Pissed off about Roger Stone

a reply to: jhn7537

Ya.... they blew up someone's flipping camper in my neck of the woods believing it belonged to someone they wanted for murder. It didnt belong to him and he hadn't even been that area it was later found out. Thankfully, no one was in the trailer and they didnt needlessly kill anyone. They just destroyed the camper and everything inside it just about..
Equal under the law doesnt mean that some criminals deserve better treatment because of their position or connections. Stones lucky they didnt firebomb his home!!

originally posted by: jhn7537
I cant wait until Trump pardons Roger Stone...

You support the swamp. Criminals should be prosecuted and serve their sentence.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jhn7537
I cant wait until Trump pardons Roger Stone...

You support the swamp. Criminals should be prosecuted and serve their sentence.

How so? Presidents pardon people all the time - Every president has done it - its a privilege they are given as President.. Are you suggesting a President should never be allowed to pardon anyone, or do you just not like it when Trump does it?

Also, Roger Stone was charged with crimes due to the Mueller Investigation, which has a million and a half holes in it, not to mention 2 of the 4 FISA applications were illegal and possibly the other 2 will come back illegal as well... Roger Stone should have his case thrown out due to all these facts, not to mention the jury had Anti-Trumpers who had posts cheering on Roger Stones arrest when it happened... You can call Trump/Roger Stone the swamp all you want, but that couldnt be further from the truth...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I dont believe as a non violent first time offender, that he should have gotten an enhanced sentence. The guy who said he was threatened, also said he didnt think he was in any danger from Stone.

www.nationalreview.com...
In Stone’s case, the guidelines worked a severe result. In tampering cases, a guidelines enhancement calls for a drastic increase in the sentence if the defendant threatened the witness with physical injury. This drove Stone’s “offense level” from 21 to 29 on the guidelines grid, so even though he is a first offender (offense history “Category I” in guidelines-speak), his recommended sentence zoomed to 90 to 108 months — instead of 37 to 46 months, as it would have been at offense level 21 (i.e., without the threats).

originally posted by: jhn7537
How so? Presidents pardon people all the time - Every president has done it - its a privilege they are given as President.. Are you suggesting a President should never be allowed to pardon anyone, or do you just not like it when Trump does it?

I don't like when anyone does it, except for that stupid turkey at Thanksgiving. The only time I would be for it is when the preponderance of NEW evidence suggests the person did not commit the crime and they are unable to get a new trial.

Also, Roger Stone was charged with crimes due to the Mueller Investigation...

Who cares? He still committed crimes. Scumbags go to prison.

originally posted by: misskat1
I dont believe as a non violent first time offender, that he should have gotten an enhanced sentence. The guy who said he was threatened, also said he didnt think he was in any danger from Stone.

He still threatened him, show me the part in the law where it differentiates between serious threat and 'I'm just ****ing with you'.

a reply to: jhn7537

Lets take a look at who Clinton pardoned. Stone is nothing compared to these bad boys.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jhn7537
How so? Presidents pardon people all the time - Every president has done it - its a privilege they are given as President.. Are you suggesting a President should never be allowed to pardon anyone, or do you just not like it when Trump does it?

I don't like when anyone does it, except for that stupid turkey at Thanksgiving. The only time I would be for it is when the preponderance of NEW evidence suggests the person did not commit the crime and they are unable to get a new trial.

Also, Roger Stone was charged with crimes due to the Mueller Investigation...

Who cares? He still committed crimes. Scumbags go to prison.

So, you are okay with the 7-9 year recommendation by the prosecution? They gave him a harsh sentence to try to make the Mueller report/investigation look like it was actually a legitimate investigation, when in fact it was a sham/fishing expedition to search for crimes. The investigation never should have happened from the get go, considering the FISA applications were done illegally. Now, if you take this investigation away, there would be no Roger Stone crime.. If the investigations are proven to be done illegally, which its looking that way with 2 of 4 FISAs being illegal. Roger Stone deserves to have this thrown out completely, but if its not thrown out, Trump should do what's RIGHT which is pardoning him.

a reply to: jhn7537

I guess swamp draining can only be done to Democrats. You want Trump to ignore seperation of powers and pardon all these people..

originally posted by: jhn7537
So, you are okay with the 7-9 year recommendation by the prosecution?

100%.

Everything else is just whiney political bull****.

If the judge agrees/disagress that's how the process works.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: jhn7537

I guess swamp draining can only be done to Democrats. You want Trump to ignore seperation of powers and pardon all these people..

How so? Where is separation of powers being ignored?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Maybe the letter Credico wrote to the judge would have been a clue.

talkingpointsmemo.com...

Credico, a main witness in the case, had argued against a term of incarceration for Stone in a Jan. 22 letter to Judge Amy Berman Jackson, saying that “I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or to my dog.”

It reminds me of when during a rally Trump made a joke of asking Russia for the emails. and the dems tried to use that in his impeachment.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jhn7537
So, you are okay with the 7-9 year recommendation by the prosecution?

100%.

Everything else is just whiney political bull****.

If the judge agrees/disagress that's how the process works.

And your thoughts on this little tid bit are? No issues with the prosecution telling DOJ leadership one thing and then doing something completely different? No issues whatsoever, huh?

A senior DOJ official confirmed to Fox News that senior leadership officials there made the call to reverse the initial sentencing recommendation, saying the filing on Monday evening was not only extreme, but also substantially inconsistent with how the prosecutors had briefed DOJ leadership they would proceed on the case. The "general communication" between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the main DOJ had led senior officials to expect a more moderate sentence, the official told Fox News.

a reply to: misskat1

It isn't up to him, it's up to the Judge.

a reply to: jhn7537

Wow, the 'DOJ Leadership' made that call? Shocker. Who runs the 'DOJ Leadership'? Oh, right, Barr and Trump. That's called putting your finger on the scale. If you're cool with that then you like the swamp.

I get that you want your boy free, you're partisan and that's what partisans want, things that support their viewpoint.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: jhn7537

Wow, the 'DOJ Leadership' made that call? Shocker. Who runs the 'DOJ Leadership'? Oh, right, Barr and Trump. That's called putting your finger on the scale. If you're cool with that then you like the swamp.

I get that you want your boy free, you're partisan and that's what partisans want, things that support their viewpoint.

LOL, you're right, lets just ignore DOJ leadership and listen to these career prosecutors and only them, even after their story changed with what they told DOJ - I mean, its not like they could possibly have an agenda here.. None of them ever worked for Mueller, right?

And how dare the DOJ leadership have a say in this matter!! I mean, its not like AG Barr has worked for NUMEROUS administrations over the past with zero issues. But now that he is working under Trumps admin, he's quickly become an enemy of the state who must resign or be impeached, right? Maybe we should only trust people like these prosecutors, or people like Vindman... Apparently, only these people tell the truth, while everything Trump & AG Barr do is swampy.. got it!

a reply to: misskat1

That nytimes article is painfully one sided. Lets give it a quick analysis.

Mr. Stone, 67, deserved seven to nine years behind bars because he threatened the witness with bodily harm

My first thought when reading this was "what are the chances he said something benign and they took it out of context"... and what do you know a few paragraphs later they say this:

In their own memorandum, Mr. Stone’s lawyers argued that the prosecutors had misconstrued harmless messages from Mr. Stone to the witness, a New York radio host named Randy Credico, as genuine threats. They argued that Mr. Stone should be sentenced to less than 15 months in prison for the seven felonies he was found guilty of in November.
...
Mr. Credico himself submitted a letter asking the judge not to send Mr. Stone to prison, saying incarceration damaged both prisoners and their families. While he stood by his testimony during the trial, he wrote, “I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog.”

I'd feel fairly safe betting money that his "threats" were blown way out of proportion, and if they quoted the actual statements and context in which they were said by Stone it would put a damper on their hard hitting report. They can't actually prove he was part of some Russian collusion plot so they try to get him on some trumped up harassment charges despite the "victim" themselves saying they don't want Stone charged.

The evidence in Mr. Stone’s jury trial showed that in the months before the election, he strove to obtain emails that Russia had stolen from Democratic Party computers and funneled to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks then released the emails at strategic moments to damage Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent.

It's been a little while since a looked into this, but from what I understand Stone recovered the DNC documents from publicly available sources after they were leaked. I believe he discussed the situation fairly in depth with Alex Jones a while back, which is one of the reasons they put a gag order on him to stop him talking. The fact is Stone didn't make Wikileaks release those documents and at the time I believe it was part of his job to provide Trump with info which he could use against his political opponents.

But the defense lawyers argued that Mr. Stone not only never intended to threaten Mr. Credico, but created no real obstacle for federal investigators. While Mr. Credico refused to testify before Congress, he cooperated fully with the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, they argued. And he in fact had no incriminating information about the Trump campaign or WikiLeaks, they said.

This is what it comes down to, he never created a real obstacle and more to the point he had no reason to create an obstacle because he didn't do what he was accused of because he and Trump didn't orchestrate some grand Russian conspiracy also involving Wikileaks. Saying he deserves 9 years is just admitting this is about sending a message and getting revenge. That's also why they raided him and informed CNN so they could film it.

They argued that Mr. Stone’s behavior before and after he was criminally charged underscored the need for a prison term to teach him respect for the law.

This is pure authoritarian nonsense, and coming from people who are increasingly aligning with militant far-left groups who lack all respect for authority. Sorry but not having "respect for the law" isn't a crime, and what Stone didn't respect was the people trying to bring him down regardless of if he really did anything wrong and their shady tactics. It's especially hard to respect the legal system when you have partisan stooges with an agenda working against you.

The prosecutors also stressed that Mr. Stone had threatened the judge herself in February 2019, when he posted a photo of her with an image of what appeared to be the cross hairs of a gun next to her head on social media.

Uh huh... I did a quick search and found this image showing the Instagram post he made. Again it appears to me to be taken completely out of context, the "crosshair" isn't over her head and it seems like a logo or something in the background on the wall behind her. Even if he did manually edit it, I highly doubt his intent was to threaten the judge who controls his future. Along with the image he added text mentioning Mueller chose her because she's an Obama appointed Judge who dismissed the Benghazi charges against Hillary Clinton. Once again they're twisting the truth for a political agenda, with zero concern for the suffering they cause.

People are calling for a mistrial because of the provable bias by the Jury foreman. Once again its rigged against Trump and anyone who supports him,

REMINDER This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
Please read new threads.
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images.
Is There Civilization Without Civility

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

Let stone go free. It is because he was talking about wikileaks that he got the heat put on him. Lost worst lairs than him around when looking into the details of the charges.