Roger Stone was sentenced by Judge Amy Berman Jackson as originally scheduled on Thursday, despite revelations about the vicious anti-Trump views and Democrat activism of the jury foreperson.

Stone, who is 67, didn’t receive the stunningly punitive seven-to-nine year sentence recommended by his prosecutors, but it’s still pretty substantial, especially considering that numerous others who have lied to Congress are still walking around free, profiting off book deals and contracts with CNN and MSNBC. Jackson sentenced Stone to serve 3 years and 4 months, pay a $20,000 fine, spend 2 years in supervised release and perform 250 hours’ community service.

But because of the allegations of juror bias and misconduct, she did suspend the imposition of all those punishments pending her ruling on Stone’s request for a new trial. Of course, if she grants one, those punishments are voided. President Trump could also pardon him.

The backstory: Prosecutors recommended an outrageously harsh sentence for Stone –- seven to nine years, when typically it would be about three –- and the DOJ reduced that to something approaching that average. Four prosecutors responded by acting like babies and leaving their jobs in protest (good riddance). Democrats went bat-nuts and accused AG William Barr of doing Trump’s bidding, ludicrously calling for him to resign or else be impeached. Trump complained in his tweets about the excessive sentence, but Barr says the DOJ decided to intervene before hearing anything from him.

Tucker Carlson noted on Thursday that Jackson is the judge who placed both Paul Manafort and his former business partner Rick Gates under house arrest pending trial, though neither was a flight risk or had any criminal history. It was also Judge Jackson who revoked Manafort’s bail and placed him in solitary confinement.

In her courtroom Thursday, she lit into Stone, saying he was “prosecuted for covering up for the President.” She said Stone lied because he knew that public disclosures that he was in touch with WikiLeaks would “reflect badly” on Trump. The left cheered her for this, but what she said is a lie. First, unless she’s one of those “certified authentic psychics,” she can’t possibly have known this was in his mind. Second, Stone was NOT actually in touch with WikiLeaks. Third, Stone was not charged with helping Trump cover up anything; there was nothing to cover up, as nobody associated with President Trump has been prosecuted for “colluding” with Russia or any related crimes, let alone has been found guilty of such crimes. In fact, a two-year special counsel investigation found no evidence of anything on Trump’s part that needed to be “covered up.” Question: how much hate must a federal judge have for the President to say such a thing in her courtroom?

Carlson also told his audience that Stone “would be on this show right now to respond, but he can no longer speak in public. Amy Berman Jackson has revoked his First Amendment rights.” Stone can be defamed mercilessly,” he said, “but if he dares to express his own opinion, Amy Berman Jackson will send him to jail immediately --- she said that.” Jackson banned Stone from speaking publicly, in ANY forum, about his case, and no one else can speak on his behalf. “...What you’re watching is the capricious authoritarianism of a Democratic activist wearing robes.”

Predictably, just the fact that Stone received prison time is being used by the media to suggest Trump himself is a criminal. The words of this judge enable them to continue their phony “Russia collusion” narrative, which is well past its expiration date and beginning to stink. The President still “colludes” with Putin, they say, and if we just keep digging, we’ll eventually find some piece of evidence that confirms it.

At least Jackson knew she’d better defer to Barr’s more reasonable recommendation and scale back the sentence, but Stone shouldn’t have been sentenced at all. After learning about the horrendous bias of the jury foreperson, Democrat activist Tomeka Hart, this judge should have had no choice but to start over with a new trial for Stone –- and a change of venue from Washington DC –- or else let him go after all he’s been through. Instead, she praised the jurors for having “served with integrity under difficult circumstances.” Maybe some did, but not all.

And tell me, given Hart’s activism and social media history, how did she get a seat in the jury box in the first place? She was so invested in the outcome, she continued expressing interest in the prosectors and the sentencing even after the verdict was reached; this was none of her concern.

Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign advisor who suffered his own legal problems as a result, was on with Carlson to ask people to sign the petition at, asking for Stone to be pardoned immediately. That’s “immediately,” meaning “now, not after the election.” Trump has said he wants the case to “play out to its fullest,” as he thinks Stone “has a very good chance of exoneration.” He’d like to see it go through the system, although “the system” has failed Stone thus far.

