Roger Stone Gets 40 Months In Prison
Reports from the federal courthouse in DC are that Roger Stone is getting a stern rebuke from federal district court judge Amy Berman Jackson.
Prosecutors argued this morning for an enhanced sentence for Stone, in apparent disobedience to the orders from William Barr to lessen the sentence request.
Sentence expected momentarily.
The prosecutors asked for 6 to 7 years in prison for Stone in the latest request.
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
Judge Berman rejected the Trumpian theory that Stone was prosecuted by his political enemies.
Looks like she also rejected the ridiculous sentence asked for by prosecutors.
Why?
Trump is just going to pardon him anyway, so this is probably an exercise in futility. But good for the court for taking it seriously.
Why do you say this? Why does anyone say this? I have been hearing this as long as Trump has been president - that Trump will just pardon his "coconspirators" vis a vis Russia or whatever else is being investigated. And then there's all sorts of harrumphing and hand-wringing, and righteous indignation. The impression is that Trump is abusing his power of the pardon to his own benefit. Maybe he should even be impeached for it.
But it hasn't happened. Not once. Not yet, at any rate. And we're over three years in. He has had lots of opportunity and he hasn't done it. So what is the justification for this righteous indignation? Do you just say it because they say it on CNN and MSNBC?
i heard it on Fox.
What are your thoughts of the Putin Trump ticket ?
I think yellow mustard is an underrated condiment.
try to Catch up then
Does this guy represent your ideal president?
Stone received a sentence of 3 years and 4 months in prison and a fine of 40,000 dollars.
Everyone seems to be reporting the fine as $20K
Napolitano is criticizing the judges remarks that had nothing to do with the charges.
Schiff just announced that any pardon by Trump of Stone would be "absolute corruption".
Fox is more interested in the jury foreperson and the ramifications from that.
typical par for the discourse
I heard 40,000 on MSNBC. If it is wrong, so be it. Not a big deal.
How typical of Schiff to be outraged over something that hasn't happened.
The Judge was 100% wrong to move to sentencing before settling the matter of Juror (the foreperson) bias.
"The Sixth Amendment gives a person accused of a crime the right to be tried by a jury, except for petty offenses carrying a sentence of six months or less of jail time. This right has traditionally been interpreted to mean a 12-person jury. However, a jury can constitutionally consist of as few as six persons, but defendants tried by six-person juries can be convicted only if the jury is unanimous in favor of guilt. (For more information, see The Right to Trial by Jury .)
In most cases, a unanimous verdict is required to convict a defendant. In most states, a lack of unanimity is called a "hung jury," and the defendant will go free unless the prosecutor decides to retry the case. In Oregon and Louisiana, however, juries may convict or acquit a defendant on a vote of ten to two. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state law providing for less-than-unanimous verdicts by 12-person juries in non-death penalty cases.
Potential jurors must be selected randomly from the community, and the actual jury must be selected by a process that allows the judge and lawyers to screen out biased jurors . In addition, a lawyer may eliminate several potential jurors simply because he feels that these people would not be sympathetic to his side—but these decisions (called "peremptory challenges") may not be based on the juror's personal characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or national origin."
3 years & 4 months will be the sentence - exactly what it should have been!
For What ?
You just stated the Judge should not have ruled.
Trump stated he was more innocent than a new found fawn in the bright yellow snow job know as a which hunt his Dawg Roger Thumpered a Cleveland Steamer on Trumpps sunken community Chest grabbed like a 'pussy' !
Just more proof of Trump's Witch Hunt, huh ?
She should have settled the Juror matter first. The sentence was appropriate - it was simply in the wrong order.
Trump stated
Irrelevant! Not interested.
Napolitano just said that a retrial is up to Judge Jackson and the fact that she sentenced Stone is clear proof
that she has already made up her mind about any retrial.
That could be the reason for the convoluted order of sentencing before the juror hearing. That is a possibility.
Looks like he really is Teflon Don. Got away with Russian collusion. Ukranian quid pro quo. Got his consigliere/lapdog Barr to get Stone a lighter sentence.
Yes in real life Trumo is actually Dr Evil ...... Muuuuahaaaaw ...... next comes fricken lazers:
Beware of fricken lazers beams Democrats!
The more likely path will be that Jackson denies the motion, Stone reports to prison and files an appeal.
The day he is out of office the full weight of many legal jurisdictions will be clamoring for first dibs to prosecute him. He'll look good in orange.
I think it's just about being organized and focused.
It might be a thing she decided to go ahead with just because everyone was present and ready for it. Everybody's brain is tuned into the sentencing procedure. Dispense with that, and then we can look at whether or not the judge needs to declare a mistrial. This gives counsel a chance to make arguments if necessary and the judge to focus on one thing at a time.
Then if she decides a new trial is warranted, they can proceed with it. If not, the sentence will stand.
The judge has complete authority to determine sentence. She doesn't have to do anything the Attorney General or his prosecutors say.
thought he already was in orange
lets spot him in stripes
Who takes over in that case?
Could be Jackson or a new Judge. It depends on the reason.
I wonder how Jackson feels about possibly losing control of the case?
Which they had in this case. So WTF is your point?
They did not have that process if a juror sabotaged it by lying or withholding from the court important information about their bias.
So you're assuming that happened? Based on WHAT?
During voir dire, the Judge made it clear that merely having a political opinion about Trump OR Stone didn't disqualify a juror, in and of itself. From everything I have read, the juror was vetted, she disclosed her political activity, including running for congress, and after voir dire Stone's legal team did not make a motion to strike her from the jury.
It's starting to look like conservatives here are bias against liberal jurors.
BASED ON THE OBVIOUS REALITY OF THE FOREPERSON BEING BIASED
Are you answering for Tacos! now Vic?
Everyone has bias Vic, the issue is whether one can set aside their bias and decide the case based on the evidence presented to them at trial. You don't have one iota of evidence that the foreperson was unable to do that. Your 'feelings' and opinion don't count.
Do you know what the word "if" means?
Oh no, paying attention to words would get in the way of strawmanning and sealioning, wouldn't it.
Oh right! Like you never jump in and answer a question or respond to a statement posed to someone else. Vic's response is just fine with me.
We'll leave that up to the expert here
Seems logical that just about anyone with an ounce of integrity and a modicum of knowledge about these things could have answered that question easily.
Just about anyone.
LOL!
Yes and I know what a question mark connotes too, do you?
It doesn't look like anything gets in the way of your need to make personal comments.
Answer the questions or move on. I couldn't care less which.
GREAT, so since neither of you have an iota of evidence to support the claim of 'obvious bias', my reply to Vic covers your comment too.
Is that why you didn't even try?
That's pretty stupid because your questions were
I can't very well say what an assumption is based on if I'm not making it. Also note the obnoxious capital letters indicated how absurd you find the assumption I didn't make. Just so ready to judge.
I didn't say anything about you personally. I reply to the things you write. If you don't like the reactions they inspire, well . . . you reap what you sow, as they say.
I didn't make a claim of "obvious bias." Once again, you ascribe words to me that I didn't say and attack me for them. And you wonder why people are hostile to you.
I would say that based on the reports I have seen in the news, there is cause for genuine concern that the jury foreperson had a strong bias against the defendant and it is worth asking how she remained on the jury. Based on those reports, there is a genuine possibility of either a mistrial or the ordering of a new trial on appeal.
But Vic DID and you said " Vic's response is just fine with me." That was YOU right Tacos!?
Well I haven't read 'reports' in the news, I've read the transcripts of the jury voir dire and the sentencing. Stone will have to ask his lawyers why they didn't make a motion to strike her. The Judge found her credible.
So is your answer that you do NOT assume that the process was sabotaged by a juror lying or withholding from the court important information about their bias?
I await your chastisement of Vic for his obnoxious capital letters....
Pffft.
Says the guy who started your comment with:
So now you've made ANOTHER non-responsive personal comment. Move on.
Why would I? I already said I was fine with it. Furthermore, it's not my place to chastise Vic for anything. Your need to punish people is pretty weird.
That's the second time you have said that. Your fear of opposing voices is not new.
Which is irrelevant if she lied or was otherwise less than candid in her responses.
Yes and I pointed out your hypocrisy.
Right, you obviously save that honor for me.
Now whose playing word games. Chastising isn't punishing.
Actually, the RA recommended using that term.
I DO tire of your incessant personal comments Tacos!. You aren't expressing an opposing position, you're expressing personal animus. It's your MO of late.
There you go again. You can't be bothered to review what she was asked or what her answers were but you sure as fuck can imply that she maybe, could have, might have lied.
Pffft.
No, you didn’t. It’s hilarious and sad that you think so.
It’s ok. You earned it.
Well, if you say so.
Chastisement is the act of scolding or punishing someone.
Again, I haven’t made any personal comments, but if it tires you so, perhaps you should take your own advice and “move on.”
No need to. I have made no claims about the questions or her answers. However, if you have those records, I think you should post links to them so we can see them. It wouldn’t be complete information, of course, but it does sound interesting.
There you go again attributing things to me I haven’t said. I haven’t implied any such thing, and your inferences are your own problem. I am not responsible for the machinations of your imagination. What I said was that if she did lie (there’s that big two-letter word you keep struggling with), it could be grounds for a mistrial or a successful appeal.
Seems to be the favorite tactic of a few--tell you what you think or wrote, then argue it.
WEAK SAUCE.
Oh, look who's back for more of the off-topic slap-fight. Thanks for making my point.
Let me know if you develop an interest in the topic.
If you were actually interested you would have done a search and READ the transcript for yourself. Since you have failed to do so, I fail to see why I should accommodate you.
Except when you did including:
Right Tacos! because if she lied is nothing like "she maybe, could have, might have lied" and no thinking person would think that it inferred anything would they?
Pffft.
Apparently, someone was not in class when reading comprehension was being taught.
Sure hope you are never picked for jury duty. Your far right wing activities here would disqualify you.
Let me know if you ever develop a desire to actually garner knowledge of the topic rather than rely on someone else interpreting it for you.
You waited a whole day to post and this garbage is what you choose to submit? Like I said, Let me know if you develop an interest in the topic. You come here and literally just attack people.
With zero facts about anything.
Those are all your words, not mine.
I am the only member in this whole seed that actually quoted facts from the transcript.
FAIL.
And how do you screen out biased jurors? Ask them which political party they belong to? That will never happen, obviously. No matter what you do, you are going to have politically biased jurors, that's just reality. But you are complaining about ONE biased juror out of 12? That means the other 11 were right wing biased. Sorry, what were you complaining about again?
It never ceases to amaze me that every single fucking time a trumper gets caught committing a crime, the first thing the right does is scream bias. "Everyone is biased against us, (and we are biased against everyone)!!!!" EVERY....FUCKING....TIME.
NEWS FLASH!!!!
He was guilty, end of story. Also, he got off light, should have been 9 years for what he was FOUND GUILTY OF BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS.
why?
cause it's more than 8
So is 7,509.
nope
i 8 more calories than that while snackin
Do you have evidence that someone on Stone's jury lied during voir dire or did you just pull that out of your nether regions?
nah, probably his asz though
So was Bill Ayers!
The sentence is no surprise to anyone. The sentence request by the prosecutors is often superseded by the judge. Big deal.
The fact is Roger Stone is a lifelong con man hustler scumbag. All his bad deeds caught up with him.
Not according to the comments we've been seeing on here from our leftist friends. BTW Stone is not going directly to prison. That matter of the progressive being the foreperson on the jury will be dealt with.
The evidence against Stone was overwhelming. A new trial with a new jury will have the same result.
Nobody is debating that. The issue is his rights under the 6th Amendment. Don't you believe in that?
You mean the foreperson on the jury that the defense accepted? That foreperson?
"Your honor, we request a mistrial because if we'd known that this juror was going to vote to convict our client, we never would have picked her."
Your issue is the jury. It's not my issue. Let them straighten it out and try him again if need be. I couldnt care less. He's guilty on the facts , not because the jury railroaded him.
In a Federal case the lawyers on both sides submit questions. The Judge does the accepting.
That foreperson?
Ya, that hate-filled progressive!
My issue is rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
I understand what you want.
you might have a few more than that.
i think we all do, when it comes to the LIAR in Chief !
I don't know about "we"......Your problem comes in December
I doubt he'll wait until the election; for one thing, he might not get reelected. For another, why make his criminal buddy spend any time in jail when he can pardon him immediately?
If he isn't re-elected he will still have roughly 70 days to pardon whomever he wants.
Many Presidents like Bill Clinton spent January 20 signing pardons.
True, but if he doesn't get re-elected, he will be in major meltdown mode and will be too busy tweeting and trying to overthrow the Constitution to give what little bit of give-a-fuck he has for his fellow criminals any time.
roger won't like cooling his heels in the slammer for long.
He'll be ok. He's too ugly to be anybody's girlfriend
Well he has a fine template to follow if it comes to that. The one that Democrats have laid out again and again and again for the last three plus years.
Plus someone needs to tell him that style of glasses went out with JFK's father 60 years ago ..... not very pokey sheek .... he needs some of those military birth control glasses
They're not giving out the black BFC's anymore. They got too cool so now they're giving basic trainees these really ugly brown tortieshell glasses with square frames.
