BREAKING: Mueller’s Prosecutor Abruptly Resigns From Roger Stone Case After DOJ Backs Down From Exce

Good question, I don't recall the LW then calling Eric Holder Obama's pet.

 

And the prosecution is a kangaroo clown show. You do have an idea what the norm is - because the defense has told us what the norm is.

 

Everyone knows those were the builders fault.

 

Making the argument that sentence was too severe is one thing, but to make an unfounded allegation that the whole process was tainted is a kangaroo conspiracy. Having Barr interfering with the DOJ on behalf of Trump is beyond the pale.

Note, all politics are cyclical, in a few years, control will be reversed, and if other Presidents were to do the same as Trump, these same Trump supporters will be braying and bleating about fairness.

 

They probably wouldn't be arguing for a higher sentence. And, Roger Stone has made a career out of being a "political clown."

 

Be that as it may - it does not change the fact that the whole process was tainted - see post 150

 

I agree with your second comment . See post 150 for a response to your first comment.

 

A "Patriot" adheres to the "rule of law." On tax violations, we have "statutes of limitation." If Tax violations were outside of those limits, they would not have been prosecuted. Clinton was rightfully impeached for perjury...as was Stone.
What does the phrase "beyond variable" mean?

 

Barr Barr Black sheep has surrendered the co-equal independence of the Justice department to Dirty Donald who is now evidently king Dirty Donald.

 

Probably Russian disinformation.

 

Beyond variable means that the sentencing guidelines vary to much fall within the Rule of Law - "Equal Justice Under the Law" - as does the practice of "Charge Stacking" which happened. This is where the prosecution charges the defendant with everything under the Sun - knowing that most won't stick - adding up to decades in time. Then coerces the defended to plead guilty to some lesser charge.

It is the violation of the Rule of Law that is the problem here ... and as a "Patriot" you should recognize this.

Twirling around claiming "Clinton and Stone were rightfully impeached" - does not make it so. You made no effort to address the argument given my myself - and Dershowitz

This was illegitimate use of authority - both in White Water and Russiagate - and I explained why. Congress accepted Dershowitz's argument which is why there were changed made to the rules with respect to these investigations after White Water. Unfortunately those changes did not work.

The Russiagate affair was a clown show. The Prosecution knew within a week that the Trump was not guilty of the charges for which the investigation was initiated.

Then you have Mueller as the Special Prosecutor. He is as corrupt as they come - with a long and demonstrable track record of violations of the rule of law and the rules of justice .. in particular when it comes to vigorously prosecuting the innocent - a man who has a severe lack of integrity - and everybody knows it. His past is not some secret - Google it.

Despite this - we had the clown show media touting Mueller as a Man of the highest integrity and honor - lying their faces of - and they knew it.

 

I have personally been on the short end of unequal justice, but you still haven't made a case as to why this applies in your argument

 

I think you mean that "the sentencing guidelines vary too much to fall within the Rule of Law." That, of course, is simply your opinion that the sentencing guidelines are not correct. Presumably, a good attorney can identify "charge stacking" and, so to speak, sift the wheat from the sheaf, fighting all charges as appropriate. Remember, Stone's trial is over...he was found guilty on ALL seven counts of his indictment. I believe the judge sentencing could decide not only the sentence, but whether or not to allow the different penalties to run concurrently or consecutively. Nor does the judge have to abide by the prosecution's recommendation.
The rest of your post is standard Trump supporter fare...If Mueller cleared Trump of a conspiracy with the Russians, why do you now call him a liar? I don't know what Dershowitz's opinion on the Stone sentencing is/was. IMO, he offered a lame argument, during the Senate trial, which ran contrary to most "expert opinion" on constitutional law, as a defense attorney...NOT - as he pointed out himself - as an expert witness.

 

As have many. Equal justice under the law = folks get the same sentence for the same crime. The norm for crimes of this nature is 24-36 months -- not 7-9 years.

The second problem is that the special prosecutor is allowed to violate civil liberties and other principles of justice- something not allowed in normal court proceedings.

What part of - "the # of inches of cigar inserted into Monica's oval orifice by Slick Willy - was not relevant to Whitewater" are you having trouble understanding ?

 

I am not sure if the "Charge Stacking" thing applies to Stone - it was certainly practiced in the case of others who had their lives dismantled as a function of Russiagate. . It matters not if the defense council identifies it - our kangaroo system allows this - which is part of what makes our system a Kangaroo system.

The other thing you failed to comment on is the fact that the Special Prosecutor went out of Scope. This is a big deal to anyone with Patriotic blood running through their veins.

 

What do you mean by "normal court proceeding?" Why do you think it wasn't a normal court proceeding?

 

I explained this to you already ? If someone is on Trial for misappropriation of funds - (as was the case with Whitewater) - you don't get to ask that person about their sex life. Defense Council "Objection" - Judge "Sustained".

Here are some comments by Dershowitz

 

Let's stick to the Stone case, shall we? Your general complaint about American justice is noted, but it has worked reasonably well for over 200 years. I don't know what you are referencing with your charge that Mueller went out of "scope." Mueller had two charges...to look into the possibility of conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign and secondly, following the firing of Comey, to look at the possibility of obstruction of justice by the President. Stone was certainly involved in both.

 

What part of "where is the crime" did you not understand ?

What part of Dershowitz saying "the President can't be charged with obstruction of Justice for firing Comey" did you not understand ?

Hopefully this article will help. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/08/...litical-establishment-it-is-still-the-new-42/

 

Ah...the Clinton case. Clinton was the victim of what Republicans are now claiming was/is a perjury trap. Today, relative to Trump, it would be as if Mueller went after Trump for campaign finance violations in paying off Stormy Daniels and others to protect him politically just before the election. Another Court may pursue that, but Mueller didn't. You may check out Mueller's questions to Trump in the Mueller report.

 

Per the DoJ policy, Trump can't be indicted at all, for anything, as long as he's President. But, neither can he hide behind the powers of the office of the presidency, to cover-up a crime. So...if he fired Comey simply because he didn't like him, that would be his prerogative (Dershowitz's argument). On the other hand, if he fired Comey because Comey refused to "go light" on Flynn, that could be construed as an abuse of power and obstruction of justice. No conclusion was reached in that regard by Mueller, who was charged by Rosenstein to look into it as part of the investigation. Mueller determined that due to several factors, only one of which related to DoJ policy on indictment, he could not come to a conclusion and passed that decision onto to his boss AG Barr, who determined that the evidence did not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, and hence also did not rise to the level wherein consideration of the DoJ policy would come into play.
Dershowitz is wrong regarding whether or not the President could have been charged with obstruction had he been indictable or convicted on impeachment and indicted after removal from office. We went through all of this with Nixon...when he tried to fire Archibald Cox. The President may not use his presidential powers to cover-up a crime.

 

You are missing the point - Just as asking about Clinton's sex life was "out of scope" - Tax fraud a decade ago was also out of scope.

 

That there's still a fighting chance for basic competence??

 

Not to any of us with Patriotic blood flowing through our veins.

You say that crimes were "covered up" - What crime ? There was none. Trump did not help Russia hack into the DNC - nor did he help the Russian FB ad group.

Read the article - "Judge Koeltl concluded that, quite simply, the claims made as the basis of Russiagate are insufficient to even warrant a hearing."

The key finding is this. Even accepting the DNC’s evidence at face value, the judge ruled that it provides no evidence of collusion between Russia, WikiLeaks or any of the named parties to hack the DNC’s computers. It is best expressed here in this dismissal of the charge that a property violation was committed, but in fact the same ruling by the judge that no evidence has been presented of any collusion for an illegal purpose, runs through the dismissal of each and every one of the varied charges put forward by the DNC as grounds for their suit.

From the Mueller Report:



What did Manifort's tax fraud have to do with the claim that Trump helped to hack the DNC ?

This is what happens in kangarooland.

 

Not following your "out of scope" defense as it related to Stone. Don't think there were any lies related to Stone's sex life or to his taxes. All of it was related to Mueller's original "scope of investigation" - conspiracy with the Russians and obstruction of justice. The charges against Stone were: 1) Witness tampering (maximum sentence = 20 yrs); 2) False Statements (six charges, with maximum sentence of 5 yrs on each charge = 30 yrs). Total maximum sentence (if "stacked" and served consecutively = 50 years). Prosecution recommendation: 7-9 years.