BREAKING: Mueller’s Prosecutor Abruptly Resigns From Roger Stone Case After DOJ Backs Down From Exce

Everyone knows that Barr is an institutional icon of The Deep State - an insider.
Everyone knows by know that Trump is an anti-establishment rebel.
"Everyone" includes you.

 

Long, long ago, during the Cold War, I was the document custodian for a classified document holding area and held a top secret clearance, so yes I am aware. I attended regular on-going briefings regarding the handling of classified material. You don't seem to grasp the difference between the two types of "intent," I have tried to explain to you; intent regarding an awareness that you are mishandling the material and intent of breaking the law with or without malice.

 

My mistake...you aren't entitled to "make up" your own facts. You may hold whatever opinions you want. Also...I had already corrected that, by subsequently posting that you are entitled to the facts and had the Senate Republican majority wanted the facts, they had the votes to subpoena anyone they wished.

 

So...Trump was dubbed into hiring Barr, right?

 

He won the majority of the States....in a massive sweep....hardly a fluke....he won more States in that one election then Obama did in both of his.

Massive sweep

 

We don't elect Presidents by the number of states they win...anymore than we elect them by the popular vote. We elect them by the electoral vote. Of some 58 Presidential elections, Trump was 47th based on who had the largest margin of electoral votes. I don't consider 47th out of 58 elections to be a "sweeping victory."
And, no, Obama won many MORE states in both of his elections than Trump won in 2016.

 

Each State has a number of votes....it's important to get the most...so you have the most Electors. With that said, it's also important to for the President of the United States...to have the support of the majority of the States, that make up that Union. Trump sweep the vast majority of the States.

 

You may believe that the number of states won is important, that's your prerogative. But it isn't. Take that from a person who taught American Government in graduate school. A person may win the Presidency with the 12 states that have the largest number of electoral votes.

 

Really....you taught American Govt!?! And you don't think it's important to win States to win a Presidential election? Where do you think electors come from?

 

Sorry...you seem to want to play semantical games. I don't. If you would like, however, I can recommend some good books for you to read on the subject, with which you might better spend your time.

 

Well the electors come from the States....geez....I really feel for the kids you taught

 

Such is the nature of the leftist controlled educational system that most of them will never realize the sort of crap that they were taught . . . AS . . . crap.

 

hmmmmmmm

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/0...bama-appointed-judge-allegedly-ignored-886509

 

So...you're accusing Stone's attorneys of misrepresenting him?

 

New findings strongly suggest that, thanks in part to left-wing Judge Amy Berman Jackson, convicted former Trump campaign official and longtime political consultant Roger Stone’s guilt wasn’t determined last year by an unbiased jury but rather by one stocked with partisan left-wing operatives.

Among the alleged operatives was former Tennessee Democrat congressional candidate Tomeka Hart, a far-left activist who’d been posting negative stories about President Donald Trump and his alleged (and since-debunked) Russian collusion crimes to social media long before she was selected to serve on Stone’s jury last November.

 

".you aren't entitled to "make up" your own facts."

Why did you make such an obvious, and obviously irrelevant, post?

 

The trial was held in D.C., which has a strong Democratic majority electorate. I presume the defense was permitted to ask the judge, prior to trial, to move the trial to another jurisdiction, if that had been a concern. Was there such a motion? Secondly, the defense has the opportunity to review prospective jurors, look at the forms they've completed and ask the prospective juror any questions they wish to, plus a certain number of "challenges" that would preclude them from sitting on the trial jury. What was the record on such challenges? Did the defense use all of their challenges? Did they question this prospective juror? It should all be on the record. And, in a criminal case, one juror of twelve is all it takes to find the defendant "not guilty." Conversely, it takes all twelve jurors to find the defendant guilty. Stone was found guilty on ALL charges. Were all of the jurors "biased?"
At any rate, if there are grounds for appeal, Stone's attorneys may do so.

 

You haven't answered my question regarding the Senate's ability to call any witnesses they wanted...including the Whistle Blower and the Biden's. Why didn't they?

 

OK, let's approach the question methodically.

Do you believe the Times report? "The New York Times published a report Sunday that said Trump told Bolton he wished to withhold military aid in order to pressure Ukraine into helping with politically motivated investigations."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...trump-ukraine-biden-investigation/4585458002/

 

"You haven't answered my question regarding the Senate's ability to call any witnesses they wanted."

When, and where did you post that question?

Here's my answer:

There was no reason.

 

"dubbed"?

 

The NYT article is irrelevant. I neither believe it or disbelieve it. I do believe Bolton's attorney and what he wrote in his letter to the House regarding his claim that Bolton held relevant material regarding the impeachment charges. IMO, that should have been sufficient to justify his subpoena by the Senate.

 

Why not? You are not interested in the Whistle Blower's or the Biden's testimony under oath? If not, you are in a very small majority of Republicans.

 

They didn't need to hear from them at the trial...the Dems failed to make their case, no defense really needed to be made

 

Biden will get a chance to testify under oath....the Senate is conducting an investigation into his links to corruption that Shifty exposed.