Patterico's Pontifications

2/19/2020

My Prediction for the Roger Stone Sentence: 30 Months; UPDATE: Maybe Not

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:14 pm



I predict 30 months. I don’t think she’s going to impose the eight-level enhancement for the threats to Credico — and his little dog too. For sure, I don’t think she will impose the two-level enhancement for his social media shenanigans. I think she will see the other two-level and three-level enhancements as overlapping and will impose only the three-level enhancement of those two. Instead of offense level 29, I’m thinking offense level 17: a range of 24-30 months, and she imposes the sentence at the top of the range.

It could go as high as 37 months. So my range is 24-37 months, with my prediction being 30 months.

We’ll find out tomorrow.

Trump is going to pardon him anyway.

UPDATE: The sentencing hearing is going on now but I would be surprised at this point, based on what I have been reading, if the judge gives a sentence as low as I had predicted. It looks like she is inclined to hammer Stone — and the Government as well, for the fiasco involved in submitting two different memos. You will be reading a lot more about this hearing in the news today.

236 Responses to “My Prediction for the Roger Stone Sentence: 30 Months; UPDATE: Maybe Not”

  1. Everything about this post is absolutely correct. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (d83d3a)

  2. I am no federal criminal law expert and am not really conversant with the Sentencing Guidelines. Mainly I read the original brief (the one Bill Barr overruled) and the chart and made an educated guess.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. Your reasoning makes as much sense anything at this point; it would be a reasonable way to approach it. Also, a non-excessive punishment is arguably less likely to trigger Trump to pardon Stone.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  4. Trump will pardon Stone no matter the sentence.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  5. My prediction- she’ll throw the book at him to the max.

    If only to reassert judicial authority- because it won’t matter anyway; he’ll be pardoned by the President.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  6. The only question is when. A disciplined politician would clearly wait until January, 2021. So yeah, probably tomorrow. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (d83d3a)

  7. 30 months plus a hefty fine has been my prediction, too, despite Stone’s and Trump’s utmost efforts to piss off the judge. No special insights or expertise on my part other than that Obama did not appoint hanging judges to the DC Circuit.

    nk (1d9030)

  8. mr president trump makes the sun shine and trees grow and in his spare time he even makes failmerica great again so where does some slimy judge get the nerve to be mean to his friends

    its just outrageous

    Dave (1bb933)

  9. Hell hath no fury like a female judge scorned. I believe we’re going to see a sentence around the eight year mark, to begin immediately without being free pending appeal. In addition, if there’s any way for her to keep the gag order going, she will, and she’s going to fight the appeal like a rabid doberman.

    Georg Felis (0fff9e)

  10. I believe that’s the same sentence I thought was fair.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  11. The fricking judge should lose her job and then do 300 months in a fed. pen.making license plates.

    mg (8cbc69)

  12. Roger Stone is not worth all this rancor, comrades. He’s a wife-swapping, bi-sexual pervert and that’s probably his finest quality.

    nk (1d9030)

  13. If Trump is going to pardon Stone regardless, she might as well throw the book at him.

    Paul Montagu (e80d22)

  14. lawyers and judges are the ones who need books thrown at them

    mg (8cbc69)

  15. Throwing the book at Stone just makes Trump’s predictable pardon look reasonable, and won’t serve as a deterrence for similarly situated criminals. So she will do what she would ordinarily do.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  16. Unlike Trump, Judge Jackson has principles. Also unlike Trump, she’s a grownup. She won’t let his reprehnsible, infantile antics sway her from what the law, sentencing guidelines, and good judgment dictate. I expect something in the range of Pat’s prediction.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  17. Unlike Trump, Judge Jackson has principles. Also unlike Trump, she’s a grownup. She won’t let his reprehnsible, infantile antics sway her from what the law, sentencing guidelines, and good judgment dictate. I expect something in the range of Pat’s prediction.

    lurker (d8c5bc) — 2/20/2020 @ 4:03 am

    That’s not proven yet. Her refusal to permit a change of venue and her decisions on the makeup of the jury leave doubt to your remarks.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  18. As it appears to be true that the thug in the Oval Office keeps pardoning himself, the under-thug will be pardoned. Both thugs deserve each other.

    https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2020/02/trump-keeps-pardoning/

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  19. My prediction- she’ll throw the book at him to the max.

    If only to reassert judicial authority- because it won’t matter anyway; he’ll be pardoned by the President.

    That’s the sure way to demonstrate a judge only rules on the facts and refuses to use judicial power as a cudgel to punish those that irk their sensibilities. Yes, I think you’re right, the judge will wield all her power to inflict pain. No hint of applying justice.

    President Trump keeps winning

    iowan2 (1c4a14)

  20. I hope mg needs a good lawyer one day…and can’t find one.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  21. If only to reassert judicial authority- because it won’t matter anyway; he’ll be pardoned by the President.

    but

    That’s the sure way to demonstrate a judge only rules on the facts and refuses to use judicial power as a cudgel to punish those that irk their sensibilities.

    If she sentenced the felon under the guidelines, she WOULD be only ruling on the facts AND the law.

    And with T-rump in power, America keeps losing.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  22. Not everybody is an orange deviant. Trump is the mean-minded, petty and spiteful, old b!tch, here. And he keeps whining.

    nk (1d9030)

  23. 12, someone does need to be made an example of, and hell he’s the perfect candidate. We will soon see a pardonee that will be greeted by a lynch mob, not an airport or front porch presser .

    urbanleftbehind (7f1a1e)

  24. 3 years feels like the low side of ‘right; to me. No idea what the law says, but trying to orchestrate a cover up to a legitimate congressional investigation through lies and pushing others to lie needs to have a fairly stiff penalty.

    Regarding the Juror who was a Democrat, I want to see if she withheld information on her disclosure form. If the defense was aware of the information and accepted her assurance that she could render a verdict despite biases than I’m also OK with it. Also, there were 11 others that thought he was guilty also, and he appears to actually be guilty.

    time123 (7cca75)

  25. I will not be heartbroken, only surprised and not necessarily unpleasantly, if my prediction is wrong, urbanleftbehind. Not being a Fifth Avenue nancy-boy with bone spurs and strange yearnings, I have a lot of respect for Judge Amy, her legal expertise, her temperament, and her judgment.

    nk (1d9030)

  26. Here is the Questionnaire (PDF) each juror had to answer, Time123. I don’t think we have access to the responses. But if the Judge is continuing with Stone’s sentencing today, despite having held a hearing two days ago (presumably including the defense motion to dismiss and/or regarding the juror conduct), it is fair to conclude the defense motion was not granted and the judge found no misconduct.

    DRJ (15874d)

  27. The interesting questions start on page 11.

    DRJ (15874d)

  28. DRJ, thank you!

    time123 (7cca75)

  29. It seems like honest answers to those questions would give the defense the information they need to challenge the Juror.

    time123 (7cca75)

  30. Not entirely sure what to make of this comment, but it could be a much, much stiffer sentence than I predicted.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  31. And what does it mean for the prosecutor to be advocating this? Are they talking about the eight-level enhancement??

    Patterico (115b1f)

  32. They can’t be.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  33. I don’t see where Stone’s requested a change of venue, the defense team struck 38 potential jurors and Stone’s attorneys had full knowledge of the jury’s political bents (link).
    I also don’t see where or how this affects Judge Amy’s bias or competence.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  34. You’re welcome. It covers these issues, including blogging, but I bet there were several potential jurors who blogged/commented online.

    DRJ (15874d)

  35. 26. 27. Question 20 goes:

    20. Have you or any close friend or family member ever run for or held a political office in the federal, state, or local government? Yes ___ No ___

    Note that it doesn’t ask for specifics. She must have answered a simple yes.

    So the defense lawyer was surprised to hear, when he asked if she had worked on a campaign, that she herself had run for Congress (this was in 2012 in or around Memphis Tennessee but they didn’t get into it.)

    There is a question about public commentary about the defendants or about the two inquiries connected with this case, the HSPCI one and the Mueller one, but it seems geared toward commentary that someone would have devoted some time and paid some attention to:

    19. Have you written anything for public consumption about the defendant, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? For purposes of this question, writing for public consumption includes blog posts, articles, or posts on internet sites that are accessible to the general public.

