Trump expected to commute Roger Stone sentence, days before prison term set to begin

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom  •  3 weeks ago  •  196 comments

By:   MSN

Trump expected to commute Roger Stone sentence, days before prison term set to begin
President Trump is expected to announce that he will commute Roger Stone's sentence, just days before the longtime political operative is slated to report to prison to serve more than three years for charges stemming from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, Fox News has learned.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Trump expected to commute Roger Stone sentence, days before prison term set to begin

President Trump is expected to announce that he will commute Roger Stone's sentence, just days before the longtime political operative is slated to report to prison to serve more than three years for charges stemming from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, Fox News has learned.

Sources told Fox News Friday that the president could announce a commutation of Stone's sentence as early as Friday evening.

The president, as recently as Friday morning, has said he was "looking at" offering Stone clemency, saying he was "very unfairly treated."

Stone was set to report to prison on July 14 to serve 40 months. He was sentenced in February to more than three years in prison after being convicted in November 2019 on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress on charges that stemmed from Mueller's investigation. Stone, however, has appealed his conviction and continues to deny any wrongdoing.

Trump, for weeks, has signaled he could be open to granting Stone clemency — tweeting last month that Stone was "a victim of a corrupt and illegal Witch Hunt, one which will go down as the greatest political crime in history. He can sleep well at night!"

During an exclusive interview with Fox News this week, Stone said he was "praying" for Trump to intervene.

When asked whether he'd prefer a pardon or a commutation of his sentence, Stone said "either one obviously would have an effect, in my opinion, of saving my life."

A presidential pardon completely absolves an individual of the crime he or she is found to have committed. A commutation lessens the punishment or eliminates jail time, but leaves the conviction standing.

"I have deep concerns about going to a prison where there absolutely is COVID virus, and, therefore, either one would have an effect of saving my life," Stone said.

He added: "If I should be fortunate enough to get a commutation, I would continue to fight for vindication."

As of Thursday evening, Stone said he had not received any formal communication from the White House on a potential pardon or commutation of his sentence.

I think I'll be the last person to know," Stone told Fox News. "He hates leaks, and he hates to be told what to do. I have instructed my lawyers not to contact the lawyers at the White House."

"The president, who I've known for 40 years, has an incredible sense of fairness. He is aware that the people trying to destroy Michael Flynn, now trying to destroy me, are the people trying to destroy him," Stone said.

He added: "I certainly think it could happen. I'm not going to second-guess the president."

Stone was not charged with any underlying crime of coordinating with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, though Mueller's team investigated Stone over tweets claiming to have information about WikiLeaks document dumps prior to their release.

When asked whether Stone felt WikiLeaks influenced the 2016 election, he said: "Yes. All of it."

"My whole purpose in hyping Wikileaks on Twitter was to make sure the media didn't sweep it under the rug, only because I was told it was politically significant," Stone said of his tweets in 2016, which he said were "not specific," and simply flagged that a WikiLeaks document dump "would be big" and was coming.

"I never discussed it with Trump. I have no idea what he thought about it, we never discussed it," Stone said. "You have to understand something about Donald Trump—when you talk to him on the phone, he talks and you listen. That's kind of the way it works."

When asked whether Stone had any regrets over his involvement in 2016, he said no.

"I engaged in legitimate, perfectly legal political activity which Mueller's corrupt investigation chose to criminalize," Stone said. "I thought the results of the 2016 election were crucial."

Meanwhile, earlier this week, Facebook announced it had removed a network of accounts on the platform and on Instagram allegedly linked to Stone. The company said the accounts were allegedly involved in "coordinated inauthentic behavior in the United States." The networks, according to Facebook, were focused on domestic audiences.

Facebook said it "identified the full scope" of the networks "following the recent public release of search warrants pertaining to the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in response to a joint petition from The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, and Politico."

"Our investigation linked this network to Roger Stone and his associates," Facebook said Wednesday.

Stone, however, denied being linked to the accounts, calling Facebook's accusations "defamatory," and said he did not think it was "coincidental" that they made the announcement this week.

"They'll have a chance to prove it. Words on a press release are assertions and accusations. It is false," Stone said. "It is put up or shut up time very soon. They'll get a chance to show me the illegitimate sites. They don't exist. I don't own hundreds of Facebook pages and I never have."

Stone claimed that Facebook's actions were "attempted character assassination to derail clemency."

Stone told Fox News he plans to file a lawsuit against the social media giant.

"My lawsuit against Facebook will be a defamation suit," he said. "They have accused me of doing something that they imply is illegal and violated their rules."

He added: "It's not true. I can prove it's not true."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    3 weeks ago

Yeah, never saw this coming.../s

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1  Kavika   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    3 weeks ago

It's a done deal.

One proven liar pardoning another proven liar. 

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.1  Ender  replied to  Kavika @1.1    3 weeks ago

I guess it pays to be a scumbag and loyal to the scumbag in chief.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @1.1    3 weeks ago
One proven liar pardoning another proven liar. 

True. However, no matter if Stone did not serve any time in prison, he is still a convicted criminal. He will never be allowed to vote. He will always be a convicted criminal. The fact that Trump commutated his time to me served to zero does not change anything other than Stone does not have to serve any time in prison. It does not in any way negate his conviction.

I think this is something that has yet to be explained to Stone, as he is doing high fives, and glad handing everyone as if he has had his conviction overturned. 

Once Stone learns that all the commutation means is that he does not have to serve time, he will likely be singing another tune. As his being a convicted criminal will follow him all the rest of his life.

And I wonder how many of his good'olboy-buddybusters will still want to hang around with a known criminal even if his prison time has been commutated. Not many I would think, as hanging out with Stone very well could cast suspicion on them. 

I will be interesting to see if thinks work out for Stone as he thought it would. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
he is still a convicted criminal.

for now,

stone turned down a full pardon so he could clear his name in court.


 Because Trump is not fully pardoning Stone, he can proceed with an appeal of his conviction that could allow him to clear his name, 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/trump-commutes-roger-stone-sentence/606877/


a guilty man would have taken the full pardon and been done with it.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.4  Ender  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

Stone was out celebrating. At least he was wearing a mask...

512

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @1.1    3 weeks ago
One proven liar pardoning another proven liar. 

Do you understand the difference between a pardon and commuting a sentence?  Because your comment tells me you DON'T understand the difference.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

We understand Jeremy.  Stone must have some really good dirt on tRump.  Really good!

I mean take a look at a part of his past.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6640233/Inside-Roger-Stones-swinging-marriage-posted-ads-online-frequented-sex-clubs.html

I'm going to post a seed about it actually.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
Stone must have some really good dirt on tRump.

So like with all your other accusations about Trump, you're speculating at best.  

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.8  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

Well, thank you very much for pointing out my error. 

Let me correct it for you.

''A proven liar commuting the sentence of a proven liar''.

There ya go, Jeremy.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
''A proven liar commuting the sentence of a proven liar''.

So a politician looking out for somebody.  That happened over 1000 times last adminstration and you all were silent.  

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
So a politician looking out for somebody.  That happened over 1000 times last adminstration and you all were silent.  

A couple of things Jeremy, you have no idea if I was silent or not. Don't assume things you have no idea of. You know what they say about assuming, don't you? And you might want to re-read my comment, I said they were both lairs and that is a correct statement.

How many of those 1000's of times were presidential commutations?

If you had done your research you'd know that the pair have been proven liars together long before Trump became president.  

Cheers

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
A couple of things Jeremy, you have no idea if I was silent or not. Don't assume things you have no idea of. You know what they say about assuming, don't you? And you might want to re-read my comment, I said they were both lairs and that is a correct statement.

Blah, blah, blah blah.  

Try re-reading what I said;  "you all were silent."  Operative word is ALL.  As in collectively.  If I were directing the comment specifically to you the word ALL would not have been present in the sentence.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.12  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.11    3 weeks ago

If you use the term ''you all'' were silent that would include me since you directed the comment to me. And you have no idea if I was silent or not. Actually have no idea if any of the other ''you all'' were or were not silent

Cheers.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
If you use the term ''you all'' were silent that would include me

So it included you.  So what. It's not going to change a damn thing.  You are getting worked up about semantics.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.14  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

Not getting worked up about anything. Just pointing out you don't know what you're talking about. 

Remember, you engaged me in comments. Don't like my responses don't engage me. Pretty simple.

Cheers.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    3 weeks ago

cool, that always works out in an election year.

 
 
 
Ender
1.2.1  Ender  replied to  devangelical @1.2    3 weeks ago

And next will be the Durham report, which now I read they plan on dragging out in October.

Funny how these things line up...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    3 weeks ago

It's a case of Trump doing what all his experts and advisors telling him what he should not do, and Trump doing it anyway. And his experts and advisors telling him what he should do, and Trump refusing to do.

I mean....after all....what do they know? Trump knows everything there is to know about everything anyway. His experts and advisors are only there for him t have someone to blame when his own decisions go bad. Which they do most of the time.

 
 
 
Gazoo
2  Gazoo    3 weeks ago

Good. He didn’t deserve to go to prison.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Gazoo @2    3 weeks ago
Good. He didn’t deserve to go to prison.

You're kidding, right?  If for no other reason, he should go to prison for looking stupid on a regular basis.

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

 
 
 
devangelical
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1    3 weeks ago

his wife lays out his clothes every morning. he picked out his eyeglass frames and tattoo.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1    3 weeks ago

He thinks he looks good too.

He thinks he is such a Dapper Dan

He and his wife used to go to sex clubs.  Check it out.

Why is everyone involved with this freak show of a 'president' are such disgusting perverted freaks?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Big mistake. This will actually cost trump votes.   I've got to believe Roger Stone is blackmailing Trump. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 weeks ago

is there anything you won't believe?

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    3 weeks ago

Is there any lie that Trump tells that you won't believe?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

sure. trump once called some Democrats smart.

I didn't believe it then, or now.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

Some believe that windmills really do cause cancer. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

some still believe hillary won, too!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    3 weeks ago

Why is trump letting stone walk? 

Even William Barr says Stone is guilty and the sentence was fair. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

presidential privilege.

like when Obama commuted Manning's sentence.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

Manning served 7 years. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

You believe in Trump.  That says it all...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

WTF does that have to do with Manning's sentence being commuted?

NO ONE IS AGUING THAT MANNING DIDN'T SPEND SOME TIME IN PRISON.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

WTF DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.9    3 weeks ago

Well gee Tex, YOU said it was like Obama commuting Manning's sentence. Since Manning actually server 7 years, it is a false equivalency. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.11    3 weeks ago

Manning--sentence commuted.

Stone--sentence commuted.

I am sure you can't see ANY similarity between them?

ROFLMAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.11    3 weeks ago

Is it that you just don't get that the President has the privilege of commuting sentences or pardoning people?

And that it has BEEN that way for all Presidents in your lifetime?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    3 weeks ago

You are ROFLMAO at Dulay's point.   That suggests you do not understand it.

Dulay noted that while Obama commuted Manning's sentence, Manning did indeed pay a price of 7 years served.  In fact, Obama's commute cut Manning's sentence by a mere four months.   Here Trump has commuted Stone's sentence before he serves a day of it.

Both are commutations but the monster difference is that Manning paid a price (four months shy of the full term) whereas Stone did not.

See?   Not really very funny and Dulay got it right.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.15  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    3 weeks ago
Manning--sentence commuted. Stone--sentence commuted.

A simple question that requires but a simple answer...which commutation was granted to the individual that had a direct interest and self-confessed role in furthering the agenda of the only person who could grant said commutation?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.13    3 weeks ago

Youre wrong Texan. The only way it would be equivalent is if Obama had communted Mannings sentence before he ever went to prison. 

Manning was in jail for 7 years and Obama commuted the sentence as an act of mercy as Obama was leaving office. 

Had Obama commuted Mannings sentence in July of 2013, when Manning was sentenced, you would have a point. As it is you dont. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    3 weeks ago
You are ROFLMAO at Dulay's point.   That suggests you do not understand it.

Understood it just fine. Waste of your time to pretend otherwise.

Dulay noted that while Obama commuted Manning's sentence, Manning did indeed pay a price of 7 years served.  In fact, Obama's commute cut Manning's sentence by a mere four months.   Here Trump has commuted Stone's sentence before he serves a day of it.

A commuted sentence is a commuted sentence. Isn't that what the FACTS tell you? Was Manning's sentence commuted or not? Was Stone's sentence commuted or not?

Both are commutations but the monster difference is that Manning paid a price (four months shy of the full term) whereas Stone did not.

when you can produce some FACTS that says commutations are different in what they accomplish, do so. End result is someone is having their sentence commuted.

See?   Not really very funny and Dulay got it right.

No, it is pretty fucking funny that some want to make a "difference" between what other Presidents have done and what Trump did.

I laugh at that shit every day here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.17    3 weeks ago
Understood it just fine.

Your comment then misrepresented your understanding.

A commuted sentence is a commuted sentence.

See, you really do not understand.   You see the commonality (the commute) but seem unable to recognize the major difference I spelled out for you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.16    3 weeks ago
Youre wrong Texan. The only way it would be equivalent is if Obama had communted Mannings sentence before he ever went to prison. 

Manning was in jail for 7 years and Obama commuted the sentence as an act of mercy as Obama was leaving office. 

Had Obama commuted Mannings sentence in July of 2013, when Manning was sentenced, you would have a point. As it is you dont. 

Does any President have the power to do what Trump did?

Okay, good. Now we may be getting somewhere.

The President has the privilege to do what he did, whether others like it or not.

Arguing that it is somehow "different" doesn't change anything.

You just don't like it and want to complain about it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.18    3 weeks ago
Your comment then misrepresented your understanding.

I can't make interpretations for you, and am not responsible for what YOU think. That is all on you.

See, you really do not understand.   You see the commonality (the commute) but seem unable to recognize the major difference I spelled out for you.

I could say that you don't understand and can't see the commonality (the commutation) but seem unable to accept it, but then that would be childish of me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    3 weeks ago

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Now, I may not be a mathematical genius, but even I can tell that 35-7 doesn't equal up to "4 months off the sentence".

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.21    3 weeks ago

The four months off sentence came from a seemingly poorly worded statement by the NY Times:

President Obama on Tuesday commuted all but four months of the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the Army intelligence analyst convicted of a 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted Mr. Obama’s administration and brought global prominence to WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures.

That does not change the point.   The monster difference, explaining yet again, is that Manning served 7 years whereas Stone did not serve a day of his sentence.   Both are commutes, but Obama commuted a sentence that was arguably extreme after time served whereas Trump commuted a sentence that was arguably proper with no time served.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.22    3 weeks ago
The four months off sentence came from a seemingly poorly worded statement by the NY Times:
President Obama on Tuesdaycommuted all but four monthsof the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the Army intelligence analyst convicted of a 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted Mr. Obama’s administration and brought global prominence to WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures.

You picked the source to use, not me. Perhaps you should use more discretion in your choices.

That does not change the point.   The monster difference, explaining yet again, is that Manning served 7 years whereas Stone did not serve a day of his sentence.   Both are commutes, but Obama commuted a sentence that was arguably extreme after time served whereas Trump commuted a sentence that was arguably proper with no time served.

Yet again, (sigh) Manning was sentenced to 420 MONTHS and served 84 months. Seems like getting out of 336 months of a sentence vs. someone getting out of a 40 month sentence is a hell of a lot better deal to me. Maybe you would prefer to do the 336 months compared to doing 40 months, I simply don't know.

NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT MANNING SERVED TIME.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.22    3 weeks ago
The four months off sentence came from a seemingly poorly worded statement by the NY Times:

Sounds more like a deliberate lie to me. It was common knowledge what Manning's sentence was. I would like to think that one of the largest newspapers in the country would at least fact check their own articles as diligently as they fact check others' stories.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.23    3 weeks ago

4 months is an aside.   It makes zero difference in the point.

Yet again, (sigh) Manning was sentenced to 420 MONTHS and served 84 months. Seems like getting out of 336 months of a sentence vs. someone getting out of a 40 month sentence is a hell of a lot better deal to me. Maybe you would prefer to do the 336 months compared to doing 40 months, I simply don't know.

Texan, this is not difficult to comprehend.

Manning and Stone both had their sentences commuted by a PotUS.   That is the commonality.

Now, here is the monster difference:  Manning served 7 years of her sentence.   Stone did not serve a day.

Would you want Manning's deal (serve 7 years and out) or Stone's deal (serve no time)?

Should be obvious.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.24    3 weeks ago

Who cares?   The 4 month bit is totally irrelevant.    What is relevant is the 7 years served vs. 0 days served.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.25    3 weeks ago

I didn't bring the 4 months up--you did. If it is irrelevant, why bring it up at all?

Manning and Stone both had their sentences commuted by a PotUS.   That is the commonality.

NO FUCKING SHIT! That is what I have been saying all along.

If faced with Manning's sentence vs. Stone's sentence, I know which one I would like to be commuted--the one where I would spend the most time in jail!

Anyone who claims otherwise is either a fool or doesn't understand time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.26    3 weeks ago
Who cares?  

Apparently you do.

The 4 month bit is totally irrelevant.   

Then why on earth did you insert it into the conversation?

What is relevant is the 7 years served vs. 0 days served.  

That is relevant to YOU, not me.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.29  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.23    3 weeks ago

You are correct Texan1211 - A commutation is a commutation. 

Every one of them is unique, none are the same.

