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

Expressing an opinion isn’t a crime against the state. Maybe in a Fascist regime, but not in the United States

 

Based entirely on a false document that Obama was brief on by Mary Jacoby on April 19th of 2016. (Yep, verified)

On April 19, 2016 Mary Jacoby shows up on White House visitor logs meeting with President Obama.

June 24th, 2017, Mary Jacoby appears on Facebook taking credit for the origination of the Russiagate narrative.”

 

Unelected government officials misusing their powers against political opponents.

What do you think Sen. Schumer meant when he said the Intel agencies have seven ways from Sunday to get back at you?

 

Trump's lawyers need to be reviewing the records of the most aggressive prosecutors outside the federal system. The DOJ cannot deal with the kind of systemic institutional corruption that has become entrenched within the USG.

 

LOL, IG Horowitz wondered why it wasn't shut down in early 2017 given what was known then. Both Barr and Durham have said they do not agree the start was adequately predicated, and the IG admitted there was fraudulent evidence presented to the FISA court and that exculpatory evidence was altered. He said he got no satisfactory explanation as to why all the 'mistakes' just happened to go against Trump. Did you forget about Strozek's 'Plan B' in case Trump was elected, and him saying 'We'll stop him'?

 

LOL No Guava, I didn't.

You haven't proved that the 'enhancement's' were false. You simply said that they were.

And no, I didn't defend the lawyers decision on how many years to request. I defended the notion that it's reasonable to believe that having your guidelines altered by your boss for political reasons was sufficient to cause consternation. Learn to read.

No it isn't.

The determination of the enhancements being false lies squarely on you and those defending Trump/Barr in this. You haven't proven anything wrong except in your own head. The enhancements did occur.

More off topic fun eh? I've beaten you down about this numerous times. Can't help it if your so punch drunk you think your winning. So yeah, keep throwing these out there to the void where nobody else cares.

Not at all. The enhancement was for the threat. Not for the feeling of being threatened.

I didn't leave anything out.

Here is the law again, in case you skipped past the big words
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
(Evidently we now have a 16000 character limit, so feel free to click on the link yourself)

So where in the above does the feelings of the threatened get talked about?

lol. You should be smart enough to know by know that I tend to google everything. You should try it, it would save us both a ton of wasted time

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/what-is-roger-stones-net-worth-today.html/

Was 5m right when he was arrested. Now he says 50k.

As he is a private figure, who's salaries and worth are not public figures, this is what we have to work with.

I've cited the law a couple of times in this thread now. Once in this post. You should try reading it for once.

What law states that it shouldn't be refused? I've posted the law. Go read it and show me where the threatened's state of mind plays a role in the law.

I didn't write the laws. Your govt did. Take it up with them. Also, all the threats were what got him the extra 8 points. not just the dog stuff. The other 3 indictments also got him 8 points.

Hey, look at that. An actual 'opinion' on the matter by a lawyer. And hey, a reasonable one too (other than the fact that the author seems to accept the Govts statements at face value. Not a good look, but whatev). Also, the Lawyer seems to mix up his example as he somehow states that non-violent crimes get lower sentences yet uses the example of someone using a gun in a crime of violence or drug trafficking, you get 60 months, yet only brandishing the gun (and not using it) somehow gets you 84 months (a harmless, mix-up, i'm sure) but no big deal.

Well, here is my counter-opinion - one of 3 cases cited by the Supreme Court in a decision regarding a case about why threats of violence were outside the first amendment.

You show that statement to any reasonable person, knowing the context and the circumstances under which the threat was made, would conclude that they intentionally communicated the threat to the individual.

The ability of the individual to carry out said threat is immaterial.

I guess it would be too much for you to differentiate between defending the reaction of said lawyers, and the lawyers recommendation.

Because I felt that after arguing the points of the situation, I'd offer my own thoughts on the matter. I guess that was a bit much for you.

Nope. It was true threat because he made it willingly and intentionally and knowingly. That's all that is necessary.

Lying is still lying whether it's weak or not.

lol if this were Stalin, he would have disappeared on the 25th rather then being arrested. And if they decided to go through with the show of a trial, we wouldn't have having this conversation because it would have been over on the 27th and he would have disappeared then. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good fear.

 

Didn't manage to "stop him" though, did they??

We need new Deep State guys...

 

Don't see a thread on this, so I'll recycle this thread as all things Roger

No delay for sentencing for Stone... it's on for Thursday

https://www.yahoo.com/news/roger-stone-fails-sway-judge-171344660.html

I guess he didn't threaten her on social media this time, so that's a step in the right direction...

 

Not without lack of trying. And frankly, we should all be concerned. We all should want Lady Liberty to be blind. But we also want investigators to have an eye out for the truth and not to be prejudged as to what the truth is(or may be.) "That didn't matter, but this. THIS matters." I don't want any agent of any agency professing to be a "bureau of investigations" to have this mindset.

It completely corrupts the mind of the investigator(his protests aside), and ruins the investigation. Imagine if we had applied common sense to Crossfire Hurricane: The man's a dolt, an idiot, could he really conceive of a scheme to collude with the Russians? If Liberals believe what they believe about the President(and I profess he doesn't always have his brightest moments.), then you couldn't possibly believe that he'd be Putin's agent or puppet.

Ocean's razor: The easiest explanation is the answer. These investigators forgot that, and engaged in Crossfire Hurricane as a result.

