ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 30 of 33
« First < 202627282930 313233 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Stone:7-9 years Fed Prosecuters ask
F150 06:03 PM 02-10-2020

BREAKING: Federal prosecutors ask judge to sentence Trump confidant Roger Stone to serve between 7 and 9 years in prison.
-@AP

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) February 10, 2020



Get the feeling Trump needs to avoid getting anywhere near this.
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 10:45 AM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
There’s nothing legitimate Trump can be criticized for?

What bubble do you reside in?
Get lost, you dishonest creep.
[Reply]
banyon 11:02 AM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by Merde Furieux:
Get lost, you dishonest creep.
I’m going to start caring about what you think of me why? What civility have you ever shown?
[Reply]
GloryDayz 11:10 AM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
There’s nothing legitimate Trump can be criticized for?

What bubble do you reside in?
His choices for A.G. have been 100% terrible, but not for the same reasons that you'd agree with it.
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 11:48 AM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
I’m going to start caring about what you think of me why? What civility have you ever shown?
I don't show civility to people who ignore my right to be left alone. How many peoples lives have you destroyed because you couldn't just leave them alone?
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 12:54 PM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
That's not really an inconsistent answer FWIW.
:-)


It's obviously an inconsistent answer.
[Reply]
BigBeauford 01:43 PM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by Merde Furieux:
I don't show civility to people who ignore my right to be left alone. How many peoples lives have you destroyed because you couldn't just leave them alone?
Leave you alone? You harass people on here non stop, then throw out that little bit? It's the classic


[Reply]
banyon 01:45 PM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
:-)


It's obviously an inconsistent answer.
You chose to post part of my answer, but not the part where I explained why they weren’t necessarily inconsistent. More “honesty”?
[Reply]
banyon 01:46 PM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by Merde Furieux:
I don't show civility to people who ignore my right to be left alone. How many peoples lives have you destroyed because you couldn't just leave them alone?
What in Gods name are you taking about?
[Reply]
banyon 04:10 PM 02-14-2020
Wow even Bill Barr says the Roger Stone conviction is fine:

BARR: Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted.


https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/...mpression=true
[Reply]
Shields68 04:11 PM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
Wow even Bill Barr says the Roger Stone conviction is fine:

BARR: Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted.


https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/...mpression=true
Yes. Now talk about what he thinks of the 7-9 year recommendation.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 04:28 PM 02-14-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
You chose to post part of my answer, but not the part where I explained why they weren’t necessarily inconsistent. More “honesty”?
Do you know what dishonest means?

I posted the part where you made a specific claim, in response to an earlier post of mine.

Originally Posted by :
That's not really an inconsistent answer FWIW.
And I said that it was obviously inconsistent.

There was nothing dishonest about what I did. The rest of your post was just you flailing about in an attempt to pretend that what was obviously an inconsistent answer was not an inconsistent answer. It wasn't a separate point:

Originally Posted by :
We don't know the context of the question. Did she mean that he only has time to watch news when she's in an airport? That would mean she doesn't in fact pay that close of attention. Was the lawyer asking if she had very specific knowledge of something prior to that question and her response was "I don't pay that close of attention" meaning the smaller details the lawyer were asking about were beyond her familiarity.

These out of context quips are not going to prove persuasive to a law trained judge, no matter how much you want to ridicule anyone pointing that out.

[Reply]
Just Passin' By 05:19 PM 02-14-2020
Even Napolitano, now a #NeverTrump guy for all intents and purposes, gets it partially right. He doesn't mention that the judge might have committed reversible (or at least arguably reversible) error, but he does get the gist of the situation about the bias/lying aspects.


Originally Posted by :
“This is information that she must have hidden from the lawyers and the judge who interrogated her before she was put on the jury,” Napolitano began, explaining that because it was a federal case, the judge would have interrogated the jurors.

“The lawyers sign off ahead of time on the questions the judges are going to ask. The purpose of the interrogation is to weed out people that have a bias, prejudice, and knowledge of case or interest in the outcome,” Napolitano said. “She obviously had a prejudice against Roger Stone, a bias in favor of his prosecution, and an interest in seeing him convicted.”
https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/13/j...ail-time-lied/
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 11:33 PM 02-14-2020

[Reply]
Pogue 12:00 AM 02-15-2020
Originally Posted by GloryDayz:
His choices for A.G. have been 100% terrible, but not for the same reasons that you'd agree with it.
I’d give Barr smidge of leeway. He put an end to the endless Mueller investigation. Once he came into the scene as A.G., Mueller had to wrap it up. So in that regard, he served his purpose.

I don’t see how you have a statement that you agree with the Stone conviction but your department drops a case against a guy that lied his teeth off to the FBI, not once but FOUR times. Barr can’t square that away.

We’ll see how it plays out with Barr/Durham investigation. He’s pretty buttoned up about the investigation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if nothing comes of it and Trump cans him in the second term.
[Reply]
LiveSteam 12:56 AM 02-15-2020
So.
The doj took the McCabe indictment to a DC grand jury 3 times and came up empty.

I guess Barr is off the hook
[Reply]
Page 30 of 33
« First < 202627282930 313233 >
Up