Monday, February 17, 2020

Roberto Martinez takes on his former colleagues in this Miami Herald op-ed

There are a bunch of former prosecutors calling for AG Bill Barr to resign in light of the recent change in Roger Stone's sentencing recommendation. Former U.S. Attorney Roberto Martinez -- who worked under Barr during the Bush presidency -- did not sign the letter even though he disagreed with Trump's public statements about the Stone sentencing, and he explained why in this Miami Herald op-ed:
Neither the signers of the letter — nor I — have any first-hand knowledge of the facts, the law and the various policy considerations involving the appropriate punishment that were considered by the DOJ and Barr regarding Stone’s sentencing. Neither the signers — nor I — know what conversations took place, when or where they took place, who participated in them, who said what and what issues where considered.

Yet, the letter makes a lot of assumptions and accusations about Barr and his decision that no lawyer or prosecutor (former or current) should ever make without knowing the details. Certainly, none of us would want a prosecutor to make accusations about one of our clients similarly uninformed. And yet, the letter’s signers demand that Barr resign. It is dangerous to make accusations about anyone without fully knowing the facts. Former prosecutors, some of whom are now in the private sector representing clients before the DOJ, probably know that better than anyone.
Meantime, the Federal Judges' Association has called an emergency meeting to address the Stone affair.  From the USA Today:
A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.

Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.

“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” Rufe told USA TODAY. “We’ll talk all of this through.”
This strikes me as strange.  I bet Judge Amy Berman Jackson does not like the idea that the association is having an emergency meeting about a pending case before her.

It will be interesting to see what happens at the Stone sentencing now, as well as the Michael Avanetti sentencing (which is scheduled for June). In both cases, I'm for a sentence way under the made-up Sentencing Guidelines. I just don't think we need to be sentencing non-violent first-time offenders to prison simply because they decided to go to trial (or really for any other reason). My take on the Stone sentencing is here.

11 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:05 AM

    Good point by Martinez. The line prosecutors we know want 7-9 years. Barr says he wanted to simply lay out the guidelines and then defer to the judge without making a specific rec. And the line prosecutors resign. Think about that. It wasn't 7-9 versus 2 years. It was 7-9 versus **defer** to the Obama appointed judge. Who freakin resigns for being told to ***defer*** to a fair judge?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:46 AM

    Snowflakes

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:49 AM

    The judges have an association? That's hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:00 AM

    Back to basics. The president is an elected official and who is responsible for the AG. He hires the AG who is to carry out his policy. The AG hires prosecutors to implement this policy. The president sees an instance where his policy is not being carried out and demands it be changed. So what! If the president tells his defense secretary not to bomb North Korea and some idiot general orders it anyway and the president steps in to stop it, is that improper? In our modern administrative state, the federal bureaucracy is a leviathan unto itself and answerable to no one. That some useless judges group is calling an “emergency” meeting is farcical. Monty Python, where are you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:03 AM

    9:00. This is a matter of policy? The President and his AG are intervening to help at best a friend and at worst a co-conspirator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:42 PM

      1003

      Love the reference to "at worst a coconspirator." LOL. Keep the faith alive! They are all Russian assets!

      What you dont see is the context. No one colluded with Russia. The investigation was improperly predicated on democratic oppo research and lies and bias. Stone should have never been in front of congress. It was all BS. OF COURSE trump thinks its unfair they indict a bunch of his associates on process crimes in the investigation of a crime that never existed! Duh! You wouldnt feel the same way?

      Delete
  6. Anonymous10:32 AM

    Can someone send me the letter when all these prosecutors urged Holder to resign because of Fast and Furious?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:33 AM

    9:00 AM is either a complete moron or a member of the Trump administration implicitly admitting that their "policy" for the Justice Department is to protect Trump politically.

    I guess those two option are not mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11:51 AM

    Isn't DOJ policy to do justice? And deferring to the judge is justice. Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:56 PM

    Is 12:42 Sean Hannnity?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5:44 PM

    Cant wait to read how the judge will find a way to say how its totally fine for the foreperson of the jury -- a democratic lawyer who ran for higher office -- to lie about having posted about stone himself. Im sure it will be quite an entertaining read!

    ReplyDelete