 

I am aware of all of that. While a counter-intelligence operation may also be defensive, the threshold for "probable cause," in determining whether or not an investigation needs to be launched is much lower than that needed for a federal criminal investigation. Prior to 9/11, the CIA, FBI and NSA operated with clear jurisdictional boundaries. In the private sector, as applied to corporate organization, this was called "stovepipe organization." Each department had their own area of expertise and "territory," not to be treaded upon by any other organization. I was intimately involved in such as a "program manager" in an aerospace company, that went into commercial product sales, resulting in the influx of people from "stovepipe" industries. Program management evolved out of the Air Force and aerospace industries. My main task was to essentially represent the customer within our organization to ensure stovepipe thinking did not lead to losing sight of the primary goal of delivering a quality product, at a competitive price.

Events on 9/11 and the investigations afterwards showed that the intelligence agencies had developed stovepipe thinking, which allowed national security threats to "fall through the cracks," i.e. their respective jurisdictions. [Similar to the regulatory arbitrage problems of the last recession and the financial institutions.] The CIA wasn't talking to the FBI, the FBI wasn't talking to NSA, NSA wasn't talking to the CIA, etc., etc. That led to the reorganization of the intelligence community and the creation of the Director of National Intelligence...who essentially became the "program manager" of the U.S. intelligence (along with the National Security Council, inside the WH).

It was this new emphasis on intra-agency cooperation (to avoid another 9/11) that led to a relatively new emphasis within the FBI itself, from domestic criminal investigations, into global counter-intelligence operations. That was the way Crossfire/Hurricane began. And, per the President's own comments regarding the assurances he received from Comey, the President was NOT a target of the counter-intelligence investigation, although some of the members of his campaign were.

The Comey firing changed that, but only because of the President's own remarks to the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Minister the day following the firing and the President's interview with Lester Holt, wherein he claimed to have fired Comey NOT at the urging of the DoJ, but because he wanted to stop the Russian counter-intelligence investigation.

 

Under oath, Andrew McCabe admitted that the dossier was the foundation of the investigation.
John Carlin admitted that the only source used was the dossier that was passed to him for the first FISA warrant. He signed off on the first warrant.

Why? Because no other evidence existed after the FBI found nothing.

 

Name the crime please.

I've offered my opinion on command influence and it doesn't apply post verdict. The trial phase hasn't been influenced. Besides, I cannot see how, even during a trial, the defendants rights would be infringed by command influence attempting to reduce the impact for the defendant. Wrong and questionable during the trial but not illegal or prejudicial as pushing for a guilty verdict would be. This didn't happen during the trial phase and wasn't against the interests of the defendant / now convict.

Trump should pardon Stone's the instant the verdict is overturned or upon issuance of a mittimus by the trial court prior to the appellate courts ruling on the mistrial.

Cheers

 

Sure... Hire a bunch of people with Russian connections to work on your campaign - which is what started the investigation in the first place...

That certainly follows Occam's Razor

Also, it doesn't take the remotest amount of intelligence to be a puppet....

 

Spare us the hysterics. This is Fake Russia Collusion part 2.

The DOJ did not "intervene". They simply made a recommendation, and it is still up to the judge.

My Lord the way liberals drink fake news koolaid is amazing.

 

As Nunes said, not only were they corrupt, they were sloppy.

 

That's not true at least recently, did lynch?

 

Except it doesn't. It's a logical leap actually. "OMG, these people are connected with Russia. So it MUST mean that he's Putin's puppet. Or that the possibility is real." We don't do guilt by association in America. That's actually a Ruskie thing. We need evidence, proof in order to proceed. Even in the scientific world, probabilities are strengthened by observable results. If this were to have been done correctly, James Comey doesn't refuse to speak with US Person Carter Page for example.

And Page's ability to refute the Rosneft story(that went to Qatar and then to China.), would automatically destroy the Steele dossier. Had this been done properly, Crossfire Hurricane would've ended in about a week.

It's not only the corrupt purpose of manipulating and withholding exculpatory evidence, but it's the refusal to even INVESTIGATE what evidence did exist, that corrupts this investigation. And it's why I want my money back. And above all, not only as Trump said that this can never happen to a President again, it can't happen to any other PERSON again.

Period. Everything about this, was the wrong way to conduct an investigation.

 

Page had Russian connections because he was a CIA asset, that part was erased from the CIA memo to the FBI, and presented to FISA court in an altered state.

The LW thinks Russia is our greatest enemy, doesn't it make sense to have staff with Russia experience?

 

I repeat:
This is Fake Russia Collusion part 2.

The DOJ did not "intervene". They simply made a recommendation, and it is still up to the judge.

My Lord the way liberals drink fake news koolaid is amazing.

 

Sure it is...and by the "state" I refer to the sovereignty of the people, which is the Western European conception of the State, that evolved during the Enlightenment. He used an "official means of communication" and he attacked another branch of government. We may assume he will use his powers to punish those whom he attacks. If he gets away with it, the next attacks will become more brutal and blatant. There was an old South phrase during its slavery days..."the whipping boy." That was the Master's slave who was whipped whenever the Master was angry about anything. Didn't have to be related to the slave's behavior at all. What has Mitch McConnell become, other than the President's "whipping boy?" Barr in the same category. In fact, this President needs A LOT of such people surrounding him, which is why he picks only the very best.

 

As if these judges have an standing at all in the matter. What a joke.

Establishment hacks hate the Orange Man.

 

It's an attack on the separation of powers doctrine. He is threatening the judge and jury in the Stone case, without any proof of a crime.

 

George Papadopoulis was first targeted when he started working for the Ben Carson campaign.

Why? Because he was knowledgeable about the natural gas industry in the Crimea/Ukraine region. The South Stream connection all took place without an ounce of involvement from Trump.

 

I don't agree with you and believe you are misinterpreting the testimonies. Cite the exact testimony, which is the only way we can have further discussion.

 

House Intel memo key point: The FBI’s Andrew McCabe confirmed to the committee that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) February 2, 2018