Impeachment Watch

The rules: No spamming, no making a nuisance of yourself.

Moderators: chijohnaok, Kameolontti

Message
Author
User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38033
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1521 Post by chijohnaok » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:52 pm

Here is a video of the House Dem impeachment managers on the first day of the Senate Trial:



Skip ahead to the 1:36:00 mark.

What do you see on the screen?
That is part of a transcript from testimony that Taylor gave during the House portion of the impeachment.
WITNESS TESTIMONY.

Now skip ahead to the 1:37:35 mark.
What do we see on the screen?
That is a video of WITNESS testimony.

Now skip ahead to the 1:42:45 mark.
What do we see on the screen?
Another video clip of WITNESS evidence introduced by the House Dems

I'm not going to go through the rest of that YT video or from the other 24 hours of the House Dem Impeachment managers presenting their case but they introduced plenty of evidence (documents) and videos of witness testimony.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38033
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1522 Post by chijohnaok » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:05 pm

Roger Stone deserves a new trial, at least that is what Nero's BFF and legal expert has said on the subject:

Fox's Napolitano: Roger Stone 'absolutely entitled' to new trial after juror's tweets revealed
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

jwilkerson
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12505
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1523 Post by jwilkerson » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:11 am

WIth pee looh see and dee muc rats now switching focus from the uuuCrane over to the stone man ... I guess that signals the end of the uuucrane saga ? We are now em barking on the next saga ?? The "squeeze bar and de stone man" saga ??
Since OMB it bee hooves dee muc rats to turn over all doze stones ... but they'd better hurry ... less than 10 months left before the election ?
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!

jack t ripper
Sergeant Major
Posts: 32803
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1524 Post by jack t ripper » Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:51 am

It is hilarious to listen to complaints about Trump/Barr "politicizing" the Stone prosecution.

Little late for that, isn't it?
Strong supporter of global warming as I have invested in speculative vineyard properties around Nome

Gump
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 4271
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:07 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1525 Post by Gump » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:20 pm

Apparently the jury foreman was a political hack too ? This is what Trump does... he apparently knows what's coming, then drops a small piece of meat for the dems to go insane over.... a couple days before the real info starts to come out.... you have to give him credit for instincts... although the strategy is usually significantly flawed, it does deliver results....

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 16742
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: marching home to [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY]Erica[/url]

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1526 Post by Anthropoid » Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:53 pm

Gump wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:20 pm
Apparently the jury foreman was a political hack too ? This is what Trump does... he apparently knows what's coming, then drops a small piece of meat for the dems to go insane over.... a couple days before the real info starts to come out.... you have to give him credit for instincts... although the strategy is usually significantly flawed, it does deliver results....
This EXACT SAME thing has occurred to me on multiple occasions. He seems to often (or maybe even "always") being using some variant of reverse psychology to advance his cause(s).

jack t ripper
Sergeant Major
Posts: 32803
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1527 Post by jack t ripper » Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:09 pm

McCabe...2nd in command at FBI...lies to FBI about leaks...in on plot to defeat the POTUS...no indictment

Roger Stone...blabbermouth old guy who can't program the clock on the oven but accused of conspiring with the Russians....9 years in jail.

<scratches head>
Strong supporter of global warming as I have invested in speculative vineyard properties around Nome

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38033
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1528 Post by chijohnaok » Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:27 pm

jack t ripper wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:09 pm
McCabe...2nd in command at FBI...lies to FBI about leaks...in on plot to defeat the POTUS...no indictment

Roger Stone...blabbermouth old guy who can't program the clock on the oven but accused of conspiring with the Russians....9 years in jail.

<scratches head>
Mike Flynn WAS prosecuted for lying to the FBI.
McCabe Lied to the FBI, then lied about lying to them, no charges.

Talk about a double standard.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

jack t ripper
Sergeant Major
Posts: 32803
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1529 Post by jack t ripper » Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:56 pm

Excellent Andrew mcCarthy piece on Stone sentencing
Some Justice Department personnel handled it questionably, but Trump’s reaction was worse.
The first thing to grasp about the Roger Stone sentencing fiasco is that Stone, even accepting the worst plausible gloss on his crimes, is a 67-year-old nonviolent first offender. If the criminal-justice “reform” fad were authentic, and not a stratagem of social-justice warriors who have taken Washington’s surfeit of useful idiots for a ride, then we could all agree that the original seven-to-nine-year sentence advocated by prosecutors was too draconian — even if it was, as we shall see, a faithful application of the federal sentencing guidelines as written.


But no. Like criminal-justice “reform,” the Stone prosecution is more politics than law enforcement. It was the Mueller probe’s last gasp at pretending there might be something to the Russia-collusion narrative – notwithstanding that, when the “gee, it sure feels like there could be some collusion here” indictment was filed, over a year and a half after special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed, it had long been manifest that there was no Trump–Russia conspiracy.

So, the Left has a quandary here: Do they hate Trump more than they love sentencing “reform”? We could have predicted the decision to go with hating Trump, and thus fomenting outrage over DOJ’s retraction of its original sentencing recommendation of about nine years’ imprisonment, now slashed to a far more reasonable range of four years or less. To be fair, though, Trump critics could not have been expected to resist the combination of DOJ missteps and Trump Twitter taunts that mark Stone’s sentencing, the combination that has managed to turn Mueller’s maulers into media martyrs.

Some background: In a ridiculously overblown, overcharged prosecution, Mueller slammed the ineffable Stone with seven felony counts of obstructing Congress’s Russia investigation. One of these involved tampering with a witness, left-wing radio host Randy Credico (through whom Stone sought a communications channel with WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange).

At a certain point, Credico let it be known that he intended to cooperate with investigators. A ballistic Stone, when not uttering lunatic references to Watergate and Frank Pentangeli (the Mafioso character goaded into suicide when a plot to take out the Don fails in Godfather II), warned the “stoolie” “rat” Credico to “prepare to die” and vowed to steal his pet dog. Even in context, these seem to be puerile ravings, not real threats. (Stone added that his lawyers were anxious to “rip [Credico] to shreds,” so any murder and dognapping was apparently going to await cross-examination.) And though Stone is patently guilty of witness tampering, Credico himself told the court that he did not take Stone’s threats seriously.

NOW WATCH: 'Flynn Sentencing Delayed Amid Bid to Withdraw Guilty Plea'


WATCH: 0:41
Flynn Sentencing Delayed Amid Bid to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Stone being the sort of Einstein who commits his obstructions in writing (the Credico contacts were mostly text messages), the jury convicted him in nothing flat. That meant DOJ would give the court its take on how the sentencing guidelines applied to the case, as it does with every convicted defendant.

The guidelines tend to be harsh if they are faithfully interpreted, but they are not binding on judges. Since the role of prosecutors is to seek justice, which often is not the maximum sentence, the best practice is for DOJ to provide a neutral explanation of how the guidelines should be calculated — the applicable enhancements and reductions. If the resulting sentencing range seems out of proportion with the offense, DOJ may suggest adjustments that raise or lower the suggested range without doing damage to the guidelines framework and the overarching purposes served by sentencing. Arguments for leniency are always made by defense counsel, and often by the U.S. Probation Department, which also prepares a sentencing recommendation for the court.

In Stone’s case, the guidelines worked a severe result. In tampering cases, a guidelines enhancement calls for a drastic increase in the sentence if the defendant threatened the witness with physical injury. This drove Stone’s “offense level” from 21 to 29 on the guidelines grid, so even though he is a first offender (offense history “Category I” in guidelines-speak), his recommended sentence zoomed to 90 to 108 months — instead of 37 to 46 months, as it would have been at offense level 21 (i.e., without the threats).


With Mueller’s shop closed down, the Stone prosecution was run out of the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia. But it was still being overseen by two Mueller staffers, Aaron S. J. Zelinsky (on loan from the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland, where he had worked for Rod Rosenstein, who, as Trump’s deputy attorney general, later appointed Mueller), and Adam C. Jed (an appellate lawyer from the Obama Justice Department who first came to public attention in 2013, arguing that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional). Also assigned to the case were Jonathan Kravis, a former associate White House counsel to Obama, and Michael Mirando, an experienced assistant U.S. attorney in the D.C. office.

This team of prosecutors filed a sentencing memorandum on Monday, laying out the guidelines and advising Judge Amy Berman Jackson that they called for a prison sentence of about seven to nine years (i.e., the offense-level guidelines range of 90 to 108 months). Like the indictment itself, the memo is gross overkill.


As the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross notes, the prosecutors tied Stone to “foreign election interference,” breathlessly framed as the “most deadly adversary of republican government,” even though he was never charged with any such crime — underscoring yet again that the deadliest adversary of republican government is actually domestic — viz., the politicized use of executive police powers. Far from offering any theory in mitigation of the 90-to-108-months range, the prosecutors pooh-poohed Credico’s perception that Stone’s threats were not serious, factitiously insisting that the guidelines enhancement is triggered by the threat, not whether the target is actually intimidated. Plus, prosecutors maintained, Stone’s crimes were exacerbated by his flouting of Judge Berman Jackson’s gag orders during the prosecution.

All that said, the prosecutors’ submission was an accurate (if extreme and unyielding) rendition of federal sentencing law. The enhancement that inflates Stone’s sentencing range does literally apply — even if he is not the kind of violent criminal that the guidelines commissioners had in mind when they wrote it. Prosecutors are not required to argue for clemency, though they should do so when the circumstances call for it. The Justice Department’s default position in criminal cases is that the guidelines should be applied as written, and that it is up to the court to decide whether to follow them.

While Stone awaited sentence, the prosecutors were supervised, at least nominally, by Jessie Liu, the U.S. attorney for D.C. I say “nominally” because the Trump Justice Department has always been leery about being seen as interfering in Mueller-based prosecutions. Moreover, the D.C. office was in transition while court submissions pertaining to Stone’s sentencing were being prepared.

In December 2019, President Trump announced his nomination of Liu to become the Treasury Department’s undersecretary overseeing financial sanctions on terrorists. Liu continued running the U.S. attorney’s office, albeit with one foot out the door, until the end of January. With her Treasury confirmation hearing scheduled for February 13 (i.e., tomorrow), Attorney General Bill Barr appointed one of his top advisers, Timothy Shea (a well-regarded longtime prosecutor, litigator, and Capitol Hill staffer), to become acting U.S. attorney for D.C. on January 30. That was eleven days before the Stone team filed its sentencing submission.
cont. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/ ... erm=second
Strong supporter of global warming as I have invested in speculative vineyard properties around Nome

nero
Sergeant Major
Posts: 20887
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1530 Post by nero » Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:00 pm

jack t ripper wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:56 pm
Excellent Andrew mcCarthy piece on Stone sentencing
Some Justice Department personnel handled it questionably, but Trump’s reaction was worse.
The first thing to grasp about the Roger Stone sentencing fiasco is that Stone, even accepting the worst plausible gloss on his crimes, is a 67-year-old nonviolent first offender. If the criminal-justice “reform” fad were authentic, and not a stratagem of social-justice warriors who have taken Washington’s surfeit of useful idiots for a ride, then we could all agree that the original seven-to-nine-year sentence advocated by prosecutors was too draconian — even if it was, as we shall see, a faithful application of the federal sentencing guidelines as written.


But no. Like criminal-justice “reform,” the Stone prosecution is more politics than law enforcement. It was the Mueller probe’s last gasp at pretending there might be something to the Russia-collusion narrative – notwithstanding that, when the “gee, it sure feels like there could be some collusion here” indictment was filed, over a year and a half after special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed, it had long been manifest that there was no Trump–Russia conspiracy.

So, the Left has a quandary here: Do they hate Trump more than they love sentencing “reform”? We could have predicted the decision to go with hating Trump, and thus fomenting outrage over DOJ’s retraction of its original sentencing recommendation of about nine years’ imprisonment, now slashed to a far more reasonable range of four years or less. To be fair, though, Trump critics could not have been expected to resist the combination of DOJ missteps and Trump Twitter taunts that mark Stone’s sentencing, the combination that has managed to turn Mueller’s maulers into media martyrs.

Some background: In a ridiculously overblown, overcharged prosecution, Mueller slammed the ineffable Stone with seven felony counts of obstructing Congress’s Russia investigation. One of these involved tampering with a witness, left-wing radio host Randy Credico (through whom Stone sought a communications channel with WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange).

At a certain point, Credico let it be known that he intended to cooperate with investigators. A ballistic Stone, when not uttering lunatic references to Watergate and Frank Pentangeli (the Mafioso character goaded into suicide when a plot to take out the Don fails in Godfather II), warned the “stoolie” “rat” Credico to “prepare to die” and vowed to steal his pet dog. Even in context, these seem to be puerile ravings, not real threats. (Stone added that his lawyers were anxious to “rip [Credico] to shreds,” so any murder and dognapping was apparently going to await cross-examination.) And though Stone is patently guilty of witness tampering, Credico himself told the court that he did not take Stone’s threats seriously.

NOW WATCH: 'Flynn Sentencing Delayed Amid Bid to Withdraw Guilty Plea'


WATCH: 0:41
Flynn Sentencing Delayed Amid Bid to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Stone being the sort of Einstein who commits his obstructions in writing (the Credico contacts were mostly text messages), the jury convicted him in nothing flat. That meant DOJ would give the court its take on how the sentencing guidelines applied to the case, as it does with every convicted defendant.

The guidelines tend to be harsh if they are faithfully interpreted, but they are not binding on judges. Since the role of prosecutors is to seek justice, which often is not the maximum sentence, the best practice is for DOJ to provide a neutral explanation of how the guidelines should be calculated — the applicable enhancements and reductions. If the resulting sentencing range seems out of proportion with the offense, DOJ may suggest adjustments that raise or lower the suggested range without doing damage to the guidelines framework and the overarching purposes served by sentencing. Arguments for leniency are always made by defense counsel, and often by the U.S. Probation Department, which also prepares a sentencing recommendation for the court.

In Stone’s case, the guidelines worked a severe result. In tampering cases, a guidelines enhancement calls for a drastic increase in the sentence if the defendant threatened the witness with physical injury. This drove Stone’s “offense level” from 21 to 29 on the guidelines grid, so even though he is a first offender (offense history “Category I” in guidelines-speak), his recommended sentence zoomed to 90 to 108 months — instead of 37 to 46 months, as it would have been at offense level 21 (i.e., without the threats).


With Mueller’s shop closed down, the Stone prosecution was run out of the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia. But it was still being overseen by two Mueller staffers, Aaron S. J. Zelinsky (on loan from the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland, where he had worked for Rod Rosenstein, who, as Trump’s deputy attorney general, later appointed Mueller), and Adam C. Jed (an appellate lawyer from the Obama Justice Department who first came to public attention in 2013, arguing that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional). Also assigned to the case were Jonathan Kravis, a former associate White House counsel to Obama, and Michael Mirando, an experienced assistant U.S. attorney in the D.C. office.

This team of prosecutors filed a sentencing memorandum on Monday, laying out the guidelines and advising Judge Amy Berman Jackson that they called for a prison sentence of about seven to nine years (i.e., the offense-level guidelines range of 90 to 108 months). Like the indictment itself, the memo is gross overkill.


As the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross notes, the prosecutors tied Stone to “foreign election interference,” breathlessly framed as the “most deadly adversary of republican government,” even though he was never charged with any such crime — underscoring yet again that the deadliest adversary of republican government is actually domestic — viz., the politicized use of executive police powers. Far from offering any theory in mitigation of the 90-to-108-months range, the prosecutors pooh-poohed Credico’s perception that Stone’s threats were not serious, factitiously insisting that the guidelines enhancement is triggered by the threat, not whether the target is actually intimidated. Plus, prosecutors maintained, Stone’s crimes were exacerbated by his flouting of Judge Berman Jackson’s gag orders during the prosecution.

All that said, the prosecutors’ submission was an accurate (if extreme and unyielding) rendition of federal sentencing law. The enhancement that inflates Stone’s sentencing range does literally apply — even if he is not the kind of violent criminal that the guidelines commissioners had in mind when they wrote it. Prosecutors are not required to argue for clemency, though they should do so when the circumstances call for it. The Justice Department’s default position in criminal cases is that the guidelines should be applied as written, and that it is up to the court to decide whether to follow them.

While Stone awaited sentence, the prosecutors were supervised, at least nominally, by Jessie Liu, the U.S. attorney for D.C. I say “nominally” because the Trump Justice Department has always been leery about being seen as interfering in Mueller-based prosecutions. Moreover, the D.C. office was in transition while court submissions pertaining to Stone’s sentencing were being prepared.

In December 2019, President Trump announced his nomination of Liu to become the Treasury Department’s undersecretary overseeing financial sanctions on terrorists. Liu continued running the U.S. attorney’s office, albeit with one foot out the door, until the end of January. With her Treasury confirmation hearing scheduled for February 13 (i.e., tomorrow), Attorney General Bill Barr appointed one of his top advisers, Timothy Shea (a well-regarded longtime prosecutor, litigator, and Capitol Hill staffer), to become acting U.S. attorney for D.C. on January 30. That was eleven days before the Stone team filed its sentencing submission.
cont. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/ ... erm=second
Is this post in a right thread?

Just curious. :roll:
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller

Post Reply