Home » The Mueller investigation and Roger Stone: wheels within wheels

Comments

The Mueller investigation and Roger Stone: wheels within wheels — 40 Comments

  1. I believe that one of the most important reasons for the three-year impeachment hoax was to tie Trump’s hands so he could not clean house.

    With the acquittal, now is the time for him to give a lot of folks walking papers.

    I agree with Scott Adams’ about trolling the left: #notimpeached

  2. He’s been swimming against a strong current from day one and it’s amazing what he’s accomplished.

  3. The house cleaning is way overdue. I suppose they delayed so as not to inflame the impeachment craze. Every president is entitled to have staff who will promote the policies set by the president, and not policies set by an insane “resistance.”

    There should have been a large turnover on Trump’s inauguration, but the Democrats created this fake “collusion” narrative which meant many potential officials thought Trump would be removed and didn’t want to get themselves dirty.

  4. Hello, what’s this? House Judiciary Democrats Announce AG Barr to Testify Before Committee

    From their letter (most of it, in fact):

    We are writing to confirm your agreement to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31, 2020.

    In the interest of transparency, we wish to be candid about one set of concerns we plan to address at the hearing. Since President Trump took office, we have repeatedly warned you and your predecessors that the misuse of our criminal justice system for political purposes is both dangerous to our democracy and unacceptable to the House Judiciary Committee. Our Republican colleagues have warned the Department of the same. We have been consistent — and bipartisan — in this message for years.

    In your tenure as Attorney General, you have engaged in a pattern of conduct in legal matters relating to the President that raises significant concerns for this Committee. In the past week alone, you have taken steps that raise grave questions about your leadership of the Department of Justice. These include:

    The ongoing developments following the removal of U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who oversaw the prosecutions of President Trump’s deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, President Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn, and President Trump’s longtime political adviser Roger Stone.

    The creation of a new “process” by which President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani can feed the Department of Justice information, through you, about the President’s political rivals.

    The decision to overrule your career prosecutors and significantly reduce the recommended sentence for Roger Stone, who has been convicted for lying under oath, at the apparent request of the President — a decision that led to all four prosecutors handling the case to withdraw from the proceedings in protest.

  5. I have every confidence in Barr’s ability to demolish the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

  6. Neo, the case against Roger Stone is a good one and after a week long trial and two days of deliberation the jury found him guilty of seven counts including obstruction of justice, making false statements, and witness tampering. Say what you want about the prosecutors but the jury did exactly what juries do in our system every day in a legal system that is pretty well considered the best in the world. Yet Trump – who was not on the jury and did not hear the testimony but who is friends with Stone – can simply tweet it’s unfair and suddenly – it’s unfair? In this case it’s clear he is being political. The jury was not. The defense was unable to clear Stone. That’s on them not on the government prosecutors.

    What may be true is that the sentence recommendation was too harsh but he most certainly was found guilty and the evidence bears that out. He should be sentenced even if only six months. Trump may pardon him, which would be pretty bad IMO.

  7. I keep waiting for Conservative Republicans to “get militant”.

    Since I live in Southern California, I know there are two dynamics that make it very difficult here. First, we would be badly outnumbered; and the authorities would most likely ally with the other side. Secondly, since most Conservative Republicans are actually employed (not me), they spend so much time creeping along the freeways twice a day that they are perpetually exhausted.

    We lived in semi-rural Virginia for over thirty years. I was proud of our state; but, recently it appeared that the Left had gained a stranglehold. I am once again proud to see Virginians fighting back against the 2nd amendment abuses of the Richmond autocrats.

  8. In this case it’s clear he is being political. The jury was not.

    That looks sort of silly. In D.C.? Care to explain 1) how you know this, and 2) how you reach such equitable non-political judgements yourself?

    I’m not laughing. Well, ok, not too much. Believe that? No?

  9. Oh, I should add: the case against Roger Stone is crap; political top to bottom. Wouldn’t have happened otherwise. So.

  10. sdferr on February 12, 2020 at 5:47 pm said:
    Never read the story of B’rer Rabbit and the briar patch, have they?
    * * *
    And hear I thought those cries of “It’s a set up!” were over-reaction!

    They probably haven’t read that story, because “Song of the South” was banned before any of the 27-year-old reporters were born, and the old pols have forgotten about it.
    However, we do have a very active Streisand Effect in operation, and Trump is going after the Democrat’s entire subdivision.

  11. “Say what you want about the prosecutors but the jury did exactly what juries do in our system every day in a legal system that is pretty well considered the best in the world.”

    Rubin “Hurricane” Carter and a bunch of other wrongly convicted folks would like to have a word with you.

    Mike

  12. Neo – thanks for posting the transcript. I’ve had the video of the Nunes-Dobbs interview on-hand for a couple of days, but I hate listening to people talking over each other, sometimes to the point that I can’t really understand what they have said.

  13. the jury found him guilty of seven counts including obstruction of justice, making false statements, and witness tampering.

    All process crimes. The ‘witness tampering’ consisted of remonstrating with his friend Credico over congressional testimony. ‘Making false statements’ is a crime that generally does not exist on the state level. You will recall this quartet were part of the crew that were attempting to make the case that Donald Trump was guilty of ‘obstruction of justice’ for obstructing their obstruction investigation.

  14. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter and a bunch of other wrongly convicted folks would like to have a word with you.

    I think some of the volunteer legal labor who at the end of it all had had quite enough of Ruben Carter might want to have a word with you.

  15. Montage on February 12, 2020 at 7:51 pm said:
    …He should be sentenced even if only six months.
    * * *
    That is kinda the argument the DOJ is making.

  16. For a little background and context about Presidents “interjecting themselves in the justice process” — it’s only a problem if Republicans do it.

    https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/111017

    Read J. Christian Adams’ Obama Justice Department expose now
    FacebookTwitterGoogle+
    By Michael Gaynor
    October 17, 2011

    The ugly truth is that in 2008 most voters were conned and America’s government has been corrupted since the Obama Administration began.

    Laura Ingraham’s latest “must read” is J. Christian Adams’ Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.

    “The Department of Justice is America’s premier federal law enforcement agency. And according to J. Christian Adams, it’s also a base used by leftwing radicals to impose a fringe agenda on the American people.

    “A five-year veteran of the DOJ and a key attorney in pursuing the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, Adams recounts the shocking story of how a once-storied federal agency, the DOJ’s Civil Rights division has degenerated into a politicized fiefdom for far-left militants, where the enforcement of the law depends on the race of the victim.

    “In Injustice, Adams reveals:

    The inside story of how the Obama DOJ spiked the voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party — and the Panthers’ little-known public appearance with Obama

    How the Obama administration changed DOJ hiring policy to ensure radical leftists would dominate the Civil Rights Division

    The Obama DOJ’s bizarre agenda, from insisting on kids’ rights to attend school dressed as transvestites, to litigating for teachers’ rights to take paid vacations to Mecca

    How the DOJ has repeatedly sided with political bosses who flagrantly disenfranchise entire communities of white voters

    Why the DOJ’s fixation on racial grievance threatens the integrity of the 2012 elections

    “If you thought the federal government was dedicated to race-neutral equal protection, Injustice will set you straight. This searing indictment of government malfeasance unveils the astonishing political extremism and outright lawlessness that now infects on of the government’s most powerful agencies. With everything from civil rights laws to America’s voting system at risk, Adams sound the alarm on a gathering threat to our nation’s future.”

  17. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/12/trump_says_the_lesson_he_learned_from_impeachment_is_the_democrats_are_crooked.html?utm_campaign=ora_player&utm_medium=ora-video-widget&utm_source=videopages

    QUESTION: Lisa Murkowski earlier said that you shouldn’t have gotten involved with the Roger Stone case. She said it’s just bad. Some Republicans have said they hoped you would learn a lesson from impeachment. What lesson did you learn from impeachment?

    PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That the Democrats are crooked.

  18. sdferr on February 12, 2020 at 5:43 pm said:
    Hello, what’s this? House Judiciary Democrats Announce AG Barr to Testify Before Committee.
    * * *
    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/02/11/nadlers-panic-letter-to-barr-demands-to-know-why-doj-is-looking-at-giulianis-biden-ukraine-info-885590

    In a Monday press conference, Barr told reporters: “The DOJ has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant. As I did say to Senator Graham, we have to be very careful with respect to any information coming from the Ukraine. There are a lot of agendas in the Ukraine, there are a lot of cross-currents, and we can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value.

    “For that reason,” he continued, “we had established an intake process in the field, so that any information coming in about Ukraine could be carefully scrutinized by the department and its intelligence community partners, so that we could assess its provenance and its credibility. And you know that is true for all information that comes to the department relating to the Ukraine, including anything Mr. Guiliani might provide.”
    During the news conference, Barr confirmed that information provided to the DOJ by Giuliani and his associates are being reviewed by the department and carefully assessed “because it could be Russian propaganda.”

