Stone & Trump

[ecco]

“did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
source:
Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open

What exactly were they convicted of? you can attempt to keep the collusion delusion alive but in the end the investigation is over and the facts are out.
Americans....

Your denial of facts doesn't change anything. You either know what they were convicted of or you intentionally refuse to look and listen so that you can keep pretending that Trump and his appointees are honest and ethical. I'm guessing it's the latter.

 

[Mindmaster]

Mindmaster I agree with you on the sentencing.

The issue, as Trump’s own AG Barr has now publicly said in an extraordinary televised rebuke of his boss, is that our President’s addiction to Tweeting about criminal cases involving his allies, is making it impossible for the AG to do his job with integrity.

Eh, it's all peacock behavior anyway... Listen, all AG's serve at the behest of the President and can be fired in a hot minute if they don't do what he wants. Sure, Trump hasn't really flexed that except for in this case where the sentence was obviously nonsensical. Buuuut.... Trump can literally order Barr to do what he wants and there is nothing illegal about it, in fact, it's exactly how it's designed to operate in the constitution. Since the appointees to these posts serve at his discretion there's nothing wrong with him taking them all to the chop if he needs to. I think he's been far too kind to them personally... But, he's a bit more worried about optics than results, I'd be the other way around. (I wouldn't care if I pissed off a bunch a people who weren't doing their jobs or doing what I want, in his position, anyway, lol.)

 

[Mindmaster]

You get your "news" from Fox, right?

The reality is that even though the DOJ recommendations are quite harsh, what Stone was doing was basically to threaten witnesses and even the judge-- remember her picture with a bull's-eye on her?

Also, it is unethical for Trump to try and interfere in this as he certainly did but then denied it. There is a long-standing division between the president and the DOJ on court proceedings, purposely written so as to try an keep out excessive and possibly self-serving interference. After the verdict is given, then the president could use his pardoning power.

Satire or mockery aren't threatening anyone, they're protected bits of the bill of rights. While the judge might not like such antics they're not grounds to prosecute anyone or anything, lol.

The party that was threatened by Stone didn't believe he was in danger and though that Stone was just blowing off steam, and also wrote a letter to the prosecutors and judge attesting as much. They disregarded this information, but it's obviously a non-argument -- the party didn't believe it to be a threat, but apparently it's still a threat. This isn't normally how this goes -- if you threaten someone, but they don't feel they are endangered AND nothing happens anyway generally there is no way to press charges on that.

Stone didn't seem to have a b-line on anything more than anyone else in the press did -- Wikileaks would often announce releases long before it made them to various contacts. Anyway, the Democrats loved Wikileaks when it was releasing material about the attacks in Baghdad and it made Bush look bad -- they only started hating them when they kept doing their job and kept releasing about Obama's screw ups in Afghanistan and other places. Mind you, Wikileaks was never partisan they just posted about whatever corruption they found regardless of who did it. Lately it's been more about Democrats, but they obviously see all political actors as potential threats.

You can't say because someone's news is untrue because it came from "Fox" or "CNN" that's called a genetic fallacy. There is a possibility either place is speaking the truth and each statement stand or falls on it's own merits/lack thereof. What you're saying there is illogical, lol.

 

[metis]

I have a legal right to do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that every thing I could do would be ethical, especially when we consider what's commonly called "past practice".

Thus, "intent" can be very important, and Trump's and Barr's behavior simply are not justifiable on this basis. And if this wasn't so, then why are over 2000 former DoJ employees from both parties so upset?

 

[metis]

Satire or mockery aren't threatening anyone, they're protected bits of the bill of rights. While the judge might not like such antics they're not grounds to prosecute anyone or anything, lol.

It very much is, and it's legally called "intimidation". On top of that, one of the charges against Stone was "witness tampering", which in this case also involved alleged "intimidation" of a witness.

Even some of Trump's antics could have legally been prosecuted if he wasn't in office as he also used such tactics-- and he still is.

