Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 18, 2020

The head of the Federal Judges Association is taking the extraordinary step of calling an emergency meeting to address the intervention in politically sensitive cases by President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Who will be the first Trumpite to declare these people disloyal?

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 09:38 AM | Reply

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe, (appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush) who heads the voluntary association of around 1,100 life-term federal judges, told USA Today that the issue "could not wait." The association, founded in 1982, ordinarily concerns itself with matters of judicial compensation and legislation affecting the federal judiciary. The group... called for the meeting last week after Trump criticized prosecutors' initial sentencing recommendation for his friend Roger Stone and the Department of Justice overruled them.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-02-18 09:40 AM | Reply

We're getting closer to that Rubicon where, when Trump crosses on the other side, he'll adopt some cheery name for fascist and his rats will go chasing after.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 09:47 AM | Reply

This is a shot across the bow of the trump ship of corruption.

Judges need to stop worrying about sociological consequences and adjudicate the damn law.

#4 | Posted by kudzu at 2020-02-18 09:52 AM | Reply

Prepare for Trump to start eliminating judges.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-18 10:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing was appropriate.

When I read the embedded article the concerns over Trump's attacks on the judiciary seem legitimate.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 10:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 4

Prepare for Trump to start eliminating judges.

He can't. These are judges for life, the only way to get them off the bench is by the impeachment process just like the President's: Impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-02-18 10:06 AM | Reply

Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing was appropriate.

No it wasn't. Name one other case that Trump's DOJ decided to go against their own codified sentencing guidelines, the same ones they stiffened because they claimed Obama's were too subjective and wishy-washy.

I'll save you the time. There is not a single case on record. ZERO. This is the only case where the AG recommended that career officials ignore the DOJ's own sentencing guidelines and it involves a convicted felon friend of the President.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-02-18 10:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing was appropriate.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020

If you really (really) want to get rid of Trump, then you must get rid of Barr.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 10:17 AM | Reply

Mr. Barr is creating the "legal" case for Trump's dictatorship.

Donald Trump wants to be a dictator. There's no other political fact as important.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 10:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Politics ceased to be a hobby after Trump; politics stopped being fun.

Any honest man can see where Donald Trump wants to take this.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Prepare for Trump to start eliminating judges.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at

If he follows pattern to date he'll float a Deep State theory concerning them and wonder aloud if we wouldn't all be better off not having any that don't answer directly to him.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 10:29 AM | Reply

The only recourse that Trump actually has is to publicly denigrate the judges that he isn't fond of and hope that his rabid, rancid sycophants can make their lives miserable enough where they will resign from the bench.

Trust me, this is likely one of the chief topics on today's meeting agenda and is at the forefront of every federal judge's mind as it regards the usurpation of law by Trump, Barr and the DOJ minions willing to follow their lead when it blatantly counters their oaths to the Constitution.

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-02-18 10:37 AM | Reply

Tony. Wake up. They will do what they can.

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-18 10:44 AM | Reply

@14 What will be what? A letter, I bet they write a letter
That will accomplish something

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-02-18 10:58 AM | Reply

Questions to Ask Bill Barr Regarding His Roger Stone Sentencing Recommendation

1. Do you hereby testify that everything you said in your interview with ABC News on February 13 is true and accurate " including your description of the events related to the Roger Stone sentencing and your more general statement that "the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case"?

2. Before Stone's sentencing, have you ever (as Attorney General now or previously, or as Deputy Attorney General before that) overruled line prosecutors on a sentencing recommendation that was within the guidelines range?

3. Have you ever prosecuted a case? [The answer will be "no."] On whose prosecutorial expertise did you rely on coming to your conclusion that the recommended sentencing range in Stone's case was too high?

4. In general, what justifies overruling line prosecutors on a sentencing recommendation within the guidelines range? What standard do you apply, and is it written down anywhere? Isn't it against your Justice Department's policy not to seek a sentence within the guidelines range and indeed not to seek the maximum for Stone?

5. Given that you've criticized district attorneys around the country for advocating for lower sentences, what makes the Stone sentence one that you regarded as too high rather than too low? How do you justify overturning the career prosecutors' sentencing recommendation and asking the judge to depart from the guidelines in this case, especially given (1) the universally accepted emphasis on the role of the guidelines in providing uniformity in sentencing and (2) the inescapable facts that the defendant in this case is a close friend of the President and associate of his own presidential campaign?

6. Do you believe that, when as here a case involves a personal associate of the president, there may be an appearance of partiality in your intervention? Did you consider delegating this decision to a non-political official at the Justice Department?

7. Can you provide this committee with specific instances, since you have been the Attorney General under President Trump, where you have intervened in a sentencing recommendation on a case that did not personally affect or involve the president or someone he knows personally?

8. Senator Lindsey Graham said that the revised sentence was in fact within the guidelines range because the victim allegedly didn't feel threatened. But the guidelines range depends on whether the threat included violence, not whether the person threatened did or didn't feel threatened; and, given that Stone's threat did include violence, the original sentence was the one actually within the guidelines range. So isn't Senator Graham simply incorrect?

9. The revised sentencing recommendation asks the judge to take into account Stone's age and health. However, the guidelines allow health to be considered only for "an extraordinary physical impairment" such as "in the case of a seriously infirm defendant, home detention may be as efficient as, and less costly than, imprisonment." And age can be a consideration only if it creates conditions that are of "an unusual degree and distinguish the case from the typical cases covered by the guidelines." What extraordinary or unusual conditions does Stone have that meet these tests set out in the guidelines?

10. Isn't it against the policy of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia not to give a specific recommendation to the court, and hasn't the judge said she wants a specific recommendation? So how is it consistent with that policy and direction for you to say in your ABC News interview that you personally decided not to give a recommendation? When has that happened other than in Stone's case?

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-02-18 10:59 AM | Reply

The left knows they can't beat Trump in the election, so this one more hand full of something to be thrown against the wall.
Its gonna get worse over the summer.
How much worse is anyone's guess.

#17 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 10:59 AM | Reply


If you really (really) want to get rid of Trump, then you must get rid of Barr.
#9 | POSTED BY ZED

And Pence too, they all have to go because we lost an election in 2016.

This is so predictably hilarious.

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-18 11:00 AM | Reply

The left knows they can't beat Trump ...
#17 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

Yes, those Leftist -------- appointed by G.W. Bush.
Can you taste the dishonesty?

#19 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2020-02-18 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

@#6 ... Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing was appropriate. ...

Just saying so does not make it true or correct.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-18 11:15 AM | Reply

...because we lost an election in 2016.
#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Are you saying that the judge appointed by G.W. Bush wanted Hillary to win?
I don't understand followers of a philosophy that continually have to make stuff up and lie to convince themselves it's true.
You know, it is possible to make money and not be a lying -------.

#21 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2020-02-18 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

#17 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Lol... Can't beat Trump in the election? Is that why Trump decided that he needed to extort other countries to manufacture dirt on his political opponents? Because he was so sure he could win???

Right... keep telling yourself that.

And now judges appointed by George W. Bush are "the left"???

Apparently anyone who says ANYTHING critical of your dear leader are now considered "the left".

Conservatives... THIS is what YOU built.

#22 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-02-18 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 10

This is so predictably hilarious.

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris

No one finds your fascism at all funny.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 11:24 AM | Reply

Apparently anyone who says ANYTHING critical of your dear leader are now considered "the left".

#22 | Posted by gtbritishskull

Yes, of course.

Judges standing up for the rule of law, how radical.

#24 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 11:27 AM | Reply

Another day, another professional organization saying "orange man bad."

Yawn.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-02-18 11:28 AM | Reply

@#22 ... Apparently anyone who says ANYTHING critical of your dear leader are now considered "the left". ...

Well, in Pres Trump's eyes, anyone who disagrees with him is disloyal to him and must be removed. Even if that person is telling Pres trump that what Pres Trump wants to do, or is doing, is illegal.

Note the "disloyal to him" and not "disloyal to the Constitution."

L'etat C'est Moi.

Now, add in an AG who believes in, and works towards, the near-dictatorial powers of the President, and you have something quite similar to what we are experiencing nowadays in Washington, D.C.



#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-18 11:30 AM | Reply

Prepare for Trump to start eliminating judges.

He can't. These are judges for life, the only way to get them off the bench is by the impeachment process just like the President's: Impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-02-18 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag

That's a nice family that you got their judge. It'd be a shame if they fell on some polonium.

- Donny Tic Tacs.

#27 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-02-18 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#15?

#28 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-18 11:30 AM | Reply

#27. Exactly. Or more literally, they end up in tweets and the deplorables make their life hell.

#29 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-18 11:31 AM | Reply

As bad a president as Dumbya was, at least he was a functioning adult in the room.

#30 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-02-18 11:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yawn.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at

In the new the fascist order, I don't expect Gays to last very long.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 11:32 AM | Reply

And now judges appointed by George W. Bush are "the left"???

Cult45 demands anyone disloyal to Hair Furor is a leftist commie deep state pinko.

#32 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-02-18 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Look. The President believes he is the only one who can save this nation!

As anything he does is legal and proper. Just ask the ghost of Nixon. If the President does it then it is legal! How hard is that guys?

What is wrong with you people? Questioning our Dear Leader and his brave followers like that!!

Of course, these judges are traitors. Trump IS America! Stop questioning his powers! They are absolute.

So. In conclusion...

Off with their heads!

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-18 11:43 AM | Reply

Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing was appropriate.
When I read the embedded article the concerns over Trump's attacks on the judiciary seem legitimate.

#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Translation: Mmmm! This Kool-Aid tastes great!

