The defense lawyer who was consulted by the author happens to be Jesse Binnall, who is part of Sidney Powell's team defending Michael Flynn and is a high profile defense attorney in his own right. He has dealt with one of the four Stone prosecutors in the past.
Here's the relevant exchange:
I went to federal trial attorney Jesse Binnall for some answers. Binnall defends high-profile clients against political witch-hunts and has defended cases brought by Jonathan Kravis in the past. Currently, Binnall is defending Michael Flynn alongside Sidney Powell.
In your professional opinion, was anything unusual about the Roger Stone case?
"Roger Stone wouldn't ever have been a target of prosecution had he not been a Trump supporter. The President was absolutely right; the political underpinnings of this case are very disturbing. The events of the past few days show just how unusual this case really is."
Can you explain what exactly was unusual in recent days, and why?
"These four prosecutors filed a brief making a sentencing recommendation without getting approval from the chain of command. That is extraordinarily unusual in the DOJ. In fact, I can say it's unheard of at the DOJ; certainly, I've never heard of it. In practice, DOJ lawyers almost always get approval for everything they do."
Then, all four prosecutors on this case withdrew in succession, with one, Kravis, resigning from the DOJ entirely. This is unheard of. Why do you think they did it? Do you believe they planned and colluded?
"I think they knew exactly what was going to happen when they filed that sentencing recommendation, expecting they will be reined in for doing so. They could then play the role of martyrs by resigning from the case, with one of them resigning entirely from his job.
One of the most serious powers of a prosecutor is asking to deprive a defendant of freedom, requesting jail time. I think this [nine-year sentence] was an abuse of their power as prosecutors, to make a recommendation like this without making a departmental approval.
They knew leftist media would celebrate their disobedience and abuse of power. Leftist media has a history of fawning over people who martyr themselves for left-wing causes, just like Sally Yates. I think they wanted to leave the Roger Stone case with a bang.
So what the prosecutors did may not have been a direct lie, although I might argue that there is an implicit lie in submitting a recommendation to the judge bearing the name of USA Shea, when Shea had no knowledge of the recommendation. I don't know what the DoJ guidelines are for prosecutors in that regard, whether the prosecutors violated any departmental guidelines. I have to believe that they did. That explains why DoJ said they were "blindsided" by the recommendation, but that hardly seems to be a strong enough reaction.
No doubt we'll get the full story from Barr, who will be totally unapologetic when he testifies.
Binnall is right, I suspect. Stone was caught up in the dragnet aimed at DJT. That is the essential point. Someone should relay said essential point to Andrew McCarthy, who, as usual, goes out of his way to explain how his buds at Justice are really just a bit Draconian, or literal-minded, but not really out to stick it to Trump.
ReplyDeleteThey want to send Stone to prison for up to 9 years. In England, you kill someone and get 2 years; in the U.S. the fellow who stole $24 million from McDonald's got 2 years. And McCarthy finds a way to defend it.
And, so?
ReplyDeleteI went on a tangent. Sorry. Stone, who can be annoying and silly, was collateral damage. He is being punished for lying to a pack of liars.
DeleteActually he is being punished because he was convenient. It could have been anyone who suited their needs. It's not personal, they hold all humanity beneath contempt.
DeleteThat is the really scary part. They truely don't care about Roger Stone, or anyone else, as a human being; only power, the tools of power and the proofs of power.
Tom S.
Precisely. The history of the Left demonstrates this convincingly.
DeleteMy, extremely cynical reply was not to Titan, but to Barr testifying and exposing this.
DeleteI fear that not much is going to happen and know that most of the media will downplay any wrongdoings.
Devin Nunes has promised to peel back the layers of the Mueller onion over the next few weeks. I'm buying popcorn by the case, now.
