Tucker Carlson Doxxes a Juror Because It Beats Leaving Matters To The Courts

I deleted my video of Tucker Carlson showing a juror’s Twitter account on his show. I thought her Twitter ID was obscured enough in the video but I rather be safe than sorry

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) February 14, 2020

This is what's going on in the Roger Stone case; no more, and no less:

“What he is doing is attempting to intervene directly in a pending criminal case involving a political ally,” retired federal judge Nancy Gertner, now a lecturer at Harvard Law School, told TPM. “This is what banana republics do.”

William Barr's interview doesn't touch on that issue at all.  Not even a little bit.  Not. One. Bit.  Trump is now tweeting bullshit about a juror on the panel being biased because he ran for office as a Democrat; or wrote tweets complaining about Roger Stone; or did something Trump doesn't like.  This, for Trump, is grounds for the President to reach down and direct the outcome of the trial; not the verdict, but the sentencing.  Unfortunately for Trump's argument (not that he understands how the legal system works, or cares), that's not how the legal system works.  And one way it works is that, if Stone's lawyers had an objection to this juror being on the panel, they waived it: as

So let’s recap. Stone’s lawyers knew that she was generally familiar with Stone, they knew she ran for Congress, they specifically asked about political bias, and then refused to seek her removal. 

That's not grounds for appeal, and certainly not grounds for overturning the verdict.  But if it is, this is a matter for the appellate system, not for the tweets of the President of the United States, nor a reason for interference by the Attorney General of the United States.

Besides, Bill Barr is confirming he isn't fit for the job, and that more such interference can be expected so long as he holds the job:

This is important: "Barr confirmed in the interview that he was personally responsible for the decision, which is as significant a revelation as anything else" https://t.co/pmXZNHmkJw

— Ram Ramgopal (@RamCNN) February 13, 2020

And on that question of interference, this:

2) Good faith disagreements between line prosecutors and their superiors are not uncommon. Superiors are entitled to win. But this is not a good faith disagreement.
Just read the two memos.

— walter dellinger (@walterdellinger) February 13, 2020

I haven't looked up the pleadings, but the difference between 26 pages and an obviously hastily assembled 4 pages, is enough to point to a far less than good faith effort on the part of the USAG and whoever wrote that memo in haste to rush it to court.