Trump is attempting to Putinize the American judicial system, and make it far closer to a King's Bench system, or an early imperial system. Or even worse, a naked theft of law and order, as already accomplished by King Vlad. Barr is an accessory to that, and does not deserve his position. He is an impostor. One can only hope he is pressured into resigning. But, that would be the right thing to do, and you can never count on Bill Barr to do the right thing. It is just not who he has been, since his conversion to a full fledged devotee of the false master. 

42 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't think you understand. Chiphigh believes that when a Trump supporter is found guilty, that's an injustice. And when a non Trump supporter isn't indicted, that's also an injustice.

You summarised it quite nicely.

54 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

Well, if all those people lied, why are they not charged, given that Trump's guy is in charge of the US Justice Department? The reason is simple - no matter how much you would like it to be the case that they lied to the FBI, the fact is that they did not. Even the case against the Comey's deputy head of FBI was dropped because it was so flimsy.

 

So unless you have information that no one else has, you should stop with your trolling. And if you do have information that no one else has, you should immediately contact the Justice Department!

Funny you support the DOJ when they don't charge these liars but you don't support DOJ when they choose to lessen charges against an obviously political trial with a Dem as Foreperson. Funny that init? McCabe lied and was FIRED did you forget that too?  the evidence needed to be charged is very strict, much stricter than being fired and so he got away with it - just like Clinton who lied multiple times  (did you have classified info on your PC - NO, did you delete emails?  NO  did you have more than one PC?  NO etc. etc.

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump is attempting to Putinize the American judicial system, and make it far closer to a King's Bench system, or an imperial system. Or even worse, and naked theft of law and order, as already accomplished by King Vlad. Barr is an accessory to that, and does not deserve his position. He is an impostor. One can only hope he is pressured into resigning. But, that would be the right thing to do, and you can never count on Bill Barr to do the right thing. It is just not who he has been, since his conversion as a full fledged devotee of the false master. 

If Barr resigns, the next one will be similar or worse. At least, Barr is smart enough to avoid bearing any significant risk just to please Trump.

12 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump is attempting to Putinize the American judicial system, and make it far closer to a King's Bench system, or an early imperial system. Or even worse, a naked theft of law and order, as already accomplished by King Vlad. Barr is an accessory to that, and does not deserve his position. He is an impostor. One can only hope he is pressured into resigning. But, that would be the right thing to do, and you can never count on Bill Barr to do the right thing. It is just not who he has been, since his conversion to a full fledged devotee of the false master. 

Typical Democrat hyprocrisy!

 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/shameless-obamas-wingman-eric-holder-claims-unprecedented-politicization-of-doj-under-trump/

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

No, it wasn't. The prosecutors tried to invoke an enhancement to get the longest sentence possible. 

 

 

Enhancements are a standard part of the federal sentencing guidelines process. Maybe if Stone hadn't been threatening a potential witness in the case, he would have gotten a lighter recommendation. Do the crime, do the time.

 

Quote

 

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines play a heavy role in all federal cases. While not mandatory, federal law has established a point system for offenses. There are points for the type of crime and then various enhancements (additional points) for things like the dollars involved (stolen), the role of the perpetrator (was he a leader or follower), was the person in a position of trust, etc. Then points are deducted for pleading guilty and helping authorities. Stone went to trial and was found guilty leaving him no way to achieve any point reduction. He got the full brunt of the Sentencing Guidelines.

 

Stone’s base level offense was for obstruction of justice (related to a number of counts), which called for 14 points. He then got an enhancement that involved causing or threatening to cause physical injury to a person ... Stone told a person who was considering cooperating in the case “prepare to die C#$%sucker.” Stone also allegedly threatened the witnesses dog. That got Stone another 8 points ... so we’re up to 22 points. He then got another 3 points for, “substantial interference with the administration of justice.” There was another 2 points for the extensive planning of his crime and, finally there were 2 more points because Stone “willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the prosecution of the instant offense of conviction.”  Whew ... 29 points. Stone has never been in trouble before so he was a Criminal Category I ... no prior offenses. If one looks at the Federal Sentencing Guideline table, the 29 points equates to 87-108 months (7-9 years).