So I hope he listens to the many thousands who have signed and will sign this petition, as opposed to people like Adam Schiff, who is desperate to continue the “Russia” hoax and who, interestingly, talked about Stone in almost the same words Judge Jackson used: “Roger Stone was found guilty of lying to Congress. He did it to cover up for pardon Stone when his crimes were committed to protect Trump would be a breathtaking act of corruption.”

Of course, the Grand Poobah of the Great Russia Hoax, former CIA Director John Brennan, will do all he can to preserve the false narrative. Thursday, he tweeted: “We are now in a full-blown national security crisis. By trying to prevent the flow in intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s.”

THE NEW YORK TIMES is helping maintain this fiction, having just reported that Russia plans to “meddle” in the 2020 election. I like what Trey Gowdy had to say about that: “I don’t know anyone who really thinks that Russia prefers Donald Trump to win over Comrade Sanders.”

Roger Stone sentenced to over 3 years in prison as judge slams him for 'covering up for' Trump

Clean it up fast California

February 20, 2020

Los Angeles is supposed to host the 2028 Summer Olympics, but there’s concern that the city’s ever-worsening crime, filth and homelessness will cause problems and reflect badly on America. We don’t want the athletes having to compete in new events, like “Outrunning Typhus” and “Jumping Over Garbage Piles.” This week, President Trump warned the city’s liberal leaders to “clean it up, fast,” and if they can’t do it themselves, the federal government will take it over and do it.

This isn’t the first time Trump has pointed out the disgusting conditions in liberal-run cities such as Baltimore and Nancy Pelosi’s home district of San Francisco, and threatened federal intervention to clean up the filth. But if he does, he’d better send some federal troops to protect the trash collectors.

Recently, Scot Presler, who started a group of volunteer Trump supporters who clean up filthy, neglected neighborhoods in leftist-run cities, led a clean-up effort in San Francisco. He noticed two things different from every other city they’ve helped to clean: 1. He’d never seen so much human feces on the streets. 2. It was the only place where Antifa thugs showed up to threaten, curse and protest them. Presler said, “I never thought I would see the day I’d be protested for picking up trash.”

Try to think of the people who keep voting to reelect politicians who allow crime, homelessness, trash and disease to get worse and worse the same way you think of elderly relatives who become hoarders and get enraged if you try to throw out their old pizza boxes or stacks of newspapers from 1987. You have to tread carefully with them because even though you can see they’re living in dangerous, unhealthy filth, they can’t, because they have a mental disorder.

Not long ago, I observed that the move was on in the media to discredit three people: Attorney General Bill Barr, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and investigative reporter/opinion writer John Solomon. These are all now in full swing.

THE HILL, where Solomon’s work used to appear, has just reported on an internal review of his columns they began in November of last year, after U.S. State Department officials in Ukraine criticized them during the Trump impeachment hearings. The review was quite a project, with working groups formed to look at each of 14 pieces Solomon had written for They “analyzed and discussed them at length, looking at possible corrections and/or context that could have been added at the time of the writings. They also “reviewed congressional testimony and other public documentation related to Solomon’s columns, as well as related media reports, to add editor’s notes to the columns regarding what has been learned since the columns were posted by THE HILL.” They also included some of Solomon’s “relevant public remarks” that were in response to critics.

Solomon was hired by THE HILL on July 10, 2017, as vice president for digital video (to launch Hill.TV), and wrote numerous news articles for them in 2017 and 2018. An editorial decision was made to label his work “opinion” after May 14, 2018. He left THE HILL on October 4 of last year.

When they announced that Solomon would be categorized as an opinion writer, I said that might actually be a good thing, as it allowed him freedom in connecting dots that a straight news writer doesn’t have. (If only more “journalists” who write their opinions were similarly labeled –- but that seems to happen rarely and only with conservative opinion writers.) Here at, we’ve continued to use his findings as we work to put the puzzle pieces together at our end as well.

THE HILL’s review focused on columns Solomon had written about Ukraine that reported on Joe and Hunter Biden and also members of the U.S. diplomatic corps there. Solomon was appearing frequently on Sean Hannity’s TV show, so his work had a wide reach. My staff and I often refer to his findings –- of course, our work is “opinion” as well, but we stand behind the facts we have used from his reports.

