Patterico's Pontifications

2/21/2020

Tucker Carlson: Judge Amy Berman Jackson Lied, And Should Be Impeached

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:53 pm



[guest post by Dana]

[Note from JVW: At Dana’s request I made a post-publication edit to the post to add the judge’s full name in the headline and first paragraph.]

Lest you think nobody pays attention to the Fox News host, consider that he recently had a single monthly total audience of 3.4 million viewers on the consistently highest-rated basic cable channel.

Anyway, Carlson had harsh words for Judge Berman Jackson, and called for her to be impeached:

“Stone’s sentence was delivered by an Obama-appointed judge called Amy Berman Jackson. Now you often hear people complain that our justice system has been infected by politics. Amy Berman Jackson is living proof that it has been,” declared Carlson during his monologue, calling Jackson an “open partisan who has so flagrantly violated the bounds of constitutional law and fairness that it’s shocking she’s still on the bench.”

“If there’s anyone in Washington that deserves to be impeached, it’s Amy Berman Jackson,” he continued, before criticizing the judge’s decision to place Rick Gates and Paul Manafort under house arrest during their trials despite the fact that they “are middle-aged men with no criminal history.”

“Jackson wanted to punish Gates and Manafort before they were even convicted of anything, and she did. Ultimately she revoked Manafort’s bail and placed him in jail in solitary confinement. But Jackson reserved her real fury for Roger Stone,” claimed Carlson. “At sentencing today, she declared that Stone was ‘prosecuted for covering up for the president.’ Now, CNN let the claim pass without comment, but anybody who had been watching was baffled because that’s totally untrue.”

Carlson explained, “Nobody connected to the president has ever been charged with a crime related to spying for Russia or colluding with Russia, much less convicted of one. Stone wasn’t charged with covering up anything. That was not the charge. That is not what he was sentenced for.”

“Amy Jackson knows that. She lied about it,” he concluded. “In other words, here you have a federal judge lying about the case before her. Scary? Yes, it is scary.”

–Dana

60 Responses to “Tucker Carlson: Judge Amy Berman Jackson Lied, And Should Be Impeached”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (4fb37f)

  2. It’s fine, he had a head injury which caused selective amnesia, and an inability to retain information.

    So he’s not lying for effect, he’s just ill.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  3. Tucker “I cannot make inferences and do not understand them” Carlson, folks. If the lights are on inside in the daytime and everyone who comes in the door either has an umbrella or is wet and there is water dripping down the outside of the windows, what is the weather? “Judge Berman says it was raining outside! No one said it was raining! She’s a liar! Impeach her!”

    Nic (896fdf)

  4. Hard to believe that any human being could drink that much Kool-Aid(tm).

    John B Boddie (286277)

  5. Tucker is auditioning for the next opening as White House Press Secretary. Or maybe Acting Attorney General, whichever position opens up first.

    Glenn (320d1f)

  6. If not for split screen e.g. the ability to interview a subject in real time from a distant location, he would have been Howard Beale’d by now.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  7. There’s a reason I stopped watching cable “news” — it’s all become polemical. CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all the same. Editorials and pulpits, screamfests and gossip. A pox on all their houses.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  8. Word.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  9. Well, Tucker stole the words out of my mouth. What was the point of this Judges 40 minute harangue? This Judges seem to think they are Godly figures in black robes. BTW, if you want to know their arrogant mindset, there was a retired District Judge on MSNBC the other night talking about “Stop and Frisk” and Bloomberg. “*I* was the one who ended stop and frisk -not Mike Bloomberg” she declared. Evidently, she was miffed that she wasn’t getting enough credit.

    And a couple years ago, we had another Obama judge declare that “He was going to solve the DACA problem, if the politicians didn’t. The arrogance is breath-taking.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  10. Howard Beale

    It’s all Howard Beale now, and the opposition political party is having tryouts for the Mao Tse-Tung Hour.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  11. Now, now, ya’all.

    According to our betters, ol’ Tucker will be the next POTUS, an’ he’s right as the milk WRT Judge Jackson!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  12. Needless to say, Congress won’t impeach any judge for doing anything, except maybe taking bribes in the Judges chambers.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  13. Now, now, ya’all.

    According to our betters, ol’ Tucker will be the next POTUS, an’ he’s right as the milk WRT Judge Jackson!

    Sadly enough, I’d rather have drunk Donny Jr. and his blow-up doll squeeze.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  14. What was the point of this Judges 40 minute harangue?

    Well, it’s called “making a record”. People who understand the law know it wasn’t a “harangue”. It was mostly a rather careful, restrained exposition of the law.

    It’s necessary for any appeal that might go up.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  15. the judge might have been sleeping with the head jurist

    mg (8cbc69)

  16. mg, a jurist is a judge or justice.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  17. If you impeach Judge Jackson, she’ll just parlay that into a lifetime appointed legislative career like Alcee Hastings.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  18. @4.Hard to believe that any human being could drink that much Kool-Aid(tm).

    Not for him; junk food runs in the family: he’s an heir to the Swanson TeeVee Dinner fortune.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  19. thanks for the correction- maybe the jury forewomen was bedding down with the head jurist.

    mg (8cbc69)

  20. More likely that Stone was screwing the pooch…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  21. Maybe a male relative of the jury forewoman – the judge is known to “swirl” and has the husband/kid combo to prove it

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  22. Like Justice Thomas?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  23. Yes, thus my “Jackson as a last name” theory is temporarily proven correct.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  24. Stone of convicted of obstruction of justice during the investigation of_____? Yep, no crime was being investigated.

    Iowan2 (1c4a14)

  25. “Stone was found guilty of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness.”

    You and Duh Donald may be clueless about what Stone did. The rest of us aren’t.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  26. “At sentencing today, she declared that Stone was ‘prosecuted for covering up for the president.’ Now, CNN let the claim pass without comment, but anybody who had been watching was baffled because that’s totally untrue.”

    As Ragspierre said, “Stone was found guilty of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness.” Obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering fall under the umbrella of a cover up. From Nixon and probably before, false, obstructive conduct has been called a cover up.

    DRJ (15874d)

  27. I guess Carlson didn’t get that “covering up for the president” falls under the Obstruction of Congress charge.
    Carlson also conveniently forgot about Manafort’s welshing on a plea deal by repeatedly lying.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  28. “Tomeka Hart, a former Memphis City Schools Board President, came forward as the Stone jury foreperson in a Facebook post on Wednesday, voicing support for prosecutors in the case.

    Hart confirmed to The Daily Memphian that she wrote the Facebook post, but she declined an interview with the newspaper.

    Stone supporters were shocked when a review of Hart’s social media posts showed that she posted on Twitter mocking Stone’s dramatic arrest prior to being seated on the jury, and frequently denounced Trump, including calling the president and his supporters racists.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7998815/amp/Tomeka-Hart-Roger-Stone-jury-foreperson-revealed-anti-Trump-activist.html?__twitter_impression=true
    __ _

    Nothing to see here, move along.
    _

    harkin (b64479)

  29. Cell Phones, Cancer, and Coronavirus: Tucker Carlson Spreads Conspiracy Theories
    https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/02/20/cell-phones-cancer-and-coronavirus-tucker-carlson-spreads-conspiracy-theories-14584

    Well, that puts him right in with that clown in the Oval Office!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  30. harkin, we read it. Days ago.

    Today you posted saying that Hart was clensing her social media. I can’t find that anywhere.

    Care to correct?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  31. Needless to say, Congress won’t impeach any judge for doing anything, except maybe taking bribes in the Judges chambers.

    And even then they forgot to bar him from holding any office of trust or profit.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  32. “Obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering fall under the umbrella of a cover up. From Nixon and probably before, false, obstructive conduct has been called a cover up.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/21/2020 @ 3:44 pm

    Penumbras and emanations, in legal jargon.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  33. No. Cover up is everyday English. See Nixon.

    DRJ (15874d)

  34. @32

    “Obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering fall under the umbrella of a cover up. From Nixon and probably before, false, obstructive conduct has been called a cover up.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/21/2020 @ 3:44 pm

    Penumbras and emanations, in legal jargon.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/21/2020 @ 5:09 pm

    Munroe… we cannot have a functioning justice system if defendant’s can wantonly obstruct, lie and/or tamper with witness.

