metmike: The hoopla over this is silly.
Stone was set up by the corrupt Mueller investigation which caused his crime from the investigation. There was no crime before they brought him in.
Never Trumpers will never see it that way but clearly, there was just cause by one side to issue this man a pardon, even if you disagree with it.
But what makes it so silly is this:
This is a partial list of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States.
Democratic president Grover Cleveland pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,107 (est.) people during his two, non-consecutive terms.[3]
Republican president Benjamin Harrison pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 613 people.[3]
Republican president William McKinley pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 918 (est.) people.[3]
Republican president Theodore Roosevelt pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 981 (est.) people.[3][18]
Republican president William Howard Taft pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 758 people.[3]
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 2,480 people.[3]
Republican president Warren G. Harding pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 800 people.[3]
Republican president Calvin Coolidge pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,545 people.[3]
Republican president Herbert Hoover pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,385 people.[3].
Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt granted 3,687 pardons in his four terms in office.[3]
Democratic president Harry S. Truman pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 2,044 people.[20]
Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 1,157 people.[20]
Democratic president John F. Kennedy pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 575 people.[20]
Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 1,187 people.[20]
Republican president Richard Nixon pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 926 people.[20
Republican president Gerald Ford pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 409 people.[20
Democratic president Jimmy Carter pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 566 people,[20] and in addition to that pardoned over 200,000 Vietnam War draft dodgers.[25]
Republican president Ronald Reagan pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 406 people
Main article: List of people pardoned by George H. W. Bush
Republican president George H. W. Bush pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 77 people.
Main article: List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton
Democratic president Bill Clinton pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 459 people.[20]
Main article: List of people pardoned by George W. Bush
Republican president George W. Bush pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 200 people.[20]
Main article: List of people granted executive clemency by Barack Obama
Democratic president Barack Obama pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the conviction of 1,927 people.[34]
Main article: List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump
As of July 11, 2020, Republican president Donald Trump pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the conviction of 36 people.
metmike: If this is an example of him doing something unethical to benefits friends.............then it must show how few friends Trump has (-:
Actually, he doesn't have many friends compared to any other president.
From the story:
"Modern presidents have sullied clemency through disuse (both Bushes) and occasional self-serving grants (Clinton)," Mark Osler, a law professor and clemency scholar at the University of St. Thomas' School of Law, told NPR via email. "However, no president has ever used clemency primarily to reward friends and political allies" — until Trump."
metmike: This is easy to prove as fake news(a big lie) meant to damage Trump. The list below is a partial list of his 36 pardons and it looks like at least half the pardons could not have been friends or political allies.
Compare that to Clinton pardoning his brother and also his corrupt business partner Susan McDougal as well as 457 other people but not nearly as many as Obama's 1,927 pardons, the most by a president in my life time and 54 times the number of pardons granted by Trump(in his 8 years).
But this is President Trump..............everything he does is bad and wrong and worse than any other president..........even when it isn't.
Main article: List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump
As of July 11, 2020, Republican president Donald Trump pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the conviction of 36 people. Among them were:
We should note 2 of his pardons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_(boxer)
| Boxing record | |
|---|---|
| Statistics | |
 Johnson in his prime in 1908 | |
| Nickname(s) | Galveston Giant[1] Jack |
| Weight(s) | Heavyweight[1] |
| Height | 6 ft 1⁄2 in (184.2 cm)[2][3] |
| Reach | 74 in (188 cm)[1] |
| Born | March 31, 1878[1] Galveston, Texas, United States[1] |
| Died | June 10, 1946 (aged 68)[1] Franklinton, North Carolina, United States |
| Stance | Orthodox[1] |
| Total fights | 95 |
| Wins | 70 |
| Wins by KO | 35 |
| Losses | 11 |
| Draws | 11 |
| No contests | 3 |
John Arthur Johnson (March 31,
Major newspapers of the time soon claimed that Johnson was attacked by the government only after he became famous as a black man married to a white woman, and was linked to other white women.[8] Johnson was arrested on charges of violating the Mann Act—forbidding one to transport a woman across state lines for "immoral purposes"—a racially motivated charge that embroiled him in controversy for his relationships, including marriages, with white women.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Marie_Johnson
time of her arrest, Johnson was a single mother of five children.[3]
| Alice Marie Johnson | |
|---|---|
_(cropped).jpg) Johnson in February 2019 |
Johnson was born in Mississippi, and her memoirs recount growing up as one of nine children of sharecroppers, becoming pregnant as a sophomore in high school, and later working as a secretary.[2] At the time of her arrest, Johnson was a single mother of five children.[3]
metmike: If Donald Trump is a racist/White supremacist, he sure is doing a lousy job practicing and applying it.
I think Stone has a good case to make after reading just how biased his jury foreman was. We are supposed to have a right to a fair trial. Combine that fiasco with the early morning raid with the swat teams and cnn and its not hard for Trump to say this guy was rail roaded.
on the pardons/ clemency thing I think what teed many off is that Obama did several hundred on his way out of the door, and his like Clintons, were some pretty awful people who committed some really awful crimes.
Pelosi and couple others who sounded off yesterday had better hold their water. If this Durhman report holds 1/2 of what is predicted they are going to finally admit once and for all Trump set up from the word go.
Mike your list here is sad and pathetic and nothing but political BS on your part.
I know you are much smarter than this so I have to presume you are well aware that the pardon of Roger Stone was a direct benefit to Trump
Indeed Roger Stone it has already commented that if he had NOT been given a PARDON by trump .. He -- Stine -- would have spilled his beans and told the entire truth about Donald Trump.
Since I presume you know that…. you are entire list here is complete BS and pure political spin. None of the people on your list not a single one of these people pardoned by any other presidents who have listed had Direct information about potential criminality involving the president.
Every one of the people pardoned by these Presidents had no direct connection - except for one -- where the people pardoned had no Direct or indirect information about the president's conduct and activities.
Just sad
“He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. ( see the threat ???) But I didn’t.”
— Roger Stone, in an interview with Howard Fineman, explicitly tying a pardon by President Trump to the fact that he didn’t implicate him.
holy gee wx....the pressure he was under was the special council trying to get him to change his testimony,,,,,,,,did you purposely leave that part of the quote out because just mite he used the same phrase verbatim only adding that after the Mueller report came up with a big fat gooseegg he said
"Mike your list here is sad and pathetic and nothing but political BS on your part."
If you don't like my authentic facts Dave, take it up with Wikipedia.
"Indeed Roger Stone it has already commented that if he had NOT been given a PARDON by trump .. He -- Stine -- would have spilled his beans and told the entire truth about Donald Trump."
Mueller used 2.5 years, $25,000,000, conducted thousands of interviews with many hundreds of people and never found enough evidence to charge President Trump with a crime.............but somehow, despite all of this you believe that only 1 person has all the evidence to put Trump away....... Roger Stone. Even more amazing, that if Trump didn't pardon him, he was going tell everybody about all those magical mystery secrets that no other person on the planet knows about Donald Trump.
You've been watching too much CNN Dave. They played a significant role for Mueller, when people on his team, illegally tipped CNN off and gave them front row seats to tape the 10 X overkill arrest of an old man with no criminal record or history of violence........so it could be played on the anti Trump station to vilify him.
Speaking of which, let me get you up to speed on some of the things that happened with Stone's arrest.
This is just a few of the many posts made early last year to help you understand what happened better Dave.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24839/
Re: We can lay that conspiracy therory to rest.
By metmike - Feb. 26, 2019, 6:48 p.m.
What conspiracy theory?
Muellers team invited CNN to be there with 99% certainty and, in the event that they figured it out themselves with reporter ESP, Muellers team violated normal FBI protocol by allowing CNN to mingle with them and providing them a front row taping spot with 100% certainty.
This document has nothing to do with that arrangement. Who said anything about CNN getting this document before it went out? Not me. That would be extraordinarily dumb for it to happen that way........because there could be a paper or electronic device trail that could bust them.
We already knew about this particular document, when it went out and who it went out to(media).
Some of us also know with extremely high confidence, based on the reality/facts that Muellers team invited CNN to record this arrest so that it would be played with a pro Mueller spin on the 24 hour anti Trump station.
Here is the last time that I reviewed the details:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24648/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Re: outcome determinative bias
By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 1:18 p.m.
Just to review the last time that this latest incident was discussed:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24432/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. hate groups on the rise
By metmike - Feb. 21, 2019, 10:04 p.m.
"Mike, as written, that statement implies that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest. You have not a shred of proof that Mueller was involved.
Why for heaven sake would anyone pick CNN, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all have a much bigger audience?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carl,
I guess you forgot or did not see my response to you the first time you said this:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/22822/
Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact
By carlberky - Feb. 1, 2019, 1:50 p.m.
IMHO, if they wanted to tip off someone about the raid, they would have picked NBC, CBS, or ABC for much greater coverage.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact
By metmike - Feb. 1, 2019, 2:18 p.m.
"I was thinking the exact opposite carl but its just my opinion.
I watch 3 stations for news.
Mainly CNN and FOX in the evenings, flipping back and forth and ABC nightly news at 5:30-6pm. I bash CNN here all the time and its because I actually watch them to hear what they are saying/showing(I dont just go to the station that tells me what I want to hear, which Fox would be more likely to do)
Obviously they would never pick Fox. If they picked one of the other networks, it would show up in their nightly news with maybe a 2 minute story and follow up. Other stations would likely cover it too, like they have.
CNN already does wall to wall, around the clock anti Trump news, every day of the year. By a wide margin, getting CNN the scoup maximized the coverage. Now it can be on the station most likely to put the right spin on it and will broadcast it frequently as part of their anti Trump stuff 24 hours a day."
With regards to not having a shred of proof, I laid out the facts here around half a dozen times.
I don't have a taped phone conversation, no but the facts as outlined previously say with 100% certainty that normal protocol was violated.
I'll review again for you.
1. It can't be disputed that CNN was right there with the FBI or they wouldn't have the video footage from that vantage point.
2. The court order against Stone has apparently taken the Stone house camera footage of CNN and the FBI interacting before hand off the air but that doesn't matter because of #1.
3. The chances of CNN having this powerful reporter "instinct" as their guy described it, that caused them(and nobody else) to know to travel to this location from out of town and be there 1 hour before the bust is not zero. I can guess it's something like a 1% chance of being true........being generous.
4. The chance of them being there and not having Muellers team give them special permission that made a huge exception and violated protocol of every other case in history like this that I know about is exactly zero.
5. Every resident on the street was told they could not even be outside of their houses. The entire street was blocked off and nobody but the FBI and others connected to the arrest were allowed there.........as is always the case when you have 2 dozen heavily armed agents arresting some body. Everybody that is, except for CNN that was right there mingling with the heavily armed FBI agents.
6. I worked in broadcast television for 11 years and we met every year with different police agencies, state, county and city and from 2 different states to discuss protocol. They weren't the FBI or federal law enforcement of course but no way, no how would CNN have been allowed to be there unless the Mueller team wanted them to be there and made a huge exception to any protocol or situation that I've ever heard about or seen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By metmike - Feb. 26, 2019, 10:27 p.m.
"What was Mueller's advantage in having a video of a large number of armed FBI agents making an arrest of an old man?"
This was answered a ton of times but I'm glad to do it again. It resulted in the story being reported on the anti Trump station/CNN numerous times on numerous days with the pro Mueller spin.
You do know that happened, correct?
"Granted, there was an error in procedure and somebody from the FBI should be disciplined."
Wonderful Carl. We are making progress. You are at least recognizing that protocol for every situation like this was not followed/was violated by letting a major tv network accompany them and record them.
But an error in procedure? Mueller used overkill with the procedure (using 10 times the needed force and support) and had over 2 dozen men there, and somehow......they all overlooked a major tv station being there that shouldn't be?
"Anything else?"
Not really. My explanation of what happened has remained exactly the same from square one. There has been zero changing because the facts are the facts.
You guys have come up with several reasons for why you don't want to believe the facts............and I can bust all of them because the facts are the facts.
So if you have another reason for why, what happened, didn't really happen, I'll be glad to apply the facts again to explain why it really did happen.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By JP - Feb. 26, 2019, 10:44 p.m.
"But an error in procedure? Mueller used overkill with the procedure (using 10 times the needed force and support) and had over 2 dozen men there, and somehow......they all overlooked a major tv station being there that shouldn't be?"
Exactly -- it seems to me that Muller wanted to send a message to somebody and he wanted it on video -- maybe it was Roger Stone himself. But yeah -- there's no way Muller needed that kind of force -- to think he was at all concerned that Stone might come flying out the door, guns a-blazing, beggars belief.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By carlberky - Feb. 27, 2019, 8:51 a.m.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Facts over ride supposition.
typical ignorant right wing bable
The justice department had issue of finding back in the Obama years which was upheld by sessions running as the attorney general that the president while in office cannot be charged with a crime.
That was the General ruling held by almost every recognizable legal Authority in the country. No sitting president can be charged with a crime.
Yet here you are absurdly claiming Meuller COULD have charged d the president with a crime even though it is recognized that the president while in office CANNOT BE CHARGED with a crime.
The rest of your argument is similar mindless right-wing deranged incoherence
MET MIKE WROTE Mueller used 2.5 years, $25,000,000, conducted thousands of interviews with many hundreds of people and never found enough evidence to charge President Trump with a crime.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/indicting-president-not-foreclosed-complex-history
Can a sitting president be indicted? Often, in answering this question, commentators point to Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions answering in the contrary. To whatever extent the writer agrees or disagrees with the opinions’ conclusion, the government’s position on the matter is usually presented as a long-standing and clear “no.”
"Mueller used 2.5 years, $25,000,000, conducted thousands of interviews with many hundreds of people and never found enough evidence to charge President Trump with a crime."
Try to start reading other posters statements Dave and think for a minute............before deciding that you know what it says.
It doesn't say Trump was not charged with a crime, it says there was not enough evidence to do it, regardless of who he is.
The purpose of the Mueller probe with regards to Trump was to investigate Trump's relationships with Russia. He had more resources than anybody in history to find a connection.
Tell us Dave, if Trump was not president what dynamic between Trump and Russia would have resulted in him being charged with a collusion crime based on everything that we all know(the entire Mueller report was released...........did you read it)?
In the absence of this, what secrets do you think that only Roger Stone knows?
FACT A porn star was paid to keep silent about her alleged dalliance years earlier with a presidential candidate, which a judge has agreed was an illegal violation of campaign finance laws. she was paid 2 weeks before the 2016 election USING gop rnc CAMPAIGN funds .
FACT trump denied all contact/knowledge about Stornmy Daniels s 23 times
FACT as well all saw Trump directly ( along with his s campaign ) asked for Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential race. 3 hrs after Trump made that request all of the DNC emails were hacked. 3 hours later
Trump and his campaign got that help — in a contest decided by fewer than 80,000 votes in three states.
FACT The private emails of Democrats were stolen and published, which prosecutors have said was an illegal intervention into the U.S. political system by foreign operatives.”
FACT Roger Stone lied about his contacts with Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks. and was convicted with overwhelming evidence. The president commuted Stone’s prison sentence, despite Trumps own White House aides disagreeing with the move. nd Stone admitted his objective was protecting Trump.
Yes, some of the theories about Russia investigation never came to pass - Cohen didn’t travel to Prague and there was no video tape
And, yes , Mueller did not prove conclusively a link to establish ‘that that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’
But what did happen was a bigger scandal involving a foreign adversary for any recent administration or major presidential campaign The two crimes were undertaken to help Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. They led to the indictment or conviction of 13 men, including Trump’s personal attorney. But for nearly four years, Trump has bullied, browbeaten and litigated his way out of efforts to pin down whether he had involvement in or knowledge of the illicit actions that were undertaken to help his presidential campaign.
still wrong
Try to start reading other posters statements Dave and think for a minute............before deciding that you know what it says.
It doesn't say Trump was not charged with a crime, it says there was not enough evidence to do it, regardless of who he is.
the OLC finding -- which fo course you did not address at all.. you just went on with YOUR opinions of course says that no sitting potus can be charged with a crime
FULL STOP
Evidence had nothing to do with whether or not Trump could be charged. That is what you said above. You are maintaining that the evidence was insufficient.
Again I'm sorry to tell you this but your opinion simply does not matter.
As Defined from the OLC you cannot charge a president with a crime.
It had nothing to do with ANY evidence.
It doesn't make a difference if Mueller found that Trump was the devil and had killed 500 people. You cannot charge a sitting president with a crime.
Your opinion on this does not matter.
At all.
"typical ignorant right wing bable"
1. I'm not right wing or a Republican, I am an independent with several quite liberal positions.
2. Making unkind references/insults to peoples opinions wins exactly ZERO discussions/debates in the forum of objective observers opinion.
3. Here are some good suggestions for you Dave:
a. Read and listen to what the other person says. Don't make up you own version or assume you know what they want to say before reading it, then thinking about it.
b. If you disagree with them. State something that they actually have wrong, then show facts to prove that you are right. Don't make up your own stuff, mischaracterizing their opinion to make it the one you want to attack, then do't make up your own facts.............don't cherry pick data that shows only a small part of the picture, while ignoring everything else.
c. Even if you were to be successful at a. and b. you will lose just as many points in a debate by calling names, making personal attacks and lobbing insults. Using foul language also sets you back. My experience though, is that people act this way BECAUSE they are being crushed in a debate. Being respectful and civil should be the #1 priority if you intend to be seen as credible.
d. Changing bad behavior like this after decades of bullying and trying to intimadate people that usually will not have as much skill as you for using the internet/graphs and so on to manufacture bs will be a hard habit for you to break Dave. However, when somebody really wants to improve themselves, the only thing holding them back is.................themselves. Making a committment to improving is the easy part. Applying it consistently with discipline is the hard part................but it becomes easier and easier with time.
4. Maybe this is the most important item.
I'll put it on another page so that it stands out for you.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/50115/
Hate is the most destructive emotion of all.
"It will cause you to lower and violate the previous standards that you set for yourself for ethical behavior and honestly because this emotion drives you to hurt the person that you hate more than those previous standards cause you to follow the truth and be objective...............and act professionally, with integrity.
It will cause you to do and say things that are harmful to you and your reputation when the hate becomes neurotic because you become so obsessed with harming the hated person that rational thinking no longer applies.
Your interpretation of circumstances involving the hated person becomes so blatantly skewed that the hoped for endpoint in every realm is always for them to be hurt.
Hate blackens the heart and soul of the hater. It can ruin personal relationships and ironically, more often than not destroys the hater, not the target of their hatred.
This emotion drives the thoughts of many people when it comes to any issue involving President Trump."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see here that you have already received this message from me. You don't appear to be making the progress we'd hoped for Dave. You should do this for yourself but if you choose against doing so, I will eventually give up on you and stop your tearing down of our forum.
Use pj and wxfollower as good examples of posting for non right wing types, if that helps.
Like you not believing my stories about the 3,500 kids I coached at chess the past 26 years or several other personal experiences(when they don't match with what you want to believe), I suspect you will not think I'm completely sincere.
I tried to help vandy for years, even asking him to get my email address from Alex so we could do it in private......... but he rejected it every time. Vandy, was suspended by Alex 5 different times for acting exactly like you Dave.
I do have to admit, to enjoying part of this because you have become our forum poster boy for how NOT to act when communicating with other people and others can all learn from it.