Barr is now contradicting himself where sentencing guidelines are concerned. During his confirmation testimony...

Anonymous wrote:Question for the legal experts. How long can sentencing be postponed? I think it should be postponed until after January 20, 2021. Right now is too close to the election.

Is Stone running for an office we don't know about?

Anonymous wrote:

+1. Federal prosecutors don’t seek sentences below the federal guidelines, which are set by Congress, for defendants who don’t plead guilty and/or provide substantial cooperation. Stone did the opposite. This is basic stuff.

You forget--the "victim" said that he did not take Stone's threat seriously. That was the basis of asking for the higher penalty.

And, this was a first time offender. They usually take that into consideration, as well. No danger to society.

Meanwhile, Comey and Clapper and Brennan are still walking free.

The jury heard the witnesses and convicted him.

Question for the legal experts. How long can sentencing be postponed? I think it should be postponed until after January 20, 2021. Right now is too close to the election.

Anonymous wrote:

+1. Federal prosecutors don’t seek sentences below the federal guidelines, which are set by Congress, for defendants who don’t plead guilty and/or provide substantial cooperation. Stone did the opposite. This is basic stuff.

You forget--the "victim" said that he did not take Stone's threat seriously. That was the basis of asking for the higher penalty.

And, this was a first time offender. They usually take that into consideration, as well. No danger to society.

JUDGES take those things into consideration at the actual sentencing when choosing between the lower and higher amounts of time as set forth in the guidelines. PROSECUTORS seek sentences for uncooperative defendants within The guidelines which are set by law. Ask ANY DC AUSA if they’ve ever sought a sentence lower than the federal guidelines for any defendant who has not plead guilty or cooperated with other cases. It doesn’t happen.

Anonymous wrote:

+1. Federal prosecutors don’t seek sentences below the federal guidelines, which are set by Congress, for defendants who don’t plead guilty and/or provide substantial cooperation. Stone did the opposite. This is basic stuff.

You forget--the "victim" said that he did not take Stone's threat seriously. That was the basis of asking for the higher penalty.

And, this was a first time offender. They usually take that into consideration, as well. No danger to society.

Meanwhile, Comey and Clapper and Brennan are still walking free.

Comey and Clapper and Brennan have not been arrested, indicted, charged, found guilty or convicted of any federal crimes, and are off-topic here. Get yourself and your tin foil hat to the Barr and Durham thread.

Anonymous wrote:

+1. Federal prosecutors don’t seek sentences below the federal guidelines, which are set by Congress, for defendants who don’t plead guilty and/or provide substantial cooperation. Stone did the opposite. This is basic stuff.

You forget--the "victim" said that he did not take Stone's threat seriously. That was the basis of asking for the higher penalty.

And, this was a first time offender. They usually take that into consideration, as well. No danger to society.

Meanwhile, Comey and Clapper and Brennan are still walking free.

If you believe Clapper and Brennan are criminals, you need new sources of information. Comey was wrong to disclose the Hillary case before the election, but he was put in a box by the NY FBI Field office. Given the choices, I am not sure what I would have done.

Stone lied to the FBI, he lied to cover for the President about the ties to Wikileaks and Russia. That is pretty important in the context of obstruction of justice where the Mueller investigation is concerned, no?

+1. Federal prosecutors don’t seek sentences below the federal guidelines, which are set by Congress, for defendants who don’t plead guilty and/or provide substantial cooperation. Stone did the opposite. This is basic stuff.

You forget--the "victim" said that he did not take Stone's threat seriously. That was the basis of asking for the higher penalty.

And, this was a first time offender. They usually take that into consideration, as well. No danger to society.

Meanwhile, Comey and Clapper and Brennan are still walking free.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile a non corrupt AUSA in Baltimore recommended that former Mayor Catherine Pugh get upwards of 5-years in jail for her criminal acts of conspiracy and tax evasion, far more egregious than lying under oath.

And you know the main difference between Pugh and Stone? Pugh pled guilty so she'd get less time. https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-baltimore-mayor-catherine-pugh-pleads-guilty-federal-conspiracy-and-tax-charges

If Roger had pled guilty he'd be looking at much less time too, but instead Roger did all he could to muck it up, including threatening the judge. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/18/roger-stone-deletes-photo-judge-presiding-over-his-case-says-he-didnt-mean-threaten-her/

It's amazing we have so many experts about the federal criminal justice system.

+1. Federal prosecutors don’t seek sentences below the federal guidelines, which are set by Congress, for defendants who don’t plead guilty and/or provide substantial cooperation. Stone did the opposite. This is basic stuff.

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile a non corrupt AUSA in Baltimore recommended that former Mayor Catherine Pugh get upwards of 5-years in jail for her criminal acts of conspiracy and tax evasion, far more egregious than lying under oath.

And you know the main difference between Pugh and Stone? Pugh pled guilty so she'd get less time. https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-baltimore-mayor-catherine-pugh-pleads-guilty-federal-conspiracy-and-tax-charges

If Roger had pled guilty he'd be looking at much less time too, but instead Roger did all he could to muck it up, including threatening the judge. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/18/roger-stone-deletes-photo-judge-presiding-over-his-case-says-he-didnt-mean-threaten-her/

It's amazing we have so many experts about the federal criminal justice system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone was convicted of lying to a fbi officer, not Congress. That is a fact

What did he lie about? Was it about anything important? That should probably matter in terms of sentence recommendations

You seriously don’t know? Read ANY ARTICLE about the trial.

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile a non corrupt AUSA in Baltimore recommended that former Mayor Catherine Pugh get upwards of 5-years in jail for her criminal acts of conspiracy and tax evasion, far more egregious than lying under oath.

Did Pugh threaten any witnesses? SMH

Anonymous wrote:And then they take an oath of impartiality, just like the Senators did. Are you saying the Senators lied too?

Anonymous wrote:Stone was convicted of lying to a fbi officer, not Congress. That is a fact

He was convicted of some other stuff too. This is so difficult for you. Why? Are you close friends?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone was convicted of lying to a fbi officer, not Congress. That is a fact

What did he lie about? Was it about anything important? That should probably matter in terms of sentence recommendations

Yes, he lied about his contacts with both the Trump campaign and his contacts with Wikileaks. Seems kind of important, in context, no?