motherjones--2020-07-27--New Book Provides More Evidence of the Trump-Stone Russia Coverup

When President Donald Trump earlier this month commuted the prison sentence of his longtime adviser Roger Stone , the media coverage generally missed a critical fact : This brazen act of cronyism was the culmination of a cover-up that aimed to hide Trump ’ s wrongdoing .
But a new book out this week provides more evidence of this conspiracy and offers additional information suggesting that Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller during the Russia investigation and , in doing so , possibly committed a crime .
The book , A Case for the American People : The United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written by Norman Eisen , who served as special counsel to congressional Democrats during Trump ’ s impeachment .
In this work , Eisen , who previously was ethics czar for President Barack Obama and US ambassador to the Czech Republic , presents the inside story of the third impeachment in US history , detailing the internal debates and conflicts among House Democrats and sharing juicy , behind-the-scenes anecdotes of the trial .
The book reveals that the House Judiciary Committee initially drafted a wide-ranging list of 10 articles of impeachment for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to the Ukraine scandal .
In the book , Eisen sharply ( but respectfully ) criticizes Mueller for a “ failure to go the distance.
” He contends that Mueller let the republic down by not pursuing an obstruction of justice case against Trump “ all the way ” to the end .
( In his final report , Mueller presented evidence indicating Trump committed obstruction , but he reached no firm conclusions and determined that under Justice Department policy , he did not have the authority to indict a sitting president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were at least five chargeable crimes was his shortcoming , not his lack of style , ” Eisen writes of Mueller .
“ I understood his old-fashioned restraint under the special counsel regulations and typical prosecutorial standards .
But he had leeway under the rules to do much , much more , and he didn ’ t. ” One example of Mueller ’ s dereliction , Eisen contends , is the Roger Stone case .
Stone was prosecuted by Mueller ’ s team for lying to Congress during the Trump-Russia investigation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty by a jury and sentenced to 40 months in prison—and then Trump eradicated the sentence shortly before Stone was to report to a federal prison .
Stone had lied to Congress about his efforts during the 2016 campaign to be in contact with WikiLeaks , while that website was disseminating emails and documents that had been stolen from Democrats by Russian hackers as part of a Kremlin operation to help Trump win the White House .
But the extent of Stone ’ s shenanigans—and Trump ’ s personal and possibly criminal involvement—never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandal narrative , and Eisen blames Mueller for not fully pursuing this matter .
Moreover , Eisen reports that he and his fellow staffers developed important evidence on this front .
Here ’ s the background : When Mueller ’ s report was publicly released , key portions of its section related to Stone were redacted .
But a close reading—which later would be backed up by evidence submitted at trial—indicated that during the 2016 campaign , Trump and top campaign officials , most notably , then-campaign chief Paul Manafort , tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obtain inside information on what dirt Julian Assange ’ s site had on Hillary Clinton .
The Mueller report alluded to a call Trump received at some point from Stone , in which the two discussed WikiLeaks ’ plans .
But it was unclear when this happened , and Stone ’ s name was redacted when the report was first released .
This topic was damning for Trump because it showed that he and his campaign had sought to get information from WikiLeaks through Stone while WikiLeaks was part of a Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone ’ s lies to congressional investigators were designed to hide his efforts on behalf of Trump to make contact with WikiLeaks .
And when Trump replied to written questions from Mueller—he refused to submit to an in-person interview with the special counsel—he claimed that he could remember no conversations with Stone about WikiLeaks .
So neither Stone nor Trump would acknowledge Trump ’ s attempt to use Stone as a channel to or from WikiLeaks .
The two were mounting a cover-up .
The joint Trump-Stone stonewalling was partially undone by Rick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manager , who cooperated with Mueller ’ s investigation and who was sentenced to 45 days in prison and a $ 20,000 fine for his part in a series of financial crimes and for lying to federal investigators .
Gates told Mueller about Stone ’ s communications with Trump and the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks .
( These were the bare-bones details in Mueller ’ s final report that were redacted at first . )
Gates ’ information did emerge during Stone ’ s trial , and these portions of the Mueller report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly unredacted passage described Trump instructing Manafort to stay in touch with Stone about WikiLeaks and to keep Trump updated on this .
But the cover-up mainly worked .
Stone publicly declared , “ I will never roll on Donald Trump.
” And Trump saved Stone from prison .
Eisen ’ s book adds to what ’ s known about this skullduggery .
Staffers for the House Judiciary Committee interviewed Gates last year , and Gates detailed one instance of Trump and Stone discussing WikiLeaks :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When President Donald Trump earlier this month commuted the prison sentence of his longtime adviser Roger Stone, the media coverage generally missed a critical fact: This brazen act of cronyism was the culmination of a cover-up that aimed to hide Trump’s wrongdoing. But a new book out this week provides more evidence of this conspiracy and offers additional information suggesting that Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller during the Russia investigation and, in doing so, possibly committed a crime.
The book, A Case for the American People: The United States v. Donald J. Trump, was written by Norman Eisen, who served as special counsel to congressional Democrats during Trump’s impeachment. In this work, Eisen, who previously was ethics czar for President Barack Obama and US ambassador to the Czech Republic, presents the inside story of the third impeachment in US history, detailing the internal debates and conflicts among House Democrats and sharing juicy, behind-the-scenes anecdotes of the trial. The book reveals that the House Judiciary Committee initially drafted a wide-ranging list of 10 articles of impeachment for Trump before narrowing the case to two articles related to the Ukraine scandal.
In the book, Eisen sharply (but respectfully) criticizes Mueller for a “failure to go the distance.” He contends that Mueller let the republic down by not pursuing an obstruction of justice case against Trump “all the way” to the end. (In his final report, Mueller presented evidence indicating Trump committed obstruction, but he reached no firm conclusions and determined that under Justice Department policy, he did not have the authority to indict a sitting president.) “The refusal to admit there were at least five chargeable crimes was his shortcoming, not his lack of style,” Eisen writes of Mueller. “I understood his old-fashioned restraint under the special counsel regulations and typical prosecutorial standards. But he had leeway under the rules to do much, much more, and he didn’t.”
One example of Mueller’s dereliction, Eisen contends, is the Roger Stone case.
Stone was prosecuted by Mueller’s team for lying to Congress during the Trump-Russia investigation and for witness tampering. He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 40 months in prison—and then Trump eradicated the sentence shortly before Stone was to report to a federal prison. Stone had lied to Congress about his efforts during the 2016 campaign to be in contact with WikiLeaks, while that website was disseminating emails and documents that had been stolen from Democrats by Russian hackers as part of a Kremlin operation to help Trump win the White House. But the extent of Stone’s shenanigans—and Trump’s personal and possibly criminal involvement—never became a central component of the Trump-Russia scandal narrative, and Eisen blames Mueller for not fully pursuing this matter. Moreover, Eisen reports that he and his fellow staffers developed important evidence on this front.
