The Maryland US Attorney’s Office Included Erik Prince in a FOIA Response on the Stone Sentencing
Jason Leopold once again did more for overseeing DOJ than the House Judiciary Committee managed — this time beginning the process of liberating documents held by the US Attorney’s Office pertaining to Roger Stone’s sentencing. As Leopold notes in his story on the documents, this was the first of several installments, so more interesting documents may come out later.
This installment clearly all came from the Maryland US Attorney’s office, reflecting the mailbox of Aaron Zelinsky, who has always been and remains employed there; he returned there full time after he resigned as a Special AUSA assigned to the Mueller team. The remaining installments — at least those from the EOUSA — will likely mirror this production, but also include emails involving Timothy Shea’s Chief of Staff, David Metcalf, JP Cooney, John Crabb, and Alessio Evangelista, who were also involved in the events of February 10 and 11.
Maryland may have responded quickly to this FOIA because it is more sympathetic to Zelinsky’s efforts. Indeed, the most interesting exchanges in these emails show Zelinsky discussing these matters with people in that office. On February 10, he kept Jonathan Lanzner in the loop, letting him know when, “looks like they are blinking.” The following day, just after DOJ disavowed the sentencing memo approved just the night before (which the prosecutors appear to have found out about via media reports), Zelinsky made an urgent request of three others in MD USAO. There was some discussion of precedent and a drafting of a document. But after Zelinsky withdrew from the case, he alerted them that “we will not have the opportunity to do” whatever they were trying to do.
As discussed, I have filed the withdrawal motion and emailed the public corruption chief JP Cooney. I withdrew just after I sent the email below notifying him. As we discussed, I do not believe he has the power to compel me to stay in the case. There are currently three attorneys on the docket for the United States. In addition, JP has indicated that Main Justice will file a motion of somekind in the case later today and we will not have the opportunity to do this.
Nevertheless, there’s a follow-up with Lenzner later in the day. In it, Zelinsky makes it clear that his Memorandum of Understanding (presumably pertaining to his SAUSA role tied to Mueller) only pertains to Roger Stone.
The suggestion that these events may have affected other cases, to which Zelinsky’s MOU did not apply, is particularly interesting given that DOJ deemed an email to Zelinsky from Erik Prince’s lawyer attaching a story about that investigation, sent after everything started blowing up, to be responsive to this FOIA.
I see no reason why that email would be included in this FOIA response (the attached WSJ story, for example, does not mention the Stone). But for some reason, Maryland’s US Attorney’s office considers it responsive to the Leopold FOIA.
I’ll have more to say about this FOIA response in a bit.
I have included all the emails, save some inquiries from journalists, in the timeline below. Note that it is difficult to distinguish between b5 (deliberative) and b6 (privacy) in these redactions, so I may have gotten a few of those wrong.
February 10
7:49: Zelinsky sends his US Attorney email, “Zelinsky Withdrawal Motion Draft 2.docx.”
7:52: Zelinsky forwards his draft withdrawal motion, still titled, “Zelinsky Withdrawal Motion Draft 2.docx,” to Adam Jed and Jonathan Kravis (but not Michael Marando), stating, “A much slimmer version — let me know what you think.” Note that the email he attached the draft to has a time stamp of 7:46, preceding the one above. This appears to be substantially the motion he submitted the following day.
9:01: A Maryland US Attorney employee, Paul Budlow, responds to Zelinksy regarding a “Presentations Skills for Training and Trial” course in March, saying only “Thanks.” The email was likely responsive because of what Zelinsky said to Budlow on Friday, February 7, which is redacted under b6.
9:40: Email from John Kruzel at The Hill.
1:25: Zelinsky sends Marando his withdrawal letter, now titled, “Zelinsky Withdrawal Motion Draft Final.docx.”
2:04: Zelinsky writes Jonathan Lenzner at Maryland’s US Attorney’s office with the subject line, “Looks like they are blinking.” It is redacted under b5.
