#shes been tweeting this trial like it's a soap opera. and she's not the only one

[specters]

the obsession with true crime really has rotted people’s brains like this isn’t just a “casual interest” anymore, these people are out here playing armchair psychologist and psychoanalyzing behaviors of abuse victims to see if it fits their idea of what “real victims” act like (as if that can even be measured) because they think their Superior Knowledge of the Minds of Criminals earned by listening to some podcasts makes them an expert. & true crime youtubers like bailey sarian don’t actually give a SHIT about victims of [insert atrocity here], they just care about the content and what entertainment value can come from it. it’s fun to them, rather than horrifying. and that’s really, really scary. this is what your brain on true crime looks like 

#you cant claim to care abt victims and then be like 'im really sad that this dv trial is ending it was so so so much fun 🥺' actually die #bailey has always been fucking weird particularly these last few years like #shes been tweeting this trial like it's a soap opera. and she's not the only one #abuse mention #domestic violence #there is a subset of depp supporters who r true crime luvrs and you can rly tell who they are

[theosirianischosen]

Thanks for the questions you sent me, here's some for you! 2, 9, 10, 16, 20, 25

Hey! Thanks for the questions. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I was working on a screenplay for a contest, and the deadline was fast approaching and soon we shall tip the scales of life. But without further ado, here are my answers:

2. What is your favorite episode of your current favorite tv show?

Hmm, that's hard to say. Many of the shows I like have been canceled (some long ago, in case this blog is any indication haha)! I guess since I just tweeted about it, I'll have to say Rosa (Doctor Who, Series 11, Episode 3).

9. Did a Disney movie come out the year you were born? Which one?

Yes, several. The first one that comes to mind is Pocahantas.

10. If you could sit one person down and ask them an unlimited amount of questions, talk-show-style, who would it be? What would you ask?

That's easy. Adam Young of Owl City. Considering what just happened in that fandom, I'd ask him about the recent ARG and what was going through his mind when he was kicked out of his own Discord server? (Long story... We love you, Birdman!)

16. If you could cause the sequel to any book to magically come into existence, which would it be?

Another tough one. I don't read all that often, and when I do read a book, it tends to be non-fiction. Even then, my favorite fictional book growing up was The Giver by Lois Lowry, but that's a part of a tetralogy, and I've only read the first book. Can I will a novelization of HOA season 3 into existence?

No, although it's not a book, if you don't mind, I'd like to will a sequel to a movie into existence. And I will a sequel to the Disney Channel Original Movie Minutemen into existence. I mean, the sequel hook is right there: Charlie figures out how to teleport at the end of the movie, but nothing comes of it? I'd love to see how that turns out!

20. What fictional world do you most want to live in?

As crazy as it sounds, I wouldn't mind going to live in Anubis House. I'd love to be a part of Sibuna (or at least friends with them)! Close alternatives would be the Whoniverse or the Island of Sodor.

25. What is the wildest dream you’ve ever had?

I've had several! But my most recent one (which was a few months ago) had me working on a stage for a show. (I'm 95% sure there was something involving an old school I went to earlier in the dream, but I can't remember anything about it.) It was the same stage that most of my dance recitals were held on, and while my dance teacher was there, it wasn't a dance recital. This part of the dream is a bit hazy as it was a while ago, but I remember doing something for a show that was going on, and things weren't exactly going according to plan. One minute, I was on the stage as a performer of some sort, and in another, I was doing some sort of behind-the-scenes work. All I know is my dance teacher, for whatever reason, was upset and frustrated with me.

Then, the auditorium effectively changed into a courtroom. (By that, I mean its physical appearance didn't change, but it somehow became a courtroom). And I'm not talking about any courtroom, oh no! It was the courtroom where a very particular fictional criminal trial was about to have its verdict read.

Now, to understand why, I need to explain something that happened in my waking life... I got (unintentionally) hooked on a soap opera! Specifically, General Hospital. Around the time of my dream, the show was in the middle of Trina Robinson's trial. Long story short, she was framed for filming and distributing a certain kind of revenge "video" without permission. I don't remember how close we were to the verdict in the show (we had to be pretty close, though). But in my dream, the verdict was rendered. Without giving anything away, let's just say that my dream's version of events and the actual show's version of events had different outcomes.

But I was now at the trial, witnessing all that was taking place. I was apparently friends with Trina and her friends, and somehow, the dream changed again to me riding in a car with Trina's friends discussing the case. Shortly after that, I woke up, and all I can remember thinking was, "What the heck did I just dream?"

---------------------------------------------------

Anyway, thanks for the questions!

#house of anubis #owl city #doctor who #general hospital #way too many other things I could possibly tag #But I had fun answering these questions! #Again #Sorry it took so long to get back to you #Thanks for asking!

[my-weird-news]

👀 Shocking: 30 Celebs Who Totally Lost Their Fan Respect 😱

#CelebCrashAndBurn: A Comedic Look at Fallen Stars 😅 You know what they say, folks: the celebrity lifestyle is like a rollercoaster made of admiration and respect, but it seems like the only way down is through a trapdoor labeled "canceled." Let's take a look at some former darlings who've been knocked off their pedestals and left clutching their metaphorical canceling blankets. 🎢 Chris Brown: Remember when Chris Brown was known for his hits, not for hitting Rihanna? 🎵 It was 2009, the Grammy Awards were just around the corner, and Chris decided it was the perfect time to introduce the world to his impressive array of fists. 👊 Now, some folks might argue that his punishment – probation, community service, and counseling – was about as effective as using a feather to stop a hurricane. 🌪️ Ellen DeGeneres: Ellen, Ellen, Ellen. For years, we thought she was the friendliest talk show host since Mr. Rogers. But guess what? Behind the scenes, she was more like the Grinch on a power trip. 👀 Apparently, she was running a workplace more toxic than a laboratory experiment gone wrong. ☢️ Don't worry, though – we still have reruns of "Finding Nemo" to remind us of her better days. Kanye West: Just when you thought Kanye had exhausted his ability to shock, he unleashed a barrage of anti-Semitic tweets that left us all scratching our heads. 🤯 It's like he went to the "How to Ruin Your Reputation in 140 Characters or Less" school of social media. But hey, at least Adidas saved us from ever having to worry about Yeezy fashion again. Roman Polanski: Roman Polanski has mastered the art of being the poster child for bad decisions. Accused of everything from non-consensual sexual intercourse to perversion (yes, perversion – as if the other stuff wasn't enough), he somehow found a way to make things worse. During his trial, he decided it was a great idea to pose with young girls, as if the court were auditioning for his next horror film. 🎥 Jussie Smollett: Remember Jussie Smollett's grand performance? No, not on "Empire," but in the world's most bizarre self-inflicted PR nightmare. He hired actors to play his attackers, staged a hate crime, and then seemed genuinely shocked when the police figured it out. 🕵️‍♂️ It's like he took the saying "fake it till you make it" a little too literally. Amber Heard: Amber Heard's got a lot of nerve. She went from accusing Johnny Depp of abuse to being accused of it herself. Talk about a plot twist. 🎬 It's like a poorly written daytime soap opera, except with real-life consequences. Deitrick Haddon: Deitrick Haddon, the gospel singer turned relationship expert – oh wait, wrong kind of expert. Turns out he's an expert at marital infidelity. 👼 Just when you thought his choir singing was impressive, he added cheating to his repertoire. 🎤 R. Kelly: Ah, R. Kelly – the man who managed to turn "I Believe I Can Fly" into a song about escaping jail. If only he'd put that energy into making better life choices. From sex trafficking to child pornography, he managed to hit every bad note imaginable. 🎵 J.K. Rowling: J.K. Rowling took a magical dive into the realm of controversy when she shared some controversial views about transgender individuals. 🧙‍♂️ Suddenly, the author who brought us the enchanting world of Harry Potter was waving around a wand of divisiveness. Expelliarmus, indeed! Oprah Winfrey: Oprah may have the Midas touch, but she also has a knack for questionable associations. First, she boosted Dr. Oz's profile, a man who's as reliable as a diet pill sold out of the back of a van. Then she threw her support behind a politician who was facing off against someone she'd previously promoted. 🎙️ It's like she's using her talk show powers for political puppetry. Elon Musk: Elon Musk has gone from the genius behind Tesla to the guy who tweets like he's composing haikus while sleepwalking. 👾 His support for certain political figures and his online escapades have us all wondering if he's building rockets to space or just trying to escape Earth's collective facepalm. Kylie Jenner: Kylie Jenner, once a billionaire, now accused of not paying her factory workers. It's like her financial sense is inversely proportional to the number of zeroes in her net worth. Maybe she's just preparing for her next reality show: "Kylie's Quest for Basic Human Decency." Bill Cosby: And finally, there's Bill Cosby – once the beloved "America's Dad," now the poster child for lost legacies. With more allegations of sexual misconduct than a soap opera has plot twists, he went from pudding pops to prison bars. 🍮 So there you have it, folks. Celebrities: they're just like us, except with more money and more public humiliation. Just remember, the next time someone's star crashes, they're probably just one tweet away from becoming a cautionary tale in the annals of pop culture history. ✨#CelebCrashAndBurn: A Comedic Look at Fallen Stars 😅 You know what they say, folks: the celebrity lifestyle is like a rollercoaster made of admiration and respect, but it seems like the only way down is through a trapdoor labeled "canceled." Let's take a look at some former darlings who've been knocked off their pedestals and left clutching their metaphorical canceling blankets. 🎢 Chris Brown: Remember when Chris Brown was known for his hits, not for hitting Rihanna? 🎵 It was 2009, the Grammy Awards were just around the corner, and Chris decided it was the perfect time to introduce the world to his impressive array of fists. 👊 Now, some folks might argue that his punishment – probation, community service, and counseling – was about as effective as using a feather to stop a hurricane. 🌪️ Ellen DeGeneres: Ellen, Ellen, Ellen. For years, we thought she was the friendliest talk show host since Mr. Rogers. But guess what? Behind the scenes, she was more like the Grinch on a power trip. 👀 Apparently, she was running a workplace more toxic than a laboratory experiment gone wrong. ☢️ Don't worry, though – we still have reruns of "Finding Nemo" to remind us of her better days. Kanye West: Just when you thought Kanye had exhausted his ability to shock, he unleashed a barrage of anti-Semitic tweets that left us all scratching our heads. 🤯 It's like he went to the "How to Ruin Your Reputation in 140 Characters or Less" school of social media. But hey, at least Adidas saved us from ever having to worry about Yeezy fashion again. Roman Polanski: Roman Polanski has mastered the art of being the poster child for bad decisions. Accused of everything from non-consensual sexual intercourse to perversion (yes, perversion – as if the other stuff wasn't enough), he somehow found a way to make things worse. During his trial, he decided it was a great idea to pose with young girls, as if the court were auditioning for his next horror film. 🎥 Jussie Smollett: Remember Jussie Smollett's grand performance? No, not on "Empire," but in the world's most bizarre self-inflicted PR nightmare. He hired actors to play his attackers, staged a hate crime, and then seemed genuinely shocked when the police figured it out. 🕵️‍♂️ It's like he took the saying "fake it till you make it" a little too literally. Amber Heard: Amber Heard's got a lot of nerve. She went from accusing Johnny Depp of abuse to being accused of it herself. Talk about a plot twist. 🎬 It's like a poorly written daytime soap opera, except with real-life consequences. Deitrick Haddon: Deitrick Haddon, the gospel singer turned relationship expert – oh wait, wrong kind of expert. Turns out he's an expert at marital infidelity. 👼 Just when you thought his choir singing was impressive, he added cheating to his repertoire. 🎤 R. Kelly: Ah, R. Kelly – the man who managed to turn "I Believe I Can Fly" into a song about escaping jail. If only he'd put that energy into making better life choices. From sex trafficking to child pornography, he managed to hit every bad note imaginable. 🎵 J.K. Rowling: J.K. Rowling took a magical dive into the realm of controversy when she shared some controversial views about transgender individuals. 🧙‍♂️ Suddenly, the author who brought us the enchanting world of Harry Potter was waving around a wand of divisiveness. Expelliarmus, indeed! Oprah Winfrey: Oprah may have the Midas touch, but she also has a knack for questionable associations. First, she boosted Dr. Oz's profile, a man who's as reliable as a diet pill sold out of the back of a van. Then she threw her support behind a politician who was facing off against someone she'd previously promoted. 🎙️ It's like she's using her talk show powers for political puppetry. Elon Musk: Elon Musk has gone from the genius behind Tesla to the guy who tweets like he's composing haikus while sleepwalking. 👾 His support for certain political figures and his online escapades have us all wondering if he's building rockets to space or just trying to escape Earth's collective facepalm. Kylie Jenner: Kylie Jenner, once a billionaire, now accused of not paying her factory workers. It's like her financial sense is inversely proportional to the number of zeroes in her net worth. Maybe she's just preparing for her next reality show: "Kylie's Quest for Basic Human Decency." Bill Cosby: And finally, there's Bill Cosby – once the beloved "America's Dad," now the poster child for lost legacies. With more allegations of sexual misconduct than a soap opera has plot twists, he went from pudding pops to prison bars. 🍮 So there you have it, folks. Celebrities: they're just like us, except with more money and more public humiliation. Just remember, the next time someone's star crashes, they're probably just one tweet away from becoming a cautionary tale in the annals of pop culture history. ✨ Read the full article

