Prosecutors Allege Political Influence At the Justice Department In Stone Case and Other Matters

US-DeptOfJustice-Seal_svgHouseofRepSealThe House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing today on the allegations of political interference with the handling of Justice Department cases, including the controversy over the sentencing recommendations in the prosecution of Roger Stone, a longtime friend and confidant to President Donald Trump.  As I said on NPR this morning, I think such hearings are important and legitimate efforts to answer such widespread concerns.  (The hearing is stacked with only one witness allowed in defense of the Administration but that is unfortunately a long-standing problem in Congress).  Even though I support the congressional inquiry, I continue to believe that the sentencing recommendation in Stone was excessive and unwarranted.  I admittedly have a bias as a long-standing criminal defense attorney but I criticized the original sentencing memorandum before any action was taken by Main Justice.  I have always maintained however that Stone was corrected convicted on some of these counts and warrants some jail time for his criminal conduct, including opposition to any presidential pardon.

Aaron Zelinsky, a member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, submitted written testimony that states  Stone was “being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the President.”  He added

“What I saw was the Department of Justice exerting significant pressure on the line prosecutors in the case to obscure the correct Sentencing Guidelines calculation to which Roger Stone was subject — and to water down and in some cases outright distort the events that transpired in his trial and the criminal conduct that gave rise to his conviction.”

That is a very serious allegation and one that the House Judiciary Committee has correctly pursued as part of its oversight functions. There is no more serious allegation than political interference to assist the friend of a president. It is inimical to the most basic concepts of the rule of law.

I thought Zelinsky’s testimony was extremely well-written and cogent on many points.  I will however note disagreement with a couple aspects of his discussion of the Stone case.  While many academics who I respect hold an opposing view, I believe that the original sentencing recommendation was absurdly high for this case.

First, Zelinsky seems to suggest that it is unprecedented for Main Justice to direct or influence the handling of a high profile case. I have been a criminal defense attorney for over 30 years. As I have previously written, I have often had to deal with Main Justice in such cases and it is common for the criminal division to coordinate on major decisions in high-profile cases. For example, in 2008 when President Obama was first running for the White House, prosecutors wanted to bring charges against Black Panthers who stood in front of polling places brandishing weapons. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department overruled them, despite a rather widespread view that the men were trying to intimidate voters. There were no calls to impeach or incarcerate Holder, who was widely viewed as one of the most political attorney generals in modern history.

Second, I have previously explained why I consider the original sentencing recommendation of Zelinsky and his colleagues to be excessive.  Before the second sentencing recommendation was ever filed, I not only disagreed with the recommended sentence of up to 108 months but said that most judges would impose a sentence of around 40 months. That is precisely what U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson handed down.

The reason for my objection to the original sentencing was the use of the aggravator of a “crime of violence.” The base offense level for these crimes is a little over a year. Enhancements were justified but the prosecutors seemed vindictive and excessive in their arguments for up to nine years. This included effectively double counting aggravating elements of the underlying crimes. I did not (and do not) believe that this is a legitimate case involving of crime of violence because Stone made his typical hyperbolic comments to an associate in a conversation.  Few people seriously believed that Stone was actually threatening the witness. Stone described himself as a virtual clown,  “performance artist”and an “agent provocateur.” 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.

Jackson did object to the irregular intervention of Main Justice in the case and defended the original prosecutors.  Yet, even with a justifiably angry court, the sentence came in at 40 months rather than 108 months.  That sentence fell in line with not just what some of us predicted (in contrast to the prosecutors) but also close to what Main Justice was suggesting in its recommendation.

Main Justice has maintained that it had told these prosecutors that it wanted to moderate the recommendation. It did not oppose jail time but specifically objected to the very issues raised by some of us: the enhancements, particularly for a crime of violence. That was in my view the correct approach and the ultimate sentence came down as consistent with the second recommendation.

Having said that, I am also troubled by the irregular course taken in the case and we should all take allegations of political influence seriously.  However, we should not brush over what some of us viewed as excessive elements to the original sentencing proposal.

84 thoughts on “Prosecutors Allege Political Influence At the Justice Department In Stone Case and Other Matters”

  1. Stone never should have been prosecuted – that is where the political bias lies.

    We now know that the FBI determined in Jan 2017 that there was nothing to this Trump/Russia nonsense.

    The appointment of a SC was improper. Rosentein knew or should have known.

    The appointment was either political or grossly incompetent. It does not matter which.

    We know that Rosenstein knew this by August 2017 – instead of ending this farce then – he expanded it.

    Mueller either knew or should have known very shortly after he started.

    Lets be clear – the conclusions of the FBI in 2017 not merely mean no investigation,

    The mean the legal standard that must be met for warrants, and supeona’s was NEVER met.

    The entire Mueller investigation was lawless from the start.

    WE do not investigate people just because we do not like them or hope they committed a crime.

    Stone was convicted in a politically motivated farce. They charges against him are ludicrously stupid.

    The basis for going after him was that he purportedly lied to congress about exculpatory evidence.

    It is normal that congress provides witnesses with transcripts of their testimony and the opportunity to correct.
    We saw that occur during the impeachment hearings. Stone asked for and never received his testimony. He had no opertunity to correct.

    The rest of the charges are ludicrous. Credico and Stone trading insults is not witness tampering – especially where there is no crime and the sc knows it.

    Stone had no special access to Assange or wikileaks – nor did anyone else. They were all full of bragadocia – if we are going to comvict on that all of washington must be jailed. there was no foreknowledge of anything regarding Wikileaks – not that it would be a crime if there was.

    Stone was convicted by “the deep state” because he helped Trump defeat their queen. Nothing more.

    Barr is rightly comparing this to a coup.
    I am not sure the extent we will have criminal prosecutions here.
    Much of the unbeleivably egregious conduct we have had may not be easy to define crimes.
    But it is all abuse of power under color or law.

    And we need to make sure this kind of nonsense never happens again.

    What we saw with Mueller is no different from what we are seeing with BLM and Antifa.

    Angry lawless anarchy because they did not get the outcome they wanted.

    If these people want to actually revolt over Trump being elected – then LET THEM.

    But this farce has gone on too long.

    The left is now stupidly terified that Trump will not leave if he loses.

    Why are they terrified ? Because they would not leave. Because they DID NOT leave.
    Because the obama administration on the way out the door booby trapped the white house and the government.
    Because they placed minefields and spies.

    Because THEY did not accept the results of the election.

    We are now in a world where if the left does not get what they want, they throw a tantrum and burn everything to the ground.

    1. agreed. the prosecution of stone was selective and unfair from the start. let’s get some of the other thousands of bigwigs who have provably lied to Congress in the dock if it’s suddenly a big deal

      i mean it should be; but, let’s be fair about it

    2. Stone was the go between for Trump and Russian Wiki-leaks and both he an Trump lied about that, Stone to Congress and Trump to Mueller. This is just another example of Russian collusion which JT has repeatedly lied about by saying it’s been disproven. If it was not collusion, why di the President and Stone lie about it?

    3. Amen! The “ sentencing” isn’t the issue. The fact that Stone did not commit a crime seems not to matter. This is a heartbreaking and terrifying Stalinist injustice, the pervasive new norm in a system that once promised fair and just protection of the accused.There was NO Russia! There was a Seth Rich. There were the Awan brothers. There is a tremendous conspiracy and it crosses party lines.Lindsey Graham, McStain,Burr,McMullin,Romney,Kerner,Ryan,Cofer Black and so many others are up to their eyeballs w/ their CommunoFascist Dimm Uniparty cabal.

  2. Jonathan: Having no experience in criminal law I take no position on the ultimate sentence for Roger Stone. But before you take a victory lap let me comment on the other very troubling aspects of this case.

