Four on the Floor--all 4 U.S. attorneys resign from Roger Stone case prosecutors team (Page 2/4)
rinselberg FEB 13, 05:25 AM
Amy Berman Jackson's appointment to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was confirmed by the Senate in 2011, on a 97-0 vote. That was a Senate that included 47 Republican Senators.


For a "deeper dive" into the topic of Judge Jackson:

"Paul Manafort is about to face another sentencing judge: Amy Berman Jackson"
Spenser S. Hsu for the Washington Post; March 11, 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost....0e58a94cf_story.html

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2020).]

Hudini FEB 13, 06:31 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Amy Berman Jackson's appointment to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was confirmed by the Senate in 2011, on a 97-0 vote. That was a Senate that included 47 Republican Senators.


For a "deeper dive" into the topic of Judge Jackson:

"Paul Manafort is about to face another sentencing judge: Amy Berman Jackson"
Spenser S. Hsu for the Washington Post; March 11, 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost....0e58a94cf_story.html




Your post in no way contradicts my point.
olejoedad FEB 13, 06:40 AM
Funny, isnt it, that the Democrats accuse Trump of trying to interfere with the wheels of Justice, when Obama flat-out weaponized the DOJ and the IRS, and they didn't say a thing about it.

Eric Holder....'I am Obama's wingman'....
blackrams FEB 13, 06:41 AM
The "media" and the Democrats are all up in arms about what might happen. IMHO, until something does happen, cool your jets.

Everything being broadcasted now is all about the 2020 election, we all know where the "media" and the Democrats stand.

I would be the first to say that I don't believe Roger Stone should go unpunished, he lied under oath and unless he were to received the same justice President Clinton did for lying under oath, then I do believe he should be punished. What that punishment should be is not within my power to decide. Then again, I have a lot more respect for Roger Stone than I'll ever have for former President Bill Clinton or his lying piece of crap and traitorous spouse.

Rams
cliffw FEB 13, 12:17 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
I would be the first to say that I don't believe Roger Stone should go unpunished, he lied under oath and unless he were to received the same justice President Clinton did for lying under oath, then I do believe he should be punished. [QUOTE]Originally posted by blackrams:
What that punishment should be is not within my power to decide.



Rams, Clinton's punishment was what ? Losing his Law license ? Wasn't that by his State's law bar, which issued it ? He had not used it in years and likely will never need it again. I believe it was revoked.

Law is Roger Stone's living. I think there are other sanctions that might be available. Such as limited suspensions.

rinselberg … your ilk claims that ... THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW ! I agree yet all their claims prove baseless. With all their Trump Derangement Syndrome, your self delusional Justice Warriors work to deny their President the defenses which the law provides to those accused. Your self delusional Defenders of the Constitution deny their President the rights the Constitution assures him.

You must be so proud of your team.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-13-2020).]

blackrams FEB 13, 12:22 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


Rams, Clinton's punishment was what ? Losing his Law license ? Wasn't that by his State's law bar, which issued it ? He had not used it in years and likely will never need it again. I believe it was revoked.

Law is Roger Stone's living. I think there are other sanctions that might be available. Such as limited suspensions.

rinselberg … your ilk claims that ... THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW ! I agree yet all their claims prove baseless. With all their Trump Derangement Syndrome, your self delusional Justice Warriors work to deny their President the defenses which the law provides to those accused. Your self delusional Defenders of the Constitution deny their President the rights the Constitution assures him.

You must be so proud of your team.




Cliff,
If my memory serves me correctly, you are correct about the State of AR revoking his license. My point was, WJC was proven to have lied under oath to Congress and yet, went unpunished by that institution, by DOJ or anyone else in the Federal Government. IOWs, what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Rams
Rickady88GT FEB 13, 03:03 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


rinselberg … your ilk claims that ... THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW ! I agree yet all their claims prove baseless. With all their Trump Derangement Syndrome, your self delusional Justice Warriors work to deny their President the defenses which the law provides to those accused. Your self delusional Defenders of the Constitution deny their President the rights the Constitution assures him.



Seems like people forget that Constitutionally speaking we are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around, guilty until proven innocent. It is not Trumps obligation to prove he is innocent, it is the obligation of the House to prove guilt. It is not the opinions of the media and anti-Trump politicians that convict, they only have an opinion to offer, NOT a guilty verdict to hand down. The House clearly are guilty of Trump derangement syndrome, and that is all they were capable of establishing. The case they drew up, got shot down because it was weak and pathetic but the verdict was unanimous, "the House is incompetent and to blame for impeachment failure". They failed to build a case, and Trump did nothing impeachable.
Blacktree FEB 13, 03:26 PM
"Four on the Floor"
Yeah, we know lawyers are shifty.
rinselberg FEB 13, 04:19 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Rams, Clinton's punishment was what ? Losing his Law license ? Wasn't that by his State's law bar, which issued it ? He had not used it in years and likely will never need it again. I believe it was revoked.

Law is Roger Stone's living. I think there are other sanctions that might be available. Such as limited suspensions.

rinselberg … your ilk claims that ... THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW ! I agree yet all their claims prove baseless. With all their Trump Derangement Syndrome, your self delusional Justice Warriors work to deny their President the defenses which the law provides to those accused. Your self delusional Defenders of the Constitution deny their President the rights the Constitution assures him.

You must be so proud of your team.


With all due respect, Cliff (W), you are name calling (on me), although this is only Misdemeanor name calling, and not the Name Calling with an Aggravating Circumstance that I described in that other "A New REBEL Flag For America ?" topic.

But putting that aside, let me try to clarify something that is particularly important--at least to me.

I have not straight out accused the President or the Attorney General of doing anything seriously wrong in this Roger Stone-related episode, about the sentencing guidelines.

It's very fair for you to think that I suspect the President or the Attorney General of serious misconduct in this case.

I am still waiting to see more of how this "new wrinkle" in the Roger Stone case, with the resignation of the four U.S. attorneys from the case, and one of them resigning from DOJ altogether, is going to play out.

As to the Impeachment and subsequent Acquittal of President Trump, which is something beyond this Roger Stone-related sentencing guidelines topic, although clearly related to it in certain way(s), here is where I am on that:

I actually have mixed feelings about it.

I think--and everyone should realize that I know myself that this is a ridiculous fantasy that I am using only as an explanatory device--that if I were one of the Senators who was sitting in judgement of the President, and if I had seen and heard all of it, from the public disclosure of the Whistleblower report, to the closing arguments of the House impeachment managers (Adam Schiff; etc.), I would have voted to convict the President on both of the two charges of impeachment.

A frequent expression has been that removing the President from office would have been a disenfranchisement of all of the people who voted to elect him President.

I think that not removing the President from office at the conclusion of the trial in the Senate was a disenfranchisement of all of the people who voted to elect Mike Pence as Vice President. It's part of the Vice President's job description to replace the President, if the President is no longer able to perform the duties of the President, and President Trump would not be capable of performing the duties of the President today, if he had been convicted on either of the two charges of impeachment and so removed from office. (Constitutional "Rocket Scientist" level of analysis here.)

I do not agree with Cliff (W) that the President was unfairly accused, or deprived in any way of his proper and lawful methods of defending himself in the case. (Isn't that part of what he just said? I kind of read it that way.)

I say "mixed feelings" because I do have a certain respect for the thought that was expressed by Florida Senator Marc Rubio (R)--I think this what he said, in so many words--that convicting the President and removing him from office would not be in the best interests of the United States as a nation, regardless of whether or not a convincing case against the President has been presented that leaves no reasonable doubt that the President's conduct was actually misconduct, and misconduct of the kind that is described in the Constitution within its words and sentence that are related to the process of impeachment.

I cannot discuss it further at this moment, because of a higher priority for me that has arisen at this moment, of performing the duties of "rinselberg" that are outside the scope of this forum.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2020).]

rinselberg FEB 14, 06:38 PM
"Banana Republic"


Who (besides me) just uttered that phrase?
Reggie B. Walton


Who is Reggie B. Walton?

quote
Reggie B. Walton is a federal judge on senior status with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He joined the court in 2001 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.

https://ballotpedia.org/Reggie_Walton


What was he talking about?
DOJ's criminal prosecution of the FBI's former Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe--a prosecutorial case which the DOJ has just abandoned.


How do I know this?
I saw it on the NBC News website.

"DOJ drops leak case vs. McCabe, judge said White House involvement like a 'banana republic'"

quote
The judge ... said "the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted" was like a "banana republic."

Tom Winter and Dareh Gregorian for NBC News; February 14; 2020.
https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...acting-head-n1137066


What were his exact words?

quote
" ... the public is listening to what's going on, and I don't think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted," ... "I just think it's a banana republic when we go down that road, and we have those type of statements being made that are conceivably, even if not, influencing the ultimate decision. I think there are a lot of people on the outside who perceive that there is undue inappropriate pressure being brought to bear."

"It's very disturbing that we're in the mess that we're in in that regard," Walton added later. "Because I think having been a part of the prosecution for a long time and respecting the role that prosecutors play in the system. I just think the integrity of the process is being unduly undermined by inappropriate comments and actions on the part of people at the top of our government. I think it's very unfortunate. And I think as a government and as a society we're going to pay a price at some point for this."



What was the next paragraph from NBC News?

quote
Trump has sounded off repeatedly about McCabe in interviews and on Twitter over the past three years, including calling him "a poor man's J. Edgar Hoover." Among Trump's problems with the longtime DOJ veteran is that McCabe ordered obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations into the president after he fired Comey, who was investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.




What is the "money" (most important) question attending this news story?
Accounting for almost half of the world's banana crop and almost all of the bananas that are grown for export, this sub-species takes its common name from a member of the British aristocracy of the 19th Century.
Click to show

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-14-2020).]