Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Well, Ain't This Just Too Bad

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Neither have Clapper, or Brennan. So.... What's your point, Tough guy?

 

That was my point - not sure how you missed it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 9:09 AM, badlatitude said:

Chutzpah can get you in trouble.

 

That’s the thrill, right!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amati said:

That’s the thrill, right!?

Every crook there is prospered whenever they knew a fix was in for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistress Judge has had enough crap from Stone and now the prosecutors.  She's going to give them a questioning and then dressing down so severe that they will wish that they went to medical school.  Then she says fuck the sentencing guidelines.  Stone you are an asshole, max on all counts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

Mistress Judge has had enough crap from Stone and now the prosecutors.  She's going to give them a questioning and then dressing down so severe that they will wish that they went to medical school.  Then she says fuck the sentencing guidelines.  Stone you are an asshole, max on all counts.

From your lips to God's ears.  Or, to those of Judge Jackson.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

Mistress Judge has had enough crap from Stone and now the prosecutors.  She's going to give them a questioning and then dressing down so severe that they will wish that they went to medical school.  Then she says fuck the sentencing guidelines.  Stone you are an asshole, max on all counts.

Judge Amy has handled herself well, instead of being a spectacle .("This is not baseball," then she didn't call strike three after other folderol.) OTOH she's been firm on behalf of justice. I think she'll have her own way here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Judge Amy has handled herself well, instead of being a spectacle .("This is not baseball," then she didn't call strike three after other folderol.) OTOH she's been firm on behalf of justice. I think she'll have her own way here. 

And Donnie will rail at the injustice of one of his henchmen getting the book thrown at him, continue to publically smear her good name and accuse her of being a  democRAT,   the ilk will nod in agreement,  Barr will see too it that's the last case she will preside on , its so unfair, elections have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Every crook there is prospered whenever they knew a fix was in for them.

I think it’s more like if they think a fix is in.  If they don’t stay ahead of the curve, the con doesn’t work, as some of the lads are finding here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/483055-federal-judge-pushes-back-against-trump-criticism-of-handling-of
 

The Chief Judge of the DC Circuit responded to the bullshitters, in defense of the independence of the judiciary. 

What say you, Bullshitters?

Looks like the fix was in. 
 

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light. Hart confirmed to CNN and other media organizations that she had written a Facebook post supporting the Justice Department prosecutors in the Stone case who abruptly stepped down from their posts Tuesday, saying she "can't keep quiet any longer." The prosecutors apparently objected after senior DOJ officials overrode their recommendation to Jackson that Stone face up to nine years in prison.

In addition, it was revealed that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest. All these revelations raised the prospect that Stone's team could again seek a new trial, especially if Hart provided inaccurate responses under oath on her pretrial questionnaires concerning social media activity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like "fighting corruption in foreign countries," there's suddenly a concern by some VERY high-up people about jury selection, fair trials, and sentencing guidelines.

Not for most people, but just for "certain" people.

I'm sure these people have a long history of fighting for less-than recommended sentences for ALL citizens, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Judge Amy has handled herself well, instead of being a spectacle .("This is not baseball," then she didn't call strike three after other folderol.) OTOH she's been firm on behalf of justice. I think she'll have her own way here. 

Some stuff coming to light that she refused to let the defense strike a jurist that had a conflict of interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Looks like the fix was in. 
 

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light. Hart confirmed to CNN and other media organizations that she had written a Facebook post supporting the Justice Department prosecutors in the Stone case who abruptly stepped down from their posts Tuesday, saying she "can't keep quiet any longer." The prosecutors apparently objected after senior DOJ officials overrode their recommendation to Jackson that Stone face up to nine years in prison.

In addition, it was revealed that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest. All these revelations raised the prospect that Stone's team could again seek a new trial, especially if Hart provided inaccurate responses under oath on her pretrial questionnaires concerning social media activity

Republicans prosecuting Republicans, So unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/483055-federal-judge-pushes-back-against-trump-criticism-of-handling-of
 

The Chief Judge of the DC Circuit responded to the bullshitters, in defense of the independence of the judiciary. 

