Well I heard from an esteemed legal scholar J. Eastman that because none of charges against Donald Trump are felonies recognized at common law (Murder, Robbery, Manslaughter, Rape, Sodomy, Larceny, Arson, Mayhem, and Burglary), it would violate the original understanding of federal criminal jurisdiction to prosecute Trump.
My young Grasshopper, you put in so much work to expose the nonsense about the Defendant-In-Chief's sentencing, if and when he is convicted of federal crimes.
The following may seem contrived but it may be the only compromise that will satisfy neither pro-Trumpers and anti-Trumpers...but it could spare rioting.
1. The Feds use Eminent Domain to buy Mar-A-Lago at prevailing fair market value.
2. The Ballroom would be recreated into the living quarters for the Prisoner-in-Chief, with space for all the boxes of memorabilia not wanted by the National Achivies.
3. The Prisoner-in-Chief would have no access to outgoing media...no phone, no computer. He would have a limit on incoming media...only PBS.
4. The current living quarters would be converted into headquarters and living quarters for the Secret Service.
5. Any other current living facilities would be converted into dormitory-like space for use by underprivileged youths, like Girls and Boys Clubs, who would have access to the pool and tennis courts.
6. The golf course would be converted to public links, with the Prisoner-in-Chief allowed to play three times a week, with no interaction with the paying customers.
7. At the end of his "bit" the Prisoner-in-Chief's living quarters would be converted into "The Museum of Political Crime History" to include exhibits and research on the legacy of the likes of the Criminal-In-Chief and William Marcy "Boss" Tweed.
Well, now I almost feel bad for that post on your Facebook...
Also, I honestly find it impossible to believe Trump will actually be sentenced to time in the actual custody of the bureau of prisons. He's got a secret service detail, for Christ's sake. What are they gonna do, have his agents in the cells next to him?
I've tried really hard to think of what I would actually want the Post to write in order to be useful to their readership on this topic. I guess the easy way out would be to quote Mitchell Epner as an expert, quote Scott Adams for balance, and then call it a day. But I sense they aspire to be better and in fact Philip Bump usually is. (For my part, when someone asks my professional opinion on what sentence a person in the news is likely to get, my answer is just "go see what Popehat says." It's a very non-intuitive system so my guess would probably be worse than useless.)
I think what I'd like, and this goes not just for the sentencing question but for a lot of questions floating around there like "is the judge going to revoke his bail," is for experts to focus a little less on predicting what will actually happen to Donald Trump in these cases and instead inform people how the typical defendant would be treated in the same situation. Many people don't pay close attention to other cases and don't have a basis for comparison, so when something surprising happens it's good for them to have a sense of "is this only happening because it's Trump" or "is this how the system operates every day and I just didn't know."
For example, the fact that a court would almost certainly give out concurrent sentences on something like the NY false-records charges, for any similarly situated defendant, that's useful to know. On the other side of things, something like the government not asking for the surrender of Trump's passport, it's useful context to know that would be a standard request for almost any other defendant.
That of course doesn't mean it's WRONG whenever Trump is treated differently but it would be very informative to the public if the press helped clarify how much the system is treating Trump differently from the typical defendant. We hear a lot of allegations from both sides about a two-tiered system of justice, and I think it is really useful if people are put in a position to have an informed opinion on whether Trump is getting special treatment, in either a harsh way or a lenient way.
I have written more than a few Guidelines computations. Rule #1 is to "show your work". I always run through every step of the Guidelines calculation, showing the number of offense level points each factor adds (or subtracts). This way, anyone who wants to make different assumptions can see how the sentence would change based on those new assumptions.
The Guidelines are slightly more user-friendly than the Internal Revenue Code, so the average person should be able to get a general idea of what sort of sentence is likely to be recommended by Probation to the Court.
I read a science article in the post many years ago, long before the Trump era.
Scientists had discovered a possible link between a gene and weight gain, in mice, and the scientist quoted in the article said, people are probably going to want to believe that this discovery means there’s a fat gene, and that’s why humans gain weight, and I just want to make clear that this conclusion is absolutely premature, it would be very wrong to conclude that.
Dropped the NY Times, still with WaPo but holy shit, there's been WAY too much of this lately with them. Appreciate your posts. Your voice is so needed.
I’m so sorry to be distracted in the first sentence, Popehat is that young??? Man, life in the law has *not* been kind to you, you sigh like a much much older man! You sigh like my dad, who worked in federal government for 6 years and aged 20 in that time!!!
This is somewhat like comparing drowning in a bathtub to drowning in the ocean, i.e. the result is the same. IMO ANY significant incarceration will likely kill him or finish him politically by silencing him. Also this entire discussion by the Ruminating Classes has a Queen of Hearts vibe. Verdict first, please.
I am so happy you're doing this public service. I remember the media & cultural hysteria surrounding Manafort's sentencing years ago and the seeming incredulity at the light sentence. If the media–both traditional and social–had started from a place like this we might have had less screeching & howling at the time. We could have lowered the temperature and saved some of that outrage for when it really counted. Thanks for doing this, Ken.
I appreciate your clear and succinct explanation of how federal sentencing works. You made a complex and mysterious subject quite clear, for which we all thank you! I also found Mitch Epner's walk-thru of the sentencing process, particularly the assignment of weights, illuminating. Many of us would prefer "life + 30 years," but we know that won't happen. ANY prison time that extends past January 20, 2024, would be an invitation to a massive celebration!
Well I heard from an esteemed legal scholar J. Eastman that because none of charges against Donald Trump are felonies recognized at common law (Murder, Robbery, Manslaughter, Rape, Sodomy, Larceny, Arson, Mayhem, and Burglary), it would violate the original understanding of federal criminal jurisdiction to prosecute Trump.
I saw this article and heard your primal rage scream five states away. My condolences.
My young Grasshopper, you put in so much work to expose the nonsense about the Defendant-In-Chief's sentencing, if and when he is convicted of federal crimes.
The following may seem contrived but it may be the only compromise that will satisfy neither pro-Trumpers and anti-Trumpers...but it could spare rioting.
1. The Feds use Eminent Domain to buy Mar-A-Lago at prevailing fair market value.
2. The Ballroom would be recreated into the living quarters for the Prisoner-in-Chief, with space for all the boxes of memorabilia not wanted by the National Achivies.
3. The Prisoner-in-Chief would have no access to outgoing media...no phone, no computer. He would have a limit on incoming media...only PBS.
4. The current living quarters would be converted into headquarters and living quarters for the Secret Service.
5. Any other current living facilities would be converted into dormitory-like space for use by underprivileged youths, like Girls and Boys Clubs, who would have access to the pool and tennis courts.
6. The golf course would be converted to public links, with the Prisoner-in-Chief allowed to play three times a week, with no interaction with the paying customers.
7. At the end of his "bit" the Prisoner-in-Chief's living quarters would be converted into "The Museum of Political Crime History" to include exhibits and research on the legacy of the likes of the Criminal-In-Chief and William Marcy "Boss" Tweed.
Well, now I almost feel bad for that post on your Facebook...
Also, I honestly find it impossible to believe Trump will actually be sentenced to time in the actual custody of the bureau of prisons. He's got a secret service detail, for Christ's sake. What are they gonna do, have his agents in the cells next to him?
He's gonna end up on house arrest.
I've tried really hard to think of what I would actually want the Post to write in order to be useful to their readership on this topic. I guess the easy way out would be to quote Mitchell Epner as an expert, quote Scott Adams for balance, and then call it a day. But I sense they aspire to be better and in fact Philip Bump usually is. (For my part, when someone asks my professional opinion on what sentence a person in the news is likely to get, my answer is just "go see what Popehat says." It's a very non-intuitive system so my guess would probably be worse than useless.)
I think what I'd like, and this goes not just for the sentencing question but for a lot of questions floating around there like "is the judge going to revoke his bail," is for experts to focus a little less on predicting what will actually happen to Donald Trump in these cases and instead inform people how the typical defendant would be treated in the same situation. Many people don't pay close attention to other cases and don't have a basis for comparison, so when something surprising happens it's good for them to have a sense of "is this only happening because it's Trump" or "is this how the system operates every day and I just didn't know."
For example, the fact that a court would almost certainly give out concurrent sentences on something like the NY false-records charges, for any similarly situated defendant, that's useful to know. On the other side of things, something like the government not asking for the surrender of Trump's passport, it's useful context to know that would be a standard request for almost any other defendant.
That of course doesn't mean it's WRONG whenever Trump is treated differently but it would be very informative to the public if the press helped clarify how much the system is treating Trump differently from the typical defendant. We hear a lot of allegations from both sides about a two-tiered system of justice, and I think it is really useful if people are put in a position to have an informed opinion on whether Trump is getting special treatment, in either a harsh way or a lenient way.
I have written more than a few Guidelines computations. Rule #1 is to "show your work". I always run through every step of the Guidelines calculation, showing the number of offense level points each factor adds (or subtracts). This way, anyone who wants to make different assumptions can see how the sentence would change based on those new assumptions.
The Guidelines are slightly more user-friendly than the Internal Revenue Code, so the average person should be able to get a general idea of what sort of sentence is likely to be recommended by Probation to the Court.
I read a science article in the post many years ago, long before the Trump era.
Scientists had discovered a possible link between a gene and weight gain, in mice, and the scientist quoted in the article said, people are probably going to want to believe that this discovery means there’s a fat gene, and that’s why humans gain weight, and I just want to make clear that this conclusion is absolutely premature, it would be very wrong to conclude that.
The headline: “fat gene discovered”
Dropped the NY Times, still with WaPo but holy shit, there's been WAY too much of this lately with them. Appreciate your posts. Your voice is so needed.
Democracy dies with clickbait.
I’m so sorry to be distracted in the first sentence, Popehat is that young??? Man, life in the law has *not* been kind to you, you sigh like a much much older man! You sigh like my dad, who worked in federal government for 6 years and aged 20 in that time!!!
This is somewhat like comparing drowning in a bathtub to drowning in the ocean, i.e. the result is the same. IMO ANY significant incarceration will likely kill him or finish him politically by silencing him. Also this entire discussion by the Ruminating Classes has a Queen of Hearts vibe. Verdict first, please.
It was nice that you included the table.
Thank you for this and all the things........ I do miss your twitter wit...... but.
You always write exceptionally well, but when you're pissed off it's just (chef's kiss)! I hope your day got better.
I am so happy you're doing this public service. I remember the media & cultural hysteria surrounding Manafort's sentencing years ago and the seeming incredulity at the light sentence. If the media–both traditional and social–had started from a place like this we might have had less screeching & howling at the time. We could have lowered the temperature and saved some of that outrage for when it really counted. Thanks for doing this, Ken.
I appreciate your clear and succinct explanation of how federal sentencing works. You made a complex and mysterious subject quite clear, for which we all thank you! I also found Mitch Epner's walk-thru of the sentencing process, particularly the assignment of weights, illuminating. Many of us would prefer "life + 30 years," but we know that won't happen. ANY prison time that extends past January 20, 2024, would be an invitation to a massive celebration!