ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 10 of 33
« First < 678910 1112131420 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Stone:7-9 years Fed Prosecuters ask
F150 06:03 PM 02-10-2020

BREAKING: Federal prosecutors ask judge to sentence Trump confidant Roger Stone to serve between 7 and 9 years in prison.
-@AP

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) February 10, 2020



Get the feeling Trump needs to avoid getting anywhere near this.
[Reply]
banyon 04:10 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
But that is a subjective determination. To my knowledge no one was physically harmed or threatened. No property damage etc. The substantially interferes in the administration of justice is about as subjective as you can get. Your back to a very broad discretion and not a absolute guideline. The 7-9 seems very excessive.

The 15-21 is the mandated guideline and the prosecutor can ask for more if factors exist. But the DOJ can oversee and make sure that recommendation is not being swayed by improper opinion or prejudice. Obviously DOJ disagreed. The DOJ is not saying to not follow the guidelines just disagreeing on the presence of factors increasing the sentence.
As is true for most things in Federal Criminal Law, there are definitions for everything, so "substantial interference in the administration of justice" has been defined by the US Sentencing Commission:

"Substantial interference with the administration of justice" includes a premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."

https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015...ive/1994-partj
[Reply]
banyon 04:11 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
banyon is now virtue signaling about who is classy on a rough and tumble forum.

He is soooooo superior. :-)
I thought you were supposed to be fake ignoring me, but you keep bringing me up. :-)
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 04:13 PM 02-11-2020
And another one's gone

The Mueller team self-purge continues -

Adam Jed withdraws from the Roger Stone case.

He called himself "Aaron C. Jed" in the filing ��*♂️ pic.twitter.com/L9fSmMfTkv

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) February 11, 2020

[Reply]
Donger 04:14 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
From the Washington Post:



So it is not a typical guideline sentencing. The Special Prosecutors wanted to greatly exceed the 15-21 months that is the guideline. Maybe there are factors to exceed the 15-21 months but it is not a forced guideline it was done by an subjective decision that factors exist to increase the guideline. I am sticking to the it seems excessive.
Did you miss this part?

The range ratchets up steeply, potentially to more than seven years in prison, if the offense involves other factors such as threatening physical injury or property damage to a witness; substantially interfering with the administration of justice; or the willful obstruction of justice. Each was cited by prosecutors.
[Reply]
patteeu 04:19 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Did you miss this part?

The range ratchets up steeply, potentially to more than seven years in prison, if the offense involves other factors such as threatening physical injury or property damage to a witness; substantially interfering with the administration of justice; or the willful obstruction of justice. Each was cited by prosecutors.
Did you miss the part where he explains his position making it clear that he didn't miss this part?
[Reply]
Shields68 04:19 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
As is true for most things in Federal Criminal Law, there are definitions for everything, so "substantial interference in the administration of justice" has been defined by the US Sentencing Commission:

"Substantial interference with the administration of justice" includes a premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."

https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015...ive/1994-partj
Back to the seems excessive and arbitrary.
[Reply]
patteeu 04:19 PM 02-11-2020

AG Barr needs to re-assign every single ex Special Counsel prosecutor from any cases they worked on under Mueller and bring in new teams of straight shooters, ASAP. Plenty of other cases they can work on until/if misconduct is proven, but too many “errors” that keep stacking up https://t.co/RQAlzCjwXF

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) September 3, 2019


One of the guys who just resigned from the Stone case was the lead prosecutor in this case, apparently.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 04:21 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
And another one's gone

So he lied.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 04:21 PM 02-11-2020
Stone needs his Sidney Powell now.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 04:22 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Back to the seems excessive and arbitrary.
The entire case from the get-go was that. Seems Banyon loves abusive prosecutors. I bet he has a photo of Andrew Weissman in his wallet.
[Reply]
Shields68 04:22 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Did you miss this part?

The range ratchets up steeply, potentially to more than seven years in prison, if the offense involves other factors such as threatening physical injury or property damage to a witness; substantially interfering with the administration of justice; or the willful obstruction of justice. Each was cited by prosecutors.
I do not disagree that they can think there are factors present that allow them to ask for the upper range of a sentence. I also agree with the DOJ position that this is excessive and to scale it back.

Might agree with a 7-9 years if Stone actually covered up a actual crime.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 04:25 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by :
Mueller Prosecutors May Have Lied To DOJ About Stone Prison Sentence Recommendation

...Sources told The Federalist that Timothy Shea, who was recently appointed to take over as the top federal prosecutor in D.C. earlier this month, was bullied into agreeing to the sentence recommendation by Adam Jed and Aaron Zelinsky, who were originally tapped by Mueller to investigate whether Donald Trump treasonously colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton...

...Shea’s acquiescence to the demand by the disgruntled former Mueller operatives raised questions about whether Shea was operationally in control of the D.C. prosecutor’s office, or whether he had effectively outsourced major decisions in high-profile cases to Mueller’s former deputies....
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/11...ecommendation/


If that turns out to be true (and if "bully" really means what it used to mean, and not what it's been warped into meaning), Shea needs to go.
[Reply]
Donger 04:32 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
I do not disagree that they can think there are factors present that allow them to ask for the upper range of a sentence. I also agree with the DOJ position that this is excessive and to scale it back.

Might agree with a 7-9 years if Stone actually covered up a actual crime.
So you think that each was not cited by the prosecutors?
[Reply]
Shields68 04:33 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
As is true for most things in Federal Criminal Law, there are definitions for everything, so "substantial interference in the administration of justice" has been defined by the US Sentencing Commission:

"Substantial interference with the administration of justice" includes a premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."

https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015...ive/1994-partj
Guess if the federalist is correct the lengthy sentence request was due to a threat made on someone who said he never felt threatened by Stone. That makes it a lot less arbitrary and subjective.
[Reply]
banyon 04:36 PM 02-11-2020
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Guess if the federalist is correct the lengthy sentence request was due to a threat made on someone who said he never felt threatened by Stone. That makes it a lot less arbitrary and subjective.
Making a threat and not having it taken seriously doesn't make the conduct any better.

I had a case with a guy who was the target of a murder conspiracy one time and I remember the Defense attorney asking him if he had been aware he was to be killed and he said he was not. As I pointed out to the jury, it would have been a pretty bad murder plan if they told him about it ahead of time. It didn't make that any less of a crime either.
[Reply]
Page 10 of 33
« First < 678910 1112131420 > Last »
Up