Your only defence is that the populism and egotistical property tycoon antics employed by the President to play the crowd are not contravening the law. And yet you imply that he is squeaky clean and respects his office. Where is your criticism of his disrespect of office?

“Disrespect of office”? These types of glittering generalities have the effect of sounding meaningful but are empty on any closer examination. Is it because he served McDonalds in the State dining room? Is this what you mean?

It's proven Trump is corrupt. You don't need to trust me, you just need the ability to read and reason.

I'm not arguing with him. I'm just stating the facts and employing the same tactic as him and his ilk. If you repeat something long enough others might start to believe it. The difference is what I say is actually true.

This is it? This is the level of debate?

It's proven Trump is corrupt. You don't need to trust me, you just need the ability to read and reason.

Read what exactly? I’ll read it.

Potentially good news.

U.S. ready to sign peace deal if Taliban abide by promise to reduce violence

The United States and the Taliban are poised to clinch a deal that would see the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the start of peace talks between the insurgents and the Afghan government. But the agreement will go ahead only if the Taliban abide by a pledge to reduce violence over a seven-day period, according to a Western official, an Afghan official and two former U.S. officials briefed on the talks.

The two sides have revived the same draft agreement that came close to being signed in September, which calls for a timeline for a U.S. troop pullout in exchange for the Taliban agreeing to cut ties with terrorist groups and entering into peace talks with their foes in the Afghan government.

If the agreement goes ahead, it would potentially bring an end to America’s longest war by launching direct peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government for the first time.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-ready-sign-peace-deal-if-taliban-abides-promise-n1135406

This is it? This is the level of debate? — Brett

This isn't a debate. It's an attempt to get a handle on Nosferatu's propaganda.

If you debate a fool people might not know the difference. I'll debate with people who are open to reason. Other than that, since this is a public forum, I can only repeat the truth when someone persists in spreading lies.

I'm not playing. You know but refuse to reason or are paid to disagree.

I'm not playing. You know but refuse to reason or are paid to disagree.

I remain unconvinced by your specious and spurious reasoning. It’s as simple as that. You know that but you fear being exposed as a dupe.

You cannot be convinced because you're a party hack and you're not open to arguments. Trump is corrupt and so is the Republican party and people like you defending their behaviour. But please continue talking and exemplifying the moral bankruptcy of the alt right.

You cannot be convinced because you're a party hack and you're not open to arguments. Trump is corrupt and so is the Republican party and people like you defending their behaviour. But please continue talking and exemplifying the moral bankruptcy of the alt right.

You have offered zero arguments and in lieu of them can only repeat, like a parrot, unproven accusations. All this from someone who in theory should believe in the presumption of innocence. I take it your morals are as fickle as your principles.

He's squirming ;)

Do not feed the troll.

Trump is corrupt. And you can now also add "lying" to your outstanding moral character as I've (and others) definitely and conclusively argued the case for Trump's corruption in this thread. Everybody but you is convinced. The problem here is you, not my arguments.

Is it because he served McDonalds in the State dining room? Is this what you mean?

Is that all you've got to say?

He's a laughing stock around the world, I wonder why.

One valid reason is excessive sentencing for what amounts to process crimes. The DOJ agreed Stone should pay for his crimes, only that such an excessive sentence wasn’t warranted. They rescinded the recommendation and deferred the sentencing to the judge of the case. — NOS4A2

They explain their sentencing suggestion as per the official guidelines here (pages 16-18).

They determined an offence level of 29, which for someone with a Criminal History category of I (the lowest), suggests 97-108 months.

14 base level for obstruction + 8 for threats to cause injury/property damage + 3 for substantial interference in investigation + 2 for extensive in scope, planning, or preparation + 2 for further obstruction/violating court order after initial indictment.

Perhaps you could point out where they have incorrectly followed the guidelines?

If your issue is with the guidelines themselves then you should take it up with the United States Sentencing Commission, and not accuse the prosecutors of being "Obama stooges" who are being unjust in their recommendation.

If the DOJ are reversing their decision despite the guidelines then it suggests that they're being favourable to Stone because he's Trump's buddy, either because Trump asked or because Barr is a bootlicker. Either way it's corruption, not justice.

Yo Dumpertrumper,

Help me with this. The GOP is blocking legislation relative to foreign election interference. For instance, there is a Bill being blocked, sponsored by Democrats Warner/Blumenthal, that proposes/requires campaign's to report offers of foreign assistance, including donations or coordination, to the FEC and the FBI.

Does the GOP not want foreign interference? Can you correct me on that?

...yeah, I'm wondering if Dumpertrumper and Barr secretly bump-their-ugly's behind closed doors. Call me naïve, but I can't figure it out.. , are they in cahoots with one another ?

This is yet another case of the Administration taking actions that appear wrong on its face. As with the others, there's no direct evidence of Trump personally taking action for Stone. This is all that Trump apologists need to excuse Trump from wrongdoing. Their biggest errors are in failing to see the pattern (because each case is considered independently, and dismissed as a non-issue), and applying a double standard (e.g. consider their assumptions of guilt for Biden and Clinton).

BTW, I have one additional fact to add to your excellent analysis: I heard a former federal prosecutor state that in a high profile case, like Stone's, the sentencing recommendation would have had to be reviewed and approved high up the chain of command - likely up to the FBI director. This makes the overruling of it seem that much more anomalous.

In the revised recommendation, here, the DOJ states that “the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements in this case—while perhaps technically applicable— more than double the defendant’s total offense level and, as a result, disproportionately escalate the defendant’s sentencing exposure to an offense level of 29, which typically applies in cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases.”

The sentencing guidelines are but one of several factors when considering a sentence. This is a matter of law (18 U.S. Code § 3553 ). According to the Supreme Court:

In fact, the Supreme Court has stated that a sentencing court “may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable but must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).

They must also consider, among other things, the “nature and circumstances of the offense,” the “need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and “the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.”

They then go on to mention a few facts that should be considered, but which are absent in the original.

First, the most serious enhancement of threats has been disputed by the supposed victim, who never felt threatened.

Two, the obstruction enhancement “overlaps to a degree with the offense conduct in this case. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent the defendant’s obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial”.

Three, “ the Court must “avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).” They then go on to list several cases that constitute only a fraction of Stone’s penalty.

Four, the defendant’s age, health, and prior criminal history should be considered. Stones sentence has been typically reserved for criminal gangsters and drug dealers threatening witnesses with rape and murder.

So unless you have a problem with the law and the Supreme Court, maybe you should remind your prosecutors that precedent and law are binding and that guidelines are just that: guidelines.

The senator Blackburn’s claim is that it takes power from the states to govern their own elections and give it to the federal government. She further claims the Democrats knew this and knew the GOP would block it, thereby giving them campaign fodder.

How should the Dumpertrumper administration care to resolve it?

For example, if the Court were not to apply the eight-level enhancement for threatening a witness with physical injury, it would result in the defendant receiving an advisory Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months, which as explained below is more in line with the typical sentences imposed in obstruction cases

Presumably the missing qualification here is "the typical sentences imposed in obstruction cases that do not include the eight-level enhancement for threatening a witness with physical injury". But comparing cases that don't include such threats with a case that does include such threats to argue that the latter shouldn't include the enhancements specifically designed for it is pretty ridiculous.

While Mr. Credico’s subjective beliefs are not dispositive as to this enhancement, the Court may consider them when assessing the impact of applying the enhancement

So by their own admission, even if the victim didn't feel threatened it doesn't undermine the applicability of the enhancement. It may have relevance when the judge makes her decision, but it was entirely appropriate for prosecutors to apply it in their recommendation given that the threats were made.

In fact see United States v. Plumley, holding that § 2J1.2(b) "does not impose an additional `seriousness' requirement beyond the fact of a violent threat".

As the United States Supreme Court has stated, while a sentencing court must “give respectful consideration to the Guidelines, it is well-settled that Booker permits the court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well.” Kimbrough v. United States, 522 U.S. 85, 101 (2007). In fact, the Supreme Court has stated that a sentencing court “may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable but must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).

As best as I understand it the Supreme Court made a ruling on whether or not a court is allowed to impose a sentence that falls outside the guidelines. But the issue here is on whether or not prosecutors were right to recommend a sentence that falls within the guidelines. So this seems irrelevant.

Second, the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice (§ 3C1.1) overlaps to a degree with the offense conduct in this case. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent the defendant’s obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial.

This does have merit given that the guidelines state "If the defendant is convicted of an offense covered by §2J1.1 (Contempt), §2J1.2 (Obstruction of Justice), §2J1.3 (Perjury or Subornation of Perjury; Bribery of Witness), §2J1.5 (Failure to Appear by Material Witness), §2J1.6 (Failure to Appear by Defendant), §2J1.9 (Payment to Witness), §2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact), or §2X4.1 (Misprision of Felony), this adjustment is not to be applied to the offense level for that offense except if a significant further obstruction occurred during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the obstruction offense itself."

Third, the Court must “avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). In its prior filing, the Government directed the Court’s attention to a non-exhaustive list of witness tampering, false statement, and obstruction of justice cases that resulted in sentences of thirty months (Libby), thirteen months (Manafort), six months (Lavelle), twelve months (Hansen), and thirty-five months (Solofa). While these cases involved lesser offense conduct, the sentences imposed constituted a fraction of the penalty suggested by the advisory Guidelines in this case.

The prior filing that mentions these cases explicitly explains why these sentences were much less than what is being recommended for Stone.

Finally, the Court also should consider the defendant’s advanced age, health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history in fashioning an appropriate sentence. As noted above, a sentence of 87 to 108 months more typically has been imposed for defendants who have higher criminal history categories or who obstructed justice as part of a violent criminal organization.

They may have a point re. Stone's age and health, but the mention of a criminal history is fallacious given that the recommended sentence is the recommended sentence for someone in category I (little to no criminal history). First time offences can warrant 87 to 108 months - if the offence level is 29, which was determined to be the case here. They're trying to compare it to a lower offence level with a higher criminal history category, which is a misleading comparison.

↪3017amen
The senator Blackburn’s claim is that it takes power from the states to govern their own elections and give it to the federal government. She further claims the Democrats knew this and knew the GOP would block it, thereby giving them campaign fodder. — NOS4A2

What bill are you referring to? The SHIELD act doesn't affect how elections are run; it just requires candidates to report any contacts made by foreign governments, and extends rules that apply to radio and TV commercials to online ads. The ostensible reason for blocking it was that it infringes free speech, and I don't see how that makes any sense.

I don’t want you to think you’ve wasted time typing all that out, so thx for the reasonable response. I read all of it. I appreciate you considering both sides and respect your opinion of what is “appropriate” and what is “ridiculous”. We’ll see if the judge agrees or disagrees.

But how we get from here to the DOJ being favorable to Trump’s buddy for corrupt reasons is beyond me.

What bill are you referring to? The SHIELD act doesn't affect how elections are run; it just requires candidates to report any contacts made by foreign governments, and extends rules that apply to radio and TV commercials to online ads. The ostensible reason for blocking it was that it infringes free speech, and I don't see how that makes any sense.

I’m only relaying Blackburn’s statements. I would just stress that the suggestion that they are blocking it to allow foreign interference is without merit.

I’m only relaying Blackburn’s statements. I would just stress that the suggestion that they are blocking it to allow foreign interference is without merit. — NOS4A2

OK, then Blackburn's statements seem disingenuous.

They're blocking it because it would look critical of Trump, and the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions like the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

OK, then Blackburn's statements seem disingenuous.

They're blocking it because it would look critical of Trump, and the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions like the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

I see no evidence for that conclusion.

Do you see no evidence that Senators often avoid criticizing Trump in general, or just in this particular case?