As a whole I don’t know. Were key players for the FBI’s prosecution politically motivated and not to be trusted? Absolutely!

Scott as we both know this is one of those issues that will always be debated.



It’s pretty evident that senior members of the prosecution team ignored this tenet of the ABA rules. If one actually reads entire set of rules from the source named above, it’s evident that most of the ethical requirements were ignored.

I’m addition, the elected members of the house impeachment investigation are attorneys. There is plenty in those same set of rules which apply them as well.

At the end of the day, it renders the entire debacle tainted (but tainted differently than TW’s taint). As such, it will ALWAYS be questionable by a significant portion of the populace.

Had this not been such a politically motivated fiasco, many, many more people would feel the same as you. Unfortunately, the Dems failed the country miserably.

Abrignac wrote:

Dems failed miserably??





Ok, you win.

Brewha wrote:

And when Clinton was SELLING pardons?

ZRX1200 wrote:

couple things.

sentence commuted, he was not pardoned.
so all the but Obama, but Clinton pardon complaints to justify wrong doing is totally unrelated, and some was from the last century!

what might be wrong doing, a thought I've heard floated about all this that may alarm clear thinkers from both sides (cuz it could work against you in the future if it works) is that Trump tampered with the under oath testimony of Stone by letting it be known that he already thought the trial was unfair before Stone testified...likely let it be leaked a pardon or commuting of sentence would/could happen so fear not Stone...lie your ass off.

Apologies to some, but I believe life long Republican Mueller when he says that he did not exonerate Trump and that Stone was rightfully convicted.

frankj1 wrote:

There was pre-trial prosecutorial malfeasance. Fruit from the forbidden tree.

Abrignac wrote:

but could it be something for everyone to watch out for going forward?
sending signals to witnesses or defendants that they will be rewarded for loyalty over country?

and happy birthday you ugly bastid.

frankj1 wrote:

not all evidence against Stone could be called fruit of the poisonous tree...if it was it would have been challenged and ruled inadmissible...

his own public behavior and statements made in court, without any interference or pressure by any prosecutor, led to some of the charges on which he was found guilty

delta1 wrote:

here's the difference, and it is a huge difference...

POTUS has the special power to pardon, and many have made some questionable decisions when exercising that power...

but there has not been many times when a POTUS exercised his power to free a friend who has incriminating info about him...this is a POTUS who is covering up his own criminal behavior by silencing an associate in crime by using that power.

There is documented intelligence evidence of a few phone calls between Stone and Trump on the day before Wikileaks published the first of Hillary's emails. Stone has been quoted as saying he was aware of the proposed leaks and spoke with Trump about it. Under oath, at trial, he denied it. Trump refused to be interviewed by Mueller, and in his written deposition, denied any knowledge of the phone call.

delta1 wrote:

Frank you’re projecting, that was racist one POTUS ago....

ZRX1200 wrote: