Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Prosecutors on Muller's team withdraw from Roger Stone case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Prosecutors on Muller's team withdraw from Roger Stone case

    All four prosecutors in the Roger Stone case withdrew from their roles after the Justice Department reversed course in seeking a lengthy prison sentence for the Republican operative.

    The officials, three of whom were members of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating a possible criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, left after President Trump condemned the original sentencing recommendation of up to nine years in prison.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ger-stone-case
    The lowest energy nothinburger so far. Sad!
    Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

  • #2
    Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
    The lowest energy nothinburger so far. Sad!
    The 4 prosecutors resigned in protest because the dictator and chief by way of his Roy Cohn, i.e. Atty Gen. Barr, has subverted the DOJ by unprecedentedly intervening in a case to help a criminal loyalists of the President. Then they fired the U.S. attorney in Washington, Jessie Liu, in charge of that case for not doing enough to protect Stone, and replaced her with A.G. Barr's top assisstant, Timothy Shea. There is a coup going on from within but the Trumpsters are to blind to see it.

    Comment


    • #3
      If they are convicting people for lying, they need to arrest Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer and crew. They created an entire witch hunt from smoke and lied the whole way through.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
        The 4 prosecutors resigned in protest because the dictator and chief by way of his Roy Cohn, i.e. Atty Gen. Barr, has subverted the DOJ by unprecedentedly intervening in a case to help a criminal loyalists of the President. Then they fired the U.S. attorney in Washington, Jessie Liu, in charge of that case for not doing enough to protect Stone, and replaced her with A.G. Barr's top assisstant, Timothy Shea. There is a coup going on from within but the Trumpsters are to blind to see it.
        What are you talking about? It was the rogue prosecutors who subverted the DOJ by recommending an extreme sentence without clearing it with their bosses!
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          What are you talking about? It was the rogue prosecutors who subverted the DOJ by recommending an extreme sentence without clearing it with their bosses!
          Well that's the air head version, but I'm talking reality, MM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
            Well that's the air head version, but I'm talking reality, MM.
            Capture.JPG
            https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/sta...86163939000320

            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              If they are convicting people for lying, they need to arrest Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer and crew. They created an entire witch hunt from smoke and lied the whole way through.
              Lying to Congress is a crime, except for Congressmen.
              Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

              Comment


              • #8
                Source: https://reason.com/2020/02/12/roger-stone-deserves-a-lighter-sentence-but-not-because-he-is-trumps-buddy/


                Stone's lies to the House Intelligence Committee and his dogged attempts to dissuade a potential witness from contradicting those lies were all related to the embarrassing emails that Russian hackers stole from the Democratic National Committee and from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, in 2016. Stone was excited about the potential political benefits of those emails, which WikiLeaks obtained and began to release in July 2016. Although his attempts to indirectly contact WikiLeaks about the emails were mostly fruitless, he presented himself to Trump campaign officials as a man with inside information, and they seemed to buy it.
                There was nothing illegal about any of that. But it was still inconvenient for a president who rejects both the idea that Russia helped him win the election and the charge that his campaign welcomed the assistance. Stone, who testified voluntarily before the House Intelligence Committee in September 2017, also seemed to think he would make the president look bad if he avoided answering its questions about WikiLeaks and the purloined emails by invoking the Fifth Amendment's protection against compelled self-incrimination. Instead he lied, repeatedly and flagrantly, about his contacts with people he thought could relay messages to WikiLeaks, about his communications with Trump campaign officials, and about the emails and text messages that documented those interactions.
                Having lied, Stone repeatedly urged one of his WikiLeaks go-betweens, radio host Randy Credico, to back up his story or avoid testifying. When Credico received a subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee, he invoked the Fifth Amendment, just as Stone had suggested. But he later cooperated with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian election meddling and testified against Stone during his trial.
                Stone did not stumble into his crimes or get into legal trouble due to a momentary lapse of judgment. As the prosecutors pointed out in the original sentencing memorandum, he "knew exactly what he was doing," and he did it for more than a year, reaffirming in an unsolicited December 2018 letter to the House Intelligence Committee that everything in his testimony was true. Since he easily could have avoided prosecution by declining to testify or by telling the truth, Stone has no one to blame but himself for his current predicament.

                But that does not mean a sentence of seven years or more is an appropriate punishment for Stone's reckless mendacity. As Mueller's report showed, there is no persuasive evidence that the Trump campaign's hankering for useful dirt on Clinton ever crossed the line into an illegal conspiracy with a foreign government or any other sort of crime. When Stone lied, he was committing crimes, but he was not concealing any.
                "Because of Stone's conduct," the original sentencing memo says, "the House
                Intelligence Committee never received important documents, never heard from Credico (who pled the Fifth), and never heard from [Jerome] Corsi [another WikiLeaks intermediary]….The Committee's report even wrongly stated that there was no evidence contradicting Stone's claim that all his information about WikiLeaks was from publicly available sources." Yet Stone's overtures to WikiLeaks, which came out anyway, were neither consequential nor criminal.
                The original memorandum also argues that Stone qualifies for a sentencing enhancement because his witness tampering included threats of violence. "I'm going to take that dog away from you," he told Credico in an April 2018 email exchange about Stone's congressional testimony, referring to Credico's tiny Coton de Tulear. "Not a ****** thing you can do about it either, because you are a weak, broke, piece of ****." Later that day, Stone added, "I am so ready. Let's get it on. Prepare to die, ******." Yet Credico himself said these comments were typical Stone bombast that he did not perceive as genuinely threatening. "I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog," he testified.
                The prosecutors also thought Stone deserved a sentencing enhancement for various public comments he made after he was indicted, some of which violated U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's orders. But as Shea notes in the amended sentencing memorandum, "it is unclear to what extent the defendant's obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial."
                The second memorandum suggests that a sentence of seven to nine years is excessive for nonviolent crimes—a position that may surprise drug offenders serving prison terms that long or longer for peaceful transactions with consenting adults. The enhancements recommended by the first memorandum, Shea says, "more than double the defendant's total offense level and, as a result, disproportionately escalate the defendant's sentencing exposure to an offense level of 29, which typically applies in cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases."
                The new memorandum also suggests that Judge Jackson, who is scheduled to sentence Stone a week from tomorrow, "should consider the defendant's advanced age [67], health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history in fashioning an appropriate sentence." While "the defendant committed serious offenses and deserves a sentence of incarceration," it says, "a sentence of between 87 [and] 108 months' imprisonment…could be considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances."
                Regardless of its motivation, the revised memorandum is admirably measured and fair-minded, noting that prosecutors have a duty to pursue justice, not simply to clobber defendants with the heaviest penalties the law allows. It would substantially improve the quality of justice in this country if prosecutors more often took that approach with defendants who are not the president's buddies.

                © Copyright Original Source

                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  And you think that tells you something different? Who is the senior "DOJ official" she talked to, and what do you think is meant by "the Department" in the department was shocked? Could the former Fox News reporter have possibly been refering to Atty. Gen. Barr in both cases. Fact is, what Barr did in overiding the prosecutors sentencing recommendation is never done, and it is obvious it was only done in this case because it was politically motivated.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                    Could the former Fox News reporter have possibly been refering to Atty. Gen. Barr in both cases.
                    Probably not.

                    Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                    ...overiding the prosecutors sentencing recommendation is never done...
                    And recommending a sentence without clearing it with DOJ higher-ups first is never done, and yet, that's exactly what happened.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Probably not.


                      And recommending a sentence without clearing it with DOJ higher-ups first is never done, and yet, that's exactly what happened.
                      Accept the recomendation was cleared and signed by the U.S. Atty in Washington assigned to oversee the case by Barr himself. Barr, just like the president is a blatant liar. Barr admitted that the prosecutor, as he put it just stopped by for a chat, and there was some kind of a misunderstanding concerning the recomendation. He wants you to believe now that he told the prosecutor one thing, and that the prosecutor went out and defied the atty gen. anyway. It's a ludicrous defense by the Atty Gen. aimed at the naive.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                        Accept the recomendation was cleared and signed by the U.S. Atty in Washington assigned to oversee the case by Barr himself. Barr, just like the president is a blatant liar. Barr admitted that the prosecutor, as he put it just stopped by for a chat, and there was some kind of a misunderstanding concerning the recomendation. He wants you to believe now that he told the prosecutor one thing, and that the prosecutor went out and defied the atty gen. anyway. It's a ludicrous defense by the Atty Gen. aimed at the naive.
                        I know willful ignorance is your natural state, but do try to keep up. According to the CBS report I referenced earlier, what was recommended to the court is not what was briefed to the DOJ, so there was definitely some funny business going on requiring unusual intervention to correct the matter.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          I know willful ignorance is your natural state, but do try to keep up. According to the CBS report I referenced earlier, what was recommended to the court is not what was briefed to the DOJ, so there was definitely some funny business going on requiring unusual intervention to correct the matter.
                          Yes, I know you believe Barr, that the prosecutors just defied the Atty Gen, but you are naive and blinded by your lack of critical thinking abilities. The Atty Gen. defied the legal standards of his own dept which is to go by the sentencing guidelines, which is exactly what the prosecutors did. Barr is simply following Trumps orders even if those orders come via tweet. I suspect that the Judge will ignore the Presidents threats and make her own judgement and then at some point Trump who believes he is the law, will further demean the rule of law and pardon his partner in crime.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                            Yes, I know you believe Barr, that the prosecutors just defied the Atty Gen, but you are naive and blinded by your lack of critical thinking abilities. The Atty Gen. defied the legal standards of his own dept which is to go by the sentencing guidelines, which is exactly what the prosecutors did. Barr is simply following Trumps orders even if those orders come via tweet. I suspect that the Judge will ignore the Presidents threats and make her own judgement and then at some point Trump who believes he is the law, will further demean the rule of law and pardon his partner in crime.
                            DOJ says that the they were already in the process of correcting the error when Trump tweeted, and in fact, Barr recently said he wishes Trump would cool it with the Twitter nonsense because it's making it impossible for him to do his job.

                            By the way, Barr has agreed to testify about this matter before the House, so it's all going to come out. All of it, and I guarantee the Democrats will very quickly wish it hadn't.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              DOJ says that the they were already in the process of correcting the error when Trump tweeted, and in fact, Barr recently said he wishes Trump would cool it with the Twitter nonsense because it's making it impossible for him to do his job.
                              The DOJ in this case is the Atty Gen., and the Atty Gen isn't going to incriminate himself now is he. The fact is that the tweet came first, the overiding of the prosecutors sentencing recomendations came second.
                              By the way, Barr has agreed to testify about this matter before the House, so it's all going to come out. All of it, and I guarantee the Democrats will very quickly wish it hadn't.
                              Good, Barr's got a lot a splainen to do. I'm sure he's working hard to come up with the lies he's going to tell right now. I suspect he might back out and refuse to testify at the last moment. After all, that tactic has worked for them so far.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:39 PM
                              15 responses
                              89 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:30 PM
                              6 responses
                              43 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 02:17 PM
                              2 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:58 PM
                              16 responses
                              57 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:03 AM
                              64 responses
                              252 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X