It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Trump do anything wrong influencing the DOJ to lighten Roger Stones sentence

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ambassado12
a reply to: dfnj2015

I do believe Trump has a 1st amendment right like you and I, but according to leftists reality only leftists deserves rights and nobody else.


The first amendment only applies to citizens, Trump is president which makes him an institution. He should speak for the country, not himself. And if he does speak for himself he should be say upfront that he is speaking his own personal opinion as a private citizen. Maybe give him a separate twitter account. One personal, one private. So that there is no confusion.




posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: rickymouse

The federal sentencing guidelines say it was the right sentence. What else you going to go by?

For Trump to interfere is a clear violation of the separation of powers clause. Trump should not be overseeing the justice department. Period.


Trump is literally the head of the DOJ as Chief Executive... It's not a separation of powers. It's HIS DOJ.

The federal judge, on the otherhand, can issue any sentence he/she likes. The judge is not beholden to the President or his DOJ prosecutors' recommendation.

Moreover, the President is free to commute the sentence or pardon Stone if he likes.

See how that works? Checks and balances...

What a "scandal"! I guess, for people who never took a civics class or read a newspaper before 2016, this seems scandalous?
edit on 14-2-2020 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

Why is Stone still a story?

Any prosecution of ancillaries of Trump is fruit from the poisoned tree.

It was a sham investigation, sham FISA warrants, so let the guy go!


Stone is a scumbag. No tears shed. He can rot. I really don't care.

The only reason this is a sham is because they are seeking a longer term for his lying to Congress et al than a rapist, while Brennan and co did the same exact thing and are out walking free and getting gigs on TV. Same with Manafort. I don't care a fig if Manafort goes to prison. But the fact he was aggressively prosecuted while the Podesta brothers were allowed to simply retroactively refile their status as agents of a foreign government for the exact same damn thing, is outrageous.

These people are being hounded so the DNC and media can say more people were sentenced as a result of the Russia scam and thereby smear Trump by innuendo. It's politically motivated prosecution, and it's ridiculous. I don't care if prosecutors honestly believed they should be prosecuted, but you'd best round up Brennan and Clapper and Holder and the Podestas while you're at it, or it's exposed as the theater that it is, and don't act shocked when el Presidente speaks up about it.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

It isn't based on politics. The jury and judge were both biased, need a pardon to correct their mistake.

The juror, specifically, wanted to add convictions to boost her own argument (x convictions of Trump associates = Trump guilt)

It is appropriate, given POTUS is charged with enforcing the law.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Can't say whether or not he did influence things, but from a constitutional perspective no sitting president should have influence over sentencing. There is a separation of powers for a reason. The DOJ should be influence by the rule of law, not the opinion of POTUS.


Who is saying otherwise...not Barr and the President voiced his opinion, so what are you talking about. The court should not be influenced by politics either and if you see none of that in these cases you are blind.

Past sentencing in these case have been 1 or less years, and normally nothing at all as we have seen this last 3 years, so why 9 years? Can you explain that? He could have raped a woman and got 4.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
He should speak for the country, not himself.


Is this your opinion, or is this law and so an impeachable offense?



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: dfnj2015
I suppose Trump can’t have an opinion on things without tears from the left. They should get safe spaces and therapy puppies.


Sorry, but it's apparently Barr that needs the safe space and therapy puppies. According to him Trump's tweets make his job "impossible".



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
The only reason this is a sham is because they are seeking a longer term for his lying to Congress et al than a rapist, while Brennan and co did the same exact thing and are out walking free and getting gigs on TV. S


You are mistaken, or sorely misinformed. Lying to congress would have just garnered a recommendation of a couple/few years. What bumped it up to 7-9 was the felony witness tampering conviction (threatening Randy Credico).


originally posted by: Xtrozero
Past sentencing in these case have been 1 or less years, and normally nothing at all as we have seen this last 3 years, so why 9 years? Can you explain that? He could have raped a woman and got 4.


