General Trump Administration F**kery Thread

[Professor Emeritus]

So the Judge gave in to Trump/Barr's demands instead of the original recommendation of 7 to 9 years by the prosecution and the independent Probation Office

Whole country corrupt as fukk.

Judge is playing chess not checkers.

He knows Trump is looking for any excuse at all to pardon Stone. He's giving Stone real punishment (3 years in prison is a serious bid), but by not doing the 7-9 years he's making Trump's pardon look much less justifiable. If he had done 7-9 Trump would have whined and bytched and it would have been an auto-pardon. He'll probably end up pardoning him anyway but at least now it's gonna look more obviously corrupt and not reasonable.

 

[The ADD]

The point is the Judge had every right to give him the 7-9 years the Probation Office recommended based on precedent + guidelines.

Roger deserves 0 compassionate departure from normal sentencing procedure. You can't show greater contempt for the Court and Justice system as a whole than to be threatening judges and witnesses. He should have been sentenced to the fullest extent of the law.

Instead, the Judge let him off easier than what the law calls for, with no good reason other than he's White and friends with Trump.

In regards to precedent I’m watching legal experts say otherwise so if you have other information then I’d love to see that.

We can all feel he should gotten the book thrown at him but outside of what the prosecution suggested it doesn’t seem like that was ever going to be the case.

 

[Nobu]

Judge is playing chess not checkers.

He knows Trump is looking for any excuse at all to pardon Stone. He's giving Stone real punishment (3 years in prison is a serious bid), but by not doing the 7-9 years he's making Trump's pardon look much less justifiable. If he had done 7-9 Trump would have whined and bytched and it would have been an auto-pardon. He'll probably end up pardoning him anyway but at least now it's gonna look more obviously corrupt and not reasonable.

You, me, and the Judge herself know damn well he's getting pardoned anyway. Her unusual compassionate departure for an a$$hole who doesn't deserve compassion won't change that.

In light of that, the best thing for her to do would be to follow the Federal Sentencing guidelines and the independent Probation Office's recommendations which are based on the guidelines + precedent.

Following the independent recommendation of 7-9 years as usual would have sent the message that:

- The Justice system does not cower to outside pressure
- People who undermine the integrity of the Justice system itself by threatening Judges and witnesses will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You, me, and the Judge herself know damn well he's getting pardoned anyway. Her unusual compassionate departure for an a$$hole who doesn't deserve compassion won't change that.

In light of that, the best thing for her to do would be to follow the Federal Sentencing guidelines and the independent Probation Office's recommendations which are based on the guidelines + precedent.

Following the independent recommendation of 7-9 years as usual would have sent the message that:

- The Justice system does not cower to outside pressure
- People who undermine the integrity of the Justice system itself by threatening Judges and witnesses will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

If you think he's getting pardoned anyway then why do you care how long the sentence is?

Someone not getting held accountable doesn't send the message that people will be held accountable.

Like I said, if she thinks Trump is going to pardon him anyway, then making that pardon as unjustifiable as possible has got to be part of the game. You go with the the longest sentence and you're just floating Trump an excuse. 3.5 years in the slammer is REAL accountability, especially for a 67-year-old man, but you're also making it look like the fairest sentence or even too light to as many people as possible, so Trump has zero excuses.

If Trump pardons him now it just looks like blatant corruption. You might think that doesn't hurt him, but if you really feel that way then you might as well just give up and stop commenting because everything is meaningless at that point.

 

[Nobu]

It’s two separate things. The inconsistency of white collar crime sentences relative to other crimes is of course a topic. In the vacuum of what’s been happening outside of that, this seems to be where it was truly going to land.

It's not 2 separate things. White people are given compassionate sentences (even when they don't deserve it like Roger) while Black people are punished to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Nobu]

If you think he's getting pardoned anyway then why do you care how long the sentence is?

I answered that question.

I care because it would that on her end she (and Justice) is not cowering to outside pressure.

Trump pardoning is out of her control, all she can do is do her best to issue the proper sentence of 7-9 years.

Trump pardoning Stone doesn't mean she's cowering to pressure, but her giving Stone an undeserved and unusually compassionate sentence is.

In light of that, the best thing for her to do would be to follow the Federal Sentencing guidelines and the independent Probation Office's recommendations which are based on the guidelines + precedent.

Following the independent recommendation of 7-9 years as usual would have sent the message that:

- The Justice system does not cower to outside pressure
- People who undermine the integrity of the Justice system itself by threatening Judges and witnesses will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[The ADD]

It's not 2 separate things. White people are given compassionate sentences (even when they don't deserve it like Roger) while Black people are punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Well if you know that is going to happen then why are you surprised at the sentence?