Here’s the background: When Mueller’s report was publicly released, key portions of its section related to Stone were redacted. But a close reading—which later would be backed up by evidence submitted at trial—indicated that during the 2016 campaign, Trump and top campaign officials, most notably, then-campaign chief Paul Manafort, tried to use Stone as a conduit to WikiLeaks to obtain inside information on what dirt Julian Assange’s site had on Hillary Clinton. The Mueller report alluded to a call Trump received at some point from Stone, in which the two discussed WikiLeaks’ plans. But it was unclear when this happened, and Stone’s name was redacted when the report was first released.
This topic was damning for Trump because it showed that he and his campaign had sought to get information from WikiLeaks through Stone while WikiLeaks was part of a Russian operation targeting a US presidential election. Stone’s lies to congressional investigators were designed to hide his efforts on behalf of Trump to make contact with WikiLeaks. And when Trump replied to written questions from Mueller—he refused to submit to an in-person interview with the special counsel—he claimed that he could remember no conversations with Stone about WikiLeaks. So neither Stone nor Trump would acknowledge Trump’s attempt to use Stone as a channel to or from WikiLeaks. The two were mounting a cover-up.
The joint Trump-Stone stonewalling was partially undone by Rick Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign manager, who cooperated with Mueller’s investigation and who was sentenced to 45 days in prison and a $20,000 fine for his part in a series of financial crimes and for lying to federal investigators. Gates told Mueller about Stone’s communications with Trump and the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks. (These were the bare-bones details in Mueller’s final report that were redacted at first.) Gates’ information did emerge during Stone’s trial, and these portions of the Mueller report were unredacted several weeks ago. One newly unredacted passage described Trump instructing Manafort to stay in touch with Stone about WikiLeaks and to keep Trump updated on this. But the cover-up mainly worked. Stone publicly declared, “I will never roll on Donald Trump.” And Trump saved Stone from prison.
Eisen’s book adds to what’s known about this skullduggery. Staffers for the House Judiciary Committee interviewed Gates last year, and Gates detailed one instance of Trump and Stone discussing WikiLeaks:


motherjones--2020-07-27--National Guard Whistleblower Says Feds Used Excessive Force on Peaceful Protesters

A senior National Guard officer will tell Congress that the US Park Police engaged in “ an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force ” when the agency forcefully cleared peaceful protesters from in front of the White House ahead of President Donald Trump ’ s infamous June 1 photo op at a nearby church .
“ At no time did I feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent , ” Adam DeMarco—a major in the Washington , DC , Guard , who was present during the operation to clear Lafayette Square—says in written testimony prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set for Tuesday .
“ In addition , considering the principles of proportionality of force and the fundamental strategy of graduated responses specific to civil disturbance operations , it was my observation that the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force.
” The Park Police ’ s media office did not respond Monday to inquiries .
The Park Police is part of the National Park Service , which manages federal parkland , including Lafayette Square and much of downtown DC .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeMarco—a West Point graduate who spent five years on active duty , including a combat deployment in Iraq—says he has served in the National Guard since leaving active duty in 2014 .
In 2018 , he ran for Congress in a Democratic primary , unsuccessfully challenging Rep. John Sarbanes ( D-Md. )
.
On May 29 , DeMarco , along with the rest of the DC National Guard , was activated to help respond to protests , looting , and property damage that followed the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive federal mobilization that appears to have served as a template of sorts for federal responses to protests in other cities , including the ongoing crackdown against demonstrators in Portland .
On June 1 , DeMarco was tapped to serve as a liaison between the DC Guard and the Park Police at Lafayette Square ; he was one of the senior officers among the 250 DC Guard members present that day .
He says that after arriving at the White House complex at 5:35 p.m. , he learned that the DC Guard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Secret Service , with helping the Park Police clear demonstrators from around Lafayette Square .
He said he understood that action would take place after 7 p.m. , when a curfew imposed by DC Mayor Muriel Bowser was scheduled to take effect .
DeMarco says he noticed Attorney General William Barr and General Mark Milley , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , observing the federal personnel facing a crowd of about 2,000 protesters .
DeMarco says he spoke with Milley , who instructed him to ensure that National Guard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment rights .
( Milley has since said that he regrets his actions that day , in particular walking with Trump later to St. John ’ s Church for the president ’ s photo op .
“ I should not have been there , ” Milley said .
“ My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.
” ) DeMarco says he saw Barr conferring with Park Police officials shortly after 6 p.m. At around 6:20 p.m. , DeMarco says—not long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Park Police issued the first of three warning announcements to the demonstrators , directing them to disperse.
” These warnings were issued via a megaphone about 50 yards from protesters , DeMarco recounts .
He says from his position “ approximately 20 yards from the demonstrators , the announcements were barely audible and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of the warnings to disperse.
” Barr has claimed that protesters ignored instructions to leave the area , but DeMarco ’ s testimony bolsters the accounts of people present , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the warnings were inaudible to the crowd outside the White House .
After these warnings , at around 6:30 p.m. , federal agents used tear gas and excessive physical force to clear the area , DeMarco says .
Park Police have previously denied using tear gas , but have acknowledged using pepper balls and smoke canisters against protesters .
And the White House , asserting a distinction between pepper balls and tear gas , initially demanded corrections from publications , including Mother Jones , that reported the use of tear gas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , pepper balls are a form of tear gas : “ Tear gas , ” an umbrella term for about a half-dozen so-called “ riot-control agents ” or “ less lethal ” chemical weapons , most often refers to CS gas , a powerful irritant devised by two Middlebury College researchers in the 1920s .
But it can also refer to OC , or oleoresin capsicum , an ultra-concentrated form of the compound in hot peppers mixed with carriers that make it stick to your skin and lungs more easily .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quantity , do a permanent number on lungs and nerves .
The distinction only matters if you ’ re treating medical damage or covering your ass ; the Centers for Disease Control calls every such chemical “ tear gas , ” including CS , OC , and others .
But for police , “ pepper balls ” —dense projectiles containing OC , which the Park Police insist they used—are very convenient .
Regardless , DeMarco says that both CS tear gas and pepper balls were used to clear the area—despite the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and during the operation that tear gas would not be used .
“ But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose , and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training , I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or ‘ tear gas , ' ” he says .
“ And later that evening , I found spent tear gas canisters on the street nearby.
” DeMarco , who was with National Guard troops moving into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as federal agents attacked fleeing protesters : I saw demonstrators scattering and fleeing as the Civil Disturbance Unit charged toward them .
I observed people fall to the ground as some Civil Disturbance Unit members used their shields offensively as weapons .
As I walked behind the Civil Disturbance Units pushing westward on H Street , I also observed unidentified law enforcement personnel behind our National Guardsmen using “ paintball-like ” weapons to discharge what I later learned to be “ pepper balls ” into the crowd , as demonstrators continued to retreat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area around the White House was cleared so that a fence could be erected around Lafayette Square , not to facilitate Trump ’ s photo opportunity .
