Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger

To quote Donald Rumsfeld, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "Fully exonerated" is a bit stronger than "did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...". But, I won't quibble over your semantical interpretation, since we both agree that the case could be reopened in either the DoJ or the House based on new evidence.
That said, my personal theory is that Trump brought the Mueller investigation on himself, with his comments after the Comey firing. Until such time, it was an FBI counter intelligence investigation that would have probably ended in the same way as Volume I, of the Mueller Report. No conspiracy. Trump was probably unaware that the firing of Comey was beyond his powers IF connected to the cover-up of a crime. That had been established during Watergate, back when his biggest concern was not going to Vietnam, but in catching some disease from his latest date.
The firing of Comey changed the low threshold required to open a counter-intelligence operation into ensuring the continuation of the Comey investigation and added the possibility of obstruction of justice by the President.

 

My personal theory based on the text messages and emails from Obama's DOJ during the election, and after the election was it was gonna happen regardless....it was their attempt to undo the election, to quote Pete Pete "their insurance policy" - moreover you had Dems, pushing for impeachment in Nov of 2016....it was gonna happen, it was their plan, it just the false narrative and accusations didn't have the proof to back it up. The Dems were literally left with nothing but "parody"

with that said, the lies and false accusations did help them get the House, but it's not as if they could run on policies....

 

You may think that and have feared an election do-over, but there is no constitutional way such could have done without impeachment and conviction. And, that would only have given us Pence in the WH. And...yes...there were a few Democrats who called for immediate impeachment...but that doesn't happen without sufficient votes. Dershowitz went through a long list of "impeachable offenses" he believed earlier President's (from George Washington on) had made, who were not impeached. But, it was false logic. The Constitution gives the House "the sole power of impeachment" on the grounds of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, the latter of which has never been defined, and is thus defined solely by the House vote itself. The reason George, et al were NOT impeached, is because their opposition in the House failed to have the votes to do so.

 

Prosecutors NEVER exonerate any witness or suspect. They either ask for an indictment based on the evidence, or they are supposed to and are obligated to shut up and walk away. Mueller's Volume II and some of his statements in Volume I violate sacrosanct rules and ethics of prosecutors. However in the case of a Special Prosecutor it is probably not illegal and he probably has a little more leeway. But make no mistake, Mueller bent the rules fiercely in order to feed morsels to the gladiators at the gate of the white house.

 

The Mueller report was written by Andrew Weisman, he of the sordid prosecutorial, biased past. Mueller reminds me of Biden in the dementia dept.

 

Because they weren't impeachable offenses....the House abused it's power with this action...hence why it was the first ever totally partisan impeachment vote. Which of course is why he was also found not guilty, and fully exonerated by the Senate

 

No, but your reference said he did have to feel threatened and the perp had to have the wherewithal and intent to do harm for there to be a crime.

 

It was his, Mueller's, job to make charging recommendations. Because he did not have evidence of a crime and his prosecutors were out to get Trump no matter what he came up with the false narrative kicked the ball down the road instead of coming out and saying we find no evidence on which to charge a crime here. The House determined not pursue an impeachment because there was nothing impeachable in the Mueller report as confirmed by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of Legal Counsel. It had nothing to do with the scheme they later came up with concerning Ukraine. And yes your second paragraph is a guess. Cohen is a known liar and out to save his own arse not that what you alledge he said would have matter a twit anyway.

 

So...you think Barr should have argued your case to the Senate during his confirmation hearing? Mueller "bending the rules" is your opinion, not shared by many. And, I believe the phrase you were looking is "barbarians at the gate," not "gladiators," who may or may not have been barbarians, since they were usually drawn from the slave population and may or may not have been educated.

 

Comey deserved to fired. Everyone wanted Comey to be fired and his firing did not interfere or obstruct or cover up anything. His firing was always within his powers as President, how would firing Comey cover up a crime and what crime?

 

Close but not quite. Sessions recused himself from anything to do with Russia involvement and the Trump campaign and it was in that area, and only that area, that Rosenstein could act as AG. If Mueller uncovered crime X he had to get authority to pursue that crime X from Sessions, not Rosenstein. Secondly, and for the 3rd or so time, Mueller had authorization to chase obstruction ONLY IF SUCH OBSTRUCTION DIRECTLY INTERFERED WITH HIS AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION, which was "links and/or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

 

Yes, the same Weissmann that had all his Enron convictions overturned!

 

No...Constitutionally, the House has the "sole power of impeachment." So, how could they "abuse" their power? According to whom? We've only had three impeachments. The Johnson impeachment was also partisan, as was the Clinton impeachment. Your description as "totally partisan" is meaningless, as was essentially the Senate vote, by refusing to allow new evidence, via new witnesses.
Impeachment and Conviction on Impeachment is a "political process," not a judicial process, although it may also be that as well. Always was and until the Constitution is changed always will be. But, I think we've already had the argument prior to the Senate vote.

 

Ad hominem attacks? Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

By impeaching for somethign that's not impeachable....

Clinton's wasn't partisan...it was bipartisan...so was Johnson's...Trump was the only impeachment vote that was completely partisan.

There was no new evidence requested...the House Managers, after realizing their presentation was empty, made a desperate plea for the Senate to conduct further investigation, and bring in a potential witness, they failed to question. Their witness was known, and out there....waiting on a order to testify...the House knew of him....

 

Yeah, I meant barbarians. Shoot, I've been saying gladiators for over a year now!

There is clear and convincing prima facie evidence that Mueller violated prosecutorial rules all over the place, but no one had or has any inclination to raise a fuss about the hurricane that had already hit shore with heavy public support. (Sorry for the bad metaphor.) As I said, prosecutors NEVER say anything about exonerating anyone. So when Mueller says he could not exonerate that is a violation as clear as day. Prosecutors never describe all the evidence they looked at but was not sufficient to indict. (And this rule breaking can get a prosecutor disbarred.) Mueller's entire Volume II blatantly violated this rule.

 

You mean, when Barr says that is what the Mueller team did. You forget, I don't trust Barr's word on this matter at all.

As for the jury, that's a whole different ball of wax that I actually agree with you on.

Nope. Wasn't. Still not.

Except that wasn't testimony, it was a letter, that he explains after the fact was not intended to say that he didn't feel threatened at all, but simply that he didn't feel threatened by Stone himself. He did feel that it was a threat, and that it would/could be carried out by his friends, or Trump supporters.

LOLOL On what planet does understanding the frustration of being overridden have to be accompanied by the acceptance of their conclusions? That's asinine and would mean that one could never have any empathy for someone who's actions they disagreed with. Your really out to lunch with that argument.

Nope. Still isn't.

I did. I also read this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/opinion/roger-stone-randy-credico.html

His own words. From his very mouth.

Other areas? So you mean no fines have ever been laid down? How curious. And no, my classic responses for those such as yourself aren't allowed on this board. I'm simply not going to engage you in off topic responses anymore.

The irony is Lovecraftian in the level of its deep void.

Why would that make it true? We are talking about a recommendation, not the Judges decision. The Judge could have decided to give him 0 months, or life forever. That's her jurisdiction.

The law is the evidence. As well as the other links to SCOTUS Decisions and to explanations regarding Evidence Based Prosecutions. Maybe re-read the thread and you'll find them.

lol so your evidence that the victim of a threat doesn't need to actually feel threatened is the Judge in a trial where idea under discussion was 1 count of 7 and the Judge didn't give him the full recommended sentence? Ooookay. You hold onto that one.

I already know the (federal) law, and the possible penalties from a 'provincial' human rights commission.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/what-is-roger-stones-net-worth-currently

He was arrested on Jan 25th of 2019.

So yes, prior to his arrest, its reported he was worth 5 million.

You have anything that says otherwise?

The law is the evidence that supports the contention. That the Judge used her discretion is immaterial to that point.

And same answer
"The law is the evidence that supports the contention. That the Judge used her discretion is immaterial to that point. "

Are you arguing against the very text of the law now?

"The law is the evidence that supports the contention. That the Judge used her discretion is immaterial to that point. "

"The law is the evidence that supports the contention. That the Judge used her discretion is immaterial to that point. "

lol you don't really understand the concept of 'judicial discretion' do you?

I've provided multiple times, and somehow in your quote 3 above this you reference the law that I've provided. You can't even keep your own story straight lol.

The consequences? So far in reality, I've seen Zero consequences. Any real world examples you'd like to point to?

Not really playing, but it definitely feels like i'm taking candy from a baby though. It's ok though, i'm sure your mum will buy you another lolly.

CAn you say where you saw it say that 'he did have to feel threatened'?

 

The potential crime of a conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign which he was investigating. And, no, not everyone wanted Comey fired. I didn't. Some on the left wanted to blame Clinton's defeat on Comey. Some on the right who were paranoid about an electoral college win combined with a popular vote loss (which doesn't happen very often - in fact, based on electoral college victories, with the largest electoral college vote margin as 1 and the lowest margin as 58 - number of total presidential elections, Trump's win in 2016 ranks 47).

 

Oh wow...your party certainly wanted Comey gone....https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...rats-wanted-his-dismissal-20170510-story.html

Oct. 30, 2016: Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, accused the FBI director of breaking the Hatch Act, a federal law, by publicly disclosing new information about the Clinton investigation 11 days ahead of the presidential election.

“I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election,” Reid wrote in the letter. “Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”

Nov. 2, 2016: Days later, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, told Bloomberg News that he had lost confidence in Comey for his handling of Clinton’s email investigation.

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” Schumer said

That same day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, shared similar feelings with CNN and suggested Comey may lose his job.


“Maybe he’s not in the right job,” Pelosi said. “I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way.”

Jan. 13, 2017: Two months after Clinton lost to Trump, Democrats blasted Comey after a briefing on the agency’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the election.

One of them was Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, who at the time said, “My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken.”

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, put it more bluntly: “The FBI director has no credibility.”

Jan. 24, 2017: The fading confidence in Comey continued toward the end of January when Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-North Carolina, said “I think that James Comey needs to fade away into oblivion.”

 

I disagree...but, I believe Mueller did explain (in either the report or his testimony) that he was going a bit outside of normal process due to the importance of the case to the country. In a curious way, it was similar to Comey's explanation of his announcement of Clinton's "no indictment" before Lynch's final decision. People like Mueller and Comey ARE members of the Deep State and we should thank God for them. They are, IMO, the gate keepers against the destruction of our institutions that have emerged in a polarized society. But that's another story...

"Barbarians At the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco," by Burrough and Helyer, in 1989 and the subsequent film, starring James Gardner, among others was a great book and film that may have marked both the apex of CEO corporate power and the beginning of its decline and subservience to Wall Street financial power. It was based on a true story of CEO stock manipulation around the same time of the Jack Welch's, the Hank Greenberg's, the Dunlop's, et al. Shifts in compensation tax policies, diversification (as opposed to "core competences"), and corporate consolidations led - IMO - to the general sell-out of the American corporation to Wall Street, ultimately leading to the Great Recession of 2007-2009. But, that's another story as well...

 

What is ad hominem about pointing out that Weissmann had all (virtually, anyway) his Enron convictions overturned in a thread about tough and mean prosecutors. I didn't even mention that he put one of the top accounting firms out of business losing ten thousand or so jobs in the process, or that he was chastised (though not charged) for prosecutorial misconduct. I said nothing about his looks or his mother.

 

I vote Democratic today...but it isn't "my Party." I began as a Democrat in college, then switched to the Republicans the year of the McGovern nomination, and then back to Democrats with George Bush, Junior's nomination. Voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Senior. Voted for Hillary as the lesser of evils. Have always felt the Clinton's saw/see no conflict of interest between politics and getting rich...but that isn't exactly unique in American politics...from Washington until today. Old Southern proverb..."tote and carry privileges" - i.e. if you have a good servant, whom you pay far too low, you don't mind if they occasionally steal something. I figured it applied to Clinton and she'd otherwise make a reasonably good President - we just needed to overlook a few things. Trump, on the other hand, has long been known as a "hustler," whose only exposure to politics had been the politicians he bought, and whom I felt was a threat to both national security and the economy. I still give him a low bar to get over - no nuclear war and no second Great Depression.

Yeah...to use another southern expression, from slavery days, Comey was everyone's "whipping boy." The Clinton supporters got to blame Clinton's loss on him and Trump blamed him for the Russian investigation. Meanwhile, Comey was just trying to save the FBI and the country.

 

Ah...you're a former Arthur Anderson accountant? Again...it was the height of American corporatism...with bums like Jeff Skilling who put stock price above long term stability and rational growth. In fact, Jeff might admit such today. Arthur Anderson was "too big to fail," but did.
I thought it was improper, while trying someone for one crime, to bring up past offenses?

 

So this super special meeting...what happened? what was the impact on the sentencing hearing today.....

 

So that makes it ok for Mueller's right hand man to destroy the company on an illegal jury instruction?