Author Topic: Trump number 8  (Read 120928 times)

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1890 on: March 08, 2019, 01:17:36 AM »
And the poor, black, Muslim...

Yes, see the first sentence of my post...

Though I don't think he bullies the poor through his old man rambling (he just enacts horrific polices that harm the poor). Are the poor supposed to be as outraged as Washington Post reporters that he served fast food at the White House?

mojo filters

  • Mueller heavy
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1891 on: March 08, 2019, 02:17:29 AM »
Amy Berman Jackson, a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you...

Manafort gets the privileged white collar / white man's special: 47 months federal prison, minus 9 months already served for witnesses tampering and obstruction of justice in separate DC case - max possible sentence 24 years - from T. S. Ellis ... ex-federal prosecuting talking heads blowing up with rightous fury all over regular cable.

Fox News thoughtfully counter-programming with vacuous "debate" over AOC's "controversial" pro-counter-anti-confusion vote today (probably).
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 03:04:36 AM by mojo filters »

EditGlitch Removal Person

  • 'Happy to help!'
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1892 on: March 08, 2019, 05:53:19 AM »
Happy to help.

Paul Calf

  • LOTION MAN
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Just put 'nice plums'.
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1893 on: March 08, 2019, 07:04:19 AM »
Amy Berman Jackson, a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you...

Manafort gets the privileged white collar / white man's special: 47 months federal prison, minus 9 months already served for witnesses tampering and obstruction of justice in separate DC case - max possible sentence 24 years - from T. S. Ellis ... ex-federal prosecuting talking heads blowing up with rightous fury all over regular cable.

Fox News thoughtfully counter-programming with vacuous "debate" over AOC's "controversial" pro-counter-anti-confusion vote today (probably).

38 months in a US Federal prison isn’t exactly soft though, is it, especially for someone of Manafort’s “pedigree’? Obviously he got a relatively light sentence but it’s not as easy as, say, Jonathan Aitken’s or Jeffrey Archer’s brief holidays in British open prisons.

kngen

  • Member
  • **
  • Fighting sleep's deathlike grip
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1894 on: March 08, 2019, 02:33:15 PM »
38 months in a US Federal prison isn’t exactly soft though, is it, especially for someone of Manafort’s “pedigree’? Obviously he got a relatively light sentence but it’s not as easy as, say, Jonathan Aitken’s or Jeffrey Archer’s brief holidays in British open prisons.

I think he's got a statutory 10-year sentence awaiting him in a case he's already pled guilty to, though - and it's up to the judges discretion whether he serves it concurrently or not. So he could be going away for 14 years.

mojo filters

  • Mueller heavy
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1895 on: March 08, 2019, 02:41:12 PM »
38 months in a US Federal prison isn’t exactly soft though, is it, especially for someone of Manafort’s “pedigree’? Obviously he got a relatively light sentence but it’s not as easy as, say, Jonathan Aitken’s or Jeffrey Archer’s brief holidays in British open prisons.

There is a big gap between American and UK justice. That comparison is not really relevant right now, though potentially illustrates a larger overall point.

This was not some dumb local elected prosecutor - this is a case not only in the Federal justice system, but one investigated and prosecuted by the best people available to the DOJ. Furthermore a case unduly burdened with unprecedented scrutiny from a plethora of competing interests.

The Federal sentencing guidelines are not some half-assed big numbers designed to appeal to Fox watching, vengeful voting yokels. They are derived from carefully constructed processes designed to ensure consistency across the system, matching each punishment appropriately to the gravity of each element of the crime.

I'm all for large scale criminal justice reform. America has an unhealthy obsession across the board with absurdly long sentences, offering little-to-no chance of early release regardless of conduct.

Paul Manafort is not and should not be the poster boy for sentencing reform. His crimes deserve serious attention and commensurate punishment.

That said, if William Barr is now disposed to direct every Federal judge to revisit every sentence for every Federal prisoner, with dramatic downward departures and appropriate compensation - Manafort may deserve some credit.

For perspective: Manafort will serve less time here than a woman in Texas who recently received 5 years (mandatory minimum) for voting when she didn't realise she was ineligible. He will serve around the same amount of time as a man sentenced for stealing $100 from a laundrette machine this week in New York.

mojo filters

  • Mueller heavy
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1896 on: March 08, 2019, 03:06:24 PM »
I think he's got a statutory 10-year sentence awaiting him in a case he's already pled guilty to, though - and it's up to the judges discretion whether he serves it concurrently or not. So he could be going away for 14 years.

The minimum sentencing guideline there is five years per charge, with potential for downward departure on both. I believe she is obliged to sentence those two consecutively, however they can then be folded in concurrent or consecutively with the Virginia sentence.

I see no rationale for the DC charges to warrant any significant downward departure from sentencing guidelines.  If anything, Judge Berman Jackson will note significant aggravating factors - those which prematurely landed Manafort in Federal custody, plus lying to investigators in an attempt to mitigate his punishment.

By contrast, despite his co-operation and early guilty plea - Michael Cohen received 65% of the guideline sentence. Manafort received 18% following conviction at the trial Judge Ellis presided over.

[Edit: clarification regarding consecutive and concurrent sentencing]
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 06:29:22 PM by mojo filters »

kngen

  • Member
  • **
  • Fighting sleep's deathlike grip
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1897 on: March 08, 2019, 04:38:44 PM »
The minimum sentencing guideline there is five years per charge, with potential for downward departure on both.

So totally arbitrary then. FFS what is point!?

(Other than enjoying seeing rich people being miserable, I don't really give two shits about Manafort, it has to be said. Far, far more worthy candidates for lengthy incarceration swanning about the corridors of power right now)

mojo filters

  • Mueller heavy
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1898 on: March 08, 2019, 06:15:15 PM »
So totally arbitrary then. FFS what is point!?

(Other than enjoying seeing rich people being miserable, I don't really give two shits about Manafort, it has to be said. Far, far more worthy candidates for lengthy incarceration swanning about the corridors of power right now)

Not arbitrary actually, I mis-stated the DC sentencing guidelines above as they are more complicated by virtue of this situation.

Judge Berman Jackson has a fair degree of potential latitude here, though unfortunately most of that is in the downward direction by precedent and DOJ policy.

The DC guidelines are actually above the statutory guidelines, but they are notable as both the minimum and maximum within the guideline framework - as used by an extremely judicious sentencing policy meticulously outlined by the Special Counsel prosecution.

The consecutive sentences for the two DC charges Manafort pleaded guilty to are inevitable. The original post-Virginia conviction guilty plea in DC offered a much lessor likely option, but his lack of compliance quashed that - hence the two conspiracy counts which the Special Counsel sensibly suggested should be sentenced reflecting both the gravity of the charges and further complications Manafort has caused.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson has legitimate discretion to sentence both charges below the guideline number of five years (consecutive) for each. Deviating from the guidelines should be based on aggravating and mitigating factors in the specific case.

Manafort's conduct does not exhibit any regular or typical mitigating factors. However as advisory numbers, it is quite likely she will sentence below the two five year numbers. This is not unusual in the Federal justice system, but she has little reason to go so relatively low as Judge Ellis did.

Judge Berman Jackson will inevitably take into account the leniency of the Virginia sentence, combined with the disrespect Manafort showed to her courtroom.

The key is not really whether she turns 2 x 5 years into a combined 5 - 8 year total, but rather whether that sentencing tally will run concurrent or consecutively with yesterday's sentence - Manafort is 69, in questionable health (if you believe his effective counsel) and despite having been known as the dirtiest of dirty political operators since the 1980s, technically a first time offender.

Unfortunately the deserving misery of disgraceful and predatory white collar criminals like Manafort, would not have any judicial standing. The state of health care provision in Federal prison would suggest that even the most lenient 5 - 8 year total sentence could become effectively life, assuming Manafort has real long-terms health problems.

The upside here is that the more rigorous Federal system has established standards. Cash bail has effectively been eliminated, whilst the presumption of innocence gets a more consistent and coherent standing.

For those of us who despair when comparing and contrasting the unpredictable and unfair behaviour of local and state level prosecutions, versus the generally reputable Federal standards - it should be notable that Judge Berman Jackson put Manafort in jail for his multiple pre-trial legal transgressions.

Combine the latter with Manafort's attempt to mitigate his DC case via a late guilty plea, followed by a botched attempt to corruptly cooperate with the Special Counsel prosecution - and one sees ample legal room for Judge Berman Jackson to go harsh on both the DC sentence, plus the potential for cumulative versus concurrent total number of years.

Other followers of this case I've consulted with suggest two outcomes: he will either get the higher end of the DC recommendations combined with concurrent sentencing, or a lower number on both counts to run consecutively with Virginia.

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1899 on: March 08, 2019, 11:13:19 PM »
https://mobile.twitter.com/randygdub/status/1104112804741578752

What do we reckon? Really does not look like her.

kalowski

  • Sooner or later
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1900 on: March 08, 2019, 11:14:54 PM »
https://mobile.twitter.com/randygdub/status/1104112804741578752

What do we reckon? Really does not look like her.
It does, if you zoom in (like Trump hasn't done for years)

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1901 on: March 08, 2019, 11:16:29 PM »
He is the perfect representation of the Republican id. People like Max Boot and Bill Krystol can talk about intellectual conservatism all they want [...]