Of course, the issue of corruption in Ukraine, including the Bidens, is what led to “the phone call” between Trump and President Zelensky, the fake “whistleblower” report by ERIC CIARAMELLA, and the whole impeachment charade. (Note: since this is “opinion” and it’s my site, I’ll say that if I want to.) THE HILL followed a vetting process for his columns just as they did with the work of all their opinion writers, involving at least one and often two opinion editors. Solomon had to provide them information about his unnamed sources, identifying them and offering their relevance to the topic, and he had to supply copies of documents he’d referenced as fact or used in the formation of his opinions and conclusions.

No source cited by Solomon ever contacted THE HILL to demand corrections or clarifications –- with one exception: Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the George Soros-funded Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC). She wrote a column strongly rebutting Solomon’s criticism of AntAC and the U.S. embassy’s role in fighting corruption in Ukraine.

It seems to me that THE HILL’s report on Solomon actually compliments his work –- perhaps unwittingly –- when it says people might be confused into thinking it was news and not opinion because it’s long and detailed, contains a lot of facts and caveats and reads like a real news report! Imagine that. Most of what we read today is labeled “news” and reads like opinion; Solomon’s work is labeled “opinion” and reads like news.

Also, a couple of Solomon’s Ukrainian sources have been deemed unreliable by some State Department officials (remember that crew from the impeachment hearings?). Then-Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko had told Solomon he’d opened an investigation into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in the U.S. election in 2016, and also that then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich had given him a do-not-prosecute list. “State Department officials, U.S. national security agencies and the Senate Intelligence Committee have concluded that Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 presidential election,” THE HILL’s report asserts. “Russian government officials, who have denied meddling in the 2016 election, have pushed the narrative that Ukraine interfered in that U.S. election.”

This again. It’s verboten to say Ukraine was involved in the 2016 election, as there’s this odd premise that it had to be EITHER Russia OR Ukraine, not both, and it was Russia, so therefore it couldn’t be Ukraine. The candy mint/breath mint argument. Anyone who even entertains the notion that Ukraine tried to interfere is a heretic, a crazy conspiracy theorist. (By the way, I’m not so sure that everyone on the Senate Intel Committee is on board with the conclusion that Ukraine wasn’t involved.)

Also in the report: due to a translation error, it may not have been that Yovanovich had an actual written list. She may have “voiced” the list. And Lutsenko offered Solomon slightly different details in his “list” story than when he told it to a Ukrainian newspaper.

Solomon continues to stand by his columns on Lutsenko, Yovanovich and Ukraine meddling. He also denies allegations that he “smeared” Yovanovich, noting that supportive remarks about her by State Department officials were included in his columns. (Note: The same allegation about smearing Yovanovich has been used to damage Giuliani.) In testimony during the impeachment hearings, these stories were cited as part of the attempt to oust Yovonovich, an official who, in my OPINION, really needed ousting.

The report goes on to discuss Solomon’s columns about the Bidens, noting that “there has never been any proof of legal wrongdoing by the Bidens.” Sorry, but that observation belongs in the same category as “Ukrainians didn’t interfere in the 2016 election.”

One thing that should have been disclosed by Solomon but that has since been clarified is the fact that Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, who both have been involved with some of the key players in Ukraine, even representing the oligarch Dmitry Firtash, are also Solomon’s own longtime lawyers.

After reading the full report, I find nothing that should cast doubt on what Solomon has written. Editors at THE HILL were concerned that their policies regarding the “hybridization” of investigative reporting and opinion writing were causing confusion among their readership, as there are certain rules for reporters regarding full disclosure that Solomon hadn’t followed. My staff and I never had any problem understanding that Solomon’s writing was in the “opinion” category.

But they’ve revised their policies; the new rules are at the end of their report. And one of these is that “opinion” pieces aren't to read like news stories. Personally, I think Solomon’s fact-packed way of writing his “opinion” –- really an ongoing investigation –- is much more useful to someone wanting to understand the complicated goings-on in Ukraine than a run-of-the-mill opinion piece would be. It’s fortunate that he’s gone on to continue investigating and writing on his own.

The Hill's review of John Solomon's columns on Ukraine

About that Democrat debate

February 20, 2020

Mike Bloomberg’s deliberately vague campaign slogan is “Mike Can Get It Done,” and give him credit: last night, he did. He managed to finally make a Democratic debate entertaining just by showing up. (Also, to get this out of the way up front,: no, Bloomberg did not stand on a box. Lucky for him; if he had, Elizabeth Warren probably would have set it on fire.)