But DeMarco says fencing materials did not even arrive until 9 pm , calling into question the need to clear the area prior to DC ’ s 7 p.m. curfew .
DeMarco notes that in the two days leading up to June 1 , he learned that six DC National Guard members had sustained injuries “ as a result of violent unrest outside of the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement officers from the Park Police and the US Secret Service had sustained injuries.
” But he says the protesters attacked by federal agents on June 1 were nonviolent .
“ From my observation , those demonstrators—our fellow American citizens—were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights , ” he says .
“ Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A senior National Guard officer will tell Congress that the US Park Police engaged in “an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force” when the agency forcefully cleared peaceful protesters from in front of the White House ahead of President Donald Trump’s infamous June 1 photo op at a nearby church.
“At no time did I feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent,” Adam DeMarco—a major in the Washington, DC, Guard, who was present during the operation to clear Lafayette Square—says in written testimony prepared for a House Natural Resources Committee hearing set for Tuesday. “In addition, considering the principles of proportionality of force and the fundamental strategy of graduated responses specific to civil disturbance operations, it was my observation that the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force.”
The Park Police’s media office did not respond Monday to inquiries. The Park Police is part of the National Park Service, which manages federal parkland, including Lafayette Square and much of downtown DC. The Natural Resources Committee oversees the agency.
DeMarco—a West Point graduate who spent five years on active duty, including a combat deployment in Iraq—says he has served in the National Guard since leaving active duty in 2014. In 2018, he ran for Congress in a Democratic primary, unsuccessfully challenging Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.). On May 29, DeMarco, along with the rest of the DC National Guard, was activated to help respond to protests, looting, and property damage that followed the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. The Guard troops were part of a massive federal mobilization that appears to have served as a template of sorts for federal responses to protests in other cities, including the ongoing crackdown against demonstrators in Portland.
On June 1, DeMarco was tapped to serve as a liaison between the DC Guard and the Park Police at Lafayette Square; he was one of the senior officers among the 250 DC Guard members present that day. He says that after arriving at the White House complex at 5:35 p.m., he learned that the DC Guard’s was tasked, along with the Secret Service, with helping the Park Police clear demonstrators from around Lafayette Square. He said he understood that action would take place after 7 p.m., when a curfew imposed by DC Mayor Muriel Bowser was scheduled to take effect.
DeMarco says he noticed Attorney General William Barr and General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observing the federal personnel facing a crowd of about 2,000 protesters. DeMarco says he spoke with Milley, who instructed him to ensure that National Guard personnel remain calm and respect demonstrators’ First Amendment rights. (Milley has since said that he regrets his actions that day, in particular walking with Trump later to St. John’s Church for the president’s photo op. “I should not have been there,” Milley said. “My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”)
DeMarco says he saw Barr conferring with Park Police officials shortly after 6 p.m. At around 6:20 p.m., DeMarco says—not long after Barr and Milley left—”the Park Police issued the first of three warning announcements to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse.”
These warnings were issued via a megaphone about 50 yards from protesters, DeMarco recounts. He says from his position “approximately 20 yards from the demonstrators, the announcements were barely audible and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of the warnings to disperse.” Barr has claimed that protesters ignored instructions to leave the area, but DeMarco’s testimony bolsters the accounts of people present, as well as video of the events, that the warnings were inaudible to the crowd outside the White House.
After these warnings, at around 6:30 p.m., federal agents used tear gas and excessive physical force to clear the area, DeMarco says. Park Police have previously denied using tear gas, but have acknowledged using pepper balls and smoke canisters against protesters. And the White House, asserting a distinction between pepper balls and tear gas, initially demanded corrections from publications, including Mother Jones, that reported the use of tear gas. But as Mother Jones explained at the time, pepper balls are a form of tear gas:
“Tear gas,” an umbrella term for about a half-dozen so-called “riot-control agents” or “less lethal” chemical weapons, most often refers to CS gas, a powerful irritant devised by two Middlebury College researchers in the 1920s. But it can also refer to OC, or oleoresin capsicum, an ultra-concentrated form of the compound in hot peppers mixed with carriers that make it stick to your skin and lungs more easily. Both cause tears, and both, in quantity, do a permanent number on lungs and nerves. The distinction only matters if you’re treating medical damage or covering your ass; the Centers for Disease Control calls every such chemical “tear gas,” including CS, OC, and others. But for police, “pepper balls”—dense projectiles containing OC, which the Park Police insist they used—are very convenient.
Regardless, DeMarco says that both CS tear gas and pepper balls were used to clear the area—despite the fact that a Park Police official told him before and during the operation that tear gas would not be used. “But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or ‘tear gas,'” he says. “And later that evening, I found spent tear gas canisters on the street nearby.”
DeMarco, who was with National Guard troops moving into the area being cleared, says he watched as federal agents attacked fleeing protesters:
I saw demonstrators scattering and fleeing as the Civil Disturbance Unit charged toward them. I observed people fall to the ground as some Civil Disturbance Unit members used their shields offensively as weapons. As I walked behind the Civil Disturbance Units pushing westward on H Street, I also observed unidentified law enforcement personnel behind our National Guardsmen using “paintball-like” weapons to discharge what I later learned to be “pepper balls” into the crowd, as demonstrators continued to retreat.
The Park Police have claimed the area around the White House was cleared so that a fence could be erected around Lafayette Square, not to facilitate Trump’s photo opportunity. But DeMarco says fencing materials did not even arrive until 9 pm, calling into question the need to clear the area prior to DC’s 7 p.m. curfew.
DeMarco notes that in the two days leading up to June 1, he learned that six DC National Guard members had sustained injuries “as a result of violent unrest outside of the White House” and that “federal law enforcement officers from the Park Police and the US Secret Service had sustained injuries.” But he says the protesters attacked by federal agents on June 1 were nonviolent.
“From my observation, those demonstrators—our fellow American citizens—were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights,” he says. “Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force.”


motherjones--2020-07-28--Here Are the 4 Most Misleading Statements From Bill Barr’s Contentious House Testimony

Attorney General William Barr is nothing if not consistent , and his visit today to Congress proved it .
It also proved he ’ s not great with this whole honesty thing .
Testifying Tuesday before confrontational Democrats and obsequious Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee , Barr stuck to his claims that President Trump has never asked him to intervene in any federal criminal cases .
But for a guy who says he hasn ’ t been pressured , Barr has been awfully helpful to Trump on issues related to what the attorney general on Monday called the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daylong hearing , Barr made a slew of misleading statements .
Here are a few of today ’ s worst offenders : Barr , under questioning by Rep. Eric Swalwell ( D-Calif. ) , said that he was unaware that Trump had tweeted that his longtime adviser Roger Stone showed “ guts ” by vowing not to testify against him .
