Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Resigning in protest of political interference in a criminal justice matter. I could not be prouder of the integrity of these persons.
Sure. Alternatively they may have a career, a lucrative career as talking heads, authors, or partners at law firms.They may not have to wait too long. I'd think if Trump loses the general the new democrat elected president may ask them to return hopefully.
Trump had AG Barr send a letter asking for a reduced sentence.What was the political interference?
"Asking" is a rather gentle euphemism. When my boss asks me to do something work related it is a directive.Trump had AG Barr send a letter asking for a reduced sentence.
Can you provide a link for this?Trump had AG Barr send a letter asking for a reduced sentence.
So again, I haven't seen a quote of where Trump tells Barr to reduce the sentence. Can you link that for me?"Asking" is a rather gentle euphemism. When my boss asks me to do something work related it is a directive.
Trump told the DOJ to let his buddy off.Can you provide a link for this?
I know Barr and the DOJ suggested a reduced sentence to one that was overboard to begin with. But where is this politically motivated? If anything the initial sentence recommendation is the only thing politically motivated I see.
Yeah, I'm asking for a link to where you saw this...Trump told the DOJ to let his buddy off.
I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than that.
Ahh.... I see you.So again, I haven't seen a quote of where Trump tells Barr to reduce the sentence. Can you link that for me?
Read the Mueller report where there are multiple instances of Trump trying to fire and limit Mueller and constantly pinging Sessions and McGahn and others to do that.So again, I haven't seen a quote of where Trump tells Barr to reduce the sentence. Can you link that for me?
Hey, I'm talking to forum that refuses to connect dots in other instances. I just want the case laid out for me.Ahh.... I see you.
So nothing on this case? I think we need a Horowitz level investigation.Read the Mueller report where there are multiple instances of Trump trying to fire and limit Mueller and constantly pinging Sessions and McGahn and others to do that.
A seemingly reasonable request, on its face. Good for you, prepared to be all reasonable.Hey, I'm talking to forum that refuses to connect dots in other instances. I just want the case laid out for me.
No objection there. I'd think it's almost certain to happen. Hearings are almost a certainty too and more court battles. But this is basically the same as what was attempted with Mueller - who listed crimes - only done with his successors.So nothing on this case? I think we need a Horowitz level investigation.
And a Horowitz style investigation would say the DOJ acted within it's limits. Wouldn't look into any political bias. And say nothing wrong was done.No objection there. I'd think it's almost certain to happen. Hearings are almost a certainty too and more court battles. But this is basically the same as what was attempted with Mueller - which lists crimes - only done with his successors.
Because Obama and Lynch were found not to have? Yeah, no. This ain't that.And a Horowitz style investigation would say the DOJ acted within it's limits. Wouldn't look into any political bias. And say nothing wrong was done.
Sorry I got into the details of what's happening.Resigning in protest of political interference in a criminal justice matter. I could not be prouder of the integrity of these persons.
It took me awhile -- I did a huge amount of research, called in favors, hacked into a few mainframes and possibly even committed some light espionage -- but I have managed to track down a top-secret communication where Trump admits he directed Barr to intervene in the case.Yeah, I'm asking for a link to where you saw this...
Also wasn’t a letter. It was a filing to the court, informing it that the original sentence recommendation was counter to DOJ policy."Asking" is a rather gentle euphemism. When my boss asks me to do something work related it is a directive.
I doubt it was premeditated. My guess is that, yeah, they wanted her out, but they just didn’t think of the (obvious in hindsight) possibility that she would be questioned about it in her confirmation hearing.It sounds like they tricked Liu into giving up her seat to get the treasury job, then rescinded the offer when she gave up her U.S. attorney gig. Life comes at you fast.
Not the exact same thing, but back in grad school they made us take a course on business ethics, and something the professor told us has always stuck with me. He said -- with full recognition that his advice was infused with cynicism -- that if you ever work for a company and discover wrongdoing, the smartest thing you can do for your own self-preservation is to immediately and quietly resign. His point being that involving yourself in corruption or wrongdoing in any fashion whatsoever -- either by remaining with the company and becoming complicit or by acting as a whistleblower -- will almost invariably be to your detriment.Resigning in protest of political interference in a criminal justice matter. I could not be prouder of the integrity of these persons.
They made their decision before this tweet.It took me awhile -- I did a huge amount of research, called in favors, hacked into a few mainframes and possibly even committed some light espionage -- but I have managed to track down a top-secret communication where Trump admits he directed Barr to intervene in the case.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump didn't discuss it with Barr. Barr could very well have decided to act in Trump’s interest while maintaining plausible deniability. Doesn’t really render the behavior any less scandalous. But this is the Trump administration, scandalous doesn’t really move the needle anymore.So nothing on this case? I think we need a Horowitz level investigation.
Trump probably just grumbled, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent sentencing document?" and Barr knew exactly what to do.It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump didn't discuss it with Barr. Barr could very well have decided to act in Trump’s interest while maintaining plausible deniability. Doesn’t really render the behavior any less scandalous. But this is the Trump administration, scandalous doesn’t really move the needle anymore.
In college I went out with a girl who was fascinated by this phrase. She wondered whether anybody had literally screamed "bloody murder". She took it upon herself to do so whenever very inebriated and then would fall out laughing, every time. She use to fire my imagination.This is just another example of how many principles of our government are founded on norms, not laws. Because the President is the chief Executive and DOJ is an executive branch. Nevertheless, at least in my lifetime, it was a core assumption among both parties that the President needed to avoid conflicts of interest when directing DOJ policy.
I hate to play the what if Obama/Clinton game, but I challenge anyone asserting this is no big deal to publicly say that he or she would say the same thing if the allegation were that Hillary Clinton’s AG (let’s say Jennifer Granholm) intervened in the sentencing of, say, Sidney Blumenthal. You know you would be screaming bloody murder.
Damn. That's harsh if true. She got played.It sounds like they tricked Liu into giving up her seat to get the treasury job, then rescinded the offer when she gave up her U.S. attorney gig. Life comes at you fast.
These four prosecutors ARE the political interference.Resigning in protest of political interference in a criminal justice matter. I could not be prouder of the integrity of these persons.
Exorbitant sentencing recommendations outside of DOJ guidance and in contrast with what they represented to DOJ management.What was the political interference?
They know they will be “taken care of”Has to be difficult to give up your current livelihood to stand for principle. I'm not saying they have given up their ability to support themselves, just the avenue through which they have been doing so. Now they are on an uncertain path and with, presumptively, a few powerful enemies. Of course they now also have new friends and supporters. I wish them well. Proud of my ex-avocation.
Where are you getting this? It’s within the sentencing guidelines.outside of DOJ guidance
Also wasn’t a letter. It was a filing to the court, informing it that the original sentence recommendation was counter to DOJ policy.
Which I suppose a lot of the defense bar is now going to cite when the DOJ recommends a sentence for their clients that is right out of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Yes, thanks for pointing out my plagiarism.You've probably already seen this but Popehat tweeted this last night -
"Oh hai AUSAs on all my cases. I sure hope you like that Stone amended memorandum. Because you're going to be seeing it cited a whole lot in my papers."
I am reminded of Mr. Miyaga's first meeting with the head of Cobra Kai. "I'm afraid facts mixed up".Exorbitant sentencing recommendations outside of DOJ guidance and in contrast with what they represented to DOJ management.
Who has this in their memory banks to break out on such occasions? You are a renaissance man of varied and eclectic tastes.Pardon me, I couldn't help but overhear...
I do enjoy a good sea lion joke.Who has this in their memory banks to break out on such occasions? You are a renaissance man of varied and eclectic tastes.
Also: sea lions.I think the moral of this story is that therapy dogs are nothing but trouble.
Wait, what? Career civil servants with years of work in federal courts are the political interference, but the DOJ brass (all political appointees) are not? That's your claim?These four prosecutors ARE the political interference.