World Net Daily ... As Donald Trump's presidency entered its fourth year, the Democrats' strategy to defeat him remained clear. Whether the issue is the president, his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court or his attorney general, they still remain focused on flimsy allegations aimed at tainting the president and his nominees, despite an inability to withstand legal scrutiny. 

Failing to win voters over in the 2016 presidential election and to convince Senate Republicans in 2020 to vote for removal of the president, nonetheless, Democrats keep turning to impeachment as their weapon of choice to topple Trump or any other member of his team they decide to target politically for whatever reason.

 

Despite knowing their efforts would fail, Democrats are still committed to the never-ending impeachment strategy for one simple reason – they seek to negatively brand their target with a label that need not be proven. 

Their hope is that their disparagement campaign will make the label stick, at least through the 2020 presidential election.

 

The most recent impeachment target now is Attorney General William Barr. As that impeachment call goes out, one can almost hear the "Ghostbusters" theme song in the background, albeit with modified lyrics:

 

If Trump is doing great for your neighborhood,

But you're not in the Oval Office, then that's not good

Who ya gonna call?  Trumpbusters

 

Democrats' Trumpbuster teams have been at the ready from the day Trump first took office. They were at the ready in the Senate, evidenced during the hearings to confirm U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well as in the House, evidenced by the impeachment inquiry of Trump approved by Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and undertaken by Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

 

Despite Trump's acquittal and Kavanaugh's confirmation, we still hear Democrats sounding the impeachment horn, latching on to the flimsiest of excuses to do so. Like a fire department awaiting an alarm bell, these teams eagerly await theirs. And all this stems from the Deep State's effort to effect a coup based on the manufactured allegation of Russian collusion it helped promote. With the collusion seed planted, an anti-Trump mainstream media then helped nurture it. 

From that point on, critics jumped onboard the anti-Trump bandwagon either out of naivete or in total disregard for the truth, based on their own Trump hatred.

 

The latest effort to cast aspersions upon Trump and his team came after the president expressed his dismay over his ally Roger Stone – convicted of lying to Robert Mueller's FBI agents during a totally unnecessary investigation into the Trump/Russia collusion hoax – and the outrageously long nine-year prison sentence prosecutors recommended. This sentence was much longer than what many criminals receive for far worse crimes, including murder.

 

Trump was understandably upset with the recommended sentence, especially for someone with a clean record. But adding to Trump's displeasure was the discovery only after the trial that a jury member, Tomeka Hart, had failed to disclose her extreme political bias. On the juror's questionnaire defense attorneys scrutinize for just such a purpose, she made no mention about her Democratic Party activism.

 

Nor did Hart share the fact her Facebook postings revealed a deep animosity for Trump – so deep it would have put her in the driver's seat of the anti-Trump bandwagon. She was an anti-Trump zealot who had posted an accusation Trump was "The Klan President." Had this been disclosed, defense lawyers clearly would have challenged her ability to render impartiality in judging Stone.

 

This was a particularly relevant issue since Hart was then selected by her fellow jury members as their foreperson – a position from which she wielded a certain level of influence upon them. There could be no clearer example of a defendant being unfairly convicted based on such influence and then unfairly sentenced.

 

Also believing the proposed punishment was way out of proportion to the crime was Attorney General William Barr who intervened to voice his displeasure. While his intervention was not triggered by Trump's tweet, it gave Democrats an opening to claim otherwise. Leading the pack was 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren who can shout "impeachment" much faster than she can say "Honest Injun." She called for impeachment before bothering to grasp the facts, similar to her promoting Medicare for All before pivoting on the issue as its realities hit home.

 

But there was another factor in the unfair trial equation worth noting.

 

The revelation about the juror prompted Stone's lawyers to file a motion for a new trial. They also filed a motion against the federal judge presiding over the Stone trial – President Barack Obama's appointee U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson – to recuse herself as she seemed to deny every motion the defense made.

 

It came as no surprise, therefore, when Jackson decisively rejected the defense request for recusal. Obviously piqued by the request, Jackson wrote it was simply a ploy to taint her fair judgment. "Judges cannot be biased" in doing their job was her self-serving response, ruling that claims of bias against Stone were meritless.

 

Of course ignored by Judge Jackson is evidence to the contrary. She told jurors during the sentencing hearing – despite knowing then about Hart's misconduct, including pre-trial negative statements about Stone – that they had "served with integrity." Even Jackson apparently was of the same school of thought as Barr over prosecutors seeking a nine-year sentence, imposing a 40-month sentence instead.

Stone undoubtedly will take further legal action to appeal his motion for retrial.

 

In addition to Democrats clamoring for Barr's head, they have now forewarned Trump not to pardon Stone or "we will impeach him again." This is somewhat hypocritical as some of the Democrats threatening impeachment on this issue did absolutely nothing to object to President Bill Clinton's outrageous pardon, on his last day in office, of international fugitive Marc Rich – convicted in 1983 of financial dealings violating sanctions against enemy states – earning Rich hundreds of millions of dollar. 

Rich's wife later made a $450,000 donation to the Clinton Library, which Clinton denied was a quid pro quo. However, that pardon is viewed as the most condemned official act of such presidential authority. It generated a four-year FBI investigation into Clinton's conduct, resulting in no charges being brought against him.

 

Justice is supposed to be blind to ensure a fair trial; in the Stone case, it has been blind to deny one.