Earlier this month , Trump commuted the three-year prison sentence Stone was facing after being convicted for perjury , obstruction of Congress , and witness tampering .
Evidence at Stone ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump about WikiLeaks ’ plans to release Democratic emails stolen by Russia and that Trump probably lied to special counsel Robert Mueller about those conversations .
Swalwell suggested that Trump had obstructed justice by effectively promising to reward Stone if he kept quiet , and then actually following through with that promise .
But Barr said he wasn ’ t even aware of Trump ’ s many public statements on this topic .
Here ’ s the problem with that : Mueller ’ s report on the Russia investigation described Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and referred to a Trump interview with the New York Post in which the president praised Stone as “ actually very brave ” for vowing not to cooperate with Mueller .
The report specifically cited both statements as evidence of possible obstruction of justice by Trump .
And Barr claims he independently concluded last year there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for obstructing justice—after reading Mueller ’ s report .
How could Barr conclude that if he didn ’ t review Mueller ’ s findings on the topic specifically ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone .
Ahead of Stone ’ s sentencing in February , the attorney general intervened to override the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors on the case , which called for a seven-to-nine-year sentence , and force subordinates to instead suggest a shorter sentence .
Barr did this the day after Trump tweeted an attack on prosecutors ’ original sentencing recommendation , but Barr claims his action was not caused by the president ’ s tweet .
On Tuesday , Rep. Ted Deutch ( D-Fla. ) questioned that intervention , noting that the prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part because “ Stone threatened to kill a witness , ” and federal sentencing guidelines impose longer sentences for violent threats .
Deutch was citing an April 2018 email that Stone sent to comedian Randy Credico , who was then threatening to give investigators information showing that Stone had lied to Congress .
“ Prepare to die cock sucker , ” Stone wrote .
But Barr told Deutch that “ the witness ” —Credico— ” didn ’ t think ” Stone was really threatening him .
While Credico did indeed say in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never posed a direct physical threat ” to him , Credico also told a grand jury and has said publicly that he feared that Stone , who has a large social media footprint , would incite violence against him .
Responding to previous similar assertions from Barr , Credico told me last month that he finds it “ deeply disturbing and cynical for Attorney General Barr to have mischaracterized my letter to Judge Jackson to justify his ominous purging of the Justice Department on behalf of his client Donald Trump.
” Barr also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) on the now somewhat infamous “ unmasking ” kerfuffle .
Jordan ( again ) alleged that documents released in May show that former Vice President Joe Biden and former FBI Director James Comey were among the Obama administration officials who had asked to “ unmask ” the identify of former Lt. General Michael Flynn in reports compiled by a US intelligence agency , in which Flynn ’ s identity as an American citizen would normally be hidden .
This is false .
Jordan confused things : Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were authorized to review intelligence reports in which Flynn was identified , according to the material declassified in May by former national security adviser Richard Grenell .
But , as we ’ ve reported , nothing in those documents says either man ordered that Flynn be “ unmasked.
” In fact , the documents do not say who ordered Flynn ’ s “ unmasking.
” Jordan , a Trump ally , pretty clearly mentioned Biden in an effort to harm his chances of defeating Trump in November .
Barr probably knows that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s claim anyway , even noting that he has ordered the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas to look into the unmasking issue .
That ’ s one of at least four ongoing investigations by various US attorneys that Barr has ordered up in an effort to undermine the origins of Mueller ’ s investigation , which concluded that the Trump campaign sought to benefit from Russian help in 2016 .
Maybe Barr ’ s most striking evasion came late in the hearing when Rep. Joe Neguse ( D-Colo. ) pressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Geoffrey Berman , formerly the US attorney for the Southern District of New York , whose office is conducting several investigations into Trump associates .
Neguse asked Barr about a public statement he issued on Friday June 19 , 2020 , claiming Berman was “ stepping down.
” At the time , Berman was not stepping down ; in fact , he was refusing to do so , and had personally told Barr that .
Berman did later agree to leave the job after Barr backed off an effort to replace him with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that June 19 statement was a lie .
Barr would not admit that when Neguse asked him if his statement was true at the time the department issued it .
“ He may not have known it , but he was stepping down , ” Barr said , then smiled .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Attorney General William Barr is nothing if not consistent, and his visit today to Congress proved it. It also proved he’s not great with this whole honesty thing.
Testifying Tuesday before confrontational Democrats and obsequious Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, Barr stuck to his claims that President Trump has never asked him to intervene in any federal criminal cases. But for a guy who says he hasn’t been pressured, Barr has been awfully helpful to Trump on issues related to what the attorney general on Monday called the “bogus Russiagate scandal.”
Throughout the nearly daylong hearing, Barr made a slew of misleading statements. Here are a few of today’s worst offenders:
Playing dumb about Stone, Part 1
Barr, under questioning by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), said that he was unaware that Trump had tweeted that his longtime adviser Roger Stone showed “guts” by vowing not to testify against him. Earlier this month, Trump commuted the three-year prison sentence Stone was facing after being convicted for perjury, obstruction of Congress, and witness tampering. Evidence at Stone’s trial showed Stone in 2016 communicated with Trump about WikiLeaks’ plans to release Democratic emails stolen by Russia and that Trump probably lied to special counsel Robert Mueller about those conversations. Swalwell suggested that Trump had obstructed justice by effectively promising to reward Stone if he kept quiet, and then actually following through with that promise. But Barr said he wasn’t even aware of Trump’s many public statements on this topic.
Here’s the problem with that: Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation described Trump’s tweets lauding Stone’s “guts” and referred to a Trump interview with the New York Post in which the president praised Stone as “actually very brave” for vowing not to cooperate with Mueller. The report specifically cited both statements as evidence of possible obstruction of justice by Trump. And Barr claims he independently concluded last year there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for obstructing justice—after reading Mueller’s report. How could Barr conclude that if he didn’t review Mueller’s findings on the topic specifically?
In response to Swalwell's questions, Barr claims he was unaware of the President's tweets praising Stone for having "guts" not to testify. But it's in Volume II of the Mueller report, which Barr claimed to have reviewed to reach a conclusion there was no obstruction. pic.twitter.com/LCouAwl73k — Connor Lynch (@realconnorlynch) July 28, 2020
Playing dumb about Stone, Part 2
Barr had other trouble with questions about Stone. Ahead of Stone’s sentencing in February, the attorney general intervened to override the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors on the case, which called for a seven-to-nine-year sentence, and force subordinates to instead suggest a shorter sentence. Barr did this the day after Trump tweeted an attack on prosecutors’ original sentencing recommendation, but Barr claims his action was not caused by the president’s tweet.
