February 16, 2020
On Friday it was reported that no charges would be filed against former FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe, despite being found to have lied under oath three times. A comparison with the potential outcome for former Trump advisor Roger Stone, for a similar crime, is a stark reminder of the dual justice system in our country.
The sentencing recommendation for Stone is just further confirmation that the axiom “justice is blind” does not apply when it comes to President Trump or anyone in his orbit.
Reminder – In a stunning pre-dawn raid last year dozens of FBI agents in tactical gear with guns drawn, descended on the then 66-year old’s home to arrest him. The televised raid (apparently someone tipped off CNN) looked like it was designed to apprehend a dangerous terrorist, not a man with no criminal background. Stone’s arrest was the product of Robert Mueller’s two-year-long investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Background
Last November Stone was found guilty of five counts of lying to the House Intelligence Committee, one count of obstructing the House investigation into Russian interference, and one count of witness tampering- All process crimes. Crimes that would never have occurred if not for the investigation.
Appearing voluntarily before Congress in September 2017, Stone reportedly lied about his attempts to use author Jerome Corsi and radio host Randy Credico as conduits to reach Julian Assange of Wikileaks. It’s noteworthy that there is no evidence that Stone ever had any contact with Assange, and Stone was never charged with a crime related to the hacking of the DNC’s and Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager’s emails.
When Stone learned that Credico had been subpoenaed to testify before Congress he reportedly messaged him urging him to not contradict Stone’s testimony. In a heated exchange Stone also told Credico that he would take his service dog away from him. Credico has since stated that at no time did he feel that Stone, whom he knows is an animal lover, would ever harm his dog.
Further, in a letter to the judge, Amy Berman Jackson, presiding over Stone’s trial and sentencing, Credico wrote that he did not take any of Stone’s threats seriously. Credico added that he didn’t even believe that Stone should go to jail, writing “..a prison sentence is beyond what is required in this case…It is not justice. It is cruelty.”
Let’s not forget that the only reason that Stone ever came under investigation was because of the weaponization of U.S. intelligence agencies, along with the help of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, to prove a now thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory of Trump- Russia collusion.
Dual Justice System
Stunning the top level of the Department of Justice the prosecutors in the Stone case recommended a sentence of up to nine years. No honest person could believe that Stone deserves to be imprisoned for almost a decade.
Federal guidelines for first- time offenders convicted of offenses such as Stone typically call for a sentence ranging from 15-21 months. To put the nine-year sentence recommendation into perspective the average time served for someone convicted of rape is 4 1/2 years.
Further, many who have been caught in a lie under oath, are never even charged with a crime, never mind imprisoned. Besides, Andrew McCabe, it is believed that former FBI Director James Comey lied under oath, as did former CIA Director under Obama- John Brennan, Obama’s National security Director- James Clapper, Hillary Clinton aides- Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
Meanwhile, every Trump associate believed to have lied under oath, in the pursuit of investigating the Russian collusion hoax, was charged and convicted- Michael Flynn- Trump’s former National Security Advisor, George Papadopoulos- former Trump campaign aid, and Michael Cohen- former attorney fo Trump, and the latest -Roger Stone.
DOJ Intervention
Thankfully senior leadership at the DOJ amended the original filing to Judge Jackson, writing that the government “respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration far less than 87-108 months imprisonment would be reasonable under the circumstances.”
Attorney General Barr has come under heat by many in the media and on the left, for intervening in the unjust sentence recommendation. He is being accused of politicizing the DOJ and doing the President’s bidding. In actuality, Barr is doing just the opposite. Barr is rectifying a sentence recommendation that appears to be politically motivated. Two out of the four prosecutors in the Stone case were part of Mueller’s team. Seemingly, this was their last chance to bring down someone who had an association with the president.
Ridiculously the four prosecutors in Stone’s case resigned from the case in protest. One prosecutor resigned from the department altogether. Never mind that Barr was completely within his right as Attorney General to question the decisions made by line prosecutors, whom he president over. All DOJ prosecutors ultimately work for Barr.
Not surprisingly, the same voices who attempted to remove the president from office, are now calling for Barr’s impeachment. it seems that impeachment is becoming the Democrats go-to weapon to remove those from power whom they disagree with politically.
The attacks against Barr are nothing short of partisan jabs by those who want nothing more than to bring down Trump’s presidency and all who are in agreement with him.
In an interview with ABC, News Barr put to rest the claim that he was persuaded to take action in the Stone case as a result of a request, or tweet from the president. Barr stated that he never even had a conversation with President Trump about Stone. Further, actions to recommend a lighter sentence for Stone were already underway before the president tweeted about how “horrible and unfair” Stone was being treated. To quell the pitchfork-wielding Democrats, Barr has agreed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions next month.
Tomeka Hart
Calling into question, not just the proposed sentencing, but the entire conviction is the revelation about the bias of the foreperson on the Stone jury- Tomeka Hart. After the resignation of the four prosecutors Hart made a public statement defending the prosecutors. This public outcry led many to Google her name.
Unbelievably, not only is Hart a Democratic activist who ran for Congress in 2012, she has a litany of postings on social media condemning the president, and all those who support him.
In one tweet Hart referred to President Trump with the hashtag #KlanPresident.
In other tweet she wrote about getting fired up “to act against the oppressive, racist agenda of 45’s admin”.
She also rejoiced on Twitter writing – “Gotta love it!” In reference to activists projecting a profane word onto the Trump hotel in Washington DC. Hart also posted about a protest she attended against the president outside of one of his hotels.
Hart even tweeted about Roger Stone. After Stone’s arrest Hart retweeted a post that was critical of those defending Stone after the raid of his home. She also wrote that anyone who defends the president is a racist. Further, in March of last year she tweeted about the Mueller probe, and ”the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”
It is unfathomable how Hart, a Democratic activist with a deep animus for the president and his supporters, was ever deemed to be impartial, and assigned to sit on a jury for Roger Stone.
Barr is a Check against Corruption
The narrative from the media once again is aligned with the Democratic party and distorts the facts. Barr is being accused of politicizing his office and corruptly intervening in Stone’s case because Stone was an associate of the president. Reality- Barr is the check against corruption. He would be remiss in his responsibility as Attorney General if he did not push back against seemingly partisan prosecutors, and inequities within his department. The fact that Barr is being condemned by so many just illustrates the depth of the corrosion of justice in our country.
