Roger Stone was prosecuted and essentially convicted for journalism in a star chamber by an Obama appointed judge who issued unconstitutional prior restraints along the way. The ambitions of a star chamber is to find you guilty of something, and the more you talk, and the more you are mistaken about facts, and the more and more that charges will add on-often in the form of false statements. Normally star chambers are in secret courts with secret evidence with a bench trial, but in Washington D.C. a conservative stands a snow balls chance in hell-especially when the judge allows Obama intelligence officers but prohibits republicans. The judge allowed a giant inflatable Trump rat to be displayed outside the building, despite Stone's right to a fair and impartial jury. So effectively it is throwing an old man to a lynch mob. There is a branch, if that is the right term, of psychology that looks to memory and it's reconstruction and false memories. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/reconstructive-memory . Depending on the context, prosecuting an old man for false statements can easily fall into the territory of tyranny. I am not arguing that old people should have immunity simply based upon age, but the harm has to be real and substantial-not merely speculative or the result of a deteriorating mind. And in Stone's case it was speculative and ultimately non-existent.
The star chamber was essentially established to further the Russian interference conspiracy theory built upon a fictional foreign steele dossier that they themselves created. No Russian interference. Mind you democrats don't really care that the left coast is hiring coders on H-1B visas to build and maintain systems aimed at stifling conservative speech. H-1Bs permits big tech to do bad things through their little Eichmann's who aren't permitted to refuse less they return to India, and big tech really hate it when a conservative employee they couldn't replace speak up about what's really going on. Or perhaps worse for big tech, when project veritas speaks to their American leftist workers undercover. Google must have really hated it when their workers refused to take part in Project dragonfly, but that didn't stop them anyways until they allegedly abandoned it in June or July 2019. Maybe another letter of the alphabet is doing it, or maybe as southpark shown us China already owns what we can say and it was unnecessary. It seems Big Tech also tried to endorse TP USA as the new and permissible conservative movement. Meanwhile the alt-right and Groypers who were forced into the sewers of the web by Big Tech are coming out and pwning TP USA at live events.
The objective behind prosecuting false statements is when there is material harm. What is the material harm did Roger Stone cause? As far as proportionality, what punishment is proportional to no harm? Do we really have a proportional sentencing system (or equal protection for that matter) in America when men are sentenced 63% longer on average than women for the same crimes? And even though women receive substantially shorter sentences, feminist argue women shouldn't go to jail/prison. I too have a problem with the existence of a penitentiary system in most cases, but mind you these same feminist are probably screaming to lock Roger Stone up. The prosecution wanted 7-9 years for convictions. Trump rightfully opined that is unfair. The USDOj somehow stepped in, and 4 us prosecutors resigned from the case-one from the USDOJ. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/482618-three-prosecutors-quit-roger-stone-case . Really, 4 USDOJ attorneys trying to send an old journalist to prison? We as a nation deserve to fail.
Rather the Turkish Turban than the feminist p__sy hat.
Needless to say the democrats are fuming, how could trump/Barr do this? 50k signed a petition to investigate. Representative Pelosi too wants to waste more of our time investigating and saying he somehow interfered in the prosecution. One can't really blame the democrats for hating the R-word, or them hating Trump for doing the Retard gesture at them. They hate being called out for what they really are, and they are literally dumber than ever.
https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1227421325217685507
- SpeakerPelosi
Though I am not a fan of state prosecutions-a system that developed in England after the catholic church banned trial by battle-it really doesn't matter how I feel about it. Although attorney generals do have a duty to represent the legislature when a government is sued, they typically fall under the arm of the executive branch-and that is true at the federal level. There are some states where the AG acts independently from the Governor, that is not the case with the federal government where the legislature since 1789 established the AG worked under the president. The decision to prosecute or not prosecute, save for a special prosecutor, falls entirely with the executive branch; The head of the federal executive branch is of course the president. The decision to pardon also is constitutionally an executive power-one that is often delegated rather than micromanaged. If the president wished, he could empty all of our prisons and there is nothing the legislature could do about it except trying to pull a hail Mary in the courts.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
-US constitution article II, section 2.
As to the matter of impeachment. Trump was acquitted, but you can imagine the democrats will be grasping at straws even though the formal articles of impeachment had nothing to do with Stone, Wikileaks, or Russia. The democrats often assert that Trump is trying to take the powers of a king. Well yeah, he is the American equivalence to the king of England (before the act of 1911) who has a chance to be replaced every 4 years if the states so wish it. What the democrats don't like is the president being able to do his job. They of course have no legal objections in which they could pursue in the courts, they are choosing to be pure obstructionist and pander to their ever shrinking base who is increasingly being pissed off by them. Trump didn't pardon Stone, the Bundy ranch/refuge protesters, Assange, Flynn, nor others nor did he depose the law. He kept himself separated from these prosecutions, but he could have an should have stopped them from commencing in the first place. He didn't even go as far to say that Stone shouldn't be punished, nor that the charges be dropped, He tweeted that 7-9 years to be extreme. And to be quite honest, when a serial killer killed and ate 5 people in the 19th century, it resulted in the longest prison sentence of 40 years-8 years per body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alferd_Packer Again, what harm has Stone caused? An act of blaspheme against the democrats Goddess Hitlery GodDamn Clinton?
How about the instance of a tax evading billionaire who was illegally trading with Iran who fled overseas to evade a federal indictment, but funded the DNC and received a presidential pardon? March Rich received such a pardon by Bill Clinton in 2001. I don't see Pelosi making a peep about it; nothing on cspan, nothing on google for articles published during the time, nothing on ye olde usernet.
The republicans had a hearing on it. The democrats then agreed, it was a compete waste of time and entirely in the presidents discretion.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4854936/user-clip-pardon-presidential-discretion
-c-span.org, public domain, feb 8 2001
My focus is on Pelosi, and she has a diagnosis of a clinical obsession of Orange man Bad. https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500297580/more-surprises-fbi-releases-files-on-bill-clintons-pardon-of-marc-rich . Maybe Trump should file a restraining order to keep her 500 yards away from him, and stop her from talking about him. just kidding, but that is what the democrats would unlawfully do to us in the family court star chambers.
Needless to say, our childhood toys wouldn't put up with these Quintesson/Cthulhu justices-nor should we.
I have Nothing But Contempt For This Court!
-Hot Rod
And Clinton pardoned many many more, including his own brother, without usdoj review. Taking his notes with him.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CZACs4nw3KcJ:https://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-clinton-pardon-onethird-story.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Calling for investigations of pardons is a complete waste of time. It is what it is. If they don't like the system, and I don't either, they need to work on a constitutional amendments to strip the president of the power to pardon and also create legislation to remove the AG and USDOJ to fall under a legislative or judicial authority instead of an executive authority. If the democrats ever cared about stopping abuse of power, they would work to legislation to get rid of qualified and sovereign immunity in civil rights suits. Harlow v Fitzgerald is 38 years old, and the only thing the democrats show us is that they want more power at any costs and they don't give a crap about the people. Personally, I would scrap all state prosecutions except in cases where a person is too disabled, or dead, perhaps too poor, and has no "friend" to be able to prosecute their own cause.