 

[Mindmaster]

It very much is, and it's legally called "intimidation". On top of that, one of the charges against Stone was "witness tampering", which in this case also involved alleged "intimidation" of a witness.

Even some of Trump's antics could have legally been prosecuted if he wasn't in office as he also used such tactics-- and he still is.

Yeah, drawing a bullseye on a picture and posting it online isn't getting on the phone and killing someone, or is it even implying that someone should.

To tamper with a witness, you have to have a case... There is no Russian Collusion, so there is no case. Does anyone find the irony in prosecuting a guy for interfering in a case that already folded up and failed? The "witness" also said they didn't know a damn thing about it, and also didn't see Stone as a threat. So, what actually happened here?

1) Stone is guilt of tampering with a witness that didn't know anything about a case that no longer exists. To be a witness, you have to provide testimony/evidence. Since no evidence was provided there is no witness to tamper with.

2) A distasteful meme.

3) Stone threatened some people through dm's or something, but those people just thought he was talking out of his *** and blowing off steam. They told the prosecutors / judges the same, and they have no grounds to prosecute that. No evidence has been provided to the contrary.

4) Stone was in the media and reaching to Wikileaks to get scoops (like many other journalists do). He got some tips that some releases would be made as did many other notable people and shared that info with his personal friend Trump. Nothing about this is wrong. It's likely that other media were doing the same for Hillary.

 

[metis]

Yeah, drawing a bullseye on a picture and posting it online isn't getting on the phone and killing someone, or is it even implying that someone should.

I'll tell ya what: if you are ever arrested, send a picture to the presiding judge with a bull's eye on it and see what happens next.

IOW, you simply don't know what you're taking about, and this was also the opinion of several constitutional lawyers I listened to who wondered whether Stone might have been sent back to prison and/or given an additional charge. I taught a poly sci course for roughly 25 years, and even though I'm no legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, I at least do know what I'm talking about on this.

If you don't believe me, maybe google "legal intimidation" and see what you get. The charges against Stone were quite clear, and the prosecutors who brought these charges did so w/o political bias as they are trained to do, especially since they are from different political parties or of no party at all. If they're not objective, they lose their job.

IOW, using these conspiracy theories is illogical and nonsensical and is just partisan politics. Maybe actually do some homework first.

 

[Mindmaster]

IOW, using these conspiracy theories is illogical and nonsensical and is just partisan politics. Maybe actually do some homework first.

It's literally just everyone's subjective impression of the situation. The only hard fact of the case is that Stone is a bit of a dick, but that's not a crime, lol.

To make the intimidation case, the witness had to feel intimidated. This did not occur. Secondly, there has to be a case that was interfered with. There isn't. There was fishing expedition that did nothing but dry hump a sand bar for a year.

The proper way to handle this would have just been to acquit Stone after Mueller's investigation fell apart. But, no, the judge's and the other liberals feel the need to stick it to him for absolutely no real reason. Anyway, I hope Trump pardons him just to spite them -- it's perfectly valid. And, far more valid that Obama and Clinton's pardoning of terrorists and drug dealers, lol.

 

[sooda]

Your denial of facts doesn't change anything. You either know what they were convicted of or you intentionally refuse to look and listen so that you can keep pretending that Trump and his appointees are honest and ethical. I'm guessing it's the latter.

It's literally just everyone's subjective impression of the situation. The only hard fact of the case is that Stone is a bit of a dick, but that's not a crime, lol.

To make the intimidation case, the witness had to feel intimidated. This did not occur. Secondly, there has to be a case that was interfered with. There isn't. There was fishing expedition that did nothing but dry hump a sand bar for a year.

The proper way to handle this would have just been to acquit Stone after Mueller's investigation fell apart. But, no, the judge's and the other liberals feel the need to stick it to him for absolutely no real reason. Anyway, I hope Trump pardons him just to spite them -- it's perfectly valid. And, far more valid that Obama and Clinton's pardoning of terrorists and drug dealers, lol.

Right Trump pardons rich crooks.

 

[Mindmaster]

Right Trump pardons rich crooks.

Well, the Dems prevent their rich crooks from even being brought to trial, so.. Is that better?

You realize that Trump can pardon all of the folks the Dems have been stalking and his voter base won't even care? It's perfectly valid to deal with partisan antics with a partisan power-move and a pardon is a great power move.

Comey, MaCabe, and all those others... including Obama and Hillary were doing the same level of interference and lying... where are there trials? hmmmmmm...?!?!

 

[sooda]

Well, the Dems prevent their rich crooks from even being brought to trial, so.. Is that better?

You realize that Trump can pardon all of the folks the Dems have been stalking and his voter base won't even care? It's perfectly valid to deal with partisan antics with a partisan power-move and a pardon is a great power move.

Comey, MaCabe, and all those others... including Obama and Hillary were doing the same level of interference and lying... where are there trials? hmmmmmm...?!?!

President Trump pardons ex-49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo Jr.
In the presence of several NFL stars, including legendary wide receiver Jerry Rice, President Donald Trump announced

 

[Mindmaster]

President Trump pardons ex-49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo Jr.
In the presence of several NFL stars, including legendary wide receiver Jerry Rice, President Donald Trump announced

Yeah, I don't see the point on that one. The guy was a real crook with no doubt as to the fact... Stone is just in the "collateral damage" situation after the failed witch hunt, and it's not really the same thing. First, Stone did process crimes not really anything for which anyone was hurt. No one was robbed, nothing was stolen, no one was hurt.. Not the same thing.

Clinton and Obama pardoned FALN terrorists, which is just worst, period. These people were violent. Anyway, there is a rather full list on Wikipedia and while I find Trump's pardon's rather questionable, I find them less questionable than his predecessors. List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States - Wikipedia

 

[sooda]

Yeah, I don't see the point on that one. The guy was a real crook with no doubt as to the fact... Stone is just in the "collateral damage" situation after the failed witch hunt, and it's not really the same thing. First, Stone did process crimes not really anything for which anyone was hurt. No one was robbed, nothing was stolen, no one was hurt.. Not the same thing.

Clinton and Obama pardoned FALN terrorists, which is just worst, period. These people were violent. Anyway, there is a rather full list on Wikipedia and while I find Trump's pardon's rather questionable, I find them less questionable than his predecessors. List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States - Wikipedia

Just a process crime? Witness intimidation and perjury are OK with you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It very much is, and it's legally called "intimidation". On top of that, one of the charges against Stone was "witness tampering", which in this case also involved alleged "intimidation" of a witness.

Even some of Trump's antics could have legally been prosecuted if he wasn't in office as he also used such tactics-- and he still is.

Yeah, they tried the same argument with Trump's impeachment ... well he wasn't able to follow through with doing the unethical thing he was trying to do so no big deal! It doesn't matter what his intentions were!

Now I see they're trying the same line with Stone ... well the witness didn't personally feel intimidated so no big deal! It doesn't matter what Stone's intentions were!

I guess if you try to rob a bank and fail because your gun wasn't loaded or the teller has no cash, then you get off scot-free, right? No big deal? No jail time for you?
The "logic" is inane. All to protect Dear Leader at all costs.

 

[metis]

Yeah, they tried the same argument with Trump's impeachment ... well he wasn't able to follow through with doing the unethical thing he was trying to do so no big deal! It doesn't matter what his intentions were!

Now I see they're trying the same line with Stone ... well the witness didn't personally feel intimidated so no big deal! It doesn't matter what Stone's intentions were!

I guess if you try to rob a bank and fail because your gun wasn't loaded or the teller has no cash, then you get off scot-free, right? No big deal? No jail time for you?
The "logic" is inane. All to protect Dear Leader at all costs.

Exactly, and here is where one can get the details: Threatening government officials of the United States - Wikipedia