#34 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Judge Amy Berman Jackson announced about 45 minute ago that she's going to continue with Stone's sentencing on Thursday as scheduled but that Stone will not have to start serving immediately.

I have no idea what that means.

#35 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-02-18 11:55 AM | Reply

Judge Amy Berman Jackson announced about 45 minute ago that she's going to continue with Stone's sentencing on Thursday as scheduled but that Stone will not have to start serving immediately.
I have no idea what that means.

#35 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

It means one of two things: (1) the sentencing hearing will take place but the sentence may be taken under consideration before being issued or (2) the sentence will be given but stayed for a short period so Stone may appeal.

(2) is actually rather rare. But if you are the President's buddy and your crimes helped him, I suppose we HAVE to make an exception...

#36 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 12:00 PM | Reply

#34 a 7-9 year sentence for a 67 year old first time offender of a victimless crime?

All Barr did was intervene with sentencing recommendations. 3-4 years instead of 7-9. Also, the judge ultimately decides the sentence, not the DOJ.

You people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:00 PM | Reply

@#35

My interpretation is that she may sentence him to jail time on Thursday, but will delay the execution of the sentence until after the retrial issue is settled.


#38 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-18 12:00 PM | Reply

But if you are the President's buddy and your crimes helped him, I suppose we HAVE to make an exception...

#36 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

What he was actually under investigation for was a legal act. What he was rightly charged and convicted for was perjury and witness tampering. He made his own bed in that regard and I have no sympathy for him. Lying under oath is a felony and because he didn't work for the FBI he doesn't get to get away with it *cough* McCabe *cough*.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:03 PM | Reply

My interpretation is that she may sentence him to jail time on Thursday, but will delay the execution of the sentence until after the retrial issue is settled.

#38 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I agree with you. There is some controversy surrounding the jury foreman. If she lied on her jury questionnaire form the case could be ruled a mistrial. If that happens I don't know whether the case gets retried or gets tossed. I'm guessing it gets retried.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:05 PM | Reply

a 7-9 year sentence for a 67 year old first time offender of a victimless crime?
#37 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Jeff doesn't like when rich white people are given 9 year sentences for trying to undermine our democracy.

Apparently whether you're 67 years old, or a rich white guy, the law shouldn't apply to you.

Well said Jeff.

Fkkk the law! Jeff has spoken!

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-18 12:05 PM | Reply

SYCOPHANT

"Translation: Mmmm! This Kool-Aid tastes great!"

It's not Kool-Aid any more. It's a mind-numbing toxic brew that ensnares the senses and muddles the mind. More akin to a psychedelic waking nightmare.

#42 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-02-18 12:06 PM | Reply

@#37 ... You people are making a mountain out of a molehill. ...

I'm not sure who you mean by "you people," with that in mind...

I'd say whoever "you people" are, they are not really making a mountain out of a molehill.

Taken in context with all else that AG Barr has been doing these past few months, something does not look proper, and the reaction does seem appropriate..


#43 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-18 12:08 PM | Reply

Taken in context with all else that AG Barr has been doing these past few months...

Such as?

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:09 PM | Reply

@#42 ... It's a mind-numbing toxic brew that ensnares the senses and muddles the mind. More akin to a psychedelic waking nightmare. ...

If you never saw the TV series "Brain Dead," I'd recommend it.

Brain Dead
en.wikipedia.org

BrainDead: the absurd new thriller that will make your head explode
www.theguardian.com

(it is more of a commedy than a thriller, imo.)

#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-18 12:12 PM | Reply

@#41 ... rich white people are given 9 year sentences for trying to undermine our democracy. ...

... and witness tampering. That charge was pretty significant in and of itself.

Didn't Pres Trump do some campaigning in 2016 on increasing the federal sentencing guidelines? Or did those new guidelines apply only to those who weren't in his inner circle?


#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-18 12:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Taken in context with all else that AG Barr has been doing these past few months...

Such as?

#44 | Posted by JeffJ

Ordering the DOJ to renew it's investigation into the Ukraine and Biden "corruption".

Interfering with the career prosecutors in the sentencing of Trump cohort and trickster Roger Stone such that those prosecutors quit the case in protest.

Agreeing, at Trump's request, to use Trump's personal attorney Rudy Guilianni as a legitimate source of information to initiate DOJ investigations.

Firing or denying promotions to career DOJ prosecutors who assisted Mueller in his investigation.

The list goes on and on.

For god's sake JeffJ, be a little bit honest about what it is you are defending.

#47 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-02-18 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You people.....

And 2000 prosecutors....

And a majority of the American public....

ARE ALL WRONG. ONLY ORANGE DON IS RIGHT. POOR DON.

WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE DONNY ALONE? HE JUST WANTS TO BE A DICTATOR. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?

#48 | Posted by kudzu at 2020-02-18 12:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This is a very appropriate link for this article: On The Media: Norm!

