Conservative dodge ball

[wdmso]

Why have conservatives aka Republicans remained silent on Trumps comments on Roger stone

Please let's not go down the trevon Martin road those comments were after the trial..


Trumps press secretary comments are laughable as if Trumps a private citizen

Trump “wasn’t bothered by the comments at all and he has the right, just like any American citizen, to publicly offer his opinions.”

Funny the last POTUS or previous were never afforded that latitude

So Trump is concerned about corruption when he thinks Biden is his top challenger
So Trump just happens to be worried about a navy seal
So Trump is now concerned about HIS FRIENDS sentence just before his sentencing
So Trump thinks Microsoft is better than Amazon President himself has publicly stated , ‘screw Amazon

Funny Trump fans dont see these actions, But They see missing emails and bengiza and still insist there is evidence on some distant undecrovered planet hiding them

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

bengiza

baaazinga!!

[scottw]

when they raided stone's place with a paramilitary team and seals with cnn dutifully on hand to capture the inevitable shoot out between our nation's top guns and two non-violent, unarmed 70+ year olds asleep in their nightgowns, one of whom is disabled...they probably should have put a cap in the wife's good knee to send a message so stone would be more cooperative

[Sea Dangles]

There are more undecrovered planets than we think there is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Trump and Barr aren’t just interfering to protect Roger Stone.
They’re doing it because Stone’s crimes directly implicate Trump: Stone was trying to hide that Trump ordered his team to set up a backchannel to WikiLeaks—in other words, to collude.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

when they raided stone's place with a paramilitary team and seals with cnn dutifully on hand to capture the inevitable shoot out between our nation's top guns and two non-violent, unarmed 70+ year olds asleep in their nightgowns, one of whom is disabled...they probably should have put a cap in the wife's good knee to send a message so stone would be more cooperative

the fact that the doj tipped
off cnn, and the fact that they swarmed his house with seal team 6 armed to the teeth, tells
you how screwed up this was. Give him a year in prison max, call it a day.

How much time does a guy his age deserve for lying about an investigation that was a big zero? more than a year?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Don't worry Agolf found a new lawyer for Stone.
Same guy who represented John Gotti.

Why would a lawyer with experience in defending a client at the same time as protecting a criminal conspiracy be required?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the fact that the doj tipped
off cnn, and the fact that they swarmed his house with seal team 6 armed to the teeth, tells
you how screwed up this was. Give him a year in prison max, call it a day.

How much time does a guy his age deserve for lying about an investigation that was a big zero? more than a year?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So
If Epstein was a guy at his age just a year would be acceptable

Funny now felony's are measured by the outcomes of the precived investigation outcomes based on non factual interpretation. Not the actual crime and conviction by a jury of his peers

Ps the CNN tip off more conspiracy theory by stone himself

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So
If Epstein was a guy at his age just a year would be acceptable

Funny now felony's are measured by the outcomes of the precived investigation outcomes based on non factual interpretation

you might request a do-over for that pile of nonsense

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So
If Epstein was a guy at his age just a year would be acceptable

if you’re simpleminded enough to equate lying and mass statutory rape, sure. But you see, some people believe that lying and mass statutory rape, are different. You obviously see no difference between those things, but some
people do. Have fun with that logic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you might request a do-over for that pile of nonsense

stupidest thing not posted by pete in awhile.

lying = kiddie rape.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Definitely a good guy in Agolf Twittler's eyes.

In 2016, my former boss, Sen. Ted Cruz and then-candidate Donald Trump were locked in a heated Republican primary race. Shortly after Super Tuesday, Stone was the only source quoted on the record in the outlandish National Enquirer story that Cruz was involved with not one, but five mistresses.

The false story of multiple affairs was profoundly damaging not only to Cruz's campaign, which lost valuable time responding to the claims, but also for the innocent women who were wrongly accused of being involved. While the National Enquirer did not identify the five alleged mistresses, it included pixelated headshots with black bars over their eyes.
My happily married friend and CNN colleague Amanda Carpenter was falsely accused and 'gaslit' live on television about her involvement in the bogus story. This resulted in brutal online harassment, which included negative tweets, photoshopped images of her children and trolls who impersonated her husband with fake social media accounts. Years later, she tells me she is still constantly vigilant against bad actors seeking to lie, unfairly smear opponents and take the low road for political advantage.
Stone also pushed the conspiracy theory that Sen. Cruz's father, Pastor Rafael Cruz, was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Stone claimed Rafael had "CIA connections" and told Chuck Todd, "I think he's a shady character."
Rafael is one of the most God-fearing men I have met. He is a good man. As the tabloid story began to infiltrate mainstream media, I had to call Rafael and actually ask him if he was involved in the assassination of JFK in order to rebut the claims to media. Needless to say, he said "no."

The personal character assassinations are just a small fraction of Stone's life's work dedicated to political destruction. It's fully appropriate for Stone's character history to be considered in the upcoming sentencing. Understanding full well that a presidential pardon is likely on the horizon, I encourage Judge Jackson to lean on the high end of the guidelines and let the chips fall where they may.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you’re simpleminded enough to equate lying and mass statutory rape, sure. But you see, some people believe that lying and mass statutory rape, are different. You obviously see no difference between those things, but some
people do. Have fun with that logic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny your the one minimizing the 9 felony convictions and not bright enough to realize I was using your logic with my example , poor old man... not mine

Wasn't Bill just lying about a blow job he got impeached

But Stones lies are just lies of an old man and are excusable

Typical Trump supporter Republican crimes are not crimes nor are their convictions.. it's all deep state bla bla bla

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny your the one minimizing the 9 felony convictions and not bright enough to realize I was using your logic with my example , not my own

Wasn't Bill just lying about a blow job he got impeached

But Stones lies are just lies of an old man

Typical Trump supporter Republican crimes are not crimes nor are their convictions.. it's all deep state bla bla bla

you equated lying with the repeated mass rape of children.

i said that a year in jail for lying sounds like plenty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I was using your logic with my example

I caught that...BRILLIANT!!

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you equated lying with the repeated mass rape of children.

i said that a year in jail for lying sounds like plenty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SORRY I associated a convicted felon with another convicted felon and if he was old it should excuse his behavior. As you suggested .. funny only the crimes you feel warrant punishment should be enforced

A child rapist or a car theft get strip searched in prison..

You do the crime . You do the time unless your Trumps pal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

SORRY I associated a convicted felon with another convicted felon and if he was old it should excuse his behavior. As you suggested .. funny only the crimes you feel warrant punishment should be enforced

A child rapist or a car theft get strip searched in prison..

You do the crime . You do the time unless your Trumps pal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

love you Wayne but you are making zero sense.....should'a taken a do-over

[wdmso]

By

Originally Posted by scottw

love you Wayne but you are making zero sense.....should'a taken a do-over

I very never been good at Translating what's in my head to paper .. Iam a better conversationalist.. a skill I needed in Corrections ..

Basically a felon is a felon their crime or age doesn't change that. A jury convicted them and Trump should have support that. He chose not to.


Trump or jim never thought the college admission scam recommendations were to harsh. And needed to tweet how unfairly they were treated

Maybe because they were the liberal elite ... who knows

[scottw]

even when decoded...you are making zero sense

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

By
I very never been good at Translating what's in my head to paper .. Iam a better conversationalist.. a skill I needed in Corrections ..

Basically a felon is a felon their crime or age doesn't change that. A jury convicted them and Trump should have support that. He chose not to.


Trump or jim never thought the college admission scam recommendations were to harsh. And needed to tweet how unfairly they were treated

Maybe because they were the liberal elite ... who knows

Dubya, I believe that essentially you're trying to be fair and balanced. But fair and balanced can only work within a system that is not corrupted. I suspect that you've been, to a large degree, in the jobs you've held, in a position in which you must trust that all has been done ethically within the law. Soldiers, law enforcement, corrections officers must surely have to believe that those they fight, prosecute, kill, or incarcerate are done so by just cause and honest process. Otherwise, fidelity to what they must do becomes a corruption of their own character, or a situation they must either leave or go mad. Or turn against.

So I can see how you completely believe that decisions by jury must unequivocally be accepted without complaint or disagreement. But if the process that leads to conviction has been dishonest, it must not be accepted. I can see how a soldier must believe for sanity's sake that commands to fight and kill are just.

But others, not on the field of battle, must be allowed the freedom to think otherwise. That is a basic protection against the ancient tyranny of those in power who are not just, not honest, not true to their oath . . . not true to upholding that which binds their society in an honest, trusted, harmony.

We are the ultimate watchdogs of those who we choose to govern the legal affairs of our nation. It is healthy for some of us to comment on, expose, oppose, when some in power choose to bend or break the law or the process by which they are supposed to be bound.

