Corruption by Any Other Name is Still Trump

Trump acts to prevent his friend Roger Stone from being sent to prison for three years after he was convicted by an American jury of seven counts. These were  five counts of lying to Congress, one count of witness tampering and one count of obstruction of a proceeding. Even Trump did not dispute his guilt. He posted a tweet after his conviction: “So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come. Well, what about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Shifty Schiff, Ohr & Nellie, Steele & all of the others, including even Mueller himself? Didn’t they lie?…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2019 

There is the new standard of justice in America as spelled out by Trump. If anyone commits a crime, especially if they are a former campaign adviser and friend, they they should not be convicted unless everyone else who may have committed the crime is also prosecuted for the crime. It makes no difference to Trump that Roger Stone was indicted by a grand jury and convicted by a jury after being represented by counsel and that the others have not even been charged. Everyone must be tried and convicted or no one is to be tried and convicted.

Did you ever try to tell a cop who pulled you over for speeding or running a stop sign that others have also done the same thing and he should not give you a ticket unless he gives one to everyone? Let me suggest it doesn’t work. What about the person convicted of drug dealing in court who tells the judge that the government did not go after the other drug dealers who were dealing more drugs than he was doing? Does the judge dismiss the case until all the other drug dealers are indicted.

You see the absurdity of Trump. He admits the guy is guilty but says it is a miscarriage of justice to have prosecuted him because others, he named but a few of his critics who told the truth about him, were not prosecuted. What kind of justice system is it that Trump envisions? Oh, now we know seeing the Trump handling of the Stone case.

Don’t suggest Stone wasn’t guilty. Trump doesn’t even suggest that or he would have pardoned him. He couldn’t do that because Stone would then no longer be able to assert his Fifth Amendment rights. Stone keeps asserting his innocence but an appeals court ruled in refusing to delay his commitment that he was not likely to win an appeal for a new trial or reduced sentence.

The Trump/Stone deal is a classic gangster cover-up. I suggest Mitt Romney had it right when he said: “Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president.”

Stone talked to a journalist around 4:00 p.m. before his commutation on Friday. The journalist, Roger Fireman, reported: “Just had a long talk with #RogerStone. He says he doesn’t want a pardon (which implies guilt) but a commutation, and says he thinks #Trump will give it to him. “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.”

Put more simply Stone was saying Trump is going to take care of me because I didn’t rat him out. What does that mean? That he has good stuff on Trump that would send Trump to prison if he talked. Plain and simple.

But we all know that: why is Trump hiding his taxes? why did he lie when he said he had no dealings in Russia when he was negotiating for a Trump Tower in Moscow.

Trump is not only a crook; he crookedly uses his power to protect himself by rewarding criminals. The nation has never seen such criminal conduct before.

27 thoughts on “Corruption by Any Other Name is Still Trump

  1. If a liberal Democrat were tried in a city ( Wyoming or Alaska) that was 90% conservative Republican would he have a jury of his peers? DC is 90% Democrat. Trump got 4% of the vote. No Republican can get a fair trial there. It has nothing to do with race. 2. Jill Stein and Flynn were at the same table in Europe at a conference. Putin came over for one minute to have his picture taken. Neither of them had a conversation with Putin. Yet Hillary called Stein and Tulsi Gabbard Russian assets. There was never any evidence Flynn was working for Russia or that the Trump campaign was. Read the Mueller report. It was a Clinton campaign dirty trick. Yet some gullible types fell for it. 3. Try reading the Wall Street Journal and Townhall. You would be better informed. All the evidence has been pointed out. It is public information. 4. The Clintons sold 435 pardons and enriched themselves. Time magazine had a book review on that subject. If the evidence of Obama’s team is accurate he is more corrupt than Nixon, Clinton and LBJ.

    1. NC:

      Trump sat next to Flynn at a dinner. It was in Moscow. (Why do you omit that) “It was a (red) star-studded affair, the December 2015 dinner celebrating the 10th birthday of Russian TV network RT. At a luxe Moscow hotel, President Vladimir Putin and a host of Russian luminaries toasted a state-backed news channel that U.S. intelligence calls a Kremlin mouthpiece.”

      As far as being better informed, try telling things as they are not as you want them to be. Go here to see photos of the dinner: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696

      “And next to Putin at the head table, in the seat of honor, was an American. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.” He didn’t come over for a picture. He was sitting at the head table with him. (Why do you make things up?) How do you know they didn’t speak.
      “Flynn was one of 10 people at the head table, including the Kremlin’s top leadership. Three of the Russians, including Putin, were under U.S. sanctions at the time for their role in Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

      Flynn was one of 10 people at the head table, including the Kremlin’s top leadership. Three of the Russians, including Putin, were under U.S. sanctions at the time for their role in Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

      Flynn said: “I was one of the guests there. … Some interesting characters. I found it a great learning opportunity. One of the things I learned was that Putin has no respect for the United States leadership. Not for the United States, but the leadership.” Ooops, I guess he did speak with him.

      When Putin finished his speech that night, Flynn was among the first to leap to his feet and offer a standing ovation.

      Why do you justify Trump’s perfidy by pointing to other. I don’t get it. Try getting off Fox and coming up for a little light.

  2. Since Bonespurs has no friends and he never does anything that doesn’t help him personally, how much does Stone have on Trump that would force him to commute his sentence?

    I suggest they put the Globe onto that Grand Jury that is hearing Trump’s finances. We know how much they respect the sanctity of that testimony.

      1. Bonespurs is not an ad hominem attack on people in this blog. You failed to get the point. Those forbidden attacks are against each other. And Bonespurs is a nickname. Like Pocahontas or Little Mikey (Bloomburg) or Crooked Hillary or Sleepy Eyes (Chuck Todd) or Lyin’ Ted (Cruz) or Cryin’ Chuck (Schumer) or Crazy Bernie or Little Marco.

        I gave him the nickname Bonespurs because when he was trying to avoid his obligation to the US Military, he had his father get a doctor that lived in one of his buildings write him a tardy note for the principal saying that Donald couldn’t make it to Fort Dix today because he stubbed his toe.

  3. I see Trump’s supporters are still hitting the Lysol too hard. Stone is a longtime Washington lobbyist and political operative. If this guy isn’t a swamp creature, nobody is. Evidently, only certain, select parts of the swamp are to be drained. Looks to me like Trump’s boast about gunning down somebody on Fifth Avenue and not losing any support is all too true. But the base isn’t big enough to deliver his re-election . Trump may agree. I see he’s now wearing a mask. Geeez.

    1. Dan, every pardon/commutation in American history was of a guilty person, and many were what we’d call today “swamp creatures” . . .D.C. was built on a swamp.

      1. Don’t see your point, Bill. Trump was supposed to be different, right? He’s the guy who was going to drain the swamp. Not happening …

        1. Dan, by analogy, If I promise to rid Boston of Drug Pushers, yet show mercy to some convicted drug pushers by commuting their sentences (especially to those convicted by biased judges/juries in my opinion) there is no inconsistency. You can drain the swamp but spare some living creatures too from unfair punishments. The quality of mercy is twice blessed, blessing he that receives and he that gives, said WS.

    2. DanC:

      All those loyal Trump supporters are confused – Trump wore a mask so should they. Trump gave them an out because he wore it at a hospital so they can continue their way without masks helping him cull the herd.

      As for the swamp – no administration in our history has had so many people associated with it convicted of crime or have to leave office under a cloud of enriching themselves. I do note we don’t hear much about “draining the swamp” anymore now that the people in it are Trumpers.

      1. Matt, read George Washington Constitutional Law Professor Jonathon Hurley’s historical analyses of pardons/commutations. Turley says other Presidents have similarly pardoned/commuted as Trump has. His opinion piece was two days ago.

  4. No derogatory information on Flynn? Taking money from Turkey without notifying that he is working for a foreign government. Stone was convicted by a jury of his peers. Stop complaining about the judges.

  5. Stone never got a fair trial. He didn’t have a jury of his peers. No Republican can get a jury of his peers in DC. His foreperson was an anti Trump activist. His judge was an Obama appointee and Democrat party activist. Two never Trumpers. Neither should have sat on Stone’s trial. It was a miscarriage of justice. We have seen plenty of those in the Moakley Courthouse. The entire Russian collusion matter was a complete hoax. So said Mueller and his partisan team. Any honest American would conclude so. Stone was targeted by a corrupt FBI and DOJ because he supported Trump as was Flynn. This was a political vendetta by the party in power against their opposition. The Obama team spied on the Trump campaign and tried to frame his supporters so they would flip on Trump. There was no reasonable suspicion or justifiable predicate to launch those investigations. This was the biggest political crime in American history. The FISA Courts were lied to. 2. The Flynn case proceeded this way. In July 2016 the FBI started a probe of Flynn without any basis whatsoever. He was the Trump campaign National Security advisor so the Deep State under Obama Biden moved to undermine Flynn a critic of Obama foreign policy. After six months of investigation the line agents for the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 concluded there was no derogatory information on Flynn. On Jan. 5, 2017 in the Oval office according to Strozk, Comey said the conversation by Flynn with the Russian Ambassador was legit i. e. completely proper. Yet Obama told Comey to get his best people on it and keep the investigation going. Was this the start of a conspiracy to frame Flynn? On Jan 25, 2017 Comey sends over two FBI agents to entrap Flynn. They concluded Flynn didn’t lie and he wasn’t a Russian agent. This information is withheld from Flynn’s defense team for three years. Months later Flynn is indicted for lying to the FBI by Mueller. Who were the criminals in this episode? Seems it is Obama, Biden, Comey and Mueller. They conspired to violate Flynn’s Constitutional Rights.They are as guilty as sin.

    1. I agree 100% with NC.

      Matt calls Trump corrupt for pardoning/commuting a guilty person, even though almost every President in history has done so (I haven’t researched this definitively but suspect it is true), and even the Constitution has expressly given that Power to the President. Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.” Funny Matt never called any of Bill Clinton’s pardons “corrupt”, when at least one was to the spouse of a multi-million dollar donor to Bill and Hillary’s corrupt Foundation.

      Once again, it is not the principle that irks Matt . . .the pardon/commutation . . .it the fact that a person he irrationally hates, Donald Trump, has exercised that lawful power. We learned to call what Matt does this:”putting personalities over principles.”

      Here too is a good analogy. Just as a corruptly biased judge and corruptly biased jury prosecuted and convicted Roger Stone, a corruptly biased power-abusing Prosecutor named Fred Wyshak and his cohorts corruptly prosecuted John Connolly, the Probation Officers, the owners of the Caswell Motel, Boston Police Officer Kenny Conley, the Schwartz youth, the bookie’s wife, and many, many others . . .

      2. As far as Matt’s new rules are concerned, I believe their principal raison d’etre. as JPC noted, is to stifle, to suppress, to censor opposing views. Too bad . . .I rather liked capitalizations, as e.e. cummings did not. Matt saw them as “shouts” I suspect mostly because he did not like their content. I saw them simply as a way to call attention to what I considered more important, more compelling points.

      3. So, I guess, no more poking fun at Matt or other commentators, not more mocking idiotic views, nor more deriding illogic, nor more countering factual error . . .I guess Matt will subsume all of that now under his new rule: “No More Ad Hominem Attacks for Thee, while I continue my ad hominem attacks on President Trump.”

      3. Danny Ryan used to say “It ain’t bragging, if it is the truth.” When I was 10 years old, a professor from the New England Conservatory, Ernie Weiner, told my mother that I had a talent for playing the piano. When I was 18 years old a professor at Boston College wrote that I had a talent for writing. Too bad Matt does not like the way I express myself.

      Oops. Have I violated these new sophomoric rules, fit for high schoolers? Matt cites the parade case, which ruled only the speaker decides what to say and how to say it; only John Wacko Hurley and the South Boston Allied War Veterans can determine the content of their speech and expression . . . only William M. Connolly, in a free America, can determine the content of his speech or expression . . .

      Limiting everyone’s post to one post, and a rebuttal to a rebutal makes sense. Surely, Matt would not allow only himself to rebut.

      It should be easy to delete those multiple comments of MSFREEH that both I and others (e.g. Dave) have noted have nothing to do with the subject matter. It will be interesting to see how Matt handles analogies.

      4. Finally, you selectively cite a few authors’ exhortations of brevity, and I counter with James Joyce and William Faulkner who knew how to stream consciousness in a very edifying way. Remember the movie, Mozart, and the Royalty who criticized Mozart’s music “too many notes.” Like some criticized the Father of the Jazz Piano, Art Tatum, like some extolled Wagner, like some criticized Jackson Pollack . . . you see . . . .don’t you?

      1. You should really stop being a baby. You know, there are thousands of blogs out there that you could go ruin. Or you could start your own blog. But to come on here after a respectable man like Matt makes a simple, logical, well thought out request so he can run his blog within a code of conduct so it will not turn into a cluster fuck every time you show up, shows exactly what kind of a baby you are. I’m really surprised that an ex lumberjack like yourself (pffffffffffft) would act this way. But you had to get your way. You had to do the exact opposite of what Matt requested. Massive immaturity on your part. And look at me being an asshole, too!

        And, Bill. I was a real lumberjack for quite a few years. I have the scars and the pay stubs to prove it. You weren’t.

        1. Abe, as usual your responses are simplistic ad hominem attacks. Calling people names . . .implying I am an asshole, too . . . .implying I am not respected . . .do not you understand these are simply ad hominem attacks, like calling some bonespurs or orange head . . .why not try to reason

          I am sure Matt will correct you and others for name calling . . .

          1. Ad hominem? Really? Its like in the 70’s when people would say, “Oooooo. You’re so defensive. Why are you so defensive?” like it was a crime to defend yourself.

            “Why not try to reason” Are you serious? You are the most unreasonable living thing on the planet. Oh, sorry. Is that that horrible ad hominem thing again? I’ll be nicer to you from now on. Is that OK, Kitten?

            And I wasn’t implying that you were an asshole. I was declaring that I was an asshole. And if you can’t tell that I am exactly that, then you are not as smart as…..

            And being simplistic is my desire. Ever read Henry David? Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.

            Now lets act like adults and put all this stupid shit behind us. For Matt.

      2. William:

        What a surprise you agree with NC 100%. Every time he posts you agree with him 100%. You also agree with Trump 100%.
        1. You like to attack me by misrepresenting my positions. Here’s a criticism of Clinton’s pardon of Mark Rich on my blog: “You know that from the Mark Rich case which has been called “Exhibit A of Clintonian sliminess.”
        On this matter what irks me is when a person pardons a friend who covers up his crimes. No other president did that.

        Stop the nonsense about John Connolly. He was properly prosecuted. He was found guilty of committing crimes of tipping of people to flee. The jury had evidence of that. He was convicted of obstruction of justice which it was clear he did. He aligned himself after he left the FBI with the worst criminal ever to exist in New England, Steve Flemmi, in an attempt to undermine the prosecution of him and Mafia members. I could go on. Plain and simple he was properly prosecuted. Fred Wyshak had nothing to do with the Caswell Motel case a civil forfeiture; Wyshak was not in the U.S. attorneys office at the time of the Kenneth Conley case, nor did he prosecute the Swartz case.

        2. I thought you were involved in a case before the Supreme Court where it was argued that it was all right “to censor, to suppress opposing views.” You argues it was all right to suppress the gays from the St. Patrick’s Day parade. Have you now switched horses. I explained my reasons for limiting comments.

        3. If you assume ad hominem attacks on Trump are the same as ad hominem attacts posted on this comment section I cannot help you. As for Trump, he disgraces the presidency with his daily ad hominem attacks on anyone he does not like.

        3. I don’t really understand your point here. I have no problem with someone giving their background such as spelling out the person is an economics professor or architect which would add substance to his comments but I fail to see how your piano playing ability plays into the discussion.

        4. Speaking of brevity I believe a guy names Polonius said: “Brevity is the soul of wit. Intelligent speech and writing should aim at using few words” Of course during Polonius’s day wit meant wisdom and intelligence.

        1. M att, the case I went to the Supreme Court on upheld Free Speech . . .you are not running a parade, nor are you running an orchestra . . .you are attempting to limit my free speech, to alter it, to suppress it . . .
          You supported the State forcing the Gay Group into the Veterans’ speech, thus altering the Veterans expressive activity.

          As, for your other comments, I’ve refuted them repeatedly and accurately in my five books

          As for me agreeing with NC 100% of the time, that is because I simply agree with his point of view and appreciate his rendition of actual historical and legal facts.

          I disagree profoundly with your views of legal justice, on abortion, on abuse of power, on big government, on sacred cows, on your constant validation of corrupt processes and on what constitutes reason and good writing

          I have accurately in my books and on this and other blogs portrayed the abuses of power by Wyshak . . .I generally use the phrase Wyshak and his cohorts . . .you cite two cases where Wyshak was not directly involved, but his office was, his cohorts were, the corrupt federal judges who give leniency to, for example, the Congressman’s Wife who laundered four million dollars . . . .30 days in jail . . . .while sentencing a City Councilor to three years in prison over about a thousand dollars or less in a preachers handshake, speaks for itself. It is not aberrational. It is typical of the rot that exist both in the federal court and in Massachusetts.

          You forget in the parade case, you and almost all you colleagues, most academicians, almost all judges, almost all big law firms were eager to crush the Veterans Free Speech, Free Expressive Rights.

          You should read the law review articles of Paul Walkowski and myself in Lawyers Weekly . . .you should read our rebutal to Justice Katz who wrote even after the Veterans received a unanimous 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court . . . .Justiv Kasstz (I forget the exact spelling, he was the chief of the Mass Appeals Court) wrote “a majority of Massachusetts judges disagree with the Supreme Court.

          Try reading From Trial Court to the United States Supreme Court by Walkowski and W. Connolly

          And make sure you censor Abe and other for making ad hominem attacks.

          Matt, this is not ad hominem. You have written impliedly that I have “walked away” from what I have said. That is false. I stand behind each and every word I have written. If and when I am wrong, I promptly admit it.

          Over the months, you have repeatedly written “I don’t really understand your point” . . .and that is true. You do not understand many of my points and positions; nor did the vast majority of Massachusetts lawyers, judges and academicians in the parade case. I don’t expect understanding. I know some, like NC, agree whole heartedly with me, and disagree wholeheartedly with you, on many issues. That’s good enough for me that intelligent, inciteful, ethical people like NC and like those nine justices of the Supreme Court and like those reviewers of the book by Walkowski and me did see and understand our point of view.

          1. “And make sure you censor Abe and other for making ad hominem attacks.”

            Again with the ad hominem whine.

            I’ll tell you what, Bill. Starting right now I’ll never respond to another thing you say. Is that what you want? This blog is not about you. How many times are you going to tell people to buy one of your books? And me, like an idiot, did.

    2. NC:

      1′ “No Republican can get a jury of his peers in DC.” What is that supposed to mean? There are too many blacks in DC? Are they not to be tried in DC? Do you see where your logic leads – Republicans can commit whatever crimes they want in DC? I know that would be good for Republicans but it isn’t for the country.I know that would be good for Republicans but it isn’t for the country. The party in power was the Republicans who indicted Stone. Did it have a vendetta against itself? Have you ever read Mueller’s report? That would be a good place to start. You overlook Trump conceded he was guilty. If that’s the case what is your point? You give the American people very little credit. I guess I can see why. Trump was elected.

      2. As for Flynn he pleaded guilty. In pleading guilty he avoided other charges like the deals he had with Turkey to kidnap the Turkish citizen living in America and lying about representing Turkey. As for when the Flynn investigation started I figure when the photo of him sitting next to Putin in Moscow might have been the starting point. I am amazed you talk of the Deep State. Isn’t that the group that was holding young kids to be molested at a pizza joint in DC? Someday please explain what is the difference between the Deep State and Q-Anon. I figure you must know.

      3. Yes, now you suggest the person you consider corrupt – Comey – said Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak was all right. I thought everything Comey did was part of the Deep State. Why would he say that. Where is your proof Obama told Comey to get Flynn. Sounds like something made up. Obama was out the door in 15 days. It’s unlikely he would be telling Comey anything. As for entrapment by asking questions which agents are supposed to do is not entrapment. If that were the case our laws would look much different. No one made Flynn lie and lie he did, just like Stone. Now you have Obama, Biden (what did he do in your Deep State conspiracy), Comey (thought he was a good guy); and Mueller (who bent over backwards to not indict Trump) as committing crimes. Is this the thinking of the Trumpets? Do we expect that Bill Barr will indict them in October. [I hear Putin told Trump if Barr does that he can remove them from the ballot. Check with your sources who keep you up to date on the actions of the Deep State to see if that’s going to happen.]

      1. Matt, isn’t calling someone a Trumpet an ad hominem attack? An intended slur, like a deplorable? I though you banned ad hominem attacks.

        1. And finally, you state John Connolly got a fair trial in boston. About ten years after Connolly retired a highly decorated FBI agent rlargely esponsible for taking down the entire New England Mafia, according to Pistone, “Donny Brasco” here is what happened.

          Wyshak and his cohorts, namely Muellar and Comey in D.C, et al, cooked up the phony Rogue Agent theory. They summoned Durham from Connecticut to try Connolly, The used two perjurious serial killers, Saleme and Martorano, to testify against Connolly. They used an admitted attempted murderer, admitted bribe taker, FBi supervisor John Morris, to concoct tails against Connolly . . .Morris couldn’t remember where that envelope was with the case of wine that he said Connolly gave him

          They spent millions framing Connolly and trying him, and the jury acquitted him of all the serious charges and convicted him of five lesser charges, for which one juror said the thought Connolly would not receive one day in prison for

          Read my books which poke holes in all the spurious, corrupt proceedings against Connolly.

          Finally, Remember this: The full force of the Federal Government was thrown against the lowest man on the totem pole . . .and the reason was obvious as you admitted telling John Connolly in boston, words to this effect: John, they are not after you; they are after Senate President U Mass President Bill Bulger

          Fair trial, my foot

          I don’t waste my breath because imminent judges and lawyers and former FBI agents have attested to John Connolly’s good character and innocence, and the corrupt proceedings against him . . .

Comments are closed.