Read on Twitter
Tweet Storm for Part One -- The Roger Stone Case was a farce: "Who Were Those Guys"?
Aaron Zelinsky, now a “whistleblower,” brought forward a tale of corruption and deception within DOJ which allowed a friend of Pres. Trump to be sentenced to 40 months in prison. 1/
Aaron Zelinsky, now a “whistleblower,” brought forward a tale of corruption and deception within DOJ which allowed a friend of Pres. Trump to be sentenced to 40 months in prison. 1/
This was done thru manipulating the decision-making of a federal district judge appointed by President Barack Obama, who has likely sentenced nearly 2000 people to federal prison before Roger Stone entered her courtroom for the first tim. 2/
Aaron Zelinsky’s wants you to believe improper "political influence" was behind the decision to change the sentencing recommendation with respect to Roger Stone and his team engaged in a completely legitimate exercise of fashioning the sentencing recommendation for the Court. 3/
But was the Sentencing Memorandum filed by Zelinsky was 1) legally appropriate, and 2) in compliance with DOJ policy on prosecutorial participation in sentencing? 4/
And how does it "fit" into the pattern of questionable filings made by the Robert Mueller Special Counsel's Office over a series of cases pursued by them seemingly with the singled-purpose of hanging a "Russian Agent" sign around the neck of Donald Trump? 5/
Who Were Those Guys?
The Roger Stone trial lasted only 4 days, and the prosecution called only 5 witnesses. Yet, there were FOUR prosecutors assigned to the case. THAT, my friends, is a Joke. 6/
The Roger Stone trial lasted only 4 days, and the prosecution called only 5 witnesses. Yet, there were FOUR prosecutors assigned to the case. THAT, my friends, is a Joke. 6/
Individual prosecutors try cases alone that sometimes take weeks and involve dozens of witnesses. Usually having more than one prosecutor is due to concerns about multiple defense lawyers when there are multiple defendants. 7/
The defense will think they can overwhelm a single prosecutor, and prosecutor's in-court presentation to the jury might suffer. But 4 prosecutors on a case with a single defendant and only 5 witnesses lasting less than 30 hours of total courtroom time is EMBARRASSING. 8/
In the offices I worked they would have never lived down the infamy of their participation. The AUSA's would have ridiculed two Main Justice lawyers -- or two SCO lawyers -- who needed two MORE prosecutors to help them on a five witness case. 9/
When you look at “who” the 4 prosecutors were, you can begin to understand the answer to the question of “why” there were 4.
2 were from Mueller’s SCO -- Aaron Zelinsky and Adam Jed -- and 2 from the USAO for the District of Columbia -- Michael Marando and Jonathan Kravis. 10/
2 were from Mueller’s SCO -- Aaron Zelinsky and Adam Jed -- and 2 from the USAO for the District of Columbia -- Michael Marando and Jonathan Kravis. 10/
Before he became a fed, Zelinsky was a "contributor" to the Huffington Post where he wrote glowing tributes to the policy changes adopted by Barack Obama following his victory in 2008. Aaron Zelinsky is a liberal Democrat. Google up the stories he wrote and see for yourself. 11/
Zelinsky was first hired as a fed in 2014. In June of 2017 he was selected to be part of Robert Mueller’s “Dream Team” of Special Counsel Office prosecutors. At the time he was working as an AUSA Maryland--where Rod Rosenstein was US Attorney from 2005 to late April 2017.