    Yes ___ No ___
    If yes, please describe when and where you did so and the subject of your comments:

    Could somebody really be expected to remember tweets?
    _____________________________________

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  36. It covers blog posts, but even if it technically includes blog comments and tweets they weren’t thinking about that. It’s more long form, and featured writing. She did write some words about Roger Stone.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  37. Paul Montagu,

    I may be wrong but my recollection is Stone filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docket 69 filed April 12, 2019) that argued for a venue change if the court did not dismiss the case.

    DRJ (15874d)

  38. She has ruled that the 8-level enhancement will apply. He is getting a stiff sentence, it appears.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  39. But maybe there is an avenue to discretionarily back out of it at the end, even though she has decided it applies. Like I said, I don’t understand this stuff.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  40. Federal judges are upset about what Trump has done in this case, and Judge Berman is a federal judge. I think this tells us why Barr criticized Trump. I bet he heard from many, many federal judges.

    DRJ (15874d)

  41. Tier 1 justice versus tier 2. It’s all so hard to keep straight.

    It is clear though which tiers apply to which defendants.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  42. She has ruled that the 8-level enhancement will apply. He is getting a stiff sentence, it appears.

    While your approach would have been more sensible and even-handed, her partisan vindictiveness is not a surprise. Trump definitely needs to pardon, ideally today, for the justice and political reasons Will Chamberlain outlined in a recent Periscope, which you can see on the OpenMind YouTube channel, published February 14th, entitled “DOJ WILL NOT PROSECUTE ANDREW MCCABE: If Trump wants to win in 2020, he MUST pardon Stone and Flynn.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  43. Just because a lot of people found Stone’s threats to Credico and his dog unconvincing and even humorous, that doesn’t mean they should be ignored. Federal courts should not be in the business of deciding which threats might result in harm in public cases like this. It isn’t just Stone who might have acted on his threat.

    DRJ (15874d)

  44. So threatening people is harmless if you support Trump?

    DRJ (15874d)

  45. DRJ, I stand corrected on venue!

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  46. And it is partisan vindictiveness to hold Trump supporters accountable, because we all know they never mean what they say?

    DRJ (15874d)

  47. “Just because a lot of people found Stone’s threats to Credico and his dog unconvincing and even humorous, that doesn’t mean they should be ignored.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/20/2020 @ 7:57 am

    Stuff shouldn’t get ignored unless the right people do it.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  48. Paul, it was a minor issue in that pleading, so minor that I am not sure my recollection is correct (but I think it is). But apart from venue, I think there will be a legitimate jurisdictional appeal issue on the decision to keep the trial in DC. The court found jurisdiction based on the fact the DNC server was in DC and hacked there, and Stone’s surrogates negotiated with agents of Wikileaks. That is nexus, I suppose, but attenuated. Jurisdiction may have been more appropriate in the district of Stone’s residence.

    But I doubt we will ever know because PARDON.

    DRJ (15874d)

  49. …her partisan vindictiveness is not a surprise

    She definitely seems to be partial to the law.

    Duh Donald is an outlaw.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  50. I am *loving* what the judge is doing now: reaming the current prosecutor about the two memos and the process. Man oh man.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. There is a reason federal judges are upset. Trump’s tweets and Stone’s threats/obstruction undermine the Rule of Law and respect for the courts. Commenters here are already blaming this decision on partisan vindictiveness and not being the “right people.” Our system could easily turn into anarchy if we stop believing in law.

    DRJ (15874d)

  52. Vindictiveness? Who said vindictiveness? That’s like saying “orange” and “combover”. It’s the Trump hallmarks. Vindictiveness is Trump’s essential nature, and his political platform that got every loser with a grievance wanting “payback” behind him.

    nk (1d9030)

  53. UPDATE: The sentencing hearing is going on now but I would be surprised at this point, based on what I have been reading, if the judge gives a sentence as low as I had predicted. It looks like she is inclined to hammer Stone — and the Government as well, for the fiasco involved in submitting two different memos. You will be reading a lot more about this hearing in the news today.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  54. TPM has a live feed. These parts are interesting.

    Just moments ago, Berman Jackson took a direct shot at the DOJ reversal controversy.

    She also thought little of Stone’s “anxiety” excuse, and said that enhancement for his post-indictment conduct applies, including his threatening Instagram post against the judge.

    “The defendant engaged in threatening and intimidating behavior toward the court,” she says, referencing the instagram post with a crosshairs over her shoulder.
    She says that even if she though he was just firing off, “The D.C. circuit has made it clear that such conduct satisfies the test.”
    Rather than just send an email, “He used the tools of social media” to guarantee “the broadest dissemination possible.”
    It wasn’t accidental, she says — he had his staff help him do it.
    “He knew exactly what he was doing,” she says.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  55. We clearly need more Obama judges like Judge Amy.

    Yay Bernie!

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  56. 47.“Just because a lot of people found Stone’s threats to Credico and his dog unconvincing and even humorous, that doesn’t mean they should be ignored.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/20/2020 @ 7:57 am

    Stuff shouldn’t get ignored unless the right people do it.
    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:05 am

    You say the same whiney things over and over again but never address the fact that Trump and Barr are running the process that causes you such distress. At some point don’t the people in charge have to take ownership of the results of the process?

    time123 (dba73f)

  57. You have it backwards, DRJ. This shows that the law is political and biased in the federal courts. The President needs to correct this and for that he needs to get on the pardons.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  58. MAOA do you believe that Stone is innocent? That he didn’t like to congress and try to get others to lie as well?

    time123 (dba73f)

  59. time123 (dba73f) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:20 am

    You mean, like writing a memo taking issue with a proposed sentence by line attorneys?

    You liked that, did you?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  60. Why is it biased — the result, the juror, or something else? We can discuss it but you don’t get to state it as a fact.

    DRJ (15874d)

  61. I believe the law is being politically and unfairly applied.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  62. Watch the video I just cited, DRJ.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  63. There is a reason federal judges are upset.

    We sometimes forget how the thug behind the Resolute desk has had a hate on for judges since the earliest days of his regime.

    It seems only natural, since they are some of the few people who can jerk him back from his depredations.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  64. It sounds like the 8 level enhancement was for Stone’s crosshairs tweet directed at the judge as much as the Credico threat.

    DRJ (15874d)

  65. Stone was so clearly slam dunk guilty, we had to make sure the venue was DC.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  66. 63. Just like everything else in Trump’s life; when it suits his needs/desires, he loves it. When it gets in his way, it must be destroyed. Judges, too.

    Gryph (08c844)

  67. This shows that the law is political and biased in the federal courts.

    How? A jury of his peers convicted him and, before Barr insinuated himself, his sentencing was based on a formula.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  68. I don’t see a video/link. Can you help me find it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  69. I believe the law is being politically and unfairly applied.

    How? Please be specific.

    Also, you’re video is a complete lie. First, the DOJ did attempt to bring charges, so beginning any conversation with the exact opposite supposition is plainly stupid. It makes the points covered less compelling, it’s a conspiracy delusion, plain and simple.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  70. More from TPM:

    Crabb defends the prosecution of Stone, calling it “righteous.” He also express “confidence” in the judge’s ability to sentence Stone.

    This was the replacement prosecutor that Barr presumably picked.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  71. This shows that the law is political and biased in the federal courts. The President needs to correct this and for that he needs to get on the pardons.

    But that’s the LAST thing a T-rump pardon would effect. More than half the nation will rightly see it as a crime boss protecting his underling.

    Which it is…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  72. There are other arguments that jurisdiction/venue are proper in DC. Stone was working to help the Trump campaign in its national Presidential campaign. It doesn’t get much more DC than that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  73. 61.I believe the law is being politically and unfairly applied.
    Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:24 am

    So does BLM.

    Roger Stone had the option to take the 5th. He had the option to tell the truth. He chose to lie, he chose to get others to lie in order to hide his involvement in what was a legitimate investigation. Twelve people heard the evidence, heard his arguments and found him guilty.

    In this case do you feel that Roger Stone is guilty? Or not?

    time123 (dba73f)

  74. Stone wisely decided not to speak at his sentencing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  75. …we had to make sure the venue was DC.

    Venue is defined by rules. You commit a felony in DC, you get a trial in DC.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  76. “It doesn’t get much more DC than that.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:31 am

    Because DC has all those electoral votes.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  77. 54. Paul Montagu (ae8832) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:15 am

    Rather than just send an email, “He used the tools of social media” to guarantee “the broadest dissemination possible.”

    It wasn’t accidental, she says — he had his staff help him do it.

    “He knew exactly what he was doing,” she says

    He didn’t want to threaten the court; he wanted to give the appearance of threatening the court.

    And maybe of that working, because that would be worth money to him.

    The whole thing was caused by Stone wanting to appear he was really connected. That’s why he wouldn’t say under oath that, in truth, he never had any advance knowledge of forthcoming release of hacked emails from Wikileaks. (more than the general public did, that is)

    He made one bad prediction.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  78. You’d have to search for it, DRJ. I’d sent it as a link but can’t get even one through the spam filter. However, you can either go to the Videos section of the OpenMinds channel and find it there or search by the video title, in quotes, on YouTube.

    It should pull up. Included the complete title for that reason.

    I wish I could get links through, as you seem to be able, but unfortunately I can’t.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  79. time123 (dba73f) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:31 am

    Roger Stone had the option to take the 5th. He had the option to tell the truth. He chose to lie, he chose to get others to lie in order to hide his involvement

    No.

    To hide his non-involvement in the hacking and the leaking.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  80. Sammy, That’s plausible. But doesn’t change the crime he committed.

    time123 (dba73f)

  81. “Twelve people heard the evidence, heard his arguments and found him guilty.”
    time123 (dba73f) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:31 am

    Twelve people… because we can’t say “a jury of his peers”. Nobody wants to sound that ridiculous.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  82. He didn’t want to threaten the court; he wanted to give the appearance of threatening the court.

    That appears to have worked brilliantly

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  83. We don’t know whether Roger Stone might have done other things, even criminal things, that affected the 2016 campaign, but what was going on here was Roger Stone trying to claim to be part of a conspiracy which he wasn’t a part of. He got cornered and was forced to name his connection to Wikileaks. Problem: There wasn’t one.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  84. He didn’t want to threaten the court; he wanted to give the appearance of threatening the court.

    That sounds like mindreading to me, Sammy. There are an untold number of true-believing Trumpalistas who could’ve taken Stone’s threat as a call to action.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  85. I will look for it. Not sure why you are having problems but never include more than 3 links in any single comment or it will go to spam.

    DRJ (15874d)

  86. I saw MAOA’s video and didn’t see any redeeming value.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  87. I can’t include even one, DRJ. I have no idea why.

    I thought maybe yours go through because maybe you’re logged in WP as a guest blogger or something.

    Paul, I don’t expect you or DRJ to be persuaded by Will Chamberlain’s position. My hope with sharing it is merely that you would understand it better, intellectually and also in terms of how we feel about it.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  88. I don’t know what the sentence will be or should be but the reports of the questioning vindicates the original 4 prosecutors. The new prosecution team admitted that the original sentencing recommendation was accurate and it sounded like the prosecution had returned to it as definitive.

    DRJ (15874d)

  89. No, I comment as a regular commenter but there are many tech things I don’t understand. I am sure there is a reason but I have no idea what it is.

    DRJ (15874d)

  90. Humble self not believe even honorable Trumpkins believe what they say.
    This lowly one think they are only providing honorable emperor with fig leaf.
    Thankfully, gracious majesty only need very small fig leaf.

    nk (1d9030)

  91. The judge is coming off as a political hack. Hopefully, she’ll give Stone an insanely long sentence, thereby making it easier for Trump to pardon. The question is really when to pardon, before or after the appeal.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  92. It isn’t much of an argument, nk, to, because you don’t understand or agree with it, say your opponents aren’t sincere in their positions, thoughts, and beliefs.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  93. Nothing that Judge Amy said so far has been conciliatory toward Mr. Stone, so it sounds like she’ll go all Gus Petch on him.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  94. The judge is coming off as a political hack. Hopefully, she’ll give Stone an insanely long sentence, thereby making it easier for Trump to pardon.

    Yes.

    And the best answer to your question is Monday morning. The second best answer is now.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  95. Is common for gracious and merciful emperor to hear petition for clemency after honorable defendant has exhausted all judicial remedies.

    On other hand is also common for Son of Heaven to be Mandarin and not Manchurian orange.

    nk (1d9030)

  96. Because DC has all those electoral votes.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:36 am

    Jurisdiction can be complex but DC is where the Federal Election Commission is headquartered. It oversees federal campaign contributions. Stone was a campaign advisor but, as we now know, continued to work with the campaign after being “fired.” The services Stone provided the campaign regarding the Wikileaks information may be considered in kind contributions under FEC rules.

    DRJ (15874d)

  97. But this wasn’t an FEC related charge so I don’t think that applies here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  98. Also munroe couldn’t care less about fact based arguments.

    Time123 (d54166)

  99. Maoa What do you see that makes the judge appear like a political hack. Generally interested.

    Time123 (d54166)

  100. If a Court of Appeals finds that Stone neither resided nor committed the crime in DC, then it’s a slam dunk reversal, and neither the prosecutors nor the trial judge are as dumb as Trump. They would not have committed such an obvious error.

    nk (1d9030)

  101. “Also munroe couldn’t care less about fact based arguments.”
    Time123 (d54166) — 2/20/2020 @ 9:09 am

    Viva le Projection

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  102. The 8-point enhancement for what was common between them fake-mafia style banter with his friend, to start with. Not being outraged by the John Grisham-style runaway lead juror.

    That’s a start. There’s more.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  103. SF: He didn’t want to threaten the court; he wanted to give the appearance of threatening the court.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832) — 2/20/2020 @ 8:44 am That sounds like mindreading to me, Sammy.

    The only possible result of someone attacking the judge, or the judge perceiving it as a threat would be that his bail would be revoked. He couldn’t want that. He might have beenn trying to get her to recuse herself on the grounds she couldn’t be impartial..

    Now what he did was post something on Instagram that could be read two ways, as a threat and not a threat. The cross-hairs was probably a deliberate copy of what was on Sarah Palin’s website (?) in 2010 (? On Facebook she linked to her PAC – the PAC produced that map – and it’s not even clear how someone would get to see that map) She (or her PAC rather) had put cross hairs on some members of Congress she wanted to see defeated, one of whom was Gabby Giffords.

    It was accused of inspiring an attacker, but is generally accepted as having NOT been any kind of an inspiration.

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/15/new-york-times-editorial-board/no-evidence-sarah-palins-pac-incited-shooting-rep-

    So now you can see: That’s why Roger Stone chose to imitate it. Roger Stone thought he was in the clear in advance. But when it comes to a member of Congress you can talk of targeted them (for defeat in an election) There’s nothing similar when it comes to federal judges.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  104. The judge is coming off as a political hack.

    No. She’s coming across as a pissed-off Federal judge who has been threatened by a little pervert and had her court screwed with by the thug-in-chief.

    I don’t know of one such judge who you’d approve of; they all can be quite cranky.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  105. This wasn’t about partisanship, this was about Trump:

    ABJ points out that Stone’s obstruction wasn’t directed at “an anti-Trump cabal,” but rather at the House Intelligence Committee, which was at the time controlled by Republicans and chaired by Devin Nunes.

    That is from this Twitter feed covering the sentencing hearing. It is enlightening. The judge is not being partisan but she is skewering Stone. He should hope she is merciful or that Trump is loyal. But if Trump pardons Stone after this, I predict Barr will leave.

    DRJ (15874d)

  106. If a Court of Appeals finds that Stone neither resided nor committed the crime in DC, then it’s a slam dunk reversal, and neither the prosecutors nor the trial judge are as dumb as Trump. They would not have committed such an obvious error.

    Did they move for a change of venue? Venue is the kind of thing you waive if you do not raise it.

    The same thing for the supposed bias of the juror. Unless new information came out since the trial (always possible), then they knew, or should have known, that she was biased and moved to dismiss her. They did that for dozens of other jurors, and the judge granted them that.

    Seriously folks, Stone is a scum bag, a criminal and deserves serious time. Arguably, 3 to 4 years is enough, as oppose to 7 to 9. I can hear both sides. But to make Stone the poster boy for unfairness of the judicial system is really off.

    Flynn and Papadapolous, IMO, are far better arguments for unfairness. (And, in response to arguments in the prior thread, Flynn was prosecuted with vehemence, the DOJ threatened to go after his son, and so he agreed to a plea. Contrast that with McCabe. So, yes, there is a double standard there. But not Stone.)

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  107. Sammy,

    The usual word for something people are supposed to take as a threat is “threat”.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  108. According to Bill Rehkopf on Twitter seven minutes ago:

    Jackson says she agrees with the amended [emphasis addecd] sentence memo, in terms of its scope. She also says that the defense’s probation request is “simply not sufficient.”

    So maybe she is pissed off, but is walking back somewhat?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  109. In fairness, the obstruction charges involved Congress so perhaps that is sufficient for jurisdiction, nk.

    DRJ (15874d)

  110. BTW, does anyone here know the answer to this question. Can the President issue a partial commutation of sentence? Let’s say the judge sentences Stone to 9 year. Can the president say, that is excessive, so I am reducing it to 4 years? Or does he have to wait until 4 years were served and then commute the sentence to time served?

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  111. My hope with sharing it is merely that you would understand it better, intellectually and also in terms of how we feel about it.

    I understand well enough Chamberlain’s attempts to conflate McCabe and Stone, and his conflating an ethical breach such as “lack of candor” with a felony such as perjury. This guy’s a lawyer, purportedly. He should know better, and it’s why too many adoring Trump loyalists like Chamberlain can’t be taken seriously. It was a waste of 15 minutes of my life.
    Also, I don’t question Trump’s pardon powers, but nevertheless they can be handed out justly or (*cough* Marc Rich *cough*) corruptly. Maybe Trump really believes Stone was dealt an injustice (he believes a lot of things in his head that don’t track with reality), but Trump also has a conflict of interest in this matter. Stone did serve as one of his advisers, and history will judge his decision accordingly.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  112. From Twitter:

    Andrew Prokop @awprokop
    ·
    ABJ calls Trump’s comments on the case “entirely inappropriate,” she will not be influenced by them. But she will not hold them against Stone either.

    Also says she will not be influenced by pressure from the left from those who want a stiffer sentence.

    Judge Jackson: “He was not prosecuted, as some have claimed, for standing up for the president. He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”

    ABJ says she now has to weigh “the disparity between the two recommendations I have in front of me,” the inflated nature of the guidelines, and many other factors. Says it’s very difficult to balance them all.

    ABJ notes that Stone doesn’t seem particularly infirm or in ill health because he has often been traveling to many different places.

    BUT: ABJ says, she is concerned that 7-9 years is greater than necessary. And would have thought so regardless of the sentencing memo chaos.

    DRJ (15874d)

  113. Those are entirely appropriate and reasonable comments by the Judge (ABJ). That is not partisan; that is impartial. She may have decided to “punish” Stone in the commentary but not the sentence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  114. I think the defense asked (in the alternative) for a change of venue in a Motion to Dismiss, Bored Lawyer.

    DRJ (15874d)

  115. 12 pm News: The Roger Stone sentencing hearing is still underway.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  116. adoring Trump loyalists like Chamberlain

    He’s not perfect; I’ve criticized him—albeit from the right.

    However, he’s a frequent Trump critic, for Trump not standing up for his supporters when they’re unfairly attacked in situations where leftists skate and for not exercising his Constitutional power for which his supporters elected him.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  117. Stone has acted in this case more like a provocateur than a party. He tried to stir things up, get attention, deflect, act larger than life. It fits his narrative that this is a partisan show but he cannot then complain that the court should treat him more gently because he is old and infirm.

    DRJ (15874d)

  118. Did they move for a change of venue? Venue is the kind of thing you waive if you do not raise it.

    Yes, they did. As I remember, more than once, initially based on the corpus delicti followed by juror pool bias.

    nk (1d9030)

  119. I reject the comparison between Palin and Stone, Sammy.
    What Palin did was purely political and generalized (her crosshairs were pointed at Giffords and 19 other politicians) and, given that Stone was already facing an intimidation charge, the crosshairs thing cannot be viewed the same way, especially since his ire was directed at the one single person who has the power to give or deny his freedom.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  120. 40 months.

    DRJ (15874d)

  121. Just in: Judge sentences Roger Stone to 3 years, 4 months in prison for impeding Trump-Russia investigation.

    Dana (4fb37f)

  122. Cue the Donald.

    DRJ (15874d)

  123. Judge Jackson sentences Roger Stone to 40 months incarceration.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  124. In other words, MAOA, Chamberlain is a Trump critic from the Breitbart wing of the party. That’s not a point in Chamberlain’s favor.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  125. 107. Appalled (1a17de) — 2/20/2020 @ 9:18 am

    The usual word for something people are supposed to take as a threat is “threat”.

    It was something that, at one and the same time, could be perceived as a threat and as something that you can’t seriously take as a threat; and the most notorious use of cross-hairs was something that was accused of being a threat, but wasn’t.

    He may have been trying to get the judge to recuse herself or do something that would get her recused.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  126. So after all the DRAMA – she gives him 40 months. Now on to the appeal. He’ll serve time till November 2020, then Trump will pardon after election day. that’s worse case scenario.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  127. They say Roger Stone lied to Congress.”
    @CNN
    OH, I see, but so did Comey (and he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than Crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time), and so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI! FAIRNESS?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  128. Cue the Donald.

    The President Donald made a great point on Twitter two hours ago:

    “They say Roger Stone lied to Congress.”
    @CNN
    OH, I see, but so did Comey (and he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than Crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time), and so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI! FAIRNESS?

    Exactly!

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  129. Great minds think alike.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  130. 119. Paul Montagu (ae8832) — 2/20/2020 @ 9:35 am

    I reject the comparison between Palin and Stone, Sammy.

    What Palin did was purely political and generalized (her crosshairs were pointed at Giffords and 19 other politicians) and, given that Stone was already facing an intimidation charge, the crosshairs thing cannot be viewed the same way, especially since his ire was directed at the one single person who has the power to give or deny his freedom.

    Oh, it wasn’t the same. I noted that.

    But I think stone thought he could argue it was the same.

    40 months. It seems like, after reading Stone the riot act, she didn’t give him much more time.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  131. TPM:

    Here is the breakdown.
    40 months on count one
    12 months on each of counts two through six, but concurrent
    18 months on count seven, concurrent
    24 months of supervised release
    $20,000 fine

    If the sentence was consecutive instead of concurrent, it would been 7 years and 10 months, which is within the range of the original prosecutors’ recommendation. It sounds fair enuf.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  132. I reject the comparison between Palin and Stone, Sammy.
    What Palin did was purely political and generalized

    Exactly.

    Stone’s a thug, pure and simple. Of course the courts aren’t happy he’s threatening the courts.

    . Can the president say, that is excessive, so I am reducing it to 4 years? Or does he have to wait until 4 years were served and then commute the sentence to time served?

    Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/20/2020 @ 9:22 am

    Interesting question. I went down a rabbit hole reading about it, and if this guy is right, The president can reduce sentences and has broad authority.

    I think the pardon power can do a lot of good but you should have some kind of non-political (and rent seeking) body, perhaps something like but opposite to a grand jury, with a private jury of well respected and experienced retired prosecutors and defense attorneys, who only grant pardons in exceptionally unfair situations with something like a 2/3rds vote. The president should lose this power. It’s been abused by both sides. Pardoning your game show contestant because you saw his wife on the TV, or because you got cash from the corrupt, is simply corrosive to our nation.

    Dustin (0197f6)

  133. 115. Correction: That was the 12:30 pm news on WOR when t was reprted that th hearing was still going on.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  134. Good point, Rcocean. Trump runs his Presidency like a WWE season — ever-escalating conflict and constant DRAMA. He must love this.

