Because they changed their sentencing recommendations in her court and gave her bullshit reasons.
3 Likes
Being ethical attorneys, none of them is likely to say a damn thing publicly until the sentencing and appeals are over most likely…unless called in by the judge to answer for and explain this mess.
1 Like
Why?
2 Likes
Please cite legal authority supporting your postulate that a district court judge can or should require prosecutors and DOJ officials to testify about why they changed their position on a sentencing recommendation that is entirely within the judge’s discretionary power in the first place.
I eagerly await your results.
ETA: Roger Stone’s lawyers also gave the judge bullshit reasons. They ain’t gonna be called to testify either.
5 Likes
Well it’s not like FBI Director Comey didn’t suffer the same undignified firing right?
3 Likes
She certainly wouldn’t put them on the witness stand. She would just call them in to answer in open court like any other attorney for a party. She can even deny their withdrawals if she wanted (although I find that insanely unlikely given the circumstances).
Criminal Justice Reform Trump/RethugniCONS Style
= Acquit, pardon or no sentence at all for those that were found guilty esp if they are my criminal Family, BFFs or RethugniCON Party!
= Appoint unlawful trumpbots to corrupt and dismantle the govt (ie Barr, Acosta, DeVos et al)
= Appoint judges and justices who does not know that law, is an accuse rapists, or will rule for Trump and RepthugniCONS nefarious agenda
= “Manufacture” the evidence, “disappear” the evidence and worst, disappear the video feeds so that no one will know who killed who (ie Epstein)
All told, Banana Republic of Trump and RethugniCONS!
Let us take back our country
AND
Make America Democratic Again
VoteBlue2020~
1 Like
I’m not the one who specified “under oath.” I agree she could call them down to explain why they were seeking to withdraw, but there is no reason/basis to believe that should or even could be sworn testimony, and the answer that they quit on principle for being undercut on the sentencing memo is not going to answer anything we don’t already know.
The GOP is a permanent stain on permanent stains.
4 Likes
found out about the DOJ’s shocking decision only after hearing about it on Fox News.
The theme here is that there is no ‘government’, with procedures, norms, rules, laws, chains of command, reporting relations, and so on. There’s only a skein of power relations.
The US seems to be making a transition to this model with amazing rapidity.
1 Like
Trump can do whatever he wants. The cowards in the Senate made sure of that. Now there is only the General Election in November that can change the fate of America. One way is relative normality. The other is dictatorship and tbe ruin of all that is good and decent about Ametica. You choose. This will be a foundational election. For my family I am glad we live just 50 miles north of the Mexican border. We can bug out if needed.
1 Like
If they don’t know by now, Twitter and Fox News are the official communication branches of the Executive Branch.
Weren’t we told on good authority that Manu Raju is a liberal hack? /s
Here are two lawyers opinions:
“Yes, the Judge can query the lawyers for the reason for withdrawal or just accept it at their discretion. The discussion is normally in camera (to the judge only), but I would imagine the Judge could question them publicly.”
And,
" Oh, yes, the judge “can” certainly put it on the public record. No decent defense lawyer would do that willingly without imposing a motion though. That should be via ex-parte submissions and in camera discussion."
1 Like
Neither of those options requires, or even permits, the withdrawing attorneys to testify “under oath” (your words), nor do they require or permit an investigation into the propriety of DOJ’s actions or its compliance with its internal rules. Even if a crime or a violation of an ethical rule were involved (and they aren’t), Judge Jackson’s recourse would be referral for prosecution or to the applicable bar association(s), not to turn her courtroom into a substitute special prosecutor’s office.
I hope the judge gives that revolting prick 11 years and says impeach me if you don’t like it.
1 Like
It’s time for TPM to shun the trumPPworld news they bring us on a daily basis. Shunning major media is out of trumPP’s mouth and “enemy of the people” shit he’s perfected.
Something about objective reporting really annoys them. But come to TPM for all the news from rightwing world you could ask for.
So hypothetically, if someone kidnapped a prosecutor’s family and then next morning he reversed a sentencing recommendation, that’s just “DOJ norms” and shouldn’t be investigated?
This is a gross departure from norms, so it’s worth figuring out if it’s just another case of Trumpfuckery, of if something more nefarious is going on. I for one look forward to hearing from the four prosecutors and perhaps even, yes, one day seeing another Senator flip over from the Dark Side.
And yes, I know that last one is a real stretch but given how many sequels to this shitshow we’ve seen, it’s stochastically possible that it happens at least one more time, right?