Hedge Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Offense DEFINITELY has the ball: 1. Liu was picked to help clean up the DC office -- but wound up helping/arming Mueller's leftovers instead. 2. Liu was lured away from that job with a job at Treasury 3. Liue quits her job to prepare for her confirmation hearing 4. Barr appoints O'Shea to take his place 5. Trump withdraws her nomination -- Liu problem solved. 6. As soon as O'Shea is installed, the Mueller holdovers quit and the Stone sentencing blows up. 7. Barr and Trump just nuked the DC office, the one that Brennan, Comey, and others were using against the administration -- ... and the very same office Barr would need control of to successfully prosecute Brennan, Comey and more... 7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Offense DEFINITELY has the ball: 1. Liu was picked to help clean up the DC office -- but wound up helping/arming Mueller's leftovers instead. 2. Liu was lured away from that job with a job at Treasury 3. Liue quits her job to prepare for her confirmation hearing 4. Barr appoints O'Shea to take his place 5. Trump withdraws her nomination -- Liu problem solved. 6. As soon as O'Shea is installed, the Mueller holdovers quit and the Stone sentencing blows up. 7. Barr and Trump just nuked the DC office, the one that Brennan, Comey, and others were using against the administration -- ... and the very same office Barr would need control of to successfully prosecute Brennan, Comey and more... There were a lot of people questioning why she was up for that undersecretary post (myself included). Looks like Trump pulled a fast one. ? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 I guess Barr would have to recuse himself when the Justice Dept eventually investigates him, wouldn't he? This Stone situation looks bad for Justice and justice both. Anyone here remember in 2016 when Bill Clinton talked to Loretta Lynch on the infamous tarmac and there was great suspicion that he was trying to influence the Justice Dept in investigating Hillary? Remember how attempts to pressure an investigation were thought to be improper back then? Times sure have changed. Now interfering with the Justice Dept is cheered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: I guess Barr would have to recuse himself when the Justice Dept eventually investigates him, wouldn't he? This Stone situation looks bad for Justice and justice both. Anyone here remember in 2016 when Bill Clinton talked to Loretta Lynch on the infamous tarmac and there was great suspicion that he was trying to influence the Justice Dept in investigating Hillary? Remember how attempts to pressure an investigation were thought to be improper back then? Times sure have changed. Now interfering with the Justice Dept is cheered. Hasn’t paid attention to these details for three years, knows nothing about this subject and proves it daily. Gets a round of MSM talking points from the people freaking out about justice — and then comes down here to spout off, pretending to have original thoughts on this matter .... ... The Bob way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Hasn’t paid attention to these details for three years, knows nothing about this subject and proves it daily. Gets a round of MSM talking points from the people freaking out about justice — and then comes down here to spout off, pretending to have original thoughts on this matter .... ... The Bob way. The left and their contempt for Barr is downright laughable. They are so scared that he might find wrongdoings against their beloved folks on the left. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 10 minutes ago, njbuff said: The left and their contempt for Barr is downright laughable. They are so scared that he might find wrongdoings against their beloved folks on the left. Sure are. It's fear mixed with weaponized ignorance. Bob still believes Russia/Trump was real -- "they just didn't find enough evidence to convict him". That's what they programmed him to think and believe, despite the absence of evidence and facts to support that position (and despite the fact that in order to believe that position in the first place requires a complete inversion of the entire system of justice in this country). Bob uses the tarmac as an apples to apples comparison, as an example, when it's anything but apples to apples. It's a poor comparison which demonstrates how little he understands about what is happening now and what happened then. He has no one but himself to blame for his continued ignorance though. No one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, njbuff said: The left and their contempt for Barr is downright laughable. They are so scared that he might find wrongdoings against their beloved folks on the left. Well I surely can't speak for 'The Left', but as an Independent and since I am left leaning most of the time these days, let me say that I have no problem finding wrongdoing of Left leaning politicians. If not trying to weaponize the Justice Dept, certainly investigate wrongdoing by Dems, Repubs, Independents, and all other political and apolitical Americans - All Americans. He needs to be careful, imo, to not allow Trump to steamroll the Justice Dept. Remember when Trump, about every week or two, would lament that his AG is not protecting him....no Roy Cohn? We don't hear that anymore because he now does have his protector in place - Bill Barr. My contempt for Barr rises from his apparent willingness to take direction from the WH. His slanted summary of the Mueller report was the first clue. This Stone situation is just further proof. When Trump orders Barr to open investigations on Bernie or Pete, y'all still think he will just be sniffing around for corruption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Well I surely can't speak for 'The Left', but as an Independent and since I am left leaning most of the time these days, let me say that I have no problem finding wrongdoing of Left leaning politicians. If not trying to weaponize the Justice Dept, certainly investigate wrongdoing by Dems, Repubs, Independents, and all other political and apolitical Americans - All Americans. He needs to be careful, imo, to not allow Trump to steamroll the Justice Dept. Remember when Trump, about every week or two, would lament that his AG is not protecting him....no Roy Cohn? We don't hear that anymore because he now does have his protector in place - Bill Barr. My contempt for Barr rises from his apparent willingness to take direction from the WH. His slanted summary of the Mueller report was the first clue. This Stone situation is just further proof. When Trump orders Barr to open investigations on Bernie or Pete, y'all still think he will just be sniffing around for corruption? Liar. Your contempt for Barr stems from the media telling you to find him contemptible. You are not pushing your own original thought. And it shows in the examples you've chosen and the lies you've written above. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Video/Article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-examples-of-what-the-mueller-team-was-really-doing-will-emerge-in-coming-weeks ************************* 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 These people were crooks posing as cops and lawyers, not virtuous defenders of the country -- unless you're plugged into the MSM drip feed. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 41 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Liar. Your contempt for Barr stems from the media telling you to find him contemptible. You are not pushing your own original thought. And it shows in the examples you've chosen and the lies you've written above. You calling someone a liar. Ha Trump needs to go. He is a corrupt, power abusing POS 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 46 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Well I surely can't speak for 'The Left', but as an Independent and since I am left leaning most of the time these days, let me say that I have no problem finding wrongdoing of Left leaning politicians. If not trying to weaponize the Justice Dept, certainly investigate wrongdoing by Dems, Repubs, Independents, and all other political and apolitical Americans - All Americans. He needs to be careful, imo, to not allow Trump to steamroll the Justice Dept. Remember when Trump, about every week or two, would lament that his AG is not protecting him....no Roy Cohn? We don't hear that anymore because he now does have his protector in place - Bill Barr. My contempt for Barr rises from his apparent willingness to take direction from the WH. His slanted summary of the Mueller report was the first clue. This Stone situation is just further proof. When Trump orders Barr to open investigations on Bernie or Pete, y'all still think he will just be sniffing around for corruption? If you know the details of the case, was the sentencing recommendation of 8-9 years appropriate for the crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 35 minutes ago, GG said: If you know the details of the case, was the sentencing recommendation of 8-9 years appropriate for the crime? I knew he got convicted by a jury of lying to Congress and interfering/threatening a witness. I won't pretend that I know what he should have gotten as far as a sentence. I don't think the 7-9 years were the max sentences though, were they? I will say though, I think the handling of this case should all flow through normal judiciary channels - prosecutor, jury trial, and judicial sentencing - and should be free from Trump interference. It looks pretty certain that Trump is interfering to protect his friends. So, in addition to pardon power, he now seems to direct investigations and to dictate sentencing guidelines too. Any of that troubling yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I knew he got convicted by a jury of lying to Congress and interfering/threatening a witness. I won't pretend that I know what he should have gotten as far as a sentence. I don't think the 7-9 years were the max sentences though, were they? I will say though, I think the handling of this case should all flow through normal judiciary channels - prosecutor, jury trial, and judicial sentencing - and should be free from Trump interference. It looks pretty certain that Trump is interfering to protect his friends. So, in addition to pardon power, he now seems to direct investigations and to dictate sentencing guidelines too. Any of that troubling yet? ... It is free from Trump interference. The judge decides the sentence, not the DOJ. The DOJ made a recommendation. (Once again, Bob doesn't know the facts, or the details, but has an opinion. Not an original opinion, just one he lifted from MSM talking points. Being stupid and stoned is no way to go through a disinformation war.