An association of federal judges is holding an emergency meeting Tuesday to address concerns about the interventions in politically sensitive cases by Attorney General William Barr and President Donald Trump, USA Today reported.
The Federal Judges Association, which has about 1,100 members, called for the meeting last week after Trump attacked federal prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation for his longtime pal and convicted felon Roger Stone and then soon after the Justice Department pulled back the recommendation.
Trump also criticized the judge who is presiding over Stone’s case.
“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, the president of the association, told the newspaper. “We’ll talk all of this through.”
The issues are so serious that the judges “could not wait” for the association’s April conference to address them, according to Rufe, a judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2002.
The meeting will be arranged via a conference call involving 15 to 20 officers and members of the association’s executive committee, Rufe told USA Today. The judge said she doesn’t yet know if the association will share the results of the meeting.
More than 2,000 former Justice Department officials and federal prosecutors called on Barr to resign in an open letter Sunday. The letter condemned Barr’s treatment of the Stone case as “openly and repeatedly” flouting the “fundamental principle” of equal justice.
The attorney general has come under intensifying pressure after the Justice Department overturned its own prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation of seven to nine years for Stone. He was convicted of seven felonies, including lying to investigators and witness tampering.
Barr has also ordered a review of the case against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who initially pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his communication with the Russian ambassador before Trump was sworn into office. Flynn withdrew his guilty plea last month.
White House diplomacy has dipped to a new low after it emerged that Donald Trump’s luxury golf resort in Turnberry, Scotland, has banned the sale of Irn-Bru on the premises.
The ban came to light after guests asked for Scotland’s favourite non-alcoholic beverage to be supplied at an event but were refused because staff were concerned about potential spills.
The combination of colourants that give the fizzy drink its distinctive luminous orange hue are believed to be responsible for its notorious indelibility.
The five-star resort on the Ayrshire coast has recently benefited from a £200m upgrade, which is believed to have included hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on carpets.
Turnberry’s general manager, Ralph Porciani, told the Ayrshire Post: “We can’t have it staining when to replace the ballroom carpet would be £500,000 alone.
“We have villas here with Irn-Bru stains in the carpets which I can’t let.”
The latest affront comes after a change in recipe cut the sugar content of the drink by almost half following the introduction of the UK government’s sugar tax, prompting fans to stockpile cans of the original version.
The piecemeal ban on Scotland’s other national drink, long avowed as the ultimate hangover cure, has caused inevitable outrage on social media and will likely swell the protests already planned should Trump visit Scotland as part of his trip to the UK in July.
This sounds like a lot of hysteria to me. The President is the executive branch. He gives orders to the people who work for him. What's the big deal?
Quote:Umm...wow...This sounds like a lot of hysteria to me. The President is the executive branch. He gives orders to the people who work for him. What's the big deal?
- Conflict of interest
- friends scratching friends backs
- inequality before the law
- who you know, rather than what you've done
- encouraging corruption
- precedents for the above
No...not much wrong with interfering with judicial proceedings that affect your friends or your reputation...not much wrong at all...
It's hardly interfering.
Wow, is that what the liberal media is telling you guys?
Riiiiiight. That's why he bothered saying anything in the first place - because it wouldn't achieve anything....only his motivation was to achieve something....and the results show he did.
And it's not like he doesn't have a history of sacking people in the law enforcement system who go against him. Nor bringing in people who do as he says....
Of course he was trying to achieve something. That is his job.
People who work for him are supposed to do what he tells them to do. That is the nature of employment.
You need to make up your mind. He criticises a judicial process to get a favourable outcome for his friend...which you say he's not doing...
then say he's trying to achieve something (obviously trying to get a favourable outcome for his friend)
I've no doubt you understand that I'm correct in this - though your motivations for wanting to justify this to yourself I don't know.
Prosecutors are supposed to make decisions over whether or not to bring charges against people.