What say you, Bullshitters?

See directly below your post.

Thats some fine Bullshit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Looks like the fix was in. 

Looks like the Fox was in.

Can't find enough neutral jurors WRT Stone/Trump?

Why am I not surprised? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Republicans prosecuting Republicans, So unfair.

It looks to have been every bit as rigged as the Mueller investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Trump will appeal this up the chain, and smear the judge and the jury until he can’t.  What a surprise.  And then there’s the pardon.  And the truth is, Trump has found a giant hole in the judiciary system that he can drive a semi through.  And if he can he will.  And Joker et al digs it so much.  But he doesn’t want to convince us with reason or logic, just brute force, apparently because he is frustrated.  So lash out, Joker!  You know we believe you.  When an autocrat and a hater of democracy tells you who he is, believe him.  And we should believe that Joker hates democracy, and loves a man named Trump.  It’s too bad that taking a knee is considered sedition.  Maybe both knees? Perhaps a bow, or a curtsy will be demanded?  For Joker as well as Trump?  May as well tell us Joker, so we can give you your due, your worship, our leige.  You are the greatest of men!  Hail Joker!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Amati said:

And Trump will appeal this up the chain, and smear the judge and the jury until he can’t.  What a surprise.  And then there’s the pardon.  And the truth is, Trump has found a giant hole in the judiciary system that he can drive a semi through.  And if he can he will.  And Joker et al digs it so much.  But he doesn’t want to convince us with reason or logic, just brute force, apparently because he is frustrated.  So lash out, Joker!  You know we believe you.  When an autocrat and a hater of democracy tells you who he is, believe him.  And we should believe that Joker hates democracy, and loves a man named Trump.  It’s too bad that taking a knee is considered sedition.  Maybe both knees? Perhaps a bow, or a curtsy will be demanded?  For Joker as well as Trump?  May as well tell us Joker, so we can give you your due, your worship, our leige.  You are the greatest of men!  Hail Joker!

Trump just made the statement that "I have 'legal right' to intervene in criminal cases"

Wow.  Perhaps he was just talking about pardons, but I doubt it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Trump just made the statement that "I have 'legal right' to intervene in criminal cases"

Wow.  Perhaps he was just talking about pardons, but I doubt it.

This will be one of the things the bullshitters bitch about when a democRAT does it. How do I know?  Because they are remaining silent about it, so that they won't have posts defending it shoved in their faces when they are on the other side of the issue. 

What say you, bullshitters?  Wanna go on record supporting the President's right to intervene in criminal cases?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but wait...haven't they spent the last 10 years screaming about supposed interference in supposed prosecutions from the Kenyan's administration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AGITC is doing a Susan Collins impression of concern, Dog is in another thread outraged people selectively reply to threads, Jeff’s trying to understand debt, and Tomballs has decided precedent doesn’t matter. They are busy give em a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

This will be one of the things the bullshitters bitch about when a democRAT does it. How do I know?  Because they are remaining silent about it, so that they won't have posts defending it shoved in their faces when they are on the other side of the issue. 

What say you, bullshitters?  Wanna go on record supporting the President's right to intervene in criminal cases?  

Whataboutism is dead.  Long live the King!  Death to Democracy!  Trust no one except Trump! ;)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

AGITC is doing a Susan Collins impression of concern, Dog is in another outraged people selectively reply to threads, Jeff’s trying to understand debt, and Tomballs has decided precedent doesn’t matter. They are busy give em a break.

To be accurate, Guy is concerned yet optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

To be accurate, Guy is concerned yet optimistic.

Maybe he's busy looking for a "sad-face" emoticon that fits just right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how many are willing to throw out the fundamental laws of our country, ensuring a fair trial because the defendant is someone they hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

but wait...haven't they spent the last 10 years screaming about supposed interference in supposed prosecutions from the Kenyan's administration?

Not under the names they're using now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2020 at 9:19 PM, benwynn said:

Only the best people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It's amazing how many are willing to throw out the fundamental laws of our country

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

“The President has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” - A.G. Barr
This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!

