Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by on Tuesday May 16 2017, @04:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the guilty dept.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday that he has directed his federal prosecutors to pursue the most severe penalties possible, including mandatory minimum sentences, in his first step toward a return to the war on drugs of the 1980s and 1990s that resulted in long sentences for many minority defendants and packed U.S. prisons.

[...] In the later years of the Obama administration, a bipartisan consensus emerged on Capitol Hill for sentencing reform legislation, which Sessions opposed and successfully worked to derail.

In a two-page memo to federal prosecutors across the country, Sessions overturned former attorney general Eric H. Holder's sweeping criminal charging policy that instructed his prosecutors to avoid charging certain defendants with offenses that would trigger long mandatory minimum sentences. In its place, Sessions told his more than 5,000 assistant U.S. attorneys to charge defendants with the most serious crimes, carrying the toughest penalties.

More at Washington Post, Fox News, Huffington Post, The Hill

Memorandum on Department Charging and Sentencing Policy - US Department of Justice PDF


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Some call me Tim on Tuesday May 16 2017, @06:55AM (9 children)

    by Some call me Tim (5819) on Tuesday May 16 2017, @06:55AM (#510423)

    And every last bit of that shit is from "Sources say". Give me a name for that source so I can determine the validity of their information. If you don't have that you don't have anything. The media have been beating that dead horse for 6 months and there isn't a shred of actual evidence of any wrongdoing. The fact that John Podesta got his email spearfished and all of the DNC corruption was outed, reveals only that he and or his staff is totally incompetent.

    And as to your hyperventilating 'Sources say' propaganda links, the president has wide latitude as to the things he can declassify, in this case he didn't reveal anything that wasn't already public information.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/15/white-house-denies-report-trump-revealed-classified-info-about-isis-to-russians.html/ [foxnews.com] Don't like my source? Too bad. Enjoy your bubble of willful ignorance.
    If you want to jump on someone for allowing classified info to fall into enemy hands, talk to Hillary about her private server.

    Don't care about a karma hit at this point, the dead horse and I have had enough of this bullshit of unnamed, pulled out of someones ass sources that have no basis in fact.

    --
    Questioning science is how you do science!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:50AM (#510437)

    And every last bit of that shit is from "Sources say". Give me a name for that source so I can determine the validity of their information.

    It's the same sources that have been accusing Hillary of every crime under the sun for the last twenty years.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:24AM (#510461)

    Give me a name for that source so I can determine the validity of their information. If you don't have that you don't have anything

    Deep Throat disagrees.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @11:41AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @11:41AM (#510490)

    > And every last bit of that shit is from "Sources say".

    Except for the non-denial denials from McMaster and Tillerson.
    That's your official confirmation.

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/15/reporters-see-red-herring-in-nsa-mcmasters-denial-of-explosive-russian-story/ [theblaze.com]
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333542-state-dept-surprised-by-tillerson-defending-trump-report [thehill.com]

    Also Turmp, with his typical idiotic bravado just confirmed he did it by claiming it was legal for him to do it:
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333550-trump-i-had-absolute-right-to-share-facts-with-russia [thehill.com]

    > the president has wide latitude as to the things he can declassify

    Just because it is legal does not make it legitimate. It would also be legal for Mitch McConnell to walk onto the floor of the Senate, shoot every democratic senator from a state with a republican governor, have those governors appoint republican senators as replacements and then have Turmp pardon him. That would not make it legitimate. As another example, two of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon alleged no direct violation of the law. Instead, they concerned Nixon’s abuse of his power as President.

    > in this case he didn't reveal anything that wasn't already public information.

    Wait, what? Didn't you just get finished telling us its legal for the president to do everything he's been accused of doing? And now he didn't even do it? What is, the throw as much shit as possible at the wall and hope something sticks defense?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 16 2017, @03:15PM (4 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 16 2017, @03:15PM (#510550)

      It would also be legal for Mitch McConnell to walk onto the floor of the Senate, shoot every democratic senator from a state with a republican governor, have those governors appoint republican senators as replacements and then have Turmp pardon him.

      No. No, it would not.

      A pardon does not make what you did legal; a pardon is an admission it was illegal but they won't prosecute you. That's why some people refuse to accept a pardon, because it's basically admitting they were guilty.

