Home » Roger Stone is sentenced

Comments

Roger Stone is sentenced — 26 Comments

  1. The DC Circuit should order a new trial in record time. She won’t grant a new trial and that is reversible error.

  2. One CNN hack was saying that the judge was defending the DOJ at sentencing. Assuming she said that, it is totally wrong for a judge to do that.

    CNN was going nuts during the sentencing. They were going on and on about how terrible it is to lie to Congress. As if Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper didn’t tell worse lies.

  3. The DC Circuit should order a new trial in record time. She won’t grant a new trial and that is reversible error.

    I think it’s the 4th circuit, headquartered in Richmond. Unless I’m mistaken, the DC circuit hears just appeals from administrative tribunals.

    As if Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper didn’t tell worse lies.

    That’s different because shut up.

  4. The maladministration of justice in DC is beyond appalling. 95% of the jurors are Democrats, and a majority is black. A jury of one’s peers? No way.
    The DC District Court should be abolished, and a new court established to adjudicate the actual criminal events (armed robbery, break-ins, etc) that characterize the nation’s capital.

  5. I think the increasing injustice of excessive punishment of Stone over minor lies, vs the lack of investigation and lack of trial of the lying Dems, this is making more normal / independent / “wanting to ignore most politics” folk to support Trump more.

    Enough to vote for him? maybe. Does it generate enough anger to get Reps the House?

  6. “until other far more important liars such as Brennan, McCabe, Comey, and others are prosecuted for their far more important lies, Stone’s conviction and sentence is just another example of our two-tiered justice system.”

    For me that is the point. I don’t know if Stone’s sentence is excessive, but if McCabe, Brennan, Comey, and others are not prosecuted for what is much worse, then there is no longer rule of law in this country.

  7. “I had originally thought Stone was in custody, but that was my error. He’s free on bond.”

    But Stone is still under Judge Jackson’s gag order and likely will remain under a gag order until Jackson has run out the clock on her various rulings still under consideration. Why? Perhaps because Stone’s biased speech might offend Jackson’s political biases.

  8. Fox New adds a small tidbit that I have missed in previous readings:
    “It also emerged that Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was an Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views—and whose husband worked at the division of the Justice Department that handled the probe leading to Stone’s arrest. And another juror donated to former Democratic presidential candidates and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News showed.”

    Most other reports I’ve seen don’t add the husband’s actual duties.
    SMH – how could any judge not see how that totally taints a juror, regardless of how much the person claims they can be impartial?

  9. how could any judge not see how that totally taints a juror, regardless of how much the person claims they can be impartial?
    that kind of judge

  10. The fact that Jackson said the original 9 years was excessive will either be ignored by the left or taken as evidence that she was tainted by Trump’s and Barr’s comments.

    Legal experts I follow knew in advance that Jackson would not follow Trump-era DOJ guild-lines (which are harsher than Obama’s). See here for instance, published on Feb 14th:

    I suspect Judge Amy Berman Jackson would never have sentenced Stone to 7 to 9 years — the harsher sentence — in any case (especially given that she only gave Paul Manafort 7.5 years).

    All it means is Jackson is liberal. I mean, Stone endangered her life by putting her face in cross-hairs, and she still allowed him to go free during the trial.

  11. Manju, are Roger Stone’s cross-hairs the same as Sarah Palin’s cross-hairs? I’m pretty sure they aren’t the same kind cross-hairs that were used at the Republican congressional softball practice. You remember that incident where Rep. Steve Scalise’s (LA) life was nearly taken by a Bernie Sanders supporter. Oh I forgot, speech is violence and violence against speech is justice.

    Go back to the crickets.

  12. If Stone had actually endangered Jackson’s life then she would have no business whatsoever sitting in judgement of his law case. She would have properly recused. But she did not. So, which is it? A lie that he “endangered” her, or she doesn’t obey judicial ethical practices?

  13. Leslie McAdoo Gordon tweets: “An observation: if the court was going to comment so extensively on the evidence at sentencing, it would’ve probably been better to rule on the new trial motion first. If there’s any chance of granting that, the court’s comments have now potentially reached the new jury pool.”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1230563680586092546

    Yes, but it appears that was the point of waiting: stick him with a sentence, together with the commentary, so to poison the atmosphere. Dust hands, job done.

  14. Berman Jackson is an Obama appointee who is doing exactly what he appointed her for. This is lawfare in action. Roger Stone is a fool because he lied to involve himself in something he knew nothing about. He is not “covering up for Trump” because he knew nothing to cover up. This is another example of the left’s war on anyone who supports Trump. Berman Jackson is the one who authorized the SWAT raid on Stone and Manafort’s homes. She is the one who put Manafort in solitary confinement. She is beyond a partisan. She is an enemy agent.

  15. Stone never threatened the Jewish traitor Berman Freisler who spat on the graves of her ancestors.
    She is a mere feld hure for Nazi Müller

  16. Stone lied about a crime of Democrat manufacture. While the others lied about crimes in progress.

  17. If Stone had actually endangered Jackson’s life then she would have no business whatsoever sitting in judgement of his law case. She would have properly recused

    That doesn’t sound right, sdferr. Game it out.

    That would mean anytime a defendant wants a new judge, he can just threaten the existing one.

  18. So you prove my point, ditz, and convict yourself: it wasn’t any actual endangerment, as you claimed, but a trivial rhetorical excess. You ought to have gamed it out.

  19. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say sdferr.

    Do you mean if you threaten your judge verbally, that judge does not have to recuse? But if you do actual harm, then the rules are different?

    Do you have a cite for this?

  20. “…actual harm…”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/25/fbi-open-door-tactics-behind-armed-agents-roger-stones-home/
    Indeed, “…the rules are different…”

    But hold on a sec, we are talking serious harm here!!
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/the_democrats_russian_roulette.html
    Key graf:
    “They must be slow learners….”
    Assuming they learn anything at all…. (Though we could give them the benefit of the doubt and just say the’re a one-trick pony:
    https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/deep-state-snakes-slither-back-after-fbi-cia-swamp-draining-goodwin/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>