As always some on NT will try to get Trump when he acts lawfully. They seem to think there is only one side to every coin.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.27    3 weeks ago
NO FUCKING SHIT! That is what I have been saying all along.

Yes, everyone agrees that both Manning and Stone received a presidential commute.   See?   We all have always agreed on that fact.   No dispute.

Got it Tex?   We all agree?

Now, here is where we do not agree.    Manning's sentence was commuted after serving 7 years.   In contrast, Stone's sentence was commuted after serving 0 days.

Do you see the difference?   It is a rather substantial difference to first serve 7 years versus serving no time on one's sentence.

So which deal would you want:   serve 7 years and commute or serve 0 days and commute?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.16    3 weeks ago
oure wrong Texan. The only way it would be equivalent is if Obama had communted Mannings sentence before he ever went to prison. 

So a commutation of a 40 month sentence and a 35 years sentence are equal to you. Got it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.30    3 weeks ago
So which deal would you want:   serve 7 years and commute or serve 0 days and commute?

Of course anyone would like to not go to jail. But if you have to go, which would you rather have commuted---40 months off or 28 YEARS off?

me, i would like to get the 28 years off no matter how much time I have spent in already.

Maybe that only makes sense to me.

So who got a better deal in your mind--the one who didn;t go to jail for 40 months or the one who went to jail and got out 28 years early?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.33  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    3 weeks ago
I am sure you can't see ANY similarity between them?

Then you are wrong about what you are sure of. 

I am pointing out a distinction between the two. 

I'm sure that even you recognize it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.32    3 weeks ago

see @4.1.9

So who got a better deal in your mind--the one who didn;t go to jail for 40 months or the one who went to jail and got out 28 years early?

The better deal is to not serve any time in prison.  

Note also that Manning was up for parole in a few months which means Obama might have only shaved a few months off her sentence (probably what the NYT article was trying to say).   But, as I noted, this now opens Pandora's box with speculation on parole, fairness of sentence, etc.

0 days in jail beats the crap out of 7 years.   Manning suffered punishment, Stone did not.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.31    3 weeks ago
So a commutation of a 40 month sentence and a 35 years sentence are equal to you. Got it.

So a commutation after 7 years and a commutation after 0 days is equal to you. Got it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.35    3 weeks ago

don't put words in my mouth. it is lazy and dishonest

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.37  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    3 weeks ago

Well, not you to start with.  And definitely not Trump...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.37    3 weeks ago

good for you!

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.39  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.38    3 weeks ago

I'm glad you agree...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.39    3 weeks ago

I would like to see what you read!

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.42  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.41    3 weeks ago

I read almost anything I can get my hands on.  Right now I'm reading "The English and Their History" by Robert Tombs.  Outstanding work.

You should read "The Road to Unfreedom" by Timothy Snyder.  Urgently.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.42    3 weeks ago

you should be able to quote me agreeing with you since you claimed it.

 can you do that?

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.44  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.43    3 weeks ago

Wow. You're tough.

It's implicit in your statement.  I said I don't believe in Trump, or you.  You said "good".  Got it.

Or would it be better for you if I told you what you told me the other day about comparing Nazis and Confederates?  Something about if I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand it.  Maybe that helps.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.44    3 weeks ago

I don't expect you to explain the unexplainable

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.46  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.45    3 weeks ago

Right.  You are almost impossible to explain.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.47  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.46    3 weeks ago

great!!!

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.48  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.47    3 weeks ago

See.  You're agreeing with me again.  We are reaching common ground.  Isn't that terrific?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.48    3 weeks ago

sure thing-- whatever you say!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.50  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.36    3 weeks ago

Pretending that my comment was an attempt to put words in your mouth is lazy and dishonest. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.50    3 weeks ago

right!whatever you say..  . .

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.52  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.49    3 weeks ago

Now that's about as agreeable as it gets...

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.53  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.51    3 weeks ago

You're agreeing with everybody.  I think you're making good progress.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.53    3 weeks ago

isn't that fantastic?I may have been converted... let's see.

"Orange Man Bad".

nope, still didn't take, perhaps more brainwashing is in order?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.50    3 weeks ago

I wasn't pretending at all .

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.56  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.55    3 weeks ago

Then you intentionally posted a lie. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.56    3 weeks ago

wrong. 

Reagan still right!

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.58  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.54    3 weeks ago

The problem is you are not conceptualizing properly.

"Orange Man" = Orangutan.  Orangutans are definitely not bad.  Orangutans are good.  Very, very good.

Try thinking "Giant Orange Hemorrhoid".  That will put you on the right path. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.59  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.57    3 weeks ago

Reagan still right

Yes, far right...

 
 
 
Suz
3.1.60  Suz  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.30    3 weeks ago

Why do you have to denigrate people?   All of you come here to bully the crap out of him. 

Do YOU understand? 

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.61  Ender  replied to  Suz @3.1.60    3 weeks ago

What you don't seem to understand is he has been intentionally trolling the article and everyone here.

Do YOU understand that?

 
 
 
Suz
3.1.62  Suz  replied to  Ender @3.1.61    3 weeks ago

Ender, I do understand, but do you think that's a good enough excuse to ridicule someone's intelligence.  Why not have the moderator come here to give him a warning?   I don't understand the cruelty.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.63  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.59    3 weeks ago

here then.

Reagan was correct!

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.61    3 weeks ago

no, I stated an opinion and ya'll didn't like it

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.66  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.63    3 weeks ago

Reagan was correct

Not too often, and I lived through his horrendous governorship as well as his presidency.

"Peace through strength" is a valid concept although Reagan didn't originate the concept or slogan.  It goes back to early human history.

There.  Do you find yourself agreeing with a crazed liberal?. How does that make you feel?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.67  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.66    3 weeks ago

that wasn't what I was referring to.

Reagan had something to say about liberals, what they "know" , and how much of what they know is wrong. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.68  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.67    3 weeks ago

Reagan didn't know too much.  He often confused movies with real life.  He was a lousy actor, too, although he did give a boffo performance in Bedtime for Bonzo...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.69  Raven Wing  replied to  Dulay @3.1.35    3 weeks ago

Sure. If Trump thinks its equal, so does his sheep. After all, they dare not think for themselves. Trump might send his White Supremacist boys around to remind his sheep who does their thinking for them. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.70  Raven Wing  replied to  Dulay @3.1.50    3 weeks ago
Pretending that my comment was an attempt to put words in your mouth is lazy and dishonest. 

That is one of the favorite deflections. Good work! You got him to show his best to your right out of the box! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.71  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.68    3 weeks ago
Reagan didn't know too much.  He often confused movies with real life.  He was a lousy actor, too, although he did give a boffo performance in Bedtime for Bonzo...

Maybe, maybe not. But he absolutely fucking NAILED this little gem:

deleted.
 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.72  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.71    3 weeks ago

That's a quoting from a guy who believed in the trickle down hoax.  Talk about knowing so much that isn't so.  You might think it's a little gem.  In reality, it's just so much costume jewelry.  [Deleted  Giddyup!]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.73  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.72    3 weeks ago

Well, shucky-dern there, fella, [Deleted]

[Yeehaw, pardner!]

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.74  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.30    3 weeks ago

Which deserved to be in jail for the longest time.

Manning - Guilty as charged and convicted of Violation of the Espionage act and release of 760,000 pieces of classified and non classified information. 

Stone - Guilty as charged and convicted. 

Which one did the most damage to the US? Answer- Manning of course

Trump commuted a 40 month sentence due to age and potential covid exposure in jail.

Obama commuted a 28 of years of a 35 year sentence due to ?????.

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.75  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.73    3 weeks ago

Don't worry, pardner.  You didn't.

Yeehaw!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.1.76  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.73    3 weeks ago
Well, shucky-dern there, fella, didn't mean to ruffle your tailfeathers! Yeehaw, pardner!

Not being a Texas native, your use of stereotypical colloquialisms is understandable.

That said, [Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.74    3 weeks ago
Obama commuted a 28 of years of a 35 year sentence due to ?????.

You are now taking this into the complex area of determining what should be the appropriate sentence for what she did.   This gets into the details of the trial itself and then the sentencing based on the legal findings.

I have no interest in debating someone else's judgment calls.  However, here are some perspectives on this case per the New York Times :

But in a joint statement, Nancy Hollander and Vince Ward — two lawyers who have been representing Ms. Manning in appealing her conviction and sentence, and who filed the commutation application — praised the decision.

“Ms. Manning is the longest-serving whistle-blower in the history of the United States,” they said. “Her 35-year sentence for disclosing information that served the public interest and never caused harm to the United States was always excessive, and we’re delighted that justice is being served in the form of this commutation.”

In recent days, the White House had signaled that Mr. Obama was seriously considering granting Ms. Manning’s commutation application, in contrast to a pardon application submitted on behalf of the other large-scale leaker of the era, Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor who disclosed archives of top-secret surveillance files and is living as a fugitive in Russia.

Asked about the two clemency applications on Friday, the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, discussed the “pretty stark difference” between Ms. Manning’s case for mercy and Mr. Snowden’s. While their offenses were similar, he said, there were “some important differences.”

“Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,” he said. “Mr. Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.”

Mr. Earnest also noted that while the documents Ms. Manning provided to WikiLeaks were “damaging to national security,” the ones Mr. Snowden disclosed were “far more serious and far more dangerous.” (None of the documents Ms. Manning disclosed were classified above the merely “secret” level.)

...

In her commutation application, Ms. Manning said she had not imagined that she would be sentenced to the “extreme” term of 35 years, a term for which there was “no historical precedent.” (There have been only a handful of leak cases, and most sentence are one to three years .)

Clearly you think Manning's crimes deserved the 35 year sentence.   Obama et. al. considered the sentence to be historically excessive.   I have no special knowledge of  Obama's mindset on this matter, but it seems he considered, with precedent, 7 years served to be sufficient for the crime.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.75    3 weeks ago

well. I damn sure ruffled someone's!!

thanks for not taking offense, none was meant!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.80  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.78    3 weeks ago

Another YUGE difference is that Manning actually went through channels, including the DOD and the  President's Pardon Attorney within the DOJ. All the appropriate Agencies had a chance to chime in ON PAPER. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.81  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.80    3 weeks ago

that is irrelevant

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.82  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.78    3 weeks ago

I did not say 35 years for Manning was excessive and yet you imply you know what you think I meant. Are you a mind reader or have a crystal ball?

Typical spin response when you are unable to answer a  question of which one did the most damage to the US.

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.83  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.79    3 weeks ago

Guess so. You got edited.

I know.  My response was to laugh, pardner.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.84  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.83    3 weeks ago

cool!

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.85  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.82    3 weeks ago
I did not say 35 years for Manning was excessive ...

Where do you see me stating that you said this?    Better read my comment more carefully before lashing out with mind reader allegations.

Typical spin response when you are unable to answer a  question of which one did the most damage to the US.

Good grief, another blindly emotive attack comment.    Get a grip.   I just gave you a thoughtful response and you totally misread (or not read) it and instead chose to complain that I did not directly answer one of your questions.   (An irrelevant one at that.)   Manning no doubt did the most damage and Manning had (and served) a harsher punishment.   So what does that accomplish?

Manning served 7 years for her crimes;  an historically long time for crimes like this.   It is not as though Manning did not suffer and, as I noted, I am not going to try to analyze the judgment that went into her case nor will I try to analyze Trump's judgmental considerations.   Stone, in contrast, will not serve a day of his sentence.  

Obama commuted a sentence that he et. al. likely believed was excessive and that the seven years served was sufficient.  In contrast, Trump commuted a sentence for a friend before the friend served a day of his sentence.

Manning paid a harsh price.   Stone walks.

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.86  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.84    3 weeks ago

They just deleted "Giddyup" from my earlier comment. I'm surprised. I thought that was a friendly thing. No?  Isn't that like "Ride 'em cowboy" or something?  I really thought those were things you guys there said for fun between friends.  I grew up watching Roy Rogers... Did you see it as anything other than friendly?  Just curious.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.87  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.86    3 weeks ago

nope, but I didn't see anything wrong with apologizing for ruffled feathers, either. so I am probably not the right one to ask!

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.88  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.87    3 weeks ago

Ok

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.89  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.81    3 weeks ago

Why Tex? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.90  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.89    3 weeks ago

Because it can happen with or without it. It isn't a requirement and therefore is irrelevant.

The commutation is the thing.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.91  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.90    3 weeks ago

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCjRB3BFmuH/?igshid=ukwa702vppsm       Just setting the record straight for those Reagan described that you mentioned.  

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.92  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.90    3 weeks ago
Because it can happen with or without it. It isn't a requirement and therefore is irrelevant.

It's a difference Tex. You insist that what YOU concentrate on is the only thing that is relevant. You're wrong. 

The commutation is the thing.

You keep saying that and you're still wrong. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.93  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.92    3 weeks ago

if the sentence was not commuted. would you be here commenting on it?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.94  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.93    3 weeks ago
if the sentence was not commuted. would you be here commenting on it?

What an utterly ridiculous question Tex. The topic of the fucking seed is the commutation. Sheesh.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.95  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.94    3 weeks ago
What an utterly ridiculous question Tex. The topic of the fucking seed is the commutation. Sheesh.

Right on--because commutation is the thing, right?

Which makes your comment:

You keep saying that and you're still wrong. 

all the more strange and incorrect!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.96  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.95    3 weeks ago

Wow what a disingenuous load of crap. 

Carry on Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.97  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.1.96    3 weeks ago
Wow what a disingenuous load of crap. 

Not at all.

 I stated that the commutation was the thing, and you disagreed.

Now you admit that the commutation is the thing, that without it, no story to comment on.

Please make up your mind which it is, or not.

I already know what it is.

Cheers!

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
4  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

Hmmmm .......one person sentenced to 40 months in prison has sentence commuted.

One person had a sentence of 35 years (420 months) in prison, serves 7 years (84 months), and has sentence commuted.

Seems like one of them got a much better deal!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4    3 weeks ago

Yes indeed.   Both commutes, one served 7 years the other served 0 days.   Which deal would you want?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    3 weeks ago

Well, being as I am not a dumb asshat, I would prefer doing 40 months compared to doing 336 more months. Some people may think that 336 months is a better deal,. I can't speak for those who think that way.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Interesting.   So you would prefer to serve 7 years of a sentence rather than serve 0 days of a sentence?

You do realize those were the choices I noted, right?   Manning=7 years, commute.    Stone=0 days, commute.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
Interesting.   So you would prefer to serve 7 years of a sentence rather than serve 0 days of a sentence?

I would prefer to not serve any time, but I damn sure would prefer to do 40 months after doing no time compared to doing 7 years and having another 28 YEARS to go!

Maybe you'd prefer the other way, I don't know.

Bottom line is this:

Both sentences commuted. One person benefitted by not doing 40 months while another benefitted by not doing 28 years.

That is it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
I would prefer to not serve any time, but I damn sure would prefer to do 40 months after doing no time compared to doing 7 years and having another 28 YEARS to go!

Very good.   You see the big difference between serving 7 years and serving 0 days.   That major difference in situations was Dulay's point.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

People like Texan have no good arguments so they try to beat you to death with repetition of the bad ones. 

Presidents have the traditional prerogative of pardoning or commuting various people in prison in the waning days of their presidencies. Most of the presidents have done so as they are leaving office. It is a tradition.  Obama commuted Mannings sentence on Jan 17, 2017, within the last 72 hours Obama was president. 

For it to be even slightly comparable to the Trump-Stone matter, Trump would have to commute Stone on Jan 17, 2021,  hours before he leaves office. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
You see the big difference between serving 7 years and serving 0 days.  

While, seemingly, you see no benefit from being released from a sentence that still had 28 years to run compared to being released from a 40 month sentence.

So be it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

There is no limit on when a President can pardon or commute. Tradition means shit legally in this case.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.7    3 weeks ago

Who gives a fuck about "legally"? Everyone knows it is legal for him to pardon Stone. 

This is going to cost him votes. So why did he do it?   Because Roger Stone can ruin Trump and send him to jail. Stone is blackmailing Trump, although I suppose in a friendly way. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

That was not Dulay's point.  

Also, if you really have a need to make another comparison, 7/35 is 20% of a sentence whereas 0/40 is 0% of a sentence.

So would you prefer to serve 20% of your sentence or 0% of your sentence?   No matter how you squirm about, Texan, you cannot escape the glaring difference between these two commutes that Dulay noted.

And I most definitely see benefit in being released from 28 years vs 40 months.   That now opens up analysis on the fairness of the sentence which goes well beyond our scope.   The facts before us show someone who served 7 years in prison and was then commuted (note that she could have been released on parole which was coming due in a few months).   This 7 years in prison is compared to 0 days in prison (Stone).   Again, this is the point Dulay made.

See Dulay's point?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

I, for one, would prefer to get 80% of a 35 years sentence commuted than get 100% of a 40 month sentence commuted.

aND YOU CAN'T ESCAPE THAT ONE PERSON DIDN;T HAVE TO SERVE 40 MONTHS AND ONE DIDN;T HAVE TO SERVE 28 YEARS.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.10    3 weeks ago
I, for one, would prefer to get 80% of a 35 years sentence commuted than get 100% of a 40 month sentence commuted.

Well then I wish you great luck serving your 7 years (rather than 0 days).   jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

who is not going to vote for him because of this?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

see scenario below. it will shed some light on it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.12    3 weeks ago

The question is, will he gain votes because of this. and the answer is no. 

he is already losing. he needs MORE votes, not just the ones he already has. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

that is definitely different from what you stated earlier. why not just say what you mean to begin instead of trying to "explain yourself later?

 
 
 
Suz
4.1.16  Suz  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

Then that should make your day.  Move on.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.17  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

What Trump did was not for political gain, which cannot be said for all prior commutations.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.18  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

How did trying to be a mind reader and predict how others will vote failed in 2016. Keep trying though, some day it might work out but not this year.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.19  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

The other difference is that Trump is commuting his buddies (3 so far) where as far as I know, past pardons involved NO personal relationships.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.19    3 weeks ago

Fully agree.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.19    3 weeks ago

Really?

NO personal relationships?

Never heard of Bill Clinton or Roger Clinton, I suppose.

Or Ford and Nixon?

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.22  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.10    3 weeks ago

Exactly!  Getting out of serving 28 more years as opposed to serving 3 1/3 more years

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.23  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.21    3 weeks ago

Shall we compare the total number of commutations granted by Obama and Trump.  According to an earlier Instagram post of mine it was 1,715 to 11.  But Trump!!! 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @4    3 weeks ago
Hmmmm .......one person sentenced to 40 months in prison has sentence commuted. One person had a sentence of 35 years (420 months) in prison, serves 7 years (84 months), and has sentence commuted.

Hmmmm….when an argument devolves down to the meaningless arithmetical, in avoidance of even acknowledging the possible antithetical...it is no longer an argument. [see 3.1.15]

It is but howling at the moon.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.1  dennis smith  replied to  r.t..b... @4.2    3 weeks ago

What Trump did is legal just as what Obama did. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  dennis smith @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
What Trump did is legal just as what Obama did

No argument mr.smith...the motivation behind each is the key.

Stone was rewarded for keeping his mouth shut...not surprising in the surreal entertainment world in which we exist, but dangerous in the actual world of American jurisprudence and all that it supposedly represents.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

And Manning was rewarded for opening his.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.2.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.3    3 weeks ago
And Manning was rewarded for opening his.

After the fact, and not as a quid pro quo...knowing that regardless of a potential jury verdict, he would not serve a second for upholding his end of the implicit deal...I'll do your dirty work and if caught, you'll do me right for maintaining my silence.

Two totally separate cases, Tex, and lumping them together for purely political expediency blurs the significance of both...but perhaps that is the intent.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.5  dennis smith  replied to  r.t..b... @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

It is legal and those who feel the need to question the motive are spinning their wheels.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.2.6  r.t..b...  replied to  dennis smith @4.2.5    3 weeks ago
those who feel the need to question the motive are spinning their wheels.

The day dissenting opinion is in any way dismissed is the sad day we have lost living up to the promises made in our founding.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  r.t..b... @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

Even Barr of all people is saying that the verdict was fair and time given appropriate.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.2.8  Kathleen  replied to  dennis smith @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

They all do that.  

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.2.9  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  dennis smith @4.2.5    3 weeks ago
It is legal and those who feel the need to question the motive are spinning their wheels

It's not about the legality.  It's about the six degrees of shady that has come to define the Trump administration.  Roger Stone was convicted of crimes that were directly related to Trump.  The blatant conflict of interest is another example of Trump's unfitness for office.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.10  Ender  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.9    3 weeks ago
@KristenClarkeJD
Roger Stone. Found guilty by a jury on 7 federal criminal counts. No jail time.
Kalief Browder. Accused of stealing a backpack. Couldn’t post bail. Spent 3 years at Riker’s awaiting trial. Ultimately committed suicide after released.
We have two justice systems in our country.
Ecpv0TDXkAEg-rs?format=jpg&name=360x360
Ecpv0TFWAAAyQ6f?format=jpg&name=small
9:34 AM · Jul 11, 2020 · Twitter for iPhone
 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.11  dennis smith  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.8    3 weeks ago

The spin for reality into what peoples motives MIGHT be is typical of some on the left on NT.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.12  dennis smith  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.9    3 weeks ago

It's not about the legality. It's about the six degrees of shady that has come to define the Trump administration. 

Trumps's impeachment was about the six degrees of shady that has come to define the House of Reps

Roger Stone was convicted of crimes that were directly related to Trump.  The blatant conflict of interest is another example of Trump's unfitness for office.

Mannings crimes were violation of the Espionage Act and hundreds of thousand of of unauthorized information released.

Do you not see the difference in damage done to the US?

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.13  dennis smith  replied to  r.t..b... @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

Typical deflection when the fact is what he did doesn't agree with your viewpoint. 

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.14  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @4.2.13    3 weeks ago

The fact is the jackass lied to congress, tried to obstruct justice and tried to witness tamper.

And found guilty of all.

I don't care what your political stripe or what anyone thinks of trump. Any sane person would know Stone is a scumbag and should have gotten a longer sentence than he did.

Hell, even served some of it.

If it was me or you, we would never see the light of day again. Why give this scum a pass...

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.15  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @4.2.14    3 weeks ago

Still bitter about anything Trump does. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.2.16  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  dennis smith @4.2.12    3 weeks ago
Do you not see the difference in damage done to the US?

Of course I do.  But unfortunately, Dennis, this seed is about Roger Stone. 

Besides, Ms. Manning had her 15 minutes years ago.  And PS:  I'm glad she was released.  Why, you ask?  Because she wanted American tax payers to foot the bill for her meds and transgender surgery while she was in prison.  She threatened to kill herself every five minutes if she didn't get the surgery.  Everyone is entitled to their own gender identity, and I'm certain Ms. Manning's physical and emotional issues were better addressed outside of prison.

*edit*  Out of curiosity, I just looked for an update on Ms. Manning.  It wasn't too surprising to find this from April of this year: 

Chelsea Manning posts first photo of herself since suicide attempt in jail

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.17  dennis smith  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.16    3 weeks ago

More spin as expected

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.18  dennis smith  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.16    3 weeks ago

 "Of course I do.  But unfortunately, Dennis, this seed is about Roger Stone."

Then why then do keep bringing Manning into it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
5  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

Here is a scenario to ponder:

A man is convicted in multiple trials.

In one, he receives a sentence of 35 years.

In another he is sentenced to 40 months. The sentences do not run concurrently.

he serves 7 years on the 35 years sentence.

He finds out he is up for a commutation.

Now, which sentence do you think he will hope will be commuted?

If anyone says the 40 month one, they are just flat-out nuts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5    3 weeks ago

Good grief, you open now a third major thread on this?    How funny.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.1  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    3 weeks ago

And keep saying the same thing over and over and over...

There is a name for that I think...

Notice it kinda works though. Half of this seed is people talking about someone else other than the topic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    3 weeks ago

no one is forcing you to participate

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

yes, I have to keep at it because not everyone gets it

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

Yet you keep failing to make a cogent argument, over and over and over again. Where the fuck is that dead horse meme when it's needed? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

I can't be held responsible because you have failed at recognizing a cogent argument

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

tenor.gif?itemid=3799565

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.5    3 weeks ago

I'm not the one that so desperately opened ANOTHER thread to rinse and repeat unconvincing blather. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.7    3 weeks ago

no, you weren't.

did someone claim you did? where are they-- I'll set them straight!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.7    3 weeks ago

btw , as a member in good standing, I will respond to whatever is here in the way I want to. That's how this shit works, don't you know!

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.8    3 weeks ago

Your comment at the start of this thread was sufficient for everyone else.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    3 weeks ago
btw , as a member in good standing, I will respond to whatever is here in the way I want to.

Over and over and over again. 

That's how this shit works, don't you know!

Actually, since responses can be altered by moderators, no it isn't. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.10    3 weeks ago

I know! pity no one would take a stab at answering, huh! 

especially considering how many chimed in!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.11    3 weeks ago

just repeating  what you told me. 

good for the goose, good for the gander!

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.12    3 weeks ago

Your 'question' has been answered multiple times. If you can't recognize that, it's on you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.13    3 weeks ago
just repeating  what you told me. 

Actually you didn't.

I have never said that I could respond in the way I wanted to. 

good for the goose, good for the gander!

Weak sauce. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
5.1.17  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    3 weeks ago
as a member in good standing

I'm afraid I'll need a link for that one.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.14    3 weeks ago

beep!! wrong again!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.16    3 weeks ago

weak when it gets handed back but strong like bull when you give it! 

hilarious!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1.17    3 weeks ago

don't be afraid!

 
 
 
devangelical
5.1.21  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1.17    3 weeks ago
member in good standing

I'm thinking the real issue is the lack of a functioning link...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.22  Raven Wing  replied to  Dulay @5.1.14    3 weeks ago
Your 'question' has been answered multiple times. If you can't recognize that, it's on you. 

That may be because he forgot what he asked you. Must not have been that important. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @5.1.22    3 weeks ago
That may be because he forgot what he asked you. Must not have been that important.

See post 5 and then tell me what subsequent post even attempted to answer it.

And no, I did not forget what I asked.

Still waiting on an answer--would you like to try?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.23    3 weeks ago
See post 5 and then tell me what subsequent post even attempted to answer it.

You know I moved on after you started up a third thread trying to deflect from Dulay's point.   But if you want someone to answer, it is quite easy to do so.  So do not pretend that a non-answer means you have made a great point.

If a single individual has both a 35 year sentence and a 40 month sentence and that single individual has the option of commuting the balance of his/her 35 years after serving seven or commuting a 40 month sentence that s/he has not had any time served, the choice is obvious.  Commute the 35 year sentence and serve the full 40 month sentence.   No brainer.

But your scenario fuses two individuals into a single individual and thus distorts the conditions under debate.   Your scenario is not an analogy for what has happened.   So what are you trying to accomplish?

The scenario is actually this (netted down to the essence):

  • Amy serves 7 years of a 35 year term and is up for parole in 4 months.    Amy's sentence is then commuted after 7 years in jail.
  • Bob is sentenced to 40 months and has served no jail time.   Bob's sentence is commuted with 0 days in jail.

Who would you rather be:  Amy or Bob?

I would much rather be Bob.   I would pay $$$ to be Bob.   Bob is the no-brainer answer.

If you would prefer to be Amy then I hope you found a great way to use those 7 lost years of your life.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.24    3 weeks ago

Well, finally, an answer!

Hallelujah!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.26  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.24    3 weeks ago

"Bob" sold his soul for 13 pieces of silver to the devil's advocate.  Eventually, like a cat with a mouse, the cat will dispose of the mouse out of boredom.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.27  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @5.1.7    3 weeks ago

That is because you can walk and chew gum at the same time, unlike some others here.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

108595600_2025644960904253_8916742771561153794_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=u7ncLoTZHKYAX9yXNvt&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=32216038d426ad156eeb5e423c35d14f&oe=5F32E499

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tessylo @6    3 weeks ago

Her look is completely believable.  It's the, "If he thinks I'm letting him touch me tonight (or ever again), he's freaking nuts!"

His look is the most ridiculous interpretation of Billy Joe Bad Ass I have ever seen.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.1    3 weeks ago
His look is the most ridiculous interpretation of Billy Joe Bad Ass I have ever seen.

Idunknow.....looks more like someone just old him they would not build anymore of his wall until he paid for what they already built, plus 10% interest.

Well.....he'll need new contractor he can skrew to get the rest built. IF he can find one. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @6    3 weeks ago

Doesn't look like a legitimate picture of Melania Trump.....First > she has way too many clothes on. Second > she looks like she's been rode hard and put away wet by someone other than Trump.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

107568268_3133552986682019_4739649984788114240_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=VVZ_nKNbj8wAX89zKmg&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=0d8e8c2a2d75c4ffb29642f798782d91&oe=5F33BBD0

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom


35 visitors