• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Democrat narrative collapses, once again.

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The Democrat howling about the Roger Stone case has proven to be nonsense.

Trump tweets the recommended sentence in his opinion is too long. " Oh the humanity, Trump is tampering with the DOJ, investigate, investigate investigate !!

The AG says the recommedation is too long " Oh lawdee, the sky is falling, Barr is a corrupt lackey who should resign, investigate, investigate, investigate, investigate !!"

The judge: the reccomendation of 6-9 years is too long, 31/2 years, plus consideration of a new trial because the foreperson of the jury is a rabid democrat, who has clearly shown total bias and lied about it to get on the jury.

Bam !, like Schiff saying for two years that he had total and complete evidence that would remove Trump from office, he never produced it, EVER.


all hysterical base political lies, lies, lies.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
This from CNN of all sources a few days ago:

"Bill Barr got it right on Roger Stone"


"The reality is the sentencing recommendation of seven to nine years for Stone was a ridiculous overreach. Barr called it unfair and unjust. He was right and it was his duty to insert himself in the process."


"Barr reviewed prosecutors' sentencing recommendation in the Roger Stone case and determined it was excessive. High profile and yes, politically charged cases of national interest, are always reviewed at the department's highest levels. Stone's arrest was very public and a big "get" for the Mueller team."

"A case of this magnitude being reviewed by the attorney general after a US attorney raised the issue with senior Justice officials — which is the timeline Barr described in his ABC News interview — is nothing new. Nor is it any secret that prosecutors tend to hold tightly to their strategies and conclusions and, sometimes, become overinvested in their cases. That's why there is a chain of command for decision-making at the Justice Department. Every US attorney and line prosecutor in the country is ultimately accountable to the attorney general. He's their boss.
The primary reason cases like this should be reviewed is to ensure both that justice is done and that neither public attention nor political motivation has tainted the calculus of a sentencing recommendation."
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Have you noticed that Donald Trump has a "tell?" Watch his lips. When they move, he's lying.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
This from CNN of all sources a few days ago: ...

How interesting that you cast this as a CNN piece rather than an opinion piece found on CNN. And the author? James D Schultz. And who is Schultz?

From Wikipedia ...

Schultz was the White House ethics lawyer and publicly clashed with former Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub,[10] who was forced to resign after publicly criticizing the White House over disagreements involving ethics and financial disclosure issues.

In November 2017, Schultz returned to Cozen and O'Connor, a Philadelphia-based law firm. He stated that it was always his plan to leave the White House before the end of the year, and had agreed to these terms with White House Counsel Don McGahn when he started.[11]

Since leaving the White House, Schultz has become a regular commentator on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360°.​

So, yes, a Trump hack supports Barr. That understandably makes you feel good, but it's hardly news. In any event, thanks for sharing.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
So, yes, a Trump hack supports Barr. That understandably makes you feel good, but it's hardly news. In any event, thanks for sharing.

What facts of the article do you have a problem with?
Considering Stones sentence, it seems the judge agreed with Barr.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
What facts of the article do you have a problem with?
None.

Considering Stones sentence, it seems the judge agreed with Barr.
What about you. Do you agree with the Judge?
And, since you seem amenable to agreeing with CNN, how do you feel about ...

More than 2,000 former prosecutors and other DOJ officials call on Attorney General Bill Barr to resign [source]

Just curious.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
What about you. Do you agree with the Judge?
And, since you seem amenable to agreeing with CNN, how do you feel about ...

More than 2,000 former prosecutors and other DOJ officials call on Attorney General Bill Barr to resign [source]

Just curious.

FOX news reported the same about the DOJ officials so by your logic you are amenable to agreeing with FOX news.

The opinion piece reported facts that you admitted you have no issue with so the problem seems to be that you just don't like the opinion most likely because it was favourable to Barr. Those closest to the actual case (Barr and the judge who passed sentence) seem to have agreed that the sentences proposed were too harsh and acted accordingly. The people in the DOJ that signed the petition are allowed their opinions.
 
Top