The President of the United States has yet again violated the separation of powers

[malaise]

He just interfered with the Courts again and lied about Roger Stone's crimes

Roger Stone was just found guilty on all seven counts
Stone’s trial was the highest-profile loose end remaining from the Mueller investigation.

The verdict is in for Roger Stone’s trial — and a Washington, DC, jury found President Donald Trump’s longtime political adviser guilty on all counts Friday.

Stone was convicted of one count of obstructing an official proceeding, five counts of making false statements to Congress, and one count of witness tampering.

The verdict makes Stone the sixth former Trump adviser to be convicted of or plead guilty to charges stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The special counsel indicted Stone in January, before completing his work, and Stone’s trial was the highest-profile loose end remaining from the probe.

Prosecutors alleged that Stone tried to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election by lying to the committee about his efforts to contact WikiLeaks, and by encouraging another witness to lie for him.

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/15/20964909/roger-stone-trial-verdict

[Igel]

1. No, he didn't.

The DOJ is under the executive branch. It's not a separate branch, and not part of the courts.

The sentencing itself wasn't affected, the verdict wasn't affected. The judge will still decide this, as she always would.

What was changed was more subtle. The prosecution issues recommendations to the judge for sentencing--they think a certain sentence is merited, and makes the argument as to why that's the appropriate sentence. They make this decision based on the facts of the case (as they see them) and the sentencing guidelines produced by the DOJ that's to assist the prosecution in formulating their recommendations.

The DOJ attorneys on the case were overruled in their recommendations. They filed one, and then next day a different set of recommendations were filed from on high.

They're recommendations. They're not edicts. The judge is free to ignore them and impose a lighter sentence; ignore them and impose a sterner sentence; ignore them and for other reasons impose the same sentence otherwise recommended.

The judge is still free to choose any of the three options.

Now, judges typically take the prosecution's recommendations into account. They call for leniency, it's the prosecutor who brought the criminal to justice who's making the appeal. In this case, though, I'm sure the judge may say she's only relying on the record before her but she knows the backstory from the media.

[malaise]

2. Valid points

but is his attack on the Judge not interference with the Judicial Branch and when he publicly praises the AG for interfering is that way past normal behavior?