Politicspolitics

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:15 PM

Once again D's and their MSM cronies created a Const. crisis out of 'Ass Whole Cloth!'

Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2020, 06:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Local DOJ lawyers work for, and are subservient to, the AG in DC! They're like local offices of a Natl. Corporation. Besides, this was no more than a RECOMMENDATION which the Judge was totally free to reject w/o discussion.

Their resignations (did they QUIT the DOJ or just this case) are clearly politically motivated. Grandstanding? Had the recommendation not been lowered, the Judge was totally free to reject it.

Finally, I dare you to try to JUSTIFY 9 years for a 67 year old gadfly with no record, other than for support of the Orange Man, for non violent politically related crimes!

108 replies, 1154 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 108 replies Author Time Post
Reply Once again D's and their MSM cronies created a Const. crisis out of 'Ass Whole Cloth!' (Original post)
Dumper Feb 13 OP
Trevor Feb 13 #1
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #3
Trevor Feb 13 #7
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #8
Trevor Feb 13 #9
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #11
Trevor Feb 13 #14
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #15
Trevor Feb 13 #16
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #20
Trevor Feb 13 #23
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #25
Trevor Feb 13 #27
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #28
Trevor Feb 13 #30
Post removed Feb 13 #31
Trevor Feb 13 #32
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #33
Valishin Feb 14 #49
Trevor Feb 14 #55
Valishin Feb 15 #60
Trevor Feb 15 #68
Carl Feb 13 #36
Nostrings Feb 13 #41
Trevor Feb 13 #42
Nostrings Feb 13 #45
Trevor Feb 14 #56
Nostrings Feb 14 #59
Trevor Feb 15 #70
Nostrings Feb 15 #75
Trevor Feb 15 #79
Nostrings Feb 15 #81
Trevor Feb 15 #84
Nostrings Feb 15 #85
Trevor Feb 15 #86
Nostrings Feb 15 #88
Trevor Feb 15 #91
Nostrings Feb 15 #94
Trevor Feb 15 #97
Nostrings Sunday #98
Trevor Sunday #99
Nostrings Sunday #100
Trevor Sunday #101
Nostrings Sunday #102
Trevor Sunday #103
Nostrings Sunday #104
Trevor Sunday #105
Nostrings Sunday #106
Carl Feb 15 #96
Nostrings Sunday #107
Carl Sunday #108
Steelydamned Feb 13 #2
Trevor Feb 13 #4
Steelydamned Feb 13 #5
Trevor Feb 13 #6
Steelydamned Feb 13 #10
Dumper Feb 13 #13
Trevor Feb 13 #17
Steelydamned Feb 13 #19
Trevor Feb 13 #21
Steelydamned Feb 13 #22
Trevor Feb 13 #26
Nostrings Feb 13 #40
Trevor Feb 13 #43
Nostrings Feb 13 #46
Trevor Feb 14 #52
Nostrings Feb 14 #57
Trevor Feb 15 #69
Nostrings Feb 15 #72
Trevor Feb 15 #73
Nostrings Feb 15 #77
Trevor Feb 15 #78
Nostrings Feb 15 #80
Trevor Feb 15 #82
Nostrings Feb 15 #83
Trevor Feb 15 #87
Nostrings Feb 15 #89
Trevor Feb 15 #90
Nostrings Feb 15 #92
Trevor Feb 15 #93
Nostrings Feb 15 #95
Dumper Feb 13 #34
Nostrings Feb 13 #47
Steelydamned Feb 13 #24
Trevor Feb 13 #29
Dumper Feb 13 #12
Trevor Feb 13 #18
Steelydamned Feb 13 #35
Carl Feb 13 #37
Steelydamned Feb 13 #38
Carl Feb 13 #39
Trevor Feb 13 #44
Nostrings Feb 13 #48
Trevor Feb 14 #53
Nostrings Feb 14 #58
Trevor Feb 15 #62
Nostrings Feb 15 #63
Trevor Feb 15 #64
Nostrings Feb 15 #65
Trevor Feb 15 #67
Nostrings Feb 15 #71
Trevor Feb 15 #74
Nostrings Feb 15 #76
kevlar Feb 15 #66
Dumper Feb 15 #61
bfox74 Feb 14 #50
Trevor Feb 14 #54
Lowrider1984 Feb 14 #51

Response to Dumper (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:29 PM

1. They say the sentence they recommended was within the guidelines.

Its normal for prosecutors to recommend on the high end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:41 PM

3. "Its normal for prosecutors to recommend on the high end."

