Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Ditkaless Wonders

Stone Case Prosecutors

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Skoo said:

Trump told the DOJ to let his buddy off.

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

The average sentence served for rape is ~4 years.  How is what Stone did worth 9?

Stone is certainly no sympathetic character, but that sentence recommendation is egregiously overboard.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The average sentence served for rape is ~4 years.  How is what Stone did worth 9?

Stone is certainly no sympathetic character, but that sentence recommendation is egregiously overboard.

that's not really the issue here.

The issue is the President told the DOJ to let his buddy off the hook. And Barr actually did it.

Share this post


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

that's not really the issue here.

The issue is the President told the DOJ to let his buddy off the hook. And Barr actually did it.

Did Manafort get a similar reduction request?  I don't remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sand said:

The average sentence served for rape is ~4 years.  How is what Stone did worth 9?

Stone is certainly no sympathetic character, but that sentence recommendation is egregiously overboard.

1. served and sentenced are not the same thing

2. recommended by the prosecution and sentenced are not the same thing

3. rape is not taken even a tiny bit as seriously as it should be in this country, especially in convictions.  I started a whole thread about it.

4. Federal offenses and State offenses are treated wildly differently, including in sentencing guidelines.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Yes, thanks for pointing out my plagiarism. 

Sorry - wasn't trying to be a ####. Just reinforce your point.

Share this post


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

1. served and sentenced are not the same thing

2. recommended by the prosecution and sentenced are not the same thing

3. rape is not taken even a tiny bit as seriously as it should be in this country, especially in convictions.  I started a whole thread about it.

4. Federal offenses and State offenses are treated wildly differently, including in sentencing guidelines.

The equivalence, as you know, is that on the Federal level you pretty much serve the sentence given (80+%).  So a sentence served on the state level has a rough equivalence to a sentence given at the Federal level.  That's why I termed it the way I did.

I happen to roughly agree with Manafort's sentence.  I also think 9 years is way too long for Stone.  Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sand said:

Did Manafort get a similar reduction request?  I don't remember.

I reckon he's about to get a pardon on November 4.

Share this post


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

I reckon he's about to get a pardon on November 4.

I'll take this response as non-responsive.  :P

Share this post


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

The equivalence, as you know, is that on the Federal level you pretty much serve the sentence given (80+%).  So a sentence served on the state level has a rough equivalence to a sentence given at the Federal level.  That's why I termed it the way I did.

I happen to roughly agree with Manafort's sentence.  I also think 9 years is way too long for Stone.  Just my opinion.

I think sentences are - in general - far too long in the US. So I'm sympathetic to your argument.

But, as I'm sure you know, the issue is that Trump and Barr seem to be politicizing the DOJ. And that's a real problem.

Edited by whoknew
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sand said:

The average sentence served for rape is ~4 years.  How is what Stone did worth 9?

Stone is certainly no sympathetic character, but that sentence recommendation is egregiously overboard.

You think it shouldnt be on par with the 7th conviction for illegally crossing our border with a history of burglary and theft convictions as well? 

That's awfully progressive of you.  

 

Share this post


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

The equivalence, as you know, is that on the Federal level you pretty much serve the sentence given (80+%).  So a sentence served on the state level has a rough equivalence to a sentence given at the Federal level.  That's why I termed it the way I did.

I happen to roughly agree with Manafort's sentence.  I also think 9 years is way too long for Stone.  Just my opinion.

The average marijuana trafficking sentence in this country is 26 months.  Manafort got thirteen months.   If we're comparing sentences and all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sand said:

The average sentence served for rape is ~4 years.  How is what Stone did worth 9?

Stone is certainly no sympathetic character, but that sentence recommendation is egregiously overboard.

Overboard and political

It smacks of the stench surrounding the spectacle of his arrest...

Share this post


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

I think sentences are - in general - far too long in the US. So I'm sympathetic to your argument.

But, as I'm sure you know, the issue is that Trump and Barr seem to be politicizing the DOJ. And that's a real problem.

You misspelled de-politicizing 

Obama politicized it as evidenced in the ways they handled the HRC and Russia investigations...for which they have been rightly castigated by the inspector general and various courts...