    A case could be made of whether nor not the penalties should be as severe if the were no underlining crime vs actual crimes.

    A case could be made that investigator/prosecutors has too much power (ie, investigator/prosecutors can lie without recourse) and that there’s apparent two-tiers of justice based on political affiliation.

    It’s undeniable that Stone broke the law and should be held to account. Let’s simply debate whether or not the process was fair and if the penalties fit the crime.

    For me, I think we need to debate on what justice department & judicial reforms are needed in light of what we’ve seen these last few years.

    whembly (c30c83)

  35. Tucker tells lies to make conspiracy theorists feel better about being unsuccessful at life. Shame there are so many of them.

    Time123 (8fb4df)

  36. @34 systemic reform would be great. Especially around obstruct and making false statements.

    Time123 (8fb4df)

  37. For me, I think we need to debate on what justice department & judicial reforms are needed in light of what we’ve seen these last few years.

    Agreed.

    DRJ (15874d)

  38. Including FISA.

    DRJ (15874d)

  39. 27. I guess Carlson didn’t get that “covering up for the president” falls under the Obstruction of Congress charge.

    Covering up WHAT? Investigating WHAT?

    Iowan2 (1c4a14)

  40. The act of obstruction and providing or soliciting false testimony is a cover up.

    DRJ (15874d)

  41. Covering up WHAT? Investigating WHAT?

    Geeez! Do some reading!

    BTW, how’s that Trump summary execution of Lt. Col. Vindman comin’ along?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  42. He’s a clown.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3FVE7yj9K4

    Wait for it… “Tucker! TUCKER!!”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. “Munroe… we cannot have a functioning justice system if defendant’s can wantonly obstruct, lie and/or tamper with witness.“
    whembly (c30c83) — 2/21/2020 @ 5:27 pm

    Correct, though irrelevant to my point.

    Judge Amy decided it was a coverup on behalf of the president, which is a conclusion unrelated to what the jury decided.

    Conservatives typically don’t like judges using the bench as a soapbox, or reading things into the law or a decision that is not there. But then, conservatives typically don’t find.common cause with a Schiff or Weissmann either.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  44. “Conservatives typically don’t like judges using the bench as a soapbox”

    lol

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  45. She has an Article III where she has the right to do whatever she wants as judge.

    Dave (1bb933)

  46. Judge Amy decided it was a coverup on behalf of the president, which is a conclusion unrelated to what the jury decided.

    What do you think Stone’s motivation was for wanting the Wikileaks information, if not to help Trump and his campaign? And if Stone wasn’t trying to help Trump, why would he try to keep investigators from finding out what he had done?

    DRJ (15874d)

  47. The wife-swapping switch-hitter brought the so-called President into the conversation when he claimed he was protecting him.

    nk (1d9030)

  48. And since I’m up, Trump supporters have no right to say what conservatives like. If Trump supporters had a smidgen of honesty, they would not be calling either Trump or themselves conservative. Con artists? Absolutely.

    nk (1d9030)

  49. It appears that late yesterday Stone’s defense filed a motion to have Judge Jackson rempved from the case. They seized on one word out of hundreds in her sentencing record; she said the jury had acted with “integrity”.

    The defense claims that this means Jackson cannot be objective WRT their motion for new trial.

    Two things…

    1. judges tend to be defensive of their juries and visa versa

    2. I’d bet that Jackson would love to be removed from this case at this point

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  50. Jackasson should be removed from her job.

    mg (8cbc69)

  51. For me, I think we need to debate on what justice department & judicial reforms are needed in light of what we’ve seen these last few years.
    whembly (c30c83) — 2/21/2020 @ 5:27 pm

    I agree with this, whembly.

    felipe (023cc9)

  52. I’d support moving the DOJ out of the executive.

    I’d also support removing the pardon power from the POTUS.