Citation please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:03 PM

7. Common knowledge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:05 PM

8. As usual, you lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:07 PM

9. Don't you know what prosecutors do?

Did you skip juvenile delinquency or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:14 PM

11. I know what prosecutors do and I know you lie.

Here's a member of a biker gang who got 364 days for witness tampering in a murder trial.

Kachbalian was originally charged with witness tampering, invasion of privacy and cyber harassment. He pleaded guilty to the tampering charge last month in exchange for a sentence of probation conditioned upon a 364-day sentence in the Atlantic County jail, according to a statement from the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office.

https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/crime/eht-man-to-be-sentenced-for-witness-tampering-in-april/article_76d4287e-f10d-5299-ad62-fc5e93f0c300.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:27 PM

14. His defense attorney probably asked for less

before a plea bargain was struck.

I don't lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:32 PM

15. I've got more evidence than you, shillboi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:37 PM

16. What is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:54 PM

20. If it's common knowledge no one told those prosecutors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:58 PM

23. I don't know what point you are trying to make.

From where you came where you got to makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 04:01 PM

25. "Its normal for prosecutors to recommend on the high end."

Trevor proven to be a liar, yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 05:37 PM

27. No. No proof at all I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 05:41 PM

28. More proof you're lying than proof supporting your lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 05:49 PM

30. No evidence at all I'm lying

In our system prosecutors argue in favor of conviction and harsher sentences. Defense attorneys argue the opposite. We are supposed to arrive at justice that way. Haven't you ever heard this before?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #30)


Response to Post removed (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 06:19 PM

32. I said something in general about prosecutors

You've been calling me a liar ever since.

Four career prosecutors are the target of Trump's anger. Here's how they came up with a stiff sentence for Roger Stone.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/12/roger-stone-sentencing-trump-attacks-doj-prosecutors/4735847002/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 06:20 PM

33. 4 hacks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 12:03 AM

49. Why do you assume

prosecutors argue in favor of harsher sentences? That's not even true most of the time more or less an absolute. Now yes, the defense will always argue for reduced sentence that's part of the system. However, the prosecution is supposed to make their suggestion based on an algorithmic evaluation made by answering a series of questions about the case. What they aren't supposed to do is apply multipliers to the equation because they don't like the defendant. Which is what appears to have happened here. Likely because at the very least because he has a bit of an attitude in regards to the prosecution and he committed the sin of supporting Trump. Barr is trying to make sure the defendant gets a fair shake at justice which is why he changed the suggested sentence to match the outcome of the algorithm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #49)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 08:00 PM

55. The prosecutors say they used your system.

Where do the things you think happened "appear?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 12:06 AM

60. Well if they did indeed do that

then they should have come to a number closer to what Barr and others who ran the numbers came up with which was somewhere around 3 years mark. According to Barr this was what the plan was then a figure triple what the prosecutors had briefed him popped out of no where, which is why he stepped in and made the correction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 01:44 PM

68. That's because the scoring system is subjective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 08:09 PM

36. You cornered yourself again.

As always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 08:29 PM

41. "They" who? The voices in your head?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 09:24 PM

42. The prosecutors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 10:11 PM

45. And why does what THEY say matter more than the judgement of the AG?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 08:01 PM

56. They aren't in Trump's pocket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 09:29 PM

59. In other words, you believe them because they were part of 'the resistance'.

Cool. When it becomes more public ,I'll be happy to hang that around your scrawny little neck too.

President Trump deserves a 'wingman AG' every bit as much as obama did, and don't you forget it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #59)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 01:52 PM

70. No president deserves a "wingman AG."

Obama didn't. You have some out of context quote.

The prosecutors are career professionals. They aren't part of any resistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #70)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:15 PM

75. Says you, conveniently after the fact.

"Obama didn't. You have some out of context quote."

Nope.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2013/04/eric-holder-im-still-the-presidents-wingman-160861

"I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy. So we’ll see," Holder said in an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show.

Holder, who's been held in contempt the House of Representatives and has been the focus of numerous Republican-led Congressional investigations, also joked that his childhood in New York left him well prepared for the slings and arrows of Washington.

"It’s tough, but when you understand what the stakes are, and what the opportunity is that we have, I can deal with all the nonsense," Holder said in the interview. "I can deal with whatever they throw at me. I grew up tough in New York City, you know, so if this is the best they’ve got in Washington, I’m ready for it."

"The prosecutors are career professionals."

No more or less so than bill barr.

"They aren't part of any resistance."

Yes trevor, they were part of the resistance. They wanted to charge flynn with 7 to 9 years, which is something the same DOJ didn't come close to doing with james wolfe who actually took more harmful actions.

It is BLATANTLY obvious.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #75)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:28 PM

79. In that quote "wingman"

doesn't mean fixer.

Bill Barr is a political appointee.

Not coming to the same conclusion as the biased Bill Barr is not evidence of disloyalty.

I don't know James Wolfe. He's probably a symbol in RW propaganda if he's that important to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #79)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:50 PM

81. Did someone say it did?

"Bill Barr is a political appointee."

So was holder.


"Not coming to the same conclusion as the biased Bill Barr is not evidence of disloyalty."

In this case, it is.


"I don't know James Wolfe."

Then, as usual, your grasp on the subject matter is so poor, that you are unqualified to have an opinion of even minimum value on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #81)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:57 PM

84. You said Barr was a career employee.

In this case, its not.

My opinion of James Wolfe cannot have value because I don't have one. If he's such a big deal to you he probably has no true significance worth my time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #84)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 03:05 PM

85. No. I said he was a career employee every bit as much as the others were.

"In this case, its not."

Oh yes it is. You wish to pretend that political appointees don't themselves choose and advance their people based on politics, and we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt this is exactly what happened during the obama administration, and within obamas crooked doj and fbi.

"My opinion of James Wolfe cannot have value because I don't have one. If he's such a big deal to you he probably has no true significance worth my time."

Your opinion on the overall issue can not have more than minimum value because that fiasco is a part of recent history with which you choose not to avail yourself of or educate yourself on.

*snicker*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #85)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 04:50 PM

86. He can't be as much a career employee as any career employee because he's

not a career employee.

The Obama DOJ was not crooked. You aren't making sense. Political appointees are more likely to make biased decisions.

Whatever your opinion is of what's his name is its probably worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #86)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 06:23 PM

88. Thats YOUR view.

"From 1973 to 1977, Barr was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency during his schooling years. He then served as a law clerk to judge Malcolm Richard Wilkey. In the 1980s, Barr worked for the law firm Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, sandwiching a year's work in the White House of the Ronald Reagan administration dealing with legal policies. Before becoming Attorney General in 1991, Barr held numerous other posts within the Department of Justice, including leading the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and serving as Deputy Attorney General."

"The Obama DOJ was not crooked."

Yes, it was, and I have bogus fisa warrants among other things, on my side as proof.


" You aren't making sense."

What you mean, is that I'm not making sense to YOU. That isn't much of a surprise. between your ideology and your deficiency, you are well out of your depth.


" Political appointees are more likely to make biased decisions."

Unless they work for obama, right?



"Whatever your opinion is of what's his name is its probably worthless."

Says trevor, wearing his little hat, from his little stool in the corner.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #88)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 08:47 PM

91. Once Barr was appointed by a president he became a political appointee.

The Obama DOJ wasn't crooked. I never said they didn't make any mistakes.

You don't make sense because I didn't pretend anything about political appointees.

I'd rather be in a corner than in a dungeon, like you. There are probably hungry rats in there with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #91)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 09:02 PM

94. Like lynch and holder before her.

"The Obama DOJ wasn't crooked."

Oh yes, they were crooked.


"I never said they didn't make any mistakes."

Deliberate bad acts aren't "mistakes".


"You don't make sense because I didn't pretend anything about political appointees."

No trevor. I make perfect sense. Just not to you. Your head is stuck so far up democrat/leftist ass you probably chew their food a second time for them....thats HALF your problem. The other half, is that your ability to self examine and judge the world around you, is severely limited by your intellect.

"I'd rather be in a corner...".

While that makes sense, seeing as you gravitate toward being there and spend so much time there...


"...than in a dungeon, like you."


If I were in a dungeon I'd know it. I'm a bit of a veteran when it comes to dungeon crawls.


"There are probably hungry rats in there with you."

Rats, among other things, are my pets, when I dungeon crawl.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #94)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 10:02 PM

97. Lynch and Holder were political employees.

No evidence mistakes were deliberate. Which means morally you should presume innocence.

My head is above it all with a perfect view.

Your dungeon is cold and damp but you are willing to accept that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #97)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 09:56 AM

98. And they behaved like it, about which you were silent.

"No evidence mistakes were deliberate. Which means morally you should presume innocence."

WRONG. It is known that guns were DELIBERATELY allowed to go to mexico.

"My head is above it all with a perfect view."

Perfectly inaccurate. That's your view.


"Your dungeon is cold and damp but you are willing to accept that."


Dungeons which are cold and dismal contain the beasts which drop the best loot!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #98)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 01:15 PM

99. Changed subjects

First you said they were corrupt because of the FISA warrants. Now you say they are corrupt because of fast and furious. How high did the decision go in fast and furious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 05:18 PM

100. Its not a one or the other choice you know.

"How high did the decision go in fast and furious?"

We still don't know, and those involved aren't interested in being honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #100)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 05:21 PM

101. In other words, not that high.

When you name one you should stick with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #101)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 05:32 PM

102. Assuming facts not in evidence, again.

Typical trevor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #102)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 05:36 PM

103. No

You are pretending without evidence that there could be more to it.

This was all investigated thoroughly. Another case of believing what you want to believe. Infatuated preteen girls do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #103)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 05:40 PM

104. Incorrect.

"You are pretending without evidence that there could be more to it."

The behavior of the involved individuals is evidence. The years long stonewalling is evidence.

And whistleblower john dodson is evidence.

You are simply wrong.


"This was all investigated thoroughly."

No trevor. Mueller "investigated thoroughly". This was an in house no penalties no consequences whitewash.



"Another case of believing what you want to believe."

Its recorded history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #104)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 06:04 PM

105. John Dodson was a floor level player

No reason to believe he knew what was going on behind the scenes in Washington.

If stonewalling is evidence then Trump is guilty of everything he was impeached for.

Republicans went after this with a vengeance. The IG found no upper level involvement.

I know you are obsessed with this one so I'm going to let you have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #105)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 06:27 PM

106. He was a field agent who gave a damn.

"No reason to believe he knew what was going on behind the scenes in Washington."

Yes there is. There are emails that show it. What we know of institutional culture within government organizations and institutions makes the existence of the institutional grapevine a given, particularly where embattled and controversial former 3 letters such as the BATFE intersect with bad behavior, bad faith, and attacks on our constitutional rights.


"If stonewalling is evidence then Trump is guilty of everything he was impeached for."

The request letters the dems sent weren't legal subpoenas, so it wasn't stonewalling to ignore them.

The subpoenas obama stonewalled were legitimate subpoenas.

So you'd have agreed with impeaching obama then, right?




"Republicans went after this with a vengeance. The IG found no upper level involvement."

Meaningless. PEOPLE DIED. Criminal investigation was warranted.


"I know you are obsessed with this one so I'm going to let you have it."

You're so cute and adorable with you think you're in control of others.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #79)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 09:25 PM

96. You cornered youself again by posting lies.

Alert away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #96)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 06:58 PM

107. Doesn't he always?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #107)

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 07:31 PM

108. Every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:39 PM

2. I've said this from the very first week I posted here:

Harsh, lengthy sentences for non-violent offenders is ridiculous and needs to stop. Hard time should be for hard people. Those that commit violent acts against other human beings and are an actual danger to society should be the only ones being removed from society as they can't be trusted to live amongst decent people.

Much like the military like tactics in arresting Stone were absolutely unneeded and unwarranted. With no history of violent behavior, sending a goddamn SWAT team to arrest him was absurd.

Dems seem to be all about prison and criminal justice reform until it involves someone of the opposite political persuasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:45 PM

4. How about Bernie Madoff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:53 PM

5. Take all his money....

....or whatever he had left, pay restitution to those he cheated, and put him on house arrest with monitoring for 20 years with 20 years of picking up trash on the side of the road or washing police cars or some other form of community service or something similar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:00 PM

6. Some of that wasn't available

He may not have been violent but he seriously hurt many people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:11 PM

10. We can be creative and innovative.....

...rather than continuing to just incarcerate, costing the taxpayers more and more money.

There's no reason for it with todays technology.

Do you think the SWAT tactics were justified against Stone? Don't you think they just could have called him and told him to report and he would have?

THAT'S the kind of crap that needs to stop as well. No one with a background like his should have the goddamn fugitive task force treatment like he's some kind of heavily armed drug kingpin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:26 PM

13. Frog men plus frog walking with CNN present?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:42 PM

17. Your claim was debunked.

Watch the video too and check out the answers to your questions.

https://www.discussionist.com/10151936024

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:50 PM

19. What was "debunked?"

I saw nothing on the video that would lead me to change my mind. You really seem to like that word, "debunked' yet don't really seem all that adept in using it. I saw FBI agents pointing automatic weapons at a guy charged with non-violent offenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:55 PM

21. A single agent took him in.

If I remember right they even let him go back in to get something. That's not:

"goddamn fugitive task force treatment like he's some kind of heavily armed drug kingpin."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:58 PM

22. Did you not watch the whole thing?

'Cause I did and saw what I saw.

You can approve of this kind of heavy handed shit all you like. I do not, and will not.

Not for someone like that guy.

"Debunked" my ass.

All it would have taken was a phone call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 04:05 PM

26. Not according to the information they received.

They had reason to believe there might be trouble from the arrest. There is nothing out of the ordinary about the arrest. I have no idea what you saw. What exactly did you see? Did they club him and taser him and jump on him while he was on the ground or something? Those things aren't unusual, and they weren't used in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 08:26 PM

40. You should sell books on how to lose arguments.

"There is nothing out of the ordinary about the arrest."

So when leftists are arrested and theres a swat team there and fox news magically shows up, you'll agree that THAT too is just plain ordinary, right?

And then you'll also have to admit that somehow james wolfe got a sweetheart deal, much lighter than the treatment you describe as 'ordinary'.

Or you could run away very fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 09:38 PM

43. If a leftist got arrested the same way under the same circumstances I wouldn't think twice

about it.

I don't know anything about James Wolfe.

I don't need to run from you at all, ever.

How come your man Trump made his AG Barr cry today? Does that make you happy?

I couldn't figure out how you score winning and losing in arguments so I thought I would look at a classic one to see if I could learn. I looked up the Lincoln / Douglas debate. It turned out Douglas told Lincoln that he (Lincoln) was talking himself into corners. Lincoln came back and called Douglas a dumbass. So Lincoln won and went on to be one of our greatest presidents. So now I think there may be something to your scoring system.

In your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 10:19 PM

46. We'll see about that.

"I don't know anything about James Wolfe."

How convenient.


"I don't need to run from you at all, ever."

Oh, lets not be obtuse trevor. Like in hunt for red october when jonesey talks about the software running home to mama, you likewise run home to mama.

But for you, mama is your corner.


"How come your man Trump made his AG Barr cry today? Does that make you happy?"

Cry? I didn't interpret it quite the same way as you did, but then...I actually read about it, watched video, and made up my own mind...instead of repeating leftist npc talking points like you do. Perhaps you were busy with an important sporting event.




"I couldn't figure out how you score winning and losing in arguments so I thought I would look at a classic one to see if I could learn."

I could have saved you the time and effort: You can't. Your ideology prevents you from being able to.


"In your opinion."

Which meshes with the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 07:42 PM

52. I'm still here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #52)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 09:06 PM

57. Did someone say you weren't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #57)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 01:47 PM

69. Yeah, you.

"...you likewise run home to mama. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #69)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:10 PM

72. Hilariously incorrect.

Reread trevor. It was a figure of speech, which I even explained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #72)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:11 PM

73. My post was a figure of speech too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #73)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:19 PM

77. No, it was just a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #77)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:21 PM

78. Its true.

I'm still here. If I'm not how could I type this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #78)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:45 PM

80. Thats not the part I referred to as being a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #80)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:50 PM

82. In your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #82)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:56 PM

83. Nope. Its a fact that I know what I was referring to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #83)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 04:52 PM

87. Of course not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #87)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 06:24 PM

89. Now you're babbling just to babble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #89)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 08:40 PM

90. I've done some responding in kind over the last couple of days.

In my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #90)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 08:52 PM

92. You have an entire post of substance which you have not addressed.

https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1015&pid=2134854

Hows that corner? Warm enough for you? Just put the hat and stool away and shut off the lights when you leave.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #92)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 08:57 PM

93. Just wait in the dungeon until I address it.

If you need it, there's a hole in the floor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #93)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 09:05 PM

95. I've conquered all the good dungeons already trevor.

"If you need it, there's a hole in the floor."

No need, I just zone out, or gate out:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 06:28 PM

34. Trevors apparent trick; while there was a swat team, only one guy walked him out at the

end because, as they knew all along, he wasn't a threat!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Reply #34)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 10:21 PM

47. Which is why they sent a team, because only one guy was needed.

Trevor math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 04:01 PM

24. "Debunked"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 05:46 PM

29. You think that's how they go after drug kingpins?

If you'd read the comments you would have found that police had good reasons to believe there would be trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:25 PM

12. Duh, How many people did "Roger Stone" "seriously hurt?'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:45 PM

18. He threatened to steal a witnesses' therapy dog.

That's really low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 07:46 PM

35. Hahahaha...

.....therapy dog? That's your threat?

That warranted automatic weapons?

I hope to Christ you're never in charge of anything serious.

Just give it up dude. Nothing was "debunked" and you're defending a definite overreaction and display of force against an old man who was a threat to no one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 08:12 PM

37. It is what that one does in their posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 08:16 PM

38. Now, now.....

....maybe he's a "professional" debunker for all we know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 08:20 PM

39. Nah,just posts stupid shit for reactions and alert bait.

Has or pretends to have me on ignore because of how badly I undo his assertions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 09:44 PM

44. He threatened to resist and posed for a photo with a gun.

Since you will have to be the one in charge I ought to warn you that when police arrest people they bring guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 10:35 PM

48. That doesn't explain not simply sending a warrant to his lawyer.

They skipped that step without any good reason at all, and went right to the swat team.

For that, you will have no reasonable explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #48)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 07:49 PM

53. Who the fuck do you guys think you are?

Police use a show of force when the make arrests. Do you think the people on your side are better than everyone else and deserve total courtesy? The reasonable explanation for Stone was he made a threat and posed with a gun in a picture. It doesn't take much for police to want to be on the safe side. They aren't aware of the RWs' privileged status. Neither am I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 09:22 PM

58. We're the people who aren't wearing blinders, the people with thinking brains...

Your betters, in other words.

"Police use a show of force when the make arrests."

Yeah, I remember the swat team that took in anthony weiner with fox news watching on, and and the one that got leaker james wolfe with fox recording the wole thing.

NOT.

They were issued warrants through their lawyers and turned themselves in.


"Do you think the people on your side are better than everyone else and deserve total courtesy?"

You have a lot of gall making that argument. I'd be happy for EQUAL treatment but you and yours wouldn't know it to identify it.


" The reasonable explanation for Stone was he made a threat and posed with a gun in a picture."

Making a specific threat is already against the law. Other vague threats are not. He has a RIGHT to pose in pictures and a RIGHT to defend himself...and even the right to own a gun.


"It doesn't take much for police to want to be on the safe side."

The safest side there is, is to issue a warrant and communicate it to his lawyer as has been done countless times.

Cornered yourself again, dumbass.


"They aren't aware of the RWs' privileged status. Neither am I."

Wanting equal justice under the law is hardly "privileged status"...but I can see, from your point of view, how it could really look like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #58)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 08:42 AM

62. You talked yourself into the dungeon.

Police don't normally contact attorneys and ask them to have their clients come in and surrender. You want special privileges for your side. No two ways about it. The police had to worry that the subject would flee or destroy evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #62)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 10:00 AM

63. Enjoy your corner trevor.

"Police don't normally contact attorneys and ask them to have their clients come in and surrender."

Non-sequitur. The prosecuting attorney would be the one doing the contacting, and it would be prior to any swat team involvement.

It happens quite regularly in America.

". You want special privileges for your side. No two ways about it."

Equal justice under the law, the expectation of fair treatment across the boards, has nothing to do with 'special privilege'. You could make that argument if EVERY political prosecution used a swat team. The problem is, Trevor, they don't. And what's worse for your argument, this is all a matter of public record.

"The police had to worry that the subject would flee or destroy evidence."


Your proof for this allegation is what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #63)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 01:26 PM

64. That won't get you out of the dungeon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #64)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 01:33 PM

65. Said the fella, sitting on his funny little stool, wearing his funny little hat, in his corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #65)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 01:40 PM

67. No way you can tell from the dungeon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #67)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:08 PM

71. I'm standing at the door watching you sit, wearing your dunce cap, in the corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #71)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:12 PM

74. You are pacing back and forth

and staring at the bars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #74)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 02:18 PM

76. Maybe you're thinking of your daddy...

I'm standing watching you wear your dunce cap trevor, sitting on your little stool, in your corner.

Its the place your stupid arguments land you in, every time you try to argue with people who are more intelligent than you are.

There have been many spectators to this oft-repeated spectacle, it isn't just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #62)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 01:34 PM

66. I don't know what is funnier....

your propaganda, or the projection?

Or watching you get your ass handed to you yet AGAIN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 15, 2020, 12:10 AM

61. And the witness thought He was just kidding him, e.g. Not serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 04:16 AM

50. Who did Stone hurt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #50)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 07:50 PM

54. A very important investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 14, 2020, 12:12 PM

51. But, if you are "low income"

you can't be expected to post bail!

Commit a violent crime, cry "low income", walk away a free man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics