Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why? You think it's not well known that there are rich people who back conservative movements?

I think it is not well known how much international coordination there is among oligarchs. In fact, I don't think we know how much there is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think it is not well known how much international coordination there is among oligarchs. In fact, I don't think we know how much there is.

Davos image

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Ok, so Stone is a buffoon who played with fire he could have avoided (he didn’t have to testify) for media attention. And for dicking around with a serious procedure and wasting tax dollars needlessly, punishment is warranted.

And a 5 year recommendation would not surprise me.

But 7-9 yrs? For the lies and silliness (he was not determined to have engaged in criminal activities involving a foreign power interfering in our election) of a clown whose word no one should trust?

Well, yes: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...020-02-10.html

So of course these Mueller prosecutors detest Stone. Understandable for any hammer to feel about the man he thinks may have prevented him from striking the Big Nail he wanted. That bias can and should have been extracted by a more circumspect superior. (As it now appears it will.)

But two bases used to justify this request are amazing, and should be barred:

1. Lack of respect for the system;
2. Efforts to denigrate the process.

Distilled, these arguments state that one may not defend himself by asserting the architecture employed against him is politically motivated and the system is bent.

Why? Why should one be penalized at an enhanced level for disrespect to the justice system? We owe no duty to eschew criticizing that system. I’m doing it right here. Why must Stone suffer exceptional penalties for denigrating it? Particularly where the other side is representing his behavior in the darkest and most overwrought tones, denigrating him as much as possible?

If the US Justice system is aggrieved by Stone’s criticisms, it can sue him for defamation. There it can more effectively prove him (or any similar defendant) a liar than it does by precluding them from speaking ill of the system by threat of draconian additional punishment at sentencing. No citizen may incarcerate or enhance the incarceration of another for that person having defamed him. Why does Uncle Sam get this special power, this practically effective preclusion of free speech? Is he too sensitive not to brush off the critiques of a buffoon like Stone? Uncle Sam sounds like a fine authoritarian here, quite Trumpian... with a twist of Eric Cartman: “Respect my authoritaaaa!!!”

Disrespect is not a crime. The act of disrespect is necessarily a form of free speech. And among the myriad flaws in our sentencings, which are kangaroo court processes where all sorts of material irrelevant at trial is vomited upon the court by both sides, none is more offensive than the argument that disrespect for the system, the process, is itself a quasi-crime. A system that needs such self-protection is a system admitting insecurity - that it has little credibility left to lose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ok, so Stone is a buffoon who played with fire he could have avoided (he didn’t have to testify) for media attention. And for dicking around with a serious procedure and wasting tax dollars needlessly, punishment is warranted.

And a 5 year recommendation would not surprise me.

But 7-9 yrs? For the lies and silliness (he was not determined to have engaged in criminal activities involving a foreign power interfering in our election) of a clown whose word no one should trust?

Well, yes: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...020-02-10.html

So of course these Mueller prosecutors detest Stone. Understandable for any hammer to feel about the man he thinks may have prevented him from striking the Big Nail he wanted. That bias can and should have been extracted by a more circumspect superior. (As it now appears it will.)

But two bases used to justify this request are amazing, and should be barred:

1. Lack of respect for the system;
2. Efforts to denigrate the process.

Distilled, these arguments state that one may not defend himself by asserting the architecture employed against him is politically motivated and the system is bent.

Why? Why should one be penalized at an enhanced level for disrespect to the justice system? We owe no duty to eschew criticizing that system. I’m doing it right here. Why must Stone suffer exceptional penalties for denigrating it? Particularly where the other side is representing his behavior in the darkest and most overwrought tones, denigrating him as much as possible?

If the US Justice system is aggrieved by Stone’s criticisms, it can sue him for defamation. There it can more effectively prove him (or any similar defendant) a liar than it does by precluding them from speaking ill of the system by threat of draconian additional punishment at sentencing. No citizen may incarcerate or enhance the incarceration of another for that person having defamed him. Why does Uncle Sam get this special power, this practically effective preclusion of free speech? Is he too sensitive not to brush off the critiques of a buffoon like Stone? Uncle Sam sounds like a fine authoritarian here, quite Trumpian... with a twist of Eric Cartman: “Respect my authoritaaaa!!!”

Disrespect is not a crime. The act of disrespect is necessarily a form of free speech. And among the myriad flaws in our sentencings, which are kangaroo court processes where all sorts of material irrelevant at trial is vomited upon the court by both sides, none is more offensive than the argument that disrespect for the system, the process, is itself a quasi-crime. A system that needs such self-protection is a system admitting insecurity - that it has little credibility left to lose.

I don't love the federal sentencing guidelines, but if everyone else is going to go by them, I don't see any reason for Roger Stone to be different.

eta:

[W]hat the line prosecutors were recommending was well within the norm of what they would have expected. It is extremely common — if not almost universally done — for prosecutors to stick to the guidelines that the U.S. Sentencing Commission lays out, which is what the Monday filing did in the Stone case.

“It’s somewhat extraordinary to seek a sentence that is outside of the guidelines,” said former DOJ spokesperson Matt Miller, as the Justice Department is now expected to do it in its amended memo. Usually, the Justice Department recommends sentences below those guidelines only when the defendant has cooperated with the government, ex-DOJ officials said.

Harry Sandick, a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney, said that the guidelines issued by U.S. Sentencing Commission may in fact be too harsh, but that’s no reason to flout them for an ally of the President’s and only for an ally of the President’s.

“This benefit doesn’t get extended to the drug dealer who sells an ounce of crack cocaine, this benefit doesn’t get extended to the businessman who engages in a small fraud, and so people will ask, why is it being extended to the President’s friend and advisor?” Sandick said.

TPM

That said, I'm much more upset at the way that conservatives have wrecked the credibility of DOJ. Pretty sure the judge won't be impressed with DOJ's final sentencing request, but this was about DOJ trying to please Trump, not persuade the judge. And that's a shame.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ok, so Stone is a buffoon who played with fire he could have avoided (he didn’t have to testify) for media attention. And for dicking around with a serious procedure and wasting tax dollars needlessly, punishment is warranted.

And a 5 year recommendation would not surprise me.

But 7-9 yrs? For the lies and silliness (he was not determined to have engaged in criminal activities involving a foreign power interfering in our election) of a clown whose word no one should trust?

Well, yes: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...020-02-10.html

So of course these Mueller prosecutors detest Stone. Understandable for any hammer to feel about the man he thinks may have prevented him from striking the Big Nail he wanted. That bias can and should have been extracted by a more circumspect superior. (As it now appears it will.)

But two bases used to justify this request are amazing, and should be barred:

1. Lack of respect for the system;
2. Efforts to denigrate the process.

Distilled, these arguments state that one may not defend himself by asserting the architecture employed against him is politically motivated and the system is bent.

Why? Why should one be penalized at an enhanced level for disrespect to the justice system? We owe no duty to eschew criticizing that system. I’m doing it right here. Why must Stone suffer exceptional penalties for denigrating it? Particularly where the other side is representing his behavior in the darkest and most overwrought tones, denigrating him as much as possible?

If the US Justice system is aggrieved by Stone’s criticisms, it can sue him for defamation. There it can more effectively prove him (or any similar defendant) a liar than it does by precluding them from speaking ill of the system by threat of draconian additional punishment at sentencing. No citizen may incarcerate or enhance the incarceration of another for that person having defamed him. Why does Uncle Sam get this special power, this practically effective preclusion of free speech? Is he too sensitive not to brush off the critiques of a buffoon like Stone? Uncle Sam sounds like a fine authoritarian here, quite Trumpian... with a twist of Eric Cartman: “Respect my authoritaaaa!!!”

Disrespect is not a crime. The act of disrespect is necessarily a form of free speech. And among the myriad flaws in our sentencings, which are kangaroo court processes where all sorts of material irrelevant at trial is vomited upon the court by both sides, none is more offensive than the argument that disrespect for the system, the process, is itself a quasi-crime. A system that needs such self-protection is a system admitting insecurity - that it has little credibility left to lose.

Fundamentally we are being Borked. Bigtime.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Fundamentally we are being Borked. Bigtime.

To quote Walter Sobchak, You can say what you want about the tenets of national socialism but at least it's an ethos.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't love the federal sentencing guidelines, but if everyone else is going to go by them, I don't see any reason for Roger Stone to be different.

eta:



TPM

That said, I'm much more upset at the way that conservatives have wrecked the credibility of DOJ. Pretty sure the judge won't be impressed with DOJ's final sentencing request, but this was about DOJ trying to please Trump, not persuade the judge. And that's a shame.

Eight levels were added for an alleged threat via text to Credico.

That’s prosecutors lying. They know Stone posed zero threat to anyone. But the rule book allows them to say it with plausible deniability.

Scoundrels to left, scoundrels to the right.

I’ve done this dance with these assholes. If they don’t like being lied to, they should stop fucking lying.

It’s a game of nihilist shitballs. They should all be sent somewhere together. Stone is insane or the dumbest man alive. Probably both. His Javerts are, well, resigned.

Giant waste of tax money. He should do three for being an idiot. His Netflix documentary was funny, so I’d let him out immediately at 80% of time served, as fed rules apply, I believe.

This country is over. But then, it’s been over for a while.

ETA: The new sentencing memo, amazingly signed by the same us atty who signed the previous one (and claims he was bullied into doing so by the prosecutors who resigned) agreed with me on the Credico “threat”: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/polit...ted/index.html. But it also goes one step further, citing something I missed — that Credico himself stated that he never felt threatened! He never took it seriously. And he in fact submitted a letter to the court asking Stone receive no jail time! And yet one of these prosecutors nevertheless sought an 8 level enhancement for a physical threat.

That is not Stone receiving what’s due under the guidelines. That’s gross overreach, and in the civil realm, possibly a sanctionable misrepresentation to the court.

I don’t like seeing the top brass step in and adjust this memo because it makes it look like they’re kissing the President’s ass. And that’s a shame, because the first memo was egregious enough, and such a craven overreach, that basic decency compelled its retraction. I think a judge would have slammed the prosecutor who asked for the enhancement without aid of an amended memo. I’d have preferred these prosecutors be taken to the woodshed like those in the Ted Stevens case (though not as severely, as what they did here is not nearly as bad). Maybe she still will do so. That would be of great benefit, to show the public how reckless and inhumane prosecutions often become.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Fundamentally we are being Borked. Bigtime.

Calling bent institutions bent may be borking. But it also goes by another name - accurate criticism.

Folks forget, Bork deserved it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Re Bork, I find this much more significant (and therefore of course overlooked by the general public) than his being allegedly maligned: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/0...ng-of-america/

So how does one come to advise so wrongly on the law? Well, a good start would be a sheltered background, a lack of exposure to actual commerce that would give one a more rounded view. Bork was an upper middle class to affluent kid who went from boarding school to college to law school. He served in the Marines for a bit and practiced in a huge firm for a few years and then, you guessed it, straight to academia.

Where he could think in the abstract to his heart's content.

If you compare Bork's background to the prosecutors in the Stone case, you'll find similar backgrounds. All people who spent the majority of their time working within a discipline where they were encouraged to think in the abstract more than in the practical.

It is only hubris, or the abstract notion that because one can *technically* call something a threat he may do so in a sentencing memo such as Stone's, that could lead one to do something so dumb and also potentially damaging. Sounds kinda like Bork on antitrust, no?

(Oh, but even if we detest Bork, as we all should, he is indeed a giant intellect in the area of noodling on antitrust matters! Um... no. Bullshit. He's an ivory tower ego who Fucked Things Up With Deeply Flawed Reasoning. Fuck him more for that than for any other shitty views he might have had.)

Maybe, and maybe I'm just riffing here, people who choose to go to law school ought to be compelled to first do at least five years in private sector before they matriculate. I doubt I'll find many voices here who disagree with the notion that the profession is riddled with immature, sociopathic, and socially maladjusted individuals. (Even more so than finance.) If we're going to give these people influence on the laws that impact so many, on the sentences of other humans to time in jail, shouldn't we demand more than purely abstract thinkers?

Or, if you disagree, if you think we must have purely abstract thinkers judges us and write our laws, shouldn't we leave that to algorithms? What's more abstract than that? They're already better investors than humans. Surely they could best us in the pedestrian thinking involved in law.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't love the federal sentencing guidelines, but if everyone else is going to go by them, I don't see any reason for Roger Stone to be different.

eta:



TPM

That said, I'm much more upset at the way that conservatives have wrecked the credibility of DOJ. Pretty sure the judge won't be impressed with DOJ's final sentencing request, but this was about DOJ trying to please Trump, not persuade the judge. And that's a shame.

Right. I have no way of judging what's too harsh or not too harsh, but there are guidelines and you don't ignore them to please the president, who shouldn't be anywhere near the decision-making on this.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t like seeing the top brass step in and adjust this memo because it makes it look like they’re kissing the President’s ass.

It doesn't just look like that, it is what they are doing.

And that’s a shame, because the first memo was egregious enough, and such a craven overreach, that basic decency compelled its retraction.

There is no line of GOP BS you won't happily snort.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Eight levels were added for an alleged threat via text to Credico.

That’s prosecutors lying. They know Stone posed zero threat to anyone. But the rule book allows them to say it with plausible deniability.

Scoundrels to left, scoundrels to the right.

I’ve done this dance with these assholes. If they don’t like being lied to, they should stop fucking lying.

It’s a game of nihilist shitballs. They should all be sent somewhere together. Stone is insane or the dumbest man alive. Probably both. His Javerts are, well, resigned.

Giant waste of tax money. He should do three for being an idiot. His Netflix documentary was funny, so I’d let him out immediately at 80% of time served, as fed rules apply, I believe.

This country is over. But then, it’s been over for a while.

ETA: The new sentencing memo, amazingly signed by the same us atty who signed the previous one (and claims he was bullied into doing so by the prosecutors who resigned) agreed with me on the Credico “threat”: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/polit...ted/index.html. But it also goes one step further, citing something I missed — that Credico himself stated that he never felt threatened! He never took it seriously. And he in fact submitted a letter to the court asking Stone receive no jail time! And yet one of these prosecutors nevertheless sought an 8 level enhancement for a physical threat.

