Patterico's Pontifications

2/11/2020

All Hell Is Breaking Loose in the Roger Stone Sentencing

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:13 pm



I can barely keep up with the firehose of news. You no doubt read my post this morning about Trump’s Twitter citation of a silly Daily Caller piece as part of a slam on the Department of Justice over its Roger Stone sentencing recommendation. Well, since I wrote that post just this morning:

  • All four Stone prosecutors abruptly withdrew from the case — and one resigned the Departmen of Justice entirely. “The line prosecutors were especially upset because they were not told about the decision to intervene until after Fox News first reported it late Tuesday morning, the people said.”
  • The Department of Justice filed a new, more lenient sentencing recommendation in Stone’s case.
  • An NBC report says Bill Barr has taken control of legal cases of interest to Trump, reminding us that prosecutors recently recommended six months for Michael Flynn and then followed that up with a second recommendation of probation, which (according to the NYT link in the first bullet point above) was not signed by the prosecutor who had signed earlier filings in the case.
  • Donald Trump attacked the four prosecutors who resigned:

  • Donald Trump attacked Roger Stone’s judge on Twitter:

  • Trump said the military should look into disciplining Lt. Col. Vindman, who testified against him.

It’s currently 7:13 p.m. It hasn’t even been 12 hours since I published my post this morning.

556 Responses to “All Hell Is Breaking Loose in the Roger Stone Sentencing”

  1. I see this as a Big Deal. Maybe it’s because I am a prosecutor and can’t even begin to imagine political interference with my prosecutions.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. It’s currently 7:13 p.m. It hasn’t even been 12 hours since I published my post this morning.

    Always trust content from patterico.com.

    :)

    Dave (6ed7b7)

  3. Fire in the hole

    mg (8cbc69)

  4. The President is kicking ass and chewing bubblegum and he’s all out of bubblegum.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  5. Why is it ok for all these people in supposedly impartial positions to voice their opinion that Trump sucks, they won’t enforce his immigration policies or whatever, but it’s “political pressure” if Trump fires off a tweet. Also they get every benefit of the doubt even when they text each other “that’s our insurance policy incase Trump wins!”?

    Property rights (81f8cf)

  6. @1 How do you feel about mandatory minimums or 3 strike rules?

    frosty (f27e97)

  7. I see this as a big deal, too, Patterico. We’ve got a petulant poofter boy in the White House, and his dung beetles (they don’t rise to the level of remoras) scurrying to keep their food producer happy.

    nk (1d9030)

  8. This won’t surprise anyone, but I can’t follow Trump’s Tweets. Who are the “13 Angry Democrats”? Is that twelve jurors and an alternate?

    JVW (54fd0b)

  9. 13 Angry Democrats is Trumpese for Mueller and his staff.

    Kishnevi (bfcc0b)

  10. Guys, President Trump has assured us that he had nothing to do with the sentencing revision.

    That should put the matter to rest. Why are we still talking about this?

    Dave (1bb933)

  11. Pelosi’s going to have to get back to work to draft a few more articles apparently. Maybe the second time’s the charm, see if all those folks that said, “Sure he did it, but He’ll learn from his mistakes” will learn from their mistakes.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  12. AG Barr gave a speech yesterday in which he criticized biased prosecutors who let defendants avoid serious charges for political reasons:

    Last but not least, we are meticulously reviewing the actions of certain district attorneys who have adopted policies of charging foreign nationals with lesser offenses for the express purpose of avoiding the federal immigration consequences of those nationals’ criminal conduct. In pursuing their personal ambitions and misguided notions of equal justice, these district attorneys are systematically violating the rule of law and may even be unlawfully discriminating against American citizens.

    It is commendable that the Rule of Law matters to Republicans. Not so much when Trump tweets.

    DRJ (15874d)

  13. @5 Because Trump’s the boss and “all these people” are little cogs in the machine. He changes entire sectors of government policy and fires people by tweets while the only thing they can do with their government cell phones is get fired for arranging to frack around on their spouses.

    Nic (896fdf)

  14. Once Stone is pardoned, it will have mattered immensely whether he was sentenced to 9 months or 9 years.

    I guess I need to be a prosecutor to understand this.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  15. Patterico,

    The Roger Stone affair has gotten me a little concerned. It appears to me that there is a lot of politics involved, and from my perspective it seems that some people get of easy and some get reamed. I don’t have the perspective to know if things are justified or not.

    For example why was Stone SWATTED? Was he a person they thought would be armed and dangerous or that he was a severe flight risk that they had to do a 0 dark hundred raid with full SWAT teams? Is there a reason the news people were notified to get it all on tape? That seems to me to be a major political act and not at all a simple warrant.

    Finally in respect to other political people who have been accused of similar actions as Stone, it seems to me some are never even indicted, but for those who are, is his sentence appropriate for the the things they actually proved in court, I am not talking about things they accused him of, just the actual ones proven?

    Wa St Blogger (5fcf49)

  16. Once Stone is pardoned, it will have mattered immensely whether he was sentenced to 9 months or 9 years.

    I guess I need to be a prosecutor to understand this.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/11/2020 @ 8:31 pm

    Such a shrill troll.

    Obviously it does matter if the president abuses his power, even if the president later abuses his power about the same issue.

    Perhaps you shouldn’t talk so much about things you are bragging you do not understand?

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  17. Uses his power, Dustin, for purposes the Constitution anticipated.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  18. “For example why was Stone SWATTED? Was he a person they thought would be armed and dangerous or that he was a severe flight risk that they had to do a 0 dark hundred raid with full SWAT teams?”

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/alex-jones-rogers-stone-hit-gun-range-prepare-civil-war-article-1.3715575

    “Is there a reason the news people were notified to get it all on tape?”

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/roger-stone-raid/index.html

    “That seems to me to be a major political act and not at all a simple warrant.”

    It seems to me that you aren’t in possession of all the facts.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  19. For example why was Stone SWATTED?

    I’ve never heard that term used that way, to describe a warrant service SWAT. Forgive me if I assume you’re needling about something else. I agree swat teams aren’t needed for most. For someone engaged in witness tampering? You never know.

    Stone has been found guilty. Therefore he brought that on himself. His corruption is so great that he will probably get a pardon, but he is still part of a massive criminal enterprise that harmed our democracy. His sentence should be commensurate with what many paid to give us our free elections and our nation of laws.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  20. Yeah cause CNN just happening to look at the prosecutors office is a nice explanation, and totally explains why they had received so many of the “deep state” leaks up until that point and how they came to employ Brennan as a commentator.

    You people will believe anything if you think it’s anti trump just as much as you accuse “Trump humpers” of doing

    Property rights (cef076)

  21. Uses his power, Dustin, for purposes the Constitution anticipated.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/11/2020 @ 9:47 pm

    I missed the section of the constitution where the president pardons someone who helped him cheat at an election. The men who fought a revolution against the unelected and above the law did not support those things.

    Oh yeah. Troll. I believe you’re all three of the weirdos in this thread.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  22. “ His corruption is so great that he will probably get a pardon, but he is still part of a massive criminal enterprise that harmed our democracy”

    LOL yeah ok this 90 year old man harmed our entire democracy with his “massive” criminal enterprise that involved himself getting accused of lying to the FBI, which is a crime they gloss over if you work for them

    You people are a joke. An absolute joke

    Property rights (cef076)

  23. Make America ordered again, I guess you are a total troll bro. Roger Stone helped Trump “cheat an election” and “damage our entire democracy”. We should all be scared of the nefarious Roger Stone. He’s a monster

    Property rights (cef076)

  24. Oh yeah. Troll. I believe you’re all three of the weirdos in this thread.

    Dustin (b8d6d1) — 2/11/2020 @ 9:52 pm

    You are bat sht insane

    Property rights (cef076)

  25. I support Stone’s pardon, Pr. I also think he should pardon Assange and Flynn at least.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  26. “Yeah cause CNN just happening to look at the prosecutors office is a nice explanation, and totally explains why they had received so many of the “deep state” leaks up until that point and how they came to employ Brennan as a commentator.”

    The “deep state” doesn’t exist. It’s just an excuse to explain Trump’s incompetence.

    “You people will believe anything if you think it’s anti trump just as much as you accuse “Trump humpers” of doing.”

    Do you have any evidence that CNN was tipped off?

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  27. @22 You should check again. It only applies to federal crimes and there’s a DOJ rule that says a president can’t pardon himself but other than that it isn’t restricted.

    frosty (f27e97)

  28. “LOL yeah ok this 90 year old man harmed our entire democracy with his “massive” criminal enterprise that involved himself getting accused of lying to the FBI, which is a crime they gloss over if you work for them”

    He was convicted of lying to Congress. Also witness tampering.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  29. It is commendable that the Rule of Law matters to Republicans.

    It matters to Democrats, too. At times.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  30. Maybe it’s because I am a prosecutor and can’t even begin to imagine political interference with my prosecutions.

    What people see here though is political interference in the decision to prosecute, either for or against, long before the individual staff prosecutor is [is not] assigned to the case.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  31. Here is just a short list of people that I’ve seen here quoted with relevance that have been before called shameful liars just because someone thought it would “hurt Trump”.

    Michael Avanti
    Adam Schiff
    Joe Biden
    Nancy Pelosi
    Hillary Clinton

    If you quote them as people whose words you take….thats now you get Trump 2020

    Property rights (cef076)

  32. If you quote them as people whose words you take….thats now you get Trump 2020

    So if we take the blue pill and go along with Trump, repeating everything he says, praising everything he does, and demonizing anyone and everyone critical of him, regardless of the facts, we won’t get Trump 2020?

    Dave (1bb933)

  33. @34 People are sometimes wrong about one set of things and right about another. Sometimes people are right with bad motives and wrong with good ones. Sometimes people are partially right and partially wrong, simultaneously. Sometimes people have an opinion that is neither factually correct nor factually incorrect. Sometimes there is no wrong answer. Sometimes there is no right answer. The world is not black and white.

    Nic (896fdf)

  34. #30

    Do NeverTrumper understand that they’re a tiny fringe group of TDS losers whom nobody takes seriously?

    How numerous and respected are Trump fans who call Obama a “chimp” while dismissing racism as a left-wing concept they couldn’t care less about?

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  35. @29. Who is the 90-year old?

    nk (1d9030)

  36. orson bean?

    mg (8cbc69)

  37. If not that the ads specified “well-hung male”, I’d speculate that Donald and Roger were more than just friends.

    nk (1d9030)

  38. IIRC, one of the several felonies Stone was convicted for was a physical threat against a juror.

    That goes right to the heart of our judicial system. He should serve some years for being the creep he is, having done what he’s done.

    And the thug in the Oval Office should be removed. THEN he, too, shoould face indictment.

    The GOP should be examined head to foot for remedial action after its disgusting corruption in supporting the snake in office, Trump.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  39. https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2020/02/louisiana-gop-censures-mitt-romney-david-duke-laughs/

    THIS is how screwed the GOP has allowed itself to be.

    Boris and his ilk are very pleased, thinking that Duh Donald is one of them.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  40. Patterico, I don’t think I know what happened yet and I’m willing to withhold judgement until I do. I hope that clarity comes soon, and in a way that can be trusted.

    But if Trump is managing the application of the criminal justice system to the benefit of his friends & allies I think that’s a real problem, and very potentially an abuse of power. The founders wanted an independent Judiciary and equal application of the law for a reason. English history has plenty of examples that show us why that’s important.

    Trump does have the power to pardon and commute sentences. Impeachment is often listed as the check on this power. The difference between him pardoning Stone and pushing the DOJ to go easy on Stone is matters. A pardon is public, there’s a record and the president is politically accountable for it. Pressuring the prosecutors is not public and the only way to make the president politically accountable is through oversite. Given that the Trump administration fully refused to comply with the previous oversight I don’t think that’s an appropriate check.

    Final point, Trump isn’t very good at being President. He does a lot of things in ways that make his job harder. A slightly more subtle leader would be able to use this new interpretation for more effectively, and they will. That’s how president works. Party 1 violates a norm. Party 2 uses an interpretation of that that principle to push the violation further. The end result is a large, more powerful and less accountable federal government.

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  41. I’ll be happy to be examined.

    Let me know when we can schedule our appointments.

    I’ll pit money down that you are committed.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  42. Oh, I think we should have them much sooner/more assuredly. Or are you afraid?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  43. The founders wanted an independent Judiciary and equal application of the law for a reason.

    Well we don’t have that. We have a judiciary that considers itself vastly superior to both other branches of government. They should be reigned in.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  44. “This is how they conduct business *before* the election. I can’t wait to see what kind of banana Republican crap they pull *after* the election.” Patterico

    IMO, it is likely that Trump’s opponent will be Buttigieg or, outside chance, Klobuchar or Bloomberg. If the unthinkable happens and it is Bernie, this nightmare scenario will be our reality for four additional years. None of the swing voters I know (including myself) will vote for Sanders.

    Four more years? Eight? If Trump gets away with it, there is nothing to stop Don Jr. from compounding the abuses. And Don Jr. is one of the favorites of Republicans already! That’s right…. why not double down on crazy.

    It’s hard to win a general election if you are fighting unrestrained Russian spies and their propaganda as well as a billionaire opponent who doesn’t play by the rules.

    noel (4d3313)

  45. We have a judiciary that considers itself vastly superior to both other branches of government. They should be reigned in.

    Which, as you’re perfectly aware, has nothing to do with this case. You’re just here to troll for the side of the thugs. That’s a shame.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  46. As for fivethirtyeight predictions…. no way. I think these people are brilliant and follow them religiously but Biden at one in six chance and Buttigieg at one in 20 this morning? No way. No how.

    noel (4d3313)

  47. IMO, it is likely that Trump’s opponent will be Buttigieg or, outside chance, Klobuchar or Bloomberg.

    That would be a dilemma. A homosexual megalomaniac, a woman, or a rich jerkoff versus Trump who is all three. Oh, well, there’s still SMOD.

    nk (1d9030)

  48. My predictions for New Hampshire before any results came in were Bernie 30, Pete 23, Klobuchar 17, Warren 11 and Biden 9. Not bad but Bernie was even weaker than I imagined. He won 60% last time. He will not be the nominee.

    noel (4d3313)

  49. No mention of the news that the now resigned prosecutors told DOJ a different sentencing recommendation was being submitted that the one that actually was?

    Funny, any place I ever worked lying to the boss was grounds for termination.

    If we are on the slope to becoming a banana republic, it sure did not start with Trump. And as far as I am concerned, so long as Comey, Clapper and Brennan are walking around free, Roger Stone should be as well.

    Sawbuck57 (24481f)

  50. Roger Stone. Republicans now are defending the guy with the Nixon tattoo. Not my party any more.

    noel (4d3313)

  51. No mention of the news that the now resigned prosecutors told DOJ a different sentencing recommendation was being submitted that the one that actually was?

    That’s a lie. But that’s what Trumpkins do. Lie. Like their orange deviant.

    nk (1d9030)

  52. @57. Bernie had 6 times as many opponents as he did in 2016. Not a shock that he didn’t get as big a percentage. I won’t be shocked if he isn’t the nominee. The DNC will do whatever they can to kneecap him. They seem intent on foisting Bloomberg on us.

    JRH (52aed3)

  53. There once was a poofter named Irv,
    Who taught Tiny Donnie to perv.
    He said “Don’t let yourself stray,
    For fear of what others may say.
    Your Trumpkins will admire your nerve.”

    nk (1d9030)

  54. Sawbuck57 (24481f)

    Dealt with yesterday. Do try to keep up.

    Happily, our criminal justice system does not work according to your lights.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  55. Lawfare titled it right: “The President Tweets and the Justice Department Complies”. The opening paragraph:

    Corruption of the justice system has two major elements. The first—at issue in the Ukraine scandal—is the use of state power to go after one’s enemies. The other is the ability to restrain government power to reward one’s friends and allies.

    Obviously, Trump has done both in recent history. Another matter of note: The recommended sentence fell within US sentencing guidelines for Stone’s crimes. Here is the context of how the now ex-prosecutor framed those felonies.

    Investigations into election interference concern our national security, the integrity of our democratic processes, and the enforcement of our nation’s criminal laws …. It is against this backdrop that Stone’s crimes—his obstruction, lies, and witness tampering—must be judged. Stone knew the gravity of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation when he obstructed it by giving false testimony and tampering with a witness. Indeed, Stone acknowledged as much in his opening statement before the Committee. Stone chose—consciously, repeatedly, and flagrantly—to obstruct and interfere with the search for the truth on an issue of vital importance to all Americans.

    In this BizarroWorld we’re in, the irony is that Trump’s lapdog AG–a 69-year old guy who services a 73-year old president–said that Stone was too old at 67 years to spend time behind bars.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  56. I see this as a Big Deal. Maybe it’s because I am a prosecutor and can’t even begin to imagine political interference with my prosecutions.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 2/11/2020 @ 7:15 pm

    This whole thing starts on stupid. The judicial system rests its authority on political approval or repercussions. Lots of judges Stand for election. Presidents get elected, in part because of the promised SCOTUS appointments. The govt prosecution teams are directed by politically elected persons. Sheriffs, and police commissioners are politically elected. District Judges from the bench, and in their binding decisions make clear, if the order was signed by a different President, they would instead follow the law

    The justice system MUST be held politically accountable.

    Add this to the list of phony posturing about President Trump being some how different than past presidents.

    Iowantwo (7f978f)

  57. The Lawfare link.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  58. Trump, last night… “The Fake News Media is looking hard for the Big Democrat Story, but there is nothing too fabulous.”

    “Fabulous”. Good luck with that Donald. If nominated, 90 percent of Americans will ignore the fact that Buttigieg has a husband long before election day. They don’t care. The few who really do care will be all in for Donald anyway.

    But, as we would expect, the President has a rainbow dog-whistle too.

    noel (4d3313)

  59. Iowantwo (7f978f)

    Nice lil school of red herrings you got there.

    They stink and are rotten, but…hey…that’s what you’ve got.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  60. What I cannot find, is if the original 7 to 9 year jail recommendation is normal for Stone’s first-time offence of:
    -one count of obstruction of an official proceeding for lying to Congress
    -five counts of false statements
    -one count of witness tampering

    The DOJ requested two years for James Wolfe (he got two months) for actually leaking classified documents to his WashingtonPost paramour.

    I don’t consider what Stone did any worse than what Wolfe did… when you think about Stone’s conviction are process crimes and Wolfe broke classified information laws.

    I’m not saying Stone shouldn’t be punished. I’m just trying to understand if the original recommendations was inline with usual practice or if it was excessive. If it *was* excessive, then DOJ supervisors is right to step in.

    I’ll also say this: During the Obama years where “friends of Obama” largely escaped legal accountability, forgive me for not sharing your outrage today over “friends of Trump”.

    I don’t know how the rule of law can reassert itself whereby everyone is adjudicated equally, regardless of political ideology. But I do know it’s not dropping the hammer on “friends of Trump” while hand-waving Democratic’s privilege of escaping accountability. Maybe it’s a chicken-and-egg conundrum, but right now it’s obvious that there are two-tiers of political justice.

    Frankly, it would probably be better if Trump just pardons all of his “Friends of Trump” and just be done with. We all know this is going to happen at some point and if I had my druthers, he should do it before the election so that it’s actually an election issue for voters.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  61. Lawless and bigoted. That is what Trump will be remembered for. Oh, and being defeated in good economic times by about eight points.

    noel (4d3313)

  62. I don’t consider what Stone did any worse than what Wolfe did… when you think about Stone’s conviction are process crimes

    This is the old fallacy of de minimus argument. “Aw, shucks, your honor, threatening a witness is just a process crime”.

    What you consider worse or better doesn’t matter. The law considers what Stone did VERY serious, as it should.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  63. Time123 (ca85c9) — 2/12/2020 @ 5:01 am

    The founders wanted an independent Judiciary and equal application of the law for a reason.

    You’re better than that sort of bait and switch. You know this isn’t about an independent judiciary. Our host is too but we’re supposed to associate whatever may be going on in the sentencing phase with the entire prosecution. And forget about things like the juicy somlea case, the earlier epstein case, or any number of others that kick off debates about prosecutorial discretion.

    frosty (f27e97)

  64. You know this isn’t about an independent judiciary.

    WTF do YOU think it’s about?!?

    Oh, and nice little barrel of red herrings YOU brought!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  65. Trump…. “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.”

    If Obama had done this…..

    noel (4d3313)

  66. @71

    I don’t consider what Stone did any worse than what Wolfe did… when you think about Stone’s conviction are process crimes

    This is the old fallacy of de minimus argument. “Aw, shucks, your honor, threatening a witness is just a process crime”.

    What you consider worse or better doesn’t matter. The law considers what Stone did VERY serious, as it should.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:43 am

    Bull.Caca.

    It absolutely matters as it reinforces the two-tiered justice system.

    It’s how the Lois Leners, James Clapper, Hillary Clinton of the world largely escaping accountability.

    The hypocrisy is thick here.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  67. It was easy to find, whembly. Even the new, revised DOJ recommendation admits the basis for the original sentencing recommendation was correct for these offenses. The new, revised DOJ disagrees on the enhancements.

    DRJ (15874d)

  68. @74

    Trump…. “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.”

    If Obama had done this…..

    noel (4d3313) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:48 am

    Wingman Eric Holder did.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  69. “If Obama had done this…..”
    noel (4d3313) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:48 am

    “…no serious prosecutor would bring such a case.”

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  70. The hypocrisy is thick here.

    Any hypocrisy is coming from the T-rump Amen Corner.

    If you wanted Hellary prosecuted, you should have written your little orange god.

    Now, we do have some prosecutions of creepy thugs, and you want them cut loose because they’re from your team.

    You have no allegiance to the law.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  71. We might be missing the forest for the trees, here. Look at the Daily Mail article I linked at 41 above, and consider whether Stone might actually want to spend a good, long stretch in the pokey, provided that his cellmate was ahem “sufficiently endowed”.

    nk (1d9030)

  72. “…no serious prosecutor would bring such a case.”

    Was he convicted?

    noel (4d3313)

  73. 37. You typed Obama, but meant Busch.

    Iowantwo (7f978f)

  74. You can convict a ham sandwich. Is that the argument now?

    noel (4d3313)

  75. #76

    It was easy to find, whembly. Even the new, revised DOJ recommendation admits the basis for the original sentencing recommendation was correct for these offenses. The new, revised DOJ disagrees on the enhancements.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:51 am

    Thanks. I read the two and it seems that dispute between the prosecutors and DOJ was applying the “eight-level enhancement” to the charge.

    For the amended filing, I pulled out some the salient points:

    Here, as set forth in the government’s initial submission, the
    defendant’s total offense level is arguably 29 and his criminal history category is I, which would
    result in an advisory Guidelines range of 87 to 108 months. Notably, however, the Sentencing
    Guidelines enhancements in this case—while perhaps technically applicable— more than double
    the defendant’s total offense level and, as a result, disproportionately escalate the defendant’s
    sentencing exposure to an offense level of 29, which typically applies in cases involving violent
    offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases
    . Cf. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a)-(b). As
    explained below, removing these enhancements would have a significant effect on the
    defendant’s Guidelines range
    . For example, if the Court were not to apply the eight-level
    enhancement for threatening a witness with physical injury, it would result in the defendant
    receiving an advisory Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months
    , which as explained below is more in
    line with the typical sentences imposed in obstruction cases. Accordingly, it would be
    reasonable for the Court to conclude that the Guidelines range as calculated is unduly high on the
    facts of this case.


    First, as noted above, the most serious sentencing enhancement in this case—the eightlevel enhancement under Section 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) for “threatening to cause physical injury”—has
    been disputed by the victim of that threat, Randy Credico, who asserts that he did not perceive a
    genuine threat from the defendant but rather stated that “I never in any way felt that Stone
    himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog.”



    Second, the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice (§ 3C1.1) overlaps to a
    degree with the offense conduct in this case. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent the
    Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 286 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 5
    4
    defendant’s obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial.
    Third, the Court must “avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.” See 18 U.S.C. §
    3553(a)(6). In its prior filing, the Government directed the Court’s attention to a non-exhaustive
    list of witness tampering, false statement, and obstruction of justice cases that resulted in
    sentences of thirty months (Libby), thirteen months (Manafort), six months (Lavelle), twelve
    months (Hansen), and thirty-five months (Solofa). While these cases involved lesser offense
    conduct, the sentences imposed constituted a fraction of the penalty suggested by the advisory
    Guidelines in this case.


    Finally, the Court also should consider the defendant’s advanced age, health, personal
    circumstances, and lack of criminal history in fashioning an appropriate sentence. As noted
    above, a sentence of 87 to 108 months more typically has been imposed for defendants who have
    higher criminal history categories or who obstructed justice as part of a violent criminal
    organization.
    See, e.g., United States v. Bender, 927 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2019) (


    CONCLUSION
    The defendant committed serious offenses and deserves a sentence of incarceration that is
    “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy the factors set forth in Section 3553(a).
    Based on the facts known to the government, a sentence of between 87 to 108 months’
    imprisonment, however, could be considered excessive and unwarranted under the
    Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 286 Filed 02/11/20 Page 4 of 5
    5
    circumstances. Ultimately, the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is
    appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case.

    Looks like the amended puts the sentencing to 37 to 46 months range. (caveat here is that Judges can adjust accordingly, ie Wolfe’s case getting 60 days vs government recommended 2 years).

    Is that unreasonably too light??

    I think the DOJ amended sentencing is more reasonable and that the prosecutors over-reached.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  76. Nope! Their argument is that you should not look inside the sh!t sandwich. Just take Trump’s word that it’s ham.

    nk (1d9030)

  77. @80

    The hypocrisy is thick here.

    Any hypocrisy is coming from the T-rump Amen Corner.

    If you wanted Hellary prosecuted, you should have written your little orange god.

    Now, we do have some prosecutions of creepy thugs, and you want them cut loose because they’re from your team.

    You have no allegiance to the law.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:57 am

    I definitely don’t have allegiance to the law when there are obvious political two-tiered justice system. All it does, is it puts me into Popehat’s mantra if “Don’t fricking talk to the government” when in legal jeopardy:
    https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-edition/

    whembly (fd57f6)

  78. I think the DOJ amended sentencing is more reasonable and that the prosecutors over-reached.

    Swell. THAT is an argument for the defense to make in court…NOT the thug-in-chief on twatter.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  79. That would be a dilemma. A homosexual megalomaniac, a woman, or a rich jerkoff versus Trump who is all three. Oh, well, there’s still SMOD.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:02 am

    hahahahahahahahahahahhaa

    hahhahahahahahaha

    Dustin (0a4531)

  80. “You can convict a ham sandwich. Is that the argument now?”
    noel (4d3313) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:03 am

    You can indict a ham sandwich, noel. But oddly, not a candidate with the persona of a ham sandwich.

    Before Trump, these things got sorted out following the proper channels, usually on a tarmac in Phoenix.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  81. All it does, is it puts me into Popehat’s mantra if “Don’t fricking talk to the government” when in legal jeopardy…

    And yet Stone is such a conceited little POS that he thought he’d get away with it.

    Well, he had good legal advice…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  82. 19 Davethulhu (fe4242) — 2/11/2020 @ 9:48 pm

    If that is what you have to support the level of firepower used in a unneeded raid then I am quite right to be suspicious that the raid was political. I twas meant to intimidate the the person as well as his wife and broadcast to warn other people who support Trump that this could happen to them as well.

    This was abuse of power and intimidation that if it were perpetrated against anyone but a Trump associate would be loudly and justifiably condemned.

    The more I see this kind of abuse by government the more inclined I am to discount everything else that is lobbed Trump’s way. It is a natural reaction that people begin to side with who they think is the aggrieved party. It will certainly galvanize Trump fans and will push other non-ideological Americans into his corner. People can tell the difference when they are not invested into a particular pre-judgement.

    Wa St Blogger (5fcf49)

  83. @60

    No mention of the news that the now resigned prosecutors told DOJ a different sentencing recommendation was being submitted that the one that actually was?

    That’s a lie. But that’s what Trumpkins do. Lie. Like their orange deviant.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:11 am

    CBS, Foxnews and NationalReview reported this…

    Do you have something that contradicts them?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  84. Some threats aren’t real threats, right, whembly?

    DRJ (15874d)

  85. Not that I know the case inside and out or even close, but before all this I figured Stone for maybe thirty months and a hefty fine. Hanging judges don’t get appointed to the DC Circuit by Barack Obama. (As hard as Stone tried to piss her off.) FWIW

    nk (1d9030)

  86. You’re better than that sort of bait and switch. You know this isn’t about an independent judiciary

    If I wasn’t clear, I’m not referring to this case in particular. I’m just making a general comment to someone who said the founders wanted an independent and co-equal branch in the judiciary. That needs to be clawed back by the President if necessary, Congress if possible. It really is their job, by definition.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  87. Frosty@72, It’s not intended as a bait and switch. How do you have an independent Judicial process when the decisions to prosecute or not, and how to sentence, are made for the political benefit of the executive branch? For lesser offices there are criminal statutes that penalize this.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  88. @89

    Except the people elected the “thug in chief” to head the Executive branch, which controls the DOJ and the prosecutors. The fact that he acted in his usual buffoonish way does not mean that, on the substance, he may not have a point.

    The new prosecutors have now asked for 37 to 46 months (I didn’t check it, but assume that Whembly is accurate.) That’s between 3 to 4 years, hardly nothing, and certainly not letting the guy off. And the same “thug-in-chief” has now praised this new submission. He may well try to walk that back, but at the moment, the substance of what he is saying is, the guy deserves substantial time in jail (3-4 years), just not so much as the prior crew tried to get. Hardly a major scandal, let along subverting justice.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  89. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:48 am

    WTF do YOU think it’s about?!?

    Oh, what a difference a few hours makes in the life of a troll.

    The prosecutor is making a sentencing recommendation. No matter what they recommend the judge will decide whether the recommendation is appropriate.

    This was a statement of the blazingly obvious.

    Thank you, Dr. Watson.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/11/2020 @ 3:27 pm

    and

    We have a judiciary that considers itself vastly superior to both other branches of government. They should be reigned in.

    Which, as you’re perfectly aware, has nothing to do with this case. You’re just here to troll for the side of the thugs. That’s a shame.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/12/2020 @ 5:55 am

    The little troll gears are turning so fast but you can’t even stay consistent for an hour. Is it the sound of your big troll fingers mashing away at the keyboard that is distracting you?

    I keep having to give you basic civics lessons. If you ever see your highschool teacher again you should have a word.

    The judiciary, of which the judge is a part, refers to the article III branch of the government. The US Attorney’s Office is part of the DOJ which is in the executive branch.

    This is about DOJ independence from the WH and the ability of prosecutors to act independently from the DOJ. Or said, otherwise, it’s about the WH’s (executive branch) relationship to the DOJ (also executive branch) and AUSA’s (also executive branch).

    frosty (f27e97)

  90. Do you have something that contradicts them?

    Yep. Every criminal prosecutor I know, including the host of this thread.

    I would have thought that pretty much all of us here know that news reports from several sources are no more valid than a echo, since that’s all they are. It doesn’t tell us anything about the truth of what’s being reported…just that it happened.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  91. “If Obama had done this…..”
    noel (4d3313) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:48 am

    “…no serious prosecutor would bring such a case.”

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:56 am

    There was a new head of the FBI and DOJ four months later. They didn’t bring the charges either. Doesn’t that indicate Comey was correct? Or do yo have another explanation?

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  92. Except the people elected the “thug in chief” to head the Executive branch, which controls the DOJ and the prosecutors. The fact that he acted in his usual buffoonish way does not mean that, on the substance, he may not have a point.

    Exactly. The people chose who to give pardon power too. If they don’t like how it’s used or hinted at, they can punish him at the polls or punish his GOP successor.

    Nothing’s perfect in life, including the above, but that is the Constitution and system of government as it exists.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  93. *to

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  94. @95

    Some threats aren’t real threats, right, whembly?

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:22 am

    ?? What are you referring to? Stone’s to Randy Credico???

    whembly (fd57f6)

  95. This is about DOJ independence from the WH and the ability of prosecutors to act independently from the DOJ.

    That is another declaration of abject stupid.

    But why break a trend?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  96. I’m talking about this sort of thing (from the GOP’s Senate website):

    [As of September 19, 2019] “Federal district courts have already imposed almost twice as many nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration as against the [Entire] Obama administration.”

    I’m not saying this is relevant to the Stone case. I’m just making a general comment about how the Judiciary is out of control and thinks they were appointed to rule if they don’t like a politician’s policies, or something.

    That’s all—just an aside.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  97. Exactly. The people chose who to give pardon power too. If they don’t like how it’s used or hinted at, they can punish him at the polls or punish his GOP successor.

    The point is, Trump has not (at least yet) used the pardon power in Stone’s case. His own prosecutors just asked for 3 to 4 years of jail for Stone. The notion that he is trying to give a pass for one of his cronies just does not withstand scrutiny.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  98. #101

    Do you have something that contradicts them?

    Yep. Every criminal prosecutor I know, including the host of this thread.

    I would have thought that pretty much all of us here know that news reports from several sources are no more valid than a echo, since that’s all they are. It doesn’t tell us anything about the truth of what’s being reported…just that it happened.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:28 am

    Oh? So why is it that this philosophy is only applied in one direction in your case?

    Could it be because of your general animus towards Trump anything and not on facts or rational observation?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  99. The people chose who to give pardon power too.

    ANOTHER red herring!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  100. You are the one endorsing the 37-46 month guidelines, whembly, but even the new, revised DOJ acknowledged that such a non-enhanced sentence applies only if you ignore the eight-level enhancement for Stone’s violent threat to Credico and his dog. The DOJ points out that Credico testified he wasn’t threatened but the jury found otherwise, didn’t it? Apparently Crefico, you and the new, revised DOJ think it was not a real threat and should not count, but that darn jury didn’t cooperate.

    DRJ (15874d)

  101. So why is it that this philosophy is only applied in one direction in your case?

    You don’t know what you are talking about.

    Do you disagree that a false story can be reported in good faith by several news outlets that are just relaying information?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  102. The little troll gears are turning so fast but you can’t even stay consistent for an hour. Is it the sound of your big troll fingers mashing away at the keyboard that is distracting you?

    I keep having to give you basic civics lessons. If you ever see your highschool teacher again you should have a word.

    Let’s stop this sort of talk. We’re not here to insult one another.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  103. @108

    Exactly. The people chose who to give pardon power too. If they don’t like how it’s used or hinted at, they can punish him at the polls or punish his GOP successor.

    The point is, Trump has not (at least yet) used the pardon power in Stone’s case. His own prosecutors just asked for 3 to 4 years of jail for Stone. The notion that he is trying to give a pass for one of his cronies just does not withstand scrutiny.

    Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:36 am

    If Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio teaches us anything, it’s far likely that he’ll pardon Stone. I think it’s a matter of when, not if.

    But, to your point, I don’t think anyone made a concise argument that the DOJ supervisor overruling the prosecutor’s recommendation of 7-9 years to 3-4 years in jail justifies the current outrage. Outside appeal or pardon, Stone is still going to prison here.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  104. Apparently Crefico, you and the new, revised DOJ think it was not a real threat and should not count, but that darn jury didn’t cooperate.

    And if the President concludes the jury committed a travesty of justice the President can pardon.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  105. I don’t not agree with Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio, but alas, he was the one elected.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  106. Heck, I’m skeptical of the degree to which Trump intervened in the Eddie Gallagher case, especially his undermining the authority of Rear Admiral (Upper Half) Colin Green.

    So I don’t think Trump wields pardon power perfectly. Bored Lawyer, though, makes some good points about, so far, Trump has only succeeded in having the sentencing recommendation lowered in the Stone case.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  107. @111

    You are the one endorsing the 37-46 month guidelines, whembly, but even the new, revised DOJ acknowledged that such a non-enhanced sentence applies only if you ignore the eight-level enhancement for Stone’s violent threat to Credico and his dog. The DOJ points out that Credico testified he wasn’t threatened but the jury found otherwise, didn’t it? Apparently Crefico, you and the new, revised DOJ think it was not a real threat and should not count, but that darn jury didn’t cooperate.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:40 am

    If Crefico didn’t think it was a real threat, then the prosecutors should be obligated to not apply that enhancement.

    The fact that the prosecution did so anyways points to misfeasance here imo.

    I don’t think you can presume that the jury agreed with that enhancement as they’re only facing the charges as presented by the prosecution (the witness tampering). So the jury convicted Stone of witness tampering. The prosecution was the one who applied the enhancement during sentencing memo, as that’s the first time I’ve seen it be applied. I don’t see in any available court documents that the Jury made that enhancement determination.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  108. whembly (fd57f6) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:00 am

    Exactly this, imo. That’s such a strong argument, I’m curious what Patterico, as a prosecutor, and others opposing this lowered sentencing recommendation have to say about it.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  109. The DOJ points out that Credico testified he wasn’t threatened but the jury found otherwise, didn’t it?

    I am not following all the details. Where did the jury make such a finding? Was that an element of one of the crimes?

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  110. I don’t think anyone made a concise argument that the DOJ supervisor overruling the prosecutor’s recommendation of 7-9 years to 3-4 years in jail justifies the current outrage.

    Sure they have. I’ll recap; NOOOOoooooooooooobody would object (or know about) an internal, professional memo within the DoJ suggesting that the STANDARD used (with perfect justification) by the trial attorneys may have been (or even was) too rigorous.

    Of course, that isn’t what happened. What we were mistreated to was the disgusting spectacle of the thug in the Oval Office injecting himself PUBLICLY into a court case involving his under-thug.

    NEXT, the DOJ crapped all over its own professionals, calling them liars.

    Now, as with professionals of several needed categories, what we’re about to see is an exodus of really good, capable, professional people in the legal field.

    Why? Because we have an outrageous thug in the Oval Office, doing outrageous things to good people in defense of bad people.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  111. If Credico didn’t think it was a real threat, then the prosecutors should be obligated to not apply that enhancement.

    Where is that in the law? Where does the law say prosecutors should ignore threats based on the target’s feelings?

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. whembly (118):

    Years ago, when I was a sassy teen, I had a knife drawn on me during a battle of sarcasm. Since I was a good suburban 14 year old, I just kept on with the sarcasm, having no clue whether I had incited this inter-city kid or not. If this battle moved to arrest, should the kid have his sentence consider whether I felt threatened or not, simply because I was to dense to notice a real threat?

    Under your rules, what matters is my state of mind, not the other kid’s. Doesn’t that feel wrong doing effectively overturning that jury determination?

    Appalled (1a17de)

  113. “This was abuse of power and intimidation that if it were perpetrated against anyone but a Trump associate would be loudly and justifiably condemned.”

    Police use excessive force all the time when serving warrants. I would happily support reform in this area, but my take on the issue is that Trump supporters only care when it affects their team.

    Davethulhu (94520c)

  114. Under your rules, what matters is my state of mind, not the other kid’s. Doesn’t that feel wrong doing effectively overturning that jury determination?

    Was there one? You’re ignoring comments made by whembly (fd57f6) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:00 am and Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:05 am.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  115. Lemme see if I can hep some of ya’all on the enhancement thingie…

    In the criminal law of Texas, if you show a gun during a robbery you are charged with an aggravated crime. Does NOT matter if the gun is loaded. Does NOT matter if nobody was scared they might be shot. Neither of those issues will be submitted to a jury.

    When you threaten a witness or juror, it doesn’t matter if the witness or juror giggles uncontrollably. You’ve committed a felony.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  116. The threats were part of Count One, the Obstruction Claim (“Stone attempted to have PERSON 2 testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying.”) Stone was found guilty of obstruction.

    My understanding is that Credico did not testify in the House investigation. He also said they are friends and he does not want Stone jailed.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. I am not following all the details. Where did the jury make such a finding? Was that an element of one of the crimes?

    Almost certainly, yes. It has to be under Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington. Apprendi held that

    Any fact, other than the fact of a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Blakely applied it to sentencing guidelines as well, holding that the presumptive unenhanced sentence is “the maximum” in those instances.

    nk (1d9030)

  118. If Credico didn’t think it was a real threat, then the prosecutors should be obligated to not apply that enhancement.

    whembly, I think it is more accurate to argue that if the prosecutors thought it was not a real threat, then they should not charge it. But if it sounded like a threat and a reasonable person would think it was a threat, then it should be charged and (upon conviction) be part of the sentence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  119. My understanding is that Credico did not testify in the House investigation. He also said they are friends and he does not want Stone jailed.

    Does anyone really think Stone was going to kill his friend’s service dog? He was pissed off and venting hyperbolically. It was not a credible threat, Credico was right. If the jury got this wrong, the President can see it as a travesty of justice and act accordingly, using his pardon power. That is the point of his pardon power.

    In this case, so far he’s arguing for a more reasonable, and fair, sentence.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  120. they should not charge it

    Yeah. Exactly. Going to the prosecutors’ misfeasance.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  121. @ 127 “The threats were part of Count One, the Obstruction Claim (“Stone attempted to have PERSON 2 testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying.”) Stone was found guilty of obstruction.”

    You’ll have to do better than that. That he tried to have someone testifying falsely is obstruction. Does not, necessarily, mean he threatened. So where in the indictment and jury finding is there necessarily a finding that he threatened someone.

    @ 128 — Apprendi may well apply here, but that begs the question. Where did the jury make such a finding.

    (Curious, I do not now practice criminal law. If the prosecution wants an enhancement, does there have to be a special submission to the jury, like a special verdict in civil cases? There are lots of situations where something is not an element of a crime, but is a basis for enhancement.)

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  122. Lemme see if I can hep some of ya’all on the enhancement thingie…

    In the criminal law of Texas

    Well this was a federal prosecution, where sentencing enhancements work very differently. So the criminal law of Texas does not shed much light here.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  123. In this case, so far he’s arguing for a more reasonable, and fair, sentence.

    Which he has absolutely NO business doing…especially as he’s done.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  124. It’s that or no sentence, Ragspierre. He’ll pardon Stone if the sentence is unreasaonable and unfair, as he should.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  125. Well this was a federal prosecution, where sentencing enhancements work very differently.

    Well, give us the benefit of your knowledge. Show us “very differently”.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  126. Going to the prosecutors’ misfeasance.

    Dude, you don’t know what you’re blathering about.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  127. Well, give us the benefit of your knowledge. Show us “very differently”.

    You do it, Ragspierre. It’s Federal court. If you’re claiming Texas law is relevant or illustrative somehow, say how. The burden of making that argument falls squarely on you.

    I’m sure he’s got better things to do than do your research for you.

    There are 50 states, if you haven’t noticed, and their laws are all different. Who has time to piece all those together and work backwards to how they apply to Federal laws?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  128. It’s pretty simple, Ragspierre. The prosecutors shouldn’t have argued Stone made a credible threat when he didn’t.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  129. Which he has absolutely NO business doing…especially as he’s done.

    As CEO, he definitely has the business of doing. Especially if he believes that the excessiveness is a function of political opposition to him.

    As to HOW he did it, yes, it is his usual buffoonery.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  130. @122

    If Credico didn’t think it was a real threat, then the prosecutors should be obligated to not apply that enhancement.

    Where is that in the law? Where does the law say prosecutors should ignore threats based on the target’s feelings?

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:07 am

    The amending filing goes into details of that…DRJ.

    And there’s common sense here as there’s a wide gulf of differences between an arsehole threat, where the target knows the threat is meaningless versus a serious threat.

    Credico is on record here that he didn’t take Stone’s threat seriously. That is a meaningful distinction.

    In the amended DOJ filing, I’m “reading between the lines” here…

    The DOJ acknowledged that the enhancement was technically applied, they’re arguing that it’s misapplied. To me, assessing whether nor not enhancement are applied isn’t a strict “set in stone” criterion as you seem to be arguing.

    Furthermore, my interest to this case isn’t that I necessarily want Stone off the hook. It’s the lawfare tactic employed by one political class against the other and the disparity in accountability.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  131. He’ll pardon Stone if the sentence is unreasaonable and unfair, as he should.

    His role in this should be to STFU, let the prosecutors and defense do their respective jobs in the trial court, and THEN let them do their jobs at the appellate level.

    But NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo. He has zero respect for the law, his office, the professionals who work in his administration, or the American people.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  132. Whembly@114

    What we have here is POTUS publicly and strongly criticizing a prosecution carried on by his own DOJ, and the DOJ taking actions which seem to be a direct response to that criticism.

    Did anything of that type occurr with either of the Bushes, Clinton, or Obama? I don’t remember any. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Kishnevi (4d78f4)

  133. If the prosecution wants an enhancement, does there have to be a special submission to the jury, like a special verdict in civil cases? There are lots of situations where something is not an element of a crime, but is a basis for enhancement.

    Yes, Blakely seems to say that. The case involved analogous facts: Although not an element of the offense, if a trial judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the crime with a purpose to intimidate a person or group because of race, then he could impose an enhanced sentence. The Supreme Court said “Uh-uh, not so fast.”

    nk (1d9030)

  134. There are 50 states, if you haven’t noticed, and their laws are all different.

    My goodness and bless your heart! How wonderfully full of dudgeon you fill yourself when confronting actual law!

    I challenged him to explicate ONE code of law.

    Poor thing.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  135. #129

    If Credico didn’t think it was a real threat, then the prosecutors should be obligated to not apply that enhancement.

    whembly, I think it is more accurate to argue that if the prosecutors thought it was not a real threat, then they should not charge it. But if it sounded like a threat and a reasonable person would think it was a threat, then it should be charged and (upon conviction) be part of the sentence.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:21 am

    Well…if you want to take that track, then yes the prosecutor shouldn’t have charged Stone for that. Another point of overreach here by the prosecutor imo.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  136. OK, fine, Ragspierre, a complete pardon for Stone based on an unfair sentence works for me. Because that’s the alternative.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  137. I challenged him to explicate ONE code of law.

    For your state. You do it: you brought up Texas.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  138. 124 Davethulhu (94520c) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:11 am

    Police use excessive force all the time when serving warrants. I would happily support reform in this area, but my take on the issue is that Trump supporters only care when it affects their team.

    What a pathetic dodge. If you want to prove your bona fides you start by saying “I abhor THAT excessive use of force” even though it is for someone you hate rather than a mealy mouth “well your side only cares if it is against your team.” Which basically means you DON’T care about it unless it is against YOUR team.

    I have done my due diligence. The scouting reports were right. TDS board.

    Wa St Blogger (5fcf49)

  139. @143

    Whembly@114

    What we have here is POTUS publicly and strongly criticizing a prosecution carried on by his own DOJ, and the DOJ taking actions which seem to be a direct response to that criticism.

    Did anything of that type occurr with either of the Bushes, Clinton, or Obama? I don’t remember any. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Kishnevi (4d78f4) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:37 am

    Not in Trump’s hamfisted manner, but yes.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/02/obama_on_irs_scandal_not_even_a_smidgen_of_corruption.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html

    https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/opinion/thernstrom-trayvon-martin-obama/index.html

    Right off the top of my head.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  140. Apprendi and Blakely were both state cases. The rule applies to every state as well as the federal government.

    “Any fact, other than the fact of a previous conviction”. The only question in Stone’s case would be whether the enhanced sentence exceeded the presumptive unenhanced sentence under the guidelines.

    nk (1d9030)

  141. No. For the FEDERAL law, Capt. Dudgeon.

    Jeebus…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  142. @151

    Apprendi and Blakely were both state cases. The rule applies to every state as well as the federal government.

    “Any fact, other than the fact of a previous conviction”. The only question in Stone’s case would be whether the enhanced sentence exceeded the presumptive unenhanced sentence under the guidelines.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:47 am

    I’m not sure I’m following and would appreciate clarification…

    The enhanced sentence was 7-9 years which exceeded the unenhanced sentence (assuming the amended filing is correct) is 3-4 years.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  143. If Obama had done this…..

    noel (4d3313) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:48 am

    Wingman Eric Holder did.
    whembly (fd57f6)

    A classic Trump defense: “So what? It’s just like that thing I thought was very wrong when someone else did it!”

    Radegunda (24477b)

  144. BTW, a “dudgeon” is the hilt of a dagger. High dudgeon means to draw it part way or raise it, threateningly, as a prelude or challenge to a fight.

    nk (1d9030)

  145. OK, fine, Ragspierre, a complete pardon for Stone based on an unfair sentence works for me. Because that’s the alternative.

    That time machine must take a LOT of juice!

    MAYBE we (and your little orange god) should let the process…I dunno…PROCESS! I don’t know what the judge will find. I don’t know how an appeal will fall out.

    You use the term “unfair” like a Oberlin undergrad. Our criminal legal system is often “unfair” when you don’t like an outcome, but it IS our system, MUCH more the result of the will of the people than who occupies the White House.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  146. Ragspierre

    What you describe in Texas, as is common in many states, is that there are different crimes, with different elements. That means this has to be charged in the indictment (or information) and then the trial jury has to be instructed that it must find EACH element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In the federal system, as we are discussing it here, there is one crime — obstruction of justice. You can violate that many different ways. You can obstruct justice by taking a big magnet and wiping your hard drive from incriminating evidence, never threatening anyone. Or, as is claimed here, you can threaten a witness, and tell him, if you testify, I will harm you or yours.

    The jury does not have to take that into account, since all they are doing is finding you guilty of the crime charged. The sentencing judge, however, has to. The fact that you threatened someone makes it worse. (The federal statutes often have very wide ranges of possible sentencing.)

    In the old days, judges just did that by the seat of their pants. Then the Sentencing Guidelines were instituted to try to calibrate the sentence to the particular facts of the case. In financial cases, for example, there is a base sentence, and then more time for the more money involved.

    This used to be all done by the judge, and only by a preponderance of the evidence. The Supreme Court killed that with the Apprendi decision, so now you need a jury finding.

    So that brings me to my question. Stone could well be guilty of obstruction without threatening anyone. So where in the jury verdict do we have a finding that he used threats? I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to that.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  147. The enhanced sentence was 7-9 years which exceeded the unenhanced sentence (assuming the amended filing is correct) is 3-4 years.

    Yes, absolutely, whembly. It could very well be that if it’s not in the record that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically, that Stone threatened the witness with physical harm, that the first recommendation is wrong and the second one is the correct one.

    nk (1d9030)

  148. @154

    If Obama had done this…..

    noel (4d3313) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:48 am

    Wingman Eric Holder did.
    whembly (fd57f6)

    A classic Trump defense: “So what? It’s just like that thing I thought was very wrong when someone else did it!”

    Radegunda (24477b) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:54 am

    I’m not saying it’s okay.

    I’m literally saying that it also happened under Obama/Holder tenure that noel implied that it didn’t.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  149. BTW, Duh Donald has already on record saying the whole Stone prosecution is “unfair”.

    The pardon is just a formality now.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  150. OK gang —

    Stone was indicted and convicted (in part) on a charge of witness tampering. The e-mailed threat to Credico’s life and the life of Credico’s Service Dog was a key component of that charge. I can’t dig up transcripts of the closing statements in the trial, but the press coverage in Politico, CNN, and NPR all references the prosecution talking about this issue, and the defense trying to rebut it as being part of the outlandish comedy routine between the two that has been going on for years.

    Since prosecutors made the threats as part of their case at trial, and argued the seriousness of them, it’s no great surprise that, upon getting a guilty verdict of witness tampering, they made the threats part of their sentencing memo. Trump complained about the trial verdict in November. It’s also consistent that he would complain about the sentencing now. The arguments being made by Whembly that this is somehow normal and expected and reasonable don’t add up, given that the jury convicted on the witness tampering.

    If Trump had just pardoned Stone (as he has the power to do), it would just have been better. But he has to enlist as many people as possible in his corruption.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  151. So that brings me to my question. Stone could well be guilty of obstruction without threatening anyone. So where in the jury verdict do we have a finding that he used threats? I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to that.

    Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:01 am

    I’m interested in this too.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  152. Also, BTW, anybody who didn’t click the Daily Mail article at 41 is missing some great pics of Stone’s scantily-clad wife, and she’s a “Hubba-hubba!” level hottie.

    nk (1d9030)

  153. In the federal system, as we are discussing it here, there is one crime — obstruction of justice.

    Well, now, see, that isn’t what 18 U.S. Code § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant says.

    Anybody with the intellectual integrity can read it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  154. It could very well be that if it’s not in the record that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically, that Stone threatened the witness with physical harm, that the first recommendation is wrong and the second one is the correct one.

    nk, isn’t it true that under Apprendi and Blakely, this is so as a matter of law? No jury finding, you cannot use that fact to enhance the sentence?

    If so, then that is a serious hole in the first sentencing memo.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  155. @ 162. Well, when are Stone’s defense attorneys going to file their memorandum in response to the government’s? The question should be in there if it’s colorable at all.

    nk (1d9030)

  156. The little troll gears are turning so fast but you can’t even stay consistent for an hour. Is it the sound of your big troll fingers mashing away at the keyboard that is distracting you?

    I keep having to give you basic civics lessons. If you ever see your highschool teacher again you should have a word.

    Let’s stop this sort of talk. We’re not here to insult one another.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:47 am

    Hahahhahaha that’s all you’ve done since Trump was elected to him and anyone that supports him. Gtfo

    Property rights (cef076)

  157. The little troll gears are turning so fast but you can’t even stay consistent for an hour. Is it the sound of your big troll fingers mashing away at the keyboard that is distracting you?

    I keep having to give you basic civics lessons. If you ever see your highschool teacher again you should have a word.

    Let’s stop this sort of talk. We’re not here to insult one another.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:47 am

    Hahahhahaha that’s all you’ve done since Trump was elected to him and anyone that supports him. Gtfo

    Property rights (cef076) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:14 am

    That was in the past. As of now, Patterico is committed not to insult Trump supporters.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  158. No jury finding, you cannot use that fact to enhance the sentence?
    … beyond the presumptive unenhanced sentence in a guidelines jurisdiction.

    nk (1d9030)

  159. Time123 (ea2b98) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:26 am

    Frosty@72, It’s not intended as a bait and switch. How do you have an independent Judicial process when the decisions to prosecute or not, and how to sentence, are made for the political benefit of the executive branch? For lesser offices there are criminal statutes that penalize this.

    I’ll take back the implication of an intentional bait and switch. But this needs to be broken into parts because we’re mixing some things up.

    An independent judiciary is something different from an independent judicial process which is different from prosecutorial discretion.

    Prosecutorial discretion is a balance of power issue and it limits the scope of the judiciary and the legislative branch. Mandatory sentencing guidelines are defined by the legislature and in that sense limit the actions of the judiciary. We aren’t dealing with those here, it is just an example of a limitation on the judiciary.

    With respect to an independent judicial process, I’m not sure what that really means other than justice is blind. As far as I can tell the judicial process is a confluence of all three branches so by definition it isn’t independent of influences from any of the three.

    Whether this particular case is an example of inappropriate influence is something we can debate. We’re not talking about interference in the decision to prosecute, what to charge, which witnesses to call, or any other pre-verdict issue. The 7-9 seems excessive when that’s basically the average sentence for rape (the average time served is a little more than half that). The implication seems to be that the AUSA’s are themselves fully autonomous and independent which isn’t something I’d agree with.

    frosty (f27e97)

  160. #167 and #168 seem to be trying for self-deportation. I wonder why.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  161. @158

    The enhanced sentence was 7-9 years which exceeded the unenhanced sentence (assuming the amended filing is correct) is 3-4 years.

    Yes, absolutely, whembly. It could very well be that if it’s not in the record that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically, that Stone threatened the witness with physical harm, that the first recommendation is wrong and the second one is the correct one.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:01 am

    Ooooh.. I see what you’re saying.

    It’s because the prosecutors treated the threat seriously and ARGUED this in court, such that the jury convicted Stone on this charge, that gives the prosecutor justification to apply that enhancement.

    Right?

    I understand that part.

    But what gets me is that Credico is on record that he didn’t take it seriously. I still think the prosecutors overreached here. The fact that the jury convicted Stone doesn’t change that calculus imo.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  162. As of now, Patterico is committed not to insult Trump supporters.

    And yet, several come here…not to discuss but to troll, “gloat” and directly insult Patterico.

    I dunno why he is as permissive as he is, since there are plenty of fora for Trump fan bois.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  163. Because he’s leading us to up our game.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  164. Did Credico say that in front of the jury? Or did just say that in public, for the benefit of public opinion?

    Kishnevi (4d78f4)

  165. Ragspierre

    Dude, you really need to do your homework.

    Stone’s indictment is here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-indictment-roger-stone

    The part of the statute he is charged with violating states:

    (b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

    (1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

    . . .
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    Now the indictment charges only that he “corruptly persuaded” someone else (Person 2) to delay or give false testimony in an official proceeding. (You can see it on the link, p. 23, par. 45)

    So as, you can see, the statute includes witness tampering in various ways. You can intimidate. You can threaten. Or you can corruptly persuade. Any one of those will subject you to up to 20 years.

    Now the grand jury NEVER CHARGED INTIMIDATION OR THREATS. Only corruptly persuading. That’s it.

    Now here is the jury verdict: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583.260.0_2.pdf

    As you can see, paragraph 7, the jury just finds him guilty of the Seventh Count, witness tampering. The jury verdict (as one would expect) has little detail, apart from the statute and that they found him guilty of that count.

    So let’s summarize. The prosecution believed he committed threats, but they did not charge that when they went to the grand jury, nor did the jury make such a finding in its verdict. All that was charged and found was “corruptly persuaded.”

    They 3-4 year recommendation is starting to look better and better.

    And I still don’t understand how the first crew thought they could get past Apprendi.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  166. #172 (Whembly)

    The original guidance is here. It isn’t entirely accurate to say Credico didn’t feel threatened. Per the sentencing guidance, Credico thought that some of Stone’s acolytes might try something after being threatened by Stone. See page 11 of the document posted here:

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/federal-prosecutors-recommend-sentencing-roger-stone-seven-nine-years

    Appalled (1a17de)

  167. @175

    Did Credico say that in front of the jury? Or did just say that in public, for the benefit of public opinion?

    Kishnevi (4d78f4) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:28 am

    Yup:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/roger-stone-trial.html

    He even wrote a letter to the court (judge?):
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/23/trump-friend-roger-stone-shouldnt-go-to-prison-randy-credico-says.html
    If nothing else, please read that CNBC link.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  168. It’s because the prosecutors treated the threat seriously and ARGUED this in court, such that the jury convicted Stone on this charge, that gives the prosecutor justification to apply that enhancement.

    Right?

    No. That would not be enough. They had to get a specific finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt from the jury that Stone threatened the witness with physical harm.

    Please do not think less of me for the caps because I’m on your side in this particular instance:

    I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT TO ADMIT TO EGG ON MY FACE if it turns out that
    1. The first team of prosecutors failed to get an Apprendi finding from the jury; and
    2. Nonetheless requested an enhanced sentence that — and this is important, too — exceeded the presumptive unenhanced sentence.

    nk (1d9030)

  169. Also what Bored Lawyer said at 176.

    nk (1d9030)

  170. As you can see, paragraph 7, the jury just finds him guilty of the Seventh Count, witness tampering.

    A felony under the code I cited.

    Note that there’s NO requirement that the target of the tampering even is AWARE of the attempt. That it was made is sufficient.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  171. 176 —

    I am merely a bored non-lawyer. BUT. If I read the indictment correctly, the e-mails that contain the threats to Credico (and his little dog, too) are cited on pages 19-20 of the indictment, and incorporated by reference into Count 7 of the indictment. As I noted in my #161, there was clearly discussion of these e-mails at trial, based on the contemporaneous media coverage.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  172. @179

    It’s because the prosecutors treated the threat seriously and ARGUED this in court, such that the jury convicted Stone on this charge, that gives the prosecutor justification to apply that enhancement.

    Right?

    No. That would not be enough. They had to get a specific finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt from the jury that Stone threatened the witness with physical harm.

    Please do not think less of me for the caps because I’m on your side in this particular instance:

    I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT TO ADMIT TO EGG ON MY FACE if it turns out that
    1. The first team of prosecutors failed to get an Apprendi finding from the jury; and
    2. Nonetheless requested an enhanced sentence that — and this is important, too — exceeded the presumptive unenhanced sentence.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:34 am

    Thanks for the clarification. Still not quite clear how Apprendi fits in, but that seems to be a hurdle that the prosecutor must meet. [ still reading lots of stuff about this… as you can tell, things are quiet at work now so I’m fighting bordem 😉 ]

    whembly (fd57f6)

  173. nk

    What’s required for an Apprendi finding?

    Appalled (1a17de)

  174. 183

    That may all be true, but they have to charge it AND there has to be a jury finding. They didn’t. The background in the indictment, while important, is not a jury finding.

    Put it differently, even if the jury believed he did not threaten anyone, they still could have found him guilty AND returned the exact same jury verdict that they did.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  175. Blakely is more of what we want in this case, whembly. Here’s a short article. https://sentencing.umn.edu/content/what-blakely-and-why-it-so-important

    nk (1d9030)

  176. I’ve learned a lot on this thread, especially from nk and to a degree also Ragspierre due to his pushback on something I said. Thanks for that.

    Basically, the some of the same case law applies in this (and many) cases in both state and federal court. The question comes down to did the jury conclude if Trump had threatened his friend as part of witness intimidation via threats, and Bored Lawyer is pointing out that it looks like they didn’t so far as he can tell.

    Do I have that roughly right?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  177. What’s required for an Apprendi finding?

    It should be a verdict form, Appalled. Something like

    We find that the defendant DID/DID NOT threaten physical harm etc.

    nk (1d9030)

  178. whembly (fd57f6) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:33 am

    He specifically says he did not say it in front of the jury because the lawyer didn’t ask the right questions. He did say he didn’t take the threat against his dog seriously. I suppose you can say the jury could figure out his real feelings from that.

    Kishnevi (4d78f4)

  179. if Trump had threatened his friend
    😁 Freudian slip? 😁

    Kishnevi (4d78f4)

  180. nk:

    I would assume Federal prosecutors wanting to throw away the key would know this. That’s something to chew on. Is overcharging without the needed finding from the jury (thanks BL) common, or is this a special case?

    If it is a special case, you almost have to assume this was done for a reason over and above the usual hubris. And I don’t like that conclusion.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  181. Bored Lawyer is pointing out that it looks like they didn’t so far as he can tell.

    Were that the case, it should be really good grounds for some post-trial motion practice…along the lines of a motion to set aside the verdict (I never practiced criminal law), motion for a new trial, etc. I have not been in the weeds of this dumpster fire (mixing my metaphors), but I’ve not heard of any of that kind of practice in this case.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  182. 187

    Blakely is more of what we want in this case, whembly. Here’s a short article. https://sentencing.umn.edu/content/what-blakely-and-why-it-so-important

    nk (1d9030) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:44 am

    Thanks nk… that was informative.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  183. Seriously, Bored Lawyer pretty much lays it all out at 176. Thank you for going the extra mile, BL.

    Me, I really was planning to make some egg fried rice, today. I’ve had the leftover rice and vegetables waiting since Monday. 😉

    nk (1d9030)

  184. I suppose you can say the jury could figure out his real feelings from that.

    But, again, how a witness felt is immaterial.

    The attempt…regardless of whether it even reached its target…is what constituents the crime.

    Read the statute.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  185. along the lines of a motion to set aside the verdict

    Why? Stone was convicted of witness tampering and other crimes, and he is subject to punishment. As I said, the new crew asked for 3-4 years. You can get there without any discussion of him threatening anyone.

    It will be interesting to see what his lawyers now do with the new sentencing memo.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  186. Put it differently, even if the jury believed he did not threaten anyone, they still could have found him guilty AND returned the exact same jury verdict that they did.

    and

    That may all be true, but they have to charge it AND there has to be a jury finding. They didn’t.

    But what you just said makes zero sense, as this jury would have had to go outside the charge to get where you insist they got.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  187. Appalled, the jury seeing the emails and hearing tell if the emails in testimony is not the same thing as they signed off on them as credible threats.

    I’m not saying, for sure, they didn’t. But where did they?

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  188. But what you just said makes zero sense, as this jury would have had to go outside the charge to get where you insist they got.

    No, read my post at 176 again. They found him guilty of what he was charged with. Which did not include using threats. The statute does not require that, he was not charged with it, and they did not find it.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  189. Let’s stop this sort of talk. We’re not here to insult one another.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 2/12/2020 @ 7:47 am

    Still laughing at this outright hypocritical bull crap

    Property rights (81f8cf)

  190. But what you just said makes zero sense, as this jury would have had to go outside the charge to get where you insist they got.

    How do you figure? The jury could have agreed Stone broke the law by obstructing and jury tampering without credibly threatening anyone.

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  191. IF that’s so, why is there silence from the defense in the face of a sentencing memo that asks for the enhance penalty?

    We’re still at zero sense.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  192. Take a hike, Property rights or whoever you are. It’s when we stopped exchanging insults and talked seriously that we got around to that maybe the first sentencing recommendation was in fact wrong and that the second one is the correct one.

    nk (1d9030)

  193. Property rights, Patterico is not just urging us, he’s doing better himself.

    We’ve all said things of which were not proud, even emailed our friends to say we’re going to kill their service animals (which by last have to be a dog or a miniature horse). We can do better.

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  194. *by law

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  195. nk is implying that Trump, perhaps in an inappropriate style, brought about a better result (assuming it stops there). nk is no Trump fan and I commend him for his honesty and legal analysis. It makes sense to me.

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  196. The jury could have agreed Stone broke the law by obstructing and jury tampering without credibly threatening anyone.

    Where’s the “tampering” in that case.

    There was obviously evidence introduced at trial showing that Stone conveyed a threat. How is THAT not grounds for a mistrial if what Bored Lawyer says is true? (You don’t get to introduce evidence at trial that is outside the charges.)

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  197. Communicating with witnesses imploring them not to testify reaches tampering, can’t it? I’m no expert on this, but something short of threats can be tampering.

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  198. It makes sense to me.

    It would.

    And “perhaps”…?!?!

    You are amazing. You’d do well at the White House.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  199. Donald Trump said he had not contacted the Justice Department (while saying he had a right to, but he’s kept out of [things like this] more than people think) and there was I think an anonymous source in DOJ that said his tweet was a coincidence. They were getting ready to reverse this recommendation before that.

    I think the recommendation was honestly motivated, and it’s mostly Roger Stone’s fault. He’s cultivated an image of being connected to very bad, mysterious people. That’s probably what led to the big raid on his house, although there was also there the prospect of him destroying evidence, except that he’d had plenty of time to do that already.

    The reason Randy Credito did not take the threat literally is because he knew Roger Stone for a long time, and what he had done or nor done, and what he was reputed to do and not do, and also because Roger Stone kept trying out all kinds of different approaches to get him to back up his story. One day Roger Stone would say one thing and another day he would try out something totally different. That seems to be Randy Credito’s testimony.

    Roger Stone’s false story was that he wanted Rady Credito to back up was that Randy Credito was his connection to Wikileaks. Why he wanted to lie about this, is a good question. Most likely it was to protect another – probably secondhand or third hand and actually not reliable, or possibly eventually lost line of communication. Why it is was important to Roger Stone to lie about this is a good question.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  200. The article that NK cited to states:

    Shortly afterward, in U.S. v. Booker,12 the Supreme Court applied its reasoning in Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and found several aspects of the guidelines violated the constitution. Rather than declaring the guidelines void because of these constitutional infirmities, the Court severed the provision that made the guidelines mandatory and declared them to be advisory.13 In an advisory system, the Court explained, the constitution is not implicated because the guidelines do not have the force and effect of law.14 Thus, following Booker, sentencing courts in the federal system must consider the guidelines ranges, but are permitted to tailor the sentences as deemed appropriate,15 subject to appellate review for unreasonableness.16

    So it seems that after Booker, the feds are free to ignore Apprendi/Blakely, since the guidelines are only “advisory.” So are back to the old days when uncharged conduct never found by the jury is a basis for an enhanced sentence. This is what the prosecutors were relying upon.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  201. I’m sorry for thinking that nk’s legal analysis makes sense. I guess you’re saying he should be in the Trump White House, too.

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  202. Communicating with witnesses imploring them not to testify reaches tampering, can’t it? I’m no expert on this, but something short of threats can be tampering.

    Of course it can.

    Hey witness, if you lie to Congress, I’ll arrange for your son to get a cushy no-show job with an oil company I know.

    That is a criminal violation of the very statute that Stone was convicted under, with no threats.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  203. Roger Stone kept trying out all kinds of different approaches to get him to back up his story. One day Roger

    Stone< would say one thing and another day he would try out something totally different. That seems to be Randy Credito’s testimony.

    Ergo, tampering, Ragspiere, but not a credible threat.

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  204. See what I mean? You have a talent for propaganda.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  205. I think by the time he was imploring Randy Credito to lie, Roger Stone may have already perjured himself, but I haven’t followed this case very closely. That could provide a motive for the witness tampering, but does not explain why he lied about this in the first place. I think Roger Stone later said he had no source – he was relying on publicly available information.

    And what is this about jury tampering?

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  206. 18 USC 1512(b)(1) involves tampering with a witness through violence. Crimes under that subsection result in more enhancements. Stone was not charged under this statute.

    18 USC 1512(b)(2) involves tampering with a witness through intimidation, threats or corrupt persuasion. Stone was charged under this statute. It appears the enhancement factor is the same for convictions under this subsection, whether it is via intimidation, threats, or corrupt persuasion.

    DRJ (15874d)

  207. And what is this about jury tampering?

    My bad. Meant to say witness tampering, as found by the jury.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  208. 215. A threat but but not a credible one because Randy Credito just knew Roger Stone too well.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  209. 212

    The article that NK cited to states:

    Shortly afterward, in U.S. v. Booker,12 the Supreme Court applied its reasoning in Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and found several aspects of the guidelines violated the constitution. Rather than declaring the guidelines void because of these constitutional infirmities, the Court severed the provision that made the guidelines mandatory and declared them to be advisory.13 In an advisory system, the Court explained, the constitution is not implicated because the guidelines do not have the force and effect of law.14 Thus, following Booker, sentencing courts in the federal system must consider the guidelines ranges, but are permitted to tailor the sentences as deemed appropriate,15 subject to appellate review for unreasonableness.16

    So it seems that after Booker, the feds are free to ignore Apprendi/Blakely, since the guidelines are only “advisory.” So are back to the old days when uncharged conduct never found by the jury is a basis for an enhanced sentence. This is what the prosecutors were relying upon.

    Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/12/2020 @ 10:34 am

    Well…since the guidance is merely that… a guidance. Does it matter if the prosecutor over-commit a sentencing request? A least the Judge and/or Defense would have opportunity to respond to this kind of disparity…right?

    And if it doesn’t matter, then why all the pearl-clutching over a supervisor overruling the prosecutor?? Especially since, ultimately, it’s up to the Judge to render a reasonable sentence.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  210. Ergo, tampering, Ragspiere, but not a credible threat.

    Show me in the statute where you find “credible threat”.

    Next, cite to where the defense objected to the EVIDENCE of Stone’s threat.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  211. If I or anyone said jury tampering, it was misspeaking, Sammy. Clearly the issue was witness tampering.

    Make America Ordered Again (0cc7ec)

  212. I cannot find where the enhancement factor in the sentencing guidelines varies depending on whether the conviction is based on threats, intimidation, or corrupt persuasion under 1512(b)(2).

    Clearly there are more enhancements allowed if the conviction is based on 18 USC 1512(b)(1) vs 18 USC 1512(b)(2), but I don’t see where the enhancement is more for threats than, for example, intimidation or corrupt persuasion. Can you show me where that is, Bored Lawyer?

    DRJ (15874d)

  213. …why all the pearl-clutching over a supervisor overruling the prosecutor?

