Roger Stone Convicted and Bill Barr Vindicated With 40 Month Sentence [Updated]

YouTube Screenshot

Roger Stone has been sentenced to 40 months by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson. I previously stated that the likely sentence would be half of what the prosecutors originally sought and that is precisely what the court did. The sentence not only completed the conviction of Roger Stone but completely vindicated Attorney Bill Barr on the appropriate length of the sentence. Barr has been unfairly accused of political influence in modifying the original sentence even though many of us denounced the original recommendation as wildly offbase. Not only did over a thousand former prosecutors demand his resignation without knowing the full facts, but one former colleague declared Barr to be “unAmerican.” If these individuals have a modicum of decency, they will acknowledge that Barr was right on the merits of this sentencing recommendation as demonstrated by the court itself.

The question was not whether the original recommendation was within the guidelines, but the proper calculation under those guidelines. As I discussed earlier, the prosecutors sought a major increase of the sentence as a “crime of violence.” As I stated on NPR this morning, the base offense level for these crimes is a little over a year. Enhancements were justified but the prosecutors seemed vindictive and unhinged in their arguments for up to nine years. This included effectively double counting aggravating elements of the underlying crimes. Jackson said that she would take the threats of Stone into account but declined to use enhancements to push the sentence to the top of the range. She also rejected claims that Stone showed extensive planning.

While Judge Jackson stood up for the original prosecutors and called the sentencing change “unprecedented,” she notably followed the opposing call for sentencing below half of what the prosecutors requested. Moreover, it is not clear what is “unprecedented” depending on your perspective. To some at Justice, the filing of a recommendation opposed by Main Justice might seem unprecedented or at least alarming. This does not mean that Jackson supports the intervention. Indeed, she seemed eager to defense the original team.

As a criminal defense attorney, I am also astonished by those who have agreed that the original sentence was excessive and extreme, but still insist that Main Justice should not have intervened. Given the widespread criticism of original sentencing recommendation, the controversy boils down to the fact that Main Justice modified the sentencing recommendation over the objections of the trial prosecutors. However, Main Justice has prosecutors too. The Criminal Division plays a role, as I earlier discussed, in such recommendations. Are critics suggesting that Main Justice is not allowed under the U.S. Attorneys manual to make such decisions or that the Justice Department should never, in full candor to the court, revised a recommendation?

Reports indicate that Main Justice thought that it was understood that a more moderate recommendation would be made. If Justice officials believed that this recommendation was excessive and unsupportable, I would hope that someone would have the courage to correct and not worry about the optics. The Justice Department has a duty of candor to the tribunal as well as a duty to do justice. If this sentence was viewed as excessive, it should be corrected.

I have been in cases with where prosecutors have sought excessive sentences but that does not make it acceptable or right. Given the overwhelming view that the original recommendation was wrong, I find it hard to understand why Main Justice should have stayed silent and not informed the court that justice would not be served with such a sentence.

Not surprisingly, the media seems to have moved on with little recognition that the original recommendation was manifestly wrong and excessive. Instead the media besmirched Barr’s reputation and then failed to report the countervailing facts. After the court came down precisely where some of us predicted, it just moved on to the question of whether Stone would be pardoned. Even with a justifiably angry court, the sentence came in at 40 months rather than 108 months.

While these former prosecutors did not wait for the full facts, it was later shown that the decision was made before Trump’s comments and that there was no communication with the President on the case. It was also later disclosed that Barr and other officials at Main Justice agreed that the recommendation was manifestly wrong. That included the acting U.S. Attorney. Main Justice and specifically the Criminal Division often coordinates or directs decisions in high-profile cases. All of that was ignored in favor of a narrative that Barr carried out the orders of Trump after he publicly denounced the prosecution.

The hair-trigger attacks have become a common feature in legal analysis in these controversies. In this case, however, it was reasonable for many to raise concerns after Trump’s tweets. I immediately called for an investigation and still believe that such an investigation is warranted. It is not the legitimacy of the concerns but the immediate conclusions that are so objectionable.

As I said in the prior column, Barr was right on the merits of the ultimate sentence and the court ended up exactly where he and Main Justice recommended on the sentencing of Roger Stone.

166 thoughts on “Roger Stone Convicted and Bill Barr Vindicated With 40 Month Sentence [Updated]”

  1. “Fruit of the poisonous tree” and a “partial jury” should have been factors in this case. But I guess that was not a consideration of Judge Berman. Stone needs a new trial by an unbiased legal system. Is that too archaic in this day and age? Or am I just too jilted, tainted and cynical?

  2. Judging in the Age of TDS:

    Let’s look at how Amy Berman Jackson ruled and how she appeased everyone of her constituencies except Roger Stone.

    Roger Stone is a political buffoon. He’s been going around since the Nixon days dirty-tricking, hounding and prodding the opposition. He’s not a criminal; he’s a gadfly. In this instance he lied to Congress about some contacts over the Wikileaks scandal and got busted by a Mueller team desperately trying to charge anyone with something to justify the $40 Million price tag. The jury led by an admitted partisan hack got ABJ off the hook by convicting Stone of seven overcharged charges and now under our federal system, Judge ABJ has to set punishment. They hate this by the way since they have to actually rule on something newsworthy. Mundane motions – no problem. Something that might get them bad press — no, no never!

    Daughter of privilege (dad a Johns Hopkins doc, Top tier law firm, Husband a former gov’t official) she has two constituencies to appease. First, she a dyed-in-the-wool liberal activist judge. Harvard and Harvard law educated, she is firmed ensconced in the Northeast power structure that’s Dim, rich and connected (former partner at Trout Cacheris & Solomon PLLC in Washington, D.C) so she has to deal with and pay homage to the appointing mafia that got her noticed by Obama. That means more rich, connected and Democratic. Second, she’s also tightly bound to official Washington. Hubby (Arnold & Porter) worked for Bush as Assistant Sect’y of Commerce. She deals with DOJ everyday and undoubtedly knows Barr and the brass at the Department.

    So what to do with a gadfly hated by the Dims and most of button-down, priggish DC? First, she makes it clear she’s no Stone fan (“he lied”). Second, pay homage to Barr’s intervention (“the original sentencing recommendation was too harsh”) and get him off the “Resign Now” hook! Third, give jury foreman and Dim Fifth Columnist Tomeka Hart a pass to win the ooohs of her Dim handlers. (“a tough job” done with “integrity” and no on a new trial bid when most any judge seeing this would have awarded one sua sponte and don’t take my word for it, see Fox’s Judge Napolitano). Third, don the white vestment of virtue and lie to do it (““He was not prosecuted, as some have claimed, for standing up for the president,” she said. “He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”) Patently untrue, of course as there is no suggestion in the charges or the verdict that Trump had anything to do with the Wikileaks leak or benefited from Stone’s lying. In fact, there is no evidence he even knew about it. but no matter, official DC must be protected and Outsider Trump must be implicated.

    Now throw the book at Stone with a bogus enhancement for “threatening” despite the “victim” testifying he never felt threatened. Gag and then sanction the 67-year-old to 40 months or about half what was originally requested giving the appearance of fairness and then let your Harvard pals gush about you being “made of steel”: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/made-of-steel-judge-amy-berman-jackson-set-to-sentence-roger-stone-after-trumps-attacks/2220486/

    Guess they aren’t making cold steel like they used too since ABJ took the path of least resistance and nailed the only guy in the courtroom or beyond with no power to affect her in the least. She also gave Dims and their propaganda wing, CNN, fodder to link a Trump backer to a Russia Hoax that had thus far eluded them.

    Some years ago ( https://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-in-health-care/comment-page-7/#comments) I wrote the Rules of the Successful Application of Power. I’ll repeat them here now:

    1. Power begets other power.
    2. Power is always pragmatic.
    3. Power avoids exhaustive hypotheses.
    4. Power protects other power.

    Notice how they are a universal constant and Judge Amy Berman Jackson a faithful — if cowardly — disciple.

    1. Mespo

      thanks for the link.

      Wow! The quality of the comments and posts back then is in the stratosphere compared to today’s blog comments! how does one say in Italian garbage?

      I am jealous I missed those heady days while today we are forced to suffer the idiocies of Kurtz / Allan / Oky1 / George vs Anon/and various permutations therein, Peter Hill / and various permutations…., Fishbreath, Justice Holmes, Natch, and the usual bottom feeding catfish

      1. mjmichaels2:
        Wow! The quality of the comments and posts back then is in the stratosphere compared to today’s blog comments! how does one say in Italian garbage?”
        ***********************

        It really was a Golden Age. We had a wonderful cross-section of scholars, writers, lawyers and government employees. They were smart, pithy and edifying. I miss those days when even JT would chime in. We do have lots of i rifiuti today. Read the old stuff from 2008 to 2012. Particular favorite commenters were Buddah is Laughing and Former LEO.