Incorrect. Felony witness tampering convictions do not carry a "1 or less years" recommended sentence. That's the conviction (out of his 7 felony convictions) that bumped Stone up into the 7-9 range.

Prosecutors didn't just arbitrarily toss out a recommendation of 7-9 years. They followed the same formula that would be followed if any average American citizen were convicted of such felonies, but in Trump's America his cronies get special treatment unlike you or I would if we were in that situation. You know, like if you mishandled classified info the way that Hillary did, then you'd be in jail. Same thing here. Stone and Hillary are above the law. Two sides of the same coin. Meanwhile, a bunch of fools are living vicariously through Stone's imminent reduction in sentence, and eventual pardon, not realizing that he's no better than Hillary, that both should be convicted felons, and that both of them belong behind bars.
edit on 2/14/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 12:21 PM
link   
ANDREW MCCABE NOT TO BE INDICTED BECAUSE BARR IS PISSED.

Trump should had not tweeted about the investigation apparently and Barr is doing this because he wants to show he is independent of trump.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

Incorrect. Felony witness tampering convictions do not carry a "1 or less years" recommended sentence. That's the conviction (out of his 7 felony convictions) that bumped Stone up into the 7-9 range.



1 year per word? Comey should be up to about 250 years by now.....Funny how the witness tampering one was to threaten the guy's dog, and then the guy said he didn't feel threaten at anytime and that is just how Stone talks....Makes me wonder just how big these other process crimes really are.

You can try and justify it all day, but when you step back it all looks silly and politically driven.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Could it be said trump influenced the doj when we know the doj initially recommended a lower punishment and the prosecutors went against that recommendation? Also, what of the hypocracy of the people on "the other side" getting away with the same or worse with zero consequence?



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage




You are mistaken, or sorely misinformed. Lying to congress would have just garnered a recommendation of a couple/few years. What bumped it up to 7-9 was the felony witness tampering conviction (threatening Randy Credico).


:gasp:

You mean the "threat" where the "victim" says he didn't feel threatened?



I am writing to respectfully yet fervently implore you not to send Roger Stone to prison when he is sentenced before your Honor. I feel so strongly about this for a number reasons.

Let me begin my saying I stand by my testimony in your courtroom on November 7-8, 2019. In fact, I stand by all of my testimony throughout the Mueller investigation and there pre-trial conversations I had with the DC prosecution team. That being said, there was more I wish I had the opportunity to express had I not been limited by the questions asked of me.

Most notably was after Mr. Stone’s defense attorney asked I had ever thought Mr. Stone was going to steal or harm my dog Bianca. My answer was an emphatic “No.” At the time I was hoping he would follow that question with another asking if I had ever personally felt threatened by Mr. Stone. The answer would have been the same. I never in any way felt that stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or to my dog. I chalked up his bellicose tirades to “Stone being Stone.” All bark and no bite!
...


So, the "sorely misinformed" people must be the prosecutors and the people who do not know (or refuse to see) the way the game is played.


Stone is a sleazebag, as I said. But that doesn't make this prosecution any less of a joke.
Even beyond that, you seem to have been unable to reconcile "a few years" for lying to Congress with the numerous high-ranking government officials from the previous administration who just did that and who were not prosecuted...

Stone got prosecuted for the same reason as Manafort: to try to squeeze them for info on Trump, and to smear Trump by associating him with criminals on trial.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
So, the "sorely misinformed" people must be the prosecutors and the people who do not know (or refuse to see) the way the game is played.


Sorry, but after seeing and weighing all of the evidence presented in the case, the jury that Stone's attorneys helped to select decided that the threat did occur, and thus Credico's claims of Stone's innocence were considered coerced and could not be trusted at face value. That might be inconvenient for you, Stone, and partisan hacks, but that's how the legal system works in a trial.

Threatening a witness is illegal, regardless of how threatened the witness claims to have felt after the fact. You're looking like a libtard now by claiming that feels are more important than facts. SMH

The threat was made, the threat was part of a felony, and the facts convicted Stone. Stone knew that even contacting another witness to discuss the trial was illegal, so there is no question when he also made a threat in the process of what was already felony witness tampering.
edit on 2/14/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: rickymouse

The federal sentencing guidelines say it was the right sentence. What else you going to go by?

For Trump to interfere is a clear violation of the separation of powers clause. Trump should not be overseeing the justice department. Period.

Trump is literally the head of the DOJ as Chief Executive... It's not a separation of powers. It's HIS DOJ.


I think someone from Mrs. Barrett's 7th grade class called CNN and MSNBC today, and let them know the DOJ is within the Presidential branch, and the President is the immediate boss of the Attorney General.

Their attitudes were more of resignation and confusion today. Replacing yesterday's anger and screams of "Trump's crime spree is continuing!!".



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

It was coerced?! Man, I hope that dog goes into witness protection. Maybe they can disguise it as a pony-soldier...

What a sham! Hook-line-and-sinker for you, I guess.

"It doesn't matter if the witness says he didn't ever feel threatened -- we decide that, not victims"



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


" Generally speaking, is it a good thing or bad thing if the president influences the DOJ based on his own personal politics? "


Well , if someone he knows who he considers a Confidant and Good Friend is Somehow Railroaded in a Court of Law by Deep State Actors who are Really Trying to Harm him Personally by going after his Friends UNJUSTLY , then yes , it is Within his Right and Power as the POTUS to do so .

edit on 15-2-2020 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: rickymouse

The federal sentencing guidelines say it was the right sentence. What else you going to go by?

For Trump to interfere is a clear violation of the separation of powers clause. Trump should not be overseeing the justice department. Period.


Wow a lot of ignorance in one post. 1st the department of justice is part of the executive branch. Its job which apparently you dont know is to provide legal advice and argue legal cases for the government. This is basically the US govt law firm. In addition they give legal advice to other institutions in the government however the judiciary is not under its control. They have no power over judges only what cases federal prosecutors will take to court.

Now im not sure what you think separations of powers have to do with this but they are totally irrelevant. The constitution also has nothing to do with this as this department was created after the constitution and is an arm of the executive branch to help them enforce US law,Which the costitution assigned to the president.

So to put it bluntly you have zero understanding of the situation and want to claim somehow Trump is bad i get it.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Feelings do not outweigh facts. Again you sound like a libtard special snowflake screeching about "but his feelings, but his feelings, but his feelings!". I don't care if Credico felt threatened, or if he feels like he identifies as a furry wearing pink latex. His feelings are irrelevant to the crime that was committed.

A threat was made in the process of what was already felony witness tampering without the threat. Stone was fully aware that he was already breaking the law by just discussing the case with another witness and trying to influence his testimony. The plain text threat was just icing on the cake when the felony had already been committed.

The "effectiveness" of the threat has no bearing on any of it. If you try to rob a bank and fail, you're still going to jail regardless of how "effective" you were in the process. This isn't rocket science. Even you can understand something so simple, but in your case the partisan blinders are on so tight that it might take you a bit of effort.
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
ANDREW MCCABE NOT TO BE INDICTED BECAUSE BARR IS PISSED.


Read the transcript of the Judge. McCabe will not be indicted because the DOJ repeatedly and continually failed to convince a grand jury that a crime had likely been committed. They failed to adequately support or provide any charges, and merely kept asking for extension after extension until the judge finally decided that enough was enough. It had nothing to do with Barr being pissed at Trump.
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
1 year per word?


Nope, that's not how it works.

Arguing the number of words is like arguing for a smaller sentence because you used a .38 special instead of a .45 magnum while robbing a bank. The caliber of bullet in a robbery is just as irrelevant as the number of words in a threat against a witness. That's why there are standardized guidelines when it comes to sentencing recommendations.

Feel free to educate yourself on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines if you'd actually like to learn how it does work, but I get a strong feeling that you're really not that interested since it won't align with the current partisan outrage machine.

There was nothing out of the ordinary regarding the 7-9 year recommendation for Stone's 7 felony convictions.
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join