    As noted about a billion posts ago, had this been done with a nice professional memo or phone call, no harm–no foul.

    As it was, it was a YUGE stinking deal that involves the corrupt thug behind the Resolute desk AND the corrupt Trump suckers at the DOJ.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  214. I think federal judges care about the prosecutor’s recommendation because it informs the judge how cooperative the defendant has been. That is a factor in the eventual sentence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  215. And if it doesn’t matter, then why all the pearl-clutching over a supervisor overruling the prosecutor?? Especially since, ultimately, it’s up to the Judge to render a reasonable sent

    As I said last night, the biggest Pearl Clutcher was Trump getting in a tizzy over the original recommendation. So your question should be aimed at him.

    Kishnevi (417b3c)

  216. It may be the new, revised DOJ position is that the Stone sentencing recommendation imposed the enhancement allowed for convictions under 18 USC 1512(b)(1). If so, I agree that would not be correct because Stone was not charged or convicted under that statute.

    But if the new, revised DOJ position is that corrupt persuasion is a lesser crime than threats under 18 USC 1512(b)(2) and thus subject to fewer enhancements … I don’t see that. Show me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  217. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/12/2020 @ 10:48 am

    You would have been fine with a nicely worded memo from the WH that had the same effect? Your big issue is that he did this over twitter and the tone?

    frosty (f27e97)

  218. Some background on what this is all about:

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/roger-stone-offered-to-assist-his-alleged-wikileaks-source-randy-credico-with-legal-expenses

    Credico does have connections to WikiLeaks. He is a friend of lawyer Margaret Kunstler, who represents the group, and during the election he interviewed Assange on his WBAI radio show. But Credico disputes that he acted as Stone’s WikiLeaks interlocutor. He claims that Stone misled the House panel when he named him as his source for inside info on when WikiLeaks’ would unleash its trove of hacked documents.

    In late November 2017, after Stone disclosed Credico’s identity, the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Credico to testify before the panel. Credico says he subsequently complained to Stone about the legal expenses he would incur from getting dragged into the Russia investigation; Stone, he claims, offered to help him defray those costs—and urged him not to challenge his claim that Credico was a back channel.

    “He said, ‘Hey, look. I can’t put it together myself, but I have friends that will contribute to a defense fund,’” Credico says. He notes the timing of Stone’s offer left him with the impression that it was contingent on Credico not disputing his version of events. “He certainly did not want me to contradict him,” Credico adds.

    Credito took the 5th amendment and didn’t testify to the House Intelligence committee.

    At a certain point later on, after Credico made media appearances and public statements in which he attacked Stone’s honesty, and Stone attacked Credito’s honesty, Stone sent him a message that said in part: “prepare to die” (with a profane insult following it) Roger Stone later explained this by saying Credico had told him he had terminal prostate cancer. Not true, says Credito. (This might be cosidered witness tampering because Credito was still a potential witness – to the Mueller investigation grand jury, and as a matter of fact, he was eventually called, and testified.

    After he testified, and told CNN rhat he had testified that he was NOT a nback channel to Julian Assannge, Stone told (Mother Jones?) via email that: “The preponderance of evidence indicates that Credico perjured himself before the grand jury.”

    So Stone was actually trying to sic the prosecutor on Credito – but I suppose that’s not a crime in the statute books or even an an enhancement factor.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  219. You can review the second sentencing memo here:

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6774086/Stone-Case-Government-s-Supplemental-and-Amended.pdf

    I am too busy now to parse through it.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  220. You would have been fine with a nicely worded memo from the WH that had the same effect?

    Nope. For several reasons, the first being that this is a case where he has a direct and apparent conflict of interest.

    A second would be that Duh Donald would have no business even attempting such a memo as he lacks ANY knowledge or expertise in the matter or the law.

    A third would be that a note from the WH could not “have the same effect”.

    We could go on….

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  221. True or false, Stone had told people that he had a secret back channel to Wikileaks. He did have some (mostly unsolicited) communication, but not about future leaks:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/roger-stones-secret-messages-with-wikileaks/554432/
    . In October 13, 2016 he wrote wikileaks that they, or he, might want to reconsider the strategy of attacking him because he’d been all over defending Assange and Wikileaks against the charge that they were Russian agents, and also described “the false charges of sexual assault as trumped up bs”

    Wikileaks (or Assange) wrote back that “we appreciate that” but “the false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications” and told him not to go there if he didn’t want them to correct him.

    Roger Stone replied that the more they “correct” him (Stone’s quotes) the more people think they’re lying. And “You need to figure out who your friends are.”

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  222. The Sentencing Guidline at issue is Section 2J1.2, which you can see here:

    https://guidelines.ussc.gov/gl/%C2%A72J1.2

    Subsecion (b)(1)(B) states:

    “If the offense involved causing or threatening to cause physical injury to a person, or property damage, in order to obstruct the administration of justice, increase by 8 levels.”

    The prosecutors in the first memo asked for this; in the second memo they said it should not apply.

    And, yes, by its terms it requires a threat to physical injury or property. You can be convicted of witness tampering without getting this enhancement.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  223. Here’s a federal defense attorney’s views on the original 7 – 9 years recommendation:
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/12/why-a-nine-year-prison-sentence-for-roger-stone-is-insane/

    I’m a federal criminal defense attorney. The range of prison time the government asked for Roger Stone shocked me as unduly high given the non-violent nature of the underlying crimes.

    Roger Stone went to trial and lost. As a result, he’s likely going to be sentenced to some jail time. The question is, how much jail time is appropriate in his case?

    Federal sentencing has two components. The first is the statutory range (what’s provided for by the statute—e.g., five to 40 years). Here, two of the crimes for which Stone was convicted (obstructing a congressional investigation and false statements to Congress) provide for a sentence of zero to five years, and the third (witness tampering) provides for a sentence of zero to 20 years.

    The second component of federal sentencing is the Federal Sentencing Guidelines issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The guidelines are a complicated set of rules that use a point system to calculate an offense level and a resulting sentencing range.

    How the Sentencing Guidelines Work
    For many years, the guidelines were mandatory. That meant a judge had to sentence a defendant within the guidelines range. However, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the guidelines, which allow judges to enhance sentences using facts not reviewed by juries, violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

    The court ruled that the guidelines had to be only advisory and invalidated the provisions that made them mandatory. Indeed, the Supreme Court later ruled that not only are the guidelines not mandatory, they are also not presumed to be reasonable.

    Typically, when a defendant enters a plea agreement, the parties agree to the applicable guidelines range. But if a defendant goes to trial and loses, the parties each present a guidelines calculation to the court. In Stone’s case, when the government filed its sentencing memorandum, it calculated a guidelines range of 87 to 108 months, or roughly seven to nine years.

    I’m a federal criminal defense attorney. This range shocked me as unduly high given the non-violent nature of the underlying crimes. To provide some perspective, a multitude of violent crimes come with lower guidelines calculations. For example, if you use a gun during a crime of violence or drug trafficking, the guidelines range is 60 months; if you brandish a gun during the same, the guidelines range is 84 months.

    How the Government Got to Nine Years
    In Stone’s case, the government’s calculation relies on several guidelines enhancements. Generally speaking, certain conduct can increase the offense level guidelines calculation. Here, the base offense level is 14, but with all of the enhancements the government argued for, it jumped to 29.

    One enhancement the government recommended jumped out. The government argued that an eight-point enhancement is warranted because Stone’s obstruction of justice “involved causing or threatening to cause physical injury to a person, or property damage.” The government pointed to two particular comments by Stone to a witness: “Prepare to die, c-cksucker” and him threatening to “take that dog away from you.”

    Standing alone, it’s not clear these rise to the level of a “violent threat” as required by the enhancement. In fact, I would argue that this is not a case where “reasonable minds” can disagree. This enhancement is a stretch. Particularly significant is that the individual who was the recipient of these “threats” testified at trial that he did not seriously believe Stone would follow through on his so-called threats.

    When I did a quick search of D.C. Circuit cases applying this enhancement, I couldn’t find anything. That’s not to say it would never apply, but the infrequency which with the enhancement seems to be used is somewhat telling.

    A Big Jump On a Weak Foundation
    The guidelines contain commentary by its drafters. The commentary is meant to further explain the provisions. Here, the guidelines commentary to this enhancement notes that it should “reflect the more serious form of obstruction.” This likely explains why the enhancement is reserved for the more serious, palpable threats.

    In its submission to the court, the government relies on cases outside its jurisdiction in support of the enhancement, but in none of those cases did the witness testify that he did not take the so-called threats seriously. What’s significant is that this eight-point enhancement increased the guidelines range from 37 to 46 months to 87 to 108 months. That’s a significant jump for a not so solid enhancement.

    While it’s absolutely true that it’s standard practice for the federal government to recommend a guidelines sentence, this begs the question: What’s the appropriate guidelines calculation? As one Twitter user noted, “The Guidelines don’t calculate themselves.”

    Stone’s lawyers objected to each of the enhancements the government proposed. On the eight-level enhancement discussed above, Stone’s lawyers cite numerous cases demonstrating why the enhancement should not apply here, and even quote from a letter to the court by the witness of the so-called threats, wherein he denies that he felt threatened and that he “chalked up [Stone’s] bellicose tirades to ‘Stone being Stone’ All bark no bite!” (Did he really have go there?)

    Trump Comments, People Freak
    This is where things begin to go off the rails. The government filed its sentencing submission on Feb. 10 at approximately 6:30 p.m. At 12:57 a.m. the following morning, Trump tweeted:

    Disgraceful! https://t.co/nNXEjJuVyw

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 11, 2020

    First off, this isn’t the first and it certainly won’t be the last time that Trump weighs in on something that causes people to freak out. What reliably follows is the slow drum beat of claims of presidential interference. There are now calls for an investigation, and for the impeachment of Attorney General William Barr.

    Yet, as per usual, there is no evidence, and the president has denied, that he spoke to anyone at the U.S. Department of Justice about Stone’s sentencing. The New York Times reported that a DOJ spokesperson confirmed the DOJ did not consult with the White House regarding their revised recommendation to the court. That spokesperson also said Barr was not aware of the president’s tweet and that the decision to reel in the earlier sentencing recommendation had been made prior to Trump’s tweet.

    Of course none of that stopped the internet from losing its mind.

    Government Backs Down
    The following day, the government filed a supplemental sentencing submission. In this memorandum, the government backed away from not only the eight-point enhancement, but the other enhancements as well. While the supplemental memorandum fell short of completely retracting the prior memorandum, its revised sentencing recommendation of a sentence “far less” than 78 to 108 months speaks volumes.

    This memorandum was signed by acting chief of the criminal division in the D.C. U.S Attorney’s Office. He is a career prosecutor who prosecuted the terrorism case stemming from the Benghazi attack as well as the Blackwater investigation.

    Is this revised recommendation unusual? Absolutely, I won’t deny that. However, CBS News reported that the DOJ was “shocked” at the recommendation and wasn’t briefed in that direction:

    #RogerStone Senior DOJ official tells @CBSNews Department was shocked to see sentencing recommendation Stone case. This is not what was briefed to Dept. The Dept. believes recommendation is extreme, excessive, grossly disproportionate to offenses…#DEVELOPING

    — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) February 11, 2020

    Shortly thereafter, in dramatic fashion, the four assistant U.S. attorneys who prosecuted Stone’s case resigned. While none have made public statements, it’s likely that they felt betrayed by the DOJ’s reversal on its sentencing position.

    But you know what, that’s life. Their boss made a decision they didn’t like, and they made a choice to resign. Even assuming arguendo it was a political decision, that application of at least one of the underlying enhancements was a complete stretch in this case. I would even go so far to say that in light of everything we know, including the witness testimony, pushing for the eight-point enhancement was acting in bad faith.

    What’s so amazing to me is that the prospect of administering justice—which is what prosecutors are supposed to do—has outraged so many who oppose Trump.

    I can’t help but think how different the reaction would be if President Obama intervened in a case and decided to cut a prison sentence short. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say someone was convicted of espionage—spying—and had his 35-year sentence reduced to six years by President Obama.

    Oh, wait, no need to speak in hypotheticals—that happened. See Chelsea Manning.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  224. There’s a timeline of Roger Stone claims about communication with Wikileaks (plus some reality) at the end of the Atlantic magazine article I linked to at #233.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  225. I am too busy now to parse through it.

    Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/12/2020 @ 11:15 am

    Thanks for the link. I read it. The new, revised DOJ prosecution (?) argument is:

    1. The eight-level enhancement for witness threats is undermined by the fact that Credico did not feel threatened. Note that the DOJ also pointed out that Credico’s feelings are “not dispositive” — defense counsel must be salivating at using this in the future — nor did the new, revised DOJ distinguish between threats and corrupt persuasion. It appears to acknowledge witness threats but find them not convincing.

    2. The two-level enhancement for obstruction overlaps with the offense conduct, nor did it prejudice the government at trial. (Is the government really arguing this? If you try to game the government but don’t succeed, do you also get a High Five?)

    3. The court must avoid “unwanted sentencing disparities,” going on to compare the sentences in Manafort, Libby, et al. (Libby got 35 months for four offense, with no threats or witness tampering, so Stone should get no more than 46 for 7?)

    4. Stone’s age, health, personal circumstances and no criminal records make this a good case for a lower sentence, not exceeding 108 months.

    Defense counsel could not have said it better. They should incorporate this filing by reference but, after this, they will probably ask for probation. Why not?

    DRJ (15874d)

  226. And, yes, by its terms it requires a threat to physical injury or property.

    Then I have no idea what enhancement DRJ is pointing to. Is there another one, DRJ, that has been overlooked?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  227. I now see your comment up above.

    So, if the “credible threat” is thrown out of consideration, it should receive lesser enhancements?

    I.e., Trump is basically right about that?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  228. I don’t know why Bored Lawyer has said that. Maybe he can point us to why.

    Meanwhile, the new, revised DOJ recommendation seems to acknowledge Stone made threats but says they aren’t dispositive/convincing regarding enhancements because Credico testified he did not believe them — even though the DOJ also noted it doesn’t matter what Credico felt.

    Is Trump right about this? Apparently the new, revised DOJ thinks he is.

    DRJ (15874d)

  229. Look at #234. I quote and link to the USSG section.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  230. Is Trump right about this? Apparently the new, revised DOJ thinks he is.

    Well, yeah. Barr is not taking personal control over all of these. Whether Trump ordered him to on a private phone call, or took the order as given on twitter as the order. Trump says those are official, so it’s done right out in public.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  231. Much ado about nothing. It never ends.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  232. It’s pretty obvious that the boss, told his direct report to do X, and he’s followed the order for the code red.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  233. Then why did the new, revised DOJ recommendation (you linked above) acknowledge a threat but treat it as not credible? They did not deny a threat or argue it was corrupt persuasion.

    DRJ (15874d)

  234. So, if the “credible threat” is thrown out of consideration, it should receive lesser enhancements?

    I.e., Trump is basically right about that?

    I keep looking for you to show me “credible threat” anywhere.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  235. The new, revised DOJ recommendation specifically said the Court could consider the eight-level enhancement and Credico’s feelings in assessing sentence, but argued it should not apply because of the “significant impact” the enhancement would have on Stone’s sentence.

    Could defense counsel say it any better?

    DRJ (15874d)

  236. “I can’t help but think how different the reaction would be if President Obama intervened in a case and decided to cut a prison sentence short. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say someone was convicted of espionage—spying—and had his 35-year sentence reduced to six years by President Obama.

    Oh, wait, no need to speak in hypotheticals—that happened. See Chelsea Manning.”

    This is a ridiculous comparison.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  237. Much ado about nothing. It never ends.

    You mean the pitiful apologia of the T-rumpettes? Then, yeah.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  238. Live by the ‘Lieutenant Colonel’, die by the ‘Lieutenant Colonel.’

    There’s a reason they call it ‘career limiting moves.’

    Ingot9455 (985c4f)

  239. To clarify, the statute we are talking about is 18 USC 1512(b)(2) that involves witness tampering through intimidation, threats or corrupt persuasion. Stone was convicted of one count using the “corrupt persuasion” term. Bored Lawyer kindly linked that above. In addition, the enhancement guidelines are also linked by Bored Lawyer at 234.

    I am not sure where “credible threat” comes from or why it matters, except it sounds like the new, revised DOJ recommendations that say Credico did not perceive a “genuine threat,” which even the DOJ says is not dispositive.

    DRJ (15874d)

  240. You mean the pitiful apologia of the T-rumpettes? Then, yeah.

    Way to keep with the spirit of not randomly insulting your opponents. You’re an inspiration to us all.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  241. Ya big lug.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  242. I am not sure where “credible threat” comes from or why it matters, except it sounds like the new, revised DOJ recommendations that say Credico did not perceive a “genuine threat,” which even the DOJ says is not dispositive.

    It’s just a synonym.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  243. What makes you say “randomly”.

    Name someone I “insulted”.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  244. @ 248

    I don’t think you are appreciating the context. The Guidelines are not mechanical applications. If they were, then they would be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said so in Booker.

    Instead, they are advisory. Just because something technically might apply does not mean it should apply or that it is reasonable to apply it. Stone’s threat, such as it was, seems very mild, so mild that the intended victim — who knew him for a long time and was hardly a naive teenager — did not feel threatened. It does seem a stretch to apply that here. It’s debatable, but it sounds like the second memo got it right.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  245. So really, the CEO of the executive branch got the sentencing recommendation reduced to a level we can almost all agree on and that’s the problem?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  246. I don’t know what the Judge will do. I don’t care because Stone will go to jail unless he gets an Arpaio-style pardon. But IMO this new, revised DOJ recommendation isn’t legally convincing. It is written for mercy and has littler sentencing numbers.

    DRJ (15874d)

  247. Well, you ALSO won’t find “genuine threat” in the code.

    But, hey, it’s down to the judge now. I hope she quietly and firmly sends Stone up for a long stay at the Graybar Mansions.

    And, as he’s already made disgustingly clear, the Oval Office thug will spring his under-thug quick like a bunny.

    And we’ll see fine career prosecutors bleeding out of Federal service just like we’re watching fine career military leaders, non-coms, and intel people leave.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  248. It is written for mercy

    Sorry you’re not going to get your full pound of flesh. He has no priors, the alleged enhancing threats in question included a threat to kill his friend’s service dog, and was obviously B.S., as his friend understood it to be. I can live with him not getting the max.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  249. I understand the sentencing guidelines are no !onger mandatory. Judges are human, too. They can decide to be merciful. So can prosecutors. If Stone had shown remorse or accountability, this would make sense.

    DRJ (15874d)

  250. Trump is the “pound of flesh” guy, not me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  251. Trump is the “pound of flesh” guy, not me.

    He goes after bad guys and women. It’s different.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  252. So really, the CEO of the executive branch got the sentencing recommendation reduced to a level we can almost all agree on and that’s the problem?

    Emmm, no Herr Goebbels. Like I say, you really have a talent. Ya big lug.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  253. House Judiciary just gotten confirmation that AG Barr agreed to testify in front of the committee next months.

    [ insert the Barr drinking water gif ]

    whembly (51f28e)

  254. He goes after bad guys and women.

    Actually, he lets bad guys and women out of prison on a whim. Just like he does most things.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  255. Speaking of Ace of Spades, I see that he reports:

    DOJ Official: The Mueller Four Lied to Us About What Their Sentencing Recommendation Would Be, Then “Shocked” Us With an “Extreme” Sentence

    You can read the post itself there, which relies on a post by Sean Davis at The Federalist who relies on an article at Fox News. As they report:

    “The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the Stone case last night,” the [DOJ] official told Fox News. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.”

    If it’s so, geeze Louise. What are we arguing about here?

    That would certainly seem to justify DOJ pulling back the recommendation to comport with propiety.

    Above there was a quote:

    I’m a federal criminal defense attorney. This range shocked me as unduly high given the non-violent nature of the underlying crimes.

    Well, it apparently didn’t just shock, it surprised, the DOJ as they had allegedly been lead to believe it would be otherwise. Are prosecutors supposed to do that?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  256. He goes after bad guys and women. It’s different.

    No, actually he threatens, attempts to intimidate and retaliates against witnesses just like Stone did, and threatened to do.

    Dave (1bb933)

  257. I am sure if testing parachutes was good enough for Hal Moore, it’s good enough for Alex Vindman.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  258. Andy McCarthy has some sharp words… but, mostly against Trump and the presecuturial overreach:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/the-roger-stone-sentencing-fiasco/

    whembly (51f28e)

  259. “ Attorney General William Barr has accepted an invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on issues including the Roger Stone case and the relationship between President Trump and personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

    Barr’s appearance was confirmed in a Wednesday letter from the Judiciary Committee.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/barr-accepts-invitation-to-testify-before-house-judiciary-committee/
    _

    harkin (b64479)

  260. Speaking of Ace of Spades

    Which nobody was, it’s just a weasel way to repeat a story we’ve dealt with for two days, and which is an obvious DOJ lie.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  261. I am sure if testing parachutes was good enough for Hal Moore, it’s good enough for Alex Vindman.

    How do you know Vindman hasn’t?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  262. Ace of Spades lol. thanks for the objective resource for a fair analysis of the situation.

    Dustin (0fd3cc)

  263. It’s a joke, man (and any comparison to Hal Moore is a compliment, anyway). No one’s doubting Lt. Col. Vindman’s bonafide career accomplishments, part of which includes:

    the Purple Heart, Defense Meritorious Service Medal with bronze oak leaf cluster (2nd award), Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal with three oak leaf clusters (4th award), Army Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters (3rd award), National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (4th award), Valorous Unit Award, Navy Unit Commendation, National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation, and Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation. He is a recipient of the Combat Infantryman Badge, Expert Infantryman Badge, Ranger Tab, Basic Parachutist Badge, the Presidential Service Badge, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  264. Andy McCarthy has some sharp words… but, mostly against Trump and the presecuturial overreach:

    Yeah, I was waiting for his column on this. As usual, on point, shows how the whole thing is overblown, and that, as usual, Trump is his own worst enemy. Pox on both your houses.

    My favorite line:

    Stone being the sort of Einstein who commits his obstructions in writing

    Yeah, that takes the cake.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  265. Also from McCarthy:

    As the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross notes, the prosecutors tied Stone to “foreign election interference,” breathlessly framed as the “most deadly adversary of republican government,” even though he was never charged with any such crime — underscoring yet again that the deadliest adversary of republican government is actually domestic — viz., the politicized use of executive police powers.

    The past three years in a nutshell.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  266. The past three years in a nutshell…the politicized use of executive police powers.

    Shhh. Don’t tell him what he just admitted.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  267. From WSJ:

    The Justice Department is in the late stages of deciding whether to charge businessman and Trump ally Erik Prince in an investigation into whether he lied to Congress in its Russia probe and violated U.S. export laws in his business dealings overseas, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Nice.

    Make America Ordered Again (e62b9f)

  268. Trump is the “pound of flesh” guy, not me.

    He goes after bad guys and women. It’s different.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/12/2020 @ 12:39 pm

    Roger Stone was found guilty of 7 felonies, most of which were based on his emails and text messages. He tried to cover up what he did and convince friends to lie for him. Even Trump would call that wrong if he weren’t the beneficiary of what Stone did.

    DRJ (15874d)

  269. “Shhh. Don’t tell him what he just admitted.”
    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/12/2020 @ 2:37 pm

    Yeah, I admitted the DOJ is the fourth branch of government. Something like that.

    Munroe (3b3fcc)

  270. I’m sure Barr is afraid of a stomach, stapled, nadless moron who pretends to be somebody.

    mg (8cbc69)

  271. It is my understanding that criminal defense attorneys are professionally shocked and appalled at the sentencing recommendations of prosecutors. It’s part of their job.

    Nic (896fdf)

  272. 278.

    even though he was never charged with any such crime

    Well, the thing is, they didn’t know what Roger Stone was hiding.