#49 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-02-18 12:21 PM | Reply

Ordering the DOJ to renew it's investigation into the Ukraine and Biden "corruption".

So, now its verboten to investigate politicians?

Interfering with the career prosecutors in the sentencing of Trump cohort and trickster Roger Stone such that those prosecutors quit the case in protest.

Those prosecutors, 3 of whom were part of the Mueller team, told Barr one thing and then went and did something else. Again, a slight change to a sentencing recommendation????

Agreeing, at Trump's request, to use Trump's personal attorney Rudy Guilianni as a legitimate source of information to initiate DOJ investigations.

I agree that this is problematic.

Firing or denying promotions to career DOJ prosecutors who assisted Mueller in his investigation.

This is the first I've heard of this allegation.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Taken in context with all else that AG Barr has been doing these past few months...
Such as?

#44 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Wow. You really did drink the Kool-Aid.

2,000 former DOJ lawyers have demanded Barr resign now. That's never happened before.

From intervening on the Stone matter after Trump's Tweet to interfering in the Impeachment investigation to blocking charges against a Turkish bank on behalf of the President's business to interfering with the Mueller Report then lying about it, etc. etc. etc.

#51 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

LAMP @ 38

"My interpretation is that she may sentence him to jail time on Thursday, but will delay the execution of the sentence until after the retrial issue is settled."

Stone was already denied a second trial once on the jury foreman grounds.

Does a convicted felon usually get two bites at the apple?

#52 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-02-18 12:24 PM | Reply

"Ordering the DOJ to renew it's investigation into the Ukraine and Biden "corruption".

So, now its verboten to investigate politicians?"

#50 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes. It is verboten to use the DOJ to specifically investigate a political opponent at the request of a POTUS who fears his challenge. Especially, in this case, where it has been made perfectly clear through numerous collateral sources that Trump is not really interested in investigating Biden so much as smearing him and lessening his possibilities as rival in the upcoming election.

(But you already know this. And you are lying if you claim otherwise.)

"Interfering with the career prosecutors in the sentencing of Trump cohort and trickster Roger Stone such that those prosecutors quit the case in protest.

Those prosecutors, 3 of whom were part of the Mueller team, told Barr one thing and then went and did something else. Again, a slight change to a sentencing recommendation????"

It's just coincidence that the one and only time this has happened is the same and one and only time that Trump has tweeted an angry denunciation of the DOJ's sentencing request AND the individual involved is a long time cohort and trickster of Trump. (

(Nothing to see here. Just keep moving.)

JeffJ, you have be either a paid shill or an extremely dishonest person to post the crap you post.

#53 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-02-18 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#34 a 7-9 year sentence for a 67 year old first time offender of a victimless crime?

All Barr did was intervene with sentencing recommendations. 3-4 years instead of 7-9. Also, the judge ultimately decides the sentence, not the DOJ.

You people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ

Jeff - Victimless? The whole country was a victim. Also don't forget the sentence was that mainly due to witness tampering - he threatened a key witness. There is a specific victim for you.

As for age - do you feel the same way about a 67 year old murderer? "Eh, he's 67 he doesn't deserve a normal sentence we can shorten it up just because he's old" Does that mean you think children deserve longer sentences because they are young? That MFer should have and did know better being 67 years old. He deliberately and openly defied the judge during the trial - until the judge flexed hard. He is unrepentant and arrogant. He sold out this country IMHO and deserves at least that recommended 7-9. As far as the crime goes anyone using or conspiring with foreign entities to influence elections deserve having their citizenship revoked IMHO.

#54 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-02-18 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

@#52 ... Stone was already denied a second trial once on the jury foreman grounds.

Does a convicted felon usually get two bites at the apple? ...

The Judge Amy Berman Jackson has been most patient with Mr Stone, showing that patience in tempering her actions when he disobeyed her orders.

About the delay, though...

Roger Stone will be sentenced Thursday despite his ongoing bid to overturn conviction
www.washingtonpost.com

..."There's been a lot of work that's gone into the sentencing," Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Tuesday. "It makes sense to proceed."

But she said "execution of the sentence will be deferred" while she rules on whether Stone deserves a new trial....


#55 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-18 12:34 PM | Reply

They're just afraid Durham is going to reveal them all as part of the Deep State conspiracy against Trump!

-JeffJ

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-18 12:36 PM | Reply

It's just coincidence that the one and only time this has happened is the same and one and only time that Trump has tweeted an angry denunciation of the DOJ's sentencing request AND the individual involved is a long time cohort and trickster of Trump. (

Trump's tweeting is hugely problematic. From what I've read Barr was already in the process of revising the sentencing guidelines and didn't speak with Trump about it. I suppose he could be lying about that however it seems to me that given that the changes in recommendations happened within hours of Trump's tweet (it takes time to prepare the paperwork, etc) it seems like a very plausible explanation.

Jeff - Victimless? The whole country was a victim.

A victim of what? He bragged about a relationship with Wikileaks that didn't even exist.

Yes. It is verboten to use the DOJ to specifically investigate a political opponent at the request of a POTUS who fears his challenge. - Does that make "Crossfire Hurricane" verboten? Is unlawfully obtaining FISA warrants to spy on a presidential campaign member verboten? Do you not see the double standard here? I chose my words carefully for a reason.

Also don't forget the sentence was that mainly due to witness tampering - he threatened a key witness. There is a specific victim for you.

That witness testified under oath that he didn't feel threatened - it was just Stone being Stone - all bluster and no bite. That testimony was apparently ignored in the sentencing guidelines before Barr intervened. The "threat" pushed the sentencing guidelines into a higher bracket.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:38 PM | Reply

As for age - do you feel the same way about a 67 year old murderer?

Apples and oranges. Unless he actually murdered someone your attempt at equivalence is meaningless.

he's 67 he doesn't deserve a normal sentence we can shorten it up just because he's old" Does that mean you think children deserve longer sentences because they are young?

That's not why I brought up his age. I brought it up because at age 67 he had no prior criminal record.

He deliberately and openly defied the judge during the trial - until the judge flexed hard. He is unrepentant and arrogant.

I completely agree with that.

He sold out this country IMHO and deserves at least that recommended 7-9. As far as the crime goes anyone using or conspiring with foreign entities to influence elections deserve having their citizenship revoked IMHO.

He's a POS and he's guilty of perjury and witness tampering but he is not guilty at all of what you are suggesting. Why can't we just stick to the truth?

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:42 PM | Reply

And Pence too, they all have to go because we lost an election in 2016.

This is so predictably hilarious.

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris

What's predictable is you lying and distorting when you post.

Schitheap. (in case you were wondering if you were still a piece of schit)

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-18 12:44 PM | Reply

he (Stone) is not guilty at all of what you are suggesting.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:42 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Any reasonable interpretation of his behavior shows the man sold out his country.

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-18 12:46 PM | Reply

Another day, another professional organization saying "orange man bad."

Yawn.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian

Maybe some day there will be enough electrical activity in that mush pile of THC burnt out brain matter you call a central nervous system to understand why organization after organization comes out to say "orange man bad".

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-18 12:46 PM | Reply

You people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ

Says JeffJ standing on top of the mountain of molehills of Trump corruption.

The forest, JeffJ. You just cannot see the forest, can you?

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-18 12:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does that make "Crossfire Hurricane" verboten? Is unlawfully obtaining FISA warrants to spy on a presidential campaign member verboten? Do you not see the double standard here? I chose my words carefully for a reason.

You make it sound like it was political.

A claim I'm sure you'll double down on now.

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-18 12:52 PM | Reply

You make it sound like it was political....

#63 | POSTED BY JPW

At this point I don't know if it was political or not.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 12:54 PM | Reply

You people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ

No. You are ignoring reality. 2,000 former DOJ attorneys including those appointed by Republican Administrations are calling for his resignation.

Take a moment... Would they be doing that if it was just a molehill?

#65 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

JEFF

" but he is not guilty at all of what you are suggesting."

Are you inferring that you are privy to everything the prosecutors knew?

#66 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-02-18 01:00 PM | Reply

You make it sound like it was political....
#63 | POSTED BY JPW
At this point I don't know if it was political or not.
#64 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Jeff, take a moment.

All 4 attorneys for the DOJ filed emergency motions to withdraw immediately from the case and resigned from the DOJ.

That doesn't happen ever.

These guys gave up their careers at the DOJ and put their licenses to practice in peril of a complaint to their respective Bar Associations.

All Four. Not one. Not two. Not three. All Four.

Then one of the attorneys overseeing the matters, who Trump literally nominated for a Treasury position in December, was suddenly withdrawn and is now out of the DOJ as well.

For a guy who believed Hillary was dirty because of Uranium One because it smelled fishy, you certainly seem to be defending Trump against all facts.

#67 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

To shills like JeffJ and Mattress, those 2000 DOJ attorney must all be Democrats and parts of the Deep State conspiracy. Seriously. That is how they rationalize this unprecedented turn of events. When, in the history of America, have so many people within an agency risen up to protest the perversion of that agency by it's head? This is historic. But to JeffJ, we are all just making a mountain out of a molehill.

#68 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-02-18 01:02 PM | Reply

I swear these trumpers make trump's crimes sound like harmless hijinks of a pre-teen adolescent.

Ward: Beav, did you conspire with putin so you could win an election unfairly?

Beav: no, no, the democrats did it.

Ward: Beav, go tell them you are sorry and promise to shovel their driveway.....

Beav: okaaaaayyyyyyy, but I ain't done nothing wrong.

#69 | Posted by kudzu at 2020-02-18 01:09 PM | Reply

This is just the beginning folks. Schittstain needs a false flag to declare martial law so he can use the "newly reauthorized" patriot act to suppress all dissent and terrorize his "enemies". Thanks Nancy and Chuck for giving him the tools he needs to oppress us all. The Dems ARE NOT taking this schitt nearly seriously enough. They need to re- impeach this dude like yesterday and bring EVERYTHING they've got to bear. Take off the kid gloves. It's GO time.

#70 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-18 01:12 PM | Reply

Will Americans wait until this coup is complete and we are all like the "illegals"? Trump Will find a way to start "preventive detention" of his percieved enemies.
Possibly even members of Congress. We are in uncharted waters here. Hitler only had to corrupt a small part of the state apparatus to become a total despot. He did it "legally", remember that.

This is one time when I fear the gun nuts may be on to something about our gov. It's just a shame most of them "love",this ogre.

#71 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-18 01:20 PM | Reply

#15?
#28 | Posted by BruceBanner a

I think I was confused on your post, I was referring to my belief that the judge's meeting will result in a powerless letter and nothing more

#72 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-02-18 01:45 PM | Reply

Where were these judges when the Fast & Furious scandal with obama and his 'wingman' [Holder] was in the news?

Eric Holder: 'I'm still the president's wingman' www.politico.com

#73 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-02-18 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump-Barr/Prison 2020

#74 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-02-18 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing was appropriate.
#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You're ------ in the head and i'm done wasting my time with you.

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-18 02:03 PM | Reply

#72. ah. i thought you were saying trump would write a powerless letter and that made me become confused.

#76 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-18 02:05 PM | Reply

Trump is pardoning his buddies today just to show the judges their sentences don't matter.

#77 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-18 02:05 PM | Reply

"Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing was appropriate.
#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Exactly..
In fact it was so appropriate that a new trial is forthcoming.

#78 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 02:09 PM | Reply

It is clearly outlined in the Constitution of the United States. The Sitting President is the Chief law enforcement officer of the country.
Is this clear enough?

#79 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 02:14 PM | Reply

"Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing was appropriate.
#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"
Exactly..
In fact it was so appropriate that a new trial is forthcoming.
#78 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Barr intervened in sentencing.

Why would that give Stone a new trial?

Also, a new trial would be up to the judge. Good luck with that.

#80 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 02:23 PM | Reply

A new trial is highly unlikely. The only way it happens is if it can be proven that the jury foreman lied on her questionaire, which is currently sealed.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 02:26 PM | Reply

#79 Should we all call him "the leader" now and dispense with all the formalities? He might just as well declare himself above all statutary law and embody our justice system in this person.
Maybe you want all, gov.and military leaders and the congress to take personal loyalty oaths to Trump? My God some of you people here seem to want an absolute leader just desperately.

What happened to the America I remember as a young man? I don't even recognize the schitthole we have become since 1980.

#82 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-18 02:26 PM | Reply

It is clearly outlined in the Constitution of the United States. The Sitting President is the Chief law enforcement officer of the country.
Is this clear enough?
#79 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

I'm sorry but where do you see that outlined in the Constitution?

All I see is, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

It doesn't say he gets to decide who to prosecute and their sentences.

Maybe you are reading a different Constitution...

#83 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 02:34 PM | Reply

A new trial is highly unlikely. The only way it happens is if it can be proven that the jury foreman lied on her questionaire, which is currently sealed.

#81 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No. Even then its almost impossible to get a new trial.

#84 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 02:34 PM | Reply

"A new trial is highly unlikely.
#81 | Posted by JeffJ"

I heard it on the news today.

#85 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 02:35 PM | Reply

"A new trial is highly unlikely.
#81 | Posted by JeffJ"
I heard it on the news today.
#85 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

You heard the Defense is filing a motion for a new trial.

Not that he is getting a new trial.

Rush is not the news.

#86 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 02:37 PM | Reply

Is the President of the United States also the nation's chief law enforcement officer?
According to Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, He is.

#87 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 02:39 PM | Reply

Even then its almost impossible to get a new trial.

#84 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Wouldn't it be deemed a mistrial?

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 02:43 PM | Reply

Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

That does NOT seem to indicate that the President is the nation's Chief LEO.

#89 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 02:44 PM | Reply

"Even then its almost impossible to get a new trial"

Apparently there is some new "evidence" ??

#90 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 02:45 PM | Reply

Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
That does NOT seem to indicate that the President is the nation's Chief LEO.

#89 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Finally.

Yes, the Constitution does NOT indicate the President is the nation's chief LEO.

Glad you read it and figured it out.

#91 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 02:50 PM | Reply

Even then its almost impossible to get a new trial.
#84 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Wouldn't it be deemed a mistrial?
#88 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Unfortunately, no. In most cases, you're still SOL.

Rule 606(b), according to the Supreme Court, made "jury deliberations evidence inadmissible even if used to demonstrate dishonesty during voir dire."

#92 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 02:52 PM | Reply

"Even then its almost impossible to get a new trial"
Apparently there is some new "evidence" ??
#90 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

It would have to be some amazing evidence.

