Russiagate Abides

Hot Air cites the NYT, Trump Livid That McCabe Won’t Be Charged. He should be. We clearly have a two tiered justice system, one for the insiders, and another for the outsiders. According to Sundance at CTH, Andrew McCabe Memo Highlights More Than Previously Understood….

There are three aspects to the McCabe memo that warrant attention: (1) Rosenstein’s willingness to wear a wire. (2) Evidence that Rosenstein took Mueller to the White House on May 16, 2017, as a set-up to interview Mueller’s pending target; and (3) the CURRENT redactions to the memo indicate CURRENT efforts by the CURRENT AG Bill Barr to protect the corrupt intent of Rod Rosenstein. While all three points are alarming; given recent events the last aspect is most concerning. . . .

Hot Air cites the Kimberly Strassel atWSJ in Bureaucrats Bristle As Bill Barr Delivers On His Pledge Of Accountability The Stamford Advocate advocates that Barr's internal reviews and re-investigations feed resentment, suspicion inside Justice Department. Which is fine with me, because it seems like a fine bunch of crooks left by the previous administration,

"The power to investigate is the power to destroy," said Gregory Brower, a former U.S. attorney and former senior FBI official. The current approach to sensitive cases, he said, "gives the appearance of politics coming into play whenever the president has a perceived political enemy. . . . The ability to simply point to a pending investigation against a person can have devastating effects on that person and can have a potential political benefit to the person orchestrating the investigation."

"The power to investigate is the power to destroy" brings us right to Gen. Michael Flynn. Sundance, Whitaker Compares DOJ, McCabe -vs- Flynn, Says: “Concerned About Credibility of DOJ”…



Sundance also notes The Sentencing of Michael Flynn Represents a Very Big Problem for AG Bill Barr…

Andrew McCabe cannot be prosecuted in 2020 for the same reason James Wolfe could not be prosecuted in 2018. When we understand why we realize the problem that Michael Flynn now represents to U.S. Attorney Bill Barr.

Sundance has long maintained that James Wolfe got a sweetheart deal because a trial would pose a problem with witnesses in high places. Too many bodies to dig up. With regard to the McCabe decision, via WaEx, Matt Gaetz makes an understatement, Gaetz says 'a little swamp left to be drained' in Justice Department.

Amber Athey at SpecUSA asks Did Roger Stone do anything wrong? Almost certainly, but not 7-9 years worth. He was mostly convicted of supporting Donald Trump

Stone’s crimes essentially amounted to exaggerating about his own contacts with Wikileaks, a move he made presumably to garner influence with Trump campaign officials, who wanted to know when hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were set to be released. The crux of the prosecution’s case is that Stone lied by naming Randy Credico — who? — as his intermediary to Wikileaks.

Nevermind the fact that Stone likely never would have testified in front of Congress if it weren’t for the Democrats’ insane Russian collusion fishing expedition, but does the average human being actually think it’s reasonable to recommend a 67-year-old man go to prison for nearly a decade because he fibbed?

Prosecutors in Stone’s case claimed the sentence was deserved because foreign election interference is the most deadly adversary of republican government, but failed to mention that Stone was never found guilty of conspiring with Russia or Wikileaks. They also pointed to aggressive messages Stone sent to Credico, downplaying the fact that Credico said he never believed Stone intended to carry out any threats and recommended probation rather than jail time for his former friend.

Mark Levin at CNS News, If ‘Grotesque, Radical, Progressive, Social Activism, Dem Party Media Don’t Like’ Stone’s Sentence, 'Screw Them!'. Amen.

Jonathon Turley weighs in from Da Hill, Juror 1261 in Roger Stone's case: Was justice undone?

I have previously written about how I believe that the DOJ was correct in its rejection of the absurdly high recommendation of seven to nine years in prison for Stone. However, there are legitimate questions that must still be addressed on how the Justice Department came to that decision. Yet while cable shows exhaustively cover that story, there is an equally serious question as to whether the conviction itself, rather than the sentencing recommendation, should be reevaluated.

Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She was the Memphis City Schools board president. Not surprisingly, given her political background (including a run for Congress), Hart has been vocal in public on her views of Trump and his associates.

She referred to the President with a hashtag of “klanpresident” and spoke out against “Trump and the white supremacist racists.” She posted about how she and others protested outside a Trump hotel and shouted, “Shame, shame, shame!” When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.” On March 24, 2019, she shared a Facebook post — no longer public — while calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.
. . .
It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict, from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.

