Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[berg80]

I said I couldn't prove that Trump lied in his written responses but there's evidence to suggest that he did.

But Stone can..........and that's why he got his sentence commuted.

 

[Billiejeens]

Furthermore, the “Deep State prosecutors… registered Democrats,” Fitton contends, “falsely implied that the Stone prosecution was part of foreign intervention in our election,” despite those claims not being mentioned in the charges against Mr. Stone. The prosecutors demonstrated a truly “punitive abuse of their powers,” resulting in the Justice Department “retreating and suggesting that those lawyers may have violated the rules.” If the Stone case demonstrated anything, it’s that “Barr had to step in to stop the abuse of power,” Fitton continues.

 

[Billiejeens]

I said I couldn't prove that Trump lied in his written responses but there's evidence to suggest that he did.

But Stone can..........and that's why he got his sentence commuted.

Poor baby

 

[Billiejeens]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

 

[berg80]

Do you have any actual facts to support your idiotic legal theories?

Yes. Do you have any facts to disprove them?

 

[berg80]

Poor baby

Hey, I get it. You don't think I'm surprise that you would relish the idea of Trump getting away with lying do you?

 

[colfax_m]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

 

[berg80]

I do enjoy watching Trumplehead's double standard for proof unwittingly being displayed. There is no proof the jury forewoman in the Stone trial was biased. No proof the jury was biased. No proof the judge was biased. No proof the prosecution was biased. No proof of any of the allegations made by Stone or the Tweeter-in-Chief about the trial being unfair.

There is, however, proof Stone lied. Proof he lied to protect Vlad's favorite candidate..............for which he was rewarded with a commutation of his sentence. An act of historic corruption. A prez commuted the sentence of a man who withheld inculpatory evidence about that prez. Trumpleton's, they're cool with it cuz................Dear Leader is infallible.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7042-aaron-zelinsky-testimony/ad5f15a1e37896bd07bb/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

Roger Stone's Crimes - FactCheck.org

President Donald Trump has criticized the Justice Department for prosecuting the president's longtime associate Roger Stone and recommending that Stone serve up to nine years in prison. That's his opinion, but he falsely supports it by claiming Stone did "nothing" and "nobody even can define...

www.factcheck.org

 

[berg80]

I typically don't like playing the patriotism card but you really do have to question where Trumpleton's loyalty lies considering their defense of someone responsible for..........

"Contrary to Trump’s remarks, Stone’s crimes are defined under “18 U.S.C. § 1505 (count 1); making numerous false statements to Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (counts 2-6); and witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) (count 7),” according to the sentencing memo.

Title 18, Section 1505 makes it illegal if anyone “willfully withholds” any documents or “misrepresents” any answers in testimony before any investigation “by either House, or any committee of either House.” This carries a penalty of not more than five years.

Title 18, Section 1001 (a)(2) makes it a crime to make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” to Congress or any other branch of the federal government. This also carries a penalty of up to five years.

Title 18, Section 1512(b)(1) makes it illegal to “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.” Witness tampering is the most serious of the charges, carrying a penalty of no more than 20 years.

In the Feb. 10 sentencing memo, under the heading of “The Seriousness of the Offense,” the prosecutors quote the Federalist Papers on the danger of foreign interference in U.S. elections."

Roger Stone's Crimes - FactCheck.org

President Donald Trump has criticized the Justice Department for prosecuting the president's longtime associate Roger Stone and recommending that Stone serve up to nine years in prison. That's his opinion, but he falsely supports it by claiming Stone did "nothing" and "nobody even can define...

www.factcheck.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even if the foreperson lied about being impartial.
Lied about being unbiased.

I agree. That would be bad if it happened. It didn't. But then, the truth means nothing to Trumpleheads because it doesn't fit Trump's dishonest narrative they are blindly devoted to. It never does.

