Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence
-
@taiwan_girl said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
It is funny how biases interpret the results:
President Obama pardons/commutations
Democrat response - presidential privilege and he is within the law to do so
Republic response - abuse of power and going outside the normal course of lawPresident Trump pardons/commutations
Democrat response - abuse of power and going outside the normal course of law
Republic response - presidential privledge and he is within the law to do so
Sorry. But the republicans said nothing of the sort.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
@Jolly said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
@taiwan_girl said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
It is funny how biases interpret the results:
President Obama pardons/commutations
Democrat response - presidential privilege and he is within the law to do so
Republic response - abuse of power and going outside the normal course of lawPresident Trump pardons/commutations
Democrat response - abuse of power and going outside the normal course of law
Republic response - presidential privledge and he is within the law to do so You need to take a very hard look at the number of pardons and who they went to.
You know, everything is not equal and only roadkill is always in the middle of the road.
You are making my point! LOL
Exactly how is he making your point?
-
@Larry said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
@taiwan_girl said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
It is funny how biases interpret the results:
President Obama pardons/commutations
Democrat response - presidential privilege and he is within the law to do so
Republic response - abuse of power and going outside the normal course of lawPresident Trump pardons/commutations
Democrat response - abuse of power and going outside the normal course of law
Republic response - presidential privledge and he is within the law to do so Sorry. But the republicans said nothing of the sort.
President Trump Campaign Press Secretary
etc.
My point is, that if it is "your (generic)" guy who does the pardons or commutations, it is reasonable and justified.
If the "other guy" does a pardon or commutation, it is blatant abuse of power.
Democrats are no better than Republics in this case. Each president has done some that "seem" to be justified, and each have done some which are pretty obvious political.
My guess is that there have been hundreds of men in their 60's convicted of non violent crimes at the federal level. Why only Roger Stone have his sentence commuted by President Trump?
(I am sure that I would find the same type of information if I went back to President Obamas pardons, etc.)
-
TG, I know you may not be feeling it right now, but I do like you and I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on you.
But no matter what is being discussed, your take on it is that there's no difference, everything equals out, nothing changes, etc.. You aren't open to that broad viewpoint might be wrong, even though following your logic to its conclusion, there's no point to anything, nothing anyone does matters, nothing has any effect on anything. And that just won't hold wzter.
-
-
@xenon said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
It’s an interesting precedent. Get cronies to commit crimes for you, then get them outta jail.
Nothing legally wrong with it I guess, the President is entitled to do it.
IIRC, all of Stone's crimes were process crimes, as a result of the Mueller investigation(which we now know was a bucket of assholes). So what crime did he commit for Trump?
-
-
@Jolly just clarifying - you want me to recount the specific Wikileaks saga between Stone and the Trump campaign, or how he perjured himself about it, or how he threatened other witnesses to not talk?
Regardless of the particulars - he was convicted. Barr agrees with the conviction. The crimes were related to helping Trump.
I’m not sure what you want me to recount to you.
I can link articles for you if you’re curious about the details of his conviction.
-
@xenon said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
@Jolly just clarifying - you want me to recount the specific Wikileaks saga between Stone and the Trump campaign, or how he perjured himself about it, or how he threatened other witnesses to not talk?
Regardless of the particulars - he was convicted. Barr agrees with the conviction. The crimes were related to helping Trump.
I’m not sure what you want me to recount to you.
I can link articles for you if you’re curious about the details of his conviction.
Again, what crimes did Stone commit for Trump? Not because of who Trump was, not because they were process crimes, but what crimes did Stone commit for Trump?
-
@Jolly it’s “for” in the sense that Stone was acting in - what I can only assume was - the best interest of Trump’s campaign and Presidential bid.
In that sense the crimes were “for” Trump. I’m not saying he was a button man or was directed to do something by Trump. Because theres no evidence of that (as far as I know).
It’s interesting because Trump has pardoned someone that is connected to his own enterprise.
That is the novel part of all this.
-
@xenon said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
It’s interesting because Trump has pardoned someone that is connected to his own enterprise.
That is the novel part of all this.
Did you not see my posts about FDR, Truman, Clinton, and Nixon?
Thomas Jefferson pardoned Erick Bollman for violations of the Alien and Sedition Act in the hope that he would testify against rival Aaron Burr for treason
-
@George-K said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
@xenon said in Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence:
It’s interesting because Trump has pardoned someone that is connected to his own enterprise.
That is the novel part of all this.
Did you not see my posts about FDR, Truman, Clinton, and Nixon?
Thomas Jefferson pardoned Erick Bollman for violations of the Alien and Sedition Act in the hope that he would testify against rival Aaron Burr for treason
Didn’t see that. What a corrupt legacy this power has.
Allies/cronies and employees (which is what I would characterize Stone as) - are still a bit different.
But not much distinction from a moral perspective, imo.
-
People are calling this an "impeachable offense."
Good luck with that. This power is in the constitution and it is plenary and unconditional.
I almost understand the thinking behind putting it in - to make political convictions less common. However, it's ripe for abuse.
As I implied in my response to Phibes, I have less problem with this than I do with commuting the sentences of deserters and traitors and spies.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
