The Biden administration has weaponized the Justice Department

October 4, 2022

A father often took his oldest son to a place he frequented. While there, a 72-year-old man often said “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things” to the 12-year-old boy. The father told the older man repeatedly to stop verbally harassing his son, but that didn’t stop the man from being vulgar.

One time the man got too close to the boy, into the boy’s personal space, and the father, after telling the man to stop harassing his son, and defending his son, pushed the man away. He fell back, but was not injured. The older man then sued the father.

The case was investigated by a District Court and the case was dismissed.

However, the family was awakened one morning by a team of 25-30 FBI agents carrying weapons.

“They had big, huge rifles” pointed at the father, “and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,” the mother said.

“The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic,” the mother told a news agency, about the incident that she and her children witnessed. Her husband pleaded with the FBI agents to be calm, referencing the couple’s seven children, she said.  

Catholic News Agency reported that the FBI reported that the father was arrested outside his home “without incident.” According to federal court documents, the father was charged with assaulting the 72-year-old man.

Question: Why was the FBI arresting a man on a charge that the court had found warranted dismissal? And if an arrest was warranted in this case, why did the FBI show up early in the morning pointing weapons at the parents in front of their children, when a phone call, or a single agent appearing at the home with a warrant for the father’s arrest would have been a logical and appropriate way to proceed?

When you realize that the place the man and his son went was a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, that the man was a pro-life advocate, that the older man was a pro-abortion protester, and that the Biden administration supports very liberal abortion rules, this makes more sense.

CBS News reported that, “With guns drawn, FBI agents in combat gear and night-vision equipment fanned out just before dawn Friday in front of the Florida home of President Trump's former campaign adviser, Roger Stone.”

The report said one of the agents shouted, "FBI! Open the door!" as he repeatedly pounded on the door in a video of the raid broadcast on CNN. "FBI warrant!"

Soon a light came on, and Roger Stone appeared in sleepwear. Are you Roger Stone?" an agent asked him. "Yes," he responded. Stone was arrested and then led away.

Stone commented about the raid, "This morning at the crack of dawn, 29 FBI agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles with their lights flashing, when they could simply have contacted my attorneys and I would have been more than willing to surrender voluntarily," he said. "They terrorized my wife, my dogs."

The raid was "completely unnecessary," Stone's attorney, Bruce Rogow, said. “He's not in hiding."

Stone was charged with seven counts: one count of obstruction of an official proceeding; five counts of false statements; and one count of witness tampering.

These charges do not indicate the need for a dawn swat team raid. And, how, exactly, did CNN know about the raid in advance?

While some Trump supporters have been charged with crimes, legitimate charges in at least some of the cases, this spectacular event seems more than a little over-the-top.

And the arrest of a pro-life supporter after a court had dismissed a lawsuit on the same charge as the arrest seems completely inexplicable.

These two incidents, as well as the incident where Trump supporter Mike Lindell was approached in public, rather than in a less spectacular way, indicates a particular motive on the part of the FBI, and the Department of Justice of which the FBI is a part.

Lindell was in the drive-through at a fast food restaurant when FBI agents approached him, showed him a warrant, and demanded he give them his cell phone.

This is the same DOJ that ignored the federal law-breaking by demonstrators at the homes of the judicially conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices, following the Court overturning of the incorrect Roe v. Wade decision made decades ago.

This is the same DOJ that sent agents to harass parents who attended school board meetings and complained about the course of events at their children’s schools. 

In some cases, these parents were termed “domestic terrorists” because they used their First Amendment right to speak freely when they expressed their dissatisfaction with the behavior of school boards, schools, and teachers that abandoned the approved curricula, and began indoctrinating young students without notifying the parents of these changes in the curriculum. It is parents, after all, who are the ones whose taxes support public education.

The DOJ appears to be targeting the right. Is there a greater wrong against the people when their government targets one group for the benefit of another group?

