Trump expected to commute Roger Stone sentence, days before prison term set to begin
Category: News & Politics
Via: sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom • 4 years ago • 196 commentsBy: 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.
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."
Yeah, never saw this coming.../s
It's a done deal.
One proven liar pardoning another proven liar.
I guess it pays to be a scumbag and loyal to the scumbag in chief.
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.
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,
a guilty man would have taken the full pardon and been done with it.
Stone was out celebrating. At least he was wearing a mask...
Do you understand the difference between a pardon and commuting a sentence? Because your comment tells me you DON'T understand the difference.
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.
I'm going to post a seed about it actually.
So like with all your other accusations about Trump, you're speculating at best.
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.
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
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.
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.
So it included you. So what. It's not going to change a damn thing. You are getting worked up about semantics.
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.
cool, that always works out in an election year.
And next will be the Durham report, which now I read they plan on dragging out in October.
Funny how these things line up...
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.
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.
his wife lays out his clothes every morning. he picked out his eyeglass frames and tattoo.
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?
Big mistake. This will actually cost trump votes. I've got to believe Roger Stone is blackmailing Trump.
is there anything you won't believe?
Is there any lie that Trump tells that you won't believe?
sure. trump once called some Democrats smart.
I didn't believe it then, or now.
Some believe that windmills really do cause cancer.
some still believe hillary won, too!
Why is trump letting stone walk?
Even William Barr says Stone is guilty and the sentence was fair.
presidential privilege.
like when Obama commuted Manning's sentence.
Manning served 7 years.
You believe in Trump. That says it all...
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.
WTF DO YOU BELIEVE IN?
Well gee Tex, YOU said it was like Obama commuting Manning's sentence. Since Manning actually server 7 years, it is a false equivalency.
Manning--sentence commuted.
Stone--sentence commuted.
I am sure you can't see ANY similarity between them?
ROFLMAO!
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?
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.
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.
Understood it just fine. Waste of your time to pretend otherwise.
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?
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.
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.
Your comment then misrepresented your understanding.
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.
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.
I can't make interpretations for you, and am not responsible for what YOU think. That is all on 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.
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".
The four months off sentence came from a seemingly poorly worded statement by the NY Times:
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.
You picked the source to use, not me. Perhaps you should use more discretion in your choices.
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.
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.
4 months is an aside. It makes zero difference in the point.
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.
Who cares? The 4 month bit is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is the 7 years served vs. 0 days served.
I didn't bring the 4 months up--you did. If it is irrelevant, why bring it up at all?
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.
Apparently you do.
Then why on earth did you insert it into the conversation?
That is relevant to YOU, not me.
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?
So a commutation of a 40 month sentence and a 35 years sentence are equal to you. Got it.
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?
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.
see @4.1.9
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.
So a commutation after 7 years and a commutation after 0 days is equal to you. Got it.
don't put words in my mouth. it is lazy and dishonest
Well, not you to start with. And definitely not Trump...
good for you!
I'm glad you agree...
I would like to see what you read!
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.
you should be able to quote me agreeing with you since you claimed it.
can you do that?
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.
I don't expect you to explain the unexplainable
Right. You are almost impossible to explain.
great!!!
See. You're agreeing with me again. We are reaching common ground. Isn't that terrific?
sure thing-- whatever you say!
Pretending that my comment was an attempt to put words in your mouth is lazy and dishonest.
right!whatever you say.. . .
Now that's about as agreeable as it gets...
You're agreeing with everybody. I think you're making good progress.
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?
I wasn't pretending at all .
Then you intentionally posted a lie.
wrong.
Reagan still right!
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.
Reagan still right
Yes, far right...
What you don't seem to understand is he has been intentionally trolling the article and everyone here.
Do YOU understand that?
here then.
Reagan was correct!
no, I stated an opinion and ya'll didn't like it
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?
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.
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...
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.
That is one of the favorite deflections. Good work! You got him to show his best to your right out of the box!
Maybe, maybe not. But he absolutely fucking NAILED this little gem:
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!]
Well, shucky-dern there, fella, [Deleted]
[Yeehaw, pardner!]
Don't worry, pardner. You didn't.
Yeehaw!
Not being a Texas native, your use of stereotypical colloquialisms is understandable.
That said, [Deleted]
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 :
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.
well. I damn sure ruffled someone's!!
thanks for not taking offense, none was meant!
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.
that is irrelevant
Guess so. You got edited.
I know. My response was to laugh, pardner.
cool!
Where do you see me stating that you said this? Better read my comment more carefully before lashing out with mind reader allegations.
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.
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.
nope, but I didn't see anything wrong with apologizing for ruffled feathers, either. so I am probably not the right one to ask!
Ok
Why Tex?
Because it can happen with or without it. It isn't a requirement and therefore is irrelevant.
The commutation is the thing.
Just setting the record straight for those Reagan described that you mentioned.
It's a difference Tex. You insist that what YOU concentrate on is the only thing that is relevant. You're wrong.
You keep saying that and you're still wrong.
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.
Right on--because commutation is the thing, right?
Which makes your comment:
all the more strange and incorrect!
Wow what a disingenuous load of crap.
Carry on Tex.
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!
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!
Yes indeed. Both commutes, one served 7 years the other served 0 days. Which deal would you want?
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.
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.
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.
Very good. You see the big difference between serving 7 years and serving 0 days. That major difference in situations was Dulay's point.
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.
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!
There is no limit on when a President can pardon or commute. Tradition means shit legally in this case.
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.
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?
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.
Well then I wish you great luck serving your 7 years (rather than 0 days).
who is not going to vote for him because of this?
see scenario below. it will shed some light on it.
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.
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?
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.
Fully agree.
Really?
NO personal relationships?
Never heard of Bill Clinton or Roger Clinton, I suppose.
Or Ford and Nixon?
Exactly! Getting out of serving 28 more years as opposed to serving 3 1/3 more years
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!!!
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.
Good grief, you open now a third major thread on this? How funny.
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.
no one is forcing you to participate
yes, I have to keep at it because not everyone gets it
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?
I can't be held responsible because you have failed at recognizing a cogent argument
I'm not the one that so desperately opened ANOTHER thread to rinse and repeat unconvincing blather.
no, you weren't.
did someone claim you did? where are they-- I'll set them straight!
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!
Your comment at the start of this thread was sufficient for everyone else.
Over and over and over again.
Actually, since responses can be altered by moderators, no it isn't.
I know! pity no one would take a stab at answering, huh!
especially considering how many chimed in!
just repeating what you told me.
good for the goose, good for the gander!
Your 'question' has been answered multiple times. If you can't recognize that, it's on you.
Actually you didn't.
I have never said that I could respond in the way I wanted to.
Weak sauce.
I'm afraid I'll need a link for that one.
beep!! wrong again!
weak when it gets handed back but strong like bull when you give it!
hilarious!
don't be afraid!
I'm thinking the real issue is the lack of a functioning link...
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?
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):
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.
Well, finally, an answer!
Hallelujah!
"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.
That is because you can walk and chew gum at the same time, unlike some others here.
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.
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.
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.