All four Roger Stone prosecutors resign from case after DOJ backpedals on sentencing recommendation Trump tweeted early Tuesday, calling the initial sentencing recommendation "disgraceful" and a "miscarriage of justice."
quote
The entire team prosecuting Roger Stone abruptly resigned from the criminal case on Tuesday after the Justice Department said it planned to reduce the recommended sentence for Stone, a longtime Trump associate.
One of the four--assistant U.S. attorney Jonathan Kravis--went beyond just resigning from the case. He resigned from the Justice department.
Roger Stone backlash: Democrats demand Barr resign, call for investigation, hearings The fallout comes after the DOJ suddenly reversed its recommendation for a 7 to 9 year sentence for the longtime Trump confidant. Rebecca Shabad for NBC News; February 11, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...on-hearings-n1135806
Chuck and Nancy are calling for the play to be reviewed--say that President Trump should be flagged for OPI--Offensive Presidential Interference.
Originally posted by rinselberg: All four Roger Stone prosecutors resign from case after DOJ backpedals on sentencing recommendation
Don't let the door hit 'ya in the azz, on the way out !
Let the new impeachment begin.
The left scoffed at their President when he called himself a genius. He has them all scurrying around like mumbling monkeys. Unable to find time to carry out their own schemes.
All four Roger Stone prosecutors resign from case after DOJ backpedals on sentencing recommendation Trump tweeted early Tuesday, calling the initial sentencing recommendation "disgraceful" and a "miscarriage of justice." [QUOTE]The entire team prosecuting Roger Stone abruptly resigned from the criminal case on Tuesday after the Justice Department said it planned to reduce the recommended sentence for Stone, a longtime Trump associate.
One of the four--assistant U.S. attorney Jonathan Kravis--went beyond just resigning from the case. He resigned from the Justice department.
Roger Stone backlash: Democrats demand Barr resign, call for investigation, hearings The fallout comes after the DOJ suddenly reversed its recommendation for a 7 to 9 year sentence for the longtime Trump confidant. Rebecca Shabad for NBC News; February 11, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...on-hearings-n1135806
Chuck and Nancy are calling for the play to be reviewed--say that President Trump should be flagged for OPI--Offensive Presidential Interference.[/QUOTE]
I have never seen a post from you that supports Trump. And that is ok, I do not support any Democrat that wants his job. So I assume that this thread is some how supposed to smut Trump? So exactly how does this issue hurt Trump?
Realistically (I think) it's only the voters who can hurt Trump in this national elections year. Look also to campaign volunteers and donors, but ultimately, it's only the voters themselves.
I wanted to exercise my Thread Topic Naming and Message Wording proclivities--"Four on the Floor" and "Offensive Presidential Interference"--because I like it. It seems recreational. I can't do that unless I first decide to create a new topic or message.
In this case, a discussion that drew in other forum members also ensued. For me, that's like "bonus points"--or finding the prize inside a box of Cracker Jacks.
The federal judge for the Roger Stone case is Amy Berman Jackson, and she could override any reduction in the sentencing recommendations for Roger Stone and punish him more severely--effectively restoring what these four newly-resigned U.S. attorneys had in mind for him.
I think that Trump is setting himself up to issue a pardon for Roger Stone, or to commute his sentence. This is the kind of "look" that Trump wants for that purpose.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2020).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: The federal judge for the Roger Stone case is Amy Berman Jackson, and she could override any reduction in the sentencing recommendations for Roger Stone and punish him more severely--effectively restoring what these four newly-resigned U.S. attorneys had in mind for him.
Judge Jackson is an Obama appointee. She has already denied a request for a retrial. We know exactly where she stands.
It turns out the lead juror is virulently anti-Trump. Now we know where she stands too.
Amy Berman Jackson's appointment to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was confirmed by the Senate in 2011, on a 97-0 vote. That was a Senate that included 47 Republican Senators.
For a "deeper dive" into the topic of Judge Jackson:
Amy Berman Jackson's appointment to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was confirmed by the Senate in 2011, on a 97-0 vote. That was a Senate that included 47 Republican Senators.
For a "deeper dive" into the topic of Judge Jackson:
Funny, isnt it, that the Democrats accuse Trump of trying to interfere with the wheels of Justice, when Obama flat-out weaponized the DOJ and the IRS, and they didn't say a thing about it.
The "media" and the Democrats are all up in arms about what might happen. IMHO, until something does happen, cool your jets.
Everything being broadcasted now is all about the 2020 election, we all know where the "media" and the Democrats stand.
I would be the first to say that I don't believe Roger Stone should go unpunished, he lied under oath and unless he were to received the same justice President Clinton did for lying under oath, then I do believe he should be punished. What that punishment should be is not within my power to decide. Then again, I have a lot more respect for Roger Stone than I'll ever have for former President Bill Clinton or his lying piece of crap and traitorous spouse.
Originally posted by blackrams: I would be the first to say that I don't believe Roger Stone should go unpunished, he lied under oath and unless he were to received the same justice President Clinton did for lying under oath, then I do believe he should be punished. [QUOTE]Originally posted by blackrams: What that punishment should be is not within my power to decide.
Rams, Clinton's punishment was what ? Losing his Law license ? Wasn't that by his State's law bar, which issued it ? He had not used it in years and likely will never need it again. I believe it was revoked.
Law is Roger Stone's living. I think there are other sanctions that might be available. Such as limited suspensions.
rinselberg … your ilk claims that ... THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW ! I agree yet all their claims prove baseless. With all their Trump Derangement Syndrome, your self delusional Justice Warriors work to deny their President the defenses which the law provides to those accused. Your self delusional Defenders of the Constitution deny their President the rights the Constitution assures him.
You must be so proud of your team.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-13-2020).]
Rams, Clinton's punishment was what ? Losing his Law license ? Wasn't that by his State's law bar, which issued it ? He had not used it in years and likely will never need it again. I believe it was revoked.
Law is Roger Stone's living. I think there are other sanctions that might be available. Such as limited suspensions.
rinselberg … your ilk claims that ... THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW ! I agree yet all their claims prove baseless. With all their Trump Derangement Syndrome, your self delusional Justice Warriors work to deny their President the defenses which the law provides to those accused. Your self delusional Defenders of the Constitution deny their President the rights the Constitution assures him.
You must be so proud of your team.
Cliff, If my memory serves me correctly, you are correct about the State of AR revoking his license. My point was, WJC was proven to have lied under oath to Congress and yet, went unpunished by that institution, by DOJ or anyone else in the Federal Government. IOWs, what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
rinselberg … your ilk claims that ... THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW ! I agree yet all their claims prove baseless. With all their Trump Derangement Syndrome, your self delusional Justice Warriors work to deny their President the defenses which the law provides to those accused. Your self delusional Defenders of the Constitution deny their President the rights the Constitution assures him.
Seems like people forget that Constitutionally speaking we are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around, guilty until proven innocent. It is not Trumps obligation to prove he is innocent, it is the obligation of the House to prove guilt. It is not the opinions of the media and anti-Trump politicians that convict, they only have an opinion to offer, NOT a guilty verdict to hand down. The House clearly are guilty of Trump derangement syndrome, and that is all they were capable of establishing. The case they drew up, got shot down because it was weak and pathetic but the verdict was unanimous, "the House is incompetent and to blame for impeachment failure". They failed to build a case, and Trump did nothing impeachable.
Rams, Clinton's punishment was what ? Losing his Law license ? Wasn't that by his State's law bar, which issued it ? He had not used it in years and likely will never need it again. I believe it was revoked.
Law is Roger Stone's living. I think there are other sanctions that might be available. Such as limited suspensions.
rinselberg … your ilk claims that ... THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW ! I agree yet all their claims prove baseless. With all their Trump Derangement Syndrome, your self delusional Justice Warriors work to deny their President the defenses which the law provides to those accused. Your self delusional Defenders of the Constitution deny their President the rights the Constitution assures him.
You must be so proud of your team.
With all due respect, Cliff (W), you are name calling (on me), although this is only Misdemeanor name calling, and not the Name Calling with an Aggravating Circumstance that I described in that other "A New REBEL Flag For America ?" topic.
But putting that aside, let me try to clarify something that is particularly important--at least to me.
I have not straight out accused the President or the Attorney General of doing anything seriously wrong in this Roger Stone-related episode, about the sentencing guidelines.
It's very fair for you to think that I suspect the President or the Attorney General of serious misconduct in this case.
I am still waiting to see more of how this "new wrinkle" in the Roger Stone case, with the resignation of the four U.S. attorneys from the case, and one of them resigning from DOJ altogether, is going to play out.
As to the Impeachment and subsequent Acquittal of President Trump, which is something beyond this Roger Stone-related sentencing guidelines topic, although clearly related to it in certain way(s), here is where I am on that:
I actually have mixed feelings about it.
I think--and everyone should realize that I know myself that this is a ridiculous fantasy that I am using only as an explanatory device--that if I were one of the Senators who was sitting in judgement of the President, and if I had seen and heard all of it, from the public disclosure of the Whistleblower report, to the closing arguments of the House impeachment managers (Adam Schiff; etc.), I would have voted to convict the President on both of the two charges of impeachment.
A frequent expression has been that removing the President from office would have been a disenfranchisement of all of the people who voted to elect him President.
I think that not removing the President from office at the conclusion of the trial in the Senate was a disenfranchisement of all of the people who voted to elect Mike Pence as Vice President. It's part of the Vice President's job description to replace the President, if the President is no longer able to perform the duties of the President, and President Trump would not be capable of performing the duties of the President today, if he had been convicted on either of the two charges of impeachment and so removed from office. (Constitutional "Rocket Scientist" level of analysis here.)
I do not agree with Cliff (W) that the President was unfairly accused, or deprived in any way of his proper and lawful methods of defending himself in the case. (Isn't that part of what he just said? I kind of read it that way.)
I say "mixed feelings" because I do have a certain respect for the thought that was expressed by Florida Senator Marc Rubio (R)--I think this what he said, in so many words--that convicting the President and removing him from office would not be in the best interests of the United States as a nation, regardless of whether or not a convincing case against the President has been presented that leaves no reasonable doubt that the President's conduct was actually misconduct, and misconduct of the kind that is described in the Constitution within its words and sentence that are related to the process of impeachment.
I cannot discuss it further at this moment, because of a higher priority for me that has arisen at this moment, of performing the duties of "rinselberg" that are outside the scope of this forum.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2020).]
Who (besides me) just uttered that phrase? Reggie B. Walton
Who is Reggie B. Walton?
quote
Reggie B. Walton is a federal judge on senior status with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He joined the court in 2001 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.
What was he talking about? DOJ's criminal prosecution of the FBI's former Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe--a prosecutorial case which the DOJ has just abandoned.
How do I know this? I saw it on the NBC News website.
"DOJ drops leak case vs. McCabe, judge said White House involvement like a 'banana republic'"
quote
The judge ... said "the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted" was like a "banana republic."
" ... the public is listening to what's going on, and I don't think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted," ... "I just think it's a banana republic when we go down that road, and we have those type of statements being made that are conceivably, even if not, influencing the ultimate decision. I think there are a lot of people on the outside who perceive that there is undue inappropriate pressure being brought to bear."
"It's very disturbing that we're in the mess that we're in in that regard," Walton added later. "Because I think having been a part of the prosecution for a long time and respecting the role that prosecutors play in the system. I just think the integrity of the process is being unduly undermined by inappropriate comments and actions on the part of people at the top of our government. I think it's very unfortunate. And I think as a government and as a society we're going to pay a price at some point for this."
What was the next paragraph from NBC News?
quote
Trump has sounded off repeatedly about McCabe in interviews and on Twitter over the past three years, including calling him "a poor man's J. Edgar Hoover." Among Trump's problems with the longtime DOJ veteran is that McCabe ordered obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations into the president after he fired Comey, who was investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.
What is the "money" (most important) question attending this news story? Accounting for almost half of the world's banana crop and almost all of the bananas that are grown for export, this sub-species takes its common name from a member of the British aristocracy of the 19th Century. What is the Cavendish banana?Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-14-2020).]
This is the same Reggie Walton that presided over the FISC for five years during the Obama administration. I will reserve judgement until I hear from Durham.
I like how the media is trying to make out like Trump talking to Barr is somehow wrong but Eric Holder being Obama's wingman? No problem. Bobby Kennedy was JFK's brother. You think they never talked?
I like how the media is trying to make out like Trump talking to Barr is somehow wrong but Eric Holder being Obama's wingman? No problem. Bobby Kennedy was JFK's brother. You think they never talked?
Sir, I respectfully submit to you that your examples don't count, those examples were from the left side of the aisle. You should know better...
President Trump's public-facing side (remarks in front of microphones, "tweets", ...) is not what I would expect from the President who would be recorded in future history as the President that exposed (or started to expose) the Deep State.
This is the same Reggie Walton that presided over the FISC for five years during the Obama administration. I will reserve judgement until I hear from Durham.
Speaking of Obama holdovers, let's look at the 4 poor innocent put-upon DOJ lawyers deep state swamp dwellers that recently had their little tantrum and "rage quit":
Jonathan Kravis, assistant U.S. attorney
During President Barack Obama’s first term, he served as an associate White House counsel.
Kravis clerked for Merrick B. Garland, the appeals court judge who was nominated by Mr. Obama for the Supreme Court in 2016. He also clerked for Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court. Both of those justices are far-left activists.
Kravis was on the Mueller team of 13 angry Democrats, as they were nicknamed by the President.
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, special assistant U.S. attorney
Mr. Zelinsky, 36, will remain an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland where worked under Rod J. Rosenstein.
Zelinsky played a central role in the prosecution of George Papadopoulos....... Mr. Papadopoulos served 14 days in jail.
Zelinsky clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy before his retirement from the Supreme Court and for Justice John Paul Stevens after his retirement. He worked for the State Department (Hillary Clinton) during the Obama administration.
He was on the Mueller team of 13 angry Democrats involved in the Russia-Trump collusion hoax.
Adam C. Jed, special assistant U.S. attorney
Mr. Jed, 38, was part of the cadre of lawyers who worked for Mr. Mueller on the 22-month Russia investigation.
He also clerked for leftist Justice Stevens.
He was on the Mueller team of 13 angry Democrats involved in the Russia-Trump collusion hoax.
Michael J. Marando, 42,, assistant U.S. attorney
He is an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He has pursued very serious cases and was kinder to hardened criminals than he was to Stone.
Thieves and money launderers get far lesser sentences than Stone.
In January, Marando helped to secure only a 60-month prison sentence for a Virginia man who pleaded guilty to stealing over $1.3 million from companies and individuals by requiring deposits for bogus loans.
In March 2018, he secured only an 18-month prison sentence for a dual citizen of Russia and Israel who had pleaded guilty to money laundering as part of an international fraud scheme.
(Meanwhile, he wants Stone to get 7 to 9 years for a "process crime")
All 4 of these Millennial Leftist swamp creatures coagulated together within the office of U.S. Attorney, Jessi K. Liu at DOJ after the Mueller / Russia hoax fell apart.
Liu was inexplicably nominated to a post at the US Department of the Treasury until President Trump withdrew that nomination in March of last year.
She is also an Obama holdover and has her own long list of highly questionable actions highlighted by her manipulation of the DC legal case surrounding former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe She sat on the case for over a YEAR and took absolutely no action, even up until the day she left DOJ.
Liu also served during the Obama administration as Deputy Chief of Staff for the DOJ National Security Division
YEP , the same Obama DOJ-NSD division at the heart of the FISA issues where she would have had regular, direct contact with Judge Reggie Walton.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-15-2020).]
President Trump's public-facing side (remarks in front of microphones, "tweets", ...) is not what I would expect from the President who would be recorded in future history as the President that exposed (or started to expose) the Deep State.
Trump is not what I expected four years ago, either.
Trump is not what I expected four years ago, either.
Does it seem as if the Never-Trumpers don't like him because he fights back? Or is it simply another excuse to not like someone who isn't on their team?
Does it seem as if the Never-Trumpers don't like him because he fights back? Or is it simply another excuse to not like someone who isn't on their team?
My opinion is that they don't like him because he is spoiling their game. So many had it nice and cozy before he came along.
President Trump's public-facing side (remarks in front of microphones, "tweets", ...) is not what I would expect from the President who would be recorded in future history as the President that exposed (or started to expose) the Deep State.
President Trump's demeanor and actions are exactly what I expected, and wanted when I voted for him. The only way to change DC is to be an in your face game-changer. He is that, and more.
There could not be a better man for the job at this time in our Country's history.
Originally posted by rinselberg: … let me try to clarify something that is particularly important--at least to me.
As to the Impeachment and subsequent Acquittal of President Trump, ... if I were one of the Senators who was sitting in judgement of the President, and if I had seen and heard all of it, from the public disclosure of the Whistleblower report, to the closing arguments of the House impeachment managers (Adam Schiff; etc.), I would have voted to convict the President on both of the two charges of impeachment.[/quote]
Well, you clearly did not see it all. You need to see the end of the Impeachment thread. When I have a chance to offer my closing thoughts.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I do not agree with Cliff (W) that the President was unfairly accused, or deprived in any way of his proper and lawful methods of defending himself in the case. (Isn't that part of what he just said? I kind of read it that way.)
I am not surprised. You believe your news sources are off a higher power, more powerful than facts.
You would do well to read up on the topic "Fruits of the Poisonous Tree" .
President Trump's public-facing side (remarks in front of microphones, "tweets", ...) is not what I would expect from the President who would be recorded in future history as the President that exposed (or started to expose) the Deep State.
It is exactly what I would expect.
It is the deep state concept itself that cannot abide the light of day, transparency or public discourse. Keeping everything behind closed doors with a 'good ol boy wink wink nod nod' is why Americans have such a deep mistrust of govt and politicians and it has gone on for way too long.
Ya know Rinse, I don't hate you at all. But I find your posts to just be a large mental masturbation. I try to read them, I think they may be interesting, but then you start talking in circles and I lose interest.
Are you capable of just answering anything without going into the history of some bullshit you just googled?
Does it seem as if the Never-Trumpers don't like him because he fights back? Or is it simply another excuse to not like someone who isn't on their team?
The "Never-Trumpers" don't really have a problem with President Trump's ideology or especially his money.
Their problem is that they are old establishment Republicans and RINOs, (members of the "elite political country club") and they see the President much the same as Rodney Dangerfield in the movie Caddyshack:
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-15-2020).]
Having been drawn in by the odd juxtaposition of "banana" with the columnist's surname (Bunch) I read through the column, and one part in particular caught my attention:
quote
In a major investigative piece that got buried in the rubble of Trump’s assault on democracy and the New Hampshire primary, the Huffington Post’s Michael Hobbes found that punishment of white-collar crime has plummeted to unthinkable depths during the current administration.
Hobbes found that such prosecutions are at their lowest since tracking began in 1998 and that criminal penalties imposed by the Justice Department plummeted from $3.6 billion in 2015 to a paltry $110 million last year, with a similar slump from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that regulates Wall Street. The piece also notes: “In 2018, a year when nearly 19,000 people were sentenced in federal court for drug crimes alone, prosecutors convicted just 37 corporate criminals who worked at firms with more than 50 employees.”
There is a connection between that and a previous message in this discussion, about the prosecution of Roger Stone and the Roger Stone sentencing guidelines, vs recent prosecutions and sentences imposed on white collar criminals.
The "Bunch" column references another recent (and longer) writeup from Michael Hobbes, senior reporter for the Huffington Post:
"The Golden Age of White Collar Crime"
quote
Elite lawbreaking is out of control. This is the grotesque story of an existential threat to American society.
As you navigate your way through this forum, think of "rinselberg" as a GPS feature that highlights (with Internet page links) destinations of possible interest along your route.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-16-2020).]