Obviously, since we mostly have to see through the glass darkly, we will differ. Unfortunately, that too often is on biased partisan grounds. But, at least, it creates the necessary discussions and protests that help to restrain those who, regardless of the integrity of their motive, corrupt our system.

That's why, for instance, I try to engage you in discussions of a "message", not the killing of the messenger.

Many think that Trump is the essence of the corruption that I mentioned. Many think he is a flawed push back against it. Many think it's all just politics, to be expected. But most of us do have opinions. And we're fortunate to be able to have the freedom and the forums to express them. And if we do have honest and thorough debate, we may be able to maintain that road to the desired more perfect Union. But we waste that opportunity when we dismiss rather than discuss.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Dubya, I believe that essentially you're trying to be fair and balanced. But fair and balanced can only work within a system that is not corrupted. I suspect that you've been, to a large degree, in the jobs you've held, in a position in which you must trust that all has been done ethically within the law. Soldiers, law enforcement, corrections officers must surely have to believe that those they fight, prosecute, kill, or incarcerate are done so by just cause and honest process. Otherwise, fidelity to what they must do becomes a corruption of their own character, or a situation they must either leave or go mad. Or turn against.

So I can see how you completely believe that decisions by jury must unequivocally be accepted without complaint or disagreement. But if the process that leads to conviction has been dishonest, it must not be accepted. I can see how a soldier must believe for sanity's sake that commands to fight and kill are just.

But others, not on the field of battle, must be allowed the freedom to think otherwise. That is a basic protection against the ancient tyranny of those in power who are not just, not honest, not true to their oath . . . not true to upholding that which binds their society in an honest, trusted, harmony.

We are the ultimate watchdogs of those who we choose to govern the legal affairs of our nation. It is healthy for some of us to comment on, expose, oppose, when some in power choose to bend or break the law or the process by which they are supposed to be bound.

Obviously, since we mostly have to see through the glass darkly, we will differ. Unfortunately, that too often is on biased partisan grounds. But, at least, it creates the necessary discussions and protests that help to restrain those who, regardless of the integrity of their motive, corrupt our system.

That's why, for instance, I try to engage you in discussions of a "message", not the killing of the messenger.

Many think that Trump is the essence of the corruption that I mentioned. Many think he is a flawed push back against it. Many think it's all just politics, to be expected. But most of us do have opinions. And we're fortunate to be able to have the freedom and the forums to express them. And if we do have honest and thorough debate, we may be able to maintain that road to the desired more perfect Union. But we waste that opportunity when we dismiss rather than discuss.

All Trump needed to do was wait till sentencing was over and Pardon his Pal He didn't .. He interfered ...

But if the process that leads to conviction has been dishonest,


there are steps to address those possibilities... Just imagining that the process was dishonest with zero supporting evidence is called A conspiracy Theory... and the right lives in them daily AS does Trump

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Basically a felon is a felon their crime or age doesn't change that. A jury convicted them

you know that epstein was awaiting trial...right?

too bad too...the trial would have been interesting...who know what might have sprung out of that

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

you know that epstein was awaiting trial...right?

too bad too...the trial would have been interesting...who know what might have sprung out of that

Yes but he was already a convicted sex offender , this trial was for sex trafficking

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

All Trump needed to do was wait till sentencing was over and Pardon his Pal He didn't .. He interfered ...

Barr had already made his decision before Trump twittered about it. There was no interference in making that decision.

But if the process that leads to conviction has been dishonest,


there are steps to address those possibilities... Just imagining that the process was dishonest with zero supporting evidence is called A conspiracy Theory... and the right lives in them daily AS does Trump

One of the steps is to dissent. Complain. Argue with logic and evidence. There have been many dissenting arguments with what was considered supporting evidence re the criminal pursuit of Stone. Even what he was convicted of was not a crime that existed before he was investigated, but were basically process crimes that occurred because of the investigation.

This sort of dissent happens a lot in investigations and trials and convictions or exonerations. It happes a lot on this forum by those on both "sides." It's not an interference, it is part of free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of dissent. It is a healthy sign that those freedoms still exist.

You complain about authoritarianism, yet you display an authoritarian attitude toward dissenters you don't agree with. You dismiss them as mindless conspiracy theorists, yet you mindlessly spout your own conspiracy theory that "the right lives in them daily".

[scottw]

his narrative is in tatters...but he will dutifully cling to it...aaaaand...it's looking like a mistrial

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

One of the steps is to dissent. Complain. Argue with logic and evidence. There have been many dissenting arguments with what was considered supporting evidence re the criminal pursuit of Stone. Even what he was convicted of was not a crime that existed before he was investigated, but were basically process crimes that occurred because of the investigation.

This sort of dissent happens a lot in investigations and trials and convictions or exonerations. It happes a lot on this forum by those on both "sides." It's not an interference, it is part of free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of dissent. It is a healthy sign that those freedoms still exist.

You complain about authoritarianism, yet you display an authoritarian attitude toward dissenters you don't agree with. You dismiss them as mindless conspiracy theorists, yet you mindlessly spout your own conspiracy theory that "the right lives in them daily".

So dismissing those who present baseless suggestion or aka conspiracies that are not based on logic or evidence ( still waiting on this evidence) is a authoritarian attitude .. ok. Sure it is.

And this Trump free speech argument is a weak argument for his interfering in Stone and now Flynn who pleaded guilty.

And Stone never committed a crime because you think a crime wasn't commented ?

And Just because there were no investigation by Ukraine trump never asked for a quid pro quo ...

I see your logic their is no justice for Republicans

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So dismissing those who present baseless suggestion or aka conspiracies that are not based on logic or evidence ( still waiting on this evidence) is a authoritarian attitude .. ok. Sure it is.

Claiming that someone is being overcharged for a process crime is not a baseless suggestion. It is logical.

And this Trump free speech argument is a weak argument for his interfering in Stone and now Flynn who pleaded guilty.

Trump did not interfere. And Flynn's now excellent attorney claims he was not properly advised by his previous attorney, and he now claims that he was not guilty and is changing his plea. I've presented evidence of this, but you disregarded it or never looked at it.

And Stone never committed a crime because you think a crime wasn't commented ?

I didn't say a crime was not committed. I said that the crime he was charged with was not the same for which he was being investigated, and it was a result of the investigation. Ergo it was a process crime and should not be as harshly penalized. Perhaps you think it should. But it isn't unreasonable or illogical or illegal or a conspiracy theory to suggest that. Further, on the witness intimidation charge, the witness claims he wasn't intimidated, that it was the way he and Stone kiddingly bantered with one another.

And Just because there were no investigation by Ukraine trump never asked for a quid pro quo ...

No quid pro quo was asked in either of his telephone conversations with Zelensky. And Zenlensky denies any quid pro quo or any pressure. And the weapons were delivered on time. And Zelensky did not have to do anything to get them.

You demand that evidence must be presented in order to make claims of what amounts to prosecutorial misconduct in the Flynn case, but you (authoritarianly?) don't have to present evidence that proves or suggests not only a quid pro quo (which would not be illegal) but one whose sole intent is to influence an election. What evidence do you have that if there were a quid pro quo (which was not proven to exist) that it was in order to influence an election.

I see your logic their is no justice for Republicans

You see what was not said but exists in your conspiratorial, authoritarian, head

[spence]

Process crimes are still crimes and impending a federal investigation is pretty serious business. Why even have sentencing guidelines if they can be overridden by presidential tweet?

Barr needs to go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Process crimes are still crimes and impending a federal investigation is pretty serious business. Why even have sentencing guidelines if they can be overridden by presidential tweet?

Barr needs to go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The most serious charge against Stone was witness tampering. That witness, Randy Credico, says he never felt intimidated by what Stone said, that it was typical Stone bluster, that Stone didn't really mean it. He wrote a letter to the Judge explaining that, and he was not asked by the prosecutors if he felt intimidated. Stone's lying to Congress bit was no worse than Brennan's, or Comey's, or Hillary's lies for which they have yet to serve any prison time. And in the committing of these process crimes which would never have occurred if Stone had not been investigated on bogus pretenses which turned out to be unproven, he was a first time non-violent offender. And Barr was right to object to the overly harsh sentence.

Barr is doing a good job. He doesn't "needs to go." You're just being a partisan hack. And it appears to many others that Stone was being set up. Who knows? But it is not baseless or conspiratorial to think that or to object the sentence of 7 to 9 years.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Process crimes are still crimes and impending a federal investigation is pretty serious business. Why even have sentencing guidelines if they can be overridden by presidential tweet?

Barr needs to go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he wasn't "impending" anything....your ilk concocted a narrative about non-existent "collusion" and LIED to the FISA court in order to surveil and make targets of anyone associated with trump because you were all butt hurt over the election outcome....that's pretty serious