And no one has presented any.

#93 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 02:52 PM | Reply

What is the function of the Attorney General?
He is the head of the US Department of Justice and the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Federal Government.

#94 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 02:53 PM | Reply

It's looking like Trump is only guilty of tweeting.
Damn him.

#95 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 02:55 PM | Reply

No Chance of a New Trial for Stone

It's not going to happen. The problem is that the Juror didn't lie. She said she wasn't specifically aware of Stone's connections to Trump and that she could render an impartial verdict.

These can't be proven to be lies.

The Defense asked about her political allegiance. The Juror indicated she had run for office as a Democrat in the past.

In addition, the Defense team didn't move to strike her and didn't ask additional questions regarding any of the above alleged issues.

This isn't even the first time the Defense made the motion for a new trial. They made it before on the same issue and it was denied.

#96 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 02:58 PM | Reply

A new trial is highly unlikely. The only way it happens is if it can be proven that the jury foreman lied on her questionaire, which is currently sealed.

#81 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Your "sources" suck.

The Juror In Question Revealed Relevant Information

"The only way it could be a problem post-trial would be if they asked a question and the jury foreperson provided an inaccurate, incomplete, or incorrect answer," said Mark W. Bennett, a former Iowa federal judge.

No evidence has been publicly brought forth to suggest that that was the case with respect to the juror that Trump referenced.

In fact, the Washington Post reported on Thursday that the juror disclosed her political affiliation and past involvement with Democratic political campaigns during the selection process, as required.

Gertner, another former federal judge, examined the questionnaires used in the Stone trial.

The question now is less Stone's fate and more what affect a week of pressure on both the prosecutorial and judicial branches of government will have on the criminal justice system.

"As a longtime federal prosecutor, I'm shocked and really disappointed in the White House being involved in any specific criminal case," said Heaphy, the former U.S. attorney.

"This is going to chill people from wanting to serve on juries," he added. "It's going to chill the exercise of the law by line federal prosecutors."

Gertner, the former federal judge, added that it ran the risk of turning prosecutors "from professionals into political lackeys."

"It's making everyone from one end of the country to the other who are working for the DOJ decide if they can continue in their jobs as independent professionals," she added.

"It's critical that she disclosed," Gertner said, emphasizing that there could only be any further issue if what the foreperson initially said was somehow incomplete. [This is something the judge, the prosecutors, and the defense would already know for certainty.]

Stone Got A Fair Shot At Examining Them

Trump and his allies' claim that the foreperson suffered from bias also mistakes a key pillar of the jury system: it accepts that people enter the process with independent backgrounds and political views.

The process, rather, is designed to remove those who cannot fairly judge evidence and make decisions on the law before them.

In the Stone case, his defense attorneys reportedly interviewed several of the jurors during selection, and submitted interrogatories for the jury questionnaire.

"They should have had ample opportunity to ferret out any bias and remove a juror," said Bennett.

His attorneys could have appealed any ruling made by the judge at that stage of the case, but there's no evidence that they did so. Once the jury pool was finalized, that was Stone's last opportunity to contest issues like the composition of those set to judge him.

And this is where we are today courtesy of Trump/Barr and the right wing fever swamp sowing disinformation and lies to tarnish the proper functioning of our justice system; all in the service of an unindicted co-conspirator President and his felonious friends.

#97 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-02-18 03:05 PM | Reply

The President has tried to work this out sensibly, but it's not going to work.
Let the sentencing be done, then pardon Stone.

#98 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 03:08 PM | Reply

THe next step will be for the repuglicans to start calling for the foreperson's name to be outed.

You know, for freedom!

#99 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-02-18 03:43 PM | Reply

Your "sources" suck.

What I said was accurate. Re-read it as many times as necessary.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 03:48 PM | Reply

THe next step will be for the repuglicans to start calling for the foreperson's name to be outed.

Her identity is publicly known.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 03:48 PM | Reply

Rule 606(b), according to the Supreme Court, made "jury deliberations evidence inadmissible even if used to demonstrate dishonesty during voir dire."

#92 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Cool. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 03:49 PM | Reply

Let the sentencing be done, then pardon Stone.

#98 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

I agree. Let Trump show what a tin pot dictator he is so people can vote him out on his ass in November.

#103 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-18 03:55 PM | Reply

Rule 606(b), according to the Supreme Court, made "jury deliberations evidence inadmissible even if used to demonstrate dishonesty during voir dire."
#92 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Cool. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
#102 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I was surprised by it as well and frankly thinks its BS. But that's the current law.

It's nearly impossible to get a new trial.

#104 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 03:55 PM | Reply

What I said was accurate.

Accurate perhaps, but stale and moot. It's already public knowledge that the foreperson disclosed all she needed to. It was reported by multiple sources, including someone who's actually read the questionnaire.

