BARR

[njbill]

Frank Easterbrook and his friends have something to say to Dogboy Bill:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/r ... 462983:S:0

Pretty good read.

Wow. Thanks for posting. A great read, indeed. If Trump and his partners in crime continue with shenanigans of this nature, they will be sorely disappointed once they get to the Supreme Court.

[ggait]

DJT, in plain sight. Susan Collins must be concerned and maybe even disappointed.

She's actually po-ed...at the reporters who keep asking this question.

Get used to it Suzie -- Trump is going to make you eat this dog food over and over and over again.


Paul McLeod
✔
@pdmcleod

Senator Susan Collins says "the President should not have gotten involved" in the Roger Stone sentencing, but objects to reporters tying Trump's later actions to her impeachment acquittal vote. She says that vote was solely based on House managers not making the impeachment case.
13
10:08 AM - Feb 12, 2020

[Kismet]

Susie is toast in November. Don't let the barn door hit you on the way out. She may have a LOT of company in that regard, too.

[dislaxxic]

Stone Witness Randy Credico Defends Prosecutors, Assails Incarceration

..

[dislaxxic]

BILL BARR USURPED THE POWER OF A JUDGE WHO WAS THREATENED HERSELF TO DECIDE THE IMPORT OF VIOLENT THREATS

Yes, Attorneys General CAN be impeached...

"Bill Barr lied to Lindsey Graham, and did so in such a way to ensure that the President’s rat-forker would face no repercussions for the violent threats he made against Credico and has made against others, including ABJ.

And if he cared at all about his oversight role, Lindsey Graham would call Barr on his lies, not parrot them.

Mind you, ABJ could still sentence Stone to the full 9 years (which I doubt she would have done in the first place). If she does, you can be sure she’ll be the target of a lot of violent threats that Bill Barr will continue to ignore."

..

[dislaxxic]

THE SLOW FIRING OF ROBERT MUELLER[‘S REPLACEMENT]

"Effectively, Bill Barr is micro-managing the DC US Attorney’s office now, overseeing the sentencing of the man who could explain just how involved Trump was in the effort to maximize the advantage Trump got from Russia’s interference in 2016, as well as all the other prosecutions that we don’t know about.

Trump has, finally, succeeded in firing the person who oversaw the investigations into his role in the Russian operation in 2016. Just as Stone was about to have reason to explain what that role was."

..

[old salt]

Today's Weissmann WhineFest on MSNBC is exquisite.

[Kismet]

Today's Weissmann WhineFest on MSNBC is exquisite.

Yeah, right up their with the cryfest by Bill Barr on ABC who says he cannot do his job unless the DOPUS stops tweeting about him and DOJ.

Although Amber Phillips at WaPo sniffed him out right off the bat - as the self-serving dickwad mob lawyer he really is

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... interview/

"Everyone is focusing on the wrong part of William Barr’s interview

Attorney General William P. Barr offered his first public comments Thursday after a controversy erupted at the Justice Department this week. And while he offered a significant rebuke of President Trump, Barr’s comments seem as much geared toward creating a veneer of independence as addressing the root of the controversy.

Barr told ABC News that Trump’s tweets about ongoing criminal matters — in this case, Roger Stone’s — “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr said.

Barr clarified that it was Monday night that he made the controversial decision to overrule career prosecutors’ recommendation that Stone serve seven to nine years in prison — before Trump tweeted in the wee hours of Tuesday morning in opposition to the recommendation.

“Do you go forward with what you think is the right decision, or do you pull back because of the tweet?” Barr said. “And that just sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be.”

Barr is right that this is exactly why presidents are generally cautious about weighing in on ongoing criminal matters. If the president does that, how can you discern what is truly independent from what is being done in response to presidential pressure? Barr’s comments were also stronger, notably, than those by some Republican members of Congress who essentially shrugged at the entire situation.

But it’s also important to recognize how much Barr gains by being seen as rebuking Trump — and how much his answers don’t really address the true controversy here.