On Tuesday, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) questioned that intervention, noting that the prosecutors’ original sentencing recommendation was stiff in part because “Stone threatened to kill a witness,” and federal sentencing guidelines impose longer sentences for violent threats. Deutch was citing an April 2018 email that Stone sent to comedian Randy Credico, who was then threatening to give investigators information showing that Stone had lied to Congress. “Prepare to die cock sucker,” Stone wrote. But Barr told Deutch that “the witness”—Credico—”didn’t think” Stone was really threatening him. While Credico did indeed say in a letter to the judge that Stone “never posed a direct physical threat” to him, Credico also told a grand jury and has said publicly that he feared that Stone, who has a large social media footprint, would incite violence against him.
Responding to previous similar assertions from Barr, Credico told me last month that he finds it “deeply disturbing and cynical for Attorney General Barr to have mischaracterized my letter to Judge Jackson to justify his ominous purging of the Justice Department on behalf of his client Donald Trump.”
The great “unmasking”
Barr also went along with a false statement from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on the now somewhat infamous “unmasking” kerfuffle. Jordan (again) alleged that documents released in May show that former Vice President Joe Biden and former FBI Director James Comey were among the Obama administration officials who had asked to “unmask” the identify of former Lt. General Michael Flynn in reports compiled by a US intelligence agency, in which Flynn’s identity as an American citizen would normally be hidden. This is false. Jordan confused things: Biden and Comey were listed among officials who were authorized to review intelligence reports in which Flynn was identified, according to the material declassified in May by former national security adviser Richard Grenell. But, as we’ve reported, nothing in those documents says either man ordered that Flynn be “unmasked.” In fact, the documents do not say who ordered Flynn’s “unmasking.”
Jordan, a Trump ally, pretty clearly mentioned Biden in an effort to harm his chances of defeating Trump in November. Barr probably knows that, but he went along with Jordan’s claim anyway, even noting that he has ordered the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas to look into the unmasking issue. That’s one of at least four ongoing investigations by various US attorneys that Barr has ordered up in an effort to undermine the origins of Mueller’s investigation, which concluded that the Trump campaign sought to benefit from Russian help in 2016.
The power to fire
Maybe Barr’s most striking evasion came late in the hearing when Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) pressed the attorney general about his firing of Geoffrey Berman, formerly the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose office is conducting several investigations into Trump associates. Neguse asked Barr about a public statement he issued on Friday June 19, 2020, claiming Berman was “stepping down.” At the time, Berman was not stepping down; in fact, he was refusing to do so, and had personally told Barr that. Berman did later agree to leave the job after Barr backed off an effort to replace him with a prosecutor from outside the Manhattan office, but that June 19 statement was a lie. Barr would not admit that when Neguse asked him if his statement was true at the time the department issued it. “He may not have known it, but he was stepping down,” Barr said, then smiled.


motherjones--2020-07-27--A New Book Provides More Evidence of the Trump-Stone Russia Coverup


motherjones--2020-07-29--Protesters Seeking Justice for Breonna Taylor Have to Convince a Mitch McConnell Protege

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is set to make history twice in less than a year .
The first time came in November 2019 , when he became the first Black person to be elected to statewide office in Kentucky as a stand-alone candidate .
The second time is likely just around the corner , when he decides whether to prosecute the Louisville police officers who killed Breonna Taylor , a 26 year old medical worker who was shot during a no knock police raid .
Taylor ’ s case landed on the attorney general ’ s desk just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one which is expected to reach high places as long as nothing gets in the way .
Cameron , the first Republican elected attorney general of Kentucky in more than 70 years , was just 33 years old—and had never tried a case in court—when he won the job .
Mitch McConnell helped guide his career .
President Donald Trump had taken to calling him a “ star.
” But Cameron ’ s short tenure has already been buffeted by the controversy over Taylor ’ s killing , and the national protest movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kentucky ’ s brightest young conservative star will decide whether to take on the cops and the system behind Taylor ’ s death .
For those who have followed Cameron ’ s career , his state , and the implications of the Taylor case , a decision not to prosecute seems all but pre-ordained .
“ The only way Daniel prosecutes these guys is if there is no way under God ’ s freaking sun that he can figure out a way not to , ” says Ricky Jones , who heads the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louisville and taught Cameron when he was in college .
( He recalls Cameron as an exceptionally smart , and already conservative , student . )
“ The majority of the citizens here , the idea they have of the state is to keep it a mostly monochromatic state with largely mid-20th century social and political sensibilities , ” Jones continued .
“ Daniel Cameron submits to those sensibilities.
” Cameron was still an undergraduate at the University of Louisville when the state ’ s pre-eminent politician , Senator Mitch McConnell , took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law school , Cameron clerked for a conservative federal judge in Kentucky before joining McConnell , one of Washington ’ s most powerful Republicans , as counsel .
When he announced his campaign for attorney general in 2018 , McConnell greased the wheels for his protege , helping him fundraise and taking him to the Oval Office to meet President Donald Trump , where he earned a coveted endorsement on Twitter .
It ’ s common speculation in Kentucky that McConnell , if he wins re-election this year , will not seek reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as his successor .
“ Politically he comes from the Mitch McConnell world , ” says Tres Watson , a Republican consultant in Kentucky , adding that the two are “ very close and it ’ s very much a mentor-mentee relationship.
” While stumping for attorney general , Cameron welcomed endorsements from sheriffs , police , and prosecutors , as well as from the state Fraternal Order of Police , whose president boasted that Cameron would “ be there for us in the future .
Not in the short run , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touted this endorsement on the campaign trail , saying the attorney general ’ s job was to ensure the law enforcement community feels “ they have a voice in the attorney general ’ s office.
” During the 2019 race , Cameron made prominent references to the historical significance of his campaign for Black people in Kentucky .
For his first television ad , Cameron shared his reverence for fellow Kentuckian Abraham Lincoln in a spot where he said that growing up “ it was hard to imagine a little boy who looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president confirm a Supreme Court justice or even run for attorney general ” over footage of Trump swearing Neil Gorsuch onto the high court .
In an address as a candidate at the state NAACP convention , he acknowledged that he was not a member of the group .
Instead , his political home was a Republican Party that has become increasingly retrograde on issues of race and civil rights .
After winning , Cameron told interviewers he hoped his victory would encourage Black people , regardless of party , to vote and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general , Cameron has largely stayed apart from Kentucky ’ s Black community .
The distance has only been exacerbated by the coronavirus and Breonna Taylor ’ s case , with Cameron drawing criticism from the state ’ s civil rights leaders .
During his campaign , Cameron promised to “ depoliticize ” the attorney general ’ s office , criticizing his predecessor ( Andy Beshear , now the state ’ s Democratic governor ) for taking on the state ’ s then Republican governor , Matt Bevin , and instead promising to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But throughout the coronavirus crisis , under pressure from Kentucky conservatives Cameron has repeatedly asked courts to block Beshear ’ s executive orders seeking to limit business and church services during the pandemic .
In June he urged the GOP-controlled state legislature to limit the governor ’ s emergency powers during testimony before a state legislative panel .
