The Roger Stone Trial

[Tennesseefan2019]

All they want to do is investigate, this November we as voters better send their sorry asses packing

The Democrats are throwing anything against the wall to see if anything sticks. They're so stupid that they don't see that they're heading for their destruction on November 3rd.

 

[Septic]

From your link:
“The Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading,” Kupec said. “But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released. However, the Attorney General ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion.”

Mueller's bitching that Barr isn't an activist for his report; that isn't Barr's job. And media coverage of the report is a curious concern since media had been acting as Mueller's surrogate mouthpiece for two years, and a year before that during the FBI's investigation, leaks, and media manipulation.

Barr is their boss, and the boss of Liu. If Liu wasn't plugged into her team and didn't know they were going to stab DoJ in the back on the sentencing recommendation, she should resign. If she knew, she should be fired.

So the DOJ representative, Kupec - an employee of Barr - suggested her interpretation was that nothing was misleading. This after mueller responded by stating that Barrs representation "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance" of the report. Kupec's interpretation versus Mueller's words.

All the rest of your post is fodder for feelz.

 

[Septic]

So as I said only 1 resigned, the other 3 quit the case. That is not an "exodus". Thanks for proving me right AGAIN.

The Muell said nothing in Barr's letter was inaccurate or misleading, how much more do you need?

It was ALL of them, what would you call something when you have all of something and they ALL leave and then you have none of something?

Your word games are worse than your ability to recognize reality.

 

[NCFisher]

"Went rogue" - cite your source or gtfo. If they'd have "stabbed him in the back" it'd have been front page news and they'd have been perp walked out of their offices holding cardboard boxes. It wasn't until after Trump weighed in that the DOJ rebuked the prosecuting attorneys recommendations.

LOL , the spin cycle needed a fifth gear for this.

DOJ is the source; cycle that. DOJ said the sentence was excessive, overly punitive. Now why would DOJ do that?

The official insisted that senior leadership of the department were not kept in the loop on the recommendation that federal prosecutors put forward in court Monday evening.

"The department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation,” the official, who requested anonymity to speak about the department's internal deliberations, said. “This was not what had been briefed to the department and the department thinks the recommendation was extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate to Stone’s offenses and the department will clarify its position later today at the court.”

DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec told reporters that the decision by department leadership to reverse course on the recommendation for Stone’s sentencing length came before the president’s tweet. Kupec declined to provide further specifics on the discussions or which members of leadership were involved. Entire Roger Stone prosecution team withdraws after DOJ lowers sentencing recommendation

Democrats are incalculably stupid to fabricate yet another yarn on the back of impeachment Camelot-lost, calling Barr to congress to simply and succinctly batter them with this testimony. Lemmings who can't wait to jump from another cliff.

I adore their frantic little suicidal impulses; so cute!

 

[NCFisher]

Yeah, I got nothing out of that.
Barr is a Trump stooge, pure and simple.
He intentionally publicly misrepresented the Mueller report before it was released to set the narrative in Trump's favor and give the right wing media a jump start on spreading the misinformation.

Nothing you posted changes any of that.

Great - then rebut it instead of repeating your unsubstantiated claim.

 

[hog88]

It was ALL of them, what would you call something when you have all of something and they ALL leave and then you have none of something?

Your word games are worse than your ability to recognize reality.

Dropping out of a case but not resigning from your job is not an "exodus of attorneys". Only 1 attorney felt strongly enough to actually leave the department.

You're trolling, you have been shown to be wrong multiple times yet you continue. You are dedicated to your craft.

 

[Mick]

Dropping out of a case but not resigning from your job is not an "exodus of attorneys". Only 1 attorney felt strongly enough to actually leave the department.

You're trolling, you have been shown to be wrong multiple times yet you continue. You are dedicated to your craft.

You're silly. There were 4 on the Roger Stone case and now there are none. What would you call it?

 

[C-south]

You're silly. There were 4 on the Roger Stone case and now there are none. What would you call it?

Typical dims getting their feelings hurt.

 

[Septic]

You're silly. There were 4 on the Roger Stone case and now there are none. What would you call it?

It's kind of hilarious to watch them spin this, especially @NCFisher account that they were the ones that undermined Barr.

Olympic level gymnastics.

 

[C-south]

It's kind of hilarious to watch them spin this, especially @NCFisher account that they were the ones that undermined Barr.

Olympic level gymnastics.

So prosecutors never take sentencing instructions from their superiors?

 

[Septic]

DOJ is the source; cycle that. DOJ said the sentence was excessive, overly punitive. Now why would DOJ do that?

The official insisted that senior leadership of the department were not kept in the loop on the recommendation that federal prosecutors put forward in court Monday evening.

"The department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation,” the official, who requested anonymity to speak about the department's internal deliberations, said. “This was not what had been briefed to the department and the department thinks the recommendation was extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate to Stone’s offenses and the department will clarify its position later today at the court.”

DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec told reporters that the decision by department leadership to reverse course on the recommendation for Stone’s sentencing length came before the president’s tweet. Kupec declined to provide further specifics on the discussions or which members of leadership were involved. Entire Roger Stone prosecution team withdraws after DOJ lowers sentencing recommendation

Democrats are incalculably stupid to fabricate yet another yarn on the back of impeachment Camelot-lost, calling Barr to congress to simply and succinctly batter them with this testimony. Lemmings who can't wait to jump from another cliff.

I adore their frantic little suicidal impulses; so cute!

Can you cite an objective source that backs up your assertion that the attorney's "stabbed Barr in the back" after briefing the DOJ of one thing and doing another? That's what you said occured.

You keep offering a nonsensical unsourced, uncited bombshell assertions and backstopping it up with insults. While this may impress the simpletons and get you a few likes from a few mouthbreathers, it does nothing to lend to your credibility.

 

[NCFisher]

So the DOJ representative, Kupec - an employee of Barr - suggested her interpretation was that nothing was misleading. This after mueller responded by stating that Barrs representation "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance" of the report. Kupec's interpretation versus Mueller's words.

All the rest of your post is fodder for feelz.

You have this backwards; Mueller was a DOJ contractor. They run him, and they handle his report upon receipt, not the inverse. You ; that's the purpose of DOJ's releasing the 400 pages. Which they had no legal or constitutional obligation to do.

Mr Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his work, adding: “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

He called for lengthy executive summaries of his report to be released, which went into detail about around a dozen possible episodes of obstruction by Mr Trump. Mr Barr rejected the proposal.

But Mr Barr batted away the criticism. He claimed that Mr Mueller made clear in a call that he did not believe the four-page document was inaccurate, instead expressing concern over press coverage.

Asked why he had declined to publish full executive summaries of the report, Mr Barr said: “I wasn’t interested in putting out summaries, period.”

Mr Barr insisted he wanted to get the report out rather than releasing it as a series, saying: “It was my decision how and when to make that public, not Bob Mueller’s.”
Trump's attorney general denies misleading public over Russia report after Robert Mueller criticism

So, let's backtrack here to your lead comment:
"And yes, Barr did misrepresent Muellers findings. Your revisionist history may work at the dinner table with LIV buddys, but not here."

Mueller didn't say or imply that, you did. In fact, Mueller stated the opposite of what you said.
You can thank for not having to repeat that untruth going forward.

 

[Septic]

So prosecutors never take sentencing instructions from their superiors?

Of course they do, generally it's not after the fact and definitely not after their superiors boss tweets disdain about its unfairness. The conflict of interest would be apparent to a toddler.

Drain the swamp though.

 

[Septic]

You have this backwards; Mueller was a DOJ contractor. They run him, and they handle his report upon receipt, not the inverse. You ; that's the purpose of DOJ's releasing the 400 pages. Which they had no legal or constitutional obligation to do.

Mr Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his work, adding: “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

He called for lengthy executive summaries of his report to be released, which went into detail about around a dozen possible episodes of obstruction by Mr Trump. Mr Barr rejected the proposal.

But Mr Barr batted away the criticism. He claimed that Mr Mueller made clear in a call that he did not believe the four-page document was inaccurate, instead expressing concern over press coverage.

Asked why he had declined to publish full executive summaries of the report, Mr Barr said: “I wasn’t interested in putting out summaries, period.”

Mr Barr insisted he wanted to get the report out rather than releasing it as a series, saying: “It was my decision how and when to make that public, not Bob Mueller’s.”
Trump's attorney general denies misleading public over Russia report after Robert Mueller criticism

So, let's backtrack here to your lead comment:
"And yes, Barr did misrepresent Muellers findings. Your revisionist history may work at the dinner table with LIV buddys, but not here."

Mueller didn't say or imply that, you did. In fact, Mueller stated the opposite of what you said.
You can thank for not having to repeat that untruth going forward.

I see you've begged off and stopped trying to make the case about Barr being the victim of a "backstabbing" by the prosecuting attorneys - smart move, you should have done that sooner.

Irrespective of you try to rearrange the reality, you can't get around the fact that Mueller felt the need to send Barr a letter noting Barrs representation "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance" of the report.

You can hit the spin cycle button until you're blue in the face but reasonable, rational people know Barr's hasty explanation was to get in front of, obfuscate and steer the narrative before Mueller could. It's not debatable.

 

[NCFisher]

Can you cite an objective source that backs up your assertion that the attorney's "stabbed Barr in the back" after briefing the DOJ of one thing and doing another? That's what you said occured.

You keep offering a nonsensical unsourced, uncited bombshell assertions and backstopping it up with insults. While this may impress the simpletons and get you a few likes from a few mouthbreathers, it does nothing to lend to your credibility.

?? What "objective sources"? Do you imagine there is some citizens' committee sitting in on high-level DOJ briefings about ongoing, volatile trial machinations?

You have your "objective source", sport, which explains exactly why DOJ immediately stepped in after the Monday evening filing by the prosecution team. So what objective source do you support your contention with? Besides bulging eyes and shaking fists while spinning circles in yet another Two Minutes of Hate?

Gee, Smoking Gun #217....you got 'eeem now!

 

[0nelilreb]

Dropping out of a case but not resigning from your job is not an "exodus of attorneys". Only 1 attorney felt strongly enough to actually leave the department.

You're trolling, you have been shown to be wrong multiple times yet you continue. You are dedicated to your craft.

He’s not trolling . I’m guessing here , but he seems to just like being slapped around every once in a while . Lol

 

[NCFisher]

I see you've begged off and stopped trying to make the case about Barr being the victim of a "backstabbing" by the prosecuting attorneys - smart move, you should have done that sooner.

Irrespective of you try to rearrange the reality, you can't get around the fact that Mueller felt the need to send Barr a letter noting Barrs representation "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance" of the report.

You can hit the spin cycle button until you're blue in the face but reasonable, rational people know Barr's hasty explanation was to get in front of, obfuscate and steer the narrative before Mueller could. It's not debatable.

Backing off? Where do you get that feverish imagining? No, they represented their recommendation to DOJ as about 1/2 of that they actually filed, which sent DOJ into retraction mode. They fk'ed him over, and left before being fired or were invited to resign. Let's run an experiment; you and your boss agree on how something is going to be done, do the opposite, and see how you fare.

I don't need to capture Mueller's letter any other way but in it's exact, intact form. He wanted Barr to produce a series of executive reports, which is - heh, heeeee! - "not in his purview" to request. You misstated or purposely lied - I charitably assume the former - and I corrected you.

Oh, wait; only crazy or lying, unscrupulous people claim Barr was "getting out in front of Mueller before Mueller could steer the narrative. Pray tell, just how was Mueller going to steer the narrative? Start giving press conferences? Televised interviews? Was he going on an arena tour to promote the report? You're essentially claiming Mueller was going to steer the narrative, which would violate ethics and likely violate laws and his employment agreement.

I'm going with "crazy" on this one.

 

[Septic]

?? What "objective sources"? Do you imagine there is some citizens' committee sitting in on high-level DOJ briefings about ongoing, volatile trial machinations?

You have your "objective source", sport, which explains exactly why DOJ immediately stepped in after the Monday evening filing by the prosecution team. So what objective source do you support your contention with? Besides bulging eyes and shaking fists while spinning circles in yet another Two Minutes of Hate?

Gee, Smoking Gun #217....you got 'eeem now!

You're flopping around at this point.

How about ANY source that backs up your assertion that the attorneys reported to the DOJ one set of recs and then did something else. Just one?

Nah, I'm guessing this is rando twitter speculation that you're feeding off of. Hell, it's not even fakenews - it's just conjecture to help you rationalize and cope with reality of the bullsht.

 

[hog88]

You're silly. There were 4 on the Roger Stone case and now there are none. What would you call it?

1 less US Attorney

 

[Septic]

Backing off? Where do you get that feverish imagining? No, they represented their recommendation to DOJ as about 1/2 of that they actually filed, which sent DOJ into retraction mode. They fk'ed him over, and left before being fired or were invited to resign. Let's run an experiment; you and your boss agree on how something is going to be done, do the opposite, and see how you fare.

I don't need to capture Mueller's letter any other way but in it's exact, intact form. He wanted Barr to produce a series of executive reports, which is - heh, heeeee! - "not in his purview" to request. You misstated or purposely lied - I charitably assume the former - and I corrected you.

Oh, wait; only crazy or lying, unscrupulous people claim Barr was "getting out in front of Mueller before Mueller could steer the narrative. Pray tell, just how was Mueller going to steer the narrative? Start giving press conferences? Televised interviews? Was he going on an arena tour to promote the report? You're essentially claiming Mueller was going to steer the narrative, which would violate ethics and likely violate laws and his employment agreement.

I'm going with "crazy" on this one.

This shouldn't be too difficult to cite a source for, put up or shut up - as they say.

The rest of your post is just gibberish, you're getting all flustered and creating strawman to knock over. Don't do that. Listen, if you ever feel the need to tell another poster to "pray tell", stop and reevaluate.

 

[hog88]

This shouldn't be too difficult to cite a source for, put up or shut up - as they say.

The rest of your post is just gibberish, you're getting all flustered and creating strawman to knock over. Don't do that. Listen, if you ever feel the need to tell another poster to "pray tell", stop and reevaluate.

He has cited sources, multiple times.

 

[Septic]

1 less US Attorney

Johnny has four apples and Sally takes those four apples away. How many apples does Johnny have left?

Hog: "1"

I hope your math skills are not indicative of the Tennessee public school system.

 

[Septic]

He has cited sources, multiple times.

Maybe, but he hasn't done so here.

Just one link to corroborate his assertion that the attorney's stabbed Barr in the back by recommending one thing and doing another; I'm not even asking for a credible source at this point. How about a Qanon twitter post on 8chan that corroborates this?

Heck, I'm not saying he's wrong - perhaps they did. I'm just looking for him to provide any basis for his assertion that doesn't smell like partisan conjecture.

 

[NCFisher]

You're flopping around at this point.

How about ANY source that backs up your assertion that the attorneys reported to the DOJ one set of recs and then did something else.

Nah, I'm guessing this is rando twitter speculation that you're feeding off of. Hell, it's not even fakenews - it's just conjecture to help you rationalize and cope with reality of the bullsht.

I linked ABC news quoting the DOJ official, not "rando twitter".
what is it you want? You apparently think this ACTIVE trial should be opensource. Either after the sentencing or in congress, we'll hear from Barr. And I'll remind you how you wasted my time with this nonsense.

I used your own link to refute re: Mueller.

Perhaps you have me confused with another poster.
Or, you're on psychoactive drugs.

 

[NCFisher]

Maybe, but he hasn't done so here.

Just one link to corroborate his assertion that the attorney's stabbed Barr in the back by recommending one thing and doing another; I'm not even asking for a credible source at this point. How about a Qanon twitter post on 8chan that corroborates this?

Heck, I'm not saying he's wrong - perhaps they did. I'm just looking for him to provide any basis for his assertion that doesn't smell like partisan conjecture.

Nonsense. Go back just a couple replies to see my link to ABC news reporting exactly what I stated.