I giudici lanciano l’allarme sul Dipartimento di Giustizia “controllato dalla Casa Bianca”
Punti chiave
- •Il giudice che supervisiona il caso contro i giornalisti, incluso l’ex conduttore CNN Don Lemon, ha ordinato al DOJ di produrre la presentazione al gran giurì che ha portato agli atti d’accusa.
- •Joey Jackson ha detto che la richiesta è insolita ma riflette un controllo giudiziario crescente su come i pubblici ministeri costruiscono i casi prima della presentazione delle accuse.
- •Jackson ha suggerito che i giudici siano preoccupati per l’indipendenza del DOJ, citando il presunto bersaglio di figure politiche come James Comey e Letitia James.
- •Se il giudice rilevasse irregolarità nel procedimento del gran giurì, il caso potrebbe essere archiviato, come nel caso Broadview Six.
- •Il DOJ ha chiesto mandati di perquisizione per i giornalisti a due giudici, che li hanno entrambi respinti; successivamente i pubblici ministeri si sono rivolti direttamente al gran giurì.
L’analista legale di CNN Joey Jackson ha detto che il Dipartimento di Giustizia è di nuovo nei guai.
Il giudice che supervisiona il caso che coinvolge giornalisti, incluso l’ex conduttore CNN Don Lemon, sta chiedendo al DOJ di consegnare la sua presentazione al gran giurì che ha portato agli atti d’accusa. Jackson ha detto che si tratta di una mossa insolita, anche se sempre più frequente mentre i tribunali esaminano più da vicino il modo in cui i pubblici ministeri costruiscono i casi prima della formalizzazione delle accuse.
"I think that you have judges, and particularly this one and others, who are very concerned about a Justice Department that may not be doing justice. There's been — and it hasn't been a secret, right? An indication of whether we have a Justice Department that's being controlled by the White House," Jackson said.
He said that in past administrations, the DOJ may have shared policy goals with the White House, but it still operated independently and made prosecution decisions based on evidence rather than presidential demands.
"We know about James Comey, right? We know about going after him, political enemy. We know about Letitia James, going after her. Why is that relevant to this discussion? Because I think there may be a feeling amongst the judiciary based upon this and other cases. Is this proper legal protocol? Did you do it right? Did you call balls and strikes?" Jackson asked.
Jackson said grand juries operate as "judge, jury and executioner" in these cases, and there is no defense presented. He said the grand jury must determine whether the facts rise to the level of legal sufficiency to support an indictment.
"So, you could instruct the grand jury however you wish. You can give facts to the grand jury, which you do through witnesses, but you legally instruct them. This judge is making sure that all of that was done properly with regard to the first indictment and what we call the superseding indictment thereafter," Jackson said.
If the judge reviews the grand jury information and finds improprieties, the case could be dismissed. Jackson pointed to the Broadview Six case, in which local activists and leaders were indicted after inappropriate moves by the U.S. Attorney's Office in that case. He also raised questions about what the DOJ told a Washington, D.C., grand jury about Olympian David Hearn, who was falsely accused of ripping up the lining of the Abraham Lincoln Reflecting Pool. The lawyer in that case wants to know whether the grand jury was lied to.
Jackson also said the DOJ went to two judges seeking a search warrant for the journalists, and both judges refused. The DOJ then bypassed the judges and went directly to the grand jury instead.
