• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

Why? Because you want Manafort to spend more time in prison?

Have no fear. His second sentence is likely to be worse.

RJ is out of his element here, but it is extremely curious the leniency that Manafort received on his sentence. Downward departures do happen often, but generally not multiple levels and almost always those downward departures come from consideration of strong mitigating circumstances. If anything, Manafort’s conduct with then SCO should be an aggravating circumstance due to the extent of his evasiveness, witness intimidation, and outright lying. From what I’ve gathered, this downward departure doesn’t make a lot of sense based on the facts of the case and the nature of the crimes. And that is why people should be up in arms about this, IMO.
 
I hope they retry him on the ten counts that got hung on 11-1 votes. How will Ellis react when confronted with more crimes of Manafort? Or maybe they get a different judge for the new trial.
 
It's got to be enough to punish him, but not so much that a pardon is a given. But I guess that shouldn't really be taken into consideration.
 
The federal sentencing guidelines have ranges that reflect the amount of money that is at issue. This obviously makes sense, but it can result in harsh sentences for non-violent crimes. In cases like this, judges regularly depart downward from the guideline range.

I don’t know enough about the case to opine on whether such a drastic departure was warranted here.

Meth dealers get a lot of time because meth is dangerous and because dealers are often violent and protect (or gain) their turf with guns.

Protecting one’s turf is a 2nd Amendment issue. Weird statement.

Manafort helped a lot of dangerous and violent people through his actions. Not sure how a meth dealer gun or not deserves 10 times the sentence.

I definitely don’t understand why Manafort’s crimes deserve the same sentence is stealing $100 worth of quarters. But I’m sure you’ll have an explanation for that too.
 
Last edited:
Protecting one’s turf is a 2nd Amendment issue. Weird statement.

Manafort helped a lot of dangerous and violent people through his actions. Not sure how a meth dealer gun or not deserves 10 times the sentence.

Sure he did, and he was working for Clinton surrogates John and Tony Podesta at the time..

Don’t let the whole story kick you in the ass on the way out..
 
I don’t disagree, except for your last sentence. I need to read more about the case before deciding whether to put on my armor and take to the streets.

Well I’m looking at from the perspective of mass incarceration and all of the work that has been done to criminalize race and poverty, then seeing Manafort essentially walk almost scot-free from these extremely serious crimes despite doing everything in his power to lie his way out of it. That’s the part that people should be upset about to me.
 
The federal sentencing guidelines have ranges that reflect the amount of money that is at issue. This obviously makes sense, but it can result in harsh sentences for non-violent crimes. In cases like this, judges regularly depart downward from the guideline range.

I don’t know enough about the case to opine on whether such a drastic departure was warranted here.

Meth dealers get a lot of time because meth is dangerous and because dealers are often violent and protect (or gain) their turf with guns.


Woof.
 
Poor Nedrick..6 more years of cutting, licking and pasting. The body is long gone and the mind can’t be far behind.
 
If he lies, he lies.

Dam, yo.. I didn’t actually think you’d break out slides from your latest presentation..that was sweet :)

Now that’s what I call really sinking in.. Its all about engagement.

Props 2 U Prof
 
Imagine sailor’s and Angus’ disdain if a Hilary associate was caught in a lie like that. Surely they will be along to condemn !
 
Yea, imagine your career long response when she has been caught in innumerable fucking lies.

That’s right.. so “Meh” back at you bitch. How do like that shoe on the other foot Mofuggie? Oh, yea.. is that right? ..well get ready for 6 more years of it right square in your GD Face. MAGA!

:) have a lovely evening
 
I don’t recall claiming to be. I have libertarian leanings, but I can’t get on board with total deregulation. Market failures happen and the tragedy of the commons can’t be overcome with nothing but sunlight.

Came across this article about this twitter thread today.
https://boingboing.net/2019/03/07/s...QhglJx_S9TRFxdkV1abfH1dRFWyQIKuI6vnouWhlrBAsA

In a brilliant Twitter thread, UCSB political scientist Matto Mildenberger recounts the sordid history of Garrett Hardin's classic, widely cited 1968 article "The Tragedy of the Commons," whose ideas are taught to millions of undergrads, and whose precepts are used to justify the privatization of public goods as the only efficient way to manage them.
Hardin's paper starts with a history of the English Commons -- publicly held lands that were collectively owned and managed -- and the claim that commons routinely fell prey to the selfish human impulse to overgraze your livestock on public land (and that even non-selfish people would overgraze their animals because they knew that their more-selfish neighbors would do so even if they didn't).
But this isn't what actually happened to the Commons: they were stable and well-managed until other factors (e.g. rich people trying to acquire even more land) destabilized them.
Hardin wasn't just inventing false histories out of a vacuum. He was, personally, a nasty piece of work: a white supremacist and eugenicist, and the Tragedy of the Commons paper is shot through with this vile ideology, arguing that poor people should not be given charity lest they breed beyond their means (Hardin also campaigned against food aid). Hardin was a director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the white nationalist Social Contract Press, and co-founded anti-immigrant groups like Californians for Population Stabilization and The Environmental Fund.
Mildenberger argues that Hardin was a trumpist before Trump: He served on the board of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose talking points often emerge from Trump's mouth.
(Hardin quotes that didn't make it into his seminal paper: "Diversity is the opposite of unity, and unity is a prime requirement for national survival" and "My position is that this idea of a multiethnic society is a disaster...we should restrict immigration for that reason.")
As Mildenberger points out, this isn't a case where a terrible person had some great ideas that outlived them: Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons was a piece of intellectual fraud committed in service to his racist, eugenicist ideology.
What's worse: the environmental movement elevates Hardin to sainthood, whitewashing his racism and celebrating "The Tragedy of the Commons" as a seminal work of environmental literature. But Hardin is no friend of the environment: his noxious cocktail of racism and false history are used to move public lands into private ownership or stewardship, (literally) paving the way for devastating exploitation of those lands.


 
Back
Top