Something can be disproportionate in the macro and proportional in the micro

 

[Nobu]

Well if you know that is going to happen then why are you surprised at the sentence?

Something can be disproportionate in the macro and proportional in the micro

Where did I say I was surprised?

I'm disappointed but not surprised that the rich, well connected White people get compassion where no compassion is due.

The 2nd sentence of your post is nonsense, btw. There is no justification for racially disproportionate sentencing

 

[The ADD]

Where did I say I was surprised?

I'm disappointed but not surprised that the rich, well connected White people get compassion where no compassion is due.

Again it’s two separate tracks so I’m not sure why you are digging here. Nobody is arguing that they don’t. Relative to this specific situation this is expected.

If your point is that highlight the disparity it’s generally agreed on. Otherwise this about this specific case relative to Trump.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I answered that question.

I care because it would that on her end she (and Justice) is not cowering to outside pressure.

Trump pardoning is out of her control, all she can do is do her best to issue the proper sentence of 7-9 years.

Trump pardoning Stone doesn't mean she's cowering to pressure, but her giving Stone an undeserved and unusually compassionate sentence is.

Who would care? Literally, who would care what sentence a judge gave to someone who she knew would never serve it?

You're basically arguing that she should have engaged in virtue signalling. I have a hard time imaging someone saying, "Man, I would have engaged in witness tampering if I was only getting a 3.5 year bid, but 7 years, that's too much."

It's clearly taking the crime seriously whether it was 3.5 or 7. Trump wants him to serve nothing, so she isn't caving to Trump. If it was a year or less it would have felt like nothing....two years would have been borderline...but 3.5 years is serious time. And yet it is much less than the first suggested 7-9, so if Trump pardons then it will look like pure corruption, he'll have ZERO other justification.

This is a best case scenario in the real world we live in and some of y'all are shytting on the wrong person here.

 

[Nobu]

You're basically arguing that she should have engaged in virtue signalling.

No, I'm arguing that the Judges should see that the laws are applied fairly and consistently in accordance with the Federal Sentencing guidelines and recommendations of the independent Probation Office. Compassionate departure only being made in circumstances that warrant it, Stone not being one of them.

Political connections shouldn't warrant lighter sentences.

I guess you could call applying the law fairly to everyone "virtue signalling" in a way, just like you could say any time a white person calls out racism it's "virtue signalling".

You say it like virtue signalling is a universally bad thing.

It's good to show the world you have good virtues, provided you actually are acting in accordance with those virtues.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

No, I'm arguing that the Judges should see that the laws are applied fairly and consistently in accordance with the Federal Sentencing guidelines and recommendations of the independent Probation Office. Compassionate departure only being made in circumstances that warrant it, Stone not being one of them.

Political connections shouldn't warrant lighter sentences.

I guess you could call applying the law fairly to everyone "virtue signalling" in a way, just like you could say any time a white person calls out racism it's "virtue signalling".

You say it like virtue signalling is a universally bad thing.

It's good to show the world you have good virtues, provided you actually are acting in accordance with those virtues.

The difference between demonstrating good virtues and virtue signaling is virtue signalling is what you do when you know your actions are empty.

You think that the judge is sending a consequential signal to sentence but that Trump's pardon will mean nothing. I disagree.

 

[Nobu]

The difference between demonstrating good virtues and virtue signaling is virtue signalling is what you do when you know your actions are empty.

You think that the judge is sending a consequential signal to sentence but that Trump's pardon will mean nothing. I disagree.

It's more that I think following the sentencing guidelines is a better signal than not following the guidelines. Stone deserves no mercy.

Show that you're not getting mercy from the Justice department for being Trump's friend. You might get mercy from Trump, but not from an independent judge.

I didn't say Trump's pardon will mean nothing, that would make no sense, it means Roger gets out of prison.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

It's more that I think following the sentencing guidelines is a better signal than not following the guidelines. Stone deserves no mercy.

Show that you're not getting mercy from the Justice department for being Trump's friend. You might get mercy from Trump, but not from an independent judge.

I didn't say Trump's pardon will mean nothing, that would make no sense, it means Roger gets out of prison.

You're saying it has no impact in the message it sends though. With everything he's done, he still hasn't pardoned any of his friends for helping him. When he does it will be a new step in proving his corruption. The fewer outs he has to justify that, the better.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Compassionate departure only being made in circumstances that warrant it, Stone not being one of them.

You don't know her motivation for the reduced sentence. Given her less than cordial disposition toward Stone I don't think that feeling sorry for him was the case.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Stone "took it upon himself to lie, to impede, to obstruct before the investigation was complete, in an endeavor to influence the result."

"The truth still exists, the truth still matters," Jackson said. "Roger Stone insisted that it doesn’t."