FILE – In this Sept. 26, 2017, file photo, longtime Donald Trump associate Roger Stone arrives to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is examining previously undisclosed contact between former Trump campaign officials and a Russian figure alleged to have tried to sell them dirt on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. But Stone and Michael Caputo say they believe the man was an FBI informant trying to set them up. He denied that to the Washington Post. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
As RedState reported earlier, the much dramatized sentencing of Roger Stone is in the books. After 2,000 former DOJ officials signed a letter decrying Bill Barr’s intervention as an inconceivable destruction of the rule of law, the judge in question ended up giving Stone 40 months, right in the middle of Barr’s recommendation. This despite the fact that she agreed that the higher sentencing guidelines were applicable. What that means is that after all the consternation and teeth gnashing, even this biased judge agreed Barr was right and all the partisans freaking out over him running his department were wrong.
That didn’t mean there weren’t some facepalm worthy moments from Judge Jackson, though. Apparently realizing she couldn’t get away with giving Stone 7-9 years (she’d have essentially vindicated any decision by Trump to pardon him), she decided to instead turn her court room remarks into a live action reenactment of Rachel Maddow’s conspiracy laden show.
Jackson says the House Intelligence Committee's Russia probe was stymied because of Stone. His obstruction, she says, "led to an inaccurate, incomplete and incorrect report."
— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 20, 2020
First, why is this judge giving political commentary on a House investigation of which she was not privy to at all. By what expertise does she have the ability to pronounce its conclusions “incorrect?” She didn’t interview Devin Nunes (who put out the report). She didn’t talk to other members to find out if Stone’s action had any material affect. But here she is spouting off about the report being wrong because Stone fibbed about contacts with Wikileaks he didn’t actually have. In reality, the House report on the Russia probe, including the Nunes memo, were more than vindicated via the latest IG report on the matter.
But she wasn’t done yet. Judge Jackson then decided to simply make up something that didn’t happen.
Again, what is this judge talking about? Stone’s actions, while criminal, were not an attempt to “cover up” anything for President Trump. One, there was nothing to cover up, as even the Mueller report made clear in the case of Russian collusion. But two, Stone’s machinations involving Wikileaks were not hidden in the first place. That’s why we all knew about them almost immediately. Judge Jackson is making up some nefarious cover up of some mythical wrongdoing out of whole cloth, knowing full well it’ll serve as red meat to the left. That seems a bit improper to me.
This was a sentencing for specific crimes. It wasn’t this judge’s place to play pundit and start pushing nonsense about the Russia investigation. I suspect she did so to flex her liberal cred before handing down a sentence that reinforced that Bill Barr was ultimately correct. Whatever the reason, it shouldn’t have been done it and it shows that there’s certainly bias within our judicial system. Anyone claiming otherwise (cough Justice Roberts cough) is peddling in falsities.