You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
0

[–] kestrel9 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Again,

Disingenuous OP.

That was part of the story from 5 days ago. Here's what was said after that:

The issue then became the sentencing. A new U.S. attorney had just started in Washington D.C. and the week before the filing, he engaged in conversations with senior staff here who raised some questions about the sentencing because he was concerned that the so called guidelines, the sentencing guideline formula, was indicating a sentence between 7 and 9 years.

"Which, he felt and all of us immediately felt was very, very high and excessive in this case."

Repeat...

"and all of us immediately felt was very, very high and excessive.."

Which, he felt and all of us immediately felt was very, very high and excessive in this case. And so he wanted to discuss that and over a number of days it became clear that the prosecution team wanted to recommend to the judge, and by the way, sentencing is a function for the judge and not the Department of Justice, we're not the decision maker. But they wanted to advocate for a sentence that was, at the top, between 7 and 9 years.

And, in those discussions here at the department, you know, I came to the view as my colleagues did that I wouldn't support affirmatively advocating what I thought was an excessive sentence.

So, what I wanted to do what to provide dis -- defer to the discretion of the judge, let the judge make the determination. …

And then point out different features of the case that she should consider if she wanted to go below the 7 to 9 years. And I won't get into the wires on that, but there were a lot of, I think, very legitimate arguments to be raised, there are points to be raised there. But at the end of the day, we deferred to her. ...