Trump “continues to propagate the lie that inspired the attack almost daily,” she wrote in a notice Thursday while keeping riot defendant Karl Dresch in jail. “And the anger surrounding the bogus accusation continues to be fueled by multiple media outlets as well as heads of state and federal parties who intend to censor those who dare to challenge the former president’s version of events.”

Dresch, like other Trump supporters, “is ready to start over,” due to the belief that a civil war might be necessary and his allegiance to Trump, who continues to contest the election, Jackson noted.

His commentary on Barr, the Capitol rioters and the former president himself is not atypical coming from DC District Court, where several judges have made headlines in recent years for shouting harshly at obscuration. the Trump administration and criminal actors linked to Trump.

But Jackson has handled more of the high-profile cases than perhaps any other district judge in Washington, and she continues to oversee historically significant cases.

Jackson has repeatedly noted the culture of lying.

“If people don’t have the facts democracy doesn’t work,” she told Manafort co-defendant and former Trump campaign manager Rick Gates in 2019 after the two hid their lucrative lobbying activity on behalf of Ukrainians.

That same year, she told former Trump campaign chairman Manafort, “What you were doing was lying to members of Congress and the American public.”

Take the lie

Jackson has become well known in recent years for preparing long recitations, even for procedural courtroom recordings.

In the Manafort, Gates and Stone cases, and now in the Capitol Riot cases, she has sometimes spent more than an hour talking without interruption, setting out her legal considerations and the facts of the case.

At times these speeches gave him the opportunity to comment on what could be the defining aspect of the Trump years: disinformation.

During Stone’s sentencing, for example, she spoke at length about the audacity of her lie to Congress to protect the president.

She called Stone’s embrace a lie a threat “to the very foundation of our democracy.”

In the Stone case – his last major defendant to be convicted during the Mueller era – Jackson gave even broader comments than before about the historical implications of what had happened.

“If he goes unpunished, it will not be a victory for one party or another,” she told him, before sentencing him to 40 months in prison. (Trump granted Stone clemency ahead of his surrender date.)

“Everyone loses because everyone depends on the representatives they elect to make the right decisions on a myriad of issues – many of which are politically charged, but many are not – based on the facts.”

Jackson declined to speak to CNN about his experience on the bench.

Robert Trout, a defense attorney who is a former colleague and Jackson’s mentor, said that, like many judges, she holds government and politicians at a high level.

“Do I think she believes her role in these high profile cases is to make history?” Trout said, responding to a question from CNN about how Jackson might rate his work. “No, I think she thinks she’s just doing her job. What’s the story about it?”

Threats and intimidation

In the Stone case, Jackson also had to respond to political sniping and ad hominem attacks from Trump’s online sphere.

First, Stone posted an image of herself on Instagram with a crosshair behind her head; she denied him access to social media and the Justice Department launched an investigation into the threats that did not result in any charges. Later, around Stone’s conviction, Jackson was confronted with tweets from Trump about what she should do as well as a juror who agreed to convict Stone.
She retaliated against the harassment of jurors by bringing surprise witnesses into legal proceedings to testify to the integrity of the Stone jury.

The hearing was dramatic – unusual for the federal bench, especially compared to the chambers of Congress and the White House, where cameras capture Washington’s top performing moments.

Set the tone

As of March, Jackson had been on the bench for a decade.

Prior to her appointment as President Barack Obama, she worked as an attorney general and then as a defense lawyer, gaining experience in high-profile trials in courtrooms like the one she presides over today. Defense attorneys who acknowledge her work experience for them now say she is not particularly sensitive to any aspect of a case.

His responses to Stone’s Instagram and the Justice Department’s more recent handling of the obstruction note to Barr are not irrelevant, they say, given that judges don’t like to be threatened or hounded in. their business.

“All of the things she was shocked at are part of the mainstream backlash,” said a defense attorney, who declined to use her name because he is appearing in court.

Shan Wu, who represented Gates in the Mueller investigation before pleading guilty, echoed that Jackson had a fair approach. “His demeanor, whether in a sparsely populated courtroom or one filled with national media, is still the same, and I think that says a lot about his integrity as a judge.”

When deciding the first conviction of an accused at the Mueller Inquiry, Dutch lawyer Alex Van Der Zwaan, Jackson sentenced him to 30 days in prison for lying, a longer sentence than the other defendants for a similar crime. .

This set the tone for the Mueller business early on. She later gave the MP for Manafort 45 days, largely because of her willingness to cooperate with investigators and her repentance. Manafort himself was sentenced to more than 7 years in prison for foreign lobbying and financial crimes.
Jackson has been as harsh on Democrats in his courtroom as Republicans in the past. She presided over the criminal cases of former Democratic Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., whom she lambasted for failing to act with more integrity as a public servant, and Obama’s former White House lawyer , Greg Craig, whom a jury acquitted at trial in a case that related to Manafort’s work for the Ukraine.

Trump-era cases continue

The cases of the past few years – especially those of Stone and Manafort – have given Jackson one of the closest views anyone outside the Justice Department has on foreign lobbying and Russia’s links to politics. American.

Even this week, the judge was still working on lingering aspects of the Manafort case and unveiled records of his interaction with a longtime Russian colleague and co-accused.
She is also still working on a Justice Department case that is not directly related, but which could prompt another review of the Trump administration. It was the lawsuits brought by former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page against the Justice Department after their text messages were published that fueled years of Trump’s Twitter attacks.
Jackson has so far gathered informed evidence in the case, prompting Strzok and Page to subpoena documents from Trump’s campaign. They could attempt to oust key Trump-era Justice Department officials, and the case could see action before Jackson again this fall.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.