njbuff Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 40 minutes ago, Cinga said: But he is a REPUBLICAN!!!!! Meanwhile, Obama had almost 2000, the most since a couple other Democrats, FDR and Truman... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/obama-used-more-clemency-power/ Fake outrage
Doc Brown Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 3 hours ago, Cinga said: But he is a REPUBLICAN!!!!! Meanwhile, Obama had almost 2000, the most since a couple other Democrats, FDR and Truman... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/obama-used-more-clemency-power/ Great research there because nonviolent drug offenders are the same as longtime personal friends. 1 1
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 8 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Great research there because nonviolent drug offenders are the same as longtime personal friends. Who specifically are the longtime personal friends?
Cinga Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 8 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Great research there because nonviolent drug offenders are the same as longtime personal friends. So the traitorous Manning was a non-violent drug offender huh? How 'bout James Cartwright? I know, he only lied to investigators.... oh wait... Ian Schrager I suspect is going to become a Democrat bundler. Does the name Bowe Bergdahl rind a bell? yeah... good research idiot 2
sabrecrazed Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 12 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Great research there because nonviolent drug offenders are the same as longtime personal friends. Sounds like you are ok with targeting those longtime friends for prosecution when you have a political vendetta and a narrative to forward.
Doc Brown Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 5 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Who specifically are the longtime personal friends? IF he were to pardon Stone which was the comparison being made. 5 hours ago, Cinga said: So the traitorous Manning was a non-violent drug offender huh? How 'bout James Cartwright? I know, he only lied to investigators.... oh wait... Ian Schrager I suspect is going to become a Democrat bundler. Does the name Bowe Bergdahl rind a bell? yeah... good research idiot Thanks for specifics instead of just throwing out numbers. The vast majority in your link were non violent drug offenders. 1 hour ago, sabrecrazed said: Sounds like you are ok with targeting those longtime friends for prosecution when you have a political vendetta and a narrative to forward. No. That would be the prosecutors who recommended 7 to 9 years. Stone’s arrogance and stupidity is why he’s in prison. How stupid do you have to be to lie to Congress and then intimidate a witness by threatening to take her dog? He deserves jail time and apparently what he got was typical for the crimes he was convicted of.
sabrecrazed Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 27 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: No. That would be the prosecutors who recommended 7 to 9 years. Stone’s arrogance and stupidity is why he’s in prison. How stupid do you have to be to lie to Congress and then intimidate a witness by threatening to take her dog? He deserves jail time and apparently what he got was typical for the crimes he was convicted of. Even if the witness claims they didn't feel threatened or intimidated? Even if the jury is led by someone with political bias and a clear and stated interest in the outcome? Even if the judge uses her position to take away his first amendment rights? Even if the judge uses the bench as a stump to make political statements... false ones from? How much jail time should he get? Are you bothered at all that this was a railroad job from the start? I am and I can't stand Roger Stone. 1 2
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 34 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: IF he were to pardon Stone which was the comparison being made. Thanks for specifics instead of just throwing out numbers. The vast majority in your link were non violent drug offenders. No. That would be the prosecutors who recommended 7 to 9 years. Stone’s arrogance and stupidity is why he’s in prison. How stupid do you have to be to lie to Congress and then intimidate a witness by threatening to take her dog? He deserves jail time and apparently what he got was typical for the crimes he was convicted of. Except the Randy Credico told the court he didn't feel threatened by Stone (the "msm" is trying to dismiss this, claim it never happened, etc) </snip> 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! </snip> 2
Nineforty Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Except the Randy Credico told the court he didn't feel threatened by Stone (the "msm" is trying to dismiss this, claim it never happened, etc) </snip> 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! </snip> You do understand the fact that Credico didn't want Stone jailed is irrelevant? You do understand what a reluctant witness is? You do understand that in that same letter (and the next paragraph of the article you copy/pasted), Credico writes, "I understand that Roger Stone has broken federal laws..." and then argues prison sentence would not be fair. You do understand nuances, such as the fact that Credico said he didn't believe Stone's threats, but also admitted that his threats to him and the judge could lead his acolytes (Proud Boys, crazy people on the internet, etc.) to do something harmful or violent. You do understand that the Judge said yesterday that Credico's grand jury testimony gave a different picture of his reaction to Stone's threats than when on the stand in the trial. Credico testified in to the grand jury that he no longer lived at his house after receiving Stone's threats and he also wore a disguise out of fear of being attacked by an ally of Stone? The judge also said she'd take Credico's more recent statements into consideration. Which is what she should do. And presumably did. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 Just now, Nineforty said: You do understand the fact that Credico didn't want Stone jailed is irrelevant? You do understand what a reluctant witness is? You do understand that in that same letter (and the next paragraph of the article you copy/pasted), Credico writes, "I understand that Roger Stone has broken federal laws..." and then argues prison sentence would not be fair. You do understand nuances, such as the fact that Credico said he didn't believe Stone's threats, but also admitted that his threats to him and the judge could lead his acolytes (Proud Boys, crazy people on the internet, etc.) to do something harmful or violent. You do understand that the Judge said yesterday that Credico's grand jury testimony gave a different picture of his reaction to Stone's threats than when on the stand in the trial. Credico testified in to the grand jury that he no longer lived at his house after receiving Stone's threats and he also wore a disguise out of fear of being attacked by an ally of Stone? The judge also said she'd take Credico's more recent statements into consideration. Which is what she should do. And presumably did. You do understand the response was to "threatening a witness." If the witness does not feel threatened, I am not sure how anyone can say he was threatened. Maybe you, Doc, the judge, all know better than he does how he felt about the exchange?
Deranged Rhino Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Nineforty said: You do understand the fact that Credico didn't want Stone jailed is irrelevant? You do understand what a reluctant witness is? You do understand that in that same letter (and the next paragraph of the article you copy/pasted), Credico writes, "I understand that Roger Stone has broken federal laws..." and then argues prison sentence would not be fair. You do understand nuances, such as the fact that Credico said he didn't believe Stone's threats, but also admitted that his threats to him and the judge could lead his acolytes (Proud Boys, crazy people on the internet, etc.) to do something harmful or violent. You do understand that the Judge said yesterday that Credico's grand jury testimony gave a different picture of his reaction to Stone's threats than when on the stand in the trial. Credico testified in to the grand jury that he no longer lived at his house after receiving Stone's threats and he also wore a disguise out of fear of being attacked by an ally of Stone? The judge also said she'd take Credico's more recent statements into consideration. Which is what she should do. And presumably did. It’s hilarious to hear you lecture someone on nuance when you fell hook line and sinker for the Russian hoax. So much so you STILL believe it was real.
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It’s hilarious to hear you lecture someone on nuance when you fell hook line and sinker for the Russian hoax. So much so you STILL believe it was real. Which Russian hoax did he believe? The last one or the new one currently being pushed? 1
njbuff Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It’s hilarious to hear you lecture someone on nuance when you fell hook line and sinker for the Russian hoax. So much so you STILL believe it was real. Anyone who hates Trump will ALWAYS believe the Russian collusion delusion and nothing will EVER change their minds. EVER ? 1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said: Which Russian hoax did he believe? The last one or the new one currently being pushed? Anyone who falls for the new Russian bullSchiff is an utter fvcking moron. 1
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, njbuff said: Anyone who falls for the new Russian bullSchiff is an utter fvcking moron. Maybe now the Dems will get behind mandatory voter ID! 1 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 33 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: Maybe now the Dems will get behind mandatory voter ID! ...they're checking now........... 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 44 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: Which Russian hoax did he believe? The last one or the new one currently being pushed? Since he learned nothing from 2016, and is an admitted anti-Trump guy who “wants to see Trump hanged”, I’m going to say he believes both.
Taro T Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 Not sure that 40 months isn't too long a stay in prison for lying to Congress but 2 months is IMHO definitely too short. Wondering if those cheering this sentence won't end up having some remorse about it should Durham's efforts ever actually start resulting in indictments.
Cinga Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) This entire Stone sentence and the entire discussion here ignores one very basic problem to the whole process. That is the very beginning of the entire investigation was started under false pretense, and dare I say, ILLEGALLY! We know now that even the very first FISA warrant that began this whole mess was obtained under false testimony. Now... I was a law school dropout so maybe one of our better lawyers here can add to this or maybe correct me, but from what I remember, any evidence of testimony obtained under illegal circumstances is not admissible in court. So shouldn't any charges brought about against anyone during an illegal investigation be likewise inadmissible? Stone was only called to testify because of the Mueller investigation right? And now that we know that investigation was totally bogus? Edited February 22, 2020 by Cinga 5
njbuff Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 3 hours ago, Taro T said: Not sure that 40 months isn't too long a stay in prison for lying to Congress but 2 months is IMHO definitely too short. Wondering if those cheering this sentence won't end up having some remorse about it should Durham's efforts ever actually start resulting in indictments. I think if these weirdos in the Democratic Party and MSM continue to call out Barr and Durham......... it’s only going to piss them off and they will lay fat indictments on their constituents. 1
Doc Brown Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 8 hours ago, sabrecrazed said: Even if the witness claims they didn't feel threatened or intimidated? Even if the jury is led by someone with political bias and a clear and stated interest in the outcome? Even if the judge uses her position to take away his first amendment rights? Even if the judge uses the bench as a stump to make political statements... false ones from? How much jail time should he get? Are you bothered at all that this was a railroad job from the start? I am and I can't stand Roger Stone. Even if all that is true Stone knowingly broke the law when he could've just invoked his fifth amendment rights or told the truth to Congress. He has nobody to blame but himself. 1
Recommended Posts