Friday, September 02, 2011

TPM: Former Doolittle staffer & Abramoff lobbyist Kevin Ring 'Not Entitled' To Leniency

Based on roughly 30 seconds of deep thought, I disagree with the feds on this.
(Recommendation: read & decide for yourself)
"Federal prosecutors maintained in a filing on Thursday that Jack Abramoff crony Kevin Ring should face 17 to 22 years in jail because he is "is not entitled to the benefits, or leniency, enjoyed by his co-conspirators who stood in a very different position in 2005 to 2008 than he does in 2011."

Ring's lawyers had argued that the tough sentence the Justice Department has sought against him -- which exceeds the time served by all 20 other defendants in the conspiracy combined -- was a form of retaliation for his decision to go to trial and not plead guilty like many of his co-conspirators.
...
in a filing Thursday, federal prosecutors ... [disagreed, saying Ring's] "insupportable" argument was essentially that it is "retaliation" if the government "ever seeks a higher sentence than the sentence to which it agreed for any of his co-conspirators." ..."
Some of the comments make sense.

at

2 comments:

  1. Don Pelton9/03/2011 6:42 PM

    Anna:

    Do you mean that you disagree with the harsh sentence?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anna Haynes9/04/2011 6:12 PM

    Yes, with the proviso that it's not a well informed opinion; there may be aspects of this case that I'm not aware of.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.