So This Is How The Trump Justice Department Is Going to Work??
May 26, 2019 07:21:12 #
It pains me to no end to make a positive comparison of the Obama justice department vs. how the Trump justice is now functioning. But unfortunately, that is the case in the issue of first amendment rights in general, and Julian Assange in particular.
The following facts were presented in a Washington Post article in which is linked at the bottom of this post.
1. "On Thursday, senior Justice Department officials announced an 18-count indictment against Assange, accusing him of conspiring with former Army Pfc. Chelsea Manning in 2010 to obtain and disseminate secret government documents. The charges alarmed First Amendment experts, who called them a threat to press freedoms."
2. "People familiar with the Assange case said that the Justice Department did not have significant evidence or facts beyond what the Obama-era officials had when they reviewed the case.
Part of the concern among Justice Department veterans was that prosecutors had looked at the same evidence for years during the Obama administration and determined such charges were a bad idea, in large part because Assange’s conduct was too similar to that of reporters at established news organizations."
3. "Two (Justice Department ) prosecutors involved in the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange argued against the Justice Department’s decision to accuse him of violating the Espionage Act because of fear that such charges posed serious risks for First Amendment protections and other concerns, according to people familiar with the matter.
The previously undisclosed disagreement inside the Justice Department underscores the fraught, high-stakes nature of the government’s years-long effort to counter Assange, an Internet-age publisher who has repeatedly declared his hostility to U.S. foreign policy and military operations. The Assange case also illustrates how the Trump administration is willing to go further than its predecessors in pursuit of leakers — and those who publish official secrets."
4. "James Trump was part of the team that won criminal convictions in 2015 against former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was charged with leaking classified information to journalist James Risen. Prosecutors in that case had taken the dramatic step of seeking to compel Risen to reveal his source in court. The prosecution team in that case wanted to jail Risen until he cooperated with investigators, but that plan was scuttled by then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., according to people familiar with the matter who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
When it came to Assange, James Trump was concerned about pursuing a prosecution that was so susceptible to First Amendment and other complicated legal and factual challenges, the people familiar with the matter said.
Another prosecutor, Daniel Grooms, also disagreed with charging Assange, according to the people familiar with the matter. At the time, Grooms served as criminal chief in the U.S. Attorney’s office that was handling the case."
5. "Prosecutors debated the case internally for months, with James Trump and Grooms advocating against Espionage Act charges, the people said.
....It is not uncommon for prosecutors to internally debate or disagree about whether a particular case merits criminal charges; in the Assange case, however, the disagreement involved major questions about constitutional rights.
6. "By the time prosecutors actually charged Assange, James Trump had offered his opinion and was no longer part of the discussions. A Justice Department official said James Trump, who was not part of the original investigative team, offered to remain on board in whatever capacity his supervisors wanted after delivering his opinion. It was determined he had significant other case work and the team could proceed without his assistance, the official said. Grooms left the Justice Department last month for unrelated reasons, these people said."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/some-federal-prosecutors-disagreed-with-decision-to-charge-assange-under-espionage-act/2019/05/24/ce9271bc-7e4d-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.38e59c009ed4
The following facts were presented in a Washington Post article in which is linked at the bottom of this post.
1. "On Thursday, senior Justice Department officials announced an 18-count indictment against Assange, accusing him of conspiring with former Army Pfc. Chelsea Manning in 2010 to obtain and disseminate secret government documents. The charges alarmed First Amendment experts, who called them a threat to press freedoms."
2. "People familiar with the Assange case said that the Justice Department did not have significant evidence or facts beyond what the Obama-era officials had when they reviewed the case.
Part of the concern among Justice Department veterans was that prosecutors had looked at the same evidence for years during the Obama administration and determined such charges were a bad idea, in large part because Assange’s conduct was too similar to that of reporters at established news organizations."
3. "Two (Justice Department ) prosecutors involved in the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange argued against the Justice Department’s decision to accuse him of violating the Espionage Act because of fear that such charges posed serious risks for First Amendment protections and other concerns, according to people familiar with the matter.
The previously undisclosed disagreement inside the Justice Department underscores the fraught, high-stakes nature of the government’s years-long effort to counter Assange, an Internet-age publisher who has repeatedly declared his hostility to U.S. foreign policy and military operations. The Assange case also illustrates how the Trump administration is willing to go further than its predecessors in pursuit of leakers — and those who publish official secrets."
4. "James Trump was part of the team that won criminal convictions in 2015 against former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was charged with leaking classified information to journalist James Risen. Prosecutors in that case had taken the dramatic step of seeking to compel Risen to reveal his source in court. The prosecution team in that case wanted to jail Risen until he cooperated with investigators, but that plan was scuttled by then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., according to people familiar with the matter who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
When it came to Assange, James Trump was concerned about pursuing a prosecution that was so susceptible to First Amendment and other complicated legal and factual challenges, the people familiar with the matter said.
Another prosecutor, Daniel Grooms, also disagreed with charging Assange, according to the people familiar with the matter. At the time, Grooms served as criminal chief in the U.S. Attorney’s office that was handling the case."
5. "Prosecutors debated the case internally for months, with James Trump and Grooms advocating against Espionage Act charges, the people said.
....It is not uncommon for prosecutors to internally debate or disagree about whether a particular case merits criminal charges; in the Assange case, however, the disagreement involved major questions about constitutional rights.
6. "By the time prosecutors actually charged Assange, James Trump had offered his opinion and was no longer part of the discussions. A Justice Department official said James Trump, who was not part of the original investigative team, offered to remain on board in whatever capacity his supervisors wanted after delivering his opinion. It was determined he had significant other case work and the team could proceed without his assistance, the official said. Grooms left the Justice Department last month for unrelated reasons, these people said."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/some-federal-prosecutors-disagreed-with-decision-to-charge-assange-under-espionage-act/2019/05/24/ce9271bc-7e4d-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.38e59c009ed4
May 26, 2019 16:18:40 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
ACP45 wrote:
It pains me to no end to make a positive compariso... (show quote)
Why wasn't he charged BEFORE Bob Mueller finished his report? For that matter, why didn't the DOJ begin investigating the origins of the Russia probe before Bob finished? To my mind, in both cases, no one at the DOJ knew for sure what Mueller would uncover.
May 27, 2019 05:31:32 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Why wasn't he charged BEFORE Bob Mueller finished his report? For that matter, why didn't the DOJ begin investigating the origins of the Russia probe before Bob finished? To my mind, in both cases, no one at the DOJ knew for sure what Mueller would uncover.
I'm lost here. Explain to me what Mueller's report has to do with the additional 18 count indictment against Assange. Also, why would the DOJ do any investigating on Russian inteference when that was the prime purpose of why Mueller was appointed. Why duplicate his work?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.