The Roger Stone Trial

[Septic]

It was not a summary of a 400 page document; it was a summary of the conclusions of the document. Barr explicitly said so AND said he'd be releasing the full document.

Mueller acknowledged as much.

Whatever, difference with miniscule distinction. In any case, Mueller still felt compelled to set the record straight.

 

[NCFisher]

You planted your flag on the words of a anonymous source, own it and stop embarrassing yourself. The roads around this forum are paved with the broken dreams of those that tried to cite an "anonymous official" as proof.

I don't need to cite anything - you made the claim. Your m.o. of bad arguments and deflection, followed by appeals to emotion is starting to wear thin.

Retreat, lick your wounds and regroup. Today was not your day.

No, I planted my flag on the public statement by DOJ's Kupec and Barr, an anonymous source known to be a DOJ offical by the reporter offering the only plausible explanation, Barr's immediate "Hell yeah, I'll testify", and drew a logical conclusion.

What's your conclusion based on? I can't hear you - ?

 

[volinbham]

That's just it, it doesn't matter what any of us subjectively think was missing. The author of the document believed the conclusions were improper without context. His words, not mine.

He did not believe the conclusions were improper without context.

He also said the memo was accurate.

 

[NEO]

Was stones sentence thrown out completely by Barr or Barr recommended a different sentence?

I googled the sentencing and just keep getting Barr got involved but nothing concrete.

What went down?

 

[volfanjustin]

Was stones sentence thrown out completely by Barr or Barr recommended a different sentence?

I googled the sentencing and just keep getting Barr got involved but nothing concrete.

What went down?

Look at you trying to get this thread back on topic

 

[Septic]

He did not believe the conclusions were improper without context.

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusion.”

He also said the memo was accurate.

It can be accurate and still be misleading. We know Mueller believed this when he said "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation."


Nicole and Ron are dead and OJ is a free man.

That's an accurate statement but, does this properly represent the context, nature and substance of what happened?

 

[volinbham]

Barr testified that he called Mueller after receiving his complaints and Mueller told him he hadn’t “misrepresented” the report. Instead, Barr said Mueller told him he was upset that the press coverage was reading too much into the letter.

Key takeaways from Barr's testimony and Mueller's letter

 

[NCFisher]

Was stones sentence thrown out completely by Barr or Barr recommended a different sentence?

I googled the sentencing and just keep getting Barr got involved but nothing concrete.

What went down?

The prosecutorial team of four had briefed DOJ. The understanding is that they would request perhaps 3-4 years. Instead, they filed Monday evening for double that, on the basis of an 'enhancement' charge of witness intimidation....for a witness and long acquaintance of Stone who's stated in half a dozen ways that he was not threatened, nor felt endangered.

DOJ yanked the chains of the four jackals, advised the court the recommendation was excessively harsh and were not merited, rescinded the recommend and submitted a new one, and the four jackals resigned.

 

[RockyTop85]

Go ahead and parse away, after all that's all you can do.


So out of the context of the discussion at the time, what is anyone reading it supposed to glean as to what you meant? Sounds to me that you are saying that it is contained within his letter (to the judge). If you didn't mean to imply it, you should have been more accurate with your retorts. Maybe you should have said then that you were talking about his trial testimony at the time, maybe? I was pretty clear and have been from the jump, that I was quoting from and talking about the letter and nothing else. And you've had plenty of posts to have been able to make this "clarification" earlier but you didn't until now. "That is not surprising and not a point in your favor."

In fairness to you, since it is not contained in his letter, as you "implied", you are now implying that one would have had to have seen all of Credico's statements if one were looking for the letter. From my link, this was the first one I found that contained the letter in it's entirety, FWIW. You are assuming facts that are not in evidence, and conveniently, trying to make a federal case out of it.

Yeah... not reading all that.

There are many reasonable solutions for avoiding future embarrassment. Stop being tribal. Pick a more defensible tribe member to defend. Take pushback as a sign to do more research. Beware of confirmation bias, etc. etc.

Get over it. Do better next time. You’ll be fine.

 

[Septic]

No, I planted my flag on the public statement by DOJ's Kupec and Barr, an anonymous source known to be a DOJ offical by the reporter offering the only plausible explanation, Barr's immediate "Hell yeah, I'll testify", and drew a logical conclusion.

What's your conclusion based on? I can't hear you - ?

Nah, the "official" that you're hanging your hat on spoke on a "condition of anonymity." Unless those are back on the menu for credible sources, you're done.

 

[Septic]

Barr testified that he called Mueller after receiving his complaints and Mueller told him he hadn’t “misrepresented” the report. Instead, Barr said Mueller told him he was upset that the press coverage was reading too much into the letter.

Key takeaways from Barr's testimony and Mueller's letter

So on the one hand we have written, signed documentation of Mueller saying one thing and on the other Barr telling us that Mueller told him on a phone call something else. As I stated, there seems to be a contextual divide of Barr misrepresenting the conclusions (he didn't) but foisting a narrative of innocence and/or exoneration by omitting any semblance of context that tells the whole story. It was carefully crafted omission of pertinent details in an effort to get ahead of the full release. This was what is misleading and what is likely prompted to Mueller to write the letter stating as much.

 

[volinbham]

So on the one hand we have written, signed documentation of Mueller saying one thing and on the other Barr telling us that Mueller told him on a phone call something else. As I stated, there seems to be a contextual divide of Barr misrepresenting the conclusions (he didn't) but foisting a narrative of innocence and/or exoneration by omitting any semblance of context that tells the whole story. It was carefully crafted omission of pertinent details in an effort to get ahead of the full release. This was what is misleading and what is likely prompted to Mueller to write the letter stating as much.

Yet no one can tell me what context was missing that would change the message of the Barr memo.

Also, Barr did not claim Trump was exonerated on the obstruction issue. He stated clearly the conclusion of Team Mueller on this issue. It's in the memo if you want to take a look.

Mueller's opening statements when he testified said exactly what Barr said he said.

 

[hog88]

Yet no one can tell me what context was missing that would change the message of the Barr memo.

Also, Barr did not claim Trump was exonerated on the obstruction issue. He stated clearly the conclusion of Team Mueller on this issue. It's in the memo if you want to take a look.

Mueller's opening statements when he testified said exactly what Barr said he said.

Wasting your time.

 

[NCFisher]

Nah, the "official" that your hanging your hat on spoke on a "condition of anonymity." Unless those are back on the menu for credible sources, you're done.

Let's try it in bullet point:

1. I planted my flag on the public statement by DOJ's Kupec that the decision was made to rescind before Trump's tweet.
2. And that DOJ and WH had no communication on the matter
3. That DOJ would certainly have discussed sentencing on THIS Russiagate case, thus there would have been no need for DOJ to rescind if the filing matched what was discussed.
4. An anonymous source known to be a DOJ offical by the reporter offering the only plausible explanation
5. Barr's immediate "Hell yeah, I'll testify"
6. And drew a logical conclusion

You see that's clearly more that one bit of information to support my flag.
You contend the sentencing recommend wasn't discussed beforehand or/and that Barr rescinded to please Trump.

Here's your list:

 

[BigOrangeD]

Judge Nap Gets Roger Stone Right, 2940
According to Never Trumper Napolitano Roger Stone's conviction should be vacated if the Juror Lied as believed to have done.
•Feb 14, 2020


The Still Report

 

[Septic]

Let's try it in bullet point:

1. I planted my flag on the public statement by DOJ's Kupec that the decision was made to rescind before Trump's tweet.
2. And that DOJ and WH had no communication on the matter
3. That DOJ would certainly have discussed sentencing on THIS Russiagate case, thus there would have been no need for DOJ to rescind if the filing matched what was discussed.
4. An anonymous source known to be a DOJ offical by the reporter offering the only plausible explanation
5. Barr's immediate "Hell yeah, I'll testify"
6. And drew a logical conclusion

You see that's clearly more that one bit of information to support my flag.
You contend the sentencing recommend wasn't discussed beforehand or/and that Barr rescinded to please Trump.

Here's your list:

LOL, you can spin this however you'd like but It doesn't change the fact that the public rebuke from the DOJ came after the attorney recommendations. The WH communicated with the world via twitter... It's disingenuous to suggest there was no collaboration on this. All the rest is fodder and ultimately sits on a throne of the anonymous source wherein you somehow extrapolated this was a dirty dealing, backroom, double crossing backstab of Barr.

And yet... They quit. Not fired, quit.

Seems to me that a guy like Barr would be livid if what you described actually occurred. A knife in Barr's back, blatant misrepresentation to the head of the DOJ, the insubordination - and they walked out on him? Don't ask hogg to do the math, but something isn't adding up with your 'logical conclusion'.

 

[NCFisher]

So on the one hand we have written, signed documentation of Mueller saying one thing and on the other Barr telling us that Mueller told him on a phone call something else. As I stated, there seems to be a contextual divide of Barr misrepresenting the conclusions (he didn't) but foisting a narrative of innocence and/or exoneration by omitting any semblance of context that tells the whole story. It was carefully crafted omission of pertinent details in an effort to get ahead of the full release. This was what is misleading and what is likely prompted to Mueller to write the letter stating as much.

Nonsense. Let's not forget who answers to who here; Barr was Mueller's boss. Bob was a hired hand. All the cows and brandings looked alike to the old poke - "She walks Manafort's dogs daily and ate at a Russian deli? Drag the commie witch in and threaten her kids! We gotta' get that damned Truman!"

"What?.....Trump! Get that damned Trump!"
Mueller was a figurehead; even then he didn't do his job, but punted back to DOJ. Barr was kind to not rake him over the coals.

It's an executive summary format. It was not a series of executive briefs that Mueller wanted, but that is not a broken down hired gun's call to make. He lacked for nothing to conduct his investigation, didn't understand what the hell was in his report, and wrote a college legal thesis instead of doing the only thing he had to do, make a declaration of crime or no crime.

 

[C-south]

So on the one hand we have written, signed documentation of Mueller saying one thing and on the other Barr telling us that Mueller told him on a phone call something else. As I stated, there seems to be a contextual divide of Barr misrepresenting the conclusions (he didn't) but foisting a narrative of innocence and/or exoneration by omitting any semblance of context that tells the whole story. It was carefully crafted omission of pertinent details in an effort to get ahead of the full release. This was what is misleading and what is likely prompted to Mueller to write the letter stating as much.

Lol. Living in the past. The Mueller clown show proved nothing. The impeachment was complete bs and proved nothing. 100% exonerated. 100% innocent. Still President and looking better everyday he will be for quite a while. You guys get so hung up on word games and try to read between the lines to draw your own conclusions. And of course liberal idiot politicians are gonna try and shine a bad light on Trump, it’s no surprise. Hang on their irrelevant words all you want.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You're in for a huge disappointment again.You don't have a criminal investigation unless you suspect crimes have been committed. Durham is a ball buster and despite the delay in MCcabe’s indictment I’m confident they’re going down.

Hmmm.... guess not.

 

[NCFisher]

LOL, you can spin this however you'd like but It doesn't change the fact that the public rebuke from the DOJ came after the attorney recommendations. The WH communicated with the world via twitter... It's disingenuous to suggest there was no collaboration on this. All the rest is fodder and ultimately sits on a throne of the anonymous source wherein you somehow extrapolated this was a dirty dealing, backroom, double crossing backstab of Barr.

And yet... They quit. Not fired, quit.

Seems to me that a guy like Barr would be livid if what you described actually occurred. A knife in Barr's back, blatant misrepresentation to the head of the DOJ, the insubordination - and they walked out on him? Don't ask hogg to do the math, but something isn't adding up with your 'logical conclusion'.

Between prosecutors' filing on Monday evening and noonish Tuesday, this occurred:

• DOJ pulled the knife from their back and held a meeting with leadership officials.
• DOJ began drafting a new filing
• Trump tweets.
• DOJ files new recommend with the court.
• The four jackals quit before they're fired, or maybe they're told to resign. It's not important.

That's by no later than 1:00 Tuesday. From the jackals filing to their exit, perhaps 16-18 hours, tops.

For your narrative to work, DOJ would have never talked about sentencing in a highly-public and political trial, from the Mueller probe, part and parcel of the Russia meme. Is that your contention?
Barr/Trump's plan would be to just wait and see what the four jackals proposed, then react in panic mode and never consider the optics. Oooooookay......

Your alternative is that they did brief on sentencing and all agreed on 7-8 years, but then Trump tweeted and Barr said "Holy shite, let's walk it back. We never anticipated this or the optics of this, but we have to respond to his desires!" Is that your contention?

For that to be true, DOJ leadership and OLC would also be in on the fix because we have public statements that DOJ leadership made the decision prior to Trump tweeting.

Or....there was no plot, no influence by Trump's tweet, but DOJ leadership half-slept through the briefing and decided before the tweet "Damn, we probably should have given that more thought instead of the marathon gin-rummy session. Let's change it".

Only one of these scenarios makes sense, if you're objective and rational. Choose wisely, grasshopper.

 

[VolStrom]

Why were there 4 prosecutors on this case that resigned? Why did a lying to congress get anymore than one prosecutor assigned to it. If I was Trump, I'd just pardon him just to really piss off the MSM.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Why were there 4 prosecutors on this case that resigned? Why did a lying to congress get anymore than one prosecutor assigned to it. If I was Trump, I'd just pardon him just to really piss off the MSM.

Doing that will only cause another loony impeachment investigation to be brought out.

 

[VolStrom]

Doing that will only cause another loony impeachment investigation to be brought out.

Yeah maybe, but it worked out so well the first time they might as well start a second one. Of course knowing how looney the democrats are I'm sure they have a "bombshell" or three lined up every couple of months before the election.

 

[37L1]

Yeah... not reading all that.

There are many reasonable solutions for avoiding future embarrassment. Stop being tribal. Pick a more defensible tribe member to defend. Take pushback as a sign to do more research. Beware of confirmation bias, etc. etc.

Get over it. Do better next time. You’ll be fine.

How pompous and condescending of you. Is anyone surprised? "Tribe" and "tribal", is that your new, go to, insult?

You are the one who needs to check yourself. Take your own advice. Maybe a little humility might make you a more pleasant person but I'm afraid that ship has long sailed.

You made a whole lot of assumptions based on, who knows what, your animus towards, Stone, Trump, me, anyone who does not see things your way? You immediately blew this up by resorting to the playground level of labels and name calling to somehow make your posts (and you) seem important. That someone has the temerity to stand up to your attempts to belittle and pigeon hole them obviously "gets your goat" to the point that you just have to put them in their place to show how right you think you are. I'd like to tell you to "get over it, you'll be fine", but I know you won't. You will wait until the next time and we will do this little dance again. I ain't scared of you.

 

[RockyTop85]

What contents were omitted in the 4 page report that materially changed the report?

How could the report have been used for impeachment without Barr's memo or IOW; what could Barr have "accurately" put in the Summary that would have changed an impeachment case?

Legal arguments (bad faith in your opinion) are distinct from the question of whether or not the memo was misleading. I'd still like someone to point out what was misleading about it. Whether Trump used it in a misleading way doesn't make the memo misleading. Anti-Trumpers used it in misleading ways as well. Hell, Anti-Trumpers were misleading in what the memo was even about and that Barr was NEVER GOING TO RELEASE THE REPORT! AAAAAAAAHHHH!

My argument is the memo was not misleading. Whether Barr has done other things to make him untrustworthy is another issue altogether.

No, all of those issues are related because your presumptions about the summary/letter give him the benefit of the doubt. His other actions show he does not deserve it.

How Trump used the letter was predictable and Barr’s behavior since then supports a conclusion that the letter was published for the purpose of allowing him to use it in the way that he did.

I thought I acknowledged the counter arguments regarding the hysteria about the report being released and Mueller’s own mealy mouthed explanation of Part 2; but I may have deleted that before posting. If I didn’t, I meant to.

The ways in which the report was mischaracterized has been hashed and rehashed on here over and over ad nauseam and I’m not particularly interested in relitigating it. There remain dozens of posters here (the majority, I’d wager) who mischaracterize Mueller’s findings. Many never read the first page of the report. It was effective political cover. Great work if he was in Michael Cohen or Rudy’s role, but you need credibility as AG or else people freak out when stuff like this Roger Stone business goes down.