the political appointees to interfere in criminal prosecutions. “To interfere in an individual case is another matter,” he said.
“The Department of Justice has had its problems over the years, but it has always maintained its dignity,” Yeomans said. “Its value to the country depends on its legitimacy. It depends on people believing that career prosecutors are making decisions based on facts and law. When we get away from that, the department suffers as an institution. Once legitimacy is compromised, it’s hard to win back.”
Another witness on Wednesday’s hearing is Donald Ayer, deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush who has called for Barr to resign.
Michael Mukasey, attorney general under President George Bush and a Barr ally, will also testify. Mukasey praised Barr during his confirmation hearing last year, calling him “an honorable, decent, smart man” who will make a “superb Attorney General.”
Contributing: Kevin Johnson
Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/24/justice-department-lawyers-accuse-ag-william-barr-politicization/3246083001/
Comments