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2020/02/14/trumps-tweet-on-roger-stone-shows-how-whacky-sentencing-guidelines-have-become/#4bd895f01c99

 

For goodness sake , some of you need to take your blinkers off and face reality. Forget political bias , a fully independent judiciary is absolutely a bedrock of democracy , ignore that at your peril.

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Funny you support the DOJ when they don't charge these liars but you don't support DOJ when they choose to lessen charges against an obviously political trial with a Dem as Foreperson. Funny that init? McCabe lied and was FIRED did you forget that too?  the evidence needed to be charged is very strict, much stricter than being fired and so he got away with it - just like Clinton who lied multiple times  (did you have classified info on your PC - NO, did you delete emails?  NO  did you have more than one PC?  NO etc. etc.

Mccabe wasnt fired becsuse he lied. Whete did you get that nonsense.

 

The prosecutors did their job. Then the AG stepoed in. Unheard of so much that over a thousand prosecutors thought it do bad they signed a letter asking for his resignation.

 

Signed by prosecutors both dem and repub. Interesting you consider repub prosecutors corrupt.

9 minutes ago, muzley said:

Typical Democrat hyprocrisy!

 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/shameless-obamas-wingman-eric-holder-claims-unprecedented-politicization-of-doj-under-trump/

Did holder interfere to ask for a lighter sentence to an obama friend who was a convicted felon?

 

I missed that.

 

He certainly got benghazi right.

11 minutes ago, muzley said:

Typical Democrat hyprocrisy!

 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/shameless-obamas-wingman-eric-holder-claims-unprecedented-politicization-of-doj-under-trump/

oh he had people complain about him.

 

Ask Boon Mee, it means he is right on track doing good things.

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Mccabe wasnt fired becsuse he lied. Whete did you get that nonsense.

 

The prosecutors did their job. Then the AG stepoed in. Unheard of so much that over a thousand prosecutors thought it do bad they signed a letter asking for his resignation.

 

Signed by prosecutors both dem and repub. Interesting you consider repub prosecutors corrupt.

"A report by the department's inspector general confirmed that investigators concluded McCabe had violated Justice Department policy by authorizing an aide to talk with the Wall Street Journal about the FBI's probe into the Clinton Foundation — and that McCabe had "lacked candor" in discussing the matter afterward inside the Justice Department."  Lacked candour = lying

One thousand prosecutors?  no one claimed that - it said "ex DOJ staff" stop trolling and quote accurately please. 

15 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Funny you support the DOJ when they don't charge these liars but you don't support DOJ when they choose to lessen charges against an obviously political trial with a Dem as Foreperson. Funny that init? McCabe lied and was FIRED did you forget that too?  the evidence needed to be charged is very strict, much stricter than being fired and so he got away with it - just like Clinton who lied multiple times  (did you have classified info on your PC - NO, did you delete emails?  NO  did you have more than one PC?  NO etc. etc.

It's amazing that you keep bringing up these occasional one or two lies (alleged), but ignore the 15,000+ lies (confirmed) by the current occupant of the WH.  Funny that. 

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Signed by prosecutors both dem and repub. Interesting you consider repub prosecutors corrupt

Well, they must be deep state repubs! ????

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

It's amazing that you keep bringing up these occasional one or two lies (alleged), but ignore the 15,000+ lies (confirmed) by the current occupant of the WH.  Funny that. 

They all lie actually. Let's see what Durham's report says?  There are NO angels in this mess

Also interesting is trump supporters cannot defend barr. They just try whataboutisms.

 

If others are not held to account the blame lays with the repubs as they are in charge.

The U.S. has a well-established legal/political tradition of presidents and their political appointees not interfering in ongoing federal criminal prosecutions, especially prosecutions of their associates.

 

Can't say it's never happened in the past. But there's countless good reasons for that being the way it SHOULD work in the interests of good, impartial, fair administration of justice and government.

 

Trump, Barr and his political lieutenants in the DOJ, of course, have willingly and consciously obliterated that tradition in the Stone case. And thus there's good reason that past DOJ folks of all political stripes are calling them on the carpet for it.

 

Doesn't matter whether anyone might think the line prosecutors sentencing recommendation for Stone was correct or not. Trump, Barr and Co. in this particular case especially should have kept their grubby hands off, period.

 

I think that harakiri on the White House lawn would be far more fun. ????

The active word in the headline is "former", in other words you don't count anymore.

3 hours ago, candide said:

You summarised it quite nicely.

To tell you the truth, I'm paraphrasing another poster (Stevenl?) who put it better than I did.

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump is attempting to Putinize the American judicial system, and make it far closer to a King's Bench system, or an early imperial system. Or even worse, a naked theft of law and order, as already accomplished by King Vlad. Barr is an accessory to that, and does not deserve his position. He is an impostor. One can only hope he is pressured into resigning. But, that would be the right thing to do, and you can never count on Bill Barr to do the right thing. It is just not who he has been, since his conversion to a full fledged devotee of the false master. 

You've got one hellavu an overactive imagination there, mike.  I'd love to see you have to prove any of that in a court of law.  The worst of the worst of lib/Dem faulty narratives.

 

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You've got one hellavu an overactive imagination there, mike.  I'd love to see you have to prove any of that in a court of law.  The worst of the worst of lib/Dem faulty narratives.

 

On the other hand, he's not the POTUS who subscribes to the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, among many others.

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You've got one hellavu an overactive imagination there, mike.  I'd love to see you have to prove any of that in a court of law.  The worst of the worst of lib/Dem faulty narratives.

 

Unless you are deluded enough to believe that republicans never push false narratives , your last sentence is moot as well as being childish.

32 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Unless you are deluded enough to believe that republicans never push false narratives , your last sentence is moot as well as being childish.

I have that poster on ignore. He keeps asking for proof, you give it and he wont believe it. But if its a dem them no proof required. He is just trolling, i suggest you ignore.

39 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Unless you are deluded enough to believe that republicans never push false narratives , your last sentence is moot as well as being childish.

Excellent point. 

2 hours ago, rgraham said:

The active word in the headline is "former", in other words you don't count anymore.

This is why when someone is looking for a job, their résumé is irrelevant. Because experience doesn't count.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You've got one hellavu an overactive imagination there, mike.  I'd love to see you have to prove any of that in a court of law.  The worst of the worst of lib/Dem faulty narratives.

 

I’m certain you will see this proven in a court of law.

15 hours ago, jany123 said:

Don’t they first need to be prosecuted thru to the sentencing phase first, to be “up for” any sentence?

Your justice department should look at the guidelines that cover the sentencing process, if there are perceived inequalities in proscribed punishments for various crimes.... maybe the next time you vote, vote for a reformist

 

Anyway, I thought I read that the combined sentences if served consecutively, exceeded 50 years.... maybe Stone should have thought about the punishment before committing the crime, because these recommendations weren’t just made up.

Jury selection gives equality to both sides ( prosecution / defense, not dem/ republic).... I’m sure there were biased republicans on the jury, who could have acted as jury foreperson... this is such a lame excuse.... and not that it matters, but can you substantiate it

 

crikey... the judge should be biased after the cross hairs picture... perhaps next you’ll be suggesting she be recused in case stones implied threats have compromised her ability to arbitrate fairly

 

Fair play would be to support a sentence in line with those recommended, as those recommendations apply to all convictions equally, with no favor to age race or proximity of a presidential penis... Justice is in equality of sentencing. Equality is achieved thru mandated sentences for each crime

I'm not going to go through each point as I don't have time but will say this in conclusion: the foreperson was tweeting political stuff during the trial, the 9 years was disproportionate and the head of DOJ has every right to recognise that and intervene, where are the sentences for the other liars? many examples. Justice should be equal as you suggest but obviously is not.

19 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I'm not going to go through each point as I don't have time but will say this in conclusion: the foreperson was tweeting political stuff during the trial, the 9 years was disproportionate and the head of DOJ has every right to recognise that and intervene, where are the sentences for the other liars? many examples. Justice should be equal as you suggest but obviously is not.

Were the tweets about the trial? As has been repeatedly pointed out, Stones lawyers questioned her about her political involvement during the voir dire. As for sentences for liars. First you have to be convicted of lying. But more importantly, the most serious charge against Stone was threatening another witness.

Off topic post and reply removed

Chance of Barr stepping down because of these letters: 0

Chance of Barr being removed by the Mad King because, well, he's a mad king: stay tuned

But it will be a different story told by each afterward.