Ever listened to Chapo Trap House?

kngen

  • Member
  • **
  • Fighting sleep's deathlike grip
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1902 on: March 08, 2019, 11:35:01 PM »
Ever listened to Chapo Trap House?

Once or twice a day

Vitalstatistix

  • Photocopies are not admissable as memories
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1903 on: March 09, 2019, 06:44:45 AM »
The latest one about the gang's visit to CPAC is a one of the best episodes they've ever done.

A grimly hilarious window into the world of modern American "conservatism"!

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1904 on: March 09, 2019, 08:34:10 AM »
The latest one about the gang's visit to CPAC is a one of the best episodes they've ever done.

A grimly hilarious window into the world of modern American "conservatism"!

That episode was fantastic, but left me with such a pessimistic and depressing feeling of what's to come before the next election.

Z

  • The movie, not the TV series, or the book
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1905 on: March 09, 2019, 12:01:16 PM »
The latest one about the gang's visit to CPAC is a one of the best episodes they've ever done.

A grimly hilarious window into the world of modern American "conservatism"!
"The Katamari Demacy of Lawsuits" is peak Felix, loved it

Head Gardener

  • weed specialist
    • Gardening mixes
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1906 on: March 10, 2019, 09:49:16 AM »



look who’s signing bibles in tornado-ravaged Alabama

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1907 on: March 10, 2019, 10:02:03 AM »
You can tell it is a fake Melania because she is touching him

That must be the laziest signature I have ever seen. Not even an attempt to look like the letters it is supposed to represent. It is what a child would do when pretending to do a signature


Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1908 on: March 10, 2019, 10:12:45 AM »


look who’s signing bibles in tornado-ravaged Alabama

"Military Challenge Edition"?

Mobius

  • he who hingeth aboot getteth hee haw
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1909 on: March 10, 2019, 09:11:04 PM »
Apparently something to do with this

http://www.militarybiblechallenge.com/

What the fuck?! No idea what is going on on that site...

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1910 on: March 14, 2019, 07:38:40 PM »
Senate rejects border wall National Emergency https://www.vox.com/2019/3/14/18264306/senate-republicans-block-trump-emergency-resolution

In response, Trump tweets his intent to VETO! https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1106272915488686080

(To which many have wittily responded BETO!)

Norton Canes

  • The leper heart will see you for what you are
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1911 on: March 14, 2019, 07:47:18 PM »
'Border deniers'? Hmm, can't see that one catching on. Very poor.

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1912 on: March 14, 2019, 07:57:12 PM »
Ben Garrison is simultaneously horny and racist


Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1913 on: March 14, 2019, 08:02:34 PM »
None of that damn equality for us, NO!

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1914 on: March 14, 2019, 08:02:56 PM »
Bit of a rubbish cartoon that, I mean despite his intent he's still making AOC etc look sexy and Trump like a party-pooper finger wagging grumpus with no better ideas.

I'm always looking for that change in the weather where Trump finally starts losing his shine for a significant amount of his supporters and not to jinx things but I think it's been gathering more steam these past few weeks.

Fambo Number Mive

  • Golden Member
  • *****
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1915 on: March 14, 2019, 08:03:29 PM »
I see Trump has been commenting on Brexit and undermining May.

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1916 on: March 14, 2019, 08:08:08 PM »
Not quite yet. If the timing was better there would be a good chance of an overturned veto.
That would be the end I think.

Bit of a rubbish cartoon that, I mean despite his intent he's still making AOC etc look sexy and Trump like a party-pooper finger wagging grumpus with no better ideas.

I'm always looking for that change in the weather where Trump finally starts losing his shine for a significant amount of his supporters and not to jinx things but I think it's been gathering more steam these past few weeks.

Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1917 on: March 17, 2019, 10:38:27 PM »
The mad old fucker has gone on a retweet marathon. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

FerriswheelBueller

  • Golden Todger or
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Less tired. Still sorry if my posts are shit.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1918 on: March 17, 2019, 11:35:34 PM »
The mad old fucker has gone on a retweet marathon. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

I scrolled through his twitter feed for the first time in a long time.

Without the context of reading it fairly regularly, it genuinely comes across as unhinged. The same bizarre talking points, conspiracy theories, and literal denial of reality over and over again.

It’s worth the occasional read just to remind yourself of how far up the creek the executive branch of the US is.

Head Gardener

  • weed specialist
    • Gardening mixes
Re: Trump number 8
« Reply #1919 on: March 18, 2019, 04:22:05 PM »