Democrats have been flipping out over President Donald Trump’s tweets commenting on the sentencing of Roger Stone, saying he thought the sentence was excessive.
Let’s stipulate up front that this is not something that presidents should be doing as it tends to make it look like you’re politicizing things, even when you are not.
But let’s also stipulate that it’s the Democrats who have politicized this six ways to Sunday, not Trump and that they didn’t give a darn when Obama said and did far worse.
For starters, is there anyone that thinks that Roger Stone would have been prosecuted at all but for the vendetta to hang convictions on folks next to Trump? Did he get a raw deal with the recommendation of 7-9 years for a first offense which was non-violent? It sure sounds like it, as Trey Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, has noted.
Trump was making a comment on a proposed recommendation, that he thought it was excessive. He doesn’t have power over the ultimate sentence nor does the DOJ.
Let’s go back and look at what Barack Obama said and did during the investigation into Hillary Clinton. He actually interposed himself, basically declaring her innocent while the investigation was still ongoing.
“I guarantee,” President Obama said, “no political influence” investigating Hillary Clinton’s classified email scandal. He then added that national security wasn’t endangered. In other words, innocent if proven guilty.
In his appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, President Obama told Americans not to worry, because “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case. … Guaranteed. Full stop.” [….]
So when President Obama went on to double down on his claim last year that “I can tell that you this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered,” he was doing, as president, exactly what he was promising not to do — interfering.
In fact, he was declaring her innocent before she has been proven guilty or not guilty.
The president assured Fox viewers that “she has not jeopardized America’s national security” despite her “carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.”
Obama urged to “keep this in perspective. This is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state, and did an outstanding job. And no one has suggested that in some ways, as a consequence of how she’s handled emails, that that detracted from her excellent ability to carry out her duties.”
How of course would Obama know if “national security was endangered” or not unless he was interposing himself in the case or simply lying to skew public opinion to help her during her election. His actions directly undercut the FBI investigation and interfered in the election.
What FBI agent could then say she was guilty after that?
Then on top of that, she was not prosecuted despite all the factual basis for charging her being there, as outlined by then-FBI Director James Comey. Comey, improperly, rendered a prosecutorial decision on the matter, after admitting that yes, indeed she did send and receive classified email and that it was likely her emails had been compromised. And this was after the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and the alleged conflict of interest that made Comey take over.
So please, Democrats, remove the mote from your own eye first.