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

No, it isn't. The application of law is discretionary but the law itself is clear. There are no degrees. You either do, or don't do.

 

He didn't direct how the justice system must function. He complained that his people had allowed politics to get in the way of it. He directed nothing. It is the judge who decides on a sentence and, if the defendant thinks it is excessive there are remedies for that. Stupid issue.

 

Sure....and he does it in public, undermining his own people.

 

As I pointed out you are wrong. If someone says they weren’t threatened, they weren’t

 

struth is wrong, of course. A threat is a threat whether a witness admits it.

 

The source was the dnc....Clinton, podesta etc. they were the ones that were being corrupt and were exposed.

why not? Trump was business.

 

No, read the law

 

No, the source was not the DNC.

The law is that if someone communicates what is considered to be a threat, what the threatened believes is immaterial in court.

 

That's true. I have never supported his communication style for good reason. He could certainly use a tweet editor on his staff.

 

No, I am not wrong. As I said in my post, that charge as stated does not conform to what the statute requires, a specific and explicitly defined matter. "What those guys talked about the other day" does not satisfy the law.

 

After the verdict he said he was not threatened. The time to say that is during the trial.

 

He said that during and before. afterwards he opposed any jail time as well.

 

Considered by whom. If a person says they do not consider they were threatened end of story.

 

Really now? Care to show said testimony because I can't seem to find that he did so.

 

Pull up the transcript from the trial.

he also wrote a letter to the Court

 

And you can repeat that false notion as many times as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm not wrong, and i've posted my sources to show that. Simply saying 'nuh-uh' doesn't make you right.

 

Actually it does. Read the law.

 

I did. And posted it. A couple of times now. Try and keep up.

 

My bad, try reading comprehension then

 

stone6 said: ↑
The Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller specifically notes that "The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017...". You are simply wrong.

Yes, you are wrong, RodB. The letter is the guidance of how the statute is interpreted. Your opinion is immaterial.

 

Do you get that he and you lost the argument? Your opinion is immaterial.

 

I was stating an opinion. It was factual. What the alleged victim stated was factual as well...if the jury ignored it, that an issue for appeal

 

Here's how this works, you've an unsubstantiated claim that I have cast doubt upon. It's incumbent upon you to make your point not for me to read something thousands of pages long looking for something that I do not believe is even there.

 

Stone is in court and sentencing is underway...

I'm still calling 58 months.... 2 months short of 5 years...

The Judge is allowed to take his post-arrest behavior into account while sentencing..

What's my over/under?

 

Not sure why I would provide the transcript for you if you aren't even gonna read it....

Here's an article about his letter, begging the Judge not ot send Roger to prison, and about his tetimony clearing Stone of any threats : https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/22/randy-credico-implore-roger-stone-prison/

about his testimony: https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/09/randy-credico-roger-stone-dog/

Here's the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

The alleged victim, says he wasn't threatened....he's not a victim.