Judge Amy Brennan Jackson plans to go full steam ahead with sentencing Stone
Yesterday I wrote:
Once upon a time, this sort of [juror] bias [as evidenced by Tomeka Hart] would have been something liberals would have recognized as disqualifying. But now, since it hurt Trump and Stone, I predict that the judge, Obama appointee Amy Berman Jackson (who presided over the Manafort trial as well as the Stone trial) will not see it that way.
So today we have this exceedingly unsurprising news, via The Hill:
A federal judge on Tuesday refused to delay Roger Stone’s sentencing amid the fallout over the Trump administration’s decision to intervene in the case against the president’s longtime ally.
The sentencing will move forward on Thursday at its originally scheduled time, the judge said, despite a new effort from Stone’s defense team to get a new trial.
Note the way the entire thing is framed. Those are the first two paragraphs of the story, and the focus is on Trump’s comments (which Barr said did not influence him) rather than anything about Hart. It’s obvious why it’s written that way.
The article doesn’t go into just why Stone’s attorneys are asking for a new trial until paragraph number seven, which goes like this:
It’s unclear what grounds Stone’s legal team is citing in its request for a new trial, but one of the lawyers acknowledged to The Hill last week that it was investigating the social media activity of a member of the jury.
Note how neutrally Hart’s rampant bias is described: “social media activity.” One would think they might just be objecting to her having a Facebook page and posting photos of her vacations.
Then we get to paragraph eight:
Right-wing Stone supporters seized on posts from Tomeka Hart, who served as foreperson for the trial jury, as evidence of bias against the administration after she came forward last week in defense of the prosecution.
I think the authors of that sentence/paragraph from the Hill piece should get an award from the American Association of Subtle Propaganda Writers. It’s really a thing of beauty, designed to get readers to discount such objections (see yesterday’s post of mine for example of what Hart actually wrote).
So, it was “right-wing Stone supporters” who criticized Hart? Like good old Democratic voter Jonathan Turley, who wrote:
[Tomeka Hart] 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.
Turley is far from being a “right-wing Stone supporter.” What he is, however, is a person who loves the rule of law and tries to defend and support it impartially. And he is not alone; many of the people who are pointing out Hart’s bias are not what you’d call “Stone supporters,” although the authors of that Hill piece would have you think so, the better to discount the criticism of Hart.
Then of course, we have one of the favorite MSM verbs: “seized” (variant: “pounced”), as in “right-wing Stone supporters seized on posts from Tomeka Hart.” It indicates some sort of desperate, aggressive attention to something relatively innocuous.
And the Hill authors conclude this short-but-fully-packed sentence this way: “as evidence of bias against the administration after she came forward last week in defense of the prosecution.”
That is literally true; it is indeed when Hart’s social media posts were spotlighted. But the implication is that these “right-wing supporters” of Stone’s suddenly seized on Hart’s previously ignored posts only because she had the nerve to support the stalwart Stone prosecutors. But actually, until she outed herself at that point, no one had any idea what her identity was and therefore no one was able to scrutinize and criticize her social media posts for bias until her defense of the prosecution revealed her identity.
That is conveniently left out of the article entirely. And it goes on to talk about Trump again, and his criticism of the prosecution team.
There is also mention of this:
Jackson said that she has not decided whether to have a hearing on the defense motion, but said that it would be best to move forward with Thursday’s hearing and delay the sentence from going into effect until the motion is decided.
What’s the big old rush to sentence Stone? Has she really not decided on the motion? I would be astounded, utterly astounded, if she were to grant it. I think she just wants to get this over with and hopes the attention is away from her when she refuses to grant the motion. Otherwise, why not delay the sentencing a little while, if there’s any hope of granting a new trial?
I am going to assume that if things go as I predict, this case will be appealed and may wind up in the hands of SCOTUS. Meanwhile, Roger Stone will be in prison for less than the sort of thing that earned Andrew McCabe a nice gig with CNN.
The linguistic element (“seized”) is both interesting and important; in the MSM Republicans are always “pouncing” on one thing or another. Yet this is by no means only humorous; for decades, in truly Orwellian fashion, leftists have been intent upon controlling language, as when they define their opponents as “fascists” and any utterance they dislike as “hate speech.” This has led, for example, to the frequent use in the media of the term “conspiracy theory” to mean any idea, how matter how well-supported by facts and evidence, with which leftists disagree.
One more ‘straw’ upon the ‘camel’s’ back… brings us a bit closer to the day when our current circumstances are no longer sufferable.
“when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
If this case were to land in appeals court, would the judge’s seating of jurors with tangible bias be examined?
Wouldn’t be surprised if her sentence exceeds the DOJ recommendation. Just because.
This is where all this is going:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/over-2000-former-doj-officials-call-barr-resign-over-roger-stone
Pelosi and Schiff have had a bit of a breather. Some sorely needed and well-earned R&R.
So time to ramp up again. To Reload and Retarget.
(Maybe this time around they’ll have better luck?)
The show, after all, must go on….
(And there is a whole of garbage to distract the American people from!)
Related:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/coupgate-localized-civil-war-now-underway-doj
Buckle up and hold on tight….
Judge A.B.J.’s son is a 13 in-a-row Jeopardy Game Champ, now 5th all-time.
The judges that are not corrupt and incompetent scumbags should be terrified by what’s happening.
Humans work in broad brush strokes when it comes to friend or foe.
That portion of our society that is, by nature, law abiding and supportive of the rule of law is learning to see judges, in the broad brush, as enemy.
And all those judges that aren’t corrupt scumbags or incompetent douchebags just sit on their hands and say “not my problem. I do my court, they do theirs”.
And in the end, that’s taken as compliant to the corruption and incompetence.
If (more likely really when) the rage breaks, no one’s gonna care, Mr or Mz Judge, if you were a good one or not. You’ll be a judge and judges will be known as enemy.
It’s your profession. Fix it.
When the public cannot trust the judicial system, it begins to consider alternatives.
The Democrats are playing with fire.
There will only be HUGE change if Reps win the a big House victory in 2020.
And then start impeaching the FISA judges – which they can do, without the DoJ.
The Reps should probably de-fund the DoJ of all but politically appointed persons, and a single assistant. So many bad ones that it’s better to get rid of them all, then possibly allow a few good ones to come back. This was my idea even before reading Barry M’s zerohedge RICO ideas (which I agree with):
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/coupgate-localized-civil-war-now-underway-doj
We don’t need a Federal Dept. of Justice that allows Sec. of States to have illegal servers, or run some Bribery Foundation, or try to entrap Republicans they don’t like.
Same with FBI & CIA & NSA — plus the foreign “experts” keep getting stuff way wrong.
But back awake, the deep state is more likely to slither away, ready to slither away another day, but come back with the next Dem Pres.
Injustice makes so many, and me, so angry. It even makes Dems angry, but they feel the injustice is that Trump did wrong things, almost never honestly articulated, which he’s not being punished for.
That’s where Dem control of language and elite thinking, coming from Dem dominated Law Schools and elite colleges, has helped destroy thinking and reasoning in America.
Given who the forewoman was and the fact that she lied on the juror questionnaire is clearly reversible error. Not even a close question. Hard to believe. The forewoman was prejudiced against Stone.
The worst of it is that Stone will sit in prison until his appeal is heard.
Judge is an an Obama appointee. Terrible judge.
Milken’s crime was that, not only was he a financial innovator, he was a Jew. Wall Street was quite different 40 years ago than it is today.
“She received her A.B. cum laude from Harvard College in 1976 and her Juris Doctor cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1979.”
No surprise. Liberal, Ivy League elitist.
If Stone was a Dem, the new trial motion would be granted.
No surprise that thousands of former DOJ employees want Atty. Gen. Barr to resign.
Especially before the investigations find the huge amount of political corruption from which they personally profited. They are running scared.
The word “seized”, in this context, conjures the image of a drowning man seizing a life preserver.
It would be more accurately used to describe how the Dems grabbed on to the Russian Collusion theory earlier.
