October 20, 2017

Here’s Why Trump Interviewing US Attorney Candidates Is Even Worse Than it Seems

One of his top candidates may have a possible conflict of interest involving a Trump ally.

President Trump with Turkish President Erdogan at the United Nations on September 21.Shealah Craighead/Planet Pix via ZUMA Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

When the news broke this week that President Donald Trump—in a major departure from his predecessors—has personally interviewed candidates for US attorney positions in New York and Washington, DC, Democratic members of Congress and former US Attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired by Trump, criticized the move, expressing concern that Trump is looking to hire friendly prosecutors in locations where he has properties and other interests. The US attorneys in these places also may end up making decisions related to prosecutions in the Trump-Russia scandal. But even worse, the leading contender for one of these jobs—whom Trump is considering—also comes with a possible conflict of interest over a controversial criminal case that’s a top priority for a foreign leader close to Trump. 

Turkish President Recep Erdogan has repeatedly demanded that the United States drop the prosecution of a Turkish-Iranian gold dealer, Reza Zarrab, who is set to go on trial in the Southern District of New York for money laundering and fraud charges. Federal prosecutors allege that Zarrab participated in a conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions against Iran.  

In March, Trump fired Bharara, who was overseeing the case. One of Trump’s leading candidates to replace Bharara is Geoffrey Berman. He is a law partner at Greenberg Traurig, where former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump booster and adviser, is a senior attorney and adviser. Giuliani has personally worked as part of Zarrab’s high-powered defense team. In February, he met with Erdogan to discuss the Zarrab case. Turkey is also a major Greenberg Traurig client, paying the firm $1.7 million this year for lobbying and legal work. Berman first emerged as a leading candidate for the US attorney position this summer. 

Zarrab is one of nine men, including Mehmet Atilla, deputy CEO of one of Turkey’s largest state-owned banks and the country’s former economy minister, who were indicted by Southern District prosecutors in this case. Zarab and Atilla are in custody in the United States; the other defendants are in Turkey. Court filings in the case include transcripts from wiretaps placed by Turkish police that caught the defendants discussing plans to avoid U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran by trading gold for gas, the New York Times reported. In the tapes, the men indicate that they are acting under an order from Erdogan to increase trade, though it is not clear if Turkey’s president knew of the plot. In public remarks, Erdogan has indicated concern that he might be implicated in the case.

Last year, Erdogan demanded Bharara’s firing over the Zarrab case, the Washington Post reported. Since Trump became president, Erdogan has continued to push the US government to drop the case. US officials fear the recent arrest of a US consulate employee in Istanbul with a Turkish bid to win leverage it can use to kill this prosecution.

Erdogan directly raised his concerns about the case during a September 9 call with Trump. Turkey also employed Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn as a lobbyist while Flynn also advised Trump during last year’s campaign. (There is no public indication that Flynn worked on this particular issue for Turkey.) During a meeting with Erdogan at the United Nations last month, Trump said the Turkish leader “has become a friend of mine.”

The White House has defended Trump interviewing US attorney candidates as a presidential prerogative. But by considering and interviewing Berman, Trump is also inserting himself into a possible conflict of interest related to the Zarrab case. 

On Wednesday, at a Senate judiciary committee hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions about Trump personally vetting U.S. attorney candidates. Sessions defended Trump’s right to do so. Afterward, Blumenthal told Mother Jones that Trump’s involvement is alarming. “The firing of Preet Bharara smacks of political interference and the interviewing of his successor simply adds to that impression and it impugns the integrity of the Department of Justice,” he said. “I think the public is owed an explanation for why this unprecedented procedure has been adopted.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate