Roger Stone sentenced to 3 years for lying, witness tampering as case roils DOJ

Way more accusers of trump that clinton. Only clintons accuser said under oath that it didn’t happen. Did trump supply his dna yet to his victim?

 

I don't follow a cult, and another post like that will be reported accordingly. I know exactly what Stone said to Credico. I also know that Credico made the statement that I just quoted him as making. And what I said thereby follows. It's not within the law to "press charges" for a victim that doesn't claim themselves a victim.

I know this literally from experience, because when I tried to report a stolen card for a relative, I didn't have the standing to do so. Neither does the law verbatim have that standing. Only the victim does.

 

I won't continue responding to you if, in spite of quoting my statements you speak out of them. I didn't say to "ignore Ukraine on Biden, believe them on Trump." I said that the information as it pertains to Ukraine does not and should not preclude a review. If what Ukraine said was accurate, a review will reflect that and we can be confident as it pertains to that.

And I will reiterate the main point again:

 

Yup.

It was Trump's DOJ that charged Stone

 

I believe political parties are cults. It’s good you don’t associate with either then. And I was speaking in the collective so maybe you wasn’t correct in my reply.

There are many instances where the law charge regardless of the desires of the “victim” if the evidence exists. Evidence of witness tampering exists here. That’s 100% a crime.

 

No, that's not at all the case but let's put this hyperbole in the proper context so that maybe you'll understand it. Everyone in prison for rape was accused by his or her victim. That victim was then able to pinpoint the culprit and demonstrate conclusively that yes: He/she raped me and violated me, and thus judgment was passed accordingly.

In instances where a rapist is walking freely among us. Well, there's alot of reasons and circumstances but we can boil down most of them to the simple fact that the victim did not prosecute(aka: speak up.) Without the claim of rape to go on, there is no prosecution.

And even if you witnessed a rape and went to the police, they would go to the victim and if the victim denied it then you're crap out of luck. It is the victim who has priority in claiming an injury, not someone who happens to be witnessing an event.

 

So it is ok to put some in jail for a crime and not others.
And tell me again why trump is going after the Bidens and not Ukraine?
It is the victim who has priority in claiming an injury, not someone who happens to be witnessing an event.

 

It is a crime, but if we're going to be clear to the law, it's not the crime the prosecutors have sought. IE: Witness tampering. Look over Stone's threat again: Where's the tamper? In the Manafort case, as a direct parallel, Manafort wanted to get some of his associates to testify in effect that the European companies had no affiliation in America(when that wasn't true.)

Stone is not telling Credico not to testify, or to testify in a different way. He is simply threatening bodily harm(and an attempt at his life.) That's an entirely different criminal stature, but it's not witness tampering.

 

O...M...G. Are we really doing the "in circles" dance? That is NOT at all what I said. You know damn well it's not what I said if you have the modicum of vocabulary. I'll be more blunt: Only a victim can claim a victim's status. If a victim doesn't, then as far as the law is concerned, a crime didn't happen.

So as an example: You don't call something a homicide until you get evidence that suggests or proves that Person A was murdered. Up until the point of discovery, as far as the authorities know person A is alive.

If this grotesque example isn't enough for you, I don't know what is.

 

Who claimed victim status regarding the Bidens? Trump!

 

yes, Trump's DOJ isn't corrupt and won't cover for his friends...like Obama did for Clinton. It's great to have the rule of law back in Washington

 

It would probably be fair if not for th tainted jury. As President Trump has said, we'll see how it plays out.

 

Seems fair

 

The "Rule of Law"?

Ok. Whatever you say.

 

Actually, as it pertains to possible money laundering and the abuse of office to get his son a sweetheart deal abroad, the victim would be the US Government at large and we citizens. Similar to the college scandal(that's why I said it's the college scandal on steroids.)

Again, I'm more than happy for a US review to clear the Bidens. But such a review should've long been had. And pursuing said review should not have resulted in an "impeachable offense" but no one really cares to remember Pelosi's stunt. He may be "impeached forever" but only in the minds of those that care.

 

Wow, you guys are really going back to Comedy Central for your news....I thought that stopped after John Stewart left.

Yes, the Rule of Law...he doesn't have his AG meeting husband's of subject under criminal investigation on tarmacs, and he doesn't go on 60 Mins telling law enforcement that he won't prosecute, no matter what the ongoing investigation concludes.

 

But, but, but, there was a letter signed by 2000 DOJ alumni calling for Barr's resignation and for every current member of the DOJ to blow their whistles on all other similar corruption as that committed by Barr. Do like the four Prosecutors, they said...hold fast to your principles. blech What a bunch of drama queens.

 

You just don’t get it do you?

 

Explain to me how that first paragraph doesn’t apply to trump withholding aid for political gain?

 

You really want to honestly have this conversation? Okay, let's start with the fact that "withholding aid for political gain" is Schiff's accusation. It is not a fact. Even with some of the GOP Senators rationalizing "even if it were a fact, it's not impeachable", in the eyes of neutral facts, Schiff has not proved his charge.

That's the whole reason he went gaa gaa over Bolton, etc remember? Essentially, we cannot first evaluate any "abuse of office" charge against Donald Trump without definitively proving there actually was, an abuse of office. That's why it was difficult and preposterous to impeach on it in the first place.

Without said proof, we have to evaluate what's there. And what's there was the former European ambassador contradicting(hint: lying) until finally professing that no one told him that there was any quid pro quo AKA witholding aid for political gain. All of the other testimonies were along the same lines.

Adam Schiff(nor anyone else) even knows to what Bolton would testify or whether that testimony would actually withstand scrutiny. All of these would have answered, if the House followed procedure. As you know, it did not. So to the contrary, the Trump team would probably love to cross examine these individuals, I would love to cross examine these individuals.

If you're going to make a claim, you have to prove it. A claim by itself is not proof.

Since the only 'evidence' is Schiff claiming that it's evidence, it becomes very hard to neutrally judge that case that the prosecution is presenting. On the other hand, is there evidence to disprove Schiff's claims? Yes, we learned that the schedule for the aid was consistent with the scheduling of '16-'18, then there's the exculpatory statements given by the Ukrainians.

So if it were an actual court, if the Trump team asked to move to dismiss, I would have granted the motion.

So TLDR: It's not the same with regards to impeachment because Adam Schiff failed to bring a provable case to the court known as the Senate.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...don-roger-stone-after-clemency-spree/11984252

 

Selective prosecution. But at least the judge thought nine years was preposterous.

 

They did break the law so quit making crap up.

Agree completely. Two tier justice and it needs to end.

 

Breaking the law and two tier justice seems fine when it’s trumps buddies. Arpaio, Dinesh, scooter, Blago...soon Manafort, Flynn, Stone...

 

When do prosecutors ever get as much as they ask? If they'd asked for 3 he'd have gotten 2.
It's like your brother in law that needs a $100. He asks for $200 in the hopes that you give him $100. I wouldn't put too much weight on that if I were you.