No. If the prosecution recommends something and the judge goes against that recommendation, the fact that the judge's decision carries the day doesn't mean that the prosecution deferred to the judge.
I never said
the prosecution defers to the judge. I said:
The judge has sole discretion in the sentencing. The DOJ knew that at the time of their initial recommendation. They didn't need to say they would defer to the court as it is not within their power not to defer.
However, the prosecutors submit a
sentencing recommendation. Notice that word. It is up to the judge to decide on the sentence. Therefore, the DOJ had no power to affect what sentence Jackson would impose...and they knew that.
Guidelines don't apply themselves. Nor should they ever be used blindly.
Did I say either? No. I said, in response to your allegation that 7-9 years was excessive,:
That is your opinion, not a fact. The fact is that the original sentence recommendation was based on federal guidelines
Judges are not required to follow guidelines, but use them to help determine the sentence.
I'm not sure why it would surprise you that a letter organized by a partisan left group might collect signatures from partisan leftists. Are they
all partisan leftists? Maybe not. Are they
mostly partisan leftists? Well, duh. Don't believe me? Look up their political donations.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/1...om-leftist-hacks-pretending-to-be-bipartisan/
The Federalist. Why am I not surprised. I suspect this is where you got this whole ‘partisan hack’ bit. Let’s take a look at their ‘proof’ the signatories are ‘partisan hacks’:
The list comparing those who signed the Barr letter and the Mueller Report totaled 24. Out of over 2,000. I’m not claiming there weren’t more, but their ‘proof’ that they are ‘partisan hacks’ is sadly lacking. Nor am denying that there are probably more Democrats than Republicans who signed the Barr letter; there likely are. Today’s GOP is certainly less concerned with Trump’s behavior as evidenced by the inability of many Trump supporters in this very forum and in the government to criticize anything he does.
The author of this article is Margo Cleveland, a far right activist, goes on to show that a handful of signatories donated to Democrats/ Democratic causes. Wow. What a shock! What she does not show are the Republicans who signed the letter.
She hardly produced the “ overwhelming evidence that the thousand-plus signatories were politically motivated critics of President Donald Trump.
I said nothing about when they made their statement. I referenced when they say they made their decision, which would obviously have been before they made their statement. If they made their decision before Trump tweeted (and they say they did), then obviously they didn't do it in response to Trump. You are claiming that they are lying. That's possible, but do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
I'll concede this point to you. Trump found out on Monday. But the DOJ announcement wasn't until Tuesday...after the tweet.
That's quite the goalpost move. But are you really sure you want that to be its new location? After all, Obama was vocal in his support for Hillary, and I'm sure Comey knew that too. Is that really the standard we're going to go by? That presidents can't voice opinions about people the DOJ might investigate/charge?
[/QUOTE]
Speaking of goalpost moves...had Hillary been arrested or indicted for any crime? No. Was she put on trial? No. On the other hand, Trump commented on the Stone trial both before, and during, Stone's trial. That is the difference you don't seem to recognize.
