Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger

Well your posts 70 and 104 say the same thing.

 

For the record...the prosecutors who made the 7-9 year sentence recommendation were members of the DoJ, as were all of those who worked on the Mueller investigation. And, as far as your comments, you are not the President of the United States.

 

Nor did Trump tell Barr to change anyone's sentence recommendation.

 

Glad you and I agree.

 

Threatening a dog whose owner said it was not a threat? Lying about what knowledge you had of a release by Wikileaks that everyone knew it was being released soon?
Telling your friends they shouldnt testifying because the charges are bullshit is just that.

 

The sentencing enhancements they abuse made it double what would have been appropriate.

 

You might also agree that based on Sean Spicer's announcement in 2017, the President's "tweets" are official public announcements from the WH. I interpret that to mean that the President's tweets are not coming from Trump, the private citizen, but from Trump, the President. That constitutes interference in the separation of powers doctrine.

 

Based on what?

 

The president is informed and receives briefings on all counter-intelligence and to believe that officials within outlet intelligence community had evidence the Republican candidate was a Russian agent and was colluding with the Russian government and had started a counter-intelligence investigation and did not inform the President is laughable.

 

All of that doesn't mean the President initiated the investigation. Although, as President, based upon his intelligence reports, he would have had an obligation to monitor such an investigation. Are you suggesting that the President should have shut-down the investigation into Russian interference in the election?

 

Uttering threats has nothing to do with whether or not the threatened actually felt any validity to the threat.

Lying is still lying, and carries criminal penalties when lying under oath

and it doesn't matter how valid the charges are. Telling others not lie or not testify is also a criminal act which carries penalties.

The law doesn't change based on your feeeeeelings.

Not really. Each indictment held separately (so 7 individual counts) as per the guidelines would put him at 11-14 years. That they were simply added as enhancements to the singular meant that he got a 4-5 year reduction as is.

 

LOL Yes Cubed you did.

Because they didn't on established guidelines. They went out of their way to add a false enhancement charge as I proved and you defended that enhancement and their "consternation" that they were overridden on that false enhancement. Unbelievable how you think you can dance around the truth.

That's exactly what you are doing.

LOL I proved you not only justified the additional charge you understood why they would be upset after being overridden without acknowledging the enhancement was false. And somehow you believe you can fool everyone with your selective amnesia until I quote your words and prove you wrong once again.

Says the guy who couldn't even acknowledge the penalties in his own country for using the wrong pronoun in certain areas. You are rich to be sure.

And when your own witness says he didn't feel threatened your entire argument for enhancement is gone. But you of course can't acknowledge the facts can you Cubed.

where is your evidence those examples were met Cubed? Where is the evidence to back you up? Its amusing watching you quote the law then conveniently leave out the evidence you believe supports it.

Since you just made that up I challenge you to prove it Cubed.

I have news for you my little friend. Lawyers don't start charging only after you are arrested. Of course you will run from supporting your laughable claim he was worth 5 million when he was arrested because everyone knows is 100% false.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walter...how-whacky-sentencing-guidelines-have-become/[/quote]

Then by all emans quote the article where that is cited as the law. Go ahead Cubed. You claim its there then it should be hard to quote it should it?

For a witness who testified he didn't feel threatened. And you have the audacity to claim the witness themselves' state of mind doesn't play into the claim of threat Cubed? Where? What law states that specifically that direct witness testimony should be refused?

And the dog? Are you actually claiming with a straight face threatening a dog should double your sentence?


The guidelines contain commentary by its drafters. The commentary is meant to further explain the provisions. Here, the guidelines commentary to this enhancement notes that it should “reflect the more serious form of obstruction.” This likely explains why the enhancement is reserved for the more serious, palpable threats.

In its submission to the court, the government relies on cases outside its jurisdiction in support of the enhancement, but in none of those cases did the witness testify that he did not take the so-called threats seriously. What’s significant is that this eight-point enhancement increased the guidelines range from 37 to 46 months to 87 to 108 months. That’s a significant jump for a not so solid enhancement.

While it’s absolutely true that it’s standard practice for the federal government to recommend a guidelines sentence, this begs the question: What’s the appropriate guidelines calculation? As one Twitter user noted, “The Guidelines don’t calculate themselves.”

