Is it equal protection when the prosecutor gets to pick the judge? I don't think so, but that's what has happened in the Roger Stone case. Using the claim that Stone's case is somehow "related" to the Paul Manafort, Team Mueller has bypassed the usual random selection of judges afforded to most defendants and had the Stone case assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is currently holding Manafort in solitary confinement.
How did the SAME federal judge in a district of 21 judges manage to get "randomly assigned" the email case, the Manafort case and the #RogerStone case? By the flagrant misuse of "related case" listing from team #Mueller to make sure their deferential Obama-appointed judge oversaw
8:16 AM - 1 Feb 2019
The alleged crimes are different and the defendants are different and the evidence is totally different and unrelated, so how are the two cases related? Well, the prosecutor is the same--but that's not what the "related case" rule is about. It seems Team Mueller was pleased with Berman Jackson's handling of Manafort. And now she seems poised to treat Stone in similar fashion:
A federal judge warned Roger Stone today not to treat the criminal case against him as "a book tour," and said she's considering imposing a gag order to quiet him.
12:08 PM - 1 Feb 2019
Think about that. Stone was arrested in a completely unnecessary and highly public predawn raid by 29 heavily armed FBI agents before CNN cameras, in what was clearly an abusive and prejudicial operation intended to poison the jury pool. That had nothing to do with Stone--it was strictly the choice of Team Mueller and the FBI. And now the judge is telling Stone that he may no longer be allowed the exercise of his First Amendment rights? According to USAToday, Berman Jackson
said she was concerned that the continued publicity surrounding the case against the 66-year-old political operative could “taint” the jury pool. She gave Stone's lawyers and federal prosecutors until next Friday to tell her whether she should issue an order preventing them all from talking publicly about the case.
But wait a minute--who has caused all the publicity? Wasn't it Team Mueller and the FBI, with their totally unnecessary pre-dawn raid, in front of CNN cameras? The typical practice in cases such as Stone's--non-violent crime, defendant represented by counsel and expecting indictment--is to ask the defendant to surrender himself. All that publicity was occasioned by Team Mueller and the FBI and by no one else.
One could understand Berman Jackson warning Team Mueller about continued leaks to CNN and unnecessarily prejudicial actions, but telling the defendant to shut up? Mueller has the total weight of the federal government behind him and an unlimited budget. He's poised to crush Stone--an individual facing the power of the Deep State. The deck is totally stacked against Stone, but Berman Jackson is considering telling Stone to shut up. As an example of how one sided and prejudiced Berman Jackson is, check this out--she blames Stone for all the publicity:
Berman said the "considerable publicity" related to the case has been "fueled by extra-judicial statements by the defendant himself." She later reminded Stone that he was now at the center of "a criminal proceeding, not a public relations campaign."
As if Team Mueller doesn't engage in PR through its regular leaks to a complicit media!
And then there's this:
Federal prosecutors said they had seized so much material from Roger Stone - evidence in the case includes terabytes of data and several years worth of his messages and emails - that they might not be ready for trial until October. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/01/judge-weighs-gag-order-case-former-trump-adviser-roger-stone/2742330002/ …
3:02 PM - 1 Feb 2019
Color me extremely skeptical that the seizure of all that evidence was warranted by the charges. Rather, one suspects that this was a fishing expedition under color of law and that the next 9 months will be spent ginning up additional abusive charges to crush Stone. Was there a warning to Team Mueller that none of the "terabytes of data" was to be leaked to Democrat operatives? Don't hold your breath.
Actually, there is a silver lining to these events. Because of the internet, these facts are getting disseminated throughout the country (as opposed to being censored or massaged by the MSM for disinformation purposes). A large cohort of the population has now had it's eyes opened with regard the level of corruption that exists within these core institutions of the federal government, and DC is largely oblivious to this sea change in public awareness. There are at least two major consequences of this that will only grow over time.ReplyDelete
The first is the loss of trust in remote association. Average citizens will no longer view the DOJ/FBI as good guys who are protecting the country from criminal acts. Rather, many will properly regard these agents as being a politically-driven criminal gang, much like the Gestapo or NKVD. No rational citizen will interact or cooperate with future FBI investigations, and more likely will avoid or shun them as pariahs.
The second is a resurrection of local affiliation to community and church, in which trust is restored face-to-face in the first person. Once again, a man's word and handshake will become the measure of honesty and integrity rather than a politician's disingenuous blathering. This rebirth of ancient morality and ethics is long overdue, and the Mueller Judas may well be a catalyst to get us there.
