Patterico's Pontifications

2/11/2020

Not Very Brave Prediction: Trump Will Pardon Stone (and Flynn and Manafort): UPDATE: DoJ Brass Changes Recommendation, AUSA Resigns

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am



Donald J. Trump on Twitter:

Donald Trump will pardon Roger Stone. That is crystal clear. He will do so whether elected or not. He’ll probably wait until the day after the election. He will also pardon Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort. This is something people should take into account when making their voting decision. Again, the issue is not stopping the pardons — those are coming whether he wins or loses — but whether to vote for someone who will pardon people like that.

In making that assessment it couldn’t hurt to evaluate the complaint cited by Trump — the Government’s Sentencing Memorandum in Stone’s case.. The one thing about Trump’s tweet that was helpful is that it motivated me to read that document, which is here. (Chuck Ross screwed up the link to the document in his post. One wonders if that was deliberate, as it makes his complaint seem silly.)

Stone’s lies were all about concealing Stone’s communications with Wikileaks through intermediaries.

In his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Stone told the Committee five categories of lies. Those lies were designed to conceal Stone’s communications with Corsi, Credico, and the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks in 2016.

Although the Government phrases that in a very restrained way that terms it communication “about” Wikileaks, the entirety of the conduct shows Stone was using the intermediaries to get communications from Wikileaks about upcoming dumps.

In fact, Stone exchanged numerous text messages and emails about WikiLeaks with both Corsi (the actual intermediary) and Credico (the person Stone falsely identified as his intermediary). Those messages included: Stone’s July 25, 2016 email instructing Corsi to “get to Assange”; Stone’s July 31, 2016 email to Corsi instructing that “Malloch should see Assange”; Corsi’s August 2, 2016 email to Stone reporting, “Word is friend in embassy plans two more dumps”; and Stone’s emails and text messages to Credico in September 2017 urging him to pass a request for information to Assange.

This is the context in which the Government “calls” election interference a “deadly adversary” — or, more accurately, quotes Alexander Hamilton to that effect:

Foreign election interference is the “most deadly adversar[y] of republican government.” Federalist Papers No. 68 (Hamilton).

Yes, Chuck Ross, Stone was never accused of “working with” Wikileaks. But “there was no collusion” between Stone and Wikileaks in the same sense that “there was no collusion” between Trump’s campaign and the Russians. There was no active provable criminal conspiracy, but in each case the hackers were in indirect communication with the people they were not colluding with, and were providing very useful information to the people they were not colluding with. And Stone tried to cover that up, Mafia-style and Nixon-style — trying to obstruct a Congressional investigation into election interference, which Alexander Hamilton called one of the most deadly adversaries of republican government.

Stone repeatedly emailed and texted Credico urging him either to testify falsely before the Committee or not to testify at all. For example, on November 19, 2017, Credico wrote to Stone, “My lawyer wants to see me today.” Stone responded, “Stonewall it. Plead the Fifth. Anything to save the plan. Richard Nixon.” That sentence is a paraphrase of a well-known statement by then-President Richard Nixon to aides John Dean and John Mitchell during the Watergate investigation.

. . . .

On November 27, 2017, the day the Committee issued a subpoena to Credico, Stone wrote to Credico, “This whole thing will be worthless unless you find a place to do your Frank Cannon 10 July imitation: ‘Sure. Sure. Roger Stone this, Roger Stone that.” Seventeen seconds later, Stone wrote “Frank Pantsgele.” The line Stone quoted to Credico was spoken by a character, Frank Pentangeli, in a scene from the movie The Godfather, Part II.

Pentangeli in the movie said, in Congressional testimony, “Sure, sure, Michael Corleone this, Michael Corleone that” and pretended not to remember anything.

This tells you everything you need to know about Roger Stone, the mobster wanna-be whom Donald Trump will pardon, further eroding confidence in the rule of law and abusing the powers of his office.

Do you want to vote for that? It’s your choice.

UPDATE: All hell is breaking loose. I am on my phone at lunch and cannot easily post links or quotes, but top DoJ brass took Trunp’s hint and have directed Stone’s prosecutors to ask for less time, prompting the immediate resignation of the lead prosecutor.

This is how they conduct business *before* the election. I can’t wait to see what kind of banana Republican crap they pull *after* the election.

UPDATE x2: A second Stone prosecutor has resigned. Heroes.

UPDATE x3: All four Stone prosecutors have withdrawn from the case and resigned their positions as special prosecutors. I assume for now they will remain at DoJ.

222 Responses to “Not Very Brave Prediction: Trump Will Pardon Stone (and Flynn and Manafort): UPDATE: DoJ Brass Changes Recommendation, AUSA Resigns”

  1. At this point, given Wray’s acknowledgment about some of the FISA warrants, and what we know about Strzok, and the fact that the other information like the Steele dossier and the ledger are questionable pieces of evidence at best…

    The preponderance of the evidence points to serious questions about the integrity of the investigations. There is certainly room for a reasonable person to believe a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

    In that case, it is not only the right of the president to issue a pardon, it is arguably a duty to do so.

    Unless you support letting a miscarriage of justice stand.

    Inquiring Mind (7a1a0c)

  2. Good post. you wrote this:

    There was no active provable criminal conspiracy, but in each case the hackers were in indirect communication with the people they were not colluding with, and were providing very useful information to the people they were not colluding with.

    Might be my lack of legal education but what’s the difference you’re trying to draw between colluding with and in communication with?

    Also, what’s you guess on how long it takes someone to either comment semi-coherent inchoate rage or ask “what about” a conspiracy theory they believe in without evidence?

    Time123 (b0628d)

  3. As well Trump should. He should pardon them all, including Flynn. The true criminals were Comey, McCabe and that gang, who leaked classified information and tried to conduct a silent Coup against the duly elected POTUS, using a fake dossier of lies paid for by the Hillary Clinton Campaign.

    Page and Stokrz should have been prosecuted for using Government classified computers/phones to conduct personal business.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  4. what we know about Strzok

    What we know about Strzok is that the IG found that he was not motivated by political bias in his work. We also know that he hasn’t been charged with, or even credibly accused of, anything more damning than having an affair with a co-worker and exchanging personal text messages with her on a government phone.

    Meanwhile the president’s cronies lied repeatedly in an attempt to cover up Russia’s interference in our election on Trump’s behalf, and the Trump campaign/administration’s cozy, committed relationship with the perpetrators.

    Dave (1bb933)

  5. I loved the fact that the minute Trump fired Comey, McCabe opened an “Investigation” on Trump obstructing Justice. And talked to Rosenstein about “wearing a wire” when going to meet Trump. Note: Mueller “accidentally” left his cell phone in the Oval office after the interview. No doubt set on “record”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  6. What we know about Strzok is that the IG found that he was not motivated by political bias in his work.

    Not really. The IG found no evidence, because their inquiry was limited to asking Strzok if he was politically motivated. And not seeing any statement from Strzok where he explicitly states he was doing this for purely political reasons.

    IOW, the IG wasn’t investigating to see if Stzok was politically motivated. And merely noted they found no evidence.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  7. Actually, Patterico, I think that’s a very brave (including in the sense of generous) prediction. Trump is a “what have you done for me, lately?” species of sewer leech. He won’t pardon them unless there’s some benefit to him, and I don’t know what that could be. Bags of cash from their friends and relatives?

    nk (1d9030)

  8. The IG report was absurdly limited because they didn’t have the power to supenoa and their review was looking for violations of FBI policy and procedues. If the policy/Procedure didn’t explicity forbid an action – they didn’t ding Comey/etc. for it.

    Further, Comey and McCabe refused to apply to get their classification back. That meant they couldn’t be given FBI documents to “refresh” their memory, during the IG interview. So, Comey got away with saying “I don’t remember” or “To the best of recollection” etc. He did NOT want to remember, so he could hide any wrong doing.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  9. @1, Your comment is baseless and ignores the IG report which found

    -The investigation was properly predicated.
    -Strzok was involved in the investigation, but the decision to open the investigation was made by Bill Preistap.
    -No evidence or testimony was found to indicate political bias in opening the investigation.
    -No evidence or testimony was found that the Obama white house was involved. Indeed the IG faulted the FBI for not briefing the DOJ/white house better.
    -If did find abuses of the FISA process and a deep lack of awareness of proper procedure. It recommended significant follow up.
    -It also found 1 DOJ lawyer that falsified evidence, I believe they’re under investigation.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  10. Comey has to be the most dishonest FBI director ever. And the most self-righteous. I guess the best defense is a good offense.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  11. Smoke. What improperly-obtained evidence was shown to the juries in Flynn’s, Manafort’s, or Stone’s trials, that might make their convictions a miscarriage of justice? All that other stuff is “but, but, but” and “look over there”.

    nk (1d9030)

  12. RCocean, your summary is wrong.

    We further found t hat while Strzok
    was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire
    Hurricane and t he four individual cases, he was not the
    sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to
    any of those matters
    . As noted above, then CD AD
    Priestap, Strzok’s supervisor, was the official who
    ultimately made the decision to open the investigation
    ,
    and evidence reflected that this decision by Priestap
    was reached by consensus after multiple days of
    discussions and meetings that included Strzok and
    other leadership in CD, the FBI Deputy Director, the FBI
    General Counsel, and a FBI Deputy General Counsel.

    We concluded that Priestap’s exercise of discretion in
    opening the investigation was in compliance with
    Department and FBI policies, and we did not find
    documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias
    or improper motivation influenced his decision.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  13. ‘Also, what’s you guess on how long it takes someone to either comment semi-coherent inchoate rage or ask “what about” a conspiracy theory they believe in without evidence?’
    Time123 (b0628d) — 2/11/2020 @ 8:19 am

    We cannot take seriously anyone who has minimized the overt partisanship driving DOJ actions and illegalities regarding the Trump candidacy and administration when they now hypocritically flag Trump’s actions which are entirely legal. That’s the deal you made.

    I think that’s how the phrasing goes.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  14. He needs to also pardon Julian Assange.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  15. @5, was it when he fired Comey? Or what it when he want on TV and told the nation he fired Comey in part to stop the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election?

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  16. 11, he did leave Blaguito hanging after some talk, maybe Patti didnt give up the Heinie and there’s also 2 less Mells in public office than a couple years ago. I think he does the same to Flynn, but he’ll be waiting in the limo for Roger.

    If it bothers people so much, form a lynch mob outside the prison gates – I almost want to for the upcoming El Paso guy j.i.c of a hung jury or not guilty.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  17. Hi Munroe, let me re-post the relevant text from the IG report that directly refutes your dumb comment.

    Priestap’s exercise of discretion in
    opening the investigation was in compliance with
    Department and FBI policies, and we did not find
    documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias
    or improper motivation influenced his decision.

    Is there some part of that which confuses you or is unclear?

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  18. Further, Comey and McCabe refused to apply to get their classification back. That meant they couldn’t be given FBI documents to “refresh” their memory, during the IG interview. So, Comey got away with saying “I don’t remember” or “To the best of recollection” etc. He did NOT want to remember, so he could hide any wrong doing.

