What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Stone Case Prosecutors (1 Viewer)

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.

 
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.

 
How many actually resigned rather than just withdrew from case? Cnn last night said only one resigned, but i just read an article that said two resigned. 

ETA: ok so looks like only one resigned. Zelinsky resigned from DC office, but he is keeping his job in Baltimore office where he is actually based out of. So davis is only true resignation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump had AG Barr send a letter asking for a reduced sentence.
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.  

 
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.  
Trump told the DOJ to let his buddy off.

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than that.

 
So nothing on this case?  I think we need a Horowitz level investigation.  
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 
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.  

 
Resigning in protest of political interference in a criminal justice matter.  I could not be prouder of the integrity of these persons.
Sorry I got into the details of what's happening.

You're right - it's a hell of a thing to face pressure at work or in general politically, to take a stand, publicly and fully, risk one's income, maybe risk having future income, maybe investigation and intimidation (as here), seeing your name in the paper and on the internet with wild and often inaccurate things said about you. Tough stuff and potentially heartbreaking. These people are heroes in this age of growing nihilism especially.

 
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.

 
"Asking" is a rather gentle euphemism.  When my boss asks me to do something work related it is a directive. 
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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. 

 
Resigning in protest of political interference in a criminal justice matter.  I could not be prouder of the integrity of these persons.
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.

So to answer your question as to what I would do in the situation faced by the DOJ attorneys, the honest answer is that I don't know. I'd like to think I would do the right thing, but the truth is they have a giant s##tstorm heading their way as Trump and his minions turn on them, and I'm not sure I'd want to sign up for that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So nothing on this case?  I think we need a Horowitz level investigation.  
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. 

 
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. 
Trump probably just grumbled, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent sentencing document?" and Barr knew exactly what to do.

 
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. 

 
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
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.

 
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.
They know they will be “taken care of”

 
Something else in that sentencing memo - it lays out testimony of the campaign’s advanced knowledge of the WikiLeaks drops. It wasn’t just the sentence that fully got their attention.

 
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. 


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."

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top