        1. Mespo,

          There were some decent people there but a good number turned out to be admitted communist. I was shocked but when I was positive I left that group.

          And they are smart enough & can speak for themselves.

          LOL, I wonder what Charles would say about all this kids can be trans crap?

            1. I see some post but I’ve had to keep changing OS & browsers to keep the aholes from killing my PC. So my system doesn’t always display things in the same way.

              Getting rid of Micosoft windows fixed most of that. But I’ve got to jump again when it warms up.

              And hell, since I don’t know if I can trust myself posting I may be changing handles & vpns’. lol

              One post I see from 2013, Venezuelans running out of toilet.

              Skip ahead 7 years & now China was having some problem over toilet paper.

              Same stuff different year, but that’s why I’m still staying way over stocked on TP. With inflation it’s always cheaper.

        2. Was George Washington similarly a poet, wordsmith, intellectual and philosopher?

          George got done what needed to be done.

          American conservatives have been reciting and jawboning for decades and decades as the republic slipped away.

    2. Mespo, the judge is simply agreeing with your Bill Barr’s own sentencing recommendation. So are you saying that Barr too is wacko over this?

            1. Glad to see that you accept that Barr is not the all-knowing wise man. You know, Barr’s sentencing recommendation was actually higher than the one imposed by the judge.

              BTW, the man whom Stone threatened with death did not exactly say – as you wrote – that he did not feel threatened. He said that he did not believe that Stone himself would kill him.

                1. Anonymous:

                  “BTW, the man whom Stone threatened with death did not exactly say – as you wrote – that he did not feel threatened. He said that he did not believe that Stone himself would kill him.”
                  *******************
                  And then again these are the facts for you:

                  “Credico, a main witness in the case, had argued against a term of incarceration for Stone in a Jan. 22 letter to Judge Amy Berman Jackson, saying that “I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or to my dog.”

                  The comedian and longtime activist had described at trial how Stone threatened to kill Bianca the dog, while prosecutors cited April 2018 text messages where Stone told Credico, “you are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends.”

                  “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die,” Stone added.

                  The government said in its diluted sentencing memorandum that Credico’s statement that he never felt a “direct physical threat” from Stone weighed against a tough sentence.

                  But, Credico reiterated to TPM a point he made in his letter — he is against incarceration, for Stone or anyone.

                  “My father spent 10 years of his life behind bars before he married and had children,” he wrote in the letter. “The mental scars of those years never left my father’s soul. As kids, my brother, sister, and I could feel the pain radiating from him as though it were our own.”

                  “But the bottom line is Mr. Stone, at his core, is an insecure person who craves and recklessly pursues attention,” the letter continued. “Like Billy Wilder’s tragic fictional character Norma Desmond, Stone is always at the ready for that ‘close-up.’ Prison is no remedy.”

                  But Credico did suggest to TPM that whatever threat he perceived came from those around Stone.

                  “‘He himself’ — read it again, try to parse it. I never thought that [Stone] himself was ever, you know, a threat,” Credico said.

                  “What, is he hovering in some corner with a knife? If somebody is gonna steal my dog, they’ll do it, maybe somebody else might do it,” the comedian and longtime activist added. “Maybe you might steal my dog.”

                  https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/stone-witness-randy-credico-defends-prosecutors-assails-incarceration

                  So Credico did specifically say ““I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or to my dog.” And he added: ““He himself’ — read it again, try to parse it. I never thought that [Stone] himself was ever, you know, a threat,” Credico said.”

                  I like my wording over your attempted correction of them.

              1. I erred (am human) in saying thinking that Barr recommended a specific number of months in prison at the second go-’round. It appears that his new team did not.

                But as to Mespo’s reasoning, it should be pointed out that Stone’s own lawyers suggested prison time of 15 to 21 months for the crimes of which he was found guilty. That’s hardly a slap on the wrist appropriate for inconsequential violations.

                1. RDKAY:

                  When you’re a criminal defense lawyer, you’re always on your knees appeasing the dragon so as not to pi$$ her off. A true sentencing defense would have been a power point presentation of headshots of Comey, Clapper, Brennan, McCabe, Blasey-Ford all lying to Congress with the last slide being a question: “Why Are Some Liars More Equal Than Other Liars?” Of course, we all know the answer. Selective prosecution is a viable defense especially when politically motivated. Too bad nobody raised it.

