US Department of Justice presses for lower sentence for Trump associate

[Agema]

Roger Stone, Trump supporter and occasional political fixer (with long history and Nixon tattoo) was indicted under the Mueller probe and subsequently found guilty of multiple offences of obstruction, witness tampering and lying to Congress.

Prosecutors recommended 7-10 years; Trump tweeted this was unfair and a few hours the later the DoJ said it would be recommending a lower sentence, claiming the decision was made before Trump tweeted. Four of the Assistant US Attorneys who oversaw the prosecution have resigned from the case, with one resigning his post.

This has prompted some considerable comment about potential inappropriate interference in the justice system by the White House - yet another corruption concern to float around.

* * *

This follows a series of firings in the executive as Trump removed personnel who testified at the impeachment, Lt. Col. Vindman (and also his brother) and Gordon Sondland. Afer the impeachment trial, Republican Senator Susan Collins suggested Trump would be more careful and would learn from this case. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, when asked to comment on this, suggested "There haven't been any strong indicators this week that he has."

And of course, Murkowski's absolutely right. Trump knows he can do whatever the fuck he likes because Senate Republicans have made it clear he's untouchable.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

*heavy sigh* why am I in the least bit surprised. It's clear having standards are only for non-republicans/conservatives, and is why they will keep staying in power, because cheaters always win when they're the only ones left enforcing the rules, willing to stoop to any depth. I remember that dickhead stone, acting like some nauseating conservative equivalent of a rockstar, there is no doubt tomfuckery is afoot when expectations are thus.

 

[Agema]

As an update, US AG William Barr has publically stated that Trump is making it impossible for him to do his job.

My inclination is to say that Barr's job is subverting the DoJ to protect Trump's allies and attack his enemies, and Trump surely is making that corruption harder to hide from the press. I also don't believe for a minute that Barr didn't clear this ostensible criticism of Trump with Trump beforehand.

 

[tstorm823]

My inclination is to say that Barr's job is subverting the DoJ to protect Trump's allies and attack his enemies, and Trump surely is making that corruption harder to hide from the press. I also don't believe for a minute that Barr didn't clear this ostensible criticism of Trump with Trump beforehand.

Stop reading propaganda. Barr was AG 30 years ago, he has more credibility than Trump, he's not some crony who got appointed by being a bootlicker. The media just want to paint him as such because Barr called out the Mueller investigation for its crap, and they needed an excuse to dismiss his criticism. He is the head of the DoJ, he's not subverting it, and he's not a Trump devotee. He's just an otherwise respected public servant who wouldn't keep silent while Democrats tried to burn Trump alive.

Edit: if, by chance, Barr happens to leave that post before Trump is out of office, I guarantee he will be treated as a potential savior the same way Bolton is now.

 

[Trunkage]

My inclination is to say that Barr's job is subverting the DoJ to protect Trump's allies and attack his enemies, and Trump surely is making that corruption harder to hide from the press. I also don't believe for a minute that Barr didn't clear this ostensible criticism of Trump with Trump beforehand.

Stop reading propaganda. Barr was AG 30 years ago, he has more credibility than Trump, he's not some crony who got appointed by being a bootlicker. The media just want to paint him as such because Barr called out the Mueller investigation for its crap, and they needed an excuse to dismiss his criticism. He is the head of the DoJ, he's not subverting it, and he's not a Trump devotee. He's just an otherwise respected public servant who wouldn't keep silent while Democrats tried to burn Trump alive.

Edit: if, by chance, Barr happens to leave that post before Trump is out of office, I guarantee he will be treated as a potential savior the same way Bolton is now.

Who said he's a saviour. Here's what I keep getting told. Bolton terrible. Trump terrible. Use them against each other

 

[Agema]

Stop reading propaganda. Barr was AG 30 years ago, he has more credibility than Trump, he's not some crony who got appointed by being a bootlicker. The media just want to paint him as such because Barr called out the Mueller investigation for its crap...

1) Trump only appoints cronies - or should I say perceived cronies, because he finds out some of them have a mind of their own and ends up having to fire them.

2) Barr previously serving as AG doesn't mean he isn't a bootlicker and crony now.

3) Before appointment, Barr had publicly questioned the Mueller report before put into post, and otherwise strongly defended Trump from criticism. He is also a believer in the president having almost total control of the executive, which is of course catnip to an autocratically-inclined president and also means that ideologically, the AG should take orders from the president.

4) Barr patently misrepresented the Mueller report to favour Trump.

5) He has attempted to undermine other elements connected with the Mueller report, such as Flynn's conviction, and FBI investigations. In fact he launched an investigation of the FBI over their investigation, and when the head of the investigation concluded it was reasonably done, Barr rejected its conclusions.

6) I'm sure there's more, but you get the point.

The Trump administration has spent a great deal of time warring against the US government and its agencies. Barr seems to have taken this up enthusiastically, and never missed an opportunity to protect Trump or further his interests. Who seriously trusts Barr to uphold the law over the word of the president? It's against his openly stated ideology and all his actions to date.

 

[tstorm823]

6) I'm sure there's more, but you get the point.

The point is you've been sucked into propaganda. Probably on Reddit. Especially for someone not even living here, you really should have some time away from all this to regain perspective.

 

[Agema]

The point is you've been sucked into propaganda. Probably on Reddit.

Stop ad homineming your way out of conversation. It's a sign of a weak argument.

Especially for someone not even living here, you really should have some time away from all this to regain perspective.

I don't think I have lost perspective. I think all this constant shit - dodgy decisions from the executive, massive staff turnover, whistleblowing, scandals, nepotism, isn't just "government as usual". It that the White House is occupied by an utterly self-absorbed, self-aggrandising, amoral, incompetent loose cannon (which even you have effectively admitted several times.) The only bizarre thing is how you seem so insistent that none of this can possibly be corruption or damaging to the nation, despite both being the natural result of such a leader.

 

[Satinavian]

6) I'm sure there's more, but you get the point.

The point is you've been sucked into propaganda. Probably on Reddit. Especially for someone not even living here, you really should have some time away from all this to regain perspective.

No one needs reddit for that.

Most of the world pretty much shares Agema's view of Trump. It is only the US itself where his die-hard-fans try to delude themself that they actually got what they voted for.

 

[SupahEwok]

I don't think I have lost perspective. I think all this constant shit - dodgy decisions from the executive, massive staff turnover, whistleblowing, scandals, nepotism, isn't just "government as usual". It that the White House is occupied by an utterly self-absorbed, self-aggrandising, amoral, incompetent loose cannon (which even you have effectively admitted several times.) The only bizarre thing is how you seem so insistent that none of this can possibly be corruption or damaging to the nation, despite both being the natural result of such a leader.

No, his point is gonna be that "He's not doing anything the Democrats don't do, you just don't hear/care about it when the Dems do it because of media/bias/etc."

I've grown up in Texas. I'm very familiar with American Conservatism. This is one of the core tenets used to justify anything that tarnishes the Republican name: it's not any worse than what anybody else does. Not that it isn't bad. That it's just to be expected, it's the fundamental nature of power, etc. and that's why government shouldn't have power to do anything in the first place... except what they want it to do, like arrest kneeling football players.

Edit: made a couple of additions for clarity

 

[Hades]

Maybe Barr was once a proper civil servants but those days have passed. Some decent folks are no doubt trapped in the Trump administration but its unlikely they would respond to this situation by abusing their position in order to promote the interest of a demagogue.

 

[tstorm823]

No one needs reddit for that.

Most of the world pretty much shares Agema's view of Trump. It is only the US itself where his die-hard-fans try to delude themself that they actually got what they voted for.

Most of the world is wrong then. And like, that's fine. I don't imagine for a second that I, from my vantage point in Pennsylvania, have a terribly accurate view of Boris Johnson, or Angela Merkel, or basically any foreign leader other than maybe Trudeau. They're just so far removed from my life, that the only thing about them likely to reach me is criticism in the news. It would be stupid and arrogant of me to condemn all these people because my perspective of them is narrow and biased by media outrage machines.

Someone on a different continent should not feel informed enough to criticize William Barr based on the news they read. You cannot reasonably judge a person's character that way.

 

[Hades]

No one needs reddit for that.

Most of the world pretty much shares Agema's view of Trump. It is only the US itself where his die-hard-fans try to delude themself that they actually got what they voted for.

Most of the world is wrong then. And like, that's fine. I don't imagine for a second that I, from my vantage point in Pennsylvania, have a terribly accurate view of Boris Johnson, or Angela Merkel, or basically any foreign leader other than maybe Trudeau. They're just so far removed from my life, that the only thing about them likely to reach me is criticism in the news. It would be stupid and arrogant of me to condemn all these people because my perspective of them is narrow and biased by media outrage machines.

Someone on a different continent should not feel informed enough to criticize William Barr based on the news they read. You cannot reasonably judge a person's character that way.

Don't you think that not being from a respective county actually reduces the chance that you're being made biased by outrage media? Someone that isn't from America will have much less exposure to the hysteric partisan struggle in the US, they won't have Fox news and CNN championing their respective politician and demonizing the other side. News that isn't made in America will likely have a far more objective take on Trump then news that is made in America.

 

[Silvanus]

Most of the world is wrong then. And like, that's fine. I don't imagine for a second that I, from my vantage point in Pennsylvania, have a terribly accurate view of Boris Johnson, or Angela Merkel, or basically any foreign leader other than maybe Trudeau.

What do you make of widespread support for impeachment within the US? It quite consistently out-polls opposition (though not by much).

This doesn't really square with the picture you're painting of non-Americans getting a distorted view. You're of the minority view even within the US.

 

[bluegate]

Someone on a different continent should not feel informed enough to criticize William Barr based on the news they read. You cannot reasonably judge a person's character that way.

Any public information on Barr that you have that you use to judge him is most likely available to people on different continents as well 🤷‍♂️

Aside from you being born in the US, what makes your opinion on Barr more valid than other people's? What kind of American-only information do you have on the guy? Willing to share with the world so that the world can see him for what he apparently really is?

 

[tstorm823]

Don't you think that not being from a respective county actually reduces the chance that you're being made biased by outrage media? Someone that isn't from America will have much less exposure to the hysteric partisan struggle in the US, they won't have Fox news and CNN championing their respective politician and demonizing the other side. News that isn't made in America will likely have a far more objective take on Trump then news that is made in America.

No, I don't think that's true. If you're getting your information from only major news sources, you only get the bias. I get my least biased news out of regional news-talk radio and the local NPR affiliate. Through friends, and family, and work, I get first-hand accounts of things ongoing in government. The most biased news I see is online on the same websites people see internationally. It doesn't have a more objective take.

You're thinking of news bias like it's a partisan conspiracy, and if you get outside the nation's partisanship, there's no need to conspire. But most media bias isn't that, it's innocent bias. It's people who disagree, or often don't even understand the other side of the argument. Most of the media doesn't understand conservatives. They don't talk to conservatives, they don't have friends who are conservatives, they have less dialogue with conservatives than the people on this website just by virtue of me being here. They're surrounded by such unanimous agreement that Republican's suck, they don't even realize they don't understand. Putting oceans between the people delivering the news and the closest US conservative they could talk to doesn't alleviate this problem, it exacerbates it.

What do you make of widespread support for impeachment within the US? It quite consistently out-polls opposition (though not by much).

This doesn't really square with the picture you're painting of non-Americans getting a distorted view. You're of the minority view even within the US.

Facts are not democratic. The Democrats of America hating Trump enough to want him gone doesn't prove William Barr is a nefarious Trump crony.

Any public information on Barr that you have that you use to judge him is most likely available to people on different continents as well.

Here's some public information: he's not some Trump crony. If the news is leading you to believe so, it's because the people writing the news can't imagine any other reason why someone would be critical of the Mueller report. Read above what I said about not understanding the other side. Barr stated serious opinions that happened to be good for Trump, and the media is so genuinely ignorant of those positions, that they reason the only explanation is that he was sucking up to Trump.

 

[Silvanus]

Facts are not democratic. The Democrats of America hating Trump enough to want him gone doesn't prove William Barr is a nefarious Trump crony.

Well, it goes well beyond Democrats, stretching to 1 in 10 self-described Republicans and a majority of the non-aligned.

But that's not really my point-- I acknowledge that numbers don't make something correct. My point was that its specious to try to characterise this as a distorted outsider's view. American citizens share it widely.

 

[tstorm823]

But that's not really my point-- I acknowledge that numbers don't make something correct. My point was that its specious to try to characterise this as a distorted outsider's view. American citizens share it widely.

Like 50% of Americans don't like Trump. A handful of Democratic propaganda specialists writing op-eds think Barr should be impeached. These are not the same thing.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Stop reading propaganda. Barr was AG 30 years ago, he has more credibility than Trump, he's not some crony who got appointed by being a bootlicker. The media just want to paint him as such because Barr called out the Mueller investigation for its crap, and they needed an excuse to dismiss his criticism. He is the head of the DoJ, he's not subverting it, and he's not a Trump devotee. He's just an otherwise respected public servant who wouldn't keep silent while Democrats tried to burn Trump alive.

You appear to be portraying the Barr critics as partisan Democrats, but you should be aware that the clear majority of former DoJ officials and prosecutors who have called on Barr to resign for his actions in the Stone case are, in fact, REPUBLICAN.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/16/william-barr-doj-alumnus-call-ag-resign/4779721002/

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the-sentencing-of-roger-stone-c2cb75ae4937


So is the argument here that these DOJ alumni are liberal shills? Somehow misinformed? Or are they just "deep state"?

 

[Kwak]

Stop reading propaganda. Barr was AG 30 years ago, he has more credibility than Trump, he's not some crony who got appointed by being a bootlicker.

Uh huh...

In 1992, Barr was instrumental to the Iran-Contra cover-up, which included trading missile sales to Iran for U.S. hostages in Lebanon, and using the proceeds of those arms sales to fund anti-Sandinista Contras in Central America ? all in violation of U.S. law. As Bush?s attorney general, Barr advocated for the pardons that covered up the scandal.