The burden now is on Judge Jackson to hold a hearing on this matter and address the possible need for a mistrial. And one thing will be clear: Judge Jackson, in the words of Juror No. 1261, does not “gotta love” any of this.

Emily Fox at Vanity Fair, The epic, inconceivable, totally predictable fall of Michael Avenatti, and via Ed Driscol at Insty, Mark Steyn and Tucker Carlson spike the football:



From Da Caller, CNN Anchor Tells Nancy Pelosi That Trump Was Acquitted — She Interrupts, Claims He Wasn’t. Talking point.

Chief Justice Roberts: "It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles." pic.twitter.com/61M9Ugs72K

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 5, 2020

From the Peoples Cube, a new, and possibly useful thought on Joe Biden and Ukraine, The Joe Biden Theory and the Ukrainian macguffin. Did Joe run for Preznit as insurance against an investigation into his and Hunter's Ukraine issues?

1. At first Biden is reluctant to run. But in the spring of 2019 he gets wind of Trump investigating his corruption in Ukraine - and he immediately enters the race on 4/25/19. On the trail he looks old, tired, and his heart just isn't in it. Why do it then? Because it's about a lot more things than simply running for president.

2. If Trump isn't stopped, the entire Biden family's dirt will come out. At this point, the only way to avoid or at least to delay it is Biden being in the race: the news of his corruption can then be discredited as usual electioneering and Trump's dirty tricks.

3. Biden may not be the only one who took dirty money from Ukrainian oligarchs, plus Democrats used Ukrainian politicians to dig up dirt on Trump's team in 2016. Now their lives and careers depend on their ability to stop Trump's investigation and to muddle the issue. They also know they can't beat Trump in 2020, all they can do is try to impeach him in order to shut him up. They have loyal spies in the White House and wait for an opportune moment to pounce.

4. Trump's phone call with Ukraine becomes such a moment. The Dems quickly compose a play about a concerned whistleblower and stage it in the House. They charge Trump with exactly what they themselves have done - getting help from a foreign government in order to dig up dirt on a political rival, followed by a cover-up.

5. These charges only make sense if Biden is running against Trump in a general election, which he isn't. As a minimum, he must be a frontrunner in the primaries, and so the DNC throws him into the mix of candidates and artificially inflates his status. The entire impeachment scheme is predicated on Biden running and winning the primaries. Without him posing as Trump's rival, the Democrats won't be able to claim that Trump wanted to steal an election. So old Joe must make a good face and keep running even if he eventually collapses and pays with his life to save the swamp.

6. The Senate acquits Trump and the Dems switch to harassing him about Roger Stone. It no longer matters if Biden is a frontrunner, he has outlived his usefulness. The DNC pulls the plug and the sad old Joe is done, unless the Dems can use him later to cheat Bernie out of a win. His numbers are in the gutter.

7. What are the Dems covering up in Ukraine? It must be big if they staged an impeachment and risked their entire political capital over it. Otherwise they wouldn't have spied on Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine trying to tarnish his investigation and to besmirch him personally. They even identified Giuliani's two Ukrainian associates and had them arrested for exceeding a political campaign donation. If Michael Cohen's story is any indication, the men were likely threatened with imprisonment and then offered a deal in exchange for dirt on Giuliani and Trump.

I think it was sundance who predicted that once the impeachment trial was past, the DNC would no longer have use for Biden as shield and that he would tank in the polls. Certainly the tanking has taken place.

Apparently Schiff didn't get the memo, Greg Jarrett, Schiff Admits Burisma Biden Deal “At a Minimum” Looks Bad. “You know, look, I think whenever you have an elected official’s family member in a position of responsibility, there is at a minimum an appearance of a conflict that should be avoided.” The Mises Institute details how Foreign Aid Just Empowers Corrupt Regimes. End It.

WaPoo, As impeachment trial ended, federal prosecutors took new steps in probe related to Giuliani, according to people familiar with case

The recent steps — including an interview with a witness last week — indicate that the probe involving Giuliani and two of his former associates is moving forward, even as the Justice Department has set up a process to evaluate claims Giuliani is making about alleged wrongdoing in Ukraine related to former vice president Joe Biden.

Attorney General William P. Barr said this week that the department had established an “intake process” to accept information about Biden gathered by the president’s personal attorney. Officials confirmed Giuliani’s tips are being routed to the U.S. attorney’s office in Pittsburgh.
. . .
The parallel developments mean that one part of the Justice Department is scrutinizing Giuliani while another is accepting information from him allegedly concerning a political rival of the president.