PDA

View Full Version : Is Paul Manafort’s sentence too light? He fared worse than many fraudsters, data show



Peter1469
03-10-2019, 10:35 AM
Is Paul Manafort’s sentence too light? He fared worse than many fraudsters, data show (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/is-paul-manaforts-sentence-too-light-he-fared-worse-than-many-fraudsters-data-shows/2019/03/08/388226b6-41c3-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html?utm_term=.7333c0fb1877)

WaPo concludes that Manafort's sentence was higher than others in similar situations.


Paul Manafort’s prison sentence of less than four years on bank- and tax-fraud charges Thursday sparked outrage from commentators who said it was too light a punishment for his crimes.

But a review of data for all 452 similar cases nationwide in fiscal 2018 show President Trump’s former campaign chairman received a sentence that was somewhat stiffer than other federal defendants’ prison terms.


The average prison sentence in such bank-fraud cases was about 31 months, roughly 16 months shorter than the 47 months Manafort received for convictions in federal court in Northern Virginia, according to an analysis of court data maintained by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

Admiral Ackbar
03-10-2019, 10:39 AM
As far as the leftist go his crime is not the tax stuff it is being associated with Trump. If you ask them that deserved a least a punch in the face, or maybe the death penalty.

Common
03-10-2019, 11:00 AM
The left just whines incessantly and worse they lie incessantly

Jeb!
03-10-2019, 11:35 AM
The idea that he deserves life like a violent offender is idiotic.

Tahuyaman
03-10-2019, 11:47 AM
The idea that he deserves life like a violent offender is idiotic.
The view that he deserved life in prison or even twenty years is based on partisan hackery. People who say things like that should just be dismissed.

The Xl
03-10-2019, 02:07 PM
I don't have an issue with the sentence. I have an issue that he was only targeted because of Trump.

Peter1469
03-10-2019, 02:58 PM
I don't have an issue with the sentence. I have an issue that he was only targeted because of Trump.


Judge Ellis agrees with you.

Tahuyaman
03-10-2019, 08:47 PM
Judge Ellis agrees with you.
Obviously. I’ve read where the next judge is an activist hack type.

Peter1469
03-11-2019, 04:30 AM
Obviously. I’ve read where the next judge is an activist hack type.
Yes, she will likely max him.

Admiral Ackbar
03-11-2019, 06:52 AM
Obviously. I’ve read where the next judge is an activist hack type.

Very Soviet!!!! The Chairman smiles down on this prosecution.

25532

Tahuyaman
03-11-2019, 10:33 PM
If this next judge doesn’t max him out or give him a significant sentence to be served consecutively her life might be in danger.

Tahuyaman
03-13-2019, 11:18 AM
The idea that he deserves life like a violent offender is idiotic.

Evidently both judges agreed. The second judge basically tacked on another three and a half years to his first sentence.

Peter1469
03-13-2019, 05:09 PM
Evidently both judges agreed. The second judge basically tacked on another three and a half years to his first sentence.

When the defense lawyer was talking to the press after members of the dem base were calling him a liar by saying the case had no link to Russian "collusion." The judge said that before sentencing.

alexa
03-13-2019, 05:31 PM
When the defense lawyer was talking to the press after members of the dem base were calling him a liar by saying the case had no link to Russian "collusion." The judge said that before sentencing.

That's a rather dishonest interpretation of what the judge had to say.

Jackson from the bench called the defense’s repeated claims about the lack of collusion with the Russian government “a non-sequitur.” Jackson said such assertions were not persuasive to her, but perhaps were intended for another “audience".

The question of whether anyone in Trump’s campaign “conspired or colluded with” the Russian government “was not presented in this case,” she said.

She added that the assertion may not even be accurate because special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe is not over and she found that Manafort had lied to investigators about issues at the heart of that inquiry.

Perhaps you are the "intended audience" to which she referred.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/paul-manafort-faces-sentencing-in-washington-in-mueller-special-counsel-case/2019/03/12/d4d55dd4-44d0-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.7b165f67f717

Peter1469
03-13-2019, 07:01 PM
That's a rather dishonest interpretation of what the judge had to say.


Perhaps you are the "intended audience" to which she referred.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/paul-manafort-faces-sentencing-in-washington-in-mueller-special-counsel-case/2019/03/12/d4d55dd4-44d0-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.7b165f67f717

She said it:


The question of whether anyone in Trump’s campaign “conspired or colluded with” the Russian government “was not presented in this case,” she said.

alexa
03-14-2019, 07:55 AM
She said it:

And it's still a dishonest interpretation, imo, as well as taken out of context.

Peter1469
03-14-2019, 08:08 AM
And it's still a dishonest interpretation, imo, as well as taken out of context.

No it wasn't. If the FBI had evidence it would have been admitted at trial. There is no other interpretation outside of damage control.