Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Grins
Grins's Journal
Grins's Journal
May 31, 2024
That was William Barr responding to Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia on his over-ruling the sentencing recommendation of Roger Stone - by his own DoJ Attorney's!!!
A perceptive onlooker might have pointed out that Bernie Madoff - then age 71 years - was sentenced to 150 years for his bilking investors out of millions. At age 82, four years older than Trump is today, Bernie died - in prison!
With that interference, all four Roger Stone DoJ prosecutors (Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando) abruptly showed up in federal court and withdrew from the case in disgust; one of whom (Kravis) resigned from the department and government.
Former prosecutor Kravis would later write:
He later admitted he was wrong. Trump, with Barr again running interference, pardoned Stone AND Michael Flynn.
Postscript: When the news of Trump colluding with the Russians was exploding, a former Intel community Tweeted: "Trump will die in prison."
The Intel community should have turned on him after Helsinki. That they didn't hurt us all. Whoever wrote that back in 2017 - I hope you are having a great day - and wait until Smith gets done with Trump on the Top Secret documents he stole.
I heard this line this AM: "Trump is too old to go to prison."
Trump is too old. Yeah, right.
28 July 2020
House Judiciary Committee
In February 2020, US AG William Barr pulled back on the DoJ's career own prosecutors sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. Democrats pushed Barr on his decision and heard this:
“Let me ask you, do you think it is fair for a 67-year-old man to be sent to prison for seven to nine years?”
That was William Barr responding to Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia on his over-ruling the sentencing recommendation of Roger Stone - by his own DoJ Attorney's!!!
A perceptive onlooker might have pointed out that Bernie Madoff - then age 71 years - was sentenced to 150 years for his bilking investors out of millions. At age 82, four years older than Trump is today, Bernie died - in prison!
With that interference, all four Roger Stone DoJ prosecutors (Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando) abruptly showed up in federal court and withdrew from the case in disgust; one of whom (Kravis) resigned from the department and government.
Former prosecutor Kravis would later write:
" (I) resigned because I was not willing to serve a department that would so easily abdicate its responsibility to dispense impartial justice. ...I left a job I loved because I believed the department had abandoned its responsibility to do justice in one of my cases, United States v. Roger Stone. At the time, I thought that the handling of the Stone case, with senior officials intervening to recommend a lower sentence for a longtime ally of President Trump, was a disastrous mistake that the department would not make again."
He later admitted he was wrong. Trump, with Barr again running interference, pardoned Stone AND Michael Flynn.
Postscript: When the news of Trump colluding with the Russians was exploding, a former Intel community Tweeted: "Trump will die in prison."
The Intel community should have turned on him after Helsinki. That they didn't hurt us all. Whoever wrote that back in 2017 - I hope you are having a great day - and wait until Smith gets done with Trump on the Top Secret documents he stole.
February 24, 2024
Apparently the judge did not know that picking judges based on party ideology goes back to the early 19th century. A simple look at the influence of those judges from the gilded age through and beyond to the administration of FDR alone would have been an eye-opener.
Turns out there is a recent evidence about the decisions by judges and their party affiliations; a research project from Harvard that suggests we have underestimated the impact of party affiliation on judicial outcomes. This paragraph by Ms. Marcus struck me:
And each one of those cases affects who-knows-how-many other cases!
At the end, Marcus quotes the Harvard researcher:
Here: [link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/judge-political-party-president-trump-marcus/|
"Elections have consequences," part infinity... Nominating judges.
This is from a 20 Feb 2024 Washington Post column by Ruth Marcus.
Ms. Marcus is responding to a judge who had written to her asking:
“Why does the media insist on identifying the president who appointed the federal judges who make a newsworthy decision?"
Apparently the judge did not know that picking judges based on party ideology goes back to the early 19th century. A simple look at the influence of those judges from the gilded age through and beyond to the administration of FDR alone would have been an eye-opener.
Turns out there is a recent evidence about the decisions by judges and their party affiliations; a research project from Harvard that suggests we have underestimated the impact of party affiliation on judicial outcomes. This paragraph by Ms. Marcus struck me:
"Had Al Gore become president in 2000 instead of George W. Bush, ...a two-term Gore presidency, and the judges he would have appointed, would have changed the outcome in about 10,000 cases over the next 20 years, including 2,500 improved outcomes for individuals in civil litigation, about 1,100 improved outcomes for private parties in civil suits against the government, about 2,500 improved outcomes for criminal defendants in criminal appeal, about 1,500 improved outcomes for immigrants in immigrations appeals and about 1,100 improved outcomes for prisoners in prisoner litigation."
And each one of those cases affects who-knows-how-many other cases!
At the end, Marcus quotes the Harvard researcher:
“It’s important to know that this effect is not just in highly controversial cases. It’s in almost all cases.”
Here: [link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/judge-political-party-president-trump-marcus/|
October 19, 2012
Yup! No OB/GYN's would agree . My response to Joe...
"And just what is this "modern technology and science" of which you speak?"
Let him name it. 'Cuz "Doctors want to know!"
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Aug 29, 2003, 11:25 AMNumber of posts: 7,489