      Just because it is legal does not make it legitimate.

      le·git·i·mate
      adjective
      ləˈjidəmət/Submit
      1.
      conforming to the law or to rules.

      "Legal" and "legitimate" are synonyms. I think the word you're looking for is "ethical."

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 16 2017, @04:33PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday May 16 2017, @04:33PM (#510573) Journal

        A pardon does not make what you did legal

        Correct.

        a pardon is an admission it was illegal but they won't prosecute you. That's why some people refuse to accept a pardon, because it's basically admitting they were guilty.

        That's actually unclear under U.S. law. The general citation for this is Burdick vs. U.S. [wikipedia.org] (1915), but most legal scholars seem to regard the statement in McKenna's opinion about a pardon implying an "imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it" to be obiter dicta and thus non-binding. The opinion here also didn't explicitly overrule the previous dicta in Ex Parte Garland [wikipedia.org] (1866), which said:

        A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out the existence of the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense... It makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.

        Garland was about Civil War pardons for lawyers who had previously served in the Confederacy. While Burdick's dicta really was just speculation about the rationale for rejecting a pardon, Garland's dicta was more on-point, asserting that a pardoned person was effectively beyond the reach of the law for the offense supposedly committed.

        Anyhow, in the century since Burdick, no other definitive rulings have addressed the issue. Courts cite both (and a few other cases); generally the trend seems to come down in favor of the Burdick perspective, but since both are viewed as dicta, some court rulings still hold to the Garland standard. This issue came up recently in discussion over Hillary Clinton, and it was a hot topic a decade ago with Scooter Libby. You can find legal scholars arguing on both sides of the issue when it has come up.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:25PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:25PM (#510686)

        No. No, it would not.

        A pardon does not make what you did legal;

        Hey! Are you confused? Do you think Mitch McConnell is president? We are talking about what it would be legal for the president to do.

        It would be legal for Turmp to pardon McConnell for the murders.

        > "conforming to the law or to rules"
        > "Legal" and "legitimate" are synonyms.

        By your own damn citation you are wrong. It doesn't just say law it also says "rules." The entire government runs on rules of behavior. The law is just a backstop.
        But JFC, did you really think it was informative to go full pedant? What larger point did you hope to communicate?

        PS, as is always the case with dictionary pedants you failed to actually read the full definition in the dictionary:

        legitimate [oxforddictionaries.com]
        adjective
        Pronunciation /lɪˈdʒɪtɪmət/

        1 Conforming to the law or to rules.
                ‘his claims to legitimate authority’

                1.1 (of a child) born of parents lawfully married to each other.
                ‘a legitimate male heir’

                1.2 (of a sovereign) having a title based on strict hereditary right.
                ‘the last legitimate Anglo-Saxon king’

        2 Able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
        ‘a legitimate excuse for being late’

        Goddamn fucking pedants. You will never learn.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:56PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:56PM (#510709)

          Hey! Are you confused? Do you think Mitch McConnell is president? We are talking about what it would be legal for the president to do.

          Oh, you meant

          It would also be legal for [a bunch of long, rambling blather] and then have Turmp pardon him.

          not

          It would also be legal for Mitch McConnell to walk onto the floor of the Senate, shoot every democratic senator [a bunch of long, rambling blather]

          Well yeah, as long as it's not impeachment proceedings, the president can pardon anyone he wants. I read what you were saying as it being retroactively legal to shoot up the assembly. What was the point of this whole hypothetical?

          2 Able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.

          Appealing to the laws is usually a pretty safe way to defend something logically (especially if they explain their logic in the law itself). I still think you chose a poor word.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:01PM (#510752)

            > What was the point of this whole hypothetical?

            Oh please do not play stupid.
            The point was that legality is not a defense.

            > Appealing to the laws is usually a pretty safe way to defend something logically

            Which is why there is an entirely separate definition that mentions laws. Because its the same thing.
            Goddamn pedants never fucking learn.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 16 2017, @06:04PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday May 16 2017, @06:04PM (#510636) Journal

    Give me a name for that source so I can determine the validity of their information.

    Donald Trump