From the juror's op-ed............. "The jury foreperson, who has been the subject recently of numerous ad hominem attacks, was actually one of the strongest advocates for the rights of the defendant and for a rigorous process. She expressed skepticism at some of the government’s claims and was one of the last people to vote to convict on the charge that took most of our deliberation time."

That would be bad if it happened. It didn't.

She didn't lie? You're lying.

She expressed skepticism at some of the government’s claims and was one of the last people to vote to convict on the charge that took most of our deliberation time."

I'll wait for the video.

 

[berg80]

So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks

I can't help noticing you left out the part of the statement that makes it clear Trump lied to Mueller.

 

[berg80]

She didn't lie? You're lying.

Prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks

I can't help noticing you left out the part of the statement that makes it clear Trump lied to Mueller.

Was Stone's outreach illegal? Even a tiny bit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

She didn't lie? You're lying.

Prove it.

That would be bad if it happened. It didn't.

You first.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

You do realize neither Crowdstrike nor the FBI investigated the Podesta emails and all Crowdstrike investigated was the hack?

Not true.

Crowdstrike didn't investigate Podesta's hack, but the DoJ did. The results of that investigation are on page 37 of the Mueller report. They tracked the spearphishing campaign that they used to get Podesta's emails back to the GRU.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

 

[bripat9643]

You're right. Technically they did depose him. But they weren't allowed to interview him and ask follow up questions that would have potentially revealed whether Trump was lying or not.

Two things to remember about that. 1. Trump refused to answer written questions having to do with obstruction. 2. Mueller characterized the written answers he (his lawyers) did give as "inadequate" because the Liar-in-Chief claimed not to recall the answers over 30 times. How convenient.
Stone could have provided some answers Trump "forgot." But we know that story. He got his sentence commuted for refusing to cooperate with Mueller.

"In at least 37 instances, Trump responded to Mueller’s questions — about his campaign’s contacts with Russians and about Russian interference in the 2016 election — by saying he couldn’t recall."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-have-no-recollection-trump-turned-to-familiar-refrain-in-response-to-mueller-questions/2019/04/19/7230817c-62bc-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html

How many times did Hillary say she couldn't recall during the Benghazi investigation?

 

[bripat9643]

Nope, they weren't stolen by Wikeleaks. They only recieved copies. You yourself say that made it legal for Wikileaks to have them.

Please prove to me that knowingly receiving stolen material is not illegal.

Read about the Pentagon papers, moron. Copies of emails are not "stolen materials."

 

[berg80]

Furthermore, the “Deep State prosecutors… registered Democrats,” Fitton contends, “falsely implied that the Stone prosecution was part of foreign intervention in our election,” despite those claims not being mentioned in the charges against Mr. Stone. The prosecutors demonstrated a truly “punitive abuse of their powers,” resulting in the Justice Department “retreating and suggesting that those lawyers may have violated the rules.” If the Stone case demonstrated anything, it’s that “Barr had to step in to stop the abuse of power,” Fitton continues.

There was no abuse of power. Prove there was.

 

[bripat9643]

Stone juror: Trump ‘attacking citizens for performing their civic duty’

A juror in the Roger Stone trial is coming to the defense of the foreperson who has become the target of attacks from President Trump and his allies in the conservative media. &#8220…

thehill.com

Stone told the public the truth about the hack jurors?

 

[bripat9643]

Furthermore, the “Deep State prosecutors… registered Democrats,” Fitton contends, “falsely implied that the Stone prosecution was part of foreign intervention in our election,” despite those claims not being mentioned in the charges against Mr. Stone. The prosecutors demonstrated a truly “punitive abuse of their powers,” resulting in the Justice Department “retreating and suggesting that those lawyers may have violated the rules.” If the Stone case demonstrated anything, it’s that “Barr had to step in to stop the abuse of power,” Fitton continues.

There was no abuse of power. Prove there was.

The DOJ report says Mueller knew there was no collusion two days after he began the investigation. Everything he did after that point was an abuse of power.