Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Well, that didn't take long!

Last Monday the Senate set the date to rule on impeachment their next session.
Tuesday, President Trump gave a very-well-received state of the union address, completely ignoring the impeachment and carrying on with the nation's business.
Wednesday, the Senate voted a majority to end impeachment.

And now, not even a week later, Democrats have contrived a new narrative to begin investigating President Trump again.

Giving a little background...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone

 Quote:


TRIAL AND CONVICTION

Stone's trial began on November 6, 2019.[137] Randy Credico testified that Stone urged and threatened him to prevent him testifying to Congress.[138] Stone had testified to Congress that Credico was his WikiLeaks go-between, but prosecutors said this was a lie in order to protect Jerome Corsi. During the November 12 testimony, former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates testified that Stone told campaign associates in April 2016 of WikiLeaks' plans to release documents, far earlier than previously known. Gates also testified that Trump had spoken with Stone about the forthcoming releases.[139] After a week-long trial and two days of deliberations, the jury convicted Stone on all counts – obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering – on November 15, 2019.[140][141][142] After the trial, one of the jurors emphasized that the jury did not convict Stone based on his political beliefs.[143] On November 25, a decision denying a defense motion for acquittal was released. The judge wrote that the testimony of Steven Bannon and Rick Gates was sufficient to conclude that Stone lied to Congress.[144]


SENTENCING

Stone's sentencing was initially set for February 6, 2020, after the judge rejected a prosecution request that he be immediately jailed.[145] On December 9, 2019, Stone's lawyers requested sentencing be delayed until sometime after March 9.[146]

On February 10, 2020, prosecutors requested that Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison for his crimes after securing convictions on all seven charges[147] Around midnight, Trump characterized the sentencing recommendation as a "horrible and very unfair situation", tweeting, "Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!"[148] In the afternoon of February 11, a senior Justice Department official from the District of Columbia filed a memo which undid the sentencing recommendations from the four prosecutors.[149] The department said it would recommend a lighter sentence, adding that the decision had been made before Trump commented.[150] Later that afternoon, all four of the Assistant US Attorneys who were prosecuting the case – Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando – withdrew from the case, with Kravis resigning from the US Attorney's Office altogether.[151] After those actions, the Department of Justice filed a revised sentencing memorandum, saying the initial recommendation could be "considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances."[150]
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter to the Justice Department inspector general requesting a probe into the reduced sentencing recommendation, over fears of potential improper political interference in the process.[152] Trump later said he had not asked the Justice Department to recommend a lighter sentence, but also asserted he had an "absolute right" to intervene.[153][154][155]

Also on February 11, Trump withdrew the nomination of Jesse Liu to become an undersecretary of the Treasury, two days before her confirmation hearing was scheduled to begin. As a U.S. attorney, Liu had overseen some ancillary cases referred by the Mueller investigation including the Stone prosecution, as well as a politically-charged case involving former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, until attorney general Bill Barr replaced her with his close advisor Tim Shea in January 2020.[156] CNN reported the next day that Liu's nomination was withdrawn because she was perceived to be insufficiently involved in the Stone and McCabe cases.[157]

On February 12, presiding judge Amy Berman Jackson publicly announced her decision, made the prior week, to deny Stone's petition for a new trial. Stone had made the petition under seal, alleging bias on the part of a juror who worked in the IRS on criminal tax cases and had read press accounts of Stone's legal matters, but had stated during jury selection that he or she had not formed an opinion in the matter.[158]

On February 13, U.S. Attorney General William Barr has agreed to testify in front of Congress over alleged political interference by the Department of Justice over Roger Stone's sentencing. This case has been noted as a 'crisis in the rule of law in America', prompted by the department's unusual decision to overrule prosecutors, and Roger Stone's known close association with Donald Trump.[159]



I would lay money those four prosecutors are registered Democrats and Hillary 2016 voters.




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Compare with the longest serving offender in the Watergate scandal:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy

 Quote:
Liddy was sentenced to a 20-year prison term and was ordered to pay $40,000 in fines. He began serving the sentence on January 30, 1973. On April 12, 1977, President Jimmy Carter commuted Liddy's sentence to eight years, "in the interest of equity and fairness based on a comparison of Mr. Liddy's sentence with those of all others convicted in Watergate related prosecutions", leaving the fine in effect.[22] Carter's commutation made Liddy eligible for parole as of July 9, 1977. Liddy was released on September 7, 1977, after serving a total of four and a half years of incarceration.



So the longest serving defendant in the Watergate conspiracy served 4 and 1/2 years.

At one point I looked up the sentences of all those convicted in Watergate. Those who cooperated generally got no sentence or at most 6 months.
Those they flipped on generally served about 18 months in jail.

Gordon Liddy alone refused to cooperate, and therefore got the most severe sentence of 20 years, serving 4 and 1/2 years, before being pardoned by then-President Carter, because Liddy's sentence was so disproportionate to the others.


And the deep state DOJ wants to sentence Roger Stone to 7 to 9 years. Which at age 67 could be a life sentence for Stone. For a conviction obtained through fraudulently obtained FISA warrants, shakedowns, and every other dirty trick possible by a deep state FBI/DOJ.
Recall DOJ also gave vastly disproportionate sentencing time to Manafort, and similarly wanted to sentence him to a lot more.



Tucker Carlson made a strong statement about the injustice of this conviction and sentencing, comparing it to far worse perjurors John Brennan and James Clapper who were never investigated by DOJ/FBI, never arrested, never prosecuted, never sentenced, and are "comfortably sleeping in their own beds tonight" while Roger Stone, selectively prosecuted, rots in prison.

Carlson noted that the average rapist spends about 4 years in jail.


 Quote:
all four of the Assistant US Attorneys who were prosecuting the case – Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando – withdrew from the case, with Kravis resigning from the US Attorney's Office altogether.[151]


Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch, confirmed to Carlson that at least 3 of the 4 prosecutors are Democrats.




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/pros...encing-fallout/

 Quote:
After Trump’s Twitter comments, sources in the DOJ said Tuesday that department leadership was “shocked” by the “extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate” recommendation because it “was not what had been briefed,” and signaled a revision was on the cards. They also clarified that there had been no communication between the DOJ and the White House over the sentencing.



Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Stone is a corrupt piece of shit that threatened a witness and the Judge. He doesn’t feel one bit of guilt about what he did. Barr has turned the DOJ into a joke.

“On February 18, 2019, Stone posted on Instagram a photo of the federal judge overseeing his case, Amy Berman Jackson, with what resembled rifle scope crosshairs next to her head.[135] Later that day, Stone filed an apology with the court. Jackson then imposed a full gag order on Stone, citing her belief that Stone would "pose a danger" to others without the order.[136]”

WB you might think you’re outraged, it would not match my anger. I’ll take a break from what I’m assuming will be many propaganda type posts by you trying to paint Stone as a victim. He isn’t but because he’s one of Trump’s thugs I already know at worst Trump will pardon him. No justice just partisan republicans being corrupt in front of the nation.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Stone is a corrupt piece of shit that threatened a witness and the Judge. He doesn’t feel one bit of guilt about what he did. Barr has turned the DOJ into a joke.

“On February 18, 2019, Stone posted on Instagram a photo of the federal judge overseeing his case, Amy Berman Jackson, with what resembled rifle scope crosshairs next to her head.[135] Later that day, Stone filed an apology with the court. Jackson then imposed a full gag order on Stone, citing her belief that Stone would "pose a danger" to others without the order.[136]”

WB you might think you’re outraged, it would not match my anger. I’ll take a break from what I’m assuming will be many propaganda type posts by you trying to paint Stone as a victim. He isn’t but because he’s one of Trump’s thugs I already know at worst Trump will pardon him. No justice just partisan republicans being corrupt in front of the nation.


I doubt Stone is more unrepentant or or more guilty of crimes than Eric Holder (Fast and Furious, and "I'm Obama's wingman!" , Loretta Lynch (meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac for secret talk 3 days before Hillary was exonerated by Lynch), Sally Yates (submitting faraudulent warrants to the FISA court), Lisa Page and Peter Strzok (do I even have to say what they did?), Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Kevin "vive le resistance" Clinesmith (the FBI lawyer HillaryClintonista who submitted the falsified FISA warrants and altered documents that would have shown exculpatory evidence to prevent those warrants from being obtained), and about 45 others in DOJ and FBI cited in A G reports as having committed deliberate fraud and/or breaks of FBI/DOJ protocol in their partisan Trump investigations.
Not to mention Hillary Clinton and her campaign heads, who spent over $2 million for the "Russia Dossier", with payments directly to Christopher Steele and other foreign agents, at least two of them Russian counterintelligence heads.
Everything Democrats accuse these Trump aides of, the Democrats are 100 times more guilty of themselves. And yet they selectively prosecute Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Geroge Pappadapoulos, etc.

AND AGAIN: Selective prosecution of Roger Stone, while treasonous leakers who weaponized their federal agencies against Trump and other citizens were never investigated, never arrested, never prosecuted, never imprisoned, let alone given a vastly disproportionate excessive sentence, after these DOJ prosecutors told DOJ management they would not.

If there were prosecution and sentences given these Clinton/Obama officials and DOJ/FBI rogues, equal justice under the law, I might be more inclined to believe Roger Stone deserved the sentence he got.



  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


Another log of selective DOJ prosecution thrown on the fire:

Dinesh D'Souza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%2...ion,_and_pardon

Who, yes, donated beyond the maximum to a Republican candidate, but was again selectively prosecuted by DOJ while Obama was president, while many other Democrats did the exact same thing and were never arrested or prosecuted.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that D'Souza was and is an unfluential critic and documentary film-maker of Obama and the Democrats, and this trial and prison sentence prevented D'Souza from creating another persuasive book or film that would have cost the Democrats millions of votes. And D'Souza was again given a longer sentence than the average person would get for the same crime. And far longer than the Democrats who were never investigated or prosecuted.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


BARR SAYS TRUMP TWEETS 'MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO MY JOB'



So I think it can safely be said that attorney general Barr isn't "Trump's wingman", the way partisan and racist Eric Holder was for Obama (an Obama-era DOJ partisanship that the Democrats, of course!, had absolutely no problem with. Or with Loretta Lynch's private conversation on the airport tarmac three days before Lynch announced no charges against Hillary in 2016. Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.)