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/12/why-a-nine-year-prison-sentence-for-roger-stone-is-insane/

Of course you did. I do love you spend an entire page defending the lawyers then claim you aren't defending them. Such delicious fabrication for all to see.

Then why did you bring it up at all if I didn't say it Cubed? Care to dance some more for us?

 

How do? The DOJ falls under his power

 

Of course the "threatened" has to feel threatened for it to be a threat.

"lying" over when you had gained knowledge of public information is beyond weak and you know it.

Of course the charges have to be valid but welcome to Stalin!

 

All this lefty hysteria is f'ing dumb. Trump tweeted it was ridiculous, Trump also passed incarceration reform which greatly helped African Americans, lowering sentences. Barr put a stop on the stupid PARTISAN SENTENCE RECOMMENDATION, higher than violent crimes for something that never ever should've started. It was hyped up BS investigation from partisans with no evidence and was investigated to death. Hell one of the very partisan fbi hacks Andrew McCabe got caught lying to federal investigators and the DOJ choose NOT to charge him like they did with Stone and Flynn. The president is the only one that's actually consistent. You lefties cheer drug dealers getting low sentences and scream when a the president says a 9 year sentence recommendation for doing the same thing they just gave McCabe a pass on. To top it all off a JUDGE in the Stone case can sentence him to 99 years if they want, there is no government mandated guideline and Barr couldn't do anything about it. This is yet another dumbass TDS moment by the lefties.

 

I specifically acknowledged he might have been kept informed.
I said there is no evidence he DIRECTED the investigation.

 

It isn't the DoJ that I am referring to...it's his attacks on the judge and jury in the Stone case.

 

I saw the tweet. You didn’t?

 

No...the President's "tweets" constitute an attack on the judicial system...both the judge and the jury. He should be held in contempt of court.

 

It's there for a reason. Many times when large powers scrub together, as they often do, it's the little people that bear the brunt of the political forces arrayed. Scapegoats mostly. The better angels of our nature, in hindsight, see the injustice political weight exerts and allows a partial release and acknowledgement that truth is illusive when the big boys play politics.

As I read the charges and specifics, Mr. Stone committed no crime before speaking to the FBI and DOJ. With the exception of potential witness tampering, they are all process crimes. He lacked candor when speaking to the FBI et.al about political events and meetings that weren't themselves criminal. Mr. Stone didn't steal, he didn't defraud, he didn't sell secrets to the Ruskies, or act on their behalf. He didn't hide criminal acts of others.

Now it seems that political pressure and bias did in fact influence Mr. Stones trial. We have a juror that seems to have a strong bias and political motivation and lied during jury selection. Now there's rumblings that the U.S. Attorney involved knew and let the miscarriage of justice continue without raising concern. Now we are into legal violations that have a victim with actionable harm. Interesting how politics f's up impartial tribunals isn't it. Both ways.

Politics. Better than the alternative.

Cheers

 

Sorry to inform you but Obama signed off on the investigation to make it happen in spite of knowing that the information was bogus. Obama was kept up to speed on the FBI investigation, or are you forgetting?

"Or, as Mary Jacoby surmised, it was her husband’s handiwork that landed on the president’s desk."

"Barack Obama was sure that he had covered his trail as he took every precaution to hide his relationship with one woman. Poor Obama didn’t hide her well enough.
And now the evidence proving Barack Hussein Obama knew and sanctioned the illegal scheme to try to ensure the GOP candidate for president, Donald Trump, would never see the inside of the White House.
It’s all part of the same scheme that is behind the coup attempt to impeach Trump once he won, and the key is a woman named Mary Jacoby."

 

And given what we now know about the corrupt origins of that investigation, the prosecutors associated with it should be considered suspect, to say the least.

 

The Deep State coup attempt and shampeachment constituted an attack on the Executive Branch.

 

So a President has the absolute power to pardon but if a President voices concern about a harsh sentence he should be charged with a crime? Very odd.

 

What is it you think you know about the origin of the investigation? Do you believe the Russians hacked into the DNC computer and stole e-mails, which were then passed to Wikileaks for dissemination, in order to help Trump win the 2016 election?