'Afraid of the President': Ex-Mueller Prosecutor to Testify of Political Interference in Roger Stone Sentencing Memo
A pair of DOJ attorneys are set to testify before Congress at a hearing titled "Oversight of the Department of Justice: Political Interference and Threats to Prosecutorial Independence."
June 23, 2020 at 03:33 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A former prosecutor in the case of longtime Trump associate Roger Stone will testify that he and other career prosecutors were told to reduce their recommended sentence for Stone because the acting U.S. attorney at the time was "afraid of the president."
Aaron Zelinsky, who previously work on Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's investigation, will make the remarks at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday titled "Oversight of the Department of Justice: Political Interference and Threats to Prosecutorial Independence," according to a copy of his written opening statement released Tuesday.
Zelinsky was one of four career prosecutors who resigned from the criminal case against longtime Trump associate Roger Stone after Main Justice overrode the original trial team's sentencing recommendation for Stone.
Zelinsky wrote that prosecutors were asked to modify their calculation for Stone's sentence before the memorandum was filed with the court. "Ultimately, we refused to modify our memorandum to ask for a substantially lower sentence. Again, I was told that the U.S. attorney's instructions had nothing to do with Mr. Stone, the facts of the case, the law, or department policy. Instead, I was explicitly told that the motivation for changing the sentencing memo was political, and because the U.S. attorney was 'afraid of the president,'" the former Mueller prosecutor said in the statement.
Zelinsky wrote that he and the other three prosecutors learned of the new sentencing memo from media reports about a statement from an unidentified Justice Department official, and that other DOJ officials refused to share a copy of the revised memorandum before it was filed.
"Concerned over the political influence in the case—and the explicit statements that the reasons for these actions were political, and that the U.S. attorney was acting because he was 'afraid of the president'—I withdrew. My three colleagues did the same," Zelinsky wrote.
Another witness, John Elias of DOJ's antitrust division, will testify that he became "concerned enough to report certain antitrust investigations launched under Attorney General Barr to the Department of Justice Inspector General," asking the watchdog to "investigate whether these matters constituted an abuse of authority, a gross waste of funds, and gross mismanagement."
Among the antitrust investigations Elias flagged were those into mergers within the marijuana industry and "an investigation—initiated the day after tweets by President Trump—of an arrangement between the state of California and four automakers on fuel emissions."
"I have undertaken whistleblower activity, and am here today, because I recognize the imperative for law enforcers to operate even-handedly and in good faith," Elias' opening statement reads. "During my career at DOJ, I have been taught to do the right thing, for the right reasons, in the right way."
Also set to testify at Wednesday's hearing are former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, who previously worked alongside Attorney General William Barr at the Justice Department, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
Claims of political bias within the Justice Department have been amplified in recent months, over the Stone sentencing and more recently with the DOJ's request to dismiss the criminal case against onetime Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn. Such allegations were raised again over the Trump administration's firing June 19 of Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose office housed other Trump-adjacent probes.
Read the prepared statements below:
Donald Ayer:
Aaron Zelinsky:
John Elias:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readTrump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250