[kinetic-elaboration]

January 15: What It’s About

Look not to be Sour on Main or anything here but I’m going to do exactly that. 

That tweet about S7 tying everything together and showing “what the show is about” is laughable, and I join in with the people mocking it because it is QUITE clear that the show isn’t “about” anything and hasn’t been for some time. It is, as my mother says, basically a soap opera, by which she means that it propels itself forward with a constantly updating roster of characters and crises, and with no concern at all about making a coherent whole or advancing any sort of themes or lessons. 

(And look there’s nothing wrong with creating a soap but you should be honest about it imo.)

So anyway the point of this post is that this is what the show SHOULD have been about.

Overall theme/plot: Bellarke growing up into mature, wise, adult leaders, at the head of a discrete community, preferably living in peace and stability.

Season 1: Bellarke as nascent leaders

Bellarke emerge as co-leaders of a group of young people, alone in a dangerous world, without the presence or aid of experienced adults. They are imperfect and young but effective in gaining the respect of the other delinquents, creating cohesion, and accomplishing their most basic goals (i.e., not dying).

Season 2: Bellarke are separated; Clarke’s leadership trial.

With the return of the adults and the dispersal of the original delinquent group into other communities (MW, Camp Jaha, Trikru, etc.), Bellarke lose their leadership positions. Clarke retains some amount of power, but almost always in relation to someone else. In MW, she is with most of her people, but doesn’t get much opportunity to “lead” them; everyone knows they are in Dante’s House. She leaves early in the season, and finds instead a different segment of her people in Camp Jaha--lead by her mother, whom Clarke defies when it suits her but never usurps. Mid-way through the season, she forms her alliance with Trikru/the Grounder Coalition, and works closely with Lexa. They are in some sense co-leaders. But Lexa is a more experienced leader, she has a larger number of people in her cohort, and a more defined grasp on her power. Only at the end of the season does Clarke, along with Bellamy, emerge as a pillar of singular leadership--after the alliance has broken up, and almost every other major actor has been disabled.

Overall, we see Clarke learning about leadership from a variety of teachers: from Dante in the early episodes, and from Lexa in the second half of the season. She lets herself get pulled into decisions that aren’t fully her own, like abandoning TonDC. She picks up some mantras that she may or may not truly understand, like “I bear it so they don’t have to.” She takes a lot in, and it’s messy and uncertain and probably necessary, but it leads her down a path where she’s no longer in control, as she once was.

Season 3: Bellarke are separated; Bellamy’s leadership trial.

Season 3 is in some sense a parallel to Season 2, but with Bellamy experiencing his version of Clarke’s arc from the previous season. Like Clarke, he’s been deprived of real power since the end of S1, when the rest of the Ark arrived. And like Clarke, he finds someone with more defined, more established power, and more leadership experience, to attach himself to--in this case, Pike, for whom Bellamy acts as something like a lieutenant.

And look I’m not here to discuss Pike as a character or whether or not it’s a good idea to be a Pike apologist but I do think it’s pretty obvious that the narrative treats him as a villain and Bellamy’s lessons as his right hand as negative.

What Season 4 should have been: Bellarke are reunited and return to their rightful positions as co-leaders of the protagonist group.

They take the lessons they have each learned in the previous seasons and establish themselves as true leaders of their people--either the delinquents specifically or possibly the entirety of the Sky People community--with a clear mandate for power. This might be an election or it might be a secession of the delinquents into a smaller community, continuing where they left off after S1, or it might be through some other method. But it would make sense that they’re the leaders, and it would be clear that they are good at what they do and effective, as they solve whatever the Crisis of the Season is.

What Season 4 actually showed: Bellarke are sort of in leadership positions, I guess? But it’s not clear if they’re effective? They end the season having entirely or nearly entirely ceded authority of any kind.

Clarke in particular seems to have authority in S4, though the mechanism by which she has been given that authority is never explained; she is respected because she’s the main character, as far as I can tell. She and Bellamy make some important/difficult decisions. But at the season’s end all leadership has been given to Octavia, who has never had a “leadership” story before. Bellamy has been set aside with a group of only six other people, and Clarke has been set apart somewhere else with only one single companion--neither is in a position to “lead” in the season-one sense because they aren’t living in communities as such. They’re living, basically, in stand-alone family units. The group they could have most reasonably led, based on S1/the title of the whole show, the delinquents, no longer exists, either in terms of significant numbers or in terms of social cohesion. And even the sky people are essentially decimated as a discrete community.

Season 5: ????

Everything you know about the structure of the show is gone.

Season 6: I guess they’re on another planet now or something lol?

Season 7: But yeah it’s all going to come together in the end!! I guess??!?

#the year 2020 #2020: fandom thoughts #the 100 negativity #the 100 criticism really #or snarky meta? #the 100 meta

[vagabondretired]

TV's latest- The Caller: This season's steamiest melodrama has been unleashed on America. It's a thrilling adventure into the politics and romance of Donald Trump's White House. Just when you think you've heard it all, the President shows that he is always one step ahead of the fake news and the hordes of rampaging foes that hound him around every corner. In the latest episode of this bawdy soap opera it is revealed that Trump diverted his attention from supposedly being president to make a phone call to an old friend. The TV matron of the Conner family, Roseanne Barr, was the recipient of this honor due to her surprisingly successful comeback on television. After the premiere of the rebooted "Roseanne" show drew 18.2 million viewers, the President knew that he had to drop everything and get Rosie on the line. Never mind that he won't call the families of deceased soldiers or victims of natural disasters. Trump knows exactly what his priorities are. This historical event was recounted adoringly by the "Curvy Couch" potatoes of Fox and Friends who noted that Trump "likes his big ratings." Indeed, Trump does like his ratings BIG. So when he heard about Roseanne, who is a fan of Trump both in her show and in real life, he stopped tweeting and dialed her up. After all, if there is anything Trump is known for, it's congratulating people whose achievements soar beyond the ordinary. That's why he called Vladimir Putin last week to congratulate him on his stupendous electoral victory. Never mind that the election was a sham in which his opponents were not permitted to run, or were otherwise threatened with imprisonment or death. And speaking of death, Trump also called Philippines President Duterte recently to congratulate him on his fantastic anti-drug program that features the assassination of suspects in the streets without having to bother with messy annoyances like, you know, trials. As the story unfolds, the love interest is introduced to steam up the screen. The sultry Stormy Daniels was also on TV this week. "Why," she wonders, "didn't Donald call me? My ratings were even bigger than Roseanne's with 22 million viewers." Perhaps he was jealous since Stormy's ratings on 60 Minutes were far higher than Trump's when he was interviewed in the days following the election. He managed only about 16 million viewers. Stay tuned as the controversies and scandals continue to heat up. In upcoming episodes sparks will fly between Kellyanne Conway and Hope Hicks. And Mike Pence will beg "Mother's" forgiveness for dining with a female senator without permission. And the season will conclude on a fiery note with the confrontation between Trump and his arch-nemesis, special counsel Robert Mueller. This is truly must see TV.

