6 weeks later, still holding up.
By pj - Jan. 2, 2020, 10:50 p.m.
mm: "Maybe Barr is not completely objective"
The understatement of the year? OK the year is young, but it might well hold up for quite a while... :-)
He pj,
Might you be referring to this?
President Trump congratulated Attorney General William Barr for “taking charge” of the case against Trump’s longtime friend.
"Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, another Democrat, told NBC News earlier in the day that he believes Barr has “no choice” but to resign.
“He’s acting simply as a henchman of the president,” Blumenthal said.
All four federal prosecutors who ran Stone’s trial abruptly withdrew from the case on Tuesday after Justice Department leadership intervened to reduce their sentencing recommendation.
The prosecutors told the court on Monday that Stone should face seven to nine years behind bars for witness tampering and lying to Congress."
People convicted of rape, armed robbery and even murder something get a sentence less than that. Stone is a big mouthed dirt bag but he got set up by Mueller and was/is being used to make it look like the corrupt Mueller investigation actually found serious crimes that brought big/stiff penalty convictions . Prosecutors usually score their prowess as measured by their convictions and penalties imposed on the convictions.
Stone obviously broke the law and deserves consequences, even though he was set up but 7 to 9 years in prison for and old man for a crime with no victims is ludicrous actually, is completely counter to the current push by dems and the justice system to greatly lessen penalties for non violent crimes.
Barr absolutely did the right thing.......stepping in to assist somebody who was being targeted and penalized because he was connected to Trump.
Would he have stepped in if Stone was a friend of Obama?
Nope, because Obama and Obama's friends were never targeted/had corrupt investigations like this.
Barr knew for sure that he would get slammed over this but did it anyway.
So one side will insist that he acted politically and to please Trump. The other side can show a blatant miscarriage of justice for Stone that was corrected for ethical reasons.
It's probably some of both but the important thing is that Stone's way too severe penalty for the crimes is getting fixed.............justice.
We had a discussion here after the arrest of the CNN coverage that corrupt Mueller team wanted to make Stone look bad...to really nail/railroad him. All the stuff below is from that thread:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24839/
Re: We can lay that conspiracy therory to rest.
By metmike - Feb. 26, 2019, 6:48 p.m.
What conspiracy theory?
Muellers team invited CNN to be there with 99% certainty and, in the event that they figured it out themselves with reporter ESP, Muellers team violated normal FBI protocol by allowing CNN to mingle with them and providing them a front row taping spot with 100% certainty.
This document has nothing to do with that arrangement. Who said anything about CNN getting this document before it went out? Not me. That would be extraordinarily dumb for it to happen that way........because there could be a paper or electronic device trail that could bust them.
We already knew about this particular document, when it went out and who it went out to(media).
Some of us also know with extremely high confidence, based on the reality/facts that Muellers team invited CNN to record this arrest so that it would be played with a pro Mueller spin on the 24 hour anti Trump station.
Here is the last time that I reviewed the details:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24648/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Re: outcome determinative bias
By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 1:18 p.m.
Just to review the last time that this latest incident was discussed:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24432/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. hate groups on the rise
By metmike - Feb. 21, 2019, 10:04 p.m.
"Mike, as written, that statement implies that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest. You have not a shred of proof that Mueller was involved.
Why for heaven sake would anyone pick CNN, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all have a much bigger audience?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carl,
I guess you forgot or did not see my response to you the first time you said this:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/22822/
Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact
By carlberky - Feb. 1, 2019, 1:50 p.m.
IMHO, if they wanted to tip off someone about the raid, they would have picked NBC, CBS, or ABC for much greater coverage.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact
By metmike - Feb. 1, 2019, 2:18 p.m.
"I was thinking the exact opposite carl but its just my opinion.
I watch 3 stations for news.
Mainly CNN and FOX in the evenings, flipping back and forth and ABC nightly news at 5:30-6pm. I bash CNN here all the time and its because I actually watch them to hear what they are saying/showing(I dont just go to the station that tells me what I want to hear, which Fox would be more likely to do)
Obviously they would never pick Fox. If they picked one of the other networks, it would show up in their nightly news with maybe a 2 minute story and follow up. Other stations would likely cover it too, like they have.
CNN already does wall to wall, around the clock anti Trump news, every day of the year. By a wide margin, getting CNN the scoup maximized the coverage. Now it can be on the station most likely to put the right spin on it and will broadcast it frequently as part of their anti Trump stuff 24 hours a day."
With regards to not having a shred of proof, I laid out the facts here around half a dozen times.
I don't have a taped phone conversation, no but the facts as outlined previously say with 100% certainty that normal protocol was violated.
I'll review again for you.
1. It can't be disputed that CNN was right there with the FBI or they wouldn't have the video footage from that vantage point.
2. The court order against Stone has apparently taken the Stone house camera footage of CNN and the FBI interacting before hand off the air but that doesn't matter because of #1.
3. The chances of CNN having this powerful reporter "instinct" as their guy described it, that caused them(and nobody else) to know to travel to this location from out of town and be there 1 hour before the bust is not zero. I can guess it's something like a 1% chance of being true........being generous.
4. The chance of them being there and not having Muellers team give them special permission that made a huge exception and violated protocol of every other case in history like this that I know about is exactly zero.
5. Every resident on the street was told they could not even be outside of their houses. The entire street was blocked off and nobody but the FBI and others connected to the arrest were allowed there.........as is always the case when you have 2 dozen heavily armed agents arresting some body. Everybody that is, except for CNN that was right there mingling with the heavily armed FBI agents.
6. I worked in broadcast television for 11 years and we met every year with different police agencies, state, county and city and from 2 different states to discuss protocol. They weren't the FBI or federal law enforcement of course but no way, no how would CNN have been allowed to be there unless the Mueller team wanted them to be there and made a huge exception to any protocol or situation that I've ever heard about or seen. "
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-jake-tapper-impeach-trump-roger-stone
Earlier I mentioned that they would not have done this to a friend of Obama or Obama..........but used the wrong president.
Clinton was the one that got convicted of SIMILAR charges to those of Roger Stone...........lying to Congress and witness tampering.
No prison time for him.
Stone? 7 to 9 years.
I don't have all the details in the Stone case but would guess that he lied alot and then, based on his personality, was probably defiant and confrontational about it vs showing any remorse or being humble(which is how you act if you want a lighter sentence) so this MAY have added to the penalty because this was the perfect guy to teach a lesson to and use as an example of a success of the disastrous Mueller investigation.
for those who do understand just how corrupt our federal justice system has become they win 97% of their cases WITHOUT going to court. They win 99% of the their case going to court. If you wonder why just look at the Stone case. They find some minor offense on a ceo and do what? pressure the ceo? then the cfo? Then go back thru some 5 year old interview and find where you might of missed a date or a name with the complete Mr or mrs attached. Then they get to sentencing and Stone got more years than a child pedophile after being arrested by 25 armed storm troopers while his crippled wife lay in her bed.
So now it has to be layed at Trumps door to order Barr to fix this corrupt bureau that multiplied its criminal activity by a factor of 100 during the Obama years
We are being told that they did this because of corruption by Trump and Barr.
We don't have all the facts but Barr insists he never had a discussion with the White House about this case and acted independently and all we have from Trump is a tweet.
However, we do know with certainty that there was a great deal of fraud in the Mueller investigation. Not just 17 significant instances that can't be explained to get the ball rolling but clearly throughout the 2+ years as they set up people with perjury traps and created crimes FROM the investigation, not crimes that had been committed BEFORE the investigation.........which is what they were suppose do investigate(they found none of those and knew early on there were not any but kept the investigation going anyway for 2+ years).
The indictment of former Donald Trump associate Roger Stone follows a long pattern that should raise serious concerns about the special counsel. Like virtually all of these indictments, this one does not charge any major crimes relating to Russia that were committed before the special counsel was appointed. It charges crimes that grew out of the investigation and were allegedly committed after Robert Mueller was appointed in 2017.
Recall that the primary job of the special counsel was to uncover crimes that had already occurred relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Mueller also was authorized to investigate and prosecute crimes growing out of the investigation, such as perjury and obstruction of justice, but this role was secondary to the primary one. It turns out that the secondary role has produced many more indictments of Americans than the primary one.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I've read the indictment. It's a typical Mueller indictment. Very, very heavy on stories, stories involving collusion and WikiLeaks but the indictment itself all relates to obstruction of justice, tampering of witnesses. In other words, crimes that occurred as a result of the investigation.
This is typical of Mueller. He has found almost no crimes that occurred before he was appointed special counsel. He was appointed special counsel to uncover crimes that had already occurred. He has virtually failed in that respect in every regard."
metmike: So these prosecutors of the failed by every measure Mueller investigation have been in damage control, trying to show as many convictions as possible to justify the investigation. Nailing Roger Stone at the end, after they arranged for CNN (breaking the law) to come record his arrest and play it on the anti Trump station tells us what they were willing to do get Stone, in order to make them and their investigation look like it wasn't really a witch hunt/disaster.
If the democrats actually decide to open a new impeachment investigation based on the Roger Stone case, I predict that President Trump will be re elected.
But they won't. After the last impeachment event backfired, they need to stop using a miserably failed tactic.
The poll below nails it. Only 22% of dems think the impeachment hurt Trump, 4% of pubs think that.
15% of dems think it actually helped Trump and 63% of pubs, a majority, think it helped Trump.
Trump is enjoying some of his highest favorability numbers because of the impeachment.
As shown above and described eloquently by professor Dershowitz, the Mueller team spent 2.5 years creating crimes from their investigation.
They had almost nothing to show that was relevant to what the investigation was supposed to be for. They stooped to inviting CNN to record Stones arrest (illegal) and set CNN up in the perfect spot............so they could broadcast the arrest with 2 dozen FBI agents, with high powered guns as if this old man and his deaf wife were some sort of major threat or dangerous criminals.
This was so totally unnecessary................pure theatrics and again, illegal for whoever contacted CNN, so that it could be aired on the station that they knew would maximize the anti Trump, anti Stone spin.
And the end point was 3 MUELLER prosecutors going for Stone's blood in court, again with the continued aim of trying to make it look like the witch hunt, charade investigation nailed some really bad guys..........so it really wasn't a witch hunt charade..........but anybody looking objectively knows that it was a witch hunt charade.
The Mueller investigation clearly got started with corruption and never should have happened:
FISA report: DOJ watchdog releases findings on Russia probe surveillance
4 responses |
Started by metmike - Dec. 9, 2019, 1:12 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44076/
IG testimony today
10 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 11, 2019, 5:09 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44129/
So the corrupt investigation got Stone on some legit crimes(created by their investigation). If not for the investigation, Stone would not have committed those crimes. Then they gave him basically the max sentence........an old man with no criminal record.
7-9 years in prison because he lied and tried to influence a witness.
How can a reasonable person not see injustice/bias by the Mueller prosecutors here........starting from the video recorded and CNN broadcast , staged set up of his arrest?
Then, Barr tries to right a clear wrong..............and Barr is being accused of being the corrupt, political one.....for bringing in some non corrupt, non Mueller prosecutors to look at the case objectively.
Dang, this is like an alternate universe. Where up is down and down is up. Right is wrong and wrong is right.
So many Trump associates, sycophants, liars, convicted or fired for telling the truth and yet you continue to see everything trough the lens of "poor" Trump and all his sleazy associates being victims. I know you truly believe you're being objective, but it sure seems you have severe case of BBTCS (blinded by the clown syndrome), the polar opposite of TDS.
"I know you truly believe you're being objective, but it sure seems you have severe case of BBTCS (blinded by the clown syndrome), the polar opposite of TDS."
Thanks pj,
As a scientist, I look at the facts and everything stated in the above posts is based on facts. When I do this, I get criticized for defending Trump and similar to your statement, have BBTCS...............without the accusers every being able to present facts that show I'm not right based on the AUTHENTIC(not made up) facts which I bend over backwards to provide on everything possible here.
When I tell people negative things about Trump, neither side hears it One side will only believe positive things about Trump, while the other side only negative things.............and in addition, if somebody is objective and gives both negative and positive things about Trump, the other side sees that source as being messed up because of the positives they show(or fact based defending in this case).
Everybody has this ingrained assumption that you are either on one side or the other.
The biggest difference that I see between us is that I greatly dislike Trump but don't let it affect my emotions or judgment on whether he is doing a good job as president, regarding agenda and don't let it affect my ability to see both sides of what is going on.
All the times that I criticize Trump here get ignored and people only remember when I rightfully show the other side being blatantly corrupt............which is pretty easy because the evidence is all over the place.
If Albert Einstein was an arse like Trump, would we have rejected his theory of relativity? When I look at climate science, I don't decide if its authentic or not based on WHO the source is. The truth is the truth whether its a mean, loose cannon, sometimes lying arse presenting it or not. As a scientist, that's how I see it.
Here is a recent example of me pointing out my negative personal opinion of Trump again, as in for the umteenth time.
By metmike - Feb. 7, 2020, 12:54 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/47088/
"If you read or heard some of the things Trump stated in his victory speech, it had to make you cringe.
After being indicted on impeachment and having the opportunity to put things behind him and not be too offensive in his speech, his not impeached victory speech might be...probably is his worst speech ever.
Everything that defines his weak point........character flaws and meanness came out with a vengeance. It certainly makes it understandable why so many people hate him. He is the most easy to hate guy on the planet. With signs of him turning the corner and possibly getting enough support now to be elected in November..........speeches like this can only hurt him/be set backs when people on the fence listen to him and his confrontational, hateful and divisive words.
If not for his massively superior agenda and good job he does running the country based on policies that are best for the United States,. I would be a never Trumper because of speeches like he gave yesterday.
This guy below from CNN is usually very unfair with his articles on President Trump(finds dozens of silly reasons to nullify Trumps positives and magnifies his negatives with twisted interpretations) and hates his guts but I agree with most of his points this time."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-senate-acquitted/index.html
pj,
I am glad that you are being honest/open about your opinions. Much worse would be to have them, not voice them and keep thinking that way without providing me the opportunity to provide authentic facts to counter them.
Maybe you have forgotten recent conversations that we've had on Trump. I was 100% in agreement with you on the debt and his failing in that regard(while defending Obama's numbers) because the facts don't lie.
Final Fy'19 Federal Budget #'s
23 responses |
Started by TimNew - Oct. 25, 2019, 2:49 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/41763/
When Obama gets bashed unfairly, I defend him too.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/38878/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/34963/
And I have encouraged Trump bashing by creating an ongoing thread for many months, that cliff used to post hundreds? of cut and paste type trolling stuff. I like it when posters bring this stuff up when they provide opportunity to show contradicting facts. My favorite posts were/are climate alarmist posts. I often bring out climate crisis posts myself to use as Teachable moments!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/46546/
12-20-19 New Trump bashing for cliff-e
93 responses |
Started by metmike - Dec. 20, 2019, 2:45 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44617
We've had this discussion before, so I don't anticipate you changing your mind but I do appreciate continued opportunities to explain my position and enjoy ALL your posts a great deal:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/38452/
I know you have criticized Trump and I can understand why that makes you feel you're being even-handed. But when you make statements like, "If not for his massively superior agenda and good job he does running the country based on policies that are best for the United States", which is not "fact" but your opinion, you really can't claim you're basing your position on "facts".
IMHO the accusations about the actions and motives of the people who are against Trump, as is a lot of what is said about Trump and his associates, is largely supposition/rumor and subject to interpretation and are both very difficult for me to put in anything like the same bin as scientific fact .
It appears that once you realized Trump was against the climate alarmists, something you feel so extremely passionately about, it became impossible for you to weigh dispassionately the claims of those attacking him vs those supporting him.
"If not for his massively superior agenda and good job he does running the country based on policies that are best for the United States", which is not "fact" but your opinion, you really can't claim you're basing your position on "facts".
Since when are economic numbers/jobs NOT a fact?
The price of stocks and the stock market are not facts?
His renegotiating the NAFTA agreement as promised for better terms for the US is not a fact?
Him getting Mexico to help us at the southern border(that has made a big difference) by threatening tariff's is not a fact?
His position to try to reign in the out of control illegal alien problem is not my opinion, it's a fact.
The United States becoming energy independent is a fact.
Climate science is based entirely on scientific facts.
Speaking of which, you accuse me of this:
"It appears that once you realized Trump was against the climate alarmists, something you feel so extremely passionately about, it became impossible for you to weigh dispassionately the claims of those attacking him vs those supporting him."
Wow pj! That's ludicrous. Maybe that's the way that your mind works but you must not believe anything that I say here or what I have stated to you before(which I posted earlier as facts) or maybe you choose not to believe any of it because it doesn't line up with what your cognitive bias tells you that a Trump supporter is like.
And yes, I do try to use facts almost all the time regardless of your other incorrect claim above..............which I responded to with facts.
"the accusations about the actions and motives of the people who are against Trump, as is a lot of what is said about Trump and his associates, is largely supposition/rumor and subject to interpretation"
That is absolutely NOT true pj!
It's not my "opinion" that there were 17 unexplained SIGNIFICANT errors that happened to get the Mueller investigation going.
It's not my "opinion" that CNN was there to record the Stone arrest, which violated FBI protocol. I give a ton of facts related to that.............if you read it.
Those were not Mueller prosecutors in the Stone case?
Mueller did not find no colluding with Russia by Trump?
Almost all of Muellers crimes and convictions were created by his investigation.............not an opinion neither is any of the other stuff that I just mentioned..........again. They are just some of the facts that I gave you before and shouldn't have to repeat to a smart guy like you.
Seems to me that you made your assumption about me awhile ago and all the facts in the world are not going to change it.
However, I've provided tons of facts here..........again, for those with open minds that want to see them.
"Mueller did not find no colluding with Russia by Trump?"
The Muller Report also did not exonerate him.
Yes, the stock market is up, there are more jobs and 2% economic growth. Why wouldn't there be, after a big tax cut and trillion $ deficits, after 10 years of economic an expansion?
Trump showing favorable bias toward Putin, belief in everything he says, remains inexplicable. Except, that is, for Putin's sucking up to Trump, which it seems is mostly all that is necessary to gain his undying favorable opinion. Same goes for Kim Jon Un and Erdogan. https://tinyurl.com/te34jub Yes, I know, this is from "Mother Jones", so it's probably biased, "fake news".
I think Tump labeling as "fake news" (everything he doesn't like, everything that doesn't stoke his ego) that has caught on to such a degree, has been very damaging.
I have been a life-long Republican (though I didn't vote for Trump) and have always been in favor of free markets, against open boarders etc, but if the Dems put up anyone who appears to be a decent human being...
Bottom line, it goes without saying, it's your forum and obviously you can run it and post any thing in any way you wish. But like others, who I believe see the same thing, your claim of being unbiased when it comes to Trump, just doesn't seem to be the case.
I doubt our going back and forth any more on this is likely to be productive. Maybe I need a hiatus too.
GTTY
"I have been a life-long Republican"
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/41403/
By pj - Oct. 22, 2019, 3:18 p.m.
"Are u still a libertarian."
"On a number of things, but not when it comes to the US completely sticking its head in the ground no matter what, though I agree the US has mostly "helped" make the mess in the mid-east, particularly when Bush invaded Iraq."
I realize that, with you already "threatening" a hiatus because you are unhappy with the Trump discussions that holding you accountable for previous statements will probably just be another reason.
However, I have decided that, no matter what, I am going to speak the truth here and hold others accountable for statements. Regardless of whether it's popular of not. Regardless of if it turns off people that hear nails scraping on a blackboard when somebody says things that favor Trump.
pj,
I really hope that you will stick around. If not, then go ahead and be another casualty to the affects that hatred of Donald Trump is causing to people.
The stuff below is part of what I sent to somebody else by email recently who is trying to manage their negative feelings for President Trump:
"This is what I've been saying about Trump's affect on people and you can relate well to it _____. Ironically, the ones that dislike him the most, are allowing him to mess up their psyche because of the state of mind which exists in them.
They want bad things for Trump, consequences to Trump for his behavior and instead, they cause bad things and consequences to happen to themselves and those around them because of their feelings for Trump.
If Clinton were president, this would not be an issue at the forum. I would be defending unfair attacks on her, like I did/do on Obama. If Pence were president...........even if we disagreed with a dozen other political topics. Trump is different. The hate for him personally is so powerful that it paralyzes the rational and objective thought processes in the brains of those that feel that way. As somebody trying to spread love in the world this is saddening.
Granted, if hate was ever justified, Trump is the guy that deserves to be hated like no other. But here's the thing. Hate is never justified........no matter how evil you think the person is(and Trump does many good things) Blaming the evil person for you hating them is not being accountable for your own feelings/thoughts (its always Trumps fault for doing things that cause us to hate him).
The worst part about it, is that Trump haters, who want him obliterated at any cost, think and act in a way that is destroying THEMSELVES and their relationships with people around them that support Trump...............even good friends and family.
It would be like a burglar breaking into your house and stealing some of your stuff. Great reason to hate the guy but would your response to him taking things of value, after he left, be to take other things of value, like money and flush it down the toilet yourself?
Why punish yourself...............and those around you because hate compels you to act based on emotion.
Discard hate from your life and it will free you from the self destructiveness that it causes in every person. Still work hard to defeat the bad person or issue that caused you to hate but do it without the hate...............and you will not suffer the personal losses that hate causes.
Maybe you don't like the word "hate" to describe your personal feelings for Trump because it carries with it negative connotations............regardless of the emotion you want to call it, the affects are the same.........threatening to go on haitus over it for instance over a Trump thread, when everything else here is just great.....but not my position on Trump.
metmike
ps: I like you a great deal pj and appreciate your great posts. We need more people that express your views, especially because they are different than mine. You are right that we will not agree on this but Marketforum will be here for a bit longer and you can expand the discussions with your viewpoints. I know people prefer to just go to places where everybody agrees with them.(birds of a feather) but if everybody that really dislikes Trump can't stand to be around people that will support him(even if they too dislike Trump) then we will continually lose everybody that hates Trump here.................not for any other reason but that one.
Thanks for your kind words.
Hi pj
Thanks for posting a different view point
I agree with a lot of what you post
Keep posting
You have many who agree with you
Here is the latest:
The most interesting part for me, was the similarity to the letter that the same group sent a year ago about the same Mueller investigation:
DOJ Alumni StatementMay 6, 2019 · 4 min read
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1
We know that the Mueller investigation was corrupted and run by the DOJ(scroll up for those facts again). Of course we are going to see DOJ people getting together to sign petitions defending their corrupt DOJ investigation.
Just more of the same nonsense:
If you are DOJ or democrat or MSM, everything that Trump and people connected to him do is bad, including impeachable crimes. No matter what the facts are.
If you are a republican and some independents you usually see things completely differently. I would be called biased for saying that facts sometimes matter for this group(when they often don't) so will just say
I consider myself an independent and you already read my facts.
Let's repeat the facts for my position that Barr is doing the right thing by bringing in objective, non Mueller prosecutors to review the case.
This is long below but if you care to know the TRUTH, it's worth reading.
It's entirely the result of the Mueller investigation showing blatant bias and corruption from start to finish. I have had this position here since I observed and showed the Mueller bust of Stone violating FBI protocol(and the law) to target him..............well before this recent event unfolded(almost a year ago). Here is the evidence
1. Mueller Corruption Fact one: The investigation was cooked up using knowingly false and unverified information by numerous anti Trump people. The FISA report showed 17 significant errors. Horowitz stated that not 1 of those 17 errors could be explained(without using incompetence or corruption). What are the odds that life long DOJ people made 17 significant errors from not understanding their jobs? Near 0%. So clearly it was corruption.
FISA report: DOJ watchdog releases findings on Russia probe surveillance
4 responses |
Started by metmike - Dec. 9, 2019, 1:12 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44076/
IG testimony today
10 responses |
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 11, 2019, 5:09 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44129/
2. Mueller Corruption Fact two: All of Muellers crimes were created by his investigation. They were not crimes which were uncovered based on the criteria used to start and have the investigation(colluding with Russia for instance). If an outside investigation had been done that only looked for those types of crimes............they would have come up completely empty. Stone's crimes for instance, lying and trying to intimidate a witness. Stone was not lying about a real crime that he committed with Russia.......OR HE WOULD HAVE BEENE CHARGED WITH THAT. He apparently lied about stuff that he didn't want Mueller to know about...........that were NOT crimes but the lying was, thanks to the investigation. The witness that he tried to intimidate stated that they never felt threatened but Stone did make verbal threats to that person. 7-9 years in prison's worth..........when he was not even covering up a crime(we know this with certainty because Mueller did not charge him with a crime related to this)
Professor Dershowitz is an elite authority on this:
"The indictment of former Donald Trump associate Roger Stone follows a long pattern that should raise serious concerns about the special counsel. Like virtually all of these indictments, this one does not charge any major crimes relating to Russia that were committed before the special counsel was appointed. It charges crimes that grew out of the investigation and were allegedly committed after Robert Mueller was appointed in 2017.
Recall that the primary job of the special counsel was to uncover crimes that had already occurred relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Mueller also was authorized to investigate and prosecute crimes growing out of the investigation, such as perjury and obstruction of justice, but this role was secondary to the primary one. It turns out that the secondary role has produced many more indictments of Americans than the primary one."
"
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I've read the indictment. It's a typical Mueller indictment. Very, very heavy on stories, stories involving collusion and WikiLeaks but the indictment itself all relates to obstruction of justice, tampering of witnesses. In other words, crimes that occurred as a result of the investigation.
This is typical of Mueller. He has found almost no crimes that occurred before he was appointed special counsel. He was appointed special counsel to uncover crimes that had already occurred. He has virtually failed in that respect in every regard."
3. Mueller corruption fact number three: Using a 2 dozen+ heavily armed FBI squat team to arrest Stone and inviting CNN out(illegally) to record it and show it on the anti Trump station. No need for all the theater to arrest a harmless old man, living with his deaf wife. An objective prosecutor would have just asked him to come in or sent a few cops to get him.
Here is where I documented and interpreted that event almost a year ago with great detail:
We had a discussion here after the arrest of the CNN coverage that corrupt Mueller team wanted to make Stone look bad...to really nail/railroad him. All the stuff below is from that thread:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24839/
Re: We can lay that conspiracy therory to rest.
By metmike - Feb. 26, 2019, 6:48 p.m.
What conspiracy theory?
Muellers team invited CNN to be there with 99% certainty and, in the event that they figured it out themselves with reporter ESP, Muellers team violated normal FBI protocol by allowing CNN to mingle with them and providing them a front row taping spot with 100% certainty.
This document has nothing to do with that arrangement. Who said anything about CNN getting this document before it went out? Not me. That would be extraordinarily dumb for it to happen that way........because there could be a paper or electronic device trail that could bust them.
We already knew about this particular document, when it went out and who it went out to(media).
Some of us also know with extremely high confidence, based on the reality/facts that Muellers team invited CNN to record this arrest so that it would be played with a pro Mueller spin on the 24 hour anti Trump station.
Here is the last time that I reviewed the details:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24648/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Re: outcome determinative bias
By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 1:18 p.m.
Just to review the last time that this latest incident was discussed:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24432/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. hate groups on the rise
By metmike - Feb. 21, 2019, 10:04 p.m.
"Mike, as written, that statement implies that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest. You have not a shred of proof that Mueller was involved.
Why for heaven sake would anyone pick CNN, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all have a much bigger audience?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carl,
I guess you forgot or did not see my response to you the first time you said this:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/22822/
Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact
By carlberky - Feb. 1, 2019, 1:50 p.m.
IMHO, if they wanted to tip off someone about the raid, they would have picked NBC, CBS, or ABC for much greater coverage.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact
By metmike - Feb. 1, 2019, 2:18 p.m.
"I was thinking the exact opposite carl but its just my opinion.
I watch 3 stations for news.
Mainly CNN and FOX in the evenings, flipping back and forth and ABC nightly news at 5:30-6pm. I bash CNN here all the time and its because I actually watch them to hear what they are saying/showing(I dont just go to the station that tells me what I want to hear, which Fox would be more likely to do)
Obviously they would never pick Fox. If they picked one of the other networks, it would show up in their nightly news with maybe a 2 minute story and follow up. Other stations would likely cover it too, like they have.
CNN already does wall to wall, around the clock anti Trump news, every day of the year. By a wide margin, getting CNN the scoup maximized the coverage. Now it can be on the station most likely to put the right spin on it and will broadcast it frequently as part of their anti Trump stuff 24 hours a day."
With regards to not having a shred of proof, I laid out the facts here around half a dozen times.
I don't have a taped phone conversation, no but the facts as outlined previously say with 100% certainty that normal protocol was violated.
I'll review again for you.
1. It can't be disputed that CNN was right there with the FBI or they wouldn't have the video footage from that vantage point.
2. The court order against Stone has apparently taken the Stone house camera footage of CNN and the FBI interacting before hand off the air but that doesn't matter because of #1.
3. The chances of CNN having this powerful reporter "instinct" as their guy described it, that caused them(and nobody else) to know to travel to this location from out of town and be there 1 hour before the bust is not zero. I can guess it's something like a 1% chance of being true........being generous.
4. The chance of them being there and not having Muellers team give them special permission that made a huge exception and violated protocol of every other case in history like this that I know about is exactly zero.
5. Every resident on the street was told they could not even be outside of their houses. The entire street was blocked off and nobody but the FBI and others connected to the arrest were allowed there.........as is always the case when you have 2 dozen heavily armed agents arresting some body. Everybody that is, except for CNN that was right there mingling with the heavily armed FBI agents.
6. I worked in broadcast television for 11 years and we met every year with different police agencies, state, county and city and from 2 different states to discuss protocol. They weren't the FBI or federal law enforcement of course but no way, no how would CNN have been allowed to be there unless the Mueller team wanted them to be there and made a huge exception to any protocol or situation that I've ever heard about or seen. "
Since it's been conclusively shown on the previous page that the Mueller run, DOJ investigation was blatantly corrupt and targeted several people unfairly, including Roger Stone, somebody with no criminal history and no threat to society but they still wanted the maximum penalty.....then how on earth would it be fair to let Mueller prosecutors(3 of the 4) go for the kill to use Stone to try to make it look like their corrupt investigation nailed a bad dude.........to justify an unjustifiable, corrupt investigation?
Prosecutors are judged by the record of how many convictions they get and how tough the sentence is............not necessarily by how fair they are.
Only in the current environment would Barr be seen as the corrupt one for bringing in objective outside prosecutors to review the case.
The Mueller investigation is the biggest black eye in recent DOJ history. I would say it's also a bloody nose and broken arm (-:
It's Bill Barr's job as US attorney general to see fair enforcement of the justice system.
Because Stone was a friend of Trump's he's seen as being biased.......but that's exactly why Stone was targeting with unfair justice........because he was a friend of Trumps.
The MSM want us to think that corrupt Barr is letting Stone is get away with bad stuff/not being held accountable because he was Trumps friend.
Man, its sooooo, the other way around. Because he was Trumps friend, corrupt Mueller people are trying to throw him in prison for 7-9 years to make him look bad and them look good..............screw fair justice.
As one would expect, many of the DOJ people are upset over this......not that Stone is getting screwed but that Barr would dare undercut their authority to unfairly enforce justice. They are also in damage control because of the fraudulence exposed with the unjustified DOJ Mueller investigation...........so 2,000 of them signed a petition stating that Barr should step down(how dare he bring in outside/objective non Mueller/DOJ people to get a 2nd opinion!!!)
As usual, this is being completely twisted like a pretzel by the MSM, dems and DOJ to mean the 100% opposite of what is really going on.
Bill Barr knew that he would get slammed over this but he did it anyway. One side takes the absurd position that its because he's Trumps puppet..........even though Barr is stating that the presidents tweets and opinion on this are making it tough for him to do his job.
He insists there was no discussion with Trump on this...........and I believe him. Look at the clear facts above...........Barr has them and more to base his fair/just decision on. The facts clearly show that he is doing the right thing!
Barr may not be 100% objective on everything related to Trump but he would not flush his long, esteemed career down the toilet because Trump asked him to get his friend off that really deserved 7-9 years. That's crazy.
However, as a man of principle(that the past 40 years show) he stands up for fairness and justice...........even when its unpopular.
He's in the hot seat for doing the right thing. I challenge everybody to show where any of my facts are not right and encourage others that have different facts to show them..........vs just stating that I'm biased and don't realize it and these are really just biased opinions of mine.
I would seriously like to hear the other side, presented with facts(not the same , tired false narrative that Trump and Barr are working in cahoots and corruption to get Trumps bad criminal friend off and anybody that can't see that is under Donald Trumps spell)
I know that I'm biased. We all are, it's human nature. That's why it's so important to provide authentic facts. They trump all bias.
Barr is smart enough imho to know what he signed up. Draining the swamp. These sources are horse hockey if Barr is 1/2 the man I think he is.
Bill Barr is doing a wonderful job!
Amazing considering the circumstances/adversity.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/reply_post/47686/
"William Barr changed the sentencing recommendation of Roger Stone from its original, excessive call for a sentence of seven to nine years.
It’s not clear why the country would collapse into dictatorship if Stone is sentenced to less than seven years in prison, especially given that the judge has complete discretion to impose whatever sentence she sees fit.
The suspicion is that Barr was doing Trump’s bidding, but the attorney general maintains — and he hasn’t been contradicted — that he was surprised by the initial, maximalist sentencing recommendation, and he intended to amend it before Trump’s fulminations about the matter.
If Barr were truly Trump’s henchman, he would have squashed the Stone case rather than merely recommending a little less jail time at the end. Indeed, Barr said in an ABC News interview last week that he considered the Stone case a “righteous” prosecution.
Barr allowed the Mueller probe to reach its conclusion unmolested. The extent of his alleged interference was, prior to the release of the report, summarizing its findings in a way that wasn’t harsh or detailed enough for Trump’s critics.
Finally, he declined to prosecute former Department of Justice official and frequent Trump target Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators. If Barr is really Trump’s Roy Cohn, his personal enforcer masquerading as a top law-enforcement official, nailing McCabe would have been his Job One.
No, all the evidence suggests that Bill Barr is doing his best to render fair justice in the treacherous environment created by a president of the United States who routinely comments on pending criminal cases and investigations and by the Justice Department’s own politically fraught, overly zealous intervention in the 2016 election and its aftermath."
"She also appeared to call out Attorney General William P. Barr, saying his intervention to reduce career prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation was “unprecedented.”
But she said the politics surrounding the case had not influenced her decision."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/opinions/amy-berman-jackson-judge-roger-stone-ghitis/index.html
metmike: Incredible mischaracterization of what just happened. Barr's position was that Stone had committed serious crimes but his sentence recommendation by the biased Mueller prosecutors of 7-9 year was excessive.
So the judge gave him less than half of the lowest time they recommended, completely agreeing with Bill Barr. He would be out in less than 2 years with that sentence.
But this is being portrayed as just the opposite........... a judge upholding the rule of law that Bill Barr was obstructing.................that is not at all what just happened....... she agreed with him that 7-9 years was excessive for these crimes.
But we have 2,000 DOJ signatures, the MSM and democrats insisting that Barr resign but none of them are questioning the Mueller prosecutors to justify their extreme, max sentence recommendation..............that was over ruled by the judge, who claims she made her fair, objective sentence absent of the politics............and it agreed with Bill Barr's assessment.
So Bill Barr should resign for doing the right thing, then having it confirmed with a lighter sentence is more evidence that he should resign? Hugh?
Note this statement from the last article:
"Following the Trump-Barr interference, the four original prosecutors in the Stone case resigned. But Thursday's battle in the courtroom showed that, at least for one day, the rule of law triumphed in Washington."
She is right about the rule of law and it resulted in her REJECTING the excessive/maximum sentence recommended by the Mueller prosecutors...........more in line with Bill Barr's position.
So it was the polar opposite of what she is saying about how justice was served.
Opinion on CNN:
This article was written before the sentencing today but the much lower sentence confirms it as being right on target!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/19/opinions/barr-got-it-right-on-stone-opinion-schultz/index.html
Remember, it was Barr's Justice Department that tried and convicted Stone, and Barr supported it. 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.
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.
Even supervisors in the US attorney's office in Washington, DC, were uncomfortable with the recommended sentence, according to a Washington Post story citing unnamed sources familiar with the discussions."
Why is nobody questioning the Mueller prosecutors for their justification for the extreme, near max sentence for an old man with no criminal record and no harm to society?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roger-stone-juror-justice-department-anti-trump-social-media
"Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted former Trump adviser Roger Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.
Hart even posted specifically about the Stone case before she was selected to sit on the jury, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone's dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested President Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone's prosecution."
How did this happen?
Attorneys in the case(both sides) are supposed to properly vet all the jurors.
All jurors submit paper work that includes answering many dozens of questions. THen they are subjected to an oral interview.
Clearly they messed up badly here..........and this ended up being the foreperson/head of the jury. Wow!
The strangest fact of all is that we have 2,000 DOJ people, the dems and MSM screaming for Bill Barr to resign over the incident.
WTF?
That would be like going to an active fire, with firefighters there trying to put it out and trying to make a case that the firefighters are interfering and should resign from their jobs!
Bill Barr was willing to take this intense heat in order to fight corruption and injustice.
Why is nobody asking what justified 7-9 years in prison from these Mueller prosecutors?
And they all just quit because their boss, who has a duty to see fair justice saw this as not being fair..............and was correct.
You can tell that I'm having even more fun with this one (-:
Updated: February 21, 2020 - 2:39 PM
Jay Ambrose, For Tribune News Service
"It is a sign of our times that Attorney General William Barr tried to do something right and some illiberal liberals, including not a few in the media, decided that it was wrong on the basis of mindless presidential squawks, factual ignorance, and in some cases, political opportunity.
What it adds up to is that the illiberal liberals are doing what they accuse Barr of doing, namely going to war with justice and other basic democratic principles. But at least Judge Amy Berman Jackson saw the light."