Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not a big fan of Stone, but this sentence of 7-9 years is outrageous. Then to see how the jury pool was contaminated, wow.
I not easily a fan of anyone, and Roger Stone is a person I only know limited things about.
To me I base my opinion on what other people get as a sentence and why a 72 year old with not a criminal record, gets CNN video taping his arrest with guns in his face.
What if Roger Stone is your (not meant to the poster to who I reply, but in general) grandfather, father, uncle, friend, etc.
I not easily a fan of anyone, and Roger Stone is a person I only know limited things about.
To me I base my opinion on what other people get as a sentence and why a 72 year old with not a criminal record, gets CNN video taping his arrest with guns in his face.
What if Roger Stone is your (not meant to the poster to who I reply, but in general) grandfather, father, uncle, friend, etc.
Insane!
If Stone gets 9 years then I want to see Brennan & Clapper put away with him since they lied to congress.
Plenty of banana republics use Constitutionality as a cover while using political prosecutions to suppress potential political challenges.
Sure, the USSR famously had a flowery constitution, full of human rights. That is not how it's supposed to work here in the US. Your point was that no one is arguing that this was unconstitutional. They are. Even you did, implicitly, by your reference to 'banana republics.'
Quote:
I don't need to be a mind reader to connect obvious dots. Take the Stone matter, for instance. Career prosecutors recommend sentence, Trump tweets objection, political appointee and unitary Executive advocate Barr intervenes and recommends reduced sentence, prosecutors resign in protest.
'Connect the dots'=circumstantial evidence. You don't normally get a conviction with circumstantial evidence alone. Alex Jones specializes in connecting dots. Without proof of intent, which was not present in the so-called transcript, impeachment should not have been pursued.
Quote:
Hoover was 50+ years ago and neither Page nor Strzok worked for the DoJ. With McCabe and Comey you have a point (but not the one you intended) because McCabe is caught up in a highly-unusual firing and subsequent investigation that, on its face, appears to be partisan while Comey is apparently being investigated a second time for something that is almost never enforced.
Yes, Hoover was 45 years ago, what's the point? The beat goes on. Hoover invented the game, McCabe, Comey, and others kept it going, just by alternative means.
The FBI is in fact a part of the DOJ. So yes, Page and Strzok did work for the DOJ. What is the evidence that the firing of McCabe was partisan? He was found to have lied multiple times, including twice under oath. The investigation was carried out by the DOJ IG and the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Firing for dishonesty is normal and not uncommon, especially for LE agencies. Most union contracts specify dishonesty as a 'cardinal sin' that can get you fired on the spot. He should have been prosecuted as was done to Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, Michael Flynn...list goes on. It's not "unusual" at all.
I not easily a fan of anyone, and Roger Stone is a person I only know limited things about.
To me I base my opinion on what other people get as a sentence and why a 72 year old with not a criminal record, gets CNN video taping his arrest with guns in his face.
What if Roger Stone is your (not meant to the poster to who I reply, but in general) grandfather, father, uncle, friend, etc.
Insane!
You go after the Clintons the way Stone did you have to expect payback. This was the corrupt payback, he had to of known the risks. Trump should commute the sentence
From what I understand, the foreman (forelady?) of the jury had a major anti-Trump bias, which was known by the defense. The judge refused to remove her, and allowed a biased jury to go forward. One of three things will happen:
1) Stone will get a new trial without any TDS sufferers on the jury.
2) Stone will have his sentence reduced to probation, which is more in line with the "non-crime".
3) Trump will issue a pardon.
Barr ran this by Trump...bet on it. He is getting separation so he can get the left & the press off of his back.
That may well be, but there are quite a few Trump* cabinet members who now hold the title of "former" for speaking out in public in a similar manner. The separation Barr may have sought is now deflected to Trump* having to respond to it. I'll put money down Trump* is already looking at his Rolodex for a new AG.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