[corneliusreignallen]

SNL adds “pizzazz” to the impeachment hearings by turning them into a soap opera

Pundits called the first public impeachment hearings boring. SNL answered that criticism by turning them into a soap opera.

The US House of Representatives commenced its public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump Wednesday, after weeks of closed-door testimonies. The hearings marked the first time the American people heard directly from those with knowledge of Trump’s relationship with Ukraine and the allegations Trump tried to withhold military aid from that country in exchange for an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of his political rival Joe Biden.

Despite the hearings featuring in-depth questioning and new revelations — with top US diplomat in Ukraine William Taylor and US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent appearing Wednesday and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch appearing Friday — a recurring critique afflicted pundits’ reactions: that the hearings were boring.

In a cold-open sketch last night, Saturday Night Live addressed that criticism, transforming the depositions into a soap opera, billed as “Days of Our Impeachment.”

“This week, 13 million Americans tuned in to watch the impeachment hearings, as multiple officials testified against President Trump. But some complained the hearings were ‘lacking in pizzazz,’ ‘dull,’ and ‘not The Masked Singer,’” an announcer read during the sketch’s introduction. “So to make sure people are paying attention, we now present the hearings in a way that underscores how scandalous these revelations really are.”

While the Masked Singer barb was satirical, the “pizzazz” comment was a real one from an NBC News analysis by Jonathan Allen, who was widely ridiculed for arguing something as sober as an impeachment inquiry ought to be more exciting. Vox’s Aaron Rupar, for one, held it up as an example of the media’s shortcomings in covering the hearings. But, Allen’s analysis followed the theme of a critique often heard in conservative media in recent weeks: That the impeachment proceedings are too boring for Americans to care about.

“I think impeachment is not only dumb, it’s boring,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson told the Washington Post’s Sarah Ellison, a sentiment that’s been recurrent on his show.

With House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (played by Alex Moffat) leading the proceedings, the sketch opens with Yovanovitch (portrayed by Cecily Strong) sparring with Mikey Day’s Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, introduced as a “cross-examiner with a mysterious brain injury.”

Strong’s Yovanovitch opened by saying she has been a victim of a “smear campaign” from Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. When Jordan interrupts to allege Yovanovitch is just seeking attention, she retorts, “I love the glamor and the spotlight, that’s why I spent my career in Ukraine and Somalia.”

The proceedings quickly devolved into soap opera motifs with an audience member (Heidi Gardner) constantly fainting and shocking new twists, like Schiff dramatically halting the hearing because “the president just sent … a tweet.” Yonvanovitch’s hearing was actually interrupted by presidential Twitter attacks, which Democrats have suggested could be added to articles of impeachment as witness intimidation.

One other thing SNL added to spice up the testimonies was an unyielding stream of surprise cameos.

In the midst of the Yovanovitch testimony, Taylor — played by Jon Hamm — arrived to reveal there was a second phone call of note beyond Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraininan president Volodymyr Zelenksy in which Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democrats and the Bidens.

This second call, between Trump and US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, was overheard by a Taylor aide and featured the president asking for a status report on those investigations.

Before Hamm’s Taylor can go into detail about this call, however, Rudy Giuliani (played by Kate McKinnon) appears, announcing plans to fake his own death should the president try to make him a Ukraine scandal scapegoat.

Giuliani was followed by Beck Bennett’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who takes over the hearing saying, “The Senate has voted: acquitted.”

When reminded the House has to impeach the president before the Senate can hold its trial, he says, “Sorry for the spoiler, just tell me when I’m supposed to say it: Acquitted.”

Kyle Mooney, playing Sondland, then takes the stage, spoofing Sondland’s need to revise his sworn testimony after other the closed door hearings made it seem inaccurate. Reviewing those other hearings suddenly made the real-life Sondland “recall” certain matters relating the questions about the withholding of US military aid.

Mooney’s Sondland, in true soap fashion, said his testimony didn’t align with that of other witnesses “because I had amnesia. But now the amnesia is fine again, and I remember: there was a quid pro quo.”

The hearings devolved further with Michael Avenatti (Pete Davidson) announcing dramatic news: that the president had an affair with a porn star; Taylor butts in to say that was a storyline from “last season.”

“Yeah bud, we know,” adds Yovanovitch, noting, “No one seems to care.”

In a final act of drama, Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett appears. Garrett beat Pittsburgh Steelers Mason Rudolph over the head with his own helmet at the end of Thursday night’s game, and there was some question of whether he would be who could have been subject to criminal charges. “Mr. Garrett, you are not on trial here,” Schiff says.

“Oh I know. President Trump just pardoned me too for the war crimes,” Garrett responds. “He said I could bring a helmet to Afghanistan and just go nuts,” referring to Trump issuing presidential pardons for three service members accused of war crimes Friday.

Naturally, the cold open concludes with Garrett seeing Giuliani, thinking he’s a vampire, and bashing him in the head with a Steelers helmet.

“I think he actually might have fixed me,” Giuliani says, adding viewers will have to tune in to the next episode to find out.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/345zc7z

#Vox - All

[shanedakotamuir]

SNL adds “pizzazz” to the impeachment hearings by turning them into a soap opera

Pundits called the first public impeachment hearings boring. SNL answered that criticism by turning them into a soap opera.

The US House of Representatives commenced its public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump Wednesday, after weeks of closed-door testimonies. The hearings marked the first time the American people heard directly from those with knowledge of Trump’s relationship with Ukraine and the allegations Trump tried to withhold military aid from that country in exchange for an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of his political rival Joe Biden.

Despite the hearings featuring in-depth questioning and new revelations — with top US diplomat in Ukraine William Taylor and US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent appearing Wednesday and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch appearing Friday — a recurring critique afflicted pundits’ reactions: that the hearings were boring.

In a cold-open sketch last night, Saturday Night Live addressed that criticism, transforming the depositions into a soap opera, billed as “Days of Our Impeachment.”

“This week, 13 million Americans tuned in to watch the impeachment hearings, as multiple officials testified against President Trump. But some complained the hearings were ‘lacking in pizzazz,’ ‘dull,’ and ‘not The Masked Singer,’” an announcer read during the sketch’s introduction. “So to make sure people are paying attention, we now present the hearings in a way that underscores how scandalous these revelations really are.”

While the Masked Singer barb was satirical, the “pizzazz” comment was a real one from an NBC News analysis by Jonathan Allen, who was widely ridiculed for arguing something as sober as an impeachment inquiry ought to be more exciting. Vox’s Aaron Rupar, for one, held it up as an example of the media’s shortcomings in covering the hearings. But, Allen’s analysis followed the theme of a critique often heard in conservative media in recent weeks: That the impeachment proceedings are too boring for Americans to care about.

“I think impeachment is not only dumb, it’s boring,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson told the Washington Post’s Sarah Ellison, a sentiment that’s been recurrent on his show.

With House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (played by Alex Moffat) leading the proceedings, the sketch opens with Yovanovitch (portrayed by Cecily Strong) sparring with Mikey Day’s Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, introduced as a “cross-examiner with a mysterious brain injury.”

Strong’s Yovanovitch opened by saying she has been a victim of a “smear campaign” from Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. When Jordan interrupts to allege Yovanovitch is just seeking attention, she retorts, “I love the glamor and the spotlight, that’s why I spent my career in Ukraine and Somalia.”

The proceedings quickly devolved into soap opera motifs with an audience member (Heidi Gardner) constantly fainting and shocking new twists, like Schiff dramatically halting the hearing because “the president just sent … a tweet.” Yonvanovitch’s hearing was actually interrupted by presidential Twitter attacks, which Democrats have suggested could be added to articles of impeachment as witness intimidation.

One other thing SNL added to spice up the testimonies was an unyielding stream of surprise cameos.

In the midst of the Yovanovitch testimony, Taylor — played by Jon Hamm — arrived to reveal there was a second phone call of note beyond Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraininan president Volodymyr Zelenksy in which Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democrats and the Bidens.

This second call, between Trump and US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, was overheard by a Taylor aide and featured the president asking for a status report on those investigations.

Before Hamm’s Taylor can go into detail about this call, however, Rudy Giuliani (played by Kate McKinnon) appears, announcing plans to fake his own death should the president try to make him a Ukraine scandal scapegoat.

Giuliani was followed by Beck Bennett’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who takes over the hearing saying, “The Senate has voted: acquitted.”

When reminded the House has to impeach the president before the Senate can hold its trial, he says, “Sorry for the spoiler, just tell me when I’m supposed to say it: Acquitted.”