Trump is now being targeted for “planning” pardons, commutations

 

“How far will Trump go in abusing his pardon authority?” That is the title of Joe Conason’s column. He’s a liberal columnist who apparently has psychic access into Trump’s mind, to wit: “But as he prepares to bestow that favor on Roger Stone …,” Conason wrote. That column suggested that in doing so Trump might open himself up to a criminal investigation, as then-President Bill Clinton did after he pardoned "fugitive financier" Marc Rich on the last day of his presidency, Jan. 20, 2001.

Stone was found guilty by a federal jury on the seven charges that he faced, including lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction. That is the part of the Stone story that is pretty straight forward. Regardless of whether you like Stone, whether you trust or approve of Trump, you really ought to fairly consider the various aspects of the Stone investigation and prosecution.

Stone became a subject of interest in the Mueller investigation into who aided Russian interference into the 2016 election. More than a dozen FBI agents wearing night goggles, full SWAT gear, with rifles and side arms, knocked on Stone’s door before dawn in January, 2019, and arrested Stone in his jammies after he answered the door.

Oh, and somehow a CNN news crew just happened to be there on the scene, set up and ready when the SWAT team arrived.

What had Stone done to require a SWAT team with weapons drawn? Murder? Armed robbery? Rape? Gang activity?

Nothing, other than being a Republican and friend of Trump. He could have been served a warrant during waking hours, or even notified by a phone call.

No one — not Stone, not anyone — was charged with a crime of helping the Russians. Stone was convicted of process crimes: crimes he allegedly committed during the investigative process, an investigation which found no crimes of Russian involvement, the purpose of the investigation. He was convicted of obstructing an investigation into a crime that never occurred; an investigation trying to find a crime.

Of the charges against Stone, witness tampering carries the heaviest sentence, up to 20 years. Randy Credico, the witness with whom Stone was convicted of tampering, wrote a letter to the judge in the case, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, asking that Stone not be sent to prison because he didn’t really believe Stone would ever harm him or his dog Bianca, the target of the alleged threat.

So, the alleged victim did not feel any tampering, rose to defend Stone from the charge, but Stone still was convicted of witness tampering.

Many observers are urging Trump to pardon Stone. And there are other odd things about his case and his sentence that should be considered.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, on his opinion show “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” said, Stone is “A 67-year-old man with no criminal record caught up in the Russia hoax, farce, caught up in an investigation that proved to be fruitless.”

He then listed the following average lengths of time served for certain crimes, for comparison with the prosecution’s recommendation for Stone’s sentence of seven-to-nine years.

“Do you know what the average rapist does in this country? We checked today. Four years. Do you know what the average armed robber gets? Three years. The average thug who violently assaults somebody? Less than a year and a half. But the left, CNN as well, demanding that Roger Stone dies in prison. Hmm. This man needs a pardon.”

Yet the prosecution recommended Roger Stone get a longer sentence for crimes far less serious that killed no one, assaulted no one, robbed no one, and did not tamper with a witness, according to that witness.

Why did a supposedly neutral, objective prosecution team recommend such a severe sentence for a non-violent person with no criminal background? And why did the judge ignore the exculpatory statement by the witness who was the supposed victim of tampering?

There is also a question of the objectivity of at least one of the jurors.

The jury foreperson, Tomeka Hart, is a former Democrat candidate for Congress who in her tweets refers to Trump as #KlanPresident. 

While Hart was serving on the jury, she tweeted about Trump’s impeachment. In a letter to the editor of The New York Times, Hart requested The Times use more direct language accusing Trump of committing a crime in his dealings with Ukraine.

She recently defended the prosecutors for advocating a seven-to-nine-year imprisonment for Stone. Attorney General Bill Barr lowered the recommended sentence to something more normal and reasonable, and the four prosecutors resigned in protest.

Was Hart an objective juror? Did she, as foreperson of the jury, leave her bias aside, the bias she readily showed before, during and after the trial?

Several irregularities exist: The FBI inappropriately raided Stone’s home. Hart should have declared her bias in pre-trial jury forms. The judge should have dropped the tampering charge. It was appropriate for Barr to reduce the sentence recommendation.

As a result of these irregularities, Stone convictions should be overturned, and he should get a new trial. A fair trial. Or, a pardon.

Even Trump friends and Republicans deserve objective justice.