Among many points, this:

 Quote:
Barr, speaking to ABC News, said that even prior to Trump's tweet Monday night, he was surprised to hear that DOJ prosecutors had sought the nine-year prison sentence, both because it was inconsistent with the prosecutors' previous discussions with main DOJ and because it did not seem "fair and reasonable" given the facts of the Stone case.

"I was very surprised," Barr said. "Once I confirmed that that's actually what we filed, I said that night to my staff that we had to get ready, because we had to do something in the morning to amend that, and clarify what our position was."

PROSECUTORS QUIT EN MASSE; TRUMP SAYS STONE CASE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

The next day, senior DOJ officials intervened and amended the prosecutors' sentencing recommendation downward, although top DOJ brass have repeatedly said their decision was independent of Trump's wishes.
Some Democrats have said Trump could face another impeachment over the episode, which seemingly undercut the traditional separation of political considerations from DOJ prosecutorial decisions.

Conservative commentators have split over the issue, with some suggesting that career DOJ officials are properly supervised by elected politicians, and others praising Barr for condemning Trump's involvement.


While Stone warranted some level of punishment for his prosecution, the consensus of upper DOJ officials is that the prosecutors on the case had agreed to go for a lesser sentence, and then behind DOJ leadership's backs, the case prosecutors upped it to an excessive 9 years.
Which regardless of Trump's twittered opinion, would have resulted in upper DOJ intervening to press for a shorter sentence, what was originally agreed to. And ultimately it is a DOJ sentence recommendation, and the final decision ultimately belongs to the judge on the case, Amy Berman Jackson.

And speaking of Amy Berman Jackson, Tucker Carlson on previous occasions over several months has gone into evidence that she is a Democrat zealot who should have been recused from the case from the outset.

And as I said before, the four prosecutors who resigned are partisan Democrat warriors as well. At least three are Democrats, and 2 of the 4 came from the Mueller team. Severe sentencing of Roger Stone is a way for them to attempt to vindicate the failed Mueller investigation, by making Stone look as criminal and conspiratorial as possible.

And then there's the apparently tainted jury, where the forewoman formerly ran for Democrat office, and has posted vitriolic negative comments about Trump on social media. THAT should have been weeded out very early in the trial. And that both the partisan prosecutors and the partisan judge allowed it will likely result in a mistrial and a second trial for Roger Stone.

Likewise, according to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, the alleged "threat" and "witness tampering" by Stone to a witness were vastly exaggerated. Which was also covered in Fox's linked article:

 Quote:

Stone has been convicted on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress on charges that stemmed from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Prosecutors charged that Stone lied to Congress about his conversations about WikiLeaks with New York radio host Randy Credico, although Stone was never linked to any criminal conspiracy to access or leak documents.

It would place Stone in a category of the guidelines that "typically applies in cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases," the government argued, noting that Stone's "advanced age, health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history" also counseled against the harsh penalty.
Specifically, prosecutors said that although Stone allegedly had threatened Credico’s therapy dog, Bianca -- saying he was "going to take that dog away from you" -- it was important to recognize that Credico has acknowledged that he "never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog."


Fitton characterized it as belittling sarcastic joke toward Credico by Stone, not a threat. And like Democrats or Media Matters twisting jokes by Trump to allege that Trump literally wanted Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mail server (rather than a joke at an election rally), or when Democrats/liberal media allege Trump is soliciting violence when he says of someone "I want to smack him" (rather than a joke by Trump at an election rally), this post by Stone was twisted into a threat that it was not.


The jury tainted, the prosecutors Meuller people and Democrats, excessive sentencing, a partisan judge... Amazing how there can be Democrat corruption and tainting of the case all the way up and down the chain and Dems have no problem with that. But Trump makes a few tweets that give the slightest excuse to allege Trump/Barr impropriety, and wooooooaaahh, it's time to kneejerk right into Impachment 3.0.


Any half-baked excuse.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Meet Jury foreperson Tomeka Hart:
https://heavy.com/news/2020/02/tomeka-hart/


I've been selected for jury duty multiple times, and not selected for a jury simply because if it were a defendant's word against the word of the arresting officers I would tend to believe the police. Or that I questioned if a litigant was possibly an illegal immigrant and therefore would be breaking the law to be in the country to collect damages. Or in the case of a drug deaaler defendant, that I had friends or family who had suffered drug addiction or died of illicit drug oversdoses. Others were excluded from the same juries simply for having relatives who were police officers!

How was this evil partisan sack of excrement able to serve on this jury, with her views going undetected? Unless the fix was in, and both prosecutors and the judge welcomed an opinionated partisan juror, foreperson no less!, who would make the desired outcome that much easier.

But oops!
The partisans involved tipped their hand and made it national news when they made a show of resigning the case. Now with what they did exposed, the verdict will likely be thrown out and result in a new trial. They were partisan and got away with it. But then they got greedy in their partisan tipping of the scales, and it blew up in their faces.

It would be nice if judge and prosecutors would face criminal charges themselves for deliberately tainting a jury. I won't hold my breath.



 Quote:
She wasn’t the only juror harboring such views. Another Stone juror was an “Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views,” and yet another had donated to Democrat Beto O’Rourke and other liberal causes, according to Fox.

In November, she shared a story on Twitter on November 12, 2019, headlined, “Clinton says she is being urged by ‘many, many, many people’ to run in 2020.” The Stone trial was ongoing at that time. She also wrote, “So POTUS goes to the Bama game, gets a standing ovation from the home crowd, and Tide gets Rolled in their first loss of the season. 🤔🧐 Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I’m just saying…”


Hmmm...

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Seriously, how do lawyers on a case not look at 10 minutes of social media posts and see this kind of partisanship in a selected juror? I'd be interested in G-man's opinion on this, as he has no doubt tried cases and selected jurors.

And again, I wonder if this kind of negligence could be seen as deliberate jury tampering. I mean, this lady wears her liberalism on her sleeve, especially on social media, and has given roughly $1,000 to candidates and partisan leftist anti-Trump organizations in less than the last 6 months. With rabidly anti-Trump views, while on the jury for a Trump operative. How could any attorney possibly miss that? It's right out there. WAY out there.



Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Stone isn’t a victim. Nor has he even shown regret for his actions. Seems to me the people who are going out of their way to defend a true sack of excrement are the same ones that were really upset when Eric Holder said he was Obama’s wingman but applauded and cheered when Trump said he wanted a wingman and found one in Barr.

I will say the one juror sounds way to political and should have been dismissed. The same principle applies to Barr though too. He ishould have never personally intervened in this.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Stone isn’t a victim. Nor has he even shown regret for his actions. Seems to me the people who are going out of their way to defend a true sack of excrement are the same ones that were really upset when Eric Holder said he was Obama’s wingman but applauded and cheered when Trump said he wanted a wingman and found one in Barr.

I will say the one juror sounds way to political and should have been dismissed. The same principle applies to Barr though too. He should have never personally intervened in this.


I just explained (sourced) how Roger Stone is a victim of misreprensented facts, where even the witness allegedly threatened and tampered with said he never felt threatened and don't punish Roger Stone for this, he was just blowing off steam.

I just explained (sourced) how the jury was tainted with ideologically biased jurors, at least some of whom were known to be biased jurors, and yet the judge did not remove them.

I just explained (sourced) how the judge herself's behavoir has revealed herself as a liberal zealot, and yet she was not recused.

Sacks of excrement are people with power like Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Peter Stzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, and Obama and Biden and others of his cabinet who sat in on meetings that authorized these abuses!



combined with, among others:

 Quote:
LISA PAGE: Trump isn't going to be president, right? RIGHT?
PETER STRZOK: No. No, he won't. We will stop it.


We already know that this level of abuse, FISA surveillance of a presidential candidate and his campaign staff, had to be authorized at the highest level. The texts of Strzok and Page have already connected the dots.

As have the interviews of former CIA field supervisors I've cited, who say they needed White House authorization for surveillance on far less highly positioned citizens than Trump and his staff they had previously surveiled on other cases.


Period, the end.

And Barr is not behaving as a partisan, but as someone who is truly pursuing the restoration of the rule of law. Unlike the previous Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch and about 45 others cited as behaving unlawfully in inspector general reports, Barr is pursuing actual justice: equal protection and equal penalty under the law.

For abuses like those by the IRS and Lois Lerner and then-IRS director Koskinin in 2012, who got a free pass that emboldened the FBI, DOJ and FISA abuses of 2016, and the multiple deep state coups ongoing since then, there has to be prosecution and penalty to stop the abuses. Whatever else you are insinuating factlessly, that is ALL that William Barr is doing.

Restoration of the rule of law, without partiality to one party.

It terrifies me what the manicas in your party would do if they regained power. We've already seen a good precursor of what they would now be emboldened to do. The scary part is Democrats KNOW what your party is doing, and rationalize it as somehow OK and no big deal.
What people like Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Elizabet Warren, Hillary Clinton, Kristen Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke and your personal buddy Pete Buttigeig are openly advocating is a Stalinist purge of anyone who disagrees with their woke liberalism. Seizing guns, depriving conservatives who disagree with them of employment, forcing Catholics and other Christians to participate in abortion and gay culture or be fined out of business or jailed. Your party is insane. A Bolshevik revolution.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


FEDERAL JUDGE PUSHES BACK AGAINST TRUMP'S CRIITICISM OF HER HANDLING OF ROGER STONE CASE


Both Judge Beryl A. Howell and the other federal judge she defends are both Obama appointees, and Amy Berman Jackson (on the Roger Stone case) previously gave huge leeway to Eric Holder in the Fast and Furious case during Obama's presidency. As lenient with Eric Holder as she was harssh with Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.

And what is Roger Stone's crime anyway? The Mueller special investigation that Stone's showboat arrest and trial was rooted in anded in a not guilty verdict on any crimes by Trump.