    These prosecutors may have believed Michael Cohen who claimed to have been in an office with Donald Trump where Trump put on the speakerphone and he heard Roger Stone saying that he’d just got off the phone wth Julian Assange and more leaks were coming. We can be reasonably confident that Roger Stone never spoke to Julian Assange.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/2/27/18242619/michael-cohen-opening-statement-trump-russia-mueller

    The question of what, exactly, Stone knew about WikiLeaks’ plans regarding email leaks has been a mystery for some time. And Mueller’s recent indictment of Stone for lying to Congress did not entirely clear up the matter: The special counsel cited emails in which Stone was trying to get in touch with Assange, but didn’t make any definitive claims about what Stone learned.

    But here, Cohen is claiming that Stone seemed to know something, that Stone claimed to have gotten information to [sic] Assange directly, and that Stone was telling Trump himself about all this. (Stone has in the past denied doing all of these things.)

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  273. I’ll start a pool. No prize, no fee to enter. The sentence Judge Amy finally imposes.

    My pick: 30 months plus hefty fine. No clue as to the amount of the fine, the federal courts moonlight in highway robbery these days.

    nk (1d9030)

  274. 286

    I’ll start a pool. No prize, no fee to enter. The sentence Judge Amy finally imposes.

    My pick: 30 months plus hefty fine. No clue as to the amount of the fine, the federal courts moonlight in highway robbery these days.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/12/2020 @ 5:37 pm

    I’d guess 40 months…in between the amended guidelines, plus a whopper of a fine.

    Does this give ammo for Stone to appeal?
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/politics/stone-juror-doj-prosecutors/index.html

    whembly (c30c83)

  275. Does this give ammo for Stone to appeal?

    Heh! No. The prosecutors’ wives might want to keep a little sharper eye out, though.

    nk (1d9030)

  276. Does this give ammo for Stone to appeal?

    Nope. Nothing improper there.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  277. This is an another hysterical, absurd, scandal since the Democrats and the MSM ( one and the same) can keep attacking Trump 24/7. The Judge will sentence Stone, not the DoJ. The prosecutors justified their sentence recommendation and the DoJ thought it was wrong and said so in a memo to the Judge. As for the Prosecutors who resigned. The MSM is skipping over the fact that all of them are Hillary/Democrat supporters and worked on the “Get Trump” Mueller Team.

    Their resignations were clearly coordinated with Nadler and Schumer, so it could be made into a scandal. The people praising it, like Sally yates, are the same Obama DoJ types that broke the law again and again, when it was good for the D team. Now they play “Thoughtful non-partisan career lawyer”. CNN even had McCabe – that paragon of virtue on to criticize Barr.

    LOL!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  278. The same people in favor of Sanctuary Cities and breaking the immigration laws, Yap about “The rule of law”

    Laughable.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  279. Good thing no one here is like that, rcocean.

    DRJ (15874d)

  280. If we had an actual, independent objective Press corps, instead of the DNC-media with a sprinkle of Never-trumpers, the first question that should have been asked it:

    Was 7-9 years reasonable for Stone compared to other similar cases?

    And the prosecutors would’ve been asked to justify their seemingly excessive sentence. We then would’ve got some legal analysis of the DoJ position vs. the prosecutors. And we would’ve gotten some background on who these prosecutors were, what their politics were, and whether they were Anti-Trumpers or just whatever.

    Instead all we got was screams of outrage over “Trump interference” and how “Brave Noble Prosecutors were resigning, OMG!” and how “Barr was trump’s Lapdog” and “Former DoJ lawyers scandalized by Trump and Barr’s interference”. IOW, the same endless anti-trump crap we’ve been reading for 3 years.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  281. “Was 7-9 years reasonable for Stone compared to other similar cases?”

    Should the actual independent press corps do this for every case, or only ones involving the president’s henchmen.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  282. Was 7-9 years reasonable for Stone compared to other similar cases?

    Yes. But who the hell gets to decide what “reasonable” is? According to the law and the sentencing guides, 7-9 was “reasonable”. That is, 7-9 was in the sweet spot.

    “…compared to other similar cases” is again entirely subjective. Who’s deciding “similar”? Does it have to involve an under-thug of a billionaire (reputedly) office-holder? Or could it be Hunter Biden, for instance?

    Who knows more about the person of the defendant. Would that be the trial attorneys who saw him every day of trial AND likely interviewed him several times? Or would it be some bureaucrats from DOJ who’d seen pictures in a magazine?

    See, it isn’t a simple calculus.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  283. “Was 7-9 years reasonable for Stone compared to other similar cases?”
    rcocean (1a839e) — 2/12/2020 @ 6:08 pm

    Stone committed seven felonies. McCabe committed one. So, Stone should serve seven times what McCabe served.

    7 x 0 = 0

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  284. Would you give McCabe a trial, or just jump right to the electric chair?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  285. There’s no reason to punish Stone for Munroe, Ragspierre.

    nk (1d9030)

  286. You are bat sht insane

    Just noticed this. Bye now.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  287. McCarthy:

    As the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross notes, the prosecutors tied Stone to “foreign election interference,” breathlessly framed as the “most deadly adversary of republican government,” even though he was never charged with any such crime — underscoring yet again that the deadliest adversary of republican government is actually domestic — viz., the politicized use of executive police powers.

    Is McCarthy aware that the “breathless” description of foreign election interference as a “deadly adversary of republican government” is a quote from Alexander Hamilton? To know that, he would have had to read the memo itself instead of just the Daily Caller article. If he didn’t read the memo, his post is lazy. If he did, the omission of the fact that the quote comes from Hamilton is deceptive. Either way, he’s not covering himself in glory. Which is par for the course for McCarthy since he turned into a Trumpist with only the thinnest gossamer sheen of deniability laid on top.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  288. For Twitter users, I had a thread about the sentencing issue this morning.

    https://twitter.com/Patterico/status/1227621407816765441

    The long and short of it is that Judge Jackson is likely to sentence Stone to less than nine years, but that does not remotely begin to vindicate Trump. If you want deeper analysis than that, go find the Twitter thread and read it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  289. Patterico (115b1f) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:19 pm

    If comes from Federalist 68, and Hamilton does not list foreign interference as one of the adversaries. He lists “cabal, intrigue, and corruption”.

    These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

    That essay is a defense of the electoral college, as a guard against those adversaries.

    If the memo attempts to make hay of that quote and essay in this case, it is the memo writers that are lazy.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  290. McCabe committed one.

    Not according to a grand jury.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  291. “Not according to a grand jury.”
    Paul Montagu (ae8832) — 2/12/2020 @ 9:47 pm

    Therefore … what?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  292. Therefore … what?

    Therefore you have a math problem, and math is hard.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  293. Yes, math basics get tossed aside when it’s prosecutors who lie under oath, not to mention equal justice.

    https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/01/andrew-mccabe-apologize-media-leak/

    That’s sits well with you, apparently. No surprise.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  294. Ms. Wheeler points out a couple of things, first that AG Barr lied to Lindsey Graham and that Stone had also threatened Judge Jackson.

    What Barr has done effectively, is to unilaterally eliminate any punishment for Stone’s threats against Randy Credico (see PDF 243 for where that enhancement is laid out in the sentencing guidelines). He has done so even though prosecutors noted that while Credico doesn’t think Stone would hurt him or his dog Bianca, he does think that Stone’s ghoulish buddies might do something.
    But Credico testified that Stone’s threats concerned him because he was worried that Stone’s words, if repeated in public, might make “other people get ideas.”

    And Barr made that unilateral decision — to discount the import of threats of violence — in a case where Stone threatened the judge, Amy Berman Jackson, herself, in response to which even Stone’s lawyers agreed that the threats might incite others to act. ABJ imposed a gag in this case, very specifically, because Stone had already made public statements that she believed might incite others to take action.

    What concerns me is the fact that he chose to use his public platform, and chose to express himself in a manner that can incite others who may feel less constrained. The approach he chose posed a very real risk that others with extreme views and violent inclinations would be inflamed.
    [snip]
    As a man who, according to his own account, has made communication his forté, his raison d’être, his life’s work, Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols. And there’s nothing ambiguous about crosshairs.

    It’s fitting that she calls Stone “the president’s ratf*cker.” I hope Ms. Jackson goes with the original sentencing guidelines. It’s how to answer to bullies like Trump.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  295. That’s sits well with you, apparently.

    What sits well with you is you unquestioningly head-nodding to a publication that hired white nationalists, plural, to write for them. And what also sits well with you is your failure to comprehend the difference between “lack of candor” and perjury.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  296. Anyone who regularly reads your comments Montagu cannot fail to become well versed in the concept of lack of candor.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  297. Thank you, Munroe, I’ll take your comment as the personal attack you intended it to be.
    Meantime, I’ll continue to note your failure to comprehend basic points of law despite your personal attacks.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  298. Attack personally, then complain when someone responds in kind. Try to shake out of that pattern Montagu. It’s old.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  299. I can see you’re getting angry and grudgy again, Munroe. You should probably sit in a corner and breathe or something.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  300. Roger Stone jury foreperson’s anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors
    By Gregg Re | Fox News

    Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted former Trump adviser Roger Stone on obstruction charges last year — and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.

    Hart even posted specifically about the Stone case before she voted to convict, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone’s dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested President Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone’s prosecution.

    Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views — and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone’s arrest. And, another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.

    […]

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  301. Roger Stone jury foreperson comes forward to defend prosecutors – but social media history of the failed Democrat candidate reveals she mocked his arrest, labeled Trump supporters racist and posed with ex-DNC chair Donna Brazil

    • Tomeka Hart revealed on Wednesday that she was foreperson on Stone jury

    • Hart unsuccessfully ran for Congress in Tennessee as a Democrat in 2012

    • She is also a former Memphis City Schools Board President

    • Her social media shows a long history of anti-Trump comments

    • She called Trump supporters racists and tweeted about Stone case before trial

    By KEITH GRIFFITH FOR DAILYMAIL

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  302. ZZZooooMG!

    There are Deemocrats on DC juries…!!!

    Hide the wimmins…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  303. And from the inestimable Daily Caller:

    In a Twitter post on Aug. 19, 2017, [Jury Foreperson Tomeka] Hart quoted a tweet referring to Trump as the “#KlanPresident” […]

    She decided Roger Stone’s fate.

    Trump needs to pardon Roger Stone.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  304. She decided Roger Stone’s fate.

    Trump needs to pardon Roger Stone.

    Well, that’s two completely false assertions. Roger Stone decided his fate. T-rump needs to
    stfu and let Stone eat the consequences of his conduct, as demonstrated by the evidence at trial (which nobody really disputes).

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  305. John Cardillo [on Twitter]
    @johncardillo

    Did #RogerStone jury forewoman Tomeka Hart celebrate Stone’s guilty verdict on Twitter hours before it was announced?

    3:14 AM

    Seems like the Trump hating former Dem Congressional candidate was too excited to sleep, and couldn’t wait to convict a political adversary.

    [screen shot from Tomeka Hart’s Twitter account showing two love hearts, a fist bump, and a black power ‘fist raised’ symbol published hours before the Jury’s verdict was announced]

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  306. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23

    Rule 23. Jury or Nonjury Trial
    (a) Jury Trial. If the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless:

    (1) the defendant waives a jury trial in writing;

    (2) the government consents; and

    (3) the court approves.

    (b) Jury Size.

    (1) In General. A jury consists of 12 persons unless this rule provides otherwise.

    (2) Stipulation for a Smaller Jury. At any time before the verdict, the parties may, with the court’s approval, stipulate in writing that:

    (A) the jury may consist of fewer than 12 persons; or

    (B) a jury of fewer than 12 persons may return a verdict if the court finds it necessary to excuse a juror for good cause after the trial begins.

    (3) Court Order for a Jury of 11. After the jury has retired to deliberate, the court may permit a jury of 11 persons to return a verdict, even without a stipulation by the parties, if the court finds good cause to excuse a juror.

    In short, save “it” for the Rose Garden.

    nk (1d9030)

  307. 314

    Roger Stone jury foreperson comes forward to defend prosecutors – but social media history of the failed Democrat candidate reveals she mocked his arrest, labeled Trump supporters racist and posed with ex-DNC chair Donna Brazil

    • Tomeka Hart revealed on Wednesday that she was foreperson on Stone jury

    • Hart unsuccessfully ran for Congress in Tennessee as a Democrat in 2012

    • She is also a former Memphis City Schools Board President

    • Her social media shows a long history of anti-Trump comments

    • She called Trump supporters racists and tweeted about Stone case before trial

    By KEITH GRIFFITH FOR DAILYMAIL

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/13/2020 @ 5:31 am

    It’s actually worse than that… she tweeted during the trial with obvious bias.

    That’s actually solid grounds for decent appeal. Doesn’t mean Stone would prevail.

    There’s also reports that the defense actually did try to strike jurors with obvious anti-Trump bias, but the Judge denied.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  308. If I told you a couple years ago that a modern President would pardon convictions of his campaign manager, personal lawyer, campaign advisor and security advisor, you’d say that isn’t gonna happen. And you might be right about the personal lawyer unless Rudy is also convicted. I think we all know it’s coming.

    noel (4d3313)

  309. It’s actually worse than that… she tweeted during the trial with obvious bias.

    Including hours before the verdict was to be issued, celebrating it with a black power symbol. She did this after (not during the trial) tweeting that Trump is a “#KlanPresident.”

    She was the lead juror. This is terrible.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  310. There’s also reports that the defense actually did try to strike jurors with obvious anti-Trump bias, but the Judge denied.

    Awful if so.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  311. Donald hoards all of the adulation while those around him go to prison for doing his dirty work. You’d think they’d learn eventually.

    noel (4d3313)

  312. There’s also reports that the defense actually did try to strike jurors with obvious anti-Trump bias, but the Judge denied.

    It’s true that there were reports of this, but those reports are lies. So there’s that. The court released the request for a new trial from Stones defense team, from last week, where they said she was justification of a new trial based on their perceived bias. Which the court ruled against, because that lady was a known quantity, Stone’s defense had the opportunity to challenge or use a peremptory challenge, and they did neither. They finished with challenges left in their pocket.

    You can’t complain about it being unfair if Stone’s defense team is stupid, although I don’t think they were, they understood that he was guilty, hence they never argued he didn’t do the things. This is their opportunity to get their client off, with the help of a patron.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  313. The court released the request for a new trial from Stones defense team, from last week, where they said she was justification of a new trial based on their perceived bias.

    Good grief! No, you don’t “sandbag” with questionable jurors until your client is found guilty. You object to them, on the record, at the time of jury selection. Otherwise, you have waived it. Forever. And ever.

    nk (1d9030)

  314. This is bumfodder for the orange bumboys.

    nk (1d9030)

  315. Good grief! No, you don’t “sandbag” with questionable jurors until your client is found guilty. You object to them, on the record, at the time of jury selection. Otherwise, you have waived it. Forever. And ever.

    That’s exactly what the court ruled. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe they were stupid. Their client is certainly no genius.

    Tangentially related: Isn’t Stone raising money off of this, he’s selling t-shirts and doing fundraisers left and right.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  316. 328

    The court released the request for a new trial from Stones defense team, from last week, where they said she was justification of a new trial based on their perceived bias.

    Good grief! No, you don’t “sandbag” with questionable jurors until your client is found guilty. You object to them, on the record, at the time of jury selection. Otherwise, you have waived it. Forever. And ever.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:37 am

    I initially thought that the defense really didn’t do their job at jury selection. But, from reports, the defense could only strike limited number of jurors for any reason. (which is normal).

    However, further request to strike jurors were actually denied by the judge, even when the defense pointed out obvious anti-Trump bias. I don’t know if that’s unusual as I’m sure at some point, the defense cannot keep saying “no” to every potential juror.

    If the defense made their objections over biased jurors, that would be in the record somewhere…right? Does anyone know of a way to confirm outside of typical media reports?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  317. Here are a few things about judges, juries, and jury selection…

    1. you don’t “select” your favorite jurors; you DESELECT the worst jurors for your case and hope like hell the opposition does not uncover your favorites during voir dire

    2. judges HATE being overturned or found to have committed error on appeal; jury selection is an easy part of trial for judges as far as having clear guidance goes

    3. nobody…not the judge or either party…wants a “busted panel” (a venire panel so prejudiced against a case the a jury cannot be selected to hear it) and everybody will work to rehabilitate jurors if it looks like one is shaping up

    4. the jury foreman is elected by the jurors, AND they are not the “lead juror” in many cases; during voir dire, a good lawyer (or jury consultant) is looking hard for the “opinion leader” and what they need to hear and often that is not the jury foreman

    5. I’ve never found a venire panel that was a blank slate, nor have I ever seen one; sometimes you actually want someone on your jury who expressed strong opinions that you might think adverse to your case as opposed to a venireman who never revealed anything during voir dire

    6. when examining a venireman who has been challenged for cause, the judge essentially only has one determination to make; can the juror make a finding on the evidence according to the court’s instructions, NOT are you free of any prejudice (because just about none of us are)

    Hope that’s helpful.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  318. But, from reports, the defense could only strike limited number of jurors for any reason. (which is normal).

    Don’t recall Federal procedure too well, but each side has a set of peremptory strikes (no justification needed) and an unlimited ability to strike for cause, each of which has to be supported by the party proposing the strike).

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  319. “Stone’s lawyers quickly moved to strike from serving as a juror a woman who said she previously worked in former President Barack Obama’s administration and her husband worked at the Justice Department. Jackson shot that effort down …”
    Reuters

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  320. So…???

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  321. “You object to them, on the record, at the time of jury selection. Otherwise, you have waived it. Forever. And ever.”
    nk (1d9030) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:37 am

    Right! And just like every defense team worth it’s salt you employ a psychic to predict in advance which ones will tweet against your client during the trial. This is lawyering 101.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  322. The juror wasn’t challenged by Stone’s defense team, you can read the decision behind it here, including the history of the juror through the trial.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  323. 332

    “Stone’s lawyers quickly moved to strike from serving as a juror a woman who said she previously worked in former President Barack Obama’s administration and her husband worked at the Justice Department. Jackson shot that effort down …”
    Reuters

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:04 am

    I’ve seen numerous reports to that effect, and not about this particular juror.

    That tells me that the defense was vigorously pointing out this bias and the Judge overruled them.

    That should be on record somewhere…which would be nice to read. Does anyone know where I can find that?

    The idea that a judge would allow an obvious partisan to sit as a juror is a wee bit disconcerting.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  324. “Stone’s lawyers quickly moved to strike from serving as a juror a woman who said she previously worked in former President Barack Obama’s administration and her husband worked at the Justice Department. Jackson shot that effort down …”
    Reuters

    That is the report, and it’s not true, i.e. lie. Read the filing.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  325. However, Trump on Wednesday denied interfering in Stone’s criminal case, while declining to say whether he’d consider a pardon for the GOP political operative.

    “The fact is that Roger Stone was treated horribly and so were many other people,” Trump said. “Their lives were destroyed.”

    “I want to thank the Justice Department — and I didn’t speak to them, by the way — they saw a nine-year sentence… nine years for something nobody can even define what he did,” Trump continued. “They put a man in jail, destroy his life, his family, his wife.”

    He added: “Roger Stone — nobody even knows what he did… Frankly, they ought to apologize to a lot of people whose lives they’ve ruined.”

    Who you gonna believe…? Me or your lyin’ eyes?

    I think it’s also pretty clear that a lot Americans know exactly what Stone did and we won’t tolerate it.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  326. I’ve seen numerous reports to that effect, and not about this particular juror.

    That tells me that the defense was vigorously pointing out this bias and the Judge overruled them.

    That should be on record somewhere…which would be nice to read. Does anyone know where I can find that?

    The idea that a judge would allow an obvious partisan to sit as a juror is a wee bit disconcerting.

    Again, not on the judge, Stone’s counsel didn’t object or use a peremptory challenge on her, was not overruled by the judge…until they made the claim after the trial was completed. Read the finding

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  327. It doesn’t seem reasonal to empanel juries that include neither Democrats nor Republicans.

    It does seem reasonable to not allow jurors who tweet about Trump being a “#KlanPresident” and who subsequently can’t restrain themselves from posting black power symbols in the hours leading up to the release of the verdict.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  328. Is there really any doubt that Stone was guilty of the things he was convicted of?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  329. What chance does a Clinesmith or McCabe have in front of a DC jury? LOL

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  330. I did see the juror thing today. No time to research.

    I agree that if they knew about it but did not move to strike her, then they waived it. But if new facts came out after the trial, then I don’t think it is waived. You would have to compare what they knew at the time vs. what has come out since the trial. I could see the new facts making things much worse. That someone supports Obama is not enough to be biased. That someone tweets, let’s get the guy who is a Trump friend, during the trial, then that is a much stronger basis for striking.

    Someone needs to research the facts known at each step. If someone here wants to do that homework, you are welcome to report back.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  331. Is there really any doubt that Stone was guilty of the things he was convicted of?

    No, which is why he stands convicted and is going to be sentenced to substantial jail time. Which is what the team appointed by Barr said and asked for.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  332. Powerful lot of hair on fire this morning about gnat farts at trial though, huh?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  333. I agree that if they knew about it but did not move to strike her, then they waived it. But if new facts came out after the trial, then I don’t think it is waived. You would have to compare what they knew at the time vs. what has come out since the trial. I could see the new facts making things much worse.

    This. ^

    And Ragspierre, a fair trial ain’t nothing.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  334. As I understand it, the Saintly Martyr Roger Stone stayed meek and quiet as a mouse after his arraignment and did absolutely nothing that might taint the jury pool. That is right, isn’t it?

    nk (1d9030)

  335. What that dude did to those girls at Sarah Lawrence, Trump is doing to the entire country.

    He may win in 2020. I do not expect a free and fair election, and I do not expect him to leave the WH willingly or without trying to drag the country down with him when he goes, if he loses.

    He’s an abusive dad and the GOP is an abused enabling spouse.

    JRH (52aed3)

  336. I do not expect him to leave the WH willingly or without trying to drag the country down with him when he goes, if he loses.

    Please give me a hoot of that whacky tobacky you’re smoking because it must be really great stuff!

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  337. Sounds like JRH was on the jury.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  338. Har har.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  339. 343 I

    did see the juror thing today. No time to research.

    I agree that if they knew about it but did not move to strike her, then they waived it. But if new facts came out after the trial, then I don’t think it is waived. You would have to compare what they knew at the time vs. what has come out since the trial. I could see the new facts making things much worse. That someone supports Obama is not enough to be biased. That someone tweets, let’s get the guy who is a Trump friend, during the trial, then that is a much stronger basis for striking.

    Someone needs to research the facts known at each step. If someone here wants to do that homework, you are welcome to report back.

    Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:35 am

    That’s why I want to see the actual court transcripts…

    I’ve seen numerous post/links in my twitter timeline that these issues were reported during jury selection. It’s hitting some of the obsure media sites like this (but, just now it’s on FoxNews too):
    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/02/13/roger-stone-jury-reportedly-stacked-with-leftist-activists-obama-appointed-judge-allegedly-ignored-886509?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Can we also agree that, holy batman Stone is possible one of the worse defendant a lawyer could ask for… jeez that guy is a piece of work.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  340. Curious. Is there even such a thing as bat-s stupid? If so, what would something such as that look like?

    PTw (894877)

  341. Stone should spend less time on fancy button-down clothes and more on a big, beautiful zipper…

    … for his mouth in legal matters.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  342. Can we also agree that, holy batman Stone is possible one of the worse defendant a lawyer could ask for… jeez that guy is a piece of work.

    True, but there are lots of defendants like that. He is basically a BS artist, and he believes that his talents at that will get him out of anything, including criminal prosecution.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  343. Runaway Jury.

    She’s obviously trying to run for office again and wants to use her leftist partisanship as a reason to get elected in a one-sided venue.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  344. Give him 3 years, 1 1/2 for good behavior and that’s that. I am interested in more background on the judge though.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  345. I am interested in more background on the judge though.

    Very.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  346. PTw (894877) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:11 am

    Curious. Is there even such a thing as bat-s stupid? If so, what would something such as that look like?

    It would look like all hell breaking loose.

    frosty (f27e97)

  347. 338 Trump:

    “Roger Stone — nobody even knows what he did… Frankly, they ought to apologize to a lot of people whose lives they’ve ruined.”

    Nobody knows why he did it. There are different theories you can have.

    The prosecutor said Roger Stone lied because “the truth looked bad for Donald Trump” I think it’s more likely because the truth looked bad for Roger Stone. Either he had some contacts with the hackers he was hiding, or he was hiding the fact that he had no contacts and couldn’t create them, and therefore was not such a big shot and that could cost him contracts and money. But this explains the high sentence recommendation. You can surmise from the indictment what they suspected (but could not prove) Roger Stone was guilty of

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-indictment-roger-stone

    Organization 1 is Wikileaks, and Person 2 is Randy Credito.

    Roger Stone testified falsely to the House Intelligence committee (although he wasn’t charged with lying about anything very important, probably because nobody could establish what the truth was, or, for that matter, whether he was concealing or embellishing his connection with the hacking)

    Adam Schiff was hot on the trail of Stone concealing connections. He had an accusation that Roger Stone knew that John Podesta’s emails had been hacked before it became public and, in fact, before it Podesta found out about that and before it was even stopped, if I am right (I’m not sure) and two months before the emails were released.

    But common sense, and Stone’s testimony, gives you a more reasonable interpretation of a tweet Roger Stone sent in August 2016 that it would soon be Podesta’s turn in the barrel: That Podesta was caught up in the same thing that had just caught up with Paul Manafort.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  348. 355. Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:54 am

    He is basically a BS artist, and he believes that his talents at that will get him out of anything, including criminal prosecution.

    That was probably Roger Stone’s motivation for perjury – he didn’t want to say he lied in public, so he lied under oath to avoid saying that.

    At some point, in a letter to the HPSCI after his second round of testimony, Roger Stone came out with the claim that Randy Credito was the person who had told him about forthcoming Wikileaks releases of hacked Democratic party emails that he had claimed to know were coming. He had claimed in his second round of testimony to have learned about that from some intermediary.

    And he later then went to great lengths to try to get Randy Credito to back up his story. A serious crime even if it is all a peripheral issue.

    At one point, after Credito had testified, Roger Stone maybe tried to get the prosecutors to indict Randy Credito instead of him. Or tried to get Credito to worry about that.

    Roger Stone also lied about having no communications whatsoever with Wikileaks (he did, and asked them not to dispute his claim to be in contact with them) and not to have had discussions with people in the Trump campaign about possible new releases from wikileaks (He did. The prosecutors presumably suspected he had good information and discussed it with Donald Trump himself. By the way, just to be clear, I don’t think that would be a crime if this was all after the hacking was completed.)

    And he told all sorts of secondary lies, like never having communicated by email with Randy Credito. (that way he wouldn’t be asked to supply copies, to prove his connection with wikileaks was through Randy Credito and not something more sinister)

    Oh what a tangled web we weave…

    127. DRJ (15874d) — 2/12/2020 @ 8:17 am

    The threats were part of Count One, the Obstruction Claim (“Stone attempted to have PERSON 2 testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying.”) Stone was found guilty of obstruction.

    My understanding is that Credico did not testify in the House investigation.

    He took the 5th amendment. His taking the 5th amendment could have been a result of Stone’s badgering him, or trying, in effect, to bribe him, and more. Although I don’t know if charges could ever mention pressuring someone to the point where he took the 5th amendment as a form of witness tampering.

    I think it’s witness tampering if you cause, or try to cause, someone not to be a witness.

    This was not what Roger Stone had wanted, but was enough for Stone to leave him alone for the time being, because he did not contradict him.

    Randy Credito later testified to a grand jury without, I think, asking for any kind of immunity.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  349. It would look like all hell breaking loose.

    Well, TBF it now looks more like hell breaking loose, well maybe a little less extreme but that still remains to be seen. Though from the other direction. What with this jury forewoman’s social media and political participation coming out, Stone likely will still do some time but the process may take a few D’s down with him.

    PTw (894877)

  350. Remember the John Grisham movie and book A Time to Kill?

    Can you imagine if a white former-Republican candidate and anti-Obama lead juror posted a white power symbol on Twitter a few hours before the verdict was read for a black Obama political operative on trial?

    Imagine the races are reversed and tell me what she did is OK and wouldn’t be a big deal. It would be a problem, right?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  351. When Tomeka Hart was interviewed during the jury selection process as part of the Roger Stone trial, the former Democratic congressional candidate said she was generally aware of developments in the Russia investigation, but that she didn’t “pay that close attention” to the probe.

    She also insisted that Stone’s affiliation with President Donald Trump would “absolutely not” color her views of the longtime Trump confidante, according to a copy of a court transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

    But Hart’s social media record, which emerged Wednesday after she came forward as the foreperson on Stone’s jury, paints a different picture.

    https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/13/roger-stone-jury-selection/

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  352. From The Daily Caller:

    When Tomeka Hart was interviewed during the jury selection process as part of the Roger Stone trial, the former Democratic congressional candidate said she was generally aware of developments in the Russia investigation, but that she didn’t “pay that close attention” to the probe.

    She also insisted that Stone’s affiliation with President Donald Trump would “absolutely not” color her views of the longtime Trump confidante, according to a copy of a court transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

    But Hart’s social media record, which emerged Wednesday after she came forward as the foreperson on Stone’s jury, paints a different picture.

    What Bored Lawyer said above is on point:

    I agree that if they knew about it but did not move to strike her, then they waived it. But if new facts came out after the trial, then I don’t think it is waived. You would have to compare what they knew at the time vs. what has come out since the trial. I could see the new facts making things much worse.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  353. Let’s not forget that she is not just any random former Democrat candidate selected as a juror. Tomeka Hart is a lawyer. She’s “sophisticated,” thus, and ought to have known how to behave herself as a juror.

    Jack Posobiec on Twitter asks a good question of the Tennessee Bar:

    Hi
    @TennesseeBar
    !

    Are you aware one of your lawyers – Tomeka Hart – served as lead juror for the Roger Stone trial despite attacking him on twitter after he was arrested?

    During selection she testified she had no bias or specific information about Stone

    This stinks.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  354. Imagine the races are reversed and tell me what she did is OK and wouldn’t be a big deal. It would be a problem, right?

    It isn’t nice. It is racist, and not OK.

    It doesn’t gut the Stone verdict.

    Go run your head under water til your hair goes out.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  355. Well, at least the Mueller team finally found some collusion. It just wasn’t the sort they were looking for. Great success!

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  356. Tomeka Hart – served as lead juror for the Roger Stone trial

    So, Posobieci is either 1) a non-lawyer, or 2) and idiot.

    As noted above, there is no such thing as a “lead juror”.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  357. 307.

    prosecutors noted that while Credico doesn’t think Stone would hurt him or his dog Bianca, he does think that Stone’s ghoulish buddies might do something.

    Does he have any? (who will follow his commands) Or are they just figments of Roger Stone’s imagination?

    Another question: If so, does did Randy Credito know they are figments of Roger Stone’s imagination?

    Note; Rady Credito backed up anumber of RAoger Stone’s lies, (but didn’t want to do this under oath)

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  358. Tomeka Hart was deemed by voters a worse candidate than knucklehead fried chicken eating Steve Cohen. Says something.

    But, she’d make a great jury forewoman!

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  359. I think when it comes to bias, what they may be looking for if they are going to strike for cause, is someone who may be embarrassed in public, or who would not want to face someone they know, if they returned a verdict one way rather than the other.

    Otherwise, it’s ask them if they could be impartial and render a verdict based solely on the evidence they heard in court. (combined with their general knowledge of the world of course.)

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  360. Tomeka Hart was deemed by voters a worse candidate than knucklehead fried chicken eating Steve Cohen. Says something.

    But, she’d make a great jury forewoman!

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/13/2020 @ 12:18 pm

    Just as good odds that if she ran for the seat this year, it would be as a red-pill Diamond and Silk protege.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  361. I’m not the hugest Brian Cates fan, yet on Twitter he asks a pertinent question (emphasis added):

    I have not seen the answers this jury forewoman gave yet, but I strongly suspect at this point these four prosecutors suddenly bailing on this case might have something to do with this.

    Remember, the defense moved to strike this person from the jury; the judge ruled she stayed.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  362. John W Huber on Twitter writes, pointedly, re: Tomeka Hart:

    [in testimony before judge] ROGER STONE JUROR: I don’t watch C-Span (“I don’t pay that close attention of watch C-SPAN”)

    [in reality] ALSO ROGER STONE JUROR: I watch C-Span and then tweet politicians about it

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  363. *or

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  364. So Tomeka Hart lied to get on the jury so she could influence it, then saw to it that she did by getting herself elected Foreperson, no doubt telling the other jurors about her legal background to do so. Probably not telling them about her political background.

    Arrest and try Tomeka Hart for lying to the judge.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  365. he asks a pertinent question (emphasis added):

    I have not seen the answers this jury forewoman gave yet, but I strongly suspect at this point these four prosecutors suddenly bailing on this case might have something to do with this.

    Deepest buckets of horsespit…!

    You SHOULD be mortified, but being a acolyte of your great god cheeto, I know you are not.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  366. So Tomeka Hart lied to get on the jury so she could influence it, then saw to it that she did by getting herself elected Foreperson, no doubt telling the other jurors about her legal background to do so.

    WOW. You’ve totally lost your marbles if you think the average juror LIKES lawyers!

    That Tomeka is SOME Svengali, rat thar…!!!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  367. “All civil libertarians who care about non partisan justice should support a new trial for Roger Stone based on this new information about a biased juror. Let’s hear from real, non partisan, civil libertarians.”

    —Alan Dershowitz

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  368. “Alan Dershowitz”

    lol

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  369. That would be the doddering Dersh that came up with the loopiest rationalizations imaginable for why the thug behind the Resolute desk should no be driven out of office?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  370. Joseph Tacopina, a New York criminal defense lawyer who is not connected to the case, told CNBC that getting a judge to grant Stone a new trial based on Hart’s posts is “going to be monumentally difficult.”

    “Even taking her posts at face value, it doesn’t rise to the level of automatic reversal,” Tacopina said.

    He said the defense would face extremely long odds of getting a new trial if it could be shown that Hart did not give false statements during jury selection, and if her social media posts could have been discovered by Stone’s lawyers during the selection process but failed to do so.
    —————-

    PLUS, Stone might very well be an idiot to press for a new trial.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  371. Pressing for a new trial would be very smart from Stone as it implies corruption in the current one and gives more ammunition for Trump to eventually pardon him.

    And that my friend is politics.

    NJRob (15fc91)

  372. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/13/2020 @ 1:00 pm

    PLUS, Stone might very well be an idiot to press for a new trial.

    He might do it to say out on bail, except that he’s going to have other grounds for appeal.

    To get it reversed, first, I think, you’d have to show she’d have been dismissed from the jury if it had been known she lied about watching C-Span – although the question is which version is the lie.

    And then I think the appeals court needs to find that the verdict could not have been based on the evidence. (that is, the bias affected it)

    The problem is Roger Stone got caught up in his own lies about having inside information from Wikileaks, which a lot of the people who investigated this case thought indicated he had some deep connection to the original hacking; AND his pretense at having evil associates, which gave some weight to his floundering threats, at least in the eyes of the prosecutors.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  373. In an exclusive interview, Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that President Donald Trump “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but should stop tweeting about the Justice Department because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

    Barr’s comments are a rare break with a president who the attorney general has aligned himself with and fiercely defended. But it also puts Barr in line with many of Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill who say they support the president but wish he’d cut back on his tweets.

    “I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  374. “With Bill Barr, on an amazing number of occasions … you can be almost 100 percent certain that there’s something improper going on,” said Donald Ayer, the former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration.

    The president has only inflamed such suspicions, congratulating Barr on Wednesday for intervening in Stone’s case and teeing off hours later on the prosecutors, calling them “Mueller people” who treated Stone “very badly.”

    The president said he had not spoken with Barr about the matter, but Ayer called the attorney general’s apparent intervention “really shocking,” because Barr “has now entered into the area of criminal sanction, which is the one area probably more than any other where it’s most important that the Justice Department’s conduct be above reproach and beyond suspicion.”

    To many of Trump’s critics, the episode was the most alarming in a series of Trump’s post-acquittal reprisals: Last week, he dismissed two officials who were key witnesses in his impeachment— Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland—and a third, NSC ethics lawyer Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, whose main indiscretion seemed to be his last name. The Vindmans, who are twin brothers, have returned to the Army.

    Barr’s evident intervention in matters of personal interest to the president, particularly as they relate to former campaign advisers once at the center of Mueller’s Russia probe, has now put the reputation of an entire institution at risk, DOJ veterans said. It sent an alarming signal to hundreds of line attorneys inside the department, who may now fear that any work touching on the president’s allies will be subject to political interference, they said. And it could undo decades of post-Watergate work to separate the president from the justice system, in ways that could damage DOJ’s credibility with federal judges and with the public as a whole.
    ——————————————————————-

    As stated right here.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  375. “It sent an alarming signal to hundreds of line attorneys inside the department, who may now fear that any work touching on the president’s allies will be subject to political interference, they said.“
    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/13/2020 @ 1:38 pm

    … from a tarmac, in Phoenix.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  376. No reasonable person can supports 7-9 year sentence for Roger Stone now.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  377. You may have noticed that the thug in the Oval Office has already signaled a pardon.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  378. This changes nothing; the sentencing damage has been done. Barr likely has an internal insurrection on his hands so he pitches this woo with all the sincerity of Hitler at Munich.

    The Attorney General has zero credibility and is without doubt one of the biggest power hungry flunkies conservatism has ever excreted. Barr is relentlessly, perpetually full of sh!t– and only a complete and total Trumpchump would embrace anything he says.

    ‘Watch what we do, not what we say,’ – Former Nixon Attorney General and convicted Watergate felon John Mitchell.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  379. Neither the president nor the attorney general have done a damn thing wrong. And the sentencing isn’t the right focus now in the Stone case, it is whether the trial was corrupted and whether Stone received a fair trial.

    —Mark Levin

    Yep.

    if you want to see interference by outside third parties and politicians in a judicial matter, listen to what Pelosi, Schumer, virtually every Democrat, and most in the media are demanding: …

    …that Main Justice not manage line prosecutors when the latter act in ways that are widely criticized as excessive and unjust.

    And their constant demands for the attorney general’s impeachment or resignation are intended to intimidate him and prevent him from acting responsibly

    —Mark Levin

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  380. Neither the president nor the attorney general have done a damn thing wrong… — Mark Levin

    The only bigger ass in America than Mark Levin is stitched to the butt end of the King Kong exhibit at Universal Orlando.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  381. PLUS, Stone might very well be an idiot to press for a new trial.

    He might do it to say out on bail, except that he’s going to have other grounds for appeal.

    As a general rule, following a jury trial, you must bring a post-trial motion in the trial court to preserve the issues you want to appeal. Otherwise, your appeal will be limited to only “plain error”.

    nk (1d9030)

  382. Stone’s attorneys should file it.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  383. https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/02/13/barr-roger-stone-sentencing-fiasco-trumps-tweets-making-impossible-job/

    Allahpundit thinks the Barr/Boob in the WH kerfuffle is a rope-a-dope.

    I hope not. I’d like to think well of someone associated with T-rump.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  384. Allahpundit thinks the Barr/Boob in the WH kerfuffle is a rope-a-dope.

    It’s plausible. I also hope it isn’t true and Barr is a straight shooter, but I’m not convinced.

    Speaking of straight shooting, I buy, as I all but conceded above, that Stone should have been convicted and sentenced with a more reasonabel recommendation. Trying to get his friend to lie for him and back up his story under oath is not cool.

    That said, I had NO IDEA this morning that the jury foreman was a trained lawyer, sophisticated, no doubt able to influence the other jurors, who dissembled during voir dire and got herself on the jury, then was tweeting politically, including BLM and/or black power symbols hours before the verdict was released.

    I’m a little outraged and sickened by it on multiple levels. One of the worst is from HER perspective. She clearly doesn’t like Stone and Trump. So, instead of letting a credible juror take her place and, probably, convict Stone, she’s now cast doubt on the whole thing. Stone should get a new trial and she’s wasted everybody’s time and money if that happens.

    It’s really sickening. She ought to be ashamed and the judge ought to be mad. She should call this juror back and look into this.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  385. Someone also needs to make a complaint to her Bar.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  386. When former Trump lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen was preparing to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Matt Gaetz tweeted out a threat: “Hey @MichaelCohen212 — Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot.”

    Wow. I thought Gaetz was an idiot, but he’s really an asphole, too.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  387. if hack lawyers have their feelings hurt or if the sensibility of judges is wounded, and if the judicial system of the U.S. is so tenuous as to be destroyed by words and criticism, blame trump. The judicial system needs to hang from a sturdy oak branch.

    mg (8cbc69)

  388. Wow. I thought Gaetz was an idiot, but he’s really an asphole, too.

    He’s an idiot. Wasn’t he (also a trained lawyer) the moron congressman who tweeted that Nancy Pelosi committed a felony by ripping up the umpteenth copy of Trump’s speech?

    Trump also, after Gaetz said it, relayed this silliness. At least he’s not a lawyer. Gaetz his no excuse at all, other than he was playing politics to credulous morons (not talking about people here: talking about those who believed ripping up one of thousands of copies of a document is a felony).

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  389. Someone also needs to make a complaint to her Bar

    You should just do that. Write it up just the way you did above.

    It’ll be good for a laugh.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  390. The juror’s behavior is troubling but bias was an issue in jury selection:

    Stone, whose history in Republican political circles dates back to the Nixon administration, has consistently criticized the case against him as politically motivated. Day one was focused on jury selection and featured some of the political complexities that may dominate the case.

    Jackson started the day by fending off attempts by the defense team to exclude any potential jurors who worked in the U.S. government or had a negative view of Trump. The judge pointed out that excluding all government workers may be impossible given the nature of the District of Columbia jury pool.

    The first potential juror was a woman who had worked in the Office of Management and Budget during the Obama administration and whose husband is a lawyer in the Department of Justice.

    Jackson also rejected the notion that a juror who was opposed to Trump would not be fair to Stone.

    “That doesn’t mean the juror is biased against this defendant on these charges,” Jackson told defense attorneys. “The defense has assumed bias that has not been shown on the part of those people.”

    The defense may have to show juror bias against Stone, not just Trump, or even juror misconduct.

    DRJ (15874d)

  391. The judge dismissed 40 jurors on the defense motions, which is an enormous of strikes.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  392. I saw one site mock her as a ‘collusion truther’, suggesting that if you recognize the collusion between Trump and Putin (that Trump showed us live on national TV!) you are just as silly as people who think Bush orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attack.

    Granted, a lot of people don’t approve of Trump. Most people. That is a problem for the Stone case. He seems to have gotten a fair trial though. The evidence was powerful that he was totally corrupt. Indeed it is amusing that people defending him are interested (suddenly) in an ethical court process, if you think about it.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  393. The judge dismissed 40 jurors on the defense motions, which is an enormous of strikes.

    The Judge missed a big one, possibly because of misrepresentation by the juror.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  394. Granted, a lot of people don’t approve of Trump. Most people.

    Sure, this is technically true, as Gallop has his rating at 49% approve/50% disapprove.

    He’s still vastly more popular than Congress.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  395. “He’s still vastly more popular than Congress.”

    Everyone loves their senator/rep and hates all the other ones.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  396. Tomeka Hart (who also tweeted about Roger Stone’s arrest, mocking Stone, and tweeted political/black power symbols hours before the verdict was read) labeled Trump supportes as per se racists. Not some as racists. Being a Trump supporter was proof of racism in her books; from her Tweets:

    [to a woman who is simply holding up a milquetoast political campaign sign supporting Trump and wearing a KAG hat] “Then stop being racists. Co-signing and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you a racist. Point blank.”

    Well, what is Roger Stone if not a Trump supporter?

    She wasn’t a hair dresser, office worker, or home economist. She is a sophisticated lawyer, former Democrat candidate, and so on and so forth who had the ability to influence the jury of which she was its forewoman, and probably did. On purpose.

    I get your point about the high bar to be reached, DRJ and others, but this is wrong and can’t stand:

    Co-signing and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you a racist. Point blank.”

    Wow.

    She went into this believing Roger Stone is [without a doubt] a racist—and told the judge she could be impartial. Not just maybe guilty of a crime for which she had mocked his being arrested, mind you, … but that Stone and any Trump supporter is “Point blank” racist.

    THEN she tweeted BLM and/or black power symbols a few hours before the end of the trial!

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  397. He’s still vastly more popular than Congress.

    But he’s tied with the coronavirus…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  398. But he’s tied with the coronavirus…

    lol

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  399. The Judge missed a big one, possibly because of misrepresentation by the juror.

    Not according to the record.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  400. He’s still vastly more popular than Congress.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:04 pm

    Congress actually won by the will of the voters. Trump was weak in comparison. Obviously a body that 434/435th doesn’t represent you isn’t popular at large. I guess you did the best you could to find something Trump could compare with.

    Trump’s never going to approach the high points of the last five presidents. He has had no high point. His entire administration has been a mess of insiders saying the emperor has no clothes, scandals, criminal convictions, and diet coke.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  401. I agree that looks bad. It would be helpful to know what she said during jury selection.

    DRJ (15874d)

  402. The judge dismissed 40 jurors on the defense motions, which is an enormous of strikes.

    The Judge missed a big one, possibly because of misrepresentation by the juror.

    How many jurors did the defense make a motion to dismiss from the jury panel. IOW, what proportion of defense motions were granted? Did the defense make a motion to dismiss this particular juror? Did the judge get tired, or at least overly skeptical, of defense motions she may have viewed as merely dilatory?

    [If there’s a link with that information, I missed it.]

    Kishnevi (e715ab)

  403. How come the troll of many names has to breathlessly copy and paste that blog instead of just linking it? Seems a little overdramatic.

    BTW most people think MAGA stuff is often racist. And defending racism is racism. The problem with Stone is that he is infamous. Finding an impartial jury is indeed a huge problem sometimes. I don’t mean to understate his entitlement to one, but you’ll have to do better than ‘she opposed racism and therefore couldn’t be fair to a Trump stooge’. Though I do think that’s a valid problem… it’s not her problem.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  404. “The defense may have to show juror bias against Stone, not just Trump, or even juror misconduct.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/13/2020 @ 5:43 pm

    IANAL, but I’m guessing you need to show the foreperson was a lying dog-faced pony soldier at jury selection time. Not hard.

    Judge Jackson seems to have presided over this trial exactly the way one would expect from an Obama judge, which she is.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  405. Hart believed if you’re a Trump supporter, you’re a racist. Period. End of story.

    Well then how can she be on and lead a jury of Trump’s biggest supporter?

    I’m not a lawyer. But IF the law decides this is OK, the law is FUBAR.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  406. The defense may have to show juror bias against Stone

    See above.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  407. 409 is ANOTHER example of beating a poor old dead horse.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  408. How come the troll of many names has to breathlessly copy and paste that blog instead of just linking it? Seems a little overdramatic.

    I tried sending links and they won’t go through, not even one in a comment.

    So pretend this is paper and I cited it. And stop with the ad hominems, while you’re at it.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  409. LOL it’s so mad.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  410. I agree that looks bad. It would be helpful to know what she said during jury selection.

    David French has an extract of the examination by the judge of the juror in question.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  411. Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:19 pm

    But thinking any person is a racist does not mean you will automatically agree that he’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime he’s charged with.

    The judge presumably asked her if she could set aside her opinions of Stone as a person and impartially judge the evidence that would be presented in court. She presumably answered yes. The question then focuses on whether enough facts were available to make her answer not credible, or if there is evidence that she schemed in some way to get on the jury so she could convict Stone.

    Kishnevi (e715ab)

  412. But thinking any person is a racist does not mean you will automatically agree that he’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime he’s charged with.

    It’s bias.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  413. I agree that looks bad. It would be helpful to know what she said during jury selection

    Yes, absolutely.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  414. 403. DRJ (15874d) — 2/13/2020 @ 5:43 pm

    The defense may have to show juror bias against Stone, not just Trump, or even juror misconduct.

    The juror probably didn’t have an anti=Stone bias, but had a pro-prosecution bias. And had that bias because these were the very prosecutors investigating Trump Russia collusion.

    And she was very involved in political tweeting.

    So she’d want to strengthen them and give them support and buck up the spirits of anyone who was against Trump. It was more than an intellectual bias. It seems to have been a big emotional bias or perhaps a career enhancing bias.

    As for why she wanted to be herself on the jury? It could be because she would get something reputationally out of it or maybe emotionally out of it

    OR..

    She didn’t know the case in advance, and might have thought it was possibly weak and other jurors wouldn’t convict so she needed to be on it. (is it likely she would have thought there’d be pro-Trump people on it?)

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  415. Tomeka Hart’s is also unreasonable bias because every Republican Trump supporter is not racist.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  416. 428

    Give it up. Go to bed. You won’t win.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  417. You can’t exclude all government employees as jurors in DC. It is a political venue and they have a limited jury pool. This is how any federal judge would handle a case like this.

    But jurors fill out jury questionnaires and are asked questions during jury selection. The jurors likely were asked if they could be fair in this case, and would be questioned further and probably excluded if they expressed doubt. My guess is this juror will claim she was fair but spouts off in her online posts — something that happens with lots of people. The defense may need more than inflammatory rhetoric, although my guess is that the Judge might let them question the juror about her online posts.

    DRJ (15874d)

  418. Name and shame whistleblowers and jurors who don’t bend their knee! Name and shame, ruin their lives! This mob of trolls really doesn’t get what they are, but if you ever wonder why I treat them with disdain, it’s because I get what they are.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  419. You can’t exclude all government employees as jurors in DC. It is a political venue and they have a limited jury pool.

    Sure, but claiming all Trump supporters are “Point blank” racist is not a reasonable position for an ordinary Democrat to take and should exclude a juror from trying one of Trump’s biggest supporters. It’s possible, I would hope, to find Democrats who don’t have this position.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  420. Name and shame whistleblowers and jurors who don’t bend their knee!

    This is completely unfair of you and also what I would expect from you.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  421. It’s bias.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:35 pm

    Against racism.

    Oh Heavens. Better post her address and social security number too.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  422. It’s bias.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:35 pm

    Out of curiousity, how many times have you been questioned as a potential juror on a voir dire while on jury duty?

    Because if you run those instances through your head, you will observe the judges and lawyers involved did not simply ask if you were biased. They will ask if you will be able to set aside your biases while judging the evidence. And you remember that some potential jurors said they could, and some said they couldn’t.

    Kishnevi (e715ab)

  423. Against racism.

    No. It’s a claim that all Trump supporters are racist. Be honest! Give it a try for the sake of variety.

    It’s like saying that all Democrats are child molesters because some are. It isn’t the bias against child molesters that’s the problem.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  424. some potential jurors said they could, and some said they couldn’t.

    Yeah. Except that she happened to be lying.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  425. “Give it up. Go to bed. You won’t win.”
    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:43 pm

    LOL

    Hypothetical: A potential juror in Kevin Clinesmith’s trial calls all Democrats corrupt and tweets support for Durham’s investigation of Crossfire Hurricane, with #MAGA.

    Does he/she get on the jury?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  426. 423.

    https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/is-there-a-stone-jury-scandal-not

    One of the jurors, a woman named Tomeka Hart, wrote a Facebook post defending the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case in protest after their superiors at the Department of Justice reversed their sentencing recommendation (more on that below).

    The instant Hart outed herself, conservative journalists combed through her social media history and found that she’s not just a Democrat, she’s a former Democratic congressional candidate, a frequent donor to Democratic campaigns, and before the trial tweeted multiple times not just against Trump but also about the Mueller investigation.

    … Fortunately, there’s a transcript of the oral voir dire, and the transcript does not help Roger Stone.

    Hart (identified only as Juror 1261, but identifiable by her statement that she ran for Congress and other biographical details) was questioned by the trial judge and by defense counsel. After first asking questions about Hart’s prior service on a grand jury, the judge asked a series of key questions:

    THE COURT: You’ve also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media including about political things?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

    THE COURT: And when we asked what you read or heard about the defendant, you do understand that he was involved in Mr. Trump’s campaign in some way?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

    THE COURT: Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely not.

    THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.

    THE COURT: Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

    THE COURT: You actually have had some interest in Congress yourself?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

    THE COURT: Does the fact that this case involves allegations of not being truthful to Congress, is that something that you think that the nature of the allegations

    alone would make it hard for you to be fair?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

    The prosecution declined to ask Hart any questions. Then, defense counsel had its turn:

    MR. BUSCHEL: Did you ever work for anyone in Congress?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

    MR. BUSCHEL: You’ve worked on campaigns for Congress people running for Congress?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I ran for Congress.

    MR. BUSCHEL: You ran for Congress?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I worked on my own campaign.

    MR. BUSCHEL: And you have friends who worked for other congressmen?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

    MR. BUSCHEL: Do you have any political aspirations now?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don’t know, not federal.

    MR. BUSCHEL: What might they be?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My home state in Tennessee. No local.

    MR. BUSCHEL: Just recognize that there might be some media— What are your aspirations?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I served, can I just say I served in political office in Memphis in a local office on the school board. So I, one day I wake up and say I run for, you know, office again in Memphis to impact education. One day I wake up and say no way in the world would I do that. So I don’t have an immediate plan to run for office.

    MR. BUSCHEL: The fact that you run for an office, you’re affiliated with a political party. Roger Stone is affiliated with the Republican party, Donald Trump. You understand what I’m saying and getting at?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I do.

    MR. BUSCHEL: How do you feel about that?

    MR. KRAVIS: Objection.

    THE COURT: Can you make that question a little bit more crisp? Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn’t fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

    MR. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma’am.

    THE COURT: All right, you can step out.

    R. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma’am.

    THE COURT: All right, you can step out.

    (Prospective juror leaves courtroom.)

    THE COURT: Mr. Buschel, you have a motion?

    MR. BUSCHEL: No.

    She did once tweet about C-Span, but Roger Stone would not be covered very much in C-Span.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  427. Now you’re just flailing offal.

    stop. You don’t know what you’re talking about

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  428. THE COURT: Can you make that question a little bit more crisp? Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn’t fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: [Well, I know he’s a racist, but] No.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  429. “Name and shame whistleblowers and jurors who don’t bend their knee! Name and shame, ruin their lives!”
    Dustin (b8d6d1) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:44 pm

    Says someone who unapologetically joined a pitchfork and torch mob to smear an innocent smirking 15 year old.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  430. Says someone who unapologetically joined a pitchfork and torch mob to smear an innocent smirking 15 year old.

    Ugh. Did Dustin really? Gross.

    Because the kid smiled at someone beating a drum toward him. Ruin him! Just awful that some people think that way.

    I’m surprised, although I shouldn’t be, that someone on this blog would think that made sense.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  431. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: [Well, I know he’s a racist, but] No.

    Are you just going to outright lie now?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  432. <blockquotePROSPECTIVE JUROR: [Well, I know he’s a racist, but] No.

    Are you just going to outright lie now?

    Her tweet makes clear that she considers all Trump supporters “Point blank” racist and Roger Stone is an uber Trump supporter. So I’m being honest in my commentary; you should examine yours.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

  433. The David French article, which has the pertinent section of the voir dire
    https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/is-there-a-stone-jury-scandal-not

    Kishnevi (e715ab)

  434. Well, you won’t deal in reality, and I won’t deal in your madness.

    Watch and see what happens.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  435. The usual breathless defense of principles and ethics seems to be suddenly lacking from Trump critics. Maybe after three years they’re spent.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  436. Nah, Munroe, not totally (but I get your point in the main): DRJ, to name one, is being fairly reasonable.

    As an aside, one thing we can all agree on is Patterico nailed it in his title for this post!

    Make America Ordered Again (9a322f)

  437. Her tweet makes clear that she considers all Trump supporters “Point blank” racist and Roger Stone is an uber Trump supporter. So I’m being honest in my commentary; you should examine yours.

    Hey dummy, do you understand how a jury verdict works? This lady didn’t get twelve votes, 12 people got 1 vote, and Stone’s defense had to convince a single one to keep him out of the slammer. They failed, miserably, just like you’re logic is pathetic and miserable. They only deliberated for 8 hours total for all 7 felonies he is guilty of.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  438. You’re another dreamer, Munrose

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  439. 445. Well, what about a juror who knew that Roger Stone gloried in being a “dirty trickster” which is actually a fact? That he gloried in it. (it seems like she didn’t know that)

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/the-dirty-trickster

    Stone worked for Donald Trump as an occasional lobbyist and as an adviser when Trump considered running for President in 2000. “Roger is a stone-cold loser,” Trump told me. “He always tries taking credit for things he never did.”

    Someone who was fair could probably put that aside – but that’s almost certifying him as a big liar.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  440. Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:57 pm

    Thinking a person is a racist does not automatically mean you will vote for guilty no matter what the evidence is.

    It’s an essential point you have to yet comprehend.

    Kishnevi (e715ab)

  441. People sometimes say inflammatory things online that they might regret. Maybe their posts reveal their true feelings; maybe they don’t, but their emotions get away with them.

    Like Donald Trump. Are we or are we not supposed to hold him responsible for every inflammatory thing he says?

    DRJ (15874d)

  442. No Trump critics want to answer my @438?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  443. Why?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  444. Hey dummy

    What a brilliant way to begin your argument!

    Which I’ve already addressed by pointing out she’s sophisticated, a lawyer, who got herself made the jury’s foreperson, probably so she could influence it.

    I hope you can appreciate and evaluate my argument even though I didn’t begin it creatively as you.

    Make America Ordered Again (9a322f)

  445. Make America Offal Again is burrowed down into his madness like a tick on a hound, and it is sad to behold.

    Like I suggest, watch and see…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  446. ..In September, 2004, CBS News aired what it said were newly discovered documents in a report suggesting that George W. Bush had dodged military service in Vietnam. The authenticity of the documents was quickly challenged, and the focus in the news media shifted to whether CBS had been bamboozled into using forgeries, not whether the charges were true. In a CNN interview, Terry McAuliffe, then the head of the Democratic National Committee, seized on a New York Post item citing a “hot rumor” that Stone—“an old dirty trickster from the Nixon days,” in McAuliffe’s words—had forged the documents, presumably to embarrass CBS and help Bush. It was a measure of Stone’s reputation at that point that a top Democrat had attempted, on such slim evidence, to link him to a campaign transgression.

    Well, of course a Clinton friend could try to blame a Republican, but I don;t think he actually believed it – it is just Roger Stone was a person who could fit this scenario, and maybe wouldn’t mind. But he did:

    “It’s so rare that I’m accused of something that I’m not guilty of that I felt I had to respond,” Stone told me. Rather than simply deny his involvement, Stone went on cable news to deepen the controversy and lob his own accusation—equally baseless—that the Democrats were somehow involved with the documents…

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  447. Thinking a person is a racist does not automatically mean you will vote for guilty no matter what the evidence is.

    It’s an essential point you have to yet comprehend.

    Kishnevi (e715ab) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:07 pm

    I comprehend it. It’s bias against Stone. It’s also unreasonable bias since not all Trump supporters are racist.

    Imagine a jury foreman who said all blacks are “Point blank” supporters of criminals, with a black defendant, if that makes it easier for you to comprehend.

    Make America Ordered Again (9a322f)

  448. Munroe,

    I don’t know who that is but typically potential jurors are questioned about their opinions and feelings. In big cases, the parties may investigate potential jurors beforehand but that is rare. If they do know about bias, usually one side will use a challenge to remove them. Bias discovered later may lead to post-trial motions, questions, and a possible new trial or appeal.

    But sometimes people spout off and not every case is redone when that happens. It undermines the system to see this and we don’t want it to happen, but we can never know everything in each juror’s life or experiences. It is up to the parties to root out bias and ask the judge to exclude biased jurors.

    DRJ (15874d)

  449. It’s also unreasonable bias since not all Trump supporters are racist.

    I can’t think of a reasonable bias.

    You don’t have to “imagine”, dream, or hallucinate. The juror in question was examined. It’s on the record.

    Watch and see.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  450. I 2008, Roger Stone said he was not a racist, and had been against running the Willie Horton ad in a way that personalized the prisoner.

    “We had an ad running about the furloughs in Massachusetts, with a revolving door, and it was really polling well—a great ad—and none of the prisoners were identifiable,” Stone told me. “But then Atwater came in with this version that had Willie Horton’s picture—and he said they were going to have an independent group put it on the air.” (Horton was a convicted murderer who committed a rape after fleeing while on furlough from prison in Massachusetts while Dukakis was governor.) “I told Atwater that it was a mistake, that we were winning the issue without having to resort to this racist crap. I told Atwater, ‘You are going to get linked to this, and it is gonna follow you and George Bush for the rest of your life.’ It did.” (Atwater died of a brain tumor in 1991. Other campaign officials told me that they were not in a position to know what Stone said to Atwater about the Horton ad.) For all his bravado, Stone told me that he shied away from racially inflammatory campaign work. He says frequently, “You know, Nixon was the one who desegregated the schools—not that he ever got any credit for it.”

    This is a man who encouraged Al Sharpton to run for President in 2004.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/us/the-2004-campaign-the-consultant-sharpton-s-bid-aided-by-an-unlikely-source.html

    The Rev. Al Sharpton has demonstrated his quick wit and deft use of one-liners in his campaign for president. But while the delivery has been all his own, he had help shaping his message from an unlikely source: Roger Stone, a political consultant who worked for Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

    Mr. Stone, who describes himself as a Republican-libertarian, has had a hand in some of Mr. Sharpton’s most effective attacks on Howard Dean, aides to Mr. Sharpton said. By extension, he has played a role in shaping the dynamic of the Democratic primary, political strategists and observers said….

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  451. No Trump critics want to answer my @438?

    If your hypothetical was to correctly match the actual case in hand, the answer is the juror would be empannelled because the defendant’s lawyers made no motion to dismiss him.

    Since the evidence of possible bias was already available to them at the time of voir dire, they could have used it then to challenge her. But they didn’t, either because they didn’t go looking or because they thought it not important enough. Which means they can’t challenge her now. It was their job to find those FB postings, not anyone else’s.

    The only chance they have is to show she actively hid her bias. Did she perhaps put her FB settings to non-public just before the trial, for instance, and later switch them back?

    Kishnevi (e715ab)

  452. In 2004:

    Today Mr. Stone says he loves helping Mr. Sharpton.

    ”Frankly,” Mr. Stone said in a recent telephone interview, ”there has not been a candidate with this much charisma since Ronald Reagan. He is a natural talent. Who else could do the funky chicken on television and get away with it? I don’t share his politics. Let’s be very clear, if you check the F.E.C. records you will see I am supporting George W. Bush. I am a Reagan Republican.”

    But the men have found a common agenda in the Democratic primary. They have delighted in skewering Dr. Dean, with Mr. Sharpton generating one of Dr. Dean’s lowest moments in a debate when he forced him to admit he had no blacks or Hispanics in his cabinet when he was governor of Vermont.

    ”I saw Roger’s fingerprints all over that,” said the developer Donald Trump, who has worked with Mr. Stone over the past two decades.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  453. DRJ (15874d) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:20 pm

    Thanks for answering when others wouldn’t.

    Clinesmith is the person of “Viva le Resistance” fame with a criminal referral. Unlike Stone, he can depend on a friendly jury of peers. In his case, I very much doubt it will ever get to jury selection anyway, though having nothing to do with the merits.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  454. There were eleven other jurors.
    Were they also biased?
    Does the record of the trial, as a whole, indicate that the case hung by a thread so thin that it’s likely that the verdict was affected by this juror’s alleged bias?
    Or does the record as a whole indicate that any reasonable jury would find the mother-figure guilty?
    Why are f***ing Trumpkns so f***ing tiresome?

    nk (1d9030)

  455. I 2008, Roger Stone said he was not a racist, and had been against running the Willie Horton ad in a way that personalized the prisoner.

    […]

    This is a man who encouraged Al Sharpton to run for President in 2004.

    I didn’t know this about him. Honestly, I was just in the driveway with my girlfriend and we were talking about this and I said I don’t even know if Stone is racist. The point is Hart’s bias against all Trump supporters is extreme and blanket that goes beyond disagreeing with their politics.

    However, knowing this about Stone makes me even more disgusted with her troubling bias and behavior. He shouldn’t have something bad that he opposes held against him by a biased Democrat activist candidate lawyer turned juror.

    Those defending this jury and verdict and case and how it came down really puzzle me.

    I mean what if it was a white foreman tweeting, “All blacks like criminals” and then being a finder of fact for a black defendant?

    Yes. MAYBE he could give a fair verdict anyway. But no way would he be allowed to stay on the jury and virtually everyone would have a problem with it after the fact if his tweet came to light.

    You’re not, many of you, being consistent to your alleged principles here or following basic logic. The analogy above is sound.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)


  456. Imagine a jury foreman who said all blacks are “Point blank” supporters of criminals, with a black defendant, if that makes it easier for you to comprehend

    The foreman would have demonstrated a bias towards thinking that since all blacks support criminals, he would decide this particular black was a criminal. His bias was directly relevant to the case.

    Which means the parallel you suggest is not really a parallel. To be parallel, she would have needed to say one of two things–either that all racists are likely to commit perjury, or that being a Trump supporter makes a person likely to commit crimes on Trump’s behalf.

    Kishnevi (e715ab)

  457. Ugh. Did Dustin really? Gross.

    Make America Ordered Again (afc191) — 2/13/2020 @ 6:55 pm

    It’s really cringey that he’s pretending to be two people while completing his other sock’s sentences. Consistent IP address till 6:55 pm, then as soon as he switches IP to speak as Munroe, his IP has changed. He’s using a VPN and switching servers over and over. This guy has been doing it for months under a bunch of obnoxious handles. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

    I wonder how much he’s spending just to troll a comment section.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  458. What a brilliant way to begin your argument!

    Which I’ve already addressed by pointing out she’s sophisticated, a lawyer, who got herself made the jury’s foreperson, probably so she could influence it.

    I hope you can appreciate and evaluate my argument even though I didn’t begin it creatively as you.

    It was just an accurate observation, and as you’ve shown continuously since you’ve claimed this alias. You express either a pitiable lack of ability to discern truth, or an accomplished troll, so liar.

    I assume you are just egging Pat on to permaban you again with your racism and misogyny.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  459. “If your hypothetical was to correctly match the actual case in hand, the answer is the juror would be empannelled because the defendant’s lawyers made no motion to dismiss him.“
    Kishnevi (e715ab) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:28 pm

    Thanks also for answering.

    Fair point. Though, such a juror would stick out like a sore thumb in a DC or NVA jury pool, making it an easy strike. Stone had no such luxury. That’s actually my point.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  460. There were eleven other jurors.
    Were they also biased?
    Does the record of the trial, as a whole, indicate that the case hung by a thread so thin that it’s likely that the verdict was affected by this [sophisticated lawyer and Democrat activist/former candidate who got herself made jury forewoman] juror’s alleged bias?

    It stinks. It appears corrupt (on her part). It has the appearance of impropiety.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  461. I’ll make the point, nk, that if Patterico said something crazy (which he wouldn’t) like all Democrats support child abuse (because of abortion or wanting a lower age of consent or what have you) “Point blank” and got on a jury and was made its foreman, he would have an above average ability to influence the jury improperly (which he wouldn’t).

    His being foreman would not ordinarily be a problem and his sophisticated skills could be of great use to the jury. I’m sure he’d be a great juror.

    But if he was (and he isn’t) egregiously biased, his strength would become a terrible weakness for justice or at least would look like one.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  462. Can we all agree that the issue with the juror doesn’t look good to the average American? Or is anti-Trump going with nothing to see here and it’s unreasonable to even think it’s an issue.

    Personally, I’m hoping anti-Trump sticks with insulting anyone who questions anything less than life in prison for Stone but I’ve gone long on rake futures so I’m biased.

    frosty (f27e97)

  463. Dustin (b8d6d1) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:43 pm

    Dustin, at this point self parody is just a speck in your rear view mirror.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  464. It stinks. It appears corrupt (on her part). It has the appearance of impropiety.

    The word is spelled impropriety, also, it doesn’t appear as anything other than a trial verdict, since there were still those 11 other souls. All Stone’s defense had to do was convince a single one, that he wasn’t guilty of all 7 felonies beyond a reasonable doubt. You continuously use racism and stupidity to justify an outcome, that even if true, would be meaningless.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  465. Thanks for improving my spelling. I similarly spelled “procastination” [sic] wrong for years.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  466. Can we all agree that the issue with the juror doesn’t look good to the average American

    The average American would probably look at Stone, realize he’s a goon, and say he’s getting what he deserves.

    Kishnevi (e715ab)

  467. Thanks for telling me about that, Munroe.

    DRJ (15874d)

  468. Dustin, at this point self parody is just a speck in your rear view mirror.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:54 pm

    Oh I think everyone knows you’re using a VPN and have been banned… You’re not really that clever. I think some here just are happy to engage someone who disagrees with them, in good faith, because they enjoy that. Don’t kid yourself that they don’t understand you’re what you are. I hope you have a happy turn of luck in life and whatever anger pushes you to be a troll online is healed.

    Being so mad at me your whole life… it’s like drinking poison and hoping I get sick. Don’t bother my brother!

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  469. “Were they also biased?”
    nk (1d9030) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:39 pm

    Was a DC jury biased? That’s your question?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  470. I don’t think it looks good, frosty.

    DRJ (15874d)

  471. It’s really cringey that he’s pretending to be two people while completing his other sock’s sentences. Consistent IP address till 6:55 pm, then as soon as he switches IP

    Gee, you’re acting paranoid. You may want to get a pro to check on that. There’s help.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  472. Can we all agree that the issue with the juror doesn’t look good to the average American? Or is anti-Trump going with nothing to see here and it’s unreasonable to even think it’s an issue.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/13/2020 @ 7:53 pm

    I agree that the way it’s presented on some of the Trumpy blogs looks horrible. And generally I don’t trust those guys. I mean they are complaining she’s a ‘collusion truther’. We saw Trump’s “If you’re listening” speech on national TV.

    The problem here is fundamental. In DC, people retain their civil rights to have opinions. You can’t be excluded from a jury just because you recognize that a lot of the other side’s politicians are bad. Or that you consider defending racism to be racist. The judge tossed a lot of jurors… a lot more than seems normal to me. So the problem here wasn’t that the judge was refusing to hear the defense’s challenges fairly. Did Stone show this juror would not listen to the evidence? And remember, it takes 12 jurors… which is a protection against the bias of a single one.

    But I’ll grant that of course Stone was entitled to a jury that heard the evidence impartially. Stone was entitled to a process that was ethical and fair no matter how much he hoped to corrupt that same process.

    They were going to dig up and exaggerate something so Trump could “listen” to the mob insisting Stone is a victim and pardon him. I’m not sure what else this deal is really about.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  473. Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

    and

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

    care to explain…???

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  474. I know this is going to come as a complete shock to you Dustin, but here, on this essentially “Never Trump” blog (for lack of a better term), the majority of right-wing commenters oppose Trump, as do you.

    However, because 94% of Republicans (Gallup) approve of Trump’s performance, it’s actually possible to find several who, at the same time, have similar ideas about most (not all) things (for example, Munroe thought the AG shouldn’t have said anything to the media about wanting Trump to shut his yap and talk about active DOJ cases less, whereas I said that I think Barr has a point) (but no doubt you think this is an elaborate ruse) and who don’t agree with you.

    In summary: yeah, there are several supporters of the President of the United States, and this is not as bizarre as you seem to think it is.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  475. Gee, you’re acting paranoid. You may want to get a pro to check on that. There’s help.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:03 pm

    I’m paranoid because I think someone whose IP address changes all the time is a banned commenter using a VPN? Are you willing to specifically state that 1) you have not used a VPN in commenting here and 2) that you have never been moderated or banned here?

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  476. In summary: yeah, there are several supporters of the President of the United States, and this is not as bizarre as you seem to think it is.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:10 pm

    Oh so if I point out I think you and Munroe are the same commenter, you instead argue against the notion you are every single supporter of Trump? Why are you flailing so much when I make this suggestion? It’s almost like you’re trying to change the subject or something.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  477. Make America Ordered Again (afc191)

    and

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

    care to explain…???

    They have these things called “mobile phones” and “more than one location.” Note that above I said:

    I was just in the driveway with my girlfriend and we were talking about this and I said I don’t even know if Stone is racist. The point is Hart’s bias against all Trump supporters is extreme and blanket that goes beyond disagreeing with their politics.

    As in I was at one location (home), then at another location (a bar serving food, with wifi), went to another location (Starbucks, with wifi) then returned home again (to the driveway) and in points in between was on my phone (AT&T Wireless).

    Does it make sense now or are you going to continue to be completely clueless that people communicate on more than one device and at more than one location in 2020?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  478. Dustin (b8d6d1) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:13 pm

    Pathetic.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  479. Also, if you really must know, the wifi here is pretty unstable and tends to bump me to any of three networks. Sometimes that annoys me and I switch to my mobile, which has great coverage here, despite it eating up my data.

    In all cases I’m commenting under this nic.

    But it’s kind of a silly criticism. I’m sure many of the Trump opponents on this blog use their mobiles/iPads/laptops/office computers/various wifi access points, etc.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  480. OK. The part I can accept involves you having a girlfriend.

    Or a friend.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  481. OK. The part I can accept involves you having a girlfriend.

    Or a friend

    Why thank you. In a similar positive spirit I’ll say I’m sure even you are loved by somebody.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  482. 490.

    people communicate on more than one device and at more than one location in 2020?

    What creates is using a different ISP or maybe browser.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  483. It’s almost like you’re trying to change the subject or something.

    Dustin, you are the master of projection!

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  484. As in I was at one location (home), then at another location (a bar serving food, with wifi), went to another location (Starbucks, with wifi) then returned home again (to the driveway) and in points in between was on my phone (AT&T Wireless).

    Why didn’t you just answer my simple questions directly? Why all the hand waving and oblique stuff?

    Are you willing to specifically state that 1) you have not used a VPN in commenting here and 2) that you have never been moderated or banned here?

    Dustin (b8d6d1) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:11 pm

    I’ve never used a VPN or been banned or moderated, except once when I was rude about Ted Kennedy when he passed away (justified).

    Pathetic.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:17 pm

    Have my comments upset you?

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  485. What creates is using a different ISP or maybe browser.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:22 pm

    We’ve all got different hash whatevers (not sure what you call it). When this troll started creating his buddies to congratulate his comments, I noticed a pattern that often he’ll have a consistent IP, then when one of his buddies praises his comment, the original sock’s ip changes. I don’t think there’s any real limitation on his VPN requiring this. I think he just gets really eager to pile on rapidly.

    Honestly you could just ignore all the names under the comments and it’s obvious by writing style.

    I don’t think he can be banned. I just want him to go ahead and outright deny using a VPN or being banned (which you’ll notice he’s not doing this). I think once he clearly lies, he knows in his heart what he’s doing lacks integrity.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  486. Was a DC jury biased? That’s your question?

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:01 pm

    The criminal picks the venue where he will stand trial.
    “But how?” you ask. By committing his crime there.

    nk (1d9030)

  487. @474 The likelihood that any prosecutor would be put on a jury for a criminal trial is 0%. I have a friend who is a prosecutor and even his wife has never served on a jury in a criminal trial because of it. His sister is also a friend of mine and she has never served in a criminal trial because her brother is a prosecutor.

    The defense knew she’d run for Congress as a democrat and didn’t move to dismiss her. Even if she thought Stone was a racist, the crimes he was accused of committing were not crimes of racial discrimination.

    Part of being a defense attorney is dealing with juries who think their client is a scumbag. Very often a jury thinks a criminal defendant is a scumbag. The job of the defense attorney is to convince the jury that while their client is a scumbag, s/he isn’t a scumbag who committed this specific crime.

    @490 Careful with the posting and driving. Distracted driving is a major cause of car accidents.

    Nic (896fdf)

  488. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:08 pm

    In one of the other threads Davethulhu, Sammy, and whembly also had changing codes.

    In this thread BorisB, Dave, Davethulhu, Dustin, Kishnevi, Munroe, NJRob, Property rights, Time123, and whembly also had changing code.

    Is anyone real?

    frosty (f27e97)

  489. Probably not frosty. I do expect some of the nevertrump types here play game like Pierre Delecto.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  490. Guilty as charged, NJRob. My other names are John Miller, John Barron, David Dennison, and Carolin Gallego.

    nk (1d9030)

  491. In this thread BorisB, Dave, Davethulhu, Dustin, Kishnevi, Munroe, NJRob, Property rights, Time123, and whembly also had changing code.

    Is anyone real?

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/13/2020 @ 8:50 pm

    Like I said, we all change that code here and there. But some trolls show patterns both in that code (some change every single comment) and also in their tone. If I did change my name here you would recognize me pretty easily. And you’re pretty distinctive in tone too. I can definitely tell if a comment is yours, nk’s DRJ’s, especially Sammy’s, before I get to the name.

    I simply asked the two socks to say he hadn’t been banned/moderated and wasn’t using a VPN. Instead of all these ‘maybe I was at a bar’ oblique denials, why not just say “no” to those questions? He seems intensely interested in denying it inferentially without actually denying it.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  492. Guilty as charged, NJRob. My other names are John Miller, John Barron, David Dennison, and Carolin Gallego.

    nk (1d9030) — 2/13/2020 @ 9:02 pm

    Hello Mr. President. I didn’t see you there.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  493. In this thread BorisB, Dave, Davethulhu, Dustin, Kishnevi, Munroe, NJRob, Property rights, Time123, and whembly also had changing code.

    Is anyone real?

    Perhaps Dustin’s operating theory is that “we” in the 94% are using the same few “socks” in order to minimize our impact and give those in the 6% a chance.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  494. The likelihood that any prosecutor would be put on a jury for a criminal trial is 0%

    Alrighty, that makes sense. Substitute “Patterico” for “another one of the esteemed lawyers here.”

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  495. I simply asked the two socks to say he hadn’t been banned/moderated and wasn’t using a VPN. Instead of all these ‘maybe I was at a bar’ oblique denials, why not just say “no” to those questions? He seems intensely interested in denying it inferentially without actually denying it.

    It’s Christoph, but if he’s made up with Patterico and DRJ, then that’s why the rest of us have the blocking script.

    nk (1d9030)

  496. Actually, I haven’t been using it because I find his comments offensive. I’ve been using it because there are so many and so lengthy.

    nk (1d9030)

  497. Perhaps Dustin’s operating theory is that “we” in the 94% are using the same few “socks” in order to minimize our impact and give those in the 6% a chance.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/13/2020 @ 9:19 pm

    All you’re proving is that my point has really gotten on your nerves, and you’ll sarcastically suggest I’m wrong about this, yet you refuse to answer a simple yes/no question about it.

    I agree with nk you’re probably that christoph guy, which is why I thought you couldn’t just answer the question directly with a lie. Your mindset is based on imagined moral superiority.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  498. About different devices and WiFi; anyone know why the site takes forever to load on a cellular network? I can load the site fine from my phone as long as I’ve got WiFi but if not it hangs.

    frosty (f27e97)

  499. In this thread BorisB, Dave, Davethulhu, Dustin, Kishnevi, Munroe, NJRob, Property rights, Time123, and whembly also had changing code.

    Is anyone real?

    Perhaps Dustin’s operating theory is that “we” in the 94% are using the same few “socks” in order to minimize our impact and give those in the 6% a chance.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/13/2020 @ 9:19 pm

    I always and Only Post as Time123.
    Based on what I’ve read I think MAOA is not Munroe. MAOA seems a lot more versed in actual facts and willing to consider with conclusions that differ from his priors.

    Time123 (a7a01b)

  500. About different devices and WiFi; anyone know why the site takes forever to load on a cellular network? I can load the site fine from my phone as long as I’ve got WiFi but if not it hangs.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/14/2020 @ 4:41 am

    I’ve noticed that happens sometimes for me as well. Sorry I don’t have more insight.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  501. Boomers!

    You have good download speed (I have a nominal 15mbps) from your wifi and bad (as little as 4 kbps) from your cell phone service provider. Check your cell service plan.

    nk (1d9030)

  502. Mine loads fast on cellular. It probably just depends on your carrier and network.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  503. On the positive side, you can even.

    nk (1d9030)

  504. Mine loads fast on cellular. It probably just depends on your carrier and network.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/14/2020 @ 7:48 am

    Please answer my yes/no question about whether you’ve been banned here before and whether you’re using a VPN.

    :)

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  505. Please answer my yes/no question about whether you’ve been banned here before and whether you’re using a VPN.

    Please tell me this isn’t in answer to my @353. While I really don’t think this quite qualifies, it’s about as close as anyone has come. Not that there weren’t other contenders.

    PTw (894877)

  506. Please tell me this isn’t in answer to my @353

    LOL That wasn’t very nice. All I did was ask a yes/no question to someone who made weird non-denials.

    But I admit, part of the problem is you guys do tend to take politics so damn personally you actually seem to hate guys like me just for disagreeing with you. Like I said, drinking poison and hoping the other guy gets sick.

    If I ask the socks a yes/no question I’m not sure why you’re offended by it.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  507. part of the problem is you guys do tend to take politics so damn personally you actually seem to hate guys like me just for disagreeing with you.

    Project much? I wasn’t offended by it. Also note, it’s not the T supporters, at least as far as I’ve seen, that make an issue of getting people banned or brag about using the blocking script.

    PTw (894877)

  508. PTw,

    I haven’t interacted with you at all and you start with saying I am “bat-s stupid”.

    My response was to laugh it off.

    Why does it make you so mad that I’m being nice to you?

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  509. The whole Trump/Stone/Barr event just illustrates how Trump is his own worst enemy.

    All he had to do was make a 20 second phone call to Barr, and say, “Hey Bill, I heard they are seeking 9 years for Roger Stone. That sure sounds excessive. Why don’t you look into it.”

    Barr could then have directed the DOJ to review it, and file the second memo. (Assuming you don’t believe the story that they were already in the process of doing that before the tweets. Which story I very much doubt. But if true, then Barr could have said, “Mr. President, already on it.”)

    No one would have been the wiser.

    But because we have someone with no self-control at the helm, we have a blow-up, possibly a scandal, and now the second AG may resign. Notably, McConnell and Graham supported Barr, so they know this was a major own-goal.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  510. Also note, it’s not the T supporters,

    Why does it matter to your analysis of someone that they support Trump?

    make an issue of getting people banned or brag about using the blocking script.

    Why does it matter to banned trolls that they find workarounds like VPNs and sockpuppets? Why do they abuse these tools to flood a thread with ugliness? If they didn’t want a pleasant discussion in the first place, why are they here?

    I think the reason is that they believe their purpose in life is to stifle criticism of their Dear Leader. It’s an unfortunate reaction to the dumber nature of politics these days.

    At any rate, your effort to dismiss my question to Munroe and his socks is unserious. I know I’ll never get an honest and direct answer. He’s responded to it five times without answering. Therefore it is pretty reasonable to conclude he is indeed a sockpuppet of a banned commenter. Which suggests a certain amount of obsession that I find fascinating.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  511. #522

    Maybe Trump likes the appearance he has DOJ obeying him absolutely. On the theory that keeps the prosecutions in line.

    Appalled (e69d6d)

  512. Now we have to add Tucker Carlson to the liar column. He leads his show last night with the lie that Stone is looking at nine years for lying…which is a lie. Or two.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  513. Trump wants to show he is in charge. What he never seems to grasp is that even Presidents are bound by our Constitution and laws.

    DRJ (15874d)

  514. Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/14/2020 @ 8:45 am

    It seems like the main complaint is that Trump interfered and what you describe looks like it would also be interfering.

    I don’t think any of us think the method and tone are productive but how would he avoid being accused of interfering by any honorable gentlemen within earshot? And since it was done out of sight wouldn’t it automatically be suspect?

    frosty (f27e97)

  515. nk (1d9030) — 2/14/2020 @ 7:48 am

    After looking at the page requests it might be the feed.css and feed.js links. They are using a URL with a host that doesn’t resolve. My guess is my phone browser gets stuck waiting for those to timeout.

    frosty (f27e97)

  516. Dustin (b8d6d1) — 2/14/2020 @ 8:49 am

    1) Your question was directed to MAOA, who I am not — though this will make no difference to you.
    2) A flat “no” will not suffice with you, though those are the answers. You will prove to me in this same thread that a straight answer won’t suffice.
    3) The data is in front of you, how long I have been commenting, my consistent IP, whether I’ve been banned (no). You don’t need answers to your juvenile questions that you pester people to answer —until, against their better judgement, they finally respond.
    4) After how long I’ve been commenting here, you choose to make a false claim now, in the present, because I’ve once again brought up your sorry commenting history. You could’ve made this claim a year ago. This is how you attack people who present facts you don’t like.
    5) The good host Mr. P likes you, for whatever reason, and I annoy him. Any spat between us will likely be resolved in your favor. You know this, so making false claims is simply baiting. Sorry, no thanks. That said, it’s his blog to do with as he wishes.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  517. Everything Bored Lawyer just said makes sense; however, Trump got lucky.

    This corrupt head juror, whose name the left-wing Obama appointee judge had threatened Stone and others with jail for if they published, has singlehandedly undermined her goal and changed the narrative, which is now focused on the terrible legal process in Stone’s case.

    I see that lawyers Viva Frei and Robert Barnes talked about it on YouTube in a joint discussion last night on Frei’s channel (“Talking Roger Stone with Attorney Robert Barnes – Viva Frei Live Stream”). After this discussion, Viva Frei made many of the same points I’ve been making in a standalone video (“Bias Juror and Roger Stone Injustice – Lawyer Explains – Viva Frei Vlawg”), where he did a masterful job of pointing out how this is a true-life “Runaway Jury” situation (during the movie, he thought it was absurd, but now here it is) with her gaining foremanship of and influence of the jury, in another video he released last night.

    He left off a few of the important points I made, including Hart’s tweet the day of the verdict, yet in general he was bang on.

    Lawyer Cernovich agrees (YT: “Roger Stone jury foreman was a far left wing activist”) and, while no doubt many of you will roll your eyes at his name, he’s entirely right in this case. He’s also announced he’s going to file a federal lawsuit related to it and he has a recent history of getting a positive result in a federal court. Mike Cernovich is making a broader point about the politicization and corruption of the federal judiciary or “prosecutors in robes” as he put it. It also highlights the problem with having anonymous jurors, just like an anoymous senate would be.

    Word.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  518. how would he avoid being accused of interfering by any honorable gentlemen within earshot? And since it was done out of sight wouldn’t it automatically be suspect?

    The fail-safe, works-every-time method is to NOT INTERFERE. Let the process process. Then a POTUS can step in, IF really justified, with relative impunity.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  519. My guess is my phone browser gets stuck waiting for those to timeout.

    It could also be how different ISPs treat websites without encryption and a security certificate. Patterico can probably pick one up from his host for about 15 bucks a year if he wants, then get rid of the “Not secure” warning the site gives (at least in Chrome).

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  520. Munroe,

    Thank you for answering my questions directly. You struggled mightily against doing so, but now you have stated you have never used a VPN and have never been banned and have never been moderated here under any name. Now it’s between you and your own personal integrity. You get to look at yourself in the mirror and determine if you’re honorable or not. Thanks for answering though.

    I’ve once again brought up your sorry commenting history.

    Yes you do seem really obsessed with being the comment police here, because of my negative (and admittedly minority) opinion of the entire group of men from Covington. Because it is a proven fact that the group indeed mocked a man for his race, and therefore my criticism they were racist, you have dishonestly focused on only one of the men (who you also lied was 15 years old, even though he was born in 2002 and the event happened in 2019). To the extent you have succeeded in narrowing the discussion to one person, I should have (And generally did) redirect to the group that we know was racist. Obviously I reject that the actions of everyone else there whatabout justifies anything. You have a very different attitude about whatabouts than I do.

    You are infuriated that I asked you a couple of yes or no questions, yet you are attempting to be the comment police for an opinion I wrote over a year ago. This is because you are consistently and utterly commenting in bad faith.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  521. Oh hey you are both here at the same time… how convenient! It’s like you’re clocking in for a job.

    MAOA, can you answer the same questions Munroe answered too, since you guys claim to be different people.

    Have you used a VPN to comment here? Have you ever been banned/moderated?

    You obviously have offered non-denial denials sorta, but a firm yes or no would really be appreciated.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  522. Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/14/2020 @ 9:32 am

    I’m actually not a fan of this new encryption regime. I don’t like making people buy a cert or they get the hose again. There’s no reason this site needs SSL.

    frosty (f27e97)

  523. 522. Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/14/2020 @ 8:45 am

    All he had to do was make a 20 second phone call to Barr, and say, “Hey Bill, I heard they are seeking 9 years for Roger Stone. That sure sounds excessive. Why don’t you look into it.”

    Trump doesn’t do cover-ups. Or if he tries any, he’s incompetent at them. He doesn’t try.

    As for Barr, had he got such a call, Barr would have told him he would make his own decision. If Trump tried to dorect him, he would have told him he would resign, bit that would not be good for him.

    Barr doesn’t need the job, or any future one.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  524. I agree. This wouldn’t seem to be the sort of site that needs SSL as even the options to support it financially link to other secure sites (like Amazon). However, Google, in its infinite wisdom, set the direction for it as a new Web standard… so it is what it is.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  525. How was this a runaway jury? The evidence against Stone was primarily written, much of it taken from Stone’s emails and texts.

    DRJ (15874d)

  526. Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/14/2020 @ 9:32 am

    then get rid of the “Not secure” warning the site gives (at least in Chrome)

    It’s not doing that, but HotAir does, in one version at least of Chrome.

    Patterico can still be read in Internet Explorer.

    The idea that the use of two different hashes means someone is using a VPN is all wrong. What would be suspicious is the same hash by two different people. (but maybe they know each other, and one used the other one;s device one time, or they live in the same place. Or used the same public computer.)

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  527. How was this a runaway jury?

    It exists only in the fevered fantasy of Make America Offal Again.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  528. I use Chrome and get the “Not secure” warning, in black and sometimes in red, with the warning sign no less.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  529. Dustin (b8d6d1) — 2/14/2020 @ 9:38 am

    Yes you do seem really obsessed with being the comment police here

    This isn’t meant as an attack but you keep making comments with a complete lack of self-awareness.

    frosty (f27e97)

  530. lol

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  531. 527. frosty (f27e97) — 2/14/2020 @ 9:15 am

    I don’t think any of us think the method and tone are productive but how would he avoid being accused of interfering by any honorable gentlemen within earshot? And since it was done out of sight wouldn’t it automatically be suspect?

    If it was out of sight, at most his political enemies could suspect it, and they could, in turn, be accused of indulging in a partisan conspiracy theory, if anyone dared to raise the question.

    But his name is not Clinton.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  532. 515. Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/14/2020 @ 7:48 am

    Mine loads fast on cellular. It probably just depends on your carrier and network.

    Mostly on how much work, compared to capacity, your device is doing.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  533. Yes, of course, as I predicted so long ago. Always trust content from Munroe.

    DOJ won’t pursue criminal charges against McCabe
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-wont-pursue-criminal-charges-against-mccabe

    The prospect of having to convince a DC or NVA jury of fellow lying dog-faced pony soldier peers probably factored heavily.

    Munroe (f62389)

  534. If it pleases the court, let the record show that Dustin is NOT upset. Repeat, Dustin is NOT upset. Seriously, dude. Projecting.

    PTw (894877)

  535. I would worry if this were a Democratic President’s DOJ, Munroe, but this is Trump/Barr’s DOJ. Do you think they would hesitate to bring charges against McCabe if they thought there were any? Maybe Trump will tweet about it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  536. Stone’s defense was basically So what? because the evidence was overwhelming. Should a jury ignore that because it might look like politics?

    DRJ (15874d)

  537. Maybe…!?!?!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  538. The prospect of having to convince a DC or NVA jury of fellow lying dog-faced pony soldier peers probably factored heavily.

    Speaking of which, trying Stone in DC when he lives in Florida and the alleged misconduct didn’t occur in DC either, was obscene, and a typical trick of federal prosecutors.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  539. Even Barr’s DOJ says Stone deserves prison, just not as much time as the original recommendation. I hope they look into the juror and her rhetoric. I hope Stone gets a chance to explore that further and get answers. But one mouthy juror does not mean the system is fixed or rotten.

    DRJ (15874d)

  540. Even Barr’s DOJ says Stone deserves prison, just not as much time as the original recommendation.

    Wow, prosecutors prefer the defendant they just tried go to prison. Whodathunkit?

    The point is the jury was corrupted.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  541. 538. DRJ (15874d) — 2/14/2020 @ 9:51 am

    How was this a runaway jury?

    It’s grand juries, not petit juries that “run away”

    By subpoenaing witnesses and even issuing indictments that the prosecutor doesn’t want. Ordinary juries can’t “run away.”

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  542. the alleged misconduct didn’t occur in DC either

    So lying to Congress happened in Florida…?!?!

    You are truly amazing…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  543. The evidence against Stone was primarily written, much of it taken from Stone’s emails and texts.

    That proved, he had communicated with Wikileaks, albeit only in asking them not to contradict his public claims of being in contact with them (before); and he had communicated with some people in the Trump campaign about wikileaks leaks; and he had communicated by email with Randy Credico; and he had pulled out all the stops, including even hinting he should commit suicide, in trying to get Randy Credito not to contradict his lie to the House Intelligence Committee that Randy Credito had been his intermediary with wikileaks, and presumably, had given him inside information from Wikileaks (which actually there is no reason to believe Roger Stone actually had any, when you look at all the evidence.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  544. One mouthy juror is not proof of a corrupted jury. Also, the charges were brought in DC because the DNC server was there, and Stone was charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation and lying to Congress in DC.

    DRJ (15874d)

  545. Wow, prosecutors prefer the defendant they just tried go to prison. Whodathunkit?

    More outright BS.

    The point was that BARR wanted some prison, which is totally justified for the under-thug.

    The typical result of a just jury verdict for breaking our laws.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  546. 555. The threats and the imploring of Randy Credito, which is the most important wrong thing Roger Stone did, didn’t happen in DC.

    But all the testimony was in DC. (or was the Mueller grand jury in Virginia? But that was anywa, later)

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  547. Someone on WOR says that the juror they are talking about tweeted suopPrt for the big raid on Roger Stone’s home.

    Yet she might have answered the limited questions she was asked truthfully, and didn’t know much about the case.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  548. Stone knew the danger of a DC jury. His attorneys knew it, too. Stone strenuously argued that the case should be dismissed or, at least, should not be tried in DC but the Court ruled against him. Maybe the juror conduct, coupled with the earlier Motion to dismiss/transfer venue, will resonate with the Court and give Stone a new trial. However, IMO he should hope the Court uses all this as a basis to lower his sentence, because a red state jury could convict on these facts.

    DRJ (15874d)

  549. If it pleases the court, let the record show that Dustin is NOT upset. Repeat, Dustin is NOT upset. Seriously, dude. Projecting.

    PTw (894877) — 2/14/2020 @ 10:02 am

    Any anger you’re reading into my comments wasn’t intended to be there. I believe I’ve treated you with much more patience and respect than you’re willing to show others. I quoted you and asked why it should matter if a comment is from a “T supporter”? I don’t see why that matters.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  550. 561. DRJ (15874d) — 2/14/2020 @ 10:41 am

    However, IMO he should hope the Court uses all this as a basis to lower his sentence, because a red state jury could convict on these facts.

    It’s a general defense strategy to keep on appealing and appealing, on the Micawber principle that “something will turn up” (from Charles Dickens’s 1850 novel David Copperfield) at least until they get an offer of no jail time.

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6794 secs.