That is not Stone receiving what’s due under the guidelines. That’s gross overreach, and in the civil realm, possibly a sanctionable misrepresentation to the court.

I don’t like seeing the top brass step in and adjust this memo because it makes it look like they’re kissing the President’s ass. And that’s a shame, because the first memo was egregious enough, and such a craven overreach, that basic decency compelled its retraction. I think a judge would have slammed the prosecutor who asked for the enhancement without aid of an amended memo. I’d have preferred these prosecutors be taken to the woodshed like those in the Ted Stevens case (though not as severely, as what they did here is not nearly as bad). Maybe she still will do so. That would be of great benefit, to show the public how reckless and inhumane prosecutions often become.

You have a visceral reaction to prosecutors, about which whatever. The whole point of the sentencing guidelines is to take sentencing discretion away from judges and to give it to prosecutors. The prosecutors in this case charged Stone under the same law that applies to everyone else, and got a conviction in seven hours. I had been paying close enough attention to know that Credico says he didn't feel threatened. FWIW, I also understand something should be obvious: people who do feel threatened sometimes feel obliged to say they did not, see, e.g., the president of Ukraine. But whatever -- a jury heard more evidence than you did, and convicted Stone.

I don't really care whether Stone gets three years, or five, or seven. What I do care about is the principle that criminal prosecution should not be politicized. To say this "looks like" DOJ brass was kissing the President's ass is like being concerned that the Titanic looked like it was taking on water. Talk about burying the lede.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right. I have no way of judging what's too harsh or not too harsh, but there are guidelines and you don't ignore them to please the president, who shouldn't be anywhere near the decision-making on this.

The prosecutors argued for the upward departure for witness tampering apparently believing it was a credible threat. Stone was and is free to argue it wasn't credible. The judge would have, and will, decide. All the DOJ achieved with its revised sentencing request was to alienate its own prosecutors and undermine its credibility. But Barr did mollify his master.

LessinSF

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You have a visceral reaction to prosecutors, about which whatever. The whole point of the sentencing guidelines is to take sentencing discretion away from judges and to give it to prosecutors. The prosecutors in this case charged Stone under the same law that applies to everyone else, and got a conviction in seven hours. I had been paying close enough attention to know that Credico says he didn't feel threatened. FWIW, I also understand something should be obvious: people who do feel threatened sometimes feel obliged to say they did not, see, e.g., the president of Ukraine. But whatever -- a jury heard more evidence than you did, and convicted Stone.

I don't really care whether Stone gets three years, or five, or seven. What I do care about is the principle that criminal prosecution should not be politicized. To say this "looks like" DOJ brass was kissing the President's ass is like being concerned that the Titanic looked like it was taking on water. Talk about burying the lede.

He who lies or puffs before the jury risks a mistrial or a JNOV. The judge may say, “nope... you’re lying there... fuck you.”

Here, the judge was/is free to rip the prosecutors for throwing frivolous leverage arguments at the court. The system is adversarial, but it’s not a “throw all the feces you can and see what works” process.

The DOJ is doing that which the judge should have been allowed to do.

Your comment that Credico is afraid of Stone and lying in his letter is to stupid to merit reply. Come on... that’s slumming for one of your usual insight.

Mueller’s minions are hall monitors of the worst kind. That prosecution of the Obama White House lawyer was outrageous. Thankfully, he was acquitted. Now how does he get back the million or so dollars and mental anguish over that ordeal?

Does the prosecutor say “sorry”?

Stone’s guilty. He took a dumb chance. He’s been ruined financially and will do time. Did those prosecutors really need an 8 level enhancement for what they knew was bullshit? Come on.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

The prosecutors argued for the upward departure for witness tampering apparently believing it was a credible threat. Stone was and is free to argue it wasn't credible. The judge would have, and will, decide. All the DOJ achieved with its revised sentencing request was to alienate its own prosecutors and undermine its credibility. But Barr did mollify his master.

LessinSF

Bullshit.

They explicitly sought departure upward for threats of physical violence. That was part of the tampering, but it’s also a unique category of aggravating factor separate from general witness tampering.


And they knew the threat was not credible. A buffoon called a stand up comic and threatened him with Godfather references? Try to get that tripe charged as a terroristic threat or even harassment before any state judge.

The prosecutors here were throwing all the spaghetti they had at the wall to get the maximum to stick because they’re pissed Stone gave them nothing.

It’s petty and vindictive. Stone may deserve an extra-fucking here on some caveat emptor theory of “cosmic karma,” but it’s not “justice.” And using that same caveat emptor theory, the guy who overstepped and made this silly allegation to the judge deserved to have Barr step on him.

In a crazy way, the system worked here. Stone will get fair treatment and people who act vindictively leave the system.