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

Ironic really. I've proven my case and all you have is 'no, u wrong'. Maybe try and prove your case? You might not sound as desperate.

 

I have...I provided the law. The law requires a threat...the alleged victim has repeatedly said he wasn't threatened. I can't help it you haven't or won't read the evidence have provided.

 

The facts of your opinion are wrong. The victim's interpretation does not guide the law and is not grounds for appeal.

 

The e-mails revealed a DNC bias, but nothing illegal. However, the e-mails themselves were stolen. Anyone using them, with that knowledge would be co-conspirators and guilty of a crime.

 

You are trying to argue that the entire Mueller investigation was illegal?

 

RodB and struth etc want their opinions substituted for the law and findings.

Not going to happen.

 

Actually a victim is very much necessary for there to be a crime or not. The law doesn't punish jokes and banter....it protect people from being threatened not to testify.

Sufficiency of the evidence is very much an appealable issue, and one of the most overturned. Here are a number of cases for your consideration: https://casetext.com/analysis/appeal-sufficiency-of-evidence

 

The law does not require that the victim feel threatened. You can avoid this salient fact as much as you like, but nowhere in the law does it state that the threatened must feel threatened. In fact, SCOTUS already confirmed this as I noted previously in the thread.

 

The law in fact states that directly...but if you have a SCOTUS case, I missed it, please cite it

 

Are you seriously trying to claim the a special prosecutor appointment letter does not have to follow the special prosecutor statute???? To wit from 28CFR-600: (a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. "

 

No it doesn't. It mentions nothing about the victim.

The definition of a 'True Threat' was established by the 9th circuit and referenced by the SCOTUS as 1 of 3 examples as to how threats and the 1st amendment coincide with each other.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/threats-of-violence-against-individuals

Oh, and also, this idea that Credico didn't feel threatened, isn't nearly as cut and dried.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/opinion/roger-stone-randy-credico.html

Looks like the Judge also didn't agree with this idea

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/ju...idnt-feel-threatened-by-prepare-to-die-texts/

So, thanks for pushing this issue, as it got me to go and verify whether this guy felt threatened or not, and Hey, guess what, he did.

 

No. Most -- all of Part II of his report -- was illegal, but his Part I investigation was legal even if ill-gotten. His charge from Rosenstein was to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" which is sufficiently specific per the law. Much of his commentary and Report violated hard sacrosanct rules for prosecutors but being illegal in his case as a special prosecutor is probably a stretch too far.

 

My dog isn't in this fight but I feel compelled to comment that your reference in no way supports your argument about victimhood.

 

Well your first link deals with First Amendment issues, not the law at issue in this case.

With that said, the very block you quoted, discusses the need that a victim feel threatened..."a reasonable person" is set victim,.

The Judge said he did, he said he didn't....so...I guess it's up to the Circuit Court.

 

The obstruction of justice charge was brought on by Trump himself, in his claim to the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Minister and his interview with Lester Holt, that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. And, it was certainly within the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel. See Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations, Paragragh 600.4, Jurisdiction.

 

How so?

Evidence based prosecutions are not a new thing.

 

Stone gets 40 months....

Wasn't as close as I hoped..

As long as Stone got more than Mike Cohen (by 4 months), I'm mostly good here...

 

The First Amendment issue was only that which the SCOTUS was working on when it made it's cite.

Also, evidence based prosecutions have been around since the 90s, but usually with domestic abuse cases. Why would that not be the same here?

And no, he said he didn't feel threatened by Stone personally, but by Stones ability to have someone else carry out his threat. He also stated that he wouldn't want anyone to go to prison over his words, regardless of the situation ('I wouldn't want to put Manson in prison').

Ultimately though, this is all immaterial because no matter what happens, Trump will pardon Stone.

 

He'll be pardoned before he serves a day. If not, he talks.

 

Mueller brought no charge, or recommended no charge based on the firing of Comey, and even spoke of the Lester Holt interview....

He concluded:"In addition, the President had a motive to put the FBI’s Russia investigation behind him. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official."

 

No one is suggesting the law violated the First Amendment.

All cases are evidence based.....the testimony of the alleged victim is important in both a assault case, as it is a case like this....the alleged victim has to have an unwanted touching, just like they have to threatened. Thanks for highlighting that point.

Trump migth very well pardon him, or at least commune whatever sentence he gets, largely due to the appearance of unfairness.

 

Mueller's conclusions on obstruction is a different issue. The discussion with "RodB" was over whether or not Mueller was legally investigating obstruction. If you want to discuss Mueller's conclusions in Part II of the report, please cite the page number of your quote.

 

sorry that was on page 76...he discuss the firing of Comey from 64 to 77

 

Another of Trump's corrupt cronies, Zippy Stone, was found guilty of repeatedly lying to the House Intelligence Committee and obstructing its investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential race.

Hyper-partisan whiners need to confront why the Trump Justice Department doesn't indict, prosecute, or convict the American citizens they screech about locking up or believe that foreign nations should be pressured to smear.

 

OK...thanks. However, you forgot the last part of that paragraph, on page 77, particularly the sentence that's been redacted in part. That would appear to be a reference to a phone call from Stone to Trump. It's redacted with the notation "Harm to Ongoing Matter." At the time of the report, the Stone trial was on-going. In the same Volume II, on page 8, under "Conclusion," Muller states: "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
I don't think that telephone call was ever admitted either by Stone or Trump, nor was it ever "proven" to have happened. Stone was convicted on other charges. But, there may still be other corroboration still to come...either from Stone himself (to negotiate his way out of prison, if no pardon is forthcoming) or possibly from Manafort, who was campaign manager at the time.