Edited by Sam Quentin

Share this post


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

You misspelled de-politicizing 

Obama politicized it as evidenced in the ways they handled the HRC and Russia investigations.

Yeah, he's de-politicizing by having his buddy Barr let his buddy Stone off the hook.

That makes total sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Stone is certainly no sympathetic character, but that sentence recommendation is egregiously overboard.

Is it though? Stone was convicted of 7 felonies. The maximum combined would be 50 years. The prosecution recommended less than 20% of the max. Keep in mind all of his antics following his indictment as well like posting pictures of the judge in crosshairs and continually violating a gag order.

Share this post


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

Yeah, he's de-politicizing by having his buddy Barr let his buddy Stone off the hook.

That makes total sense.

He didn’t let him off the hook.  Stone’s sentencing will now be more likely to be in proportion to his offenses 

Share this post


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

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

I had some down time waiting for court to start this morning and chatted up some prosecutors on the issue. All of them expressed just how pissed they be if it was done to them in such public fashion. 

What's funny to me is that, having done several federal criminal cases myself and argued at sentencing, the state probably could have taken much more delicate but effective routes at sentencing to soften its position. For instance, if the pre-sentence report writer came in lower they easily could have justified just backing that. They could have had a closed-door meeting and discussed maybe an amended recommendation after viewing "new mitigation" or some such.  

It's just crazy to me the authority of a seasoned federal prosecutor was usurped so much and so publicly. This isn't normal. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He didn’t let him off the hook.  Stone’s sentencing will now be more likely to be in proportion to his offenses 

You're an expert on the federal sentencing guidlines and U.S. v. Booker? If so, I take it you're a fan of activist judges who willfully deviate from the legislature's stated stance on crime?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

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:

And many of us are already making jokes about it in the state courts. Of course, the downside is now there will likely be more overprotective mothers demanding Trump "fix it" when 43 year old Little Johnny gets sentenced to the presumptive which won't be a joy to deal with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

He didn’t let him off the hook.  Stone’s sentencing will now be more likely to be in proportion to his offenses 

Again, even if you agree he should have a lighter sentence, that isn't really the issue here.

The issue is that Trump is using the DOJ to help out his friends.

Share this post


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

You think it shouldnt be on par with the 7th conviction for illegally crossing our border with a history of burglary and theft convictions as well? 

That exact comparison was on the tip of my digital pen and I totally failed you by not including it.  Doh!

4 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Is it though? Stone was convicted of 7 felonies. The maximum combined would be 50 years. The prosecution recommended less than 20% of the max. Keep in mind all of his antics following his indictment as well like posting pictures of the judge in crosshairs and continually violating a gag order.

The dude is an idiot, no doubt.  Frankly I think he's a bit mentally unstable.  But when I look at what harm he did compared to sentences for other harmful crimes I think it's a bit overboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

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?

Yep. That’s his claim. That’s what we are dealing with here. Total made up fantasy.

Unless my sarcasm meter is broken....

Share this post


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

Yep. That’s his claim. That’s what we are dealing with here. Total made up fantasy.

Unless my sarcasm meter is broken....

It goes hand-in-hand with "all the people who testified under oath are lying and all the people who refuse to go under oath and testify are telling the truth."

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I had some down time waiting for court to start this morning and chatted up some prosecutors on the issue. All of them expressed just how pissed they be if it was done to them in such public fashion. 

What's funny to me is that, having done several federal criminal cases myself and argued at sentencing, the state probably could have taken much more delicate but effective routes at sentencing to soften its position. For instance, if the pre-sentence report writer came in lower they easily could have justified just backing that. They could have had a closed-door meeting and discussed maybe an amended recommendation after viewing "new mitigation" or some such.  

It's just crazy to me the authority of a seasoned federal prosecutor was usurped so much and so publicly. This isn't normal. 

I had this done to me early in my career. (No wife, no kids, no mortgage)  I did not comply, they found someone else to handle that part of my docket. I immediately started looking for work elsewhere and found it but I did not quit until I had secured a soft landing spot.  I believe that during the time I was looking that there were ongoing discussions about terminating me.  I believe they refrained as they did not want to draw attention to the underlying matter.  My refusal to follow the direction of my superior was based on that recommendation being done due to a personal relationship.  That superior never had any idea what we were doing in court day to day and never had directed a sentencing recommendation.   I do not know what I would have done had they insisted instead of taking that matter from my docket. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone wondering, golly how did they arrive at this awful 7-9 years... maybe read at least some of the sentencing memo that lays it out, including why and how.

- I'll also point out about this whole '3-4 years is just about right' bit - the revised sentencing memo (submitted just a day later!) doesn't actually reference any sentencing period. Glad to post that one too if needed.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

During this time period, Stone regularly communicated with senior Trump campaign officials—including Deputy Campaign Chairman Richard Gates and Campaign CEO Steve Bannon—about WikiLeaks’ plans to release more information that would be damaging to the Clinton campaign. Both Gates and Bannon believed that Stone was providing them with non-public information about WikiLeaks’ plans. Indeed, Bannon viewed Stone as the Trump campaign’s access point to WikiLeaks

- Pfft, dude acted as a go between for a Russian cutout in a hacking and disinformation scheme in a US Presidential election, then lied repeatedly about it and threatened people along the way, what's the big huff?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Shortly after the grand jury returned an indictment charging Stone, this Court entered an order prohibiting Stone from making certain statements near the courthouse but declining to impose any further restrictions on Stone’s public statements about the case. Three days later, on February 18, 2019, Stone posted on Instagram a photograph of the presiding judge in this case with a symbol that appears to be a crosshairs next to her head.

...On February 21, 2019, this Court held a hearing on the matter. Stone chose to testify at that hearing. Initially, Stone testified that he “did not select the image” and “did not review it.” Tr. 2/21/19, p. 12. On cross-examination, however, Stone admitted that he posted the picture and that he selected it from among “two or three” images that were sent to him by a “volunteer.”Id.pp. 24-25. Stone claimed under oath that he did not recall the name of the volunteer or even who had accessed his phone to obtain the image, even though all of this occurred just a few days before the hearing. During his testimony, Stone asked for a “second chance” and promised to “treat the Court and all [its] orders scrupulously.” The Court discredited Stone’s “evolving and contradictory explanations” and found that Stone “could not even keep his story straight on the stand, much less from one day to another.”Id. p. 45. The Court further found that “the effect and very likely the intent of the post was to denigrate this process and taint the jury pool,” id. p. 52, and that Stone’s actions “posed a very real risk that others with extreme views and violent inclinations would be inflamed,” id.p. 45.

- The guy violates a gag order with a threatening image of a judge, gets up on the stand and lies about it.... and geewhiz where is all this meanness coming from?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amazing how this administration, and it supporters, is suddenly concerned about the treatment of convicted felons. Remember when Trump said the police treat suspects too nicely? Maybe bang their heads a little when they're putting them in the police car. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Again, even if you agree he should have a lighter sentence, that isn't really the issue here.

The issue is that Trump is using the DOJ to help out his friends.

Not only is he helping out a friend, he could be preventing that friend from pointing the finger at him.

The whole thing is completely unnecessary. He’s going to pardon him soon anyway, why does it matter how long the sentence is? For that matter, why does it matter what the recommendation is? Just another unforced error by Trump to add to the pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sand said:

That exact comparison was on the tip of my digital pen and I totally failed you by not including it.  Doh!

The dude is an idiot, no doubt.  Frankly I think he's a bit mentally unstable.  But when I look at what harm he did compared to sentences for other harmful crimes I think it's a bit overboard.

How many months should he get for each felony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zow said:

I had some down time waiting for court to start this morning and chatted up some prosecutors on the issue. All of them expressed just how pissed they be if it was done to them in such public fashion. 

What's funny to me is that, having done several federal criminal cases myself and argued at sentencing, the state probably could have taken much more delicate but effective routes at sentencing to soften its position. For instance, if the pre-sentence report writer came in lower they easily could have justified just backing that. They could have had a closed-door meeting and discussed maybe an amended recommendation after viewing "new mitigation" or some such.  

It's just crazy to me the authority of a seasoned federal prosecutor was usurped so much and so publicly. This isn't normal. 

It makes me suspect that more shenanigans by this team may be uncovered.  Just misrepresenting their recommendation to the DOJ brass was a sleazy move.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

Not only is he helping out a friend, he could be preventing that friend from pointing the finger at him.

The whole thing is completely unnecessary. He’s going to pardon him soon anyway, why does it matter how long the sentence is? For that matter, why does it matter what the recommendation is? Just another unforced error by Trump to add to the pile.

Could be to minimize the coming stench. Pardoning someone of a 3-4 year sentence might not smell quite as bad as pardoning a 7-9 year sentence. Just a guess. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rove! said:

Just misrepresenting their recommendation to the DOJ brass was a sleazy move.

And we know this how?  Who is the source behind that info, and what are their exact quotes on the subject.

I will be surprised if there was deliberate misrepresentation to the DOJ brass by the prosecuting attorneys here.  That does not seem like a wise idea.

Edited by The Z Machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Rove! said:

It makes me suspect that more shenanigans by this team may be uncovered.  Just misrepresenting their recommendation to the DOJ brass was a sleazy move.
 

wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Max Power said:

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.  

This sums a lot of it up, but you could have just watched a real newscast for that.  The fact that Stone committed several felonies that could have resulted in a sentence of fifty years and the prosecutors did not go for that should indicate that there was no political motivation on their part.  SOmetimes, it's just about the felony.

Share this post


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

Could be to minimize the coming stench. Pardoning someone of a 3-4 year sentence might not smell quite as bad as pardoning a 7-9 year sentence. Just a guess. :shrug:

He's going to pardon him because the sentence was so unfair! It'd be harder to argue that it's unfair if it's exactly what the DOJ recommended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, VandyMan said:

Could be to minimize the coming stench. Pardoning someone of a 3-4 year sentence might not smell quite as bad as pardoning a 7-9 year sentence. Just a guess. :shrug:

He pardons rapists.  I hardly see any length of sentence as having a bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrs. Rannous said:

He pardons rapists.  I hardly see any length of sentence as having a bearing.

Some rapists.  He pardons some rapists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

They made their decision before this tweet.  

They made a decision a day before the tweet. Then they made the exact opposite decision hours after the tweet.

Share this post


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

They made a decision a day before the tweet. Then they made the exact opposite decision hours after the tweet.

 

Quote

The decision to alter the sentencing recommendation was made before that tweet, said Kerri Kupec, the director of DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs. Kupec said the DOJ has had no contact with the White House regarding the sentencing recommendation.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-expected-to-scale-back-roger-stones-extreme-sentencing-recommendation-official

 

Share this post


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

 

 

Yeah, sorry, I meant the filing was made hours after the tweet. I don't know when the decision was made by Trump or Barr. I do know that the line prosecutors (the ones who resigned) didn't find out about it until they saw it on the news.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mrs. Rannous said:

This sums a lot of it up, but you could have just watched a real newscast for that.  The fact that Stone committed several felonies that could have resulted in a sentence of fifty years and the prosecutors did not go for that should indicate that there was no political motivation on their part.  SOmetimes, it's just about the felony.

"Totally out of control"?? 

Homie should have a friend charged with a drug crime. 

Share this post


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

Yeah, sorry, I meant the filing was made hours after the tweet. I don't know when the decision was made by Trump or Barr. I do know that the line prosecutors (the ones who resigned) didn't find out about it until after they saw it on the news.

JFC. 

And, to be clear, four withdrew but only one has actually resigned as a prosecutor, no?

Share this post


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

JFC. 

And, to be clear, four withdrew but only one has actually resigned as a prosecutor, no?

This is the only info I have on that: "Of the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case -- Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Jonathan Kravis, Adam Jed and Mike Marando -- Zelinsky and Kravis also resigned from the DC US attorney's office. Zelinsky, who worked on former special counsel Robert Mueller's team, did not resign from the Baltimore US attorney's office, where he is based."

  • 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.