Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

[Belz...]

After moments of consideration, I propose a new rule of thumb, akin to Godwin's Law: The Law of Trump's Accusation Farts

LOTAF, for short. But we already have a word for that: projection.

 

[Segnosaur]

Not usually, no. In this case there is, and the timing of the tweet is irrelevant. We all know what happened : Trump got the news, unloaded on Barr, and Barr got on the case. There'll be no paper-trail, of course, not in Trump's White House and Barr's DoJ.

A conspiracy theory that contains its own rationale for why it cannot be proven and hence cannot be disproven either. Nice.

Around here, a 'conspiracy theory' is some narrative to an event that is easily refuted.... something that falls apart because it contradicts evidence, or is internally inconsistent, or leads to such convoluted logic that it can be dismissed thanks to Occam's razor.

On the other hand, the idea that Trump contacted Barr doesn't exactly fit the mold...

We know that Barr and Trump both lack integrity, so their claims can be easily dismissed. And in highly-politicized cases like this, sentencing recommendations would probably be vetted through people's superiors before hand, so going back to change sentencing recommendations means that either 1) there was interference from the whitehouse to cause them to change the sentencing recommendations, or 2) people at the DOJ were not really paying attention to what was going on.

So, the idea that Trump interferred in this case is not contradicted by evidence, nor is it logically inconsistent. In fact, it is actually the most likely alternative.

 

[Segnosaur]

Impeach him again.

What good would that do?

Impeach him 9 times, and the 10th one is free.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What good would that do?

You could convict him on the first day after the Senate flipped m

 

[Ziggurat]

We know that Barr and Trump both lack integrity, so their claims can be easily dismissed. And in highly-politicized cases like this, sentencing recommendations would probably be vetted through people's superiors before hand, so going back to change sentencing recommendations means that either 1) there was interference from the whitehouse to cause them to change the sentencing recommendations, or 2) people at the DOJ were not really paying attention to what was going on.

So, the idea that Trump interferred in this case is not contradicted by evidence, nor is it logically inconsistent. In fact, it is actually the most likely alternative.

Well, no. First off, it is a conspiracy theory, because it requires the complicity of the whole chain of command in lying about what happened. Whatever you think of Trump and Barr, that is... unlikely.

Second, as for people in the DOJ not really paying attention, I think the recent IG report already demonstrated that happens. There have also been reports that the attorneys charging the case told their superiors that they were going to recommend a lighter sentence than they ended up recommending.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Around here, a 'conspiracy theory' is some narrative to an event that is easily refuted.... something that falls apart because it contradicts evidence, or is internally inconsistent, or leads to such convoluted logic that it can be dismissed thanks to Occam's razor.

On the other hand, the idea that Trump contacted Barr doesn't exactly fit the mold...

It was all nicely public on twitter, so there is that going in its favor. He complains publically about sentence, Barr hears this and jumps into action. This is of course exactly how law and order republicans want it to work.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you suggesting it's not true? That Barr didn't order that the sentence recommendation be changed? Do you actually believe that he might not have? Barr serves Trump (and through him, God). Of course he did it.

If the sentence recommendation is disproportionate to the crime, then why would it need to go any higher than the charging attorneys' immediate supervisors to get changed? Those immediate supervisors should change it, if it's a bad recommendation. So even supposing Trump is willing to order Barr to do it and Barr is willing to follow that order, that still wouldn't mean it actually happened that way.

Do you have an argument for why the sentence recommendation was typical for the convicted crime?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, no. First off, it is a conspiracy theory, because it requires the complicity of the whole chain of command in lying about what happened. Whatever you think of Trump and Barr, that is... unlikely.

Exactly it is as crazy as connecting people who say "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" and any dead priests. It is a rhetorical question, like "would be a shame if this place caught fire" or "It would be a shame if you never got your Congressional sanctioned aid"

Really I don't understand why Italian men commenting on how it would be horrible if something bad were to happen is taken as anything other than mere hypotheticals. They certainly would be wrong to ever interpret as a threat.


Clearly we have a lot of "mob bosses" who only ever talked in hypotheticals that need to be free.

 

[thaiboxerken]

" First off, it is a conspiracy theory, because it requires the complicity of the whole chain of command in lying about what happened."

Right, all two of them. Barr and Trump.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

It is very important for our Country’s SECURITY that the United States Senate not vote for the Iran War Powers Resolution. We are doing very well with Iran and this is not the time to show weakness. Americans overwhelmingly support our attack on terrorist Soleimani....

....If my hands were tied, Iran would have a field day. Sends a very bad signal. The Democrats are only doing this as an attempt to embarrass the Republican Party. Don’t let it happen!

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, no. First off, it is a conspiracy theory, because it requires the complicity of the whole chain of command in lying about what happened. Whatever you think of Trump and Barr, that is... unlikely.

Uhh, no.

Conspiracy theories often fail because they require the participation of dozens (if not hundreds) of people, many of whom might be working against their own self interest.

In this case, you need: Trump (no need to involve anyone else in the white house), Barr, and a small number of Barr's underlings, many of whom would be Trump appointees. No big huge 'chain of command', just a small little cabal, a tiny handful of people.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly it is as crazy as connecting people who say "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" and any dead priests. It is a rhetorical question, like "would be a shame if this place caught fire" or "It would be a shame if you never got your Congressional sanctioned aid"

There are two problems with this position.

1) You are assuming, without evidence or argument, that the initial sentencing recommendation wasn't excessive. Take away that assumption, and revising the sentence recommendation becomes proper and so much of this speculation becomes pointless.
2) The DOJ says they reached a decision to revise the sentencing recommendation before Trump tweeted.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-11/roger-stone-sentencing-recommendation

Justice Department officials made the decision to shorten the sentencing recommendation on Monday night, shortly before Trump tweeted that it was a “miscarriage of justice,” according to a Justice Department spokeswoman. Officials said no one at the Justice Department had discussed the decision with the president.​

So unless there's a conspiracy within the DOJ (and not just Barr) to lie about what happened, then no, it cannot be what you're claiming it is. Well, time travel would work too, but I'll assume you agree that we can discount that possibility. Do you believe there's a DOJ conspiracy about this?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Has it been mentioned that the original prosecutors recommended sentencing based on approved guidelines of the sentencing commission? Also, the revised sentencing from the DOJ does not mention the aggravating factors that the original sentencing recommendation lists.

It stinks of Trump/Barr intervention because it makes no legal sense at all to revise the sentencing recommendations.

 

[Ziggurat]

Uhh, no.

Conspiracy theories often fail because they require the participation of dozens (if not hundreds) of people, many of whom might be working against their own self interest.

In this case, you need: Trump (no need to involve anyone else in the white house), Barr, and a small number of Barr's underlings, many of whom would be Trump appointees. No big huge 'chain of command', just a small little cabal, a tiny handful of people.

Let's see if you can name this cabal. Who is in on it?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I see we are in step 1 of the formula of Trump defense. It won't be too long until we are at the point where Trumpanzees will say "well, he did it, but that's okay"...

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The recommendation was EXACTLY following sentencing guidelines.
If they had pushed the guidelines to the limit, they could have given him 50 years.

If you ok with this, you have given up on the Rule of Law.

 

[thaiboxerken]

To Trumpanzees, Trump is the law.

 

[pgwenthold]

Has it been mentioned that the original prosecutors recommended sentencing based on approved guidelines of the sentencing commission? Also, the revised sentencing from the DOJ does not mention the aggravating factors that the original sentencing recommendation lists.

It stinks of Trump/Barr intervention because it makes no legal sense at all to revise the sentencing recommendations.

Hey, just because he posted a picture of the judge in crosshairs shouldn't be held against him.

 

[acbytesla]

If the sentence recommendation is disproportionate to the crime, then why would it need to go any higher than the charging attorneys' immediate supervisors to get changed? Those immediate supervisors should change it, if it's a bad recommendation. So even supposing Trump is willing to order Barr to do it and Barr is willing to follow that order, that still wouldn't mean it actually happened that way.

Do you have an argument for why the sentence recommendation was typical for the convicted crime?

No it wasn't. But the judge can do what they want within a range.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, no. First off, it is a conspiracy theory, because it requires the complicity of the whole chain of command in lying about what happened. Whatever you think of Trump and Barr, that is... unlikely.

For scale, is that more or less unlikely than 52 Republican Senators being complicit in covering up Presidential high crimes and misdemeanors?