ReplyDeleteI saw Nunes say that on Hannity tonight (Hannity, as usual, walked all over Nunes' comments, and didn't follow-up on it, instead blathering about one of his own talking points) so Nunes didn't really have a chance to elaborate. But the gist of it it, as I recall, was that the 302s of the Mueller witness interviews will becoming out over the next several weeks, and Nunes says that if you want to see the outrageous stuff that Mueller did that the public is unaware of, just match up the 302s as they are released to the (he used the phrase "sentencing guidelines," though I think he meant either "sentencing recommendations," or the "original indictments." This is why Hannity pisses me off; he could have asked Nunes to clarify what he meant, but Hannity is way too enamored with his own views to be bothered.)
DeleteAnyway, the point is to match up the witness testimony in the 302s to the what Mueller's thugs wrote; the implication seems to be that the prosecutors severely over-egged the pudding -- inserting all manner of remarks about Russia/Trump campaign collusion as the context of the allegations -- to make the alleged crimes they accused the defendants of committing seem far worse than they actually were, despite the Prosecutors knowing full well the FBI/DOJ had known since January 2017 that there was NO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIA/TRUMP CAMPAIGN COLLUSION!
He ended by saying the entire Mueller investigation was nothing more than an elaborate Obstruction trap, with process crimes used to try to leverage people around Trump into composing crimes that never happened.
Which explains--if explanation were needed--the Dems desperate efforts to smear Barr. And the clumsy trap they tried to set.
DeleteNot to brag. But I got a Christmas card from Devin frickin Nunes.
ReplyDeleteHim & his wife & 3 kids & a huge John Deere tractor.
All the yowling about Trump needing to immediately pardon Flynn and Stone is exactly wrong — YUGE mistake. Much better if Flynn is able to withdraw his plea. If the prosecution then folds, no pardon needed — with the added bonus of possible investigation of prosecutorial misconduct. As for Stone, the jury foreperson has just been outed as a Trump-hating democrat who tweeted about Stone's indictment and was reading Politico during the trial. Stone now may have a decent chance at a mistrial.
ReplyDeleteI think that's probably correct.
DeleteEven the long shot at a mistrial doesn't really change much for Stone. The commotion is about the unjust sentencing recommendation. Almost no chance he wouldn't be convicted in a new trial. A pardon would be another own goal by Trump. Flynn is another matter entirely.
Deletethe prosecutors went after Stone because they believe he worked with Trump and the Russians to have the stolen DNC documents given to wikileaks. Arguably, not a terrible thing to do in a heated campaign. But, still, would obviously rock the politics of the US if true.
ReplyDeleteStone did not testify at his trial. Did not even put up a "this is a witch hunt against Trump" defense.
Did he take the 5th when talking to prosecutors? Are they allowed to disclose that?
You cannot plead for leniency from judge when not willing to answer all questions of the prosecutors.
Well, we do have this notion of being innocent until proven guilty and said innocence is not abrogated by not testifying and not corroborating with the prosecution.
DeleteLeniency only after a full confession is usually called a 'plea bargain'. Leniency is usually associated with mercy. To associate it with cooperativeness with prosecution moves it next door to compensation. There's a reason our system is called "adversarial".
DeleteTom S.
"the prosecutors went after Stone because they believe he worked with Trump and the Russians to have the stolen DNC documents given to wikileaks."
ReplyDeleteBS. By the time Mueller was appointed (in fact, long before) the prosecutors knew this was a false charge. They went after Stone for one reason only: to falsely charge him in an attempt to pressure him into giving up something...anything...to damage Trump. This was a wholly political prosecution by 'legal' assassins to try to overthrow the President.
The sentencing memorandum is pure theatre.
Barr now trying to create distance between PDJT and himself. Seems like a smart move:
ReplyDeleteAttorney General William Barr said he wants President Trump to stop tweeting about the Justice Department.
The endless flow of commentary about federal law enforcement makes “it impossible for me to do my job," Barr told ABC News on Thursday as he faces a fresh controversy that appears thanks to Trump's social media activity.
“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” he said. “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president."
He claimed that his work would remain independent from what the president desires politically.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/impossible-for-me-to-do-my-job-barr-wishes-trump-would-stop-tweeting-about-doj
I just did a post on that. As usual, two sides. They need to talk it out.
Delete