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

To keep the department from running amok.

Like it or not the justice department is part of the executive branch. The AG already told Trump to shut up. The idea that Trump is controlling the justice department is bs.

 

There is no equal justice being applied. When Dems lie under oath multiple times and they’re not prosecuted, but Republicans are facing 9 years in the slammer, the system is a joke.

 

Yes.

 

So is a pardon a part of the rule of law?

 

They just don't want any oversight or criticism of their powers. Where were they when Obama said if he had a son....

 

"He didnt do it, but if he did, it was perfectly OK for him to do it."

I have heard that excuse from trump and his supporters waaay too much.

 

Not if the meeting results in them abusing their powers in a professional manner. Not sure what they can do, as they have no authority over the executive branch...

 

Which, after this administration, is something that should be reexamined fully during the next administration...

Seems to me, if there was any logic to our government AND language, the Justice Department should be part of the Judiciary branch or its own branch...

Trump... ruining things for all future presidents since 2016....

** I'd say 2017, but he was ****ing things up before his inauguration...

 

Sounds to me like Trump is saying 'judge them fairly and I won't pardon them.' The power to pardon is essentially the power to overrule the DoJ. If Trump were planning to pardon regardless, he wouldn't waste time and effort with this.

Roger Stone's demonstrably biased jury undermines the perception of a fair trial to the whole nation. Trump is wise to try to avoid having to fix such injustice with a pardon. But if he can't, pardon will be the last resort to maintain the perception of impartiality in his DoJ.

 

Are you insane? There is a separation of powers for a reason. Putting the powers of enforcement in the hands of unelected judges goes against everything this country stands for...

 

How about Clinton loyalists in the FBI? hows that for the rule of law?
Clinton not prosecuted for destroying evidence? How's that for the rule of law?

How about Obama claiming that no crimes occured regarding the IRS scandal before the investigation even started. Hows that for rule of law.

Point blank you guys only care because it's Trump.

 

The system is broken. McCabe, who should be held to a higher standard, walks and Stone gets 9 years. Obviously bias and corruption plague the justice system.

 

A Tale of Two Cities.

 

So does misusing the powers of the department... I'd rather have them in the hands of unelected (but Senate approved) judges over a buffoon and his pet...

 

No, you only want that when your side doesn't have the White House. You do realize all the judges Trump put on bench already, right?

 

If Trump and the Senate put judges in Egoboy's independent Justice Department, or maybe Egoboy says we elect them, and then later Republicans have three branches, the Senate, the independent Justice Department, and the Supreme Court, but a Democrat President, you can hear his screams of injustice as the Justice Department of Madame Defarge calls for his head. The President will just have to keep his mouth shut.

 

It’s not an excuse. It’s simply truth

 

You’d rather law enforcement be in the hands of the judicial branch that says what is the law? There is a reason we separated the powers when the Constitution was drafted

 

the fja are article III judges (lifetime appointees), they always do this type crap...

cindy rufe (prez of the fja) decided to call an emergency meeting to discuss the concerns with the doj... pffft

no where have all 1150 justices decided there was any wrong doing, the op article is flamebait...

fyi, even if all 1150 justices decide there was wrong doing, they can't do anything except make a recommendation to the other branches of government...

this is their job, checks & balances, business as usual...

 

Repetition doesn't make something less true.

 

This makes absolutely no sense and is quite dangerous thinking.

 

It only becomes a problem when the President starts spouting off about if he had a son he would look like the fight club thug, and the accused needs to fry. Someone getting off is not a problem, granting Reprieves and Pardons not a problem, the Obamanation was a problem.

 

It is 2000 prosecutors calling for Barr to resign. Now if Trump really felt this was injustice, he could have let the sentencing pass through, and then commuted Stones sentence. If this Admin was that confident, maybe they should present the evidence, instead Trump has to use Barr to interfere. But I doubt Trump would be that bold.

 

The US Attorney whom these four prosecutors work for first questioned their sentencing reccomendation, which is absurd on it's face, and they threatened to quit. He took it upstream to his boss Barr who agreed and the reccomendation was changed. Trump tweeted something about it later.

 

Trump could also say something like this:

“‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’ said Hillary Clinton.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331806/incredible-shrinking-president-mark-steyn

Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

“Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton) http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

"’[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [485 U.S. 46, 56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.’ Id., at 745-746.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46