Patterico's Pontifications

6/16/2020

Roger Stone Prosecutor Who Quit the Case to Testify to Congress

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Well this should be interesting:

Two Justice Department officials have agreed to testify under subpoena before the House Judiciary Committee next week about politicization under Attorney General William P. Barr, setting up a likely fight with the department about what they will be permitted to say.

House Democrats issued subpoenas on Tuesday to the two officials, including Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, one of the career prosecutors who quit a case against President Trump’s friend Roger J. Stone Jr. after Mr. Barr and other senior officials decided to intervene to reverse their recommendation that Mr. Stone be sentenced in accord with standard guidelines and instead requested leniency.

The other official who agreed to serve as a witness is John W. Elias, a career official in the Justice Department’s antitrust division. The division opened an inquiry into a fuel efficiency deal between major automakers and the state of California; congressional Democrats have called the scrutiny politically motivated.

Democrats are calling the officials whistle-blowers. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said in a statement that Mr. Barr has refused to testify himself, so the committee was moving forward with oversight of his actions without him.

At this point I’m more interested in hearing from the Flynn prosecutors. Maybe Judge Sullivan will have them testify after Flynn loses the writ.

12 Responses to “Roger Stone Prosecutor Who Quit the Case to Testify to Congress”

  1. I look forward to Nadler, Schiff and their Trump critic allies claiming undo political influence and bias at the DOJ.

    This is the same crowd who saw no bias after all the anti-Trump texts, false warrant evidence and leaks of classified information.

    Keep your eyes on those goalposts.

    beer ‘n pretzels (e97ff2)

  2. At this point I’m more interested in hearing from the Flynn prosecutors. Maybe Judge Sullivan will have them testify after Flynn loses the writ.

    Oh, I absolutely WANT Sullivan to order Van Grack, et. el. to testify. Like, I’d be cheering so hard for Sullivan to do that, ya’ll hear me through this blog.

    If that happens, would Powell cross examine them? Would the DOJ? (that seems incestuously wrong).

    Hell, I’d be curious if Flynn’s original lawyers have to testify (since Flynn is claiming ineffectual counsel).

    FWIW Pat, I’ve come around to your thinking that Flynn is going to lose this writ. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the courts issues a narrow ruling that forces Sullivan to make a ruling without further “investigatory hearings”.

    whembly (c30c83)

  3. As for Aaron S.J. Zelinsky in the Stone case… I’m not so sure what Democrats are doing here… the GOP members get to ask questions too and I’m not sure they’re going to like it.

    Both sides are going to build competing narratives.

    whembly (c30c83)

  4. This is good. Get this stuff on the record under oath.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  5. The beatings will continue…randy ceedico, who i wouldnt trust to borrow a cup of coffee, said it wasnt a big deal.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  6. Interesting.

    Though I have to say there are possible anti-trust cases that I would be far more interested in than whether or not car makers colluded with the state of CA to help me have to spend less on gas.

    Nic (896fdf)

  7. How come no one ever cared about politicization under Obama? This administration sucks, but part of it is that the press is turning over the rocks they studiously ignored under Obama.

    Yeah, whadaboutism, but I’m not so much defending Barr as noting that the corruption is a constant, but the spotlight isn’t.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  8. I’m curious though about how lawyers spill the beans about their client.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  9. I would be far more interested in than whether or not car makers colluded with the state of CA to help me have to spend less on gas.

    How about how green-leaning lawmakers in CA colluded with oil refiners to keep the price up.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  10. @9 That would be an example of something I would be more interested in, yes.

    Nic (896fdf)

  11. The point there being that there is an EPA-mandated fuel mix for smoggy areas that they’ve imposed on places like Chicago. California has its own unique mix that they claim is better (and this is the second one, the first one having been carcinogenic). Of course, that makes CA a captive market, with no outside refiner making the stuff. And of course, there are no new refineries here either. Exclusive of tax, the price of gasoline runs about a dollar a gallon higher.

    Maybe it just happened that way.

    https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/Illinois/Chicago
    https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/Colorado/Denver
    https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/Pennsylvania/Philadelphia
    https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/New%20York/New%20York%20City
    https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/California/Los%20Angeles

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  12. Will someone please fetch #11 out of moderation (too many links)?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0733 secs.