  3. Jonathan: So you think William Barr has been “totally vindicated” by Judge Amy Jackson’s 40 month sentence for Roger Stone? I think your “decades of friendship” with Barr has clouded your judgment. Just ask yourself this question: Would Barr have intervened in a case involving your run of the mill bank robber with no political connections? I think you know the answer. You may feel vindicated by the reduced sentence but Barr has no right to make a similar claim. Whether Barr decided to intervene in the Stone case before or after Trump’s tweets is beside the point. Even before Stone went to trial Barr knew that Trump and Stone went way back when Stone was a “dirty trickster” for Richard Nixon and Stone had Trump arrange for illegal donations to Nixon’s campaigns. Trump and Stone have been close ever since and Barr was well aware of Stone’s loyalty to Trump–to the extent that Stone was willing to lie to Congress and threaten a witness to cover up for Trump. So when the original prosecutors recommended a sentence of 7 to 9 years Barr knew what he had to do. He had to show his total loyalty to Trump. Barr can’t claim vindication because he has dirty hands and now morale at the DOJ is at an all time low. 2,000 former prosecutors have called on Barr to resign because he has jeopardized the integrity and independence of the DOJ. Even the ABA has weighed in against Barr’s actions. Can they all be wrong? No doubt Stone will appeal his sentence but if he loses his appeal it is unlikely he will do much time. This week Trump commuted the 14 year sentence of former Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich about whom Trump said: “He seems like a very nice person, don’t know him”. So if Trump is willing to commute the sentence of someone he doesn’t even know you can expect Trump to do at least the same for his good friend Roger Stone. And your calling for an “investigation” of Trump’s tweets only insults your readers. Who is going to investigate Trump? The DOJ under Barr? Barr and Trump have completely corrupted the DOJ so what would you expect from such an investigation? Next month Barr will face a grilling in Congress about his role in the Stone case. Maybe we will learn what motivated Barr. But I am not sanguine. Barr will continue to cover for Trump but his excuse that he was just following DOJ sentencing protocol should just get a laugh from those in attendance..

  4. I didn’t know we had 1thousand stupid former DOJ officials. Seems like the only thing they can agree on is their hate for the deplorables President!!!

    1. Turley’s piece here should have been his new phone number: 0MeBarr 812

      So now they’ve firmly sided with the deep state & a very corrupt juvenile DC Fed Judge that must think being female is excuse enough for being so stupid as to fall into her own trap of stone & take Turley/Barr w/her.

      If only she had balls she might be able to get away with being as stupid as some of the others with balls. lol;) Ask my wife, Stupid is Stupid.

      See I was thinking Trump should have given stone a pardon before people like turley get their one off headline, but now by not giving a pardon earlier just look at all the fools are now exposed to everyone/voter.

      Like always, we’ll see

    2. Linda led,
      It is very difficult to track down how this group started, three years ago, by Obama lawyers and under the cover of a group called “Projected to Protect Democracy”.
      They had a starting budget of $1,500,000 and have previously signed similar letters.
      I provided information and links about this a few days ago in another link, the “Bull in the China Shop” thread.
      Without plowing though dozens and dozens of mostly older articles, no one will get an idea of the origins of this project, not from what the media is reporting now.
      Which is, that “all of a sudden”, former DOJ staff signed a letter bitching about the Trump Administration. It is in fact, old news.

  5. The majority voted against Hillary too.
    I won’t bother trying to explaining the meaning of plurality, or majority, or “most”, to Natacha.
    That’s been attempted many times in the past, as has the function of the Electoral College.
    It will never, ever, sink in regardless of how many times there are attempts to explain these things to Natacha.

  6. Prof. Turley: Your op-ed at TheHill.com discusses the presiding juror’s biases in great detail:

    https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/483210-juror-1261-in-roger-stones-case-was-justice-undone

    Nowhere does your op-ed reveal, however, that this juror disclosed her prior biases — including her social media participation, her past run for Congress, and her specific knowledge of the Stone case — in response to the judge’s questions. Stone’s lawyers asked some follow-up questions and weren’t prevented from asking more. And most important of all, Stone’s lawyers neither objected, nor moved to excuse this prospective juror for cause.

    Details, including link to & quotes from voir dire exam:

    https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/is-there-a-stone-jury-scandal-not/comments

    I know that an honest teacher & scholar of the law like you knows very well the significance of Stone’s lawyers’ failure to object or move to exclude this juror: They’ve conclusively waived any arguments about her pretrial biases as a matter of crystal-clear black-letter law.

    The failure to disclose this fact makes your op-ed at TheHill.com materially misleading, sir.

    I call upon you respectfully, as a fan and fellow lawyer, to prominently and immediately correct that misimpression here and, if possible, at TheHill.com.

    1. LMAO

      good one!

      And I’m Justice Oliver W. Holmes slapping you down from on high letting you know you were one of the imbeciles I said needed to be exterminated because …you know…. reasons

    2. Anon, precisely my feelings. I have stated that Prof Turley wants to appear to be objective and above the fray – so as to be useful as a media “talking head” and from time to time for the GOP. But his omissions give him away.

      1. I also note that I have stated that, based on this, Stone could have a strong appeal based on incompetence of his counsel.

        1. Nope, not likely. Another thing missing from Prof. Turley’s essay was what the rest of the venire looked like. In the District of Columbia, a lawyer from Tennessee who’d been the foreperson of a grand jury there might have seemed like a reasonably good juror, compared to the other members of the jury pool. She’s at least someone who could be expected to understand “reasonable doubt.” Prof. Turley’s essay presumes incompetence on the part of Stone’s lawyers, but he doesn’t discuss the rest of the panel or the other jurors on whom Stone’s lawyers spent their peremptory strikes. Without that information, no one could second-guess Stone’s lawyers.

          As for ineffective assistance of counsel as a potential ground for new trial or appeal, that, too, is the longest of long-shots. See, e.g., Teague v. Scott, 60 F.3d 1167, 1172 (5th Cir. 1995):

          The attorney’s actions during voir dire are considered to be a matter of trial strategy. A decision regarding trial tactics cannot be the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless counsel’s tactics are shown to be “so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness.”

          Deciding how to spend one’s peremptory strikes is the paradigmatic example of a tactical trial decision that courts simply won’t second-guess using 20/20 hindsight.

          Finally: Stone’s lawyers managed to get 40 (!) other members of the venire excused for cause. That’s extraordinarily strong evidence that they were effective during jury selection.

          1. I disagree. It appears that Stone’s lawyers had knowledge of facts about that juror that could have been the basis for a challenge for cause (or at least for further questioning of her predilections). If they failed to reasonably inquire further – or Google her – or voice that challenge for cause, they were provably inept.

            1. No, you are off the mark.
              The system is broken. the prosecutors are rogue lawyers. Their egos were more important than following guidelines set forth in these matters.

              Meh. It’s all part of the same resist circus. They don’t give a twat about Americans. Theirs is about raw power and they hate being exposed

              Thankfully Trump and Bill Barr have ushered a new age of awareness as to the scum that are entrenched in the Federal system.

              exterminate them all like roaches

            2. “Probably inept” isn’t enough of a showing, my friend. That’s not the standard for ineffective assistance. The case I quoted is on point factually, and follows Strickland v. Washington from the SCOTUS, which announces the proper standard:

              First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.

              ….

              … A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy.”

              Courts have held repeatedly that the Sixth Amendment doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to error-free counsel. It can’t even be demonstrated with the requisite certainty that this was an error at all, as opposed to a tactical call based on who else was on the panel and where they needed to spend their strikes. Jury selection is an art, not a science, and it’s one the courts are particularly reluctant to second-guess.

              I can’t say there has never, ever, in the history of time been a reversal based on ineffective assistance in jury selection. But I’d be very interested if you could find and cite one, and if you do, I’ll bet it will deal with Batson & systematic racial prejudices — which ain’t this.

              Thanks for the civil discussion. I wish Prof. Turley would address this spectacular omission, because I keep hearing Trump partisans reference his op-ed.

  7. “The Justice Department has a duty of candor to the tribunal…..”
    ______________________________________________________

    You might want to ask Carter Page about that.

  8. Too bad Stone wasn’t a democrat, he might have gotten off. To think all this happened because Trump won an election.

  9. The question is – would Barr have intervened if this were not someone convicted of covering up for Trump? Perhaps someone convicted of covering up something for a Democrat?

    Spoiler alert – the answer is no.

  10. No, Barr was not vindicated. The judge always had discretion to sentence as she felt appropriate, and in her comments openly and repeatedly criticised, including mocking, the prosecutor Crabbe and the ridiculous 2nd recommendation – “far less time” – from Barr. In the meantime, federal line prosecutors around the country are demoralized and Americans know that presidential cronies get special treatment from the 2 toads who made fools of themselves – Trump and Barr.

    JT is becoming Baghdad Jonathan and his time getting on the air and in print on anything but wing nut sources is running out.

  11. Know what? Nobody ever really thought Barr had done something wrong. The Democrats do not need actual or cognizable guilt to do their typical smear jobs. They are liars and knaves and they smear people because it is what they do. I pity people who actually give any credence to them being sincere about stuff like this.

    It is like some woman who knows she has her man wrapped around her little finger. Still, she will throw out the line “You don’t love me anymore!” just to watch the poor fool wallow around and try to prove how much he loves her. It is raw attention seeking. Same with the partisan shills pretending Barr did something wrong.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. “Roger Stone Sentenced and Bill Barr Vindicated”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    – Edmund Burke
    _____________

    “What Happened To The August 1991 Soviet Coup Plotters?”

    Eleven hard-liners in the Soviet government, military, Communist Party, and KGB were named in a Russian court as the organizers of the failed August 1991 coup against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.
    They included the so-called “Gang of Eight” that had placed Gorbachev under house arrest — a short-lived, self-declared provisional government that called itself the State Committee for the Emergency Situation was known by its Russian acronym, GKChP. They also included three other senior Soviet political and military officials.
    One “Gang of Eight” member, Soviet Interior Minister Boris Pugo, committed suicide shortly after the coup collapsed.
    The 10 other men named as coup plotters were all granted amnesty by the State Duma on February 23, 1994 — ending their 14-month trial, on high treason charges, by the military branch of the Supreme Court.
    They went on to play various roles in politics and the private sector in post-communist Russia.

    – Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
    ____________________________

    “Special Prosecutor Dan Webb has ‘now completed all of its investigative steps regarding Jussie Smollett, and has made the decision to further prosecute Mr. Smollett.'”

    – ABC News
    _________

    If nothing else, the USSR deserves credit for indicting and prosecuting the 1991 Soviet coup d’état plotters. Special Prosecutor Dan Webb reviewed the original “exoneration” of Jussie Smollett and will further prosecute. AG Barr has failed and continues to fail, wittingly or unwittingly, to bring the perpetrators of the Obama Coup D’etat in America to justice or to review and file or reinstate charges against Hillary Clinton et al. after the pervasive corruption of James Comey. There is probable cause and a preponderance of evidence sufficient to compel indictments. William Barr cannot claim to being doing anything like his duty, much less claim any form of “vindication” in the deafening silence of the absence of adjudication and jurisprudence…in the maw of the “kinder and gentler” dictatorship of Mr. Deep Deep State.
    ______________

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,

    Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,

    Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,

    Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,

    Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama et al.

  13. So we are now going with “It is ok to have political interference in our justice systems if that interference is effective”?

    1. Are you saying that the line prosectors are not answerable to anyone?
      If they are answerable, to whom do they answer?

      Hint, see U.S. Constitution, Article II.

      1. Yes, before they appear in court, not after. This is UNPRECEDENTED meddling in the name of favoritism, not principle.The judge mocked Crabbe and the 2nd recommendation team.

        1. You don’t know whether it’s “unprecedented” or not. They dont TELL REPORTERS when they decide to give an order do they? That’s internal. What’s unprecedented are these low level guys whining about it.

          Anyhow, yes they most certainly are answerable to their supervisors. let me elucidate

          here is an organizational chart but the persecutors are all in the box called “US ATTORNEYS”

          https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart

          the US attorneys are organized by district. here’s a list. they have a bunch of lawyers working under whomever the top guy is — the top guy in District is called the “US attorney” and they’re confirmed by Congress

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney#List_of_current_U.S._Attorneys'_offices

          districts may be organized into smaller sized regional “divisions”

          US federal prosecutors, who try cases in court, are officially called “Assistant US attorneys” (“AUSA”) they report to the US attorney in their own district. YES there is no question the AG can reach down and involve himself in specific matters a couple layers down if he so decides. His agency flows from the Presidency.

          key point to remember: The Attorney General is the boss of all US attorneys., And he is appointed and serves at pleasure of the President. It is a cabinet position. Yet, like others, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

          Yes he can be impeached. Go ahead, try, waste some more time and energy, see where it gets ya come election time

        2. The sentencing recommendation is a part of their court work and they are answerable to the chain of command at the DOJ.
          The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch and the sole power of the Executive Branch lies in the President. The only reasons for trying to insulate the underlings in the DOJ from the President are morale and to try to minimize abuse of power. Like it or not, the President can direct his subordinates to pursue or drop cases.
          Obama and Holder ordered the DOJ to ease up on marijuana prosecutions. Obama and Holder ordered the prosecutors to drop the investigation into voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. It happens, deal with it.

    2. Molly,

      I like hearing other intelligent arguments & sometimes those arguments change my mind.

      I’m going to except one such argument I heard today & get off AG Barr’s azz & hope he is able to help Durham bring the Perps, current/former leadership of the DOJ/FBI/Fed Courts criminals up on charges finally.

      It has to be done or this nation collapses.

      AG Barr, for now we love you long time, looks like you get a bit more time to show us all you greatness. We hope.

        1. I’m surprised that anyone bothers to read Oky’s comments, but it does give one some insight into why we’re in such trouble in this country.

      1. Andrew McCabe is as guilty of crimes as any suspect has ever been. All the co-conspirators are guilty as sin. Barr is letting them off, one by one. Barr has placed the frog in comfortable cold water and is heating it up slowly, until the frog is fully cooked – the frog will never even know it was on the menu. Mr. Deep Deep State, Attorney General William Barr, is criminally “exonerating” Deep Deep State agents, operatives and troops. Why should America expect anything else. The “swamp” has a $31 trillion market cap. The “swamp” will be very difficult to drain indeed.
        _________________________________________________

        “Why Wasn’t Andrew McCabe Charged?”

        “The Justice Department announced Friday that it is closing its investigation of Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, over his false statements to investigators probing an unauthorized leak that McCabe had orchestrated. McCabe was fired in March 2018, shortly after a blistering Justice Department inspector general (IG) report concluded that he repeatedly and blatantly lied — or, as the Bureau lexicon puts it, “lacked candor” — when questioned, including under oath.”

        “After all, the constitutional guarantee of equal justice under the law is supposed to mean that McCabe gets the same quality of justice afforded to the sad sacks pursued with unseemly zeal by McCabe’s FBI and Robert Mueller’s prosecutors. George Papadopoulos was convicted of making a trivial false statement about the date of a meeting.”

        “Even McCabe himself, to say nothing of his lawyers and his apologists in the anti-Trump network of bureaucrats-turned-pundits, cannot deny that he made false statements to FBI agents and the IG. Rather, they argue that the 21-year senior law-enforcement official did not mean to lie, that he was too distracted by his high-level responsibilities to focus on anything as mundane as a leak — even though he seemed pretty damned focused on the leak while he was orchestrating it.”

        – National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy (excerpted)

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/why-wasnt-andrew-mccabe-charged/

        1. the McCarthy article puts the simplest reason down in a quick sentence, but, it’s the reason most cases get dropped, even though the targets obviously stink

          “Page’s account does illuminate a problem for prosecutors: It’s tough to win a case when your witnesses are spinning for the defendant. (Oh, and have you seen Page’s tweet toasting McCabe in the aftermath of the news that the DOJ had closed the investigation?)”

          IE they would be putting on a whole case against the creepy McCabe which would be a huge hassle lasting years and he would have an endless war chest and the near certain outcome would be “reasonable doubt” generated by Lisa Page who would have to be an important witness and yet would say any nonsense to protect her collaborator. Yes i am saying anybody would expect Page to LIE to protect McCabe.

          this is how a lot of mischief gets accomplished from organized crime to organized insubordination in government and that includes low level corrupt cops and big fish too.

          1. this is why investigations and prosecutions are not the efficient way of terminating a coup.

            if you really want to discourage sabotage, you deal with the actors as saboteurs

            there are summary punishments administered instead

            when that starts happening then you know its GAME ON and pattycake is over

            can that happen? Oh it sure can. It has, sometimes it does, obviously, just a question of if and when.

            history proves it. if you think the US is immune to the cycles and patterns of power-lust that have characterized governments throughout history, including coup d’etats, whether overt or covert, and the suppression of them, well, you’re kidding yourself

            1. We can also clearly see that, whatever his goal, Barr is playing politics in an election year.

              Barr is marketing Durham for whatever reason.

          2. All we are saaaaaaying, is give justice a chance.

            Barr is judge, jury and executioner (in this case, exonerator).

            Trump did nooooooooothing and the communists impeached him.

            Obama and his “holdovers” conduct an ineffective “sissy” coup and they are not even acknowledged, much less charged.

        2. Maybe Barr didn’t charge McCabe because he thought the case was going to be tough to prove in court. As much as I think McCabe is a piece of crap, I accept that I do not have all the facts, including the jury pool demographics, at my fingertips.

          1. Do you think Jessie Smollett is not guilty?

            Do you think Hillary Clinton is not guilty?

            The Special Prosecutor in the Smollett case decided to “…further prosecute…” the accused actor.

            Why hasn’t the Attorney General decided to “…further prosecute…” Hillary Clinton?

            Indict them all and let God sort it out!

      2. This nation was collapsed by totally “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and it must be reset to the 1789 parameters of its Founders which prevailed before “Crazy Abe” brutally imposed his “Reign of Terror.” The best example is, in 1861, the Naturalization Act of 1802, as “original intent,” was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s).” Any and all who disagree with the Founders of America do not need to be IN America. Like the foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, who return home upon the completion of their work, the slaves must have been repatriated once America discovered that slavery was not viable. “Crazy Abe,” by contrast, gave the freed slaves the country and no nation in history ever ended slavery by war.

        Freedom and Self-Reliance.

        – No taxation for any form of redistribution of wealth.

        – No regulation other than the “value” of “money,” the flow of commerce among nations, states and tribes, and land and naval Forces.

        – No interference in private property.

    3. Ask that question to Comey who did exactly that. He’s got more experience as professional dirty cop than the rest of us.

  14. Seems to me that the are several key questions that expose this whole sordid affair by the DOJ in the prosecution or Mr. Stone. First, what Crime Did Roger Stone commit? 2. why did the jury foreperson hide her anti anything Trump related? 3. Why did the Judge not call before her the jury foreperson, the prosecution (who resigned like rats from a sinking ship), and the Defense team?
    Items 2 & 3 seem to be the pillars of our rules of law and they seem to have been trampled – acts that the liberals love to do. Remember, Justice for me-NONE for Thee.

  15. So normalizing abject criminality that committing crimes to cover up other crimes is somehow less of a crime? Oh that’s right, undermining democracy in the name of authoritarianism is not a crime. Trump and anybody that covers for Trump are above the law.

    1. What part of the world. What country are you or your fake name programmer really from. “undermining democracy?” The only part of democracy carried over into our Constitutional Republic was the right of the individual whole citizen to vote and that was extended to all levels. The rest was rejected nine times and the words democracy, democrat or democratic do not exist in our Constitution as a result, Good thing or you would be defending mobocracy and the Antifadadahdah scum also of the left.

      ‘undermining that which does not exist in the name of the preferred method of regressive socialists who want a foreign ideology known as socialist autocracy doesn’t fit either.

      So menshevik. Once more you emulate Comrade Pelosillyini and Comrade Schumuckly Putz. All that is left is to bark at the moon. How many failures in a row is it?

        1. “FishWings says:February 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM
          Get help”

          He’s (Michael Aarethun) is another one whose comments aren’t worth reading.

      1. Best I can tell, he did one of the following
        a.) lied to Congress when he told it he was talking to Credico about discussions with Wikileaks (that never actually happened or see c.) ) when he was actually talking to some other guy
        b.) lied to Steve Bannon when he told Bannon he was talking to Wikileaks
        c.) lied when he told the FBI he didn’t talk to Wikileaks

        It is not a crime to lie to Steve Bannon and oh by the way, there is nothing illegal about talking to Wikileaks and there is nothing illegal about Wikileaks printing stolen documents (unless Wikileaks stole them but according to other indictments, it did not)

        Clear now?

        1. Frederica Wilson is that you?

          “ Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable,” Wilson said during a press conference. “We are going to shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted.”

    2. Fishy wrote: “So normalizing abject criminality that committing crimes to cover up other crimes..”

      Name the crimes. Name the crime that was covered up.

  16. Is it not the job of the criminal defense lawyer to address the severity of the sentence.Are the Trump criminals the only ones entitled to justice.Hopefully juries all over the country will engage in nullification

    1. It seems that you don’t care about justice. You want the justice system to be an instrument of retribution. Explain how that is any different from what you are accusing Trump of wanting?

      Show your work.

      1. It can’t. It’s a machine part and isn’t allowed and the rules of the left for The Collective come first for programmers as well. So? Just say Ad Machina. What else would you say to a machine part?

Leave a Reply