Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Pandaz3, Feb 20, 2020.
What color would you like?
This thread is about Roger Stone's sentencing.
Sounds like you have other concerns and want to start a new thread.
LOL....so much "I don't know anything about that" followed by firm conclusions that 'they got it wrong'.
Bottom line....40 months is skating.
No, I disagree with you trying to defend a broken, biased and politically weaponized system.
Biased judge, Political Operative Jury Foreman. Out of control like Liberal prosecutors Overcharging a old man who ran his mouth but accomplished nothing.
All of this was to hurt and intimidate and Trump supporters.
Assault Team all tac’d out.
River gun boat
Weapons drawn at pointed at his wife
Leak to CNN for full propaganda coverage
All for a seventy something BS artist who isn’t even a firearm owner.
You seem to bevfundamentally trying to defend the deep state.
With all due respect; whether you disagree with me or not don't tell me how to post or what to do particularly when it is not your thread. I know telling people what to do is a liberal / progressive thing but no one needs it.
Have a good day. I’m off to the pistol range.
He was prosecuted by a Republican led Dept. of Justice.
He was found guilty by a jury of his peers after hearing all the evidence presented by the prosecution and rebutted by the defense.
He was sentenced by a respected judge for a sentence lower than any estimate by the federal sentencing guidelines.
I see no overreach and nothing out of control.
I don't agree with the standard for Section 1001 convictions, and I think the entire federal criminal system is designed to crush defendants into pleading guilty to avoid a painful trial penalty at sentencing.
But you or I would consider ourselves fortunate to be in Stone's position and end up where he has. The feds routinely arrest people, especially white collar defendants, in overwhelming displays of force and timed for the defendant to spend the max time locked up before an opportunity to get bail set. It's about crushing the defendant, not some fear of a shootout or flight. Stone showed incredible disrespect to the court and even threatened the judge. Yet he appeared to get every benefit and walked away with a sentence well below the Guidelines range. He may end up with a new trial.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether Stone's sentence is fair or the merits of individual charges. But he wasn't treated any worse than the average federal criminal defendant. In fact, he's been treated far better.
I’m going to pivot a little, only because you have raised some very good / interesting points.
I am not arguing rather genuinely interested in your knowledgeable opinion.
Do you think it is reasonable tactic for the . Gov to use its overwhelming resources to crush citizens into compliance.
Do you think that Stone would have been pursued so aggressively had they not been trying to get him and others to “turn” on Trump.
I have heard the conviction rate for the Feds is circa 98%. Does that seem accurate to you? What message should we take that the defendant never has a chance.
Personally, I feel this whole (Mueller) process was simply a political propaganda exercise. He / they knew there was no evidence of the original charge yet they continued trying to create evidence with the purjury trap weapon. Where even people who don’t lie are set up. Lives are ruined for a political end.
I find it a disgrace.
I’m leaving to play golf, so I can’t provide a more complete response until later tonight. I do think the government routinely uses overly-aggressive, inappropriate tactics to crush defendants into compliance. I just don’t feel too badly for Stone because he injected himself into the situation, effectively dared prosecutors to go after him, and still got a relatively good result.
That should be exactly what someone who is worried about government overreach wants. That shows they are making solid cases and only moving forward with the strongest cases. I would be much more concerned if they were at 60%.
It reminds me of a recent interview with a local lawyer where they were obviously pushing the 'police unjustly use force' narrative. They threw out something like "of the last 25 law enforcement shootings in Atlanta no officers have been charged....how do you feel about that". He said that should be exactly what society wants, their police are using force exactly within the constraints of the law. The reporter quickly moved to the next question.
I honestly don’t know what to think about it; which is why I asked.
I am a big supporter of Law Enforcement, but how does one defend yourself against the unlimited resources of your own Government. Even if you win you are ruined.
Take the example of General Flynn. Didn’t lie. FBI internally acknowledging he did not lie, yet he is pursued for lying and ruined.
Stone was stupid. He had no information but made himself out to be a player.
Both were pursued to get them to turn for political motives.
Maybe it’s naive, but justice should not be political.
Up until the last 3 years I would have agreed with you, but it appears to me the Democrats in the DOJ and FBI weaponized the system.
You don't believe he committed the crimes? or,
Don't believe he should have been prosecuted?
I don't believe he should have been tried by a blatantly partisan judge with a similarly partisan jury forewoman.
No evidence she was a blatantly partisan judge. If so, it's an easy appeal. The courts will tell.
As for the juror, his attorneys have the power of preemptory challenge and could have disqualified the juror. They did not.
As an aside, can you cite evidence the juror or judge were partisan? Other than political talking points?
I do believe he broke the law(s).
I do believe that there should have been some consideration for prosecution.
To some degree, I believe the entire process was inappropriate and illegitimate. It was based purely on trying to pursue DJT. Pursuing his underlings and somehow getting someone to turn to feed the Trump is a Russian operative delusion.
It was a BS attempt and everything spun out of this fraud against the American people.
I do not I believe I have said RS was innocent or blameless; but do think charges should have been thrown out as being tainted due to their origin.
Failing that, 7-8 years was an over-prosecution.
Someone destroys evidence, 30,000 e mails and electronic devices and nothing. Constant leaks out of the DOJ and nothing. Hyper-Partisan FBI officials working to undermine a candidate and president and nothing. Lies from FBI execs Comey and McCabe and nothing.
My point is the prosecution appears as only one way.
I can only assume a different set of laws and levels of prosecution exists if you are a liberal or anti - Trumper.
Other than being an Obama appointee I have no reason to suspect the judge of being partisan. Her sentencing was moderate not extreme.
The jury foreman was a clear partisan. Social media activity, before during and after the trial indicating she is pro democrat and anti-trump.
Did she (the forewoman) affect the outcome of the trial........ I have no idea.
She should have taken herself out or been flushed out during Jury selection. To get through the process she must have lied or withheld information.
something that shows up better than what I picked, I just wanted it to be obvious.
It really doesn’t matter. He’s going back to trial. If he doesn’t get off this time POTIS will pardon him.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Your buddy gets stopped for speeding and they find a baggy of pot on you. Should you not be prosecuted? They only stopped him; right?
If you break the law and law enforcement becomes aware of it through legal means, (even if you weren't the one being investigated) you are subject to prosecution.
He broke the law. Have you read the charges? He brought them on himself. Should anyone not be charged with lying to congress?
I reread the charges and arguments this afternoon. He’s (RS) is a poser who is his own worst enemy. Sure, he’s not a good guy, but 80 months was disproportionate.
As far as lying, how about we start with the professional bureaucrats, Congressmen or Senators not lying to Congress before we worry about “nobody’s” who had no meaningful effect on anything.
As far a the hypothetical how about my buddies house is raided because of a neighborhood feud. A disgruntled neighbor, fabricated a wild story leading to a SWAT raid.
None of the underlying allegations were true leading to the warrant or the raid.
I, as a guest happen to be in the house and get arrested for having weed. No charges against the homeowner but they go after me full bore so to get me to turn on the homeowner to mask their embarrassment.