Jump to content

Operation Boomerang AG Barr's Investigation of Acts of Treason by Federal Employees


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Len, the point is Stone's treatment was no way rough, compared with what I described as common arrest tactics.  The Stone arrest looked like they had more force than was necessary, true, but a very common tactic and so, not unusual.

 

Again, my point is, that no knock arrests happen all the time and to an even worse degree, as demonstrated by the cannabis raids.  Right, no.  Unusual or especially rough for Stone, no.  What I recall seeing was very tame

Is everything about pot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nineforty said:

 

1.  McCabe wasn't even indicted. Stone was indicted and found guilty.  Would you like me to go into detail for what? I'd be glad to.

"Following a weeklong trial last November, a Washington jury found Stone guilty on all seven felony counts he faced: five of making false statements to Congress, one of obstruction of Congress, and one of witness tampering with both the House Intelligence Committee inquiry and special counsel Robert Mueller's probe." (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/prosecutors-prison-roger-stone-113542)

 

2. It's ironic/interesting to me that the "crime" McCabe was accused of was lying to cover up being involved in a story that hurt HILLARY, not TRUMP.

 

3.  Stone's sentencing recommendation was for 7-9 years. This was recommended by a different entity, not the prosecutors. The prosecutors agreed.  Judge Jackson has final say and can go above or below those guidelines. In my opinion (I've actually read the Mueller Report and know what Stone stands charged with and is likely hiding, and thus why Trump at all costs needs Stone to not see Jail time), Roger Stone is a traitor to America for his role with Wikileaks and the Trump 2016 campaign. 

 

I could go on and on and on with facts destroying this kind of nonsense...but is it worth it?

 

 

 

I know every case has a different fact pattern. That being said...

Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress.  

For that, he got to re-testify to Congress.

He got no extra jail time tacked onto his other 8 guilty pleas.

 

Roger Stone is a colossal ass.

He was tried and convicted.

He doesn’t get more jail time for being a guilty colossal ass.

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

I know every case has a different fact pattern. That being said...

Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress.  

For that, he got to re-testify to Congress.

He got no extra jail time tacked onto his other 8 guilty pleas.

 

Roger Stone is a colossal ass.

He was tried and convicted.

He doesn’t get more jail time for being a guilty colossal ass.

 

Such a normal response. Who TF does that?

 

Stone gets what Stone gets. Prison time. Not life. Not a day. Why is this so difficult?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Look at this thread; I'm supposed to feel sorry for ROGER STONE???????????????????

 

There are kids ROTTING in prison for.......

 

We've got a long way to go as a country.

There will be no arrests. Not one. 

The point was simply that if you feel empathy (and anger) for the kids rotting in prison, it does not preclude you from feeling empathy and anger for a guy similarly targeted for destruction even though you don’t like him. 

 

On the other hand, just remember there are people out there’ stating emphatically “I’m supposed to feel sorry for THE KIDS ROTTING IN PRISON?”.
 

Sometimes those that rage against the machine are really comfortable raging with it.  It’s one of the reasons the machine becomes the machine. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You have got to be kidding me Bob!  Let's see if you and your family agree with your opinion the next time a SWAT Team pulls you over as you pull into your driveway for failing to signal at the intersection.  This sort of tactic is not right in your average pot raid, and wasn't right for Roger Stone.

 

Deek, just in case some here don't know why the police like to use so many officers on many arrests, I thought I would just explain briefly, as I understand it. 

 

In many cases, a person about to be arrested for anything serious, starts to consider his/her options.  Is it possible to get out of this situation by overpowering the arresting officer?  If I run, might I get away? 

 

The police tactic of using lots of officers (overwhelming force) is designed to answer those questions emphatically.  Clearly, to any rational person, resistance is futile.  If the arrestee turns irrational, all of those police guns gain control quickly.  The tactic itself is effective but I think we agree, it is overused.  I mentioned earlier, I think SWAT teams like to practice

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Deek, just in case some here don't know why the police like to use so many officers on many arrests, I thought I would just explain briefly, as I understand it. 

 

In many cases, a person about to be arrested for anything serious, starts to consider his/her options.  Is it possible to get out of this situation by overpowering the arresting officer?  If I run, might I get away? 

 

The police tactic of using lots of officers (overwhelming force) is designed to answer those questions emphatically.  Clearly, to any rational person, resistance is futile.  If the arrestee turns irrational, all of those police guns gain control quickly.  The tactic itself is effective but I think we agree, it is overused.  I mentioned earlier, I think SWAT teams like to practice

 

It's either all that or it puts on a good show for the media that they tipped off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Crayola64 said:


im doing quite well, thank you.  To actually be able to be qualified to form legal opinions, which all of you like to pretend to do, I suspect you could benefit from a legal education.

 

you may not know this, but you are playing make-pretend at something that takes years of education, training, and practice to do.  It’s why we ask juries to find facts.  It’s why we forbid juries from making legal conclusions.  You are unqualified.  ...

from the guy who argued that hearsay can be better than firsthand knowledge. lol.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Foxx said:

from the guy who argued that hearsay can be better than firsthand knowledge. lol.


lol it can be.

 

and circumstantial evidence can be better than forensics or direct evidence.

 

WILD I KNOW!?!?!?

 

They all describes types of evidence, not their credibility or weight.  Smarty pants :)

Edited by Crayola64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love you two chiming in to share something objectively wrong!  But I don’t expect anything less.  It’s why juries have to be treated like babies, there is no expectation that the common American has any accurate knowledge of the legal system (we actually presume the opposite: that they hold inaccurate information.  Example would be you two)

 

hearsay can be credible, direct evidence can be not credible.  Wild wild stuff to understand, I know 

Edited by Crayola64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Everyone's out to get Donald Trump! Do you ever stop to think how bat....crazy this is?

 

batshit crazy is Crossfire Hurricane, Steele Dossier, Russian Collusion, Ukrainegate and probably whatever the Dems come up with next.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Foxx said:

batshit crazy is Crossfire Hurricane, Steele Dossier, Russian Collusion, Ukrainegate and probably whatever the Dems come up with next.


just gonna ignore the lies you posted on this same page?  Nice job spreading misinformation lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

I love you two chiming in to share something objectively wrong!  But I don’t expect anything less.  It’s why juries have to be treated like babies, there is no expectation that the common American has any accurate knowledge of the legal system (we actually presume the opposite: that they hold inaccurate information.  Example would be you two)

 

hearsay can be credible, direct evidence can be not credible.  Wild wild stuff to understand, I know 

See the source image

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...