The fact is that, even if Barr made this decision before Trump’s tweets and Trump never directly requested the action — even if there is no relation between what happened and what Trump has said — this is still highly problematic. It’s the president’s most senior political appointee in the Justice Department personally intervening in an unorthodox manner in the case of perhaps Trump’s longest-serving political ally. It’s precisely the kind of case in which you would want to make sure you try doubly hard to avoid even the appearance of political influence of any kind — whether that influence emanated from Trump or not. Instead, Barr decided this was a situation he needed to get involved in.

And to be clear, Barr confirmed in the interview that he was personally responsible for the decision, which is as significant a revelation as anything else." "

[Trinity]

Don’t follow the money— Rod Rosenstein

Don’t call witnesses— Moscow Mitch

Don’t testify in person— Jay Sekelow

Barr whining is theatre. His relatives are placed throughout the government to protect Trump, right down to Douchebank.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.axios.com/barr-trump-tweet- ... 34818.html

[old salt]

https://www.axios.com/barr-trump-tweet- ... 34818.html

Trump's tweets undercut Barr. Making it look like he was being directed to do what he was in the process of doing anyway.

Trump's reaction should be interesting. He can't afford to rebuke or fire Barr.

[ggait]

I'm really looking forward to Barr intervening in many more cases to reduce overly-aggressive sentencing recommendations made by his 10,000 DOJ lawyers in thousands of cases around the country.

Doesn't really help if Trump did not tell Barr to do it. It is actually much worse if Barr did this on his own.

Because Barr doesn't do this in any other cases. But for cases involving Trump's buddies, Barr does it without Trump even asking. That's not "equal justice under law" or "justice is blind."

Barr is only po-ed because Trump's tweets are a DC gaffe -- i.e. accidentally saying the truth out loud. Which is that Trump's buddies get uniquely special treatment.

Barr is perfectly willing to put his thumb on the scale for Trump. But could you just please not tell the whole freaking world what I'm doing for you.

[old salt]

I'm really looking forward to Barr intervening in many more cases to reduce overly-aggressive sentencing recommendations made by his 10,000 DOJ lawyers in thousands of cases around the country.

Doesn't really help if Trump did not tell Barr to do it. It is actually much worse if Barr did this on his own.

Because Barr doesn't do this in any other cases. But for cases involving Trump's buddies, Barr does it without Trump even asking. That's not "equal justice under law" or "justice is blind."

Barr is only po-ed because Trump's tweets are a DC gaffe -- i.e. accidentally saying the truth out loud. Which is that Trump's buddies get uniquely special treatment.

Barr is perfectly willing to put his thumb on the scale for Trump. But could you just please not tell the whole freaking world what I'm doing for you.

So you think 9 yrs is a reasonable sentence for Stone ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm really looking forward to Barr intervening in many more cases to reduce overly-aggressive sentencing recommendations made by his 10,000 DOJ lawyers in thousands of cases around the country.

Doesn't really help if Trump did not tell Barr to do it. It is actually much worse if Barr did this on his own.

Because Barr doesn't do this in any other cases. But for cases involving Trump's buddies, Barr does it without Trump even asking. That's not "equal justice under law" or "justice is blind."

Barr is only po-ed because Trump's tweets are a DC gaffe -- i.e. accidentally saying the truth out loud. Which is that Trump's buddies get uniquely special treatment.

Barr is perfectly willing to put his thumb on the scale for Trump. But could you just please not tell the whole freaking world what I'm doing for you.

So you think 9 yrs is a reasonable sentence for Stone ?

Aren’t there sentencing guidelines?

[ggait]

Not my job or Barr's job.

DOJ prosecutors make many thousands of harsh sentencing recommendations every year, and then defense lawyers in those cases make very lenient recommendations. That is the job of both sides -- because they are advocates.

And then the judge, using her discretion, decides the sentence. If one side goes stupid high or stupid low, then the judge gives little weight to their bad arguments. That's how it works. Every day. All the time.

The USAG personally intervenes in exactly ZERO of those many thousand cases. So why intervene in just this one?

Because this is the only harsh recommendation federal prosecutors have ever made? Or because the defendant is a Trump buddy?

If I'm Judge Jackson, I'm hauling Timothy Shea, Esq, into my court room. Mr. Shea: Could you please tell me exactly why on 2-10-2020 you signed the 7-9 year recommendation? And then on 2-11-2020 signed a filing saying that 7-9 years was excessive and unwarranted. Are you suffering from split personality disorder?

P.S. There's definitely some interpretation and judgment that go into calculating the guidelines -- they are not just an algorithm. In this case, the difference is whether you think Stone REALLY meant to threaten witnesses when he told them he would kill them. That's a judgment call that the judge can and should make. Totally out of bounds for Barr to do that.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It’s not illegal.

[old salt]

https://www.axios.com/barr-trump-tweet- ... 34818.html

Trump's tweets undercut Barr. Making it look like he was being directed to do what he was in the process of doing anyway.

Trump's reaction should be interesting. He can't afford to rebuke or fire Barr.

There's also the possibility that Barr pre-cleared his pushback with Trump,
& Trump said OK, it'll bolster your credibility & hijack the news cycle for another day.

[a fan]

So you think 9 yrs is a reasonable sentence for Stone ?

Yes. Particularly if you believe what you claim to believe. Namely that Trump was unjustly investigated over Russia concerns.

If you believe that, then Stone had a heavy hand in that with all his lies surrounding Russia, and those lies enabled your Deep State.

Stone's lies made the investigators dig deeper. So if you believe what you've been claiming, you should be livid with Stone.

He, after all, lied and obstructed investigators from quickly clearing Trump, who clearly did nothing wrong.

[calourie]

I'm really looking forward to Barr intervening in many more cases to reduce overly-aggressive sentencing recommendations made by his 10,000 DOJ lawyers in thousands of cases around the country.

Doesn't really help if Trump did not tell Barr to do it. It is actually much worse if Barr did this on his own.

Because Barr doesn't do this in any other cases. But for cases involving Trump's buddies, Barr does it without Trump even asking. That's not "equal justice under law" or "justice is blind."

Barr is only po-ed because Trump's tweets are a DC gaffe -- i.e. accidentally saying the truth out loud. Which is that Trump's buddies get uniquely special treatment.

Barr is perfectly willing to put his thumb on the scale for Trump. But could you just please not tell the whole freaking world what I'm doing for you.

So you think 9 yrs is a reasonable sentence for Stone ?

Incredible red-herring OS. The DOJ prosecuting attorneys assigned to the case reasonably felt obligated to obey existing guidelines in terms of the sentencing recommendations they put forth, given the dishonesty, lack of cooperation and absence of remorse on Stone's part. The determining of a reasonable sentence given those guidelines is and should be entirely up to the judge in this and any case brought to trial by the US Justice department and adjudicated in a court of law, without further intervention by the President or the whims of the existing AG. Barr is trying to tell the public that this is normal. It is not. Has never been done in recent memory. To allow Barr and Trump to carve up the US Judicial system to satisfy their own whims and ambitions is utter insanity.

PS. The Dumpster has already begun his relentless tweet barrage to undermine the credibilty of the ruling judge. I hope she throws the book at Stone

[dislaxxic]

It’s not illegal.

Actually he was CONVICTED by a jury of on a bunch of felony counts.

Yes, 7-9 is the "standard" for such felonies, and their aggravating circumstances (aww, just KIDDING about killing the dog...you believed that? Seriously, judge?"). A standard arrived at by a sentencing commission that looks VERY deeply into the issue...you know, kind of a factual analysis colored by an understanding about real-world terms like "recidivism" and "remorseless" and such.

My call is that DOPUS Unbound will say "Why the fork wait for the election??! He's pardoned NOW...it was so vicious what these devil libruls did to him...SO UNFAIR!"



..