Kyle Mooney, playing Sondland, then takes the stage, spoofing Sondland’s need to revise his sworn testimony after other the closed door hearings made it seem inaccurate. Reviewing those other hearings suddenly made the real-life Sondland “recall” certain matters relating the questions about the withholding of US military aid.

Mooney’s Sondland, in true soap fashion, said his testimony didn’t align with that of other witnesses “because I had amnesia. But now the amnesia is fine again, and I remember: there was a quid pro quo.”

The hearings devolved further with Michael Avenatti (Pete Davidson) announcing dramatic news: that the president had an affair with a porn star; Taylor butts in to say that was a storyline from “last season.”

“Yeah bud, we know,” adds Yovanovitch, noting, “No one seems to care.”

In a final act of drama, Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett appears. Garrett beat Pittsburgh Steelers Mason Rudolph over the head with his own helmet at the end of Thursday night’s game, and there was some question of whether he would be who could have been subject to criminal charges. “Mr. Garrett, you are not on trial here,” Schiff says.

“Oh I know. President Trump just pardoned me too for the war crimes,” Garrett responds. “He said I could bring a helmet to Afghanistan and just go nuts,” referring to Trump issuing presidential pardons for three service members accused of war crimes Friday.

Naturally, the cold open concludes with Garrett seeing Giuliani, thinking he’s a vampire, and bashing him in the head with a Steelers helmet.

“I think he actually might have fixed me,” Giuliani says, adding viewers will have to tune in to the next episode to find out.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/345zc7z

#Vox - All

[timalexanderdollery]

SNL adds “pizzazz” to the impeachment hearings by turning them into a soap opera

Pundits called the first public impeachment hearings boring. SNL answered that criticism by turning them into a soap opera.

The US House of Representatives commenced its public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump Wednesday, after weeks of closed-door testimonies. The hearings marked the first time the American people heard directly from those with knowledge of Trump’s relationship with Ukraine and the allegations Trump tried to withhold military aid from that country in exchange for an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of his political rival Joe Biden.

Despite the hearings featuring in-depth questioning and new revelations — with top US diplomat in Ukraine William Taylor and US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent appearing Wednesday and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch appearing Friday — a recurring critique afflicted pundits’ reactions: that the hearings were boring.

In a cold-open sketch last night, Saturday Night Live addressed that criticism, transforming the depositions into a soap opera, billed as “Days of Our Impeachment.”

“This week, 13 million Americans tuned in to watch the impeachment hearings, as multiple officials testified against President Trump. But some complained the hearings were ‘lacking in pizzazz,’ ‘dull,’ and ‘not The Masked Singer,’” an announcer read during the sketch’s introduction. “So to make sure people are paying attention, we now present the hearings in a way that underscores how scandalous these revelations really are.”

While the Masked Singer barb was satirical, the “pizzazz” comment was a real one from an NBC News analysis by Jonathan Allen, who was widely ridiculed for arguing something as sober as an impeachment inquiry ought to be more exciting. Vox’s Aaron Rupar, for one, held it up as an example of the media’s shortcomings in covering the hearings. But, Allen’s analysis followed the theme of a critique often heard in conservative media in recent weeks: That the impeachment proceedings are too boring for Americans to care about.

“I think impeachment is not only dumb, it’s boring,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson told the Washington Post’s Sarah Ellison, a sentiment that’s been recurrent on his show.

With House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (played by Alex Moffat) leading the proceedings, the sketch opens with Yovanovitch (portrayed by Cecily Strong) sparring with Mikey Day’s Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, introduced as a “cross-examiner with a mysterious brain injury.”

Strong’s Yovanovitch opened by saying she has been a victim of a “smear campaign” from Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Guiliani. When Jordan interrupts to allege Yovanovitch is just seeking attention, she retorts, “I love the glamor and the spotlight, that’s why I spent my career in Ukraine and Somalia.”

The proceedings quickly devolve into soap opera motifs with an audience member (Heidi Gardner) constantly fainting and shocking new twists, like Schiff dramatically halting the hearing because “the president just sent … a tweet.” Yonvanovitch’s hearing was actually interrupted by presidential Twitter attacks, which Democrats have suggested could be added to articles of impeachment as witness intimidation.

One other thing SNL added to spice up the testimonies was an unyielding stream of surprise cameos.

In the midst of the Yovanovitch testimony, Taylor — played by Jon Hamm — arrived to reveal there was a second phone call of note beyond Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraininan president Volodymyr Zelenksy in which Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democrats and the Bidens.

This second call, between Trump and US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, was overheard by a Taylor aide and featured the president asking for a status report on those investigations.

Before Hamm’s Taylor can go into detail about this call, however, Rudy Guiliani (played by Kate McKinnon) appears, announcing plans to fake his own death should the president try to make him a Ukraine scandal scapegoat.

Giuliani was followed by Beck Bennett’s Mitch McConnell who takes over the hearing saying, “The Senate has voted: acquitted.”

When reminded the House has to impeach the president before the Senate can hold its trial, he says, “Sorry for the spoiler, just tell me when I’m supposed to say it: Acquitted.”

Kyle Mooney, playing Sondland, then takes the stage, spoofing Sondland’s need to revise his sworn testimony after other the closed door hearings made it seem inaccurate. Reviewing those other hearings suddenly made the real-life Sondland “recall” certain matters relating the questions about the withholding of US military aid.

Mooney’s Sondland, in true soap fashion, said his testimony didn’t align with that of other witnesses “because I had amnesia. But now the amnesia is fine again, and I remember: there was a quid pro quo.”

The hearings devolve further with Michael Avenatti (Pete Davidson) announcing dramatic news: that the president had an affair with a porn star; Taylor butts in to say that was a storyline from “last season.”

“Yeah bud, we know,” adds Yovanovitch, noting, “No one seems to care.”

In a final act of drama, Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett appears. Garrett beat Pittsburgh Steelers Mason Rudolph over the head with his own helmet at the end of Thursday night’s game, and there was some question of whether he would be who could have been subject to criminal charges. “Mr. Garrett, you are not on trial here,” Schiff says.

“Oh I know. President Trump just pardoned me too for the war crimes,” Garrett responds. “He said I could bring a helmet to Afghanistan and just go nuts,” referring to Trump issuing presidential pardons for three service members accused of war crimes Friday.

Naturally, the cold open concludes with Garrett seeing Guilini, thinking he’s a vampire, and bashing him in the head with a Steelers helmet.

“I think he actually might have fixed me,” Guiliani says, adding viewers will have to tune in to the next episode to find out.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/345zc7z

#Vox - All

[gracieyvonnehunter]

SNL adds “pizzazz” to the impeachment hearings by turning them into a soap opera

Pundits called the first public impeachment hearings boring. SNL answered that criticism by turning them into a soap opera.

The US House of Representatives commenced its public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump Wednesday, after weeks of closed-door testimonies. The hearings marked the first time the American people heard directly from those with knowledge of Trump’s relationship with Ukraine and the allegations Trump tried to withhold military aid from that country in exchange for an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of his political rival Joe Biden.

Despite the hearings featuring in-depth questioning and new revelations — with top US diplomat in Ukraine William Taylor and US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent appearing Wednesday and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch appearing Friday — a recurring critique afflicted pundits’ reactions: that the hearings were boring.

In a cold-open sketch last night, Saturday Night Live addressed that criticism, transforming the depositions into a soap opera, billed as “Days of Our Impeachment.”

“This week, 13 million Americans tuned in to watch the impeachment hearings, as multiple officials testified against President Trump. But some complained the hearings were ‘lacking in pizzazz,’ ‘dull,’ and ‘not The Masked Singer,’” an announcer read during the sketch’s introduction. “So to make sure people are paying attention, we now present the hearings in a way that underscores how scandalous these revelations really are.”

While the Masked Singer barb was satirical, the “pizzazz” comment was a real one from an NBC News analysis by Jonathan Allen, who was widely ridiculed for arguing something as sober as an impeachment inquiry ought to be more exciting. Vox’s Aaron Rupar, for one, held it up as an example of the media’s shortcomings in covering the hearings. But, Allen’s analysis followed the theme of a critique often heard in conservative media in recent weeks: That the impeachment proceedings are too boring for Americans to care about.

“I think impeachment is not only dumb, it’s boring,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson told the Washington Post’s Sarah Ellison, a sentiment that’s been recurrent on his show.

With House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (played by Alex Moffat) leading the proceedings, the sketch opens with Yovanovitch (portrayed by Cecily Strong) sparring with Mikey Day’s Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, introduced as a “cross-examiner with a mysterious brain injury.”

Strong’s Yovanovitch opened by saying she has been a victim of a “smear campaign” from Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Guiliani. When Jordan interrupts to allege Yovanovitch is just seeking attention, she retorts, “I love the glamor and the spotlight, that’s why I spent my career in Ukraine and Somalia.”

The proceedings quickly devolve into soap opera motifs with an audience member (Heidi Gardner) constantly fainting and shocking new twists, like Schiff dramatically halting the hearing because “the president just sent … a tweet.” Yonvanovitch’s hearing was actually interrupted by presidential Twitter attacks, which Democrats have suggested could be added to articles of impeachment as witness intimidation.

One other thing SNL added to spice up the testimonies was an unyielding stream of surprise cameos.

In the midst of the Yovanovitch testimony, Taylor — played by Jon Hamm — arrived to reveal there was a second phone call of note beyond Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraininan president Volodymyr Zelenksy in which Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democrats and the Bidens.

This second call, between Trump and US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, was overheard by a Taylor aide and featured the president asking for a status report on those investigations.

Before Hamm’s Taylor can go into detail about this call, however, Rudy Guiliani (played by Kate McKinnon) appears, announcing plans to fake his own death should the president try to make him a Ukraine scandal scapegoat.

Giuliani was followed by Beck Bennett’s Mitch McConnell who takes over the hearing saying, “The Senate has voted: acquitted.”

When reminded the House has to impeach the president before the Senate can hold its trial, he says, “Sorry for the spoiler, just tell me when I’m supposed to say it: Acquitted.”

Kyle Mooney, playing Sondland, then takes the stage, spoofing Sondland’s need to revise his sworn testimony after other the closed door hearings made it seem inaccurate. Reviewing those other hearings suddenly made the real-life Sondland “recall” certain matters relating the questions about the withholding of US military aid.

Mooney’s Sondland, in true soap fashion, said his testimony didn’t align with that of other witnesses “because I had amnesia. But now the amnesia is fine again, and I remember: there was a quid pro quo.”

The hearings devolve further with Michael Avenatti (Pete Davidson) announcing dramatic news: that the president had an affair with a porn star; Taylor butts in to say that was a storyline from “last season.”

“Yeah bud, we know,” adds Yovanovitch, noting, “No one seems to care.”

In a final act of drama, Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett appears. Garrett beat Pittsburgh Steelers Mason Rudolph over the head with his own helmet at the end of Thursday night’s game, and there was some question of whether he would be who could have been subject to criminal charges. “Mr. Garrett, you are not on trial here,” Schiff says.

“Oh I know. President Trump just pardoned me too for the war crimes,” Garrett responds. “He said I could bring a helmet to Afghanistan and just go nuts,” referring to Trump issuing presidential pardons for three service members accused of war crimes Friday.

Naturally, the cold open concludes with Garrett seeing Guilini, thinking he’s a vampire, and bashing him in the head with a Steelers helmet.

“I think he actually might have fixed me,” Guiliani says, adding viewers will have to tune in to the next episode to find out.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/345zc7z

#Vox - All

[bountyofbeads]

Republicans ready to look past Trump’s brash intervention in Roger Stone case

By Mike DeBonis | Published February 12 at 6:23 PM EST | Washington Post |

Posted February 12, 2020 |

Congressional Republicans showed little sign Wednesday that they would move to check President Trump’s brash public intervention in the federal prosecution of a former campaign confidant, leaving Democrats largely alone to fume about the evaporation of another norm of American governance.

Trump this week publicly decried a Justice Department sentencing recommendation for political operative Roger Stone, then congratulated Attorney General William P. Barr in an early-morning tweet Wednesday for “taking charge” and overruling it — creating at least the appearance that the long-standing taboo against overt political influence on prosecutorial matters had been obliterated.

But what ensued on Capitol Hill on Wednesday appeared to be less of a break-the-glass moment of crisis and more of a recurring episode in a three-year-old soap opera: While Democrats were aghast, members of the president’s party either expressed mild dismay or excused Trump’s tampering entirely.

“It doesn’t bother me at all, as long as the judge has the final decision,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman who sharply criticized the administration of President Barack Obama for alleged politicization of the Justice Department.

He added about the president’s tweet: “I think a president’s got freedom of speech just like everybody else has.”

Democrats cast the lack of pushback as further evidence that Trump feels emboldened, unchecked and unleashed after his Senate acquittal on two impeachment charges — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — at his trial, which ended last week.

Besides the president’s public statements on the Stone case, Democrats pointed to his dismissal of subordinates who testified in the House impeachment probe and his decision to withdraw one executive nomination this week — that of a former U.S. attorney who had overseen the Stone case at an earlier stage — and the possible abandonment of a Defense Department nominee who had questioned a White House hold on military aid to Ukraine.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) seized on the demise of the nomination of Jessie K. Liu to serve as undersecretary of the Treasury Department for terrorism and financial crimes as proof that Trump is “on a retribution tour.”

“I mean, it’s just one thing after another,” said Brown, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, where Liu was set to testify Thursday at her confirmation hearing. “The president clearly feels he’s unleashed. And [Republicans] all said he learned his lesson — the lesson he learned is he can get away with whatever he wants.”

Asked what lessons he learned from impeachment, Trump said Wednesday, “That the Democrats are crooked. They got a lot of crooked things going. That they’re vicious.”

Tempering the Democratic outrage has been the reality of their tenuous political position: In the Senate minority, they have no direct power to call hearings or force action by the Republican majority. The Democratic House majority, meanwhile, has been chastened by the failed impeachment effort and a desire among party leaders to turn a page from Trump investigations and toward an economic policy message as Election Day draws closer.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that Barr would make his first appearance as Trump’s attorney general before the panel on March 31. Nadler told Barr in a letter that the recent tumult has raised “grave questions about your leadership of the Department of Justice.”

Nadler indicated that the panel would inquire about the handling of the Stone case and other prosecutions related to Trump, as well as Barr’s decision to evaluate material that Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, had gathered from Ukrainian sources claiming to have damaging information about former vice president Joe Biden and his family.

The seven-week delay in getting answers vexed many Democrats, who cast Trump’s intervention in Stone’s sentencing as a matter of grave constitutional concern.

“Seven weeks would not be an inordinate delay in normal times,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), a Judiciary Committee member. “This is Trump time we’re dealing with, and so that is multiple felonies and high crimes and misdemeanors from now.”

Nadler declined to comment about the timing of the hearing.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday chose stronger words, calling the overt intervention in the Stone case “one of the most horrible things President Trump has done” and “Third World behavior, not American behavior.”

The decision to overrule the initial sentencing recommendation prompted four career prosecutors to withdraw from the case Tuesday.

Schumer’s call for emergency oversight hearings putting Barr and other Justice Department officials under oath was quickly dismissed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who said Wednesday that after a conversation with Barr, he was “very confident” that the department has acted properly. Graham also gently rapped Trump for speaking publicly about the case.

“These people were way out of bounds in my view,” he said of the front-line prosecutors, who recommended a sentence as long as nine years for Stone after his conviction for lying to Congress and tampering with a witness. “You’re not gonna go to seven to nine years on a 70-year-old guy when the alleged victim said they didn’t feel threatened. That’s just revenge. That’s sour grapes. But having said that, the president shouldn’t have said anything.”

The GOP reaction this week was markedly different from when, in 2016, then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton on a plane at the Phoenix airport while federal investigators moved to close the case on Hillary Clinton as she moved toward the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) at the time called for a special prosecutor to take over the Clinton case. On Wednesday, he fully defended the decision to overrule the front-line prosecutors’ sentencing decision.

“I think the world is sort of turned on its head where subordinates somehow dictate policy,” he said. “In this case, the judge is going to make the decision, not anybody else.”

Asked about Trump’s tweets and the Clinton-Lynch uproar, he said, “The president has First Amendment rights, too.”

Top Republican leaders offered little pushback. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declined to comment on the Stone case at his weekly media availability Tuesday, while Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) offered only faint criticism Wednesday: “I’m not a lawyer, but strikes me at least that you want to let the legal process move forward the way it’s intended to.”

Other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were similarly reluctant to comment Wednesday on a matter squarely inside the panel’s oversight portfolio.

“I want to get the information on it before I give you a comment,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

“I don’t know the facts of the case; I haven’t been following it,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

“I think the tweet was problematic and gave the appearance that the president was more involved than he actually was,” said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.).

Meanwhile, the Republican senators who have been more willing to criticize Trump did not go much further.

“I don’t think the president should be determining what the sentences are,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), while Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Trump “should not have gotten involved,” and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said, “Politics should not play a part in law enforcement,” without directly criticizing the president.

_______

Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

*********

TRUMP TAKES ON JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON AHEAD OF ROGER STONE’S SENTENCING

By Ann E. Marimow | Published Feb 12 at 6:22 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 12, 2020 |

First he went after the prosecutors who recommended a multiyear sentence for his friend Roger Stone. Then President Trump turned his Twitter ire to the “witch hunt disgrace” of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, which led to Stone’s indictment. But perhaps most surprising was Trump’s decision to target U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson — who will determine Stone’s fate when he appears in her courtroom next Thursday.

It was not the first time Trump had gone after a federal judge or questioned the judiciary, but Tuesday’s attack was nevertheless vexing to current and former judges as Jackson prepares to decide whether to send the president’s friend to prison — and for how long.

“The timing is outrageous, and the notion that you’re attempting to influence a judge,” retired federal judge Nancy Gertner said.

“He’s trying to delegitimize anyone appointed by someone other than him and say that the only people who can be trusted are Trump judges,” she said.

The targeting of Jackson, who has presided over a set of cases involving Trump associates in the past year, is the latest in a drumbeat of disparagement from the president when he disagrees with rulings. After Trump criticized a district court judge who ruled against the administration in 2018, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took the rare step of responding and countering the president’s characterization of the judge as an “Obama judge.” Roberts, a nominee of President George W. Bush’s, has himself been the target of the president’s ire. Trump labeled him an “absolute disaster” for his vote in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

Other presidents have expressed dismay at court decisions, as President Obama did during his 2010 State of the Union address after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC opened the door for corporations and unions to spend freely in elections. But Trump’s criticism comes as Stone’s sentencing is pending and the president is being lobbied to pardon his friend. Michael Caputo, a former campaign adviser to Trump, on Wednesday announced a committee to raise money for Stone’s appeal alongside a petition drive for him to be pardoned.

“Roger Stone stood up for Donald Trump. Now America should stand up for Roger Stone. Please take just a few seconds to help by signing the petition to pardon Roger Stone!” says the committee’s website.

