The Impeachment Trial

[Cow Poke]

I don't. I mean I don't always. I mean I only sometimes--

Wait, what was the loaded question again?

Has your wife stopped beating you?

[Mountain Man]

It's highly unlikely that the DOJ didn't know ahead of time what the recommended sentence was to be...

It's very likely when you have a rogue operative like Aaron Zelinsky who submitted a recommendation without clearing it with his bosses first.

You claim that nearly a decade in prison is standard for a crime like this? Cite your source.

[JimL]

It's very likely when you have a rogue operative like Aaron Zelinsky who submitted a recommendation without clearing it with his bosses first.

You claim that nearly a decade in prison is standard for a crime like this? Cite your source.

Yes, 7-9 years is the recommended guildelines for sentencing a defendent convicted of lying to congress, obstruction of justice, and intimidating witnesses, which were the charges that Stone was convicted of and which is what the prosecution recommended. What would you in your professional opinion as a legal expert recommend as a sentence?

[Cow Poke]

Yes, 7-9 years is the recommended guildelines for sentencing a defendent convicted of lying to congress, obstruction of justice, and intimidating witnesses, which were the charges that Stone was convicted of and which is what the prosecution recommended. What would you in your professional opinion as a legal expert recommend as a sentence?

How bout an actual source, Jim? I'll show you mine then you show me yours.

FindLaw.com

Perjury and lying to the federal government are both crimes that could land a person in some serious legal trouble. If convicted of either crime, a person could be looking at up to five years in prison. This means that if a person is found to have lied during a congressional hearing or investigation, or simply lied to an FBI or other federal agent, actual jail time could result.

[JimL]

How bout an actual source, Jim? I'll show you mine then you show me yours.

FindLaw.com

Perjury and lying to the federal government are both crimes that could land a person in some serious legal trouble. If convicted of either crime, a person could be looking at up to five years in prison. This means that if a person is found to have lied during a congressional hearing or investigation, or simply lied to an FBI or other federal agent, actual jail time could result.

That makes it clear enough, CP. 5 years in prison just for lying to Congress. Stone was also convicted of obstruction of justice and intimidating witnesses.

[Cow Poke]

That makes it clear enough, CP. 5 years in prison just for lying to Congress. Stone was also convicted of obstruction of justice and intimidating witnesses.

So, provide your source, Jim.

[JimL]

So, provide your source, Jim.

CP, you just proved it yourself. 5 years for obstructing justice. Now add to that intimidating witnesses, lack of regret on the part of the defendent, along with the seriousness of the case and 2 to 4 more years is hardly unfair. Why are you arguing the point, with what you already know (5 years for obstruction). Do you think the 2-4 years added to the sentence for intimidating witnesses is to harsh?

[Mountain Man]

Yes, 7-9 years is the recommended guildelines for sentencing a defendent convicted of lying to congress, obstruction of justice, and intimidating witnesses, which were the charges that Stone was convicted of and which is what the prosecution recommended.

I will say it again: Cite your source.

[Cow Poke]

CP, you just proved it yourself.

No, Jim --- in cases where there are multiple offenses, the maximum sentence for EACH is not added up together. I gave an example that ONE of those charges would be "up to" 5 years.

5 years for obstructing justice.

No, Jim, that's not what it says at all. It clearly says UP TO 5 years, indicating that 5 years is the maximum.

Now add to that intimidating witnesses, lack of regret on the part of the defendent, along with the seriousness of the case and 2 to 4 more years is hardly unfair. Why are you arguing the point, with what you already know (5 years for obstruction). Do you think the 2-4 years added to the sentence for intimidating witnesses is to harsh?

How bout sources, rather than spewing forth wild guesses?

[JimL]

I will say it again: Cite your source.

CP, cited it for you. 5 years for obstruction of justice. Add to that the intimidation of witnesses, and lying under oath, and figure it out for yourself.

[Cow Poke]

CP, cited it for you. 5 years for obstruction of justice.

And you clearly got that part wrong, because it says UP TO 5 years.

Add to that the intimidation of witnesses, and lying under oath,

That WAS the "lying under oath" - the "up to" 5 years

and figure it out for yourself.

No, Jim ---- that's not a cite. That's a guess. You have consistently demonstrated a woeful ignorance of things related to the law, so I'm asking you to produce --- like I did --- an authoritative source that can be trusted.

Pretty please?

[JimL]

No, Jim --- in cases where there are multiple offenses, the maximum sentence for EACH is not added up together. I gave an example that ONE of those charges would be "up to" 5 years.

I never said that the maximum was added for each offense, I said he was convicted of 3 offenses, the one of which as you confirmed was up to 5 years.

No, Jim, that's not what it says at all. It clearly says UP TO 5 years, indicating that 5 years is the maximum.

So what, perhaps the prosecutors determined that 5 years was appropriate in this case, or perhaps they gave him less for this and more for the other offenses. The point is that there is a set of guidelines that they need go by in their determining of the suggested sentence.

How bout sources, rather than spewing forth wild guesses?

A source for what, that there exists a list of sentencing guidelines by which prosecutors make their determination?

Btw, this isn't the first time this Administration has done this, they did the same in the Flynn case, or in other words Trump has control over the DOJ.

[Cow Poke]

I never said that the maximum was added for each offense....

I'm not going to play this game with you, Jim -- you consistently referenced the "5 years" as the sentence, even when you were shown proof that it's "up to" 5 years.

Prattle on, brother!

[Mountain Man]

CP, cited it for you. 5 years for obstruction of justice. Add to that the intimidation of witnesses, and lying under oath, and figure it out for yourself.

Nope, CP's source doesn't help you.

[Cow Poke]

Nope, CP's source doesn't help you.

At this point, I really don't think Jim is dumb enough NOT to be able to recognize the distinction between "up to 5" and "5 years", so I have to believe he's just trolling -- can't admit he made a mistake, so he's doubling down.