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

"I don't know. I don’t think there was any wrongdoing," Clapper said. "My main concern was with the Russians and the threat posed by the Russians to our very political fabric and ugh, the message I'm getting from all of this is apparently what we were supposed to have done was to ignore the Russian interference, ignore the Russian meddling and the threat that it poses to us and oh by the way, blown off what the then commander-in-chief, President Obama, told us to do, which was to assemble all of the reporting we could."

James Clapper.

 

Why don't you think the President's "tweets" constitute an intervention? And, the Barr/DoJ action was a direct intervention because the DoJ official recommendation had already been conveyed to the Court.

 

Because they happened the day after Barr made his choice to question the sentencing.

 

I'm not ignoring it....there are 114K folks at the DOJ currently, and did not sign this letter

 

Sigh Cubed you took a position to defend the lawyers and their decision. Do I really have to quote your own words again?

Considering their recommendation was shorter then the guidelines would have suggested, i'm not surprised that further reductions would cause consternation.

Of course that is a defense of those lawyers that they are justified in their "consternation".

Do you really think playing naive helps you in these situations at all? Can't you simply be forthcoming just once instead of forcing me to quote your own words over and over again to get a real answer?

LOL Actually it does because a person can absolutely feel threatened based on someone's physical prowess. I see you ran from the fact he's a senior citizen as well. Good God Cubed why do I have to continue to explain the law to you? And as I said which of course you ignored the government's own witness said he didn't feel threatened. Why the selective amnesia on that critical point Cubed?

What money did Stone have? Where is the pattern of intimidation to warrant these enhanced charges? Where is your evidence Cubed beyond the theoricial?

The don't defend the lawyers who recommended it. Pretty simple.

Which I never said but setting up a strawman argument I'm sure is certainly helpful to get around the facts isn't it.

 

He never was, that's the point. His attorneys requested that he have a cell to himself for his safety and it was granted. He had a window, tv, newspapers and several hours a day of social time. That is not solitary confinement but was actually coddling him and he didn't have to sleep with his back to the wall.

 

He's not attacking the report....he took some issues with Mueller because of the way he handled it....Mueller knew very early on there was no Russian conspiracy but still drug out the investigation.

 

Pfft You and your "facts"

 

Obama didn’t tell Holder to change people’s sentence based on their allegiance to him.

 

The FISA Court errors were not significant and not contributed to any political bias (read the Horowitz report). And, the Carter page surveillance was not central to the investigation. The Steele Dossier is largely a red herring by Republicans, who are able to trace it to Clinton's payment for opposition research. It's barely mentioned in the Mueller Report (read the Mueller Report). Mueller notes that the dossier confirmed some of the Page visits to Moscow, but it could not be determined with certainty who he talked with and the subject of the conversations.

 

So now you are making a circular argument.

 

How is pointing out the reality of the population of former DOJ a circular argument? Go ahead, explain yourself.

 

That's because Democrats never get held accountable to anything. We have a 2 tier justice system. Some people like McCabe are obviously above the law.

 

Ah...you mean the counter-intelligence investigation. I thought you were referring to the criminal investigation. So...Obama received intelligence reports on a regular basis. When the Russian interference was detected, what do you think he should have done? Told them, "there is nothing there, I don't want you to continue that investigation?"

 

Nope...not making an arugment at all...just stating a fact

 

Per Barr...who was not speaking under oath. But, either way...the Trump attacks on the judge and the jury constitute "contempt of court." Let's see what the Federal Judges Association has to say after their emergency meeting today.

 

Per Clappers quote Obama was behind it ( Crossfire Hurricane)

 

Why do you think so? Why do you think that Mueller knew early on that there was no conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Are you aware of the charges against Stone?

 

Clapper is referring to actions Obama took AFTER the investigation had begun. There were meetings in the WH and with Congressional leadership. Obama wanted to make the investigation public, but McConnell opposed such an announcement and threatened to claim "political interference" by the Obama administration, regarding the 2016 election, if such an announcement were made. After the election, Obama told the intelligence agencies to comprise a report on the status of the investigation to be delivered prior to his leaving office. This was done in early January 2017. Shortly thereafter, BuzzFeed published the "Steele Dossier." Shortly after that, three Russian cyber-warfare exports (one civilian consultant and two military intelligence people) were arrested in Russian on charges of treason in providing classified material to western intelligence agencies.
Up until the firing of Comey and the President's announcement that he'd fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation, it was a counter-intelligence investigation. With the Comey firing, Mueller was appointed to both continue investigating the Russian interference in the election and a possible conspiracy with members of the Trump campaign, plus the possibility of criminal obstruction of justice on the part of the President. But...by the time the investigation shifted from one of counter-intelligence to possible crimes by President Trump, Obama was out of office. It was Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein who appointed Mueller and added the p[ossible obstruction charges to Mueller's mandate.

 

I made a post critizing the prosecutors. Was that an intervention? The answer is no. If one is a direct participant in a case he cannot be an intervener by definition. Barr and the DOJ are direct participants in the case. And, for the record, the DOJ recommendation was not made to the court. Rogue former Mueller prosecutors made the recommendation to the court.

 

Yeah, I know. Not much room for facts around here.

 

Impeach Barr!

 

The U.S. Attorney cannot change a sentence. He or She can suggest what they think is an appropriate sentence to the court. The court has no obligation to entertain the State's desires on sentence.

You got this, right? It's fundamental. The DOJ doesn't find fact, adjudicate guilt or sentence the convicted. The jury and or judge preform those functions.

The President however can commute a sentence or pardon the offender, thus overruling the courts. So the idea that a President can illegally influence a lighter sentence is the product of partisan propaganda and hackery. A President could walk into Federal Court and pardon a defendant and there wouldn't be a smidgen of illegality involved. Since the President hold that ultimate and unchecked power to pardon, suggesting that a President voicing an opinion or argument for leniency is somehow criminal has me doubting the future of humanity.

Cheers

 

It isn’t criminal, but the president using the power of his office to help his friends used to be frowned upon at a minimum

 

Lied to congress. Lied to investigators. Told other witnesses to lie or not testify, threatened a potential witness and their dog.

You can read the whole indictment here if you like

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-indictment-roger-stone

I didn't defend anyone. I simply noted that when prosecutors make recommendations based on established guidelines, and those recommendations are changed by those above them for no discernible reason beyond politics, then it's reasonable to assume that such an alteration would cause consternation amongst those prosecutors. Identifying the reasons for things isn't an automatic defense of such things.

I'm not playing anything. You simply look for things that aren't there, and pounce on any small nugget that you think helps support your supposition and parade those nuggets around like they were trophies, regardless of whether they are actually valid or not. You've always done this. It's simply unsurprising at this point.

I would never want you to explain the law to me, because it's obvious know very little about it.

The threat is the criminal act. That the threatened felt no fear, or had any legitimate reason to feel that it would be followed through has nothing to do with the fact that uttering such a threat is a criminal act.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1512.html

Nothing in that suggests the reception by the threatened (or even the ability of the person making the threat) plays a role in this in any way shape or form.

Prior to his arrest he was estimated to be worth 5m. He says the arrest and trial has bankrupted him. That said, the actual reality of whether he has any money or not is immaterial to the point that physical stature is the only way to intimidate someone.

And there doesn't need to be a 'pattern' of intimidation to warrant anything. Sentencing guildlines are based on a point system

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

The guidelines are based on this being his 'first offense'.

I didn't.

I never said you said that. You know how you can easily tell? By the fact that I didn't say "You said this "insert whatever Guava said here"".