8:33 AM - Feb 14, 2020



He "really" believes he has the power to obstruct justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor, poor Roger.  Unfair.  SO Unfair.  Perhaps he should have objected to seating that juror, once information about her run for Congress came out in voir dire. Of course, all you have to do is demonstrate that the law allows jurors to be sidelined because of political beliefs.  

Get to work, Bullshitters.  Lets see the support for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

but wait...haven't they spent the last 10 years screaming about supposed interference in supposed prosecutions from the Kenyan's administration?

The hypocrisy in this bunch is stupefying.  And, they seem oblivious.

Watch.  Just as Sol has predicted, they will resume screaming about it when a Democrat dares to try the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It's amazing how many are willing to throw out the fundamental laws of our country, ensuring a fair trial because the defendant is someone they hate.

Please clarify.

Exactly whom isn't getting a fair trial?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It's amazing how many are willing to throw out the fundamental laws of our country, ensuring a fair trial because the defendant is someone they hate.

Is the President inserting himself in criminal cases not a case of him being "willing to throw out the fundamental laws of our country...because the defendant is someone (he) hate(s)."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.scribd.com/document/446913716/Roger-Stone-jury-selection-transcript-Nov-5-2019

If only they hadn't covered this bullshit in voir dire, and if only Stone's defense had used any of their juror challenges to pitch her off the jury....  Unfair.  SO Unfair.  

Keep slinging it, Bullshitters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

https://www.scribd.com/document/446913716/Roger-Stone-jury-selection-transcript-Nov-5-2019

If only they hadn't covered this bullshit in voir dire, and if only Stone's defense had used any of their juror challenges to pitch her off the jury....  Unfair.  SO Unfair.  

Keep slinging it, Bullshitters. 

Didn't you know that a jury of peers for a Trumpaloo is Maga Wearing homeboys?  No school marms or librarians need apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I can do anything I want”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger Stone:  Innocent man wrongly convicted

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman: Traitor

This is the fucked up value system Trump supporters need to embellish with a straight face.   That has to be tough. I mean for anybody. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Roger Stone:  Innocent man wrongly convicted

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman: Traitor

This is the fucked up value system Trump supporters need to embellish with a straight face.   That has to be tough. I mean for anybody. 

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is a patriot and decorated war veteran.  

Rush Limbaugh is a divisive, draft dodging, racist, drug addict.

One of them was frogmarched out of the WH and the other awarded the US Presidential Medal of Freedom at the SOTU.

Prior to this Administration, how many people would have correctly guessed which was which?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

It's amazing how many are willing to throw out the fundamental laws of our country, ensuring a fair trial because the defendant is someone they hate.

It’s amazing there are still stupid cunts that believe your bullshitting.

put a bullseye on the judge in your case and see if you remain free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Roger Stone:  Innocent man wrongly convicted

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman: Traitor

This is the fucked up value system Trump supporters need to embellish with a straight face.   That has to be tough. I mean for anybody. 

It's easy for the Trumpaloons, they have no core belief beyond guns good Dems bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is a patriot and decorated war veteran.  

Rush Limbaugh is a divisive, draft dodging, racist, drug addict.

One of them was frogmarched out of the WH and the other awarded the US Presidential Medal of Freedom at the SOTU.

Prior to this Administration, how many people would have correctly guessed which was which?

 

46 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Roger Stone:  Innocent man wrongly convicted

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman: Traitor

This is the fucked up value system Trump supporters need to embellish with a straight face.   That has to be tough. I mean for anybody. 

Not this Trump supporter 

I never claimed stone was innocent only that 7-9 years for a first time offender for those charges was excessive.  Something others have done with immunity  
I also have an issue with some of the jury issues coming to light  I would have the same issues regardless of who the defendant was  

As to Col Vindman  - I have never considered him a traitor or objected to his testimony.   I thank him for his service  to the country 

The medal of freedom for Rush   I say well deserved, not because of his radio show but because of his charity giving

Jessie Jackson would be a lefty equivalent   Outrage form one side praise from the other  

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Joker said:

 

Not this Trump supporter 

I never claimed stone was innocent only that 7-9 years for a first time offender for those charges was excessive.  Something others have done with immunity  
I also have an issue with some of the jury issues coming to light  I would have the same issues regardless of who the defendant was  

As to Col Vindman  - I have never considered him a traitor or objected to his testimony.   I thank him for his service  to the country 

The medal of freedom for Rush   I say well deserved, not because of his radio show but because of his charity giving

Jessie Jackson would be a lefty equivalent   Outrage form one side praise from the other  

 

 

 

 

 

Who lies to congress more than once?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I never claimed stone was innocent only that 7-9 years for a first time offender for those charges was excessive.  

It’s not bullshitter.

HAVE YOU READ THE FUCKING GUIDELINES?

the rest is just your lies; the elk are too fucking stupid and lazy to investigate, they’ll just nod their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lying under oath to cover up stealing a candy bar is wrong.

Lying under oath to protect yourself during a wide-ranging investigation that involves multiple

OTHER people and potential crimes means you're part of a conspiracy.  RICO should apply.

The sentence should be severe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mike G said:

Lying under oath to cover up stealing a candy bar is wrong.

Lying under oath to protect yourself during a wide-ranging investigation that involves multiple

OTHER people and potential crimes means you're part of a conspiracy.  RICO should apply.

The sentence should be severe.

But there were no other charged crimes which was why I used Scooter Libby who got 4 years.  Or Flynn who got probation.  I see everyone is ignoring Clapper and Brennan a pair of high ranking government officials who got caught lying to Congress and were never even charged.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gangbusters said:

Who lies to congress more than once?

Is this a trick question?

 

A member of the Trump Administration who gets called to the Hill twice? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to imagine that there are people that don't see through the....

Political opponents=investigate and jail them.

Friends/supporters=Zero or reduced jail time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, The Joker said:

But there were no other charged crimes

Stone was convicted on 7 counts. THATS SEVEN CRIMES YOU LYING MOTHERFUCKER. Obstruction, making false statements and witness tampering. This was part of an ongoing investigation that produced other charges, and convictions, of other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mike G said:

It's hard to imagine that there are people that don't see through the....

Political opponents=investigate and jail them.

Friends/supporters=Zero or reduced jail time.

They do, but bullshitters like the joker give the morons plausible deniability.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mike G said:

It's hard to imagine that there are people that don't see through the....

Political opponents=investigate and jail them.

Friends/supporters=Zero or reduced jail time.

For many people, it's about tribal identity.

If you're one of the "good people" or one of the "people like me" then there is no such thing as crime. Dodge the raft, rob little old ladies, shoot people on 5th avenue, cheat on your wife, murder other countries' leaders, betray your own country... hey no hard feelings, it's just among friends.

If you're hurting brown people, gay people, liberals, poor people, or Democrats, then it's GREAT! Where's the crime in that?

OTOH just to be one of "those" people at all, is a crime itself.

This is how it works for Team YayTrump! (formerly Team R!)

They're don't care if it's voting against their self-interest, they are voting for their tribe!

-DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

But there were no other charged crimes which was why I used Scooter Libby who got 4 years.  Or Flynn who got probation.  I see everyone is ignoring Clapper and Brennan a pair of high ranking government officials who got caught lying to Congress and were never even charged.  
 

LIE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

LIE!

Quoting a Joke post and calling it a lie is redundant.  Please make a note of it. If he ever posts something true, please bring it to our attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

And Trump accusing her of bias gets him something else to bitch about if she rules against his friend.  "She stuck it to him because she doesn't like ME" defense.

Attack everybody so you can claim bias.  #MAGA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Quoting a Joke post and calling it a lie is redundant.  Please make a note of it. If he ever posts something true, please bring it to our attention. 

Hey councilor.  Please indicate where I have lied.   Go ahead prove it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much longer will be have to put up with Barr/Drumph phony investigations of honest people. 

Sure, they get exonerated (for now at least), but their reputations remain tarnished. (applies to HRC as well) 

Banana republicans on the loose . .

