DOJ Shake Up

PUBLISHED: 1:00 PM 12 Feb 2020
UPDATED: 6:57 PM 12 Feb 2020

Roger Stone Fallout: Mueller Hit Team Walks Out After Sentence Change

All of these incidents are connected and designed for a purpose.

This is not about Roger Stone, it's about Barr and Trump. (Source: Fox News Video Screenshot)

In what appears to be a strangely orchestrated move by Lawfare, Justice Department attorneys (who also were part of the Mueller investigation hoax) resigned following a bizarre series of events yesterday.

After recommending a 7-9 year prison term for Roger Stone, the Department of Justice immediately walked back that recommendation, calling it “extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate to Stone’s offenses.”

Stone was found guilty of obstructing and lying to congress, but others who have done the exact same thing have not received such a recommendation. Especially given that that judge ‘presiding’ over the case is an Obama appointee.

After the DOJ walked back the “grossly disproportionate” scheme, Aaron Zelinsky, who worked as a prosecutor for Team Mueller, resigned effective immediately… as a Special Assistant US Attorney for the District of Columbia.”

Incidentally, why isn’t John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, James Comey or Hillary Clinton facing 7-9 years for lying under oath?

The reason is clear.

The scheme to sentence Roger Stone was a set up to provide a very clear “favoritism” narrative for the left to spew over the next few days and weeks. Perhaps they already have the next fabricated charges against President Trump prepared, and this little set up was designed to boost it?

The Washington Examiner reported:

“While it remains the position of the United States that a sentence of incarceration is warranted here, the government respectfully submits that the range of 87 to 108 months presented as the applicable advisory guidelines range would not be appropriate or serve the interests of justice in this case,” U.S. Attorney for D.C. Timothy Shea wrote.

A range “more in line with the typical sentences imposed in obstruction cases” would be three to four years, Shea said, adding that the government “ultimately defers to the court as to the specific sentence to be imposed.”

After it became clear the Justice Department was preparing to backtrack on its harsher sentencing recommendation, all four prosecutors in the Stone case, including three who served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, withdrew from their roles. Shea told the court that Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb was joining the case in the wake of the resignations.

In explaining the recommendation walk back, the Justice Department told the court that “the most serious sentencing enhancement” used to recommend the stiff sentence on Monday related to “threatening to cause physical injury,” which was “disputed by the victim of that threat, Randy Credico, who asserts that he did not perceive a genuine threat from the defendant.”

“I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or to my dog,” Credico said in a post-conviction letter to the court. “I chalked up his bellicose tirades to ‘Stone being Stone.’ All bark and no bite!”

The Justice Department also argued on Tuesday that “it is unclear to what extent the defendant’s obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial” and that the court must “avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.” The Justice Department said seven to nine years behind bars would be closer to “cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases.”

“The court also should consider the defendant’s advanced age, health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history in fashioning an appropriate sentence,” the Justice Department said.

Judge Amy Jackson, the Obama appointee who presided over Stone’s trial, will hand down his sentence on Feb. 20.

This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice! https://t.co/rHPfYX6Vbv

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 11, 2020

Conservative Treehouse identified the real reason:

It looks like the over-the-top sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone was a planned set-up by Aaron Zelinsky et al, to force AG Bill Barr to step-in and reduce the sentence; thereby giving fuel to those in media/lawfare who are accusing AG Barr of political influence.

This reeks of Lawfare scheming.

However, Zelinsky is only departing the special assistant to DC role, and it appears he is still an assistant US attorney for the District of Maryland.

As reports that followed show, democrats were quick to pounce on what appears to be the planned narrative. Fox News reported:

Hillary Clinton declared Tuesday that democracy is “in crisis” amid the withdrawal of prosecutors from the case against Roger Stone after senior leaders at the Justice Department (DOJ) effectively overruled the prosecutors’ judgment by seeking a lesser sentence for President Trump’s former adviser.

Clinton, a former secretary of state and the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, bemoaned the departure of the DOJ prosecutors on the same day of the Republican-controlled Senate’s move to block three election security-related bills. Four prosecutors withdrew from the case, and at least one resigned from the Justice Department.

“The rule of law & our democracy are in crisis,” Clinton tweeted.

[Remember, this is the woman who has so many scandals and escapes from justice that she’s basically immune to criminal prosecution. The list of lies and the simple fact of the FBI’s protection of her server activity while Secretary of State makes her tweet highly hypocritical and ridiculous.]

Top Democrats have been critical of the Justice Department’s move to lessen Stone’s sentence, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asking DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to open an investigation into the matter.

“This situation has all the indicia of improper political interference in a criminal prosecution,” Schumer wrote in a letter to Horowitz.

He added: “The American people must have confidence that justice in this country is dispensed impartially.  That confidence cannot be sustained if the president or his political appointees are permitted to interfere in prosecution and sentencing recommendations in order to protect their friends and associates.”

So, we can see very clearly that the real implications here are that democrats and the left are desperate to remove Barr. They can’t have him actually following immigration law, or examining the outrageous corruption that occurred in the FISA abuse scandal. Expect to see much coverage concerning “political interference” over the next few days.