General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Reasons Why Judge T.S. Ellis gave Paul Manafort only 47 months in prison...
The good news is, moar sentencing coming up from Judge Amy Berman Jackson (of the US District Court in DC), who will take Manafort through a second round of sentencing.
And who's not to say there will be more discoveries and trials yet to come ?
This piece from CNN tries to explain the judge's decisions.
Instead, T.S. Ellis, a veteran judge in the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, spent Manafort's sentencing considering a litany of complicated, sometimes mundane legal and financial questions.
"He is not before the court for any allegation that he or anybody at his direction colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election," Ellis said in court. Manafort was there for tax fraud, hiding foreign bank accounts and bank fraud.
In short, this was a fairly typical financial fraud matter that many perceived as a show trial for the Mueller investigation. Even many of Manafort's admitted crimes, like illegal foreign lobbying and money laundering, weren't part of what Ellis considered on Thursday.
Here are answers to some questions about Ellis' ruling and reasoning:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/03/09/politics/judge-ts-ellis-paul-manafort-sentence/index.html
Beakybird
(3,333 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Making excuses for that POS.
onecaliberal
(32,863 posts)dalton99a
(81,515 posts)madville
(7,412 posts)I'm genuinely curious about this part of it because I just read an article saying the defense submitted similar cases to the judge for comparable crimes that showed most defendants received probation, house arrest, or under 12 months.
onecaliberal
(32,863 posts)Im sick of making excuses for white collar criminals. Marijuana possession will get you more time in so many places. White collar criminals need to be severely punished.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)madville
(7,412 posts)Neither of their charges were similar to Manafort's. I'm talking about sentencing for similar offenses.
California_Republic
(1,826 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)knows exactly what he is doing.
PSPS
(13,601 posts)2naSalit
(86,646 posts)is under investigation..?
RockRaven
(14,972 posts)engaging with his arguments presumes something not in evidence -- namely that he reasoned his way to his decision through the path outlined in his statement. I think this is an assumption people should not make.
He just as easily could have decided on the result first, and constructed (poor) justification for it later -- i.e. post hoc rationalization. Given his penchant for light sentences for white collar criminals, I think the latter is more likely. For instance, it helps explain how thin, lame, or downright absent some of the legs buttressing his argument are ("blameless life" anyone?). They didn't need to support his wrongheaded reasoning as he moved down the path, just given the appearance of having done so as he looks back from his already-arrived-at destination.
We are better off ignoring his alleged reasons and focus on the just/unjust nature of the outcome. If you argue about his potentially bogus excuses, you are wrestling with a ghost.