Breaking via WaPo: The Justice Department plans to reveal soon that it will not bring charges against former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators about a media disclosure, people familiar with the matter said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AJ Oliver said:

How much longer will be have to put up with Barr/Drumph phony investigations of honest people. 

Sure, they get exonerated (for now at least), but their reputations remain tarnished. (applies to HRC as well) 

Banana republicans on the loose . .

Breaking via WaPo: The Justice Department plans to reveal soon that it will not bring charges against former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators about a media disclosure, people familiar with the matter said.

Investigations don't need to conclude, they just need to be announced for their desired effect.

Comey, before the election is a good example.  Biden/Ukraine requested announcement is another.

Weeks as a top news report on Fox to hammer home the guilt, with a small blurb mentioning the end of the investigation is enough to

keep the #MAGA's happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mike G said:

And Trump accusing her of bias gets him something else to bitch about if she rules against his friend.  "She stuck it to him because she doesn't like ME" defense.

Attack everybody so you can claim bias.  #MAGA

I really don't think it will do any of them much good. She was vetted during voir dire and the defense had every opportunity to reject her. They didn't. Add to that the trial is over, and she is not bound to remain quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

I really don't think it will do any of them much good. She was vetted during voir dire and the defense had every opportunity to reject her. They didn't. Add to that the trial is over, and she is not bound to remain quiet.

It’s pure bullshit for bullshitters and True Believers. 
The defense could have used a preremptory challenge on her and not even given a reason why. Did the idiots pimping this bullshit not think that the transcript would come out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It’s pure bullshit for bullshitters and True Believers. 
The defense could have used a preremptory challenge on her and not even given a reason why. Did the idiots pimping this bullshit not think that the transcript would come out?

They know that nobody on Fox will mention that.  

ONE area where I believe Kelly is speaking accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mike G said:

They know that nobody on Fox will mention that.  

ONE area where I believe Kelly is speaking accurately.

Sometimes Chris Wallace will drop som facts on a bullshitter. But yeah, Kelly is right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

I really don't think it will do any of them much good. She was vetted during voir dire and the defense had every opportunity to reject her. They didn't. Add to that the trial is over, and she is not bound to remain quiet.

Not if she lied on a Jury questioner or when questioned by those same defense lawyers in order to get on the jury.  Add on she was the Foreperson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Joker said:

It's amazing how many are willing to throw out the fundamental laws of our country, 

Witness intimidation anyone? telling a hostile witness to "prepare to die" is just a little bit illegal ..But by all means throw that law away . Thug.

 

Witness tampering is a Federal crime carrying a max of 20 years. Stone got off very lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not if she lied on a Jury questioner or when questioned by those same defense lawyers in order to get on the jury.  Add on she was the Foreperson 

The foreperson is elected by the jury. Not assigned by the govt. sorry they couldn’t find 12 republican white collar criminals to sit on the jury. You know, peers of you and the elk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not if she lied on a Jury questioner or when questioned by those same defense lawyers in order to get on the jury.  Add on she was the Foreperson 

You mean, like the way you lie all the time?

Just because you do it, you shouldn't assume others do. Most people are actually pretty honest

I bet you wish Stone could be tried by the Senate, that would make it so-o much easier

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Witness intimidation anyone? telling a hostile witness to "prepare to die" is just a little bit illegal ..But by all means throw that law away . Thug.

 

Witness tampering is a Federal crime carrying a max of 20 years. Stone got off very lightly.

Stone hasn’t been sentenced yet. The judge gets to do that. Not the bullshitter atop the executive branch. Not the bullshitter atop the DOJ. A judge from a separate branch of government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It’s pure bullshit for bullshitters and True Believers. 
The defense could have used a preremptory challenge on her and not even given a reason why. Did the idiots pimping this bullshit not think that the transcript would come out?

Since the objection came from Trump himself, I have to say no, he had no idea. That won't have any bearing on how this is pursued though, it will be vigorous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If she lied on a jury questioner"....... Would that be "lay on a jury questioner"? Or Lied On a jury questionnaire"?

 If she was fucking a jury questioner reverse cowboy, then yeah, that might raise some eyebrows....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not if she lied on a Jury questioner or when questioned by those same defense lawyers in order to get on the jury.  Add on she was the Foreperson 

Very interesting, is this how a right-wing conspiracy theory is born?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Very interesting, is this how a right-wing conspiracy theory is born?

This is the foreskin of the dick that decides to make a quick thrust, and then withdraw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

How much longer will be have to put up with Barr/Drumph phony investigations of honest people. 

Sure, they get exonerated (for now at least), but their reputations remain tarnished. (applies to HRC as well) 

Banana republicans on the loose . .

Breaking via WaPo: The Justice Department plans to reveal soon that it will not bring charges against former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators about a media disclosure, people familiar with the matter said.

Is this a superficial dusting  at the DOJ or a revolt?

Perhaps McCabe might even finally get his full pension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCabe will have an unfortunate boating accident in early March, off the shores of the Outer Banks. His fully clothed body will be found on the sandy beach near Okracoke, and his wife will be brought in for questioning. The case will be dropped shortly thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Amati said:

Joker hates democracy, and loves a man named Trump.  It’s too bad that taking a knee is considered sedition.  Maybe both knees? Perhaps a bow, or a curtsy will be demanded? 

Bent over a chair, hands gripping the back of it with his pants down around his knees would be most appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, badlatitude said:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

“The President has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” - A.G. Barr
This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!

8:33 AM - Feb 14, 2020



He "really" believes he has the power to obstruct justice.

If the President does it, it's not illegal.

That was well established during the reign of Richard Nixon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

The hypocrisy in this bunch is stupefying.  And, they seem oblivious.

Seem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

If the President does it, it's not illegal.

That was well established during the reign of Richard Nixon.

That's what he tried to make people believe, it didn't work out so well for him. We have a guy now who isn't afraid one bit of rocking the boat. It remains to be seen how well he succeeds at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

November will tell the story.

I'm becoming less & less optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

Not if she lied on a Jury questioner or when questioned by those same defense lawyers in order to get on the jury.  Add on she was the Foreperson 

Do you have anything other than your unquestioning loyalty to President Trump on which you base this?  Or, did you just reach up your own ass and pull out that attack on the juror?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Do you have anything other than your unquestioning loyalty to President Trump on which you base this?  Or, did you just reach up your own ass and pull out that attack on the juror?

 

Stupid 9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

Not if she lied on a Jury questioner or when questioned by those same defense lawyers in order to get on the jury.  Add on she was the Foreperson 

So who do you want to denounce?  Or is this it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

Not if she lied on a Jury questioner or when questioned by those same defense lawyers in order to get on the jury.  Add on she was the Foreperson 

Lying bad :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOJ Alumni Statement on the Events Surrounding the Sentencing of Roger Stone

"A person should not be given special treatment in a criminal prosecution because they are a close political ally of the President. Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oopsie sounds like Judge Amy may be on the verge of a sense of humour failure...

from Axios

Judge sets "scheduling" conference call ahead of Roger Stone sentencing

Zachary Basu

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has requested a Feb. 18 "scheduling" conference call in the Roger Stone case, two days before the former Trump associate is set to be sentenced.

Why it matters: Stone's defense team on Friday filed a sealed motion for a new trial — the second time they've done so — amid allegations of juror bias and a growing controversy over Attorney General Bill Barr's intervention in the case.

Background: Stone was charged and convicted for covering up his attempts to find out more about WikiLeaks' release of damaging emails about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

Career prosecutors had recommended that Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison for crimes that include lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

A day after the sentencing memo was filed, the Justice Department overruled the recommendation in an astonishing move that has prompted allegations of political interference, especially in light of Trump's tweets about the case.

All four career prosecutors withdrew from the case. Barr claims that the Justice Department planned to intervene prior to Trump tweeting that the sentencing recommendation was a "miscarriage of justice," and publicly advised the president to stop tweeting in an interview last week.

Go deeper: Over 1,100 former DOJ officials call for Barr's resignation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites