“The inflated ego of the tyrant is a curse to himself and his world – no matter how his affairs may prosper. Self-terrorized, fear-haunted, alert at every hand to meet and battle back the anticipated aggressions of his environment, which are primarily the reflections of the uncontrollable impulses to acquisition within himself. The giant of self-achieved independence is the world’s messenger of disaster, even though, in his mind, he may entertain himself with humane intentions.” ― Joseph Campbell "Tyranny is a habit. It can and does eventually develop into a disease. I believe that the best of men may grow coarse, degrade to the level of a beast by sheer force of habit. Blood and power intoxicate one, they develop callousness and lust. The greatest perversions grow finally acceptable and even delicious to mind and heart. The man and the citizen perish in the tyrant for ever and the return to human dignity, remorse and spiritual rebirth becomes scarcely possible to him. Besides, the example and mere possibility of arbitrary power are contagious; they are indeed a great temptation. A society which regards such things calmly is already corrupt at the roots.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead
That is correct. Since the acquittal he has gone full despot. He's definitely ratcheted up another level. The damage will not be undone even if he loses. By the way, if he loses, you know he isn't going to leave the white house without a fight.
No Republican or Trump supported can ever say they believe in the "Rule of Law" After this. They cannot even pretend to Rocket River
From what I've seen, it'll be a focus on these 4 prosecutors, their ties to Mueller, and how they may have lied to their own bosses about the recommendation they were going to file so they could slip in their own partisan revenge. I can see the possibility they did lie to their bosses to make this happen. Probably there was already pressure on them to go easy on Stone and they may have thought the only way to maintain their independence is to obscure their intentions. But I guess it's in the eye of the beholder which party is being partisan. I went and found Jeff Sessions' memo on sentencing policy where he instructed that US Attorneys should pursue the most serious charges and apply the full sentencing guidelines. Sessions appealed to the long-established idea that justice is rendered in a battle between a vigorous prosecution and a vigorous defense. Moreover, as the memo says, the consistent application of this principle is vital for the fairness and reputation of the justice system. I don't know if Barr did anything to countermand it, but it's still on the DOJ website so I don't think so. The letter describes how prosecutors should in most cases recommend a sentence within the advisory guideline range. It allows a variance from the guideline only with supervisory approval and with the reasoning documented in the file. The memo doesn't seem to contemplate a situation where the supervisors would approve a variance without any variance being requested by the prosecutors. According to the DOJ's revised recommendation, this variance consists of: 1. The offense level (which is the basis for the guideline) was enhanced from 21 to 29 because for threatening a witness with physical injury. While maybe technically applicable, that's more appropriate to violent crimes than obstruction. The victim of the threat of physical violence did not believe the threat was genuine, so while the enhancement was technically applicable, it's excessive. 2. Whatever the guidelines say, the court's obligation is to impose a sentence that is sufficient no greater than necessary. 3. Another 2-degree enhancement for obstruction of justice is redundant. 4. Other similar but lighter cases resulted in lighter sentences -- Libby (13 months), Manafort (13), Lavelle (6), Hansen (12), Solofa (35). 5. Consider his age, health, and lack of criminal history. I'll leave it to the law-talking guys to decide how much merit any of those arguments hold. I just wanted to point out the philosophical contradiction between this revised sentencing recommendation and the memo on sentencing that is supposed to govern DOJ prosecutions. Isn't it the defense lawyers' job to make these arguments? If even the Democratic House was too afraid to bring an impeachment despite clear evidence of serious wrongdoing, I doubt Trump would be hesitant to intercede in this case. It could be an argument to slow walk impeachment, but not to avoid it altogether.
Gee lisa, ya think? Narrator: "If lisa only knew of a government body that was empowered to investigate this, and act as a check against executive overreach or abuse. She could even call in the United States Senate..."
If she was brought in for confirmation hearings she would have undoubtedly been asked questions about the roger stone sentencing scandal. treasure secry munchkin avoided answering questions why her nomination was pulled, telling senators "we don't comment on nominations as a matter of policy when nominations are withdrawn" via (@SalehaMohsin) White House Scraps New Job for DOJ Lawyer Who Oversaw Stone Case https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ls-nomination-of-lawyer-for-top-treasury-post
Has there been any of the 4 of us right leaning folks that have posted here yet? I quickly scanned through and didn't see one so I thought I'd chime in: Yes...this is some F**'d up ****. That dude acted totally inappropriate during the trial. He tampered with witnesses and was indignant to the judge and the whole trial. Even Bannon had to turn his back on him. He doesn't deserve a pardon. He deserves a tanning bed that goes to 11. Let him fry. The only thing I can think of that would hold any interested from DOJ is the circumstances surrounding the investigation that led to him lying. I'm wondering if his criminal act happened after one of the faulty renewals, which might taint the case. Just spitballing, because I agree, it's bullshish. Maybe one of you lawyers can answer the question about the case being tainted because of the faulty FISA renewals. People get off in real life over investigative misteps. But then, he'd just get off not a recommendation for a reduced sentence, right?
Can't tell you about the FISA stuff. But, to your point, it'd be the basis for an appeal of the conviction and not really relevant to the sentencing. As for appeals, I'm wondering if the interference could now be a basis for appeal. If the judge gives him anything longer than 3-4 years, could they argue the judge's decision was tainted by a perceived need to resist the president's meddling resulting in a harsher than necessary sentence?
Attorney General William Barr to testify before House Judiciary Committee The arrangement comes as Democrats have demanded answers about Barr's apparent intervention in the sentencing of Roger Stone. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...stify-before-house-judiciary-committee-114601
"Rule of law" is a fantasy for those who do not hold much power -- that's how it seems through most of human history. Sometimes I think the modern GOP gets that (and the awful punchline of Orwell's 1984) better than anyone else in the game. Ugly, ugly stuff.
LOL, in what, 5 weeks? Needs things to cool off, and so he can develop his excuses. And... in 5 weeks, there will be new scandals to hide behind.
The Stone case is a microcosm of the unchecked power of federal prosecutors. Starting with the SWAT team raid of his house that they tipped off to CNN so it could be filmed. Mueller's team (really Weissman, Mueller was Mr. Magoo) loathed Trump and took it out on Stone when they couldn't get Trump on anything. Federal prosecutors are terrifying. They should all be viewed with contempt and suspicion by default until proven otherwise.
mr. tin foil hat returns... and where did you find out the FBI tipped off CNN? How CNN captured video of the Roger Stone raid https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/roger-stone-raid/index.html
