Anonymous wrote:For those defending Trump and Stone, please read the court transcripts and sentencing documents. Stone is convicted of lying in a material way to PROTECT the president. The President taking this actions completely undermines any sense of the rule of law.

Which I guess is just for us little people, the suckers.

I’ll bang the drum till my hands fall off: always remember it was the GOP that brought us this point.

Anonymous wrote:The minute Stone is pardoned, he goes before the House Judicial Committee without Fifth Amendment protection.

I don't think Trump wants that. And I don't think Stone wants to be detained for contempt of Congress.

Then he'll commute the sentence.

Q: Are you considering a pardon for Roger Stone?

Trump: “I don’t want to say yet.”

For those defending Trump and Stone, please read the court transcripts and sentencing documents. Stone is convicted of lying in a material way to PROTECT the president. The President taking this actions completely undermines any sense of the rule of law.

Which I guess is just for us little people, the suckers.

The minute Stone is pardoned, he goes before the House Judicial Committee without Fifth Amendment protection.

I don't think Trump wants that. And I don't think Stone wants to be detained for contempt of Congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what's going to happen. Judge Jackson will sentence Stone to somewhere in the guidelines range (7-9 years) and Trump will then commute the sentence or pardon Stone, saying how he's justified because how outrageous the sentence was. And Stone will resume his nefarious activities on behalf of Trump's reelection.

Here’s what I don’t get. Why not just start there? Why not avoid this all together when the end-game is Trump commute or pardon?

Roger probably knows everything about what happened in 2016, and to the extent that Trump is capable of having a friend, Roger is a friend.

So Trump has always promised Roger he'd take care of him. But then the sentencing memo came out and I'm sure Roger flipped out. A mutual friend let Trump know how unhappy Roger was (in the middle of the night) so Trump tweeted. Barr read the tweet and etc, etc, etc.

Why hasn't Trump used his pardon power for his buddies? Because the conventional wisdom is that would be very harmful politically. But I agree with you - Trump is a dictator now and he can do whatever he wants and, as long as money continues to get pumped into the economy, he won't get hurt politically.

As I said I think Roger is a special case because he knows so much and Trump will do whatever he can to make sure he stays quiet and happy.

Anonymous wrote:This is what's going to happen. Judge Jackson will sentence Stone to somewhere in the guidelines range (7-9 years) and Trump will then commute the sentence or pardon Stone, saying how he's justified because how outrageous the sentence was. And Stone will resume his nefarious activities on behalf of Trump's reelection.

Here’s what I don’t get. Why not just start there? Why not avoid this all together when the end-game is Trump commute or pardon?

This is what's going to happen. Judge Jackson will sentence Stone to somewhere in the guidelines range (7-9 years) and Trump will then commute the sentence or pardon Stone, saying how he's justified because how outrageous the sentence was. And Stone will resume his nefarious activities on behalf of Trump's reelection.

Chuck Schumer calls for an investigation by the DOJ IG.

Donald Trump boasts about the fact that he pressured the DOJ to change the sentencing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's do have an investigation on this matter like so many are calling for.

You know how this will turn out?

Some rogue US attorneys misled the DOJ in their sentencing guidelines and got called out doing so. And, I have no doubt they have evidence of such.

What? Sentencing guidelines are public. Look them up. What the now-resigned DOJ attorneys proposed was in the norm for the crimes that Stone has been convicted of. And the fact of the matter, if he hadn't lied, then perhaps we would know more about Trump and Wikileaks. But since he is covering for Trump on this, he has to do the time. That is how it works. Please stop repeating nonsense Fox talking points.

Wait a minute...so, if he lied, that must mean that the investigators knew the truth all along (otherwise he wouldn't have been charged with lying). So, if they know the truth, according to your logic, they would know more about Trump and Wikileaks. Thus, there is no "cover", if the investigators already know what he was lying about.

He was convicted for lying. That doesn't mean there is a "deep state" conspiracy too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the Stone case last night,” the DOJ official reportedly told Fox. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.”

The resistance continues in the permanent admistrative State. All four of these prosecutors are Obama hires.

Being hired by an administration in the legal field does not make one partisan, or at least it didn't until Trump. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, it is Trump, and not all of the Bar certified lawyers who swore to uphold the Constitution?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's do have an investigation on this matter like so many are calling for.

You know how this will turn out?

Some rogue US attorneys misled the DOJ in their sentencing guidelines and got called out doing so. And, I have no doubt they have evidence of such.

What? Sentencing guidelines are public. Look them up. What the now-resigned DOJ attorneys proposed was in the norm for the crimes that Stone has been convicted of. And the fact of the matter, if he hadn't lied, then perhaps we would know more about Trump and Wikileaks. But since he is covering for Trump on this, he has to do the time. That is how it works. Please stop repeating nonsense Fox talking points.

Wait a minute...so, if he lied, that must mean that the investigators knew the truth all along (otherwise he wouldn't have been charged with lying). So, if they know the truth, according to your logic, they would know more about Trump and Wikileaks. Thus, there is no "cover", if the investigators already know what he was lying about.

Anonymous wrote:The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the Stone case last night,” the DOJ official reportedly told Fox. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.”

The resistance continues in the permanent admistrative State. All four of these prosecutors are Obama hires.

Anonymous wrote:The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the Stone case last night,” the DOJ official reportedly told Fox. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.”

Except for the part where the Department was bullied into agreeing to the sentencing recommendation...

The Department can't keep their story straight. Any of their stories. It's so embarrassing.