When asked Wednesday by reporters whether he was considering a pardon for Stone, Trump said, “I don’t want to say that yet.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Who is Judge Amy Berman Jackson? ]

Stone’s sentencing by Jackson is scheduled for Feb. 20. A jury convicted Stone in November on charges of witness tampering and lying to Congress about his efforts to gather damaging information about Trump’s 2016 presidential election opponent Hillary Clinton. Stone’s defense has asked for a sentence of probation, citing his age, 67, and lack of criminal history.

On Tuesday, Trump criticized as unduly harsh the initial sentencing recommendation of seven to nine years made by front-line prosecutors. Shortly thereafter, the Justice Department signaled that it would seek a more lenient sentence for Stone, a move that prompted all four career prosecutors to withdraw from the case — and one to resign from the government.

Hours later, Trump targeted Jackson for her treatment of another ally of his, Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, and suggested that the judge had been soft on Hillary Clinton.

“Is this the judge that put Paul Manfort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure? How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!” the president wrote, sharing a tweet that named Jackson as the judge who sentenced Manafort.

Just one day before Trump voiced his displeasure with Jackson, the judge issued a ruling favorable to the administration. She threw out a lawsuit filed by historians and watchdog groups seeking to compel the White House to preserve records of the president’s calls and meetings with foreign leaders.

Jackson, 65, has played a central role in cases involving Trump associates and Mueller’s Russia investigation. She sentenced Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates, in December. She presided over the trial of Gregory B. Craig, a Democratic former White House counsel who was charged in a spinoff from the Mueller probe and was acquitted in September.

Before adding 3½ years to the almost four years Manafort received after his trial in Alexandria, Jackson said, “This defendant is not public enemy number one, but he’s also not a victim either. There’s no question this defendant knew better, and he knew exactly what he was doing.”

She did not as a judge, however, have any authority over the conditions of Manafort’s confinement, as the president suggested in his tweet.

Jackson, a 2011 nominee of Obama’s, was born in Baltimore, the daughter of a U.S. Army-trained physician. A graduate of Harvard University and its law school, Jackson spent time both as a federal prosecutor in Washington and as a white-collar defense lawyer. With lawyer Robert P. Trout, she represented former Louisiana congressman William J. Jefferson on corruption charges after a search turned up $90,000 in cash stashed in the Democrat’s freezer.

Jackson, through a court spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Her current and former colleagues say she is unquestionably independent and will not be pressured by Trump’s tactics, even if she would prefer not to be the subject of his attacks.

“I have no doubt that she will not be deterred, pressured or intimidated by the unwarranted and inappropriate remarks of the president or anyone else for that matter,” said a colleague, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, another colleague of Jackson’s on the court in Washington, recently warned of the consequences of similar attacks from the president. Trump, Friedman said in a speech, “seems to view the courts and the justice system as obstacles to be attacked and undermined, not as a coequal branch to be respected even when he disagrees with its decisions.”

Jackson has already tangled with Stone. Last February, a photo of the judge on Stone’s Instagram account seemed to violate a gag order she had imposed on him because of concerns about pretrial publicity. The image appeared to show a gun sight’s crosshairs next to a photo of Jackson’s face. Stone said he wasn’t sure who posted the image, but he said he viewed it as a Celtic cross. He apologized for it.

Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge in Utah, called the personal nature of the president’s attacks “highly unusual and an extraordinary departure from the way things are ordinarily handled.”

But, he said, the nation’s system of government insulates judges from political pressure because they are appointed for life. While most judges would prefer not to be the target of attacks on social media, including from the president, he said, the independence of the judiciary provides protection from repercussions.

“Judge Jackson will simply move forward and decide the case,” said Cassell, now a law professor at the University of Utah, “and ignore the surrounding atmospherics from the president and the others who are responding to him.”

______

Spencer S. Hsu and Allyson Chiu contributed to this report

*********

Barr faces fresh scrutiny over Stone sentencing controversy

By Matt Zapotosky and Devlin Barrett | Published February 12 at 6:43 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Feb 12, 2020

President Trump on Wednesday put Attorney General William P. Barr squarely in the middle of the brewing controversy over the Justice Department’s sentencing recommendation for Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone, praising Barr for seizing command of the case from career prosecutors.

The president’s Twitter message came just a day after the Justice Department was again thrust into a political firestorm, when the four prosecutors on the Stone case withdrew from the proceedings amid a dispute over what penalty they should propose for the president’s close associate.

Legal analysts and others said the episode represented a low moment for the agency, suggesting that its Trump-appointed leaders were bending to the president’s political whims and trying to undermine the last prosecution brought by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as part of his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump, though, made clear he was pleased with the department’s moves — and with Barr, in particular.

“Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought,” Trump wrote. “Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the president’s statements.

Some current and former Justice Department officials have long feared that Barr is willing to risk the institution’s historic independence to serve an irascible president. The top Democrat in the Senate called for the Justice Department inspector general to investigate the Stone episode, and the House Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday it would have Barr testify March 31 to address that case and other recent incidents that it said “raise grave questions” about Barr’s leadership.

Among those is Barr’s recent acknowledgment that he had created what he called an “intake process” for Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to give the Justice Department what Giuliani has claimed is damaging information about former vice president Joe Biden and his family.

Two people familiar with the matter said Barr has instructed the U.S. attorney’s office in Pittsburgh to handle such information. Giuliani’s claims are particularly problematic for the Justice Department because he is the president’s lawyer, and under investigation by federal prosecutors in New York for his business ties to two men accused of breaking campaign finance laws.

Barr also has faced criticism for his handling of the Mueller probe — particularly those cases, including the prosecution of Stone, that have continued after the closure of the special counsel’s office last year.

Stone was convicted by a jury in November of obstructing Congress and witness intimidation. Career prosecutors on the case — working out of the U.S. attorney’s office in the District — on Monday filed their recommendation on what penalty Stone should face when he is sentenced Feb. 20.

That recommendation, though, proved to be thornier than most, as the career prosecutors sparred with their supervisors over what was appropriate. The prosecutors argued the sentencing guidelines called for seven to nine years in prison. Political leadership at the Justice Department, though, pushed for something less, arguing Stone’s conduct did not merit a lengthy addition to his sentence for threatening violence.

On Monday, it seemed the career prosecutors had won out. All four signed on to a recommendation, also endorsed by interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea, that recommended a sentence based on a guidelines calculation. The move enraged Trump, who tweeted early the next morning: “This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”

Hours later, a senior Justice Department official claimed department leadership was “shocked” at the recommendation and would move to undo it. All four career prosecutors moved to withdraw from the case, with one quitting the government entirely. The Justice Department then filed a new recommendation — signed by Shea and a different career prosecutor — that said the previous guidance “could be considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances.” It did not advocate for a specific penalty but suggested three to four years in prison would be reasonable.

Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said that the department had decided before Trump’s Tuesday tweet to revise the recommendation and that there were no discussions between the White House and Justice Department about the Stone case in the days leading up to the prosecutors’ guidance.

A Justice Department official said senior leaders at the agency had expected the first Stone filing to say what the second filing did.

Officials have not provided a clear timeline of the interactions between career prosecutors and department leadership, or fully explained how leadership could have been taken aback by the initial sentencing recommendation. Shea was a counselor in Barr’s office before he was named as interim U.S. attorney last month. Also involved in the discussions was David Metcalf, who had been a counselor in Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen’s office and now works for Shea.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment or address questions about Shea and Metcalf’s handling of the matter.

The Stone episode comes just weeks after the U.S. attorney’s office for the District also seemed to soften its stance on another case originally brought by Mueller against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia’s former ambassador to the United States.

In early January, prosecutors recommended that Flynn be sentenced “within the Guidelines range” of zero to six months in prison. But in another filing just weeks later, they made clear they agreed with Flynn that a sentence of probation is “reasonable.”

Prosecutors did not explain in the later filing why they emphasized probation as a reasonable sentence for Flynn. Both documents were signed by career prosecutors — Brandon L. Van Grack and Jocelyn Ballantine. Flynn is now seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging a variety of government misconduct.

______

Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.

*********

THE DEGRADATION OF WILLIAM BARR’S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NEARLY COMPLETE

By Editorial Board | Published February 12 at 4:02 PM EST |Washington Post |

Posted February 12, 2020 |

MARK THIS as ANOTHER BIG STEP in the EROSION of STANDARDS at Attorney General William P. Barr’s Justice Department.

The department on Tuesday suggested a light sentence for President Trump’s old friend Roger Stone, by overturning a previously filed and tougher proposal. It did so over the strong objections of four career line prosecutors, all of whom resigned from the case; one left the department entirely. This extraordinary intervention played out publicly after Mr. Trump tweeted his displeasure over the initial recommendation that Mr. Stone spend seven to nine years in prison for obstructing Congress and witness tampering, which was in line with the department’s sentencing guidelines.

The Justice Department insists that the decision to reverse course came before the president’s tweet. But senior officials did not need a tweet to conclude that the president would react angrily to a tough sentence for his longtime crony, and to act in anticipation — or fear — of the president’s predictable reaction.

Meanwhile, the line prosecutors’ resignations provide strong evidence that the department’s reversal was unusual and unwarranted. Indeed, given the crimes of which Mr. Stone was convicted — and the fact that he was caught allegedly threatening a witness — it would have been unreasonable for prosecutors to seek the substantially lighter punishment that Justice now appears to favor.

Now the department has lost at least one career civil servant and yet more credibility. Mr. Barr had already, last year, manipulated the release of the Russia investigation’s findings, using his power over how it would be presented to the public to paint Mr. Trump in a positive light that the actual conclusions did not warrant. Now his department has intervened publicly to skew the punishment that one of the bad actors uncovered in that probe, Mr. Stone, will receive.

The most important role of the attorney general is to protect the department from improper political influence, including from the president. Mr. Barr should have ensured that Mr. Stone’s case was handled with strict professionalism, as the career prosecutors sought to do, and shielded them from White House pressure, direct or indirect. To all appearances, he did the opposite. Mr. Trump evidently thinks so: “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought,” he tweeted.

Senior Democrats are calling for a congressional inquiry. That is certainly warranted. What was the attorney general’s understanding of what the Stone sentencing recommendation was going to be? At what point did he form this understanding? With whom? To what extent was that understanding a reflection of Mr. Stone’s relationship with the president — or set in anticipation of the president’s likely reaction to a tough sentence? Why, after line prosecutors went a different route, was the decision deemed so egregious that it must be overturned, prompting obvious questions about the politicization of the Justice Department?

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said there would be no special hearing on the matter. Given his newfound role as presidential enabler, that’s no surprise. But it’s not right, either.

Meanwhile, Mr. Barr should reflect on how, under his watch, the department he has served for so long has become so tarnished.

*********

THIS IS A REVOLTING ASSAULT ON THE FRAGILE RULE OF LAW

By Chuck Rosenberg | Published Feb 12 at 2:30 PM EST | Washington Post |

Posted February 12, 2020 |

***Chuck Rosenberg is a former U.S. attorney, senior FBI official and acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Something extraordinary and deeply troubling happened at — and to — the Justice Department this week. Four federal prosecutors properly, and as a matter of conscience, withdrew from the Roger Stone case. They had shepherded that case through the criminal-justice system but in an alarming development were ordered to disavow a sentencing recommendation they filed with the federal judge overseeing the matter.

Their original recommendation — asking the judge to sentence Stone within the range set by the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines for the offenses for which Stone was convicted at trial — was a perfectly ordinary filing. It is the type of pleading filed in federal courts by federal prosecutors every day. Certainly, when a defendant is convicted at trial, it is routine for prosecutors to suggest to the judge that he be sentenced within a prescribed range — the result of a cumbersome sentencing guidelines calculation that is often debated between the parties and adjudicated by the court.

Of course, the filing was just a recommendation to the judge, who has ample authority to sentence Stone within that range — or above it or below it — as she determines. Prosecutors do not sentence defendants; judges do. So how did something so ordinary become so extraordinary?

First, some background. The Justice Department that I know and love — and in which I worked for two decades in many roles — must always be two things to the public it serves: fair and perceived as fair. These are related but distinct concepts. Our work must be fair — that is, we must have fair outcomes as a matter of practice and principle. Anything less is unacceptable, which is one reason, for instance, we turned over exculpatory evidence (a constitutional obligation) and why we publicly fronted our mistakes when we made them.

But our work must also be perceived as fair. Fair outcomes are not worth much if the public does not perceive those outcomes as fair. One way, among many, we ensure that is to assiduously avoid politics in our work. When I was a career federal prosecutor in Virginia, my colleagues and I simply did not talk about politics. I did not know then, and I largely do not know now, how my colleagues (including the federal agents with whom we worked) voted or even if they voted. It simply did not matter to our work. Folks did not talk about it. It was irrelevant to our work. We knew that unwritten rule. Whatever our view, we kept it to ourselves, because it had no place in our world and because letting it seep in would corrode our work. We worked free of political interference or influence. Always.

Until now, apparently. What happened? Following the routine filing by the career prosecutors — in line with the sentencing guidelines applicable to the Stone case — the president inexplicably tweeted that the sentence Stone faced was a “miscarriage” of justice, calling it a “horrible and very unfair situation.”

And then — and this is the part that is so disturbing — the prosecutors were ordered, either because of the president’s tweet or irrespective of it (and both scenarios are awful), to rescind their original recommendation and to ask the judge that Stone receive more lenient treatment at his sentencing. What the prosecutors were ordered to do was dangerous and unsettling and undermined everything they — and we — stood for as Justice Department professionals. They properly refused.

We all understand that the leadership at the top of the department is politically appointed, and we make peace with that (in addition to my work as a career federal prosecutor, I served in political positions under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama in the Justice Department and worked for thoughtful appointed leaders of both parties), but being asked by that leadership to allow politics to corrode our work is not remotely normal or permissible. And it is treacherous.

The rule of law is a construct. It was made by people — and is nurtured and preserved by people. It can also be destroyed by people. And unlike the law of gravity, which works everywhere and all the time (at least on this planet), the rule of law is precious and fragile. As citizens and prosecutors, we either safeguard it or we surrender it. That’s the choice. What political leadership did here — mandating a favor for a friend of the president in line with the president’s publicly expressed desire in the case — significantly damages the rule of law and the perception of Justice Department fairness.

Principled resignations by career federal prosecutors highlighted this dangerous stunt. I am proud of them for that.

But I find it revolting that they were pushed into that corner (one resigned his job; three others resigned from the case) and saddened by their sacrifice. This is not normal and it is not right,and it is dangerous territory for the rule of law.

SAFEGUARD or SURRENDER. YOU CHOOSE.

*********

Venezuela’s opposition says Guaidó’s uncle was detained, holds Maduro responsible

By Mariana Zuñiga & Anthony Fabiola| Published February 12 at 7:21 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Feb 12, 2020

CARACAS, Venezuela — Opposition officials on Wednesday condemned the disappearance and apparent detention of Juan Guaidó's uncle after the opposition leader returned home this week from a global tour to build support for his effort to oust President Nicolás Maduro.

Guaidó’s uncle, Juan José Márquez, traveled with him on a flight from Lisbon that landed at Simón Bolívar International Airport in Maiquetía shortly after 4:30 p.m. Tuesday. Senior opposition officials said Guaidó last saw Márquez just before he crossed into an arrivals hall, where Guaidó’s supporters clashed with Maduro’s backers, who hurled insults at the opposition leader and appeared to manhandle him as he tried to make his way to a waiting car.

Márquez does not hold an official position in the opposition leadership.

“I hold you responsible, usurper Nicolás Maduro, and each one of your minions in Maiquetía for what happens to Juan José Márquez, an honest and brave man who knows the value of this fight and whose only responsibility is to worry about his family,” Guaidó tweeted Wednesday.

Venezuela’s communications ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

Guaidó, the National Assembly president who is recognized as Venezuela’s rightful leader by the United States and more than 50 other nations, defied a travel ban to spend 3½ weeks in Europe and the United States lobbying for more international pressure to isolate Maduro and force him from office. The United Nations last year issued a report documenting the torture, arbitrary arrest and killing of government opponents and citizens under Maduro.

Before Guaidó’s return Tuesday, the Trump administration warned Maduro not to harm or detain the leader. The opposition’s U.S. backers quickly decried his uncle’s disappearance.

“Kidnapping interim president @JGuaido’s relatives only demonstrates that the dictatorship is weak and desperate,” tweeted Michael G. Kozak, the acting assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs. “We demand the immediate release of Juan José Márquez unharmed. #Democracy cannot be intimidated, this must stop!”

Romina Botaro, Márquez’s wife, said her husband called her while being held at customs. She said he was wearing a protective vest that he was told he needed to declare.

That was the last she heard from him, she told reporters at a news conference Wednesday. When Márquez’s lawyers went to the airport late Tuesday, she said, they were told he had disappeared from the building.

Later, Botaro, speaking to reporters in Caracas, said that she had spoken to her husband again at 5 p.m. Wednesday and that he confirmed he was being detained at the headquarters of Military Counter-Intelligence in northern Caracas. He additionally told her that he was due to be arraigned in court, she said.

On Wednesday, opposition lawmaker Delsa Solórzano tweeted, “They inform us that they are transferring Juan Márquez, uncle of the President @jguaido, to court.” Opposition officials said they could not immediately confirm that Márquez had turned up in custody. But they denounced what they said was an attempt by “the Maduro dictatorship” to give him a public defender.

“Juan José Márquez . . . has a private [attorney],” Guaidó’s press team tweeted. The Washington Post could not immediately reach attorney Joel García.

Botaro said Márquez, an airline pilot, had nothing to do with politics.

“Like any protective uncle, he only wanted to escort his nephew and protect his safety,” she said.

Guaidó said Maduro had targeted his family.

“Threats have not stopped us or will stop us,” he said.

The opposition denounced the arrest of the organizers of Guaidó’s homecoming rally Tuesday evening. Several hundred supporters gathered in eastern Caracas to hear the opposition leader speak. Opposition officials said the drivers of three buses that carried lawmakers to the airport to greet Guaidó were stopped and detained.

Deyalitza Aray, an opposition lawmaker, was held but later released.

“It was an illegal detention, without any sense,” she told reporters Tuesday in Caracas. “This is a dramatic situation because it demonstrates how the regime acts against citizens and the congress.”

The country’s national press union said at least six journalists covering Guaidó’s return were attacked and robbed. Some of them were bitten and punched, the union said.

Maduro’s government has sought to penalize Guaidó’s supporters in recent months. Government forces closed down the hotel and seized the cars he used during at least one campaign stop. Pollster and political analyst Luis Vicente Leon said it was clear Maduro was sending “a message.”

“Politicians, deputies, assistants, many people have been arrested and intimidated,” he said. “And not only people, but places have also been closed down. This is a very clear strategy that tries to encircle anything that supports Guaidó.”

Maduro’s message, he said, is that Guaidó’s “fight is expensive, and his uncle is a perfect way to send this message.”

*********

BACKGROUND INFORMATION BELOW:

Trump withdraws Treasury nomination of former U.S. attorney for D.C. Jessie K. Liu after criticism of her oversight of Mueller prosecutions

By Spencer S. Hsu, Josh Dawsey and Devlin Barrett | Published February 11 at 11:41 PM EST | Washington Post |

Posted February 12, 2020 |

President Trump on Tuesday withdrew the nomination of former U.S. attorney Jessie K. Liu of the District of Columbia to a high-ranking Treasury Department post after being lobbied by critics of her office’s handling of cases, including ones inherited from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, two people familiar with the decision said.

Liu, 47, served more than two years in the politically sensitive post of top federal prosecutor in the nation’s capital and was Trump’s firstnominee to the position, serving from September 2017 until Jan. 31.

In the job, Liu oversaw late-stage courtproceedings for top Trump aides and Mueller defendants, including Trump’s 2016 deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, as well as the November trial and conviction of longtime Trump political adviser Roger Stone.

However, over the past two weeks, coinciding with Liu’s departure, the U.S. attorney’s office has changed its sentencing stances in both Flynn and Stone’s cases, with prosecutors moving from stiffer sentencing recommendations to more lenient ones.

Emerging accounts of the circumstances surrounding Liu’s departure from the administration cast those decisions in a new light.

The White House’s move to drop Liu was disclosed Tuesday after all four career U.S. prosecutors handling the case against Stone withdrew from the legal proceedings when the Justice Department undercut their sentencing recommendation for Trump’s longtime friend and confidant. Prosecutors on Monday said Stone should serve 7 to 9 years in prison.

Trump has been lobbied extensively against Liu by people who do not like her handling of the D.C. office — particularly as it relates to the Mueller probe, an administration official said. The decision to withdraw the nomination was made Tuesday afternoon, the official said.

A second administration official confirmed Liu was notified at that time.

A third person familiar with the situation — who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly— said Liu’s nomination was opposed vocally by Barbara Ledeen, a conservative operative and Republican Senate staffer unhappy about Flynn’s prosecution for lying to the FBI.

Ledeen’s husband co-wrote a book with Flynn and she was named in the Mueller report as a person Flynn contacted during Trump’s 2016 campaign to obtain Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s private emails.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the situation, the person said Ledeen had made little headway before the recent storm over Stone’s sentencing, calling it a turning point. Treasury officials believe Trump himself made the call to withdraw Liu because her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee was set for Thursday, and Trump was concerned she would be asked about the case, the person said.

Liu had no role in Stone’s sentencing recommendation, having left office before it was sent to supervisors for approval, several people said.

Ledeen, a Senate Judiciary Committee staffer since 2000, said in an interview: “I’m a Senate staffer. I can’t lobby either the Senate or the White House. I’m kind of amazed my name came up in this.” She added, “Somebody likes to throw around my name.”

Liu did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump’s reversal was striking because Liu, who had served on his presidential transition team and was a Treasury appointee early in his term, was personally vetted by then-White House counsel Donald McGahn, and met with Trump in the White House before he first named her U.S. attorney.

Late last year, the White House announced plans to promote her, saying on Dec. 10 that Trump intended to nominate her to undersecretary of the Treasury Department for terrorism and financial crimes, to lead the administration’s use of economic sanctions as a national security and foreign policy tool.

Liu’s nomination was sent to the Senate on Jan. 6, and she told the U.S. attorney’s office of plans to leave at the end of the month, people in the office said. Liu’s departure at that time was seen as somewhat unusual because she had not yet received Senate confirmation for her new job before being replaced on an interim basis by Timothy Shea, a former counselor to Attorney General William P. Barr.

That same period saw a shift by Flynn’s prosecutors. On Jan. 6, prosecutors recommended that Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., be sentenced to zero to six months in prison, emphasizing that defendants in similar cases served time behind bars. But in a follow-up filing Jan. 29, they made clear they agreed with Flynn “that a sentence of probation is a reasonable sentence” for him, citing cases where defendants were spared incarceration.

The filing came as Flynn continues his effort to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging government misconduct. Prosecutors did not explain in their filing the reason for the shift.

______

Keith L. Alexander contributed to this report.

*********

Attorney General William P. Barr names Timothy Shea, one of his counselors, as the District’s interim U.S. Attorney

By Keith L. Alexander, Spencer S. Hsu and Matt Zapotosky | Published Jan. 30, 2020 at 3:13 p.m. EST |Washington Post | Posted February 12, 2020 |

Attorney General William P. Barr on Thursday named former federal prosecutor Timothy Shea as the District’s interim U.S. attorney.

Shea, 59, currently serves as a counselor to Barr at the Justice Department. He will oversee the nation’s largest U.S. attorney’s office with 300 prosecutors.

The announcement comes just a day before Jessie K. Liu, the city’s current U.S. attorney, leaves office on Friday.

Liu, 47, has served in the post for a little over two years. President Trump on Jan. 6 nominated her to become the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes, and her nomination is pending before the Senate Banking Committee.

The U.S. attorney’s office in the District is unique in that it handles both local and federal cases, from violent crimes in the city to high-level national security and public corruption prosecutions.

Prosecutors there have taken to trial former Trump confidant Roger Stone and former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, and have taken over cases involving former Trump deputy campaign manager Rick Gates and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. They are managing a grand jury investigation into former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is accused of misleading federal investigators about a media disclosure, and are handling a leak case in which they have focused at least some of their questioning on former FBI director James B. Comey. Comey and McCabe have been outspoken critics of Trump, and the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office has faced criticism that it is unfairly targeting the president’s political rivals.

In a statement, Barr described Shea’s reputation as “a fair prosecutor, skillful litigator, and excellent manager is second-to-none, and his commitment to fighting violent crime and the drug epidemic will greatly benefit the city of Washington.”

Shea has served in a variety of roles in federal and state government, including as a prosecutor in federal court in Virginia. Trump ultimately must nominate, and the Senate must confirm, a candidate to fill the U.S. attorney job.

Liu, who worked as a line prosecutor in the office decades before returning as its chief in 2017, declined to comment on her tenure or her plans. She also will require Senate confirmation for the Treasury role.

Her departure has been a source of concern from some who say the city needs a long-term top prosecutor to put in place strategies to curb crime and ensure convictions amid a rising number of homicides.

“It’s very disturbing to me there is turnover this quickly,” D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) said. “It’s not good for public safety not to have that stability.”

Mendelson praised Liu for working with city leaders and residents but added he was concerned that her successor may not share the same ideas of what is of importance for the District.

While overseeing federal cases, Liu also turned her attention to crime issues in the city. In early 2019, her office began taking more gun cases to federal court as part of a crackdown on repeat violent offenders and felons found illegally possessing firearms. District leaders had pushed to take these cases away from D.C. Superior Court believing sentences were often inconsistent or too lenient.

D.C. Police Chief Peter ­Newsham described Liu as a “really good partner” to the department, but echoed Mendelson about his concerns of a new U.S. attorney taking over as law enforcement work to identifying new approaches to reduce violence. “There is something to be said for consistency,” Newsham said. “Unfortunately, we’re going to have to start all over again with a new leader.”

On Thursday evening, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) said Shea had contacted city officials, and they plan to meet in the coming days. Bowser said she hopes Shea will keep some of the initiatives that Liu put in place, including pursuing gun cases in federal court. “He is already on board,” Bowser said. “We want to make sure he recognizes the context of how the U.S. attorney’s offices and annexes work together for a stronger D.C.”

Liu oversaw myriad high-profile cases. It was her call last year to dismiss charges against 188 defendants who were charged with rioting during Trump’s 2017 inauguration. Nearly two dozen defendants pleaded guilty; prosecutors were unable to secure convictions at trial in other cases.

Liu’s office last year also petitioned a federal court judge to seek the early prison release for 1980s D.C. drug kingpin Rayful Edmond III after he spent decades cooperating with authorities.

Liu became most visible in the community when she clashed with some city council members over a proposed amendment to a D.C. law that would grant additional inmates convicted of serious crimes a chance at early release.

That law, the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act, allows people who committed crimes as juveniles a chance to petition for release after serving 15 years in prison. The proposed amendment, sponsored by D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), would expand the group of eligible inmates to include those who were as old as 24 when they offended, as opposed to age 17.

The amendment was originally planned for a council vote last fall. Allen spokesman Erik Salmi said the measure was “not dead,” but no date for a vote has been determined.

Liu came under criticism for the handling of hate-crime prosecutions, with community leaders saying her office failed to aggressively prosecute such cases and pursue enhanced penalties when authorities said they believed the victim was targeted because of race, sexual orientation or religion.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D. C.) said she repeatedly tried to convince Liu to address a rise in hate-crime arrests in the city, but prosecutions were stagnant.

Norton, who has represented the nation’s capital since 1991, described Liu being “at the bottom of the list” in terms of quality among the U.S. attorneys with whom she has worked.

“As she moves on, it seems clear she never wanted this position in the first place and appeared to be using this job to move onto to where she is moving to now within the administration.”

Liu previously was nominated by Trump for the No. 3 position in the Justice Department, but she withdrew from consideration in March after Republican senators raised concerns about her past membership in a lawyers group that supported abortion rights.

Karl A. Racine, the District’s first elected attorney general, said he disagreed with some of Liu’s decisions such as moving more firearm crimes to federal court. But they had common ground on other issues.

When he expressed concern over an increase in fraud cases involving elderly victims, Racine said, Liu allowed one of his local prosecutors to team with her office on such investigations.

“I had an enthusiastic partner in Jessie,” Racine said.

_______

Peter Hermann and Eddy Palanzo contributed to this report.

*********

#u.s. news #trump administration #politics #president donald trump #politics and government #trump scandals #trumpism #republican politics #donald trump #us politics #trump corruption #trump cult #trump crime family #trump crime syndicate #trump campaign #william barr #justice department #justicedept #united states department of justice #u.s. department of justice #trump impeachment #trump is evil #ivanka trump #impeach trump