Roger Stone's Time in the Barrel

[Anonymous]

This isnt Barrs first Rodeo and has a reputation for supporting all of his US Attorneys, regardless of the outcome of any case. Wonder if Durham found something on these attorneys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that Barr has some very incriminating evidence about the Mueller investigation - specifically - that these prosecutors knew a year before the investigation ended that there was no "there" there. But, they continued anyway. Why?

My prediction is you’re full of crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a signal for the House to "break the glass" - a 4 bell emergency.

I wonder if Susan Collins is disappointed yet?

I love it when I see the left's talking points - in the exact same language - that I see on Twitter when I come here.

Sounds to me that there were a few over-zealous attorneys who over stepped their bounds.

A 7-9 year recommendation is crazy.
Compare that to the 30 days given to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe who actually leaked a top-secret information to the media and then lied to FBI investigators about it.

You're insane. DOJ prosecutors issuing crazy sentencing recommendations is basically par for the course. So even if that was the case here, which it is not considering sentencing guidelines, Stone's refusal to cooperate, AND witness tampering, AND judge threatening, it would STILL be basically unheard of for the DOJ brass to cut their attorney's off at the knees like this.

TWO AUSAs just resigned in protest, go find the last time that happened before spouting out your butt that all this is totally normal and appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isnt Barrs first Rodeo and has a reputation for supporting all of his US Attorneys, regardless of the outcome of any case. Wonder if Durham found something on these attorneys?

OMG, you have got to be kidding.

No, Barr is corrupt to the core and has asked his professional staff to bypass regular sentencing guidelines to cater to the President. That is NOT how it is supposed to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a signal for the House to "break the glass" - a 4 bell emergency.

I wonder if Susan Collins is disappointed yet?

I love it when I see the left's talking points - in the exact same language - that I see on Twitter when I come here.

Sounds to me that there were a few over-zealous attorneys who over stepped their bounds.

A 7-9 year recommendation is crazy.
Compare that to the 30 days given to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe who actually leaked a top-secret information to the media and then lied to FBI investigators about it.

You're insane. DOJ prosecutors issuing crazy sentencing recommendations is basically par for the course. So even if that was the case here, which it is not considering sentencing guidelines, Stone's refusal to cooperate, AND witness tampering, AND judge threatening, it would STILL be basically unheard of for the DOJ brass to cut their attorney's off at the knees like this.

TWO AUSAs just resigned in protest, go find the last time that happened before spouting out your butt that all this is totally normal and appropriate.

THREE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a signal for the House to "break the glass" - a 4 bell emergency.

I wonder if Susan Collins is disappointed yet?

I love it when I see the left's talking points - in the exact same language - that I see on Twitter when I come here.

Sounds to me that there were a few over-zealous attorneys who over stepped their bounds.

A 7-9 year recommendation is crazy.
Compare that to the 30 days given to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe who actually leaked a top-secret information to the media and then lied to FBI investigators about it.

Crazy? It’s what the career prosecutors debated about and agreed to. Witness tampering is serious sh/t.

The Justice Department is corrupt. Trumpism is a cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a signal for the House to "break the glass" - a 4 bell emergency.

I wonder if Susan Collins is disappointed yet?

I love it when I see the left's talking points - in the exact same language - that I see on Twitter when I come here.

Sounds to me that there were a few over-zealous attorneys who over stepped their bounds.

A 7-9 year recommendation is crazy.
Compare that to the 30 days given to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe who actually leaked a top-secret information to the media and then lied to FBI investigators about it.

They were STANDARD sentencing guidelines. Equal justice and all, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that Barr has some very incriminating evidence about the Mueller investigation - specifically - that these prosecutors knew a year before the investigation ended that there was no "there" there. But, they continued anyway. Why?

What would that have to do with this? Even if those attorney's had acted improperly, which they almost certainly did not, both are well respected, that was an entirely separate case. Roger Stone was tried for crimes and found guilty by a jury of his peers and a sentence was recommended based on the sentencing guidelines that the DOJ set forth regarding the crimes for which he was sentenced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isnt Barrs first Rodeo and has a reputation for supporting all of his US Attorneys, regardless of the outcome of any case. Wonder if Durham found something on these attorneys?

This is my bet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a signal for the House to "break the glass" - a 4 bell emergency.

I wonder if Susan Collins is disappointed yet?

I love it when I see the left's talking points - in the exact same language - that I see on Twitter when I come here.

Sounds to me that there were a few over-zealous attorneys who over stepped their bounds.

A 7-9 year recommendation is crazy.
Compare that to the 30 days given to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe who actually leaked a top-secret information to the media and then lied to FBI investigators about it.

You're insane. DOJ prosecutors issuing crazy sentencing recommendations is basically par for the course. So even if that was the case here, which it is not considering sentencing guidelines, Stone's refusal to cooperate, AND witness tampering, AND judge threatening, it would STILL be basically unheard of for the DOJ brass to cut their attorney's off at the knees like this.

TWO AUSAs just resigned in protest, go find the last time that happened before spouting out your butt that all this is totally normal and appropriate.

THREE

Who's the third? I just heard Zelinsky and Kravis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a signal for the House to "break the glass" - a 4 bell emergency.

I wonder if Susan Collins is disappointed yet?

I love it when I see the left's talking points - in the exact same language - that I see on Twitter when I come here.

Sounds to me that there were a few over-zealous attorneys who over stepped their bounds.

A 7-9 year recommendation is crazy.
Compare that to the 30 days given to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe who actually leaked a top-secret information to the media and then lied to FBI investigators about it.

Crazy? It’s what the career prosecutors debated about and agreed to. Witness tampering is serious sh/t.

The Justice Department is corrupt. Trumpism is a cancer.

That is not what I heard.

[Anonymous]

The new recommendation from the DOJ is to let the judge decide. Wow! Probably a wise move on Their part. This is the same judge Stone threatened and all these noisy withdrawals can’t be going over well with the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a signal for the House to "break the glass" - a 4 bell emergency.

I wonder if Susan Collins is disappointed yet?

I love it when I see the left's talking points - in the exact same language - that I see on Twitter when I come here.

Sounds to me that there were a few over-zealous attorneys who over stepped their bounds.

A 7-9 year recommendation is crazy.
Compare that to the 30 days given to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe who actually leaked a top-secret information to the media and then lied to FBI investigators about it.

You're insane. DOJ prosecutors issuing crazy sentencing recommendations is basically par for the course. So even if that was the case here, which it is not considering sentencing guidelines, Stone's refusal to cooperate, AND witness tampering, AND judge threatening, it would STILL be basically unheard of for the DOJ brass to cut their attorney's off at the knees like this.

TWO AUSAs just resigned in protest, go find the last time that happened before spouting out your butt that all this is totally normal and appropriate.

THREE

Who's the third? I just heard Zelinsky and Kravis

Just heard about third. Adam Jed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isnt Barrs first Rodeo and has a reputation for supporting all of his US Attorneys, regardless of the outcome of any case. Wonder if Durham found something on these attorneys?

Barr has a reputation for protecting his PRESIDENT and his cronies - that's why he was hired.

These AUSAs couldn't have sent a clearer signal that Trump's tweet made Barr change the sentencing recommendation if they'd set fire to the DOJ building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isnt Barrs first Rodeo and has a reputation for supporting all of his US Attorneys, regardless of the outcome of any case. Wonder if Durham found something on these attorneys?

Whatever happens, it will be timed for maximum damage, and it will be contrived. Ukrainian President has now fired his Chief of Staff and replaced him with an Oligarch stooge, so

Trump/Putin 1
Free Ukraine 0

Our rule of law is being eroded as I type this, as we sink further into a Russian style oligarchy. There really is little to stop it at this juncture, short of millions in the street protesting, which isn't going to happen because we are a lazy and complacent society.