The Roger Stone Case

[Taro T]

10 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I'm a POS -- for posting an article that has a different opinion than yours because it relies on actual facts, not suppositions and emotional outrage. 

 

Keep on thinking you're stable, Tibs. It's going well for you.

 

 

Wow.  He thinks you're a Person Of Substance.  That's nice.  Though he probably should write it out long hand from now on, as by using the acronym people might think he views you the way most everybody else views him. 

[njbuff]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

 

Wow.  He thinks you're a Person Of Substance.  That's nice.  Though he probably should write it out long hand from now on, as by using the acronym people might think he views you the way most everybody else views him. 

Fib only knows how to name call.

 

That is why most on here don’t take him seriously whatsoever.

[Bray Wyatt]

6 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Fib only knows how to name call.

 

That is why most on here don’t take him seriously whatsoever.

You sure that’s the reason why? Like realllllllly sure ?????

[njbuff]

1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said:

You sure that’s the reason why? Like realllllllly sure ?????

Sorry, my mistake.

 

?

[ALF]

40 months prison time

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/roger-stone-sentencing/index.html

Edited February 20, 2020 by ALF

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

40 months prison time

Considering what she said she was going to take into account (the Credico "threat" that Credico said he did not feel was threatening, an attorney letter saying Stone was worse than a terrorist, a few out there TDS letters, etc), I am shocked it is this "low".

Let the appeals begin!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

I see Fox News and Twitter is already spreading the propaganda that the trial was unfair. Hey, it’s not like the Senate Republicans can Judge all of Trump’s crimes. 

 

How long till this criminal is pardoned and back working to steal 2020 election? 

On 2/14/2020 at 6:15 PM, SoCal Deek said:

So when the previous President of the United States jumps into a case at a local level, and calls the Massachusetts Police Department 'stupid' for SPEAKING HARSHLY to a professor friend of his , that's OK?  But when the current President comments on something as serious as sentencing his friend to YEARS IN PRISON.....that's outrageous? If you say so.

Lol!! This is funny. 

[Tiberius]

There should be a constitutional amendment to take pardon power away from presidents. What good has it ever done? 

 

Create some independent commission to pardon worthy people 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1230565021882580993

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

 

 

And THAT'S why the media and the resistance is so up in arms about making sure Stone serves time. They want to hang (fraudulently) the implication of Trump/Russia on him so they can point to his sentence as proof that they didn't bungle the single biggest scandal in US history, but instead got it right. 

 

It's a con game. And the judge is in on it with them (because she's crooked). 

 

It's not going to work, ultimately. Stone's conviction has nothing to do with Russia collusion, the trial in fact proved he did not have the access to Wikileaks the media claimed he had -- but the low information resistance crowd who still don't understand what happened in 2016 will use this to do a victory lap. All that will do is help show who is a serious person and who is not.

[Tiberius]

Oh, and why now? My God, this sure has all the earmarks of a totally corrupt scheme, but since his supporters don't care...

 

 

Quote

 

The White House is moving to take more direct control over pardons and commutations, with President Trump aiming to limit the role of the Justice Department in the clemency process as he weighs a flurry of additional pardon announcements, according to people familiar with the matter.

Trump, who granted clemency Tuesday to a group of 11 people that included several political allies and supporters, has assembled a team of advisers to recommend and vet candidates for pardons, according to several people with knowledge of the matter who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group, essentially an informal task force of at least a half-dozen presidential allies, has been meeting since late last year to discuss a revamped pardon system in the White House. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, is taking a leading role in the new clemency initiative and has supported the idea of putting the White House more directly in control of the process that in past administrations has been housed in the Justice Department, officials said.

 

Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general who served on Trump’s impeachment defense team, is also playing a significant role, vetting applications for potential pardon recipients. Kushner has personally reviewed applications with White House lawyers before presenting them to Trump for final approval, according to two senior administration officials.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-assembles-team-of-advisers-to-guide-clemency-process-as-trump-considers-more-pardons/2020/02/19/752d04d2-532e-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html

Gee, you don't think money will be flowing into this all power Pardon Commission, do you? 

 

This will make Trump U and the Inaugural Committee seem like purse snatching in comparison 

[Warren Zevon]

42 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It's a con game. And the judge is in on it with them (because she's crooked). 

 

lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllll you are trash seabass

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh, and why now? My God, this sure has all the earmarks of a totally corrupt scheme, but since his supporters don't care...

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-assembles-team-of-advisers-to-guide-clemency-process-as-trump-considers-more-pardons/2020/02/19/752d04d2-532e-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html

Gee, you don't think money will be flowing into this all power Pardon Commission, do you? 

 

This will make Trump U and the Inaugural Committee seem like purse snatching in comparison 

 

all 25 pardons and 10 commutations.

 

just stop running around spreading your disease.

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, ALF said:

40 months prison time

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/roger-stone-sentencing/index.html

Good.  Maybe the clown can make another Netflix documentary there.  

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1230610504353222656

 

[Albwan]

1 hour ago, Gary Busey said:

 

lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllll you are trash seabass

Someone give Gary his participation trophy, he doesn't contribute much to ppp,

but doggoneit he tries real hard.

[njbuff]

3 hours ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1230610504353222656

 

Why don’t they just give Stone the chair and McCabe the Congressional Medal of Freedom and get it over with?
 

 

 

What a fvcking mess this garbage is.

[Cinga]

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

There should be a constitutional amendment to take pardon power away from presidents. What good has it ever done? 

 

Create some independent commission to pardon worthy people 

We have one of those dimwit!  It's called a parole board!

[Cinga]

6 hours ago, Foxx said:

 

all 25 pardons and 10 commutations.

 

just stop running around spreading your disease.

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/

 

[njbuff]

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]

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.

[3rdnlng]

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]

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

[sabrecrazed]

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]

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]

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. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

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>

[Nineforty]

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.

[Buffalo_Gal]

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]

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]

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?

[njbuff]

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.

[IDBillzFan]

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!

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

33 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Maybe now the Dems will get behind mandatory voter ID!

 

...they're checking now...........

[Deranged Rhino]

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]

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]

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

[njbuff]

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.

[Doc Brown]

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.