As Kentucky ’ s coronavirus case count climbed this month , Cameron criticized Beshear for instituting a public mask mandate unilaterally and asked a state judge to decide if the requirement complied with state law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe Cameron hasn ’ t gone far enough or acted quickly enough to fight the governor ’ s public health mandates , his actions are not making him friends among the Black community either .
At the end of April , Black pastors and civil rights leaders denounced Cameron ’ s attempts to thwart such health and safety measures while Black Kentuckians were testing positive and dying at disproportionate rates .
“ Based on the best data available in Kentucky , Black people make up 8.3 % of the state ’ s population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those testing positive for COVID-19 and 22 % of COVID-19 deaths , ” they wrote in an open letter .
In Lexington , the state ’ s second largest city , the disparities were even more shocking : Black people make up just 15 percent of the population , but account for 55 percent of deaths from the virus .
Black Kentuckians “ deserve better from Daniel Cameron , ” they wrote , saying he had chosen to “ align himself with actions which have been , will be and are detrimental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the early hours of March 13 , when three officers served a no-knock warrant at her apartment in the middle of the night .
Believing an intruder had entered the apartment , Taylor ’ s boyfriend fired his gun , striking an officer ’ s leg .
The police returned fire , fatally wounding Taylor .
A lawsuit filed by Taylor ’ s mother against the officers alleges that the cops , who entered the apartment with a battering ram , did not announce their presence .
The Louisville Metropolitan Police Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced they were police .
The Kentucky attorney general ’ s office inherited the case two months later , after a local prosecutor recused himself .
Cameron declined to hand the case to a special prosecutor , leaving all decisions about charges arising from the incident in his hands .
He has also declined to give a timeline of when he will announce a decision about whether to prosecute the three officers whose no-knock warrant led to Taylor ’ s death .
In a June press conference , Cameron asked for patience while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many that patience , more than four months after Taylor ’ s death , has run out .
Cameron has increasingly become the target of protesters ’ ire .
What started as hashtags and petitions became a July sit-in on Cameron ’ s front lawn .
Cameron asked the cops to remove the demonstrators from his property , leading to 87 protesters being arrested and charged with felonies .
Cameron himself didn ’ t object to the felony charges , but a local prosecutor later dropped them “ in the interest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange of ideas.
” “ I recognize the importance of being the first African-American attorney general , the first African-American to be independently elected , ” Cameron said after the protest .
“ And so this case in particular , because of the individuals involved , Ms. Taylor in particular , I recognize the importance of making sure we get this right .
That is my duty as attorney general .
As a Black man , I certainly have that responsibility as well to get this right and I ’ m hopeful people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by this office once we conclude our thorough investigation.
” “ It ’ s a tough one for him personally , ” says Watson , who says he thinks Cameron will go where the law takes him in deciding to prosecute .
“ I would assume , just knowing him and the way that he operates , that he very much grasps the gravity.
” But since Cameron assumed the case , attorneys for Taylor ’ s family have implicated other officers and officials higher up the chain of command , making it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose to prosecute .
The family ’ s legal team has submitted a series of court filings outlining a complicated and scandalous story behind Taylor ’ s death .
What at first appeared to be yet another shooting of a Black person at the hands of police threatens to evolve into a tale that suggests a troubling linkage between powerful forces in the city and the everyday practices of the Louisville ’ s police department .
A judge signed the no-knock warrant—which the Louisville city council has since banned—on Taylor ’ s apartment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men allegedly selling drugs miles away .
In applying for the warrant , detective Joshua Jaynes told the judge that Taylor had received packages for one of the men , an ex-boyfriend named Jamarcus Glover , and that a US Postal Service inspector had verified this arrangement .
But there appear to be serious holes in the story police told the judge .
Among them is that a senior Louisville Postal Inspection Service official has since revealed that a different law enforcement agency had asked his office to investigate whether Taylor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that they had concluded “ there ’ s no packages of interest going there.
” In July , lawyers for Taylor ’ s mother made a serious new allegation : that the raid on Taylor ’ s home was part of an elaborate plan to hasten a Louisville real estate development project called Vision Russell .
Jaynes , the officer involved in the Glover investigation who filled out warrant applications for Taylor ’ s apartment and four other locations , was from the unit , which purports to target “ systemically violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for on March 12 targeted Glover , who lived in an area slated for redevelopment , but the locations they specified are not known to be hotbeds of violence .
“ When the layers are peeled back , the origin of Breonna ’ s home being raided by police starts with a political need to clear out a street for a large real estate development project and finishes with a newly formed , rogue police unit violating all levels of policy , protocol and policing standards , ” the amended complaint claims .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crusade to target people and homes in a confined area of Elliott Avenue in west Louisville .
People needed to be removed and homes needed to be vacated so that a high dollar , legacy-creating real estate development could move forward .
One of the primary roadblocks to this unit and the real estate development project was an ex-boyfriend of Breonna Taylor , who rented a home on Elliott Avenue.
” In June , after Glover was arrested a second time following the execution of another warrant signed by Jaynes , the home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a local agency that aids redevelopment projects for just $ 1 .
The city has denied the allegations .
But the filings outline an abuse of power that goes far beyond the conduct of three officers on the night of March 13 , raising serious questions about the process of obtaining the warrant , the role of the Place-Based Investigations squad , and even whether the department has been enlisted in a real estate project .
While Taylor ’ s name has been chanted alongside George Floyd ’ s and Ahmaud Arbery ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Floyd , who died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes , and Arbery , who was killed by white men while jogging , both provided a stark reminder of the way racism enables violence against Black bodies .
But despite highlighting systemic injustice , the prosecutions are straightforward cases against individuals who acted egregiously .
Taylor ’ s case now threatens to implicate a wider system .
While a public official like Cameron might be more amenable to prosecuting one bad apple , it is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case that could reveal deeper and broader failures .
“ The Taylor case speaks to much more insidious systemic problems than the Floyd case does , ” says Jones , adding that “ people can make the argument that the police did everything right .
People do make that argument.
” Cherie Dawson-Edwards , who chairs the University of Louisville ’ s department of criminal justice , says that if police deceived the judge while obtaining the warrant , it is likely to be a common practice in the city .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , ” she reasons , arguing that would make it all the harder to prosecute officers who did what is considered reasonable in their department .
“ If that ’ s the case here , then that is a bigger cultural problem in our local criminal justice organizations as opposed to a bad apple .
This is definitely not a bad apple case .
It can ’ t be written off as that.
” Dawson-Edwards also noted that the officer who applied for the warrant is not , unlike the officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Taylor family ’ s lawsuit or the protesters .
“ How much can we hold you responsible for executing something that someone else got approved ?
” she asks .
While the way the raid was carried out was irresponsible and dangerous—one of the officers has already been fired for indiscriminately unloading his gun into Taylor ’ s apartment—the officers ’ on-the-scene actions appear to be only the final link in an unjust chain of events that led to Taylor ’ s death .
Kentucky , like many states , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform its criminal justice system .
Before his campaign , Cameron served as a paid spokesman for the Kentucky Smart on Crime Coalition , a nonpartisan group that reflected a national trend questioning mass incarceration given its high impact on state budgets and taxes .
But Kentucky ’ s modest changes leave it lagging behind many states ; Kentucky ’ s leaders sent a prominent signal about their priorities when the state became one of the first to pass a so-called “ Blue Lives Matter ” law in 2017 , making it a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Along with other observers outside of Louisville , Dawson-Edwards says this national moment feels different : “ If there was a time for us to rethink and reimagine how we police the police , then this could be it.
” But the Republican Party and Trump have retrenched , likely squelching the chances that GOP elected officials like Cameron will undertake the kind of investigation or prosecution that could lead to significant reforms or oversight .
“ My thought is they ’ ve already fired one officer , ” says Jones .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The others walk , and there is no structural change coming out of it .
That ’ s what I think is going to happen .
Now , What are going to be the consequences of that ?
” That part , politics can ’ t predict .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is set to make history twice in less than a year. The first time came in November 2019, when he became the first Black person to be elected to statewide office in Kentucky as a stand-alone candidate. The second time is likely just around the corner, when he decides whether to prosecute the Louisville police officers who killed Breonna Taylor, a 26 year old medical worker who was shot during a no knock police raid.
Taylor’s case landed on the attorney general’s desk just as his political career was taking off, one which is expected to reach high places as long as nothing gets in the way. Cameron, the first Republican elected attorney general of Kentucky in more than 70 years, was just 33 years old—and had never tried a case in court—when he won the job. Mitch McConnell helped guide his career. President Donald Trump had taken to calling him a “star.”
The Taylor case speaks to insidious, systemic problems.
But Cameron’s short tenure has already been buffeted by the controversy over Taylor’s killing, and the national protest movement it helped touch off. Now, Kentucky’s brightest young conservative star will decide whether to take on the cops and the system behind Taylor’s death. For those who have followed Cameron’s career, his state, and the implications of the Taylor case, a decision not to prosecute seems all but pre-ordained. “The only way Daniel prosecutes these guys is if there is no way under God’s freaking sun that he can figure out a way not to,” says Ricky Jones, who heads the Pan-African Studies Department at the University of Louisville and taught Cameron when he was in college. (He recalls Cameron as an exceptionally smart, and already conservative, student.)
“The majority of the citizens here, the idea they have of the state is to keep it a mostly monochromatic state with largely mid-20th century social and political sensibilities,” Jones continued. “Daniel Cameron submits to those sensibilities.”
Cameron was still an undergraduate at the University of Louisville when the state’s pre-eminent politician, Senator Mitch McConnell, took him under his wing. After graduating law school, Cameron clerked for a conservative federal judge in Kentucky before joining McConnell, one of Washington’s most powerful Republicans, as counsel. When he announced his campaign for attorney general in 2018, McConnell greased the wheels for his protege, helping him fundraise and taking him to the Oval Office to meet President Donald Trump, where he earned a coveted endorsement on Twitter. It’s common speculation in Kentucky that McConnell, if he wins re-election this year, will not seek reelection in 2026 and work to install Cameron as his successor. “Politically he comes from the Mitch McConnell world,” says Tres Watson, a Republican consultant in Kentucky, adding that the two are “very close and it’s very much a mentor-mentee relationship.”
While stumping for attorney general, Cameron welcomed endorsements from sheriffs, police, and prosecutors, as well as from the state Fraternal Order of Police, whose president boasted that Cameron would “be there for us in the future. Not in the short run, but in the long run.” Cameron frequently touted this endorsement on the campaign trail, saying the attorney general’s job was to ensure the law enforcement community feels “they have a voice in the attorney general’s office.”
During the 2019 race, Cameron made prominent references to the historical significance of his campaign for Black people in Kentucky. For his first television ad, Cameron shared his reverence for fellow Kentuckian Abraham Lincoln in a spot where he said that growing up “it was hard to imagine a little boy who looked like me would some day help a president confirm a Supreme Court justice or even run for attorney general” over footage of Trump swearing Neil Gorsuch onto the high court. In an address as a candidate at the state NAACP convention, he acknowledged that he was not a member of the group. Instead, his political home was a Republican Party that has become increasingly retrograde on issues of race and civil rights.
“He comes from the Mitch McConnell world…it’s very much a mentor-mentee relationship.”
After winning, Cameron told interviewers he hoped his victory would encourage Black people, regardless of party, to vote and run for office. But as attorney general, Cameron has largely stayed apart from Kentucky’s Black community. The distance has only been exacerbated by the coronavirus and Breonna Taylor’s case, with Cameron drawing criticism from the state’s civil rights leaders.
During his campaign, Cameron promised to “depoliticize” the attorney general’s office, criticizing his predecessor (Andy Beshear, now the state’s Democratic governor) for taking on the state’s then Republican governor, Matt Bevin, and instead promising to focus on crime prevention and drugs. But throughout the coronavirus crisis, under pressure from Kentucky conservatives Cameron has repeatedly asked courts to block Beshear’s executive orders seeking to limit business and church services during the pandemic. In June he urged the GOP-controlled state legislature to limit the governor’s emergency powers during testimony before a state legislative panel. As Kentucky’s coronavirus case count climbed this month, Cameron criticized Beshear for instituting a public mask mandate unilaterally and asked a state judge to decide if the requirement complied with state law.
While Watson says some conservative activists believe Cameron hasn’t gone far enough or acted quickly enough to fight the governor’s public health mandates, his actions are not making him friends among the Black community either. At the end of April, Black pastors and civil rights leaders denounced Cameron’s attempts to thwart such health and safety measures while Black Kentuckians were testing positive and dying at disproportionate rates. “Based on the best data available in Kentucky, Black people make up 8.3% of the state’s population yet we have accounted for 14% of those testing positive for COVID-19 and 22% of COVID-19 deaths,” they wrote in an open letter. In Lexington, the state’s second largest city, the disparities were even more shocking: Black people make up just 15 percent of the population, but account for 55 percent of deaths from the virus. Black Kentuckians “deserve better from Daniel Cameron,” they wrote, saying he had chosen to “align himself with actions which have been, will be and are detrimental to the Black community.”
Taylor died in the early hours of March 13, when three officers served a no-knock warrant at her apartment in the middle of the night. Believing an intruder had entered the apartment, Taylor’s boyfriend fired his gun, striking an officer’s leg. The police returned fire, fatally wounding Taylor. A lawsuit filed by Taylor’s mother against the officers alleges that the cops, who entered the apartment with a battering ram, did not announce their presence. The Louisville Metropolitan Police Department claims the officers knocked several times and announced they were police.
The Kentucky attorney general’s office inherited the case two months later, after a local prosecutor recused himself. Cameron declined to hand the case to a special prosecutor, leaving all decisions about charges arising from the incident in his hands. He has also declined to give a timeline of when he will announce a decision about whether to prosecute the three officers whose no-knock warrant led to Taylor’s death. In a June press conference, Cameron asked for patience while his office investigated the case. But for many that patience, more than four months after Taylor’s death, has run out.
Cameron has increasingly become the target of protesters’ ire. What started as hashtags and petitions became a July sit-in on Cameron’s front lawn. Cameron asked the cops to remove the demonstrators from his property, leading to 87 protesters being arrested and charged with felonies. Cameron himself didn’t object to the felony charges, but a local prosecutor later dropped them “in the interest of justice and the promotion of the free exchange of ideas.”
“I recognize the importance of making sure we get this right…As a Black man, I certainly have that responsibility.”
“I recognize the importance of being the first African-American attorney general, the first African-American to be independently elected,” Cameron said after the protest. “And so this case in particular, because of the individuals involved, Ms. Taylor in particular, I recognize the importance of making sure we get this right. That is my duty as attorney general. As a Black man, I certainly have that responsibility as well to get this right and I’m hopeful people will respect the decision that is rendered by this office once we conclude our thorough investigation.”
“It’s a tough one for him personally,” says Watson, who says he thinks Cameron will go where the law takes him in deciding to prosecute. “I would assume, just knowing him and the way that he operates, that he very much grasps the gravity.”
But since Cameron assumed the case, attorneys for Taylor’s family have implicated other officers and officials higher up the chain of command, making it harder to imagine the attorney general will choose to prosecute. The family’s legal team has submitted a series of court filings outlining a complicated and scandalous story behind Taylor’s death. What at first appeared to be yet another shooting of a Black person at the hands of police threatens to evolve into a tale that suggests a troubling linkage between powerful forces in the city and the everyday practices of the Louisville’s police department.
A judge signed the no-knock warrant—which the Louisville city council has since banned—on Taylor’s apartment as part of an investigation into two men allegedly selling drugs miles away. In applying for the warrant, detective Joshua Jaynes told the judge that Taylor had received packages for one of the men, an ex-boyfriend named Jamarcus Glover, and that a US Postal Service inspector had verified this arrangement. But there appear to be serious holes in the story police told the judge. Among them is that a senior Louisville Postal Inspection Service official has since revealed that a different law enforcement agency had asked his office to investigate whether Taylor’s home was receiving inappropriate packages in January and that they had concluded “there’s no packages of interest going there.”
In July, lawyers for Taylor’s mother made a serious new allegation: that the raid on Taylor’s home was part of an elaborate plan to hasten a Louisville real estate development project called Vision Russell. Jaynes, the officer involved in the Glover investigation who filled out warrant applications for Taylor’s apartment and four other locations, was from the unit, which purports to target “systemically violent locations.” The five warrants Jaynes applied for on March 12 targeted Glover, who lived in an area slated for redevelopment, but the locations they specified are not known to be hotbeds of violence.
After Glover was arrested, his home was purchased by a redevelopment agency for just $1.
“When the layers are peeled back, the origin of Breonna’s home being raided by police starts with a political need to clear out a street for a large real estate development project and finishes with a newly formed, rogue police unit violating all levels of policy, protocol and policing standards,” the amended complaint claims. “A police unit went on a crusade to target people and homes in a confined area of Elliott Avenue in west Louisville. People needed to be removed and homes needed to be vacated so that a high dollar, legacy-creating real estate development could move forward. One of the primary roadblocks to this unit and the real estate development project was an ex-boyfriend of Breonna Taylor, who rented a home on Elliott Avenue.” In June, after Glover was arrested a second time following the execution of another warrant signed by Jaynes, the home Glover had been renting was purchased by a local agency that aids redevelopment projects for just $1.
The city has denied the allegations. But the filings outline an abuse of power that goes far beyond the conduct of three officers on the night of March 13, raising serious questions about the process of obtaining the warrant, the role of the Place-Based Investigations squad, and even whether the department has been enlisted in a real estate project.
While Taylor’s name has been chanted alongside George Floyd’s and Ahmaud Arbery’s, her case is different. Floyd, who died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, and Arbery, who was killed by white men while jogging, both provided a stark reminder of the way racism enables violence against Black bodies. But despite highlighting systemic injustice, the prosecutions are straightforward cases against individuals who acted egregiously. Taylor’s case now threatens to implicate a wider system. While a public official like Cameron might be more amenable to prosecuting one bad apple, it is a very different decision—both legally and politically—to prosecute a case that could reveal deeper and broader failures.
“The Taylor case speaks to much more insidious systemic problems than the Floyd case does,” says Jones, adding that “people can make the argument that the police did everything right. People do make that argument.”
Cherie Dawson-Edwards, who chairs the University of Louisville’s department of criminal justice, says that if police deceived the judge while obtaining the warrant, it is likely to be a common practice in the city. “It can’t just be for this case,” she reasons, arguing that would make it all the harder to prosecute officers who did what is considered reasonable in their department. “If that’s the case here, then that is a bigger cultural problem in our local criminal justice organizations as opposed to a bad apple. This is definitely not a bad apple case. It can’t be written off as that.”
“This is definitely not a bad apple case. It can’t be written off as that.”
Dawson-Edwards also noted that the officer who applied for the warrant is not, unlike the officers who carried it out, a target of the Taylor family’s lawsuit or the protesters. “How much can we hold you responsible for executing something that someone else got approved?” she asks. While the way the raid was carried out was irresponsible and dangerous—one of the officers has already been fired for indiscriminately unloading his gun into Taylor’s apartment—the officers’ on-the-scene actions appear to be only the final link in an unjust chain of events that led to Taylor’s death.
Kentucky, like many states, has taken some steps in recent years to reform its criminal justice system. Before his campaign, Cameron served as a paid spokesman for the Kentucky Smart on Crime Coalition, a nonpartisan group that reflected a national trend questioning mass incarceration given its high impact on state budgets and taxes. But Kentucky’s modest changes leave it lagging behind many states; Kentucky’s leaders sent a prominent signal about their priorities when the state became one of the first to pass a so-called “Blue Lives Matter” law in 2017, making it a hate crime to target law police officers.
Along with other observers outside of Louisville, Dawson-Edwards says this national moment feels different: “If there was a time for us to rethink and reimagine how we police the police, then this could be it.”
But the Republican Party and Trump have retrenched, likely squelching the chances that GOP elected officials like Cameron will undertake the kind of investigation or prosecution that could lead to significant reforms or oversight.
“My thought is they’ve already fired one officer,” says Jones. “He was the sacrificial lamb. The others walk, and there is no structural change coming out of it. That’s what I think is going to happen. Now, What are going to be the consequences of that?” That part, politics can’t predict.