The point being that Stone's defense could have asked for more revealing answers and they didn't at the point they should have if her associations were such an issue to them as a matter of her impartiality. Bias is accepted and already allowed if it doesn't impact a potential juror's ability to adjudicate the evidence and testimony fairly.

Let's turn this around: If I found myself in federal court today I would have my attorney argue that any person who voted for Trump cannot be seated on my jury because I'm vehemently against him, even though Trump had nothing to do with my crime, and since I disclosed this, I know that Trump supporters will not be impartial to my case. Everybody knows that Trump supporters cannot be impartial, right? That's precisely what Trump alleges of anyone that isn't kissing his arse or his ring these days.

If this becomes the standard for adjudicating justice, our system will grind to a halt which is exactly what Trump wants when his friends find themselves charged with crimes that Donald thinks are "unfair."

#105 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-02-18 04:05 PM | Reply

He next step will be for the repuglicans to start calling for the foreperson's name to be outed.
Her identity is publicly known.
#101 | Posted by JeffJ

Ahhh, I see. Brave woman.

#106 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-02-18 04:05 PM | Reply

The point being that Stone's defense could have asked for more revealing answers and they didn't at the point they should have if her associations were such an issue to them as a matter of her impartiality. Bias is accepted and already allowed if it doesn't impact a potential juror's ability to adjudicate the evidence and testimony fairly.

I agree and I think it is difficult to prove that she didn't adequately disclose her biases. I think Stone's defense team f-ed up though. All they had to do is look at her social media posts and see that she had a HUGE bias both against Trump and Stone. No competent counsel would have allowed her to sit on that jury. Ultimately though, the evidence against Stone was overwhelming, so in light of that and what Sycophant provided in #92, Stone will be sentenced in 2 days, will appeal and will be denied.

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 04:24 PM | Reply

Now he's talking about filing lawsuits against the 4 prosecutors who quit.

Is there an age limit for that sort of thing, jeffj, or does any age go when it comes to lawsuits?

#108 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-02-18 06:09 PM | Reply

I agree and I think it is difficult to prove that she didn't adequately disclose her biases. I think Stone's defense team f-ed up though. All they had to do is look at her social media posts and see that she had a HUGE bias both against Trump and Stone. No competent counsel would have allowed her to sit on that jury. Ultimately though, the evidence against Stone was overwhelming, so in light of that and what Sycophant provided in #92, Stone will be sentenced in 2 days, will appeal and will be denied.

#107 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

There is nothing showing she had biases against Stone.

Trump yes.

She told the Defense team and Judge she ran for office as a Democrat.

So, lets be honest: she disclosed her bias and the Defense didn't move to strike her anyway.

She did exactly as the law required. She answered the questions honestly. The Defense Team screwed up and now is pretending its an issue.

That said, it's not as if she was the only juror. They ALL found him guilty.

#109 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-18 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is nothing showing she had biases against Stone.

I read that she did, but it's really not terribly important at this point. The evidence was overwhelming against Stone and had all of the jurors been registered Republicans I think voting to convict would have been simple and unanimous.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-18 06:20 PM | Reply

Judiciary: what does the term 'legislating from the bench' mean and when have you ever wanted a judge removed for it.

Do they need google or do they protect their own.

#111 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-02-18 06:22 PM | Reply

No one disputes that Stone is guilty as charged. Its the long sentence that is in dispute.

#112 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-18 06:34 PM | Reply

No one disputes that Stone is guilty as charged. Its the long sentence that is in dispute.

#112 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE AT 2020-02-18 06:34 PM | FLAG:

Fine. Barr and Trump should stay the hell out of it.

#113 | Posted by cbob at 2020-02-18 07:22 PM | Reply

PHESTER

Seven to nine is not a long sentence. If he's a good boy he'll be out in three. Or Trump will pardon him after one if not before.

What Stone wants is to be found NOT GUILTY, thus the second request for a new trial. Basically, however, he's probably just a coward. His lifestyle as a peacock is over.

#114 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-02-18 09:25 PM | Reply

Seven to nine is longer than some gun related cases. Or burglery.
Recently some freak beat a dog to death and got less time.

#115 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-19 07:58 AM | Reply

Maybe you are reading a different Constitution...

#83 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Probably thinking of his Russian Constitution.

#116 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-19 10:26 AM | Reply

"Seven to nine is longer than some gun related cases. Or burglery."

Womp! Womp!

But not as long as some.

You can also go to prison for life for simple drug possession under the 3 strikes laws.

Justice is not always just is it?

#117 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-19 10:33 AM | Reply

Wow. Big news. Bigger than the Peppa Pigs today.

#118 | Posted by wisgod at 2020-02-19 02:03 PM | Reply

#114. Untrue in the federal system, parole doesn't exist. You do every day you are sentenced for, unlike state crimes. The most you are allowed is a 20% reduction for good behavior. It's very easy to lose that little bit.

#119 | Posted by ABH at 2020-02-19 05:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort