BARR SAYS TRUMP TWEETS 'MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO MY JOB'So I think it can safely be said that attorney general Barr isn't "Trump's wingman", the way partisan and racist Eric Holder was for Obama (an Obama-era DOJ partisanship that the Democrats, of course!, had absolutely no problem with. Or with Loretta Lynch's private conversation on the airport tarmac three days before Lynch announced no charges against Hillary in 2016. Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.)
Among many points, this:
Barr, speaking to ABC News, said that even prior to Trump's tweet Monday night, he was surprised to hear that DOJ prosecutors had sought the nine-year prison sentence, both because it was inconsistent with the prosecutors' previous discussions with main DOJ and because it did not seem "fair and reasonable" given the facts of the Stone case.
"I was very surprised," Barr said. "Once I confirmed that that's actually what we filed, I said that night to my staff that we had to get ready, because we had to do something in the morning to amend that, and clarify what our position was."
PROSECUTORS QUIT EN MASSE; TRUMP SAYS STONE CASE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
The next day, senior DOJ officials intervened and amended the prosecutors' sentencing recommendation downward, although top DOJ brass have repeatedly said their decision was independent of Trump's wishes.
Some Democrats have said Trump could face another impeachment over the episode, which seemingly undercut the traditional separation of political considerations from DOJ prosecutorial decisions.
Conservative commentators have split over the issue, with some suggesting that career DOJ officials are properly supervised by elected politicians, and others praising Barr for condemning Trump's involvement.
While Stone warranted some level of punishment for his prosecution, the consensus of upper DOJ officials is that the prosecutors on the case had agreed to go for a lesser sentence, and then behind DOJ leadership's backs, the case prosecutors upped it to an excessive 9 years.
Which regardless of Trump's twittered opinion, would have resulted in upper DOJ intervening to press for a shorter sentence, what was originally agreed to. And ultimately it is a DOJ sentence
recommendation, and the final decision ultimately belongs to the judge on the case,
Amy Berman Jackson.
And speaking of Amy Berman Jackson, Tucker Carlson on previous occasions over several months has gone into evidence that she is a Democrat zealot who should have been recused from the case from the outset.
And as I said before, the four prosecutors who resigned are partisan Democrat warriors as well. At least three are Democrats, and 2 of the 4 came from the Mueller team. Severe sentencing of Roger Stone is a way for them to attempt to vindicate the failed Mueller investigation, by making Stone look as criminal and conspiratorial as possible.
And then there's the apparently tainted jury,
where the forewoman formerly ran for Democrat office, and has posted vitriolic negative comments about Trump on social media. THAT should have been weeded out very early in the trial. And that both the partisan prosecutors and the partisan judge allowed it will likely result in a mistrial and a second trial for Roger Stone.
Likewise, according to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, the alleged "threat" and "witness tampering" by Stone to a witness were vastly exaggerated. Which was also covered in Fox's linked article:
Stone has been convicted on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress on charges that stemmed from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Prosecutors charged that Stone lied to Congress about his conversations about WikiLeaks with New York radio host Randy Credico, although Stone was never linked to any criminal conspiracy to access or leak documents.
It would place Stone in a category of the guidelines that "typically applies in cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases," the government argued, noting that Stone's "advanced age, health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history" also counseled against the harsh penalty.
Specifically, prosecutors said that although Stone allegedly had threatened Credico’s therapy dog, Bianca -- saying he was "going to take that dog away from you" -- it was important to recognize that Credico has acknowledged that he "never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog."
Fitton characterized it as belittling sarcastic joke toward Credico by Stone, not a threat. And like Democrats or Media Matters twisting jokes by Trump to allege that Trump literally wanted Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mail server (rather than a joke at an election rally), or when Democrats/liberal media allege Trump is soliciting violence when he says of someone "I want to smack him" (rather than a joke by Trump at an election rally), this post by Stone was twisted into a threat that it was not.
The jury tainted, the prosecutors Meuller people and Democrats, excessive sentencing, a partisan judge... Amazing how there can be Democrat corruption and tainting of the case all the way up and down the chain and Dems have no problem with that. But Trump makes a few tweets that give the slightest excuse to allege Trump/Barr impropriety, and wooooooaaahh, it's time to kneejerk right into Impachment 3.0.
Any half-baked excuse.