I totally agree, Unknown. There are two stories that I've read today, so far, that hit on these points. The first is via Zerohedge re the continuing French meltdown. Consider this in light of Mueller's deep police state tactics:ReplyDelete
"But instead of acting to bring down the violence, the police are receiving orders pushing them to be very violent."
The second is from Mark Penn, who's been on a roll for months now, going from strength to strength--I'm glad to have a smart guy like him (even though I'm quite sure I disagree fundamentally with his politics) saying today the things I said yesterday. Even using the same pregnant phrase "under the color of law" and pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of Judge Amy. Consider this opening passage, which I need to put up on the blog:
"Something struck a raw nerve in this country when 26 agents showed up with automatic weapons drawn in a pre-dawn raid to arrest Roger Stone, terrorizing his deaf wife. Suddenly, all the mumbo jumbo about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation being objective and focused on national security melted away in the face of a police-state action so completely inexplicable.
"There could be no real excuse for such a potentially dangerous, life-threatening action except to use police power for the purpose of intimidation, under the color and cover of law.
"Imagine the outcry if 17 vehicles and an amphibious unit had shown up to take one of Hillary Clinton’s aides into custody for lying about whether she had a mail server. Or to pick up disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop. The outrage would have thundered across the country, echoed by the mainstream media. Civil libertarians would have jumped on the bandwagon. Congress would be calling for more supervision and restraints on the power of Mueller and his office.
"Now, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee who put former Trump presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort in jail without bail and gagged him, is considering putting a gag order on Stone, a former Trump campaign operative. She said this is a criminal trial, “not a public relations campaign.” So what was CNN doing at Stone’s arrest and how did they get there? The arrest and indictment of Stone are evidence of a very public relations-conscious prosecutor. What were the indictment of Russians beyond the reach of prosecution about, if not PR?"
Can this abuse of power become grounds for an appeal later on?ReplyDelete
Titan28, I can't claim to any expertise in these matters, but my belief is that, while gag orders aimed at participants in a trial have become more common, they are also increasingly controversial. Here's a law review article by a very liberal professor: Lawyers Have Free Speech Rights, Too: Why Gag Orders on Trial Participants Are Almost Always Unconstitutional that may tell you more than you wanted to know (22 pages). Politico has an article that addresses what Stone might do in the face of a gag order: Roger Stone faces a gag order. He has a plan to resist it: The political rabble-rouser has a well-known First Amendment attorney on his legal team and has designated a pair of close friends as spokesmen.ReplyDelete
"If Stone is gagged, his contingency plan is already in place. He’s got a well-known First Amendment attorney on his legal team who represented the rap group 2 Live Crew against obscenity charges in the early 1990s. And Stone has designated a pair of close friends as spokesmen in the event he and his lawyers are told to stop talking.
"Until then, Stone won’t stop chattering."
One of Stone's attorneys, Grant Smith, has sent a letter to the Senate and the House asking for an investigtation into the leaks to CNN and the attendant publicity. According to Gateway Pundit, the metadata for CNN's copy of the indictment shows that the indictment--which was sealed when filed--was probably leaked to CNN before filing via the FBI. The implication is clear: the government has been working with CNN and is presumably also responsible for the leak that allowed CNN's coverage of the arrest. Presumably Stone's attorneys will use this to resist the gag order that is expected.ReplyDelete
sundance at CTH is saying that Weissman, Mueller's deputy, sent the indictment to CNN:ReplyDelete
"According to their report Gateway Pundit received a letter from lawyers representing Roger Stone that contains a documentary trail, via email metadata, highlighting that Robert Mueller’s lead investigator Andrew Weissmann sent a CNN reporter a head’s up in advance of the arrest of his client Roger Stone."
This is somewhat inaccurate. GP's claim is as I stated it above: "the indictment--which was sealed when filed--was probably leaked to CNN before filing via the FBI." However, the metadata apparently DOES show that Weissman is the author of the indictment--no surprise. Routing the leak through the FBI gives Weissman deniability, but Stone's attorneys will attack that as a subterfuge.
So in his own way, Roger Stone has joined "The Resistance." Just not the resistance against Donald Trump.
I'm old enough to remember when the liberals virtue-signaled with their "Question Authority" bumper stickers. It seems to me that now 40 years later, these people have taken over the universities, corporations, the TV networks, foundations, endowments, advertising, churches and print media.
Suddenly they don't want anyone to "question authority."
LOL, Joe. As Jeeves would say, rem acu tetigisti--you've hit the nail on the head.ReplyDelete