So again: What is Roger Stone's crime?

Apparently it was perjury to hide a crime... that never happened?
All the charges were for process crimes, originating from no actual crime, except for the count that alleges witness tampering and threatenign a witness, who says he was never actually threatened, and just "bluster" and Stone being Stone".

His real crime is being an advisor to the campaign that got Donaldd Trump elected president. And all the people securing his prosecution and sentencing were clearly wearing HILLARY 2016 campaign buttons when that occurred.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ided-with-trump

Here's a Bloomberg article that gives some insight, but also has some visible distortions. Primarily of which
1) It doesn't make clear what is now known, that William Barr and other senior DOJ officials has already made the decision to change the sentencing recommendation to less than 7-9 years, before Donald Trump ever posted about it on social media.
2) It refers to "two different sets of DOJ officials, the first (the four prosecutors who resigned) who made the most severe sentence recommendation, the second being Barr and other senior DOJ lawyers. That the four prosecutors agreed to recommend a lower sentence, and then behind the backs of senior DOJ instead recommended the maximum sentence, so senior DOJ changed the recommended sentence.

On the plus side, it explained Judge Jackson's logic on this and previous rulings, and as the other retired judge said, she will likely go with less than the maximum sentence to avoid accusations and political controversy.

It also makes clear Randy Credico's statement not to prosecute Stone for witness intimidation.

And also makes clear the (alleged!) crosshairs Stone put on the image of the judge. But it didn't clarify his reason for doing so. It could similarly have been venting steam for mistreatment he felt by Judge Jackson in the court room, or for having been arrested in a gun-heavy CNN-filmed show arrest with more guns the Bin Ladin shooting in a midnight raid. Not clarified, but he clearly had reasons, legitimate or not.

But it at least gives an overview of Judge Amy Berman Jackson's previous Mueller and Trump-related cases, mostly ending in the Democrat favor, one ruling in Trump's favor, and that she is a judge appointed by Obama. And the usual sentence for such a crime that the retired judge cited for similar convictions.

I'm still of the opinion that Roger Stone did nothing wrong, and this is Democrat/Deep State payback to find another way to smear Trump. He is convicted for perjury related to Trump, but Trump was found not guilty, so again, it's perjury related to a crime that never actually happened. If Stone is convicted, I expect Stone to be pardoned by Trump the day after the Nov 2020 election.
Likewise Flynn.
Likewise Manafort.
As it should be. That would render things as if this witch hunt never even happened.




Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
From Politico...
“Credico was interviewed by former special counsel Robert Mueller's team on several occasions in 2018. He went on to appear at Stone's trial, which revealed a series of hostile and vulgar text messages Stone sent to Credico in an alleged effort to intimidate him into repeating Stone's version of events in testimony before Congress.

Although Stone has claimed his comments were in jest, prosecutors pointed to the messages to justify the bulk of his suggested prison time. "Prepare to die, cocksucker," Stone wrote to Credico in one instance. He also told Credico, who has a therapy dog, that he would "take that dog away from you."

Credico recently wrote to the court saying he did not think Stone was threatening him physically, but prosecutors noted that during the trial, Credico said he was concerned that Stone's statements could encourage others to become violent.”

You can lie to yourself WB but Stone didn’t send his threats as a joke to someone that was cooperating with an investigation and Credico was worried that others might carry out Stone’s threats. Barr shredded any credibility his DOJ had. It’s all about protecting Trump’s corruption.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

I already quoted Credico above, where Credico himself urged the court not to pursue a charge of witness intimidation, as he himself felt there was no actual threat posed by Roger Stone to him.
If Credico himself urged the court not to pursue it, that to me smacks of malicious prosecution.

Similar to two interviewing FBI agents saying they were confident Michael Flyynn had not lied to them, but then prosecuting Flynn for perjury, and even threatening to prosecute Flynn's son as well to force Flynn to take the plea deal. As Hannity pointed out in the 18-minute clip from last night, even the stacked-up perjury counts are a contrivance by the FBI/DOJ, based on the fact that Stone allegedly lied to cover up no crime by Trump, so there is no root crime that the perjury allegations are stacked on, and likewise the added witness tampering charge. If I were arrested in a pre-dawn raid with 20-plus guns pointed at me and my wife, with someone in the FBI notifying CNN with a camera crew there in advance to film it, I think I would be defiant and less than cooperative too.
ESPECIALLY when dozens of others who are on Team Democrat who did far worse were never similarly investigated or prosecuted.

If others on the Democrat side were similarly prosecuted with the same zeal, then I'd say OK, that's the standard and Stone was treated fairly. But the others weren't prosecuted similarly, and it is blatantly one-sided and unfair. Especially in Stone's case, where it's all process crime, with no root crime. It's just a way to selectively prosecute a political opponent, to stack up a win and vindication for the failed Mueller investigation.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Your bias naturally makes it seem unequal but republicans are now just permanently investigating Clinton and investigating investigations. Compare Stone’s sentence recommendation to what Susan McDougal got. She didn’t threaten anybone’s life. She didn’t lie. For refusing to answer questions she got years of jail time. 8 months in solitary. Stone shouldn’t get anything less.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Your bias naturally makes it seem unequal but republicans are now just permanently investigating Clinton and investigating investigations. Compare Stone’s sentence recommendation to what Susan McDougal got. She didn’t threaten anybone’s life. She didn’t lie. For refusing to answer questions she got years of jail time. 8 months in solitary. Stone shouldn’t get anything less.



That's actually a valid point. Susan McDougal and her husband both really took the heaviest hit in the Whitewater investigation when they wouldn't flip on the Clintons. And I'd agree that was unfair.

You could expand that to investigations of Martha Stewart, Arthur Anderson executives, Enron executives, and Scooter Libby tried and jailed for a crime he didn't commit. And many of those verdicts were all or partially overturned by higher courts. In Libby's case, the statement of Pulitzer-winning reorter Judith Miller (who also was sent to jail by a judge for not revealing her source! But who later revealed he was the one who unwittingly disclosed clues to Robert Novak that allowed him to deduce Joe Wilson's wife was Valerie Plame and a CIA agent, that Scooter Libby was blamed for.)

That I all commented on in a prior topic. The common denominator in those cases is an overzealous and all-powerful FBI and DOJ that has no check on their power.

Add to that Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidian compount raid, Ruby Ridge, and the more recent Bundy ranch federal standoff in Nevada. And that all documents law enforcement out of control, across multiple presidencies, Democrat and Republican.

I would only argue that there is a more regular pattern of targeting Republicans for partisan reasons and giving Democrats a free pass, going back to Ted Stevens, Scooter Libby, the IRS/Lois Lerner scandal, and the heaviest so far, the current FBI/DOJ/FISA court abuses. Over the last 15 years, there seems to be a rather consistent and one-sided targeting of Republicans by federal law enforcement. And I again point to the Peter Strzok/Lisa Page texts to underscore that is absolutely beyond question.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
The Clinton’s hardly got a free pass. Republicans have literally spent decades investigating them and others for political reasons. And now republicans are doing investigations of investigations. Barr is trying to get guilty republicans lighter sentences while at the same time trying to get revenge for Trump. The DOJ spent 2 years trying to find a way to indict Andrew McCabe and just finally gave up pursuing that case. Who wants to bet that’s actually the end and another way will be pursued to get McCabe?


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Despite the Republicans' best effort, the Clintons ultimately got a free pass. Especially on the Clinton e-mail server investigation, and the Clinton campaign's involvement in Fusion GPS and paying directly for information from the Russians. And then back-dooring the fraudulent and discredited "Russia Dossier" (discredited even in late 2016!) into the FBI and DOJ through Hillary and Obama loyalists in those agencies.

And also a free pass on the "pay to play" selling of State Department access in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. And the very overt deletion of already subpoenaed (by both House/Senate investigators and the FBI) e-mails and files by Clinton, Abedin and Mills, that would have proven these crimes, and would have landed anyone else in jail. The FBI helped enable their deletion. Manafort, Cohen and Flynn were arrested in FBI midnight raids to prevent them being able to destroy evidence. The FBI left Hillary, Abedin and Mills up to 2 months to delete and destroy records. And then gave them immunity from prosecution, in exchange for nothing!

And on Benghazi.

And plenty of other openly criminal actions.

Your party of vicious propagandists are really doing a job on Barr, but no one who isn't already a partisan zombie who believes every talking point of the Democrat/Left believes a word coming from the Dems.
Barr was/is pushing for a fair and proportionate sentence for Roger Stone. The Democrat partisan lawyers in the FBI who want to give him 9 years are partisans who came straight from the Mueller special investigation. Even a Democrat federal judge that I quoted in another article said a typical sentence for what Stone was convicted of would normally get about a year in jail. And those allegations were vindictively stretched to the limit. Plus a partisan Obama appointed judge who allowed three zealous anti-Trumpers on the jury. The charges were bogus. The trial was bogus. Stone's only crime was serving in the Trump campaign. This is political payback, pure and simple.

As is the Michael Flynn shakedown.
As was the Pappadapoulos shakedown.
And others like Michael Caputo who can't even be charged, but the FBI is still bankrupting him and ruining his life, FBI agents intimidating away all his business clients, so he again can't even afford a legal defense, and might be forced to take a plea deal for crimes he didn't commit, just because at some point he'll no longer have the means to afford a legal defense.

Andrew McCabe is an admitted criminal, and openly admitted in Congressional testimony to perjury and leaking documents. It is infuriating to half of America that he is self-admittedly guilty, and yet DOJ for some unknown reason lacks the will to prosecute McCabe and Comey. They should be in federal prison, and in general population, receiving the ass-pounding they deliberately subjected innocent executives of Arthur Andersen and Enron to, until the U.S. Supreme Court heard reviewed the case and released them in a unanimous 9-0 court decision.
Innocent men convicted with the same shakedown tactics unleashed on Flynn, Pappadapoulos, Stone, Manafort and the rest. Men bankrupted and forced to sign confessions, in Flynn's case under the threat of prosecuting and imprisoning his son as well, that he finally relented. Currently under appeal. The Flynn case is riddled with improper FBI procedures that should reverse the case and accquit Flynn.


I fully expect that DOJ let McCabe off on a lesser case, and that when U.S. attorney John Durham completes his investigation, it will contain new evidence and new indictments against McCabe and Comey. McCabe and Comey are truly evil bastards, it frankly pisses me off that you even defend them. How many innocent people do they have to shake down before you will admit they are rogue partisan agents abusing and weaponizing the law? Comey gloated about sending in 2 FBI agents to the White House to interview Flynn under false pretenses, without even letting Flynn know he was a suspect, without even allowing him an attorney. (Hillary in contrast, was permitted to have Cheryl Mills as her attorney, despite Mills being a co-defendant, if a case were prosecuted. AND their joint deposition was not even recorded by the FBI agents who interviews the two. Done to prevent any possibility of either being accused of perjury. While FBI agents bent over baackward to create a perjury trap for Flynn! And Manafort. And Cohen. And Papppadapoulos. and Roger Stone. I think that layer of charges was manufactured for everyone on Trump's staff investigated. Their last resort fallback, when no other crimes were discovered. A manufactured perjury trap.

Manafort had been investigated 13 years ago without conviction, and they re-opened the case just to shake him down to try and get him to flip on Trump.

You endorse these vicious liars who imprison people as a weapon just to advance a political agenda, and in the case of Enron and Arthur Andersen and others just to advance their careers and raise their conviction ratio.
They deliberately falsified warrants.
Bill Clinton on the tarmac with attorney general Loretta Lynch and 3 days later the investigation and all the evidence against Hillary is mysteriously dropped.
They gave immunity to all of Hillary's staff even though they smashed cel phones and computers and deleted tens of thousands of self-incriminating federally subpoenaed e-mails and documents.

The Peter Strzok/Lisa Page texts that make VERY clear they were plotting to throw the case for Hillary and destroy Trump:
STRZOK:"It's like an insurance policy..."
PAGE: "Trump isn't going to be president, right? RIGHT!?!
STRZOK: " No. No, he won't. We will stop it."
CLINESMITH (who arranged the falsified FISA warrants): "Vive la resistance!"
PAGE: "POTOS wants to see everything we are working on."
Plus multiple texts where Strzok and Page were going into Obama's oval office to brief the president and his staff on what they knew. Absolutely no mistake.
And this is just the portion of texts that they and the FBI and Hillary Clinton didn't manage to delete!

The lies of the FBI/DOJ and Mueller team, and the Hillary and Obama staffs are just overwhelming. And yet you excuse it, and still rationalize that their proven lies are somehow true. You would help them imprison innocent men.
Calling you a Bolshevik isn't nearly strong enough.




  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Stone and Flynn are far from innocent. But we now live in a world where the President’s friends have his wingman step in and interfere for their benefit. At the same time the President’s political rivals are investigated and reinvestigated. Only partisan republicans apparently can only see how this is justice.

You are the coup.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

Process crimes, M E M. Do you understand process crimes?
That means not an actual crime, but a crime manufactured by prosecutors so they can get a conviction in the absence of an actual crime. George Pappadapoulos, Carter Page, Michael Caputo, Michael Flynn.
In the case of Flynn, even the two FBI agents who set up the perjury trap said they believed Flynn was telling the truth and not hiding anything. But to shake him down and as payback for not flipping on Trump, they prosecuted him anyway, knowing he was not guilty.

AGAIN: Only two Trump staffers were arguably guilty of anything.
1) Paul Manafort was investigated maany years prior by FBI, but FBI closed the investigation because they found insufficient evidence to prosecute. FBI/Mueller only re-opened the Manafort investigation to shake him down to try and make him flip on Trump. But ultimately Manafort had nothing to give. They vindictively prosecuted him anyway. Tax evasion, nothing related to a conspiracy with Trump.
2) Michael Cohen, who was prosecuted for perjury and fraudulent taxi-cab medallions. Cohen again had nothing to give FBI on Trump, but later flipped and lied, tried to "sing" and "compose" and make up stuff about Trump to get a lesser sentence, that ultimately failed and was believed by no one. AGAIN: Cohen lied and was snagged by FBI for perjury and for hidden profits from his taxi-cab profits. Nothing related to Trump, NOTHING.

And as hard as FBI and Mueller went after Trump's associates and maliciously prosecuted them for these piddly crimes, that FBI put them under a microscope for years to find, just to smear Trump, so they could say "criminal prosecution of Trump officials", never mind that the crimes had absolutely nothing to do with Trump, and were committed years before their involvement with Trump or his campaign.
As hard as they went after Trump officials, midnight raids, combing their homes and offices and hotel rooms for files and documents, maliciously prosecuting any minor crime or manufactured perjury they could find, IS AS LENIENT AS FBI/Meuller were with Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and for that matter, the crimes of the FBI and DOJ and Mueller investigators *themselves*. They gave Hillary and her staff up to 2 months to destroy/bleach-bit 33,000 e-mails, and smash the computers and cel phones they'd been stored on. No prosecution for obstruction of justice! No prosecution for destroying subpoenaed evidence!

If you want to allege these Trump officials are guilty of something, dream on. In the case of most Americans, FBI or DOJ could put their lives under a microscope and find some ambiguity or error any citizen could be charged with (i.e., Stalin's secret police chief: "Show me the man, and I'll give you the crime").
It is noteworthy that Trump and his staff could endure these kind of investigations, from roughly 6 months before he was inaugurated, investigation after investigation for almost 4 years, and this is the maximum that FBI/Mueller could find.
I'd love to see the Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Memendez, Joe Biden or Barack Obama subjected to the same microscope of unrelenting investigation. I guarantee they would find a lot more to prosecute. From conspiracy to insider trading to outright treason.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Bill Clinton was impeached over process crimes. I think most people can understand why he lied about having an affair. Flynn and Stone were not hiding sex affairs though. You don’t have a principled stance on this WB. The rule of law is now a matter of if it helps Trump.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Bill Clinton was impeached over process crimes. I think most people can understand why he lied about having an affair. Flynn and Stone were not hiding sex affairs though. You don’t have a principled stance on this WB. The rule of law is now a matter of if it helps Trump.


Clinton was asked a direct question, and told a direct lie.

In many of these perjury traps set for Trump's staff, it's a case where the FBI knew the correct answers in advance, and not needing an answer from Stone or Flynn or Manafort, set a trap for them, where the FBI subjectively determines whether it's a lie or not, just to make their case.

One of the "perjury" allegations against Stone was that he didn't disclose he sent texts to someone. But in the same deposition Stone clearly acknowledged that he communicated with the person by phone and e-mails.
And the four FBI lawyers on Stone's case, 3 of whom came directly from the Mueller investigation, certainly stretched the truth to whip up the indictment for "witness intimidation", when the witness in question said himself that he was not intimidated, and urged the prosecution not to charge Stone with that!

Add to that a partisan Obama-appointed judge, and how both the partisan judge and the partisan prosecutors selected an ultra-partisan jury foreperson and two other partisans for the jury with clear biases against Stone and Trump. A 5-minute check of their social media by either the judge or the prosecutors would have told them this. They would have to be morons not to know. And I think it's clear they weren't morons, but deliberately corrupted the jury selection to further assure their desired verdict.

I'm amazed at the audacity of the judge, with all these facts known and in the national news, hasn't declared a mis-trial, and has instead ordered to continue with sentencing! How does she expect to get away with it? I would think at this point, the defense has abundant grounds to appeal and get a new trial.
Another example of partisan justice with a (D) next to its name. Republicans get maliciously prosecuted, and Democrats get a free pass and don't even get investigated.


Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Keystone cops is a good comparisson.
Or the gang that can't shoot straight.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


https://www.conservapedia.com/Roger_Stone

 Quote:
On Jan. 24, 2019, Stone was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges stemming from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.[3] The indictment featured one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering. On Nov. 15, 2019, Stone was found guilty on all 7 counts.[4][5]

In November 2019 Stone was convicted after Obama-appointed judge Amy Berman Jackson refused to allow evidence that the United States Department of Justice and intelligence community had never established if any Russian entity was responsible for the leak of materials from the DNC to Wikileaks.[6] A DNC contractor, CrowdStrike, with Ukrainian connections claimed Russian hackers were responsible. The FBI under the corrupt leadership of James Comey and Andrew McCabe, accepted the Democrat contractors word at face value




Tucker Carlson also had an excellent segment on the Roger Stone conviction today.
The partisan judge, appointed by Obama.
The four partisan DOJ prosecutorss, 3 of whom came right from the partisan Mueller special investigation.
The partisan jury, where the jury foreperson Tomeka Hart is an ultra-partisan rabid Democrat and anti-Trump zealot, with posts to this effect before, during and after the trial. That she even appeared outside the court house today (Thursday) to see and possibly comment on the sentencing, but fled when people reccognized her, thus avoiding making a self-incriminating remark to the press. Tomeka Hart is a trained lawyer, who certainly knew what she was doing was corrupting a case, in her clear Facebook and Twitter-posted hatred for both Trump and Roger Stone, the defendant.

Tomeka Hart should be prosecuted for jury tampering and obstructing justice, and should be disbarred for her malicious and unprofessional legal conduct. By her own social media posts, she was prepared to convict Roger Stone and influenced others to as jury foreperson, no matter what the evidence.

And the judge just going on with sentencing despite overwhelming grounds for a mistrial, speaks of her own bias. As do her other actions against both Paul Manafort and Roger Stone in their two respective trials.

Even now, after sentencing, Roger Stone is under a gag order. Against all the attacks on his character, he is not allowed to even respond to those attacks and reply on his own conviction and the biases of the case. If he does, the judge will send him immediately to jail instead of letting him go home until the day his sentence begins.
Is that fair?

Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months in prison Harris Faulkner, 1 PM broadcast, when sentence was announced

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


Roger Stone, in his own words, prior to the gag order in place since his trial began.

Stone on his indictment: This is about silencing me, criminalizing political expression - Jan 25, 2019






Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5