    According to ABC News, Attorney General Barr dispatched a memo to federal law enforcement personnel instructing that approval had to be obtained from top DOJ officials before any investigation of a declared 2020 presidential candidate could take place, to ensure “this fall’s elections are conducted in a fair manner that is free from inappropriate influences.”

    “We must investigate and prosecute those matters with sensitivity and care to ensure that the department’s actions do not unnecessarily advantage or disadvantage any candidate or political party,” he said in the directive.

    Shorter Nadler: Barr said he wouldn’t help us win in 2020 and that’s not fair.

  19. Another serious question about Mueller’s investigation team.
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/02/12/unfortunately-a-corrupt-group-of-politically-focused-doj-lawyers-isnt-the-only-issue/

    Four of Robert Mueller’s special counsel prosecutors strategically and purposefully resigned their positions yesterday in an attempt to create a political narrative against U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr – through a ridiculous Roger Stone sentencing memorandum.

    In a subsequent interview with Lou Dobbs, House Intel Committee ranking member Devin Nunes noted the activity of Mueller’s 19 lawyers was likely to come under scrutiny now, as people start to ask common sense questions. [Ex. what were these DOJ lawyers doing for over two years if there was zero evidence of any Trump-Russia collusion?]

    However, I would draw attention to an even more troubling issue that media pretend not to even notice. From the Mueller Report (pg 13):

    An issue that everyone overlooked is more serious than tin-foil-hat DOJ lawyers chasing DNC stories of Olaf and his Macedonian meme generating buddies on Facebook.

    A significant issue is in the part of the story most have skipped past without recognizing,… because, well, simply we have become immune to the insanity of it.

    … 40 FBI Agents worked on the Special Counsel?
    Think about it. For three years… Doing what exactly?

    Don’t let ourselves get dragged into the absurdity and travel down a conversational path where DC justification is put through a cognitive blender. Forty FBI Agents spent three years trying to aid a transparently political effort to remove a president.

    If you give them the benefit of being sound-minded, we had Forty FBI agents who transparently had to know this was a ridiculously weaponized political operation against the opposing political party of their FBI and DOJ leadership… and they went along with it.

    The whole damned thing was a ruse.

    What exactly would forty FBI agents be investigating?

    You can take that insufferably overused qualifier: “we’re not talking about the hard-working FBI field agents here..“, and stuff it. I’m exactly talking about forty transparently corrupt FBI field agents who, according to EVERYONE, participated in an investigation that was political nonsense from the beginning.

    And they all did what?

  20. Well, sdferr, somebody else knows their Uncle Remus stories!

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/02/12/excellent-news-hjc-chairman-jerry-nadler-demands-testimony-from-ag-bill-barr-scheduled-hearing-march-31st/

    Considering the issues outlined by the Democrats; and knowing the rabid nature of their base of resistance that demands HJC action; this is the biggest briar patch in recent congressional history & AG Barr is one big rabbit proclaiming: ‘don’t throw me in’. When you read the issues of concerns, you realize this is going to be epic.

    The “process” of receiving information on possible criminal conduct is open to anyone and everyone to report, including all Americans. Obviously the HJC and Democrats writ large are worried about their financial schemes to exploit wealth and sell influence may be hampered by any corruption investigation of Ukraine…. but more importantly, they are seeking to find out how much their own activity is exposed.

    I cannot think of a single bullet-point easier for Barr to have fun with than a committee that is verklempt about the U.S. Department of Justice allowing people to report possible criminal activity. The entire framework of their argument is silly and fraught with pretzel logic. That’s the purpose of the justice system, to allow people a process to rectify criminal activity.

    Secondly, didn’t the same House Committee just spend months complaining about Giuliani operating independent investigations?… and not following the “established processes and norms”? Now they don’t want Giuliani to be allowed to contact the DOJ and engage in long established processes and norms? Their argument is circular.

    This March 31st hearing should be buckets of fun.

    Lastly, why March 31st?

    All of the points raised by the HJC are transparently easy to knock down now. Why postpone for two months? The likely answer is John Durham will be finished…. drops of information therein will take place…. the hearing is pre-scheduled… etc.

    The HJC has just boxed themselves in to holding a hearing…. Think about it.

    Remember, the HJC never held a hearing about the IG Horowitz FISA report because that type of hearing is adverse to the political interests of Democrats in the House. They don’t want to hold hearing where former administration DOJ & FBI abuses are discussed. However, now AG Bill Barr has a hearing scheduled on the books. Now AG Bill Barr has a date on the congressional calendar the House cannot avoid.

    Now AG Bill Barr has a target date and two months to coordinate releasing the information gathered from within John Durham’s investigation. Release the Durham information a week prior to March 31st and the HJC is trapped into a holding a hearing about topics they don’t want to see public.

  21. which is absurd because Trump has every right to do what he’s doing

    This framing is wildly ahistorical.

    For example, Trump has the right to pardon. Indeed, his pardon powers are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. But as we know from the famous James Madison / George Mason exchange, he can still be impeached for exercising that power.

    Long – short: George Mason is arguing against the Presidential Pardon. He’s worried that a President may “pardon crimes which were advised by himself”.

    James Madison replies that Mason should chill. Why? The Constitution has a remedy for that:

    “…if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…”

    So arguing that Trump has the right to do what he is doing goes nowhere.

  22. “Right” isn’t the term. The term is “power(s)“. Rights are ours, powers we cede to governments.

  23. What may be true is that the sentence recommendation was too harsh but he most certainly was found guilty and the evidence bears that out. He should be sentenced even if only six months. Trump may pardon him, which would be pretty bad IMO.

    Your political sentiments are obvious in your comment. Stone is a clown and was not a “political advisor” to Trump. He was a hanger on, sort of like the people who hang around NBA stars, He got himself into trouble by bragging about things that he was not involved with, like Wikileaks. As to the jury, the jury forewoman, who lives in Tennessee, has a history of anti-Trump activism and forgot to delete her social media before attacking Trump, as you just did.

    That must have been an interesting voir dire.

  24. “So arguing that Trump has the right to do what he is doing goes nowhere.“

    It only goes nowhere if you believe that not only CAN the House impeach a President for anything, they SHOULD impeach for anything.

    Mike

  25. Anyone else surprised to hear from Manju after the acquittal? Shocked. The crickets put him up to it.

  26. With reports about Democratic Party dishonesty, malfeasance, corruption, ineptitude and general criminality hemorrhaging on a daily basis, Nadler is desperately trying to play what may be his last card: going after Barr to bring down Trump.

    Swinging wildly. Desperation palpable. Alas, the poor lambs seem on the verge…and as a result the violence is ramping up. Poor, poor little lambs.

    Of course, we all understand that it’s NOT FAIR that Trump hasn’t collapsed in the face of the extraordinary efforts of our bestest and brightest, not to mention their most patriotic intentions. Not fair, not right. And freakin’ immoral.

    That’s right. Not only has Trump NOT agreed to capitulate: that sore winner, that barbarian, is fighting back!

    Palestinian rules!

  27. So first, take the brief time to watch this C-span video of Sen. Rand Paul’s speech on the Senate floor last week restating his (CJ Roberts) banned question during the impeachment proceedings: Sen. Paul speech

    Watched? Good.

    Now consider: YouTube has pulled postings of this speech down. They will not have you or anyone else see it.

    Fearful, are they? You’re damned right they’re fearful. They must control the message, because their own stories cannot compete with truth. And without their bogus stories their power melts away.

  28. AesopFan
    If you watch the entire interview with Jeffrey Toobin you’ll see he says while it was excessive it was also part of the sentencing guidelines. But the main argument he is making is how highly unusual it is for the president to interject into this case. It’s political interference in the justice system pure and simple. Remember when Republicans went crazy when Loretta Lynch had a conversation on the tarmac with Bill Clinton? As Toobin says, this goes way beyond that.

  29. Montage:

    Remember “it” all depends what the word “is” is. Your “political interference” may not correspond with reality, pure and simple. Just like “foreign policy consensus” not being the same as same as official foreign policy set by the POTUS. Ask Lt. Col. Vindman about that distinction if you aren’t sure about it.

  30. “It’s political interference in the justice system pure and simple.”

    It CANNOT be political interference for the President to SAY SOMETHING in public about a matter related to government policy, otherwise nearly EVERYTHING the President says or does qualifies as “political interference.”

    Does Trump violate standards of decorum or appropriateness with some of his comments on stuff like this? Sure, and it would be fine to criticize him for it. But it is not okay to try and turn bad manners into a high crime.

    Mike

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>