    Either of those would require amending the Constitution, but I think we should not be afraid to do that.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  53. I’d just support removing this POTUS, and not tinkering with a system that works just fine when you have even a half-way decent human being in charge.

    nk (1d9030)

  54. But think back over the last several administrations. It seems evident that “even half-way decent human beings” are not what our nominating system is delivering. I wish I could see that changing, but…just damn…!!!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  55. @37/38

    For me, I think we need to debate on what justice department & judicial reforms are needed in light of what we’ve seen these last few years.

    Agreed.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/21/2020 @ 5:33 pm

    Including FISA.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/21/2020 @ 5:34 pm

    Absolutely.

    As for FISA, the best reform is to prohibit any information gleaned during FISA investigations to be used in criminal cases. Outside of “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers”, I would consider anything used from this method would poison any fruits in related criminal investigations simply because FISA warrants do not observe the rights of citizens the same way as normal criminal warrants. Another change I would demand is to get written signoff by the Attorney General before granting FISA warrants against political entities. That way, there’s a political accountability between DOJ and the FBI seeking these warrants.

    The FISA process real purpose, is to provide intelligence information by foreign powers and agents of foreign power to the POTUS.

    whembly (c30c83)

  56. Nein, Herr Roger Stein!
    If you can’t do the time,
    Don’t do the crime!
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/amy-berman-jackson-roger-stone-case/index.html

    nk (1d9030)

  57. “There is no rule and no case law that would justify the recusal of a judge for bias simply because he or she says something about an issue on the docket, on the record, at some point before a reply has been filed, or before a hearing — which may or may not be required in the Court’s discretion — has concluded. If parties could move to disqualify every judge who furrows his brow at one side or the other before ruling, the entire court system would come to a standstill,” according to Jackson.

    The judge also defended her impartiality, noting on Sunday that she has insured fairness for Stone throughout his case, including after he posted a threatening photo on Instagram about her as he awaited trial.

    “It granted,” she wrote, writing about her court using the third-person pronoun, “important evidentiary motions in his favor; it proposed utilizing a written questionnaire to ensure that the parties could receive more information than is usually available for jury selection; it struck 58 potential jurors for cause based on the defendant’s motions or on its own motion; and it repeatedly resolved bond issues in his favor, even after he took to social media to intimidate the Court, after he violated conditions imposed by the Court, after he was convicted at trial, and after he was sentenced to a term of incarceration. Moreover, at the sentencing hearing that forms the sole basis for the defendant’s motion, the Court concluded, based in part on many considerations put forth by the defendant, that it was appropriate” to sentence him to less time in prison than the Department of Justice asked for and that Jackson had calculated was appropriate for his crimes and behavior.

    BAM…!!!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  58. https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/23/unfit-print-roger-stone-doj-trump/

    I hate liars on the right just like I hate liars on the left.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  59. Did he cover up for the President? Under what definition of “for”? What was he “covering up”?

    Here we have a guy who was trying to get wikileaks information and feed it to the campaign. He didn’t get it, the campaign didn’t seem to care. Later, congress was investigating whether the campaign was working with Wikileaks — spoiler, it was not. It was however willing to hear about wikileaks stuff. Not illegal, not even considered a campaign no-no, if someone is publishing dirt on your opponent, you will use it.

    So, what was Stone covering up? Nothing. No crime, no bad behavior. Did Trump ask him to? No. Did Trump go along with it — no, he actually is the one who told investigators that Stone had talked to him, thus ruining Stone’s story.

    So, it seems bizarre to claim he was covering up “for the president”, when the president didn’t ask him to, wasn’t participating, contradicted the “cover-up”, and there was nothing to cover up, and stone’s actions were actually the worst thing for the President.

    IN fact, if Stone was actually an anti-trumper, his actions would make more sense. He harmed the President.

    If she had stuck with the facts “he was covering up his actions”, that would be fine. She assumed more; if she had said “he thought he was helping the president by lying about his actions”, that might be true, although we have no evidence in the case on that point — nobody who testified talked about WHY stone did what he did, and stone never did either.

    Charles (fdec5d)

  60. That’s nice. Now, did he lie to congress? Was he convicted of 7 felonies beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2675 secs.