I wonder how much more the new and improved ugly glasses cost?
I think they might be cheaper and that's why they went with them.
After basic everybody went and got nicer glasses or started wearing their contacts again and took the BCG's and got sunglasses made
I was just happy i had 20-10 and had a lot of fun with the poor bastards who had to wear those steamed up pieces of shit.
I do hope he does. It will just prove once again that trump wasn't worried one bit about corruption in the Ukraine, since he is pardoning it in the USA.
Which he got. So what's the problem?
When I went to BCT, two girls were offered the ugly glasses explaining that how expensive glasses can be that they should wear the el cheapos because of the damage theirs could face due to the rigors of training.
No, he didn't.
Bill Ayers got his rights protected. Stone, Page and possibly Flynn did not!
Not a bad idea, really. If I had had to wear glasses in BT I would have worn the BCGs. Mr Giggles had to wear them and some girl walked by him one day in BT and mockingly said "Hi, Handsome." Then he threw his glasses away or so he says. Some how I doubt it because he's as blind as a bat without them
First of all, what is your issue with having a 'progressive' on a jury? The Jury elects the foreperson and the jury convicted Stone unanimously on multiple counts.
Secondly, since you're acknowledging that will be 'dealt with', why have you been whining about Stone being sentenced?
It's not like that Bubba will be looking at the face during the wee hours.
Way to twist the truth.
In ALL court cases involving a jury, lawyers on both sides can question all perspective jurors and block a juror if they are opposed to him/her.
In ALL court cases involving a jury, the judge either accepts or denies individual jurors based on the recommendations of both attorneys.
And again, you can't claim a mistrial for not doing your job well.
"Your honor, we request a mistrial because if we'd known that this juror was going to vote to convict our client, we never would have picked her."
Tis true...but there is that ugly tatt and that flat head of his. Have you ever noticed how misshapen his skull is?
Then again, what would be worse, Bubba having to look at Stone's face or Nixon's. With those two choices, he would need a blindfold and some Viagra.
The sentence completely vindicated William Barr!
He sure was not vindicated from his role as a Trump toady. If any thing, it solidified his reputation as one.
time for a gofundme account to be set up to benefit the lifer that turns stone's nixon tattoo into an abstract.
Dix him over...?
We have CNN to hire them, Oh wait, he was a Trump supporter - forget it
Time for tRump to brag about how his lapdog/consigliere Barr got Stone a reduced sentence.
Trump is bloviating on this matter right now. Beyond any doubt he is making ridiculous and uninformed opinions. That is the way he rolls.
Trump thinks Stone should go free for lying to Congress because someone created a dossier about Trump.
This is his level of "logic". A 10 year old's level.
A false one that the FBI knew was false and used to get FISA Warrants to spy on Americans. And got away with it!
Stone didnt lie to Congress because someone wrote a dossier.
Dont think like Trump. It will eat away your brain.
The Obama judge essentially just proved that Barr was correct!
How anyone can be shocked that a guy with a Nixon tat on his back is heading for prison is a real mystery.
I saw the tat and props go to the artist for portrait tats are some of the hardest to do but Stone....Nixon, really?
perfect together
They go together like peas and carrots
thought that was Trumpp and Russian prostitutes
trmp = carrot
prostitutes = pea
trmp= tiny rotten mal-figured penis
.prostitutes = pea
.
pea= piston executive american
.
It never ceases to amaze me what some gullible people will STILL believe after it has been debunked.
Yeah...same here...like trmp has a a smidgen of decency
Ohhhh, nice deflection!
You taught me all I needed to know about deflection. Congratulations, Teach!
that there's funny
when and where was it ever debunked ?
The Trump and the peeing hookers story has never been debunked, as debunked means disproven.
I wouldnt use it myself though, since it has never been proven true either. It may fall into one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" scenarios that cant be proven or disproven.
Like Bush Jr. stated. I looked into (Putins) sole, and saw Defeat, or something like that.
Cause i've looked into the Donalds eyes, and saw the inside of his HAIR !
comes right after Oh, and right before, but right on Q
"fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
George W Bush
with Russian dressing
Who ?
.
as in The:
Won't get fooled again
Tossed
to the side
like a side salad.
a side salad with a lot of roughage to smooth over the soft prostitutes with prosthetics doing calisthenics over a submissive femdom Trump !
Where else did you think he got that Orange complexion...,
them bitches take their vitamins ,
and wear masks in mosques Moscowin and wincing as Trumpp took no convincing, as many a prosthetic was lost in and on him !
For many Republicans the saying should be "Fool me once, that proves I can be fooled again. So why not let some serially bankrupt adulterer who has been accused of sexual assault by more than two dozen women fool us, we've already proven we are easily fooled...".
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain
A more current update should read:
"It is better the President not tweet his thoughts and let people think he is a fool than to tweet incessantly and remove all doubt".
that newer version doesn't have quite the same twang to it
.
Trump's tweets are a green house window for peepholes to see into his raw thought process, which magnifies why he is to be assumed one with nothing up his sleeve but his armed and dangerous long sleeve shirt tied to his armed and dangerous feeble mind that searches for reinforcements and an adoring supportive mob to reinsure his for sure insecurities worn on his sleeve to deceive the bare armed and dangerous following who accept his gospel as the golden calf rule cow towing as much bovine excrement as a freiter can haul while making a U think it is a double U before n X can prematurely explain Y a Z wears stripes when spotted wearing a bras , cause when Z bras are spotted with strippers and pols, hair gets cut short cycling the circuitry that wires a deformed mined stripped of resources depleted as he was cheated like a canary flapping tweets onto newspapers full of his detrimental excrement fore his followers to consume and eat the bread between his meat absent, mind tardy, body slammed as he wrestles his conscience into the final round of the cardboard box he bagged for the carpet he couldn't munch due to him being anti lesbean without a robe to ignite the drapes without a match lighter than the fluid language he can't speak of, as canary's only tweet about standards he'll never meet till there is a suicide on a 5th avenue street of desire with hair on fire that extinguished the faulty mined stripped of the canary, yellow orange and hairy, while skinned to the talons is a test tube baby beak
, to match his hands
All you'll see looking through that "peep hole" is an old fat man walking around looking at everything he comes into contact with and mumbling to himself "Hmmm, okay, where's the pussy on this thing cause I want to grab it...".
You'd think all his supporters would clearly see his continuous inept behavior, but sadly most have their heads stuck firmly up Trump's "peep hole" so their view is completely obstructed.
they can see the inside of his hair
.
a
n
d
Russia, from his front porch
Looks like the pupil has FAR surpassed the teacher.
But you damn sure seem confused as to who taught you that.
Oh, FFS, try reading some news, or watching it on tv, or listening to the radio, or get someone to clue you in.
Russian prostitutes - pee
With Trump it would be "Russian hands" and "Roman fingers".
So the judge agreed with Barr that the sentence prosecutors asked for was inappropriate.
Where is the left-wing angst over this obviously partisan judge?
Where is the wringing of hands, screaming at the sky, the sheer agony of someone connected to Trump not getting a longer sentence?
prosecutors are trained to request a stiff as possible sentence, and the fact Rog threatened a witness and drew crosshairs next to a Judge, thus Death Threatening her, shouldn't influence any judge, right Tex ?
I don't buy that. Prove it.
I didn't write anything anywhere near your rather absurd assumptions. Can you ever relate your comments to me to something I have actually written, or is that just beyond your ken?
Can you even answer ONE of the questions I asked first, or are you just here to argue stuff no one says?
WHen you sell something.... scratch that.
Whenn a Rdepublican sells something, say, like his soul to the Devil, do you think he starts out at $1 , or would it be better to start out at $1,ooo,ooo,oo , and let him barter themm down ?
Think how absurd your question is.
What bargaining power would a prosecutor have ?
THINK !
I knew you couldn't prove that bullshit.
Color me shocked.
there is little Bullshit that i can't
So go for it--prove it.
Nope. The Judge actually rejected Barr's arguments for reducing Stone's sentence. She had her OWN reasons for the 40 months she gave Stone.
as i believed she explained
in length
Yes she did, she went through the 'math' step by step and then after listening to the lawyers, ruled for 40 months + 24 months of probation.
Imagine Stone being a good boy for 5 years.
yes.
The original prosecutors asked for 9 years. Barr said that was too long.
Apparently, the judge DID agree that it was too long, as she didn't sentence him to 9 years, come to think of it, she didn't even give as long of a sentence as was asked for.
But I admire your hellacious spin on things!
The original prosecutors asked for 7-9 years. The DOJ's standard policy is to recommend the HIGHEST penalty allowed by the guidelines.
The Judge stated that Barr's 'recommendation' had NOTHING to do with it and in fact that she rejected his argument that the heightened penalty for witness intimidation shouldn't be allied. She DID apply that penalty.
Yes I know Tex, facts are spin in your world. But hey, you be you and just keep on spewing the propoganda that you've been told to beleive.
Okay, let's all pretend that the judge didn't give a lesser sentence than was originally asked for, and less than was asked for by the replacement prosecutors.
Just a big coincidence that Barr suggested a lesser sentence, and that the judge did exactly that.
Pure coincidence to you, I suppose.
Me, I think that what the judge sentenced was in line with what Barr suggested.
That would suggest that the two independent minds thought along the same lines as far as sentencing went.
Sounds a whole lot more logical than what you seem to suggest.
Wow. For someone who whines and bitches incessantly about personal comments, you sure went there pretty quickly!
I see that you hold yourself to different standards than you demand from others.
Weak sauce.
For those that are willfully uninformed, sure it would.
I'm not 'suggesting' anything. I am sighting the facts as documented in the sentencing transcript. You on the other hand are desperate to insist that the Judge ruled based on Barr's argument. She didn't but hey, fuck the facts and believe what you want.
There is that lack of comprehension thing again, rearing its ugly little head and making your posts appear foolish.
I said no such thing, and even went so far as to say that they must have thought along the same lines--that the sentences asked for didn't match the crime.
Try reading what I wrote again--it might, just might, help.
Probably not, though.
And I will believe what my own eyes and ears can easily see.
You do you.
More weak sauce.
Sigh.
My comment was in reply to yours:
You got what you gave.
I don't demand anything from others nor am I the one who is tasked with holding anyone here to standards.
You'd know.
For once, you got something right, I DO know, because I read AND comprehend your posts.
Try it sometime, you might actually start to like it eventually!
So who wrote this Tex?
What's so ironic about all of this is you and your fellow travelers support sentencing the likes of Stone the least penalty possible while cheering when Barr announces that he will be seeking sanctions on State AGs who don't insist on the highest penalty possible.
Why, I did. See the name above the place you got that from? It CLEARLY states my name. Again, reading comprehension.
I do believe a person of at least normal intelligence can see that the judge CLEARLY did not agree with the prosecutors' recommendations. Hence, the lighter-than-asked for sentence.
In effect, she AGREED that what the prosecutors asked for was too long. Had she agreed with the prosecutors, she would have given a longer sentence.
See how easy it is to understand it when you really, really, really try?
Yet more projection from you. Why not go by what we say instead of what YOU want us to say? Too hard to argue that way?
And still more weak sauce. Get it outta here!
I've seen washing machines on spin cycles do worse!
I believe that a person of at least normal intellect would READ what the Judge SAID before they bloviated on what they thought she 'CLEARLY' did and why she did it. Alas, that leaves out those here that willfully refuse to do so and prefer to just make shit up out of whole cloth.
Again, you are WRONG. She DID agree with the prosecutors, she DIDN'T agree with the formula.
Yet the only way to prove that to yourself is to READ what she actually said. Here is just a taste:
The Judge spent the majority of the hearing going over the 'mathematical formula' and explaining WHY she accepted it as a recommendation but rejected the outcome.
Not at all.
Oh I AM going by what you said Tex.
Perhaps you should review yours and your fellow travelers' comments in the "Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation' against left-wing sanctuary cities" seed and compare/contrast them to y'all's cries for leniency for Stone.
Not hard at all Tex. See above.
You're having delusions of grandeur.
Now I am getting amused.
The judge agreed that the original sentence asked for was too harsh.
From: ...
Hmm...now who else said that the sentence asked for was too long?
Was it Barr?
Hmmmmm.
Saying that the sentence is too harsh or too long is not saying the same thing to you?
I can't counter the sheer ignorance of that.
Thanks for proving that you'd rather let someone interpret for you what was said rather than READ the actual document.
Yet I'd think that you'd at least be able to recognize from the quote that I posted that the Judge said that the GUILDLINES were harsh, NOT the 'original sentence'. She also said that the second filing didn't effect her ruling because she would not have sentenced Stone the 7-9.
Actually, NO. Nor did Barr sign the sentencing document or rescinded the original filing.
Since no one said the 'sentence was too harsh', your question is moot.
I said it once, I'll say it again.
I can't counter the sheer ignorance of that.
So, please, have the last word.
I'm out.
Caio!
It doesn't really matter how long or short the sentence is as Trump will pardon him anyway before he can order his quarterly box.
I don't really care if Stone spends even one day in jail. It's the Trump/Barr involvement that's the issue for me and the fact that line prosecutors left or outright quite rather than follow Trump/Barr's orders. The kind of civil servants that refuse to play Trump/Barr's game are precisely the kind of civil servants that America needs.