That’s not to say that it did his presidential aspirations much good. In fact, you could argue that his appearance in the debate was the most disastrous strategic misstep since Michael Dukakis said, “I’d love to ride in a tank, but do you have a helmet that’s 10 sizes too big?”

Bloomberg has been trying to sell himself like an “As Seen On TV” product, by blanketing the airwaves and Internet with wall-to-wall commercials. But by avoiding the essential steps of debating and campaigning (which teach candidates to listen to voters and assert and defend their positions), he made what his first big national appearance as a Presidential candidate hopelessly unprepared. Voters who’d been swayed by his ad onslaught must’ve felt like consumers who were considering paying $99.95 for a “miracle anti-aging cream” only to learn it’s just a can of Crisco.

Bloomberg proved that you can buy up all the airtime, consultants, social media “influencers” and zinger writers in the world, and it’s still no substitute for political experience, empathy or personal contact with working Americans. Campaign events and townhalls are where bubble-dwelling politicians (and billionaire wannabe politicians) who think they know how to run your life better than you do discover that, say, farmers, actually know more about a lot more important things than they do.

But Bloomberg didn’t just self-immolate his own campaign. He may have helped burn down whatever crumbling walls of the Democratic Party were still standing. Viewers, many of whom I assume were Democrats hoping to see any reason to convince them to stick to their party, instead saw a shoutfest in which all the candidates savaged each other when they weren’t attacking Bloomberg. Here are just a few of the things we now know about the candidates, and bear in mind, this is what they said about each other:

Amy Klobuchar prosecutes possibly innocent black youths, doesn’t know who the President of Mexico is, and her health care plan is a “Post-it Note.” Pete Buttigieg has billionaire contributors and is an unqualified small town mayor who’s memorized a lot of talking points and has a health care plan that’s a Powerpoint presentation. Bernie Sanders has scary crazy followers and is a famous socialist with three houses, as well as ruinous, commie economic and health care plans. Mike Bloomberg is a sexist who calls women "fat broads and horse-faced lesbians” and makes them sign non-disclosure agreements (he claimed that’s just because they didn’t like jokes he told, not realizing he was addressing a crowd who routinely destroy people’s lives for having told a politically incorrect joke a decade ago.)

There was much more, but that’s enough. You can see why Stephen Green at PJ Media compared this debate to the “food fight” scene in “Animal House.” Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit observed, “Everyone on the Dem debate stage seems unbalanced — they look so angry that they’re about to either hit someone or burst into tears. It’s bizarre.” (Actually, that sounds to me like the entire Democratic Party ever since Election Night 2016.)

The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is that Donald Trump must go, even though they also claim to want to help the poor and minorities, who are finally getting good jobs and raises under Trump. Also, Gallup recently found that 90% of Americans are happy with their lives, but don’t worry, these Democrats have a plethora of plans to reverse that.

As for Joe Biden, he started out strong but slipped into word salad mode as the evening wore on, but the relative lack of attacks on him to focus on Bloomberg was a sad, unspoken verdict on how far he’s fallen in the other candidates’ eyes, from frontrunner to “candidate not worth attacking.” Elizabeth Warren probably “won” the debate, but only because she did so much damage to Bloomberg, the political equivalent of cleaning your house by burning it down. Also, she seems to be locked into a single attitude: “righteous fury.” She claims to have posed for over 100,000 “selfies,” but I wonder if she’s scowling in all of them.

Even worse for the Party was when Bloomberg actually scored a few points, and they only illustrated how far off the rails the Democrats have gone. Like when he asked if he was the only one on stage who’d ever started a business, and the others could only stand there in silence. But easily the most cringeworthy moment came when Bloomberg slammed the other candidates for attacking capitalism, saying, “We're not going to throw out capitalism. We tried that, other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn't work."

And the crowd audibly groaned and booed!

Imagine being a moderate Democrat voter and actually hearing your fellow party members boo someone criticizing communism. Is Donald Trump starting to look good yet?

Commentary continues below advertisement

Other Voices:

Naturally, President Trump weighed in on the Democrats’ debate…

And if you think I’m biased in my assessment of the debate, here are a few comments from the Democratic side. At the New York Times website, Times readers said this:

“I am finding this unbelievably troubling. The worst debate I have ever seen”…“I turned it off after 10 minutes, horrified”...“Too hyperbolic, too inaccurate, too gratuitously damaging, too much intentional misrepresentation, too much waffling when the opposite was called for”… “Horrid, debate tonight. This food-fight format is just awful. All the candidates should be forced to watch this in its entirety, so they don't repeat this ugly debacle”…“This is sickening, a real slug fest with everyone shouting at the top of their lungs as if the world needed a hearing aid. I almost wish I needed one so I could remove it. If these are the survivors of 9 debates, we're in worse trouble than I thought.”

Democratic political analyst Mary Anne Marsh ranked the winners and losers and finds only one winner, Warren. I think she forgot the big winner: Donald Trump.

My friend Van Jones, with whom I have very little in common politically, compared Bloomberg’s performance to the Titanic, with Warren as the iceberg. He astutely noted that “he just wasn’t ready. He was tone-deaf on issue after issue, and the reason why: he’s not been in those living rooms, he hasn’t been doing those town halls.”

And Justin Baragona of the Daily Beast may have had the best line on Twitter: “Bloomberg brought a wallet to a gun fight tonight.” Well, he is Mike Bloomberg; you can’t expect him to bring a gun to a gun fight.

On Tuesday night, the WASHINGTON POST reported that Attorney General Bill Barr “has told people close to President Trump --- both outside and inside the White House --- that he is considering quitting over Trump’s tweets about Justice Department investigations, three administration officials said...”

The spokesperson for the DOJ, Kerri Kupec, tweeted this in response: “Addressing Beltway rumors: The Attorney General has no plans to resign.”

We don’t know what’s really going on, as WAPO has often gotten stories wrong –- especially when they involve Trump –- and this is another one of those “anonymously sourced” stories. But no matter what the stresses are, Barr has got to hang in there. He is the Last Great Hope for reform in our justice system. If he goes, for whatever reason, I think we may as well pack it in and say goodbye to America as we once knew her. The two-tier justice system is still very much alive and well and must be leveled.

As Constitutional scholar John Eastman said on Tuesday’s THE INGRAHAM ANGLE, “The tensions may be high, but...the WASHINGTON POST is a bit of a propaganda tool, trying to create a wedge or [throw] gasoline on the fire of what might have been a minor tension, and trying to blow it into a major tension. I don’t think it’s a major tension, [judging from] President Trump’s comments today and Attorney General Barr’s spokesman as well. Look, the President is extremely frustrated with what’s gone on, and the unequal treatment under the law --- you know, the President’s friends ought not to get special favorable treatment, but neither [should] they be targeted for special UN-favorable treatment, merely because they’re the President’s friends. And that seems to be what was going on out of the Mueller investigation [and] the indictment of Roger Stone, [with its] grossly excessive sentencing recommendation...”

Eastman thinks Stone’s sentence recommendation “quite frankly, was a set-up,” citing a report that the night before they filed it, prosecutors falsely told their DOJ superiors that it was going to be relatively modest. So what happened? Seven to nine years in prison for a 69-year-old nonviolent offender is not even close to modest. Naturally, Trump was going to Tweet about this. Eastman suspects WAPO is trying to “fuel the fire” on this story.

He described the line a President has to walk: “The President is right; he has the Article II power. He is the head of the Executive Branch. But there’s a reason every President normally stays out of individual cases, because of concerns about interjecting politics in the normal functions of justice. And speaking of “interjecting politics,” he pointed out that “twenty to one, the Department of Justice lawyers backed Hillary Clinton over President Trump with their [campaign] contributions.” He also pointed out that the DC jury pool is “90 percent hostile to Trump.” Yes, there’s good reason for the President to be frustrated, but according to Eastman, “the President needs to redirect that frustration away from Twitter tweets in particular cases.”

In other words, if the President’s running commentary really is causing problems for Barr, he’s got to rein himself in a bit. There's too much at stake, and Barr needs some space to do his job. On the other hand, the media are surely blowing this up into much more than it might actually be. President Trump has acknowledged that his commentary has made Barr’s job harder, and he seems to support Barr one hundred percent.

But the Swamp and its accomplices would like nothing more than for the rumors that Barr might leave his job to be true. That’s the story they want to tell, so it’s the story they WILL tell. Barr is their worst nightmare. We don’t know if there will be accountability for those who abused their power, but if Barr goes, chances of that are slim-to-none.

Just look at what we have going on at the moment. In the Roger Stone case, even though the jury foreman at his trial has revealed herself as an outspoken anti-Trump zealot, presiding Judge Amy Berman Jackson has announced that he will still be sentenced on Thursday as scheduled. That is stunning; Roger Stone absolutely deserves a new trial, as there is just no valid argument that his conviction resulted from a fair trial. It’s hard to believe the judge didn't dismiss the case entirely or at least order a new trial for Stone. Unless she’s planning to offer him probation --- which seems very unlikely --- this is a travesty of justice that Stone’s lawyers surely will appeal.

Then there’s the Michael Flynn case. As we reported yesterday, Barr has appointed federal prosecutor Jeffrey Jensen to review it, and on the heels of that, Flynn attorney Sidney Powell has just filed a new brief to dismiss the case “for egregious government misconduct.” Here are the details of this breaking story.

We also had the story yesterday about Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz’ claim that he has evidence President Obama personally directed the FBI to open an investigation at the request of leftist/globalist billionaire megadonor George Soros. (In his Tuesday podcast, Dan Bongino speculated that the “someone” was a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmitry Firtash, a business rival of Soros.) So it seems some investigators are finally sniffing around the Top Dog (Obama, of course --- or is that Soros?).

Barr has noted that the intelligence agencies have come to identify “the national interest with their own political preferences.” No kidding. We knew that for years they were wary of Michael Flynn because he wanted to limit and downsize them (and we’ve seen what happened to HIM). The problems are bad enough that some are even recommending abolishing the CIA and the FISA court entirely. Here’s one very detailed article about that, for when you have some time…

Abolish CIA & FISA

Going through the letters I get, it’s dismaying to see readers giving up on ever seeing accountability. I think we’re going to see it eventually, and possibly some tremendous changes in the system. YES, it takes a long time; the wheels of justice have to slog through vat after vat of molasses. Resistance will never let up. And along the way, it’s hard to see things like Judge Jackson’s latest decision on Roger Stone and the ruthless pursuit of Michael Flynn when serious liars and abusers of power go unpunished. It’s maddening and discouraging.

But as responsible citizens of a republic, we have to make ourselves look. The biggest take-away for all of us has to be this: “Elections have consequences.” The judge in Stone’s case was appointed by Obama. Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder were appointed by...Obama. Most of the State Department holdovers worked under Hillary. Congress is majority Democrat and will NEVER stop its insanity and compulsive impeaching until they are drop-kicked out of the Capitol building and down all those steps. Most importantly, if President Trump doesn’t get a second term, things will go right back to the way they were in the summer of 2016 when Hillary Clinton was the “anointed one.” Business as usual.

We can’t let that happen.

Double Standards Department

February 19, 2020

From the “If It Weren’t For Double Standards, They’d Have No Standards at All” Dept: Byron York at writes about all the people who demanded, promoted, cheered on and participated in constant investigations of Donald Trump and all his associates, claiming that was a vital function of protecting our precious democracy. But now that those investigations have been exposed as politically-motivated, illegally-conducted and shadily-sourced, and the people who launched them are themselves under investigation, suddenly, investigations are a horrible partisan assault on our precious democracy.

The very same people who put other people and their families through an expensive ordeal are also now complaining about how unfair it is that they’re being put through an expensive ordeal. As Rhett told Scarlett in “Gone With The Wind,” “You’re like the thief who isn’t the least bit sorry he stole, but he’s terribly, terribly sorry he’s going to jail."

The Potomac River is in danger of being flooded with crocodile tears over AG Barr’s legitimate and justified investigations, but as York points out, none of the people doing the crying were the least bit concerned when the DOJ was targeting their political opponents with frivolous, partisan and unfounded investigations for the past three years.

And why go back only three years? Does anyone seriously think that the political weaponizing of the federal bureaucracies only started when Trump was nominated? At The Federalist, House Oversight Committee member Rep. Chip Roy gives us a little history lesson on the politicizing of the Justice Department, and reminds us of eight major examples of it under Obama alone.

Joining the transparently self-serving calls for Attorney General Barr to resign was Joe Biden, who calls Barr’s recommendation (not an order, just a recommendation that the judge is apparently going to ignore) for a lighter sentence for Roger Stone “the greatest abuse of power I have ever seen.”

I think we’ve all noticed that Joe has a very hard time keeping historical events straight in his memory, so maybe he should read the article by Chip Roy for a refresher course on what real abuse of power looks like, as exercised by the Administration he was recently a part of.

It’s also recommended reading for the editorial board of the Washington Post, which recently denounced Barr by describing him as Trump’s “wing man,” apparently forgetting that former Attorney General Eric Holder once proudly described himself as Obama’s “wing man,” and they apparently thought that was pretty cool.

Since Holder has also recently been denouncing Barr over false accusations that he’s doing what Holder bragged about actually doing himself, maybe he should read that Chip Roy article, too.

I think we need an investigation to see if someone dumped some sort of amnesia tonic in the DC water supply.

Trump uses his pardon power

February 19, 2020

Unlike other Presidents, President Trump isn’t waiting until his last day in office to issue pardons so he can avoid the political heat. Instead, he’s taking advantage of his boost in approval ratings from the failed “impeachment” stab at him to issue several pardons seemingly designed to make his opponents have a meltdown (but since they have a meltdown every day, who cares anymore?)

Trump commuted the 14-year sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat who’d served seven years already for trying to obtain favors in exchange for appointing someone to fill Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat (Corruption in Illinois politics?! Say it ain’t so!) He also pardoned former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty to tax crimes and lying to the White House; financier Michael Milken, who spent two years in jail in the early 90s after prosecutors alleged his tactics were "criminal schemes," and who has since devoted himself to philanthropy and medical research; and former San Francisco 49ers owner Edward DeBartolo Jr., who pleaded guilty in a gambling scandal. More details are here…

Here’s a story about the former NFL greats who came to the White House to thank Trump for pardoning DeBartolo…

(FYI: Elsewhere in San Francisco sports, former Giants pitcher Aubrey Huff claims he was banned from a 10-year reunion of the World Series team for supporting Trump. They’d better hope their team owner never needs a pardon.)

And here are some comments from Andrew McCarthy about why Trump might have chosen to pardon some of these people, and the message it sends. One message: it’s a perfect way to spotlight the stunning disparity in justice between the way people like Blagojevich, Kerik and Milken were pursued without mercy by the DOJ, while DOJ insiders like Andrew McCabe and James Comey (who actually pressed their prosecutions) were allowed to walk away scot-free from their dishonest actions.

If Comey and McCabe ever do face justice, I wouldn’t count on Trump for a pardon, so that means they won’t be out until at least 2025. As for all the liberal talking heads screaming about Trump’s OUTRAGEOUS abuse of Presidential pardon power, I suggest they Google the name “Marc Rich.”

At this link, a California CPA and lifelong Democrat writes an open letter to her state government about AB5, the new law that’s putting up to 2 million contract workers out of business (for their own good, of course) and forcing businesses to send those jobs out of state. She lays out the problems and asked incredulously, “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?” This is based on the groundless assumption that California's current political leaders are capable of thinking. Since she seems to believe this will be resolved in a one-party state, and she gives no hint of ever considering any other way of voting than reelecting Democrats, I have to ask, “What are YOU thinking?”

Meanwhile, across the nation in that other blue paradise, New York, the recent legalization of crime by abolishing bail continues to yield completely predictable consequences. This idiotic law has a new poster child, Charles Barry, who’s served six terms in state prison but now knows all the cops can do is hold him for 36 hours, then let him go. So he’s allegedly gone on a one-man subway crime wave, including charges of snatching cash from people trying to use Metrocard machines.

Barry is up to 139 arrests (at this writing) and is completely unfazed. As he was recently led away by cops, he shouted at a New York Daily News reporter, “I’m famous! I take $200, $300 a day of your money, cracker! You can’t stop me!...Bail reform, it’s lit! It’s the Democrats! The Democrats know me and the Republicans fear me. You can’t touch me! I can’t be stopped!”

Of course, he could be stopped, just as California’s government could be stopped from passing insane laws that destroy people’s jobs and strip them of their rights. But that would take the people who are writing these stories and suffering these horrible consequences to make the mental connection between the awful policies that are making their lives miserable and their habit of voting for anyone a (D) after their name. What do you think the odds are of that?