[Big Steve-2]

David Cay Johnston.

He's a Business and Tax prof that wrote a book about Trump before he became president. It's worth reading.

After Trump pissed some hundreds of millions of his fathers money down the toilet, he started laundering money for mob guys, drug lords and corrupt 3rd world guys.

He picked up a lot from the mob guys.

https://www.amazon.com/Making-Donald-Trump-David-Johnston/dp/161219687X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=38BDYHJ9YI4FL&keywords=david+cay+johnston&qid=1581539031&sprefix=david+cay%2Caps%2C163&sr=8-2

Of course money laundering for the mob is illegal, so I'm sure Trump was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison, right?

After all, that's what happens in the "real world".

[Finfinder]

Just more typical boring same old political commentary, hackery, and monumental hypocrisy. What is the point to change opinion....is laughable as no doubt you'll have an issue with a presidential pardon but only because its a Republican president. You can't make an argument it was a fair sentence.

[late]

Of course money laundering for the mob is illegal, so I'm sure Trump was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison, right?

After all, that's what happens in the "real world".

Roy Cohn.

[Big Steve-3]

Roy Cohn.

Just another know-nothing post from you. What does Roy Cohn have to do with any of this?

[Big Steve-2]

Just another know-nothing post from you. What does Roy Cohn have to do with any of this?

I was about to ask the same thing.

User late just often throws out whatever pops into his head without regard as to whether or not it's relevant.

[blackjack21]

What I said is accurate. Also, the president does not determine Justice Dept policy.

Yes. The president sets policy for all government departments. He can straight up order whatever he wants. They are not independent of the president. The US constitution provides a unitary executive.

The judge has the final say in the courtroom.

Well, that's a more qualified statement. Trump can commute sentences or issue outright pardons if he so chooses.

This situation is disgusting.

It is. Stone wasn't a material witness to anything. He was just a blowhard braggart that got caught up in a political fight, and a life sentence for something that got Papadopolous six weeks is beyond revolting.

Actually, it's not, and Trump is proving why it's not. Democracy is important.

It wouldn't be for a government officer provided the lie was something substantial. Stone isn't a government officer, and the matter was something everyone clamoring for him to be prosecuted knew was a contrived political hit.

Popular will is neither one-sided nor error-free. The judiciary branch serves the purpose of check and balance to both executive and legislative branches. It is ultimately absurd to say one trumps another. Trump has power to pardon or commute sentences for individuals but not overturn judiciary decisions.

The president has the power to overturn a sentencing decision--making it less. He does not have the power to make it more.

And even if it is true that the American System made the executive branch more powerful, it does not mean it is right.

That's an entirely separate question. The American system is set up for a liberal dispensation of justice, and that's why we have a citizen jury of peers, appellate courts, and a president who can pardon or commute sentences.

Assume the "rapists get four years" is true, why is it not the case that the rapists are being sentenced too leniently?

They often do considerably less time. Rape was a crime against the property of a man: his wife or daughter, or any other woman for which he was a guardian. So it was quite a harsh punishment in the past, usually hanging. Horse thieves were hung in the past as well. 9 years is excessive for Roger Stone, because there was no Russia collusion and the Democrats knew it, because they cooked up the controversy themselves as a bludgeon with which to beat Donald Trump. The only person who had committed any substantive crimes outside of this question was Paul Manafort, who was a tax cheat. Everyone else has been essentially a victim of a political witch hunt--their prosecutions are just window dressing for mass consumption. It's just ritual human sacrifice.

On the other hand, why is not some act of treason (if proved) worth more severe punishment because it can have adverse effect to millions?

He's not charged with treason. He's charged with lying to Congress for saying he didn't talk to someone that he did talk with.

When it's part of a larger case, they will, and the sentencing guidelines are either 15 years or unlimited (judge's discretion).

No idea where he pulled that 4 year number.

The amount of time actually served.

Trump had previously inquired how long Ukraine could survive without our aid.

He knew it was a threat.

They survived 8 years of Obama with zero military aid from the United States and Russia annexing Crimea.

He made an offer they couldn't refuse.

Courts and prosecutors do that all the time. It's called "plea bargaining."

It's why he got impeached.

One of the top 5 prof of constitutional law, Prof Tribe, switched from opposing impeachment to supporting it after that call.

But that's in the real world.

Trump's acquittal in the Senate is also in the real world. Impeachment is meaningless if the president isn't removed from office.

Selling Ferraris to drug dealers does not make you a drug dealer. Selling real estate to mobsters does not make you a money launderer. Learn something about the law.

[late]

The US constitution provides a unitary executive.

It doesn't provide Divine Right of Kings.

There are limits, Trump doesn't respect them.

[late]

Just another know-nothing post from you. What does Roy Cohn have to do with any of this?

You are talking about yourself.

Roy Cohn knew how to keep the law from finding Trumps naughty bits.

[Big Steve-3]

You are talking about yourself.

No, I most certainly talking about you.

Roy Cohn knew how to keep the law from finding Trumps naughty bits.

Cohn represented Trump for only a few years. What "naughty bits" are you referring to?

[blackjack21]

It doesn't provide Divine Right of Kings.

There are limits, Trump doesn't respect them.

The president is the prosecutor in chief of federal laws. If he thinks his prosecutors are being unfair, he has the power, the right, and arguably the obligation to say something about it. There are no limits to the president behaving in that way. In fact, the constitution empowers him to pardon, commute sentences and even forgive debts--something the Democrats have been running on as a means to buy the votes of younger voters with college debt, now owned by the US government as a supplemental bit of legislation following ObamaCare.

Roy Cohn knew how to keep the law from finding Trumps naughty bits.

Sounds like he did a good job.

[Godstud]

Half of Trump's friends are in prison. What a surprise. Maybe, after he is no longer a criminal President, he'll simply become a criminal, and join them.

[blackjack21]

Half of Trump's friends are in prison.

Trump many friends who aren't in prison. I doubt you could show that even 5% of his friends are in prison.

I hope Trump pardons Roger Stone and the Democrats blow their stack and impeach him again. It would be absolutely comical.

[late]

The president is the prosecutor in chief of federal laws

BS.

You keep throwing stupid at the wall, hoping it will stick.

[late]

Cohn represented Trump for only a few years. What "naughty bits" are you referring to?

"From 1973, when Cohn started representing the Trumps after the Department of Justice sued them for racist rental practices at the thousands of apartments they owned, through the rest of the ’70s and into the ’80s, when he served as an indispensable macher for Trump’s career-launching maneuvers, Cohn became for Trump something much more than simply his attorney. At a most formative moment for Trump, there was no more formative figure than Cohn."

“The more unscrupulous he became, the more his law practice grew. He was the man to see if you wanted to beat the system.”

To answer your question, all of them.




https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/19/roy-cohn-donald-trump-documentary-228144

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06 ... lationship

[blackjack21]

BS.

You keep throwing stupid at the wall, hoping it will stick.

It happens to be a fact. All executive authority is vested in the president of the United States, including the power to prosecute violations of federal law.

To answer your question, all of them.

Which is to say you can't name one.

[Big Steve-3]

To answer your question, all of them.

That's not an answer at all.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[late]

It happens to be a fact. All executive authority is vested in the president of the United States, including the power to prosecute violations of federal law.

You keep arguing he's a dictator. The answer is still not yet.

"Months earlier, among its first orders of business, the first Congress had dealt with what were understood to be the president’s core responsibilities — national defense, foreign affairs, and finance — by establishing the secretaries of war, state, and the treasury.

As if that did not make it clear enough that prosecution was not a core presidential function, the position of attorney general was not originally conceived as prosecutorial in nature. Rather, it was a part-time job with a nominal salary and no office or staff, created because Congress (a) realized the United States would need legal representation in court cases and (b) thought it prudent for the president to have a legal adviser."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2010/12/president-no-prosecutor-andrew-c-mccarthy/

You write fiction.

" In recent presidential administrations, the president has respected prosecutorial independence; while making policy decisions, the president deferred to the Attorney General and subordinate federal prosecutors to conduct individual criminal cases. In a recent article, we argued that this is as it should be because the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to control federal criminal prosecutions. But suppose one comes to the contrary conclusion—that the president, as chief executive, has authority to decide how individual criminal prosecutions should be conducted. In this Article, we explore the consequences for prosecutors who receive the president’s orders. We argue here that federal prosecutors cannot invariably and unquestioningly follow the president’s direction because doing so would violate ethical rules and professional norms. Further, because prosecutors’ professional obligations are created by courts and endorsed by federal statute, presidential control over prosecutorial decision-making would lead to serious separation-of-powers concerns. Particularly, the integrity of the judicial system depends on the ethical rules at issue."
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss5/3/

[Hindsite]

"I have a favor to ask, though."

You left-wing radicals keep misquoting what President Trump said.

Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Thursday that former Trump adviser Roger Stone deserves a new trial in light of resurfaced tweets that indicate partisanship and “inherent bias” from a jury member against Stone.

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.

“Stone is absolutely entitled to a new trial with a member of a jury making these types of revelations about the politics involved in the decisions to prosecute him,” Napolitano told “Fox & Friends.”

[Sivad]

None of the actions undertaken by the deep state in its attempted coup against American democracy should be allowed to stand and the ringleaders need to be held to account for state crimes against democracy(SCADs).

A State Crime against Democracy, (SCAD) is a term introduced by Professor Lance deHaven-Smith. He defined SCADs as “concerted actions or inactions by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty.”

"Until recently, scholarly research on political criminality has given little attention to antidemocratic conspiracies in high office, focusing instead on graft, bribery, embezzlement, and other forms of government corruption where the aim is personal enrichment rather than social control, partisan advantage, or political power. However, SCADs are far more dangerous to democracy than these other, more mundane forms of political criminality because of their potential to subvert political institutions and entire governments or branches of government."

[late]

You left-wing radicals...

Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Thursday that former Trump adviser Roger Stone deserves a new trial in light of resurfaced tweets that indicate partisanship and “inherent bias” from a jury member against Stone.

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.

“Stone is absolutely entitled to a new trial with a member of a jury making these types of revelations about the politics involved in the decisions to prosecute him,” Napolitano told “Fox & Friends.”

Love the projection. You calling me a radical. A radical is someone that advocates extreme change. That's what you and Trump are actually doing...

Throwing an accusation is insufficient. You need to back it up. And like 99% of your statements, I am guessing you have squat.

Btw, so does the judge:

""The fact that the juror was just one of these approximately 1,400 lawyers (at the IRS) does not begin to establish the sort of inherent bias that should have prompted the Court to strike (the person) in its discretion," Jackson wrote last week.
Because of the juror's "testimony and demeanor" and the process the court used to select jurors at Stone's trial, "the Court finds in its discretion that it was not necessary to strike the juror for alleged bias or for failure to follow the Court's instructions. The defense has not presented grounds for a new trial ... or any reason to believe there has been 'a serious miscarriage of justice.' "

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/politics/judge-denies-roger-stone-request-new-trial/index.html