When in the past has a federal prosecutor ever come forward, by name, to publicly lift the lid on the Justice Department and expose the termites that are gnawing its woodwork? Never.
That’s because there has never been an infestation like we’re seeing now – and the Trump-Barr cabal (which I detailed here yesterday) is arguably most treacherous in the case of Roger Stone. To understand what happened, we should listen to Aaron Zelinsky, an assistant U.S. attorney who quit that case in disgust after Trump and Barr put their paws on the scales of justice.
In Zelinsky’s words, the pressure to go easy on Trump’s henchman “was wrong and contrary to legal ethics and Department policy…In the many cases I have been privileged to work on in my career, I have never seen political influence play any role in prosecutorial decision-making. With one exception: United States v. Roger Stone.”
But before I yield the floor to Zelinsky – who’s meeting today with the House Judiciary Committee, having released his testimony in advance – let’s set the scene. Stone, you may recall, is a veteran Republican dirty trickster and one of Trump’s oldest operatives. In 2016 he was Trump’s liaison to WikiLeaks, which harvested all the Hillary documents that Russia’s hackers had stolen. He subsequently lied to Congress that his hands were clean, even though he was proven to be dirty. Stone was then prosecuted by the U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Columbia. At his criminal trial, he refused to testify against Trump; he was convicted on seven counts, including witness intimidation, lying under oath to the judge, and posting the judge’s picture online with a target icon next to her head.
The next step was to put Stone in prison, for a period of time commensurate with his crimes. Zelinsky and his three prosecuting colleagues recommended that Stone be jailed for a minimum of 87 months and a maximum of 108. They used the federal Sentencing Guidelines, taking into account (among other things) that Stone had lied under oath, that he was unrepentant, that he had successfully intimidated a witness by threatening physical harm, and that he had targeted the judge. All told, Zelinsky says, “Stone’s efforts to obstruct” – and to protect Trump at all costs – “were extensive in scope.” The recommended sentence “reflected the egregious and unusual nature of Stone’s conduct,” in a coverup “of critical national importance.”
What happened next, back in February, is what prompted Zelinsky and his colleagues to resign from the case. The word came down, from on high, to throw out the Sentencing Guidelines and cut Stone a break.
Zelinsky says in his congressional testimony that “what I saw with my own eyes” and “what I heard – repeatedly – was that Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship with the President.” Bill Barr had summarily removed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jesse Liu, and replaced her with a compliant acting U.S. attorney, Timothy Shea. And Zelinsky says in his testimony that Shea got “heavy pressure from the highest levels” to go easy on Stone. Indeed, “I was told that the acting U.S. attorney was giving Stone such unprecedentedly favorable treatment because he was ‘afraid of the President.'”
In translation, if I may put it less elegantly:
Dat’s how ‘tings work in duh criminal racket: Yuh stand up for duh boss, keep yuh mouth shut, and duh boss takes care’a yuh by pullin’ strings.
Trump got wind of the recommended sentence, and went nuts on Twitter at 2:48 in the morning: “Horrible and very unfair…Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!” Zelinsky’s superiors snapped to attention and called for reduced jail time – because of Stone’s “health,” a baseless reason. Zelinsky says in his testimony, “We (prosecutors) responded that cutting a defendant a break because of his relationship with the President undermined the fundamental principles of the Department of Justice.” They were told that if they did not toe the line, they could lose their jobs.
In the end, the judge made a Solomonic decision and sentenced Stone to 40 months – far below what Zelinsky had sought. But the judge praised his work as “well researched and supported. It was true to the record. It was in accordance with the law and with DOJ policy (and) evenhanded judgement,” and that Stone’s sentence should not be determined by “someone whose political career was aided by the defendant.”
And so ends today’s tawdry tale of termites in the woodwork. At this point, it’s no surprise that Bill Barr’s law school is demanding his censure and resignation. And, on Twitter, legal analyst Glenn Kirschner cuts to the heart of the matter: “As a former career prosecutor at the DC US Attorney’s Office, it’s hard to describe the horror of (Zelinsky’s testimony)…It is a gut punch to every defendant who is NOT connected or influential or powerful or wealthy or privileged!”
Will Americans in November vote to salvage the principle of equal justice under law? Or will they vote to make America grift again?