AFTER the person has been FOUND GUILTY .

Feb 12, 2020 7:51AM PST

The Prosecution makes "recommendations"

The Defense makes their plea on sentencing their client.

Or maybe the Defense makes their recommendations first.

The Judge makes the decision., sometimes after a time and consideration.

Does ANYONE TELL the Judge what the sentence WILL BE/SHOULD BE? Other than the individuals IN COURT.

DJT wants to say something to The Judge..get in the witness stand and take the oath. Like THAT's gonna' happen

HAS DJT replaced "the Judge"?

HE's not satisfied with appointing all those Judges......Now HE wants to be one? OR just pull the strings/work the hand puppets.

TheRUMP?.......Above the law?


Discussion is locked

Reply to: AFTER the person has been FOUND GUILTY .
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: AFTER the person has been FOUND GUILTY .
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Two views
Feb 12, 2020 12:16PM PST

and you brought them both up and still aren't happy.

The PROSECUTORS recommend a sentence and a judge normally goes along with it in most cases......unless there is a plea deal between the prosecutors and the defense, which is this case there wasn't.

The judge makes a decision that the recommendation is too harsh when compared to OTHER crimes, more offensive, that get lesser sentencing on a normal basis.....and this judge has not made that decision YET.

There is ANOTHER view that is legal.....that the DOJ, since these are actually FEDERAL charges involved, CAN make its OWN recommendation for sentencing based on comparing OTHER crimes that get are more serious but get lesser sentences, which is what has happened.

FINAL view/option....entirely resting on Trump's shoulders....let whatever sentence is given by crap prosecutors with an agenda stand and outright issue a PARDON, setting Stone free immediately.

Just because a handful of resentful prosecutors trying to set up an old man as an 'example' of their power can't handle being even a little bit compassionate considering how many REAL criminals they let walk every day and quit just goes to show how shallow they really are.

Boo-Hoo and don't let the door hit your arses on the way out.

- Collapse -
Feb 12, 2020 12:26PM PST

You have to realize that district attorneys will do anything to get a person convicted either through a trial or the defendant takes a plea deal. Some plea deals are outrageous as they don't follow the sentencing guidelines. The DA can even ask the court for an upward departure sentence, giving the defendant double time. In some states, the defendant can get good time which is 20 percent off the sentence. The DA can ask the court to not allow good time.

- Collapse -
Of course I realize that
Feb 12, 2020 1:29PM PST

However, the NORMAL procedure is to have a prosecutor collaborate WITH the DA for recommendation guidelines, and no plea deal was even considered from what I understand, and it also appears that the DA wasn't involved in this recommendation. This recommendation far exceeds what OTHER more serious crimes normally get issued,

Two of the prosecutors that resigned are from the DOJ, which is telling....and which is probably why Barr stepped in because many in the DOJ are still BO agenda holdovers out to destroy ANYBODY connected to Trump.

I just can't understand why so many on the left (from the FBI, Clapper, et al) who have been PROVEN to have lied to Congress AND to the FISA court have NOT been taken into a court room yet on charges, even though some have already been recommended for indictments by Horowitz....unless Barr's DOJ is waiting on the Durham report to be completed in March or so.

ONLY those connected to Trump....not those connected to BO, or Biden, or HILL....Yep, that's 'justice' according to Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and Schumer.

- Collapse -
RE:which is probably why Barr stepped in
Feb 12, 2020 1:52PM PST

Post was last edited on February 12, 2020 1:56 PM PST

- Collapse -
A current version
Feb 12, 2020 3:52PM PST

being discussed today on "The Five" of what happened is that all four prosecutors supposedly had a deal with the DOJ that they would recommend less than the 7-9 years and then in court broke that deal. That's when Barr stepped in and it was done BEFORE Trump tweeted thanking Barr for his action.

- Collapse -
RE:Trump tweeted thanking Barr for his action.
Feb 14, 2020 7:57AM PST

Word on the street is Barr doesn't want ANY thanks OR comments from Trump.

I think Barr meant HE doesn't want ANY thanks/comments made publicly.

However Barr did throw some shade on DJT.

- Collapse -
RE::Boo-Hoo and don't let the door hit your arses on the way
Feb 12, 2020 12:37PM PST

DJT is the one with the gross posterior .....AND HE should also be concerned about getting HIS hair? caught in said door.

- Collapse -
RE: The PROSECUTORS recommend a sentence
Feb 12, 2020 12:41PM PST

Yes that's what I heard also...HOWEVER

I also heard that THESE prosecutors had PREVIOUS consultations with DOJ and the "recommendations" were made in consultation/agreement WITH DOJ.

NOW DOJ has changed it's position. What's up with that?

That is the reason there is such an uproar....Rightly so.


So, we have this very public disagreement on sentencing recommendation in the DOJ—in-fighting—in a high profile case. What happened here?

That depends on matters of timing for which we lack public information. In a case of such national visibility, it’s likely that the prosecutors consulted fairly far up the DOJ hierarchy—up to the Deputy Attorney General level—before they settled on the 7-9 years recommendation. I doubt they would have made that recommendation without upward consultation. So the likely thing is that after the 7-9 recommendation was made, the Attorney General decided to countermand it. Where the original recommendation relied on enhancement and evidence, this new recommendation cites counter-evidence. As for his motive, well, we all read the papers.

Post was last edited on February 12, 2020 12:46 PM PST

- Collapse -
Since two of those prosecutors
Feb 12, 2020 1:31PM PST

who resigned were from the DOJ, you can bet that those that they consulted with were BO holdovers....see my previous post about this. And good riddance.

- Collapse -
RE:Just because a handful of resentful prosecutors
Feb 12, 2020 1:02PM PST

You call it resentful...I call it conscientious.

They probably worked on the case for 2 years...and at the last HE comes to "save the day"?

And YOU would "roll with the punches"?

For some reason or other I don't think YOU are that kinda' gal.

What say you?

- Collapse -
RE:being even a little bit compassionate
Feb 12, 2020 6:44PM PST

It's a lot easier to be compassionate to someone that admits THEIR guilt.

He did what he did and he admits it. Saying he is sorry AND mentioning others that were involved also goes a long way.

THAT's how you get "clemency"....Clemency definition is - disposition to be merciful and especially to moderate the severity of punishment due.

Feb 21, 2019 - Roger Stone, a long-time friend of President Donald Trump's, appeared in ... photo Stone had posted of the Judge next to a rifle scope's crosshair.

How to win friends and influence sentencing? DUH!!!!

Post was last edited on February 12, 2020 6:59 PM PST

- Collapse -
RE: FOUR views
Feb 12, 2020 7:33PM PST

and YOU brought them ALL up and still aren't happy.

See how THAT works.


- Collapse -
Why pick on Trump?
Feb 12, 2020 5:17PM PST

I watched him say that he 'stays out of things.' Also, he had me in tears with his heartrending descriptions of the tortures heaped on Stone and his family by the evil ones- male that "evil" ones; a quote- in Justice. 'Their lives have been destroyed! And all he did was send a tweet'!

What a way to treat your President.

Oh, wait. He isn't your President.

Not mine, either.

- Collapse -
RE:He isn't your President. Not mine, either.
Feb 13, 2020 6:11AM PST

Sorry, but YES, he is YOUR PRESIDENT.

Whether you voted for him, someone else or didn't vote at all.


Whether YOU worship him or not....

- Collapse -
You just don't understand ...
Feb 13, 2020 7:52AM PST
- Collapse -
Two new bits of info
Feb 13, 2020 10:23AM PST

Jurist bias against Trump and anyone associated with him out publicly now has caused Stone's attorneys to demand a mistrial from the judge.

And those two DOJ prosecutors who quit?......Shouldn't surprise anybody to now learn that they were part of Mueller's 'investigative' team. Nope, no bias there...say it isn't so.

Yep....."justice" all long as it's all against Trump's people.

As a side note: Pelosi/Nadler/Schiff again calling for investigations into Trump 'influencing' the sentencing and Barr stepping in......and Pocahontas calling for Barr's 'impeachment'. So what else is new? The House isn't about to do any real government business for the next 9 months it seems because they are singularly focused and proving they really CAN'T walk and chew gum at the same time. However, the Republican House members of the "Intel Committee" headed up by Schiff boycotted their 'meeting' because they refused to investigate the proven and DECLARED illegal by a judge already FISA warrants.

With the last two FISA warrants ruled illegal, doesn't that mean that ALL 'evidence' used against Trump people that came from at least those two warrants is tainted and inadmissible so those cases should be ruled null and void? It would in any NORMAL court.....fruit of the poison tree after all.

- Collapse -
RE:as long as it's all against Trump's people.
Feb 13, 2020 11:16AM PST

it's too bad HE wouldn't let anyone(HIS people), that might/should have a good word for HIM, testify.

Wall to wall coverage on ALL 3 major news networks in the US for days on end, to get DJT's version of the truth out there...and HE turns it down?

What's up with that?

HE didn't want to embarrass the Dems?

Think about it....

HE didn't want to convict himself makes MORE sense.

PS...I just remembered...IF someone (HIS people) let something slip while testifying they might as well start packing their bags just as soon as they leave the witness stand. Maybe even have everything packed and ready BEFORE they testify because who knows will set HIM off.

Post was last edited on February 13, 2020 12:08 PM PST

- Collapse -
You keep forgetting, JP
Feb 14, 2020 4:02AM PST

First, impeachment is supposed to be done in the House Judiciary Committee NOT Schiff's Intel Committee....the only legal way they got away with having a it shifted over was because the last three witnesses to appear (although they were ALL OPINION people regarding the Constitution and NOT witnesses of FACT) was again shifted back to Judiciary for Nadler.

Second....Schiff refused to allow witnesses on the Trump/Republican side (he rejected every one they wanted), AND refused to allow Trump's attorney present to question Schiff's 'actual' witnesses of which only ONE (Sondland) actually had every spoken to the President and THAT part of his testimony went south rapidly because he testified that he PRESUMED/ASSUMED/GUESSED at what he BELIEVED was the 'truth'. Trump was NOT given the opportunity to face his accusers, which is what is supposed be his LEGAL RIGHT.

Third....Yes, Nadler, when he got it back into Judiciary INVITED the President and his attorneys to join in, which they declined to do because Nadler was NOT going to present any of SCHIFF's 'witnesses' to be cross examined, and Nadler's 'witnesses' were ONLY OPINION people regarding the Constitution so there was nothing and nobody for Trump's attorneys to question since NONE were accusers.

Fourth....once it got to the Senate, and they were calling for NEW witnesses, it was apparent that NONE of SCHIFF's witnesses were going to be RECALLED for Trump's attorneys to now have the chance to question.

You obviously have NO clue about how OUR judicial system works, JP or you wouldn't make such stupid statements.

He's been acquitted.....get over it.

- Collapse -
RE:He's been acquitted.....get over it.
Feb 14, 2020 5:54AM PST

And the correct response to THAT argument IS?

He's been IMPEACHED....get over it.

THAT is how HE will go down in the history books.

BTW HIS "history" is still being written.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings....

The fat guy (Billy Barr) has Bslapped TheRUMP for tweeting/speaking out about court cases.

"tweeting/speaking out" polite way of saying "put a sock in it"

...I see on Google that you can buy MAGA hats & Trump socks......I wonder how many Trump Socks it would take to stuff HIS cakehole. Of course he would have to have really big mitts to prevent HIM from tweeting.

Last AG that DJT appointed didn't trash talk HIM very long before he was taken to the curb.

put a sock in it
phrase of sock
stop talking.

- Collapse -
A different fat guy
Feb 14, 2020 6:41AM PST

Nadler, got Bslapped by Schiff AND Pelosi....and he tried to take revenge by stepping past Schiff to get in the very last words from that side at the end of the trial that HE was SUPPOSED to legally be charge of. LOL What a crybaby tantrum in front of the world. The Dems have lost all credibility when it comes to civility even among themselves.

Trump actually may NOT have to be impeached FOREVER as you guys lke to say....once the House is controlled by Republicans again, they can actually vote to EXPUNGE the record.

- Collapse -
RE:they can actually vote to EXPUNGE the record.
Feb 14, 2020 8:06AM PST

They can?...So it's been done before?

Got a link?

Didn't think so.

That was easy.

BTW Censure AND Impeachment are 2 different things

Post was last edited on February 14, 2020 8:08 AM PST

- Collapse -
Feb 14, 2020 4:17AM PST

re: the 'jury' foreman...…..she lied to the judge during voir dire....she had run for a Democrat Congressional seat (and lost), she had previously been posting on line a number of disparaging remarks about Trump and his supporters, AND she was tweeting remarks DURING the trial itself.

Automatic mistrial on ANY of those charges....and although he would be entitled to a new trial, I seriously doubt at this point that if it's granted by a judge who already has publicly shown disdain for Trump and his administration, the prosecution team will have the stomach to retry him. The judge DID deny the defense a new trial, but that decision was made a WEEK ago when the story of that juror was just beginning to develop and BEFORE ALL four of the prosecutors had quit. A new decision needs to be made now since all of those prosecutors have to be replaced before THIS trial can go forward, even to sentencing. Also, this judge ILLEGALLY gagged Stone and continues to do so, even though under the law, once he was found guilty that gag order, that should have never been in place to begin with, should have been removed.

What a joke...…..another sham trial...…..

- Collapse -
RE:even though under the law, once he was found guilty that
Feb 14, 2020 6:02AM PST

even though under the law, once he was found guilty that gag order, that should have never been in place to begin with, should have been removed.

Maybe it was...and Stone decided HE wanted to be gagged.

..HE(Stone) posted a pic of the Judge with HER in something that appears to be the crosshairs of a rifle scope.

Veiled threat on the Judge by Convicted Roger Stone

Feb 18, 2019 - Roger Stone, the political consultant and longtime adviser to President Donald Trump, said he didn't mean an Instagram post to be a threat ..

Post was last edited on February 14, 2020 6:28 AM PST

- Collapse -
Feb 14, 2020 6:45AM PST

Ya got nothing' as usual. He wasn't charged with anything related to that.

And your babble about how HE wanted to be gagged is beyond ridiculous as usual. That was the last thing he wanted since he's already lost his money and his house (sound familiar to you? It's the method used by Mueller's team since day one) and he was only making money by being paid by news shows TO speak about what was going on. She effectively has starved him out of the ability to make a living......

- Collapse -
RE:Ya got nothing' as usual
Feb 14, 2020 6:53AM PST

Neither do you...that was easy

- Collapse -
RE:She effectively has starved him out of the ability to mak
Feb 14, 2020 6:55AM PST

She effectively has starved him out of the ability to make a living...

And what part do YOU think HE played in HIS fate.

DID DJT have a hand in Stone's fate?

- Collapse -
RE:She effectively has starved him out of the ability to mak
Feb 14, 2020 7:30AM PST
She effectively has starved him out of the ability to make a living......

AND exactly what did people want Stone to talk about(make HIS living).?

The trial?...The trial that HE hasn't yet been sentenced in even now?

The man would have to be an idiot to go on the talk show circuit and talk about the "injustice of HIS trial" when HE hasn't been sentenced yet.

UNLESS he thought the 'fix was in"(thanks to DJT?)...AND the Judge decided that the guy was just a little bit too confident in how SHE would sentence HIM.

When the perp looks TOO can make the Judge look like a flunky.
- Collapse -
Feb 14, 2020 6:47AM PST

re: the 'jury' foreman...…..she lied to the judge during voir dire....she had run for a Democrat Congressional seat

Are you saying she lied about that?

Well, Here's a link to an article that was UPDATED Nov 15, 2019 Long before today with your NEW UPDATE that mentions someone running for a "congressional Seat". So your breaking news/NEW UPDATE ain't so breaking...

The jury of nine women and three men, including a former congressional candidate and a federal government lawyer,

It's Feb 2020 NOT Nov 2019.

Grasping at straws? TONI

CNET Forums

Forum Info