Roger Stone trial set to begin (Update: Stone found guilty on all 7 counts)(Update: Trump commutes sentence) (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,722
    Reaction score
    11,960
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Jury selection will begin Tuesday morning. Note that Steve Bannon intends to testify for the prosecution.

    Roger Stone will go on trial starting Nov. 5 in Washington, the federal judge presiding over the high-profile case said Thursday.

    U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson set out a calendar for a two-week trial that will pit the longtime Trump associate against special counsel Robert Mueller on charges Stone lied to Congress and obstructed lawmakers’ Russia investigations.

    Stone entered the D.C. courthouse for Thursday’s status hearing uncertain whether he’d face any penalties — including jail — for violating the terms of a gag order restricting his ability to talk about any aspect of the case.

    But Stone was spared any punishment after Jackson opened the proceedings saying she didn’t “intend to dwell” on the dispute, which centers on discrepancies over whether Stone mislead the court about plans to rerelease a recent book with a new introduction bashing Mueller’s investigation.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/roger-stone-trial-1221289


    https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...n-roger-stones-trial/?slreturn=20190931143946
     
    I read that Stone wasn’t qualified to receive commutation per the DOJ guidelines. I also read that Bill Barr recommended personally to Trump that he shouldn’t extend the commutation. I assume Barr will be resigning today. 🙄

     
    I read that Stone wasn’t qualified to receive commutation per the DOJ guidelines. I also read that Bill Barr recommended personally to Trump that he shouldn’t extend the commutation. I assume Barr will be resigning today. 🙄



    I don't think Barr is going anywhere. That dude has carried so much water what is a couple gallons more?

    That is the problem here we all think that the straw will break the camel's back. Well first you have to have morals.
     
    Just a reminder....in January of 2019, during his confirmation hearing:

    Sen. Patrick Leahy(D) - Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise to not incriminate him?

    William Barr - No. That would be a crime.

    Now, I know that commutation of a sentence is not, technically, a pardon....but still...
     
    This is a really detailed explanation of why what Barr did was just wrong in the Stone sentencing. It’s written from the viewpoint of a federal prosecutor, taking into account that what Barr did was to flout the rules in an example of corrupt cronyism.


    “The four career prosecutors handling the Stone matter did what we federal prosecutors are all trained to do: They correctly applied the guidelines to the facts in the case and advised the court that the guidelines suggested a sentencing range of seven to nine years. They notably also informed the court that it had the authority to depart downward from that range “in fashioning a reasonable and just sentence” if the court determined that the guidelines overstated the seriousness of Stone’s offenses.

    Barr was promptly informed of this submission by the then–U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia—an amanuensis he had recently installed after summarily removing his predecessor. Barr stepped in; having the judge start her evaluation of the appropriate sentence from such a high range was unacceptable. Barr ordered that a new submission be made and that submission—untethered to the facts or law—urged a guideline calculation of three to four years, claimed a nonexistent factual basis for lowering the sentence (a bogus assertion of health issues), and withdrew the prior government position.”

    “That is not the end of the problems with Barr’s actions. Even if you put all the above aside, Barr had to admit in his congressional testimony that he could not recall intervening in any sentencing proceedings during his tenure as attorney general except those of two of the president’s friends. Stone was one and Michael Flynn was the other, in whose case Barr similarly submitted a revised sentencing memorandum to lower the government’s sentencing position.

    So what does this all mean? It means that if you are personally connected to the president or have information that could hurt the president, or both, you can be treated far more favorably by this attorney general, as he will bend the law and facts to the president’s desired result. His actions in U.S. v. Stonestrike at the heart of the Aristotelian principle central to the rule of law, that we treat likes alike. John Locke warned that “where law ends, tyranny begins.” Now, more than three centuries later, that statement applies to the head of the American system of justice.”

    This is corruption so stark, it’s obvious we don’t have adequate protection against a corrupt AG.
     
    If what Barr did was so extreme, why did the judge agree with the recommended sentence?

    They were Mueller prosecutors and the more we learn about the Mueller investigation the worse it looks. Mueller knew very early that there was no collusion or conspiracy, but he extended the investigation as long as possible. Mueller and/or his prosecutors also wove stories into their indictments despite the evidence they presented didn't support those stories.

    The fact that Mueller had to drop the case against the Russians once their lawyers wanted to discovery showed it was nothing more than an indictment to try to advance the media collusion narrative.
     
    That question is answered in the editorial, it’s not a very long one, at least not by Atlantic standards. Part of the answer is in my first quote from the article. They knew the sentence wouldn’t be that long, given the age of the defendant. There was no reason for Barr to do what he did, it just exposed him.

    What Barr did was corrupt, full stop.

    BTW, you have zero trouble believing that scores of professional law enforcement public servants are corrupt, and seem to support a giant conspiracy against Trump. Yet, you cannot accept that a single AG is actually the corrupt actor in this scenario? Maybe you need to re-examine.
     
    That question is answered in the editorial, it’s not a very long one, at least not by Atlantic standards. Part of the answer is in my first quote from the article. They knew the sentence wouldn’t be that long, given the age of the defendant. There was no reason for Barr to do what he did, it just exposed him.

    What Barr did was corrupt, full stop.

    BTW, you have zero trouble believing that scores of professional law enforcement public servants are corrupt, and seem to support a giant conspiracy against Trump. Yet, you cannot accept that a single AG is actually the corrupt actor in this scenario? Maybe you need to re-examine.
    Aren't you the person who usually discounts someone's post when people post editorials you don't like? I remember you doing that quite often.

    You still cling to the discredited Russia narrative even after all the evidence that's come out that showed how flimsy of a case it was, but you wanting to accuse others of believing in a conspiracy is rich.

    We have documented proof of those law enforcement officials being corrupt. Are you trying to say that we don't know that is the case?

    The movement to discredit Barr has been ongoing for a while. Those people looking to discredit him before the Durham findings are known. It must be really bad for the people he is looking into. I wonder if the FBI raids yesterday in Cleveland and Miami have anything to do with Durham.

     
    Last edited:
    You do not have documented proof of corruption. You may think you do, but you do not.

    Did you read the article? It’s not partisan, it just explains how the DOJ has established rules and guidelines for sentencing, and they have been held sacrosanct for decades. And then Barr just completely obliterated them to protect Trump. He intervened for someone who has said openly that he has damaging information about Trump and deserves to be rewarded for not telling the feds what he knows. This is what you are defending.

    Since you brought it up, what Barr is doing now is even worse, if that is possible. He is using the DOJ in an entirely, nakedly political way. It cannot be denied. You get all bent out of shape at unproven allegations about Trump being unfairly targeted, but nod approvingly when the Trump DOJ is just brazenly going about actually doing what they falsely accused the Obama DOJ of doing.

    The DOJ is not supposed to be in the business of investigating someone’s political rival, correct? I’m pretty sure you would agree with that. The DOJ went out of their way to keep all mention of their investigations into Trump a secret before the election, even though at least two FBI members were openly antagonistic toward Clinton, leaking unflattering things to the press. And we all know how Comey broke tradition 10 days before the election to hurt Clinton, correct? Now Barr has refused to say he will honor the tradition of not going public with political investigations in the run up to the election, which should enrage you, because that tradition is what is supposed to keep the DOJ from doing these types of political hit jobs.

    Barr is the most openly corrupt AG since John Mitchell and how you can defend him is beyond me.
     
    Robert Mueller wrote an Op-Ed about Stone


    Imagine how bad it must be to bring Mueller to write an Op-Ed?
    This is a really detailed explanation of why what Barr did was just wrong in the Stone sentencing. It’s written from the viewpoint of a federal prosecutor, taking into account that what Barr did was to flout the rules in an example of corrupt cronyism.


    “The four career prosecutors handling the Stone matter did what we federal prosecutors are all trained to do: They correctly applied the guidelines to the facts in the case and advised the court that the guidelines suggested a sentencing range of seven to nine years. They notably also informed the court that it had the authority to depart downward from that range “in fashioning a reasonable and just sentence” if the court determined that the guidelines overstated the seriousness of Stone’s offenses.

    Barr was promptly informed of this submission by the then–U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia—an amanuensis he had recently installed after summarily removing his predecessor. Barr stepped in; having the judge start her evaluation of the appropriate sentence from such a high range was unacceptable. Barr ordered that a new submission be made and that submission—untethered to the facts or law—urged a guideline calculation of three to four years, claimed a nonexistent factual basis for lowering the sentence (a bogus assertion of health issues), and withdrew the prior government position.”

    “That is not the end of the problems with Barr’s actions. Even if you put all the above aside, Barr had to admit in his congressional testimony that he could not recall intervening in any sentencing proceedings during his tenure as attorney general except those of two of the president’s friends. Stone was one and Michael Flynn was the other, in whose case Barr similarly submitted a revised sentencing memorandum to lower the government’s sentencing position.

    So what does this all mean? It means that if you are personally connected to the president or have information that could hurt the president, or both, you can be treated far more favorably by this attorney general, as he will bend the law and facts to the president’s desired result. His actions in U.S. v. Stonestrike at the heart of the Aristotelian principle central to the rule of law, that we treat likes alike. John Locke warned that “where law ends, tyranny begins.” Now, more than three centuries later, that statement applies to the head of the American system of justice.”

    This is corruption so stark, it’s obvious we don’t have adequate protection against a corrupt AG.
    Since Weissmann has been giving his opinions recently it's good to show how Mueller and Weissmann claims in their recent Op-Eds don't match up with the information their investigation found. The article goes into detail to show that there claims in their articles don't match up with their investigation.

     
    I clicked on your article and was going to read it. Then I saw who wrote it. Good lord. You sure cling to your favorites don’t you? I knew it has no credibility so I closed it.
     
    Mueller prosecutor’s testimony about Roger Stone disputed by supervisors

    Three career supervisors in the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office have disputed the sworn congressional testimony given by a former prosecutor on Robert S. Mueller III’s team, telling Justice Department officials they believe he mischaracterized communications with them about undue political pressure in the criminal case against President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone, according to people familiar with the matter.

    The prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, told the House Judiciary Committee in June that he felt politics influenced the prison sentence that was recommended for Stone, who was convicted of lying to lawmakers investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. After Zelinsky and other career prosecutors recommended that Stone face seven to nine years in prison, and Trump angrily tweeted about the case, Attorney General William P. Barr intervened and had the Justice Department propose a lighter punishment.

    Barr’s move drew widespread criticism and prompted all four career prosecutors to quit the case. Zelinksy’s allegation that the action was motivated by politics amplified the controversy, though some of his supervisors soon privately reported that they felt he had not accurately described what they conveyed, said the people familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Justice Department deliberations.


    Mueller's prosecutors are having a really bad week.
     
    Mueller prosecutor’s testimony about Roger Stone disputed by supervisors

    Three career supervisors in the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office have disputed the sworn congressional testimony given by a former prosecutor on Robert S. Mueller III’s team, telling Justice Department officials they believe he mischaracterized communications with them about undue political pressure in the criminal case against President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone, according to people familiar with the matter.

    The prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, told the House Judiciary Committee in June that he felt politics influenced the prison sentence that was recommended for Stone, who was convicted of lying to lawmakers investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. After Zelinsky and other career prosecutors recommended that Stone face seven to nine years in prison, and Trump angrily tweeted about the case, Attorney General William P. Barr intervened and had the Justice Department propose a lighter punishment.

    Barr’s move drew widespread criticism and prompted all four career prosecutors to quit the case. Zelinksy’s allegation that the action was motivated by politics amplified the controversy, though some of his supervisors soon privately reported that they felt he had not accurately described what they conveyed, said the people familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Justice Department deliberations.


    Mueller's prosecutors are having a really bad week.
    For the record, you believe this story despite its anonymous sources, correct?
     
    Mueller prosecutor’s testimony about Roger Stone disputed by supervisors

    Three career supervisors in the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office have disputed the sworn congressional testimony given by a former prosecutor on Robert S. Mueller III’s team, telling Justice Department officials they believe he mischaracterized communications with them about undue political pressure in the criminal case against President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone, according to people familiar with the matter.

    The prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, told the House Judiciary Committee in June that he felt politics influenced the prison sentence that was recommended for Stone, who was convicted of lying to lawmakers investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. After Zelinsky and other career prosecutors recommended that Stone face seven to nine years in prison, and Trump angrily tweeted about the case, Attorney General William P. Barr intervened and had the Justice Department propose a lighter punishment.

    Barr’s move drew widespread criticism and prompted all four career prosecutors to quit the case. Zelinksy’s allegation that the action was motivated by politics amplified the controversy, though some of his supervisors soon privately reported that they felt he had not accurately described what they conveyed, said the people familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Justice Department deliberations.


    Mueller's prosecutors are having a really bad week.

    It's not very persuasive. The original recommendation of seven to nine years wasn't an internal discussion - it was in a filed sentencing recommendation by the DOJ prosecutors. As briefed, it was in line with the facts and the factors considered for such a sentencing. Then Trump angrily tweeted about it. Then Barr, the Attorney General, stepped in and the recommendation was revised with a new filing to be a far, far lesser sentence. That's highly unusual.

    Those facts are known, they're public record. It seems like here the dispute is over nuance. Zelinksy believes that Barr's intervention to revise the recommendation to a far lesser sentence was motivated by Trump's response and Trump's desire to have his friend and associate receive a lighter treatment. Now three unnamed career supervisors state that they don't believe that Zelinsky's characterization was accurate.

    I'm not going to question the source because I think it's quite possible that they would say that and they would want to say it without attribution - they're career DOJ supervisors. But what I'm questioning is how it's so "bad" for "Mueller's prosecutors."

    What the article doesn't say is whether they think Barr's intervention on the Stone sentencing was not motivated (in a way that would not have happened with any other defendant that wasn't convicted for crimes relating to Trump) by the defendant's relationship with the president or the fact that the defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted in the context of the president's campaign to win the White House.

    From the bench, Judge Jackson noted her view that the refiling of a revised sentencing recommendation based on nothing substantive (no post-conviction developments) but based on the Attorney General's intervening certainly appeared motivated by Trump's personal interests vis-a-vis Stone. And Barr has demonstrated now on numerous occasions that he is wholly willing to insert himself and the power of the Justice Department into areas that are in the president's personal interest, rather than his official interest.

    So I fail to see how a disagreement from inside of DOJ about Zelinsky's characterizations is all that meaningful. They're not saying he lied about known, objective facts. Note also that the Stone prosecution at that point was through the DC US Attorney's Office, not the Mueller investigation.
     
    Last edited:
    It's not very persuasive. The original recommendation of seven to nine years wasn't an internal discussion - it was in a filed sentencing recommendation by the DOJ prosecutors. As briefed, it was in line with the facts and the factors considered for such a sentencing. Then Trump angrily tweeted about it. Then Barr, the Attorney General, stepped in and the recommendation was revised with a new filing to be a far, far lesser sentence. That's highly unusual.

    Those facts are known, they're public record. It seems like here the dispute is over nuance. Zelinksy believes that Barr's intervention to revise the recommendation to a far lesser sentence was motivated by Trump's response and Trump's desire to have his friend and associate receive a lighter treatment. Now three unnamed career supervisors state that they don't believe that Zelinsky's characterization was accurate.

    I'm not going to question the source because I think it's quite possible that they would say that and they would want to say it without attribution - they're career DOJ supervisors. But what I'm questioning is how it's so "bad" for "Mueller's prosecutors."

    What the article doesn't say is whether they think Barr's intervention on the Stone sentencing was not motivated (in a way that would not have happened with any other defendant that wasn't convicted for crimes relating to Trump) by the defendant's relationship with the president or the fact that the defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted in the context of the president's campaign to win the White House.

    From the bench, Judge Jackson noted her view that the refiling of a revised sentencing recommendation based on nothing substantive (no post-conviction developments) but based on the Attorney General's intervening certainly appeared motivated by Trump's personal interests vis-a-vis Stone. And Barr has demonstrated now on numerous occasions that he is wholly willing to insert himself and the power of the Justice Department into areas that are in the president's personal interest, rather than his official interest.

    So I fail to see how a disagreement from inside of DOJ about Zelinsky's characterizations is all that meaningful. They're not saying he lied about known, objective facts. Note also that the Stone prosecution at that point was through the DC US Attorney's Office, not the Mueller investigation.
    I was mostly referring to the new information that's come out in the last 24 hours about the Russia investigation that makes the investigation look a lot worse. Check out the Durham thread.

    The enhancements that brought the sentencing from 3 to 4 years to 7 to 9 years was questionable because Credico testified that he didn't take Stone's threat seriously.
     
    That’s not new information. And you believe they will indict someone after they have released all this information? I really doubt they indict anyone based on any of the information released. What would be the crime? One agent had a difference of opinion with the other agents? There was some discussion of what the facts were during an open investigation and a difference of opinion on an interpretation of those facts?

    Exactly what is the crime here?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom