Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
squistion

AG William Barr Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think you’re just lining up with my point these are career line prosecutors. Thanks for the discussion.

This was not his finest hour. But, sooner or later, defending Donald Trump makes you look bad because of the sheer amount of lunacy he voices every day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

For goodness’ sake. Former federal prosecutors who believe that Trump is inappropriately interfering in DOJ matters and that Barr is allowing it to happen are obviously going to be anti-Trump and anti-Barr for that very reason. That’s not news.

The news here is that so many former federal prosecutors believe that Trump is inappropriately interfering in DOJ matters and that Barr is allowing it to happen.

meh. There’s 8 billion people on Earth. Some are bound to be upset

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jackstraw said:

If you've got a problem with Trump, how can you possibly make a case against Trump?  

Only people that love and support him can make a case against Trump. 

But if you make a case against Trump, do you really love and support him? 

What, Wait, I saw this on Star Trek with Harcourt Fenton Mudd.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skoo said:

All those 4-star generals calling Trump out are probably secretly Democrats too.

Putin has pictures of the generals with trees erotically squirting sap on them.

Edited by Sheriff Bart
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Skoo said:

All those 4-star generals calling Trump out are probably secretly Democrats too.

Military types are notorious liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Military types are notorious liberals.

Generals are typically bad at politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible how the concerns of judges, prosecutors and generals are being flat out dismissed by supposed conservatives. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Incredible how the concerns of judges, prosecutors and generals are being flat out dismissed by supposed conservatives. 

Just imagine if it was Obama instead of Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Just imagine if it was Obama instead of Trump.

insert this for 150 different other items, situations, circumstances....it doesn't matter.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Just imagine if it was Obama instead of Trump.

And you guys would be defending Obama 24/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Generals are typically bad at politics

Ike Eisenhower might say otherwise and Jim Mattis was easily the most liked, respected member in Trump’s Administration to date. HR McMaster & Jack Kelly also likely would have kept Trump from being impeached too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ike Eisenhower might say otherwise and Jim Mattis was easily the most liked, respected member in Trump’s Administration to date. HR McMaster & Jack Kelly also likely would have kept Trump from being impeached too.

It's kind of an inside joke in the military. Sure there have been Generals who have succeeded in politics. The dig is these guys spend 25-30 years playing by one set of rules and are slower to adjust to the political environment.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 11:12 AM, Sam Quentin said:

Not planned....at all 

so we can’t even have a disagreement on whether 7 years or 4 years is an appropriate recommendation without Immediately going nuclear? 
 

This is insane.

Please feel free to explain to us in depth which particular factors per the federal sentencing guidelines call for 4 years instead of 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Incredible how the concerns of judges, prosecutors and generals are being flat out dismissed by supposed conservatives. 

Incredible how two decades of blatant malfeasance by the DOJ is basically ignored by uniparty until you state that one of the enemies of uniparty should get a not quite so harsh sentence.....

Edited by Rove!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barr threatening to resign over Trump’s tweets? Serious or just doubling down on the perception there was no collusion with Trump?

...or fake news.

Edited by Phil Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Barr threatening to resign over Trump’s tweets? Serious or just doubling down on the perception there was no collusion with Trump?

If you don’t stop live-tweeting my corrupt actions, I’m going to quit. Trump reportedly gives indirect directions like a mobster but can’t read between the lines of why Barr wants him to stop Tweeting about criminal cases.

And the answer is no, he’s not serious. He knows he’s not going to stop. If he was serious he would have quit already. Trump better hope he doesn’t lose Barr because he’s so much better at corruption than his normal crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Barr threatening to resign over Trump’s tweets? Serious or just doubling down on the perception there was no collusion with Trump?

...or fake news.

Pure gaslighting put out by Barr himself or his deputies IMO. This is a guy when asked about his reputation said everyone dies and all is forgotten one day anyway. He’s shameless.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Barr threatening to resign over Trump’s tweets? Serious or just doubling down on the perception there was no collusion with Trump?

...or fake news.

“Flood the zone with ####.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rove! said:

Incredible how two decades of blatant malfeasance by the DOJ is basically ignored by uniparty until you state that one of the enemies of uniparty should get a not quite so harsh sentence.....

Intervening for one of the President’s friends and political associates is hardly the way to show one is genuinely concerned about reforming the DOJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Intervening for one of the President’s friends and political associates is hardly the way to show one is genuinely concerned about reforming the DOJ.

So he should not intervene if he felt the sentencing reco was ridiculous? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

So he should not intervene if he felt the sentencing reco was ridiculous? 

 

How many other cases has the AG intervened on sentencing? Honest question, I don’t know. If this is the only time, the no he should not.

Also this is a bit off topic from my original point of the bizarro world we have where many Republicans are flat out dismissing the concerns of a large amount of federal prosecutors, DOJ officials and generals. It’s concerning to me that the Republican Party seems to be beholden to one person more than any institution or ideal that it spent decades building around. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

How many other cases has the AG intervened on sentencing? Honest question, I don’t know. If this is the only time, the no he should not.

How many times has he thought sentencing reco was extreme? Thats kind of important. And is the sentencing reco extreme is still the most important question. 

It isnt like attorneys general(atty generals?) have never trumped prosecutors. Hsbc says thanks Holder.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, parasaurolophus said:

How many times has he thought sentencing reco was extreme? Thats kind of important. And is the sentencing reco extreme is still the most important question. 

It isnt like attorneys general(atty generals?) have never trumped prosecutors. Hsbc says thanks Holder.

There is nothing extreme about the recommendation. I don’t know if you want to go through it but the enhancements are normal and appropriate. The extreme is Stone’s own conduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Phil Elliott said:

Barr threatening to resign over Trump’s tweets? Serious or just doubling down on the perception there was no collusion with Trump?

...or fake news.

Well they listed sources close to the situation!! It couldn't possibly be fake news. That is hard hitting evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

For goodness’ sake. Former federal prosecutors who believe that Trump is inappropriately interfering in DOJ matters and that Barr is allowing it to happen are obviously going to be anti-Trump and anti-Barr for that very reason. That’s not news.

The news here is that so many former federal prosecutors believe that Trump is inappropriately interfering in DOJ matters and that Barr is allowing it to happen.

It's so tiresome to see Trump defenders dissect and dismiss any concrete piece of information with some lazy, baseless version of "oh, it's just anti-Trumpers trying to get him." 

Edited by Captain Cranks
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I can't believe the guy who ignored a gag order and posted a picture of his judge in crosshairs got a harsh sentence!"

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

How many times has he thought sentencing reco was extreme? Thats kind of important. And is the sentencing reco extreme is still the most important question. 

It isnt like attorneys general(atty generals?) have never trumped prosecutors. Hsbc says thanks Holder.

 

 

1. No, it’s not extreme as it’s within the guidelines. Requesting an upward deviation would have been arguably “extreme” though it would have been totally ethical if the prosecutor thought it was warranted due to certain statutory aggravators.

2. I have been a part of hundreds of sentencings in state and federal courts. I have never seen or heard from an AG usurping the sentencing recommendation of an assigned prosecutor. 

Edited by Zow
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like those who in the hopes of fooling themselves need to try to fool others as well.  They are not fooling either, not really.  They know.  Someday, the day they can no longer maintain their insincere constructs, their next mission in self deception will be to try to structure a belief that they never really took the positions they are now taking, not really.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I like those who in the hopes of fooling themselves need to try to fool others as well.  They are not fooling either, not really.  They know.  Someday, the day they can no longer maintain their insincere constructs, their next mission in self deception will be to try to structure a belief that they never really took the positions they are now taking, not really.

I don't think they're aware that they're fooling themselves.  When the tables turn and they have to reap what they sow, they'll cry foul as though they weren't the ones to set the precedent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad theer are not sufficient persons of honor to have burned down the party rather than to have kowtowed to this puerile infant.  At least if you burn it down there is hope that a phoenix can rise from the ashes.   Nothing arises form a dung heap except maggots and flies.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Captain Cranks said:

I don't think they're aware that they're fooling themselves.  When the tables turn and they have to reap what they sow, they'll cry foul as though they weren't the ones to set the precedent.  

They know.  Deep within they know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

They know.  Deep within they know.

Perhaps, but that knowledge has long been buried beneath confirmation bias and tribalism.  I don't imagine it's coming to the surface anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

Perhaps, but that knowledge has long been buried beneath confirmation bias and tribalism.  I don't imagine it's coming to the surface anytime soon.

Probably not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

How many times has he thought sentencing reco was extreme? Thats kind of important. And is the sentencing reco extreme is still the most important question. 

It isnt like attorneys general(atty generals?) have never trumped prosecutors. Hsbc says thanks Holder.

 

 

From all accounts the sentence was within the guidelines and Stone was far from a cooperative, apologetic defendant. My analogy would be, the assistant principal’s son gets a detention from a teacher for X. The assistant principal steps in and says “that’s too extreme of a punishment for X. We are just going to let my son off with a warning.” That’s fine if the AP does this regularly for other students who get in trouble for X. If this is the only time the AP has stepped in for a student doing X then it’s wildly inappropriate and would piss off all the teachers, students and parents.

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Probably just a nutty coincidence.

That makes sense because every completely bonkers statement or situation in this administration is either "a joke" or "a coincidence". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

That makes sense because every completely bonkers statement or situation in this administration is either "a joke" or "a coincidence". 

Nutty, right.  The odds against must be astronomical, like me obtaining the Mila Kunis/Natalie Portman three way catered by Giada De Laurentiis.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Phil Elliott said:

Barr threatening to resign over Trump’s tweets? Serious or just doubling down on the perception there was no collusion with Trump?

...or fake news.

I mean if CNN reported it, it can't be fake news.  

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

They know.  Deep within they know.

Oh no doubt.

It's just a game at this point for many, unfortunately.

"I don't care how my team does it, as long as they win I'm happy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zow said:

1. No, it’s not extreme as it’s within the guidelines. Requesting an upward deviation would have been arguably “extreme” though it would have been totally ethical if the prosecutor thought it was warranted due to certain statutory aggravators.

2. I have been a part of hundreds of sentencings in state and federal courts. I have never seen or heard from an AG usurping the sentencing recommendation of an assigned prosecutor. 

1. Plenty of sentences can be within the guidelines and still be extreme. I know you know this. Its why when three 19 year old black guys steal a car, send their buddies a text that they are planning it, send a text that they did it, drive over 15 lawns, hit three mailboxes, trash the car, blow six red lights, and get pulled over after all of this for going 78 in a 35 while in possession of drugs they dont get sentenced to 60 years. You know because they committed 27 different acts, including federal crimes. Even though that would be within the guidelines. 

The one thing continually missing from this argument is the list of people with similar crimes that get sentenced to 7-9 years. I have admitted that it could be that it is just such a unique case, but after plenty of reading I dont think that is why it is so hard to find. I believe it to be hard because lying to congress is something that has happened quite often with little further investigation. The list of people that get charged with it where the underlying act is legal is very small.

The number of convictions before the trump admin for lying to congress is even smaller. The people that get sentenced to 7-9 years, even with underlying additions is non existent.

Deborah gore dean got 21 months and she was convicted of 11 underlying felonies(maybe 9, maybe 12? Read three different versions But more than stone regardless)

Jerry weissman got 18 months. Covered up millions in losses. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Oh no doubt.

It's just a game at this point for many, unfortunately.

"I don't care how my team does it, as long as they win I'm happy."

One of the Houston Astros stated THEY were the real victims because they "had to sleep at night" knowing they cheated. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Its why when three 19 year old black guys steal a car, send their buddies a text that they are planning it, send a text that they did it, drive over 15 lawns, hit three mailboxes, trash the car, blow six red lights, and get pulled over after all of this for going 78 in a 35 while in possession of drugs they dont get sentenced to 60 years. You know because they committed 27 different acts, including federal crimes. Even though that would be within the guidelines. ...

Fwiw that's not the comp. In this situation if the perpetrator cooperated, even though the DA might say he's facing 60 years he in fact might get off with much less. What happened here is the perpetrator did the crime.... then he threatened the judge... engaged in a cover up for 2 years... threatened a witness... tried to taint the jury pool with an online campaign... refused to cooperate with prosecutors and lied to them... lied to Congress as well and tried to destroy documents and data... and it's not vandalism it's a hacking and disinformation campaign of a US political campaign by a foreign adversary. - So instead of multiple acts of a relatively minor incident, this is arguably a relatively minor incident (lying) about a matter of huge magnitude with considerable, multiple enhancements afterwards.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

One of the Houston Astros stated THEY were the real victims because they "had to sleep at night" knowing they cheated. 

Poor dears.  it can't be easy on them. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

And you guys would be defending Obama 24/7.

Some would but there are some posters here who were critical of Obama or didn’t vote for him who are now soundly in opposition to the practices of the current administration. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Fwiw that's not the comp. In this situation if the perpetrator cooperated, even though the DA might say he's facing 60 years he in fact might get off with much less. What happened here is the perpetrator did the crime.... then he threatened the judge... engaged in a cover up for 2 years... threatened a witness... tried to taint the jury pool with an online campaign... refused to cooperate with prosecutors and lied to them... lied to Congress as well and tried to destroy documents and data... and it's not vandalism it's a hacking and disinformation campaign of a US political campaign by a foreign adversary. - So instead of multiple acts of a relatively minor incident, this is arguably a relatively minor incident (lying) about a matter of huge magnitude with considerable, multiple enhancements afterwards.

It was a valid comp to show that "guidelines" often mean nothing and obviously have to be compared to other cases. 

We obviously are at an impasse about the severity here since you think stealing a car and going on a crime spree while putting lives in danger is just vandalism.

And not that it matters but the example i used was an actual event. Not just a hypothetical. I would have to talk to my friend again to confirm the details as i layed them out there(was his car), but mostly correct. Obviously not sure on exact mailbox counts, etc, but it was a wave of destruction.  I have mentioned the increase of car thefts in my area in other threads and this incident. Pretty ridiculous the light sentences that are getting handed out. 

And I also think threatened the judge is a bit of a loose interpretation, but i understand your overall point. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the argument that if we examine the entire history of jurisprudence and find the most anomalous miscarriage of justice ever we can now use that to justify what Barr is doing, after all, this is precedence and no one can claim otherwise.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.