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 FEAR (end of a longer thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: I guess Barr would have to recuse himself when the Justice Dept eventually investigates him, wouldn't he? This Stone situation looks bad for Justice and justice both. Anyone here remember in 2016 when Bill Clinton talked to Loretta Lynch on the infamous tarmac and there was great suspicion that he was trying to influence the Justice Dept in investigating Hillary? Remember how attempts to pressure an investigation were thought to be improper back then? Times sure have changed. Now interfering with the Justice Dept is cheered. You're actually making the point you're arguing against. The Lynch/Clinton meeting on the tarmac was the nail in the coffin of any argument that the DOJ "investigation" was anything other than a coordinated effort to subvert SOP to shield the former Secretary of State and then Presidential candidate from very serious charges of which she was clearly guilty. This current situation is the reigning in of an illegal attempt by the US Attorney's Office to subvert SOP and the law to drastically increase the sentence of a civilian who they have already selectively prosecuted, based on political association, for a relatively minor offense. This is not disputable. All the while they've declined to prosecute several Democrat affiliated government officials for similar and significantly more egregious offenses, with no rational explanation for the disparate treatment. The real kicker is that when the Democrat run DOJ intervened on behalf of Hillary without any legitimate legal or moral justification, and in regard to far more serious and consequential matters related to the official duties as a high ranking member of the sitting administration, you and yours did not give one single, solitary fu¢k. There were no calls for recusals, investigations, prosecutions, or impeachments. No hand wringing over the dereliction of the "rule of law." In fact, any such suggestions were openly mocked. You defended and continue to defend the actions of all who were involved. But now that it's politically convenient you claim to have suddenly developed a rigid set of principles that previously eluded you. Now you feign deep concerns and strong principled opposition to DOJ having any involvement in any case even tangentially connected to the administration, even if it is merely correcting a corrupt and unconscionable process that sought to further persecute a 67 year old civilian who did nothing of consequence and has already received significantly harsher treatment than would any other similarly situated individual. Your positions are irreconcilable, thus your selective piety is unconvincing. Your only guiding principle is unconditional and unwavering support of Democrats and everything they do. Edited February 12, 2020 by Rob's House 4 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Remember: They wanted 9 years for Stone for one count of lying to congress... ... and yet, crickets for this. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 This is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the legal underpinnings of the Mueller investigation and everything that comes from it. I can't vouch for all of the author's analysis, although the majority of it appears fairly sound, but the most important information is in the quoted material. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/02/wow-president-trump-torches-corrupt-evil-judge-amy-berman-jackson/ 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Also important context: The ones in the media defending those who have been referred are all former employees, who now work in the media. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 They didn't get enough the first time. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: They didn't get enough the first time. Gawd they are stupid. Barr will calmly make fools of them, although they'll get some obedient media headlines. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 14 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Gawd they are stupid. Barr will calmly make fools of them, although they'll get some obedient media headlines. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 33 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: They didn't get enough the first time. it might be that by the the time the 31st of March arrives, the hearing may take on a completely different air than what they are now planning for. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1227487422184906752 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 5 hours ago, Rob's House said: You're actually making the point you're arguing against. The Lynch/Clinton meeting on the tarmac was the nail in the coffin of any argument that the DOJ "investigation" was anything other than a coordinated effort to subvert SOP to shield the former Secretary of State and then Presidential candidate from very serious charges of which she was clearly guilty. This current situation is the reigning in of an illegal attempt by the US Attorney's Office to subvert SOP and the law to drastically increase the sentence of a civilian who they have already selectively prosecuted, based on political association, for a relatively minor offense. This is not disputable. All the while they've declined to prosecute several Democrat affiliated government officials for similar and significantly more egregious offenses, with no rational explanation for the disparate treatment. The real kicker is that when the Democrat run DOJ intervened on behalf of Hillary without any legitimate legal or moral justification, and in regard to far more serious and consequential matters related to the official duties as a high ranking member of the sitting administration, you and yours did not give one single, solitary fu¢k. There were no calls for recusals, investigations, prosecutions, or impeachments. No hand wringing over the dereliction of the "rule of law." In fact, any such suggestions were openly mocked. You defended and continue to defend the actions of all who were involved. But now that it's politically convenient you claim to have suddenly developed a rigid set of principles that previously eluded you. Now you feign deep concerns and strong principled opposition to DOJ having any involvement in any case even tangentially connected to the administration, even if it is merely correcting a corrupt and unconscionable process that sought to further persecute a 67 year old civilian who did nothing of consequence and has already received significantly harsher treatment than would any other similarly situated individual. Your positions are irreconcilable, thus your selective piety is unconvincing. Your only guiding principle is unconditional and unwavering support of Democrats and everything they do. Rob, quite the take there. Very creative reasoning. And, if you are asking, sure, please paste my past postings/opinions. That would be interesting. As an aside, maybe sometime you can explain the apparent contempt your replies to me contain. Am I misinterpreting that or am I not recalling a past interaction that got ugly. Certainly possible ...lots have gotten ugly around here. So, a suspicious looking though utterly unknown conversation between the EX-PRESIDENT, who had been out of office for 16 years, and the AG, who denied wrongdoing under oath, is somehow worse than this shameless public Trump interference? Stone is Trump' personal friend, right? Trump is the AG's boss today, right? Would you feel more pressure to follow advice from your existing company president or from an ex company president that worked there 16 years ago? Amazing what political goggles can do for one's vision and reasoning In this Stone situation, you have the President's wishes stated clearly on Twitter. No unknown conversation in this case. Not accusations of improper pressure as with Lynch, but undeniable written instructions to his Roy Cohn in the Justice Dept. Next day, we are supposed to believe that coincidentally Barr decided on his own, independent of Trump's tweet, to get involved. Pulease. I am close to Stone's age. If I was convicted of the charges that Stone was, would you be out here claiming I was being wronged? Or, might your bias lean the other direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: Rob, quite the take there. Very creative reasoning. And, if you are asking, sure, please paste my past postings/opinions. That would be interesting. As an aside, maybe sometime you can explain the apparent contempt your replies to me contain. Am I misinterpreting that or am I not recalling a past interaction that got ugly. Certainly possible ...lots have gotten ugly around here. So, a suspicious looking though utterly unknown conversation between the EX-PRESIDENT, who had been out of office for 16 years, and the AG, who denied wrongdoing under oath, is somehow worse than this shameless public Trump interference? Stone is Trump' personal friend, right? Trump is the AG's boss today, right? Would you feel more pressure to follow advice from your existing company president or from an ex company president that worked there 16 years ago? Amazing what political goggles can do for one's vision and reasoning In this Stone situation, you have the President's wishes stated clearly on Twitter. No unknown conversation in this case. Not accusations of improper pressure as with Lynch, but undeniable written instructions to his Roy Cohn in the Justice Dept. Next day, we are supposed to believe that coincidentally Barr decided on his own, independent of Trump's tweet, to get involved. Pulease. I am close to Stone's age. If I was convicted of the charges that Stone was, would you be out here claiming I was being wronged? Or, might your bias lean the other direction? That's quite the conspiracy theory you have there, Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpetCrawler Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: Rob, quite the take there. Very creative reasoning. And, if you are asking, sure, please paste my past postings/opinions. That would be interesting. As an aside, maybe sometime you can explain the apparent contempt your replies to me contain. Am I misinterpreting that or am I not recalling a past interaction that got ugly. Certainly possible ...lots have gotten ugly around here. So, a suspicious looking though utterly unknown conversation between the EX-PRESIDENT, who had been out of office for 16 years, and the AG, who denied wrongdoing under oath, is somehow worse than this shameless public Trump interference? Stone is Trump' personal friend, right? Trump is the AG's boss today, right? Would you feel more pressure to follow advice from your existing company president or from an ex company president that worked there 16 years ago? Amazing what political goggles can do for one's vision and reasoning In this Stone situation, you have the President's wishes stated clearly on Twitter. No unknown conversation in this case. Not accusations of improper pressure as with Lynch, but undeniable written instructions to his Roy Cohn in the Justice Dept. Next day, we are supposed to believe that coincidentally Barr decided on his own, independent of Trump's tweet, to get involved. Pulease. I am close to Stone's age. If I was convicted of the charges that Stone was, would you be out here claiming I was being wronged? Or, might your bias lean the other direction? I'm relatively new to the PPP forum and it's taken me a few weeks to get the lay of the land. After reading this comment from you, I now fully understand why members say the things they post about you. Edited February 13, 2020 by CarpetCrawler 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 10 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Well I surely can't speak for 'The Left', but as an Independent and since I am left leaning most of the time these days, let me say that I have no problem finding wrongdoing of Left leaning politicians. If not trying to weaponize the Justice