This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/us/politics/justice-department-politicization.html

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
Justice Dept. Officials Testify on Politicization Under Barr Justice Dept. Officials Outline Claims of Politicization Under Barr
(32 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — Two Justice Department officials delivered stinging congressional testimony on Wednesday, accusing political appointees of intervening in criminal and antitrust cases to serve the personal interests of President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr. Two Justice Department officials recounted to Congress in stinging detail on Wednesday how political appointees had intervened in criminal and antitrust cases to advance the personal interests of President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr.
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, a career prosecutor who worked on the Russia investigation, told the House Judiciary Committee that senior law enforcement officials intervened to seek a more lenient prison sentence for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. for political reasons. And John W. Elias, a senior career official in the antitrust division, charged that supervisors improperly used their powers to investigate the marijuana industry and a deal between California and four major automakers. Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, a prosecutor who worked on the Russia investigation, told the House Judiciary Committee that senior law enforcement officials had stepped in to overrule career prosecutors and seek a more lenient prison sentence for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. “because of politics.”
It was highly unusual for current officials to testify before Congress and criticize department leadership. Democrats say the hearing is part of a broader investigation into Mr. Barr’s leadership of the department — work that has taken on added relevance in recent days, after Mr. Trump agreed to fire the federal prosecutor in Manhattan who has led several investigations into his associates. “In the United States of America, we do not prosecute people based on politics, and we don’t cut them a break based on politics,” said Mr. Zelinsky, who testified by video because of the coronavirus pandemic. “But that wasn’t what happened here. Roger Stone was treated differently because of politics.”
A department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, pushed back on Mr. Zelinsky’s account, saying that Mr. Barr determined that the sentencing recommendation for Mr. Stone was “excessive and inconsistent with similar cases.” She added that Mr. Zelinsky’s testimony was “based on his own interpretation of events and hearsay (at best), not firsthand knowledge.” John W. Elias, a senior career official in the antitrust division, charged that his supervisors improperly used their powers to investigate the marijuana industry and a deal between California and four major automakers at the behest of Mr. Barr. He likened their efforts to burdensome harassment meant to punish companies for decisions the attorney general and the president opposed.
Donald Ayer, who was deputy attorney general under President George Bush before he was ousted and replaced by Mr. Barr in that role in 1990, also testified, saying that the actions alleged by the whistle-blowers “are totally undermining public trust in the system.” “Personal dislike of the industry is not a valid basis upon which to ground an antitrust investigation,” Mr. Elias said of the cannabis cases.
“We’re on the way to something far worse than Watergate,” said Mr. Ayer, who has been among Mr. Barr’s sharpest critics. “It’s becoming very transparent many things are being done essentially for reasons that are completely unrelated to the merits of the case.” The two accounts painted a damning portrait of the Justice Department under Mr. Barr, made all the more remarkable given that the witnesses were both still department employees. They could increase pressure on Mr. Barr to further explain decisions related to criminal cases involving Mr. Trump’s associates and the abrupt firing of the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, who had overseen some of the investigations into Trump allies.
Mr. Zelinsky was among four career prosecutors who withdrew in protest from the Stone case after political appointees at the Justice Department overrode their recommendation that Mr. Stone receive seven to nine years in prison, in line with standard sentencing guidelines. Not long after the hearing got underway, the Justice Department announced that Mr. Barr had agreed to appear himself before the panel on July 28. Democrats had been threatening to issue a subpoena for his appearance. Seeking to further increase pressure on the attorney general, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the panel’s chairman, told reporters after the hearing that the committee “may very well” pursue impeachment proceedings against Mr. Barr — a highly unlikely outcome given the political reality of a fast-approaching election.
Mr. Stone had been convicted of committing seven felonies to impede a congressional inquiry that threatened Mr. Trump. The day after prosecutors made their request, Mr. Trump attacked it on Twitter as unjust. Later that day, the department submitted a new, more lenient recommendation to the judge deciding what punishment to impose. During the hearing, lawmakers spent more time trying to argue divergent political points about Mr. Barr, Mr. Trump and the investigations that have hung over his presidency than they did eliciting facts about the Justice Department from either witness.
Ms. Kupec said that Mr. Barr did not discuss intervening in the case with the president or anyone else at the White House. “These are merely the symptoms of an underlying disease,” Mr. Nadler said in opening remarks. “The sickness that we must address is Mr. Barr’s use of the Department of Justice as a weapon to serve the president’s petty, private interests.”
Even before the conflict spilled into public view, Mr. Zelinsky said unidentified supervisors had openly discussed the intervention to shorten the recommendation as having been motivated by “political reasons” even though one supervisor agreed that doing so “was unethical and wrong.” Democrats turned frequently to a third witness, Donald B. Ayer, who was deputy attorney general under President George Bush and warned that under Mr. Barr, the country was “on the way to something far worse than Watergate.”
Days before the intervention, Mr. Barr had maneuvered the Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, out of her role and installed in her place as acting U.S. attorney a close aide from his own office, Timothy Shea. Republicans mounted an aggressive defense of Mr. Barr, relying on their witness, Michael B. Mukasey, who was attorney general under President George W. Bush, to try to deflate Democrats’ arguments.
“The politics was in the previous administration,” said Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top committee Republican. “Bill Barr is doing the Lord’s work trying to clean it up so that it doesn’t happen again.”
Republicans worked with the Justice Department to undermine the credibility of Mr. Zelinsky and Mr. Elias, who they pointed out had previously sought an assignment working with Democrats on the committee.
A department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said in a statement that Mr. Barr determined that the sentencing recommendation for Mr. Stone was “excessive and inconsistent with similar cases.” She said Mr. Barr did not discuss intervening in the case with the president or anyone at the White House. And she added that Mr. Zelinsky’s testimony was “based on his own interpretation of events and hearsay (at best), not firsthand knowledge.”
Mr. Zelinsky was among four career prosecutors who withdrew in protest from the Stone case after political appointees overrode their recommendation that Mr. Stone receive seven to nine years in prison, in line with standard sentencing guidelines.
Mr. Stone had been convicted of committing seven felonies to impede a congressional inquiry that threatened Mr. Trump. Mr. Zelinsky described a fraught battle between the career prosecutors working the case and their superiors that spilled into public the day after prosecutors made their request, when Mr. Trump attacked it on Twitter as unjust.
Later that day, the department submitted a new, more lenient recommendation to the judge deciding what punishment to impose.
Mr. Zelinsky testified that supervisors had openly discussed the intervention to shorten the recommendation as motivated by “political reasons” even though one supervisor agreed that doing so “was unethical and wrong.” He said they also pressured him to mischaracterize trial testimony and play down Mr. Stone’s misconduct so the department could recommend a lighter sentence.
Days before the intervention, Mr. Barr had maneuvered the Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, out of her role and temporarily installed in her place a close aide from his own office, Timothy Shea.
Mr. Zelinsky said that he was told that Mr. Shea “was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice” and complied because he was “afraid of” Mr. Trump. At one point, he said, a supervisor instructed him and other line prosecutors that they could be fired if they did not comply.Mr. Zelinsky said that he was told that Mr. Shea “was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice” and complied because he was “afraid of” Mr. Trump. At one point, he said, a supervisor instructed him and other line prosecutors that they could be fired if they did not comply.
“In the United States of America, we do not prosecute people based on politics and we don’t cut them a break based on politics,” Mr. Zelinsky said. “But that wasn’t what happened here. Roger Stone was treated differently because of politics.” Under questioning by Mr. Jordan, Mr. Zelinsky identified J.P. Cooney, the chief of the fraud and public corruption section in the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, as one of the supervisors who told him what was happening, but said there were at least two others. Democrats must now decide whether to try to seek testimony from Mr. Cooney.
Under questioning by Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the committee, Mr. Zelinsky identified J.P. Cooney, the chief of the fraud and public corruption section in the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, as one of the supervisors who told him what was happening, but said there were at least two others. Mr. Stone was ultimately sentenced to 40 months in prison and ordered to begin serving is sentence by June 30. He has asked a judge to grant him a two-month reprieve because of the pandemic, and on Wednesday the judge ordered Justice Department officials to report to her on its policies for dealing with such requests.
Mr. Jordan accused Mr. Zelinsky of having no direct knowledge of what he was telling Congress, noting that he had not personally talked to Mr. Barr; the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen; or Mr. Shea about why the sentencing recommendation was being changed. Mr. Zelinsky said he had asked to talk to Mr. Shea but was not given the opportunity. Mr. Elias’s account of the antitrust division more directly tied what he viewed as improper actions by Mr. Barr.
Mr. Elias, the lawyer in the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said that he believed that the division’s investigations into the cannabis and auto industries were politically motivated, and that one was at Mr. Barr’s behest. He also said that he had asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to look into the matters.
“At the direction of Attorney General Barr, the antitrust division launched 10 full-scale reviews of merger activity taking place in the marijuana, or cannabis, industry” because the attorney general “did not like the nature of their underlying business,” Mr. Elias said in written testimony.“At the direction of Attorney General Barr, the antitrust division launched 10 full-scale reviews of merger activity taking place in the marijuana, or cannabis, industry” because the attorney general “did not like the nature of their underlying business,” Mr. Elias said in written testimony.
However, “personal dislike of the industry is not a valid basis upon which to ground an antitrust investigation,” he added during the hearing.
Mr. Elias also said that the department initiated a review of four major automakers the day after Mr. Trump said on Twitter that he was enraged by the news that the companies would adhere to higher fuel emissions standards than the federal government demands.Mr. Elias also said that the department initiated a review of four major automakers the day after Mr. Trump said on Twitter that he was enraged by the news that the companies would adhere to higher fuel emissions standards than the federal government demands.
In Mr. Elias’s account, the cannabis company reviews consumed the antitrust division, making up nearly a third of all of its cases in the fiscal year that ended in September. He said that staff members objected to the numerous requests for information that the department sent to the marijuana companies, in large part because they were seen as harassing and overly burdensome. Under questioning by Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island and chairman of the panel’s antitrust subcommittee, Mr. Elias said he was “not aware” of any evidence at the time that the investigation would have served the public, and that it was clear throughout that the automakers “had clear legal defenses for what they were doing.”
In Mr. Elias’s account, the marijuana industry reviews consumed the antitrust division, making up nearly a third of all of its cases in the fiscal year that ended in September. He said that staff members objected to the numerous requests for information that the department sent to the companies, in large part because they were seen as harassing and overly burdensome.
Mr. Elias, who served as chief of staff to Makan Delrahim, the head of the antitrust division, said that during a meeting in September, Mr. Delrahim “acknowledged at an all-staff meeting that the cannabis industry is unpopular ‘on the fifth floor,’ a reference to Attorney General Barr’s offices.”Mr. Elias, who served as chief of staff to Makan Delrahim, the head of the antitrust division, said that during a meeting in September, Mr. Delrahim “acknowledged at an all-staff meeting that the cannabis industry is unpopular ‘on the fifth floor,’ a reference to Attorney General Barr’s offices.”
The department’s Office of Professional Responsibility had already investigated Mr. Elias’s concerns about the cannabis company merger reviews and determined that the division “acted reasonably and appropriately,” according to an email sent to the division and obtained by The New York Times. The department’s Office of Professional Responsibility investigated Mr. Elias’s concerns about the reviews of mergers in the cannabis industry and determined that the division “acted reasonably and appropriately,” according to an email sent to the division and obtained by The New York Times.
The office also found that given the “unique challenge” that the nascent cannabis industry poses for federal and state regulators, the department reasonably sought out additional information from the industry. The office also found that given the “unique challenge” that the nascent cannabis industry posed for federal and state regulators, the department reasonably sought out additional information from the industry.
Republicans drew heavily on that report and Mr. Elias’s own history to try to undercut his account. Representative Doug Collins, Republican of Georgia, pointed out that Mr. Elias had previously sought to work for the Judiciary Committee Democrats on antitrust and oversight matters. Republicans drew heavily on that report to undercut his account. In defending Mr. Barr, they also frequently cited a ruling on Wednesday by a divided appeals court panel that ordered the dismissal of the case against Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser. The ruling could be appealed.
“It goes directly to intent of the witness,” he said, arguing that Mr. Elias’s credibility was undermined.
The hearing played out in the wake of a surprise ruling on Wednesday morning by a divided appeals court panel that ordered the immediate dismissal of the case against Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser. (The ruling could still be appealed.)
Mr. Barr had ordered that case dropped last month even though Mr. Flynn had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about phone calls with the Russian ambassador — another move that critics of Mr. Barr have portrayed as favoritism to a presidential ally.Mr. Barr had ordered that case dropped last month even though Mr. Flynn had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about phone calls with the Russian ambassador — another move that critics of Mr. Barr have portrayed as favoritism to a presidential ally.
Several Republicans pointed to the ruling as vindication of Mr. Barr. But the majority did not rule that his decision was correct on the merits rather than political favoritism. Rather, it ruled that as a matter of law, the trial judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, had no authority to probe Mr. Barr’s motivation and its legitimacy. Sharon LaFraniere contributed reporting.
Wednesday’s testimony is a linchpin in a broader attempt by House Democrats to scrutinize the Justice Department under Mr. Barr. The relationship between the two sides soured long ago, when Mr. Barr refused to comply with Judiciary Committee requests related to the special counsel’s Russia report, but in recent months, Democrats have looked on with increasing alarm as the attorney general has tried to undercut some of the report’s key findings and even prosecutions it spawned.
In addition to the hearing, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, has been trying to secure testimony from Geoffrey S. Berman, the New York prosecutor fired last week by Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr, who has overseen politically sensitive investigations into the president’s past and current lawyers.
In his opening remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Nadler included the firing of Mr. Berman among a series of actions by Mr. Barr that he said showed he had perverted the nation’s system of justice.
“The effort to remove Mr. Berman is part of a clear and dangerous pattern of conduct that began when Mr. Barr took office and continues to this day,” Mr. Nadler said. “Mr. Barr’s actions make clear that, in his Department of Justice, the president’s allies get special treatment, the president’s enemies — real and imagined — are targeted for extra scrutiny and the needs of the American people are generally ignored.”
Lawmakers will apparently have a chance to question the attorney general directly. Just after the hearing began, Ms. Kupec, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said on Twitter that Mr. Barr had accepted an invitation to testify voluntarily before the panel on July 28. Democrats had been threatening to issue a subpoena for his appearance.
Republicans, who share Mr. Barr’s views of the Flynn and Stone cases, mounted an aggressive defense on Wednesday, arguing that he was correcting injustices that they said were initiated by the Obama administration.
“The politics was in the previous administration,” said Mr. Jordan, the top committee Republican. “Bill Barr is doing the Lord’s work trying to clean it up so that it doesn’t happen again.”
The hearing comes on the heels of a string of public missteps, internal chaos and leadership changes at the Justice Department.
Mr. Barr was roundly criticized for leading the federal response to protests in Washington of police killings and the decision to clear Lafayette Square near the White House on June 1, just before Mr. Trump’s widely condemned photo opportunity in front of a nearby church. Mr. Barr also contradicted Mr. Trump’s assertion that he sheltered in the building’s bunker only to inspect the premises.
The president also quickly backed away from the botched firing last week of Mr. Berman as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, even though he was forced to approve the dismissal because of legal issues stemming from Mr. Berman’s unusual appointment by federal judges.
Inside the department, the head of the criminal division and the solicitor general recently announced long-planned departures. But Joseph H. Hunt, the chief of the civil division, suddenly resigned without informing Mr. Barr, leaving the division that defends the Trump administration in court without a leader.
Department employees have said that Mr. Barr has become increasingly aggravated and impatient, managing his staff with a heavier hand than before.