    First, AG Barr’s decision to intervene in the Stone case came just hours after Trump tweeted that the original sentencing recommendation of 7 to 9 years was “horrible and very unfair”. Mere coincidence? I don’t think so. Second, Aaron Zelinsky is an experienced career prosecutor and he and his fellow prosecutors in the Stone case all resigned after Barr intervened. As Sharon McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, said at the time: “The idea of our president interfering with the criminal justice system in such a way is extraordinary and frightening. If I were the prosecutor on that case I would submit my resignation”. Third, in an ordinary criminal prosecution, let’s say of a person of color who is not a FOT, would Barr intervene because the sentencing recommendation was to high? I think you know the answer.

    All this underscores the fact that Barr, since the first day of his appointment, has been Trump’s “Roy Cohn” intent on protecting Trump and his political cronies. But your focus seems to be only your claim of vindication in the ultimate sentence for Roger Stone. This misses the bigger picture–the corrupting influence of Barr on the DOJ. You miss the forest because you only want to focus on a single tree! And if you were to criticize Barr for politicizing the DOJ you might jeopardize many years of personal friendship. And you don’t want that do you Jonathan?

  3. DOJ has announced that Barr will “appear before the House Judiciary Committee for a general oversight hearing on July 28th.”


      Strzok Notes:

      “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”

      – Barack Obama

      “Kislyak calls but appear legit.”

      – James Comey

      “‘VP’ mentioned the ‘Logan Act’ during the meeting,…”

      – Joe Biden

      “…the “7th floor [is] involved,”

      – Peter Strzok

      Former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that the 2016 conversations between Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and incoming national-security adviser Michael Flynn were not criminal in nature, according to notes from former agent Peter Strzok released by Flynn’s legal team. The page of notes was taken by Strzok appears to describe a January 5, 2017 meeting of President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and national security officials. This meeting occurred amid accusations that incoming Trump administration officials had colluded with Russian operatives. Strzok was not present at the meeting, and it is unclear what record of the meeting he consulted in taking the notes.

      Strzok writes that “P,” presumably President Obama, asked, “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”

      Strzok records that “D,” or Director Comey, responded “Kislyak calls but appear legit.”

      In transcripts of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak released on May 29 of this year, Flynn is recorded asking the Russian ambassador not to escalate tensions in response to U.S. sanctions. Those sanctions were implemented by the Obama administration following reports that Russia attempted to interfere in the U.S. general election.

      Strzok’s notes also indicate that “VP” Biden mentioned the “Logan Act” during the meeting,…

      While the FBI had monitored Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, the agency moved to close the case on January 4, 2017, indicating it had found “no derogatory information” on Flynn. However, that same day Strzok intervened to keep the case open. Strzok told an unknown individual that day that the “7th floor [is] involved,” apparently referring to senior FBI leadership at the bureau’s headquarters.

      “We will stop him.”

      – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

      “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

      – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

      The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act 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,
      James E. Boasberg et al.

  4. I am so enjoying the breast beating, tears, and gnashing of teeth by the leftist shills on this thread who assured us Sullivan was legally correct and would not be ordered to stop his absurd procedures.

    1. You don’t quote or link to anyone who “assured us Sullivan … would not be ordered to stop his absurd procedures,” and I have no reason to trust your memory on this.

      I know that you’ve previously made false statements about my earlier claims. Here’s an example where you falsely accused me of “flatly declaring [Geoff Berman] could not be fired”:
      I’m still waiting for you to explain why you’d make that false claim. If it’s just a matter of you making a mistake, the honest thing to do is say “I was mistaken.” But I don’t think you’re particularly committed to honest discussion.

    2. they were wrong but they follow the playbook of effective communications and PR: never admit a clear mistake, just use your microphone time to project your next talking point

      1. You believe everyone on the committee and all of the witnesses are Stalinists and the witnesses are going to lie under oath for “show”? FFS, grow up. That someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them a Stalinist.

    1. There hasn’t been any coup or attempted coup, and no one has been charged with treason.

      You and some others on the right have an overly active imagination and an inattention to what words like “coup” and “treason” actually mean.

      1. Committ – look to late summer, very early fall for some action on some of the members of the coup.

        1. Glad to know that you don’t know the meaning of “coup.” /s

          1. Committ – I do happen to know what a coup is and what the definition is. I have also lived long enough to have seen a few coups in action.

          2. in French it means a strike, a hit. That’s all. Coup de main. This coup at Trump, failed. There’s been one coup after another, all failed so far, the big one still remains to be seen– the BLM lead destabilization campaign. That one trolls and targets a nation of Trump voters with looting, riot, arson, and demoralizing insults

            We are enraged and will deliver come November. or, feel free to turn up the heat some more. double down some more, just hope you don’t get rolled over by your own side in the process

            1. Nous ne discutons pas la signification de “coup” en en Français, seulement en Anglais — un coup d’état. Il n’y a pas eu de coup d’état.

              1. Trying to parse that into acceptable French in any dialect of the language I know.

                Google Translate’s a rotten crutch to lean on for translation into French from English.

                “en en Français”? Vraiment?

                1. “We do not argue about the meaning of “coup” in French, only in English – a coup. There was no coup.”

                  1. The first sentence was “We aren’t discussing …” rather than “We do not argue about …” “Argue” would be a verb like “se disputer” or “débattre.”

                  1. Apparently quoted by Patton, but that may only have been in the movie.

                2. Yup, “en en” was a typo. But the rest is fine. My French is no longer as fluent as it was when I was servng the U.S. in a Francophone country years ago, but you should be able to understand the point. “Coup” has more meanings in French than in English, and I was referring to the English meaning, which is equivalent to the French phrase “coup d’état.” When we say in English that there was no coup, it means there was no coup d’état. Anyone who understands the meaning should be able to agree that there hasn’t been any coup d’état here.

      2. Treason means whatever the guy who hammers the gavel on a successful case decides. You know it when you see it. We have seen a lot of it.

        ‘When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” — Emerson

  5. Court of Appeals just ordered rogue judge Sullivan to dismiss charges against Flynn.

    1. No surprise. Viva Frei made another excellent video covering Flynn’s recent response to the court:

    2. Keep in mind that if this stands (rather than being overturned by an en banc ruling), Flynn is actually in greater jeopardy come January. There’s no reason for Trump to pardon Flynn now, and Flynn’s plea bargain allowed him to avoid being charged with other crimes, like his false FARA filings, and the CADC ruling doesn’t apply to those, only to the crimes he was charged with in this case.

  6. There is an unstated presumption that the line prosecutors were not politically motivated in seeking the sentence they did in the Roger Stone case. I do not accept that presumption.

    1. Hal– Just the evidence available is enough to conclude that the Stone case was driven by politics and only politics. The prosecutors should be sent to prison.

    1. Let’s hope. Henderson has proven herself a tool and the Trump appointee was a shoe-in. Bad draw on this one and a ruling in complete violation of Rule 48 and in favor of crony treatment before the law..

      1. Deepak Gupta (@deepakguptalaw):
        “D.C. Circuit internal procedures: ‘In the absence of a request from a party, any active judge of the Court, or member of the panel, may suggest that a case be reheard en banc. If a majority of the active judges who are not recused agree, the Court orders rehearing en banc.'”$FILE/Handbook20191201a.pdf – p. 60

        It seems likely that there will be a request for an en banc rehearing (e.g., from Wilkins). So the main question is whether the DC Court of Appeals will agree to one.

      2. Wrong actually you have had a complete misunderstanding of the basics of our system of crime and punishment and have twisted your brain into a pretzel overthinking this one

    2. From the dissent, and grossly ignored by the majority. :

      “See, e.g., In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773,
      786–87 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Rule 48(a) . . . also permits courts
      faced with dismissal motions to consider the public interest in
      the fair administration of criminal justice and the need to
      preserve the integrity of the courts.”); United States v. Cowan,
      524 F.2d 504, 509–13 (5th Cir. 1975) (concluding that Rule
      48(a)’s “history . . . belies the notion that [the Rule’s] only
      scope and purpose is the protection of the defendant. . . . [I]t
      [is] manifestly clear that the Supreme Court intended to clothe
      the federal courts with a discretion broad enough to protect the
      public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice”).
      In the same vein, numerous federal appellate courts have
      recognized that a court in receipt of an unopposed Rule 48(a) ”

      The public has nor reason to believe in “fair administration of criminal justice” after this power play.

      1. LOL you guys always whine when you lose

        every time you lose, it’s the system’s fault

        well the system has some major flaws but letting the judge pretend to be the prosecutor is a bridge too far

        1. Kurtz, you’re the guy wanting revolutions and death squads, and we’re the poor losers. Your as unself aware as you are delusional a not surprising combo.

            1. RME that you project agony onto people. Maybe you imagine that you’d be in agony if it were you? If so, that suggests you’re a weak person.

    3. American Oversight (@weareoversight):
      “Under Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department has repeatedly moved to protect President Trump’s allies while undermining the rule of law. We’re suing DOJ for records of political interference in the Flynn and Stone cases, and we’re going to keep demanding answers.”

    4. GOP enabling gross corruption in the administration now includes this ruling which ignores the court’s duty to protect fairness and just a few months ago, denying witnesses in a Senate impeachment trial for the 1st time ever. EVER! 250 f…g years.

    5. The Federal Court of Appeals for DC gave Sullivan 10 days to argue against Flynn’s request the case be dropped against him. Unless he was using that time to draft a brief for an en banc review he’d probably lose, his failure to respond in a persuasive way against Flynn’s motion argues eloquently. Sullivan’s already made the highly irregular request for an amicus brief – one that failed to persuade 2/3 rds of the panel who saw it. An en banc rehearing could only reinforce what we already know – the only case against Flynn is a partisan one.

  7. JT: “I believe that the original sentencing recommendation was absurdly high for this case.”

    1. And from the NY Bar Assoc.:
      “Dear Members of Congress:
      “We write on behalf of the New York City Bar Association (the “City Bar”) in response to continuing actions by Attorney General William P. Barr that raise the most serious questions about Mr. Barr’s fitness for the high office that he holds. As described below, Mr. Barr’s recent actions in connection with the removal of Geoffrey Berman as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) continue — and exacerbate — a pattern of conduct that has undermined public confidence in the role of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in enforcing the rule of law in our nation. …”

      If Barr actually cared about the DOJ, he’d resign.
      If Trump actually cared about the DOJ, he’d demand Barr’s resignation.

      1. DOJ is full of careerists and deep state sycophants who should be flogged.

        Every thing you say to insult Barr elevates his prestige in the minds of those who read what you say.

        NYS bar association are a bunch of flunkies too. New Yawkas who could care less about anybody besides their usual patronage circles.

        Most state bar associations aren’t much better.

        However, we are looking into punishing errant bar association admins who want to politicize the bar groups into 99% of the time Democrat patronage operations. The good news is we are so far excluded already, where it is now already, we can probably only go up at this point.

        I feel that today we have seen the first dimming of the high tide and it will be a tough slog but there will be a lot more reversals coming before November.

        And the witch of November may blow early

    2. GW University are total losers who should get out there and arrest the vandals who toppled the bust of the Father of Our Nation, George Washington, may he rest in peace

      Turley is the only one worth a fig. The rest are all losers. I could be wrong, of course, but i doubt it

  8. I take it that mr Jonathan failed to join his George Washington colleagues in roundly condemning his buddy Barr

  9. Love the venturing into what the intent of Stone was on his threats to a witness, Professor…, i mean, we can see Justice stepping in to defend all citizens of the U.S. in this regard, right? Ha.

    And the 108 months versus 40 which the sentence turned out to be? Cool. Seems as if things shook out in the way most accepted by the mainstream. Barr’s in trouble here, though. His influencing for the president would, at a minimum, require his immediate resignation in any other administration. But in the freak show that is the Trump presidency everyone will probably just take an aspirin and hit their preferred method of escape from reality instead. And wait for November. Heard there is much static at GW over this in the law school…, is this true?

    This is just flatly untrue: “For example, in 2008 when President Obama was first running for the White House, prosecutors wanted to bring charges against Black Panthers who stood in front of polling places brandishing weapons. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department overruled them, despite a rather widespread view that the men were trying to intimidate voters.”

    This was regarded as intimidation over on Fox planet. Not other places, as the Panthers, an organization thoroughly infiltrated by the FBI in COINTEL
    PRO, were actually trying to guard polling places in the event of voter suppression tactics. Wonder how they could have ever thought such a thing possible??? Hmmm?? The world’s mysteries never cease.

    1. You should post that to his Corrections page:
      Highly unlikely that he’ll correct it (based on his failure to correct all sorts of other errors of fact that are pointed out to him), but it’s good to have a record there that he’s choosing not to correct his errors, ironic given his statement yesterday that “To its credit, NPR admitted the error in this case” when he won’t do the same.

  10. (music).
    Sam Stone…came home to his wife and family!
    After serving in the conflict over seas.
    And the time that he served…
    Had shattered all his nerves…
    And left…a little schrapnel in his knees!

    Oh. It was Roger Stone not Sam Stone being discussed here. Does Roger have any shrapnel in his knees?

  11. So the title of the column is “Prosecutors Alleged Political Influence At the Justice Department In Stone Case and Other Matters,” but Mr. Turley can’t even bring himself to identify (much less address) the “other matters.”

    The title of the hearing is “Oversight of the Department of Justice: Political Interference and Threats to Prosecutorial Independence.” John Elias of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division is another witness. Here is his opening statement:

    Geoffrey Berman has an open invitation from the HJC to testify about the topic. It might also be appropriate for Brandon Van Grack and Jocelyn Ballantine to testify about the DOJ’s choice to submit a motion to dismiss the Flynn case and the inconsistent DOJ statements about that. Rep. Nadler is also planning to subpoena A.G. Barr to testify in July.

    1. Mr. Turley claims “I did not (and do not) believe that this is a legitimate case involving of crime of violence because Stone made his typical hyperbolic comments to an associate in a conversation. Few people seriously believed that Stone was actually threatening the witness.” Marcy Wheeler comments on some of what Turley glosses over: “Stone hired a PI to hunt Credico down after Credico took measures to hide from him and (Credico has always emphasized) Stone’s violent racist friends. In addition to making it clear that Shea politicized even the first memo in some way, Zelinsky hints at ways that Stone’s witness tampering was more aggressive than widely understood. Let’s hope those details come out in [today’s] hearing.” ( )

      1. Speaking of Stone, “Roger J. Stone, Jr. respectfully moves the Court for an Order extending his surrender date to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) from June 30, 2020 to September 3, 2020, in light of his heightened risk of serious medical consequences from exposure to the COVID-19 virus in the close confines of a BOP facility.” Judge Berman Jackson has responded “It is ORDERED that the government must file a submission setting forth its position on defendant’s motion to extend his surrender date [381], and its reasons for that position, in writing. The government must also inform the Court of the results of the COVID-19 tests at FCI Jesup that were described in the motion as pending at the time it was filed. The government’s submission is due by June 25, 2020.“

    2. And we’ll see if Barr openly refuses the subpoena. Might be full on Watergate-esque.

  12. You could tell from the well-publicized arrest by SWAT teams of Stone, this was meant to send a message to conservatives that the FBI is a bought and paid for arm of the Dims. (As if Page and Strzok weren’t enough). Tipping off CNN was just the cherry on top. For JT to ignore this as a career defense lawyer is disturbing.

        1. Anon. That was my question. How could Book possibly know the media-hungry hounds in the FBI didn’t tip off the media? In fact, they sometimes have an initial press release prepared before executing the arrest.

        1. Name another case of a “white collar” crime, where SWAT was called for a raid. I think you are talking about the Gestapo, not the FBI.

          1. If you’re too lazy to look up the info you want, that’s your problem.

            And no, I’m not talking about the Gestapo, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth though.

        2. Commit:

          “Mespo can’t imagine that CNN did what journalists do, staking out Stone’s house on the basis of public information:

          “It’s also funny that he thinks this was a message to conservatives. There are tens of thousands of SWAT raids annually. Mespo just doesn’t pay attention to the rest.”

          A guy with your experience in law enforcement would know., of course. Need any bridges?

          “It was absolutely ridiculous,” said ex-FBI agent Peter Yachmetz. “Doing it at 6 o’clock is extremely early. They were trying to get a point across and it was leaked to CNN. Why?

          “It was inappropriate and improper,” added Yachmetz, an agent for three decades. “I cannot recall banging on anyone’s door at 6 a.m. for a white-collar crime. I did do it once in a kidnapping and extortion case.”

  13. When Trump gets his walking papers in November the country, and the world to some extent, will be in for two months of disgust and shame as this blithering idiot criminal pardons, weasels, blames, lies, stuffs his orange mug in the public’s face, and overall disgraces the US as never before. If he wins, my flag will fly upside down for the next four years.

    1. Issackbasonkavoich

      I suspect that after all the American flags you have probably burned, turning them upside down would be just one more move to destroy America, as people with your seemingly hateful attitude, have been doing for four years.

      Hatred of Trump, is no solution for America.

        1. Yes, our Democrat friend book knows the power of hate.

          Folks, let the hate roll. Feel the hate, let it wash over you. Hate and fear are friends, we should all get more comfortable with them. Hate is a muscle, flex it and it grows stronger. Never let yourself use it, and you’ve taken away one of your strongest inner tools.

          Let’s do an exercise in rousing the internal resource, hate. Let’s watch the videos of regular folks being beaten by riotous protesters, and understand the hate they have for you.

          Or let’s do an exercise in fear. Let’s watch a video of a black guy wrestling two cops for their guns and shooting them and driving away in the cop car. Watch this and understand, supposedly, according to the Democrat party and their allies in the mass media, the newspapers, the social media censorships rooms: cops are the bad guys. Democrats want to defund the police and send them to jail so murderers like this can drive away freely. And maybe come loot you.

          Do you fear this>? You should. It is very close to happening on a massive scale nationwide

          The good news is nature gave you the same protoplasm. You can use the tool of hate too. Let the fear awaken you, rouse you, and then let the hate rip and pour adrenaline into your veins. The fear, the hate, tools a millions years of human evolution gave you, a survivor of countless generations of humans whose fear and hate KEPT THEM ALIVE — going all the way to the origins of mankind- where was that? i forget. ah– the cradle of humanity, where was that?

          1. Democrats don’t want to defund the police. That’s a lie. The Trmp campaign is stiffing police all across the nation, just like Trump stiffs blue collar workers on his projects.

      1. I don’t hate Trump. Trump is a blithering idiot, poltroon, and the world’s greatest liar; and he’s President. I hate what he has done to America.

        1. Isaac, are you a Canadian or not? If you’re a Canadian as I recall, correct me if Im wrong, but if youre from Canuckistan feel free to butt out foreigner, quit trying to “influence an American election,” and go back and hate us from the Great White north all you like.

        2. issac, Trump is a despicable human being lacking principle, empathy, or loyalty to anyone or thing other than himself. and as is clear in the Covid crisis, will happily endanger the lives of thousands for his own selfish purposes. If he is not worthy of hate, the word has no meaning.

Comments are closed.