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

They asked for between 7-9 years, giving the judge several options including to be less than 7 or more than 9 (as always)

It's just a recommendation to get the judge in the ballpark..

LOL that the witness didn't "take the statement as a threat of bodily harm" for a threat to kill his dog.

I wouldn't either...

 

1) Trump was never charged with conspiracy with the Russians to Obstruct Justice
2) Obstructing Justice was not the reason for the investigation.

What part of A) Complicity in the DNC Hack - and/or B) Complicity w/r to the FB ads - are you not understanding? Going down some rabbit hole - that has nothing to do with complicity in either 1 or 2 - is out of scope and a "witch hunt" - by definition.

 

Am bored and am waiting to get lunch so i figured i'd try and calculate this out.
https://www.sentencing.us/

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) - Total Offense - 14

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (5 Counts of this)
2J1.2(a) Base Offense Level 14
2J1.2(b)(3) the offense (A) involved the destruction, alteration, or fabrication of a substantial number of records, documents, or tangible objects; (B) involved the selection of any essential or especially probative record, document, or tangible object, to destroy or alter; or (C) was otherwise extensive in scope, planning, or preparation +2
Total offense level for this count 16

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 1505
2J1.2(a) Base Offense Level 14
Total offense level for this count 14

Sentencing Guildline Comission
https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/annotated-2018-chapter-5

So Offense Level 14 for First offense - 15-21 months

Offense Level 16 for First Offense - 21-27

2 counts of 14 = 30 - 42 months
5 counts of 16 = 105 - 135

30 months = 2.5 years
42 months = 3.5

105 months = 8.75 years
135 months = 11.25 years

Least amount of time based on this = 8.75 + 2.5 = 11.25 years

Most amount of time based on this = 3.5 + 11.25 = 14.75

So the guidelines suggest minimum sentencing should be 11.25 years, and maximum should be 14.75 years.

So the prosecutors potentially low balled the sentencing guidelines and that still wasn't good enough. Yee Haw.

 

You've got to be kidding me!

An investigator becomes a prosecutor? Where does that happen?

 

Wow... I hope you get a good lunch for that effort... But I fear using actual math with wingers will get you nowhere.. Remember, they got lost in the Impeachment hearings when 2+2=4...

Here's a remotely amusing article on this unamusing incident, with some good new nicknames for Barr (white Rerun is pretty good), although I'll probably stick with the one that makes the most sense to me.. Fat Bob Costas...

https://www.theroot.com/all-4-roger-stone-prosecutors-resign-from-case-as-trump-1841633411

Frankly, I'd have to give Stone 2 consecutive life sentences for being douchy enough to wear those sunglasses...

 

Cite the page from the Mueller Report that contains that quote. I think you mean it's from Judge Koelti's opinion in the Federal Court of the Southern District of NY, regarding a civil law suit by the DNC. The judge's verdict was in line with the Mueller Report's finding of "no conspiracy" found between the campaign and the Russians.
Manafort's tax fraud was, to the best of my knowledge, uncovered as a result of an investigation that began prior to the Special Counsel's appointment, around the time of the Republican Convention, regarding his chairmanship of the campaign and his prior activities with pro-Russian oligarchs, in Ukraine, who were also connected to Putin. The money he received from them was laundered through various off-shore accounts (including the Bank of Cyprus, chaired at that time by current Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and former Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackerman). The money was then apparently used to purchase NYC real estate. Manafort, also apparently "borrowed" money from the same oligarchs and connected them as the Trump campaign manager, to arrange for a way to utilize his position in such a way as to repay them and, in fact, passed campaign information on to them.
Are you trying to suggest that Manafort was unfairly convicted?

 

Funnily enough, it seems Barr is pretty good at this stuff

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...een-accused-of-a-presidential-cover-up-before
https://www.salon.com/2019/03/26/cover-up-attorney-general-bill-barr-strikes-again_partner/

Oh and this is fun
https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/...n-omitting-parts-of-justice-dept-memo-in-1989

Then finally you have this. He gave the order to snipe Randy Weavers wife at Ruby Ridge while she held an infant
https://www.theamericanconservative...nnection-to-ruby-ridge-defending-fbi-snipers/

 

Something about this post bothered me, and it just hit me... I had to search back to find your post and respond...

Check out that birthdate

 

2 tons of fun! Between him,Trump, and Pompeo, you have a real Murderers Row* there (of buffets and Constitutions)

* NY Yankees, not actual murderers, depending on the outcome of the Epstein investigation.

 

What quote are you referring to-? The quote given is directly from the Mueller report.

You then talk about Manafort's Tax fraud - which had nothing to do with anything related to Trump conspiring with Russia to hack the DNC.

You keep going back to the same vomit over and over - while ignoring the issue under discussion.

1) What was the crime ?
2) If there was no evidence of a crime why did the investigation proceed
3) The investigations into issues that had nothing to do with the purported crime - using special powers not normally granted - was illegitimate use of those powers - violation of civil liberties - and so on.

Do you not care about civil liberties or are you having a case of Partisan Blindness ?

 

Only if they get there before Nadler.

The outcome of the Durham investigation will be much more interesting.

 

Trump and Barr can obstruct access to anything (for a few more months)...

Durham investigation???

 

More breaking news from MSNBC....

"Judge denies Roger Stone's request for a new trial"

No link... truly breaking

LOL, I really didn't even know he had asked for one... something to do with the jurors and some magazine articles?

Pack your toothbrush Rog (and sharpen the non brush end)

 

Sure.

 

Of course they didn't they also did not say anything against when Eric Holder got Obama to assert Executive Privilege for operation Fast and Furious. Both Holder and Obama claimed that they knew nothing about the program. So, EP did not apply. That fact was backed up by federal courts. Yet, the Obama Administration waited until the end of their 8 years term to turnover the documents requested by the Congress.

They did not say anything when it was revealed that the IRS was targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups. Or when the FBI claimed that even though it violated federal law, that it was a workplace problem, and they do not regulate those.

Or enacted laws by Executive Order. While the liberal 9th District Court of Appeals ruled based on Judicial Activism instead of law. They ignored the fact that the current Immigration Laws do not allow for deferments.

There were many other violations of the Constitution, but the liberals still claim that the Obama Administration was scandal free.

 

Obviously they did, or there wouldn't have been an internal revolt. People HAVE to do their jobs in government and neutrally. It's that lack of ability to do their jobs neutrally that we had scandals like Crossfire Hurricane, that we've had numerous government officials lie to Congress.

And it's why I became more of an Authoritarian. If they can't do their jobs neutrally, they need to be guided by the hand to do it. And if they don't like it, they can quit.

 

All four of these men absolutely did their jobs, as proven by their ability to get a guilty verdict. The fact that there is a difference of opinion between TrumBarr and the rest of America isn't remotely a tick against these four.

Any attempt to smear them without actual proof of negligence will fall on deaf ears..

 

The Mueller Report is over 400 pages long. I've read it, but don't remember that quote. Cite the page. I'll give you an hour to find it or dismiss it as "fake news." Manafort's problems with taxes came up before the Special Counsel's investigation was launched. He may or may not have more information regarding the campaign's linkage to the Russian election interference. There was certainly sufficient probable cause to investigate, indict, and convict him. Remember, Manafort was Trump's campaign manager and the Special Counsel's charge was to investigate possible conspiracy between the campaign and the Russians. There was evidence of crimes...and investigations seldom proceed at the pace wanted by the defendant, whose position I assume you are taking. And, what "special powers?" Name them. Mueller worked through, I believe, two Courts (one in D.C., one in Northern Virginia) and two different Grand Juries, appointed by each of those courts.

 

2nd time, I have no issue with people arguing the length of the sentence. Now exactly what liberties were violated.

I don't care about the Clinton impeachment, that was 20 yrs ago.

 

Trumpie the Clown speaking "live" from the WH today.

"No one even knows what he (Stone) did"

You'd think somebody would have informed him that his former campaign associate was found guilty on 7 federal counts.

Stone was convicted of one count of obstructing an official proceeding, five counts of making false statements to Congress, and one count of witness tampering.

That's what he did, dummy... As I recall, Donnie was a little busy in the middle of November 2019, so I guess he missed this news..

BTW, epic watching today's Trump rant, because he was sitting next to the poor president of Ecuador (who seems an unlikely candidate to meddle in our election, so probably a waste of time), who required a running translation of the bullshit word salad....

 

Where did you hear they lied to their superiors about the sentencing recommendation ? The Federalist references a story from Fox News that says "a source". They are the only ones saying that that I could find

Thats not how this works. The prosecutors on the case have sole responsibility for the recommendation. Their is a reason they all quite the case, and one went as far as to quit his job at the DOJ. That in itself tells you that something is not right in what happened here.

Trump frog marched Vindman out.
Trump Fires Vindmans bother
Trump fires Sondland.
Barr suddenly gets "involved" in Roger Stone sentencing......yep, the Prosecutors must be lying

 

They did prove their case. Hell, Lindsey Graham just admitted that Giuliani IS in the Ukraine to getting information on Bidens son. And remember, Giuliani was working with Bill Barr, the president said that. All of those were shown in the trial.

 

Fishing expeditions - by their very nature - violate civil liberties. (including armed gestapo ramsacking your house - stealing your possessions - and arresting you) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...vestigate-evil-is-a-danger-to-civil-liberties

Then there is the violation of the rule of law - such as "Equal Justice Under the Law"

How much time did Oliver North get for lying to congress ? - covering up for Reagan and Bush - in a case where actual crimes were committed. North did not spend a day in jail.

If you don't care about the Gov't engaging in illegitimate abuse of authority and violation of civil liberties - that is your choice.

 

"If Obama did this the right wing in this country would loose the ever lovin minds."

"If"? Tell me you're joking.

 

The author references and links to the source .. which is not the Meuller Report. It is the DNC lawsuit against Trump et al... John Koeltl is the District Judge. https://www.scribd.com/document/420269577/DNC-lawsuit-ORDER-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-073019 - 81 pages.

Page 2 of the document states that there were no plausible allegation that the defendants engaged in hacking of the DNC.





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

1) What was the crime ?
2) If there was no evidence of a crime why did the investigation proceed
3) The investigations into issues that had nothing to do with the purported crime - using special powers not normally granted - was illegitimate use of those powers - violation of civil liberties - and so on.

You continue to ignore the above questions - because you care not about the Rule of Law, Civil Liberties, and illegitimacy of authority.

You came in here pretending to be a Patriot - but you are not.