2:05: Timothy Shea’s Chief of Staff David Metcalf emails Zelinsky, “If you actually want to talk, let me know.” The rest is redacted under b6.
2:07: Zelinsky responds to Metcalf. The first line is redacted under b6. The email then says, “What would you like to discuss? I am a bit busy because of Stone sentencing memo (as I’m sure you’re aware) and I [redacted, b6].
2:08: Lenzner responds. It is redacted under b5.
2:11: Zelinsky responds. It is redacted under b5.
3:25: Michael Marando emails the other three prosecutors, attaching a “Joint Submission re Redactions.docx,” with the subject link, “Can you let me know if this is OK?”
3:58: Zelinsky responds again to Metcalf, “I’m headed out now. Happy to talk by phone.” The rest of the email is redacted under b6.
4:22: Marando forwards email reading, “Counsel, the attached documents were filed with the Court under seal today.” Marando’s email that forwarded the PACER entry to Stone’s lawyers cc’ing the other prosecutors, which is (still sealed) docket number 278, is included in this FOIA production as well, but the time is not legible.
4:22: Kravis emails Zelinsky, “Final draft attached. Let me know when we have the ok to file.” He attaches, “stone sentencing memo 2-10-20.docx.”
4:22: Kravis emails Cooney, John Crabb, Alessio Evangelista, cc’ing the Stone prosecutors. “Final draft attached. Let me know when we have the ok to file.” Attached is “stone sentencing memo 2-10-20.”
4:28: Zelinsky responds to Kravis, “This says [redacted] got thirteen months. I thought it was 14?
4:30: Zelinsky responds again to Kravis, “Never mind. Looks like thirteen in all news stories.”
4:32: Zelinsky responds to Marando, “Thanks for doing this.”
6:02: Zelinsky receives ECF notice of the prosecutors’ sentencing memo, which was filed at 6:01.
6:07: Cooney emails “Team,” stating, “I just let Jonathan know that you have the green light to file the pleading.” The rest of the email is redacted under a b6.
7:04: Zelinsky responds to Cooney thanking him. The rest of the email is redacted under b6.
10:57: Zelinsky receives notice of Stone’s sentencing memo, which was filed at 10:55.
February 11
7:03 AM: Zelinsky forwards the sentencing memo from Stone’s attorneys, including the leniency letters, to the other prosecutors in the case, making some comment that was redacted for b5 and b6 reasons.
7:04 AM: Zelinsky responds to the Cooney email from the evening stating, “Thanks JP,” with the balance redacted for b6.
8:32: Adam Jed writes the other Stone prosecutors with the subject line, “Stone’s sentencing memo.” The content is redacted under b5.
9:50: Zelinsky responds to the other prosecutors regarding an email all four plus Timothy Shea got sent, calling them “Corrupt Whores” and “Are Poor FuckingEvil,” complaining they called for “7 to 9 years for Rodger [sic] Stone?” and calling them, “COCKROACHES.” Apparently this email merited a response, because he said,
I’ll draft a response. Good news– we know the U.S. Attorney won’t get this threat because he doesn’t use email.
12:02: Marando forwards an inquiry from The Hill’s John Kruzel, asking about the Fox story that DOJ is changing Stone’s sentencing recommendation, to Cooney, saying only “FYI.”
12:07:11: Cooney responds to Marando’s question, False.
12:07:32 PM: Marando forwards the 12:07:11 email from JP Cooney to Zelinsky.
12:13: Zelinsky responds to Marando and Kravis in the Cooney “False” thread, linking CNN journalist Shimon Prokupecz’s tweet quoting DOJ disavowing of the sentencing memo:
DOJ on Roger Stone: “This is not what had been briefed to the department,” the official told CNN. “The department believes the recommendation is extreme and excessive and is grossly disproportionate to Stone’s offenses.”
12:50: Zelinsky sends “Zelinsky Withdrawal Motion Draft February 11.pdf” to Neil White and John Sippel at Maryland’s US Attorney’s office, stating,
Dear Neil and John,
Sorry to buy you with an urgent request.
Quick background:
[long paragraph redacted under b5]
1:00: White responds. The first line is redacted under b5. The rest reads,
Jon briefed me about this earlier today. I tried calling you and I am happy to chat this afternoon. I can be reached at [redacted].
1:04: Zelinsky responds to White, cc’ing Roann Nichols, “Neil — on phone with DC now. Will call in a moment.”
1:13: Zelinsky emails Neil White cc’ing Roann Nichols, “Just tried you again. Thanks,”
1:55: Cooney sends an email, with only two periods, to Kravis, with the subject “memo.”
2:02: Kravis forwards the email from Cooney to the other prosecutors.
2:34: Zelinsky receives ECF notice of a letter in support of sentencing.
2:55: Kravis sends Zelinsky an email with the subject line, “Send me your notice?”
2:55:18: Zelinsky responds to Kravis. The first sentence is redacted under b5. The rest says, “JP approved this yesterday. If you see any typos, let me know!” He attaches, “Zelinsky Withdrawal Motion Draft February 11.docx.”
2:59: Zelinsky receives ECF notice of his withdrawal motion, which was filed at 2:58.
2:59:23: Zelinsky emails Cooney, cc’ing the other prosecutors, Withdrawal, attaching, “Zelinsky Withdrawal Final Signed FINAL.pdf”:
Dear JP,
Pursuant to our conversation yesterday and your approval of this filing yesterday, I am now filing the attached withdrawal from the Stone case and resigning as a SAUSA in DC.
2:59: Zelinsky again responds to Kravis with the file, “Zelinsky Withdrawal Motion Draft February 11.docx.”
3:00: Cooney responds to Zelinsky, “I am not approving of you withdrawing from this case right now.”
3:02: Zelinsky forwards Nichols and White the Cooney response, adding:
Dear Roann and Neil,
As discussed, I have filed the withdrawal motion and emailed the public corruption chief JP Cooney. I withdrew just after I sent the email below notifying him. As we discussed, I do not believe he has the power to compel me to stay in the case. There are currently three attorneys on the docket for the United States. In addition, JP has indicated that Main Justice will file a motion of somekind in the case later today and we will not have the opportunity to do this.
Thanks for all yoru [sic] help.
3:04: Leo Wise responds to Zelinsky, explaining, Attached is a rough redlined draft. Also attached is the case [redacted] is also attached. The subject of the email and the names of the attachment are also redacted.
3:30: News Alerts from Law360 that includes reference to the sentencing memo filed the day before.
3:41: Steven Brill writes the Stone prosecutors urging them to “speak out against improper internal pressure.”
3:55: Zelinsky receives Kravis’ withdrawal motion from ECF; it was filed at 3:54.
4:04: Zelinsky forwards an email from NBC’s Kevin Breuninger asking for a statement on his withdrawal to the press people in Maryland’s US Attorney’s office, telling them, “I’m just going to forward these to you. THanks! Sorry!” Other standard emails he forwarding included one from The Hill, CNN (Katelyn Polantz), CBS, CNN (Wolf Blitzer).
4:04: Zelinsky forwards an email from Reuters’ Brad Heath, with the subject line 44.5, asking if the notice of withdrawal was his own decision; Zelinsky forwarded it to the press people in Maryland’s US Attorney’s office
4:38: Zelinsky receives ECF notice that John Crabb filed an appearance in the case
4:46: Zelinsky receives ECF notice of the revised sentencing memo, which was filed at 4:44
5:01: Marcia Murphy, one of the press people in MD USA, responds Zelinsky regarding an email he forwarded from CNN explaining,
Aaron,
I have responded to all the inquiries you forwarded with something similar to the below statement. I tried to make it clear that I was responding on your behalf, so they wouldn’t think the office was preventing you from making a statement. If you get anymore, I will be happy to respond. Have a good evening. Hope you get some rest! Marcy
5:32: Zelinsky receives Marando’s notice of withdrawal from ECF; it was filed at 5:30.
7:08: Michael Cunningham, in the Maryland US Attorney’s Office, emails the NYT story on the Stone prosecutors withdrawing to Zelinsky, saying, “Very proud of you!”
9:10: Zelinsky responds to Cunningham: “Thanks! Just doing what any of us would have done in the circumstance.”
10:03: Lenzner responds to the Nichols and White email. His response is redacted under b5.
10:21: Zelinsky responds to Lenzner, starting, “Thanks. My MOU is certainly only for the Stone case.” The rest is redacted under b5.
10:36: Zelinsky responds to a thread involving Stuart Sears about a panel on Political Prosecutions involving, among others, Jeannie Rhee (the panel would later get delayed until September). The first part is redacted under b5. It finishes, “Thanks for the kind invitation.”
11:26: Zelinsky forwards an email from Erik Prince’s lawyer, Boies Schiller’s Matthew Schwartz to Michael Marando, explaining, FYI I don’t plan to respond. The email itself reads:
Aaron —
I hope all is well. I couldn’t help but notice the article just published in the Wall Street Journal, which suggests that the Department is on the verge of charging Mr. Prince. What’s going on?
Erik Prince has something to do with this, since he does not strike me as the sort that would go to the Seychelles for a secret meeting with campaign types without some pro quo for the quid. He’s apparently pretty busy in his line of work, so it wouldn’t be pity. I think Rayne pegged it when she said that Betsy’s there since Erik wanted her there. Perhaps the Princes wanted her away from the family business so they stashed her in political circles. Long ago in Santa Clara, we had a mayor that ran for the same reason.
Prince was one of the few people that Stone is known to have had encrypted comms with–in October 2016, just as the Podesta files dropped. He was also funding Stone.
I’m not sure why this has stuck with me, but Prince is a major investor in a secure messaging ap called wickr.
This being out of my wheelhouse, I will ask others to ponder if this app could have quietly been being used to make communications disappear, while investigators focused on messages sent via WhatsApp?
From a U.S News article on April 18, 2019
The conflicting accounts provided by Bannon and Prince could not be independently clarified by reviewing their communications, because neither one was able to produce any of the messages they exchanged in the time period surrounding the Seychelles meeting,” Mueller wrote.
“Prince’s phone contained no text messages prior to March 2017, according to the report, despite provider records indicating that he and Bannon exchanged dozens of texts. Prince denied deleting any messages and also told investigators he did not know why there were no messages on his device before March 2017.
Bannon relayed a similar story, telling investigators that he did not know why messages did not appear on his device for the same time period, during which he said he “regularly used” a personal Blackberry and personal email for work-related communications, including those with Prince.
“Investigators were unable to obtain the content of these or other messages between Prince and Bannon, and the investigation also did not identify evidence of any further communication between Prince and Dmitriev after their meetings in the Seychelles,” Mueller wrote.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-18/mueller-report-highlights-new-mystery-around-erik-princes-seychelles-meeting-with-russian-banker
So apparently, Eric Prince is the Seychelles Wickr Man.
It’s certainly possible Prince had a hand in getting BDV as Education Secretary, but it’s hard to overstate how primed she already was for the job. Her money and DeVos family money has been providing many millions to right wing anti-public education causes for years. She has been deeply embedded in that world.
Which doesn’t rule out that she got an extra leg up from her brother or that deals flow between them. It is just that she is less of a cipher for the pick than Ben Carson at HUD, who had zero involvement in right wing housing and community development issues.
Carson wasn’t a cipher. How does a deeply racist White House avoid being called racist in its approach to housing policy when the president has been sued by the feds in the past for discriminatory housing practices?
Hire a Black man — one who will be a Trump yes man, one who is easily compromised by holding office, one with zero expertise in housing or business.
Only surprised it wasn’t Herman Cain nominated to the position, but Cain was probably too much of a go-getter who’d make Trump look bad by comparison.
What surprises me the most is the why–why would the Trump admin care enough about being called racist so that it felt it had to nominate a Black man to run HUD?
Trump probably sees the lawsuit against him and his dad as a political plus, but I think early on maybe Priebus or someone like that thought differently. I am sure Carson couldn’t care any less whether he got HUD or SBA, Commerce, EPA or any of the other traditional patronage Secretary slots. Anywhere he could get that big desk at taxpayer expense.
DeVos wanted Education, though. She has dreamed of slashing Title I funding and ripping the heart out of Title IX since the days when she only had one yacht.
Hilarious. TY.
It’s not just about him — it’s about the GOP senate which had to approve his nominee. They can say they approved a Black man. Carson’s appointment didn’t hurt them in 2018, right? And they gave Trump everything his administration wanted except for lifting Russian sanctions.
Black, from urban areas, grew up in a project – he must know everything about How To Do It, right? /s
Carson is a textbook example of “internalized oppression.”
Cain kept repeating “Nein. Nein. Nein,” and the Nazis took it to mean “no.”
I think Pence had as much a hand in BDV getting that job as anyone else. They’re quite close, both in person and ideologically.
Note, too, that while Prince was a big Trump supporter throughout, BDV didn’t start funding him until September, very late for her normal big pocketed habits.
Wondering if she waited until she was told the fix was in and it was clear where money would be directed.
Thank you for your diligence. As an accurate “reader” of government redacted tea leaves, you have no equal. Part of my heart is in Ireland, and the Emerald Isle is even richer now, for hosting you. Sadly, the United States is poorer for having lost you, temporarily we hope.
Have been meaning to post this for months but am distracted by the slightest thing these days. It’s a fascinating NYT Magazine article about Mohammed bin Zayed, ruler of the United Arab Emirates. There is a brief mention of his employing Erik Prince to “train” UAE military (Prince is probably on retainer), and Prince being (possibly as an employee) at the Seychelles meeting in October 2016 at the behest of MBZ. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/magazine/united-arab-emirates-mohammed-bin-zayed.html
mt–thanks for the prince detail. nice to see “grand jury” next to one of the prince footnotes in the mueller rpt. not sure what to make of the conflicting reports of the possibility that prince’s mercenaries made up part of the federal protective services component of the dhs. but from the early (feb-apr 2020) reports from the intercept (https://theintercept.com/2020/02/20/erik-prince-fbi-investigation-trump-barr/) it seems as though prince has been investigated offering mercenary support to the wagner group in the eastern ukraine (https://theintercept.com/2020/04/13/erik-prince-russia-mercenary-wagner-libya-mozambique/) until erik decided to sue the intercept ( https://www.thewrap.com/trump-adviser-erik-prince-sues-the-intercept-over-article-that-said-he-offered-military-services-to-russia/). not sure what to make of prince’s constellation of pro-russian mercenaries for hire, money laundering (https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-under-federal-investigation/) and links to chinese intelligence, but some of it seems to tie in nicely with what justice department lawyer Matt Miller referred to as Bill Barr’s “tell” as part of MSNBC’s panel discussion of the USAG (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/08/bill-barr-has-a-tell-that-reveals-exactly-what-he-will-do-to-win-trump-the-election-former-justice-department-spokesperson/).
looking forward to what reggie walton has to say about the legitimacy of barr’s redactions after barr submits his delayed explanations on 17 August
Newsweek today: “Election Lawyers Worry Trump Could Send Federal Law Enforcement to Polls,” https://www.newsweek.com/election-lawyers-worry-trump-could-send-federal-law-enforcement-polls-1523390