12/
12/
Rosenstein hired him in 2014, and got him put on the SCO staff. Nothing else would "recommend" him for the job. He was a young prosecutor with training wheels still on, likely tasked with making sure the coffee was fresh, pencils were sharp, and the printers had paper. 13/
Zelinsky also handled the Papadopolous case -- another SCO pursuit of someone who knew nothing about supposed connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. The Papadopolous case was all a "pressure play" like so much else that the SCO did. 14/
The only purpose was to gain leverage over individuals in order to force them to cooperate and provide information implicating Pres. Trump in the Russian collusion they were all so confident existed. 15/
Adam Jed is an even MORE curious selection because he came to the SCO from the Appellate Section of the DOJ CIVIL Division – he had no experience as a criminal prosecutor, and likely no trial experience at all. 16/
Likely he had NEVER participated in a criminal sentencing proceeding before the sentencing of Roger Stone. So how does he end up on the Stone criminal trial? Probably by begging--that's how I got my 1st trial experience while still in the Civil Div of the USAO where I worked. 17/
I noted from the various reporting on the trial that Jed wasn’t tasked with giving the opening statement (Zelinsky), closing argument (Kravis), or Rebuttal (Marando). I’m haven’t found anything solid yet on whether he examined any of the five witnesses. 18/
The indictment against Stone was dated Jan 24, 2019. The Mueller Report was delivered 57 days later to DOJ on March 22. Just before and after the delivery some of the more prominent names with the SCO had already begun to depart for "greener pastures" in private practice. 19/
One of those, Jeannie Rhee, involved in the Stone case up until she withdrew on April 19. So who got the “Lock the doors and turn out the lights” assignment to continue the Stone case after the SCO was gone? The two least experienced members of the SCO – Zelinsky and Jed. 20/
When the SCO folded up its tent, the case went to DC USAO. One of the two AUSA's in that office who joined the case, Mike Marando, told an interviewer that he was added to the Stone trial team because “they needed a third prosecutor.” 21/
How many witnesses were too many for SCO prosecutors -- "Dream Teamers" -- Zelinsky and Jed to handle on their own? Two? Three? Embarrassing for them, and likely a joke around the DC USAO. 22/
Marando was a 2003 Cornell law graduate, but it was 10 years later that he landed his first job as a federal prosecutor in 2013. In 2017 he was moved to the Fraud and Public Corruption Section, which is where the Stone case was parked. 23/
The “fourth” attorney into the case was actually Marando’s supervisor – Jonathan Kravis -- the Deputy Chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section. He had approximately nine years experience at the time. 24/
Dep. Chief only joins a trial team when he is concerned that the trial team might not be up to the task if left on their own. And Kravis didn’t just join to sit back, watch over them, and make sure their ties were on straight – he gave the closing argument. 25/
The investigation of Stone was done by the SCO from start to finish, but the prosecution moved to the US Attorneys’ Office probably in February. Two prosecutors who had no previous role -- Marando and Kravis – end up giving the Closing Argument and the Rebuttal.
Zelinsky gave the Opening Statement–of the 3, the Opening Statement is the least consequential because it is not an “argument.” THAT says a lot about Kravis’ view – or Kravis’ supervisor’s view – of Zelinsky and Jed. Neither trusted with giving closing and rebuttal arguments.
Of the four Stone “team” members, Kravis had the most direct political connections. Before joining DOJ he had worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office for a year. The White House Counsel does not staff his office with Deputies who are members of the opposition party.
The Stone case was an “orphan.” The “Russiangate” investigation was done, and nothing was expected from Stone case to advance that -- the SCO had already determined there was no “collusion.”
In Jan. 2019 when Stone was indicted, the SCO was in the process of wrapping up the “loose ends.” Even though Stone had not lied to the SCO, someone in the SCO decided that Stone would be made to answer for misleading Congress.
Why not leave that decision to the US Attorney in DC? If the case was going to be dropped into the lap of the US Attorney anyway, why deprive that DOJ Official of the decision of whether to bring the case in the first instance?
If there was no "conflict of interest" that prevented the US Attorney in DC from handling the case after it was filed, what conflict of interest could there have been for not allowing the same US Attorney to participate in the decision of whether or not to file?
Indicting Roger Stone was a surrogate for indicting Donald Trump. It was a political decision that made Roger Stone a stand-in for the SCO's inability to indict Donald Trump, which was their real goal.
Part Two will look at the issue of the dispute over the sentencing statement.