    DRJ (15874d)

  135. Good point, Rcocean. Trump runs his Presidency like a WWE season — ever-escalating conflict and constant DRAMA. He must love this.

    Trump in a nutshell!

    “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”—George S. Patton

    “The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies’.”—Napoleon Bonaparte

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  136. The sentence actually vindicates Trump. The original memo called for 7 to 9 years. He got less than half of the lower end of that. So what the prosecutors asked for was, in fact, excessive, even if within the Guidelines range.

    And, while we are on the topic, the notion that Trump “interfered” in the sentencing is overblown. What he interfered with is what the DOJ requested from the judge. That is his Constitutional prerogative.

    The federal judges need to be very careful about criticizing the head of the Executive branch about what he may say about the Executive branch. The Constitution places that under his control, not theirs. Of course, they don’t have to listen to the DOJ’s recommendation, as is the case for anyone before the Court.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  137. Trump didn;’t pardon Blagojevivh. He commted his sentence. He remains a felon. He opardoned Bernard Kerik.

    The first one he announced was that of a former football team owner whose team won five superbowls and was elected to the NFL Hall of Fame in 2016.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-grants-clemency-former-49ers-owner-eddie-debartolo-jr-n1138041

    Trump pardons former 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo Jr.

    The ex-NFL owner pleaded guilty to fraud in 1998 for paying former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards $400,000 to help secure a casino license.

    He never was in jail. He got two years probation and paid a $1 million fine in return for turning state’s evidence. He also got banned from the NFL for a year and later, in the year 2000, turned over control of the team to his sister.

    when the White House announced the pardon four NFL Hall of Famers on hand:

    Jerry Rice, Charles Haley, Ronnie Lott (who all played for the 49ers) and Jim Brown. The four said they had met with Trump to discuss DeBartolo.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  138. The sentence actually vindicates Trump.

    Well, OF course…!!!

    Except that none of this was really about the sentence, was it? It was about “fairness”. ANY real penalty for the under-thug was too much for the over-thug.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  139. The President has a perfect right to criticize the Judiciary. We have three EQUAL branches of Government. We don’t have the Judiciary above the other two. BTW, the district courts and the appeals courts are CREATIONS of Congress and they can do anything they want with them. Congress determines how many, and what cases they can hear. Its right in the Constitution. The only thing Congress can’t do is just fire them, they need to be impeached.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  140. I went down a rabbit hole reading about it, and if this guy is right, The president can reduce sentences and has broad authority.

    Especially if partisans determine that the judge is acting like a political hack and showing partisan vindictiveness, right???

    Dana (4fb37f)

  141. These judges think they are Kings and Queens and throw little hissy fits when challenged. Remember when Trump pardoned the Arizona Sheriff? The Federal judge threw a fit and did everything he could to gum up the works. Sorry, peeps don’t like the President’s Pardoning power. If you want to change it, just amend the Constitution.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  142. Stone is uncharacteristically declining to talk to reporters, saying that he has nothing to say.

    Dana (4fb37f)

  143. So a left-wing judge agreed the 7-9 year Sentence was unreasonable. Will Zelinsky and his gang of noble dissenters attack the Judge now? Or is it now OK?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  144. The President has a perfect right to criticize the Judiciary.

    So did Al Capone.

    As to the rest, no spit…!?!? Really…!?!?!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  145. The marc rich pardon was the biggest abuse of presidential pardoning power in my lifetime. Peeps were upset – or pretended to be – for a while and then it was forgotten. But of course, that was different. It always is when a Democrat does it.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  146. The sentence actually vindicates Trump.

    I’m not seeing how. Barring a pardon, another corrupt Trump minion will be spending hard time in a federal prison. He’ll be another addition to The List.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  147. Will Zelinsky and his gang of noble dissenters attack the Judge now? Or is it now OK?

    You cannot be that stupid. Can you?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  148. The President has a perfect right to criticize the Judiciary.

    Only a “so-called President” who has not risen to the dignity of the office and remains New York sewer scum.

    nk (1d9030)

  149. Federal judges are like police. Every day they see defendants who claim they are the smartest, best people who are being mistreated and terribly wronged. Most of them ignore the evidence against them and claim someone is out to get them. But judges need to be fair so most of them confine themselves to merciless lecturing instead of merciless sentencing.

    It must bother judges seeing the President act just like those defendants, with no concern that there is any evidence he might be wrong.

    DRJ (15874d)

  150. Peeps were upset – or pretended to be – for a while and then it was forgotten. But of course, that was different. It always is when a Democrat does it.

    Nope. You CAN, you CAN…!!!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  151. Everything vindicates Trump, Paul, in this, the Trumpiest, of all possible Trumpkin worlds.

    nk (1d9030)

  152. Given that Trump is very likely to pardon Stone, does it hurt him if he does it before the election, or should he wait until after, and why?

    Dana (4fb37f)

  153. Of course, 152 includes a theoretical assumption that he wins the election…

    Dana (4fb37f)

  154. You will be reading a lot more about this hearing in the news today.

    No, I won’t.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  155. 152 includes a theoretical assumption that he wins the election…

    Does it? He can still pardon after the election, or did something change?

    PTw (894877)

  156. He should to it now to keep his case inside, Dana. See Will Chamberlain’s video above for why.

    Make America Ordered Again (32320c)

  157. I’m not seeing how.

    Really? Do I have to draw it out in crayon?

    The first sentencing memo said, give him 7 to 9 years.

    Trump said, that is way excessive and unfair.

    And, guess what, the sentencing judge agreed! He got less than 3 1/2 years.

    Some of the comments here again demonstrate TDS. I despise many things Trump does and says, but I will call it as I see it. When he is right, he is right. When he is wrong, he is wrong.

    (I recall when Scalia was first appointed to SCOTUS, many on the left called him a fascist. Well after 30 years on the Supreme Court bench, no one could possible say that, whatever you think of his jurisprudence.)

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  158. meaning after the election but before The Great Bern/Little Mike assumes the throne.

    PTw (894877)

  159. My Prediction for the Roger Stone Sentence: 30 Months; UPDATE: Maybe Not

    As we use to say in SAT prep, go with your first reaction.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  160. The first sentencing memo said, give him 7 to 9 years.

    Nope. You need to read.

    Trump said, that is way excessive and unfair.

    He uses “unfair” just like a Oberlin undergrad.

    And, guess what, the sentencing judge agreed!

    Well, no. She did a LOT of things, but agreeing with the over-thug was not one. She DID, in fact, exactly what everyone BUT Duh Donald knew she’d do. She relied on her own sound judgement.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  161. The first sentencing memo is here:

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6773167-D-D-C-19-Cr-00018-Dckt-000279-000-Filed-2020-02-10.html

    It asks for 87 to 108 months. That’s from 7 years 3 months, to 9 years. So maybe you should learn how to read.

    The rest of your comment is typical TDS. Come back when you are serious.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  162. The first sentencing memo said, give him 7 to 9 years.

    Trump said, that is way excessive and unfair.

    And, guess what, the sentencing judge agreed! He got less than 3 1/2 years

    What are you on about, he got almost 8 years (70 months, plus 24 months) she just had them run concurrently with 2 years of probation.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  163. Actually, 118 Months plus 24 months.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  164. What are you on about, he got almost 8 years (70 months, plus 24 months) she just had them run concurrently with 2 years of probation.

    This betrays a basic misunderstanding of how the Sentencing Guidelines work. The Guidelines are supposed to give a total sentence for all of the defendant’s crimes, and take into account all related activities (e.g., whether Stone used threats to tamper with a witness, which, while not an element of the crime he was charged with, is an aggravating factor).

    So a Guidelines sentence by definition takes into account everything, including whether the sentences are to be concurrent or consecutive. In fact, when they first came out, one judge (think it was Posner, not sure) pointed out that one of the advantages of the Guidelines is that they allow the sentence to be partially concurrent and partially consecutive, as opposed to before, when concurrent might be too low and consecutive might be too high.

    The Govt.’s original memo asked for a total Guidelines sentence of 7 to 9 years. That includes all factors, and all issues of concurrent vs. consecutive. IF that had been followed, he would have had to serve that long.

    The ultimate sentence was, as I said, much lower.

    The notion that the judge’s sentence was really 7 to 9 years, but then she gave him a break and made it concurrent, is simply inaccurate. I assume you are not a lawyer or are not familiar with the Guidelines, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. For someone who does know, the argument is not in good faith.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  165. But at Stone’s sentencing hearing on Thursday, Crabb sounded a very different tone. He repeatedly appeared to push the recommendation in the direction of the initial prosecutors’ harsher one, arguing for enhancements that the more recent memo suggested were unnecessary or unsubstantiated. …

    The scenes will heighten suspicions about what’s happening behind the scenes in the Justice Department. Some suggested Crabb was perhaps making a statement by reverting to the arguments in the first recommendation. If that’s not the case, though, the fact that he did move in that direction suggests this whole drama was somewhat pointless in the first place. If the Justice Department was just going to argue the same points from the first recommendation, why overrule the sentencing recommendation and make it look like Trump was dictating how his Justice Department prosecuted his ally?

    ——————————————————-
    The first sentencing memo said, give him 7 to 9 years.

    That’s a lie.

    What it DOES say is here are the guidelines for Stone’s offenses. The prosecutors can’t tell the judge what to give any defendant. And these didn’t…any more than Crabb did.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  166. 40 months…. and he literally struts out the courthouse doors to a SUV– to await his pardon.

    Yep. One more reason for the kids to back for the democratic socialist.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  167. That’s a lie.

    What it DOES say is here are the guidelines for Stone’s offenses

    More TDS. The Memo advocated a sentence within the Guidelines, and then proceeded to argue what that is, and then again argue that that should be the sentence.

    The prosecutors can’t tell the judge what to give any defendant.

    Do you have any understanding of what the term “advocacy” means? It is what lawyers, including prosecutors, do all the time. It is what the prosecutors did in that memo. They advocated for something, arguing that such a sentence was the appropriate and just sentence.

    Certainly, the judge is not dictated to. But federal judges do look to what prosecutors advocate (some say look to too much). And they certainly advocated a much longer sentence than Stone got.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  168. The much esteemed DRJ said well upthread

    ut apart from venue, I think there will be a legitimate jurisdictional appeal issue on the decision to keep the trial in DC. The court found jurisdiction based on the fact the DNC server was in DC and hacked there, and Stone’s surrogates negotiated with agents of Wikileaks. That is nexus, I suppose, but attenuated. Jurisdiction may have been more appropriate in the district of Stone’s residence.

    The district of Stone’s residence happens to be South Florida. A jury there would have had a significant likelihood of being even more inclined to the Democrats than one in DC.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  169. Anyone have links to the briefs and decision on the venue issue? The last comment I found someone interesting. (The defendant’s residence, though, is not really the issue. The issue is where he committed the crime.)

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  170. Bored Lawyer, Ragspierre is also a lawyer, I believe. I’m not saying that he’s right about federal sentences, but I believe he’s admitted to the bar and practices in Texas, going by what I’ve heard him say here before.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  171. If he is a practicing Jew, the kosher food is much better than regular population food. And they eat early.

    mg (8cbc69)

  172. BTW, on venue, the issue is actually Constitutional:

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
    Art III, Sect. 2

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  173. They advocated for something, arguing that such a sentence was the appropriate and just sentence.

    Yes. Because they ADVOCATE based on the 1) facts, and 2) law.

    And they certainly advocated a much longer sentence than Stone got.

    Yes. Because that’s their job. They did it. Defense counsel did their job. The judge did HER job.

    In fact, everyone here did their job BUT the great god cheeto. He failed…again…to stfu.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  174. Ragspierre, can’t you make an argument without referring to someone’s skin color?

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  175. I love cnn’s part in the raid on this unbelievable threatening couple.
    Justice my azz. Fricking brown shirt express at your door. Who the heck is next?

    mg (8cbc69)

  176. Actually, I will go out on a limb here, and say that Trump is not going to pardon Stone, and will instead say that he was vindicated and that the 40 month sentence is appropriate.

    If I am right, you can all praise me as prescient.

    If I am wrong, then, hey, it’s Trump, so who knows what that buffoon will do tomorrow.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  177. The justice department is a plague. Burn it to the ground.

    mg (8cbc69)

  178. I don’t think he’s spectacularly brave or principled when it comes up to standing up for his supporters in general, so you could well be right.

    I urge him to pardon, which isn’t the same thing as saying I’m confident that he will!

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  179. Trump said, that is way excessive and unfair.

    Trump b*tched about way more than just a prison sentence, whining about the charges, the trial, the conviction, the judge, the facts, the jurors, the US Attorneys, and so forth.
    But if you want to call a single concession on a prison sentence a “win”, then go to town.

    Paul Montagu (ae8832)

  180. Ragspierre, can’t you make an argument without referring to someone’s skin color?

    Duh Donald’s skin color is pasty white with blueish overtones.

    It’s his cheap spray-tan that gives him that cheeto glow…

    (I saw a photo of him with his hand in front of his face. Serious mismatch. Hi-larry-ous!)

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  181. I urge him to pardon, which isn’t the same thing as saying I’m confident that he will!

    That said, a more reasonable sentence will reduce the pressure to pardon, from his supporters. It still doesn’t come across as right that McCabe and Comey weren’t prosecuted, nor Hillary Clinton, to name three.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  182. It still doesn’t come across as right that McCabe and Comey weren’t prosecuted, nor Hillary Clinton, to name three.

    As to the last two, you have only your cult-leader to blame. He has been the shot-caller for years now.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  183. mg@171
    If you are referring to Stone, he comes from a Catholic family.

    Here’s Wikipedia on his “early years”. I’m including the description of his school years for whatever combination of information and entertainment you please.

    Stone was born on August 27, 1952,[14] in Norwalk, Connecticut,[24] to Gloria Rose (Corbo) and Roger J. Stone.[25] He grew up in Lewisboro, New York, in a family of Hungarian and Italian descent. His mother was a small-town reporter, his father a well driller[26] and business owner. He has described his family as middle-class, blue-collar Catholics.[24]

    Stone said that as an elementary school student in 1960, he broke into politics to further John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign: “I remember going through the cafeteria line and telling every kid that Nixon was in favor of school on Saturdays … It was my first political trick.”[26]

    When he was a junior and vice president of student government at his high school in northern Westchester County, New York, he manipulated the ouster of the president and succeeded him. Stone recalled how he ran for election as president for his senior year:

    I built alliances and put all my serious challengers on my ticket. Then I recruited the most unpopular guy in the school to run against me. You think that’s mean? No, it’s smart.[27]

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  184. As to the last two, you have only [the flawed President] to blame. He has been the shot-caller for years now.

    Yep.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  185. “I remember going through the cafeteria line and telling every kid that Nixon was in favor of school on Saturdays … It was my first political trick.”

    What a swell guy.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  186. 40 mos.

    You were in the ballpark.

    harkin (b55301)

  187. What a swell guy.

    You have to wonder if he ever regaled Nixon with that anecdote.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  188. If you find yourself cabin-bound for a few weeks, you might find this diverting…

    https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3427&context=mlr

    That’s a nice, light ‘lil paper on Federal venue in obstruction cases. Be sure to drill down in the footnotes now, ya’all hear…???

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  189. kishnevi (0c10d1) — 2/20/2020 @ 11:44 am

    Then I recruited the most unpopular guy in the school to run against me. You think that’s mean? No, it’s smart.[27]

    I think Bill Clinton did that (although it was portrayed as his backkers backing somebody else.

    His opponent in the Democratic primary for Governor in 1986 was Orval Faubus. Yes, that Orva Faubus, ho had ginned up the Little Rock school crisis in an effort to avoid the traditional 2 term (terms for governor were 2 years then – Clinton had that changed in a constitutonal amendment in 1986)

    Orval Faubus, elected first in 1954 and re-elected in 1956, continued to be elected every 2 years, losing to Wonthrop Rockfeller in his second try in 1966.

    Bill Clinton tried that trick of picking the opponent in 2008 with Barack Obama and again maybe in 2016 with Donald Trump. It’s been also in some statewide primaries where attacks agsinst an opponen was avoided until they’d safely won their primary.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  190. 187. kishnevi (0c10d1) — 2/20/2020 @ 12:11 pm

    You have to wonder if he ever regaled Nixon with that anecdote.

    Ther was this little attempt to sabotage Muskie by Donald Segretti but Roger Stone was too young to be in any contact with Nixon or his campaign, and that was not why McGovern won the nomination.

    Sammy Finkelman (f2d620)

  191. The sentence actually vindicates Trump. The original memo called for 7 to 9 years. He got less than half of the lower end of that. So what the prosecutors asked for was, in fact, excessive, even if within the Guidelines range.

    And, while we are on the topic, the notion that Trump “interfered” in the sentencing is overblown. What he interfered with is what the DOJ requested from the judge. That is his Constitutional prerogative.

    I will repeat what I tweeted a few days ago:

    Which means that, if (as I think likely) Judge Jackson ends up giving Stone a sentence of less than nine years, people will say the DoJ position is vindicated. Not at all. 70-87 months on the high end and 27-33 months on the (very) low end seem consistent with the original brief.

    You have to actually read the original brief to get the full flavor, but my 24-37 month prediction was actually based entirely on reading the government’s original recommendation and consulting a guidelines chart.

    Also: there seems to be an increasingly common defense of Trump that whatever dumbass thing he just did is actually fine because he has that power within the Constitution. Well, under the authority I have as a Deputy DA I could go to court and dismiss a murder in which a friend of mine is the defendant, simply because he is my friend.

    The Constitution confers many theoretical prerogatives on the occupant of the office of the President, many of which are not exercised in certain ways because of norms and because most presidents are nowhere near as corrupt as Trump. That does make it a good argument to defend his damn fool idiocy because it is permitted by the Constitution.

    Patterico (8898a2)

  192. Actually, I will go out on a limb here, and say that Trump is not going to pardon Stone, and will instead say that he was vindicated and that the 40 month sentence is appropriate

    I doubt he will claim vindication from a judge who this morning called Trump’s comments on the case inappropriate and who said that Stone was prosecuted for actions taken with the end goal of covering for Trump.

    Her commentary as reported by live tweet accounts was blistering. And bracing.

    Patterico (8898a2)

  193. Well, under the authority I have as a Deputy DA I could go to court and dismiss a murder in which a friend of mine is the defendant, simply because he is my friend.

    But if you were Trump, you’d get him to write you a check for a cool half million or so first.

    Friend or no friend, business is business.

    Dave (b969fa)

  194. That does NOT make it a good argument…

    I’d suggest.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  195. Well, under the authority I have as a Deputy DA I could go to court and dismiss a murder in which a friend of mine is the defendant, simply because he is my friend.

    You can do this if he’s been convicted? I’m no lawyer, and all this “high crimes and misdemeanors doesn’t have to really mean any crime” arm waving is, of course over my head. Pity the founders couldn’t write stuff we peons could understand. However, what I’m seeing right now on the internet thing (yeah, I know) is a constitution that states “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” In order for the offense to be an offence, that does mean some conviction occurred, correct?

    PTw (894877)

  196. OT- February 20, 1962– The U.S. government through NASA launches American John Glenn into space, orbiting Earth three times and returns him safely.

    58 years later, private enterprise still has failed to even attempt to try same; the cost of failure being too high.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  197. Nope. Wrong, as so often before. But you do excel at being a smart-bass who’s wrong.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  198. “Well, under the authority I have as a Deputy DA I could go to court and dismiss a murder in which a friend of mine is the defendant, simply because he is my friend.”
    Patterico (8898a2) — 2/20/2020 @ 12:50 pm

    So, McCabe had a friend. Makes sense.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  199. 58 years later, private enterprise still has failed to even attempt to try same; the cost of failure being too high.

    I’m curious as to why in the wide, wide world of sports anybody would think that important.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  200. @199. Ignorance is bliss; stay happy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  201. Being curious is kind of the antidote for blissful ignorance, seems to me.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  202. thanks, kishnevi.
    don’t eat the fish on friday, Mr. Stone.

    mg (8cbc69)

  203. that was a glorious day in 62, DCSCA.

    mg (8cbc69)

  204. @203. Yes. Remember it like it was ‘yesterday.’

    As an old CBS News correspondent noted: “That other America; they did things differently there.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  205. In order for the offense to be an offence, that does mean some conviction occurred, correct?

    PTw (894877) — 2/20/2020 @ 1:13 pm

    The pardon power can be used at any point in the process, even before charges are filed. Most famous instance of that would probably be Ford’s pardon of Nixon. (That’s also the idea behind the claim that Trump can pardon himself before leaving office.)

    Kishnevi (fe0b52)

  206. @205

    In order for the offense to be an offence, that does mean some conviction occurred, correct?

    PTw (894877) — 2/20/2020 @ 1:13 pm

    The pardon power can be used at any point in the process, even before charges are filed. Most famous instance of that would probably be Ford’s pardon of Nixon. (That’s also the idea behind the claim that Trump can pardon himself before leaving office.)

    Kishnevi (fe0b52) — 2/20/2020 @ 2:14 pm

    Keep in mind, that pardons doesn’t prevent impeachment. There’s nothing stopping a democrat controlled Congress to impeach sitting/former Presidents.

    However, I could’ve swore there was a prohibition of presidents pardoning themselves over acts committed as president. Not sure where I got that idea…

    whembly (fd57f6)

  207. So lets recap.

    1 The Prosecutors asked for 7-9 years.
    2 Barr said that was crazy and had the DoJ say so, but recommend nothing
    3 The Prosecutors then go full drama queen, resigned and the Media said its “darkness in America”
    4 The Left-wing Judge then gives Stone 40 months.

    So, its looks the DOJ Prosecutors (ex-Muller gang members) didn’t know what they were doing. But I’m George Soros will give them a big $$$ thank you note – via some nonprofit or foundation. After all, they were so “Noble”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  208. Most famous instance of that would probably be Ford’s pardon of Nixon.

    True, but that is only because the party in question admits to being guilty, so while not a conviction per se, there is guilt. Now to my original point, can P do that for his friend? And even then, he would be accountable to someone. And POTUS. is accountable at least in his first term to the people. Getting a friend off the hook in a district court is quite a different thing..

    Ptw (094b61)

  209. Keep in mind, that pardons doesn’t prevent impeachment. There’s nothing stopping a democrat controlled Congress to impeach sitting/former Presidents.

    Correct. This has already been well established. Like the President issuing a pardon is within the power of the Executive, and are not reviewable. The power to impeach is well within the power of the House of Representatives.

    Annndddd, todays Democrats are just the kind of stupid to pull such a stunt. Stupid because such a precedent would immunize Republican controlled house do exactly the same thing. Impeaching a President for exercising plenary powers.
    To suggest such a massive dose of stupid, exposes one as never having had a grasp of this Nations form of govt. A constitutional Republic. Parliamentary forms of govt exercise votes of “no confidence” on a regular basis. But a Constitutional Republic offers no such mechanism.

    Civics, learn it.

    iowan2 (1c4a14)

  210. 191. Well, under the authority I have as a Deputy DA I could go to court and dismiss a murder in which a friend of mine is the defendant, simply because he is my friend.

    So true. But not with impunity. Right? Those with power over your actions answer to the voters. Its a very simple concept of prosecutorical discretion.

    That’s what lets prosecutors ignore an IG’s recommendation to prosecute the Deputy Director of the FBI, McCabe, for lying to congress, but conduct a pre dawn SWAT raid on Roger Stone…for lying to Congress. The same discretion that refuses prosecution of the Secretary of State for having classified information on unsecured devices. While the Navy court martials a seaman for taking a selfie on a nuclear sub.
    So the question is, Why when President Trump use the power under his discretion, its a violation of norms, but the rest of the Swamp? Its all copasetic

    Iowan2 (1c4a14)

  211. Barr said that was crazy and had the DoJ say so, but recommend nothing

    Barr did not say it was crazy but he did disagree with the original sentencing recommendation. Specifically, the government’s second sentencing recommendation acknowledged that incarceration is required and claimed that (1) the 8 level enhancement was not justified, (2) the 2 level enhancement was duplicitous, and (3) Stone was too old and sick to be incarcerated for long. Judge Berman specifically said the 8 level enhancement was proper and Stone did not seem that old or ill, given his frequent trips. She did agree with the second claim. Both the court and the replacement prosecutor agreed the initial sentencing recommendation was proper.

    The defense also provided a sentencing recommendation and reference letters about Stone to encourage the court to reduce his sentence to probation or, at most, a few weeks. That obviously did not happen.

    Basically, the Judge split the difference.

    DRJ (15874d)

  212. In addition, the court did not consider the juror misconduct claim on Tuesday. Instead, she is postponing that matter and defendant’s motion for new trial until a later date. As a result, she will let Stone remain free pending that hearing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  213. @211. From news reports, it was SOP w/t judge– though y’all being lawyers,[I’m not] you might be able to answer my question as to why the judge would pronounce a sentence first, ahead of any decision on a retrial. Is a matter of procedure or a cart-before-the-horse-thing?

    Trump pretty much telegraphed he’s going to let the procedure roll out, keep tweeting– then pardon.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  214. So lets recap.

    And, as usual, you got everything wrong.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  215. However, I could’ve swore there was a prohibition of presidents pardoning themselves over acts committed as president. Not sure where I got that idea…

    Prohibition? I thought that never got resolved as we moved onto the next outrage of the day. It’s more one of those things that normal Presidents don’t do.

    But even if it was prohibited, Trump could only pardon himself in that situation for acts which were not yet charged or even possibly investigated…which is why I referred to it.

    Kishnevi (3ccbfa)

  216. That’s what lets prosecutors ignore an IG’s recommendation to prosecute the Deputy Director of the FBI

    Do you have ANYTHING to substantiate that BS?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  217. IGs don’t recommend prosecution. They refer a case to prosecutors and let the prosecutors decide if a prosecution is actually warranted.

    Kishnevi (3ccbfa)

  218. IGs don’t recommend prosecution. They refer a case to prosecutors and let the prosecutors decide if a prosecution is actually warranted.

    And the grand jury issued a no bill, so the whole “didn’t prosecute” is a plain lie.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  219. Trump Says He Won’t Intervene in Stone Case Immediately, But Would ‘Love to See Roger Exonerated’

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-says-he-wont-intervene-in-stone-case-immediately-but-would-love-to-see-roger-exonerated/

    As I predicted. There will be no pardon. Trump will grouse but will accept the 40 month sentence. And we will see what the Court of Appeals will do, although that is usually a loser.

    (Anyone here have any links to the venue motion or decision in the Stone case?)

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  220. And the grand jury issued a no bill, so the whole “didn’t prosecute” is a plain lie.

    Care to provide a link showing that, apart from the Sept. 2019 speculative article in Lawfare?

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  221. See comment 37, Bored Lawyer.

    DRJ (15874d)

  222. I think Nixon believed he could pardon himself but the DOJ said he couldn’t. Since then, it is undecided.

    DRJ (15874d)

  223. DCSCA 212,

    I can’t say for sure. (No one can who isn’t involved.) But my guess is it will take time for the parties prepare for the hearing — file and argue motions, get their witnesses, brief legal issues, and arrange time for the proceeding on the court’s calendar. The judge has a big docket and it doesn’t stop just because of one high-profile case. Other parties get their day in court, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  224. Thank you, nk!

    DRJ (15874d)

  225. “IGs don’t recommend prosecution. They refer a case to prosecutors and let the prosecutors decide if a prosecution is actually warranted.”
    Kishnevi (3ccbfa) — 2/20/2020 @ 5:14 pm

    …then the prosecutors dismember the referral and hide it in a freezer.

    Former Attorney General Eric Holder lashed out at journalist and author Paul Sperry on Twitter Wednesday, telling Sperry that he should “shut the hell up” about federal prosecutor Molly Gaston’s donations to former President Barack Obama.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/eric-holder-paul-sperry-shut-up-andrew-mccabe

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  226. @212. That seems reasonable, DRJ. ‘Civilians’ forget these are busy courts w/lots of ‘traffic’ moving through in various stages of litigation– it’s not like Stone was the only plane on the runway.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  227. ^226 was for DRJ @223.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  228. 221.I think Nixon believed he could pardon himself but the DOJ said he couldn’t. Since then, it is undecided.

    Whether he dies in office or survives through Term Two, expect Trump will try to pardon himself. Just because… You know his motto: ‘catch me if you can…’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  229. As I predicted. There will be no pardon.

    What? You think because he is waiting to see if Stone wins his new trial motion, and *maybe* for the election to be over, that you have proven he will *never* pardon Stone? You’re even more deluded than I thought.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  230. High sentence? It was a foregone conclusion the Obama judge would persecute Trump’s crony, justice be damned.

    Low sentence? Trump vindicated!

    Hold on. Why would the leftist judge vindicate Trump? Won’t Soros defund her Swiss bank account? Won’t she be shunned at all the best cocktail parties?

    Protip: When your allegations of bad faith (Deep State! TDS!) are validated by every possible outcome, you’re trafficking in an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  231. 217 & 219. Sounds right, I don’t remember the news reports identifying a Grand Jury ruling. The IG does not always refer subjects of his investigation to prosecutors. McCabe did in fact get that referral. Along with all the evidence that contained proof of all the elements of the crime to gain a conviction. The DoJ declined to prosecute. The mention of the Grand Jury is interesting. My guess, is grand jurys are an invention of those elected people charged with carrying out laws. controversial actions of elected officials can hide behind the supposed blind neutrality of a Grand Jury. Most people don’t understand the Grand Jury is much like a rubber stamp for elected prosecutors. Since its the Prosecutors that choose which evidence is presented.

    But this is all in the context of talking about the constitutional powers vested in govt agents. Like the plenary power of the President to Pardon convicted criminals.
    Our system of justice, from the President of the United States, down to the Elected county Sheriff, And the elected county Attorney, rests on the check of voters.

    The power to administer the laws of the people, and do it fairly, rests on the power of the people to vote abusive actors out of a job.

    Iowan2 (1c4a14)

  232. Poor Tucker Carlson.

    He used to be somebody. Now he’s just another T-rump sucking nutter.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  233. As I predicted. There will be no pardon.

    What? You think because he is waiting to see if Stone wins his new trial motion, and *maybe* for the election to be over, that you have proven he will *never* pardon Stone? You’re even more deluded than I thought.

    There isn’t enough data now to prove either of you right.

    Make America Ordered Again (23f793)

  234. Predators of all types — from criminals who engage in fraud to those who commit sexual exploitation — often groom their victims for action they want to take in the future. They use an incremental approach to normalize inappropriate behavior. When the conduct advances only bit by bit, no individual step causes the victim to stop it. At some point, the transformation becomes complete, the behavior has lost its taboo, and the defendant can engage in once-unthinkable misconduct unchecked.

    Trump may be using his pardon power in the same way. By inuring the public to the harm of fraud and corruption, the president can convince his base of supporters that these are not serious crimes. He has called the 14-year sentence for Blagojevich “ridiculous,” stating that his conviction is based on “a phone call where nothing happened.” Sound familiar?

    ——————————————————————–

    Why, yes. It DOES sound familiar.
    https://news.yahoo.com/trump-grooming-americans-think-white-093435564.html

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  235. 231.217 & 219. Sounds right, I don’t remember the news reports identifying a Grand Jury ruling. The IG does not always refer subjects of his investigation to prosecutors. McCabe did in fact get that referral. Along with all the evidence that contained proof of all the elements of the crime to gain a conviction

    I think McCabe lied. But I don’t think that there was sufficient evidence to prove perjury because they didn’t charge. Based on what I’ve read the part that will be hard to prove intent, that he intentionally lied, as opposed to providing incorrect information due to confusion/bad memory. Any of the lawyers have a more educated guess?

    The idea that they didn’t charge because of some dEeP sTAte(tm) seems silly to me.
    Barr is a Trump loyalist, the head of that office is Barr’s former assistant, there are plenty of republicans in the DOJ and being the hard charger that went after McCabe could help further a career in a number of ways.

    time123 (36651d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5820 secs.