Follow us on Twitter  

Poll

Where do you currently stand on the impeachment/removal from office of President Trump?

Against impeachment, and furthermore this is a witch hunt.
15 (16.7%)
Against impeachment, evidence evidence of wrongdoing is lacking
2 (2.2%)
Against impeachment, the wrongdoing is not worthy of impeachment
3 (3.3%)
For impeachment, but against removal (a rebuke of the presdients actions)
5 (5.6%)
For impeachment, for removal
59 (65.6%)
I can't decide. I will wait and see as inquiry proceeds.
5 (5.6%)
I haven't followed this closely enough to have an opinion.
1 (1.1%)

Total Members Voted: 90

Author Topic: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)  (Read 142740 times)

President Red and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2670 on: February 15, 2020, 03:40:13 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20697
  • Tommy Points: 2364
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Is this the AG trying to create some actual distance between his office and the POTUS?

Or is he really just pleading for it not to be in public?

He can just resign.  That works for me.

Sadly, not likely to happen.

Not likely to be fired by Trump either.   This whole "tat" between Barr and Trump is more and more looking like manufactured drama to try to cover all the disfunction now embroiling the DOJ.

I prefer this take:



Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2672 on: February 16, 2020, 04:35:30 PM »

Offline blink

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10538
  • Tommy Points: 745
And now this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/politics/michael-flynn-prosecutors-barr.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Has there ever been 1100 former DOJ employees who wanted the current DOJ to resign?  It sounds unique.  If Barr ends up to have done the things we think he has done, does he face any legal liability after he isn't Att Gen anymore?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/us/politics/barr-trump-justice-department.html?referringSource=articleShare


Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2673 on: February 16, 2020, 04:51:48 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
And now this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/politics/michael-flynn-prosecutors-barr.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Has there ever been 1100 former DOJ employees who wanted the current DOJ to resign?  It sounds unique.  If Barr ends up to have done the things we think he has done, does he face any legal liability after he isn't Att Gen anymore?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/us/politics/barr-trump-justice-department.html?referringSource=articleShare

What do you think he did that was illegal?

Certainly nothing in the Stone case.  An Attorney General always has the right to overrule his subordinates.  Here, looking at the sentencing guidelines and how they’re normally applied, prosecutors asked for about 50 months more than would typically be recommended.  The new sentencing memo doesn’t recommend a specific sentence, only noting that the first memo might be considered harsh.

I’ve worked for governors and Attorney Generals.  This doesn’t strike me as odd. 

The petition states:

Quote
Such behavior is a grave threat to the fair administration of justice. In this nation, we are all equal before the law. A person should not be given special treatment in a criminal prosecution because they are a close political ally of the President,” the online petition read.

Fair.  But what if somebody is being treated unusually harshly because they are an ally of the president?

That’s why my first reaction wasn’t outrage, it was to ask where this recommendation fit in terms of the sentencing guidelines.  It turns out it’s significantly higher.  Do we just ignore that?  Does “equal before the law” only matter if it’s contrary to the President’s wishes?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 05:00:32 PM by Roy H. »
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2674 on: February 16, 2020, 07:22:47 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41115
  • Tommy Points: 7996
Normal sentencing guidelines were 50 months or so more lenient but this case shouldn't fall under normal sentencing guidelines. Stone was actively breaking the law and failing to follow the judge's legal orders during the trial. There is nothing normal about that.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2675 on: February 16, 2020, 07:52:00 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Normal sentencing guidelines were 50 months or so more lenient but this case shouldn't fall under normal sentencing guidelines. Stone was actively breaking the law and failing to follow the judge's legal orders during the trial. There is nothing normal about that.

Judicial contempt is something totally different, that doesn’t necessarily factor into sentencing guidelines.  There are other remedies for that.

Was Stone even held in contempt or charged with new crimes?  He’s a first-time, non-violent offender.  His sentencing range should be at the low to mid-range of guidelines, not the upper end. 

I get the “screw Trump” mentality, but it’s important that even the lowest criminals be treated consistently and fairly.  Otherwise, we allow prosecutors with a grudge or a bias to seek out disproportionate justice related to certain people.

We had the same argument over the FBI cutting corners and lying on warrant applications.  We can’t overlook civil rights abuses just because they happen to people we dislike.

And the most frustrating part to me is that there’s really very little discussion in the MSM of whether the original sentencing recommendation was fair or justified.  Instead, the media pushes a biased narrative with no regard for actual justice.  I’m an attorney who is quite familiar with much of this, and I found it hard to find the actual truth of it.  What hope does the average viewer / reader have?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 08:04:22 PM by Roy H. »
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2676 on: February 16, 2020, 08:30:23 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41115
  • Tommy Points: 7996
Normal sentencing guidelines were 50 months or so more lenient but this case shouldn't fall under normal sentencing guidelines. Stone was actively breaking the law and failing to follow the judge's legal orders during the trial. There is nothing normal about that.

Judicial contempt is something totally different, that doesn’t necessarily factor into sentencing guidelines.  There are other remedies for that.

Was Stone even held in contempt or charged with new crimes?  He’s a first-time, non-violent offender.  His sentencing range should be at the low to mid-range of guidelines, not the upper end. 

I get the “screw Trump” mentality, but it’s important that even the lowest criminals be treated consistently and fairly.  Otherwise, we allow prosecutors with a grudge or a bias to seek out disproportionate justice related to certain people.

We had the same argument over the FBI cutting corners and lying on warrant applications.  We can’t overlook civil rights abuses just because they happen to people we dislike.

And the most frustrating part to me is that there’s really very little discussion in the MSM of whether the original sentencing recommendation was fair or justified.  Instead, the media pushes a biased narrative with no regard for actual justice.  I’m an attorney who is quite familiar with much of this, and I found it hard to find the actual truth of it.  What hope does the average viewer / reader have?
Wasn't everything he was doing to undermine the court proceedings in the sentencing recommendation? Shouldn't such conduct warrant sentencing at the top of the guidelines rather the bottom? I see no reason why the court should be lenient in sentencing for a first time offender when that offender showed such contempt and disdain for the orders of the court and the process in general.

If I am convicted of a crime and the sentencing guidelines are very wide, if during the trial I basically ignore the judge and tell him to eff off, I should in no way expect that judge to sentence me on the low end of the possible sentencing. Don't see why it should be any different for really anyone.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2677 on: February 16, 2020, 08:49:33 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Shouldn't such conduct warrant sentencing at the top of the guidelines rather the bottom?

No. Simply put, that’s not how it works.  Sentencing is based upon the severity of the crime and a person’s prior convictions for the most part.  There might be a slight enhancement for displays of contempt, but in general we’re talking about weeks and months, not several years.

And, there’s good reason for that.  It’s too easy for a judge to use “behavior during trial” as a fudge factor to screw certain defendants (historically poor and black ones).  Think of it like a college professor who makes “class participation” as 25% of your grade.  The less sentencing is based upon objective factors, the more it is just playing favorites.

Also, does it matter to you that the prosecutors apparently briefed DOJ on the sentence they were seeking, got approval, and then drastically increased it without telling anybody?
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2678 on: February 17, 2020, 01:25:40 PM »

Offline No Nickname

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 475
  • Tommy Points: 59
I don't think what Barr is doing with Stone is illegal.  It just smacks of favoritism.  I know some say that Stone is being treated overly harsh with the original recommendation "because of a screw Trump mentality."  But that recommendation was made by DOJ lawyers.  Not the judge. Not "the people." And not the MSM.  It was the prosecutors on the case.

If anything Barr's actions just crush any faith in the impartiality of his position.  Like Trump's supposed urge to fight corruption, the only example we can see is one focused in one country (Ukraine) on one person (Biden) who just so happens to be a political adversary.

Similarly here with Barr/Stone, there are hundreds of thousands of pending court cases in this country right now.  But the only one that Barr is meddling with is for one person (Stone, but maybe also Flynn we're now hearing) who just so happens to be a friend (or friends) of Trump.

Barr shouldn't resign because he's broken a law (he hasn't).  He should resign because the country has lost faith in the job he was hired to do.  He has not proven to be impartial.  He's just shown that he runs the DOJ like it's the Trump Family Law Practice.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2679 on: February 17, 2020, 01:46:20 PM »

Offline Amonkey

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Tommy Points: 161
I don't think what Barr is doing with Stone is illegal.  It just smacks of favoritism.  I know some say that Stone is being treated overly harsh with the original recommendation "because of a screw Trump mentality."  But that recommendation was made by DOJ lawyers.  Not the judge. Not "the people." And not the MSM.  It was the prosecutors on the case.

If anything Barr's actions just crush any faith in the impartiality of his position.  Like Trump's supposed urge to fight corruption, the only example we can see is one focused in one country (Ukraine) on one person (Biden) who just so happens to be a political adversary.

Similarly here with Barr/Stone, there are hundreds of thousands of pending court cases in this country right now.  But the only one that Barr is meddling with is for one person (Stone, but maybe also Flynn we're now hearing) who just so happens to be a friend (or friends) of Trump.

Barr shouldn't resign because he's broken a law (he hasn't).  He should resign because the country has lost faith in the job he was hired to do.  He has not proven to be impartial.  He's just shown that he runs the DOJ like it's the Trump Family Law Practice.

That is very well explained. Officials have resigned for less things. An official doesn't have to do something illegal but if the perception is tainted, then it could lead to the person resigning/fired and that is a method of ensuring that our government officials are being accountable. Was it General Petreaus that resigned because he said some things about Obama? In this case, Barr's perception of being impartial has been tainted for quite some time and typically, that would result in a resignation.
Baby Jesus!

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2680 on: February 17, 2020, 03:04:30 PM »

Offline No Nickname

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 475
  • Tommy Points: 59
I don't think what Barr is doing with Stone is illegal.  It just smacks of favoritism.  I know some say that Stone is being treated overly harsh with the original recommendation "because of a screw Trump mentality."  But that recommendation was made by DOJ lawyers.  Not the judge. Not "the people." And not the MSM.  It was the prosecutors on the case.

If anything Barr's actions just crush any faith in the impartiality of his position.  Like Trump's supposed urge to fight corruption, the only example we can see is one focused in one country (Ukraine) on one person (Biden) who just so happens to be a political adversary.

Similarly here with Barr/Stone, there are hundreds of thousands of pending court cases in this country right now.  But the only one that Barr is meddling with is for one person (Stone, but maybe also Flynn we're now hearing) who just so happens to be a friend (or friends) of Trump.

Barr shouldn't resign because he's broken a law (he hasn't).  He should resign because the country has lost faith in the job he was hired to do.  He has not proven to be impartial.  He's just shown that he runs the DOJ like it's the Trump Family Law Practice.

That is very well explained. Officials have resigned for less things. An official doesn't have to do something illegal but if the perception is tainted, then it could lead to the person resigning/fired and that is a method of ensuring that our government officials are being accountable. Was it General Petreaus that resigned because he said some things about Obama? In this case, Barr's perception of being impartial has been tainted for quite some time and typically, that would result in a resignation.

Yes, but the norms of our government have been challenged moreso in the Trump administration than ever before.  If something isn't a law (or even if it is) the new mentality of the government is to dig your heels in and wait to see if you're forced out.

You're even seeing that on the left.  While Al Franken resigned as opposed to fighting the accusations against him, Virginia Governor Northam refused to resign after photos of him in blackface in college emerged.  That was quite unusual with respect to norms of the past.

So I think you'll see Barr remain unless a scandal arises that causes even the Republicans in Congress to criticize him.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2681 on: February 17, 2020, 04:02:26 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18344
  • Tommy Points: 1239
No way should Roger Stone have gotten more time than a raper or the like.  I am fine with Stone doing the full time if they do the same to Adam Schiff for his lies to Congress.  He knew he whistleblower and thus lied to Congress, let's make justice equal .

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2682 on: February 17, 2020, 07:52:41 PM »

Offline No Nickname

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 475
  • Tommy Points: 59
No way should Roger Stone have gotten more time than a raper or the like.  I am fine with Stone doing the full time if they do the same to Adam Schiff for his lies to Congress.  He knew he whistleblower and thus lied to Congress, let's make justice equal .

If you have an issue with the sentencing guidelines for Stone’s felony convictions then you need to focus your complaint on the people who created those sentencing regulations years ago.

Not the prosecutors who are simply making recommendations that actually fall within those guidelines.

Geez, it’s like yelling at the cop who gives you a ticket for underage drinking at age 18 and screaming “I’m old enough to die for my country in battle so I should be allowed to have a beer!”  What’s the cop have to do with that law?



Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2683 on: February 17, 2020, 09:19:01 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20697
  • Tommy Points: 2364
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
No way should Roger Stone have gotten more time than a raper or the like.  I am fine with Stone doing the full time if they do the same to Adam Schiff for his lies to Congress.  He knew he whistleblower and thus lied to Congress, let's make justice equal .

Making justice equal requires both people to have been, y'know, convicted of the same crimes. Or charged with them. Or with anything. Or done something chargeable. Details.



National association of federal judges calls emergency meeting regarding DoJ's interference in Trump cronies' felony cases.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/17/roger-stone-sentence-judges-worried-political-interference/4788155002/

Seems normal.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2684 on: February 18, 2020, 10:36:21 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4718
  • Tommy Points: 787
Quote
Shouldn't such conduct warrant sentencing at the top of the guidelines rather the bottom?

No. Simply put, that’s not how it works.  Sentencing is based upon the severity of the crime and a person’s prior convictions for the most part.  There might be a slight enhancement for displays of contempt, but in general we’re talking about weeks and months, not several years.


My understanding is that during-case factors such as attempts to influence witnesses, jury or court officials is routinely taken into consideration with sentencing recommendations.   Goes to credibility of any statements of contrition.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.