Dept, certainly investigate wrongdoing by Dems, Repubs, Independents, and all other political and apolitical Americans - All Americans. He needs to be careful, imo, to not allow Trump to steamroll the Justice Dept. Remember when Trump, about every week or two, would lament that his AG is not protecting him....no Roy Cohn? We don't hear that anymore because he now does have his protector in place - Bill Barr. My contempt for Barr rises from his apparent willingness to take direction from the WH. His slanted summary of the Mueller report was the first clue. This Stone situation is just further proof. When Trump orders Barr to open investigations on Bernie or Pete, y'all still think he will just be sniffing around for corruption? President Trump should rightly be blamed for not being a Russian asset, and should excoriated for leaving so few pieces of evidence as to make Robert Mueller appear to be testifying after a traumatic brain injury. Trump should also be held to account, and people should most definitely be skeptical of his desire to employ an AG that follows the rule of law. It is 100% indisputable that every other President ever nominated an AG that would act against his interest. Jesus, Bob, if you’re truly “left leaning”, how can you support a tyrannical govt agency attempting to pulverize a citizen with selective leaks, swat team raids on sleeping old dudes who pose no flight risk, and the crushing weight of a wildly inappropriate recommended sentence that’s disproportionate with every other happenstance over the past three or four years? I think you have gone plum loco Esse. I think if you have evidence of corruption beyond you political angst, your people would have made a case that could stick for a change, and you wouldn’t have to count on Bob From Future Michigan (Future Bob from Michigan?) to speculate on maybe someday crime theories. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 1 hour ago, CarpetCrawler said: I'm relatively new to the PPP forum and it's taken me a few weeks to get the lay of the land. After reading this comment from you, I now fully understand why members say the things they post about you. Welcome! Hope you have fun here. Since @DC Tom is gone (hopefully temporarily), I'll do it: You're an idiot. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpetCrawler Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 Just now, Koko78 said: Welcome! Hope you have fun here. Since @DC Tom is gone (hopefully temporarily), I'll do it: You're an idiot. Thanks, tons of fun so far. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 Just outstanding. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 25 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Welcome! Hope you have fun here. Since @DC Tom is gone (hopefully temporarily), I'll do it: You're an idiot. Koko78, a poor man's version of DC Tom. Say it with fake rancor like DC Prick would do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 What happened to DC Tom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, mead107 said: What happened to DC Tom? He called us all idiots and left the board a month or so ago. Hopefully, he'll be back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Rob, quite the take there. Very creative reasoning. And, if you are asking, sure, please paste my past postings/opinions. That would be interesting. As an aside, maybe sometime you can explain the apparent contempt your replies to me contain. Am I misinterpreting that or am I not recalling a past interaction that got ugly. Certainly possible ...lots have gotten ugly around here. So, a suspicious looking though utterly unknown conversation between the EX-PRESIDENT, who had been out of office for 16 years, and the AG, who denied wrongdoing under oath, is somehow worse than this shameless public Trump interference? Stone is Trump' personal friend, right? Trump is the AG's boss today, right? Would you feel more pressure to follow advice from your existing company president or from an ex company president that worked there 16 years ago? Amazing what political goggles can do for one's vision and reasoning In this Stone situation, you have the President's wishes stated clearly on Twitter. No unknown conversation in this case. Not accusations of improper pressure as with Lynch, but undeniable written instructions to his Roy Cohn in the Justice Dept. Next day, we are supposed to believe that coincidentally Barr decided on his own, independent of Trump's tweet, to get involved. Pulease. I am close to Stone's age. If I was convicted of the charges that Stone was, would you be out here claiming I was being wronged? Or, might your bias lean the other direction? No personal animosity, just shooting straight. Perhaps I should have said "you guys" instead of "you." For all I know you were outraged by the DOJ covering for Hillary. If I had to bet I'd sooner place a wager on Rush Limbaugh winning an NAACP image award, but who knows. I will say that your insinuation that the President publicly tweeting his disapproval of an outrageous miscarriage of justice against a civilian who did nothing of consequence but is being railroaded for no legitimate reason is even in the same ballpark as, much less worse than, the DOJ secretly conspiring to run cover for the Secretary of State who was caught knowingly compromising national security for nefarious purposes and then lied and destroyed evidence to cover it up is ... well, I don't really have to say what it is. It speaks for itself. I will add that the corruption involved in the investigation and selective and aggressive prosecution of Roger Stone is far more egregious than anything Roger Stone may have done. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts