Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

[pgwenthold]

To poke at stuff on Daily Kos again...

The ****** part about this is that the sentence he got resulted from a plea bargain, presumably to lesser charges than what he would have had to face in a trial. You can say, "Oh, he was only charged with 1 count of tax evasion" and pretend the punishment was too high. But that's because they dropped 14 other charges of something potentially worse in exchange for him pleading guilty to the one.

So yeah, maybe that sentence seems to be on the high end for that charge, but it would have been a hell of a lot worse had he gone to court and lost.

 

[Bob001]

Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months, much less than prosecutors asked.

WASHINGTON — Roger J. Stone Jr., the Republican political consultant who for years portrayed himself as the dirty trickster of American politics, was sentenced Thursday to more than three years prison for obstructing a congressional inquiry in a bid to protect President Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/roger-stone-sentencing.html

 

[Segnosaur]

Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months, much less than prosecutors asked.

We know its less than what the original sentencing request was (i.e. 7 to 9 years). Do we know what the updated, Barr-influenced sentence request was?

I would have preferred it to be a longer sentence. And supposedly he still hasn't been detained while various appeals and/or trial requests work their way out (which is also frustrating).

Still... 40 months isn't too bad (as long as he doesn't get released on parole too early). That's over 3 years; at his age, its a decent amount of time (relative to how much longer he'd be living).

 

[Upchurch]

But not all of them. You aren't holding Obama to the same standard you're trying to hold Trump to.

Funny how it sometimes happens that one's political biases color their perceptions.

 

[acbytesla]

It doesn’t reveal that at all. It could reveal the president thought the sentence was too long.
What do you feel commuting the sentence of FALN members reveals. An approval of using bombs in NYC to make a political statement and an utter contempt for police and federal buildings and those who may be in them.
My opinion is it revealed President Clinton thought the sentences were too long and those who had their sentences commuted had served enough time.

The problem isn't necessarily that Trump pardoned Blagojevich. It's the message he keeps sending with his pardons. There are millions of people behind bars serving what could be considered far too lengthy sentences yet Trump isn't pardoning all them. No, he's focused on the wealthiest and most connected. Trump probably can relate to Blagojevich since he's a corrupt POS himself.

 

[Ziggurat]

We know its less than what the original sentencing request was (i.e. 7 to 9 years). Do we know what the updated, Barr-influenced sentence request was?

https://www.scribd.com/document/446633380/Sentencing-Memo

"Based on the facts known to the government, a sentence of between 87 to 108 months' imprisonment, however, could be considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances. Ultimately, the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case."

Basically, they said the prior recommendation was too much, but they didn't want to make a new specific recommendation and so punted the decision.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem isn't necessarily that Trump pardoned Blagojevich. It's the message he keeps sending with his pardons. There are millions of people behind bars serving what could be considered far too lengthy sentences yet Trump isn't pardoning all them. No, he's focused on the wealthiest and most connected. Trump probably can relate to Blagojevich since he's a corrupt POS himself.

And of course anyone who was on the Apprentice deserves some form of pardon.

 

[Horatius]

It doesn’t reveal that at all. It could reveal the president thought the sentence was too long.
What do you feel commuting the sentence of FALN members reveals. An approval of using bombs in NYC to make a political statement and an utter contempt for police and federal buildings and those who may be in them.
My opinion is it revealed President Clinton thought the sentences were too long and those who had their sentences commuted had served enough time.

Again, context matters. If Clinton had a history of setting off bombs himself, you could argue that he was showing "approval of using bombs in NYC to make a political statement", but of course, Clinton didn't have such a history.

In this case, it's completely different - Trump does have a history of political corruption, and only avoided impeachment on that exact issue due to insanely partisan decisions made by Republican senators. The fact that he immediately turns around and starts pardoning a bunch of guys who were convicted of very similar offenses says something about his motivations.

Trump Tweets

John Kerry and Senator Chris Murphy grossly violated the Logan Act with respect to Iran. If a Republican did what they did, there would be very serious ramifications!

Gee, if only the President of the United States had some means at his disposal to investigate and prosecute violations of the law. Too bad, I guess tweeting about it is all he can do.....

DER SPIEGEL focused its reporting on conversations with more than 30 sources who have come into contact with Grenell...A majority of them describe Grenell as a vain, narcissistic person who dishes out aggressively, but can barely handle criticism....They also say Grenell knows little about Germany and Europe, that he ignores most of the dossiers his colleagues at the embassy write for him, and that his knowledge of the subject matter is superficial

So not only does he not have the experience to handle a posting with National Intelligence, he is also largely a failure in his roll as ambassador.

"Damn, maybe he's overqualified to work for me?" - Trump

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem isn't necessarily that Trump pardoned Blagojevich. It's the message he keeps sending with his pardons.

It was a commutation, not a pardon. The difference matters.

There are millions of people behind bars serving what could be considered far too lengthy sentences yet Trump isn't pardoning all them.

That was never going to happen, under any president.

No, he's focused on the wealthiest and most connected.

How much of it is Trump being focused on that, and how much of it is the press being focused on that? For example, how much have you heard about his commutation of Crystal Munoz's sentence? Do you know what she's in prison for?

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
For a president to commute the sentence of an elected official who attempted to sell a federal Senate seat reveals an utter contempt for democracy.

It doesn’t reveal that at all. It could reveal the president thought the sentence was too long.
What do you feel commuting the sentence of FALN members reveals. An approval of using bombs in NYC to make a political statement and an utter contempt for police and federal buildings and those who may be in them.
My opinion is it revealed President Clinton thought the sentences were too long and those who had their sentences commuted had served enough time.

Trump, in commuting Blago's sentence, barely mentioned the length of the sentence, only saying 7 years was "enough", not "too long". Instead he focused on Patti Blagojevich's appeals to him on FOX; appeals that praised him and attacked Mueller and Comey.

"We have commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich. He served eight years in jail. That's a long time. And I watched his wife on television. I don't know him very well. I've met him a couple of times. He was on, for a short while, on 'The Apprentice,' years ago. Seemed like a very nice person. Don't know him."

"I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly; he was given close to 18 years in prison. And a lot of people thought it was unfair, like a lot of other things — and it was the same gang, the Comey gang and all these sleazebags that did it. And his name is Rod Blagojevich,"

What did Patti Blogojevich say on FOX during her several appearances? She heaped praise on Trump and attacked Mueller and Comey, two men that Trump has repeatedly targeted. She also blamed the Obama DOJ for locking up her husband. The woman isn't stupid. She knew exactly what triggers Trump: praise for him and attacking his 'enemies'.

In May 2018, Patti appeared on Fox News and linked her husband's situation to Trump, stating that Comey and Mueller had also "perverted the law against my family."

The next month, in another Fox News appearance, she said the "same people" who "went after" her husband were "going after" Trump now.

"They are trying to undo elections and play politics instead of doing what they are supposed to do," she said. "It takes a strong leader like President Trump to right these wrongs."

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...e-wife-attacked-comey-mueller-fox-news-2020-2

“That Obama Justice Department locked him up and threw away the key,” Ms. Blagojevich said last year on Fox.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/rod-blagojevich-sentence.html

Bringing up Clinton and the FALN is irrelevant. Blago's commutation had nothing to do with Trump thinking his sentence was too long and everything to do with Patti Blagojevich's FOX attacks on Comey, Mueller, and Obama.

 

[eeyore1954]

We know its less than what the original sentencing request was (i.e. 7 to 9 years). Do we know what the updated, Barr-influenced sentence request was?

I would have preferred it to be a longer sentence. And supposedly he still hasn't been detained while various appeals and/or trial requests work their way out (which is also frustrating).

Still... 40 months isn't too bad (as long as he doesn't get released on parole too early). That's over 3 years; at his age, its a decent amount of time (relative to how much longer he'd be living).

Apparently the judge agreed with President Trump. The original request was too long. I think the updated request was open with no time.

 

[Segnosaur]

Apparently the judge agreed with President Trump. the original request was to long. I think the updated request was open with no time.

Actually we don't know anything of the sort.

Prosecutors submit sentencing recommendations. The judge doesn't HAVE to follow it, but it would be extremely rare for the judge to give a sentence longer that the prosecutors wanted.

The original prosecutors said "7 to 9 years" but Barr's lackeys said "less". We don't know how much less, just that it was less. If the original recommendations were still in force, the judge may have given a longer sentence than 40 months. But the judge does have to pay attention to what the latest recommendation was.

 

[Stacyhs]

https://www.scribd.com/document/446633380/Sentencing-Memo

"Based on the facts known to the government, a sentence of between 87 to 108 months' imprisonment, however, could be considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances. Ultimately, the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case."

Basically, they said the prior recommendation was too much, but they didn't want to make a new specific recommendation and so punted the decision.

If the DOJ were deferring to the court (Judge Jackson) anyway, then why take the unprecedented step of declaring the proposed sentence 'too harsh' in the first place? This was so highly unusual that four prosecutors quit the case in protest and over 2,000 former DOJ employees protested in writing Barr's intervening in the case. Despite their denial, it's clear that the DOJ's action was in response to Trump's tweet regarding Stone.

 

[Stacyhs]

Apparently the judge agreed with President Trump. The original request was too long. I think the updated request was open with no time.

This isn't about whether the judge agreed with Trump on the sentencing or not. It's about Trump interfering in active court cases and about the DOJ allowing him to do so. It's about the DOJ being free from political influence.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The revised memo didn't make a suggestion, but wanted to take the enhancement due to threatening a witness of the list and add a lenience due to age, frailty and lack of convictions.
I would guesstimate that that would have resulted in 18-24 months.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the DOJ were deferring to the court (Judge Jackson) anyway,

They didn't defer to the court in their initial recommendation.

then why take the unprecedented step of declaring the proposed sentence 'too harsh' in the first place?

Because it was too harsh.

This was so highly unusual that four prosecutors quit the case in protest and over 2,000 former DOJ employees protested in writing Barr's intervening in the case.

Yes, it's unusual. Doesn't mean that they aren't just partisan hacks, which would explain why the sentence recommendation was excessive in the first place.

Despite their denial, it's clear that the DOJ's action was in response to Trump's tweet regarding Stone.

That hinges on whether they're lying about the timeline. If they made the decision before Trump's tweet, as they said they did, then it logically cannot have been in response to the tweet, because time travel isn't a thing.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

All Prosecutors defer to the court.
But when Jeff Sessions took over the DoJ, he issued a guideline that Prosecutors should always charge defendants with everything they can get a conviction for and that the goal was to get maximum sentences.
The original Prosecutors were following this guideline.

The Judge can do what he/she wants, but if they deviate significantly from the recommendation, they have to give a written justification why.

 

[eeyore1954]

This isn't about whether the judge agreed with Trump on the sentencing or not. It's about Trump interfering in active court cases and about the DOJ allowing him to do so. It's about the DOJ being free from political influence.

When has the DOJ been free from political influence?

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
This was so highly unusual that four prosecutors quit the case in protest and over 2,000 former DOJ employees protested in writing Barr's intervening in the case.

Yes, it's unusual. Doesn't mean that they aren't just partisan hacks, which would explain why the sentence recommendation was excessive in the first place.

When they quit the case in protest to me that indicated there was a good likelihood they were partisan.
When I get overruled at work by my superior even when I am sure I am right I don't remove myself from the project. I do argue my case though.

 

[eeyore1954]

Bringing up Clinton and the FALN is irrelevant. Blago's commutation had nothing to do with Trump thinking his sentence was too long and everything to do with Patti Blagojevich's FOX attacks on Comey, Mueller, and Obama.

I don't think it is irrelevant as a response to "For a president to commute the sentence of an elected official who attempted to sell a federal Senate seat reveals an utter contempt for democracy."

You may be right about why he did it but believe it or not you cannot read the presidents mind and you may be wrong. Either way commuting a sentence after most of it is served does not show contempt for the crime. If it does why doesn't it apply in the FALN case or many others.