    Can you show me where in the report where the IG indicated this impeded their investigation? Because if not you’re making up things from whole cloth.

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  19. The only one of the three I have any animus for is Manafort. He sold Trump to the establishment GOP, giving him an uncontested convention. I don’t like Stone, but I see his “lying to Congress” as “speaking their language”. When do those crapweasels ever tell us the truth? Flynn, like whatever.

    nk (1d9030)

  20. The true criminals were Comey, McCabe and that gang, who leaked classified information and tried to conduct a silent Coup against the duly elected POTUS, using a fake dossier of lies paid for by the Hillary Clinton Campaign.

    If this were true what is your explanation on the lack of indictment of Comey or Mcabe? Are Trump and Barr in on the deep state conspiracy? Or are they just such incompetents they can’t figure out how to investigate and indict such an obvious crime?

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  21. @19, I don’t have any personal animus towards any of them. But I doubt I’d get any of the considerations they’ve been given if I lied to FBI agents or congress. Let the law apply to the powerful as it does the rest of us.

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  22. “Is there some part of that which confuses you or is unclear?”
    Time123 (ca85c9) — 2/11/2020 @ 8:43 am

    Viva le Crystal Clear.

    As you well know, the IG was limited in who he could interview. And, as you well know, the IG could not draw conclusions regarding bias from evidence (such as Stzrok and Page’s texts) which makes it as plain the nose on your face.

    Whatever you actually believe, it appears you and others are skeptical of everything in the world except the DOJ’s motivations. Odd. In fact, so odd that I can’t take all this up in arms about Trump seriously.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  23. We cannot take seriously anyone who has minimized the overt partisanship driving DOJ actions and illegalities regarding the Trump candidacy and administration when they now hypocritically flag Trump’s actions which are entirely legal.

    Then you also think the partisan motivated investigations by Barr and the DOJ in this matter should also be condemned. Right?

    kishnevi (496414)

  24. As you well know, the IG was limited in who he could interview.

    Excellent point. Now apply that standard to Trump’s impeachment.

    DRJ (15874d)

  25. Munroe, I’m deeply skeptical of the DOJ. If you’re honest you’ll admit that I said long back that I wanted the FISA process reformed. You think this is about Trump. I think this is how they operate when they think the have a crime.

    The IG investigated how the decision to open the investigation was made. They identified the person that made it. They reviewed how it was made. The compared that to previous investigations and concluded it was consistent. Their conclusion is above and you can’t seem to address it directly. Instead you throw out an excuse that they were limited. So, who was the IG not able to interview that would impact this conclusion?

    Time123 (b0628d)

  26. As you well know, the IG was limited in who he could interview.

    Excellent point. Now apply that standard to Trump’s impeachment.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/11/2020 @ 9:03 am

    No, it’s s dumb point because it’s vague and there’s no plausible theory, or any theory at all presented, that this limitation impacted the validity of the investigation.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  27. Media is 93% Dems👎🏽
    @7kidchaos
    .
    Can someone please remind me how many years John Brennan is spending in prison for lying under oath?

    _

    harkin (b64479)

  28. @27, Can you explain to me why Barr hasn’t charged such and obvious criminal?

    Time123 (b0628d)

  29. The government established that Stone lied to investigators, but never established what Stone actually did.

    The established lies are about how he knew, if he knew, about forthcoming Wikileaks leaks. Not more important questions. Like what, if any, advice he gave to Donald Trump, and possibly why..

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  30. “Excellent point. Now apply that standard to Trump’s impeachment.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/11/2020 @ 9:03 am

    Sure. Was the IG limited because the DOJ was exercising Article II powers? You know the answer.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  31. Our esteemed host asked us:

    Do you want to vote for that? It’s your choice.

    Just yesterday you told us that you were not sure that you could vote for Senator Sanders over President Trump. Why, it’s almost as though you believe that a president’s policies matter, which is what I have said all along. That Donald Trump is an [insert slang term for the rectum here] is not in question, nor is it a question that he, at best, pushes the edge of the envelope when it comes to the law, but those things do not impact our country nearly as much as his policies do.

    How many posts did you have on Kate Steinle? Yet while President Trump is trying to do something really radical like enforce our immigration laws, every Democrat running would open the floodgates to illegal immigration. Isn’t preventing that more important than whether President Trump pardons some of his cronies?

    Kate Steinle is stone-cold graveyard dead, because of the policies of the left. Now President Trump is trying to get rid of the ridiculous ‘sanctuary’ laws; that won’t bring Miss Steinle back to life, but it just might prevent some others from ending their lives the way hers was lost.

    The Dana in Kentucky (bb405a)

  32. @30, Munrow who was the IG not able to interview that would impact their conclusion?

    Time123 (b0628d)

  33. That’s a reason to dangle pardons — dangle but not deliver. To keep these guys from filling in the gaps in a chain of collusion that leads to Trump personally. If he pardons them, they’ll be free to tell all.

    nk (1d9030)

  34. My 32 was to Sammy’s 29.

    nk (1d9030)

  35. When James Clapper is prosecuted for perjury before Congress I’ll get upset about this.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  36. “Then you also think the partisan motivated investigations by Barr and the DOJ in this matter should also be condemned. Right?”
    kishnevi (496414) — 2/11/2020 @ 8:52 am

    Show me the equivalent of what Ohr, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Clinesmith, Halper, Turk did (for starters) and the answer is Yes.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  37. My *33*. Sorry.

    nk (1d9030)

  38. I don;t see Trump pardoning Manafort. Flynn, possibly, unless Lindsay Graham can stop that. But he might be at least spared from jail.

    He looks like he will pardon Stone, but not till after the Electoral College votes are counted, r, if he concedes a loss, around oor on the very last day in office, like Bill Clinton.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  39. Show me the equivalent of what Ohr, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Clinesmith, Halper, Turk did (for starters) and the answer is Yes.

    Pretty much everything Barr has done in the matter.

    kishnevi (496414)

  40. Munroe, See, this is the “whatabout the conspiracy theory I don’t have proof for.” Comment I predicted at the top of the thread. Now, going back to one of your earlier unsupported claims; Who was the IG not able to interview that would have impacted this investigation?

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  41. The real point is that the motives of the investigators don’t matter.

    kishnevi (496414)

  42. Kate Steinle is stone-cold graveyard dead, because of the policies of the left. Now President Trump is trying to get rid of the ridiculous ‘sanctuary’ laws; that won’t bring Miss Steinle back to life, but it just might prevent some others from ending their lives the way hers was lost.

    And in countless other areas, like not filling the courts with Stephen Reinhardt clones, or not calling my bathtub a navigable waterway, or allowing college students to have sex without lawyers present, or letting us pick our doctors on our own, Trump is heads and shoulders above the most “moderate” Democrat.

    And I say this as someone who dislikes Trump profoundly, and thinks his foreign policy is worse than Carter’s (and yet better than even Biden’s).

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  43. See, THIS is another of those conservative things we all believed in pre-Trump…

    the rule of law.

    Oh, and another…

    you are known by the company you keep.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  44. But has he made the trains run on time?

    nk (1d9030)

  45. Trump promised to act Presidential and also change things. It doesn’t matter if it is possible or impossible to do that. What matters is he will say anything to get what he wants, so we can’t believe anything he says. He is no different than Hillary in that regard.

    DRJ (15874d)

  46. OT but in line with DRJ’s comment…

    “They landed in a way that didn’t hit anybody,” Trump said of Iran’s missile strike. “And so when they came in and told me that nobody was killed, I was impressed by that and, you know, I stopped something that would have been very devastating for them.” He didn’t specify what he stopped.

    He said he later found out that there were “head trauma” injuries. Trump last month described the injuries as “headaches” and said he didn’t consider them similar to other injuries, such as losing a limb. He echoed that sentiment on Monday.

    “Head trauma — that exists, but it’s, you know, I viewed it a little bit differently than most and I won’t be changing my mind on that,” Trump said Monday.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  47. It doesn’t matter. Existence is a short-lived illusion and its only value is aesthetic. Trump he one ugly mother-figure.

    nk (1d9030)

  48. But has he made the trains run on time?

    The trains are run by unionized government workers. There is no hope they will run on time.

    But he’s kept his word on stopping the flow of migrants into the US. Instead of the hand-wringing helplessness of the Obama administration, as hundreds of thousands of Central Americans were allowed into the US under asylum claims (via “magic word” assertions) and then disappeared into the cities, asylum claims are dwindling towards zero at the southern border since they now have to wait in Mexico for a hearing — one they are likely to lose.

    A telling line in the expected whinefest:

    “We don’t have a chance,” said a 41-year-old Honduran in Tijuana.

    Alexander Hernandez said he came to the U.S.-Mexico border mostly looking for economic opportunities to support his three children and wife back in Honduras. He said U.S. border agents told him his chances of being granted U.S. asylum were close to zero.

    Hernandez plans to return home on Wednesday with a group of 19 people.

    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/story/2019-08-02/central-american-migrants-are-giving-up-on-asylum-returning-home

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  49. “Munroe, I’m deeply skeptical of the DOJ. If you’re honest you’ll admit that I said long back that I wanted the FISA process reformed.”
    Time123 (b0628d) — 2/11/2020 @ 9:06 am

    No, sorry, this is not the same as skepticism.

    Skepticism is being suspect of someone or something even before the evidence is there. Skepticism is what we’ve seen directed at Trump even before day one.

    I have not seen skepticism directed at the DOJ’s motivations by Trump critics. Skepticism is the Nunes memo, for example, which was attacked and ridiculed. Skepticism before Ohr, Stzrok, Page, Clinesmith, Halper were known names was written off as nutty conspiracy theories. Now, not so much.

    But now the goalposts have moved, though the same allegations of “conspiracy theories” remain.

    Trump deserves skepticism. The DOJ’s actions deserve it more, because (unlike with Trump) the nutty conspiracy theories haven’t been continually debunked, and actually have something behind them.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  50. What matters is he will say anything to get what he wants, so we can’t believe anything he says. He is no different than Hillary in that regard.

    Every Democrat says they will undo most everything Trump has actually done. I take them at their word. I judge Trump by his actions, not his words. He would be a pretty successful president if he’d just STFU.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  51. Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am

    Do you want to vote for that? It’s your choice.

    In short.

    Yes.

    Presidents has always had controversial pardons.

    Longer…

    If you can’t see that the Obama administration and Obama holdovers weaponized the investigative powers of the various agencies against a political rival, while at the same time expressed outrage over Trump’s desire to have Ukraine investigate the Bidens (a prospective political rival at the time)…which nothing material really happened, then aren’t you exhibiting some cognitive dissonance here?

    If you don’t want to address that…fine.

    However, elections are about the choices in front of us. Right?

    Here are my fears, hypothetically:
    -Democrats retain the House
    -Democrats eek out control of the Senate (either 51 seats or 50 seats + VP)
    -Democrats wins the WhiteHouse in 2020

    With the escalating tit-for-tat in the Senate, I’d wager good money that Schumer will nuke the 60-vote filibuster cloture rule.

    Just imagine the kind of policies Democrats will be able to ram through. You can assume that the Democratic powers-that-be would plan out and execute policies that would enhance their dominance electorally. Here’s a list I can see happening:
    1) Making Washington DC a state (permanently adding 2 Democrat senators in Congress)
    2) Making Puerto Rico a state (almost always going to be 2 Democrat Senators in Congress, note: I’m actually in favor of this for other reasons)
    3) Pack the Supreme Court to flip the ideological leaning leftward
    4) Some semblance of Medicare for All would be rammed through…
    5) Taxes will definitely go up for everyone
    6) Some semblance of the Green New Deal would be rammed through…
    7) I don’t think they’d win: but, they’ll definitely try to change the constitution: No electoral college going to popular vote.

    So, here’s are your choices:
    -don’t vote
    -re-elect Trump, continuing his GOP-ish policies with his flaws
    -Democrats sweep into power and fundamentally change our country’s outlook

    Me? I’m defensively voting GOP candidates for the express purpose so that any of the Democratic items I’ve listed above doesn’t come close to actually happen.

    …and I can live with that.

    whembly (51f28e)

  52. Looks like DoJ will reduce the extreme sentence recommended by the Prosecutor. No doubt to not give Trump another reason for a pardon.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  53. It’s Bubba or all those other guys in the cell block, eh, whembly?

    nk (1d9030)

  54. This tells you everything you need to know about Roger Stone, the mobster wanna-be whom Donald Trump will pardon, further eroding confidence in the rule of law and abusing the powers of his office.

    Rule of Law? LOL. We have Democrats in Congress and the Democrat Party in general supporting “Sanctuary Cities” and demanding we not enforce the immigration laws. And also, not enforce the drug laws. Not to mention Hillary’s Email scandal.

    So, any rot about “The rule of law” just brings out the laugh track.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  55. 53 It’s Bubba or all those other guys in the cell block, eh, whembly?

    nk (1d9030) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:07 am

    How ’bout addressing some salient points of my post?

    Do you disagree that the current crops of Democrats wouldn’t try any of those policies that they’ve been telling us they’d do???

    whembly (51f28e)

  56. Looks like DoJ will reduce the extreme sentence recommended by the Prosecutor. No doubt to not give Trump another reason for a pardon.

    It is his DOJ. If it would kill Epstein for him, it would reduce Cohen’s sentence for him, too.

    nk (1d9030)

  57. Other not-very-brave predictions:

    * Biden will come in 4th or 5th in New Hampshire, a must-win state, and shortly thereafter decide to give it up. He looks very tired already, and continuing in a losing battle isn’t going to work.
    * The next Democrat debate will have no more than 5 participants. Sanders, Warren, Pete, Klobuchar and maybe one other.
    * Sanders may be the presumptive nominee before March.
    * If so, Trump will win in a 40-state landslide.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  58. Munroe, You’re ignoring my question. I assume it’s because “The IG couldn’t talk to everyone” is a good theoretical excuse but you don’t have any evidence that it’s a problem.

    Despite that I’ll respond to your comment on ‘goalposts moving’.

    One year ago we knew that S&P had exchanged texts that appeared to show strong animus towards Trump. This made it reasonable to suspect their work, and the CH investigation overall, were biased. Since then we’ve had an IG report which found that Strozk didn’t make the decision to open the investigation. The person that did make the call did so with general consensus of those involved, the decision was in line with similar investigation, and that there is no testimony or evidence it was politically motivated. This isn’t moving the goal post. This is running an investigation and reporting the results. They didn’t find evidence that supported your suspicion.

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  59. Whembly

    If you can’t see that the Obama administration and Obama holdovers weaponized the investigative powers of the various agencies against a political rival,

    Can you point me to the evidence that this is true? Because the IG didn’t find it.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  60. How ’bout addressing some salient points of my post?

    Do you disagree that the current crops of Democrats wouldn’t try any of those policies that they’ve been telling us they’d do???

    My remark addressed all your salient points. The American people are not prison b!tches to let themselves be pushed around by anyone “in power”.

    nk (1d9030)

  61. I am confused. In Reading comments for the last month or so I get the impression that this blog supports the position that there was no illegality or abuse of position or power wrt the Crossfire Hurricane/Russian collusion/Steel dossier kerfluffle back in 2016.

    Wa St Blogger (67b7bd)

  62. Rule of Law? LOL. We have Democrats in Congress and the Democrat Party in general supporting

    This is whataboutism to the suicidal power.

    We don’t refrain from prosecuting criminals because we do not prosecute all criminals.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  63. @61
    I can’t speak for Patterico or the bloggers but I think it’s clear
    -The CH investigation was properly predicated
    -The FBI abused the FISA process by withholding relevant information that would have made it harder to get a FISA warrant.
    -The FBI not only wasn’t following the process to do that in this case but the agents who were supposed to be following them didn’t know about them, nor did their managers.

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  64. Anyhow, sentencing recommendations are only just that: Recommendations. Judge Amy will sentence Stone to the sentence she thinks he should be sentenced to.

    nk (1d9030)

  65. The DOJ just decided to overrule the US Attorney who recommended the nine-year sentence, the same DOJ that would “intake” Giuliani’s Ukraine stories from his sketchy sources.
    It is simply true that Trump corrupts everything he touches, with the help of enablers like AG Barr and a host of others.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  66. Whembly

    If you can’t see that the Obama administration and Obama holdovers weaponized the investigative powers of the various agencies against a political rival,

    Can you point me to the evidence that this is true? Because the IG didn’t find it.

    Time123 (b0628d) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:11 am

    Horowitz himself strongly implied this:
    https://youtu.be/6FAZvaT_ZPY

    The former FBI Director James Comey said this week that your report vindicates him. Is that a fair assessment of your report?” Graham asked.

    “You know, I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anyone who touched this,” Horowitz said.

    “Would it be fair to say you take issue with that statement?” Graham asked Horowitz.

    “Certainly, our findings were that there were significant problems,” Horowitz said.

    The IG report is a good start to get the full accounting of what had happened, but it’s not a full comprehensive accounting.

    He went onto say that he turned over his investigations of Comey, Strozk, et. & el. to Durham.

    So… hopefully we’ll have a good full accounting soon.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  67. @63

    @61
    I can’t speak for Patterico or the bloggers but I think it’s clear
    -The CH investigation was properly predicated

    That’s a meaningless distinction. The bar is extremely low to open up investigations.

    The issue, is the continuance of the investigations.

    Typically investigations like this are done be line agents (whom can be zealous) that is overseen by supervisors. It’s the supervisor’s job to reign in over-zealous prosecutors to ensure everything is kosher.

    Crossfire Hurricane was mainly ran at the top without the same sort of supervisory oversights as line staff.

    -The FBI abused the FISA process by withholding relevant information that would have made it harder to get a FISA warrant.

    You got that wrong. Withhold relevant information made it easier to get FISA approval. There were numerous congressional testimonies attesting to this.

    -The FBI not only wasn’t following the process to do that in this case but the agents who were supposed to be following them didn’t know about them, nor did their managers.

    Time123 (ca85c9) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:24 am

    So they say, in the midst of numerous “I don’t recall” or “I don’t remember”.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  68. What can you really do about pardons? Reagan pardoned Merle after Johnny shot Willie in Reno and the voters gave him two terms.

    frosty (6abe89)

  69. Paul Montagu (ae8832) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:26 am

    More outrage that nobody should take seriously.

    When McCabe and Clinesmith receive zero time and get off, the outrage will be dismembered and stashed in a freezer.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  70. @60

    How ’bout addressing some salient points of my post?

    Do you disagree that the current crops of Democrats wouldn’t try any of those policies that they’ve been telling us they’d do???

    My remark addressed all your salient points. The American people are not prison b!tches to let themselves be pushed around by anyone “in power”.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:13 am

    You still are not making any sense.

    I guess you don’t want to have this discussion.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  71. 42. Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 2/11/2020 @ 9:32 am

    [Trump’s] foreign policy is worse than Carter’s (and yet better than even Biden’s).

    Biden is pretty bad, but probably better than Sanders’, although Sanders gave better reasons (or rationalizations) for his policy.

    Biden didn’t mention this but he was against the raid on Osama bin Laden (so was McCain, who didn’t want to do anything in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government)

    Now Sanders was fine (or OK) when he said, in answer to a question about whether the strike on Soleimani would have ben ordered were we can’t say you’re a bad guy, we’ll assassinate you, mentioning Kim Jong-un in North Korea, Mohammad Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Putin in Russia and Xi in China (at least not putting in anyone who does not belong, but one of them – MBS – is not like the others in numbers) but then he has to go all kumbaya with

    strengthen the State Department and our diplomatic capabilities, not just the military. What we have got to do is bring countries around the world together with our power and our wealth and say, you know what, let us sit down and work out our differences through debate and discussion at the UN

    It makes no sense. But we already know. And jabbering about trillions of dollars doesn’t reflect reality ether.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  72. @Time123 I misunderstood this:

    -The FBI abused the FISA process by withholding relevant information that would have made it harder to get a FISA warrant.

    You’re right there.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  73. 63. Time123 (ca85c9) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:24 am

    -The FBI abused the FISA process by withholding relevant information that would have made it harder to get a FISA warrant.

    67. whembly (fd57f6) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:34 am

    You got that wrong. Withhold relevant information made it easier to get FISA approval. There were numerous congressional testimonies attesting to this.

    Time123 means if they hadn’t withheld relevant information it would have been harder to get a FISA warrant.

    Parse it like this:

    The FBI abused the FISA process by withholding relevant information – and the relevant information that would have made it harder to get a FISA warrant.

    Not:

    The FBI abused the FISA process by withholding relevant information and that made it harder to get a FISA warrant.

    Notice the key words: would have.

    If it had not been that way. If they hadn’t withheld it.

    But they did, so that flips harder to easier.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  74. Sorry. posts crossed. But at least it was explained in detail.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  75. When McCabe and Clinesmith receive zero time and get off…

    The difference is that Stone and Manafort were actually convicted of felonies, and Flynn ‘fessed to his criminal activity. DOJ passed on McCabe for a reason, and the IG made a criminal referral on Clinesmith.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  76. any rot about “The rule of law” just brings out the laugh track.

    Whereas a reflexive Trump defender pretending to be offended by dishonesty and self-righteousness brings out genuine laughter.

    Radegunda (102a4d)

  77. “The difference is that Stone and Manafort were actually convicted of felonies…”
    Paul Montagu (ae8832) — 2/11/2020 @ 11:11 am

    LOL

    It’s not a difference. It’s the point.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  78. whembly (51f28e) — 2/11/2020 @ 9:50 am

    1) Making Washington DC a state (permanently adding 2 Democrat senators in Congress)

    That’s conceivable, actually, although it didn’t happen in Obama’s first two years. The latest proposal is to exclude some important federal buildings, but include most voters. But DC is beginning to get some gentrification.

    2) Making Puerto Rico a state (almost always going to be 2 Democrat Senators in Congress, note: I’m actually in favor of this for other reasons)

    That tends to be the position of the Republican Party. Democrats are for extreme federalism with regard to Puerto Rico. Not likely to happen. If Congress is more divided, they’d be looking for some Republican states to add, like splitting up California. All this would spol the convenient mah created by 50 states and 100 Senators.

    3) Pack the Supreme Court to flip the ideological leaning leftward

    Warren seems to be most in favor of that; Biden and Bloomberg are against that, with Klobuchar trying to avoid saying anything. Sanders has the idea of changing the composition of the Supreme Court so that it consists of, say, the current justices and some additional judges from the Supreme Court, who rotate off and on it(year by year? Case by case?) so that the number is always nine. Maybe this has been explained somewhere, who proposed this before Bernie heard of it. The first iteration of this would give the court a very liberal majority. After that, conservatives would concentrate on filling the slots with judicial conservatives rather than try to reverse the “reform.”

    Buttigieg seems to have adopted Beto O’Rourke’s impossible idea of Democrats appointing five, Republican appointing five, and the resulting ten justices appointing an additional five. How you could legislate that even in a constitutional amendment?

    4) Some semblance of Medicare for All would be rammed through…

    Unless nobody could come to an agreement on just what to do. Here a counter-proposal is needed. Doing this would work out fine the first few years. Then comes the cost pressures, and the absence of competition and innovation, and problems gradually developing. You didn’t get waiting lists in Canada right away.

    5) Taxes will definitely go up for everyone

    For most people.

    6) Some semblance of the Green New Deal would be rammed through…

    The question s how much. It might just be support for solar energy and electric cars, combined with a carbon tax but no compensating Social security or income tax reduction but with maybe a partial equal per person rebate.

    Saturday Night Live (if they were more neutral politically) should do a commercial parody: Obama failed to halt the rise in the oceans but Mike will get it done.

    Now he’s been running commercials that seem to have Obama endorsing him. It ends with: “I’m Mike Bllomberg and I approved this message.” Honesty would also include a snippet of Obama saying “I’m Barack Obama and I did not approve this message.”

    7) I don’t think they’d win: but, they’ll definitely try to change the constitution: No electoral college going to popular vote.

    Trying doesn’t matter.

    Now what they might be shooting for claiming the ERA was ratified. It will take several years for a case involving that to get through the courts.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  79. If the Dems can get super-majorities of Congress and States to ratify an amendment, more power to them. That’s how the constitution get’s amended, it’s in the constitution. Better than EO’s and whimsical laws, the barrier of entry to constitutional amendments make it the best option, it’s a feature not a bug with the constitution.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  80. @73
    I can’t speak for Patterico or the bloggers but I think it’s clear

    -The CH investigation was properly predicated
    That’s a meaningless distinction. The bar is extremely low to open up investigations.

    No. It goes directly to the accusation that the investigation was opened for the purpose of targeting Trump. The report shows it was not.

    The issue, is the continuance of the investigations.

    Typically investigations like this are done be line agents (whom can be zealous) that is overseen by supervisors. It’s the supervisor’s job to reign in over-zealous prosecutors to ensure everything is kosher.

    Crossfire Hurricane was mainly ran at the top without the same sort of supervisory oversights as line staff.

    Yes, the IG faulted them for this and for not looping in the DOJ for oversight.

    -The FBI abused the FISA process by withholding relevant information that would have made it harder to get a FISA warrant.

    You got that wrong. Withhold relevant information made it easier to get FISA approval. There were numerous congressional testimonies attesting to this.

    Read it again, we’re agreeing.

    -The FBI not only wasn’t following the process to do that in this case but the agents who were supposed to be following them didn’t know about them, nor did their managers.

    So they say, in the midst of numerous “I don’t recall” or “I don’t remember”.

    Did you find evidence in the report that they did this? There weren’t findings that the agents “lacked candor” which the IG can find and call out. If you didn’t find that evidence what are you basing this on?

    Time123 (c9382b)

  81. Paul Montagu (ae8832) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:26 am

    More outrage that nobody should take seriously.

    When McCabe and Clinesmith receive zero time and get off, the outrage will be dismembered and stashed in a freezer.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/11/2020 @ 10:38 am

    If McCabe is so clearly guilty why haven’t they indicted him yet? Why didn’t they indict Comey? Is Barr part of the deep state?

    BTW Munroe, did you figure out who the IG was unable to question yet?

    Time123 (c9382b)

  82. @72, Just saw this. 😀

    Time123 (c9382b)

  83. We don’t refrain from prosecuting criminals because we do not prosecute all criminals.

    — The Democrat Party

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  84. Whereas a reflexive Trump _________

    Lots of those here.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  85. Horowitz himself strongly implied this:
    https://youtu.be/6FAZvaT_ZPY

    The former FBI Director James Comey said this week that your report vindicates him. Is that a fair assessment of your report?” Graham asked.

    “You know, I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anyone who touched this,” Horowitz said.

    “Would it be fair to say you take issue with that statement?” Graham asked Horowitz.

    “Certainly, our findings were that there were significant problems,” Horowitz said.

    The IG report is a good start to get the full accounting of what had happened, but it’s not a full comprehensive accounting.

    He went onto say that he turned over his investigations of Comey, Strozk, et. & el. to Durham.

    So… hopefully we’ll have a good full accounting soon.

    There are a number of things the IG could be implying here. Such as that Comey lead the FBI when they developed practices that lead to FISA abuses and as such is highly culpable in that.

    In the text of the report he says explicitly that
    -There was no evidence of political bias.
    -That he was able to interview members of WH staff about this and that they cooperated with his investigation.
    -There was no evidence of interference by the white house.
    -That the FBI did a bad job of briefing the White house and DOJ leadership about what was going on.

    So again, what evidence do you base your conclusion on? I’m asking partly because it’s a pretty long report and I might have missed it. But if it’s there it’s contradicted in other places.

    Time123 (b53270)

  86. Now what they might be shooting for claiming the ERA was ratified.

    They’d better hope no textualists are involved.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  87. “— The Democrat Party”

    Lock Her Up!

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  88. Horowitz himself strongly implied this:
    https://youtu.be/6FAZvaT_ZPY

    The former FBI Director James Comey said this week that your report vindicates him. Is that a fair assessment of your report?” Graham asked.

    “You know, I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anyone who touched this,” Horowitz said.

    “Would it be fair to say you take issue with that statement?” Graham asked Horowitz.

    “Certainly, our findings were that there were significant problems,” Horowitz said.

    The IG report is a good start to get the full accounting of what had happened, but it’s not a full comprehensive accounting.

    He went onto say that he turned over his investigations of Comey, Strozk, et. & el. to Durham.

    So… hopefully we’ll have a good full accounting soon.

    There are a number of things the IG could be implying here. Such as that Comey lead the FBI when they developed practices that lead to FISA abuses and as such is highly culpable in that.

    In the text of the report he says explicitly that
    -There was no evidence of political bias.

    No. the report doesn’t actually rule out political bias by the FBI. What the report actually says is, “we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision [to open an investigation surveilling the Trump campaign].” That doesn’t mean “documentary or testimonial evidence” doesn’t exist. It just mean that the IG couldn’t produce it.

    To reiterate another poster’s point, the report stated that “certain former FBI employees who agreed to interviews, including Comey and Baker, chose not to request that their security clearances be reinstated for their OIG interviews,” read the IG report. “Therefore, we were unable to provide classified information or documents to them during their interviews to develop their testimony, or to assist their recollections of relevant events.

    Doesn’t that strike to you as a major red flag?

    The report also goes on to say that political bias couldn’t be fingered as the source of decision-making because certain decisions were “reached by a consensus among the Crossfire Hurricane agents and analysts.” This essentially means the FBI circled the wagons and made it hard to determine precise, documented motivations for each specific decision.

    Horowitz, during congressional testimony, flatly stated he could not rule out political bias as a motivating the FBI.
    https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1204798270326919169

    -That he was able to interview members of WH staff about this and that they cooperated with his investigation.

    He couldn’t interview everyone he wanted as much of the department’s lawyers were excluded from IG’s jurisdiction. In his testimony before Congress, he re-iterated that the DOJ IG was the only department that was like that and asked Congress to fix that.

    -There was no evidence of interference by the white house.

    Yup.

    -That the FBI did a bad job of briefing the White house and DOJ leadership about what was going on.

    That’s an understatment.

    So again, what evidence do you base your conclusion on? I’m asking partly because it’s a pretty long report and I might have missed it. But if it’s there it’s contradicted in other places.

    Time123 (b53270) — 2/11/2020 @ 11:47 am

    Again…this IG report isn’t the end-all-be-all full accounting. I’d suggest that you actually watch some of Horowitz’s congressional testimony (or read his transcript) as he provide much more information/context to the IG report.

    What we have is a lot of documented bad faith actions that trended towards one ideological side. Such that a rational observation of this ordeal makes it more likely than not that top FBI officials let their personal politics compel them to engage recklessly during 2016 compaign.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  89. https://www.newser.com/story/286832/doj-announces-extraordinary-step-in-roger-stone-case.html

    Following prosecutors’ Monday recommendation that longtime Trump ally Roger Stone serve 7 to 9 years for lying to Congress and witness tampering, a senior Justice Department official on Tuesday called the recommendation “excessive” and said it would be shaved down. It’s a move the AP describes as an “extraordinary step.” Explains the official: “That recommendation is not what had been briefed to the department. The department finds the recommendation extreme and excessive and disproportionate to Stone’s offenses. The department will clarify its position later today.”..

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  90. “The Clintons are good people!”, paraphrasing New York Donnie after mass crowds chant “Lock her up!” while he pretends mild disapproval.

    One of the most interesting things about the T-rump presidency is that people let him get away with bad-mouthing his own administration for not doing what he himself won’t do.

    He’s the worst manager on the planet!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  91. whembly @88:

    Doesn’t that strike to you as a major red flag?

    Yes, the FBI ws laying politics, but not simple politics.

    James Comey was trying to fend off pressure from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to investigate the Trump campaign and settled on doing something that might be erceived as not interfering in an election campaign.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  92. It doesn’t matter. Existence is a short-lived illusion and its only value is aesthetic.

    I thought you said you didn’t believe in quantum mechanics?

    Dave (6811e8)

  93. UPDATE: All hell is breaking loose. I am on my phone at lunch and cannot easily post links or quotes, but top DoJ brass took Trunp’s hint and have directed Stone’s prosecutors to ask for less time, prompting the immediate resignation of the lead prosecutor.

    This is how they conduct business *before* the election. I can’t wait to see what kind of banana Republican crap they pull *after* the election.

    Patterico (73fa45)

  94. Note that the prosecutor has resigned from the case but not DoJ (yet). Trump likes to settle scores, though. I would not count on his being with DoJ for long.

    Patterico (73fa45)

  95. It’s not a difference. It’s the point.

    Um, no. No matter Trump’s feelings, the Barr DOJ couldn’t make a case against McCabe. Stone and Manafort were convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers. I regret that you don’t get that, Munroe.
    I don’t know if Clinesmith will get indicted but he’ll probably get disbarred, so he’s going to pay a price.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  96. top DoJ brass took Trunp’s hint and have directed Stone’s prosecutors to ask for less time, prompting the immediate resignation of the lead prosecutor.

    I love when someone refuses to bend their principles.

    That is terrible of course, but there’s something profoundly hopeful there too.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  97. Whembly,

    The fact that Comey didn’t request his security clearance be re-instated doesn’t strike me as a red flag. Had the DOJ wanted to share classified material with him nothing prevented them from doing so.

    If Durham or someone else provides new evidence I’ll reevaluate. But honestly this looks pretty compelling as it is. The FBI thought they had a crime. They pursued it with too much zeal and too little respect for civil liberties. I have zero surprise at this. The IG went looking for evidence of a politically motivated prosecution and he didn’t find it. He was clear that he didn’t find it. He didn’t fault anyone for lack of candor with his investigation. He was clear that the FISA process was/is a mess. Maybe there wasn’t evidence because there wasn’t a crime or maybe they just hid it well. Either way, there isn’t evidencee.

    I’m taking the same approach to to this as to Trump colluding with Russia about the release of the hacked DNC emails. If new evidence is produced I’ll look at it, but until then I’m going to have to be satisfied that Mueller/Horowitz found what evidence there is to find.

    Time123 (b53270)

  98. Oh no a prosecutor resigned? Lol let me sit down I got the vapers.

    Still voting for Trump over some socialist who promises to take away my 2nd amendment, ban fracking and energy exploration, decriminalize illegal immigration and pay for them to fly back here, forgives all student loans with gov money, wants to get rid of all private insurance, and opens up taxpayer funded abortion up until birth.

    Property rights (81f8cf)

  99. If Roger Stone should be sentenced to 7 years in jail why isn’t Mcabe in jail for lying to them too?

    Asking for a friend

    Property rights (81f8cf)

  100. UPDATE: All hell is breaking loose. I am on my phone at lunch and cannot easily post links or quotes, but top DoJ brass took Trunp’s hint and have directed Stone’s prosecutors to ask for less time, prompting the immediate resignation of the lead prosecutor.

    This is how they conduct business *before* the election. I can’t wait to see what kind of banana Republican crap they pull *after* the election.

    I want to live in a country that has limited government. A key part of that is the rule of law. Trump does not support that. I will not vote for Trump. I will not vote for the GOP so long as they support this.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  101. Whatabout whatabout squirrel squirrel

    Such thin skin on the trump bots and fans

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  102. If Roger Stone should be sentenced to 7 years in jail why isn’t Mcabe in jail for lying to them too?

    Asking for a friend

    Property rights (81f8cf) — 2/11/2020 @ 1:06 pm

    Because he hasn’t been indicted. Ask your fried if that’s because Barr & Trump are Deep State or just an incompetent.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  103. All hell? I’m not sure what I was expecting but if this is all hell I’m underwhelmed.

    frosty (f27e97)

  104. Well, one has been convicted of multiple felonies, one has been charged with zero crimes. Now, do you know which is which?

    Stone’s problem was that Hilary was president when he was prosecuted, and her DOJ forced a political prosecution on Stone, or something, right?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  105. All hell is breaking loose. I am on my phone at lunch and cannot easily post links or quotes, but top DoJ brass took Trunp’s hint and have directed Stone’s prosecutors to ask for less time, prompting the immediate resignation of the lead prosecutor.

    A second prosecutor has just resigned as well.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  106. All hell? I’m not sure what I was expecting but if this is all hell I’m underwhelmed.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/11/2020 @ 1:12 pm

    Trump Tweets about Sentence.
    DOJ lowers sentence.
    DOJ lawyers resign.

    “all hell” is a bit over the top. But this is crap.

    Time123 (b53270)

  107. If Roger Stone should be sentenced to 7 years in jail why isn’t Mcabe in jail for lying to them too?

    Because a grand jury refused to recommend indictment, which didn’t happen with Stone. Given the conviction by a jury of his peers, Stone’s grand jury made the right call. DOJ officials who are cited for “lack of candor” virtually never go to trial, and it’s more than likely that a politicized DOJ only helped McCabe.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  108. Well when Mcabe lies to the FBI and gives a sheepish oh well gee, and they don’t even call a grand jury or recommend charges? What is one supposed to think here? I will not support rule of law for one party and no rule of law for the other.

    I’ll support no rule of law for any of them at that point.

    Property rights (81f8cf)

  109. @107 Which is better/worse/more optimal/whatever? A full pardon or a reduced sentence? Is a reduced sentence functionally different from a commutation?

    Is the problem the tweet? If he had remained silent would that make a difference?

    frosty (f27e97)

  110. Well when Mcabe lies to the FBI and gives a sheepish oh well gee, and they don’t even call a grand jury or recommend charges? What is one supposed to think here? I will not support rule of law for one party and no rule of law for the other.

    “They” in this case is the Department of Justice that is run by Trump appointees and has been since 2016 and “they” called a Grand Jury you nitwit.

    Time123 (b53270)

  111. I notice the term “Rule of Law” is now becoming a phrase like Fake News, Mitt Romney, David French. In other words, something else to be mocked by postmodernist conservatism.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  112. Well when Mcabe lies to the FBI and gives a sheepish oh well gee, and they don’t even call a grand jury or recommend charges? What is one supposed to think here? I will not support rule of law for one party and no rule of law for the other.

    I’ll support no rule of law for any of them at that point.

    As before, he was protected by the DOJ of president Hillary, right. If it was the Trump DOJ, obviously it would be different right.

    Or are you trying to make a different point? Are you saying that Stone didn’t break the law, didn’t get indicted, didn’t get a chance to argue his defense, wasn’t convicted by a jury?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  113. UPDATE x2: A second Stone prosecutor has resigned. Heroes.

    Patterico (73fa45)

  114. Or are you trying to make a different point? Are you saying that Stone didn’t break the law, didn’t get indicted, didn’t get a chance to argue his defense, wasn’t convicted by a jury?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 2/11/2020 @ 1:29 pm

    I’m saying after the fiasco of all of Hillary’s aids getting immunity for no reason, repeated lying to the DOJ by Mcabe with no charges, and other malfeasance…..I can’t care. I hope Trump pardons them all. Jury nullification like OJ at this point.

    What else would you have me do? Believe it’s ok for all of Trumps people to be targeted by illegal FISA warrants and thrown in jail for process crimes? No

    Property rights (81f8cf)

  115. Its good that the Stone prosecutors have resigned. A 7-9 sentence for what Stone did was outrageous. Supposedly based on “death threats” that the person involved never took seriously. Both Prosecutors were from Mueller’s team – which means they were hardcore D’s.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  116. Still trying to figure out how Hillary doesn’t get charged but Stone should spend 7 years in the slammer. That’s Comey-Mueller justice

    rcocean (1a839e)

  117. As usual we get a lot of sound and fury and slanted stuff from the MSM. I’d like to know if the 7-9 was reasonable based on DoJ guidelines and why.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  118. Still trying to figure out how Hillary doesn’t get charged but Stone should spend 7 years in the slammer. That’s Comey-Mueller justice

    rcocean (1a839e) — 2/11/2020 @ 1:39 pm

    It’s not only just that all her aids like Cheryl Mills were given immunity for NOTHING. The DOJ handed immunity out for supposedly “handing over documents”….meanwhile they kicked down Roger Stones door for “documents”. I’m sure he’d have taken immunity for handing over information that can be gained via warrants too. It’s a joke

    Property rights (81f8cf)

  119. And what was the background of the two that resigned. Of course, you can search for it yourself, but the MSM should be providing that info.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  120. What else would you have me do? Believe it’s ok for all of Trumps people to be targeted by illegal FISA warrants and thrown in jail for process crimes? No

    Well, since Trump’s DOJ has confirmed that the FISA warrants from 2016 were valid, that’s not a good argument. Plus, as this conviction shows, and Manafort, et al, there was contact, there was effort, the DOJ wouldn’t have been doing their job (also the NSA, CIA, Trump’s inteligence organization and leadership too) all agreed that Russians and Wikipedia were in fact doing the thing.

    And again, them doing bad things doesn’t make Stone’s bad things, not bad things.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  121. @119 great point. Per Wikipedia this is what Stone did to deserve 7 years in Prison:

    Randy Credico testified that Stone urged and threatened him to prevent him testifying to Congress. Stone had testified to Congress that Credico was his wikileaks go-between, but prosecutors said this was a lie in order to protect Jerome Corsi. During the November 12 testimony, former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates testified that Stone told campaign associates in April 2016 of WikiLeaks’ plans to release documents, far earlier than previously known. Gates also testified that Trump had spoken with Stone about the forthcoming releases.[

    That’s it – a freaking Process Crime – lying to Congress. Incredible.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  122. Still trying to figure out how Hillary doesn’t get charged but Stone should spend 7 years in the slammer. That’s Comey-Mueller justice

    Charged for what? The emails? You understand that is a decade old at this point, Hilary Clinton is not in office, won’t be in office ever again. It’s not going to happen.

    As usual we get a lot of sound and fury and slanted stuff from the MSM. I’d like to know if the 7-9 was reasonable based on DoJ guidelines and why.

    Then click the link from Pat on the OP, he was convicted of these crimes, there is a sentencing guideline range. Its a chart for goodness sake, it doesn’t matter if it was Roger Stone or Roger Rabbit. This isn’t complicated.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  123. Per Wikipedia this is what Stone did to deserve 7 years in Prison:

    No, what he did was get convicted by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes. You seem to not understand how convictions work. He had ample opportunity to argue the facts, those arguments failed, he’s been found guilty.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  124. Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 2/11/2020 @ 1:42 pm

    Well, since Trump’s DOJ has confirmed that the FISA warrants from 2016 were valid

    FBI director admits: Yes, surveillance of Carter Page was illegal

    FBI Director Christopher Wray agreed that the Justice Department and the FBI illegally surveilled Carter Page when they used British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s unverified dossier to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against the Trump campaign associate.

    frosty (f27e97)

  125. Ahem, that’s not what they said, but that is definitely a link to a story that takes full quotes of the person, and cuts out all of the parts that don’t agree with the headline, of course you know that though. It’s a blatant lie, you can just go ahead and read the whole IG report, but of course you won’t, you’ve had months.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  126. Property Rights and RCocean, you must both be pretty pissed the Trump and Barr are part of this deep state conspiracy to let Hillary off scott free. Maybe if you chant “lock her up” some more it will help?

    Time123 (b53270)

  127. That’s it – a freaking Process Crime – lying to Congress. Incredible.

    I despair of you intelligence sometimes. I really do.

    Stone was convicted for three separate crimes. Plus, there’s a set of really sound reasons for “process crimes” being crimes.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  128. That’s it – a freaking Process Crime – lying to Congress. Incredible.

    Actually three Process Crimes. But Process is the adjective in that phrase, while Crime is the noun.

    Kishnevi (575302)

  129. frosty (f27e97) — 2/11/2020 @ 1:27 pm

    Why not let the judge in the case decide whether the recommendation was appropriate?

    Kishnevi (575302)

  130. Why not let the judge in the case decide whether the recommendation was appropriate?

    Very likely because the judge would have told Duh Donald where he could stick his tweet.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  131. More “Process” crimes being prosecuted by the deep state:

    Multiple cooperating witnesses have helped speed up the criminal investigation into Blackwater founder and Trump ally Erik Prince, the Wall Street Journal reports.

    The Justice Department is reportedly reviewing whether to charge Prince with making false statements to Congress due to November 2017 testimony he gave to the House Intelligence Committee, and with violating the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  132. “The American people must have confidence that justice in this country is dispensed impartially.  That confidence cannot be sustained if the president or his political appointees are permitted to interfere in prosecution and sentencing recommendations in order to protect their friends and associates.“

    … said Chuck Schumer, on a tarmac in Phoenix.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  133. Munroe, have you figured out which witnesses the IG wasn’t able to question and how that hampered his investigation? You said that was a problem. I’m sorry were you just full of crap?

    Time123 (d54166)

  134. Trump acted quickly to help someone who helped cover up for him … and then immediately called for punishment against someone who obeyed a lawful subpoena and gave testimony damaging to him, after his apologists had been insisting that Trump was in no way acting vengefully but only carrying out a routine reassignment.

    Trumpworld, of course, will say it’s all being done in the name of justice — refusing to admit that Trump’s definition of justice is overtly, shamelessly self-serving.

    Radegunda (9bd9f8)

  135. Four prosecutors have resigned now.

    Expect Trumpistas to say they’re all Deep State traitors, or “a disgrace,” as Dear Leader put it.

    Radegunda (9bd9f8)

  136. Time123 (d54166) — 2/11/2020 @ 2:33 pm

    Time123, with all due respect, your skepticism pose is full of crap. You actually aren’t even trying, but don’t bother.

    Durham travelled overseas to investigate foreign intelligence connections to Crossfire Hurricane. Horowitz did not. I know this feeds into your nah-nah-nah-conspiracy-theory narrative, what with your fake skepticism and all, but just like before it may just prompt another move of the goalposts. So, best to stay in shape, just in case you’re wrong — again.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  137. Durham travelled overseas to investigate foreign intelligence connections to Crossfire Hurricane.

    Please provide a link to Durham’s completed report so we can read these things he’s uncovered.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  138. Hold on, it seems journalists don’t understand the difference between withdrawing from a case and resigning from a job.
    If this from CNN is correct four prosecutors have withdrawn from the case, but so far one, if that, of them have resigned from the DOJ. Zelinsky resigned from his post in DC, but not from his original post in Baltimore. I suspect he was working out of the DC office solely because of the Stone case, so resigning from the DC office was simply the natural extension of withdrawing from the case

    appropriate.
    Prosecutors quit
    Soon after the revised recommendation was made, the four prosecutors who had worked on the trial, Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Jonathan Kravis, Adam Jed and Mike Marando, filed a motion to withdraw from the case. Zelinsky and Kravis both resigned from the DC US attorney’s office.
    Zelinsky, who is based at the Baltimore US attorney’s office, was the Mueller prosecutor most closely associated with Stone’s case while it was being investigated, and also played a significant role in questioning witnesses at Stone’s trial. He stayed with the Stone case following the closure of Mueller’s office and “resigned effective immediately after this filing” from his role in the DC US attorney’s office, he wrote to the judge on Tuesday.
    A spokeswoman for the Baltimore US attorney’s office said Tuesday afternoon that Zelinksy had not resigned from his position there.
    The US attorney’s office in Washington declined to comment on the resignations. John Crabb, another prosecutor in the DC US attorney’s Office, has announced he’ll work on the Stone case.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/politics/roger-stone-sentencing-justice-department/index.html

    Kishnevi (575302)

  139. Kishnevi (575302) — 2/11/2020 @ 2:18 pm

    The prosecutor is making a sentencing recommendation. No matter what they recommend the judge will decide whether the recommendation is appropriate.

    In fact, if you do a little research you’ll find out that the DOJ didn’t propose a specific sentence. They asked the judge to determine the sentence based on some reasonable guidelines and

    Ultimately, the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case

    You can probably release your death grip on the pearls. Or don’t. But I don’t think this is all hell breaking loose at all.

    frosty (f27e97)

  140. A ‘Rule Of Law’–

    “We quit.”

    Felicity Huffman did more time than Trump ever will or Nixon ever did.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  141. 136. Four prosecutors now?

    Yes.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-roger-stone-sentencing-trump-unfair-20200211-czkezgckyrepfckfzmywjyw6im-story.html

    It was 3 at 5:34 pm (Daily News email)

    In other breaking news: Special prosecutor indicts Jussie Smolett. Six count indictment by a Cook County grand jury.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/jussie-smollett-indicted-by-special-prosecutor-over-alleged-hate-crime-hoax

    February 11, 2020 4:56 PM

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  142. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/11/2020 @ 2:21 pm

    The judge is still able to do that. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen.

    Radegunda (9bd9f8) — 2/11/2020 @ 2:45 pm

    I won’t call them traitors. I won’t call them heroes either absent some explanation for why the newer guidelines are inconsistent with DOJ policy.

    frosty (f27e97)

  143. frosty (f27e97) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:05 pm

    Don’t lecture me. You’re just making the same point I made.
    But certain personages, the Tweeter in Chief most obviously, seemed to be clutching their pearls over the original recommendation.

    Kishnevi (575302)

  144. Munroe, Munroe, have you figured out which overseas witnesses the IG wasn’t able to question and how that hampered his investigation? You said that was a problem. Or was I correct are you just full of crap?

    Time123 (d54166)

  145. Time123 (d54166) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:15 pm

    The obvious one is Joseph Mifsud. Horowitz also didn’t interview Azra Turk. Are you interested in hearing from them?

    See, you got a serious answer even though your question was not serious, or the least bit earnest.

    Flail away, Time123. What’s next?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  146. Kishnevi (575302) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:11 pm

    My apologies. From your other comments, I wrongly concluded that you were in the group of people who think that this has a substantial effect on the sentence Stone gets.

    frosty (f27e97)

  147. The prosecutor is making a sentencing recommendation. No matter what they recommend the judge will decide whether the recommendation is appropriate.

    This was a statement of the blazingly obvious.

    Thank you, Dr. Watson.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  148. Heroes

    Their withdrawal and/or resignation, respectively, was heroic indeed.

    Or as Trump apologists will no doubt call it, “TDS!!1!11!”

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  149. The obvious one is Joseph Mifsud. Horowitz also didn’t interview Azra Turk. Are you interested in hearing from them?

    Mifsud, it’s hard to interview a dead guy, who’s been missing for 3 years.

    And you know that the FBI agent, posing as Azra Turk, wasn’t interviewed? Because you’ve read the unredacted report.

    Where’s the Durham report where he interviewed these people?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  150. I have to note that Munroe is not exclusively trolling today, and seems at least to be making an effort at discussion.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  151. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:27 pm

    Yes, now that you mention it, the comments in this thread make it clear that the new recommendations are completely consistent with standard DOJ guidelines and not at all further evidence of Trump acting outside the rule of law or Stone actually getting a reduced sentence.

    frosty (f27e97)

  152. Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:35 pm

    Mifsud is alive, though you probably wish he was dead Klink. Durham obtained his cell phone and associated data. Durham has that phone, because Horowitz doesn’t have it.

    I’ll trade you the unredacted report for the Clinton 302s.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  153. Munroe, so if he was able to interview them you’d accept the findings of the report?

    Time123 (43acd5)

  154. Yes, now that you mention it, the comments in this thread make it clear that the new recommendations are completely consistent with standard DOJ guidelines and not at all further evidence of Trump acting outside the rule of law or Stone actually getting a reduced sentence.

    Huh…

    Innit odd then, what the DoJ head ducks had to say about the recommendations of the trial attorneys who…you know…tried the casesssss against Stone.

    Innit…???

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  155. Mifsud is alive, though you probably wish he was dead Klink. Durham obtained his cell phone and associated data. Durham has that phone, because Horowitz doesn’t have it.

    Well, it’s good that you know he’s alive. Durham believes him dead, Italy believes him dead. But you know he’s alive, you know what Durham has, or hasn’t collected, and you’ve read the redacted report. Yes, you know these things? How do you know these things, please, provide a direct link to this information. Where did Durham say this?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  156. Time123 (43acd5) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:45 pm

    Of course. Why not? It’s not like it’s the Schiff memo.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  157. Why not let the judge in the case decide whether the recommendation was appropriate?

    Very likely because the judge would have told Duh Donald where he could stick his tweet.

    She will, anyway. Prosecutors’ recommendations are not binding on the court. She can sentence Stone to more than the first recommendation or less than the second or to something in-between. She is not a Judge Advocate General or Secretary of the Navy, she is an Article One-Hundred-and-Eleven (III) judge. That’s ten times more powerful than the President who is only an Article Eleven (II).

    nk (1d9030)

  158. Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:54 pm

    Klink is on a roll!

    A new question about the mysterious Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud is: What did he say on a taped deposition handed to the team of special Justice Department investigator John Durham?

    Mr. Mifsud is a subject on Mr. Durham’s agenda. The Washington Times reported that Mr. Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, obtained two Mifsud BlackBerry cellphones. Stephan Roh, Mr. Mifsud’s attorney, told The Times he provided the deposition recording to Mr. Durham’s team in midsummer.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/27/joseph-mifsud-gave-deposition-john-durham-russia-g/

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  159. So you’re information is on a unconfirmed tape, from a guy believed dead, to a guy who has specifically denied having the information, from people who are in the employ of the actual Russians.

    Well, that info must be rock solid then. It definitely contradicts the official government report from the IG.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  160. Well, in all likelihood, she won’t actually voice that.

    BUT, of course she’s free to do what she will WRT a sentence within the Federal guidelines (and even outside them on good cause shown).

    I expect New York Donnie to stick his finger in the eye of the American people BEFORE the election, pardoning his under-thug.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  161. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:46 pm

    Are you reverting to a native Troll dialect? If I’m understanding your question, odd or not I don’t think it’s how it’s being described, e.g. outside the rule of law, not prosecuting criminals, etc.

    frosty (f27e97)

  162. Stephan Roh, controlled dozens of offshore companies that are alleged to have ultimately belonged to Mukhtar Ablyazov. Ablyazov is accused of embezzling billions of dollars from BTA, a Kazakh bank, and laundering the proceeds via a sprawling network of companies through properties and business ventures across the world.

    Mifsud is the elusive Maltese professor who emerged as an improbable central figure in Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Former FBI director James Comey referred to him as a “Russian agent,” an allegation that Mifsud and Roh have denied — Mifsud has often described himself as just a “networker” who likes to bring people together. Since that firestorm ignited, Mifsud has seemingly disappeared off the face of the planet — he has not been seen in public since 2017.

    With Mifsud nowhere to be found, Roh has pushed debunked conspiracy theories that his client was set up by Western intelligence to entrap Donald Trump. Reported here for the first time, the apparent link to Ablyazov — a business tycoon who has often been likened to Bernie Madoff, the former financier who ran a massive Ponzi scheme — is a further twist, showing Roh entangled in a massive and complex money laundering case.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  163. Do you even begin to understand what this thread is about, frosty?

    Or are you merely playing stupid?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  164. Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 2/11/2020 @ 4:08 pm

    Good to know you’re a BuzzFeed reader, Klink. If you want the latest on bogus dossiers, and you probably do, it’s the go to source.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  165. Four II: Lawless Kingdom.

    All four career prosecutors handling the case against Roger Stone, a confidant of President Trump, asked to withdraw from the legal proceedings Tuesday — and one quit his job entirely — after the Justice Department signaled it planned to reduce their sentencing recommendation for the president’s friend.

    Jonathan Kravis, one of the prosecutors, wrote in a court filing he had resigned as an assistant U.S. attorney, leaving government altogether. Three others — Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando — asked a judge’s permission to leave the case.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-to-reduce-sentencing-recommendation-for-trump-associate-roger-stone-official-says-after-president-calls-it-unfair/2020/02/11/ad81fd36-4cf0-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html

    nk (1d9030)

  166. Looks like they investigated the Mifsud and didn’t find any evidence that he was involved.

    We also investigated an allegation, raised by Papadopoulos, that the FBI
    used Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese citizen who was living in London and serving as a
    university professor, to pass information to Papadopoulos in April 2016 as a set up,
    so that the FBI could predicate the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Papadopoulos
    raised this possibility during his October 25, 2018 testimony before the House
    Judiciary Committee and House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
    by stating that Mifsud might have been “working with the FBI and this was some
    sort of operation” to entrap Papadopoulos. The FBI’s Delta files contain no
    evidence that Mifsud has ever acted as an FBI CHS,
    and none of the witnesses we interviewed or documents we reviewed had any information to support such an
    allegation.

    the FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud
    who the FBI believed communicated to Papadopoulos the alleged offer from the Russians. According
    to FBI documents, Mifsud denied having advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of DNC
    emails and denied passing any offers or proffers to Papadopoulos. As described in Chapter Eight, this
    information was not included in the later renewal applications.

    Time123 (b53270)

  167. It’s every bit as reliable as some guys, with a rumor, about a tape from a dead guy, who gave it to a guy who says he doesn’t have it,by a guy who’s a Russian stooge, and no, we’re not talking about Trump, yet.

    But sure, point at a dull(ard) thing over there.

    BTW, Stone is still guilty of 3 felonies, where the sentencing guidelines say he gets 7-9 years.

    Did Stone break the law? Why do you want to so desperate to talk about conspiracy theories that are unrelated to the topic?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  168. “Why do you want to so desperate to talk about conspiracy theories that are unrelated to the topic?”
    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89) — 2/11/2020 @ 4:27 pm

    See @13.

    As for conspiracy theories, your side churns them out like McD’s churns out fries.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  169. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/11/2020 @ 4:14 pm

    And there’s standard reply #1 – are you stupid. Statistically, I think that is your number one choice with reply #2 – a flat assertion with nothing to back it up being a close second.

    Do you even try to have an honest discussion? I can’t recall an example of you doing anything more than going right to an insult.

    And it’s not that I really mind the trolling. I think a certain amount is good for the environment. It’s just that you do it so poorly and it’s clear that you are trying so hard.

    frosty (f27e97)

  170. Munroe, Since I’ve shown evidence that the IG investigated the Mifsud aspect, and came up dry, aren’t you going to retract all of your inaccurate comments on the matter? or are you moving the goal posts to some other crap excuse?

    Time123 (c9382b)

  171. As for conspiracy theories, your side churns them out like McD’s churns out fries.

    Please, elucidate us all on these conspiracy theories, that “my side” are pushing.

    That Stone committed crimes, was indicted for them, was prosecuted for them, was convicted by a jury of his peers, and will be sentenced to prison for those crimes. What about them is a theory, who was the conspiracy by? The Trump Justice department?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  172. Frosty, i agree ‘hell breaking loose’ is hyperbolic. But do you really see no reason for concern with the course of events.

    -Stone is asked to testify about a matter that could embarrass/implicate Trump.
    -Stone lies to congress.
    -Stone pressures other witnesses to lie or take the 5th.
    -Stone is convicted.
    -Trump publicly expresses dissatisfaction with the sentencing request.
    -The next day the DOJ lowers the recommendation and 4 AUSA resign from the case.

    I think we need to know more, but this looks bad.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  173. As for conspiracy theories, your side churns them out like McD’s churns out fries.

    Munroe

    Truer words were never spoken.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  174. As for conspiracy theories, your side churns them out like McD’s churns out fries.

    Munroe

    Truer words were never spoken

    Please define the conspiracy theory around Stone’s going to jail, or are you just making mouth noises?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  175. As for conspiracy theories, your side churns them out like McD’s churns out fries.

    Munroe

    Truer words were never spoken.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/11/2020 @ 4:52 pm

    Which side has Q-Anon and Pizzagate again?

    Time123 (c9382b)

  176. that was unfair, both the Dem’s and the GOP have plenty of corrupt peddlers and stupid consumers of conspiracy theories. Just because the nuts have gained prominence on the right side of the spectrum doesn’t make the right uniquely bad.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  177. Time123 (c9382b) — 2/11/2020 @ 4:46 pm

    This is not an argument in good faith.

    You asked a question. I answered, did I not? You asked a specific question. I gave a specific answer. It was not an exhaustive answer, because you did not ask for that, nor is it possible for me to provide.

    But, since I did not give an exhaustive list of ALL witnesses that Horowitz did not interview, which you did not ask for, and the specific one I mentioned came up “dry” (according to you based just on the IG) then I need to retract something or other.

    Durham and Barr made a point to dispute the findings of the IG. You can discount that all you want. Whether they dispute it because of Mifsud’s cellphones (which the IG did not have) or something else, I don’t know. Let’s see what they come up with. Are you at all interested? Or, does your skepticism of DOJ actions lead you to dismiss it out of hand?

    So, no there is nothing to retract. And, next time when you go full juvenile tugging on my pants to answer your question, your actions in bad faith will inform my judgement as to whether to waste my time again.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  178. UPDATE x3: All four Stone prosecutors have withdrawn from the case and resigned their positions as special prosecutors. I assume for now they will remain at DoJ.

    Patterico (73fa45)

  179. One of them has resigned from the DOJ apparently.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  180. “Which side has Q-Anon and Pizzagate again?”
    Time123 (c9382b) — 2/11/2020 @ 5:02 pm

    Not to mention Seth Rich.

    These are indeed conspiracy theories, but they don’t seem to merit federal resources to give them the necessary boost — like Trump Russia collusion, like campaign surveillance, like FISA warrants, like Steele-Ohr, tax returns, etc, etc.

    Run of the mill conspiracy theories self-financed are no skin off anyone’s nose.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  181. “Which side has Q-Anon and Pizzagate again?”

    Spare your derision for when your popular movements have as much real-world validation. The Epstein imbroglio at least should have assured everyone by now that Pizzagate was indeed correct in essence (powerful people colluding amongst each other to acquire extremely underage sex partners and covering it up in ways no normal person could get away with) if not in precise location.

    Q-anon is stupid and wrongheaded, but no more stupid and wrongheaded than a typical Rick Wilson tweet.

    Computer Expert (a11934)

  182. And here’s Steppe Nomad again.

    nk (1d9030)

  183. Evidently at the prosecutors’ briefing to the DOJ, they recommended a different lighter sentence.

    In other words, they lied to their superiors about what they were going to recommend.

    All 4 prosecutors recusing/resign looks like a stunt.

    whembly (c30c83)

  184. This is not an argument in good faith

    .

    Perhaps not on your side but I haven’t made any assertions I didn’t believe or asked any questions I didn’t honestly want answered on this blog. Not to you. Nor to anyone else. I’ve been wrong, but those were honest mistakes.

    You asked a question. I answered, did I not?

    Eventually, yes.

    You asked a specific question. I gave a specific answer. It was not an exhaustive answer, because you did not ask for that, nor is it possible for me to provide.

    All true. But I thought of something like that and asked you if you would accept the report if I showed that that IG had investigated Mifsud’s impact. You said “Of Course“. If you’d said then that you would not, I wouldn’t have taken the time to look it up and provide it. You said you would, now you won’t.

    Durham and Barr made a point to dispute the findings of the IG. You can discount that all you want. Whether they dispute it because of Mifsud’s cellphones (which the IG did not have) or something else, I don’t know. Let’s see what they come up with. Are you at all interested? Or, does your skepticism of DOJ actions lead you to dismiss it out of hand?

    I’m happy to review what information they provide. If their investigation is thorough follows normal process and they testify under oath about their findings or through indictments that can be challenged in court I’m likely to accept it as I did the Mueller report and the this IG report. So far they have provided none of that. So I’m not going to reject this evidence because some other evidence ‘may’ be out there.

    IIRC correctly Horowitz testified that the point of disagreement between him an Durham was that Durum disagreed the CH investigation should have been opened. Durham thought an inquiry should have been opened instead. But when the provide actual information to evaluate we’ll see.

    As for pestering your to fill the in blanks of your dumb assertions, well don’t make dumb assertions.

    Time123 (b53270)

  185. @185, link to that?

    Time123 (c9382b)

  186. Evidently at the prosecutors’ briefing to the DOJ, they recommended a different lighter sentence.

    In other words, they lied to their superiors about what they were going to recommend.

    All 4 prosecutors recusing/resign looks like a stunt.

    Yeah, no. That whole “lied to their superiors” BS doesn’t pass any smell test.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  187. “Pizzagate was indeed correct in essence (powerful people colluding amongst each other to acquire extremely underage sex partners and covering it up in ways no normal person could get away with)”

    This is not what pizzagate was about.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  188. @187

    @185, link to that?

    Time123 (c9382b) — 2/11/2020 @ 5:40 pm

    Catherine Herridge
    @CBS_Herridge
    #RogerStone Senior DOJ official tells
    @CBSNews
    Department was shocked to see sentencing recommendation Stone case. This is not what was briefed to Dept. The Dept. believes recommendation is extreme, excessive, grossly disproportionate to offenses…#DEVELOPING

    Catherine Herridge
    @CBS_Herridge
    #RogerStone More from senior DOJ official: the department will clarify its position later today with the court after calling the 7-9 year sentencing recommendation for lying, obstructing congress “…extreme, excessive, grossly disproportionate to Stone’s offenses”
    @ClareHymes22

    whembly (c30c83)

  189. @188: see my previous post.

    whembly (c30c83)

  190. This is not what pizzagate was about.

    What do you expect, is there any reason to think that he’d care that the conspiracy theory that he’s invoking, doesn’t connect to the other conspiracy theory he’s claiming, that explains yet another one?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  191. Time123 (c9382b) — 2/11/2020 @ 4:51 pm

    -Stone is asked to testify about a matter that could embarrass/implicate Trump.
    -Stone lies to congress.
    -Stone pressures other witnesses to lie or take the 5th.
    -Stone is convicted.

    There is no reason for concern so far. Stone lied to congress, was tried and found guilty.

    -Trump publicly expresses dissatisfaction with the sentencing request.

    I don’t consider this normal and I’d prefer he tweet less. But we don’t live in a land of norms anymore. At least he’s transparent (I joke, I joke. I kid, I kid). We’re just assuming, without evidence, that it must have interfered though. Because Trump.

    -The next day the DOJ lowers the recommendation

    The DOJ is saying they had already made this decision and didn’t confer with the WH. I’m not sure I believe that but I’ll come back to this.

    -4 AUSA resign from the case

    This is being used as evidence that this is completely outside of the norm. That this is Honorable Heros (TM) resigning in disgust. The honorable heroes and profiles in courage troupes are getting worn out.

    There are a lot of assumptions here that may be true but that I’m skeptical of. These attorneys are from the Mueller probe and I’m skeptical of everyone there. They aren’t resigning (and yes I know someone will chime in that this isn’t exactly what they said but this is the strong implication) they are removing themselves from the case. Is that really a big deal? The case is done. It’s in the sentencing phase. Is it unusual for the DOJ to step into a sentencing issue like this? I don’t know. The media and everyone anti-Trump wants to make it seem that way which means it’s a firm maybe. This doesn’t really impact the sentence Stone gets (again, I know this isn’t being literally said by everyone).

    But my original question, to quote she who shall not be named, what does it really matter at this point? The original post was that Trump was guaranteed to pardon them. To me, a pardon, or commuting the sentence, would look worse. But all that’s happened is something lower than the original recommendation is being made. At this point, Stone is still going to get a sentence. If you believe the DOJ it was an independent decision.

    That last part seems like it would be especially important. If the DOJ is now lying about something like that can you trust an IG report? I’m not so worried that the WH asked the DOJ to change the recommendation. I don’t think that is a big deal for two reasons, the new recommendation isn’t a substantial change and Trump can later commute the sentence or give a complete pardon.

    Now, I do care if the DOJ is lying about this being an independent decision. So, ok, let’s dig into that more. I think learning more is always good. But so far I can’t tell that anyone cares about that. It just seems like the problem is Trump interfered with the rule of law via tweet so we all need to set our hair on fire. That I don’t want to set my hair on fire seems to be why I’m getting the most pushback.

    frosty (f27e97)

  192. Thanks Whembly, wanted to read more/see where it’s coming from.

    Time123 (b53270)

  193. Trump’s DOJ, senior DOJ official. Sure, sure, those prosecutors would say on thing to their superiors and do another in the certain knowledge that their superiors would never find out. Sheesh! The senior DOJ is some bootlicker lying to cover Bill Barr’s fat ass and to dirty the prosecutors.

    nk (1d9030)

  194. Because Herridge reported what some flunky at DoJ said doesn’t make it true.

    TooHarshHat @Popehat

    I’ve been doing this for a while an “DoJ shocked at how harsh local AUSA is being” is . . . new to me.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-expected-to-scale-back-roger-stones-extreme-sentencing-recommendation-official.amp?__twitter_impression=true
    DOJ expected to scale back Roger Stone’s ‘extreme’ sentencing recommendation: official

    The Department of Justice is preparing to change its sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone after top brass were “shocked” at the stiff prison term initially being sought, according to a senior…
    foxnews.com
    1,016
    10:59 AM – Feb 11, 2020
    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    242 people are talking about this

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  195. Dude, you probably want to check meaning of you’re tweet you’re quoting.

    That is definitely what a DOJ leadership leak said. And that’s not news, hence the 4 prosecutors quit, that was the reason.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  196. @193, Pretty much agree with what you said Frosty. Did not see this as your position initially. Thank you for clarifying.

    IANAL but i think withdrawing from the case at this point is unusual. I hope it is, because that means the Judge is likely to make them provide additional explanation to the court and that will help clear things up.

    Regarding what’s worse.
    I agree that Trump has the power to commute / pardon. Doing that openly is better than having the DOJ adjust what they’re doing for political or personal reasons. It’s open, and it’s transparent and that comes with some political cost.

    I think have the investigative / proprietorial arms of the executive branch politically independent is the desired state. I think actions that reduce that should be opposed.

    Time123 (b53270)

  197. “You said you would, now you won’t.“
    Time123 (b53270) — 2/11/2020 @ 5:39 pm

    Sorry, but no.

    1) I thought you were referring to Durham’s upcoming report. You didn’t specify.
    2) You specifically said “interview them”. He (Horowitz) didn’t.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  198. Sloppy. That’s what I get for typing with my thumbs on a phone. I wasted 5 minutes looking up Mifsud in the IG report when you weren’t going to accept what the IG reported anyway.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  199. frosty (f27e97) — 2/11/2020 @ 5:57 pm

    In the normal course of things, the prosecutors would simply oversee any tidying up and final paperwork for the case, then resume whatever they were doing previously. They would not withdraw en masse.

    Kishnevi (bfcc0b)

  200. “you weren’t going to accept what the IG reported anyway.”
    Time123 (c9382b) — 2/11/2020 @ 6:11 pm

    At this point, you should probably stop mischaracterizing my views.

    I accept what the IG reported. I will accept what Durham reports. The two might not be based on the same evidence, and therefore may not report the same conclusion. But, maybe they will.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  201. When the rule of law appears to operate differently depending on partisan affiliation, the rule of law is dead.

    The second of two charges against Bill Clinton involved multiple serious instances of obstruction. He was never charged.

    Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:

    encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit

    encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand

    allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence

    attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness

    allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony

    giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action

    giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation

    Now, Stone may be a true piece of work — he’s Trump’s friend after all — but this case will not be the one where the rule of law died. It’s been dead for some time and there has been little attempt to revive it.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  202. Ha, ha, ha! Schadenfreude! Lick the boot, get kicked by the boot:

    Trump withdraws Treasury nomination of ex-US attorney who oversaw Stone prosecution https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/politics/jesse-liu-treasury-nomination-withdrawn/index.html

    nk (1d9030)

  203. Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 2/11/2020 @ 6:25 pm

    Spot on.

    But cue “Hey, uh, Whaddabout!!” in 3, 2, 1….

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  204. More confirmation
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-expected-to-scale-back-roger-stones-extreme-sentencing-recommendation-official

    “The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the Stone case last night,” the official told Fox News. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.”

    whembly (c30c83)

  205. More confirmation of the thing that we all knew, and the reason the 4 prosecutors quit.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  206. Kevin, Wasn’t that handled with a contempt of court citation and a 90,000$ fine? I’ll admit I’m fuzzy on the details of the Clinton stuff.

    Time123 (b53270)

  207. whembly (c30c83)

    Nope. Just an echo of the same story from another network. See above my cite to Popehat’s comment (he’s never seen anything like it happen, and he’s been around the barn).

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  208. Ok, whembly, I’ll play:

    “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.”

    1. Who is the Department?
    2. Briefed by whom?
    3. What does he mean by “briefed” in the first place?

    nk (1d9030)

  209. but this case will not be the one where the rule of law died. It’s been dead for some time and there has been little attempt to revive it.

    If I stipulate your point wasn’t the plan to drain the swamp and reduce corruption? Not make it worse and use it for a different team. Plus if I didn’t think Clinton’s corruption was good why would I think Trump showing them by being more corrupt would be better?

    Time123 (b53270)

  210. “you weren’t going to accept what the IG reported anyway.”
    Time123 (c9382b) — 2/11/2020 @ 6:11 pm

    At this point, you should probably stop mischaracterizing my views.

    I accept what the IG reported. I will accept what Durham reports. The two might not be based on the same evidence, and therefore may not report the same conclusion. But, maybe they will.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/11/2020 @ 6:21 pm

    So you agree with his conclusion that it was properly predicated and there was no evidence of political bias?

    Time123 (b53270)

  211. “So you agree with his conclusion that it was properly predicated and there was no evidence of political bias?”
    Time123 (b53270) — 2/11/2020 @ 6:49 pm

    Seriously dude. Stop.

    I’m done.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  212. nk (1d9030) — 2/11/2020 @ 6:47 pm
    4 How often does “the Department” get briefed on such cases?

    Kishnevi (bfcc0b)

  213. Good point, Kishnevi.

    nk (1d9030)

  214. Kevin, Wasn’t that handled with a contempt of court citation and a 90,000$ fine? I’ll admit I’m fuzzy on the details of the Clinton stuff.

    I know the perjury charge was handled by a lesser plea and suspension of Clinton’s law license. If all those counts of obstruction were “handled” by a contempt citation and a small (for Bill) fine, then my comment stands. What “rule of law” exists when The Book gets thrown at the other side?

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  215. If I stipulate your point wasn’t the plan to drain the swamp and reduce corruption?

    Please, don’t quote back some Trumpian lie and pretend that you believed it or in any way relied upon it.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  216. In any event, I get my back up when people start quoting “rule of law” as if it had been operating all this time. Remember that Obama’s administration was “scandal-free”.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  217. Well when Mcabe lies to the FBI and gives a sheepish oh well gee…

    “Lack of candor” is an ethical breach, not the same as “lies” or “perjury” (link). It’s a firable offense but not prosecutable, and DOJ knows that.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  218. https://www.newser.com/story/286937/barr-i-wish-trump-would-stop-tweeting-about-my-department.html

    …The president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case,” Barr says in a new interview, but “I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases” because those tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job” and add “grist to the mill” of speculation that Trump is interfering with DoJ affairs. ABC calls it a “rare break” with Trump, whom Barr typically defends.

    “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody … whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president,” Barr continued. “I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know … I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.” He added that he’s “of course” prepared to deal with any fallout from Trump related to his interview comments, and noted that were Trump to ever ask him to investigate someone for political ends, he would refuse. “As I said at my confirmation hearing, I think the essential role of the attorney general is to keep law enforcement, the criminal process sacrosanct to make sure there is no political interference in it.” …

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  219. 218. Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 2/11/2020 @ 7:29 pm

    I get my back up when people start quoting “rule of law” as if it had been operating all this time. Remember that Obama’s administration was “scandal-free”.

    I don’t know who is in favor of “rule of law”

    Violating southern segregation laws? All the people who did that are heroes. Various kinds of protests, and demonstrations – the attitude toward them depends on the goal, mostly, and a their sense of morality or proportion. Many people were involved in anti-Vietnam war protests.

    There was the Fugitive Slave Act. Everyone cheers Harriet Tubman, who violated the law on a rather large scale , and they want to put her on the $20 bill.

    Was the Boston Tea Party in 1773 about upholding the rule of law?

    How many people wanted to enforce the laws during Prohibition?

    Nowadays only Jeff Sessions was disturbed by widespread flouting by states of federal marijuana laws.

    How many people want to arrest the people organizing trips to buy prescription medicines in Canada or Mexico? Congress refused to make that legal.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  220. For her perjury, Roger Stone should not get more than what someone would get for the most severe contempt of court because this was all a side issue.

    The witness tampering is more serious.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  221. * For his perjury. I’m not sure how that error happened.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7841 secs.