More than 2,000 former federal prosecutors and Department of Justice officials, in an open letter published on Sunday, are calling for William Barr to resign as attorney general, saying he violated department rules. (Read story here.)
This is extraordinary. These folks are the legal profession’s elite, products of America’s finest law schools, people who dedicated their careers to the rule of law and our constitutional system that protects the rights of individuals. They are highly reputable and highly respected — everything Trump is not, and something Barr no longer is. The kind of people that serious, sober, thoughtful citizens listen to.
Granted, by getting elected a president earns the right to trash our government institutions and fill them with political hacks and flunkies, although that doesn’t make it a good thing. In turn, voters have the right to judge his management of federal agencies and replace him with someone better, who in turn will replace Barr with someone more professional and public-spirited. In this case, even two randomly selected stray dogs from an animal rescue shelter would be better. I’m not sure if a dog has ever been licensed to practice law before; maybe they could transfer Barr’s license to a dog, who would make better use of it.
Trump might get re-elected, though. There’s no requirement that voters must be smart or responsible in their voting choices. Obviously, some aren’t, or Trump wouldn’t be president. We can only hope that, in November, we outnumber them where it counts.
Update: CNN reported on Tuesday that Barr has told friends he’s thought about resigning because of his boss’s interference and tweets. The story didn’t say why. He can’t be worried about his reputation, because he doesn’t have any left.
And just how does party affiliation break down on these 1100 former federal prosecutors. And should 1100 other former prosecutors do a letter in support of Barr how do their party affiliation break down.
Barr seems to be the kind of boss who is capable of telling his folks if you don’t like this, there is the door. You work for me.
Now that the judge has an issue with the jurors on the jury could be some time before she sets the sentence. Something lost in all this is that it is the Judge that sets the sentence. The judge who is part of another part f government independent and separate of the administration as part of the Constitutions checks and balances. Maybe the whole process is corrupt and the judge has an obligation to call it as such and kick the whole thing out or the appeals court can do so, and the judge will have to determine if the jury was tainted and Stone gets a new trial. If the prosecution knew this and did not tell the judge and defendants counsel certain things they were aware of in a timely manner…well then they damn should have resigned before being shown the door and booted out of the justice department.
You have no understanding of how these things work. Federal prosecutors are non-partisan professionals in their work. The U.S. attorneys they work for are political appointees, and subject to direction by the Attorney General, who also is a presidential appointee, but even USAs are expected to adhere to professional norms and expectations. The fact federal prosecutors are non-partisan careerists doesn’t mean they can’t vote or have personal party preferences, of course, but those preferences are irrelevant to their jobs. This letter addresses their professional concerns, not their personal opinions. And no, a politically appointed and partisan Attorney General does not have a right to politicize federal law enforcement and prosecutions under our system. It’s hard to imagine anything scarier than an attorney general using federal law enforcement authority for partisan political purposes. That’s the stuff of tinpot dictatorships. It’s also deeply offensive to call the process “corrupt” simply because Stone was convicted. It is far, far more likely he was convicted because he was guilty of breaking the law. To get that conviction, prosecutors had to prove his guilt to a jury that included some Republicans. You have shown no factual basis for impugning the prosecutors or jurors as you have done here; that is only your partisanship-tainted personal speculation.