Turley defends Barr
Feb. 19th, 2020 05:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ny_quant... both the White House and the Justice Department quickly stated that there was no communication between Trump and Barr regarding the case and that the decision to withdraw the recommendation was made previously. If true, Trump showed his uncanny ability to undermine his own administration and then magnified that damage with a type of “atta boy” for Barr after the recommendation was withdrawn.
There are good faith reasons to question a Justice Department process that led to the resignation of multiple prosecutors after the lowering of a recommended sentence for a friend of the president. There also stands a legitimate question of why it was necessary to intervene in this particular case over a sentencing recommendation. However, there are reasons to be skeptical of the portrayals of a Justice Department commissariat slavishly carrying out orders by the president.
None of this means that there was no political interference or that there should not be an investigation. There are serious credible concerns to be investigated, and Barr has agreed to appear before Congress to answer those questions. However, the critics have shown the very same disregard for the facts, the merits, and the process that they ascribe to Barr.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/483440-in-defense-of-william-barr
Заодно он напомнил забытый мной эпизод с Обамой и Холдером:
It is not unprecedented for Main Justice to overrule local prosecutors. For example, in 2008 when President Obama was first running for the White House, prosecutors wanted to bring charges against Black Panthers who stood in front of polling places brandishing weapons. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department overruled them, despite a rather widespread view that the men were trying to intimidate voters. There were no calls to impeach or incarcerate Holder...
Наверное это было совсем другое дело.
There are good faith reasons to question a Justice Department process that led to the resignation of multiple prosecutors after the lowering of a recommended sentence for a friend of the president. There also stands a legitimate question of why it was necessary to intervene in this particular case over a sentencing recommendation. However, there are reasons to be skeptical of the portrayals of a Justice Department commissariat slavishly carrying out orders by the president.
None of this means that there was no political interference or that there should not be an investigation. There are serious credible concerns to be investigated, and Barr has agreed to appear before Congress to answer those questions. However, the critics have shown the very same disregard for the facts, the merits, and the process that they ascribe to Barr.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/483440-in-defense-of-william-barr
Заодно он напомнил забытый мной эпизод с Обамой и Холдером:
It is not unprecedented for Main Justice to overrule local prosecutors. For example, in 2008 when President Obama was first running for the White House, prosecutors wanted to bring charges against Black Panthers who stood in front of polling places brandishing weapons. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department overruled them, despite a rather widespread view that the men were trying to intimidate voters. There were no calls to impeach or incarcerate Holder...
Наверное это было совсем другое дело.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2020-02-21 02:42 pm (UTC)// Барр прекрасно знает, чего хочет Трмап, что служит его интересам.
Эта точка зрения не противоречит мнению Turley и многих других, что сроки для Стоуна были затребованы совершенно дикие и его вмешательство было вполне обосновано.
no subject
Date: 2020-02-22 03:52 am (UTC)Как часто AG вмешивается и меняет рекомендацию? Я за прошедшие дни не видел ни одного такого примера, и Turley их тоже не приводит. Так что, я думаю, логично заключить, что других примеров просто нет.
То есть мы имеем беспрецедентное вмешательство AG, которое выглядело бы странно, даже не будь Стоун другом Трампа. Но он-то друг Трампа, так что выглядит это не просто странно.
Далее. У нас нет оснований предполагать, что прокуроры в своей рекомендации пошли против правил. По-моему, даже Барр этого не утверждает.
Судья же сказала (via tijd) следующее: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6783134-Roger-Stone-Sentencing-Transcript.html
"The guidelines are supposed to be the starting point of that analysis. And I agree totally with Mr. Ginsberg that they're a blunt instrument. The guidelines, though, and the sentencing commission and the appellate courts require district courts to explain why, if they're going to vary from the guidelines. And the Department of Justice's own manual calls for advocacy for guideline sentences in most situations.
The government's initial memorandum was thorough, well researched, and supported. It was true to the record. It was in accordance with the law and with DOJ policy, and it was submitted with the same level of evenhanded judgment and professionalism that they exhibited throughout the trial. Any suggestion that the prosecutors in this case did anything untoward, unethical, or improper is incorrect.
But I am concerned that seven to nine years, or even the 70 to 87 months, as I calculated the guideline range, would be greater than necessary. I sincerely doubt that I would have sentenced him within that range, even if the sentencing had simply proceeded in its typical fashion, without any of the extraneous commentary or the unprecedented actions of the Department of Justice within the past week."
То, что она в итоге назначила куда меньший срок, чем просили прокуроры, по-моему, вполне обычное дело. В конце концов, защита просила вообще no prison time, и адвокатов в том, что они были неправы никто не обвиняет.
no subject
Date: 2020-02-22 04:46 pm (UTC)// о есть мы имеем беспрецедентное вмешательство AG
Не считая Холдера.
no subject
Date: 2020-02-23 12:43 am (UTC)Это на чем основанное утверждение?
И, помимо "за дружбу с Трмапом", в рекомендации прокуратуры не было лишнего срока, она соответствовала guidelines.
Не считая Холдера.
Приведенный пример с Холдером, как вы уже обсудили со shvarz, это совсем другое дело. Буквально. Никакого отношения к случаю AG, меняющему рекомендацию прокуроров, которые довели дело до суда и выиграли процесс. Как я сказал, если бы были известны другие подобные случаи, мы бы о них на данный момент уже знали.