Once again, Attorney General Bill Barr has done the right thing.
When it became clear that the Democrats were trying --- fraudulently --- to paint him as President Trump’s henchman, he told ABC News that he makes his own decisions about cases under his review, independently of the President, the media, or anyone else. Trump gave him that independence when he took the job.
The President had gone on a passionate tweet-rant about the Roger Stone trial. Certainly he had good reason to be concerned about justice being done, as the recommended sentence of seven to nine years in prison for a 67-year-old man caught up in a “process” crime was a travesty that had already shocked career officials at the Justice Department. Here’s just a little something to put that sentence in perspective:
Still, it was important for Barr to explain that his decisions in ongoing cases have nothing to do with what the President might say (or tweet). And Barr is right to say specifically that if the President wants to tweet, he should concentrate on other issues besides ongoing cases. The constant play-by-play does make it darn-near impossible for Barr to do his job.
Barr HAD to distance himself from that.
The media picked up on Barr’s complaint about the President’s tweets but used it to create the impression of a rift between them, missing the main point: Barr’s independence. Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, said this: “The President wasn’t bothered by the comments at all and he has the right, just like any American citizen, to publicly offer his opinions...the President has full faith and confidence in Attorney General Barr to do his job and uphold the law.” I guess that means Trump is still going to tweet about whatever he wants, whenever he wants, as he certainly has the right to do, but that Barr will do what he thinks is appropriate, regardless. A good message, and correct.
But Democrats don’t care what Barr says or what the White House says, unless they can twist the words to support their narrative. Similarly, they’ll use the Stone case in any way they can to damage the President. They’re already calling on the inspector general to investigate Barr’s decision to revisit the sentencing recommendation for Stone, and some have even called for Barr’s resignation or impeachment. “Attorney General William Barr ought to be ashamed and embarrassed,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, “and...resign.”
It’s the Democrats who should be ashamed and embarrassed for saying these things about such an ethical, by-the-book attorney general, but they won’t be. They’re quite practiced at creating false narratives out of thin air. Andrew McCarthy sets the record straight...
But Democrats are pushing the narrative of a Nixonian White House in which Barr has to run all his decisions by the President. Their talent for fiction tells us nothing about Barr but everything about THEM. That’s because the Stone case is emblematic of huge problems not with Barr’s DOJ but with their own side, mostly with the two-tier justice system and huge anti-Trump bias in the courts, which I’ll get to shortly.
Constitutional scholar Dr. John Eastman, appearing on Laura Ingraham’s Thursday show, said, “The Democrats seem to overlook Article II of the Constitution: The executive power is vested in the President. The top law enforcement officer is the attorney general. If he wants to counteract the decision of the line prosecutor, that’s his dang job. There’s nothing wrong with this.” He went on to condemn “the egregious pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone, and throwing the book at this guy because they don’t like his politics.”
Oh, did his politics have something to do with this?
For background, we need to look at the presiding judge in the Stone case, U.S. Attorney Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee. To cite just one ruling, Judge Jackson gave Obama’s attorney general and self-described “wingman” Eric Holder an extra two years to slow-walk evidence in the “Fast and Furious” scandal. Then there’s the jury foreman, Tomeka Hart. Before the trial, she tweeted that Stone was racist, that Trump supporters were racist and that Trump was like the KKK, using the reference #KlanPresident. She praised Robert Mueller’s special counsel. She had even been in politics herself, running unsuccessfully for Congress, as a Democrat, naturally. Apparently she misrepresented herself (lied) during jury selection, saying she “didn’t pay that close attention” and that there was nothing about Stone’s involvement with Trump’s campaign that might keep her from judging him fairly.
So, how was Ms. Hart identified as the juror in question? Well, on Wednesday, she went public on Facebook to “stand up” for the four prosecutors who’d withdrawn from the case after their outrageous sentencing recommendation was revised. “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors,” she wrote. “They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity and respect for our system of justice.” Yes, she actually said that.
I reported yesterday that Judge Berman had already denied Stone’s attorneys’ request for a new trial, but if she doesn’t change her mind after what we’ve learned about the juror, that will tell us all we need to know about this judge. Roger Stone MUST have a new trial. Even better –- rather than retry him at this point, they should dismiss the charges and let this beleaguered man go home, and never darken his door with a S.W.A.T. team again.
The media’s response to this story has been to call it not what it clearly is –- horrendous political bias on the jury –- but “jury nullification at the presidential level.” Aha, it’s Trump’s fault!
Looking back to when Obama was President, he didn’t hesitate to weigh in on pending legal cases, and the media didn’t care one bit. Remember Trayvon Martin? (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”) Obama even answered questions about Hillary’s use of a private email server, denying knowing about it while she was secretary of state (lie) and saying he didn’t think it posed a national security problem (probable lie). This very well could have affected the outcome of the FBI’s investigation. Here are five examples of President Obama’s “meddling” in ongoing cases…
Oh---and Eric Holder, the most political AG I can remember (who presided over a host of Obama-era appointees who are still working at the DOJ and NSA), tweeted on Wednesday about Barr, saying, “Do not underestimate the danger of this situation: the political appointees in the DOJ are involving themselves in an inappropriate way in cases involving political allies of the President. This affects the rule of law and respect for it. Unprecedented.” I’ll wait while you fall down and roll around on the floor, laughing helplessly.
In the words of Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, “There is a scandal at the Justice Department [but] it has nothing to do with Bill Barr. It has everything to do with these prosecutors who are acting like their own little team, independent of the rule of law, to target President Trump, to try to vindicate the Mueller scam and slap at Trump after his vindication by acquittal in the impeachment thing.”