This site has great writing and outstanding commentators. Thank you Neo and commentators.
What the country needs is a purge accompanied by convictions. What the country will get is lies, obstruction, propaganda, and lukewarm apologies and refusal to prosecute.
A Republic dies under a deep blue, sunny sky. No need for darkness.
Edward on February 18, 2020 at 7:42 pm said:
When the public cannot trust the judicial system, it begins to consider alternatives.
The Democrats are playing with fire.
* * *
Some of the public has never trusted the judicial system, and I don’t mean just the Black Lives Matter crew. There have always been errors and bias and corruption — not always the same thing. Check out the story of Leo Frank, for one.
However, when a substantial portion of the large majority of people who don’t normally interact with the judicial system (as opposed to the chronically ‘justice-involved persons’*) believe they can no longer trust the justice system, THEN you are well on the way to burning it all down.
*https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-board-adopts-new-language-for-criminals-turning-convicted-felon-into-justice-involved-person
Turley should have noted that the” white supremacists” in the phrase “Trump and the white supremacist racists” literally refers to white supremacists. She is talking about those who marched in Charlottesville “the night before” (in Trump’s words) carrying tiki torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us”.
In this context, Hart’s words are hardly evidence of extreme bias. It is not like she is calling Trump’s cabinet “white supremacists”.
Recall that the most generous interpretation of Trumps words is that he believes those who chose to march in a hardcore modern-day klan rally (the “night before”) with white supremacists chanting “Jews will not replace us” are very fine people.
those who marched in Charlottesville “the night before” (in Trump’s words) carrying tiki torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us”.
Manju repeats the lie about the young men marching who chanted “YOU will not replace us” as they protested anti-male bias. Listen to the video, not the left wing liars.
“Recall”.
Ahahahahahaha
Turley should have noted that the” white supremacists” in the phrase “Trump and the white supremacist racists” literally refers to white supremacists. She is talking about those who marched in Charlottesville “the night before” (in Trump’s words) carrying tiki torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us”.
Manju’s promoting the idea that Jared Kushner’s father-in-law is a promoter of anti-semitism. The troll farm Manju works for – whose business is propagating talking points on behalf of the party of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar – is not sending us their best.
Judge Nap of Fox agrees with me. Said nearly every judge in the country would grant a new trial. And he was a real judge!
Amy knows what is right and she is after Stone.
“Manju repeats the lie about the young men marching who chanted “YOU will not replace us” as they protested anti-male bias. Listen to the video, not the left wing liars.”
Manju is a left wing liar
Manju; the grift that keeps on grifting. Something about lies repeated often enough ,,,,
Cornhead said: “Amy knows what is right and she is after Stone.”
I think she is actually after Trump. I think all the Democratic activists who continue to poke and prod at people around Trump (Stone, Barr, Pompeo, et. al.) keep hoping they can cause Trump to overreact at some point, so they will have a solid event to point at to illustrate their contention that Trump is unfit for office.
I have to admit my amazement that Trump has not yet done so. He has worked under a lot of pressure, and he’s managed to hold himself in check, with the possible exception of his Twitter account.
This may look dumb tomorrow, but the smart thing for ABJ would be to sentence Stone to probation. It will be difficult for her to refuse a new trial, given the juror bias, but does Stone really want to do this again? He would probably accept probation, and then the judge puts this mess behind her. Her determination to proceed to sentencing leads me to believe that this is her intention. (But her thinking is so weird that prediction is chancy.)
Judges can also be impeached if they are criminal, incompetent or fail to follow the law be design.
I would think Stone has grounds for an appeal, and if it went to an actual unbiased judge, Stone should win the appeal. It really is scary how biased leftist judges are and they don’t even try to hide it. Isn’t there also a way for Stone’s lawyers to seek to censure the judge for bias?
“It really is scary how biased leftist judges are and they don’t even try to hide it.” – Delilah
Actually, this is a good development – much preferable to having biased judges who DID pretend to be impartial, but followed their bias nonetheless.
At least now we have an overt “paper trail” for appeal.
I hear them saying both…you and Jews.
Manju: