Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

[Sideroxylon]

Are you new here?

"X system can never be done to 100% philosophical purity, therefore not only are the corrupt justified, they are somehow more noble then the people trying to stop the corruption" has been one of their half dozen go to arguments for a while now.

There is nothing more philosophically pure than making a buck.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Actually she did show one republican who signed the letter... But they had started Donating to the Democrats after.

Which shows that they recognize the rot that has set in with the GOP.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't know how you'd go about eliminating political influence when the AG is appointed by the president and serves as a member of the cabinet.

You can't completely eliminate it, but you can certainly not facilitate it. An honest president would appoint an AG that has shown him/herself to be non-partisan and not politically motivated.

Does it make sense to deem something unacceptable when it's inevitable?

I certainly think so. Trump is not the 'senior law enforcement official" he seems to think he is.

There is a case for having strong institutions, which function consistently from one administration to the next.

Agreed. But that is a separate issue from this.

But IMO, expecting complete freedom from political influence is unrealistic and maybe even undesirable. I'd have to think about it.

I never said that there can be "complete freedom from political influence". I said that political influence on the DOJ is unacceptable. Political influence is inherently partisan. The Dept of Justice should not be.

 

[Stacyhs]

Actually she did show one republican who signed the letter... But they had started Donating to the Democrats after.

Which shows that they recognize the rot that has set in with the GOP.

In other words, Republicans who oppose Trump in any way aren't "real Republicans".

 

[Stacyhs]

People have....

From: https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/index.html
Hillary Clinton was deemed the winner of Monday night's debate by 62% of voters who tuned in to watch, while just 27% said they thought Donald Trump had the better night, according to a CNN/ORC Poll of voters who watched the debate.

From: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-debate-poll-229581
Clinton's win in the second debate was decisive. Forty-two percent of those polled said Clinton won the Sunday night contest — including 13 percent of Republicans. Just 28 percent said Trump won the debate, held at Washington University in St. Louis.

I guess not everyone is enamored by a lumbering oaf who sniffs more than a cocaine addict in search of his next fix.

Trump lives in his own little reality bubble.

 

[Ziggurat]

I never said the prosecution defers to the judge.

You have said multiple things in multiple posts, and none of it is particularly coherent.

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.

If the recommendation has no power to affect what sentence Jackson imposes, then why does it even matter what the recommendation was? Why does it even matter if the recommendation is changed?

The entire premise of having a recommendation is that it CAN affect the sentence a judge imposes. The judge is not bound by the recommendation, but that doesn't mean it has no effect. And that's the only justification for anyone getting upset over this as well.

The Federalist. Why am I not surprised.

And now we get into the ad hominem. Why am I not surprised.

The list comparing those who signed the Barr letter and the Mueller Report totaled 24. Out of over 2,000.

You really need to pay better attention. The screenshot shows 24 lines of a spreadsheet, not 24 people. And not all of them match. You might be tempted to think that this means there's less than 24 matches out of 2000, but again, you need to pay better attention. This is merely the top of an alphabetical list. If you think that this list is going to have a bunch of matches at the top but then no more matches throughout the rest of it, well, that's a pretty remarkable claim. If alphabetical position of last names is uncorrelated with whether or not a name appears on both partitions (and that should be the default assumption unless demonstrated otherwise), then similar levels of correlation should be present throughout the rest of the list, which means that it's a hell of a lot more than 24 people appearing on both petitions.

Nor am denying that there are probably more Democrats than Republicans who signed the Barr letter; there likely are.

I have yet to see any evidence that there are any Republicans who signed the Barr letter. I don't discount the possibility, but so far none have been provided.

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.

Nobody has shown the Republicans who signed the letter.

I'll concede this point to you. Trump found out on Monday. But the DOJ announcement wasn't until Tuesday...after the tweet.

But that's not the timing that really matters. What matters (to the extent that it matters at all) is when the decision was made. A DOJ announcement before the Trump tweet would prove the decision was made before the tweet, but an announcement after the tweet doesn't prove the decision was made after the tweet. Do you have any actual evidence the decision was made after the tweet?

No, you don't.

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.

How is the decision of whether or not to prosecute less sacrosanct than sentencing recommendations? You have that completely backwards. By your own admission, judges don't need to follow sentencing recommendations, they can easily discard them. If the prosecution gets the recommendation wrong, the judge has the power to remedy it. But if a prosecutor declines to prosecute when they should, a judge can do nothing to remedy that. That makes political interference with the decision to prosecute far more problematic than sentencing recommendations.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

No, they really don't. Both the prosecution and the defense recommendations are just that, recommendations and nothing more. As long as the sentence falls under the sentencing guidelines you can't say the judge was wrong.

 

[Aridas]

Hmm.

Trump replaced intelligence director after election security briefing caused Republican panic

According to The Washington Post, everything pivoted around a classified briefing given to the House Intelligence Committee last Thursday. A briefing on the topic of election security. Specifically, the subject of the meeting was “election security and foreign interference in the run-up to the 2020 election.” The meeting was not exclusive to Democrats. Unlike some recent hearings where Republicans have put on a show of being absent, they were in the room for this closed-door briefing—including Devin Nunes.

At that briefing, intelligence official Shelby Pierson said … something. Something that made Republicans on the committee run back to report to Trump. Whatever that something was, it apparently made Trump hugely angry that this information had reached House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, because, according to the Post, “the information would be helpful to Democrats if it were released publicly, the people familiar with the matter said.”

Trump was so angry that he dragged in Maguire and confronted him over what Pierson had said. After that, Trump dismissed Maguire, replacing him as acting DNI with belligerent neo-fascist Grenell. Even though Trump has been busy cleaning house of officials in the NSA, DOJ, Pentagon, and State Department that don’t have Trump’s logo tattooed on their foreheads, Maguire was definitely on the inside of Trump’s circle … until that briefing.

Oh goody. More to the story, and it's nothing good.

 

[KDLarsen]

I wonder if Stone still has his t-shirt?

 

[William Parcher]

'If monkeys attack Donald Trump's entourage, it will be a disaster'

Trump will have the elite protection of the Secret Service when he visits on February 24, but locals fear that a large swarm of monkeys could be impossible to control.

'If such a large troop of monkeys attacks Donald Trump's entourage, it will be a disaster,' one local resident told India Today.

One member of the Central Industrial Security Force said the catapults used by guards would be 'completely ineffective' against a large gang of monkeys...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Donald-Trump-attacked-monkeys-Taj-Mahal.html

 

[TragicMonkey]

'If monkeys attack Donald Trump's entourage, it will be a disaster'

Oh, please, cosmos, please please please please let this occur. It would be awesome on so many levels.

 

[Steve]

Oh, please, cosmos, please please please please let this occur. It would be awesome on so many levels.

Needs to be televised live.

 

[alfaniner]

"a magnificent amount, a massive amount of water"

He really is incapable of doing anything without cartoonish hyperbole, isn't he?

"I had an absolutely phenomenal piece of toast with my breakfast. The greatest breakfast."

Remember him fawning over that "big, beautiful piece of chocolate cake" when he launched a Syria air strike?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Remember him fawning over that "big, beautiful piece of chocolate cake" when he launched a Syria air strike?

If we're lucky and God love us he will one day be retelling a story about a magnificent, massive amount of monkeys descending upon him in unparalleled wrath as a maelstrom of chaos and chittering, and absconding with his toupee. I know nothing of these particular monkeys but I sincerely hope they are the variety that demonstrates dominance by biting their enemies upon the buttocks. It would be the biggest, most amazing bunch of monkeys doing the most massive, incredible bites to the biggest, largest, most hugest buttocks ever!

 

[dudalb]

After last night's debacle of a debate, I think 4 more years of Trump is inevitable, sadly.

 

[Ladewig]

Trump lives in his own little reality bubble.

It’s a reality bubble alright, but it is not little. He’s got tens of millions of Americans living in there with him.

 

[Ladewig]

After last night's debacle of a debate, I think 4 more years of Trump is inevitable, sadly.

Yes.
I think the only thing that might prevent his re-election is a major **** up on President Trump’s part.
Avoiding a gigantic scandal with less than a year to go would be easy for any but the craziest of politicians. So question becomes, “sure, he’s crazy, but is he crazy enough to destroy himself in the next few months?”

StIll, if I were going to purchase betting futures, I’d put money on his re-election.

 

[fishbob]

There's a point to that, though, and it's not an argument ad populum. If lots of people from across the political spectrum thought the sentence was excessive, then even if they're wrong, Trump believing the sentence was excessive doesn't put him on the fringe.

Nor is it some sort of abuse of power for a president who thinks a sentence is excessive to commute that sentence to something he doesn't think is excessive. That's the entire purpose of that power, and this case falls squarely within those bounds even if you disagree with his specific use here. If voters don't approve of his use of that power, well, there's an easy remedy: don't vote for him in November.

That's a mighty big 'if' you're throwing around there partner.
And wildly unsupported. Don't hurt yourself with that thing.

 

[Tero]

Trump is now on TV saying that the Stone jury was anti-Trump.

The majority of the country is anti Trump. That, and even pro-Trump does not disqualify them as jurors.

 

[Stacyhs]

You have said multiple things in multiple posts, and none of it is particularly coherent.

Then I suggest you take a reading comprehension course instead of lashing out in a knee jerk insult reaction.

If the recommendation has no power to affect what sentence Jackson imposes, then why does it even matter what the recommendation was? Why does it even matter if the recommendation is changed?

Again, you are not comprehending what I actually wrote:

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.

Notice that I said it was a recommendation. The judge uses it as a GUIDE but they are not bound by it. The DOJ has no legal power to tell the judge what sentence to impose nor do they have the power to change it except in very rare cases.

There also is very little the Justice Department can do to change a sentence after its imposition by a judge. Technically, the Justice Department could make a motion to re-sentence Stone, but such motions are rare, and almost never succeed, largely because the moving party must show not merely that the sentence was too high but that the judge made an "arithmetical, technical, or other clear error."

http://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_9ec11dcb41e4fa6e7af57bf3d7100801

The entire premise of having a recommendation is that it CAN affect the sentence a judge imposes. The judge is not bound by the recommendation, but that doesn't mean it has no effect. And that's the only justification for anyone getting upset over this as well

I didn't say a recommendation CAN'T AFFECT the sentence. I said the DOJ doesn't have the POWER to affect it. I don't think it's me who isn't understanding here.

Can the DOJ attempt to influence the judge? Yes. Which is exactly what Shea was trying to do. But power? No.

And now we get into the ad hominem. Why am I not surprised.

You shouldn't be surprised at all that I hold The Federalist in distrust.

Overall, we rate The Federalist a borderline Questionable and far Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion pseudoscience and three failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

You really need to pay better attention. The screenshot shows 24 lines of a spreadsheet, not 24 people. And not all of them match. You might be tempted to think that this means there's less than 24 matches out of 2000, but again, you need to pay better attention. This is merely the top of an alphabetical list. If you think that this list is going to have a bunch of matches at the top but then no more matches throughout the rest of it, well, that's a pretty remarkable claim. If alphabetical position of last names is uncorrelated with whether or not a name appears on both partitions (and that should be the default assumption unless demonstrated otherwise), then similar levels of correlation should be present throughout the rest of the list, which means that it's a hell of a lot more than 24 people appearing on both petitions.

I would suggest you need to pay better attention as you conveniently left out the rest of my post:

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.

Anyone can see that list only covered the A-AN surnames so it would be ridiculous to assume that I thought that was the entire list. And because it only covers A-AN it is useless as evidence that the majority were "partisan hacks". Why? Because we don't know what the rest of the list showed.

I have yet to see any evidence that there are any Republicans who signed the Barr letter. I don't discount the possibility, but so far none have been provided.

Perhaps that's because it's the far right that are trying to prove it's a partisan hack job by screaming they're all Democrats and searching through voter registrations and the Federal Elections Commission in that effort.

Nobody has shown the Republicans who signed the letter.

And certainly not Margot Cleveland. Do you think she didn't come across any Republicans while perusing the voter registration records? But publishing those wouldn't exactly help her accusation that they're all Dem. political hacks now, would it?

No, it wouldn't.

But that's not the timing that really matters. What matters (to the extent that it matters at all) is when the decision was made. A DOJ announcement before the Trump tweet would prove the decision was made before the tweet, but an announcement after the tweet doesn't prove the decision was made after the tweet. Do you have any actual evidence the decision was made after the tweet?

No, you don't.

As I said earlier, the tweet wasn't necessary. Trump had been publicly defending his old buddy from the time the investigation started right through the trial, the sentencing and after. He'd made his feelings very clear.

How is the decision of whether or not to prosecute less sacrosanct than sentencing recommendations? You have that completely backwards.

Once again, I never said anything about decisions on prosecuting. I do wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth.

Your assertion was " After all, Obama was vocal in his support for Hillary, and I'm sure Comey knew that too." My reply was:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
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.

Obama did not comment on Comey's investigation of HRC except to express his displeasure of Comey's public announcement of reopening the investigation just days before the election. That is hardly in the same league as what Trump did.

By your own admission, judges don't need to follow sentencing recommendations, they can easily discard them. If the prosecution gets the recommendation wrong, the judge has the power to remedy it. But if a prosecutor declines to prosecute when they should, a judge can do nothing to remedy that. That makes political interference with the decision to prosecute far more problematic than sentencing recommendations.

I agree...but your accusation that Obama interfered in Comey's decision to prosecute is false. Can you provide a single instance of Obama doing this during the investigation? He commented on the finding not to prosecute only AFTER the investigation was completed in July.

No, you can't.