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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage




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.


I completely understand. It's a political prosecution. I hope the dog is safe. And that Clapper, Brennan, and co are held to the same glorious standards. But it won't because of our three -tier justice system.




posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

There was nothing out of the ordinary regarding the 7-9 year recommendation for Stone's 7 felony convictions.


1 year per word was tongue and cheek..kind of easy to see that...geez

My point about the 7 felonies is they are basically bull crap. Of course they know the guidelines and so they stack the deck to get a high recommendation and people like you can say "There was nothing out of the ordinary regarding the 7-9 year recommendation for Stone's 7 felony convictions." What was "out of the ordinary" was the whole process in the first place starting with the 7 felonies.

We all know how they work to stack the deck, its not just with Stone it is common principles, just in this case it was also politically motivated to begin with.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Under the Constitution, the president can do nearly whatever he pleases in terms of the DOJ. He is the lead of the executive branch of government and the DOJ is within the executive as well, NOT the judicial branch. As such, the president could even direct the Atty General to open investigations and to do the job they are entrusted with. None of these actions are abuse of power -- they are part of the power the president has under the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
I completely understand. It's a political prosecution.


For argument's sake, let's assume you are right that it's a political prosecution.

So what?

Stone's lawyers helped select, and then approved of the jury that convicted him; so it clearly wasn't a political conviction. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers that his lawyers signed off on, and there was nothing out of the ordinary with his sentencing recommendations.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Actually, in federal court, it is the judge that selects the jury. And the judge was an Obama appointee.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What was "out of the ordinary" was the whole process in the first place starting with the 7 felonies.


Yes, it certainly is out of the ordinary to perjure oneself in front of Congress multiple times, and to tamper with federal witnesses, but Stone has never been considered an "ordinary" guy. He's proud of his self-proclaimed and longstanding "dirty trickster" status. He worked hard to earn it, but it was bound to catch up with him eventually, and playing games lying to Congress and tampering with witnesses isn't wise.
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Actually, in federal court, it is the judge that selects the jury. And the judge was an Obama appointee.


His lawyers had the ability to strike jurors, and they signed off on the final group as being fit.

Furthermore, the "Obama judge" didn't convict him. The Jury did.
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

You are right, but we already know now that the jury foreman lied.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

He's welcome to appeal if he thinks his lawyers failed him, but really, why bother.

It's like when Trump gas-lit his base over "due process" in the impeachment inquiry. Absolute nonsense when such "due process" comes at trial (not during an investigation). The outcome was already predetermined with Mitch running the senate, so it was a bunch of screeching for nothing.

Likewise, Stone is above the law. He hasn't even been sentenced yet, the recommendations are on par, and the screeching has already gone full blown when Trump is just going to commute the sentence and pardon him anyways. All this crying and screeching about Stone for nothing.

Trump isn't concerned with changing the legal guidelines so that there's equal justice across the board. He's only concerned with the law not applying to "his guys".
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Not the point.

The jury foreman lied. At the very least, the trial would have to be redone.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

He's welcome to appeal if he thinks his lawyers failed him with their sign off on the jury, but again, why bother.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: DBCowboy

He's welcome to appeal if he thinks his lawyers failed him with their sign off on the jury, but again, why bother.



The juror lied, that wasn't the fault of Stone's lawyers.

Unless you can show me how the lawyers are responsible for the juror lying.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 02:48 PM
link   
First off, the benefit of a trial by jury is that it's not just one person deciding the case. It's a team of jurors, so a single juror doesn't mean much when it comes to a unanimous conviction. It's more of a "hung jury" issue, and that wasn't the case here.


originally posted by: DBCowboy
The juror lied, that wasn't the fault of Stone's lawyers.

Unless you can show me how the lawyers are responsible for the juror lying.


The lawyers are responsible for signing off on the jury, her alleged lie is said that she claimed she didn't know who Stone was, yet she made a public social media post referencing him in January of 2019.

His lawyers not vetting her public social media posts could easily be considered a failing on their part. A lazy and sloppy one at that since combing social media is a pretty standard practice when high end lawyers are vetting a juror these days. A better lawyer/law-firm would have likely found the public posting, and may have struck her from the list.

The juror allegedly lying wasn't his lawyers' fault, their poor vetting before signing off on the jury was, but again, this was a unanimous conviction so one single juror isn't really tipping any scales here.
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What was "out of the ordinary" was the whole process in the first place starting with the 7 felonies.


Yes, it certainly is out of the ordinary to purger oneself in front of Congress multiple times, ...


I take legal consul and commentary from people who can spell "perjure". It shows you're merely regurgitating and not knowledgeable. IMO, of course...

This whole process has been a # show, including the sentencing. You cannot defend it honestly, nor address why the other significantly more high-profile "pergerors" are never prosecuted.

I don't care a fig about Stone. He's a pure rat. I don't care if he rots. But I do care about the government engaging in banana republic tactics and political prosecutions.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
I take legal consul and commentary from people who can spell "perjure". It shows you're merely regurgitating and not knowledgeable. IMO, of course...


Ah yes! The grammar nazi argument! Such a classic! You're always a winner when you resort to calling out a simple typo over addressing substance.

Fret not, my dear grammar nazi, I went back and fixed it for you.



I don't care a fig about Stone. He's a pure rat. I don't care if he rots. But I do care about the government engaging in banana republic tactics and political prosecutions.


Then Trump is definitely not your guy.
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage



simple typo over addressing substance...

When people treat a precise legal term in a way that suggests they are not very familiar with it, it makes me think they don't have a knowledge base for an informed opinion and are regurgitating someone else's, yes. "Perger" is not a typical "typo" of "perjure"...




Then Trump is definitely not your guy.

I disagree with Trump on many things. I also think he's frequently a hot-headed idiot, and something of a douche.
None of that justifies a coup or turning the country into a banana republic and abusing the justice system.
Present a better candidate, and I'll happily vote for him/her.



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Odd, I would think a simple typo would be evidence that something was not copy/paste internet regurgitation, but to each their own. Keep on fighting that good ol' grammar nazi fight.


As for a "coup", the guy in office has publicly asked for no less than 3 foreign countries to help interfere in our elections along with taking a host of other authoritarian actions with overreaching interpretations of executive powers that would make even Darth Cheney blush . That's gonna illicit some political backlash, and Trump knew it.

As for a better candidate... not likely. At least not without a write-in. It's gonna be a choice between road apples and cow pies from here on out. I didn't think it could get any worse than the joke that was the Bush/Kerry election, but then they gave us Trump/Hillary.

Most sane individuals have abandoned our two primary and corrupt political parties leaving little more than political extremists on both sides selecting the two primary candidates that we're left to choose from.
edit on 2/15/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

I did not say you "copy and pasted it".

I said you are, in my opinion, not very familiar with legal issues and are parroting some one's opinion. That's why you spell perjure phonetically.

Reading is fundamental

It doesn't mean you were wrong (you were), but it means I don't take your observation or conclusions seriously.

The President has every authority to order federal prosecutors to do something. He did not. He did express an opinion. The judge has every authority to exceed federal guidelines or ignore the prosecution's recommendations in issuing the verdict. That has not occurred yet either.

It's just more hysteria.

The President acting unwise is not a scandal or impeachable.

For the road apples, DNC/RNC I mostly agree with you. I am, by and large, impressed with the actual performance of the current turd, to be honest, given the circumstances. He may be a # sandwich, but at least he's not a soggy one.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Actually, in federal court, it is the judge that selects the jury. And the judge was an Obama appointee.


His lawyers had the ability to strike jurors, and they signed off on the final group as being fit.

Furthermore, the "Obama judge" didn't convict him. The Jury did.


You have watched trials on matlock. There is no signing off on a jury. Ultimately the judge decides if a juror is removed. The judge decides if each juror can be unbiased. Even if the defense atty thinks a juror may be a problem and tries to have someone removed "for cause" the judge can decide to deny it.

Now each side usually get 1 or 2 people they can have removed on a "peremptory challenge" but if the defense has used them all ready the judge ultimately decides which way a jury leans.

Trials are won and lost in jury selection. And that is entirely up to the judge.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join