Poll of the Day > Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence.

(+) Yeah! (+)

He still hasn't done anything about the bounties on our troops.
---

https://mobile.twitter.com/BetteMidler/status/1281745652423303169

---

Impeach the mother fucker.

Fucking cartoon villains helping other cartoon villains, ok?

---

I can hear Rush Limbaugh now "So what if the president commuted Roger Stone's sentence, he has the power to do that!" as if whether or not the president can do this is the issue.

---

Yet he still thinks the exonerated Central Park Five should be put to death and that they shouldnt have been released from prison

I wonder what the key difference is between the individuals

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Impeach the mother fucker.

How is this grounds for impeachment

---

inb4 zeus defends a literal nazi

---

chlc3d posted...

How is this grounds for impeachment

"How is abuse of power grounds for impeachment?"

Pretty sure that has been the grounds of every impeachment.

Mead posted...

Yet he still thinks the exonerated Central Park Five should be put to death and that they shouldnt have been released from prison

I wonder what the key difference is between the individuals

He literally said "both sides" when asked about it a couple weeks ago

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

"How is abuse of power grounds for impeachment?"

Pretty sure that has been the grounds of every impeachment.

No.... it's high crimes and misdemeanors. "abuse of power" is incredibly vague. The president commuting someone's sentence isn't illegal.

---

chlc3d posted...

No.... it's high crimes and misdemeanors. "abuse of power" is incredibly vague. The president commuting someone's sentence isn't illegal.

Something doesnt need to be illegal to be clearly wrong.

---

Mead posted...

Something doesnt need to be illegal to be clearly wrong.

I didn't say it wasn't wrong. I'm trying to understand why it would be impeachable. I don't think you could really make a compelling obstruction of justice case

---

chlc3d posted...

No.... it's high crimes and misdemeanors. "abuse of power" is incredibly vague. The president commuting someone's sentence isn't illegal.

Abuse of power is abusing power one holds, not committing an illegal action. What are you even trying to say?

chlc3d posted...

I didn't say it wasn't wrong. I'm trying to understand why it would be impeachable. I don't think you could really make a compelling obstruction of justice case

Impeachment doesnt require a crime to have been committed

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Abuse of power is abusing power one holds, not committing an illegal action. What are you even trying to say?

Where does the constitution say abuse of power is grounds for impeachment?

Mead posted...

Impeachment doesnt require a crime to have been committed

I was just speculating on obstruction of justice b/c I have no idea how it would be impeachable. Do you have an argument in mind for why this would be impeachable?

---

Technically wasn't he impeached but not removed?

this chclcd3d dude thinks hes so smart for arguing semantics in every topic lmao

---

chlc3d posted...

I was just speculating on obstruction of justice b/c I have no idea how it would be impeachable. Do you have an argument in mind for why this would be impeachable?

---

Mead posted...

I don't understand

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

this chclcd3d dude thinks hes so smart for arguing semantics in every topic lmao

I am literally just trying to understand what she meant about impeachment. I don't understand how this is impeachable.

---

I think it's a sad reality, a new normal, that Federal charges just don't matter at all with Trump as president.
The only way to actually make criminals with ties to him serve prison is to get state level charges brought in parallel, that he can't pardon/commute them out of. Which sadly isn't an option depending on whether or not the state in question is led by die hard Trumpers.
Really, the only sure fire way that a criminal associate of Trump's actually stays in prison for his sentence is if said ally turns against Trump or makes some sort of plea deal in return for exposing his former boss. Which just means that at this point, they'd be an idiot to ever comply with prosecutors. Yay...

Is there any hope that Stone can at least be financially ruined in civil court? I don't even give a shit about the Trump ties so much as the fact that this is a fucking scum bag who's avoided karma and justice for nearly half a century, and gotten rich while doing so, going all the way back to the Nixon scandals.

chlc3d posted...

Where does the constitution say abuse of power is grounds for impeachment?

The part where it lays out impeachment.

BlackScythe0 posted...

The part where it lays out impeachment.

Uhhhh... are you talking about the U.S. constitution? I must have missed something. Or you're reading something between the lines that doesn't make sense to me.

---

chlc3d posted...

I don't understand

Cant say Im surprised

---

Mead posted...

Cant say Im surprised

You're not suprised that you failed to communicate your point? Okay. Normally when somebody doesn't understand something I said, I try to elaborate on it

---

chlc3d posted...

Uhhhh... are you talking about the U.S. constitution? I must have missed something. Or you're reading something between the lines that doesn't make sense to me.

You are choosing to be deliberately ignorant. Possibly to illicit an emotional response.

Don't worry I know.

BlackScythe0 posted...

You are choosing to be deliberately ignorant. Possibly to illicit an emotional response.

Don't worry I know.

Ok then, LOL. All I did was reread article 2 looking for anything connecting impeachment to abuse of power. I would love to understand what you're talking about but you seem unwilling to explain it, so hopefully somebody else will :/

---

Aculo posted...

Fucking cartoon villains helping other cartoon villains, ok?

Agree 100%
Our government is fucked up, ok?

---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Also, Stone blackmailed the president publicly:

Nothing about that suggests blackmail.

papercup posted...

I can hear Rush Limbaugh now "So what if the president commuted Roger Stone's sentence, he has the power to do that!" as if whether or not the president can do this is the issue.

Considering that the investigation was the combination of a partisan witch hunt and fishing expedition, it's understandable that convictions like these would be commuted.

BlackScythe0 posted...

"How is abuse of power grounds for impeachment?"

Pretty sure that has been the grounds of every impeachment.

"Any use of power by Trump is abuse of power!"

Seems to be pretty much what you're going for. Granted, this is also a president you wanted impeached before he took office.

chlc3d posted...

I didn't say it wasn't wrong. I'm trying to understand why it would be impeachable. I don't think you could really make a compelling obstruction of justice case

To Mead's point, a great example of something that wasn't illegal that was wrong was the Russia investigation which was all smoke -- largely fanned by the "investigators" -- and no fire.

streamofthesky posted...

I think it's a sad reality, a new normal, that Federal charges just don't matter at all with Trump as president.

Because apparently no president has ever commuted the sentence of an associate, particularly when that associated was to a great extent wrongly convicted... oh wait.


---

Zeus posted...

"Any use of power by Trump is abuse of power!"

Seems to be pretty much what you're going for. Granted, this is also a president you wanted impeached before he took office.

I'm curious -- do you think this wasn't an abuse of power? It seems clear that Trump extended the pardon to reward Comey's loyalty to him. I think the most similar case to me is Marc Rich, where similarly there's a very clear abuse of power but I'm not sure what kind of case you'd make if you were to try the president for impeachment.

---

*Stone, not Comey.

---

Wikipedia

In November 2019, subsequent to the Mueller Report and Special Counsel investigation, he was convicted on seven counts, including witness tampering and lying to investigators. On February 20, 2020, he was sentenced to 40 months in federal prison.[4] The sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump on July 10, 2020.[5]

Somebody try and explain to me how this is not textbook corruption...

---

chlc3d posted...

You're not suprised that you failed to communicate your point? Okay. Normally when somebody doesn't understand something I said, I try to elaborate on it

not my fault that you cant connect dots that are right next to each other

thats on you

---

Mead posted...

not my fault that you cant connect dots that are right next to each other

thats on you

This is a pretty adversarial model of human communication. It's easy to forget that communication between people is really hard, and it's kind of incredible that it ever works. Imagine if you had a network protocol where instead of two machines sending SYNs and ACKs until they're both sure they're on the same page, they just started arguing with each other about which one messed up whenever a packet got dropped. Nothing would ever get done!

---

Mead posted...

not my fault that you cant connect dots that are right next to each other

thats on you

Ive see him do this in multiple topics. Hes bad a putting obvious shit together.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Wikipedia

Somebody try and explain to me how this is not textbook corruption...

Overlooking that the originating investigation revolved around a knowingly false allegation (and thus was illegitimate), the charges you cite are inordinately broad (thus open to massive amounts of room for interpretation -- thus leading them to be used punitively) and arbitrarily applied. Compare that to actual textbook corruption which involves something concrete. And bear in mind that many Trump associates had earlier been investigated and charged with things that were political norms, such as meeting with foreign diplomats before the incoming president took office -- something that Obama's staffers did, I believe GWB's staffers did, and Clinton's staffers did, among others. The real corruption is the perversion of the justice system to pursue partisan (ie, political) agendas, yet you're unlikely to ever see convictions there.

And bear in mind that the whole campaign, Trump had complained that the FBI had been tapping his phones and spying on him, a claim that everybody laughed at... which turned out to be 100% true. He also complained that the FBI had acted unprofessionally in their pursuit of him, a claim that was also laughed off... until texts and emails emerged that revealed a very strong partisan bias among agents, some of whom were later fired (but no charges were filed against them). And, on a moderately related note, given this heavy surveillance, if there was any actual substance to the Russia investigation, the FBI would have had it yet we saw nothing.

chlc3d posted...

I'm curious -- do you think this wasn't an abuse of power? It seems clear that Trump extended the pardon to reward Comey's loyalty to him. I think the most similar case to me is Marc Rich, where similarly there's a very clear abuse of power but I'm not sure what kind of case you'd make if you were to try the president for impeachment.

Given the overall handling and partisan nature of these "investigations", the connected arrests all seem politically motivated so it's unsurprising that many of the convictions lack strong justification. And if you knew for a fact that somebody was wrongly convicted and had the power to at least partially undo their sentence, wouldn't you be morally obligated to do so?

---

Zeus posted...

Given the overall handling and partisan nature of these "investigations", the connected arrests all seem politically motivated so it's unsurprising that many of the convictions lack strong justification. And if you knew that somebody for a fact that somebody was wrongly convicted and had the power to at least partially undo their sentence, wouldn't you be morally obligated to do so?

Okay, thanks for the answer. I think I can see how this follows from your belief state now. I would also support commuting or pardoning (at least hesitantly, since I hate that it's a power vested in the executive in the first place) if I thought the russia investigation had no basis in fact, and therefore there was no justice to obstruct.

I don't think we can really discuss the underlying issue of whether the investigations were solely partisan in a way that will change either of our minds though.

---

... is zeus talking to himself?

BlackScythe0 posted...

... is zeus talking to himself?

maybe he forgot to switch to one of his many alts

---

Zeus posted...

Overlooking that the originating investigation revolved around a knowingly false allegation (and thus was illegitimate), the charges you cite are inordinately broad (thus open to massive amounts of room for interpretation -- thus leading them to be used punitively) and arbitrarily applied. Compare that to actual textbook corruption which involves something concrete. And bear in mind that many Trump associates had earlier been investigated and charged with things that were political norms, such as meeting with foreign diplomats before the incoming president took office -- something that Obama's staffers did, I believe GWB's staffers did, and Clinton's staffers did, among others. The real corruption is the perversion of the justice system to pursue partisan (ie, political) agendas, yet you're unlikely to ever see convictions there.

And bear in mind that the whole campaign, Trump had complained that the FBI had been tapping his phones and spying on him, a claim that everybody laughed at... which turned out to be 100% true. He also complained that the FBI had acted unprofessionally in their pursuit of him, a claim that was also laughed off... until texts and emails emerged that revealed a very strong partisan bias among agents, some of whom were later fired (but no charges were filed against them). And, on a moderately related note, given this heavy surveillance, if there was any actual substance to the Russia investigation, the FBI would have had it yet we saw nothing.

Unless I am misinterpreting what is being said, simplifying things, he got convicted for "helping Trump", then got pardoned by Trump. That sounds like a serious conflict of interest to me.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

... is zeus talking to himself?

There's a pretty wide gap between my position and Zeus's. I'm a little confused about why you would think this.

---

chlc3d posted...

There's a pretty wide gap between my position and Zeus's. I'm a little confused about why you would think this.

Since you didn't connect the dots for us we can only conclude that your positions are identical

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Since you didn't connect the dots for us we can only conclude that your positions are identical

he really needs to work on his communication skills

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Since you didn't connect the dots for us we can only conclude that your positions are identical

Zeus claims (as far as I understand) that the russia investigation was so tainted by partisan bias that the arrests coming out of it are illegitimate, and therefore commutting Roger Stone's sentence is not an abuse of power. I disagree with this sentiment because I think a great deal of the Russia investigation is legitimate, and it seems very clear to me that Stone failed to produce documents in order to cover up a real wrongdoing.

---

Mead posted...

he really needs to work on his communication skills

Zeus claims (as far as I understand) that the russia investigation was so tainted by partisan bias that the arrests coming out of it are illegitimate, and therefore commutting Roger Stone's sentence is not an abuse of power. I disagree with this sentiment because I think a great deal of the Russia investigation is legitimate, and it seems very clear to me that Stone failed to produce documents in order to cover up a real wrongdoing.

---

chlc3d posted...

Zeus claims (as far as I understand) that the russia investigation was so tainted by partisan bias that the arrests coming out of it are illegitimate, and therefore commutting Roger Stone's sentence is not an abuse of power. I disagree with this sentiment because I think a great deal of the Russia investigation is legitimate, and it seems very clear to me that Stone failed to produce documents in order to cover up a real wrongdoing.

golly its almost like Trump abused his position to help Stone elude justice

that sounds impeachable

---

Trump still has plenty of time to do serious damage to the future of America. His supporters should be ashamed.

---

Mead posted...

golly its almost like Trump abused his position to help Stone elude justice

that sounds impeachable

Ok... I think this may be a good example of the point of confusion. I can agree with the statement that it 'sounds impeachable'. I do not understand how you would actually bring an impeachment trial on those grounds within the mechanisms of constitutional law. So if all you wanted to say this whole time is that it 'sounds impeachable', I don't really disagree. But if you think it is impeachable, I would like to understand why you think that.

---

About the only thing Trump has done that can be qualified as "good" is expose just how many problems the US government and Constitution has. Presidential pardons and the ability to commute needs to be stripped. Never a good reason for it to be there to begin with.

---