Roger Stone Gets 40 Months In Prison

  
By:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  177 comments

Roger Stone Gets 40 Months In Prison

Reports from the federal courthouse in DC are that Roger Stone is getting a stern rebuke from federal district court judge Amy Berman Jackson. 

Prosecutors argued this morning for an enhanced sentence for Stone, in apparent disobedience to the orders from William Barr to lessen the sentence request. 

Sentence expected momentarily. 

The prosecutors asked for 6 to 7 years in prison for Stone in the latest request. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Judge Berman rejected the Trumpian theory that Stone was prosecuted by his political enemies. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
Judge Berman rejected the Trumpian theory that Stone was prosecuted by his political enemies.

Looks like she also rejected the ridiculous sentence asked for by prosecutors.

Why?

 
 
 
katrix
2  katrix    2 months ago

Trump is just going to pardon him anyway, so this is probably an exercise in futility. But good for the court for taking it seriously.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @2    2 months ago
Trump is just going to pardon him anyway

Why do you say this? Why does anyone say this? I have been hearing this as long as Trump has been president - that Trump will just pardon his "coconspirators" vis a vis Russia or whatever else is being investigated. And then there's all sorts of harrumphing and hand-wringing, and righteous indignation. The impression is that Trump is abusing his power of the pardon to his own benefit. Maybe he should even be impeached for it.

But it hasn't happened. Not once. Not yet, at any rate. And we're over three years in. He has had lots of opportunity and he hasn't done it. So what is the justification for this righteous indignation? Do you just say it because they say it on CNN and MSNBC? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @2.1    2 months ago
Do you just say it because they say it on CNN and MSNBC? 

i heard it on Fox.

What are your thoughts of the Putin Trump ticket ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.1    2 months ago
What are your thoughts of the Putin Trump ticket ?

I think yellow mustard is an underrated condiment.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.2    2 months ago

try to Catch up then

 
 
 
CometRider
2.1.4  CometRider  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.1    2 months ago
What are your thoughts of the Putin Trump ticket ?

Does this guy represent your ideal president?

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdefiantamerica.com%2Fwp

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Stone received a sentence of 3 years and 4 months in prison and a fine of 40,000 dollars. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago

Everyone seems to be reporting the fine as $20K

Napolitano is criticizing the judges remarks that had nothing to do with the charges.

Schiff just announced that any pardon by Trump of Stone would be "absolute corruption".

Fox is more interested in the jury foreperson and the ramifications from that.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Split Personality @3.1    2 months ago

typical par for the discourse

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @3.1    2 months ago

I heard 40,000 on MSNBC. If it is wrong, so be it. Not a big deal. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @3.1    2 months ago
Schiff just announced that any pardon by Trump of Stone would be "absolute corruption".

How typical of Schiff to be outraged over something that hasn't happened.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

The Judge was 100% wrong to move to sentencing before settling the matter of Juror (the foreperson) bias.

"The Sixth Amendment gives a person accused of a crime the right to be tried by a jury, except for petty offenses carrying a sentence of six months or less of jail time. This right has traditionally been interpreted to mean a 12-person jury. However, a jury can constitutionally consist of as few as six persons, but defendants tried by six-person juries can be convicted only if the jury is unanimous in favor of guilt. (For more information, see   The Right to Trial by Jury .)

In most cases, a unanimous verdict is required to convict a defendant. In most states, a lack of unanimity is called a "hung jury," and the defendant will go free unless the prosecutor decides to retry the case. In Oregon and Louisiana, however, juries may convict or acquit a defendant on a vote of ten to two. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state law providing for less-than-unanimous verdicts by 12-person juries in non-death penalty cases.

Potential jurors must be selected randomly from the community, and the actual jury must be selected by a process that allows the judge and lawyers to screen out biased jurors . In addition, a lawyer may eliminate several potential jurors simply because he feels that these people would not be sympathetic to his side—but these decisions (called "peremptory challenges") may not be based on the juror's personal characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or national origin."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defendants-rights-during-court-trial-29793.html


3 years & 4 months will be the sentence - exactly what it should have been!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 months ago

3 years & 4 months will be the sentence - exactly what it should have been!

For What ?

You just stated the Judge should not have ruled.

Trump stated he was more innocent than a new found fawn in the bright yellow snow job know as a which hunt his Dawg Roger Thumpered a Cleveland Steamer on Trumpps sunken community Chest grabbed like a 'pussy' !

Just more proof of Trump's Witch Hunt, huh ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1    2 months ago
You just stated the Judge should not have ruled.

She should have settled the Juror matter first. The sentence was appropriate - it was simply in the wrong order.


Trump stated 

Irrelevant! Not interested.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    2 months ago
She should have settled the Juror matter first.

Napolitano just said that a retrial is up to Judge Jackson and the fact that she sentenced Stone is clear proof

that she has already made up her mind about any retrial.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.2    2 months ago

That could be the reason for the convoluted order of sentencing before the juror hearing. That is a possibility.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1    2 months ago

Looks like he really is Teflon Don.  Got away with Russian collusion.  Ukranian quid pro quo.   Got his consigliere/lapdog Barr to get Stone a lighter sentence.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.4    2 months ago

Yes in real life Trumo is actually Dr Evil ...... Muuuuahaaaaw ...... next comes fricken lazers:

256

Beware of fricken lazers beams Democrats!

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.3    2 months ago

The more likely path will be that Jackson denies the motion, Stone reports to prison and files an appeal.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.7  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.4    2 months ago

The day he is out of office the full weight of many legal jurisdictions will be clamoring for first dibs to prosecute him. He'll look good in orange.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.3    2 months ago

I think it's just about being organized and focused.

It might be a thing she decided to go ahead with just because everyone was present and ready for it. Everybody's brain is tuned into the sentencing procedure. Dispense with that, and then we can look at whether or not the judge needs to declare a mistrial. This gives counsel a chance to make arguments if necessary and the judge to focus on one thing at a time.

Then if she decides a new trial is warranted, they can proceed with it. If not, the sentence will stand.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.4    2 months ago
Got his consigliere/lapdog Barr to get Stone a lighter sentence.  

The judge has complete authority to determine sentence. She doesn't have to do anything the Attorney General or his prosecutors say.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  cjcold @4.1.7    2 months ago

thought he already was in orange

lets spot him in stripes

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.8    2 months ago
Then if she decides a new trial is warranted

Who takes over in that case?

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.11    2 months ago

Could be Jackson or a new Judge.  It depends on the reason.

What is the Difference Between a Retrial and an Appeal?

An appeal is not a new trial of the case in question. Usually, an appeals court will not take into consideration new evidence or new witnesses. Instead, its decisions are based on whether there were errors in the trial’s procedure or in the judge’s interpretation of the law. An appeals court is concerned with the application of the laws, and not the evidence.

Whereas a retrial is a new trial, and the following are possible:

  • New evidence may be considered;
  • New witnesses may testify;
  • New attorneys may be involved;
  • New jury will be selected; and
  • New judge may preside over the trial.

With a retrial, you are allowed to present an argument that you did not present in the first trial. You are also allowed to skip an argument, like an argument that was weak or not as effective. Essentially a retrial will be a completely new trial where the previous trial will have no impact on the retrial.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-retrial-lawyers.html

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.12    2 months ago

I wonder how Jackson feels about possibly losing control of the case?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 months ago
and the actual jury must be selected by a process that allows the judge and lawyers to screen out biased jurors .

Which they had in this case. So WTF is your point? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2    2 months ago
Which they had in this case.

They did not have that process if a juror sabotaged it by lying or withholding from the court important information about their bias. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    2 months ago
They did not have that process if a juror sabotaged it by lying or withholding from the court important information about their bias. 

So you're assuming that happened? Based on WHAT? 

During voir dire, the Judge made it clear that merely having a political opinion about Trump OR Stone didn't disqualify a juror, in and of itself. From everything I have read, the juror was vetted, she disclosed her political activity, including running for congress,  and after voir dire Stone's legal team did not make a motion to strike her from the jury. 

It's starting to look like conservatives here are bias against liberal jurors. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.2.2    2 months ago
Based on WHAT? 

BASED ON THE OBVIOUS REALITY OF THE FOREPERSON BEING BIASED

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    2 months ago
BASED ON THE OBVIOUS REALITY OF THE FOREPERSON BEING BIASED

Are you answering for Tacos! now Vic? 

Everyone has bias Vic, the issue is whether one can set aside their bias and decide the case based on the evidence presented to them at trial. You don't have one iota of evidence that the foreperson was unable to do that. Your 'feelings' and opinion don't count. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.2    2 months ago
So you're assuming that happened?

Do you know what the word "if" means?

They did not have that process if a juror sabotaged it . . .

Oh no, paying attention to words would get in the way of strawmanning and sealioning, wouldn't it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.4    2 months ago
Are you answering for Tacos! now Vic? 

Oh right! Like you never jump in and answer a question or respond to a statement posed to someone else. Vic's response is just fine with me.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.5    2 months ago
'Oh no, paying attention to words would get in the way of strawmanning and sealioning, wouldn't it.'

We'll leave that up to the expert here jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.6    2 months ago

Seems logical that just about anyone with an ounce of integrity and a modicum of knowledge about these things could have answered that question easily.

Just about anyone.

LOL!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.5    2 months ago
Do you know what the word "if" means?

Yes and I know what a question mark connotes too, do you? 

Oh no, paying attention to words would get in the way of strawmanning and sealioning, wouldn't it.

It doesn't look like anything gets in the way of your need to make personal comments. 

Answer the questions or move on. I couldn't care less which. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.6    2 months ago

GREAT, so since neither of you have an iota of evidence to support the claim of 'obvious bias', my reply to Vic covers your comment too. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.8    2 months ago

Is that why you didn't even try? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.12  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.9    2 months ago
Answer the questions or move on.

That's pretty stupid because your questions were

So you're assuming that happened? Based on WHAT?

I can't very well say what an assumption is based on if I'm not making it. Also note the obnoxious capital letters indicated how absurd you find the assumption I didn't make. Just so ready to judge.

It doesn't look like anything gets in the way of your need to make personal comments.

I didn't say anything about you personally. I reply to the things you write. If you don't like the reactions they inspire, well . . . you reap what you sow, as they say.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.10    2 months ago
GREAT, so since neither of you have an iota of evidence to support the claim of 'obvious bias'

I didn't make a claim of "obvious bias." Once again, you ascribe words to me that I didn't say and attack me for them. And you wonder why people are hostile to you.

I would say that based on the reports I have seen in the news, there is cause for genuine concern that the jury foreperson had a strong bias against the defendant and it is worth asking how she remained on the jury. Based on those reports, there is a genuine possibility of either a mistrial or the ordering of a new trial on appeal.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.13    2 months ago
I didn't make a claim of "obvious bias." Once again, you ascribe words to me that I didn't say and attack me for them. And you wonder why people are hostile to you.

But Vic DID and you said " Vic's response is just fine with me." That was YOU right Tacos!? 

I would say that based on the reports I have seen in the news, there is cause for genuine concern that the jury foreperson had a strong bias against the defendant and it is worth asking how she remained on the jury. Based on those reports, there is a genuine possibility of either a mistrial or the ordering of a new trial on appeal.

Well I haven't read 'reports' in the news, I've read the transcripts of the jury voir dire and the sentencing. Stone will have to ask his lawyers why they didn't make a motion to strike her. The Judge found her credible. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.12    2 months ago
I can't very well say what an assumption is based on if I'm not making it.

So is your answer that you do NOT assume that the process was sabotaged by a juror lying or withholding from the court important information about their bias? 

Also note the obnoxious capital letters indicated how absurd you find the assumption I didn't make. Just so ready to judge.

I await your chastisement of Vic for his obnoxious capital letters....

Pffft. 

Just so ready to judge.

Says the guy who started your comment with:

That's pretty stupid

So now you've made ANOTHER non-responsive personal comment. Move on. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.16  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.15    2 months ago
I await your chastisement of Vic for his obnoxious capital letters....

Why would I? I already said I was fine with it. Furthermore, it's not my place to chastise Vic for anything. Your need to punish people is pretty weird.

Move on. 

That's the second time you have said that. Your fear of opposing voices is not new.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.14    2 months ago
The Judge found her credible. 

Which is irrelevant if she lied or was otherwise less than candid in her responses.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.16    2 months ago
Why would I? I already said I was fine with it.

Yes and I pointed out your hypocrisy. 

Furthermore, it's not my place to chastise Vic for anything.

Right, you obviously save that honor for me. 

Your need to punish people is pretty weird.

Now whose playing word games. Chastising isn't punishing. 

That's the second time you have said that. 

Actually, the RA recommended using that term. 

Your fear of opposing voices is not new.

I DO tire of your incessant personal comments Tacos!. You aren't expressing an opposing position, you're expressing personal animus. It's your MO of late. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.17    2 months ago
Which is irrelevant if she lied or was otherwise less than candid in her responses.

There you go again. You can't be bothered to review what she was asked or what her answers were but you sure as fuck can imply that she maybe, could have, might have lied. 

Pffft. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.20  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.18    2 months ago
Yes and I pointed out your hypocrisy. 

No, you didn’t. It’s hilarious and sad that you think so.

Right, you obviously save that honor for me.

It’s ok. You earned it.

Now whose playing word games. Chastising isn't punishing.

Well, if you say so.

Chastisement is the act of scolding or punishing someone.

I DO tire of your incessant personal comments

Again, I haven’t made any personal comments, but if it tires you so, perhaps you should take your own advice and “move on.”

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.19    2 months ago
You can't be bothered to review what she was asked or what her answers were

No need to. I have made no claims about the questions or her answers. However, if you have those records, I think you should post links to them so we can see them. It wouldn’t be complete information, of course, but it does sound interesting.

but you sure as fuck can imply that she maybe, could have, might have lied. 

There you go again attributing things to me I haven’t said. I haven’t implied any such thing, and your inferences are your own problem. I am not responsible for the machinations of your imagination. What I said was that if she did lie (there’s that big two-letter word you keep struggling with), it could be grounds for a mistrial or a successful appeal.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.20    2 months ago
Again, I haven’t made any personal comments, but if it tires you so, perhaps you should take your own advice and “move on.”

Oh no, paying attention to words would get in the way of strawmanning and sealioning, wouldn't it.

That's pretty stupid 

Also note the obnoxious capital letters indicated how absurd you find the assumption I didn't make. Just so ready to judge.

And you wonder why people are hostile to you.

Your fear of opposing voices is not new.

It’s hilarious and sad that you think so.

It’s ok. You earned it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.21    2 months ago
There you go again attributing things to me I haven’t said.

Seems to be the favorite tactic of a few--tell you what you think or wrote, then argue it.

WEAK SAUCE.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.24  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.22    2 months ago

Oh, look who's back for more of the off-topic slap-fight. Thanks for making my point. 

Let me know if you develop an interest in the topic.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.21    2 months ago

If you were actually interested you would have done a search and READ the transcript for yourself. Since you have failed to do so, I fail to see why I should accommodate you. 

No need to. I have made no claims about the questions or her answers. 

Except when you did including:

What I said was that if she did lie (there’s that big two-letter word you keep struggling with), it could be grounds for a mistrial or a successful appeal.

Right Tacos! because if she lied is nothing like "she maybe, could have, might have lied" and no thinking person would think that it inferred anything would they? 

Pffft. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.24    2 months ago

Apparently, someone was not in class when reading comprehension was being taught.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.2.27  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    2 months ago

Sure hope you are never picked for jury duty. Your far right wing activities here would disqualify you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.28  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.24    2 months ago
Let me know if you develop an interest in the topic.

Let me know if you ever develop a desire to actually garner knowledge of the topic rather than rely on someone else interpreting it for you. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.29  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.28    2 months ago

You waited a whole day to post and this garbage is what you choose to submit? Like I said, Let me know if you develop an interest in the topic. You come here and literally just attack people.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.2.30  bugsy  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.29    2 months ago
You come here and literally just attack people.

With zero facts about anything.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.31  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.24    2 months ago
Oh, look who's back for more of the off-topic slap-fight. Thanks for making my point. 

Those are all your words, not mine. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.32  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.2.30    2 months ago
With zero facts about anything.

I am the only member in this whole seed that actually quoted facts from the transcript. 

FAIL.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 months ago
Potential jurors must be selected randomly from the community, and the actual jury must be selected by a process that allows the judge and lawyers to screen out biased jurors . In addition, a lawyer may eliminate several potential jurors simply because he feels that these people would not be sympathetic to his side—but these decisions (called "peremptory challenges") may not be based on the juror's personal characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or national origin."

And how do you screen out biased jurors? Ask them which political party they belong to? That will never happen, obviously. No matter what you do, you are going to have politically biased jurors, that's just reality. But you are complaining about ONE biased juror out of 12? That means the other 11 were right wing biased. Sorry, what were you complaining about again? 

It never ceases to amaze me that every single fucking time a trumper gets caught committing a crime, the first thing the right does is scream bias. "Everyone is biased against us, (and we are biased against everyone)!!!!" EVERY....FUCKING....TIME. 

NEWS FLASH!!!!

He was guilty, end of story. Also, he got off light, should have been 9 years for what he was FOUND GUILTY OF BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS. 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.3.1  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @4.3    2 months ago

It called voir dire and the potential juror is expected to tell the truth or you may get a biased jury like in the this case.I can only hope this never happens to you. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @4.3    2 months ago
should have been 9 years

why?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.3.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.2    2 months ago

cause it's more than 8

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.3.3    2 months ago

So is 7,509.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.3.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.4    2 months ago

nope

i 8 more calories than that while snackin

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.6  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @4.3.1    2 months ago
It called voir dire and the potential juror is expected to tell the truth or you may get a biased jury like in the this case.

Do you have evidence that someone on Stone's jury lied during voir dire or did you just pull that out of your nether regions? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.3.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @4.3.6    2 months ago

Do you have evidence that someone on Stone's jury lied during voir dire or did you just pull that out of your nether regions? 

nah, probably his asz though

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @4.3    2 months ago
He was guilty

So was Bill Ayers!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

The sentence is no surprise to anyone. The sentence request by the prosecutors is often superseded by the judge. Big deal. 

The fact is Roger Stone is a lifelong con man hustler scumbag. All his bad deeds caught up with him. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 months ago
The sentence is no surprise to anyone.

Not according to the comments we've been seeing on here from our leftist friends. BTW Stone is not going directly to prison. That matter of the progressive being the foreperson on the jury will be dealt with.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    2 months ago

The evidence against Stone was overwhelming. A new trial with a new jury will have the same result. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    2 months ago
The evidence against Stone was overwhelming.

Nobody is debating that. The issue is his rights under the 6th Amendment. Don't you believe in that?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    2 months ago
That matter of the progressive being the foreperson on the jury will be dealt with.

You mean the foreperson on the jury that the defense accepted?  That foreperson?

"Your honor, we request a mistrial because if we'd known that this juror was going to vote to convict our client, we never would have picked her."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    2 months ago

Your issue is the jury. It's not my issue. Let them straighten it out and try him again if need be. I couldnt care less.  He's guilty on the facts , not because the jury railroaded him. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.3    2 months ago
You mean the foreperson on the jury that the defense accepted? 

In a Federal case the lawyers on both sides submit questions. The Judge does the accepting.


 That foreperson?

Ya, that hate-filled progressive!

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1.6  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    2 months ago

Won't matter none. Trump will pardon him as soon he's reelected

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.4    2 months ago
Your issue is the jury.

My issue is rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

I understand what you want.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    2 months ago

you might have a few more than that.

i think we all do, when it comes to the LIAR in Chief !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.8    2 months ago
i think we all do

I don't know about "we"......Your problem comes in December

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.10  katrix  replied to  WallyW @5.1.6    2 months ago
Trump will pardon him as soon he's reelected

I doubt he'll wait until the election; for one thing, he might not get reelected. For another, why make his criminal buddy spend any time in jail when he can pardon him immediately?

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    2 months ago

If he isn't re-elected he will still have roughly 70 days to pardon whomever he wants.

Many Presidents like Bill Clinton spent January 20 signing pardons.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.12  katrix  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.11    2 months ago

True, but if he doesn't get re-elected, he will be in major meltdown mode and will be too busy tweeting and trying to overthrow the Constitution to give what little bit of give-a-fuck he has for his fellow criminals any time.

 
 
 
devangelical
5.1.13  devangelical  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    2 months ago

roger won't like cooling his heels in the slammer for long.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @5.1.13    2 months ago

He'll be ok. He's too ugly to be anybody's girlfriend

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @5.1.12    2 months ago
he will be in major meltdown mode and will be too busy tweeting and trying to overthrow the Constitution to give what little bit of give-a-fuck

Well he has a fine template to follow if it comes to that.   The one that Democrats have laid out again and again and again for the last three plus years.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.14    2 months ago

Plus someone needs to tell him that style of glasses went out with JFK's father 60 years ago ..... not very pokey sheek .... he needs some of those military birth control glasses

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.16    2 months ago

They're not giving out the black BFC's anymore. They got too cool so now they're giving basic trainees these really ugly brown tortieshell glasses with square frames.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.17    2 months ago

I wonder how much more the new and improved ugly glasses cost?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.18    2 months ago

I think they might be cheaper and that's why they went with them.

After basic everybody went and got nicer glasses or started wearing their contacts again and took the BCG's and got sunglasses made

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.20  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.19    2 months ago

I was just happy i had 20-10 and had a lot of fun with the poor bastards who had to wear those steamed up pieces of shit.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.21  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @5.1.6    2 months ago

Won't matter none. Trump will pardon him as soon he's reelected

I do hope he does. It will just prove once again that trump wasn't worried one bit about corruption in the Ukraine, since he is pardoning it in the USA. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.22  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    2 months ago
My issue is rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Which he got. So what's the problem? 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.17    2 months ago

When I went to BCT, two girls were offered the ugly glasses explaining that how expensive glasses can be that they should wear the el cheapos because of the damage theirs could face due to the rigors of training.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.24  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.22    2 months ago

Which he got. So what's the problem? 

No, he didn't.

Bill Ayers got his rights protected. Stone, Page and possibly Flynn did not!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.23    2 months ago

Not a bad idea, really. If I had had to wear glasses in BT I would have worn the BCGs. Mr Giggles had to wear them and some girl walked by him one day in BT and mockingly said "Hi, Handsome." Then he threw his glasses away or so he says. Some how I doubt it because he's as blind as a bat without them

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    2 months ago
That matter of the progressive being the foreperson on the jury will be dealt with.

First of all, what is your issue with having a 'progressive' on a jury? The Jury elects the foreperson and the jury convicted Stone unanimously on multiple counts. 

Secondly, since you're acknowledging that will be 'dealt with', why have you been whining about Stone being sentenced? 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.27  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.14    2 months ago

It's not like that Bubba will be looking at the face during the wee hours.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.28  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.5    2 months ago
In a Federal case the lawyers on both sides submit questions. The Judge does the accepting.

Way to twist the truth.

In ALL court cases involving a jury, lawyers on both sides can question all perspective jurors and block a juror if they are opposed to him/her. 

In ALL court cases involving a jury, the judge either accepts or denies individual jurors based on the recommendations of both attorneys.

Ya, that hate-filled progressive!

And again, you can't claim a mistrial for not doing your job well.

"Your honor, we request a mistrial because if we'd known that this juror was going to vote to convict our client, we never would have picked her."

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.27    2 months ago

Tis true...but there is that ugly tatt and that flat head of his. Have you ever noticed how misshapen his skull is?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.30  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.29    2 months ago

Then again, what would be worse, Bubba having to look at Stone's face or Nixon's.  With those two choices, he would need a blindfold and some Viagra.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 months ago
The sentence is no surprise to anyone.

The sentence completely vindicated William Barr!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2    one month ago

He sure was not vindicated from his role as a Trump toady.  If any thing, it solidified his reputation as one.

 
 
 
devangelical
6  devangelical    2 months ago

time for a gofundme account to be set up to benefit the lifer that turns stone's nixon tattoo into an abstract.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  devangelical @6    2 months ago

Dix him over...?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @6    2 months ago

We have CNN to hire them, Oh wait, he was a Trump supporter - forget it

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  Tessylo    2 months ago

Time for tRump to brag about how his lapdog/consigliere Barr got Stone a reduced sentence.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @7    2 months ago

Trump is bloviating on this matter right now.  Beyond any doubt he is making ridiculous and uninformed opinions. That is the way he rolls. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    2 months ago

Trump thinks Stone should go free for lying to Congress because someone created a dossier about Trump. 

This is his level of "logic".  A 10 year old's level. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    2 months ago
because someone created a dossier about Trump.

A false one that the FBI knew was false and used to get FISA Warrants to spy on Americans. And got away with it!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    2 months ago

Stone didnt lie to Congress because someone wrote a dossier. 

Dont think like Trump. It will eat away your brain. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7    2 months ago
Time for tRump to brag about how his lapdog/consigliere Barr got Stone a reduced sentence.

The Obama judge essentially just proved that Barr was correct!

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  Tessylo    2 months ago

86831278_3488619067897789_24604491960759

 
 
 
lady in black
9  lady in black    2 months ago

87184618_1077903559263366_43577459052526

 
 
 
lady in black
10  lady in black    2 months ago

86784942_1077740719279650_36921508290719

 
 
 
MrFrost
11  MrFrost    2 months ago

How anyone can be shocked that a guy with a Nixon tat on his back is heading for prison is a real mystery. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
11.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @11    2 months ago

I saw the tat and props go to the artist for portrait tats are some of the hardest to do but Stone....Nixon, really?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @11.1    2 months ago

perfect together

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.1    2 months ago

They go together like peas and carrots

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.2    2 months ago
go together like peas and carrots

thought that was Trumpp and Russian prostitutes

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.3    2 months ago

trmp = carrot

prostitutes = pea

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.4    2 months ago
trmp = carrot

trmp= tiny rotten mal-figured penis

.prostitutes = pea

.

pea= piston executive american

.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.3    2 months ago
thought that was Trumpp and Russian prostitutes

It never ceases to amaze me what some gullible people will STILL believe after it has been debunked.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.6    2 months ago

Yeah...same here...like trmp has a a smidgen of decency

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.7    2 months ago

Ohhhh, nice deflection!

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.8    2 months ago

You taught me all I needed to know about deflection. Congratulations, Teach!

 
 
 
MUVA
11.1.10  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.9    2 months ago

See you were a expert and didn’t even know it:)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @11.1.10    2 months ago

that there's funny

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.6    2 months ago

It never ceases to amaze me what some gullible people will STILL believe after it has been debunked.

when and where was it ever debunked ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.13  author  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.12    2 months ago

The Trump and the peeing hookers story has never been debunked, as debunked means disproven. 

I wouldnt use it myself though, since it has never been proven true either.  It may fall into one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" scenarios that cant be proven or disproven. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.13    2 months ago
It may fall into one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" scenarios that cant be proven or disproven.

Like Bush Jr. stated. I looked into (Putins) sole, and saw Defeat, or something like that.

Cause i've looked into the Donalds eyes, and saw the inside of his HAIR !

 
 
 
MUVA
11.1.15  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.13    2 months ago

The pee conspiracy.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MUVA @11.1.15    2 months ago

The pee conspiracy.

comes right after Oh, and right before, but right on Q

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
11.1.17  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.16    2 months ago
comes right after Oh, and right before, but right on Q

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
pat wilson
11.1.18  pat wilson  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.14    2 months ago

"fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

George W Bush

 
 
 
pat wilson
11.1.19  pat wilson  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.4    2 months ago

with Russian dressing

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  pat wilson @11.1.18    2 months ago

George W Bush

Who      ?

.

as in The:

Won't get fooled again

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.21  igknorantzrulz  replied to  pat wilson @11.1.19    2 months ago

with Russian dressing

Tossed

to the side

like a side salad.

a side salad with a lot of roughage to smooth over the soft prostitutes with prosthetics doing calisthenics over a submissive femdom Trump !

Where else did you think he got that Orange complexion...,

them bitches take their vitamins ,

and wear masks in mosques Moscowin and wincing as Trumpp took no convincing, as many a prosthetic was lost in and on him ! 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
11.1.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  pat wilson @11.1.18    2 months ago

For many Republicans the saying should be "Fool me once, that proves I can be fooled again. So why not let some serially bankrupt adulterer who has been accused of sexual assault by more than two dozen women fool us, we've already proven we are easily fooled...".

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain

A more current update should read:

"It is better the President not tweet his thoughts and let people think he is a fool than to tweet incessantly and remove all doubt".

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.22    2 months ago

that newer version doesn't have quite the same twang to it

.

Trump's tweets are a green house window for peepholes to see into his raw thought process, which magnifies why he is to be assumed one with nothing up his sleeve but his armed and dangerous long sleeve shirt tied to his armed and dangerous feeble mind that searches for reinforcements and an adoring supportive mob to reinsure his for sure insecurities worn on his sleeve to deceive the  bare armed and dangerous following who accept his gospel as the golden calf rule cow towing as much bovine excrement as a freiter can haul while making a U think it is a double U before n X can prematurely explain Y a Z wears stripes when spotted wearing a bras , cause when Z bras are spotted with strippers and pols, hair gets cut short cycling the circuitry that wires a deformed mined stripped of resources depleted as he was cheated like a canary flapping tweets onto newspapers full of his detrimental excrement fore his followers to consume and eat the bread between his meat absent, mind tardy, body slammed as he wrestles his conscience into the final round of the cardboard box he bagged for the carpet he couldn't munch due to him being anti lesbean without a robe to ignite the drapes without a match lighter than the fluid language he can't speak of,  as canary's only tweet about standards he'll never meet till there is a suicide on a 5th avenue street of desire with hair on fire that extinguished the faulty mined stripped of the canary, yellow orange and hairy, while skinned to the talons is a test tube baby beak

, to match his  hands 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
11.1.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.23    2 months ago
peepholes to see into his raw thought process

All you'll see looking through that "peep hole" is an old fat man walking around looking at everything he comes into contact with and mumbling to himself "Hmmm, okay, where's the pussy on this thing cause I want to grab it...".

You'd think all his supporters would clearly see his continuous inept behavior, but sadly most have their heads stuck firmly up Trump's "peep hole" so their view is completely obstructed.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11.1.25  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.24    2 months ago

they can see the inside of his hair

.

a

n

d

Russia, from his front porch

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.9    2 months ago

Looks like the pupil has FAR surpassed the teacher.

But you damn sure seem confused as to who taught you that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.12    2 months ago
when and where was it ever debunked ?

Oh, FFS, try reading some news, or watching it on tv, or listening to the radio, or get someone to clue you in.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
11.1.28  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.4    2 months ago

Russian prostitutes - pee

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
11.1.29  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  pat wilson @11.1.19    one month ago

With Trump it would be "Russian hands" and "Roman fingers".

 
 
 
Texan1211
12  Texan1211    2 months ago

So the judge agreed with Barr that the sentence prosecutors asked for was inappropriate.

Where is the left-wing angst over this obviously partisan judge?

Where is the wringing of hands, screaming at the sky, the sheer agony of someone connected to Trump not getting a longer sentence?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
12.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @12    2 months ago

prosecutors are trained to request a stiff as possible sentence, and the fact Rog threatened a witness and drew crosshairs next to a Judge, thus Death Threatening her, shouldn't influence any judge, right Tex ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1    2 months ago
prosecutors are trained to request a stiff as possible sentence, 

I don't buy that. Prove it.

and the fact Rog threatened a witness and drew crosshairs next to a Judge, thus Death Threatening her, shouldn't influence any judge, right Tex ?

I didn't write anything anywhere near your rather absurd assumptions. Can you ever relate your comments to me to something I have actually written, or is that just beyond your ken?

Can you even answer ONE of the questions I asked first, or are you just here to argue stuff no one says?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
12.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.1    2 months ago
I don't buy that. Prove it.

WHen you sell something.... scratch that.

Whenn a Rdepublican sells something, say, like his soul to the Devil, do you think he starts out at $1 ,  or would it be better to start out at $1,ooo,ooo,oo  , and let him barter themm down ?

Think how absurd your question is.

What bargaining power would a prosecutor have ?

THINK !

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1.2    2 months ago

I knew you couldn't prove that bullshit.

Color me shocked.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
12.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.3    2 months ago
I knew you couldn't prove that bullshit.

there is little Bullshit that i can't 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1.4    2 months ago

So go for it--prove it.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
12.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @12    2 months ago
this obviously partisan judge?

She has been more than 'judicial' in her handling of the case put before her, in spite of the extraordinary pressure placed upon her from a sitting president no less (inserting himself into the proceedings in unprecedented fashion). In the end, justice was served with the sentence matching the crime...pending pardon notwithstanding.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @12.2    2 months ago
this obviously partisan judge?

Sorry, from now on, I'll be careful to denote sarcasm for those who can't tell it when they see it.

/s

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12    2 months ago
So the judge agreed with Barr that the sentence prosecutors asked for was inappropriate.

Nope. The Judge actually rejected Barr's arguments for reducing Stone's sentence. She had her OWN reasons for the 40 months she gave Stone. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
12.3.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @12.3    2 months ago

as i believed she explained

in length

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.2  Dulay  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.3.1    2 months ago

Yes she did, she went through the 'math' step by step and then after listening to the lawyers, ruled for 40 months + 24 months of probation.

Imagine Stone being a good boy for 5 years. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3    2 months ago
Nope.

yes.

The Judge actually rejected Barr's arguments for reducing Stone's sentence. She had her OWN reasons for the 40 months she gave Stone.

The original prosecutors asked for 9 years. Barr said that was too long.

Apparently, the judge DID agree that it was too long, as she didn't sentence him to 9 years, come to think of it, she didn't even give as long of a sentence as was asked for.

But I admire your hellacious spin on things!

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.3    2 months ago
The original prosecutors asked for 9 years. Barr said that was too long.

The original prosecutors asked for 7-9 years. The DOJ's standard policy is to recommend the HIGHEST penalty allowed by the guidelines. 

Apparently, the judge DID agree that it was too long, as she didn't sentence him to 9 years, come to think of it, she didn't even give as long of a sentence as was asked for.

The Judge stated that Barr's 'recommendation' had NOTHING to do with it and in fact that she rejected his argument that the heightened penalty for witness intimidation shouldn't be allied. She DID apply that penalty. 

But I admire your hellacious spin on things!

Yes I know Tex, facts are spin in your world. But hey, you be you and just keep on spewing the propoganda that you've been told to beleive. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.4    2 months ago

Okay, let's all pretend that the judge didn't give a lesser sentence than was originally asked for, and less than was asked for by the replacement prosecutors.

Just a big coincidence that Barr suggested a lesser sentence, and that the judge did exactly that.

Pure coincidence to you, I suppose.

Me, I think that what the judge sentenced was in line with what Barr suggested.

That would suggest that the two independent minds thought along the same lines as far as sentencing went.

Sounds a whole lot more logical than what you seem to suggest.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.4    2 months ago
Yes I know Tex, facts are spin in your world. But hey, you be you and just keep on spewing the propoganda that you've been told to beleive. 

Wow. For someone who whines and bitches incessantly about personal comments, you sure went there pretty quickly!

I see that you hold yourself to different standards than you demand from others.

Weak sauce.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.5    2 months ago
That would suggest that the two independent minds thought along the same lines as far as sentencing went.

For those that are willfully uninformed, sure it would. 

Sounds a whole lot more logical than what you seem to suggest.

I'm not 'suggesting' anything. I am sighting the facts as documented in the sentencing transcript. You on the other hand are desperate to insist that the Judge ruled based on Barr's argument. She didn't but hey, fuck the facts and believe what you want. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.7    2 months ago
You on the other hand are desperate to insist that the Judge ruled based on Barr's argument.

There is that lack of comprehension thing again, rearing its ugly little head and making your posts appear foolish.

I said no such thing, and even went so far as to say that they must have thought along the same lines--that the sentences asked for didn't match the crime.

Try reading what I wrote again--it might, just might, help.

Probably not, though.

And I will believe what my own eyes and ears can easily see.

You do you.

More weak sauce.

Sigh.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.6    2 months ago
Wow. For someone who whines and bitches incessantly about personal comments, you sure went there pretty quickly!

My comment was in reply to yours:

But I admire your hellacious spin on things!

You got what you gave. 

I see that you hold yourself to different standards than you demand from others.

I don't demand anything from others nor am I the one who is tasked with holding anyone here to standards. 

Weak sauce.

You'd know. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.9    2 months ago
You'd know. 

For once, you got something right, I DO know, because I read AND comprehend your posts.

Try it sometime, you might actually start to like it eventually!

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.8    2 months ago
You on the other hand are desperate to insist that the Judge ruled based on Barr's argument.
I said no such thing, and even went so far as to say that they must have thought along the same lines--that the sentences asked for didn't match the crime.

So who wrote this Tex?

So the judge agreed with Barr that the sentence prosecutors asked for was inappropriate.
The original prosecutors asked for 9 years. Barr said that was too long.
Just a big coincidence that Barr suggested a lesser sentence, and that the judge did exactly that.

What's so ironic about all of this is you and your fellow travelers support sentencing the likes of Stone the least penalty possible while cheering when Barr announces that he will be seeking sanctions on State AGs who don't insist on the highest penalty possible. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.11    2 months ago
So who wrote this Tex?

Why, I did. See the name above the place you got that from? It CLEARLY states my name. Again, reading comprehension.

I do believe a person of at least normal intelligence can see that the judge CLEARLY did not agree with the prosecutors' recommendations. Hence, the lighter-than-asked for sentence.

In effect, she AGREED that what the prosecutors asked for was too long. Had she agreed with the prosecutors, she would have given a longer sentence.

See how easy it is to understand it when you really, really, really try?

What's so ironic about all of this is you and your fellow travelers support sentencing the likes of Stone the least penalty possible while cheering when Barr announces that he will be seeking sanctions on State AGs who don't insist on the highest penalty possible

Yet more projection from you. Why not go by what we say instead of what YOU want us to say? Too hard to argue that way?

And still more weak sauce. Get it outta here!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12.3.13  KDMichigan  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.12    2 months ago
Why not go by what we say instead of what YOU want us to say?

256

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.14  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @12.3.13    2 months ago

I've seen washing machines on spin cycles do worse!

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.15  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.12    2 months ago
I do believe a person of at least normal intelligence can see that the judge CLEARLY did not agree with the prosecutors' recommendations. Hence, the lighter-than-asked for sentence.

I believe that a person of at least normal intellect would READ what the Judge SAID before they bloviated on what they thought she 'CLEARLY' did and why she did it. Alas, that leaves out those here that willfully refuse to do so and prefer to just make shit up out of whole cloth. 

In effect, she AGREED that what the prosecutors asked for was too long. Had she agreed with the prosecutors, she would have given a longer sentence.

Again, you are WRONG. She DID agree with the prosecutors, she DIDN'T agree with the formula. 

Yet the only way to prove that to yourself is to READ what she actually said. Here is just a taste:

For those of you who are new to this, or who woke up last week and became persuaded that the guidelines are harsh and, perhaps, sentencing shouldn't be driven by the rigid application of a strict mathematical formula and that individual consideration is, perhaps, required, I can assure you that defense attorneys and many judges have been making that point for a long time, but we don't usually succeed in getting the government to agree, and maybe that will continue.

The Judge spent the majority of the hearing going over the 'mathematical formula' and explaining WHY she accepted it as a recommendation but rejected the outcome. 

Yet more projection from you.

Not at all. 

Why not go by what we say instead of what YOU want us to say?

Oh I AM going by what you said Tex.

Perhaps you should review yours and your fellow travelers' comments in the "Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation' against left-wing sanctuary cities" seed and compare/contrast them to y'all's cries for leniency for Stone.  

Too hard to argue that way?

Not hard at all Tex. See above. 

And still more weak sauce. Get it outta here!

You're having delusions of grandeur. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.15    2 months ago

Now I am getting amused.

The judge agreed that the original sentence asked for was too harsh.

Jackson, who sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison and fined him $20,000, said she agreed that the original recommendation was too harsh, but added that the probation that Stone's lawyers asked for did not go far enough. Stone's crimes demanded a significant time behind bars, she said.

From: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/made-of-steel-judge-amy-berman-jackson-set...

Hmm...now who else said that the sentence asked for was too long?

Was it Barr?

Hmmmmm. 

Saying that the sentence is too harsh or too long is not saying the same thing to you?

I can't counter the sheer ignorance of that.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.16    2 months ago
Now I am getting amused.
The judge agreed that the original sentence asked for was too harsh.

Thanks for proving that you'd rather let someone interpret for you what was said rather than READ the actual document. 

Yet I'd think that you'd at least be able to recognize from the quote that I posted that the Judge said that the GUILDLINES were harsh, NOT the 'original sentence'. She also said that the second filing didn't effect her ruling because she would not have sentenced Stone the 7-9. 

Hmm...now who else said that the sentence asked for was too long? Was it Barr?

Actually, NO. Nor did Barr sign the sentencing document or rescinded the original filing. 

Saying that the sentence is too harsh or too long is not saying the same thing to you? I can't counter the sheer ignorance of that.

Since no one said the 'sentence was too harsh', your question is moot.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.17    2 months ago

I said it once, I'll say it again.

I can't counter the sheer ignorance of that.

So, please, have the last word.

I'm out.

Caio!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
12.3.19  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @12.3.2    2 months ago

It doesn't really matter how long or short the sentence is as Trump will pardon him anyway before he can order his quarterly box.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.20  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @12.3.19    2 months ago

I don't really care if Stone spends even one day in jail. It's the Trump/Barr involvement that's the issue for me and the fact that line prosecutors left or outright quite rather than follow Trump/Barr's orders. The kind of civil servants that refuse to play Trump/Barr's game are precisely the kind of civil servants that America needs. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Dean Moriarty
Sparty On
loki12
Texan1211
FLYNAVY1
Tacos!


56 visitors